What was better, Federer from 2008-2022, or Agassi's entire career?

[Pheasant]

This is a case where I'm ignoring Fed's career through 2007. After 2007, Fed had 204 consecutive weeks at #1, 14 Masters titles, 12 slam titles, 4 year-end titles, 53 titles overall, and 4 straight YE#1.

This is about Agassi's career vs 2008-2022 Federer:

Fed:
8 slam titles
106 weeks at #1
1 YE#1
2 year-end titles
14 Masters titles
50 titles overall
700-141, .832 overall
57-56, .504 vs top 5
127-85, .599 vs top 10

Agassi
8 slam titles
101 weeks at #1
1 YE#1
1 year-end title
17 Masters titles
60 titles overall
870-274, .761 overall
63-55, .534 vs top 5
109-90, .548 vs top 10
Golden Career slam

This looks very close.

What do you guys think?

 

[Pheasant]

I'm giving Fed the slight edge here. In this case, Federer played through the entire peaks of both Nadal and Djokovic. The gaps shrinks drastically, when looking at how much more polarized the surfaces were in Agassi's prime. That makes Agassi's career Golden Slam look incredibly impressive. This is nearly a coin-flip. But I'm giving this to Fed. I cannot get past the fact that he played about 90 matches against Nadal and Djoker. That is impossible competition against the very best.

 

[Kralingen]

Agassi by far. Both level of play and achievements. Have a look at what grandpa Agassi with a broken back did to absolute PEAK Fed in Flushing in 04/05, despite being barely able to move.

 

[Waspsting]

should add Career Grand Slam to Federer's resume

 

[Pheasant]

should add Career Grand Slam to Federer's resume

Good call. When I quickly thought about this, I mistakenly thought that his last USO title was in 2007.

But you are right, since he actually won the USO in 2008. He has a career Grand Slam from 2008-2022

 

[dking68]

Agassi by far. Both level of play and achievements. Have a look at what grandpa Agassi with a broken back did to absolute PEAK Fed in Flushing in 04/05, despite being barely able to move.

Agassi needed a better serve

 

[jrepac]

This is a case where I'm ignoring Fed's career through 2007. After 2007, Fed had 204 consecutive weeks at #1, 14 Masters titles, 12 slam titles, 4 year-end titles, 53 titles overall, and 4 straight YE#1.

This is about Agassi's career vs 2008-2022 Federer:

Fed:
8 slam titles
106 weeks at #1
1 YE#1
2 year-end titles
14 Masters titles
50 titles overall
700-141, .832 overall
57-56, .504 vs top 5
127-85, .599 vs top 10

Agassi
8 slam titles
101 weeks at #1
1 YE#1
1 year-end title
17 Masters titles
60 titles overall
870-274, .761 overall
63-55, .534 vs top 5
109-90, .548 vs top 10
Golden Career slam

This looks very close.

What do you guys think?

Interesting.
I instinctively voted for Fed, but Andre's #s are compelling.
But "Andre's career" is how many years here? 20? where Fed's is only a 14yr snippet that is past his prime time

 

[jrepac]

Agassi by far. Both level of play and achievements. Have a look at what grandpa Agassi with a broken back did to absolute PEAK Fed in Flushing in 04/05, despite being barely able to move.

but I don't think this is a fair comparison....by design...we are talking post-prime Fed vs. Andre's ENTIRE career.
If I think about it that way, I have to give Fed some bonus points.
And, if he had won that GD wimby in '19....

 

[Pheasant]

Interesting.
I instinctively voted for Fed, but Andre's #s are compelling.
But "Andre's career" is how many years here? 20? where Fed's is only a 14yr snippet that is past his prime time

I thought it was an interesting concept. The numbers at face value are much closer than I thought that they’d be.

 

[Razer]

Agassi by far. Both level of play and achievements. Have a look at what grandpa Agassi with a broken back did to absolute PEAK Fed in Flushing in 04/05, despite being barely able to move.

Federer

AO - 3
FO - 1
W - 3
USO - 1

Agassi

AO - 4
FO - 1
W - 1
USO - 2

Federer blocked by 2 people who have 13 & 12 slams in this period when he won his 1st and last of his 8 slams.
Agassi blocked by 1 guy who has 14 slams in the period when he won his 1st and last of his 8 slams

Federer's age 26.5+ when he reached his 1st slam final
Agassi's age 20+ when he reached his 1st slam final

So despite being in prime health and also having 1 less rival (who was of his age and not 5-6 younger) Agassi ended up with same slam count?

Agassi remains a loser...

 

[bigbadboaz]

Agassi remains a loser...

You're a complete idiot. Tell us again, what your world-elite life achievements are.. THEN go back to slagging all-time professional athletes as if you have a platform to stand on.

 

[Kralingen]

Federer

AO - 3
FO - 1
W - 3
USO - 1

Agassi

AO - 4
FO - 1
W - 1
USO - 2

Federer blocked by 2 people who have 13 & 12 slams in this period when he won his 1st and last of his 8 slams.
Agassi blocked by 1 guy who has 14 slams in the period when he won his 1st and last of his 8 slams

Federer's age 26.5+ when he reached his 1st slam final
Agassi's age 20+ when he reached his 1st slam final

So despite being in prime health and also having 1 less rival (who was of his age and not 5-6 younger) Agassi ended up with same slam count?

Agassi remains a loser...

Federer is a better overall player than Agassi, obviously, but to call Andre Agassi a loser is one of the most asinine statements ever made. Go re-think everything.

 

[Pheasant]

It's a tough call. I get voting for either player. Federer played through the entire peaks of two incredible players. Agassi played on much more polarized surfaces and against a lot more surface specialists. So I can understand choosing either player here.

I'm blown away that Federer won 83% of his matches from ages 26 1/2 to 39 1/2. Having a .832 winning pct over any 13 1/2 year span is incredible. Doing that outside of your best 4-year run is unbelievable.

 

[jrepac]

I thought it was an interesting concept. The numbers at face value are much closer than I thought that they’d be.

yes, I'd agree there

 

[jrepac]

It's a tough call. I get voting for either player. Federer played through the entire peaks of two incredible players. Agassi played on much more polarized surfaces and against a lot more surface specialists. So I can understand choosing either player here.

I'm blown away that Federer won 83% of his matches from ages 26 1/2 to 39 1/2. Having a .832 winning pct over any 13 1/2 year span is incredible. Doing that outside of your best 4-year run is unbelievable.

that winning match % stat is always telling....you look at the top 5-10 guys there and it's a murderer's row of consistency
https://**********.net/top-10-best-atp-win-percentages-of-all-time/

 

[Razer]

You're a complete idiot. Tell us again, what your world-elite life achievements are.. THEN go back to slagging all-time professional athletes as if you have a platform to stand on.

Why are you getting so worked up? Agassi's achievements are his own, not yours.

Secondly, when we say "Agassi remains a loser" then the comparison here is not with forum members or anyone who doesn't play pro tennis, it is with his direct peers.

So yeah, in his era due to Sampras's presence, Agassi remained a loser on most occasions. and now when you compare to Federer who is again a better player even past 27 vs prime Agassi, then Agassi loses here as well....... This is what it means by saying "Agassi remains a loser". Plus he was a meth-head as well, that also contributed in him losing out for a while until he regrouped himself.

 

[bigbadboaz]

Because of this:

Plus he was a meth-head as well

This is far from the first time you've thrown serious digs at the man; you clearly have a strong personal distaste which belies your claim that "loser" is only in context to which comparison he's not winning.

I get people who don't care for his early image, or his occasional public faux pas, or the achievements he left on the table. But this is someone who got past all that, took complete ownership of it, and went on to fulfill his talent in spades. Not to mention he has a hellish childhood to point to with regard to his early struggles.

Most importantly, beyond realizing his OWN career, he grew enough to look beyond himself and make his educational foundation the focus. The man is responsible for countless millions going towards the education of underprivileged youth, in turn inspiring (/shaming LOL) other top-tier athletes to create similar foundations and effect change. This is his true legacy and it's a huge one.

Failing to recognize who he became, and dwelling on what he was as a young, spoiled person, is at best incredibly spiteful. And it says nothing about him but something very significant about the speaker.

 

[Razer]

Because of this:



This is far from the first time you've thrown serious digs at the man; you clearly have a strong personal distaste which belies your claim that "loser" is only in context to which comparison he's not winning.

I get people who don't care for his early image, or his occasional public faux pas, or the achievements he left on the table. But this is someone who got past all that, took complete ownership of it, and went on to fulfill his talent in spades. Not to mention he has a hellish childhood to point to with regard to his early struggles.

Most importantly, beyond realizing his OWN career, he grew enough to look beyond himself and make his educational foundation the focus. The man is responsible for countless millions going towards the education of underprivileged youth, in turn inspiring (/shaming LOL) other top-tier athletes to create similar foundations and effect change. This is his true legacy and it's a huge one.

Failing to recognize who he became, and dwelling on what he was as a young, spoiled person, is at best incredibly spiteful. And it says nothing about him but something very significant about the speaker.

I get what you are saying but I dont dislike Agassi in anyway. I have not watched any tennis in 90s, so I have no emotional investment in Agassi to like/dislike him. For me Agassi (& Pete) were old men when I started following Tennis, they were past their prime, so we didn't care for them back then in a positive or negative way, so no I dont dislike Agassi, not at all. He is from another era. It is like asking a young kid Alcaraz fan now if he dislikes Federer or Nadal or Novak, that makes no sense, they dont care for Fedal or even Novak.

 

[bigbadboaz]

Fair enough if true. I'd picked up an undercurrent from reading some previous posts, and it got under my skin. With the disproportionate influence we give to celebrities - and how much of it goes wasted or abused - I've been very appreciative of what Agassi chose to do as he matured.

 

[Holmes]

Agassi by far. Both level of play and achievements. Have a look at what grandpa Agassi with a broken back did to absolute PEAK Fed in Flushing in 04/05, despite being barely able to move.

Amun-RAgassi was Peak Agassi.

 

[BGod]

Silly.

Agassi and with little doubt. Fact of the matter is Agassi contended on more varied surfaces (carpet existed to boot) and deeper competition.

Like remember he started in the late 80s. So you have old Connors, Mac, Lendl, Becker, Edberg THEN Courier, Sampras, Chang, Goran, Krajicek, Stich, Rafter and at the twilight years Federer, Roddick, Ferrero. I mean come the gell on.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Federer would have 3 Wimbledon titles and 7 Wimbledon finals. That puts his Wimbledon post 2007 resume to directly Becker level. Not too bad.

Federer will have 3 RG finals while Agassi has only 2. But both not so impressive.

Australian open we would give Agassi the edge and USOpen we would give Agassi the edge.

So grass Federer vs hard courts Agassi. But Federer would be almost as good as Agassi on hard courts but Agassi not even close to Federer on grass. That would be a difference.

Apart from this, it's a wash. Both exactly as good.