| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| is Federer the greatest ever? |
| No, he isnt. |
|
43% |
[ 7 ] |
| Yes, he is. Or soon will be. |
|
56% |
[ 9 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 16 |
|
| Author |
Message |
ajgeddes
Joined: 28 Apr 2004
Location: Yongsan
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| jinju wrote: |
| I totally disagree here. You say "other than Nadal" but Nadal is easily yhe best clay court player in the last 10-20 years and his game on grass is fantastic as well. Infact tennis is one sport where this argument doesnt hold any water. You can say that theres a drop in skill level in team sports where there are so much teams that there is a dillution of talent and as such the pitchers that Bonds faced vs the pitchers that Aaron faced are overall less skilled. But tennis is an individual sport and I would venture a guess that the top 10 of today are superior to the top 10 of 10 years ago, 20 years aho and 30 years ago. In other words, cEnroe at his prime would get beat by Nadal. Bigger, stronger, faster, better training, nutrition make today's players superior to those of the past. |
Agree with everything you said, except for that. The pitchers Bonds faces are so much better than players in the past. Players in almost every sport are miles ahead of players in the past. Watch hockey, it looks so damn easy back in the past. Watch baseball, the pitchers weren't that great. Look at basketball, they just run up against little defense. Sports athletes as a whole are way better than past players, tennis is no exception. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ajgeddes wrote: |
Agree with everything you said, except for that. The pitchers Bonds faces are so much better than players in the past. |
Yes, but its all relative. I would agree that pitchers overall are better than in the past BUT theres a much wider gap between the ace starter and say the 5th man in the rotation. Wheras the aces now are lightyears ahead of what Aaron faced, the relative level of the 4th and 5th starters as well as the middle relievers is lower.
| Quote: |
| Sports athletes as a whole are way better than past players, tennis is no exception. |
I agree. Which is why nadal wipes the floor with connors or McEnroe and Roddick beats Lendl and Becker and Roger beats them all with ease, be it Becker or Edberg or Sampras.
To say Roger has no foil is hilarious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| ajgeddes wrote: |
Agree with everything you said, except for that. The pitchers Bonds faces are so much better than players in the past. |
Yes, but its all relative. I would agree that pitchers overall are better than in the past BUT theres a much wider gap between the ace starter and say the 5th man in the rotation. Wheras the aces now are lightyears ahead of what Aaron faced, the relative level of the 4th and 5th starters as well as the middle relievers is lower.
| Quote: |
| Sports athletes as a whole are way better than past players, tennis is no exception. |
I agree. Which is why nadal wipes the floor with connors or McEnroe and Roddick beats Lendl and Becker and Roger beats them all with ease, be it Becker or Edberg or Sampras.
To say Roger has no foil is hilarious. |
It's one thing to say that athletes are much better than they were 40 or 50 years ago, it's another to say that they are much better than they were just 10 years ago. A lot has changed in the past 50 years regarding the number of people competing and the improvements made in equipment and training and conditioning. What has changed so much in the last 10 years? To state that Nadal would "wipe the floor" with Conners or McEnroe is silly. There are always those who talk like the all the best stuff is from the past but there are also those who talk like everything new is better. Both views are too oversimplistic.
And what hilarious about Fed having no foils? Who's out there. You mentioned Roddick? How many slams has he won? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| It's one thing to say that athletes are much better than they were 40 or 50 years ago, it's another to say that they are much better than they were just 10 years ago. |
Well, for one thing Id say that Federer is a better player than Sampras so thats one thing thats changed. But perhas 10 years is too short a time frame. 20 years though is not.
| Quote: |
| To state that Nadal would "wipe the floor" with Conners or McEnroe is silly. |
I dont think it is. Nadal is faster, stronger than either of those guys and I believe is he a superior player.
| Quote: |
| And what hilarious about Fed having no foils? Who's out there. You mentioned Roddick? How many slams has he won? |
He has won one slam. Im not a Roddick fan but he would easily have a bunch more of not for Federer. Same with Nadal. The facts are that Roger's advantage over the rest is more dominant than any other player's in history and that today's athletes are better than those in the past. That for me says it all. The argument is silly: you are arguing that Connors or McEnroe were better than Federer because they lost more. It follows from your argument that if all things were kept equal but McEnroe was just 5% better and won everything in his era that he would actually be less great than what he is remembered as. Federer is like McEnroe with 5% more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The greatest what? Tennis player? Har! Isn't that like being the smartest person in South Dakota. Utterly and completely meaningless. Let's see how any of those tennis champions do in a real sport. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CeleryMan
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Federer's got game no doubt. Is he the best pound-for-pound? No chance. His continued success reflects the current state of Men's tennis. Lots of decent players but no real contenders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| flakfizer wrote: |
| It's one thing to say that athletes are much better than they were 40 or 50 years ago, it's another to say that they are much better than they were just 10 years ago. |
Well, for one thing Id say that Federer is a better player than Sampras so thats one thing thats changed. But perhas 10 years is too short a time frame. 20 years though is not.
| Quote: |
| To state that Nadal would "wipe the floor" with Conners or McEnroe is silly. |
I dont think it is. Nadal is faster, stronger than either of those guys and I believe is he a superior player.
| Quote: |
| And what hilarious about Fed having no foils? Who's out there. You mentioned Roddick? How many slams has he won? |
He has won one slam. Im not a Roddick fan but he would easily have a bunch more of not for Federer. Same with Nadal. The facts are that Roger's advantage over the rest is more dominant than any other player's in history and that today's athletes are better than those in the past. That for me says it all. The argument is silly: you are arguing that Connors or McEnroe were better than Federer because they lost more. It follows from your argument that if all things were kept equal but McEnroe was just 5% better and won everything in his era that he would actually be less great than what he is remembered as. Federer is like McEnroe with 5% more. |
First of all, I never argued that Fed was worse than anyone. I said most experts say his game is the most polished. Fed is more dominant than the great players of yesteryear. My question is how much of it is that he is so good and how much of it is because his competition is not that good. If you are going along with the "modern is always better than the past," which you seem to be saying is true of athletics, then why even bother with this poll? Fed is clearly the best player now and if the players of now are necessarily better than the players of the past, then there is no point in having this discussion or any discussion involving comparing athletes from different generations. Just find the best athletes of today and you have found the best athletes of all time. I just don't buy that. I don't think it's that simple. Would a top player of today, playing with modern equipment and benefitting from modern training beat a top player from the past playing with a wooden racket? Yeah. Does that mean he is a better player? Not so sure. I think one has to consider the context in which players played. It's easy to say that Nadal and Roddick are better than Agassi and Becker, because there is no way to prove it either way. It is just based on the assumption that the modern athlete is always the better athlete. Again, if this is the assumption, then there's no point to this discussion. Fed is clearly the best player today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The equipment argument is pointless. Give them the same equipment, from shoes to rackets and I still believe Federer beats anyone. Part of it is because of modern day training and nutrition, part of it is because he is the most versatile player. he does EVERYTHING well, and has little, if any weaknesses in his game.
But I also made a distinction between best and gratest, and I said that I am not looking to argue best as its quite obvious that Fed is the best: level of play, versatility, mental toughness in the crunch. What Im looking for is to see who is the GREATEST which is partly about skill level but also about accomplishments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajstew
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:09 am Post subject: tennis |
|
|
| I'd like to say a few words as well. The greatest player of all time is a difficult thing to determine. First off, by what criteria are we judging the players by? Is it who wins the most grand slams? If you've agreed that that is the greatest feat to accomplish, then I think Federer has got to be, or soon will be your choice. Although I think that is a good system to judge by at times, I like to imagine who would win if each player played eachother at their absolute best. Who would win these encounters? So I imagine Sampras serving in a way that his serves could not be touched. I imagine Agassi playing as he did during his Australian open wins over Kafelnikov and Clement where he completely beat down his opponents with the most consistent and powerful strokes of that time. I also imagine Federer playing his complete game. I really think what you'd see is each player had a game that was a better match up with another. I think you'd see the best Agassi break down Federer's backhand and get into more of his service games to win his fair share. I also think Sampras would take the majority of Agassi wins but only because Andre never really was mentally strong enough to beat him. But at the same time, I think Federer would have had a greater opportunity to break and beat Sampras. If I'm using this system, I think it's impossible to say who is truly the best... because in the end, I think it really is all about matchups. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
he is GREAT! but!! he is playing in a time where the competition isnt like it was 15 years ago!
you bring sampres, agassi, lendl, becker, borg, Courier,edberg, mcenroe
have these guys in their prime! and see how Federer ranks!
all the players above pretty much faced each other! that was exciting Tennis in the late 80's and 90's and very tough competition! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MANDRL
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| With Federer's loss in the Olympics today, to James Blake nonetheless, is this debate back on the table? Is he in a slump, or is this the beginning of the end for the Swiss phenom? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Federer is supremely talented. Is he the best ever? Wait till closer to the end of his career. Then we will know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MANDRL wrote: |
| With Federer's loss in the Olympics today, to James Blake nonetheless, is this debate back on the table? Is he in a slump, or is this the beginning of the end for the Swiss phenom? |
Now that Fed's turned 27, the pundits are saying he's peaked, since the best and brightest of previous eras won comparatively little after 27.
Personally, I've always felt Sampras to be better, but most people seem to disagree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
