Re: Fundamental axiom of tennis debate

On 15 jul, 21:37, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 15, 3:17 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 15, 8:13 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 15, 8:00 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 15-Jul-2009, TennisGuy <Jeffery21...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 15, 2:22 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The fundamental axiom of tennis debate is this: If you want to argue
about who is the greatest, or the best, or the most whatever of all
time, or his era, or his generation, etc., you must specify the
positive, generally applicable criteria that determine who is the
greatest, best, or most whatever.

"Positive" means that you must identify the qualifications needed to
earn the designation, not simply the *disqualifications* that
supposedly prevent one from earning it.

So, for those who insist that Federer cannot be GOAT, or the greatest
of his era, or the best of his era, or anything else, because of his
losing record against Nadal, I say this: Before you tell me why a
player *can't be* the GOAT, or the best, you must first clearly
explain what it takes to *be* the GOAT, or the best. If you can't
specify the generally applicable qualifications needed -- and then
live by the result when those criteria are applied -- then you have
nothing to add to the debate.

Of course, you're also free to reject such debates entirely. De
gustibus ...

Excellent point Joe.
Let's hope others can understand what you are saying and agree with
the principle.

Fat chance of that with Whisper and Co around, or the Evil Cybersisters for
that matter.  But yes, good post Joe.

Okay. The Goat candidate must not lose more than 5 slam matches to any
one player in slams in his career. Once the GOAT candidate meets the
first criteria then we examine his Tennis achievements.

By the way, how many other players who we woud consider as "GOAT"
candidates have lost more than 5 slam matches to one guy? Any? I doubt
it.

Er, try Laver. Rosewall beat him a helluva lot of times in their major
final encounters (note that you can't argue that the pro majors were
not slams, because TT will spank you). I count at least six losses by
the Rocket to the Rose.

Connors lost to Borg five times in slams. I don't consider Jimbo a
GOAT candidate, but some do. Any particular reason you specified "more
than 5"? Not being tendentious, are you? Of course not.

Oh ***, you're helping him answer my criteria to give weight to his
criteria. Stop it quickly!

;-)
.

Loading