PDA

View Full Version : I Don't Get This.....


380pistol
05-24-2009, 12:27 AM
I don't get why if posters don't like Federer it's sacreligous, and all this "I'm a fan of everyone", or "respect for other players even if you're not a fan of them" nonsense flies around, yet......

I never hear these same sentiments when posters disdain for Djokovic and Serena are thrown around. Why is that???

I'm a Sampras fan, and personally I love it when people dispise him.

BorisBeckerFan
05-24-2009, 01:18 AM
I grew up despising Sampras for all the thumpings he laid on Becker. The funny thing is I started to really like Pete after he retired and realised I spent so much time hating the guy I wasn't enjoying how great a player he was. I appreciate all the Sampras fans who are around to help bring some balance to this forum. I like Fed and hope he surpasses Sampras but I also don't see Fed through the distorted lenses that some of his fans on this board see him through. I also don't take part in the Fed circle jerks that take place here like they did when he beat Nadal at Madrid. I hope Fed beats Nadal at RG. Then I'd really have something to celebrate and talk about. I root for Fed and respect all the great things he has done for tennis but I also won't sit here and tell you that the crap that comes from his mouth at interviews tastes great. The advantadge Fed has over Sampras right now is he can still add to his mark and Sampras can't.

Gen
05-24-2009, 03:23 AM
I don't get why if posters don't like Federer it's sacreligous, and all this "I'm a fan of everyone", or "respect for other players even if you're not a fan of them" nonsense flies around, yet......

I never hear these same sentiments when posters disdain for Djokovic and Serena are thrown around. Why is that???

I'm a Sampras fan, and personally I love it when people dispise him.

What is "dispise"? A crossbreed between "despise" and "dis****"?

miyagi
05-24-2009, 04:34 AM
I don't get why if posters don't like Federer it's sacreligous, and all this "I'm a fan of everyone", or "respect for other players even if you're not a fan of them" nonsense flies around, yet......

I never hear these same sentiments when posters disdain for Djokovic and Serena are thrown around. Why is that???

I'm a Sampras fan, and personally I love it when people dispise him.

People like to believe Federer is a tennis God and if you dont appreciate him the problem lies with you. It's a false claim trying to justify their love for him as if you not liking Federer somehow diminishes your credibilty! Whatever!

I unlike most of the posters on here have seen Federer play live and he is a great player very smooth, very artistic so I know how good he is.

But I always thought he lacked some stiff competition, a true rival (until now)

I always wondered if he would be so cool, so great under pressure and he simply isn't...so for me he is far from a tennis God!

Federer is a great player but it is NOT compulsary that you have to like him, anyone claiming that is dellusional and desperate.

joeri888
05-24-2009, 05:27 AM
It's okay to not like a player and support against them..

I think it's ridiculous though to call a guy that is in the top 100 of the world names and stuff like that, because he's awesome at a sport we all love, and I have the most respect for all of them for what they've achieved, because I'd love that being me

mandy01
05-24-2009, 09:15 AM
I personally have defended Serena..not much , thats true but I still have openly voiced my annoyance as to why people give a rats arse about what she says during pressers...As for Djokovic-He was bashed when I wasnt an active participant of this board.
Nevertheless you can also blame the fans of the respective player .The way they bash Fed makes me reluctant to defend their player.Still I never go and unnecessrily post trash and nor do 'despise' someone I dont know personally.It makes no sense.

BUT-There is no rule that you have to like every player and he has to appeal to you the way he does to others.Also you can always have an opinion-but when the fan of that player counters it or expresses his dislike of your post you should be able to take that too .They have as much a right to opinion as you do.
Plain and simple :wink:

aphex
05-24-2009, 09:32 AM
I personally have defended Serena..not much , thats true but I still have openly voiced my annoyance as to why people give a rats arse about what she says during pressers...As for Djokovic-He was bashed when I wasnt an active participant of this board.
Nevertheless you can also blame the fans of the respective player .The way they bash Fed makes me reluctant to defend their player.Still I never go and unnecessrily post trash and nor do 'despise' someone I dont know personally.It makes no sense.

BUT-There is no rule that you have to like every player and he has to appeal to you the way he does to others.Also you can always have an opinion-but when the fan of that player counters it or expresses his dislike of your post you should be able to take that too .They have as much a right to opinion as you do.
Plain and simple :wink:

logic will NOT be tolerated in TT

stop using it:)

deltox
05-24-2009, 09:38 AM
lol im not a rafa or fed fan, and i openly "despise" serena williams.


what do i win?

David_Is_Right
05-24-2009, 09:57 AM
Me too, do we have to split the prize?

gj011
05-24-2009, 10:10 AM
I personally have defended Serena..not much , thats true but I still have openly voiced my annoyance as to why people give a rats arse about what she says during pressers...As for Djokovic-He was bashed when I wasnt an active participant of this board.
Nevertheless you can also blame the fans of the respective player .The way they bash Fed makes me reluctant to defend their player.Still I never go and unnecessrily post trash and nor do 'despise' someone I dont know personally.It makes no sense.

BUT-There is no rule that you have to like every player and he has to appeal to you the way he does to others.Also you can always have an opinion-but when the fan of that player counters it or expresses his dislike of your post you should be able to take that too .They have as much a right to opinion as you do.
Plain and simple :wink:

Oh really, so you were not participant when Djokovic and Nadal were bashed and ridiculed for years here by unruly hordes of Fed fans. How convenient.
So don't you think dislike for Federer by many here could be somewhat blamed on his fans and their behavior here over the years as well.
It is just the other way around as you suggested. :roll:

Jchurch
05-24-2009, 10:56 AM
lol im not a rafa or fed fan, and i openly "despise" serena williams.


what do i win?

A free wilson overgrip. :)

deltox
05-24-2009, 10:59 AM
A free wilson overgrip. :)

ill take it, i go thru them in bulk =)

Nadal_Freak
05-24-2009, 11:08 AM
I usually gain more respect for posters that dislike Fed. They can see more clearly than the rest.

vtmike
05-24-2009, 11:10 AM
I usually gain more respect for posters that dislike Fed. They can see more clearly than the rest.

Well Duh!!!

mandy01
05-24-2009, 11:11 AM
Oh really, so you were not participant when Djokovic and Nadal were bashed and ridiculed for years here by unruly hordes of Fed fans. How convenient.
So don't you think dislike for Federer by many here could be somewhat blamed on his fans and their behavior here over the years as well.
It is just the other way around as you suggested. :roll:
First-No need to be so sarcastic.I havent said anything revolting.
Next-You forgot the fact that I HAVE read many threads...I took the decision to join the forum later than I had been reading it.This is a fact i've mentioned time and again on this forum.
Also-The way you bash not just Fed but even go picking at his fans and literally post bitter things in every thread about him gives me a reason good enough not to defend Djokovic.

mandy01
05-24-2009, 11:13 AM
I usually gain more respect for posters that dislike Fed. They can see more clearly than the rest. Bang on crapola :mrgreen:

Antonio Puente
05-24-2009, 11:13 AM
I have no idea how someone could hate Fed, the Peter Paul Rubens of the tennis world.

Nadal_Freak
05-24-2009, 11:13 AM
I have no idea how someone could hate Fed, the Peter Paul Rubens of the tennis world.
More like the Serena Williams of the mens tour.

tennis-hero
05-24-2009, 11:16 AM
I usually gain more respect for posters that dislike Fed. They can see more clearly than the rest.

take his quote

reword it like this

I usually gain more respect for posters that dislike Nadal. They can see more clearly than the rest.

post that and watch a million Nadal fans attack you

doublebreak
05-24-2009, 11:39 AM
Why play the guilty by association game? Poster A "loves" player X and "hates" player Y, who happens to be my "idol" so I'm going to bash (or not defend) player X because I find poster A irritating and "hateful". The whole idea is ridiculously juvenile. Why does anybody feel the need to "defend" a player as if it was something meaningful? That is what I don't get.

mandy01
05-24-2009, 11:45 AM
Why play the guilty by association game? Poster A "loves" player X and "hates" player Y, who happens to be my "idol" so I'm going to bash (or not defend) player X because I find poster A irritating and "hateful". The whole idea is ridiculously juvenile. Why does anybody feel the need to "defend" a player as if it was something meaningful? That is what I don't get.
sure...you could also say defense is a form of counter argument. And just like people bash others can defend.
The OP asked-Why do Fed fans not defend other players?
So yes,fans of that player X do make a difference by
a) when something is being discussed and they include a bashful post just to say something bad
b) Take potshots at fans of the player Y for no reason and when the thread is not even about their favorito.
All in all-Its a forum,where people bash but fans of a particular player can defend him as well.

gj011
05-24-2009, 11:54 AM
sure...you could also say defense is a form of counter argument. And just like people bash others can defend.
The OP asked-Why do Fed fans not defend other players?
So yes,fans of that player X do make a difference by
a) when something is being discussed and they include a bashful post just to say something bad
b) Take potshots at fans of the player Y for no reason and when the thread is not even about their favorito.
All in all-Its a forum,where people bash but fans of a particular player can defend him as well.

They can defend him by posting arguments and different opinion, and not by insulting, abusing, stalking, starting flame wars and ganging up on people they disagree with. And that is exactly what Fed fans do here all the time.

mandy01
05-24-2009, 12:01 PM
They can defend him by posting arguments and different opinion, and not by insulting, abusing, stalking, starting flame wars and ganging up on people they disagree with. And that is exactly what Fed fans do here all the time. thats what you and your current supporters do too.So its fair and square.

gj011
05-24-2009, 12:01 PM
thats what you and your current supporters do too.So its fair and square.

That is not true.

mandy01
05-24-2009, 12:03 PM
That is not true. if only what you say is true and you guys are absolute angels taking no potshots at Fed fans then I'll leave the discussion here itself because next thing I know you'll start taking potshots at me :roll:

doublebreak
05-24-2009, 12:04 PM
sure...you could also say defense is a form of counter argument. And just like people bash others can defend.
The OP asked-Why do Fed fans not defend other players?
So yes,fans of that player X do make a difference by
a) when something is being discussed and they include a bashful post just to say something bad
b) Take potshots at fans of the player Y for no reason and when the thread is not even about their favorito.
All in all-Its a forum,where people bash but fans of a particular player can defend him as well.

Of course in a public forum people say whatever they want and very often they don't make any sense. I just find it odd that this type of behavior is so ingrained in the forum, I wonder what the age distribution of the posters is, are there really that many teenagers in here? or is it mostly adults acting like them?

The thing that annoys me the most is how any number of posters would label you as a player X/Y hater/**** and like that they simplify opinions right to the absurd.

I understand bashing as harsh criticism. I may be wrong with that definition, but I don't see anything wrong with it. Now, of course you can have irrational bashing and the rational kind. My suggestion is simply to ignore the juvenile irrational "bashers" (they are easily identifiable and I don't think they really have an effect on other posters opinions) and engage in, maybe heated but meaningful discussions, with the rational ones.

Anyway, just my opinion. The babbling gets annoying after a while, but the good thing is the other sections of the forum are not that bad.

mandy01
05-24-2009, 12:08 PM
Of course in a public forum people say whatever they want and very often they don't make any sense. I just find it odd that this type of behavior is so ingrained in the forum, I wonder what the age distribution of the posters is, are there really that many teenagers in here? or is it mostly adults acting like them?

The thing that annoys me the most is how any number of posters would label you as a player X/Y hater/**** and like that they simplify opinions right to the absurd.

I understand bashing as harsh criticism. I may be wrong with that definition, but I don't see anything wrong with it. Now, of course you can have irrational bashing and the rational kind. My suggestion is simply to ignore the juvenile irrational "bashers" (they are easily identifiable and I don't think they really have an effect on other posters opinions) and engage in, maybe heated but meaningful discussions, with the rational ones.

Anyway, just my opinion. The babbling gets annoying after a while, but the good thing is the other sections of the forum are not that bad.
you make a very good point.You're absolutely right-Ignoring is the best option.You explained your point really well too.

gj011
05-24-2009, 12:10 PM
if only what you say is true and you guys are absolute angels taking no potshots at Fed fans then I'll leave the discussion here itself because next thing I know you'll start taking potshots at me :roll:

It is not true since I just defend myself from being attacked by Fed trolls because of my opinion on Fed.

vtmike
05-24-2009, 12:10 PM
thats what you and your current supporters do too.So its fair and square.

That is not true.

It is not true since I just defend myself from being attacked by Fed trolls because of my opinion on Fed.

Errrrrrr...........

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.

Nadal winning is an everyday thing but Fed losing is always exciting. :D

I am glad I am not a Federer fan. Who would want to support a washed up loser.

Federer is currently just paying off his debt to God for all the luck he got to win the USO 2008. With interest. That was the deal.

380pistol
05-25-2009, 01:04 AM
People like to believe Federer is a tennis God and if you dont appreciate him the problem lies with you. It's a false claim trying to justify their love for him as if you not liking Federer somehow diminishes your credibilty! Whatever!

I unlike most of the posters on here have seen Federer play live and he is a great player very smooth, very artistic so I know how good he is.

But I always thought he lacked some stiff competition, a true rival (until now)

I always wondered if he would be so cool, so great under pressure and he simply isn't...so for me he is far from a tennis God!

Federer is a great player but it is NOT compulsary that you have to like him, anyone claiming that is dellusional and desperate.

This isn't about Federer but the ways things are construde by people. If anyting negative about him his said it's sacreligous. Look how Serena, Capriati, even Agassi get it around here. How come when they are getting there's no "let's respect the players" speech. There's no "appreciate what they've done" sentiment??

Why???

380pistol
05-25-2009, 01:07 AM
I personally have defended Serena..not much , thats true but I still have openly voiced my annoyance as to why people give a rats arse about what she says during pressers...As for Djokovic-He was bashed when I wasnt an active participant of this board.
Nevertheless you can also blame the fans of the respective player .The way they bash Fed makes me reluctant to defend their player.Still I never go and unnecessrily post trash and nor do 'despise' someone I dont know personally.It makes no sense.

BUT-There is no rule that you have to like every player and he has to appeal to you the way he does to others.Also you can always have an opinion-but when the fan of that player counters it or expresses his dislike of your post you should be able to take that too .They have as much a right to opinion as you do.
Plain and simple :wink:

I could give a rat's *** who likes who and who doesn't. As one person here saidRoger comes out of his face, he's being honest, Serena does the sam, she's conceited.

Why are there different sets of rules.

deltox
05-25-2009, 01:10 AM
I could give a rat's *** who likes who and who doesn't. As one person here saidRoger comes out of his face, he's being honest, Serena does the sam, she's conceited.

Why are there different sets of rules.

roger said he could win a tourney, serena said she was the true #1. big difference in statements

380pistol
05-25-2009, 01:14 AM
roger said he could win a tourney, serena said she was the true #1. big difference in statements

I can find many disrespectful and prententious quotes from Roger. off the wig "#2 and #3 don't matter" (what if that is said now with Fed at #2??)until he lost the top spot, then it was "I don't care about #1" (what if that was said when Roger was #1??), Federphiles would lose their collective minds.

Federer has his moments as well.

mandy01
05-25-2009, 01:50 AM
I can find many disrespectful and prententious quotes from Roger. off the wig "#2 and #3 don't matter" (what if that is said now with Fed at #2??)until he lost the top spot, then it was "I don't care about #1" (what if that was said when Roger was #1??), Federphiles would lose their collective minds.

Federer has his moments as well. you just made this up....
Anyway,I still dont see your point.
I dont find Serena conceited and I dont think its a crime to dislike Roger Federer.
And I'm sure most Federer fans have no problem accepting that their idol isnt going to be liked by all.

DarthMaul
05-25-2009, 02:15 AM
They can defend him by posting arguments and different opinion, and not by insulting, abusing, stalking, starting flame wars and ganging up on people they disagree with. And that is exactly what Fed fans do here all the time.

You are generalizing...

DarthMaul
05-25-2009, 02:16 AM
Delete post

Serve_Ace
05-25-2009, 09:14 AM
I usually gain more respect for posters that dislike Nadal. They can see more clearly than the rest.

GameSampras
05-25-2009, 09:34 AM
I would have no problem with Fed if he wasnt such an arrogant SOB. There is a fine line between confidence and arrogance and Fed has definitely crossed that line.

Great player, one of the best, one of the most talented, one of the most overrall gifted players ever, but a player who lacked a true rival and great competitve playing field until this past year. Sampras had Andre, Courier, Edberg, Becker, Goran etc.. , Laver had Rosewall Ashe, etc, Borg had, connors mac or vilas etc , mac had lendl, connors etc, Fed had..... Roddick, Hewitt, Old Agassi Nalbandian, Davydenko, Safin and Nadal who was a non factor at 50 percent of the slams etc :(.

Not all Fed's fault. He beat who he needed to beat , but its just the way it is. And no I dont think its because Roger made it that way. It was a weaker field nonetheless when u compare it to the 60's-90s.


Nothing against Fed. I just dont think he would have been even as REMOTELY as dominant with a 1-2 few rivals during the time. And Im not talking about Roddick either. I mean TRUE RIVALS. Some could see through the 04-07 era for what it really was. Other cant or refuse to

rafan
05-25-2009, 09:35 AM
Its quite natural to dislike the player who is beating your favourite. ( I hate anyone who beats Nadal) but it is only temporary. I admire most of the players simply because the life they have to lead and the incredible effort they put into enabling people like us to have a passion for the game.

Nadal_Freak
05-25-2009, 09:40 AM
Its quite natural to dislike the player who is beating your favourite. ( I hate anyone who beats Nadal) but it is only temporary. I admire most of the players simply because the life they have to lead and the incredible effort they put into enabling people like us to have a passion for the game.
Which explains why there are so many bitter Fed fans here. It's only natural for them to be. :D

NamRanger
05-25-2009, 09:43 AM
Which explains why there are so many bitter Fed fans here. It's only natural for them to be. :D



No one is bitter except you. People here actually have lives, they do things. Your whole life seems to be totally dependent on whether Nadal is victorious or not.

mandy01
05-25-2009, 09:45 AM
Nothing against Fed. I just dont think he would have been even as REMOTELY as dominant with a 1-2 few rivals during the time. And Im not talking about Roddick either. I mean TRUE RIVALS. Some could see through the 04-07 era for what it really was. Other cant or refuse to
YOUR OPINION.
Federer fans are entitled to theirs too.Personally I find your post a bucketload of bullsh*t. :mrgreen:

GameSampras
05-25-2009, 09:49 AM
YOUR OPINION.
Federer fans are entitled to theirs too.Personally I find your post a bucketload of bullsh*t. :mrgreen:

Do ya?? Thats fine. But I just call how I see it. I call a spade a spade.

You will be hardpressded to convince me that Hewitt, Davydenko, Pre Puberty Nadal, Safin, mid 30s Agassi, Roddick, etc were ever on the same level as a Goran on grass, Becker, Courier, Mac, Wilander, Lendl, Connors, Agassi, Rosewall, Borg, and down the line.

If you look back at Fed;s ridiculous dominance 04-07, before Djoker, Murray, and Prime Nadal who finally has learned to play on all surface, showed up, it was certainly by far the weakest field in the last 30-40 years. IMO At least in the top 10-15 realm

mandy01
05-25-2009, 09:55 AM
Do ya?? Thats fine. But I just call how I see it. I call a spade a spade.

No you call it only as you perceive it and your 'pearls of wisdom' are to yourself. And ***********s are the last people I listen to when it comes to the 'weak era' theory which I as it is consider crap.

GameSampras
05-25-2009, 09:58 AM
No you call it only as you perceive it and your 'pearls of wisdom' are to yourself. And ***********s are the last people I listen to when it comes to the 'weak era' theory which I as it is consider crap.

Sampras had much tougher competition during his rise that Fed has had YET in his career. Sampra's competition leveled off in the late 90s. But Fed never once had to deal with type of competition Pete had to go through from the early to mid 90s. Not even friggin close

mandy01
05-25-2009, 10:01 AM
Sampras had much tougher competition during his rise that Fed has had YET in his career. Sampra's competition leveled off in the late 90s. But Fed never once had to deal with type of competition Pete had to go through from the early to mid 90s. Not even friggin close
I already told you I dont listen to ***********s.
And since I know quite a quite a few Sampras fans who've actually played the game,who still have Sampras as their favourite but admire Roger as well,it gives me all the more a reason to not listen to '*****' like yourself.

bruce38
05-25-2009, 10:11 AM
Sampras is second best to Federer. It's impossible to prove which era was the tougher competition, or take into account new equipment, surfaces, etc, etc. All we have are results and records. Federer has accomplished more than Sampras in a much shorter amount of time. Even if they end up with the same number of majors, Federer is greater. It's like comparing a guy in hockey who scores 40 goals a year for 10 years or a guy who scores 100 goals/year for 4 years. Both have the same total, but one is clearly a superior skilled player. That is Fed.

Nadal_Freak
05-25-2009, 10:16 AM
Sampras is second best to Federer. It's impossible to prove which era was the tougher competition, or take into account new equipment, surfaces, etc, etc. All we have are results and records. Federer has accomplished more than Sampras in a much shorter amount of time. Even if they end up with the same number of majors, Federer is greater. It's like comparing a guy in hockey who scores 40 goals a year for 10 years or a guy who scores 100 goals/year for 4 years. Both have the same total, but one is clearly a superior skilled player. That is Fed.
No way. Sampras was definitely better. Sampras is the GOAT imo even though he is the ultimate ******* nowadays.

GameSampras
05-25-2009, 10:17 AM
Sampras is second best to Federer. It's impossible to prove which era was the tougher competition, or take into account new equipment, surfaces, etc, etc. All we have are results and records. Federer has accomplished more than Sampras in a much shorter amount of time. Even if they end up with the same number of majors, Federer is greater. It's like comparing a guy in hockey who scores 40 goals a year for 10 years or a guy who scores 100 goals/year for 4 years. Both have the same total, but one is clearly a superior skilled player. That is Fed.


How is it impossible? Youre telling me its impossible to say Roddick, Davydenko, Inconsistent show up once a half a decade Safin, Nalbandian, Blake, Pre Puberty Nadal, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Ljubicic are not on Agassi, Goran, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Rafter's, Guga, Muster, Bruguera, clay level?

Hell I dont need to see all of them play each other to find this out. Its pretty obvious to me.

I dont need to see Roddick, Blake or Davydenko play Agassi or Courier to tell me whos better. Its OBVIOUS whos better

TheTruth
05-25-2009, 10:18 AM
I don't get why if posters don't like Federer it's sacreligous, and all this "I'm a fan of everyone", or "respect for other players even if you're not a fan of them" nonsense flies around, yet......

I never hear these same sentiments when posters disdain for Djokovic and Serena are thrown around. Why is that???

I'm a Sampras fan, and personally I love it when people dispise him.

Back on topic.

I don't get it either. I think this post is spot on, and few are actually answering it.

mandy01
05-25-2009, 10:23 AM
In a thread that had nothing to do with 'weak era' a *********** just had to come and start this nonsense...as if there weren't enough threads already :roll:

bruce38
05-25-2009, 10:25 AM
How is it impossible? Youre telling me its impossible to say Roddick, Davydenko, Inconsistent show up once a half a decade Safin, Nalbandian, Blake, Pre Puberty Nadal, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Ljubicic are not on Agassi, Goran, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Rafter's, Guga, Muster, Bruguera, clay level?

Hell I dont need to see all of them play each other to find this out. Its pretty obvious to me.

I dont need to see Roddick, Blake or Davydenko play Agassi or Courier to tell me whos better. Its OBVIOUS whos better

That's the point my boy. It's obvious to YOU. It's not data. It's not objective. The results are all we have. Fed has better results. All else is opinion.

GameSampras
05-25-2009, 10:27 AM
That's the point my boy. It's obvious to YOU. It's not data. It's not objective. The results are all we have. Fed has better results. All else is opinion.

It should be obvious to ANYONE who has watched the game to say whos better between Feds 04-07 contemporaries and Pete's. Either u havent watched the game the last 15-20 years or just cant come to grips with the facts. :|

You want data? Well the data is in the results. Andre, Courier, Becker etc accomplished a whole helluva lot more than Blake, Davydenko, Roddick, Hewitt ever did

mandy01
05-25-2009, 10:29 AM
It should be obvious to ANYONE who has watched the game to say whos better between Feds 04-07 contemporaries and Pete's. Either u havent watched the game the last 15-20 years or just cant come to grips with the facts. :| why? I know people who've watched the game longer than 15-20 years and they dont whine about this ( and that includes my dad).. I've watched it for 9 years myself.

bruce38
05-25-2009, 10:30 AM
It should be obvious to ANYONE who has watched the game to say whos better between Feds 04-07 contemporaries and Pete's. Either u havent watched the game the last 15-20 years or just cant come to grips with the facts. :|

You want data? Well the data is in the results. Andre, Courier, etc accomplished a whole helluva lot more than Blake, Davydenko, Roddick, Hewitt ever did

I've watched tennis since the early 80s. Federer is vastly superior to Sampras. Andre and Courier accomplished more than Blake, Roddick, because Sampras wasn't as superior to dominate the others like Fed. If he was, then Andre and Courier would have accomplished a lot less. So much for your "data".

mandy01
05-25-2009, 10:31 AM
Anyway this thread was far from being a 'weak era' discussion untill you started it so I suggest you be on topic.

GameSampras
05-25-2009, 10:34 AM
I've watched tennis since the early 80s. Federer is vastly superior to Sampras. Andre and Courier accomplished more than Blake, Roddick, because Sampras wasn't as superior to dominate the others like Fed. If he was, then Andre and Courier would have accomplished a lot less. So much for your "data".


LOL... Yea its all because of Roger. Only Roger. What I find funny is if you take Djoker, Murray, Nadal out of the equation, Roger wins 99-100 percent of the tourneys he has entered this year. Djoker, Murray, Nadal are proving Fed played in a weaker era. Fed still destroys the entire field but the top 3. Hes a ridiculous winning percentage against the rest of the field outside the top 3 currently.


Old man 32 year old Agassi was destroying the defending Champ Hewitt at the USO and defeating Blake in the process there at 35 years of age. Players who were Fed's contemporaries as well. So so much for Fed's "great 04-07 contemporaries" When a player who was much passed his prime were taking them out at the slams. Just more PROOF that Fed's era wasnt all that strong

mandy01
05-25-2009, 10:38 AM
LOL... Yea its all because of Roger. Only Roger. What I find funny is if you take Djoker, Murray, Nadal out of the equation, Roger wins 99-100 percent of the tourneys he has entered this year. Djoker, Murray, Nadal are proving Fed played in a weaker era. Fed still destroys the entire field but the top 3. Hes a ridiculous winning percentage against the rest of the field outside the top 3 currently.
Come back when Novak defends a title and Murray wins more than one slam.( he is yet to win his first).
Of course it still dosent occur to you that Novak and Murray are entering their primes while Roger..though not past his prime is at a mid-stage.

bruce38
05-25-2009, 10:39 AM
LOL... Yea its all because of Roger. Only Roger. What I find funny is if you take Djoker, Murray, Nadal out of the equation, Roger wins 99-100 percent of the tourneys he has entered this year. Djoker, Murray, Nadal are proving Fed played in a weaker era. Fed still destroys the entire field but the top 3. Hes a ridiculous winning percentage against the rest of the field outside the top 3 currently.


Old man 32 year old Agassi was destroying the defending Champ Hewitt at the USO and defeating Blake in the process there at 35 years of age. Players who were Fed's contemporaries as well. So so much for Fed's "great 04-07 contemporaries" When a player who was much passed his prime were taking them out at the slams. Just more PROOF that Fed's era wasnt all that strong

Yes he doesn't destroy Djoko or Murray at non Majors. But what happens to those two greats at Majors? Who's left in the end. THAT is the data.

GameSampras
05-25-2009, 10:39 AM
Come back when Novak defends a title and Murray wins more than one slam.( he is yet to win his first)
Of course it still dosent occur to you that Novak and Murray are entering their primes while Roger..though not past his prime is at a mid-stage.


You do realize that if we negate Djoker and Murray from the equation that Fed would be still dominant don't you?

So against the rest of the field, Fed is still his dominant prime self and next to undefeated against them , yet against the top 3 he is passed his prime?

bruce38
05-25-2009, 10:42 AM
Fed has reached 19 consecutive semi-finals. 16 of them finals. Where are Djoko and Murray in that mix? Djoko did it once when Fed was sick. That is the data. Sampras has nothing near to that for comparison. That is domination. That is superiority.

mandy01
05-25-2009, 10:44 AM
You do realize that if we negate Djoker and Murray from the equation that Fed would be still dominant don't you?

So against the rest of the field, Fed is still his dominant prime self, and against the top 3 he is passed his prime? not really...I dont think Roddick ,Blake and the rest are in their primes either .
Besides,there had to come a time when the younger players would come up and Fed wouldnt dominate.So I dont give rats arse to your logic.
You could yell like a broken record and I still couldnt care less..of course you still are a broken record though not a yelling one.A fanatic who goes out of his way to go OT and starts talking about something not related to what is being discussed in the first place.

TheTruth
05-25-2009, 10:46 AM
In a thread that had nothing to do with 'weak era' a *********** just had to come and start this nonsense...as if there weren't enough threads already :roll:

Yeah, but don't you think people should actually answer the question instead of going off into the usual "my guy is better than yours" postings.

GameSampras
05-25-2009, 10:46 AM
I dont see How Roddick is past his prime.. Blake was never much to begin with so who cares about Blake. Hes a nobody.. Always was.

Roddick was a top 10 player before. Hes a top 10 player now. Now he just has to go through more than Fed at the slams and other tournaments.

roddick was getting whooped by Fed before. He STILL gets whooped by Fed. So whats the difference with Rodddick? He still makes strong showings at the USO his best surface. Hell his fitness is prolly better now than before.

mandy01
05-25-2009, 10:48 AM
Yeah, but don't you think people should actually answer the question instead of going off into the usual "my guy is better than yours" postings. I already replyed to the OPs post if thats what you're talking about..
And no I am far from getting into 'my guy is better than your guy' type of a mode because I detest these sort of comparisons.

icedevil0289
05-25-2009, 10:49 AM
I don't know, I have never felt that if a person doesn't like roger, it's a sin. Okay, I will admit that certain posters might irritate me with the way they talk about roger, but overall I don't mind. If I wanted to have everyone agree with me about roger and how wonderful he is, I would have stuck to rf.com, which btw is one scary place. I guess when he was dominating things might have been that way. Its like "oh no, how can you not like roger federer, he's federer the best player", but now I think things are a little different since he is no longer the best or the most dominant.

akv89
05-25-2009, 10:50 AM
LOL... Yea its all because of Roger. Only Roger. What I find funny is if you take Djoker, Murray, Nadal out of the equation, Roger wins 99-100 percent of the tourneys he has entered this year. Djoker, Murray, Nadal are proving Fed played in a weaker era. Fed still destroys the entire field but the top 3. Hes a ridiculous winning percentage against the rest of the field outside the top 3 currently.


Old man 32 year old Agassi was destroying the defending Champ Hewitt at the USO and defeating Blake in the process there at 35 years of age. Players who were Fed's contemporaries as well. So so much for Fed's "great 04-07 contemporaries" When a player who was much passed his prime were taking them out at the slams. Just more PROOF that Fed's era wasnt all that strong

39 year-old Jimmy Connors beat the field to reach the 1991 USO semis. 31 year-old John Mcenroe, 6 years past his prime, reached the semis the year before. Wally Massur, 30 years old, made it to the USO semis in 93. Older people sometimes go deep into the majors. If you're going to use that as an indication of how good an era was, you might as well say that every era in the history of tennis has been terrible.

380pistol
05-25-2009, 10:51 AM
you just made this up....
Anyway,I still dont see your point.
I dont find Serena conceited and I dont think its a crime to dislike Roger Federer.
And I'm sure most Federer fans have no problem accepting that their idol isnt going to be liked by all.

Made it up?? What are you on??? Leave Tina alone??? This is part of the problem, Roger said "#2 and #3 don't matter" in January 2008, around the Aus Ope time. He said "he doesn't care about #1" in August 2008 right after he lost it. I can pull a whole heap of Roger quotes, and I know there are many who would hav no problem pulling them as well.

The fact remains is why do players do similar things and get treated in different ways. I never said "you" said anything about Serena. But Serena made a comment, joking how she's better than most men on the tour, cuz she beat Roddick when they were kids, and Roddick has now beaten a lot of the top players. She laughed during the entire time she said it, when Roddick was asked he was laughing and joking as well. Yet that turned into a thread about Serena being full of herself, and how she thinks she can beat men or whatever it was.

It's a double standard, and those who abide by said double standard, are the ones claiming to be all righteous.

GameSampras
05-25-2009, 10:52 AM
39 year-old Jimmy Connors beat the field to reach the 1991 USO semis. 31 year-old John Mcenroe, 6 years past his prime, reached the semis the year before. Wally Massur, 30 years old, made it to the USO semis in 93. Older people sometimes go deep into the majors. If you're going to use that as an indication of how good an era was, you might as well say that every era in the history of tennis has been terrible.

Agassi was a Top 10 player at 35 years old when he no buisness really even being in the top 10. He was riddeled with sciatica, getting corizone shots between matches and pretty much physically finished yet he was still top 10 in 2005?

NamRanger
05-25-2009, 10:53 AM
Agassi was a Top 10 player at 35 years old when he no buisness really even being in the top 10. He was riddeled with sciatica and pretty much physically finished yet he was still top 10 in 2005?


He had no real problems with sciatica until 2006. Get your facts straight please.



Agassi was not a normal 35 year old player anyways. He took a vacation in the middle of his career, which greatly extended his longevity.

380pistol
05-25-2009, 10:53 AM
Back on topic.

I don't get why if posters don't like Federer it's sacreligous, and all this "I'm a fan of everyone", or "respect for other players even if you're not a fan of them" nonsense flies around, yet......

I never hear these same sentiments when posters disdain for Djokovic and Serena are thrown around. Why is that???

I'm a Sampras fan, and personally I love it when people dispise him.

I don't get it either. I think this post is spot on, and few are actually answering it.

I suppose it's no one can acually give me logical response.

mandy01
05-25-2009, 10:55 AM
Made it up?? What are you on??? Leave Tina alone??? This is part of the problem, Roger said "#2 and #3 don't matter" in January 2008, around the Aus Ope time. He said "he doesn't care about #1" in August 2008 right after he lost it. I can pull a whole heap of Roger quotes, and I know there are many who would hav no problem pulling them as well.

The fact remains is why do players do similar things and get treated in different ways. I never said "you" said anything about Serena. But Serena made a comment, joking how she's better than most men on the tour, cuz she beat Roddick when they were kids, and Roddick has now beaten a lot of the top players. She laughed during the entire time she said it, when Roddick was asked he was laughing and joking as well. Yet that turned into a thread about Serena being full of herself, and how she thinks she can beat men or whatever it was.

.
1 part-I did not read anything to that effect and I pretty much read every presser of his.

2nd part-If thats what happened, it was wrong and I agree with you.

icedevil0289
05-25-2009, 10:56 AM
I suppose it's no one can acually give me logical response.

Hey I responded, although I don't know if its logical. I can't speak for everyone else or the fans that thing its a sin to dislike roger. My only guess is that your supposed to like the best player, or the no.1 or whatever. I think its changing now though as roger is no longer the best. You can also blame the media. When someone dominates for so long, the media continues to shove the player down people's throats and makes them out to be like som God. I think it goes for all top players and people are kind of doing the same thing with the current no.1 so its like hey these people said player x is the best and blah blah blah, how can you not like him?

bruce38
05-25-2009, 10:56 AM
Agassi was a Top 10 player at 35 years old when he no buisness really even being in the top 10. He was riddeled with sciatica, getting corizone shots between matches and pretty much physically finished yet he was still top 10 in 2005?

Old withered Connors was also top 10 at 36. He finished #4 at 35 years of age! What's your point? This was 1988. When all those great contemporaries of Pete were in their prime. How is this possible?

skip1969
05-25-2009, 11:00 AM
well, i don't see it.

rafan
05-25-2009, 11:07 AM
He had no real problems with sciatica until 2006. Get your facts straight please.



Agassi was not a normal 35 year old player anyways. He took a vacation in the middle of his career, which greatly extended his longevity.

Yes you have something here - I mean i wonder if Borg had taken a break would he have come back victorious?

bolo
05-25-2009, 11:37 AM
Sampras is second best to Federer. It's impossible to prove which era was the tougher competition, or take into account new equipment, surfaces, etc, etc. All we have are results and records. Federer has accomplished more than Sampras in a much shorter amount of time. Even if they end up with the same number of majors, Federer is greater. It's like comparing a guy in hockey who scores 40 goals a year for 10 years or a guy who scores 100 goals/year for 4 years. Both have the same total, but one is clearly a superior skilled player. That is Fed.

Federer didn't accomplish everything in 4 years, he's accomplished everything in 10 years, in approximately the same amount of time as sampras. Just because federer accomplished very little from ages 17 to 21 doesn't mean you get to throw away all that information and pretend like he never played in all those grand slams. You are messing with the denominators bruce and that's fed. fanboy logic.

bruce38
05-25-2009, 12:09 PM
Federer didn't accomplish everything in 4 years, he's accomplished everything in 10 years, in approximately the same amount of time as sampras. Just because federer accomplished very little from ages 17 to 21 doesn't mean you get to throw away all that information and pretend like he never played in all those grand slams. You are messing with the denominators bruce and that's fed. fanboy logic.

Yes I agree with you, you can't throw those early years away. I was just trying to illustrate a point with the hockey analogy. I'm just saying if we take all of the best years of a player (which are going to be his prime) and list them. Fed's top 5 would be much better than Samp's top 5. That these years were consecutive for Fed is that much more remarkable. I'm not a Fed fanboy, I'm trying to be as objective as possible (sometimes extreme things need to be posted in order to restore the balance). Just because I laud Fed does not mean I'm a fan boy. I was a big Sampras fan in the 90s and still am and a Mac fan in the 80s. But my comments have nothing to do with being a fan. I'm trying to look at the data and decide as well as including my subjective judgments on having watched these guys play in many tournaments.

Leublu tennis
05-25-2009, 12:35 PM
What is "dispise"? A crossbreed between "despise" and "dis****"?
Thats not nice. English could be a second language for him or he might have gotten his education at an American high school.

bolo
05-25-2009, 12:43 PM
Yes I agree with you, you can't throw those early years away. I was just trying to illustrate a point with the hockey analogy. I'm just saying if we take all of the best years of a player (which are going to be his prime) and list them. Fed's top 5 would be much better than Samp's top 5. That these years were consecutive for Fed is that much more remarkable. I'm not a Fed fanboy, I'm trying to be as objective as possible (sometimes extreme things need to be posted in order to restore the balance). Just because I laud Fed does not mean I'm a fan boy. I was a big Sampras fan in the 90s and still am and a Mac fan in the 80s. But my comments have nothing to do with being a fan. I'm trying to look at the data and decide as well as including my subjective judgments on having watched these guys play in many tournaments.

thanks for the response. I agree that federer in his best years has been more dominant than sampras in his best years. :)

Serve_Ace
05-25-2009, 01:06 PM
I don't get why if posters don't like Federer it's sacreligous, and all this "I'm a fan of everyone", or "respect for other players even if you're not a fan of them" nonsense flies around, yet......

I never hear these same sentiments when posters disdain for Djokovic and Serena are thrown around. Why is that???

I'm a Sampras fan, and personally I love it when people dispise him.

I don't get why if posters don't like Nadal it's sacreligous, and all this "I'm a fan of everyone", or "respect for other players even if you're not a fan of them" nonsense flies around, yet......

I never hear these same sentiments when posters disdain for Federer that are thrown around. Why is that???

bolo
05-25-2009, 01:09 PM
I don't get why if posters don't like Nadal it's sacreligous, and all this "I'm a fan of everyone", or "respect for other players even if you're not a fan of them" nonsense flies around, yet......

I never hear these same sentiments when posters disdain for Federer that are thrown around. Why is that???


good question. you should start your own thread. This is about sampras/federer.

shank you very much service_ace. :)

Serve_Ace
05-25-2009, 01:25 PM
good question. you should start your own thread. This is about sampras/federer.

shank you very much service_ace. :)

Honestly, I think I should, but it's already to hot here in NJ, I don't need to be flamed more

bolo
05-25-2009, 01:45 PM
Honestly, I think I should, but it's already to hot here in NJ, I don't need to be flamed more

please don't, I was just kidding around. :)

World Beater
05-25-2009, 02:35 PM
what a magical thread. why is it that the usual sampras homers have to hide behind hypothetical arguments in order to make sampras seem somehow relevant.

borg and laver dont need their accomplishments to be embellished. they dont need weak/strong era arguments, they dont need a bunch of equpiment BS. they have cold, hard data backing them.

why is it that sampraz fans have to try so hard to include pete in the discussion? he is a pretty good player. he can stand on his own two feet.

TheTruth
05-25-2009, 02:43 PM
I already replyed to the OPs post if thats what you're talking about..
And no I am far from getting into 'my guy is better than your guy' type of a mode because I detest these sort of comparisons.

I know you did, but the others? They're talking about everything except the question the OP posed. I replied to you because you were the only one who actually addressed the question posed in the thread. Don't you think the thread was going in the wrong direction?

TheTruth
05-25-2009, 02:46 PM
I don't know, I have never felt that if a person doesn't like roger, it's a sin. Okay, I will admit that certain posters might irritate me with the way they talk about roger, but overall I don't mind. If I wanted to have everyone agree with me about roger and how wonderful he is, I would have stuck to rf.com, which btw is one scary place. I guess when he was dominating things might have been that way. Its like "oh no, how can you not like roger federer, he's federer the best player", but now I think things are a little different since he is no longer the best or the most dominant.

Yay! Another one who is on topic. And I agree. Your postings reflects this. I thought it was a legitimate question, glad to see people's reasonings.

TheTruth
05-25-2009, 02:49 PM
Hey I responded, although I don't know if its logical. I can't speak for everyone else or the fans that thing its a sin to dislike roger. My only guess is that your supposed to like the best player, or the no.1 or whatever. I think its changing now though as roger is no longer the best. You can also blame the media. When someone dominates for so long, the media continues to shove the player down people's throats and makes them out to be like som God. I think it goes for all top players and people are kind of doing the same thing with the current no.1 so its like hey these people said player x is the best and blah blah blah, how can you not like him?

Your honesty is refreshing!!!

TheTruth
05-25-2009, 02:52 PM
Thats not nice. English could be a second language for him or he might have gotten his education at an American high school.

Great post!

Conquistador
05-25-2009, 02:52 PM
I always thought Sampras was arrogant.

World Beater
05-25-2009, 02:55 PM
nobody needs to like federer.

but i think you cannot be a fan of tennis if you do not appreciate his GAME. that doesn't mean you have to love his game or think its most attractive, exciting etc.

but that he is a really good player. at the end of the day, true fans of tennis want to see great matches, and federer certainly has contributed to his fare share of great matches.

without federer, nadal would not be the hero that his fans know him to be. without federer, djokovic would just be another run of the mill player - we wouldnt know how much of a badass, mean, mentally tough assassin he really is (in a good way). we wouldnt know how brainy, tactical and talented murray is without his matches with the great one - federer.

the fact there is a legendary yardstick with which murray, nadal and djokovic can measure up against only can enhance their own legacies.

nothing could elevate nadal/djoker/murray's status more than be beating the supposed goat several times in a row..

the fans of these other players should be thankful that there is a roger federer.

oneleggedcardinal
05-25-2009, 03:10 PM
Thats not nice. English could be a second language for him or he might have gotten his education at an American high school.

I gotted my education in an American high skool...wut are you trying too say?

egn
05-25-2009, 03:18 PM
I don't get why if posters don't like Federer it's sacreligous, and all this "I'm a fan of everyone", or "respect for other players even if you're not a fan of them" nonsense flies around, yet......

I never hear these same sentiments when posters disdain for Djokovic and Serena are thrown around. Why is that???

I'm a Sampras fan, and personally I love it when people dispise him.

Because people are small minded. Let people hate Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Serena etc..if someone says "Hey Fed blows ****" I don't understand why most Fed fans go you are evil. You want to argue just do it, but if someone is going to insult his class, his attitude just get over it. People don't have to like everyone. Fed is not a god, he is a tennis player, he can be insulted. I personally think Fed at times is quite the ******bag and I want to go slap him one. Sampras at times annoyed me as he used to never talk and I found him boring. I hate Nadal when he never answers the questions in all those fun interviews and he is like I honestly can't say or **** as I am like lighten up and have some fun, or I hate his Fed sucking that makes some *******s on this forum look like nothing. Agassi ****ed me off when he protested wimbledon as he did not want to conform to wearing all white, but then he gave in and played it wearing all white anyway. McEnroe killed momentum by screaming too much and it was aggravating, Connors lost it sometimes as well, Borg was way too cocky at points, Lendl needed to lighten up and make friends. The only tennis player I can ever remember not having a problem watching was Edberg..I think those Swedes just know how to be relaxed. Anyway the point is I don't hate any of the players I just mentioned there were points in time where they ****ed me off, but I enjoy most of them. Sure I don't like watching Nadal play as I find his game boring..but I don't hate him. I respect him he is a great player and has a lot of talent, I just personally would rather watch someone else play. Everyone becomes attached to a player but if you are going to get mad when someone else does not like your player be reasonable and don't stoop to name calling.

I usually gain more respect for posters that dislike Fed. They can see more clearly than the rest.

Yay for feeding the fire and I usually gain more respect when I see a poster trash you because I know they can see more clearly.

That is not true.

I was going to own you on this but I saw a few other posters all ready do so, but don't throw up a halo you are far from the friendly no bias I don't attack.

Do ya?? Thats fine. But I just call how I see it. I call a spade a spade.

You will be hardpressded to convince me that Hewitt, Davydenko, Pre Puberty Nadal, Safin, mid 30s Agassi, Roddick, etc were ever on the same level as a Goran on grass, Becker, Courier, Mac, Wilander, Lendl, Connors, Agassi, Rosewall, Borg, and down the line.

If you look back at Fed;s ridiculous dominance 04-07, before Djoker, Murray, and Prime Nadal who finally has learned to play on all surface, showed up, it was certainly by far the weakest field in the last 30-40 years. IMO At least in the top 10-15 realm

First do you ever stay on topic? This was a completely different thread not a WEAK ERA THEORY THREAD.

It should be obvious to ANYONE who has watched the game to say whos better between Feds 04-07 contemporaries and Pete's. Either u havent watched the game the last 15-20 years or just cant come to grips with the facts. :|

You want data? Well the data is in the results. Andre, Courier, Becker etc accomplished a whole helluva lot more than Blake, Davydenko, Roddick, Hewitt ever did

Courier and Becker accomplished most of their slams before Prime Sampras...Becker won one slam during Sampras reign in 1996? He had not won a slam since 1991..Courier won 2 of his slams on clay where Sampras was not even strong at in 91 or 92 yet alone strong on the whoel tour and Agassi won 5 of his slams 99 and on after Sampras had lost his number 1. Just throwing some bits in there. I mean from the time Sampras was number 1 on the ammount of slams this men combined for was oh a whomping total of 5....in 6 years his 3 best rivals took home 5 slams...Actually techinically Courier did not even win his slam in the time of Sampras being ranked number 1 so make that 4..While Federer was number one Safin, Nadal and Djokovic teamed up to take 7 slams so where is your weak competition argument? Fed's 3 biggest threats actually won more major titles in less time...I can bend numbers with you all day my friend and twist facts would you like to keep going.

Yeah, but don't you think people should actually answer the question instead of going off into the usual "my guy is better than yours" postings.

Because nobody wants to answer the question sadly as they can't face it.

egn
05-25-2009, 03:27 PM
Thats not nice. English could be a second language for him or he might have gotten his education at an American high school.

Hey watch it. I would really not want to get into an education system fight with you. Before you insult something you obviously know little about you should probably do some research. There are more than a fair share of outstanding high schools in America. After all it is the internet most people are lazy. You don't see me insult Moldova's high school, as for I know little about them. Please do not go by what you see on the television as you yourself by now should know this is very long. Though then I would imagine you have such a horrid view of America as your little country was overrun by the Soviets for so many years.

380pistol
05-25-2009, 03:35 PM
Hey I responded, although I don't know if its logical. I can't speak for everyone else or the fans that thing its a sin to dislike roger. My only guess is that your supposed to like the best player, or the no.1 or whatever. I think its changing now though as roger is no longer the best. You can also blame the media. When someone dominates for so long, the media continues to shove the player down people's throats and makes them out to be like som God. I think it goes for all top players and people are kind of doing the same thing with the current no.1 so its like hey these people said player x is the best and blah blah blah, how can you not like him?

You addressed the issue, then makes you one of the minority. My issue is not so much as which player is liked and who isn't, I could careless. My issue is how is OK for say Djokovic or Serena to get trashed on the regular and it seems the thing to do, but when Roger gets trashed, Federphiles go loco???

When GameSampras talks about federer being blessed with an era not as strong as some other greats people get their drawers all up their ass?? But Capriati has gotten it worse, Agassi has been called "lucky", and nobody says a word.

I don't get that. There's all this "respect all players", and "they are all pros" etc., but that sentiment is never uttered or followed, when Agassi, Djokovic, Capriati, Serena and some others are taken to the cleaners.

I don't know, I have never felt that if a person doesn't like roger, it's a sin. Okay, I will admit that certain posters might irritate me with the way they talk about roger, but overall I don't mind. If I wanted to have everyone agree with me about roger and how wonderful he is, I would have stuck to rf.com, which btw is one scary place. I guess when he was dominating things might have been that way. Its like "oh no, how can you not like roger federer, he's federer the best player", but now I think things are a little different since he is no longer the best or the most dominant.

I don't everyone agreeing with everyone, everyone should be allowed to be their own person. I even said I love it when people despise Sampras. But I'm not gonna tell then not to say negative things about himm or anything like, that, cuz I say negative things about other players.

Many say don't say this about player X, but then say the same thing about player Y, and complain someone said something about player X. Huh??? I don't act all righteous (or try not to anyway), I speak my mind and let the chips fall where they may.

Or player X does or says ABC and nothing, yet when player Y does or says ABC, they'll be heel to pay. Again....what?!? they both did it. X is honest, and Y is an ***. Either they're both honest or both asses.

icedevil0289
05-25-2009, 03:40 PM
You addressed the issue, then makes you one of the minority. My issue is not so much as which player is liked and who isn't, I could careless. My issue is how is OK for say Djokovic or Serena to get trashed on the regular and it seems the thing to do, but when Roger gets trashed, Federphiles go loco???
When GaeeSampras talks about federer being blessed with an era not as strong as some other greats people get their drawers all up their ass?? But Capriati has gotten it worse, Agassi has been called "lucky", and nobody says a word.

I don't get that. There's all this "respect all players", and "they are all pros" etc., but that sentiment is never uttered or followed, when Agassi, Djokovic, Capriati, Serena and some others are taken to the cleaners.

because we are fans of roger and try to defend him. Obviously if someone say something bad about sampras, wouldn't you want to defend him? Same thing goes for nole and serena. I'm sure if someone criticized them, nole fans and serena fans would jump to their defense. It might look like only fed fans go crazy, but perhaps that is because there are soooo many threads made about federer basically bashing him.

Great, so now fed fans are known as federphiles.

egn
05-25-2009, 04:13 PM
You addressed the issue, then makes you one of the minority. My issue is not so much as which player is liked and who isn't, I could careless. My issue is how is OK for say Djokovic or Serena to get trashed on the regular and it seems the thing to do, but when Roger gets trashed, Federphiles go loco???

When GaeeSampras talks about federer being blessed with an era not as strong as some other greats people get their drawers all up their ass?? But Capriati has gotten it worse, Agassi has been called "lucky", and nobody says a word.

I don't get that. There's all this "respect all players", and "they are all pros" etc., but that sentiment is never uttered or followed, when Agassi, Djokovic, Capriati, Serena and some others are taken to the cleaners.

I think the real issue is where are in the current era Federer and Nadal have the largest fan bases therefore their fans can bully the other members around. In 5-10 years the new big dog will do the same thing and Nadal and Fed fans will fall into the minority and the new bullies will run the place

Conquistador
05-25-2009, 05:13 PM
Nobody in these forums seems to be speaking ill of Laver, Tilden, etc. Why is that? Yet we speak ill of Nadal and Federer? Give me a break..

380pistol
05-25-2009, 11:11 PM
because we are fans of roger and try to defend him. Obviously if someone say something bad about sampras, wouldn't you want to defend him? Same thing goes for nole and serena. I'm sure if someone criticized them, nole fans and serena fans would jump to their defense. It might look like only fed fans go crazy, but perhaps that is because there are soooo many threads made about federer basically bashing him.

Great, so now fed fans are known as federphiles.

It's not about defending a player. If you want to defend Roger, defend him until it kills you. My issue lies with Federphiles, who will defend Roger to the death for doing something, and chastise someone for doing the same.

For instance Agassi was Lucky to win Wimbledon beatin Becker and Ivanisevic... so what would that make Roger be for his 1st 3 Wimbledon wins where had that dynamic duo of Roddick and Hewitt??

The "weak era" theory, that many Federphiles renounce. Why wasn't that theory renounced the same way when Capriati is getting torn a new one???

That's my issue. Don't defend Roger for doing/saying ABC, then chastise player X for doing/saying ABC/ I will defend Sampras. But I don't defend him something and then turn around chastise another player for doing what he did.

And no not all Fed fans are Federphiles, they are 2 seperate entities. It ain't my fault that there are more Federphiles than Fed fans.

mandy01
05-26-2009, 01:25 AM
The "weak era" theory, that many Federphiles renounce. Why wasn't that theory renounced the same way when Capriati is getting torn a new one???. I havent really read any threads related to spewing 'weak era' theory for Capriati actually.You got any?

Leublu tennis
05-26-2009, 01:55 AM
I gotted my education in an American high skool...wut are you trying too say?Delete text.

Leublu tennis
05-26-2009, 01:59 AM
I gotted my education in an American high skool...wut are you trying too say?Oh, just noticed your use of the language. Thats cool.

380pistol
05-26-2009, 11:16 AM
I havent really read any threads related to spewing 'weak era' theory for Capriati actually.You got any?

Oh in the "Former Players" thread, she gets torn apart. He rectum must be 3 times it's normal size now. It's funny when "lucky" and "weak era" are thrown around some people will lose their minds, but not when it comes to Jen-Jen. She was lucky, beat nobodies, passed their prime, no top players, you name it.. and trust me, someone has said it. I'm not her biggest fan, but she gets no love, no respct... nothing.

Agassi, has gotten it bad. It's funny how a lot of people who tell GameSampras "any one who's one 13 slams is not lucky", but yet they claim someone who won 8 was?!? So let me get this straight.... slams 1-8 luck, and 9 and beyond skill.


I won't mention the posters name but said poster sai Agassi winning the 1992 Wimbledon title was "lucky", though he beat Becker and Ivanisevic in doing so. And I asked the same poste then what would he consider Federer first 3 tiles beating Roddick and Hewitt. It ended there, and the Agassi bashing started elsewhere.

380pistol
05-27-2009, 12:53 PM
I'm still waiting for many who responded to actually address the issue of this thread.

ksbh
05-27-2009, 01:00 PM
ROFL X 70, Sir 380! Lines like that are a reason I can't skip over your posts, no matter how busy I am!

Anyways, I don't know the answer to the question in your first post, but suffice to say that it doesn't bother me if the Federer fanatics object to my criticism of their hero. I think the man is overrated and I will say it. If you don't believe me, don't ask Rafa, but watch him against Federer! :)

I won't mention the posters name but said poster sai Agassi winning the 1992 Wimbledon title was "lucky", though he beat Becker and Ivanisevic in doing so. And I asked the same poste then what would he consider Federer first 3 tiles beating Roddick and Hewitt. It ended there, and the Agassi bashing started elsewhere.

380pistol
05-27-2009, 01:01 PM
what a magical thread. why is it that the usual sampras homers have to hide behind hypothetical arguments in order to make sampras seem somehow relevant.

borg and laver dont need their accomplishments to be embellished. they dont need weak/strong era arguments, they dont need a bunch of equpiment BS. they have cold, hard data backing them.

why is it that sampraz fans have to try so hard to include pete in the discussion? he is a pretty good player. he can stand on his own two feet.


Yes that's correct cuz Serena, Djokovic, Capriati and Agasi are all Sampras. Save your Federphilic and weak era insecurities wil you.

380pistol
05-27-2009, 01:04 PM
ROFL X 70, Sir 380! Lines like that are a reason I can't skip over your posts, no matter how busy I am!

Anyways, I don't know the answer to the question in your first post, but suffice to say that it doesn't bother me if the Federer fanatics object to my criticism of their hero. I think the man is overrated and I will say it. If you don't believe me, don't ask Rafa, but watch him against Federer! :)

I can take it step further. recall Agassi's fluke 1999 RG crown, and that pathetic draw. They don't want the list of everyone Roger has beaten the last 4 years to get to Nadal at RG.

Not just this, or him, there are so many hypocrites. I may be an ***, but I'm no hypocrite. And they are the first to chastise someone else for doing so.

ksbh
05-27-2009, 02:25 PM
Agreed!

Back in 2007, it appeared that Federer was peerless and his GOAT status was all but established. Any mention of Sampras in the same breath as Federer was viewed with utter disdain by the Federer fanatics.

However, after Rafa took over the tennis world, the GOAT discussion has pretty much gone out the window and the attacks on Sampras have reduced dramatically. It seems like the wind is gone from the Federer fans' sails and rightfully so! :)

I really am enjoying all the Sampras & Nadal threads now! How long can you read about the genius of a man that beat up on the likes of Roddick? LOL!

I can take it step further. recall Agassi's fluke 1999 RG crown, and that pathetic draw. They don't want the list of everyone Roger has beaten the last 4 years to get to Nadal at RG.

Not just this, or him, there are so many hypocrites. I may be an ***, but I'm no hypocrite. And they are the first to chastise someone else for doing so.

OJ ROD
05-27-2009, 02:30 PM
I don't get why if posters don't like Federer it's sacreligous, and all this "I'm a fan of everyone", or "respect for other players even if you're not a fan of them" nonsense flies around, yet......

I never hear these same sentiments when posters disdain for Djokovic and Serena are thrown around. Why is that???

I'm a Sampras fan, and personally I love it when people dispise him.

Because they have no honor or any real consideration for anyone but themselves. It's oozing out of them in the form of arrogance and that's why most people don't like them.

Not to say that their peers or predecessors are humble beings but, not all of them use arrogance as their main source of fuel.