Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by zagor

But we are! Though not just about tennis history but present as well.

Just today for example I learned that Fed's level of play and longevity aren't impressive in the slightest and that Laver's BH was a glorified grandpa push/slice, those are some serious things to ponder.



I wouldn't disagree with you cause that would mean I don't respect your opinion or your right to have an opinion.

You have a sharp sense of humor. (Sounds like something my wife would say.) lol.

[arche3]

so you all agree Laver played Grand Pa tennis now right?

[qindarka]

Originally Posted by arche3

so you all agree Laver played Grand Pa tennis now right?

No, actually. Zagor was being sarcastic there.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by qindarka

Um, that doesn't answer anything. I genuinely don't know what point you are trying to make with krosero here.

I have never claimed that Federer was better than the oldies. It's impossible to compare between eras anyway, especially with the open era split. Kindly stop putting words into my mouth. Zagor and Feather have also mantained that Federer is not the GOAT and have not said anything bad about the great players from yesteryear.

And again with the subtle discrediting on basis of age. It's not as if you and the rest of the historians are all so wise and mature either.

It was you who mentioned krosero and praised him as the best poster. Thus I must think that you claim he is of he same opinion as you.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by qindarka

Um, that doesn't answer anything. I genuinely don't know what point you are trying to make with krosero here.

I have never claimed that Federer was better than the oldies. It's impossible to compare between eras anyway, especially with the open era split. Kindly stop putting words into my mouth. Zagor and Feather have also mantained that Federer is not the GOAT and have not said anything bad about the great players from yesteryear.

And again with the subtle discrediting on basis of age. It's not as if you and the rest of the historians are all so wise and mature either.

Oh no, they did say some "bad" words about the old great players...

[arche3]

Originally Posted by qindarka

No, actually. Zagor was being sarcastic there.

i know......

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by zagor

You just don't get it, do you? I don't believe Fed is stronger than Laver either, heck despite the fact that I don't adhere to the undisputed GOAT concept if I was pushed to name one I'd probably go for Laver because of his 2 Calender Grand Slams and lack of relative weakness in his resumee.

Since I have to spell it out for you, he (Krosero) is one former pro regular who isn't biased up to his ears against Fed and looks at and analyzes his career/achievements/game with an open mind (same as he does for other tennis greats).



Please, you said Fed's level of play is not very great and that he can only dominate when the era is weak and doesn't when the era is strong like his level of play is static and he himself doesn't affect the distribution of the biggest tourneys (and thus plays a role in whether the specific era appears weak or strong).



The difference being that Roche isn't remotely in Laver's and Rosewall's league while Fed on the other hand is, yes Rosewall might be greater but there's not a lot separating them either way which is something you fail to understand.

zagor, it seems as though you have overlooked that I rank Federer No. 5 at achievements. Thus I rate him rather high but...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by qindarka

No, actually. Zagor was being sarcastic there.

Oh really?

Of course he was. Zagor actually is pretty funny.

Truthfully many of my buddies are about as sarcastic as you can get so I'm used to that.

[qindarka]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

It was you who mentioned krosero and praised him as the best poster. Thus I must think that you claim he is of he same opinion as you.

Um, it most certainly was not me who said that.. It was zagor.

And has it crossed your mind that he could consider krosero to be the best poster despite not being of the same mind as him?

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Oh no, they did say some "bad" words about the old great players...

Give examples then.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

zagor, it seems as though you have overlooked that I rank Federer No. 5 at achievements. Thus I rate him rather high but...

But what? Sentence seems to be hanging.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

Guys,

To be honest BobbyOne's achievement list is superb in my opinion. We can all disagree with the order but to me it's perfect fine and frankly better than just about any list. I can't stand achievement lists with players who have no business being in the top ten like for example Safin.

Several things about the top playing level list. There have been a lot of complaints about Tony Roche being on the list but did you guys know that Tony Roche was considered the heir apparent to Laver? Did you guys know that Roche was so great (yes I use the term great) that in 1969, the year of Laver's Grand Slam that he was seeded number one in at least one tournament ahead of Laver! Roche had every shot. He had a terrific lefty serve, excellent backhand and forehand plus incredible hand speed that some believe was the fastest they have ever seen. His volley was around the level of Edberg and McEnroe. His backhand volley has often been called the greatest of all time. He moved well. Tony Roche won around 50 tournaments in his career and he won the French. It was only because of injuries that prevented him from being a super all time great. Did you know that when he was a coach for Lendl that he was beating Lendl regularly on grass in practice matches? And Lendl was trying because apparently he was upset at losing to old Tony Roche. Roche was an unbelievable player and to put him in the top ten all time for peak is actually a very informed and smart choice. You can agree or disagree but the man was gifted. He beat Laver and Rosewall regularly.

The second list is the man's opinion. An opinion is just that. BobbyOne believes Federer is by achievement clearly one of the best that ever live. He also believes Federer isn't in the top ten for top level. So why the big fuss? Many of you argue that Laver isn't in the top ten for top level and some argue for achievement. Many of you argue Rosewall isn't in the top top for top level and achievement.

Personally for top level I may put guys like Nastase and Connors in there also. I'm not sure but I would consider it. I remember reading about the match Connors played (never seen the match unfortuanately) in which Connors blasted many of Roscoe Tanner's first serves back for winner. And Tanner may be the hardest server I've seen.

I may put Nastase there ahead of many top players.

Tony Roche isn't spoken about much I believe because he wasn't controversial like Nastase however for top level I can see him ahead of Nastase and many others. I think for example he was more gifted than Becker and Edberg. Now that's my opinion so don't pounce on me for that.

So what is the definition for top level? Personally I would put Bill Tilden on that list. Many believe Tilden's top level was super and his achievements are incredible. I don't understand anyone questioning Tilden being on the top achievements list. Here's Tilden's achievements from a thread I did a few months ago in the next post. Had to do that because this post would be too long.

pc1, Thanks a lot for your support. It does not happen too often for me these days...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

Some of you may write that Tilden played in the 1920's. My viewpoint is how much better can you expect the man to do? He was virtually unbeatable for a decade. He won 98% when he was at his best and he played everyone from Lacoste, Johnston, Williams, Cochet, Nusslein, Vines, Perry, Budge, Riggs all the way to Pancho Gonzalez. He was about 6'2" tall, had a big serve, excellent forehand and backhand. And yes I do think he would adapt easily to today's game.

Please don't jump on a poster simply because he disagrees with what seems to be the majority's viewpoint. I don't believe BobbyOne is writing this to incite people but simply to express his opinions. Do you really what another person going with the pack and being afraid to express his or her true feelings about a topic or do you want to see other people's opinions on a topic and see their viewpoints? I much prefer the latter. It's more to me of a learning experience. When you see different viewpoints you may understand things more. I like it when someone disagrees with me and we can have meaningful discussions. And I don't call people a troll when they disagree with me.

I find nothing more boring than reading the same viewpoints all the time. The man is trying to express his well thought out opinions and he has spent many years apparently studying this information and researching this. You should be happy he gave the list.

Thanks once more. I'm feeling a bit ashamed...

[qindarka]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, Thanks a lot for your support. It does not happen too often for me these days...

We aren't obliged to agree with your opinions, you know.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by qindarka

We aren't obliged to agree with your opinions, you know.

That's a given of course. Frankly I don't want everyone to agree with my opinions either.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Feather

I don't know whether you are pretending ignorant or you are really ignorant.

Neither me nor Zagor was trying to prove to you that Roger is better than Laver. I would sound like a total idiot if I watch the youtube links of Laver videos and then claim that Roger is better than Laver.

What is the meaning of the word "longevity" ?

You made a list of top ten players, excluded Federer, and included both Nadal and Djokovic. Come on, gimme a break. Roger is winning slam at age 31, you exclude them and include 25, 26 year old guys claiming they have more longevity. Doesn't it look incredibly stupid for such an esteemed historian like you?

I can accept you including the names of players who played much longer than Federer play. There are greats who played Tennis till their late 30s or even into 40s. I don't know but Nadal and Djokovic, that's plain stupid..

And you back up with weak era theory.

Your intention was just to rile Roger Federer fans with that comment, some how state that Roger is not the best even in his generation let alone all time. And anyone question that would be labelled as a guy who believes Federer is GOAT..

One thing is sure, a guy who has achieved this much in Tennis, widely accepted by legends as closest to the best, can't be third tier category as claimed by kiki or a weak era champion as portrayed by you!

Seriously, Rod Laver and all those who anointed Roger Federer would have some sense to see through this weak era nonsense

Feather, thanks for your insulting words. I deserve them...

I'm glad to hear finally that you rank Laver at least as high as Federer.

I have NOT ranked Nadal and Djokovic because of longevity!!

You seem to know my soul better than I know it: I don't want to rile Federer fans. They automatically are annoyed when I rank Roger below others...

Safin, Roddick and Hewitt very strong opponents of Federer??

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Feather

pc1, this is his list!

He includes longevity, includes Nadal and Djokovic, exclude Federer. Federer is playing at age 31, winning slams. Nadal, Djokovic are way too younger to him. If you still are not able to find the bias, I don't have anything further to say..

No one has any issue with respectable posters here

"winning slams": to be exact: winning ONE GS tournament...

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Feather, thanks for your insulting words. I deserve them...

I'm glad to hear finally that you rank Laver at least as high as Federer.

I have NOT ranked Nadal and Djokovic because of longevity!!

You seem to know my soul better than I know it: I don't want to rile Federer fans. They automatically are annoyed when I rank Roger below others...

Safin, Roddick and Hewitt very strong opponents of Federer??

I just can't figure you out. As far as Fed fans getting annoyed when placing him below somebody it has to be within reason. That list you made, the 2nd one, is about as unreasonably illogical as a list can get with intent of trying to be legit

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by zagor

Fed I assume isn't a tennis great then according to you, yes?



Since we all value to right to an opinion (no matter how absurd) here, I can say that personally I'd reckon there's a bigger chance of me seeing purple elephants flying past my bedroom window than you defending Fed on any account whatsoever.



And prey tell, when have I claimed otherwise? Yes I do think they're deserving of respect.




Why should be upset at an opinion I completely share, not paying much attention are we?



Shouldn't we also respect Arche's feeling as well then?



Can you honestly with a straight face claim that if anyone made a thread/post like that, you and a number of former pro regulards wouldn't argue that poster's opinion? If you honestly believe that then I don't know what to say really.



Neither is the term weak era, friend.

zagor, people can disagree with me and contradict. But why these hateful words?

[qindarka]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

zagor, people can disagree with me and contradict. But why these hateful words?

Jesus Christ. That post wasn't even directed towards you, it was a response to pc1.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Feather

I never implied you were mean to that guy. In fact, when I saw you reply to him, quoted you and typed, very nice post or something like that. I mean, in the other thread.

Everyone has biases. I also don't claim to be an angel. We are all carried away by our heroes. However, I don't post JUST for the sake of irritating others. I am sure you will be able to find that since you have been posting here for a very long time

Feather, I'm protesting that you insinuate I would write for the sake of irritating others. That's very mean. You and others just cannot imagine that I really believe what I write and rank. That's not my fault!

End of the story!

[qindarka]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Feather, I'm protesting that you insinuate I would write for the sake of irritating others. That's very mean. You and others just cannot imagine that I really believe what I write and rank. That's not my fault!

End of the story!

If it's any comfort, I don't think that your rather interesting list was an attempt at trolling, at least not explicitly.