Is Djokovic an all-time great?

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by 5555

You said that you were a professional player. Can you prove it?



My queston:



Your answer:



Why did you say "Yeah I can prove it"?

Wow you are a special person indeed. Let's review, Djoker lacks the weeks at #1 and slams to be ahead of the players on the Laver list, FACT. Connors level of competition included, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, all time greats, FACT. There is no way to factually prove that one level of competition is greater than another, which is why I never set out to do this, yet you seem to think that unless I can prove this, all my statements aren't FACTS, and not surprisingly, you are wrong.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by 5555

Can you prove that when level of competition is taken into account Connors is greater player than Djokovic?

Can you prove that when level of competition is taken into account Djokovic is a greater player than my 3-year old son? It's either yes or no to both, so better make up your mind.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by cknobman

After 2011 and 2012 I would also think that he has moved himself into top 20 (maybe only 25) all time.

Yes that sounds about right, I haven't done the precise ranking but he would probably be around 20-25.

Let's see, Fed, Laver, Sampras, Borg, Nadal, Rosewall, Gonzales, Budge, Tilden, Lendl, Connors, Agassi, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Kramer, Perry, Cochet, Lacoste, Hoad, Vines, Emerson......that's 23 guys I would rank ahead of him right now. There may be a few more.

[djokovic2008]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Oh, overall I completely agree, Federer is a far better claycourter and will most likely end up with better credentials on clay.

However, at Djokovic's peak, I think his performance against the field on clay would be better than Fed at his peak, if they were both playing at their peaks at the same time. Remember that how they match up with Nadal is a huge, HUGE part of it, because if they wanna win titles on clay they'll have to go through Nadal so that's a massive piece of the pie.

Erm fed vs djoker is 3-3 on clay and one of those wins for fed was a RETIREMENT. Are you kidding me djoker is the only one can even come close to challenge Nadal on clay.

[5555]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

Do you really need to repost things that prove my points? You would do better by arguing against them (of course, you'd be hard-pressed to do so, considering you were the one who set yourself up for this pwnage in the first place, but hey, you can still try by saying that it was a mistake, that you wrote that bs about perception of level of competition negating all facts while you had been abducted by aliens, that the NSKzilla army of clones stole your account, etc. It's bound to be entertaining, at least...)

Can you prove that when level of competition is taken into account Connors is greater player than Djokovic?

Originally Posted by jokinla

........

You said that you were a professional player. Can you prove it?

Djoker lacks the weeks at #1 and slams to be ahead of the players on the Laver list, FACT.

In 2006 many tennis experts said that Federer is greater player than Sampras even though at that time Federer was far behind Sampras in weeks at No. 1 and slams.

Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, all time greats, FACT.

It's matter of opinion what is an "all-time great" so it's not a fact.

There is no way to factually prove that one level of competition is greater than another, which is why I never set out to do this

You said that you can prove that Connors is greater player than Djokovic if level of competition is taken into account.

[Hodgey20]

And if you dont think so you have to agree that he will be. The Djoker is an all time great because he has beaten all time greats consistently (fed,nadal)... AND his career is far from over hes the best in the world right now fed will fade away in a few yrs who knows about nadal. Besides that there is no one much younger than him that looks to be a threat so it will be him murray and delpo at the top for a while it looks like

[cknobman]

Originally Posted by djokovic2008

Erm fed vs djoker is 3-3 on clay and one of those wins for fed was a RETIREMENT. Are you kidding me djoker is the only one can even come close to challenge Nadal on clay.

???

Nadal has a 12-2 record vs Djoker on clay.
Nadal has a 12-2 record vs Federer on clay.

Federers career clay resume is far far far far greater than what Novak has done so far.

I dont get where on earth would you even be able to assume that Novak is a better clay courter than Federer.

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by 5555

Can you prove that when level of competition is taken into account Connors is greater player than Djokovic?



You said that you were a professional player. Can you prove it?



In 2006 many tennis experts said that Federer is greater player than Sampras even though at that time Federer was far behind Sampras in weeks at No. 1 and slams.



It's matter of opinion what is an "all-time great" so it's not a fact.


You said that you can prove that Connors is greater player than Djokovic if level of competition is taken into account.

Perhaps this will help you.

fact
[fakt]

noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth:
2.
something known to exist or to have happened:

3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:

[axel89]

federer might have a better clay resume NOW but we'll see when djokovic is at 31

[kiki]

A 5 slams holder is an all timer
How big?
Between 30 and 40

[5555]

Originally Posted by jokinla

......

You said that you were a professional player? Can you prove it?

Perhaps this will help you.

fact
[fakt]

noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth:
2.
something known to exist or to have happened:

3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:

What is definition of "all-time great"?

Originally Posted by jokinla

Djoker lacks the weeks at #1 and slams to be ahead of the players on the Laver list, FACT.

It's not a fact. It's matter of opinion what makes one player greater than another.

Connors level of competition included, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, all time greats, FACT.

It's not a fact. It's matter of opinion what is definition of "all-time great".

There is no way to factually prove that one level of competition is greater than another, which is why I never set out to do this

You said that you can prove what I asked you to prove and I asked you to prove that Connors is greater player than Djokovic when level of competition is taken into account. Right after you said (in the same sentence) that you can prove it, you mentioned Borg, McEnroe and Lendl to back up your claim. So, I was right when I stated that you said Borg, McEnroe and Lendl were tougher to beat than Djokovic's rivals.

[kOaMaster]

Originally Posted by axel89

federer might have a better clay resume NOW but we'll see when djokovic is at 31

yes. let's wait.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by 5555

It's not a fact. It's matter of opinion what is definition of "all-time great".

It may not be a fact in the same way that 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact. However if 99.9% of people maintain that Lendl, Borg and McEnroe are all-time greats, the conclusion must be that it is the truth.

[5555]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

It may not be a fact in the same way that 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact. However if 99.9% of people maintain that Lendl, Borg and McEnroe are all-time greats, the conclusion must be that it is the truth.

What is the definition of "all-time great"?

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by 5555

What is the definition of "all-time great"?

It can be defined in different ways by different people but, however they define it, a very large percentage will place Lendl, Borg and McEnroe into that category.

Presumably you're not trying to claim that, just because "all-time great" is a concept, and not a tangible item, it can't exist?

[5555]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

It may not be a fact in the same way that 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact. However if 99.9% of people maintain that Lendl, Borg and McEnroe are all-time greats, the conclusion must be that it is the truth.

I forgot to say that you commited logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum. It's an fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because most people believe it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by 5555

I forgot to say that you commited logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum. It's an fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because most people believe it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I'm not bothering to read that but I think you are defining truth as scientific fact.

For instance it can't be scientifically proven that you created this thread just to spout off philosophy, make yourself look smart and amuse yourself. However most readers will agree it to be true.

[batz]

Originally Posted by 5555

Burden of proof is on him to prove that he is wright because made positive claim. He failed to provide proof, so I won the argument.

Ship or play?

[qindarka]

Originally Posted by 5555

Burden of proof is on him to prove that he is wright because made positive claim. He failed to provide proof, so I won the argument.

I'm not saying these rules of argumentation are wrong, they do serve as a very useful guideline. I do think, however, that its simplistic to use all these as proof of 'winning the argument'. And is 'winning' really the objective here?

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by 5555

I forgot to say that you commited logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum. It's an fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because most people believe it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Well, by that token, no one has ever been an all-time great, because if we assume that the opinions of professionals are only to be taken with a grain of salt, none of the top players in history has a claim to being an all time great.

Especially not Djokovic. I'm really not sure what your argument here is.. are you trying to say there are no all-time greats? Because that's pretty much what you've just done, if you're thinking in such black and white terms as logical fallacies and only having a sound argument if it is backed up by facts (something you're not actually doing yourself, mind you, seeing as you said this in your OP):

Originally Posted by 5555

"Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, Roddick's chief rivals, may very well be the greatest three players to ever play tennis"
Andre Agassi
http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/men-...ourt-champions

"At the moment Andy is probably playing against three of the top eight players in the history of the game".
Tim Henman
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/wimb...s-7876173.html

"1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. McEnroe
5. Nadal
6. Djokovic
7. Agassi
8. Connors
9. Lendl
10. Edberg "
Rod Laver's TOP 10 at Open Era
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archives...654969?page=12

"Novak has been phenomenal, winning the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the US Open and getting to the semis at Roland Garros. That puts him right up there alongside the best who have ever played."
Pat Cash
http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/879710-...-says-pat-cash

"This guy surely now has a genuine claim to be labelled as one of the all-time greats."
Jonathan Overend
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/16781690


"It's obviously great any time you beat the world No. 1. I just tried to do some of the same things I did in Australia. I was very close there against one of the greatest players ever.."
Andy Murray
http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/139046.html#

So, if you believe that the majority of expert opinions are not valid evidence to support the claim that Lendl, Borg, and McEnroe are all-time greats, something you just hinted at by calling another poster out for using a 'logical fallacy' to disprove his point, then your whole thread is for nothing, as you also have no grounds to argue Djokovic is An all time great.

So, in conclusion, by taking your own words and applying them to the topic at hand, no, Djokovic is not an all time great.