|
|
|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
|
"Is Federer now the GOAT?"
PepeLePew13 25010 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-07-09, 11:34 AM (EST)
 
  |
|
"Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
This morning, Roger Federer won the French Open for the first time, beating Robin Soderling in straight sets a few moments ago.The one major missing piece from his resume - the French Open - is finally complete. Sure, it would have been even better if he was able to do it against Rafael Nadal, but that's not on Federer as he handled all of the challengers to win the title. So is it now safe to call Federer the Greatest of All Time? Consider this... Federer just tied Sampras for the most Grand Slam titles at 14, and he's still only 27. He's been in an incredible 20 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals (Ivan Lendl has the second-longest streak with a mere 9 consecutive semis). Federer is just the sixth to win a career Grand Slam -- Sampras, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Ashe and yes, Nadal all haven't accomplished this. The only one who might be in the same discussion by now as to the GOAT is Rod Laver. Congrats to Roger Federer on nabbing that elusive French Open title.
Stinky Musings <--- blog's been updated!
|
|
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
 |
PepeLePew13 25010 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-07-09, 09:00 PM (EST)
|
|
2. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
No question Nadal is great and he might even be the best player in the world right now. But the GOAT title is based on career accomplishment, and Nadal still has a long way to go before he can match Federer's accomplishments.Federer beat Nadal in the last clay court tournament before the French Open this year, and of course, Nadal got bumped in the fourth round of 'his' tournament. The longest semis streak he's had is five, while Federer's been in 20 consecutive semis. Another reason why I don't think Nadal will challenge for the GOAT title is his playing style - it's brutal on the body, and he will wear down before long. Perhaps he's already breaking down as he complained loudly earlier about the toll of the ATP schedule (why him, when few others have complained about it?) and now he's been beaten in two consecutive clay tournaments when he was once invincible on it, having won 81 matches in a row from '05 to '07. Meanwhile, Federer still looks as good as ever, having won two of the last three GS tournaments sandwiched around a Nadal Aussie Open title, and he's been in 15 of the last 16 GS finals (!) with the only time missing out was when he went out in the semis at the '08 Aussie Open while battling mononucleosis. I don't think there's any question that Nadal is already the GOAT on clay, but it's the other surfaces that is in question.
Stinky Musings <--- blog's been updated!
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
vince3 17341 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-07-09, 11:31 PM (EST)
|
|
4. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
If Nadal reinvents himself like Agassi did for a while, though...... who knows? We won't know for sure until later on.....
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
ohmyheck 1919 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
06-07-09, 10:53 PM (EST)
|
|
3. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
I don't think Laver is in the conversation because Laver only won slams on two surfaces. He never won one on Hard courts.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Starshine 5033 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-08-09, 05:52 AM (EST)
|
|
5. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
LAST EDITED ON 06-08-09 AT 05:53 AM (EST)Not in the conversation because he only played on the courts that were available whilst he was playing? Would Federer beat 1978 Bjorg if they were both using wooden racquets? To quote Wikipedia about Rod Laver: He was the World No. 1 player for seven consecutive years, from 1964 to 1970. He is the only tennis player to have twice won all four Grand Slam singles titles in the same year — first as an amateur in 1962 and second as a professional in 1969. He is the only male player during the open era to have won a calendar year Grand Slam. And don't forget he wasn't competing in the Grand Slam events between 1963 and 1967 - Although he did win quite a few of the professional tournaments that he entered.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
Starshine 5033 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-08-09, 11:40 AM (EST)
|
|
8. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
I think you are right Pepe, it would be a great match, I should probably have said "if they were playing with the same racquets"I still think Laver has the edge as the GOAT, however as Federer has not retired yet I I think he may well take the title, however he needs a couple more good years  J Slice what a cool lady Just another Sleeperbloke Something or Other
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
ohmyheck 1919 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
06-08-09, 12:59 PM (EST)
|
|
9. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
I don't know. It's kind of impossible to compare eras. Who knows who would win in a tournament of Borg, Laver, Federer, and Sampras at their peaks.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
Starshine 5033 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-05-09, 02:47 PM (EST)
|
|
14. "RE: Add a 6th Wimbledon title..." |
It was a rather good match wasn't it!Hope Andy Roddick uses this as a big boost, he hasn't been that great lately, however he played sensationally today  Arrrr Cap'n!
Just another Sleeperbloke
Something or Other
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AyaK 10303 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-06-09, 01:53 PM (EST)
|
|
18. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
I'm a Laver supporter, as I posted previously -- his two Grand Slams and 9-of-10 majors streaks were incredible, and he didn't get to play in the majors during most of his peak due to the amateur-only rules, which he was largely responsible for breaking down.But no one will ever know. Pancho Gonzalez was the best player in the world as a professional in the 1950s, and he beat Ken Rosewall in a famous head-to-head series then. Who knows what records he might have set? Instead, all he won were the 1948 and 1949 U.S. Opens. Lew Hoad won five Grand Slam titles before turning pro in the '50s. Again, who knows? If Federer can win some version of the Grand Slam (even if just the "Tiger Slam" version by holding all four titles at the same time, although not in the same year like Laver), I'll give him the edge as the best player in the Open era. Best player ever? We'll have to leave that for some day when we have nothing to do but speculate.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
PepeLePew13 25010 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-06-09, 06:12 PM (EST)
|
|
22. "RE: ***Cough*Cough***" |
Phfft. He's got to win *something* in order to be included in the discussion.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
AyaK 10303 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-07-09, 03:04 PM (EST)
|
|
24. "RE: ***Cough*Cough***" |
Umm ... even Roddick has won a major. Murray?
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
AyaK 10303 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-07-09, 04:33 PM (EST)
|
|
26. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
LAST EDITED ON 07-08-09 AT 00:51 AM (EST)The big argument here is the number of tournaments that the competitors won. Part of the reason I insist Jack Nicklaus was better than Tiger Woods is that Jack finished second to a number of people who won lots of majors. Among Jack's losses in majors were second places behind Arnold Palmer (1960 US Open, 1964 Masters), Gary Player (1968 British Open), Lee Trevino (1968 & 1971 U.S. Open, 1972 British Open (when Nicklaus had won the first two legs of the Grand Slam), 1974 PGA), Tom Watson (1977 Masters, 1977 British Open, 1982 U.S. Open) and Seve Ballesteros (1979 British Open). How many majors did these guys win? Palmer: 7. Player: 9. Trevino: 6. Watson: 8. Ballesteros: 5. How many have Tiger's competitors won? None of them have won more than 3 (Mickelson, Els, Singh, Harrington and Payne Stewart). Heck, even Raymond Floyd won more than any of them (4). It might be because Tiger is so brilliant, that he's better than Nicklaus and always chases his competitors down. Or it might be that they just aren't as talented as Jack's competitors were. After all, in Jack's day, the winner got 20% of the purse, and purses weren't very big. You needed to win. Now? Winning? Maybe it's nice, but not worth blowing your chance at finishing third. Call it Tom Kite syndrome (Kite, BTW, only won one major, but finished second to Nicklaus twice). What makes it tough in tennis was the pro-am split until 1968. I mean, Roy Emerson was the record holder for Grand Slam titles (12) until Sampras passed him, and no one outside of Australia would contend that Emerson was ever a first-tier player. Notice how many titles he won after 1967 (0), although he was the same age as Laver (31) when the Open Era started in 1968. Edited to fix two typos.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
AyaK 10303 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-08-09, 01:23 AM (EST)
|
|
29. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
I'm not sure I agree. In both match-play golf and tennis, a top seed can be done in when an inferior player has a great day. In the 11 years of the WGC World Match Play championship, Tiger has won it three times, finished second once, and been beaten before the final four seven times.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
kingfish 16745 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-08-09, 09:56 AM (EST)
 |
|
31. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
LAST EDITED ON 07-08-09 AT 09:58 AM (EST)These comparisons are interesting. Adding (or detracting, depending on POV), is the difference in equipment, in both golf and tennis. And if one is comparing golfing greats, one could also include the brilliant Byron Nelson if one could somehow handicap him for the brevity of his career. In tennis, the improved equipment changes the style of play, so while one might say that Laver is the better suited for a scrambling defensive game with a wooden racket and slower balls, Federer (or Nadal, or probably even most of the top 100, IMO) are better suited for the power sport tennis has become with the modern rackets and balls. And the conditioning and physiques. So speculation as to who is superior really comes down to which style is superior. Then decide who plays that style best. It's no contest (I think) that Laver was the best at the old, defensive style, but head to head with a modern power player, it's hard to see him prevailing. On the other hand, it's not hard to see him prevailing if Federer (for instance) was made to play with a wooden racket. If Laver had had the benefit of the rocket rackets of today, and maybe he would have benefited from a two handed backhand, it probably would improve his game. Still, his game was based on scrambling (if I recall correctly), and today's game is such a power game, the comparison really comes down to styles of play, is the Power game superior to the defensive game? I personally would bet on the power player simply (if for no other reason) from all the extra points a power guy would get from his service game. So when it all shakes out, the only reasonable basis for comparing great players from the past to those of the present is probably wins, major wins. And maybe slams. And maybe some other stats, like maybe winning margin average, winning percentages, longevity of career, etc. And by the end of his career that will surely favor Federer (and Woods for that matter). On a side note, I was not prepared for Federer to dominate the service game against Roddick. And I would have never in my wildest dreams have imagined that Roddick could hang with Federer if he didn't have his serve advantage. I think Federer demonstrated all time greatness with his performance in the final match at Wimbledon, and I think Roddick gained a lot in most people’s estimation. I also think that a healthy Nadal after a long playing career is the only player that can be considered as real competition for Federer in the all time great category.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
byoffer 15947 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-08-09, 11:01 AM (EST)
|
|
32. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
You are certainly correct that directly comparing athletes from generation to generation is impossible because of the change in equipment, style of play, etc. Really all we can do is compare the competitiveness of the players. And all of those discussed above were at the top in competitiveness.
Federer/Roddick serving
I was surprised by Federer's domination in the ace category as well. But sometimes statistics can deceive.
I thought Roddick had a lot of service winners, particularly late in the match, that were not aces. He was serving into Federer's body and causing Roger all sorts of trouble. Roger would touch the ball though, so no ace. From Roger's perspective, the high number of aces could be just Roddick deciding what to go for. How many of Roger's aces came when he was already up 30 or 40 love, and Andy just decided not to lunge for Roger's well-placed serves just to deny an ace? Sadly we may never get to discuss Nadal in the all-time category because of injury.  
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
AyaK 10303 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-08-09, 11:59 AM (EST)
|
|
35. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
>Your stats on the WGC World Match Play golf supports Pepe's
>claim that the modern fields in golf tournaments are deep.
> Did they play match play back in Nicklaus' day?
> If so, I suspect he went far most of the time. The PGA Tournament was match-play until 1958, when it switched to stroke play under pressure from the networks, which didn't want a no-name final. After Sam Snead's 3rd PGA win in 1951, the following were the winners before it switched: Jim Turnesa, Walter Burkemo, Chick Harbert, Doug Ford, Jack Burke, Jr., Lionel Hebert. Of those six, Burke and Ford won exactly one other major; the others never won another one.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
kingfish 16745 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-10-09, 02:16 PM (EST)
|
|
38. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
Very well written and (IMO) well reasoned.Nice phraseology too. "Tiger Woods shot one-under on the final six holes -- he birdied 16 -- and won. It was the performance of a professional assassin. And everyone in the place -- everyone -- knew that he would do it." Kind of Estee-esque. Now, let’s throw Babe Ruth and Michael Jordan into the discussion. No, let’s not.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kingfish 16745 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-20-09, 11:31 AM (EST)
|
|
44. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
I think it does. Somewhat. I think both Woods and Federer are so phenomenal that they both rate a place on the cloud of Sports Gods, but all failures in the records of each have to be taken into account when comparing the two. I have to admit that if the failure at the British Open does diminish Woods record, it will fade into inconsequentiality (my word, and I'm sticking with it) if Woods comes back into his old form. Chalk it up to the injury and forget about it. He did miss the cut though. He didn't just not win, he didn't just not finish in the top five/ten or on the leaderboard, he missed the cut. If Federer is able to close out his career without ever losing in the first/second/third rounds of a major, or sustain an an injury that caused a break in his Major tournament record, that would put him one up in that category and enhance his comparison as the GOAT, at least between the two. I agree though that the difference between maintaining a Major Tournament streak in Golf is tougher than in Tennis. But both are very tough to do as evinced by the history of each sport.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
AyaK 10303 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-20-09, 03:26 PM (EST)
|
|
45. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
Here's why I disagree.In tennis, you have to play head-to-head, and how I play can mess up how you play. That's why the top people win tennis tournaments amost every time. Let's focus on the 1990s, in both tennis and golf. I used this perios because this is after the top men returned to Australia (around 1988). Here's the list of people who won one major tennis tournament and never won another: Andres Gomez (French, 1990)
Michael Stich (Wimbledon, 1991)
Thomas Muster (French, 1995)
Richard Kracijek (Wimbledon, 1996)
Petr Korda (Australian, 1998)
Carlos Moya (French, 1998) Here's how many that others won during that decade:
Ivan Lendl (1, his last of 8)
Gustavo Kuerten (1, his first of 3)
Boris Becker (2, his last of 6)
Sergi Bruguera (2)
Yevgeny Kafelnikov (2)
Patrick Rafter (2)
Stefan Edberg (3, his last of 6)
Jim Courier (4)
Andre Agassi (5, his first of 8)
Pete Sampras (12, his first of 14) In other words, only 6 people won exactly one major, out of 40 possibilities. Ten people won multiples, although they stretched out of the decade on both ends. Now let's look at the golf Grand Slam during the same decade. Here's the list of people who won one major golf tournament and never won another: Wayne Grady (PGA, 1990)
Ian Woosnam (Masters, 1991)
Ian Baker-Finch (Open, 1991)
Fred Couples (Masters, 1992)
Tom Kite (U.S. Open, 1992)
Paul Azinger (PGA, 1993)
Corey Pavin (U.S. Open, 1995)
Steve Elkington (PGA, 1995)
Steve Jones (U.S. Open, 1996)
Tom Lehman (Open, 1996)
Mark Brooks (PGA, 1996)
Justin Leonard (Open, 1997)
Davis Love III (PGA, 1997)
Paul Lawrie (Open, 1999) Here's how many that others won during that decade:
Bernhard Langer (1, his last of 2)
Ben Crenshaw (1, his last of 2)
Greg Norman (1, his last of 2)
Hale Irwin (1, his last of 3)
Vijay Singh (1, his first of 3)
Payne Stewart (2, his last of 3)
John Daly (2)
José María Olazábal (2)
Lee Janzen (2)
Mark O'Meara (2)
Ernie Els (2, his first of 3)
Tiger Woods (2, his first of 14)
Nick Price (3)
Nick Faldo (4, his last of 6) 14 people won one and only one tournament, and another 14 won multiples, although again, they stretched out on both sides. So why so many more golfers winning majors? My theory is simple: your opponent can't mess up your game in golf. Thus, very few tennis players find "lightning in a bottle" and come from out of the blue to win a tennis tournament. In golf, it's simply much easier to have a great weekend and win a major; in tennis, you need to have a great two weeks AND defeat the strategies that are targeting you. If you think my numbers are inflated because I used a non-Tiger period, please note that in 2000-09, with one tournamant still to go, there have once again been 14 players who have won one and only one major (as of now). What there aren't are nearly as many multiple winners (in fact, there are only seven -- Woods, Goosen, Singh, Michelson, Els, Harrington and Cabrera, consistent with my theory that Tiger has faced a lower level of competition overall).
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
AyaK 10303 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-20-09, 08:02 PM (EST)
|
|
48. "Disagree" |
LAST EDITED ON 07-20-09 AT 08:03 PM (EST)By contrast, look at men's golf majors in the 1970s. One-time winners: Charles Coody (Masters, 1971)
Tommy Aaron (Masters, 1973)
Tom Weiskopf (Open, 1973)
Lou Graham (U.S. Open, 1975)
Jerry Pate (U.S. Open, 1976)
Lanny Wadkins (PGA, 1977)
John Mahaffey (PGA, 1978) Only SEVEN one-time winners. How about multiple winners? Tony Jacklin (1, his last of 2)
Billy Casper (1, his last of 3)
Raymond Floyd (1, the middle of 4)
Hubert Green (1, his first of 2)
Andy North (1, his first of 2)
Fuzzy Zoeller (1, his first of 2)
David Graham (1, his first of 2)
Seve Ballesteros (1, his first of 5)
Dave Stockton (2)
Johnny Miller (2)
Hale Irwin (2, his first of 3)
Tom Watson (3, the first of 8)
Gary Player (4, his last of 9)
Lee Trevino (4, the middle of 6)
Jack Nicklaus (8, the middle of 18) FIFTEEN multiple winners. In other words, here the multiple winners stole victories from the one-timers, as opposed to now, where the number of one-timer victories has remained high, and the multiple winners have lost victories to Tiger. In the 1980s, there were just eight one-timer victors -- and four of them came in the last three years of the decade, after Nicklaus, Trevino and Watson had suffered injuries that left them unable to compete. If only they had the sports medicine then that we do now....
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
PepeLePew13 25010 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-20-09, 04:08 PM (EST)
|
|
46. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
LAST EDITED ON 07-20-09 AT 07:13 PM (EST)>If Federer is able to close
>out his career without ever
>losing in the first/second/third rounds
>of a major, or sustain
>an an injury that caused
>a break in his Major
>tournament record, that would put
>him one up in that
>category and enhance his comparison
>as the GOAT, at least
>between the two. If we want to use that criteria, then Tiger is light years ahead of Federer. Federer was knocked out in the first round in three of the four Wimbledons immediately before he went on to win five in a row from '03 to '07. He went out in the first round of the French Open three times, most recently in '03, and has had four third-round exits in majors. Sure, he's working on 21 consecutive major semi-finals, but he's been knocked out in the first three rounds a total of 10 times out of 41 majors (75.6% surviving the first three rounds), while Tiger has missed the cut in only three out of 54 majors (94.4% making the cut).
Stinky Musings <--- blog's been updated!
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
kingfish 16745 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-21-09, 09:01 AM (EST)
|
|
49. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
Good points. Tiger would have the edge as it stands today based on that. But how far back should one go? How did either do as an amateur playing majors? And should a slow/fast learning curve be counted against either one or should one consider each of their records after they matured into the player they are now? I have to say that I am impressed and hopefully well instructed with those statistics. Thanks.But if the question is ByOffer's post #39, "Anyone feel that Woods not making the cut at the British Open tarnishes his record? Compare to Federer who has made so many major semifinals in a row." In a row! It seems to me that the answer to the first part would have to be an obvious yes. And missing the cut in a tournament does tarnish Woods claim to be the GOAT when compared to Federer, just like an early ejection from major would tarnish Federer's claim to be the GOAT when being compared to Woods. The two sports are different. While they are individual sports (at least there's that common ground), it takes different skills to win majors in either sport consistently. It might be argued that one is more mental than the other (not I), or it might be argued that in golf it's easier because you only need to be better than the rest in a cumulative way, on the last day (poor old Tom). But with either one of them, losing a major has to tarnish his claim to GOAT. Somewhat at least. I really hope Woods does come back into his old form, that the Tiger Woods show isn’t over yet. And I hope Federer completes his year slam, at least once. It's just great being able to watch these guys.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
PepeLePew13 25010 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-21-09, 10:06 AM (EST)
|
|
51. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
Ditto... I do enjoy watching both of them because they're damn good at what they do, whether they're the GOAT or not.I found it refreshing, though, to see the likes of Watson, Westwood, Cink, Fisher, Wood, Goggin, etc. on the back nine of The Open. Too much of a good thing isn't always ideal.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
PepeLePew13 25010 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-10-09, 09:50 PM (EST)
|
|
53. "RE: Is Federer now the GOAT?" |
It shows the difference between Tiger and many other golfers -- when Paddy and Tiger were put on the clock, Paddy fell to pieces with three horrible shots on the way to a triple bogey, while Tiger merely hit an 8-iron from 178 yards to only a foot from the hole for a birdie. Great players find a way to be cool under pressure (Turnberry aside) and Tiger showed it in this particular instance while paired up with another majors champion in Paddy.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
kingfish 16745 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
09-14-09, 09:13 AM (EST)
|
|
56. "RE: How the frick do you even make a shot like that..." |
That shot was a phenomenal desperation shot that went for a winner. Aided by the fact that Djokovic surely knew that there was no way Federer could return the lob and was not prepared for it when he did. And at match deuce point no less.The US Open was pretty interesting this year, the rise of 17 YO Oduin, her matches culminating with her loss to Wozniacki. 19 YO Caroline Wozniacki, the first Scandinavian woman in history to make the quarterfinals. I find that factoid to be a bit stunning Unseeded Kim Clijsters won, becoming the first mother to win the title since way on back, and the first since Googlagong to win any major. Her little girl celebrated, this is C&P from the LA Times article:
( http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-us-open-women14-2009sep14,0,1556808.story ) "Jada left her little-girl fingerprints on the silver trophy and dashed back and forth in front of the photographers. She also impishly kept pulling up one leg of her black stretch pants to her knee, even after Clijsters made motherly attempts to tidy up her toddler. It was suddenly possible to forget the scene 24 hours earlier on the same court." (referring to the self destructive implosion by which Serena lost her match against Clijsters). Clisters coming out of retirement (she took 2 1/2 years off to have a baby) and defeated both Williams sisters. The drama at the end of the Serena Williams match was enough by itself to make this a memorable event. Heather Watson, a 17-year-old from Guernsey became the first British winner of the girls' singles at the US Open. The defeat of Nadal by Del Portro. (What?) And (not finally, only stopping to catch breath), Federer continuing his amazing run at the open buy stopping Djokovic in three hard fought sets. Thus enhancing his claim to be the Greatest Men’s Singles Tennis Player of all Time.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PepeLePew13 25010 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-08-12, 08:05 PM (EST)
|
|
66. "7th Wimbledon..." |
LAST EDITED ON 07-08-12 AT 08:06 PM (EST)Yeah, this thread is old but it's still alive. Sue me. Federer just won his 7th Wimbledon in a vintage performance over Andy Murray. Murray played pretty well, actually, and won the first set but Federer just turned it on and controlled things in the final two-plus sets. Will wait until the three retire before deciding anew if Fed is the G.O.A.T., but it's been a treat to watch him, Nadal and Djoker battle it out for tennis supremacy over the past few years. Since 2004, Fed/Nadal/Djoker have won 32 of 35 majors with only Gaudio in the 2004 French, Safin in the 2005 Aussie and del Potro in the 2009 U.S. Open have managed to break this stranglehold. Based on what I saw from Andy Murray today, I don't think it'll be too long before he finally breaks through in a major.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
PepeLePew13 25010 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-12, 08:20 AM (EST)
|
|
69. "RE: 7th Wimbledon..." |
Do you find it interesting that when Murray does well, he's usually referred to as "Andy Murray, Britain" but when he doesn't, it sometimes come out as "Andy Murray, Scotland."
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Starshine 5033 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-12, 09:08 AM (EST)
|
|
70. "RE: 7th Wimbledon..." |
We used to have a player named Greg Rusedski, and I seem to remember just before his Wimbledon quarter final someone on the BBC saying "Will he become the great British hope, or will he remain Canadian"
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
Starshine 5033 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-12, 05:21 PM (EST)
|
|
73. "RE: 7th Wimbledon..." |
Here we run into the pre-air and professionalism issues.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_male_players_statistics So Ken Rosewall has won the most majors with 23 (although for 10 years there were sort of 7 majors0 Rod Laver has won the most career titles by a country mile Bjorn Borg has the best win percentage at 89.81% Pancho Gonzales has been ranked at world number 1 for 8 years (3 more than Roj!) Although next week Roger does take the record for the professional era from Pete Sanpras.
I'm not saying he isn't, just that he hasn't been dominant enough to be beyond doubt
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
byoffer 15947 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-12, 11:22 PM (EST)
|
|
74. "RE: 7th Wimbledon..." |
By lining 4 greats up against Roger (each nipping him in one stat) are you proving the point?  Rosewall's major count is not comparable as you indicate because there were so many other majors in the years he competed. Win pct is impressive (and Roger is very close to Borg) but to me this penalizes guys with long careers. How did Laver get so many titles? His career was only one year longer than Roger's, and his win pct much (!) lower. They must have had a heck of a lot of competitions back then, or he just didn't skip any. Either way that is impressive. I'm not sure about Gonzales. #1 for 8 yrs is impressive. Interesting that his career overlapped a bit with Rosewall's.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
byoffer 15947 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-10-12, 09:15 AM (EST)
|
|
76. "RE: 7th Wimbledon..." |
Your "hang on a sec" refers to the analysis I was trying to do - look at the competition each of these stars faced. This is hard to do, since it is a double-edged sword. One could argue that Federer dominated because the competition was weak, or that he was so dominant that he negatively impacted the competitions statistics.If not for Federer, these guys would all have a few (more) majors (and I am just counting losing in the finals, not tourneys where they may have lost in earlier rounds to Roger):
- Murray (3)
- Roddick (3)
- Nadal (2)
- Hewitt (1)
- Djokovic (1) That is a lot of work Roger did to "hurt" the stats of his opponents, one of whom is still up with the all-time greats (Nadal). Certainly it would seem that Borg played in an era where there was very high-level competition, with Connors and McEnroe, and it was these two who took 4 US Opens from Borg. Why did Borg not play the Aussie Open (other than when he was 17?) Fun discussion, though we know there is no answer.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
AyaK 10303 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-18-12, 10:42 PM (EST)
|
|
78. "RE: 7th Wimbledon..." |
>Certainly it would seem that Borg played in an era where
>there was very high-level competition, with Connors and McEnroe, and
>it was these two who took 4 US Opens from
>Borg. Why did Borg not play the Aussie Open
>(other than when he was 17?) Because prize money in the Australian Open was minimal, since there was no TV coverage outside of Australia and the Far East; players had to be there during Christmas and New Year's; and the stadium that hosted the event wasn't big enough to hold many spectators. To deal with the complaints, the tournament was moved to mid-December in 1982 (and then to mid-January in 1987, so there was no 1986 tournament); and the stadium was shifted from sunbaked grass courts (which had to be soaked to save the grass from the heat, unlike Wimbledon, and so were notoriously unreliable and played more like clay than like grass) to a new stadium with Rebound Ace courts in 1988. Beginning in 1983, the top players returned to Australia, which made international broadcasts of the tournament possible, but the Australian Open still didn't received international broadcasting until around 2000 (which happened to be the year Andre Agassi won for the second time, and so there weren't any further problems in lining up a broadcast network). <I still remember the 1996 final, which was only shown on ESPN on an edited tape -- and only because it was Boris Becker versus American Michael Chang.>
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
michel 10958 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-09-12, 04:30 PM (EST)
|
|
72. "RE: 7th Wimbledon..." |
I agree that the comparisons aren't perfect but we don't need perfection, just a good estimate. Don't forget that when Tilden, Budge, Laver and even Borg played, tennis was only played seriously in the US, Australia and half of Europe. Now, it truly is an international sport so today's champion had a bigger pyramid to climb. More athletes = more competition = Better champions.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
starshine 6 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"
|
02-04-14, 08:14 PM (EST)
|
|
81. "RE: 7th Wimbledon..." |
More athletes = more competition = Better championsAs my good friend Sportin' Life said "it ain't necessarily so" I would agree more athletes generally equals higher overall standards. However I would not agree that it tells us the quality of the people at the very top. Back in the 1990s one of our TV channels ran a "best British sportsman of the 20th century" program, but discounted just about everyone who competed before 1980 because their competition wasn't that good. As you can only beat whoever is put in front of you that seemed most unfair to me, and a program which could have celebrated 100 years of heroes instead celebrated about 15 years worth.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
