nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Modern movies are not movies , they are like an episode of long running tv shows.No way home is better![]()
Modern movies are not movies , they are like an episode of long running tv shows.No way home is better![]()
I do agree, movies don’t hit like they used to. Spiderman 2 is EXTREMELY good. But even so, its a bit overrated the way people act over it.Modern movies are not movies , they are like an episode of long running tv shows.
Dog****! Safin is lucky if he's in the top 15 all time!Longevity and consistency are just as important. Being able to win with your B game or C game is just as important.
Djokovic vs Safin peak for peak at the AO
2005 Safin > Any version of Djokovic (lol)
Titles > peak. I'd rather have shiny trophies than hypothetically peaking higher.
Nike has a dangerous influence on public opinion.The establishment and Nike love how the hivemind, fails to understand or evaluate peak, and can be easily captivated and overwhelmed by the Rock-Paper-Scissors dynamic just for example.![]()
Djokovic and Nadal have no 5 year periods where they weren't losing to all kinds of muppets and having significant dips in forms. (at least in their 20s).Peak is overrated if it is a short term peak. The big 3 had massive 5+ year peaks, so I have to disagree.
Being able to win with B/C game is certainly very important in a field full of D/E/F players.
It is good to see Djokovic fans all admitting in the same thread that his peak wasn't very high.
Being able to win with B/C game is certainly very important in a field full of D/E/F players.
It is good to see Djokovic fans all admitting in the same thread that his peak wasn't very high.
Peak is very overrated.
Opinions that belong in garbagePeak > FEDR > Vamos > Egg
Fed does.Djokovic and Nadal have no 5 year periods where they weren't losing to all kinds of muppets and having significant dips in forms. (at least in their 20s).
Longevity and consistency are just as important. Being able to win with your B game or C game is just as important.
Djokovic vs Safin peak for peak at the AO
2005 Safin > Any version of Djokovic (lol)
Titles > peak. I'd rather have shiny trophies than hypothetically peaking higher.
Longevity and consistency are just as important. Being able to win with your B game or C game is just as important.
I agree with you, sir.Peak is overrated if it is a short term peak. The big 3 had massive 5+ year peaks, so I have to disagree.
They don't make good movies anymore.Modern movies are not movies , they are like an episode of long running tv shows.
1984 was 40 years ago, so it's faded and fading away.I agree. 1984 Mcenroe is still the most dominant season in all of tennis. But it doesn’t mean as much in the goat debate as he kinda faded away after.
No way home drops down a bit after all the hype and nostalgia dwindle. That happened to me when I watched it.I do agree, movies don’t hit like they used to. Spiderman 2 is EXTREMELY good. But even so, its a bit overrated the way people act over it.
exactly my point. Still the best net player ever though.1984 was 40 years ago, so it's faded and fading away.
wasn't '08 Federer losing to muppets like Fish and Simon and Stepanek on clay?Djokovic and Nadal have no 5 year periods where they weren't losing to all kinds of muppets and having significant dips in forms. (at least in their 20s).
08 Fed was past peak and prime and at the start of a 12-year period of constant decline.wasn't '08 Federer losing to muppets like Fish and Simon and Stepanek on clay?
Federer lost to Stepanek at 2008 Rome, which was a quarter final match that Stepanek won 7-6, 7-6. Federer lost to Nadal in the finals of Monte Carlo, Hamburg and the French Open, while also winning Estoril. In the 2008 matches against Nadal on clay, Federer had set leads in Monte Carlo and Hamburg before losing those sets, most infamously Federer leading 5-1 in the first set of the 2008 Hamburg final before Nadal won 7-5, 6-7, 6-3. Nadal then crushed Federer 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 in the 2008 French Open final, a tournament where Nadal's playing level had gone up several pegs to his absolute peak form.wasn't '08 Federer losing to muppets like Fish and Simon and Stepanek on clay?
He was already doing that in 07 too. But you already knew I wasn't talking about B03. Regardless, Nadal and Djokovic don't even have 2 consecutive years much less 3 or 4 or wherever you want to draw the line for Fedwasn't '08 Federer losing to muppets like Fish and Simon and Stepanek on clay?
yes08 Fed was past peak and prime and at the start of a 12-year period of constant decline.
No, as an ardent Djokovic fan this thread is very troubling and sad to me. But I'm glad @StefanV has at least ripped the bandaid open and made us all admit certain inconvenient facts. After all, no one can take away the 26 majors, 430 weeks at #1, 8 YECs, career golden masters etc.Beerus/StefanV is just baiting Fed fans tbh.
26 majors . Did you knowingly type that gifting 2 major trophy to novak or it is typing error !!!!No, as an ardent Djokovic fan this thread is very troubling and sad to me. But I'm glad @StefanV has at least ripped the bandaid open and made us all admit certain inconvenient facts. After all, no one can take away the 26 majors, 430 weeks at #1, 8 YECs, career golden masters etc.
It’s absolutely still does matter because we talk about it today. Yes, the big three had better careers than JMacm but none of them is all that much “greater” than Borg or McEnroe or Sampras. Ridiculous aggregate bean counting is not what this sport is about.I agree. 1984 Mcenroe is still the most dominant season in all of tennis. But it doesn’t mean as much in the goat debate as he kinda faded away after.
He's being sarcastic, lol.
Also, yes peak is overrated very much so around here.
Luckily extended periods of peak performance don't really matter so as a Djokovic fan I've been able to be super efficient in my partisanship by simply perusing match results and green squares on Wikipedia.No, as an ardent Djokovic fan this thread is very troubling and sad to me. But I'm glad @StefanV has at least ripped the bandaid open and made us all admit certain inconvenient facts. After all, no one can take away the 26 majors, 430 weeks at #1, 8 YECs, career golden masters etc.
To say it's just personal preference is to kill any examination about the relative values of peak and consistency. With a coherent criteria for greatness they will be valued differently.IMO there are different ways to define greatness, peak is one - longevity and consistency is another. It's mostly just personal preference/bias for which you prefer.
Peak is so much open to bias in sports..it's overrated..Personally I don't think peak is overrated, it's one of the focal points of discussion in pretty much any sport.
I think Novak's peak is underrated however.
Especially H2H sportsPersonally I don't think peak is overrated, it's one of the focal points of discussion in pretty much any sport.
I think Novak's peak is underrated however.
Is there an objective criteria for weighing them against each other? I'm not saying it can't be discussed. For me I think a "consistent peak" is obviously more important but if someone were to argue that say Rosewall, is the GOAT because he was at the top of the game for so so long then I think that's a fine opinion.To say it's just personal preference is to kill any examination about the relative values of peak and consistency. With a coherent criteria for greatness they will be valued differently.
These baits would have caused a bloodbath a few years ago. This place has calmed down a lot imo.The 2012 US Open QF Djokovic > any version of Federer on HC?
I miss the old TTW.These baits would have caused a bloodbath a few years ago. This place has calmed down a lot imo.
Yeah say me and you made those threads we used to open now no way do they get that sort of reaction now.I miss the old TTW.
who are the muppets between AO '08-USO '10 for Nadal and USO '10-Wimbly '14 for Djokovic? thought you were decently high on the Murrays in the former period (maybe not in the latter), and the other miscellaneous losses like Tsonga and Federer were high level opponentsRegardless, Nadal and Djokovic don't even have 2 consecutive years much less 3 or 4 or wherever you want to draw the line for Fed
I meant on ttw it's overrated. I think there is value in discussing it but as this was touched on already in here is that it's not something that can be measured accurately just by looking at someone play, so people tend to overrate and underrate it like you said.Personally I don't think peak is overrated, it's one of the focal points of discussion in pretty much any sport.
I think Novak's peak is underrated however.
Would you say is overrated when it comes to the big 3?I meant on ttw it's overrated. I think there is value in discussing it but as this was touched on already in here is that it's not something that can be measured accurately just by looking at someone play, so people tend to overrate and underrate it like you said.
It's probably been overrated on many players including the big 3 but the big 3 actually have the numbers to back it up. Plenty of others don't.Would you say is overrated when it comes to the big 3?
With enough context a lot of things are explinable.Would you say is overrated when it comes to the big 3?
I kinda agree.It's probably been overrated on many players including the big 3 but the big 3 actually have the numbers to back it up. Plenty of others don't.