v2 G.O.A.T Round 1 Group 8

First topic message reminder :

Yesterday’s group was another two horse race with could have gone either way, the voting was split between early candidates to win the entire competition footballing icon Pele and arguably the best pound for pound boxer of all time Sugar Ray Robinson. Pele eventually finished in first place with 38 votes and Robinson qualified in second place with 35 votes, leaving Michael Schumacher and Stephen Hendry exiting the tournament at the first attempt.

Today’s group sees Tennis, Track and Field, golf and Snooker compete for your votes.

We have the two participants championed today with articles written by forum members, so please feel free to submit your own argument below for the one not championed.

Please vote for the competitor you believe has achieved the most in sport and should progress into the next round.

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Roger Federer- Tennis- Championed by emancipator

2001, Wimbledon Centre Court; defending and seven time Wimbledon champion 'Pistol' Pete Sampras, the man who had reigned at the top of men's tennis for close to a decade and considered by many to be unbeatable on this hallowed turf is at crisis point. At two sets all, 5-6 and 15-40 down in the deciding set, the ruthlessly efficient Sampras is facing match point.

It had been five years since anyone had managed to beat him in this tournament. His opponent a relatively unknown challenger in the form of Swiss teenager, 19 year old Roger Federer, is considered to be a prodigious but erratic talent. He seems to have all the shots but doesn't know quite how to put them together. His temperament has also been questionable. Today, however, things appear to be different. For nearly four hours the two protagonists have battled. To the surprise of the enthralled on lookers it was Federer who took the opening set. But Sampras hit back as any great champion is expected to do. The audience fully expected him to motor on and over power the youngster, except, as the match wore on, it appeared as if the Swiss was the one getting stronger, whilst Sampras appeared more and more uneasy. By the time the match score had reached two sets all, the tension had become palpable. The Centre Court crowd knew that there were no longer any favourites in this match; this would be a dog-fight, survival of the fittest - and the bravest; reputations would count for nothing.

On countless occasions throughout his career Sampras had bailed himself out of tight spots with his booming, swerving, pin-point accurate serve; the serve universally acclaimed as the greatest in history. He wipes sweat from his brow, places the ball against the racket, looks up, coils himself into the releasing position, then with a seamlessly fluid motion he serves a missile out wide to Federer's forehand and charges towards the net. Federer takes a step towards the ball and unleashes a forehand that whizzes past Sampras for a clean winner. He crumples to his knees in disbelief and celebration. A split-second of silence is followed by an eruption as the Centre Court crowd rise as one to salute a new King. The BBC commentator proclaims the birth of a new star. It is indeed the dawn of a new era.. The Federer era.

Looking back it was a poignant moment in sporting history. The one occasion on which the two greatest champions of the modern era were to play each other, and as fate would have it, on the court most beloved to either of them. It was a reminder of days gone by and a harbinger of those yet to come.

It would be another couple of years before Federer would really hit the heights, and what heights! 17 grand slams from 24 finals, including 7 Wimbledon titles. Over 300 weeks as the number one player in the world, including 237 consecutive weeks at the top spot. 6 World Tour Final victories from 8 finals. 23 consecutive grand slam semi-finals; 34 consecutive grand slam quarter finals (and counting); a run of 24 consecutive finals victories in all tournaments, 65 consecutive match wins on grass, 56 consecutive match wins on hardcourt, five consecutive Wimbledon and US Open titles, a run of 18 grand slam finals out of 19 grand slam tournaments played, 21 masters titles.. and on and on.. all of them records, many of them by a considerable distance. There are at least half a dozen Wikipedia articles dedicated to the career achievements and compiled statistics/records of Roger Federer. Peruse them at your own leisure - if you've got a few days to spare that is

But what makes Federer really stand out amongst the legends of tennis and indeed any sport is his unique game. Everything about his game is beautiful, everything is seemingly effortless. He glides around the court unhurried, with uncanny footwork and balletic grace. A sixth sense for being at the right place at the right time. He plays with perfect technique. Like an artist, Federer creates masterpieces; the court is his canvas. At heart, he is an attacking player who plays the game the right way; always looking to seize the initiative, to hit outright winners, to win spectacularly and brilliantly. He can hit every shot in the book. But he can also grind and play great defense. If it is so required he can switch to plan b, c, d, whatever it takes. In a sport dominated by super athletes, Federer at his peak was as fast and durable as they come. Modern tennis is played predominantly from the baseline (a stark contrast to the tennis of Sampras's heydey which was mainly serve and volley based, with the majority of points won at the net) and Roger Federer can play the baseline game as well as anyone. But he can do so much more. He can mix spins and slices, lobs and dropshots, powerful winners and delicate touch, from the back of the court or at the net. It is this unique fusion of power, skill and aesthetic grace, that has captured the imagination of millions of fans around the world. Federer doesn't just win, he wins with style.

When Federer established himself as the number one player in the world in late 2003 people were already starting to whisper about this potential phenomenon. He emerged from a group of fantastically talented youngsters: Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Roddick, Haas, to establish himself as THE man to beat. As the years rolled by he gathered steam, and the initial curiosity that follows the emergence of any great talent - the excitement of thinking about all the possibilites - was replaced by amazement then incredulity and finally awe. As Andre Agassi said, 'Federer was the guy who came and took the game light years ahead.' He looked like something from the future. The American media even dubbed him 'Darth Federer' (in reference to his super-natural gifts and black clothing) at the 2007 US Open. More than anything else, the Roger Federer phenomenon turned the sport of tennis, which had been suffering a slump in popularity following the years of serve dominated play, into one of the most popular spectator sports in the world. He was and remains to this day, although not to the same extent, a phenom. Or as David Foster Wallace wrote in the New York Times:

"Roger Federer is one of those rare, preternatural athletes who appear to be exempt, at least in part, from certain physical laws. Good analogues here include Michael Jordan, who could not only jump inhumanly high but actually hang there a beat or two longer than gravity allows, and Muhammad Ali, who really could “float” across the canvas and land two or three jabs in the clock-time required for one. There are probably a half-dozen other examples since 1960. And Federer is of this type — a type that one could call genius, or mutant, or avatar. He is never hurried or off-balance. The approaching ball hangs, for him, a split-second longer than it ought to. His movements are lithe rather than athletic. Like Ali, Jordan, Maradona, and Gretzky, he seems both less and more substantial than the men he faces. Particularly in the all-white that Wimbledon enjoys getting away with still requiring, he looks like what he may well (I think) be: a creature whose body is both flesh and, somehow, light." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (By the way - this article by Wallace entitled 'Roger Federer as a religious experience' is a great read)

Federer's style and success has allowed him to transcend the sport in a way that few sportsmen in history can match. He is a record four time winner of the prestigious Laureus Sportsman of the Year Award. In a recent poll conducted across 25 countries with 51,000 participants he was voted as the second most trusted person in the world after Nelson Mandela. During the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony, Federer received the loudest cheer of the night when he carried the Swiss flag into the stadium https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddojLWIjKK4 At the London Olympics Federer's pre-Olympic presser had more than 700 journalists, more than any other star at the games. He was mobbed by crowds during his recent tour of South America with political and sporting dignitaries (including Pele and Maradonna) feting him. He has the most impressive endorsement portfolio in all of sports including blue chip companies such as Nike, Mercedes-Benz (global ambassador), Wilson, Rolex, Credite Suisse, Gillette, Moet & Chandon etc.

But despite all the accolades Federer has remained a likeable, down to earth person. His fellow tennis professionals have voted him the winner of the annual Steffan Edberg Sportsmanship award a record eight times. He is the President of the ATP players council and in this capacity has campaigned for the benefit of all the players on the tour, including negotiating a fairer distribution of prize money for players who lose in the earlier rounds of the slams. The Roger Federer foundation is a charitable organisation with the stated mission of empowering children through education; it is involved in numerous projects throughout Africa.

It is incredible that with so many distractions (he's married with two young children to boot) Federer has still managed to stay at the top of such a global and competitive sport. As things stand he is the number 2 ranked player in the world and indeed was, just a few short months ago, the number one player in the world. Tennis has traditionally been a young man's sport but Roger Federer has redefined the parameters. I firmly believe that Federer is one of the outstanding candidates for the greatest sportsman of all time accolade. He fits all of the criteria: a sporting phenomenon, unmatched in his sport, an incredible record in a globally competitive sport which is both physical and skill-based, a global sporting icon who is one of the most popular sportsmen on the planet and a great role model, who plays hard but fair. But of course the Federer story is not over yet. He has declared his intention to play until the 2016 Olympic Games. There may yet be a few more pages to add to Wikipedia


Some quotes:

"[In the modern game], you're either a clay court specialist, a grass court specialist or a hard court specialist ... or you're Roger Federer" - Jimmy Connors

"He is the most naturally talented player I have ever seen in my life" - John McEnroe

"He moves like a whisper and executes like a wrecking ball" - Nick Bollettieri (legendary tennis coach)

"He is the most perfect machine I have ever seen playing tennis" - Diego Maradonna

"Federer is capable of playing shots that other players don't even think of" - Ivan Lendl

"We are witnessing history. This is the most dominant athlete on planet earth today" - Jim Courier (4 time grand slam champion)

"Federer is the best player in history - no other player has ever had so much quality" - Rafael Nadal

"Roger's got too many shots, too much talent in one body. It's hardly fair that one person can do all this—his backhands, his forehands, volleys, serving, his court position. The way he moves around the court, you feel like he's barely touching the ground. That's the sign of a great champion." - Rod Laver

"He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go. There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts. Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them [other players], so many years; there's a safety zone, there's a place to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision." - Andre Agassi

"He's a real person. He's not an enigma. Off the court he's not trying to be somebody. If you met him at McDonald's and you didn't know who he was, you would have no idea that he's one of the best athletes in the world" - Andy Roddick

"Today I was playing my best tennis, trying lots of different things, but nothing worked. When you're playing like that and he still comes up with all those great shots you really have to wonder if he's even from the same planet" - Novak Djokovic

emancipator

ps - For those of you who haven't seen the The Fed Express in action, the following video might give you some idea of what he's all about
http://vimeo.com/40765561

Tiger Woods- Golf- Championed by Adam D

"So far these GOAT debates have been fascinating reading. What sports are sports? How does a sportsman shine if they are part of a team? How can someone who is not athletically fit be considered a ""great"" sportsman? How can someone be considered the GOAT if they are not even the best in their sport?

Well all of these arguments could be levelled at Mr Woods to a certain extent, however, I will prove why all of these points in isolation do not matter to Tiger.

Tiger Woods is not just the greatest golfer of his generation, he is the greatest of all time. Whats that I hear you say? Jack Niklaus has won more?
Well for a start, he hasnt. Niklaus HAS won more Majors but not tournaments.

In fact, the person with the most tournament wins is Sam Snead who dominated from 1936 to 1965, clocking up 7 major wins. But I doubt he is going to grace this list anytime soon.

Lets get back to Niklaus vs Woods because lets face it, thats the golfing GOAT debate that will spring up. Now I like Niklaus and I like Woods, but which is better? There is only one way to find out....actually, its a matter of opinion and for me the reason why Woods outshines the Niklaus era is down to the talent pool around them.

Let me talk about that for a second. In Niklaus' era, we had the big names and historical superstars of the sport. In Woods era, we have Major winners such as Keegan Bradley and Zach Johnson. Whats my point you may ask as this is surely a selling point for Jack?

My point is that in the 60,70 and 80s, golf was dominated by a group of great players in a smaller pool. And that was down to the social class aspect of the sport. Fewer people played, and skill was the biggest factor in winning a tournament. Today, everyone is welcomed onto the many, many more courses around the world. And due to big hitting taking precedent over course management, the field has become much more even and full of depth.

Tigers dominance in a more scientific era of golf is that much more impressive. And its also the reason why he should be voted above the likes of Federer and Phil Taylor and Ronnie O'Sullivan. Tiger doesnt have to beat a single opponent on each day. He has won these tournaments by beating EVERY player over 4 days.

This is not a case of playing better than this rounds opponent but a case of playing better than every person in the competition. That is why his achievements should be considered above the other individual sports on this list.

So what has Tiger achieved?

At age 2, he appeared on TV putting against Bob Hope! At age three, he shot a 48 over nine holes over the Cypress Navy course. Before turning seven, Tiger won the Under Age 10 section of the Drive, Pitch, and Putt competition, held at the Navy Golf Course in Cypress, California.

In 1984 at the age of eight, he won the 9–10 boys' event, the youngest age group available, at the Junior World Golf Championships. He first broke 80 at age eight. He went on to win the Junior World Championships six times, including four consecutive wins from 1988 to 1991.

And THEN he went to college!

By the time he turned Pro in 1996, he had already amassed dozens of junior titles.

I am going to sum up his career in a very brief manner as the stats talk for themselves.

Woods has won 74 official PGA Tour events including 14 majors. He is 14–1 when going into the final round of a major with at least a share of the lead. He has been heralded as ""the greatest closer in history"" by multiple golf experts. He owns the lowest career scoring average and the most career earnings of any player in PGA Tour history.

He has spent the most consecutive and cumulative weeks atop the world rankings. He is one of five players (along with Gene Sarazen,Ben Hogan, Gary Player, and Jack Nicklaus) to have won all four professional major championships in his career, known as the Career Grand Slam, and was the youngest to do so. Woods is the only player to have won all four professional major championships in a row, accomplishing the feat in the 2000–2001 seasons.


On top of this he has another 38 European Tour wins and other worldwide tournaments.

Simply put, no one in the modern era has dominated the sport like Tiger. He has been so dominant that he won the US Open in 2008 on one leg (He was recovering from Knee surgery before the tournament and had to have major knee surgery afterwards).

Outside of his sporting achievements it has to be noted that Tiger Woods has transcended just playing the game. He has a successful video game franchise named after him - when was the last time anyone played Roger Federers Tennis 2013 or Jerry Rice American Football 2013?

The final thing I want to touch upon is his infidelity. Some may discount him for this very reason but that is ludicrous. However, we must remember that Tiger hasnt commited a crime. He hasnt taken drugs to cheat at his sport. He hasnt dodged a military draft or served jail time for serious crimes. He cheated on his wife (albeit on numerous occasions) which might make him less of a man but not a sporting great.

Tiger deserves to be the v2 GOAT.

Steve Davis OBE - Championed by VTR

A great sportsperson can be defined in a number of ways. We could have the great champion, someone who dominated their sport for a period. Or someone that had an incredibly long career at the top. Even someone who fundamentally changed the way their sport was played. It is certainly a rare specimen that can be classified as two let alone all three of these.

Growing up in the 80’s there was one name above all others that was synonymous with Snooker: Steve Davis. There were popular characters such as Alex Higgins and Jimmy White but only one great champion. Often mocked for being boring, Davis did his talking on the snooker table, taking apart opponents in a period of domination only approached since by Stephen Hendry.

I will come on to his record but let’s start with impact. Why was Davis considered boring? I think simply because he was the first player to really take a fully professional approach to snooker and recognise it for what it was: a growing sport where riches could be made. Is practicing so hard you leave nothing to chance really boring? Refusing to drink during matches boring? Playing with intensity? I would say not – and almost all players that have followed have realised that being an endearing character does not pay the bills and deliver silverware, it is only winning that will do that. Davis’ approach drastically improved the standard of the game, paving the way for the incredible level of play achieved by future greats such as Hendry, O’Sullivan and John Higgins.

So what of that record? Davis won 6 out of the 10 World Championships in the 1980’s. Add to that numerous other titles including several victories in The Masters and UK Championship and you can only be awestruck by his dominance and consistency. Even in rare defeat, Davis will be remembered. The 1985 final, watched by a UK TV audience of almost 20 million people in a beyond midnight finish went to the final black. Taylor won, Davis was gracious in defeat and certainly played his part in the greatest match ever. In what is likely to be his final tally, Davis has reached 41 ranking finals, winning 28 titles.

Snooker is not a physical pursuit but I would argue it is a young man’s game. Stephen Hendry, Davis’s main contender for the snooker GOAT won his last world title aged 30. A sport based on such precision naturally favours the undiminished motor skills of the younger player. Davis is unique in his longevity, and has only relatively recently showed signs of a terminal decline. Of course his period of domination is long over, but Davis has remained competitive well past the age of 45. Aged 48 Davis was still good enough to reach the UK Championship final in 2005 and had a season in the all-important Top 16 at the age of 50. He has the ability to qualify for major events to this day; the competitive instinct refuses to be extinguished. One of his greatest coups was in 2010 when he beat defending champion John Higgins to progress to the World Championship Quarter Finals. A huge shock no doubt but in some ways not that surprising: every player would have known that on his day this elder statesman still had the game to defeat them.

And finally back to that personality: Davis has a fantastic dry wit, makes time for the fans and provides analysis and commentary of the highest quality. The often vile British media with their hypocritical dual delight-and-disgust at sportspeople that make a mess of their lives will chip away at characters like Davis with the boring tag as a mark of their own disappointment. There’s no story to tell outside of his sporting excellence, Davis is a true class act on and off the baize.

The pioneer, the great champion, the evergreen. Davis is certainly all three.

Yes, Federer has clearly showed himself to be roughly the equal of a hugely talented generation some five or six years younger than him, without doubt. As you suggest, one would wish to see Tiger show the same relative competitive equality vis-a-vis McIlroy, say, just as Nicklaus was able to keep relative parity with Watson, despite being a decade older.

Tigers form is certainly back to a winnable major level(not to his own peak level- but that peak level was beyond anyone elses ever anyway)

Its his mind that is to be questioned. Not only do many people call him tiger mark 2- in his own mind he probally sees that as well. If he can win one though - that confidence could shift..

Mcilroy although a brilliant no.1 will never compete every major though. Not like the tennis stars that can. There will be at least 20 chances left for tiger if he wants it enough. and 4wins isnt out of the question..

At the same time though- if tiger does get the extra few majors- by that time we may have another golfing goat on the horizon to be argued for in mcilroy.. But as much as i rate him(and talent wise well up there as one of the best ever) he will never ever produce the ten year dominant spell that tiger did..

I was really expecting Woods to add to his major tally in 2011 and last year, mystiroakey. 2010 was the year after all the nonsense blew up around him, so it was understandable that his mind was elsewhere. However, over the last eight Slams, Woods has produced at least one very poor round almost every time. He has occasionally looked a contender at halfway, but is now getting swamped at the business end. In his salad days, it would have been a case of all bets off if he was ahead after 36.

4 majors would represent a great career for a lot of golfers and I'm unsure that Tiger has the game for that number now, leave alone the mind, to which you rightly draw attention. If I had to bet, I reckon that he has another Masters in him, and he has always played St Andrew's better than anyone else, but I can't see him attaining more than a couple more Majors at best.

Tiger is now the same age that Nicklaus was when he forced Watson into the duel in the sun at Turnberry, the pair of them streeting the rest of the field. I would be content to see the 37 year-old Woods putting the younger lion McIlroy under that kind of sustained pressure in similar circumstances this year.

captain carrantuohil wrote:I was really expecting Woods to add to his major tally in 2011 and last year, mystiroakey. 2010 was the year after all the nonsense blew up around him, so it was understandable that his mind was elsewhere. However, over the last eight Slams, Woods has produced at least one very poor round almost every time. He has occasionally looked a contender at halfway, but is now getting swamped at the business end. In his salad days, it would have been a case of all bets off if he was ahead after 36.

4 majors would represent a great career for a lot of golfers and I'm unsure that Tiger has the game for that number now, leave alone the mind, to which you rightly draw attention. If I had to bet, I reckon that he has another Masters in him, and he has always played St Andrew's better than anyone else, but I can't see him attaining more than a couple more Majors at best.

Tiger is now the same age that Nicklaus was when he forced Watson into the duel in the sun at Turnberry, the pair of them streeting the rest of the field. I would be content to see the 37 year-old Woods putting the younger lion McIlroy under that kind of sustained pressure in similar circumstances this year.

Yeah, he really played it well in 2010, 3 rounds in the 70's and finishing 23rd. Top notch.

As I said, I give him a pass for 2010, when his mind was naturally in turmoil. Otherwise, he's 2 for 2, as the Americans might say. Even 2 for three makes him the best current player of St Andrew's by some distance.

Sarcasm doesn't always make for a well-informed post. Or a correct one.

captain carrantuohil wrote:As I said, I give him a pass for 2010, when his mind was naturally in turmoil. Otherwise, he's 2 for 2, as the Americans might say. Even 2 for three makes him the best current player of St Andrew's by some distance.

Sarcasm doesn't always make for a well-informed post. Or a correct one.

Easiest course on the Open rota, where someone as wild as him could spray it anywhere.

Don't disagree, but not the point that I was making.

Well, he played it better than anyone in 2000 and 2005 given that he won, no other time though, and no guarantee he will do again.

capt

Good point that this year's Open is at St Andrews, where Tiger has previously been very good indeed. It does seem to be a course that really suits his power game - wide fairways and big greens, not overly long and if you stay out of the bunkers not overly punitive. Now, whether Tiger mk2 can perform to somewhere near the same standard with his remodelled swing and 1.5 functional knees is another matter.

Is Tiger the golfing GOAT - for me, not yet (behind Nicklaus). However, there is still a reasonable chance of him adding two or three more Majors, in which case the argument probably swings in his favour.

By comparison, Federer is probably at a similar stage of his career (i.e. still very good but not the player he was), but is already (currently) the GOAT, and any further successes will only reinforce his place at the top. I think Mike summed things up well earlier, with his comment that often the geniuses of a sport fall short of the 'greatest ever' (I'd include Ballesteros in his earlier list, and probably Brian Lara), but Federer is the exception - the guy that makes you go 'wow, how did he do that?' is also the guy with the undisputed best record in mens tennis.

As for the comments about needing time to see how good a career legacy really is, I wrote a comment earlier (that got lost) saying that when Sampras retired in 2002 with 14 slam titles, it was a record many expected to last a very long time. In fact it only lasted until the 2009 US Open, so 7 years and 28 Slam tournaments - Fed didn't win his first slam until the USO 2003, so this accounts for 3 of the tournaments, and from then until he broke the record he won 15 and was runner up in 5 of the following 25 slams.

By 8 and 5 shots, so his dominance was quite startling. Absolutely accept that there are no guarantees, but it just strikes me that the 2015 Open represents one of his very best chances of landing an extra major in what remains of his frontline career.

This years open is at Muirfield (hopefully he'll shoot another 81), not St.Andrews, and next year is at Royal Liverpool, so by the time it gets round to St.Andrews he'll be 39.

Nicklaus also won twice at St. Andrew's, of course, the second time at 38, so it's a possibility for Woods. despite its relative "ease", it's striking how often St Andrew's provides a great, or at least repeat major winner. Nicklaus in 70 and 78, Seve in 84, Faldo in 90, Daly in 95, Woods, as we've seen in 2000 and 2005. Think Oosthuizen has the game for another as well.

By contrast, it's the "tougher" courses that seem to throw up the one-offers or one-timers - Baker-Finch at Birkdale, Curtis and Rogers at St. George's, Hamilton, Leonard and Calcavecchia at Troon, Duval and Lehman at Lytham, Lawrie at Carnoustie, and Cink at Turnberry since the turn of the 80s.

People have a better chance of being a multiple winner at St.Andrews more than any other because it's played there every five years for some bizarre reason. In any career a top player will have 4-5 chances whereas at Carnoustie, Birkdale etc, probably 2 or 3 max.

Roger Federer all the way, its an easy poll he contested against.

This is an evil group.

Btw Emanci a great article to boot, the very few who didn't know who RF was would have known by now just by this masterpiece of an article.

Feel a bit sorry for Haile on here , deserves a write up and I've offered twice on these threads to do any remaining athletes.
True all time great, time wise right up there, world records from 3000 up to the marathon, not sure anyone else has managed that kind of spread and he ran in a very competitive era.
Tough group for the lad really, might have sneaked second in a few others IMO.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Nicklaus also won twice at St. Andrew's, of course, the second time at 38, so it's a possibility for Woods. despite its relative "ease", it's striking how often St Andrew's provides a great, or at least repeat major winner. Nicklaus in 70 and 78, Seve in 84, Faldo in 90, Daly in 95, Woods, as we've seen in 2000 and 2005. Think Oosthuizen has the game for another as well.

By contrast, it's the "tougher" courses that seem to throw up the one-offers or one-timers - Baker-Finch at Birkdale, Curtis and Rogers at St. George's, Hamilton, Leonard and Calcavecchia at Troon, Duval and Lehman at Lytham, Lawrie at Carnoustie, and Cink at Turnberry since the turn of the 80s.

yep very true- the tough courses level the field alot more.

greats almost allways win at st andrews..

super_realist wrote:People have a better chance of being a multiple winner at St.Andrews more than any other because it's played there every five years for some bizarre reason. In any career a top player will have 4-5 chances whereas at Carnoustie, Birkdale etc, probably 2 or 3 max.

gonna be honest and i have argued this plenty during the opens.. St andrews is the home of golf(which normally wouldnt be a good enough reason- especially when the course could be considered a bit boring to play) but as captain has rightly pointed out it produces great winners..So I am happy that is played the most on the open rota.. Golfs all about tradition as well. St andrews produces some great opens. And if it wasnt for st andrews i would seriously be struggling to work out how winning an open is better than winning a WGC.

Oakey, there hasn't been a decent open with any drama at st.Andrews since 1995, twenty years by the next time it comes around, when rocca fluffed his chip then holed the putt to force a lop sided play off.

Using history as a reason to hold it at st.Andrews is like holding the fa cup final at turf moor.
Loads of history but a woefully inadequate venue.

Would you hold the Olympics at crystal palace or the rugby world cup in rugby? Ridiculous reason.

mysti , that's ridiculous. TOC or not, of course winning the open is better than winning a wgc!

super_realist wrote:Oakey, there hasn't been a decent open with any drama at st.Andrews since 1995, twenty years by the next time it comes around, when rocca fluffed his chip then holed the putt to force a lop sided play off.

Using history as a reason to hold it at st.Andrews is like holding the fa cup final at turf moor.
Loads of history but a woefully inadequate venue.

Would you hold the Olympics at crystal palace or the rugby world cup in rugby? Ridiculous reason.

yeah id love the oylimpics at cystal palace its local to me.. all it needed was a lick of paint(and that 10 billion quid that was spent in the east end)

but i suppose beneath all that cynicism of yours theres a good point. St andrews needs money spent on it. No reason why it cant look more beautifull, play harder and become more intersting and move with the times..

However we must remember that st andrews can play an sss of 66 one day- the next if the wind comes up it could play like a 77!!

TOC must be one of the most lavishly indulged courses in the UK in terms of money spent!

barragan wrote:mysti , that's ridiculous. TOC or not, of course winning the open is better than winning a wgc!

may be better from many factors- well the obvious is the major record offcourse- 1 major outranks 10 WGC to most(laymen anyway), however the quality of winners are worse- and if that trend continues for the next say 20 years- could we still keep repeating that its better(therefore more of an acheivment) to win

barragan wrote:TOC must be one of the most lavishly indulged courses in the UK in terms of money spent!

so then maybe something is going wrong- damm scottish contracters. yeah it recently had the odd upgrade- but how diffrerent is it truely! Wentworth has recently made things much more interesting

At £600 a Fourball barragan they can afford to. Course is still never in as good a condition as it should be despite the money it pulls in. The New is the quality course in St.Andrews.

i have to play it one day- was gonna go up there last year- but backed out when they said you had to ballot for a chance to play the old..

btw i am not dissing links golf- my fav kind of golf.

one way of perhaps increasing the quality of pros at links would be to play more of it!!!

that would be my suggestion anyway.

Nothing wrong with links other than certain courses aren't good enough for a major.

Considering that today's vote has reached an early but inevitable conclusion, we give you all permission to put an end to the pretence of debating who is the greatest in this particular group and instead would like to warmly welcome you all to the official Roger Federer appreciation thread.

This thread is unique to all that have preceded it because The Main Event Lads - the self-ordained God-parents to little Myla and Charlene - have the ear of King Roger himself.

We will graciously link you, indirectly of course (King Roger cannot lower himself to communicate with mere fans such as yourselves), to your hero.

King Roger’s accomplishments in tennis are astounding in their magnitude and humbling to even the most ardent skeptics.

But The King’s legacy transcends mere silver and gold. His greatness extends far beyond the accumulation of dollars and ranking points, merciless though this accumulation may be.

King Roger is simply blessed.

He is blessed with a forehand so fluid in motion and destructive in power, that even Zeus’ thunderbolt would dissipate if struck. He possesses a backhand so pure in its technique and beauty that Michelangelo himself would kneel to its aesthetic value.

The King’s serve is smooth, accurate and lethal - to the point that even the most experienced sniper would wish, in the heat of an attempted assassination, that their rifle was replaced by a Federer first serve.

His footwork is so intricate and precise, that even the CIA’s code-breaking super computer - hibernating within the bowels of CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia - would over-heat trying to decipher his steps.

The King’s volleys are as sharp and clinical as a surgeon’s scalpel and even Hercules, son of Zeus, would bow to King Roger’s physical stamina.

King Roger’s astonishing haul of 17 Grand Slam titles marks him out as the single greatest sportsman of his generation. We simply do not have the time to state all of his accomplishments but, as The King is the most recognizable name and face in professional tennis history, any facts you might want to know will not be difficult to find.

Every day, at 5.00 pm, we will gather together and, in unison, recite the King Roger’s Prayer.

The King Roger’s Prayer is as follows;

Our Roger, who plays tennis from heaven.
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done.
Everywhere on earth as it is at Wimbledon.
Give us this day our miraculous winner.
And forgive us our trespasses.
As we forgive those who counter-punch from behind the baseline.
And lead us not into temptation.
But deliver us from the evils of defensive tennis.
Roger Federer.
The power and the glory.
Forever and ever.
Amen.

There are just a few notes;

1) Harsh criticism of King Roger’s rivals will be tolerated.
2) As a mark of respect, the words “He” and “Him” will always be capitalized.
3) Every now and again, finish your comments with the following doxology from the King Roger’s Prayer;

“Roger Federer.
The power and the glory.
Forever and ever.
Amen.”

Tiger Woods was the best golfer in the World and arguably of all time. he represented everything that was good about sport and was a role model for many people.

This all came crashing down a few years ago when he admitted having something like 120 affairs, this led to not only divorce between him and his wife but also many of his sponsors.

True, Tiger never did anything illegal however I cant help but think that when we are considering the greatest of all time that we should also take into consideration their off field behaviour, and their contribution to a wider society (the World) as a whole.

And on that note what has Roger Federer contributed off the tennis court?

aucklandlaurie wrote: Tiger Woods was the best golfer in the World and arguably of all time. he represented everything that was good about sport and was a role model for many people.

This all came crashing down a few years ago when he admitted having something like 120 affairs, this led to not only divorce between him and his wife but also many of his sponsors.

True, Tiger never did anything illegal however I cant help but think that when we are considering the greatest of all time that we should also take into consideration their off field behaviour, and their contribution to a wider society (the World) as a whole.

And on that note what has Roger Federer contributed off the tennis court?

To be fair to Woods, he was never considered a nice person, never had a good on course demeanour and was always as wooden as rocking horse poo.
His infidelity, to me at least is immaterial in my dislike for the man. When there are better sportsmen like Federer, Messi , McIlroy etc who can be decent, normal grounded people and behave normally, I have no idea why Woods is such a petulant, arrogant ass of a man.

I guess there were some hookers that thought he was nice.

Spaghetti-Hans:

Unfortunately King Roger's fluid forehand and precise footwork hasn't prevented him from being defeated by Nadal on countless occasions over the past few years on a number of surfaces. His head to head against Nadal in slams does not really fit with the opinion that he is the greatest of all time. Also Auckland i can't really agree with you that Woods achievements on the golf course have been somehow lessened by his infidelities. Those are cast in iron and can never be tainted. Unless of course you are Lance Armstrong.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Tiger Woods was the best golfer in the World and arguably of all time. he represented everything that was good about sport and was a role model for many people.

This all came crashing down a few years ago when he admitted having something like 120 affairs, this led to not only divorce between him and his wife but also many of his sponsors.

True, Tiger never did anything illegal however I cant help but think that when we are considering the greatest of all time that we should also take into consideration their off field behaviour, and their contribution to a wider society (the World) as a whole.

And on that note what has Roger Federer contributed off the tennis court?

Did you read my piece? I mentioned some of the stuff that he's contributed.
Personally I think the primary focus should be on sporting achievement although I can understand why some may place a significant emphasis on extra-sporting features such as character, popularity, humanitarian work etc.

In any case, I think Fed ticks all the boxes as well as anyone out there.

What has Federer done off the court?

Well, he's provided hope to fat and ugly women that you can still marry a multi millionaire sportsman.

Seve

Sure I think Tiger Woods let himself down somewhat. but neither Tiger or Federer have contributed anything of note to society.

Maybe theyre still too young.

Seve_The_Great wrote:Spaghetti-Hans:

Unfortunately King Roger's fluid forehand and precise footwork hasn't prevented him from being defeated by Nadal on countless occasions over the past few years on a number of surfaces. His head to head against Nadal in slams does not really fit with the opinion that he is the greatest of all time. Also Auckland i can't really agree with you that Woods achievements on the golf course have been somehow lessened by his infidelities. Those are cast in iron and can never be tainted. Unless of course you are Lance Armstrong.

Tennis, similar to boxing, is often about matchups. Some players strengths and weaknesses just match up very favourably against another. Thus, how many times have we heard one player or another remark about a particular opponent, 'he's a very tough matchup for me'.

Rafa is the nightmare matchup for Federer. A lefty who can generate ridiculous amounts of spin such that his cross court forehand bounces high to the Federer single-handed backhand. There is nothing much that a single hander can do against a ball that bounces above shoulder height. This leads to the weak response in the form of a slice or a short return. The problem is exacerbated on clay where the ball bounces very high. This is not an inherent weakness in Federer's game, it's just the technical limitation of having a SHBH. Of course Rafa is the only player in the world who can consistently exploit this dynamic because no other lefty in the game can generate anywhere near as much spin. If Rafa had been a R-handed player I think Roger would have dominated that H2H. In any case, even then, the advantage that Rafa has is mainly through his clay court results.

They're sportsmen Auckland, they have no responsibility to society. They aren't peace envoys or charity ambassadors or scientists or adventurers or anything other than sportsment.

Why should they contribute anything to society. If I was a top sportsman I doubt I would either. It's in the nature of sport to look after number one, doesn't mean you can't be a decent person, but they don't owe society anything more than that.

Emancipator
Yes I did read most of your piece and it was a little lengthy, but iIdidnt really see anywhere that jumped out at me,where he stood up as an advocate for World peace or anything like that.

How about inspiring millions of people around the world and providing incredible entertainment. Isn't that enough or are we expecting 30 something year olds to be philanthropists and humanitarians.

I think the Roger Federer Foundation is a pretty awesome project.

Federer has also organised charity events at the slams including 'Hit for Haiti' and for the Australian flood victims of 2011. He was actually the one who decided to do something and spoke to the tournament organisers and brought the other star players on board. Not bad for a guy on the eve of playing in one of the biggest tournaments of the year.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Emancipator
Yes I did read most of your piece and it was a little lengthy, but iIdidnt really see anywhere that jumped out at me,where he stood up as an advocate for World peace or anything like that.

Ah now I get it, you're just on a wind up

aucklandlaurie wrote: Seve

Sure I think Tiger Woods let himself down somewhat. but neither Tiger or Federer have contributed anything of note to society.

Maybe theyre still too young.

As our dear friend Emancipator states, Federer has in fact done a significant amount for good causes - from his fundraising for the 2004 Tsunami victims to his Hit for Haiti. The man is a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador for crying out loud. All of which makes us even prouder to call him a friend. But ultimately our old foe Super Realist is right - great sportsmen don't need to be role-models, they just have to be supremely brilliant - and Federer is that and more.

For anyone still in doubt, please read the late, great, David Foster Wallace's tribute to Roger Federer (linked by Emancipator) - one of the finest pieces of sports journalism imaginable, an inspiration for our own work, and crucially, a stunning portrait of a man who, to be quite frank, is not of this world.

Emancipator
No. I'm serious. Dont do wind ups.

What I'm trying to say is that someone like Federer, even by the fact that he is still playing is not in a position to be considered the greatest of all time because he has not really had the chance to present himself as the complete package of s sportsman.

Maybe when we can look back at his complete career and what he does off the court after tennis then he may well be the greatest, but not yet.

Poor old Tiger didnt give himself that opportunity.

Dont just presume that because someone writes something that you dont like/agree with, that they are on a wind up.

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Seve

Sure I think Tiger Woods let himself down somewhat. but neither Tiger or Federer have contributed anything of note to society.

Maybe theyre still too young.

As our dear friend Emancipator states, Federer has in fact done a significant amount for good causes - from his fundraising for the 2004 Tsunami victims to his Hit for Haiti. The man is a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador for crying out loud. All of which makes us even prouder to call him a friend. But ultimately our old foe Super Realist is right - great sportsmen don't need to be role-models, they just have to be supremely brilliant - and Federer is that and more.

For anyone still in doubt, please read the late, great, David Foster Wallace's tribute to Roger Federer (linked by Emancipator) - one of the finest pieces of sports journalism imaginable, an inspiration for our own work, and crucially, a stunning portrait of a man who, to be quite frank, is not of this world.

I know a couple of things about fed,,,

good tennis player.

wears gold trimmed tracksuits. only ever seen them in new addington council estate before


well to be fair woods isnt much better with his grey mundane red on sunday look ...

Seve/Emancipator

I genuinely didnt know about the Unicef ambassador ship, the tsunami victims or the Hit for haiti. I must have missed it.
Yes they are genuine contributions to society,.

"Tiger let himself down somewhat"?

Would think he let his family down rather more . . . . . . .

Spaghetti - did you type all that out with one hand?

Laurie, apologies if it seemed like I was dismissing your query out of hand; I wasn't. I just thought that the line about being an advocate for world peace was a bit excessive, and deliberately and humourously so. In any case I understand your point better now, even if I personally don't consider such contributions much more than mere footnotes in this debate.



emancipator

If you want to talk about contributing to society HG emplys 1000's in Ethiopia funding his businesses through his running earnings.
Very hands on as well, no foundation ran by his management team. He makes a direct difference and improvement to the society he comes from.
From listening to Cram and Foster talk about him the guy is virtually a saint and never without a smile on his face.