my theory about Nadal-Fed H2H talk ...
steve jaros
logic Fed would have been better off losing first round in all those
slams he lost to Nadal than making finals) that i can only think of one
rational basis for its persistence:
It's propaganda by Federer fans who fear Nadal will surpass him where it
really counts, slam wins, and want to derail him. They figure that if
the H2H argument can convince Nadal that he already, right now, has
surpassed Federer as GOAT, then maybe Nadal will relax, take his foot
off the pedal, win fewer slams going forward, and thus fail to reach 16
slams.
But, you ask, by conceding that Nadal > Federer, haven't these
Fed-Fanatics just given away the whole legacy game? Not at all. These
fanatics are just being shrewd: They know that no matter how much
H2H-based praise they shower on Nadal right now, in the long run history
will forget all that and look only at the slam wins.
And if Federer finishes with more, he'll be ranked ahead of Nadal. Sly
bastards ...
And there is some recent precedent: Remember when Federer reached about
12 slams and then stalled when Nadal beat him in 2008? When Pete Sampras
was asked about Federer's chances to catch him, he said that in his
mind, Federer was *already* the GOAT!
This sounded stupid to many people, since we all know Pete's
over-arching career goal was to be regarded as GOAT, and here he is
seemingly handing the prize over to Federer even though Fed was 2-3
slams short of him!
Of course Pete wasn't being crazy, just crazy like a fox: If he could
convince 12-slam Federer that he was already GOAT, maybe Fed would
relax, lose that eye of the tiger, fall off, and never reach 14 slams.
Then, as time went by, people would dismiss Sampras's talk of Fed being
GOAT as "premature", and Sampras would be regarded as the greater player.
This explanation makes sense. Those who don't want Nadal to surpass
Federer are trying to psych-out Nadal by heaping unwarranted praise on
him, knowing that in the end it will be fool's gold.
As for manifestations on RST, bob and whisper prefer Sampras to Federer,
but they know that's a lost cause. If it comes down to Nadal and
Federer, they secretly prefer Fed as GOAT because he's less of a
"grinding bumrooter", which they like the least.
Fortunately for Nadal, he doesn't seem to have been tricked: He
typically brushes aside the H2H talk and instead has a laser-like focus
on winning as many more slams as he can as soon as he can.
Smart man ...
--
Prestige is the shadow cast by power.
- Dean Acheson
Raja, The Great
Boy, you are one clueless retard. Why do you continue to post when you
have no knowledge of tennis or tennis fans?
Joe Ramirez
TT
World would be better off without this idiot...
ahonkan
> the H2H argument for putting Nadal > Fed is so obviously dumb (by this
> logic Fed would have been better off losing first round in all those
> slams he lost to Nadal than making finals) that i can only think of one
> rational basis for its persistence:
>
> It's propaganda by Federer fans who fear Nadal will surpass him where it
> really counts, slam wins, and want to derail him. They figure that if
> the H2H argument can convince Nadal that he already, right now, has
> surpassed Federer as GOAT, then maybe Nadal will relax, take his foot
> off the pedal, win fewer slams going forward, and thus fail to reach 16
> slams.
I am disappointed in you. You usually make
sense. You must have noticed that most of
the H2H arguments are bandied about by the
likes of TT, Whispabob, Fan, Iceberg,
RahimAsif etc & not by 'FedFans', who
react and expose the double standards of
these 'Fedhaters'.
But even if 'Fedfans' started these arguments,
to even suggest that they do so to give Rafa
a false sense of achievement & induce him
to drop a gear or two is simply lunatic. Do
you really think Rafa (or Fed or even the guy
ranked #1000 in the world) reads RST and
calibrates his goals accordingly? Something
like "Hey, TT, my main man, seems to
think I have surpassed Fed already. So let
me lose to JWT now and show my new
buddy Whisper that I don't care about
tuneups." This is plain nuts.
If Rafa surpasses Fed in slam count, nobody
will bother about H2H anyway. And if Rafa
retires with, say, 14 and a hugely lopsided
H2H, people will look at their respective slam
counts in the slams they played together
to decide who was the better player, not
their H2H in slams. There are 128 players
in the field, not just 2.
TT
> will bother about H2H anyway. And if Rafa
> retires with, say, 14 and a hugely lopsided
> H2H, people will look at their respective slam
> counts in the slams they played together
> to decide who was the better player, not
> their H2H in slams. There are 128 players
> in the field, not just 2.
Yeah, and if Rosewall retires with 23 majors he will certainly be GOAT.
Unless he loses to Laver all his career.
Whisper
As I've never once said Rafa is greater than Fed I won't respond to this
post.
Whisper
Jaros has some good views, but seems to have gotten dumber in recent years?
I put it down to good natured trolling rather than honest opinion.
Sakari Lund
wrote:
I don't think you believe that at all, and it is a bit of a mystery
why you bothered to write all that. It is a lot simpler than that. It
is desperate Sampras fans and loony Fed-haters who use the H2H
argument. Simply looking at the posters who do it you can see they are
not Fedfans.
steve jaros
as i said, sampras fans wouldn't do it because fed/sampras is a moot
point regardless. fed-haters? yes, maybe a few *really* dumb ones.
but for the most part, it has to be fed-fans, or at least those who want
fed ranked ahead of nadal, who are instigating this.
--
Conservatives are the niggers of the Nixon administration.
- Pat Buchanan
steve jaros
> On Jun 13, 9:40 am, steve jaros<sjar...@chill.com> wrote:
>> the H2H argument for putting Nadal> Fed is so obviously dumb (by this
>> logic Fed would have been better off losing first round in all those
>> slams he lost to Nadal than making finals) that i can only think of one
>> rational basis for its persistence:
>>
>> It's propaganda by Federer fans who fear Nadal will surpass him where it
>> really counts, slam wins, and want to derail him. They figure that if
>> the H2H argument can convince Nadal that he already, right now, has
>> surpassed Federer as GOAT, then maybe Nadal will relax, take his foot
>> off the pedal, win fewer slams going forward, and thus fail to reach 16
>> slams.
>
>
> I am disappointed in you. You usually make
> sense. You must have noticed that most of
> the H2H arguments are bandied about by the
> likes of TT, Whispabob, Fan, Iceberg,
> react and expose the double standards of
> these 'Fedhaters'.
yes, i can see how a really dumb fed-hater or nadal-fan would get sucked
into touting nadal's H2H record, but most around here aren't that dumb.
> But even if 'Fedfans' started these arguments,
> to even suggest that they do so to give Rafa
> a false sense of achievement& induce him
> to drop a gear or two is simply lunatic. Do
> you really think Rafa (or Fed or even the guy
> ranked #1000 in the world) reads RST and
> calibrates his goals accordingly?
? the goal is to get this H2H stuff talked about in the general media,
where it will (and has) reached nadal's ears.
--
The most confident critics are generally those
who know the least about the matter critized.
- US Grant
Sakari Lund
wrote:
> > On 6/13/2011 5:16 AM, Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 23:40:16 -0500, steve jaros<sja...@chill.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> I don't think you believe that at all, and it is a bit of a mystery
>> why you bothered to write all that. It is a lot simpler than that. It
>> is desperate Sampras fans and loony Fed-haters who use the H2H
>> argument. Simply looking at the posters who do it you can see they are
>> not Fedfans.
>
>as i said, sampras fans wouldn't do it because fed/sampras is a moot
>point regardless.
Whisper and bob have spent the last couple of years trying to convince
themselves (and maybe others) that number of slams or 7543 are not
that important after all. Yes, you are goat if you lead those
statistics, but goat is not that important, there is boat and
whatever.
You are going to have a very hard time convincing anyone that they are
actually trying to protect Federer as goat by getting the message to
mainstream media that Nadal is already goat and so he would relax and
won't try to win as many slams. Sounds ridiculous and I don't think
you believe that yourself.
>fed-haters? yes, maybe a few *really* dumb ones.
Indeed.
Patrick Kehoe
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:22:31 -0500, steve jaros <sjar...@chill.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > On 6/13/2011 5:16 AM, Sakari Lund wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >> I don't think you believe that at all, and it is a bit of a mystery
> >> why you bothered to write all that. It is a lot simpler than that. It
> >> is desperate Sampras fans and loony Fed-haters who use the H2H
> >> argument. Simply looking at the posters who do it you can see they are
> >> not Fedfans.
>
> >as i said, sampras fans wouldn't do it because fed/sampras is a moot
> >point regardless.
>
> Whisper and bob have spent the last couple of years trying to convince
> themselves (and maybe others) that number of slams or 7543 are not
> that important after all. Yes, you are goat if you lead those
> statistics, but goat is not that important, there is boat and
> whatever.
>
> You are going to have a very hard time convincing anyone that they are
> actually trying to protect Federer as goat by getting the message to
> mainstream media that Nadal is already goat and so he would relax and
> won't try to win as many slams. Sounds ridiculous and I don't think
> you believe that yourself.
>
> >fed-haters? yes, maybe a few *really* dumb ones.
>
> Indeed.
All those posts, lines and lines of them... all that blood, sweat and
babble about 7543 or whatever it is and suddenly to just push them to
one side... funny... h2h is certainly one aspect of tennis and yet
it's a detailing... it's tournament play and it's about winning/
contest the big events year after year on all surfaces and at ALL the
majors...
P
bob
wrote:
there's nothing dumb about jaros - he has an angle on *every sentence
he ever wrote*. this angle always revolves around 2 things: graf or
sampras. we can figure out the rest. :-)
bob
bob
wrote:
steve, let's ponder my thoery a sec: some sampras haters (i won't
mention names) are scared out of their wits that nadal may beat fed a
few more, yet come up short of 16, and the simple slam count won't
determine GOAT anymore, the topic will come up for discussion, and
maybe even sampras, like a phoenix, will rise from the ashes into the
discussion, as i predicted 2 yrs ago.
watcha think? lmao.
bob
Osama Bin Ladetorest
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:41:25 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com>
and Navratilova, the true GOATs in his opinion.
steve jaros
you predicted sampras could possibly re-enter goat discussion? i don't
believe it because you must know it's not possible.
You seem to be positing that if Nadal finishes with only say the same #
of slams as Pete, 14, but is being touted by many as GOAT anyway because
of his H2H with Fed, that this will throw everything open and allow
previously negated players, like sampras, to reenter the discussion, right?
So the logic would be:
even though Fed > Sampras, Nadal vs Fed is indeterminate (more slams vs
H2H dominance), and Nadal vs Sampras is also indeterminate (same # of
slams but no H2H issue) .... so, Sampras vs Fed is now also indeterminate?
Won't happen. If you doubt it, consider that we already have that
scenario right now, with Fed, Sampras, and Laver:
Laver vs Sampras? Unknown, because while Pete has 14 slams, Laver has 11
with those 2 CYGS, and to many people that makes it too close to call.
Laver vs Federer? Again, unknown, because while Fed has 16 slams,
Laver's unique CYGS accomplishments make it, for many people, too close
to call.
Fed vs Sampras? Easy call - Federer trumps pete for reasons already given.
You must concede that everyone has Fed > Sampras in the pantheon, even
though both Fed and Sampras are indeterminate when compared to Laver.
That joint indeterminacy with Laver doesn't save Pete from his "head to
head" unfavorable comparison with Federer.
The current GOAT situation is that Federer and Laver are in the
discussion, with most favoring Fed because while he and laver are
indeterminate, Fed clearly beats Pete, whereas Laver is also
indeterminate with him. IOW's, in making the pair-wise comparisons, it's
Fed 1 win (vs pete), 0 losses, and 1 tie (vs laver), Pete 0 wins, 1 loss
(vs fed) and 1 tie (vs laver).
That's why Pete is out of GOAT discussion.
And it will be why he remains out even if Nadal finishes with 14 slams.
Fed will be 'tied' in many minds with Nadal, but will still beat Pete.
Pete will beat nobody and still lose out to Fed.
The only way Pete can get a win is if Nadal finishes with say 12 or 13
slams, but if he does that, he will be too far short of Fed to tie him
either. And if he wins 15 slams, well, he beats Pete too.
Sorry bob, but Nadal can't save Pete. Nobody can.
--
There is a vain woman of the worst kind in every poet.
- Balzac
Sakari Lund
>there's nothing dumb about jaros - he has an angle on *every sentence
>he ever wrote*. this angle always revolves around 2 things: graf or
>sampras. we can figure out the rest. :-)
That is one more angle than you and Whisper have.
steve jaros
MN and Becker are my all-time favorites (with Becker first overall). I
consider MN to be GOAT because Graf padded her results after Seles
stabbing. Becker? Nowhere near GOAT.
Osama Bin Ladetorest
Agassi is your favorite... quite lying... until Fed came along and
destroyed ever slam record out there, you were constantly touting
Agassi as better than Sampras and the best player of all time. One can
easily see the Google archives from 2000-2004 and see this. You never
talked about Becker.
bob
wrote:
i predicted the concept of GOAT won't exist - and we might move on
toward things like BOAT and BOOE.
>You seem to be positing that if Nadal finishes with only say the same #
>of slams as Pete, 14, but is being touted by many as GOAT anyway because
>of his H2H with Fed, that this will throw everything open and allow
>previously negated players, like sampras, to reenter the discussion, right?
total anarchy. it will allow a lot of things into the conversation
previously unthought of. :-)
>So the logic would be:
>even though Fed > Sampras, Nadal vs Fed is indeterminate (more slams vs
>H2H dominance), and Nadal vs Sampras is also indeterminate (same # of
>slams but no H2H issue) .... so, Sampras vs Fed is now also indeterminate?
this isn't an A>B, B>C, A>C situation. this has many more variables
and the topic could become very open. are you aware that mcenroe and
carillo both mentioned during FO final sampras name, in the context
that he was greatest fast court player ever, but they said it just
after mentioning fed not best of his own era, right? it's a
psychological thing, no coincidence that they mentioned 1 right after
the other.
>Won't happen. If you doubt it, consider that we already have that
>scenario right now, with Fed, Sampras, and Laver:
>Laver vs Sampras? Unknown, because while Pete has 14 slams, Laver has 11
>with those 2 CYGS, and to many people that makes it too close to call.
>Laver vs Federer? Again, unknown, because while Fed has 16 slams,
>Laver's unique CYGS accomplishments make it, for many people, too close
>to call.
>Fed vs Sampras? Easy call - Federer trumps pete for reasons already given.
>You must concede that everyone has Fed > Sampras in the pantheon, even
>though both Fed and Sampras are indeterminate when compared to Laver.
there was once a day that people spoke of mike tyson in same breath
as ali and marciano too. but it changed. tyson's win count didn't
somehow 'go down' you know.
>That joint indeterminacy with Laver doesn't save Pete from his "head to
>head" unfavorable comparison with Federer.
says who? you're making a 2 way comparison, when this is a multi way
comparison. you are using a logical and/or mathematical arguemtn here
which does not apply. this is NOT A>B, B>C therefore, A must be >C.
this is not a 3 variable or 3 man situation. it's closer to an
infinite loop.
>The current GOAT situation is that Federer and Laver are in the
>discussion, with most favoring Fed because while he and laver are
>indeterminate, Fed clearly beats Pete, whereas Laver is also
>indeterminate with him. IOW's, in making the pair-wise comparisons, it's
>Fed 1 win (vs pete), 0 losses, and 1 tie (vs laver), Pete 0 wins, 1 loss
>(vs fed) and 1 tie (vs laver).
>That's why Pete is out of GOAT discussion.
>And it will be why he remains out even if Nadal finishes with 14 slams.
>Fed will be 'tied' in many minds with Nadal, but will still beat Pete.
>Pete will beat nobody and still lose out to Fed.
>The only way Pete can get a win is if Nadal finishes with say 12 or 13
>slams, but if he does that, he will be too far short of Fed to tie him
>either. And if he wins 15 slams, well, he beats Pete too.
>Sorry bob, but Nadal can't save Pete. Nobody can.
nadal can throw it all up in the air, where more than just the # 16 VS
15 VS 14 are counted. we all see it coming down the pike.
bob
Jamtheman
borrow his favourite word) 'dumb' strawman based on the assumption
that everyone who:
a) cites Federers inferior head to head record against Nadal to cast
DOUBT on the claim hes the Greatest, thinks Nadal is a greater player
or even that there is a 'Greatest'.
b) doubts that Federer can be considered the greatest of all time,
despite loosing having an inferior record against his main rival in
his era, would have been better off loosing in the first round of the
French Open, the slam played on one of the most popular of the sports
surfaces. And in any case, Nadal has beat him in the Grand Slam Final
of the other two. (but not the other way round)
How silly.
bob
have to remember that steve really hates sampras, and those were tough
times when sampras was universally considered GOAT. a lot of his logic
starts from that perspective.
IMO (actually even bob haters can find common ground here):
GOAT concept has tough issue to overcome:
- surface dependencies
- accounting for different eras, training, equipment, etc.
- players perhaps who never played H2H
- different priorities, for ex, nobody really slam counting in 70s.
BOAT is subjective, by it's definition. however, solid arguments can
be made for a player, subjective or not.
BOOE is not as subjective, and much more easily measured than either
GOAT or BOAT. it includes:
- no era differences in training, equipment, etc.
- lots of H2H as a barometer
- same priorities of the day
i have a hard time calling someone GOAT, not matter who it is, who is
not BOAT (subjective) nor BOOE (not very subjective).
bob
Osama Bin Ladetorest
>
> - Show quoted text -
The whole idea is silly... I think the only thing which you can
reasonably say is who was a champion of their era and who wasn't. In
my opinion even Wilander was a champion, though he really did not
dominate for long. He was a 7 slam winner, he won slams on all
surfaces and took away the #1 from the unstoppable Lendl. But I have a
hard time calling Courier/Hewitt as champions. Their stay at the top
was not long and even when they were at the top they were not uber
dominant.
Pedro Dias
I Modestly Propose remedial literacy classes.
steve jaros
you're just plain stupid. agassi became my favorite active player when
becker retired.
steve jaros
no basis for that.
>> You seem to be positing that if Nadal finishes with only say the same #
>> of slams as Pete, 14, but is being touted by many as GOAT anyway because
>> of his H2H with Fed, that this will throw everything open and allow
>> previously negated players, like sampras, to reenter the discussion, right?
>
> total anarchy. it will allow a lot of things into the conversation
> previously unthought of. :-)
nope - see laver/fed/sampras comparison. no basis for thinking 'anarchy'
will ensue.
>> So the logic would be:
>> even though Fed> Sampras, Nadal vs Fed is indeterminate (more slams vs
>> H2H dominance), and Nadal vs Sampras is also indeterminate (same # of
>> slams but no H2H issue) .... so, Sampras vs Fed is now also indeterminate?
>
> this isn't an A>B, B>C, A>C situation. this has many more variables
> and the topic could become very open. are you aware that mcenroe and
> carillo both mentioned during FO final sampras name, in the context
> that he was greatest fast court player ever, but they said it just
> after mentioning fed not best of his own era, right? it's a
> psychological thing, no coincidence that they mentioned 1 right after
> the other.
bob, it IS a > b, b > c, etc. situation. what else can it possibly be?
those are the comparisons that will have to be made.
>> Won't happen. If you doubt it, consider that we already have that
>> scenario right now, with Fed, Sampras, and Laver:
>> Laver vs Sampras? Unknown, because while Pete has 14 slams, Laver has 11
>> with those 2 CYGS, and to many people that makes it too close to call.
>> Laver vs Federer? Again, unknown, because while Fed has 16 slams,
>> Laver's unique CYGS accomplishments make it, for many people, too close
>> to call.
>> Fed vs Sampras? Easy call - Federer trumps pete for reasons already given.
>> You must concede that everyone has Fed> Sampras in the pantheon, even
>> though both Fed and Sampras are indeterminate when compared to Laver.
>
> there was once a day that people spoke of mike tyson in same breath
> as ali and marciano too. but it changed. tyson's win count didn't
> somehow 'go down' you know.
.. they spoke of tyson in same breath because at one point he was
on-pace to match ali/marciano type achievements.
then, when he failed to do so, he got dropped from that level.
>> That joint indeterminacy with Laver doesn't save Pete from his "head to
>> head" unfavorable comparison with Federer.
>
> says who?
says the tennis consensus, which has fed/laver as sort of co-goats, with
sampras out of the discussion.
> you're making a 2 way comparison, when this is a multi way
> comparison. you are using a logical and/or mathematical arguemtn here
> which does not apply. this is NOT A>B, B>C therefore, A must be>C.
> this is not a 3 variable or 3 man situation. it's closer to an
> infinite loop.
bob, A > B, B > C, C > A .... is an infinite loop, but above you just
*denied* that that's what this situation was! Your attempt to save
Sampras has you contradicting yourself within two paragraphs. :)
In any event, it isn't an infinite loop, because everyone knows Fed >
Sampras while Sampras *isn't* necessarily > Laver (and vice-versa) and
Fed isn't necessarily ahead of Laver (and vice-versa).
Neither Sampras nor Laver a " > " than any of the other two guys. Only
Fed has a " > " link, with Sampras.
Which is why Fed and Laver are the GOAT discussion (with an edge to Fed)
while Sampras exited the GOAT discussion the day Fed won slam #15.
Nadal can't change that.
>> The current GOAT situation is that Federer and Laver are in the
>> discussion, with most favoring Fed because while he and laver are
>> indeterminate, Fed clearly beats Pete, whereas Laver is also
>> indeterminate with him. IOW's, in making the pair-wise comparisons, it's
>> Fed 1 win (vs pete), 0 losses, and 1 tie (vs laver), Pete 0 wins, 1 loss
>> (vs fed) and 1 tie (vs laver).
>> That's why Pete is out of GOAT discussion.
>> And it will be why he remains out even if Nadal finishes with 14 slams.
>> Fed will be 'tied' in many minds with Nadal, but will still beat Pete.
>> Pete will beat nobody and still lose out to Fed.
>> The only way Pete can get a win is if Nadal finishes with say 12 or 13
>> slams, but if he does that, he will be too far short of Fed to tie him
>> either. And if he wins 15 slams, well, he beats Pete too.
>> Sorry bob, but Nadal can't save Pete. Nobody can.
>
> nadal can throw it all up in the air
pure wishful thinking with no basis in logic or reality.
--
.. the profiteers are a consequence not
a cause of rising prices.
- JM Keynes
bob
that's what i'm talking about.
> In
>my opinion even Wilander was a champion, though he really did not
>dominate for long. He was a 7 slam winner, he won slams on all
>surfaces and took away the #1 from the unstoppable Lendl. But I have a
>hard time calling Courier/Hewitt as champions. Their stay at the top
>was not long and even when they were at the top they were not uber
>dominant.
we need to define era, but i define it more liberally than you do.
bob
bob
wrote:
ok, i see the problem. i knew ABC would expose where our differences
lie. as someone who taught statistics, i'm sure you are aware that
there are situations that 2 way comparisons seem clear for the deuce
being comapred, but, the topic being analyzed may really be a 3 or 4
or 100 way phenomenon? in which case the totality of the situation has
to be analyzed - usually all at once, all together, not in a reduced
mode of pairs at a time. this is one of those things. in chemistry,
you are aware that many pairs of chemicals may haev no adverse
reaction, while adding a 3rd to any of them can explode, no?
>> Won't happen. If you doubt it, consider that we already have that
>>> scenario right now, with Fed, Sampras, and Laver:
>>> Laver vs Sampras? Unknown, because while Pete has 14 slams, Laver has 11
>>> with those 2 CYGS, and to many people that makes it too close to call.
>>> Laver vs Federer? Again, unknown, because while Fed has 16 slams,
>>> Laver's unique CYGS accomplishments make it, for many people, too close
>>> to call.
>>> Fed vs Sampras? Easy call - Federer trumps pete for reasons already given.
>>> You must concede that everyone has Fed> Sampras in the pantheon, even
>>> though both Fed and Sampras are indeterminate when compared to Laver.
>>
>> there was once a day that people spoke of mike tyson in same breath
>> as ali and marciano too. but it changed. tyson's win count didn't
>> somehow 'go down' you know.
>
>.. they spoke of tyson in same breath because at one point he was
>on-pace to match ali/marciano type achievements.
and at one point i believe he almost had marciano type record. and he
didn't reduce his win count, eh?
>then, when he failed to do so, he got dropped from that level.
>
>>> That joint indeterminacy with Laver doesn't save Pete from his "head to
>>> head" unfavorable comparison with Federer.
>>
>> says who?
>
>says the tennis consensus, which has fed/laver as sort of co-goats, with
>sampras out of the discussion.
>
>> you're making a 2 way comparison, when this is a multi way
>> comparison. you are using a logical and/or mathematical arguemtn here
>> which does not apply. this is NOT A>B, B>C therefore, A must be>C.
>> this is not a 3 variable or 3 man situation. it's closer to an
>> infinite loop.
>
>bob, A > B, B > C, C > A .... is an infinite loop, but above you just
>*denied* that that's what this situation was! Your attempt to save
>Sampras has you contradicting yourself within two paragraphs. :)
NO - re read what i wrote - you are in fact absolutely beyond doubt
AGREEING with me. this is approaching an infinite loop, in which case
it will be invalid. that's the problem i'm beginning to have with
GOAT.
>In any event, it isn't an infinite loop, because everyone knows Fed >
>Sampras while Sampras *isn't* necessarily > Laver (and vice-versa) and
>Fed isn't necessarily ahead of Laver (and vice-versa).
>Neither Sampras nor Laver a " > " than any of the other two guys. Only
>Fed has a " > " link, with Sampras.
>Which is why Fed and Laver are the GOAT discussion (with an edge to Fed)
>while Sampras exited the GOAT discussion the day Fed won slam #15.
>Nadal can't change that.
he already started to.
>>> The current GOAT situation is that Federer and Laver are in the
>>> discussion, with most favoring Fed because while he and laver are
>>> indeterminate, Fed clearly beats Pete, whereas Laver is also
>>> indeterminate with him. IOW's, in making the pair-wise comparisons, it's
>>> Fed 1 win (vs pete), 0 losses, and 1 tie (vs laver), Pete 0 wins, 1 loss
>>> (vs fed) and 1 tie (vs laver).
>>> That's why Pete is out of GOAT discussion.
>>> And it will be why he remains out even if Nadal finishes with 14 slams.
>>> Fed will be 'tied' in many minds with Nadal, but will still beat Pete.
>>> Pete will beat nobody and still lose out to Fed.
>>> The only way Pete can get a win is if Nadal finishes with say 12 or 13
>>> slams, but if he does that, he will be too far short of Fed to tie him
>>> either. And if he wins 15 slams, well, he beats Pete too.
>>> Sorry bob, but Nadal can't save Pete. Nobody can.
>>
>> nadal can throw it all up in the air
>
>pure wishful thinking with no basis in logic or reality.
bob.
Osama Bin Ladetorest
Yes then you would respect Federer and Nadal as great champions and
not compare them.
>
> > In
> >my opinion even Wilander was a champion, though he really did not
> >dominate for long. He was a 7 slam winner, he won slams on all
> >surfaces and took away the #1 from the unstoppable Lendl. But I have a
> >hard time calling Courier/Hewitt as champions. Their stay at the top
> >was not long and even when they were at the top they were not uber
> >dominant.
>
> we need to define era, but i define it more liberally than you do.
Fed era was from 2003-2007, Nadal era has been from 2008-2010.
Calimero
> On Jun 13, 12:50 am, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > have no knowledge of tennis or tennis fans?
>
You think he is an even more clueless retard?
Max
bob
no, you respect them as great champs and *do* compare them. human
nature to compare the top levels.
bob
Whisper
> of slams as Pete, 14, but is being touted by many as GOAT anyway because
> of his H2H with Fed, that this will throw everything open and allow
> previously negated players, like sampras, to reenter the discussion,
right?
>
>
> even though Fed > Sampras, Nadal vs Fed is indeterminate (more slams vs
> H2H dominance), and Nadal vs Sampras is also indeterminate (same # of
> slams but no H2H issue) .... so, Sampras vs Fed is now also
indeterminate?
>
> scenario right now, with Fed, Sampras, and Laver:
>
> Laver vs Sampras? Unknown, because while Pete has 14 slams, Laver has 11
> with those 2 CYGS, and to many people that makes it too close to call.
>
> Laver vs Federer? Again, unknown, because while Fed has 16 slams,
> Laver's unique CYGS accomplishments make it, for many people, too close
> to call.
>
> Fed vs Sampras? Easy call - Federer trumps pete for reasons already
given.
>
> You must concede that everyone has Fed > Sampras in the pantheon, even
> though both Fed and Sampras are indeterminate when compared to Laver.
> head" unfavorable comparison with Federer.
>
> discussion, with most favoring Fed because while he and laver are
> indeterminate, Fed clearly beats Pete, whereas Laver is also
> indeterminate with him. IOW's, in making the pair-wise comparisons, it's
> Fed 1 win (vs pete), 0 losses, and 1 tie (vs laver), Pete 0 wins, 1 loss
> (vs fed) and 1 tie (vs laver).
>
> That's why Pete is out of GOAT discussion.
>
> And it will be why he remains out even if Nadal finishes with 14 slams.
> Fed will be 'tied' in many minds with Nadal, but will still beat Pete.
> Pete will beat nobody and still lose out to Fed.
>
> The only way Pete can get a win is if Nadal finishes with say 12 or 13
> slams, but if he does that, he will be too far short of Fed to tie him
> either. And if he wins 15 slams, well, he beats Pete too.
>
> Sorry bob, but Nadal can't save Pete. Nobody can.
>
>
Sampras still is Wimbledon king (7 v 6), & No.1 king over Federer (6
yr-end v 5). He also has more Wim/USO titles than Fed (12 v 11).
14 slams v 12, with Fed having 4 AOs v Pete's 2. Difference is 2 AOs.
In his 12 blue-chips Fed has the career slam, while Sampras in his 12
was better at Wimbledon.
Sampras never lost more than once in a slam final to any rival, while
Fed lost 6 finals on all 3 surfaces to his only rival.
McEnroe already said Sampras was better than Fed at Wimbledon & expected
him to beat him more than lose.
The lead is not as insurmountable as your words suggest, if in fact it
is even real.
Sampras better at Wimbledon, No.1 & never humbled by his rivals, v Fed
with less Wimbledon, No.1 & completely owned in slams by his rival.
I said a couple years ago I hoped Fed would win 8 Wimbledons, 6 USOs to
really shut Sampras out.
Right now I don't see any compelling evidence.
Joe Ramirez
> On 14/06/2011 1:09 PM, steve jaros wrote:
> > On 6/13/2011 5:49 PM, bob wrote:
Notice two things:
1. The discussion above is about GOAT, not BOAT or BOOE or any similar
ad hoc crap.
2. There is absolutely no mention of 7543, Whisper's now-disowned
brainchild and supposed infallible GOAT metric. Instead, we find a
rambling, unsystematic comparison that dredges up every conceivable
pro-Sampras factor, including stray comments from the ever-garrulous
John McEnroe and the no-not-at-all-subjective "never humbled" claim.
The conclusion is that Federer probably is not ahead of Sampras, and
even if he is, his lead is not "insurmountable" by Sampras, which I
suppose means that Federer is going to move backward somehow, since
Pete surely isn't moving forward anymore (unless some Goolagong-style
computer error is discovered that miraculously awards Sampras some new
great accomplishment).
What all this means is that every prediction made in the years up to
2009 about Whisper's inevitable weaseling, in the event Federer passed
Sampras on the conventional GOAT scales, has proved to be 100 percent
accurate. Every criticism ever made about Whisper's suspected
manipulation of 7543 as a tool for promoting Sampras and Sampras
alone, and about his expected blatant hypocrisy should it come to a
choice between Sampras and 7543, has proved to be 100 percent accurate.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes... it isn't enough for W that Feds has head2head deficit vs. Rafa,
he needs to pull Pete back into the centrality of the ridiculous GOAT
debates (which are silly in and of themselves as constituted here for
reasons I WON'T go into for the 423rd time, anyway)... 7543 or
whatever it is doesn't DO THE MATH for W any longer... it cannot lock
Pete at summit for historical/championship accounting with the rise
and rule of Feds... so he's refined his 'Blue Chip' listings, severing
the FO (conspicuous as Pete's graveyard) to illuminate Wimbledon+USO
titles... thus Pete leads that 12 to 11...
I have to admit Joe, I almost laughed myself off the chair in my study
when I read that one... he's tossed it around for years but as of late
he's positively dropped anchor with it as a determinative PROOF for
Pete's superior historical legacy in the game...
One thing about obcession, it's predictable!
I feel sorry for W and bob and Fan and the rest of them... Pete had
his time... Feds having his... goodness knows how long that will
last... 14 slams is nothing to sneeze at and yet their disgust and
bitterness over Federer's game (he's a 6 or 7 out of Mac 10 bullshit),
his marriage/personality (Mirka, closeted, bad sport, egomaniac) is
pathetic...
P
Joe Ramirez
Borg was my favorite player when I was growing up, and I guess in the
end he still is, but it would be very bad for tennis if Borg were
still universally regarded as open-era GOAT today. It would mean that
the game had become static and predictable, with no one exceeding
expectations. Just think of all the spectacular things we would have
missed.
steve jaros
bob, if you test a three-way interaction effect and it is significant,
the way you interpret it is to break it down into two-way comparisons.
e.g., the impact of a change in A on outcome X when B and C are both
high, or both low, or B is high and C is low, etc.
of course tennis legacy isn't necessarily a 3-way, as you say it really
is a 10,000 way, since every player has a legacy position, even if we
don't bother to 'compute' it because they are so far down the list.
>>> Won't happen. If you doubt it, consider that we already have that
>>>> scenario right now, with Fed, Sampras, and Laver:
>>>> Laver vs Sampras? Unknown, because while Pete has 14 slams, Laver has 11
>>>> with those 2 CYGS, and to many people that makes it too close to call.
>>>> Laver vs Federer? Again, unknown, because while Fed has 16 slams,
>>>> Laver's unique CYGS accomplishments make it, for many people, too close
>>>> to call.
>>>> Fed vs Sampras? Easy call - Federer trumps pete for reasons already given.
>>>> You must concede that everyone has Fed> Sampras in the pantheon, even
>>>> though both Fed and Sampras are indeterminate when compared to Laver.
>>>
>>> there was once a day that people spoke of mike tyson in same breath
>>> as ali and marciano too. but it changed. tyson's win count didn't
>>> somehow 'go down' you know.
>>
>> .. they spoke of tyson in same breath because at one point he was
>> on-pace to match ali/marciano type achievements.
>
> and at one point i believe he almost had marciano type record. and he
> didn't reduce his win count, eh?
who knows? who cares? boxing is a continuous sport. if you win the title
then lose, you lose the title. or if you defend it 3 times in a row,
you don't get 3 more belts. you just keep the belt you have.
tyson looked to be on pace to match ali and marciano, but he then lost
some fights and never reached their level of accomplishment, hence goat
talk faded.
in tennis, the game is assessed on a yearly basis. if you win the 2006
USO then lose in 2007, you don't lose the 2006 USO title. and if you win
in 2007, you do get another trophy.
>> then, when he failed to do so, he got dropped from that level.
>>
>>>> That joint indeterminacy with Laver doesn't save Pete from his "head to
>>>> head" unfavorable comparison with Federer.
>>>
>>> says who?
>>
>> says the tennis consensus, which has fed/laver as sort of co-goats, with
>> sampras out of the discussion.
>>
>>> you're making a 2 way comparison, when this is a multi way
>>> comparison. you are using a logical and/or mathematical arguemtn here
>>> which does not apply. this is NOT A>B, B>C therefore, A must be>C.
>>> this is not a 3 variable or 3 man situation. it's closer to an
>>> infinite loop.
>>
>> bob, A> B, B> C, C> A .... is an infinite loop, but above you just
>> *denied* that that's what this situation was! Your attempt to save
>> Sampras has you contradicting yourself within two paragraphs. :)
>
> NO - re read what i wrote - you are in fact absolutely beyond doubt
> AGREEING with me. this is approaching an infinite loop, in which case
> it will be invalid. that's the problem i'm beginning to have with
> GOAT.
No bob, you contradicted yourself.
But in any event, the fed/sampras/laver situation is clearly not an
infinite loop. there is no all-ways indeterminacy about greatness. the
federer-sampras link is clearly fed > sampras. there is no corresponding
link that has anyone > fed to feed back into it.
That's why there is no "fed-sampras-laver" goat discussion. There is
just a fed-laver goat discussion.
>> In any event, it isn't an infinite loop, because everyone knows Fed>
>> Sampras while Sampras *isn't* necessarily> Laver (and vice-versa) and
>> Fed isn't necessarily ahead of Laver (and vice-versa).
>> Neither Sampras nor Laver a "> " than any of the other two guys. Only
>> Fed has a "> " link, with Sampras.
>> Which is why Fed and Laver are the GOAT discussion (with an edge to Fed)
>> while Sampras exited the GOAT discussion the day Fed won slam #15.
>> Nadal can't change that.
>
> he already started to.
He has started to generate possible GOAT talk *for himself*, since he is
on a torrid slam-winning pace and people are speculating about whether
he can eventually reach Fed's total. Nothing wrong with that kind of
talk, but of course we have to bear in mind that if he fails to do so,
it will fade out like tyson talk did.
But, he cannot possibly change things for Sampras, at least not
w/respect to how Sampras compares to Fed.
Fed > Sampras no matter what Nadal does. Of course if Nadal keeps
winning slams, he may end up equaling or surpassing fed, replacing him
in the GOAT discussion with laver.
--
I am opposed to war in every sense of the word.
Soldiers should have the word 'murderer' embroidered
on their uniforms.
- Henry Ford
steve jaros
>> yr-end v 5). He also has more Wim/USO titles than Fed (12 v 11).
>>
>> 14 slams v 12, with Fed having 4 AOs v Pete's 2. Difference is 2 AOs.
>>
>> In his 12 blue-chips Fed has the career slam, while Sampras in his 12
>> was better at Wimbledon.
>>
>> Sampras never lost more than once in a slam final to any rival, while
>> Fed lost 6 finals on all 3 surfaces to his only rival.
>>
>> him to beat him more than lose.
>>
>> The lead is not as insurmountable as your words suggest, if in fact it
>> is even real.
>>
>> with less Wimbledon, No.1& completely owned in slams by his rival.
>>
>> I said a couple years ago I hoped Fed would win 8 Wimbledons, 6 USOs to
>> really shut Sampras out.
>>
>> Right now I don't see any compelling evidence.
>
> Notice two things:
>
> 1. The discussion above is about GOAT, not BOAT or BOOE or any similar
> ad hoc crap.
>
> 2. There is absolutely no mention of 7543,
yes, remember when whisper used to say that there were "no shortcuts" to
legacy status? you had to win the slams, and the better ones, period?
LOL
--
"the purpose of the Russian campaign is to reduce the Slavic
population by 30 million".
- Heinrich Himmler, 1941
steve jaros
> On 14/06/2011 1:09 PM, steve jaros wrote:
> > On 6/13/2011 5:49 PM, bob wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 23:40:16 -0500, steve jaros<sja...@chill.com>
> > Sorry bob, but Nadal can't save Pete. Nobody can.
> Sampras still is Wimbledon king (7 v 6)
Yes, and Sampras can rightly take great pride in being the Wimbledon King.
It's a great honor, and since he lost out in the GOAT derby it's what he
has left.
--
"Afghanistan has become 'our Vietnam'. We
are bogged down in a war we cannot win and
cannot abandon".
- Soviet Army General, 1982
Joe Ramirez
The terribly ironic feature of bob's position is that for years now,
I've been arguing that head-to-head records cannot logically be used
to rank players in a single hierarchy because MATCH PLAY relationships
are not transitive. That is, A > B and B > C do not imply that A > C.
Of course, bob has resisted this argument. But now we come to
relationships that basically ARE transitive -- namely, comparisons of
cumulative career achievements -- and all of sudden bob raises a
specious logical objection. The fact is that if A is deemed clearly
greater than B, and B is deemed clearly greater than C, then A must be
greater than C as well. There are no "matchup issues" to confound the
analysis in this situation. There is no way that Nadal's surpassing
Federer could push Sampras ahead of Fed as well.
TT
For years you have argued incorrectly then. That's not the claim to
begin with: The claim is that player A can't be greatest of all time if
he loses to player B. Nobody is trying to arrange all players through h2h.
Whether B is greater or not will be seen in the future.
Optimally player A should have positive h2h against all important rivals
in order to claim GOAT-ness, just like player L.
Joe Ramirez
If you don't even attempt to rank the players, the argument falls
apart. Player A seems to have GOAT credentials, but wait -- he loses a
lot to Player B. So is Player B GOAT? No, not necessarily; in fact,
probably not. So then the GOAT is someone who didn't play Player B at
all, or indeed anyone even remotely like Player B? Player C is GOAT
because he beat Player D! We'll just have to ignore the fact that C's
credentials are inferior to A's, and perhaps also ignore the fact that
Player A also beat Player D, if that applies.
Raja, The Great
You can't disqualify anyone from goat race, especially one who has 16
slams. Federer may not be goat, but he is still one of the greatest
TT
And why does the argument fall apart?
GOAT should have good record on all accounts, I believe some past
players do, so that doesn't look very good for "A".
> Player A seems to have GOAT credentials, but wait -- he loses a
> lot to Player B. So is Player B GOAT? No, not necessarily; in fact,
> probably not. So then the GOAT is someone who didn't play Player B at
> all, or indeed anyone even remotely like Player B? Player C is GOAT
> because he beat Player D! We'll just have to ignore the fact that C's
> credentials are inferior to A's, and perhaps also ignore the fact that
> Player A also beat Player D, if that applies.
If you tried to confuse me, you succeeded.
TT
Let's just say then that I'm not disqualifying anybody, I'm just giving
huge minuses.
Raja, The Great
I think the biggest minus is lack of a French open title. It's one of
the prominent surfaces. The real best players have always found FO the
mOst difficult to dominate. Even laver said that
bob
wrote:
see, i found our difference. i don't believe this for a second. i
believe there are things that don't break down that way. on a number
line, A>B, B>C means A>C. in other things in life, means no such
thing. such as here.
>e.g., the impact of a change in A on outcome X when B and C are both
>high, or both low, or B is high and C is low, etc.
>of course tennis legacy isn't necessarily a 3-way, as you say it really
>is a 10,000 way,
> since every player has a legacy position, even if we
>don't bother to 'compute' it because they are so far down the list.
that's what i said. yet you're breaking them all down into 2 way
comparisons. not the right approach.
it is exactly what i am saying. that this is a multi way comparison
that must be done at once, not broken down into pairs to see who gets
eliminated by his opposing 1/2 of the pai. because you will end up
with cases of A>B, B>C, C>A, i.e. , not mathematical.
>But in any event, the fed/sampras/laver situation is clearly not an
>infinite loop. there is no all-ways indeterminacy about greatness. the
>federer-sampras link is clearly fed > sampras. there is no corresponding
>link that has anyone > fed to feed back into it.
forget fed/laver/sampras. throw nadal, lendl, agassi, mcenroe, hoad,
tilden, and whoever else you want into the loop. we'll still get the
same reults in the end.
>That's why there is no "fed-sampras-laver" goat discussion. There is
>just a fed-laver goat discussion.
how did laver eliminate sampras? for him to be eliminated, BOTH fed
and laver have to eliminate him concurrently. didn't happen. and i
don't know why i'm arguing this cause the premise is bogus anyhow!!
>> In any event, it isn't an infinite loop, because everyone knows Fed>
>>> Sampras while Sampras *isn't* necessarily> Laver (and vice-versa) and
>>> Fed isn't necessarily ahead of Laver (and vice-versa).
>>> Neither Sampras nor Laver a "> " than any of the other two guys. Only
>>> Fed has a "> " link, with Sampras.
>>> Which is why Fed and Laver are the GOAT discussion (with an edge to Fed)
>>> while Sampras exited the GOAT discussion the day Fed won slam #15.
>>> Nadal can't change that.
>>
>> he already started to.
>
>He has started to generate possible GOAT talk *for himself*, since he is
>on a torrid slam-winning pace and people are speculating about whether
>he can eventually reach Fed's total. Nothing wrong with that kind of
>talk, but of course we have to bear in mind that if he fails to do so,
>it will fade out like tyson talk did.
GOAT talk with 10 slams and 2 Wimbledons. no comprende? :-)
>But, he cannot possibly change things for Sampras, at least not
>w/respect to how Sampras compares to Fed.
>Fed > Sampras no matter what Nadal does. Of course if Nadal keeps
>winning slams, he may end up equaling or surpassing fed, replacing him
>in the GOAT discussion with laver.
i'm on your trail steve. tightening the noose. :-)
bob
bob
kind of what i'm saynig - that this is more than an adding machine
mentality of slam count. if you want to say, "he's achieved the most
slams", yes. if you want to say, "he was the greatest player of all
time" - define greatest. best? greatest achievement? greatest result
count? and if you want to say BOOE or BOAT, doesn't even touch the
subject.
bob
Joe Ramirez
Suppose Nadal wins Wimbledon and the USO and finishes the year at No.
1. Djoker finishes at No. 2; he and Nadal do not play again.
Who in the TT schema will be the "best player" for 2011 (and only
2011)? Nadal with three slams (and enough other wins to remain No. 1),
or Djokovic with one slam (plus his other wins)? Will Nadal's 0-4 head-
to-head against the Djoker mean that TT cannot say with a straight
face that Nadal is the best player for the year, because he was
dominated by his nearest rival?
Sakari Lund
>kind of what i'm saynig - that this is more than an adding machine
>mentality of slam count. if you want to say, "he's achieved the most
>slams", yes. if you want to say, "he was the greatest player of all
>time" - define greatest. best? greatest achievement? greatest result
>count? and if you want to say BOOE or BOAT, doesn't even touch the
>subject.
Of course the funny thing is that for 10 years many of us argued that
it is not just counting slams, there are other things to consider. You
and Whisper for 10 years made it clear we are all idiots, Whisper
using all the Aussie curse words, you with less of that, but you made
it very clear that all that matters is counting slams, and
specifically 7543, everything else is subjective nonsense that is
completely irrelevant.
Now for the last two years, always when you have time, you came here
every day and post at least 50 posts a day arguing completely the
opposite. And of course everyone knows why that is.
I look at this with a little smile like I would look a child,
sometimes get a little angry, but most of the time it makes me smile.
And I am very happy I don't believe in goats :-)
TT
(...and would Joe claim that h2h is misleading because Djoker didn't
make it to W final on grass.....)
But, nope, that's not how h2h works...you lose stretches you win
stretches, it's career-long stat and not only 4 matches.
Also GOAT is not year-long stat...and it's goatness which I think Fed's
h2h problem affects. Whole career status, not one particular year.
Sakari Lund
Funny how there is always a convenient answer. So H2H is extremely
important career-wise, more important than actual achievements. But
for a year, achievements are important and H2H is not important at all
(at least in a scenario where Nadal has the achievements but a losing
H2H)? I don't know why a year and a career should be treated
differently.
RahimAsif
> Prestige is the shadow cast by power.
>
> - Dean Acheson
I have seen plenty of stupid posts in my life, but this one takes the
cake. If you listened to the commentary during the FO final in the US,
you should have realized that the h2h taken very seriously by
mainstream critics and commentators. It just so happens that some of
us in RST were way ahead of the curve...
bob
without beating him in a slam it's not nearly so relevant. you know
this.
bob
bob
<sakar...@welho.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:46:11 -0400, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>kind of what i'm saynig - that this is more than an adding machine
>>mentality of slam count. if you want to say, "he's achieved the most
>>slams", yes. if you want to say, "he was the greatest player of all
>>time" - define greatest. best? greatest achievement? greatest result
>>count? and if you want to say BOOE or BOAT, doesn't even touch the
>>subject.
>
>Of course the funny thing is that for 10 years many of us argued that
>it is not just counting slams, there are other things to consider.
and what, now you change?
> You and Whisper for 10 years made it clear we are all idiots, Whisper
>using all the Aussie curse words, you with less of that, but you made
>it very clear that all that matters is counting slams, and
>specifically 7543, everything else is subjective nonsense that is
>completely irrelevant.
in lieu of other situations to make us think differently, that is what
we had to go by. now we have another situation, one that wasn't
relevant to that day, but it is to this day. so it cannot be ignored.
if you saw an apple fall upward, would you start to question gravity?
it hasn't happened, so we don't think about it - yet.
see, i'm not afraid to admit mistake, nor am i against changing my
mind if facts change.
>Now for the last two years, always when you have time, you came here
>every day and post at least 50 posts a day arguing completely the
>opposite. And of course everyone knows why that is.
>I look at this with a little smile like I would look a child,
>sometimes get a little angry, but most of the time it makes me smile.
>And I am very happy I don't believe in goats :-)
i kind of smile whenever kim loses, even though i've CHANGED MY MIND
and kind of like her now, just thinking of you too. :-)
goat is pretty complex on many levels. surfaces, timeframes, era
priorities, etc. BOOE pretty easy though. fed doesn't look like it.
bob
Superdave
i'm with you Joe!
Now i know why you are a lawyer ;))
Superdave
you make all this up as you go along. we can all see that.
besides Rafa CHEATS !
how the hell do you account for that?
and, it's not just ONE match either. it is serial CHEATING his entire career !
John Liang
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 02:09:47 +0300, Sakari Lund
>
So is Nadal, he clearly does not look like it for having inferior
slam records compare to
his main rival.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your own probalby taken a far bigger cake.
John Liang
>
> >On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:46:11 -0400, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>kind of what i'm saynig - that this is more than an adding machine
> >>mentality of slam count. if you want to say, "he's achieved the most
> >>slams", yes. if you want to say, "he was the greatest player of all
> >>time" - define greatest. best? greatest achievement? greatest result
> >>count? and if you want to say BOOE or BOAT, doesn't even touch the
> >>subject.
>
> >Of course the funny thing is that for 10 years many of us argued that
> >it is not just counting slams, there are other things to consider.
>
> and what, now you change?
>
> > You and Whisper for 10 years made it clear we are all idiots, Whisper
> >using all the Aussie curse words, you with less of that, but you made
> >it very clear that all that matters is counting slams, and
> >specifically 7543, everything else is subjective nonsense that is
> >completely irrelevant.
>
> in lieu of other situations to make us think differently, that is what
> we had to go by. now we have another situation, one that wasn't
> relevant to that day, but it is to this day. so it cannot be ignored.
IN lieu of the other situation. Since Federer consistantly reaching
the
final of FO and what is your opinion of Sampras not been able to
reaching
a single FO final and should that be view as a negative when he lost
no
less than 8 times in 1st and 2nd round? Your own reason to question
Federer's greatness was because of his losing record mostly accumulate
on clay court against Nadal in FO finals. Are you ignoring Sampras'
failure on one of the major playing surface that pro tennis is played
on ?
>
> if you saw an apple fall upward, would you start to question gravity?
> it hasn't happened, so we don't think about it - yet.
>
> see, i'm not afraid to admit mistake, nor am i against changing my
> mind if facts change.
>
> >Now for the last two years, always when you have time, you came here
> >every day and post at least 50 posts a day arguing completely the
> >opposite. And of course everyone knows why that is.
> >I look at this with a little smile like I would look a child,
> >sometimes get a little angry, but most of the time it makes me smile.
> >And I am very happy I don't believe in goats :-)
>
> i kind of smile whenever kim loses, even though i've CHANGED MY MIND
> and kind of like her now, just thinking of you too. :-)
>
> goat is pretty complex on many levels. surfaces, timeframes, era
> priorities, etc. BOOE pretty easy though. fed doesn't look like it.
Fed doesn't look like it but the one you suggest to be BOOE has
clearly inferior
record on 3 out of 4 majors contested. So Nadal doesn't look like it
either.
>
> bob
Whisper
Where have I said Fed wasn't the greatest?
I'm just pointing out facts.
Whisper
Because he baffles with bullshit rather than dazzles with brilliance.
Neil Robinson
> On 17/06/2011 11:55 AM, Superdave wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:21:28 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
Now, now. Don't be bitter Whisper. You can still be the
rec.sport.tennis GOAT, even despite your poor head-to-head with
Ramirez.
bob
ramirez would have to climb out of tier IV near tier I for the H2H to
matter much.
bob
bob
quite the contrary, nadal is a BOOE if ever there was one.
bob
steve jaros
If that's the claim, it's retarded, since GOAT simply means that your
net positives (the good things about your career minus the bad things)
is greater than for anyone else. It's not some type of multiplicative
function where there are 10 criteria for greatness but if you score a
zero on any one of them, you are knocked out because anything times zero
is zero.
That would be elevating H2H to a ridiculous level of import, more import
than winning not just a single slam (which would be absurd by itself),
but *any* number of slams. E.g.:
Courier? won 4 slams but was never dominated by a "key rival", so he's
still in GOAT discussion.
Federer? won 16 slams but was dominated in slam finals by nadal, so he's
knocked out of GOAT discussion.
Patently ridiculous ...
--
The most confident critics are generally those
who know the least about the matter critized.
- US Grant
steve jaros
if you are comparing 3 things, then it IS the right approach. It only
isn't if you are comparing more or less things.
You won't get that. Not in this case, at least. When comparing
Fed/Laver/Sampras, you end up with Fed > Sampras and all other relations
are indeterminate, not indeterminacy all around.
Just as if you decide to compare Connors/Federer/Sampras, you end up
with Fed > Connors, Fed> Sampras, Sampras > Connors.
There's no logical necessity that when you compare 3 players you end up
with A>B, B> C, A>C.
>> But in any event, the fed/sampras/laver situation is clearly not an
>> infinite loop. there is no all-ways indeterminacy about greatness. the
>> federer-sampras link is clearly fed> sampras. there is no corresponding
>> link that has anyone> fed to feed back into it.
>
> forget fed/laver/sampras. throw nadal, lendl, agassi, mcenroe, hoad,
> tilden, and whoever else you want into the loop. we'll still get the
> same reults in the end.
What do you mean by same results? Those are all easy to sort out:
Sampras and Fed and Laver are all > Nadal, Agassi, Mac.
>> That's why there is no "fed-sampras-laver" goat discussion. There is
>> just a fed-laver goat discussion.
>
> how did laver eliminate sampras?
Laver didn't. Laver and Sampras are indeterminate (or else, if you
believe that Pete's slam total puts him ahead of laver, it means Fed is
ahead of laver as well). But Federer eliminates Sampras, so when we
compare Sampras/Laver/Fed, Laver has a better overall record (0 wins, 2
ties) compared to Pete's 0 wins, 1 loss, 1 tie.
That's why there is no Fed/Sampras/Laver goat discussion. Sampras
dropped out when Fed won #15.
>> He has started to generate possible GOAT talk *for himself*, since he is
>> on a torrid slam-winning pace and people are speculating about whether
>> he can eventually reach Fed's total. Nothing wrong with that kind of
>> talk, but of course we have to bear in mind that if he fails to do so,
>> it will fade out like tyson talk did.
>
> GOAT talk with 10 slams and 2 Wimbledons. no comprende? :-)
It's the pace he's on: He's ahead of Pete and Fed slam-winning pace. No
one says Nadal is GOAT, but everyone sees him coming so they speculate.
>> But, he cannot possibly change things for Sampras, at least not
>> w/respect to how Sampras compares to Fed.
>> Fed> Sampras no matter what Nadal does. Of course if Nadal keeps
>> winning slams, he may end up equaling or surpassing fed, replacing him
>> in the GOAT discussion with laver.
>
> i'm on your trail steve. tightening the noose. :-)
between this discussion and the mac/borg exposition of both how H2H and
"love" are irrelevant in the long run, you've lost so much ground i
can't even see you back there.
--
"if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,
the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands
of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form
they please".
- Thomas Jefferson
steve jaros
> If you listened to the commentary during the FO final in the US,
> you should have realized that the h2h taken very seriously by
> mainstream critics and commentators. It just so happens that some of
> us in RST were way ahead of the curve...
History tells us that H2H commentary is pure in-the-moment CEIBS chatter
with no lasting impact. E.g., because of his H2H dominance in 3/4
Wimbledon/USO finals, 30 years ago everyone said Mac had 'mastered' Borg
and forced him to quit.
Today? That 'mastery' talk is all gone and the only thing that has
endured is their slam records, which is why Borg is regarded as clearly
greater than Mac.
--
When the facts change,
one's opinion ought to change.
- John Maynard Keynes
steve jaros
well, like in the post i replied to:
"I said a couple years ago I hoped Fed would win 8 Wimbledons, 6 USOs to
really shut Sampras out.
Right now I don't see any compelling evidence."
--
bob
wrote:
>On 6/16/2011 4:12 PM, TT wrote:
Robert Horry: a greater basketball player than michael jordan.
played in same era.
won 7 championships on multiple teams
(showed he could do it w/out pippen)
net pos - net neg, no?
no steve, you as a thinking person knows that this requires more than
an adding machine.
bob
bob
wrote:
we're not comparing 3 though. you admitted above for >3 this breaks
down.
>Just as if you decide to compare Connors/Federer/Sampras, you end up
>with Fed > Connors, Fed> Sampras, Sampras > Connors.
>There's no logical necessity that when you compare 3 players you end up
>with A>B, B> C, A>C.
exactly. which is why you need do more than just count. if you just
count up slam total, then above follows. and you yourself just
admitted that there is no logical necessity for this when comparing
*players* (not numbers).
>>> But in any event, the fed/sampras/laver situation is clearly not an
>>> infinite loop. there is no all-ways indeterminacy about greatness. the
>>> federer-sampras link is clearly fed> sampras. there is no corresponding
>>> link that has anyone> fed to feed back into it.
>>
>> forget fed/laver/sampras. throw nadal, lendl, agassi, mcenroe, hoad,
>> tilden, and whoever else you want into the loop. we'll still get the
>> same reults in the end.
>
>What do you mean by same results? Those are all easy to sort out:
>Sampras and Fed and Laver are all > Nadal, Agassi, Mac.
that's what i'm saying: the results are that simple slam counting
isn't the sole answer to this whole thing. nadal whipping fed has
enlightened us to this. but wait: fed may turn this around, seriously.
>>> That's why there is no "fed-sampras-laver" goat discussion. There is
>>> just a fed-laver goat discussion.
>>
>> how did laver eliminate sampras?
>
>Laver didn't. Laver and Sampras are indeterminate (or else, if you
>believe that Pete's slam total puts him ahead of laver, it means Fed is
>ahead of laver as well). But Federer eliminates Sampras, so when we
>compare Sampras/Laver/Fed, Laver has a better overall record (0 wins, 2
>ties) compared to Pete's 0 wins, 1 loss, 1 tie.
>That's why there is no Fed/Sampras/Laver goat discussion. Sampras
>dropped out when Fed won #15.
this is the whole pt i'm making: if laver/sampras is indeterminate,
then the whole thing is indeterminate, unless fed eliminates both
sampras and laver, which he doesn't. for all we know, sampras *may*
eliminate laver - we don't know cause it's indeterminate - and that
wuold have A>B, B>C, C>A again - an infinite loop.
we're really making progress here steve.
>>> He has started to generate possible GOAT talk *for himself*, since he is
>>> on a torrid slam-winning pace and people are speculating about whether
>>> he can eventually reach Fed's total. Nothing wrong with that kind of
>>> talk, but of course we have to bear in mind that if he fails to do so,
>>> it will fade out like tyson talk did.
>>
>> GOAT talk with 10 slams and 2 Wimbledons. no comprende? :-)
>
>It's the pace he's on: He's ahead of Pete and Fed slam-winning pace. No
>one says Nadal is GOAT, but everyone sees him coming so they speculate.
>
>>> But, he cannot possibly change things for Sampras, at least not
>>> w/respect to how Sampras compares to Fed.
>>> Fed> Sampras no matter what Nadal does. Of course if Nadal keeps
>>> winning slams, he may end up equaling or surpassing fed, replacing him
>>> in the GOAT discussion with laver.
>>
>> i'm on your trail steve. tightening the noose. :-)
>
>between this discussion and the mac/borg exposition of both how H2H and
>"love" are irrelevant in the long run, you've lost so much ground i
>can't even see you back there.
see above, you are flat out agreeing with my points. every one of
them. read em again.
and no fair changing your opinion now btw.....
bob
steve jaros
epic fail. in basketball, the values of the sport are that regular
season performance is hugely important. E.g., no one would ever claim
that Wil Purdue or Bill Cartwright, each of whome won 3 titles, was 1/10
the player that Patrick Ewing or Charles Barkley were, who won zero titles.
probably because everyone knows that no player "wins" a title.
basketball is a team game, teams win titles not players.
now, how WELL a particular player played in title series is extremely
important. jordan was finals MVP six times. Lebron laid a huge egg in
recent final, etc. But that's how the player performed.
totally different from tennis.
bob, go back to swearing by 7543, which was a pure 'adding machine'
approach. you were on much firmer ground then.
--
no liberty was more central (to the founding fathers) than the people's
liberty to govern themselves under rules of their own choice.
- Akhil Amar, Yale Law School
the right in the people to participate in the legislature is the
foundation of liberty and of all free government.
- Delaware Constitution, Declaration of Rights (1776)
steve jaros
i said there's no logical necessity of an infinite loop in a 3-way
comparison. it's possible, but in practice judging tennis players, i've
never seen one.
>>>> But in any event, the fed/sampras/laver situation is clearly not an
>>>> infinite loop. there is no all-ways indeterminacy about greatness. the
>>>> federer-sampras link is clearly fed> sampras. there is no corresponding
>>>> link that has anyone> fed to feed back into it.
>>>
>>> forget fed/laver/sampras. throw nadal, lendl, agassi, mcenroe, hoad,
>>> tilden, and whoever else you want into the loop. we'll still get the
>>> same reults in the end.
>>
>> What do you mean by same results? Those are all easy to sort out:
>> Sampras and Fed and Laver are all> Nadal, Agassi, Mac.
>
> that's what i'm saying: the results are that simple slam counting
> isn't the sole answer to this whole thing. nadal whipping fed has
> enlightened us to this. but wait: fed may turn this around, seriously.
what are you saying? Slam count/mix by itself is all we need to know
that sampras and fed and laver are all > agassi, nadal, and mac.
>>>> That's why there is no "fed-sampras-laver" goat discussion. There is
>>>> just a fed-laver goat discussion.
>>>
>>> how did laver eliminate sampras?
>>
>> Laver didn't. Laver and Sampras are indeterminate (or else, if you
>> believe that Pete's slam total puts him ahead of laver, it means Fed is
>> ahead of laver as well). But Federer eliminates Sampras, so when we
>> compare Sampras/Laver/Fed, Laver has a better overall record (0 wins, 2
>> ties) compared to Pete's 0 wins, 1 loss, 1 tie.
>> That's why there is no Fed/Sampras/Laver goat discussion. Sampras
>> dropped out when Fed won #15.
>
> this is the whole pt i'm making: if laver/sampras is indeterminate,
> then the whole thing is indeterminate,
not so. using that logic, because laver/fed is indeterminate, then
laver/fed/courier is also indeterminate, which would be ridiculous.
you have to look at WHY something is indeterminate. In the case of
laver/fed or laver/sampras it's because of the difficulty of valuing
Laver's unique accomplishments given that his career straddled open and
pre-open era.
but when comparing fed and courier, or fed/sampras, there is no such
problem, and therefore no indeterminate difficulty in concluding fed >
courier. slam/mix tells us that.
> unless fed eliminates both
> sampras and laver, which he doesn't. for all we know, sampras *may*
> eliminate laver - we don't know cause it's indeterminate - and that
> wuold have A>B, B>C, C>A again - an infinite loop.
bob, we can now solve this once and for all. here's the key:
the reason we don't get an infinite loop is that sampras and fed have
accomplishments such that it's impossible to conclude that sampras >
laver *without simultaneously concluding that federer > laver too*.
Likewise, it's impossible to conclude that laver > federer without
*simultaneously concluding that laver > sampras*.
why? because sampras and federer claim to GOAT status is based on the
same thing: the volume and mix of their slam wins. So if you conclude
that Sampras's 14 slams (heavy with Wimbledons and USOs) is enough to
trump Laver's 11 slam wins, even with the CYGSs, then you have to
conclude that Federer trumps Laver too, since he has even more slams,
and an even better mix, than Sampras!
So even if you resolve the laver/sampras indeterminancy in favor of
sampras, you likewise do for fed as well, and then you end up with fed
#1 (> sampras and laver), sampras #2 (> laver, < federer), and laver #3
(less than both sampras and federer).
Or, if you conclude that laver's 11 total slams + 2 CYGS is so epic and
unique it makes him best, then that just means you end up with Laver #1,
Federer #2, Sampras #3.
But no matter how you resolve them, there is no 'solution' that leaves
Sampras #1.
Because unfortunately for him, Fed beat him by the criteria he set for
himself for GOAT-hood: volume of slam wins + mix.
--
there is no doubt that the black-white
power struggle in south africa is but a
microcosm of the global confrontation
between the third world and the rich white
nations of the world.
- Steve Biko
Whisper
Sampras never lost to same guy twice in a slam final - Fed has lost 6
times on all 3 surfaces. To be better than your rivals in slam finals
is a prerequisite for 'best ever'. Sampras has it easily, Federer is
very, very far from it.
bob
wrote:
wrong answer: laver and fed BOTH eliminae courier. hence he's out.
nothing indeterminate about it.
>you have to look at WHY something is indeterminate. In the case of
>laver/fed or laver/sampras it's because of the difficulty of valuing
>Laver's unique accomplishments given that his career straddled open and
>pre-open era.
>but when comparing fed and courier, or fed/sampras, there is no such
>problem, and therefore no indeterminate difficulty in concluding fed >
>courier. slam/mix tells us that.
"WHY?" huh? you mean we're not slam counting anymore? :-)
you're coming around.....
good post with 1 flaw - sampras doesn't determine the criteria for
GOAT - him chasing wimbledons, and slam count (only after about 99
btw), was only his choice. if hewitt thought most AOs was criteria,
and he got 17 of em, nothing else, doesn't make him GOAT.
it's up to everybody ELSE (the tennis community) to determine GOAT (if
it exists), BOAT (if it exists), BOOE (it does exist), and i'm
telling you that consistently losing to your main rival, to this
extent, has fed borderline. if it continues, you're going to have a
hard time convincing *anybody* fed is GOAT (and absolutely not BOAT
nor BOOE), even if nadal hits < 16 slams. it's already being discussed
by far more than myself.
bob
Whisper
> good post with 1 flaw - sampras doesn't determine the criteria for
> GOAT - him chasing wimbledons, and slam count (only after about 99
> btw), was only his choice. if hewitt thought most AOs was criteria,
> and he got 17 of em, nothing else, doesn't make him GOAT.
>
> it's up to everybody ELSE (the tennis community) to determine GOAT (if
> it exists), BOAT (if it exists), BOOE (it does exist), and i'm
> telling you that consistently losing to your main rival, to this
> extent, has fed borderline. if it continues, you're going to have a
> hard time convincing *anybody* fed is GOAT (and absolutely not BOAT
> nor BOOE), even if nadal hits< 16 slams. it's already being discussed
> by far more than myself.
>
> bob
Did someone suggest Sampras set the goat criteria?
Wow - & they say he wasn't influential.
steve jaros
>> But no matter how you resolve them, there is no 'solution' that leaves
>> Sampras #1.
>>
>> Because unfortunately for him, Fed beat him by the criteria he set for
>> himself for GOAT-hood: volume of slam wins + mix.
>
> Sampras never lost to same guy twice in a slam final - Fed has lost 6
> times on all 3 surfaces.
Completely irrelevant to the issue of who the greater player was. Might
as well mention that Sampras never lost to two Asian players back to
back in slam finals either.
That's why Pete is no longer in the goat discussion. Sorry about that.
--
In South Africa there is such an ill
distribution of wealth that any form of
political freedom that doesn't touch on the
proper distribution of wealth will be meaningless.
- Steve Biko
steve jaros
how can you say that? on what basis do you have laver > courier? it must
be the slam count + mix. And that basis puts Federer > Sampras, too.
No matter how indeterminate Laver is vs Sampras or Federer, Federer
always is ahead of Sampras, that's why Pete isn't in the goat discussion
anymore.
>> you have to look at WHY something is indeterminate. In the case of
>> laver/fed or laver/sampras it's because of the difficulty of valuing
>> Laver's unique accomplishments given that his career straddled open and
>> pre-open era.
>> but when comparing fed and courier, or fed/sampras, there is no such
>> problem, and therefore no indeterminate difficulty in concluding fed>
>> courier. slam/mix tells us that.
>
> "WHY?" huh? you mean we're not slam counting anymore? :-)
> you're coming around.....
Are you kidding? Slam count and mix is the reason we can eliminate
Courier from a goat discussion with laver and sampras.
However, when comparing Laver to players with much greater slam counts
and mix than courier, his case is difficult because he spanned the open
and pre-open era. With open-era players, there's never any indeterminacy.
bob, you're hanging way too much emphasis on my statement that Pete set
for himself for GOAT-hood. What i meant was that Pete realized he was
never going to win the FO and thus couldn't match Laver (the clear-cut
GOAT when Pete was playing) in winning the ultimate prize, the CYGS. So
his alternative was to pile up the slams, especially the most valuable
slam, Wimbledon.
His hope was that by doing that, the *tennis community*, which as you
note sets the standards for what "GOAT" means, would see his record as
greater than Laver's anyway.
And he just about succeeded. When he retired in 2002, he had definitely
made himself at least co-GOAT with Laver, and in many people's minds he
had indeed surpassed Laver and was the GOAT.
I would say that before Federer surpassed Pete two years ago, the tennis
community was split 3 ways, with some thinking Pete was Goat, some
Laver, and some that it was too close to call and they were co-Goats.
When Federer won slam #15, Pete exited the discussion and since then it
has been between Federer and Laver. Because as i explained above,
there's no way to keep Sampras in the discussion - he always loses out
to Fed, no matter what other comparisons are made.
> it's up to everybody ELSE (the tennis community) to determine GOAT (if
> it exists),
GOAT clearly exists. It's the only thing that surely does. BOOE and BOAT
are trivial things that almost no one talks about, because of their
inherent subjectivity, and even when they are talked about, they are
clearly inferior to the GOAT title.
In short, GOAT is the ultimate prize.
And right now, the GOAT discussion is only between Federer (he gets most
of the votes) and Laver (he has a strong minority on his side).
Sampras was knocked out for good when Federer won slam #15.
> BOAT (if it exists), BOOE (it does exist), and i'm
> telling you that consistently losing to your main rival, to this
> extent, has fed borderline.
The only certainties about the future are death and taxes. Who knows?
Maybe 40 years from now winning Super-9 titles will be regarded as more
important than slams, and Agassi will be ahead of Sampras in the 2050
GOAT standings, behind only Nadal and Federer? I doubt it, but it's
possible.
So i can't say with 100% certainty that your claims that Fed's H2H
record with Nadal will eventually cost Fed his post-laver GOAT status is
wrong. But, all the available evidence strongly suggests you are wrong,
Mac-Borg being exhibit A.
In the long run, slam count/mix is what has always mattered, and there's
no reason to think that will change.
bob
wrote:
we're coming around to 1 thing for sure: you're starting to
acknowledge (without realizing it) BOOE.
and yet in yours he was behind agassi.
>I would say that before Federer surpassed Pete two years ago, the tennis
>community was split 3 ways, with some thinking Pete was Goat, some
>Laver, and some that it was too close to call and they were co-Goats.
and 1 vote for agassi. :-)
>When Federer won slam #15, Pete exited the discussion and since then it
>has been between Federer and Laver. Because as i explained above,
>there's no way to keep Sampras in the discussion - he always loses out
>to Fed, no matter what other comparisons are made.
not when you make out the comparison of not being BOOE.
whether you like it or not, matters to lots of the tennis community,
mac and carillo, for ex. and they're the official NBC commentary,
wonder how many others think the same and don't have a microphone?
>> it's up to everybody ELSE (the tennis community) to determine GOAT (if
>> it exists),
>
>GOAT clearly exists. It's the only thing that surely does. BOOE and BOAT
>are trivial things that almost no one talks about,
yet mcenroe and carillo made the statement, "how can a guy be greatest
of all time when he's not best of his own era (BOOE)"? BOOE is, IMO,
the one most clearly defined, as players get to prove it against their
rivals. comparing borg to sampras, how the hell to do it?
> because of their
>inherent subjectivity, and even when they are talked about, they are
>clearly inferior to the GOAT title.
>In short, GOAT is the ultimate prize.
the potentially fictional goat would be the ultimate prize, if you
could measure it.
>And right now, the GOAT discussion is only between Federer (he gets most
>of the votes) and Laver (he has a strong minority on his side).
>Sampras was knocked out for good when Federer won slam #15.
>
>> BOAT (if it exists), BOOE (it does exist), and i'm
>> telling you that consistently losing to your main rival, to this
>> extent, has fed borderline.
>
>The only certainties about the future are death and taxes. Who knows?
>Maybe 40 years from now winning Super-9 titles will be regarded as more
>important than slams, and Agassi will be ahead of Sampras in the 2050
>GOAT standings, behind only Nadal and Federer? I doubt it, but it's
>possible.
>So i can't say with 100% certainty that your claims that Fed's H2H
>record with Nadal will eventually cost Fed his post-laver GOAT status is
>wrong. But, all the available evidence strongly suggests you are wrong,
>Mac-Borg being exhibit A.
>In the long run, slam count/mix is what has always mattered, and there's
>no reason to think that will change.
i want to watch the next year before commenting further.
but if - big if- nadal beats fed another few slam finals or Sf w/out
losing, i can't think of a soul who will use the word GOAt with
federer and keep a straight face.
bob
steve jaros
I defined BOOE the other day: whether you were best or not during the
span of your pro career.
In the open era, the following guys have been BOOE, in that they won the
most slams with the best mix during their time of their careers:
Borg (73-82)
Sampras (88-02)
Federer (98-12)
That's it. No one else has been BOOE. One could argue for Lendl (78-94)
since he won more slams his years than anyone. But Borg won 7 slams
during that time, and his mix (3 W, 4 FO) is IMO clearly better than
lendl's (or Mac's or Wilander's, who also won 7 slams during that time),
thus canceling him out.
Not that this distinction means much, anyway. GOAT is what matters, it's
the ultimate prize.
Yes, i erroneously over-valued Agassi's career GS achievement. But even
then, i recognized that my opinion was far and away a minority view, and
that 99% of the tennis community ranked Sampras higher, and it's the
community, not any one of us, that determines it.
>> When Federer won slam #15, Pete exited the discussion and since then it
>> has been between Federer and Laver. Because as i explained above,
>> there's no way to keep Sampras in the discussion - he always loses out
>> to Fed, no matter what other comparisons are made.
>
> not when you make out the comparison of not being BOOE.
> whether you like it or not, matters to lots of the tennis community,
> mac and carillo, for ex. and they're the official NBC commentary,
> wonder how many others think the same and don't have a microphone?
All the evidence suggests that Nadal H2H talk is just short-run
CEIBS-like phenomena, Borg-Mac being the best example.
>>> it's up to everybody ELSE (the tennis community) to determine GOAT (if
>>> it exists),
>>
>> GOAT clearly exists. It's the only thing that surely does. BOOE and BOAT
>> are trivial things that almost no one talks about,
>
> yet mcenroe and carillo made the statement, "how can a guy be greatest
> of all time when he's not best of his own era (BOOE)"? BOOE is, IMO,
> the one most clearly defined, as players get to prove it against their
> rivals. comparing borg to sampras, how the hell to do it?
Who cares what mac and carillo say? They are two announcers paid to gush
into the microphone. Less than meaningless.
>> And right now, the GOAT discussion is only between Federer (he gets most
>> of the votes) and Laver (he has a strong minority on his side).
>> Sampras was knocked out for good when Federer won slam #15.
>>
>>> BOAT (if it exists), BOOE (it does exist), and i'm
>>> telling you that consistently losing to your main rival, to this
>>> extent, has fed borderline.
>>
>> The only certainties about the future are death and taxes. Who knows?
>> Maybe 40 years from now winning Super-9 titles will be regarded as more
>> important than slams, and Agassi will be ahead of Sampras in the 2050
>> GOAT standings, behind only Nadal and Federer? I doubt it, but it's
>> possible.
>> So i can't say with 100% certainty that your claims that Fed's H2H
>> record with Nadal will eventually cost Fed his post-laver GOAT status is
>> wrong. But, all the available evidence strongly suggests you are wrong,
>> Mac-Borg being exhibit A.
>> In the long run, slam count/mix is what has always mattered, and there's
>> no reason to think that will change.
>
> i want to watch the next year before commenting further.
>
> but if - big if- nadal beats fed another few slam finals or Sf w/out
> losing, i can't think of a soul who will use the word GOAt with
> federer and keep a straight face.
everyone will say it with a straight face, since by your logic,
federer's goat-status will be more solid if he tanks in the 3rd round of
slams so as to avoid losing to nadal in finals. IOW's, his goat-status
will be *enhanced* by having *worse* results.
I refuse to believe even 5 people on rst, much less a consensus of the
tennis community, could be that stupid.
--
"I guess everybody thinks about old times,
even the happiest people".
"Some memories are realities, and are better
than anything that can ever happen to one again".
- Willa Cather, My Antonia
Patrick Kehoe
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:46:11 -0400, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >kind of what i'm saynig - that this is more than an adding machine
> >mentality of slam count. if you want to say, "he's achieved the most
> >slams", yes. if you want to say, "he was the greatest player of all
> >time" - define greatest. best? greatest achievement? greatest result
> >count? and if you want to say BOOE or BOAT, doesn't even touch the
> >subject.
>
> Of course the funny thing is that for 10 years many of us argued that
> and Whisper for 10 years made it clear we are all idiots, Whisper
> using all the Aussie curse words, you with less of that, but you made
> it very clear that all that matters is counting slams, and
> specifically 7543, everything else is subjective nonsense that is
> completely irrelevant.
>
> every day and post at least 50 posts a day arguing completely the
> opposite. And of course everyone knows why that is.
>
> I look at this with a little smile like I would look a child,
> sometimes get a little angry, but most of the time it makes me smile.
>
> And I am very happy I don't believe in goats :-)
Right!
P
Patrick Kehoe
:)))))))))))
Good one...
P
MBDunc
> >> how can you say that? on what basis do you have laver> courier? it must
> >> be the slam count + mix. And that basis puts Federer> Sampras, too.
>
> >> No matter how indeterminate Laver is vs Sampras or Federer, Federer
> >> always is ahead of Sampras, that's why Pete isn't in the goat discussion
> >> anymore.
>
> > we're coming around to 1 thing for sure: you're starting to
> > acknowledge (without realizing it) BOOE.
>
> I defined BOOE the other day: whether you were best or not during the
> span of your pro career.
>
> In the open era, the following guys have been BOOE, in that they won the
> most slams with the best mix during their time of their careers:
>
> Borg (73-82)
> Sampras (88-02)
> Federer (98-12)
>
> That's it. No one else has been BOOE. One could argue for Lendl (78-94)
> since he won more slams his years than anyone. But Borg won 7 slams
> during that time, and his mix (3 W, 4 FO) is IMO clearly better than
> lendl's (or Mac's or Wilander's, who also won 7 slams during that time),
> thus canceling him out.
>
> Not that this distinction means much, anyway. GOAT is what matters, it's
> the ultimate prize.
I actually like Jaros' above idea of BOOE. It has its loopholes but
its general simplicity makes them pretty minor. (though I am tempted
to add Lendl there too but it is borderline for the reasons listed
above.
This formula however is applicable only for open era as pre-open era
is too scattered with short reigns on tour (as the best moved to pro
circuit).
.mikko
Whisper
> > On 6/18/2011 11:07 PM, Whisper wrote:
>
>>> But no matter how you resolve them, there is no 'solution' that leaves
>>> Sampras #1.
>>>
>>> Because unfortunately for him, Fed beat him by the criteria he set for
>>> himself for GOAT-hood: volume of slam wins + mix.
>
>>
>> Sampras never lost to same guy twice in a slam final - Fed has lost 6
>> times on all 3 surfaces.
>
> Completely irrelevant to the issue of who the greater player was. Might
> as well mention that Sampras never lost to two Asian players back to
> back in slam finals either.
>
> That's why Pete is no longer in the goat discussion. Sorry about that.
>
>
He's a superior Wimbledon champ to Fed, & better No.1 champ.
I really hope Fed gets these 2 records as it would be annoying for goat
to play 2nd fiddle in biggest tennis tournament, as well as 2nd fiddle
to his only rival.
Whisper
> of the votes) and Laver (he has a strong minority on his side).
>
> Sampras was knocked out for good when Federer won slam #15.
>
>> BOAT (if it exists), BOOE (it does exist), and i'm
>> telling you that consistently losing to your main rival, to this
>> extent, has fed borderline.
>
> The only certainties about the future are death and taxes. Who knows?
> Maybe 40 years from now winning Super-9 titles will be regarded as more
> important than slams, and Agassi will be ahead of Sampras in the 2050
> GOAT standings, behind only Nadal and Federer? I doubt it, but it's
> possible.
>
> So i can't say with 100% certainty that your claims that Fed's H2H
> record with Nadal will eventually cost Fed his post-laver GOAT status is
> wrong. But, all the available evidence strongly suggests you are wrong,
> Mac-Borg being exhibit A.
>
> In the long run, slam count/mix is what has always mattered, and there's
> no reason to think that will change.
>
>
I think what many find annoying about the 'undisputed goat' is his
constant losses in slam finals to his big rival. Really puts a bad
taste in the mouth when you have to rave about the 'goat' yet he's so
deficient against his rival. Sampras, Laver & Tilden never allowed
their big rivals to take leading role in slam finals.
MBDunc
Noone denies that Nicklaus has the best (or co-best) creds for golf
GOAT eventhough his majors' record is 18 majors and *19* runnerups (7
runnerups at BO alone). This runner-up issue has never been problem
for Nicklaus' goat creds.
Also during Watson's heydays Nicklays was runnerup to Watson at three
venues (Masters 77,81, USO 82 and BO 77)...and of course Nicklaus was
still same time in a major winning from with 2 majors 1980 alone and
BO 1978 ....
Maybe Watson at his best was better than Nicklaus, may be not. Maybe
Nicklaus' Masters' form 1965 (or last nine holes 86) was even peaker.
Maybe Watson's peak showings under pressure was BOAT stuff. It is
subjective and totally open for biases.
.mikko
Whisper
Pick the odd 1 out;
Wimbledon titles;
Sampras 7
Federer 6
Borg 5
Lendl 0
Whisper
>>
>> but if - big if- nadal beats fed another few slam finals or Sf w/out
>> losing, i can't think of a soul who will use the word GOAt with
>> federer and keep a straight face.
>
> everyone will say it with a straight face, since by your logic,
> federer's goat-status will be more solid if he tanks in the 3rd round of
> slams so as to avoid losing to nadal in finals. IOW's, his goat-status
> will be *enhanced* by having *worse* results.
>
> I refuse to believe even 5 people on rst, much less a consensus of the
> tennis community, could be that stupid.
>
>
So you actually think 4 more slam final losses to Rafa will actually
enhance Fed's 'best ever' status?
bob
wrote:
the concept fits in a nice neat package, but it doesn't account for 1
reality that is not so neat - no way a guy is necessarily peak at the
very beginning or end of his career. we need to do better measuring
his peak time. ramirez launch date is an improvement, but not
infallible.
ahhhhh. immitation is the sincerest form of flattery steve. :-)
>>> When Federer won slam #15, Pete exited the discussion and since then it
>>> has been between Federer and Laver. Because as i explained above,
>>> there's no way to keep Sampras in the discussion - he always loses out
>>> to Fed, no matter what other comparisons are made.
>>
>> not when you make out the comparison of not being BOOE.
>> whether you like it or not, matters to lots of the tennis community,
>> mac and carillo, for ex. and they're the official NBC commentary,
>> wonder how many others think the same and don't have a microphone?
>
>All the evidence suggests that Nadal H2H talk is just short-run
>CEIBS-like phenomena, Borg-Mac being the best example.
>
>>>> it's up to everybody ELSE (the tennis community) to determine GOAT (if
>>>> it exists),
>>>
>>> GOAT clearly exists. It's the only thing that surely does. BOOE and BOAT
>>> are trivial things that almost no one talks about,
>>
>> yet mcenroe and carillo made the statement, "how can a guy be greatest
>> of all time when he's not best of his own era (BOOE)"? BOOE is, IMO,
>> the one most clearly defined, as players get to prove it against their
>> rivals. comparing borg to sampras, how the hell to do it?
>
>Who cares what mac and carillo say? They are two announcers paid to gush
>into the microphone. Less than meaningless.
like i said, how many others that don't have a mcirophone think the
same.
i'm not going to comment further on this, going to wait til olympics
2012 are over, and make a judgement.
bob
bob
bob
<mich...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
you brought this up before and was debunked. nicklaus was 9yrs older,
and was falling off as watson peaked.
bob
MBDunc
Debunked by who? You? You are skating on thin ice here... 9y
difference is nothing in golf. 40y is nothing in golf.
How Nicklaus was falling off if he managed to win 2 majors 1980
(USOpen even with a record total USO score and 63 in a mix)? And
Nicklaus also was a runnerup at some major every year 81-83 (twice to
Watson)......compare this to real Nicklaus drought 67-70 when he had
12 majors streak with no title.
Watson won his eight majors 75-83 (5 BO, 1 USO, 2 Masters). = total
top finish record those years : 8 titles, 4 runnerups, 12 other top10
finishes).
During same time frame (75-83): Nicklaus record at majors: 5 titles, 7
Runnerups, 14 other top ten finishes. (four times runnerup to Watson
but never vice verca btw).
.mikko
steve jaros
> On 20/06/2011 3:46 AM, steve jaros wrote:
>> > On 6/18/2011 11:07 PM, Whisper wrote:
>>
>>>> But no matter how you resolve them, there is no 'solution' that leaves
>>>> Sampras #1.
>>>>
>>>> Because unfortunately for him, Fed beat him by the criteria he set for
>>>> himself for GOAT-hood: volume of slam wins + mix.
>>
>>>
>>> Sampras never lost to same guy twice in a slam final - Fed has lost 6
>>> times on all 3 surfaces.
>>
>> Completely irrelevant to the issue of who the greater player was. Might
>> as well mention that Sampras never lost to two Asian players back to
>> back in slam finals either.
>>
>> That's why Pete is no longer in the goat discussion. Sorry about that.
>>
>>
>
>
> He's a superior Wimbledon champ to Fed
yep, pete is the Wimbledon King. It's a very nice title to have. It's
just not GOAT.
Superdave
>On 6/20/2011 4:48 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 20/06/2011 3:46 AM, steve jaros wrote:
>>> > On 6/18/2011 11:07 PM, Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But no matter how you resolve them, there is no 'solution' that leaves
>>>>> Sampras #1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because unfortunately for him, Fed beat him by the criteria he set for
>>>>> himself for GOAT-hood: volume of slam wins + mix.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sampras never lost to same guy twice in a slam final - Fed has lost 6
>>>> times on all 3 surfaces.
>>>
>>> Completely irrelevant to the issue of who the greater player was. Might
>>> as well mention that Sampras never lost to two Asian players back to
>>> back in slam finals either.
>>>
>>> That's why Pete is no longer in the goat discussion. Sorry about that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> He's a superior Wimbledon champ to Fed
>
>yep, pete is the Wimbledon King. It's a very nice title to have. It's
>just not GOAT.
For at least another two weeks he is Wimbledon King.
After that, he may be sharing it.
Later, he may be losing it.
steve jaros
are you kidding? that will mean rafa has at least 14 slam titles - very
close to matching and then surpassing fed. fed's goat status would be in
grave danger.
steve jaros
no idea what this refers to.
>>>> When Federer won slam #15, Pete exited the discussion and since then it
>>>> has been between Federer and Laver. Because as i explained above,
>>>> there's no way to keep Sampras in the discussion - he always loses out
>>>> to Fed, no matter what other comparisons are made.
>>>
>>> not when you make out the comparison of not being BOOE.
>>> whether you like it or not, matters to lots of the tennis community,
>>> mac and carillo, for ex. and they're the official NBC commentary,
>>> wonder how many others think the same and don't have a microphone?
>>
>> All the evidence suggests that Nadal H2H talk is just short-run
>> CEIBS-like phenomena, Borg-Mac being the best example.
>>
>>>>> it's up to everybody ELSE (the tennis community) to determine GOAT (if
>>>>> it exists),
>>>>
>>>> GOAT clearly exists. It's the only thing that surely does. BOOE and BOAT
>>>> are trivial things that almost no one talks about,
>>>
>>> yet mcenroe and carillo made the statement, "how can a guy be greatest
>>> of all time when he's not best of his own era (BOOE)"? BOOE is, IMO,
>>> the one most clearly defined, as players get to prove it against their
>>> rivals. comparing borg to sampras, how the hell to do it?
>>
>> Who cares what mac and carillo say? They are two announcers paid to gush
>> into the microphone. Less than meaningless.
>
> like i said, how many others that don't have a mcirophone think the
> same.
3 or 4? but even it was somehow 3,000, there's no reason to think that
view will stand the test of time.
good for you. :)
steve jaros
> On 20/06/2011 4:08 AM, steve jaros wrote:
>> of the votes) and Laver (he has a strong minority on his side).
>>
>> Sampras was knocked out for good when Federer won slam #15.
>>
>>> BOAT (if it exists), BOOE (it does exist), and i'm
>>> telling you that consistently losing to your main rival, to this
>>> extent, has fed borderline.
>>
>> The only certainties about the future are death and taxes. Who knows?
>> Maybe 40 years from now winning Super-9 titles will be regarded as more
>> important than slams, and Agassi will be ahead of Sampras in the 2050
>> GOAT standings, behind only Nadal and Federer? I doubt it, but it's
>> possible.
>>
>> So i can't say with 100% certainty that your claims that Fed's H2H
>> record with Nadal will eventually cost Fed his post-laver GOAT status is
>> wrong. But, all the available evidence strongly suggests you are wrong,
>> Mac-Borg being exhibit A.
>>
>> In the long run, slam count/mix is what has always mattered, and there's
>> no reason to think that will change.
> I think what many find annoying about the 'undisputed goat' is his
> constant losses in slam finals to his big rival.
I've never considered fed to be 'undisputed goat'. To me, Laver is out
there with the 2 CYGS and so it comes down to how you want to value it.
I don't think i'm alone in that view either. There's still a goat
discussion involving fed and laver.
But, it's also clear that Fed is undisputed post-laver goat. His record
clearly trumps Sampras and everyone else since Laver.
--
Conservatives are the niggers of the Nixon administration.
- Pat Buchanan
steve jaros
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 03:41:02 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
> <mich...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
>> On 20 kes�, 12:53, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 20/06/2011 4:08 AM, steve jaros wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> of the votes) and Laver (he has a strong minority on his side).
>>>
>>>> Sampras was knocked out for good when Federer won slam #15.
>>>
>>>>> BOAT (if it exists), BOOE (it does exist), and i'm
>>>>> telling you that consistently losing to your main rival, to this
>>>>> extent, has fed borderline.
>>>
>>>> The only certainties about the future are death and taxes. Who knows?
>>>> Maybe 40 years from now winning Super-9 titles will be regarded as more
>>>> important than slams, and Agassi will be ahead of Sampras in the 2050
>>>> GOAT standings, behind only Nadal and Federer? I doubt it, but it's
>>>> possible.
>>>
>>>> So i can't say with 100% certainty that your claims that Fed's H2H
>>>> record with Nadal will eventually cost Fed his post-laver GOAT status is
>>>> wrong. But, all the available evidence strongly suggests you are wrong,
>>>> Mac-Borg being exhibit A.
>>>
>>>> In the long run, slam count/mix is what has always mattered, and there's
>>>> no reason to think that will change.
>>>
>>> I think what many find annoying about the 'undisputed goat' is his
>>> constant losses in slam finals to his big rival. Really puts a bad
>>> taste in the mouth when you have to rave about the 'goat' yet he's so
>>> their big rivals to take leading role in slam finals.-
>>
>> Noone denies that Nicklaus has the best (or co-best) creds for golf
>> GOAT eventhough his majors' record is 18 majors and *19* runnerups (7
>> runnerups at BO alone). This runner-up issue has never been problem
>> for Nicklaus' goat creds.
>>
>> Also during Watson's heydays Nicklays was runnerup to Watson at three
>> venues (Masters 77,81, USO 82 and BO 77)...and of course Nicklaus was
>> still same time in a major winning from with 2 majors 1980 alone and
>> BO 1978 ....
>>
>> Maybe Watson at his best was better than Nicklaus, may be not. Maybe
>> Nicklaus' Masters' form 1965 (or last nine holes 86) was even peaker.
>> Maybe Watson's peak showings under pressure was BOAT stuff. It is
>> subjective and totally open for biases.
>
> you brought this up before and was debunked. nicklaus was 9yrs older,
> and was falling off as watson peaked.
yes, much as fed was > 26 and thus falling off in 08, like almost all
other great champs have, when nadal was peaking.
Vlado
>
> - Show quoted text -
so many people with messed up minds, comparing and making statements
between active and retired players. Some people just need to improve
their life,
not seek gratification and perfection in others.
bob
wrote:
and i'll let you know what the final judgement is. :-) lmao.
bob