Is Djokovic an all-time great?

5555

Hall of Fame
............

You said that you were a professional player. Can you prove it?

I said those three are all time greats, nowhere does it say they were tougher to beat. Less trolling, more reading, you can do it.

My queston:

Can you prove that when level of competition is taken into account Connors is greater player than Djokovic?

Your answer:

Yeah I can prove it, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl are all time greats that he had to contend with

Why did you say "Yeah I can prove it"?
 

jokinla

Hall of Fame
You said that you were a professional player. Can you prove it?



My queston:



Your answer:



Why did you say "Yeah I can prove it"?

Wow you are a special person indeed. Let's review, Djoker lacks the weeks at #1 and slams to be ahead of the players on the Laver list, FACT. Connors level of competition included, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, all time greats, FACT. There is no way to factually prove that one level of competition is greater than another, which is why I never set out to do this, yet you seem to think that unless I can prove this, all my statements aren't FACTS, and not surprisingly, you are wrong.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Can you prove that when level of competition is taken into account Connors is greater player than Djokovic?

Can you prove that when level of competition is taken into account Djokovic is a greater player than my 3-year old son? It's either yes or no to both, so better make up your mind.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
After 2011 and 2012 I would also think that he has moved himself into top 20 (maybe only 25) all time.

Yes that sounds about right, I haven't done the precise ranking but he would probably be around 20-25.

Let's see, Fed, Laver, Sampras, Borg, Nadal, Rosewall, Gonzales, Budge, Tilden, Lendl, Connors, Agassi, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Kramer, Perry, Cochet, Lacoste, Hoad, Vines, Emerson......that's 23 guys I would rank ahead of him right now. There may be a few more.
 

djokovic2008

Hall of Fame
Oh, overall I completely agree, Federer is a far better claycourter and will most likely end up with better credentials on clay.

However, at Djokovic's peak, I think his performance against the field on clay would be better than Fed at his peak, if they were both playing at their peaks at the same time. Remember that how they match up with Nadal is a huge, HUGE part of it, because if they wanna win titles on clay they'll have to go through Nadal so that's a massive piece of the pie.

Erm fed vs djoker is 3-3 on clay and one of those wins for fed was a RETIREMENT. Are you kidding me djoker is the only one can even come close to challenge Nadal on clay.
 

5555

Hall of Fame
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...)

Can you prove that when level of competition is taken into account Connors is greater player than Djokovic?


You said that you were a professional player. Can you prove it?

Djoker lacks the weeks at #1 and slams to be ahead of the players on the Laver list, FACT.

In 2006 many tennis experts said that Federer is greater player than Sampras even though at that time Federer was far behind Sampras in weeks at No. 1 and slams.

Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, all time greats, FACT.

It's matter of opinion what is an "all-time great" so it's not a fact.
There is no way to factually prove that one level of competition is greater than another, which is why I never set out to do this

You said that you can prove that Connors is greater player than Djokovic if level of competition is taken into account.
 
Last edited:

Hodgey20

Rookie
YES djoko is an all time great

And if you dont think so you have to agree that he will be. The Djoker is an all time great because he has beaten all time greats consistently (fed,nadal)... AND his career is far from over hes the best in the world right now fed will fade away in a few yrs who knows about nadal. Besides that there is no one much younger than him that looks to be a threat so it will be him murray and delpo at the top for a while it looks like
 

cknobman

Legend
Erm fed vs djoker is 3-3 on clay and one of those wins for fed was a RETIREMENT. Are you kidding me djoker is the only one can even come close to challenge Nadal on clay.

???

Nadal has a 12-2 record vs Djoker on clay.
Nadal has a 12-2 record vs Federer on clay.

Federers career clay resume is far far far far greater than what Novak has done so far.

I dont get where on earth would you even be able to assume that Novak is a better clay courter than Federer.
 

jokinla

Hall of Fame
Can you prove that when level of competition is taken into account Connors is greater player than Djokovic?



You said that you were a professional player. Can you prove it?



In 2006 many tennis experts said that Federer is greater player than Sampras even though at that time Federer was far behind Sampras in weeks at No. 1 and slams.



It's matter of opinion what is an "all-time great" so it's not a fact.


You said that you can prove that Connors is greater player than Djokovic if level of competition is taken into account.

Perhaps this will help you.

fact
[fakt]

noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth:
2.
something known to exist or to have happened:

3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:
 

5555

Hall of Fame

You said that you were a professional player? Can you prove it?

Perhaps this will help you.

fact
[fakt]

noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth:
2.
something known to exist or to have happened:

3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:

What is definition of "all-time great"?

Djoker lacks the weeks at #1 and slams to be ahead of the players on the Laver list, FACT.

It's not a fact. It's matter of opinion what makes one player greater than another.

Connors level of competition included, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, all time greats, FACT.

It's not a fact. It's matter of opinion what is definition of "all-time great".

There is no way to factually prove that one level of competition is greater than another, which is why I never set out to do this

You said that you can prove what I asked you to prove and I asked you to prove that Connors is greater player than Djokovic when level of competition is taken into account. Right after you said (in the same sentence) that you can prove it, you mentioned Borg, McEnroe and Lendl to back up your claim. So, I was right when I stated that you said Borg, McEnroe and Lendl were tougher to beat than Djokovic's rivals.
 
Last edited:

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
It's not a fact. It's matter of opinion what is definition of "all-time great".

It may not be a fact in the same way that 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact. However if 99.9% of people maintain that Lendl, Borg and McEnroe are all-time greats, the conclusion must be that it is the truth.
 

5555

Hall of Fame
It may not be a fact in the same way that 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact. However if 99.9% of people maintain that Lendl, Borg and McEnroe are all-time greats, the conclusion must be that it is the truth.

What is the definition of "all-time great"?
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
What is the definition of "all-time great"?

It can be defined in different ways by different people but, however they define it, a very large percentage will place Lendl, Borg and McEnroe into that category.

Presumably you're not trying to claim that, just because "all-time great" is a concept, and not a tangible item, it can't exist? :confused:
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
I forgot to say that you commited logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum. It's an fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because most people believe it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I'm not bothering to read that but I think you are defining truth as scientific fact.

For instance it can't be scientifically proven that you created this thread just to spout off philosophy, make yourself look smart and amuse yourself. However most readers will agree it to be true. :)
 

qindarka

Rookie
Burden of proof is on him to prove that he is wright because made positive claim. He failed to provide proof, so I won the argument.

I'm not saying these rules of argumentation are wrong, they do serve as a very useful guideline. I do think, however, that its simplistic to use all these as proof of 'winning the argument'. And is 'winning' really the objective here?
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
I forgot to say that you commited logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum. It's an fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because most people believe it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Well, by that token, no one has ever been an all-time great, because if we assume that the opinions of professionals are only to be taken with a grain of salt, none of the top players in history has a claim to being an all time great.

Especially not Djokovic. I'm really not sure what your argument here is.. are you trying to say there are no all-time greats? Because that's pretty much what you've just done, if you're thinking in such black and white terms as logical fallacies and only having a sound argument if it is backed up by facts (something you're not actually doing yourself, mind you, seeing as you said this in your OP):
"Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, Roddick's chief rivals, may very well be the greatest three players to ever play tennis"
Andre Agassi
http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/men-action/201209/andre-agassi-us-open-court-champions

"At the moment Andy is probably playing against three of the top eight players in the history of the game".
Tim Henman
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/wim...y-murray-wont-worry-over-critics-7876173.html

"1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. McEnroe
5. Nadal
6. Djokovic
7. Agassi
8. Connors
9. Lendl
10. Edberg
"
Rod Laver's TOP 10 at Open Era
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archives/old-sport-pages/gallery-fn77kxzt-1226250654969?page=12

"Novak has been phenomenal, winning the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the US Open and getting to the semis at Roland Garros. That puts him right up there alongside the best who have ever played."
Pat Cash
http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/879710...he-greatest-tennis-players-ever-says-pat-cash

"This guy surely now has a genuine claim to be labelled as one of the all-time greats."
Jonathan Overend
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/16781690


"It's obviously great any time you beat the world No. 1. I just tried to do some of the same things I did in Australia. I was very close there against one of the greatest players ever.."
Andy Murray
http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/139046.html#

So, if you believe that the majority of expert opinions are not valid evidence to support the claim that Lendl, Borg, and McEnroe are all-time greats, something you just hinted at by calling another poster out for using a 'logical fallacy' to disprove his point, then your whole thread is for nothing, as you also have no grounds to argue Djokovic is An all time great.

So, in conclusion, by taking your own words and applying them to the topic at hand, no, Djokovic is not an all time great.
 

5555

Hall of Fame
Well, by that token, no one has ever been an all-time great, because if we assume that the opinions of professionals are only to be taken with a grain of salt, none of the top players in history has a claim to being an all time great.

Especially not Djokovic. I'm really not sure what your argument here is.. are you trying to say there are no all-time greats? Because that's pretty much what you've just done, if you're thinking in such black and white terms as logical fallacies and only having a sound argument if it is backed up by facts (something you're not actually doing yourself, mind you, seeing as you said this in your OP):


So, if you believe that the majority of expert opinions are not valid evidence to support the claim that Lendl, Borg, and McEnroe are all-time greats, something you just hinted at by calling another poster out for using a 'logical fallacy' to disprove his point, then your whole thread is for nothing, as you also have no grounds to argue Djokovic is An all time great.

In my opinion it's fun to debate is Djokovic an all-time great, so I do not think this thread is for nothing.

So, in conclusion, by taking your own words and applying them to the topic at hand, no, Djokovic is not an all time great.

It's matter of opinion.
 

jokinla

Hall of Fame
You said that you were a professional player? Can you prove it?



What is definition of "all-time great"?



It's not a fact. It's matter of opinion what makes one player greater than another.



It's not a fact. It's matter of opinion what is definition of "all-time great".



You said that you can prove what I asked you to prove and I asked you to prove that Connors is greater player than Djokovic when level of competition is taken into account. Right after you said (in the same sentence) that you can prove it, you mentioned Borg, McEnroe and Lendl to back up your claim. So, I was right when I stated that you said Borg, McEnroe and Lendl were tougher to beat than Djokovic's rivals.

Fact = truth, reality, something known to be true!!!!!!!!!
Examples of this would be:
1. Djoker has less slams and weeks at #1 than the others on the Laver list, an indisputable FACT!
2. Borg, McEnroe Lendl, Connors, all legends of the games, hall of famers, all with more weeks at #1 and slams than Djoker, an indisputable FACT!

As I said before, you should read what I wrote and stop trolling, I never said the above bold, you have adjusted it to fit your silly debate, and once again you are wrong, an indisputable FACT!
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
Djokovic has a lot more years ahead in his career, while the others are retired.

He will end up being with more slams than Agassi, Connors, Mac and Lendl probably.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
Wow, he reported one of my posts as well. I hate when that stuff gets reported just because I call someone out on their hypocrisy. Feels like censorship at times.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Djokovic can be argued as an all time great. Many rate Edberg, Becker, and Wilander as all time greats, and one could easily argue Djokovic is equal or slightly ahead of all of them, despite that they have 1 more major (well 2 more for Wilander). Yeah you could argue he isnt too, but it is far from a crazy assertion by 5555 to say he is, and most experts do call him an all time great at this point, a lower tier one probably, but still an all time great.
 
Djokovic can be argued as an all time great. Many rate Edberg, Becker, and Wilander as all time greats, and one could easily argue Djokovic is equal or slightly ahead of all of them, despite that they have 1 more major (well 2 more for Wilander). Yeah you could argue he isnt too, but it is far from a crazy assertion by 5555 to say he is, and most experts do call him an all time great at this point, a lower tier one probably, but still an all time great.

He has time on his side, so he can change the above for sure. MIGHT even be in the category of Fed, Sampras, Laver at some point......POSSIBLY.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
He has time on his side, so he can change the above for sure. MIGHT even be in the category of Fed, Sampras, Laver at some point......POSSIBLY.

I doubt he will ever be in that tier, as he started dominating too late (consider that Borg, Sampras, Fed and Nadal have all won at least one slam for 8 consecutive years - that's something I don't think Djoker can achieve).

Mind you he might win the CYGS... :shock:
 

LuckyR

Legend
Well considering that the level of tennis he sustained during his Streak was the best that the game has ever seen, yup he's an all time great. Not the GOAT, but by definition an ATG.
 

TennisCJC

Legend
Djoko is not quite an all time great in my view. He is just simply a great player. To me, you must have at least 6+ slams and maybe some other distinctive record such as a career grand slam - winning all 4 slams to be in the all time great group. Djoko is obviously behind Fed, Nadal and Sampras; and I put him behind Agassi, McEnroe, Borg, Lendld and Connors who all had more slams and Agassi has a career grand slam.
 

LuckyR

Legend
Just wondering if in the Talk Track 100 Yard Dash Warehouse Forum, if a runner who owns the current World Record in the event (that occurred at a second tier meet), but never dominated in many important meets, like the Olympics would be considered not an All Time Great in the sport. I would call that guy the Fastest Human of All Time.
 

5555

Hall of Fame

You said that you were a professional player. Can you prove it?

PS This is the last time I asked you the above question. If you do not answer I will conclude that you do not have proof you are a tennis expert.

Fact = truth, reality, something known to be true!!!!!!!!!
Examples of this would be:
1. Djoker has less slams and weeks at #1 than the others on the Laver list, an indisputable FACT!

In one of your earlier posts you said it's a fact that Djokovic is not greater player than Connors, Agassi, Lendl etc. First you said "no way he is above any those guys" here http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7032841&postcount=58 then I asked you "Is it a fact?" here http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7032971&postcount=65 and your answer was "Yep" here http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7033436&postcount=71

2. Borg, McEnroe Lendl, Connors, all legends of the games, hall of famers, all with more weeks at #1 and slams than Djoker, an indisputable FACT!

In one of your earlier posts you wrote it's a fact that Borg, McEnroe and Lendl are all-time greats. Is that correct?

As I said before, you should read what I wrote

You said that you can prove that Connors is greater player than Djokovic when level of competition is taken into account. Is that correct?
 
Last edited:

5555

Hall of Fame
Djoko is not quite an all time great in my view. He is just simply a great player. To me, you must have at least 6+ slams and maybe some other distinctive record such as a career grand slam - winning all 4 slams to be in the all time great group. Djoko is obviously behind Fed, Nadal and Sampras; and I put him behind Agassi, McEnroe, Borg, Lendld and Connors who all had more slams and Agassi has a career grand slam.

According to your criteria, Djokovic is greater player than Pancho Gonzales. Novak has superior accomplishments at Grand Slams (numbers).
 

5555

Hall of Fame
Fact, only titles count.

In 2006 many tennis experts stated that Federer is greater player than Sampras even though in 2006 Federer had 9 slams (5 less than Sampras). It's matter of opinion what is criteria for greatness.
 

reaper

Legend
I think Djokovic will end his career with about 9 grand slam titles which would put him 5th on the open era men's list. That would make him an all time great.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
In 2006 many tennis experts stated that Federer is greater player than Sampras even though in 2006 Federer had 9 slams (5 less than Sampras). It's matter of opinion what is criteria for greatness.
Djokovic (at age 25) - 5 slams.
Federer (at age 25) - 9 slams.

Do the math.
 

Love_No1e

New User
Not yet but he definitely has the potential to be. 2 fantastic years including one record breaking year means he'll always be remembered as a great but to be an all time great he has to rack up more slams and win Roland garros. 2013 will be a better indication of where he'll stand. I think 2013 will actually be the most important year in terms of defining his career.
 

rafafan20

Professional
I think he is, he is one of the biggest TALENTS to ever play the game. The mental aspect is coming round as well. Plus he offers something different than the run of the mill boring athlete in today's sport.
 
N

nikdom

Guest
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.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
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.

Yes, and consequently his opinion on the matter is no less valid than yours, because it's opinion-based.
 

5555

Hall of Fame
Yes, and consequently his opinion on the matter is no less valid than yours, because it's opinion-based.

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.
 
Last edited:

Hawkeye7

Professional
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.

Considering that titles/achievements are the only objective criteria (fact) we have to judge greatness, his argument is better than yours (opinion).
 

5555

Hall of Fame
Considering that titles/achievements are the only objective criteria (fact) we have to judge greatness, his argument is better than yours (opinion).

Is criteria for greatness a matter of opinion? Yes or no?
 
Last edited:
Top