no such thing as "the big four"

Djokovic2011 said:
Doesn't matter. Fact remains that he hasn't won all the "big 5 titles" and probably never will.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But we may be saying the same about Djokovic if he can't win the FO and winning all of the slams is more important than winning a title outside of the slams. That is just the way it is. In other words it will be much bigger if Djokovic can't win a FO compared to Nadal not winning a WTF.

Don't worry though, Djokovic will probably win the FO. This year looks good for him.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
You see that's where cc0 will completely disagree with you because she doesn't care about anything other than the slams :wink:
Click to expand...
Masters 1000 tournaments mean quite a lot now. So, it is only natural they are in the conversation along with WTFs.
 
cc0509 said:
Perhaps. But we may be saying the same about Djokovic if he can't win the FO and winning all of the slams is more important than winning a title outside of the slams. That is just the way it is. In other words it will be much bigger if Djokovic can't win a FO compared to Nadal not winning a WTF.

Don't worry though, Djokovic will probably win the FO. This year looks good for him.
Click to expand...

I'm not worrying about it. I love tennis but it really doesn't mean that much to me.
 
cc0509 said:
It is not about that at all. Any person who is knowledgeable about tennis and tennis history would not agree with your opinion. It means that you must be very young and perhaps don't know a lot about tennis history. It is not an insult but a fact.
Click to expand...

A quick Google search shows many different views on who the top players are and how they should be ranked. None fully agrees with the others, an indication of how unreliable the whole process is. So I think we can skip arguments that rely on an appeal to authority, a well known fallacy.

Most sports use calendar year results to determine who is the best. A good starting point.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Yep, cc0 was very immature the way she responded to you then when you were doing nothing but put across your views in a rational, respectful manner. Very disappointing to see from her. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It doesn't change the fact that the poster must be very young and not so knowledgeable about tennis history. There is no reputable tennis historian or tennis great who would agree with his view. Not one.
 
GabeT said:
A quick Google search shows many different views on who the top players are and how they should be ranked. None fully agrees with the others, an indication of how unreliable the whole process is. So I think we can skip arguments that rely on an appeal to authority, a well known fallacy.

Most sports use calendar year results to determine who is the best. A good starting point.
Click to expand...

Forget Google. Ask any tennis analyst or great tennis player past or present and they will tell you it all starts and ends with the slams. That is a fact.
 
What makes me laugh about posters like cc0 is that they give this impression of being all blase whenever there's a Masters tournament being played but you can bet your bottom dollar if Federer's playing Djokovic in a final they all of a sudden become much more important to them lol. :lol:
 
cc0509 said:
It doesn't change the fact that the poster must be very young and not so knowledgeable about tennis history. There is no reputable tennis historian or tennis great who would agree with his view. Not one.
Click to expand...

I don't know, from what I've seen of his posts so far he seems pretty knowledgeable to me. If nothing else it's a relief to see I'm not the only one who believes that four major tournaments every year aren't the only thing that matter in the sport.
 
cc0509 said:
Forget Google. Ask any tennis analyst or great tennis player past or present and they will tell you it all starts and ends with the slams. That is a fact.
Click to expand...

I just told you. A Google search shows that the so called experts all have different opinions. And no, they by no means rely solely on Slams, an obsession which you should know is recent in tennis history and wasn't there in the 1970s and 1980s. A quick look at a few of the "best of all time" lists available online shows they look at slams but also look at longevity, weeks at number 1, variety of wins and other factors.

You happen to think Slams are the be all and end all. So be it.

And you may want to look up the definition of "fact".
 
Djokovic2011 said:
What makes me laugh about posters like cc0 is that they give this impression of being all blase whenever there's a Masters tournament being played but you can bet your bottom dollar if Federer's playing Djokovic in a final they all of a sudden become much more important to them lol. :lol:
Click to expand...

Sure, I always root for Federer to beat Djokovic in any event but I know that another Masters 1000 titles means very little for Federer's legacy. The 2014 Wimbledon Djokovic vs Federer final for example was a much bigger deal. If Federer would have won that Wimbledon, he would be the stand alone greatest ever Wimbledon player. If he wins a Rome title, what exactly would that do for his legacy? You know it. I am not sure why you keep trying to fight something that is obvious. That Wimbledon title was big for Djokovic as well as it proved he could win something other than AOs again and lifted his confidence.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Doesn't matter. Fact remains that he hasn't won all the "big 5 titles" and probably never will.
Click to expand...
The only player who has won the big 5 is Fed (and Agassi)
For me, it's the big 14 anyway and no argument there because it's never been done!!
Fed and Djoko are the closest with only 2 missing. Nadal has 3 missing.
My opinion is that Djoko already has some categories above Fedal.
Fed: more master titles, better winning %
Nadal: more weeks at #1, more WTF titles.
Which means that unless one is a rabid Djoko hater (cc type) or a rigid slam purist , there isn't any problem in ranking all 3 of them in the category: best players of open era.
 
GabeT said:
I just told you. A Google search shows that the so called experts all have different opinions. And no, they by no means rely solely on Slams, an obsession which you should know is recent in tennis history and wasn't there in the 1970s and 1980s. A quick look at a few of the "best of all time" lists available online shows they look at slams but also look at longevity, weeks at number 1, variety of wins and other factors.

You happen to think Slams are the be all and end all. So be it.

And you may want to look up the definition of "fact".
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong. All tennis analysts start with slam count. I don't know which lists you are talking about which you found on Google. Every reputable list I have ever seen puts slams count first. That is a fact. Why don't you tweet or email any reputable tennis historian or tennis great and ask them if you don't believe me and see what they tell you.
 
cc0509 said:
Sure, I always root for Federer to beat Djokovic in any event but I know that another Masters 1000 titles means very little for Federer's legacy. The 2014 Wimbledon Djokovic vs Federer final for example was a much bigger deal. If Federer would have won that Wimbledon, he would be the stand alone greatest ever Wimbledon player. If he wins a Rome title, what exactly would that do for his legacy? You know it. I am not sure why you keep trying to fight something that is obvious. That Wimbledon title was big for Djokovic as well as it proved he could win something other than AOs again and lifted his confidence.
Click to expand...

That proves that the slams are more important than the masters. Everyone knows that already. I don't like the idea of "two masters equals a slam" but saying it does nothing for your legacy is an exaggeration. Why will Nadal go down as the greatest clay player to grace our sport? The French opens are half the answer, the other half is the dominance he showed at the clay masters.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
I don't know, from what I've seen of his posts so far he seems pretty knowledgeable to me. If nothing else it's a relief to see I'm not the only one who believes that four major tournaments every year aren't the only thing that matter in the sport.
Click to expand...

Focusing only on Slams is a way of dumbing down a very complex process so that the average fan can understand it. Tennis, unlike many other sports, is really several sports meshed into one, with differences in surfaces and tournaments, so it can be hard for the casual fan to understand who is better or worse. Focusing just on Slams is a way for the press to make it easier to understand. But this is a forum of people with a specialized interest. We can do better.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
I don't know, from what I've seen of his posts so far he seems pretty knowledgeable to me. If nothing else it's a relief to see I'm not the only one who believes that four major tournaments every year aren't the only thing that matter in the sport.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they are the only tournaments which matter but they matter most. Can you not understand the difference? And no, Gabe T seems far from knowledgeable IMO. He seems extremely young and naïve. I am sure he is a lovely kid though. ;)
 
cc0509 said:
Sure, I always root for Federer to beat Djokovic in any event but I know that another Masters 1000 titles means very little for Federer's legacy. The 2014 Wimbledon Djokovic vs Federer final for example was a much bigger deal. If Federer would have won that Wimbledon, he would be the stand alone greatest ever Wimbledon player. If he wins a Rome title, what exactly would that do for his legacy? You know it. I am not sure why you keep trying to fight something that is obvious. That Wimbledon title was big for Djokovic as well as it proved he could win something other than AOs again and lifted his confidence.
Click to expand...

Winning another Rome title actually does quite a lot for Djokovic's legacy, especially if he never ends up winning the French.
 
veroniquem said:
The only player who has won the big 5 is Fed (and Agassi)
For me, it's the big 14 anyway and no argument there because it's never been done!!
Fed and Djoko are the closest with only 2 missing. Nadal has 3 missing.
My opinion is that Djoko already has some categories above Fedal.
Fed: more master titles, better winning %
Nadal: more weeks at #1, more WTF titles.
Which means that unless one is a rabid Djoko hater (cc type) or a rigid slam purist , there isn't any problem in ranking all 3 of them in the category: best players of open era.
Click to expand...

Good post. I may have to add cc to the troll list. Getting a bit tiring.
 
cc0509 said:
I didn't say they are the only tournaments which matter but they matter most. Can you not understand the difference? And no, Gabe T seems far from knowledgeable IMO. He seems extremely young and naïve. I am sure he is a lovely kid though. ;)
Click to expand...

This is really silly and trollish. Is this the best you can do?

Sigh. There's always posters that ruin it for the rest.
 
GabeT said:
Good post. I may have to add cc to the troll list. Getting a bit tiring.
Click to expand...

She's actually a pretty decent poster but she can often be very negative and cynical which one can find pretty draining at times. And she ALWAYS majors in majors! :wink:
 
veroniquem said:
The only player who has won the big 5 is Fed (and Agassi)
For me, it's the big 14 anyway and no argument there because it's never been done!!
Fed and Djoko are the closest with only 2 missing. Nadal has 3 missing.
My opinion is that Djoko already has some categories above Fedal.
Fed: more master titles, better winning %
Nadal: more weeks at #1, more WTF titles.
Which means that unless one is a rabid Djoko hater (cc type) or a rigid slam purist , there isn't any problem in ranking all 3 of them in the category: best players of open era.
Click to expand...

I am not a rabid Djokovic hater, I am a slam purist however. If Djokovic can get closer to Nadal on slam count I have no problem seeing Djokovic and Nadal in the same category. I simply can't do it with a gap of six slams. Let Djokovic win at least a few more slams and continue his other great stats and then I can put him in the same category as Nadal. You can't be in the same category as another player with a gap of six slams no matter how good your other important stats are.

I respect Djokovic and his achievements. This has nothing to do with the fact that I don't like Djokovic's on court behavior. Djokovic has a great opportunity to win the FO this year, more so than any other year IMO. Let's start there and see if he finally does it. I give every player credit based on their achievements. Accomplishing the Career Slam would be a great achievement for Djokovic.
 
GabeT said:
Focusing only on Slams is a way of dumbing down a very complex process so that the average fan can understand it. Tennis, unlike many other sports, is really several sports meshed into one, with differences in surfaces and tournaments, so it can be hard for the casual fan to understand who is better or worse. Focusing just on Slams is a way for the press to make it easier to understand. But this is a forum of people with a specialized interest. We can do better.
Click to expand...
Back when Sampras reigned supreme, all that mattered was Grand Slams. This carried onto Federer and his generation.

Only very recently have Masters 1000 trophies reached the level of appreciation they have. It still doesn't mean they shouldn't be weighed fairly.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
She's actually a pretty decent poster but she can often be very negative and cynical which one can find pretty draining at times. And she ALWAYS majors in majors! :wink:
Click to expand...

When did this obsession with Slam counts start? I don't recall it at all when I was watching tennis back in the 80s.
 
GabeT said:
When did this obsession with Slam counts start? I don't recall it at all when I was watching tennis back in the 80s.
Click to expand...
It started when Sampras was approaching the slam record. Americans hyped up the Grand Slams and the rest is history.
 
GabeT said:
Good post. I may have to add cc to the troll list. Getting a bit tiring.
Click to expand...
Of course you're right. If CC won't give credit to Djoko's tennis achievements, that's her own problem and nobody else's...
It's one thing to dislike a player on the basis of personality/style and quite another to deny their records.
Like hell, a player with 24+ master titles, 8+ slams, 4+ WTF and 3 or 4 year ends at #1 (+ one of the best seasons in open era ) should be retrograded to a sub-category. Only in her dreams.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Winning another Rome title actually does quite a lot for Djokovic's legacy, especially if he never ends up winning the French.
Click to expand...

It does absolutely zero especially if he doesn't win the FO. Stop trolling. If Djokovic loses this FO with Nadal in his current state, you will have to stay away from this forum for a month because the Djokovic derision will be large. ;)

As I said before though, don't worry. This will probably be your year.
 
cc0509 said:
It does absolutely zero especially if he doesn't win the FO. Stop trolling. If Djokovic loses this FO with Nadal in his current state, you will have to stay away from this forum for a month because the Djokovic derision will be large. ;)

As I said before though, don't worry. This will probably be your year.
Click to expand...

I disagree cc0. When talking about Djokovic's clay pedigree in future, those seven Masters of his won't simply be swept under the rug just because he failed to win the major prize. Especially when he beat Nadal to win five of them.
 
GabeT said:
This is really silly and trollish. Is this the best you can do?

Sigh. There's always posters that ruin it for the rest.
Click to expand...

Put me on ignore then. I have read a lot of your posts and most of them make me cringe. I don't think you can be older than 17 and I don't think you have a vast knowledge of tennis history. Contrast that to Veroniquem for example who is an insatiable Nadal/Djokovic fangirl but at the same time she knows something about tennis history (aside from her classifying slams and Masters 1000s as tier one events.;))
 
cc0509 said:
Put me on ignore then. I have read a lot of your posts and most of them make me cringe. I don't think you can be older than 17 and I don't think you have a vast knowledge of tennis history. Contrast that to Veroniquem for example who is an insatiable Nadal/Djokovic fangirl but at the same time she knows something about tennis history (aside from her classifying slams and Masters 1000s as tier one events.;))
Click to expand...

I don't get what you find so wrong about putting slams and Masters 1000s together as tier 1 tournaments. It seems kinda silly to me that there would be only 4 tier 1 events out of all the dozens that get played every year, especially considering there are twice as many Masters. :?
 
Djokovic2011 said:
I disagree cc0. When talking about Djokovic's clay pedigree in future, those seven Masters of his won't simply be swept under the rug just because he failed to win the major prize. Especially when he beat Nadal to win five of them.
Click to expand...

Keep dreaming. Nobody will care. He has to win the FO to solidify his clay court status. Don't be silly, seriously.

But I think he will probably do it this year.
 
cc0509 said:
Put me on ignore then. I have read a lot of your posts and most of them make me cringe. I don't think you can be older than 17 and I don't think you have a vast knowledge of tennis history. Contrast that to Veroniquem for example who is an insatiable Nadal/Djokovic fangirl but at the same time she knows something about tennis history (aside from her classifying slams and Masters 1000s as tier one events.;))
Click to expand...

Your passive-aggressive ignorant postings are quite grating. You don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. You claim to know tennis history but are apparently unaware that the importance of Slam counts is relatively recent and the importance of individual Slams has varied widely over the years, making them useless as the sole or main unit of measure.

I'll follow your advice and ignore you from now on.
 
GabeT said:
Your passive-aggressive ignorant postings are quite grating. You don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. You claim to know tennis history but are apparently unaware that the importance of Slam counts is relatively recent and the importance of individual Slams has varied widely over the years, making them useless as the sole or main unit of measure.


I'll follow your advice and ignore you from now on.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Slams mattered long before Sampras.

Good riddance. ;)
 
cc0509 said:
That is wrong. The importance of slams started long before Sampras. Ask Borg and McEnroe.;)
Click to expand...
Yeah ask them, especially since McEnroe has won FEWER slams total than still active Djoko and Borg (like McEnroe) won only 2 of the 4 slams (never USO for Borg, never RG for McEnroe) while Djoko has already won 3 of them...
On top of which, neither McEnroe nor Borg even bothered playing all 4 slams. I bet Philadelphia meant more to them than AO.
 
cc0509 said:
Keep dreaming. Nobody will care. He has to win the FO to solidify his clay court status. Don't be silly, seriously.

But I think he will probably do it this year.
Click to expand...

Depends who you mean by "nobody". If you mean the general public who don't really pay attention to tennis(and who cares what they think anyway) then you're probably right. But if you're talking about actual tennis commentators/analyists, of course Nole's 7 clay Masters add something to his legacy. To say otherwise seems very silly to me.
 
I actually agree with cc0509

I really don't understand the logic of putting Rafa and Djokovic in the same league especially with a gap of SIX slams. It's too big a gulf. On top of that Djokovic is yet to win RG.

Of course he may win it this year and may come closer to Rafa's slam count, then we can talk about it but as of now, Rafa is a tier above Djokovic
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Not to the same extent though.
Click to expand...

That is a fallacy and shows the lack of understanding of tennis history many posters have. Most posters on this board are teens or maybe they are 22/23 and they have no reference point. One ignoramus utters that Sampras started the slam trend and a bunch of parrots repeat it.

I repeat, ask Borg and McEnroe if the slams mattered most to them in their day.
 
Feather said:
I actually agree with cc0509

I really don't understand the logic of putting Rafa and Djokovic in the same league especially with a gap of SIX slams. It's too big a gulf. On top of that Djokovic is yet to win RG.

Of course he may win it this year and may come closer to Rafa's slam count, then we can talk about it but as of now, Rafa is a tier above Djokovic
Click to expand...

A reasonable poster! God bless you!

icon_hug.gif
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Depends who you mean by "nobody". If you mean the general public who don't really pay attention to tennis(and who cares what they think anyway) then you're probably right. But if you're talking about actual tennis commentators/analyists, of course Nole's 7 clay Masters add something to his legacy. To say otherwise seems very silly to me.
Click to expand...

Of course his clay court titles add to his legacy. No one is denying that!

However a missing RG is a serious dent on his clay status. By the way, I want Djokovic to win RG. He is too good a clay court player to be denied of an RG title. It would be a travesty of justice if Djokovic didn't win RG
 
cc0509 said:
That is a fallacy and shows the lack of understanding of tennis history many posters have. Most posters on this board are teens or maybe they are 22/23 and they have no reference point. One ignoramus utters that Sampras started the slam trend and a bunch of parrots repeat it.

I repeat, ask Borg and McEnroe if the slams mattered most to them in their day.
Click to expand...
I've been watching tennis since 1995, and since 2011 I've taken a deeper look into the history of the game. If that makes me a child, (or an ignoramus) so be it. But my point still stands.

In 1995, most people were talking about Sampras' weeks at #1 and dominance over the field, come 1998 it was all about the Grand Slams. If that doesn't show even a slight shift over the course of time then I don't know what does.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Wow, you're in a grouchy mood tonight cc0! GabeT is a decent poster - what's got into you?! :shock:
Click to expand...

Luckily, I can't read that poster anymore!

I wonder is he/she is actually 17? How can you be so unaware of how much the importance of Slams has changed over the years?
 
GabeT said:
Not at all, in fact. Absent injury today no player would dream of skipping a Slam, any Slam, while that was quite common in the past. No comparison.
Click to expand...

look at the money offered in slams. even losing at the first round gives many bucks.
 
Sabratha said:
I've been watching tennis since 1995, and since 2011 I've taken a deeper look into the history of the game. If that makes me a child, (or an ignoramus) so be it. But my point still stands.

In 1995, most people were talking about Sampras' weeks at #1 and dominance over the field, come 1998 it was all about the Grand Slams. If that doesn't show even a slight shift over the course of time then I don't know what does.
Click to expand...

I started watching in the late 70s/early 80s. Back then Slams were important but they were not the be all and end all they are made to be today. I stopped watching for a long time after that so I wasn't sure when the whole Slam fetish began. it makes sense the US press hyped it after Sampras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Big Four or No Big Four - That is the question
2 3
Replies
138
Views
4K
mattosgrant
M
mbm0912
"Big Four" No More?
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
Jheaphy
J
Levi_Ackerman
The Concept of the "Big Four"
Replies
37
Views
1K
Mainad
Mainad
Mick
Stan: I'm not as good as the Big Four
2
Replies
69
Views
5K
Chanwan
Chanwan
D
The Big Four
Replies
25
Views
2K
rockandroll
R
Back
Top