Djokovic Names His 2016 Goal the Djoker Slam

[cupocity303]

Djorkovic should win every grand slam this year, because the field is so poor. If Wawrinka hits form at the right time he might stop him, but I can't see anyone else doing so.

This right here is what I meant. This guy is covering his end from both sides.

It's because he has made up his mind that DJokovic will not be the greatest before his run is even over. An athlete has his most dominant run but lets down play it for the next 5 years just to hedge our bets in case he surpasses Federer, which is still quite a while away and may never even happen, in which case ---it's a moot point and Djokovic is not the greatest.

[ShoulderRoll]

This all subjective conjecture. Same as The Chicago Bulls are the greatest team Vs The Chicago bulls beat up a bunch of B-level teams during their dominant years with MJ.

I don't think you can really make that argument in the case of the Bulls. To get to the Finals and win they had to go through the likes of Magic's Lakers, Thomas's Pistons, Ewing's Knicks, Drexler's Trailblazers, and a very good Utah Jazz squad with Stockton and Malone.

Has Djokovic had to get through the tennis equivalent of that murderer's row? Not hardly.

There are some that will argue that as long as your stats are the best then that automatically means you're the best too. But I personally don't think that is always the case.

Otherwise Rocky Marciano would be the best heavyweight ever.

[cupocity303]

Djorkovic is a brilliant player but tennis is in serious decline at the minute.

Tennis is NOT in serious decline. One guy simply emerged from the rubble and took over. He didn't come out of nowhere either, once all the top dogs died off, he was already an Alpha being competitive with all the other Alpha's before they declined and he took over.

This always happen.

He had his developing years where he took a few majors off of Federer, he now has his prime years in which he emerged as the top dog and is dominating, and he will have his third portion of his career, which will be his declining years. Federer right now is in his third portion. He is trying to add another title to his notch and isn't being successful. Doesn't mean it won't happen but if he does, it's just an iceing on the cake which is why he is doing it. Federer knows that any loses he suffers from here on out will not be held against him in terms of ATG-ness. No pressure on him. Roger is probably having the time of his life right now.

Clearly, The Djoker is closer to the Federer's of the world in terms of longevity than Nadal. He is in it for the long haul.

[cupocity303]

I don't think you can really make that argument in the case of the Bulls. To get to the Finals and win they had to go through the likes of Magic's Lakers, Thomas's Pistons, Ewing's Knicks, Drexler's Trailblazers, and a very good Utah Jazz squad with Stockton and Malone.

Has Djokovic had to get through the tennis equivalent of that murderer's row? Not hardly.

There are some that will argue that as long as your stats are the best then that automatically means you're the best too. But I personally don't think that is always the case.

Otherwise Rocky Marciano would be the best heavyweight ever.

I will ignore this post because you didn't fully take in the entire post and zeroed in on the Chicago Bulls example alone, which I will not get into.

And I already addressed the difference between Boxing and Tennis further down the post if you read all the way through. Tennis is a lot more simple to analyze than Boxing (different weight classes, catch weights, glove size etc,. VS was it on a hard court or clay).

Even the players themselves put more value in winning the title than who are they beating for the title. Federer didn't give a damn about facing Nadal to win the French Title. He was just glad to finally win one and complete the career grandslam.

[cupocity303]

And Rocky Marciano is a poor example. I addressed that in the post as well.

A players (or in this case fighters) ability is clearly self-evident. Rocky Marciano is not that good overall in comparison to other greats. You can see it. You don't have to debate his Title run Vs some other guys Title run, longwinded nonsense.

Djokovic's abilities measure up perfectly with the likes of Sampras/Federer/Nadal. You don't even have to debate opponents beaten/titles won and you can see it. He has IT. And the supportive evidence is his early career wins vs Federer when he still wasn't fully developed.

Rocky does not have IT. Considering him in a ring Vs Lennox Lewis, Larry Holmes, Wladimir Klitschko is laughable at face value. Nothing in his tool box suggest that he would either outbox, or even hurt any of them. He was a small Light-heavy/Cruiser, hurting other small Light-Heavies/Cruisers. So even his bread and butter of out-strengthening his opponents with punching power wouldn't work because all the aformentioned are not only taller, better boxers but they'are also harder punchers.

[ShoulderRoll]

Pete Sampras held the record (for a time) as the man with the most Grand Slam titles. And to get it he had to win in arguably the game's most competitive era. He had to face the likes of:

Stefan Edberg
Boris Becker
Ivan Lendl
Andre Agassi
Michael Chang
Jim Courier
He even got to play against the old guard in John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors..

To do what he did against that field surely has to hold more value than if he had won more Grand Slams against a bunch of Andy Roddicks.

[Welsh Jon]

This right here is what I meant. This guy is covering his end from both sides.

It's because he has made up his mind that DJokovic will not be the greatest before his run is even over. An athlete has his most dominant run but lets down play it for the next 5 years just to hedge our bets in case he surpasses Federer, which is still quite a while away and may never even happen, in which case ---it's a moot point and Djokovic is not the greatest.

Well thanks for explaining my opinions to me. Most appreciated.

Nole is clearly one of the best tennis players ever. He's up there with Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal. But that doesn't change the fact that the last couple of years has seen a decline in quality in tennis. The standard played in the recent Australian Open was not good. Djorkovic won without playing anything approaching his best tennis.

I don't mean that as a knock on Djorkovic. The tennis he played in 2011 was best ever seen in my opinion.

[cupocity303]

Pete Sampras held the record (for a time) as the man with the most Grand Slam titles. And to get it he had to win in arguably the game's most competitive era. He had to face the likes of:

Stefan Edberg
Boris Becker
Ivan Lendl
Andre Agassi
Michael Chang
Jim Courier
He even got to play against the old guard in John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors..

To do what he did against that field surely has to hold more value than if he had won more Grand Slams against a bunch of Andy Roddicks.

More subjective conjecture. Because if you look at these guys you just listed. WHO ARE THEY REALLY? I mean, I know who they are but who are they as players if we break each one of them down individually, on ability. They may have been the best that Pete's era could offer, but both Federer and Djokovic at their prime could take any one of those guys. Both Fed and Djoko have the ability to take these guys in tough 5 setters, or to take them out in 3 if their game slips just a bit. To have the long rallies etc,.

And at the end of the day, it's still a irrelevant debate because when we get back to who won the most majors -- it's Federer and it wasn't easy doing it. It took 5 years of consistency (winning everything but the French, year after year) along with a few iceing on the cake wins during his declining years when Djokovic and Nadal were in their complete prime, to get to 17 majors.

[Mr Ehrmantraut]

Djokovic could win another ten and wouldn't be close to surpassing Rog as the GOAT.

[ShoulderRoll]

More subjective conjecture. Because if you look at these guys you just listed. WHO ARE THEY REALLY? I mean, I know who they are but who are they as players if we break each one of them down individually, on ability. They may have been the best that Pete's era could offer, but both Federer and Djokovic at their prime could take any one of those guys. Both Fed and Djoko have the ability to take these guys in tough 5 setters, or to take them out in 3 if their game slips just a bit. To have the long rallies etc,.

And at the end of the day, it's still a irrelevant debate because when we get back to who won the most majors -- it's Federer and it wasn't easy doing it. It took 5 years of consistency (winning everything but the French, year after year) along with a few iceing on the cake wins during his declining years when Djokovic and Nadal were in their complete prime, to get to 17 majors.

Who are they really??? Are you serious? I don't know if tennis has a Hall of fame but if it does then every one of the guys on that Pete Sampras hit list would be in it.

Who is Djokovic currently playing that you could make the same claim for? Aside from Federer and Nadal who are on their way out?

The only thing that is subjective conjecture is your opinion that Djokovic could take any of them in their prime. You don't know that for a fact since he never faced them and he hasn't faced a field with anywhere near as many accomplished foes.

And if you want to go just by stats to this day Sampras still holds the record for most years ended with the ATP #1 ranking. That's dominance. And against a stacked field, too.