Is Djokovic an all-time great?

[TMF]

Originally Posted by 5555

I won the argument.

Originally Posted by 5555

You have lost it.

Why don't you just keep these comments in your signature instead of repeating the same old crap.

[Fedex]

Originally Posted by 5555

You would commit logical fallacy argumentum ad populum if you would use opinion of most posters to support your claim.

Logical fallacy argumentum ad populum. I love that.
Haven't bothered to read your link but the name says it all - the power and influence of the mob.
If I speak BS enough times and persuade others to copy, create a chain reaction of opinion and normalise. Bingo!
I will regurgitate that against my girlfriend next time she quotes her friends opinions lining up with hers in an argument to justify her oft irrational and unbearable hormonal behaviour.
That will stop her in her tracks. Or maybe not? It'll surely at least make her pause for thought before carrying on the narking onslaught.
Thank you 5555. I knew something useful would eventually come of this thread.

[Cup8489]

It's perhaps ironic that 5555 brought up a logical fallacy that regards the opinions of many as not necessarily being direct evidence of a claim...

But his whole premise for this thread is based on the opinions of many people. So he's been committing fallacy after fallacy this whole time.

And his argument is both illogical and also holds no more ground than anyone else's.

[5555]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Well I do not.

Good.

Originally Posted by TMF

the same old crap.

It's not crap.

Originally Posted by Cup8489

But his whole premise for this thread is based on the opinions of many people.

Firstly, the only reason I quoted 6 tennis experts in my opening post, is to show it's not just *********s who claim that Novak is an all-time great. It's not my argument for claim that Djokovic is an all-time great, and therefore I have not commited logical fallacy.

Secondly, had I used these opinions as argument, I would not have commited argumentum ad populum, but argumentum ad verecundiam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority.

Thirdly, this is my argument: "I think Djokovic is an all-time great. He won 5 slams (fact) and was No. 1 for 2011 and 2012 (fact)." http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...&postcount=349

[severus]

Let's be clear about something here Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are 3 best player ever. Does anyone here really believe Laver is better than Djoke or even Murray for that matter ?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by severus

Let's be clear about something here Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are 3 best player ever. Does anyone here really believe Laver is better than Djoke or even Murray for that matter ?

We´ll ever know, since he plays in the dullest era since open tennis inception.djokovic is fortunate to have been born in current non golden era...if not...

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by 5555

Good.

Thank you!

[Paul Murphy]

He will be.

[5555]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Thank you!

Not at all.

[forzamilan90]

Not only an all time great but climbing the greatness stairway fast...frankly, I think it's inevitable he becomes the best Eastern European player of all time, surpassing Lendl. At this point right now I got to say he's better than Hoad, Wilander, Becker, Edberg and his peak is incredible.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by kiki

We´ll ever know, since he plays in the dullest era since open tennis inception.djokovic is fortunate to have been born in current non golden era...if not...

But this was widely considered a golden era untill Federer climbed to nr 1 again, ok lets not go there again, sorry...

[Fedex]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

It's perhaps ironic that 5555 brought up a logical fallacy that regards the opinions of many as not necessarily being direct evidence of a claim...

But his whole premise for this thread is based on the opinions of many people. So he's been committing fallacy after fallacy this whole time.

And his argument is both illogical and also holds no more ground than anyone else's.

I think what 5555 meant is that people's opinions are swayed away from that of the independent mind by virtue of the opinion of the masses.
He would be referring not to intellectual, free thinking opinion but the opinion of, for example, the sheep minded football crowd.
Eg to the shame of my own football club, Dundee FC, certain elements of the Derry stand at Dens Park sang a song of jubilation at the death of ex Dundee United owner Eddie Thomson at Sunday's Scottish Cup tie.
Some of my Dundee United, otherwise known as dirty arab, friends were appalled at this shocking behaviour and, of course, elements of their fans would never do such a thing ha ha. Of course not.
As if one Dundonian is gentically a different species from the next by token of which team they support - the dark blue or the orange.
Argumentum ad populum is a very conducive medium for the transmission of hypocisy, ignorance, hate, bigotry and any other vile human sentiment.
I'm feeling lazy now and I need to watch Man U vs Real and I don't know where I'm going with this but it's interesting so please continue on...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Not only an all time great but climbing the greatness stairway fast...frankly, I think it's inevitable he becomes the best Eastern European player of all time, surpassing Lendl. At this point right now I got to say he's better than Hoad, Wilander, Becker, Edberg and his peak is incredible.

oooooohhhhhhh¡¡¡ how wooooo nderfuuuuuulll¡¡¡

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

But this was widely considered a golden era untill Federer climbed to nr 1 again, ok lets not go there again, sorry...

what did you consider Golden Era?

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by kiki

oooooohhhhhhh¡¡¡ how wooooo nderfuuuuuulll¡¡¡

fantastic I know.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by kiki

what did you consider Golden Era?

I think more or less every decade has its golden aspects, but I am not going there....

[NatF]

Originally Posted by kiki

what did you consider Golden Era?

I think the golden era was probably the Borg, Mac, Connors, Lendl etc... Although I think Federer in full flight is as entertaining a player as there ever has been. I like Djokovic, and Nadal can put on good matches too, I think Hewitt, Roddick, Safin etc...were better players too than you give them credit for. But I digress...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NatF

I think the golden era was probably the Borg, Mac, Connors, Lendl etc... Although I think Federer in full flight is as entertaining a player as there ever has been. I like Djokovic, and Nadal can put on good matches too, I think Hewitt, Roddick, Safin etc...were better players too than you give them credit for. But I digress...

You are reight about GE, although I think it may have started at the beginning of the 70´s, with the explosion of Tv, exos and WCT.I find Federer would have bright more then, and so would Safin.Of course, the rest you mention are excellent players and probably cannot play any other type of game.But when you have been through Golden Era, it is a hard dish to swallow.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by kiki

You are reight about GE, although I think it may have started at the beginning of the 70´s, with the explosion of Tv, exos and WCT.I find Federer would have bright more then, and so would Safin.Of course, the rest you mention are excellent players and probably cannot play any other type of game.But when you have been through Golden Era, it is a hard dish to swallow.

I think there are alot of talented players nowadays but there's no so much variety anymore. That's my only gripe, although thats possibly because of the snore fests of Murray and Djokovic for the last 2 slam finals.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by NatF

I think there are alot of talented players nowadays but there's no so much variety anymore. That's my only gripe, although thats possibly because of the snore fests of Murray and Djokovic for the last 2 slam finals.

Blame variety not on the player's part, but rather the envisioned court speeds/terrain, etc. You only do what gives you the best chance of winning. Most current conditions simply benefit baseline play more, hence players adapting baseline play more. Variety is lost, but that's cause of the circumstances. I mean damn, AO and Miami especially are a pain in my butt, as a Fed fan, the man's just having a hard time there. Chipping and charging on every single point isn't exactly the best strategy either (for old school purists) and against great passing baseline players is suicide nowadays. I bet if they were to make the courts like they were back in the day, still with this current racket tech, upcoming generations will come to know more variety of play and display that on courts, as there won't be such a need to always be a baseline ho/rally player and going for winners will be easier.