Re: TENNIS; Sampras Loses Cool, Match, Slam Chance (Sorry it's painful to read)

On Apr 30, 7:23 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:19 am, ahonkan <ahon...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Apr 30, 2:14 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"ahonkan" <ahon...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Apr 30, 8:25 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
He was nervous and played a bad match in the twilight of his career.
How does that disqualify him as a GOAT candidate? Did Federer's
miserable performance against Fish disqualify him as a GOAT candidate?

Joe Ramirez

Maybe if Fish beats him at a slam and not a tuneup?

oh yes because we forget Fed doesn't bother trying at tuneups, just like he
didn't bother trying to win Monte Carlo, what a joke.

Not my point. I only underlined distinction between losing at a
tuneup to an in-form player who went on to reach the final (Fish)
v losing to losing at a slam to an ordinary player in indifferent
form
who promptly lost in the next round.
If Fish beats Fed in R1 at the FO and then goes on to lose in R2,
the comparison would be fair.

At the 2003 FO, Federer (no. 5 seed) lost in R1 to Luis Horna
(straight sets). In R2, Horna lost to Verkerk. That fair enough for
you?

Joe Ramirez

Fair enough.
As long as you realize that 2003W was the birth of Super-Fed
whereas Sampras was at his peak when he lost to the likes of
Galo Blanco.
If it needs repetition, my point was that Fed's loss to Fish in a
tuneup was not a fair comparison to Pete's loss to Gaudenzi
at FO. I never said anything about either loss damaging GOAT
credentials.
I am not a slammist and therefore in terms of sustained,
all-round, total dominance, Fed far outshines Pete.
I am sure Whisper will respond with his usual irrelevant
'7 W vs 5, 5 USO vs 4' stuff, but we'll ignore it as always.
.

Relevant Pages