Slams Record + Masters Record = GOAT?

[Forehand Of Doom]

So you are saying Nadal would rather win 9th MC instead of 1st Miami? To me it seems players just treat Masters as a good way to practice for Slams, win some money and lots of ranking points.They don't really care much if they get total of 30 masters during their career or 25. Also they don't care much if they win all 9 of them evenly spread or 90% on clay. Whatever is easier is what players do which proves that Masters are not that significant.

LMFAO. Hilarious post. So players don't care much about masters? Nadal won 8 MC simply because nobody was better than him there. Also, some Masters have huge prize money. Good motivation for apathetic players.

 

[jhhachamp]

So Masters (an actual achievement like slam titles) for which you actually receive prize money and points is worth less than Number of weeks at #1, which is simply a reflection of other achievements?

Sorry but does not compute.

Let me give you a hypothetical example:
Player A has 300 weeks at #1, 20 slams, and 20 masters. His prime was 7 years long.
Player B has 150 weeks at #1, 20 slams, and 30 masters. His prime was 10 years long.

Player A burned brighter for a shorter period.

Player B obtained less titles per year but had a longer career and more titles than Player A.

Who of these players is greater and why?

I would vote for player B easily in your hypothetical scenario. A higher degree of dominance trumps longevity in my book. Make it 22 slams for player A though and I think it is about even.

 

[monfed]

Some people will factor in which number of slams a player win. Venus is place ahead of Henin despite only won 2 out of the 4 slams while Henin won 3 out of the 4 slams. But the difference is Venus won 5 Wimbledon but Henin won none. JMac achieved less than Lendl and wasn't as dominant and consistent as Lendl, but JMac has 3 Wimbledon to zero for Lendl.

I think Fed has the edge over Nadal since he has 7
Wimbledon.

This is a great point, the type of slam won also matters quite a bit , afterall players gain a lot of recognition if they won win Wimby compared to any other slam.

 

[beast of mallorca]

I have stated this here at least 100 times: clay warrior is going to end up with 38-40 masters shields.


this is one thing that is not being talked about in the media. they are oblivious to this phenomenon.



the only people in the world who are talking about this are as follows:



1. clay death the destroyer
2. forehand of doom






35-40 masters shields carry so much weight that it is plain sick. it just defies the imagination how one man can amass such a staggering number of masters shields on all surfaces that matter the most.


now you add that to about 17-18 slams and what do you get?


go ahead. I will let you say it.



if you want to carry the flag for Federer, then you have to listen to me:

start using another angle. you can start saying that he is the holder of a greatest collection of records of all time.


you cannot call him the greatest of all time when nadal is standing right there right next to him.

roger was the best of the best in his era until nadal came into his own.

this is just how it goes in sports.


nothing and nobody can get in the way of 35-40 masters shields on all surfaces that matter the most and 17-18 slams. that is just too damn much.

nothing.

I personally don't give a damn about who is the greatest of all time but history will start calling nadal the greatest player of the open era.

just give him 17-18 slams and 38 masters shields and its a slam dunk case for history.

Is the Death Master still alive ? :twisted: