tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 30 Jan 2009 08:29:50
From: GOAT
Subject: Fed Fans: Admit It
If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
forever.

You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
surfaces in your own era.




 
Date: 31 Jan 2009 08:49:48
From:
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 31, 11:44=A0am, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:

> Yes, match is huge for Fed - much, much bigger than Rafa. His entire
> claim to GOAThood is on the line - and I, unlike other Federer fans
> (except robin), am freely willing to admit. But I doubt Rafa will be
> affected physically much since he will have 2 nights' sleep and this
> being a night match in cooler conditions and Rafa being as fit as he
> is.

Of course. Barring the presence of krypton, he will not be affected.


 
Date: 31 Jan 2009 08:44:44
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 31, 6:08=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 31, 5:44=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > RahimAsif wrote:
> > > On Jan 30, 10:29 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have go=
ne
> > >> forever.
>
> > >> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
> > >> surfaces in your own era.
>
> > > Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
> > > concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
> > > his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartest
> > > student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in th=
e
> > > school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
>
> > This is why we have different goat categories;
>
> > 1 Achievement goat
> > 2 Ability goat
> > 3 Talent goat
>
> > Fed constantly losing to Rafa on all 3 surfaces & 5 slam finals rules
> > him out as 'Ability goat'
>
> But if Fed wins, he's 3-1 against Rafa in non-clay Slam finals, with
> the one loss a ridiculous 5
> setter. I agree this match is huge though. With Rafa likely a bit
> sluggish and Fed having shown some great form in several matches this
> tournament, he needs this victory to snuff out all the "but he can't
> beat Rafa" talk. It's a rare
> Fed fan that is willing to admit that.

Yes, match is huge for Fed - much, much bigger than Rafa. His entire
claim to GOAThood is on the line - and I, unlike other Federer fans
(except robin), am freely willing to admit. But I doubt Rafa will be
affected physically much since he will have 2 nights' sleep and this
being a night match in cooler conditions and Rafa being as fit as he
is.


 
Date: 31 Jan 2009 08:09:39
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 31, 3:39=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:
> GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > if Pele had lost in 3 WC finals rather than winning
> > them;
>
> This is a team Sport. Universally the GOAT candidates in soccer are Pele =
and
> Maradona, and Maradona has only 1 WC win and 1 runner up.
>
> > if Schumacher had let Hakkinen beat him to the F1
> > world title; etc... would we be proclaiming them as GOAT?
>
> Let me point out that Schumacher was beaten to the world title by Hakkine=
n in
> 98 and 99. And Villeneuve in 97. And Hill in 96. And Alonso in 05 and 06.=
What
> makes him GOAT in F1 is that, while not winning the championship many tim=
es,
> nobody else has racked 7 F1 World Championships. Nobody cares that he was
> beaten by all those listed above since his first championship (including =
the
> infamouos 97 where he tried to crash Villeneuve to get him off the race a=
nd
> secure the title).

Yes but he had an overall winning record against all those rivals you
mention. Fed on the other hand has been consistenly beaten by his main
rival (Nadal).


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 14:25:15
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
GOAT <thetruetennisgoat@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 3:39 pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>> GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> > if Pele had lost in 3 WC finals rather than winning
>> > them;
>>
>> This is a team Sport. Universally the GOAT candidates in soccer are Pele and
>> Maradona, and Maradona has only 1 WC win and 1 runner up.
>>
>> > if Schumacher had let Hakkinen beat him to the F1
>> > world title; etc... would we be proclaiming them as GOAT?
>>
>> Let me point out that Schumacher was beaten to the world title by Hakkinen in
>> 98 and 99. And Villeneuve in 97. And Hill in 96. And Alonso in 05 and 06. What
>> makes him GOAT in F1 is that, while not winning the championship many times,
>> nobody else has racked 7 F1 World Championships. Nobody cares that he was
>> beaten by all those listed above since his first championship (including the
>> infamouos 97 where he tried to crash Villeneuve to get him off the race and
>> secure the title).
>
> Yes but he had an overall winning record against all those rivals you
> mention. Fed on the other hand has been consistenly beaten by his main
> rival (Nadal).

But that's because you're comparing a championship with h2h - YE#1 would be a
better comparison to F1 championships.


 
Date: 31 Jan 2009 07:44:59
From: robin
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On 31 Jan, 11:58, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 11:42 pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 31 Jan, 04:03, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 30, 10:58 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 30, 10:29 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have g=
one
> >>>>> forever.
> >>>>> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on al=
l
> >>>>> surfaces in your own era.
> >>>> Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
> >>>> concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
> >>>> his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartes=
t
> >>>> student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in t=
he
> >>>> school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
> >>> Read the rest of the thread. You are mistaken, and your analogy is
> >>> inapposite. Sorry.
> >>> Joe Ramirez
> >> Rahim's analogy is flawed, but I there are other reasons for Federer
> >> losing to Nadal on Sunday affecting his 'goat worthiness'.
>
> > Certainly. There's nothing particularly surprising about that point of
> > view, and I understand why some fans would feel that way. I merely
> > object to erroneous assertions that *logic* would forbid the selection
> > of Federer as GOAT because of his record against Nadal. I can't stop
> > Fed (or other players) from being abused in RST, but maybe on occasion
> > I can prevent logic from being abused. :)
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> You need to define 'goat'. =A0I've already done this for rst based on 3
> types of goat. =A0Your explanation sounds confused & unsatisfying. =A0Can
> Fed be goat if he continues to lose big slam finals to Rafa?
>
> You're clearly referring to 'achievement goat' in your analysis but are
> too gutless to use the term as it pays homage to my analytical skills.
>
> Too bad for you.

Once again Whisper completely misses the point and goes off on an
irrelevant rant. Joe is correctly objecting to the misuse of the term
'logical'. It doesn't matter what definition of goat is being used,
and it also doesn't matter whether that definition is reasonable. The
statement that logic forbids Federer's selection as goat because of
his head to head with Nadal is flawed, for the reasons Joe gives. If
you cannot see why, then you do not understand what logic is.



 
Date: 31 Jan 2009 06:48:18
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 31, 6:58=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 11:42 pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 31 Jan, 04:03, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 30, 10:58 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 30, 10:29 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have g=
one
> >>>>> forever.
> >>>>> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on al=
l
> >>>>> surfaces in your own era.
> >>>> Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
> >>>> concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
> >>>> his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartes=
t
> >>>> student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in t=
he
> >>>> school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
> >>> Read the rest of the thread. You are mistaken, and your analogy is
> >>> inapposite. Sorry.
> >>> Joe Ramirez
> >> Rahim's analogy is flawed, but I there are other reasons for Federer
> >> losing to Nadal on Sunday affecting his 'goat worthiness'.
>
> > Certainly. There's nothing particularly surprising about that point of
> > view, and I understand why some fans would feel that way. I merely
> > object to erroneous assertions that *logic* would forbid the selection
> > of Federer as GOAT because of his record against Nadal. I can't stop
> > Fed (or other players) from being abused in RST, but maybe on occasion
> > I can prevent logic from being abused. :)
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> You need to define 'goat'. =A0I've already done this for rst based on 3
> types of goat. =A0Your explanation sounds confused & unsatisfying.

If you need help:
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471799416.html

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 31 Jan 2009 06:24:29
From:
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
> This is why we have different goat categories;
>
> 1 Achievement goat
> 2 Ability goat
> 3 Talent goat

We?

You mean "you", since you made them up ...




 
Date: 31 Jan 2009 04:08:41
From:
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 31, 5:44=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> RahimAsif wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 10:29 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
> >> forever.
>
> >> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
> >> surfaces in your own era.
>
> > Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
> > concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
> > his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartest
> > student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in the
> > school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
>
> This is why we have different goat categories;
>
> 1 Achievement goat
> 2 Ability goat
> 3 Talent goat
>
> Fed constantly losing to Rafa on all 3 surfaces & 5 slam finals rules
> him out as 'Ability goat'

But if Fed wins, he's 3-1 against Rafa in non-clay Slam finals, with
the one loss a ridiculous 5
setter. I agree this match is huge though. With Rafa likely a bit
sluggish and Fed having shown some great form in several matches this
tournament, he needs this victory to snuff out all the "but he can't
beat Rafa" talk. It's a rare
Fed fan that is willing to admit that.


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 21:22:10
From: robin
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On 31 Jan, 04:50, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com > wrote:
> On Jan 30, 11:42=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 31 Jan, 04:03, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 10:58=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 30, 10:29=A0am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote=
:
>
> > > > > If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have=
gone
> > > > > forever.
>
> > > > > You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on =
all
> > > > > surfaces in your own era.
>
> > > > Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
> > > > concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player o=
f
> > > > his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smarte=
st
> > > > student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in =
the
> > > > school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
>
> > > Read the rest of the thread. You are mistaken, and your analogy is
> > > inapposite. Sorry.
>
> > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > Rahim's analogy is flawed, but I there are other reasons for Federer
> > losing to Nadal on Sunday affecting his 'goat worthiness'.
>
> > Ideally, we would determine some objective measure of success and use
> > that to determine the greatest ever. You have correctly pointed out
> > that head-to-heads are woefully inadequate for this task. So we need
> > something which does result in a linear ordering. Maybe slam counts or
> > some weighted measure derived from them. With this we can now say -
> > measured using formula X player Y is the greatest.
>
> > But, most people aren't going to be happy with this. They want to know
> > who is the *true* greatest, not the greatest by some measure.
> > Obviously the true greatest must consider all factors, right? Doesn't
> > matter that you will end up with a broken measure doing this, most
> > aren't going to think about it in such a manner. You will thus have
> > greatness determined by a patchy mix of factors - many subjective,
> > many that must be applied inconsistantly to get an ordering.
>
> > Federer's tennis greatness will be determined in such a light. I've
> > argued that things like the exo loss to Samps will have no bearing on
> > this. But that is mainly because they will be forgotten. His losses to
> > Nadal in tune-ups will be forgotten. But his losses to him in slam
> > finals won't be. They will be a stick that will come out to beat him
> > with, the same way Sampras's failure to reach an FO final is. Having a
> > losing record against your main opposition is a worse stick to be
> > beaten with than failing at one of the slams.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> 30-40 years from now, no one would care about a player's losses,
> people will care about what the player achieved in his career.

Most losses will be, but I think this is somewhat special. Most tennis
fans will, at some point, have a look at some tables of slam winners
and runner ups. If Federer loses on Sunday, they will see this...

2008 FO - Nadal beats Federer
2008 W - Nadal beats Federer
2008 USO - Federer beats Murray
2009 AO - Nadal beats Federer

Which ever way you slice it, that does look bad for Federer judged as
one of the greatest the game has seen.


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 14:15:27
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:22:10 -0800 (PST), robin
<robinson.neil@gmail.com > wrote:

>On 31 Jan, 04:50, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 11:42 pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 31 Jan, 04:03, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 30, 10:58 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jan 30, 10:29 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
>> > > > > forever.
>>
>> > > > > You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
>> > > > > surfaces in your own era.
>>
>> > > > Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
>> > > > concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
>> > > > his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartest
>> > > > student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in the
>> > > > school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
>>
>> > > Read the rest of the thread. You are mistaken, and your analogy is
>> > > inapposite. Sorry.
>>
>> > > Joe Ramirez
>>
>> > Rahim's analogy is flawed, but I there are other reasons for Federer
>> > losing to Nadal on Sunday affecting his 'goat worthiness'.
>>
>> > Ideally, we would determine some objective measure of success and use
>> > that to determine the greatest ever. You have correctly pointed out
>> > that head-to-heads are woefully inadequate for this task. So we need
>> > something which does result in a linear ordering. Maybe slam counts or
>> > some weighted measure derived from them. With this we can now say -
>> > measured using formula X player Y is the greatest.
>>
>> > But, most people aren't going to be happy with this. They want to know
>> > who is the *true* greatest, not the greatest by some measure.
>> > Obviously the true greatest must consider all factors, right? Doesn't
>> > matter that you will end up with a broken measure doing this, most
>> > aren't going to think about it in such a manner. You will thus have
>> > greatness determined by a patchy mix of factors - many subjective,
>> > many that must be applied inconsistantly to get an ordering.
>>
>> > Federer's tennis greatness will be determined in such a light. I've
>> > argued that things like the exo loss to Samps will have no bearing on
>> > this. But that is mainly because they will be forgotten. His losses to
>> > Nadal in tune-ups will be forgotten. But his losses to him in slam
>> > finals won't be. They will be a stick that will come out to beat him
>> > with, the same way Sampras's failure to reach an FO final is. Having a
>> > losing record against your main opposition is a worse stick to be
>> > beaten with than failing at one of the slams.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> 30-40 years from now, no one would care about a player's losses,
>> people will care about what the player achieved in his career.
>
>Most losses will be, but I think this is somewhat special. Most tennis
>fans will, at some point, have a look at some tables of slam winners
>and runner ups. If Federer loses on Sunday, they will see this...
>
>2008 FO - Nadal beats Federer
>2008 W - Nadal beats Federer
>2008 USO - Federer beats Murray
>2009 AO - Nadal beats Federer
>
>Which ever way you slice it, that does look bad for Federer judged as
>one of the greatest the game has seen.

I don't know why 20 years from now people would look at just those
four slams, and not the 4 years before them. To me, Nadal winning
tomorrow (which BTW hasn't happened yet) would greatly strengthen his
position as #1 now. But from the historical point of view, it would
show Federer's peak is over, and Nadal is at peak.


   
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:33:25
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:22:10 -0800 (PST), robin
> <robinson.neil@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 31 Jan, 04:50, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 11:42 pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 31 Jan, 04:03, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 30, 10:58 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 30, 10:29 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
>>>>>>> forever.
>>>>>>> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
>>>>>>> surfaces in your own era.
>>>>>> Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
>>>>>> concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
>>>>>> his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartest
>>>>>> student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in the
>>>>>> school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
>>>>> Read the rest of the thread. You are mistaken, and your analogy is
>>>>> inapposite. Sorry.
>>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>>> Rahim's analogy is flawed, but I there are other reasons for Federer
>>>> losing to Nadal on Sunday affecting his 'goat worthiness'.
>>>> Ideally, we would determine some objective measure of success and use
>>>> that to determine the greatest ever. You have correctly pointed out
>>>> that head-to-heads are woefully inadequate for this task. So we need
>>>> something which does result in a linear ordering. Maybe slam counts or
>>>> some weighted measure derived from them. With this we can now say -
>>>> measured using formula X player Y is the greatest.
>>>> But, most people aren't going to be happy with this. They want to know
>>>> who is the *true* greatest, not the greatest by some measure.
>>>> Obviously the true greatest must consider all factors, right? Doesn't
>>>> matter that you will end up with a broken measure doing this, most
>>>> aren't going to think about it in such a manner. You will thus have
>>>> greatness determined by a patchy mix of factors - many subjective,
>>>> many that must be applied inconsistantly to get an ordering.
>>>> Federer's tennis greatness will be determined in such a light. I've
>>>> argued that things like the exo loss to Samps will have no bearing on
>>>> this. But that is mainly because they will be forgotten. His losses to
>>>> Nadal in tune-ups will be forgotten. But his losses to him in slam
>>>> finals won't be. They will be a stick that will come out to beat him
>>>> with, the same way Sampras's failure to reach an FO final is. Having a
>>>> losing record against your main opposition is a worse stick to be
>>>> beaten with than failing at one of the slams.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> 30-40 years from now, no one would care about a player's losses,
>>> people will care about what the player achieved in his career.
>> Most losses will be, but I think this is somewhat special. Most tennis
>> fans will, at some point, have a look at some tables of slam winners
>> and runner ups. If Federer loses on Sunday, they will see this...
>>
>> 2008 FO - Nadal beats Federer
>> 2008 W - Nadal beats Federer
>> 2008 USO - Federer beats Murray
>> 2009 AO - Nadal beats Federer
>>
>> Which ever way you slice it, that does look bad for Federer judged as
>> one of the greatest the game has seen.
>
> I don't know why 20 years from now people would look at just those
> four slams, and not the 4 years before them. To me, Nadal winning
> tomorrow (which BTW hasn't happened yet) would greatly strengthen his
> position as #1 now. But from the historical point of view, it would
> show Federer's peak is over, and Nadal is at peak.


No it wouldn't show Fed's peak was over.

Do you think Borg's peak was over when Mac beat him in last 3 slams
finals, even though Borg was still beating the crap out of everyone
else? Of course it wasn't - it just says the new up & comer is better
than him.



    
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:35:48
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:33:25 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:22:10 -0800 (PST), robin
>> <robinson.neil@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 31 Jan, 04:50, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 30, 11:42 pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 31 Jan, 04:03, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 30, 10:58 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 10:29 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
>>>>>>>> forever.
>>>>>>>> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
>>>>>>>> surfaces in your own era.
>>>>>>> Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
>>>>>>> concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
>>>>>>> his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartest
>>>>>>> student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in the
>>>>>>> school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
>>>>>> Read the rest of the thread. You are mistaken, and your analogy is
>>>>>> inapposite. Sorry.
>>>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>>>> Rahim's analogy is flawed, but I there are other reasons for Federer
>>>>> losing to Nadal on Sunday affecting his 'goat worthiness'.
>>>>> Ideally, we would determine some objective measure of success and use
>>>>> that to determine the greatest ever. You have correctly pointed out
>>>>> that head-to-heads are woefully inadequate for this task. So we need
>>>>> something which does result in a linear ordering. Maybe slam counts or
>>>>> some weighted measure derived from them. With this we can now say -
>>>>> measured using formula X player Y is the greatest.
>>>>> But, most people aren't going to be happy with this. They want to know
>>>>> who is the *true* greatest, not the greatest by some measure.
>>>>> Obviously the true greatest must consider all factors, right? Doesn't
>>>>> matter that you will end up with a broken measure doing this, most
>>>>> aren't going to think about it in such a manner. You will thus have
>>>>> greatness determined by a patchy mix of factors - many subjective,
>>>>> many that must be applied inconsistantly to get an ordering.
>>>>> Federer's tennis greatness will be determined in such a light. I've
>>>>> argued that things like the exo loss to Samps will have no bearing on
>>>>> this. But that is mainly because they will be forgotten. His losses to
>>>>> Nadal in tune-ups will be forgotten. But his losses to him in slam
>>>>> finals won't be. They will be a stick that will come out to beat him
>>>>> with, the same way Sampras's failure to reach an FO final is. Having a
>>>>> losing record against your main opposition is a worse stick to be
>>>>> beaten with than failing at one of the slams.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> 30-40 years from now, no one would care about a player's losses,
>>>> people will care about what the player achieved in his career.
>>> Most losses will be, but I think this is somewhat special. Most tennis
>>> fans will, at some point, have a look at some tables of slam winners
>>> and runner ups. If Federer loses on Sunday, they will see this...
>>>
>>> 2008 FO - Nadal beats Federer
>>> 2008 W - Nadal beats Federer
>>> 2008 USO - Federer beats Murray
>>> 2009 AO - Nadal beats Federer
>>>
>>> Which ever way you slice it, that does look bad for Federer judged as
>>> one of the greatest the game has seen.
>>
>> I don't know why 20 years from now people would look at just those
>> four slams, and not the 4 years before them. To me, Nadal winning
>> tomorrow (which BTW hasn't happened yet) would greatly strengthen his
>> position as #1 now. But from the historical point of view, it would
>> show Federer's peak is over, and Nadal is at peak.
>
>
>No it wouldn't show Fed's peak was over.
>
>Do you think Borg's peak was over when Mac beat him in last 3 slams
>finals, even though Borg was still beating the crap out of everyone
>else? Of course it wasn't - it just says the new up & comer is better
>than him.



Respective slam records:

Borg won 11 lost 16

McEnroe won 7 lost 38

It just says you are a fucktard.

And, all this time I thought Sampras was the greatest loser of slams !

But, even he won 14 while losing 38 !

McEnroe it seems, was the "real" clown.


     
Date: 31 Jan 2009 15:20:46
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
Dave Hazelwood wrote:

>
> Respective slam records:
>
> Borg won 11 lost 16
>
> McEnroe won 7 lost 38
>
> It just says you are a fucktard.
>
> And, all this time I thought Sampras was the greatest loser of slams !
>
> But, even he won 14 while losing 38 !
>
> McEnroe it seems, was the "real" clown.

Federer so far: 13 wins, 27 losses. Right?

PS.


     
Date: 31 Jan 2009 14:59:04
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It

"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com > wrote in message
news:ock8o4lq3e4q9o2b9haf5688kc87d6vce8@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:33:25 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:22:10 -0800 (PST), robin
>>> <robinson.neil@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31 Jan, 04:50, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 30, 11:42 pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 31 Jan, 04:03, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 10:58 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 10:29 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have
>>>>>>>>> gone
>>>>>>>>> forever.
>>>>>>>>> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> surfaces in your own era.
>>>>>>>> Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
>>>>>>>> concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd
>>>>>>>> smartest
>>>>>>>> student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
>>>>>>> Read the rest of the thread. You are mistaken, and your analogy is
>>>>>>> inapposite. Sorry.
>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>>>>> Rahim's analogy is flawed, but I there are other reasons for Federer
>>>>>> losing to Nadal on Sunday affecting his 'goat worthiness'.
>>>>>> Ideally, we would determine some objective measure of success and use
>>>>>> that to determine the greatest ever. You have correctly pointed out
>>>>>> that head-to-heads are woefully inadequate for this task. So we need
>>>>>> something which does result in a linear ordering. Maybe slam counts
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> some weighted measure derived from them. With this we can now say -
>>>>>> measured using formula X player Y is the greatest.
>>>>>> But, most people aren't going to be happy with this. They want to
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> who is the *true* greatest, not the greatest by some measure.
>>>>>> Obviously the true greatest must consider all factors, right? Doesn't
>>>>>> matter that you will end up with a broken measure doing this, most
>>>>>> aren't going to think about it in such a manner. You will thus have
>>>>>> greatness determined by a patchy mix of factors - many subjective,
>>>>>> many that must be applied inconsistantly to get an ordering.
>>>>>> Federer's tennis greatness will be determined in such a light. I've
>>>>>> argued that things like the exo loss to Samps will have no bearing on
>>>>>> this. But that is mainly because they will be forgotten. His losses
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> Nadal in tune-ups will be forgotten. But his losses to him in slam
>>>>>> finals won't be. They will be a stick that will come out to beat him
>>>>>> with, the same way Sampras's failure to reach an FO final is. Having
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> losing record against your main opposition is a worse stick to be
>>>>>> beaten with than failing at one of the slams.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> 30-40 years from now, no one would care about a player's losses,
>>>>> people will care about what the player achieved in his career.
>>>> Most losses will be, but I think this is somewhat special. Most tennis
>>>> fans will, at some point, have a look at some tables of slam winners
>>>> and runner ups. If Federer loses on Sunday, they will see this...
>>>>
>>>> 2008 FO - Nadal beats Federer
>>>> 2008 W - Nadal beats Federer
>>>> 2008 USO - Federer beats Murray
>>>> 2009 AO - Nadal beats Federer
>>>>
>>>> Which ever way you slice it, that does look bad for Federer judged as
>>>> one of the greatest the game has seen.
>>>
>>> I don't know why 20 years from now people would look at just those
>>> four slams, and not the 4 years before them. To me, Nadal winning
>>> tomorrow (which BTW hasn't happened yet) would greatly strengthen his
>>> position as #1 now. But from the historical point of view, it would
>>> show Federer's peak is over, and Nadal is at peak.
>>
>>
>>No it wouldn't show Fed's peak was over.
>>
>>Do you think Borg's peak was over when Mac beat him in last 3 slams
>>finals, even though Borg was still beating the crap out of everyone
>>else? Of course it wasn't - it just says the new up & comer is better
>>than him.
>
>
>
> Respective slam records:
>
> Borg won 11 lost 16
>
> McEnroe won 7 lost 38
>
> It just says you are a fucktard.
>
> And, all this time I thought Sampras was the greatest loser of slams !
>
> But, even he won 14 while losing 38 !
>
> McEnroe it seems, was the "real" clown.


You don't really believe in it.




  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 05:55:11
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:22:10 -0800 (PST), robin
<robinson.neil@gmail.com > wrote:

>On 31 Jan, 04:50, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 11:42 pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 31 Jan, 04:03, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 30, 10:58 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jan 30, 10:29 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
>> > > > > forever.
>>
>> > > > > You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
>> > > > > surfaces in your own era.
>>
>> > > > Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
>> > > > concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
>> > > > his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartest
>> > > > student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in the
>> > > > school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
>>
>> > > Read the rest of the thread. You are mistaken, and your analogy is
>> > > inapposite. Sorry.
>>
>> > > Joe Ramirez
>>
>> > Rahim's analogy is flawed, but I there are other reasons for Federer
>> > losing to Nadal on Sunday affecting his 'goat worthiness'.
>>
>> > Ideally, we would determine some objective measure of success and use
>> > that to determine the greatest ever. You have correctly pointed out
>> > that head-to-heads are woefully inadequate for this task. So we need
>> > something which does result in a linear ordering. Maybe slam counts or
>> > some weighted measure derived from them. With this we can now say -
>> > measured using formula X player Y is the greatest.
>>
>> > But, most people aren't going to be happy with this. They want to know
>> > who is the *true* greatest, not the greatest by some measure.
>> > Obviously the true greatest must consider all factors, right? Doesn't
>> > matter that you will end up with a broken measure doing this, most
>> > aren't going to think about it in such a manner. You will thus have
>> > greatness determined by a patchy mix of factors - many subjective,
>> > many that must be applied inconsistantly to get an ordering.
>>
>> > Federer's tennis greatness will be determined in such a light. I've
>> > argued that things like the exo loss to Samps will have no bearing on
>> > this. But that is mainly because they will be forgotten. His losses to
>> > Nadal in tune-ups will be forgotten. But his losses to him in slam
>> > finals won't be. They will be a stick that will come out to beat him
>> > with, the same way Sampras's failure to reach an FO final is. Having a
>> > losing record against your main opposition is a worse stick to be
>> > beaten with than failing at one of the slams.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> 30-40 years from now, no one would care about a player's losses,
>> people will care about what the player achieved in his career.
>
>Most losses will be, but I think this is somewhat special. Most tennis
>fans will, at some point, have a look at some tables of slam winners
>and runner ups. If Federer loses on Sunday, they will see this...
>
>2008 FO - Nadal beats Federer
>2008 W - Nadal beats Federer
>2008 USO - Federer beats Murray
>2009 AO - Nadal beats Federer
>
>Which ever way you slice it, that does look bad for Federer judged as
>one of the greatest the game has seen.


nonsense !



 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 20:54:11
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 30, 11:42=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 31 Jan, 04:03, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 10:58=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 10:29=A0am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have g=
one
> > > > forever.
>
> > > > You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on al=
l
> > > > surfaces in your own era.
>
> > > Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
> > > concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
> > > his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartest
> > > student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in th=
e
> > > school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
>
> > Read the rest of the thread. You are mistaken, and your analogy is
> > inapposite. Sorry.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Rahim's analogy is flawed, but I there are other reasons for Federer
> losing to Nadal on Sunday affecting his 'goat worthiness'.
>
Certainly. There's nothing particularly surprising about that point of
view, and I understand why some fans would feel that way. I merely
object to erroneous assertions that *logic* would forbid the selection
of Federer as GOAT because of his record against Nadal. I can't stop
Fed (or other players) from being abused in RST, but maybe on occasion
I can prevent logic from being abused. :)

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 22:58:15
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Jan 30, 11:42 pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31 Jan, 04:03, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 30, 10:58 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 30, 10:29 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
>>>>> forever.
>>>>> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
>>>>> surfaces in your own era.
>>>> Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
>>>> concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
>>>> his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartest
>>>> student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in the
>>>> school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
>>> Read the rest of the thread. You are mistaken, and your analogy is
>>> inapposite. Sorry.
>>> Joe Ramirez
>> Rahim's analogy is flawed, but I there are other reasons for Federer
>> losing to Nadal on Sunday affecting his 'goat worthiness'.
>>
> Certainly. There's nothing particularly surprising about that point of
> view, and I understand why some fans would feel that way. I merely
> object to erroneous assertions that *logic* would forbid the selection
> of Federer as GOAT because of his record against Nadal. I can't stop
> Fed (or other players) from being abused in RST, but maybe on occasion
> I can prevent logic from being abused. :)
>
> Joe Ramirez


You need to define 'goat'. I've already done this for rst based on 3
types of goat. Your explanation sounds confused & unsatisfying. Can
Fed be goat if he continues to lose big slam finals to Rafa?

You're clearly referring to 'achievement goat' in your analysis but are
too gutless to use the term as it pays homage to my analytical skills.

Too bad for you.





 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 20:50:12
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 30, 11:42=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 31 Jan, 04:03, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 10:58=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 10:29=A0am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have g=
one
> > > > forever.
>
> > > > You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on al=
l
> > > > surfaces in your own era.
>
> > > Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
> > > concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
> > > his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartest
> > > student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in th=
e
> > > school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
>
> > Read the rest of the thread. You are mistaken, and your analogy is
> > inapposite. Sorry.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Rahim's analogy is flawed, but I there are other reasons for Federer
> losing to Nadal on Sunday affecting his 'goat worthiness'.
>
> Ideally, we would determine some objective measure of success and use
> that to determine the greatest ever. You have correctly pointed out
> that head-to-heads are woefully inadequate for this task. So we need
> something which does result in a linear ordering. Maybe slam counts or
> some weighted measure derived from them. With this we can now say -
> measured using formula X player Y is the greatest.
>
> But, most people aren't going to be happy with this. They want to know
> who is the *true* greatest, not the greatest by some measure.
> Obviously the true greatest must consider all factors, right? Doesn't
> matter that you will end up with a broken measure doing this, most
> aren't going to think about it in such a manner. You will thus have
> greatness determined by a patchy mix of factors - many subjective,
> many that must be applied inconsistantly to get an ordering.
>
> Federer's tennis greatness will be determined in such a light. I've
> argued that things like the exo loss to Samps will have no bearing on
> this. But that is mainly because they will be forgotten. His losses to
> Nadal in tune-ups will be forgotten. But his losses to him in slam
> finals won't be. They will be a stick that will come out to beat him
> with, the same way Sampras's failure to reach an FO final is. Having a
> losing record against your main opposition is a worse stick to be
> beaten with than failing at one of the slams.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

30-40 years from now, no one would care about a player's losses,
people will care about what the player achieved in his career.


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 22:55:09
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
wkhedr wrote:
> On Jan 30, 11:42 pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31 Jan, 04:03, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 30, 10:58 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 30, 10:29 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
>>>>> forever.
>>>>> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
>>>>> surfaces in your own era.
>>>> Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
>>>> concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
>>>> his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartest
>>>> student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in the
>>>> school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
>>> Read the rest of the thread. You are mistaken, and your analogy is
>>> inapposite. Sorry.
>>> Joe Ramirez
>> Rahim's analogy is flawed, but I there are other reasons for Federer
>> losing to Nadal on Sunday affecting his 'goat worthiness'.
>>
>> Ideally, we would determine some objective measure of success and use
>> that to determine the greatest ever. You have correctly pointed out
>> that head-to-heads are woefully inadequate for this task. So we need
>> something which does result in a linear ordering. Maybe slam counts or
>> some weighted measure derived from them. With this we can now say -
>> measured using formula X player Y is the greatest.
>>
>> But, most people aren't going to be happy with this. They want to know
>> who is the *true* greatest, not the greatest by some measure.
>> Obviously the true greatest must consider all factors, right? Doesn't
>> matter that you will end up with a broken measure doing this, most
>> aren't going to think about it in such a manner. You will thus have
>> greatness determined by a patchy mix of factors - many subjective,
>> many that must be applied inconsistantly to get an ordering.
>>
>> Federer's tennis greatness will be determined in such a light. I've
>> argued that things like the exo loss to Samps will have no bearing on
>> this. But that is mainly because they will be forgotten. His losses to
>> Nadal in tune-ups will be forgotten. But his losses to him in slam
>> finals won't be. They will be a stick that will come out to beat him
>> with, the same way Sampras's failure to reach an FO final is. Having a
>> losing record against your main opposition is a worse stick to be
>> beaten with than failing at one of the slams.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> 30-40 years from now, no one would care about a player's losses,
> people will care about what the player achieved in his career.


Not true - everyone knows what Borg achieved, but we also know McEnroe
beat him in their last 3 slam finals before he quit & ran - with each
win getting easier for a still improving Mac.

So while Borg out-achieved Mac, most would pick Mac to beat Borg when
the chips are down. Same with Sampras v Agassi & Rafa v Federer.



 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 20:42:39
From: robin
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On 31 Jan, 04:03, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Jan 30, 10:58=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 10:29=A0am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gon=
e
> > > forever.
>
> > > You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
> > > surfaces in your own era.
>
> > Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
> > concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
> > his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartest
> > student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in the
> > school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
>
> Read the rest of the thread. You are mistaken, and your analogy is
> inapposite. Sorry.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Rahim's analogy is flawed, but I there are other reasons for Federer
losing to Nadal on Sunday affecting his 'goat worthiness'.

Ideally, we would determine some objective measure of success and use
that to determine the greatest ever. You have correctly pointed out
that head-to-heads are woefully inadequate for this task. So we need
something which does result in a linear ordering. Maybe slam counts or
some weighted measure derived from them. With this we can now say -
measured using formula X player Y is the greatest.

But, most people aren't going to be happy with this. They want to know
who is the *true* greatest, not the greatest by some measure.
Obviously the true greatest must consider all factors, right? Doesn't
matter that you will end up with a broken measure doing this, most
aren't going to think about it in such a manner. You will thus have
greatness determined by a patchy mix of factors - many subjective,
many that must be applied inconsistantly to get an ordering.

Federer's tennis greatness will be determined in such a light. I've
argued that things like the exo loss to Samps will have no bearing on
this. But that is mainly because they will be forgotten. His losses to
Nadal in tune-ups will be forgotten. But his losses to him in slam
finals won't be. They will be a stick that will come out to beat him
with, the same way Sampras's failure to reach an FO final is. Having a
losing record against your main opposition is a worse stick to be
beaten with than failing at one of the slams.


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 07:43:19
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It

"robin" <robinson.neil@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:004e73a6-63ab-473c-a1eb-4d0490fe4b39@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
to get an ordering.

Federer's tennis greatness will be determined in such a light. I've
argued that things like the exo loss to Samps will have no bearing on
this. But that is mainly because they will be forgotten. His losses to
Nadal in tune-ups will be forgotten. But his losses to him in slam
finals won't be. They will be a stick that will come out to beat him
with, the same way Sampras's failure to reach an FO final is. Having a
losing record against your main opposition is a worse stick to be
beaten with than failing at one of the slams.

***

Nice post. Both the part I cut out and the one I qoute.

Maybe it's comparable to Borg and how it's exactly the fact that he had a
losing record against his main rival in most people mind's is precisely what
excludes him from GOAT considerations. Laver and Sampras otoh, have a free
pass and there is benefit of the doubt.

"Laver woulda won more slams had he not been pro", "Sampras woulda won FO if
he had been healthy" etc.




   
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:07:15
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
*skriptis wrote:
> "robin" <robinson.neil@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:004e73a6-63ab-473c-a1eb-4d0490fe4b39@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> to get an ordering.
>
> Federer's tennis greatness will be determined in such a light. I've
> argued that things like the exo loss to Samps will have no bearing on
> this. But that is mainly because they will be forgotten. His losses to
> Nadal in tune-ups will be forgotten. But his losses to him in slam
> finals won't be. They will be a stick that will come out to beat him
> with, the same way Sampras's failure to reach an FO final is. Having a
> losing record against your main opposition is a worse stick to be
> beaten with than failing at one of the slams.
>
> ***
>
> Nice post. Both the part I cut out and the one I qoute.
>
> Maybe it's comparable to Borg and how it's exactly the fact that he had a
> losing record against his main rival in most people mind's is precisely what
> excludes him from GOAT considerations. Laver and Sampras otoh, have a free
> pass and there is benefit of the doubt.
>
> "Laver woulda won more slams had he not been pro", "Sampras woulda won FO if
> he had been healthy" etc.
>
>


Yes, this is a valid point. Nobody cares if Tilden lost the odd slam
final as it wasn't to an all time great. Borg losing to Mac is a big
deal & is very much factored in by analysts, as is Fed's record v Rafa.

Fedfuckers like Hazel argue Rafa can't be great because he dominates
only Fed in slam finals, yet don't think it's relevant if Mac beat Borg
in last 3 slam finals, as Rafa is about to do to Federer (& 5 overall).


    
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:37:02
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
Whisper wrote:

> Yes, this is a valid point. Nobody cares if Tilden lost the odd slam
> final as it wasn't to an all time great. Borg losing to Mac is a big
> deal & is very much factored in by analysts, as is Fed's record v Rafa.
>
> Fedfuckers like Hazel argue Rafa can't be great because he dominates
> only Fed in slam finals, yet don't think it's relevant if Mac beat Borg
> in last 3 slam finals, as Rafa is about to do to Federer (& 5 overall).

I normally doesn't comment on these GOAT discussions because I think the
whole concept is meaningless.

1. Tennis is continuously evolving. To compare players from different
eras ignore these changes.
2. Tennis is about match-ups, not one match-up. Federer pretty much has
dominated all match-ups in tennis the last 4-5 years. Nadal hast not
been that consistent on other surfaces than clay until recently. The
fact that Nadal with an AO win can improve his general record against
Fed only tells you something about his single match-up stats against
him, not about his general consistency in the game. With AO win he will
still be 5-4 down against Fed if you exclude clay court matches and 2-2
in slam finals if you exclude RG.

You could ask why in earth we should exclude clay court matches. The
main reason is that they mostly have played clay court matches (10 out
of 18), and this is because Federer until recently has been far better
on clay than Nadal has been on the other surfaces. So the reason why
they have played very few HC matches is because Nadal has been beaten
before the final.

PS.


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 20:23:38
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 30, 11:03=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Jan 30, 10:58=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 10:29=A0am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gon=
e
> > > forever.
>
> > > You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
> > > surfaces in your own era.
>
> > Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
> > concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
> > his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartest
> > student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in the
> > school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
>
> Read the rest of the thread. You are mistaken, and your analogy is
> inapposite. Sorry.
>
> Joe Ramirez

He is a Federer fan, alway remember.


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 20:03:16
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 30, 10:58=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 30, 10:29=A0am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
> > forever.
>
> > You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
> > surfaces in your own era.
>
> Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
> concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
> his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartest
> student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in the
> school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...

Read the rest of the thread. You are mistaken, and your analogy is
inapposite. Sorry.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 19:58:22
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 30, 10:29=A0am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
> forever.
>
> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
> surfaces in your own era.

Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartest
student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in the
school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 08:10:29
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 31, 1:35=A0pm, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:33:25 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Sakari Lund wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:22:10 -0800 (PST), robin
> >> <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 31 Jan, 04:50, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 30, 11:42 pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 31 Jan, 04:03, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jan 30, 10:58 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jan 30, 10:29 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote=
:
> >>>>>>>> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT hav=
e gone
> >>>>>>>> forever.
> >>>>>>>> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on=
all
> >>>>>>>> surfaces in your own era.
> >>>>>>> Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get th=
is
> >>>>>>> concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player=
of
> >>>>>>> his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smar=
test
> >>>>>>> student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student i=
n the
> >>>>>>> school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
> >>>>>> Read the rest of the thread. You are mistaken, and your analogy is
> >>>>>> inapposite. Sorry.
> >>>>>> Joe Ramirez
> >>>>> Rahim's analogy is flawed, but I there are other reasons for Federe=
r
> >>>>> losing to Nadal on Sunday affecting his 'goat worthiness'.
> >>>>> Ideally, we would determine some objective measure of success and u=
se
> >>>>> that to determine the greatest ever. You have correctly pointed out
> >>>>> that head-to-heads are woefully inadequate for this task. So we nee=
d
> >>>>> something which does result in a linear ordering. Maybe slam counts=
or
> >>>>> some weighted measure derived from them. With this we can now say -
> >>>>> measured using formula X player Y is the greatest.
> >>>>> But, most people aren't going to be happy with this. They want to k=
now
> >>>>> who is the *true* greatest, not the greatest by some measure.
> >>>>> Obviously the true greatest must consider all factors, right? Doesn=
't
> >>>>> matter that you will end up with a broken measure doing this, most
> >>>>> aren't going to think about it in such a manner. You will thus have
> >>>>> greatness determined by a patchy mix of factors - many subjective,
> >>>>> many that must be applied inconsistantly to get an ordering.
> >>>>> Federer's tennis greatness will be determined in such a light. I've
> >>>>> argued that things like the exo loss to Samps will have no bearing =
on
> >>>>> this. But that is mainly because they will be forgotten. His losses=
to
> >>>>> Nadal in tune-ups will be forgotten. But his losses to him in slam
> >>>>> finals won't be. They will be a stick that will come out to beat hi=
m
> >>>>> with, the same way Sampras's failure to reach an FO final is. Havin=
g a
> >>>>> losing record against your main opposition is a worse stick to be
> >>>>> beaten with than failing at one of the slams.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> 30-40 years from now, no one would care about a player's losses,
> >>>> people will care about what the player achieved in his career.
> >>> Most losses will be, but I think this is somewhat special. Most tenni=
s
> >>> fans will, at some point, have a look at some tables of slam winners
> >>> and runner ups. If Federer loses on Sunday, they will see this...
>
> >>> 2008 FO - Nadal beats Federer
> >>> 2008 W - Nadal beats Federer
> >>> 2008 USO - Federer beats Murray
> >>> 2009 AO - Nadal beats Federer
>
> >>> Which ever way you slice it, that does look bad for Federer judged as
> >>> one of the greatest the game has seen.
>
> >> I don't know why 20 years from now people would look at just those
> >> four slams, and not the 4 years before them. To me, Nadal winning
> >> tomorrow (which BTW hasn't happened yet) would greatly strengthen his
> >> position as #1 now. But from the historical point of view, it would
> >> show Federer's peak is over, and Nadal is at peak. =A0
>
> >No it wouldn't show Fed's peak was over.
>
> >Do you think Borg's peak was over when Mac beat him in last 3 slams
> >finals, even though Borg was still beating the crap out of everyone
> >else? =A0Of course it wasn't - it just says the new up & comer is better
> >than him.
>
> Respective slam records:
>
> Borg won 11 lost 16
>
> McEnroe won 7 lost 38
>
> It just says you are a fucktard.
>
> And, all this time I thought Sampras was the greatest loser of slams !
>
> But, even he won 14 while losing 38 !
>
> McEnroe it seems, was the "real" clown.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Surely Santoro is the biggest clown of all, since he has won 0 and
lost, what, 65?


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 21:44:21
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
RahimAsif wrote:
> On Jan 30, 10:29 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
>> forever.
>>
>> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
>> surfaces in your own era.
>
> Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
> concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
> his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartest
> student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in the
> school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...


This is why we have different goat categories;

1 Achievement goat
2 Ability goat
3 Talent goat

Fed constantly losing to Rafa on all 3 surfaces & 5 slam finals rules
him out as 'Ability goat' as he's not even better than everyone in his
own era, let alone all time. He's also not in running for 'Talent goat'
as he's visibly poor at the net - no instincts, poor execution, little
confidence.

However he is very much in the running for 'Achievement goat', which is
the ultimate title.






   
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:51:37
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
Whisper wrote:

> This is why we have different goat categories;
>
> 1 Achievement goat
> 2 Ability goat
> 3 Talent goat
>
> Fed constantly losing to Rafa on all 3 surfaces & 5 slam finals rules
> him out as 'Ability goat' as he's not even better than everyone in his
> own era, let alone all time. He's also not in running for 'Talent goat'
> as he's visibly poor at the net - no instincts, poor execution, little
> confidence.

No instincts, poor execution and poor at the net? Those are the exact
opposite comments of what most people would say about this guy. Give me
some names of active players with a much better net game than Fed. There
certainly would be some names, I guess. But compared to for example the
players inside top 10 at the moment he is the best, maybe competing with
Murray.

PS.


   
Date: 31 Jan 2009 12:21:58
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:44:21 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>RahimAsif wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 10:29 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
>>> forever.
>>>
>>> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
>>> surfaces in your own era.
>>
>> Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
>> concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
>> his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartest
>> student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in the
>> school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
>
>
>This is why we have different goat categories;
>
>1 Achievement goat
>2 Ability goat
>3 Talent goat
>
>Fed constantly losing to Rafa on all 3 surfaces & 5 slam finals rules
>him out as 'Ability goat' as he's not even better than everyone in his
>own era, let alone all time. He's also not in running for 'Talent goat'
>as he's visibly poor at the net - no instincts, poor execution, little
>confidence.
>
>However he is very much in the running for 'Achievement goat', which is
>the ultimate title.
>


Sampras had both far less ability and talent than Federer or for that
matter even Lendl.


    
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:35:14
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:44:21 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> RahimAsif wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 10:29 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
>>>> forever.
>>>>
>>>> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
>>>> surfaces in your own era.
>>> Very true and its sad that so many in this newsgroup don't get this
>>> concept. A defeat here means that Fed is not even the best player of
>>> his era, let alone of all time. In the same way that the 2nd smartest
>>> student in a classroom can't be considered the smartest student in the
>>> school, Fed can't be considered GOAT...
>>
>> This is why we have different goat categories;
>>
>> 1 Achievement goat
>> 2 Ability goat
>> 3 Talent goat
>>
>> Fed constantly losing to Rafa on all 3 surfaces & 5 slam finals rules
>> him out as 'Ability goat' as he's not even better than everyone in his
>> own era, let alone all time. He's also not in running for 'Talent goat'
>> as he's visibly poor at the net - no instincts, poor execution, little
>> confidence.
>>
>> However he is very much in the running for 'Achievement goat', which is
>> the ultimate title.
>>
>
>
> Sampras had both far less ability and talent than Federer or for that
> matter even Lendl.


Links?



 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 19:18:24
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 30, 6:25=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Jan 30, 9:11=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > > On Jan 30, 8:08 pm, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> It astonishes me that a man with a losing H2H against his only major
> > >> rival can be considered GOAT. Doesn't make logical sense.
>
> > > Forgive me for putting it this way, but that's because you don't
> > > understand the logic. Regardless of who is the putative GOAT, it is
> > > *inevitable* that paradoxes and apparent anomalies will result when w=
e
> > > try to combine the results of one-on-one contests to create a single
> > > master ranking list. That's because one-on-one contests by themselves
> > > are not capable of sorting a group of players into a hierarchy that i=
s
> > > simultaneously compatible with the results of all the individual
> > > contests. The most basic example of this is the three-person round
> > > robin, which can easily produce three players who are each 1-1 and
> > > thus not capable of being sorted by those results alone. A rule that
> > > said no player can be ranked in the master list above a player agains=
t
> > > whom he has a losing head-to-head record would be impossible to apply=
.
>
> > That's not very good example since none in your 3-way tie situation has
> > a losing record.
>
> On the contrary, each player has a losing record against one other
> player. E.g., A is 0-1 against B, B is 0-1 against C, and C is 0-1
> against A. Thus, a rule that says A cannot be ranked above B, *and* B
> cannot be ranked above C, *and* C cannot be ranked above A, is
> obviously incapable of sorting the players. Paradoxes cannot be ruled
> out. Clear?
>
> Joe Ramirez


++ Then again, Federer doesn't need to be thought of as GOAT to have
been great and admired and lauded and applauded and influential within
the game becoming a historical marker for this generation in tennis
AND in sport generally i.e. a cultural icon emanating from the world
of professional sports identifiable as a singularity in his time
(era)... wouldn't hurt to get the slam record as well, of course... he
has achieved that general identification/status as thee aesthetic
figure in sport in the first decade of the 21st Century... his figure
gliding over a tennis court will be the abiding image of contemporary
(today) tennis and that alone will carry him across time as a fixed
point of elegant athleticism and championship peerage, in high
defination digital colour, for the curious and the historically
minded, for future generations to investigate... like looking at Bobby
Jones swing a brassy in 1932 (just 2 years after his retirement) in
those old shorts on "How I Play the Game"... at least that is my
guess...

P


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 21:35:21
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Jan 30, 6:25 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 9:11 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>> On Jan 30, 8:08 pm, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> It astonishes me that a man with a losing H2H against his only major
>>>>> rival can be considered GOAT. Doesn't make logical sense.
>>>> Forgive me for putting it this way, but that's because you don't
>>>> understand the logic. Regardless of who is the putative GOAT, it is
>>>> *inevitable* that paradoxes and apparent anomalies will result when we
>>>> try to combine the results of one-on-one contests to create a single
>>>> master ranking list. That's because one-on-one contests by themselves
>>>> are not capable of sorting a group of players into a hierarchy that is
>>>> simultaneously compatible with the results of all the individual
>>>> contests. The most basic example of this is the three-person round
>>>> robin, which can easily produce three players who are each 1-1 and
>>>> thus not capable of being sorted by those results alone. A rule that
>>>> said no player can be ranked in the master list above a player against
>>>> whom he has a losing head-to-head record would be impossible to apply.
>>> That's not very good example since none in your 3-way tie situation has
>>> a losing record.
>> On the contrary, each player has a losing record against one other
>> player. E.g., A is 0-1 against B, B is 0-1 against C, and C is 0-1
>> against A. Thus, a rule that says A cannot be ranked above B, *and* B
>> cannot be ranked above C, *and* C cannot be ranked above A, is
>> obviously incapable of sorting the players. Paradoxes cannot be ruled
>> out. Clear?
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
>
> ++ Then again, Federer doesn't need to be thought of as GOAT to have
> been great and admired and lauded and applauded and influential within
> the game becoming a historical marker for this generation in tennis
> AND in sport generally i.e. a cultural icon emanating from the world
> of professional sports identifiable as a singularity in his time
> (era)... wouldn't hurt to get the slam record as well, of course... he
> has achieved that general identification/status as thee aesthetic
> figure in sport in the first decade of the 21st Century... his figure
> gliding over a tennis court will be the abiding image of contemporary
> (today) tennis and that alone will carry him across time as a fixed
> point of elegant athleticism and championship peerage, in high
> defination digital colour, for the curious and the historically
> minded, for future generations to investigate... like looking at Bobby
> Jones swing a brassy in 1932 (just 2 years after his retirement) in
> those old shorts on "How I Play the Game"... at least that is my
> guess...
>
> P


I suspect future rst'ers will be looking at footage of Rafa to decide
who is 'ability goat', given he has already established superiority over
Fed h2h.

When historians consider 'ability goat' it will examine Tilden, Pancho,
Laver, Sampras & Rafa & ignore Borg & Federer - both well beaten by
McEnroe & Rafa respectively & thus cannot be candidates for this category.



   
Date: 31 Jan 2009 12:20:27
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:35:21 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 6:25 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 9:11 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 30, 8:08 pm, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> It astonishes me that a man with a losing H2H against his only major
>>>>>> rival can be considered GOAT. Doesn't make logical sense.
>>>>> Forgive me for putting it this way, but that's because you don't
>>>>> understand the logic. Regardless of who is the putative GOAT, it is
>>>>> *inevitable* that paradoxes and apparent anomalies will result when we
>>>>> try to combine the results of one-on-one contests to create a single
>>>>> master ranking list. That's because one-on-one contests by themselves
>>>>> are not capable of sorting a group of players into a hierarchy that is
>>>>> simultaneously compatible with the results of all the individual
>>>>> contests. The most basic example of this is the three-person round
>>>>> robin, which can easily produce three players who are each 1-1 and
>>>>> thus not capable of being sorted by those results alone. A rule that
>>>>> said no player can be ranked in the master list above a player against
>>>>> whom he has a losing head-to-head record would be impossible to apply.
>>>> That's not very good example since none in your 3-way tie situation has
>>>> a losing record.
>>> On the contrary, each player has a losing record against one other
>>> player. E.g., A is 0-1 against B, B is 0-1 against C, and C is 0-1
>>> against A. Thus, a rule that says A cannot be ranked above B, *and* B
>>> cannot be ranked above C, *and* C cannot be ranked above A, is
>>> obviously incapable of sorting the players. Paradoxes cannot be ruled
>>> out. Clear?
>>>
>>> Joe Ramirez
>>
>>
>> ++ Then again, Federer doesn't need to be thought of as GOAT to have
>> been great and admired and lauded and applauded and influential within
>> the game becoming a historical marker for this generation in tennis
>> AND in sport generally i.e. a cultural icon emanating from the world
>> of professional sports identifiable as a singularity in his time
>> (era)... wouldn't hurt to get the slam record as well, of course... he
>> has achieved that general identification/status as thee aesthetic
>> figure in sport in the first decade of the 21st Century... his figure
>> gliding over a tennis court will be the abiding image of contemporary
>> (today) tennis and that alone will carry him across time as a fixed
>> point of elegant athleticism and championship peerage, in high
>> defination digital colour, for the curious and the historically
>> minded, for future generations to investigate... like looking at Bobby
>> Jones swing a brassy in 1932 (just 2 years after his retirement) in
>> those old shorts on "How I Play the Game"... at least that is my
>> guess...
>>
>> P
>
>
>I suspect future rst'ers will be looking at footage of Rafa to decide
>who is 'ability goat', given he has already established superiority over
>Fed h2h.
>
>When historians consider 'ability goat' it will examine Tilden, Pancho,
>Laver, Sampras & Rafa & ignore Borg & Federer - both well beaten by
>McEnroe & Rafa respectively & thus cannot be candidates for this category.


You may suspect what you like but we all know they won't.


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 18:25:09
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 30, 9:11=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 8:08 pm, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> It astonishes me that a man with a losing H2H against his only major
> >> rival can be considered GOAT. Doesn't make logical sense.
>
> > Forgive me for putting it this way, but that's because you don't
> > understand the logic. Regardless of who is the putative GOAT, it is
> > *inevitable* that paradoxes and apparent anomalies will result when we
> > try to combine the results of one-on-one contests to create a single
> > master ranking list. That's because one-on-one contests by themselves
> > are not capable of sorting a group of players into a hierarchy that is
> > simultaneously compatible with the results of all the individual
> > contests. The most basic example of this is the three-person round
> > robin, which can easily produce three players who are each 1-1 and
> > thus not capable of being sorted by those results alone. A rule that
> > said no player can be ranked in the master list above a player against
> > whom he has a losing head-to-head record would be impossible to apply.
>
> That's not very good example since none in your 3-way tie situation has
> a losing record.

On the contrary, each player has a losing record against one other
player. E.g., A is 0-1 against B, B is 0-1 against C, and C is 0-1
against A. Thus, a rule that says A cannot be ranked above B, *and* B
cannot be ranked above C, *and* C cannot be ranked above A, is
obviously incapable of sorting the players. Paradoxes cannot be ruled
out. Clear?

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 17:25:36
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 30, 8:08=A0pm, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> It astonishes me that a man with a losing H2H against his only major
> rival can be considered GOAT. Doesn't make logical sense.

Forgive me for putting it this way, but that's because you don't
understand the logic. Regardless of who is the putative GOAT, it is
*inevitable* that paradoxes and apparent anomalies will result when we
try to combine the results of one-on-one contests to create a single
master ranking list. That's because one-on-one contests by themselves
are not capable of sorting a group of players into a hierarchy that is
simultaneously compatible with the results of all the individual
contests. The most basic example of this is the three-person round
robin, which can easily produce three players who are each 1-1 and
thus not capable of being sorted by those results alone. A rule that
said no player can be ranked in the master list above a player against
whom he has a losing head-to-head record would be impossible to apply.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 04:11:25
From: TT
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Jan 30, 8:08 pm, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> It astonishes me that a man with a losing H2H against his only major
>> rival can be considered GOAT. Doesn't make logical sense.
>
> Forgive me for putting it this way, but that's because you don't
> understand the logic. Regardless of who is the putative GOAT, it is
> *inevitable* that paradoxes and apparent anomalies will result when we
> try to combine the results of one-on-one contests to create a single
> master ranking list. That's because one-on-one contests by themselves
> are not capable of sorting a group of players into a hierarchy that is
> simultaneously compatible with the results of all the individual
> contests. The most basic example of this is the three-person round
> robin, which can easily produce three players who are each 1-1 and
> thus not capable of being sorted by those results alone. A rule that
> said no player can be ranked in the master list above a player against
> whom he has a losing head-to-head record would be impossible to apply.
>

That's not very good example since none in your 3-way tie situation has
a losing record.

Joe from Singapore

--
"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: 30 Jan 2009 17:16:31
From:
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 30, 8:08=A0pm, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:

> Ask yourself this: =A0 =A0if Ali had a losing record against Frazier,
> Foreman or Norton

He should have had a losing record against Norton. The decision in
their third fight was a robbery.


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 17:08:58
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 30, 10:47=A0pm, Jesper Lauridsen <rorsc...@sorrystofanet.dk >
wrote:
> On 2009-01-30, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
> > forever.
>
> > You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
> > surfaces in your own era.
>
> Sampras was bested by Krajicek on grass, HC and carpet (no clay matches,
> as they both usually lost early), yet plenty of GOAT claims for him.
>
> Btw, Federer leads Nadal H2H on both grass and HC, so in what sense has
> he been "bested on all surfaces"?

If Nadal wins the AO final, he H2H on hard courts will be level.

As I've said before, Fed is the only GOAT contender in any major sport
who has a losing H2H against his major rival. Since the W final last
year, we can't simply attribute this to Nadal being better on clay. If
Nadal beats Fed in a hard court slam final as well, then how can we
possibly definitively say Fed > Nadal ?

Ask yourself this: if Ali had a losing record against Frazier,
Foreman or Norton; if Pele had lost in 3 WC finals rather than winning
them; if Nicklaus had finished runner up rather than won against
Palmer or Watson; if Schumacher had let Hakkinen beat him to the F1
world title; etc... would we be proclaiming them as GOAT? It
astonishes me that a man with a losing H2H against his only major
rival can be considered GOAT. Doesn't make logical sense. Nadal
winning this slam would only cement the point.


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 12:39:17
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
GOAT <thetruetennisgoat@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> if Pele had lost in 3 WC finals rather than winning
> them;

This is a team Sport. Universally the GOAT candidates in soccer are Pele and
Maradona, and Maradona has only 1 WC win and 1 runner up.

> if Schumacher had let Hakkinen beat him to the F1
> world title; etc... would we be proclaiming them as GOAT?

Let me point out that Schumacher was beaten to the world title by Hakkinen in
98 and 99. And Villeneuve in 97. And Hill in 96. And Alonso in 05 and 06. What
makes him GOAT in F1 is that, while not winning the championship many times,
nobody else has racked 7 F1 World Championships. Nobody cares that he was
beaten by all those listed above since his first championship (including the
infamouos 97 where he tried to crash Villeneuve to get him off the race and
secure the title).


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 15:47:49
From: guyana
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 30, 5:47=A0pm, Jesper Lauridsen <rorsc...@sorrystofanet.dk >
wrote:
> On 2009-01-30, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
> > forever.
>
> > You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
> > surfaces in your own era.
>
> Sampras was bested by Krajicek on grass, HC and carpet (no clay matches,
> as they both usually lost early), yet plenty of GOAT claims for him.
>
> Btw, Federer leads Nadal H2H on both grass and HC, so in what sense has
> he been "bested on all surfaces"?
Two very good posts. Remember laver did not play 63-67 in any gslams!!


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 22:47:13
From: Jesper Lauridsen
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On 2009-01-30, GOAT <thetruetennisgoat@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
> forever.
>
> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
> surfaces in your own era.

Sampras was bested by Krajicek on grass, HC and carpet (no clay matches,
as they both usually lost early), yet plenty of GOAT claims for him.

Btw, Federer leads Nadal H2H on both grass and HC, so in what sense has
he been "bested on all surfaces"?


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 00:26:45
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
Jesper Lauridsen wrote:

> Sampras was bested by Krajicek on grass, HC and carpet (no clay matches,
> as they both usually lost early), yet plenty of GOAT claims for him.

Only once in slams though. But anyway, I agree that only comparing two
players like that is making it way too simple. Tennis is about match-ups
and I guess all great players had match-up issues with at least one
player on the tour during their career. And hey, Fed's career is not
even close to being over.

PS.


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 01:20:11
From: TT
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
Jesper Lauridsen wrote:
> On 2009-01-30, GOAT <thetruetennisgoat@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
>> forever.
>>
>> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
>> surfaces in your own era.
>
> Sampras was bested by Krajicek on grass, HC and carpet (no clay matches,
> as they both usually lost early), yet plenty of GOAT claims for him.

4-6 is different from 6-13

>
> Btw, Federer leads Nadal H2H on both grass and HC, so in what sense has
> he been "bested on all surfaces"?


--
"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: 30 Jan 2009 09:19:34
From: Gordon Cameron
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 30, 8:29=A0am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
> forever.
>
> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
> surfaces in your own era.

Why not? GOAT isn't about your losses, it's about your wins. If we
want to come up with arbitrary criteria, we can just as easily dig up
some that would exclude Pete and Borg. That just leaves Laver in the
open era, and he has some issues two (only 5 non-amateur slams, only
had to play on 2 surfaces...).

It's pointless to create this silly and arbitrary exclusions of who
can or can't be GOAT. Bottom line is, in the open era it comes down
to one of four people: Pete, Borg, Laver, Fed. They all have their
strengths and weaknesses. IMO the fact that Fed was so amazingly good
on clay that he reached three successive FO finals and it took maybe
the greatest dirtballer of all time to deny him back-to-back calendar
slams, puts him in pretty darn good standing...


  
Date: 30 Jan 2009 17:40:10
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
Gordon Cameron wrote:
> On Jan 30, 8:29 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
>> forever.
>>
>> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
>> surfaces in your own era.
>
> Why not? GOAT isn't about your losses, it's about your wins. If we
> want to come up with arbitrary criteria, we can just as easily dig up
> some that would exclude Pete and Borg. That just leaves Laver in the
> open era, and he has some issues two (only 5 non-amateur slams, only
> had to play on 2 surfaces...).
>
> It's pointless to create this silly and arbitrary exclusions of who
> can or can't be GOAT. Bottom line is, in the open era it comes down
> to one of four people: Pete, Borg, Laver, Fed. They all have their
> strengths and weaknesses. IMO the fact that Fed was so amazingly good
> on clay that he reached three successive FO finals and it took maybe
> the greatest dirtballer of all time to deny him back-to-back calendar
> slams, puts him in pretty darn good standing...

Sensible and logical post that ought to counter all the specialized
nonsense that seems to flow though rst.

--
Cheers,

vc


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 09:11:27
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 30, 11:29=A0am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
> forever.
>
> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
> surfaces in your own era.

Why is that? because he lost a match? He still has many years in his
career.


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 09:10:25
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 30, 8:52=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 30 Jan, 16:29, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
> > forever.
>
> > You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
> > surfaces in your own era.
>
> True, but, if Federer wins tomorrow, then the haters claims that he is
> finished because of the Nadal/Djoko/Murray era are equally washed up.
> Back to back slam wins, beating all three.

++ It won't matter if Fed wins what is thrown around here in the days
and weeks after because Feds will be arm and arm with the great Pete
and nothing said here can/will alter that...

P


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 08:52:36
From: robin
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On 30 Jan, 16:29, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
> forever.
>
> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
> surfaces in your own era.

True, but, if Federer wins tomorrow, then the haters claims that he is
finished because of the Nadal/Djoko/Murray era are equally washed up.
Back to back slam wins, beating all three.


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 08:48:42
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On 30 Jan, 16:29, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
> forever.
>
> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
> surfaces in your own era.

agreed..

Tomorrow is Feds last chance ,if he doesnt win it will look esp bad
considering how gruelling Nadals semi was.

I can already hear the church bells ringing 13 times..


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 08:42:32
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 30, 8:29=A0am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
> forever.
>
> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
> surfaces in your own era.

++ If Nadal wins on Sunday it will be a MIGHTY blow to Fed mentally,
that's for sure... he knows that Rafa, supremely fit as he is, will
have some wear on the tires going into that final and he should win
it... look for Rafa to come out smoking early to get into Feds head
and try and conjure the demons of Wimbledon past...

Fed just needs to keep his concentration and play the way he's been
playing... who will execute? As usual that's what it comes down to...

P


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 17:35:33
From: Aimless
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
No asshole. At least for now Federer has way more slams. Now he's starting
to age a little. Nadal can beat him. If he does we'll have to see what
happens the rest of the year.



 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 08:32:38
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Jan 30, 4:29=A0pm, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
> forever.
>
> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
> surfaces in your own era.

exactly.
Problem is that their are no genuine fed fans on here. Only fed trolls
ala Hazelnut and Giovannutter.


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 04:58:15
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Fed Fans: Admit It
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:32:38 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Jan 30, 4:29 pm, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> If Nadal beats Fed in this AO final, Fed's claims to be GOAT have gone
>> forever.
>>
>> You simply cannot be GOAT if you are bested by another player on all
>> surfaces in your own era.
>
>exactly.
>Problem is that their are no genuine fed fans on here. Only fed trolls
>ala Hazelnut and Giovannutter.


you fucking traitor !