Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[El Dude]

Lol And you overrate the WTF way more than I overrate the Olympics. At least I mention the WTF while you completely ignored the Olympics and refused to even include it in the stats just because Nadal has it over your favourite players. You even include career titles that include atp 250s but refuse to include the Olympics. Like I said even back in 1988 with the golden grand slam of Graf it was obvious how huge the Olympics was “historically” rather then on a “personal level”. All the Tennis experts mention it on TV that Nadal has 20 Slams but also the Olympics gold. It’s always in the main career highlights. As for the WTF I can assure you that Nadal doesn’t lose sleep about it as he skips it most of the time and I am sure he would rather win yet another FO for the 100th time than some Wtf. Sure it would be nice to have but the WTF is nowhere near a slam. The Olympics however is just huge in the Big 3 era and I have shown plenty of evidence that support it. If you want to debate the Olympics versus Wtf I’m sure most players would rather get the Olympics gold in singles but then again it’s not the point. The point is that in the list that you created it’s clear that the Olympics should figure there and anyone with a cell brain knows this at this point. When comparing the Big 3 it should go in order from 1. slams to 2. olympics/wtf to 3. masters 1000. But keep on trolling and don’t edit the first post. Everyone knows your and your friends real agenda.

Not all of us are caught up in the game of "my guy is the best guy." I mean, if that were the case, would I have argued that Djokovic is the best candidate for GOATness, over Federer? Meaning, you're just projecting your own partisanship, which I honestly don't think you are capable of thinking outside of, thus tend to ignore your posts because they always follow the same "logic."

Your whole Olympics argument is a case in point: it really doesn't hold much water, unless you want to also claim that Andy Murray is so special because he won it twice, or that Massu and Rosset deserve special accolades over Sampras for winning it.

But to address your point, I didn't include other things too - but didn't feel that the Olympics deserved especial mention. They are their own category and hard to align with other tournaments. Their unique nature is that they happen every four years, and thus are coveted, but this also makes them hard to assess as part of historical greatness. I see them as being somewhat "extracurricular." But yes, they are a big title, so maybe should be grouped with Masters. Or, if you want, we can consider it on-par with the WTF (as well as the Grand Slam Cup and WCT Finals), so maybe I could have changed it to:

WTF/Olympics/GSC/WCT: Roger 6, Novak 5, Rafa 1

Feel better now?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

But please feel to address why Nadal is the only all-time great since Wilander not to win the World Tour Finals, even just once! That is far more of a black mark on his record than the lack of Olympic gold is on Federer's, Djokovic's - not to mention Sampras, Lendl, Becker, and Edberg.

In fact if a player does not have Olympic medal it is excusable as they only get one chance in four years. On the other hand WTF happens every year and Ralph has not managed to get his act together even in one over a period of 16 years and going.

 

[Front242]

Not all of us are caught up in the game of "my guy is the best guy." I mean, if that were the case, would I have argued that Djokovic is the best candidate for GOATness, over Federer? Meaning, you're just projecting your own partisanship, which I honestly don't think you are capable of thinking outside of, thus tend to ignore your posts because they always follow the same "logic."

Your whole Olympics argument is a case in point: it really doesn't hold much water, unless you want to also claim that Andy Murray is so special because he won it twice, or that Massu and Rosset deserve special accolades over Sampras for winning it.

But to address your point, I didn't include other things too - but didn't feel that the Olympics deserved especial mention. They are their own category and hard to align with other tournaments. Their unique nature is that they happen every four years, and thus are coveted, but this also makes them hard to assess as part of historical greatness. I see them as being somewhat "extracurricular." But yes, they are a big title, so maybe should be grouped with Masters. Or, if you want, we can consider it on-par with the WTF (as well as the Grand Slam Cup and WCT Finals), so maybe I could have changed it to:

WTF/Olympics/GSC/WCT: Roger 6, Novak 5, Rafa 1

Feel better now?

WTF/Olympics/GSC/WCT: Roger 6, Novak 5, Rafa 1

WTF ?! > Olympics / Get Some Contact Lenses / Wafa Fans Can't Take it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

First, The Olympics is not an Atp event. Second the Atp have always said that they can’t give it too many points because players can’t defend it the next year so it would be a disaster for rankings. It has nothing to do with its value or importance. I tell you people have lost their mind around here because Nadal has the Gold, it’s actually hilarious and pathetic. I have given plenty of evidence and how huge it is but Fedtards and Djokotards will forever be in denial.

Olympics has only 64 players and all matches except the medal awarding ones are three set matches. As such it is roughly equivalent to ATP 1000 Masters which also has 64 players and 3 set matches. However, ATP 1000 involves the top 64 players (less some to allow for few wild cards and qualifiers). But, Olympics has restrictions of 4 players from a country and so the pool is not necessarily the top 64 players. As such it was deemed inferior to ATP 1000 and was given only 750 points. In fact, this 750 points was given only in 2012. Before that from 2000 to 2008, the gold medalist of Olympics got only 400 points.

When the olympic points drop off is a different controversy. Some argued that it should not drop off until the next olympics. Some argued that it should drop the very next year. Some argued that it should drop 25% each year until finally everything drops off when the next Olympics arrives. Don't conflate the two issues.

 

[El Dude]

But Novak cried! Therefore "Goldal" is the GOATdal.

= Nadalfan2013's logic.

 

[Moxie]

This is kind of funny, I have to give it to you.

That said, you're way overblowing the importance of Olympics gold as far as historical achievement and greatness. As you said, it is a Big Title - no one is saying that - but it has far more personal value than historic value.

But please feel to address why Nadal is the only all-time great since Wilander not to win the World Tour Finals, even just once! That is far more of a black mark on his record than the lack of Olympic gold is on Federer's, Djokovic's - not to mention Sampras, Lendl, Becker, and Edberg.

I agree with you that this poster continues to overstate the importance of the Olympic singles gold. I don't agree with those who would completely dismiss it, (not saying you.) I think it confers "bonus points," as do other things. (Thread topic?)

As to your last, you do know the answer to that, to some extent. But I looked it up, so I can help:

1. Of the 17 years he's been eligible, he's been absent due to injury (and maybe once appendicitis?) 6 times, including 2005, 2008, and 2012, which were good years for him, in his prime.

2. It's his worst surface. This is not an excuse, but it is a fact. Say what you like about an ATG missing a big title on his worst surface, but Sampras never even got close at the French Open. Nadal made 4 SFs and 2 Fs, losing to Federer in 2010, and Djokovic in 2013. Both of those years were very strong for Nadal, but he did run into another ATG on their much preferred surface in both cases.

3. In his years of eligibility, Roger and Novak have combined to win it 11 times. In fairness, not all of those were years that Nadal even played. And opportunities have been missed, IMO. But tell me that Roger and Novak haven't missed opportunities, either.

I agree that it's a hole in the Nadal resume, which is pretty effing great. But my point is that you do rather understand, to some extent, why.

 

[Front242]

Olympics has only 64 players and all matches except the medal awarding ones are three set matches. As such it is roughly equivalent to ATP 1000 Masters which also has 64 players and 3 set matches. However, ATP 1000 involves the top 64 players (less some to allow for few wild cards and qualifiers). But, Olympics has restrictions of 4 players from a country and so the pool is not necessarily the top 64 players. As such it was deemed inferior to ATP 1000 and was given only 750 points. In fact, this 750 points was given only in 2012. Before that from 2000 to 2008, the gold medalist of Olympics got only 400 points.

When the olympic points drop off is a different controversy. Some argued that it should not drop off until the next olympics. Some argued that it should drop the very next year. Some argued that it should drop 25% each year until finally everything drops off when the next Olympics arrives. Don't conflate the two issues.

Yup, even Miami and Indian Wells have bigger and much tougher draws. Pointed this out to him too but he's in denial on a boat somewhere in Egypt.

 

[Moxie]

FFS. At least try and have the intelligence to get the context right. NO, he didn't mean it was like winning a slam. He was comparing his emotions because of the sheer relief at winning the longest semi final ever in a 3 set match 19-17 as it wasn't easy. Once again, FFS! Stop embarrassing yourself and read what's really there.

Actually, Federer did say "almost" like a Major. As I said to GSM above, you can debate the value in the context of tennis history, but you don't get to demean the value of Olympics for the players. You're telling someone why Roger said what he did, ("sheer relief" is your interpretation,) but you have no more right to reinterpret what he actually said than anyone else. I think you would strengthen your argument if you'd just talk dispassionately about what the Olympic Gold actually means, rather than trying to diminish it overall by insisting that players' emotional reactions to it are contrived, of the moment, or "what do you expect them to say?" It's fairly clear that they like to play in the Olympics and they have set them as a goal, over the years. Both Roger and Novak have specifically stated, publicly, that they were aiming for Olympic gold medals. Just because YOU don't prize it, doesn't mean that they don't. This is where the argument gets too partizan, imo.

 

[Front242]

Actually, Federer did say "almost" like a Major. As I said to GSM above, you can debate the value in the context of tennis history, but you don't get to demean the value of Olympics for the players. You're telling someone why Roger said what he did, ("sheer relief" is your interpretation,) but you have no more right to reinterpret what he actually said than anyone else. I think you would strengthen your argument if you'd just talk dispassionately about what the Olympic Gold actually means, rather than trying to diminish it overall by insisting that players' emotional reactions to it are contrived, of the moment, or "what do you expect them to say?" It's fairly clear that they like to play in the Olympics and they have set them as a goal, over the years. Both Roger and Novak have specifically stated, publicly, that they were aiming for Olympic gold medals. Just because YOU don't prize it, doesn't mean that they don't. This is where the argument gets too partizan, imo.

That Olympic semi was 4 hours 26 minutes long (longest 3 set match of all time) so of course it meant a lot to him to win it hence being emotional but feel free to think it felt like winning a slam 'cos this nonsense has gone on too long. The Olympics are every 4 years so it's harder to win as you have to be able to play firstly (Federer couldn't even make it there to Rio in 2016 with his first knee surgery) and I never once said it wasn't a nice thing to have, I said it's hardly the same as a slam which it isn't, nor is it in the same league as the WTF which is the next biggest tournament after the slams as it features the top 8 players and you have to be playing well all year just to even qualify unlike the Olympics.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Yes every time Federer has won long close matches which is hundreds of times throughout his career he went on to compare those tournaments to slams. We have some local geniuses around here.

 

[Front242]

Yes every time Federer has won long close matches which is hundreds of times throughout his career he went on to compare those tournaments to slams. We have some local geniuses around here.

It's clear you're not one of them. Long match and Olympic semi. I gather you weren't great at spot the difference as a kid.

 

[Moxie]

That Olympic semi was 4 hours 26 minutes long so of course it meant a lot to him to win it hence being emotional but feel free to think it felt like winning a slam 'cos this nonsense has gone on too long. The Olympics are every 4 years so it's harder to win as you have to be able to play firstly (Federer couldn't even make it there to Rio in 2016 with his first knee surgery) and I never once said it wasn't a nice thing to have, I said it's hardly the same as a slam which it isn't, nor is it in the same league as the WTF which is the next biggest tournament after the slams as it features the top 8 players and you have to be playing well all year just to even qualify unlike the Olympics.

But don't you think you're playing down why Roger wanted so badly to win that match, or why it meant so much to him? He stated that he wanted it, and, at 31, and the fact that the Olympic tennis was being played on Wimbledon grass, for sure he thought he had is last best chance. I'm trying to be reasonable here, too. I remember watching that match. DelPotro was actually the better player for most of it. I remember telling a mutual friend on these forums that I don't remember seeing Roger "refuse to lose" so hard, ever. But, yes, basically only one poster here is trying to make it the actual equivalent of a Major. It's a big title, though, and I think we should agree on that.

Think of it this way, and leaving off the Fedalovic Wars: Murray v. Wawrinka, with their 3 Majors has been debated. Most of this era, behind the Big 3. I do think it is settled, with Murray having weeks at #1 and a YEC, but before he had those, he had constancy in the top 4, and 2 Olympic golds in singles. It DOES count on the resume.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It's a big title, though, and I think we should agree on that.

I don't think anybody is contesting that it is a big title. The only question is how much big it is.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

I don't think anybody is contesting that it is a big title. The only question is how much big it is.

Until El Dude edits his post by including the Olympics and until people like you and Front242 ask him to add it in his post instead of going on and on with stupid arguments, then NO you guys have admitted nothing and are still trolls.

 

[Moxie]

I don't think anybody is contesting that it is a big title. The only question is how much big it is.

Fair enough. I think I've seen your argument. I would say, personally, it's less than a Major and the YEC, but, given the rarity of opportunity and the historical importance of the Olympic games, I'd put it above a MS 1000. Does that seem fair?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Fair enough. I think I've seen your argument. I would say, personally, it's less than a Major and the YEC, but, given the rarity of opportunity and the historical importance of the Olympic games, I'd put it above a MS 1000. Does that seem fair?

I had given arguments as to why it is a weaker tournament than an ATP 1000. However, I am willing to put it as equivalent to ATP 1000 due to its rareity.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

1. Slams

2. Olympics & WTF

3. Masters 1000

As for Djokovic being the GOAT, if he is THIRD in the slam race against his 2 biggest rivals then NO he can't be the GOAT yet. Everyone knows that it's all about the slam race and it's always been like that. However if he does get to #20 tying them then he would have a pretty good case for being the GOAT.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Fair enough. I think I've seen your argument. I would say, personally, it's less than a Major and the YEC, but, given the rarity of opportunity and the historical importance of the Olympic games, I'd put it above a MS 1000. Does that seem fair?

There's not one player who would choose the YEC over the Olympics Singles gold, not one. But I wouldn't mind seeing them in the same category. And a Masters 1000 vs Olympics Gold Medal? Please don't make me laugh.

I had given arguments as to why it is a weaker tournament than an ATP 1000. However, I am willing to put it as equivalent to ATP 1000 due to its rareity.

ROLLEYES.

 

[Moxie]

I had given arguments as to why it is a weaker tournament than an ATP 1000. However, I am willing to put it as equivalent to ATP 1000 due to its rareity.

It has not only rarity, but greater historical significance. But I get the point about consistency of competition. Still, given your relatively low opinion of the Olympic Games, I still don't see why you're pushing so hard for Roger to go this year. Bonus points?

 

[Moxie]

There's not one player who would choose the YEC over the Olympics Singles gold, not one. But I wouldn't mind seeing them in the same category. And a Masters 1000 vs Olympics Gold Medal? Please don't make me laugh.

And how do you presume to know this? I ask you the same as I've asked Front and GSM on this thread who also purport to know what players think, feel and value. You're all projecting on players what you, yourselves, think. Or value. You cannot pretend to know that. However, we do know that the Olympic Gold is ranked lower than a Major, and it was awarded points less than a YEC, by half, when they did give points. Your position that it is the equivalent of the YEC is weak. My argument is that it is greater than a MS 1000.