Because that's my argument. So either agree, or find a fault in my reasoning.
I did not
say that Sampras is a expert tennis historian/statistician
. I said that he is an tennis expert
. So, if I agree with your argument, it will not
mean that you rebuted what I said.
That's assertion, not argument. I could take a debate about anything and make that claim. X topic is complex issue, only experts on X have the knowledge to comprehend which argument is more sound. Y is an expert on X, because he is widely recognized to have practical knowledge of the subject (take any media personality here). We're not publicly recognized experts, hence just have to agree with Y.
The massive hole in your argument is that you don't need to be a publicly recognized expert to have expertise on a subject.
Can you quote post where I said that you must be a publicly recognized expert to have expertise on a subject?
Otherwise only 'experts' could debate anything. And essentially anyone can read and post on MTF, even Sampras himself. When someone presents an argument, they're not saying "believe me because I'm some anonymous internet person"; they're not asking for your faith. They're presenting a series of claims backed up by certain evidence, for others to evaluate.
Your response is to say "How dare you make an argument on this topic! We're all too stupid to discuss this issue, so lets just blindly believe what this other person says, because he's good at playing tennis".
I do not
claim that reasonable non-experts should blindly believe what Sampras says. I just say that reasonable non-experts will more trust Sampras than anonymous posters on MTF.
Only what he has posted before on MTF. And much of what he has posted before seems quite sensible, supported with apt illustration or reasoned argument.
Ca you prove that he is a tennis expert?
When you've posted a while on the forum, many posters will no longer be anonymous. You with your 103 posts will obviously not have aquainted yourself with the posters here to the same degree as many others have.
"Definition of anonymous
(of a person) not identified by name; of unknown name
So you should not speak about their expertise until you know them better. When you do you too will take the word of some of them over Sampras unless you're dead set against it happening from the outset.
Can you prove that they are tennis experts?
By the way, did you find out what odds bookies give for Djokovic reaching 10+ majors?
No, I have not found it.