Bigger hole - Lack of DC (Federer) or Lack of YEC (Rafa)
Raja, The Great
I think not winning either is a hole in the career.
Steffi Graf is the only one who has done it all
Olympic Gold medal for W. Germany
Fed Cup for W.Germany and Germany
AO
FO
Wim
USO
YEC
She won the major 7 titles. No one has done that yet.
felangey
>
> I think not winning either is a hole in the career.
A bit of a non-question. One you can win by virtue of birth, by winning no
matches at all. The other you have to beat all the best players in the world
in a unique back to back format in burtla knockout tennis.
Raja, The Great
> >I will stay neutral on this subject... Discuss please.
>
> > I think not winning either is a hole in the career.
>
> A bit of a non-question. One you can win by virtue of birth, by winning no
> matches at all.
Well it should not count. If you have led your country by winning
matches in the final of a Davis Cup or Fed Cup, only then it should
count.
> The other you have to beat all the best players in the world
> in a unique back to back format in burtla knockout tennis.
I think YEC is much more difficult. So I give you that.
number_six
How about the guy Steffi married?
Agassi won all four majors, plus DC, YEC, Olympic gold.
Raja, The Great
Yeah that lucky mofo won who won FO, Wim, YEC, and Olympic Gold
EXACTLY ONCE! Probably didn't deserve any of those!
TT
> I will stay neutral on this subject... Discuss please.
>
> I think not winning either is a hole in the career.
>
Lack of DC is a bigger hole. YEC is not much more than a Masters
tournament in prestige.
I'm sure Rafa will win it in the future though.
Joe Ramirez
> 12.3.2011 3:45, Raja, The Great kirjoitti:
>
> > I will stay neutral on this subject... Discuss please.
>
> > I think not winning either is a hole in the career.
>
> Lack of DC is a bigger hole. YEC is not much more than a Masters
> tournament in prestige.
Nalbandian and Davydenko have won the YEC. Blake and Troicki, among
many others, have "won" the Davis Cup. Who gets more singles legacy
cachet?
People tout the DC as an important singles accomplishment only for
players who are *already* recognized as greats, except in rare cases
when the player really does capture the Cup almost single-handedly
(e.g., Lubicic). There are hordes of journeymen who also have "won"
the DC but get zero singles legacy credit for it. In contrast, the YEC
may provide just a small legacy boost compared to a slam, but it's a
real one, and it comes from the tournament itself, not from the
player's pre-existing reputation.
TT
> On Mar 12, 7:06 am, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>> 12.3.2011 3:45, Raja, The Great kirjoitti:
>>
>>> I will stay neutral on this subject... Discuss please.
>>> I think not winning either is a hole in the career.
>> Lack of DC is a bigger hole. YEC is not much more than a Masters
>> tournament in prestige.
> Nalbandian and Davydenko have won the YEC. Blake and Troicki, among
> many others, have "won" the Davis Cup. Who gets more singles legacy
> cachet?
>
Well Denko's singles legacy remains nearly non-existent despite it...In
fact Nalby and Denko are talked about as the biggest underachievers in
tennis.
> People tout the DC as an important singles accomplishment only for
> players who are *already* recognized as greats, except in rare cases
> when the player really does capture the Cup almost single-handedly
> (e.g., Lubicic). There are hordes of journeymen who also have "won"
> the DC but get zero singles legacy credit for it. In contrast, the YEC
> may provide just a small legacy boost compared to a slam, but it's a
> real one, and it comes from the tournament itself, not from the
> player's pre-existing reputation.
Might have something to do with fanboying, people pay attention more to
achievements of great players.
Anyway DC is something a GREAT just has to have. You said it
yourself...a journeyman doesn't gain much but for great players it is a
big deal. Why so...must be about history of the event, it's damn
important in legacy...a journeyman is still considered a journeyman if
he can't handle the top guns - a great has already proven he can handle
them.
TT
Another, modern, pov would be that it's easier for a great player to
rack up slams if they skip DC. In fact top players of today, I believe
including Federer, have stated this
Joe Ramirez
> 12.3.2011 15:34, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>
> > On Mar 12, 7:06 am, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
> >> 12.3.2011 3:45, Raja, The Great kirjoitti:
>
> >>> I will stay neutral on this subject... Discuss please.
> >>> I think not winning either is a hole in the career.
> >> Lack of DC is a bigger hole. YEC is not much more than a Masters
> >> tournament in prestige.
> > Nalbandian and Davydenko have won the YEC. Blake and Troicki, among
> > many others, have "won" the Davis Cup. Who gets more singles legacy
> > cachet?
>
> Well Denko's singles legacy remains nearly non-existent despite it...In
> fact Nalby and Denko are talked about as the biggest underachievers in
> tennis.
>
> > People tout the DC as an important singles accomplishment only for
> > players who are *already* recognized as greats, except in rare cases
> > when the player really does capture the Cup almost single-handedly
> > (e.g., Lubicic). There are hordes of journeymen who also have "won"
> > the DC but get zero singles legacy credit for it. In contrast, the YEC
> > may provide just a small legacy boost compared to a slam, but it's a
> > real one, and it comes from the tournament itself, not from the
> > player's pre-existing reputation.
>
> Might have something to do with fanboying, people pay attention more to
> achievements of great players.
Yes, and the Davis Cup benefits a lot from that. To the extent that
people pay attention to it at all, they do so a lot more in years when
a Top 5 or Top 10 player is on the winning team than when the winners
are all a bunch of second-tier guys. Nadal has done more for the DC
than the DC has done for Nadal.
>
> Anyway DC is something a GREAT just has to have. You said it
> yourself...a journeyman doesn't gain much but for great players it is a
> big deal.
No, I think it's the other way around. In the current era, great
players seem to confer importance on the DC when they win it. The DC
doesn't confer importance on them, at least not as singles champions.
Everyone asked, "Can Djokovic bring the Cup to Serbia?" No one outside
France cared whether Llodra could claim the Cup for the French.
TT
It's not that b/w.
>> Anyway DC is something a GREAT just has to have. You said it
>> yourself...a journeyman doesn't gain much but for great players it is a
>> big deal.
> No, I think it's the other way around. In the current era, great
> players seem to confer importance on the DC when they win it. The DC
> doesn't confer importance on them, at least not as singles champions.
> Everyone asked, "Can Djokovic bring the Cup to Serbia?" No one outside
> France cared whether Llodra could claim the Cup for the French.
Note that it's a part of player's legacy to be a sporting great in their
home country.
Can you name any great player who never won DC? (other than...)
TT
>
> Another, modern, pov would be that it's easier for a great player to
> rack up slams if they skip DC. In fact top players of today, I believe
> including Federer, have stated this
No counter argument for this Joe? You agree?
Raja, The Great
> On Mar 12, 7:06 am, TT <d...@do.it> wrote:
>
> > 12.3.2011 3:45, Raja, The Great kirjoitti:
>
> > > I will stay neutral on this subject... Discuss please.
>
> > > I think not winning either is a hole in the career.
>
> > Lack of DC is a bigger hole. YEC is not much more than a Masters
> > tournament in prestige.
>
> Nalbandian and Davydenko have won the YEC. Blake and Troicki, among
> many others, have "won" the Davis Cup. Who gets more singles legacy
> cachet?
>
> People tout the DC as an important singles accomplishment only for
> players who are *already* recognized as greats, except in rare cases
Precisely. We are only talking about greats. And all the greats have a
DC win. Can't think of anyone who hasnt... except the "mighty"
Federer. I am shocked that he is not embarrassed about this. He also
played miserably in the Olympics.
Raja, The Great
Wow, you brought home the same point. Great minds think alike ;-)
Raja, The Great
Yes, can't think of ANY! Even Lendl who stop played for the communist
asshole Czech government very soon, won a DC once for them.
Joe Ramirez
Connors, unless you think that Jimbo "won" the 1981 Davis Cup by
playing two singles rubbers in the quarterfinal and nothing else for
the entire campaign.
If you want to test the DC "hole" theory, go back to 2009, when
Federer first tied, then passed Sampras in slam titles. A great many
articles were written comparing their career resumes at that time. See
how many you can find that say, in effect, "Sampras may not have won
the French Open, which is a very big hole, but Federer has failed to
win the Davis Cup, which is also a huge hole."
Joe Ramirez
It doesn't require a counterargument. I have no idea whether it's
correct, but it's irrelevant. Being tiring doesn't make an event
legacy-defining.
Raja, The Great
Well, Connors had a big fight with the US Davis cup organization and
hardly ever played. Else he would have played more.
felangey
Federer first tied, then passed Sampras in slam titles. A great many
articles were written comparing their career resumes at that time. See
how many you can find that say, in effect, "Sampras may not have won
the French Open, which is a very big hole, but Federer has failed to
win the Davis Cup, which is also a huge hole."<
Like the sprinter who breaks 100m and 200m WR's....wins World Golds, Olympic
Golds.....but goshdarnit....never gets that elusive 4x 100m relay medal!
Raja, The Great
4 x100 relay is absolutely important. You can win it single-
handedly... just like you can win Davis Cup. Win both the singles and
the doubles and you are all set. Switzerland has not once even made DC
final. It is a shame.
TT
You're wrong there. If indeed the event is tiring and top players still
play there risking their slam success then the event must be important
aka have lots of legacy.
TT
Yes, he won it then. Raja did give the reason about Connors though.
> If you want to test the DC "hole" theory, go back to 2009, when
> Federer first tied, then passed Sampras in slam titles. A great many
> articles were written comparing their career resumes at that time. See
> how many you can find that say, in effect, "Sampras may not have won
> the French Open, which is a very big hole, but Federer has failed to
> win the Davis Cup, which is also a huge hole."
The news was Sampras' slam record being broken so that's what they wrote
about.
However you sidestepped my main point, being a sporting hero in one's
country is a huge part of one's legacy. After all, athletes are always
seen as representing their country. DC brings HUGE legacy points in this
sense.
number_six
> snip < Switzerland has not once even made DC
> final. It is a shame.
Not in the Fed era -- but Hlasek and Rosset got them to the final in
the early 90s, where they lost to the USA.
Javier González
> 12.3.2011 15:34, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>
> > On Mar 12, 7:06 am, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
> >> 12.3.2011 3:45, Raja, The Great kirjoitti:
>
> >>> I will stay neutral on this subject... Discuss please.
> >>> I think not winning either is a hole in the career.
> >> Lack of DC is a bigger hole. YEC is not much more than a Masters
> >> tournament in prestige.
> > Nalbandian and Davydenko have won the YEC. Blake and Troicki, among
> > many others, have "won" the Davis Cup. Who gets more singles legacy
> > cachet?
>
*cough* DAVIS CUP CHAMP *COUGH*
Obvious fanboi is obvious.
Joe Ramirez
> 12.3.2011 16:52, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>
> > On Mar 12, 9:28 am, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
> > > Can you name any great player who never won DC? (other than...)
> > Connors, unless you think that Jimbo "won" the 1981 Davis Cup by
> > playing two singles rubbers in the quarterfinal and nothing else for
> > the entire campaign.
>
> Yes, he won it then.
I'm astonished that you don't recognize how much this sort of claim
undermines your larger argument. If the Davis Cup can be "won" by
playing two matches in the quarterfinal round, and not even appearing
anywhere else, then winning it is a trivial achievement for a player.
Not just of minor or no *legacy* value, but actually trivial even as
an accomplishment for that single year.
>Raja did give the reason about Connors though.
The "reason" was an irrelevant evasion. It doesn't matter *why*
Connors didn't "win" the DC (and he really didn't). There were reasons
that Borg failed to win the U.S. Open too; do they excuse his failure?
No. The difference is that Borg's failure to win the USO hurts his
legacy, whereas Connors' failure to win the Davis Cup doesn't really
have any impact on his legacy.
> > If you want to test the DC "hole" theory, go back to 2009, when
> > Federer first tied, then passed Sampras in slam titles. A great many
> > articles were written comparing their career resumes at that time. See
> > how many you can find that say, in effect, "Sampras may not have won
> > the French Open, which is a very big hole, but Federer has failed to
> > win the Davis Cup, which is also a huge hole."
>
> The news was Sampras' slam record being broken so that's what they wrote
> about.
No, as I said, they often used the occasion to summarize and compare
the two players' careers. Look at this analysis from the June 15, 2009
Sports Illustrated (an American publication that one might expect to
be biased in favor of Sampras, and thus inclined to look for ways to
boost him over Federer):
"Historians will look at Federer's résumé—at least five U.S. Open
titles, five Wimbledons, three Australians and one French—measure it
against Laver's 11 and Sampras's Frenchless 14 and declare him
supreme. But there's also the matter of Federer's unparalleled
consistency: Federer has made an astonishing 20 straight Grand Slam
semifinals (compared with runner-up Ivan Lendl's 10) and has appeared
in 10 straight finals and in 15 of the last 16. Laver's longest string
of consecutive finals was six, Sampras's three.
"Of course, Federer's case will be complicated, in some minds, by the
vast difference in equipment and competitive depth among tennis's
various eras, by the conflicting standards of amateur and pro tennis
before 1968 and by the varying speeds of the surfaces over the years—
not to mention the fact that Laver never played a Grand Slam event on
hard courts. 'I'm not saying he's not the best player,' former
Wimbledon champ Pat Cash says of Federer. 'I'm just saying you can't
seriously compare [players from disparate eras]. Different rackets,
different shoes, different techniques, different ... everything. Nadal
is the better clay-court player, and I think Sampras is the better
grass-court player. So if Federer is No. 2 on grass and No. 2 on clay,
does that make him the best? There are all these ifs and buts.'"
The article even went on to discuss Federer's record against Nadal as
a potential issue, but Davis Cup? Nothing. Not mentioned. Not deemed
relevant. But if you can find good counterexamples, be my guest.
> However you sidestepped my main point, being a sporting hero in one's
> country is a huge part of one's legacy. After all, athletes are always
> seen as representing their country. DC brings HUGE legacy points in this
> sense.
I didn't "sidestep" that point; I've always said that DC remains
important in terms of national sporting pride, particularly for
smaller nations. Winning it can indeed make a player a hero to his
countrymen, but that's simply not the same as having singles legacy
value in the international, cross-era GOAT race.
number_six
In Connors' day the USTA and the ITF were a bunch of old men in hats.
The battle for control of the game was on. Also Connors was more of a
lone wolf, an outsider, not a team guy for whom the camaraderie
mattered much.
In one respect, I do consider any player who helps his squad reach the
final a member of the winning team even if they win the final without
him. However, I'm pretty sure that only the names of the players who
play for the winners in the final are inscribed on the Cup (so
Rafter's name is not on the Cup) -- or, should we say, on the plaques
on the base of the Cup. Wonder how much room they have left before
they add another piece to the base. They should probably begin using
optical media before the damn thing needs its own zip code.
TT
>
> I'm astonished that you don't recognize how much this sort of claim
> undermines your larger argument. If the Davis Cup can be "won" by
> playing two matches in the quarterfinal round, and not even appearing
> anywhere else, then winning it is a trivial achievement for a player.
> Not just of minor or no *legacy* value, but actually trivial even as
> an accomplishment for that single year.
>
You do notice that your argument contradicts your mantra of "title is a
title regardless of opponents"
The "reason" was an irrelevant evasion. It doesn't matter *why*
> Connors didn't "win" the DC (and he really didn't). There were reasons
> that Borg failed to win the U.S. Open too; do they excuse his failure?
> No. The difference is that Borg's failure to win the USO hurts his
> legacy, whereas Connors' failure to win the Davis Cup doesn't really
> have any impact on his legacy.
>
What failure?
His team might have lost if he had not played at that qf. Nadal didn't
play in the final and still got a DC trophy.
> The article even went on to discuss Federer's record against Nadal as
> a potential issue, but Davis Cup? Nothing.
Fine. At least they got something right...
I've seen numerous articles where Nadal's DC titles are mentioned in
this context. Same with other players.
Maybe Federer's lack of it will be highlighted more after his career, as
he still has a chance to win it.
>> However you sidestepped my main point, being a sporting hero in one's
>> country is a huge part of one's legacy. After all, athletes are always
>> seen as representing their country. DC brings HUGE legacy points in this
>> sense.
> I didn't "sidestep" that point; I've always said that DC remains
> important in terms of national sporting pride, particularly for
> smaller nations. Winning it can indeed make a player a hero to his
> countrymen, but that's simply not the same as having singles legacy
> value in the international, cross-era GOAT race.
It has been seen of great importance in the past, exactly in this
"player's legacy" context. Check out articles of past players and you'll
find numerous mentions of DC heroics.
Of course for someone coming from USA this might be different since
Americans are used to have great sporting achivements all the time, same
with Olympics.
I see them very important regardless of what people in USA think.
Also this context might be a nice opportunity to bring another modern
aspect of GOAT-speak on the table...
I just watched some short documentary on Sarah Palin...someone claimed
that she makes uplifting speeches, devoid of detail and actual
content...which interestingly may be a huge part of her success. He said
that this is because American people are not detail-oriented...
Made me wonder if this is the reason why GOAT talk has so often been
reduced to mere number of slams nowadays.
Cheers,
TT, Finland
ocean
>
> Yeah that lucky mofo won who won FO, Wim, YEC, and Olympic Gold
> EXACTLY ONCE! Probably didn't deserve any of those!
Only doing it ONCE, means it was a fluke.... He got lucky...
ocean
> I will stay neutral on this subject... Discuss please.
>
> I think not winning either is a hole in the career.
>
>
> Olympic Gold medal for W. Germany
> Fed Cup for W.Germany and Germany
> AO
> FO
> Wim
> USO
> YEC
>
> She won the major 7 titles. No one has done that yet.
BTW, Bigger hole would be Lack of YEC (Rafa).. He's the only 9+ slam
winner(open era) to never win it. Borg, Sampras and Fed won it.
ocean
He better. Otherwise, YEC would be to Nadal what FO was to Sampras. At
least Rafa reached a final though. Unlike Sampras at the FO...
ocean
Obviously...
ocean
All the 6+ slam winners in the open era won the DC except for Connors
and Federer....
ocean
No FO is a huge hole for Sampras.
No USO is a huge hole for Borg.
TT
Only one out of 4, including himself. Jeez. Joe certainly can dig some
articles how this makes him inferior to Borg, right?
TT
> On 12 mar, 10:06, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>> 12.3.2011 3:45, Raja, The Great kirjoitti:
>>
>>> I will stay neutral on this subject... Discuss please.
>>> I think not winning either is a hole in the career.
>> Lack of DC is a bigger hole. YEC is not much more than a Masters
>> tournament in prestige.
>>
>> I'm sure Rafa will win it in the future though.
> He better. Otherwise, YEC would be to Nadal what FO was to Sampras.
lolzers.
TT
> On Mar 12, 11:06 am, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>> 12.3.2011 15:34, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>>
>>> On Mar 12, 7:06 am, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>>>> 12.3.2011 3:45, Raja, The Great kirjoitti:
>>>>> I will stay neutral on this subject... Discuss please.
>>>>> I think not winning either is a hole in the career.
>>>> Lack of DC is a bigger hole. YEC is not much more than a Masters
>>>> tournament in prestige.
>>> Nalbandian and Davydenko have won the YEC. Blake and Troicki, among
>>> many others, have "won" the Davis Cup. Who gets more singles legacy
>>> cachet?
>> Well Denko's singles legacy remains nearly non-existent despite it...l
> *cough* DAVIS CUP CHAMP *COUGH*
>
> Obvious fanboi is obvious.
>
You're just sore having Capdeville in your team. :)
RzR
> 12.3.2011 3:45, Raja, The Great kirjoitti:
>> I will stay neutral on this subject... Discuss please.
>>
>> I think not winning either is a hole in the career.
>>
>
> Lack of DC is a bigger hole. YEC is not much more than a Masters
> tournament in prestige.
>
LOL whatever
DC is relevant only if a player played EVERY SINGLE MATCH that year
Joe Ramirez
> 12.3.2011 21:06, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>
>
>
> > I'm astonished that you don't recognize how much this sort of claim
> > undermines your larger argument. If the Davis Cup can be "won" by
> > playing two matches in the quarterfinal round, and not even appearing
> > anywhere else, then winning it is a trivial achievement for a player.
> > Not just of minor or no *legacy* value, but actually trivial even as
> > an accomplishment for that single year.
>
> You do notice that your argument contradicts your mantra of "title is a
> title regardless of opponents"
LOL -- You have to *play* an event before the question of the
"quality" of your win even arises. Not playing the the finals or even
the semifinals of Davis Cup = not playing DC, in my book. Connors
didn't "win" the DC because he really didn't *play* the DC.
Javier González
Hey! Low low!
But it's interesting that DC winner davydenko's singles pedigree is
almost nonexistent. I thought it was a major achievement?
You mention that DC matters a lot for small countries. This is true,
but only on a local basis. Nobody holds foreign DC winners in high
regard like slam winners.