Who has more talent Federer or Johnny Mac? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who has more talent Federer or Johnny Mac?

vamosinator
05-08-2009, 04:28 PM
I know the answer do you? :wavey:

tennis2tennis
05-08-2009, 04:30 PM
That's a subjective question, there is no right answer...but I'm happy for you, congratulations on forming an opinon...

Bazooka
05-08-2009, 04:34 PM
Those two players are very hard to compare as they have nothing in common, and belong to very different eras. If you want to bash/praise Fed, try with something easier like Sampras or Edberg.

vamosinator
05-08-2009, 04:36 PM
Sampras is too talented to be compared, while Edberg is on a level lower. Johnny Mac and Federer are about right for a comparison.

habibko
05-08-2009, 04:36 PM
I know the answer do you? :wavey:

Nadal?

Mint Chip
05-08-2009, 04:44 PM
Rod Laver :D

fast_clay
05-08-2009, 05:23 PM
wat?

Fumus
05-08-2009, 05:24 PM
Arazi.

Ilovetheblues_86
05-08-2009, 05:43 PM
Jankovic.

Action Jackson
05-08-2009, 06:03 PM
Ric Flair.

Har-Tru
05-08-2009, 06:03 PM
Potito Starace. I voted for Federer just because he wasn't on the poll.

Macbrother
05-08-2009, 06:08 PM
Ric Flair.

There can't really be any intelligent debate when the nature boy's involved he'll just crush everyone you know this.

ORGASMATRON
05-08-2009, 06:23 PM
That's a subjective question, there is no right answer...but I'm happy for you, congratulations on forming an opinon...

:haha::haha::haha:

My answer is Jim Courier.

Sapeod
05-08-2009, 06:24 PM
WTF is up with these threads? :rolleyes:

ORGASMATRON
05-08-2009, 06:24 PM
Nadal?

Only a traitor like you would think Nadal.

Sapeod
05-08-2009, 06:32 PM
Mac is winning the poll :rolleyes: What has GM come to these days :rolleyes:

ORGASMATRON
05-08-2009, 06:35 PM
MAc didnt even have groundies. He only had good hands. Fed should win this poll by far.

Sapeod
05-08-2009, 06:38 PM
MAc didnt even have groundies. He only had good hands. Fed should win this poll by far.
Damn right. I'm sick of these Fed bashing trolls who can't get enough of him falling down the rankings :banghead:

habibko
05-08-2009, 06:39 PM
Only a traitor like you would think Nadal.

only a retard like you would think I'm serious.

ORGASMATRON
05-08-2009, 06:41 PM
Damn right. I'm sick of these Fed bashing trolls who can't get enough of him falling down the rankings :banghead:

:lol: I wrote a blog post about it today.

ORGASMATRON
05-08-2009, 06:44 PM
only a retard like you would think I'm serious.

Only an abomonation like you would think i was serious.

habibko
05-08-2009, 06:56 PM
Only an abomonation like you would think i was serious.

abomonation :haha: :haha:

learn English first before you try insulting anyone :retard:

MacTheKnife
05-08-2009, 06:58 PM
Mac, what else would you expect from me. A mactard must be loyal. Let's see how many of these guys today are still playing when they're 50, AND winning Champions tour events.

rocketassist
05-08-2009, 07:09 PM
Marcelo Rios has to be considered in all this too.

Federer, Rios, J McEnroe are probably the three most naturally talented players of all time.

Shame Rios never fulfilled his undoubted genius.

ORGASMATRON
05-08-2009, 07:35 PM
abomonation :haha: :haha:

learn English first before you try insulting anyone :retard:

I dont have to insult you. If i looked like you i would feel insulted enough :)

r2473
05-08-2009, 08:05 PM
These are the highest talents weights ever recorded for both:

Mac at 22.634 pounds of talent.

Federer at 27.745 pounds of talent.

vamosinator
05-08-2009, 08:17 PM
MAC has GOAT volleys, Sampras has GOAT serve, but does Federer have an all-time great weapon or is he just very good at everything without having a GOAT shot?

Har-Tru
05-08-2009, 08:21 PM
MAC has GOAT volleys, Sampras has GOAT serve, but does Federer have an all-time great weapon or is he just very good at everything without having a GOAT shot?

inside-out forehand, if you count that as a shot.

ORGASMATRON
05-08-2009, 08:21 PM
These are the highest talents weights ever recorded for both:

Mac at 22.634 pounds of talent.

Federer at 27.745 pounds of talent.

Its setteld then.

MAC has GOAT volleys, Sampras has GOAT serve, but does Federer have an all-time great weapon or is he just very good at everything without having a GOAT shot?

Your an abomination if you think Mac or Fed has mnore talent then Fed. Sampy was one dimensional and Mac won way less slams then Fed did.

The end.

FedFan
05-08-2009, 08:23 PM
Mc Enroe has the greatest touch ever, whereas Roger is the best natural mover tennis has seen and has great hand-eye coordination.

It is pretty even between them.

Har-Tru
05-08-2009, 08:24 PM
Your an abomination

You learn fast. That's good. :)

if you think Mac or Fed has mnore talent then Fed.

But still a long way to go...

vamosinator
05-08-2009, 08:31 PM
Personally I'm amazed when I see MAC play , he seems freakishly coordinated and skillful beyond anyone of recent times, actually Agassi is freakish in his hand-eye coordination too but just on the baseline not net. Put MAC's netgame with Agassi's baseline game with Sampras' serve and Nadal's physical and mental abilities and you have the inhuman tennis god that would never lose a match.

MacTheKnife
05-08-2009, 10:40 PM
McEnroe never lived up to his potential either. The guy prided himself (and he will tell you this, I've heard it in a interview) in not training off court. All he did was play tennis, and work on a punching bag, that's it. Yet he racked up 19 GS titles, 7 singles, 11 doubles, and 1 mixed. Won 155 career titles, 77 singles, 78 doubles and was on 5 winning DC teams. Us Mac fans shudder to think how good he could have been if, A) he'd actually trained, and B) never met Tatum O'niel.

Sunset of Age
05-08-2009, 10:42 PM
McEnroe never lived up to his potential either. The guy prided himself (and he will tell you this, I've heard it in a interview) in not training off court. All he did was play tennis, and work on a punching bag, that's it. Yet he racked up 19 GS titles, 7 singles, 11 doubles, and 1 mixed. Won 155 career titles, 77 singles, 78 doubles and was on 5 winning DC teams. Us Mac fans shudder to think how good he could have been if, A) he'd actually trained, and B) never met Tatum O'niel.

:lol:
All silliness aside, Johnny Mac is of course one of the great legends of the game, if only for his :o - on court behaviour aside from his titles. :worship:

KostyaTszyu
05-08-2009, 10:57 PM
There can't really be any intelligent debate when the nature boy's involved he'll just crush everyone you know this.

Chuck Norris would ruin Ric Flair.

MacTheKnife
05-08-2009, 10:58 PM
:lol:
All silliness aside, Johnny Mac is of course one of the great legends of the game, if only for his :o - on court behaviour aside from his titles. :worship:

Yep, I could have gone on with year's #1 and record winning percentages and stuff, but decided to stop. I was one of the few that actually loved his antics. Below is one of my favorite quotes from the 80s that pretty much summed up a lot of the sentiments on Mac.

He is the most vain, ill-tempered, petulant loudmouth that the game of tennis has ever known.
- The Sun, a British tabloid, 1979

He still does a lot of it on the seniors tour only now people can't wait to see it. He says now, "they used to fine me, now they don't pay me my appearance fee if I keep my mouth shut". :haha:

Sunset of Age
05-08-2009, 11:05 PM
Yep, I could have gone on with year's #1 and record winning percentages and stuff, but decided to stop. I was one of the few that actually loved his antics. Below is one of my favorite quotes from the 80s that pretty much summed up a lot of the sentiments on Mac.

He is the most vain, ill-tempered, petulant loudmouth that the game of tennis has ever known.
- The Sun, a British tabloid, 1979

He still does a lot of it on the seniors tour only now people can't wait to see it. He says now, "they used to fine me, now they don't pay me my appearance fee if I keep my mouth shut". :haha:

Haha, yes, I was a kid at that time, and I remember well how much my mum hated the guy for his tantrums, while I... enjoyed every minute of them. :haha:

A hommage - Chalk Dust, The Umpire Strikes Back:

pRQe59Wl3Gs

:worship: :worship: :worship:

"Play on, you're being rather naughty..." :haha:

EDIT: and of course, his Wimbly final against Borg in 1980 was indeed the best Wimbly final ever - at least until now. ;)

MacTheKnife
05-08-2009, 11:09 PM
SD - thanks for posting. Hilarious !!! Chalk flew UP !!!!

vamosinator
05-09-2009, 04:14 AM
Mc Enroe has the greatest touch ever, whereas Roger is the best natural mover tennis has seen and has great hand-eye coordination.

It is pretty even between them.

Thats a pretty big call to say Federer is the 'best natural mover' lol , Borg was perfect, Sampras great, Edberg, Chang plus several that didn't make headlines with their shot-making but still moved at an all-time great level. Natural court movement is a fairly generic ability.

Roddickominator
05-09-2009, 04:17 AM
Hard to say....kinda need to see Fed play with a wooden racket for his whole career to know.

Mac was immensely talented at the net....best hands i've ever seen(and i'm only 23, only seen clips).

Fed, when on, is brilliant as well. He has amazing timing on the forehand and is graceful around the court.

Macbrother
05-09-2009, 04:36 AM
inside-out forehand, if you count that as a shot.

You evidently missed the absolute ridiculous crosscourt angles he came up with time after time? No need to limit to one aspect; it's the most versatile and potent forehand I've ever seen, and he was literally able to do anything with it on demand. This is not even to mention the absolute crazy defensive slices/gets he was able to pull off. Movement is definitely another 'all-time' category Federer must be put in; on of course all surfaces. Immaculate.

But yes, as for Mac, as talented as Federer was from the baseline, that's the same type of shit he pulled at the net. Absolutely breathtaking. Edberg may have been slightly better technically but McEnroe had the genius.

w78dexon_y
05-09-2009, 05:18 AM
You evidently missed the absolute ridiculous crosscourt angles he came up with time after time? No need to limit to one aspect; it's the most versatile and potent forehand I've ever seen, and he was literally able to do anything with it on demand. This is not even to mention the absolute crazy defensive slices/gets he was able to pull off. Movement is definitely another 'all-time' category Federer must be put in; on of course all surfaces. Immaculate..

I thought you were talking about Nadal!! :rolleyes:

Macbrother
05-09-2009, 06:34 AM
I thought you were talking about Nadal!! :rolleyes:

Not my fault you just started watching tennis this year. :shrug:

MisterQ
05-11-2009, 08:31 PM
I just stumbled across a broadcast of McEnroe playing Sampras in the Champions Cup. John still has some crazy skills. :eek:

You evidently missed the absolute ridiculous crosscourt angles he came up with time after time?

I've seen a few of those already. :cool:

Har-Tru
05-11-2009, 09:34 PM
You evidently missed the absolute ridiculous crosscourt angles he came up with time after time? No need to limit to one aspect; it's the most versatile and potent forehand I've ever seen, and he was literally able to do anything with it on demand. This is not even to mention the absolute crazy defensive slices/gets he was able to pull off. Movement is definitely another 'all-time' category Federer must be put in; on of course all surfaces. Immaculate.

But yes, as for Mac, as talented as Federer was from the baseline, that's the same type of shit he pulled at the net. Absolutely breathtaking. Edberg may have been slightly better technically but McEnroe had the genius.

Excellent, but not the best of all time.

chammer44
05-11-2009, 10:36 PM
You evidently missed the absolute ridiculous crosscourt angles he came up with time after time? No need to limit to one aspect; it's the most versatile and potent forehand I've ever seen, and he was literally able to do anything with it on demand. This is not even to mention the absolute crazy defensive slices/gets he was able to pull off. Movement is definitely another 'all-time' category Federer must be put in; on of course all surfaces. Immaculate.

But yes, as for Mac, as talented as Federer was from the baseline, that's the same type of shit he pulled at the net. Absolutely breathtaking. Edberg may have been slightly better technically but McEnroe had the genius.

If I'm not mistaken, he often sets up the great cross court shot with the inside-out forehand. This is of course before the error itch to which he has become prone.

the graduate
05-11-2009, 11:10 PM
these are the Divas of men tennis no doubt about that.
the only difference is Mcenroe was on alleged coke fiend and Tarantino is sqeaky clean

Macbrother
05-12-2009, 03:43 AM
Excellent, but not the best of all time.

And who exactly has the best crosscourt forehand of all time then?

TennisViewer531
05-12-2009, 04:12 AM
Federer of course ;)

Har-Tru
05-12-2009, 04:32 AM
And who exactly has the best crosscourt forehand of all time then?

Of players I have seen, Björn Borg or Rod Laver. Can't decide.

Macbrother
05-12-2009, 04:38 AM
Of players I have seen, Björn Borg or Rod Laver. Can't decide.

I don't see how you can even remotely justify this, at all. This is not to mention breaking up the forehand is silly at best for practical purposes. Please explain why Federer's forehand is subpar (crosscourt) compared to say Borg? Knowing what Federer was able to regularly produce? I mean.. hello?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpflSU_Yvps&feature=PlayList&p=1B3FAF5D42DFD0D8&index=0

prima donna
05-12-2009, 04:47 AM
. Please explain why Federer's forehand is subpar (crosscourt) compared to say Borg? Knowing what Federer was able to regularly produce? I mean.. hello?

You're clever enough to know why.

Macbrother
05-12-2009, 04:53 AM
You're clever enough to know why.

No, I'm completely in the dark, oh great one. Enlighten me.

Har-Tru
05-12-2009, 04:57 AM
I don't see how you can even remotely justify this, at all. This is not to mention breaking up the forehand is silly at best for practical purposes. Please explain why Federer's forehand is subpar (crosscourt) compared to say Borg? Knowing what Federer was able to regularly produce? I mean.. hello?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpflSU_Yvps&feature=PlayList&p=1B3FAF5D42DFD0D8&index=0

That's a nice clip. I can also make a clip of myself hitting awesome forehands, and that wouldn't take away the fact that I flat out suck at tennis.

The quality of a shot isn't merely judged by its power or accuracy, but by all things put together. Borg's cc fh was clearly below Fed's in terms of power, but it was so much more reliable than it made it better. He simply did not miss. And the angles he could create with it, on any surface, where just out of this world. Laver, on the other hand, had an effective, powerful and reliable lefty cc forehand that made the finest S&Vs of the time stretch their arm in an attempt at a backhand volley that more often than not didn't come or didn't top the net.

Federer's crosscourt forehand is the weakest of his three (down-the-line, inside-out, cross-court). Most of his fh errors come off that side. It is an excellent shot, powerful and accurate most of the time, but it's not nor nowhere near as devastating as his other forehands are.

prima donna
05-12-2009, 05:05 AM
No, I'm completely in the dark, oh great one. Enlighten me.
I'll just assume you're pulling my leg.

Macbrother
05-12-2009, 05:11 AM
That's a nice clip. I can also make a clip of myself hitting awesome forehands, and that wouldn't take away the fact that I flat out suck at tennis.

It's a good thing Federer doesn't suck at forehands and the number of videos and matches where he hit this forehand are limitless. That is what he brought to the table, day in, day out, or did you miss the last 5 years?


The quality of a shot isn't merely judged by its power or accuracy, but by all things put together. Borg's cc fh was clearly below Fed's in terms of power, but it was so much more reliable than it made it better. He simply did not miss. And the angles he could create with it, on any surface, where just out of this world. Laver, on the other hand, had an effective, powerful and reliable lefty cc forehand that made the finest S&Vs of the time stretch their arm in an attempt at a backhand volley that more often than not didn't come or didn't top the net.


Borg did miss forehands, actually, and when you are you know, actually not going for your shots and playing a much more incredibly defensive game with much more topspin, of course it's going to appear more reliable. They aren't even remotely comparable in that aspect.


Federer's crosscourt forehand is the weakest of his three (down-the-line, inside-out, cross-court). Most of his fh errors come off that side. It is an excellent shot, powerful and accurate most of the time, but it's not nor nowhere near as devastating as his other forehands are.

This is pure conjecture with zero statistical basis; which I can accept given the nature of the argument if it equates to what I have watched, but it does not. I've seen the devastation Federer has unleashed from both the midcourt and baseline going crosscourt and the Agassi clip is very much the rule, not the exception.

Har-Tru
05-12-2009, 05:19 AM
It's a good thing Federer doesn't suck at forehands and the number of videos and matches where he hit this forehand are limitless. That is what he brought to the table, day in, day out, or did you miss the last 5 years?

Fortunately I did not.

Borg did miss forehands, actually, and when you are you know, actually not going for your shots and playing a much more incredibly defensive game with much more topspin, of course it's going to appear more reliable. They aren't even remotely comparable in that aspect.

It didn't just appear more reliable, it was. But let me get this straight: is your point that a forehand hit with more topspin is inferior to a flatter one? Cause that's how it sounds.

This is pure conjecture with zero statistical basis; which I can accept given the nature of the argument if it equates to what I have watched, but it does not. I've seen the devastation Federer has unleashed from both the midcourt and baseline going crosscourt and the Agassi clip is very much the rule, not the exception.

I have also seen the devastation Federer has caused with all his shots, and I wish he does it again so people like you and me can stop talking about him in the past tense.

Macbrother
05-12-2009, 05:42 AM
Fortunately I did not.

I didn't think you did. And dude look, this is not a video with a couple of good backhand winners by Federer per match strung together to make it look like he has the best BH ever, as what you are implying, ok? These are all shots from one match. Go back and look at Federer/Sampras wimbledon '01. Watch how many times Sampras drops his head in sheer amazement off of the angles Federer creates going crosscourt. Again, one match. This is not even remotely analagous to the example you responded with.


It didn't just appear more reliable, it was. But let me get this straight: is your point that a forehand hit with more topspin is inferior to a flatter one? Cause that's how it sounds.

The answer: Not necessarily. What matters is the effectiveness. A well angled topspin shot that pulls an opponent completely off the court for a forced error is every bit as good, albiet not as flashy, as a crushing flat winner. But that wasn't my point. This was: When someone, say Federer, is going for lines and going for winners, playing an aggressive game it is a matter of course that they are going to miss more shots. So yes, someone that plays a much more defensive, topspin game with the forehand is going to be more reliable. Does that make it better, however? Was the Borg forehand feared? Was it feared anywhere remotely to what Federer's was? There's your answer.

I have also seen the devastation Federer has caused with all his shots, and I wish he does it again so people like you and me can stop talking about him in the past tense.

I truly could not agree with you more.

Har-Tru
05-12-2009, 06:18 AM
The answer: Not necessarily. What matters is the effectiveness. A well angled topspin shot that pulls an opponent completely off the court for a forced error is every bit as good, albiet not as flashy, as a crushing flat winner. But that wasn't my point. This was: When someone, say Federer, is going for lines and going for winners, playing an aggressive game it is a matter of course that they are going to miss more shots. So yes, someone that plays a much more defensive, topspin game with the forehand is going to be more reliable. Does that make it better, however? Was the Borg forehand feared? Was it feared anywhere remotely to what Federer's was? There's your answer.

Again, it's a matter of seeing the whole picture. And remember we are talking about the crosscourt forehand, not the forehand in general. I probably have to agree that, overall, Federer's forehand tops Borg's. But regarding their cc fh, the relative vulnerability of Federer's gives Borg the lead in my opinion. That doesn't mean Fed's wasn't fantastic, and he could use it for whole matches as you said, or even for longer, with only a marginal number of errors. But Borg could do that for whole tournaments. He did that pretty much for his whole career. Yes, I know, it wasn't so powerful or risky, and it wouldn't give him so many clean winners, but again... on the whole, I'd take it. Let's just say that Fed's cc fh has been the "backhand of his forehands", if you see what I mean.

About the rest, I think I've said all that needed to be said.

Macbrother
05-12-2009, 06:42 AM
Again, it's a matter of seeing the whole picture. And remember we are talking about the crosscourt forehand, not the forehand in general. I probably have to agree that, overall, Federer's forehand tops Borg's. But regarding their cc fh, the relative vulnerability of Federer's gives Borg the lead in my opinion. That doesn't mean Fed's wasn't fantastic, and he could use it for whole matches as you said, or even for longer, with only a marginal number of errors. But Borg could do that for whole tournaments. He did that pretty much for his whole career. Yes, I know, it wasn't so powerful or risky, and it wouldn't give him so many clean winners, but again... on the whole, I'd take it. Let's just say that Fed's cc fh has been the "backhand of his forehands", if you see what I mean.

About the rest, I think I've said all that needed to be said.

Effectiveness is the definition of the whole picture. Why does the "relative vulnerability" give Borg the edge? How are you going to make the argument that Borg saved more errors than Federer had winners? Is this just your gut feeling?

Har-Tru
05-12-2009, 01:37 PM
Effectiveness is the definition of the whole picture. Why does the "relative vulnerability" give Borg the edge? How are you going to make the argument that Borg saved more errors than Federer had winners? Is this just your gut feeling?

Well, unfortunately I don't have any stats on this, so yeah pretty much.

fred perry
05-12-2009, 01:54 PM
jmac...

Elena.
05-16-2009, 09:57 AM
McEnroe .

gusman890
05-16-2009, 01:11 PM
Is it the off-season already?

MacTheKnife
05-16-2009, 01:22 PM
Borg and Federer's forehands are almost identical when you look at the stroke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31IYa7VsZYg