PDA

View Full Version : No more era comparisons!!(GOAT etc.)


Bryan Swartz
05-23-2010, 06:46 PM
I don't understand why most of the threads on this forum are full of this fallacy. Those of you who engage it, please explain it to me. There is no way anybody can know whether Federer is better than Sampras, Laver, Borg, etc. We can't know if Chang would beat Nadal on clay or any of this nonsense.

All we can do is talk about how good a player was in his own era. So much changes from decade to decade. Technology, particular good/bad matchups, surface conditions, balance of events on tour, changes in coaching/strategy/tactics/athletic training science, etc. All that can be measured is how one played against the opponents they were given. This GOAT stuff(and all related activities) is completely speculation and can never be demonstrated. Why can't we just enjoy the champions the sport has had and leave it at that?

OddJack
05-23-2010, 07:01 PM
It's fun,

Have you seen the move 30 days of night? Bunch of thugs are contaminated with a virus, the only way to fight them is to catch the virus. Now that you have exposed yourself, folks are gonna show up and bite you one by one, then you will become sick, and will see the light.

paulorenzo
05-23-2010, 07:05 PM
It's fun,

Have you seen the move 30 days of night? Bunch of thugs are contaminated with a virus, the only way to fight them is to catch the virus. Now that you have exposed yourself, folks are gonna show up and bite you one by one, then you will become sick, and will see the light.

wrong movie reference. 30 days of night is the movie dealing with vampires who ravage an alaskan town for a month non stop darkness-made possible by the location of the town latitude-wise and the winter solstice.

Tennis_Monk
05-23-2010, 07:11 PM
I don't understand why most of the threads on this forum are full of this fallacy. Those of you who engage it, please explain it to me. There is no way anybody can know whether Federer is better than Sampras, Laver, Borg, etc. We can't know if Chang would beat Nadal on clay or any of this nonsense.

All we can do is talk about how good a player was in his own era. So much changes from decade to decade. Technology, particular good/bad matchups, surface conditions, balance of events on tour, changes in coaching/strategy/tactics/athletic training science, etc. All that can be measured is how one played against the opponents they were given. This GOAT stuff(and all related activities) is completely speculation and can never be demonstrated. Why can't we just enjoy the champions the sport has had and leave it at that?

Actually there is a way. Ask me Or any member of this forum ;0

Bryan Swartz
05-23-2010, 07:13 PM
Hrm well, maybe I'm daft but it seems to me I did ask you(and every other member of the forum) in the OP :).

OddJack
05-23-2010, 07:13 PM
Told you Bryan, it doesnt matter what the topic, it's about fun...

For example look at this fellow paul. He doesnt know *****e about anything he just shows up and bites you, his goal is to make you sick.

Vampirism

...In the series, vampirism is portrayed as a virus, one that can be spread through scratches, bites and contact with vampire blood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_Days_of_Night

Tennis_Monk
05-23-2010, 07:17 PM
Hrm well, maybe I'm daft but it seems to me I did ask you(and every other member of the forum) in the OP :).

Now that you have unofficially offcially asked me, i will let you in on a secret.
In general everyone knows that Federer is the GOAT. However there is no fun if everyone agrees to that. SO we all took sides and off we go.

Please feel free to pick a player (anyone will do, even Mike Russell ) and start arguing he is the GOAT. to make it more fun, whenever this player loses a match, open a "should he retire" thread.

OddJack
05-23-2010, 07:21 PM
Tennis Monk just came up with a cutting edge bite right at your throat Bryan,
i could hear the fangs going in. By now you should've caught the virus. If not, there must be something wrong with you.

Bryan Swartz
05-23-2010, 07:21 PM
That would be awful hypocritical of me, since my whole point is that things like GOAT are unknowable. So as entertaining as it would be for me to talk about how Chris Guccione is the GOAT, I will not.

BullDogTennis
05-23-2010, 07:22 PM
wrong movie reference. 30 days of night is the movie dealing with vampires who ravage an alaskan town for a month non stop darkness-made possible by the location of the town latitude-wise and the winter solstice.

ah beat me to it!

i think hes referring to the movie 'quaranteened' where they get quaranteened into an apt complex where they all become contaminated.

nonetheless

owned.

OddJack
05-23-2010, 07:27 PM
ah beat me to it!

i think hes referring to the movie 'quaranteened' where they get quaranteened into an apt complex where they all become contaminated.

nonetheless

owned.

Muhahahaa..

just like tennis, some guys watch a movie without knowing whats going on...

look at post#6 for more info.

HunterST
05-23-2010, 07:33 PM
ah beat me to it!

i think hes referring to the movie 'quaranteened' where they get quaranteened into an apt complex where they all become contaminated.

nonetheless

owned.

No. He was right. You're both wrong.

In the movie, the vampires are people with a virus. The guy realizes to fight the vampires he has to inject infected blood into himself.

HunterST
05-23-2010, 07:36 PM
No. He was right. You're both wrong.

In the movie, the vampires are people with a virus. The guy realizes to fight the vampires he has to inject infected blood into himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_Days_of_Night_(film)

Read the plot summary if you disagree.

gold soundz
05-23-2010, 07:38 PM
I am not a Federer fan at all; in fact I go for nearly anyone who he plays against, yet I can definitely say that hes the GOAT. It's very obvious and clear and no one comes close.

kournacopia
05-23-2010, 07:41 PM
How arrogant and megalomaniacal for someone to claim that GOAT is not knowable. It's as stupid and idiotic as the GOAT discussions and ranks right up there with all the *****.

OddJack
05-23-2010, 07:41 PM
Comon Bryan, become one of us. Tell us that chris guccione was the real GOAT. As a vampire there is no more pleasure than to see others bleed, you will become eternal, you will be alone with the gods, it's the only good fight there is...
(Bukowski)

Juges8932
05-23-2010, 07:42 PM
1) I agree, cross-era comparisons are kind of foolish, especially when people start making definitive statements, that X player WOULD beat player Y.
2) I think GOAT can be demonstrated. As you are preaching, you can only measure how great a player is relative to the specific era. So, by that criteria, you can see which players were most dominant in their respective eras. In the end, it is subjective, BUT, I think acting like a comparison between players between eras, when one was CLEARLY more dominant, is asinine and is playing semantics.
3) Cross-era comparisons are foolish because, who knows if Sampras would have been Sampras, Agassi been Agassi, Fed been Fed, etc without all of those players beforehand laying the foundation of tennis down for them to follow and admire. Saying, oh, if 2007 Fed went back to 1950, he would smoke everybody. Well, Fed has the benefit of superior technology, knowledge, and training that was not available back then. Who is to say that if Laver was born in today's era that he would not be every bit as dominant as Fed, if not more-so?
4) You can definitely have intelligent discussions as to who you think would win between a '69 Laver vs '07 Fed. What becomes less-than-impressive is when people make definitive claims that '07 Fed would without a doubt win. But what's the point of message boards and discussing tennis, and sports in general, if all you talk about is what is definitive. What are you supposed to talk about? "Fed won 2007 Wimbledon." Ok, yeah, he did. Then there would be nothing to create conversation about.
5) I also find that these types of threads can be really educational when it comes to players and the sport. I know I find out a bunch of stuff about older generation of players in those threads and can enlighten you on certain things about players, or give you a different perspective that you may not have thought about beforehand.
6) Nothing beats actually having watched the players play, as numbers can only tell you so much.

OddJack
05-23-2010, 07:50 PM
I am not a Federer fan either. I am a Nadal fan.

But I admit, he is the one and Only GOAT, all era.

Truth hurts Bryan, but must be told.

pjonesy
05-23-2010, 07:54 PM
1) I agree, cross-era comparisons are kind of foolish, especially when people start making definitive statements, that X player WOULD beat player Y.
2) I think GOAT can be demonstrated. As you are preaching, you can only measure how great a player is relative to the specific era. So, by that criteria, you can see which players were most dominant in their respective eras. In the end, it is subjective, BUT, I think acting like a comparison between players between eras, when one was CLEARLY more dominant, is asinine and is playing semantics.
3) Cross-era comparisons are foolish because, who knows if Sampras would have been Sampras, Agassi been Agassi, Fed been Fed, etc without all of those players beforehand laying the foundation of tennis down for them to follow and admire. Saying, oh, if 2007 Fed went back to 1950, he would smoke everybody. Well, Fed has the benefit of superior technology, knowledge, and training that was not available back then. Who is to say that if Laver was born in today's era that he would not be every bit as dominant as Fed, if not more-so?
4) You can definitely have intelligent discussions as to who you think would win between a '69 Laver vs '07 Fed. What becomes less-than-impressive is when people make definitive claims that '07 Fed would without a doubt win. But what's the point of message boards and discussing tennis, and sports in general, if all you talk about is what is definitive. What are you supposed to talk about? "Fed won 2007 Wimbledon." Ok, yeah, he did. Then there would be nothing to create conversation about.
5) I also find that these types of threads can be really educational when it comes to players and the sport. I know I find out a bunch of stuff about older generation of players in those threads and can enlighten you on certain things about players, or give you a different perspective that you may not have thought about beforehand.
6) Nothing beats actually having watched the players play, as numbers can only tell you so much.

Good job! I have been saying that, in my opinion, it is disrespectful to criticize the previous generations' games, simply because tennis is a sport that evolves. Without Laver, no Borg. Without Borg, no Agassi or Nadal etc...... Now you got me to look at things a little differently. Anyway, nice way to look at both sides of the coin in regard to mythical matchup threads. Excellent post!

Bryan Swartz
05-23-2010, 08:43 PM
am not a Federer fan at all; in fact I go for nearly anyone who he plays against, yet I can definitely say that hes the GOAT. It's very obvious and clear and no one comes close.

Asserting something does not make it true. If it's obvious and clear you ought to be able to demonstrate why.

How arrogant and megalomaniacal for someone to claim that GOAT is not knowable. It's as stupid and idiotic as the GOAT discussions and ranks right up there with all the *****.

Do you have anything specific behind pointless ad hominem attacks?

admit, he is the one and Only GOAT, all era.

And you know this how? Based on what?

@Juges8932:

Props to you for being the only one so far to attempt a significant response.

2) By definition, when you say someone is GOAT you are doing an era comparison. You can say a player was more dominant in his era than any other was in their era. But that still tells you nothing beyond that era, nothing about anything all-time, unless you get into era comparison which you've agreed not to in #1.

4). I don't mind hypothetical debates, so long as people keep them hypothetical. It's when people say so-and-so is GOAT or Player X would definitely beat Player Y that I have a problem.

Juges8932
05-23-2010, 09:22 PM
@Juges8932:

Props to you for being the only one so far to attempt a significant response.

2) By definition, when you say someone is GOAT you are doing an era comparison. You can say a player was more dominant in his era than any other was in their era. But that still tells you nothing beyond that era, nothing about anything all-time, unless you get into era comparison which you've agreed not to in #1.

4). I don't mind hypothetical debates, so long as people keep them hypothetical. It's when people say so-and-so is GOAT or Player X would definitely beat Player Y that I have a problem.

2) My point is that when you are saying GOAT, you can only compare a player in his/her era. It is not a cross-era comparison. If I think Fed is the GOAT, I'm not saying he would for sure beat Laver, because that we will never know. However, what I would be saying is, Fed is the greatest champion of his era, and arguably of any champion in any era. You can only compare within an era based off what you have seen and what you are given (numbers). If Fed has a higher winning %, more top finishes, championships, consistency, etc than other champions, then those are reasonable explanations to why one may think he is the GOAT. It isn't saying that Fed is BETTER than Laver, as I think there is a difference between greatest and best, because greatest is more representative of accomplishments (Numbers) as opposed to something more subjective, like better (skills/abilities, surfaces). However, greater can certainly be debated and narrowed down. To sum it up: GOAT is relative to how they performed/dominated in their respective eras, because that is something we CAN compare and look at. It isn't based of hypothetical guesses, but what actually happened. You can say, I think Fed has a better forehand than Laver ever had, but others can refute it. However, you can say, Fed has made 23 consecutive sem-finals in the Slams, which has been the most of any the greats, by far. That can't be refuted and is fact. That is something that shows Fed's unprecedented dominance and supports someone's GOAT claim. You are not saying Fed would dominate so much in Laver's era, thus, not a cross-era comparison. You are simply saying that Fed is greater in his era than Laver was in his, which is a player-dominance comparison. You are looking at unbiased numbers. Yeah, numbers can be manipulated to represent something that may seem exceptional, when in fact, it is simply a product of manipulation. Like saying something along the lines of, "On Sundays, at 12 o'clock matches, in 72 degree temperature, Federer is 5-0 all-time, the most of any player, ever." That is far too specific and narrow to be a fair judging block. Something that is broad, and gives players an equal opportunity, such as slam semi-finals appearances, is not biased and shows a consistency in excellence.

4) I don't know why you said that, because I agreed with you on that and said that in my own response, lol. Hypothetically saying you think Fed would beat Laver can be fun and promotes creativity and sharing of knowledge, but making a statement such as, Fed would beat Laver because he is so much better is asinine and provides nothing, which I agree with.

gold soundz
05-23-2010, 09:25 PM
Asserting something does not make it true. If it's obvious and clear you ought to be able to demonstrate why.


Well I believe Federer's the GOAT because he has so much more talent than anyone who has ever played the game AND he has used this talent to achieve extreme amounts of success. He has broken numerous amounts of records and most importantly, the most significant records. Also he has a few more years left to achieve more.

Bryan Swartz
05-23-2010, 09:33 PM
Juges, I think it's obvious that when most people say GOAT, they mean best. If someone says most dominant, I'm fine with that. You can certainly make an argument for that.

gold soundz, how do you know Federer has so much more talent? How can you say that someone from a different era wouldn't have achieved just as much? As for his records, as mentioned those make him the most dominant champion. I think anyone in their right mind would agree with that. There's a big difference between most dominant champion and GOAT though, unless as mentioned you think they are the same thing which isn't what most mean by greatest.

gold soundz
05-23-2010, 09:38 PM
Juges, I think it's obvious that when most people say GOAT, they mean best. If someone says most dominant, I'm fine with that. You can certainly make an argument for that.

gold soundz, how do you know Federer has so much more talent? How can you say that someone from a different era wouldn't have achieved just as much? As for his records, as mentioned those make him the most dominant champion. I think anyone in their right mind would agree with that. There's a big difference between most dominant champion and GOAT though, unless as mentioned you think they are the same thing which isn't what most mean by greatest.

We're not arguing who would/could be the GOAT, we're arguing who IS the GOAT. The fact is, those other players didn't achieve what Federer has. Plus Federer has a lot more to achieve in the next few years.

Bryan Swartz
05-23-2010, 09:41 PM
To me that makes the title of GOAT mean even less, since many players(i.e., at the very least Laver and anyone before him) never had the chance to because of a different competitive setup. When you consider that top players didn't play the AO until about 20 years ago(less in some cases), it's just another example of how GOAT doesn't mean anything, because measurements(like Slams) are being used that can't be equally applied across eras.

gold soundz
05-23-2010, 09:47 PM
To me that makes the title of GOAT mean even less, since many players(i.e., at the very least Laver and anyone before him) never had the chance to because of a different competitive setup. When you consider that top players didn't play the AO until about 20 years ago(less in some cases), it's just another example of how GOAT doesn't mean anything, because measurements(like Slams) are being used that can't be equally applied across eras.

If you reason like that, you could take it a step further and say 'Oh but someone who was never born could have been born and been better than Federer and he would have been the GOAT! Therefore Federer can't be called the GOAT!'

mtr1
05-23-2010, 10:23 PM
I don't understand why most of the threads on this forum are full of this fallacy. Those of you who engage it, please explain it to me. There is no way anybody can know whether Federer is better than Sampras, Laver, Borg, etc. We can't know if Chang would beat Nadal on clay or any of this nonsense.

All we can do is talk about how good a player was in his own era. So much changes from decade to decade. Technology, particular good/bad matchups, surface conditions, balance of events on tour, changes in coaching/strategy/tactics/athletic training science, etc. All that can be measured is how one played against the opponents they were given. This GOAT stuff(and all related activities) is completely speculation and can never be demonstrated. Why can't we just enjoy the champions the sport has had and leave it at that?

I think we all know who would win that. Have you not seen Nadal play over the last 5 years? :)

fed_rulz
05-24-2010, 03:40 AM
Good job! I have been saying that, in my opinion, it is disrespectful to criticize the previous generations' games, simply because tennis is a sport that evolves. Without Laver, no Borg. Without Borg, no Agassi or Nadal etc...... Now you got me to look at things a little differently. Anyway, nice way to look at both sides of the coin in regard to mythical matchup threads. Excellent post!

Actually, it's the other way round; the current era is the one that's being criticized for it's style of play (one-dimensional ball bashing, lack of S & V, etc....).

fed_rulz
05-24-2010, 03:50 AM
To me that makes the title of GOAT mean even less, since many players(i.e., at the very least Laver and anyone before him) never had the chance to because of a different competitive setup. When you consider that top players didn't play the AO until about 20 years ago(less in some cases), it's just another example of how GOAT doesn't mean anything, because measurements(like Slams) are being used that can't be equally applied across eras.

Then we can safely devalue Laver's Grandslam in 1969? While you do have a point, you simply cannot ignore overwhelming dominance to make a point - borg/Nadal at FO, Sampras/Fed at Wimby, Fed/Sampras at USO, Fed/Agassi at AO, etc. These comparisons make for fun discussions :)

sureshs
05-24-2010, 08:08 AM
GOATs are of interest to people who follow sports. GOAT is argued in golf, baseball, basketball, etc. If it is foolish to argue about it, it is also foolish to see someone hit a ball with a stick. It depends on what people are interested in.

Bryan Swartz
05-24-2010, 12:11 PM
That's apparently not true in my case(and a number of other sports fans I know), who are not interested in the endless GOAT debates but nonetheless love sports. What does that make us?

HAL9001
05-24-2010, 01:53 PM
1) I agree, cross-era comparisons are kind of foolish, especially when people start making definitive statements, that X player WOULD beat player Y.
2) I think GOAT can be demonstrated. As you are preaching, you can only measure how great a player is relative to the specific era. So, by that criteria, you can see which players were most dominant in their respective eras. In the end, it is subjective, BUT, I think acting like a comparison between players between eras, when one was CLEARLY more dominant, is asinine and is playing semantics.
3) Cross-era comparisons are foolish because, who knows if Sampras would have been Sampras, Agassi been Agassi, Fed been Fed, etc without all of those players beforehand laying the foundation of tennis down for them to follow and admire. Saying, oh, if 2007 Fed went back to 1950, he would smoke everybody. Well, Fed has the benefit of superior technology, knowledge, and training that was not available back then. Who is to say that if Laver was born in today's era that he would not be every bit as dominant as Fed, if not more-so?
4) You can definitely have intelligent discussions as to who you think would win between a '69 Laver vs '07 Fed. What becomes less-than-impressive is when people make definitive claims that '07 Fed would without a doubt win. But what's the point of message boards and discussing tennis, and sports in general, if all you talk about is what is definitive. What are you supposed to talk about? "Fed won 2007 Wimbledon." Ok, yeah, he did. Then there would be nothing to create conversation about.
5) I also find that these types of threads can be really educational when it comes to players and the sport. I know I find out a bunch of stuff about older generation of players in those threads and can enlighten you on certain things about players, or give you a different perspective that you may not have thought about beforehand.
6) Nothing beats actually having watched the players play, as numbers can only tell you so much.

Nice job of illustrating how hypothetical the whole debate is.

Tennis_Monk
05-24-2010, 04:03 PM
That's apparently not true in my case(and a number of other sports fans I know), who are not interested in the endless GOAT debates but nonetheless love sports. What does that make us?

hmm.. what does that make you guys?. If it is comforting, you are eligible for a membership in the 'I hate GOAT threads' club.

Tennis_Monk
05-24-2010, 04:13 PM
Chris Guccione is a GOAT. I cant believe why he is so underrated on this forum. If Chris Guccione was playing in the Old era of tennis, today we "will" (not 'would') be talking about how he smoked Laver, Tanner, Ashe, McEnroe and you name it.

I can support this argument with numbers, as one poster alluded to in earlier posts, numbers dont tell the whole story. Just trust me (or for that matter any poster on Internet forum), Chris Guccione is the GOAT.

JoshDragon
05-24-2010, 10:12 PM
Let's just admit Roger's the GOAT and be done with it.:twisted:

beernutz
05-24-2010, 10:25 PM
That's apparently not true in my case(and a number of other sports fans I know), who are not interested in the endless GOAT debates but nonetheless love sports. What does that make us?

Boring. (You asked.)

Bryan Swartz
05-26-2010, 01:27 PM
If you reason like that, you could take it a step further and say 'Oh but someone who was never born could have been born and been better than Federer and he would have been the GOAT! Therefore Federer can't be called the GOAT!'

This doesn't follow at all. Obviously the concept of GOAT is limited to those who have actually played, not some hypothetical player. Clearly those who say Federer is the GOAT aren't saying that there will never be someone better than him in the future, just that he's the best we've ever seen to date. I don't see how anything I posted implies what you've said.

Then we can safely devalue Laver's Grandslam in 1969? While you do have a point, you simply cannot ignore overwhelming dominance to make a point - borg/Nadal at FO, Sampras/Fed at Wimby, Fed/Sampras at USO, Fed/Agassi at AO, etc.

I don't see how I'm devaluing Laver at all. His Grandslam was a fabulous achievement. It's not 'devaluing' it to say it's useless to use as a way to compare Laver to players of a different era. He obviously dominated his era. I'm just saying that's the most that can be said about it.

I don't ignore overwhelming dominance, I simply say that it is not necessarily an accurate indicator of how well a player would have performed in a different era.

forzamilan90
05-26-2010, 01:33 PM
guys i think we should keep doing these GOAT threads, cause eventually all in here will be educated enough to know how to determine the GOAT

Bryan Swartz
05-26-2010, 01:44 PM
I'm a little hazy on the role of 'education' in determining the undeterminable ;).

LuckyR
05-26-2010, 03:40 PM
I agree with the OP in the sense that it is usually not defined if some says Fed was better than Tilden, do they mean the actual Fed vs the actual Tilden, or the actual Fed vs Tilden given the advantages of the modern era, technology, technique, nutrition and training wise?

The first instance is a boring conversation because the modern player is likely to be better because of improvements in the game itself over time. The second instance involves so much speculation that it is an execise in fantasy, hence why many find it interesting.

Tennis_Monk
05-26-2010, 06:21 PM
I agree with the OP in the sense that it is usually not defined if some says Fed was better than Tilden, do they mean the actual Fed vs the actual Tilden, or the actual Fed vs Tilden given the advantages of the modern era, technology, technique, nutrition and training wise?

The first instance is a boring conversation because the modern player is likely to be better because of improvements in the game itself over time. The second instance involves so much speculation that it is an execise in fantasy, hence why many find it interesting.

All it means is federer did more in his time against his competitors than Tilden did against his (by no means i am factually verifying this statement. i dont know what tildens accomplishments are).

What you hit on is the actual problem. how do we define GOAT?. For each person , GOAT means something different than the other.

Though for all practical purposes, only my decison matters; if i say X is a GOAT, then thats it. X it is!

LuckyR
05-28-2010, 09:06 AM
All it means is federer did more in his time against his competitors than Tilden did against his (by no means i am factually verifying this statement. i dont know what tildens accomplishments are).

What you hit on is the actual problem. how do we define GOAT?. For each person , GOAT means something different than the other.

Though for all practical purposes, only my decison matters; if i say X is a GOAT, then thats it. X it is!

You live in a universe of one apparantly, good luck with that, socially...

paulorenzo
05-31-2010, 02:44 AM
It's fun,

Have you seen the move 30 days of night? Bunch of thugs are contaminated with a virus, the only way to fight them is to catch the virus. Now that you have exposed yourself, folks are gonna show up and bite you one by one, then you will become sick, and will see the light.

Told you Bryan, it doesnt matter what the topic, it's about fun...

For example look at this fellow paul. He doesnt know *****e about anything he just shows up and bites you, his goal is to make you sick.

Vampirism

...In the series, vampirism is portrayed as a virus, one that can be spread through scratches, bites and contact with vampire blood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_Days_of_Night

ah, i see where you are getting at. to be honest however, it would have been more accurate to state that the thugs were already contaminated prior to the start of the movie.

i hope you understand where i'm coming from, i know you were trying to get your point across about the different views opposing parties have with the GOAT topic, but it your explanation seemed a lot more like a zombie apocalypse flick than vampire themed 30 Days of Night.

"Bunch of thugs are contaminated with a virus, the only way to fight them is to catch the virus."
your opening can be misleading, evidenced by the initial thoughts of a fellow poster's and my own. it seems like you are saying, a bunch of thugs became contaminated with the virus, which is very 28-Days-Later-esque. it's more accurate to state that the vampires (who were already vampires to begin with prior to said date and time) came into a town infecting people, and etc etc.

That way, the synopsis includes vampirism and infection, and can also be interpreted as symbolism regarding trolls and people with preconceived notions on many topics found on this forum. :)

oh and forget GOAT arguments, they are redundant, unending, and unnecessary; especially since we already know federer is the GOAT. :shock:

BullDogTennis
05-31-2010, 09:24 AM
No. He was right. You're both wrong.

In the movie, the vampires are people with a virus. The guy realizes to fight the vampires he has to inject infected blood into himself.

in the movie, the vampires are like a race that has been around for like a LONG time and spoke what seemed to be an ancient language. whether you call vamparism a 'virus' or not i guess could determine if you think hes right or not.

jackson vile
05-31-2010, 02:13 PM
I don't understand why most of the threads on this forum are full of this fallacy. Those of you who engage it, please explain it to me. There is no way anybody can know whether Federer is better than Sampras, Laver, Borg, etc. We can't know if Chang would beat Nadal on clay or any of this nonsense.

All we can do is talk about how good a player was in his own era. So much changes from decade to decade. Technology, particular good/bad matchups, surface conditions, balance of events on tour, changes in coaching/strategy/tactics/athletic training science, etc. All that can be measured is how one played against the opponents they were given. This GOAT stuff(and all related activities) is completely speculation and can never be demonstrated. Why can't we just enjoy the champions the sport has had and leave it at that?

You are 100% right, I think that it is a physiological problems that a lot of people have, i.e. mainly tennis players in general.

They just want to make believe that they are correct, these are the type of people that feel they are never wrong and will argue things to death no matter how much proof there is against them LOL.

It is funny, because the ****s only want to count Open Slams; otherwise they lose to the likes of Pancho, and Laver.

The Pards are angry because all Federer is doing is fallowing Pete instead of accomplishing his own unique titles that he is noted for.

The other "GOATS" all have unique titles to them that no one else can do, and if they did do accomplish it, they are still followers and not leaders.