Bobby, you will not take "yes" for an answer?
You and I are in agreement on the NatF post.
WORLD NO. 1 (by year)
- Thread starter hoodjem
- Start date
You and I are in agreement on the NatF post.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
treblings, I appreciate your saying that (the part in bold), I didn't know you were hoping for the same thing as I was. For a while this summer I dropped out of the '64 debate and for a long time no new information was coming in, and that's always when I think it's best to drop out of debates; if there's no new information the thread deteriorates into personal bickering. I intended to drop back in with my new information, which I did, but precisely at that moment there was an insistence from all sides to drop the subject. I did so and I was not unhappy to agree; I haven't breathed a word about the topic since. But it was frustrating to me that the subject was shunted aside at that particular moment -- when I had new information. That's not when a conversation should be ended (when it's merely in bickering mode, without new information, that's different).first of all, i don´t know that Bobby had to convince Bud Collins. maybe you know more than me.
i also don´t know what you and Butch Buchholz talked about on the phone. Maybe he wanted to get rid of you, and gave you the answer you wanted for that reason?
i choose to believe that both phone conversations went exactly as Bobby and you reported.
i would have tried to use the opportunity to talk to Buchholz by asking him more than one question, but that´s another story.
my point is, Bobby has the right to be sceptical about your phone conversation. without that being used as evidence against him.
i understand about your frustration with some of these discussions. that´s why i was glad when krosero presented these articles.
because i thought, perhaps foolishly, that the endless cycle that you talk about could be broken.
But now that I recall, that was the pattern right from the start, and that is what I object to the most in what PC1 did, when he brought his news that he interviewed a player who was on the '64 tour. He simply declared that the player said the "130 day tour" (which we now know to refer to something else other than the full tour in question) was not a championship tour; and then he said it was a "no-brainer" that Laver was #1 for the year; and that McCauley had made a mistake in his book. That's a lot of significant claims, about which anyone interested in that period would naturally have a lot of questions. What PC1 was bringing to the table was something important that would normally start a conversation (not end it). You presume that if someone posts something on a discussion board, it's an invitation to discuss it. My first question was simply to ask whether the player had told PC1 who finished atop the rankings for the entire year (not just the tour, but the entire year, which I think is the larger question). PC1's response was "We'll just leave it that the 130 Day 1964 tour wasn't for number one." I asked for details about the interview several times (in more than one setting) and got nothing.
But that wasn't all. It's that, right from the start, PC1 said that he was weary of the endless cycle and did not wish to speak about the subject anymore. Very early on he said he was dealing with "flat-earthers" who would not accept any evidence no matter what it was. And I just wanted to know more about the interview and to start talking specifics. I know that he was referring to BobbyOne when he said "flat-earthers" so I didn't personally take offense, but it was still frustrating because I was willing to debate it in a calm way. If PC1 or anyone else finds that a particular poster is a problem or is someone they can't talk to, they can always put that poster on "ignore" and speak to others. (That is classic, underrated advice in internet culture.) I suggested that very thing to him, without success.
Treblings, you compared the two interviews: PC1/Buchholz, and Bobby's phone call to Bud. What I respect about Bobby's report of his phone call -- no matter what you think of it, no matter what your conclusions are -- he did it the right way by being completely transparent about it, giving exact details of the conversation, full context. He's done that every time, without hesitation. Of course if you do that, you open yourself up to getting shredded for every word you say. But that was the right way to do it.
PC1 instead, said nothing about his interview, except the bare claim (X says Y: Buchholz says it wasn't a championship tour). When questions came up, he talked about flat-earthers: and he backed up his claim, not with details, but with authority, saying that "Buchholz knows better than any of you", asserting also Laver as an authority (for what he wrote in his book); asserting also himself as a trustworthy source.
And I am not disputing that those are authorities. But when only the authority is invoked for a claim, but no evidence is given, then it's an argument from authority.
The irony of all this is that the argument that was done with full transparency (Bobby's report of his Bud conversation) was the one that received hyper-skepticism (nothing wrong with skepticism in itself; all arguments should be scrutinized and challenged) while PC1's argument from authority got a lot of unquestioning assent. Everyone fell right in line, with of course the exception of yourself, myself, and Bobby (and I have almost forgotten @Flash O'Groove : http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/world-no-1-by-year.295675/page-32#post-10352724 ).
Still I never opened up with these criticisms, for a number of reasons. But I'm not going to keep quiet now that PC1 has continued using Bobby's skepticism about the Buchholz interview as some kind of evidence that Bobby is close-minded. It is no such thing; everyone, as you say, treblings, has a right to be skeptical about that interview and about how it was reported (and I'm grateful for those who were).
EDIT: I've found Laver's full quote now, when he won Wembley in '64 and was interviewed after beating Rosewall there; the quote where he says that he's still behind Muscles. He talks about the point system.
PC1, this is something that a lot of people do (some of whom do it blatantly and yet you never criticize them), including yourself. You've done it in our past debates and you did it most recently in the '64 debate, in a number of ways. The most blatant example was when I posted newspaper reports from the spring of '65, including one that gave out specific rankings with Rosewall on top, and yet you said things like "And there are also no written rankings showing Rosewall was number one in 1964/1965. Only results of a tour are shown." As if the Buchholz article had been the only evidence presented.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Oh for goodness sake. How many people do this like Bobby? I am trying to give Bobby advice so he can stay on this site. You are condoning his behavior. If my children did this I would do the same thing.
I could write more but it's not worth it.
He's a man. He's not a kid.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
My post was for all peoples. Rich, poor, Austrian, American it doesn't matter.
We all have different perspectives and I disagree. At the end of the day the fundamental difference of opinion is that we believe Laver's record that year was better. Even if we all accepted what the papers etc...said at the time that wouldn't change our opinion. So again I will say that I find that line of discussion pointless. It's just leading to aggravation. Mostly for yourself Bobby.
Well with the exception of Dan everyone here would pick one of those players you named so we should be able to call it a day
pc1
G.O.A.T.
My post was for all peoples. Rich, poor, Austrian, American it doesn't matter.
We all have different perspectives and I disagree. At the end of the day the fundamental difference of opinion is that we believe Laver's record that year was better. Even if we all accepted what the papers etc...said at the time that wouldn't change our opinion. So again I will say that I find that line of discussion pointless. It's just leading to aggravation. Mostly for yourself Bobby.
Well with the exception of Dan everyone here would pick one of those players you named so we should be able to call it a day
Truer words were never written.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Tennis is such strange sport. Some days you take swings and everything seems to zip in the court. Some days you prepare, get good sleep and can't make a shot. But a bad tennis day is probably a better day than most good days without tennis. Right now besides doing work I'm trying to set up my two seasonal groups. I was delayed two months for various reasons which are not my doing. So I scrambling to get everything done now. It starts in early September.Just had an awful time on the tennis court so I'm surprisingly mellow right now. At least on here
NonP
Legend
One would think "opponents" is hardly better than "enemies" when describing a group of people in what is supposed to be a fun tennis forum.
But yes, baby steps. Apology accepted, and I give you credit for it. Can't quite get behind your warning about the danger of any comparison to the Graf fanatics, except maybe for one's use of the term "fanatics" as opposed to the less potentially derogatory "fans" (but then there would be no point in making the comparison at all, would it?). One would think that with a few notable exceptions even the most fanatical Graf fans would never stoop to Parche's level, and some of them might resent the insinuation that there's something particularly dangerous about their fanbase that is absent in any other group of like-minded comrades.
And again I don't recall exactly what Limpin said when he made that Parche comparison, but I seriously doubt he meant it literally as a serious charge against you. It should be obvious to everyone by now Limpin is a jokester who sometimes likes to rile people up, and--this is something you may want to think about--who can be a good sport when he's the butt of jokes himself. It may not come naturally to you but self-deprecating humor can go a long way.
Different definitions.
Let's just say you could try harder to make your devotion to Rosewall less noticeable.Of course there are musicians of all backgrounds playing all kinds of music. That's not what's at issue here. To wit hopefully for the last time, jazz is one of the few major contributions that a historically repressed diaspora can claim to have made to popular culture and be rightfully proud of, and if you still don't see how wrong it is for a member of a more privileged social group to take ownership of this music for another one of their own just to win an online argument you're simply not thinking about this hard enough. And no, citing a big name who's not a qualified expert on this subject doesn't count. (You would be on a surer footing if you had some support from an acknowledged ethnomusicologist like Bartok, though I'd still demand to see something more academically rigorous as anyone should when faced with a challenge to prevailing scholarship.)
Humility has never been one of my strong suits so I'll give you that one, but I disagree I've been "patronizing" you. Blunt, sure, but when so many posters including one as levelheaded as Gary point out that you have a problem and need to start acting your age you can't just cry foul and dismiss the whole collective impression as a sign of disrespect.
Yes, gotta say the Laverites really blew this one. Like you said there are just too many press reports including as late as '65 that had Rosewall as #1 of '64, and again like you said the only feasible way he could've stayed on top in the minds of so many is if that tour's outcomes counted for a whole lot, as it's also clear that Rod had the better year by many metrics. It's besides the point what the tour was called, by Buchholz (then and now), Collins or whoever. All honest, fair-minded observers should be able to agree at this point on the nature of the tour, which clearly formed a great bulk of the "official" '64 rankings.
At the same time I must add it really shouldn't matter at this point what the hotshots thought of Rosewall, Laver and the other pros at the time. Yes, their opinions should be taken into account, but if the year-end rankings are to mean anything they should accurately reflect the relative strengths and weaknesses of the participants, and it's no wonder even such an avowed Rosewall admirer as Carlo picked Laver as the sole #1 of '64 (if I correctly recall you summarizing his verdict). And I'm clearly not the only one who agrees with him, though again I can see why others would feel differently and give more weight to the prevailing sentiments at the time.
That really should have put an end to all this, and here I'll gently point out that your defense of some of Bobby's points and behavior while ignoring or saying virtually nothing about his more egregious postings isn't helping matters. Again I'm not just referring to Limpin, Dan, Phoenix and other sworn "enemies" of his, but also such respected posters as urban and Gary who have either stopped responding to him or made the same criticisms themselves. Despite what Bobby thinks I actually don't want him banned per se, but I don't see how the status quo can hold up unless he can change significantly for the better.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Bobby, it is very hard to pin down subtle differences in language, in register or formality.
I might personally say this: "I could make a case for player X being___." That's not exactly the same phrase, but perhaps you get the idea.
It's not totally the same as in German, but it is at least a bit like contrasting "ich" with "man". The "man" construction seems to be a lot more common than the English "one", at least in the US. I usually avoid it because it sounds (or might sound) a bit pompous.
I would guess that Bud would also not use the "one" construction because he was very much a "common man", meaning not a bit uppety, presumptuous or pompous. He was, of course, an excellent writer.
There is also a difference in written and spoken language. I will use "whom" when writing simply to protect myself from prescriptive English snobs, but I simply never use it in speech.
I won't go near the issue of what Bud believed about the GOAT question. I'm also not questioning what he said to you.
I'm only commenting on English usage, and I'm quite knowledgeable about this subject.
A remarkable lack of specific detail in this article, Krosero, which refers to Laver as a "baby" of 23 years old in mid-1965...way off the truth.
The ranking list is merely a repeat of that 1964 tour.
Last edited:
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I was referring to the performance timeline here, the chart:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver_career_statistics
I may have typed something wrong.
I believe Laver was close to 33 in 1971, actually was 33 by the time of the USO.
My point was not about age but simply that today players his age continue playing in slam tournaments. So it is a valid question - why did he choose not to?
To me the obvious answer is that at that time slams did not have the huge emphasis that they have now. Even in the 90s the AO had far less emphasis - which obviously changed by the end of that decade.
Krosero, this is not, I hope, a debate over "skepticism" over sources. We accept, I presume, that Bobby did talk with Bud as he recalls, and that PC1 did talk to Buchholz, along the lines indicated. I see no reason why you or anyone should be "skeptical" of PC1's report, just as I accept what Bobby had to say about Bud.
The issue is HOW to interpret the results of these conversations.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
For the record, I was extremely interested in your POV and I remain so.
I am one (of the few) who has repeatedly asked for more information and some kind of polite conversation. My stance remains unaltered.
NatF, Since Dan "agrees" with me about your post, I conceded I was not precise enough. What Bud meant was of course that Rosewall is one of his several GOAT candidates which means that he would ACCEPT a decision if anybody would pick Tilden, or Gonzalez or Rosewall etc the GOAT just as I would accept if anybody would pick Tilden or Gonzalez (because I have four candidates, Bud in the course of the years had even more).
Dan and a few other ignorant posters mean a different thing: that Bud had his GOAT (Laver) but would never agree or accept if anyone would pick Rosewall as GOAT, maybe also not Tilden, Gonzalez and the others (we only discussed about Rosewall but it would be interesting if my opponents and enemies would claim if Bud also never would accept Tilden or Federer as GOAT).
Last edited:
NatF, I find it extremely funny that such different posters like krosero and Phoenix both give you a "like".
Tell this Mr. Lobb, Limpin, Phoenix etc.!
Bobby, you are not qualified to speak on my behalf, please refrain from it.
No, what I understand from your conversation with Bud is that "YOU" in the sense of "someone" COULD hypothetically make an argument for Rosewall as GOAT.
That verbal construction does not commit the speaker in any way to agreeing or supporting the choice of Rosewall, and it appears from other strong, strong evidence that Bud actually supported Laver, his pal, as the GOAT.
CASE CLOSED
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I would also like to see that cleared up.
For the record, I never "fell into line". I consider the whole question still open.
My point - which I think was ignored - is that just because something is accepted as fact at any given moment, that should not prevent such fact from being questioned later, in a different light. Often the very worst time to judge history is at the moment it is happening. I continue to assert that Rosewall was clearly #1 at some point (I do not think that will be debated) and that as Laver established dominance in the 60s Laver had to overcome the weight of that reputation, just as someone later had to move out from under the shadow of both players (Laver and Rosewall). I would personally look at the year in question as a transition year and leave it at that.
This does not mean I am not interested in a further conversation on the subject.
What discouraged me and almost drove me out of this sub-forum was the continuous bickering that absolutely stopped any kind of polite discourse.
Last edited:
That's a lie, and you know it.
I'd be happy if we stopped using the words Limpinhitter and Laver.
Where are your apologies??????????
QUOTE="NatF, I think it's fairly obvious that Bud believed Laver was the GOAT, so obviously he wouldn't personally argue that Rosewall was the GOAT - though he obviously thought an argument could be made. What is there to discuss?
Bobby, here above is NatF's post, which you approved, and asked him to transmit to me.
I agree with this post, just as you apparently did.
Bobby, here above is NatF's post, which you approved, and asked him to transmit to me.
I agree with this post, just as you apparently did.
rQUOTE="BobbyOne, post: 10573390, member: 320639"]NatF, Your best post since a longer while. Thanks. But please tell that to my opponents, especially to Dan, who are not willing to accept facts and who distort Bud's clear words.
Bobby, here is your response to the NatF post...it sounds like you agree with him.
So, both of us agree with him...we are making slow, torturous, but firm progress.
Bobby, here is your response to the NatF post...it sounds like you agree with him.
So, both of us agree with him...we are making slow, torturous, but firm progress.
Last edited:
krosero, I'm impressed very much. Not only because you give me support (which might not betoo easy in these days in this form; I refer to Phoenix's insults against you) but also, because you, as mostly, have the seldom ability to analyse a matter precisely and to find the key points of it, the main points of "tough" discussions. I especially salute you because I do know that you and pc1 were good friends (don't know the actual situation) and yet you critisize openly pc1's recent behaviour in this forum. I will try to add a few comments a bit later.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I just want to point out that there is a difference between:
Player X is the GOAT...
and
Player X is in the GOAT conversation...
To me a GOAT conversation is more about who would be on anyone's list of the best players of all time. I find such lists interesting because it tells me a great deal about the mind-set of the people who make such lists.
In contrast, I am totally turned off by statements by anyone that asserts that one person and only one person is the best of all time. And I refuse to play that game.
So I for one would merely put both Laver and Rosewall very high on any list of incredibly good players from the past.
So, if someone were to ask me, "Who do you think is the GOAT," my reply would always be the same: "You can make a good argument for a number of players. Players X, Y and Z would certainly be very high on my own personal list. But that's a matter of emotion, not logic."
Last edited:
Bobby, Krosero gave me a "like" for that post...I respect Krosero's judgment on this issue.
Last edited:
krosero, I do hope that pc1 will take your criticism without resentment. He does know that you are not a hothead as I am and that you use to try to avoid unfairness in any way. I would rather like to be critisized by krosero than by any other poster ;-)
Maybe I was the only one who did not want to drop the subject as I still hoped that my arguments would be able to convince even those who are in opposition with me. But alas...
I had two phone calls with Bud about Rosewall's status in history. Once he brought in the subject ("Your choice of Rosewall...") and once I brought it in ("I guess your GOAT candidates are...").
Players themselves are sometimes not reliable sources regarding their data and results as we have seen at Pancho G, Rosewall and Laver. No wonder: they played more than thousands of matches.
I see a certain discrepancy regarding my opponents trying to examine (and often doubt) every of my statements and their much lesser zeal to examine statements of most other posters. That's very unpleasant for me and one of the reasons why I actually speculate to quit my career here (have not yet decided).
I was disappointed that some posters ignored totally my hint to the serious World of Tennis yearbooks (Barrett, Tingay, Bellamy, Gray, Collins and so on) which stated for at least ten years that Rosewall was the No.1 player from 1960 to 1964. (In the first two issues they stated that Rosewall took over from Gonzalez in 1959). It was just another serious source.
I'm glad that Gary liked your post.
My post was for all peoples. Rich, poor, Austrian, American it doesn't matter.
We all have different perspectives and I disagree. At the end of the day the fundamental difference of opinion is that we believe Laver's record that year was better. Even if we all accepted what the papers etc...said at the time that wouldn't change our opinion. So again I will say that I find that line of discussion pointless. It's just leading to aggravation. Mostly for yourself Bobby.
Well with the exception of Dan everyone here would pick one of those players you named so we should be able to call it a day
NatF, Okay, but then be consequent and doubt also Pancho Gonzalez No.1 position in several years when he got the No.1 status only by winning the world series. Rosewall's win of the 1964 world championship was even more worthy than Pancho's many winning tours because the 1964 tour included also the pro majors!
But I appreciate your endeavour to calm down the discussions.
Bobby, it is very hard to pin down subtle differences in language, in register or formality.
I might personally say this: "I could make a case for player X being___." That's not exactly the same phrase, but perhaps you get the idea.
It's not totally the same as in German, but it is at least a bit like contrasting "ich" with "man". The "man" construction seems to be a lot more common than the English "one", at least in the US. I usually avoid it because it sounds (or might sound) a bit pompous.
I would guess that Bud would also not use the "one" construction because he was very much a "common man", meaning not a bit uppety, presumptuous or pompous. He was, of course, an excellent writer.
There is also a difference in written and spoken language. I will use "whom" when writing simply to protect myself from prescriptive English snobs, but I simply never use it in speech.
I won't go near the issue of what Bud believed about the GOAT question. I'm also not questioning what he said to you.
I'm only commenting on English usage, and I'm quite knowledgeable about this subject.
Gary, Stop to "educate" me in English language! My English, while very far from perfect, is good enough that I can understand a Buchholz article (Butch is not a Shakespeare), a simle and clear statement from Bud on TV and a fine and detailed explanation from krosero who, as I'm convinced, is as good in English language as ALL other posters here (obviously a bit better than some who distort clear worlds of one of my best friends, Bud Collins).
It must read "uppity".
I'm disappointed that words like "whom" are not in use these days anymore. And I dislike that silly "h2h" and similary short-English terms ("4you", "u").
So what?
You will wonder: I don't think that krosero is ALWAYS right!
Dan, I was in error. I don't agree with NatF's post to 100 %. His post is a compromise between your and my opinion.
But you distort his explanations he gave me in May that I have provided to the readers.
Dan Lobb, It's a torture for me to discuss in English with a Canadian who cannot understand simple and clear English words in the Buchholz article, in Bud's TV statement and in krosero's explanations.
Dan, You never accepted what Bud said to me on the phone. krosero has detailed explained (you must have slept when reading it) why the 2016 call is doubtful: not because of Buchholz's answer but because of the question!
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
OK, Bobby.
Okay.
You are a hypothetically poster. Just not real. A zombie.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Gonzalaz's world tours were fundamentally different to whatever Rosewall won in 1964. One was a series of h2h matches the other was a series of tournaments. I reject the tournament series standings mostly because they awarded the same points for every event. It is a fundamentally different situation for me.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Bobby at this stage you should accept that the posters involved in this discussion are not going to change their mind on Rosewall, so there is no point to continue relentlessy, and too often aggressively, to make his case. I fear some of them have actually a worst opinion of him because they are influenced by their negative feeling toward you. So your lobbying work can be very counter-productive. For example I know that I'm a bit biased toward Sampras because the most virulent of his fans are simply insufferable (90's clay, The Order, and some other I forgot the nickname). If Sampras case was solely defended by serene posters lie NonP I'm pretty sure I would be less biased.
Maybe you could follow Krosero and me and simply admire Rosewall irrespectively of what Dan Lob, Limphitter and such think of him. Keep your knowledge of his career for new posters who don't admire Rosewall because they lack information on him, instead of being hell bend on converting people who know all the facts and interpret them differently.
I remember I first came to the former pro-section because the pro-section was completely rotten with fan boy. I found a lot of extremely educated post from several posters, in particular PC1, Krosero, NonP, Carlo Colussi, Sergent something, and others. Now this sub-section has become worse than the pro forum, and many of the most interesting posters aren't active anymore, or seldom.
On the other hand all of the other posters could also refrain to attack Bobby's views and just let it go. The place doesn't need to look like the cabinet of marital a psychologist.
Maybe you could follow Krosero and me and simply admire Rosewall irrespectively of what Dan Lob, Limphitter and such think of him. Keep your knowledge of his career for new posters who don't admire Rosewall because they lack information on him, instead of being hell bend on converting people who know all the facts and interpret them differently.
I remember I first came to the former pro-section because the pro-section was completely rotten with fan boy. I found a lot of extremely educated post from several posters, in particular PC1, Krosero, NonP, Carlo Colussi, Sergent something, and others. Now this sub-section has become worse than the pro forum, and many of the most interesting posters aren't active anymore, or seldom.
On the other hand all of the other posters could also refrain to attack Bobby's views and just let it go. The place doesn't need to look like the cabinet of marital a psychologist.
Bobby, obviously in this case Krosero was right to give me a "like"...there was no disagreement between our views here.
It serves no purpose to attempt to create a disagreement where none exists in reality.
No, I do not "distort" anything...only in your mind.
You are trying to change the subject...which is NatF's statement, which you agreed with.
No, I accepted your account of what Bud said, but that statement needs some explanation, which you agreed to.
Bobby, there is no one who respects Rosewall and his achievements more than I do.
Kramer gave two all-time great lists, and excluded both Rosewall and Laver from both of them.
I accept Rosewall's own ranking, with Laver at number 3, and Rosewall tied with Sedgman at 5 and 6.
That is a very great evaluation.
treblings
Hall of Fame
Krosero,
first of all, thanks for the above post. if it where possible i would give substantially more than one like
my answer comes a bit delayed, mainly because i live in a different time zone,and also i wanted to thoroughly answer your post.
i was desperately hoping for new material to emerge to get the discussion going again. I basically stopped posting after i got the clear impression that some posters had
decided that i was "on Bobbys side" and treated my posts as something to be attacked rather than challenged. Anyway, that was my feeling.
I am not, and never was "on Bobbys side". I consider him a friend. But,as some have pointed out, i think correctly, Bobby is a grown-up man and doesn´t need defending.
I am in this forum to discuss tennis history, in a friendly way, and quite often simply to learn something
You make a good point about Bobby´s willingness to be open and to lay all arguments and data on the table. That is maybe his best quality as a poster(apart from his knowledge)
I enjoyed your link to "argument from authority" because it accurately describes the uneasiness that i had with the Buchholz phone call.
The ignore list is a valuable tool to ensure that you don´t get too much aggravated by other posters. I would advice everybody who is talking about bans to try the ignore list for at least a week.
My thinking is, that people who are interested in discussing tennis history are a minority that is worth protecting. We are a small group. I´ve never asked for anybody to be banned.
Finally, i´d like your opinion on something that got me thinking. do you think that threads like the "world no.1" have many readers outside of those who post in it?
My impression is, no, because i don´t think many people would bother to read through all the bickering.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I don't understand this comment.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Since I played the UN task force in this battlefield, Dan Lobb posted 5 time without any meaningful content and Phoenix once. Please, as much as BobbyOne can bother you, don't answer! It's enough that we have one poster who can't use the +Quote button, or better, refrain to answer altogether! Treblings is absolutely right. Nobody is going to read this threads!
Please go play in the what if Murray played in the most weak era (Federer's), there is nothing destroy there.
Please go play in the what if Murray played in the most weak era (Federer's), there is nothing destroy there.
