Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Is criteria for greatness a matter of opinion? Yes or no?
Is 5555 saying meaningless things about matters of opinions? Yes or no?
Is criteria for greatness a matter of opinion? Yes or no?
The-Champ stated it's a fact that only titles count. According to him it is not matter of opinion but matter of fact what is criteria for greatness.
So if someone says Michael Chang is greater than Federer, that person's opinion is valid even though Federer has 17 majors and Chang has 1?
Do you really need to repost things that prove my points? You would do better by arguing against them (of course, you'd be hard-pressed to do so, considering you were the one who set yourself up for this pwnage in the first place, but hey, you can still try by saying that it was a mistake, that you wrote that bs about perception of level of competition negating all facts while you had been abducted by aliens, that the NSKzilla army of clones stole your account, etc. It's bound to be entertaining, at least...)
Considering that titles/achievements are the only objective criteria (fact) we have to judge greatness, his argument is better than yours (opinion).
Is 5555 saying meaningless things about matters of opinions? Yes or no?
So if someone says Michael Chang is greater than Federer, that person's opinion is valid even though Federer has 17 majors and Chang has 1?
What do you mean "when"? Don't you mean "if"?Can't say just yet. In an era of two double-digit slam winners who are still active (at least one is), Djokovic's performance however solid, is not looking impressive enough yet.
Perhaps when he gets in the Agassi range or around 8 slams, or if he completes his career grand slam.
Because Federer is such an evidently great player, and if he kept going at the rate he was, it was pretty obvious he could/would also overtake Sampras resultwise. I do not think you can base greatness evaluation purely on subjective bias, even though everybody is entitled to an opinion. Even I have occasional shots which I believe qualify me to greatness.If criteria for greatness is not a matter of opinion, how do you explain the fact that in 2006 many tennis experts said that Federer is greater player than Sampras even though Federer had 9 slams in 2006 (5 less than Sampras)?
That people disagree does not mean that their opinions are not based on interpretation of facts.If criteria for greatness is not a matter of opinion, how do you explain the fact that tennis experts disagree what makes one player greater than another?
If criteria for greatness is not a matter of opinion, how do you explain the fact that tennis experts disagree what makes one player greater than another?
Okey, then find me one "tennis expert" that says Troicki or Feliciano Lopez is greater than Sampras.
Can you prove that when level of competition is taken into account Connors is greater player than Djokovic?
PS This is the last time I asked the above question. If you do not answer, I will conclude that you lost the argument.
In 2006 many tennis experts stated that Federer is greater player than Sampras even though Federer had 9 slams in 2006 (5 less than Sampras). It's matter of opinion what is criteria for greatness.
Yes.
Because Federer is such an evidently great player, and if he kept going at the rate he was, it was pretty obvious he could/would also overtake Sampras resultwise.
That people disagree does not mean that their opinions are not based on interpretation of facts.
Okey, then find me one "tennis expert" that says Troicki or Feliciano Lopez is greater than Sampras.
Of course. Connors has a better resume than Djokovic. As "level of competition" is impossible to quantify and leads to the dumbest of possible arguments--such as, can you prove that, when level of competition is taken into account, Djokovic is a better player than the guys from my local club? No you can't, so the only thing we can rely on is facts (you should go and look what this means), not just fanboy opinions. So, when it's all about facts and not just you trying to hype your hero, Connors had a greater career than Djokovic (at least today, as Djokovic's is still ongoing and Connors isn't likely to add to his accomplishments).
Are you an expert on opinions and facts? Do you have a degree?
Considering that titles/achievements are the only objective criteria (fact) we have to judge greatness, his argument is better than yours (opinion).
Do tennis experts agree that level of competition should not be taken into account?
Yes but it is based on facts. It is both/and, not either/or, take it easy.Is criteria for greatness a matter of opinion? Yes or no?
Does anyone care?
Okey, then find me one "tennis expert" that says Troicki or Feliciano Lopez is greater than Sampras.
Considering that titles/achievements are the only objective criteria (fact) we have to judge greatness, his argument is better than yours (opinion).
Yes but it is based on facts. It is both/and, not either/or, take it easy.
Ok for a last time.Is criteria for greatness a matter of opinion? Yes or no?
PS This is the last time I asked this question. If you do not answer, I will conclude that you lost the argument.
Is criteria for greatness a matter of opinion? Yes or no?
Is Djokovic an all-time great?
Who cares what you say?
Can you tell me which reliable source quoted your opinions on tennis?
My point is that tennis experts disagree what should be criteria for greatness. That's why Rod Laver thinks Djokovic is greater player than Connors while Steve Flink has the opposite view. It's matter of opinion whether Connors is greater player than Djokovic.
You did not answer this question: if criteria for greatness is not matter of opinion, how do you explain the fact that tennis experts disagree what makes one player than another?
Ok for a last time.
If your brain can't process anything else but a black or white answer, then let's say yes.
You seem to care, considering the amount of effort you're putting into trying to convince me.
Who cares, considering that you've been arguing for pages that facts don't count and that everything is just a matter of opinion? An opinion is worth as much as any other's when you take facts out of the equation, which means mine is worth as much as Laver's, and I say there are a few glaring mistakes in his top 10.
Who cares about Connors and Djokovic anyway? Even at their peakest of peaks, they wouldn't be able to beat anyone from my local club anyway.
Are you saying there are tennis expert that claim James Blake is greater than Agassi? Yes or No?
But reliable sources do not care what you say.
Experts' level of knowledge is far and away greater than that of non-experts
and therefore non-experts' opinion is not worth as much as expert's.
Are you a tennis expert?
Can you find a tennis expert who claims that players from your club are greater than Djokovic and Connors?
You did not answer this question: if criteria for greatness is not matter of opinion, how do you explain the fact that tennis experts disagree what makes one player than another?
Experts' level of knowledge is far and away greater than that of non-experts...
Is this a fact?
Where did I say that?The point is that you said that my argument/reasoning as to why criteria for greatness is a matter of opinion was wrong.
he's not even top 20 all-time, maybe not even top 30 (to 5555troll--yes, this is *fact*)
Can you prove that "reliable sources" don't care about what I say, or is that just your opinion?
Is this a fact?
So I guess you can prove it, can't you?
Are the criteria defining who is or isn't a tennis expert facts or a matter of opinion?
Define 'tennis expert'. (Factually, of course--who cares about your opinion?)
So where are these experts that disagree on this subject?
Where did I say that?
Burden of proof is on person who makes positive claim.
Burden of proof is on person who makes positive claim.
Absolutely not, it's on the person who lays charges, ie you, as you said that reliable sources do not care what I say (a defamatory statement which clearly borders on libel, by the way). So, prove it or admit you can't and you're just full of hot air (which everyone here already knows for a fact, we're just waiting for your coming out on the matter).
What is your argument? Are you saying that if all tennis experts agree that Federer is greater player than Donald Young it means tennis experts agree what should be criteria for greatness?
5555 is right here. It's like asking someone to prove to you that unicorns DON'T exist (a negative claim). In logic, it's impossible.
Not the same at all. There's no negative or positive here, he's just putting words into the mouths of his "reliable sources", just like he did with Agassi in his OP. He's saying that these reliable sources don't care about what I say--fine, so I suppose he read or heard it somewhere. A simple quote from Rod Laver or Steve Flink stating "I don't care what merlinpinpin says" would do the trick.
5555 basically says that;
1. greatness is a matter of opinion, not facts, otherwise "experts" would not disagree among themselves.
5555, however, cannot find one single expert out there that claims "Donald Young is greater than Federer". I wonder why? Again where are these so-called disagreements 5555?
The opinion that Federer is greater than DY stems from a number of quantifiable variables, that is, number of achievements!! 5555 who is probably ******** in real life fails to understand this simplicity.
Who is the better student? A magna cum laude or a student who flunks every subject in first year of college and eventually drops out? Sane people in the world would of course choose the magna cum laude based on academic excellence. 5555 believes it's debatable.
Ţo all those who dont think Djokovic is an all time time great, two questions:
1. Do you consider Becker and Edberg all time greats.
2. If the answer is yes, do you not already view Djokovic as atleast on the same level as them, and if not why.
The point is that you said that my argument/reasoning as to why criteria for greatness is a matter of opinion was wrong. Do you admit now that my reasoning was correct?
So I did not say your reasoning was wrong, I just pointed out that opinions frequently are based on facts. If not they tend to loose their merit somewhat in my opinion. But that view could be backed up by facts, I am pretty sure.You said "That people disagree does not mean that their opinions are not based on interpretation of facts." here http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7064216&postcount=255
It was your reply to my argument that tennis experts disagree
is proof that criteria for greatness is a matter of opinion
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7064203&postcount=251
Ţo all those who dont think Djokovic is an all time time great, two questions:
1. Do you consider Becker and Edberg all time greats.
2. If the answer is yes, do you not already view Djokovic as atleast on the same level as them, and if not why.
he's not even top 20 all-time, maybe not even top 30 (to 5555troll--yes, this is *fact*)
Absolutely not, it's on the person who lays charges, ie you, as you said that reliable sources do not care what I say (a defamatory statement which clearly borders on libel, by the way). So, prove it or admit you can't and you're just full of hot air (which everyone here already knows for a fact, we're just waiting for your coming out on the matter).
And the rest of your post is a nice attempt at weaseling out of this huge hole you've dug for yourself.
But hey, when you run out of arguments, I guess you just run away, don't you?
Oh, and talking about weaseling, you still haven't answered to the fact that you attributed a false quote to one of the people in your OP. Maybe we should start by sorting out your lies before we go any further...
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So I did not say your reasoning was wrong, I just pointed out that opinions frequently are based on facts.
Is Djokovic an all-time great
lol, yeah right the player with meh 5 slams is all time great than the likes of federer with 17 slams, this is a joke right if op meant to say one of the great it could have made a little sense.
I do not think anyone here wants to take away your right to form your opinion disregarding facts. It has produced some entertaining reading here. But opinion alone does not quite cut it imo. Opinions tend to be wrong more often when not based on facts. I would think this could be proved, but I doubt it has been the subject of scientific analysis or experiment, since it belongs in the realm of the bleeding obvious.Povl Carstensen agrees with me that criteria for greatness is a matter of opinion. Is he ******** too?
I did not say "If criteria for greatness is frequently based on facts...". I said "If criteria for greatness is not matter of opinion...".