Is Djokovic an all-time great?

[World Beater]

i fully expect novak to get past connors slam count.

[5555]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Because Federer is such an evidently great player, and if he kept going at the rate he was, it was pretty obvious he could/would also overtake Sampras resultwise.

These experts in 2006 said that Federer was already greater player than Sampras. They did not say that Federer will became greater player than Sampras.

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

That people disagree does not mean that their opinions are not based on interpretation of facts.

1. Collins dictionary:
"matter of opinion = debatable point, debatable, open question, open to question, moot point, open for discussion, matter of judgment"
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...ter-of-opinion
2. Tennis experts disagree what makes one player greater than another which means it's debatable what is criteria for greatness.

Logical conclusion is that criteria for greatness is a matter of opinion.

Originally Posted by The-Champ

Okey, then find me one "tennis expert" that says Troicki or Feliciano Lopez is greater than Sampras.

You did not answer this question: if criteria for greatness is not a matter of opinion, how do you explain the fact that tennis experts disagree what makes one player greater than another?

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

Of course. Connors has a better resume than Djokovic. As "level of competition" is impossible to quantify and leads to the dumbest of possible arguments--such as, can you prove that, when level of competition is taken into account, Djokovic is a better player than the guys from my local club? No you can't, so the only thing we can rely on is facts (you should go and look what this means), not just fanboy opinions. So, when it's all about facts and not just you trying to hype your hero, Connors had a greater career than Djokovic (at least today, as Djokovic's is still ongoing and Connors isn't likely to add to his accomplishments).

Do tennis experts agree that level of competition should not be taken into account?

Originally Posted by FlamEnemY

Are you an expert on opinions and facts? Do you have a degree?

"Children learn and are able to tell the difference between fact and opinion in school as early as kindergarten."
http://www.handyhandouts.com/viewHan...?hh_number=326

Originally Posted by Hawkeye7

Considering that titles/achievements are the only objective criteria (fact) we have to judge greatness, his argument is better than yours (opinion).

Is criteria for greatness a matter of opinion? Yes or no?

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by 5555

Do tennis experts agree that level of competition should not be taken into account?

Does anyone care?

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by 5555

Is criteria for greatness a matter of opinion? Yes or no?

Yes but it is based on facts. It is both/and, not either/or, take it easy.

[5555]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

Does anyone care?

Who cares what you say? Can you tell me which reliable source quoted your opinions on tennis? My point is that tennis experts disagree what should be criteria for greatness. That's why Rod Laver thinks Djokovic is greater player than Connors while Steve Flink has the opposite view. It's matter of opinion whether Connors is greater player than Djokovic.

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Yes

I said the fact that tennis experts disagree what makes one player greater than another is proof that criteria for greatness is a matter of opinion. In your reply you said that my argument is wrong. After that, I quoted the Collins dictionary to show that I am right but you did not provide counterargument.

Can you provide counterargument?

Originally Posted by The-Champ

Okey, then find me one "tennis expert" that says Troicki or Feliciano Lopez is greater than Sampras.

You did not answer this question: if criteria for greatness is not matter of opinion, how do you explain the fact that tennis experts disagree what makes one player than another?

Originally Posted by Hawkeye7

Considering that titles/achievements are the only objective criteria (fact) we have to judge greatness, his argument is better than yours (opinion).

Is criteria for greatness a matter of opinion? Yes or no?

PS This is the last time I asked this question. If you do not answer, I will conclude that you lost the argument.

[heninfan99]

Yes. Laver's Top 10 list is really solid. I would just swap Mac & Edberg's positions.

[NatF]

Maybe Laver's list was for peak play as well as achievements? Either way Djokovic is an all time great by virtue of beating all times greats for his titles, his peak level of play and his crazy 2011 season.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Yes but it is based on facts. It is both/and, not either/or, take it easy.

Originally Posted by 5555

Is criteria for greatness a matter of opinion? Yes or no?

PS This is the last time I asked this question. If you do not answer, I will conclude that you lost the argument.

Ok for a last time.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by 5555

Is criteria for greatness a matter of opinion? Yes or no?

If your brain can't process anything else but a black or white answer, then let's say yes.

Originally Posted by 5555

Is Djokovic an all-time great?

No (see above).

There you go. Don't forget to switch off the light and close the door behind you when leaving this thread.

(Oh, and by the way, nice job on the misquote in your OP--anything for the cause, eh?)

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by 5555

Who cares what you say?

You seem to care, considering the amount of effort you're putting into trying to convince me.

Originally Posted by 5555

Can you tell me which reliable source quoted your opinions on tennis?

Who cares, considering that you've been arguing for pages that facts don't count and that everything is just a matter of opinion? An opinion is worth as much as any other's when you take facts out of the equation, which means mine is worth as much as Laver's, and I say there are a few glaring mistakes in his top 10.

Originally Posted by 5555

My point is that tennis experts disagree what should be criteria for greatness. That's why Rod Laver thinks Djokovic is greater player than Connors while Steve Flink has the opposite view. It's matter of opinion whether Connors is greater player than Djokovic.

Who cares about Connors and Djokovic anyway? Even at their peakest of peaks, they wouldn't be able to beat anyone from my local club anyway. That's my opinion, and as facts don't enter in the discussion, it's as valid as Laver's or Flink's.

[The-Champ]

Originally Posted by 5555

You did not answer this question: if criteria for greatness is not matter of opinion, how do you explain the fact that tennis experts disagree what makes one player than another?

Are you saying there are tennis expert that claim James Blake is greater than Agassi? Yes or No?

[5555]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Ok for a last time.

The point is that you said that my argument/reasoning as to why criteria for greatness is a matter of opinion was wrong. Do you admit now that my reasoning was correct?

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

If your brain can't process anything else but a black or white answer, then let's say yes.

Collins dictionary: "matter of opinion = debatable point, debatable, open question, open to question, moot point, open for discussion, matter of judgment" http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...ter-of-opinion. Is criteria for greatnes a debatable issue?

No

Is it a fact?

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

You seem to care, considering the amount of effort you're putting into trying to convince me.

But reliable sources do not care what you say.

Who cares, considering that you've been arguing for pages that facts don't count and that everything is just a matter of opinion? An opinion is worth as much as any other's when you take facts out of the equation, which means mine is worth as much as Laver's, and I say there are a few glaring mistakes in his top 10.

Experts' level of knowledge is far and away greater than that of non-experts and therefore non-experts' opinion is not worth as much as expert's. Are you a tennis expert?

Who cares about Connors and Djokovic anyway? Even at their peakest of peaks, they wouldn't be able to beat anyone from my local club anyway.

Can you find a tennis expert who claims that players from your club are greater than Djokovic and Connors?

Originally Posted by The-Champ

Are you saying there are tennis expert that claim James Blake is greater than Agassi? Yes or No?

I'm saying (factual statement) that tennis experts disagree what should be criteria for greatness. I ask you again: if criteria for greatness in not a matter of opinion, how do you explain the fact that tennis experts disagree what should be criteria for greatness?

[dudeski]

Djokovic beat peak (5 slam finals in the row) Nadal 7 times in the row including making peak Nadal the first man in history to lose 3 slam finals to the same player in the row. All that makes Djokovic an all time great, unless of course peak Nadal is not considered an all time great himself.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by 5555

But reliable sources do not care what you say.

Can you prove that "reliable sources" don't care about what I say, or is that just your opinion?

Originally Posted by 5555

Experts' level of knowledge is far and away greater than that of non-experts

Is this a fact?

Originally Posted by 5555

and therefore non-experts' opinion is not worth as much as expert's.

... Or just your (biased) opinion?

So I guess you can prove it, can't you?

Originally Posted by 5555

Are you a tennis expert?

Are the criteria defining who is or isn't a tennis expert facts or a matter of opinion?

Originally Posted by 5555

Can you find a tennis expert who claims that players from your club are greater than Djokovic and Connors?

Define 'tennis expert'. (Factually, of course--who cares about your opinion?)

[The-Champ]

Originally Posted by 5555

You did not answer this question: if criteria for greatness is not matter of opinion, how do you explain the fact that tennis experts disagree what makes one player than another?

And again I ask you: where are the disagreements among experts when someone proclaims "Federer is greater than Donald Young"?

You said experts disagree on what constitute greatness. So where are these experts that disagree on this subject? DY's family doesn't count.

[dyldore]

Originally Posted by 5555

Experts' level of knowledge is far and away greater than that of non-experts...

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

Is this a fact?

I haven't read the rest of this thread yet, but this had me rolling.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by 5555

The point is that you said that my argument/reasoning as to why criteria for greatness is a matter of opinion was wrong.

Where did I say that?

[fluffyyelloballz]

Yes he is great. 5 Majors, 9 finals. Two time year end number one. He is in the third tier with Becker, Edberg.

[Cup8489]

This thread is full of ownage. 5555 is building himself such a massive hole with his faux-logical arguments... I love it.

[5555]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

he's not even top 20 all-time, maybe not even top 30 (to 5555troll--yes, this is *fact*)

Have you got proof it's a fact that Djokovic is not top 20 all-time?

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

Can you prove that "reliable sources" don't care about what I say, or is that just your opinion?

Burden of proof is on person who makes positive claim.

Is this a fact?

I will answer that question when you answer my question which you did not answer: is it a fact that Djokovic is not an all-time great?

So I guess you can prove it, can't you?

I will answer that question when you answer question that you did not answer: can you prove that Djokovic is not top 20 of all-time?

Are the criteria defining who is or isn't a tennis expert facts or a matter of opinion?

This question, too, I will answer when you answer the questions above.

Define 'tennis expert'. (Factually, of course--who cares about your opinion?)

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...kiePolicy=true

Originally Posted by The-Champ

So where are these experts that disagree on this subject?

What is your argument? Are you saying that if all tennis experts agree that Federer is greater player than Donald Young it means tennis experts agree what should be criteria for greatness?

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Where did I say that?

You said "That people disagree does not mean that their opinions are not based on interpretation of facts." here http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...&postcount=255

It was your reply to my argument that tennis experts disagree
is proof that criteria for greatness is a matter of opinion
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...&postcount=251