Single most arrogant "thing" Federer/Djokovic did/does

[demrle]

The song; haven't seen the show.

Spit in your eye I will defy

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Since AnOctorokForDinner is semi-ignoring me, meaning that he does not address me but still reads my posts and even discusses/bashes me on my threads, I'll allow myself to talk about him in third person as well. Trust me, no amount of objective posts from you will convince him that you are no Nadal fanboy. You've been classified in his head based on one post but for eternity. He was on my case with accusations of being a reincarnation of some banned user as soon as I've posted my first thread which was apparently suspicious due to its insightfullness. And there was no way of convincing him that I'm no fake new user. The only other user that accused of such crime was the grey eminence of Fedextremists, Tennis_Hands himself, whose firm belief in my multiple identities, needless to say, also wasn't to be shaken. So that would be the "twinquisition" that I had to endure so far on this board, take it for what it's worth.

P.S. How ominous is it for the constructiveness of a debate when your counterpart argues that he knows even your personal preferences better than yourself?!

Nice troll, good job making people take you for real. You remind me of such personalities as caleb pereira, vjetropev and rusty shackleford, all in one. Whatever the wording, it's clear from day one that you despise Federer and his fanbase, hence the trolling.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I am assuming arrogant people are narcissists.

I genuinely don't think Nadal thinks he's good - he's all about winning. This doesn't mean he is a saint as he obviously relies on gamesmanship to win - but this further confirms the fact that he cares MORE about the win than looking good. If he were arrogant, he would've tried to win while impressing people with a less scrappy and less gamesmanship-driven game.

Federer and Djokovic on the other hand have acted like they somehow "looked" better but still lost on some occasions. This is a sign of arrogance.

Maybe Nadal is so arrogant he doesn't care about impressing people as long as he impresses himself he's called baseline play more exciting after all, not a great stretch if he thinks his playstyle is actually more beautiful than fedovic's.

 

[demrle]

Nice troll, good job making people take you for real.

What troll? What wasn't true of all the things I said? Plus I didn't even tag you nor the clan's spiritual leader.

You remind me of such personalities as caleb pereira, vjetropev and rusty shackleford, all in one.

Who are those? Are those the former posters whose reincarnation you've accused me of being? The list I've been asking you for ever since you accused me of being a fake new user. I mean, I've looked it up and saw that there some of those IRL, but their obscure to me.

Whatever the wording, it's clear from day one that you despise Federer and his fanbase, hence the trolling.

I don't despise Federer one bit. I despise nobody for that metter. I do despise the attitude some of his fans have and have always had. There's difference, I think.

 

[Dilexson]

Damn, never seen that one before. Wow, that’s something else lol

Seen it multiple times in the past few years alone ithink. AO 2017 Nishikori match comes to mind, he was throwing bottles and racquet wrappings so carelessly it was comical. Lol

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Seen it multiple times in the past few years alone ithink. AO 2017 Nishikori match comes to mind, he was throwing bottles and racquet wrappings so carelessly it was comical. Lol

Did he partially do it because he was frustrated with Nishikori's theatrics? lol

 

[Dilexson]

Did he partially do it because he was frustrated with Nishikori's theatrics? lol

Think it's because he lost a crucial set/game..? At the end of 4th may be. Don't remember.
Nishikori didn't go full on Mr. Glass until set 5 iirc.

 

[zagor]

Nadal is the more arrogant on court, Fed is most arrogant off court and Novak is somewhere in the middle.

All of them are pretty mellow compared to dominant athletes in most other pro sports.

 

[ADuck]

Humility means you don't think much of yourself and your primary motivation to do better is for others' sake (for them to make use of or enjoy your work) or beauty's sake (inching closer to perfection) rather than your own sake (seeking validation in the form of recognition or gratitude);

I only half agree with the bolded, I would rephrase it as "Not thinking yourself better than others," because you can have humility whilst still having a healthy opinion of yourself. I don't understand why you are enforcing a restriction on what the primary motivation of the person has to be, that seems something you are using to extend upon the commonly-accepted definition entirely on your own. You're free to do that, but that's not how most other people define it.

Nevertheless, even if I accept your definition, it requires an incredible amount of assumption on your behalf to be able figure out that the primary motivation of Nadal is to seek validation for being the best.

You say that "humility means deriving it directly from doing things right, rather than from having others - or yourself, pridefully - recognise them as worthy." Deriving it? What is it? You mean deriving value? You don't think we all derive value from the work we do in our everyday lives? You don't believe that Nadal's prime motivation for playing tennis for so long is a little bit more than "seeking validation from others," rather than seeking the self-satisfaction he derives from competing and winning? Logically it makes a lot more sense that way, else he wouldn't be able to withstand the tribulations he's faced throughout his career. Do you honestly think that making a whole slew of assumptions based solely off a persons body-language is a better way of determining what a person values, rather than a logical approach about what what little a human being is actually capable of doing based solely off a shallow goal/motivation?

Nobody is going to be great at anything without actually enjoying what it is they're doing.

Pretty sure providing viewers, or his own aesthetic sense, with beautiful tennis isn't what Nadal is primarily after, being recognised as the best is.

Wait, wait... so let me get this straight. Because Nadal has not dedicated himself to making his tennis game more aesthetically pleasing for viewers, instead opting to focus on perfecting it in a tactical manner, that means he is obsessed with getting self-validation? Please tell me this is a joke.

You've defined "beauty's sake" as striving for perfection, and there are ways to strive for perfection outside of the visually-orientated spectrum, but you've chosen to ignore that.

 

[ADuck]

It's not a "job", it's a natural, human process conditioned by society, that's what we call "political correctness". I'm gonna give you a very simple and common example : when a great player mops the floor with his opponent with little difficulty and still praises him after the match by saying he was a very tough opponent, rather than saying he was no match for him because he's not good enough. That's fake humility.

So if you don't mind, please show me or refer me to an instance of when this happened.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I only half agree with the bolded, I would rephrase it as "Not thinking yourself better than others," because you can have humility whilst still having a healthy opinion of yourself. I don't understand why you are enforcing a restriction on what the primary motivation of the person has to be, that seems something you are using to extend upon the commonly-accepted definition entirely on your own. You're free to do that, but that's not how most other people define it.

Nevertheless, even if I accept your definition, it requires an incredible amount of assumption on your behalf to be able figure out that the primary motivation of Nadal is to seek validation for being the best.

You say that "humility means deriving it directly from doing things right, rather than from having others - or yourself, pridefully - recognise them as worthy." Deriving it? What is it? You mean deriving value? You don't think we all derive value from the work we do in our everyday lives? You don't believe that Nadal's prime motivation for playing tennis for so long is a little bit more than "seeking validation from others," rather than seeking the self-satisfaction he derives from competing and winning? Logically it makes a lot more sense that way, else he wouldn't be able to withstand the tribulations he's faced throughout his career. Do you honestly think that making a whole slew of assumptions based solely off a persons body-language is a better way of determining what a person values, rather than a logical approach about what what little a human being is actually capable of doing based solely off a shallow goal/motivation?

Nobody is going to be great at anything without actually enjoying what it is they're doing.

Wait, wait... so let me get this straight. Because Nadal has not dedicated himself to making his tennis game more aesthetically pleasing for viewers, instead opting to focus on perfecting it in a tactical manner, that means he is obsessed with getting self-validation? Please tell me this is a joke.

You've defined "beauty's sake" as striving for perfection, and there are ways to strive for perfection outside of the visually-orientated spectrum, but you've chosen to ignore that.

...from others or himself, I mentioned it (shoulda been clear earlier, totes). The latter would actually be less humble, no? Nadal would like to see himself as the best, as do Fedovic, and like them he seeks to do/win enough to be able to reasonably believe it (which of course requires some external validation as well but he's having no shortage of that obviously so that's not significant now). Surely that's more important to him than any quest for perfection, let alone pleasing the audience. Otherwise gamesmanship would not be appealing.

 

[ADuck]

...from others or himself, I mentioned it (shoulda been clear earlier, totes). The latter would actually be less humble, no? Nadal would like to see himself as the best, as do Fedovic, and like them he seeks to do/win enough to be able to reasonably believe it (which of course requires some external validation as well but he's having no shortage of that obviously so that's not significant now). Surely that's more important to him than any quest for perfection, let alone pleasing the audience. Otherwise gamesmanship would not be appealing.

Don't know what you're referring to there. Everyone would want to be seen as the best, but it's not his driving motivation.

 

[ballamaz]

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Don't know what you're referring to there. Everyone would want to be seen as the best, but it's not his driving motivation.

"You don't like the good tennis, no?"

 

[ADuck]

"You don't like the good tennis, no?"

Is being vague and ambiguous your way of ending things here? If so, I'll be off.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Is being vague and ambiguous your way of ending things here? If so, I'll be off.

Explain Nadal's gamesmanship if achieving superiority is not his motivation to justify it.

 

[ADuck]

Explain Nadal's gamesmanship if achieving superiority is not his motivation to justify it.

So your logic is that gamesmanship is appealing to him because he wants to receive validation?

 

[weakera]

It's funny, the title for most arrogant is only between Djokovic and Federer. Nadal is not only not arrogant, he always has doubts in himself and his game. Different kind of human being.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

So your logic is that gamesmanship is appealing to him because he wants to receive validation?

Yearning to be seen as best (including by himself within reason) -> winning at all cost -> gamesmanship.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It's funny, the title for most arrogant is only between Djokovic and Federer. Nadal is not only not arrogant, he always has doubts in himself and his game. Different kind of human being.

If self-doubt equalled humility, young loners like meselfe would be among the humblest champions, evidently it's not the case lol... not how this works.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

I am assuming arrogant people are narcissists.

I genuinely don't think Nadal thinks he's good - he's all about winning. This doesn't mean he is a saint as he obviously relies on gamesmanship to win - but this further confirms the fact that he cares MORE about the win than looking good. If he were arrogant, he would've tried to win while impressing people with a less scrappy and less gamesmanship-driven game.

Federer and Djokovic on the other hand have acted like they somehow "looked" better but still lost on some occasions. This is a sign of arrogance.

Had to re-read this post to be sure that I wasn't seeing things.

A dazzlingly circular argument!

Couple of notable nuggets, such as the bolded acknowledgment re Nadal. Folks do what they must.

But Nadal wants to win more because he cheats? Folks who value creative play over breaking the rules want it less? And their desire to elevate the craft is naught but vanity?

Classic post.

 

[weakera]

If self-doubt equalled humility, young loners like meselfe would be among the humblest champions, evidently it's not the case lol... not how this works.

It's certainly an antithesis of arrogance.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It's certainly an antithesis of arrogance.

Not quite.

 

[Clay lover]

Had to re-read this post to be sure that I wasn't seeing things.

A dazzlingly circular argument!

Couple of notable nuggets, such as the bolded acknowledgment re Nadal. Folks do what they must.

But Nadal wants to win more because he cheats? Folks who value creative play over breaking the rules want it less? And their desire to elevate the craft is naught but vanity?

Classic post.

I don't see anything wrong with suggesting that a person using gamesmanship has a win at all costs attitude and people thinking a prettier game always prevails are more arrogant. Care to point out the circularity?

Arrogant people care about looking good -> Nadal doesn't care about looking good due to gamesmanship and a scrappy game -> not as arrogant

You can reject my premise which is a huge assumption and which I pointed out to he an assumption, but it in no way already confirms the conclusion, so you may want to read up on circular arguments.

Only even suggesting that Nadal is not as arrogant gets people riled up when the post paints Nadal in a more negative light than arrogant. You claimed you re-read but did you actually "read"?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I don't see anything wrong with suggesting that a person using gamesmanship has a win at all costs attitude and people thinking a prettier game always prevails are more arrogant. Care to point out the circularity?

Arrogant people care about looking good -> Nadal doesn't care about looking good due to gamesmanship and a scrappy game -> not as arrogant

You can reject my premise which is a huge assumption and which I pointed out to he an assumption, but it in no way already confirms the conclusion, so you may want to read up on circular arguments.

Only even suggesting that Nadal is not as arrogant gets people riled up when the post paints Nadal in a more negative light than arrogant. You claimed you re-read but did you actually "read"?

That is some next level BS.

People that break the rules are not arrogant and those that abide to them are.

Mind-bending upside down values and logic. Well done.

 

[Clay lover]

This is some next level BS.

People that break the rules are not arrogant and those that abide to them are.

Mind-bending upside down values and logic. Well done.

And the end of the day you don't get my gist and never will. If you define arrogance that way I'm fine with it. I define what Nadal does as something worse but not arrogance. Maybe "underhanded" or "immoral" are more appropriate words? Not every negative thing needs to be lumped into one as arrogance. Agree to disagree.

Another proof that some fanatics have a pathological need to ascribe every negative word to Nadal. Wake up. I'm accusing him of worse. Expand your vocab.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

And the end of the day you don't get my gist and never will. If you define arrogance that way I'm fine with it. I define what Nadal does as something worse but not arrogance. Not every negative thing needs to be lumped into one as arrogance. Agree to disagree.

arrogance
noun [ U ]
the quality of being unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more important than, or know more than, other people:

Breaking the rules while everyone else is abiding by them is the definition of thinking that you are more important than them, and so the rules do not apply to you.

Good luck with those that will "understand" you. I guess if you find people on your level of ignorance, they will agree with you.

 

[Clay lover]

arrogance
noun [ U ]
the quality of being unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more important than, or know more than, other people:

Breaking the rules while everyone else is abiding by them is the definition of thinking that you are more important than them, and so the rules do not apply to you.

Good luck with those that will "understand" you. I guess if you find people on your level of ignorance, they will agree with you.

I agree with your definition. Different kinds of arrogance but I get it. I guess I got too fixated on the vain side of arrogance. So I should've said Nadal is not vain, but arrogant. Dunno if that works more for you.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

I don't see anything wrong with suggesting that a person using gamesmanship has a win at all costs attitude and people thinking a prettier game always prevails are more arrogant. Care to point out the circularity?

Arrogant people care about looking good -> Nadal doesn't care about looking good due to gamesmanship and a scrappy game -> not as arrogant

You can reject my premise which is a huge assumption and which I pointed out to he an assumption, but it in no way already confirms the conclusion, so you may want to read up on circular arguments.

Only even suggesting that Nadal is not as arrogant gets people riled up when the post paints Nadal in a more negative light than arrogant. You claimed you re-read but did you actually "read"?

lol, nice try with that.

Again, the most important bit here is your recognition that you condone a cheater.

Sets the stage for your remaining assertions.

You can't wiggle out of the fact that you've equated cheating with caring, and pursuit of elegance with narcissism.

Embarrassing, sir. And no edit of your post, or co-sign from a cheerleader can erase that.

Next time you look to sound like an objective academician, try to avoid logically flawed commentary.

 

[Clay lover]

lol, nice try with that.

Again, the most important bit here is your recognition that you condone a cheater.

Sets the stage for your remaining assertions.

You can't wiggle out of the fact that you've equated cheating with caring, and pursuit of elegance with narcissism.

Embarrassing, sir. And no edit of your post, or co-sign from a cheerleader can erase that.

Next time you look to sound like an objective academician, try to avoid logically flawed commentary.

I don't condone cheaters. Anyway, I've since agreed with another poster adopting your stance that believing one is above the rules is arrogance too. So while I'm equating arrogance with vanity your definition of arrogance stands as well. They're arrogant in their own ways but I agree now that Nadal's version is worse as immorality > vanity.

Apologize for my narrow-minded view of the word at first.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

I don't condone cheaters. Anyway, I've since agreed with another poster adopting your stance that believing one is above the rules is arrogance too. So while I'm equating arrogance with vanity your definition of arrogance stands as well. They're arrogant in their own ways but I agree now that Nadal's version is worse as immorality > vanity.

Um.

Yeah, sounds like you've attempted to correct your errors. Next time, just try to do your thinking before you attempt an argument, rather than having other more careful folks do the thinking for you.

Let's hope this thread remains popular such that other readers may learn the true basis for your fandom.

 

[Clay lover]

Um.

Yeah, sounds like you've attempted to correct your errors. Next time, just try to do your thinking before you attempt an argument, rather than having other more careful folks do the thinking for you.

Let's hope this thread remains popular such that other readers may learn the true basis for your fandom.

If pointing out that Nadal uses gamesmanship means I am his fan I dunno what to say really. If you think I am simply using a narrow definition to bail Nadal out of arrogance when I recognize that he's guilty of so many other things then I think it's a bit unfair. One doesn't need to attribute EVERY negative trait to a person to be considered disapproving of his character, and this is something I find pathological about some haters.

 

[demrle]

I think most people with any experience with sports and winning understands that Fed/Nadal/Djokovic are all arrogant. I think the differences come in how the three typical display that arrogance. For the most part, Fed and Nadal are arrogant in a way that most people: 1. relate to and 2. are okay with ie it's an arrogance born out of results and confidence. For the most part also, Federer and Nadal are seen very similarly. So why the difference with Nole? Because Nole comes across like Agassi. That is, they seem prone bitterness and resentment due to mostly beta male traits comparatively amongst their peers. Specifically, they want the popularity and adulation of people that Federer and Nadal have received through no effort of their own. To be fair to Nole, I do think that in more recent years this attitude may have finally changed although his statement after being DQ'd in the US Open does cause me to have doubts.

Care to rephrase this sentence, I'm not sure what you wanted to say there?

 

[demrle]

I am assuming arrogant people are narcissists.

I genuinely don't think Nadal arrogant in the sense that he's vain - he's all about winning. This doesn't mean he is a saint as he obviously relies on gamesmanship to win - but this further confirms the fact that he cares MORE about the win than looking good. If he were vain, he would've tried to win while impressing people with a less scrappy and less gamesmanship-driven game.

Federer and Djokovic on the other hand have acted like they somehow "looked" better but still lost on some occasions. This is a sign of arrogance.

Nadal is arrogant for thinking he's above the rules though.

What gamesmanship, obvious no less? Serious question.

Obviously not obvious enough for me...

 

[demrle]

Just stumbled upon this footage of Rafa addressing this ball boy in a suboptimal manner (so sound is obviously critical here). Out of character for Rafa, if I'm asked. So I knock off three percent of my praise of Rafa, but no more.