Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

pc1 · Dec 13, 2012

zagor said:
If that's the case then why are you arguing with people who claim modern pros would wipe the floor with past greats? Or with people who claim Fed's BH is GOAT and Laver hit grandpa slice?

Afteral it's just an opinion yet your reaction was one of shock and awe to that one poster's assertion that Fed's BH was better than Laver's.

You can understand how for some of us not having Fed in top 10 list that is based on the level of play (or claiming his level of play is not very great) is just as absurd, yes? Or is that too much of a stretch for you?

The reason is this. I think greats deserve some respect. If someone wrote Federer couldn't play tennis twenty years from year I would defend Federer. It may be opinion but I think past greats deserve respect. Now you can be upset at me for that but I think Federer, Laver, Nadal, Rosewall and guys like that earned it.

Now you can say I'm wrong in this opinion but that's how I feel.

Now if someone wrote that Federer would defeat Laver easily I can understand that more than someone writing that Laver played Grandpa type tennis. The term grandpa is not exactly one of respect in this case my friend.

fluffyyelloballz · Dec 13, 2012

[/I]Please don't jump on a poster simply because he disagrees with what seems to be the majority's viewpoint. I don't believe BobbyOne is writing this to incite people but simply to express his opinions. Do you really what another person going with the pack and being afraid to express his or her true feelings about a topic or do you want to see other people's opinions on a topic and see their viewpoints? I much prefer the latter. It's more to me of a learning experience. When you see different viewpoints you may understand things more. I like it when someone disagrees with me and we can have meaningful discussions. And I don't call people a troll when they disagree with me.

Here, here.

Feather · Dec 13, 2012

pc1 said:
Some of you may write that Tilden played in the 1920's. My viewpoint is how much better can you expect the man to do? He was virtually unbeatable for a decade. He won 98% when he was at his best and he played everyone from Lacoste, Johnston, Williams, Cochet, Nusslein, Vines, Perry, Budge, Riggs all the way to Pancho Gonzalez. He was about 6'2" tall, had a big serve, excellent forehand and backhand. And yes I do think he would adapt easily to today's game.

Please don't jump on a poster simply because he disagrees with what seems to be the majority's viewpoint. I don't believe BobbyOne is writing this to incite people but simply to express his opinions. Do you really what another person going with the pack and being afraid to express his or her true feelings about a topic or do you want to see other people's opinions on a topic and see their viewpoints? I much prefer the latter. It's more to me of a learning experience. When you see different viewpoints you may understand things more. I like it when someone disagrees with me and we can have meaningful discussions. And I don't call people a troll when they disagree with me.

I find nothing more boring than reading the same viewpoints all the time. The man is trying to express his well thought out opinions and he has spent many years apparently studying this information and researching this. You should be happy he gave the list.

The poster is playing a victim. No one has issues with saying Laver is GOAT or Tilden is GOAT. His intention is just to rile up Roger fans. That's easy to see through. If you don't think that it's the case, feel free to disagree with my opinion. I mean, you don't need Einstein's brain to see through the anti Federer agenda of kiki, NadalAgassi or BobbyOne.

You guys all argued with a poster who said that Laver played grandpa Tennis. How come you weren't gracious as to accept that as his opinion?

qindarka · Dec 13, 2012

pc1 said:
The reason is this. I think greats deserve some respect. If someone wrote Federer couldn't play tennis twenty years from year I would defend Federer. It may be opinion but I think past greats deserve respect. Now you can be upset at me for that but I think Federer, Laver, Nadal, Rosewall and guys like that earned it.

Now you can say I'm wrong in this opinion but that's how I feel.

Now if someone wrote that Federer would defeat Laver easily I can understand that more than someone writing that Laver played Grandpa type tennis. The term grandpa is not exactly one of respect in this case my friend.

Way to shift the goalposts. Before, it was about a person's right to an opinion but upon being rebutted, suddenly you claim it's about respect.

pc1 · Dec 13, 2012

forzamilan90 said:
Pc1 my main beef with his list was that he has the likes of Becker, Djokovic, Nadal and Roche but no Fed. Just like you historians think statements like Emerson is better than Gonzales cause he has more majors ate travesty, to me that lack of mention is travesty material too. Not talking bout ranking him Goat in this particular case, but come on playing level and still not make it but those guys do? Although it's an opinion, to me it's beyond ridiculous. None of those those guys' peaks or playing level are even close

foramilan90,

Can you do me a minor favor and not use the term "historian" in such a negative way? I'm not an historian but a person who loves tennis just like I believe you do.

As far as the statements about Emerson and Gonzalez is concerned, well aren't we here in the Former Player's forum to learn about the past. So shouldn't the people who were there at the time try to help inform people about the status of tennis in the past and how majors in the past aren't the end all? I think most of the posters talking about the Emerson and Gonzalez controversy are trying to explain how Gonzalez wasn't able to play majors and therefore shouldn't be held accountable for have less classic majors than Emerson. So they are trying to let some know how Gonzalez was perhaps the best player in the world for able a decade and clearly one of the top players in the world for around twenty years.

Let's say twenty years from now someone sees youtube clips of Federer's greatest backhands and that person assumes Federer's backhand was his best groundstroke by far. Wouldn't you try to explain to him that Federer's best groundstroke was actually his forehand just to help him with knowledge of Federer?

pc1 · Dec 13, 2012

qindarka said:
Way to shift the goalposts. Before, it was about a person's right to an opinion but upon being rebutted, suddenly you claim it's about respect.

Not shifting. That's my thought. I would also defend Federer and Nadal. And I have done so.

Nice football analogy though. Never heard of that phase but I like it. Think I'll use it in the future.

Feather · Dec 13, 2012

BobbyOne said:
But if we consider playing level including also longevity, my top players are

1 Laver
1 Rosewall tied
3 Gonzalez
4 Hoad
4 Borg tied
6 Djokovic
7 Nadal
8 Lendl
8 McEnroe tied
10 Becker
10 Roche tied

pc1, this is his list!

He includes longevity, includes Nadal and Djokovic, exclude Federer. Federer is playing at age 31, winning slams. Nadal, Djokovic are way too younger to him. If you still are not able to find the bias, I don't have anything further to say..

No one has any issue with respectable posters here

qindarka · Dec 13, 2012

pc1 said:
Not shifting. That's my thought. I would also defend Federer and Nadal. And I have done so.

Why should he not be called out on his opinion if people disagree with it? The historians here certainly have no problem with dismissing people with different opinions from them as being younger and all the things that implies.

pc1 · Dec 13, 2012

Feather said:
The poster is playing a victim. No one has issues with saying Laver is GOAT or Tilden is GOAT. His intention is just to rile up Roger fans. That's easy to see through. If you don't think that it's the case, feel free to disagree with my opinion. I mean, you don't need Einstein's brain to see through the anti Federer agenda of kiki, NadalAgassi or BobbyOne.

You guys all argued with a poster who said that Laver played grandpa Tennis. How come you weren't gracious as to accept that as his opinion?

Do you think I was mean to the guy? If so I wasn't trying to be. I thought I was trying to explain how playing with a wood racquet was. Fine then Laver played Grandpa tennis in his opinion. That's okay.

zagor · Dec 13, 2012

pc1 said:
The reason is this. I think greats deserve some respect.

Fed I assume isn't a tennis great then according to you, yes?

pc1 said:
If someone wrote Federer couldn't play tennis twenty years from year I would defend Federer.

Since we all value to right to an opinion (no matter how absurd) here, I can say that personally I'd reckon there's a bigger chance of me seeing purple elephants flying past my bedroom window than you defending Fed on any account whatsoever.

pc1 said:
It may be opinion but I think past greats deserve respect.

And prey tell, when have I claimed otherwise? Yes I do think they're deserving of respect.

pc1 said:
Now you can be upset at me for that but I think Federer, Laver, Nadal, Rosewall and guys like that earned it.

Why should be upset at an opinion I completely share, not paying much attention are we?

pc1 said:
Now you can say I'm wrong in this opinion but that's how I feel.

Shouldn't we also respect Arche's feeling as well then?

pc1 said:
Now if someone wrote that Federer would defeat Laver easily I can understand that more than someone writing that Laver played Grandpa type tennis.

Can you honestly with a straight face claim that if anyone made a thread/post like that, you and a number of former pro regulards wouldn't argue that poster's opinion? If you honestly believe that then I don't know what to say really.

pc1 said:
The term grandpa is not exactly one of respect in this case my friend.

Neither is the term weak era, friend.

qindarka · Dec 13, 2012

pc1 said:
Do you think I was mean to the guy? If so I wasn't trying to be. I thought I was trying to explain how playing with a wood racquet was. Fine then Laver played Grandpa tennis in his opinion. That's okay.

I doubt very much you will be able to maintain this standard that you have set for yourself. Of course, you may yet prove me wrong.

pc1 · Dec 13, 2012

qindarka said:
I doubt very much you will be able to maintain this standard that you have set for yourself. Of course, you may yet prove me wrong.

Listen we all strive to do our best but I'm as flawed as anyone, probably more so. And of course we all have our biases but I try my best. But I think you're right, I doubt if I can maintain a top standard. I will try however. I probably won't prove you wrong but I do read and try to be flexible.

zagor · Dec 13, 2012

pc1 said:
foramilan90, Let's say twenty years from now someone sees youtube clips of Federer's greatest backhands and that person assumes Federer's backhand was his best groundstroke by far. Wouldn't you try to explain to him that Federer's best groundstroke was actually his forehand just to help him with knowledge of Federer?

But why should he do that? Shouldn't he (Forzamilan) respect said person's opinion and appreciate hearing a radically different viewpoint?

I think it would be really boring if everyone thought Fed's FH was his best shot, a fresh new perspective is always welcome.

pc1 · Dec 13, 2012

zagor said:
Fed I assume isn't a tennis great then according to you, yes?

Since we all value to right to an opinion (no matter how absurd) here, I can say that personally I'd reckon there's a bigger chance of me seeing purple elephants flying past my bedroom window than you defending Fed on any account whatsoever.

And prey tell, when have I claimed otherwise? Yes I do think they're deserving of respect.

Why should be upset at an opinion I completely share, not paying much attention are we?

Shouldn't we also respect Arche's feeling as well then?

Can you honestly with a straight face claim that if anyone made a thread/post like that, you and a number of former pro regulards wouldn't argue that poster's opinion? If you honestly believe that then I don't know what to say really.

Neither is the term weak era, friend.

Okay Arche3, if your feelings were hurt (and I didn't mean to hurt them by the way) I am sorry.

And Zagor I have written that if anyone disrespected Federer I would have defended Federer. For the record I believe Federer is clearly an all time great and a top GOAT candidate. I've written that many times.

The Tilden thread was started because I wanted people to see how truly great Tilden was in tennis. When I started researching some of the all time greats I was disappointed by many former greats records. Some were not even close to the myth however Tilden was. It truly amazed me. The more I read about him the more I realized that the man was probably a tennis genius.

Feather · Dec 13, 2012

pc1 said:
Do you think I was mean to the guy? If so I wasn't trying to be. I thought I was trying to explain how playing with a wood racquet was. Fine then Laver played Grandpa tennis in his opinion. That's okay.

I never implied you were mean to that guy. In fact, when I saw you reply to him, quoted you and typed, very nice post or something like that. I mean, in the other thread.

Everyone has biases. I also don't claim to be an angel. We are all carried away by our heroes. However, I don't post JUST for the sake of irritating others. I am sure you will be able to find that since you have been posting here for a very long time

pc1 · Dec 13, 2012

zagor said:
But why should he do that? Shouldn't he (Forzamilan) respect said person's opinion and appreciate hearing a radically different viewpoint?

I think it would be really boring if everyone thought Fed's FH was his best shot, a fresh new perspective is always welcome.

But isn't there a difference here? The imaginary person here had an opinion that may be incorrect. In this example the person thought Federer's most powerful shot was his backhand and that was the shot that hit the most winners. So don't you want to help him with the knowledge of tennis and about Federer?

If some wrote that Federer wasn't a great mover I might write that Federer was widely considered to be one of the all time great movers. Is that disrespecting a person or just trying to help a person?

pc1 · Dec 13, 2012

Feather said:
I never implied you were mean to that guy. In fact, when I saw you reply to him, quoted you and typed, very nice post or something like that. I mean, in the other thread.

Everyone has biases. I also don't claim to be an angel. We are all carried away by our heroes. However, I don't post JUST for the sake of irritating others. I am sure you will be able to find that since you have been posting here for a very long time

Okay. Thanks Feather.

zagor · Dec 13, 2012

pc1 said:
But isn't there a difference here?

Eh, no there isn't?

pc1 said:
The imaginary person here had an opinion that may be incorrect.

Just as Bobby's level of play/longevity list might seem like complete bulls- sorry, meant to say it might seem poorly thought out and overly biased to some fellow tennis fans.

pc1 said:
In this example the person thought Federer's most powerful shot was his backhand and that was the shot that hit the most winners.

Thing is, most baseliners even the ones who are widely recognized to have better BH compared to their FH hit more winners with FH so that's not a very convincing argument.

It might be that Fed sets up all those easy FH winners with his BH therefore his BH is a more crucial shot.

pc1 said:
So don't you want to help him with the knowledge of tennis and about Federer?

No, because if I argued/challenged his opinion that would mean I don't respect his right to have an opinion, I wouldn't want him to feel that his opinion isn't welcome and just as valid as the opinions of the rest of us.

Even if a person claimed that Coria's serve is better than Goran's, I still wouldn't have the right to disagree with him or make an attempt to teach him anything, for all we know Goran might have been continually facing weak returners of serve throghout his career while Coria was facing best returners of serve of all time which skewed the stats massively in Goran's favour.

pc1 said:
If some wrote that Federer wasn't a great mover I might write that Federer was widely considered to be one of the all time great movers. Is that disrespecting a person or just trying to help a person?

It would be again disrespecting a person, for all we know he might feel that Fed's weak era opponents who moved like whales in slow motion made Fed's movement appear decent while the reality is that he was just a less terrible mover than weak era clowns.

pc1 · Dec 13, 2012

zagor said:
Eh, no there isn't?

Just as Bobby's level of play/longevity list might seem like complete bulls- sorry, meant to say it might seem poorly thought out and overly biased to some fellow tennis fans.

Thing is, most baseliners even the ones who are widely recognized to have better BH compared to their FH hit more winners with FH so that's not a very convincing argument.

It might be that Fed sets up all those easy FH winners with his BH therefore his BH is a more crucial shot.

No, because if I argued/challenged his opinion that would mean I don't respect his right to have an opinion, I wouldn't want him to feel that his opinion isn't welcome and just as valid as the opinions of the rest of us.

It would be again disrespecting a person, for all we know he might feel that Fed's weak era opponents who moved like whales in slow motion made Fed's movement appear decent while the reality is that he was just a less terrible mover than weak era clowns.

Okay Zagor. I was under the impression we were trying to learn tennis history in the former player forum so I thought varying opinions were fine. For the record I'm happy if you or other disagree with me so long as we discuss things logically.

So the bottom line is I appreciate your opinion.

zagor · Dec 13, 2012

pc1 said:
Okay Zagor. I was under the impression we were trying to learn tennis history in the former player forum so I thought varying opinions were fine.

But we are! Though not just about tennis history but present as well.

Just today for example I learned that Fed's level of play and longevity aren't impressive in the slightest and that Laver's BH was a glorified grandpa push/slice, those are some serious things to ponder.

pc1 said:
For the record I'm happy if you or other disagree with me so long as we discuss things logically.

I wouldn't disagree with you cause that would mean I don't respect your opinion or your right to have an opinion.

pc1 · Dec 13, 2012

zagor said:
But we are! Though not just about tennis history but present as well.

Just today for example I learned that Fed's level of play and longevity aren't impressive in the slightest and that Laver's BH was a glorified grandpa push/slice, those are some serious things to ponder.

I wouldn't disagree with you cause that would mean I don't respect your opinion or your right to have an opinion.

You have a sharp sense of humor. (Sounds like something my wife would say.) lol.

arche3 · Dec 13, 2012

so you all agree Laver played Grand Pa tennis now right?

qindarka · Dec 13, 2012

arche3 said:
so you all agree Laver played Grand Pa tennis now right?

No, actually. Zagor was being sarcastic there.

BobbyOne · Dec 13, 2012

qindarka said:
Um, that doesn't answer anything. I genuinely don't know what point you are trying to make with krosero here.

I have never claimed that Federer was better than the oldies. It's impossible to compare between eras anyway, especially with the open era split. Kindly stop putting words into my mouth. Zagor and Feather have also mantained that Federer is not the GOAT and have not said anything bad about the great players from yesteryear.

And again with the subtle discrediting on basis of age. It's not as if you and the rest of the historians are all so wise and mature either.

It was you who mentioned krosero and praised him as the best poster. Thus I must think that you claim he is of he same opinion as you.

BobbyOne · Dec 13, 2012

qindarka said:
Um, that doesn't answer anything. I genuinely don't know what point you are trying to make with krosero here.

I have never claimed that Federer was better than the oldies. It's impossible to compare between eras anyway, especially with the open era split. Kindly stop putting words into my mouth. Zagor and Feather have also mantained that Federer is not the GOAT and have not said anything bad about the great players from yesteryear.

And again with the subtle discrediting on basis of age. It's not as if you and the rest of the historians are all so wise and mature either.

Oh no, they did say some "bad" words about the old great players...

arche3 · Dec 13, 2012

qindarka said:
No, actually. Zagor was being sarcastic there.

i know......:shock:

BobbyOne · Dec 13, 2012

zagor said:
You just don't get it, do you? I don't believe Fed is stronger than Laver either, heck despite the fact that I don't adhere to the undisputed GOAT concept if I was pushed to name one I'd probably go for Laver because of his 2 Calender Grand Slams and lack of relative weakness in his resumee.

Since I have to spell it out for you, he (Krosero) is one former pro regular who isn't biased up to his ears against Fed and looks at and analyzes his career/achievements/game with an open mind (same as he does for other tennis greats).

Please, you said Fed's level of play is not very great and that he can only dominate when the era is weak and doesn't when the era is strong like his level of play is static and he himself doesn't affect the distribution of the biggest tourneys (and thus plays a role in whether the specific era appears weak or strong).

The difference being that Roche isn't remotely in Laver's and Rosewall's league while Fed on the other hand is, yes Rosewall might be greater but there's not a lot separating them either way which is something you fail to understand.

zagor, it seems as though you have overlooked that I rank Federer No. 5 at achievements. Thus I rate him rather high but...

pc1 · Dec 13, 2012

qindarka said:
No, actually. Zagor was being sarcastic there.

Oh really?

Of course he was. Zagor actually is pretty funny.

Truthfully many of my buddies are about as sarcastic as you can get so I'm used to that.

qindarka · Dec 13, 2012

BobbyOne said:
It was you who mentioned krosero and praised him as the best poster. Thus I must think that you claim he is of he same opinion as you.

Um, it most certainly was not me who said that.. It was zagor.

And has it crossed your mind that he could consider krosero to be the best poster despite not being of the same mind as him?

BobbyOne said:
Oh no, they did say some "bad" words about the old great players...

Give examples then.

BobbyOne said:
zagor, it seems as though you have overlooked that I rank Federer No. 5 at achievements. Thus I rate him rather high but...

But what? Sentence seems to be hanging.

BobbyOne · Dec 13, 2012

pc1 said:
Guys,

To be honest BobbyOne's achievement list is superb in my opinion. We can all disagree with the order but to me it's perfect fine and frankly better than just about any list. I can't stand achievement lists with players who have no business being in the top ten like for example Safin.

Several things about the top playing level list. There have been a lot of complaints about Tony Roche being on the list but did you guys know that Tony Roche was considered the heir apparent to Laver? Did you guys know that Roche was so great (yes I use the term great) that in 1969, the year of Laver's Grand Slam that he was seeded number one in at least one tournament ahead of Laver! Roche had every shot. He had a terrific lefty serve, excellent backhand and forehand plus incredible hand speed that some believe was the fastest they have ever seen. His volley was around the level of Edberg and McEnroe. His backhand volley has often been called the greatest of all time. He moved well. Tony Roche won around 50 tournaments in his career and he won the French. It was only because of injuries that prevented him from being a super all time great. Did you know that when he was a coach for Lendl that he was beating Lendl regularly on grass in practice matches? And Lendl was trying because apparently he was upset at losing to old Tony Roche. Roche was an unbelievable player and to put him in the top ten all time for peak is actually a very informed and smart choice. You can agree or disagree but the man was gifted. He beat Laver and Rosewall regularly.

The second list is the man's opinion. An opinion is just that. BobbyOne believes Federer is by achievement clearly one of the best that ever live. He also believes Federer isn't in the top ten for top level. So why the big fuss? Many of you argue that Laver isn't in the top ten for top level and some argue for achievement. Many of you argue Rosewall isn't in the top top for top level and achievement.

Personally for top level I may put guys like Nastase and Connors in there also. I'm not sure but I would consider it. I remember reading about the match Connors played (never seen the match unfortuanately) in which Connors blasted many of Roscoe Tanner's first serves back for winner. And Tanner may be the hardest server I've seen.

I may put Nastase there ahead of many top players.

Tony Roche isn't spoken about much I believe because he wasn't controversial like Nastase however for top level I can see him ahead of Nastase and many others. I think for example he was more gifted than Becker and Edberg. Now that's my opinion so don't pounce on me for that.

So what is the definition for top level? Personally I would put Bill Tilden on that list. Many believe Tilden's top level was super and his achievements are incredible. I don't understand anyone questioning Tilden being on the top achievements list. Here's Tilden's achievements from a thread I did a few months ago in the next post. Had to do that because this post would be too long.

pc1, Thanks a lot for your support. It does not happen too often for me these days...

BobbyOne · Dec 13, 2012

pc1 said:
Some of you may write that Tilden played in the 1920's. My viewpoint is how much better can you expect the man to do? He was virtually unbeatable for a decade. He won 98% when he was at his best and he played everyone from Lacoste, Johnston, Williams, Cochet, Nusslein, Vines, Perry, Budge, Riggs all the way to Pancho Gonzalez. He was about 6'2" tall, had a big serve, excellent forehand and backhand. And yes I do think he would adapt easily to today's game.

Please don't jump on a poster simply because he disagrees with what seems to be the majority's viewpoint. I don't believe BobbyOne is writing this to incite people but simply to express his opinions. Do you really what another person going with the pack and being afraid to express his or her true feelings about a topic or do you want to see other people's opinions on a topic and see their viewpoints? I much prefer the latter. It's more to me of a learning experience. When you see different viewpoints you may understand things more. I like it when someone disagrees with me and we can have meaningful discussions. And I don't call people a troll when they disagree with me.

I find nothing more boring than reading the same viewpoints all the time. The man is trying to express his well thought out opinions and he has spent many years apparently studying this information and researching this. You should be happy he gave the list.

Thanks once more. I'm feeling a bit ashamed...

qindarka · Dec 13, 2012

BobbyOne said:
pc1, Thanks a lot for your support. It does not happen too often for me these days...

We aren't obliged to agree with your opinions, you know.

pc1 · Dec 13, 2012

qindarka said:
We aren't obliged to agree with your opinions, you know.

That's a given of course. Frankly I don't want everyone to agree with my opinions either.

BobbyOne · Dec 13, 2012

Feather said:
I don't know whether you are pretending ignorant or you are really ignorant.

Neither me nor Zagor was trying to prove to you that Roger is better than Laver. I would sound like a total idiot if I watch the youtube links of Laver videos and then claim that Roger is better than Laver.

What is the meaning of the word "longevity" ?

You made a list of top ten players, excluded Federer, and included both Nadal and Djokovic. Come on, gimme a break. Roger is winning slam at age 31, you exclude them and include 25, 26 year old guys claiming they have more longevity. Doesn't it look incredibly stupid for such an esteemed historian like you?

I can accept you including the names of players who played much longer than Federer play. There are greats who played Tennis till their late 30s or even into 40s. I don't know but Nadal and Djokovic, that's plain stupid..

And you back up with weak era theory.

Your intention was just to rile Roger Federer fans with that comment, some how state that Roger is not the best even in his generation let alone all time. And anyone question that would be labelled as a guy who believes Federer is GOAT..

One thing is sure, a guy who has achieved this much in Tennis, widely accepted by legends as closest to the best, can't be third tier category as claimed by kiki or a weak era champion as portrayed by you!

Seriously, Rod Laver and all those who anointed Roger Federer would have some sense to see through this weak era nonsense

Feather, thanks for your insulting words. I deserve them...

I'm glad to hear finally that you rank Laver at least as high as Federer.

I have NOT ranked Nadal and Djokovic because of longevity!!

You seem to know my soul better than I know it: I don't want to rile Federer fans. They automatically are annoyed when I rank Roger below others...

Safin, Roddick and Hewitt very strong opponents of Federer??

BobbyOne · Dec 13, 2012

Feather said:
pc1, this is his list!

He includes longevity, includes Nadal and Djokovic, exclude Federer. Federer is playing at age 31, winning slams. Nadal, Djokovic are way too younger to him. If you still are not able to find the bias, I don't have anything further to say..

No one has any issue with respectable posters here

"winning slams": to be exact: winning ONE GS tournament...

forzamilan90 · Dec 13, 2012

BobbyOne said:
Feather, thanks for your insulting words. I deserve them...

I'm glad to hear finally that you rank Laver at least as high as Federer.

I have NOT ranked Nadal and Djokovic because of longevity!!

You seem to know my soul better than I know it: I don't want to rile Federer fans. They automatically are annoyed when I rank Roger below others...

Safin, Roddick and Hewitt very strong opponents of Federer??

I just can't figure you out. As far as Fed fans getting annoyed when placing him below somebody it has to be within reason. That list you made, the 2nd one, is about as unreasonably illogical as a list can get with intent of trying to be legit

BobbyOne · Dec 13, 2012

zagor said:
Fed I assume isn't a tennis great then according to you, yes?

Since we all value to right to an opinion (no matter how absurd) here, I can say that personally I'd reckon there's a bigger chance of me seeing purple elephants flying past my bedroom window than you defending Fed on any account whatsoever.

And prey tell, when have I claimed otherwise? Yes I do think they're deserving of respect.

Why should be upset at an opinion I completely share, not paying much attention are we?

Shouldn't we also respect Arche's feeling as well then?

Can you honestly with a straight face claim that if anyone made a thread/post like that, you and a number of former pro regulards wouldn't argue that poster's opinion? If you honestly believe that then I don't know what to say really.

Neither is the term weak era, friend.

zagor, people can disagree with me and contradict. But why these hateful words?

qindarka · Dec 13, 2012

BobbyOne said:
zagor, people can disagree with me and contradict. But why these hateful words?

Jesus Christ. That post wasn't even directed towards you, it was a response to pc1.

BobbyOne · Dec 13, 2012

Feather said:
I never implied you were mean to that guy. In fact, when I saw you reply to him, quoted you and typed, very nice post or something like that. I mean, in the other thread.

Everyone has biases. I also don't claim to be an angel. We are all carried away by our heroes. However, I don't post JUST for the sake of irritating others. I am sure you will be able to find that since you have been posting here for a very long time

Feather, I'm protesting that you insinuate I would write for the sake of irritating others. That's very mean. You and others just cannot imagine that I really believe what I write and rank. That's not my fault!

End of the story!

qindarka · Dec 13, 2012

BobbyOne said:
Feather, I'm protesting that you insinuate I would write for the sake of irritating others. That's very mean. You and others just cannot imagine that I really believe what I write and rank. That's not my fault!

End of the story!

If it's any comfort, I don't think that your rather interesting list was an attempt at trolling, at least not explicitly.

BobbyOne · Dec 13, 2012

qindarka said:
Um, it most certainly was not me who said that.. It was zagor.

And has it crossed your mind that he could consider krosero to be the best poster despite not being of the same mind as him?

Give examples then.

But what? Sentence seems to be hanging.

For instance "grandpa tennis".

Sorry I have confused to "friendly" posters.

qindarka · Dec 13, 2012

BobbyOne said:
For instance "grandpa tennis".

Sorry I have confused to "friendly" posters.

I was referring to zagor and Feather. That statement was made by someone else entirely.

And no need to put friendly in inverted commas. There has been no pretense of it.

BobbyOne · Dec 13, 2012

qindarka said:
We aren't obliged to agree with your opinions, you know.

To say it for the 100th time. I of course can stand contradictions to my views. (The same was with nasty Limpinhitter). I just cannot stand nasty words which came from your front without reason! It was your group that answered my rankings and opinions with hate!

BobbyOne · Dec 13, 2012

qindarka said:
Jesus Christ. That post wasn't even directed towards you, it was a response to pc1.

and indirectly toward me...

urban · Dec 13, 2012

What's the problem with making a personal list, especially with making comments, that it (the second list) is not based on accomplishments. No need to call the pope for inquisition. There are so many lists and polls here, some reasonable, some not exactly. Maybe the reaction comes, because Bobby One has studied the game very intensely, and his opinion deserves respect.

forzamilan90 · Dec 13, 2012

What happened to Limp? Havent seen him post here in a while. Say what you want about him, but I thought he wasn't as overly nostalgic as some posters here and was more up to speed with contemp tennis.

qindarka · Dec 13, 2012

BobbyOne said:
To say it for the 100th time. I of course can stand contradictions to my views. (The same was with nasty Limpinhitter). I just cannot stand nasty words which came from your front without reason! It was your group that answered my rankings and opinions with hate!

Very well then. Perhaps Feather and forzamilan should not have accused you of trolling. Of course, some of your statements were preposterous, or at least thats how it appeared to them. I would be impressed if you would act with restraint when faced with statements that you consider to be preposterous.

forzamilan90 · Dec 13, 2012

urban said:
What's the problem with making a personal list, especially with making comments, that it (the second list) is not based on accomplishments. No need to call the pope for inquisition. There are so many lists and polls here, some reasonable, some not exactly. Maybe the reaction comes, because Bobby One has studied the game very intensely, and his opinion deserves respect.

If I said or insinuated Safin's level of play>Lthat of aver would you respect that opinion and find substance and reason to it?

BobbyOne · Dec 13, 2012

qindarka said:
If it's any comfort, I don't think that your rather interesting list was an attempt at trolling, at least not explicitly.

I'm glad that you seem to begin to understand my motifs. There just are NO mean motifs!

BobbyOne · Dec 13, 2012

urban said:
What's the problem with making a personal list, especially with making comments, that it (the second list) is not based on accomplishments. No need to call the pope for inquisition. There are so many lists and polls here, some reasonable, some not exactly. Maybe the reaction comes, because Bobby One has studied the game very intensely, and his opinion deserves respect.

urban, Thanks. Your words seem to me like honey...

Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Legend

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

Rookie

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads