How much is this year's FO title worth?

First topic message reminder :

I can't help myself.

There is a much-touted idea that if you play a lesser player* in a GS final, then that GS is somehow not worth a 'proper' or 'full' slam.
Now that Rafa is playing someone who has never been in a GS final before, never been a top 3 player and only won 1 Masters title, how much is this year's FO title worth? 0.87 of a slam? 0.76 of a slam?

Me, I say, it's like all the others - it's worth exactly 1 slam.

* such as Hewitt, Safin or Roddick

LuvSports! wrote:Nope... IC you've lost me on this one.

Something about...... cheese?

Thx to JHM we had a complete humorous yet crap thread, and I am doing my best in it.

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A truth is only forgotten if most people don't consider it important.

It still remains the truth.
And what is not considered not important, may indeed be very important.

Perhaps, but on average?
And are the other GS finalists in '69 'very important'?

No it was important only till Dec 68

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A truth is only forgotten if most people don't consider it important.

It still remains the truth.
And what is not considered not important, may indeed be very important.

Perhaps, but on average?
And are the other GS finalists in '69 'very important'?

Yeah, sure they are.

JuliusHMarx.

Rafa will be relieved to know when he enters Wimbledon this year as the number 5 seed (I think this is correct because Ferrer is inRG final?) and beats Djokovic in an epic 5 set match in the quarters and Federer in another epic 5 set match in the semi's... But then triple bagels Mahut in the final you will still count it as a slam win.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I can't help myself.

There is a much-touted idea that if you play a lesser player* in a GS final, then that GS is somehow not worth a 'proper' or 'full' slam.
Now that Rafa is playing someone who has never been in a GS final before, never been a top 3 player and only won 1 Masters title, how much is this year's FO title worth? 0.87 of a slam? 0.76 of a slam?

Me, I say, it's like all the others - it's worth exactly 1 slam.

* such as Hewitt, Safin or Roddick

"A lesser player".. ??? Ferrer is ranked above Rafa
In which case every slam that Federer has won has been against a "lesser" player if Im to believe his fans.
A slam is a slam Julius. Nobody devalued the FO when Federer won it albeit he never beat the King of Clay
He played and beat the man who was across the other side of the net. The choice was not of his making
All the more credit should go to Ferrer for reaching the final of a GS without losing a set.
You really dont like the little man do you

That's exactly my point H-N. I agree entirely. A slam is a slam. But a number of posters have stated, for example, that because many of Federer's slam finals were only against Hewitt or Roddick, not Rafa or Djoko, they somehow aren't worth as much. It's not a theory I subscribe to myself.
I'm actually defending this year's FO (and Rafa, should he win it) against such views.

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's exactly my point H-N. I agree entirely. A slam is a slam. But a number of posters have stated, for example, that because many of Federer's slam finals were only against Hewitt or Roddick, not Rafa or Djoko, they somehow aren't worth as much. It's not a theory I subscribe to myself.
I'm actually defending this year's FO (and Rafa, should he win it) against such views.

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's exactly my point H-N. I agree entirely. A slam is a slam. But a number of posters have stated, for example, that because many of Federer's slam finals were only against Hewitt or Roddick, not Rafa or Djoko, they somehow aren't worth as much. It's not a theory I subscribe to myself.
I'm actually defending this year's FO (and Rafa, should he win it) against such views.

Nope I am in the camp that a slam win is a slam win. All each entering player can do is beat the players in front of him and that wins him a slam. It is why the lion's share of people rate GOAT by slam win count.

JuliusHMarx wrote:A slam is a slam.

Right, almost for the millionth time you've totally misunderstood what everyone is saying, and are then arguing against a non-existent twisted argument.
Of course a slam is a slam, what else can it be lol

Read Born Slippy's post from earlier, if you actually want to understand what people are saying.

I think there is too much IRONY on the boards of late Julius.
Who was it on BBC606 ... his name escapes me.. who´s replies were all somewhat amiguous and when challenged he would say "Irony my dear (whoever) Irony"

OP = 1

T'is ok JHM, I know you're being ironic

lydian wrote:
T'is ok JHM, I know you're being ironic

I think we all figured that by now

I wonder if Wimb would also go with the risk of having what is effectively a championship match in the quarters by placing Nadal as 5th seed? To place Ferrer above Nadal on grass would be truly ridiculous.

Red, thanks for the smart Alec comment, if you hadn't noticed I've just started posting again this morning and have just read this thread so stated my opinion. I said 'I know' not 'we know'c

No, I know you know; I was just clearing up that I know too.

I wrote my post @10:44, and it can be interpreted in two ways- and I just wanted to clear up that I understood the irony of the article.

Basically I was trying to say that without the badly worded explanation here, but I couldn't really.

lydian wrote:I wonder if Wimb would also go with the risk of having what is effectively a championship match in the quarters by placing Nadal as 5th seed? To place Ferrer above Nadal on grass would be truly ridiculous.

Red, thanks for the smart Alec comment, if you hadn't noticed I've just started posting again this morning and have just read this thread so stated my opinion. I said 'I know' not 'we know'c

There are simply no grounds whatsoever for promoting Nadal's seeding. Even on Wimbledon's modified system there's no basis.

We should remember how the system of obeying went in because of clay courters complaining they got no seeding protection and were all dumped out early. Many of them were Spanish.

bogbrush wrote:

lydian wrote:I wonder if Wimb would also go with the risk of having what is effectively a championship match in the quarters by placing Nadal as 5th seed? To place Ferrer above Nadal on grass would be truly ridiculous.

Red, thanks for the smart Alec comment, if you hadn't noticed I've just started posting again this morning and have just read this thread so stated my opinion. I said 'I know' not 'we know'c

There are simply no grounds whatsoever for promoting Nadal's seeding. Even on Wimbledon's modified system there's no basis.

We should remember how the system of obeying went in because of clay courters complaining they got no seeding protection and were all dumped out early. Many of them were Spanish.

Exactly BB.

If Rafael Nadal is good enough he will win Wimbledon regardless of where he is seeded. He will be ranked fifth because that is where the ranking system places him so there can't really be any complaints can there?

It will still carry weight because at the end of the day it is a slam. It is not Nadal's fault he will be playing Ferrer. You can only play who is in front of you. The semi was the de facto final. To me if Nadal crushed Ferrer in the semis and played yesterday's match in the championship match it is the same thing. It was reversed.

Federer won vs Soderling who was not a top 3 and had never won a masters event either. It was still a win. You would like to say a player beat the best to win but sometimes it does not work out.

bogbrush wrote:
There are simply no grounds whatsoever for promoting Nadal's seeding. Even on Wimbledon's modified system there's no basis.

Are you crazy? Of course there are grounds. No way can there be a Nadal/Federer quarter at Wimbledon. That would be just plain wrong...

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's exactly my point H-N. I agree entirely. A slam is a slam. But a number of posters have stated, for example, that because many of Federer's slam finals were only against Hewitt or Roddick, not Rafa or Djoko, they somehow aren't worth as much. It's not a theory I subscribe to myself.
I'm actually defending this year's FO (and Rafa, should he win it) against such views.

Nope I am in the camp that a slam win is a slam win. All each entering player can do is beat the players in front of him and that wins him a slam. It is why the lion's share of people rate GOAT by slam win count.

CC I think we've always agreed on the slam win is a slam win issue.

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A slam is a slam.

Right, almost for the millionth time you've totally misunderstood what everyone is saying, and are then arguing against a non-existent twisted argument.
Of course a slam is a slam, what else can it be lol

Read Born Slippy's post from earlier, if you actually want to understand what people are saying.

Read my posts from earlier if you actually want to understand what I'm saying. However, I'm not sure you do - I think you just want to argue regardless.

It's a shame when the value of irony is dissipated because people just can't get it.

We started with nudges and winks, and now it's reduced to explaining it in words of one syllable, with pictures.

hawkeye wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
There are simply no grounds whatsoever for promoting Nadal's seeding. Even on Wimbledon's modified system there's no basis.

Are you crazy? Of course there are grounds. No way can there be a Nadal/Federer quarter at Wimbledon. That would be just plain wrong...

No, I'm not crazy.

Go ahead and explain, using logical principles you can sustain as policy, why that should happen.

This should be fun.......

I understand the irony of the article, that's the point. It's a bit of a wind-up tbh.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A slam is a slam.

Right, almost for the millionth time you've totally misunderstood what everyone is saying, and are then arguing against a non-existent twisted argument.
Of course a slam is a slam, what else can it be lol

Read Born Slippy's post from earlier, if you actually want to understand what people are saying.

Read my posts from earlier if you actually want to understand what I'm saying. However, I'm not sure you do - I think you just want to argue regardless.

Did you read my explanation for that Red, I convincingly proved that theorem was wrong, just to repeat it was easy for Tsonga to beat a big legendary name in Fed [1 time winner and 5 time finalist and 17 time GS champ] than beating a slam final less Ferrer.

So for instance if Gulbis would have reached the finals, he would have worked harder in beating Ferrer at this form than Tsonga beating Federer at this form. Every slam throws opponents like this, its just biased view means people tend to devaluate some one else success. .

The simplest word I word say is Jealousy on some one success makes other less credit their success than accepting the reality that they went there and did it.

Del Potro's USO 2009 was no wonder difficult, but to say Gaudio's FO was a fluke and not difficult makes no sense.