Unbelievable Ignorance of Some Posters

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Feb 13, 2010.

  1. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,146
    Nice job playing the victim. Moving on.

    You still don't get what an appeal to authority is. Look up argumentum ad verecundiam.

    And you also don't grasp that the "experts" you cite are either former/current pros whose "expert opinion" is bound to be biased by how they felt they matched up against their competitors at the time, or prominent pundits with big megaphones at their disposal who tend to hype up the present for a variety of reasons, not least of all to keep up the public's interest in their chosen profession. If you put so much stock in "expert opinion" you might want to survey the historians, the seasoned instructors and the old-timers without such public profiles for their own expert opinions. I can tell how many of them you personally know or have bothered to ask.

    And speaking of the historians, you might also want to take some time to read some of their commentaries, which are usually measured and balanced unlike those of the "experts" you accept so blindly. They're the ones who will be writing history, not those mass-media pundits.

    Irrelevant. This is an issue of simple fact-checking.

    You didn't simply argue that the number of titles won isn't a reliable metric. You also said those smaller titles came from as "Mickey Mouse tournaments." Interesting how you've changed your tune.

    Bad analogy. We're not talking about a Joe Bloggs, but some of the all-time greats of the game whose achievements have earned them a place in the GOAT discussion.

    I never said I reject either. Unlike you I just don't take them on face value.

    Yeah, you sure understood my "argument." And intentional absence of an argument equals inability to construct one in that fecund mind of yours. Gotcha.
     
    #51
  2. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,739
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    The reason Fed is the best today is not because he's the strongest or tallest or biggest, but because he's the most complete. He can volley as well as play backcourt.

    Today's other players are strategically weak. Why? Because they can't volley or change their game when in trouble. When those passing shots are not working, all they can do is more and harder.
     
    #52
  3. Steve132

    Steve132 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    840
    My post was focused on the issues at hand. You interjected yourself into the debate by posting a fact free entry full of personal insults, and now you object when you are held accountable for this.

    You really should not use concepts unless you understand them. This is the technical definition of argumentum ad verecundiam. It is very different indeed from the argument that I made.

    Your argument might have had some merit if there were only a few former players who regard Federer as the GOAT. It is utterly implausible given the range and the depth of Federer's support - which, by the way, is not confined to current and former players but also includes many journalists and coaches as well. Ad hoc explanations of why various individuals describe Federer as the GOAT don't work very well when the number of individuals rises above a certain level. The most parsimonious explanation is simply that they believe what they say. They might be wrong, but there is little doubt about what the critical consensus is.

    Incidentally, what evidence do you have that "the historians, the seasoned instructors and the old-timers" are any more impartial than the former players that I listed? Aren't you appealing to authority by quoting them and regarding their views as definitive?

    The "fact checking " involves collecting the views of tennis analysts, which is precisely what I did. I listed some of these analysts to dispel any doubt about the state of the expert consensus on the issue.

    You need to improve your comprehension skills. I did not deny that players from previous decades had won large tournaments. That would not have made much sense, because all the players in question won several majors. My point was that today's players are much more focused on winning the biggest tournaments, which is why Federer's total of 62 titles includes 16 majors, 16 Masters titles and 4 YEC's. Big tournaments constitute a much higher proportion of his total title count than is the case with players from the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's.

    We are talking about achievements and why they are relevant. There is little evidence from your post that you consider achievements in any systematic fashion.

    Again, brush up on your comprehension skills before engaging in these debates. Your summary of my argument is the precise opposite of what I stated.

    Really? Is this the best you can do?

    I've said many times that I don't believe that Federer is the GOAT. I doubt whether the issue will ever be resolved, but if I were forced to choose I would opt for Laver rather than Federer. In this forum, however, I frequently find myself defending Federer, simply because so many of the arguments against his GOAT claims have very little merit. Your posts generate more heat than light, and in any event they have not contributed significantly to the discussion.
     
    #53
  4. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    I've seen many times when Andy Roddick may get Roger Federer in trouble with a shot that Federer bloops back high and often slow over the net. You figure Roddick would move in, hit an offensive volley for a winner or at least to set himself up at the net for a high percentage volley. But what does Roddick do, he waits for it to bounce near the baseline to hit a heavy powerful topspin drive. This allows Federer to get back in position and often win the point.

    I'm using Federer and Roddick as an example here because I've seen it happen between the two quite often however you can fill in virtually any name in men's tennis here and it would fit the situation. Players are comfortable with the high percentage topspin baseline drive and they stick to it.

    To be fair I often see the drive volleys of today but I don't think they use it as much as they could.

    I don't know, maybe the new way is better but it doesn't seem to make sense to me to play it that way.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2010
    #54
  5. Chopin

    Chopin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,103
    Location:
    St. John, USVI
    I certainly agree with you all that many of today's players lack variety, and that Roddick has a tendency to lose big matches, but I don't really buy the argument that they're "strategically weak."

    Players don't volley as effectively today as in the past, but even those who do it well (Federer, for example) often get burned when they try to do it too much. I remember Federer hitting very fine approach shots against Nadal at Wimbledon and Nadal just blowing the ball past him. (I think Federer won more points than he lost using s &v tactics, but the point is that it's not as readily available as a strategy as some of you are making out to be).

    The days of fast, low bouncing court surfaces that lend themselves to serve and volley play are largely over. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that since they changed the grass there, baselines slugfests have become the norm! Furthermore, add in the new strings, and it's a lot harder to serve and volley today than in the past. I'm not saying it couldn't be done though and at the least, players could try to incorporate it here and there in their repertoire.

    And let's also not forget that many big serve and volleyers did only one thing! In other words, serve and volleying is largely a live or die proposition. Look at Sampras against Hewitt at the US Open. The guy was spent going into the match, and had no chance of grinding it out with a guy like Hewitt at the baseline and Hewitt picked off Pete's serves and the match was over before it started. Pete, of course, was tough from the baseline, but we’re talking about an all-time great here! In general, there's little margin of error with serve and volley players.

    I also think that while there are certainly younger players that make poor tactical decisions, that by and large, today's guys are pretty strong in that area. These guys live and breathe tennis: researching opponents, discussing game plans with coaches, practicing against opponents with similar styles of play, ect. So, I don't really buy that they have poor strategy. Maybe part of the problem is that they over- prepare for matches, or rely too much on coaches and when they’re on the court all alone, they don’t rationalize as well as they should.

    Another point I’d like to make is that when watching tennis on television it's a little bit more difficult to appreciate all the different things the guys are doing with the ball. Anyone who has seen top players in person, knows that players putting a plethora of different spins on their shots, and really playing at a deceptively nuanced level.

    All the Best,
    Chopin
     
    #55
  6. JoshDragon

    JoshDragon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,235
    Then how do you explain Nadal's winning head-to-head against Federer. Obviously Federer has more options available to him when he plays against Nadal but he usually loses to him and not just on clay either.
     
    #56
  7. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    Video of Budge?

    Is there any decent video of Budge? There's hardly any even of Laver, and his career was much more recent. I have seen some snippets of slowmo over at tennisplayer.net and Budge's backhand was indeed lovely, but there's no way I could compare him to modern players, in terms of level, based on what I've seen.

    Even the stuff available of Laver is mostly highlights, which don't really give much info. I did download the third set of the 1969 Laver d. Rosewall Roland Garros final last night, which is the first time I'd actually seen an entire set played out by the Rocket. Interesting stuff.

    Is there anything like this out there of Budge? I recall reading that Budge, presumably quite old at the time, growled that he could have whupped Borg and Mac. Statements like that are always intriguing, as I don't think guys like that make idle boasts.
     
    #57
  8. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,146
    So you still can't see the incoherence of your two shticks. Mm-kay.

    I wasn't referring to that particular argument of yours. But yeah, I'm the one who has trouble understanding.

    My point was that the "critical consensus" of these "experts" is actually a dubious position shared by the pundits most visible in mass media. The main issue here isn't whether or not they believe what they say. Jezuz, are you really this dense? Amazing.

    Let's see, common sense tells me but obviously not you that they're at least free of the matchup biases. And articles by historians like Raymond Lee provide commentary and historical data rather than a case for a single GOAT or even a horde of GOATs. The now-defunct TennisWeek.com used to have a good number of such articles.

    I said if you put so much stock in "expert opinion." I don't regard their views as definitive. That's another straw man on your part.

    Again, the issue wasn't whether this "expert consensus" exists in mass media. And the consensus itself is derived from a biased and insufficent sample. Of course you don't get this.

    Yeah. Let's see if your own comprehension skills are up to par.

    Irrelevant. These two sentences could've been easily axed.

    I never said anything about the tour structure. I was simply pointing out your glib dismissal of those smaller events as "Mickey Mouse tournaments." Learn to read between the lines.

    Yet more irrelevant rigmarole. That doesn't make your weak analogy any more valid.

    I wasn't summarizing your "argument," genius. That was an unsubtle dig at your dumb logic and gullibility.

    I never asked what you believe.

    I'm well aware of your obsession with this topic. You don't need to tell me. And your defense of Federer doesn't have much merit, either.

    I generally stay out of the GOAT discussions because I understand that comparing eras isn't as simple as you and your ilk make it out to be.
     
    #58
  9. Frank Silbermann

    Frank Silbermann Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,063
    http://www.britishpathe.com/results.php?search=tennis+Budge

    I have to assume that Budge was better than today's players if only because his form was better. He used correct technique. I think most of today's players would collapse from injury trying to play with heavy dead wooden rackets on fast, low-bouncing, patchy grass.
     
    #59
  10. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    There is some decent videos of Budge in the videotape "King of the Court" which was produced by Budge's former doubles partner Gene Mako.

    http://www.woodtennis.com/courtkings.html
     
    #60
  11. Steve132

    Steve132 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    840
    As usual, your post is a fact-free rant loaded with personal insults. I see little point in making a detailed reply. At this stage most readers will be familiar with the arguments and can judge for themselves. I'm confident that a substantial majority of both tennis analysts and ordinary fans share my views on these issues, so I'll leave it at that.
     
    #61
  12. ALten1

    ALten1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    200
    I like your argument.

    I don't know the height/weight/strength/speed of the older players but when others argue the size difference between generations, your argument is always left out. If Laver was 3" taller than the average person back then, wouldn't it make sense that he would be at least 3" taller than the average person today.
     
    #62
  13. JoshDragon

    JoshDragon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,235
    I doubt that highly. More likely Budge, wouldn't know what to do with one of Roddick's 140 mph serves.
     
    #63
  14. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2010
    #64
  15. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/bg-109941/tennis_champions_in_match_for_the_title/

    It's a little clip but you can see his service form plus his backhand and forehand.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2010
    #65
  16. JoshDragon

    JoshDragon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,235
    Budge's serves and ground strokes, are a bit slower than Roddick's. While it's true that Roddick, has turned into more of a defensive player in recent years, I could still see him over-powering Budge from the baseline.

    However If Budge, had grown up with graphite racquets, he might have done pretty well in today's tennis. Like you said, he has very solid looking ground strokes.
     
    #66
  17. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    Josh,

    You're not taking into account the different rackets. Budge has wood and Roddick the current rackets and strings. It's doubtful Roddick will overpower Budge from the baseline if they had the same rackets.
     
    #67
  18. boredone3456

    boredone3456 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,006
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I would tend to agree. Budge could have thrived with good training combined with today's racquet technology. He had solid groundstrokes and his serve was fundamentally sound albeit weaker (partially because of the technology of the day). Roddicks Serve would probably overwhelm, however I don't think on his own serves he would be completely pushed around by Roddick. Roddick is not a stellar returner and from everything I have read about Budge's all around game he could probably do pretty well. However if you have Roddick play him with a wooden racquet Budge would probably be the one dictating the shots.

    I think Budge could compensate for his weaker strokes with his movement, Budge to me seemed like he was a good mover, just on what I have read about him. I think he might have an overall tactical advantage in a few areas that could give Roddick enough of a challenge to not just run Budge into the ground. That is all my opinion though.
     
    #68
  19. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    If you take into account racket technology and strings Budge probably was a much bigger hitter than Roddick off the ground. I read he was an okay mover but not great. He had a good serve with the wood racket but not of Roddick's level even accounting for the technology. Roddick would have major problems beating Budge with a wood racket. With a modern racket, I get the impression that Budge hit the ball like Andre Agassi with a bigger serve than Andre. Budge was well known for his great service return and very powerful groundies. Except of the serve, Budge was probably a better all around player than Roddick.
     
    #69
  20. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,739
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I agree. Budge was a "crazed he-man maniac" when it came to his equipment: his racquet weighed 16.5 ounces and he refused to use a leather grip, preferring instead the bare wood handle.
     
    #70
  21. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    My apologies Josh. You did write if he used today's rackets.
     
    #71
  22. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    I can't for a moment agree with your contention, besides, Federer has better technique than Budge in those clips. Budge does move beautifully though, as did most players back then. But many thanks for the link to the clips!
     
    #72
  23. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,146
    As usual, you can't recognize the glaring fallacies in your logic after they have been spelled out to you. And you conclude with an appeal to the majority, which is yet another fallacy of yours. It's really quite amazing that you still can't see analyzing the "objective evidence" requires no appeal to the "experts," who are in fact a biased and insufficient sample of the population, and to the masses, who are wrong more often than not. But hey, whatever makes you feel better. Just don't act innocent and play the victim when someone makes a well-deserved criticism of your illogic.
     
    #73
  24. Steve132

    Steve132 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    840
    For no very obvious reason you appear to believe that you are brighter than everyone else, yet you are incapable of constructing a coherent argument. I see no reason to continue a debate with someone who has so little to offer. Let's just agree to disagree.
     
    #74
  25. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,146
    You're right, I believe I'm so bright I've been asking people for their input to finish up that greatest-serves list I created more than a month ago. Great psychoanalysis there.

    And there's nothing to disagree on. The whole GOAT debate--that's where people can disagree. Your shticks, on the other hand, are obvious fallacies that I've spelled out several times by now. You just don't get it.

    But hey, keep pretending like coherence is your middle name. Whatever makes you feel better.
     
    #75
  26. Steve132

    Steve132 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    840
    You're right, I don't get it. I suspect that most rational, sane people don't get it either. But if it makes you happy to feel superior to the rest of the world, by all means indulge yourself.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2010
    #76
  27. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,146
    Geez, so you can read feelings now? Yeah, you're right, it makes me very happy feeling superior to the rational, sane people of the world. I enjoy feeling like an outsider. You nailed it this time.
     
    #77
  28. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    you have become an amazingly bad poster. too difficult to compare era's 60 years apart and using youtibe video's...not reliable at all.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2010
    #78
  29. bonga77

    bonga77 New User

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    99
    His argument that most past greats and tennis analysts consider Federer GOAT so Federer is GOAT is not logically false unless you dont consider them experts in the field of tennis. If you don't then who do you consider "expert" in determining GOAT debate? just asking :)
     
    #79
  30. swordtennis

    swordtennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,177
    Have to say watching a bit more of Laver and this guy was a beast. Some newfound respect. Some tremendous power off both wings. Superb volleys. However I can not deny Fed the title.
    Fed
    Pete/Laver
    Borg
     
    #80
  31. yemenmocha

    yemenmocha Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,225
    Problem is often Millennials who have no clue about history, even recent decades in men's tennis. Just like themselves, they assume the current generation is the best.
     
    #81
  32. swordtennis

    swordtennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,177
    However its not good to live in the past either. :)
     
    #82
  33. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,146
    It's not even an argument, or at most a very incoherent one. Like I said, his references to the "experts" are all but empty appeals to authority. Also note that these "experts" comprise a very small subset of the population. Since they're the ones most visible in the mass media their punditry gets more exposure than that of the rest of the population, which may well be more valuable. I pointed out these fallacies to him several times, but obviously to no avail. And it should be self-evident that no appeal to authority is necessary to analyze Federer's or any other player's records. The illogic of his "argument" is staggering.

    And last but not least, it's very unwise to take the pundits' GOAT talk at face value, as they tend to hype up the present over the past for the reasons I listed upthread. Just see what they were saying about Borg, McEnroe, Sampras and now Federer (Lendl is an interesting exception), and that's only the Open era. None of this is to say Federer doesn't belong in the GOAT discussion, he certainly does. He just doesn't need specious reasoning and outright fallacies for that.

    But your question is fair. What prevents me from being patient and civil with this guy isn't just his illogic, but his endless p!ssing over any GOAT not named Federer--like calling the smaller events of yesteryear "Mickey Mouse tournaments" and bringing up Sampras' resume out of the blue to put it down while predictably extolling the virtues of his hero (I actually called him out on this once, if not directly). Laver is the only past GOAT he seems to respect. Of course he's not the only member of this board who does this, but he's one of the few who frequent this "Former Pro" forum so I just advised a fellow poster against debating him. I have no problem with those who are genuinely interested in debate.
     
    #83

Share This Page