How much is this year's FO title worth?

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 07 Jun 2013, 10:23 pm

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

by Henman Bill Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:37 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Henman Bill wrote:Federer played so poorly in 2008 at the French Open I would only rate that as a 0.224 for Rafa. I'm not sure that one even counts. If you look at the official history book there is a blank space there.

Good God, not even an asterisk?

The 2008 French Open final never happened actually due to high winds that year and a measles outbreak.

by User 774433 Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:37 pm

invisiblecoolers wrote:

I am not angry at you at all, indeed happy to see you back .

Thanks IC

My example is just a corelation how difficult it is to get into challangers let alone the main ATP tour, we don't the see the broader circle, talent wise there could be many players who could be as good as Federer is but they don't shine coz of so many reason one of them being application and other one being execution, but the most over looked point is opportunity and maximizing the opportunity. So if somebody could maximize the given oppurtunity and go on to win a slam they simply deserve the slam, there is no 2 way about it.

No slam is easy to win is the conclusion, since you wanted in detail I have casted it in detail.

I agree with all of that, and at no point did I say it was easy to win a slam.
Although I am arguing, that due to natural variations and fluctuations it may be easier to grab a slam at certain points, ie a transitional period may present itself as a better opportunity than normal for a slam.

by User 774433 Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:38 pm

Henman Bill wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Henman Bill wrote:Federer played so poorly in 2008 at the French Open I would only rate that as a 0.224 for Rafa. I'm not sure that one even counts. If you look at the official history book there is a blank space there.

Good God, not even an asterisk?

The 2008 French Open final never happened actually due to high winds that year and a measles outbreak.

No excuse, Roget should have had MMR. warning

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:39 pm

Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
summerblues wrote:JHM, this is a bit WUMy article, no? As a mod, you should be happy that those era discussions subsided. Do not worry, they will come up again - as they always do. No need to instigate.

It's not an era discussion - it's a 'who you play in the final' discussion. I think there's enough posters enjoying themselves on this thread to merit it.
It's a bit of a WUM article aimed at demonising a perfectly valid and legitimate argument that having more slams does not necessarily mean you are the better player.. due to different circumstances.
For example I can think that Martina's record in Grand Slams is more impressive for me than Graf's despite Graf having more slams (due to differing circumstances), If it is set in stone that a slam has a arbitrary value of one there is no room for this belief... Graf then must be better than Martina.
Along with that, you also have to be aware that there may be natural fluctuations and variations in terms of difficulty... as there always will be. Sometimes we may have many great players at their prime, other times it is a bit of a transition period.

Ultimately, and though I may be wrong, I see this is a snide attempt at twisting and eventually demonising a relatively normal viewpoint.

Ultimately, you're wrong. Still, can't please everyone.

by Henman Bill Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:40 pm

Good point. Roger had mono, I forgot that, thanks for reminding me. In fact judging by his performance against Tsonga Roger still has mono.

by User 774433 Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:41 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
summerblues wrote:JHM, this is a bit WUMy article, no? As a mod, you should be happy that those era discussions subsided. Do not worry, they will come up again - as they always do. No need to instigate.

It's not an era discussion - it's a 'who you play in the final' discussion. I think there's enough posters enjoying themselves on this thread to merit it.
It's a bit of a WUM article aimed at demonising a perfectly valid and legitimate argument that having more slams does not necessarily mean you are the better player.. due to different circumstances.
For example I can think that Martina's record in Grand Slams is more impressive for me than Graf's despite Graf having more slams (due to differing circumstances), If it is set in stone that a slam has a arbitrary value of one there is no room for this belief... Graf then must be better than Martina.
Along with that, you also have to be aware that there may be natural fluctuations and variations in terms of difficulty... as there always will be. Sometimes we may have many great players at their prime, other times it is a bit of a transition period.

Ultimately, and though I may be wrong, I see this is a snide attempt at twisting and eventually demonising a relatively normal viewpoint.

Ultimately, you're wrong. Still, can't please everyone.

No, I'm correct. boxing

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:42 pm

Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
summerblues wrote:JHM, this is a bit WUMy article, no? As a mod, you should be happy that those era discussions subsided. Do not worry, they will come up again - as they always do. No need to instigate.

It's not an era discussion - it's a 'who you play in the final' discussion. I think there's enough posters enjoying themselves on this thread to merit it.
It's a bit of a WUM article aimed at demonising a perfectly valid and legitimate argument that having more slams does not necessarily mean you are the better player.. due to different circumstances.
For example I can think that Martina's record in Grand Slams is more impressive for me than Graf's despite Graf having more slams (due to differing circumstances), If it is set in stone that a slam has a arbitrary value of one there is no room for this belief... Graf then must be better than Martina.
Along with that, you also have to be aware that there may be natural fluctuations and variations in terms of difficulty... as there always will be. Sometimes we may have many great players at their prime, other times it is a bit of a transition period.

Ultimately, and though I may be wrong, I see this is a snide attempt at twisting and eventually demonising a relatively normal viewpoint.

Ultimately, you're wrong. Still, can't please everyone.
No, I'm correct.

If it matters that much to you, you can be. It makes no difference to me.

by User 774433 Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:44 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kffacxfA7G4

by User 774433 Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:47 pm

You know you love me, I know you care
Just shout whenever, and I'll be there
You are my love, you are my heart
And we will never, ever, ever be apart

Are we an item? Girl, quit playin'
"We're just friends," what are you sayin'?
Said "there's another," and looked right in my eyes
My first love broke my heart for the first time

And I was like baby, baby, baby, oh
Like baby, baby, baby, no
Like baby, baby, baby, oh
I thought you'd always be mine, mine

Baby, baby, baby, oh
Like baby, baby, baby, no
Like baby, baby, baby, oh
I thought you'd always be mine, mine

For you, I would have done whatever
And I just can't believe we're here together
And I wanna play it cool, but I'm losin' you
I'll buy you anything, I'll buy you any ring

And I'm in pieces, baby fix me
And just shake me 'til you wake me from this bad dream
I'm goin' down, down, down, down
And I just can't believe my first love won't be around

And I'm like baby, baby, baby, oh
Like baby, baby, baby, no
Like baby, baby, baby, oh
I thought you'd always be mine, mine

Baby, baby, baby, oh
Like baby, baby, baby, no
Like baby, baby, baby, oh
I thought you'd always be mine, mine

When I was 13, I had my first love
There was nobody that compared to my baby
And nobody came between us who could ever come above
She had me going crazy, oh I was starstruck
She woke me up daily, don't need no Starbucks

She made my heart pound
I skip a beat when I see her in the street
And at school on the playground
But I really wanna see her on a weekend
She know she got me dazin' 'cause she was so amazin'
And now my heart is breakin' but I just keep on sayin'

Baby, baby, baby, oh
Like baby, baby, baby, no
Like baby, baby, baby, oh
I thought you'd always be mine, mine

Baby, baby, baby, oh
Like baby, baby, baby, no
Like baby, baby, baby, oh
I thought you'd always be mine, mine

OK I think this has got a bit out of hand Laugh

by socal1976 Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:47 pm

Red's view of course is very valid. Ask Mac if he values his wimby victory over Borg more or Chris lewis, I am sure he will tell you that beating other greats in the later rounds of slam make said slam special. I mean I still remember that Johansson won a slam without playing a single player ranked in the top 10. So do other people. Still a great accomplishment but is it as big a deal as Rafa beating Fed in 2008 wimby final? Clearly not as monumental.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:48 pm

Red wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kffacxfA7G4

I never realised Justin Beiber was so profound. He's a true poet Smile

by User 774433 Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:49 pm

Socal

Anyway I'm still trying to work out whether Julius's intentions here, does he want a debate or is this a bit of a wind-up chin

by User 774433 Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:49 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kffacxfA7G4

I never realised Justin Beiber was so profound. He's a true poet

LOl.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:49 pm

socal1976 wrote:Red's view of course is very valid. Ask Mac if he values his wimby victory over Borg more or Chris lewis, I am sure he will tell you that beating other greats in the later rounds of slam make said slam special. I mean I still remember that Johansson won a slam without playing a single player ranked in the top 10. So do other people. Still a great accomplishment but is it as big a deal as Rafa beating Fed in 2008 wimby final? Clearly not as monumental.

I read Mac's book and he didn't indicate that in any way. I don't think he's said that in any interviews either. But if you're sure, that's good enough for me.

by User 774433 Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:51 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Red's view of course is very valid. Ask Mac if he values his wimby victory over Borg more or Chris lewis, I am sure he will tell you that beating other greats in the later rounds of slam make said slam special. I mean I still remember that Johansson won a slam without playing a single player ranked in the top 10. So do other people. Still a great accomplishment but is it as big a deal as Rafa beating Fed in 2008 wimby final? Clearly not as monumental.

I read Mac's book and he didn't indicate that in any way. I don't think he's said that in any interviews either. But if you're sure, that's good enough for me.

Well let's ask him and find out what he thinks.
It would be unlikely to be in his book anyway.

by invisiblecoolers Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:52 pm

Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
summerblues wrote:JHM, this is a bit WUMy article, no? As a mod, you should be happy that those era discussions subsided. Do not worry, they will come up again - as they always do. No need to instigate.

It's not an era discussion - it's a 'who you play in the final' discussion. I think there's enough posters enjoying themselves on this thread to merit it.
It's a bit of a WUM article aimed at demonising a perfectly valid and legitimate argument that having more slams does not necessarily mean you are the better player.. due to different circumstances.

Nope the best way to put it will be " Its a WUM artilce aimed at WUM article posters how meaningless they could be at times " thumbsup

by User 774433 Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:55 pm

invisiblecoolers wrote:
Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
summerblues wrote:JHM, this is a bit WUMy article, no? As a mod, you should be happy that those era discussions subsided. Do not worry, they will come up again - as they always do. No need to instigate.

It's not an era discussion - it's a 'who you play in the final' discussion. I think there's enough posters enjoying themselves on this thread to merit it.
It's a bit of a WUM article aimed at demonising a perfectly valid and legitimate argument that having more slams does not necessarily mean you are the better player.. due to different circumstances.

Nope the best way to put it will be " Its a WUM artilce aimed at WUM article posters how meaningless they could be at times "

Two wrongs don't make a right, and nor does a wrong and a right.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:56 pm

Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Red's view of course is very valid. Ask Mac if he values his wimby victory over Borg more or Chris lewis, I am sure he will tell you that beating other greats in the later rounds of slam make said slam special. I mean I still remember that Johansson won a slam without playing a single player ranked in the top 10. So do other people. Still a great accomplishment but is it as big a deal as Rafa beating Fed in 2008 wimby final? Clearly not as monumental.

I read Mac's book and he didn't indicate that in any way. I don't think he's said that in any interviews either. But if you're sure, that's good enough for me.
Well let's ask him and find out what he thinks.
It would be unlikely to be in his book anyway.

Be sure to mention it the next time you see him Smile

In order to avoid personal bias on his part, ask him if he thinks, say, Sampras' 1993 USO is worth more than his 1995 USO (don't let him look google it first though)

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:57 pm

Red wrote:
invisiblecoolers wrote:
Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
summerblues wrote:JHM, this is a bit WUMy article, no? As a mod, you should be happy that those era discussions subsided. Do not worry, they will come up again - as they always do. No need to instigate.

It's not an era discussion - it's a 'who you play in the final' discussion. I think there's enough posters enjoying themselves on this thread to merit it.
It's a bit of a WUM article aimed at demonising a perfectly valid and legitimate argument that having more slams does not necessarily mean you are the better player.. due to different circumstances.

Nope the best way to put it will be " Its a WUM artilce aimed at WUM article posters how meaningless they could be at times "
Two wrongs don't make a right, and nor does a wrong and a right.

What about a right followed by a left boxing

Couldn't resist - love ya really heart

by User 774433 Fri 07 Jun 2013, 11:58 pm

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:00 am

Red wrote:

Is that an impression of Fed when he beat Djoko at the FO?

by User 774433 Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:01 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:

Is that an impression of Fed when he beat Djoko at the FO?

LOl, I think we need a special Federer finger wagging smiley face.

by Born Slippy Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:02 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Red's view of course is very valid. Ask Mac if he values his wimby victory over Borg more or Chris lewis, I am sure he will tell you that beating other greats in the later rounds of slam make said slam special. I mean I still remember that Johansson won a slam without playing a single player ranked in the top 10. So do other people. Still a great accomplishment but is it as big a deal as Rafa beating Fed in 2008 wimby final? Clearly not as monumental.

I read Mac's book and he didn't indicate that in any way. I don't think he's said that in any interviews either. But if you're sure, that's good enough for me.

If you won two slams, one of which was Peter Sampras' 1997 Wimbledon draw and the other one of which involved you beating say Agassi, Edberg and Sampras back to back would you honestly regard them as equal achievements? Of course all slams are worth the same but the way they work out can make some far easier to win than others.

For instance, I would regard Fed's 2009 slam wins as far more impressive had Nadal not been injured but they still count the same as his distinctly more impressive 2012 Wimbledon win.

by User 774433 Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:03 am

Born Slippy wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Red's view of course is very valid. Ask Mac if he values his wimby victory over Borg more or Chris lewis, I am sure he will tell you that beating other greats in the later rounds of slam make said slam special. I mean I still remember that Johansson won a slam without playing a single player ranked in the top 10. So do other people. Still a great accomplishment but is it as big a deal as Rafa beating Fed in 2008 wimby final? Clearly not as monumental.

I read Mac's book and he didn't indicate that in any way. I don't think he's said that in any interviews either. But if you're sure, that's good enough for me.

If you won two slams, one of which was Peter Sampras' 1997 Wimbledon draw and the other one of which involved you beating say Agassi, Edberg and Sampras back to back would you honestly regard them as equal achievements? Of course all slams are worth the same but the way they work out can make some far easier to win than others.

For instance, I would regard Fed's 2009 slam wins as far more impressive had Nadal not been injured but they still count the same as his distinctly more impressive 2012 Wimbledon win.

Great post.

by invisiblecoolers Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:06 am

Red wrote:
invisiblecoolers wrote:
Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
summerblues wrote:JHM, this is a bit WUMy article, no? As a mod, you should be happy that those era discussions subsided. Do not worry, they will come up again - as they always do. No need to instigate.

It's not an era discussion - it's a 'who you play in the final' discussion. I think there's enough posters enjoying themselves on this thread to merit it.
It's a bit of a WUM article aimed at demonising a perfectly valid and legitimate argument that having more slams does not necessarily mean you are the better player.. due to different circumstances.

Nope the best way to put it will be " Its a WUM artilce aimed at WUM article posters how meaningless they could be at times "
Two wrongs don't make a right, and nor does a wrong and a right.

But Minus * Minus becomes Plus Hug

by invisiblecoolers Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:07 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:

Is that an impression of Fed when he beat Djoko at the FO?

Thats the impression of Ferrer when beat Rafa in AO 2011 laughing

by User 774433 Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:07 am

invisiblecoolers wrote:
Red wrote:
invisiblecoolers wrote:
Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
summerblues wrote:JHM, this is a bit WUMy article, no? As a mod, you should be happy that those era discussions subsided. Do not worry, they will come up again - as they always do. No need to instigate.

It's not an era discussion - it's a 'who you play in the final' discussion. I think there's enough posters enjoying themselves on this thread to merit it.
It's a bit of a WUM article aimed at demonising a perfectly valid and legitimate argument that having more slams does not necessarily mean you are the better player.. due to different circumstances.

Nope the best way to put it will be " Its a WUM artilce aimed at WUM article posters how meaningless they could be at times "
Two wrongs don't make a right, and nor does a wrong and a right.

But Minus * Minus becomes Plus

No it doesn't.
Not if you add it.

by invisiblecoolers Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:09 am

socal1976 wrote:Red's view of course is very valid. Ask Mac if he values his wimby victory over Borg more or Chris lewis, I am sure he will tell you that beating other greats in the later rounds of slam make said slam special. I mean I still remember that Johansson won a slam without playing a single player ranked in the top 10. So do other people. Still a great accomplishment but is it as big a deal as Rafa beating Fed in 2008 wimby final? Clearly not as monumental.

But ask the same Mac, does any of his Wimbledon wins go as an asterisk he will immediately say some abusive word. Very Happy

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:11 am

Born Slippy wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Red's view of course is very valid. Ask Mac if he values his wimby victory over Borg more or Chris lewis, I am sure he will tell you that beating other greats in the later rounds of slam make said slam special. I mean I still remember that Johansson won a slam without playing a single player ranked in the top 10. So do other people. Still a great accomplishment but is it as big a deal as Rafa beating Fed in 2008 wimby final? Clearly not as monumental.

I read Mac's book and he didn't indicate that in any way. I don't think he's said that in any interviews either. But if you're sure, that's good enough for me.

If you won two slams, one of which was Peter Sampras' 1997 Wimbledon draw and the other one of which involved you beating say Agassi, Edberg and Sampras back to back would you honestly regard them as equal achievements? Of course all slams are worth the same but the way they work out can make some far easier to win than others.

For instance, I would regard Fed's 2009 slam wins as far more impressive had Nadal not been injured but they still count the same as his distinctly more impressive 2012 Wimbledon win.

All slams are worth the same - that's what I'm saying. Even if Djoko had lost early on and Nadal had beaten Joe Schmoe in the semi, it would still be worth the same.

As for the other part - it depends on whether Agassi, Edberg and Sampras played well on the day. So you can't say for certain without looking at each individual match during the tournament. Yet some people only look at the opponent in the final and say "Oh, what an easy slam that was, it's not worth as much as..."
Which was the only point I was making - the rest was just a fun Friday night thread.

by invisiblecoolers Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:11 am

Red wrote:
invisiblecoolers wrote:
Red wrote:
invisiblecoolers wrote:
Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
summerblues wrote:JHM, this is a bit WUMy article, no? As a mod, you should be happy that those era discussions subsided. Do not worry, they will come up again - as they always do. No need to instigate.

It's not an era discussion - it's a 'who you play in the final' discussion. I think there's enough posters enjoying themselves on this thread to merit it.
It's a bit of a WUM article aimed at demonising a perfectly valid and legitimate argument that having more slams does not necessarily mean you are the better player.. due to different circumstances.

Nope the best way to put it will be " Its a WUM artilce aimed at WUM article posters how meaningless they could be at times "
Two wrongs don't make a right, and nor does a wrong and a right.

But Minus * Minus becomes Plus
No it doesn't.
Not if you add it.

Why do u wanna add it when I say multiply furious

by User 774433 Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:12 am

Yeah but he's added the article to the forum.
He hasn't multiplied anything, has he Wink

by socal1976 Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:14 am

Nobody has placed an asterisk on anything IC, any slam is a big accomplishment but some can take on a more significant meaning based principally on beating great players on way to the title and great matches that it took to win the title.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:16 am

But if the great players had an off-day (like Connors vs Mac in 1984 Wimby final, according to Mac), then beating not-so-great players on their on-day is more significant.

by User 774433 Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:17 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:But if the great players had an off-day (like Connors vs Mac in 1984 Wimby final, according to Mac), then beating not-so-great players on their on-day is more significant.

Yeah, fair enough.

by User 774433 Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:19 am

On average though you'll tend to find that in the majority of cases the top guys and greats can find that extra gear in the latter stages of slams... but of course there will be a few exceptions.

The greats have an extra gear compared to 'lesser' (but still very good ie Ferrer and Berdych) players.

by socal1976 Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:27 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:But if the great players had an off-day (like Connors vs Mac in 1984 Wimby final, according to Mac), then beating not-so-great players on their on-day is more significant.

Yes it is true, but still we live in a world dominated by brand names. I still know a lot people who talk up Hewitt and Safin's wins over an off color Sampras at the USO

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:32 am

@ Red - On average yes, and if someone watches all the matches in a slam and rates them as objectively as possible, then a reasonable view can be taken.

But as I said, some people only look at the opponent in the final and say "Oh, what an easy slam that was, it's not worth as much as..."

Will those people say the same about this FO, given that it's Ferrer in the final?

In 50, 100 years, as someone has already said, no-one will even remember who the finalists were. Maybe not no-one, but how many people can name the losing finalists to Laver in '69 - not many I bet.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:34 am

socal1976 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:But if the great players had an off-day (like Connors vs Mac in 1984 Wimby final, according to Mac), then beating not-so-great players on their on-day is more significant.

Yes it is true, but still we live in a world dominated by brand names. I still know a lot people who talk up Hewitt and Safin's wins over an off color Sampras at the USO

By 'people' I assume you mean commentators and journos - certainly they did at the time

by User 774433 Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:34 am

JuliusHMarx wrote: Maybe not no-one, but how many people can name the losing finalists to Laver in '69 - not many I bet.

The truth may be forgotten, but it is still the truth.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:36 am

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

by invisiblecoolers Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:37 am

Born Slippy wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Red's view of course is very valid. Ask Mac if he values his wimby victory over Borg more or Chris lewis, I am sure he will tell you that beating other greats in the later rounds of slam make said slam special. I mean I still remember that Johansson won a slam without playing a single player ranked in the top 10. So do other people. Still a great accomplishment but is it as big a deal as Rafa beating Fed in 2008 wimby final? Clearly not as monumental.

I read Mac's book and he didn't indicate that in any way. I don't think he's said that in any interviews either. But if you're sure, that's good enough for me.

If you won two slams, one of which was Peter Sampras' 1997 Wimbledon draw and the other one of which involved you beating say Agassi, Edberg and Sampras back to back would you honestly regard them as equal achievements? Of course all slams are worth the same but the way they work out can make some far easier to win than others.

For instance, I would regard Fed's 2009 slam wins as far more impressive had Nadal not been injured but they still count the same as his distinctly more impressive 2012 Wimbledon win.

Bad argument really BS, reasons

In FO 2009

Fed was tested more by Haas, Del Potro, Soderling the in form man, to say after 25 years that Nadal on 2009 would have been a tougher test for Fed than Soderling that tournament without considering the form of Soderling in that tournament is a bit kiddish. It was easy to beat a Legend Federer in 2013 FO than a slamless Ferrer, so big names value nothing without the form and likewise an underdog can perform to extreme heights on 1 tournament. thumbsup

by invisiblecoolers Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:38 am

Red wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Red's view of course is very valid. Ask Mac if he values his wimby victory over Borg more or Chris lewis, I am sure he will tell you that beating other greats in the later rounds of slam make said slam special. I mean I still remember that Johansson won a slam without playing a single player ranked in the top 10. So do other people. Still a great accomplishment but is it as big a deal as Rafa beating Fed in 2008 wimby final? Clearly not as monumental.

I read Mac's book and he didn't indicate that in any way. I don't think he's said that in any interviews either. But if you're sure, that's good enough for me.

If you won two slams, one of which was Peter Sampras' 1997 Wimbledon draw and the other one of which involved you beating say Agassi, Edberg and Sampras back to back would you honestly regard them as equal achievements? Of course all slams are worth the same but the way they work out can make some far easier to win than others.

For instance, I would regard Fed's 2009 slam wins as far more impressive had Nadal not been injured but they still count the same as his distinctly more impressive 2012 Wimbledon win.

Great post.

Bad post , proven thumbsup

by invisiblecoolers Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:39 am

socal1976 wrote:Nobody has placed an asterisk on anything IC, any slam is a big accomplishment but some can take on a more significant meaning based principally on beating great players on way to the title and great matches that it took to win the title.

Just myths Socal thumbsup

by User 774433 Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:41 am

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.

by invisiblecoolers Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:41 am

socal1976 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:But if the great players had an off-day (like Connors vs Mac in 1984 Wimby final, according to Mac), then beating not-so-great players on their on-day is more significant.

Yes it is true, but still we live in a world dominated by brand names. I still know a lot people who talk up Hewitt and Safin's wins over an off color Sampras at the USO

No double standards, either we agree brand names worth more or we have to agree thats not the case, we can't be selective amnesia to selected players.

Djoko beating the current Fed and Nadal = Hewitt , Safin beating Pete in slam

by LuvSports! Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:42 am

It's like you never left red. Picking up where you left off.

by invisiblecoolers Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:43 am

LuvSports! wrote:It's like you never left red. Picking up where you left off.

Is that similar like his favorite players B Picking censored

by User 774433 Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:44 am

LuvSports! wrote:It's like you never left red. Picking up where you left off.

Is that a good or a bad thing man? Wink

I agree, I've not really changed my stance on this particular issue; but I'm not the one who brought it up here.

by User 774433 Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:44 am

invisiblecoolers wrote:
LuvSports! wrote:It's like you never left red. Picking up where you left off.

Is that similar like his favorite players B Picking

What does that mean?

by LuvSports! Sat 08 Jun 2013, 12:49 am

Nope... IC you've lost me on this one.

Something about...... cheese?

by Sponsored content