tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 01 Feb 2009 14:59:57
From: WAY2GOOD
Subject: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
"He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."

Right on, Budster!







 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 05:40:32
From: Fan
Subject: Bud Collins is a bottom feeder - Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the
On Feb 1, 8:59=A0pm, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com > wrote:
> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."
>
> Right on, Budster!

There are no absolutes in tennis and the goat garbage is just that
garbage. We can talk about records. We can talk about how some players
do under this or that criteria. Federer's record is truly impressive
and he is not done yet. Who do fuck is Bud Collins to pass judge met
on Federer or any other player? He is nothing but a provocative,
sensation seeking asshole. He is a bottom feeder who feeds off the
misfortunes of athletes he is not fit to pick up garbage after. Bud
Collins is not the only asshole commentator. Most of them are nothing.
Only the players win or lose, count.


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 05:49:28
From: guyana
Subject: Re: Bud Collins is a bottom feeder - Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the
On Feb 2, 8:44=A0am, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com > wrote:
> On Feb 2, 8:40=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 8:59=A0pm, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main riv=
al."
>
> > > Right on, Budster!
>
> > There are no absolutes in tennis and the goat garbage is just that
> > garbage. We can talk about records. We can talk about how some players
> > do under this or that criteria. Federer's record is truly impressive
> > and he is not done yet. Who do fuck is Bud Collins to pass judge met
> > on Federer or any other player? He is nothing but a provocative,
> > sensation seeking asshole. He is a bottom feeder who feeds off the
> > misfortunes of athletes he is not fit to pick up garbage after. Bud
> > Collins is not the only asshole commentator. Most of them are nothing.
> > Only the players win or lose, count.
>
> he is for sure. not sure what he achieved other than showing up with
> pajamas on tv.

Bud's hero is Laver. He is pretty knowledgeable, tho his funny pants
and jerky comments are very annoying indeed!!!


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 05:44:36
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Bud Collins is a bottom feeder - Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the
On Feb 2, 8:40=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 8:59=A0pm, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>
> > "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival=
."
>
> > Right on, Budster!
>
> There are no absolutes in tennis and the goat garbage is just that
> garbage. We can talk about records. We can talk about how some players
> do under this or that criteria. Federer's record is truly impressive
> and he is not done yet. Who do fuck is Bud Collins to pass judge met
> on Federer or any other player? He is nothing but a provocative,
> sensation seeking asshole. He is a bottom feeder who feeds off the
> misfortunes of athletes he is not fit to pick up garbage after. Bud
> Collins is not the only asshole commentator. Most of them are nothing.
> Only the players win or lose, count.

he is for sure. not sure what he achieved other than showing up with
pajamas on tv.


 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 05:32:45
From: ahonkan
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 12:59=A0am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com > wrote:
> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."
>
> Right on, Budster!

Steffi is usually spoken of as a premier GOAT candidate.
She has an 8-8 H2H vs Martina N, another GOAT contender
but who was several years her senior. According to Bud logic,
shouldn't this be bad?
Martina N has an almost-even H2H vs Chris Evert, who is
also tied with Martina N in slam count and is also her
contemporary. Yet, she is almost never mentioned as a GOAT
contender. How can Bud logic explain this?

Also, name *one* quality Sampras rival. Pioline? Martin?
Kafelnikov? Stich? Rafter? Ivanisevic? Courier? Agassi (whose
AWOL years conveniently matched with Sampras' peak years)?

None of these guys can be mentioned in the same breath as
Rafa, whose only comparison at this age is the great Borg!

Or name *one* Lendl rival who was *not* top quality - Borg,
Mac, Connors, Edberg, Becker. Shouldn't his slam finals
record be viewed in this light?

Let's just say that Laver, Borg, Sampras & Fed are right up
there. Soon to join this pantheon: Rafa.


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 14:58:56
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 3:22=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 7:32 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:>>
> >> Also, name *one* quality Sampras rival. Pioline? Martin?
> >> Kafelnikov? Stich? Rafter? Ivanisevic? Courier? Agassi (whose
> >> AWOL years conveniently matched with Sampras' peak years)?
>
> >> None of these guys can be mentioned in the same breath as
> >> Rafa, whose only comparison at this age is the great Borg!
>
> >> Or name *one* Lendl rival who was *not* top quality - Borg,
> >> Mac, Connors, Edberg, Becker. Shouldn't his slam finals
> >> record be viewed in this light?
>
> > Thats why I call him the GOAT.
>
> That's why we call you dumbass. :))

Thats why we call you
*dipshit
*buttkiss
*striptease
*crockshit
*strapon
*stripper



  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 13:09:25
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 7:32=A0am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 2, 12:59=A0am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>
> > "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival=
."
>
> > Right on, Budster!
>
> =A0 =A0 Steffi is usually spoken of as a premier GOAT candidate.
> =A0 =A0 She has an 8-8 H2H vs Martina N, another GOAT contender
> =A0 =A0 but who was several years her senior.

Navratilova won several matches when Graf hadnt matured yet. So it is
not a fair indicator. And Steffi has won all 4 slams at least 4 times.
No one is ever gonna be able to do that. That in itself makes her
GOAT.


>According to Bud logic,
> =A0 =A0 shouldn't this be bad?

Bud is not that stupid.

> =A0 =A0 Martina N has an almost-even H2H vs Chris Evert, who is
> =A0 =A0 also tied with Martina N in slam count and is also her
> =A0 =A0 contemporary. Yet, she is almost never mentioned as a GOAT
> =A0 =A0 contender. How can Bud logic explain this?

People are quite stupid. Evert is almost as equal to Navratilova. Her
biggest problem was she lost to Navratilova in many finals.

>
> =A0 =A0 Also, name *one* quality Sampras rival. Pioline? Martin?
> =A0 =A0 Kafelnikov? Stich? Rafter? Ivanisevic? Courier? Agassi (whose
> =A0 =A0 AWOL years conveniently matched with Sampras' peak years)?
>
> =A0 =A0 None of these guys can be mentioned in the same breath as
> =A0 =A0 Rafa, whose only comparison at this age is the great Borg!
>
> =A0 =A0 Or name *one* Lendl rival who was *not* top quality - Borg,
> =A0 =A0 Mac, Connors, Edberg, Becker. Shouldn't his slam finals
> =A0 =A0 record be viewed in this light?

Thats why I call him the GOAT.

>
> =A0 =A0 Let's just say that Laver, Borg, Sampras & Fed are right up
> =A0 =A0 there.

Sampras with his poor clay record is the black sheep in that company.

>Soon to join this pantheon: Rafa.



   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 22:22:01
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 7:32 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:>>
>> Also, name *one* quality Sampras rival. Pioline? Martin?
>> Kafelnikov? Stich? Rafter? Ivanisevic? Courier? Agassi (whose
>> AWOL years conveniently matched with Sampras' peak years)?
>>
>> None of these guys can be mentioned in the same breath as
>> Rafa, whose only comparison at this age is the great Borg!
>>
>> Or name *one* Lendl rival who was *not* top quality - Borg,
>> Mac, Connors, Edberg, Becker. Shouldn't his slam finals
>> record be viewed in this light?
>
> Thats why I call him the GOAT.


That's why we call you dumbass. :))




  
Date: 03 Feb 2009 05:54:11
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
ahonkan wrote:
> On Feb 2, 12:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."
>>
>> Right on, Budster!
>
> Steffi is usually spoken of as a premier GOAT candidate.
> She has an 8-8 H2H vs Martina N, another GOAT contender
> but who was several years her senior. According to Bud logic,
> shouldn't this be bad?
> Martina N has an almost-even H2H vs Chris Evert, who is
> also tied with Martina N in slam count and is also her
> contemporary. Yet, she is almost never mentioned as a GOAT
> contender. How can Bud logic explain this?
>
> Also, name *one* quality Sampras rival. Pioline? Martin?
> Kafelnikov? Stich? Rafter? Ivanisevic? Courier? Agassi (whose
> AWOL years conveniently matched with Sampras' peak years)?
>
> None of these guys can be mentioned in the same breath as
> Rafa, whose only comparison at this age is the great Borg!
>
> Or name *one* Lendl rival who was *not* top quality - Borg,
> Mac, Connors, Edberg, Becker. Shouldn't his slam finals
> record be viewed in this light?
>
> Let's just say that Laver, Borg, Sampras & Fed are right up
> there. Soon to join this pantheon: Rafa.


Not soon, but he's well positioned to push for it over next few yrs. He
has 26 pts on 7543 (Wilander level) & needs at least 50 to be considered.

Of course he can claim other titles that can preserve his legacy
forever, like most FO's & possibly calendar GS - but let's not get
carried away. The same things that kept Fed from claiming goat (ie
simply not having the numbers yet) also apply to Rafa. Ceibs can be
overwhelming at times, but never lasts beyond 10 yrs at most.




 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 04:53:25
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On 1 Feb, 19:59, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com > wrote:
> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."
>
> Right on, Budster!

I'll see your 'can't be ' reason, and raise you...

1) A player can't be GOAT unless they win slams on all competitive
surfaces at the time they play - removes everyone except Budge, Laver,
Agassi. Tough for all those who never got the chance, or it wasn't
relevant, but hey-ho.

2) They have a winning h2h against their main rival, at all times -
removes everyone. Tough for Laver since he beat Rosewall overall, but
lost in the early meetings. Hey-ho again.

Not bad, everyone in the history of men's tennis removed in just two
'Can't be'

Someone wasn't even trying...

:-)

PS Just for fun http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=503656



  
Date: 04 Feb 2009 08:39:10
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 4, 11:21=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 4 Feb, 14:07, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 10:03=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 2 Feb, 14:40, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> > > > topspin wrote:
> > > > > On 2 Feb, 14:26, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > > > >> topspin wrote:
> > > > >>> On 1 Feb, 19:59, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his m=
ain rival."
> > > > >>>> Right on, Budster!
> > > > >>> I'll see your 'can't be ' reason, and raise you...
> > > > >>> 1) A player can't be GOAT unless they win slams on all competit=
ive
> > > > >>> surfaces at the time they play - removes everyone except Budge,=
Laver,
> > > > >>> Agassi. Tough for all those who never got the chance, or it was=
n't
> > > > >>> relevant, but hey-ho.
> > > > >> If we're talking about surfaces there are many more players who =
have won
> > > > >> on clay and grass when there were no other surfaces...oh I guess=
there
> > > > >> was wood.
>
> > > > >>> 2) They have a winning h2h against their main rival, at all tim=
es -
> > > > >>> removes everyone. Tough for Laver since he beat Rosewall overal=
l, but
> > > > >>> lost in the early meetings. Hey-ho again.
> > > > >> What crap?
> > > > >> Laver won overall so what's the deal?
>
> > > > > But Rosewall had the h2h advantage at the start of their meetings=
. He
> > > > > only lost out because he was in his 30s for most of their match-u=
ps.
>
> > > > > If you are going to be 'greatest' you've got to beat everyone, al=
l the
> > > > > time. This isn't a Mickey Mouse title we are discussing.
>
> > > > > Of course Nadal is already out of the running because Federer bea=
t him
> > > > > up when they first met on grass and HC. Beating Federer now, when=
he
> > > > > is getting old as a tennis player doesn't really count, does it? =
Too
> > > > > easy.
>
> > > > > So my criteria are very fair - they discriminate against everyone=
.
>
> > > > > :-)
>
> > > > Well a criteria that takes out everyone is rather useless...
>
> > > > --
> > > > "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> > > > singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland=
"
>
> > > Well, it is two criteria.
>
> > > And I would say tough, rather than useless.
>
> > > We would not want to be picking criteria arbitrarily to reward
> > > players, or playing styles, we like, would we?
>
> > > :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > If a player is losing in their 30s to a younger rival, then that's to
> > be expected. If a 27 year old who used to be dominant player loses the
> > majority of the time to his main younger rival in big matches, that's
> > also acceptable. If that same 27-year-old goat candidate can get NO
> > FURTHER WINS in big matches against that younger opponent then that's
> > a problem legacy-wise imo. I'm not saying that's what will happen with
> > the Fed-Nadal rivalry. Personally I think Fed will come back and get
> > at least one win against Rafa at Wimby or USO. But I can't accept the
> > idea that makes no difference to his legacy whether he does or not.
>
> Jason, you've got an incredibly negative way of looking at legacies.
> If I carry your logic to its conclusion then it is a big hit on
> Sampras' legacy that he didn't have to deal with a young and thrusting
> upstart of Nadal's ability.
>
> So every champion's legacy is diminished by what they 'didn't' do,
> rather than what they did. Well if we go down that tack, as I've said,
> NONE of them deserve to be considered great(est).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I wouldn't say *incredibly negative* Every champion has different
challenges to deal with.
Sampras had a fellow great in his own generation and tough rivals from
the previous generation (Becker, Edberg), whom he dealt with
convincingly, but practically no one in the generation after. Other
than dealing with one's main rivals (and some luck of course is
involved in this, maybe Pete was lucky not to have Nadal to deal with?
I can't say because I don't know how they would've matched up) there's
also the issue of dealing with all surfaces and Pete clearly failed in
that regard.

Fed didn't have another all-time great in his generation imo (granted
this is subjective. I'm very familiar with the argument of how can
there be another all-time great if he wins everything and I have zero
interest in going into that discussion again :)) But he's got an
enormous challenge in the form of Nadal in the next generation that I
think he needs to deal with by beating Rafa again in some big
tournament.

The point is I wouldn't go as far as what you're saying (I assume
tongue in cheek?) that a player has to dominate at all times on every
surface at every point is his career.

But I fully expect some future, true GOAT to dominate all playing
surfaces when at peak and hold his own even when a bit past peak. I
fully expect Fed to do the latter. I think the idea of his winning the
French at this point is a pipe dream.

So, in conclusion, I don't think Pete or Fed fit the bill of a true
goat. I suspect Laver does, but since that's a bit before my time I
can't say that with much certainty because I don't know how he matched
up with his main rivals in the 60s.


  
Date: 04 Feb 2009 08:21:53
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On 4 Feb, 14:07, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 10:03=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2 Feb, 14:40, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> > > topspin wrote:
> > > > On 2 Feb, 14:26, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > > >> topspin wrote:
> > > >>> On 1 Feb, 19:59, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his mai=
n rival."
> > > >>>> Right on, Budster!
> > > >>> I'll see your 'can't be ' reason, and raise you...
> > > >>> 1) A player can't be GOAT unless they win slams on all competitiv=
e
> > > >>> surfaces at the time they play - removes everyone except Budge, L=
aver,
> > > >>> Agassi. Tough for all those who never got the chance, or it wasn'=
t
> > > >>> relevant, but hey-ho.
> > > >> If we're talking about surfaces there are many more players who ha=
ve won
> > > >> on clay and grass when there were no other surfaces...oh I guess t=
here
> > > >> was wood.
>
> > > >>> 2) They have a winning h2h against their main rival, at all times=
-
> > > >>> removes everyone. Tough for Laver since he beat Rosewall overall,=
but
> > > >>> lost in the early meetings. Hey-ho again.
> > > >> What crap?
> > > >> Laver won overall so what's the deal?
>
> > > > But Rosewall had the h2h advantage at the start of their meetings. =
He
> > > > only lost out because he was in his 30s for most of their match-ups=
.
>
> > > > If you are going to be 'greatest' you've got to beat everyone, all =
the
> > > > time. This isn't a Mickey Mouse title we are discussing.
>
> > > > Of course Nadal is already out of the running because Federer beat =
him
> > > > up when they first met on grass and HC. Beating Federer now, when h=
e
> > > > is getting old as a tennis player doesn't really count, does it? To=
o
> > > > easy.
>
> > > > So my criteria are very fair - they discriminate against everyone.
>
> > > > :-)
>
> > > Well a criteria that takes out everyone is rather useless...
>
> > > --
> > > "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> > > singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"
>
> > Well, it is two criteria.
>
> > And I would say tough, rather than useless.
>
> > We would not want to be picking criteria arbitrarily to reward
> > players, or playing styles, we like, would we?
>
> > :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If a player is losing in their 30s to a younger rival, then that's to
> be expected. If a 27 year old who used to be dominant player loses the
> majority of the time to his main younger rival in big matches, that's
> also acceptable. If that same 27-year-old goat candidate can get NO
> FURTHER WINS in big matches against that younger opponent then that's
> a problem legacy-wise imo. I'm not saying that's what will happen with
> the Fed-Nadal rivalry. Personally I think Fed will come back and get
> at least one win against Rafa at Wimby or USO. But I can't accept the
> idea that makes no difference to his legacy whether he does or not.

Jason, you've got an incredibly negative way of looking at legacies.
If I carry your logic to its conclusion then it is a big hit on
Sampras' legacy that he didn't have to deal with a young and thrusting
upstart of Nadal's ability.

So every champion's legacy is diminished by what they 'didn't' do,
rather than what they did. Well if we go down that tack, as I've said,
NONE of them deserve to be considered great(est).


  
Date: 04 Feb 2009 06:07:13
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 10:03=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 2 Feb, 14:40, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > topspin wrote:
> > > On 2 Feb, 14:26, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > >> topspin wrote:
> > >>> On 1 Feb, 19:59, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
> > >>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main =
rival."
> > >>>> Right on, Budster!
> > >>> I'll see your 'can't be ' reason, and raise you...
> > >>> 1) A player can't be GOAT unless they win slams on all competitive
> > >>> surfaces at the time they play - removes everyone except Budge, Lav=
er,
> > >>> Agassi. Tough for all those who never got the chance, or it wasn't
> > >>> relevant, but hey-ho.
> > >> If we're talking about surfaces there are many more players who have=
won
> > >> on clay and grass when there were no other surfaces...oh I guess the=
re
> > >> was wood.
>
> > >>> 2) They have a winning h2h against their main rival, at all times -
> > >>> removes everyone. Tough for Laver since he beat Rosewall overall, b=
ut
> > >>> lost in the early meetings. Hey-ho again.
> > >> What crap?
> > >> Laver won overall so what's the deal?
>
> > > But Rosewall had the h2h advantage at the start of their meetings. He
> > > only lost out because he was in his 30s for most of their match-ups.
>
> > > If you are going to be 'greatest' you've got to beat everyone, all th=
e
> > > time. This isn't a Mickey Mouse title we are discussing.
>
> > > Of course Nadal is already out of the running because Federer beat hi=
m
> > > up when they first met on grass and HC. Beating Federer now, when he
> > > is getting old as a tennis player doesn't really count, does it? Too
> > > easy.
>
> > > So my criteria are very fair - they discriminate against everyone.
>
> > > :-)
>
> > Well a criteria that takes out everyone is rather useless...
>
> > --
> > "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> > singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"
>
> Well, it is two criteria.
>
> And I would say tough, rather than useless.
>
> We would not want to be picking criteria arbitrarily to reward
> players, or playing styles, we like, would we?
>
> :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If a player is losing in their 30s to a younger rival, then that's to
be expected. If a 27 year old who used to be dominant player loses the
majority of the time to his main younger rival in big matches, that's
also acceptable. If that same 27-year-old goat candidate can get NO
FURTHER WINS in big matches against that younger opponent then that's
a problem legacy-wise imo. I'm not saying that's what will happen with
the Fed-Nadal rivalry. Personally I think Fed will come back and get
at least one win against Rafa at Wimby or USO. But I can't accept the
idea that makes no difference to his legacy whether he does or not.


  
Date: 04 Feb 2009 04:05:28
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 3, 2:31=A0pm, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
> > GOAT wrote:
> > >> If you are going to be 'greatest' you've got to beat everyone, all t=
he
> > >> time. This isn't a Mickey Mouse title we are discussing.
>
> > > So you are saying that the GOAT must have a 100% career record?
>
> > Ideally yes - like Rafa at FO.
>
> > However if that player doesn't exist it has to go to the next best
> > performed player - ie Sampras.
>
> Nope, one Semi (by Sappras) in *thirteen attempts*
> @ FO is a sorry-ass record for Lisper's purported GOAT.

Give Sampras credit for 14 slams but it would be foolish to talk about
Sampras being the best tennis player with his sorry French record.


   
Date: 04 Feb 2009 23:48:38
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
Fan wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2:31 pm, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> GOAT wrote:
>>>>> If you are going to be 'greatest' you've got to beat everyone, all the
>>>>> time. This isn't a Mickey Mouse title we are discussing.
>>>> So you are saying that the GOAT must have a 100% career record?
>>> Ideally yes - like Rafa at FO.
>>> However if that player doesn't exist it has to go to the next best
>>> performed player - ie Sampras.
>> Nope, one Semi (by Sappras) in *thirteen attempts*
>> @ FO is a sorry-ass record for Lisper's purported GOAT.
>
> Give Sampras credit for 14 slams but it would be foolish to talk about
> Sampras being the best tennis player with his sorry French record.


What about the most slams ever, most yr-end No.1's, most Wimbledons etc?

Can't think of any player who tops him.





    
Date: 04 Feb 2009 13:11:07
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 23:48:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Fan wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2:31 pm, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> GOAT wrote:
>>>>>> If you are going to be 'greatest' you've got to beat everyone, all the
>>>>>> time. This isn't a Mickey Mouse title we are discussing.
>>>>> So you are saying that the GOAT must have a 100% career record?
>>>> Ideally yes - like Rafa at FO.
>>>> However if that player doesn't exist it has to go to the next best
>>>> performed player - ie Sampras.
>>> Nope, one Semi (by Sappras) in *thirteen attempts*
>>> @ FO is a sorry-ass record for Lisper's purported GOAT.
>>
>> Give Sampras credit for 14 slams but it would be foolish to talk about
>> Sampras being the best tennis player with his sorry French record.
>
>
>What about the most slams ever, most yr-end No.1's, most Wimbledons etc?
>
>Can't think of any player who tops him.
>


Yes he "currently" posesses those things but that does not mean he was
the best player. It only means he had to lose 2.5 times as much to win
a few more. So, who was the BEST tennis player ?

The best player is NOT always the one who wins the most but the one
who plays the best tennis.

And, that's NOT Sampras. Several have played better tennis than him,
including Borg, Connors, Lendl and Federer.


     
Date: 05 Feb 2009 06:18:29
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
Superdave wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 23:48:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Fan wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 2:31 pm, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>> GOAT wrote:
>>>>>>> If you are going to be 'greatest' you've got to beat everyone, all the
>>>>>>> time. This isn't a Mickey Mouse title we are discussing.
>>>>>> So you are saying that the GOAT must have a 100% career record?
>>>>> Ideally yes - like Rafa at FO.
>>>>> However if that player doesn't exist it has to go to the next best
>>>>> performed player - ie Sampras.
>>>> Nope, one Semi (by Sappras) in *thirteen attempts*
>>>> @ FO is a sorry-ass record for Lisper's purported GOAT.
>>> Give Sampras credit for 14 slams but it would be foolish to talk about
>>> Sampras being the best tennis player with his sorry French record.
>>
>> What about the most slams ever, most yr-end No.1's, most Wimbledons etc?
>>
>> Can't think of any player who tops him.
>>
>
>
> Yes he "currently" posesses those things but that does not mean he was
> the best player. It only means he had to lose 2.5 times as much to win
> a few more. So, who was the BEST tennis player ?
>
> The best player is NOT always the one who wins the most but the one
> who plays the best tennis.
>
> And, that's NOT Sampras. Several have played better tennis than him,
> including Borg, Connors, Lendl and Federer.



Links?

Only a fucking lunatic would expect Borg to beat Sampras in a h2h battle
on court.



  
Date: 03 Feb 2009 05:31:55
From: Carey
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT


Whisper wrote:
> GOAT wrote:
> >> If you are going to be 'greatest' you've got to beat everyone, all the
> >> time. This isn't a Mickey Mouse title we are discussing.
> >>
> >
> > So you are saying that the GOAT must have a 100% career record?
> >
>
>
> Ideally yes - like Rafa at FO.
>
> However if that player doesn't exist it has to go to the next best
> performed player - ie Sampras.

Nope, one Semi (by Sappras) in *thirteen attempts*
@ FO is a sorry-ass record for Lisper's purported GOAT.


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 07:05:41
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On 2 Feb, 14:38, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> > If you are going to be 'greatest' you've got to beat everyone, all the
> > time. This isn't a Mickey Mouse title we are discussing.
>
> So you are saying that the GOAT must have a 100% career record?

Why not? It should be tough for such a great title.

And since no-one has achieved it yet, when someone does there can be
no accusation it was designed to reward someone I like.

:-)


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 07:03:30
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On 2 Feb, 14:40, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> topspin wrote:
> > On 2 Feb, 14:26, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> topspin wrote:
> >>> On 1 Feb, 19:59, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
> >>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."
> >>>> Right on, Budster!
> >>> I'll see your 'can't be ' reason, and raise you...
> >>> 1) A player can't be GOAT unless they win slams on all competitive
> >>> surfaces at the time they play - removes everyone except Budge, Laver,
> >>> Agassi. Tough for all those who never got the chance, or it wasn't
> >>> relevant, but hey-ho.
> >> If we're talking about surfaces there are many more players who have won
> >> on clay and grass when there were no other surfaces...oh I guess there
> >> was wood.
>
> >>> 2) They have a winning h2h against their main rival, at all times -
> >>> removes everyone. Tough for Laver since he beat Rosewall overall, but
> >>> lost in the early meetings. Hey-ho again.
> >> What crap?
> >> Laver won overall so what's the deal?
>
> > But Rosewall had the h2h advantage at the start of their meetings. He
> > only lost out because he was in his 30s for most of their match-ups.
>
> > If you are going to be 'greatest' you've got to beat everyone, all the
> > time. This isn't a Mickey Mouse title we are discussing.
>
> > Of course Nadal is already out of the running because Federer beat him
> > up when they first met on grass and HC. Beating Federer now, when he
> > is getting old as a tennis player doesn't really count, does it? Too
> > easy.
>
> > So my criteria are very fair - they discriminate against everyone.
>
> > :-)
>
> Well a criteria that takes out everyone is rather useless...
>
> --
> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"

Well, it is two criteria.

And I would say tough, rather than useless.

We would not want to be picking criteria arbitrarily to reward
players, or playing styles, we like, would we?

:-)


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 06:38:21
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT

>
> If you are going to be 'greatest' you've got to beat everyone, all the
> time. This isn't a Mickey Mouse title we are discussing.
>

So you are saying that the GOAT must have a 100% career record?



   
Date: 04 Feb 2009 00:06:07
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
GOAT wrote:
>> If you are going to be 'greatest' you've got to beat everyone, all the
>> time. This isn't a Mickey Mouse title we are discussing.
>>
>
> So you are saying that the GOAT must have a 100% career record?
>


Ideally yes - like Rafa at FO.

However if that player doesn't exist it has to go to the next best
performed player - ie Sampras.



  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 06:32:56
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On 2 Feb, 14:26, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> topspin wrote:
> > On 1 Feb, 19:59, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
> >> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."
>
> >> Right on, Budster!
>
> > I'll see your 'can't be ' reason, and raise you...
>
> > 1) A player can't be GOAT unless they win slams on all competitive
> > surfaces at the time they play - removes everyone except Budge, Laver,
> > Agassi. Tough for all those who never got the chance, or it wasn't
> > relevant, but hey-ho.
>
> If we're talking about surfaces there are many more players who have won
> on clay and grass when there were no other surfaces...oh I guess there
> was wood.
>
>
>
> > 2) They have a winning h2h against their main rival, at all times -
> > removes everyone. Tough for Laver since he beat Rosewall overall, but
> > lost in the early meetings. Hey-ho again.
>
> What crap?
> Laver won overall so what's the deal?

But Rosewall had the h2h advantage at the start of their meetings. He
only lost out because he was in his 30s for most of their match-ups.

If you are going to be 'greatest' you've got to beat everyone, all the
time. This isn't a Mickey Mouse title we are discussing.

Of course Nadal is already out of the running because Federer beat him
up when they first met on grass and HC. Beating Federer now, when he
is getting old as a tennis player doesn't really count, does it? Too
easy.

So my criteria are very fair - they discriminate against everyone.

:-)


   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 16:40:35
From: TT
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
topspin wrote:
> On 2 Feb, 14:26, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> topspin wrote:
>>> On 1 Feb, 19:59, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."
>>>> Right on, Budster!
>>> I'll see your 'can't be ' reason, and raise you...
>>> 1) A player can't be GOAT unless they win slams on all competitive
>>> surfaces at the time they play - removes everyone except Budge, Laver,
>>> Agassi. Tough for all those who never got the chance, or it wasn't
>>> relevant, but hey-ho.
>> If we're talking about surfaces there are many more players who have won
>> on clay and grass when there were no other surfaces...oh I guess there
>> was wood.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2) They have a winning h2h against their main rival, at all times -
>>> removes everyone. Tough for Laver since he beat Rosewall overall, but
>>> lost in the early meetings. Hey-ho again.
>> What crap?
>> Laver won overall so what's the deal?
>
> But Rosewall had the h2h advantage at the start of their meetings. He
> only lost out because he was in his 30s for most of their match-ups.
>
> If you are going to be 'greatest' you've got to beat everyone, all the
> time. This isn't a Mickey Mouse title we are discussing.
>
> Of course Nadal is already out of the running because Federer beat him
> up when they first met on grass and HC. Beating Federer now, when he
> is getting old as a tennis player doesn't really count, does it? Too
> easy.
>
> So my criteria are very fair - they discriminate against everyone.
>
> :-)

Well a criteria that takes out everyone is rather useless...

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 16:26:34
From: TT
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
topspin wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 19:59, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."
>>
>> Right on, Budster!
>
> I'll see your 'can't be ' reason, and raise you...
>
> 1) A player can't be GOAT unless they win slams on all competitive
> surfaces at the time they play - removes everyone except Budge, Laver,
> Agassi. Tough for all those who never got the chance, or it wasn't
> relevant, but hey-ho.

If we're talking about surfaces there are many more players who have won
on clay and grass when there were no other surfaces...oh I guess there
was wood.


>
> 2) They have a winning h2h against their main rival, at all times -
> removes everyone. Tough for Laver since he beat Rosewall overall, but
> lost in the early meetings. Hey-ho again.
>

What crap?
Laver won overall so what's the deal?


   
Date: 04 Feb 2009 11:29:15
From: guyana
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 4, 2:18=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Superdave wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 23:48:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Fan wrote:
> >>> On Feb 3, 2:31 pm, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> Whisper wrote:
> >>>>> GOAT wrote:
> >>>>>>> If you are going to be 'greatest' you've got to beat everyone, al=
l the
> >>>>>>> time. This isn't a Mickey Mouse title we are discussing.
> >>>>>> So you are saying that the GOAT must have a 100% career record?
> >>>>> Ideally yes - like Rafa at FO.
> >>>>> However if that player doesn't exist it has to go to the next best
> >>>>> performed player - ie Sampras.
> >>>> Nope, one Semi (by Sappras) in *thirteen attempts*
> >>>> @ FO is a sorry-ass record for Lisper's purported GOAT.
> >>> Give Sampras credit for 14 slams but it would be foolish to talk abou=
t
> >>> Sampras being the best tennis player with his sorry French record.
>
> >> What about the most slams ever, most yr-end No.1's, most Wimbledons et=
c?
>
> >> Can't think of any player who tops him.
>
> > Yes he "currently" posesses those things but that does not mean he was
> > the best player. It only means he had to lose 2.5 times as much to win
> > a few more. So, who was the BEST tennis player ?
>
> > The best player is NOT always the one who wins the most but the one
> > who plays the best tennis.
>
> > And, that's NOT Sampras. Several have played better tennis than him,
> > including Borg, Connors, Lendl and Federer.
>
> Links?
>
> Only a fucking lunatic would expect Borg to beat Sampras in a h2h battle
> on court.

Agreed. Laver and Pete are at the top with Fed and Rafa closing in!!


   
Date: 04 Feb 2009 05:46:26
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT

>
> And, that's NOT Sampras. Several have played better tennis than him,
> including Borg, Connors, Lendl and Federer.

Are you kidding? Of those only Fed has possibly played *better* tennis
than Sampras; the others were all monotonous baseliners.


 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 04:09:13
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 1, 7:59 pm, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com > wrote:
> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."
>
> Right on, Budster!

So true. All intelligent analysts have been saying this for some while.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:05:40
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On 1 feb, 17:59, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com > wrote:
> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."
>
> Right on, Budster!

Genial !


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:04:07
From: Gordon Cameron
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 1, 11:59=A0am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com > wrote:
> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."
>
> Right on, Budster!

Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?
Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
top player in the world than against some journeyman.

In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
each player has won. The rest fades away.


  
Date: 03 Feb 2009 06:26:23
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 3, 9:11=A0am, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 10:53=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2 Feb, 18:44, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 2, 7:35 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > > >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > > > >>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>> On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his=
main rival."
> > > > >>>>>> Right on, Budster!
> > > > >>>>> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Kr=
ajicek?
> > > > >>>>> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the=
other
> > > > >>>>> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
> > > > >>>>> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the=
titles
> > > > >>>>> each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
> > > > >>>> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. Th=
at's
> > > > >>>> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of=
one.
> > > > >>>> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
> > > > >>>> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Samp=
ras hit
> > > > >>>> 27 Agassi was already 28.
> > > > >>> Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djokov=
ic or a Murray.
> > > > >>> (that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him). =
Guys born in
> > > > >>> 74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't p=
lay, and 1 AO when
> > > > >>> Sampras retired.
> > > > >> Even so it doesn't mean those guys woulda troubled him unduly in=
the big
> > > > >> matches. =A0I just can't see what they have to hurt him at his p=
eak....?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > I don't think so either, and at the end of the day I the record w=
ill
> > > > > show that Sampras was never dominated
> > > > > by any of his main challengers while Fed was.
>
> > > > > But we go back to the same thing on this ng when it comes to goat
> > > > > arguments. Do we base it on absolute ability (subjective), domina=
nce
> > > > > over peers (not entirely subjective, but it quickly turns that wa=
y
> > > > > with questions of who had tougher opponents to deal with) or shee=
r
> > > > > numbers.
>
> > > > > You've been a consistent advocate of using sheer numbers with qua=
lity
> > > > > mix, with the argument that everything else is subjective. And as=
far
> > > > > as your ability, talent and achievement goat categories, the way =
I
> > > > > read it is that achievement goat is akin in importance to winning
> > > > > Wimbledon, ability goat is more like winning Hamburg and talent g=
oat
> > > > > is what? Abu Dhabi?
>
> > > > > So imo, Fed still has a great shot at the ultimate in tennis - wi=
nning
> > > > > the most big titles. All he has to do now is stick around as the =
#2 or
> > > > > #3 player and capitalize on his opportunities when they present
> > > > > themselves (read: Nadal loses earlier in the tournament) and at t=
he
> > > > > end he'll have as good as or a better goat resume than anyone.
>
> > > > True - but that anomaly where a guy racks up biggest historical num=
bers
> > > > yet at same time has his arse handed to him by just 1 guy can't be
> > > > explained by 1 definition of goat. =A0
>
> > > Very true. Just like the anomaly where a guy racks up big numbers and
> > > gets his arse handed to him by several nonentities on several
> > > surfaces...
>
> > > Like I say, the greatest has to
>
> > > 1) win on all competitive surfaces
> > > 2) beat all comers, at all times.
>
> > > No exceptions.
>
> > > :-)-
>
> > ++ Jack Nicklaus lost head to head to Tom Watson 3 times in the only
> > epic head to head matches where they finished 1-2 in majors... the
> > 1977 Open Championship at Turnberry... 1981 Masters... 1984 US Open...
> > and Nicklaus finished with 18 majors, Watson 8... NO ONE puts Watson
> > ahead of Jack... but Jack couldn't take out Watson when it was mano et
> > mano for a major... Tom was Mr. Clutch and loved the scrap against the
> > great Nicklaus... there are ALWAYS exceptions...
>
> > Joe Louis and Max Schmeling in boxing... each knocked out the other in
> > title fights... BUT NO ONE puts Schmeling over Louis as a great
> > heavyweight champion... there are always exceptions...
>
> > Who knows... perhaps Rafa will win 15 or 16 slams and then the record
> > will match the ranting rhetoric...
>
> > P
>
> Excellent, historically informed post; so rare around here. =A0Looking
> forward though to Catlin's player-to-come, who will win 20+ (tennis,
> now)
> =A0Majors and dominate the game for 15-25 years... :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

OK, now you're taking what I said a bit out of context so let me
clarify. Of course, I realize there
are differences in the typical career of a golfer compared with a
tennis player. In golf, it's harder to be
dominant over a 5-year span because you have no control over what your
opponent does. (Tiger can play a
great tournament, like he did at 2002 PGA and he still loses because
Rich Beam pulls driver on every hole and
gets hot for one lucky tournament). But balancing that out, golfers
can play for a much longer period of time. If Nicklaus can win the
Masters at age 46, then I fully expect Tiger to do the same. If he
can't and is instead outclassed by a new generation of hotshots or his
own game falls off for some reason then Jack would have the edge in
that aspect of their legacies. Obviously a tennis player is not going
to dominate for 15 years because of the incredibly physical nature of
the sport.

So, as far as what I'm looking for in my "second coming" tennis
player :) I'm expecting that during my lifetime someone will pull off
the CYGS during their peak, meaning proving they're the best player in
the world on every single surface (by the way Rafa's the closest to
that right now that I've seen in 30 years of watching tennis, but I do
want to see him win the USO since that's a faster hard court). That
player also will prove that he can hold his own with the next
generation's best player(s). With regard to Fed, he was incredibly
dominant at peak but he has that *clay hole* in his resume just like
Sampras, though he was obviously better on clay than Pete. He's also
struggling at the moment with Rafa on grass and hard, but that's not
over yet. He can still come back strong later this year by winning
Wimby or USO. Beating Rafa in the final would be even sweeter. I just
don't think 27 is too old to expect him to at least get another big
win over Nadal in one of those two tournaments. I understand people
can disagree with that, but I think they should *respectfully*
disagree because I'm not mocking their viewpoints and, imo, there's
nothing outrageous or disparaging about my comments.


  
Date: 03 Feb 2009 06:11:49
From: Carey
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT


Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Feb 2, 10:53=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2 Feb, 18:44, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Feb 2, 7:35 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > > >>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>> On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his m=
ain rival."
> > > >>>>>> Right on, Budster!
> > > >>>>> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Kraj=
icek?
> > > >>>>> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the o=
ther
> > > >>>>> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
> > > >>>>> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the t=
itles
> > > >>>>> each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
> > > >>>> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That=
's
> > > >>>> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of o=
ne.
> > > >>>> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
> > > >>>> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampra=
s hit
> > > >>>> 27 Agassi was already 28.
> > > >>> Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djokovic=
or a Murray.
> > > >>> (that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him). Gu=
ys born in
> > > >>> 74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't pla=
y, and 1 AO when
> > > >>> Sampras retired.
> > > >> Even so it doesn't mean those guys woulda troubled him unduly in t=
he big
> > > >> matches. =A0I just can't see what they have to hurt him at his pea=
k....?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > I don't think so either, and at the end of the day I the record wil=
l
> > > > show that Sampras was never dominated
> > > > by any of his main challengers while Fed was.
> >
> > > > But we go back to the same thing on this ng when it comes to goat
> > > > arguments. Do we base it on absolute ability (subjective), dominanc=
e
> > > > over peers (not entirely subjective, but it quickly turns that way
> > > > with questions of who had tougher opponents to deal with) or sheer
> > > > numbers.
> >
> > > > You've been a consistent advocate of using sheer numbers with quali=
ty
> > > > mix, with the argument that everything else is subjective. And as f=
ar
> > > > as your ability, talent and achievement goat categories, the way I
> > > > read it is that achievement goat is akin in importance to winning
> > > > Wimbledon, ability goat is more like winning Hamburg and talent goa=
t
> > > > is what? Abu Dhabi?
> >
> > > > So imo, Fed still has a great shot at the ultimate in tennis - winn=
ing
> > > > the most big titles. All he has to do now is stick around as the #2=
or
> > > > #3 player and capitalize on his opportunities when they present
> > > > themselves (read: Nadal loses earlier in the tournament) and at the
> > > > end he'll have as good as or a better goat resume than anyone.
> >
> > > True - but that anomaly where a guy racks up biggest historical numbe=
rs
> > > yet at same time has his arse handed to him by just 1 guy can't be
> > > explained by 1 definition of goat. =A0
> >
> > Very true. Just like the anomaly where a guy racks up big numbers and
> > gets his arse handed to him by several nonentities on several
> > surfaces...
> >
> > Like I say, the greatest has to
> >
> > 1) win on all competitive surfaces
> > 2) beat all comers, at all times.
> >
> > No exceptions.
> >
> > :-)-
>
> ++ Jack Nicklaus lost head to head to Tom Watson 3 times in the only
> epic head to head matches where they finished 1-2 in majors... the
> 1977 Open Championship at Turnberry... 1981 Masters... 1984 US Open...
> and Nicklaus finished with 18 majors, Watson 8... NO ONE puts Watson
> ahead of Jack... but Jack couldn't take out Watson when it was mano et
> mano for a major... Tom was Mr. Clutch and loved the scrap against the
> great Nicklaus... there are ALWAYS exceptions...
>
> Joe Louis and Max Schmeling in boxing... each knocked out the other in
> title fights... BUT NO ONE puts Schmeling over Louis as a great
> heavyweight champion... there are always exceptions...
>
> Who knows... perhaps Rafa will win 15 or 16 slams and then the record
> will match the ranting rhetoric...
>
> P

Excellent, historically informed post; so rare around here. Looking
forward though to Catlin's player-to-come, who will win 20+ (tennis,
now)
Majors and dominate the game for 15-25 years... :)


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 17:11:35
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 4:51=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:
> On Feb 2, 10:53=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 Feb, 18:44, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Feb 2, 7:35 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > > >>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>> On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his m=
ain rival."
> > > >>>>>> Right on, Budster!
> > > >>>>> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Kraj=
icek?
> > > >>>>> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the o=
ther
> > > >>>>> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
> > > >>>>> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the t=
itles
> > > >>>>> each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
> > > >>>> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That=
's
> > > >>>> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of o=
ne.
> > > >>>> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
> > > >>>> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampra=
s hit
> > > >>>> 27 Agassi was already 28.
> > > >>> Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djokovic=
or a Murray.
> > > >>> (that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him). Gu=
ys born in
> > > >>> 74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't pla=
y, and 1 AO when
> > > >>> Sampras retired.
> > > >> Even so it doesn't mean those guys woulda troubled him unduly in t=
he big
> > > >> matches. =A0I just can't see what they have to hurt him at his pea=
k....?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > I don't think so either, and at the end of the day I the record wil=
l
> > > > show that Sampras was never dominated
> > > > by any of his main challengers while Fed was.
>
> > > > But we go back to the same thing on this ng when it comes to goat
> > > > arguments. Do we base it on absolute ability (subjective), dominanc=
e
> > > > over peers (not entirely subjective, but it quickly turns that way
> > > > with questions of who had tougher opponents to deal with) or sheer
> > > > numbers.
>
> > > > You've been a consistent advocate of using sheer numbers with quali=
ty
> > > > mix, with the argument that everything else is subjective. And as f=
ar
> > > > as your ability, talent and achievement goat categories, the way I
> > > > read it is that achievement goat is akin in importance to winning
> > > > Wimbledon, ability goat is more like winning Hamburg and talent goa=
t
> > > > is what? Abu Dhabi?
>
> > > > So imo, Fed still has a great shot at the ultimate in tennis - winn=
ing
> > > > the most big titles. All he has to do now is stick around as the #2=
or
> > > > #3 player and capitalize on his opportunities when they present
> > > > themselves (read: Nadal loses earlier in the tournament) and at the
> > > > end he'll have as good as or a better goat resume than anyone.
>
> > > True - but that anomaly where a guy racks up biggest historical numbe=
rs
> > > yet at same time has his arse handed to him by just 1 guy can't be
> > > explained by 1 definition of goat. =A0
>
> > Very true. Just like the anomaly where a guy racks up big numbers and
> > gets his arse handed to him by several nonentities on several
> > surfaces...
>
> > Like I say, the greatest has to
>
> > 1) win on all competitive surfaces
> > 2) beat all comers, at all times.
>
> > No exceptions.
>
> > :-)-
>
> ++ Jack Nicklaus lost head to head to Tom Watson 3 times in the only
> epic head to head matches where they finished 1-2 in majors... the
> 1977 Open Championship at Turnberry... 1981 Masters... 1984 US Open...
> and Nicklaus finished with 18 majors, Watson 8... NO ONE puts Watson
> ahead of Jack... but Jack couldn't take out Watson when it was mano et
> mano for a major... Tom was Mr. Clutch and loved the scrap against the
> great Nicklaus... there are ALWAYS exceptions...
>
> Joe Louis and Max Schmeling in boxing... each knocked out the other in
> title fights... BUT NO ONE puts Schmeling over Louis as a great
> heavyweight champion... there are always exceptions...
>
> Who knows... perhaps Rafa will win 15 or 16 slams and then the record
> will match the ranting rhetoric...
>
> P- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well not a title fight in 1936 but a big fight... they were 1 and 1

P


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 16:53:19
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 12:13=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 3:08=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 1:53=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 2 Feb, 18:44, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 2, 7:35 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > > >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > > > >>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>> On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his=
main rival."
> > > > >>>>>> Right on, Budster!
> > > > >>>>> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Kr=
ajicek?
> > > > >>>>> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the=
other
> > > > >>>>> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
> > > > >>>>> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the=
titles
> > > > >>>>> each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
> > > > >>>> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. Th=
at's
> > > > >>>> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of=
one.
> > > > >>>> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
> > > > >>>> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Samp=
ras hit
> > > > >>>> 27 Agassi was already 28.
> > > > >>> Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djokov=
ic or a Murray.
> > > > >>> (that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him). =
Guys born in
> > > > >>> 74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't p=
lay, and 1 AO when
> > > > >>> Sampras retired.
> > > > >> Even so it doesn't mean those guys woulda troubled him unduly in=
the big
> > > > >> matches. =A0I just can't see what they have to hurt him at his p=
eak....?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > I don't think so either, and at the end of the day I the record w=
ill
> > > > > show that Sampras was never dominated
> > > > > by any of his main challengers while Fed was.
>
> > > > > But we go back to the same thing on this ng when it comes to goat
> > > > > arguments. Do we base it on absolute ability (subjective), domina=
nce
> > > > > over peers (not entirely subjective, but it quickly turns that wa=
y
> > > > > with questions of who had tougher opponents to deal with) or shee=
r
> > > > > numbers.
>
> > > > > You've been a consistent advocate of using sheer numbers with qua=
lity
> > > > > mix, with the argument that everything else is subjective. And as=
far
> > > > > as your ability, talent and achievement goat categories, the way =
I
> > > > > read it is that achievement goat is akin in importance to winning
> > > > > Wimbledon, ability goat is more like winning Hamburg and talent g=
oat
> > > > > is what? Abu Dhabi?
>
> > > > > So imo, Fed still has a great shot at the ultimate in tennis - wi=
nning
> > > > > the most big titles. All he has to do now is stick around as the =
#2 or
> > > > > #3 player and capitalize on his opportunities when they present
> > > > > themselves (read: Nadal loses earlier in the tournament) and at t=
he
> > > > > end he'll have as good as or a better goat resume than anyone.
>
> > > > True - but that anomaly where a guy racks up biggest historical num=
bers
> > > > yet at same time has his arse handed to him by just 1 guy can't be
> > > > explained by 1 definition of goat. =A0
>
> > > Very true. Just like the anomaly where a guy racks up big numbers and
> > > gets his arse handed to him by several nonentities on several
> > > surfaces...
>
> > If you're referring to Sampras, in my view Fed's problems with Nadal
> > are much more significant than Pete losing
> > in a Slam to Yzaga or Karel Kucera or Korda, for the simple reason
> > that only the most serious tennis fan is going to ever remember those
> > odd losses by Sampras, which in the case of Yzaga had much to do with
> > his poor prep for the tournament IIRC. The matches that had all the
> > hype surrounding them and that people will remember - Pete's matches
> > with Andre at Wimby, USO - were all won by Pete. But I admit that
> > that's just my personal preference and certainly doesn't eliminate
> > Roger from goat discussions by any means.
>
> > Of course, Sampras' lack of success on clay is a big problem.- Hide quo=
ted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Just to clarify a bit more, if Roger retired tomorrow, he would be
> viewed as a brilliant all-court player who dominated the sport for a
> four year period like few in tennis history. But he would also be
> remembered for losing repeatedly in big matches to his biggest rival.
>
> Sampras, in my view, is regarded as the undisputed best of his era,
> arguably Wimbledon goat and one of the great servers of all time. He
> also is known for not being able to win - or even make the final of -
> the French. IMO, odd losses on hard or grass will be completely
> forgotten.

++ That's about right...

P



  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 16:51:22
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 10:53=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 2 Feb, 18:44, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 7:35 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > >>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >>>> On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his mai=
n rival."
> > >>>>>> Right on, Budster!
> > >>>>> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajic=
ek?
> > >>>>> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the oth=
er
> > >>>>> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
> > >>>>> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the tit=
les
> > >>>>> each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
> > >>>> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
> > >>>> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one=
.
> > >>>> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
> > >>>> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras =
hit
> > >>>> 27 Agassi was already 28.
> > >>> Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djokovic o=
r a Murray.
> > >>> (that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him). Guys=
born in
> > >>> 74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't play,=
and 1 AO when
> > >>> Sampras retired.
> > >> Even so it doesn't mean those guys woulda troubled him unduly in the=
big
> > >> matches. =A0I just can't see what they have to hurt him at his peak.=
...?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I don't think so either, and at the end of the day I the record will
> > > show that Sampras was never dominated
> > > by any of his main challengers while Fed was.
>
> > > But we go back to the same thing on this ng when it comes to goat
> > > arguments. Do we base it on absolute ability (subjective), dominance
> > > over peers (not entirely subjective, but it quickly turns that way
> > > with questions of who had tougher opponents to deal with) or sheer
> > > numbers.
>
> > > You've been a consistent advocate of using sheer numbers with quality
> > > mix, with the argument that everything else is subjective. And as far
> > > as your ability, talent and achievement goat categories, the way I
> > > read it is that achievement goat is akin in importance to winning
> > > Wimbledon, ability goat is more like winning Hamburg and talent goat
> > > is what? Abu Dhabi?
>
> > > So imo, Fed still has a great shot at the ultimate in tennis - winnin=
g
> > > the most big titles. All he has to do now is stick around as the #2 o=
r
> > > #3 player and capitalize on his opportunities when they present
> > > themselves (read: Nadal loses earlier in the tournament) and at the
> > > end he'll have as good as or a better goat resume than anyone.
>
> > True - but that anomaly where a guy racks up biggest historical numbers
> > yet at same time has his arse handed to him by just 1 guy can't be
> > explained by 1 definition of goat. =A0
>
> Very true. Just like the anomaly where a guy racks up big numbers and
> gets his arse handed to him by several nonentities on several
> surfaces...
>
> Like I say, the greatest has to
>
> 1) win on all competitive surfaces
> 2) beat all comers, at all times.
>
> No exceptions.
>
> :-)-

++ Jack Nicklaus lost head to head to Tom Watson 3 times in the only
epic head to head matches where they finished 1-2 in majors... the
1977 Open Championship at Turnberry... 1981 Masters... 1984 US Open...
and Nicklaus finished with 18 majors, Watson 8... NO ONE puts Watson
ahead of Jack... but Jack couldn't take out Watson when it was mano et
mano for a major... Tom was Mr. Clutch and loved the scrap against the
great Nicklaus... there are ALWAYS exceptions...

Joe Louis and Max Schmeling in boxing... each knocked out the other in
title fights... BUT NO ONE puts Schmeling over Louis as a great
heavyweight champion... there are always exceptions...

Who knows... perhaps Rafa will win 15 or 16 slams and then the record
will match the ranting rhetoric...

P


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 12:46:15
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 3:37=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2:30=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Didn't he also lose to Agassi in AO 1995?
>
> > Yes, but I'd say in their big, big matches for their career it was
> > Sampras 6 Agassi 2, with both of Agassi's wins
> > coming at AO.
>
> What do you mean by big matches? An AO final isn't big? Rafa didn't
> win a big match against Federer two days ago?

Yes, of course it is. I said Agassi won 2 big matches over Pete at AO.
I suppose you could argue the 92 French
as well, but that match is easily forgotten since Courier trounced
Andre in the next round.


   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 17:53:11
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 3:37 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2:30 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > Didn't he also lose to Agassi in AO 1995?
>>
>> > Yes, but I'd say in their big, big matches for their career it was
>> > Sampras 6 Agassi 2, with both of Agassi's wins
>> > coming at AO.
>>
>> What do you mean by big matches? An AO final isn't big? Rafa didn't
>> win a big match against Federer two days ago?
>
> Yes, of course it is. I said Agassi won 2 big matches over Pete at AO.
> I suppose you could argue the 92 French
> as well, but that match is easily forgotten since Courier trounced
> Andre in the next round.

Why would you forget the outcome of one match based on the outcome of the next
one? So Roddick didn't get his ass handed to him in the SF because Federer
lost the final? WTF?


    
Date: 04 Feb 2009 04:12:07
From: guyana
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 4, 6:43=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> chrisf wrote:
> > Javier Gonzalez wrote on 2/3/2009 9:38 AM:
> >> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> That's a fair point. Again, Wimby and USO will be huge this year. Fe=
d
> >>>> has a chance to get back his beloved Wimby title and defend his turf
> >>>> in New York. This isn't over yet and I'm looking forward to seeing F=
ed
> >>>> come back swinging in those two events. FO, imo, is a completely los=
t
> >>>> cause unless Nadal gets injured.
>
> >>> It was only a yr ago Haze was saying Fed was a better claycourter
> >>> than Rafa.
>
> >> So? It seems to me like you're the only guy here who takes Hazelwood
> >> seriously.
>
> > Whisper and Hazelwood need each other, they complete each other.
>
> > The difference is that Whisper tries to be a prick on purpose. Hazelwoo=
d
> > is borderline mentally unstable.
>
> Borderline? =A0Shit, hate to see him over the edge.
Whereishehiding?????


    
Date: 04 Feb 2009 00:53:59
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 2, 3:37 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 2:30 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Didn't he also lose to Agassi in AO 1995?
>>>> Yes, but I'd say in their big, big matches for their career it was
>>>> Sampras 6 Agassi 2, with both of Agassi's wins
>>>> coming at AO.
>>> What do you mean by big matches? An AO final isn't big? Rafa didn't
>>> win a big match against Federer two days ago?
>> Yes, of course it is. I said Agassi won 2 big matches over Pete at AO.
>> I suppose you could argue the 92 French
>> as well, but that match is easily forgotten since Courier trounced
>> Andre in the next round.
>
> Why would you forget the outcome of one match based on the outcome of the next
> one? So Roddick didn't get his ass handed to him in the SF because Federer
> lost the final? WTF?


I think the point is Agassi did not deprive Sampras of FO based on
losing that match, & Agassi wasn't remotely close to winning that FO -
ie essentially poor form from both guys by their standards.


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 12:37:35
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 3, 2:30=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Didn't he also lose to Agassi in AO 1995?
>
> Yes, but I'd say in their big, big matches for their career it was
> Sampras 6 Agassi 2, with both of Agassi's wins
> coming at AO.

What do you mean by big matches? An AO final isn't big? Rafa didn't
win a big match against Federer two days ago?



   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 16:50:20
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 6:10=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> No, I know many people agree with you, especially in rst. And you make
> your points much better than most of them.
>
> But the basic thing is that had Federer lost in 3rd round of FO every
> year he lost to Nadal in the F or SF, and had he lost to Berdych at
> this AO, he would still have 13 slams, so for the people who just
> count slam wins his record would be exactly the same, but his record
> against Nadal would be much better. But I just can't think that he
> would be a greater player by losing earlier many times. In fact, his
> three FO finals are a huge factor when I think about his career as a
> whole.
>
> Then there is this fashionable question "can he be GOAT if he loses to
> one guy all the time?" First of all, I don't believe in GOATs, but to
> me it seems clear. When Fed was peak, and Nadal was not yet peak, Fed
> beat him off-clay. When Nadal is peak, and Fed is over peak, Nadal has
> beaten him twice now off-clay. I don't see that as a big negative in
> his career. He can still make finals and have close matches against
> current #1. Of course if he wins a couple of slam finals against Nadal
> still, his legacy would be even better as you say.

What you say is perfectly valid and I myself have struggled with this
cognitive dissonance - how can having poorer results on clay and
effective avoiding Nadal and ending up with a better head to head
makes Fed a greater player? But ultimately it comes down to this -
perception is bigger than reality itself, and the repeated defeats to
Nadal has given the perception that Nadal is clearly the better
player, regardless of the surface. If Fed had a head to head of 5-3
(never meeting on clay and losing to Safin at Wim and Berdych at AO),
the general perception would have been that Fed is past his peak (how
else do you explain defeats to guys he has owned like Berdych and
Safin?). Plus, we would have remembered that Fed beat Nadal with ease
in their last hardcout meeting (YEC 2007) and that Nadal is simply
taking advantage of a fading Federer (just like say Agassi around
1999-2000 when he also held 3 slams). Its my opinion that these
defeats have completely taken Fed out of any GOAT discussion, frankly
they have cemented him as the SECOND best player of his own era. Dig
thru any of the articles today after the AO final and you will see a
common theme - how Fed has been prematurely given GOAT status, how
Nadal is a better player and if he stays fit shall eclipse Fed and
Sampras both etc). The only way Fed gets back into the GOAT discussion
is by beating Nadal the next few times (say Wimby and USO) - the road
to GOAThood for Fed must now go thru Nadal...


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 12:30:10
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 3:23=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2:13=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 3:08=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2, 1:53=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 2 Feb, 18:44, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 2, 7:35 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > > > > >>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>>> On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrot=
e:
> > > > > >>>>> On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat h=
is main rival."
> > > > > >>>>>> Right on, Budster!
> > > > > >>>>> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat =
Krajicek?
> > > > > >>>>> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against t=
he other
> > > > > >>>>> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
> > > > > >>>>> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are t=
he titles
> > > > > >>>>> each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
> > > > > >>>> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. =
That's
> > > > > >>>> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part =
of one.
> > > > > >>>> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
> > > > > >>>> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sa=
mpras hit
> > > > > >>>> 27 Agassi was already 28.
> > > > > >>> Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djok=
ovic or a Murray.
> > > > > >>> (that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him)=
. Guys born in
> > > > > >>> 74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't=
play, and 1 AO when
> > > > > >>> Sampras retired.
> > > > > >> Even so it doesn't mean those guys woulda troubled him unduly =
in the big
> > > > > >> matches. =A0I just can't see what they have to hurt him at his=
peak....?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > I don't think so either, and at the end of the day I the record=
will
> > > > > > show that Sampras was never dominated
> > > > > > by any of his main challengers while Fed was.
>
> > > > > > But we go back to the same thing on this ng when it comes to go=
at
> > > > > > arguments. Do we base it on absolute ability (subjective), domi=
nance
> > > > > > over peers (not entirely subjective, but it quickly turns that =
way
> > > > > > with questions of who had tougher opponents to deal with) or sh=
eer
> > > > > > numbers.
>
> > > > > > You've been a consistent advocate of using sheer numbers with q=
uality
> > > > > > mix, with the argument that everything else is subjective. And =
as far
> > > > > > as your ability, talent and achievement goat categories, the wa=
y I
> > > > > > read it is that achievement goat is akin in importance to winni=
ng
> > > > > > Wimbledon, ability goat is more like winning Hamburg and talent=
goat
> > > > > > is what? Abu Dhabi?
>
> > > > > > So imo, Fed still has a great shot at the ultimate in tennis - =
winning
> > > > > > the most big titles. All he has to do now is stick around as th=
e #2 or
> > > > > > #3 player and capitalize on his opportunities when they present
> > > > > > themselves (read: Nadal loses earlier in the tournament) and at=
the
> > > > > > end he'll have as good as or a better goat resume than anyone.
>
> > > > > True - but that anomaly where a guy racks up biggest historical n=
umbers
> > > > > yet at same time has his arse handed to him by just 1 guy can't b=
e
> > > > > explained by 1 definition of goat. =A0
>
> > > > Very true. Just like the anomaly where a guy racks up big numbers a=
nd
> > > > gets his arse handed to him by several nonentities on several
> > > > surfaces...
>
> > > If you're referring to Sampras, in my view Fed's problems with Nadal
> > > are much more significant than Pete losing
> > > in a Slam to Yzaga or Karel Kucera or Korda, for the simple reason
> > > that only the most serious tennis fan is going to ever remember those
> > > odd losses by Sampras, which in the case of Yzaga had much to do with
> > > his poor prep for the tournament IIRC. The matches that had all the
> > > hype surrounding them and that people will remember - Pete's matches
> > > with Andre at Wimby, USO - were all won by Pete. But I admit that
> > > that's just my personal preference and certainly doesn't eliminate
> > > Roger from goat discussions by any means.
>
> > > Of course, Sampras' lack of success on clay is a big problem.- Hide q=
uoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Just to clarify a bit more, if Roger retired tomorrow, he would be
> > viewed as a brilliant all-court player who dominated the sport for a
> > four year period like few in tennis history. But he would also be
> > remembered for losing repeatedly in big matches to his biggest rival.
>
> What happened in Wimby 2006-2007?

In Wimby 2006, Fed was such a huge favorite going in that anything but
a win would've been a complete
disaster. I recall Bjorkman saying that he expected Fed to beat Rafa
just as easily as he beat everybody
else that tournament and that didn't happen. 2007 of course was a
great win in a huge match. But my post
was less about what I think about how these players *should* be viewed
and more about how I think they *will* be
viewed. Again that's just my opinion too :)

> > Sampras, in my view, is regarded as the undisputed best of his era,
> > arguably Wimbledon goat and one of the great servers of all time.
>
> Sure, but his biggest rival Agassi went AWOL for a couple of years,
> basically started from scratch again in mid-career. Imagine if Rafa
> had a two-year long hiatus in 2008-2009? How many slams would Federer
> have racked up?
>
> > He
> > also is known for not being able to win - or even make the final of -
> > the French. IMO, odd losses on hard or grass will be completely
> > forgotten.
>
> Didn't he also lose to Agassi in AO 1995?

Yes, but I'd say in their big, big matches for their career it was
Sampras 6 Agassi 2, with both of Agassi's wins
coming at AO.



  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 12:23:10
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 3, 2:13=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 3:08=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 1:53=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 2 Feb, 18:44, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 2, 7:35 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > > >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > > > >>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>>> On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his=
main rival."
> > > > >>>>>> Right on, Budster!
> > > > >>>>> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Kr=
ajicek?
> > > > >>>>> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the=
other
> > > > >>>>> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
> > > > >>>>> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the=
titles
> > > > >>>>> each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
> > > > >>>> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. Th=
at's
> > > > >>>> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of=
one.
> > > > >>>> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
> > > > >>>> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Samp=
ras hit
> > > > >>>> 27 Agassi was already 28.
> > > > >>> Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djokov=
ic or a Murray.
> > > > >>> (that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him). =
Guys born in
> > > > >>> 74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't p=
lay, and 1 AO when
> > > > >>> Sampras retired.
> > > > >> Even so it doesn't mean those guys woulda troubled him unduly in=
the big
> > > > >> matches. =A0I just can't see what they have to hurt him at his p=
eak....?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > I don't think so either, and at the end of the day I the record w=
ill
> > > > > show that Sampras was never dominated
> > > > > by any of his main challengers while Fed was.
>
> > > > > But we go back to the same thing on this ng when it comes to goat
> > > > > arguments. Do we base it on absolute ability (subjective), domina=
nce
> > > > > over peers (not entirely subjective, but it quickly turns that wa=
y
> > > > > with questions of who had tougher opponents to deal with) or shee=
r
> > > > > numbers.
>
> > > > > You've been a consistent advocate of using sheer numbers with qua=
lity
> > > > > mix, with the argument that everything else is subjective. And as=
far
> > > > > as your ability, talent and achievement goat categories, the way =
I
> > > > > read it is that achievement goat is akin in importance to winning
> > > > > Wimbledon, ability goat is more like winning Hamburg and talent g=
oat
> > > > > is what? Abu Dhabi?
>
> > > > > So imo, Fed still has a great shot at the ultimate in tennis - wi=
nning
> > > > > the most big titles. All he has to do now is stick around as the =
#2 or
> > > > > #3 player and capitalize on his opportunities when they present
> > > > > themselves (read: Nadal loses earlier in the tournament) and at t=
he
> > > > > end he'll have as good as or a better goat resume than anyone.
>
> > > > True - but that anomaly where a guy racks up biggest historical num=
bers
> > > > yet at same time has his arse handed to him by just 1 guy can't be
> > > > explained by 1 definition of goat. =A0
>
> > > Very true. Just like the anomaly where a guy racks up big numbers and
> > > gets his arse handed to him by several nonentities on several
> > > surfaces...
>
> > If you're referring to Sampras, in my view Fed's problems with Nadal
> > are much more significant than Pete losing
> > in a Slam to Yzaga or Karel Kucera or Korda, for the simple reason
> > that only the most serious tennis fan is going to ever remember those
> > odd losses by Sampras, which in the case of Yzaga had much to do with
> > his poor prep for the tournament IIRC. The matches that had all the
> > hype surrounding them and that people will remember - Pete's matches
> > with Andre at Wimby, USO - were all won by Pete. But I admit that
> > that's just my personal preference and certainly doesn't eliminate
> > Roger from goat discussions by any means.
>
> > Of course, Sampras' lack of success on clay is a big problem.- Hide quo=
ted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Just to clarify a bit more, if Roger retired tomorrow, he would be
> viewed as a brilliant all-court player who dominated the sport for a
> four year period like few in tennis history. But he would also be
> remembered for losing repeatedly in big matches to his biggest rival.
>

What happened in Wimby 2006-2007?

> Sampras, in my view, is regarded as the undisputed best of his era,
> arguably Wimbledon goat and one of the great servers of all time.

Sure, but his biggest rival Agassi went AWOL for a couple of years,
basically started from scratch again in mid-career. Imagine if Rafa
had a two-year long hiatus in 2008-2009? How many slams would Federer
have racked up?

> He
> also is known for not being able to win - or even make the final of -
> the French. IMO, odd losses on hard or grass will be completely
> forgotten.

Didn't he also lose to Agassi in AO 1995?


   
Date: 03 Feb 2009 07:15:52
From: guyana
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 3, 9:47=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:07=A0am, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this juncture. H=
e
> > > is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's at his absolut=
e
> > > peak so it's only expected that he would lose badly to Rafa on Rafa's
> > > best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok. Maybe even losing i=
n
> > > the AO final is excusable because it's a slow hard court. But I think
> > > at some point if they meet again at Wimby or USO, Fed *needs* one of
> > > these. No matter what he'll go down as one of the greatest ever, but
> > > his legacy will be even better if he can come back fighting and win
> > > one of these big matches against Rafa.
>
> > > Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you assume I'm
> > > posting this from an insane asylum but I really think there are a lot
> > > of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.
>
> > Whether there are "a lot of tennis fans and tennis writers who would
> > agree with me" [Catlin] is meaningless. Your ostensible argument has
> > to stand or fall on its own merits, if is has any. =A0Get a grip.
>
> I doubt that you think my arguments have no merit. Basically all I'm
> saying is that I think
> Fed is facing a huge challenge and it will be better for his legacy if
> he responds. It's probably very likely
> that to get 14 or 15 he'll have to go through Nadal to do it, and if
> he does beat Rafa in the Wimby or USO final this year that will go a
> long way to shutting up the naysayers. If he can't beat Rafa again in
> a big event, he will be remembered for not being able to overcome that
> challenge, along with all the positive things he's remembered for.
>
> Peter Bodo just wrote a good article talking about what Fed needs to
> do overcome the Rafa challenge. I'm sure you're furious with that
> article because what a waste of bandwidth talking about something so
> trivial as Fed's struggles with Rafa?
>
> > Your pretensions to a lack of bias only weaken your case.
> > Everyone has biases; whether one is able to recognize and attempt to
> > account for them is the question. Mr Catlin
> > seems to attempt to account for them with what was once
> > called earnestness, not to be confused with honesty.
> > To quote an old Scottish friend: "it's not workin', is it?"-
>
> So you'd prefer I just trash Fed at every occasion and come up with a
> bunch of bullshit arguments as to why
> Rafa's already greater than Fed in historical terms or why Fed's
> chance at GOAThood is lost forever like many on
> this ng have already done? Or maybe I should talk ad-nauseum about the
> *clown era* that Fed played in and say he woulda won 2 or 3 Slams max
> in another era? Just so I don't weaken my case with my *pretensions to
> a lack of bias"

Good post very logical, we should wait a year or two and see how Fed
and Rafa do against Murray, Verdasco or even Novak, Tsonga and who
knows is in the wings??


   
Date: 03 Feb 2009 06:47:41
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 3, 8:07=A0am, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com > wrote:

> > My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this juncture. He
> > is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's at his absolute
> > peak so it's only expected that he would lose badly to Rafa on Rafa's
> > best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok. Maybe even losing in
> > the AO final is excusable because it's a slow hard court. But I think
> > at some point if they meet again at Wimby or USO, Fed *needs* one of
> > these. No matter what he'll go down as one of the greatest ever, but
> > his legacy will be even better if he can come back fighting and win
> > one of these big matches against Rafa.
>
> > Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you assume I'm
> > posting this from an insane asylum but I really think there are a lot
> > of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.
>
> Whether there are "a lot of tennis fans and tennis writers who would
> agree with me" [Catlin] is meaningless. Your ostensible argument has
> to stand or fall on its own merits, if is has any. =A0Get a grip.

I doubt that you think my arguments have no merit. Basically all I'm
saying is that I think
Fed is facing a huge challenge and it will be better for his legacy if
he responds. It's probably very likely
that to get 14 or 15 he'll have to go through Nadal to do it, and if
he does beat Rafa in the Wimby or USO final this year that will go a
long way to shutting up the naysayers. If he can't beat Rafa again in
a big event, he will be remembered for not being able to overcome that
challenge, along with all the positive things he's remembered for.

Peter Bodo just wrote a good article talking about what Fed needs to
do overcome the Rafa challenge. I'm sure you're furious with that
article because what a waste of bandwidth talking about something so
trivial as Fed's struggles with Rafa?

> Your pretensions to a lack of bias only weaken your case.
> Everyone has biases; whether one is able to recognize and attempt to
> account for them is the question. Mr Catlin
> seems to attempt to account for them with what was once
> called earnestness, not to be confused with honesty.
> To quote an old Scottish friend: "it's not workin', is it?"-

So you'd prefer I just trash Fed at every occasion and come up with a
bunch of bullshit arguments as to why
Rafa's already greater than Fed in historical terms or why Fed's
chance at GOAThood is lost forever like many on
this ng have already done? Or maybe I should talk ad-nauseum about the
*clown era* that Fed played in and say he woulda won 2 or 3 Slams max
in another era? Just so I don't weaken my case with my *pretensions to
a lack of bias"


   
Date: 03 Feb 2009 06:42:46
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT


jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:

> The reason I'm posting about Fed and his struggles with Nadal as
> opposed to Sampras and his struggles on
> clay - or the weak generation that followed the Sampras/Agassi
> generation - is because the former is the story of the day in tennis
> so it would seem to be the most logical thing to be
> discussing.

Agreed. But in the past the discussion would have been about whether
Federer could beat Nadal, where, and how. And the possibility that
another player might also win. i.e about the tennis of here and now.

This fixation about ascribing players some sort of ranking in all-time
lists - when they are still playing, or even when they are in the
early stages of their careers like Nadal, for goodness sake - is a
baffling modern need.

Until Sampras set his goal as 14 slams no-one talked about tennis
players in those terms, or certainly not in mainstream discussion, and
slam titles alone wouldn't have been the criteria.

I very much doubt, unless tennis produces a Bradman, that anyone will
stand head and shoulders above everyone who as ever played, for two
reasons. The first is that the exceptional players of each era are
much of a muchness as the results of longevity players like Rosewall
and Connors show. The second is that the game changes and evolves so
direct comparisons become impossible.

Finally, with regard to Laver, I cannot really make a judgement
because I only actually saw him towards the end of his career. In
those days tennis coverage was extremely sparse, so we did not see
players that often, and certainly not live if it was in other
continents. I know he had his troubles with a variety of other
players, and his rivalry with Rosewall was, and is, legendary. He also
had some great results.

But greatest? - it depends on the criteria. Now that is a more useful
subject of discussion than actual names. But equally muddy, and
destined to be so for ever.


   
Date: 03 Feb 2009 06:27:59
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On 3 Feb, 14:13, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> topspin wrote:
> > On 3 Feb, 02:14, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Feb 2, 8:10 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> >>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 2, 3:45 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin. Is Fed's
> >>>>> record against Nadal meaningless then?
> >>>>> If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next year or so, do=
es
> >>>>> that make no difference as to how people perceive his career?
> >>>>> My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this juncture.
> >>>>> He is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's at his
> >>>>> absolute peak so it's only expected that he would lose badly to Raf=
a
> >>>>> on Rafa's best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok. Maybe
> >>>>> even losing in the AO final is excusable because it's a slow hard
> >>>>> court. But I think at some point if they meet again at Wimby or USO=
,
> >>>>> Fed *needs* one of these. No matter what he'll go down as one of th=
e
> >>>>> greatest ever, but his legacy will be even better if he can come
> >>>>> back fighting and win one of these big matches against Rafa.
> >>>>> Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you assume I'm
> >>>>> posting this from an insane asylum but I really think there are a l=
ot
> >>>>> of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.
> >>>> ++ I agree perception bares upon the contours of reality, shifting
> >>>> them... Fed needs to beat Nadal in a slam THIS SEASON... symbolicall=
y
> >>>> at Wimbledon or the narrative of Nadal bettering Feds at slams will
> >>>> take hold... that being said if Fed get to 16 slams or so and Nadal
> >>>> ends at 10 or 11... it will be a great debating point in a historica=
l
> >>>> sense... they will look ALMOST even... interesting parallexing of
> >>>> merit...
> >>> The same two issues are being confused here that are always confused.=
Who is
> >>> _better_ and who is _greater_? People cite Federer's major titles won=
to prove
> >>> his greatness and others counter with the H2H with Nadal to show that=
Nadal is
> >>> the better player. Pick achievements or playing ability as your crite=
rion, but
> >>> don't confuse the two or use one to argue against the other.- Hide qu=
oted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> In the end achievement (big titles) is what really matters, imo. I'd
> >> just like a goat or best of open era with no question marks. =A0Probab=
ly
> >> will have to keep waiting for him to come around. And that could take
> >> a while considering how tough it is to deal with all opponents and all
> >> surfaces.
>
> > Having had a good night's sleep I am just going to end my contribution
> > to this thread here, because I don't think it is resolvable. In my
> > opinion you, and many others, are looking at Federer's career through
> > a Sampras lens. You choose to minimise the weaknesses in his career,
> > and maximise the strengths. Fine, that is a choice you make, but do
> > not delude yourself it is unbiassed.
>
> > In particular, in this argument, you are choosing to equate the
> > Sampras/Agassi relationship with Federer/Nadal. Yet Agassi is 18
> > months older than Sampras, and Nadal 5 years younger than Federer.
> > That is a 6 1/2 year difference in the relative age of Agassi and
> > Nadal to Sampras/Federer. Anyone who knows anything at all about a
> > competitive one-to-one sport like tennis, where the peak years of a
> > player are 21/22-27/28 knows that makes an enormous difference.
> > Comparing results on a like-for-like basis is certainly iffy, if not
> > meaningless.
>
> > So I will choose an equally biassed lens to end the discussion. I will
> > choose the Laver lens (I could choose many others). Looking at tennis
> > with the Laver lens I will argue that you cannot possibly be great
> > without having won slams on all four surfaces.
>
> > .................Game Over...................
>
> That implies a guy who only wins 4 slams can be greater than a 14 slammer=
.

Yes, if I put on the 'Laver'-tinted spectacles that is clearly the
case. Ability at all venues is a sine qua non.

> You lose.

Yes if you have 'Sampras'-tinted spectacles on. The total is the only
thing that matters.

But...

Someone without tinted spectacles might say 'both
win'......or.....'neither win'



    
Date: 04 Feb 2009 22:41:56
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
topspin wrote:
> On 3 Feb, 14:13, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> topspin wrote:
>>> On 3 Feb, 02:14, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 2, 8:10 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 2, 3:45 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin. Is Fed's
>>>>>>> record against Nadal meaningless then?
>>>>>>> If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next year or so, does
>>>>>>> that make no difference as to how people perceive his career?
>>>>>>> My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this juncture.
>>>>>>> He is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's at his
>>>>>>> absolute peak so it's only expected that he would lose badly to Rafa
>>>>>>> on Rafa's best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok. Maybe
>>>>>>> even losing in the AO final is excusable because it's a slow hard
>>>>>>> court. But I think at some point if they meet again at Wimby or USO,
>>>>>>> Fed *needs* one of these. No matter what he'll go down as one of the
>>>>>>> greatest ever, but his legacy will be even better if he can come
>>>>>>> back fighting and win one of these big matches against Rafa.
>>>>>>> Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you assume I'm
>>>>>>> posting this from an insane asylum but I really think there are a lot
>>>>>>> of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.
>>>>>> ++ I agree perception bares upon the contours of reality, shifting
>>>>>> them... Fed needs to beat Nadal in a slam THIS SEASON... symbolically
>>>>>> at Wimbledon or the narrative of Nadal bettering Feds at slams will
>>>>>> take hold... that being said if Fed get to 16 slams or so and Nadal
>>>>>> ends at 10 or 11... it will be a great debating point in a historical
>>>>>> sense... they will look ALMOST even... interesting parallexing of
>>>>>> merit...
>>>>> The same two issues are being confused here that are always confused. Who is
>>>>> _better_ and who is _greater_? People cite Federer's major titles won to prove
>>>>> his greatness and others counter with the H2H with Nadal to show that Nadal is
>>>>> the better player. Pick achievements or playing ability as your criterion, but
>>>>> don't confuse the two or use one to argue against the other.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> In the end achievement (big titles) is what really matters, imo. I'd
>>>> just like a goat or best of open era with no question marks. Probably
>>>> will have to keep waiting for him to come around. And that could take
>>>> a while considering how tough it is to deal with all opponents and all
>>>> surfaces.
>>> Having had a good night's sleep I am just going to end my contribution
>>> to this thread here, because I don't think it is resolvable. In my
>>> opinion you, and many others, are looking at Federer's career through
>>> a Sampras lens. You choose to minimise the weaknesses in his career,
>>> and maximise the strengths. Fine, that is a choice you make, but do
>>> not delude yourself it is unbiassed.
>>> In particular, in this argument, you are choosing to equate the
>>> Sampras/Agassi relationship with Federer/Nadal. Yet Agassi is 18
>>> months older than Sampras, and Nadal 5 years younger than Federer.
>>> That is a 6 1/2 year difference in the relative age of Agassi and
>>> Nadal to Sampras/Federer. Anyone who knows anything at all about a
>>> competitive one-to-one sport like tennis, where the peak years of a
>>> player are 21/22-27/28 knows that makes an enormous difference.
>>> Comparing results on a like-for-like basis is certainly iffy, if not
>>> meaningless.
>>> So I will choose an equally biassed lens to end the discussion. I will
>>> choose the Laver lens (I could choose many others). Looking at tennis
>>> with the Laver lens I will argue that you cannot possibly be great
>>> without having won slams on all four surfaces.
>>> .................Game Over...................
>> That implies a guy who only wins 4 slams can be greater than a 14 slammer.
>
> Yes, if I put on the 'Laver'-tinted spectacles that is clearly the
> case. Ability at all venues is a sine qua non.
>
>> You lose.
>
> Yes if you have 'Sampras'-tinted spectacles on. The total is the only
> thing that matters.
>
> But...
>
> Someone without tinted spectacles might say 'both
> win'......or.....'neither win'
>


A guy who wins only 4 slams in his career is never in the running for
tier 3 let alone tier 1 goat level. 1 of each raises more questions
than answers.


   
Date: 03 Feb 2009 05:48:13
From: Carey
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT


jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 3, 7:32=A0am, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 3, 7:11=A0am, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 3, 2:40=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On 3 Feb, 02:14, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Feb 2, 8:10=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 2, 3:45 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > >> But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin=
. Is Fed's
> > > > > > > > >> record against Nadal meaningless then?
> >
> > > > > > > > >> If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next yea=
r or so, does
> > > > > > > > >> that make no difference as to how people perceive his ca=
reer?
> >
> > > > > > > > >> My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at thi=
s juncture.
> > > > > > > > >> He is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa'=
s at his
> > > > > > > > >> absolute peak so it's only expected that he would lose b=
adly to Rafa
> > > > > > > > >> on Rafa's best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is =
ok. Maybe
> > > > > > > > >> even losing in the AO final is excusable because it's a =
slow hard
> > > > > > > > >> court. But I think at some point if they meet again at W=
imby or USO,
> > > > > > > > >> Fed *needs* one of these. No matter what he'll go down a=
s one of the
> > > > > > > > >> greatest ever, but his legacy will be even better if he =
can come
> > > > > > > > >> back fighting and win one of these big matches against R=
afa.
> >
> > > > > > > > >> Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you a=
ssume I'm
> > > > > > > > >> posting this from an insane asylum but I really think th=
ere are a lot
> > > > > > > > >> of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with m=
e.
> >
> > > > > > > > > ++ I agree perception bares upon the contours of reality,=
shifting
> > > > > > > > > them... Fed needs to beat Nadal in a slam THIS SEASON... =
symbolically
> > > > > > > > > at Wimbledon or the narrative of Nadal bettering Feds at =
slams will
> > > > > > > > > take hold... that being said if Fed get to 16 slams or so=
and Nadal
> > > > > > > > > ends at 10 or 11... it will be a great debating point in =
a historical
> > > > > > > > > sense... they will look ALMOST even... interesting parall=
exing of
> > > > > > > > > merit...
> >
> > > > > > > > The same two issues are being confused here that are always=
confused. Who is
> > > > > > > > _better_ and who is _greater_? People cite Federer's major =
titles won to prove
> > > > > > > > his greatness and others counter with the H2H with Nadal to=
show that Nadal is
> > > > > > > > the better player. Pick achievements or playing ability as =
your criterion, but
> > > > > > > > don't confuse the two or use one to argue against the other=
.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > > In the end achievement (big titles) is what really matters, i=
mo. I'd
> > > > > > > just like a goat or best of open era with no question marks. =
=A0Probably
> > > > > > > will have to keep waiting for him to come around. And that co=
uld take
> > > > > > > a while considering how tough it is to deal with all opponent=
s and all
> > > > > > > surfaces.
> >
> > > > > > Having had a good night's sleep I am just going to end my contr=
ibution
> > > > > > to this thread here, because I don't think it is resolvable. In=
my
> > > > > > opinion you, and many others, are looking at Federer's career t=
hrough
> > > > > > a Sampras lens. You choose to minimise the weaknesses in his ca=
reer,
> > > > > > and maximise the strengths. Fine, that is a choice you make, bu=
t do
> > > > > > not delude yourself it is unbiassed.
> >
> > > > > > In particular, in this argument, you are choosing to equate the
> > > > > > Sampras/Agassi relationship with Federer/Nadal. Yet Agassi is 1=
8
> > > > > > months older than Sampras, and Nadal 5 years younger than Feder=
er.
> > > > > > That is a 6 1/2 year difference in the relative age of Agassi a=
nd
> > > > > > Nadal to Sampras/Federer. Anyone who knows anything at all abou=
t a
> > > > > > competitive one-to-one sport like tennis, where the peak years =
of a
> > > > > > player are 21/22-27/28 knows that makes an enormous difference.
> > > > > > Comparing results on a like-for-like basis is certainly iffy, i=
f not
> > > > > > meaningless.
> >
> > > > > > So I will choose an equally biassed lens to end the discussion.=
I will
> > > > > > choose the Laver lens (I could choose many others). Looking at =
tennis
> > > > > > with the Laver lens I will argue that you cannot possibly be gr=
eat
> > > > > > without having won slams on all four surfaces.
> >
> > > > > > .................Game Over...................- Hide quoted text=
-
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > > The reason I'm posting about Fed and his struggles with Nadal as
> > > > > opposed to Sampras and his struggles on
> > > > > clay - or the weak generation that followed the Sampras/Agassi
> > > > > generation - is because the former is the story of the day in ten=
nis
> > > > > so it would seem to be the most logical thing to be
> > > > > discussing. It seems you and Sakari feel that repeated losses in =
big
> > > > > matches to Nadal, who is obviously at peak whereas Fed is a bit p=
ast
> > > > > it, have no effect on his legacy. I think it does, just as Sampra=
s'
> > > > > relatively poor results on clay affect his. But I don't think eit=
her
> > > > > of you need to be sent to the funny farm because of your views :)
> >
> > > > > The funny thing is that I think we're pretty close to agreement o=
n
> > > > > this. You said in an earlier thread that the *goat* - or whatever=
you
> > > > > called it - has to beat all-comers on every surface. I agree and =
I'm
> > > > > just saying I haven't seen that since I started watching in the
> > > > > mid-70s. Everybody has a big question mark surrounding their care=
er
> > > > > except arguably Laver. (I'll let you be the judge of whether Rod
> > > > > sufficiently dominated his peers during his peak years or whether=
his
> > > > > pro-equivalent titles make up for the Slams he wasn't competing i=
n at
> > > > > peak) That doesn't consign them to the rubbish bin by any means. =
Fed,
> > > > > Sampras, Borg (to name a few) are all tennis immortals. I just th=
ink
> > > > > there's someone coming in the future who will dominate his era on
> > > > > every surface and continue to hold his own with the star of the n=
ext
> > > > > generation, probably racking up close to 20 Slams in the process.=
When
> > > > > that player emerges on the scene, we'll all know it and any comme=
nts
> > > > > about what he can and can't do will just seem trivial and easy to=
just
> > > > > laugh off.
> >
> > > > That is interesting.
> >
> > > > I think the player-to-come that you posit is less likely
> > > > to be than ever. Much more likely is a number of players winning
> > > > Majors, imo, (Murray and a yet to be
> > > > determined other amongst them), and the 'Greatest'
> > > > issue more muddled than ever . I repeat, the GOAT issue
> > > > will become more muddled than ever.
> > > > Your =A0purported scenario is interesting- something like =A0Christ=
's
> > > > second coming, He Who Will Finally put Order to Things- but imo hig=
hly
> > > > unlikely.* Why, exactly, do you think that will happen?* =A0Some
> > > > people's need for
> > > > certainty, finality, is truly poignant. =A0Good luck.- Hide quoted =
text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > Who would've thought Tiger Woods would emerge in golf? I'm sure that
> > > if someone had said in 1992 that "what
> > > golf needs is someone to come around, dominate the sport for about
> > > 15-20 years and win 25 Majors (obviously Tiger still has some work to
> > > do) people would've thought that person had completely lost the plot.
> > > Probably the retort would've been "that's impossible in this day and
> > > age because there's much more competition than when Jack played, more
> > > players competing from all over the world, etc.
> >
> > Unhh... Has Tiger Woods won 25 Majors? Or dominated
> > Golf for 15-20 years? =A0(the answer of course is no.)
> > If you're looking for someone like that in tennis, Federer
> > comes closest.
>
> Would you bet against it happening? If Tiger gets on the verge of
> breaking Jack's record and starts getting edged out at Majors by a new
> guy on the scene, then I would say Tiger has to respond to that
> challenge. Let's see if that happens. Of course I realize it's easier
> for Tiger to avoid his main challengers because of the nature of the
> different sports. That's why I much prefer tennis.
>
> > Interesting that you look to golf for a paradigm- the two
> > *sports* =A0couldn't be more different. You say you've played tennis?
> > Hmmn.-
>
> Golf of course is nowhere near the physical challenge that tennis is,
> but they are similar in the sense of being
> individual sports with 4 big tournaments played every year. Tiger's
> chasing Nicklaus just like Fed's chasing Sampras. There's a logical
> comparison to be made between Fed and Tiger, even if the sports are
> very different.
>
> I don't know why you would question whether or not I play tennis. I've
> already said I'm just a decent amateur player, maybe a 5.0 player at
> the moment. How many of those are there in the U.S.? A hundred
> thousand? Nothing to brag about.

To answer you questions in reverse order:

In this case I question your familiarity with tennis
simply because of its *lack of similarity* with golf.
It's been a long time since one could play and win at the top of the
men's game in one's thirties. And no, beating
Schuettler in the AO Final does not count.

I'm sure you're a fine tennis player.

No, comparing Golf and Tennis is not apt. Sixty year old
golfers can shoot 70's. Comparable scores would not be
found in tennis, and even if they were, there would be
an opponent to deal with...

You're an adequately intelligent person- which makes the above
objections all the more apt, esp the last-


   
Date: 03 Feb 2009 05:07:46
From: Carey
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT


jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 6:39=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:34:37 -0800 (PST), topspin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
> > >greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
> > >and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
> > >Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
> > >hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
> > >and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
> > >record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his legacy
> > >looking nearly as good.
> >
> > >The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
> > >record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
> >
> > >I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players having
> > >worse records than they have in order to look good for legacy purposes
> > >seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
> >
> > >Or the logic of someone determined that 'their' favourite will be the
> > >best, no matter what.
> >
> > >Or am I missing something.?
> >
> > >:-)
> >
> > This is the point I and some others have made for these people for
> > years, but it is hopeless...- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin. Is Fed's
> record against Nadal meaningless then?
>
> If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next year or so, does
> that make no difference as to how people perceive his career?
>
> My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this juncture. He
> is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's at his absolute
> peak so it's only expected that he would lose badly to Rafa on Rafa's
> best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok. Maybe even losing in
> the AO final is excusable because it's a slow hard court. But I think
> at some point if they meet again at Wimby or USO, Fed *needs* one of
> these. No matter what he'll go down as one of the greatest ever, but
> his legacy will be even better if he can come back fighting and win
> one of these big matches against Rafa.
>
> Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you assume I'm
> posting this from an insane asylum but I really think there are a lot
> of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.

Whether there are "a lot of tennis fans and tennis writers who would
agree with me" [Catlin] is meaningless. Your ostensible argument has
to stand or fall on its own merits, if is has any. Get a grip.

Your pretensions to a lack of bias only weaken your case.
Everyone has biases; whether one is able to recognize and attempt to
account for them is the question. Mr Catlin
seems to attempt to account for them with what was once
called earnestness, not to be confused with honesty.
To quote an old Scottish friend: "it's not workin', is it?"


   
Date: 03 Feb 2009 04:42:45
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 3, 7:32=A0am, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 7:11=A0am, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Feb 3, 2:40=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 3 Feb, 02:14, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 2, 8:10=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Feb 2, 3:45 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >> But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin. =
Is Fed's
> > > > > > > >> record against Nadal meaningless then?
>
> > > > > > > >> If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next year =
or so, does
> > > > > > > >> that make no difference as to how people perceive his care=
er?
>
> > > > > > > >> My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this =
juncture.
> > > > > > > >> He is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's =
at his
> > > > > > > >> absolute peak so it's only expected that he would lose bad=
ly to Rafa
> > > > > > > >> on Rafa's best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok=
. Maybe
> > > > > > > >> even losing in the AO final is excusable because it's a sl=
ow hard
> > > > > > > >> court. But I think at some point if they meet again at Wim=
by or USO,
> > > > > > > >> Fed *needs* one of these. No matter what he'll go down as =
one of the
> > > > > > > >> greatest ever, but his legacy will be even better if he ca=
n come
> > > > > > > >> back fighting and win one of these big matches against Raf=
a.
>
> > > > > > > >> Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you ass=
ume I'm
> > > > > > > >> posting this from an insane asylum but I really think ther=
e are a lot
> > > > > > > >> of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.
>
> > > > > > > > ++ I agree perception bares upon the contours of reality, s=
hifting
> > > > > > > > them... Fed needs to beat Nadal in a slam THIS SEASON... sy=
mbolically
> > > > > > > > at Wimbledon or the narrative of Nadal bettering Feds at sl=
ams will
> > > > > > > > take hold... that being said if Fed get to 16 slams or so a=
nd Nadal
> > > > > > > > ends at 10 or 11... it will be a great debating point in a =
historical
> > > > > > > > sense... they will look ALMOST even... interesting parallex=
ing of
> > > > > > > > merit...
>
> > > > > > > The same two issues are being confused here that are always c=
onfused. Who is
> > > > > > > _better_ and who is _greater_? People cite Federer's major ti=
tles won to prove
> > > > > > > his greatness and others counter with the H2H with Nadal to s=
how that Nadal is
> > > > > > > the better player. Pick achievements or playing ability as yo=
ur criterion, but
> > > > > > > don't confuse the two or use one to argue against the other.-=
Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > In the end achievement (big titles) is what really matters, imo=
. I'd
> > > > > > just like a goat or best of open era with no question marks. =
=A0Probably
> > > > > > will have to keep waiting for him to come around. And that coul=
d take
> > > > > > a while considering how tough it is to deal with all opponents =
and all
> > > > > > surfaces.
>
> > > > > Having had a good night's sleep I am just going to end my contrib=
ution
> > > > > to this thread here, because I don't think it is resolvable. In m=
y
> > > > > opinion you, and many others, are looking at Federer's career thr=
ough
> > > > > a Sampras lens. You choose to minimise the weaknesses in his care=
er,
> > > > > and maximise the strengths. Fine, that is a choice you make, but =
do
> > > > > not delude yourself it is unbiassed.
>
> > > > > In particular, in this argument, you are choosing to equate the
> > > > > Sampras/Agassi relationship with Federer/Nadal. Yet Agassi is 18
> > > > > months older than Sampras, and Nadal 5 years younger than Federer=
.
> > > > > That is a 6 1/2 year difference in the relative age of Agassi and
> > > > > Nadal to Sampras/Federer. Anyone who knows anything at all about =
a
> > > > > competitive one-to-one sport like tennis, where the peak years of=
a
> > > > > player are 21/22-27/28 knows that makes an enormous difference.
> > > > > Comparing results on a like-for-like basis is certainly iffy, if =
not
> > > > > meaningless.
>
> > > > > So I will choose an equally biassed lens to end the discussion. I=
will
> > > > > choose the Laver lens (I could choose many others). Looking at te=
nnis
> > > > > with the Laver lens I will argue that you cannot possibly be grea=
t
> > > > > without having won slams on all four surfaces.
>
> > > > > .................Game Over...................- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > The reason I'm posting about Fed and his struggles with Nadal as
> > > > opposed to Sampras and his struggles on
> > > > clay - or the weak generation that followed the Sampras/Agassi
> > > > generation - is because the former is the story of the day in tenni=
s
> > > > so it would seem to be the most logical thing to be
> > > > discussing. It seems you and Sakari feel that repeated losses in bi=
g
> > > > matches to Nadal, who is obviously at peak whereas Fed is a bit pas=
t
> > > > it, have no effect on his legacy. I think it does, just as Sampras'
> > > > relatively poor results on clay affect his. But I don't think eithe=
r
> > > > of you need to be sent to the funny farm because of your views :)
>
> > > > The funny thing is that I think we're pretty close to agreement on
> > > > this. You said in an earlier thread that the *goat* - or whatever y=
ou
> > > > called it - has to beat all-comers on every surface. I agree and I'=
m
> > > > just saying I haven't seen that since I started watching in the
> > > > mid-70s. Everybody has a big question mark surrounding their career
> > > > except arguably Laver. (I'll let you be the judge of whether Rod
> > > > sufficiently dominated his peers during his peak years or whether h=
is
> > > > pro-equivalent titles make up for the Slams he wasn't competing in =
at
> > > > peak) That doesn't consign them to the rubbish bin by any means. Fe=
d,
> > > > Sampras, Borg (to name a few) are all tennis immortals. I just thin=
k
> > > > there's someone coming in the future who will dominate his era on
> > > > every surface and continue to hold his own with the star of the nex=
t
> > > > generation, probably racking up close to 20 Slams in the process. W=
hen
> > > > that player emerges on the scene, we'll all know it and any comment=
s
> > > > about what he can and can't do will just seem trivial and easy to j=
ust
> > > > laugh off.
>
> > > That is interesting.
>
> > > I think the player-to-come that you posit is less likely
> > > to be than ever. Much more likely is a number of players winning
> > > Majors, imo, (Murray and a yet to be
> > > determined other amongst them), and the 'Greatest'
> > > issue more muddled than ever . I repeat, the GOAT issue
> > > will become more muddled than ever.
> > > Your =A0purported scenario is interesting- something like =A0Christ's
> > > second coming, He Who Will Finally put Order to Things- but imo highl=
y
> > > unlikely.* Why, exactly, do you think that will happen?* =A0Some
> > > people's need for
> > > certainty, finality, is truly poignant. =A0Good luck.- Hide quoted te=
xt -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Who would've thought Tiger Woods would emerge in golf? I'm sure that
> > if someone had said in 1992 that "what
> > golf needs is someone to come around, dominate the sport for about
> > 15-20 years and win 25 Majors (obviously Tiger still has some work to
> > do) people would've thought that person had completely lost the plot.
> > Probably the retort would've been "that's impossible in this day and
> > age because there's much more competition than when Jack played, more
> > players competing from all over the world, etc.
>
> Unhh... Has Tiger Woods won 25 Majors? Or dominated
> Golf for 15-20 years? =A0(the answer of course is no.)
> If you're looking for someone like that in tennis, Federer
> comes closest.

Would you bet against it happening? If Tiger gets on the verge of
breaking Jack's record and starts getting edged out at Majors by a new
guy on the scene, then I would say Tiger has to respond to that
challenge. Let's see if that happens. Of course I realize it's easier
for Tiger to avoid his main challengers because of the nature of the
different sports. That's why I much prefer tennis.

> Interesting that you look to golf for a paradigm- the two
> *sports* =A0couldn't be more different. You say you've played tennis?
> Hmmn.-

Golf of course is nowhere near the physical challenge that tennis is,
but they are similar in the sense of being
individual sports with 4 big tournaments played every year. Tiger's
chasing Nicklaus just like Fed's chasing Sampras. There's a logical
comparison to be made between Fed and Tiger, even if the sports are
very different.

I don't know why you would question whether or not I play tennis. I've
already said I'm just a decent amateur player, maybe a 5.0 player at
the moment. How many of those are there in the U.S.? A hundred
thousand? Nothing to brag about.



   
Date: 03 Feb 2009 04:32:22
From: Carey
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT


jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 3, 7:11=A0am, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 3, 2:40=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 3 Feb, 02:14, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Feb 2, 8:10=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 2, 3:45 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > >> But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin. Is=
Fed's
> > > > > > >> record against Nadal meaningless then?
> >
> > > > > > >> If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next year or=
so, does
> > > > > > >> that make no difference as to how people perceive his career=
?
> >
> > > > > > >> My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this ju=
ncture.
> > > > > > >> He is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's at=
his
> > > > > > >> absolute peak so it's only expected that he would lose badly=
to Rafa
> > > > > > >> on Rafa's best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok. =
Maybe
> > > > > > >> even losing in the AO final is excusable because it's a slow=
hard
> > > > > > >> court. But I think at some point if they meet again at Wimby=
or USO,
> > > > > > >> Fed *needs* one of these. No matter what he'll go down as on=
e of the
> > > > > > >> greatest ever, but his legacy will be even better if he can =
come
> > > > > > >> back fighting and win one of these big matches against Rafa.
> >
> > > > > > >> Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you assum=
e I'm
> > > > > > >> posting this from an insane asylum but I really think there =
are a lot
> > > > > > >> of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.
> >
> > > > > > > ++ I agree perception bares upon the contours of reality, shi=
fting
> > > > > > > them... Fed needs to beat Nadal in a slam THIS SEASON... symb=
olically
> > > > > > > at Wimbledon or the narrative of Nadal bettering Feds at slam=
s will
> > > > > > > take hold... that being said if Fed get to 16 slams or so and=
Nadal
> > > > > > > ends at 10 or 11... it will be a great debating point in a hi=
storical
> > > > > > > sense... they will look ALMOST even... interesting parallexin=
g of
> > > > > > > merit...
> >
> > > > > > The same two issues are being confused here that are always con=
fused. Who is
> > > > > > _better_ and who is _greater_? People cite Federer's major titl=
es won to prove
> > > > > > his greatness and others counter with the H2H with Nadal to sho=
w that Nadal is
> > > > > > the better player. Pick achievements or playing ability as your=
criterion, but
> > > > > > don't confuse the two or use one to argue against the other.- H=
ide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > > In the end achievement (big titles) is what really matters, imo. =
I'd
> > > > > just like a goat or best of open era with no question marks. =A0P=
robably
> > > > > will have to keep waiting for him to come around. And that could =
take
> > > > > a while considering how tough it is to deal with all opponents an=
d all
> > > > > surfaces.
> >
> > > > Having had a good night's sleep I am just going to end my contribut=
ion
> > > > to this thread here, because I don't think it is resolvable. In my
> > > > opinion you, and many others, are looking at Federer's career throu=
gh
> > > > a Sampras lens. You choose to minimise the weaknesses in his career=
,
> > > > and maximise the strengths. Fine, that is a choice you make, but do
> > > > not delude yourself it is unbiassed.
> >
> > > > In particular, in this argument, you are choosing to equate the
> > > > Sampras/Agassi relationship with Federer/Nadal. Yet Agassi is 18
> > > > months older than Sampras, and Nadal 5 years younger than Federer.
> > > > That is a 6 1/2 year difference in the relative age of Agassi and
> > > > Nadal to Sampras/Federer. Anyone who knows anything at all about a
> > > > competitive one-to-one sport like tennis, where the peak years of a
> > > > player are 21/22-27/28 knows that makes an enormous difference.
> > > > Comparing results on a like-for-like basis is certainly iffy, if no=
t
> > > > meaningless.
> >
> > > > So I will choose an equally biassed lens to end the discussion. I w=
ill
> > > > choose the Laver lens (I could choose many others). Looking at tenn=
is
> > > > with the Laver lens I will argue that you cannot possibly be great
> > > > without having won slams on all four surfaces.
> >
> > > > .................Game Over...................- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > The reason I'm posting about Fed and his struggles with Nadal as
> > > opposed to Sampras and his struggles on
> > > clay - or the weak generation that followed the Sampras/Agassi
> > > generation - is because the former is the story of the day in tennis
> > > so it would seem to be the most logical thing to be
> > > discussing. It seems you and Sakari feel that repeated losses in big
> > > matches to Nadal, who is obviously at peak whereas Fed is a bit past
> > > it, have no effect on his legacy. I think it does, just as Sampras'
> > > relatively poor results on clay affect his. But I don't think either
> > > of you need to be sent to the funny farm because of your views :)
> >
> > > The funny thing is that I think we're pretty close to agreement on
> > > this. You said in an earlier thread that the *goat* - or whatever you
> > > called it - has to beat all-comers on every surface. I agree and I'm
> > > just saying I haven't seen that since I started watching in the
> > > mid-70s. Everybody has a big question mark surrounding their career
> > > except arguably Laver. (I'll let you be the judge of whether Rod
> > > sufficiently dominated his peers during his peak years or whether his
> > > pro-equivalent titles make up for the Slams he wasn't competing in at
> > > peak) That doesn't consign them to the rubbish bin by any means. Fed,
> > > Sampras, Borg (to name a few) are all tennis immortals. I just think
> > > there's someone coming in the future who will dominate his era on
> > > every surface and continue to hold his own with the star of the next
> > > generation, probably racking up close to 20 Slams in the process. Whe=
n
> > > that player emerges on the scene, we'll all know it and any comments
> > > about what he can and can't do will just seem trivial and easy to jus=
t
> > > laugh off.
> >
> > That is interesting.
> >
> > I think the player-to-come that you posit is less likely
> > to be than ever. Much more likely is a number of players winning
> > Majors, imo, (Murray and a yet to be
> > determined other amongst them), and the 'Greatest'
> > issue more muddled than ever . I repeat, the GOAT issue
> > will become more muddled than ever.
> > Your =A0purported scenario is interesting- something like =A0Christ's
> > second coming, He Who Will Finally put Order to Things- but imo highly
> > unlikely.* Why, exactly, do you think that will happen?* =A0Some
> > people's need for
> > certainty, finality, is truly poignant. =A0Good luck.- Hide quoted text=
-
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Who would've thought Tiger Woods would emerge in golf? I'm sure that
> if someone had said in 1992 that "what
> golf needs is someone to come around, dominate the sport for about
> 15-20 years and win 25 Majors (obviously Tiger still has some work to
> do) people would've thought that person had completely lost the plot.
> Probably the retort would've been "that's impossible in this day and
> age because there's much more competition than when Jack played, more
> players competing from all over the world, etc.

Unhh... Has Tiger Woods won 25 Majors? Or dominated
Golf for 15-20 years? (the answer of course is no.)
If you're looking for someone like that in tennis, Federer
comes closest.

Interesting that you look to golf for a paradigm- the two
*sports* couldn't be more different. You say you've played tennis?
Hmmn.


   
Date: 03 Feb 2009 04:17:58
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 3, 7:11=A0am, Carey <carey_1...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 2:40=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 3 Feb, 02:14, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 2, 8:10=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > > Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 2, 3:45 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > >> But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin. Is F=
ed's
> > > > > >> record against Nadal meaningless then?
>
> > > > > >> If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next year or s=
o, does
> > > > > >> that make no difference as to how people perceive his career?
>
> > > > > >> My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this junc=
ture.
> > > > > >> He is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's at h=
is
> > > > > >> absolute peak so it's only expected that he would lose badly t=
o Rafa
> > > > > >> on Rafa's best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok. Ma=
ybe
> > > > > >> even losing in the AO final is excusable because it's a slow h=
ard
> > > > > >> court. But I think at some point if they meet again at Wimby o=
r USO,
> > > > > >> Fed *needs* one of these. No matter what he'll go down as one =
of the
> > > > > >> greatest ever, but his legacy will be even better if he can co=
me
> > > > > >> back fighting and win one of these big matches against Rafa.
>
> > > > > >> Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you assume =
I'm
> > > > > >> posting this from an insane asylum but I really think there ar=
e a lot
> > > > > >> of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.
>
> > > > > > ++ I agree perception bares upon the contours of reality, shift=
ing
> > > > > > them... Fed needs to beat Nadal in a slam THIS SEASON... symbol=
ically
> > > > > > at Wimbledon or the narrative of Nadal bettering Feds at slams =
will
> > > > > > take hold... that being said if Fed get to 16 slams or so and N=
adal
> > > > > > ends at 10 or 11... it will be a great debating point in a hist=
orical
> > > > > > sense... they will look ALMOST even... interesting parallexing =
of
> > > > > > merit...
>
> > > > > The same two issues are being confused here that are always confu=
sed. Who is
> > > > > _better_ and who is _greater_? People cite Federer's major titles=
won to prove
> > > > > his greatness and others counter with the H2H with Nadal to show =
that Nadal is
> > > > > the better player. Pick achievements or playing ability as your c=
riterion, but
> > > > > don't confuse the two or use one to argue against the other.- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > In the end achievement (big titles) is what really matters, imo. I'=
d
> > > > just like a goat or best of open era with no question marks. =A0Pro=
bably
> > > > will have to keep waiting for him to come around. And that could ta=
ke
> > > > a while considering how tough it is to deal with all opponents and =
all
> > > > surfaces.
>
> > > Having had a good night's sleep I am just going to end my contributio=
n
> > > to this thread here, because I don't think it is resolvable. In my
> > > opinion you, and many others, are looking at Federer's career through
> > > a Sampras lens. You choose to minimise the weaknesses in his career,
> > > and maximise the strengths. Fine, that is a choice you make, but do
> > > not delude yourself it is unbiassed.
>
> > > In particular, in this argument, you are choosing to equate the
> > > Sampras/Agassi relationship with Federer/Nadal. Yet Agassi is 18
> > > months older than Sampras, and Nadal 5 years younger than Federer.
> > > That is a 6 1/2 year difference in the relative age of Agassi and
> > > Nadal to Sampras/Federer. Anyone who knows anything at all about a
> > > competitive one-to-one sport like tennis, where the peak years of a
> > > player are 21/22-27/28 knows that makes an enormous difference.
> > > Comparing results on a like-for-like basis is certainly iffy, if not
> > > meaningless.
>
> > > So I will choose an equally biassed lens to end the discussion. I wil=
l
> > > choose the Laver lens (I could choose many others). Looking at tennis
> > > with the Laver lens I will argue that you cannot possibly be great
> > > without having won slams on all four surfaces.
>
> > > .................Game Over...................- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > The reason I'm posting about Fed and his struggles with Nadal as
> > opposed to Sampras and his struggles on
> > clay - or the weak generation that followed the Sampras/Agassi
> > generation - is because the former is the story of the day in tennis
> > so it would seem to be the most logical thing to be
> > discussing. It seems you and Sakari feel that repeated losses in big
> > matches to Nadal, who is obviously at peak whereas Fed is a bit past
> > it, have no effect on his legacy. I think it does, just as Sampras'
> > relatively poor results on clay affect his. But I don't think either
> > of you need to be sent to the funny farm because of your views :)
>
> > The funny thing is that I think we're pretty close to agreement on
> > this. You said in an earlier thread that the *goat* - or whatever you
> > called it - has to beat all-comers on every surface. I agree and I'm
> > just saying I haven't seen that since I started watching in the
> > mid-70s. Everybody has a big question mark surrounding their career
> > except arguably Laver. (I'll let you be the judge of whether Rod
> > sufficiently dominated his peers during his peak years or whether his
> > pro-equivalent titles make up for the Slams he wasn't competing in at
> > peak) That doesn't consign them to the rubbish bin by any means. Fed,
> > Sampras, Borg (to name a few) are all tennis immortals. I just think
> > there's someone coming in the future who will dominate his era on
> > every surface and continue to hold his own with the star of the next
> > generation, probably racking up close to 20 Slams in the process. When
> > that player emerges on the scene, we'll all know it and any comments
> > about what he can and can't do will just seem trivial and easy to just
> > laugh off.
>
> That is interesting.
>
> I think the player-to-come that you posit is less likely
> to be than ever. Much more likely is a number of players winning
> Majors, imo, (Murray and a yet to be
> determined other amongst them), and the 'Greatest'
> issue more muddled than ever . I repeat, the GOAT issue
> will become more muddled than ever.
> Your =A0purported scenario is interesting- something like =A0Christ's
> second coming, He Who Will Finally put Order to Things- but imo highly
> unlikely.* Why, exactly, do you think that will happen?* =A0Some
> people's need for
> certainty, finality, is truly poignant. =A0Good luck.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Who would've thought Tiger Woods would emerge in golf? I'm sure that
if someone had said in 1992 that "what
golf needs is someone to come around, dominate the sport for about
15-20 years and win 25 Majors (obviously Tiger still has some work to
do) people would've thought that person had completely lost the plot.
Probably the retort would've been "that's impossible in this day and
age because there's much more competition than when Jack played, more
players competing from all over the world, etc."


   
Date: 03 Feb 2009 04:11:15
From: Carey
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT


jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2:40=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3 Feb, 02:14, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 2, 8:10=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >
> > > > Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 2, 3:45 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > >> But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin. Is Fed=
's
> > > > >> record against Nadal meaningless then?
> >
> > > > >> If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next year or so,=
does
> > > > >> that make no difference as to how people perceive his career?
> >
> > > > >> My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this junctu=
re.
> > > > >> He is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's at his
> > > > >> absolute peak so it's only expected that he would lose badly to =
Rafa
> > > > >> on Rafa's best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok. Mayb=
e
> > > > >> even losing in the AO final is excusable because it's a slow har=
d
> > > > >> court. But I think at some point if they meet again at Wimby or =
USO,
> > > > >> Fed *needs* one of these. No matter what he'll go down as one of=
the
> > > > >> greatest ever, but his legacy will be even better if he can come
> > > > >> back fighting and win one of these big matches against Rafa.
> >
> > > > >> Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you assume I'=
m
> > > > >> posting this from an insane asylum but I really think there are =
a lot
> > > > >> of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.
> >
> > > > > ++ I agree perception bares upon the contours of reality, shiftin=
g
> > > > > them... Fed needs to beat Nadal in a slam THIS SEASON... symbolic=
ally
> > > > > at Wimbledon or the narrative of Nadal bettering Feds at slams wi=
ll
> > > > > take hold... that being said if Fed get to 16 slams or so and Nad=
al
> > > > > ends at 10 or 11... it will be a great debating point in a histor=
ical
> > > > > sense... they will look ALMOST even... interesting parallexing of
> > > > > merit...
> >
> > > > The same two issues are being confused here that are always confuse=
d. Who is
> > > > _better_ and who is _greater_? People cite Federer's major titles w=
on to prove
> > > > his greatness and others counter with the H2H with Nadal to show th=
at Nadal is
> > > > the better player. Pick achievements or playing ability as your cri=
terion, but
> > > > don't confuse the two or use one to argue against the other.- Hide =
quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > In the end achievement (big titles) is what really matters, imo. I'd
> > > just like a goat or best of open era with no question marks. =A0Proba=
bly
> > > will have to keep waiting for him to come around. And that could take
> > > a while considering how tough it is to deal with all opponents and al=
l
> > > surfaces.
> >
> > Having had a good night's sleep I am just going to end my contribution
> > to this thread here, because I don't think it is resolvable. In my
> > opinion you, and many others, are looking at Federer's career through
> > a Sampras lens. You choose to minimise the weaknesses in his career,
> > and maximise the strengths. Fine, that is a choice you make, but do
> > not delude yourself it is unbiassed.
> >
> > In particular, in this argument, you are choosing to equate the
> > Sampras/Agassi relationship with Federer/Nadal. Yet Agassi is 18
> > months older than Sampras, and Nadal 5 years younger than Federer.
> > That is a 6 1/2 year difference in the relative age of Agassi and
> > Nadal to Sampras/Federer. Anyone who knows anything at all about a
> > competitive one-to-one sport like tennis, where the peak years of a
> > player are 21/22-27/28 knows that makes an enormous difference.
> > Comparing results on a like-for-like basis is certainly iffy, if not
> > meaningless.
> >
> > So I will choose an equally biassed lens to end the discussion. I will
> > choose the Laver lens (I could choose many others). Looking at tennis
> > with the Laver lens I will argue that you cannot possibly be great
> > without having won slams on all four surfaces.
> >
> > .................Game Over...................- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The reason I'm posting about Fed and his struggles with Nadal as
> opposed to Sampras and his struggles on
> clay - or the weak generation that followed the Sampras/Agassi
> generation - is because the former is the story of the day in tennis
> so it would seem to be the most logical thing to be
> discussing. It seems you and Sakari feel that repeated losses in big
> matches to Nadal, who is obviously at peak whereas Fed is a bit past
> it, have no effect on his legacy. I think it does, just as Sampras'
> relatively poor results on clay affect his. But I don't think either
> of you need to be sent to the funny farm because of your views :)
>
> The funny thing is that I think we're pretty close to agreement on
> this. You said in an earlier thread that the *goat* - or whatever you
> called it - has to beat all-comers on every surface. I agree and I'm
> just saying I haven't seen that since I started watching in the
> mid-70s. Everybody has a big question mark surrounding their career
> except arguably Laver. (I'll let you be the judge of whether Rod
> sufficiently dominated his peers during his peak years or whether his
> pro-equivalent titles make up for the Slams he wasn't competing in at
> peak) That doesn't consign them to the rubbish bin by any means. Fed,
> Sampras, Borg (to name a few) are all tennis immortals. I just think
> there's someone coming in the future who will dominate his era on
> every surface and continue to hold his own with the star of the next
> generation, probably racking up close to 20 Slams in the process. When
> that player emerges on the scene, we'll all know it and any comments
> about what he can and can't do will just seem trivial and easy to just
> laugh off.

That is interesting.

I think the player-to-come that you posit is less likely
to be than ever. Much more likely is a number of players winning
Majors, imo, (Murray and a yet to be
determined other amongst them), and the 'Greatest'
issue more muddled than ever . I repeat, the GOAT issue
will become more muddled than ever.
Your purported scenario is interesting- something like Christ's
second coming, He Who Will Finally put Order to Things- but imo highly
unlikely.* Why, exactly, do you think that will happen?* Some
people's need for
certainty, finality, is truly poignant. Good luck.


   
Date: 03 Feb 2009 03:38:34
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 3, 2:40=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 3 Feb, 02:14, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 8:10=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > > > On Feb 2, 3:45 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > >> But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin. Is Fed's
> > > >> record against Nadal meaningless then?
>
> > > >> If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next year or so, d=
oes
> > > >> that make no difference as to how people perceive his career?
>
> > > >> My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this juncture=
.
> > > >> He is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's at his
> > > >> absolute peak so it's only expected that he would lose badly to Ra=
fa
> > > >> on Rafa's best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok. Maybe
> > > >> even losing in the AO final is excusable because it's a slow hard
> > > >> court. But I think at some point if they meet again at Wimby or US=
O,
> > > >> Fed *needs* one of these. No matter what he'll go down as one of t=
he
> > > >> greatest ever, but his legacy will be even better if he can come
> > > >> back fighting and win one of these big matches against Rafa.
>
> > > >> Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you assume I'm
> > > >> posting this from an insane asylum but I really think there are a =
lot
> > > >> of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.
>
> > > > ++ I agree perception bares upon the contours of reality, shifting
> > > > them... Fed needs to beat Nadal in a slam THIS SEASON... symbolical=
ly
> > > > at Wimbledon or the narrative of Nadal bettering Feds at slams will
> > > > take hold... that being said if Fed get to 16 slams or so and Nadal
> > > > ends at 10 or 11... it will be a great debating point in a historic=
al
> > > > sense... they will look ALMOST even... interesting parallexing of
> > > > merit...
>
> > > The same two issues are being confused here that are always confused.=
Who is
> > > _better_ and who is _greater_? People cite Federer's major titles won=
to prove
> > > his greatness and others counter with the H2H with Nadal to show that=
Nadal is
> > > the better player. Pick achievements or playing ability as your crite=
rion, but
> > > don't confuse the two or use one to argue against the other.- Hide qu=
oted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > In the end achievement (big titles) is what really matters, imo. I'd
> > just like a goat or best of open era with no question marks. =A0Probabl=
y
> > will have to keep waiting for him to come around. And that could take
> > a while considering how tough it is to deal with all opponents and all
> > surfaces.
>
> Having had a good night's sleep I am just going to end my contribution
> to this thread here, because I don't think it is resolvable. In my
> opinion you, and many others, are looking at Federer's career through
> a Sampras lens. You choose to minimise the weaknesses in his career,
> and maximise the strengths. Fine, that is a choice you make, but do
> not delude yourself it is unbiassed.
>
> In particular, in this argument, you are choosing to equate the
> Sampras/Agassi relationship with Federer/Nadal. Yet Agassi is 18
> months older than Sampras, and Nadal 5 years younger than Federer.
> That is a 6 1/2 year difference in the relative age of Agassi and
> Nadal to Sampras/Federer. Anyone who knows anything at all about a
> competitive one-to-one sport like tennis, where the peak years of a
> player are 21/22-27/28 knows that makes an enormous difference.
> Comparing results on a like-for-like basis is certainly iffy, if not
> meaningless.
>
> So I will choose an equally biassed lens to end the discussion. I will
> choose the Laver lens (I could choose many others). Looking at tennis
> with the Laver lens I will argue that you cannot possibly be great
> without having won slams on all four surfaces.
>
> .................Game Over...................- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The reason I'm posting about Fed and his struggles with Nadal as
opposed to Sampras and his struggles on
clay - or the weak generation that followed the Sampras/Agassi
generation - is because the former is the story of the day in tennis
so it would seem to be the most logical thing to be
discussing. It seems you and Sakari feel that repeated losses in big
matches to Nadal, who is obviously at peak whereas Fed is a bit past
it, have no effect on his legacy. I think it does, just as Sampras'
relatively poor results on clay affect his. But I don't think either
of you need to be sent to the funny farm because of your views :)

The funny thing is that I think we're pretty close to agreement on
this. You said in an earlier thread that the *goat* - or whatever you
called it - has to beat all-comers on every surface. I agree and I'm
just saying I haven't seen that since I started watching in the
mid-70s. Everybody has a big question mark surrounding their career
except arguably Laver. (I'll let you be the judge of whether Rod
sufficiently dominated his peers during his peak years or whether his
pro-equivalent titles make up for the Slams he wasn't competing in at
peak) That doesn't consign them to the rubbish bin by any means. Fed,
Sampras, Borg (to name a few) are all tennis immortals. I just think
there's someone coming in the future who will dominate his era on
every surface and continue to hold his own with the star of the next
generation, probably racking up close to 20 Slams in the process. When
that player emerges on the scene, we'll all know it and any comments
about what he can and can't do will just seem trivial and easy to just
laugh off.



   
Date: 03 Feb 2009 00:18:49
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On 2 Feb, 23:45, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 6:39=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:34:37 -0800 (PST), topspin
>
> > <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
> > >greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
> > >and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
> > >Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
> > >hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
> > >and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
> > >record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his legacy
> > >looking nearly as good.
>
> > >The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
> > >record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>
> > >I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players having
> > >worse records than they have in order to look good for legacy purposes
> > >seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>
> > >Or the logic of someone determined that 'their' favourite will be the
> > >best, no matter what.
>
> > >Or am I missing something.?
>
> > >:-)
>
> > This is the point I and some others have made for these people for
> > years, but it is hopeless...- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin. Is Fed's
> record against Nadal meaningless then?
>
> If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next year or so, does
> that make no difference as to how people perceive his career?

Yes, and no. Yes, if people want to find reasons to diminish him, no,
if they don't.

Since I am in the 'no' camp I will give the reasons. In my opinion the
names of the players he plays, and beats or loses, are irrelevant. In
as competitive an age as tennis is these days, you assume that the
players who reach semi-finals, and finals are those who were playing
the best AT THAT TIME. And that is all that matters.

Was the AO diminished because Djokovic and Murray crashed out earlier,
beaten by better players.

Did Verdasco and Roddick not justify being there by the quality of
their play in those two weeks because they were not the 'right names'?

If you had a magic wand and had managed to teleport them into the
semis in place of Verdasco or Roddick, but play any better than they
did, would that have made an iota of difference to the fact that the
best two players in those two weeks got to the final, and the better
on the day won?

Because if you are going to go down that route then I can do the same
with semi-finalists and finalists that Sampras played...I prefer not
to, and I won't because I don't like rubbishing players, but I could.


   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 23:40:53
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On 3 Feb, 02:14, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 8:10=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 3:45 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >> But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin. Is Fed's
> > >> record against Nadal meaningless then?
>
> > >> If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next year or so, doe=
s
> > >> that make no difference as to how people perceive his career?
>
> > >> My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this juncture.
> > >> He is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's at his
> > >> absolute peak so it's only expected that he would lose badly to Rafa
> > >> on Rafa's best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok. Maybe
> > >> even losing in the AO final is excusable because it's a slow hard
> > >> court. But I think at some point if they meet again at Wimby or USO,
> > >> Fed *needs* one of these. No matter what he'll go down as one of the
> > >> greatest ever, but his legacy will be even better if he can come
> > >> back fighting and win one of these big matches against Rafa.
>
> > >> Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you assume I'm
> > >> posting this from an insane asylum but I really think there are a lo=
t
> > >> of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.
>
> > > ++ I agree perception bares upon the contours of reality, shifting
> > > them... Fed needs to beat Nadal in a slam THIS SEASON... symbolically
> > > at Wimbledon or the narrative of Nadal bettering Feds at slams will
> > > take hold... that being said if Fed get to 16 slams or so and Nadal
> > > ends at 10 or 11... it will be a great debating point in a historical
> > > sense... they will look ALMOST even... interesting parallexing of
> > > merit...
>
> > The same two issues are being confused here that are always confused. W=
ho is
> > _better_ and who is _greater_? People cite Federer's major titles won t=
o prove
> > his greatness and others counter with the H2H with Nadal to show that N=
adal is
> > the better player. Pick achievements or playing ability as your criteri=
on, but
> > don't confuse the two or use one to argue against the other.- Hide quot=
ed text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> In the end achievement (big titles) is what really matters, imo. I'd
> just like a goat or best of open era with no question marks. =A0Probably
> will have to keep waiting for him to come around. And that could take
> a while considering how tough it is to deal with all opponents and all
> surfaces.

Having had a good night's sleep I am just going to end my contribution
to this thread here, because I don't think it is resolvable. In my
opinion you, and many others, are looking at Federer's career through
a Sampras lens. You choose to minimise the weaknesses in his career,
and maximise the strengths. Fine, that is a choice you make, but do
not delude yourself it is unbiassed.

In particular, in this argument, you are choosing to equate the
Sampras/Agassi relationship with Federer/Nadal. Yet Agassi is 18
months older than Sampras, and Nadal 5 years younger than Federer.
That is a 6 1/2 year difference in the relative age of Agassi and
Nadal to Sampras/Federer. Anyone who knows anything at all about a
competitive one-to-one sport like tennis, where the peak years of a
player are 21/22-27/28 knows that makes an enormous difference.
Comparing results on a like-for-like basis is certainly iffy, if not
meaningless.

So I will choose an equally biassed lens to end the discussion. I will
choose the Laver lens (I could choose many others). Looking at tennis
with the Laver lens I will argue that you cannot possibly be great
without having won slams on all four surfaces.


.................Game Over...................


    
Date: 04 Feb 2009 01:13:17
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
topspin wrote:
> On 3 Feb, 02:14, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 2, 8:10 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>> On Feb 2, 3:45 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin. Is Fed's
>>>>> record against Nadal meaningless then?
>>>>> If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next year or so, does
>>>>> that make no difference as to how people perceive his career?
>>>>> My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this juncture.
>>>>> He is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's at his
>>>>> absolute peak so it's only expected that he would lose badly to Rafa
>>>>> on Rafa's best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok. Maybe
>>>>> even losing in the AO final is excusable because it's a slow hard
>>>>> court. But I think at some point if they meet again at Wimby or USO,
>>>>> Fed *needs* one of these. No matter what he'll go down as one of the
>>>>> greatest ever, but his legacy will be even better if he can come
>>>>> back fighting and win one of these big matches against Rafa.
>>>>> Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you assume I'm
>>>>> posting this from an insane asylum but I really think there are a lot
>>>>> of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.
>>>> ++ I agree perception bares upon the contours of reality, shifting
>>>> them... Fed needs to beat Nadal in a slam THIS SEASON... symbolically
>>>> at Wimbledon or the narrative of Nadal bettering Feds at slams will
>>>> take hold... that being said if Fed get to 16 slams or so and Nadal
>>>> ends at 10 or 11... it will be a great debating point in a historical
>>>> sense... they will look ALMOST even... interesting parallexing of
>>>> merit...
>>> The same two issues are being confused here that are always confused. Who is
>>> _better_ and who is _greater_? People cite Federer's major titles won to prove
>>> his greatness and others counter with the H2H with Nadal to show that Nadal is
>>> the better player. Pick achievements or playing ability as your criterion, but
>>> don't confuse the two or use one to argue against the other.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> In the end achievement (big titles) is what really matters, imo. I'd
>> just like a goat or best of open era with no question marks. Probably
>> will have to keep waiting for him to come around. And that could take
>> a while considering how tough it is to deal with all opponents and all
>> surfaces.
>
> Having had a good night's sleep I am just going to end my contribution
> to this thread here, because I don't think it is resolvable. In my
> opinion you, and many others, are looking at Federer's career through
> a Sampras lens. You choose to minimise the weaknesses in his career,
> and maximise the strengths. Fine, that is a choice you make, but do
> not delude yourself it is unbiassed.
>
> In particular, in this argument, you are choosing to equate the
> Sampras/Agassi relationship with Federer/Nadal. Yet Agassi is 18
> months older than Sampras, and Nadal 5 years younger than Federer.
> That is a 6 1/2 year difference in the relative age of Agassi and
> Nadal to Sampras/Federer. Anyone who knows anything at all about a
> competitive one-to-one sport like tennis, where the peak years of a
> player are 21/22-27/28 knows that makes an enormous difference.
> Comparing results on a like-for-like basis is certainly iffy, if not
> meaningless.
>
> So I will choose an equally biassed lens to end the discussion. I will
> choose the Laver lens (I could choose many others). Looking at tennis
> with the Laver lens I will argue that you cannot possibly be great
> without having won slams on all four surfaces.
>
>
> .................Game Over...................


That implies a guy who only wins 4 slams can be greater than a 14 slammer.

You lose.



    
Date: 03 Feb 2009 09:16:12
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
topspin wrote:
> On 3 Feb, 02:14, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:

> In particular, in this argument, you are choosing to equate the
> Sampras/Agassi relationship with Federer/Nadal. Yet Agassi is 18
> months older than Sampras, and Nadal 5 years younger than Federer.
> That is a 6 1/2 year difference in the relative age of Agassi and
> Nadal to Sampras/Federer. Anyone who knows anything at all about a
> competitive one-to-one sport like tennis, where the peak years of a
> player are 21/22-27/28 knows that makes an enormous difference.
> Comparing results on a like-for-like basis is certainly iffy, if not
> meaningless.


6 1/2 year difference?
The difference between them is *less than 5 years*.

21-27?
22-28?
Try August 81 vs June 86.



> So I will choose an equally biassed lens to end the discussion. I will
> choose the Laver lens (I could choose many others). Looking at tennis
> with the Laver lens I will argue that you cannot possibly be great
> without having won slams on all four surfaces.

Are there even 4 surfaces out there?
I think there are only 3.

Anyway, Laver won on 2 surfaces only, not 3, let alone 4(?).
So you probably meant on Connors/Wilander/Agassi/Nadal lens?




   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 18:14:59
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 8:10=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 3:45 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin. Is Fed's
> >> record against Nadal meaningless then?
>
> >> If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next year or so, does
> >> that make no difference as to how people perceive his career?
>
> >> My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this juncture.
> >> He is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's at his
> >> absolute peak so it's only expected that he would lose badly to Rafa
> >> on Rafa's best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok. Maybe
> >> even losing in the AO final is excusable because it's a slow hard
> >> court. But I think at some point if they meet again at Wimby or USO,
> >> Fed *needs* one of these. No matter what he'll go down as one of the
> >> greatest ever, but his legacy will be even better if he can come
> >> back fighting and win one of these big matches against Rafa.
>
> >> Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you assume I'm
> >> posting this from an insane asylum but I really think there are a lot
> >> of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.
>
> > ++ I agree perception bares upon the contours of reality, shifting
> > them... Fed needs to beat Nadal in a slam THIS SEASON... symbolically
> > at Wimbledon or the narrative of Nadal bettering Feds at slams will
> > take hold... that being said if Fed get to 16 slams or so and Nadal
> > ends at 10 or 11... it will be a great debating point in a historical
> > sense... they will look ALMOST even... interesting parallexing of
> > merit...
>
> The same two issues are being confused here that are always confused. Who=
is
> _better_ and who is _greater_? People cite Federer's major titles won to =
prove
> his greatness and others counter with the H2H with Nadal to show that Nad=
al is
> the better player. Pick achievements or playing ability as your criterion=
, but
> don't confuse the two or use one to argue against the other.- Hide quoted=
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In the end achievement (big titles) is what really matters, imo. I'd
just like a goat or best of open era with no question marks. Probably
will have to keep waiting for him to come around. And that could take
a while considering how tough it is to deal with all opponents and all
surfaces.


   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 17:14:18
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 5:10=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 3:45 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin. Is Fed's
> >> record against Nadal meaningless then?
>
> >> If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next year or so, does
> >> that make no difference as to how people perceive his career?
>
> >> My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this juncture.
> >> He is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's at his
> >> absolute peak so it's only expected that he would lose badly to Rafa
> >> on Rafa's best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok. Maybe
> >> even losing in the AO final is excusable because it's a slow hard
> >> court. But I think at some point if they meet again at Wimby or USO,
> >> Fed *needs* one of these. No matter what he'll go down as one of the
> >> greatest ever, but his legacy will be even better if he can come
> >> back fighting and win one of these big matches against Rafa.
>
> >> Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you assume I'm
> >> posting this from an insane asylum but I really think there are a lot
> >> of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.
>
> > ++ I agree perception bares upon the contours of reality, shifting
> > them... Fed needs to beat Nadal in a slam THIS SEASON... symbolically
> > at Wimbledon or the narrative of Nadal bettering Feds at slams will
> > take hold... that being said if Fed get to 16 slams or so and Nadal
> > ends at 10 or 11... it will be a great debating point in a historical
> > sense... they will look ALMOST even... interesting parallexing of
> > merit...
>
> The same two issues are being confused here that are always confused. Who=
is
> _better_ and who is _greater_? People cite Federer's major titles won to =
prove
> his greatness and others counter with the H2H with Nadal to show that Nad=
al is
> the better player. Pick achievements or playing ability as your criterion=
, but
> don't confuse the two or use one to argue against the other.- Hide quoted=
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ No confusion... each is still playing... time and circumstance will
tell us what we need to know, eventually...

P



   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 17:03:42
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 3:45=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 6:39=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:34:37 -0800 (PST), topspin
>
> > <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
> > >greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
> > >and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
> > >Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
> > >hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
> > >and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
> > >record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his legacy
> > >looking nearly as good.
>
> > >The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
> > >record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>
> > >I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players having
> > >worse records than they have in order to look good for legacy purposes
> > >seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>
> > >Or the logic of someone determined that 'their' favourite will be the
> > >best, no matter what.
>
> > >Or am I missing something.?
>
> > >:-)
>
> > This is the point I and some others have made for these people for
> > years, but it is hopeless...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin. Is Fed's
> record against Nadal meaningless then?
>
> If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next year or so, does
> that make no difference as to how people perceive his career?
>
> My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this juncture. He
> is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's at his absolute
> peak so it's only expected that he would lose badly to Rafa on Rafa's
> best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok. Maybe even losing in
> the AO final is excusable because it's a slow hard court. But I think
> at some point if they meet again at Wimby or USO, Fed *needs* one of
> these. No matter what he'll go down as one of the greatest ever, but
> his legacy will be even better if he can come back fighting and win
> one of these big matches against Rafa.
>
> Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you assume I'm
> posting this from an insane asylum but I really think there are a lot
> of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.

++ I agree perception bares upon the contours of reality, shifting
them... Fed needs to beat Nadal in a slam THIS SEASON... symbolically
at Wimbledon or the narrative of Nadal bettering Feds at slams will
take hold... that being said if Fed get to 16 slams or so and Nadal
ends at 10 or 11... it will be a great debating point in a historical
sense... they will look ALMOST even... interesting parallexing of
merit...

P


    
Date: 03 Feb 2009 12:10:35
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Feb 2, 3:45 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin. Is Fed's
>> record against Nadal meaningless then?
>>
>> If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next year or so, does
>> that make no difference as to how people perceive his career?
>>
>> My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this juncture.
>> He is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's at his
>> absolute peak so it's only expected that he would lose badly to Rafa
>> on Rafa's best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok. Maybe
>> even losing in the AO final is excusable because it's a slow hard
>> court. But I think at some point if they meet again at Wimby or USO,
>> Fed *needs* one of these. No matter what he'll go down as one of the
>> greatest ever, but his legacy will be even better if he can come
>> back fighting and win one of these big matches against Rafa.
>>
>> Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you assume I'm
>> posting this from an insane asylum but I really think there are a lot
>> of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.
>
> ++ I agree perception bares upon the contours of reality, shifting
> them... Fed needs to beat Nadal in a slam THIS SEASON... symbolically
> at Wimbledon or the narrative of Nadal bettering Feds at slams will
> take hold... that being said if Fed get to 16 slams or so and Nadal
> ends at 10 or 11... it will be a great debating point in a historical
> sense... they will look ALMOST even... interesting parallexing of
> merit...

The same two issues are being confused here that are always confused. Who is
_better_ and who is _greater_? People cite Federer's major titles won to prove
his greatness and others counter with the H2H with Nadal to show that Nadal is
the better player. Pick achievements or playing ability as your criterion, but
don't confuse the two or use one to argue against the other.




   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 15:45:59
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 6:39=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:34:37 -0800 (PST), topspin
>
>
>
>
>
> <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
> >greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
> >and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
> >Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
> >hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
> >and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
> >record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his legacy
> >looking nearly as good.
>
> >The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
> >record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>
> >I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players having
> >worse records than they have in order to look good for legacy purposes
> >seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>
> >Or the logic of someone determined that 'their' favourite will be the
> >best, no matter what.
>
> >Or am I missing something.?
>
> >:-)
>
> This is the point I and some others have made for these people for
> years, but it is hopeless...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin. Is Fed's
record against Nadal meaningless then?

If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next year or so, does
that make no difference as to how people perceive his career?

My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this juncture. He
is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's at his absolute
peak so it's only expected that he would lose badly to Rafa on Rafa's
best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok. Maybe even losing in
the AO final is excusable because it's a slow hard court. But I think
at some point if they meet again at Wimby or USO, Fed *needs* one of
these. No matter what he'll go down as one of the greatest ever, but
his legacy will be even better if he can come back fighting and win
one of these big matches against Rafa.

Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you assume I'm
posting this from an insane asylum but I really think there are a lot
of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.


    
Date: 03 Feb 2009 02:10:06
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:45:59 -0800 (PST), jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Feb 2, 6:39 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:34:37 -0800 (PST), topspin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
>> >greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
>> >and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
>> >Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
>> >hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
>> >and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
>> >record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his legacy
>> >looking nearly as good.
>>
>> >The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
>> >record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>>
>> >I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players having
>> >worse records than they have in order to look good for legacy purposes
>> >seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>>
>> >Or the logic of someone determined that 'their' favourite will be the
>> >best, no matter what.
>>
>> >Or am I missing something.?
>>
>> >:-)
>>
>> This is the point I and some others have made for these people for
>> years, but it is hopeless...- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>But again I'll ask you the same question I asked Topspin. Is Fed's
>record against Nadal meaningless then?
>
>If he loses three Slam finals to Nadal over the next year or so, does
>that make no difference as to how people perceive his career?
>
>My view is that he doesn't have to dominate Nadal at this juncture. He
>is a couple of years past his absolute peak and Rafa's at his absolute
>peak so it's only expected that he would lose badly to Rafa on Rafa's
>best surface. Maybe even one loss at Wimby is ok. Maybe even losing in
>the AO final is excusable because it's a slow hard court. But I think
>at some point if they meet again at Wimby or USO, Fed *needs* one of
>these. No matter what he'll go down as one of the greatest ever, but
>his legacy will be even better if he can come back fighting and win
>one of these big matches against Rafa.
>
>Maybe my argument is just so incredibly loony that you assume I'm
>posting this from an insane asylum but I really think there are a lot
>of tennis fans and tennis writers who would agree with me.

No, I know many people agree with you, especially in rst. And you make
your points much better than most of them.

But the basic thing is that had Federer lost in 3rd round of FO every
year he lost to Nadal in the F or SF, and had he lost to Berdych at
this AO, he would still have 13 slams, so for the people who just
count slam wins his record would be exactly the same, but his record
against Nadal would be much better. But I just can't think that he
would be a greater player by losing earlier many times. In fact, his
three FO finals are a huge factor when I think about his career as a
whole.

Then there is this fashionable question "can he be GOAT if he loses to
one guy all the time?" First of all, I don't believe in GOATs, but to
me it seems clear. When Fed was peak, and Nadal was not yet peak, Fed
beat him off-clay. When Nadal is peak, and Fed is over peak, Nadal has
beaten him twice now off-clay. I don't see that as a big negative in
his career. He can still make finals and have close matches against
current #1. Of course if he wins a couple of slam finals against Nadal
still, his legacy would be even better as you say.


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 12:13:51
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 3:08=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 1:53=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 Feb, 18:44, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Feb 2, 7:35 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > > >>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>> On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his m=
ain rival."
> > > >>>>>> Right on, Budster!
> > > >>>>> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Kraj=
icek?
> > > >>>>> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the o=
ther
> > > >>>>> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
> > > >>>>> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the t=
itles
> > > >>>>> each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
> > > >>>> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That=
's
> > > >>>> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of o=
ne.
> > > >>>> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
> > > >>>> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampra=
s hit
> > > >>>> 27 Agassi was already 28.
> > > >>> Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djokovic=
or a Murray.
> > > >>> (that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him). Gu=
ys born in
> > > >>> 74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't pla=
y, and 1 AO when
> > > >>> Sampras retired.
> > > >> Even so it doesn't mean those guys woulda troubled him unduly in t=
he big
> > > >> matches. =A0I just can't see what they have to hurt him at his pea=
k....?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > I don't think so either, and at the end of the day I the record wil=
l
> > > > show that Sampras was never dominated
> > > > by any of his main challengers while Fed was.
>
> > > > But we go back to the same thing on this ng when it comes to goat
> > > > arguments. Do we base it on absolute ability (subjective), dominanc=
e
> > > > over peers (not entirely subjective, but it quickly turns that way
> > > > with questions of who had tougher opponents to deal with) or sheer
> > > > numbers.
>
> > > > You've been a consistent advocate of using sheer numbers with quali=
ty
> > > > mix, with the argument that everything else is subjective. And as f=
ar
> > > > as your ability, talent and achievement goat categories, the way I
> > > > read it is that achievement goat is akin in importance to winning
> > > > Wimbledon, ability goat is more like winning Hamburg and talent goa=
t
> > > > is what? Abu Dhabi?
>
> > > > So imo, Fed still has a great shot at the ultimate in tennis - winn=
ing
> > > > the most big titles. All he has to do now is stick around as the #2=
or
> > > > #3 player and capitalize on his opportunities when they present
> > > > themselves (read: Nadal loses earlier in the tournament) and at the
> > > > end he'll have as good as or a better goat resume than anyone.
>
> > > True - but that anomaly where a guy racks up biggest historical numbe=
rs
> > > yet at same time has his arse handed to him by just 1 guy can't be
> > > explained by 1 definition of goat. =A0
>
> > Very true. Just like the anomaly where a guy racks up big numbers and
> > gets his arse handed to him by several nonentities on several
> > surfaces...
>
> If you're referring to Sampras, in my view Fed's problems with Nadal
> are much more significant than Pete losing
> in a Slam to Yzaga or Karel Kucera or Korda, for the simple reason
> that only the most serious tennis fan is going to ever remember those
> odd losses by Sampras, which in the case of Yzaga had much to do with
> his poor prep for the tournament IIRC. The matches that had all the
> hype surrounding them and that people will remember - Pete's matches
> with Andre at Wimby, USO - were all won by Pete. But I admit that
> that's just my personal preference and certainly doesn't eliminate
> Roger from goat discussions by any means.
>
> Of course, Sampras' lack of success on clay is a big problem.- Hide quote=
d text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Just to clarify a bit more, if Roger retired tomorrow, he would be
viewed as a brilliant all-court player who dominated the sport for a
four year period like few in tennis history. But he would also be
remembered for losing repeatedly in big matches to his biggest rival.

Sampras, in my view, is regarded as the undisputed best of his era,
arguably Wimbledon goat and one of the great servers of all time. He
also is known for not being able to win - or even make the final of -
the French. IMO, odd losses on hard or grass will be completely
forgotten.


   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 17:04:46
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 4:03=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 11:25 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Feb 2, 6:18 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> >>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 2, 5:34 pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> I'm afraid you are on dangerous territory here. You are beginning
> >>>>> to argue that Federer looks worse than Sampras because he loses
> >>>>> more to Nadal.
>
> >>>>> The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
> >>>>> greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this
> >>>>> year, and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and
> >>>>> at the Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had
> >>>>> the 'minor hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most
> >>>>> knowledgeable fans', and a much better record against Nadal. In
> >>>>> fact he should make his record at the AO and FO as poor as
> >>>>> Sampras' in order to get his legacy looking nearly as good.
>
> >>>>> The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved
> >>>>> his record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>
> >>>>> I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players
> >>>>> having worse records than they have in order to look good for
> >>>>> legacy purposes seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>
> >>>> As usual I think context is everything. It's not really a question
> >>>> so much of what the overall record is.
>
> >>>> 13-6 in favor of Nadal doesn't look as bad, imo, if Fed wins that
> >>>> Wimby final last year instead of, I don't know,
> >>>> that Miami final or one of those YEC matches. Winning this year's
> >>>> AO also would've been a great revenge victory
> >>>> for Fed after that heartbreaking Wimby loss, but again he couldn't
> >>>> get it done.
>
> >>>> I don't think anyone can argue with your point that it is better to
> >>>> make the final than lose in the semi, but realistically when we're
> >>>> talking the two best players of a given era there are going to be a
> >>>> certain number of career-defining matches. The fact is that Nadal
> >>>> has gotten the better of Fed in those matches. Before this last AO
> >>>> I wouldn't necessarily have said that because you could argue Fed
> >>>> has the edge on fast courts and Rafa on clay. Now we have to say
> >>>> Rafa on clay and at that they're at best even on fast courts.
>
> >>> Though with his recent comments Nadal has differentiated between
> >>> different forms of so-called 'fast' courts by saying that the AO
> >>> surface bites and takes his top-spin but the USO surface doesn't.
> >>> So it seems that the AO and USO are different enough to make the
> >>> difference between the no. 1 player winning and losing and cannot
> >>> be simply lumped together as 'hardcourt'.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> That's a fair point. Again, Wimby and USO will be huge this year. Fed
> >> has a chance to get back his beloved Wimby title and defend his turf
> >> in New York. This isn't over yet and I'm looking forward to seeing
> >> Fed come back swinging in those two events. FO, imo, is a completely
> >> lost cause unless Nadal gets injured.
>
> > I think the USO is out for Federer, purely on the law of averages. I'm
> > a firm believer in that - just like it was almost inevitable that
> > Federer would fall at the last hurdle when trying for 6 Wimbledons as
> > Borg did. The chances of him winning the USO 6 years in a row are
> > unlikely, and he has had a bit of luck to win the last two.
>
> There is a myth about the so-called "law of averages".
>
> Firstly, that "law" concerns random numbers, not games of high skill. If =
you are
> the best player of a certain game under certain conditions then you have =
the
> best chance to win. It is more logical to look at it this way: Federer ha=
s won
> the USO for the past five years, so he has clearly demonstrated his super=
iority
> there and therefore should be the raging favourite there again (unless he=
is
> clearly in poor form leading up to it). Federer is _more_ likely to win i=
t
> because he has won the last five, lot less. That's the right way to see i=
t.
> That's how punters would see it. I think even Groundaxe would see it that=
way.
>
> Secondly, even regarding random numbers people don't understand the "law"=
. In
> particular, there is a widespread belief that past events influence futur=
e
> events. They don't. If you toss a coin 10 times and it comes up heads eac=
h time,
> the probability that it will come up heads on the 11th toss remains uncha=
nged at
> 1/2.
>
> The only reasons that Federer would have less chance to win the USO this =
year
> than in past years are:
> - He doesn't play as well (say because of age)
> - His main rivals, say Nadal and Murray, play better than in past years
> - He feels the pressure of winning six straight titles.
> But none of this has anything to do with the "law of averages"

++ But it will certainly FEEL like an inversion of probability...

P


   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 16:18:46
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
> The only reasons that Federer would have less chance to win the USO this year
> than in past years are:
> - He doesn't play as well (say because of age)
> - His main rivals, say Nadal and Murray, play better than in past years
> - He feels the pressure of winning six straight titles.
> But none of this has anything to do with the "law of averages"

There is of course no logical or scientific basis for this law, and in
fact it is not a law at all, but I still think it applies. :-)

Call it luck, if you will. You need a bit of luck to win a slam - for
the last two years Federer has got that; I think it's unlikely he'll
get it again.

I'm happy to be wrong of course ... in which case next year I will be
posting that there's no way according to the law of averages that
Federer can win 7 USO titles in a row ...




    
Date: 03 Feb 2009 11:35:50
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>> The only reasons that Federer would have less chance to win the USO
>> this year than in past years are:
>> - He doesn't play as well (say because of age)
>> - His main rivals, say Nadal and Murray, play better than in past
>> years
>> - He feels the pressure of winning six straight titles.
>> But none of this has anything to do with the "law of averages"
>
> There is of course no logical or scientific basis for this law, and in
> fact it is not a law at all, but I still think it applies. :-)
>
> Call it luck, if you will. You need a bit of luck to win a slam - for
> the last two years Federer has got that; I think it's unlikely he'll
> get it again.

That still implies that the luck he's had in the past ought to "catch up" with
him some time later, whereas it has no bearing on the future. It's just another
version of the coin-tossing example. Some luck might be needed to win a slam,
but the better you are the less luck you need. Federer might need some luck, but
the other players need more, so he should still be the favourite.

> I'm happy to be wrong of course ... in which case next year I will be
> posting that there's no way according to the law of averages that
> Federer can win 7 USO titles in a row ...

Exactly. This is the "due for a loss" mentality. Why should it kick in after 5
titles, but not 4 or 3?




  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 12:08:34
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 1:53=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 2 Feb, 18:44, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 7:35 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > >>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >>>> On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his mai=
n rival."
> > >>>>>> Right on, Budster!
> > >>>>> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajic=
ek?
> > >>>>> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the oth=
er
> > >>>>> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
> > >>>>> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the tit=
les
> > >>>>> each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
> > >>>> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
> > >>>> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one=
.
> > >>>> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
> > >>>> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras =
hit
> > >>>> 27 Agassi was already 28.
> > >>> Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djokovic o=
r a Murray.
> > >>> (that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him). Guys=
born in
> > >>> 74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't play,=
and 1 AO when
> > >>> Sampras retired.
> > >> Even so it doesn't mean those guys woulda troubled him unduly in the=
big
> > >> matches. =A0I just can't see what they have to hurt him at his peak.=
...?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I don't think so either, and at the end of the day I the record will
> > > show that Sampras was never dominated
> > > by any of his main challengers while Fed was.
>
> > > But we go back to the same thing on this ng when it comes to goat
> > > arguments. Do we base it on absolute ability (subjective), dominance
> > > over peers (not entirely subjective, but it quickly turns that way
> > > with questions of who had tougher opponents to deal with) or sheer
> > > numbers.
>
> > > You've been a consistent advocate of using sheer numbers with quality
> > > mix, with the argument that everything else is subjective. And as far
> > > as your ability, talent and achievement goat categories, the way I
> > > read it is that achievement goat is akin in importance to winning
> > > Wimbledon, ability goat is more like winning Hamburg and talent goat
> > > is what? Abu Dhabi?
>
> > > So imo, Fed still has a great shot at the ultimate in tennis - winnin=
g
> > > the most big titles. All he has to do now is stick around as the #2 o=
r
> > > #3 player and capitalize on his opportunities when they present
> > > themselves (read: Nadal loses earlier in the tournament) and at the
> > > end he'll have as good as or a better goat resume than anyone.
>
> > True - but that anomaly where a guy racks up biggest historical numbers
> > yet at same time has his arse handed to him by just 1 guy can't be
> > explained by 1 definition of goat. =A0
>
> Very true. Just like the anomaly where a guy racks up big numbers and
> gets his arse handed to him by several nonentities on several
> surfaces...

If you're referring to Sampras, in my view Fed's problems with Nadal
are much more significant than Pete losing
in a Slam to Yzaga or Karel Kucera or Korda, for the simple reason
that only the most serious tennis fan is going to ever remember those
odd losses by Sampras, which in the case of Yzaga had much to do with
his poor prep for the tournament IIRC. The matches that had all the
hype surrounding them and that people will remember - Pete's matches
with Andre at Wimby, USO - were all won by Pete. But I admit that
that's just my personal preference and certainly doesn't eliminate
Roger from goat discussions by any means.

Of course, Sampras' lack of success on clay is a big problem.


   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 15:19:42
From: guyana
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 6:05=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 5:34=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm afraid you are on dangerous territory here. You are beginning to
> > argue that Federer looks worse than Sampras because he loses more to
> > Nadal.
>
> > The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
> > greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
> > and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
> > Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
> > hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
> > and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
> > record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his legacy
> > looking nearly as good.
>
> > The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
> > record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>
> > I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players having
> > worse records than they have in order to look good for legacy purposes
> > seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>
> As usual I think context is everything. It's not really a question so
> much of what the overall record is.
>
> 13-6 in favor of Nadal doesn't look as bad, imo, if Fed wins that
> Wimby final last year instead of, I don't know,
> that Miami final or one of those YEC matches. Winning this year's AO
> also would've been a great revenge victory
> for Fed after that heartbreaking Wimby loss, but again he couldn't get
> it done.
>
> I don't think anyone can argue with your point that it is better to
> make the final than lose in the semi, but realistically when we're
> talking the two best players of a given era there are going to be a
> certain number of career-defining matches. The fact is that Nadal has
> gotten the better of Fed in those matches. Before this last AO I
> wouldn't necessarily have said that because you could argue Fed has
> the edge on fast courts and Rafa on clay. Now we have to say Rafa on
> clay and at that they're at best even on fast courts.
>
> But it's not over yet for Fed. If he can rebound and get his Wimbledon
> title back, and all the better beating Nadal in the final, that will
> go a long way to shutting up the mob saying he's psyched out by Nadal
> or isn't as good, etc.
>
> Again, my post is less what I think things *should* be, or what I
> think is fair in terms of how these players should be judged, and more
> about the real perception of their careers by the media, overall fan
> base, etc.
>
> I just think there is a question mark hovering over Fed's career. That
> doesn't take him out of goat consideration because his record is
> phenomenal. But his career will look even better obviously if he can
> another big win over Nadal in a Slam match.
>
> But what do you think about these big matches against Nadal? Do you
> think it's meaningless and that Fed can lose to Nadal two or three
> more times in a row in big Slam matches and it will have no effect
> whatsoever on his legacy?

Borg!?!?


   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 15:43:41
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 11:25=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 6:18=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
> > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 5:34 pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> I'm afraid you are on dangerous territory here. You are beginning to
> > >> argue that Federer looks worse than Sampras because he loses more to
> > >> Nadal.
>
> > >> The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
> > >> greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
> > >> and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
> > >> Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
> > >> hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
> > >> and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
> > >> record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his
> > >> legacy looking nearly as good.
>
> > >> The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
> > >> record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>
> > >> I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players havin=
g
> > >> worse records than they have in order to look good for legacy
> > >> purposes seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>
> > > As usual I think context is everything. It's not really a question so
> > > much of what the overall record is.
>
> > > 13-6 in favor of Nadal doesn't look as bad, imo, if Fed wins that
> > > Wimby final last year instead of, I don't know,
> > > that Miami final or one of those YEC matches. Winning this year's AO
> > > also would've been a great revenge victory
> > > for Fed after that heartbreaking Wimby loss, but again he couldn't ge=
t
> > > it done.
>
> > > I don't think anyone can argue with your point that it is better to
> > > make the final than lose in the semi, but realistically when we're
> > > talking the two best players of a given era there are going to be a
> > > certain number of career-defining matches. The fact is that Nadal has
> > > gotten the better of Fed in those matches. Before this last AO I
> > > wouldn't necessarily have said that because you could argue Fed has
> > > the edge on fast courts and Rafa on clay. Now we have to say Rafa on
> > > clay and at that they're at best even on fast courts.
>
> > Though with his recent comments Nadal has differentiated between differ=
ent forms
> > of so-called 'fast' courts by saying that the AO surface bites and take=
s his
> > top-spin but the USO surface doesn't. So it seems that the AO and USO a=
re
> > different enough to make the difference between the no. 1 player winnin=
g and
> > losing and cannot be simply lumped together as 'hardcourt'.- Hide quote=
d text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> That's a fair point. Again, Wimby and USO will be huge this year. Fed
> has a chance to get back his beloved Wimby title and defend his turf
> in New York. This isn't over yet and I'm looking forward to seeing Fed
> come back swinging in those two events. FO, imo, is a completely lost
> cause unless Nadal gets injured.

I think the USO is out for Federer, purely on the law of averages. I'm
a firm believer in that - just like it was almost inevitable that
Federer would fall at the last hurdle when trying for 6 Wimbledons as
Borg did. The chances of him winning the USO 6 years in a row are
unlikely, and he has had a bit of luck to win the last two.

Wimbledon is the best chance this year - he can still beat Nadal if
they meet (though how big his chances are now is debatable) and if he
avoids Nadal he should have a good chance against the rest.




    
Date: 03 Feb 2009 11:03:42
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 11:25 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 2, 6:18 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 2, 5:34 pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'm afraid you are on dangerous territory here. You are beginning
>>>>> to argue that Federer looks worse than Sampras because he loses
>>>>> more to Nadal.
>>
>>>>> The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
>>>>> greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this
>>>>> year, and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and
>>>>> at the Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had
>>>>> the 'minor hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most
>>>>> knowledgeable fans', and a much better record against Nadal. In
>>>>> fact he should make his record at the AO and FO as poor as
>>>>> Sampras' in order to get his legacy looking nearly as good.
>>
>>>>> The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved
>>>>> his record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>>
>>>>> I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players
>>>>> having worse records than they have in order to look good for
>>>>> legacy purposes seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>>
>>>> As usual I think context is everything. It's not really a question
>>>> so much of what the overall record is.
>>
>>>> 13-6 in favor of Nadal doesn't look as bad, imo, if Fed wins that
>>>> Wimby final last year instead of, I don't know,
>>>> that Miami final or one of those YEC matches. Winning this year's
>>>> AO also would've been a great revenge victory
>>>> for Fed after that heartbreaking Wimby loss, but again he couldn't
>>>> get it done.
>>
>>>> I don't think anyone can argue with your point that it is better to
>>>> make the final than lose in the semi, but realistically when we're
>>>> talking the two best players of a given era there are going to be a
>>>> certain number of career-defining matches. The fact is that Nadal
>>>> has gotten the better of Fed in those matches. Before this last AO
>>>> I wouldn't necessarily have said that because you could argue Fed
>>>> has the edge on fast courts and Rafa on clay. Now we have to say
>>>> Rafa on clay and at that they're at best even on fast courts.
>>
>>> Though with his recent comments Nadal has differentiated between
>>> different forms of so-called 'fast' courts by saying that the AO
>>> surface bites and takes his top-spin but the USO surface doesn't.
>>> So it seems that the AO and USO are different enough to make the
>>> difference between the no. 1 player winning and losing and cannot
>>> be simply lumped together as 'hardcourt'.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> That's a fair point. Again, Wimby and USO will be huge this year. Fed
>> has a chance to get back his beloved Wimby title and defend his turf
>> in New York. This isn't over yet and I'm looking forward to seeing
>> Fed come back swinging in those two events. FO, imo, is a completely
>> lost cause unless Nadal gets injured.
>
> I think the USO is out for Federer, purely on the law of averages. I'm
> a firm believer in that - just like it was almost inevitable that
> Federer would fall at the last hurdle when trying for 6 Wimbledons as
> Borg did. The chances of him winning the USO 6 years in a row are
> unlikely, and he has had a bit of luck to win the last two.

There is a myth about the so-called "law of averages".

Firstly, that "law" concerns random numbers, not games of high skill. If you are
the best player of a certain game under certain conditions then you have the
best chance to win. It is more logical to look at it this way: Federer has won
the USO for the past five years, so he has clearly demonstrated his superiority
there and therefore should be the raging favourite there again (unless he is
clearly in poor form leading up to it). Federer is _more_ likely to win it
because he has won the last five, lot less. That's the right way to see it.
That's how punters would see it. I think even Groundaxe would see it that way.

Secondly, even regarding random numbers people don't understand the "law". In
particular, there is a widespread belief that past events influence future
events. They don't. If you toss a coin 10 times and it comes up heads each time,
the probability that it will come up heads on the 11th toss remains unchanged at
1/2.

The only reasons that Federer would have less chance to win the USO this year
than in past years are:
- He doesn't play as well (say because of age)
- His main rivals, say Nadal and Murray, play better than in past years
- He feels the pressure of winning six straight titles.
But none of this has anything to do with the "law of averages"




   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 15:37:49
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 6:24=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 2 Feb, 23:05, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 5:34=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm afraid you are on dangerous territory here. You are beginning to
> > > argue that Federer looks worse than Sampras because he loses more to
> > > Nadal.
>
> > > The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
> > > greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
> > > and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
> > > Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
> > > hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
> > > and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
> > > record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his legac=
y
> > > looking nearly as good.
>
> > > The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
> > > record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>
> > > I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players having
> > > worse records than they have in order to look good for legacy purpose=
s
> > > seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>
> > As usual I think context is everything. It's not really a question so
> > much of what the overall record is.
>
> > 13-6 in favor of Nadal doesn't look as bad, imo, if Fed wins that
> > Wimby final last year instead of, I don't know,
> > that Miami final or one of those YEC matches. Winning this year's AO
> > also would've been a great revenge victory
> > for Fed after that heartbreaking Wimby loss, but again he couldn't get
> > it done.
>
> > I don't think anyone can argue with your point that it is better to
> > make the final than lose in the semi, but realistically when we're
> > talking the two best players of a given era there are going to be a
> > certain number of career-defining matches. The fact is that Nadal has
> > gotten the better of Fed in those matches. Before this last AO I
> > wouldn't necessarily have said that because you could argue Fed has
> > the edge on fast courts and Rafa on clay. Now we have to say Rafa on
> > clay and at that they're at best even on fast courts.
>
> > But it's not over yet for Fed. If he can rebound and get his Wimbledon
> > title back, and all the better beating Nadal in the final, that will
> > go a long way to shutting up the mob saying he's psyched out by Nadal
> > or isn't as good, etc.
>
> > Again, my post is less what I think things *should* be, or what I
> > think is fair in terms of how these players should be judged, and more
> > about the real perception of their careers by the media, overall fan
> > base, etc.
>
> > I just think there is a question mark hovering over Fed's career. That
> > doesn't take him out of goat consideration because his record is
> > phenomenal. But his career will look even better obviously if he can
> > another big win over Nadal in a Slam match.
>
> > But what do you think about these big matches against Nadal? Do you
> > think it's meaningless and that Fed can lose to Nadal two or three
> > more times in a row in big Slam matches and it will have no effect
> > whatsoever on his legacy?
>
> I will just give you one contextual factor. In five years time, if
> both are playing and fit, I will be very surprised if Federer is
> better than Nadal on any surface other than fast indoor. So relative
> age is a huge context. The younger player in his prime, other things
> being equal, should win. =A0If you ignore that in h2h discussions, you
> don't really understand tennis (or many sports).

That's fine. I don't think I've ever argued that Fed should be better
than Rafa in 5 years time. But Fed is not too
old at 27 to win Wimby and/or USO this year and I think he does need
that to silence some doubters after all this recent frustration
against Nadal.

> In a few years time Nadal will start getting beaten up by a younger
> guy. Will that start diminishing what he has achieved so far?

It will be a chink in his armor if at age 26/27 he's losing repeatedly
in big Slam finals to some new guy. That won't nullify what he did
before, but it's just better, imo, to both dominate during your peak
years AND hold your own once you're a bit past peak. Fed can still do
that and I suspect he will bounce back, all the better if he goes
through Nadal to win another Slam.

> So your microscopic focus on just the h2h with Nadal ignores all the
> other factors in Federer's career. Yet when someone analyses Sampras'
> record against Agassi in microspcopic detail you get more than a touch
> defensive.
>
> Hmmm...-

I don't understand why you're saying my focus is *microscopic*. Did I
ever say Fed wasn't great?
That he shouldn't be a goat candidate? If I were exclusively focused
on his h2h with Nadal I guess I'd say
Fed was a 2nd tier great and I certainly don't think that.

And why do you say I'm being *defensive*? I thought we were having a
reasonable discussion, even if we have
different viewpoints. Why the annoyance with me? You do realize this
ng is being bombarded with comments like
"Fed should retire!" "The final nail was put in the coffin of Fed's
career!" and plenty of other tripe.


   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 15:36:16
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On 2 Feb, 23:23, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> topspin wrote:
> > On 2 Feb, 22:50, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> topspin wrote:
> >>> On 2 Feb, 21:15, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 2, 3:53 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Feb 2, 3:37 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 3, 2:30 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Didn't he also lose to Agassi in AO 1995?
>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, but I'd say in their big, big matches for their career it
> >>>>>>>> was Sampras 6 Agassi 2, with both of Agassi's wins
> >>>>>>>> coming at AO.
>
> >>>>>>> What do you mean by big matches? An AO final isn't big? Rafa
> >>>>>>> didn't win a big match against Federer two days ago?
>
> >>>>>> Yes, of course it is. I said Agassi won 2 big matches over Pete
> >>>>>> at AO. I suppose you could argue the 92 French
> >>>>>> as well, but that match is easily forgotten since Courier
> >>>>>> trounced Andre in the next round.
>
> >>>>> Why would you forget the outcome of one match based on the outcome
> >>>>> of the next one? So Roddick didn't get his ass handed to him in
> >>>>> the SF because Federer lost the final? WTF?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>> Well, all right then, so 6-3 for Pete. But I do think these
> >>>> players' careers are defined by a few key matches.
>
> >>>> In Pete and Andre's case, the 95 USO final was probably the biggest
> >>>> match they ever played, maybe the 99 Wimby second. I doubt many
> >>>> casual tennis fans even remember they played that FO match.
>
> >>> I'm afraid you are on dangerous territory here. You are beginning to
> >>> argue that Federer looks worse than Sampras because he loses more to
> >>> Nadal.
>
> >>> The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
> >>> greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
> >>> and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
> >>> Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
> >>> hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
> >>> and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
> >>> record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his
> >>> legacy looking nearly as good.
>
> >>> The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
> >>> record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>
> >>> I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players
> >>> having worse records than they have in order to look good for
> >>> legacy purposes seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>
> >>> Or the logic of someone determined that 'their' favourite will be
> >>> the best, no matter what.
>
> >>> Or am I missing something.?
>
> >>> :-)
>
> >> finals and semis are better than 2nd 3rd rounds. from that
> >> perspective it's better to have more latter rounds.
> >> however, since only titles count this becomes quite irrelevant as
> >> the time passes by.
>
> >> who cares now if Laver played QF or SF in one the slams he didn't
> >> win.
>
> >> the matchup issues is a completely different thing. it doesn't
> >> matter that much if federer is losing to nadal only in finals, or
> >> semifinals.
>
> > I will enter the madhouse for a second....
>
> > So Sampras had the better matchup against Agassi because he wasn't
> > good enough to meet him more often at the USO, or at all at the FO?
> > And Federer has a worse record because he 'is' good enough to meet
> > Nadal more often on slower surfaces.
>
> > And I haven't even started on the notion of greatness being decide =A0b=
y
> > the opinions of those who 'don't' understand the sport and its
> > history, rather than the opinions of those who might....
>
> > Oh Alice, Mad Hatter, March Hare, where are you hiding....
>
> That was not my point.
>
> 1. Forget Nadal,

Why. Isn't Nadal the whole point of this discussion, since if he had
lost to four other players his h2h would be a whole load better??

> if

Ah, the old 'if' factor. If I was a better player I would have won 25
slams by now, 5 Olympic golds, and the Lottery 12 times.

You are arguing round in circles. Enjoy the madhouse. I'm sure the
nurses treat you very nicely there....


    
Date: 03 Feb 2009 00:38:47
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
topspin wrote:
> On 2 Feb, 23:23, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> topspin wrote:
>>> On 2 Feb, 22:50, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> topspin wrote:
>>>>> On 2 Feb, 21:15, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 2, 3:53 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Feb 2, 3:37 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 3, 2:30 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Didn't he also lose to Agassi in AO 1995?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but I'd say in their big, big matches for their career
>>>>>>>>>> it was Sampras 6 Agassi 2, with both of Agassi's wins
>>>>>>>>>> coming at AO.
>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by big matches? An AO final isn't big? Rafa
>>>>>>>>> didn't win a big match against Federer two days ago?
>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, of course it is. I said Agassi won 2 big matches over Pete
>>>>>>>> at AO. I suppose you could argue the 92 French
>>>>>>>> as well, but that match is easily forgotten since Courier
>>>>>>>> trounced Andre in the next round.
>>
>>>>>>> Why would you forget the outcome of one match based on the
>>>>>>> outcome of the next one? So Roddick didn't get his ass handed
>>>>>>> to him in the SF because Federer lost the final? WTF?- Hide
>>>>>>> quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>>> Well, all right then, so 6-3 for Pete. But I do think these
>>>>>> players' careers are defined by a few key matches.
>>
>>>>>> In Pete and Andre's case, the 95 USO final was probably the
>>>>>> biggest match they ever played, maybe the 99 Wimby second. I
>>>>>> doubt many casual tennis fans even remember they played that FO
>>>>>> match.
>>
>>>>> I'm afraid you are on dangerous territory here. You are beginning
>>>>> to argue that Federer looks worse than Sampras because he loses
>>>>> more to Nadal.
>>
>>>>> The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
>>>>> greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this
>>>>> year, and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and
>>>>> at the Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had
>>>>> the 'minor hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most
>>>>> knowledgeable fans', and a much better record against Nadal. In
>>>>> fact he should make his record at the AO and FO as poor as
>>>>> Sampras' in order to get his legacy looking nearly as good.
>>
>>>>> The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved
>>>>> his record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>>
>>>>> I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players
>>>>> having worse records than they have in order to look good for
>>>>> legacy purposes seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>>
>>>>> Or the logic of someone determined that 'their' favourite will be
>>>>> the best, no matter what.
>>
>>>>> Or am I missing something.?
>>
>>>>> :-)
>>
>>>> finals and semis are better than 2nd 3rd rounds. from that
>>>> perspective it's better to have more latter rounds.
>>>> however, since only titles count this becomes quite irrelevant as
>>>> the time passes by.
>>
>>>> who cares now if Laver played QF or SF in one the slams he didn't
>>>> win.
>>
>>>> the matchup issues is a completely different thing. it doesn't
>>>> matter that much if federer is losing to nadal only in finals, or
>>>> semifinals.
>>
>>> I will enter the madhouse for a second....
>>
>>> So Sampras had the better matchup against Agassi because he wasn't
>>> good enough to meet him more often at the USO, or at all at the FO?
>>> And Federer has a worse record because he 'is' good enough to meet
>>> Nadal more often on slower surfaces.
>>
>>> And I haven't even started on the notion of greatness being decide
>>> by the opinions of those who 'don't' understand the sport and its
>>> history, rather than the opinions of those who might....
>>
>>> Oh Alice, Mad Hatter, March Hare, where are you hiding....
>>
>> That was not my point.
>>
>> 1. Forget Nadal,
>
> Why. Isn't Nadal the whole point of this discussion, since if he had
> lost to four other players his h2h would be a whole load better??
>
>> if
>
> Ah, the old 'if' factor. If I was a better player I would have won 25
> slams by now, 5 Olympic golds, and the Lottery 12 times.
>
> You are arguing round in circles. Enjoy the madhouse. I'm sure the
> nurses treat you very nicely there....


yeah, butch my post and pretend you've won this debate or proven something
here.





   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 15:25:34
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 6:18=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 5:34 pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'm afraid you are on dangerous territory here. You are beginning to
> >> argue that Federer looks worse than Sampras because he loses more to
> >> Nadal.
>
> >> The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
> >> greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
> >> and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
> >> Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
> >> hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
> >> and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
> >> record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his
> >> legacy looking nearly as good.
>
> >> The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
> >> record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>
> >> I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players having
> >> worse records than they have in order to look good for legacy
> >> purposes seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>
> > As usual I think context is everything. It's not really a question so
> > much of what the overall record is.
>
> > 13-6 in favor of Nadal doesn't look as bad, imo, if Fed wins that
> > Wimby final last year instead of, I don't know,
> > that Miami final or one of those YEC matches. Winning this year's AO
> > also would've been a great revenge victory
> > for Fed after that heartbreaking Wimby loss, but again he couldn't get
> > it done.
>
> > I don't think anyone can argue with your point that it is better to
> > make the final than lose in the semi, but realistically when we're
> > talking the two best players of a given era there are going to be a
> > certain number of career-defining matches. The fact is that Nadal has
> > gotten the better of Fed in those matches. Before this last AO I
> > wouldn't necessarily have said that because you could argue Fed has
> > the edge on fast courts and Rafa on clay. Now we have to say Rafa on
> > clay and at that they're at best even on fast courts.
>
> Though with his recent comments Nadal has differentiated between differen=
t forms
> of so-called 'fast' courts by saying that the AO surface bites and takes =
his
> top-spin but the USO surface doesn't. So it seems that the AO and USO are
> different enough to make the difference between the no. 1 player winning =
and
> losing and cannot be simply lumped together as 'hardcourt'.- Hide quoted =
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's a fair point. Again, Wimby and USO will be huge this year. Fed
has a chance to get back his beloved Wimby title and defend his turf
in New York. This isn't over yet and I'm looking forward to seeing Fed
come back swinging in those two events. FO, imo, is a completely lost
cause unless Nadal gets injured.


    
Date: 04 Feb 2009 01:02:19
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
> That's a fair point. Again, Wimby and USO will be huge this year. Fed
> has a chance to get back his beloved Wimby title and defend his turf
> in New York. This isn't over yet and I'm looking forward to seeing Fed
> come back swinging in those two events. FO, imo, is a completely lost
> cause unless Nadal gets injured.


It was only a yr ago Haze was saying Fed was a better claycourter than Rafa.




     
Date: 03 Feb 2009 11:38:15
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
>> That's a fair point. Again, Wimby and USO will be huge this year. Fed
>> has a chance to get back his beloved Wimby title and defend his turf
>> in New York. This isn't over yet and I'm looking forward to seeing Fed
>> come back swinging in those two events. FO, imo, is a completely lost
>> cause unless Nadal gets injured.
>
> It was only a yr ago Haze was saying Fed was a better claycourter than Rafa.

So? It seems to me like you're the only guy here who takes Hazelwood
seriously.


      
Date: 03 Feb 2009 15:18:32
From: chrisf
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
Javier Gonzalez wrote on 2/3/2009 9:38 AM:
> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
>>> That's a fair point. Again, Wimby and USO will be huge this year. Fed
>>> has a chance to get back his beloved Wimby title and defend his turf
>>> in New York. This isn't over yet and I'm looking forward to seeing Fed
>>> come back swinging in those two events. FO, imo, is a completely lost
>>> cause unless Nadal gets injured.
>>
>> It was only a yr ago Haze was saying Fed was a better claycourter than Rafa.
>
> So? It seems to me like you're the only guy here who takes Hazelwood
> seriously.

Whisper and Hazelwood need each other, they complete each other.

The difference is that Whisper tries to be a prick on purpose. Hazelwood
is borderline mentally unstable.


       
Date: 04 Feb 2009 22:43:32
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
chrisf wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote on 2/3/2009 9:38 AM:
>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> That's a fair point. Again, Wimby and USO will be huge this year. Fed
>>>> has a chance to get back his beloved Wimby title and defend his turf
>>>> in New York. This isn't over yet and I'm looking forward to seeing Fed
>>>> come back swinging in those two events. FO, imo, is a completely lost
>>>> cause unless Nadal gets injured.
>>>
>>> It was only a yr ago Haze was saying Fed was a better claycourter
>>> than Rafa.
>>
>> So? It seems to me like you're the only guy here who takes Hazelwood
>> seriously.
>
> Whisper and Hazelwood need each other, they complete each other.
>
> The difference is that Whisper tries to be a prick on purpose. Hazelwood
> is borderline mentally unstable.


Borderline? Shit, hate to see him over the edge.



   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 15:24:52
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On 2 Feb, 23:05, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 5:34=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm afraid you are on dangerous territory here. You are beginning to
> > argue that Federer looks worse than Sampras because he loses more to
> > Nadal.
>
> > The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
> > greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
> > and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
> > Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
> > hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
> > and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
> > record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his legacy
> > looking nearly as good.
>
> > The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
> > record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>
> > I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players having
> > worse records than they have in order to look good for legacy purposes
> > seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>
> As usual I think context is everything. It's not really a question so
> much of what the overall record is.
>
> 13-6 in favor of Nadal doesn't look as bad, imo, if Fed wins that
> Wimby final last year instead of, I don't know,
> that Miami final or one of those YEC matches. Winning this year's AO
> also would've been a great revenge victory
> for Fed after that heartbreaking Wimby loss, but again he couldn't get
> it done.
>
> I don't think anyone can argue with your point that it is better to
> make the final than lose in the semi, but realistically when we're
> talking the two best players of a given era there are going to be a
> certain number of career-defining matches. The fact is that Nadal has
> gotten the better of Fed in those matches. Before this last AO I
> wouldn't necessarily have said that because you could argue Fed has
> the edge on fast courts and Rafa on clay. Now we have to say Rafa on
> clay and at that they're at best even on fast courts.
>
> But it's not over yet for Fed. If he can rebound and get his Wimbledon
> title back, and all the better beating Nadal in the final, that will
> go a long way to shutting up the mob saying he's psyched out by Nadal
> or isn't as good, etc.
>
> Again, my post is less what I think things *should* be, or what I
> think is fair in terms of how these players should be judged, and more
> about the real perception of their careers by the media, overall fan
> base, etc.
>
> I just think there is a question mark hovering over Fed's career. That
> doesn't take him out of goat consideration because his record is
> phenomenal. But his career will look even better obviously if he can
> another big win over Nadal in a Slam match.
>
> But what do you think about these big matches against Nadal? Do you
> think it's meaningless and that Fed can lose to Nadal two or three
> more times in a row in big Slam matches and it will have no effect
> whatsoever on his legacy?

I will just give you one contextual factor. In five years time, if
both are playing and fit, I will be very surprised if Federer is
better than Nadal on any surface other than fast indoor. So relative
age is a huge context. The younger player in his prime, other things
being equal, should win. If you ignore that in h2h discussions, you
don't really understand tennis (or many sports).

In a few years time Nadal will start getting beaten up by a younger
guy. Will that start diminishing what he has achieved so far?

So your microscopic focus on just the h2h with Nadal ignores all the
other factors in Federer's career. Yet when someone analyses Sampras'
record against Agassi in microspcopic detail you get more than a touch
defensive.

Hmmm...


    
Date: 04 Feb 2009 01:01:05
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
topspin wrote:
> On 2 Feb, 23:05, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 2, 5:34 pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'm afraid you are on dangerous territory here. You are beginning to
>>> argue that Federer looks worse than Sampras because he loses more to
>>> Nadal.
>>> The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
>>> greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
>>> and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
>>> Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
>>> hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
>>> and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
>>> record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his legacy
>>> looking nearly as good.
>>> The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
>>> record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>>> I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players having
>>> worse records than they have in order to look good for legacy purposes
>>> seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>> As usual I think context is everything. It's not really a question so
>> much of what the overall record is.
>>
>> 13-6 in favor of Nadal doesn't look as bad, imo, if Fed wins that
>> Wimby final last year instead of, I don't know,
>> that Miami final or one of those YEC matches. Winning this year's AO
>> also would've been a great revenge victory
>> for Fed after that heartbreaking Wimby loss, but again he couldn't get
>> it done.
>>
>> I don't think anyone can argue with your point that it is better to
>> make the final than lose in the semi, but realistically when we're
>> talking the two best players of a given era there are going to be a
>> certain number of career-defining matches. The fact is that Nadal has
>> gotten the better of Fed in those matches. Before this last AO I
>> wouldn't necessarily have said that because you could argue Fed has
>> the edge on fast courts and Rafa on clay. Now we have to say Rafa on
>> clay and at that they're at best even on fast courts.
>>
>> But it's not over yet for Fed. If he can rebound and get his Wimbledon
>> title back, and all the better beating Nadal in the final, that will
>> go a long way to shutting up the mob saying he's psyched out by Nadal
>> or isn't as good, etc.
>>
>> Again, my post is less what I think things *should* be, or what I
>> think is fair in terms of how these players should be judged, and more
>> about the real perception of their careers by the media, overall fan
>> base, etc.
>>
>> I just think there is a question mark hovering over Fed's career. That
>> doesn't take him out of goat consideration because his record is
>> phenomenal. But his career will look even better obviously if he can
>> another big win over Nadal in a Slam match.
>>
>> But what do you think about these big matches against Nadal? Do you
>> think it's meaningless and that Fed can lose to Nadal two or three
>> more times in a row in big Slam matches and it will have no effect
>> whatsoever on his legacy?
>
> I will just give you one contextual factor. In five years time, if
> both are playing and fit, I will be very surprised if Federer is
> better than Nadal on any surface other than fast indoor. So relative
> age is a huge context. The younger player in his prime, other things
> being equal, should win. If you ignore that in h2h discussions, you
> don't really understand tennis (or many sports).
>
> In a few years time Nadal will start getting beaten up by a younger
> guy. Will that start diminishing what he has achieved so far?
>
> So your microscopic focus on just the h2h with Nadal ignores all the
> other factors in Federer's career. Yet when someone analyses Sampras'
> record against Agassi in microspcopic detail you get more than a touch
> defensive.
>
> Hmmm...


John says Safin/Hewitt (both 10 yrs younger) were better than Sampras in
absolute terms, even though they were 20 & he was 30.

So how could Fed have an excuse when Rafa is only 5 yrs younger (not 10)
& Fed is still only 27....?

Are you saying John has it completely wrong?



   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 15:05:16
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 5:34=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> I'm afraid you are on dangerous territory here. You are beginning to
> argue that Federer looks worse than Sampras because he loses more to
> Nadal.
>
> The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
> greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
> and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
> Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
> hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
> and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
> record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his legacy
> looking nearly as good.
>
> The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
> record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>
> I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players having
> worse records than they have in order to look good for legacy purposes
> seems the logic of the madhouse to me.

As usual I think context is everything. It's not really a question so
much of what the overall record is.

13-6 in favor of Nadal doesn't look as bad, imo, if Fed wins that
Wimby final last year instead of, I don't know,
that Miami final or one of those YEC matches. Winning this year's AO
also would've been a great revenge victory
for Fed after that heartbreaking Wimby loss, but again he couldn't get
it done.

I don't think anyone can argue with your point that it is better to
make the final than lose in the semi, but realistically when we're
talking the two best players of a given era there are going to be a
certain number of career-defining matches. The fact is that Nadal has
gotten the better of Fed in those matches. Before this last AO I
wouldn't necessarily have said that because you could argue Fed has
the edge on fast courts and Rafa on clay. Now we have to say Rafa on
clay and at that they're at best even on fast courts.

But it's not over yet for Fed. If he can rebound and get his Wimbledon
title back, and all the better beating Nadal in the final, that will
go a long way to shutting up the mob saying he's psyched out by Nadal
or isn't as good, etc.

Again, my post is less what I think things *should* be, or what I
think is fair in terms of how these players should be judged, and more
about the real perception of their careers by the media, overall fan
base, etc.

I just think there is a question mark hovering over Fed's career. That
doesn't take him out of goat consideration because his record is
phenomenal. But his career will look even better obviously if he can
another big win over Nadal in a Slam match.

But what do you think about these big matches against Nadal? Do you
think it's meaningless and that Fed can lose to Nadal two or three
more times in a row in big Slam matches and it will have no effect
whatsoever on his legacy?


    
Date: 03 Feb 2009 10:18:49
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 5:34 pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm afraid you are on dangerous territory here. You are beginning to
>> argue that Federer looks worse than Sampras because he loses more to
>> Nadal.
>>
>> The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
>> greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
>> and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
>> Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
>> hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
>> and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
>> record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his
>> legacy looking nearly as good.
>>
>> The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
>> record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>>
>> I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players having
>> worse records than they have in order to look good for legacy
>> purposes seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>
> As usual I think context is everything. It's not really a question so
> much of what the overall record is.
>
> 13-6 in favor of Nadal doesn't look as bad, imo, if Fed wins that
> Wimby final last year instead of, I don't know,
> that Miami final or one of those YEC matches. Winning this year's AO
> also would've been a great revenge victory
> for Fed after that heartbreaking Wimby loss, but again he couldn't get
> it done.
>
> I don't think anyone can argue with your point that it is better to
> make the final than lose in the semi, but realistically when we're
> talking the two best players of a given era there are going to be a
> certain number of career-defining matches. The fact is that Nadal has
> gotten the better of Fed in those matches. Before this last AO I
> wouldn't necessarily have said that because you could argue Fed has
> the edge on fast courts and Rafa on clay. Now we have to say Rafa on
> clay and at that they're at best even on fast courts.

Though with his recent comments Nadal has differentiated between different forms
of so-called 'fast' courts by saying that the AO surface bites and takes his
top-spin but the USO surface doesn't. So it seems that the AO and USO are
different enough to make the difference between the no. 1 player winning and
losing and cannot be simply lumped together as 'hardcourt'.




   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 15:01:53
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On 2 Feb, 22:50, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> topspin wrote:
> > On 2 Feb, 21:15, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Feb 2, 3:53 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 2, 3:37 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 3, 2:30 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Didn't he also lose to Agassi in AO 1995?
>
> >>>>>> Yes, but I'd say in their big, big matches for their career it
> >>>>>> was Sampras 6 Agassi 2, with both of Agassi's wins
> >>>>>> coming at AO.
>
> >>>>> What do you mean by big matches? An AO final isn't big? Rafa
> >>>>> didn't win a big match against Federer two days ago?
>
> >>>> Yes, of course it is. I said Agassi won 2 big matches over Pete at
> >>>> AO. I suppose you could argue the 92 French
> >>>> as well, but that match is easily forgotten since Courier trounced
> >>>> Andre in the next round.
>
> >>> Why would you forget the outcome of one match based on the outcome
> >>> of the next one? So Roddick didn't get his ass handed to him in the
> >>> SF because Federer lost the final? WTF?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> Well, all right then, so 6-3 for Pete. But I do think these players'
> >> careers are defined by a few key matches.
>
> >> In Pete and Andre's case, the 95 USO final was probably the biggest
> >> match they ever played, maybe the 99 Wimby second. I doubt many
> >> casual tennis fans even remember they played that FO match.
>
> > I'm afraid you are on dangerous territory here. You are beginning to
> > argue that Federer looks worse than Sampras because he loses more to
> > Nadal.
>
> > The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
> > greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
> > and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
> > Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
> > hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
> > and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
> > record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his legacy
> > looking nearly as good.
>
> > The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
> > record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>
> > I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players having
> > worse records than they have in order to look good for legacy purposes
> > seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>
> > Or the logic of someone determined that 'their' favourite will be the
> > best, no matter what.
>
> > Or am I missing something.?
>
> > :-)
>
> finals and semis are better than 2nd 3rd rounds. from that perspective it's
> better to have more latter rounds.
> however, since only titles count this becomes quite irrelevant as the time
> passes by.
>
> who cares now if Laver played QF or SF in one the slams he didn't win.
>
> the matchup issues is a completely different thing. it doesn't matter that
> much if federer is losing to nadal only in finals, or semifinals.

I will enter the madhouse for a second....

So Sampras had the better matchup against Agassi because he wasn't
good enough to meet him more often at the USO, or at all at the FO?
And Federer has a worse record because he 'is' good enough to meet
Nadal more often on slower surfaces.

And I haven't even started on the notion of greatness being decide by
the opinions of those who 'don't' understand the sport and its
history, rather than the opinions of those who might....

Oh Alice, Mad Hatter, March Hare, where are you hiding....


    
Date: 03 Feb 2009 00:23:37
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
topspin wrote:
> On 2 Feb, 22:50, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> topspin wrote:
>>> On 2 Feb, 21:15, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 2, 3:53 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 2, 3:37 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 3, 2:30 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Didn't he also lose to Agassi in AO 1995?
>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, but I'd say in their big, big matches for their career it
>>>>>>>> was Sampras 6 Agassi 2, with both of Agassi's wins
>>>>>>>> coming at AO.
>>
>>>>>>> What do you mean by big matches? An AO final isn't big? Rafa
>>>>>>> didn't win a big match against Federer two days ago?
>>
>>>>>> Yes, of course it is. I said Agassi won 2 big matches over Pete
>>>>>> at AO. I suppose you could argue the 92 French
>>>>>> as well, but that match is easily forgotten since Courier
>>>>>> trounced Andre in the next round.
>>
>>>>> Why would you forget the outcome of one match based on the outcome
>>>>> of the next one? So Roddick didn't get his ass handed to him in
>>>>> the SF because Federer lost the final? WTF?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>> Well, all right then, so 6-3 for Pete. But I do think these
>>>> players' careers are defined by a few key matches.
>>
>>>> In Pete and Andre's case, the 95 USO final was probably the biggest
>>>> match they ever played, maybe the 99 Wimby second. I doubt many
>>>> casual tennis fans even remember they played that FO match.
>>
>>> I'm afraid you are on dangerous territory here. You are beginning to
>>> argue that Federer looks worse than Sampras because he loses more to
>>> Nadal.
>>
>>> The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
>>> greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
>>> and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
>>> Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
>>> hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
>>> and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
>>> record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his
>>> legacy looking nearly as good.
>>
>>> The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
>>> record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>>
>>> I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players
>>> having worse records than they have in order to look good for
>>> legacy purposes seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>>
>>> Or the logic of someone determined that 'their' favourite will be
>>> the best, no matter what.
>>
>>> Or am I missing something.?
>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> finals and semis are better than 2nd 3rd rounds. from that
>> perspective it's better to have more latter rounds.
>> however, since only titles count this becomes quite irrelevant as
>> the time passes by.
>>
>> who cares now if Laver played QF or SF in one the slams he didn't
>> win.
>>
>> the matchup issues is a completely different thing. it doesn't
>> matter that much if federer is losing to nadal only in finals, or
>> semifinals.
>
> I will enter the madhouse for a second....
>
> So Sampras had the better matchup against Agassi because he wasn't
> good enough to meet him more often at the USO, or at all at the FO?
> And Federer has a worse record because he 'is' good enough to meet
> Nadal more often on slower surfaces.
>
> And I haven't even started on the notion of greatness being decide by
> the opinions of those who 'don't' understand the sport and its
> history, rather than the opinions of those who might....
>
> Oh Alice, Mad Hatter, March Hare, where are you hiding....


That was not my point.


1. Forget Nadal, if Federer had lost 4 FO finals to 4 different guys he'd
still have 0 FO titles, and still would be behind Connors, Wilander, Agassi
(now Nadal) in that aspect, surface versatility.

Sure he's more "succesful" than Sampras, Edberg, Becker etc, and for sure
his record on clay is better than theirs, but in the end you have two
groups, those who won on all surfaces, and those who haven't.
Playing multiple finals may be enough to surpass Sampras in that regard, but
it's worht basically nothing in historical terms.


2. Now with Nadal, he not only lost big slam matches to him on clay, but on
grass, and HC. Dissmiss clay, if you wish, it's looks awful for Federer now.
He is losing big matches to a guy playing in his era. He is to Nadal what
Agassi was to Sampras.

And you know how the history views that rivalry




   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 14:34:37
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On 2 Feb, 21:15, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 3:53=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 3:37=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Feb 3, 2:30=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >> > > Didn't he also lose to Agassi in AO 1995?
>
> > >> > Yes, but I'd say in their big, big matches for their career it was
> > >> > Sampras 6 Agassi 2, with both of Agassi's wins
> > >> > coming at AO.
>
> > >> What do you mean by big matches? An AO final isn't big? Rafa didn't
> > >> win a big match against Federer two days ago?
>
> > > Yes, of course it is. I said Agassi won 2 big matches over Pete at AO=
.
> > > I suppose you could argue the 92 French
> > > as well, but that match is easily forgotten since Courier trounced
> > > Andre in the next round.
>
> > Why would you forget the outcome of one match based on the outcome of t=
he next
> > one? So Roddick didn't get his ass handed to him in the SF because Fede=
rer
> > lost the final? WTF?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, all right then, so 6-3 for Pete. But I do think these players'
> careers are defined by a few key matches.
>
> In Pete and Andre's case, the 95 USO final was probably the biggest
> match they ever played, maybe the 99 Wimby second. I doubt many casual
> tennis fans even remember they played that FO match.

I'm afraid you are on dangerous territory here. You are beginning to
argue that Federer looks worse than Sampras because he loses more to
Nadal.

The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his legacy
looking nearly as good.

The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.

I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players having
worse records than they have in order to look good for legacy purposes
seems the logic of the madhouse to me.

Or the logic of someone determined that 'their' favourite will be the
best, no matter what.

Or am I missing something.?

:-)


    
Date: 03 Feb 2009 01:39:07
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:34:37 -0800 (PST), topspin
<goolagongfan@hotmail.com > wrote:

>The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
>greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
>and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
>Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
>hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
>and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
>record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his legacy
>looking nearly as good.
>
>The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
>record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>
>I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players having
>worse records than they have in order to look good for legacy purposes
>seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>
>Or the logic of someone determined that 'their' favourite will be the
>best, no matter what.
>
>Or am I missing something.?
>
>:-)

This is the point I and some others have made for these people for
years, but it is hopeless...



    
Date: 02 Feb 2009 23:50:56
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
topspin wrote:
> On 2 Feb, 21:15, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 2, 3:53 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 2, 3:37 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 3, 2:30 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Didn't he also lose to Agassi in AO 1995?
>>
>>>>>> Yes, but I'd say in their big, big matches for their career it
>>>>>> was Sampras 6 Agassi 2, with both of Agassi's wins
>>>>>> coming at AO.
>>
>>>>> What do you mean by big matches? An AO final isn't big? Rafa
>>>>> didn't win a big match against Federer two days ago?
>>
>>>> Yes, of course it is. I said Agassi won 2 big matches over Pete at
>>>> AO. I suppose you could argue the 92 French
>>>> as well, but that match is easily forgotten since Courier trounced
>>>> Andre in the next round.
>>
>>> Why would you forget the outcome of one match based on the outcome
>>> of the next one? So Roddick didn't get his ass handed to him in the
>>> SF because Federer lost the final? WTF?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Well, all right then, so 6-3 for Pete. But I do think these players'
>> careers are defined by a few key matches.
>>
>> In Pete and Andre's case, the 95 USO final was probably the biggest
>> match they ever played, maybe the 99 Wimby second. I doubt many
>> casual tennis fans even remember they played that FO match.
>
> I'm afraid you are on dangerous territory here. You are beginning to
> argue that Federer looks worse than Sampras because he loses more to
> Nadal.
>
> The logical conclusion of your argument is that Federer would be a
> greater player if somehow he managed to lose in the semi this year,
> and in the semi at the FO in each of the last 3 years, and at the
> Wimbledon semi this year, because then he would have had the 'minor
> hiccups that are forgotten by all but the most knowledgeable fans',
> and a much better record against Nadal. In fact he should make his
> record at the AO and FO as poor as Sampras' in order to get his legacy
> looking nearly as good.
>
> The other logical conclusion is that Nadal should have improved his
> record by losing in the semis at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007.
>
> I don't know about you, but an argument that relies on players having
> worse records than they have in order to look good for legacy purposes
> seems the logic of the madhouse to me.
>
> Or the logic of someone determined that 'their' favourite will be the
> best, no matter what.
>
> Or am I missing something.?
>
> :-)

finals and semis are better than 2nd 3rd rounds. from that perspective it's
better to have more latter rounds.
however, since only titles count this becomes quite irrelevant as the time
passes by.

who cares now if Laver played QF or SF in one the slams he didn't win.


the matchup issues is a completely different thing. it doesn't matter that
much if federer is losing to nadal only in finals, or semifinals.




   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 13:15:08
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 3:53=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 3:37=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 3, 2:30=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > > Didn't he also lose to Agassi in AO 1995?
>
> >> > Yes, but I'd say in their big, big matches for their career it was
> >> > Sampras 6 Agassi 2, with both of Agassi's wins
> >> > coming at AO.
>
> >> What do you mean by big matches? An AO final isn't big? Rafa didn't
> >> win a big match against Federer two days ago?
>
> > Yes, of course it is. I said Agassi won 2 big matches over Pete at AO.
> > I suppose you could argue the 92 French
> > as well, but that match is easily forgotten since Courier trounced
> > Andre in the next round.
>
> Why would you forget the outcome of one match based on the outcome of the=
next
> one? So Roddick didn't get his ass handed to him in the SF because Federe=
r
> lost the final? WTF?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, all right then, so 6-3 for Pete. But I do think these players'
careers are defined by a few key matches.

In Pete and Andre's case, the 95 USO final was probably the biggest
match they ever played, maybe the 99 Wimby second. I doubt many casual
tennis fans even remember they played that FO match.


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 10:53:39
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On 2 Feb, 18:44, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 7:35 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main =
rival."
> >>>>>> Right on, Budster!
> >>>>> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek=
?
> >>>>> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
> >>>>> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
> >>>>> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the title=
s
> >>>>> each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
> >>>> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
> >>>> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
> >>>> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
> >>>> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras hi=
t
> >>>> 27 Agassi was already 28.
> >>> Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djokovic or =
a Murray.
> >>> (that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him). Guys b=
orn in
> >>> 74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't play, a=
nd 1 AO when
> >>> Sampras retired.
> >> Even so it doesn't mean those guys woulda troubled him unduly in the b=
ig
> >> matches. =A0I just can't see what they have to hurt him at his peak...=
.?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I don't think so either, and at the end of the day I the record will
> > show that Sampras was never dominated
> > by any of his main challengers while Fed was.
>
> > But we go back to the same thing on this ng when it comes to goat
> > arguments. Do we base it on absolute ability (subjective), dominance
> > over peers (not entirely subjective, but it quickly turns that way
> > with questions of who had tougher opponents to deal with) or sheer
> > numbers.
>
> > You've been a consistent advocate of using sheer numbers with quality
> > mix, with the argument that everything else is subjective. And as far
> > as your ability, talent and achievement goat categories, the way I
> > read it is that achievement goat is akin in importance to winning
> > Wimbledon, ability goat is more like winning Hamburg and talent goat
> > is what? Abu Dhabi?
>
> > So imo, Fed still has a great shot at the ultimate in tennis - winning
> > the most big titles. All he has to do now is stick around as the #2 or
> > #3 player and capitalize on his opportunities when they present
> > themselves (read: Nadal loses earlier in the tournament) and at the
> > end he'll have as good as or a better goat resume than anyone.
>
> True - but that anomaly where a guy racks up biggest historical numbers
> yet at same time has his arse handed to him by just 1 guy can't be
> explained by 1 definition of goat. =A0

Very true. Just like the anomaly where a guy racks up big numbers and
gets his arse handed to him by several nonentities on several
surfaces...

Like I say, the greatest has to

1) win on all competitive surfaces
2) beat all comers, at all times.

No exceptions.

:-)


   
Date: 04 Feb 2009 00:50:15
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
topspin wrote:
> On 2 Feb, 18:44, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 2, 7:35 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."
>>>>>>>> Right on, Budster!
>>>>>>> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?
>>>>>>> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
>>>>>>> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>>>>>>> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
>>>>>>> each player has won. The rest fades away.
>>>>>> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
>>>>>> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
>>>>>> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
>>>>>> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras hit
>>>>>> 27 Agassi was already 28.
>>>>> Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djokovic or a Murray.
>>>>> (that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him). Guys born in
>>>>> 74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't play, and 1 AO when
>>>>> Sampras retired.
>>>> Even so it doesn't mean those guys woulda troubled him unduly in the big
>>>> matches. I just can't see what they have to hurt him at his peak....?- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> I don't think so either, and at the end of the day I the record will
>>> show that Sampras was never dominated
>>> by any of his main challengers while Fed was.
>>> But we go back to the same thing on this ng when it comes to goat
>>> arguments. Do we base it on absolute ability (subjective), dominance
>>> over peers (not entirely subjective, but it quickly turns that way
>>> with questions of who had tougher opponents to deal with) or sheer
>>> numbers.
>>> You've been a consistent advocate of using sheer numbers with quality
>>> mix, with the argument that everything else is subjective. And as far
>>> as your ability, talent and achievement goat categories, the way I
>>> read it is that achievement goat is akin in importance to winning
>>> Wimbledon, ability goat is more like winning Hamburg and talent goat
>>> is what? Abu Dhabi?
>>> So imo, Fed still has a great shot at the ultimate in tennis - winning
>>> the most big titles. All he has to do now is stick around as the #2 or
>>> #3 player and capitalize on his opportunities when they present
>>> themselves (read: Nadal loses earlier in the tournament) and at the
>>> end he'll have as good as or a better goat resume than anyone.
>> True - but that anomaly where a guy racks up biggest historical numbers
>> yet at same time has his arse handed to him by just 1 guy can't be
>> explained by 1 definition of goat.
>
> Very true. Just like the anomaly where a guy racks up big numbers and
> gets his arse handed to him by several nonentities on several
> surfaces...
>
> Like I say, the greatest has to
>
> 1) win on all competitive surfaces
> 2) beat all comers, at all times.
>
> No exceptions.
>
> :-)


Also has to win more slams & better quality mix than lower players, else
they aren't lower.




  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 05:54:43
From: guyana
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 7:35=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
> >>> On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main ri=
val."
> >>>> Right on, Budster!
> >>> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?
> >>> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
> >>> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>
> >>> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
> >>> each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
> >> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
> >> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
> >> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
>
> >> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras hit
> >> 27 Agassi was already 28.
>
> > Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djokovic or a =
Murray.
> > (that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him). Guys bor=
n in
> > 74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't play, and=
1 AO when
> > Sampras retired.
>
> Even so it doesn't mean those guys woulda troubled him unduly in the big
> matches. =A0I just can't see what they have to hurt him at his peak....?

One does wonder how Pete or even JMac would have handled the moon
balls to the bh from Rafa, they would have volleyed it away which Fed
cannot do!! I do think Pete would have beaten Rafa on grass and hc!!


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 05:48:59
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On 2 Feb, 13:04, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 8:00=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > > But we go back to the same thing on this ng when it comes to goat
> > > arguments. Do we base it on absolute ability (subjective), dominance
> > > over peers (not entirely subjective, but it quickly turns that way
> > > with questions of who had tougher opponents to deal with) or sheer
> > > numbers.
>
> > > You've been a consistent advocate of using sheer numbers with quality
> > > mix, with the argument that everything else is subjective. And as far
> > > as your ability, talent and achievement goat categories, the way I
> > > read it is that achievement goat is akin in importance to winning
> > > Wimbledon, ability goat is more like winning Hamburg and talent goat
> > > is what? Abu Dhabi?
>
> > > So imo, Fed still has a great shot at the ultimate in tennis - winnin=
g
> > > the most big titles.
>
> > And what will that prove? That he has won the most big titles ...
>
> Of course it won't end all arguments and there will be question marks
> about Fed.
> But I don't see how the guy with the most big titles is eliminated
> from goat discussions. It doesn't make any
> sense. If anything that guy will probably be the focal point of the
> goat discussion. Or best of Open Era as I'd
> prefer to limit it to.

I'd limit is to best since 1989 or someone will ask you compare and
contrast the relative and absolute 'bigness' of these titles in the
1970s - Australian Open, Italian Open, WCT finals, Suntory
exhibitions, Wimbledon and French Opens in strike and ban years, .....

:-)



  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 05:04:35
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 8:00=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > But we go back to the same thing on this ng when it comes to goat
> > arguments. Do we base it on absolute ability (subjective), dominance
> > over peers (not entirely subjective, but it quickly turns that way
> > with questions of who had tougher opponents to deal with) or sheer
> > numbers.
>
> > You've been a consistent advocate of using sheer numbers with quality
> > mix, with the argument that everything else is subjective. And as far
> > as your ability, talent and achievement goat categories, the way I
> > read it is that achievement goat is akin in importance to winning
> > Wimbledon, ability goat is more like winning Hamburg and talent goat
> > is what? Abu Dhabi?
>
> > So imo, Fed still has a great shot at the ultimate in tennis - winning
> > the most big titles.
>
> And what will that prove? That he has won the most big titles ...

Of course it won't end all arguments and there will be question marks
about Fed.
But I don't see how the guy with the most big titles is eliminated
from goat discussions. It doesn't make any
sense. If anything that guy will probably be the focal point of the
goat discussion. Or best of Open Era as I'd
prefer to limit it to.


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 05:00:06
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT

> But we go back to the same thing on this ng when it comes to goat
> arguments. Do we base it on absolute ability (subjective), dominance
> over peers (not entirely subjective, but it quickly turns that way
> with questions of who had tougher opponents to deal with) or sheer
> numbers.
>
> You've been a consistent advocate of using sheer numbers with quality
> mix, with the argument that everything else is subjective. And as far
> as your ability, talent and achievement goat categories, the way I
> read it is that achievement goat is akin in importance to winning
> Wimbledon, ability goat is more like winning Hamburg and talent goat
> is what? Abu Dhabi?
>
> So imo, Fed still has a great shot at the ultimate in tennis - winning
> the most big titles.

And what will that prove? That he has won the most big titles ...



   
Date: 03 Feb 2009 05:45:13
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>> But we go back to the same thing on this ng when it comes to goat
>> arguments. Do we base it on absolute ability (subjective), dominance
>> over peers (not entirely subjective, but it quickly turns that way
>> with questions of who had tougher opponents to deal with) or sheer
>> numbers.
>>
>> You've been a consistent advocate of using sheer numbers with quality
>> mix, with the argument that everything else is subjective. And as far
>> as your ability, talent and achievement goat categories, the way I
>> read it is that achievement goat is akin in importance to winning
>> Wimbledon, ability goat is more like winning Hamburg and talent goat
>> is what? Abu Dhabi?
>>
>> So imo, Fed still has a great shot at the ultimate in tennis - winning
>> the most big titles.
>
> And what will that prove? That he has won the most big titles ...
>


Yes - you'll note all players talk in terms of winning this & that, not
being considered best based on something else.


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 04:58:14
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 7:35=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
> >>> On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main ri=
val."
> >>>> Right on, Budster!
> >>> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?
> >>> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
> >>> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>
> >>> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
> >>> each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
> >> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
> >> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
> >> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
>
> >> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras hit
> >> 27 Agassi was already 28.
>
> > Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djokovic or a =
Murray.
> > (that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him). Guys bor=
n in
> > 74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't play, and=
1 AO when
> > Sampras retired.
>
> Even so it doesn't mean those guys woulda troubled him unduly in the big
> matches. =A0I just can't see what they have to hurt him at his peak....?-=
Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't think so either, and at the end of the day I the record will
show that Sampras was never dominated
by any of his main challengers while Fed was.

But we go back to the same thing on this ng when it comes to goat
arguments. Do we base it on absolute ability (subjective), dominance
over peers (not entirely subjective, but it quickly turns that way
with questions of who had tougher opponents to deal with) or sheer
numbers.

You've been a consistent advocate of using sheer numbers with quality
mix, with the argument that everything else is subjective. And as far
as your ability, talent and achievement goat categories, the way I
read it is that achievement goat is akin in importance to winning
Wimbledon, ability goat is more like winning Hamburg and talent goat
is what? Abu Dhabi?

So imo, Fed still has a great shot at the ultimate in tennis - winning
the most big titles. All he has to do now is stick around as the #2 or
#3 player and capitalize on his opportunities when they present
themselves (read: Nadal loses earlier in the tournament) and at the
end he'll have as good as or a better goat resume than anyone.



   
Date: 03 Feb 2009 05:44:13
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 7:35 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."
>>>>>> Right on, Budster!
>>>>> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?
>>>>> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
>>>>> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>>>>> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
>>>>> each player has won. The rest fades away.
>>>> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
>>>> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
>>>> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
>>>> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras hit
>>>> 27 Agassi was already 28.
>>> Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djokovic or a Murray.
>>> (that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him). Guys born in
>>> 74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't play, and 1 AO when
>>> Sampras retired.
>> Even so it doesn't mean those guys woulda troubled him unduly in the big
>> matches. I just can't see what they have to hurt him at his peak....?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I don't think so either, and at the end of the day I the record will
> show that Sampras was never dominated
> by any of his main challengers while Fed was.
>
> But we go back to the same thing on this ng when it comes to goat
> arguments. Do we base it on absolute ability (subjective), dominance
> over peers (not entirely subjective, but it quickly turns that way
> with questions of who had tougher opponents to deal with) or sheer
> numbers.
>
> You've been a consistent advocate of using sheer numbers with quality
> mix, with the argument that everything else is subjective. And as far
> as your ability, talent and achievement goat categories, the way I
> read it is that achievement goat is akin in importance to winning
> Wimbledon, ability goat is more like winning Hamburg and talent goat
> is what? Abu Dhabi?
>
> So imo, Fed still has a great shot at the ultimate in tennis - winning
> the most big titles. All he has to do now is stick around as the #2 or
> #3 player and capitalize on his opportunities when they present
> themselves (read: Nadal loses earlier in the tournament) and at the
> end he'll have as good as or a better goat resume than anyone.
>


True - but that anomaly where a guy racks up biggest historical numbers
yet at same time has his arse handed to him by just 1 guy can't be
explained by 1 definition of goat. The 3 goat levels cover it. Yes
achievement goat is the ultimate as it's tangible - ie most big slam
wins & best quality (of title) mix. Ability goat is also a big,
tangible indicator (ie those loses to Rafa are real & not hypothetical).
'Talent goat' is of course eye-candy/wow factor & very valuable to
tennis fans, but it is the least important as it's subjective & doesn't
necessarily translate to any wins, just beautiful play.

So Fed shouldn't cry too much - he's still in running for the best goat
title (ie wins), but will have to miss out on ability goat title. He
can't be all time best when a current guy is fave to beat him pretty
much on any surface.




  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 04:31:45
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 2, 12:14=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 8:04=A0pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 1, 11:59=A0am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>
> >> > "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main ri=
val."
>
> >> > Right on, Budster!
>
> >> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?
> >> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
> >> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>
> >> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
> >> each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
>
> > In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
> > maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
> > Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
>
> > Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras hit
> > 27 Agassi was already 28.
>
> Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djokovic or a Mu=
rray.
> (that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him). Guys born =
in
> 74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't play, and 1=
AO when
> Sampras retired.

Rios and Kafelnikov were talented but not hungry.

Rafter was quite hungry but not overly talented.



   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 14:41:36
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 04:31:45 -0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Feb 2, 12:14 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."
>>
>> >> > Right on, Budster!
>>
>> >> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?
>> >> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
>> >> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>>
>> >> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
>> >> each player has won.  The rest fades away.
>>
>> > In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
>> > maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
>> > Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
>>
>> > Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras hit
>> > 27 Agassi was already 28.
>>
>> Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djokovic or a Murray.
>> (that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him). Guys born in
>> 74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't play, and 1 AO when
>> Sampras retired.
>
>Rios and Kafelnikov were talented but not hungry.
>
>Rafter was quite hungry but not overly talented.

Of current players Nalbandian is pretty talented and very hungry :-)




  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 16:49:14
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 1, 10:17=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> <gregor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:49f818ac-3c6e-4f5f-a781-17e1616c69d4@x6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 1, 8:38 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 2:25 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 8:21 pm, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 3:12 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his
> > > > > > > main rival."
>
> > > > > > > Right on, Budster!
>
> > > > > > Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat
> > > > > > Krajicek?
> > > > > > Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>
> > > > > > In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the
> > > > > > titles
> > > > > > each player has won. The rest fades away.
>
> > > > > In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That'=
s
> > > > > maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of on=
e.
> > > > > Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
>
> > > > Fed has passed his peak years, but Nadal has not yet reached his
> > > > peak. So that evens out.
>
> > > > > Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras
> > > > > hit
> > > > > 27 Agassi was already 28.
>
> > > > > Anyway, all this GOAT talk is nonsense. Sampras and Federer are b=
oth
> > > > > great players and that's it. And Nadal is going to be one as well=
.
>
> > > > Fed cannot be GOAT until he wins a French and he is at least tied w=
ith
> > > > Sampras.
>
> > > Yes, as I said, all this GOAT talk is nonsense ...
>
> > If Nadal can keep this up and keep racking up the numbers, he can be a
> > GOAT contender with no holes in his resume. Notice how he has
> > dominating head to heads against all his peers (Fed, Murray, Djoker)
> > and also has won slams on all surfaces...
>
> >I'm obviously just making posts here for people to completely
> >ignore ...
>
> sorry greg, but I think you were one of the people that told me that you
> thought it would be impossible for Nadal to ever win a hard court slam ev=
en
> though I pointed out he seemed to be pretty darn good at playing them
> actually, so you're not going to get much sympathy from me.
> P.S. Sampras rules! :)

I certainly never said anything of the sort. You are confusing me with
someone else.



  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 01:42:04
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT

"Gordon Cameron" <gcameron@neteze.com > wrote in message
news:6886e694-c41c-42cf-94d3-42b8e8cde03b@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com > wrote:
> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."
>
> Right on, Budster!

>Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?

Was Krajicek his main rival?
I see there is already big thread and people replied to you when in reality
they shouldn't have as your logic sucks.
Didn't even say Bud is right/wrong you just completely misunderstood him.

way to go.


>Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
>top player in the world than against some journeyman.

Sampras has 1-1 record in slams vs Krajicek. Even if it had 0-1 it wouldn't
still mean anything.



>In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
>each player has won. The rest fades away.

yeah,




  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 14:03:36
From: undecided
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 1, 3:12=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 8:04=A0pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 11:59=A0am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main riv=
al."
>
> > > Right on, Budster!
>
> > Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?
> > Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
> > top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>
> > In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
> > each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
>
> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
>
> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras hit
> 27 Agassi was already 28.
>
> Anyway, all this GOAT talk is nonsense. Sampras and Federer are both
> great players and that's it. And Nadal is going to be one as well.

I don't know, 2009 Fed was lauded as the good ol' Fed from 05-07 until
he ran into Rafa. He dismissed most of his opponents easily and look
like kthe old Fed.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 13:43:02
From: xamigax@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On 1 f=E9v, 21:21, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 3:12=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 8:04=A0pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 11:59=A0am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main r=
ival."
>
> > > > Right on, Budster!
>
> > > Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?
> > > Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
> > > top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>
> > > In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
> > > each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
>
> > In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
> > maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
> > Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
>
> Fed has passed his peak years, but Nadal has not yet reached his
> peak. =A0So that evens out.
>
>
>
> > Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras hit
> > 27 Agassi was already 28.
>
> > Anyway, all this GOAT talk is nonsense. Sampras and Federer are both
> > great players and that's it. And Nadal is going to be one as well.
>
> Fed cannot be GOAT until he wins a French and he is at least tied with
> Sampras.

Speaking about minimum logic: since Fed allready has 13 slams, winning
the French is enough to walk over Sampras. Same raw numbers, but NCYGS
for Federer.
Any other slam and a French would only give him a better edge over
Pete.

Share & Enjoy,
Manolo


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:41:14
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 1, 2:04=A0pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com > wrote:
> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?
> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>
> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
> each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.

Krajicek-Sampras are not in the same category IMO. The head to head
there is only 6-4, which would have been comparable to the 8-6 that
Fed was at before the defeats to Nadal started to pile up. Plus, if
Nadal had just won one slam, Fed wouldn't have lost his shot at
GOAThood.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:40:50
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 1, 8:38=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2:25=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 8:21=A0pm, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 3:12=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 8:04=A0pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 1, 11:59=A0am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his ma=
in rival."
>
> > > > > > Right on, Budster!
>
> > > > > Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajic=
ek?
> > > > > Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the oth=
er
> > > > > top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>
> > > > > In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the tit=
les
> > > > > each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
>
> > > > In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
> > > > maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
> > > > Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
>
> > > Fed has passed his peak years, but Nadal has not yet reached his
> > > peak. =A0So that evens out.
>
> > > > Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras h=
it
> > > > 27 Agassi was already 28.
>
> > > > Anyway, all this GOAT talk is nonsense. Sampras and Federer are bot=
h
> > > > great players and that's it. And Nadal is going to be one as well.
>
> > > Fed cannot be GOAT until he wins a French and he is at least tied wit=
h
> > > Sampras.
>
> > Yes, as I said, all this GOAT talk is nonsense ...
>
> If Nadal can keep this up and keep racking up the numbers, he can be a
> GOAT contender with no holes in his resume. Notice how he has
> dominating head to heads against all his peers (Fed, Murray, Djoker)
> and also has won slams on all surfaces...

I'm obviously just making posts here for people to completely
ignore ...



   
Date: 01 Feb 2009 22:17:09
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
<gregorawe@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:49f818ac-3c6e-4f5f-a781-17e1616c69d4@x6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 1, 8:38 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2:25 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 8:21 pm, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 3:12 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his
> > > > > > main rival."
>
> > > > > > Right on, Budster!
>
> > > > > Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat
> > > > > Krajicek?
> > > > > Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the
> > > > > other
> > > > > top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>
> > > > > In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the
> > > > > titles
> > > > > each player has won. The rest fades away.
>
> > > > In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
> > > > maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
> > > > Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
>
> > > Fed has passed his peak years, but Nadal has not yet reached his
> > > peak. So that evens out.
>
> > > > Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras
> > > > hit
> > > > 27 Agassi was already 28.
>
> > > > Anyway, all this GOAT talk is nonsense. Sampras and Federer are both
> > > > great players and that's it. And Nadal is going to be one as well.
>
> > > Fed cannot be GOAT until he wins a French and he is at least tied with
> > > Sampras.
>
> > Yes, as I said, all this GOAT talk is nonsense ...
>
> If Nadal can keep this up and keep racking up the numbers, he can be a
> GOAT contender with no holes in his resume. Notice how he has
> dominating head to heads against all his peers (Fed, Murray, Djoker)
> and also has won slams on all surfaces...
>
>I'm obviously just making posts here for people to completely
>ignore ...

sorry greg, but I think you were one of the people that told me that you
thought it would be impossible for Nadal to ever win a hard court slam even
though I pointed out he seemed to be pretty darn good at playing them
actually, so you're not going to get much sympathy from me.
P.S. Sampras rules! :)




  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:38:29
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 1, 2:25=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 8:21=A0pm, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 3:12=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 8:04=A0pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 11:59=A0am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main=
rival."
>
> > > > > Right on, Budster!
>
> > > > Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek=
?
> > > > Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
> > > > top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>
> > > > In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the title=
s
> > > > each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
>
> > > In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
> > > maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
> > > Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
>
> > Fed has passed his peak years, but Nadal has not yet reached his
> > peak. =A0So that evens out.
>
> > > Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras hit
> > > 27 Agassi was already 28.
>
> > > Anyway, all this GOAT talk is nonsense. Sampras and Federer are both
> > > great players and that's it. And Nadal is going to be one as well.
>
> > Fed cannot be GOAT until he wins a French and he is at least tied with
> > Sampras.
>
> Yes, as I said, all this GOAT talk is nonsense ...

If Nadal can keep this up and keep racking up the numbers, he can be a
GOAT contender with no holes in his resume. Notice how he has
dominating head to heads against all his peers (Fed, Murray, Djoker)
and also has won slams on all surfaces...


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:25:04
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 1, 8:21=A0pm, NB <nobuy...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 3:12=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 8:04=A0pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 11:59=A0am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main r=
ival."
>
> > > > Right on, Budster!
>
> > > Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?
> > > Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
> > > top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>
> > > In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
> > > each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
>
> > In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
> > maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
> > Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
>
> Fed has passed his peak years, but Nadal has not yet reached his
> peak. =A0So that evens out.
>
>
>
> > Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras hit
> > 27 Agassi was already 28.
>
> > Anyway, all this GOAT talk is nonsense. Sampras and Federer are both
> > great players and that's it. And Nadal is going to be one as well.
>
> Fed cannot be GOAT until he wins a French and he is at least tied with
> Sampras.

Yes, as I said, all this GOAT talk is nonsense ...



  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:21:09
From: NB
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 1, 3:12=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 8:04=A0pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 11:59=A0am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main riv=
al."
>
> > > Right on, Budster!
>
> > Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?
> > Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
> > top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>
> > In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
> > each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.
>
> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.

Fed has passed his peak years, but Nadal has not yet reached his
peak. So that evens out.

>
> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras hit
> 27 Agassi was already 28.
>
> Anyway, all this GOAT talk is nonsense. Sampras and Federer are both
> great players and that's it. And Nadal is going to be one as well.

Fed cannot be GOAT until he wins a French and he is at least tied with
Sampras.


   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 01:45:29
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT

"NB" <nobuyout@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:68dd1815-eafa-49df-8cde-5d33878b4cd3@t13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 1, 3:12 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main
> > > rival."
>
> > > Right on, Budster!
>
> > Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?
> > Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
> > top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>
> > In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
> > each player has won. The rest fades away.
>
> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.

Fed has passed his peak years, but Nadal has not yet reached his
peak. So that evens out.

I think he rached it..when you're #1 it is silly to claim one is not at his
peak.
Nadal came to the scene earlier, and reached peak earlier than Federer and
most likely will fade away earlier than Federer.

So that pretty much makes them almost same generation even if they aren't.


>
> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras hit
> 27 Agassi was already 28.
>
> Anyway, all this GOAT talk is nonsense. Sampras and Federer are both
> great players and that's it. And Nadal is going to be one as well.

>Fed cannot be GOAT until he wins a French and he is at least tied with
>Sampras.


Surpassed him. Sampras has much more Wimbledons, YEC, #1 related stuff, no
losing record against his rival, so Federer has to not only match 14 but
break it.




  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:12:08
From:
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 1, 8:04=A0pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 11:59=A0am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>
> > "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival=
."
>
> > Right on, Budster!
>
> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?
> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>
> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
> each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.

In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.

Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras hit
27 Agassi was already 28.

Anyway, all this GOAT talk is nonsense. Sampras and Federer are both
great players and that's it. And Nadal is going to be one as well.



   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 09:14:05
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."
>>
>> > Right on, Budster!
>>
>> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?
>> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
>> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>>
>> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
>> each player has won.  The rest fades away.
>
> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
>
> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras hit
> 27 Agassi was already 28.

Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djokovic or a Murray.
(that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him). Guys born in
74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't play, and 1 AO when
Sampras retired.


    
Date: 02 Feb 2009 23:35:05
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 8:04 pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 11:59 am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival."
>>>> Right on, Budster!
>>> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?
>>> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
>>> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>>>
>>> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
>>> each player has won. The rest fades away.
>> In Federer's defence, Nadal is five years younger than him. That's
>> maybe not a full generation in tennis terms but a good part of one.
>> Federer is 27 and on the face of it passed his peak years.
>>
>> Sampras's main rival was actually older than him, so when Sampras hit
>> 27 Agassi was already 28.
>
> Sampras never had a Nadal to deal with. Hell, not even a Djokovic or a Murray.
> (that is, a talented and hungry guy 5 years younger than him). Guys born in
> 74-76 won exactly 2 non-clay slams: 1 AO where Sampras didn't play, and 1 AO when
> Sampras retired.


Even so it doesn't mean those guys woulda troubled him unduly in the big
matches. I just can't see what they have to hurt him at his peak....?



  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 12:08:26
From: Tennischick
Subject: Re: Bud Collins: Federer not the GOAT
On Feb 1, 8:04=A0pm, Gordon Cameron <gcame...@neteze.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 11:59=A0am, "WAY2GOOD" <way2g...@wtg.com> wrote:
>
> > "He can't be the greatest of all time when he can't beat his main rival=
."
>
> > Right on, Budster!
>
> Can Sampras be the greatest of all time when he can't beat Krajicek?
> Way I see it, it's better to have a losing record against the other
> top player in the world than against some journeyman.
>
> In any case, in the fullness of time what will remain are the titles
> each player has won. =A0The rest fades away.

Dont you spot the flaw here? Krajicek wasnt Samprass main rival, didnt
meet all that often, let alone slams and didnt have huge a lose/win
deficit either. If . cant beat the other great of your era you arent
the greatest, simple 1+1=3D2 logic really.