Federer [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer

El Legenda
09-17-2007, 09:41 PM
i never start threads like this because to be honest, i dont give a **** but ill do one, Federer would beat all past greats in their prime. i think its simple as for why.

trixtah
09-17-2007, 09:41 PM
i never start threads like this because to be honest, i dont give a **** but ill do one, Federer would beat all past greats in their prime. i think its simple as for why.

R=FK and FedFan2007...combine...to form...3555!!!

Byrd
09-17-2007, 09:45 PM
Trying to hard for the arseclown contest mate :lol:

El Legenda
09-17-2007, 09:49 PM
Trying to hard for the arseclown contest mate :lol:

no, Fed would smoke them, the game is not the same, those guys couldnt take the power.

stebs
09-17-2007, 09:52 PM
The # 1 player of 2017 would beat Federer handily as well. It is called progress.

El Legenda
09-17-2007, 09:52 PM
The # 1 player of 2017 would beat Federer handily as well. It is called progress.

no kidding, thats my point, why are we comparing Fed to past players. :lol:

stebs
09-17-2007, 09:55 PM
no kidding, thats my point, why are we comparing Fed to past players. :lol:

The only way to compare is by comparing achievements.

CyBorg
09-17-2007, 09:56 PM
I've never thought of it this way. Thanks, L Ron.

fmolinari2005
09-17-2007, 09:57 PM
The # 1 player of 2017 would beat Federer handily as well. It is called progress.


Actually, my superior intellect tells me that the number one in 2017 will be a clown, playing in an era of clown chokers. This guy wouldnt be able to get a wildcard during Fed's era. Look: if those guys play Roger today, Federer would make them look like kids ...

El Legenda
09-17-2007, 09:57 PM
The only way to compare is by comparing achievements.

but people say todays players are weaker, and fed achievements are not as impressive, but in reality most of todays players can beat the player that has are ranked at same spot as they are 20 years ago.

World Beater
09-17-2007, 10:00 PM
Actually, my superior intellect tells me that the number one in 2017 will be a clown, playing in an era of clown chokers. This guy wouldnt be able to get a wildcard during Fed's era. Look: if those guys play Roger today, Federer would make them look like kids ...

Not to mention that your insight is backed by irrefutable painstaking analysis methods.

stebs
09-17-2007, 10:00 PM
but people say todays players are weaker, and fed achievements are not as impressive, but in reality most of todays players can beat the player that has are ranked at same spot as they are 20 years ago.

I have replied to this argument too many times and it's a Monday night. I will reply tomorrow afternoon if nobody else had done so.

Needless to say it's a total fallacy.

RagingLamb
09-17-2007, 10:07 PM
but people say todays players are weaker, and fed achievements are not as impressive, but in reality most of todays players can beat the player that has are ranked at same spot as they are 20 years ago.

i like how you threw in the word "reality" in there :yeah:

El Legenda
09-17-2007, 10:08 PM
i like how you threw in the word "reality" in there :yeah:

;)

CyBorg
09-17-2007, 10:18 PM
The # 1 player of 2017 would beat Federer handily as well. It is called progress.

It is all so simple. So many avenues have been opened to me. And all of this time I thought that it was complicated.

I am burning my books folks and joining the church of stebs.:wavey:

Jaap
09-17-2007, 10:27 PM
Even Ljubo? :eek:

Farenhajt
09-17-2007, 10:48 PM
Why doesn't ANYONE think this way: if earlier players lived and played TODAY, with the same technology, under the same playing/training conditions as Federer (or conversely, if Federer lived and played in their time, with smaller racquets and slower play), how they would stand against one another? I really think Borg, Becker, Sampras (among others) would make a tight competition to Federer.

"More powerful play of today" is a bogus argument. It's totally obvious that all the top players of yesteryear, under present conditions, would develop roughly the same fitness and strength as Federer. (No one was exactly a weakling.)

adee-gee
09-17-2007, 11:09 PM
The # 1 player of 2017 would beat Federer handily as well. It is called progress.

Ljubicic would lose to anyone from the top 10 from 1932 :shrug:

ezekiel
09-17-2007, 11:19 PM
I don't know why people answer to single word threads

World Beater
09-18-2007, 03:14 AM
I don't know why people answer to single word threads

:haha:

oh the irony

*Viva Chile*
09-18-2007, 03:27 AM
What was the old nickname of 3555? :confused:

GlennMirnyi
09-18-2007, 03:30 AM
You can't compare players born in different eras, unless you compare them to their respective opponents.

That gives the real measure of how good/bad they were.

GlennMirnyi
09-18-2007, 03:31 AM
What was the old nickname of 3555? :confused:

Jerry Seinfeld/Jerry/Vamos Ljubo!

El Legenda
09-18-2007, 03:32 AM
You can't compare players born in different eras, unless you compare them to their respective opponents.

.

i find it funny how 15-25 year olds are doing that on MTF...half were not even born and othere were 5-8 years old when past greats played, but somehow they're experts on those players....

:wavey:

GlennMirnyi
09-18-2007, 03:37 AM
i find it funny how 15-25 year olds are doing that on MTF...half were not even born and othere were 5-8 years old when past greats played, but somehow they're experts on those players....

:wavey:

I never talked about players older than Sampras, because I never watched any of them.

*Viva Chile*
09-18-2007, 07:09 AM
Jerry Seinfeld/Jerry/Vamos Ljubo!

Thanks, I found something familiar in all his threads :rolls:

Rogiman
09-18-2007, 08:10 AM
The # 1 player of 2017 would beat Federer handily as well. It is called progress.Is that so? Why are most track&field records not even approached anymore?
How come any high-jumper who jumps 2.35m these days is almost assured of winning an olympic gold when people jumped over 2.40m decades ago?
Why is no one getting close to 8.95 in long jump anymore?

The obvious answer would be 'drugs', but there's more to it.
Equipment can't get much better than it is now, and players are as professional as they can be already.

People aren't born more talented these days, and Connors and Agassi have shown that greatness isn't limited to one generation of players only.

Also, watch that 77 Borg - Laver match, and tell me how many of today's players are capable of doing half of the things Laver was so skillful at.

dragons112
09-18-2007, 08:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stebs
The # 1 player of 2017 would beat Federer handily as well. It is called progress


What a stupid thing to say. You can compare buy style of play also.

buzz
09-18-2007, 08:15 AM
The # 1 player of 2017 would beat Federer handily as well. It is called progress.

Federer will still be the no1 player in 2017 :o

HNCS
09-18-2007, 08:46 AM
Actually, my superior intellect tells me that the number one in 2017 will be a clown, playing in an era of clown chokers. This guy wouldnt be able to get a wildcard during Fed's era. Look: if those guys play Roger today, Federer would make them look like kids ...

i appreciate the humour. :)

HarryMan
09-18-2007, 10:13 AM
I always believe Its your present competition that determines your greatness and Not something that is not in your control at all (thats Past era's),You need to be good enough to beat your current rivals ,maybe this is a comparatively weak era or a stronger era but thats not something these players can control,all they can do is to be the best amongst the current crop of players ,which Federer surely is (But time will catch up with Federer as he ages further)...

I am quite sure that every record that Federer creates will be broken and there would be a player even more dominant than Federer within the next 10 years(thats how fast the game moves and evolves ) but currently He is the very best which is undeniable ...

Forehander
09-18-2007, 11:05 AM
:haha:

roxannax
09-18-2007, 03:55 PM
I said this already in another thread: I don’t see the point of comparisons at all. It is practically impossible to try and compare the things you are comparing here.

Great players are great players. There were some in the past and there will be others in future. Federer is great in his own right. There is absolutely no need to compare him to anyone else.

stebs
09-18-2007, 06:00 PM
Is that so? Why are most track&field records not even approached anymore?
How come any high-jumper who jumps 2.35m these days is almost assured of winning an olympic gold when people jumped over 2.40m decades ago?
Why is no one getting close to 8.95 in long jump anymore?

The obvious answer would be 'drugs', but there's more to it.
Equipment can't get much better than it is now, and players are as professional as they can be already.

People aren't born more talented these days, and Connors and Agassi have shown that greatness isn't limited to one generation of players only.

Also, watch that 77 Borg - Laver match, and tell me how many of today's players are capable of doing half of the things Laver was so skillful at.

I don't want to be harsh because I know you are a good poster but you have your facts wrong.

Over half of the Men's outdoor world records have been set in the last 10 years. I'd say that's pretty decent evidence of progress.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-18-2007, 06:53 PM
I don't want to be harsh because I know you are a good poster but you have your facts wrong.

Over half of the Men's outdoor world records have been set in the last 10 years. I'd say that's pretty decent evidence of progress.

Evolution occuers in every sport.

There are anomolies and dips in every sport. Like the last 5 years of tennis have been a dip but it will evolve.

DDrago2
09-18-2007, 11:51 PM
The # 1 player of 2017 would beat Federer handily as well. It is called progress.

Why are you sure that the progress is so constant In some ways certainly, but overall it doesn't have to be the case. Look at the arts, would you say we constantly progress?
I would guess that a player comparable with Federer's quality is not going to play anytime soon