Welcome to Coffee Talk! Let’s start off the day by discussing whatever is on your (nerd chic) mind. Every morning I’ll kick off a discussion and I’m counting on you to participate in it. If you’re not feelin’ my topic, feel free to start a chat with your fellow readers and see where it takes you. Whether you’re talking about videogames, disappointing ramen, creme brulee, or paying homage to Juan Epstein, Coffee Talk is the place to do it.
It was difficult watching the Australian Open semifinal between Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. I had no faith in Federer winning the match. He was never the strongest player on the tour, nor did he ever have the biggest serve, the most powerful ground strokes, or the most stinging volleys. His beautiful game is based on outstanding movement and precision ball striking. At age 30, he has lost half a step and his reaction time is a wee bit slower. Amazingly, he’s still good enough to go deep in any major tournament. I just don’t think he’s good enough to win another grand slam (without some fantastic luck and a friendly draw).
Roger Federer is the most dominant athlete I’ve ever seen. He terrorized the tour from 2004 to 2007, winning 11 of the 16 grand slam tournaments in that time period. He spent 285 consecutive weeks as the number-one ranked player in the world. He reached the semifinals or better in 23 grand slam tournaments in a row. He appeared in 18 of 19 grand slam finals from the 2005 Wimbledon Championships through the 2010 Australian Open. He’s had some rough moments over the last few years, particularly on clay and against Nadal, but I don’t think I’ll see an athlete like that again in my lifetime. He’s been playing at the highest level of the sport since 2003 and for four years he was virtually unstoppable.
Of course, that’s just my opinion. Who would you say is the most dominant athlete you’ve ever seen?
Tiger Woods, its not close
Dude won almost 40 percent of the tournaments he entered over a 10 year span.
Unlike tennis, in golf, you have to beat EVERYONE, it isnt a playoff system where you just need to beat 5 individual players to win a tournament.
Don't know of any major tournaments where you win for beating five players. That's not how grand slams work.
Tennis doesn't have much of an off season if players want to maintain their rankings. The surfaces are drastically different, which makes Federer's consistency all the more amazing.
Federer has more majors, more tournament wins, etc.
I could see an argument for either athlete, but saying it's not close? No way.
Federer always had a hell of a time beating Nadal, especially at the French. I sort of disqualify tennis players from this conversation, because every 5 years there is always a different super dominant dude. Sampras, Federer, Nadal, and now Djokavic is poised to go on a little run himself.
You are right though, it may be close Ray.
Have to say, have we all forgotten about how awesome Wayne Gretzky was for all those years? Gretzky was much more dominant that Jordan IMO. Jordan doesn't own any records :). He had the career PPG average, but his little Washington Wizards adventure screwed that up for him.
Sure, but the thing to keep in mind is that clay doesn't suit Federer's game and he still managed to win the French Open and several other clay court tournaments. I also think you're discounting Federer's run. When you add up the ranking, the number of majors, the number of grand slam finals/semifinals appearances, etc., it's unparalleled. He has already outdone Sampras. Nadal and Djokovic have only had one year of winning three grand slams, while Federer had three. There's a chance Nadal and Djokovic could surpass Federer, but it would be extremely difficult.
No, im not discounting it, i think i just have a natural bias against tennis players.
Federer's run was made even more impressive by the fact that he was so prolific in such a small amount of time. Tennis careers are ephemeral, moreso than golf careers.. I definitely appreciate what he did. He was like Kobayashi, or now Joey Chestnut. Unbeatable for a good 5 year run.
Hmm…then what about someone like Richard Petty? His run of victories is impressive to say the least. I'm not a big fan of racing necessarily but he was nevertheless dominant in his motorsport.
Petty gets the Wilt Chamberlain treatment. Just on stats alone, those guys were amazing, but you have to look at their competition early in their career.
Also the question is "who is the most dominant athlete you have ever seen?" You werent watchin nascar, smokin Winstons, when you were 3 years old.
The most dominant athlete ever might have been someone like Cy Young, or Ted Williams, or Petty, or Chamberlain.
Very true.I still can't waver from Tiger Woods and I'm not even a big golf fan.
I agree that Tiger Woods is the most dominant athlete, especially at winning trophies/jackets.
Too bad we were never able to see Federer v Sampras in their primes. Great match up.
TIGER WOODS Y'ALL ITS ALL GOOD Y'ALL!
Michael Jordan. There were times the other 9 guys on the floor didn't even matter. Lots of guys in the NBA now-a-days think they're that good. They're not.
Ah… The Harlem Globetrotters… (duh)!
One of them just graduated from Ball State a couple years ago, my wife was friends with him through some of her friends. That's a good point though, they always have a lot of talent along with a great acting career in all those Scooby Doo episodes. lol.
Does anyone not see the obvious pun of a Harlem Globetrotter graduating from a place called Ball State University?
-M
I never thought of it like that before, but that makes for a great pun, lol.