So Nadal surpasses Sampras on tms titles, Nadal 12 - Sampras 11

So Nadal surpasses Sampras on tms titles, Nadal 12 - Sampras 11

Post by RahimAsi » Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:44:38



Quote:






> > >> whisper despise claycourters




> > >>> Just had to tease Whispy a bit.

> > >>> --
> > >>> "If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two
> > >>> impostors
> > >>> just the same"

> > >> I think Pete is the man but this kid Nadal is amazing.....I think
> > >> Whispy will start hating Nadal soon when Nadal starts to look like he
> > >> may be GOAT material

> > > Incorrect. I never hated Fed, just the ceibs hyperbole.

> > > Federer is/was a great player, but to me never looked like the best in
> > > absolute terms. He certainly wasn't the best server/net player - & Rafa
> > > obviously is superior from baseline. McEnroe was vastly more talented &
> > > entertaining to watch, & Pete far better big match/clutch player. What's
> > > left is a very good baseliner who totally dominated a sub-quality field.

> > yes, and it is now so apparent that even fed fans have a hard time saying
> > no. once again, 3 yrs ahead of the gen public.

> > > Only Fed***ers have a problem with this assessment, as many real tennis
> > > experts have expressed similar sentiments to mine.

> > i believe i said it a month before you? :-)

> > > Just like Borg is greater than his talent warranted, Federer fits in
> > > similar category.
> > > Of course that's their good fortune - end of the day it doesn't really
> > > matter how you win the slams, as long as you do.

> > yes, he has the #s. he might still get the 14 or 15 slams. but fully 10 of
> > em will be against clown era and i'll know it.

> > bob

> Nonsense, bob, as always.

> >First let me give you an elementary math lesson. By your definition,

> clown era lasted 2003-2006. Fed has won 12 slams so far, and he won 3
> of them in 2007. 12 - 3 = 9. Which is not equal to "fully 10". So
> brush up on your subtraction and equality.

> full end of clown era really was advance of nadal non-clay and emergence of
> djok - 2007. you can't put a specific day on it, but it lasted a good 3-4
> yrs.

> >Secondly, about you being 3 years ahead of the public. If today I

> claim that Nadal is really not that good, and he is really feasting on
> a weak field that includes a burnt-out Federer and an erratic
> Djokovic, and in 2011, Nadal doesn't win a single slam (at the
> relatively young age of 25) because young guns like Gulbis get their
> act together, that won't make me correct and ahead of the public by 3
> years. We need another term for that kind of logic - foolish would do
> for now.

> but who in their right mind would say that all time great fed at 26 is a
> clown?

> >Finally, some history lesson. I see you constantly make fun of the

> fact that Fed is "only 26" peak age and him not winning any slams this
> year so far really proves he was dominating a clown era.

> don't make fun of it, just acknowledge it.

> > Remember,

> Sampras 1996, when Sampras was only 24/25 - straight sets thrashings
> in R3 of AO, SF at FO and QF at Wim to 3 players who won a combined of
> 3 slams total. Would at this point in 1996 it have been fair to say
> that 1993-1995 were clown years? Fed of course was this close to
> winning Wim and reached the final of the FO and semis at AO. Also, 26
> is past peak, Sampras himself after 1998 won a total of 4 slams in 5
> years, and the peak 2-slam years were a thing of the past by then.

> i'm not looking at the numbers, i'm looking at the players. look at top
> players from 1993-1996 and tell me they were clowns on roddick/hewitt/denko
> stature.

> >So lay off the sauce and try to be objective for a change and think

> before nodding yes to anything Whisper says...

> i nod yes to anything that agrees with my thoughts.
> you say something smart, i'll nod yes to you.

> bob

Here are some of the players who did great things around 96-97:
(1) Malivai Washington - Wim final 1996
(2) Jason Stoltenberg - Wim SF 1996
(3) Cedric Pioline - Wim Final 1997
(4) Mark Woodforde - AO final 1996
(5) Todd Woodbridge - Wim SF 1997

I am sure I missed some here, but clown years don't get worse than
that. But, of course, you are one of those who probably thinks that
Pioline will beat Federer at Wim (since he was able to make the final
in the 90s when it was so tough to win on grass and only lost to
Sampras), so no point arguing with you...

 
 
 

So Nadal surpasses Sampras on tms titles, Nadal 12 - Sampras 11

Post by jason-cat.. » Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:47:34


Quote:







> > > >> whisper despise claycourters




> > > >>> Just had to tease Whispy a bit.

> > > >>> --
> > > >>> "If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two
> > > >>> impostors
> > > >>> just the same"

> > > >> I think Pete is the man but this kid Nadal is amazing.....I think
> > > >> Whispy will start hating Nadal soon when Nadal starts to look like he
> > > >> may be GOAT material

> > > > Incorrect. I never hated Fed, just the ceibs hyperbole.

> > > > Federer is/was a great player, but to me never looked like the best in
> > > > absolute terms. He certainly wasn't the best server/net player - & Rafa
> > > > obviously is superior from baseline. McEnroe was vastly more talented &
> > > > entertaining to watch, & Pete far better big match/clutch player. What's
> > > > left is a very good baseliner who totally dominated a sub-quality field.

> > > yes, and it is now so apparent that even fed fans have a hard time saying
> > > no. once again, 3 yrs ahead of the gen public.

> > > > Only Fed***ers have a problem with this assessment, as many real tennis
> > > > experts have expressed similar sentiments to mine.

> > > i believe i said it a month before you? :-)

> > > > Just like Borg is greater than his talent warranted, Federer fits in
> > > > similar category.
> > > > Of course that's their good fortune - end of the day it doesn't really
> > > > matter how you win the slams, as long as you do.

> > > yes, he has the #s. he might still get the 14 or 15 slams. but fully 10 of
> > > em will be against clown era and i'll know it.

> > > bob

> > Nonsense, bob, as always.

> > >First let me give you an elementary math lesson. By your definition,

> > clown era lasted 2003-2006. Fed has won 12 slams so far, and he won 3
> > of them in 2007. 12 - 3 = 9. Which is not equal to "fully 10". So
> > brush up on your subtraction and equality.

> > full end of clown era really was advance of nadal non-clay and emergence of
> > djok - 2007. you can't put a specific day on it, but it lasted a good 3-4
> > yrs.

> > >Secondly, about you being 3 years ahead of the public. If today I

> > claim that Nadal is really not that good, and he is really feasting on
> > a weak field that includes a burnt-out Federer and an erratic
> > Djokovic, and in 2011, Nadal doesn't win a single slam (at the
> > relatively young age of 25) because young guns like Gulbis get their
> > act together, that won't make me correct and ahead of the public by 3
> > years. We need another term for that kind of logic - foolish would do
> > for now.

> > but who in their right mind would say that all time great fed at 26 is a
> > clown?

> > >Finally, some history lesson. I see you constantly make fun of the

> > fact that Fed is "only 26" peak age and him not winning any slams this
> > year so far really proves he was dominating a clown era.

> > don't make fun of it, just acknowledge it.

> > > Remember,

> > Sampras 1996, when Sampras was only 24/25 - straight sets thrashings
> > in R3 of AO, SF at FO and QF at Wim to 3 players who won a combined of
> > 3 slams total. Would at this point in 1996 it have been fair to say
> > that 1993-1995 were clown years? Fed of course was this close to
> > winning Wim and reached the final of the FO and semis at AO. Also, 26
> > is past peak, Sampras himself after 1998 won a total of 4 slams in 5
> > years, and the peak 2-slam years were a thing of the past by then.

> > i'm not looking at the numbers, i'm looking at the players. look at top
> > players from 1993-1996 and tell me they were clowns on roddick/hewitt/denko
> > stature.

> > >So lay off the sauce and try to be objective for a change and think

> > before nodding yes to anything Whisper says...

> > i nod yes to anything that agrees with my thoughts.
> > you say something smart, i'll nod yes to you.

> > bob

> Here are some of the players who did great things around 96-97:
> (1) Malivai Washington - Wim final 1996
> (2) Jason Stoltenberg - Wim SF 1996
> (3) Cedric Pioline - Wim Final 1997
> (4) Mark Woodforde - AO final 1996
> (5) Todd Woodbridge - Wim SF 1997

> I am sure I missed some here, but clown years don't get worse than
> that. But, of course, you are one of those who probably thinks that
> Pioline will beat Federer at Wim (since he was able to make the final
> in the 90s when it was so tough to win on grass and only lost to
> Sampras), so no point arguing with you...- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

Woodforde lost in 96 AO to Becker in semis.

 
 
 

So Nadal surpasses Sampras on tms titles, Nadal 12 - Sampras 11

Post by RahimAsi » Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:50:03


Quote:








> > > > >> whisper despise claycourters




> > > > >>> Just had to tease Whispy a bit.

> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> "If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two
> > > > >>> impostors
> > > > >>> just the same"

> > > > >> I think Pete is the man but this kid Nadal is amazing.....I think
> > > > >> Whispy will start hating Nadal soon when Nadal starts to look like he
> > > > >> may be GOAT material

> > > > > Incorrect. I never hated Fed, just the ceibs hyperbole.

> > > > > Federer is/was a great player, but to me never looked like the best in
> > > > > absolute terms. He certainly wasn't the best server/net player - & Rafa
> > > > > obviously is superior from baseline. McEnroe was vastly more talented &
> > > > > entertaining to watch, & Pete far better big match/clutch player. What's
> > > > > left is a very good baseliner who totally dominated a sub-quality field.

> > > > yes, and it is now so apparent that even fed fans have a hard time saying
> > > > no. once again, 3 yrs ahead of the gen public.

> > > > > Only Fed***ers have a problem with this assessment, as many real tennis
> > > > > experts have expressed similar sentiments to mine.

> > > > i believe i said it a month before you? :-)

> > > > > Just like Borg is greater than his talent warranted, Federer fits in
> > > > > similar category.
> > > > > Of course that's their good fortune - end of the day it doesn't really
> > > > > matter how you win the slams, as long as you do.

> > > > yes, he has the #s. he might still get the 14 or 15 slams. but fully 10 of
> > > > em will be against clown era and i'll know it.

> > > > bob

> > > Nonsense, bob, as always.

> > > >First let me give you an elementary math lesson. By your definition,

> > > clown era lasted 2003-2006. Fed has won 12 slams so far, and he won 3
> > > of them in 2007. 12 - 3 = 9. Which is not equal to "fully 10". So
> > > brush up on your subtraction and equality.

> > > full end of clown era really was advance of nadal non-clay and emergence of
> > > djok - 2007. you can't put a specific day on it, but it lasted a good 3-4
> > > yrs.

> > > >Secondly, about you being 3 years ahead of the public. If today I

> > > claim that Nadal is really not that good, and he is really feasting on
> > > a weak field that includes a burnt-out Federer and an erratic
> > > Djokovic, and in 2011, Nadal doesn't win a single slam (at the
> > > relatively young age of 25) because young guns like Gulbis get their
> > > act together, that won't make me correct and ahead of the public by 3
> > > years. We need another term for that kind of logic - foolish would do
> > > for now.

> > > but who in their right mind would say that all time great fed at 26 is a
> > > clown?

> > > >Finally, some history lesson. I see you constantly make fun of the

> > > fact that Fed is "only 26" peak age and him not winning any slams this
> > > year so far really proves he was dominating a clown era.

> > > don't make fun of it, just acknowledge it.

> > > > Remember,

> > > Sampras 1996, when Sampras was only 24/25 - straight sets thrashings
> > > in R3 of AO, SF at FO and QF at Wim to 3 players who won a combined of
> > > 3 slams total. Would at this point in 1996 it have been fair to say
> > > that 1993-1995 were clown years? Fed of course was this close to
> > > winning Wim and reached the final of the FO and semis at AO. Also, 26
> > > is past peak, Sampras himself after 1998 won a total of 4 slams in 5
> > > years, and the peak 2-slam years were a thing of the past by then.

> > > i'm not looking at the numbers, i'm looking at the players. look at top
> > > players from 1993-1996 and tell me they were clowns on roddick/hewitt/denko
> > > stature.

> > > >So lay off the sauce and try to be objective for a change and think

> > > before nodding yes to anything Whisper says...

> > > i nod yes to anything that agrees with my thoughts.
> > > you say something smart, i'll nod yes to you.

> > > bob

> > Here are some of the players who did great things around 96-97:
> > (1) Malivai Washington - Wim final 1996
> > (2) Jason Stoltenberg - Wim SF 1996
> > (3) Cedric Pioline - Wim Final 1997
> > (4) Mark Woodforde - AO final 1996
> > (5) Todd Woodbridge - Wim SF 1997

> > I am sure I missed some here, but clown years don't get worse than
> > that. But, of course, you are one of those who probably thinks that
> > Pioline will beat Federer at Wim (since he was able to make the final
> > in the 90s when it was so tough to win on grass and only lost to
> > Sampras), so no point arguing with you...- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> Woodforde lost in 96 AO to Becker in semis.

Yeah, I meant semis sorry - still pretty pathetic...

 
 
 

So Nadal surpasses Sampras on tms titles, Nadal 12 - Sampras 11

Post by jason-cat.. » Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:57:57


Quote:









> > > > > >> whisper despise claycourters




> > > > > >>> Just had to tease Whispy a bit.

> > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >>> "If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two
> > > > > >>> impostors
> > > > > >>> just the same"

> > > > > >> I think Pete is the man but this kid Nadal is amazing.....I think
> > > > > >> Whispy will start hating Nadal soon when Nadal starts to look like he
> > > > > >> may be GOAT material

> > > > > > Incorrect. I never hated Fed, just the ceibs hyperbole.

> > > > > > Federer is/was a great player, but to me never looked like the best in
> > > > > > absolute terms. He certainly wasn't the best server/net player - & Rafa
> > > > > > obviously is superior from baseline. McEnroe was vastly more talented &
> > > > > > entertaining to watch, & Pete far better big match/clutch player. What's
> > > > > > left is a very good baseliner who totally dominated a sub-quality field.

> > > > > yes, and it is now so apparent that even fed fans have a hard time saying
> > > > > no. once again, 3 yrs ahead of the gen public.

> > > > > > Only Fed***ers have a problem with this assessment, as many real tennis
> > > > > > experts have expressed similar sentiments to mine.

> > > > > i believe i said it a month before you? :-)

> > > > > > Just like Borg is greater than his talent warranted, Federer fits in
> > > > > > similar category.
> > > > > > Of course that's their good fortune - end of the day it doesn't really
> > > > > > matter how you win the slams, as long as you do.

> > > > > yes, he has the #s. he might still get the 14 or 15 slams. but fully 10 of
> > > > > em will be against clown era and i'll know it.

> > > > > bob

> > > > Nonsense, bob, as always.

> > > > >First let me give you an elementary math lesson. By your definition,

> > > > clown era lasted 2003-2006. Fed has won 12 slams so far, and he won 3
> > > > of them in 2007. 12 - 3 = 9. Which is not equal to "fully 10". So
> > > > brush up on your subtraction and equality.

> > > > full end of clown era really was advance of nadal non-clay and emergence of
> > > > djok - 2007. you can't put a specific day on it, but it lasted a good 3-4
> > > > yrs.

> > > > >Secondly, about you being 3 years ahead of the public. If today I

> > > > claim that Nadal is really not that good, and he is really feasting on
> > > > a weak field that includes a burnt-out Federer and an erratic
> > > > Djokovic, and in 2011, Nadal doesn't win a single slam (at the
> > > > relatively young age of 25) because young guns like Gulbis get their
> > > > act together, that won't make me correct and ahead of the public by 3
> > > > years. We need another term for that kind of logic - foolish would do
> > > > for now.

> > > > but who in their right mind would say that all time great fed at 26 is a
> > > > clown?

> > > > >Finally, some history lesson. I see you constantly make fun of the

> > > > fact that Fed is "only 26" peak age and him not winning any slams this
> > > > year so far really proves he was dominating a clown era.

> > > > don't make fun of it, just acknowledge it.

> > > > > Remember,

> > > > Sampras 1996, when Sampras was only 24/25 - straight sets thrashings
> > > > in R3 of AO, SF at FO and QF at Wim to 3 players who won a combined of
> > > > 3 slams total. Would at this point in 1996 it have been fair to say
> > > > that 1993-1995 were clown years? Fed of course was this close to
> > > > winning Wim and reached the final of the FO and semis at AO. Also, 26
> > > > is past peak, Sampras himself after 1998 won a total of 4 slams in 5
> > > > years, and the peak 2-slam years were a thing of the past by then.

> > > > i'm not looking at the numbers, i'm looking at the players. look at top
> > > > players from 1993-1996 and tell me they were clowns on roddick/hewitt/denko
> > > > stature.

> > > > >So lay off the sauce and try to be objective for a change and think

> > > > before nodding yes to anything Whisper says...

> > > > i nod yes to anything that agrees with my thoughts.
> > > > you say something smart, i'll nod yes to you.

> > > > bob

> > > Here are some of the players who did great things around 96-97:
> > > (1) Malivai Washington - Wim final 1996
> > > (2) Jason Stoltenberg - Wim SF 1996
> > > (3) Cedric Pioline - Wim Final 1997
> > > (4) Mark Woodforde - AO final 1996
> > > (5) Todd Woodbridge - Wim SF 1997

> > > I am sure I missed some here, but clown years don't get worse than
> > > that. But, of course, you are one of those who probably thinks that
> > > Pioline will beat Federer at Wim (since he was able to make the final
> > > in the 90s when it was so tough to win on grass and only lost to
> > > Sampras), so no point arguing with you...- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -

> > Woodforde lost in 96 AO to Becker in semis.

> Yeah, I meant semis sorry - still pretty pathetic...- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

Hops posted a funny post about clown era once. Here it is:

http://SportToday.org/

Basically showed there's been one non-clown year in the last 40 years.
That was 1995. I think this year could arguably be the second one.

 
 
 

So Nadal surpasses Sampras on tms titles, Nadal 12 - Sampras 11

Post by RahimAsi » Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:03:15


Quote:










> > > > > > >> whisper despise claycourters




> > > > > > >>> Just had to tease Whispy a bit.

> > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > >>> "If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two
> > > > > > >>> impostors
> > > > > > >>> just the same"

> > > > > > >> I think Pete is the man but this kid Nadal is amazing.....I think
> > > > > > >> Whispy will start hating Nadal soon when Nadal starts to look like he
> > > > > > >> may be GOAT material

> > > > > > > Incorrect. I never hated Fed, just the ceibs hyperbole.

> > > > > > > Federer is/was a great player, but to me never looked like the best in
> > > > > > > absolute terms. He certainly wasn't the best server/net player - & Rafa
> > > > > > > obviously is superior from baseline. McEnroe was vastly more talented &
> > > > > > > entertaining to watch, & Pete far better big match/clutch player. What's
> > > > > > > left is a very good baseliner who totally dominated a sub-quality field.

> > > > > > yes, and it is now so apparent that even fed fans have a hard time saying
> > > > > > no. once again, 3 yrs ahead of the gen public.

> > > > > > > Only Fed***ers have a problem with this assessment, as many real tennis
> > > > > > > experts have expressed similar sentiments to mine.

> > > > > > i believe i said it a month before you? :-)

> > > > > > > Just like Borg is greater than his talent warranted, Federer fits in
> > > > > > > similar category.
> > > > > > > Of course that's their good fortune - end of the day it doesn't really
> > > > > > > matter how you win the slams, as long as you do.

> > > > > > yes, he has the #s. he might still get the 14 or 15 slams. but fully 10 of
> > > > > > em will be against clown era and i'll know it.

> > > > > > bob

> > > > > Nonsense, bob, as always.

> > > > > >First let me give you an elementary math lesson. By your definition,

> > > > > clown era lasted 2003-2006. Fed has won 12 slams so far, and he won 3
> > > > > of them in 2007. 12 - 3 = 9. Which is not equal to "fully 10". So
> > > > > brush up on your subtraction and equality.

> > > > > full end of clown era really was advance of nadal non-clay and emergence of
> > > > > djok - 2007. you can't put a specific day on it, but it lasted a good 3-4
> > > > > yrs.

> > > > > >Secondly, about you being 3 years ahead of the public. If today I

> > > > > claim that Nadal is really not that good, and he is really feasting on
> > > > > a weak field that includes a burnt-out Federer and an erratic
> > > > > Djokovic, and in 2011, Nadal doesn't win a single slam (at the
> > > > > relatively young age of 25) because young guns like Gulbis get their
> > > > > act together, that won't make me correct and ahead of the public by 3
> > > > > years. We need another term for that kind of logic - foolish would do
> > > > > for now.

> > > > > but who in their right mind would say that all time great fed at 26 is a
> > > > > clown?

> > > > > >Finally, some history lesson. I see you constantly make fun of the

> > > > > fact that Fed is "only 26" peak age and him not winning any slams this
> > > > > year so far really proves he was dominating a clown era.

> > > > > don't make fun of it, just acknowledge it.

> > > > > > Remember,

> > > > > Sampras 1996, when Sampras was only 24/25 - straight sets thrashings
> > > > > in R3 of AO, SF at FO and QF at Wim to 3 players who won a combined of
> > > > > 3 slams total. Would at this point in 1996 it have been fair to say
> > > > > that 1993-1995 were clown years? Fed of course was this close to
> > > > > winning Wim and reached the final of the FO and semis at AO. Also, 26
> > > > > is past peak, Sampras himself after 1998 won a total of 4 slams in 5
> > > > > years, and the peak 2-slam years were a thing of the past by then.

> > > > > i'm not looking at the numbers, i'm looking at the players. look at top
> > > > > players from 1993-1996 and tell me they were clowns on roddick/hewitt/denko
> > > > > stature.

> > > > > >So lay off the sauce and try to be objective for a change and think

> > > > > before nodding yes to anything Whisper says...

> > > > > i nod yes to anything that agrees with my thoughts.
> > > > > you say something smart, i'll nod yes to you.

> > > > > bob

> > > > Here are some of the players who did great things around 96-97:
> > > > (1) Malivai Washington - Wim final 1996
> > > > (2) Jason Stoltenberg - Wim SF 1996
> > > > (3) Cedric Pioline - Wim Final 1997
> > > > (4) Mark Woodforde - AO final 1996
> > > > (5) Todd Woodbridge - Wim SF 1997

> > > > I am sure I missed some here, but clown years don't get worse than
> > > > that. But, of course, you are one of those who probably thinks that
> > > > Pioline will beat Federer at Wim (since he was able to make the final
> > > > in the 90s when it was so tough to win on grass and only lost to
> > > > Sampras), so no point arguing with you...- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -

> > > Woodforde lost in 96 AO to Becker in semis.

> > Yeah, I meant semis sorry - still pretty pathetic...- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> Hops posted a funny post about clown era once. Here it is:

> http://SportToday.org/

> Basically showed there's been one non-clown year in the last 40 years.
> That was 1995. I think this year could arguably be the second one.

I agree - this whole clown era thing is utter rubbish. The reason
Woodforde was in the semis was because he beat Flipper who beat
Sampras. The not-so-great players making the late rounds is because
they beat a good/great player along the way, or beat someone who beat
that player. I just posted this to reply to bob who keeps saying that
Fed has been beating poor players, when Sampras also had plenty of not-
so-great players on his way to big titles. And really, between Agassi
went AWOL between 1995 and 1999, who threatened Sampras? Chang - he
was the *** #2 then? Goran - he was a flake who only did well at
Wimby, though is my all time fave :)
 
 
 

So Nadal surpasses Sampras on tms titles, Nadal 12 - Sampras 11

Post by jason-cat.. » Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:12:02


Quote:











> > > > > > > >> whisper despise claycourters




> > > > > > > >>> Just had to tease Whispy a bit.

> > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > >>> "If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two
> > > > > > > >>> impostors
> > > > > > > >>> just the same"

> > > > > > > >> I think Pete is the man but this kid Nadal is amazing.....I think
> > > > > > > >> Whispy will start hating Nadal soon when Nadal starts to look like he
> > > > > > > >> may be GOAT material

> > > > > > > > Incorrect. I never hated Fed, just the ceibs hyperbole.

> > > > > > > > Federer is/was a great player, but to me never looked like the best in
> > > > > > > > absolute terms. He certainly wasn't the best server/net player - & Rafa
> > > > > > > > obviously is superior from baseline. McEnroe was vastly more talented &
> > > > > > > > entertaining to watch, & Pete far better big match/clutch player. What's
> > > > > > > > left is a very good baseliner who totally dominated a sub-quality field.

> > > > > > > yes, and it is now so apparent that even fed fans have a hard time saying
> > > > > > > no. once again, 3 yrs ahead of the gen public.

> > > > > > > > Only Fed***ers have a problem with this assessment, as many real tennis
> > > > > > > > experts have expressed similar sentiments to mine.

> > > > > > > i believe i said it a month before you? :-)

> > > > > > > > Just like Borg is greater than his talent warranted, Federer fits in
> > > > > > > > similar category.
> > > > > > > > Of course that's their good fortune - end of the day it doesn't really
> > > > > > > > matter how you win the slams, as long as you do.

> > > > > > > yes, he has the #s. he might still get the 14 or 15 slams. but fully 10 of
> > > > > > > em will be against clown era and i'll know it.

> > > > > > > bob

> > > > > > Nonsense, bob, as always.

> > > > > > >First let me give you an elementary math lesson. By your definition,

> > > > > > clown era lasted 2003-2006. Fed has won 12 slams so far, and he won 3
> > > > > > of them in 2007. 12 - 3 = 9. Which is not equal to "fully 10". So
> > > > > > brush up on your subtraction and equality.

> > > > > > full end of clown era really was advance of nadal non-clay and emergence of
> > > > > > djok - 2007. you can't put a specific day on it, but it lasted a good 3-4
> > > > > > yrs.

> > > > > > >Secondly, about you being 3 years ahead of the public. If today I

> > > > > > claim that Nadal is really not that good, and he is really feasting on
> > > > > > a weak field that includes a burnt-out Federer and an erratic
> > > > > > Djokovic, and in 2011, Nadal doesn't win a single slam (at the
> > > > > > relatively young age of 25) because young guns like Gulbis get their
> > > > > > act together, that won't make me correct and ahead of the public by 3
> > > > > > years. We need another term for that kind of logic - foolish would do
> > > > > > for now.

> > > > > > but who in their right mind would say that all time great fed at 26 is a
> > > > > > clown?

> > > > > > >Finally, some history lesson. I see you constantly make fun of the

> > > > > > fact that Fed is "only 26" peak age and him not winning any slams this
> > > > > > year so far really proves he was dominating a clown era.

> > > > > > don't make fun of it, just acknowledge it.

> > > > > > > Remember,

> > > > > > Sampras 1996, when Sampras was only 24/25 - straight sets thrashings
> > > > > > in R3 of AO, SF at FO and QF at Wim to 3 players who won a combined of
> > > > > > 3 slams total. Would at this point in 1996 it have been fair to say
> > > > > > that 1993-1995 were clown years? Fed of course was this close to
> > > > > > winning Wim and reached the final of the FO and semis at AO. Also, 26
> > > > > > is past peak, Sampras himself after 1998 won a total of 4 slams in 5
> > > > > > years, and the peak 2-slam years were a thing of the past by then.

> > > > > > i'm not looking at the numbers, i'm looking at the players. look at top
> > > > > > players from 1993-1996 and tell me they were clowns on roddick/hewitt/denko
> > > > > > stature.

> > > > > > >So lay off the sauce and try to be objective for a change and think

> > > > > > before nodding yes to anything Whisper says...

> > > > > > i nod yes to anything that agrees with my thoughts.
> > > > > > you say something smart, i'll nod yes to you.

> > > > > > bob

> > > > > Here are some of the players who did great things around 96-97:
> > > > > (1) Malivai Washington - Wim final 1996
> > > > > (2) Jason Stoltenberg - Wim SF 1996
> > > > > (3) Cedric Pioline - Wim Final 1997
> > > > > (4) Mark Woodforde - AO final 1996
> > > > > (5) Todd Woodbridge - Wim SF 1997

> > > > > I am sure I missed some here, but clown years don't get worse than
> > > > > that. But, of course, you are one of those who probably thinks that
> > > > > Pioline will beat Federer at Wim (since he was able to make the final
> > > > > in the 90s when it was so tough to win on grass and only lost to
> > > > > Sampras), so no point arguing with you...- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > - Show quoted text -

> > > > Woodforde lost in 96 AO to Becker in semis.

> > > Yeah, I meant semis sorry - still pretty pathetic...- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -

> > Hops posted a funny post about clown era once. Here it is:

> >http://SportToday.org/

> > Basically showed there's been one non-clown year in the last 40 years.
> > That was 1995. I think this year could arguably be the second one.

> I agree - this whole clown era thing is utter rubbish. The reason
> Woodforde was in the semis was because he beat Flipper who beat
> Sampras. The not-so-great players making the late rounds is because
> they beat a good/great player along the way, or beat someone who beat
> that player. I just posted this to reply to bob who keeps saying that
> Fed has been beating poor players, when Sampras also had plenty of not-
> so-great players on his way to big titles. And really, between Agassi
> went AWOL between 1995 and 1999, who threatened Sampras? Chang - he
> was the *** #2 then? Goran - he was a flake who only did well at
> Wimby, though is my all time fave :)- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

Yes, Whisper and Bob know all this clown era stuff is completely
meaningless and they only do
it to get under the skin of Fed fans.

At the end of the day, judging the competition is a purely subjective
endeavor and all we're left with is what and how many Slams did you
win.

 
 
 

So Nadal surpasses Sampras on tms titles, Nadal 12 - Sampras 11

Post by arnab. » Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:17:03


Quote:












> > > > > > > > >> whisper despise claycourters




> > > > > > > > >>> Just had to tease Whispy a bit.

> > > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > > >>> "If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two
> > > > > > > > >>> impostors
> > > > > > > > >>> just the same"

> > > > > > > > >> I think Pete is the man but this kid Nadal is amazing.....I think
> > > > > > > > >> Whispy will start hating Nadal soon when Nadal starts to look like he
> > > > > > > > >> may be GOAT material

> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. I never hated Fed, just the ceibs hyperbole.

> > > > > > > > > Federer is/was a great player, but to me never looked like the best in
> > > > > > > > > absolute terms. He certainly wasn't the best server/net player - & Rafa
> > > > > > > > > obviously is superior from baseline. McEnroe was vastly more talented &
> > > > > > > > > entertaining to watch, & Pete far better big match/clutch player. What's
> > > > > > > > > left is a very good baseliner who totally dominated a sub-quality field.

> > > > > > > > yes, and it is now so apparent that even fed fans have a hard time saying
> > > > > > > > no. once again, 3 yrs ahead of the gen public.

> > > > > > > > > Only Fed***ers have a problem with this assessment, as many real tennis
> > > > > > > > > experts have expressed similar sentiments to mine.

> > > > > > > > i believe i said it a month before you? :-)

> > > > > > > > > Just like Borg is greater than his talent warranted, Federer fits in
> > > > > > > > > similar category.
> > > > > > > > > Of course that's their good fortune - end of the day it doesn't really
> > > > > > > > > matter how you win the slams, as long as you do.

> > > > > > > > yes, he has the #s. he might still get the 14 or 15 slams. but fully 10 of
> > > > > > > > em will be against clown era and i'll know it.

> > > > > > > > bob

> > > > > > > Nonsense, bob, as always.

> > > > > > > >First let me give you an elementary math lesson. By your definition,

> > > > > > > clown era lasted 2003-2006. Fed has won 12 slams so far, and he won 3
> > > > > > > of them in 2007. 12 - 3 = 9. Which is not equal to "fully 10". So
> > > > > > > brush up on your subtraction and equality.

> > > > > > > full end of clown era really was advance of nadal non-clay and emergence of
> > > > > > > djok - 2007. you can't put a specific day on it, but it lasted a good 3-4
> > > > > > > yrs.

> > > > > > > >Secondly, about you being 3 years ahead of the public. If today I

> > > > > > > claim that Nadal is really not that good, and he is really feasting on
> > > > > > > a weak field that includes a burnt-out Federer and an erratic
> > > > > > > Djokovic, and in 2011, Nadal doesn't win a single slam (at the
> > > > > > > relatively young age of 25) because young guns like Gulbis get their
> > > > > > > act together, that won't make me correct and ahead of the public by 3
> > > > > > > years. We need another term for that kind of logic - foolish would do
> > > > > > > for now.

> > > > > > > but who in their right mind would say that all time great fed at 26 is a
> > > > > > > clown?

> > > > > > > >Finally, some history lesson. I see you constantly make fun of the

> > > > > > > fact that Fed is "only 26" peak age and him not winning any slams this
> > > > > > > year so far really proves he was dominating a clown era.

> > > > > > > don't make fun of it, just acknowledge it.

> > > > > > > > Remember,

> > > > > > > Sampras 1996, when Sampras was only 24/25 - straight sets thrashings
> > > > > > > in R3 of AO, SF at FO and QF at Wim to 3 players who won a combined of
> > > > > > > 3 slams total. Would at this point in 1996 it have been fair to say
> > > > > > > that 1993-1995 were clown years? Fed of course was this close to
> > > > > > > winning Wim and reached the final of the FO and semis at AO. Also, 26
> > > > > > > is past peak, Sampras himself after 1998 won a total of 4 slams in 5
> > > > > > > years, and the peak 2-slam years were a thing of the past by then.

> > > > > > > i'm not looking at the numbers, i'm looking at the players. look at top
> > > > > > > players from 1993-1996 and tell me they were clowns on roddick/hewitt/denko
> > > > > > > stature.

> > > > > > > >So lay off the sauce and try to be objective for a change and think

> > > > > > > before nodding yes to anything Whisper says...

> > > > > > > i nod yes to anything that agrees with my thoughts.
> > > > > > > you say something smart, i'll nod yes to you.

> > > > > > > bob

> > > > > > Here are some of the players who did great things around 96-97:
> > > > > > (1) Malivai Washington - Wim final 1996
> > > > > > (2) Jason Stoltenberg - Wim SF 1996
> > > > > > (3) Cedric Pioline - Wim Final 1997
> > > > > > (4) Mark Woodforde - AO final 1996
> > > > > > (5) Todd Woodbridge - Wim SF 1997

> > > > > > I am sure I missed some here, but clown years don't get worse than
> > > > > > that. But, of course, you are one of those who probably thinks that
> > > > > > Pioline will beat Federer at Wim (since he was able to make the final
> > > > > > in the 90s when it was so tough to win on grass and only lost to
> > > > > > Sampras), so no point arguing with you...- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > > - Show quoted text -

> > > > > Woodforde lost in 96 AO to Becker in semis.

> > > > Yeah, I meant semis sorry - still pretty pathetic...- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -

> > > Hops posted a funny post about clown era once. Here it is:

> > >http://SportToday.org/

> > > Basically showed there's been one non-clown year in the last 40 years.
> > > That was 1995. I think this year could arguably be the second one.

> > I agree - this whole clown era thing is utter rubbish. The reason
> > Woodforde was in the semis was because he beat Flipper who beat
> > Sampras. The not-so-great players making the late rounds is because
> > they beat a good/great player along the way, or beat someone who beat
> > that player. I just posted this to reply to bob who keeps saying that
> > Fed has been beating poor players, when Sampras also had plenty of not-
> > so-great players on his way to big titles. And really, between Agassi
> > went AWOL between 1995 and 1999, who threatened Sampras? Chang - he
> > was the *** #2 then? Goran - he was a flake who only did well at
> > Wimby, though is my all time fave :)- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> Yes, Whisper and Bob know all this clown era stuff is completely
> meaningless and they only do
> it to get under the skin of Fed fans.

> At the end of the day, judging the competition is a purely subjective
> endeavor and all we're left with is what and how many Slams did you
> win.

yes, but Rahima thinks final scores don't count and Federer's wins in
Wimby 2007 and USO 2007 were flukes. Kinda hard to take seriously
someone who on one hand denounces clown era, yet in the same breath
states that Federer was "lucky"  to win slams post AO 2007,
insinuating that Federer won against clowns in those two tournaments,
and thereby contradicting himself...
 
 
 

So Nadal surpasses Sampras on tms titles, Nadal 12 - Sampras 11

Post by RahimAsi » Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:17:17


Quote:












> > > > > > > > >> whisper despise claycourters




> > > > > > > > >>> Just had to tease Whispy a bit.

> > > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > > >>> "If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two
> > > > > > > > >>> impostors
> > > > > > > > >>> just the same"

> > > > > > > > >> I think Pete is the man but this kid Nadal is amazing.....I think
> > > > > > > > >> Whispy will start hating Nadal soon when Nadal starts to look like he
> > > > > > > > >> may be GOAT material

> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. I never hated Fed, just the ceibs hyperbole.

> > > > > > > > > Federer is/was a great player, but to me never looked like the best in
> > > > > > > > > absolute terms. He certainly wasn't the best server/net player - & Rafa
> > > > > > > > > obviously is superior from baseline. McEnroe was vastly more talented &
> > > > > > > > > entertaining to watch, & Pete far better big match/clutch player. What's
> > > > > > > > > left is a very good baseliner who totally dominated a sub-quality field.

> > > > > > > > yes, and it is now so apparent that even fed fans have a hard time saying
> > > > > > > > no. once again, 3 yrs ahead of the gen public.

> > > > > > > > > Only Fed***ers have a problem with this assessment, as many real tennis
> > > > > > > > > experts have expressed similar sentiments to mine.

> > > > > > > > i believe i said it a month before you? :-)

> > > > > > > > > Just like Borg is greater than his talent warranted, Federer fits in
> > > > > > > > > similar category.
> > > > > > > > > Of course that's their good fortune - end of the day it doesn't really
> > > > > > > > > matter how you win the slams, as long as you do.

> > > > > > > > yes, he has the #s. he might still get the 14 or 15 slams. but fully 10 of
> > > > > > > > em will be against clown era and i'll know it.

> > > > > > > > bob

> > > > > > > Nonsense, bob, as always.

> > > > > > > >First let me give you an elementary math lesson. By your definition,

> > > > > > > clown era lasted 2003-2006. Fed has won 12 slams so far, and he won 3
> > > > > > > of them in 2007. 12 - 3 = 9. Which is not equal to "fully 10". So
> > > > > > > brush up on your subtraction and equality.

> > > > > > > full end of clown era really was advance of nadal non-clay and emergence of
> > > > > > > djok - 2007. you can't put a specific day on it, but it lasted a good 3-4
> > > > > > > yrs.

> > > > > > > >Secondly, about you being 3 years ahead of the public. If today I

> > > > > > > claim that Nadal is really not that good, and he is really feasting on
> > > > > > > a weak field that includes a burnt-out Federer and an erratic
> > > > > > > Djokovic, and in 2011, Nadal doesn't win a single slam (at the
> > > > > > > relatively young age of 25) because young guns like Gulbis get their
> > > > > > > act together, that won't make me correct and ahead of the public by 3
> > > > > > > years. We need another term for that kind of logic - foolish would do
> > > > > > > for now.

> > > > > > > but who in their right mind would say that all time great fed at 26 is a
> > > > > > > clown?

> > > > > > > >Finally, some history lesson. I see you constantly make fun of the

> > > > > > > fact that Fed is "only 26" peak age and him not winning any slams this
> > > > > > > year so far really proves he was dominating a clown era.

> > > > > > > don't make fun of it, just acknowledge it.

> > > > > > > > Remember,

> > > > > > > Sampras 1996, when Sampras was only 24/25 - straight sets thrashings
> > > > > > > in R3 of AO, SF at FO and QF at Wim to 3 players who won a combined of
> > > > > > > 3 slams total. Would at this point in 1996 it have been fair to say
> > > > > > > that 1993-1995 were clown years? Fed of course was this close to
> > > > > > > winning Wim and reached the final of the FO and semis at AO. Also, 26
> > > > > > > is past peak, Sampras himself after 1998 won a total of 4 slams in 5
> > > > > > > years, and the peak 2-slam years were a thing of the past by then.

> > > > > > > i'm not looking at the numbers, i'm looking at the players. look at top
> > > > > > > players from 1993-1996 and tell me they were clowns on roddick/hewitt/denko
> > > > > > > stature.

> > > > > > > >So lay off the sauce and try to be objective for a change and think

> > > > > > > before nodding yes to anything Whisper says...

> > > > > > > i nod yes to anything that agrees with my thoughts.
> > > > > > > you say something smart, i'll nod yes to you.

> > > > > > > bob

> > > > > > Here are some of the players who did great things around 96-97:
> > > > > > (1) Malivai Washington - Wim final 1996
> > > > > > (2) Jason Stoltenberg - Wim SF 1996
> > > > > > (3) Cedric Pioline - Wim Final 1997
> > > > > > (4) Mark Woodforde - AO final 1996
> > > > > > (5) Todd Woodbridge - Wim SF 1997

> > > > > > I am sure I missed some here, but clown years don't get worse than
> > > > > > that. But, of course, you are one of those who probably thinks that
> > > > > > Pioline will beat Federer at Wim (since he was able to make the final
> > > > > > in the 90s when it was so tough to win on grass and only lost to
> > > > > > Sampras), so no point arguing with you...- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > > - Show quoted text -

> > > > > Woodforde lost in 96 AO to Becker in semis.

> > > > Yeah, I meant semis sorry - still pretty pathetic...- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -

> > > Hops posted a funny post about clown era once. Here it is:

> > >http://SportToday.org/

> > > Basically showed there's been one non-clown year in the last 40 years.
> > > That was 1995. I think this year could arguably be the second one.

> > I agree - this whole clown era thing is utter rubbish. The reason
> > Woodforde was in the semis was because he beat Flipper who beat
> > Sampras. The not-so-great players making the late rounds is because
> > they beat a good/great player along the way, or beat someone who beat
> > that player. I just posted this to reply to bob who keeps saying that
> > Fed has been beating poor players, when Sampras also had plenty of not-
> > so-great players on his way to big titles. And really, between Agassi
> > went AWOL between 1995 and 1999, who threatened Sampras? Chang - he
> > was the *** #2 then? Goran - he was a flake who only did well at
> > Wimby, though is my all time fave :)- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> Yes, Whisper and Bob know all this clown era stuff is completely
> meaningless and they only do
> it to get under the skin of Fed fans.

> At the end of the day, judging the competition is a purely subjective
> endeavor and all we're left with is what and how many Slams did you
> win.

And you do know what bob had said around 2001/2002 - "Roddick would
win the most slams in an era too deep for anyone to dominate".
 
 
 

So Nadal surpasses Sampras on tms titles, Nadal 12 - Sampras 11

Post by Whispe » Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:18:27

Quote:

>> especially if
>> he can really dominate over the next couple of months and win the
>> NCYGS. That would make him co-goat at the French and one of the few in
>> tennis history with four in a row (almost surely five in a row if he
>> did complete the NCYGS)

>> If he really can achieve what I'm suggesting, then - if we're using
>> 7543 - bonus points would have to be in order.

> Don't use biased, silly 7543, and then you won't have to worry about
> bonus points. Just consider the slam wins (plus anything else you
> think relevant) on their own merits.

> Joe Ramirez

Life is biased.  It's not fair Anjelina Jolie is more beautiful than
Roseanne Barr & Wimbledon > AO, but that's reality.
 
 
 

So Nadal surpasses Sampras on tms titles, Nadal 12 - Sampras 11

Post by RahimAsi » Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:28:12


Quote:

> >> especially if
> >> he can really dominate over the next couple of months and win the
> >> NCYGS. That would make him co-goat at the French and one of the few in
> >> tennis history with four in a row (almost surely five in a row if he
> >> did complete the NCYGS)

> >> If he really can achieve what I'm suggesting, then - if we're using
> >> 7543 - bonus points would have to be in order.

> > Don't use biased, silly 7543, and then you won't have to worry about
> > bonus points. Just consider the slam wins (plus anything else you
> > think relevant) on their own merits.

> > Joe Ramirez

> Life is biased. ?It's not fair Anjelina Jolie is more beautiful than
> Roseanne Barr & Wimbledon > AO, but that's reality.

Yes, but those are the easy ones. How can you definitively say USO >
FO? Nadal winning FO-Wim has been considered a bigger deal than Fed
winning Wim-USO, so that must mean FO > USO, no?
 
 
 

So Nadal surpasses Sampras on tms titles, Nadal 12 - Sampras 11

Post by TJT » Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:30:34


Quote:







> > > >>> Just had to tease Whispy a bit.
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> "If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two
> > > >>> impostors
> > > >>> just the same"
> > > >> I think Pete is the man but this kid Nadal is amazing.....I think
> > > >> Whispy will start hating Nadal soon when Nadal starts to look like he
> > > >> may be GOAT material

> > > > Whisper is already giving us all these "if Nadal played Sampras"
> > > > scenarios so he's already cooking
> > > > up his excuses.

> > > > Not to worry. I don't think Nadal's body will last long enough to
> > > > take more than 10 majors but it doesn't matter. He's already shown
> > > > himself to be one of the all-time greats.

> > > Yeah, if he can win 5, 6 straight FO's that would boost his legacy in a
> > > major way. Big time domination at FO is rare - only Borg won more than 4.-
> > > Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -
> > >I think with 6 FOs and two each of the other Slams that could put him

> > in the goat conversation, especially if
> > he can really dominate over the next couple of months and win the
> > NCYGS. That would make him co-goat at the French and one of the few in
> > tennis history with four in a row (almost surely five in a row if he
> > did complete the NCYGS)

> > hypothetically, 6 FOs, 4 Wimbledons, 2 USO, 2 AO = 14. arguably GOAT even if
> > not 7543. 6-2-2-2- isn't GOAT unless the 6 is Wimbledon.

> > 7543 works perfectly because we haven't yet come across a case that it
> > doesn't fit. not that it couldn't happen....

> > bob- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> Well, I favor using bonus pts to reward feats like CGS, NCYGS and
> CYGS. I would suggest 5 pts for CGS, 15 pts NCYGS and 20 pts for CYGS

> So, with Rafa's hypothetical 6-2-2-2 with NCYGS and using 7543, we get
> 54 + 15 = 69 pts. Still short of Sampras but tops Fed if Roger doesn't
> win anymore and would be second best in Open Era.

Forget those kind of calculations, they're pretty silly. No rational
person takes 7543 or whatever seriously.
 
 
 

So Nadal surpasses Sampras on tms titles, Nadal 12 - Sampras 11

Post by jdeluis » Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:32:25


Quote:


> > >> especially if
> > >> he can really dominate over the next couple of months and win the
> > >> NCYGS. That would make him co-goat at the French and one of the few in
> > >> tennis history with four in a row (almost surely five in a row if he
> > >> did complete the NCYGS)

> > >> If he really can achieve what I'm suggesting, then - if we're using
> > >> 7543 - bonus points would have to be in order.

> > > Don't use biased, silly 7543, and then you won't have to worry about
> > > bonus points. Just consider the slam wins (plus anything else you
> > > think relevant) on their own merits.

> > > Joe Ramirez

> > Life is biased. ?It's not fair Anjelina Jolie is more beautiful than
> > Roseanne Barr & Wimbledon > AO, but that's reality.

> Yes, but those are the easy ones. How can you definitively say USO >
> FO? Nadal winning FO-Wim has been considered a bigger deal than Fed
> winning Wim-USO, so that must mean FO > USO, no?

I'm guessing his response will contain the word "***" or the word
"dumb" or "dumbo".
 
 
 

So Nadal surpasses Sampras on tms titles, Nadal 12 - Sampras 11

Post by TJT » Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:34:10


Quote:












> > > > >>> Just had to tease Whispy a bit.
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> "If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two
> > > > >>> impostors
> > > > >>> just the same"
> > > > >> I think Pete is the man but this kid Nadal is amazing.....I think
> > > > >> Whispy will start hating Nadal soon when Nadal starts to look like
> > > > >> he
> > > > >> may be GOAT material

> > > > > Whisper is already giving us all these "if Nadal played Sampras"
> > > > > scenarios so he's already cooking
> > > > > up his excuses.

> > > > > Not to worry. I don't think Nadal's body will last long enough to
> > > > > take more than 10 majors but it doesn't matter. He's already shown
> > > > > himself to be one of the all-time greats.

> > > > Yeah, if he can win 5, 6 straight FO's that would boost his legacy in
> > > > a
> > > > major way. Big time domination at FO is rare - only Borg won more than
> > > > 4.-
> > > > Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > >I think with 6 FOs and two each of the other Slams that could put him

> > > in the goat conversation, especially if
> > > he can really dominate over the next couple of months and win the
> > > NCYGS. That would make him co-goat at the French and one of the few in
> > > tennis history with four in a row (almost surely five in a row if he
> > > did complete the NCYGS)

> > > hypothetically, 6 FOs, 4 Wimbledons, 2 USO, 2 AO = 14. arguably GOAT
> > > even
> > > if
> > > not 7543. 6-2-2-2- isn't GOAT unless the 6 is Wimbledon.

> > > 7543 works perfectly because we haven't yet come across a case that it
> > > doesn't fit. not that it couldn't happen....

> > > bob- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -
> > >ell, I favor using bonus pts to reward feats like CGS, NCYGS and

> > CYGS. I would suggest 5 pts for CGS, 15 pts NCYGS and 20 pts for CYGS
> > So, with Rafa's hypothetical 6-2-2-2 with NCYGS and using 7543, we get
> > 54 + 15 = 69 pts. Still short of Sampras but tops Fed if Roger doesn't
> > win anymore and would be second best in Open Era.

> > i used to try dabbling with cgs, etc. - but it gets too subjective and
> > complicated. 7543 is best we have.

> > bob- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -
> >Well, there's always a subjective element involved.

> yes, but getting outside the slams allows for tons more subjectivity.

> > But the CYGS is really the Holy Grail in tennis. I mean, three times in
> > 100 some odd

> years. C'mon. It's crazy to ignore the magnitude of that
> accomplishment by not awarding bonus points in a calculation.

> cygs is holy grail - for 1 yr. what if guy wins cygs, but never another
> slam? is he goat? not to me.

> >Granted, no one's done it since Laver and he's tough to calculate

> because he spans two eras, but if it happens again imo there would
> have to be bonus points. Otherwise, the system would be somewhat out
> of touch with how the tennis world would perceive that player and his
> great accomplishment.

> the beauty of 7543 is that if we instinctively rank players, it matches 7543
> to a T.
> there may be a future circumstance that flies smack in face of 7543 and we'd
> have to evaluate it again. but it hasn't happened yet.

> bob

Yes it has, Sampras never won FO. That makes him VERY limited player
as a whole.
 
 
 

So Nadal surpasses Sampras on tms titles, Nadal 12 - Sampras 11

Post by RahimAsi » Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:37:51


Quote:













> > > > > >>> Just had to tease Whispy a bit.
> > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >>> "If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two
> > > > > >>> impostors
> > > > > >>> just the same"
> > > > > >> I think Pete is the man but this kid Nadal is amazing.....I think
> > > > > >> Whispy will start hating Nadal soon when Nadal starts to look like
> > > > > >> he
> > > > > >> may be GOAT material

> > > > > > Whisper is already giving us all these "if Nadal played Sampras"
> > > > > > scenarios so he's already cooking
> > > > > > up his excuses.

> > > > > > Not to worry. I don't think Nadal's body will last long enough to
> > > > > > take more than 10 majors but it doesn't matter. He's already shown
> > > > > > himself to be one of the all-time greats.

> > > > > Yeah, if he can win 5, 6 straight FO's that would boost his legacy in
> > > > > a
> > > > > major way. Big time domination at FO is rare - only Borg won more than
> > > > > 4.-
> > > > > Hide quoted text -

> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > >I think with 6 FOs and two each of the other Slams that could put him

> > > > in the goat conversation, especially if
> > > > he can really dominate over the next couple of months and win the
> > > > NCYGS. That would make him co-goat at the French and one of the few in
> > > > tennis history with four in a row (almost surely five in a row if he
> > > > did complete the NCYGS)

> > > > hypothetically, 6 FOs, 4 Wimbledons, 2 USO, 2 AO = 14. arguably GOAT
> > > > even
> > > > if
> > > > not 7543. 6-2-2-2- isn't GOAT unless the 6 is Wimbledon.

> > > > 7543 works perfectly because we haven't yet come across a case that it
> > > > doesn't fit. not that it couldn't happen....

> > > > bob- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > >ell, I favor using bonus pts to reward feats like CGS, NCYGS and

> > > CYGS. I would suggest 5 pts for CGS, 15 pts NCYGS and 20 pts for CYGS
> > > So, with Rafa's hypothetical 6-2-2-2 with NCYGS and using 7543, we get
> > > 54 + 15 = 69 pts. Still short of Sampras but tops Fed if Roger doesn't
> > > win anymore and would be second best in Open Era.

> > > i used to try dabbling with cgs, etc. - but it gets too subjective and
> > > complicated. 7543 is best we have.

> > > bob- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -
> > >Well, there's always a subjective element involved.

> > yes, but getting outside the slams allows for tons more subjectivity.

> > > But the CYGS is really the Holy Grail in tennis. I mean, three times in
> > > 100 some odd

> > years. C'mon. It's crazy to ignore the magnitude of that
> > accomplishment by not awarding bonus points in a calculation.

> > cygs is holy grail - for 1 yr. what if guy wins cygs, but never another
> > slam? is he goat? not to me.

> > >Granted, no one's done it since Laver and he's tough to calculate

> > because he spans two eras, but if it happens again imo there would
> > have to be bonus points. Otherwise, the system would be somewhat out
> > of touch with how the tennis world would perceive that player and his
> > great accomplishment.

> > the beauty of 7543 is that if we instinctively rank players, it matches 7543
> > to a T.
> > there may be a future circumstance that flies smack in face of 7543 and we'd
> > have to evaluate it again. but it hasn't happened yet.

> > bob

> Yes it has, Sampras never won FO. That makes him VERY limited player
> as a whole.

Er, not one to subscribe to 7543 but Sampras is the GOAT at the
moment, along with Laver. No disputing that...
 
 
 

So Nadal surpasses Sampras on tms titles, Nadal 12 - Sampras 11

Post by TJT » Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:42:45


Quote:
> Rubbish - the only reason I am called a flip-flopper is because I
> tipped Djokovic to win everything after the Aus Open

Well that was rather clueless analysis. Nadal never was going to be
beaten at FO this year, neither was Djokovic better on grass.

I think you're a flipflopper, and in addition you're a
glory***er...Federer....Djokovic...now Nadal. Try to enjoy small
things, such as Nadal winning Toronto(which in itself is a great
achievement considering his multi-surface streak)...and not predict
him win everything under the sun thereafter. Because he ain't gonna.

He will be #1 soon though.