[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by SliceAce

That the players didn't strike after the USO Mugray debacle shows what a serious problem there is in tennis

This is the best bit of trolling I have seen on here for yonks

[Prodigy.]

Originally Posted by SliceAce

First we have to dismiss the myth propagated by Mugraytards that all slams are legitimate. This is obviously untrue, as the essence of tennis history was the controversy over legitimate slams. After all, the Open Era began because the best players weren't playing the slams and a bunch of amateurs were winning. I'm pretty sure if Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic were forbidden from playing the AO and Mugray won, it wouldn't be very controvertial that it was an illegitimate slam.

OK so that's pre-open era. What about open era? The Australian Open has had multiple illegitimate winners because it wasn't important. I think everyone would agree that 1972 Wimbledon was illegitimate. Various other circumstances have been argued to cause illegitimacy throughout tennis history: weather, fixing, terrible officiating and player/organization conflicts, etc. What we can say is that the concept of an illegitimate slam is not only correct, it is an essential part of what tennis is today. That Mugraytards deny this is more than ignorance I'm afraid to say, it goes back to a fundamental distaste for the game of tennis and a fear that Mugray will be exposed as a fraudulent winner in a controversial USO arguably as bad as the FO and W of 1972. That the players didn't strike after the USO Mugray debacle shows what a serious problem there is in tennis and the danger Mugray represents.

I honestly can't believer you took time and effort to write this god awful post.

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by SliceAce

First we have to dismiss the myth propagated by Mugraytards that all slams are legitimate. This is obviously untrue, as the essence of tennis history was the controversy over legitimate slams. After all, the Open Era began because the best players weren't playing the slams and a bunch of amateurs were winning. I'm pretty sure if Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic were forbidden from playing the AO and Mugray won, it wouldn't be very controvertial that it was an illegitimate slam.

OK so that's pre-open era. What about open era? The Australian Open has had multiple illegitimate winners because it wasn't important. I think everyone would agree that 1972 Wimbledon was illegitimate. Various other circumstances have been argued to cause illegitimacy throughout tennis history: weather, fixing, terrible officiating and player/organization conflicts, etc. What we can say is that the concept of an illegitimate slam is not only correct, it is an essential part of what tennis is today. That Mugraytards deny this is more than ignorance I'm afraid to say, it goes back to a fundamental distaste for the game of tennis and a fear that Mugray will be exposed as a fraudulent winner in a controversial USO arguably as bad as the FO and W of 1972. That the players didn't strike after the USO Mugray debacle shows what a serious problem there is in tennis and the danger Mugray represents.

Whoever draws you in the 2013 ACC will have a very hard time to say the least, strong stuff here.

[FleetSeb]

Murray. Backed it up more effectively. Didn't face an injured opponent in the semi-final. Has clearly had a much stronger career overall.
But both are evidently legitimate. All slams are.

[arm]

How can one be more legitimate than the other? If you win it, you deserve it.

I voted for Murray though, just because he had half the votes.

[Vesta]

[Chase Visa]

They're both fucking legitimate

[Moozza]

Both. Clown thread. Delete.

[Lodger Federer]

If we're looking at the individual slam events, then Delpo. He simply beat more quality opposition. If we're looking at who deserved the slam based on their body of work, then Murray. It was literally his fifth grand slam final when he finally crossed the finish line. He's just been much more consistent at the top of the game. They're obviously both legitimate slam winners, though.

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by FleetSeb

Murray. Backed it up more effectively. Didn't face an injured opponent in the semi-final. Has clearly had a much stronger career overall.
But both are evidently legitimate. All slams are.

Are you kididng me ? Yeah, he was very lucky he avoided Berdych and got Nadal instead

And while Nadal wasn't 100%, make me a list of players in that draw who were arguably stronger opponents than this 'injured' Nadal. If not for Del Potro, odds are Nadal would have ended up winning the tournament anyway. Under no circumstances would anyone ever prefer Nadal over Berdych in a Slam semi.

[Topspindoctor]

This is like trying to decide who is more ridiculous a clown or a jester. Both titles were complete flukes for various reasons.

[heya]

People crying just because Djoker's the best of all time?
Del Potro choked badly every time he played Federer after 2009. Only one tough Slam win over Federer.

[Lestat]

Originally Posted by Topspindoctor

This is like trying to decide who is more ridiculous a clown or a jester. Both titles were complete flukes for various reasons.

lol you couldnt decide which one you dislike more, right

[NJ88]

Both won the US Open which in itself is a legitimate grand slam title...

If you're asking if either one was a fluke, then...again no. Del Potro beat two of the top four on his way to the title and Murray has proved his isn't a fluke by being in various slam finals, and winning the Olympics. He's obviously not a fluke champion. The title of the threat makes little sense.

[End da Game]

only one of them won USO under playable conditions, and you all don't need reminding who I'm talking about