GabeT
G.O.A.T.
That guy would be the Wimbledon GOAT, don't think he'd be the tennis GOAT.Now that guy would be the Goat.
That guy would be the Wimbledon GOAT, don't think he'd be the tennis GOAT.Now that guy would be the Goat.
Wimbledon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything elseThat guy would be the Wimbledon GOAT, don't think he'd be the tennis GOAT.
Subjectively, an argument can be made for that winning more evenly in the four slams is more impressive than dominating just one and winning the others to a much lesser degree. Problem is, this can be argued the exact opposite way round.
It is more impressive to dominate one thing way more than anyone else has before in the history of the sport, than to perform reasonably well everywhere but exceptional nowhere.
A factual note - In the thread is addressed the tournaments distribution, not the surfaces distribution.Nadal has his Grand Slams more evenly distributed by surface than both Federer and Djokovic. In effect, Nadal has won at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay). Federer and Djokovic only have won 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 Grand Slams on each surface >>>>>> 1 Grand Slam on each surface.
B player is better in having a 5-fold completed career GS while A player 3 times. Player A has more dominance in one tournament. Everyone has their advantage.As a Federer fan I still agree with you.
For example, imagine two players with 20 Slams both:
A) 3-3-3-11
B) 5-5-5-5
Why should player B be better? Only because he "dominates" the other one on 3 of the 4 Slams? No, that wouldn’t value that the dominance of player A on the fourth Slam is way bigger. And that HAS to count for something. That’s why the total number is the best factor already. It evens everything out.
Wimbledon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything else
Subjectively, an argument can be made for that winning more evenly in the four slams is more impressive than dominating just one and winning the others to a much lesser degree. Problem is, this can be argued the exact opposite way round. Why is it not more impressive to dominate one of the slams in a degree no man ever has before and still do reasonably well in the others? It's just as subjectively reasonable to say that a player who can dominate at one slam is more impressive than being fairly great in all 4 slams, but outstanding in none. It's like praising mediocrity lmao. I would not consider Nadal a better/greater player had he lost 5 of his FO's to Djokovic/Federer and gained 5 slams elsewhere. He'd have a more 'balanced' resume, and be a more 'balanced' player, but by no means be a 'better' or 'greater' player because he still has won the same amount of titles. In fact, you could argue his peak level would be lower, because he could not dominate anywhere.
unequal conditions, irrelevant comparison, nadal had 2x attempts per year than djoko(fed)..
better be well-rounded than narrow-focused (not only in tennis but everywhere else)
Nadal has dominated two Majors, as he has 3 US Opens which is ATG defining on it's own. Kuerten has 3 FOs and look at his status, Hewitt his whole career got 2 Majors for example. To say Nadal is 'mediocre' at the US Open is laughable really. 3 Us opens and his 2 Wimbledons and AO are the careers of Becker and Edberg and not far off Mcenroe and Lendl. when his FO record is added to his resume it is why so many consider him the greatest athlete of all time let alone tennis player.
The measure of greatness is titles won and against whom they were won.
Cool story.Djokovic is Laver's equal then, cuz he won as many Wilmbeldons as Laver...oh and some Tony Wilding GOAT of a guy from the very beginning of 20th century! Also hadn't Renshaw, Borg, Sampras and Doherty all won more?? All of them together ---------> Laver according to you...
Cool story.
That's not a "story" pal, i'm using your own logic against you...salty much?
Clay is a specialist surface with less competition than Hard courts.
Winning mostly on clay only makes you the king of clay not the GOAT.
Does this mean that Maria Sharapova, would be considered as being a better player than Venus Williams, as she has one each slam once and also has an additional French open title? Compared to Venus who only dominated on grass (5 titles) and the US Open (2 titles)?
Probably.
Managing winning all 4 slams is quite an achievement.
Subjectively, an argument can be made for that winning more evenly in the four slams is more impressive than dominating just one and winning the others to a much lesser degree. Problem is, this can be argued the exact opposite way round. Why is it not more impressive to dominate one of the slams in a degree no man ever has before and still do reasonably well in the others? It's just as subjectively reasonable to say that a player who can dominate at one slam is more impressive than being fairly great in all 4 slams, but outstanding in none. It's like praising mediocrity lmao. I would not consider Nadal a better/greater player had he lost 5 of his FO's to Djokovic/Federer and gained 5 slams elsewhere. He'd have a more 'balanced' resume, and be a more 'balanced' player, but by no means be a 'better' or 'greater' player because he still has won the same amount of titles. In fact, you could argue his peak level would be lower, because he could not dominate anywhere.
Probably.
Managing winning all 4 slams is quite an achievement.
Not when she never won more than 1 Slam in a season and Venus won 2 twice. Venus dominated the field in 2000 and Sharapova never has, plus two Slams is not a small difference when we are only talking about 7 versus 5.
The word exceptional doesn't encapsulate well what I'm trying to say. How about 'otherworldly.' Federer performed otherworldy nowhere. And Federer has 20 slams so it's not an even comparison to Nadal. If he had 17 he would be even in terms of slam greatness with Nadal imo.Well, the one with great slam distribution actually performed exceptionally somewhere.
We know that both being correct is impossible, yet both have equal footing on a subjective basis. What other conclusion would you come to?I generally agree with those statements, making it all the more unfortunate that your thread title is a non sequitur. How do you get from two opposing subjective arguments to one "objectively" correct position?
Is the fact you consider Federer an ATG at 3 slams because you are bagging 5+ slams all into the same category? That is just an attempt to put 7/8 and 11 into the same category when they are not. 11 is in a category of it's own, so whatever category 11 is in, Federer is not considered that in any of the slams. But Federer has 3 slams more than Nadal so that doesn't matter anyway. If they had the same number, they would both be equally great at the slams imo if you consider all the slams to be of equal value. Federer leads right now in 2 slams not 3. If 2 other players A and B came along and won 11 W and 11UO respectively, Federer is leading nowhere. Would that diminish his legacy? Course not, which is why it doesn't matter if you are leading in the slams or not because it depends on only 50 years or so of history.I believe that leading three of the four slams is objectively better than leading one slam by a larger margin. Nadal is only considered an all time great at one slam. Federer is considered to be an all time great at three slams. Therefore slam distribution does matter when considering the greatness of a player.
One can definitely say Sharapova is the more well-rounded player. Particularly because she was never totally comfortable on clay and still managed to get one FO.
Everyone will remember Venus as the better player because of her cultural significance, style, grace, and power. IMO she is/was much more fun to watch than Serena.
I guess you could argue that Sharapova is more well rounded when you compare their careers on clay but Sharapova like Serena benefited from no great clay champ like Henin being around anymore. Sharapova never beat her on clay when Venus can at least say she did once but there's no denying that Venus underperformed on clay in her career. Clay has to go to Sharapova in this comparison.
The knock against Sharapova in trying to compare her to Venus is that she never dominated at any point in her career. She only made more than one Slam final in a year once back in 2012 when Venus did it 5 times and made 4 in a row and 5/6 from 2002-2003. Venus also has the longest winning streak in the last 20 years at 35 matches, where he reeled off 6 titles in a row including Wimbledon, USO and Olympic gold. I think Venus does have more significance in the game overall but this is why she really will always outrank Sharapova.
The word exceptional doesn't encapsulate well what I'm trying to say. How about 'otherworldly.' Federer performed otherworldy nowhere. And Federer has 20 slams so it's not an even comparison to Nadal. If he had 17 he would be even in terms of slam greatness with Nadal imo.
We know that both being correct is impossible, yet both have equal footing on a subjective basis. What other conclusion would you come to?
Is the fact you consider Federer an ATG at 3 slams because you are bagging 5+ slams all into the same category? That is just an attempt to put 7/8 and 11 into the same category when they are not. 11 is in a category of it's own, so whatever category 11 is in, Federer is not considered that in any of the slams. But Federer has 3 slams more than Nadal so that doesn't matter anyway. If they had the same number, they would both be equally great at the slams imo if you consider all the slams to be of equal value. Federer leads right now in 2 slams not 3. If 2 other players A and B came along and won 11 W and 11UO respectively, Federer is leading nowhere. Would that diminish his legacy? Course not, which is why it doesn't matter if you are leading in the slams or not because it depends on only 50 years or so of history.
I agree with all of this. I struggle to really like Masha, and I love Venus' game and find it easy to root for her.
Then point it out the next time you argue someone who is doing that. Slam distribution is a slightly different argument from surface distribution though. There are 2 HC slams per year as opposed to 1 Grass and 1 Clay. Nadal has an average of 2 slams per HC slam event.Interesting that when Nadal's results on HC are discussed they are either grouped together, when his HC results are discussed, and separate, when his versatility is discussed, but Federer doesn't seem to enjoy the same.
Some people should make up their mind.
Then point it out the next time you argue someone who is doing that. Slam distribution is a slightly different argument from surface distribution though. There are 2 HC slams per year as opposed to 1 Grass and 1 Clay. Nadal has an average of 2 slams per HC slam event.
So if Nadal had 4 UO and no AO, he'd still have an average of 2 slams per HC slam.Then point it out the next time you argue someone who is doing that. Slam distribution is a slightly different argument from surface distribution though. There are 2 HC slams per year as opposed to 1 Grass and 1 Clay. Nadal has an average of 2 slams per HC slam event.
I honestly got no idea what this argument is about so I can't comment, but I concur that if someone is not logically consistent it should be pointed out. If you cannot find a flaw in their argument, then it is simply a matter of difference of opinion.I point it out: just usually my opponent doesn't respond, as is the case right now on a certain matter with a certain "statistical analyst".
I see that you are already ready to do the same with the "average" BS.
Are you asking me if (0+4)/2 = 2 is a factually true statement? Sure.So if Nadal had 4 UO and no AO, he'd still have an average of 2 slams per HC slam.
Did you see a question mark in the post? I'm saying that logic doesn't work. Nadal has 1 AO no matter how you cut it.Are you asking me if (0+4)/2 = 2 is a factually true statement? Sure.
I agree. When did I say he didn't?Did you see a question mark in that post? I'm saying that logic doesn't work. Nadal has 1 AO no matter how you cut it.
I honestly got no idea what this argument is about so I can't comment, but I concur that if someone is not logically consistent it should be pointed out. If you cannot find a flaw in their argument, then it is simply a matter of difference of opinion.
You are trying to group AO and UO together for distribution sake.I agree. When did I say he didn't?
You're trying to make an argument out of nothing here.
You are trying to group AO and UO together for distribution sake.
I think you need to revise your basic moral arythmetics...Did you see a question mark in the post? I'm saying that logic doesn't work. Nadal has 1 AO no matter how you cut it.
Lol. We can't do that to Hafa.But when Federer's Majors on HC are counted together, entering the apparently sacred territory of the #11, oh, la-la!
Depends what kind of versatility you're talking about. I'll leave it at that, why are you trying to start an argument I have no interest in at the moment?I find the "averaging" of Majors to illustrate versatility to be a very prominent lack of logic, and, in fact, also a complete BS, so I am pointing it out to you now.
Quote me where I tried to do that.You are trying to group AO and UO together for distribution sake.
It is more impressive to dominate one thing way more than anyone else has before in the history of the sport, than to perform reasonably well everywhere but exceptional nowhere.
Oh yes. Thanks for the reminder. 5 AO or is it more?I think you need to revise your basic moral arythmetics...
I already didQuote me where I tried to do that.
Depends what kind of versatility you're talking about. I'll leave it at that, why are you trying to start an argument I have no interest in at the moment?
What an ironic comment. Replace the word 'exceptional' with 'otherworldly' and the point remains the same. In fact I'll do so, so people can stop doing what you accused me of doing.So you're arguing that Djokovic winning 7 Australian Opens and Federer winning 8 Wimbledons is....not exceptional?
Let me know if you run out of straws to grasp at.
I see no contradiction with what I've said in this thread, so if you can't point it out then you are wasting my time here. You spend so much time analysing everything to the 10th degree trying to look for a flaw that ultimately means nothing.I found it interesting that you defend the point that Nadal's achievement on clay cannot be compared with anything else, and at the same time run the gamut of explanations, how Federer's HC achievements cannot be grouped together WHILE claiming "averages" about Nadal's HC numbers, WHILE also simultaneously stating that in fact "slam distribution doesn't matter".
I see a quadruple contradiction in every phase of that logical sequence, but I am no specialist in duck logic.