Raymond Lee's piece on Federer and the GOAT debate [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Raymond Lee's piece on Federer and the GOAT debate

CyBorg
07-16-2009, 02:07 AM
The historian Raymond Lee, as some of you know, does not consider Sampras to have been the greatest before Federer. Here, he chimes in with his thoughts on Federer, Sampras and past greats and discusses the problematics of the so-called record of 14 grand slam titles that was recently smashed by the Swiss great.

http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=6636241

It's a good piece. Those of you very well familiar with the history of the sport will probably not be surprised by what is said here. Those less knowledgeable will probably find a lot here to be of interest.

neme6
07-16-2009, 02:25 AM
Useless article since we already know the facts that he wrote!

nobama
07-16-2009, 02:47 AM
GOAT debate. :zzz:

fast_clay
07-16-2009, 02:51 AM
good article, and sets what will probably be the blueprint argument for the future, now that federer has broken the record and people lean towards measuring federer to records that (taking into account the jaded pro years) could, as the author writes, be set somewhere in the early to mid twenties...

the article is well built in that Court is actually a great gauge for what was possible for greats in that era who didnt turn pro, while Emerson's record should serve as a tally for not as a great, but what was possible for a 2nd or 3rd tier opportunist of the era, thus, to be ranked lower than a Becker or an Edberg imo...

Federer's record is the greatest of our age... without doubt, but... here is a good starter in the fresh wave of arguments to come...

ps hartru: i can see where my inflated pro slam figures came from now re: 3 pro slams/year not 4...

MacTheKnife
07-16-2009, 02:56 AM
No new news in the article but he did do a good job of laying it out. I don't think there will ever be an undisputed GOAT in this sport or any other for that matter. There are plenty of sports without all the issues found in tennis history and they can't determine a GOAT.

Even this article is full of the ole "if" word. Which tells you there is nothing definitive to be found. It all really boils down to a matter of one's opinion.

MacTheKnife
07-16-2009, 03:01 AM
good article, and sets what will probably be the blueprint argument for the future, now that federer has broken the record and people lean towards measuring federer to records that (taking into account the jaded pro years) could, as the author writes, be set somewhere in the early to mid twenties...

the article is well built in that Court is actually a great gauge for what was possible for greats in that era who didnt turn pro, while Emerson's record should serve as a tally for not as a great, but what was possible for a 2nd or 3rd tier opportunist of the era, thus, to be ranked lower than a Becker or an Edberg imo...

Federer's record is the greatest of our age... without doubt, but... here is a good starter in the fresh wave of arguments to come...

ps hartru: i can see where my inflated pro slam figures came from now re: 3 pro slams/year not 4...


Har-tru is gone for a while.

The article also reminds people that for basically the first half of the open era the top guys only played 3 slams a year. Most seem to conveniently forget that little tidbit.

Bargearse
07-16-2009, 03:12 AM
I've always thought it was difficult to name any one player the GOAT due to the differences laid out in this excellent article. The Aus Open was overlooked by so many of the greats, transport wasn't what it is today... etc... there are just so many variables.

GlennMirnyi
07-16-2009, 03:24 AM
You can resume the article easily:

- The author doesn't believe in Federer's GOATness - well, who does, except for his gloryhunting fans?
- The author has the nerve to put women's statistics in a tennis discussion - a huge NO GO area.
- He talks as if players turned pro because they had a weapon pointed at them. They decided to turn pro on their own behalves and they definitely knew the consequences.

CmonAussie
07-16-2009, 03:35 AM
....
<>
The article is good, but nothing new for people who`ve bothered to do a little research [or even check Wikipedia]..
Certainly FED`s 15 or Sampras` 14 need to be put into perspective, considering all the circus that went on in the past and complications going from Amateur-Pro-Open eras..

2 points i think need to be noted that mark FED & LAVER as the best candidates for GOAT:

LAVER-- won the calendar slam 3 times [Amateur Slam 62, Pro Slam 67, Open Slam 69]..
so Laver couldn`t prove himself anymore he managed to completely dominate in each era of competition he faced..

FED-- has held 3/4 slams 4 times [04, 06, 07, 09], one match away from calendar slam twice [06 & 07]..
plus this is clearly the most competitive era in tennis history, in terms of the numbers of players being produced in different countries..

GlennMirnyi
07-16-2009, 03:39 AM
Most competitive era in tennis history? :lol:

You gotta be kidding me.

Johnny Groove
07-16-2009, 03:46 AM
- He talks as if players turned pro because they had a weapon pointed at them. They decided to turn pro on their own behalves and they definitely knew the consequences.

They turned pro because that was where the money was at. You can hardly blame them.

Fine article, by the way.

ballbasher101
07-16-2009, 04:09 AM
Most competitive era in tennis history? :lol:

You gotta be kidding me.


It is. Players are fitter and faster compared to earlier. Players also have the best experts at hand to help in anyway possible. Just because one person dominates does not mean that an era is weak, It just means that the player dominating is a class above the rest.

Mechlan
07-16-2009, 05:26 AM
A good summary of the points explaining why 15 slams isn't the final word on Federer being the greatest. Certainly brings up a lot of good arguments about why it's so hard to compare different generations, and why it's nearly impossible to compare pre and post open-era achievements.

I must say that I'm surprised that Lee thought Sampras' record would be broken soon. In 40 years of open era tennis, nobody won more than 14 slams. Even if you account for the fact that the Australian wasn't considered on equal footing with the other majors until much later, in the open era, the only other player even in the vicinity of 14 is Borg. And 40 years is not a short period of time.

I also think that not enough is said about the overall depth of field these days. There are more players playing, the game is undoubtedly more physical, and age certainly appears to be a greater factor than in the past. If we bring up the difficulties of travel to the various slams in the 20s and 30s, we certainly should acknowledge that travel isn't an issue anymore, but increased depth of field is.

Anyway, just my 2c. I agree with the main point of the article that 15 is not a magic number that makes Federer the GOAT. Though I think there's a strong case you could make for him being the best of the open era.

Bargearse
07-16-2009, 06:03 AM
I must say that I'm surprised that Lee thought Sampras' record would be broken soon. In 40 years of open era tennis, nobody won more than 14 slams. Even if you account for the fact that the Australian wasn't considered on equal footing with the other majors until much later, in the open era, the only other player even in the vicinity of 14 is Borg. And 40 years is not a short period of time.



And Borg only played the Australian Open once in 1974 and never returned. I often wonder what might have been if he hadn't retired so young.

JediFed
07-16-2009, 06:08 AM
The article also reminds people that for basically the first half of the open era the top guys only played 3 slams a year. Most seem to conveniently forget that little tidbit.


15-3 = 12 which is Borg +1, which is accounted for by the French title.

If you compare Borg's performance on clay with Federer's on Hard, and Borg and Fed at Wimbly, and Fed's performance on Clay with Borg's on Hard, I think you get the best comparison. Fed is stronger at Wimbly and weakest surface is better then Borg's Hard. His best surface is not quite as strong as Borg, but he'll pass Borg if he wins the USO this year.

Benny_Maths
07-16-2009, 08:43 AM
The article also reminds people that for basically the first half of the open era the top guys only played 3 slams a year. Most seem to conveniently forget that little tidbit.

If, if, maybe, should have, could have, speculation. What's to say that every player who possesses nearly as many slams as Federer would have won the 'missing' slam sufficiently many times to rival Federer's total? Do not forget that many of these players had careers which overlapped. Moreover, since the 'missing' slam can only be won by one player per year it is clear how ridiculous it is to suggest that any player from the early part of the open era would have a far greater number of slams than Federer currently has if they had played all 4 slams.

In any case, the duration of time over which the 'oldies' were physically capable of winning slams, far exceeds that of today's players. So even though they may have played one less slam per year than today's players, they were still contenders for at least the same number of slams as today's players.

As for the article:

Laver for example at 28 would in the future win a pro Grand Slam and an Open Grand Slam.

No one, no matter how good they are, is going to win 2 calendar year slams after the age of 28 in the modern game. Therein lies the flaw in comparing the most physically demanding period of the sport, with an ancient era.

justsumma
07-16-2009, 09:02 AM
The article fails for one simple reason: Considering Piggy to be a GOAT candidate.

dodo
07-16-2009, 09:03 AM
Well written article, but ultimately, as useless as the rest.
Whichever way you slice it, the only possible conclusion is that eras cannot be compared.
Connors and Laver winning 200 tournaments? Those were hardly Masters Series quality, were they? If Fed suddenly made it his mission to the the number up, he could probably bag 40 challengers a year.
Transportation issues? Same reasons that stopped guys entering the best possible selection of tournaments in the old days also guaranteed that many of the tournaments were not contested by the top of the tennis world.
Using Slams as the premier indication of greatness in the firstplace? In 2020 the GOAT discussion may well revolve around most MS wins and Fed might get demoted to 2nd tier or whatever because he clearly does not put nearly the same intensity into those as he puts into slams.
etc, etc.

Commander Data
07-16-2009, 09:47 AM
pathetic article. says Tilden would have won 30 Slams but did not because boat travel was so long these days hence he chose not to compete at all slams :o. That is exactly the argument that would infer from Murrays MM wins that he should have a handful slams by now.

well, if Tilden did not travel to all the important tournaments, then clearly the competition was weak at the ones he played, because he certainly was not the only one the chose not the travel to all the tournaments.


just the law of numbers clearly proves that the competition of the modern era is way stronger then in the old days. If it were 1920 Nadal would probably be a farmer in Mallorca and Murray would herd sheeps in Scotland, while Fed would already have 3-4 Calender Slams and about 25 Slams with ease. Just picture all the Slams on Grass and no Nadal around, then you see how Fed would do in the old days.

I wonder if the number of "pro" players exceed 100 back then :lol: I mean, I can also dominate when my competition is only 10 clowns.

Commander Data
07-16-2009, 09:52 AM
You can resume the article easily:

- The author doesn't believe in Federer's GOATness - well, who does, except for his gloryhunting fans?


Samprass! :haha:

tennisvideos
07-16-2009, 12:10 PM
I'm just happy that a few of the greats from the past are starting to become more recognised amongst the tennis public for their true greatness despite missing out on most of the slams during their careers esp Rosewall and Gonzales. Two legends of the game and most definately in the top 10 (if not top 5) of all time greats.

MacTheKnife
07-16-2009, 12:46 PM
It is. Players are fitter and faster compared to earlier. Players also have the best experts at hand to help in anyway possible. Just because one person dominates does not mean that an era is weak, It just means that the player dominating is a class above the rest.

There is a fallacy on MTF that because today’s athletes are bigger, faster, and stronger that automatically converts to being better tennis players. I do not agree with that.
Granted it may help, but it sure as hell isn't the driving force. It's that gray matter between your ears and that red thing pounding in your chest that makes great tennis players.


If, if, maybe, should have, could have, speculation. What's to say that every player who possesses nearly as many slams as Federer would have won the 'missing' slam sufficiently many times to rival Federer's total? Do not forget that many of these players had careers which overlapped. Moreover, since the 'missing' slam can only be won by one player per year it is clear how ridiculous it is to suggest that any player from the early part of the open era would have a far greater number of slams than Federer currently has if they had played all 4 slams.


First of all, I did not even mention Federer in my post. Not quite sure how you made that leap. My point is only that it's flawed analysis to compare totals of a group to a group where opportunities where limited. Insert any name you want, it's still flawed statical analysis.

I'm just happy that a few of the greats from the past are starting to become more recognised amongst the tennis public for their true greatness despite missing out on most of the slams during their careers esp Rosewall and Gonzales. Two legends of the game and most definately in the top 10 (if not top 5) of all time greats.

Good point. At the very least, many are being educated in the history of our sport. The truth is I thought the article was pretty well laid out and brought up many interesting points. He just lost me when he began to draw some comparison to women's records.
He also left out that for a number of slams in the past, the defending champion only had to play one match to defend their title the following year.

theDreamer
07-16-2009, 01:41 PM
No new news in the article but he did do a good job of laying it out. I don't think there will ever be an undisputed GOAT in this sport or any other for that matter. There are plenty of sports without all the issues found in tennis history and they can't determine a GOAT.


....
Certainly FED`s 15 or Sampras` 14 need to be put into perspective, considering all the circus that went on in the past and complications going from Amateur-Pro-Open eras..

2 points i think need to be noted that mark FED & LAVER as the best candidates for GOAT:

LAVER-- won the calendar slam 3 times [Amateur Slam 62, Pro Slam 67, Open Slam 69]..
so Laver couldn`t prove himself anymore he managed to completely dominate in each era of competition he faced..

FED-- has held 3/4 slams 4 times [04, 06, 07, 09], one match away from calendar slam twice [06 & 07]..
plus this is clearly the most competitive era in tennis history, in terms of the numbers of players being produced in different countries..

It is. Players are fitter and faster compared to earlier. Players also have the best experts at hand to help in anyway possible.

A good summary of the points explaining why 15 slams isn't the final word on Federer being the greatest. Certainly brings up a lot of good arguments about why it's so hard to compare different generations, and why it's nearly impossible to compare pre and post open-era achievements.

I also think that not enough is said about the overall depth of field these days. There are more players playing, the game is undoubtedly more physical, and age certainly appears to be a greater factor than in the past. If we bring up the difficulties of travel to the various slams in the 20s and 30s, we certainly should acknowledge that travel isn't an issue anymore, but increased depth of field is.

I agree with the main point of the article that 15 is not a magic number that makes Federer the GOAT. Though I think there's a strong case you could make for him being the best of the open era.

If, if, maybe, should have, could have, speculation. What's to say that every player who possesses nearly as many slams as Federer would have won the 'missing' slam sufficiently many times to rival Federer's total? Do not forget that many of these players had careers which overlapped. Moreover, since the 'missing' slam can only be won by one player per year it is clear how ridiculous it is to suggest that any player from the early part of the open era would have a far greater number of slams than Federer currently has if they had played all 4 slams.

In any case, the duration of time over which the 'oldies' were physically capable of winning slams, far exceeds that of today's players. So even though they may have played one less slam per year than today's players, they were still contenders for at least the same number of slams as today's players.

No one, no matter how good they are, is going to win 2 calendar year slams after the age of 28 in the modern game. Therein lies the flaw in comparing the most physically demanding period of the sport, with an ancient era.

Well written article, but ultimately, as useless as the rest.
Whichever way you slice it, the only possible conclusion is that eras cannot be compared.
Connors and Laver winning 200 tournaments? Those were hardly Masters Series quality, were they? If Fed suddenly made it his mission to the the number up, he could probably bag 40 challengers a year.
Transportation issues? Same reasons that stopped guys entering the best possible selection of tournaments in the old days also guaranteed that many of the tournaments were not contested by the top of the tennis world.



just the law of numbers clearly proves that the competition of the modern era is way stronger then in the old days. If it were 1920 Nadal would probably be a farmer in Mallorca and Murray would herd sheeps in Scotland, while Fed would already have 3-4 Calender Slams and about 25 Slams with ease. Just picture all the Slams on Grass and no Nadal around, then you see how Fed would do in the old days.


There is a fallacy on MTF that because today’s athletes are bigger, faster, and stronger that automatically converts to being better tennis players. I do not agree with that.
Granted it may help, but it sure as hell isn't the driving force. It's that gray matter between your ears and that red thing pounding in your chest that makes great tennis players.

He also left out that for a number of slams in the past, the defending champion only had to play one match to defend their title the following year.

I wasn't expecting it but this is turning into a very good thread.
Many great points have been made.

In response to MacTheKnife's point, it's not just that they're bigger, faster, or stronger - but also that there are more of them, meaning increased competition (in quantity and variety), and they have access to facilities such as coaches, analysis of tv coverage etc I think these things do make for more players with enough tools on their best days to cause an upset against the consistent top players. I agree of course that of course innate talent and
heart are key for the consistently great players.

Dini
07-16-2009, 01:45 PM
He completely overlooks the racquet technologies and the speed differences in surfaces and competition etc. :confused: It makes it hard to compare eras. :shrug:

Surely that's a factor too? :scratch:

Dini
07-16-2009, 01:47 PM
Did defending champs really get a bye to the final the following year in slams? :eek: :confused:

MacTheKnife
07-16-2009, 01:51 PM
In response to MacTheKnife's point, it's not just that they're bigger, faster, or stronger - but also that there are more of them, meaning increased competition (in quantity and variety), and they have access to facilities such as coaches, analysis of tv coverage etc I think these things do make for more players with enough tools on their best days to cause an upset against the consistent top players. I agree of course that of course innate talent and heart are key for the consistently great players.

And this is exactly my point. With all these advantages, how can one automatically make the leap that these guys are better players than earlier players would have been given the exact same resources. That's one of the many reasons that these comparisons are inherently flawed.

MacTheKnife
07-16-2009, 01:52 PM
Did defending champs really get a bye to the final the following year in slams? :eek: :confused:

Yes.. I can't remember exactly when that changed. Perhaps one of our astute historians can help. It was well before my time if you can believe that.

GlennMirnyi
07-16-2009, 02:29 PM
They turned pro because that was where the money was at. You can hardly blame them.

Fine article, by the way.

And?

They clearly couldn't care for winning the majors then.

It is. Players are fitter and faster compared to earlier. Players also have the best experts at hand to help in anyway possible. Just because one person dominates does not mean that an era is weak, It just means that the player dominating is a class above the rest.

No, they aren't. Players today can't hit anything but topspin to save their lives.

Only idiot gloryhunters can consider this era as not weak.

Samprass! :haha:

Are you proud of making such a stupid joke?

Sampras must be very ashamed of having his record broken by a guy who plays absolute clowns and can't hit a topspin backhand.

stebs
07-16-2009, 02:31 PM
Of course most know this bt it doesn't mean they aren't valid points. Some good ones made in this thread as well, especially what MacTheKnife said about if one player is hindered by not travelling he is also hugely helped by his opponents not travelling to him.

I think open era wise it is tough to discern one GOAT (abviously impossible to agree upon) but pre open era it is completely impossible to even discuss with any real authority on a point of view. Those times are just too hard to quantify quality in.

lessthanjake
07-16-2009, 03:16 PM
Let me just point out that Bill Tilden might have won 93% of his matches BECAUSE other great players were not transporting themselves to most tournaments either. If transport is a big issue that stops Tilden from going to tournaments, it must have stopped other great players of the era as well. The result is that any individual tournament does not feature most of the best players, therefore making it easier to dominate if you DO go.

Commander Data
07-16-2009, 03:57 PM
Are you proud of making such a stupid joke?

Sampras must be very ashamed of having his record broken by a guy who plays absolute clowns and can't hit a topspin backhand.

Joke? it's the cold hard facts.

I own your ass dude. Sampras clearly stated after Wimbledon, that in his book Roger is the GOAT. Nobody forced him to say so. just minutes earlier Borg said it is though to compare era, Sampras was right there. It would have been very easy for Sampras to say that he thinks there is no GOAT, but no, he needed to point out that Federer is the GOAT for him, nobody forced him to say so.

That your hero Samprass says this must hurt you and shows how silly your earlier post has been.

Commander Data
07-16-2009, 04:00 PM
Did defending champs really get a bye to the final the following year in slams? :eek: :confused:

just forgot about that, makes the article look even more stupid. imagine Federer getting a bye to all the finals, played on grass and no Nadal around. nothing but a peanuts under this conditions to collect calendar slams for him.

jonathancrane
07-16-2009, 04:25 PM
Did defending champs really get a bye to the final the following year in slams? :eek: :confused:

It was that way until 1922

Let me just point out that Bill Tilden might have won 93% of his matches BECAUSE other great players were not transporting themselves to most tournaments either. If transport is a big issue that stops Tilden from going to tournaments, it must have stopped other great players of the era as well. The result is that any individual tournament does not feature most of the best players, therefore making it easier to dominate if you DO go.

Exactly
Another thing Mr. Lee "forgets" about Tilden is that he never won the French, losing 2 finals. It's difficult to consider him the GOAT.

The article is full of "if, should, could" shit, it's a joke


Said that, I think that this is a weak era, and Laver is still the GOAT

Johnny Groove
07-16-2009, 04:33 PM
Laver is still the GOAT

Tough to argue that.

theDreamer
07-16-2009, 07:51 PM
And this is exactly my point. With all these advantages, how can one automatically make the leap that these guys are better players than earlier players would have been given the exact same resources. That's one of the many reasons that these comparisons are inherently flawed.

It may be in my perception, but I never thought that leap was being made.
In my own mind, when I compare the players, I make the conclusion that in general, today's players are better than earlier players were (in terms of technique [they get better training nowadays], speed, strength etc). This is a natural progression in life as knowledge increases, making people better equipped in their professions, so I don't really see this as a particularly interesting observation, but it is the truth.

It is impossible to determine that (the bit in bold) so of course it is ridiculous conclusion to make.

Amd Yes, the comparisons are flawed and I have said it several times that
the whole GOAT debate is pointless.

MacTheKnife
07-16-2009, 07:56 PM
It may be in my perception, but I never thought that leap was being made.
In my own mind, when I compare the players, I make the conclusion that in general, today's players are better than earlier players were (in terms of technique [they get better training nowadays], speed, strength etc). This is a natural progression in life as knowledge increases, making people better equipped in their professions, so I don't really see this as a particularly interesting observation, but it is the truth.

It is impossible to determine that (the bit in bold) so of course it is ridiculous conclusion to make.

Amd Yes, the comparisons are flawed and I have said it several times that
the whole GOAT debate is pointless.

Just hang around MTF. I wasn't just talking about this thread.

theDreamer
07-16-2009, 08:01 PM
I'm just realising this, but that leap you talked about is probably
what most people are making, isn't it?
:lol:

MacTheKnife
07-16-2009, 08:07 PM
I'm just realising this, but that leap you talked about is probably
what most people are making, isn't it?
:lol:

Yep ! :yeah:

Arkulari
07-16-2009, 09:41 PM
GOAT = pointless, but to me the top ones, the most accomplished and versatile over the years and during time are Laver and Federer

Sampras = one of the most accomplished in history but not one of the best IMO: he was terrible on clay and you cannot be consider at the top of something in tennis if you suck in a surface :shrug: (I don't care about supposedly "tough" competition or lack of motivation, if he was SO great, then why did he do so bad on clay? you can only beat what's in front of you and he never did that on clay, he could have gotten a gazillion Wimbledon, but he never won the French and only won a "big" clay tournament :shrug: )

and for the "Federer cannot hit a topspin backhand"...

iDsRm1ToqcM

(what is that at 0.35? )

4CNiWdu4kLw

zC7Hld2zBtQ

9az5qWcLOTk

n1F20SeiGp8

people call us, the fans of current top players gloryhunters, but how about those who fanboy the past ones, the ones that actually got a lot of accomplishments, would a Fed Fan of 2002 be a gloryhunter vs a Sampras fan of the same time? :rolleyes:

it's more gloryhunter to jump on the all time greats bandwagon than to support current players who are making their own history and whom we have followed almost since the beginning of their careers, when they weren't what we are today ;)

duong
07-16-2009, 09:58 PM
There is a fallacy on MTF that because today’s athletes are bigger, faster, and stronger that automatically converts to being better tennis players. I do not agree with that.

that's not really a relevant point for me,

but the fact that tennis is a far more democratic and expanded sport in the world is far more important.

In Tilden's time, how many people did play tennis ?

In Laver's or Gonzales's time, you see so many Americans or Australians. Quite clearly countries were very unequal to have structures to make champions.

Today countries are still unequal but far less.
And tennis has expanded in more social classes.

More important than that : my main problem with Lee's article is that he speaks as if Federer could win many slams from now on, at his age, as it was possible in Gonzales's time or even Laver's.

The fact is that tennis being more physical, implying more quickness especially, does not mean that it's a better sport, no, but it does mean that you cannot be as good when you get older and not as quick.

On that point, there has clearly been a difference between what happened in the mid-70s and what happened later : the stats about the best age to get performances clearly shows that.

Dini
07-16-2009, 10:07 PM
Nat thanks for the vids. :dance:

Har-Tru
07-16-2009, 10:20 PM
ps hartru: i can see where my inflated pro slam figures came from now re: 3 pro slams/year not 4...

Cheap excuses again... ;) Remember though that Pro Slams were not always considered even the most prestigious pro tournaments (or the ones with highest prize money). They generally were during most of Rosewall's and Laver's career, but not always. H2Hs are the real deal when it comes to pro tennis; it was all pretty much a match-ups tour.

That is a good article. Neatly written and a good reference for people interested in finding more about tennis history.

duong
07-16-2009, 10:39 PM
That is a good article. Neatly written and a good reference for people interested in finding more about tennis history.

maybe it's an article which can help people to relativize, yes, and that's useful,

but in my eyes, the problem of this article is that it succumbs to figures'fetishism.

Yes, Federer's 15 is not a magical figure,

but Tilden's 25 would not have been either.

And Borg's 0.48 either.

You have to consider far more than that.

I found Lee's other article about MCEnroe's 1984 far more relevant and interesting, but this one can only help some people who know nothing to relativize.

The fact is that this "number of slams" figure, more than anything, speaks about longevity.

And longevity should not be such an important point in that debate.

More importantly longevity in Tilden's or even Gonzales's or Laver's time cannot be compared with longevity now.

Just as Tiger Woods says "fortunately a gulfer's carreer is longer than a tennis player's" then I'll certainly beat your record, Roger,

just as that, it's impossible to compare longevities in these two moments of the history of tennis.

Laver says it well : it's impossible to compare. No journalist displaying many figures can say better than him.

Har-Tru
07-16-2009, 10:49 PM
maybe it's an article which can help people to relativize, yes, and that's useful,

but in my eyes, the problem of this article is that it succumbs to figures'fetishism.

Yes, Federer's 15 is not a magical figure,

but Tilden's 25 would not have been either.

And Borg's 0.48 either.

You have to consider far more than that.

Like what?

The writer isn't using figures to talk absolutes.

I found Lee's other article about MCEnroe's 1984 far more relevant and interesting, but this one can only help some people who know nothing to relativize.

The fact is that this "number of slams" figure, more than anything, speaks about longevity.

And longevity should not be such an important point in that debate.

More importantly longevity in Tilden's or even Gonzales's or Laver's time cannot be compared with longevity now.

Just as Tiger Woods says "fortunately a gulfer's carreer is longer than a tennis player's" then I'll certainly beat your record, Roger,

just as that, it's impossible to compare longevities in these two moments of the history of tennis.

Laver says it well : it's impossible to compare. No journalist displaying many figures can say better than him.

Pretty much agree.

MacTheKnife
07-16-2009, 10:50 PM
that's not really a relevant point for me,

but the fact that tennis is a far more democratic and expanded sport in the world is far more important.

In Tilden's time, how many people did play tennis ?

More important than that : my main problem with Lee's article is that he speaks as if Federer could win many slams from now on, at his age, as it was possible in Gonzales's time or even Laver's.

The fact is that tennis being more physical, implying more quickness especially, does not mean that it's a better sport, no, but it does mean that you cannot be as good when you get older and not as quick.

On that point, there has clearly been a difference between what happened in the mid-70s and what happened later : the stats about the best age to get performances clearly shows that.

I am not sure what you are saying here, but I am sure of one thing. It wasn't my point.

My point is that just because athletes are bigger, faster, and stronger does not necessarily mean they will be better tennis players. I see many on here claim that this era is stronger due to athletic prowess. (not saying that you did) I just don't buy that.
This is a sport that is, or was, predominately based on mental strength, tactics, will, nerve and heart.
I believe that to many players today have learned to rely on athletic prowess and technological advancement to the detriment of raw skills and the other attributes I mentioned. I just can't make the jump that previous champions, given the same opportunities and resources could not be as good or better than players today.

That's the beauty of opinions. I can't prove I'm right, but it can't be proven wrong either.

duong
07-16-2009, 10:58 PM
I am not sure what you are saying here, but I am sure of one thing. It wasn't my point.

My point is that just because athletes are bigger, faster, and stronger does not necessarily mean they will be better tennis players. I see many on here claim that this era is stronger due to athletic prowess. (not saying that you did) I just don't buy that.
This is a sport that is, or was, predominately based on mental strength, tactics, will, nerve and heart.
I believe that to many players today have learned to rely on athletic prowess and technological advancement to the detriment of raw skills and the other attributes I mentioned. I just can't make the jump that previous champions, given the same opportunities and resources could not be as good or better than players today.

That's the beauty of opinions. I can't prove I'm right, but it can't be proven wrong either.

Actually I totally agree with you ;) And Laver also says much about that.

I just read what you said and reacted to say that this argument used by some youngsters is not relevant in my opinion,

but that near (in my opinion) arguments about nowadays' deeper competition (in terms of tennis's democracy and expanded structures in the world) and lower longevity are.

But actually I now realize reading the rest of the thread that what I said had actually been already said by other people :o

luie
07-16-2009, 11:00 PM
Too much,coulda,shoulda,woulda, gloryhunting of the old timers.

Har-Tru
07-16-2009, 11:01 PM
I am not sure what you are saying here, but I am sure of one thing. It wasn't my point.

My point is that just because athletes are bigger, faster, and stronger does not necessarily mean they will be better tennis players. I see many on here claim that this era is stronger due to athletic prowess. (not saying that you did) I just don't buy that.
This is a sport that is, or was, predominately based on mental strength, tactics, will, nerve and heart.
I believe that to many players today have learned to rely on athletic prowess and technological advancement to the detriment of raw skills and the other attributes I mentioned. I just can't make the jump that previous champions, given the same opportunities and resources could not be as good or better than players today.

That's the beauty of opinions. I can't prove I'm right, but it can't be proven wrong either.

I completely subscribe everything except the bolded bit. I can't see Laver and Rosewall with their 5'7-8 making an impact today, and similarly I don't think Sampras would have won 14 slams decades before, but they did it when they played, and that's all that matters. As I've said many times, my opinion is you can't compare players from different eras. Compare them, if you wish, looking at their achievements in their respective eras.

MacTheKnife
07-16-2009, 11:05 PM
Actually I totally agree with you ;) And Laver also says much about that.

I just read what you said and reacted to say that this argument used by some youngsters is not relevant in my opinion,

but that near (in my opinion) arguments about nowadays' deeper competition (in terms iof tennis's democracy and expanded structures in the world) and lower longevity are.

But actually I now realize reading the rest of the thread taht what I said had actually been already said by other people :o

I thought we were close. Just a communication gap.

MacTheKnife
07-16-2009, 11:10 PM
I completely subscribe everything except the bolded bit. I can't see Laver and Rosewall with their 5'7-8 making an impact today, and similarly I don't think Sampras would have won 14 slams decades before, but they did it when they played, and that's all that matters. As I've said many times, my opinion is you can't compare players from different eras. Compare them, if you wish, looking at their achievements in their respective eras.

Unlike most women, I just don't believe size matters as much as the other attributes I've mentioned. I've seen to many big, fast, strong guys get there asses handed to them by smarter, stronger willed, and mentally tougher wily veterans. Ask D-pot how it went with Hewitt.

Har-Tru
07-16-2009, 11:16 PM
Too much,coulda,shoulda,woulda, gloryhunting of the old timers.

Too deep for me.

Unlike most women, I just don't believe size matters as much as the other attributes I've mentioned. I've seen to many big, fast, strong guys get there asses handed to them by smarter, stronger willed, and mentally tougher wily veterans. Ask D-pot how it went with Hewitt.

:lol:

I get ya. Well like you said we can't know... Hewitt is 3 inches bigger than Laver though, and D-Pot is a tad over the height limit for optimal physique IMO. Certainly Laver's left foreharm would have been scary even today though. :lol:

One thing we can def. agree on: the level of craft and technique is at a historical low. It's there, yes, but you can get away without it and still make a succesful career at the top.

FedererSlam
07-16-2009, 11:17 PM
Okay so if Federer is gonna break Laver's 199 tournaments he would have had to play 12.4375 years winning 16 titles a year (which he only ever did once) in today's game....Get real Lee!

Although he does lay out the situation well he dives too much into statistics and less on intangibles like the development of the game in terms of competition and the simple fact we have seen GOATness in Roger's game and not just us Laver et al see it too and have claimed it!

luie
07-16-2009, 11:20 PM
I completely subscribe everything except the bolded bit. I can't see Laver and Rosewall with their 5'7-8 making an impact today, and similarly I don't think Sampras would have won 14 slams decades before, but they did it when they played, and that's all that matters. As I've said many times, my opinion is you can't compare players from different eras. Compare them, if you wish, looking at their achievements in their respective eras.
Agreed Sampras & federer would own laver & rosewall most of the time at 5-7/8 they would get owned. Look @ 6-1 pacho gonzalez owned these guys befre he got old. I read in a piece written about pacho LAVER said "I didn't want to get him angry" considering he lost 19 straight sets to him I can see where he is coming from.Laver cannot be considered the greatest of all time if he struggled against this 6-1 player he would get owned in the 90's &00's.
However he has a claim to goatness because of his total career considering the field he played against which is basically a handfull of players on a pro tour series etc. So it kind of a lottery if you match up well against these players you would be successful. It lack complete competition as the tour was split,If,If,If ,plus the GS was 3 grass 1 clay:rolleyes:.
So up to this point federer @ 27 federer has the Greatest career of all time as laver won the GS at 31,he won the FAKE slam earlier.

Manon
07-16-2009, 11:20 PM
It is. Players are fitter and faster compared to earlier. Players also have the best experts at hand to help in anyway possible. Just because one person dominates does not mean that an era is weak, It just means that the player dominating is a class above the rest.

Wait a sec. Weak era and most competitive are not the same. This era is totally the opposite of competitive. 3-4 players takes it all, two of them almost all majors. What's competitive in this?

Second (apart from obvious > you're Roger fan)- 'is a class above the rest'? How could you say that when his H2H with Nadal is way in favour of Nadal?

You sound just like some of worst Novak fans.

Har-Tru
07-16-2009, 11:35 PM
Okay so if Federer is gonna break Laver's 199 tournaments he would have had to play 12.4375 years winning 16 titles a year (which he only ever did once) in today's game....Get real Lee!

He isn't asking Federer to beat it.

Although he does lay out the situation well he dives too much into statistics and less on intangibles like the development of the game in terms of competition and the simple fact we have seen GOATness in Roger's game and not just us Laver et al see it too and have claimed it!

Yes, a very simple fact indeed. How could we all not see it before? Where has Laver said Federer is the GOAT?

Agreed Sampras & federer would own laver & rosewall most of the time at 5-7/8 they would get owned. Look @ 6-1 pacho gonzalez owned these guys befre he got old. I read in a piece written about pacho LAVER said "I didn't want to get him angry" considering he lost 19 straight sets to him I can see where he is coming from.Laver cannot be considered the greatest of all time if he struggled against this 6-1 player he would get owned in the 90's &00's.
However he has a claim to goatness because of his total career considering the field he played against which is basically a handfull of players on a pro tour series etc. So it kind of a lottery if you match up well against these players you would be successful. It lack complete competition as the tour was split,If,If,If ,plus the GS was 3 grass 1 clay:rolleyes:.
So up to this point federer @ 27 federer has the Greatest career of all time as laver won the GS at 31,he won the FAKE slam earlier.

Let me know when you have a brain.

BigJohn
07-16-2009, 11:38 PM
Well one needs to take into account the fact the expert tennis connaisseurs who are knowledgable use to start any GOAT argument: has the player beaten a healthy Nadal in a FO final? If not, the player is not a GOAT candidate.

Now, Nadal is not the GOAT. Only the truly delusional fans and liquored up sports writers claim such a thing. Since nobody has beaten a healthy Nadal in a FO final, there is no GOAT. omg.

More seriously, I think there is a way to find who is the real GOAT, and that is to ask the team behind the Spike TV show Deadliest Warrior to run simulations on their computers.

http://www.spike.com/show/31082?tabId=31138&fxn=getTabMembers

Using their methods, I suspect anyone with a wooden racket would not be considered as Deadliest GOAT material.

luie
07-16-2009, 11:41 PM
He isn't asking Federer to beat it.



Yes, a very simple fact indeed. How could we all not see it before? Where has Laver said Federer is the GOAT?



Let me know when you have a brain.
Let me know when you stop gloryhunting the old timers.:wavey:

ballbasher101
07-16-2009, 11:44 PM
The GOAT debate will never go away. There is an answer though to all the commotion, lets all just agree to disagree :wavey:.

Har-Tru
07-16-2009, 11:46 PM
The word "gloryhunting" reminds me of "glory hole" and I don't like that, especially when I'm about to go to bed.

habibko
07-16-2009, 11:48 PM
You can resume the article easily:

- The author doesn't believe in Federer's GOATness - well, who does, except for his gloryhunting fans?
- The author has the nerve to put women's statistics in a tennis discussion - a huge NO GO area.
- He talks as if players turned pro because they had a weapon pointed at them. They decided to turn pro on their own behalves and they definitely knew the consequences.

he also believes Sampras's record wasn't THAT impressive to begin with....ouch

luie
07-16-2009, 11:55 PM
The word "gloryhunting" reminds me of "glory hole" and I don't like that, especially when I'm about to go to bed.
Actually my response was to get a response from the old-timers tards some of it is sensationalism, it was meant for the OP who has a reason for bringing up this article that's all.;). It an interesting article but their are many articles about this subject, I just think its peculiar that cyborg would choose this particular article over many others,maybe it because it paints the old-timers in a positive light or maybe not. Anyway laver ,sampras,borg,federer,pancho all made their case and it boils down to opinion and what some people value over others etc.
The GOAT is too ambigious,there will always be a debate,my point is any of the greats can be attacked because all their resumes contain weakness.:angel:

habibko
07-17-2009, 12:00 AM
from the article:
Right now I will write that Federer may possibly be the GOAT in the future but nothing indicates in his career statistics that he is definitively the GOAT now. It is very debatable whether he is even the greatest of the Open Era.

really? :spit: :haha: who is greater than Federer in the Open Era Mr. Lee? :cuckoo:

luie
07-17-2009, 12:03 AM
from the article:


really? :spit: :haha: who is greater than Federer in the Open Era Mr. Lee? :cuckoo:
Maybe he thinks its borg,since he believes in stats,% ,tourny won vs how many entered & stuff like that.if,if,if,borg played AO.:confused:
Very iffy article.

Har-Tru
07-17-2009, 12:09 AM
from the article:


really? :spit: :haha: who is greater than Federer in the Open Era Mr. Lee? :cuckoo:

Hey there habib. :)

I guess you could make the case for Borg purely by the numbers... but yes I can't see how you'd argue against Fed being the best in the Open Era though.

habibko
07-17-2009, 12:19 AM
Hey there habib. :)

I guess you could make the case for Borg purely by the numbers... but yes I can't see how you'd argue against Fed being the best in the Open Era though.

great to see you back!

how can you make the case for Borg purely by numbers!? it's not like he was forced to retire by a freak injury or something :shrug:

and no ifs and buts don't count.

Dini
07-17-2009, 12:24 AM
What was Borg's "official reason" for retirement?

luie
07-17-2009, 12:34 AM
What was Borg's "official reason" for retirement?
Getting owned by J-mac.:o

MacTheKnife
07-17-2009, 12:36 AM
Getting owned by J-mac.:o

:yeah: That did it.

Dini
07-17-2009, 12:46 AM
Getting owned by J-mac.:o

:haha: :haha: Good one. :p

If I'm correct, Borg had the winning record against Mac before he turned it around and won the last encounters to level the h2h.

Obviously Borg got a little rattled by that. :confused:

MacTheKnife
07-17-2009, 12:52 AM
:haha: :haha: Good one. :p

If I'm correct, Borg had the winning record against Mac before he turned it around and won the last encounters to level the h2h.

Obviously Borg got a little rattled by that. :confused:

Yep, it was interesting how it went. Borg went 6-1 in the early matches, then went 1-6 to level at 7-7, and then said screw it. It was pretty clear that Mac had figured him out and the future was not bright for the Swede.

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 01:42 AM
Joke? it's the cold hard facts.

I own your ass dude. Sampras clearly stated after Wimbledon, that in his book Roger is the GOAT. Nobody forced him to say so. just minutes earlier Borg said it is though to compare era, Sampras was right there. It would have been very easy for Sampras to say that he thinks there is no GOAT, but no, he needed to point out that Federer is the GOAT for him, nobody forced him to say so.

That your hero Samprass says this must hurt you and shows how silly your earlier post has been.

Own my ass?

You don't even own a brain, how can you own anything else?

Sampras was diplomatic, something mr. Egofed would never be. Also he was very clear that his era was stronger - as everybody knows.

What should hurt is seeing your idol winning less than 6 games at a GS final. Humiliated by a moonballer.

You're just a gloryhunter. When Fraud was losing to Simon and Blake you weren't here.

he also believes Sampras's record wasn't THAT impressive to begin with....ouch

That's because that guy isn't taking account that Sampras played a very very strong field.

Arkulari
07-17-2009, 02:00 AM
let's see: a Fed fan of let's say 2005 vs a Sampras fan of the same year, who's the gloryhunter? :p
most of us who are Fed fans, we have been fans since before he started winning Slams, so calling everyone a gloryhunter is a bit extreme and just not true :shrug:

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 02:08 AM
let's see: a Fed fan of let's say 2005 vs a Sampras fan of the same year, who's the gloryhunter? :p
most of us who are Fed fans, we have been fans since before he started winning Slams, so calling everyone a gloryhunter is a bit extreme and just not true :shrug:

Wrong.

There's no evidence that there was anything like "Federer fans" before he started winning everything in sight.

Arkulari
07-17-2009, 02:20 AM
Gu :rolls: :rolls:

what's this then? (an example)

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=51

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=2309

or was Roger winning everything back in 2002? :lol:

of course there are a lot of people that become Federer fans when he started winning more tournaments and that's actually something you would expect since the guy has gotten more and more exposure every passing year, but there are also a lot of us who became his fans much before he started winning left and right, I for example saw him for the first time in RG 99, but only started to really follow him after Wimbledon 2001, and he wasn't a "GOAT" (as stupid as that is) candidate back then

you can't judge all of us like one :lol:

I could very well call you a gloryhunter for being a Sampras fan when you weren't old enough to follow most of his career, specially before he started winning, but I just won't do it because I don't believe on that concept :shrug:

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 02:26 AM
I'm pretty sure Federer was already a top player in 2002.

Arkulari
07-17-2009, 02:28 AM
yeah, he was someone like Tsonga more or less, but he wasn't a multiple-Slam winner back then ;)
like every other player, he got fans as soon as he became more or less known and those fans grow exponentially as he gets more and more famous, but that doesn't mean there aren't fans who have been with him since the beginning, there's a bit of everything on every fanbase :lol:

Johnny Groove
07-17-2009, 02:34 AM
I gotta agree with Gu about the glory hunting Fed fans around MTF. But that is true of every fanbase when the player is doing well.

The real fans show when a player goes through tougher times.

Arkulari
07-17-2009, 02:34 AM
indeed :yeah:
both extremes are dangerous: Tards or Haters :shrug:
I can be very critical on my players because I don't see them as "perfect" but I also can fangirl like nobody's business :lol:

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 02:35 AM
Bullshit.

Tsonga was not even in the top 300 when he was 21.

Frauderer was already a top 10-15 player when he was 21.

Arkulari
07-17-2009, 02:37 AM
Gu, I'm saying Roger was a bit like Tsonga is now, back in 2002 :lol:
has won a MS shield and have made some noise on Slams, but he wasn't like a Safin or a Hewitt back then :lol:

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 02:45 AM
Gu, I'm saying Roger was a bit like Tsonga is now, back in 2002 :lol:
has won a MS shield and have made some noise on Slams, but he wasn't like a Safin or a Hewitt back then :lol:

There's absolutely no comparison.

Tsonga is 24 now. It's not like everybody's hyping him to be a multiple GS winner.

Arkulari
07-17-2009, 02:51 AM
:rolls: :rolls:
I think you got my point but are being deliberately obtuse about it Gu ;) :devil:
Point: Roger wasn't a BIG force in tennis back in 2002, he was classified as a very good player but so far he had done crappily on Slams that year even on Wimbledon, when he crashed out in first round against Daniel-San Ancic :lol:
Roger wasn't hyped to be a multiple-GS winner on 2002, and if every player that was hyped to be a multiple winner did it, well, let's say Gasquet would have a ton of those :lol:
a Wimbledon or two were on the cards, but I don't think anyone expected Roger to win so much in so little time ;)

on a side note: quite funnily, his first "big" win was on his worst surface clay, where he ended up winning 4 of those on Hamburg (5 with Madrid and 6 with RG) :lol:

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 02:56 AM
Of course Federer was a big force.

Your point makes no sense, I'm being honest about it.

leng jai
07-17-2009, 02:59 AM
Of course Federer was a big force.

Your point makes no sense, I'm being honest about it.

Nah mate, being a big force means you are winning at least 2 slams a year. Anything less will be considered a slump, and the fans will be going through a very rough time.

Arkulari
07-17-2009, 03:00 AM
Gu: Roger was considered a very promising player, he was a MS winner and had had some good GS runs, but I don't think anyone expected him to do as well as he has done ;)

what I mean, is that he wasn't winning left and right on 2002 and yet, there are people who followed him during that time and keep following him now, in fact there are people who started following him even before the Sampras match ;)

Leng-Jai: Roger defeated Sampras on Wimbledon 2001 and reached QF, next year he crashed down in first round against Ancic, so it's not like he was winning 3 slams a year back in the time :lol:

leng jai
07-17-2009, 03:01 AM
Gu: Roger was considered a very promising player, he was a MS winner and had had some good GS runs, but I don't think anyone expected him to do as well as he has done ;)

what I mean, is that he wasn't winning left and right on 2002 and yet, there are people who followed him during that time and keep following him now, in fact there are people who started following him even before the Sampras match ;)

How can you ever expect someone to win 15 slams?

Arkulari
07-17-2009, 03:03 AM
:rolls: :rolls: :rolls:
a Wimbledon or maybe two were on the cards, but I don't think anyone expected Roger to dominate like he has done, to win HC slams, etc ;)

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 03:28 AM
Nah mate, being a big force means you are winning at least 2 slams a year. Anything less will be considered a slump, and the fans will be going through a very rough time.

Yeah, I forgot I'm dealing with Fedtards.

Ilovetheblues_86
07-17-2009, 03:40 AM
Let´s wait till apocalipse comes close and then look back and decide okay?
We have maybe 200 years..100 years..maybe just 4 years ahead..let´s be patient.

Arkulari
07-17-2009, 03:55 AM
less than 4 years ;) 21-12-2012 :devil:

Lillith
07-17-2009, 03:57 AM
Let´s wait till apocalipse comes close and then look back and decide okay?
We have maybe 200 years..100 years..maybe just 4 years ahead..let´s be patient.


I thought we only had about 3 years left. Doesn't the world end in 12/2012? :)


On topic, I'll just quote Signoret and say that nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

duong
07-17-2009, 07:51 AM
Wait a sec. Weak era and most competitive are not the same. This era is totally the opposite of competitive. 3-4 players takes it all, two of them almost all majors. What's competitive in this?

like Borg-McEnroe-Connors-Lendl era,

and to a lesser extent Sampras-Courier-Edberg-Becker-Agassi era,

this is the mark of a strong era with very strong players :shrug:

Ask Gerulaitis or Roddick or even Rosewall what they think

ballbasher101
07-17-2009, 07:55 AM
Getting owned by J-mac.:o


Borg the iceman turned out to be a coward :o

duong
07-17-2009, 07:56 AM
He isn't asking Federer to beat it.

No but he clearly asks Federer to win many more slams in coming years.

That's nonsense : Federer could only have such longevity if the period was very weak (as Agassi did from 1999).

You cannot ask for the same longevity as in Gonzales's time in modern times : a player running very well and playing good tennis, not more, is likely to beat an old great nowadays.

He takes back every shot and that's it.

And anyway this is giving longevity a too much important weight.

Borg did not have longevity but he's clearly among the best ones.

duong
07-17-2009, 07:59 AM
Borg the iceman turned out to be a coward :o

or he was just fed-up with tennis :shrug:

I don't have to judge that.

Lendl had a long carreer but when he stopped, didn't touch a racquet anymore.

He could have done it earlier : it was his choice.

Federer has more pleasure in playing tennis than Borg : well that's what he likes :shrug:

That's good : yes OK Santoro has a lot of pleasure playing tennis, that's good. But if some others prefer something else (like also Safin), that's their choice : that doesn't mean that they didn't play tennis well.

barbadosan
07-17-2009, 08:04 AM
Wrong.

There's no evidence that there was anything like "Federer fans" before he started winning everything in sight.

Judging from your profile, you would have been what - 12 years old in 1998 when Fed won Wimby Jr Singles? It may come as a shock to you, but some of us have been following Fed from that time, and long before we were aware of Men's Tennis Forums. And yes, a lot of the time between then and 2003, we were ready to pull our hair out in frustration, because it seemed sometimes the glimpses of the possibilities were just that - glimpses.

Benny_Maths
07-17-2009, 09:18 AM
First of all, I did not even mention Federer in my post. Not quite sure how you made that leap. My point is only that it's flawed analysis to compare totals of a group to a group where opportunities where limited. Insert any name you want, it's still flawed statical analysis.


It is clear from the context that Federer's total is an intrinsic part of the discussion. Nevermind your painfully obvious implication that had players from the 'missing slam' era played 4 slams per year year on a regular basis, at least one would have won enough slams to bump their total up to where Federer's count currently is.* But that's just my interpretation right? Well let's hear it from the horse's mouth. Tell me, do you believe that any of the '3 slams per year players' would've won a total of at least 15 slams, had they played all 4 on a regular basis?

You appear to be drawing parallels between opportunities available over an isolated period of time (in this case, one year) and the total number of chances to win slams (the total number of slams time in which a player is a contender). Yes, it is flawed to compare two players' performances over a different number of slams. However, that is not I was doing. Players from previous eras were contenders at slams for a significantly longer period of time than modern players. So despite playing fewer slams per year than today's players, there is little difference in the number of slams in which players from the current era and those gone by, were contenders. This is why I could not come to an agreement with the underlying implication of your post.

* The fact that you describe players' tournament preferences as a limiting factor on their slam total is evidence enough of that.

HKz
07-17-2009, 10:06 AM
As I have said many times before, honestly there are ONLY two ways of deciding this, going with the (open era) statistics and deciding who is better than who OR just shutting the hell up about it and consider that there is no way to decide who is GOAT aside from stastistical evidence because the rest is just OPINION.

"Sampras would have beaten <insert name> on grass 80% of the time" OPINION
"Borg has 11 Grand Slams while Nadal only has 6 Grand Slams" FACT
"Federer has a much easier field of competition" OPINION
"Laver won the Career Grand Slam twice" FACT
"<insert name> had a better <insert type of tennis stroke> than <insert name>" OPINION
"Roddick holds the record for fastest serve" FACT

As much as I like/dislike certain players, I look at the stats to compare players but at the same time, it is really hard for me to truly say who is the greatest TENNIS player in history is. BUT, at the same time there are a lot of questions and facts that come into play when the question of comparing players from different eras is asked.

This for example, is a big arguement- John McEnroe asked Rod Laver after the Wimbledon 2009 final if he had ever seen anyone serve the ball as big as Roddick did back in Laver's days. The obvious answer was no. While it did obviously seem like a stupid question to ask, players do know what the question actually reveals and asks. Tennis has became a faster sport and a more physically demanding sport. Yes, we have better racket technology and such now, but look at the players today! Do you see some 5 foot 8 guy like Laver dominating? No! You see both Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal who are over 6 feet tall dominating the sport. The whole top ten is taller than 6 feet except for Fernando Gonzalez and Gilles Simon who are almost there at 5 feet 11 inches. Not to mention all the Croatians are 6'4"++++. And look at the physique of these players. I didn't see a SPECK of muscle until the 90s, and even then, the players were scrawny as hell (look at Sampras till he was nearly into his 30s when he was getting some of his old man fat).

"Okay, it just proves that tennis was a slower sport and didn't require much strength like today" you may say. But that is it exactly. What if Rod Laver faced a 150 MPH serve from Andy Roddick? Would he have the human capability to return it? Don't tell me "of course, if he was a pro then, he would be a pro now." Then explain to me why your best friend is great at catching a drink from across the room, but then when you guys go and play baseball where the object being received is considerably faster and all of a sudden, he has butterfingers? This can be exactly applied to tennis. What if players like Tilden/Rosewall/Laver/Nastase/Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Wilander/etc could only return up to the point of what they were able to? Is anyone God here? Can you tell me if Laver or any of the former pros HAD the reactions back then to be able to consistently return a 150 MPH serve? Or did they just have enough human talent to return the serves of their time effectively. IF YOU SAY YES, then this question comes into play. HOW COME THEY DIDN'T BREAK SERVE MORE OFTEN OR LOSE AS MUCH AS THEY DID? Eras with multiple great champions like Connors/Borg/McEnroe obviously didn't break serve back and forth. In fact, they held serve stastically similar to every other era in tennis, even today's. If you claim that they could have returned a 150 MPH as well as players such as Murray, Federer, Nadal, etc can these days, then the consistent 100 MPH first serve of their time should be a peice of cake! Players these days EAT 100 MPH serves alive. Yet they didn't do that in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s because like I said, I definately didn't see players breaking each others serves consistently, or even more for that matter than today's game.

There are TWO things I'm trying to say from my comments. First, that there is ABSOLUTELY no way we will ever be able to compare how players would have played in other eras or against other players outside their era or whatever. Like I said, we will never know if players of the past could keep up with many aspects of the game. The serve speed example was just one case of many. There are so many more comparable aspects. Like who knows if their max running speed was enough for today's game, who knows if they could deal with high bouncing topspin groundstrokes, who knows if they could serve and volley against blockers, who knows if their endurance could hold up against counter punchers (something that is relatively new to this past 20 years), etc. Second, I'm also trying to say that STATISTICALLY players have to be better every era. Like I said, serves are getting faster, topspin is bouncing higher, rallies are getting longer, etc. So saying one previous era as a whole was better than a more recent era is LUDICROUS. You actually consider players who had to deal with slower stats better than today's players who have to deal with faster stats and achieve a similar percentage to what their former brethren had to deal with? It makes absolutely no sense. Just fucking think before you post any of that kind of trash, or please feel free to try to make it in the ATP, because I know none of us here would even beat the lowest ranked ATP player in this day.

Look, I LOVE watching all tennis players especially from the 80s and I sincerely love watching players I dislike such as Nadal. But the fact is that every men's sport is getting tougher and tougher, faster and faster, stronger and stronger, fitter and fitter and it seems like everyone is so in denial that they have to make all these excuses or that they say random stupid shit and never back it up.

Bargearse
07-17-2009, 10:14 AM
I gotta agree with Gu about the glory hunting Fed fans around MTF. But that is true of every fanbase when the player is doing well.

The real fans show when a player goes through tougher times.

These glory hunting Fed fanatics like to lay it on thick during the good times, it's true. But they seem to hang around like snipers during the lean times as well making sure to attack anyone who dares criticise their hero.

shmeeko69
07-17-2009, 10:45 AM
I've been watching Tennis for nearly 25 years & the most gifted player to ever hold a racket in my opinion, would have to be Federer. He does'nt rely on just a big serve, he's an artist around the court & only Agassi & Johnny Mac came anywhere near him, for the all round Tennis Game. Granted Sampras had a great serve & winning mentality & Borg was a tough nut to crack, but they were'nt the best to watch & did'nt have all the shots !

Mark :)

LleytonMonfils
07-17-2009, 10:51 AM
I think what speaks larger than Federer's Grand Slam titles is his 21 straight semis in Grand Slams. I'm sorry, but that alone does it for me as GOAT. Not only does he have the results to back it up, but he has the longevity factor as well. Pretty clear cut IMO.

Commander Data
07-17-2009, 12:13 PM
Own my ass?

You don't even own a brain, how can you own anything else?

Sampras was diplomatic, something mr. Egofed would never be. Also he was very clear that his era was stronger - as everybody knows.

What should hurt is seeing your idol winning less than 6 games at a GS final. Humiliated by a moonballer.

You're just a gloryhunter. When Fraud was losing to Simon and Blake you weren't here.

That's because that guy isn't taking account that Sampras played a very very strong field.

It was predictable that you would resort to cheap shots once you run out of arguments. Samprass declared to the whole world live on TV that for him Federer is the GOAT. No matter how you try to twist it, it's what he said. You implied that only gloryhunting Fedtards say Fed is the GOAT. Now, this leaves two options:

1) You talked BS
2) Samprass is a gloryhunter

I leave the choice up to you.

lessthanjake
07-17-2009, 03:43 PM
I don't buy that Sampras saying Federer is the GOAT means it must be true. His case for being GOAT rested on his number of slams. To declare Federer GOAT due to his 15 slams follows a logic that would put Sampras 2nd, ahead of Borg and Laver. This is something Sampras would want to do, as he now has very little argument for being better than Federer.

rofe
07-17-2009, 04:19 PM
I don't buy that Sampras saying Federer is the GOAT means it must be true. His case for being GOAT rested on his number of slams. To declare Federer GOAT due to his 15 slams follows a logic that would put Sampras 2nd, ahead of Borg and Laver. This is something Sampras would want to do, as he now has very little argument for being better than Federer.

This is true. By getting the career slam and getting to 15, Fed is simply better than Sampras. I don't think Fed is GOAT (because it is too hard to compare his accomplishments to say Borg or Laver) but he is definitely better than Sampras and that is good enough for me.

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 05:24 PM
No but he clearly asks Federer to win many more slams in coming years.

That's nonsense : Federer could only have such longevity if the period was very weak (as Agassi did from 1999).

You cannot ask for the same longevity as in Gonzales's time in modern times : a player running very well and playing good tennis, not more, is likely to beat an old great nowadays.

He takes back every shot and that's it.

And anyway this is giving longevity a too much important weight.

Borg did not have longevity but he's clearly among the best ones.

Is is very weak.

Judging from your profile, you would have been what - 12 years old in 1998 when Fed won Wimby Jr Singles? It may come as a shock to you, but some of us have been following Fed from that time, and long before we were aware of Men's Tennis Forums. And yes, a lot of the time between then and 2003, we were ready to pull our hair out in frustration, because it seemed sometimes the glimpses of the possibilities were just that - glimpses.

See, you're admitting you only cheered him because there were glimpses of a huge future. Otherwise you wouldn't even care.

These glory hunting Fed fanatics like to lay it on thick during the good times, it's true. But they seem to hang around like snipers during the lean times as well making sure to attack anyone who dares criticise their hero.

Self-righteousness.

I think what speaks larger than Federer's Grand Slam titles is his 21 straight semis in Grand Slams. I'm sorry, but that alone does it for me as GOAT. Not only does he have the results to back it up, but he has the longevity factor as well. Pretty clear cut IMO.

It was predictable that you would resort to cheap shots once you run out of arguments. Samprass declared to the whole world live on TV that for him Federer is the GOAT. No matter how you try to twist it, it's what he said. You implied that only gloryhunting Fedtards say Fed is the GOAT. Now, this leaves two options:

1) I talk BS
2) I am a gloryhunter

I leave the choice up to you.

I think you're both.

lessthanjake
07-17-2009, 05:35 PM
^ Ummm really??? You have a problem with someone cheering for someone because they think that person has a bright future and they wanna see the person fulfill it? That's ludicrous. That's not "gloryhunting." That's being a fan of someone. Why else would you root for someone besides to see them fulfill their potential? It's not like any of us know these people personally and can say "This guy is not very good at tennis and never will be very good but I like his personality so I will root for him." You are just sounding ridiculous.

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 05:36 PM
^ Ummm really??? You have a problem with someone cheering for someone because they think that person has a bright future and they wanna see the person fulfill it? That's ludicrous. That's not "gloryhunting." That's being a fan of someone. Why else would you root for someone besides to see them fulfill their potential? It's not like any of us know these people personally and can say "This guy is not very good at tennis and never will be very good but I like his personality so I will root for him." You are just sounding ridiculous.

That's being a gloryhunter.

Those people can't fathom not cheering for a multiple GS winner.

Commander Data
07-17-2009, 05:43 PM
I think you're both.

Manipulation of my quote. Reported.

lessthanjake
07-17-2009, 06:11 PM
That's being a gloryhunter.

Those people can't fathom not cheering for a multiple GS winner.

If they rooted for Federer since before 2003, then yes they CAN fathom not cheering for a multiple GS winner, because he was NOT a multiple GS winner when they started cheering for him.

All he had at that time was vast potential. A LOT of players have had vast potential. Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, Ferrero, Hewitt, Cash etc etc are all guys who have seemed to have about as much or more potential than Federer had but didn't live up to it. Thus rooting for someone with potential is clearly far different than rooting for someone who ALREADY is at the top of tennis, because the potential is unfulfilled more often than not.

fast_clay
07-17-2009, 06:27 PM
If they rooted for Federer since before 2003, then yes they CAN fathom not cheering for a multiple GS winner, because he was NOT a multiple GS winner when they started cheering for him.

All he had at that time was vast potential. A LOT of players have had vast potential. Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, Ferrero, Hewitt, Cash etc etc are all guys who have seemed to have about as much or more potential than Federer had but didn't live up to it. Thus rooting for someone with potential is clearly far different than rooting for someone who ALREADY is at the top of tennis, because the potential is unfulfilled more often than not.

no...

you are a gloryhunter...

accept your sickness gloryhunter...

Arkulari
07-17-2009, 06:28 PM
in short: you have to root for mugs and losers to not be called a gloryhunter :yeah:

Grisha is a Wimbledon junior champ, so if you root for him, seeing his potential, you are a gloryhunter :yeah:

root for former champions and for washed-up journeymen :D

Har-Tru
07-17-2009, 06:32 PM
great to see you back!

how can you make the case for Borg purely by numbers!? it's not like he was forced to retire by a freak injury or something :shrug:

and no ifs and buts don't count.

AO missed. But yes, it's hardly debatable. Another thing that Federer has over Borg: standing up after being pushed out of the top.

fast_clay
07-17-2009, 06:40 PM
in short: you have to root for mugs and losers to not be called a gloryhunter :yeah:

Grisha is a Wimbledon junior champ, so if you root for him, seeing his potential, you are a gloryhunter :yeah:

root for former champions and for washed-up journeymen :D

you are sick :yeah:

you have accepted your sickness :yeah:

there is some hope for you because you have managed to see the truth after the blind fanatisism that once plagued your existance here... :D

MatchFederer
07-17-2009, 06:41 PM
existence... :lol:


Sorry. :p

Arkulari
07-17-2009, 06:46 PM
you are sick :yeah:

you have accepted your sickness :yeah:

there is some hope for you because you have managed to see the truth after the blind fanatisism that once plagued your existance here... :D

OMG, I finally saw the light, this is the first step on my recovery process! :D :worship:

MacTheKnife
07-17-2009, 06:56 PM
OMG, I finally saw the light, this is the first step on my recovery process! :D :worship:

Guess I'm a gloryhunter too. I admit it, I starting pulling for Mac when he was still in college at Stanford. :confused:

jonathancrane
07-17-2009, 07:01 PM
Guess I'm a gloryhunter too. I admit it, I starting pulling for Mac when he was still in college at Stanford. :confused:

You're sick too :p

fast_clay
07-17-2009, 07:09 PM
Guess I'm a gloryhunter too. I admit it, I starting pulling for Mac when he was still in college at Stanford. :confused:

interesting... because i have always viewed your posts as some sort of dialogue with a therapist of some description... stay on this path my friend... allow time to work its magic...

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 07:15 PM
Manipulation of my quote. Reported.

:lol:

I bolded it.

If they rooted for Federer since before 2003, then yes they CAN fathom not cheering for a multiple GS winner, because he was NOT a multiple GS winner when they started cheering for him.

All he had at that time was vast potential. A LOT of players have had vast potential. Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, Ferrero, Hewitt, Cash etc etc are all guys who have seemed to have about as much or more potential than Federer had but didn't live up to it. Thus rooting for someone with potential is clearly far different than rooting for someone who ALREADY is at the top of tennis, because the potential is unfulfilled more often than not.

They only cheered him because he had the "potential" to win multiple GS titles. I doubt they'd cheer for him if he were Sabau.

no...

you are a gloryhunter...

accept your sickness gloryhunter...

Exactly.

in short: you have to root for mugs and losers to not be called a gloryhunter :yeah:

Grisha is a Wimbledon junior champ, so if you root for him, seeing his potential, you are a gloryhunter :yeah:

root for former champions and for washed-up journeymen :D

:lol:

Fraudtards are so strange.

I take you simply can't understand at all that you can cheer for a player just because of his game, not his ranking or his titles.

Arkulari
07-17-2009, 07:17 PM
well Gu, I'm cheering for Giraldo right now in the Bogota Challenger, I like how he plays :lol:
(in fact, he's playing right now, in this moment against Decoud ;) it's kinda raining)

I like Roger's game, more than his titles or stuff, the show he gives is unbelievable, seeing him play is very very nice :yeah:

Still, the fact that Roger and Rafa are my favorite, doesn't really mean I only like them and their game ;)

I don't like Djokovic or Murray and they have quite a few titles amongst them ;)

jonathancrane
07-17-2009, 07:20 PM
I remember that GlennM had Federer on his sig. not so long ago ;)

lessthanjake
07-17-2009, 07:39 PM
They only cheered him because he had the "potential" to win multiple GS titles. I doubt they'd cheer for him if he were Sabau.


Cheering for someone with potential is gloryhunting? Thats absurd. More often than not, a player with the type of potential Federer had doesnt win much of anything. Thus, by deciding to root for such a player early on in his career, one is taking on cheering on a player who will likely be a disappointment and not win much at all. That's not gloryhunting AT ALL.

Fraudtards are so strange.

I take you simply can't understand at all that you can cheer for a player just because of his game, not his ranking or his titles.

Hahaha now you just sound absurd. Federer's game is a LARGE part of why people cheer him on. It certainly has a lot to do with why people supported him before he found much success. He plays very elegantly; he seems effortless and graceful on the court, and makes extremely hard shots look easy. A lot of people like watching that type of game, hence why they like Federer.

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 08:15 PM
I remember that GlennM had Federer on his sig. not so long ago ;)

:lol:

Used to admire Federer's game. Until he became a boring baseliner.

Cheering for someone with potential is gloryhunting? Thats absurd. More often than not, a player with the type of potential Federer had doesnt win much of anything. Thus, by deciding to root for such a player early on in his career, one is taking on cheering on a player who will likely be a disappointment and not win much at all. That's not gloryhunting AT ALL.

Hahaha now you just sound absurd. Federer's game is a LARGE part of why people cheer him on. It certainly has a lot to do with why people supported him before he found much success. He plays very elegantly; he seems effortless and graceful on the court, and makes extremely hard shots look easy. A lot of people like watching that type of game, hence why they like Federer.

No. People cheer for Federer because they're gloryhunters.

Action Jackson
07-17-2009, 08:17 PM
Gloryhunters, one thing that is available in a global context in many fields.

lessthanjake
07-17-2009, 08:24 PM
No. People cheer for Federer because they're gloryhunters.

Some, of course, but not all. Your failure to see a difference between rooting for someone before they win a lot and after they have already won a lot is startling for its lack of logic.

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 08:29 PM
Some, of course, but not all. Your failure to see a difference between rooting for someone before they win a lot and after they have already won a lot is startling for its lack of logic.

There might be such a thing for a guy like Tsonga.

There isn't such a thing for a guy like Federer.

Lololita
07-17-2009, 08:42 PM
Gloryhunters, one thing that is available in a global context in many fields.
MTF is nice enough to offer us a wide range of posters :worship:

duong
07-17-2009, 09:00 PM
You have people who like players because of their wins, and you have people who try to glorify themselves on forums showing off all the time even though saying nothing interesting or deep.

I can see many of that second kind :lol:

and they are the real "gloryhunters" in my eyes :rolleyes:

Action Jackson
07-17-2009, 09:02 PM
MTF is nice enough to offer us a wide range of posters :worship:

That's it, a true diverse demographic.

Lololita
07-17-2009, 09:39 PM
There might be such a thing for a guy like Tsonga.

There isn't such a thing for a guy like Federer.
Exactly.

True Federer fans were there at the beginning and are still there now despite all the tought times they've had to deal with :tears:

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 09:55 PM
Exactly.

True Federer fans were there at the beginning and are still there now despite all the tought times they've had to deal with :tears:

:lol:

Funny stuff.

See, 3 years ago Federer was still a joy to watch.

Now he's reverted to being a boring baseliner that goes to the net less times than Roddick in a grass final.

I've lost all respect for him. You can't trust someone who turns his back on real tennis.

lessthanjake
07-17-2009, 10:06 PM
:lol:

Funny stuff.

See, 3 years ago Federer was still a joy to watch.

Now he's reverted to being a boring baseliner that goes to the net less times than Roddick in a grass final.

I've lost all respect for him. You can't trust someone who turns his back on real tennis.

Are you joking?

You do what you have to do to win. He has won Wimbledon mostly serve and volleying (2003) and he has won it almost entirely from the baseline (2009). However, if he tried to serve and volley in 2009 or play completely from the baseline in 2003, he probably would have lost.

I dont think history cares if he won it ugly or not, especially when he is a type of player who is known for having a beautiful game.

In any case, I do slightly agree with you. The way he played in the wimbledon finals was not a joy to watch. Personally though, I thought the way he played in the semifinal against Haas WAS a joy. He just didn't play his best in the final. Get over it.

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 10:28 PM
Are you joking?

You do what you have to do to win. He has won Wimbledon mostly serve and volleying (2003) and he has won it almost entirely from the baseline (2009). However, if he tried to serve and volley in 2009 or play completely from the baseline in 2003, he probably would have lost.

I dont think history cares if he won it ugly or not, especially when he is a type of player who is known for having a beautiful game.

In any case, I do slightly agree with you. The way he played in the wimbledon finals was not a joy to watch. Personally though, I thought the way he played in the semifinal against Haas WAS a joy. He just didn't play his best in the final. Get over it.

You may swallow that "you do whatever it takes to win", but that's not gonna make me a fan of him.

The moment Federer stopped playing the way that made me his fan, I stopped being his fan. That's exactly my point.

You gloryhunters only care about him winning, winning, winning. I, au contraire, don't care about it.

Har-Tru
07-17-2009, 10:41 PM
You may swallow that "you do whatever it takes to win", but that's not gonna make me a fan of him.

The moment Federer stopped playing the way that made me his fan, I stopped being his fan. That's exactly my point.

You gloryhunters only care about him winning, winning, winning. I, au contraire, don't care about it.

:lol:

BigJohn
07-17-2009, 10:43 PM
You have people who like players because of their wins, and you have people who try to glorify themselves on forums showing off all the time even though saying nothing interesting or deep.

I can see many of that second kind :lol:

and they are the real "gloryhunters" in my eyes :rolleyes:

So there IS a link between the ACC champ and gloryhunting. Just not the one that we have been lead to believe. :eek:

Bargearse
07-17-2009, 10:50 PM
You have people who like players because of their wins, and you have people who try to glorify themselves on forums showing off all the time even though saying nothing interesting or deep.

I can see many of that second kind :lol:

and they are the real "gloryhunters" in my eyes :rolleyes:

I couldn't agree with you more... these 'gloryhunters' are antagonists looking for confrontation by way of aggressive statements and personal attacks. (I've had a few just by making some sarcastic remarks about Federer's Wimbledon fashion choices)...


For awhile there I couldn't stand for Federer to even drop a set - it was really insane. When he lost to Nadal in the Wimbledon final 08, my blood was boiling...:cuckoo: Then eventually I woke up to being a tennis fan again instead of a fan worshiping at the feet of one player.

Fortunately, courtesy of some real students of the game, there are some interesting posts amongst the drivel on the MTF that do not include personal attacks or the term 'haters'.:)

Oh, my signature for Gulbis probably contradicts what I said about being a fan of one player :lol:.... just want him to improve his ranking! (My mother is originally from Latvia).

lessthanjake
07-17-2009, 10:51 PM
You may swallow that "you do whatever it takes to win", but that's not gonna make me a fan of him.

The moment Federer stopped playing the way that made me his fan, I stopped being his fan. That's exactly my point.

You gloryhunters only care about him winning, winning, winning. I, au contraire, don't care about it.

When did he "stop playing the way that made [you] his fan?" Maybe when he started declining? Or maybe when courts were slowed down to the point where you have to play a baseline game?

Furthermore, some people like baseline play. Fans of Nadal certainly do, I'm sure. It's not like Federer is cheating or something, so why are you so upset over it?

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 11:02 PM
When did he "stop playing the way that made [you] his fan?" Maybe when he started declining? Or maybe when courts were slowed down to the point where you have to play a baseline game?

Furthermore, some people like baseline play. Fans of Nadal certainly do, I'm sure. It's not like Federer is cheating or something, so why are you so upset over it?

It has nothing to do with declining. In 2007 Federer still won 3 GSs but stopped being a really agressive player.

Upset?

Mate, the discussion here is the following - are Fedmug's fans gloryhunters? Yeah.

Then that Fakervictard came and insinuated that I'm a gloryhunter too because I was a fan of Federer back in 2006. Absolutely preposterous.

My last posts are on that line of thought. It's absurd to call me a gloryhunter, because I actually jumped off the bandwagon, unlike most of his fans.

I'm not upset, I'm just not gonna keep being a fan of someone who became a boring player.

siddy
07-17-2009, 11:02 PM
I take you simply can't understand at all that you can cheer for a player just because of his game, not his ranking or his titles.

What a joke! A lot of Federer fans were calling him one of the greatest very early on.... even before all these titles and that was EXACTLY because of the way he played, not because he was winning slams.

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 11:03 PM
What a joke! A lot of Federer fans were calling him one of the greatest very early on.... even before all these titles and that was EXACTLY because of the way he played, not because he was winning slams.

:lol:

No way.

Did you even follow tennis in 2002/2003?

siddy
07-17-2009, 11:07 PM
:lol:

No way.

Did you even follow tennis in 2002/2003?

Sorry, he became my ALL TIME FAVORITE before he won the first Wimbledon. All time favorite in terms of his game -- he didn't need the slams for that. That's just how it happened for me. Current/recent favorites? Gasquet and Gulbis. Favorite before Federer? Rafter.

The moment Federer stopped playing the way that made me his fan, I stopped being his fan. That's exactly my point.

You gloryhunters only care about him winning, winning, winning. I, au contraire, don't care about it.

You're just assuming what YOU think is true for everyone else. A lot of us still enjoy watching his game -- maybe it isn't as great as it was in the peak years, but he was exceptional in some of the Wimbledon matches; not just because he was WINNING but because his game was a joy to watch.

My last posts are on that line of thought. It's absurd to call me a gloryhunter, because I actually jumped off the bandwagon, unlike most of his fans.

So the rule is that you should stop loving a player as soon as he starts winning a lot.:retard:

lessthanjake
07-17-2009, 11:11 PM
It has nothing to do with declining. In 2007 Federer still won 3 GSs but stopped being a really agressive player.

Upset?

Mate, the discussion here is the following - are Fedmug's fans gloryhunters? Yeah.

Then that Fakervictard came and insinuated that I'm a gloryhunter too because I was a fan of Federer back in 2006. Absolutely preposterous.

My last posts are on that line of thought. It's absurd to call me a gloryhunter, because I actually jumped off the bandwagon, unlike most of his fans.

I'm not upset, I'm just not gonna keep being a fan of someone who became a boring player.

First off, his decline started in 2007, IMO.

Regardless, though, you are right; he is less aggressive than he was before. But he still plays that aggressively sometimes. I might be hallucinating, but I think he played quite aggressively against Haas in the Wimbledon semis, for instance.

In any case, you seem to think that since YOU think Federer plays in a boring way now, that everyone else must agree, but those that still like him don't care if he is boring because he still wins. That is clearly ridiculous. Just as you liked the way he played in 2006 and prior and thats why you cheered for him, a lot of people STILL really like the way he plays and that's why they cheer for him. For you to say that those people are all gloryhunters but you weren't one when you liked Federer makes absolutely no sense. I think you know that.

Let me demonstrate step by step how you are a fail at logical thought.

A. You say you were a fan of Federer prior to 2007, because you liked the way he played. At that point, he had already won 9 slams. Yet you claim to not have been a gloryhunter. Fair enough.
B. You say that EVERY Federer fan now is a gloryhunter.
C. Many Federer fans now like him for the same reason you did; they like the way he plays.
D. Therefore, you believe that people NOW who like Federer because of how he plays are gloryhunters, yet you believe that you weren't one when you liked him because of how he played.

Fail.

fast_clay
07-17-2009, 11:14 PM
I couldn't agree with you more... these 'gloryhunters' are antagonists looking for confrontation by way of aggressive statements and personal attacks. (I've had a few just by making some sarcastic remarks about Federer's Wimbledon fashion choices)...


For awhile there I couldn't stand for Federer to even drop a set - it was really insane. When he lost to Nadal in the Wimbledon final 08, my blood was boiling...:cuckoo: Then eventually I woke up to being a tennis fan again instead of a fan worshiping at the feet of one player.

Fortunately, courtesy of some real students of the game, there are some interesting posts amongst the drivel on the MTF that do not include personal attacks or the term 'haters'.:)

Oh, my signature for Gulbis probably contradicts what I said about being a fan of one player :lol:.... just want him to improve his ranking! (My mother is originally from Latvia).

behold people... the true tennis fan walks amongst us... she was once blinded... but now, she can see... halleluyah... praise the true tennis fan and not these fake idols dressed in emporers clothes...

your post has warmed my heart and demonstrated again that people can actually be cured of this blind, over zealous sickness... my heart has bled for the mtf population for months now.. but, it is people like you... to be brave enough to emerge from the trees to confess their former addiction to an ugly thing that resembled more an ego than a tennis player...

people... behold... beautiful stories can still be found in mtf...

healed people... healed...



sad to hear about you following gulbis... really shitty luck that and is something i cannot help you with...

fast_clay
07-17-2009, 11:19 PM
First off, his decline started in 2007, IMO.

Regardless, though, you are right; he is less aggressive than he was before. But he still plays that aggressively sometimes. I might be hallucinating, but I think he played quite aggressively against Haas in the Wimbledon semis, for instance.

In any case, you seem to think that since YOU think Federer plays in a boring way now, that everyone else must agree, but those that still like him don't care if he is boring because he still wins. That is clearly ridiculous. Just as you liked the way he played in 2006 and prior and thats why you cheered for him, a lot of people STILL really like the way he plays and that's why they cheer for him. For you to say that those people are all gloryhunters but you weren't one when you liked Federer makes absolutely no sense. I think you know that.

Let me demonstrate step by step how you are a fail at logical thought.

A. You say you were a fan of Federer prior to 2007, because you liked the way he played. At that point, he had already won 9 slams. Yet you claim to not have been a gloryhunter. Fair enough.
B. You say that EVERY Federer fan now is a gloryhunter.
C. Many Federer fans now like him for the same reason you did; they like the way he plays.
D. Therefore, you believe that people NOW who like Federer because of how he plays are gloryhunters, yet you believe that you weren't one when you liked him because of how he played.

Fail.

you need to relax...

you are demonstrating all the classic defensive trademarks of a gloryhunter... keep digging that hole if you wish though....

Bargearse
07-17-2009, 11:36 PM
behold people... the true tennis fan walks amongst us... she was once blinded... but now, she can see... halleluyah... praise the true tennis fan and not these fake idols dressed in emporers clothes...

your post has warmed my heart and demonstrated again that people can actually be cured of this blind, over zealous sickness... my heart has bled for the mtf population for months now.. but, it is people like you... to be brave enough to emerge from the trees to confess their former addiction to an ugly thing that resembled more an ego than a tennis player...

people... behold... beautiful stories can still be found in mtf...

healed people... healed...



sad to hear about you following gulbis... really shitty luck that and is something i cannot help you with...

Do I detect a note of sarcasm? ;)

Yes, a born again tennis fan has emerged from the dark cave of single-minded Federer worship. Why wasn't I as obsessed with Agassi as I was with Fed? I was a huge Agassi fan. :confused: I dropped Federer from my signature and there were some questions about why I was no longer a fan. I'm still a fan - too much importance placed on a signature. Mine changes like the wind.

Gulbis? Well, my support is probably a tad patriotic but I do think the guy has potential. At least to get to the 3rd round of a tournament.

JediFed
07-17-2009, 11:36 PM
My last posts are on that line of thought. It's absurd to call me a gloryhunter, because I actually jumped off the bandwagon, unlike most of his fans.


After he lost to Djokovic?

You're just bitter he proved you wrong and had more left in the tank. Sad.

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 11:43 PM
After he lost to Djokovic?

You're just bitter he proved you wrong and had more left in the tank. Sad.

Hummmm no.

He lost to Faker in 2008.

JediFed
07-17-2009, 11:49 PM
Well I don't see it.

Early on, he was all S+V.

I see him now, and he has a fantastic game.

If you are saying he slowed down, has gotten less aggressive I don't know what to say.

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 11:52 PM
Sorry, he became my ALL TIME FAVORITE before he won the first Wimbledon. All time favorite in terms of his game -- he didn't need the slams for that. That's just how it happened for me. Current/recent favorites? Gasquet and Gulbis. Favorite before Federer? Rafter.

You're just assuming what YOU think is true for everyone else. A lot of us still enjoy watching his game -- maybe it isn't as great as it was in the peak years, but he was exceptional in some of the Wimbledon matches; not just because he was WINNING but because his game was a joy to watch.

So the rule is that you should stop loving a player as soon as he starts winning a lot.:retard:

Who's talking about "all time favorite"? I couldn't care less about it.

Yeah, but someone's accusing ME of being a gloryhunter, and I'm talking about it. If you think not being able to hit a topspin backhand and just exchanging a million shots from the baseline is beautiful, then...

There's no rule, mate.

First off, his decline started in 2007, IMO.

Regardless, though, you are right; he is less aggressive than he was before. But he still plays that aggressively sometimes. I might be hallucinating, but I think he played quite aggressively against Haas in the Wimbledon semis, for instance.

In any case, you seem to think that since YOU think Federer plays in a boring way now, that everyone else must agree, but those that still like him don't care if he is boring because he still wins. That is clearly ridiculous. Just as you liked the way he played in 2006 and prior and thats why you cheered for him, a lot of people STILL really like the way he plays and that's why they cheer for him. For you to say that those people are all gloryhunters but you weren't one when you liked Federer makes absolutely no sense. I think you know that.

Let me demonstrate step by step how you are a fail at logical thought.

A. You say you were a fan of Federer prior to 2007, because you liked the way he played. At that point, he had already won 9 slams. Yet you claim to not have been a gloryhunter. Fair enough.
B. You say that EVERY Federer fan now is a gloryhunter.
C. Many Federer fans now like him for the same reason you did; they like the way he plays.
D. Therefore, you believe that people NOW who like Federer because of how he plays are gloryhunters, yet you believe that you weren't one when you liked him because of how he played.

Fail.

Who's talking about his decline, mate? Are you just going on and on with this for the sake of it?

I'm saying Federer used to be an agressive, all-court player and from 2007 on, he stopped that to become a boring baseliner. It has NOTHING to do with his decline, that actually started in 2008.

He's not the player I used to like watching anymore.

leng jai
07-17-2009, 11:52 PM
My uncle asked me on the weekend why I supported Haasi? He was like, that guy never wins, whats the point? Why would you follow a guy who doesn't win all the time? You should follow a guy like Fedclown and Nadull! They have a billion slams! Haas has zero.

That is fedtardism at its finest.

Arkulari
07-17-2009, 11:55 PM
well Gu, you don't like Roger's game now, but many of us still do, have liked him before and will continue liking him for as long as he keeps playing :D

lessthanjake
07-17-2009, 11:55 PM
^Maybe he is still a player that other people like watching. Maybe that is why they like him. Did you ever think of that?

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 11:57 PM
Well I don't see it.

Early on, he was all S+V.

I see him now, and he has a fantastic game.

If you are saying he slowed down, has gotten less aggressive I don't know what to say.

Slowing down has nothing to do with being less aggressive.

Many players actually became more aggressive as they got older.

Now he has the game of a pusher and a big serve.

GlennMirnyi
07-17-2009, 11:59 PM
^Maybe he is still a player that other people like watching. Maybe that is why they like him. Did you ever think of that?

:lol:

Then they are either fanboys or gloryhunters. They don't care about his game, just about him as a person (fanboy) or the fact that he's a top player (gloryhunter).

luie
07-18-2009, 12:01 AM
Let the fedtards have their moment in the "sun" soon Murray will mature,Fakervic will solve his issues & nadull will be healthy to bring him back to reality.

fast_clay
07-18-2009, 12:02 AM
My uncle asked me on the weekend why I supported Haasi? He was like, that guy never wins, whats the point? Why would you follow a guy who doesn't win all the time? You should follow a guy like Fedclown and Nadull! They have a billion slams! Haas has zero.

That is fedtardism at its finest.

tards are a f***ing disgrace...

if it were my uncle, i would have commenced his healing process with an elbow to the adam's apple, and once down, a heel to the scrotum...

leng jai
07-18-2009, 12:03 AM
Let the fedtards have their moment in the "sun" soon Murray will mature,Fakervic will solve his issues & nadull will be healthy to bring him back to reality.

Except the Mugray and Faker tards are just as annoying if not worse.

luie
07-18-2009, 12:09 AM
Except the Mugray and Faker tards are just as annoying if not worse.
I guess you are right the fakervic fan-base is made up of alot bitter fan that feel "victimised" & the british media & clydey will hype up Murray that it will become unbearable.

rofe
07-18-2009, 12:10 AM
Clowns taking the holier-than-thou attitude about who can and cannot be a fan of a player. :lol:

Bunch of armchair tennis morons. :wavey:

leng jai
07-18-2009, 12:11 AM
We're not saying they can't be fans, we're just pointing out the clownishness of their rationale of supporting someone :)

fast_clay
07-18-2009, 12:19 AM
Clowns taking the holier-than-thou attitude about who can and cannot be a fan of a player. :lol:

Bunch of armchair tennis morons. :wavey:

wrong :wavey:

Arkulari
07-18-2009, 12:21 AM
http://www.impawards.com/tv/posters/twilight_zone.jpg

GlennMirnyi
07-18-2009, 12:24 AM
Clowns taking the holier-than-thou attitude about who can and cannot be a fan of a player. :lol:

Bunch of armchair tennis morons. :wavey:

:sobbing: :baby:

Bargearse
07-18-2009, 01:11 AM
My uncle asked me on the weekend why I supported Haasi? He was like, that guy never wins, whats the point? Why would you follow a guy who doesn't win all the time? You should follow a guy like Fedclown and Nadull! They have a billion slams! Haas has zero.

That is fedtardism at its finest.

:rolleyes:

My partner is a bit like your uncle. I watch men's tennis whenever it's on television and he criticises me for being interested in matches that don't feature Federer and for following 'nobodys' like F Gonzalez who haven't won any slams.

It's odd because when I've dragged him kicking and screaming to the Aus Open or the Sydney Int'l, he has always enjoyed it. Especially the matches on the outside courts that feature lesser known players. Only then does he appreciate how talented these players are even if they haven't won any major tournaments.

lessthanjake
07-18-2009, 02:13 AM
:lol:

Then they are either fanboys or gloryhunters. They don't care about his game, just about him as a person (fanboy) or the fact that he's a top player (gloryhunter).

So no one can enjoy watching something different than you enjoy watching? That's impossible?

For you to think that leaves two options. Either you are being an idiot, or you are not being serious.

leng jai
07-18-2009, 05:51 AM
:rolleyes:

My partner is a bit like your uncle. I watch men's tennis whenever it's on television and he criticises me for being interested in matches that don't feature Federer and for following 'nobodys' like F Gonzalez who haven't won any slams.

It's odd because when I've dragged him kicking and screaming to the Aus Open or the Sydney Int'l, he has always enjoyed it. Especially the matches on the outside courts that feature lesser known players. Only then does he appreciate how talented these players are even if they haven't won any major tournaments.

Its because when you're watching it court side, even the clownish players look legendary. Its a lot faster and you can actually appreciate the technique and physical prowess better than you would on TV.

duong
07-18-2009, 06:46 AM
The most annoying "gloryhunters" are those looking for their own personal little glory on a little forum, calling all of the other ones "tards" or "clowns" or "non-fans of the game", "morons" and so on ...

They show off a lot and think they are very very good,

whereas many of them never say ever anything interesting or deep,

and pretty sure that most of them are not at all better than those they despise.

Looking for their own personal glory on a forum is very poor gloryhunting indeed.

That's "gloryhunting" in my eyes : really when I think of this word I can think of nobody else than them :shrug:, that's a definition which suits them so well :rolleyes:

Bargearse
07-18-2009, 07:45 AM
Its because when you're watching it court side, even the clownish players look legendary. Its a lot faster and you can actually appreciate the technique and physical prowess better than you would on TV.

That's true. I just wish my partner would remember that when he complains about me watching it on television. Sure it isn't as impressive to him, but to me it is.

leng jai
07-18-2009, 07:45 AM
The most annoying "gloryhunters" are those looking for their own personal little glory on a little forum, calling all of the other ones "tards" or "clowns" or "non-fans of the game", "morons" and so on ...

They show off a lot and think they are very very good,

whereas many of them never say ever anything interesting or deep,

and pretty sure that most of them are not at all better than those they despise.

Looking for their own personal glory on a forum is very poor gloryhunting indeed.

That's "gloryhunting" in my eyes : really when I think of this word I can think of nobody else than them :shrug:, that's a definition which suits them so well :rolleyes:

Is this directed at me :sad:

Benny_Maths
07-18-2009, 07:50 AM
Some of the people using the term 'gloryhunter' must be taking the piss, otherwise they need to get reality check. Fortunately for them, I'm kind enough to provide it. But only this once.

1. You're not even a player on the challenger circuit. It is completely pathetic for you to exude as much passion as you do, on an internet forum, for a player let alone an entire body which is not associated with you in any way.

2. In most cases which I've seen the term 'gloryhunter' used, it is no more than a meaningless term useful only for its connotations, with the primary purpose of covering up an inability to construct a proper argument. Sorry to break it to you, but contrary to your deluded belief, fanboying a journeyman doesn't make you a 'better' person than fans of top players. Also sorry, unless you're a commentator, an encyclopdaedic knowledge of everyone from Roger Federer to Andrew Foster is of no value to this world. So stop deluding yourself with the misguided belief that your choice to fanboy a journeyman makes you any better than a fan of a top player.

Allez
07-18-2009, 08:08 AM
Ridiculous article. Those players in the 20's 30's 40's never had to compete with hundreds of super athletes from across the globe. Current greats will always have the better claim to that title than the slow moving gentlemen of 100 years ago.

duong
07-18-2009, 08:19 AM
Is this directed at me :sad:

Among others (btw you're in my ignore list, I opened this post since I expected an answer).

I know you're not sad at all, I'm not that naive :lol:

Anyway, I can't pretend giving a precise definition of anybody in this forum, but it's true that after some time, I've been used to seeing some doing always the same old thing.

I'm certain some of them can do better than spending their time insulting the others.

But probably it's less pleasant for their self-esteem :lol:

They're "personal glory hunters"

Bargearse
07-18-2009, 09:00 AM
Maybe it was directed at me :shrug:? I don't think being a fanboy or a fangirl of a journeyman is any better than being a Fedtard, Nadaltard or Murraytard and I don't think Leng Jai was implying that either.

It is perfectly acceptable for a person to be a fan of other players besides Federer and the like. It has nothing to do with being 'better' than anyone else.

fast_clay
07-18-2009, 09:29 AM
Some of the people using the term 'gloryhunter' must be taking the piss, otherwise they need to get reality check. Fortunately for them, I'm kind enough to provide it. But only this once.

1. You're not even a player on the challenger circuit. It is completely pathetic for you to exude as much passion as you do, on an internet forum, for a player let alone an entire body which is not associated with you in any way.

2. In most cases which I've seen the term 'gloryhunter' used, it is no more than a meaningless term useful only for its connotations, with the primary purpose of covering up an inability to construct a proper argument. Sorry to break it to you, but contrary to your deluded belief, fanboying a journeyman doesn't make you a 'better' person than fans of top players. Also sorry, unless you're a commentator, an encyclopdaedic knowledge of everyone from Roger Federer to Andrew Foster is of no value to this world. So stop deluding yourself with the misguided belief that your choice to fanboy a journeyman makes you any better than a fan of a top player.

a very defensive post this one... tel me... what are you trying to hide...? which player do you fanboy...?

Action Jackson
07-18-2009, 09:32 AM
leng's uncle is the classic symbol of gloryhunter, but fast_clay is right.

Inability to construct a proper argument, that is very interesting, in other words one that the gloryhunter deems to be unworthy.

fast_clay, he is a Fed fan.

Commander Data
07-18-2009, 10:19 AM
No. People cheer for Federer because they're gloryhunters.

A Samprass Fanboy tells me (a Swiss) that I'm a gloryhunter because I cheer for Federer.


That's absurd.

HKz
07-18-2009, 11:13 AM
MIA - Currently training to play in the ATP to finally destroy the Fedal monopoloy and get 20 GS titles and then I'll look at the camera to say "F U IDIOTS ON MTF" and then retire Borg-like.

JolánGagó
07-18-2009, 11:26 AM
MIA - Currently training to play in the ATP to finally destroy the Fedal monopoloy and get 20 GS titles and then I'll look at the camera to say "F U IDIOTS ON MTF" and then retire Borg-like.

you make no sense.

HKz
07-18-2009, 11:35 AM
you make no sense.

2+2=

peribsen
07-18-2009, 12:46 PM
Wouldn't it be better to forget about the absurd GOAT concept entirely and change it to the best 10 of all time? For example, if we imagine the entire history of tennis as a single major, played by the 128 best players ever,who do you think are the best 8 who would play the QF? The best 16 in 4th round?

I think it would be a loss of time to try to name a winner or a RU, since there are far too many different factors and eras involved to do it fairly.

MatchFederer
07-18-2009, 07:12 PM
:lol: This thread turned into something truly shit. Some exceptional mug performances, especially from Gu whose mug performance is nothing short of spectacular.

Congratulations!

:D

Chiseller
07-18-2009, 09:30 PM
Magnificent thread, indeed. In case you come/came - cba to read back everything - to a conclusion who's muggier, past or present fanboys, notify me somehow. I'm dying to know..

fast_clay
07-18-2009, 10:55 PM
:lol: This thread turned into something truly shit. Some exceptional mug performances, especially from Gu whose mug performance is nothing short of spectacular.

Congratulations!

:D

hmmm... interesting... this sounds suspiciously like a post that a bogdanovic fan would make...

as you were...

leng jai
07-19-2009, 12:24 AM
Wheres Fedfool?

ORGASMATRON
07-19-2009, 01:56 AM
here :)

Benny_Maths
07-19-2009, 05:10 AM
leng's uncle is the classic symbol of gloryhunter, but fast_clay is right.

Inability to construct a proper argument, that is very interesting, in other words one that the gloryhunter deems to be unworthy.

fast_clay, he is a Fed fan.

Responding to a comment which conveys any kind of opinion, with only the assertion the person is a 'gloryhunter', demonstrates an inability to construct a proper argument. There is no way around it.

I could be like you and post 90,000 ad hominems by responding with 'AJ you're a gloryhunter' and 9 times out of 10 that would be enough to elicit a post from you which merely appeals to prejudices but does not actually address the proposition, in much the same way you have done here. But I do not need to. See, the thing I find sad about you is that you are comfortable with congratulating a journeyman for doing well. However, as soon as they start winning frequently, you feel the need to start coming across as a huge critic of that same player. You feel the need to maintain an image on an internet forum and as duong alluded to, that is what a true glory hunter is characterised by.

Interestingly, for the most part, the fans of top players are the ones who understand that they are not associated with the ATP and act accordingly - by sticking to discussions about events directly related to players as opposed to wider social issues. This is in direct contrast to people, like AJ, who for some reason believe that they are apart of the ATP - as evidenced by a ridiculous comparison of the ATP to a ghetto.

CyBorg
07-19-2009, 06:04 AM
Responding to a comment which conveys any kind of opinion, with only the assertion the person is a 'gloryhunter', demonstrates an inability to construct a proper argument. There is no way around it.

I could be like you and post 90,000 ad hominems by responding with 'AJ you're a gloryhunter' and 9 times out of 10 that would be enough to elicit a post from you which merely appeals to prejudices but does not actually address the proposition, in much the same way you have done here. But I do not need to. See, the thing I find sad about you is that you are comfortable with congratulating a journeyman for doing well. However, as soon as they start winning frequently, you feel the need to start coming across as a huge critic of that same player. You feel the need to maintain an image on an internet forum and as duong alluded to, that is what a true glory hunter is characterised by.

Interestingly, for the most part, the fans of top players are the ones who understand that they are not associated with the ATP and act accordingly - by sticking to discussions about events directly related to players as opposed to wider social issues. This is in direct contrast to people, like AJ, who for some reason believe that they are apart of the ATP - as evidenced by a ridiculous comparison of the ATP to a ghetto.

You should do yourself a favour and look up 'ad hominem'.

FedFan_2007
07-19-2009, 06:10 AM
Wheres Fedfool?

Right here to torment you and the other termites.

Benny_Maths
07-19-2009, 06:55 AM
You should do yourself a favour and look up 'ad hominem'.

I have no need to seeing that I have been presented with practical examples. In any case, if you know what the term means then you would have understood the intended meaning from the context. Your post is precisely the kind I was alluding to in my previous posts. It contributes nothing of any substance to the actual discussion.

CyBorg
07-19-2009, 07:03 AM
I have no need to seeing that I have been presented with practical examples. In any case, if you know what the term means then you would have understood the intended meaning from the context. Your post is precisely the kind I was alluding to in my previous posts. It contributes nothing of any substance to the actual discussion.

You accuse AJ of ad hominems. I don't see any ad hominems. For there to be ad hominems there necessarily exists an avoidance of the fine points of an argument.

I see no argument. I see a lot of claims and empty generalizations. I also see AJ making fittingly ironic comments, as he typically does.

I think you're trying a little too hard to seem smart, but it's good to know your stuff beforehand.

Benny_Maths
07-19-2009, 07:18 AM
You accuse AJ of ad hominems. I don't see any ad hominems. For there to be ad hominems there necessarily exists an avoidance of the fine points of an argument.

I see no argument. I see a lot of claims and empty generalizations. I also see AJ making fittingly ironic comments, as he typically does.

I think you're trying a little too hard to seem smart, but it's good to know your stuff beforehand.

It is clear that most people who regularly label others as 'gloryhunters' do so to gain a feeling of superiority. Otherwise, why persist in making a distinction (via the term 'gloryhunter') between fans on the basis of the players that they follow? This observation is not merely a claim. It is obvious to anyone who reads between the lines. If you could not see these points being made throughout my previous posts then you need to put on your objective reading glasses. Only then you will see the avoidance of arguments.

CyBorg
07-19-2009, 07:27 AM
It is clear that most people who regularly label others as 'gloryhunters' do so to gain a feeling of superiority. Otherwise, why persist in making a distinction (via the term 'gloryhunter') between fans on the basis of the players that they follow? This observation is not merely a claim. It is obvious to anyone who reads between the lines. If you could not see these points being made throughout my previous posts then you need to put on your objective reading glasses. Only then you will see the avoidance of arguments.

In other words, it's not an ad hominem.

I really don't care if the label is accurate or not, but knowing AJ's track record on MTF it probably is.

Benny_Maths
07-19-2009, 07:35 AM
In other words, it's not an ad hominem.

I really don't care if the label is accurate or not, but knowing AJ's track record on MTF it probably is.

You clearly don't believe that his comments were made with the same intention as I do. So there is little reason for me to continue discussing this.

Edit: Actually, it is. Have a look.


Inability to construct a proper argument,..., in other words one that the gloryhunter deems to be unworthy.


No logical fallacies are addressed here. Further, the term 'gloryhunter' is superfluous in this case, and is clearly included only to attack the person's character in the hope of increasing the credibility of their own stance.

duong
07-19-2009, 08:25 AM
Maybe it was directed at me :shrug:?

Not at all, I really wonder how you understood my post like that :confused:

It was clearly directed at those calling all the time the others "clowns", "gloryhunters", "morons" and so on, pretending they are superior, although often they don't make any effort to display any true argument.

As for the debate "being fan of a journeyman or of a star", I didn't say a word about that.

Anybody can be a fan of who he wants :shrug: and it's great that all of the players have some fans :yeah:

Bargearse
07-19-2009, 09:24 AM
Not at all, I really wonder how you understood my post like that :confused:

It was clearly directed at those calling all the time the others "clowns", "gloryhunters", "morons" and so on, pretending they are superior, although often they don't make any effort to display any true argument.

As for the debate "being fan of a journeyman or of a star", I didn't say a word about that.

Anybody can be a fan of who he wants :shrug: and it's great that all of the players have some fans :yeah:

I was actually referring to the following post from pseudo intellectual Benny_Maths, aka Niles Crane, that should have been included in the post in question. Sorry for the confusion. Your posts are insightful, rational and not at all confrontational. :wavey:

Some of the people using the term 'gloryhunter' must be taking the piss, otherwise they need to get reality check. Fortunately for them, I'm kind enough to provide it. But only this once.

1. You're not even a player on the challenger circuit. It is completely pathetic for you to exude as much passion as you do, on an internet forum, for a player let alone an entire body which is not associated with you in any way.

2. In most cases which I've seen the term 'gloryhunter' used, it is no more than a meaningless term useful only for its connotations, with the primary purpose of covering up an inability to construct a proper argument. Sorry to break it to you, but contrary to your deluded belief, fanboying a journeyman doesn't make you a 'better' person than fans of top players. Also sorry, unless you're a commentator, an encyclopdaedic knowledge of everyone from Roger Federer to Andrew Foster is of no value to this world. So stop deluding yourself with the misguided belief that your choice to fanboy a journeyman makes you any better than a fan of a top player.

I've read a few other long-winded missives from him - nothing more than pointless drivel. If it was directed at me, I won't lose any sleep over it.

Action Jackson
07-19-2009, 09:31 AM
here :)

Welcome back and you are not the one that leng was asking about.

Action Jackson
07-19-2009, 09:37 AM
Benny settle down, it's simple you follow Federer therefore you know more about beautiful and artistic tennis, nothing existed before Federer started playing and nothing will exist after that.

This in turns means that there are different tastes and there are people who actually the enjoy the game, but aren't caught up in the results of their favourite player. Especially the classic when someone who is a Fed, Nadal or Murray fan, can't handle any form of criticism, and then bring up you support so and so, my fave player is better than your fave, nerner "my dad is bigger than your dad".

Benny_Maths
07-19-2009, 09:48 AM
I was actually referring to the following post from pseudo intellectual Benny_Maths, aka Niles Crane, that should have been included in the post in question. Sorry for the confusion.

Pleb mentality. Unlike you, I know that it's ok to communicate with language that even a high school student would be familiar with. So I don't feel the need to speak like I started learning English two days ago, just to safeguard against your type.

If it was directed at me, I won't lose any sleep over it.

I love the hypocrisy when people say things like this. If it truly didn't matter, you wouldn't even respond.

Edit: AJ, you seem like a reasonable person judging from your previous post (despite ignoring that I followed players from before 2004). I'll move on now.

MatchFederer
07-19-2009, 10:42 AM
hmmm... interesting... this sounds suspiciously like a post that a bogdanovic fan would make...

as you were...

Boggo? Never.