DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Laqswrnm** · 07-14-2009, 09:14 PM

Not to derail the conversation right out of the gate (and excuse the mixed metaphor), but do you have to dominate the best of your generation to be considered the GOAT? Or have the edge/winning record? Or be able to beat the best on any given day? Because Federer has beaten Nadal (on all surfaces, I believe).

I'll add to this: I've never understood the argument that (a 4 year older) Fed needs to beat Nadal to be considered the greatest.

What exactly does that mean? In any one match? Overall head to head, on what surfaces? As has been stated countless times, Fed has kept losing to Rafa on clay because he gets to the finals, Rafa hasn't gotten to the slam hard court finals (until now) and has a losing record to Roger on grass.

Tennis is about match ups. Is Panatta considered greater than Borg because he beat him (twice, no?) at the FO?

To me, overall consistency over the field, and final career slams and results is infinitely more important than results over any *one* player.

Sounds like sour grapes from Pete.

07-14-2009, 09:14 PM	#4
Laqswrnm Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 498 Senior Member	Not to derail the conversation right out of the gate (and excuse the mixed metaphor), but do you have to dominate the best of your generation to be considered the GOAT? Or have the edge/winning record? Or be able to beat the best on any given day? Because Federer has beaten Nadal (on all surfaces, I believe). I'll add to this: I've never understood the argument that (a 4 year older) Fed needs to beat Nadal to be considered the greatest. What exactly does that mean? In any one match? Overall head to head, on what surfaces? As has been stated countless times, Fed has kept losing to Rafa on clay because he gets to the finals, Rafa hasn't gotten to the slam hard court finals (until now) and has a losing record to Roger on grass. Tennis is about match ups. Is Panatta considered greater than Borg because he beat him (twice, no?) at the FO? To me, overall consistency over the field, and final career slams and results is infinitely more important than results over any one player. Sounds like sour grapes from Pete.
	Quote