ROTFL I can't stop laughing

Deleted member 742196 · Nov 27, 2018

NatF said:
To clarify, I have no doubt about you being a Fed supporter. You seem like you assume the best of people, which is commendable, but it should be painfully clear what the motivations of certain posters are (this goes for certain Fedfans too BTW), not sure how anyone reasonable could be giving credit to Lew at this stage...

Thanks. Regardless of what he is or isn’t, credit is due. If for originality.

All the times people have casually said “Federer fans are this”, or “Nadal fans are that” etc. The easy reach stereotype. Justification.

...so people can say what they want to say, under pretext of that justification, Lew just took a better approach on this one.

Like many people he said exactly what he wanted to say about a whole fan base, this is true. Unlike many people he took the extraordinary step of showing stats of what we’ve been saying.

There’s no escaping the fact that after losses we look for inventive ways of rationalizing. Lew himself greatly discounts Djokovic’s period against Fedal 2008~2011, after his first slam.

As if these losses were inevitable and obvious, and explainable: Age, prime, peak, matchup, surface blah blah blah.

But before the losses?

That’s why this one feels different. It’s not about Federer or Djokovic or GOAT or any of the usual stuff.

It’s about what people say now contrasted against what they said then. The gaping disparity, if we’re being honest, that we’ve always felt was there.

That seems relevant. In fact there’s no simple way it should not be relevant for those leveraged in these types of exchanges.

I imagine you’re going to see anything from casual sneering to outright slander as a response to this thread. It wouldn’t at all shock me if it ends up being canned.

I’m guessing a few may resort to the old playground tactic of calling him stupid or can’t be bothered. They’ll come in and especially make sure to tell you that they cannot be bothered.

Lew is what he is. He’s just often more creative than the rest of us that are no more or less biased in our views.

Yeah, I spent a year building coin with the Fedfan base just to throw it all away in one thread.

Thanks @Lew

I’m always broke because of your damn threads.

Deleted member 757377 · Nov 27, 2018

Sport said:
I agree with Kingroger here. One thing is to say that Roger at age 30 (30 is not the same as 35) was still in the last stages of his prime/optimal conditions. But 34 the highest level of his career? That is ridiculous.

Fed's highest winning percentage after 2007:

1) 2017 91% - age 35/36
2) 2014 86% - age 32/33
3) 2012 86% - age 30/31
4) 2015 85% - age 33/34

Deleted member 742196 · Nov 27, 2018

@NatF
P.S.
Working my portfolio for next season: I’ve wanted for quite a while to tell you My Hero Academia is an awesome anime. Quite insightful in the pathos of nowaday’s superhero times.

MS_07 · Nov 27, 2018

Sport said:
Thanks for exposing the thruth @Lew. Don't forget to check the Roland Garros 2012 predictions, US Open 2011 predictions and US Open 2010 predictions against prime/optimal 29-30 years old Federer.

(Michael Jordan averaged 35 points per game at age 30 in the 1993 playoffs, LeBron James was the best basketball player in the world at age 30 over younger players like Kevin Durant, Cristiano stablished his personal record with 48 goals in La Liga at age 30, Nadal and Djokovic keep winning Slams at age 31-32). The greatest players of all time keep dominating their sport at age 30.

Dear self proclaimed ex pert,

Those are team games, please show one game in which players fight one on one and are dominating after 30. There are chances that jokodal may win (but not dominate) in their 35+/- but it's not because of their brilliance, it's because millennials are not ready to work , they want instant fame and name, can't digest success. There's no true champion born after '87.

Phoenix1983 · Nov 27, 2018

Hydrocella said:
Lew is what he is. He’s just often more creative than the rest of us that are no more or less biased in our views.

He's the living embodiment of the phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics".

And, along with the late and not-so-dearly departed 5555, is the most repetitive Novak Djokovic troll this forum has seen.

MS_07 · Nov 27, 2018

Lew said:
Fed's highest winning percentage after 2007:

1) 2017 91% - age 35/36
2) 2014 86% - age 32/33
3) 2012 86% - age 30/31
4) 2015 85% - age 33/34

Dude your body contains dna/rna which match 99% with chimps. Does that make you a chimp? No.

Go n watch some games dude.

Sport · Nov 27, 2018

Lew said:
Fed's highest winning percentage after 2007:

1) 2017 91% - age 35/36
2) 2014 86% - age 32/33
3) 2012 86% - age 30/31
4) 2015 85% - age 33/34

But if winning percentage is the criterion of highest peak level, then Federer played at a higher level in 2017 than 2015.

Deleted member 757377 · Nov 27, 2018

Sport said:
But if the winning percentage is the criterion of highest peak level (which is debatable), then Federer played his highest level ever in 2017, not 2015.

Basing on what do you think 30 yo Fed was better than 32-34 Fed then?

Deleted member 757377 · Nov 27, 2018

Phoenix1983 said:
He's the living embodiment of the phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics".

And, along with the late and not-so-dearly departed 5555, is the most repetitive Novak Djokovic troll this forum has seen.

Put me in ignore list then. Many find me interesting.

Sport · Nov 27, 2018

Lew said:
Basing on what do you think 30 yo Fed was better than 32-34 Fed then?

Based on what did Federer play on a higher level in 2015 than in 2017 then?

Phoenix1983 · Nov 27, 2018

Lew said:
Put me in ignore list then. Many find me interesting.

I don't use the ignore list, that's desperate stuff.

Deleted member 742196 · Nov 27, 2018

Phoenix1983 said:
He's the living embodiment of the phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics".

And, along with the late and not-so-dearly departed 5555, is the most repetitive Novak Djokovic troll this forum has seen.

Hahahaha.

He’s @FedFosterWallace in numbers and percentages. Were this an actual war I think any side would be happy to have him in their mission planning room, I am convinced of it.

Jonas78 · Nov 27, 2018

Are you in decline @Lew ? Age related?

I like it better when you are pumping out cherrypicked stats

swordtennis · Nov 27, 2018

Thank you Lew for having the audacity to point out the mind numbing hypocrisy of those that shall not be named. Truly epick.

Hamnavoe · Nov 27, 2018

Jonas78 · Nov 27, 2018

swordtennis said:
Thank you Lew for having the audacity to point out the mind numbing hypocrisy of those that shall not be named. Truly epick.

Well it's nothing new that polls like these are more about wishes than reality. Given the size of Federers fanbase vs Djokers it's really not surprising imo.

Deleted member 757377 · Nov 27, 2018

Sport said:
Based on what did Federer play on a higher level in 2015 than in 2017 then?

In the summer of 2015 he lost 2 slam finals to peak Djokovic in the middle of a 61-1 sets streak.

At WI15, UO15, YEC15, AO16 he was 59-3 in sets and 18-1 against top-8, before losing to peak Djokovic.

Sport · Nov 27, 2018

Lew said:
He lost 2 slam finals to peak Djokovic in the middle of a 61-1 streak in sets.

At WI15, UO15, YEC15, AO16 he won 59 sets out of 62 and 18-1 against top-8, before losing to peak Djokovic.

But you can't judge stats based on a double standard. If your criterion to determine highest level is winning percentage, then 2017 Federer > 2015 Federer, since 2017 Federer had 91% of winning percentage while 2015 Federer had a 85% of winning percentage.

NatF · Nov 27, 2018

Hydrocella said:
Thanks. Regardless of what he is or isn’t, credit is due. If for originality.

All the times people have casually said “Federer fans are this”, or “Nadal fans are that” etc. The easy reach stereotype. Justification.

...so people can say what they want to say, under pretext of that justification, Lew just took a better approach on this one.

Like many people he said exactly what he wanted to say about a whole fan base, this is true. Unlike many people he took the extraordinary step of showing stats of what we’ve been saying.

There’s no escaping the fact that after losses we look for inventive ways of rationalizing. Lew himself greatly discounts Djokovic’s period against Fedal 2008~2011, after his first slam.

As if these losses were inevitable and obvious, and explainable: Age, prime, peak, matchup, surface blah blah blah.

But before the losses?

That’s why this one feels different. It’s not about Federer or Djokovic or GOAT or any of the usual stuff.

It’s about what people say now contrasted against what they said then. The gaping disparity, if we’re being honest, that we’ve always felt was there.

That seems relevant. In fact there’s no simple way it should not be relevant for those leveraged in these types of exchanges.

I imagine you’re going to see anything from casual sneering to outright slander as a response to this thread. It wouldn’t at all shock me if it ends up being canned.

I’m guessing a few may resort to the old playground tactic of calling him stupid or can’t be bothered. They’ll come in and especially make sure to tell you that they cannot be bothered.

Lew is what he is. He’s just often more creative than the rest of us that are no more or less biased in our views.

Yeah, I spent a year building coin with the Fedfan base just to throw it all away in one thread.

Thanks @Lew

I’m always broke because of your damn threads.

Meh, agree to disagree.

Lew goes to great efforts to prove his points - or perhaps to just wind people up, no denying that, But I don't think constantly trying to force your agenda down other peoples throats is something to be applauded, no matter how creative you might be in doing it.

Not the mention how often he shirks away from responding to reasoned counter points and resorts to insults.

It's worth pointing out that in 2014 Djokovic was in a slump having gone 18 months without a slam title and he'd didn't look at his very best in the earlier rounds of Wimbledon/USO either - he raised his level in the finals. Federer tends to win every poll under the sun on here, so him winning those polls shouldn't be a revelation. I do think Federer flattered to deceive in 2015, he was still a very good opponent but IMO he took advantage of a rather stagnant tour and the ways Djokovic exposed him in 2015 e.g. missing power off the ground, lateral movement, stamina would have been far harder if Federer was in his best form during his mid 20's. Having said that Federer was still good competition, I just don't see him as ATG competition.

NatF · Nov 27, 2018

Hydrocella said:
@NatF
P.S.
Working my portfolio for next season: I’ve wanted for quite a while to tell you My Hero Academia is an awesome anime. Quite insightful in the pathos of nowaday’s superhero times.

My Hero is amazing. All Might is one of my favourite anime characters of all-time now, I've even bought the T-shirt so to speak.

I'm actually going to be viewing the new'ish movie in the cinema next week.

Deleted member 757377 · Nov 27, 2018

Sport said:
But you can't judge stats based on a double standard. If your criterion to determine highest level is winning percentage, then 2017 Federer > 2015 Federer, since 2017 Federer had 91% of winning percentage while 2015 Federer had a 85% of winning percentage.

I mean second half of 2015 + early 2016, not the whole 2015.

2015-16 Federer had a peaking hardcourt/grass GOAT to deal with, which makes the difference.

2017 Fed was close though, I don't think there's a big difference.

Jonas78 · Nov 27, 2018

Sport said:
But you can't judge stats based on a double standard. If your criterion to determine highest level is winning percentage, then 2017 Federer > 2015 Federer, since 2017 Federer had 91% of winning percentage while 2015 Federer had a 85% of winning percentage.

The only criterion is that If peak-Djokovic is around or not.

And peak-Djokovic is defined by winning%, but that doesnt apply to other players.

Chanwan · Nov 27, 2018

As you yourself posted elsewhere @Lew , the odds were in Djoko's favor in all 5 matches. All this thread proves is that Fed has more fans than Djoko here - which we already knew.

Deleted member 757377 · Nov 27, 2018

Chanwan said:
As you yourself posted elsewhere @Lew , the odds were in Djoko's favor in all 5 matches. All this thread proves is that Fed has more fans than Djoko here - which we already knew.

Yeah but not by much. Around 60-40.

Towny · Nov 27, 2018

Lew said:
I mean second half of 2015 + early 2016, not the whole 2015

If Wimb15-AO16 was peak Federer, and you come this conclusion based on how dominant he was over the field excluding Djokovic, how do you explain poor losses at Shanghhai and Paris to Ramos-Vinolas and Isner respectively, who both went on to lose in the following round, as well as losing in straights at Brisbane to Raonic, who's never won a hardcourt masters or made a hardcourt slam final?

How do you explain these losses when Federer between Wimb05 and Dubai07 only had one bad loss in a much longer time period - Murray in Cincy06

Deleted member 742196 · Nov 27, 2018

NatF said:
Meh, agree to disagree.

Lew goes to great efforts to prove his points - or perhaps to just wind people up, no denying that, But I don't think constantly trying to force your agenda down other peoples throats is something to be applauded, no matter how creative you might be in doing it.

Not the mention how often he shirks away from responding to reasoned counter points and resorts to insults.

It's worth pointing out that in 2014 Djokovic was in a slump having gone 18 months without a slam title and he'd didn't look at his very best in the earlier rounds of Wimbledon/USO either - he raised his level in the finals. Federer tends to win every poll under the sun on here, so him winning those polls shouldn't be a revelation. I do think Federer flattered to deceive in 2015, he was still a very good opponent but IMO he took advantage of a rather stagnant tour and the ways Djokovic exposed him in 2015 e.g. missing power off the ground, lateral movement, stamina would have been far harder if Federer was in his best form during his mid 20's. Having said that Federer was still good competition, I just don't see him as ATG competition.

There’s no denying the stats are very obviously skewed and sampled in support of his assertions, but this also is how statistics are used by everyone no?

Yep, it can get a bit grating to be constantly told my favourite player is a weakera champ. He’s not the first to do it, in fact he isn’t the one doing it most often. He does it with numbers which for me are easier than the posts dripping with obvious venom.

One thing I do like is he will sink or swim with the numbers as Djokovic gets up to his mid thirties. The losses will get more common whether to Zverev’s or some others. That’s inevitable. If Djokovic isn’t doing at 35 what Federer was and still is doing at 37 Lew’s stats will take a tumble off a cliff.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. Stats can often be double edged that way.

OhYes · Nov 27, 2018

You sure have dialed their number

Priceless.

Tennis_Hands · Nov 27, 2018

Hydrocella said:
There’s no denying the stats are very obviously skewed and sampled in support of his assertions, but this also is how statistics are used by everyone no?

No.

Sorry to tell you that, mate!

Deleted member 757377 · Nov 27, 2018

Towny said:
If Wimb15-AO16 was peak Federer, and you come this conclusion based on how dominant he was over the field excluding Djokovic, how do you explain poor losses at Shanghhai and Paris to Ramos-Vinolas and Isner respectively, who both went on to lose in the following round, as well as losing in straights at Brisbane to Raonic, who's never won a hardcourt masters or made a hardcourt slam final? How do you explain these losses when Federer between Wimb05 and Dubai07 only had one bad loss in a much longer time period - Murray in Cincy06

He focused on big tournaments.

NatF · Nov 27, 2018

Hydrocella said:
There’s no denying the stats are very obviously skewed and sampled in support of his assertions, but this also is how statistics are used by everyone no?

Yep, it can get a bit grating to be constantly told my favourite player is a weakera champ. He’s not the first to do it, in fact he isn’t the one doing it most often. He does it with numbers which for me are easier than the posts dripping with obvious venom.

One thing I do like is he will sink or swim with the numbers as Djokovic gets up to his mid thirties. The losses will get more common whether to Zverev’s or some others. That’s inevitable. If Djokovic isn’t doing at 35 what Federer was and still is doing at 37 Lew’s stats will take a tumble off a cliff.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. Stats can often be double edged that way.

I don't know man, subtle venom is the worst

(Not that it's subtle)

Plamen1234 · Nov 27, 2018

Thanks for proving that Federer have way more fans than Djokovic on this site - we already knew that but it is good to see admission from you.BTW how many fans Djoko have on this site - 10 is my guess.In few years Zverev will have more fans on this site than Nole - lol.Djokovic slogan should be "being unpopular champion since 2007".

Towny · Nov 27, 2018

Lew said:
He focused on big tournaments.

So masters aren't big tournaments? I thought that was the whole point of the 'big titles' thing.

OldschoolKIaus · Nov 27, 2018

True Fanerer said:
All you are doing is proving Djokovic has no fans.

Close this thread, we have a winner!

Deleted member 742196 · Nov 27, 2018

Tennis_Hands said:
No.

Sorry to tell you that, mate!

However entertaining it is to have you cite Nick Kyrgios as your sound of calm reason “...sorry to tell you mate!” is not helpful.

y-76jFd0qvIXNHjxDLTcG2UcPT2Nvi-ZxfgM_Z2z-SHMpSGDLvjSxblXOpnUWpvBunxKMtXnhF70ETdu4TbF9FqUI284_yX9aFcAYv8=w330-h186-nc

Clear examples of statistics not in support of any assertions would be helpful.

Deleted member 757377 · Nov 27, 2018

Towny said:
So masters aren't big tournaments? I thought that was the whole point of the 'big titles' thing.

Slams and yec are bigger big titles.

Deleted member 742196 · Nov 27, 2018

NatF said:
I don't know man, subtle venom is the worst

(Not that it's subtle)

LOL.

I suppose it’s a preference of how we snuff out. One way or another he seems hellbent on drowning everyone in a sea of percentages and ratios.

This thread is statistics about statistics, in support of statistics that confirm assertions.

Deleted member 757377 · Nov 27, 2018

@Towny

In all his career Federer got only 4 titles and 2 finals in the last 2 masters of the year, because he prefers to focus on Basel and the YEC.

And mentioning 2006 won't help, as you should know I believe the level of tennis gets higher in 10 years.

Nadal_Django · Nov 27, 2018

Lol, i can imagine the level of saltiness in this place, after Djokovic pulled of the Holly Quadfecta in the 2014-16 period.

75% predicts Federer over Djokovic. Still laughing. Lol

moonballs · Nov 27, 2018

You should include the polls for 2015 Cincy final and the Shanghai SF which Fed won. If you want to show popularity drives polls these matches may help your case.

KINGROGER · Nov 27, 2018

Lew said:
He focused on big tournaments.

Federer big titles on grass /HC in 2006-2007: 2 AO, 2 Wimbledon, 2 USO.
Djokovic big titles on grass /HC in 2015-2016: 2 AO, 1 W, 1 USO

Based off these objective stats Peak Fed >>>>>> peak Nole.

swordtennis · Nov 27, 2018

Jonas78 said:
Well it's nothing new that polls like these are more about wishes than reality. Given the size of Federers fanbase vs Djokers it's really not surprising imo.

Well it is always about a win win for fed and fed fans here and a lose lose for djokovic. Losses do not count wins count. Wins do not count losses count. Does not matter if pubescent fed or veteran fed. So we just got to LOL.

Towny · Nov 27, 2018

Lew said:
@Towny

In all his career Federer got only 4 titles and 2 finals in the last 2 masters of the year, because he prefers to focus on Basel and the YEC.

And mentioning 2006 won't help, as you should know I believe the level of tennis gets higher in 10 years

I'm glad you agree that slams and YECs are more important than masters. As you know, Federer leads in both these categories, slams by quite a margin

Federer didn't bother playing Paris at his peak in 2004-2006. He played Madrid once, which he won. This still doesn't explain why he lost at both in the early rounds in 2015. And with regard to the level of the game increasing, do you actually believe that Ramos-Vinolas was stronger than all of Federer's hardcourt competition in 2004-2006 and that's why he lost?

The whole argument that the level of the tour improved and that's why Federer won less doesn't fly. How can you quantify the level improved? What significant racket advancement or other technological change was made? Is Djokovic better now than 2015 because the tour has moved on?

Deleted member 757377 · Nov 27, 2018

Towny said:
I'm glad you agree that slams and YECs are more important than masters. As you know, Federer leads in both these categories, slams by quite a margin

Federer didn't bother playing Paris at his peak in 2004-2006. He played Madrid once, which he won. This still doesn't explain why he lost at both in the early rounds in 2015. And with regard to the level of the game increasing, do you actually believe that Ramos-Vinolas was stronger than all of Federer's hardcourt competition in 2004-2006 and that's why he lost?

The whole argument that the level of the tour improved and that's why Federer won less doesn't fly. How can you quantify the level improved? What significant racket advancement or other technological change was made? Is Djokovic better now than 2015 because the tour has moved on?

I give up with you. Goodbye.

Towny · Nov 27, 2018

Lew said:
I give up with you. Goodbye.

Fair enough. Agree to disagree then. I've yet to have a good answer for this question from any of the '2015 is peak Federer' advocates though

Nadal_Django · Nov 27, 2018

Towny said:
Fair enough. Agree to disagree then. I've yet to have a good answer for this question from any of the '2015 is peak Federer' advocates though

But what is your question though? All I can see is just another extremely biased Fed fanboy with the usual BS mantra about the Peak Mythical Creature Federer saving the world from Roddick, Hewitt, Robredo, Davydenko and the other monsters of the 2004-07 era, and thus being invincible and unreachable also for the next tennis generations.

hoodjem · Nov 27, 2018

Im(moral) Winner said:
Fed always the polls regardless of the question.

(Verb needed.)
"wins"?

Im(moral) Winner · Nov 27, 2018

hoodjem said:
(Verb needed.)
"wins"?

Let's go with that

Towny · Nov 27, 2018

Nadal_Django said:
But what is your question though? All I can see is just another extremely biased Fed fanboy with the usual BS mantra about the Peak Mythical Creature Federer saving the world from Roddick, Hewitt, Robredo, Davydenko and the other monsters of the 2004-07 era, and thus being invincible and unreachable also for the next tennis generations.

My two questions were if Federer was at absolute peak in 2015, why did he lose early rounds of back to back hardcourt masters - something he didn't do in 2005 or 6? Peak Djokovic was not the only thing stopping Federer from winning in 2015.

The other was if anyone could give me actual quantifiable information showing the tour has increased in level dramatically since the mid 2000s. Racket techonology including polystrings have played a big part in the progression of the game. But what has changed since 2007? What significant technological or other advancement turns Federer from having back to back multi-slam years and making 18 out of 19 slam finals in a row, to regularly losing pre QF in slams?

And whatever you may think, I'm not a fanboy. I've never tried to argue that Hewitt or Roddick were ATGs or any nonsense like that. I've never tried to argue that 2006 was a strong year for competition. I've never said Federer is invincible. Please don't put words in my mouth

Deleted member 742196 · Nov 27, 2018

moonballs said:
You should include the polls for 2015 Cincy final and the Shanghai SF which Fed won. If you want to show popularity drives polls these matches may help your case.

If you really want to pursue the tangent that popularity drives the polls include ones from recent years, or even this year. I would suspect this not a can of worms anyone in their right mind should be opening, certainly no fan of Federer I mean.

Of course Lew already did his due diligence by showing the percentages dropping over the years.

@Lew
You know because of your little thread Tennis Hands is probably going to make life miserable for another year. There’s no way he’s going to let any opportunities go to tell me how awful a FedFan I am.

December isn’t even around yet and I already know what kind of Christmas gift you sent me this year.

Here’s my gift in return:

czmhh6bqK9IJFbXJfrkDVN5VakIERr7bVGZeDp9zoe8oPUvN7-lDwh-ehwte1Hlg8_NN1RmWe_M7zEI7HqN8wIReXXiGFgfAcNzB5Gg=w442-h333-nc

Deleted member 742196 · Nov 27, 2018

Towny said:
My two questions were if Federer was at absolute peak in 2015, why did he lose early rounds of back to back hardcourt masters - something he didn't do in 2005 or 6? Peak Djokovic was not the only thing stopping Federer from winning in 2015.

The other was if anyone could give me actual quantifiable information showing the tour has increased in level dramatically since the mid 2000s. Racket techonology including polystrings have played a big part in the progression of the game. But what has changed since 2007? What significant technological or other advancement turns Federer from having back to back multi-slam years and making 18 out of 19 slam finals in a row, to regularly losing pre QF in slams?

And whatever you may think, I'm not a fanboy. I've never tried to argue that Hewitt or Roddick were ATGs or any nonsense like that. I've never tried to argue that 2006 was a strong year for competition. I've never said Federer is invincible. Please don't put words in my mouth

I think you might be caught in the crossfire of these goat wars that happen everyday in here.

This thread isn’t about Federer, it’s about the fans in here and the arguments being put forward.

It’s become recently fashionable for the more vociferous Djokovic crowd to go after weakera, Lew being part of that crowd. I don’t think of Lew as a troll, but some others in here do.

In response to that the Federer crowd says well, can’t have it both ways. 30+ Fed would have been no competition for prime Djokovic, so this is a weakera of its own.

You need to follow the back and forth a bit to understand the context of the 2015 demarcation. Nobody is actually saying Federer was better in 2015 than during his prime.

The whole gist of it is he was still competitive, and here in this thread is definitive proof FedFans also believed it in 2015.

That’s the context.

Think of all this like a long drawn out white paper slowly making its way, like molasses, through congress. It may never ever get completed but people in here seem to wake up every day determined to advance it forward page by bloody page.

ROTFL I can't stop laughing

Deleted member 742196

Guest

Deleted member 757377

Guest

Deleted member 742196

Guest

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Deleted member 757377

Guest

Deleted member 757377

Guest

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Deleted member 742196

Guest

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

Deleted member 757377

Guest

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 757377

Guest

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Deleted member 757377

Guest

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 742196

Guest

OhYes

Guest

Banned

Deleted member 757377

Guest

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 742196

Guest

Deleted member 757377

Guest

Deleted member 742196

Guest

Deleted member 757377

Guest

Legend

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 757377

Guest

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 742196

Guest

Deleted member 742196

Guest

Similar threads