Is Djokovic an all-time great?

[Povl Carstensen]

Anything could be argued to be a matter of opinion. After all, perhaps reality is just an illusion. But if we accept reality and a time continuum, then a hierachy introduces itself of opinions that are more or less in accordance with the observed reality. If we conversely assume that all opinions are of equal value in terms of accordance with reality and "the truth", then all discussion and dialogue and TT is meaningless. So it is of paramount importance that 5555's hypothesis is refuted.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Ahhh, now this thread is starting to get interesting...

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...

I see what you're getting at, but I'm afraid you're wrong. Let's forget unicorns, dragons, and even elves for a minute. In most cases, when you state something with a positive sentence, you can say exactly the same thing with a negative sentence, and 5555 and you are arguing that the actual wording determines who gets to prove what he or she says, which isn't logical at all.

Here is one example: should a lawyer say "My client is innocent", then according to you, he's got to prove that what he says is right. Fair enough. But should he say "My client isn't guilty" (which means exactly the same thing), then the burden of proof would fall on the prosecution. In real life, innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent depends on your judiciary system, not on the opening statement at the trial.

Here's another one: it is widely accepted as truth that the Americans landed on the moon in 1969. However, conspiracy theorists like to say that this is false. In a conversation between two different-minded people on this issue, one saying "The Americans landed on the moon" and the other saying "They never did", who do you think is going to have to prove what he says? That's right, the one who stated that the Americans *didn't* land on the moon (ie negative), because he's going against the perceived notion of "truth". Doing otherwise would be engaging in sophistries all day long, and you could then "prove" (ala 5555) that nothing is certain and that nothing exists. (For example, "The Americans landed on the moon in 1969." "The burden of proof is on you because you stated something in a positive way, so prove it." "Here are the photographs, the recordings, etc." "Prove they haven't been doctored." And as he can do that ad vitam aeternam, you just won't get anywhere in the end.)

Back to the matter at hand, we're not arguing on the point he brought up. I never said "reliable sources" cared about what I wrote (I couldn't care less whether they did or not, tbh). However, he claimed that they don't care. I don't have a problem with that, but he brought that up, he's got to back it up with facts. Otherwise, he's just talking out of his backside.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Have you got proof it's a fact that Djokovic in not top 20 all-time?

Oh, so now you want me to prove a negative, after arguing inanely for pages on end that the burden of proof falls on the person with the positive statement? Care to make up what passes for your mind, kiddo?

So I guess the question you really wanted to ask (but were too confused--or afraid--to) was: Can you prove that Djokovic is top 20 all-time?

dyldore explained very well why the burden of proof is not on me.

And I explained why he was wrong.

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?

Considering the fact that you passed this sentence as a direct quote from Agassi (while it's clear in the article that he never said that) while drowning it amongst over quotes, I think it's fair to say that, yes, you did that on purpose to further your claim.

So, yes, you were lying with a clear intention to mislead. Deliberately.

 

[merlinpinpin]

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.

Exactly. It all depends on whether you consider tier 3 (or 4) players to be all-time greats or not. I don't, personally, as I don't think a sport which has been around for 130 odd years needs 20+ all-time greats (the more all-time greats there are, the less great they are as a whole and the less the term is meaningful, obviously), but it's a matter of opinion.

 

[5555]

Oh, so now you want me to prove a negative, after arguing inanely for pages on end that the burden of proof falls on the person with the positive statement? Care to make up what passes for your mind, kiddo?

According to your logic burden of proof is on you. Why do you still refuse to provide proof? Is it because you run out of arguments?

So I guess the question you really wanted to ask (but were too confused--or afraid--to) was: Can you prove that Djokovic is top 20 all-time?

The question here is whether something is fact or not. You stated that it is a fact (positive) that Djokovic is not top 20 all-time, so burden of proof is on you.

No

Is it a fact?

Here is one example: should a lawyer say "My client is innocent", then according to you, he's got to prove that what he says is right.

I have never heard that any jury delivered verdict "Innocent" or "Not innocent". I have heard "Guilty", "Not guilty" or neither in case of a hung jury.

Here's another one: it is widely accepted as truth that the Americans landed on the moon in 1969. However, conspiracy theorists like to say that this is false. In a conversation between two different-minded people on this issue, one saying "The Americans landed on the moon" and the other saying "They never did", who do you think is going to have to prove what he says? That's right, the one who stated that the Americans *didn't* land on the moon (ie negative), because he's going against the perceived notion of "truth". Doing otherwise would be engaging in sophistries all day long, and you could then "prove" (ala 5555) that nothing is certain and that nothing exists. (For example, "The Americans landed on the moon in 1969." "The burden of proof is on you because you stated something in a positive way, so prove it." "Here are the photographs, the recordings, etc." "Prove they haven't been doctored." And as he can do that ad vitam aeternam, you just won't get anywhere in the end.)

General rule is that burden of proof is on person who makes positive claim. Is it widely accepted as truth that reliable sources do care what you say?

Back to the matter at hand, we're not arguing on the point he brought up. I never said "reliable sources" cared about what I wrote (I couldn't care less whether they did or not, tbh). However, he claimed that they don't care. I don't have a problem with that, but he brought that up, he's got to back it up with facts. Otherwise, he's just talking out of his backside.

Opinion is a defence recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable.

My statement was an expression of opinion.

Considering the fact that you passed this sentence as a direct quote from Agassi (while it's clear in the article that he never said that) while drowning it amongst over quotes, I think it's fair to say that, yes, you did that on purpose to further your claim.
So, yes, you were lying with a clear intention to mislead. Deliberately.

1. "while it's clear in the article that he never said that"
If you look at the article, you will see that it's not a typical page layout for interview like:
A: Question.
B: Answer.
A: Question.
B: Answer.
It is not clear in the article that he never said for someone who does not look carefully.
2. "while drowning it amongst over quotes"
It's logical that I, Djokovic fan, will quote tennis experts, as many I can find, who claim that Novak is an all-time great.

So, your argument is not proof that I deliberately inteded to deceive.

I do not think anyone here wants to take away your right to form your opinion disregarding facts.

I said:

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 it a factual statement?

But if we accept reality and a time continuum, then a hierachy introduces itself of opinions that are more or less in accordance with the observed reality. If we conversely assume that all opinions are of equal value in terms of accordance with reality and "the truth", then all discussion and dialogue and TT is meaningless. So it is of paramount importance that 5555's hypothesis is refuted.

Opinion can be false, so "all discussion and dialogue and TT" is not meaningless.

 

[TMF]

Can you prove that you are a tennis fan?
Can you prove that your opinion is sincere?
Can you prove UFO exist?
Can you prove that you will go to heaven after death?

Stop with all of these silly discussion about prove this, prove that.

Just prove to yourself if your opinion makes any sense.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Opinions are a matter of opinion, and that's a fact. Or is it?

 

[Povl Carstensen]

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 it a factual statement?

I dont really care. I was just pointing out that "it is only an opinion" is a poor defence of a viewpoint (which is what I feel you have been doing). Which leads to:

Opinion can be false, so "all discussion and dialogue and TT" is not meaningless.

Exactly, which is why I welcome some reality into the argument instead of sophistry.

 

[PCXL-Fan]

Its an interesting question. I would say no not yet because he needs more titles. So far he had a limited time period where he played as well as an all time great, but so has Marat Safin although for 1/4th the length of time.

At the end of the day he's gonna needs several more Slams (which he is almost certain to get). But if he quit today he would not be an all time great except in the eyes of some fellow Balkaners.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Wow, trollington unravelling fast. Try to at least hold it together until Christmas, will you?

According to your logic burden of proof is on you. Why do you still refuse to provide proof? Is it because you run out of arguments?

Still evading and refusing to man up to what you wrote, I see. Not that I expected anything else from you.

The question here is whether something is fact or not. You stated that it is a fact (positive) that Djokovic is not top 20 all-time, so burden of proof is on you.

Already proved it, there are at least 20 other tennis players whose records are bigger than his, so he isn't top 20 all-time. Pretty easy to understand, in fact. Even for you.

I have never heard that any jury delivered verdict "Innocent" or "Not innocent". I have heard "Guilty", "Not guilty" or neither in case of a hung jury.

You obviously didn't understand what I wrote.

General rule is that burden of proof is on person who makes positive claim. Is it widely accepted as truth that reliable sources do care what you say?

Irrelevant again, I never made any kind of claim (either positive or negative) regarding your "reliable sources" (which you seem unable to define) and what I say. You were the only one who did, so prove it.

1. "while it's clear in the article that he never said that"
If you look at the article, you will see that it's not a typical page layout for interview like:
A: Question.
B: Answer.
A: Question.
B: Answer.
It is not clear in the article that he never said for someone who does not look carefully.

You mean you quoted an article without really reading it? It's 100% clear this was said by the writer of the article and not Agassi, as there is no direct quote nor any reference to Agassi in this sentence.

So, your argument is not proof that I deliberately inteded to deceive.

Considering how fond you are of sophistry and all kinds of nitpicking, I find it hard to believe that you would be stupid enough to quote an article without understanding what was written.

The inescapable conclusion, of course, is that you did this on purpose, with the intent to deceive.

 

[dyldore]

Ahhh, now this thread is starting to get interesting...



I see what you're getting at, but I'm afraid you're wrong. Let's forget unicorns, dragons, and even elves for a minute. In most cases, when you state something with a positive sentence, you can say exactly the same thing with a negative sentence, and 5555 and you are arguing that the actual wording determines who gets to prove what he or she says, which isn't logical at all.

Here is one example: should a lawyer say "My client is innocent", then according to you, he's got to prove that what he says is right. Fair enough. But should he say "My client isn't guilty" (which means exactly the same thing), then the burden of proof would fall on the prosecution. In real life, innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent depends on your judiciary system, not on the opening statement at the trial.

Here's another one: it is widely accepted as truth that the Americans landed on the moon in 1969. However, conspiracy theorists like to say that this is false. In a conversation between two different-minded people on this issue, one saying "The Americans landed on the moon" and the other saying "They never did", who do you think is going to have to prove what he says? That's right, the one who stated that the Americans *didn't* land on the moon (ie negative), because he's going against the perceived notion of "truth". Doing otherwise would be engaging in sophistries all day long, and you could then "prove" (ala 5555) that nothing is certain and that nothing exists. (For example, "The Americans landed on the moon in 1969." "The burden of proof is on you because you stated something in a positive way, so prove it." "Here are the photographs, the recordings, etc." "Prove they haven't been doctored." And as he can do that ad vitam aeternam, you just won't get anywhere in the end.)

Back to the matter at hand, we're not arguing on the point he brought up. I never said "reliable sources" cared about what I wrote (I couldn't care less whether they did or not, tbh). However, he claimed that they don't care. I don't have a problem with that, but he brought that up, he's got to back it up with facts. Otherwise, he's just talking out of his backside.

When you are using casual language, it may seemingly change it, but in logic, it does not. Take a logic course or look it up if it further intrigues you, because I am no great teacher.

At first glance you would think that "My client is innocent" is a positive claim, but it is not. Innocence is always negative. By definition it is a claim that you did not do something that you are accused of.

Simply the presence of a "not" or "isn't" is not what makes a statement negative or positive. I will use your guilty/innocent example. You used an example from a defense attorney. Which is exactly right, the defense would not have to prove their claim of non-guilt, or innocence. That is why they are called the defense. They defend against the claim of the prosecution. Say it is a murder case. The prosecution would make a positive claim "X murdered X at X on X." Then the defense would go on to defend it with other positive statements. "X was at Y on Y". Good luck being an attorney and have your whole defense be "X was not at X on X" ( a negative claim). It doesn't work, you would need to show that X was not at X on X by showing that X was somewhere else (a positive claim).

I won't get into the boring logical idiosyncrasies, you picked a perfect analogy to show you without them.

When you stated that the burden of proof would be on the person claiming that the Americans did not land on the moon, you are wrong, it is on the people claiming that they did. The standard for proof that 5555 is looking for is one that would mean that nothing is certain. That is why, in my first post, I said it was silly to argue using such a ridiculous standard.

 

[merlinpinpin]

When you are using casual language, it may seemingly change it, but in logic, it does not. Take a logic course or look it up if it further intrigues you, because I am no great teacher.

At first glance you would think that "My client is innocent" is a positive claim, but it is not. Innocence is always negative. By definition it is a claim that you did not do something that you are accused of.

Simply the presence of a "not" or "isn't" is not what makes a statement negative or positive. I will use your guilty/innocent example. You used an example from a defense attorney. Which is exactly right, the defense would not have to prove their claim of non-guilt, or innocence. That is why they are called the defense. They defend against the claim of the prosecution. Say it is a murder case. The prosecution would make a positive claim "X murdered X at X on X." Then the defense would go on to defend it with other positive statements. "X was at Y on Y". Good luck being an attorney and have your whole defense be "X was not at X on X" ( a negative claim). It doesn't work, you would need to show that X was not at X on X by showing that X was somewhere else (a positive claim).

I won't get into the boring logical idiosyncrasies, you picked a perfect analogy to show you without them.

When you stated that the burden of proof would be on the person claiming that the Americans did not land on the moon, you are wrong, it is on the people claiming that they did. The standard for proof that 5555 is looking for is one that would mean that nothing is certain. That is why, in my first post, I said it was silly to argue using such a ridiculous standard.

Although I generally agree with what you say, we're not talking exactly about the same thing here. You're talking burden of proof in the religious/philosophical sense of the word, I'm not. In the matter we're refering to, once again, there was *no* debate, ie no positive/negative side. He just made a claim, I never claimed the opposite. So the only one who's got something to prove here is him.

About the Americans landing on the moon, burden of proof is also dependent on the situation. The path you're taking here (as we already mentioned) is that nothing can be proved, and therefore, all debate is meaningless (which is odd to say the least on Internet message boards). As for 5555, this is what he's been doing all the time, but that's different--his thread is full of sophistry because it's his favoured mode of trolling, we all know that.

 

[merlinpinpin]

double post

 

[dyldore]

Although I generally agree with what you say, we're not talking exactly about the same thing here. You're talking burden of proof in the religious/philosophical sense of the word, I'm not. In the matter we're refering to, once again, there was *no* debate, ie no positive/negative side. He just made a claim, I never claimed the opposite. So the only one who's got something to prove here is him.

About the Americans landing on the moon, burden of proof is also dependent on the situation. The path you're taking here (as we already mentioned) is that nothing can be proved, and therefore, all debate is meaningless (which is odd to say the least on Internet message boards). As for 5555, this is what he's been doing all the time, but that's different--his thread is full of sophistry because it's his favoured mode of trolling, we all know that.

Why does anybody argue with him then??

Anyways...Djokovic has certainly earned his place in my books as a great player, an all time great?...if he keeps up this level of play I would certainly say so.

 

[firepanda]

The problem is, players are constantly improving in skill and dedication, as more and more money is being thrown at tennis. Old matches look positively tame compared to the game of today. Everybody is moving faster and hitting harder. Changes to racquet and string technology only complicate matters.

Anyway, regarding Djokovic, here's my logic. The Open era has been around 50 years. Considering how pathetic tennis was before then, I'd say we begin judging from there. You'd expect about two 'all-time greats' to crop up each decade, I'd say. More, and things start to get a bit crowded.

2x5=10 Therefore, at this point in time, an all time great great is the top 10 of the Open Era.

Now, top 10 depends on how much you agree with the sentiment I expressed in the first paragraph. If the skill level is constantly rising, then Murray and Djokovic are almost certainly all-time greats.

More likely, and to preserve the sanctity of the phrase, we look at players relative to their era. Therefore, top 10 are: Federer, Sampras, Borg, Nadal, Laver, Rosewall, Connors, Lendl, Agassi

These are just Grand Slam Winners, which is a fairly neutral way of rating achievements. I personally believe Rosewall and Laver should be replaced by McEnroe and Wilander, but there you go.

 

[5555]

Still evading and refusing to man up to what you wrote, I see. Not that I expected anything else from you.

I said: "The question here is whether something is fact or not. You stated that it is a fact (positive) that Djokovic is not top 20 all-time, so burden of proof is on you."

Already proved it, there are at least 20 other tennis players whose records are bigger than his, so he isn't top 20 all-time. Pretty easy to understand, in fact. Even for you.

According to your criteria for greatness, Djokovic is not top 20 all-time, but it's debatable what should be criteria for greatness. Tennis experts desagree whether he is top 20 all-time. For example, Tim Henman said that in his opinion Novak is top 8 all-time.

So, your argument is not proof it's a fact that Djokovic is not 20 all-time.

No

Is it a fact?

You obviously didn't understand what I wrote.

Well, in that case, made it clear what you wanted to say, so we can continue the debate.

Irrelevant again, I never made any kind of claim (either positive or negative) regarding your "reliable sources" (which you seem unable to define) and what I say. You were the only one who did, so prove it.

I do not have to prove it because my statement was an expression of opinion. Opinion is a defence recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable.

You mean you quoted an article without really reading it? It's 100% clear this was said by the writer of the article and not Agassi, as there is no direct quote nor any reference to Agassi in this sentence.
Considering how fond you are of sophistry and all kinds of nitpicking, I find it hard to believe that you would be stupid enough to quote an article without understanding what was written.
The inescapable conclusion, of course, is that you did this on purpose, with the intent to deceive.

Without understanding what was written? What if I thought that I understood what was written? What if I thought that I understood what was written? It is not hard to believe that, in rare occasions, I will make such a mistake.

Conclusion: your reasoning is not proof that I deliberately inteded to deceive.

Stop with all of these silly discussion about prove this, prove that.

In a serious discussion you have to prove allegations of fact.

I dont really care. I was just pointing out that "it is only an opinion" is a poor defence of a viewpoint (which is what I feel you have been doing).

You run out of arguments, so you are distracting from the actual issue. I ask you again: do you admit now that my reasoning as to why criteria for greatness is a matter of opinion was correct?

Exactly, which is why I welcome some reality into the argument instead of sophistry.

Can you tell me exactly where is sophistry in my argumentation?

 

[Povl Carstensen]

You run out of arguments, so you are distracting from the actual issue.

Well I have an different opinion.

Can you tell me exactly where is sophistry in my argumentation?

I can tell you that I think you are a nuisance and a pain in the a.. in this thread. If you want to know why, I think Dyldore sums it up pretty well.

 

[5555]

merlinpinpin, what happened? Was the post on 12-23-2012 your last-ditch defense?

Well I have an different opinion.

An opinion may be supported by an argument. What is your argument?

I can tell you that I think you are a nuisance and a pain in the a.. in this thread. If you want to know why, I think Dyldore sums it up pretty well.

Collins dictionary: "sophistry
1.
a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading
b.the art of using such arguments
2.subtle but unsound or fallacious reasoning
3.an instance of this; sophism"
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sophistry?showCookiePolicy=true

If I'm a "nuisance and a pain in the a.." it does not mean that my reasoning is fallacious, invalid etc. So, I ask you again where is exactly sophistry in my argumentation?

 

[TheFifthSet]

y'all have some time on your hands

 

[Povl Carstensen]

merlinpinpin, what happened? Was the post on 12-23-2012 your last-ditch defense?




An opinion may be supported by an argument. What is your argument?



Collins dictionary: "sophistry
1.
a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading
b.the art of using such arguments
2.subtle but unsound or fallacious reasoning
3.an instance of this; sophism"
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sophistry?showCookiePolicy=true

If I'm a "nuisance and a pain in the a.." it does not mean that my reasoning is fallacious, invalid etc. So, I ask you again where is exactly sophistry in my argumentation?

Well I did make an reference to Dyldore, so you can get your answer there, if you don't mind reading yourself instead of asking everybody to spell everything out for you.

 

[5555]

merlinpinpin, I'm going to ask you just one more time: was the post on 12-23-2012 your last-ditch defense?

Well I have an different opinion.

This is how the debate unfolded:

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?

That people disagree does not mean that their opinions are not based on interpretation of facts.

1. 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
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.

Yes but it is based on facts. It is both/and, not either/or, take it easy.

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?

Ok for a last time.

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?

Where did I say that?

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

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.

I did not say "If criteria for greatness is frequently based on facts...". I said "If criteria for greatness is not matter of opinion...".

You still have not provided counterargument to my last argument above.

Well I did make an reference to Dyldore, so you can get your answer there, if you don't mind reading yourself instead of asking everybody to spell everything out for you.

Well, dyldore stated that what I was saying was logicaly correct http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7070961&postcount=287

 

[TMF]

5555, for the last month you've spent most of the time on this thread. There's more to tennis talk than this same old boring subject. You win, you have beaten everyone. Your argument is perfect and everyone else are illogical. Are you happy now?? Please, move on !

 

[-RF-]

According to your logic burden of proof is on you. Why do you still refuse to provide proof? Is it because you run out of arguments?



The question here is whether something is fact or not. You stated that it is a fact (positive) that Djokovic is not top 20 all-time, so burden of proof is on you.


Is it a fact?



I have never heard that any jury delivered verdict "Innocent" or "Not innocent". I have heard "Guilty", "Not guilty" or neither in case of a hung jury.



General rule is that burden of proof is on person who makes positive claim. Is it widely accepted as truth that reliable sources do care what you say?



Opinion is a defence recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable.

My statement was an expression of opinion.


1. "while it's clear in the article that he never said that"
If you look at the article, you will see that it's not a typical page layout for interview like:
A: Question.
B: Answer.
A: Question.
B: Answer.
It is not clear in the article that he never said for someone who does not look carefully.
2. "while drowning it amongst over quotes"
It's logical that I, Djokovic fan, will quote tennis experts, as many I can find, who claim that Novak is an all-time great.

So, your argument is not proof that I deliberately inteded to deceive.



I said:

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 it a factual statement?



Opinion can be false, so "all discussion and dialogue and TT" is not meaningless.

Get a ****ing life mate.

 

[veroniquem]

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.

In order:

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Nadal
6. Lendl
7. Connors

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.

So McEnroe is not an all time great??? Nor Agassi? On what grounds exactly? That's ridiculous, sorry.

 

[Steve0904]

So McEnroe is not an all time great??? Nor Agassi? On what grounds exactly? That's ridiculous, sorry.

I'm sorry, but my list is pretty high standard. When I think all time great, I think the absolute best. You also have to realize I was responding to NadalAgassi who changes his opinion frequently. I will concede that not including Agassi may be a stretch, however he was clearly second best in his era, (Federer and Nadal are disqualified from this discussion since they have enough GS to put both of them in there easily) and he was a little too up and down IMHO. The pro for Agassi is that he won the calendar GS. That's probably enough to put him on my list as it is, but I'm not sure McEnroe is such a clear cut case. He had nowhere near the consistency and/or longevity of the last two guys on my list, and it depends on where you want to cut off the list. Becker and Edberg are certainly not all time greats IMO, nor is Wilander, so McEnroe is not clear cut IMO which is why I left him off. Now that said, I won't pretend to be the defining standard of tennis lists.

 

[veroniquem]

What??? You're insane! McEnroe is #3 in # of titles won in open era. He's the one who defeated Borg at Wimbledon. He's won 19 super nine (most after Lendl, Nadal and Fed). He's won 3 W and 4 USO (more slams than Lendl outside of AO which no one cared about in the 70s), he stayed #1 for 170 weeks (5th most in open era), he's won 3 WTF titles, he's probably the best doubles player of all time, he had one of the best tennis seasons EVER in 1984 and he's not an all time great????????????? YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :evil::evil::evil::evil::



ETA: oh and talking about longevity, he had 4 year ends at #1 too (most after Sampras, Connors and Fed)

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

What??? You're insane! McEnroe is #3 in # of titles won in open era. He's the one who defeated Borg at Wimbledon. He's won 19 super nine (most after Lendl, Nadal and Fed). He's won 3 W and 4 USO (same total # of slams as Lendl), he stayed #1 for 170 weeks (5th most in open era), he's won 3 WTF titles, he's probably the best doubles player of all time, he had one of the best tennis seasons EVER in 1984 and he's not an all time great????????????? YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :evil::evil::evil::evil::

Give it a rest. Maybe Steve takes "All-time great" to mean "one of the greatest of all time". If I did the same, McEnroe wouldn't make my list, either. Considering Tennis has so few relevant candidates, and a short history, I'd be inclined to include no more than 6 or 7 in all.

 

[veroniquem]

It really doesn't matter what he means. I'm not gonna take ANYONE seriously who has the nerve to claim McEnroe is not an all time great in a list that includes 7 players from open era. Absolutely preposterous. McEnroe is ABOVE #7 in almost every stat.

 

[veroniquem]

And by the way, it's also completely nonsensical to exclude Agassi. One doesn't exclude a player who has won the 4 slams when so few have done it. Especially a player who has won as many slam titles total as Lendl, WTF, the Olympics and many more masters than Sampras and who's done so much for the popularity of the sport in general.

 

[5555]

That's it. merlinpinpin and Povl Carstensen lost the arguments.

 

[pringles]

What??? You're insane! McEnroe is #3 in # of titles won in open era. He's the one who defeated Borg at Wimbledon. He's won 19 super nine (most after Lendl, Nadal and Fed). He's won 3 W and 4 USO (more slams than Lendl outside of AO which no one cared about in the 70s), he stayed #1 for 170 weeks (5th most in open era), he's won 3 WTF titles, he's probably the best doubles player of all time, he had one of the best tennis seasons EVER in 1984 and he's not an all time great????????????? YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :evil::evil::evil::evil::

ETA: oh and talking about longevity, he had 4 year ends at #1 too (most after Sampras, Connors and Fed)

Just a thought - Lendl won his AO titles in 1989 and 1990 when the AO did matter. One could argue that prime McEnroe (bar 1983) never had the chance to score in another major but that's life.

 

[pringles]

That's it. merlinpinpin and Povl Carstensen lost the arguments.

Is this an opinion or a fact?

 

[Steve0904]

It really doesn't matter what he means. I'm not gonna take ANYONE seriously who has the nerve to claim McEnroe is not an all time great in a list that includes 7 players from open era. Absolutely preposterous. McEnroe is ABOVE #7 in almost every stat.

Well that's fine. I never take you seriously either.

 

[Steve0904]

Give it a rest. Maybe Steve takes "All-time great" to mean "one of the greatest of all time". If I did the same, McEnroe wouldn't make my list, either. Considering Tennis has so few relevant candidates, and a short history, I'd be inclined to include no more than 6 or 7 in all.

And yes that is exactly what I mean. As I said, Agassi could and probably should be included, but McEnroe is more of a stretch for me.

 

[veroniquem]

Well that's fine. I never take you seriously either.

And you still haven't provided any credible argument why McEnroe should not be on a 7+ best players list of open era. Of course because there is none. It is simply an arbitrary and non sensical decision I'm pretty sure no tennis expert would agree with.

 

[jokinla]

That's it. merlinpinpin and Povl Carstensen lost the arguments.

We all know who the real loser is.

 

[jokinla]

Is this an opinion or a fact?

BAHAHAHAHA, good one.

 

[jokinla]

And you still haven't provided any credible argument why McEnroe should not be on a 7+ best players list of open era. Of course because there is none. It is simply an arbitrary and non sensical decision I'm pretty sure no tennis expert would agree with.

Of course no expert would agree with this nonsense, clearly this guy hasn't been watching tennis long, Mac's 84 was one of the best seasons ever, if he doesn't choke away a 2 set lead to Lendl in the FO final, he wins all 4 that year, the closest anyone's come since Laver, obviously Mac's an all time great.

 

[veroniquem]

Just a thought - Lendl won his AO titles in 1989 and 1990 when the AO did matter. One could argue that prime McEnroe (bar 1983) never had the chance to score in another major but that's life.

My point is the AO didn't matter much in McEnroe's time and outside of AO, McEnroe won more slams that Lendl. In any case, spitting on 77 titles overall, 19 masters, 3WTF and 4 year ends at #1 is pretty absurd, no matter how you want to look at it.

 

[Steve0904]

Of course no expert would agree with this nonsense, clearly this guy hasn't been watching tennis long, Mac's 84 was one of the best seasons ever, if he doesn't choke away a 2 set lead to Lendl in the FO final, he wins all 4 that year, the closest anyone's come since Laver, obviously Mac's an all time great.

That can't be proven regardless if he choked a 2 set lead or not. You know that. Come on now.

 

[veroniquem]

Of course no expert would agree with this nonsense, clearly this guy hasn't been watching tennis long, Mac's 84 was one of the best seasons ever, if he doesn't choke away a 2 set lead to Lendl in the FO final, he wins all 4 that year, the closest anyone's come since Laver, obviously Mac's an all time great.

Thank you. To me, it's so sad that anyone would show such a level of disrespect for a tennis legend like JMac. There aren't that many. The least we can do is treasure the ones we have...

 

[merlinpinpin]

That's it. merlinpinpin and Povl Carstensen lost the arguments.

We sure haven't. And as you're stating something (positive), the burden of proof is on you, so get cracking.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Back to the drawing board and the salient points of this thread, then, as our dear friend tried to muddle the issue by inflating his post count.

Is Djokovic an all-time great?

Still not. See page 2 or 3 for my take on the matter.

BTW, despite the fact that you started this thread, you still haven't given *your* opinion on the matter. Is it because you don't have one? Or because you're afraid you can't back it up with facts?

Have you proof Laver was not honest and sober when he made that list?

I don't need to, remember? Burden of proof is on you, yadda, yadda, so can you prove he was serious and sober at that time?

(Oh, and BTW, notice I wrote "serious", not "honest". Did you misquote me on purpose, the way you did with Agassi, or is it just something you can't help?)

Which leads us to:

Without understanding what was written? What if I thought that I understood what was written? What if I thought that I understood what was written? It is not hard to believe that, in rare occasions, I will make such a mistake.

The quote above shows that you also misquoted me, so these "rare occasions" don't seem to be that "rare" after all, do they?

Unless you can prove that you didn't do this on purpose, I'll go with Ockham's razor, here--the path of least resistance is that you did it on purpose both times. Which is consistent with your trolling behaviour.

 

[TMF]

This is most immature thread of all time.

 

[merlinpinpin]

This is most immature thread of all time.

Careful, or 5555 will ask you to prove it...

 

[Povl Carstensen]

That's it. merlinpinpin and Povl Carstensen lost the arguments.

You are entitled to that opinion.

 

[jokinla]

That can't be proven regardless if he choked a 2 set lead or not. You know that. Come on now.

He won the other 3 that year and was one set away from the last, the closest anyone has come since Laver, those are the facts, Mac's an all time great, "you know that, come on now".

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

He won the other 3 that year and was one set away from the last, the closest anyone has come since Laver, those are the facts, Mac's an all time great, "you know that, come on now".

Even if he won that set, he still wouldn't be anywhere near being in the GOAT conversation. You know that, come on now.

 

[jokinla]

Even if he won that set, he still wouldn't be anywhere near being in the GOAT conversation. You know that, come on now.

Federer is the GOAT, but Mac is an all time great, although if he wins that set, he certainly elevates his status in the GOAT talks.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Federer is the GOAT, but Mac is an all time great, although if he wins that set, he certainly elevates his status in the GOAT talks.

McEnroe, had he won the set, would have 8 Grand Slams. Less than half of what Federer has now. And less than his adversary, Borg. He is still not even close to being in discussions, in my mind.