Do you want Federer to break Connors record

[*skriptis]

I do.

Are there more Federer or Connors fans here?

It is a very important record. It's one of the 4 pillars of goatness.


1. Most slams
2. Most YE#1
3. Most weeks #1
4. Most tournaments

So far Federer owns two categories, clinching the third would be
immense.

--


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

[kaennorsing]

Op dinsdag 30 oktober 2018 09:20:19 UTC+1 schreef *skriptis:

I would obviously like to see it but I think it's not nearly as significant as you're suggesting. Most tennis fans don't know what Connors' record is and neither do I, even as a big Federer fan. Plus has anyone argued Connors is a GOAT contender because of this record?

On top of that the record can consist of many smaller, insignificant events, which totally muddles the waters and GOAT bearings. Therefore both totals of Masters titles and WTF titles are far more important records, as they are clearly defined in their level of competition; the highest.

The WTF is particularly prestigious as it's a unique format in the calendar, consisting of exclusively elite competitors, which completely rules out the element of the luck of the draw. And the luck of the draw is particularly relevant considering an era with major discrepancy of ability between the top 3 (all GOAT contenders) and the rest of the tour (underachievers).

[The Iceberg]

You are confusing the old WTF that Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe etc compared to the modern day big fun O2 exo, where it all a big fun time really, like how Stan couldn’t win vs Fed that time even though Fed was literally playing on one leg etc Lol

[TennisGuy]

On 10/30/2018 4:20 AM, *skriptis wrote:
> I do.
>
> Are there more Federer or Connors fans here?
>
> It is a very important record. It's one of the 4 pillars of goatness.
>
>
> 1. Most slams
> 2. Most YE#1
> 3. Most weeks #1
> 4. Most tournaments
>
> So far Federer owns two categories, clinching the third would be
> immense.
>

Excellent Whisper-bait post. LOL!!

[*skriptis]

kaennorsing <ljub...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:

It is not the most significant record, but surely it is very
important.

Those 4 categories are major categories in tennis. Most slams,
most tournaments, most years and most weeks at #1.


I believe total tournaments won is currently often overlooked
because the current record is inflated, similar to how Emerson's
12 slams wasn't a proper record.

I'd say, based on my assumptions, that Connors is de facto 12-slam
guy, with 80 titles. Cca.

The fact he ended with 8 slams and 109 titles is historical
peculiarity.


But when/if Federer hits 110 it will be a true open era record,
similar to how Sampras made 13 slams a real record.

It will be a great achievement, for sure.

Federer would be the guy who won all his titles, big and small, vs
the top guys nude current system, so that would make the record
very relevant.

[*skriptis]

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

Much bigger stuff than e.g. Nadal having couple of MS titles extra.

Ok, YEC/Olympics/Davis cup is another issue. That might be 5th
category.

Anyway, I won't mind if he does break that record, in fact I think
he deserves it so I'm looking forward to it.

[soccerfan777]

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 3:20:19 AM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
> I do.
>
> Are there more Federer or Connors fans here?
>
> It is a very important record. It's one of the 4 pillars of goatness.
>
>
> 1. Most slams

Very important
> 2. Most YE#1'

bogus jackpot stat.

> 3. Most weeks #1
Very important

> 4. Most tournaments
Somewhat important

[*skriptis]

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

> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 3:20:19 AM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
>> I do.
>>
>> Are there more Federer or Connors fans here?
>>
>> It is a very important record. It's one of the 4 pillars of goatness.
>>
>>
>> 1. Most slams
> Very important
>> 2. Most YE#1'
>
> bogus jackpot stat.
>
>> 3. Most weeks #1
> Very important
>
>> 4. Most tournaments
> Somewhat important

I already placed them in order of importance.

[Whisper]

On 31/10/2018 1:29 AM, kaennorsing wrote:
> Op dinsdag 30 oktober 2018 09:20:19 UTC+1 schreef *skriptis:
>> I do.
>>
>> Are there more Federer or Connors fans here?
>>
>> It is a very important record. It's one of the 4 pillars of goatness.
>>
>>
>> 1. Most slams
>> 2. Most YE#1
>> 3. Most weeks #1
>> 4. Most tournaments
>>
>> So far Federer owns two categories, clinching the third would be
>> immense.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
>> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
>
> I would obviously like to see it but I think it's not nearly as significant as you're suggesting.

The real record is Laver's 200 imo.



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

[MBDunc]

keskiviikko 31. lokakuuta 2018 13.12.27 UTC+2 Whisper kirjoitti:
> The real record is Laver's 200 imo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver_career_statistics#Singles_titles_(200)

Even if some tournaments are missing details / some are four-draws / etc ... yet still: very impressive.

.mikko

[TennisGuy]

On 10/31/2018 7:12 AM, Whisper wrote:
> On 31/10/2018 1:29 AM, kaennorsing wrote:
>> Op dinsdag 30 oktober 2018 09:20:19 UTC+1 schreef *skriptis:
>>> I do.
>>>
>>> Are there more Federer or Connors fans here?
>>>
>>> It is a very important record. It's one of the 4 pillars of goatness.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Most slams
>>> 2. Most YE#1
>>> 3. Most weeks #1
>>> 4. Most tournaments
>>>
>>> So far Federer owns two categories, clinching the third would be
>>>   immense.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
>>> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
>>
>> I would obviously like to see it but I think it's not nearly as
>> significant as you're suggesting.
>
> The real record is Laver's 200 imo.
>

He took the bait just as predicted. :)

Good luck folks!

[*skriptis]

TennisGuy <TG...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:

It's not a bait, wtf
?

I'm aware of Laver's 200 titles record, but I see it something
like Budge's or Tilden's 90+ match winning streak.


I'm not a guy to dismiss records just "because they're old".

Far from it. I always said how Nadal's FO 2014, a 9th title, truly
made him a King there.

Decugis had 8, when he won his titles, not only it was ancient
era, but it was not a proper slam, it was not even an
international tournament, but otoh it was *the same* tournament
and he was the record holder until Nadal won 9th.


Laver has the most tournaments record, but I doing open era
comparisons.


--

[*skriptis]

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

My point was, Laver's record isn't just old, it's hard to compare.

But within open era, it is possible to compare Connors and Federer.

Connors played in many small events, more so than Federer who
played in differently structured tour, and Connors has the
record, but if Federer surpasses it, his record would be
"truer".

Kinda like Sampras 13 vs Emerson 12.


--

[The Iceberg]

yes but Fed plays a lot of small events relatively as the clowns just roll over for him, look at Basel, by the accounts of the Fedfans at my club he played rubbish, yet still thrashed them a very easy 61 64 in SF and 76 64 in the final.

[MBDunc]

perjantai 2. marraskuuta 2018 11.44.55 UTC+2 The Iceberg kirjoitti:
> yes but Fed plays a lot of small events relatively

Relatively Fed has played more slams than other greats but Djokovic; some samples.

Sampras played tournaments: 266
Sampras played slams: 52
slam % : 19,5%

Federer played tournaments: 345
Federer played slams: 74
slam % : 21,4

Connors played tournaments: 398
Connors played slams: 57
slam % : 14,3

Nadal played tournaments: 266
Nadal played slams: 54
slam % 20,3

Djokovic played tournaments: 232
Djokovic played slams: 55
slam % 23,7

.mikko

[guypers]

No Hoad and Mac, two of the greatest talents?!?!

[bob]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:20:19 +0100 (CET), *skriptis
<skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:

>I do.
>
>Are there more Federer or Connors fans here?
>
>It is a very important record. It's one of the 4 pillars of goatness.
>
>
>1. Most slams
>2. Most YE#1
>3. Most weeks #1
>4. Most tournaments
>
>So far Federer owns two categories, clinching the third would be
> immense.

i don't want him to break it just because he'd love to.

bob

[Whisper]

Laver ticked every box, even h2h rivalries.

The Laver v Rosewall rivalry is amazing. They met for the 1st time when
Rosewall was 28 but still managed to rack up 164 meetings!


Analysis

Including tournaments and one-night stands, they played at least 164
matches with Laver leading 89–75.

Their meetings took place in the span 1963–77. They met in 13 individual
years in that span, and in 9 of those 13 Laver had an edge, which can be
explained considering that Laver faced an already declining Rosewall: in
their first meeting ever, Rosewall was already 28 years of age.



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

[Whisper]

Fedfans have trouble with facts.

[Whisper]

The big difference with Laver is he reached the
absolutely highest peak in all 3 arenas - amateur, pro & open era. He
owned all his rivals h2h too. No holes. 3 versions of calendar slam -
can't reach a higher level than that.

[*skriptis]

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

And he was orange too. ;)

[Whisper]

Good point : )



--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

[jdeluise]

On Sat, 03 Nov 2018 11:32:15 +1100, Whisper wrote:


> The big difference with Laver is he reached the absolutely highest peak
> in all 3 arenas - amateur, pro & open era. He owned all his rivals h2h
> too. No holes. 3 versions of calendar slam -
> can't reach a higher level than that.

You said he'd have no chance against Sampras.