Aesthetic wise how do you rate their tennis? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Aesthetic wise how do you rate their tennis?

bright
06-01-2011, 08:29 PM
Feel free to provide your reasons:yeah:

GugaF1
06-01-2011, 08:32 PM
The answer to this is obvious, as obvious as talking about who is the mentally stronger player in order. Are you trying to get some glory for Fed going into the SF buddy.

MalwareDie
06-01-2011, 08:32 PM
In before the ban.

Ilovetheblues_86
06-01-2011, 08:33 PM
Djokovic > Federer > Nadal

The old king is dead, long live the new king, remember?

Young 8
06-01-2011, 08:34 PM
Feel free to provide your reasons:yeah:



I suggest you to create a thread about Roddick vs Karlovic vs Isner

abraxas21
06-01-2011, 08:37 PM
Federer >>> Murray >>>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>........>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Massu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal

bright
06-01-2011, 08:38 PM
The answer to this is obvious, as obvious as talking about who is the mentally stronger player in order. Are you trying to get some glory for Fed going into the SF buddy.
Isn't that obvious to me.:confused:

I think Nole is challenging Fed atm. If he keeps it up, this won't as obvious in a couple of years even to you.
Djokovic > Federer > Nadal

The old king is dead, long live the new king, remember?
Ja ja, I do remember. Dijana is my idol after all.:hearts:

Sapeod
06-01-2011, 08:40 PM
No Muzza?? He's part of the Big 4 afterall.

Muzza > Federer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic > Nadal.

Luinir
06-01-2011, 08:50 PM
Djokovic > Nadal ?

Too good MTF.

Vida
06-01-2011, 09:01 PM
Im tempted to say fed > everybody, but the backhand, the backhand ... :facepalm: ..

..nothing pretty in seeing incompetence being punished and punished over again.

zerocool_
06-01-2011, 09:02 PM
No Muzza?? He's part of the Big 4 afterall.

Muzza > Federer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic > Nadal.

When(if) he win slam then you can talk about big 4. for now it's big 3.

Roamed
06-01-2011, 09:04 PM
Federer is the most aesthetic and it's not close. Disregarding success rate (not that that would change much) he's always had beautiful shots.

bright
06-01-2011, 09:06 PM
No Muzza?? He's part of the Big 4 afterall.

Muzza > Federer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic > Nadal.

There are 12 combinations if 4 players are involved, sorry:p

And btw, the fact that Muzz if your fave doesn't automatically mean you should not be objective in this poll.

Everko
06-01-2011, 09:07 PM
Nadal>>Djokovic>>>>>>>>>>Federer>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Murray

MaxPower
06-01-2011, 09:16 PM
This is a no brainer unless you are visually impaired. And to put Nadal first visually impaired isn't enough. You have to be blind and maybe think his grunts counts for something. Fed is on his own level and his whole matches could be watched in slow-mo and it would be a tennis treat. Do the same with Nadal and you would claw your eyes out before the match is over.

Federer>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Djokovic>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nadal

Murray got potential in his game to be between Fed and Djokovic but for some reason often plays "a uglier game" than he should between Djokovic and Nadal instead. Dunno why but at least he has potential

Ljubo_rulz
06-01-2011, 09:19 PM
Nole's game is not very pretty but it's efficient. Nadal's on the other hand is plain ugly and dull.

bright
06-01-2011, 09:20 PM
Murray got potential in his game to be between Fed and Djokovic but for some reason often plays "a uglier game" than he should between Djokovic and Nadal instead. Dunno why but at least he has potential
That's one fair estimation of Murray's game:yeah:

He's got everything to be between Fed and Djoko here, but as of now he's nowhere close.:(

Sapeod
06-01-2011, 09:23 PM
Im tempted to say fed > everybody, but the backhand, the backhand ... :facepalm: ..

..nothing pretty in seeing incompetence being punished and punished over again.
His backhand is georgeous. Just because he makes a lot of errors and it can be punished doesn't mean it's nice to watch :stupid:

Ljubo_rulz
06-01-2011, 09:25 PM
Gasquet has the most beautiful shots in the universe, but it doesn't mean he deserves to be in this poll.

Vida
06-01-2011, 09:25 PM
His backhand is georgeous. Just because he makes a lot of errors and it can be punished doesn't mean it's nice to watch :stupid:

its nice to watch in practice, but it breaks down so often that the technical imperfections become so obvious and thus BLUR all the aesthetics.

:shrug:

Seingeist
06-01-2011, 09:27 PM
Federer is the most aesthetic and it's not close. Disregarding success rate (not that that would change much) he's always had beautiful shots.

This is absolutely correct. Kind of a clown thread, actually. May as well start one after this called, "Which of the top four is the most Swiss?"

Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy watching Djokovic play; he is extraordinarily skillful, determined, and intelligent on the court. But his movements and groundstrokes, however technically proficient and admirable, do not have the swan-like grace of Federer's.

Vida
06-01-2011, 09:28 PM
Gasquet has the most beautiful shots in the universe, but it doesn't mean he deserves to be in this poll.

deserves more than murray :shrug:

aha, just saw murray isnt in the poll-

bokehlicious
06-01-2011, 09:28 PM
Nadal is the Mozart of tennis :drool:

Ljubo_rulz
06-01-2011, 09:29 PM
Nadal is the Mozart of tennis

That makes Murray Salieri.

bright
06-01-2011, 09:32 PM
its nice to watch in practice, but it breaks down so often that the technical imperfections become so obvious and thus BLUR all the aesthetics.

:shrug:

It's been nice to watch for years. If you're new to tennis, you shouldn't go after the sports classic's technique:hug:

bokehlicious
06-01-2011, 09:34 PM
Djokovic's roars is the reason I still follow the sport :hearts:

NJ88
06-01-2011, 09:37 PM
Federer looks visually best while playing tennis, it's not really close either. It just looks effortless. Murrays tennis game is pretty nice to watch too though.

solowyn
06-01-2011, 09:40 PM
Fed is spectacular to watch.
Djok's clean strokes and movement are enjoyable.

As others have said for Murray... I love to watch when he's going for shots, or showing off his touch.

Nadal :ignore:

EliSter
06-01-2011, 09:42 PM
Djokovic's roars is the reason I still follow the sport :hearts:

U love to troll sir, dont you :hearts: :o

AndyNonomous
06-01-2011, 09:43 PM
Nadal's forehand = "lean back and buggywhip". There is almost no leg power transfered to the ball. The only way his forehand can be effective is if he has a VAST superiority in upper body strength.

Nadal's volley = effective but ugly (he looks like a caveman with a club).

Nadal's backhand = Bunt it, rather than swing at it. Again, this style requires a HUGE superiority in upper body strength.


For anyone who has ever taken tennis lessons, they know that Nadal has TERRIBLE technique (you would get yelled at by the pro if you ever played like Nadal does). Without his EXTREME physical advantage in strength, speed, and endurance, Nadal would not even be a mediocre recreational player.

FerrerAndNadal
06-01-2011, 09:45 PM
Ewww Djokovic's textbook boring shots are not fun to watch.

Federer>Nadal>Djokovic

DrJules
06-01-2011, 10:01 PM
It will be a landslide for:

Federer > Djokovic > Nadal.

TennisLurker
06-01-2011, 10:07 PM
I prefer Nadal's strokes over Novaks because at least Nadal is unorthodox, Novak is just normal, modern, standard.

luie
06-01-2011, 10:12 PM
Nadull>djokovic>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fed.

barahmasa
06-01-2011, 10:16 PM
This is absolutely correct. Kind of a clown thread, actually. May as well start one after this called, "Which of the top four is the most Swiss?"


:haha:

+1

bright
06-01-2011, 10:27 PM
This is absolutely correct. Kind of a clown thread, actually. May as well start one after this called, "Which of the top four is the most Swiss?"

:eek:

In other words you assert that on default Swiss are the most aesthetic? Flattering, I must say, duh...

BigJohn
06-01-2011, 10:56 PM
No Muzza?? He's part of the Big 4 afterall.

Muzza > Federer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic > Nadal.

:spit: As always, you deliver.

Seingeist
06-02-2011, 12:36 AM
:eek:

In other words you assert that on default Swiss are the most aesthetic? Flattering, I must say, duh...

Huh?

No, you seem to have missed the point entirely. I merely meant that the answer to this thread is so obviously Federer that there is no point in asking the question, much as would be the case if you asked which player was the most "Swiss."

I don't know enough Swiss players to form a decent opinion about the aesthetic of their playing style as a nation; I don't find Wawrinka's game particularly graceful or pleasing, in any case. :shrug:

GSMnadal
06-02-2011, 01:04 AM
'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.'

For me it's: Nadal - Federer (lovely technique, can do anything with a ball) - Djokovic (boring, robotic, misses the x-factor)

I just find Nadal's game so incredibly exhilarating to watch. His forehand, the greatest shot in tennis right now, is the most exciting part of his game. Especially when he's playing agressive, feeling confident, and dictating the opponent from left te right. I could watch him play like that all day (highlight being wimbledon/us open 2010).

His insane gets, due to his speed and stamina, are one of the reasons why he's my number 1 and why I've been a fan since the moment I've seen him play. That 'oh snap' moment, when you think he's lost the point, but somehow manages to get it back. Today against Soderling he showed he's still got it.
The grunting is what finishes it all off, personally, I love it. Shows how much effort it costs, shows that he puts everything in his shots, and it scares the shit out of the opponent to hear what kind of fighter is on the other side of the net.

He might not have the 'standard and right' tennis technique, he might not have the finesse or elegance of a Roger Federer, but damn is it exciting to watch him play. And I'd pick that any day of the week over the others with their 'correct' ways of playing tennis, that's why to me, he is the most aestheticly pleasing player.

Nole Rules
06-02-2011, 01:10 AM
Roger > Nole >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafa

hipolymer
06-02-2011, 01:44 AM
Nole's backhand and drop shots are just art in motion. Nadull is a caveman.

tests
06-02-2011, 02:04 AM
nadal is easily the ugliest player to watch (murray too when he pushes like he did in the aus open final).

Fed is obviously the most aesthetically pleasing.. novak i just standard (gets the jobe done, but nothing fancy about it).

So it would be FED>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>NOVAK>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>NADAL/MURRAY (unless murray plays aggresive, which is quite rare)

tests
06-02-2011, 02:05 AM
the worst part about watching nadal are his motions on the court. His ass-picking, constant fist-pumping... too each his own, but no need to fist pump after almost every point


Anyways, i respect nadal for what he has accomplished and his mental strenght, but his game is FUGLY

stewietennis
06-02-2011, 02:06 AM
Roger plays the classic correct style, almost effortless. I'd go so far as to put his style above Jmac and Edberg – as much as I feel JMac has superior touch and Edberg is smoother in movements. Overall Roger's is the most pleasing to watch. Nadal is painful to watch because so much effort is put into his shots, however his CC high-angled forehand is amazing and his footwork is great – if nothing else, Nadal's style is unique. Novak's is lost somewhere in the bunch because a lot of people play the same way.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-02-2011, 02:13 AM
nadal grunts like a pig

thats really how it sounds

it must be great for homosexuals watching nadal... i wonder what 99% of his fanbase are?

when i watch serena williams grunt... yeah... i imagine someone not hideous and thats.......good

Alex999
06-02-2011, 02:28 AM
This is easy. Federer (nobody comes even close)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Djokovic>>Nadal.

Pirata.
06-02-2011, 02:44 AM
Dani and Everko :haha:

Bless this post :hug:

delboy
06-02-2011, 02:57 AM
yeah Rogie >>>>>>>>>> Nole >>>>>> Rafito.

I would put Murray with Nole, maybe even slightly better, cos once every blue moon when murray plays aggressive he is great to watch (and imo more interesting than djoker's game anyway) but in push mode not so much and really frustrating..

Roadmap
06-02-2011, 04:22 AM
Federer>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Djokovic>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Who's the other guy again?

FlameOn
06-02-2011, 09:15 AM
Djokovic > Federer > Nadal

The old king is dead, long live the new king, remember?

Not sure if you're serious about the last sentence :p, but I agree.

Forehander
06-02-2011, 09:23 AM
Djokovic's game good looking... fkn.... lol

tests
06-02-2011, 10:04 AM
Djokovic's game good looking... fkn.... lol


too bad the guy with the good-looking game (and face ;)) can't seem to get it together!

atennisfan
06-02-2011, 04:16 PM
Is this thread a joke?

I've been watching tennis casually on and off since early 90s, and imo Federer game is so effortless, beautiful and the other two do not deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with him when speaking about aesthetic tennis.

finishingmove
06-02-2011, 04:20 PM
i voted nadal > djokovic > federer because i clicked the wrong poll

Orka_n
06-02-2011, 04:32 PM
No Muzza?? He's part of the Big 4 afterall.

Muzza > Federer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic > Nadal.And you ask me why I call you deluded. Sensational stuff.
And all because you were born in Scotland. If you were a Spaniard you'd be SdG #2.

OT: It's Federer and like many have said, it's not even close.

peribsen
06-02-2011, 05:28 PM
Aesthetics is as subjective as it gets.

Take equestrian sports: some prefer the extreme technical difficulty of dressage, others the elegance of obstacle jumping, yet others the dirtier and less stylized yet far more thrilling and bloodcurling crosscountry chase. Who's to say which is best or shows more knowledge about horses?

I much prefer the fight in Nadal than the exquisite technical prowess of some others, but I feel no need to downgrade the merit of the second, nor to upgrade the beauty of the first. It's only that if tennis was exclusively about beauty, I'd follow it only some times because, well, great and all that, but it would kind of bore me (like ballet, I can really enjoy it once every while, but... well, ballet at least also has the music, which can be great); it's the grit and the battle in the upsets that keeps me glued to the sport.

Filo V.
06-02-2011, 05:29 PM
Federer has the most pleasing to the eye game to watch of these 3, but Volandri and Bolelli are both ahead of all three of these guys.

Audacity
06-02-2011, 05:38 PM
fed > djoko > nadal

Filo V.
06-02-2011, 05:41 PM
Bolelli>Volandri>Federer

No-one else needs mentioning.

bright
06-02-2011, 06:29 PM
Is this thread a joke?

I've been watching tennis casually on and off since early 90s, and imo Federer game is so effortless, beautiful and the other two do not deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with him when speaking about aesthetic tennis.
Nope.

Its purpose is to just for a little bit put certain fanbases down to earth.;) Judging by the poll results, in majority this forum is pretty sane, which is quite surprising to me to be honest.

Aesthetics is as subjective as it gets.

Take equestrian sports: some prefer the extreme technical difficulty of dressage, others the elegance of obstacle jumping, yet others the dirtier and less stylized yet far more thrilling and bloodcurling crosscountry chase. Who's to say which is best or shows more knowledge about horses?

I much prefer the fight in Nadal than the exquisite technical prowess of some others, but I feel no need to downgrade the merit of the second, nor to upgrade the beauty of the first. It's only that if tennis was exclusively about beauty, I'd follow it only some times because, well, great and all that, but it would kind of bore me (like ballet, I can really enjoy it once every while, but... well, ballet at least also has the music, which can be great); it's the grit and the battle in the upsets that keeps me glued to the sport.
This statement is as wrong as it may get.

You're free to prefer the fight spirit in Nadal, but it has very little to do with aesthetics whatsoever. If we talked about that aspect of the game, Nadal wins there hands down, but it's not the matter in this thread.

rocketassist
06-02-2011, 06:44 PM
Those saying Nadal cause 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' :lol:

It's like me using that line when a fat bird bemoans her lack of romantic fortitude.

Bobby
06-02-2011, 06:52 PM
Nadal's game is a bit like Sammy Hagar's hair. All the angles are covered, full and never goes away. But you get the feeling that something's not right and you can't say you think it actually that beautiful. More like disturbing.

eclecticist
06-02-2011, 06:54 PM
aesthetic wise nadal wouldn't even be in the top 50. any player who's plan b is to moonball even higher has no aesthetics in their game whatsoever

peribsen
06-02-2011, 06:56 PM
This statement is as wrong as it may get.

You just don't get it, do you. What can't be more wrong is your attempt to say that something that is by definition subjective (aesthetics) can somehow be objectively measured. One guy's Venus may well be another guy's plain-looking girl.

If you mean to say that Fed's game is more beautiful or pleasing to the eye, I grant you that. But if you imply that it is somehow 'preferable', I beg to differ. I don't follow sports for beauty (there are other far more interesting things for that, like music, art, poetry..) but for excitement. And Rafa comes very close to fulfilling what I expect of a sporstman.

barbadosan
06-02-2011, 06:57 PM
Aesthetics is as subjective as it gets.

Take equestrian sports: some prefer the extreme technical difficulty of dressage, others the elegance of obstacle jumping, yet others the dirtier and less stylized yet far more thrilling and bloodcurling crosscountry chase. Who's to say which is best or shows more knowledge about horses?

I much prefer the fight in Nadal than the exquisite technical prowess of some others, but I feel no need to downgrade the merit of the second, nor to upgrade the beauty of the first. It's only that if tennis was exclusively about beauty, I'd follow it only some times because, well, great and all that, but it would kind of bore me (like ballet, I can really enjoy it once every while, but... well, ballet at least also has the music, which can be great); it's the grit and the battle in the upsets that keeps me glued to the sport.

Nice argument, but not particularly a propos to the question, which has to do with aesthetics and nothing to do with mental fortitude, fighting ability, thrills or even bloodcurling, nor does the question seek to find out which elements any of us prefers.

Have most European football teams got mad skills? Yes. Are there many that play as aesthetically pleasing a game as the Brazilians can when they are truly playing "the beautiful game"? No

bright
06-02-2011, 07:05 PM
You just don't get it, do you. What can't be more wrong is your attempt to say that something that is by definition subjective (aesthetics) can somehow be objectively measured. One guy's Venus may well be another guy's plain-looking girl.

It is subjective only to some tiny degree. It's not about what kind of tennis does one prefer, it isn't about what aspect in tennis pleases one's eye. It's about whether one can or cannot without bias say whose tennis is overally more aesthetical. I am a fan of Murray, and I admit that 90 percents of the time his tennis is not aesthetic regardless how much would I want it to be the opposite. Same should imply for the Nadal fans, I think. He's better in so many departments that it wouldn't really diminish his greatness to say that F > D > N.


If you mean to say that Fed's game is more beautiful or pleasing to the eye, I grant you that. But if you imply that it is somehow 'preferable', I beg to differ. I don't follow sports for beauty (there are other far more interesting things for that, like music, art, poetry..) but for excitement. And Rafa comes very close to fulfilling what I expect of a sporstman.
This is a nice addition. We're indeed not talking about 'preferable' here. Absolutely not the matter of dicussion.

peribsen
06-02-2011, 07:06 PM
Nice argument, but not particularly a propos to the question, which has to do with aesthetics and nothing to do with mental fortitude, fighting ability, thrills or even bloodcurling, nor does the question seek to find out which elements any of us prefers.

I think some here run the risk of mistaking aesthetics for beauty. They are not exactly synonyms, you know. One could argue that Picassos' Guernica or Demoiselles d'Avignon are actually ugly, yet they represent some of the best of XXth century aesthetics.

Have most European football teams got mad skills? Yes. Are there many that play as aesthetically pleasing a game as the Brazilians can when they are truly playing "the beautiful game"? No

Barça (at least sometimes) :devil:

peribsen
06-02-2011, 07:11 PM
It is subjective only to some tiny degree. It's not about what kind of tennis does one prefer, it isn't about what aspect in tennis pleases one's eye. It's about whether one can or cannot without bias say whose tennis is overally more aesthetical. I am a fan of Murray, and I admit that 90 percents of the time his tennis is not aesthetic regardless how much would I want it to be the opposite. Same should imply for the Nadal fans, I think. He's better in so many departments that it wouldn't really diminish his greatness to say that F > D > N.

If you substitute the word 'aesthetics' in your text for 'beauty', we would agree. But aesthetics includes beauty, yet goes beyond it.

bright
06-02-2011, 07:20 PM
If you substitute the word 'aesthetics' in your text for 'beauty', we would agree. But aesthetics includes beauty, yet goes beyond it.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/aesthetics?view=uk

Doesn't really go beyond beauty.;)

Beauty wouldn't be just the right word for such thread. Because beauty per se is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Creating this thread I wanted people to abstract from their personal preferences in tennis as much as it's possible.

peribsen
06-02-2011, 07:24 PM
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/aesthetics?view=uk

Doesn't really go beyond beauty.;)

Beauty wouldn't be just the right word for such thread. Because beauty per se is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Creating this thread I wanted people to abstract from their personal preferences in tennis as much as it's possible.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one ;)

Aesthetics is a whole branch of philosophy and is pretty difficult to pin down quite so easily.

JayR
06-02-2011, 08:27 PM
Like checking to see if the Pope is catholic.

LawrenceOfTennis
06-02-2011, 08:30 PM
Bad poll.
For me: Federer > Berdych > Lopez > Tsonga (at good form)
My favorite player is Del Potro and I find his game beautiful, but left him out of my list because everybody call him a ballbasher. So my choice is personal.

bright
06-02-2011, 08:56 PM
Like checking to see if the Pope is catholic.
:lol: Good one.

LoveFifteen
06-02-2011, 09:11 PM
nadal grunts like a pig

thats really how it sounds

it must be great for homosexuals watching nadal... i wonder what 99% of his fanbase are?

when i watch serena williams grunt... yeah... i imagine someone not hideous and thats.......good

This kind of nonsense is not acceptable. Can the mods please delete this post?

P.S. Dear Federer fans, I am sure knowing that your hero's tennis is more aesthetic than Nadal's and Djokovic's will offer some comfort for the fact that he'll probably never beat them in a Slam again.

Vida
06-02-2011, 09:24 PM
and why is nadals game not aesthetically pleasing? a unique player with huge set of skills :shrug:

alright he isnt the most versatile player there was, but the motion, the power, the spin... nothing like it really. a game build for clay.

barbadosan
06-02-2011, 10:03 PM
This kind of nonsense is not acceptable. Can the mods please delete this post?

P.S. Dear Federer fans, I am sure knowing that your hero's tennis is more aesthetic than Nadal's and Djokovic's will offer some comfort for the fact that he'll probably never beat them in a Slam again.

Actually loveFifteen, his 16 GS slam wins offer us far more comfort, as well as giving us immense satisfaction :)

Mountaindewslave
06-02-2011, 10:16 PM
nadal grunts like a pig

thats really how it sounds

it must be great for homosexuals watching nadal... i wonder what 99% of his fanbase are?

when i watch serena williams grunt... yeah... i imagine someone not hideous and thats.......good

i'm a huge fan of Nadal but i gotta say this post made me laugh, hahahaha

dombrfc
06-02-2011, 11:57 PM
Ban the 23 who didnt have Roger 1st. Utter clowns.

leng jai
06-03-2011, 12:48 AM
His backhand is georgeous. Just because he makes a lot of errors and it can be punished doesn't mean it's nice to watch :stupid:

Fedclown's backhand isn't gorgeous at all compared to a lot of other single handers.

Matt01
06-03-2011, 01:58 AM
Djokovic > Nadal > Federer

asmazif
06-03-2011, 02:22 AM
Ban the 23 who didnt have Roger 1st. Utter clowns.

It's called personal preference - how aesthetically pleasing someone's game is to a viewer is entirely subjective. So calm down.

Ibracadabra
06-03-2011, 02:39 AM
David nalbandian wins.

Forehander
06-03-2011, 09:26 AM
It is subjective only to some tiny degree. It's not about what kind of tennis does one prefer, it isn't about what aspect in tennis pleases one's eye. It's about whether one can or cannot without bias say whose tennis is overally more aesthetical. I am a fan of Murray, and I admit that 90 percents of the time his tennis is not aesthetic regardless how much would I want it to be the opposite. Same should imply for the Nadal fans, I think. He's better in so many departments that it wouldn't really diminish his greatness to say that F > D > N.

lol people, this is what you call fkn bullshit.

Arkulari
06-03-2011, 09:44 AM
This kind of nonsense is not acceptable. Can the mods please delete this post?

P.S. Dear Federer fans, I am sure knowing that your hero's tennis is more aesthetic than Nadal's and Djokovic's will offer some comfort for the fact that he'll probably never beat them in a Slam again.

So what, it's not as if the guy has anything to prove :shrug: I think that everyone must see this time as a bonus to see Roger playing, guy's paid his dues and other guys need to prove themselves.

To me it is Federer>Nadal>Djokovic because Roger is classical art, Sistine Chapel; Rafa is unortodox, Dali; Nole is too generic for my tastes but I acknowledge that his BH DTL is quite nice to watch ;)

leng jai
06-03-2011, 10:10 AM
I love how every thread turns into gloryhunter tards bickering over results.

barbadosan
06-03-2011, 10:22 AM
I'm genuinely curious, lengjai. In the case of the Fed fans, were you calling those of us who were following Roger 1998-2003 gloryhunter tards? If not, exactly what is it that, in your estimation, turns those same fans into this curious phenomenon post 2003?

Or are you just flinging that sobriquet out there because you can, because it's MTF cool?

leng jai
06-03-2011, 11:01 AM
I'm genuinely curious, lengjai. In the case of the Fed fans, were you calling those of us who were following Roger 1998-2003 gloryhunter tards? If not, exactly what is it that, in your estimation, turns those same fans into this curious phenomenon post 2003?

Or are you just flinging that sobriquet out there because you can, because it's MTF cool?

When did I say all Fedtards are glory hunters? 95% of them are and the people who genuinely followed him pre 2003 know who they are.

BigJohn
06-03-2011, 11:07 AM
:hatoff: to the enlightened bunch who voted for the Nadal > Djokovic > Federer or Djokovic > Nadal > Federer options, taking fangirlism, tardism and haterism to douchey new levels!

barbadosan
06-03-2011, 11:22 AM
When did I say all Fedtards are glory hunters? 95% of them are and the people who genuinely followed him pre 2003 know who they are.

But I suggest that even those who followed him after 2003 cannot just arbitrarily be classified as gloryhunters. In the last couple of years it's easier to follow young or relatively unknown players, but even up to mid 2000s, you could easily live in an area where little tennis coverage was available in the media, and only the people who became big names were routinely covered - and not even that sometimes.

I look at the complaints of people in the US even in 2011 about the sometimes very stingy coverage on the networks -- a person newish to tennis is prob only going to be aware of the big names. If you only consider those people as "real fans", who know every challenger, or who have been fortunate, sometimes purely through happenstance, to follow a big name from early days, then tennis is going to be plummeting in popularity by the thousands.

I respectfully suggest it may serve the game's spread and popularity more to embrace people who are at least willing to follow the game or some of the game's players, rather than the implication (I'm sure unintended), that a marginalised sport with far fewer fans - true followers - is preferable.

BlueSwan
06-03-2011, 11:39 AM
Obviously Roger is #1 in the aestethics department - not only over these two but in the history of the game and I think every single one of the legends would agree.

I prefer Nadal over Djokovic. I find the way Nadal muscles his opponents quite aestethically pleasing in much the same way that I found it pleasing to watch Muster punish his opponents. It's certainly not "pretty" or "artful" like Federers tennis, but something can be aestethic without being pretty. Like watching a Schwarzenegger action movie from 20 years ago.

Matt01
06-03-2011, 01:47 PM
:hatoff: to the enlightened bunch who voted for the Nadal > Djokovic > Federer or Djokovic > Nadal > Federer options, taking fangirlism, tardism and haterism to douchey new levels!


The only overly sensitive fanboy/fangirl here would be you since you apparently cannot endure that other people have a different personel preference than you have :lol:

bright
06-03-2011, 01:54 PM
The only overly sensitive fanboy/fangirl here would be you since you apparently cannot endure that other people have a different personel preference than you have :lol:

Take the helmet off (watch avie). It apparently denies oxygen to reach your brain, therefore we have you voting for that laughable option.:hug:

Matt01
06-03-2011, 02:04 PM
Take the helmet off (watch avie). It apparently denies oxygen to reach your brain, therefore we have you voting for that laughable option.:hug:


You're so witty and clever :awww:

Acer
06-03-2011, 02:35 PM
Nadal's game is PLAIN ugly. No room for comparison with the other two here.