I never said that peak Fed was way above peak Nadal/Nole, but rather that peak Fed was above them by enough that he would still win the majors which he won in '04-'07 even with peak Nadal/Nole present.
If he isn't way above them, there is no way he would still win all of those same majors. You are basically then saying peak Safin >> peak Nole and Nadal because he could take a slam off Fed, but they couldn't (besides clay Nadal). If there is only a minor difference in their levels some matches would go the other way.
This is false. When you are past your prime, not only are you less consistent, but the top level you can reach on any given day is also lower. It's simple biology - you are slower, have slower reaction speed, less power, worse co-ordination etc. - so how can your top level be the same as before? Hence, if you actually watch '04-'07 Federer (who could defend like a beast and hit winners at will) you'll see a marked difference to '10-12 Federer in terms of his level of play, especially in the big matches you note.
Thats what Peak level is. Like I said Fed in 05-06 was performing markedly than in 10-12 in those areas, but his USO 07-AO 12 form did not have those marked declines. I have already shown you how many great players played well until 31 (Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Lendl, Agassi, Connors, Federer) its no coincidence that this drop in simple biology does not happen until a bit later than you would like to believe to prop up Federer. Please don't bother trying to present BS to counter each example, at that point its a trend not an outlier. The outlier is McEnroe not the other way around. Borg retired so we have no idea on him.
So what? This just proves that even declined Federer can beat the lower guys - it doesn't mean his '08-'12 isn't declined, it just means that '12-'14 is even more declined. To say Fed's decline started at the end of 2012 is a joke - it means you're saying he had a 10 year prime!
Fed's noticeable decline based on biology as you say came at the end of 2012, until then his consistency went down noticeably every year but he could still reach the same levels in 2012 on occasion that he did in 07 (not his peak 05-06 years though). Most greats as I have alluded to maintained high level play for about 10 years so I don't see why this is unreasonable.
You don't find it convenient that 08 was when Fed was only 26 and suddenly when he stopped dominating, he is in decline? Doesn't make more sense that the field got stronger? Nadal at 27 just last year had his 2nd best season, and Djokovic at 27 this year has a chance to do the same. Laver at 31 won a CYGS, Connors won the USO/Wimb double at past 30. GTFO with this Fed declined at 26 BS.
Again, this is false - watch the matches. Federer is slower, has slower reactions etc, has less power etc.: all of which have nothing to do with Djokovic.
I have, I literally watched the 07 and 11 matches side by side yesterday and all I could see was higher levels from Nole. Not much of a difference from Fed's side especially in the 1st, 2nd, and 5th sets.
No - but we have only one sample on Rebound Ace, so I have to go with that.
Ya seems reasonable to use teenage Nole vs Peak Fed to extrapolate your records and then also say Fed who has won 0 sets off Nole on plexicushion could even win 1 match.
Past-prime Agassi never beat Federer.
Federer beat Djokovic several times during his prime and past his prime, and had MP twice way past his prime.
See above. It's simple biology.
Lol so simply biology dictates Agassi was not past his prime in 2002 at age 32 when he was beating Federer, but Federer was "way past his prime" in 2010 at age 29 when he lost in a slam to Nole?
34 year old Agassi pushed peak Fed to 5 sets at USO
30 year old Fed pushed peak Nole to 5 sets at USO
There is no way around saying peak Fed would destroy peak Nole at USO, without either
A) admitting the same about peak Agassi vs peak Fed
B) admitting single match levels vary from year round levels and hence acknowledging its an unreasonable extrapolation
I completely disagree. Federer at the FO was better '05-'07 than in '11 - just look at the difference in speed between the two versions of Federer for one thing.
How about instead of espousing subjective metrics we look at common performance. Fed in 11 played a closer match vs Nadal at RG in 11. Unless you want to say "simple Biology" caused 25 year old (which admitted is in your peak 22-26 range) Nadal was declined and 19-21 year old Nadal (which is not in your peak range) was in his peak, you have objective indicators which level was higher.
Again - complete rubbish. Watch the two matches and see that Federer is slower, has slower reactions, less power etc. in '11 (as you would expect due to age): all things which are independent of his opponent.
I did, he also has better court IQ, positioning, understanding which are all expected due to gained experience. His over-all abilities at the 11 USO were similar to 07 USO, just not on the level of his earlier peaks.
Given that peak Djokovic lost to way-past-prime Federer on clay convincingly, this is clearly false. I can perhaps agree with your point on hard courts though.
Given that 2011 RG Fed was far from being "way past his prime" and that 2011 Nole wasn't even his highest levels at RG, this is clearly true.
I agree on Plexicushion, but probably 2-2 or possibly even 3-1 to Federer on Rebound Ace.
Based on nothing but conjecture from a match that has little relevance. Literally think Safin was better on slow hards than Nole and that 06 Fed having trouble with Baghdatis could beat 2013 AO Nole?
Rebound and Plexi aren't these worlds apart different surfaces you make it seem like. Both were slow courts, its just a very SLIGHT variation in bounces and speeds.
'11 Djokovic beats '04 Fed, I agree; but '05-'07 Fed is better than '11 Fed, which even '11 Djokovic couldn't beat - so '05-'07 Fed wins the rest. 3-1 to Federer.
13 Djok was better than 11 Djok at RG and 05-07 Fed was not better at RG than 11 Fed. So no 2-2
This one I strongly disagree with. '11 Djokovic could barely beat '11 Federer, let alone '04 Federer, which is probably the highest level ever seen at the USO (double bagelling Hewitt - he was playing out of his mind in that match).
I agree that we should wait to see '14 Djokovic's level, so I will say 3-1 or 4-0 to Federer.
Again so 95 Agassi >>> 04 Fed then based on what we say from 04 Agassi at 34 vs 04 Fed.
I don't see Djokovic beating prime Federer at Wimbledon (he couldn't even beat him when he was almost 31). 4-0 to Federer.
And Nole played his worst match on grass in his prime that year. He played far better the year before against a Nadal who himself felt he was at a higher level on grass than he was when he beat Fed in 08:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrpwgQYhd5Y - source
Given that I don't think its unreasonable to consider it possible for Nole to grab 1.
Not to mention he just beat Fed at 32 at this Wimbledon in 5 the same way Fed beat Agassi at 34 at USO 04, yet that doesn't sway you from thinking prime Agassi wouldn't beat prime Fed.