Peter Bodo says Sampras is GOAT

[soccerfan777]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/25973071/tennis-roger-federer-goat-rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic%3fplatform=amp

Lol... is Whisper the real Bodo?

[PeteWasLucky]

Bodo's brain couldn't survive three straight hits witnessing three guys passing Sampras record.
Poor guy give him a break, he will be back or maybe he is done for good.

[*skriptis]

soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> https://www.google.com/amp/www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/25973071/tennis-roger-federer-goat-rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic%3fplatform=amp
>
> Lol... is Whisper the real Bodo?
>

You are such a horrible and retarded person.

Here's why.


1. You haven't copy-pasted text. Lazy.

2. You lie about the stuff in article. Sampras isn't singled out
as goat.

3. This article actually raises some good questions. Questions
normal humans like to discuss, try to answer and come to
conclusions, or maybe not, but most of them would surely spend
their time in a polite discussion.

Not so with you. You are a rude, vile, extremely intolerant person
to all ideas that don't fit your narrow mind, completely
incapable of dialogue.

Shame on you thousands times!
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[*skriptis]

*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:

Make that a million.
😎

[soccerfan777]

Good to see that I have ruined your day, shitpiss

[jdeluise]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:02:24 +0100, *skriptis wrote:

> most of them would surely spend their time in a polite
> discussion.

Ironic since your post was laced with insults.

[soccerfan777]

And he doesn't even use the insults in context. Just throws some random hissy fit. Such a queen!

[Shakes]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 4:20:41 AM UTC-8, soccerfan777 wrote:
> https://www.google.com/amp/www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/25973071/tennis-roger-federer-goat-rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic%3fplatform=amp
>
> Lol... is Whisper the real Bodo?

I read the article. Nowhere does he say Sampras is the GOAT.

[bob]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:04:01 -0800 (PST), Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

who was the OP?

bob

[soccerfan777]

Its subtle. Until Sampras' 14 slam was eclipsed, it was all about the slam count for Bodo and other ESPN writers.... now suddenly it is

"Other aspects of the record then become much more important. Those include head-to-head records, success in other first-rate events (like Masters 1000s) and overall winning percentage."

ROFLMAO... so somehow that was not a factor when everyone in US media was declaring Sampras much above the likes of Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl just because he won more slams than them.

[soccerfan777]

Your mama

[PeteWasLucky]

> I read the article. Nowhere does he say Sampras is the GOAT

Because he can't, Sampras went down to three greats, so he decided to bring all of the three down.

[*skriptis]

soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Sampras dominated Wimbledon and #1 stats more than anyone ever in
history until him and he dominated Wimbledon/USO and #1 more than
either of those 70/80s guys dominated their best two slam and
#1.

Don't you feel like a fool sometimes?

It's undeniable fact that he's ahead of them. He's arguably the
most dominant champion of his era in the entire history.




However, however. What Bodo said is that the overall slam numbers
are misleading. And it's true as well.

Present guys are the only ones truly active in full-fledged 4-slam
era thought their entire careers.

If you back through time, you'll find Agassi and Sampras skipping
AO many times, and even back in times, McEnroe or Borg skipping
it altogether. Connors was even banned at FO for some time and he
managed to win USO on clay.

This fact coupled with the fact thwr we had very divergent
surfaces in the 80/90s and you get the explanation for those
lower slam numbers of previous greats.


McEnroe and Lendl were 4-time world number #1. Borg/Connors are
similar in their peaks etc.

Federer or Djokovic or Nadal have similar numbers. They aren't ahead.
Federer and Djokovic 5-time world #1, Nadal 4-time.


The difference is in two things.

1. Everyone plays all the slams nowadays and surfaces are
homogenized, meaning more competitive. Enabling them to at least
complete cgs, adding couple of slams on their worst surfaces.
Nadal 2 on grass, Federer or Djokovic 1 on clay etc.


2. These guys aren't into partying and drugs. So it means they
were winning slams even in their non-peak seasons, increasing
their totals.

During Federer's peak 06-07 Nadal was too winning slams.
During Nadal's 08 Djokovic and Federer won slams.
In Nadal's best season 10, Federer won a slam.
In Djokovic's 2011 Nadal won.
In Nadal's 2013, Djokovic won.
Etc.

Imagine if Borg stuck around and accepted #3 or #2 status for many
years?
He's win FO, maybe get a lucky draw somewhere to avoid McEnroe. Or
why avoid, maybe he beats him if he stays persistent. But he
quit. They all did.


It doesn't change the fact their peaks are similar, lasting 4-5
years. McEnroe or Nadal, both were 4-time #1.

Modern big 3 beefed up their slam totals by winning off peak and
also realizing its history. There was no slam chase before
Sampras.

[The Iceberg]

On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 02:44:51 UTC, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > I read the article. Nowhere does he say Sampras is the GOAT
>
> Because he can't, Sampras went down to three greats, so he decided to bring all of the three down.

Clown era. LOL

[arahim]

Even if this argument is accepted (basically the blue chip argument) this only affects Djokovic in reference to Sampras. Federer and Nadal would still be ahead while also making trips to Australia.

Somewhere in the mid 80s AO became regularized.
Yes Borg was skipping it but Lendl was not. 83 onwards he played it continuously while he skipped a couple of FOs and Ws after 83.

Edberg played it continuously through out his career which started in 83 (in the slams).

Near the end of his career Becker was still playing AO continuosly while he was skipping FO and USO.

Macenroe who had skipped most of AOs during the height of his career played it quite regularly starting in 89.

By the time Sampras showed up at the grand slam scene AO was a regular event for top players.Since 93 onwards he played all AOs except 1999. That year he also skipped USO. As a side note Sampras never skipped FO once he started playing slams.

[arahim]

Era in which, according to Whisper, Murray would have won 14 slams but for the big 3.

[arahim]

correction: As a side note Sampras never skipped FO once he started winning slams. He missed one throughout his career but it was before he had won any slams.

[*skriptis]

arahim <arahim...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:

Well that's why I listed all the arguments, not just that one, AO
being irrelevant.

You can't make a point by cherrypicking.

As I said, together with AO being regularly skipped, the phenomena
extending even through Sampras era occasionally, it's not the
whole story that explains difference in slam tallies.


These guys have played for longer at the top level, and that is
something that modern medicine and science have enabled. That's a
profound change.

E.g. imagine how prolific Mozart would be had be not died young?

Yes, they put the necessary work, but just count the numbers of
surgeries the big 3 has done? Federer, knee, nosejob, perhaps
back, who knows. Nadal literally had tons, Djokovic elbow, or
wrist?

And they all returned to their top lev
It was simply not possible earlier. Even today not everyone can be
helped, ie what it seems to be the case with Murray.


If the doctors could fix him, you'd be crazy to exclude him from
the mix.

>
> By the time Sampras showed up at the grand slam scene AO was a regular event for top players.Since 93 onwards he played all AOs except 1999. That year he also skipped USO. As a side note Sampras never skipped FO once he started playing slams.

You know, the brown chip label in my mind actually applies to the
period you are describing. The slam that everyone played, but
nobody had as equal in their mind. Certainly not the players who
grew up watching greats battling at FO, Wim or USO. Imagine
creating 5th slam now? It's mandatory and all that, but it takes
a while for history to be created.


AO had a black hole period.

I don't think AO was a brown chip slam when e.g. Kriek won it. It
was worthless at the time, so to speak. It was brown once
everyone started playing it.

It's turned, or turning blue in the past decade or two.




Also, one thing I forgot is tour structure. Djokovic can nowadays
win two slams abd two masters series and end up as #1 with
millions earned.

It was not the case so in the earlier eras.

Players who wanted #1 and who played for money have spent rather
unnecessary from today's perspective a lot of their energies on
stupid tournaments.

That left them occasionally fatigued at the slams, overplaying
weeks before and not being in prime shape.

That's also another factor in early career burnout, limiting their
chances to win slams.

[The Iceberg]

the AO was so popular Agassi didn't play until 1995! also you forget Sampras has 15 slams since Agassi was on drugs in 1995.

[soccerfan777]

McEnroe was also on drugs in 1984. So Lendl has 9 slams then? Also Connors has 9 slams? And McEnroe has 5?

[*skriptis]

soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> McEnroe was also on drugs in 1984. So Lendl has 9 slams then? Also Connors has 9 slams? And McEnroe has 5?
>

MPOAT

5. Lendl 96 pts (42%)
6. Connors 91 pts (44%)
9. McEnroe 70 pts (50%)

It's obvious McEnroe hasn't played enough. Are you blind?

He has 70 despite only 5 pts at AO, and falling of the cliff
rather young.

Lendl in the meantime has 23 at AO and has played much longer
working hard etc.

[Shakes]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 6:44:51 PM UTC-8, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > I read the article. Nowhere does he say Sampras is the GOAT
>
> Because he can't, Sampras went down to three greats, so he decided to bring all of the three down.

Haha, could be. My point was Raja's thread title was misleading.

[soccerfan777]

It was as inflammatory as Bodo's article title. I give you that. In any way Bozo thinks that he can get away with switching goal posts whenever he needs to have his dream of Sampras being GOAT forever. Somewhat like Whisper. That was the point of my post.

[arahim]

Ok so we agree AO argument is irrelevant in this context.
If AO is irrelevant to the argument then, I would suggest, don't mention it as one of the issues. It does not help Sampras case in any way against Federer and Nadal.

> As I said, together with AO being regularly skipped, the phenomena
> extending even through Sampras era occasionally, it's not the
> whole story that explains difference in slam tallies.
>
>
> These guys have played for longer at the top level, and that is
> something that modern medicine and science have enabled. That's a
> profound change.
>
> E.g. imagine how prolific Mozart would be had be not died young?
>
> Yes, they put the necessary work, but just count the numbers of
> surgeries the big 3 has done? Federer, knee, nosejob, perhaps
> back, who knows. Nadal literally had tons, Djokovic elbow, or
> wrist?
>
> And they all returned to their top lev
> It was simply not possible earlier. Even today not everyone can be
> helped, ie what it seems to be the case with Murray.
>
>
> If the doctors could fix him, you'd be crazy to exclude him from
> the mix.
>

May be but he would not get credit beyond what he actually won. You can always say of someone what might have been if you see potential in someone but that is not actuality. How many showed great promise before ATP level and then withered due to injury, attitude etc. We will never know.

>
>
> >
> > By the time Sampras showed up at the grand slam scene AO was a regular event for top players.Since 93 onwards he played all AOs except 1999. That year he also skipped USO. As a side note Sampras never skipped FO once he started playing slams.
>
>
> You know, the brown chip label in my mind actually applies to the
> period you are describing. The slam that everyone played, but
> nobody had as equal in their mind. Certainly not the players who
> grew up watching greats battling at FO, Wim or USO. Imagine
> creating 5th slam now? It's mandatory and all that, but it takes
> a while for history to be created.
>
>
> AO had a black hole period.
>
> I don't think AO was a brown chip slam when e.g. Kriek won it. It
> was worthless at the time, so to speak. It was brown once
> everyone started playing it.
>

So who was winning it just before Sampras showed up?
Starting in 83: Wilander, Wilander, Edberg, Edberg, Wilander, Lendl, Lendl, Becker, Courier, Courier and then Sampras.

All were multi slam winners who at other slams. In any case, as you agree, whether AO was blue chip, or brown chip, or no chip it will not help Sampras cause against Federer and Nadal so let's bury it in that context and not bring it up.

Second big argument that keeps on doing the circles is the surface homoginization argument. That FO was somehow too different than others. Before Sampras it was common for players to win on both clay and grass. In fact at one point there was no hard court. Laver did his two grand slams on clay and grass (there was no hard court). Borg won on clay and grass. Even in Sampras own time Agassi did it. Agassi did the career slam once and he was an 8 slam champion. Each of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic has done it only once so far even though they are 15+ slam winners plus Nadal's dominance on clay weighs against the homogenization argument.

But let's take the homogenization argument and drop the FO. This still does not help Sampras against Federer and Djokovic.

If you take out both AO and FO it still does not help Sampras against Federer. After taking all of Sampras weaknesses out Federer is still ahead in the count while he is also doing pretty good at places we have taken out for Sampras. Even at USO by your method (MPOAT) Federer is ahead of Sampras while he is also having to fend off more at USO and Wimbledon because of homogenization (Remember we are throwing away AO and FO under the assumption of homgenization). Interestingly if Nadal wins a 12th FO Federer will further distance himself from Sampras in MPOAT even if he does not reach the QF. Infact he will be joint in lead with Connors. As we have discussed before Connors case is different since he won USO on all three surfaces.

No matter how you cut the slam numbers (without doing something really, really weird: I once suggested to Whisper that he can drop W as well along with AO and FO and then maybe have an outside claim just on the basis of USO but as MPOAT shows even there Federer is ahead) Federer is going to be ahead of Sampras. So I would suggest in the context of Sampras and Federer both the AO (brown/blue) and FO (surface homogenization) arguments still do not help Sampras enough and should be dropped.

> It's turned, or turning blue in the past decade or two.
>

If its past decade then even Federer should be given more credit than Djokovic since most of his slam period is before AO turns blue chip (If AO has turned blue chip only in the past decade). This argument helps Federer over Djokovic at AO. And again on the MPOAT he is also still ahead of Djokovic there. Personally I think mid 80s onward AO is fine to count.

Bodo makes both the AO (brown/blue) and surface homogenization issues. If accepted they may help Sampras' case against Djokovic and Nadal but fall short against Federer just on the W and USO numbers. They also fall short in another sense. While Nadal and Djokovic are further removed from Sampras (AO surface changed in 2007 and all of Djokovic's titles are then onwards which is not Djokovic's fault since that is when he came into his own) Federer is not as far removed. They even have a tiny crossover.

[arahim]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 4:36:00 AM UTC-8, *skriptis wrote:

While this may have been true of earlier players it was no longer true by the time Sampras comes along. Certainly was not true of Sampras' workload. This is an argument for earlier players against Sampras. You can also look at how many matches Sampras was playing each year until he retired at 29. You can also look up how many matches per year Federer, Nadal and Djokovic played until they turned 29. And all three have a more demanding (on the body) style than Sampras.

Sampras: 984 matches over about 15 year career. around 66 matches per year average.
Djokovic: 1022 matches over about 15 year career so far. around 68 matches per year average.
Nadal: 1114 matches over about 17 year career so far. around 66
Federer: 1444 matches over about 20 year career so far. around 72 but also remember last few years he has slowed down.

These are approximate because the number of years in each case are approximate and this year has not yet completed for three of the players. The best way is to do a year by year comparison. You can take the ten years that each player played most in or 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and I think results will be comparable with probably Sampras on the lower end.

[*skriptis]

In the end, we are all somewhat subjective.

It depends what we want to prove?

I could easily explain, or try to rationalize why or how are
modern players able to last longer, and perhaps why 66 matches
annually for Sampras might be worse for him than same number of
matches for modern top guys.

But I guess even if post it, you'd likely dismiss it as it's just
an opinion, anyway, so who cares.

But I will mention it. Modern guys have luxury of lighter modern
racquets, reduced injury risks, relaxed schedule (more mandatory
events = easier planning and no overplaying).

And unlike them, Sampras had permanent medical issues, remember?


It also doesn't look to me that Federer is tiring himself with the
serve. Very energy efficient.

Sampras' serve and style, were great technique. But it was
powerful, took lot of energy.

[bob]

hahha. ok, raja, good one.

bob

[Whisper]

Slams in Sampras era were worth 1.5x, so he essentially has 21 slams.
Plus he retired at 31.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[*skriptis]

arahim <arahim...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 4:36:00 AM UTC-8, *skriptis wrote:
>> arahim <arahim...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> > On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 8:12:17 PM UTC-8, *skriptis wrote:
>> >> soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> >> > On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 7:04:04 PM UTC-6, Shakes wrote:
>> >> >> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 4:20:41 AM UTC-8, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Ok so we agree AO argument is irrelevant in this context.
> If AO is irrelevant to the argument then, I would suggest, don't mention it as one of the issues. It does not help Sampras case in any way against Federer and Nadal.

Hoe does it not help? It doesn't help against Nadal, because Nadal
failed to win many titles, but Djokovic and Federer improved
their slam numbers using AO. Both each of them, and combined,
have more AO titles than USO titles.
7 vs 3 and 6 vs 5, 13 vs 8 in total.

AO is a big thing now.

My point is that the dedication in their mind for AO is 100%, it's
a blue chip slam for them. I am not sure it was for Sampras. Look
at Agassi. He didn't even play it until 1995. And it is his best
slam.

Imagine Djokovic first showing up at AO in 2012, instead of in 2005?

Imagine Tsitsipas skipping AO until 2023. Is that a blue chip slam?

Sampras growing up in the late 70s and early 80s, AO was very
brown chip for him. If you don't agree, fine. It's how it looks
to me.

> So who was winning it just before Sampras showed up?
> Starting in 83: Wilander, Wilander, Edberg, Edberg, Wilander, Lendl, Lendl, Becker, Courier, Courier and then Sampras.
>
> All were multi slam winners who at other slams. In any case, as you agree, whether AO was blue chip, or brown chip, or no chip it will not help Sampras cause against Federer and Nadal so let's bury it in that context and not bring it up.

Let's count 16 AO tournaments before Sampras won his in 94?
The late 1977 through 1993 AO.

That's 16 AO titles, and you know how many Wimbledons combined,
have AO champions won?

3, all by Becker. And he won his AO near the end of that 16-year
period. To make the irony even bigger, AO was on grass largely in
that period.

Meanwhile, of the last 16 AO, AO champions have won among
themselves 14 Wim titles.

If Wimbledon is the benchmark and it is, only the best win
Wimbledon, so if those best win AO too, it says a lot of its blue
chip status. I know it's kinda circular argument, but it's the
easiest one. ;)

> Second big argument that keeps on doing the circles is the surface homoginization argument. That FO was somehow too different than others. Before Sampras it was common for players to win on both clay and grass. In fact at one point there was no hard court. Laver did his two grand slams on clay and grass (there was no hard court). Borg won on clay and grass. Even in Sampras own time Agassi did it. Agassi did the career slam once and he was an 8 slam champion. Each of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic has done it only once so far even though they are 15+ slam winners plus Nadal's dominance on clay weighs against the homogenization argument.
>
> But let's take the homogenization argument and drop the FO. This still does not help Sampras against Federer and Djokovic.

End of the 80s and the 90s was the period with biggest divergence.
You had old balls, newer requests, old mindsets.


Yes Borg won lots of FO and Wim, so did Laver, so did Rosewall win
lot on grass etc. But that was *before*, during wooden era.


Forget about Sampras, how many Wimbledons have won among
themselves those notable FO champions of the 80s and the
90s?

Lendl, 3 vs 0
Wilander, 3 vs 0
Courier, 2 vs 0
Bruguera, 2 vs 0
Muster, 1 vs 0
Agassi, 1 vs 1
Kuerten, 3 vs 0

15 vs 1
That's worse than AO, imo.



I really like modern distribution. Surfaces shouldn't be extremely
different.

Raonic is not winning FO finals and Thiem is not winning Wimbledon.

Just because best players of the era are able to reach slam finals
on their worst surfaces, and win 1, it doesn't mean the surfaces
and the conditions are too similar.

> If you take out both AO and FO it still does not help Sampras against Federer. After taking all of Sampras weaknesses out Federer is still ahead in the count while he is also doing pretty good at places we have taken out for Sampras.

Federer vs Sampras in those comparable categories.

8 > 7 Wim
5 = 5 USO
5 < 6 year end #1

It's a whisker for Federer. Being a better claycourter is what
makes him greater in the end, he hasn't really crushed Sampras
records, he has barely surpassed them after playing many years
longer.

He was better on clay and was able to play longer. That's it.

>Even at USO by your method (MPOAT) Federer is ahead of Sampras while he is also having to fend off more at USO and Wimbledon because of homogenization (Remember we are throwing away AO and FO under the assumption of homgenization). Interestingly if Nadal wins a 12th FO Federer will further distance himself from Sampras in MPOAT even if he does not reach the QF. Infact he will be joint in lead with Connors. As we have discussed before Connors case is different since he won USO on all three surfaces.

No, Connors will run away too.
Connors has 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, even 17th best
appearance that are currently not counted.

Yes, you're right about Sampras, until Nadal had 8-9 FO titles, it
was Sampras who was USO MPOAT.

But with best of 11 now, Sampras doesn't even have 11th best
appearance. That's why he was surpassed by Federer and Connors
who have them.

That's the whole story really, Sampras didn't last enough, and
like those 80s greats, albeit to a lesser degree, he played in a
very divergent era where,he couldn't maximize his slam count the
way these guy can today.

> No matter how you cut the slam numbers (without doing something really, really weird: I once suggested to Whisper that he can drop W as well along with AO and FO and then maybe have an outside claim just on the basis of USO but as MPOAT shows even there Federer is ahead) Federer is going to be ahead of Sampras. So I would suggest in the context of Sampras and Federer both the AO (brown/blue) and FO (surface homogenization) arguments still do not help Sampras enough and should be dropped.

Yes, Federer is going to be marginally ahead of Sampras if we look
at USO MPOAT and somewhat ahead of Sampras in weeks at #1, and
behind in year end #1. And one Wimbledon more. Pretty even,
despite of course being ahead.

But that's the point Bodo was making.

You look at slam numbers and Sampras looks dead and burried, he
only reminds you to hold your horses. Doing some examining e.g.
Wimbledon and year end stats it's still:

13 - Sampras and Federer
9 - Djokovic
6 - Nadal

>> It's turned, or turning blue in the past decade or two.
>>
> If its past decade then even Federer should be given more credit than Djokovic since most of his slam period is before AO turns blue chip (If AO has turned blue chip only in the past decade). This argument helps Federer over Djokovic at AO. And again on the MPOAT he is also still ahead of Djokovic there. Personally I think mid 80s onward AO is fine to count.
>
> Bodo makes both the AO (brown/blue) and surface homogenization issues. If accepted they may help Sampras' case against Djokovic and Nadal but fall short against Federer just on the W and USO numbers. They also fall short in another sense. While Nadal and Djokovic are further removed from Sampras (AO surface changed in 2007 and all of Djokovic's titles are then onwards which is not Djokovic's fault since that is when he came into his own) Federer is not as far removed. They even have a tiny crossover.

I might make a counter example.

If Federer surpasses Connors 109 ATP titles it will be a glorious
thing.

109 titles in this era, are worth more than when Connors played.

But in the same vein, slam numbers aren't the same as well. We
know definitely have 4 slams, that are competitive, and blue
chip.

It was the case before.


Whisper is right imo, that due to these changes the future tier 3
or tier 2 ordinary greats will be in the 8-12 slam range as
opposed 6-8 slam range in the 80s and the 90s.

These big 3 are tier 1 and they're special of course.

[John Liang]

NO, Federer surpassed most of Sampras record when he was 28 (2009), at 28 he already won 6 W, 5 USO and 3 AO and 1 FO. At 31 when Sampras retired ( in 2002) Federer at the same age already had 7 Wimbledon, 5 USO, 4 AO and 1 FO. 17 slam to 14 slam. Federer stuck around because he thought he could win more and Sampras wasn't too certain if he had more slam in him when he retired. So Federer did not just barely passed Sampras' record but he surpassed it by 3 slams at 31, that difference is a difference between a tier 1 great and a tier 2 great and a career of a fourth or fifth tier great.

>
> He was better on clay and was able to play longer. That's it.

Again wrong. he was better on slow court like slow hard court and clay, and equal to Sampras on fast court.

Nobody consider YE in the same way as slam won, you are trying hard to make it as somehow Sampras with his 14 slam win is almost equal to Federer, but the difference of 6 slam wins can not be replaced or compared by merely 1 YE No.1

[MBDunc]

On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 1:54:33 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:
> I might make a counter example.
>
> If Federer surpasses Connors 109 ATP titles it will be a glorious
> thing.
>
> 109 titles in this era, are worth more than when Connors played.
>
> But in the same vein, slam numbers aren't the same as well. We
> know definitely have 4 slams, that are competitive, and blue
> chip.
>
> It was the case before.
>
>
> Whisper is right imo, that due to these changes the future tier 3
> or tier 2 ordinary greats will be in the 8-12 slam range as
> opposed 6-8 slam range in the 80s and the 90s.

Though same Whisper proclaimed 2004 that days of someone getting 10 slams are over (used disclaimer that may be Roddick will get 10). And that was the period when homogenization of conditions have already been in effect for some years.

Fed-Djoker-Nadal -trio with their sustained *) prime stuff are unique.

Sustained is the key: there is no Agassi going meth/prioritizing wigs, there is no top dogs losing the plot and leaving (Mac/Borg/Wilander), there is no off-court distractions to speak off.

Maybe 2025 we will see whether huge slam counts start to pile for selected few or are slam titles scattered more "evenly" in the future?

.mikko

[*skriptis]

John Liang <jlia...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Wrong post.

[*skriptis]

MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:

I agree. We will have to wait to see.

But I believe, assuming players are dedicated and willing to play
and win even off peak, we will have bigger slam counts. Bigger
than 6-8.

[soccerfan777]

On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 7:36:53 AM UTC-6, MBDunc wrote:
> On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 1:54:33 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:
> > I might make a counter example.
> >
> > If Federer surpasses Connors 109 ATP titles it will be a glorious
> > thing.
> >
> > 109 titles in this era, are worth more than when Connors played.
> >
> > But in the same vein, slam numbers aren't the same as well. We
> > know definitely have 4 slams, that are competitive, and blue
> > chip.
> >
> > It was the case before.
> >
> >
> > Whisper is right imo, that due to these changes the future tier 3
> > or tier 2 ordinary greats will be in the 8-12 slam range as
> > opposed 6-8 slam range in the 80s and the 90s.
>
> Though same Whisper proclaimed 2004 that days of someone getting 10 slams are over (used disclaimer that may be Roddick will get 10). And that was the period when homogenization of conditions have already been in effect for some years.
>
> Fed-Djoker-Nadal -trio with their sustained *) prime stuff are unique.

Yes they are a freak of nature... Djoker the rubberman, Nadal the human backboard and Federer the master glider! This wont happen for long... that is three players from same era winning 52 slams between them.

I think the only era that is comparable is when Pancho, Rosewall and Laver all competed in the pro tour in 1963. Pancho was pretty much old by then but he still kept defeating Laver, even though he was already semi-retired by 1961.

During the span of seven years that they faced each other, Laver was 26-32 and Gonzales was 36–42 years old. While the peak of Laver was in the late 60s, the peak of Gonzales was in the middle 50s. Gonzales had a great longevity that made possible this rivalry. However, the overall record could be biased in favor of Laver because of the difference of 10 years between them.

Pancho dominated Rosewall and also won many matches against Laver in spite of him being in the late 30s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales%E2%80%93Rosewall_rivalry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales%E2%80%93Laver_rivalry

The more you read about Pancho, nominating Laver as undisputed GOAT seems nonsense.

>
> Sustained is the key: there is no Agassi going meth/prioritizing wigs, there is no top dogs losing the plot and leaving (Mac/Borg/Wilander), there is no off-court distractions to speak off.

And lets not forget Becker and Edberg's overall flakiness... how many times were they dumped before the QFs even in the 1985-1992 period when they are top players?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Edberg_career_statistics#Singles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Becker_career_statistics#Singles

[*skriptis]

soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

This is where we use MPOAT. So that we don't look at charts and
different stats, but instead just one list.


1. Federer 153 pts (65%)
2. Djokovic 130 pts (58%)
3. Nadal 125 pts (68%)
...
10. Edberg 68 pts (44%)
10. Murray 68 pts (22%)
12. Becker 63 pts (48%)
13. Wilander 59 pts (59%)

[soccerfan777]

No one care about your MPOAT nonsense. No one has ever questioned how you generate those numbers and no one even questioned what that acronym stands for. You are truly pathetic with this MPOAT garbage.

[*skriptis]

Fake news. Many have talked about it and it is generally well
accepted as a useful tool, notably combining stats regarding
consistency, longevity and excellence, in a completely objective
manner.

MPOAT also got rebranded last year.

It now stands for: Most Prominent Of All Tennisers

[soccerfan777]

Lets rebrand it again

It now stands for: Masturbatory Penises Of All Trolls

[John Liang]

Soccer sum it up pretty well with just one word, rubbish. No amount of MPOAT will offset the difference of 6 slams. Sampras is out in term of GOAT talks.

[undecided]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 7:20:41 AM UTC-5, soccerfan777 wrote:
> https://www.google.com/amp/www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/25973071/tennis-roger-federer-goat-rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic%3fplatform=amp
>
> Lol... is Whisper the real Bodo?

Hmm, interesting discussion but my thoughts are the following:
GOAT is impossible to define as eras are too different even going from one decade to the next.
If you had to do it, it would have to be mathematical. How do you make a model that accounts for all the variables?
I would say the best you can do is come up with BOE (best of era) and even then you will run into difficulties with the definition of a start and an end of an era.
One thing is clear, there are great champions that we all recognize as being the cream of the crop during their eras. The current era is unique I think as we have 3 top dogs. Well Fed is skewing this era as he should have retired around 2012 timeframe when he did look like an old man.

[bob]

i know you're mentally invested in the schema that "the 3 greatest
players in history all just happened along together."

you're not interested in possible theories on why all of a sudden
everybody has CGS, everybody has 15-20 slams. it couldn't possibly be
anything except they're the 3 greatest in history.

you have me half convinced. the other half says that there are valid
reasons for this bloating, some of which are surfaces (wasn't before),
slam counting (wasn't before), technology allowing players to play
fitter longer (wasn't before).

bob

[PeteWasLucky]

> all of a sudden everybody has CGS, everybody has 15-20 slams.

Everybody? Let's make a list Bob :)

[MBDunc]

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 3:17:18 AM UTC+2, bob wrote:
> >Maybe 2025 we will see whether huge slam counts start to pile for selected few or are slam titles scattered more "evenly" in the future?
> >
> >.mikko
>
> i know you're mentally invested in the schema that "the 3 greatest
> players in history all just happened along together."

I still have Sampras ahead of Nadal/Djokovic in my own GOAT lists. I have mentioned it multiple times.

I would love to have goat candidates from different eras: but how in hell you can fight against Fed/Djoker/Nadal trophy cabinets?

Unlike "mee thinks Hoad is boat" or "my dad would beat your dad" -stuff - their resumes are real and objective evidence = and this evidence gathered when play conditions were same for all. (no separate play tours, no bannings/boycotts, priorities clear, money distribution more reasonable, more global sport)

You have to go absurd ("maybe earlier slams should have 1.5x value") or "it is now 15 straight years of clown era" to deny Fed/Nadal/Djoker.

> you're not interested in possible theories on why all of a sudden
> everybody has CGS, everybody has 15-20 slams. it couldn't possibly be
> anything except they're the 3 greatest in history.

See women tennis and Evert (18), Navratilova (18) and Graf (22) they managed to play alongside for some years mid-late 80:ies.

Evert did quit 30y ago, Navratilova effectively 25y ago, Graf 20y ago.

Rewinding back to 1999. If you have top women tennis players listed: Graf/Navratilova/Evert....(big gap)...Court, BJK

Now Serena is up there (maybe #1 GOAT), but other players have not gotten past 10 slams *for decades* (Seles 9, Venus/Henin 7).

.mikko

[Whisper]

On 15/02/2019 12:36 am, MBDunc wrote:
> On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 1:54:33 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:
>> I might make a counter example.
>>
>> If Federer surpasses Connors 109 ATP titles it will be a glorious
>> thing.
>>
>> 109 titles in this era, are worth more than when Connors played.
>>
>> But in the same vein, slam numbers aren't the same as well. We
>> know definitely have 4 slams, that are competitive, and blue
>> chip.
>>
>> It was the case before.
>>
>>
>> Whisper is right imo, that due to these changes the future tier 3
>> or tier 2 ordinary greats will be in the 8-12 slam range as
>> opposed 6-8 slam range in the 80s and the 90s.
>
> Though same Whisper proclaimed 2004 that days of someone getting 10 slams are over (used disclaimer that may be Roddick will get 10). And that was the period when homogenization of conditions >have already been in effect for some years.
>

The homogenization didn't become obvious until we saw the same baseline
style winning on grass, hard & clay. Then we see the same 3 guys
winning all the slams & making all the finals multiple times with exact
same game style. It became obvious success across all surfaces was
determined by ranking & not diversity. Indeed the next guy a level
below the top 3 (Murray) was only being stopped by the top 3, & would
himself have won at least 14 slams if they weren't around.

Another diversity factor is the style of opposition. Today you're
facing an automaton in every match playing identical 2-fisted bh
baseline games. That means you don't have to make any adjustments to
your style as you're essentially playing the same guy all the time.
It's like the Borg v Vilas matches on clay - they were the top 2 by far,
but because Borg was a bit better he won all the time.

[Whisper]

On 15/02/2019 3:29 am, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 7:36:53 AM UTC-6, MBDunc wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 1:54:33 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:
>>
>> Fed-Djoker-Nadal -trio with their sustained *) prime stuff are unique.
>
> Yes they are a freak of nature... Djoker the rubberman, Nadal the human backboard and Federer the master glider! This wont happen for long... that is three players from same era winning 52 >slams between them.
>

Murray lost 8 slam finals to these 3 guys & a gazillion semis. Minimum

14 slams if they weren't around.

[Whisper]

On 15/02/2019 7:08 am, John Liang wrote:
> On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 4:13:48 AM UTC+11, *skriptis wrote:
>> soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>
>>

>> Fake news. Many have talked about it and it is generally well
>> accepted as a useful tool, notably combining stats regarding
>> consistency, longevity and excellence, in a completely objective
>> manner.
>>
>> MPOAT also got rebranded last year.
>>
>> It now stands for: Most Prominent Of All Tennisers
>>
>
> Soccer sum it up pretty well with just one word, rubbish. No amount of MPOAT will offset the difference of 6 slams. Sampras is out in term of GOAT talks.
>>

You never had him in the conversation so no credibility.

[Whisper]

On 15/02/2019 2:59 pm, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>> all of a sudden everybody has CGS, everybody has 15-20 slams.
>
> Everybody? Let's make a list Bob :)
>

Bodo must read rst as I mad this point many yrs ago. Sure it's possible
the 3 very best players ever all arose at the same time in same era, but
the odds are far more likely it wouldn't happen.

We now have 3 stand alone goats at the slams;

Nadal FO 11
Federer Wim 8
Djokovic AO 7

Indeed these 3 are the top 3 slam title winners overall (20, 17 & 15), &
none are retired yet.

Is Murray the 4th greatest of all time, given these 3 titans stopped him
getting the slam record himself?

[PeteWasLucky]

>
Another diversity factor is the style of opposition. Today you're
facing an automaton in every match playing identical 2-fisted bh
baseline games. That means you don't have to make any adjustments to
your style as you're essentially playing the same guy all the time.
It's like the Borg v Vilas matches on clay - they were the top 2 by far,
but because Borg was a bit better he won all the time.

Did the automation make it more solid or weaker?

Or you seem to like the variety that appears with hacking to cover flawed mechanics and strokes.

[Whisper]

On 15/02/2019 4:25 pm, MBDunc wrote:
> On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 3:17:18 AM UTC+2, bob wrote:
>>> Maybe 2025 we will see whether huge slam counts start to pile for selected few or are slam titles scattered more "evenly" in the future?
>>>
>>> .mikko
>>
>> i know you're mentally invested in the schema that "the 3 greatest
>> players in history all just happened along together."
>
> I still have Sampras ahead of Nadal/Djokovic in my own GOAT lists. I have mentioned it multiple times.

As per 7543;

Federer 103
Sampras 80
Nadal 76
Djokovic 68

[PeteWasLucky]

> Bodo must read rst as I mad this point many yrs ago. Sure it's possible
the 3 very best players ever all arose at the same time in same era, but
the odds are far more likely it wouldn't happen.

It's first like, they are good, then they are very good, ... 15 years of writing how good they are, then his conclusion when he loses it is they are too good to be true.

But it was never too good for Sampras to be true

[Whisper]

On 15/02/2019 4:58 pm, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>>
> Another diversity factor is the style of opposition. Today you're
> facing an automaton in every match playing identical 2-fisted bh
> baseline games. That means you don't have to make any adjustments to
> your style as you're essentially playing the same guy all the time.
> It's like the Borg v Vilas matches on clay - they were the top 2 by far,
> but because Borg was a bit better he won all the time.
>
> Did the automation make it more solid or weaker?
>

Made it much more solid. We see solid baseline styles in every match on
every surface. On the flipside this homogenization has made it easier
for the top guys to win more often on all surfaces as they have less
unpredictability to prepare for. They know exactly what's coming every
match, no surprises.

> Or you seem to like the variety that appears with hacking to cover flawed mechanics and strokes.
>

Most fans crave variety. And yes it is interesting watching a flawed
guy try & beat the more skilled player - fascinating to watch imo.

[jdeluise]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:56:13 +1100, Whisper wrote:

> Is Murray the 4th greatest of all time, given these 3 titans stopped him
> getting the slam record himself?

And Federer single-handedly held down Roddick from getting the slam
record. Just wow, I'm gobsmacked!

[MBDunc]

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 7:56:22 AM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:
> Is Murray the 4th greatest of all time, given these 3 titans stopped him
> getting the slam record himself?

I think Murray's position comes more clear if we take Hana Mandlikova and her success: 4 slams during eighties during the era where Navratilova and Evert were running rampart.

3-10 vs Evert at slams
4-6 vs Navratilova at slams

What if no Evert/Navratilova? Mandlikova up-there in the GOAT discussions?

Practically same kind of speculations can be applied to any player any era = A.Sanchez-Vicario, 4 slams.

ASV (4 slams)
3-9 against Steffi at slams
1-4 against Seles at slams
0-7 against Hingis at slams

ASV GOAT without Steffi/Seles/Hingis?

.mikko

[*skriptis]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:

Whisper you talk good stuff. Open the link, look at the title.

https://youtu.be/aWvnXnkQrbU

[The Iceberg]

how many slam finals was Roddick against Fed?

[The Iceberg]

except you know the difference don't you.

[MBDunc]

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 12:59:42 PM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
> > I think Murray's position comes more clear if we take Hana Mandlikova and her success: 4 slams during eighties during the era where Navratilova and Evert were running rampart.
> >
> > 3-10 vs Evert at slams
> > 4-6 vs Navratilova at slams
> >
> > What if no Evert/Navratilova? Mandlikova up-there in the GOAT discussions?
> >
> > Practically same kind of speculations can be applied to any player any era = A.Sanchez-Vicario, 4 slams.
> >
> > ASV (4 slams)
> > 3-9 against Steffi at slams
> > 1-4 against Seles at slams
> > 0-7 against Hingis at slams
> >
> > ASV GOAT without Steffi/Seles/Hingis?
>
> except you know the difference don't you.

Sure, but does it matter? And even if I am totally off-charts here; probably max three people in the whole world actually cares or notes (you being the most vocal).

.mikko

[The Iceberg]

in 2012 when he looked like an old man by walking to the Wimbledon final in straights and then won it with the roof closed? or perhaps whereby he walked to the semis and beat Potro 19-17 at the Olympics and only lost to peak Murray in the final?

[Whisper]

Why not?

Let's say there were 2 players better than Fed/Rafa/Djoker today winning
90% of the slams & relegating those 3 to r/up status. Would you say if
those 2 weren't around, Fed/Rafa/Djoker wouldn't be be goat level?

[Whisper]

Fed beat him 4 times just at Wimbledon.

[MBDunc]

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 5:21:53 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:
> > ASV GOAT without Steffi/Seles/Hingis?
> >
> > .mikko
> >
>
> Why not?
>
> Let's say there were 2 players better than Fed/Rafa/Djoker today winning
> 90% of the slams & relegating those 3 to r/up status. Would you say if
> those 2 weren't around, Fed/Rafa/Djoker wouldn't be be goat level?

In reality it just does not work that way. It is speculation which cannot be proven either ways.

For example *your own theory* has been many times that top champs push themselves into even greater heights (like would Djokovic ever been that good without Fed/Nadal as yardsticks?). Same with Murray?

Connors improved and modified his game many times due to Borg and then Mac existence. Laver 1969 was gamewise totally different beast compared to 1962 due to push by pro-rankds.

And then there is math and probabilities ... which most do not understand. This means there are no gimme wouldacouldashouldas but everything can happen.

This results Hewitt beating Sampras at USO final, Delpo beating Fed at USO, Stan beating both Djoker and Nadal at same AO...

.mikko

[arahim]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 5:07:13 PM UTC-8, *skriptis wrote:
> arahim <arahim...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 4:36:00 AM UTC-8, *skriptis wrote:
> >> arahim <arahim...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:

> >> > On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 8:12:17 PM UTC-8, *skriptis wrote:
> >> >> soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> >> >> > On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 7:04:04 PM UTC-6, Shakes wrote:

> >> >> >> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 4:20:41 AM UTC-8, soccerfan777 wrote:
> >> >> >> > https://www.google.com/amp/www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/25973071/tennis-roger-federer-goat-rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic%3fplatform=amp
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Lol... is Whisper the real Bodo?
> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> I read the article. Nowhere does he say Sampras is the GOAT.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Its subtle. Until Sampras' 14 slam was eclipsed, it was all about the slam count for Bodo and other ESPN writers.... now suddenly it is
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Other aspects of the record then become much more important. Those include head-to-head records, success in other first-rate events (like Masters 1000s) and overall winning percentage."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ROFLMAO... so somehow that was not a factor when everyone in US media was declaring Sampras much above the likes of Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl just because he won more slams than them.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Sampras dominated Wimbledon and #1 stats more than anyone ever in
> >> >> history until him and he dominated Wimbledon/USO and #1 more than
> >> >> either of those 70/80s guys dominated their best two slam and
> >> >> #1.
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't you feel like a fool sometimes?
> >> >>
> >> >> It's undeniable fact that he's ahead of them. He's arguably the
> >> >> most dominant champion of his era in the entire history.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> However, however. What Bodo said is that the overall slam numbers
> >> >> are misleading. And it's true as well.
> >> >>
> >> >> Present guys are the only ones truly active in full-fledged 4-slam
> >> >> era thought their entire careers.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you back through time, you'll find Agassi and Sampras skipping
> >> >> AO many times, and even back in times, McEnroe or Borg skipping
> >> >> it altogether. Connors was even banned at FO for some time and he
> >> >> managed to win USO on clay.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Even if this argument is accepted (basically the blue chip argument) this only affects Djokovic in reference to Sampras. Federer and Nadal would still be ahead while also making trips to Australia.
> >> >
> >> > Somewhere in the mid 80s AO became regularized.
> >> > Yes Borg was skipping it but Lendl was not. 83 onwards he played it continuously while he skipped a couple of FOs and Ws after 83.
> >> >
> >> > Edberg played it continuously through out his career which started in 83 (in the slams).
> >> >
> >> > Near the end of his career Becker was still playing AO continuosly while he was skipping FO and USO.
> >> >
> >> > Macenroe who had skipped most of AOs during the height of his career played it quite regularly starting in 89.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well that's why I listed all the arguments, not just that one, AO
> >> being irrelevant.
> >>
> >> You can't make a point by cherrypicking.
> >>
> >> As I said, together with AO being regularly skipped, the phenomena
> >> extending even through Sampras era occasionally, it's not the
> >> whole story that explains difference in slam tallies.
> >>
> >>
> >> These guys have played for longer at the top level, and that is
> >> something that modern medicine and science have enabled. That's a
> >> profound change.
> >>
> >> E.g. imagine how prolific Mozart would be had be not died young?
> >>
> >> Yes, they put the necessary work, but just count the numbers of
> >> surgeries the big 3 has done? Federer, knee, nosejob, perhaps
> >> back, who knows. Nadal literally had tons, Djokovic elbow, or
> >> wrist?
> >>
> >> And they all returned to their top lev
> >> It was simply not possible earlier. Even today not everyone can be
> >> helped, ie what it seems to be the case with Murray.
> >>
> >>
> >> If the doctors could fix him, you'd be crazy to exclude him from
> >> the mix.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > By the time Sampras showed up at the grand slam scene AO was a regular event for top players.Since 93 onwards he played all AOs except 1999. That year he also skipped USO. As a side note Sampras never skipped FO once he started playing slams.
> >>
> >>
> >> You know, the brown chip label in my mind actually applies to the
> >> period you are describing. The slam that everyone played, but
> >> nobody had as equal in their mind. Certainly not the players who
> >> grew up watching greats battling at FO, Wim or USO. Imagine
> >> creating 5th slam now? It's mandatory and all that, but it takes
> >> a while for history to be created.
> >>
> >>
> >> AO had a black hole period.
> >>
> >> I don't think AO was a brown chip slam when e.g. Kriek won it. It
> >> was worthless at the time, so to speak. It was brown once
> >> everyone started playing it.
> >>
> >> It's turned, or turning blue in the past decade or two.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Also, one thing I forgot is tour structure. Djokovic can nowadays
> >> win two slams abd two masters series and end up as #1 with
> >> millions earned.
> >>
> >
> > While this may have been true of earlier players it was no longer true by the time Sampras comes along. Certainly was not true of Sampras' workload. This is an argument for earlier players against Sampras. You can also look at how many matches Sampras was playing each year until he retired at 29. You can also look up how many matches per year Federer, Nadal and Djokovic played until they turned 29. And all three have a more demanding (on the body) style than Sampras.
> >
> > Sampras: 984 matches over about 15 year career. around 66 matches per year average.
> > Djokovic: 1022 matches over about 15 year career so far. around 68 matches per year average.
> > Nadal: 1114 matches over about 17 year career so far. around 66
> > Federer: 1444 matches over about 20 year career so far. around 72 but also remember last few years he has slowed down.
> >
> > These are approximate because the number of years in each case are approximate and this year has not yet completed for three of the players. The best way is to do a year by year comparison. You can take the ten years that each player played most in or 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and I think results will be comparable with probably Sampras on the lower end.
>
>
>
> In the end, we are all somewhat subjective.
>
Yes. I think the problem arises when claims are made on the basis of invented numbers to claim a players' superiority as an objective truth. And when even with those numbers a favorite player is passed how willing is one then to face their own reality.

> It depends what we want to prove?
>
Hopefully not but yes many will succumb to the urge (See the 1.5 factor within this thread:). Even with a favorite player one must ask for fairness from one's own self.

> I could easily explain, or try to rationalize why or how are

Hopefully no rationalization.

> modern players able to last longer, and perhaps why 66 matches
> annually for Sampras might be worse for him than same number of
> matches for modern top guys.
>
> But I guess even if post it, you'd likely dismiss it as it's just
> an opinion, anyway, so who cares.
>

Even opinions rest on something.

> But I will mention it. Modern guys have luxury of lighter modern
> racquets, reduced injury risks, relaxed schedule (more mandatory
> events = easier planning and no overplaying).
>
> And unlike them, Sampras had permanent medical issues, remember?
>
In the article Bodo is not making any health arguments. Also he says
"By the time Sampras emerged, it was no longer a three-Slam game. The opportunity to win a major every year increased by 25 percent."

Again that is something that helps players before Sampras and is an argument against Sampras.

His math is wrong though. If it went from a three slam to a four slam race the opportunity to win a slam every year increased by 33.33% not 25%. So for someone like borg one can make an argument that maybe multiply his numbers by a factor of 1.33 to compare to Sampras which would give Borg 11*1.33 = 14 rounding of to a whole number (since borg was actually skipping AO. He only played there once and that was before he had won any slams).

Math does seem to be Bodo's weakness. His argument also rests on how likely is it to have three players show up at a similar time. First Federer is not in the same era. Second it has happened before. Look at women's tennis Evert and Navralitova and then the period of number one's like Safina and Wozniacki. Perhaps Bodo can read the following for a better understanding (especially the lottery and coin tossing sections and there is a lot of Whispering in there as well if you are interested.):

https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=495532494

As for Sampras' weak constitution argument here (and not in the article) at least two points to note.

First we don't give Borg credit for what he could have done had he stayed on and not mentally burnt out. He did what he did and then left. Sampras himself has said that he was done. Murray will not get credit for more slams if he had not injured his hip.

Second you have to decide which is it: On one end it is claimed (not in Bodo's article but here) that Sampras could have played on and won more if there was someone pushing him (which suggests he was physically fine or medical technology was good enough for what ever his ailments were) and on the second hand the physical weakness argument.

>
> It also doesn't look to me that Federer is tiring himself with the
> serve. Very energy efficient.
>
> Sampras' serve and style, were great technique. But it was
> powerful, took lot of energy.
>
Every player finds or tries to find a way that helps them. With those will come different strains on the body as well. Yes Federer's style seems more efficient but he is also running a lot more. Obviously, Nadal and Djokovic even more so.

[PeteWasLucky]

> Most fans crave variety. And yes it is interesting watching a flawed
guy try & beat the more skilled player - fascinating to watch imo

Because you crave something you don't get from today's tennis you can't say this level of tennis isn't much higher than the way they played before.

Oh I enjoyed watching humans assemble cars but because it's boring now to keep watching robots doing a better job I decide to make a statement that manufacturing was better before.

[undecided]

Wasn't 2012 the mono era or do I have my years mixed up? The mono era is what I am thinking regardless of year. Fed looked like retirement material during that time.

[The Iceberg]

well yes it obviously matters, to you, being a huge Fedfan and proud defender of Fed to the end! :D

[The Iceberg]

how does it "not work that way"? fact is Murray and Stan were the only other players interested in winning slams in this era and Murray could beat Stan when he needed to. Add to that Murray beating Djoker in ALL the most important places and there is no wouldacouldashouldas.

[The Iceberg]

this level of tennis isn't much higher than the way they played before cos it doesn't have any tactics. Are you saying Madison Keys is better than Steffi cos she hits it harder and more often from the baseline?

[The Iceberg]

the mono era was 2008-2010, it officially was at 2009 AO though when Fed again was struggling so much with mono he made it to the final without dropping a set and then had to fight even harder with mono by narrowly losing in a very long very close 5 set match vs Nadal! yeah really looked like retirement time to me!

[MBDunc]

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 8:46:50 PM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
> > Sure, but does it matter? And even if I am totally off-charts here; probably max three people in the whole world actually cares or notes (you being the most vocal).
>
> well yes it obviously matters, to you, being a huge Fedfan and proud defender of Fed to the end! :D

You are only one caring - my lone fan...

You being a huge Mikkofan and proud defender of Mikko to the end. You do actually care! Thanks.

.mikko

[arahim]

On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 3:54:33 AM UTC-8, *skriptis wrote:
> arahim <arahim...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 4:36:00 AM UTC-8, *skriptis wrote:
> >> arahim <arahim...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:
> >> > On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 8:12:17 PM UTC-8, *skriptis wrote:
> >> >> soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> >> >> > On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 7:04:04 PM UTC-6, Shakes wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 4:20:41 AM UTC-8, soccerfan777 wrote:

> > Ok so we agree AO argument is irrelevant in this context.
> > If AO is irrelevant to the argument then, I would suggest, don't mention it as one of the issues. It does not help Sampras case in any way against Federer and Nadal.
>
>
> Hoe does it not help? It doesn't help against Nadal, because Nadal
> failed to win many titles, but Djokovic and Federer improved
> their slam numbers using AO. Both each of them, and combined,
> have more AO titles than USO titles.
> 7 vs 3 and 6 vs 5, 13 vs 8 in total.
>
> AO is a big thing now.
>
> My point is that the dedication in their mind for AO is 100%, it's
> a blue chip slam for them. I am not sure it was for Sampras. Look
> at Agassi. He didn't even play it until 1995. And it is his best
> slam.
>
> Imagine Djokovic first showing up at AO in 2012, instead of in 2005?
>
> Imagine Tsitsipas skipping AO until 2023. Is that a blue chip slam?
>
> Sampras growing up in the late 70s and early 80s, AO was very
> brown chip for him. If you don't agree, fine. It's how it looks
> to me.
>
Though Bodo believes that AO was kosher for Sampras that is what I was suggesting: Drop everyone's AO results and it still does not help get Sampras past Nadal and Federer in the slam count.

>
>
> > So who was winning it just before Sampras showed up?
> > Starting in 83: Wilander, Wilander, Edberg, Edberg, Wilander, Lendl, Lendl, Becker, Courier, Courier and then Sampras.
> >
> > All were multi slam winners who at other slams. In any case, as you agree, whether AO was blue chip, or brown chip, or no chip it will not help Sampras cause against Federer and Nadal so let's bury it in that context and not bring it up.
>
>
> Let's count 16 AO tournaments before Sampras won his in 94?
> The late 1977 through 1993 AO.
>
> That's 16 AO titles, and you know how many Wimbledons combined,
> have AO champions won?
>
> 3, all by Becker. And he won his AO near the end of that 16-year
> period. To make the irony even bigger, AO was on grass largely in
> that period.
>
It was hard court for the four players under consideration. I and Bodo are not counting AO from 77. I said mid 80s and he also is putting it somewhere in the same ball park since he considers it ok for Sampras. But that is what I was suggesting that if you don't then simply take out AO results. It does not help Sampras get past Nadal or Federer in the count.

> Meanwhile, of the last 16 AO, AO champions have won among
> themselves 14 Wim titles.
>
> If Wimbledon is the benchmark and it is, only the best win
> Wimbledon, so if those best win AO too, it says a lot of its blue
> chip status. I know it's kinda circular argument, but it's the
> easiest one. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
> > Second big argument that keeps on doing the circles is the surface homoginization argument. That FO was somehow too different than others. Before Sampras it was common for players to win on both clay and grass. In fact at one point there was no hard court. Laver did his two grand slams on clay and grass (there was no hard court). Borg won on clay and grass. Even in Sampras own time Agassi did it. Agassi did the career slam once and he was an 8 slam champion. Each of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic has done it only once so far even though they are 15+ slam winners plus Nadal's dominance on clay weighs against the homogenization argument.
> >
> > But let's take the homogenization argument and drop the FO. This still does not help Sampras against Federer and Djokovic.
>
>
> End of the 80s and the 90s was the period with biggest divergence.
> You had old balls, newer requests, old mindsets.
>
I think 60s and 70s would be bigger. You had even surfaces at slams changing. Connors winning on three different ones at USO. Yes equipment changes happen but they happen for everyone at the same time. Thos who were playing against Sampras had same things. Same for now. String technology allows Nadal what would not have been possible earlier. In a similar vein it can be argued that hurt Federer's chance at FO. But you are in the time you are and you play against a group who will try their best with what is available. Sometimes thing will fall your way and sometimes not. Having three big players will distribute titles more than having one big one at a time (something Bodo fails to appreciate).

Also on variability, Federer does not have an issue with it. Remember blue clay? It was Nadal and Djokovic who complained and refused to come again if the surface was not changed back. Federer said he was fine with it. In fact he says there was more variability in the first part of his career. He did ok. It is more Nadal and Djokovic who build there game precisely to the parameters being fixed not Federer.

Who is it going to help more to have uneven bounce at Wimbledon, Djokovic or Federer? Djokovic and Nadal's game relies much more on the invariability. This is a case for Federer not against him.

>
> Yes Borg won lots of FO and Wim, so did Laver, so did Rosewall win
> lot on grass etc. But that was *before*, during wooden era.
>
Aggasi won all four, Courier won on hard and clay and he is a 4 slam guy (he also reached the Wimbledon final). Both are direct contemporaries of Sampras. Edberg made the final at FO.

>
> Forget about Sampras, how many Wimbledons have won among
> themselves those notable FO champions of the 80s and the
> 90s?
>
> Lendl, 3 vs 0
> Wilander, 3 vs 0
> Courier, 2 vs 0
> Bruguera, 2 vs 0
> Muster, 1 vs 0
> Agassi, 1 vs 1
> Kuerten, 3 vs 0
>

Look at your MPOAT for Sampras at FO and wher he is with respect to Aggasi, and Lendl at Wimbledon.

> 15 vs 1
> That's worse than AO, imo.
>
>
>
> I really like modern distribution. Surfaces shouldn't be extremely
> different.
>
> Raonic is not winning FO finals and Thiem is not winning Wimbledon.
>
> Just because best players of the era are able to reach slam finals
> on their worst surfaces, and win 1, it doesn't mean the surfaces
> and the conditions are too similar.
>
>
>
>
> > If you take out both AO and FO it still does not help Sampras against Federer. After taking all of Sampras weaknesses out Federer is still ahead in the count while he is also doing pretty good at places we have taken out for Sampras.
>
>
> Federer vs Sampras in those comparable categories.
>
> 8 > 7 Wim
> 5 = 5 USO
> 5 < 6 year end #1
>
> It's a whisker for Federer. Being a better claycourter is what
> makes him greater in the end, he hasn't really crushed Sampras
> records, he has barely surpassed them after playing many years
> longer.
>
> He was better on clay and was able to play longer. That's it.
>
>
>
> >Even at USO by your method (MPOAT) Federer is ahead of Sampras while he is also having to fend off more at USO and Wimbledon because of homogenization (Remember we are throwing away AO and FO under the assumption of homgenization). Interestingly if Nadal wins a 12th FO Federer will further distance himself from Sampras in MPOAT even if he does not reach the QF. Infact he will be joint in lead with Connors. As we have discussed before Connors case is different since he won USO on all three surfaces.
>
>
> No, Connors will run away too.

Yes.

> Connors has 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, even 17th best
> appearance that are currently not counted.
>
> Yes, you're right about Sampras, until Nadal had 8-9 FO titles, it
> was Sampras who was USO MPOAT.
>
> But with best of 11 now, Sampras doesn't even have 11th best
> appearance. That's why he was surpassed by Federer and Connors
> who have them.
>
> That's the whole story really, Sampras didn't last enough, and
> like those 80s greats, albeit to a lesser degree, he played in a
> very divergent era where,he couldn't maximize his slam count the
> way these guy can today.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > No matter how you cut the slam numbers (without doing something really, really weird: I once suggested to Whisper that he can drop W as well along with AO and FO and then maybe have an outside claim just on the basis of USO but as MPOAT shows even there Federer is ahead) Federer is going to be ahead of Sampras. So I would suggest in the context of Sampras and Federer both the AO (brown/blue) and FO (surface homogenization) arguments still do not help Sampras enough and should be dropped.
>
>
> Yes, Federer is going to be marginally ahead of Sampras if we look
> at USO MPOAT and somewhat ahead of Sampras in weeks at #1, and
> behind in year end #1. And one Wimbledon more. Pretty even,
> despite of course being ahead.
>
> But that's the point Bodo was making.
>
> You look at slam numbers and Sampras looks dead and burried, he
> only reminds you to hold your horses. Doing some examining e.g.
> Wimbledon and year end stats it's still:
>
> 13 - Sampras and Federer
> 9 - Djokovic
> 6 - Nadal

>
>
>
>
> >> It's turned, or turning blue in the past decade or two.
> >>

> > If its past decade then even Federer should be given more credit than Djokovic since most of his slam period is before AO turns blue chip (If AO has turned blue chip only in the past decade). This argument helps Federer over Djokovic at AO. And again on the MPOAT he is also still ahead of Djokovic there. Personally I think mid 80s onward AO is fine to count.
> >
> > Bodo makes both the AO (brown/blue) and surface homogenization issues. If accepted they may help Sampras' case against Djokovic and Nadal but fall short against Federer just on the W and USO numbers. They also fall short in another sense. While Nadal and Djokovic are further removed from Sampras (AO surface changed in 2007 and all of Djokovic's titles are then onwards which is not Djokovic's fault since that is when he came into his own) Federer is not as far removed. They even have a tiny crossover.
>
>
>
>
> I might make a counter example.
>
> If Federer surpasses Connors 109 ATP titles it will be a glorious
> thing.
>
> 109 titles in this era, are worth more than when Connors played.
>
> But in the same vein, slam numbers aren't the same as well. We
> know definitely have 4 slams, that are competitive, and blue
> chip.
>
> It was the case before.
>
>
> Whisper is right imo, that due to these changes the future tier 3
> or tier 2 ordinary greats will be in the 8-12 slam range as
> opposed 6-8 slam range in the 80s and the 90s.
>
> These big 3 are tier 1 and they're special of course.

[Whisper]

On 16/02/2019 2:36 am, MBDunc wrote:
> On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 5:21:53 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:
>>> ASV GOAT without Steffi/Seles/Hingis?
>>>
>>> .mikko
>>>
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> Let's say there were 2 players better than Fed/Rafa/Djoker today winning
>> 90% of the slams & relegating those 3 to r/up status. Would you say if
>> those 2 weren't around, Fed/Rafa/Djoker wouldn't be be goat level?
>
> In reality it just does not work that way. It is speculation which cannot be proven either ways.

You can't make both these statements - ie can't say it 'doesn't work
that way', but then also 'cannot be proven'. If it can't be proven then
you can't say it does not work that way.

>
> For example *your own theory* has been many times that top champs push themselves into even greater heights (like would Djokovic ever been that good without Fed/Nadal as yardsticks?). Same with >Murray?

Yes, this is obvious in sports like tennis where the goal is to beat the
other guy on the day, & not beat a static time measure (athletics) or
score (golf). You can play very poorly in a Wimbledon final yet still
win the title if the other guy plays worse. You don't have to play
anywhere near boat level tennis. That's not true in athletics & golf.

>
> Connors improved and modified his game many times due to Borg and then Mac existence. Laver 1969 was gamewise totally different beast compared to 1962 due to push by pro-rankds.

Yes, but this doesn't negate my post. Those 2 guys that may have
existed could have simply been too good for the fab 3, no matter how
hard they pushed themselves.

It's certainly true Fed/Rafa/Djoker were able to reach the top of their
potential thanks to the high quality of all 3 guys forcing greater efforts.

>
> And then there is math and probabilities ... which most do not understand. This means there are no gimme wouldacouldashouldas but everything can happen.

You've said before that it doesn't matter if players like Borg, Mac,
Sampras, Fed etc never existed because other players would have filled
the void & rose to that level. This never made sense to me. I wonder
what would it be like today if Elvis, Michael Jackson, Barbra Streisand,
Beatles etc never existed? This also makes me think of the potentially
amazing artists we never got to experience due to twist of fate. Same
goes for tennis & pretty much everything in life. 'Coulda/woulda' is on
some levels abstract, but it's also very tangible imo.

If I stabbed Rafa in 2005 would some other guy have won 11 FO's in his
place? What about the guy who was aborted that would have won 4
calendar slams?

>
> This results Hewitt beating Sampras at USO final, Delpo beating Fed at USO, Stan beating both Djoker and Nadal at same AO...

Of course anything can happen. An early match that rammed this home for
me was Peter Doohan beating 2 time defending Wimbledon champ Becker at
Wimbledon. I seriously thought that would be something like 61 60 61
blowout. End of the day tennis is a 1 on 1 gladiatorial sport where
history means nothing on the day. You have to go out & win 1 more match,
no matter how good you were in earlier rds. Rafa at this AO is a
perfect example.

[Whisper]

Can't compare cars to tennis players. Just because cars get better
doesn't mean everything does. Human talent can happen anytime. You're
not going to argue Beiber/Rihanna are the best singers ever right?

[Whisper]

Katy Perry is better singer than Barbra Streisand because everything in
old days was inferior.

[MBDunc]

On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 4:18:59 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:
> You can't make both these statements - ie can't say it 'doesn't work
> that way', but then also 'cannot be proven'. If it can't be proven then
> you can't say it does not work that way.

I just did.

OF course "doesn't work this way" and this "cannot be proven" are different angles. The point was that any hypothetical speculation instantly goes uncontrolled as there are too much variables.

> You don't have to play
> anywhere near boat level tennis. That's not true in athletics & golf.

Bolt run 9.58 and 19.19 2009. He has not gotten any close to these times since but still won tons of golds2010-2016 (like 100/200m doubles at OGs 2012 and 2016).

> > Connors improved and modified his game many times due to Borg and then Mac existence. Laver 1969 was gamewise totally different beast compared to 1962 due to push by pro-rankds.

> It's certainly true Fed/Rafa/Djoker were able to reach the top of their
> potential thanks to the high quality of all 3 guys forcing greater efforts.

This is apparent. Not only their long career but their ability to shrug off crucial career-defining losses and then come back as strong as ever... someone like Borg would have been running away for years....

> > And then there is math and probabilities ... which most do not understand. This means there are no gimme wouldacouldashouldas but everything can happen.

> You've said before that it doesn't matter if players like Borg, Mac,
> Sampras, Fed etc never existed because other players would have filled
> the void & rose to that level.

If you do remember: I copied this opinion almost word-to-word from you :) - from 2002. I have mentioned this earlier also...may be I set up a trap here, did I?

> This never made sense to me.

See above...

> If I stabbed Rafa in 2005 would some other guy have won 11 FO's in his
> place? What about the guy who was aborted that would have won 4
> calendar slams?

That's the reason we love to check actual records for goatness/boatness rather than wouldacouldashoulda databases which are infinite. The best potential tennis talent ever can might as well be your regular barfly who just never picked a racket.

> > This results Hewitt beating Sampras at USO final, Delpo beating Fed at USO, Stan beating both Djoker and Nadal at same AO...

> no matter how good you were in earlier rds. Rafa at this AO is a
> perfect example.

That's the point. There are no gimmes.

.mikko

[Hey Guys]

If after watching Fed, Rafa, and Djok for more than 10 years people think their GOAT-level success is mainly due to outside factors (strings, courts, training, etc.), I don't know what to tell them. It's pretty obvious we lucked into a period with three all-time greats.

Building on Mikko's comparison to women's tennis, if Tracy Austin had been as physically durable as Djok, we probably would have ended up with three all-time women greats playing at the same time in the 80s.


Honestly, if Sampras had been as physically gifted as Rafa or as durable as Djok he'd probably have 20 slams. Don't get me wrong, Sampras was a top-flight athlete, but he had physical issues the current three don't have. That factor alone could explain the difference in slam count.

[*skriptis]

Hey Guys <heyg...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

It's all nice, but what about durability of Berdych, Ferrer,
Tsonga, del Potro, Cilic etc?


What he have is not only big 3, but in this era we had:

Best 3-slam champion by far ever, Murray.

Best slamless guys ever, Berdych and Ferrer, Tsonga right behind them.


So, something is there that prolonged the careers of almost all of
the guys.

[Hey Guys]

Give Sampras the physical stamina of Fed/Rafa/Djok and he very well might have pulled out the two matches against Agassi at the AO and his two USO finals against Hewitt and Safin (Sampras proved he could beat them at the USO when rested). Sampras maybe then ends with 7W, 7USO, 4AOs and 96 7543 points. Not too far fetched. The only thing keeping Sampras from 18-20 slams may have been his own physical limits.

[PeteWasLucky]

> Give Sampras the physical stamina of Fed/Rafa/Djok and he very well might have pulled out the two matches against Agassi at the AO and his two USO finals against Hewitt and Safin (Sampras proved he could beat them at the USO when rested). Sampras maybe then ends with 7W, 7USO, 4AOs and 96 7543 points. Not too far fetched. The only thing keeping Sampras from 18-20 slams may have been his own physical limits.

Still the give and take, would should if then else, etc is useless and meaningless.

But overall I agree with your comment about fedalovic are great.

[MBDunc]

On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 8:09:05 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:
> It's all nice, but what about durability of Berdych, Ferrer,
> Tsonga, del Potro, Cilic etc?
>
> What he have is not only big 3, but in this era we had:
>
> Best 3-slam champion by far ever, Murray.

Vines, Kramer and may be Riggs may play "question cards".

> Best slamless guys ever, Berdych and Ferrer, Tsonga right behind them.

Segura, Mecir, Rios and Corretja have their blind cards not yet revealed...

> So, something is there that prolonged the careers of almost all of
> the guys.

There is a reason why Pancho ('48-72), Rosewall ('53-77) and Laver ('58-77) are known. Not only numbers...but sustainability.

Connors had his two decades. Agassi had almost.

.mikko

[*skriptis]

MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:

I won't dispute anything. It's true history knows of such cases.


But the longevity of Tsonga, Berdych or Ferrer is what's
interesting here.

[MBDunc]

On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 9:20:06 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:
> I won't dispute anything. It's true history knows of such cases.
>
> But the longevity of Tsonga, Berdych or Ferrer is what's
> interesting here.

Not only those but...

Add Monfils and Gasquet

...and also Cilic (1st title 2008) and Delpo (1st four titles 2008) and Nishikori (1st title 2008)

.mikko

[Hey Guys]

Most of those guys you mentioned have had long injury breaks. Fed and Rafa have also taken time off...not to mention Agassi did as well. Serena too.

But for Sampras I was talking more match stamina or playing B2B days. That's where he was lacking compared to other GOAT candidates.

[John Liang]

There is no such thing as give, when you are entering the world of woulda, coulda, shoulda you are essentially posting rubbish.

[undecided]

It's all relative. By his standards, he was in a very bad slump. He was getting beat by journeymen which pretty much never happened during his peak years before or after the slump.

[Whisper]

yawn x100

[StephenJ]

On 2/12/2019 8:33 PM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 7:04:04 PM UTC-6, Shakes wrote:

>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 4:20:41 AM UTC-8, soccerfan777 wrote:
>>> https://www.google.com/amp/www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/25973071/tennis-roger-federer-goat-rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic%3fplatform=amp
>>>
>>> Lol... is Whisper the real Bodo?
>>

>> I read the article. Nowhere does he say Sampras is the GOAT.
>
> Its subtle. Until Sampras' 14 slam was eclipsed, it was all about the slam count for Bodo and other ESPN writers.... now suddenly it is
>
> "Other aspects of the record then become much more important. Those include head-to-head records, success in other first-rate events (like Masters 1000s) and overall winning percentage."
>
> ROFLMAO... so somehow that was not a factor when everyone in US media was declaring Sampras much above the likes of Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl just because he won more slams than them.
>

This is actually a smart post.

--
before agriculture, food-finding was the only occupation
for humans.

- Alan Weisman

[soccerfan777]

Thanks.