Povl Carstensen
Legend
You agree with The-Champ that criteria for greatness is not a matter of opinion?
You outargued yourself long ago.Opinion can be false
Last edited:
You agree with The-Champ that criteria for greatness is not a matter of opinion?
You outargued yourself long ago.Opinion can be false
Top 10 based on what? His 5 slams? I doubt it. His career is not over, but now he's definitely not top 10 all-time yet.
You failed to answer why tennis experts disagree who is greater player between Ivan Lendl and Pancho Gonzales. Tennis experts disagree who is greater between Lendl and Gonzales because they can not agree what should be criteria for greatness. It's logic.
You lost the argument.
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.
Can you prove it's not?
Is that a fact or your opinion.
You outargued yourself long ago.
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.
Djokovic is not an all-time great. This is a fact.
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'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.
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.
Well 5555 is going to comeback and say you can't prove his Matrix world is real or fantasy.
You lost the 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.How do you mean? Explain.
He's in a fantasy world, all right.
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.
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 looser big time.
BAHAHAHAHA, Cup 1, 5555 ZERO!!!!!!! Fact.
Why I must prove that Young is the GOAT?
If you do not provide proof you will lose the argument.
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.[/B]?
You agree with The-Champ that criteria for greatness is not a matter of opinion?
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.Opinion can be false
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.
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.
Fact:
Novak Djokovic AO 2013 Champion
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
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).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.
I am not the one defending.Was it your last-ditch defence?
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
His problem is like Agassi; more than 50% of his majors are same event
If you do not provide proof you will lose the argument.
What Nadal doing in the top left corner?
How did u count it , is there an algo i am missing
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.
"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#
I refuted your defence. You have lost. By the way it does not seem that you disagree with me? Good choice.In my previous post I refuted your argument.
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.
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.