Xemi666
Professional
Let's hear your arguments to support that statement, if nothing else they'll be good for a laugh :lol:
Weak clay field? No way
- Thread starter objectivity
- Start date
Let's hear your arguments to support that statement, if nothing else they'll be good for a laugh :lol:
objectivity
Banned
absolutely. i think federer is a phenomenal player on clay. he hits with great topspin and pace, and his movement is second to none.
Tennis Fanatic 070
Banned
No you're right, he can't be with 7 Wimbledon titles
Grass is his best surface, so that makes him a grass court specialist, deal with it.
On topic: this is the weakest clay court era ever, deal with that as well.
You should learn to read.
Last edited:
At the very least, Kuerten is way ahead of those guys on clay. 3 FO titles in an injury plagued career. Have Federer and Djokovic ever missed a slam event, other than the time Djokovic quit against Roddick due to the heat?
Who Am I?
Banned
Federer has to go through grass court specialists in Roddick, Hewitt and Murray for 5/7 wimbledon titles. Which clay court specialist did Nadal beat to win any of his RG titles? Oops, I forgot, Ferrer. :lol:
No you're right, he can't be with 7 Wimbledon titles
Grass is his best surface, so that makes him a grass court specialist, deal with it.
Do you think that though? I think he's 50/50 honestly. I think the HC field in from 04-07 was vastly superior from 2004-2007 on grass. He had two main competitors at Wimbledon; Roddick from 2003-2005(09 form I'll add because he was very solid that tournament) and Nadal from 2006-2008. I would add Hewitt, but never looked like beating Federer at Wimbledon in 2004 or 2005. But then again Roddick's 2005 form was poor considering his 2003/04 play where he was unlucky both times, Hewtt's 2004 his best against Federer but not doing anything in 2005 to hurt Federer. The HC field was just better.
objectivity
Banned
lol... ok ok. they are definitely superb grass court specialists with brilliant net games. on par with becker, edberg and mcenroe. definitely.
Death Master
Banned
but your god is GOAT.
roger would have 6 French opens if nadal had taken up football.
you better upgrade your liquor old sport.
roger has won the French open and he has countless other clay titles.
Death Master
Banned
Fed is one of the greatest clay court players ever lived.
end of story.
who is next?
end of story.
who is next?
cork_screw
Hall of Fame
This thread makes no sense. Just because Americans aren't doing well on clay, you assume that the overall cumulation of the field isn't poor enough to perform worse on clay than Americans?
How about this. Nadal is going to be several levels above anybody else currently and maybe all time on clay regardless of the field, so I don't think anybody said that because of the lack of clay courters in this era that Nadal is as strong as he is, because he would be strong and unchallenged even if he had to face Borg or Kuerten in their prime. But as weak as this crop of this clay era has been, still the level of guys like David Ferrer, Almagro, Monaco will be better than Jack Sock, Ryan Harrison or John Isner on clay because they are more experienced on the surface than guys from the states who don't really encounter clay as regularly as hard. If Ryan Harrison and Jack Sock were taking out Ferrer and Monaco then it would be overstating the obvious. Of course if Americans started to beat out other clay court specialists then things would have gotten really pretty bad, but you don't need that to happen to admit to the fact that even without that occurring this is still a weak era for clay players.
How about this. Nadal is going to be several levels above anybody else currently and maybe all time on clay regardless of the field, so I don't think anybody said that because of the lack of clay courters in this era that Nadal is as strong as he is, because he would be strong and unchallenged even if he had to face Borg or Kuerten in their prime. But as weak as this crop of this clay era has been, still the level of guys like David Ferrer, Almagro, Monaco will be better than Jack Sock, Ryan Harrison or John Isner on clay because they are more experienced on the surface than guys from the states who don't really encounter clay as regularly as hard. If Ryan Harrison and Jack Sock were taking out Ferrer and Monaco then it would be overstating the obvious. Of course if Americans started to beat out other clay court specialists then things would have gotten really pretty bad, but you don't need that to happen to admit to the fact that even without that occurring this is still a weak era for clay players.
Who Am I?
Banned
Roddick would have won Wimby 3 times (same as Becker) if it weren't for Federer. Hewitt would have another one too. And Murray is obviously the current best grass player and is the most likeliest to dominate Wimby for the next few years. The fact is that Federer's grass competition is greater than Nadal's clay competition.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Who's better Federer on clay or Nadal on grass?
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Oh I misread the question...
I think Federer has a slight edge in being better on clay than Nadal is on grass despite having less titles, and that Nadal is clearly better on clay than Federer is on grass.
I think Federer has a slight edge in being better on clay than Nadal is on grass despite having less titles, and that Nadal is clearly better on clay than Federer is on grass.
Who Am I?
Banned
Federer's weakest surface is clay, whereas historically grass is Nadal's second best, so Federer is worse on clay than Nadal is on grass.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
No yet explained me yet what is the windshield wiper
forehand
forehand
Xemi666
Professional
You should learn to actually not embarrass yourself when trying to be condescending.
No, they can't. Any fan has a bias. And this proves your objectivity. If you were truly objective, you would admit your bias.
I'm fan of both guys and even I don't consider myself objective. Because it's hard to be 50-50%.
Back on topic. People say Fed's era was beak because he didn't beat a lot of grass and HC champons. If we use this circular reasoning, Rafa's clay competition is even worse. Anti Fed fans started this argument and is now being used against them.
You can't have it both ways. I guess it's impossible to prove if competition is weak or the dominant player is that good. Even if it were, does that take away from champions? Who says that they wouldn't raise there games to beat tougher players?
If competition is stronger, champion improves more and his level is also stronger.
But this whole "weak clay" era is just a response to anti Fed fans, so now they can see how illogical this argument is.
But grass and hard have more competition. The best Nadal has on clay is one guy, who is bad on clay.
At least Nadal's 2nd best surface is grass, as you are saying. And there are other champions on grass. Fed has beaten Hewitt, Nadal, Sampras, Murray, Nole. All grass champions. Even Roddick is tough on grass.
On HC there is a lot of champions too. Fed had Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Delpo. Still better than Nadal having 1RG champion.
Xemi666
Professional
I know. But if Rafa fans will use this circular argument against Fed, I will sure bring it up against Rafa, since that argument makes Rafa's competition look even worse.
So, anti Fed fans better see this and stop using this just because Fed won so much in his prime.
objectivity
Banned
being objective does not mean 50-50. you are falling into the fallacy of the intelligent design camp. being objective just means stating facts as they are. it does not mean giving equal treatment to both sides, especially if one side is patently false.
objectivity
Banned
the only assumption i made, is that American players currently are comparable OVERALL to those in the late 80s and 90s in terms of familiarity with the clay surface. i also readily submit that there is a possibility that there is a complete dearth of talent among Americans currently, and that is driving the poor clay results. however, my thesis is that results in the late 80s and 90s suggest that Americans were still competitive on clay despite not being trained on clay. This suggests that the competition has gotten relatively stronger. whether it is due to poorer talent at the American level or superior talent among the non-Americans, it would be extremely difficult to prove causally. but at least we can agree that there is an empirical puzzle here.
my contention is that it is more plausible that the overall competition has gotten stronger, rather than weaker. we see much more talent from the east europeans for example. for what its worth, i think Federer is the second or third best clay courter I have ever watched.
objectivity
Banned
for example, i am a fan of nadal and i wish he will win more if not everything. however, i am objective and i readily claim that Federer IS the greatest player ever statistically. it is very easy for me to do both. being a fan of Nadal does not mean i think he is greater than Federer. why should my admiration for nadal as an athlete detract from Federer's objective achievements? your arguments are absurd.
objectivity
Banned
there are maybe what, 3 grass court tournaments outside of Wimbledon in a calendar year? there are 3 MASTERS level tournaments alone on clay in a calendar year. are you seriously suggesting that players would rather train for grass than for clay? are you serious?
Yes, I believe any fan is biased and will see his player in a "better" light. He won't change facts but he will interpret the facts differently.
You mentioned creation vs evolution argument before with intelligent design. Very good point. A person who believes in evolution will have easier time to interpret any facts as proof for his theory.
We are emotional creatures, guided by emotions, not logic. It's very tough to be unbiased. Some people control their emotions better and some people don't have agendas, but bias exists in all of us. What differs is the level of bias. Some are more biased, some are less.
But everybody who has emotions is biased.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I am very biased. I have a bias that makes me communicate in English as opposed to Russian. It's a bias I cannot (choose not to) shed. Djokovic and Federer are slightly less biased as they can speak a few languages.
I'm very biased towards peanut butter. Awwww yeah!
I'm very biased towards peanut butter. Awwww yeah!
Oh, I remember you. You have very strange sense of humor. Which I like.
Long time no see!
How is it living in such a bias world? Good, bad?
objectivity
Banned
as a scientist, i respectfully disagree with you. facts are facts. there are objective truths, and there are opinions. for example, the Earth is quite simply 4.6 billion or more years old as carbon and other forms of dating methods clearly show. THAT is a fact. we all came from a common ancestor as DNA evidence clearly shows. THAT too is a fact. if you find that is not in line with your thinking, that is an opinion. you are free to have any opinion, but you are not entitled to twist facts.
using tennis as an example. federer is statistically the most successful tennis player ever. that is a fact. on the other hand, nadal to me is the most unique player and i appreciate that most. that is an opinion.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Is it a fact that those dating methods are a 100% accurate or that DNA evidence provides an irrefutable and definitive proof that we all come from a common ancester, or do they merely present what one might deem to be 'very likely truths' that cross a threshold as to be considered a fact, thus have a subjective construct by which judgment is passed? Are the systems man have used and created absolutely perfect exponents of their designated functions? Would judging so be a fact or an opinion? If merely opinion, can we actually call the aforementioned facts facts as a fact or are they only quasi-facts. It is a fact that we can call something a fact even if it is or isn't a fact. It may be a fact that what we believe is the future has already happened and if it has then it would indeed be a fact that we cannot prove, thus if I held such an opinion then my opinion would also be a fact unbeknownst to all (as far as my perception allows me to reach).
And so on and so forth.
And so on and so forth.
objectivity
Banned
i rather skip the mental gymnastics and do better science.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Also:
'using tennis as an example. federer is statistically the most successful tennis player ever. that is a fact. on the other hand, nadal to me is the most unique player and i appreciate that most. that is an opinion.'
Are you honestly suggesting that it is a fact that Federer is statistically the most successful tennis player ever or in reality, is it dependant on your subjective understanding and assigned hierarchy to the importance of the statistics at hand? Actually it's a rhetorical question; I see in no way how it is a 'fact' that Federer is 'statistically the most successful tennis player' ever.
'using tennis as an example. federer is statistically the most successful tennis player ever. that is a fact. on the other hand, nadal to me is the most unique player and i appreciate that most. that is an opinion.'
Are you honestly suggesting that it is a fact that Federer is statistically the most successful tennis player ever or in reality, is it dependant on your subjective understanding and assigned hierarchy to the importance of the statistics at hand? Actually it's a rhetorical question; I see in no way how it is a 'fact' that Federer is 'statistically the most successful tennis player' ever.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I always was more philosophical than scientific.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Oh you know, good, bad, everything in between. I'd like to take an impartial approach.
objectivity
Banned
yes you bring up a good point, that i have overstated it as a fact. i take that back. ok what i meant was something like "federer has won the most number of grand slam mens singles titles in the open era. that is a fact."
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Indeed, I can't argue with you there.:twisted:
Crisstti
Legend
People say Fed's competition was comparatively weaker because he didn't beat many players of his same caliber at all. If you want to separate this by surface and go just by results of the other players (it seems to be what you want to do), then Rafa has beaten Fed on clay, who's a 5 time finalist. When did Fed beat a five time finalist on grass or hc?. Mind you, Rafa has also beaten Fed and Djokovic on hc and Fed on grass.
Oh, I think Rafa and Djokovic being better than Fed's main competition in 2004-7 is quite obvious really. Talent wise you could argue about Nalbandian and Safin, but they were too inconsistent.
What that means however is a completely different matter and way more subjective.
So, you are still going to use circular logic as argument? And not only this, but using double standards for Fed and Rafa?
So, now you are saying Fed weak era champ is tough competiton for Rafa on clay?
Either you are biased, or you don't understand this circular logic, or you are just trolling. I hope it's the last one, at least this is ok for me
objectivity
Banned
So, you are still going to use circular logic as argument? And not only this, but using double standards for Fed and Rafa?
So, now you are saying Fed weak era champ is tough competiton for Rafa on clay?
Either you are biased, or you don't understand this circular logic, or you are just trolling. I hope it's the last one, at least this is ok for me
look, i think at the end of the day, things will even out. federer won 4 of his GS titles before nadal became a GS champion. nadal is now 4 away from federer's overall record but federer is fading fast as a champion, and in a sense, we can "discount" him as a rival of nadal. so any other GS titles nadal wins from now on, we can regard it as being won without having to go through federer. so things balance out.
i don't believe in "things happening for a reason" but i think these two players will finish equal on GS titles. and the achievements will be so alike, that we will be splitting hairs to decide who is greater. that will be quite fascinating, no?
Yeah, you did and that is why you came across to me as biased. Now you took it back. I appreciate it. Takes a lot to admit something here on TW.
Also you stating earth is 4,6 billions years old is also not a fact. We observe those elements decaying only a a short amount of time in laboratory conditions. We just extrapolate. It's a good theory, but not a fact.
There are way too many assumptions. Were elements decaying at the same rate as today? When did it start to decay?
That is why you came across as biased. A fact is this : We know we are here, we know we are here about 5000 years at least. That's it. We don't know how old the universe is or how we evolved or where. If we evolved.
Yes, the light from our largest star using trigonometry took at least 20 billion years to travel to earth. But was the light traveling at the same rate?
When did the light start to travel? What if somebody aliens or whatever created the universe in nanoseconds and he created the light already here on Earth.
And I can sense you have a lot of pre-set assumptions in your mind, which are not facts.
Big bang theory vs intelligent design. The fact is we don't know. We know we are here. Where did the energy come from? Or space or time? Does every effect has to have a cause?
But I guess, this is another topic for another forum maybe. Lol, how did we even come here?
look, i think at the end of the day, things will even out. federer won 4 of his GS titles before nadal became a GS champion. nadal is now 4 away from federer's overall record but federer is fading fast as a champion, and in a sense, we can "discount" him as a rival of nadal. so any other GS titles nadal wins from now on, we can regard it as being won without having to go through federer. so things balance out.
i don't believe in "things happening for a reason" but i think these two players will finish equal on GS titles. and the achievements will be so alike, that we will be splitting hairs to decide who is greater. that will be quite fascinating, no?
Yes, maybe Nadal will win more. I hope he will. But some of his fans want to say if both retire today, like they already have the same achievements.
I was rooting for Fed in his peak, I was. But I was upset people saying he already surpassed Pete, when he only had like 10 majors. Without the FO I didn't consider him greater than Pete. Even both with 14, it was a tough call, since Pete had nr.1 records also.
objectivity
Banned
i know we are going off-topic here but i have to respond to this. a theory, is a set of explanations to explain a set of facts. a theory can be false, as it can be true. and we seek to prove / disprove theories using evidence. that is the key.
sure, the Big Bang theory is a theory. but it is backed up by evidence that can be demonstrably proven. for example, the mathematics. the astrophysical evidence. etc etc. these are demonstrably reviewed and debated at academic forums. there are still many things we don't know, and that is fine. that is why we do better science to answer those questions.
intelligence design too is a theory. but the problem with it is that the claims are demonstrably wrong. the evidence supplied are simply not good enough. i can't do as good an explanation as my colleague kenneth miller can, so i implore you to watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4r2J6Y5AqE
the most important thing here is that being objective does not mean giving equal treatment to both sides. no. being objective means stating the facts as they are, and weighing evidence before deciding what the sum total of the evidence points towards.
objectivity
Banned
i never had any problems with fans claiming whoever is greater based on their subjective opinions with regards to which statistics bear more weight. i do however have a huge problem with people like Smasher08 who with no evidence at all, call Nadal a PED cheat. or people like Monfed and Chico who call Nadal "dirty" and do other character assassinations.
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
How do you know that is a fact ? Maybe 5000 years ago, 1 year was equal to 100 years today -- quite possible since as you claim the speed of light might have been different. You should probably stick to defending Federer -- actually given your post above that is probably not a great idea either. Not that he needs any defending, mind you.
I'm not 100% sure. But we have written records of our civilization.
And 5000 years is way easier to be accurate than 5 billion years. I guess the longer back time goes, less chances are we are accurate.
I know what you are doing lol. Saying that measuring 5000 years is the same as measuring 5 billion years. No, it's not.
How do you know what was the speed of light 1 billion years ago?
And even if it was, what if aliens created the light already here?
Let's say I clone Fed today. He will be a few hours old, but he will look 30 years old.
Before insulting me, at least listen my arguments.
Ok, let's go back on topic. I guess we don't agree with this definition. For me objective means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
It means being influenced by feelings, no matter what facts are.
objectivity
Banned
my friend, there can be any number of "what ifs". we only have the current material world to supply our evidence. science is based upon evidence. there is no evidence yet to suggest that light can travel faster than the speed of light. is it possible something can do that? sure. provide the evidence. do better science.
we can never prove a negative. but it does not mean that the absence of evidence implies the corollary is true. i.e. not having perfect evidence to prove evolution / natural selection is true, does not mean there must be an intelligent creator.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
That is false. I suggest that you look at how Coria's career ended.
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
I didn't insult you. It was my clone who did 5001 years ago. Now before you insult me, listen to my argument :twisted:
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Well, you certainly aren't objective seeing as you attempted to prove just recently, Nadal is more popular than Federer as a fact based solely on the ratings of one final he played, thereby completely misusing the statistics at hand.
Similar threads
