chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Hans-Joachim Federer
  
Number of games in database: 1
Years covered: 2001
Last FIDE rating: 2004
Highest rating achieved in database: 2043


Search Sacrifice Explorer for Hans-Joachim Federer
Search Google for Hans-Joachim Federer
FIDE player card for Hans-Joachim Federer


HANS-JOACHIM FEDERER
(born Oct-13-1950, 70 years old) Germany

[what is this?]

 page 1 of 1; one game  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. L Krizsany vs H J Federer 1-0242001Bad Woerishofen op 17thE73 King's Indian

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 215 OF 215 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Sep-13-21  optimal play: Bear, we should pray for Mr Shaw.
Sep-13-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <Easier> does not mean <easy>. After, all after Laver <nobody> did it (among men). Not even two people.
Sep-13-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: When laver did it in '62 the top amateurs weren't present, i think you had to make a choice between being a pro and an amateur.

The best athletes of china, eastern europe and the Soviet union were not playing tennis in 1969, because it wasnt an Olympic sport. Fed and Joker have to play against all of these people nowadays. [This makes Graf's '88 slam even more remarkable]

There is an extra round of competition for the 4 majors of tennis now that wasnt present in' 69. Rod laver did not have to contend with that.

I'm right. You're wrong. So there.

Sep-13-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <HMM> I think <alex magnus> and <optimal play>'s point still stands -- yes, it was easier to win a slam in the 1960s, but if it was <easy>, it would have happened more often. It's like Steinitz winning 25 straight or whatever it was in the 19th century and Fischer winning 19 straight in the 1970s. Yes, conditions were different, but no one else was doing the same thing at the time (or at any other time).
Sep-13-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: It certainly was easier to win major championships before 1968, because the best players in the world weren't allowed to participate.
Sep-13-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: just think if tennis had been an olympic event in the 1970s. East Germany would have been churning out these female tennis players as hairy as Nastase with muscles as big as Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Sep-14-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <HMM>, long as those East Germans were men, a certain poster in the Rogovian miasma would be all over them....
Sep-14-21  optimal play: Before 1962 only two people had won the calendar year Grand Slam, both American.

The pressure on Rod in 1962 was enormous, especially from home, and he handled it brilliantly to become the first non-American to win THE Grand Slam.

Seven years later, he set out to prove he could do it in the open era as he had done it as an amateur, and once again, despite enormous pressure, he became the first and thus far, only person to complete the calendar year Grand Slam twice.

As great a player as Novak Djokovic is, he crumbled under the pressure and failed to achieve the ultimate in tennis when it counted.

The true test of greatness isn't just the number of matches you win or goals your kick, but rising to the occasion to achieve victory under enormous pressure when it counts the most.

Quibbling about <top amateurs> or <best athletes of china> or <it wasnt an Olympic sport> or <extra round> or whatever cannot diminish the incredible achievement of Laver.

It wasn't easier for Laver, it was just as tough. But he did it. Twice!

Now, I understand that according to the criteria laid down by <HeMateMe> & <saffuna>, the greatest tennis player of all time is the most recent winner of the US Open, since only the American tournament really counts, and the olden day players are weakies, so therefore Medvedev and Raducanu must now be considered the greatest of all time.

At least until next year's US Open.

Sep-14-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: <The pressure on Rod in 1962 was enormous, especially from home, and he handled it brilliantly to become the first non-American to win THE Grand Slam.>

And fortunately for him he never had to play Rosewall, Gonzalez or Hoad. Rosewall crushed him in 1963.

<Now, I understand that according to the criteria laid down by <HeMateMe> & <saffuna>, the greatest tennis player of all time is the most recent winner of the US Open...>

I have no idea where you got that idea. It's ridiculous.

The calendar-year is a great achievement, a marker in tennis greatness. But it is not the only one.

Sep-14-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: <...so therefore Medvedev and Raducanu must now be considered the greatest of all time.>

Nobody said that, nor implied it. You are hallucinating.

Sep-14-21  optimal play: <And fortunately for him he never had to play ...>

Federer and Nadal were both absent from the 2021 US Open.

<The calendar-year is a great achievement, a marker in tennis greatness. But it is not the only one.>

I agree.

<Nobody said that, nor implied it.>

It is clearly implied from your comments which can be summarised as follows:

(1) The US Open is superior to all other tennis tournaments, especially the Australian, which is third rate, run by a bunch of backwater hicks down under.

(2) The latest tennis pro's are the best, far superior to those old has-beens from a bygone era who used wooden racquets.

Ergo, the most recent winners of the US Open must therefore be the greatest of all time.

That's your logic!

Sep-14-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: <(1) The US Open is superior to all other tennis tournaments, especially the Australian, which is third rate, run by a bunch of backwater hicks down under.>

No. I think all four majors are of equal importance today, maybe Wimbledon a milimeter ahead. There was a time years ago when the Australian was less prestigious than the others.

<(2) The latest tennis pro's are the best, far superior to those old has-beens from a bygone era who used wooden racquets.>

Not overall, though I think there are more good players today than there were in the 60s and 70s. I do happen to think Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are the three best of all time.

Sep-14-21  optimal play: <<(1) The US Open is superior to all other tennis tournaments, especially the Australian, which is third rate, run by a bunch of backwater hicks down under.>

No. I think all four majors are of equal importance today, maybe Wimbledon a milimeter ahead. There was a time years ago when the Australian was less prestigious than the others.>

Which conveniently allows for the dismissal of the achievements by Rod and Margaret.

<<(2) The latest tennis pro's are the best, far superior to those old has-beens from a bygone era who used wooden racquets.>

Not overall, though I think there are more good players today than there were in the 60s and 70s. I do happen to think Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are the three best of all time.>

The three best of all time just happen to have played in the current era, despite tennis being played for almost 150 years!?

Sep-14-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: <The three best of all time just happen to have played in the current era, despite tennis being played for almost 150 years!?>

Yes.

The fastest eight 100 meter runners of all time have run since 2008. It happens.

Sports tend to advance.

Sep-14-21  optimal play: <The fastest eight 100 meter runners of all time have run since 2008.>

So all these runners since 2008 are greater than Carl Lewis & Jess Owens?

Usain Bolt yes, but all the rest?

I think we already settled this prejudice of presentism aka chronological snobbery.

The truly great sportsperson is always best known for a significant achievement, such as a calendar year grand slam, setting a new world record at the Olympics, kicking the winning goal in the world cup final, or some such spectacular accomplishment.

Cometh the hour cometh the man.

That's what Rod and Margaret each did.

By comparison, Novak crumbled under the pressure of what would have been his crowning achievement. He is still a great player, but his failure at the US Open showed that he will not be remembered as the greatest of all time.

Same with Serena. After her last grand slam win in 2017 she has lost four!

Four chances in grand slam finals to equal Margaret Court's record and she failed at each attempt.

Like we just saw with Novak, she couldn't handle the pressure. That's why she will never be recognised as the greatest of all time by unbiased astute tennis observers. She folded at each opportunity. She just wasn't up to it.

Real greatness means taking hold of those rare moments in sport and making history.

Rod and Margaret did that. Novak and Serena couldn't.

Sep-14-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <So all these runners since 2008 are greater than Carl Lewis & Jess Owens?>

Greater? No. Better? Yes.

Sep-14-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <optimal play>

<It is clearly implied from your comments which can be summarised as follows:

(1) The US Open is superior to all other tennis tournaments, especially the Australian, which is third rate, run by a bunch of backwater hicks down under.

(2) The latest tennis pro's are the best, far superior to those old has-beens from a bygone era who used wooden racquets.

Ergo, the most recent winners of the US Open must therefore be the greatest of all time.

That's your logic!>

I'm repeating myself: <optimal play>, you clearly know a lot about tennis. But you can't win arguments by building strawmen and setting them on fire.

Sep-14-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: I am not criticizing Laver. He won EIGHT straight majors. I just think better players have come along later.

I have not been talking Serena. I have been talking Graf. She won 11 of 14 majors she played from 1993 to 1996. Admittedly that was right after Seles was stabbed, but she won them.

The grand slam is not the only pressure.

Federer won both Wimbledon (2003-2007) and the US Open (2004-2008) five years in a row. That was pressure.

Nadal won the French nine times in ten years. Thst was pressure, too.

Sep-14-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: As for Djokovic allegedly "failing under pressure": not sure this is what happened. Some suggested the psychological component to his loss was a different one: this time he had the crowd on his side, while he usually performs best when the crowd is supporting the opponent.
Sep-14-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: Also, not each loss in a critical situation is due to pressure. Sometimes the opponent is just better. Or has a better day. Or both. And by "better" I mean actually playing better, not handling the psychology better (generally, I doubt <any> player who won even <one> major has any problems wrt psychology of pressure. Let alone 20 of them).
Sep-14-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: The Times reported that this is the first win of a major by a Brit since 1977. I guess that would be Virginia Wade. I thought the Brit male no. 1 had won a couple of majors over the past five years or so. Apparently not.

I think I've seen quotes where McEnroe, Sampras and Agassi have all said that "Federer is the best player I've ever seen."

Interesting, in Connor's auto bio <The Outsider> he says that it's not all that certain that he [Federer] would beat Connors were they competing at the same time. well, you never know, but Federer has footwork like McEnroe with groundstrokes like Lendl. I can't see Jimmy Connors beating a tennis machine like the young Federer.

Sep-14-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: First win by a British woman or an English man or woman since 1977 (Virginia Wade at Wimbledon). Andy Murray won three, but he's Scottish.

Purely on style vs. style, Federer would defeat Connors easily. Connors was crushing everybody for a couple of years until his weakness on short, low balls hit to his forehand was discovered. That brought him back toward the crowd.

By chance one of Federer's best shots is the low slice to a lefthanders forehand. He would use that to carve up Connors.

Sep-15-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: the packers can't stink that badly, 38-3? I would guess they are going to be on national TV 2-3 times this year, as they've always drawn well. NFL executives must be sweating, if they've booked green bay for sunday night football, monday night football, and then suddenly the team is a dog and no one wants to watch them. Could be quite a shock to the system if you're a life long Packers fan. The Pack has been relevant for 30 years, going back to the Brett Favre era.
Sep-15-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: While it hardly seems reasonable to draw sweeping conclusions based on the outcome of one game played, it is not a good early sign to see Rodgers struggle for a team which relies so heavily upon him. With a middling QB under centre, Green Bay could count themselves fortunate to finish anywhere near .500.
Sep-15-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: reminds me of when Boomer Esiason began struggling in Cincinnati. The team already had a crappy defense. without a good quarterback they quickly became a 2-14 team.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 215)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 215 OF 215 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific player only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC