I don't know what fans would do
In any case, I'm not even saying they have an equal case per se, just that you cannot really make a conclusive case for either. Nor for other goat candidates.
Perception is not reality
I mean, if it's good enough for you, good. As far as I'm concerned, it's good enough to say there is no goat.
. 
Really, you are a scientist? This is so cool. Because by reading this forum, I wouldn't say a lot of scientists come here. So, it's good to have you.
Yeah, to me it matters, since those kind of debates are about logic and facts. What scientists do actually.
Only one tiny problem. I trust you. But anyone can say their are scientists
But, in a few of your posts, it will be much easier to spot.
If you really are, I will be watching you and hearing your opinions
You are right that its hard for logical people to stick to this forum with so many trolls. But I love the game so much that I can overlook it and there's the ignore user function. Besides, I value people's passion ( which, unfortunately, eventually leads into flame wars and fanboyism ).
Given how many times you've lost arguments to me, you just shouldn't be talking at all.
Absolute BS. Djokovic defends well on HARD given his flexibility but he is neither brilliant at sliding into his shots nor at his footing. This is particularly visible on Chatrier which tends to have a lot of free estate behind the baselines making retrieving the whole and sole trump card for a player. That is why he has lost nearly every big match there.
Federer's average rally ball doesn't make up either for his movement (which while being superior to Djokovic on clay is still inferior to Nadal's) or the fact that he's essentially a player who likes to attack and even on clay will look to end rallies quicker. He doesn't have the patience that has marked the best clay-courters through the ages.
None were in their prime. Coria, don't even get me started.
Haha, don't imagine me for an old dude in apron with white hair sitting in lab though
I am very much private about my personal life and didn't want to say anything particular about me there but I guess that got out since the person I quoted said that he's one. I really do not believe in judging people's opinion based on their job or other criteria - what is being said and how it is being said determine a character. So you can forget what I do for living. And you don't have to wait for my future posts, just search for my previous posts
.
It's cool that you are private. Won't ask any detailed questions. The fact I know you are a scientist is enough for me. I realized now, you responded to the same guy I was arguing with. We were having a debate me saying the irony of his nickname, that he is clearly biased. He was claiming that he is objective. I said to him, if this is true, you would admit your are biased
Did he say he is a scientist too? I would have never thought about him. I'm surprised.
Nothing against him, I like the guy. I just thought he sounded a bit biased. Just funny, how this went down.
So, what is your opinion about this weak era argument?
Be honest, don't people in science argue even more than on this forum?
Oh, where do I start ! If I take the first post for example, you started with a generalization ("subjectivity") that American players are bad clay court players and they would start to dominate in a weak clay era. If an era is weak in whatever type of court, does that mean that just non-American players are weak and American players get to keep their usual standard ?
I don't have the time nor the patience/intent to dig up all your threads/posts to further prove my point.
You need to understand one thing though, I'm not here to rile you up or defend Federer against the attacks - I'm not one of his fanboys. I just thought you should drop the mask of "objectivity" and support your favorite player openly - there's nothing to be ashamed about. You'll not seem me posting again on these kind of "objective" threads , well except one or two more posts to answer a previous question to me.
P.S. - I see that you have opened a thread about a positive feature of Federer, may be to prove that you are "objective" after many have questioned you. Anyway, cheers - don't take anything personal
I don't think this era is weak or neither super strong. Just before Nadal came up, there were a few clay court specialists around albeit at the latter end of their career. But Nadal proved to be too good and distanced himself from others by miles, even Federer who is a pretty good clay court player. He started sweeping the clay tournaments and no one else could stand up to the standard until 2011 Djokovic. In fact, regardless of court type, other than Del potro currently there's nobody who can regularly threaten against the top players. And being a very aggressive player, Del potro does not get help in clay courts. Murray is a bit curious case as he grew up training in Barcelona and given his relatively defensive style last couple years, he should have at least got to the semis or finals of the clay tournaments.
Regarding the domination period of Federer, that was not an weak era either. During that time, at least four of his opponents were slam winners and multiple slam finalists (excluding Agassi). But again, Federer proved to be too good to stand up against. The players who could at least sometimes challenge to match him were either too inconsistent or injured (Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian).
Frankly, I'm afraid that the true weak era might come next when Djokovic, Nadal etc retires unless some young guns steps up to a few more levels.
To answer your 2nd question, yes - there's a lot of arguing and disagreement among the people who work in Science. But they usually have some rational points to back up their opinions. And most of them are not hellbent on standing on their points when they understand the other persons' reasoning.
Cheers
