Tennis - G.O.A.T - Federer vs Laver (1 Viewer)

[RivalryofTroll]

fed is ahead against djokovic in head to head iirc

Yep.

 

[Sanical]

Bjorn Borg is the greatest (MENS) player. [BEHIND LAVER]

He has won 11 grand slams (3rd highest of mens) WHILE ONLY PARTICIPATING IN AUSTRALIAN OPEN ONCE! This was probably due to Australia being too far to travel to at the time. If he were to have participated at the Australian Open, surely his grand slam count would increase by at least 2-3. Also, he was competing against Jimmy Connors at the time. Not to mention Borg has the highest winning percentage of all time.

As for women, Steffi Graf, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Margret Court and Billie King are the undisputed top 5 (not in that order).

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Bjorn Borg is the greatest (MENS) player.

He has won 11 grand slams (3rd highest of mens) WHILE ONLY PARTICIPATING IN AUSTRALIAN OPEN ONCE! This was probably due to Australia being too far to travel to at the time. If he were to have participated at the Australian Open, surely his grand slam count would increase by at least 2-3. Also, he was competing against Jimmy Connors at the time. Not to mention Borg has the highest winning percentage of all time.

As for women, Steffi Graf, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Margret Court and Billie King are the undisputed top 5 (not in that order).

Laver would have won much more slams if he had played more as well.
I respect Jimmy Connors (come on, semis of US Open at the age of like 40?)

 

[Sanical]

Laver would have won much more slams if he had played more as well.
I respect Jimmy Connors (come on, semis of US Open at the age of like 40?)

Yeah sorry, I was excluding Laver and Federer. I have massive respect for Laver, he won 2 calendar grand slams. I don't think anyone else has ever accomplished this?
Should be: Laver>>Bjorg>{everyone else}

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Yeah sorry, I was excluding Laver and Federer. I have massive respect for Laver, he won 2 calendar grand slams. I don't think anyone else has ever accomplished this?
Should be: Laver>>Bjorg>{everyone else}

Hmmmm.

Only reasons why Fed might NOT be the true G.O.A.T:
- Didn't complete a calender year grand slam (max was 3 slams a year)
- Only won the FO, once.
- His arch-rival, Nadal screws him over way too much even though most of their encounters have been on clay.

I think everyone is nervous to see whether Djokovic can get the calender-year grand slam.

 

[Sanical]

Hmmmm.

Only reasons why Fed might NOT be the true G.O.A.T:
- Didn't complete a calender year grand slam (max was 3 slams a year)
- Only won the FO, once.
- His arch-rival, Nadal screws him over way too much even though most of their encounters have been on clay.

I think everyone is nervous to see whether Djokovic can get the calender-year grand slam.

Yeah, if Nadal didn't exist, Federer would have so many calender grand slams. Only reason why he shouldn't be considered the greatest is because he gets beaten by Nadal even though it's often on clay.

Djokovic was very very close .

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Yeah, if Nadal didn't exist, Federer would have so many calender grand slams. Only reason why he shouldn't be considered the greatest is because he gets beaten by Nadal even though it's often on clay.

Djokovic was very very close .

All thanks to old-man Fed for stopping him at the FO 2011 semis.
If Djoker had advanced, he would have beaten Nadal (most likely) and did the near impossible at the FO 2011.

 

[Sanical]

All thanks to old-man Fed for stopping him at the FO 2011 semis.
If Djoker had advanced, he would have beaten Nadal (most likely) and did the near impossible at the FO 2011.

Nah, I don't see Djokovic winning the French Open .

 

[converge]

I think the best way to settle this G.O.A.T debate is to listen to what Laver said. He said that no one can be the greatest player ever. However, you can be the greatest player in your generation. There is no doubt that Laver was the best in the 1960s and Federer in the 2000s.

 

[qwerty44]

Create poll? Federer or Laver for G.O.A.T

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Create poll? Federer or Laver for G.O.A.T

Discussions are more interestin' anyways.

I guess there is no such thing as a true GOAT as time keeps going on.

We have yet to see what Djokovic can produce!

 

[qwerty44]

Discussions are more interestin' anyways.

I guess there is no such thing as a true GOAT as time keeps going on.

We have yet to see what Djokovic can produce!

+1

 

[someth1ng]

I would say Federer is better than Laver on the grounds that although they were the best of their time, sport develops and improves with time. The best of their era would probably be only scraping top 5 in our era - similar to the Flynn Effect.

 

[drpepper127]

Federer all the way, because of the amount of titles he has won relative to who he has been up against.

Nadal should be higher on that list... because was outshone by Federer for so long.

 

[drpepper127]

he was*

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Nadal won't be GOAT anytime soon if he keeps losing to Djokovic in finals.

 

[mirakon]

I would say Federer is better than Laver on the grounds that although they were the best of their time, sport develops and improves with time. The best of their era would probably be only scraping top 5 in our era - similar to the Flynn Effect.

This.

 

[pony_magician]

I like Federer because he's a babe and he's also really nice and also he had a FedBear on Sunrise once it was cute.

 

[Sanical]

Federer all the way, because of the amount of titles he has won relative to who he has been up against.

Nadal should be higher on that list... because was outshone by Federer for so long.

Just because Federer has more titles (and in titles, I'm implying you mean grand slams) doesn't mean he's better. Federer has won 16. Nadal has won 10. I actually find Nadal's grand slam count is pretty impressive considering he has always had to encounter Federer.

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Just because Federer has more titles (and in titles, I'm implying you mean grand slams) doesn't mean he's better. Federer has won 16. Nadal has won 10. I actually find Nadal's grand slam count is pretty impressive considering he has always had to encounter Federer.

I don't think the amount of titles should determine whether you are G.O.A.T or not because of one thing:
- The competition you faced to get those titles.

If you were in a weak era with barely any competition then the feat of many grand slams will be much easier.
If you were in a strong era with tight competition then the feat of many grand slams will be considered as a great achievement.

When you look at Laver's era, many tennis players were in for recreation rather than competition. The competition wasn't as fierce as it was today.