Originally Posted by BigJohn
It is impossible to fault Federer because Nadal could not keep up with him in reaching those finals, an argument not only retarded, it shows extremely bad faith from the one putting it forward. No wonder you support Nadal.
Who's faulting Federer!? I am not faulting him.
I am saying that his wins mean less without facing his rival. It's like taking a multiple choice English test without the written essay part that you suck at. Sure you got an "A" but someone omitted the biggest part of the test for you.
For certain there is a distinction between 250 and 1000 events. Yes you could argue that winning a 250 event is still winning a tournament and thus equal to winning any other non slam event. The difference between a 250, 500 and 1000 tournie is the competition, OH SNAP! That's why some posters here like to call top players vultures for winning such 250 mickey mouse events...
Roger can't beat Nadal in a slam...he won't. The wins he has since 2008 are tainted, he's a benefit of luck and circumstance. Nothing more.
Originally Posted by StatRacket
I don't get why there is a special name for a Golden Career Slam but nothing for a WTF Career Slam. I guess the latter doesn't have a nice ring to it.
I agree they are both BS for a tennis player. The idea of a career grand slam is stupid as Australia has changed it's surface several times now (as has the US open) and when Laver won them it was purely grass and clay. Deco didn't exist yet...let alone plexicushion.
Thus the idea of the career grand slam has changed; it's a fallacy. We can makeup whatever we want and the media can create hype around whatever they like...but really it remains...
2)US Open and French Open
If and when you win any of these you become tennis royalty. If you win more than one, you become a great...if you win more than anyone else you become a legend....you will never become the GOAT because someone else will pass you. Time will allow new champions always. All you can be is the greatest of all current time The GOACT.
(I'm counting on the fact that the world will not end in 2012 when I say all of this, if it does then Federer is by far the GOAT)
There is no grand slam, there are no bests ever...we love the best right now and who's number 1. The greats can be debated but as long as tennis continues to change with it's new surfaces, balls, racquets and string...not to mention the athletes becoming better, faster, taller and stronger...you really can't compare apples to oranges...it's like comparing foosball to fussball.