OT: Djoker Becomes Undisputed GOAT

[Mogspan]

If only Nadal could have kept that level of play up for a long enough time on surfaces other than clay. In any case, I could even concede Nadal maybe being the most talented (although I'd never begin to make an assumption on how long his longevity would be if he had stayed healthier bc butterfly effect and all that).

Nadal was clearly the least talented of the 3, albeit probably the 3rd most talented in the world in their primes. His game relies more on endurance, athleticism, indomitable will (besides being obvious by the naked eye, also evidenced by falling off a bit earlier than the other 2). Nadal was the biggest beneficiary of the slower courts, racquet and string technology to play a style that wouldn't have been possible before Babolat racquets and polyester strings.

Athleticism = natural talent. It's quite literally innate ability you're born with.

People tend to distinguish between “athleticism” (in the sense of speed, explosiveness, power, etc.) and “talent” (in the sense of dexterity, IQ, etc.).

I get where they’re coming from, but of course the body is involved in things like Steph’s shooting and Kyrie’s ball-handling. Even things like size and wingspan are disregarded as athletic qualities when they absolutely shouldn’t be.

[Drakeem]

Well let's dive into it then, shall we?

1. He is friends with war criminals.
2. He thinks that through "good thoughts", you can make dirty water drinkable.
3. He is, and has always been a literal cheater, going way beyond the serving time allowed (yes, the same was true for Nadal, and yes, the referees were also to blame)
4. He got disqualified once for hitting a ballwoman in the throat with a ball.
5. He is an anti-science, village idiot.
6. His family, including his grandparent, mother and father, had all made totally disrespectful interviews about Federer and Nadal, long before he become the winningest, going back like 20 years.
7. He, just like his fans, always whines about not being liked, and has a tendency to act out on the court against the crowd, because they dare to not like him.
8. As a result, he took on this totally fake, "nice guy" persona that tries way, way too hard outside of those moments, where his true personality shines through.

I could honestly go on and on, but it is BAFFLING how his fans don't understand why people generally don't like him, and why he will most definitely be forgotten way quicker than the other 2, despite having better results. GOATness is two-fold, someone wrote it, you have to have the results, but you gotta have "IT", and he just never had, at least to the extend of the other two. It's not just about the results. People literally decided that MJ is the GOAT over Russell who has better results, largely due to his playing style and charisma (and yeah, playing in a different era).

1. Nadal is friends with the Saudis and Federer residence was in UAE(who have blood on their hands) so they are not innocent if we going by your thought process.
2. Who cares he is not pushing his beliefs on anyone
3. Cheating that’s a joke. Bouncing the ball too much before serve. lol
4. That was an accident which he was obviously remorseful
5. He speaks like 9 languages also not anti science but has wierd ass views on natural health
6. His family said things not him. Also had believe in their son. But he wasn’t disrespectful towards his opponents. Actually fought for players pay. Well liked on tour
7. He used that motivation to become the greatest
8. lol ok

He will always be remembered for winning the most slams, the most 1000s, the most at 1, the most year ends, I could go on etc.

P.S. to compare MJ vs Russel is so intellectual dishonest I mean come one. One is a TEAM sport which teammates matter and the other is an individual sport. There is so much hate it is hilarious

I like you, we root for the same team, and Joker. And you are right, there is a lot of hate. I just don't understand why Djoker fans refuse to admit that the reasons for said hate might be legit. Sure there are fans who started to hate him when he overtook Federer and Nadal, but for a lot of people this goes back to the time when he barely had any major victories yet. You at least have to admit that he is a controversial guy, and I haven't even gotten into the whole Covid-19 fiasco. Also, while it's true that he did not say bad things about Federer and Nadal, since he never corrected his family, never talked about how they disrespected them so many times in Serbian interviews and articles, it kind of feels like that he approved it throughout the years.

You're allowed to like whoever you like and dislike whoever you dislike. It's just about keeping things objective when you try to create list based on athletic greatness.

I've grown to be a bit of a Bron hater despite being his fan when I was younger bc of a lot of the opinions he gave about the Morey/China thing among other controversies. I'm also not going to be a big enough idiot to say that Curry > Bron all time bc I personally don't support the guy anymore.

[Wingy]

The truth is that you can't have like 6 or 7 GOAT's in one era no matter how superior you believe your era to be... doesn't make sense that we could evolve so much in even one decade.

Not here to argue Novak, but overall, isn’t it interesting? GOATs, GOATs everywhere!!!

Recency bias out there much?

If everything’s so much better and natural evolution and all, shouldn’t that athlete’s competition theoretically be just as difficult to overcome compared to predecessors and their own generation? Meaning each relative to their own era. It’s supposed to be the hardest it’s ever been now, yet athletes are breaking all-time records left and right?

Hmmm. What a time to be alive when there’s “coincidentally” GOATs all over the place.

[Bergmaniac]

Nadal was clearly the least talented of the 3, albeit probably the 3rd most talented in the world in their primes. His game relies more on endurance, athleticism, indomitable will (besides being obvious by the naked eye, also evidenced by falling off a bit earlier than the other 2). Nadal was the biggest beneficiary of the slower courts, racquet and string technology to play a style that wouldn't have been possible before Babolat racquets and polyester strings.

Athleticism = natural talent. It's quite literally innate ability you're born with.

People tend to distinguish between “athleticism” (in the sense of speed, explosiveness, power, etc.) and “talent” (in the sense of dexterity, IQ, etc.).

I get where they’re coming from, but of course the body is involved in things like Steph’s shooting and Kyrie’s ball-handling. Even things like size and wingspan are disregarded as athletic qualities when they absolutely shouldn’t be.

IMO Federer was more athletic than Nadal if we talking about purely tennis athleticism. His movement around the court was incredible, not just due to his impressive foot speed, but his balance and agility in particular were the best I've seen in this sport and he had otherworldly handeye coordination. Nadal obviously also moved really well and was very quick, and he was stronger, but he didn't quite have the agility, balance and handeye coordination of Federer.

[Doctor MJ]

Upon defeating Carlos Alcaraz in a thrilling 2-set Olympic Final, Novak Djoković secured both the gold and his status as the objective GOAT of tennis.

Record 24 Gland Slams
Only player to complete triple Career Grand Slam
Record 40 ATP Tour Masters
Only player to complete Career Golden Masters, which he has done twice
Superior Head-to-head record against every other contender
Olympic gold medal in Men’s Singles



May the doubt rest in peace.

So since we're seeing responses to this that make clear that it's basically impossible to become "Undisputed" in this day and age, I'll chime in:

I aesthetically prefer Federer to Nadal and Nadal to Djokovic, but at this point I agree Djokovic is the clear cut GOAT in my eyes.

I consider Federer:
- The best ball-striker in the history of tennis.
- The most graceful ball-striker in the history of tennis.
- The player with the game to dominate across all eras of equipment above all others.
- The greatest career grass court player in the history of tennis.
- The highest peak grass court player in the history of tennis depending on court conditions - the less court friction, the more he stands out.
- The 2nd greatest career/peak hard court player in the history of tennis.
- Quite possibly a Top 5 clay court player in the history of tennis.
- Arguably the great self-driven tennis intellects of all time.

I consider Nadal:
- The greatest career/peak on clay in the history of tennis.
- The mentally toughest player in the history of tennis (which is really tough competition).
- At least a Top 10 all-time player on grass and hard court.

But at this point, none of that gives them a serious argument for GOAT over Djokovic in my eyes.
What gives Djokovic the edge?
Well over Nadal it's pretty straight forward: He's better at everything than Nadal except playing on clay

The conversation with Federer is more interesting. I'll emphasize:

- Djokovic is a better traditional athlete than Federer.
- Djokovic is has a better body for the modern tennis era because his height, length & flexibility make him better able to handle extreme spin from his opponents.
- Djokovic is mentally tougher in-match. Federer's more likely to get tight.

Finally, relating to the "better body" thing:

One of the tragedies of the modern big-spin era is that it damages the utility of the one-handed backhand, because a one-handed backhand has a narrower wheelhouse band than a two-handed one, and this makes it so that instead of the ideal height for a one-handed backhand to be a Federer's height (6'1"), to bit taller than that. Given where the game has gone, someone with Federer's limited height should probably be focusing on a two-handed backhand.

Why do I consider it a tragedy? Because the one-handed backhand is the most aesthetic shot in the game and the two-hander is one of the ugliest. It is what it is. Competitive advantage only follows aesthetics to a point and then diverges.

[EmpireFalls]

Novak is the Kendrick to Fed and Nadal's Drake and Cole, sorry. Every since he got questioned and he dedicated himself fully to pushing himself to his absolute limit, he's popped out and showed everyone.

this is INCREDIBLY disrespectful to both Federer and Nadal. And whichever of the two you’re comparing to J Cole, I’d go as far as to say you need to write them a heartfelt apology for even daring to equate the two.

[BelgradeNugget]

If only Nadal could have kept that level of play up for a long enough time on surfaces other than clay. In any case, I could even concede Nadal maybe being the most talented (although I'd never begin to make an assumption on how long his longevity would be if he had stayed healthier bc butterfly effect and all that).

Nadal was clearly the least talented of the 3, albeit probably the 3rd most talented in the world in their primes. His game relies more on endurance, athleticism, indomitable will (besides being obvious by the naked eye, also evidenced by falling off a bit earlier than the other 2). Nadal was the biggest beneficiary of the slower courts, racquet and string technology to play a style that wouldn't have been possible before Babolat racquets and polyester strings.

All 3 were so talented and on different level from the field. For me personaly there is no way to separate them in pure talent. Nadal had the worst luck with injuries that affected his career the most

[Drakeem]

Novak is the Kendrick to Fed and Nadal's Drake and Cole, sorry. Every since he got questioned and he dedicated himself fully to pushing himself to his absolute limit, he's popped out and showed everyone.

this is INCREDIBLY disrespectful to both Federer and Nadal. And whichever of the two you’re comparing to J Cole, I’d go as far as to say you need to write them a heartfelt apology for even daring to equate the two.

Writing it up now.

[EmpireFalls]

Novak is the Kendrick to Fed and Nadal's Drake and Cole, sorry. Every since he got questioned and he dedicated himself fully to pushing himself to his absolute limit, he's popped out and showed everyone.

this is INCREDIBLY disrespectful to both Federer and Nadal. And whichever of the two you’re comparing to J Cole, I’d go as far as to say you need to write them a heartfelt apology for even daring to equate the two.

Writing it up now.

J Cole and Drake are barely even in the top 25 all time in terms of rap. Drake at least has crossover mainstream appeal and a bunch of chart records. J Cole is… I mean just lol.

The Big 3 of tennis are like if Kareem, LeBron, Jordan all played at the same time.

[Doctor MJ]

The truth is that you can't have like 6 or 7 GOAT's in one era no matter how superior you believe your era to be... doesn't make sense that we could evolve so much in even one decade.

Not here to argue Novak, but overall, isn’t it interesting? GOATs, GOATs everywhere!!!

Recency bias out there much?

If everything’s so much better and natural evolution and all, shouldn’t that athlete’s competition theoretically be just as difficult to overcome compared to predecessors and their own generation? Meaning each relative to their own era. It’s supposed to be the hardest it’s ever been now, yet athletes are breaking all-time records left and right?

Hmmm. What a time to be alive when there’s “coincidentally” GOATs all over the place.

So just jumping in here - apologies if I miss context:

- The "GOAT" thing is clearly a part of pop culture right now and is definitely over-used.

- But in tennis we've got 4 players - Fed/Rafa/Nole plus Serena - who have just plain achieved enough to be named GOAT over earlier generations. And yeah, some of this is just plain coincidence. It happens.

- Of course the other factor is the tendency toward longevity in modern athletes. And while some of this is pure capacity based on modern training, it also speaks to there being sufficient motivation for athletes to keep going as long as they can to rack up career totals.

In a nutshell, guys like Borg & McEnroe were not primarily focused on max-ing out Grand Slam totals. Heck, in their time, the Australian Open wasn't even considered a Top 4 tournament. So, while I think each had mental things keeping them from wanting to keep grinding as long as they possibly could, I really don't think there's much doubt that if Borg had seen breaking the men's Slam record as his primary goal, he would have done it. I mean, if the dude had simply played the Aussie each year during the time he played, he breaks that record.

McEnroe is interesting further because he represents a GOAT peak argument in a sport that has since become totally focused on career totals. Basically, no one had a year that was in the conversation as dominant as McEnroe '84 until Federer '06, and to this day McEnroe has a strong case for being:

a - the best volleyer in the history of the game
b - the best doubles player in the history of the game
c - the most intuitive player in the history of the game

And I'll say that if we had all of these guys in-prime and forced them to play with old-school wooden rackets, there's a very serious chance that McEnroe would beat all comers on non-clay surfaces. (Clay would come down to Borg & Nadal.)

And of course McEnroe remains the biggest peak crossover superstar in the history of the men's game.

Funny then that with current career Slams focus McEnroe is starting to slide out of the Top 10.

Re-reading my post, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Evert/Navratilova/Graf, each of whom can still make an argument for female GOAT career.

Evert was the most likely to get deep into any tournament of any player in history.
Navratilova's peak eventually surpassed Evert and was the doubles GOAT.
Graf's prime dominance in singles is still unmatched (in the Open era).

[Doctor MJ]

Athleticism = natural talent. It's quite literally innate ability you're born with.

People tend to distinguish between “athleticism” (in the sense of speed, explosiveness, power, etc.) and “talent” (in the sense of dexterity, IQ, etc.).

I get where they’re coming from, but of course the body is involved in things like Steph’s shooting and Kyrie’s ball-handling. Even things like size and wingspan are disregarded as athletic qualities when they absolutely shouldn’t be.

IMO Federer was more athletic than Nadal if we talking about purely tennis athleticism. His movement around the court was incredible, not just due to his impressive foot speed, but his balance and agility in particular were the best I've seen in this sport and he had otherworldly handeye coordination. Nadal obviously also moved really well and was very quick, and he was stronger, but he didn't quite have the agility, balance and handeye coordination of Federer.

These are good distinctions. This is why I tend to call Federer the best ball-striker in tennis history, which is absolutely a huge part of tennis athleticism.

Re: Federer balance ahead of Nadal. On clay - where balance is most important - I really don't think so. Granted, the balance you need for clay is kind of its own thing.

[BelgradeNugget]

The truth is that you can't have like 6 or 7 GOAT's in one era no matter how superior you believe your era to be... doesn't make sense that we could evolve so much in even one decade.

Not here to argue Novak, but overall, isn’t it interesting? GOATs, GOATs everywhere!!!

Recency bias out there much?

If everything’s so much better and natural evolution and all, shouldn’t that athlete’s competition theoretically be just as difficult to overcome compared to predecessors and their own generation? Meaning each relative to their own era. It’s supposed to be the hardest it’s ever been now, yet athletes are breaking all-time records left and right?

Hmmm. What a time to be alive when there’s “coincidentally” GOATs all over the place.

So just jumping in here - apologies if I miss context:

- The "GOAT" thing is clearly a part of pop culture right now and is definitely over-used.

- But in tennis we've got 4 players - Fed/Rafa/Nole plus Serena - who have just plain achieved enough to be named GOAT over earlier generations. And yeah, some of this is just plain coincidence. It happens.

- Of course the other factor is the tendency toward longevity in modern athletes. And while some of this is pure capacity based on modern training, it also speaks to there being sufficient motivation for athletes to keep going as long as they can to rack up career totals.

In a nutshell, guys like Borg & McEnroe were not primarily focused on max-ing out Grand Slam totals. Heck, in their time, the Australian Open wasn't even considered a Top 4 tournament. So, while I think each had mental things keeping them from wanting to keep grinding as long as they possibly could, I really don't think there's much doubt that if Borg had seen breaking the men's Slam record as his primary goal, he would have done it. I mean, if the dude had simply played the Aussie each year during the time he played, he breaks that record.

McEnroe is interesting further because he represents a GOAT peak argument in a sport that has since become totally focused on career totals. Basically, no one had a year that was in the conversation as dominant as McEnroe '84 until Federer '06, and to this day McEnroe has a strong case for being:

a - the best volleyer in the history of the game
b - the best doubles player in the history of the game
c - the most intuitive player in the history of the game

And I'll say that if we had all of these guys in-prime and forced them to play with old-school wooden rackets, there's a very serious chance that McEnroe would beat all comers on non-clay surfaces. (Clay would come down to Borg & Nadal.)

And of course McEnroe remains the biggest peak crossover superstar in the history of the men's game.

Funny then that with current career Slams focus McEnroe is starting to slide out of the Top 10.

Re-reading my post, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Evert/Navratilova/Graf, each of whom can still make an argument for female GOAT career.

Evert was the most likely to get deep into any tournament of any player in history.
Navratilova's peak eventually surpassed Evert and was the doubles GOAT.
Graf's prime dominance in singles is still unmatched (in the Open era).

Monika Seles dominated Graf before she was almost killed during match

[Doctor MJ]

Not here to argue Novak, but overall, isn’t it interesting? GOATs, GOATs everywhere!!!

Recency bias out there much?

If everything’s so much better and natural evolution and all, shouldn’t that athlete’s competition theoretically be just as difficult to overcome compared to predecessors and their own generation? Meaning each relative to their own era. It’s supposed to be the hardest it’s ever been now, yet athletes are breaking all-time records left and right?

Hmmm. What a time to be alive when there’s “coincidentally” GOATs all over the place.

So just jumping in here - apologies if I miss context:

- The "GOAT" thing is clearly a part of pop culture right now and is definitely over-used.

- But in tennis we've got 4 players - Fed/Rafa/Nole plus Serena - who have just plain achieved enough to be named GOAT over earlier generations. And yeah, some of this is just plain coincidence. It happens.

- Of course the other factor is the tendency toward longevity in modern athletes. And while some of this is pure capacity based on modern training, it also speaks to there being sufficient motivation for athletes to keep going as long as they can to rack up career totals.

In a nutshell, guys like Borg & McEnroe were not primarily focused on max-ing out Grand Slam totals. Heck, in their time, the Australian Open wasn't even considered a Top 4 tournament. So, while I think each had mental things keeping them from wanting to keep grinding as long as they possibly could, I really don't think there's much doubt that if Borg had seen breaking the men's Slam record as his primary goal, he would have done it. I mean, if the dude had simply played the Aussie each year during the time he played, he breaks that record.

McEnroe is interesting further because he represents a GOAT peak argument in a sport that has since become totally focused on career totals. Basically, no one had a year that was in the conversation as dominant as McEnroe '84 until Federer '06, and to this day McEnroe has a strong case for being:

a - the best volleyer in the history of the game
b - the best doubles player in the history of the game
c - the most intuitive player in the history of the game

And I'll say that if we had all of these guys in-prime and forced them to play with old-school wooden rackets, there's a very serious chance that McEnroe would beat all comers on non-clay surfaces. (Clay would come down to Borg & Nadal.)

And of course McEnroe remains the biggest peak crossover superstar in the history of the men's game.

Funny then that with current career Slams focus McEnroe is starting to slide out of the Top 10.

Re-reading my post, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Evert/Navratilova/Graf, each of whom can still make an argument for female GOAT career.

Evert was the most likely to get deep into any tournament of any player in history.
Navratilova's peak eventually surpassed Evert and was the doubles GOAT.
Graf's prime dominance in singles is still unmatched (in the Open era).

Monika Seles dominated Graf before she was almost killed during match

I love the Seles shout out. I hate everything about what happened to Seles, and I also hate that it really had the effect the psycho wanted - Graf becoming dominant again. When Seles came back, you better believe I was always cheering hard for her to become the world #1 again over Graf.

But I wouldn't say Seles ever really dominated the Graf matchup. During Seles' 2.25 year run as the best player in the world, the head to head between them was Graf 3, Seles 2. Why did they play so little? Because Graf in those years was losing to other players.

None of that changes who the best player in the world in that period was - it was Seles - but Graf wasn't just more dominant pre-Seles-peak, but post-Seles-peak.

I really, really wish we'd gotten to see both players at their absolute apex compete for an extended time, and if we did maybe Seles still comes out ahead, but the reality is that Graf demonstrated greater dominance both before & after peak Seles than we ever saw from Seles.

[BelgradeNugget]

So just jumping in here - apologies if I miss context:

- The "GOAT" thing is clearly a part of pop culture right now and is definitely over-used.

- But in tennis we've got 4 players - Fed/Rafa/Nole plus Serena - who have just plain achieved enough to be named GOAT over earlier generations. And yeah, some of this is just plain coincidence. It happens.

- Of course the other factor is the tendency toward longevity in modern athletes. And while some of this is pure capacity based on modern training, it also speaks to there being sufficient motivation for athletes to keep going as long as they can to rack up career totals.

In a nutshell, guys like Borg & McEnroe were not primarily focused on max-ing out Grand Slam totals. Heck, in their time, the Australian Open wasn't even considered a Top 4 tournament. So, while I think each had mental things keeping them from wanting to keep grinding as long as they possibly could, I really don't think there's much doubt that if Borg had seen breaking the men's Slam record as his primary goal, he would have done it. I mean, if the dude had simply played the Aussie each year during the time he played, he breaks that record.

McEnroe is interesting further because he represents a GOAT peak argument in a sport that has since become totally focused on career totals. Basically, no one had a year that was in the conversation as dominant as McEnroe '84 until Federer '06, and to this day McEnroe has a strong case for being:

a - the best volleyer in the history of the game
b - the best doubles player in the history of the game
c - the most intuitive player in the history of the game

And I'll say that if we had all of these guys in-prime and forced them to play with old-school wooden rackets, there's a very serious chance that McEnroe would beat all comers on non-clay surfaces. (Clay would come down to Borg & Nadal.)

And of course McEnroe remains the biggest peak crossover superstar in the history of the men's game.

Funny then that with current career Slams focus McEnroe is starting to slide out of the Top 10.

Re-reading my post, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Evert/Navratilova/Graf, each of whom can still make an argument for female GOAT career.

Evert was the most likely to get deep into any tournament of any player in history.
Navratilova's peak eventually surpassed Evert and was the doubles GOAT.
Graf's prime dominance in singles is still unmatched (in the Open era).

Monika Seles dominated Graf before she was almost killed during match

I love the Seles shout out. I hate everything about what happened to Seles, and I also hate that it really had the effect the psycho wanted - Graf becoming dominant again. When Seles came back, you better believe I was always cheering hard for her to become the world #1 again over Graf.

But I wouldn't say Seles ever really dominated the Graf matchup. During Seles' 2.25 year run as the best player in the world, the head to head between them was Graf 3, Seles 2. Why did they play so little? Because Graf in those years was losing to other players.

None of that changes who the best player in the world in that period was - it was Seles - but Graf wasn't just more dominant pre-Seles-peak, but post-Seles-peak.

I really, really wish we'd gotten to see both players at their absolute apex compete for an extended time, and if we did maybe Seles still comes out ahead, but the reality is that Graf demonstrated greater dominance both before & after peak Seles than we ever saw from Seles.

Steffi was great, with that killer forehend. She would hit the ball with hand going more down-up than from one side to the other. Simmilar to Nadal.

Anyway, in Monika's peak since 1991 Aus open till 1993 Aus open, she won 8 of 9 grand slams with Graf at her peak. Graf won before Monika was there and after stabbing. It should have been longer rivaly

[NYPiston]

undisputed my ass.

He is behind Nadal and federer.

he has only taken advantage of the other two being older and with poor health that made them miss a lot gs.

Meh, one can easily say that Federer took advantage of a relatively mediocre field when he piled up most of his slams from 2004-2007 when Djokovic and Nadal were way before their primes.
One can also say that Nadal was the weakest of the 3 outside of clay and parlayed that immense French Open success into making it a close slam race between the three.

You can poke holes in any resume but the bottom line in terms of overall career accomplishments, it's hard to argue that Djokovic isn't the best of all time. The Gold medal merely put a final stamp on that.

[PierceFan4ever]

I can’t believe Federer lost to djokovic in 2019 Wimbledon finals with 2 match points on serve. If he won that, it would’ve been like Jordan’s game 6 1998 legendary farewell moment. Djokovic would still have more slams but the argument would’ve been there for Fed but with that L, it’s hard to go against djokovic as the goat with his accolades.

[AleksandarN]

Upon defeating Carlos Alcaraz in a thrilling 2-set Olympic Final, Novak Djoković secured both the gold and his status as the objective GOAT of tennis.

Record 24 Gland Slams
Only player to complete triple Career Grand Slam
Record 40 ATP Tour Masters
Only player to complete Career Golden Masters, which he has done twice
Superior Head-to-head record against every other contender
Olympic gold medal in Men’s Singles



May the doubt rest in peace.

So since we're seeing responses to this that make clear that it's basically impossible to become "Undisputed" in this day and age, I'll chime in:

I aesthetically prefer Federer to Nadal and Nadal to Djokovic, but at this point I agree Djokovic is the clear cut GOAT in my eyes.

I consider Federer:
- The best ball-striker in the history of tennis.
- The most graceful ball-striker in the history of tennis.
- The player with the game to dominate across all eras of equipment above all others.
- The greatest career grass court player in the history of tennis.
- The highest peak grass court player in the history of tennis depending on court conditions - the less court friction, the more he stands out.
- The 2nd greatest career/peak hard court player in the history of tennis.
- Quite possibly a Top 5 clay court player in the history of tennis.
- Arguably the great self-driven tennis intellects of all time.

I consider Nadal:
- The greatest career/peak on clay in the history of tennis.
- The mentally toughest player in the history of tennis (which is really tough competition).
- At least a Top 10 all-time player on grass and hard court.

But at this point, none of that gives them a serious argument for GOAT over Djokovic in my eyes.
What gives Djokovic the edge?
Well over Nadal it's pretty straight forward: He's better at everything than Nadal except playing on clay

The conversation with Federer is more interesting. I'll emphasize:

- Djokovic is a better traditional athlete than Federer.
- Djokovic is has a better body for the modern tennis era because his height, length & flexibility make him better able to handle extreme spin from his opponents.
- Djokovic is mentally tougher in-match. Federer's more likely to get tight.

Finally, relating to the "better body" thing:

One of the tragedies of the modern big-spin era is that it damages the utility of the one-handed backhand, because a one-handed backhand has a narrower wheelhouse band than a two-handed one, and this makes it so that instead of the ideal height for a one-handed backhand to be a Federer's height (6'1"), to bit taller than that. Given where the game has gone, someone with Federer's limited height should probably be focusing on a two-handed backhand.

Why do I consider it a tragedy? Because the one-handed backhand is the most aesthetic shot in the game and the two-hander is one of the ugliest. It is what it is. Competitive advantage only follows aesthetics to a point and then diverges.

You forgot to mention Novak is the best returner we have ever seen probably also the best tactician of the big three. I mean my favorite player before Novak was Agassi who imho was the greatest returner ever in the game before Novak.

[Drakeem]

this is INCREDIBLY disrespectful to both Federer and Nadal. And whichever of the two you’re comparing to J Cole, I’d go as far as to say you need to write them a heartfelt apology for even daring to equate the two.

Writing it up now.

J Cole and Drake are barely even in the top 25 all time in terms of rap. Drake at least has crossover mainstream appeal and a bunch of chart records. J Cole is… I mean just lol.

The Big 3 of tennis are like if Kareem, LeBron, Jordan all played at the same time.

I was more so pointing to the fact that at some point they were grouped together within their generation and in recent years, one guy managed to break that "big 3" moniker and just be looked at without peer. Despite what you want to believe, Drake and Kendrick were 1a/1b throughout the whole generation depending on whose music you preferred but I'm not even getting into a hip hop discussion anymore.

Nole said screw the big 3, it's just big me, and Fedal fans just gotta sit back and watch it happen. Didn't mean the comparison to be 1 for 1.

[Parasite]

Accomplishments wise, i think he is. But he's an anti-vaxxer so he's never going to be liked in perpetuity. LOL

If someone doesn’t like me because I saw through the Covid bull I count that as a win. I’m sure Novak does as well.

[LightTheBeam]

He is the goat tough faking injury in de midst of a game that is not going his way to take the other player out of their game and throw their concentration away.

or the misterious miraculous recovery of this seasons " injury".


Earlier in the year he refused to pee in a bottle when they showed up unanounced.

Tennis federation does not want to start looking like Cycling so they have decided to turn a blind eye on it but its clear he is a cheater and is high on dope to his head.

Salty much ?

If you think Djokovic is about doping, you can say the same about Nadal, you know...

If nadal took the syringe now he wouldnt be dragging his ass on the court looking like a scrub.

So to put into basketball terms..

It's safe to assume Lebron is doping because otherwise he wouldn't be moving the way he does. You know like every other 40 year old that has ever played.. Right?