Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by 5555, Nov 25, 2012.
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?
90% of the world believes in a fictitious eye in the sky.
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.
Is criteria for greatness a matter of opinion? Yes or no?
No. For serious discussion interlocutors must know the difference between a fact and an opinion.
Now, answer this question:
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?
What do you mean "when"? Don't you mean "if"?
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.
Also fact is Djokovic didn't follow up his first season with another break out one. He only won one slam this year after all.
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.
Right after you find me the TTW poster that isn't a "tennis expert"
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?
I'm sure some have said the same thing, but I don't think he is yet. Another three or four Grand Slam titles and definitely. He should have no problem reaching that.
i fully expect novak to get past connors slam count.
These experts in 2006 said that Federer was already greater player than Sampras. They did not say that Federer will became greater player than Sampras.
1. Collins dictionary:
"matter of opinion = debatable point, debatable, open question, open to question, moot point, open for discussion, matter of judgment"
2. Tennis experts disagree what makes one player greater than another which means it's debatable what is criteria for greatness.
Logical conclusion is that criteria for greatness is a matter of opinion.
You did not answer this question: 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?
Do tennis experts agree that level of competition should not be taken into account?
"Children learn and are able to tell the difference between fact and opinion in school as early as kindergarten."
Is criteria for greatness a matter of opinion? Yes or no?
Does anyone care?
Yes but it is based on facts. It is both/and, not either/or, take it easy.
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.
I said the fact that tennis experts disagree what makes one player greater than another is proof that criteria for greatness is a matter of opinion. In your reply you said that my argument is wrong. After that, I quoted the Collins dictionary to show that I am right but you did not provide counterargument.
Can you provide counterargument?
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?
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.
Yes. Laver's Top 10 list is really solid. I would just swap Mac & Edberg's positions.
Maybe Laver's list was for peak play as well as achievements? Either way Djokovic is an all time great by virtue of beating all times greats for his titles, his peak level of play and his crazy 2011 season.
Ok for a last time.
If your brain can't process anything else but a black or white answer, then let's say yes.
No (see above).
There you go. Don't forget to switch off the light and close the door behind you when leaving this thread.
(Oh, and by the way, nice job on the misquote in your OP--anything for the cause, eh?)
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. That's my opinion, and as facts don't enter in the discussion, it's as valid as Laver's or Flink's.
Are you saying there are tennis expert that claim James Blake is greater than Agassi? Yes or No?
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?
Collins dictionary: "matter of opinion = debatable point, debatable, open question, open to question, moot point, open for discussion, matter of judgment" http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/matter-of-opinion. Is criteria for greatnes a debatable issue?
Is it a fact?
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?
I'm saying (factual statement) that tennis experts disagree what should be criteria for greatness. I ask you again: if criteria for greatness in not a matter of opinion, how do you explain the fact that tennis experts disagree what should be criteria for greatness?
Djokovic beat peak (5 slam finals in the row) Nadal 7 times in the row including making peak Nadal the first man in history to lose 3 slam finals to the same player in the row. All that makes Djokovic an all time great, unless of course peak Nadal is not considered an all time great himself.
Can you prove that "reliable sources" don't care about what I say, or is that just your opinion?
Is this a fact?
... Or just your (biased) opinion?
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?)
And again I ask you: where are the disagreements among experts when someone proclaims "Federer is greater than Donald Young"?
You said experts disagree on what constitute greatness. So where are these experts that disagree on this subject? DY's family doesn't count.
I haven't read the rest of this thread yet, but this had me rolling. :razz:
Where did I say that?
Yes he is great. 5 Majors, 9 finals. Two time year end number one. He is in the third tier with Becker, Edberg.
This thread is full of ownage. 5555 is building himself such a massive hole with his faux-logical arguments... I love it.
Have you got proof it's a fact that Djokovic is not top 20 all-time?
Burden of proof is on person who makes positive claim.
I will answer that question when you answer my question which you did not answer: is it a fact that Djokovic is not an all-time great?
I will answer that question when you answer question that you did not answer: can you prove that Djokovic is not top 20 of all-time?
This question, too, I will answer when you answer the questions above.
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?
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
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...
(You *did* provide a link for a definition about expert, though, I'll give you that. However, nowhere does it say that Rod Laver is more of an expert than I am, as appreciation of what constitues "expensive skill or knowledge" is obviously a matter of opinion, and not fact.)
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. Common sense would suggest that because there is no evidence that they do exist, we assume they don't...but in logic that is know as an appeal to ignorance and is a fallacy.
Holding things to a standard like this is useless, though...and makes people really not want to talk to you...
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.
What does it mean to you?
Wow, from what could've been answered in 1 word - this has really turned into a philosophical battle.
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.
I didn't read most of the conversation but it is the same. If I understand it correctly...He is saying that until it is proven that they do care what you say (positive) we cannot say that they don't (negative). Because it is impossible to prove that they don't care (if we say we know they don't care, it would imply that we knew literally every word and thought they have ever had), you have to prove that they do, because it only takes one statement or caring act to prove that they do.
I'm really not trying to argue I was just saying that what he was saying was logically correct...
Is Novak one of the best players of all time?: Yes, obviously.
Is Novak one of the greatest players of all time?: Not yet, but he is on his way to becoming one.
This makes sense, Becker, Edberg and Djokovic have similar achievements at the moment, and Djokovic will probably surpass them in the future...
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.
My answer to the first question is no. Great players, yes, but not all time greats. My all time great list (open era only, including all of Laver's career) would look something like this.
And if I'm feeling in the spirit of the season I might include Agassi, but nobody past him. In fact, if you look back at the first page of this thread I don't think I even included Lendl or Connors. Although thinking about it again now I would.
So I would not yet say that Djokovic is an all time great. Maybe my definition of all time great is too high of a standard, but any time the words "all time" are attached to something, I automatically think top tier, not Becker or Edberg, although they are great players.
Have you got proof it's a fact that Djokovic in not top 20 all-time?
Is it a fact?
dyldore explained very well why the burden of proof is not on me.
You dug huge hole for yourself by saying things like "it is a fact that Djokovic is not top 20 all-time".
I do not run away. I said answer my questions and then I will answer your questions. Who do you refuse to answer my questions? Is it because you run out of arguments?
A lie is something that is deliberately inteded to deceive http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lie?showCookiePolicy=true . Can you prove that my intention was to mislead?
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...".
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.
The definition of an all-time tennis great isn't a guy with 17 freakin slams either we'd have only one all-time tennis great in the whole Open Era.
NadalAgassi is right, if you consider Becker and Edberg to be all-time tennis greats then Novak undoubtedly is one already, if you think the bar should be a little higher- say Lendl, Connors, Agassi etc. then Novak arguably still has some way to go but is already knocking on the door.
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.
That something is a matter of opinion does not prove anything. The opinion could still be wrong, or relatively speaking further from the truth than other opinions that are closer to reality, or better in tune with factual evidence.
Separate names with a comma.