Rafa = GOAT

[Bharath Purohit]

Without any doubt.

15 slams and a olympic gold in singles !!

[Gracchus]

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:04:12 AM UTC-7, Bharath Purohit wrote:

> Without any doubt.

> 15 slams and a olympic gold in singles !!

GOAT at French Open you mean. But each FO he wins underscores further how clay-heavy his resume is. This makes a full TWO-THIRDS of his slams on clay--the grinder's surface.

[soccerfan777]

So Whisper and Bob can fuck off now. He is clearly greater than Sampras

[Guypers]

Tier 2 goat, above Lendel?

[*skriptis]

Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Two thirds? Peanuts.
Federer's won 94% on non clay surfaces.


--

[John Liang]

That is two surfaces and three different slams.

[Gracchus]

> That is two surfaces and three different slams.

Yes, and three slams that all count more than the FO. But skriptis already knew that. He was just being his usual arachnid self.

[*skriptis]

Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:35:37 AM UTC-7, John Liang wrote:
>> On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 2:30:03 AM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
>> > Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> > > On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:04:12 AM UTC-7, Bharath Purohit wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Without any doubt.
>> > >
>> > >> 15 slams and a olympic gold in singles !!
>> > >
>> > > GOAT at French Open you mean. But each FO he wins underscores further how clay-heavy his resume is. This makes a full TWO-THIRDS of his slams on clay--the grinder's surface.
>
>> > Two thirds? Peanuts.
>> > Federer's won 94% on non clay surfaces.
>
>> That is two surfaces and three different slams.
>
> Yes, and three slams that all count more than the FO. But skriptis already knew that. He was just being his usual arachnid self.

Is 66% titles on one surface really worse than 94% of titles on
two surfaces?

If you want to talk about balance, honestly, Nadal is second best
ever.

So I don't get this "clay heavy resume".


Federer has won
10 HC × 7 grass × 1 clay
= 70 pts

Nadal has won
10 clay × 3 HC × 2 grass
= 60pts

Another FO would push him to 66, while another Wimbledon would
push him to 90, surpassing Federer.

This is best way to compare versatility without penalizing players
for success on certain surface.

70 Federer
60 Nadal
24 Djokovic
12 Connors, Wilander
6 Agassi








--

[RzR]

On 6/11/2017 6:04 PM, Bharath Purohit wrote:
> Without any doubt.
>
> 15 slams and a olympic gold in singles !!
>

ROTFL

its like f1 race betting option...winner w/o hamilton...

rafa is definitely GOAT w/o FEDEX!!!

[RzR]

On 6/11/2017 7:08 PM, *skriptis wrote:
>
> Another FO would push him to 66, while another Wimbledon would
> push him to 90, surpassing Federer.

you are a moron...only thing that would have him surpass federer is
winning 19 grand slams...so 4 more to go...not an unimaginable feat....

[jdeluise]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:08:40 +0200, *skriptis wrote:

> This is best way to compare versatility without penalizing players
> for success on certain surface.

Cool, so if Fed wins FO next year he gets to 140?

[jdeluise]

And Sampras has a cool 0.... nice system you've got there *skriptis!

[Gracchus]

Even that wouldn't do it with such a high percentage of those slams on clay. Just think, if all he did was add 4 more FOs, then 73% of his slams would be on the grinder's surface. He'd be increasing his slam count, yes, but the disparity would become more glaring with each one unless he wins some more of them off clay. Maybe that will happen. I tend to doubt it. Especially not with all the "injuries," time off, and mysterious huge fluctuations in form.

[bob]

this is true, and for me, a problem. i said for quite a while when fed
had 17, nads 14 that nadal could catch him with 16 but it had to be
another wimbledon + HC. flip side, he does have at least 2 on all
surfaces, plus an OG so that's in his favor. but i don't see 18 slams
coming from him unless he wins another this yr.

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:20:30 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777
<zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:

>So Whisper and Bob can fuck off now. He is clearly greater than Sampras

why all the anger today? besides, 7 wimbledons still sits pretty high
up the ladder. nobody has more of lendl's dream trophy.

bob

[bob]

i don't think rafa should necessarily be "penalized" for winning so
much on 1 surface, but he should be panalized for a low wimbledon
count. i'm not going to get into the critique of "grinder's surface"
vs "servers surface" type things, but there is a problem with low
wimbledon count. it's the lone most important tournament.

should rafa win a 3rd wimbledon, get to 17-18 count, plus with his OG
and H2H, i could give a nod for GOAT. but that's not happening.

bob

[Guypers]

They are all great players, all opinions are subjective, but surely Rafa the greatest clay court player, Pete and Fed greatest grass and fast hc players, Novak slow hc best???

If we met off court doubt if Fed or Rafa gave us sweat off their balls, who cares?

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

He's not 0.
We reward "best performance" with 0.5 finals, 0.3 SF, 0.2 QF.

Sampras is 14,7


--

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Yes, and wouldn't FO for him be huge? In surface terms.

7543 is another thing.
--

[*skriptis]

Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

I think you're not that dumb to suggest Nadal winning *more FO*
titles from now on, takes anything away from his non-FO
accomplishments which are in the Edberg, Becker, Agassi
league?

He's second most surface versatile player ever, under fully
objective metric.

60pts vs Fed's 70pts.

"Clay heavy resume" is a sour grapes, his two thirds on clay are
not much worse than Federer's 94% on two surfaces.








--

[Jason White]

Federer's best slam tournament is Wimbledon. He's got eleven wins away from it. Djokovic has six away from Australia. Nadal five away from Paris. Sampras seven away from Wimbledon.

Never heard of anyone penalizing for success. For lack of success somewhere, that's just how it goes. Nadal is super dominant in Paris, but must be considered relatively weak elsewhere. He doesn't really have a second slam on which he can be called an all-time great. No amount of French Opens can change that. Only wins on those other surfaces can.

You don't have to agree with this. But I think a minimum of three trophies is needed to get in the door of conversation for all-time great at a particular slam. Five is when someone has achieved dominance. The ideal "goats" win twenty and as close to 5 each as possible. Probably too tough a standard for the men's game, but let's hope for someone in the future to get 7-7-3-3. Or 8-6-3-3. 10-5-3-2: ok let's put that out there for Nadal. Running out of time, though.

[*skriptis]

Jason White <infiniti_...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:

I have no trouble admitting Federer's record is most versatile but
even he has a hole. Just one FO out of 18 slams.


Agasi has all e.g. out of just 8.

If you're logically going to claim Federer shouldn't penalized for
his success elsewhere, same applies to Nadal.

His record is second best ever, in terms of versatility. Right
behind Federer.


If you're 1111 slammer you have to accept that even 18 would put
him ahead, due to better mix, not even mentioning h2h.



7543 guys would think differently naturally.


--


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

[bob]

winning more FO certainly won't reduce nadal's legacy, but there's a
law of diminishing returns if he only wins more on clay. i'd love to
see him win another wimbledon, it would be huge toward legacy if he's
chasing GOAT one day.

bob

[jdeluise]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:43:47 -0400, bob wrote:

> winning more FO certainly won't reduce nadal's legacy, but there's a law
> of diminishing returns if he only wins more on clay

I remember Whisper saying each time Pete won another Wimbledon it counted
infinitely more for his legacy.... no talk of diminishing returns...?
Maybe you guys need to get on the same page?

[Federer Fanatic]

A small one as the greatest clay courter stopped him. He'd have six FOs without Rafa.
And Rafa has called Federer 2nd greatest clay courter.

FF

[Jason White]

I would say Nadal would have a stronger case if his record ends up 2-10-3-3 vs. 1-13-2-2. But feel free to disagree. If Djokovic reaches 6-1-5-3, I think that's a stronger overall record than Nadal's 15.

[TT]

Silly GOAT talk...

Look, there are players who will be remembered from different things in
their careers...

Who anyone thinks 'GOAT' is, is irrelevant and changes every decade.
Nadal's record of 10 RG titles will be remembered forever.

As for Federer, I'm pretty sure his 7 Wimbledon titles record will hold
longer than slam record, which may not even hold to end of his career.

[Jason White]

But in a world w/o Nadal, there might be a player that slows him down elsewhere. Things might balance out that way.

[TT]

Even if Rafa wins a total of 20 slams there is absolutely zero chance
that the record will stay for very long. My point is: If a player who
was injured a lot can win 20 then surely someone else can win 25.

Or for Federer: If a player who was beaten by his main rival can win 20
then surely someone else can win 25...

Hence neither breaking the record will make them 'GOAT' in the long run.
Just in eyes of fanboys.

But what Rafa did today was historic. And the goddamn way he did it!
Incredibly strong performance.

[TT]

jdeluise kirjoitti 11.6.2017 klo 22:47:
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:43:47 -0400, bob wrote:
>
>> winning more FO certainly won't reduce nadal's legacy, but there's a law
>> of diminishing returns if he only wins more on clay
>
> I remember Whisper saying each time Pete won another Wimbledon it counted
> infinitely more for his legacy.... no talk of diminishing returns...?

Well he was right, wasn't he?

What is Sampras remembered for now? Certainly he wouldn't be better
remembered or as legendary if he'd won a couple more AOs and couple less
Wimbledons...

[Jason White]

God has constructed the perfect clay court player. There seem to be no areas for opponents to attack. If there were an exact clone, physically and mentally, would the matches between them ever end?

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Are you thick?

In terms or silverware it counts infinitely more. 7543 for you.


But in surface terms, winning your second FO gives you much more
than your 10th.

It's 100% increase vs 10%

[*skriptis]

Why would I disagree?
2-10-3-3 would give him 150 versatility pts.
1-13-2-2 he'd have 52 pts.

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:47:45 GMT, jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:43:47 -0400, bob wrote:
>
>> winning more FO certainly won't reduce nadal's legacy, but there's a law
>> of diminishing returns if he only wins more on clay
>
>I remember Whisper saying each time Pete won another Wimbledon it counted
>infinitely more for his legacy.... no talk of diminishing returns...?

there are never diminishing returns for wimbledon. everything else,
could be.

>Maybe you guys need to get on the same page?

i've been saying nobody ever trades a wimbleon for anything, going on
20 yrs in rst now.

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 23:07:35 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>bob kirjoitti 11.6.2017 klo 21:50:
>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 11:26:34 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>> <grac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 10:48:19 AM UTC-7, RzR wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/2017 7:08 PM, *skriptis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Another FO would push him to 66, while another Wimbledon would
>>>>> push him to 90, surpassing Federer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you are a moron...only thing that would have him surpass federer is
>>>> winning 19 grand slams...so 4 more to go...not an unimaginable feat....
>>>
>>> Even that wouldn't do it with such a high percentage of those slams on clay. Just think, if all he did was add 4 more FOs, then 73% of his slams would be on the grinder's surface. He'd be increasing his slam count, yes, but the disparity would become more glaring with each one unless he wins some more of them off clay. Maybe that will happen. I tend to doubt it. Especially not with all the "injuries," time off, and mysterious huge fluctuations in form.
>>
>> i don't think rafa should necessarily be "penalized" for winning so
>> much on 1 surface, but he should be panalized for a low wimbledon
>> count. i'm not going to get into the critique of "grinder's surface"
>> vs "servers surface" type things, but there is a problem with low
>> wimbledon count. it's the lone most important tournament.
>>
>> should rafa win a 3rd wimbledon, get to 17-18 count, plus with his OG
>> and H2H, i could give a nod for GOAT. but that's not happening.
>>
>> bob
>>
>
>Silly GOAT talk...

yeah, probably.

>Look, there are players who will be remembered from different things in
>their careers...
>Who anyone thinks 'GOAT' is, is irrelevant and changes every decade.
>Nadal's record of 10 RG titles will be remembered forever.

i agree, he's the clay and RG king. for life.

>As for Federer, I'm pretty sure his 7 Wimbledon titles record will hold
>longer than slam record, which may not even hold to end of his career.

you're a lot more convinced that his 18 slams will be broken easily.
not me, i think it's here for many many yrs (if rafa doesn't catch
it).

bob

[Federer Fanatic]

Perhaps but let's stick to something that is provable in reality that has occurred.

Ff

[Court_1]

Do we have to be subjected to 100 embarrassing threads from you?

Nadal is not the GOAT at this point.

Go back to your cave and don't come out until Nadal has equalled or surpassed Federer's slam count.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Rafa's wheels fell off when the biopass was introduced. That was
followed by a period during which Rafa barely had the stamina to hit a
FH past the net or finish matches. Then the stamina is back in 30 days
prior to last years RG. A mysterious "injury" takes him out of RG,
another long break after which Rafa has been peakity peak.

My hunch is, God is barely involved.

Rafa's going to have busy July BTW. Wimbledon 3-16.7, The Bachelot trial
7.7 -->. Maybe Toni's already making offers Bachelot can't refuse?

[Patrick Kehoe]

And... athletes who are champions to such a degree they become something more, well, that something more tends to depend other aspects. Sampras was a dominant winner of majors compiling a then unmatched total. That defined and enshrined him, if you will. But, what he didn't have was additional dimensions of either social significance, true technical innovation on court, generational personality markers, etc; thus, for Pete, it's greatness and numbers. A great legacy to have, but, as some have suggested a less 'indelible' type of greatness than a Rod Laver or Bjorn Borg...

P

[arahim]

If you are counting best performance once only then all slams on a surface should count as one. If you are including results besides wins then include all results at a slam.

> Sampras is 14,7
>
>
> --

[*skriptis]

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

L


No. Flawed.

[arahim]

No doubt it is but will have at least internal consistency.

[RzR]

On 6/11/2017 8:26 PM, Gracchus wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 10:48:19 AM UTC-7, RzR wrote:
>> On 6/11/2017 7:08 PM, *skriptis wrote:
>>>
>>> Another FO would push him to 66, while another Wimbledon would
>>> push him to 90, surpassing Federer.
>>
>>
>> you are a moron...only thing that would have him surpass federer is
>> winning 19 grand slams...so 4 more to go...not an unimaginable feat....
>
> Even that wouldn't do it with such a high percentage of those slams on clay. Just think, if all he did was add 4 more FOs, then 73% of his slams would be on the grinder's surface. He'd be increasing his slam count, yes, but the disparity would become more glaring with each one unless he wins some more of them off clay. Maybe that will happen. I tend to doubt it. Especially not with all the "injuries," time off, and mysterious huge fluctuations in form.
>

nah, it doesnt matter...if he can win 4 more FO, he will be better than
federer. providing federer stays put :)

[Gracchus]

Bullshit. The distribution definitely factors in.

[bob]

the distribution factors in, but IMO it doesn't have to be some
perfectly symmetrical mix. the factor is you need as many wimbledons
as possible. 3+ is important IMO. 2 proves no fluke at least.

bob