Seems Jim Courier is on the "Nadal may be GOAT" train as well

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Point is however, there are some matches that are greater than others, and that cannot be reflected on mere statistics.

My point: The call of 'greatest match' that Wimby final won by Rafa was a mere opinion of a bandwagon Jon. TDK LOVES to use it as a propaganda to boost Rafa's achievement over Fed on grass. I can retort by saying the Wimby final before that, won by Fed, was better. Not because it wasn't called the 'greatest' match by Jon doesn't it mean it wasn't great, right? And how about the Borg-BigMac final I mentioned? See, there's no validity to clamor that Wimby final. Just stop the bs propaganda.

 

[TimeSpiral]

Disturbing commentator trend ...

It seems I can hardly get through a match these days--assuming one of the top/near-top players are involved--without hearing the comment:

[NAME] is the best [CATEGORY] in the history of the sport.

I know, I know ... we all love stats, and categories, but it seems to me like this trend is a commentator crutch. Some of the examples we hear are just silly.

"We're talking about the best return of serve in the history of the sport ..."

"That's the best on the run forehand down the line on clay courts in the history of our sport ...."

"That's the best movement on a hard court in the history of our sport ..."
​

"What are you supposed to do when you're up against the best running forward, touch drop shot volley, backpedal to overhead backhand slam, to run down the lob tweener in the history of the sport?"

Okay, so maybe I'm stretching that last one a bit ... but seriously, commentators. How many GOAT categories do we really have, how are you quantifying them all, and do you really need to go to the ultimate extreme attribute when describing a shot you admire?

*end rant*

p.s. another disturbing trend is that Justin Gimelstob commentates. He's the worst! He's found a way to construct entire sentences with nothing but buzz words and tennis jargon. Great guy, loves tennis, helps bring us great events, I'm pretty sure he invests in Tennis Channel--as does many of the greats, but I can't handle his commentary style.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

My own insecurity? LOL. Nah. I'd like to call it the way it is. No need to sugarcoat anything.
I scored above 95% in all my philosophy classes, but I believe there's a place for each single thing. Most of the times, straight to the point is the easiest.
Convoluted, fake poetic sentences, veiled insults, for God's sake, just say it out loud. We understand each other better like that.

Again, your insecurity is revealed, as a secure mind would not need to attack the natural state of another, or play defense with your own alleged background.

Odd that you do not see this.

 

[The_Order]

So, you count only the slams for judging performances on a surface? RFederer is by far the greatest HC player, plus also the greatest grass courter (arguable with PSampras, but he is grass GOAT IMHO). Look at his win % on these surfaces, no. of titles, his streak (unbeaten on grass for 5 years, ridiculous win/loss record on HCs in his prime years, 6 YECs). Not to mention he won 5 straight slams on both surfaces.

What is Federer's win-loss record against Novak, Nadal and Murray on slow HC?

 

[clayqueen]

Disturbing commentator trend ...

It seems I can hardly get through a match these days--assuming one of the top/near-top players are involved--without hearing the comment:



I know, I know ... we all love stats, and categories, but it seems to me like this trend is a commentator crutch. Some of the examples we hear are just silly.

"We're talking about the best return of serve in the history of the sport ..."

"That's the best on the run forehand down the line on clay courts in the history of our sport ...."

"That's the best movement on a hard court in the history of our sport ..."
​

"What are you supposed to do when you're up against the best running forward, touch drop shot volley, backpedal to overhead backhand slam, to run down the lob tweener in the history of the sport?"

Okay, so maybe I'm stretching that last one a bit ... but seriously, commentators. How many GOAT categories do we really have, how are you quantifying them all, and do you really need to go to the ultimate extreme attribute when describing a shot you admire?

*end rant*

p.s. another disturbing trend is that Justin Gimelstob commentates. He's the worst! He's found a way to construct entire sentences with nothing but buzz words and tennis jargon. Great guy, loves tennis, helps bring us great events, I'm pretty sure he invests in Tennis Channel--as does many of the greats, but I can't handle his commentary style.

Glad to find out it's not just me! I despair when I hear these superlative accolades dished out to different players for the same category depending on who is playing at the time. The reason it's infuriating is that it's implanted in the minds of casual viewers who take it at face value and go away believing that a particular player is the GOAT in whatever category.

This GOAT thing has taken on a life of it's own. When I first started watching tennis many years ago, I learnt to appreciate the nuances of the game through the commentating, because it was objective and informative and they actually talked about what was going on on court. Nowadays, the commentators seem to have their own individual agenda, or are working to the agenda of their TV company and they try their best to indoctrinate the viewers to the way they want the players to be seen.

Very infuriating.

 

[TimeSpiral]

Glad to find out it's not just me! I despair when I hear these superlative accolades dished out to different players for the same category depending on who is playing at the time. The reason it's infuriating is that it's implanted in the minds of casual viewers who take it at face value.

Then they up the ante with adding the qualifier, "one of the" to the superlative. Every time I hear it, I think, "Well yeah, the number one player in the world is on the court ... of course he's one of the best at that thing."

*shrugs*

 

[dafinch]

Courier was just questioned by the ITV Tennis anchorman in the UK, whether Nadal could be considered the greatest ever, and Courier pretty much said that he might just be, if you look at his achievements so far and the fact that he's dominated the H2H with his strongest rivals (Federer, Djokovic, Murray).

Courier said Nadal can't play any of the other guys in the GOAT conversation (aside from Fedrerer) like Sampras and Laver because tey are in different eras, but his superior H2H against all his main rivals in his era works in favour of him being considered the greatest ever.

I do hope the Federer fans won't rip poor Jimbo to shreds (like McEnroe) for daring to have an opinion that suggests Nadal may well be greater than Fed, and the possible GOAT.

Did he not see BP's last 2 results in the sport's most prestigious tournament? Make that, his last two MATCHES there...

 

[Chico]

Open era:

Slow HC - Djokovic
Fast HC - Sampras
Grass - Federer
Clay - Borg

 

[TMF]

What is Federer's win-loss record against Novak, Nadal and Murray on slow HC?

Bottom line is how many HC slam each have in fast, medium or slow combined. If you want to get technical, then Federer is the best on blue clay.

Hewitt is ahead in win-loss record against Sampras on grass, but how many Wimbledon did they won.

 

[TMF]

Open era:

Slow HC - Djokovic
Fast HC - Sampras
Grass - Federer
Clay - Borg

I'm sorry but HC goat belongs to Federer, even more so than grass. He holds the record for most HC slams, most HC Master Series, most HC single titles. This isn't even worth a debate.

 

[Steve0904]

Open era:

Slow HC - Djokovic
Fast HC - Sampras
Grass - Federer
Clay - Borg

Be serious now. The rest are at least debatable, not half had choices, but Nadal is clearly better than Borg on clay at this point from a Federer fan (avatar).

 

[6-3 6-0]

What is Federer's win-loss record against Novak, Nadal and Murray on slow HC?

How does it matter? I am taking HC as a whole and RFederer has the most impressive resume on HCs. 9 slams, beat that! 50+ titles, beat that!
What was his HC consecutive winning streak btw?

 

[The_Order]

How does it matter? I am taking HC as a whole and RFederer has the most impressive resume on HCs. 9 slams, beat that! 50+ titles, beat that!
What was his HC consecutive winning streak btw?

I don't give a **** what you're taking it as, fact is there are fast HC and slow HC and on slow HC, Djokovic is GOAT, suck it up princess.

 

[6-3 6-0]

I don't give a **** what you're taking it as, fact is there are fast HC and slow HC and on slow HC, Djokovic is GOAT, suck it up princess.

Oh, please! No need to take it out on me when you can't against logic. What will we hear next? Slow clay - Fast clay Lmao! :lol:
I pity you as you are so blinded by hate that you can't see the reality!

 

[NatF]

Federer is the best overall on hardcourt including fast and slow, his game is better tailored to faster surfaces than a guy like Djokovic. I don't think Djokovic is the slow hardcourt GOAT yet, another AO would do it, or couple of masters might doas well. His game is better suited for it than Federer though.

 

[The_Order]

Oh, please! No need to take it out on me when you can't against logic. What will we hear next? Slow clay - Fast clay Lmao! :lol:
I pity you as you are so blinded by hate that you can't see the reality!

How difficult is it for you to understand that AO, IW and Miami are on SLOW HC? The ball bounces higher on those surfaces making them SLOWER.

Djokovic is clearly the better player on that surface. Not my fault it hurts you to admit that.

Once again:

Federer = grass GOAT
Djokovic = slow HC GOAT
Sampras = fast HC GOAT
Nadal = clay GOAT

 

[The_Order]

lol, ha ha ha, cheap based on what ? only in your delusional world

like murray in AO 11 final was ever a threat ?
murray of AO 13 semi wasn't even better than baggy in AO 06 ...

your AO GOAT outside of his title wins - best results are QF losses vs roddick and tsonga. hah ...

federer OTOH has had 10 semis in a row at the AO ( some of them well past this prime )

federer's h2h on slow HC vs those 3 is because he was past his peak prowess for most of them or having injury/health problems ( early 09 , miami 04, IW 13 to mention some of them )

federer beat hewitt, nalbandian, safin, ferrero, davydenko, gonzalez, baghdatis, murray, tsonga, roddick - a wide range of opponents to win his AO titles.

oh and FYI, sampras-hewitt played thrice on grass with hewitt leading 2-1

Djokovic > Fed on slow HC. Deal with it.

 

[6-3 6-0]

How difficult is it for you to understand that AO, IW and Miami are on SLOW HC? The ball bounces higher on those surfaces making them SLOWER.

Djokovic is clearly the better player on that surface. Not my fault it hurts you to admit that.

Once again:

Federer = grass GOAT
Djokovic = slow HC GOAT
Sampras = fast HC GOAT
Nadal = clay GOAT

And how difficult is it for you to get that I was talking about HC overall under every condition, be it indoor or outdoor?

HC (overall) = RFederer
Grass = RFederer
Clay = RNadal

I know your delusional mind will never be able to accept that as you are blinded by hate :twisted:

 

[abmk]

Djokovic > Fed on slow HC. Deal with it.

federer > djokovic on slow HC. Deal with it.

1 more final at the AO, 5 more semis

1 more masters at IW+miami combined.

federer > djokovic on slow HC. Deal with it.

 

[The_Order]

And how difficult is it for you to get that I was talking about HC overall under every condition, be it indoor or outdoor?

HC (overall) = RFederer
Grass = RFederer
Clay = RNadal

I know your delusional mind will never be able to accept that as you are blinded by hate :twisted:

You can't categorise HC as an overall surface because as I said there are different types of HC which make the surface play differently, got it?

NovakD > RogerF on slow HC

:lol:

 

[The_Order]

federer > djokovic on slow HC. Deal with it.

1 more final at the AO, 5 more semis

1 more masters at IW+miami combined.

federer > djokovic on slow HC. Deal with it.

And what's their h2h?

Oh that's right, you don't want to mention that because Novak owns your boy 4-1 :lol:

NovakD > RogerF on slow HC.

 

[6-3 6-0]

You can't categorise HC as an overall surface because as I said there are different types of HC which make the surface play differently, got it?

NovakD > RogerF on slow HC

:lol:

Maybe! But on fast HCs, RFederer >> NDjokovic (Last year's Cincinnati 31 yr old RFederer bagelled 25 yr old NDjokovic). Deal with it. :lol:
9 > 5
So, RFederer > NDjokovic on HCs :twisted:

 

[abmk]

And what's their h2h?

Oh that's right, you don't want to mention that because Novak owns your boy 4-1 :lol:

NovakD > RogerF on slow HC.

achievements are more important than h2h. that's something you rafa fan boys will never get

h2h is skewed again by the circumstances of their meetings, with all the 4 losses coming with federer nowhere near the peak of his powers and novak at the peak of his powers in All but one of them.

difference is novak wasn't good enough to make it to federer in AO 09 & 10 ( would've lost ) , whereas federer though nowhere near his best made it to the AO 08, 11 semis .

 

[The_Order]

Maybe! But on fast HCs, RFederer >> NDjokovic (Last year's Cincinnati 31 yr old RFederer bagelled 25 yr old NDjokovic). Deal with it. :lol:
9 > 5
So, RFederer > NDjokovic on HCs :twisted:

On fast HC, yes RogerF > NovakD, but that is not the case on slow HC, it's the other way around:

NovakD > RogerF

:lol:

 

[TennisMD]

I've said it thousand times already.

Those who sell the game will always say that the current great player is "the GOAT".

They have to say exactly that to make people want to watch him play.

In 2020 those who sell the game (commentators) will say that the top player ( of 2020 ) is "the GOAT", and on and on and on.....

The last time I checked Djokovic was ranked # 1, so your theory ??

 

[The_Order]

Federer is the HC goat because of his achievements. You don't have a leg to stand on dispute it because stats/facts can't be taken away. Fed has 9 HC slams and to say he's not a HC goat is like saying Nadal is not a clay goat despite of his 8 FOs. Capiche?

The H2H was and will always be a stupid argument and no one care. It's the fangirls like you who's been spewing the same nonsense for years. And since H2H is so important to you(not to sane fans), then Hewitt h2h against Sampras on grass is holds the same weight.

NovakD > RogerF on slow HC :lol:

 

[TMF]

I don't give a **** what you're taking it as, fact is there are fast HC and slow HC and on slow HC, Djokovic is GOAT, suck it up princess.

And Federer is a goat on blue clay.

 

[TMF]

Nadal fangirls back to the same H2H ... Nothing new :lol:
Let RNadal first beat RFederer's HC records, then we'll come back to it. :twisted:

There's always a minority who will go to a great deal of trouble to disparage Federer. But deep down they know they are wrong.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Lol, this guy is repeating the same things over and over again :shock:
I wish there were more intelligent RFederer haters around

 

[The_Order]

achievements are more important than h2h. that's something you rafa fan boys will never get

h2h is skewed again by the circumstances of their meetings, with all the 4 losses coming with federer nowhere near the peak of his powers and novak at the peak of his powers in All but one of them.

So Roger's h2h with Rafa is skewed and his slow HC h2h with Novak is skewed. Tell me, what else is skewed? It seems that everything that works against Roger is skewed lol.

The slow HC GOAT has a 2-5 h2h against Rafa and a 1-4 record against Novak. Sorry but his cheap slow HC titles aren't as valuable as Novak's tougher wins. He had to deal with Federer before he reached his peak and did so in straight sets at AO08. He then had to deal with Fed and Murray in AO11. He had to deal with Murray and Nadal in AO12. AO13 he had to deal with Stan playing the match of his life and had to come back after that and go on to win the title. He beat Murray in the final who was > Baggy 06.

The fact that Novak's already got the same amount of AO titles as Fed despite being 5-6 years younger backs this up as well. You'd be a fool to think Novak wouldn't win at least one more AO title.

 

[The_Order]

And Federer is a goat on blue clay.

Who cares? It's not a slam surface so big deal. You're also basing that on one tournament lol.

 

[TMF]

Lol, this guy is repeating the same things over and over again :shock:
I wish there were more intelligent RFederer haters around

Even if there's intelligent Fed haters, it's not a smart move to argue against facts.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Who cares? It's not a slam surface so big deal. You're also basing that on one tournament lol.

It's the same tournament where your boy couldn't proceed past FVerdasco :lol:

 

[6-3 6-0]

Even if there's intelligent Fed haters, it's not a smart move to argue against facts.

True, very true

 

[TMF]

Who cares? It's not a slam surface so big deal. You're also basing that on one tournament lol.

And who cares about h2h. Roger is the HC goat no matter if you like it or not.

Achievements is the be-all and end-all. If Roger isn't the HC, then Nadal isn't the clay goat either.

 

[abmk]

So Roger's h2h with Rafa is skewed and his slow HC h2h with Novak is skewed. Tell me, what else is skewed? It seems that everything that works against Roger is skewed lol.

The slow HC GOAT has a 2-5 h2h against Rafa and a 1-4 record against Novak. Sorry but his cheap slow HC titles aren't as valuable as Novak's tougher wins. He had to deal with Federer before he reached his peak and did so in straight sets at AO08. He then had to deal with Fed and Murray in AO11. He had to deal with Murray and Nadal in AO12. AO13 he had to deal with Stan playing the match of his life and had to come back after that and go on to win the title. He beat Murray in the final who was > Baggy 06.

The fact that Novak's already got the same amount of AO titles as Fed despite being 5-6 years younger backs this up as well. You'd be a fool to think Novak wouldn't win at least one more AO title.

lol, are you that thick to keep on bringing up murray of AO 11 final ? murray of AO 11 final was just about as good as roddick of AO 07 semi, actually worse ....

murray of AO 10 final >>> murray of AO 11 final

fed was nowhere near his best in AO 11 , novak was ..

LOL @ the 1st bolded sentence : novak's form in AO 08 was his very best , certainly better than AO 12 and AO 13 . federer had mono at that time.

how is murray of AO 13 final is better than baggy of AO 06 final ? Both faded away after two very good sets.

funny how wawrinka in the form of his life comes into the picture, yet davydenko of AO 06, gonzo of AO 07 don't.
davy of AO 10 (just coming off the YEC win ) doesn't.

federer had to go through hewitt, nalbandian, ferrero, safin to win AO 04. both novak and your boy nadal would be dead tired grinding away if they even managed to get to the final that is.

novak's 'toughest' win was AO 12 with back to back wins vs murray/nadal. But otherwise, it was nowhere near as hard as you make it out to be.

and like I said, outside of the 4 titles, he doesn't even have a semi, lost to tsonga and roddick there in the QFs . federer has one more final and 5 more semis.

federer at the same age as novak is now had 3 titles at the AO, would've had 4 if not for safin at his very best in AO 05, that level of opponent novak didn't face .... no, not even your precious rafa or murray of AO 12 are there .

what I'm doing is making fun again and again of your ridiculous over-hyping of the post 2008 era and ridiculous degrading of the pre-2008 era .

@ 2nd bolded sentence : stranger things have happened. Like federer not winning the USO after 2008 for 4 years. he had won 5 in a row from 04-08.

If djokovic does win another AO, he'd of course be better results wise, but I'd still take federer's peak level over djokovic's on slow HC ...

 

[Mike Sams]

GOAT on clay.

 

[The Dark Knight]

And who cares about h2h. Roger is the HC goat no matter if you like it or not.

Achievements is the be-all and end-all. If Roger isn't the HC, then Nadal isn't the clay goat either.

But in the slams when it counted most he lost to Nadalmon hards ....so badly that he cried.

"The best man won"

 

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Say who? Jon? The owner of gospel of truth? Some bandwagoner not-so-great-ex-tennis player?

 

[TheTruth]

Doesn't matter. Fed's got enough Aus/US slams. 2 surfaces > 1.

Obviously, it doesn't matter to the experts. They're the ones taking the GOAT mantle from Fed, not me. Take it up with them.

Personally, I don't think a lot points raised on this forum enter into the GOAT criteria, just a bunch of slanted hyperbole in my opinion.

 

[TheTruth]

Yes, the current hype is the main reason. Then people went back to Laver. But compared to Laver there wasn't such a player like Federer. People will backtrack for Nadal and Djokovic too. But I think Fed and Laver are staying.

I don't really care. I've never understood the need to make A better than B. I'll like C if it suits me. I don't have a need to identify with prescribed statuses. It make my life easier.

They backtrack all the time. Why does it matter?

 

[TheTruth]

I agree with this.

I think it's the American bias of us having champions on the faster courts plus the fact that we tend to like huge offensive tennis.

Let's face it. No one grows up on grass, trains on grass, or even regularly plays on grass, except for a select few. In fact, there are only 6 grass tournaments on the whole ATP schedule (and two overlap with two others) and only Wimbledon is above the 250 level.

I get the Wimbledon is a hugely traditional tournament, and I personally love Wimbledon. But clay is a far, far more significant surface than grass, and in many parts of the world it's the MOST significant. It's infuriating to me when people discount Nadal's FO wins cause they're on clay. If anything, it's lots of Wimbledon wins that tend to overrate a slam count more than FO wins.

I totally agree with you. Then you hear stuff like prestige, tradition, and other garbage, when the reality is, a plot of land is a plot of land. You may have your favorites, but all the major surfaces are awarded the same points, so in the end it doesn't matter.

 

[ledwix]

For me, Sampras was the GOAT around the early 2000s because of his multiple-surface dominance in slams, total slam count, and dominance as a #1 player for so long.

Then Federer came around and became an upgraded Sampras. More time at #1, dominance at 3 slams instead of 2, and more total slams. So Federer is the GOAT until Nadal wins more outside of clay and ties the slam count at 17, which is when the H2H would break the tie.

Right now Nadal is like an upgraded Borg, but less dominant on multiple surfaces than Borg. Djokovic also seems like an upgraded Agassi.

 

[TheTruth]

No he doesn't. Greatest player doesn't have to be perfect, and no one is. Jordan has his own flaw but that nullify since he has the most complete resume.

Just countering the Nadal has to win more off the clay argument. Unless, we're using double standards.

 

[TheTruth]

Nadal doesn't have a winning head to head against all of them due to "playing them at the end of their careers". It isn't the case with even one of them.



I don't see how that should be held against him.

Also, I don't think it's the same thing to say there isn't enough balance on his resume to insist to "take out clay" out of any statistic.

Not having (this far at least) won more off clay goes against him, legitimately imo, in goat debates, I've got no problem with that. But there are "holes" like this also for every other goat candidate, including Federer.



Why should he, but Federer shouldn't do more at RG?.

I just posted this. Great minds.

 

[TheTruth]

Disturbing commentator trend ...

It seems I can hardly get through a match these days--assuming one of the top/near-top players are involved--without hearing the comment:



I know, I know ... we all love stats, and categories, but it seems to me like this trend is a commentator crutch. Some of the examples we hear are just silly.

"We're talking about the best return of serve in the history of the sport ..."

"That's the best on the run forehand down the line on clay courts in the history of our sport ...."

"That's the best movement on a hard court in the history of our sport ..."
​

"What are you supposed to do when you're up against the best running forward, touch drop shot volley, backpedal to overhead backhand slam, to run down the lob tweener in the history of the sport?"

Okay, so maybe I'm stretching that last one a bit ... but seriously, commentators. How many GOAT categories do we really have, how are you quantifying them all, and do you really need to go to the ultimate extreme attribute when describing a shot you admire?

*end rant*

p.s. another disturbing trend is that Justin Gimelstob commentates. He's the worst! He's found a way to construct entire sentences with nothing but buzz words and tennis jargon. Great guy, loves tennis, helps bring us great events, I'm pretty sure he invests in Tennis Channel--as does many of the greats, but I can't handle his commentary style.

Actually, you're not. I too have wearied of all the __________ is the best server of all time. __________ is the best returner of all time, mess. The problem is that so many people believed it and now they're upset that they've changed their minds, yet again.

 

[TheTruth]

Glad to find out it's not just me! I despair when I hear these superlative accolades dished out to different players for the same category depending on who is playing at the time. The reason it's infuriating is that it's implanted in the minds of casual viewers who take it at face value and go away believing that a particular player is the GOAT in whatever category.

This GOAT thing has taken on a life of it's own. When I first started watching tennis many years ago, I learnt to appreciate the nuances of the game through the commentating, because it was objective and informative and they actually talked about what was going on on court. Nowadays, the commentators seem to have their own individual agenda, or are working to the agenda of their TV company and they try their best to indoctrinate the viewers to the way they want the players to be seen.

Very infuriating.

Awesome post. This is exactly what they're doing, but sadly many people fall into the trap. They actually believe/believed what the commentators said, now they are confused and angry.

 

[Crisstti]

Commentators in English seem annoying. I feel sorry for you guys

He's got a point. Nadal is one of the greatest ever.

Nadal's H2H is usually skewed because he generally wins on clay, but often doesn't get far enough to play his rivals off clay.

That's common knowledge, but still works in Nadal's favor, especially since he went into Roger's house (Wimbledon), and stole his lunch money.

If there is a GOAT it's Roger, but Nadal is definitely in the discussion.

The funny thing is, that even if Nadal wins 4-5 more slams, and gets another 100 weeks at #1, there's still a debate on who is the GOAT. It's not clear cut. So really he can't be considered the absolute GOAT right now.

Not really true, not to the extent some like to believe anyway. Like you yourself said, it isn't true about grass, and Nadal and Fed have played, what, 15 times on clay and 12 on hc?, not that much of a difference. It's 16 times both on clay and hc against Novak I think. And against Murray he's played just 4 times on clay, out of 18.

My point: The call of 'greatest match' that Wimby final won by Rafa was a mere opinion of a bandwagon Jon. TDK LOVES to use it as a propaganda to boost Rafa's achievement over Fed on grass. I can retort by saying the Wimby final before that, won by Fed, was better. Not because it wasn't called the 'greatest' match by Jon doesn't it mean it wasn't great, right? And how about the Borg-BigMac final I mentioned? See, there's no validity to clamor that Wimby final. Just stop the bs propaganda.

Sure, agree about that.

 

[ledwix]

I just posted this. Great minds.

RG is one hole. Wimbledon, US, and AO are three holes. Would you rather have many flaws or one?

 

[TheTruth]

RG is one hole. Wimbledon, US, and AO are three holes. Would you rather have many flaws or one?

Personally, whatever I did I would want to stand above the others in that regard. It wouldn't matter to me if I had three surfaces, but others had also reached the same pinnacle. That wouldn't make me that special, I wouldn't have eclipsed the others, just drawn even.