View Single Post
Old 11-11-2012, 10:21 AM   #54
krosero
Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
Yes he won big tournaments, but how many of them? ATP claim that Laver had won only 42 titles, maybe they have reason to do it?
You sound like TMF here, who has been told many times why the ATP lists 42 titles for Laver but ignores the reason. You seriously don't know why 42 titles are listed for Laver at the ATP?

Any modern fan should know how the ATP operates. If anything, you'd expect a modern fan to know that better than an older fan would. But apparently not, judging by your post here.

It's ironic because isn't it your argument that tennis is mature now because it's organized better than ever? Well okay, so you should know inside-out how tennis is organized today and basic things like how the organized bodies count titles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
First, I am sorry for my bad English.

I read too many threads and too many posts here about how great Pre-open era and players of that period were. It is becoming ridiculous for many reasons. I will tell you why.

1) Everthing in pre-open era is like a myth. Nothing real about it. For example: Pancho Gonzales and Laver are called "co-number 1" with other players for many years. It is REALLY ridiculous and can only happen in an immature stage of tennis history. This year Murray and Federer and Djokovic are very close in term of winning big titles, but in the end Novak Djokovic is THE world number 1. If this scenario happened in the past, they would be treated like co-number 1.
Maybe this has to do with your English, but you are not using the term 'myth' correctly. The term has more than one meaning, but if you're using it to mean "nothing real about it," because tennis experts could disagree about the #1 for a year or even co-rank #1 (due to the fact that there were no computer rankings, so opinions were the only thing available), then you do not know what the term means. Opinion is not myth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
But like TMF points out, in the forum like this players like Hoad, Gonzales, Laver are in the fix position compared to Federer. Federer can win 5 more slams and they are still in the fix position. The biggest weapon old timer use to defend Gonzales or Laver is "IF bla bla...". If = myth = meaningless. Pre-open era is immature stage of tennis history. And anything achieved in that stage can not be treated as the same with today's achievement. Period.
And now you use "myth" another way, to mean "if". By that, I think you mean speculation about non-events. So which is it? Do you think "myth" means differing opinions? Or do you think "myth" means speculation about events that have never happened?

BTW, TMF's argument, if you can call it that, about "fix position" is based on a false premise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMF View Post
Thanks NGM.

It's true that Roger's continue to add more to his legacy, some people bump up players in the pre-open(i.e. Laver) era so they can stay "fix" with Roger, but players in the open-era has to stay further behind. It makes no sense at all. Player's resume can't be change unless you're an active player like Roger. No past retired player can't get any worse(or better) just because Roger breaks/set tennis records. People should leave out Federer when they want to compare players in the open era to players in the pre-open era.
You once assumed that we -- or other people -- once had Sampras and Laver on the same level, but that once Federer passed Sampras, we bumped Laver up to Federer's level while letting Sampras fall back.

I told you that you had no basis on which to assume that we once judged Sampras and Laver to be on the same level. Of course you just seem to have ignored that.

I'll speak for myself here, as on older fan. I never regarded Sampras and Laver as being on the same level. I thought of Sampras as below Laver's level. When Federer passed Sampras, I thought that the new conversation would be, or should be, about Federer vs Laver. In other words, I felt Federer approached Laver's level only when he passed Sampras -- and in particular when he got his French Open.

So what's the problem here? You see me bumping Laver up from Sampras' level? You see anyone else here doing that?
krosero is offline   Reply With Quote