Is Roger Federer greater in his sport than any other athlete in their respective sport in history?

[marmar]

Is Roger Federer the greatest?
Name an athlete who has been better at a sport: There is no one

Updated: July 12, 2012, 3:29 PM ET
By Scoop Jackson | ESPN.com


In 2007, after I witnessed Roger Federer win his fourth U.S. Open trophy (his 12th Grand Slam at the time), I posed a question: Is he greater at his sport than any other athlete is/was at their respective sports in the history of sports?

Here's the verbatim: Is he greater, more dominant, more merciless, mentally stronger, more separated from everyone else in his sport than all the other "Hims" (note: I referred to Roger throughout the column as "Him&quot were/are in theirs?

I threw the sports gods' names out there to compare, contrast and cause controversy: Woods, Armstrong, Russell, Brown, Ruth, Jordan, Gretzky, Pele, Ali. Should Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps win their respective events at the London Olympics, it will be appropriate to throw in their names as well.

.....(snip).....

Throughout the process of winning Wimbledon, the word "love" kept coming up. It seemed that whenever people mentioned Federer's name it would be followed by the four-letter decree. About how much he still loved the game, about how he was still "in love" with the game. The McEnroes mentioned it repeatedly during the broadcasts. Paul Annacone (Federer's coach) spoke to it, saying in a USA Today article, "Roger just loves the game and loves the life. His life is the road. He loves it. His family loves it. He loves tennis. He loves who he's become." ................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/8160374/is-roger-federer-greatest-athlete-ever

[joeybee12]

1. I think it's really tough to compare sports legends...

That said, the one thing that is really spot on is that he loves the game...this may be his last Slam (hope not) but he'll still be playing at least 3-4 more years.

[fishwax]

3. agree about his love for the game

He said something similar of Murray in his remarks at Wimbledon, right? Something like "you can tell he really cares about the game." I figured that might be, for Federer, about as good a compliment as one could bestow on a bested competitor.

[fishwax]

2. He's won 10 and lost 18 against the second-best player of his era

I certainly admirer Federer and consider him the greatest of all time, but I think it's strange to argue that he's easily farther above the second-best in his sport than any other athlete has ever been when, in fact, he's only won about a third of his matches against his own era's number two. Of course, those numbers are a bit skewed since so many of their meetings have taken place on clay, but still.

In 2007, after I witnessed Roger Federer win his fourth U.S. Open trophy (his 12th Grand Slam at the time), I posed a question: Is he greater at his sport than any other athlete is/was at their respective sports in the history of sports?

It was a great question in 2007, when Federer might have been more dominant in his sport than any athlete at any point in history. Nadal was already dominant on clay but hadn't yet raised his game as high on other surfaces, and he was a very distant #2 to Fed at the time. Fed had been to, what, ten straight grand slam finals, losing only on Rafa's clay?

So in 2007 he may well have been the greatest GATT (Greatest at this time) in history, but that's different from the greatest GOAT. (He may still be that, too, but there are far too many abstract and subjective issues to bring into play there for me to really get worked up about question, I guess.)

[joeybee12]

4. My argument...Chris Evert has a losing record against Tracy Austin...

Tracy has 2 slams...Chris has 18. Head-to-head matters, but that's the only place where Rafroid comes out ahead...

[fishwax]

6. I don't think those are really comparable rivalries

Austin wasn't the second-best player of her era, their rivalry was not as sustained nor carried out on as high a level as Federer-Nadal. I don't know the exact numbers, but I'd bet that the number of Rafa's grand slam finals is probably pretty close to the number of total grand slam tournaments Austin played in. She played at a very high level, but for a pretty short time. The head-to-head between Austin and Evert doesn't mean much. (The head-to-head between Evert and Navritalova, on the other hand, carries a little more weight.)

As for Federer-Nadal, I agree that's the only area Rafa comes out ahead. And it doesn't change the fact that Fed is the GOAT--just undermines the argument that he's obviously the G-GOAT-OAT.

[joeybee12]

17. Did Roger ever lose in the second round of Wimbledon?

Anyway, Tracy Austin was awful, IMHO, she was just tapping the ball over, getting players out of thier rhythm, and she drew them in and won that way...once Chris decided not to let that shit bother her, she could beat Tracy.

[fishwax]

19. no, but he lost in the first round a few times -- why do you ask?

[joeybee12]

22. Not for the last 35 slams or so...

Clearly Roger is more consistent than Raf-roid...it's a mental edge the Roider has over Roger.

[fishwax]

23. Has Federer ever lost in the fourth round of a grand slam the year after winning it?

Nadal did.

[madinmaryland]

7. Chris Everett played football. Or at least tried...

[UnrepentantLiberal]

28. I love that.

[tishaLA]

8. Oh i like that!

i'm going to have to remember that one.

[TBF]

5. Steffi Graf -

22 slams, along with a calendar slam and gold in the Olympics - 1988. As much as I love Roger he can't touch that record. She's the best.

[joeybee12]

16. Ugh!

She got most of those without competition...after Monica was stabbed. Monica had clearly overtaken Steffi in the rankings and Steffi was on a downward spiral...she came back after Monica was out and began playing well again..not sure what that says about Steffi.

I guess we disagree about something!

[TBF]

18. Well I don't think it means Steffi pulled a Tonya Harding :)

Although I guess you never know about that dad of hers. But I've got an argument - Monica was hot during the 90-93 time frame while Steffi's calendar slam (her early matches were against Martina) and Olympics were 1988.

No worries, I'll go back to posting awesome pics of Roger soon.

[joeybee12]

20. What is it with tennis fathers?

You never hear about the mothers being jerks, but the fathers are horrendous.

Even though Steffi played during the end of the Martina and Chris era, I still think it's hard to compare...it coincided with the beginning of power tennis and the equipment really changed rapidly...I remember Chris refusing to upgrade to graphite and still had a wooden racquet but finally gave in and learned how to use that because Martina and the others were just hitting so much harder you could barely get those wooden raquets on the ball. Amazing how long people used wooden raquets but then when first changes came, more followed and followed and followed.

[tishaLA]

9. the answer to this question is why we still need

David Foster Wallace around.

he wrote about tennis. and about Roger specifically, better than anyone I've ever read.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. I'll put the case for Don Bradman, in cricket

The overwhelmingly important measure of a batsman is his average - runs scored, divided by the number of times he was out. At the international level (for the 5 day game that is the 'traditional' format that has been played for over a century), the all time averages are:

Bradman 99.94
3 players 60-61
12 players 55-60
24 players 50-55
58 players 45-50

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282910.html

(and than was over a span of 20 years, with WW2 in the middle - when he probably would still have been at his peak)

In the early 30s, England thought he was so unbeatable that they devised a new bowling tactic - 'bodyline' - that forced the batsman to defend himself (in the days without helmets) from balls that would injure them, but that meant it highly likely they'd be caught out. It provoked an diplomatic incident (he was Australian) and a change in the rules of cricket.

[hughee99]

14. An excellent choice, one of my first thoughts.

My coworkers from India and Pakistan have been schooling me on Cricket lately.

[El Supremo]

11. Look. Babe Ruth was the greatest sports figure who ever lived.

And it's not just his stats. He did more for his sport than anyone ever did for their sport.

[madinmaryland]

12. Look. Tim Tebow was the greatest sports figure who ever lived.

And it's not just his stats (actually his stats are horrendous). He did more for his sport than anyone ever did for their sport.

[JonLP24]

37. Challenge accepted

I'd say "Babe" Didrikson Zaharias did more of Women's golf than Ruth did for baseball.

[El Supremo]

39. If you took away the sympathy vote, I wonder.

But here is another supposed contender - Pele. I don't know squat about soccer, but he was sure important to that sport.

[MrSlayer]

13. Gretzky.

If he had never scored a single goal in his career he'd still have more points than anyone in the history of the sport.

[VWolf]

21. Beat me to it. Far and above the greatest in hockey. n/t

[hughee99]

15. How about greco-roman wrestler Aleksandr Karelin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Karelin

A few highlights...

He won gold in the 88, 92, and 96 Olympics, Silver in 2000. 9 world championships from 1989-1999.

After going 13 years undefeated in international competition and six years without giving up a point, he had an upset loss to American Rulon Gardner in the gold-medal match at the Sydney Olympics (hey, time catches up with us all).

[chknltl]

24. Jack Johnson, Wimpy Lassiter.

What Mr. Johnson did for boxing in his time Is nothing less than startling, what he did for the African Americans at that time was equally important. I strongly believe that I compare apples to oranges here, that it is just too much to compare athletes from all the diverse sports out there with each other.

Below Jack Johnson's link is is another link to one of my favorite 'athletes', he was arguably one of the greatest pool players of all times. His name was Luther Lassiter, aka Wimpy Lassiter. I would agree with you that Wimpy did not win as many world titles, I throw him in here because his talant over the course of his career, under the circumstances he faced, may indeed be equally astonishing to that which Federer can rightly lay claim to...the same goes for Jack Johnson. If you get the chance, check deeper into both of these GREAT men's stories.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Johnson_(boxer)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Lassiter

[mathematic]

25. Kenenisa Bekele

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenenisa_Bekele

Kenenisa Bekele, 30, is the greatest distance runner of all time. He started winning golds in '03 and won them continuously in the 5000m & 10000m until he was injured the last couple years. He's been the world #1 in the 10k all those years, even with the injury. He was unbeaten in the 10k until last year's world championships, which he dropped out of. He's back in form now and the gold medal favorite for the 10k.

He holds huge world records in the 5k and 10k. His 5k world record is 12:37. Just last week we had the first 5k in 5 years to go under 12:50. He ran the fastest 10k last year. The second fastest 10k last year was over 26 seconds slower than Bekele's world record set in '05.

Bekele is a faster, more dominant version of the second most dominant distance runner in the modern era, his countryman Haile Gebrselassie.

As much as I'm pulling for top American medal threat Galen Rupp, Bekele will be the favorite to win any 10k he's in for the foreseeable future.

Also, running is unlike a lot of these other sports mentioned in that experience and skill can not overcome declining physical ability. How to train and especially how to race are both important skills but when your fitness goes due to age the track is merciless. In contrast, there's no fitness difference between Federer and Nadal that makes one great on grass and the other great on clay. That's all skill.

[teach1st]

26. Kelly Slater - 11 times world champ in surfing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Slater

Kelly Slater, surfing: 11 world championships, 50 World Cup Tour wins.

[many a good man]

27. Messi!

[cherokeeprogressive]

29. Can you say: "Seven No Hitters"?

[hughee99]

30. No offense to Ryan,

but a guy who pitched for 27 years, if he was the greatest ever, should have made more than 8 all-star teams and had better than a .526 winning percentage. It's a tough argument to even say he was the best pitcher in baseball at any specific time while he was active, though he was capable of great single game feats.

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. Capable of great single game feats...

Nearly a thousand more strikeouts than Randy Johnson. No one touches his strikeout record, I'd guarantee it.

12 1-hitters.

24 no-hitters taken into the 7th inning or later.

"One of the most remarkable statistics involving Nolan Ryan is not related to whiffing helpless hitters. It is the fact that in 5,386 innings pitched, Nolan Ryan only surrendered a little over 3,900 base hits. This ratio is the best in baseball history at 6.555 hits per 9 innings."

"To say that Nolan Ryan should have accomplished more though is completely unfair. No pitcher could ever have been expected to harness such power so completely as to record all the strikeouts but not the walks. It would be the equivalent of praising a rainbow, but cursing the storm that created it."

http://voices.yahoo.com/nolan-ryan-perspective-his-career-39730.html?cat=14

He reminds me of the horse John Henry. John Henry won less than half of his starts, finishing first 39 times in 83 starts. Sold as a colt for less than $1100. Widely considered though to be one of the best racehorses of the 20th century.

[hughee99]

40. His walks are also a record which no one will touch. He holds that record over the next

contender by about as much as the strikeout record. This is why a guy who gives up so few hits per game is over 100th ranked (all time) in both ERA and WHIP.

Again, not saying he wasn't a great pitcher, but doesn't belong in a "Greatest player of his sport of all time" discussion.

[Ter]

34. Can you say no Cy Youngs?

Ryan barely cracks the top 20 of all-time pitchers.

[cherokeeprogressive]

38. 6.555 hits per 9 innings is #1 all-time.

Considering he kept that up for 27 years, I can't agree. Fewer base hits per 9 in the history of baseball.

Have you ever disagreed with a Cy Young pick? There is nothing subjective about the above stat. Can't say that about an award.

[Ter]

41. Only the most casual fans consider him number 1 all-time

He's never been the best even in his own time. He doesn't crack the top five of even the last 20 years. And yes I have disagreed. But he has never been the best of his day. I will say this though, his longevity was amazing. He was a 2 or 3 pitcher for so many seasons. The best stats you can check out though are ERA and ERA+.

What did you think of Greg Maddux?

[anakie]

32. Heather Mckay

Who?

"Heather Pamela McKay (née Blundell) AM MBE (born on 31 July 1941) is a retired Australian squash player, who is considered by many to be the greatest female player in the history of the game, and possibly also Australia's greatest-ever sportswoman. She dominated the women's squash game in the 1960s and 1970s, winning 16 consecutive British Open titles between 1962 and 1977, and capturing the inaugural women's World Open title in 1979, whilst remaining undefeated during that period"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_McKay

As for tennis, as good as Steffi Graf was there are at least Three players up there with her. Margaret Court with 62 major titles, Billie-Jean King with 37 major titles, and Martina with 59. On the men's side it is pretty hard to top Rod Laver's as the only tennis player to win 2 Grand Slams.

[Ter]

33. Pete Sampres would strongly challenge Roger Federer

Gretzky, Ruth, and Jordan were all much better at their sports.

[joeybee12]

35. While I think it's hard to compare across sports...

Pete would only challenge Roger on grass...Roger is clearly better than Pete.

[TBF]

42. Roger has 17 majors to Pete's 14 & Pete never won the French.

There's no challenge there at all. The other 3 maybe ... those are other sports so it's hard to compare but they were certainly all as dominant in their own sports.

[fishwax]

43. Roger is more versatile and more consistent than Sampras

Sampras not only never won the French, he only made it past the semis once. It's true that Fed has only one the French once, but he's been runner up four times and has won more than 80% of his matches there (compared to 65% for Sampras). Had he not had to contend with the greatest clay court player of all time, I'm sure Fed would have multiple French titles too. In each of the major tournaments, Federer has a better winning percentage than Sampras and as many or more titles. Sampras did win a couple of titles on clay (including Rome).

And if you look at the prime seven or eight years of each's career, Federer is more consistent, especially in majors. Even discounting Sampras's performance in the French, he simply didn't sustain the level of excellence seen by Federer, who has only missed one grand slam quarterfinal since he first ascended to the number 1 ranking. He was the first player in 35 years to make the finals in all four grand slam tournaments in a single calendar year--then he did it again the following year. His ten consecutive finals is amazing. (Sampras's best streak was three--four if you ignore the French.)

[joeybee12]

36. It's official...he's passed Pete for weeks at #1

He'll keep it until after the Olympics and they get points for that...he had a lousy run up to last year's US Open so if he doesn't win gold, he could get #1 back before the US Open.