TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
You just answered your own question. If I am a Federer fan, I cant recognize Sampras as tier 1 citing he dominated his rival. Can I?
I guess not, but it goes to show the level of cherrypicking.
You just answered your own question. If I am a Federer fan, I cant recognize Sampras as tier 1 citing he dominated his rival. Can I?
They're two giants of the game, one amazing on hardcourt and grass, the other ridiculously good on clay and they are both good enough to win on their worst surfaces.
In the past 10 years, we've had the luxury of watching 2 of the greatest players of all time. Let's stop comparing them all the time and just enjoy what they have given us: spectacular tennis!
I don't understand how Sampras's accomplishments cannot be Tier 1. Regardless of what any one person says.
All of the greats have done something that the others haven't done, so to pick and choose what you think is superior only leads to a false conclusion.
I hear many people say, "Well, Pete didn't win the French, but then again, Pete dominated his main rival and was number 1 for six consecutive years. How can these things be weighted, except subjectively?
Goat is not about 100%, it's about the probability. Those debates remind me about creation vs evolution debate.
Evolution theory is like Fed is goat theory. Creationists disagree. It's ok, evolution has holes and flaws. But it is the best we have. If you remove it, what are you going to replace it with?
Not interested in the rest, but at the risk of digressing what are the holes and flaws ?
Not interested in the rest, but at the risk of digressing what are the holes and flaws ?
One is based on assumptions, the other is based on faith.
Why do you want to know? I really don't want to get into this debate here.
I disagree with your assertion that the theory of evolution has as many holes as the "theory" that Fed is GOAT. I was therefore interested in what these "holes" were. Actually the latter is less of a theory and more of a religion/cult.
2 Slams on, are people more willing to consider and accept that the truth about Nadal is that he could go down as not just the greatest in his sport but one of the great sportsmen in history?
It's very likely Nadal won't win another title until April.
Depends on how you define religion. Everything has certain amounts of faith in it.
It's a thin line. With evolution we have facts. But they are insufficient. All we know is that we are here and we can observe small changes. We can't observe if small changes lead to big ones. Maybe it has limits and it's only a variation.
If humans grow 50 years a bit on average, that doesn't prove that in 500 years we will be taller. It could be just a variation.
But it's hard to debate this topic with anybody because, people have a lot of bias in these things.
You already made an assumption Evolution is a fact but basing Federer the greatest on the fact that he has 17 majors, a religion.
.
2 Slams on, are people more willing to consider and accept that the truth about Nadal is that he could go down as not just the greatest in his sport but one of the great sportsmen in history?
Sort of, but Magic and Larry are no Federer, with all due respect.
I don't see the problem in making some outlandish statements. One might look like a muppet or a visionary and it really doesn't matter -- people care way too much about that stuff and don't want to be the one to look foolish and will only continue to rely on hindsight to take a dump on others . Everybody often judges things in hindsight which is the easy thing to do. Let's try to make some calls ahead of time.
Here are some more.
Nadal has 50% chance to be considered greater than Fed before retirement (this thead already basically covers this)
Murray's window is closing fast and his body will break down over the next couple of years and he won't win more than 3 Majors.
Federer has won his last Major.
Djokovic will never win Roland Garros.