Doubles GOAT ?

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

NadalDramaQueen,

Truth is much easier. You overrate TMF who underrates tennis history. He is just on the level of Tennis Channel. That's all.

Well I don't believe I(or anyone in here) are in the same knowledge level as the Flink, Evans or Bollettieri. But thanks for the compliment...I'm flattered.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Really everyone, relax. It is pretty obvious that when the media talks about these records they are referring to open era records. Surely everyone knows that by know and has come to accept that it is difficult to compare records set before and after the onset of the open era.

The more I read through these topics with TMF, the more I realize that this might be one clever guy. He makes a few posts and half the members are fuming mad and calling on the mods to delete their own threads!

LOOOOL!

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

NadalDramaQueen,

Truth is much easier. You overrate TMF who underrates tennis history. He is just on the level of Tennis Channel. That's all.

TMF has a right to his opinion and we shouldn't disrespect it, that is all.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

No, the Bryan brothers hold the modern slam/amateur slam record.

Like I said, modern slam > amateur slam. But I know you want to believe they are both equal. To each his own.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by TMF

Like I said, modern slam > amateur slam. But I know you want to believe they are both equal. To each his own.

You are missing the point, which you yourself raised.
The MEDIA, including the reports cited above, include the amateur slam records of Newcombe/Roche in the total of wins being compared to the Bryans.
The MEDIA do not start their records in 1968, as you claimed, but take the AMATEUR slam records into account.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

You are missing the point, which you yourself raised.
The MEDIA, including the reports cited above, include the amateur slam records of Newcombe/Roche in the total of wins being compared to the Bryans.
The MEDIA do not start their records in 1968, as you claimed, but take the AMATEUR slam records into account.

If you won 13 modern slams, would you trade them all for the amateur slams?

I don't think the Bryans would be crazy enough to do that.

That is why Emerson's 12 amateur slams has so little weight in compare to the open era slam.

Capiche ?

[kiki]

Now we all beloved posters have heard it all
A suposed expert DARES to compare the twins to Newcombe and Roche
I thought age prevents us from upsets but it certainly does not prevent human mankind against that curious and challenging specimem that, since scence has not officially named,we will call TMF

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Perhaps everything is as it appears, but the effect is still the same.



I agree kiki. I find that the best way to deal with the know nothing generations is to sit out on my porch and mutter to myself as they pass by. Life is too long not to be bitter.



I said nothing about TMF's knowledge of tennis history. There are members who underrate the past, and then there are members who overrate the past. Neither group is correct. This particular forum needs TMF to balance the scales.

Kid I found your generation too funny to be bitter

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by kiki

Kid I found your generation too funny to be bitter

Remind me which generation I am a part of, my dear kiki.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

The best single players can compete in doubles but you can't assumed that they would also dominate the doubles specialists. Bobby insinuating the Bryans isn't that great because there were no top single players play double. Do you think Nadal or Nole chose to play double they would be better than the Bryans thus winning more than 13 slams??? The Bryans played together since they were a child. For all those years they perfected their game. They had perfect feel/sense for one another on court. If you replace one of them with one of the top single player, the rhythm breaks, the chemistry is gone, and of course the bond is gone. In case you didn't know, not all players can be a good double partner. Double players have to search/replace the player which they believe it will work out. They just don't blindly pick random player from the pro tour. The Bryans are unique.

Also, not all top single players were great in double when Mac was playing, so you(and bobby) can't assumed anything in this era.

In regard my post to Dan, I was correcting him that the Bryans set a record for winning 13 grand slam double titles. He refuses to accept the fact.


I'm probably wasting my time with this post because I can understand you supports Bobby, kiki, Dan because you are from the same fanbase.

I know you feel time wasted every time current era is not worshipped
You are right that many all time great teams were doubs specialist but not necessarily big singles stars like Riessen and Stewart or Hewitt and Mc
But in the past, the aussies all played doubles and since they were also the best in singles that s why many great doubles players happened to be top singles too
Last team with big singles&doubles stars were Connors#Nastase and in a lower degree Gottfried-Ramurez, Jarryd-Edberg and Fleming- Mc Enroe
From late 80 it became a mere specialist business

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Remind me which generation I am a part of, my dear kiki.

Justin Bieber?
If not you definitely made a deal with devil, my beloved Nadalqueen

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by kiki

Justin Bieber?
If not you definitely made a deal with devil, my beloved Nadalqueen

Not quite, my friend.

I've made no deals with the devil, but I did discard my cranky old man memo when it arrived.

[TMF]

It's pretty clear that some of you are not happy about the B Brother's achievements.

This is exactly what the Sampras fans felt in 2009 when Roger broke his record 14 slam titles.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

It's pretty clear that some of you are not happy about the B Brother's achievements.

This is exactly what the Sampras fans felt in 2009 when Roger broke his record 14 slam titles.

Hey I like the Bryan Brothers. I hope they get a lot more majors. However I do think they are trying to inform when they discuss doubles teams of the past.

[pc1]

Actually the thought occurs to me that it wouldn't be that bad to have the players commit to a certain amount of doubles tournaments. It probably would have the volleying skills of some of the players today. John McEnroe used doubles instead of practicing.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

The best single players can compete in doubles but you can't assumed that they would also dominate the doubles specialists. Bobby insinuating the Bryans isn't that great because there were no top single players play double. Do you think Nadal or Nole chose to play double they would be better than the Bryans thus winning more than 13 slams??? The Bryans played together since they were a child. For all those years they perfected their game. They had perfect feel/sense for one another on court. If you replace one of them with one of the top single player, the rhythm breaks, the chemistry is gone, and of course the bond is gone. In case you didn't know, not all players can be a good double partner. Double players have to search/replace the player which they believe it will work out. They just don't blindly pick random player from the pro tour. The Bryans are unique.

Also, not all top single players were great in double when Mac was playing, so you(and bobby) can't assumed anything in this era.

In regard my post to Dan, I was correcting him that the Bryans set a record for winning 13 grand slam double titles. He refuses to accept the fact.


I'm probably wasting my time with this post because I can understand you supports Bobby, kiki, Dan because you are from the same fanbase.

TMF, When Newcombe-Roche were great they had to face very strong duos: Emerson-Laver, Rosewall-Stolle, Okker-Riessen, Hewitt-McMillan, Lutz-Smith and so on. The Bryans have nobody to face.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

Well I don't believe I(or anyone in here) are in the same knowledge level as the Flink, Evans or Bollettieri. But thanks for the compliment...I'm flattered.

TMF, A person who believes inTennis Channel ruins his/her own reputation as a tennis expert or fan....

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by zagor

LOOOOL!



TMF has a right to his opinion and we shouldn't disrespect it, that is all.

zagor, I agree: Everybody has the right to his opinion even it's a wrong one. But also everybody has the right to contradit him or her.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

I know you feel time wasted every time current era is not worshipped
You are right that many all time great teams were doubs specialist but not necessarily big singles stars like Riessen and Stewart or Hewitt and Mc
But in the past, the aussies all played doubles and since they were also the best in singles that s why many great doubles players happened to be top singles too
Last team with big singles&doubles stars were Connors#Nastase and in a lower degree Gottfried-Ramurez, Jarryd-Edberg and Fleming- Mc Enroe
From late 80 it became a mere specialist business

kiki, Very well explained. I do hope that even younger persons will realize it.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TMF, When Newcombe-Roche were great they had to face very strong duos: Emerson-Laver, Rosewall-Stolle, Okker-Riessen, Hewitt-McMillan, Lutz-Smith and so on. The Bryans have nobody to face.

That's your opinion. I don't believ none of them would have won 13 slams in today's era.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TMF, A person who believes inTennis Channel ruins his/her own reputation as a tennis expert or fan....

At least they are fully knowledge of past tennis AND modern tennis, you don't. Saying you're more of an expert than them(eg Flink) is like Randy Moss is saying he's better than Jerry Rice.