30 year old Lopez reaches career high ranking

First topic message reminder :

In the Golden Era, another veteran thrives.

Just saying.

amritia3ee wrote:In the Wee Keira there was only really one person who could win the HC and grass slams- now there are 4.

How many players have won the last 4 HC/grass slams?

amritia3ee wrote:IW 2010 was one-off. no doubt.
And yes JM back in the days when nadal could only play on clay he got beat by loads of people on HC and grass. Muller etc. So?

Was it also a one-off that he couldn't win one back in the day?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:No i think ferrer has improved.
He is more experienced now and is more consistent from tournament to tournament. I saw him thrash Djokovic last year in London- great game to watch.

Wasn't that the same tournament that Fed only won because all his main opposition was injured or exhausted? Or was Djoko only injured/exhausted in matches where he didn't play Ferrer?

He still thrashed him Great to watch.
Yes Djoko didn't look 100% at the time. And i don't like this Fed 'only won' nonsense. Fed deserved to win because he was rewarded for firstly playing well and secondly keeping his schedule as such he could play well even in the final tournament. Worthy winner.

Del Potro against the big 4: 7-25
Tsonga vs the big 4: 12-23

so Tsonga wins roughly one in three, Del Potro less than one in four. Not great IMO. I've said it before, I think below the top 4 (which is very good) this era is pretty average.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:In the Wee Keira there was only really one person who could win the HC and grass slams- now there are 4.

How many players have won the last 4 HC/grass slams?

Yes but Djokovic has been challenged. thats the whole point.
Had to save match points in US in the semi, and came back from the brink in both semi and final of Aus.
Fed just cruised against players like Baghdatis and Gonzalez, with Ljubicic number 3 and 4.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Del Potro against the big 4: 7-25
Tsonga vs the big 4: 12-23

so Tsonga wins roughly one in three, Del Potro less than one in four. Not great IMO. I've said it before, I think below the top 4 (which is very good) this era is pretty average.

Well Tsonga has beaten Fed in Wimby, Nadal in AO etc. Del Po beat nadal, Fed win US.
They've shown they can trouble and beat the big guns in big matches. Unlike players like ljubicic.

And you say the top 4 was good. Exactly. When you are going for a grand slam its the top4 which provide the biggest challenge, or are meant to.

never an honest word, but that when was i ruuuuuuled the world.

amritia3ee wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:In the Wee Keira there was only really one person who could win the HC and grass slams- now there are 4.

How many players have won the last 4 HC/grass slams?

Yes but Djokovic has been challenged. thats the whole point.
Had to save match points in US in the semi, and came back from the brink in both semi and final of Aus.
Fed just cruised against players like Baghdatis and Gonzalez, with Ljubicic number 3 and 4.

Who challenged Rafa in any of his FO victories? Isner last year? Somehow Fed in 2008 was a challenge to Rafa but Safin in AO 2005 was not a challenge to Fed?
Somehow Fed in his first FO final in 2006 was a challenge to Rafa, but Rafa in his first Wimby final in 2006 was not a challenge to Fed?
Etc etc. that's it from me on this one.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:In the Wee Keira there was only really one person who could win the HC and grass slams- now there are 4.

How many players have won the last 4 HC/grass slams?

Yes but Djokovic has been challenged. thats the whole point.
Had to save match points in US in the semi, and came back from the brink in both semi and final of Aus.
Fed just cruised against players like Baghdatis and Gonzalez, with Ljubicic number 3 and 4.

Who challenged Rafa in any of his FO victories? Isner last year? Somehow Fed in 2008 was a challenge to Rafa but Safin in AO 2005 was not a challenge to Fed?
Somehow Fed in his first FO final in 2006 was a challenge to Rafa, but Rafa in his first Wimby final in 2006 was not a challenge to Fed?
Etc etc. that's it from me on this one.

this was before the wrist/back injuries and bouts of mono impeded Federrors. The Nadal harem fail to conceive the ideas of Federer ever being injured/ill, it can only happen to Nadal apparently.

socal1976 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Tenez wrote:Look at football where you have the largest pool of athletes practicing a sport at a high level. You may have one genius every 5 years or decade but the next 20 players at a given time are extremely close to each others.

That's real competition!

IN tennis we know Nadal, Djoko and Murray are no geniuses. They are very solid players.

Than you have to distinguish in between the top players......if guys like Courier, Becker and Agassi were playing in these years I suspect the slam wins of both Nadal and Djokovic would be more than halved. Fed himself would probably be around the double digit but still far ahead the other two.

Yes and if Fed had to compete for his slams with Andre and Pete in their primes his slam count would be greatly reduced as well. But he didn't instead he had Hewitt and Andy! LOL

What are you basing this on?
Nothing but pure speculation...more blanket statements...
If Hewitt is a really player to be laughed at what do you make of his deep run in the last grand slam,over up and coming Tomic, taking a set off the best player on tour when he is well out of his prime but Murray cant even take a set off the old man in a grand slam?
I love how its only Roger who ever faced weak opponents,but yet I never hear you say Nadal won how RG titles against the same "weak field" Did he not play in the same era and faced the same opponents on route to all those final and titles?
If you want to go down this route then why not question how many RG titles Nadal would have in the 90's era?
Why only try to diminish Roger?
Oh I forgot Im talking to Socal..what else should one really expect...

Yes and if Fed had to compete for his slams with Andre and Pete in their primes his slam count would be greatly reduced as well. But he didn't instead he had Hewitt and Andy! LOL

had Roddick been born in another era with his early forehand power before stefanki-gate then he could have won 5 or 6 slams easily, Lleyton was unfortunately beset by having glass where his knees should be. I expect better wumming from a man with your stature.

Veejay wrote:What are you basing this on?
Nothing but pure speculation...more blanket statements...

VJ, you forgot to roll your eyes at JK's initial speculation and blanket statements that socal was responding to.

Oh I forgot Im talking to Socal..what else should one really expect...

he is a fan of Novak and Nadal, a real bandwagoner if ever there was one.

[quote="Tenez"]

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:"

Tenez wrote:

A prodigy in what? he had to wait 24 to finally reach the top. "




It makes it even more impressive that he made it in this physical era with his build. And let me remind you , it was now him who started it.

Go back to say 2000, and see who the fittest guy was year by year, also who and how pushed fitness to new limits.
When Nole had his breakthrough in 2007 he looked a beanpole compared to Nadal and a boy compared to Federer.

Yes he was good....much more promising than Nadal. I remember I posted in 2007 than Djoko was better than Nadal at teh same age. Some Nadal fan got mad at me but in my view it was clear already then. Nadal benefited a lot from that extra year of (physical) maturity and had they been the same age, it coudl have been a very different affair.

But yet, Djoko did not choose to beat Nadal by taking more risk. He chose to beat at his own game: He went the less risky route, the hard work one. Good choice but I do not see a supreme talent in Djoko, but talented for sure. I have always been clear about it.

He doesn't make the gam look easy, nor does he win very easily even if he wins a lot of tournaments nowadays.

Yes, but he is having to beat Federer and Nadal on the way....

Federer at 30 can still beat both and make it look easy.

I'll let this one ride

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Veejay wrote:What are you basing this on?
Nothing but pure speculation...more blanket statements...

VJ, you forgot to roll your eyes at JK's initial speculation and blanket statements that socal was responding to.

What makes Socals's comments null and void is that the great Laver himself recently said that if Roger was given a wooden racket and was playing in his era,he believes Roger would have been the most dominant player and that many players today are manufactured by technology
Regardless of whoever Roger faced,he still remains the most naturally gifted player the world has ever seen,what ever era he would have played in,he would have been perfecting his game to beat the players he would have faced in that particle era
You cant take his wins over someone like Roddick and then unfairly assume he wouldnt have been able to beat players in the 90's era.Its doesn't work that way,its an unfair comparison,unless you're bias like Socal is.
You have to look at Rogers ability,not look at who he faced to make a fair comparison
He wants to claim that Roger isn't as great because he faced weak opponents,but at the same time was to rave about Nadal.How does that work if Nadal faced he same players in the same era?
The biggest misconception is that Rogers greatness isn't measured by who he faced its measured by what he achieved,i.e his career has spanned over 3 generations and survived it all.If he can still beat the best players in a so called stronger era,it proves that hypothetically playing in a weak era is totally irrelevant
You can also calculate how good a player really is without having to look at who they faced and how tough the competition is ,which means that even if he faced weak opponents,its irrelevant,the player is still great no matter what

amritia3ee wrote:IW 2010 was one-off. no doubt.

What happened at Miami 2010?

amritia3ee wrote:And yes JM back in the days when nadal could only play on clay he got beat by loads of people on HC and grass. Muller etc. So?

Miami 2004 or 2005? I am glad Lydian refrains from such 'back in the day' comments.

Welcome back Veejay, hows your day been?
Lovely blue skies in London, hope it lasts long.
I do like how you used 'pure speculation' in one of your replies to Social.

You have made a good point that just because Fed beats weaker players doesn't mean he couldn't have beaten Sampras and Co.

amritia3ee wrote:Welcome backs Veejay, hows your day been?
Lovely blue skies in London, hope it lasts long.
I do like how you used 'pure speculation' in one of your replies to Social.

You have made a good point that just because Fed beats weaker players doesn't mean he couldn't have beaten Sampras and Co.

So glad to see you again...what happened to your "final verdict" ??
Guess it wasn't much of a final verdict cause usually a final verdict stands/stays,it doesn't get deleted or removed

I did however see your apology to me before it was "poofed" and I just wanted to say apology accepted..as a token of my peace offering I give you something which you can add to the already extensive collection on your bedroom wall

P.S If you want I can always photoshop a racket in there somewhere ( although i don't think theres much room left for anything else)

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=bodybuilders&um=1&hl=en&client=safari&sa=N&rls=en&biw=1131&bih=570&tbm=isch&tbnid=crLzlgspb2zkYM:&imgrefurl=http://trimupfitness.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-weight-watchers-can-learn-from.html&docid=OBOhMtF8xwGOXM&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eesi0OqJwnI/Tg3oCp_njAI/AAAAAAAAAFI/-ZhnSbmLsJE/s1600/extreme_bodybuilder_02.jpg&w=306&h=390&ei=VdJPT__yMZTc8gOqz73vBQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=449&sig=114303361547033898815&page=1&tbnh=158&tbnw=119&start=0&ndsp=11&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0&tx=66&ty=54

amritia3ee wrote:Welcome back Veejay, hows your day been?
Lovely blue skies in London, hope it lasts long.
I do like how you used 'pure speculation' in one of your replies to Social.

You have made a good point that just because Fed beats weaker players doesn't mean he couldn't have beaten Sampras and Co.

But then again it doesn't mean he would definitely beat them (Sampras and the other players social was talking about) either. I think beating players like Baghdatis and Gonzalez in finals doesn't show anything really either way.
What we do know however is the facts, and the fact is Roger will be very disappointed with his H2H against his top rival. He's had 8 years since Miami 2004 and he still has a very poor record, 18-9 and 5-1 in outdoor HC is surprising.

amritia3ee wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Welcome back Veejay, hows your day been?
Lovely blue skies in London, hope it lasts long.
I do like how you used 'pure speculation' in one of your replies to Social.

You have made a good point that just because Fed beats weaker players doesn't mean he couldn't have beaten Sampras and Co.

But then again it doesn't mean he would definitely beat them (Sampras and the other players social was talking about) either. I think beating players like Baghdatis and Gonzalez in finals doesn't show anything really either way.
What we do know however is the facts, and the fact is Roger will be very disappointed with his H2H against his top rival. He's had 8 years since Miami 2004 and he still has a very poor record, 18-9 and 5-1 in outdoor HC is surprising.

What an extremely silly post

No why?
Beating Gonzalez does not mean federer would/would not have beaten Sampras at his peak. It's a hypothetical which can't really be proven.
And of course he will be disappointed with his H2H with nadal, would he not.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Del Potro against the big 4: 7-25
Tsonga vs the big 4: 12-23

so Tsonga wins roughly one in three, Del Potro less than one in four. Not great IMO. I've said it before, I think below the top 4 (which is very good) this era is pretty average.

Again top 4 is determinative of the strength of the era. These are the players that determine who wins and losses the big trophies, the quality of number 6-25 is really not as important as who 1,2,3, and sometimes 4 and 5 are. The group of players from 6-25 don't really write the history of their era they are the best of the also rans when it comes to grandslams and masters, mostly but not always.

amritia3ee wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Welcome back Veejay, hows your day been?
Lovely blue skies in London, hope it lasts long.
I do like how you used 'pure speculation' in one of your replies to Social.

You have made a good point that just because Fed beats weaker players doesn't mean he couldn't have beaten Sampras and Co.

But then again it doesn't mean he would definitely beat them (Sampras and the other players social was talking about) either. I think beating players like Baghdatis and Gonzalez in finals doesn't show anything really either way.
What we do know however is the facts, and the fact is Roger will be very disappointed with his H2H against his top rival. He's had 8 years since Miami 2004 and he still has a very poor record, 18-9 and 5-1 in outdoor HC is surprising.

Will you be saying the same thing when Nadal retires regarding his h2h against Djokovic? Or does that only apply to Roger?
7 Straight loses (and counting) to me looks like his h2h with Federer makes him the greatest beneficiary of the "weak era" by dominating weak era Federer

Veejay, I tell u right now if Roger faced the pistol 5 times on grass he would not be winning 5 times against Pete in his prime, probably not 4 times either. He played a broken down Sampras in 2001 and eeked out a tight victory.

My point that Roger would not have 16 slams if facing Pete and Andre in their prime stands. AND THIS WAS ONLY POSTED BECAUSE JK AND TENEZ SAID THAT IF NADAL OR NOVAK HAD TO PLAY LENDL AND PLAYERS LIKE THAT THEIR SLAM COUNT WOULD BE LOWER.

Andre took Roger to 4 tough sets in the USO when he was what 35 YEARS OLD. Nobody is saying that Roger isn't a great player, but I think only the biggest kool aid drinkers would assume that if Pete in his prime was playing Roger on grass or Andre on hardcourt in their PRIME playing Rog that he would have just as much success as he did against the likes of Andy, Hewitt, Ferrero, and Nalbandian. I have seen all those players work, and trust me none of them are Pete at his peak at wimbeldon.

amritia3ee wrote:No why?
Beating Gonzalez does not mean federer would/would not have beaten Sampras at his peak. It's a hypothetical which can't really be proven.
And of course he will be disappointed with his H2H with nadal, would he not.

How would you presume to know about how the mindset of one of the world's elite athletes work?

The rest of the negative stuff you post about Federer is just too ridiculous to respond to.

socal1976 wrote:Veejay, I tell u right now if Roger faced the pistol 5 times on grass he would not be winning 5 times against Pete in his prime, probably not 4 times either. He played a broken down Sampras in 2001 and eeked out a tight victory.

My point that Roger would not have 16 slams if facing Pete and Andre in their prime stands. AND THIS WAS ONLY POSTED BECAUSE JK AND TENEZ SAID THAT IF NADAL OR NOVAK HAD TO PLAY LENDL AND PLAYERS LIKE THAT THEIR SLAM COUNT WOULD BE LOWER.

Andre took Roger to 4 tough sets in the USO when he was what 35 YEARS OLD. Nobody is saying that Roger isn't a great player, but I think only the biggest kool aid drinkers would assume that if Pete in his prime was playing Roger on grass or Andre on hardcourt in their PRIME playing Rog that he would have just as much success as he did against the likes of Andy, Hewitt, Ferrero, and Nalbandian. I have seen all those players work, and trust me none of them are Pete at his peak at wimbeldon.

You may be right socal - you may not be, but what exactly is the point of this post?

Any of you armchair pundits who can't see that TMF is a great player just can't have been lucky enough to see him live - I don't think TV does justice to the lightening speed of his game.

You are entitled to think Nadal superior or Djokovic too - it doesn't worry this Fed fan in the slightest, as I say, your preorgative. If both of them beat his slam total, it won't make him any less talented or wonderful or his wonderful records like the great slam semi run and now the great QF run any less brilliant.

socal1976 wrote:Veejay, I tell u right now if Roger faced the pistol 5 times on grass he would be winning 5 times against Pete in his prime. He played a broken down Sampras in 2001 and eeked out a tight victory.

My point that Roger would not have 16 slams if facing Pete and Andre in their prime stands. AND THIS WAS ONLY POSTED BECAUSE JK AND TENEZ SAID THAT IF NADAL OR NOVAK HAD TO PLAY LENDL AND PLAYERS LIKE THAT THEIR SLAM COUNT WOULD BE LOWER.

Andre took Roger to 4 tough sets in the USO when he was what 35 YEARS OLD. Nobody is saying that Roger isn't a great player, but I think only the biggest kool aid drinkers would assume that if Pete in his prime was playing Roger on grass or Andre on hardcourt in their PRIME playing Rog that he would have just as much success as he did against the likes of Andy, Hewitt, Ferrero, and Nalbandian. I have seen all those players work, and trust me none of them are Pete at his peak at wimbeldon.

Pure speculation,seriously!! Pease don't trumpet your speculation around like fact.You cannot proof it,its just your opinion
don't go around pretending that it would play our like you hope.
So what if Andre took Roger to 4 sets? That doesn't prove anything,all it proves was in that particular match Agassi was able to take a set off Roger-thats all.Nothing more nothing less
You have ZERO to prove what you're saying
Plus the major point you're missing is if Roger was born and played in that era,he would have perfected his game to beat the players of that era.Laver himself said,if you take technology away,Roger would still be more or less the same or close to player he is today.The fact that you think Federer being hands down the more naturally gifted,most rounded player to ever play the game out of all the players mentioned wouldn't have been successful speaks volumes.This clearly points to your hatred of the guy and you won't stop at anything to try and diminish his achievements
Im not saying he would have beaten Pete or would have been the more dominant player,neither am I saying he would have been the loser you're claiming he would have been,Im saying making such blanket statement is nothing but pure speculation
We don't know what would have happened,so don't go around saying Roger would be half the player he is if he was playing in that era.Youre making a fool of yourself here by saying that
But seeing that you're so convinced you're right,I would like to see your proof to back your comments up,and I would also like for you to explain to me why both Pete and Andre thinks Roger is a greater/better player then what they were

or why the great Rod Laver does not seem as well informed as our very own amritia3ee

Hello Veejay, when did I say Fed would be dominated by Pete, all I am saying is that on grass Pete would get his licks in. Kind of like when a 36 year old sampras beat Peak fed at the end 0f 07 in china. What I stated is not as extreme as the position you have taken. I don't even talk about technology which you seem to keep posting on. Pete would not allow himself to be run over on grass by Roger like Hewitt and Roddick did. Maybe Roger would win more than he would lose, but he would bull rush the fast court slams with a peak Pete in the picture. BY THE WAY THE ONLY REASON I STARTED THIS WAS BECAUSE JK CLAIMED THAT IF NOVAK AND NADAL HAD TO PLAY PEAK GREATS LIKE LENDL THEIR SLAM COUNT WOULD BE LOWER. YOU CAN SAY THAT ABOUT ANY GREAT CHAMPION. If any great player had tougher competition he would win less.

Sorry it isn't speculation, excpet to a Fed extremist that Pete at wimbeldon is tougher competition than Andy and hewitt. Put the cup of Kool Aid down Veej. Anyone who has watched tennis can tell you Pete on wimbeldon, much stronger competition than Andy Roddick.

I don't think anyone said that Hewitt or Roddick were tougher than the great Pete Sampras. I think the majority view is that he was perhaps the greatest grass court player of the modern era. Some of the commentators who hold this opinion have opined that Federer is one of the most complete all court players of the modern era - of course it would be interesting to have seen both at their peak, but then it has been great to see them both follow each other and to see one wonderful grass court player follow another.

At the end of day, speculation has to be good-humored because individual opinion is completely unproveable.

Exactly, timeplease if you make statements like if Lendl and Agassi where around Novak wouldn't win as much, well then you do realize that Fed and any other great is just as susceptible to that type of speculation. Why didn't Veejay and the rest of the Fed extremists get upset when Tenez speculated that if other greats where playing that Novak's slam count would be halved? I make a less extreme version of the same argument about St. Roger and Pete and Veejay is up in arms.

My maxim holds Pete at wimbeldon much tougher than Andy and Hewitt in his peak, challenge it if you like but you only make your self look silly.

socal1976 wrote:Hello Veejay, when did I say Fed would be dominated by Pete, all I am saying is that on grass Pete would get his licks in. Kind of like when a 36 year old sampras beat Peak fed at the end 0f 07 in china. What I stated is not as extreme as the position you have taken. I don't even talk about technology which you seem to keep posting on. Pete would not allow himself to be run over on grass by Roger like Hewitt and Roddick did. Maybe Roger would win more than he would lose, but he would bull rush the fast court slams with a peak Pete in the picture. BY THE WAY THE ONLY REASON I STARTED THIS WAS BECAUSE JK CLAIMED THAT IF NOVAK AND NADAL HAD TO PLAY PEAK GREATS LIKE LENDL THEIR SLAM COUNT WOULD BE LOWER. YOU CAN SAY THAT ABOUT ANY GREAT CHAMPION. If any great player had tougher competition he would win less.

Sorry it isn't speculation, excpet to a Fed extremist that Pete at wimbeldon is tougher competition than Andy and hewitt. Put the cup of Kool Aid down Veej. Anyone who has watched tennis can tell you Pete on wimbeldon, much stronger competition than Andy Roddick.

You're calling me extreme?
You've gone from saying that Roger wouldn't have won as many majors to now saying "Pete would get his kicks in"
Of course we all know that if Roger and Pete played in the same era Roger wouldn't had won 10 out of 10 times,neither would Pete have won 10 out of 10 times
But to specify the way you have by saying Roger wouldn't have won as many majors because he dominated a weak field is just pure speculation.What makes your comments even more ridiculous is if Roger lost more to Roddick and Hewit then they could have been multiple major winners,Roddick with several Wimbledon titles which in turn would have made them all time greats in their own right and this wouldn't even be an issue.But Roger gets penalised for dominating the field so comprehensively
I mention technology but thats clearly lost on you.If you cannot understand that most players today are manufactures by technology but if you take technology away from Roger he would still be a similar player by now,then you never will.
You obviously cant come to the conclusion on your own that that would mean Roger would be near or as good as he is now,in any era,because he relies on skill not technology.If you took other current players technology away from them,they wouldn't be able to produce a similar standard

Why are you yelling? Don't take that tone with me Socal,Im not who someone has to repeat something 10 times and they still don't get it...

"Pete at wimbeldon is tougher competition than Andy and hewitt."
Tennis is about match ups...but I guess you still don't know that...

"it isn't speculation"
Then where is your proof?
Why is " by time please" basically saying the same thing as I am?
Are we both wrong and you're right? I mean you're not once again making blanket statements?
You need to get out more dude...I will put the cool aid down if you put the pipe down is that a deal?
Im still waiting for you to explain to me why both Pete and Andre think Roger is a better player?

Well the idea of a forum is to be able to discuss and share ideas I guess?

socal1976 wrote:My maxim holds Pete at wimbeldon much tougher than Andy and Hewitt in his peak, challenge it if you like but you only make your self look silly.

Perhaps some of this discussion belongs in this thread - https://www.606v2.com/t24651-ultimate-mythical-matchups

Look Socal I can make blanket statement like you too,if you want to say Roger wouldn't have won as many majors in the 90 era,whats stopping me from turning around and saying Roger would have won more then 16 majors in the 90 era?

So I'm going to say that if Roger played in the 90 era he would have won 20 majors

According to you that wouldn't be pure speculation right?
Or would it suddenly be pure speculation now?

noleisthebest wrote:

I'll let this one ride

That's why we love you here!

federer > sampras

swiss cheese > short tipper

socal1976 wrote:when Tenez speculated that if other greats where playing that Novak's slam count would be halved?

Where did I say that?

There is lots of speculation here but as you speculate let's speculate seriously.

Bar the odd match Federer, even at 30, is only beaten by physical players on slower conds. THose physical players are the product of science that did not exist just 5 years ago.

It meas that in any other era, Federer woudl have been unstoppable like he was unstoppable on 3 out of the 4 slams. And he was only beaten on clay cause there a player could make the most of his physical edge.

In any other past era, Federer where PRP, special diets woudl have been forbidden or undiscovered yet, Federer coudl have accumulated 25 if not 30 slams.

Remember only science beats him. no-one else...bar the odd match.

Veejay, it isn't just speculation that Pete is a tougher matchup on grass than Lleyton Hewitt or a Andy Roddick in his prime he has 7 wimbeldon championships, and the players in question basically played in the same timeframe. Pete older than the other two by some years but still of a similar period. That is why you keep going off onto tangents that don't get to the heart of the argument. Do you believe I am off base by concluding that the man 7 slam championships at wimby and with the most precise and deadly second serve and first combo in the history of the tour isn't more fearson than Hewitt and Roddick? You talk around alot Veejay but don't get to the heart of my questions. Its not just speculation your looking at objective measures like 7 titles fairly recently.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Oh I forgot Im talking to Socal..what else should one really expect...

he is a fan of Novak and Nadal, a real bandwagoner if ever there was one.

Novak has been my favorite since 06, Nadal is not even one of my top 5 favorite players on tour to watch. I just think the arguments made by Fed fans about other champions and particularly Nadal to be distasteful and laughable. I don't care much for Nadal's game outside his passing shots but I do like fairness and reason. Two things lacking by certain segments of extreme fed fans.

Just for the record my top 5

1. Novak 2. Gasquet 3. Fernando Gonzalez 4. Youzhny 5. baghdatis

Of the young guys I really like Harrison thinking of putting him the top 5.

socal1976 wrote:Veejay, it isn't just speculation that Pete is a tougher matchup on grass than Lleyton Hewitt or a Andy Roddick in his prime he has 7 wimbeldon championships, and the players in question basically played in the same timeframe. Pete older than the other two by some years but still of a similar period. That is why you keep going off onto tangents that don't get to the heart of the argument. Do you believe I am off base by concluding that the man 7 slam championships at wimby and with the most precise and deadly second serve and first combo in the history of the tour isn't more fearson than Hewitt and Roddick? You talk around alot Veejay but don't get to the heart of my questions. Its not just speculation your looking at objective measures like 7 titles fairly recently.

This is nothing but utter pure speculation of a current era band-wagoner. You always post self contradictory paradoxical statements. You say Fed had only to beat the like of Roddick for his Slams. 7 time wimbledon champion Pete in his prime is was better than Fed and would certainly be winning if they met. Now whom did prime pete had to beat for his wimbledons? Who all great players? Cédric Pioline, a Serve only Goran Ivanišević?? A 28 year old past-his-prime becker?? If Roger is a poorer player because he had only to beak Roddick for his Wimbledons, the pete too had Pioline, Goran to beat for his wimbledons. Thats why this argument is pathetic.

Poor band wagoner's logic.

socal1976 wrote:Kind of like when a 36 year old sampras beat Peak fed at the end 0f 07 in china.

You base your argument on the result of an exhibition match??
This is more laughable than the Fognini conspiracy.
Do you even know about the 3 exhibition matches in 2007?

Here it goes for the 'muppet with a trumpet' :

On November 20, 2007, Sampras lost the first of three exhibition matches in Asia against Roger Federer losing 6–4, 6–3 in Seoul, Korea.[40] Two days later in Kuala Lumpur, Sampras again lost to Federer, 7–6(6), 7–6(5). However, Sampras was able to win the last match of the series, winning 7–6(8), 6–4.[41]

See if the result of the great exhibition matches is so important for you, here it goes. Fed won 2/3 matches.

On November 20, 2007, Sampras lost the first of three exhibition matches in Asia against Roger Federer losing 6–4, 6–3 in Seoul, Korea.[40] Two days later in Kuala Lumpur, Sampras again lost to Federer, 7–6(6), 7–6(5). However, Sampras was able to win the last match of the series, winning 7–6(8), 6–4.[41]

See if the result of the great exhibition matches is so important for you, here it goes. Fed won 2/3 matches.

he will use the theory of winning the last match counts the most...

This whole era debate is painstaking.

Let's just clarify one thing. To win a Slam you need to defeat 7 players, so stop with all the oh he only beat Roddick or he only beat Pioline crap.

It seems that players still have enough left in tank to cement a challenge to the top 20 in terms of ranking. Ferrero, Ljubicic, Nalbandian and now Lopez have all done this. Along with Fish and Melzer. In this day and age no-one is expecting these players to win a Slam and I am sure that these players deep down would also admit to that expectation. When you have such young players as Dolgo, Tomic, Dimitrov trying to break through it is good that the old guard still have some fight left in them to improve their rankings and performances. Something that should be acknowledged as good achievement.

socal1976 wrote:Veejay, it isn't just speculation that Pete is a tougher matchup on grass than Lleyton Hewitt or a Andy Roddick in his prime he has 7 wimbeldon championships, and the players in question basically played in the same timeframe.

You have to specify what you mean by "grass". Pete would have won 0 Wimbledon on todays conditions. Just like he has 0 FO. Nadal would have won 0 Wimbledon on 90s Wimbledon.

The only player we know could have done well on both conds is actually Federer.

socal1976 wrote:Veejay, it isn't just speculation that Pete is a tougher matchup on grass than Lleyton Hewitt or a Andy Roddick in his prime he has 7 wimbeldon championships, and the players in question basically played in the same timeframe. Pete older than the other two by some years but still of a similar period. That is why you keep going off onto tangents that don't get to the heart of the argument. Do you believe I am off base by concluding that the man 7 slam championships at wimby and with the most precise and deadly second serve and first combo in the history of the tour isn't more fearson than Hewitt and Roddick? You talk around alot Veejay but don't get to the heart of my questions. Its not just speculation your looking at objective measures like 7 titles fairly recently.

Just cause Pete may be a tougher match up doesn't automatically mean Roger couldnt beat Pete
You are basing Rogers win over those players on the players themselves not on Roger ability
This is what you didn't understand before,if a player is great a player is great,whether the competition is weak or strong,they are still the same player.Youre highlighting all of Petes strengths but I don't see you match that up with highlighting all of Rogers strengths,why not?
You're comparing a serve and volley player to a baseline player on 2 very different surfaces and surface speed and then coming to a conclusion that only suits your agenda
Roger is still the same player if he faces someone ranked 503 or ranked in the top 5.You cant use a win over a player ranked 503 and then say he wouldn't have beaten someone in the 90's era based on that.Thats basically what you're saying
Plus you're also trying to use a player who has been in decline to prove he wouldn't have won as many majors in the 90's
Is that really fair?
Since the so called Nadal era in 08,Roger managed to win a career grand slam in the space of just 2 years
Heres some more facts for your "weak era" theory
Federer has won 16 Grand Slam titles, breaking the previous all-time men's record of 14 by Pete Sampras (American). Federer won 16 majors in a span of 27 majors (2003 Wimbledon – 2010 Australian Open), while Sampras won 14 in 49 majors (1990 US Open – 2002 US Open)
Thats almost double the time frame and this clearly proves that the window of opportunity is significantly smaller now then it was back then
The other thing you fail to realise is that Roger has been virtually injury free,his consistently is unmatched in the history of the game which is one of the main reasons why he was able to do what he did

You are telling me I talk a lot when you fail to EVER answer a single question I pose to you
I won't argue with you if you think Pete is a tougher opponent then Hewitt and Roddick,but the argument you fail to understand,just like in every other single comment I have ever made to you,is that to assume anything based on that is pure speculation
You're using that to trumpet something as if its a proven fact,I am saying its nothing but pure speculation
Maybe you're right,maybe you're wrong-its pure speculation,it cant be proven so its irrelevant to even say something that like because it isn't fact
The only reason why you say that is to solely diminish Rogers achievements by claiming he benefited from a weak era.Since I have been in this forum,I havent once seen you say Nadal has benefitted from a weak era,even though he faced those exact same players you think are so weak and are to be laughed at,along the way to all of his major titles,not just his RG titles but every single title he won had Hewit and Roddick in the draw.So why aren't you questioning how many titles Nadal would have won in the 90's?
Why do you only ever single Roger out?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
This is nothing but utter pure speculation of a current era band-wagoner. You always post self contradictory paradoxical statements. You say Fed had only to beat the like of Roddick for his Slams. 7 time wimbledon champion Pete in his prime is was better than Fed and would certainly be winning if they met. Now whom did prime pete had to beat for his wimbledons? Who all great players? Cédric Pioline, a Serve only Goran Ivanišević?? A 28 year old past-his-prime becker?? If Roger is a poorer player because he had only to beak Roddick for his Wimbledons, the pete too had Pioline, Goran to beat for his wimbledons. Thats why this argument is pathetic.

Poor band wagoner's logic.

Socal exposed...again!

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:See if the result of the great exhibition matches is so important for you, here it goes. Fed won 2/3 matches.

And Federer made sure that whatever the result, old Pete would not have to play 3 sets.

Regarding the 3rd encounter: "He (Federer) threw me a bone" said Pete.

But Socal's accute sense of observation seem to have missed out on most details bar the effect of a w.o. of course.

http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2012/3/2/db36e846-a726-4265-9c51-3e5a6547ee0c.jpg

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

On November 20, 2007, Sampras lost the first of three exhibition matches in Asia against Roger Federer losing 6–4, 6–3 in Seoul, Korea.[40] Two days later in Kuala Lumpur, Sampras again lost to Federer, 7–6(6), 7–6(5). However, Sampras was able to win the last match of the series, winning 7–6(8), 6–4.[41]

See if the result of the great exhibition matches is so important for you, here it goes. Fed won 2/3 matches.

he will use the theory of winning the last match counts the most...