Fed has to win 23 slams.

[Manco]

because Rafa is winning 4 more French Opens to get to 19.

If Fed finishes on 20, people will look at 14 French Opens > 20 slams overall.

But 23 slams will be viewed as bigger.

[TennisGuy]

Nonsense!

He has to win 30 slams.
Nothing short of that will be good enough for
Rafa fans!

[Patrick Kehoe]

2017 might well be the end for both of them... I know they both have that Zombie thing happening with their games; realistically though, enough quality emerging now to suggest they will have more and more unexpected challenges moving forward... the only MASSIVE possibility is IF, and who really knows, IF Murray and Nole don't recoop soonish, then there MIGHT be a window for them in the first half of 2018... still, even these halcyon days will have to see sunsets at some point...

P

[The Iceberg]

you've been saying this same thing for over 10 years now, think you'd consider something different, but nope. Nadal/Fed finalists at AO, Fed wins Wimbledon without losing a set, same thing lol

[Bharath Purohit]

10 french open > 25 slams

[stephenJ]

> On 8/11/2017 11:04 PM, Manco wrote:
> because Rafa is winning 4 more French Opens to get to 19.
>
> If Fed finishes on 20, people will look at 14 French Opens > 20 slams overall.

Incorrect. No matter the mix, if Fed and Rafa each have 19 slams, they
will be regarded by all but partisans as co-GOATS.

Rafa needs at least 20 slams to be regarded as undisputed GOAT.






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[*skriptis]

stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> Wrote in message:

> > On 8/11/2017 11:04 PM, Manco wrote:
>> because Rafa is winning 4 more French Opens to get to 19.
>>
>> If Fed finishes on 20, people will look at 14 French Opens > 20 slams overall.
>
> Incorrect. No matter the mix, if Fed and Rafa each have 19 slams, they
> will be regarded by all but partisans as co-GOATS.
>
> Rafa needs at least 20 slams to be regarded as undisputed GOAT.

We all know, deep down in our heart that 7543 nails it.

Yes, Nadal can make it close by winning similar number or slams,
can make them both co-goats by winning same number of slams, or
can make himself "arguably" goat by winning more slams or setting
ridiculous FO record...


But the guy with higher 7543 score will always be looked upon as a
guy with superior record by vast majority of tennis community.


Big cause for concern in Nadal's case for his legacy is this rapid
deterioration of boat-ish claims.







--


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

[Whisper]

On 12/08/2017 2:41 PM, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:32:08 PM UTC-7, TennisGuy wrote:
>> On 8/12/2017 12:04 AM, Manco wrote:
>>> because Rafa is winning 4 more French Opens to get to 19.
>>>
>>> If Fed finishes on 20, people will look at 14 French Opens > 20 slams overall.
>>>
>>> But 23 slams will be viewed as bigger.
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense!
>>
>> He has to win 30 slams.
>> Nothing short of that will be good enough for
>> Rafa fans!
>
> 2017 might well be the end for both of them...

Could be.

Fitting for both to win the same slam for their 1st & last.



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

[Whisper]

On 12/08/2017 11:03 PM, stephenJ wrote:
> > On 8/11/2017 11:04 PM, Manco wrote:
>> because Rafa is winning 4 more French Opens to get to 19.
>>
>> If Fed finishes on 20, people will look at 14 French Opens > 20 slams
>> overall.
>
> Incorrect. No matter the mix, if Fed and Rafa each have 19 slams, they
> will be regarded by all but partisans as co-GOATS.
>
> Rafa needs at least 20 slams to be regarded as undisputed GOAT.
>
>

If by goat you mean 'slam count king' then yes.

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

[stephenJ]

On 8/12/2017 10:22 AM, Whisper wrote:
> On 12/08/2017 11:03 PM, stephenJ wrote:
>> > On 8/11/2017 11:04 PM, Manco wrote:
>>> because Rafa is winning 4 more French Opens to get to 19.
>>>
>>> If Fed finishes on 20, people will look at 14 French Opens > 20 slams
>>> overall.
>>
>> Incorrect. No matter the mix, if Fed and Rafa each have 19 slams, they
>> will be regarded by all but partisans as co-GOATS.
>>
>> Rafa needs at least 20 slams to be regarded as undisputed GOAT.

> If by goat you mean 'slam count king' then yes.

Like it or not, there is just no way Rafa can have the same or fewer
slams than Fed and have the tennis community consensus be that he is
GOAT. Ditto for Fed.

The slam king will be the GOAT.








---

[Carey]

I think Limpy's getting dizzy from all the spinning he's been doing after #8.
Hence this latest gambit.

[RaspingDrive]

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 9:21:01 AM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
> stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> Wrote in message:
> > > On 8/11/2017 11:04 PM, Manco wrote:
> >> because Rafa is winning 4 more French Opens to get to 19.
> >>
> >> If Fed finishes on 20, people will look at 14 French Opens > 20 slams overall.
> >
> > Incorrect. No matter the mix, if Fed and Rafa each have 19 slams, they
> > will be regarded by all but partisans as co-GOATS.
> >
> > Rafa needs at least 20 slams to be regarded as undisputed GOAT.
>
>
> We all know, deep down in our heart that 7543 nails it.

No, we don't. So stop insinuating it in the forlorn hope that it will gain eventual acceptance.

> Yes, Nadal can make it close by winning similar number or slams,
> can make them both co-goats by winning same number of slams, or
> can make himself "arguably" goat by winning more slams or setting
> ridiculous FO record...

What Jaros says is absolutely correct. In the real world slam count reigns supreme. If Fed stays at 19 and Rafa gets 20, he will be considered the undisputed achievement goat. IMO, however, 19 will suffice, even with four more FO's, since the H2H should also be a consideration for goat contenders.

> But the guy with higher 7543 score will always be looked upon as a
> guy with superior record by vast majority of tennis community.

I hope the gentle murmur that emanated from some quarters after Rafa's 15th slam did not escape you?

> Big cause for concern in Nadal's case for his legacy is this rapid
> deterioration of boat-ish claims.

All that will be considered rot if and when Rafa overhauls Federer's mark.

[RaspingDrive]

Limpy! That is a nice word. No offense meant, whisper.

[Whisper]

On 13/08/2017 1:36 AM, stephenJ wrote:
> On 8/12/2017 10:22 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 12/08/2017 11:03 PM, stephenJ wrote:
>>> > On 8/11/2017 11:04 PM, Manco wrote:
>>>> because Rafa is winning 4 more French Opens to get to 19.
>>>>
>>>> If Fed finishes on 20, people will look at 14 French Opens > 20
>>>> slams overall.
>>>
>>> Incorrect. No matter the mix, if Fed and Rafa each have 19 slams,
>>> they will be regarded by all but partisans as co-GOATS.
>>>
>>> Rafa needs at least 20 slams to be regarded as undisputed GOAT.
>
>> If by goat you mean 'slam count king' then yes.
>
> Like it or not, there is just no way Rafa can have the same or fewer
> slams than Fed and have the tennis community consensus be that he is
> GOAT. Ditto for Fed.
>
> The slam king will be the GOAT.
>
>

Well I'm definitely not convinced about that as we do have a lot of
precedents to the contrary.

I accept that people who faithfully consider 'slam count king' as goat
will continue to think that way, but they are in a minority imo.

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

[Whisper]

On 13/08/2017 2:18 AM, RaspingDrive wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 11:53:37 AM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 8:36:58 AM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:
>>> On 8/12/2017 10:22 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>>> On 12/08/2017 11:03 PM, stephenJ wrote:
>>>>> > On 8/11/2017 11:04 PM, Manco wrote:
>>>>>> because Rafa is winning 4 more French Opens to get to 19.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Fed finishes on 20, people will look at 14 French Opens > 20 slams
>>>>>> overall.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect. No matter the mix, if Fed and Rafa each have 19 slams, they
>>>>> will be regarded by all but partisans as co-GOATS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafa needs at least 20 slams to be regarded as undisputed GOAT.
>>>
>>>> If by goat you mean 'slam count king' then yes.
>>>
>>> Like it or not, there is just no way Rafa can have the same or fewer
>>> slams than Fed and have the tennis community consensus be that he is
>>> GOAT. Ditto for Fed.
>>>
>>> The slam king will be the GOAT.

>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> I think Limpy's getting dizzy from all the spinning he's been doing after #8.
>> Hence this latest gambit.
>
> Limpy! That is a nice word. No offense meant, whisper.
>

None taken. The more abuse I cop just means I'm winning arguments.

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

[stephenJ]

The only exceptions I see relate to the obvious - stuff that is pre-open
era gets discounted or is viewed as non-comparable.

You really think that if Rafa and Fed both finish with 19 slams that one
of them will be regarded as the undisputed goat?




---

[RaspingDrive]

So long as it keeps you going on the strength of imagined wins, good for you.

[RaspingDrive]

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 1:25:02 PM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
> On 13/08/2017 1:36 AM, stephenJ wrote:

> > Like it or not, there is just no way Rafa can have the same or fewer
> > slams than Fed and have the tennis community consensus be that he is
> > GOAT. Ditto for Fed.
> >
> > The slam king will be the GOAT.
> >
> >
>
>
>

> I accept that people who faithfully consider 'slam count king' as goat
> will continue to think that way, but they are in a minority imo.
>

Continue prospering (read: languishing) in your own imagined (impoverished) world.

[Patrick Kehoe]

Icey Fakenews at its best... :)))

P

[Jason White]

How many athletes reach undisputed level? I think there will always been a leaning towards Federer for his mix of titles and style of play. He will be regarded as the "goat" by more people, unless Nadal can win more slams on other surfaces. It would take something in the ballpark of two more Wimbledons and two more US Opens to win people over. That's the general sense I get.

[Whisper]

On 13/08/2017 4:33 AM, stephenJ wrote:
> On 8/12/2017 12:24 PM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 13/08/2017 1:36 AM, stephenJ wrote:
>>>>> Rafa needs at least 20 slams to be regarded as undisputed GOAT.
>>>
>>>> If by goat you mean 'slam count king' then yes.
>>>
>>> Like it or not, there is just no way Rafa can have the same or fewer
>>> slams than Fed and have the tennis community consensus be that he is
>>> GOAT. Ditto for Fed.
>>>
>>> The slam king will be the GOAT.
>
>> Well I'm definitely not convinced about that as we do have a lot of
>> precedents to the contrary.
>>
>> I accept that people who faithfully consider 'slam count king' as goat
>> will continue to think that way, but they are in a minority imo.
>
> The only exceptions I see relate to the obvious - stuff that is pre-open
> era gets discounted or is viewed as non-comparable.

That's mostly what I'm referring to, and really can't be dismissed so
easily. Laver certainly doesn't seem like a lesser goat than Fed/Rafa.
He missed 5 of his peakest yrs to the pro tour, yet still won 2 calendar
slams. He's the only guy to win it in open era, & 1 of 2 to ever win it
at all. He also won the pro calendar slam in 1967. He not only passed
every test there is, he smashed it out of the ballpark time & again. He
won the last 2 Wimbledons before he turned pro, & then won the next 2 as
soon open era started - conceivably could have won 9 in a row. In the
pros he won the Wembley title (Wimbledon equivalent) in 1964, 1965,
1966, 1967. Pretty impressive when the best tennis players were all in
the pros. He then won Wimbledon in 1968 & 1969. He won Davis Cup 5 times.

He also won calendar slams in 3 varieties - amateur, pro & open era. He
had a positive h2h v every single player. He won 200 singles titles
overall (Fed hasn't won 100 yet). He won 17 singles titles & also 17
doubles titles in 1969. He won Davis Cup 5 times.

I doubt I'll ever see the day someone can put Laver out of top spot.
Fed could have done it had he beaten Rafa in 2006 & 2007 FO finals to
possibly give him 2 calendar slams in a row. As it is Fed never made it
halfway to a calendar slam.

The scary thing is as good as Laver was, Lew Hoad was probably even
better at peak. He just had a bad back & shorter time at the top, but
certainly he's a strong boat candidate. Laver, Rosewall, Pancho etc all
say Hoad was the best ever at peak. He played 'ping pong' tennis with
wood rackets - phenomenal to watch what he did with a wood racket.

>
> You really think that if Rafa and Fed both finish with 19 slams that one
> of them will be regarded as the undisputed goat?
>

Imo Fed/Rafa with 19 slams each would put them in tier 1 of all time
goats - very much in the conversation, but neither 'undisputed'. Imo
that's all any of the greats want - to be in the goat conversation.
Fed/Rafa have the distinction of playing their whole careers
uninterrupted in the open era & competing in all slams over a very long
time.

When I think of 'undisputed goat' I'm thinking something like 3 calendar
slams need to be in the bag, & something like what Rafa did at FO.
Otherwise it's always 'disputed'.

Fed would loom a lot larger had he won all 11 Wimbledon finals he's
contested so far.










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

[stephenJ]

I agree with all of this, which is why I mentioned the open/pre-open
caveat.

So to be clear, when I say "undisputed" GOAT, i mean "open era"
greatest, not literally "greatest of all time, open and pre-open".
Laver, e.g., cannot be surpassed by Fed/Nadal or anyone in the open era
because the eras aren't comparable, for example because of all those
peak-years slam chances Laver and all other pre-open era greats missed
out on.

That said, I agree that slam count by itself doesn't necessarily grant
undisputed status even among open-era players. E.g., Wilander won 7
slams and Edberg and Becker won 6, but I think the consensus is that
they are all essentially equal legacy-wise, and you can find a lot of
folks who put Edberg and/or Becker above Wilander. Ditto for Lendl with
8 slams compared to Mac with 7.

Again though, those situations are obvious, because when you are dealing
with small numbers, like 6 and 7, that means a guy is likely to have an
obvious deficiency, e.g. Lendl and Wilander never won Wimbledon. That's
the kind of massive slam-related deficiency that can neutralize a slam
count disadvantage.

But when comparing Nadal and Federer, the numbers are huge, 15 and 19,
so you just don't see those deficiencies. They've won everything, so the
resume weaknesses are relative, not obvious things. E.g., some around
here saying Nadal "only" won two Wimbledons, even though that's the same
number as Edberg and only one less than Mac and Becker. With these guys,
it's stuff like "never won more than one" or "never won 4 in a row" or
other stuff that clearly doesn't rise to the level of equaling an actual
slam trophy on the mantle.

At Nadal/Fed level, it will just come down to who wins the most total
slams, because that's an obvious enormous factor with no
counter-balancing weaknesses for either guy.

So it will come down to who wins the most.









---

[AZ]

Whimpy himself was never in this much doubt when Sampras was the slam count king and wimbledon king. Sampras was the ultimate BOAT-GOAT dream combo.

Now he comes up with bullshit sophistry. You should know better than fall for that.

[MBDunc]

sunnuntai 13. elokuuta 2017 14.16.01 UTC+3 Whisper kirjoitti:
> at all. He also won the pro calendar slam in 1967.

This is a major change of tune. For ten years+ you laughed the idea that pro key events could be considered slam level tournaments. Instead they were always nothing but exos to you.

> He not only passed
> every test there is, he smashed it out of the ballpark time & again. He
> won the last 2 Wimbledons before he turned pro, & then won the next 2 as
> soon open era started - conceivably could have won 9 in a row. In the
> pros he won the Wembley title (Wimbledon equivalent) in 1964, 1965,
> 1966, 1967.

Eh. too much wouldacouldashoulda. This is totally over-the-top rounding up. Like giving automatically all rosewall/laver/pancho 20 slams and then think harder and wonder why numbers do not match (lnow in your speculations there are 7 slams annually 4 normal + 3 pro)

>Pretty impressive when the best tennis players were all in
> the pros. He then won Wimbledon in 1968 & 1969. He won Davis Cup 5 times.
>
> He also won calendar slams in 3 varieties - amateur, pro & open era. He
> had a positive h2h v every single player.

Multiple players have h2h over Laver. Manuel Santana (four slams 60:ies) for example.

> He won 200 singles titles
> overall (Fed hasn't won 100 yet).

Four-draw one-night sessions.

> I doubt I'll ever see the day someone can put Laver out of top spot.

"Laver is barely top5 in historical terms" @whisper 2003

> The scary thing is as good as Laver was, Lew Hoad was probably even
> better at peak. He just had a bad back & shorter time at the top, but
> certainly he's a strong boat candidate.

Hoad had losing h2h against all his peers and never won any pro event you happily call "slams" now.

Laver, Rosewall, Pancho etc all
> say Hoad was the best ever at peak.

100 years ago many things were different to today.

He played 'ping pong' tennis with
> wood rackets - phenomenal to watch what he did with a wood racket.

You have more than 10 sec clip?

> Imo Fed/Rafa with 19 slams each would put them in tier 1 of all time
> goats - very much in the conversation, but neither 'undisputed'. Imo
> that's all any of the greats want - to be in the goat conversation.
> Fed/Rafa have the distinction of playing their whole careers
> uninterrupted in the open era & competing in all slams over a very long
> time.

That is pro attitude / approach which should be a boon rather than a bane.

> When I think of 'undisputed goat' I'm thinking something like 3 calendar
> slams need to be in the bag, & something like what Rafa did at FO.
> Otherwise it's always 'disputed'.

This three calendar slams - note you never gave any room for pro circuit majors for ten+ years and until Fed got his 15th slam you also kept dismissing Laver's amateur slam.

> Fed would loom a lot larger had he won all 11 Wimbledon finals he's
> contested so far.

Unrealistic stuff to wish for.

.mikko

[Guypers]

LOL, good one, Croat eating shit again!

[TennisGuy]

Wow, good one .mikko!

You sure put Whisper in his place!

[The Iceberg]

eh?! how is it fake news? you been posting the same nonsense about how time is running out cos of his game style etc for a decade. Mind you, you a Fedfan fake news expert! :D

[Manuel aka Xax]

Le samedi 12 août 2017 17:18:39 UTC+2, Whisper a écrit :
> On 12/08/2017 2:41 PM, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:32:08 PM UTC-7, TennisGuy wrote:
> >> On 8/12/2017 12:04 AM, Manco wrote:
> >>> because Rafa is winning 4 more French Opens to get to 19.
> >>>
> >>> If Fed finishes on 20, people will look at 14 French Opens > 20 slams overall.
> >>>
> >>> But 23 slams will be viewed as bigger.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Nonsense!
> >>
> >> He has to win 30 slams.
> >> Nothing short of that will be good enough for
> >> Rafa fans!
> >
> > 2017 might well be the end for both of them...
>
>
> Could be.
>
> Fitting for both to win the same slam for their 1st & last.

+1