Most dominant athlete of all time - Page 8

Larry Walker

Dude ATP tournaments arent even close compared to grand slams, those are possibly 2 extra sets more to play, the game completely changes, not only on a physical level too. And getting 5 slams w/o being in your prime is HUGE

On November 27 2013 03:28 Spitfiree wrote: Dude ATP tournaments arent even close compared to grand slams, those are possibly 2 extra sets more to play, the game completely changes, not only on a physical level too. And getting 5 slams w/o being in your prime is HUGE

Not arguing with you Grand Slams are probably more difficult. But your comment segues nicely to an idea I had recently.

Anyway I was watching the ATP Grand Finals a few weeks ago Djokovic vs Nadal. I enjoyed watching it a lot, probably more than any Grand Slam event. The feeling I got was that it was really well run. the players definitely care alot about the event and they wern't exhausted from playing all week best of 5 sets either. I also kinda liked the 3 set format as it made it easy to watch.

I'm curious if I am a minority as I felt pretty strongly about this

On November 26 2013 19:06 player999 wrote: The number of ATP 1000 titles is much much more fair to compare to see who is the best, because there are 2 hard court Slams, that's the only reason Federer still leads in Slams, and in ATP 1000's Nadal leads 26 to 21 He also leads in % of wins 658–129 (83.61%) against Federer's 923–215 (81.11%), leads as I said before head-to-head even in hard courts Also Nadal has plenty of time to pass in Slams, even with the unfairness of less clay court ones And then we have Laver, who won 11 Grand Slams owning everyone in every court, and the only reason he doesn't have more than Federer is being unable to compete for 5 years during his prime, that's 20 he would have played. Try removing 5 years of Federer's prime and see how many Grand Slams he has left Nadal is arguably better/more dominant than Federer, and Laver was clearly A LOT more dominant during his time

Lol, your hate towards Federer is too damn high. Stop bullshitting about what if there were 94 clay GSs and 77 hard court and what if we remove 5 years from his prime. Like wtf is that? Why is that even relevant? What remains in history is WHAT actually happened in the given conditions, not WHAT WOULD HAVE happened IF this or that.

Federer is clearly the more talented player for me, but Nadal's hardwork has earned his place among the best (he was even "forced" by his uncle at a very fragile age to play with his left hand, to gain an advantage). People tell all the time that IF Nadal had not been injured, bla bla -well, guess what? He gets injured exactly cause of the hardwork, of the effort he makes to reach every ball. If he doesnt put himself on risk by making such efforts, he would not be injured BUT he would not be this good either. So deal with it.

Yes, Nadal beat the shit out of Fed many times, but the elegancy, classiness, consistency (23 GS semfinals in a row), sweat-free play that Federer produced during his peak, is unmatched.

Oh, and btw, there are 6 hard-court ATP 1000s to the 3 clay ones. Why would that be more relevant than the 2 to 1 GS? This is like saying a a turbo 100$ HU is more relevant than a regular speed 250$ to determine who the better HU player is.

On November 27 2013 05:21 napoleono wrote: Show nested quote + On November 26 2013 19:06 player999 wrote: The number of ATP 1000 titles is much much more fair to compare to see who is the best, because there are 2 hard court Slams, that's the only reason Federer still leads in Slams, and in ATP 1000's Nadal leads 26 to 21 He also leads in % of wins 658–129 (83.61%) against Federer's 923–215 (81.11%), leads as I said before head-to-head even in hard courts Also Nadal has plenty of time to pass in Slams, even with the unfairness of less clay court ones And then we have Laver, who won 11 Grand Slams owning everyone in every court, and the only reason he doesn't have more than Federer is being unable to compete for 5 years during his prime, that's 20 he would have played. Try removing 5 years of Federer's prime and see how many Grand Slams he has left Nadal is arguably better/more dominant than Fed erer, and Laver was clearly A LOT more dominant during his time Lol, your hate towards Federer is too damn high. Stop bullshitting about what if there were 94 clay GSs and 77 hard court and what if we remove 5 years from his prime. Like wtf is that? Why is that even relevant? What remains in history is WHAT actually happened in the given conditions, not WHAT WOULD HAVE happened IF this or that. Federer is clearly the more talented player for me, but Nadal's hardwork has earned his place among the best (he was even "forced" by his uncle at a very fragile age to play with his left hand, to gain an advantage). People tell all the time that IF Nadal had not been injured, bla bla -well, guess what? He gets injured exactly cause of the hardwork, of the effort he makes to reach every ball. If he doesnt put himself on risk by making such efforts, he would not be injured BUT he would not be this good either. So deal with it. Yes, Nadal beat the shit out of Fed many times, but the elegancy, classiness, consistency (23 GS semfinals in a row), sweat-free play that Federer produced during his peak, is unmatched. Oh, and btw, there are 6 hard-court ATP 1000s to the 3 clay ones. Why would that be more relevant than the 2 to 1 GS? This is like saying a a turbo 100$ HU is more relevant than a regular speed 250$ to determine who the better HU player is.

There were points made beside the "what ifs", the main one being that you can't say a guy with a 10-22 is against someone is that most dominant athlete ever, or even more dominant tennis player ever, specially when you have crushers like Rod Laver or even Borg, who were a lot of levels above the 2nd best of their time

Sure his play is the most elegant, but the thread isn't about the most elegant, and sure he would beat anyone from the past if he could go back in time to play, but that's not the point either

And the point of the 5 years is relevant because if the only thing that matters to determine who is the best is Grand Slam titles, Laver's 11 is still much more impressive because he wasn't allowed to play them during 5 years, right when he was at his best

I mean, the guy won all 4 Grand Slams in 1962, and then won all 4 again in 1969. If he had competed from 1963 to 1967, he would have an incredible amount that Federer wouldn't dream to reach. He didn't even manage to win all 4 in a season ever, because even at his prime he was losing 0-6 sets to Nadal in France. How is that domination?

On November 27 2013 06:38 player999 wrote: I mean, the guy won all 4 Grand Slams in 1962, and then won all 4 again in 1969. If he had competed from 1963 to 1967, he would have an incredible amount that Federer wouldn't dream to reach. He didn't even manage to win all 4 in a season ever, because even at his prime he was losing 0-6 sets to Nadal in France. How is that domination?

Nonsense. Back then at Laver's time, 3 of the slams were played on grass. Stop considering him the GOAT because of the calendar year grand slam, it was a completely different sport. Make 3 of the slams played on grass between 2002 and 2012 and Federer would have 25 slams (same applies to Nadal if as many were played on clay). At one point in his career he was as dominant on Grass as Nadal was on Clay. Also, can you imagine how many more Master Series Federer would have if there were 3 MS on Grass each year? That's why coming up with "if gs were played on x surface...." is useless. The tour is as it is.

Nadal became a top player earlier than Federer. When he was 17 or 18 he beat Federer for the first time in miami. That's why it's so impressive that he's playing as well as he is at 28yo considering he's been playing over 50 matches a year since he was 18. Federer on the other hand only became a top player around 2002 when he was 20 or 21. Also in tennis you measure dominance against the field, not against a certain player. Nadal's domination over Federer is clearly a match up issue. It doesn't show "how much better Nadal is". Else you can make up some stupid tennis math like "Federer > Davydenko > Nadal", because Davydenko has a winning record over Nadal over a 11 match sample.

Federer had 3 yearly 90%+ winning record (in a row) in his career, Nadal had one. You can have an argument on Nadal being the GOAT tennis player because he dominated every top player from his generation, but Federer was clearly a more dominant tennis player. Making 18 out of 19 possible GS finals in a row basically shows how dominant he was during his prime.

seriously O_o

i for one consider it a possibility that player999's account is hacked

On November 27 2013 07:19 Raidern wrote: Nonsense. Back then at Laver's time, 3 of the slams were played on grass.

And today 3 are either grass or hard, which are both fast courts and both favour Federer's style, so I don't see your point.

Stop considering him the GOAT because of the calendar year grand slam, it was a completely different sport. Make 3 of the slams played on grass between 2002 and 2012 and Federer would have 25 slams (same applies to Nadal if as many were played on clay).

He wouldn't, his 2-1 grass record against Nadal is pretty even, and the matches were absolutely even aswell. But that point is not important, since I was just pointing out that the less amount of clay Slams is what stops Nadal from being number 1 in Slam titles (if that's the decisive factor in judging greatness). But what stopped Laver is a different reason, his Grand Slam record is clearly more impressive because of the years not allowed to play.

At one point in his career he was as dominant on Grass as Nadal was on Clay.

Never, he was always played even matches against Nadal on grass, and he was at his absolute prime then. On clay, Nadal always played Federer on his prime like he was playing against a 8yo down syndrome child.

Also, can you imagine how many more Master Series Federer would have if there were 3 MS on Grass each year? That's why coming up with "if gs were played on x surface...." is useless. The tour is as it is.

There are still more hard courts than clay, and Nadal still beats him. But yes, that tour is as it is and my point was never that Nadal was the most dominant ever, but that Laver was. Nadal is just a side-point to say that he is someone who absolutely crushed Federer during his entire career on all surfaces, so therefore Federer didn't dominate as bad as Laver did by any means.

Nadal became a top player earlier than Federer. When he was 17 or 18 he beat Federer for the first time in miami. That's why it's so impressive that he's playing as well as he is at 28yo considering he's been playing over 50 matches a year since he was 18. Federer on the other hand only became a top player around 2002 when he was 20 or 21. Also in tennis you measure dominance against the field, not against a certain player. Nadal's domination over Federer is clearly a match up issue. It doesn't show "how much better Nadal is". Else you can make up some stupid tennis math like "Federer > Davydenko > Nadal", because Davydenko has a winning record over Nadal over a 11 match sample.

Again that's just a point to say Federer is better than Nadal, which I disagree but respect the opinion. What I don't respect is saying Federer was more dominant that Laver was, or even worse, to compare Federer's dominance with the likes of Khan, Bradman or Karelin, that's just stupid.

Federer had 3 yearly 90%+ winning record (in a row) in his career, Nadal had one. You can have an argument on Nadal being the GOAT tennis player because he dominated every top player from his generation, but Federer was clearly a more dominant tennis player. Making 18 out of 19 possible GS finals in a row basically shows how dominant he was during his prime.

The only reason Laver doesn't have something better than this 18/19 was the 5 year issue. He still will probably hold forever his 29 matches winstreak in Grand Slams and 22 titles in a single season.

During the years Laver wasn't allowed to play GS's, Roy Emerson was god, won almost everything, 13 Slam titles on that period. And Emerson was 18-49 lifetime vs Laver.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/sports/tennis/31anderson.html?_r=0

Are you related to Laver by any chance? You are taking this way too seriously and personally. Relax.

Roger is one of the great athletes of our time and deserves a mention. Athletes of today are by and large superior to their compatriots from the past and this is what makes this such a nice conversation topic. Whatever you say won't discount Fed Ex from belonging in the list. Feel free to add Laver, or your dad.

What if athletes could timetravel from the past? Who would still dominate the sport today with the physical capabilities and other means of their day?

"Phil Mickelson had never eagled multiple holes in the same round of The Masters. On Saturday, he became the third man in history to card one on back-to-back holes. And then he came within 12 inches of making it three-in-a-row." That is hard to achieve. It requires a fair bit of luck aswell Any other examples to keep the thread going?

I'm surprised crossfits Froning hasn't resonated with anyone. The idea behind crossfit is basically being the most physically able person you can be.

On November 27 2013 11:28 cariadon wrote: Roger is one of the great athletes of our time and deserves a mention. Athletes of today are by and large superior to their compatriots from the past and this is what makes this such a nice conversation topic.

this isn't the "great athletes of our time" thread, I think half the people who posted doesn't realize what the thread is about (prob too lazy to read the very detailed original post)

On November 27 2013 11:28 cariadon wrote: Are you related to Laver by any chance?

also, my main point there was just to point out that someone who isn't even the most dominant (or, at least, isn't clearly) does not belong in the discussion that this thread is about, as his dominance is quite clearly far far away from Karelin, Khan, Bradman

as of right now:

nadal 22-10 federer
federer 16-15 djokovic
murray 11-9 federer


meanwhile...
nadal 22-10 federer
nadal 22-17 djokovic
nadal 13-5 murray

there is no way federer can be considered in any most dominant list. hes still the GOAT in tennis though, for the time being at least.


serena has a winning record against every player ranked #1 with at least 8 games played, and a winning record vs every player ranked #2, #3 or #4 (with the exception of 0-1 to mary joe fernandez who she played once in 1999).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serena_Williams_career_statistics scroll to head to head vs top 10 players.

Player999, my reply to your posts was basically against two points: Nadal being more dominant than Federer and taking in consideration Laver's inflated numbers because he played in a weird time where only three countries took tennis seriously: usa, australia and france. Comparing Federer's dominance (during his prime) to Laver's dominance is like comparing Barcelona winning La Liga 4 times in a row to a team in Serie D of a country in Africa winning 208 matches in a row. That was a different sport. I (now) think the same way about Pele or whoever was great during their time back in the 40s, 50s, 60s (except for a few sports/events which oddly enough don't seem to evolve a lot such as long jump)

Also you are delusional if you think that Federer wasn't as dominant on grass as Nadal was on clay. Federer had a 65 winning streak on grass which ran from 03 through 08, when he lost to Nadal. Using their close matches as a "proof" that he wasn't as dominant is a poor point as Nadal had his load of 3rd-set tie break wins (in bo3 matches) and close matches in his winning series as well.

Also my point on the 3 GS on grass thing (about Laver) is that a CYGS in the 60s isn't much of a big deal like it is today because it was not played in 3 different surfaces. That's the way I see it. If a player wins a CYGS in our time I think it's a lot more impressive because of the surface thing, even though in the last 10-5 years the way surfaces are played changed a lot (grass/hc are slower and clay is faster).

Just to make it clear, I didn't say Federer is the tennis GOAT. I used to think so a few years ago, but now I like the idea of several greats better in tennis. The way I see it, Federer has the numbers (not only GS, but #1 weeks, among others), but I can't think of him being the "goat" while he is so easily dominated by an opponent. I also never claimed that Federer should be considered one of the most dominant athletes ever. In closure, amateur era numbers are fucking inflated. There were tournaments with 12-24 players back then. Before Laver's time there champions who only needed to play one match to win a grand slam. Also the "Pro scene" during the amateur era was incredibly small. Check the draws.

On November 27 2013 15:19 Raidern wrote: Also you are delusional if you think that Federer wasn't as dominant on grass as Nadal was on clay. Federer had a 65 winning streak on grass which ran from 03 through 08, when he lost to Nadal. Using their close matches as a "proof" that he wasn't as dominant is a poor point as Nadal had his load of 3rd-set tie break wins (in bo3 matches) and close matches in his winning series as well.

Simply completely wrong. If the fact that a lot of Federer's finals in Winbledom were really close, specially against Nadal, and Nadal's wins were mostly 3x0 (with TWO of his French opens being won without losing a single set) isn't enough for you, then just let the numbers talk:

Federer on grass 122-18 winrate 87.1% - 7 Grand Slam titles out of 15 played - biggest winstreak 65 in a row
Nadal on clay 293–21 winrate 93.31% - 8 Grand Slam titles out of 9 played - biggest winstreak 81 in a row

Nadal's clay stats beat Federer's grass in any category whatsoever.

On November 27 2013 15:19 Raidern wrote: he played in a weird time where only three countries took tennis seriously: usa, australia and france.

This is a stupid statement

Comparing Federer's dominance (during his prime) to Laver's dominance is like comparing Barcelona winning La Liga 4 times in a row to a team in Serie D of a country in Africa winning 208 matches in a row.

This is a whole new level of stupid. He played against the best of the world of his time, not against shitty competition like your Africa team example.

Also you are delusional if you think that Federer wasn't as dominant on grass as Nadal was on clay. Federer had a 65 winning streak on grass which ran from 03 through 08, when he lost to Nadal.

Nadal's streak on clay was 81, way to use points against yourself
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=2876658

^Era has to be considered. Bill Russell has 11 NBA championships to Michael Jordan's 6 but nobody considers Bill Russell to be the GOAT

On November 27 2013 16:10 player999 wrote: This is a stupid statement This is a whole new level of stupid. He played against the best of the world of his time, not against shitty competition like your Africa team example. Nadal's streak on clay was 81, way to use points against yourself http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=2876658

I'll refrain from commenting on your first two comments because they were idiotic. I'll just leave this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole. Your last point is beyond retarded. Federer played and won every single grass match possible between 2003-2008, he couldn't have a higher number of victories (or a shorter streak) because the grass season lasts 2 weeks. Nadal's streak is higher because guess what there are more clay matches per year to be played. I'm shocked that you came up with "nadal's streak was 81" lmao