PDA

View Full Version : Federer- Michealangelo of Tennis


abudhabi tennis
05-10-2009, 08:54 AM
Nadal undoubtely is the undisputed current Number 1 in Tennis. Great mental and physical strenght and grossly underestimated tactician.
However whenever Federer is playing i either rush home to watch him or record it on Al Jazeera Sports 2 ( best tennis channel).

So i reason to myself - Why does my mind desire to watch Federer and not Nadal.
I can sum it up simply as: Watching Federer play is like imagining Michaelangelo paint the cistene Chapel. He uses the racquet like a brush,paints a game with his Wilson K-90 and is a Tennis Genius.

Nadal reminds me of a Soviet era sculpture, sculpting with grit, brute strength, and overpowering his oponents without any finesse.

I guess in the end thats why most of us watch Federer an not Nadal!!

gj011
05-10-2009, 08:55 AM
Not again. This is getting ridiculous.

miyagi
05-10-2009, 09:17 AM
It seems that because Fed is no longer #1 and is no longer winning the most matches his fans are trying to claim he is some sort of artist and he is STILL greater than Nadal.

It's getting childish....Nadal is #1 get over it!

I would guess there are just as many Nadal fans as Federer fans AND if he can call dumped backhands into the net and shanked forehands as art then I am happy for you!!

Federer hasnt played great for a while!

MajinX
05-10-2009, 09:33 AM
It seems that because Fed is no longer #1 and is no longer winning the most matches his fans are trying to claim he is some sort of artist and he is STILL greater than Nadal.

It's getting childish....Nadal is #1 get over it!

I would guess there are just as many Nadal fans as Federer fans AND if he can call dumped backhands into the net and shanked forehands as art then I am happy for you!!

Federer hasnt played great for a while!

no where did it say federer is STILL greater than nadal... please read. And if u know tennis federer was always considered an artist.

Antonio Puente
05-10-2009, 09:47 AM
Well, Michelangelo did like to paint chubby women, so there's that.

amx13
05-10-2009, 10:22 AM
I get your point, but be careful... saying anything less than "Nadal is a tennis God" will get you flamed nowadays

TheNatural
05-10-2009, 10:25 AM
http://nothingrelevant.net/images/failing.jpg

Nadal undoubtely is the undisputed current Number 1 in Tennis. Great mental and physical strenght and grossly underestimated tactician.
However whenever Federer is playing i either rush home to watch him or record it on Al Jazeera Sports 2 ( best tennis channel).

So i reason to myself - Why does my mind desire to watch Federer and not Nadal.
I can sum it up simply as: Watching Federer play is like imagining Michaelangelo paint the cistene Chapel. He uses the racquet like a brush,paints a game with his Wilson K-90 and is a Tennis Genius.

Nadal reminds me of a Soviet era sculpture, sculpting with grit, brute strength, and overpowering his oponents without any finesse.

I guess in the end thats why most of us watch Federer an not Nadal!!

P_Agony
05-10-2009, 10:26 AM
It seems that because Fed is no longer #1 and is no longer winning the most matches his fans are trying to claim he is some sort of artist and he is STILL greater than Nadal.

It's getting childish....Nadal is #1 get over it!

I would guess there are just as many Nadal fans as Federer fans AND if he can call dumped backhands into the net and shanked forehands as art then I am happy for you!!

Federer hasnt played great for a while!

Hmmm...relax, take a deep breath, everything's OK :)

The OP said Nadal is the #1 and rightfully so. He just said he enjoys watching Fed because he plays like an artist. I disagree with him about more people being Federer fans than Nadal fans. I think both have many fans, and Nadal is gaining popularity by the minute, so he might even be more popular.

fps
05-10-2009, 10:27 AM
TheNatural- you think Nadal's game has finesse? how would you define finesse?

tennis-hero
05-10-2009, 10:49 AM
Even the biggest Nadal troll knows in their heart that Federer has twice the talent

Nadal is a good match up against Fed

good for him

Nalbandian is a great match up against Nadal

prime James blake was aswell

Tsonga

anyone with power can blow Nadal off the courts

Nadal is a counter puncher with a huge side of "pushing"

you force the issue against him and he cracks

against Tsonga he cracked and dumped a easy volley in the net as i recall

hit out wide against Nadal and 99% of the time it comes back cross court, he's easy to read, we just need someone with self belief to show how easy it is to beat nadal

clay only suits nadal because clay is slow enough to reward pushers

GameSampras
05-10-2009, 10:54 AM
MichaelAngelo? More like The One flew over the Cukoos Nest, R.P Mcmurphy of tennis he is such a mental weakling

Chadwixx
05-10-2009, 11:02 AM
Fed is more of a chameleon. When he beat pete at wimbledon he served and vollied. When he plays nadal he trys to out topspin him, etc. It seems he trys to beat you at your own game. Probably why he doesnt have a coach, he just watches you play and trys todo it better.

All-rounder
05-10-2009, 11:04 AM
Fed is more of a chameleon. When he beat pete at wimbledon he served and vollied. When he plays nadal he trys to out topspin him, etc. It seems he trys to beat you at your own game. Probably why he doesnt have a coach, he just watches you play and trys todo it better.
So that explains why he can't beat murray he's a tactician type player his game changes every time you play him

BobFL
05-10-2009, 11:30 AM
Nadal undoubtely is the undisputed current Number 1 in Tennis. Great mental and physical strenght and grossly underestimated tactician.
However whenever Federer is playing i either rush home to watch him or record it on Al Jazeera Sports 2 ( best tennis channel).

So i reason to myself - Why does my mind desire to watch Federer and not Nadal.
I can sum it up simply as: Watching Federer play is like imagining Michaelangelo paint the cistene Chapel. He uses the racquet like a brush,paints a game with his Wilson K-90 and is a Tennis Genius.

Nadal reminds me of a Soviet era sculpture, sculpting with grit, brute strength, and overpowering his oponents without any finesse.

I guess in the end thats why most of us watch Federer an not Nadal!!

Sistine!!!! I cannot believe.....

CyBorg
05-10-2009, 11:31 AM
If Federer is Michelangelo, Nadal's Guarino Guarini.

Roger's game is beautiful in a classical sense - proportional. Nadal's has some ugly bits, but also some uncanny beauty and constant movement. More asymmetries with that big swinging forehand and robust lower body strides.

And mentally too. Roger wins one way, strives for excellence with a fairly straight forward "Cartersian" game plan. Nadal's game plan however constantly changes (in perpetual metamorphosis), in adjustment to the general goings on.

I was going to say Gaudi, who would have been a countryman - but that would have been too much. :)

veroniquem
05-10-2009, 11:37 AM
Nadal undoubtely is the undisputed current Number 1 in Tennis. Great mental and physical strenght and grossly underestimated tactician.
However whenever Federer is playing i either rush home to watch him or record it on Al Jazeera Sports 2 ( best tennis channel).

So i reason to myself - Why does my mind desire to watch Federer and not Nadal.
I can sum it up simply as: Watching Federer play is like imagining Michaelangelo paint the cistene Chapel. He uses the racquet like a brush,paints a game with his Wilson K-90 and is a Tennis Genius.

Nadal reminds me of a Soviet era sculpture, sculpting with grit, brute strength, and overpowering his oponents without any finesse.

I guess in the end thats why most of us watch Federer an not Nadal!!
Yourself = "most of us"?
Great, then I'll decide myself= "all of us".
"All of us" rush home to see Nadal play because he is the Picasso AND the Mozart of tennis: innovative, inspired and daring. He has the mind, the power and the touch.
"all of us" do not discriminate and like watching others too. "All of us" are not prejudiced!

Underhand
05-10-2009, 11:43 AM
Michelangelo? Nowadays Edvard Munch rather, no?

http://seecoop.googlepages.com/dovermunch.jpg/dovermunch-large.jpg

rafan
05-10-2009, 11:49 AM
Like all great artists, Rafa's art is unique and cannot be copied. Many try but sadly fail.

mandy01
05-10-2009, 11:51 AM
Yourself = "most of us"?
Great, then I'll decide myself= "all of us".
"All of us" rush home to see Nadal play because he is the Picasso AND the Mozart of tennis: innovative, inspired and daring. He has the mind, the power and the touch.
"all of us" do not discriminate and like watching others too. "All of us" are not prejudiced!
You werent so aggressive when the "Nadal is God " thread was started :roll:
Nevertheless....
Federer's game is without a doubt the most beautiful game I've ever seen and I can get enough of his tennis.But,the 'most of us' dosent apply.The OP went overboard and exaggerated too much.
I agree with whatever description you apply-Da Vinci,Michealangelo,Picaso ,Clouet etc etc.But not everyone will..so the 'most of us' got too much.You can say-all Federer admirers,fans,*****,whatever.:lol:

TheNatural
05-10-2009, 12:03 PM
Obviously.

I define it the same as most dictionary's define it. Here's a few dictionary definitions:

'
# Refinement and delicacy of performance, execution, or artisanship.
# Skillful, subtle handling of a situation; tactful, diplomatic maneuvering.'



TheNatural- you think Nadal's game has finesse? how would you define finesse?

slicefox
05-10-2009, 12:11 PM
It's amazing to see how many weak minded kids are on these boards.

They quickly jump on the "winning" bandwagon so quick, its as if the bandwagon is the last helicopter out of Vietnam.

Federer ain't winning anymore? He sucks.
Nadal wins? He's the best.

All-rounder
05-10-2009, 12:17 PM
It's amazing to see how many weak minded kids are on these boards.

They quickly jump on the "winning" bandwagon so quick, its as if the bandwagon is the last helicopter out of Vietnam.

Federer ain't winning anymore? He sucks.
Nadal wins? He's the best.
Its just fan rage when your fav player starts losing on a regular bases they hop onto the player that has been winning

fps
05-10-2009, 12:20 PM
Obviously.

I define it the same as most dictionary's define it. Here's a few dictionary definitions:

'
# Refinement and delicacy of performance, execution, or artisanship.
# Skillful, subtle handling of a situation; tactful, diplomatic maneuvering.'

i disagree with you, since i don't see a lot of refinement or delicacy from nadal, nor subtlety. he can hit killer shots, a blind man could see it, but a lot of the time i think he hammers his opponents into submission.

S H O W S T O P P E R !
05-10-2009, 12:24 PM
I guess in the end thats why most of us watch Federer an not Nadal!!

I hate watching Federer. He used to be fun to watch but he can no longer support his massive ego with his game and isn't fun to watch him anymore. People keep saying that he can win Wimbledon or the USO but if he can't win a 3-setter at a Master's, what makes them expect that he can win a slam where he would have to play matches that go to 3 sets minimum? In fact I can only see him winning the Gary Weber Open (250 on grass) and the Basel 500 Tournament.

fps
05-10-2009, 12:27 PM
I hate watching Federer. He used to be fun to watch but he can no longer support his massive ego with his game and isn't fun to watch him anymore. People keep saying that he can win Wimbledon or the USO but if he can't win a 3-setter at a Master's, what makes them expect that he can win a slam where he would have to play matches that go to 3 sets minimum? In fact I can only see him winning the Gary Weber Open (250 on grass) and the Basel 500 Tournament.

i'm not sure. i think people see him maybe winning them because he's reached the last 6 finals at Wimbledon and won 5 of them, losing 9-7 in the fifth of the other one, and is the defending champion at the US Open, where he is on a 5 year winning streak. but maybe i'm reading the posts wrong.

aphex
05-10-2009, 12:36 PM
i'm not sure. i think people see him maybe winning Wimbledon because he's reached the last 6 finals and won 5 of them, losing 9-7 in the fifth of the other one, and is the defending champion at the US Open, where he is on a 5 year winning streak. but maybe i'm reading the posts wrong.

lol
pwned.

Antonio Puente
05-10-2009, 12:56 PM
It's amazing to see how many weak minded kids are on these boards.

They quickly jump on the "winning" bandwagon so quick, its as if the bandwagon is the last helicopter out of Vietnam.

Federer ain't winning anymore? He sucks.
Nadal wins? He's the best.

Remember, it's not simply about Rafa winning and Fed losing in the general manner you suggest. Rafa also spanks Roger head-to-head and makes him cry. Fed fans try to discuss every possible thing under the sun so as to not have to face this simple and glaring reality.

tennis-hero
05-10-2009, 12:57 PM
Remember, it's not simply about Blake winning and Nadal losing in the general manner you suggest. Blake also spanks Rafa head-to-head and makes him cry. Nadal ***** try to discuss every possible thing under the sun so as to not have to face this simple and glaring reality.

fixed for ya

S H O W S T O P P E R !
05-10-2009, 02:48 PM
i'm not sure. i think people see him maybe winning them because he's reached the last 6 finals at Wimbledon and won 5 of them, losing 9-7 in the fifth of the other one, and is the defending champion at the US Open, where he is on a 5 year winning streak. but maybe i'm reading the posts wrong.

Have you seen Federer play lately? He can't even win a Masters. The only thing backing him up is history, but history can't win him a slam.

fps
05-10-2009, 03:04 PM
Have you seen Federer play lately? He can't even win a Masters. The only thing backing him up is history, but history can't win him a slam.

he hasn't won a masters since 2007 but how far back is *history* and how far back is relevant? because 3 months ago he was in the AO final losing in the 5th set with a sore back. and 6 months ago he won the US Open. he's playing badly. and yet in the slams he's still there or thereabouts.

Pirao
05-10-2009, 03:12 PM
Lol, since they can't attack Nadal's performances no longer, they attack his style. This is truly a sign the haters are getting desperate :lol:. Style doesn't mean a thing, if he keeps winning and gets to 10+ slams, he'll be up there with Federer, Sampras and company, and nobody will give a damn what his style was.

PS: Oh, and I enjoy Nadal's style.

Bud
05-10-2009, 03:14 PM
Nadal undoubtely is the undisputed current Number 1 in Tennis. Great mental and physical strenght and grossly underestimated tactician.
However whenever Federer is playing i either rush home to watch him or record it on Al Jazeera Sports 2 ( best tennis channel).

So i reason to myself - Why does my mind desire to watch Federer and not Nadal.
I can sum it up simply as: Watching Federer play is like imagining Michaelangelo paint the cistene Chapel. He uses the racquet like a brush,paints a game with his Wilson K-90 and is a Tennis Genius.

Nadal reminds me of a Soviet era sculpture, sculpting with grit, brute strength, and overpowering his oponents without any finesse.

I guess in the end thats why most of us watch Federer an not Nadal!!

Not again. This is getting ridiculous.

It seems that because Fed is no longer #1 and is no longer winning the most matches his fans are trying to claim he is some sort of artist and he is STILL greater than Nadal.

It's getting childish....Nadal is #1 get over it!

I would guess there are just as many Nadal fans as Federer fans AND if he can call dumped backhands into the net and shanked forehands as art then I am happy for you!!

Federer hasnt played great for a while!

Agreed. Fed fans are beginning to reek with desperation.

fps
05-10-2009, 03:33 PM
Agreed. Fed fans are beginning to reek with desperation.

the OP acknowledged Nadal's no.1 spot and then opened a discussion about whether he had a more aesthetically pleasing game, expressing the opinion that he did. what's desperate about that?

slicefox
05-10-2009, 04:20 PM
Remember, it's not simply about Rafa winning and Fed losing in the general manner you suggest. Rafa also spanks Roger head-to-head and makes him cry. Fed fans try to discuss every possible thing under the sun so as to not have to face this simple and glaring reality.

I don't care if Federer loses to nadal, doesn't mean he is an inferior player.

take them all back to oldschool grass and wooden rackets and your pretty boy nadal will get spanked by almost every player on the tour. His game is just a clay-polyester game, which DOES NOT IMPRESS ME!!!!!

Let's make that clear.

slicefox
05-10-2009, 04:22 PM
Also i want to see your GOAT hero try to hit a one handed backhand like a man. Double armed backhands is for the WTA.

Obviously it takes a lot more talent and coordination to play with one hand, talent which he does not have.

NamRanger
05-10-2009, 04:37 PM
Yes, Nadal fans are allowed to make the thread "Nadal is God" but Federer fans can't even compare him to an artist. Awesome hypocrisy. Hell, I'm not even a fan of Federer.

S H O W S T O P P E R !
05-10-2009, 04:46 PM
I don't care if Federer loses to nadal, doesn't mean he is an inferior player.

take them all back to oldschool grass and wooden rackets and your pretty boy nadal will get spanked by almost every player on the tour. His game is just a clay-polyester game, which DOES NOT IMPRESS ME!!!!!

Let's make that clear.

And?

Nadal's style is based for this generation's style of play: baselining. Stop trying to glorify Federer or mock Nadal by comparing them in a different era. That is why we don't have a definitive GOAT: you can't compare the eras.

Bud
05-10-2009, 04:51 PM
the OP acknowledged Nadal's no.1 spot and then opened a discussion about whether he had a more aesthetically pleasing game, expressing the opinion that he did. what's desperate about that?

There are many people (including me) who are bored to tears watching Federer play tennis.

Nadal's playing style is much more exciting and interesting, IMO.

TheNatural
05-10-2009, 04:55 PM
yes it does. :)

http://marketingly.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/nadal-federer-final-comic.jpg


I don't care if Federer loses to nadal, doesn't mean he is an inferior player.

take them all back to oldschool grass and wooden rackets and your pretty boy nadal will get spanked by almost every player on the tour. His game is just a clay-polyester game, which DOES NOT IMPRESS ME!!!!!

Let's make that clear.

veroniquem
05-10-2009, 04:59 PM
Agreed. Fed fans are beginning to reek with desperation.
Wooden racquets and one-handed backhands: I don't think it's worth answering anymore. They're going on in a loop, they're as good as senile and oh yes- I forgot- tennis is not about winning anymore, it's about waving antiquated racquets gracefully :lol:

RFtennis
05-10-2009, 05:00 PM
100% true

veroniquem
05-10-2009, 05:01 PM
There are many people (including me) who are bored to tears watching Federer play tennis.

Nadal's playing style is much more exciting and interesting, IMO.
Nadal is a lot of fun to watch but reading some of the posts, I doubt they even know what fun is...

veroniquem
05-10-2009, 05:04 PM
he hasn't won a masters since 2007 but how far back is *history* and how far back is relevant? because 3 months ago he was in the AO final losing in the 5th set with a sore back. and 6 months ago he won the US Open. he's playing badly. and yet in the slams he's still there or thereabouts.
Wow now Federer lost the AO because of a sore back? We're going up a notch in the excuse department, aren't we?

Antonio Puente
05-10-2009, 05:08 PM
I don't care if Federer loses to nadal, doesn't mean he is an inferior player.


That has to be signature material for someone.

fps
05-10-2009, 05:12 PM
Wow now Federer lost the AO because of a sore back? We're going up a notch in the excuse department, aren't we?

why would i waste my time making excuses for a man i've never met? i was trying to make the point that he was very close to winning that match, even, it appears, with a niggle.

gj011
05-10-2009, 05:17 PM
Federer is Britney Spears of tennis. Cheesy, pretentious, drama, tears, adolescent delusional fans, once big star and popular, but never real and true, sinking fast.

Antonio Puente
05-10-2009, 05:22 PM
Wooden racquets and one-handed backhands: I don't think it's worth answering anymore. They're going on in a loop, they're as good as senile and oh yes- I forgot- tennis is not about winning anymore, it's about waving antiquated racquets gracefully :lol:

Here's what I don't understand - if Rafa is about nothing more than racquet technology, if it's the racquet, not Rafa, why doesn't Fed get smart and simply pick up one of those magical racquets and take his #1 ranking back? That should be easy enough... especially for the Michelangelo of tennis.

Melissa
05-10-2009, 05:24 PM
Also i want to see your GOAT hero try to hit a one handed backhand like a man. Double armed backhands is for the WTA.

Obviously it takes a lot more talent and coordination to play with one hand, talent which he does not have.

Ummm. What it takes is an understanding of the type of game an ATP wannabe player must develop and refine in order to be successful. Roger chose to use a one hand backhand and was quite successful with it. At least until Nadal, Djokovich and Murray showed up with their killer thbhs. To infer that these players do not have the talent and coordination to master a one hander is preposterous. It would be the same as a Rafan saying Federer does not have the talent and coordination to have learned to play left handed as a youth.
Sour grapes are one thing. But your comment is beyond warranting a response. But I did so just to call out your idiocy.

sh@de
05-10-2009, 05:31 PM
I find it so funny that you have the 'Nadal is God' thread, notice the word GOD, and then when somebody calls Federer an artist.... voila! Here come the *******s trying to bash Fed. FFS get over with your childish immaturities already. If you don't like Fed, go away and stop trolling and imposing your opinions on other people. As much as I like Nadal, I can't stand people constantly pushing him up to the heavens as if worshipping him and trying to at the same time stamp Fed down to the floor. They're both great players, ok? Now stoppit with the bashing.

fps
05-10-2009, 05:34 PM
I find it so funny that you have the 'Nadal is God' thread, notice the word GOD, and then when somebody calls Federer an artist.... voila! Here come the *******s trying to bash Fed. FFS get over with your childish immaturities already. If you don't like Fed, go away and stop trolling and imposing your opinions on other people. As much as I like Nadal, I can't stand people constantly pushing him up to the heavens as if worshipping him and trying to at the same time stamp Fed down to the floor. They're both great players, ok? Now stoppit with the bashing.

they are indeed both great players, players for the ages. great point about how being a fan of one seems to make some fans want to tear down the other. it's pathetic.

veroniquem
05-10-2009, 05:35 PM
Here's what I don't understand - if Rafa is about nothing more than racquet technology, if it's the racquet, not Rafa, why doesn't Fed get smart and simply pick up one of those magical racquets and take his #1 ranking back? That should be easy enough... especially for the Michelangelo of tennis.
Now the answer to that is easy, it's because it's NOT about the racquet, it's never been and never will be. There are lots of men out there eager to rack up the millions, the trophies and the fame. If a racquet could get the job done, believe me they wouldn't sit on their *** waiting. They would get out there, pick up the miraculous racquet and walk all over Nadal. They're not doing it because it doesn't work. It's all about ability, new or old technology, it's all about the man at the end of the stick, has always been and will always be.

veroniquem
05-10-2009, 05:39 PM
I find it so funny that you have the 'Nadal is God' thread, notice the word GOD, and then when somebody calls Federer an artist.... voila! Here come the *******s trying to bash Fed. FFS get over with your childish immaturities already. If you don't like Fed, go away and stop trolling and imposing your opinions on other people. As much as I like Nadal, I can't stand people constantly pushing him up to the heavens as if worshipping him and trying to at the same time stamp Fed down to the floor. They're both great players, ok? Now stoppit with the bashing.
This thread was never just about calling Fed an artist, it was about calling Nadal "a soviet era sculpture without finesse". That's not a provocation? That's not bashing? Please reread the OP and stop acting "all innocent" in the debate. Nadal fans made a thread in praise of Nadal that wasn't insulting to Fed in any way. A Fed fan made a thread that was as much about bashing Nadal as it was about applauding Fed (as usual).

Mick
05-10-2009, 05:40 PM
the difference between michelangelo and federer is one of them got better in his craft as he aged. The other one doesn't

TheNatural
05-10-2009, 06:14 PM
If Federer wants to be the Michelangelo of tennis, he needs to broaden his horizons and learn to play at net like the real masters of the 1 hander.

sh@de
05-10-2009, 06:22 PM
This thread was never just about calling Fed an artist, it was about calling Nadal "a soviet era sculpture without finesse". That's not a provocation? That's not bashing? Please reread the OP and stop acting "all innocent" in the debate. Nadal fans made a thread in praise of Nadal that wasn't insulting to Fed in any way. A Fed fan made a thread that was as much about bashing Nadal as it was about applauding Fed (as usual).

Nadal undoubtely is the undisputed current Number 1 in Tennis. Great mental and physical strenght and grossly underestimated tactician.
However whenever Federer is playing i either rush home to watch him or record it on Al Jazeera Sports 2 ( best tennis channel).

So i reason to myself - Why does my mind desire to watch Federer and not Nadal.
I can sum it up simply as: Watching Federer play is like imagining Michaelangelo paint the cistene Chapel. He uses the racquet like a brush,paints a game with his Wilson K-90 and is a Tennis Genius.

Nadal reminds me of a Soviet era sculpture, sculpting with grit, brute strength, and overpowering his oponents without any finesse.

I guess in the end thats why most of us watch Federer an not Nadal!!

Why don't you re-read OP's post? I've bolded the word ME for you in OP's post. In case you haven't noticed, this was OP's opinion. And this was about Fed. Why don't you stop trolling Fed threads and go back to the Nadal is God one instead? It's getting old. Fed fans have their opinions, they start their threads, and guess what? People like YOU, Nadal fans (and some who are worse, *******s), just HAVE to butt in. Why not just leave the *******s alone? I'm pretty sure you can't change their opinions, why bother? And all that happens is, you have one big *** jumble of worthless arguments, which may I remind you, goes round in circles again and again. The thread's original purpose is then destroyed. To be honest, the same goes for a lot of Nadal threads. Stupid *******s butt in and destroy the discussion. Seriously, the two players are good, but just because you support one doesn't mean you need to go into all threads proclaiming your player to be the best ever or what not. It's really getting very old, and I haven't even been on this board for a long time.

Serve_Ace
05-10-2009, 06:25 PM
i love federer

BreakPoint
05-10-2009, 06:40 PM
Nadal undoubtely is the undisputed current Number 1 in Tennis. Great mental and physical strenght and grossly underestimated tactician.
However whenever Federer is playing i either rush home to watch him or record it on Al Jazeera Sports 2 ( best tennis channel).

So i reason to myself - Why does my mind desire to watch Federer and not Nadal.
I can sum it up simply as: Watching Federer play is like imagining Michaelangelo paint the cistene Chapel. He uses the racquet like a brush,paints a game with his Wilson K-90 and is a Tennis Genius.

Nadal reminds me of a Soviet era sculpture, sculpting with grit, brute strength, and overpowering his oponents without any finesse.

I guess in the end thats why most of us watch Federer an not Nadal!!
Quoted for Truth!!

Beauty beats ugly any day of the week. :)

Richie Rich
05-10-2009, 06:42 PM
Quoted for Truth!!

Beauty beats ugly any day of the week. :)

except where it really matters - in the rankings

BreakPoint
05-10-2009, 06:44 PM
It seems that because Fed is no longer #1 and is no longer winning the most matches his fans are trying to claim he is some sort of artist and he is STILL greater than Nadal.
FYI, people have been calling Federer an artist before he even ever won his first Grand Slam.

I would guess there are just as many Nadal fans as Federer fans AND if he can call dumped backhands into the net and shanked forehands as art then I am happy for you!!

You guessed wrong. Evey public poll has shown that Federer has many more fans worldwide than Nadal does. It's not even close. Even fellow pros will go out of their way to watch Federer play. Not true with Nadal.

BreakPoint
05-10-2009, 06:45 PM
except where it really matters - in the rankings
I don't care about the rankings. Why do you? How does it affect your day to day life?

Even if Federer fell out of the Top 100, I'd still rather watch Federer play than Nadal.

veroniquem
05-10-2009, 06:48 PM
Why don't you re-read OP's post? I've bolded the word ME for you in OP's post. In case you haven't noticed, this was OP's opinion. And this was about Fed. Why don't you stop trolling Fed threads and go back to the Nadal is God one instead? It's getting old. Fed fans have their opinions, they start their threads, and guess what? People like YOU, Nadal fans (and some who are worse, *******s), just HAVE to butt in. Why not just leave the *******s alone? I'm pretty sure you can't change their opinions, why bother? And all that happens is, you have one big *** jumble of worthless arguments, which may I remind you, goes round in circles again and again. The thread's original purpose is then destroyed. To be honest, the same goes for a lot of Nadal threads. Stupid *******s butt in and destroy the discussion. Seriously, the two players are good, but just because you support one doesn't mean you need to go into all threads proclaiming your player to be the best ever or what not. It's really getting very old, and I haven't even been on this board for a long time.
OP's opinion was actually an INSULT (an ugly sculpture, brute, without finesse) on top of being a crazy one. OP wants to insult a player, fine but don't complain if people react strongly.

Richie Rich
05-10-2009, 06:54 PM
I don't care about the rankings. Why do you? How does it affect your day to day life?

Even if Federer fell out of the Top 100, I'd still rather watch Federer play than Nadal.

well, i agree with you. but fact is nadal is number 1. for all who prefer watching fed, there are an equal number that prefer watching nadal. what does anyone's opinion got to do with anything? it's just an opinion

BreakPoint
05-10-2009, 07:12 PM
well, i agree with you. but fact is nadal is number 1. for all who prefer watching fed, there are an equal number that prefer watching nadal. what does anyone's opinion got to do with anything? it's just an opinion
But the thing is, that's not true. Every worldwide fan poll shows that many more people prefer to watch Federer than to watch Nadal.

Sentinel
05-10-2009, 07:26 PM
the difference between michelangelo and federer is one of them got better in his craft as he aged. The other one doesn't
lol !

As much as i love Fed, and agree with the first part of the OP, watching him dump balls into the net, or shank every other backhand has become extremely painful.

And the backhand is hardly a work of art.

Sentinel
05-10-2009, 07:35 PM
Judging by Federer's current "style" and stats, I'd say he's progressed from Michelangelo to the ... Picasso style.

BreakPoint
05-10-2009, 08:18 PM
Nadal is a lot of fun to watch but reading some of the posts, I doubt they even know what fun is...
You must either own a pair of noise canceling headphones or watch with the mute on on your TV.

BreakPoint
05-10-2009, 08:21 PM
Wow now Federer lost the AO because of a sore back? We're going up a notch in the excuse department, aren't we?
Why do you think he served so horribly throughout the entire match? Duh...

Have you ever tried to serve at 100% of normal when you had a bad back? Or do you even play tennis?

BreakPoint
05-10-2009, 08:25 PM
Here's what I don't understand - if Rafa is about nothing more than racquet technology, if it's the racquet, not Rafa, why doesn't Fed get smart and simply pick up one of those magical racquets and take his #1 ranking back? That should be easy enough... especially for the Michelangelo of tennis.
Would Michelangelo use a can of spray paint to paint the Sistine Chapel? It would have made his life easier wouldn't it have?

BreakPoint
05-10-2009, 08:29 PM
they are indeed both great players, players for the ages. great point about how being a fan of one seems to make some fans want to tear down the other. it's pathetic.
I, for one, don't think they are both great players, at least not on the same level of talent.

One is a great player (i.e., complete, amazing talent, etc.). The other is a great competitor.

BreakPoint
05-10-2009, 08:34 PM
Now the answer to that is easy, it's because it's NOT about the racquet, it's never been and never will be. There are lots of men out there eager to rack up the millions, the trophies and the fame. If a racquet could get the job done, believe me they wouldn't sit on their *** waiting. They would get out there, pick up the miraculous racquet and walk all over Nadal. They're not doing it because it doesn't work. It's all about ability, new or old technology, it's all about the man at the end of the stick, has always been and will always be.
Then Nadal should have no problems with switching to a wood racquet, right? He wouldn't miss a beat and still be #1, right? He'd still beat everyone including Federer, Djokovic, and Murray even with a wood racquet, right?

Sorry, but Nadal's ability cannot overcome the handicap of using a wood racquet. Would you bet your life savings on Nadal beating Federer, Djokovic or Murray with a wood racquet while the others used their current racquets? I didn't think so. So the technology does indeed matter, doesn't it?

Bud
05-10-2009, 08:40 PM
Why do you think he served so horribly throughout the entire match? Duh...

Have you ever tried to serve at 100% of normal when you had a bad back? Or do you even play tennis?

My guess is had he won... none would be the wiser concerning Fed's 'bad' back. It seems most players have some 'bad' or injured part... when they lose.

BreakPoint
05-10-2009, 08:43 PM
My guess is had he won... none would be the wiser concerning Fed's 'bad' back.
You're right. He would have won despite his bad back.

Just like no one mentions Nadal's bad knees because he won. Had he lost, I'm sure all the *********s would be blaming the loss on his bad knees or his 5 hour marathon semi against Verdasco. But because he won, it's not talked about.

Bud
05-10-2009, 08:47 PM
Would Michelangelo use a can of spray paint to paint the Sistine Chapel? It would have made his life easier wouldn't it have?

Then Nadal should have no problems with switching to a wood racquet, right? He wouldn't miss a beat and still be #1, right? He'd still beat everyone including Federer, Djokovic, and Murray even with a wood racquet, right?

Sorry, but Nadal's ability cannot overcome the handicap of using a wood racquet. Would you bet your life savings on Nadal beating Federer, Djokovic or Murray with a wood racquet while the others used their current racquets? I didn't think so. So the technology does indeed matter, doesn't it?

According to both racquet's power map... the K90 is MORE powerful than the Babolat APDC... you call a rocket launcher :oops:

In the middle of the stringbed:
K90 41.1%
APDC 40.1%

So... if the APDC is a rocket launcher... the K90 is a turbocharged rocket launcher :lol:

Also, doesn't Federer use Luxilon poly?

BreakPoint
05-10-2009, 08:55 PM
According to both racquet's power map... the K90 is MORE powerful than the Babolat APDC... you call a rocket launcher :oops:

In the middle of the stringbed:
K90 41.1%
APDC 40.1%

So... if the APDC is a rocket launcher... the K90 is a turbocharged rocket launcher :lol:

Also, doesn't Federer use Luxilon poly?
No one can deny that the K90 plays much closer to a wood racquet than the APD does. Just the weight, headsize, beam width, and feel alone would make that so. So if both Federer and Nadal switched to wood racquets, Federer would only need to make minor adjustments, whereas, it would be a humongous adjustment for nadal and Nadal would have to effectively change his game and his strokes and technique.

Federer uses natural gut in the mains which as you know plays a lot closer to full gut than the full poly that Nadal uses.

Bud
05-10-2009, 09:23 PM
No one can deny that the K90 plays much closer to a wood racquet than the APD does. Just the weight, headsize, beam width, and feel alone would make that so. So if both Federer and Nadal switched to wood racquets, Federer would only need to make minor adjustments, whereas, it would be a humongous adjustment for nadal and Nadal would have to effectively change his game and his strokes and technique.

Federer uses natural gut in the mains which as you know plays a lot closer to full gut than the full poly that Nadal uses.

Regardless of how it plays (i.e. feels like wood)... it's still more powerful than the APDC (i.e. rocket launcher). Therefore, Federer has benefited more in the racquet department, from all this modern technology, than Nadal :shock:

He's also benefited in the string department, from modern technology, since he uses poly in his stringbed :oops:

Cup8489
05-10-2009, 09:31 PM
Federer is Britney Spears of tennis. Cheesy, pretentious, drama, tears, adolescent delusional fans, once big star and popular, but never real and true, sinking fast.

so what does that make djokovic? headcase, crybaby, always sick.

hmm. yeah, so djokovic has been winning against federer at the masters events.

when federer actually loses at a grand slam to djokovic, then i'll be willing to talk.

for me, i think federer doesn't care that much about masters events. he continues to peak at the slams, and still only nadal can beat him there, so i don't know why people make a big deal about him losing in a 2/3 match, which is where upsets are more likely for him anyway *since he seems to go on mental walkabouts all the time and doesn't get back until he loses the match*

Regardless of how it plays (i.e. feels like wood)... it's still more powerful than the APDC (i.e. rocket launcher). Therefore, Federer has benefited more in the racquet department, from all this modern technology, than Nadal :shock:

He's also benefited in the string department, from modern technology, since he uses poly in his stringbed :oops:

maybe you should play with those rackets before making a claim, since you obviously haven't, saying the k90 is more powerful stock than the apdc.

total insanity right there, you don't have a clue, do you?

Federer_pilon
05-10-2009, 09:33 PM
So if both Federer and Nadal switched to wood racquets, Federer would only need to make minor adjustments, whereas, it would be a humongous adjustment for nadal and Nadal would have to effectively change his game and his strokes and technique.


...and why does it matter? It's not like it matters anyway since no one is going to play with wood racquets anymore.

Federer_pilon
05-10-2009, 09:38 PM
No one can deny that the K90 plays much closer to a wood racquet than the APD does. Just the weight, headsize, beam width, and feel alone would make that so. So if both Federer and Nadal switched to wood racquets, Federer would only need to make minor adjustments, whereas, it would be a humongous adjustment for nadal and Nadal would have to effectively change his game and his strokes and technique.

Federer uses natural gut in the mains which as you know plays a lot closer to full gut than the full poly that Nadal uses.


Why stop at wood racquets? Let's go back further in the past while you're at it. How about they play with their bare hands? That's how the sport of tennis started.

The game was first created by European monks to be played for entertainment purposes during religious ceremonies. To begin with, the ball was hit with the hand...

http://www.historyoftennis.net/history_of_tennis.html

Nadal would beat Federer using his superior arm strength. :D Maybe Federer wouldn't be anywhere in the Top 1000 greats if the game was still played using bare hands.

rafan
05-10-2009, 10:31 PM
Ummm. What it takes is an understanding of the type of game an ATP wannabe player must develop and refine in order to be successful. Roger chose to use a one hand backhand and was quite successful with it. At least until Nadal, Djokovich and Murray showed up with their killer thbhs. To infer that these players do not have the talent and coordination to master a one hander is preposterous. It would be the same as a Rafan saying Federer does not have the talent and coordination to have learned to play left handed as a youth.
Sour grapes are one thing. But your comment is beyond warranting a response. But I did so just to call out your idiocy.

Have we not seen Rafa using the one handed back hand at times- I'm sure he does?

NamRanger
05-10-2009, 10:41 PM
According to both racquet's power map... the K90 is MORE powerful than the Babolat APDC... you call a rocket launcher :oops:

In the middle of the stringbed:
K90 41.1%
APDC 40.1%

So... if the APDC is a rocket launcher... the K90 is a turbocharged rocket launcher :lol:

Also, doesn't Federer use Luxilon poly?



The APDC has easier access to power because it has a larger string bed and can generate spin easier. What this means is that you can absolutely whail on the ball and not frame because of how big the racquet is.


The K90 cannot do that because you have a bigger chance to frame.



Common sense really. Numbers do not tell the story.

Bud
05-10-2009, 10:42 PM
Regardless of how it plays (i.e. feels like wood)... it's still more powerful than the APDC (i.e. rocket launcher). Therefore, Federer has benefited more in the racquet department, from all this modern technology, than Nadal :shock:

He's also benefited in the string department, from modern technology, since he uses poly in his stringbed :oops:



maybe you should play with those rackets before making a claim, since you obviously haven't, saying the k90 is more powerful stock than the apdc.

total insanity right there, you don't have a clue, do you?

I have played with them both... have you?

BTW, those are TW's numbers not mine. If you have an issue with them, complain to TW :wink:

However, I trust TW more than I trust you :oops:

Bud
05-10-2009, 10:47 PM
The APDC has easier access to power because it has a larger string bed and can generate spin easier. What this means is that you can absolutely whail on the ball and not frame because of how big the racquet is.


The K90 cannot do that because you have a bigger chance to frame.



Common sense really. Numbers do not tell the story.

Common sense tells me, in their stock form, the K90 is a more powerful racquet. I've used both, BTW :oops:

TW's numbers agree with my common sense :-D

gj011
05-10-2009, 10:49 PM
hmm. yeah, so djokovic has been winning against federer at the masters events.

when federer actually loses at a grand slam to djokovic, then i'll be willing to talk.

for me, i think federer doesn't care that much about masters events. he continues to peak at the slams, and still only nadal can beat him there, so i don't know why people make a big deal about him losing in a 2/3 match, which is where upsets are more likely for him anyway *since he seems to go on mental walkabouts all the time and doesn't get back until he loses the match*


Little delusional and forgetful? Aren't we?
Remind me who beat Federer on AO 2008. So start to talk.

P_Agony
05-10-2009, 11:02 PM
There are many people (including me) who are bored to tears watching Federer play tennis.

Nadal's playing style is much more exciting and interesting, IMO.

Fine! That's your opinion. But what about the rest of us who enjoy watching Federer. Are we not allowed to post threads that compare him to an artist? If you disagree with the the OP, then disagree with it. Comments like "Fed fans are desperate", however, aren't needed.

The *******s here are getting pathetic by the minute...

TheNatural
05-10-2009, 11:07 PM
Nadal beat Federer like a drum at the AO 09 despite Nadal being totally exhausted.That was the best chance Fed will ever get.

Nadal tops Federer for first Aussie title (http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/aus09/news/story?id=3876400)

Nadal said his leg started to hurt during the third set and he called for a trainer to help him out.

"I ended the match against [Fernando] Verdasco with the right leg, the quadriceps and hamstring very tight," Nadal said.

"In the third set it started to [hurt]... I wasn't cramping but it was scary."

Nadal asked the trainer to massage his leg during the change of ends but was reluctant to call for a medical timeout in case he needed it later in the match.

The powerful left-hander said the pain never subsided.

"I was a little bit tired. I was little bit worried about my physical performance because [when] I trained, it was tough to keep up the concentration," Nadal said. "I spoke with my coach before the match and he told me to go out there and fight all the time and believe in the victory."



Wow now Federer lost the AO because of a sore back? We're going up a notch in the excuse department, aren't we?

TheNatural
05-10-2009, 11:28 PM
Fed obviously doesn't know how to harness the strengths of his own racket and doesn't know how to win at net so Why doesn't Federer just go to Walmart and buy a Babolat just like Nadal's?

Or why doesn't he just use a bigger version of Nadal's racket like this one pictured! With the *******s's logic there should be no logical reasons why he wouldn't dominate with this racket. :lol:

He could even get them to make a custom made version with a shorter handle just for him.

http://www.rickyuen.com/wp-content/uploads/leconte-big-racquet.jpg



The APDC has easier access to power because it has a larger string bed and can generate spin easier. What this means is that you can absolutely whail on the ball and not frame because of how big the racquet is.


The K90 cannot do that because you have a bigger chance to frame.



Common sense really. Numbers do not tell the story.

Bud
05-10-2009, 11:39 PM
Fed obviously doesn't know how to harness the strengths of his own racket and doesn't know how to win at net so Why doesn't Federer just go to Walmart and buy a Babolat just like Nadal's?

Or why doesn't he just use a bigger version of Nadal's racket like this one pictured! With the *******s's logic there should be no logical reasons why he wouldn't dominate with this racket. :lol:

He could even get them to make a custom made version with a shorter handle just for him.

http://www.rickyuen.com/wp-content/uploads/leconte-big-racquet.jpg

Lol!

That pic is classic :lol:

Just imagine the tension at which they strung that huge frame!

BreakPoint
05-10-2009, 11:55 PM
Regardless of how it plays (i.e. feels like wood)... it's still more powerful than the APDC (i.e. rocket launcher). Therefore, Federer has benefited more in the racquet department, from all this modern technology, than Nadal :shock:

He's also benefited in the string department, from modern technology, since he uses poly in his stringbed :oops:
Then both Federer and Nadal should give up their current racquets and both switch to wood.

I can guarantee that Federer would dominate Nadal on all surfaces if they both played with wood racquets. It has to do with how they play the game and their strokes and technique. You can generate quite a bit of power with a wood racquet if you hit the ball flat and swing it fast since they are so heavy. But Nadal swings vertically instead of horizontally, doesn't he?

Pirao
05-11-2009, 12:11 AM
Then both Federer and Nadal should give up their current racquets and both switch to wood.

I can guarantee that Federer would dominate Nadal on all surfaces if they both played with wood racquets. It has to do with how they play the game and their strokes and technique. You can generate quite a bit of power with a wood racquet if you hit the ball flat and swing it fast since they are so heavy. But Nadal swings vertically instead of horizontally, doesn't he?

No they should switch to boxing gloves and have a boxing match in the tennis courts. Why? Because I say so! That seems to be your argument.

gj011
05-11-2009, 12:15 AM
No they should switch to boxing gloves and have a boxing match in the tennis courts. Why? Because I say so! That seems to be your argument.

I bet Federer would beat Nadal if they both play with frying pans. :roll:

Although Roddick is the frying pan GOAT.

<3tennis!!!
05-11-2009, 12:20 AM
Little delusional and forgetful? Aren't we?
Remind me who beat Federer on AO 2008. So start to talk.maybe he meant when fed wasnt sick with mono:confused:the face that fed even made the semis that year is a true testament to his great skill

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 12:21 AM
No they should switch to boxing gloves and have a boxing match in the tennis courts. Why? Because I say so! That seems to be your argument.

I bet Federer would beat Nadal if they both play with frying pans. :roll:

Although Roddick is the frying pan GOAT.
The sport of tennis (the current rules, size of court, height of net, size and weight of the ball, etc.) was created with wood racquets in mind. Not boxing gloves, not frying pans, and certainly not high-tech graphite racquets. :-?

gj011
05-11-2009, 12:26 AM
maybe he meant when fed wasnt sick with mono:confused:the face that fed even made the semis that year is a true testament to his great skill

LOL pulling mono excuse again.
Federer also lost in Wimbledon due to darkness and in AO due to bad back.

Great excuse making skills indeed.

Pirao
05-11-2009, 12:30 AM
The sport of tennis (the current rules, size of court, height of net, size and weight of the ball, etc.) was created with wood racquets in mind. Not boxing gloves, not frying pans, and certainly not high-tech graphite racquets. :-?

Oh no, football in the past was played with balls that weighed a ton, so it should still be played that way today! Swimming wasn't designed with the current technology in swimming suits in mind! OMG!

The sport of tennis evolves like every other sport. Deal with it.

<3tennis!!!
05-11-2009, 12:33 AM
LOL pulling mono excuse again.
Federer also lost in Wimbledon due to darkness and in AO due to bad back.

Great excuse making skills indeed.um did i mention that????? rofl nice way to twist things around. it was medically proven he was suffering from mono during AO 2008 but yeah i guess its just an excuse. anyone can play to their full potential with mono right:confused:

<3tennis!!!
05-11-2009, 12:35 AM
The sport of tennis (the current rules, size of court, height of net, size and weight of the ball, etc.) was created with wood racquets in mind. Not boxing gloves, not frying pans, and certainly not high-tech graphite racquets. :-?i must say i disagree with ur argument BP. yes nadals game is ENTIRELY based on his massive topspin which allows him to dominate rallies like noone else, but the APD is just a racquet and im sure there are many other racquets out there that nadal could apapt to and produce just as much wicked spin as he does now

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 12:42 AM
Oh no, football in the past was played with balls that weighed a ton, so it should still be played that way today! Swimming wasn't designed with the current technology in swimming suits in mind! OMG!

The sport of tennis evolves like every other sport. Deal with it.
Those high-tech swimsuits should be banned and they may still be. I think the jury is still out on that one. Swimming is about who's physically a better and faster swimmer, NOT who's wearing the most high-tech swimsuit!

And thanks for making my point with your football example. In football, everyone on the field is playing with the same ball, aren't they? That's my point about standardization in tennis! Everyone on a tennis court should be playing with not only the same ball, but also with the same racquet. Discrepancies in equipment makes it inherently unfair due to the superiority of one racquet over another. The differences in equipment should be eliminated as a variable in the outcome of a sporting contest. The winner should be the best player, NOT who was using the best equipment. If you can't understand that then you don't like to play games fairly and on a level playing field.

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 12:43 AM
i must say i disagree with ur argument BP. yes nadals game is ENTIRELY based on his massive topspin which allows him to dominate rallies like noone else, but the APD is just a racquet and im sure there are many other racquets out there that nadal could apapt to and produce just as much wicked spin as he does now
With modern racquets probably true, but not with a wood racquet.

<3tennis!!!
05-11-2009, 12:46 AM
With modern racquets probably true, but not with a wood racquet.
noone is using wood anymore tho

TheNatural
05-11-2009, 12:47 AM
Fed should try to get mono again so he can play as well now as in the AO 08.

um did i mention that????? rofl nice way to twist things around. it was medically proven he was suffering from mono during AO 2008 but yeah i guess its just an excuse. anyone can play to their full potential with mono right:confused:

Pirao
05-11-2009, 12:50 AM
Those high-tech swimsuits should be banned and they may still be. I think the jury is still out on that one. Swimming is about who's physically a better and faster swimmer, NOT who's wearing the most high-tech swimsuit!

And thanks for making my point with your football example. In football, everyone on the field is playing with the same ball, aren't they? That's my point about standardization in tennis! Everyone on a tennis court should be playing with not only the same ball, but also with the same racquet. Discrepancies in equipment makes it inherently unfair due to the superiority of one racquet over another. The differences in equipment should be eliminated as a variable in the outcome of a sporting contest. The winner should be the best player, NOT who was using the best equipment. If you can't understand that then you don't like to play games fairly and on a level playing field.

Mmm, I didn't make your point. In football every competition, usually has different kind of balls. Oh, and every player can use the football shoes they want. So not everybody uses the same equipment. If a player is accostumed to playing in the italian league, and another is accostumed to playing in the spanish league, and the champions league ball is more similar to the spanish league ball than to the italian, will the italian player moan about an unfair advantage? No, he'll adapt, because that's what being a good player means, adapting to the circumstances. You fail, hard.

Bud
05-11-2009, 12:50 AM
Those high-tech swimsuits should be banned and they may still be. I think the jury is still out on that one. Swimming is about who's physically a better and faster swimmer, NOT who's wearing the most high-tech swimsuit!

And thanks for making my point with your football example. In football, everyone on the field is playing with the same ball, aren't they? That's my point about standardization in tennis! Everyone on a tennis court should be playing with not only the same ball, but also with the same racquet. Discrepancies in equipment makes it inherently unfair due to the superiority of one racquet over another. The differences in equipment should be eliminated as a variable in the outcome of a sporting contest. The winner should be the best player, NOT who was using the best equipment. If you can't understand that then you don't like to play games fairly and on a level playing field.

All players have the option of playing with whatever racquet they choose :wink:

If there truly is a superior super-racquet available everybody would be using it. There is no Holy Grail... even at the ATP/WTA level.

<3tennis!!!
05-11-2009, 12:56 AM
Fed should try to get mono again so he can play as well now as in the AO 08.ever heard of past their prime???????

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 01:31 AM
Mmm, I didn't make your point. In football every competition, usually has different kind of balls. Oh, and every player can use the football shoes they want. So not everybody uses the same equipment. If a player is accostumed to playing in the italian league, and another is accostumed to playing in the spanish league, and the champions league ball is more similar to the spanish league ball than to the italian, will the italian player moan about an unfair advantage? No, he'll adapt, because that's what being a good player means, adapting to the circumstances. You fail, hard.
Yeah, sure, the soccer balls used by the Italian league and by the Spanish league are as different as a wood tennis racquet is from the Babolat APD? Yeah, right. Tell me another one. :-?

More like the difference between a Wilson tennis ball and a Penn tennis ball. :oops:

Besides, whether it's a soccer ball or a tennis ball, ALL the players on the court/field are using the SAME ball at the SAME time. You don't have one team using a 90 inch ball and the other team using a 100 inch ball at the SAME time in the SAME game!

P_Agony
05-11-2009, 01:35 AM
um did i mention that????? rofl nice way to twist things around. it was medically proven he was suffering from mono during AO 2008 but yeah i guess its just an excuse. anyone can play to their full potential with mono right:confused:

You're trying to argue with the biggest hypocrite in this forum:

When Federer losses - mono, bad back, etc. are simply excuses by desperate Federer fans.

When Djokovic losses - heat, injuries, sickness are the reasons for that, as Djokovic cannot be outplayed.

When Federer losses he complains Federer fans cannot give credit to his opponents, cannot admit he was outplayed, cannot admit that he played in a weak era and is just a lucky Britney Spears clone.

When Roddick spanks Djokovic twice in a row, he just attacks anyone who dares to say Roddick is a good player, gives NO CREDIT whatsoever to Roddick (Roddick is just a recent example, there are many others), argues that even comparing Roddick to the mighty Djokovic is a joke, and stuff like that.

This guy complains about a lot of stuff, all of which he's doing himself. He complains about trolling, yet he's the biggest troll here and trolls in every thread there is. He complains no credit is ever given to Djokovic, and yet all the credit he's giving Federer is comparing him to Britney Spears. He complaints the roof wasn't closed in the match Djokovic lost in the AO, and yet he calls mono and bad back mere excuses.

I have stayed quiet for too long but I just can't read his crap anymore.

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 01:37 AM
All players have the option of playing with whatever racquet they choose :wink:
Which is why standardization is needed.

If there truly is a superior super-racquet available everybody would be using it. There is no Holy Grail... even at the ATP/WTA level.
That's the problem, everyone IS using it. You don't see anyone on the pro tour using a wood racquet anymore, do you? And just about all the ATP pros use poly strings. So when and where does it stop? It's the same reason why we have so many huge SUV's hogging the roads. Everyone wants to have a bigger car to protect themselves in case they get hit by a big SUV, so people just keep buying bigger and bigger SUV's so that theirs is bigger than the other guy's. Now look where we are. :(

TheNatural
05-11-2009, 01:44 AM
I'm sure Nadal would lend fed his spare babolat if he asked nicely.

http://www.courtyard.org.uk/datas/224/original/Age_of_Stupid.png



Yeah, sure, the soccer balls used by the Italian league and by the Spanish league are as different as a wood tennis racquet is from the Babolat APD? Yeah, right. Tell me another one. :-?

More like the difference between a Wilson tennis ball and a Penn tennis ball. :oops:

Besides, whether it's a soccer ball or a tennis ball, ALL the players on the court/field are using the SAME ball at the SAME time. You don't have one team using a 90 inch ball and the other team using a 100 inch ball at the SAME time in the SAME game!

Pirao
05-11-2009, 03:35 AM
Yeah, sure, the soccer balls used by the Italian league and by the Spanish league are as different as a wood tennis racquet is from the Babolat APD? Yeah, right. Tell me another one. :-?

More like the difference between a Wilson tennis ball and a Penn tennis ball. :oops:

Besides, whether it's a soccer ball or a tennis ball, ALL the players on the court/field are using the SAME ball at the SAME time. You don't have one team using a 90 inch ball and the other team using a 100 inch ball at the SAME time in the SAME game!

You obviously have never played football if you think two balls don't make a difference in play.

To the bolded part, you make it very easy to respond: every player in the pitch uses different football boots (which comparing football to tennis, would be like the racquet). Of course you probably think that different boots are the same in football too, lol. Just more proof of your (inexistent) intelligence.

Edit: oops I wrote shoots instead of boots lol.

Pirao
05-11-2009, 03:36 AM
If there truly is a superior super-racquet available everybody would be using it. There is no Holy Grail... even at the ATP/WTA level.

That's the problem, everyone IS using it. You don't see anyone on the pro tour using a wood racquet anymore, do you? And just about all the ATP pros use poly strings. So when and where does it stop? It's the same reason why we have so many huge SUV's hogging the roads. Everyone wants to have a bigger car to protect themselves in case they get hit by a big SUV, so people just keep buying bigger and bigger SUV's so that theirs is bigger than the other guy's. Now look where we are. :(

Uh, hu, I haven't written that (although it's a comment I agree with), you better watch out you don't get banned for changing my messages ;).

fps
05-11-2009, 03:39 AM
You obviously have never played football if you think two balls don't make a difference in play.

To the bolded part, you make it very easy to respond: every player in the pitch uses different football shoots (which comparing football to tennis, would be like the racquet). Of course you probably think that different boots are the same in football too, lol. Just more proof of your (inexistent) intelligence.

the insult at the end is totally uncalled for.

but the rest of the post is sound. the footballs have been changed every season or so, and now they are lighter than ever, and dip and move in a bizarre way that's a nightmare for keepers facing long shots. competition to competition they differ- players don't like it, but, as with the balls in tennis, it's identical for each player and team so they have no choice but to adapt.

the boots are vital, and they are far more similar to the racquets than the ball is- you have to find the right ones for you, they have to be a good fit, you can customise them within reason, there are different studs, moulds etc, and some favour spin and touch while others offer more support and are sturdier. the defenders may choose the latter and the attackers the former, to suit their game. so everyone is actually using different equipment at the same time, as in tennis.

BreakPoint, your argument about wooden racquets is nonsensical. It's like you've lost the argument and then gone *well what about X* to draw attention away from it. The game has changed, but every player has access to the same equipment. Sure, some may have grown up on poly, unlike others, but there is no player out there using something that the others don't have access to, if they desire to use it.

Pirao
05-11-2009, 03:46 AM
the insult at the end is totally uncalled for.

but the rest of the post is sound. the footballs have been changed every season or so, and now they are lighter than ever, and dip and move in a bizarre way that's a nightmare for keepers facing long shots. competition to competition they differ- players don't like it, but, as with the balls in tennis, it's identical for each player and team so they have no choice but to adapt.

the boots are vital, and they are far more similar to the racquets than the ball is- you have to find the right ones for you, they have to be a good fit, you can customise them within reason, there are different studs, moulds etc, and some favour spin and touch while others offer more support and are sturdier. the defenders may choose the latter and the attackers the former, to suit their game. so everyone is actually using different equipment at the same time, as in tennis.

BreakPoint, your argument about wooden racquets is nonsensical. It's like you've lost the argument and then gone *well what about X* to draw attention away from it. The game has changed, but every player has access to the same equipment. Sure, some may have grown up on poly, unlike others, but there is no player out there using something that the others don't have access to, if they desire to use it.

Yeah maybe I shouldn't have added the insult, I did it because of posts like this:

After I told him that he doesn't know what Nadal can or cannot do with a wooden tennis racquet just because he (refering to BP) has played with one, he responded with this:

Thank you for recognizing that I'm a very knowledgeable person, unlike most on this board.

There's no way Nadal could generate the same racquet head speed with a heavy 14 oz. wood racquet. There's no way he could produce the same amount of topspin with his angle of attack and Western grip using something with such a small stringbed width. There's no way he can spin the ball like that without his poly strings and open string pattern. He would have to change to an Eastern grip and swing slowly and hit almost flat. If he didn't, he would shank almost every ball with his current reverse forehand. Those are the facts.

Take the ability to produce massive topspin away from Nadal and what do you have left? :oops:

In a single post he managed to insult most of the people on the forum. For a guy who thinks he's knowledgeable, he seems pretty stupid to me.

Richie Rich
05-11-2009, 08:17 AM
Which is why standardization is needed.


atp has rules in place regulating headsize and length of racquets.

and if, hypothetically, there is a move toward standardization, why choose wood? why not make everyone play with a aeropro drive? or a prestige mid? or a prince graphite O/S?

sureshs
05-11-2009, 09:53 AM
The sport of tennis (the current rules, size of court, height of net, size and weight of the ball, etc.) was created with wood racquets in mind. Not boxing gloves, not frying pans, and certainly not high-tech graphite racquets. :-?

The sport of tennis was created for doubles. Singles lines came later. So we should not play singles.

In the early days of tennis, etiquette demanded that the serve should be used only to put the ball in play. So fast servers should be banned.

fps
05-11-2009, 10:19 AM
Yeah maybe I shouldn't have added the insult, I did it because of posts like this:

After I told him that he doesn't know what Nadal can or cannot do with a wooden tennis racquet just because he (refering to BP) has played with one, he responded with this:



In a single post he managed to insult most of the people on the forum. For a guy who thinks he's knowledgeable, he seems pretty stupid to me.

fair enough, but what can ya do y'know?

Pirao
05-11-2009, 10:22 AM
fair enough, but what can ya do y'know?

Nothing, I guess :cry:.

fps
05-11-2009, 10:26 AM
Nothing, I guess :cry:.

perhaps forumites should volunteer their real names- then the more trollish types would have a personal stake in what they write, rather than hiding behind anonymity and running around the internet prodding people to try and grab their attention.

jms007
05-11-2009, 10:31 AM
Which is why standardization is needed.

That's the problem, everyone IS using it. You don't see anyone on the pro tour using a wood racquet anymore, do you? And just about all the ATP pros use poly strings. So when and where does it stop?

Well if everyone is using it, then that's a form of standardization isn't it?

Richie Rich
05-11-2009, 10:45 AM
Well if everyone is using it, then that's a form of standardization isn't it?

not in fantasy land. wonder what's next - we've covered tennis racquets, tennis balls, soccer balls, SUV's. guess we'll see when the shift at Mcdonald's is over.

gj011
05-11-2009, 11:06 AM
You're trying to argue with the biggest hypocrite in this forum:

When Federer losses - mono, bad back, etc. are simply excuses by desperate Federer fans.

When Djokovic losses - heat, injuries, sickness are the reasons for that, as Djokovic cannot be outplayed.

When Federer losses he complains Federer fans cannot give credit to his opponents, cannot admit he was outplayed, cannot admit that he played in a weak era and is just a lucky Britney Spears clone.

When Roddick spanks Djokovic twice in a row, he just attacks anyone who dares to say Roddick is a good player, gives NO CREDIT whatsoever to Roddick (Roddick is just a recent example, there are many others), argues that even comparing Roddick to the mighty Djokovic is a joke, and stuff like that.

This guy complains about a lot of stuff, all of which he's doing himself. He complains about trolling, yet he's the biggest troll here and trolls in every thread there is. He complains no credit is ever given to Djokovic, and yet all the credit he's giving Federer is comparing him to Britney Spears. He complaints the roof wasn't closed in the match Djokovic lost in the AO, and yet he calls mono and bad back mere excuses.

I have stayed quiet for too long but I just can't read his crap anymore.

This ridiculous troll is again polluting yet another thread with his delusions and lies. He is still in shock after Djokovic, whom he hates with unreasonable passion, schooled his fallen idol twice recently, and should not be taken seriously. To prove his lost causes he resorts to shameless lies and trolling. Just sad and pathetic.

sureshs
05-11-2009, 11:10 AM
Tiger Woods is winning only because of these modern drivers with fancy technology like graphite. Otherwise, he would be a nobody and I am sure of that because I can rewind history and then forward it again under my controlled conditions.

clayrules
05-11-2009, 11:10 AM
Is shanking backhands an art? :-?

Boy these Fed fanboys are ridiculous

jms007
05-11-2009, 11:10 AM
not in fantasy land. wonder what's next - we've covered tennis racquets, tennis balls, soccer balls, SUV's. guess we'll see when the shift at Mcdonald's is over.

All I can say is, thank god Nadal switched to polo shirts before BP realized that sleeveless shirts increase bat speed due to their aero dynamic properties.

Pirao
05-11-2009, 11:13 AM
All I can say is, thank god Nadal switched to polo shirts before BP realized that sleeveless shirts increase bat speed due to their aero dynamic properties.

LMAO. Do you guys think BP may have taken a hint by now? :D

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 11:24 AM
BreakPoint, your argument about wooden racquets is nonsensical. It's like you've lost the argument and then gone *well what about X* to draw attention away from it. The game has changed, but every player has access to the same equipment. Sure, some may have grown up on poly, unlike others, but there is no player out there using something that the others don't have access to, if they desire to use it.
But that's just it, the equipment today is not the same. There are vast differences in the equipment today. A K90 is very different from an APD, and natural gut strings are very different from poly strings. I think ALL players should ONLY have access to the SAME equipment. Just like back when everyone only had access to wood racquets (which were all around the same size, weight, string pattern, etc., and played similarly) and natural gut strings. All the players on the court were on a level playing field as far as equipment was concerned. You won because you were the superior player, NOT because you were using superior equipment.

Cup8489
05-11-2009, 11:26 AM
This ridiculous troll is again polluting yet another thread with his delusions and lies. He is still in shock after Djokovic, whom he hates with unreasonable passion, schooled his fallen idol twice recently, and should not be taken seriously. To prove his lost causes he resorts to shameless lies and trolling. Just sad and pathetic.

so he's trolling by telling the truth? you do say crap like that all the time..

if federer wins you bash him for it, but when djokovic retired last year in Monte Carlor with a sore throat i'm sure your excuse for it was gold. but that's the fact, you could hear him tell Federer he had a sore throat and couldn't continue. what kind of a wimp is he? a friggin sore throat and so now he can't play a semifinal match to it's conclusion? i guess djokovic doesn't like getting spanked too much, does he?

need i remind you that federer's recent loss at Rome came after federer was on the verge of winning ? he was up a break in both the second and third sets, and then strangely let his level of play drop. djokovic could not have won had federer been focused on the match, mainly because djokovic is not federer's match on all surfaces. he may be able to give federer a run for his money, but the fact is, that at the slam level, where it REALLY counts, djokovic has never beaten a healthy federer. the USO last year was a good example. djokovic had obviously worked his way back into the match after winning the second set, but his own inability to keep his level of play high enough was what caused him to lose the match.

At the AO 2008, if you ACTUALLY watch the match, you'd notice that djokovic had to work very, very hard to get the first set under his belt, while federer couldn't seem to get out of fourth gear and into fifth, for reasons later found to be Mono. federer's level at the USO semi was significantly higher than at the AO, and closer to his level played in the final the year before there (i'll give djokovic credit in that match, he played extremely well and still unfortunately choked when it was crunch time). djokovic stepped it up himself, but simply put federer raised it to fifth gear, and djokovic couldn't follow.

if they meet in the semi's at the French, i will say that i pick federer to be the favorite. he still is a major contender at the slams, and at every single one is either the favorite or the second pick to win. he just knows how to turn it up a notch there, and it's unfortunate that nadal's game has so much it can do against federer's, that he doesn't win matches against nadal. but i doubt he loses sleep over playing Djokovic in a match at the slam level.

will you still be passing this garbage about djokovic being the best ever if he falls out of the top 20? if that happens, i will probably enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself.

Cenc
05-11-2009, 11:27 AM
did michealangelo cry that much?

sureshs
05-11-2009, 11:30 AM
^^^ What about shoes, moisture wicking shirts, contact lenses? Should they also all be the same? Should one player be allowed to wear contact lenses while the other wears glasses? Should players with Lasik surgeries be banned?

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 11:31 AM
In a single post he managed to insult most of the people on the forum. For a guy who thinks he's knowledgeable, he seems pretty stupid to me.
What's "stupid" is thinking that Nadal's game would not be affected if he switched to a wood racquet.

That's what makes me knowledgeable and people who think Nadal will still play the same with a wood racquet, not knowledgeable. Anyone who has not used wood racquets for a long time cannot be that knowledgeable on what you can and cannot do with a wood racquet.

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 11:36 AM
atp has rules in place regulating headsize and length of racquets.

and if, hypothetically, there is a move toward standardization, why choose wood? why not make everyone play with a aeropro drive? or a prestige mid? or a prince graphite O/S?
Because wood is the standard. It's been used for over 100 years. It is still called "Standard" size (as opposed to "Midsize", "Mid Plus", "Oversize", etc.)

Wood also minimizes most the possibility of your racquet enhancing your shots in any way. It is all natural. It is all YOU when you hit the ball. There's nothing high-tech or artificial making your shot better than it naturally is. It's the same reason why baseball and cricket have standardized on wooden bats and not ones using some high-tech materials.

Pirao
05-11-2009, 11:45 AM
Of course, you conveniently ignore this post. Not a surprise, since you got owned, hard.

You obviously have never played football if you think two balls don't make a difference in play.

To the bolded part, you make it very easy to respond: every player in the pitch uses different football boots (which comparing football to tennis, would be like the racquet). Of course you probably think that different boots are the same in football too, lol. Just more proof of your (inexistent) intelligence.

sureshs
05-11-2009, 11:46 AM
Here is a quote from a reputed English manufacturer of cricket bats:

"Some international cricketers actually use the cricket bats their sponsoring company makes for them and we applaud those that do use the actual cricket bats they are paid to use."

Sounds familiar? :-)

Also, it seems prior to Dennis Lillee playing with an aluminum bat dubbed "the combat bat" there were no regulations for the material. Since then, the rules were changed to require only wood to be used, except for 10-20% other materials for cushioning in the handle.

Richie Rich
05-11-2009, 11:51 AM
Because wood is the standard. It's been used for over 100 years. It is still called "Standard" size (as opposed to "Midsize", "Mid Plus", "Oversize", etc.)

Wood also minimizes most the possibility of your racquet enhancing your shots in any way. It is all natural. It is all YOU when you hit the ball. There's nothing high-tech or artificial making your shot better than it naturally is. It's the same reason why baseball and cricket have standardized on wooden bats and not ones using some high-tech materials.

now it's cricket bats and baseball bats. anything else you want to scrounge around for?

gj011
05-11-2009, 11:58 AM
so he's trolling by telling the truth? you do say crap like that all the time..

if federer wins you bash him for it, but when djokovic retired last year in Monte Carlor with a sore throat i'm sure your excuse for it was gold. but that's the fact, you could hear him tell Federer he had a sore throat and couldn't continue. what kind of a wimp is he? a friggin sore throat and so now he can't play a semifinal match to it's conclusion? i guess djokovic doesn't like getting spanked too much, does he?

need i remind you that federer's recent loss at Rome came after federer was on the verge of winning ? he was up a break in both the second and third sets, and then strangely let his level of play drop. djokovic could not have won had federer been focused on the match, mainly because djokovic is not federer's match on all surfaces. he may be able to give federer a run for his money, but the fact is, that at the slam level, where it REALLY counts, djokovic has never beaten a healthy federer. the USO last year was a good example. djokovic had obviously worked his way back into the match after winning the second set, but his own inability to keep his level of play high enough was what caused him to lose the match.

At the AO 2008, if you ACTUALLY watch the match, you'd notice that djokovic had to work very, very hard to get the first set under his belt, while federer couldn't seem to get out of fourth gear and into fifth, for reasons later found to be Mono. federer's level at the USO semi was significantly higher than at the AO, and closer to his level played in the final the year before there (i'll give djokovic credit in that match, he played extremely well and still unfortunately choked when it was crunch time). djokovic stepped it up himself, but simply put federer raised it to fifth gear, and djokovic couldn't follow.

if they meet in the semi's at the French, i will say that i pick federer to be the favorite. he still is a major contender at the slams, and at every single one is either the favorite or the second pick to win. he just knows how to turn it up a notch there, and it's unfortunate that nadal's game has so much it can do against federer's, that he doesn't win matches against nadal. but i doubt he loses sleep over playing Djokovic in a match at the slam level.

will you still be passing this garbage about djokovic being the best ever if he falls out of the top 20? if that happens, i will probably enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself.

This all coming from poster who claimed point blank that Djokovic never beat Federer on GS.

Federer_pilon
05-11-2009, 12:02 PM
But that's just it, the equipment today is not the same. There are vast differences in the equipment today. A K90 is very different from an APD, and natural gut strings are very different from poly strings. I think ALL players should ONLY have access to the SAME equipment. Just like back when everyone only had access to wood racquets (which were all around the same size, weight, string pattern, etc., and played similarly) and natural gut strings. All the players on the court were on a level playing field as far as equipment was concerned. You won because you were the superior player, NOT because you were using superior equipment.

oh and don't forget underwear. They should standardize underwear too so that all the players on the court are on a level playing field as far as underwear is concerned. You won because you are the superior player, NOT because you wear superior underwear.

Nadal is surely at a disadvantage there given the wedgies his underwear gives him. If Federer had to wear the same underwear as Nadal, he wouldn't be anywhere in the Top 100 or even Top 1000 as a result of the huge level of discomfort caused by the wedgies.

sureshs
05-11-2009, 12:05 PM
If Federer had to wear the same underwear as Nadal, he wouldn't be anywhere in the Top 100 or even Top 1000 as a result of the huge level of discomfort caused by the wedgies.

You are wrong. The discomfort will be because Nadal's undies will be too loose for Federer as Nadal is better endowed all over.

Federer_pilon
05-11-2009, 12:10 PM
You are wrong. The discomfort will be because Nadal's undies will be too loose for Federer as Nadal is better endowed all over.

hahaha...ok...no comments

Antonio Puente
05-11-2009, 12:10 PM
Sorry, but Nadal's ability cannot overcome the handicap of using a wood racquet. Would you bet your life savings on Nadal beating Federer, Djokovic or Murray with a wood racquet while the others used their current racquets? I didn't think so. So the technology does indeed matter, doesn't it?

Well, let's go back even farther. What if Fed had to play Rotterdam in wooden shoes? How well would he do? Not so good, I bet. Just imagine those annoyed old time Dutch greats looking at a whippersnapper like Fed running around in synthetic shoes.

Richie Rich
05-11-2009, 12:18 PM
should make players play in bare feet, or stan smiths only. since different shoes can give an unfair advantage.

Melissa
05-11-2009, 12:26 PM
Because wood is the standard. It's been used for over 100 years. It is still called "Standard" size (as opposed to "Midsize", "Mid Plus", "Oversize", etc.)

Wood also minimizes most the possibility of your racquet enhancing your shots in any way. It is all natural. It is all YOU when you hit the ball. There's nothing high-tech or artificial making your shot better than it naturally is. It's the same reason why baseball and cricket have standardized on wooden bats and not ones using some high-tech materials.

Why the obsession with wood rackets? You really should get over them. They are gone, done, finished with. They are NEVER coming back.
If Roger did not have the option to use an apd I would be sympathetic to your position. But millions of tennis fans and players have accepted today's tennis equipment. Each player chooses the equipment s/he is most comfortable with and confident in.
Your assumption that Roger would be more sucessful than Nadal if they both used wood rackets is just that. AN ASSUMPTION. You seem to be unwilling to recognize they were schooled in different tennis techniques. Roger was trained in the classic one handed back hand. Nadal in the modern two handed back hand.
Life is a quest to improve. It is manifested in our daily living, our sporting events and wars. There is a reason wars are no longer fought with bows and arrows.
If Roger is unable or UNWILLING to adapt to a more powerful racket and strings it is on him. It is not a reason to belittle Nadal or anyone else.
By the way. Many people I have spoken with that used wood and modern rackets claim that the incidence of 'tennis elbow' has been greatly reduced by the change to modern rackets. Granted a small sample.

Antonio Puente
05-11-2009, 12:29 PM
should make players play in bare feet, or stan smiths only. since different shoes can give an unfair advantage.

I'd pay good money to see the barefoot/barehanded match.

P_Agony
05-11-2009, 12:29 PM
This ridiculous troll is again polluting yet another thread with his delusions and lies. He is still in shock after Djokovic, whom he hates with unreasonable passion, schooled his fallen idol twice recently, and should not be taken seriously. To prove his lost causes he resorts to shameless lies and trolling. Just sad and pathetic.

The only thing sad and pathetic in this entire forum is you. Your whole line of defense is gone because you cannot control your posts, your lies, your trolling and most of all, your hypocrisy. With each day that passes more and more posters are understanding who you are and what you post.

You do everything you cliam to be against, and you don't even acknowledge it. You consider everyone who doesn't agree with you a troll, and everyone who does a great poster. You lie about posts consistently, you attack posters for no reason, despite you posting the most offensive posts in here.

You make both *******s and *******s look like angles.

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 12:31 PM
Of course, you conveniently ignore this post. Not a surprise, since you got owned, hard.
I ignored it because it makes no sense! There is only one ball being used at the same time in the same soccer game. Both teams are kicking the SAME ball. Just like in tennis both players are hitting the SAME ball. There are lots of differences between a Dunlop tennis ball and a Wilson tennis ball, but because both players are using the SAME ball during a match, it's irrelevant. Are Nadal and Federer using the SAME racquet and the SAME strings in a match? No!!! Are they using the SAME tennis ball? Yes!!!!

Pirao
05-11-2009, 12:32 PM
I ignored it because it makes no sense! There is only one ball being used at the same time in the same soccer game. Both teams are kicking the SAME ball. Just like in tennis both players are hitting the SAME ball. There are lots of differences between a Dunlop tennis ball and a Wilson tennis ball, but because both players are using the SAME ball during a match, it's irrelevant. Are Nadal and Federer using the SAME racquet and the SAME strings in a match? No!!! Are they using the SAME tennis ball? Yes!!!!

Hahahahahaha, all the while you ignore the point I made about the boots! OMG you truly are a troll :lol:.

Richie Rich
05-11-2009, 12:32 PM
I'd pay good money to see the barefoot/barehanded match.

probably wouldn't be too much fun. but would be interesting

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 12:36 PM
now it's cricket bats and baseball bats. anything else you want to scrounge around for?
You're not reading are you? I've mentioned baseball and cricket bats numerous times already in this thread.

You asked why wood? I just explained it!

Another non-intelligent post from you. Typical. :-?

sureshs
05-11-2009, 12:37 PM
I ignored it because it makes no sense! There is only one ball being used at the same time in the same soccer game. Both teams are kicking the SAME ball. Just like in tennis both players are hitting the SAME ball. There are lots of differences between a Dunlop tennis ball and a Wilson tennis ball, but because both players are using the SAME ball during a match, it's irrelevant. Are Nadal and Federer using the SAME racquet and the SAME strings in a match? No!!! Are they using the SAME tennis ball? Yes!!!!

So in both sports, everyone is using the same ball but manipulating it with different equipment (different racquets or boots). What is the difference?

Pirao
05-11-2009, 12:39 PM
So in both sports, everyone is using the same ball but manipulating it with different equipment (different racquets or boots). What is the difference?

The difference is that the boots are not wooden, hence they are not worthy, duh.

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 12:41 PM
Well, let's go back even farther. What if Fed had to play Rotterdam in wooden shoes? How well would he do? Not so good, I bet. Just imagine those annoyed old time Dutch greats looking at a whippersnapper like Fed running around in synthetic shoes.
And when did anyone here claim that wooden shoes wouldn't affect Federer's play? :confused:

Some people here think that Nadal would still win with a wood racquet and that his level of play has nothing to do with his modern racquet and modern strings.

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 12:44 PM
Why the obsession with wood rackets? You really should get over them. They are gone, done, finished with. They are NEVER coming back.
If Roger did not have the option to use an apd I would be sympathetic to your position. But millions of tennis fans and players have accepted today's tennis equipment. Each player chooses the equipment s/he is most comfortable with and confident in.
Your assumption that Roger would be more sucessful than Nadal if they both used wood rackets is just that. AN ASSUMPTION. You seem to be unwilling to recognize they were schooled in different tennis techniques. Roger was trained in the classic one handed back hand. Nadal in the modern two handed back hand.
Life is a quest to improve. It is manifested in our daily living, our sporting events and wars. There is a reason wars are no longer fought with bows and arrows.
If Roger is unable or UNWILLING to adapt to a more powerful racket and strings it is on him. It is not a reason to belittle Nadal or anyone else.
By the way. Many people I have spoken with that used wood and modern rackets claim that the incidence of 'tennis elbow' has been greatly reduced by the change to modern rackets. Granted a small sample.
Which is exactly why Federer would play better with a wood racquet than Nadal would be able to. The K90 he uses now is much closer to a wood racquet than Nadal's APD is. Quite simple really.

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 12:49 PM
Hahahahahaha, all the while you ignore the point I made about the boots! OMG you truly are a troll :lol:.
Aren't Federer and Nadal wearing different "boots"? Is Nadal's boot as different in performance from Federer's boot as a wood racquet is different in performance from an APD strung with poly?

Nobody cares about boots! But I agree that for tennis they should be standardized. But no matter what boots you wear, it's not going to generate huge topspin shots for you. :oops:

Federer_pilon
05-11-2009, 12:49 PM
Which is exactly why Federer would play better with a wood racquet than Nadal would be able to. The K90 he uses now is much closer to a wood racquet than Nadal's APD is. Quite simple really.

And why is this even relevant to modern tennis? Wood racquets are dead and buried...

Federer_pilon
05-11-2009, 12:51 PM
Nobody cares about boots! But I agree that for tennis they should be standardized. But no matter what boots you wear, it's not going to generate huge topspin shots for you. :oops:

Movement on the court is a more important aspect of the game than the amount of topspin you can generate....

Pirao
05-11-2009, 12:51 PM
Aren't Federer and Nadal wearing different "boots"? Is Nadal's boot as different in performance from Federer's boot as a wood racquet is different in performance from an APD strung with poly?

Nobody cares about boots! But I agree that for tennis they should be standardized. But no matter what boots you wear, it's not going to generate huge topspin shots for you. :oops:

Lol, trying to divert attention I see. Just more proof that I owned you (or that your reading comprehension is lacking, whatever you prefer).

I'll post the original post again so everybody can see your failure:

You obviously have never played football if you think two balls don't make a difference in play.

To the bolded part, you make it very easy to respond: every player in the pitch uses different football boots (which comparing football to tennis, would be like the racquet). Of course you probably think that different boots are the same in football too, lol. Just more proof of your (inexistent) intelligence.

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 12:52 PM
So in both sports, everyone is using the same ball but manipulating it with different equipment (different racquets or boots). What is the difference?
Then they should standardize boots for soccer if some actually allow you to put more spin on the ball or kick it with much greater velocity.

Look, I don't care about soccer. There's a very good reason why it's not popular in the U.S. and you almost never see it on network TV.

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 12:55 PM
Movement on the court is a more important aspect of the game than the amount of topspin you can generate....
Agreed, but the last time I checked, both Federer and Nadal moved pretty well on the court. Do you think their shoes are all that different that it affects their movement?

fps
05-11-2009, 12:58 PM
BreakPoint, are you suggesting Nadal is at an advantage because of his equipment? If so, can you suggest why Federer has not switched to Nadal's equipment? also, what on earth have wooden racquets got to do with anything? pros haven't used wooden racquets for decades.

i am also of the opinion that if federer and nadal played with wooden racquets, say in mid-2008, federer would win. but it is just an opinion. i support it with assertions that federer relies more on timing and feel than nadal, who relies on spin and power, and that he would have an easier time with his single hander than nadal with his double hander. but that is as far as i can go. shouting, as you do, over and over again, does nothing to enhance your argument. you can't shout your way to victory. because it's not a debate that can be won.

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 01:00 PM
And why is this even relevant to modern tennis? Wood racquets are dead and buried...
Because some clueless people here claim that Nadal's modern racquet and poly strings have nothing to do with his ability to play the game that he does. They believe that he would play exactly the same with a wood racquet. These are the same people who think Nadal can cure cancer and achieve eternal peace in the Middle East. :shock:

fps
05-11-2009, 01:00 PM
Look, I don't care about soccer. There's a very good reason why it's not popular in the U.S. and you almost never see it on network TV.

and what reason might that be? *soccer* is the most popular sport in the world. the reason it's not popular in the US is that the US players aren't very good, and the US *soccer* team isn't very good. Americans like to watch Americans do well at sports, that's why men's tennis has taken a hit since Sampras and Agassi but the Williams sisters still pack em in. it's why, with the exception of basketball, where you have a talent monopoly anyway, your biggest sports are ones that no-one else plays.

you can't bring up an argument based on *soccer* and then discard it because you're losing the debate, and think people won't notice.

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 01:04 PM
BreakPoint, are you suggesting Nadal is at an advantage because of his equipment? If so, can you suggest why Federer has not switched to Nadal's equipment? also, what on earth have wooden racquets got to do with anything? pros haven't used wooden racquets for decades.

i am also of the opinion that if federer and nadal played with wooden racquets, say in mid-2008, federer would win. but it is just an opinion. i support it with assertions that federer relies more on timing and feel than nadal, who relies on spin and power, and that he would have an easier time with his single hander than nadal with his double hander. but that is as far as i can go. shouting, as you do, over and over again, does nothing to enhance your argument. you can't shout your way to victory. because it's not a debate that can be won.
I'm suggesting that Nadal's modern racquet and modern strings enable him to play the dominating game that he does and that he would not be able to do the same with a wood racquet. OTOH, Federer would still be able to play a similar game with a wood racquet because the K90 is already much closer to a wood racquet than the APD is.

Pirao
05-11-2009, 01:05 PM
and what reason might that be? *soccer* is the most popular sport in the world. the reason it's not popular in the US is that the US players aren't very good, and the US *soccer* team isn't very good. Americans like to watch Americans do well at sports, that's why men's tennis has taken a hit since Sampras and Agassi but the Williams sisters still pack em in. it's why, with the exception of basketball, where you have a talent monopoly anyway, your biggest sports are ones that no-one else plays.

you can't bring up an argument based on *soccer* and then discard it because you're losing the debate, and think people won't notice.

^^ see you can think Federer would beat Nadal with a wooden racquet, like this guy, and still be an objective poster. Learn from him, grasshopper.

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 01:10 PM
and what reason might that be? *soccer* is the most popular sport in the world. the reason it's not popular in the US is that the US players aren't very good, and the US *soccer* team isn't very good. Americans like to watch Americans do well at sports, that's why men's tennis has taken a hit since Sampras and Agassi but the Williams sisters still pack em in. it's why, with the exception of basketball, where you have a talent monopoly anyway, your biggest sports are ones that no-one else plays.

you can't bring up an argument based on *soccer* and then discard it because you're losing the debate, and think people won't notice.
Huh? When did I bring up soccer? It was Pirao that kept bringing up soccer (football in his language) and I tried to avoid the topic because I don't care about soccer!

Oh, and soccer is not as popular in the U.S. because many American's find it boring. Americans prefer to see more action, more scoring, more variety, more physicality, etc. It's not on TV as much because it's hard to put in the commercial breaks. Not being on TV much does not help its popularity. Most people prefer watching football over soccer.

Pirao
05-11-2009, 01:16 PM
Huh? When did I bring up soccer? It was Pirao that kept bringing up soccer (football in his language) and I tried to avoid the topic because I don't care about soccer!

Oh, and soccer is not as popular in the U.S. because many American's find it boring. Americans prefer to see more action, more scoring, more variety, more physicality, etc. It's not on TV as much because it's hard to put in the commercial breaks. Not being on TV much does not help its popularity. Most people prefer watching football over soccer.

Yes, you didn't bring up soccer, I brought it up along with swimming to illustrate the fact that sports change and evolve, a fact you clearly try to understand. Then you posted this:

Those high-tech swimsuits should be banned and they may still be. I think the jury is still out on that one. Swimming is about who's physically a better and faster swimmer, NOT who's wearing the most high-tech swimsuit!

And thanks for making my point with your football example. In football, everyone on the field is playing with the same ball, aren't they? That's my point about standardization in tennis! Everyone on a tennis court should be playing with not only the same ball, but also with the same racquet. Discrepancies in equipment makes it inherently unfair due to the superiority of one racquet over another. The differences in equipment should be eliminated as a variable in the outcome of a sporting contest. The winner should be the best player, NOT who was using the best equipment. If you can't understand that then you don't like to play games fairly and on a level playing field.

Saying that I made your point, when in fact what I did was own you royally afterwards. Now you say that you tried to avoid soccer, when in fact you tried to use it to say you were right (lying again, not nice ;)).

So I'll say it again, to see if it gets through you thick skull this time: sports change and evolve, deal with it.

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 01:32 PM
Yes, you didn't bring up soccer, I brought it up along with swimming to illustrate the fact that sports change and evolve, a fact you clearly try to understand. Then you posted this:



Saying that I made your point, when in fact what I did was own you royally afterwards. Now you say that you tried to avoid soccer, when in fact you tried to use it to say you were right (lying again, not nice ;)).

So I'll say it again, to see if it gets through you thick skull this time: sports change and evolve, deal with it.
And what did I say about soccer? I immediately related it to tennis and changed the subject back to tennis. All I said about soccer is that the same ball is used in the same game. :oops:

Then you kept hounding me to respond to your dumb unrelated posts about soccer shoes. It's obvious that the type of racquet you choose will affect your game more than than the shoes you wear. I use the same racquet when I play but I rotate between 20 different pairs of tennis shoes when I play because my shoes don't affect my game nearly as much as my racquet does.

Richie Rich
05-11-2009, 01:33 PM
You're not reading are you? I've mentioned baseball and cricket bats numerous times already in this thread.

You asked why wood? I just explained it!

Another non-intelligent post from you. Typical. :-?

just trying to make sure i dumb down my responses to your intellect level. obviously i have further to go.

Bud
05-11-2009, 01:35 PM
Well, let's go back even farther. What if Fed had to play Rotterdam in wooden shoes? How well would he do? Not so good, I bet. Just imagine those annoyed old time Dutch greats looking at a whippersnapper like Fed running around in synthetic shoes.

That would be hilarious... watching Federer play a match in wooden shoes :oops:

Pirao
05-11-2009, 01:38 PM
And what did I say about soccer? I immediately related it to tennis and changed the subject back to tennis. All I said about soccer is that the same ball is used in the same game. :oops:

Then you kept hounding me to respond to your dumb unrelated posts about soccer shoes. It's obvious that the type of racquet you choose will affect your game more than than the shoes you wear. I use the same racquet when I play but I rotate between 20 different pairs of tennis shoes when I play because my shoes don't affect my game nearly as much as my racquet does.

Lol, again trying to divert attention and saying you tried to avoid soccer.

And thanks for making my point with your football example. In football, everyone on the field is playing with the same ball, aren't they? That's my point about standardization in tennis! Everyone on a tennis court should be playing with not only the same ball, but also with the same racquet. Discrepancies in equipment makes it inherently unfair due to the superiority of one racquet over another. The differences in equipment should be eliminated as a variable in the outcome of a sporting contest. The winner should be the best player, NOT who was using the best equipment. If you can't understand that then you don't like to play games fairly and on a level playing field.

Yes, you sure were trying to avoid it :lol:. I win, you lose.

fps
05-11-2009, 01:49 PM
Huh? When did I bring up soccer? It was Pirao that kept bringing up soccer (football in his language) and I tried to avoid the topic because I don't care about soccer!

Oh, and soccer is not as popular in the U.S. because many American's find it boring. Americans prefer to see more action, more scoring, more variety, more physicality, etc. It's not on TV as much because it's hard to put in the commercial breaks. Not being on TV much does not help its popularity. Most people prefer watching football over soccer.

this all has very little to do with the original point. i now understand what you do. you bring up point after unrelated point in order to get into discussion and/or argument with people on the internet. i am finishing a uni degree this week, this forum is good relief when people genuinely want to share opinions, but i have more important ways to spend my time than talk with people who are just trying to spin out contact in cyberspace. goodbye.

BreakPoint
05-11-2009, 03:00 PM
just trying to make sure i dumb down my responses to your intellect level. obviously i have further to go.
Believe me, you don't have to try. It comes naturally to you. :oops:

Richie Rich
05-11-2009, 03:21 PM
Believe me, you don't have to try. It comes naturally to you. :oops:

but yet you are still having trouble. it's going to be tough to dumb things down so you get it. really tough.

why are you so extra bitter today? 15 yr old manager yell at you for putting too much salt on the fries or something?

sureshs
05-11-2009, 03:33 PM
why are you so extra bitter today? 15 yr old manager yell at you for putting too much salt on the fries or something?

LOL he is a rich retired guy who does not need to work but just plays tennis all day long. One day you will wish you were like him.

Melissa
05-11-2009, 05:22 PM
but yet you are still having trouble. it's going to be tough to dumb things down so you get it. really tough.

why are you so extra bitter today? 15 yr old manager yell at you for putting too much salt on the fries or something?

Uncalled for.

wilsondude
05-11-2009, 05:24 PM
Not again. This is getting ridiculous.

I think its this guys time of the month..

OddJack
05-11-2009, 07:47 PM
Nadal undoubtely is the undisputed current Number 1 in Tennis. Great mental and physical strenght and grossly underestimated tactician.
However whenever Federer is playing i either rush home to watch him or record it on Al Jazeera Sports 2 ( best tennis channel).

So i reason to myself - Why does my mind desire to watch Federer and not Nadal.
I can sum it up simply as: Watching Federer play is like imagining Michaelangelo paint the cistene Chapel. He uses the racquet like a brush,paints a game with his Wilson K-90 and is a Tennis Genius.

Nadal reminds me of a Soviet era sculpture, sculpting with grit, brute strength, and overpowering his oponents without any finesse.

I guess in the end thats why most of us watch Federer an not Nadal!!

Where are you located that can get Aljazeera channels?

asafi2
05-12-2009, 06:44 AM
"[Roger Federer] is not the world's top-ranked player, but he is, by consensus, it's most gifted. ... he is the players' player, the subject of glowing peer critiques. Retired champions and traditionalists adore his one-handed backhand and versatile, all-court style; rivals acknowledge his rare talent and instinctive feel ... in Federer's soft hands, tennis, rather than soccer, could as well be called the beautiful game." - Linda Pearce, The Age

fps
05-12-2009, 06:55 AM
"[Roger Federer] is not the world's top-ranked player, but he is, by consensus, it's most gifted. ... he is the players' player, the subject of glowing peer critiques. Retired champions and traditionalists adore his one-handed backhand and versatile, all-court style; rivals acknowledge his rare talent and instinctive feel ... in Federer's soft hands, tennis, rather than soccer, could as well be called the beautiful game." - Linda Pearce, The Age

people are going to jump down your throat because this is published opinion, rather than *evidence*. hope you ride it out, good luck. my own opinion is that i can see a greater lineage from laver to federer than i can to nadal. he certainly has a more traditional style, and embodies many of the qualities of the game- movement, timing, touch- in a more traditional manner. the longstanding purist, the one who has watched the game for 40 years, would recognise in federer an extreme high-point of some of the most cherished aesthetic values of the game.