CyBorg
Legend
Right, I am aware, while you are the one who blindly follows along. Good.
Ouch. What a weak way to go out.
Right, I am aware, while you are the one who blindly follows along. Good.
This one's a natural, I take it.
Ouch. What a weak way to go out.
You're providing a great service to the boards, my friend--people are going to read this thread tomorrow and it's going to brighten their entire days! Keep on participating in the postmodern magical carpet ride.
I see you've been reading the Jerry Garcia book on postmodernism. Fitting.
Besides, the more you participate in this thread, the more popular it becomes, and the longer it stays.
This is precisely what I want. I don't want you to leave. I enjoy seeing you become transparent, if you could get ever more so. The more of a joke, the better.
I prefer the writings of Haruki Murakami--ever read "The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle"?
Lucky you. Your posts never surprise me in any interesting way--same old idiocy.
Knowledge is a wonderful thing, I think. But it is nothing if not applied.
You know, I was really amused when you linked that jstor article on this board, because it said so much about you.
Intelligent, knowledgeable people display their intelligence in the ways in which they are capable of applying information. In other words, one may have read something in a journal article or a book, then is capable of remembering those details and later apply them in appropriate context.
This way they become useful.
You humour me so much because at most all that you are capable of is name-dropping. And that's no virtue. It's just more of the same kind of self-flattery that we've come to expect of you.
Do drop some more names. You sound super-impressive when you do it. Should I throw in Derrida? Foucault, for good measure?
I find Chopin and CyBorg both comical.
I find Chopin and CyBorg both comical.
CyBorg, you don't seem to understand. My goal is not to impress you. You're a buffoon--nothing more than intellectual lightweight who acts like a jerk to other posters. Your posts are juvenile, and your opinions on tennis are silly. It would be a waste of my time to try and "debate" you or spend time making a rational argument against the BS you spew.
You make things personal--the ultimate sign of a troll. If anything I write is satirical or for kicks, it has more in common with how you go about posting (except that I'm funny). Even some of my completely humorous posts have more substance your one line, "think harder" insults. You would have gotten this if you weren't such a vain poster.
You can't win Cyborg. You can't beat me, because I'm operating on a higher level.
You know, I don't think you to be an idiot. I think you're just as plain as most folks. You've read a bit of this and that in your life. But you can't really grasp the heavy ideas, so you have to fake it.
I don't mind jerks, assholes. They're often straight forward. It's the two-faced types (you've even admitted it yourself) that I often can't stand.
Except when they've got no ammunition. Then it's just plain comedy.
Don't get worked up. The only conflict here is in your head.
Yeah because we're really going after the heavy ideas here on the discussion boards. Nice analysis.
Ah CyBorg, ask yourself: what am I doing right now?
He certainly does. You're the last person I need to tell, but fans and media alike think that today's game is the best there ever was.
Most, not all. I've had the pleasure on this board of meeting thoughtful fans (and I'm not just talking about the "TW Historians").
CyBorg, if I may chime in, I think it's time to move on now that you've got your worth of hilarity. This is like arguing with the Fed fanatics who really think, without any hint of irony, their hero's serve is comparable to Sampras' or Karlovic's. Frankly I'm thinking about escaping from his madhouse for good. Just now they were arguing not whether Sampras is a bad matchup for Nadal, but by what margin Rafa would own Pete. This is only one of the few jaw-dropping doozies I've come across in the last week or two.
I dunno, this is a bit more fun than the usual kind. This one quotes Shakespeare much in the same way Peter Griffin quotes Evelyn Beatrice Hall.
CyBorg, if I may chime in, I think it's time to move on now that you've got your worth of hilarity. This is like arguing with the Fed fanatics who really think, without any hint of irony, their hero's serve is comparable to Sampras' or Karlovic's. Frankly I'm thinking about escaping from this madhouse for good. Just now they were arguing over not whether Sampras is a bad matchup for Nadal, but by what margin Rafa would own Pete. This is only one of the few jaw-dropping doozies I've come across in the last week or two.
Yeah but what if the game is being played at a higher standard than ever before? What then? Should people be criticized for telling the truth?
The problem with posters like CyBorg is that they don't understand certain fundamental about tennis. Based on the way the guy talks, I'm pretty sure he's a complete hacker who own has no clue about stroke mechanics or what types of thing mark true quality tennis. CyBorg is very attached to the olden days of tennis and many of his views are based on the absurd underlying assumption that guys like Laver or Borg had better strokes than Federer.
Laver himself has said that he would need a few more inches to compete in the modern game--I trust Laver over Cyborg. The guy just does not know tennis.
You argument about technique is redundant.
First of all you assume you know more than everyone here about technique and are qualified to judge players at the elite level on their technique. Unless your name is Tony Roche or Nick Bolleteri than your opinions on the matter hold no weight to anyone your trying to convince. Even if you were one of the two than your theories would still be inconclusive since all coaches even at the elite level preach differing techniques for strokes. Some teach single handed backhands, some teach semi western or eastern grips etc.
You talk about technique as if they are absolutes, that one grip has to be better than another, and that simply is not the case. If that were the case than every player today would be playing the same way with the same techniques and the same strokes. That could not be further from the truth since the most dominant players of the past 5 years play almost exact opposite styles and exact opposite techniques.
You say that Laver couldn't compete in today's era with a continental forehand, but why is it then that the two most dominant players of the past 20 years have used the eastern forehand grip and heavy, small headed rackets as close to wooden frames as modern technology allows? Since their forehand's are not far removed from continental shouldn't they both have struggled on that side too against players using western grips and large headed rackets?
You saying that a continental forehand wouldn't work today against today's players is a completely unquantifiable statement. The reason that so many players have been successful with different techniques is because there is no single perfect technique. The only way to determine what technique is best for an individual player is to judge by the results of a player using the technique in question, and Rod Laver's results arguably are better than anyone in history.
CyBorg, if I may chime in, I think it's time to move on now that you've got your worth of hilarity. This is like arguing with the Fed fanatics who really think, without any hint of irony, their hero's serve is comparable to Sampras' or Karlovic's. Frankly I'm thinking about escaping from this madhouse for good. Just now they were arguing over not whether Sampras is a bad matchup for Nadal, but by what margin Rafa would own Pete. This is only one of the few jaw-dropping doozies I've come across in the last week or two.
1. Yes, Sampras used an eastern forehand. But there is a gigantic difference between eastern and continental. It's night and day. Try hitting forehands with your service grip.
2. There are a variety of techniques that are effective and all have pros and cons (though I will point out the movement is overwhelmingly towards more western grips). And more importantly, there are NO top pros who have continental forehands. It just does not make sense in the modern game. It's obsolete. It would not work with Laver.
3. My point is this. If prime Laver we're forced to compete in the modern game, he'd get crushed. Pure and simple.
4. His backhand would also be troubled by the heavy topspin due to his height. No way the guy would be a top player.
At least my posts make people smile.
Let me educate you.
1. The difference between a Continental and Eastern forehand is not night and day and is far from gigantic. If you knew as much as you claim to about tennis or technique you would never make such a ridiculous statement. It is as different as hitting a Semi Western forehand to an Eastern. Just because you or I cant hit a continental forehand well doesn't mean that nobody can or that nobody can use it effectively. Many people struggle to use a western forehand well, but that doesn't make it unusable.
2. That's right. Each grip does have inherent pros and cons. Exactly what I said. I would point out to you that the game is moving more toward eastern grips rather than western. There are far fewer Western grip players playing now than there were in the mid to late 90's and early 2000's, and now even the very best clay court players do not use western grips. Del Potro is Eastern, Fed is Easter/semi western as you say, Davydenko and Nadal are continental. The full western grip players have disappeared because most of them didn't have the ability to hit through the court effectively with their extreme grips that require more rotation.
3. Again your main point is completely unquantifiable. You saying this means nothing. Absolutely zero. Nobody has ever seen a match with a modern player Vs prime Laver and they never will.
Bjorn Borg was the prototype for the modern player, with his western grip forehand and high bouncing double handed backhand, yet Laver had no problems competing with him when he was 38 years old and Borg at the beginning of his peak. On green clay also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-VeBIal8TU
4. Again a totally unquantifiable statement. What makes you think he would have trouble with high backhands? Again this is just a stab in the dark assumption by you with no evidence to back it up. But even if he did would it be so bad? Federer struggles with high backhands and so did Agassi. Players are entitled to have a weakness and this one is totally unproven once again. The only player in the current top 10 who hits a heavier ball than Borg did is Nadal. So yeah maybe Laver would struggle with Nadal's topspin forehand to his backhand, but like Federer he would find ways around it and would be competitive on faster surfaces.
1) Wrong. Completely wrong. Huge difference between eastern and continental. Gigantic. I can hit with all forehands grips except extreme western and I do use the continental to chip returns, or hit squash shot on the run, but the racquet face is a totally different angle with continental and it's much harder to come over a ball or to catch a ball late. Major disadvantage in most situations. Once again, NO ONE uses a continental grip. No one. Zip. Zero.
2) What? No, no, no. Nadal is a full western. Nadal is NOT continental. Like I said, no one uses continental. Djokovic is full western. Davy is semi-western. Del Potro is semi-western. Murray is semi-western. It's almost ALL semi-western or full western.
In fact, even Eastern forehands are very rare on the tour!
http://tennis.about.com/od/playersmale/ss/djokovicpicsbs.htm
3) Right, it's hypothetical. I agree. The debate is hypothetical.
4) He'd have trouble with high topspin backhands because he was 5'8" tall! All one handed player have trouble with high backhands to some extent, but if you're Keurten's height, the ball can't get too high on you. It's simple physics.
Wikipedia is not the source of all knowledge but here's what it says about continental forehand grips:
Continental
The continental grip was popular with many Europeans of the 1920s and 1930s and with many Australians of the 1940s and 1950s. The continental has the advantage of being used for all strokes: serves, volleys, forehands, and backhands, without having to be shifted in the player's hand, as is the case with all the other grips. It is particularly well-suited for hitting low balls — "taking the ball on the rise" — but is generally considered inferior for most forehands.
Who are these 6 that voted for Laver? I really want to know.
I was under the impression that you were involved in academia.....
I guess I was wrong since your trying to use Wikipedia as a viable source.
Chopin you try and present yourself as some kind of academic. Someone who is well read and knowledgeable, but your arguments are so poorly structured and have so little logical basis that I can only assume that your just a fraud. As other posters have said there is no point 'debating' you, because there is no debate happening at all. It always becomes one person trying to prove you wrong through logic and critical thinking, while you attempt to pass off your own opinions as fact.
Goodbye Chopin.
1. Once again, no there is not a gigantic difference between continental and eastern. It is one bevel difference. Just like semi western to western, or semi western to eastern. In fact depending on the type of grip and the size of the bevel the angle of the racket face is changed more dramatically between semi western and eastern. And again, YOUR inability to hit a continental forehand doesn't prove a thing except that YOU cannot hit a continental forehand.
I myself play with a full western forehand and can also hit all forehands, including a very extreme western. However I also have no problem hitting topspin with a continental grip. Does that prove to you that a continental grip is viable in today's game? Didnt think so.
2. Sorry I meant semi-western. Nadal and Davydenko are semi western. Nadal is maybe between semi western and full western. Del Potro is most definately Eastern, and Fed is much closer to Eastern than Semi Western. If you look at the top 100 you will find majority of players using semi western, not western.
3. Good you agree that your sweeping generalizations mean nothing if they're only backed up by your own opinions.
4. It is not simple physics. Have you ever heard of Dudi Sela? Albert Montanes? Tommy Robredo? How about Gaston Gaudio? None of those guys have problems with high backhands even on clay, despite their small size.
If your going to spout basic physics as a point then prove it rather than just saying 'its physics'.
Yeah but what if the game is being played at a higher standard than ever before? What then? Should people be criticized for telling the truth?
This, for example, is pure BS, to talk as if you’re taking your cue from Laver. Your opinion of Laver is your own. You’re not “believing” Laver. You’re using him. This is so rich, the crap you spread you around, and expect us to buy.Laver has said himself that he would need a few more inches to compete in the modern game (as has Mac). Personally, I believe Laver more than you guys.
And more importantly, there are NO top pros who have continental forehands. It just does not make sense in the modern game. It's obsolete. It would not work with Laver.
Same fallacy here. You just survey the current scene and think that it exhausts all the possibilities. Why would anyone assume that about any scene, or any generation?Get back to me when Robredo, Montanes and Sela are grand slam champs. Gaudio won one slam? Big deal.
He'd have trouble with high topspin backhands because he was 5'8" tall! All one handed player have trouble with high backhands to some extent, but if you're Keurten's height, the ball can't get too high on you. It's simple physics.
You said before that you would make your polls public. If they were public, everyone could see who was voting – and we would be able to check if everyone really is voting just once.Who are these 6 that voted for Laver? I really want to know.
Chopin you try and present yourself as some kind of academic.
What is the point of this poll?
Chopin is addressing the "TW Historians" and some of us have chosen to talk back (for now). But I'm not surprised that others find it uninteresting or uninspiring, or anything of the sort. Glad to hear that people are interested in real discussions or learning, or anything of that kind. These threads are not set up to get anything of that and they don't help the board. The OP sets them up for himself.Exactly. Why is this supposed to be interesting?
Chopin is addressing the "TW Historians" and some of us have chosen to talk back (for now). But I'm not surprised that others find it uninteresting or uninspiring, or anything of the sort. Glad to hear that people are interested in real discussions or learning, or anything of that kind. These threads are not set up to get anything of that and they don't help the board. The OP sets them up for himself.