D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
Federer 26
Djokovic 22
Nadal 19
Djokovic 22
Nadal 19
Fed is still undoubtedly the greatest. We have to accept that.Fed wins them all. Duh.
YEC is a very important tournament imo.YEC are nowhere near the slams in importance they are closer to masters 1000
YEC are nowhere near the slams in importance they are closer to masters 1000
Actually this is partially incorrect. Obviously YEC's are not close to slams in importance, but an undefeated winner gets 1500 points, which is 500 points more (obviously) than a Masters 1000 win. The YEC is clearly the next most important trophy in tennis after the slams. The points awarded to it prove that eloquently.YEC are nowhere near the slams in importance they are closer to masters 1000
Federer's numbers are just crazy when you look at his entire career.
But he will fall. He will fall.
Don't worry. I shall always remember how great your man was. Having fewer Slams than Djokovic is not that bad.
We all know what happens next...
33>17Don't worry. I shall always remember how great your man was. Having fewer Slams than Djokovic is not that bad.
Actually this is partially incorrect. Obviously YEC's are not close to slams in importance, but an undefeated winner gets 1500 points, which is 500 points more (obviously) than a Masters 1000 win. The YEC is clearly the next most important trophy in tennis after the slams. The points awarded to it prove that eloquently.
So what is the comparison? Because I am sure any of the big 3 would trade 10 masters for one slam. Maybe more.Under that logic 1 slam is equal to 2 Masters 1000 or 2 slams are equal to 3 YEC which is all completely false.
So what is the comparison? Because I am sure any of the big 3 would trade 10 masters for one slam. Maybe more.
2>1
Now figure out what that means.
I only put YEC with Slams. Obviously Slams are more important. I just think that this is better than that Big Titles count.The logic is that you can’t put YEC and Masters 1000 along with the slams.
Agree, which is why big titles charts are lame and meaningless.The logic is that you can’t put YEC and Masters 1000 along with the slams.
Two Djokovic fans are Spencer followers. Only one Federer fan is a Spencer follower.
I think gold plus slams is more important.... 21>17I only put YEC with Slams. Obviously Slams are more important. I just think that this is better than that Big Titles count.
Why are you ruining my beautiful thread?I would also say that someone with 3 or 4 YEC would trade them to be a slam champion.
@Phoenix1983 is a believer now.Two Djokovic fans are Spencer followers. Only one Federer fan is a Spencer follower.
2>1
So be it.
He is. But he voted for Emily in that Fedpo's thread. I shall never forget that.@Phoenix1983 is a believer now.
It occurs once every 4 years, so no.I think gold plus slams is more important.... 21>17
It occurs once every 4 years, so no.
Must account for inflation. Fed wins.Only metric that matters is career prize money
If you go undefeated, it’s right in the middle. If you lose a match, it’s closer to a Masters (but not quite). If you lose two and still win (which is possible I think but nobody has ever done it) it should be worth about a Masters or a bit lower.YEC are nowhere near the slams in importance they are closer to masters 1000
Some YECs are greater than US Open 2017.
If that is the case, then there is no such thing as an easy YEC.Beating Del Potro in a USO semi is huge. Del Potro had beaten Federer in the QF and also has several big wins over the Big 3. Anderson meanwhile beat Federer at Wimbledon. There's no such thing as an easy slam.
If that is the case, then there is no such thing as an easy YEC.
I don't agree with that. If the difference is only 1 or 2 Slams, we should bring the YEC, YE #1, weeks at #1, etc.And there's no such thing as an easy Masters 1000. The point is, slams can't be compared with anything. If 2 players have an equal amount of slam titles, then we can bring up WTF, Olympics, Masters 1000, etc.
Some YECs are greater than US Open 2017.
Feds masters where he had to win final of 5 sets should count more.I don't agree with that. If the difference is only 1 or 2 Slams, we should bring the YEC, YE #1, weeks at #1, etc.
By that logic, Gstaad and St. Petersburg are more prestigious than the Olympics.Actually this is partially incorrect. Obviously YEC's are not close to slams in importance, but an undefeated winner gets 1500 points, which is 500 points more (obviously) than a Masters 1000 win. The YEC is clearly the next most important trophy in tennis after the slams. The points awarded to it prove that eloquently.
FTFY.Olympic Gold>Masters(especially the clay ones)>Davis Cups>Barcelona Open>YE #1etc
If slams are equal then it goes like this.
Olympic Gold > Masters (especially the clay ones) > Davis Cups > Barcelona Open > YE #1 etc
FTFY.
DC is a joke. A team event. Literally is meaningless for singles.They're the most prestigious accomplishments.
This is why #21 is not enough for Nadal to surpass Federer imo.I don't agree with that. If the difference is only 1 or 2 Slams, we should bring the YEC, YE #1, weeks at #1, etc.