You're even more obtuse than I thought. You're the one that started off with belittling me, by saying I'm not mathematically sound. And your previous post said something was "stupid". Take a good, hard look in the mirror before you embarrass yourself even further.
2004 Roddick was a hell of a lot better than 2004 Sampras. I'm not even going to compare 2009 Roddick and 2009 Sampras.
So you're basically saying retiring from the game is as good an achievement as making 3 Wimbledon finals and winning 1 of them. If you're not saying that, you'd need to admit that Federer > Sampras at Wimbledon.
0-0 is not a record. You need at least 1 match played. A record is made of wins and losses. Therefore your "record" is not better or worse than any real record.
Correct. My argument with the finals statistic itself. The statistic is a poor and misleading one. It implies that a higher percentage means a better performed player, when actually it can mean the opposite.
Clutching at straws. You frequently attempt to insult and belittle the people you argue with. That's different from calling a specific thought or line of thinking stupid. What you're doing is immature, classless and disgusting.<-- Another example of me calling you out on your behavior but not attacking you, the person behind the screen. Learn the difference.
Do you think there is a specific reason why Lendl lost a lot of slam finals? If there's a reason, then there's at least some value for the statistic. For instance, let's compare Murray and Wawrinka in GS finals. Wawrinka is 3-1 whereas Murray is 3-8. From that we could infer when Murray made his finals he was playing at a consistent high level, well enough to make the finals, but not well enough to win most of them. Whereas Wawrinka, who made less finals must have been playing a higher level on average than Murray, but because he can only display this level less often, he has the same amount of slams. So on average, should we expect when Wawrinka is in a final, he is more lilely to win than if Murray is in a final?
yes..when there's nothing to retort that matters it's only remaining to insult
i try to explain this freaking million times on this thread)
so a win counts 10 times more than a loss..how sweet..actually it's more like 7$ or 5$..so yes 7$>5$
That's so huge that it boggles the mind, quite frankly.
There are Sampras level of domination that Fed has not achieved, and then there is Fed level of domination that Sampras has not achieved. If Sampras has 7/7 in the finals and 7 in 8 years (Fed at least came closer to this record), Fed has 5 consecutive slam wins (and Pete came nowhere closer to this), he has 7 finals on trot (not only Pete is nowhere near this, Fed is stand alone in open era). Besides, Sampras has done nothing closer to Fed's 4 extra finals.
Why is Sampras finals record exaggerated so much? Don't one and all know that Sampras was never reaching the 8th final? Now, you should get a perspective at the importance and relevance of even a single extra final. It is the career best for so many great players. Reaching any final after reaching at a single is that much more difficult. So, the difference between 7 and 11 finals is not as simple as you are making it out.
Sampras reaching that extra final at Wimbledon is a shade better than Gaudio's career.
what an exaggeration when he had only one loss between 1993 and 2000 while fed lost twice in that span..it's even more impressive than nadal at french between 2005(first title) and 2012 coz rafa lost in 4R and pete in QF
coz he's never lost it proving a lot of times
Federer failed Pete's record by 1 match, and so does Sampras too. He got only 4 consecutive and did not match 5 consecutive on trot. He also did not even make 5th consecutive final, and he falls 3 finals short of Fed's 7 consecutive finals. So much for superior final ability
Why should only you be allowed to cherry pick whats domination and whats best in the finals. So, if Sampras best can be called despite so many shortcomings, it is certain an exaggeration. No, it is proved by now that if you reach 5 finals at a slam, reaching the next one is always that much more difficult. Sampras proved enough number of times, but not more enough number of times than Federer.
where do you see so many shortcomings in 1993-2000 span as was posted above
the more you play the more chances you get to convert
Did he win 5 consecutive Wimbledons? Did he reach 7 consecutive finals? If Fed's 1 defeat sort of Pete's 1 during 2003-2010, can be used so much, then many shortcomings can be found in Petes' too
Why should the period be restricted to a span of only 8 years? Not really. Only you can think that if Pete had continued, he would have more chances of winning Wimbledon
Federer has more finals and one more title so good for him. I never claimed what he achieved is not better.
why it's so actual for you consecutive or not consecutive)totally both had 7 titles.. i think more impressive that he lost only once 1993-2000
2 defeat
nadal achievements always will be untouchableThere is not really much to choose between Pete Sampras and Roger Federer. It is astounding, both their achievements at Wimbledon. And then there is Nadal at FO
yes
The only Slam that Sampras would've had any chance of winning after 2002 would be the 2003 US Open. He did nothing at the AO (and he'd have little chance against Agassi), FO lmao, Federer was already there at Wimbledon in 2003 so good luck beating him there which leaves us with the 2003 US Open (no chance at any Slam after 2003 with peak Federer in the draw).
Fail. Fed won it more, Pete gave up and retired. Too bad for him.
and lost it more that mean he was not the best much more time than pete)..another example let it be allowed that both djoko and fed retire, and looking at their stats at AO, debating who is greater champion here..let's compare both have 6 titles,but djoko reached 1 title being younger and reaching number 6 title also much younger..though never lost in the final but fed lost, (and fed wouldn't won titles number 5 and 6 had he stopped to play let's say aged 33 while djoko already won 6 title aged 28)..and nowadays most people i guess would agree that djoko greater champion of AO than fed
agree he shouldn't give up
of course fed has the better record, i'm just saying playing ability on grass they were about equal. And I'm a Federer fan
exactly. same with fed..the lower number the better:fed 20-8=2,5...pete 14-7=2...borg 9-5=1,8...djoko 14-4=3,5...rafa 13-2=6,5...murray 12-2=6...fed at AO 19-6=3,16...djoko at AO 14-6=2,33...rafa at french 14-11=1,27
0-0 is a record. A record is simply "the sum of the past achievements or actions", and 0-0 is perfectly valid.
When have I discounted the losses? I am taking them into account. It's just that a loss is effectively a 0. You don't lose anything you've already achieved when you lose a match. You don't lose prize money, you don't lose ATP points, and you certainly don't lose any of the trophies you've already won. A loss is not a negative. It's just a 0.
It's not a worse record. It's a better record. Which of those two players has more ATP points and more prize money from their results?
I can and I have. 5-1000 is a better record than 4-0 in 1st Round matches. The fact that 5-1000 gets you more ATP points and more prize money than 4-0 alone is a decent argument for that.
Saying I am not mathematically sound is just as ad hominem as saying you're lacking intelligence. You're just proving my point about how you lack intelligence.
The same way I know Federer is better than I am at Tennis even though I never played on the ATP tour.
And it's possible I would have won 10 Wimbledon trophies if I was given 10 wild cards. Anything is possible, so that's not a very good argument.
Even if we are all agreed that they were as good as each other in their primes, what Federer achieved past his prime puts him above Sampras. To say it doesn't is about as illogical as it gets.
You reached a conclusion that because 1-0 is technically better than 14-4, but irrelevant, the same must be true with 7-0 and 8-3, even though the sum of those two records is much closer in total. A false dichotomy. Yet you continued saying I was not applying maths "uniformly," and I was not "mentally sound" which shows what little understanding you have on the topic. Since you kept talking as if you knew something I didn't, which you clearly do not, I had to call you out on your assumption that I was not "applying maths uniformly." a quite hilarious statement in and of itself, because maths is always applied uniformly, otherwise it doesn't work
. In the end, not really the same thing as what you're doing, aka "needling," look it up - a form of ad hominem. This is why it gets boring and mind-numbing to talk with someone like you who needs to use other ways argue that do not include only addressing the point.That's all from just a few minutes scrolling up in this thread, who knows how many more you use on a daily basis. But hey, if I'm guilty, which I probably am, I could still be excused for using it on you.
Math doesn't care about whether the sum of those two records is closer in total or not. As far as math is concerned, 1/1 > 14/18 and 7/7 > 8/11. If you want to argue that 1/1 being greater than 14/18 is irrelevant while 7/7 > 8/11 is relevant, you're not talking math anymore. You're just expressing an opinion.
That's exactly what you are doing. You keep repeating that 7-0 being a better record than 8-3 is a mathematical fact, when math doesn't say anything about which is "better". Math, in this conext, is only concerned with which is a higher winning %. They're two different things, as anyone with a functional brain will tell you.
If you could be excused for using it on me, and initiating it with me, I could be excused for using it on you too. Particularly when everything I said is backed up by fallacies that you have committed.Since you kept talking as if you knew something I didn't, which you clearly do not, I had to call you out on your assumption that I was not "applying maths uniformly." a quite hilarious statement in and of itself, because maths is always applied uniformly, otherwise it doesn't work
That's all from just a few minutes scrolling up in this thread, who knows how many more you use on a daily basis. But hey, if I'm guilty, which I probably am, I could still be excused for using it on you.
I don't know Sampras's playing level any better than you know mine. My point is that that isn't stopping you from saying Federer is a better player than I am, so why should that stop me from saying 2004 Roddick was way better than 2004 Sampras would have been?
No, I haven't. I said it's possible. Not that I would have. They're different things.
And if Sampras was anywhere near Wimbledon-winning level in 2004, he wouldn't have been retired and sitting at home.
so 8>7 is not a mathematical fact?
0<3. now what?
beloved
but..sorry i can't support you in your passion here..everything you want you can find the above these 11 pages yet, different points been fully opened up there) it make no sense to repeat again and againIts some kind of a trick question, very mature
. OP asks "finals results", which of course is irrelevant, because losing R1 will appear as stronger than winning 6 matches and losing the final. But anyway, finals results is what OP asks, and as silly as it is, you can defend 7-0 being stronger than 8-3, although in reality it isnt (like in boxing, where 7-0 would be stronger than 8-3, although it is totally incomparable)
