RoweyThePainter
Club Legend
- May 17, 2021
- 1,877
- 1,491
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
good to know
Extremely fit and brave those chess players are.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
good to know
Chess is also classed as a sport.
I'd much rather watch chess than F1, particularly if it is being commentated by Agadmator.
"There's nothing to be done here".
Correct. Car racing is a "motor sport".Car racing is not a sport.
How many races have you won?Otherwise I exercise 2 hours a day driving.
I'm saying there's a point with accumulated stats where once you reach it, it doesn't really matter how much more you accomplish.Wawrinka only won 3.
I think F1 is different to tennis in the fact that the cars are all different. Senna, in terms of stats, is nowhere near as good as Lewis Hamilton or Schumacher, but Senna is still widely acknowledged as better or at least equal
I am not old enough to remember but former players say Slams totals is a relatively new thing. The players in the 70's, 80's never came to Aus. for example. I can't recall Sampras ever getting a GOAT tag just because he won the most slams, but, then again, he always failed at the French due to his game style. Previously, your F1 analogy might be correct but now, fans take slams totals and all the other stats as definite and hence the race started and social media haven't been quiet since.
But only in the men's. In the Womens, Court has won the most slams but most pundits won't rate her as the best. There are tennis reasons for that, not just because no one likes her.
You can win 6 slams in 18 months. Should not put you in a greatest debate in men's tennis with anything less than 10. Lots of consideration of different stats can go into it, but slams are the biggest indicator of success in the sport. You'd need to have won all slams to be in the greatest debate also.Correct. Car racing is a "motor sport".
How many races have you won?
I'm saying there's a point with accumulated stats where once you reach it, it doesn't really matter how much more you accomplish.
Let's pick around 6-8 slams. For those of you more knowledgable than me, would' your opinions of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have changed much since they reached that milestone?
Are they really that much better than the guys who've won at least 6 slams of earlier generations who did not benefit from the accumulated knowledge that the records Federer. Nadal and Djokovic benefit from?
In the case of me with F1, it's around 2-30 wins and/or 2-3 championships for the drivers of recent decades, and my opinion doesn't change for anyone except one.
Correct. Car racing is a "motor sport".
How many races have you won?
I'm saying there's a point with accumulated stats where once you reach it, it doesn't really matter how much more you accomplish.
Let's pick around 6-8 slams. For those of you more knowledgable than me, would' your opinions of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have changed much since they reached that milestone?
Are they really that much better than the guys who've won at least 6 slams of earlier generations who did not benefit from the accumulated knowledge that the records Federer. Nadal and Djokovic benefit from?
In the case of me with F1, it's around 2-30 wins and/or 2-3 championships for the drivers of recent decades, and my opinion doesn't change for anyone except one.
Tennis is interesting as you can improve technique, strategy and physicality as you go through your career. As an example, Djokovic serve is now much better, more effective and wins him more points than 10 years ago.Ok, pepsi had laid down the marker with 10 slams. Does anyone's opinions of the current big 3 change since winning their 10th?
Would that mean Djokovic have benefitted from having a long career and being the latest of the greats to come to the fore?Tennis is interesting as you can improve technique, strategy and physicality as you go through your career. As an example, Djokovic serve is now much better, more effective and wins him more points than 10 years ago.
They are all still playing. He came to the fore in the 2007 US Open and has improved progressively since then.Would that mean Djokovic have benefitted from having a long career and being the latest of the greats to come to the fore?
I always argued you can only go off Grand Slam wins and kept saying it's Fed until he is passed.
Well not only will he get passed he will get easily passed.
Novak it is now.
Hard to argue against Grand Slam wins. In fact you could also mount an argument that Novak's 20 is probably worth more as he had to overcome not just the opposition but also the crowds.
Just thinking about it now, there actually isn't even an argument anymore for either Federer or Nadal.
Djokovic:
- He's won every Slam at least twice.
- He's won every Masters at least twice.
- He leads most weeks as No.1 and is extending that lead. Will probably catch Graf and be the most weeks ever male or female.
- He's beaten both Federer and Nadal in their own backyards multiple times (Wimbledon, French Open). Something the other two haven't been able to do to Novak at the AO (Fed knocked him off once when he was 19yo).
- He leads H2H records with both.
Not to mention he's only two wins away from Grand Slam number 21 and all 4 for the calendar year.
I have always been a huge fan of Nadal, but after this year there's no getting away from the fact that Djokovic's greatness is unsurpassed.
Only argument is nostalgia or biterness.
A great champion.
Djokovic insane.
World best by far..
Never seen anything like it.
Fair argument. A couple of points of contention though.Depends on the criteria.
On a purely objective scale, then it's Djokovic as he will most likely end up with the most slams.
But if we also consider impact in the sport, then its Federer.
Ali was not undefeated.
Messi has not won a world cup.
Jordan does not have the most championships.
But for many they are the GOATs of their sport.
Likewise, Federer is my Tennis GOAT because he transcends the sport.