Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by 5555, Nov 25, 2012.
You outargued yourself long ago.
Can we sticky this thread? It is a great source of lulz.
Some people just have to believe that the greatest ever has to be playing right now. Looks like some even think the best 3 or 4 ever just happen to be playing right now as well. Its laughable to insist the best ever at every sport just has to be someone playing right now.
According to you one can argue Donald Young is greater than Pete Sampras. Greatness is nothing but opinion.
we get your logic now!!
You are not winning anything, you're just embarrassing yourself.
Donald Young wouldnt wear his hat sideways if he wasnt awesome.
Is 5555 the all-time greatest poster?
Can someone prove it.
Burden of proof is on person who makes allegation of fact, so he has to prove it's a fact.
How do you mean? Explain.
According to your logic, it's a fact that Ivan Lendl is greater player
than Pancho Gonzales (or vice versa). Stop embarrassing yourself.
Yes, I won.
I'm going to ask you just one more time: can you prove it's a fact? If you do not provide proof you will lose the argument.
I would say yes now. He is on the second tier with Edberg/Becker/Wilander. Not there with Lendl/Samprass/Connors/Agassi/....and not there with Fed.
Can you prove that Donald Young is NOT the GOAT? If you don't have any evidence, then you lost the arguement.
Define 'proof'. Or 'fact' for that matter.
For all you know, you could be living in a 'Matrix'-style fantasy world and nothing could be real.
He's in a fantasy world, all right.
Well 5555 is going to comeback and say you can't prove his Matrix world is real or fantasy.
You lost the argument.
You can't lose an argument to someone who can't MAKE an argument.
I posted examples of your selfcontradictory statements. You do the math, and if you are not able to, too bad for you. Either way, you are the loser big time.
BAHAHAHAHA, Cup 1, 5555 ZERO!!!!!!! Fact.
Why I must prove that Young is the GOAT?
definition of "proof" http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/proof?showCookiePolicy=true
definition of "fact" http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fact?showCookiePolicy=true
Can you prove it's a fact that Djokovic is not an all-time great?
Can you provide reasoning as to why the posts are contradictory? Yes or no?
If you, in your next reply, provide reasoning as to why the are posts contradictory, and then I fail to refute your argument, I will be the looser. As of now, that's not the case.
Can you prove it's a fact?
Barring injury...he's certainly headed that way. I'm thinking in the next two years, he will have at least 10 and he will be what...27. I also think he will easily pass Nadal by the time his career is over. Nadal is done for the most part. He might have one more French left but I don't know about that.
QUOTE=5555;7031744]"Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, Roddick's chief rivals, may very well be the greatest three players to ever play tennis"
"At the moment Andy is probably playing against three of the top eight players in the history of the game".
10. Edberg "
Rod Laver's TOP 10 at Open Era
"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."
"This guy surely now has a genuine claim to be labelled as one of the all-time greats."
"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.."
Because I think that he is. Prove me he's not. And....
If an opinion can be false, it is not really a matter of opinion. You're outta here a long time ago. Stop wasting peoples time.
Djoker is a mega pusher who is lucky that he is winning in this slow courts and is indeed playing in the weakest era with fed out of his prime, rafa struggling with injuries and murray being a choker. If he is playing in 90's courts or in prime fed period he would be having 0 slams..Rack up man rack up till your luck runs out.
Sounds about right.
Novak Djokovic AO 2013 Champion
It's not easy being a **** these days... Djokovic not winning a slam during 90's? Haha. A good one. Anyway, accepting the reality is never easy. Djoko is an all-time great. Ask any other all time great
Djokovic was on the cusp of being an all-time great even before his win at this year's AO. Just look at what he had accomplished. Now for sure he's part of the list.
Phoenix1983, you lost the argument.
In your previous post you said that I have to prove that Young is GOAT, but now you say that I must prove he is not GOAT. You got lost.
If you claim that he is GOAT, the burden of proof is on you.
Matter of opinion is a matter that is debatable http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/matter-of-opinion?showCookiePolicy=true. In debates there are often false statements.
So, I refuted your argument. Was it your last-ditch defence?
Wawrinka says hello
lol what about this :: The sad part if you watch , djoker clearly saw that ball was in..cheater he is not fair n square winner of ao
Did Waw leave his brain outside the court while playing? Its his own fault that he didn't challenge when he had 2 left.
Its job of linesmen to call!
Oh wait Fed lost fair and square to Murray in semis....whats so surprising about your post?
Yes, and thus the validity of the opinion on the matter is dependent on the factuality of the statements (which you now seem to equal with opinions).
Exactly what I said.
A statement is not intrinsically valid, just because it is on a matter of opinion, or itself an opinion on a matter.
I am not the one defending.
Lets see, he is the Australian Open GOAT, year end #1 back to back years which the likes of Agassi (and Connors in a real sense considering he was only the real #1 of 74, 76, and 82) couldnt even achieve, a 3 slam year which the likes of Sampras and Lendl couldnt achieve in modern times, overall a better career already than Becker, Edberg, and Wilander who most consider all time greats, and still only 25. Only on an alterior universe some people live on is he not an all time great. All time great doesnt = GOAT candidate. By that logic Nadal wouldnt be an all time great.
Q: Is Donald Young greater than Federer?
5555: Yes. Actually you can say that Donald Young is the GOAT, because greatness is a matter of opinion.
It really depends on how one defines "all time great" and there are plenty of different criteria that people could use. I would say: top 10 (open era) in # of masters, # of slams won and # of weeks at #1, WTF a +.
I say Djoko is easily making that list. He's guaranteed to pass Edberg now at # of weeks at #1, he's already top 9 in masters and he's in that ball park in slams too.
Djok is most certainly an all time great. And he will only add to his greatness by the time he retires.
His problem is like Agassi; more than 50% of his majors are same event
What Nadal doing in the top left corner?
At least, he's won 3 out of the 4. Borg and McEnroe won only 2.
FFS couldn't you type in even more detail? Put every word as a seperate quote next time!
There's your quote. You can start backpedalling now.
So once again. I say Young is the GOAT. IF YOU DO NOT PROVIDE PROOF YOU WILL LOSE THE ARGUEMENT.
How the hell is this a massive thread, of course Djokovic is an all time great. 6 majors, one of the most dominant seasons ever against 2 titans in Federer and Nadal. If he isn't an all time great then the list must be awfully short.
Lol haha that i dont know ,taken from youtube
Go to the main page(http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
On the top right corner there's a column named "replies". Below that column you'll see a link with a number(represent the total number of posts). Click on that link and a new window pops up with a list of all the usernames and their number of post.
Gr8 thanks didn't know this
Of course he is, is there really any debate on that?
I think the difference is that Djokovic will go down in the books, but not so much with the people, and that is sometimes most important.
Agassi will always be remembered for a story and greatness, Fed for his historical crushing of the record books - but unless Djokovic achieves not only historical greatness but has something that is truley compelling about his person, I dont see him being one of the truley great athletes in this sport that will be an ongoing memory or reference in the game.
Why is there still a question about his greatness or place in history amongst the tennis circles? I think he lacks the human element of excitement and compelling story. Ripping your shirt off and joking around on the court doesnt make you go down in history.
I refuted your defence. You have lost. By the way it does not seem that you disagree with me? Good choice.
Djokovic have also to be clearly better than someone else in at least one are of the game, otherwise he could become a kind of Sampras two: objectively great achievements, but a bit in the shadow of other. Nadal or Connors have smaller achievements overall than Sampras, but they have on area were they are the best.
I think Djokovic achieved this with 3AOs in a row.
I think he absolutely deserves to be considered an all time great at this point.
Separate names with a comma.