Nice job playing the victim. Moving on.
My post was focused on the issues at hand. You interjected yourself into the debate by posting a fact free entry full of personal insults, and now you object when you are held accountable for this.
You still don't get what an appeal to authority is. Look up argumentum ad verecundiam.
You really should not use concepts unless you understand them.
This is the technical definition of argumentum ad verecundiam. It is very different indeed from the argument that I made.
And you also don't grasp that the "experts" you cite are either former/current pros whose "expert opinion" is bound to be biased by how they felt they matched up against their competitors at the time, or prominent pundits with big megaphones at their disposal who tend to hype up the present for a variety of reasons, not least of all to keep up the public's interest in their chosen profession. If you put so much stock in "expert opinion" you might want to survey the historians, the seasoned instructors and the old-timers without such public profiles for their own expert opinions. I can tell how many of them you personally know or have bothered to ask.
And speaking of the historians, you might also want to take some time to read some of their commentaries, which are usually measured and balanced unlike those of the "experts" you accept so blindly. They're the ones who will be writing history, not those mass-media pundits.
Your argument might have had some merit if there were only a few former players who regard Federer as the GOAT. It is utterly implausible given the range and the depth of Federer's support - which, by the way, is not confined to current and former players but also includes many journalists and coaches as well. Ad hoc explanations of why various individuals describe Federer as the GOAT don't work very well when the number of individuals rises above a certain level. The most parsimonious explanation is simply that they believe what they say. They might be wrong, but there is little doubt about what the critical consensus is.
Incidentally, what evidence do you have that "the historians, the seasoned instructors and the old-timers" are any more impartial than the former players that I listed? Aren't you appealing to authority by quoting them and regarding their views as definitive?
Irrelevant. This is an issue of simple fact-checking.
The "fact checking " involves collecting the views of tennis analysts, which is precisely what I did. I listed some of these analysts to dispel any doubt about the state of the expert consensus on the issue.
You didn't simply argue that the number of titles won isn't a reliable metric. You also said those smaller titles came from as "Mickey Mouse tournaments." Interesting how you've changed your tune.
You need to improve your comprehension skills. I did not deny that players from previous decades had won large tournaments. That would not have made much sense, because all the players in question won several majors. My point was that today's players are much more focused on winning the biggest tournaments, which is why Federer's total of 62 titles includes 16 majors, 16 Masters titles and 4 YEC's. Big tournaments constitute a much higher proportion of his total title count than is the case with players from the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's.
Bad analogy. We're not talking about a Joe Bloggs, but some of the all-time greats of the game whose achievements have earned them a place in the GOAT discussion.
We are talking about achievements and why they are relevant. There is little evidence from your post that you consider achievements in any systematic fashion.
I never said I reject either. Unlike you I just don't take them on face value.
Again, brush up on your comprehension skills before engaging in these debates. Your summary of my argument is the precise opposite of what I stated.
Yeah, you sure understood my "argument." And intentional absence of an argument equals inability to construct one in that fecund mind of yours. Gotcha.
Really? Is this the best you can do?
I've said many times that I don't believe that Federer is the GOAT. I doubt whether the issue will ever be resolved, but if I were forced to choose I would opt for Laver rather than Federer. In this forum, however, I frequently find myself defending Federer, simply because so many of the arguments against his GOAT claims have very little merit. Your posts generate more heat than light, and in any event they have not contributed significantly to the discussion.
