Could it be this:
The endowed talent was so sufficient to so ridiculously dominate the landscape that the need to button up the jacket - to the last button - was rendered an overkill?
For rock people, there hasn't been a basketball player (Center?) as dominant as Shaq - EVER. In his prime, once the ball reached his hands it was considered an automatic basket - regardless of anything. Nobody could stop him except...........what he left unbuttoned - due to laziness.
Federer in his prime matched that standard. Nobody could stop him except.........what he left unbuttoned - due to laziness.
Will leave the rest of the post to appear tomorrow to give you freaking freaks a chance to figure out what I am barking about.
IF you can figure it out, you will qualify for not just the Wall Of Fame listing but also an email from me confirming you as one of the (you cannot pass me of course) most knowledgeable tennis fans on the planet.
Only once has the email happened in the past. Rock won it.
Even though it should have been just the 'What's common between Shaq and Federer', there was no freaking way you cheap freaking freaks would have guessed it, so the hint above.
Correct answer / Winner: Friday, May 24, 2013.
-----------------------------------------
Rest of the post:
If historically, certain weak links have been exposed beyond obviously, not addressing them while building your career would - to put it mildly - be tantamount to being lazy, don't you think?
We ALL are inherently lazy. It's just the matter of how bad is the 'nail' hurting (Dog is sitting on a nail and groaning with pain but won't move until the pain is unbearable).
Shaq knew that the station he was aiming for can be reached without the added effort and energy needed to fix the historical problem (Read: Nail not hurting bad enough). He though he could be counted amongst the greats of the game without the 'fix'. And he was right. You think Shaq would have acted differently if he wanted to be the stand alone GOAT of NBA? You bet!!!!! Heard of Jordan ignoring even the slightest problem forget the one being broadcast through the ages?
Similarly, single-handed backhand has been proven historically to be the weakest link. So why didn't Federer fix it? Federer was able to win a vast majority of his matches without perfecting a perfectly unnatural shot.
Forget Nadal and on clay, do you think that Federer's losses to other players and on any surface was LARGELY the product of the opponent succeeding in exploiting his backhand beyond an average standard? You bet!!!! It certainly wasn't because of his forehand, don't you think? That small a number of losses was not pain enough to move away from the nail.
Federer knew of the weakness LONNNNNG before Nadal came along to make him pay for his laziness. IF Federer wanted to be the stand alone GOAT badly and felt the pain even at those few losses, he would have switched to recognize the altered landscape - technology, bigger / stronger players, nutrition etc. - demanding it as BASIC requirement. Federer believed he could get to the station without that added cost and hassle because of superior talent - and he has. It's just that there was another notch well within grasp and so beyond ANYONE else EVER that could have been scaled if not for 'laziness' - also called the 'nail'.
------------------------------------
WINNER: CHIPNPUTT