Not all Year End #1 are equally impressive

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
This is all such nonsense. Answer this question.

Do you believe it is a greater accomplishment for Federer to defeat Roddick in straight-sets or Nadal in 5 sets?

Answer that.

Both still count as a Wimbledon win. However if one wins 3 slams/year to 1 slam/year then there's no argument as which one is more accomplished. Duh.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
well then you're not paying attention!

'objective authority' on subjective criteria :confused:

you would pose such a cognitively dissonant concept :rolleyes:

Whatever. I haven't made statements about knowing what the real deal is. That's all you.
 

mightyrick

Legend
Both still count as a Wimbledon win. However if one wins 3 slams/year to 1 slam/year then there's no argument as which one is more accomplished. Duh.

In a single year, winning 3 slams is more accomplished than winning 1 slam in that same year. I will concede that. Completely self-evident. That is a system where all variables are the same.

However, you cannot compare whether or not winning 3 slams in one year is "more accomplished" than winning 2 slams in a completely different year. There are too many unknown factors involved to make such a comparison.

The only thing you can compare -- one year to another -- is whether or not two players played well enough to be better than anyone else. That is all you can absolutely know.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Actually the thing that makes you go crazy is that your logic doesn't work out -- and you know it. Your last statement above is the entire point. You cannot prove (either way) what contributes to a margin of victory. So you have to just take a victory as a victory.

Your logic is incredibly flawed. On one hand, you treat all opponents (of Federer) as if they are the exact same skill level. You also treat Federer's effort as being completely the same against all opponents. It's nonsense.

You cannot logically claim that all eras are equal and in the same breath and then say that the top player(s) within that era can be more dominant than others. That is completely contradictory.

You are only trolling, it is obvious.

Well, I can't prove 100% what contributes to margins of victory, but I can prove 100% that Fed has greater margins of victory. That is a fact.

I can't prove Fed being better contributes to his greater margins. But you also can't prove that it doesn't.

BUT, we can prove what's more likely. It's FAR more likely that Federer is greater than Sampras, than Fed having weaker competition. Why? Because it's far more likely that one guy is exception to the rule than entire era being exception to the rule.

I mean I can't prove that 100%, but the likelihood of entire era being weak is so low, that's close to impossible.

It's science basically.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
funny how the OP (and many of his brethren) can all of a sudden make subjective and qualitative judgments when it comes to YE#1s; but of course such discerning is off the table when it comes to levels/quality of competition at different times :rolleyes:

My posts are based on facts/data and not subjective judgments(see data below). The achievements by all players in the year that they ended the year #1 is never the same. Using that logic, then 3 slams =1 slam or 12 titles = 4 titles. No way they are equally impressive.

There's no fact/data to prove which generation has greater quality field, and argument heading nowhere except reeks of bias.


Sampras 6 YE #1:
1993: 85-16(84%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 8 titles
1994: 77-12(86%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 10 titles
1995: 72-16(82%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, 5 titles
1996: 65-11(85%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, YEC, 8 titles
1997: 55-12(82%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
1998: 61-17(78%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, 4 titles


Federer 5 YE #1:
2004: 74-6(93%); 3 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 11 titles
2005: 81-4(95%), 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 11 titles
2006: 92-5(95%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 12 titles
2007: 68-9(88%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
2009: 61-12(84%), 2 slams, 4 slam finals, 4 titls

Nadal 3 YE #1:
2008: 82-11(88%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 8 titles
2010: 71-10(88%); 3 slams, 3 slam finals, 7 titles
2013: 75-7(91%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, 10 titles


Nole 2 YE #1:
2011: 70-6(92%); 3 slams, 3 slam finals, 10 titles
2012: 75-12(86%); 1 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 6 titles

Lendl 4 YE #1:
1985: 84-7(92%); 1 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 11 titles
1986*: 74-6(93%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 9 titles
1987: 74-7(91%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
1989: 79-7(92%); 1 slams, 2 slam finals, 10 titles
* The Australian Open Tennis was not played in the year 1986 so that year Lendl only played 3 slam tournaments.


Nadal 3 YE #1 is pretty impressive(despite no WTF) and I don't understand Nadal fans like you getting your panties all in a bunch.
 

mightyrick

Legend
Well, I can't prove 100% what contributes to margins of victory, but I can prove 100% that Fed has greater margins of victory. That is a fact.

I can't prove Fed being better contributes to his greater margins. But you also can't prove that it doesn't.

Ok, so what you're saying is that greater margins of victory is not an indicator greatness. You can't prove it one way or the other. So take it off the table.

BUT, we can prove what's more likely. It's FAR more likely that Federer is greater than Sampras, than Fed having weaker competition. Why? Because it's far more likely that one guy is exception to the rule than entire era being exception to the rule.

You can't prove this, either. I'm not even sure why you're saying it.

I mean I can't prove that 100%, but the likelihood of entire era being weak is so low, that's close to impossible.

Nobody is arguing about weak or strong eras.

All of your bad logic comes back to two basic things. Is it better for a player to have more slams but less years being the best player in the field? Or is it better to have more years being the best player in the field but less slams.

You have to make your own mind up with whatever justifications you see fit.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
My posts are based on facts/data and not subjective judgments(see data below). The achievements by all players in the year that they ended the year #1 is never the same. Using that logic, then 3 slams =1 slam or 12 titles = 4 titles. No way they are equally impressive.

There's no fact/data to prove which generation has greater quality field, and argument heading nowhere except reeks of bias.


Sampras 6 YE #1:
1993: 85-16(84%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 8 titles
1994: 77-12(86%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 10 titles
1995: 72-16(82%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, 5 titles
1996: 65-11(85%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, YEC, 8 titles
1997: 55-12(82%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
1998: 61-17(78%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, 4 titles


Federer 5 YE #1:
2004: 74-6(93%); 3 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 11 titles
2005: 81-4(95%), 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 11 titles
2006: 92-5(95%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 12 titles
2007: 68-9(88%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
2009: 61-12(84%), 2 slams, 4 slam finals, 4 titls

Nadal 3 YE #1:
2008: 82-11(88%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 8 titles
2010: 71-10(88%); 3 slams, 3 slam finals, 7 titles
2013: 75-7(91%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, 10 titles


Nole 2 YE #1:
2011: 70-6(92%); 3 slams, 3 slam finals, 10 titles
2012: 75-12(86%); 1 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 6 titles

Lendl 4 YE #1:
1985: 84-7(92%); 1 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 11 titles
1986*: 74-6(93%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 9 titles
1987: 74-7(91%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
1989: 79-7(92%); 1 slams, 2 slam finals, 10 titles
* The Australian Open Tennis was not played in the year 1986 so that year Lendl only played 3 slam tournaments.


Nadal 3 YE #1 is pretty impressive(despite no WTF) and I don't understand Nadal fans like you getting your panties all in a bunch.

Yeah baby. Science can ruin lives :). That's why we Fed fans win. We have facts on our sides. Even if the other side are better debaters, it's still easier to argue when you are more likely to be right.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
If you knew it was pete's weakest years - why did you get one of fed's strongest and compare like that?? Don't use stats if you are going to abuse them. If you wanted to pull stats up from fed, then go and get the top ten every year pete was 1 and every year fed finished 1 and then compare. Cherry picking at its finest.

Most of fed's rivals weren't in their prime when he finished 1 (young rafa, old agassi, is roddick a rival? is hewitt?)

who was a year round threat in the 90's? agassi maybe, he only made 1 final and 2 semis in 20 cracks at the french. That's my whole point - the 90's was harder to dominate because of how different it was to play on every surface. Back to my original point - stupid to compare eras

You're hilarious. You said "pick any year in which Sampras finished no 1". I'm pretty sure that 1997 and 1998 are included in "any". If you were so confident into winning the argument now remain as confident when you get owned. So either cry some more or stop making overconfident statements cause you're gonna get burned.

Btw 1996 wasn't that impressive either. Neither was 1995 if you go through the names - even Edberg was top 10 at the time despite losing in the first couple of rounds in every Slam. 1993 and 1994 were good, tho, especially 1993.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
McEnroe 4 YE #1:
1981*: 76-10(88%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 10 titles
1982**: 71-9(89%); 0 slams, 1 slam finals, 5 titles
1983***: 63-11(85%); 1 slams, 1 slam finals, YEC, 7 titles
1984****: 82-3(96%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 13 titles

*Didn't play AO but won Dallas Dallas WCT
**Didn't play AO but a runner-up at Dallas WCT
***AO Semifinalist. Won Dallas WCT by beating Lendl
****Didn't play AO but won Dallas WCT by beating Connors


I'm not saying Dallas WCT is equivalent to the modern AO with 128-man draw but the WCT was a big tournament in the 80s.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
I don't understand why this discussion is still going on.

1. All YE#1s are equal in value
2. All player seasons are not equal in value
3. Sampras's 1996 YE#1 = Federer's 2006 YE#1
4. Sampras's 1996 season << Federer's 2006 season
5. Slam > YE#1 (ask any Tennis player or the ATP)
6. 3 Slams + 1 WTF + 4 Slam runner-ups + 10 Masters >>>>> 1 YE#1
7. Federer >> Sampras

Easy, really.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
It wasn't a year end ranking Indio - i went to ATP site and clicked a random week of the 95 season to get a snapshot of players instead of posting the top ten from every year 93-98. only two guys there without slams. pretty weak

Hilarious again. If it's OK to pick a week at random to determine what the top 10 was in a particular year I'll go with the first week of 2006 to say what the top 10 looked like that year.

I'll pretty much get the top 10 from 2005, LOL, where we had Federer, Nadal, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Agassi (who despite being 35 was still a way bigger factor than Edberg after his 28th birthday).
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
Hilarious again. If it's OK to pick a week at random to determine what the top 10 was in a particular year I'll go with the first week of 2006 to say what the top 10 looked like that year.

I'll pretty much get the top 10 from 2005, LOL, where we had Federer, Nadal, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Agassi (who despite being 35 was still a way bigger factor than Edberg after his 28th birthday).

He pretty much shot himself in the foot the second he asked to show any year, and then complained about choosing a particular year :lol:
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
You can't prove this, either. I'm not even sure why you're saying it.

So we can't say Federer is greater than Sampras because we can't prove it despite Federer accomplished more than him in every area. Then what's the point in ranking the greatest players of all time in tennis, basketball, hockey and every other sports?

Murray fans can dispute that Sampras is greater player than Murray simply because no one can prove it.

Along with:
Davy=Agassi
Santoro=Laver
Chang=Borg
etc...
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
I'd say dimitrov's level now is equal if not greater than prime hewitt. Roddick on the quick old US open courts was amazing - i think he would have given the young crop a good hiding there

WHAT...

Anyway, 2013 Queen's club. Nuff said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLyDeBEZ6qM

So what you're saying is that an almost-prime Hewitt (Dimitrov) got owned by a so-out-of-his-prime-it's-not-even-funny Hewitt in 2013?
 
Last edited:

DRII

G.O.A.T.
My posts are based on facts/data and not subjective judgments(see data below). The achievements by all players in the year that they ended the year #1 is never the same. Using that logic, then 3 slams =1 slam or 12 titles = 4 titles. No way they are equally impressive.

There's no fact/data to prove which generation has greater quality field, and argument heading nowhere except reeks of bias.


Sampras 6 YE #1:
1993: 85-16(84%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 8 titles
1994: 77-12(86%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 10 titles
1995: 72-16(82%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, 5 titles
1996: 65-11(85%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, YEC, 8 titles
1997: 55-12(82%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
1998: 61-17(78%); 1 slam, 1 slam final, 4 titles


Federer 5 YE #1:
2004: 74-6(93%); 3 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 11 titles
2005: 81-4(95%), 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 11 titles
2006: 92-5(95%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 12 titles
2007: 68-9(88%), 3 slams, 4 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
2009: 61-12(84%), 2 slams, 4 slam finals, 4 titls

Nadal 3 YE #1:
2008: 82-11(88%); 2 slams, 2 slam finals, 8 titles
2010: 71-10(88%); 3 slams, 3 slam finals, 7 titles
2013: 75-7(91%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, 10 titles


Nole 2 YE #1:
2011: 70-6(92%); 3 slams, 3 slam finals, 10 titles
2012: 75-12(86%); 1 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 6 titles

Lendl 4 YE #1:
1985: 84-7(92%); 1 slams, 2 slam finals, YEC, 11 titles
1986*: 74-6(93%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 9 titles
1987: 74-7(91%); 2 slams, 3 slam finals, YEC, 8 titles
1989: 79-7(92%); 1 slams, 2 slam finals, 10 titles
* The Australian Open Tennis was not played in the year 1986 so that year Lendl only played 3 slam tournaments.


Nadal 3 YE #1 is pretty impressive(despite no WTF) and I don't understand Nadal fans like you getting your panties all in a bunch.

no one is complaining about your claim, thats your opinion and you have every right to it. its just the hypocrisy of using subjective analysis or selective facts (like including YEC but avoiding master series or Singles Olympic Gold) when it suits your argument, but avoiding qualitative discerning when it weakens your position.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
no one is complaining about your claim, thats your opinion and you have every right to it. its just the hypocrisy of using subjective analysis or selective facts (like including YEC but avoiding master series or Singles Olympic Gold) when it suits your argument, but avoiding qualitative discerning when it weakens your position.

Well, YEC > Masters and Olympics, so it's obvious it's going to be mentioned first. Takes too much time to list every title.
 

mightyrick

Legend
So we can't say Federer is greater than Sampras because we can't prove it despite Federer accomplished more than him in every area. Then what's the point in ranking the greatest players of all time in tennis, basketball, hockey and every other sports?

Murray fans can dispute that Sampras is greater player than Murray simply because no one can prove it.

Along with:
Davy=Agassi
Santoro=Laver
Chang=Borg
etc...

You guys can say whatever you want. If you think slam count is the deal. Great. If you think consecutive weeks, months, years at #1 is the deal, great. If you think consecutive slam finals is the deal, great.

To me, being the best ever means you were the best player in the world for the longest period of time. Being the best ever doesn't mean you have a higher density of accomplishments for a shorter period of time. Sorry, I don't buy that.

Setting a bunch of statistical records doesn't make you the best. This is a generally accepted understanding in other sports.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
An Elite Exhibitionary Event, where you can lose but still win, is not > S.O.G. or even a proper Master Series title.

competitive legitimacy is just too weak in a RR format!

sorry...
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Kuerten YE #1:
2000: 63-22(74%); 1 slams, 1 slam finals, YEC, 5 titles


Kuerten didn't have a stellar numbers when compare to other YE #1 players, especially with a 22 losses.

At least he had a better year than Sampras 1998 because he won the YEC along with a Master Shield.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
You guys can say whatever you want. If you think slam count is the deal. Great. If you think consecutive weeks, months, years at #1 is the deal, great. If you think consecutive slam finals is the deal, great.

To me, being the best ever means you were the best player in the world for the longest period of time. Being the best ever doesn't mean you have a higher density of accomplishments for a shorter period of time. Sorry, I don't buy that.

Setting a bunch of statistical records doesn't make you the best. This is a generally accepted understanding in other sports.

Honest question, what do you think any player would prefer? A season with 2 Slams and a YE#2, or a season with 1 Slam and a YE#1?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
no one is complaining about your claim, thats your opinion and you have every right to it. its just the hypocrisy of using subjective analysis or selective facts (like including YEC but avoiding master series or Singles Olympic Gold) when it suits your argument, but avoiding qualitative discerning when it weakens your position.

I gave fact/data just like in every sports provided fact/data. In tennis, the biggest event are the 4 slams, follow by the YEC, so I'm not cherry picking because it is what it is in the past decades. I can include MS, ATP500 and ATP250 too, but those are small, vastly overshadowed by other major events.

In case you didn't know, the top 4 criteria use by the tennis experts are:
* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events

You can't use Olympics to hold against past players since it wasn't available and/or important back then. That's like using indoor carpet to holds against Nadal when there's no such surface today.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
sorry, but there is vast disagreement on the relative significance of the YEC...

When it doubt, look at what the ATP say. They are the governing body.

Slams > YEC > Masters > Olympics

No ambiguity at all. It's clear as crystal.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
sorry, but there is vast disagreement on the relative significance of the YEC...

Only from nut hugging Rafa fanboys like you...the ATP recognizes it as the biggest event outside of the slams. It has prestige dating back 40 years where it was above even the USO. Its been called the World Championships in the past and players have called qualifying the proudest moment of their career.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
When it doubt, look at what the ATP say. They are the governing body.

Slams > YEC > Masters > Olympics

No ambiguity at all. It's clear as crystal.

so a governing body is your absolute arbitor on these issues.

doesn't work that way with me.

so going by your logic, winning two YECs is worth more than winning a slam in a players career (if its all about points) :confused:

sure thing :rolleyes:
 

mightyrick

Legend
Honest question, what do you think any player would prefer? A season with 2 Slams and a YE#2, or a season with 1 Slam and a YE#1?

From a financial point? 2 slams and YE #2. From any other standpoint, I don't know. It depends on the player and where they are in their career. A new guy is going to take 2 slams and YE #2.

However, if you asked Djokovic this question, I think he'd take a single FO win over Nadal and YE#1 in the same year over two other slams and YE#2. Why? Because he wants to be the best player. I think Federer would say the same thing. At this point, I think Nadal would say the same thing regarding Djokovic and the AO. I think Sampras would trade two of his slams for a single FO title.

At the level that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic are at, I honestly believe that their goal is to be the best -- whatever that means. Whatever it takes.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
so a governing body is your absolute arbitor on these issues.
You do realize that the ATP basically follows the players, right? If players demanded more points for Olympics, it would be that way.

doesn't work that way with me.

so going by your logic, winning two YECs is worth more than winning a slam in a players career (if its all about points) :confused:

sure thing :rolleyes:
The ATP gives you the tiers of events. Whether it not you want to follow the ranking points precisely is upto you. Even the ATP sometimes disagrees with its system by rewarding someone other than the #1 player of the year. There is absolutely no disputing, though, that YEC > Masters/Olympics.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Only from nut hugging Rafa fanboys like you...the ATP recognizes it as the biggest event outside of the slams. It has prestige dating back 40 years where it was above even the USO. Its been called the World Championships in the past and players have called qualifying the proudest moment of their career.

more insecurity from you!

I don’t care care what the ATP says, learn how to make your own judgments! any event where you can lose but still win is not approaching the legitimacy of a slam or coveted MS tournament.

The WTF is an elite exhibition with grand ceremony. Of course it’s a great title to have, but as usual you’re going overboard!
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
From a financial point? 2 slams and YE #2. From any other standpoint, I don't know. It depends on the player and where they are in their career. A new guy is going to take 2 slams and YE #2.

However, if you asked Djokovic this question, I think he'd take a single FO win over Nadal and YE#1 in the same year over two other slams and YE#2. Why? Because he wants to be the best player. I think Federer would say the same thing. At this point, I think Nadal would say the same thing regarding Djokovic and the AO. I think Sampras would trade two of his slams for a single FO title.

At the level that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic are at, I honestly believe that their goal is to be the best -- whatever that means. Whatever it takes.

You're completely wrong. Today, players care about the Slam count more than anything. You think Federer would risk his Slam record for a YE#1? How often do you see anyone mention the YE#1 while ranking players? You are the only one that uses it as the sole metric. Nobody else does. Why? Because the primary objective of Tennis is to win titles. Not to plan your year so you can rank #1 at the end of the year. Why do you think Federer skipped Paris in late 2012, basically giving up any chance of ending the year at #1? Because it wasn't so important. Can you imagine Federer skipping Wimbledon for rest?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
more insecurity from you!

I don’t care care what the ATP says, learn how to make your own judgments! any event where you can lose but still win is not approaching the legitimacy of a slam or coveted MS tournament.

The WTF is an elite exhibition with grand ceremony. Of course it’s a great title to have, but as usual you’re going overboard!

I do make my own judgements, learn what an exhibition is you imbecile. Exhibition tournaments aren't official ATP tournaments, nor do they award ranking points!

Round robin format events are common place in sports. No other event requires you to play 5 events against the top 8 players in the world. But that's not legitimate.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
I do make my own judgements, learn what an exhibition is you imbecile. Exhibition tournaments aren't official ATP tournaments, nor do they award ranking points!

Round robin format events are common place in sports. No other event requires you to play 5 events against the top 8 players in the world. But that's not legitimate.

what, is the ATP your effing sugar daddy :twisted:

again, idc what the ATP says! the YEC is an elite exhibition, plain and simple.

RR has little place in an individual sport, except for its entertainment value or in rewarding lowered tiered trophies, such as the bronze in the Olympics.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
the YEC is an elite exhibition, plain and simple.

An exhibition game (also known as a demonstration, a friendly, a warmup match, a scrimmage, or a preparation match, depending at least in part on the sport) is a sporting event whose prize money and impact on the team's rankings is either zero or otherwise greatly reduced. Matches of this type are often used to help managers select players for the competitive matches of a tournament and, if the players usually play in different teams in other leagues, it's an opportunity for the players to learn to work with each other. The games can be held between separate teams or between parts of the same team.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibition_game

You are a troll, plain and simple, upset beyond imagination that Nadal has the worst win-loss record in history of any all-time great at a major tournament :lol:
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
what, is the ATP your effing sugar daddy :twisted:

again, idc what the ATP says! the YEC is an elite exhibition, plain and simple.

RR has little place in an individual sport, except for its entertainment value or in rewarding lowered tiered trophies, such as the bronze in the Olympics.

Your argument is essentially "I'm right because I say so and screw the people that actually govern the tour".

You have no basis for calling it an exhibition as by the very definition it cannot be one. Exhibitions don't count towards the regular season. So how then can it be an exhibition seeing as it awards points :rolleyes:

It's flat out a fact that it's not an exhibition as it's a competitive event which is part of the main tour.

Keep repeating the same debunked tripe ad nauseam though. It will just blend together with 90% of your posts.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Looks like someone has thrown their toys out of the pram...again!

Looks like understanding logic, and facts are not strong points of some posters.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
Your argument is essentially "I'm right because I say so and screw the people that actually govern the tour".

You have no basis for calling it an exhibition as by the very definition it cannot be one. Exhibitions don't count towards the regular season. So how then can it be an exhibition seeing as it awards points :rolleyes:

It's flat out a fact that it's not an exhibition as it's a competitive event which is part of the main tour.

Keep repeating the same debunked tripe ad nauseam though. It will just blend together with 90% of your posts.

He is a troll. Soon he'll be saying Slams are exhibitions and that the objective of the tour is to strategically build up good H2Hs... unless Djokovic finishes with a positive H2H against Nadal :lol:
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibition_game

You are a troll, plain and simple, upset beyond imagination that Nadal has the worst win-loss record in history of any all-time great at a major tournament :lol:

you obviously don't care much about your time and have plenty of it to post 50 + times a day.

who called the WTF an exhibition game?

don't be ignorant. YEC = triple E (Elite Exhibitionary Event), where you can lose but still win! deal with it!
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Hey guys, DRII must be right because he can make his own judgements and doesn't need to pay heed to things like the ATP and dictionaries.

:lol:
 

mightyrick

Legend
You're completely wrong. Today, players care about the Slam count more than anything. You think Federer would risk his Slam record for a YE#1? How often do you see anyone mention the YE#1 while ranking players? You are the only one that uses it as the sole metric. Nobody else does. Why? Because the primary objective of Tennis is to win titles. Not to plan your year so you can rank #1 at the end of the year. Why do you think Federer skipped Paris in late 2012, basically giving up any chance of ending the year at #1? Because it wasn't so important. Can you imagine Federer skipping Wimbledon for rest?

You Fed-fans try so hard to justify slam count as the most important thing. Whether through faux-science, through what you think players believe, density of accomplishments, consecutiveness of accomplishments, et cetera.

Anything you can do to avoid the very simple concept: the best player ever is better than the rest of the field for the longest.

At some point, you are going to have to deal with the reality that being the valedictorian of your graduating class for 4 years is better than being valedictorian of your class for 3 years. Regardless of what your GPA was in any of those years.

As good as Federer is, he the second best of the Open Era. That is still an amazing achievement. He is probably 5th or 6th all time. Still an amazing achievement given how long tennis has been around and how many players have played the game.

You know... it is possible to still be a good and proud fan without your player being the GOAT.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Your argument is essentially "I'm right because I say so and screw the people that actually govern the tour".

You have no basis for calling it an exhibition as by the very definition it cannot be one. Exhibitions don't count towards the regular season. So how then can it be an exhibition seeing as it awards points :rolleyes:

It's flat out a fact that it's not an exhibition as it's a competitive event which is part of the main tour.

Keep repeating the same debunked tripe ad nauseam though. It will just blend together with 90% of your posts.

so to defend your sugar daddy, you're using your sugar daddy's own defintion of exhibition. makes sense...

how about you try and comprehend the generally understood defintion of exhibition, as in the public of display of something or someones!
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
Anything you can do to avoid the very simple concept: the best player ever is better than the rest of the field for the longest.
And who came up with this ridiculous concept? You?

At some point, you are going to have to deal with the reality that being the valedictorian of your graduating class for 4 years is better than being valedictorian of your class for 3 years. Regardless of what your GPA was in any of those years.
When you're applying for a job, does the hiring manager care about your CGPA or whether you gave a speech during farewell?

As good as Federer is, he the second best of the Open Era. That is still an amazing achievement. He is probably 5th or 6th all time. Still an amazing achievement given how long tennis has been around and how many players have played the game.
How? Because you say so? Even Sampras admits Federer surpassed him, and you think Sampras is greater? :lol: I ask again, and I won't be surprised if you ignore this question: what is the objective of Tennis? To win titles, or to plan each season so you can finish #1?
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Hey guys, DRII must be right because he can make his own judgements and doesn't need to pay heed to things like the ATP and dictionaries.

:lol:



"exhibition: a public display of art, products, skills, activities, etc: a judo exhibition"

deal with it!
 
Top