The reason level of competition debates are pointless

[Bartelby]

The whole GOAT debate is meaningless as there is no tournment or award called GOAT.

GOAT has come to be operationalised as most Slams, so Djokovic looks like he might make it, but currently Federer is it.

Regardless of the strength of an era, the only thing that matters these days is 'number of slams'.

 

[Djokovic2011]

no, I'm saying federer's level was higher when he was dominating.
Novak is allowed to relax quite a bit now because the competition is frankly atrocious.

Lol, what gets me about you abmk is when you try to make out that Novak's had some easy slam wins recently because his opponents weren't playing at a higher level(and more fool you for expecting a player like Wawrinka to constantly be steady Eddie throughout a 5 set encounter). You really have some nerve to come out with these statements when you consider some of the opponents Federer had to get past to win several of his majors. I swear to God, some of you Fed fans seem to be of the opinion that if Novak isn't winning his majors by beating peak Fedal, Sampras, Borg and Laver all in the same tournament then they must be worth jack. The double standards are truly mind blowing.

Btw it's your opinion that Federer's level was higher during his domination as there's obviously no way of measuring peak levels of play one way or the other. And don't even get me started on some of his p1ss poor competition back in the day!

 

[Bartelby]

The reality is that Djokovic survived his competition at their most dangerous so if Slams are easier now for him then that's his reward.

He's 'seen off' his main adversaries.

 

[PeterHo]

The point is to educate dum posters.

 

[Djokovic2011]

The reality is that Djokovic survived his competition at their most dangerous so if Slams are easier now for him then that's his reward.

He's 'seen off' his main adversaries.

Try explaining this to his haters. For some strange reason they can't get their head around the concept that you don't have to beat peak Fedal, Murray and Wawrinka in the same tournament to win your majors and prove that you're a worthy champion.

 

[abmk]

Lol, what gets me about you abmk is when you try to make out that Novak's had some easy slam wins recently because his opponents weren't playing at a higher level(and more fool you for expecting a player like Wawrinka to constantly be steady Eddie throughout a 5 set encounter). You really have some nerve to come out with these statements when you consider some of the opponents Federer had to get past to win several of his majors. I swear to God, some of you Fed fans seem to be of the opinion that if Novak isn't winning his majors by beating peak Fedal, Sampras, Borg and Laver all in the same tournament then they must be worth jack. The double standards are truly mind blowing.

Btw it's your opinion that Federer's level was higher during his domination as there's obviously no way of measuring peak levels of play one way or the other. And don't even get me started on some of his p1ss poor competition back in the day!

BS, Novak's competition from 14 onwards is clearly weaker than any of federer's years ..

Novak doesn't need to win opponents by beating peak ATGs...real good play by the likes of stan, murray will also do ..

young generation of nishi, dimitrov, raonic have a grand total of 1 slam final and zero masters. That says a lot

 

[Djokovic2011]

I'm sorry, I'm not being funny but it really does bring a wry smile to my face that of all the major fanbases on here, it's the Federer one that wants Djokovic's competition to be as brutal as possible. Federer's! Let's be perfectly honest, it's not like the guy was defeating hall of famers during his domination and most reasonable people have long acknowledged this but oh, when it comes to Novak they want him to go to hell and back to prove his worth. Really p1sses me off. Grrrrrrrr.

 

[tennisaddict]

Djokovic is defeating hall of farmers . Truly guys who have no business to be on the court but the HOF museum at Newport

 

[insideguy]

It boils down to if you are dominate its a weak era for most. Well sort of. It just depends if you like the guy or girl who is dominate. Did graf play in weak era? By all measures by weak era people she sure did. Unless you are a graf fan. Or dont believe in weak eras.

 

[Bartelby]

The last weak era was the sixties when professional tennis robbed amateur championship events of their players.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

The reality is that Djokovic survived his competition at their most dangerous so if Slams are easier now for him then that's his reward.

He's 'seen off' his main adversaries.

Absolutely.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Also, Sampras didn't achieve all that much in 1998! He definitely had it pretty easy in 1997.

1995 and 1996 were very strong years, by contrast.

Yeah he was sort of already declining in 98. He could still bring an absolutely ferocious level from time to time like the 99 Wimbledon final but struggled with consistency. Also avoided physical matches after the Corretja match in 96.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Try explaining this to his haters. For some strange reason they can't get their head around the concept that you don't have to beat peak Fedal, Murray and Wawrinka in the same tournament to win your majors and prove that you're a worthy champion.

Well I am sure most Fed fans would fully agree. I knew this debate would come up the moment Nole had a season like 2015.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

It boils down to if you are dominate its a weak era for most. Well sort of. It just depends if you like the guy or girl who is dominate. Did graf play in weak era? By all measures by weak era people she sure did. Unless you are a graf fan. Or dont believe in weak eras.

Nole's 2011, Serena's original straight slam, Sampras's 1995 were not weak years. Wilander's 1988. There are probably more such years. Seles 91/92.

 

[insideguy]

Nole's 2011, Serena's original straight slam, Sampras's 1995 were not weak years. Wilander's 1988. There are probably more such years. Seles 91/92.

What would make 2016 a strong year for u

 

[Sentinel]

He is dominating a weak era, agreed. No excuses, just telling it like it is.

No no. Federer dominated a weak era with only Nadal and Murray and Djokovic banging on his door.
Nadal dominated a weak clay era. Now that Nadal is FINNISH it is a strong clay era.
Now that Nadl and Fedr and Andy are FiNNish it is an overall strong era.

At least that is what I understand. It is now a strong era with all those weak players gone or declined.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

What would make 2016 a strong year for u

If somebody - likely Wawrinka or Raonic - at least mounted a challenge to Nole. It's not that Nole has to lose. But he should be pushed. The 2011 wins were hard fought; Nole played superlative tennis to win. In AO this year he got away with letting the game drift because he wasn't being challenged.

 

[insideguy]

If somebody - likely Wawrinka or Raonic - at least mounted a challenge to Nole. It's not that Nole has to lose. But he should be pushed. The 2011 wins were hard fought; Nole played superlative tennis to win. In AO this year he got away with letting the game drift because he wasn't being challenged.

So nole has to pushed to make it a strong year. I just dont get this. So how was wilanders 88 or serenas original slam strong years? Where is the logic in this? This is just ridiculous. Didnt simon push nole? Didnt serena get pushed last year? She won three slams but she sure as hell got pushed. This is just stupid how you arbitrarily come up with a classification of a strong year.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

So nole has to pushed to make it a strong year. I just dont get this. So how was wilanders 88 or serenas original slam strong years? Where is the logic in this? This is just ridiculous. Didnt simon push nole? Didnt serena get pushed last year? She won three slams but she sure as hell got pushed. This is just stupid how you arbitrarily come up with a classification of a strong year.

Are you serious? Wilander had very tough finals against Cash and Lendl. Are you seriously comparing THAT with the Simon match?

 

[insideguy]

Are you serious? Wilander had very tough finals against Cash and Lendl. Are you seriously comparing THAT with the Simon match?

Wait so now its about the toughness of the final. So if 3 other guys push nole to 5 set and he gets taken to 3 sets in the olyimpics yet wins a golden slam you would deem it a tough year. Oh lord. Serna got taken tk multiple 3 set matches in the slams last year and the finals. Was that a strong year? And how many tough five setters did nadal have at the french during his 9 titles? Please inform me of all the brutal tough matches he had during those 9 years he won. Just looking at one year in 2010 he didnt drop a set. How many sets did rafa lose in the 9 years he won the french open? How many?

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Wait so now its about the toughness of the final. So if 3 other guys push nole to 5 set and he gets taken to 3 sets in the olyimpics yet wins a golden slam you would deem it a tough year. Oh lord. Serna got taken tk multiple 3 set matches in the slams last year and the finals. Was that a strong year? And how many tough five setters did nadal have at the french during his 9 titles? Please inform me of all the brutal tough matches he had during those 9 years he won. Just looking at one year in 2010 he didnt drop a set. How many sets did rafa lose in the 9 years he won the french open? How many?

No, no, it's about level of competition and the toughness of the matches is one way to infer it. But I know where this is going. You will go on inferring 'standards' into every statement I make. So you win, I am stupid, I know nothing about tennis though I just bageled somebody today and you alone as a Nole fan possess intelligence. Hope that suffices.

 

[5555]

Repeating yourself makes it all the more obvious..

It's obvious that burden of proof is on you.

Is it possible to prove to you that any time period with Djokovic at the helm is a weak period?

It's impossible because...(read the last sentence below).

Many. But that doesn't change what I've stated - the young guns aren't delivering.

It does not mean it's a fact that 2014, 2015 and 2016 is a weak era.

You asked whether it was a fact, I said yes. You should know when it comes to era related debates opinion is the driving force as there are no facts to support either claim.

You've just admited that your claim is not a fact. In other words, your claim that 2014, 2015 and 2016 is a weak era is an opinion.

 

[5555]

Sabratha, you've lost yet another argument.