whisp brought up a good pt last month.

whisp brought up a good pt last month.

Post by arnab. » Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:27:35



Quote:



> >> On Thu, 31 May 2012 07:27:14 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez



> >> >> You can dress it up any way you like, but the fact remains there are
> >> >> almost no big wins for Fed over Rafa, certainly not when Rafa got out of
> >> >> his ***s.

> >> >Welcome to Bizarro Whisper World, where facts are stood on their heads
> >> >until skull fractures ensue. Of Federer's 10 wins over Nadal, only
> >> >*one* occurred in Nadal's ***s (Miami Masters 2005). I really don't
> >> >care how you appraise the "bigness" of the other nine wins, so there's
> >> >no point arguing about that, but Nadal's age at the time of a given
> >> >match is an objective fact that even you should be capable of
> >> >recognizing.

> >> how old was nadal in 08? you know, the year he started to dominate fed
> >> on *all* surfaces??

> >> bob

> >? In 2008, Nadal scored a win against Fed in FO and barely squeaked
> >past him in Wimby? How is this domination on all surfaces?

> stretch it out 1 month to jan 2009. hankerchief in hand? you recall?

Yes, Jan 2009, when Fed was 6 months further away from his peak and
Nadal 6 months more into his peak.

Who did Sampras lose to at AO at a comparable age? Bet it was some
nobody.

Quote:
> ?now quit bringing 19-21 yr old rafa as if he's peak, you know it's
> wrong.

Why? Are you going to cry if I keep bringing it up, Nancy boy?
 
 
 

whisp brought up a good pt last month.

Post by arnab. » Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:31:59


Quote:



> >> i disliked fed as far back as 02. with 0 slams. he seemed***y with 0
> >> slams to me.

> >That's a lot of suffering for you.

> not really. past 4 yrs (going on 5) has been sweet.

> bob

What a diabolical Fed-hater! :)

 
 
 

whisp brought up a good pt last month.

Post by arnab. » Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:31:28


Quote:
















> >> >> >>>>>>>> Sampras had to fight boredom& ? ? ?drudgery throughout his career, knowing
> >> >> >>>>>>>> he only had to play at 70% to beat anyone.

> >> >> >>>>>>> Makes no sense. First off, if he only had to play at 70% to beat
> >> >> >>>>>>> anyone he would have never lost a match and wouldn't have been burned
> >> >> >>>>>>> out at 30, so we can ignore that. Second, Sampras had a single minded
> >> >> >>>>>>> focus; all he cared about was tennis and winning... If tennis would
> >> >> >>>>>>> have been boring for him he would have been more outgoing (like Djoker
> >> >> >>>>>>> at least), but he was the opposite... He needed that single minded
> >> >> >>>>>>> focus to succeed, precisely because he loved winning in tennis more
> >> >> >>>>>>> than anything and couldn't care less that some people thought of him
> >> >> >>>>>>> as being boring.

> >> >> >>>>>> Nope. ?Sampras had a love for Wimbledon, USO& ? ?being No.1. ?He didn't
> >> >> >>>>>> care much for Davis Cup& ? ?the rest - just something he had to suffer to
> >> >> >>>>>> get the things he wanted most.

> >> >> >>>>> spot on. and he geard his game as such. and after setting the Wim
> >> >> >>>>> record and slam record, he was mentally fatigued and tired of it, he
> >> >> >>>>> did all he wanted to do. if he knew he was going to 16 slams one day,
> >> >> >>>>> i'm sure he would've geared slightly differently at 29, 30.

> >> >> >>>>> bob

> >> >> >>>> Hey, this is a nice verbal trick. If Fed knew Rafa would show up one
> >> >> >>>> day to stop him at FO and on clay in general, he also would have
> >> >> >>>> "geared differently" to win 3 CYGS, 20+ slams and a positive h2h vs
> >> >> >>>> Rafa on all surfaces, not just HC and Grass, as it stands now.

> >> >> >>> That doesn't work, because it's patently clear Rafa is the better tennis
> >> >> >>> player.

> >> >> >> As evidenced by his 4 losses in a row agianst Federer in fast
> >> >> >> hardcourts and 1-2 record in Wimbledon.

> >> >> >>> Rafa dominated him all throughout his career, from day 1 even
> >> >> >>> on hardcourts (63 63 win to Rafa when Fed was super *** No.1& ?won
> >> >> >>> 3 slams in 1 year).

> >> >> >> Interesting. So Rafa beat Fed in a tuneup in 2004 which wasn't even a
> >> >> >> tuneup. It was some slow hardcourt Miami which didn't really lead to
> >> >> >> any hardcourt slam. So Rafa beat Fed in a non-tuneup hc tournie, just
> >> >> >> like Gasquet beat Fed in Monte Carlo in 2005, smack in the middle of
> >> >> >> Fed's peak. Which meant absolutely zilch. Unimportant losses for
> >> >> >> Federer.

> >> >> >>> Fed was peaked primed to the nth degree, which was still too weak for
> >> >> >>> Rafa. ?It was however good enough to beat the clown field 99% of the time.

> >> >> >> Which explains Why Rafa didn't make a single USO or AO final during
> >> >> >> Fed's peak. Yeah, great analysis.

> >> >> >> BTW, I asked you a question earlier. Has Rafa completely owned Fed in
> >> >> >> Fed's prime in USO and Wimby, the two biggest blue chip slams in
> >> >> >> tennis according to you?

> >> >> >Which slam has Fed owned Rafa in? ?Rafa is 7-0 v Fed at AO/FO, & as a
> >> >> >bonus beat him in Wimbledon final too.

> >> >> let's face it, djok should be thanked by fedfans after the last 2
> >> >> USOs. fed makes those finals, and loses 2 to nadal on fast HC, and
> >> >> there's nowhere left to hide.

> >> >> bob

> >> >Not so fast. How are you sure that Fed would have lost to Nadal in
> >> >those USOs? Didn't he beat Nadal comfortably in the YECs during those
> >> >same years?

> >> i'm not sure, but it would be likely, and if it happened that way it
> >> would've been brutal on even teh most ardent H2H naysayers.

> >Yes, yes, we know it's your wet dream. You hate Fed's guts for
> >surpassing Sampras. Yadda yadda.

> i disliked fed as far back as 02. with 0 slams. he seemed***y with 0
> slams to me.

LOL. Like I said, bob is the quintessential Fed-hater. Hated Federer
even before he became famous. That's deep.

Quote:

> so you believe joe's launch dates when you want to and don't believe
> when you don't wnt to eh? har har.

? I'll let Joe do the talking about his launch dates.

Quote:
> >> it's funny how you want to cut fed
> >> slack at 28-30 but no slack for nadal at 19-21.

> >Nadal can't have the cake and eat it too.

> nor can fed.

Sure.

Quote:
> > He was ranked #2 in the world for the longest time. He was seeded number 2 in several USOs and
> >AOs when Federer was at his peak, but failed to even reach the finals
> >of USO and AO until 2010. By that time, Federer already reached about
> >12 USO/AO finals and was past his peak.

> he was ranked #2 based solely on clay results. off clay, his game was
> weak and improved to best in world over a 4-5 yr period.

And at the same time, when Nadal has been growing, Federer has
declined by about 10%, which null and voids Nadal's post-2009 AO and
Wimby wins over him as legit wins over peak Fed.

Quote:
> >> that's quite unfair of ?course.

> >No, it is you who is being unfair to Fed. That's a given though.

> arnab you've not improved over the yrs, best to stick you back with
> john liang and maximum 3/yr responses.

You sound like a little girl. Take it on the chin like a dude.

 
 
 

whisp brought up a good pt last month.

Post by bob » Sat, 02 Jun 2012 21:58:42


Quote:





>> >> On Thu, 31 May 2012 07:27:14 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez



>> >> >> You can dress it up any way you like, but the fact remains there are
>> >> >> almost no big wins for Fed over Rafa, certainly not when Rafa got out of
>> >> >> his ***s.

>> >> >Welcome to Bizarro Whisper World, where facts are stood on their heads
>> >> >until skull fractures ensue. Of Federer's 10 wins over Nadal, only
>> >> >*one* occurred in Nadal's ***s (Miami Masters 2005). I really don't
>> >> >care how you appraise the "bigness" of the other nine wins, so there's
>> >> >no point arguing about that, but Nadal's age at the time of a given
>> >> >match is an objective fact that even you should be capable of
>> >> >recognizing.

>> >> how old was nadal in 08? you know, the year he started to dominate fed
>> >> on *all* surfaces??

>> >> bob

>> >? In 2008, Nadal scored a win against Fed in FO and barely squeaked
>> >past him in Wimby? How is this domination on all surfaces?

>> stretch it out 1 month to jan 2009. hankerchief in hand? you recall?

>Yes, Jan 2009, when Fed was 6 months further away from his peak and
>Nadal 6 months more into his peak.
>Who did Sampras lose to at AO at a comparable age? Bet it was some
>nobody.

he won that yr. :-)

Quote:

>> ?now quit bringing 19-21 yr old rafa as if he's peak, you know it's
>> wrong.

>Why? Are you going to cry if I keep bringing it up, Nancy boy?

lol. bring it up all u want, it's laughable and shows no knowledge on
your part.

bob

 
 
 

whisp brought up a good pt last month.

Post by bob » Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:00:40

Quote:


















>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Sampras had to fight boredom& ? ? ?drudgery throughout his career, knowing
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> he only had to play at 70% to beat anyone.

>> >> >> >>>>>>> Makes no sense. First off, if he only had to play at 70% to beat
>> >> >> >>>>>>> anyone he would have never lost a match and wouldn't have been burned
>> >> >> >>>>>>> out at 30, so we can ignore that. Second, Sampras had a single minded
>> >> >> >>>>>>> focus; all he cared about was tennis and winning... If tennis would
>> >> >> >>>>>>> have been boring for him he would have been more outgoing (like Djoker
>> >> >> >>>>>>> at least), but he was the opposite... He needed that single minded
>> >> >> >>>>>>> focus to succeed, precisely because he loved winning in tennis more
>> >> >> >>>>>>> than anything and couldn't care less that some people thought of him
>> >> >> >>>>>>> as being boring.

>> >> >> >>>>>> Nope. ?Sampras had a love for Wimbledon, USO& ? ?being No.1. ?He didn't
>> >> >> >>>>>> care much for Davis Cup& ? ?the rest - just something he had to suffer to
>> >> >> >>>>>> get the things he wanted most.

>> >> >> >>>>> spot on. and he geard his game as such. and after setting the Wim
>> >> >> >>>>> record and slam record, he was mentally fatigued and tired of it, he
>> >> >> >>>>> did all he wanted to do. if he knew he was going to 16 slams one day,
>> >> >> >>>>> i'm sure he would've geared slightly differently at 29, 30.

>> >> >> >>>>> bob

>> >> >> >>>> Hey, this is a nice verbal trick. If Fed knew Rafa would show up one
>> >> >> >>>> day to stop him at FO and on clay in general, he also would have
>> >> >> >>>> "geared differently" to win 3 CYGS, 20+ slams and a positive h2h vs
>> >> >> >>>> Rafa on all surfaces, not just HC and Grass, as it stands now.

>> >> >> >>> That doesn't work, because it's patently clear Rafa is the better tennis
>> >> >> >>> player.

>> >> >> >> As evidenced by his 4 losses in a row agianst Federer in fast
>> >> >> >> hardcourts and 1-2 record in Wimbledon.

>> >> >> >>> Rafa dominated him all throughout his career, from day 1 even
>> >> >> >>> on hardcourts (63 63 win to Rafa when Fed was super *** No.1& ?won
>> >> >> >>> 3 slams in 1 year).

>> >> >> >> Interesting. So Rafa beat Fed in a tuneup in 2004 which wasn't even a
>> >> >> >> tuneup. It was some slow hardcourt Miami which didn't really lead to
>> >> >> >> any hardcourt slam. So Rafa beat Fed in a non-tuneup hc tournie, just
>> >> >> >> like Gasquet beat Fed in Monte Carlo in 2005, smack in the middle of
>> >> >> >> Fed's peak. Which meant absolutely zilch. Unimportant losses for
>> >> >> >> Federer.

>> >> >> >>> Fed was peaked primed to the nth degree, which was still too weak for
>> >> >> >>> Rafa. ?It was however good enough to beat the clown field 99% of the time.

>> >> >> >> Which explains Why Rafa didn't make a single USO or AO final during
>> >> >> >> Fed's peak. Yeah, great analysis.

>> >> >> >> BTW, I asked you a question earlier. Has Rafa completely owned Fed in
>> >> >> >> Fed's prime in USO and Wimby, the two biggest blue chip slams in
>> >> >> >> tennis according to you?

>> >> >> >Which slam has Fed owned Rafa in? ?Rafa is 7-0 v Fed at AO/FO, & as a
>> >> >> >bonus beat him in Wimbledon final too.

>> >> >> let's face it, djok should be thanked by fedfans after the last 2
>> >> >> USOs. fed makes those finals, and loses 2 to nadal on fast HC, and
>> >> >> there's nowhere left to hide.

>> >> >> bob

>> >> >Not so fast. How are you sure that Fed would have lost to Nadal in
>> >> >those USOs? Didn't he beat Nadal comfortably in the YECs during those
>> >> >same years?

>> >> i'm not sure, but it would be likely, and if it happened that way it
>> >> would've been brutal on even teh most ardent H2H naysayers.

>> >Yes, yes, we know it's your wet dream. You hate Fed's guts for
>> >surpassing Sampras. Yadda yadda.

>> i disliked fed as far back as 02. with 0 slams. he seemed***y with 0
>> slams to me.

>> >> >Besides, Federer already made 6 USO finals in a row before Nadal even
>> >> >reached his first USO final. Clearly there is an enormous gap of time
>> >> >between Nadal and Federer in terms of their peak USO forms. Federer is
>> >> >on the waning side after having reached 6 USO finals, while Nadal is
>> >> >barely coming on to his own in USO, scoring his first ever USO finals.
>> >> >So it's apples and oranges.
>> >> >Admit it, Federer is from a different generation than Nadal, and it is
>> >> >to his credit that he is still*** on in the current scene after
>> >> >all these years of domination, ranked withing top 3 or even top 2.
>> >> >This is a testament of Fed's staying power and dedication to the game.
>> >> >Instead of celebrating this great achievement, you are keen on putting
>> >> >things in negative light in whichever way possible.
>> >> >You are the quintessential Federer-hater, bob. And you refuse to
>> >> >acknowledge it, despite how many times it has been pointed out to you.

>> >> fed and nadal overlap generations.

>> >Not if you count 5 year as a tennis generation. Do you think Sampras
>> >and let's say Rios were from the same generation? Obviously not. They
>> >were 5 years apart. And from different generations. Same with Fed and
>> >Nadal.

>> so you believe joe's launch dates when you want to and don't believe
>> when you don't wnt to eh? har har.

>> >> it's funny how you want to cut fed
>> >> slack at 28-30 but no slack for nadal at 19-21.

>> >Nadal can't have the cake and eat it too.

>> nor can fed.

>> > He was ranked #2 in the world for the longest time. He was seeded number 2 in several USOs and
>> >AOs when Federer was at his peak, but failed to even reach the finals
>> >of USO and AO until 2010. By that time, Federer already reached about
>> >12 USO/AO finals and was past his peak.

>> he was ranked #2 based solely on clay results. off clay, his game was
>> weak and improved to best in world over a 4-5 yr period.

>> >> that's quite unfair of  course.

>> >No, it is you who is being unfair to Fed. That's a given though.

>> arnab you've not improved over the yrs, best to stick you back with
>> john liang and maximum 3/yr responses.

>I doubt arna will ever reach that super dumb level you are on and surely
>his maths skill did not drop off like you and your master did.
>Bob your level is still well below your master.

i've surpassed whisper in 1 regard: my ability to limit you to max 3
replies/yr. time's up john!

bob

 
 
 

whisp brought up a good pt last month.

Post by arnab. » Sun, 03 Jun 2012 00:59:13


Quote:






> >> >> On Thu, 31 May 2012 07:27:14 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez



> >> >> >> You can dress it up any way you like, but the fact remains there are
> >> >> >> almost no big wins for Fed over Rafa, certainly not when Rafa got out of
> >> >> >> his ***s.

> >> >> >Welcome to Bizarro Whisper World, where facts are stood on their heads
> >> >> >until skull fractures ensue. Of Federer's 10 wins over Nadal, only
> >> >> >*one* occurred in Nadal's ***s (Miami Masters 2005). I really don't
> >> >> >care how you appraise the "bigness" of the other nine wins, so there's
> >> >> >no point arguing about that, but Nadal's age at the time of a given
> >> >> >match is an objective fact that even you should be capable of
> >> >> >recognizing.

> >> >> how old was nadal in 08? you know, the year he started to dominate fed
> >> >> on *all* surfaces??

> >> >> bob

> >> >? In 2008, Nadal scored a win against Fed in FO and barely squeaked
> >> >past him in Wimby? How is this domination on all surfaces?

> >> stretch it out 1 month to jan 2009. hankerchief in hand? you recall?

> >Yes, Jan 2009, when Fed was 6 months further away from his peak and
> >Nadal 6 months more into his peak.
> >Who did Sampras lose to at AO at a comparable age? Bet it was some
> >nobody.

> he won that yr. :-)

Nope. It was 1999, and Sampras withdraw. He lost the year before in
1998 and the year after in 2000. He was quite the zero in Australian
open.

Quote:

> >> ?now quit bringing 19-21 yr old rafa as if he's peak, you know it's
> >> wrong.

> >Why? Are you going to cry if I keep bringing it up, Nancy boy?

> lol. bring it up all u want, it's laughable and shows no knowledge on
> your part.

Not really. I give 19-21 year old Rafa all the credit. I count all his
wins against Fed in the FO during that period. If he was not at his
peak, then we should consider all those wins against Fed as fluke
wins.

Like I said, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

 
 
 

whisp brought up a good pt last month.

Post by arnab. » Sun, 03 Jun 2012 01:00:32


Quote:


















> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Sampras had to fight boredom& ? ? ?drudgery throughout his career, knowing
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> he only had to play at 70% to beat anyone.

> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Makes no sense. First off, if he only had to play at 70% to beat
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> anyone he would have never lost a match and wouldn't have been burned
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> out at 30, so we can ignore that. Second, Sampras had a single minded
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> focus; all he cared about was tennis and winning... If tennis would
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> have been boring for him he would have been more outgoing (like Djoker
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> at least), but he was the opposite... He needed that single minded
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> focus to succeed, precisely because he loved winning in tennis more
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> than anything and couldn't care less that some people thought of him
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> as being boring.

> >> >> >> >>>>>> Nope. ?Sampras had a love for Wimbledon, USO& ? ?being No.1. ?He didn't
> >> >> >> >>>>>> care much for Davis Cup& ? ?the rest - just something he had to suffer to
> >> >> >> >>>>>> get the things he wanted most.

> >> >> >> >>>>> spot on. and he geard his game as such. and after setting the Wim
> >> >> >> >>>>> record and slam record, he was mentally fatigued and tired of it, he
> >> >> >> >>>>> did all he wanted to do. if he knew he was going to 16 slams one day,
> >> >> >> >>>>> i'm sure he would've geared slightly differently at 29, 30.

> >> >> >> >>>>> bob

> >> >> >> >>>> Hey, this is a nice verbal trick. If Fed knew Rafa would show up one
> >> >> >> >>>> day to stop him at FO and on clay in general, he also would have
> >> >> >> >>>> "geared differently" to win 3 CYGS, 20+ slams and a positive h2h vs
> >> >> >> >>>> Rafa on all surfaces, not just HC and Grass, as it stands now.

> >> >> >> >>> That doesn't work, because it's patently clear Rafa is the better tennis
> >> >> >> >>> player.

> >> >> >> >> As evidenced by his 4 losses in a row agianst Federer in fast
> >> >> >> >> hardcourts and 1-2 record in Wimbledon.

> >> >> >> >>> Rafa dominated him all throughout his career, from day 1 even
> >> >> >> >>> on hardcourts (63 63 win to Rafa when Fed was super *** No.1& ?won
> >> >> >> >>> 3 slams in 1 year).

> >> >> >> >> Interesting. So Rafa beat Fed in a tuneup in 2004 which wasn't even a
> >> >> >> >> tuneup. It was some slow hardcourt Miami which didn't really lead to
> >> >> >> >> any hardcourt slam. So Rafa beat Fed in a non-tuneup hc tournie, just
> >> >> >> >> like Gasquet beat Fed in Monte Carlo in 2005, smack in the middle of
> >> >> >> >> Fed's peak. Which meant absolutely zilch. Unimportant losses for
> >> >> >> >> Federer.

> >> >> >> >>> Fed was peaked primed to the nth degree, which was still too weak for
> >> >> >> >>> Rafa. ?It was however good enough to beat the clown field 99% of the time.

> >> >> >> >> Which explains Why Rafa didn't make a single USO or AO final during
> >> >> >> >> Fed's peak. Yeah, great analysis.

> >> >> >> >> BTW, I asked you a question earlier. Has Rafa completely owned Fed in
> >> >> >> >> Fed's prime in USO and Wimby, the two biggest blue chip slams in
> >> >> >> >> tennis according to you?

> >> >> >> >Which slam has Fed owned Rafa in? ?Rafa is 7-0 v Fed at AO/FO, & as a
> >> >> >> >bonus beat him in Wimbledon final too.

> >> >> >> let's face it, djok should be thanked by fedfans after the last 2
> >> >> >> USOs. fed makes those finals, and loses 2 to nadal on fast HC, and
> >> >> >> there's nowhere left to hide.

> >> >> >> bob

> >> >> >Not so fast. How are you sure that Fed would have lost to Nadal in
> >> >> >those USOs? Didn't he beat Nadal comfortably in the YECs during those
> >> >> >same years?

> >> >> i'm not sure, but it would be likely, and if it happened that way it
> >> >> would've been brutal on even teh most ardent H2H naysayers.

> >> >Yes, yes, we know it's your wet dream. You hate Fed's guts for
> >> >surpassing Sampras. Yadda yadda.

> >> i disliked fed as far back as 02. with 0 slams. he seemed***y with 0
> >> slams to me.

> >> >> >Besides, Federer already made 6 USO finals in a row before Nadal even
> >> >> >reached his first USO final. Clearly there is an enormous gap of time
> >> >> >between Nadal and Federer in terms of their peak USO forms. Federer is
> >> >> >on the waning side after having reached 6 USO finals, while Nadal is
> >> >> >barely coming on to his own in USO, scoring his first ever USO finals.
> >> >> >So it's apples and oranges.
> >> >> >Admit it, Federer is from a different generation than Nadal, and it is
> >> >> >to his credit that he is still*** on in the current scene after
> >> >> >all these years of domination, ranked withing top 3 or even top 2.
> >> >> >This is a testament of Fed's staying power and dedication to the game.
> >> >> >Instead of celebrating this great achievement, you are keen on putting
> >> >> >things in negative light in whichever way possible.
> >> >> >You are the quintessential Federer-hater, bob. And you refuse to
> >> >> >acknowledge it, despite how many times it has been pointed out to you.

> >> >> fed and nadal overlap generations.

> >> >Not if you count 5 year as a tennis generation. Do you think Sampras
> >> >and let's say Rios were from the same generation? Obviously not. They
> >> >were 5 years apart. And from different generations. Same with Fed and
> >> >Nadal.

> >> so you believe joe's launch dates when you want to and don't believe
> >> when you don't wnt to eh? har har.

> >> >> it's funny how you want to cut fed
> >> >> slack at 28-30 but no slack for nadal at 19-21.

> >> >Nadal can't have the cake and eat it too.

> >> nor can fed.

> >> > He was ranked #2 in the world for the longest time. He was seeded number 2 in several USOs and
> >> >AOs when Federer was at his peak, but failed to even reach the finals
> >> >of USO and AO until 2010. By that time, Federer already reached about
> >> >12 USO/AO finals and was past his peak.

> >> he was ranked #2 based solely on clay results. off clay, his game was
> >> weak and improved to best in world over a 4-5 yr period.

> >> >> that's quite unfair of ?course.

> >> >No, it is you who is being unfair to Fed. That's a given though.

> >> arnab you've not improved over the yrs, best to stick you back with
> >> john liang and maximum 3/yr responses.

> >I doubt arna will ever reach that super dumb level you are on and surely
> >his maths skill did not drop off like you and your master did.
> >Bob your level is still well below your master.

> i've surpassed whisper in 1 regard: my ability to limit you to max 3
> replies/yr. time's up john!

> bob

LOL! You chicken! Bwak bwak bwak!
 
 
 

whisp brought up a good pt last month.

Post by bob » Sun, 03 Jun 2012 03:04:27


Quote:








>> >> >> On Thu, 31 May 2012 07:27:14 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez



>> >> >> >> You can dress it up any way you like, but the fact remains there are
>> >> >> >> almost no big wins for Fed over Rafa, certainly not when Rafa got out of
>> >> >> >> his ***s.

>> >> >> >Welcome to Bizarro Whisper World, where facts are stood on their heads
>> >> >> >until skull fractures ensue. Of Federer's 10 wins over Nadal, only
>> >> >> >*one* occurred in Nadal's ***s (Miami Masters 2005). I really don't
>> >> >> >care how you appraise the "bigness" of the other nine wins, so there's
>> >> >> >no point arguing about that, but Nadal's age at the time of a given
>> >> >> >match is an objective fact that even you should be capable of
>> >> >> >recognizing.

>> >> >> how old was nadal in 08? you know, the year he started to dominate fed
>> >> >> on *all* surfaces??

>> >> >> bob

>> >> >? In 2008, Nadal scored a win against Fed in FO and barely squeaked
>> >> >past him in Wimby? How is this domination on all surfaces?

>> >> stretch it out 1 month to jan 2009. hankerchief in hand? you recall?

>> >Yes, Jan 2009, when Fed was 6 months further away from his peak and
>> >Nadal 6 months more into his peak.
>> >Who did Sampras lose to at AO at a comparable age? Bet it was some
>> >nobody.

>> he won that yr. :-)

>Nope. It was 1999, and Sampras withdraw. He lost the year before in
>1998 and the year after in 2000. He was quite the zero in Australian
>open.

>> >> ?now quit bringing 19-21 yr old rafa as if he's peak, you know it's
>> >> wrong.

>> >Why? Are you going to cry if I keep bringing it up, Nancy boy?

>> lol. bring it up all u want, it's laughable and shows no knowledge on
>> your part.

>Not really. I give 19-21 year old Rafa all the credit. I count all his
>wins against Fed in the FO during that period. If he was not at his
>peak, then we should consider all those wins against Fed as fluke
>wins.

nah, just consider it he was good enough even off peak to beat rog.

bob

 
 
 

whisp brought up a good pt last month.

Post by jlian.. » Sun, 03 Jun 2012 08:08:57

Quote:



















> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Sampras had to fight boredom& ? ? ?drudgery throughout his career, knowing
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> he only had to play at 70% to beat anyone.

> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Makes no sense. First off, if he only had to play at 70% to beat
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> anyone he would have never lost a match and wouldn't have been burned
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> out at 30, so we can ignore that. Second, Sampras had a single minded
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> focus; all he cared about was tennis and winning... If tennis would
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> have been boring for him he would have been more outgoing (like Djoker
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> at least), but he was the opposite... He needed that single minded
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> focus to succeed, precisely because he loved winning in tennis more
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> than anything and couldn't care less that some people thought of him
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> as being boring.

> >> >> >> >>>>>> Nope. ?Sampras had a love for Wimbledon, USO& ? ?being No.1. ?He didn't
> >> >> >> >>>>>> care much for Davis Cup& ? ?the rest - just something he had to suffer to
> >> >> >> >>>>>> get the things he wanted most.

> >> >> >> >>>>> spot on. and he geard his game as such. and after setting the Wim
> >> >> >> >>>>> record and slam record, he was mentally fatigued and tired of it, he
> >> >> >> >>>>> did all he wanted to do. if he knew he was going to 16 slams one day,
> >> >> >> >>>>> i'm sure he would've geared slightly differently at 29, 30.

> >> >> >> >>>>> bob

> >> >> >> >>>> Hey, this is a nice verbal trick. If Fed knew Rafa would show up one
> >> >> >> >>>> day to stop him at FO and on clay in general, he also would have
> >> >> >> >>>> "geared differently" to win 3 CYGS, 20+ slams and a positive h2h vs
> >> >> >> >>>> Rafa on all surfaces, not just HC and Grass, as it stands now.

> >> >> >> >>> That doesn't work, because it's patently clear Rafa is the better tennis
> >> >> >> >>> player.

> >> >> >> >> As evidenced by his 4 losses in a row agianst Federer in fast
> >> >> >> >> hardcourts and 1-2 record in Wimbledon.

> >> >> >> >>> Rafa dominated him all throughout his career, from day 1 even
> >> >> >> >>> on hardcourts (63 63 win to Rafa when Fed was super *** No.1& ?won
> >> >> >> >>> 3 slams in 1 year).

> >> >> >> >> Interesting. So Rafa beat Fed in a tuneup in 2004 which wasn't even a
> >> >> >> >> tuneup. It was some slow hardcourt Miami which didn't really lead to
> >> >> >> >> any hardcourt slam. So Rafa beat Fed in a non-tuneup hc tournie, just
> >> >> >> >> like Gasquet beat Fed in Monte Carlo in 2005, smack in the middle of
> >> >> >> >> Fed's peak. Which meant absolutely zilch. Unimportant losses for
> >> >> >> >> Federer.

> >> >> >> >>> Fed was peaked primed to the nth degree, which was still too weak for
> >> >> >> >>> Rafa. ?It was however good enough to beat the clown field 99% of the time.

> >> >> >> >> Which explains Why Rafa didn't make a single USO or AO final during
> >> >> >> >> Fed's peak. Yeah, great analysis.

> >> >> >> >> BTW, I asked you a question earlier. Has Rafa completely owned Fed in
> >> >> >> >> Fed's prime in USO and Wimby, the two biggest blue chip slams in
> >> >> >> >> tennis according to you?

> >> >> >> >Which slam has Fed owned Rafa in? ?Rafa is 7-0 v Fed at AO/FO, & as a
> >> >> >> >bonus beat him in Wimbledon final too.

> >> >> >> let's face it, djok should be thanked by fedfans after the last 2
> >> >> >> USOs. fed makes those finals, and loses 2 to nadal on fast HC, and
> >> >> >> there's nowhere left to hide.

> >> >> >> bob

> >> >> >Not so fast. How are you sure that Fed would have lost to Nadal in
> >> >> >those USOs? Didn't he beat Nadal comfortably in the YECs during those
> >> >> >same years?

> >> >> i'm not sure, but it would be likely, and if it happened that way it
> >> >> would've been brutal on even teh most ardent H2H naysayers.

> >> >Yes, yes, we know it's your wet dream. You hate Fed's guts for
> >> >surpassing Sampras. Yadda yadda.

> >> i disliked fed as far back as 02. with 0 slams. he seemed***y with 0
> >> slams to me.

> >> >> >Besides, Federer already made 6 USO finals in a row before Nadal even
> >> >> >reached his first USO final. Clearly there is an enormous gap of time
> >> >> >between Nadal and Federer in terms of their peak USO forms. Federer is
> >> >> >on the waning side after having reached 6 USO finals, while Nadal is
> >> >> >barely coming on to his own in USO, scoring his first ever USO finals.
> >> >> >So it's apples and oranges.
> >> >> >Admit it, Federer is from a different generation than Nadal, and it is
> >> >> >to his credit that he is still*** on in the current scene after
> >> >> >all these years of domination, ranked withing top 3 or even top 2.
> >> >> >This is a testament of Fed's staying power and dedication to the game.
> >> >> >Instead of celebrating this great achievement, you are keen on putting
> >> >> >things in negative light in whichever way possible.
> >> >> >You are the quintessential Federer-hater, bob. And you refuse to
> >> >> >acknowledge it, despite how many times it has been pointed out to you.

> >> >> fed and nadal overlap generations.

> >> >Not if you count 5 year as a tennis generation. Do you think Sampras
> >> >and let's say Rios were from the same generation? Obviously not. They
> >> >were 5 years apart. And from different generations. Same with Fed and
> >> >Nadal.

> >> so you believe joe's launch dates when you want to and don't believe
> >> when you don't wnt to eh? har har.

> >> >> it's funny how you want to cut fed
> >> >> slack at 28-30 but no slack for nadal at 19-21.

> >> >Nadal can't have the cake and eat it too.

> >> nor can fed.

> >> > He was ranked #2 in the world for the longest time. He was seeded number 2 in several USOs and
> >> >AOs when Federer was at his peak, but failed to even reach the finals
> >> >of USO and AO until 2010. By that time, Federer already reached about
> >> >12 USO/AO finals and was past his peak.

> >> he was ranked #2 based solely on clay results. off clay, his game was
> >> weak and improved to best in world over a 4-5 yr period.

> >> >> that's quite unfair of  course.

> >> >No, it is you who is being unfair to Fed. That's a given though.

> >> arnab you've not improved over the yrs, best to stick you back with
> >> john liang and maximum 3/yr responses.

> >I doubt arna will ever reach that super dumb level you are on and surely
> >his maths skill did not drop off like you and your master did.
> >Bob your level is still well below your master.

> i've surpassed whisper in 1 regard:

That is what I said your stupidity is surpassing your master.

Quote:
>my ability to limit you to max 3
> replies/yr. time's up john!

Limted me to max 3 replies/yr?  bob go to a prep and learn to count and that will serve you well in this group and many other things in your life.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> bob

 
 
 

whisp brought up a good pt last month.

Post by arnab. » Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:51:18


Quote:









> >> >> >> On Thu, 31 May 2012 07:27:14 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez



> >> >> >> >> You can dress it up any way you like, but the fact remains there are
> >> >> >> >> almost no big wins for Fed over Rafa, certainly not when Rafa got out of
> >> >> >> >> his ***s.

> >> >> >> >Welcome to Bizarro Whisper World, where facts are stood on their heads
> >> >> >> >until skull fractures ensue. Of Federer's 10 wins over Nadal, only
> >> >> >> >*one* occurred in Nadal's ***s (Miami Masters 2005). I really don't
> >> >> >> >care how you appraise the "bigness" of the other nine wins, so there's
> >> >> >> >no point arguing about that, but Nadal's age at the time of a given
> >> >> >> >match is an objective fact that even you should be capable of
> >> >> >> >recognizing.

> >> >> >> how old was nadal in 08? you know, the year he started to dominate fed
> >> >> >> on *all* surfaces??

> >> >> >> bob

> >> >> >? In 2008, Nadal scored a win against Fed in FO and barely squeaked
> >> >> >past him in Wimby? How is this domination on all surfaces?

> >> >> stretch it out 1 month to jan 2009. hankerchief in hand? you recall?

> >> >Yes, Jan 2009, when Fed was 6 months further away from his peak and
> >> >Nadal 6 months more into his peak.
> >> >Who did Sampras lose to at AO at a comparable age? Bet it was some
> >> >nobody.

> >> he won that yr. :-)

> >Nope. It was 1999, and Sampras withdraw. He lost the year before in
> >1998 and the year after in 2000. He was quite the zero in Australian
> >open.

> >> >> ?now quit bringing 19-21 yr old rafa as if he's peak, you know it's
> >> >> wrong.

> >> >Why? Are you going to cry if I keep bringing it up, Nancy boy?

> >> lol. bring it up all u want, it's laughable and shows no knowledge on
> >> your part.

> >Not really. I give 19-21 year old Rafa all the credit. I count all his
> >wins against Fed in the FO during that period. If he was not at his
> >peak, then we should consider all those wins against Fed as fluke
> >wins.

> nah, just consider it he was good enough even off peak to beat rog.

> bob

Just like way off-peak Fed bageled peak Rafa on HC just a few months
ago?