Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 243
  1. #76
    4X ST MVP Spurtacular's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    39,689
    suddenly lost interest after being told she's not a tranny

    what a surprise
    False narrative galore like your hero chump. You got ulcers, son.

  2. #77
    Veteran Arcadian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    7,851
    When players can dominate in the 30s in a sport that is all about speed and power, then it's bad competition. How springy 20 year olds can't out last a 35 year old is evidence in and of itself.
    That's circular reasoning. You're saying "they're winning because the competition is weak" and "the competition is weak because they're winning."

  3. #78
    Drive for Five! ambchang's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    14,512
    lol tennis being all speed and power.

    Tennis is 75% skill. You can have the fastest, most powerful player on the World playing a game against a slow fatso, but if the fatso strikes the ball better than the other guy, he is going to win easily.

    And I didn't respond to that other stuff because we have gone through that millions of times already. Besides, you made some mistakes, like saying Federer won his first slam at age 23.

    There's not a single valid argument to mantain that this era is weaker than the previous one, none.

    -% of victory against players that crossed eras- I already proved that the new guys win by a devastating majority.

    -Eye test- undoubtfully if favour of this era, for anyone that is objective. Many players of previous eras had several weaknesses to their game and only got by by serving and volleying. You can't do that now. Yesterday's players always had a weak backhand, or a weak forehand, or weak both. Player nowadays are like 6'0'' to 6'6'' robots that hit 100 mph groundstrokes from either side. Just try to imagine a Michael Chang facing a Del Potro, for example. And I'm talking about Michael Chang, a player who got to be N 2 in the World, vs Del Potro, who only got to N 4.

    -Surprise Grand Slam winners- Folks like Petr Korda, Andres Gomez, Thomas Johanson, Albert Costa and Gaston Gaudio got to win slams on that era, that's not parity son, that's mediocrity, tbh.
    75% skill. Who’s the slow fatso winning grand slam? Where’s that 42 year old skillful guy? You know why most grand slams are on by players before they hit their 30’s right? Then you immediately follow it up with an argument on eye test about players being powerful and physically imposing. Which one is it? Pick a lane.

    Then the old guard new guard thing is just a joke. Ivanisevic? His career was pretty much over when he started playing federer. His lone Wimbledon title was a total surprise because he was pretty much done at that point. Ditto some of the other players.

    Nadals serve was weak and he’s not the best at volley. Joker’s defense Of the volley was questionable. Federer had a weak backhand for a long time before he fixed it.
    _____________________________

  4. #79
    Drive for Five! ambchang's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    14,512
    lol tennis being all speed and power.

    Tennis is 75% skill. You can have the fastest, most powerful player on the World playing a game against a slow fatso, but if the fatso strikes the ball better than the other guy, he is going to win easily.

    And I didn't respond to that other stuff because we have gone through that millions of times already. Besides, you made some mistakes, like saying Federer won his first slam at age 23.

    There's not a single valid argument to mantain that this era is weaker than the previous one, none.

    -% of victory against players that crossed eras- I already proved that the new guys win by a devastating majority.

    -Eye test- undoubtfully if favour of this era, for anyone that is objective. Many players of previous eras had several weaknesses to their game and only got by by serving and volleying. You can't do that now. Yesterday's players always had a weak backhand, or a weak forehand, or weak both. Player nowadays are like 6'0'' to 6'6'' robots that hit 100 mph groundstrokes from either side. Just try to imagine a Michael Chang facing a Del Potro, for example. And I'm talking about Michael Chang, a player who got to be N 2 in the World, vs Del Potro, who only got to N 4.

    -Surprise Grand Slam winners- Folks like Petr Korda, Andres Gomez, Thomas Johanson, Albert Costa and Gaston Gaudio got to win slams on that era, that's not parity son, that's mediocrity, tbh.
    75% skill. Whos the slow fatso winning grand slam? Wheres that 42 year old skillful guy? You know why most grand slams are on by players before they hit their 30s right? Then you immediately follow it up with an argument on eye test about players being powerful and physically imposing. Which one is it? Pick a lane.

    Then the old guard new guard thing is just a joke. Ivanisevic? His career was pretty much over when he started playing federer. His lone Wimbledon title was a total surprise because he was pretty much done at that point. Ditto some of the other players.

    Nadals serve was weak and hes not the best at volley. Jokers defense Of the volley was questionable. Federer had a weak backhand for a long time before he fixed it.

  5. #80
    SeaGOAT midnightpulp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    24,858
    lol tennis being all speed and power.

    Tennis is 75% skill. You can have the fastest, most powerful player on the World playing a game against a slow fatso, but if the fatso strikes the ball better than the other guy, he is going to win easily.

    And I didn't respond to that other stuff because we have gone through that millions of times already. Besides, you made some mistakes, like saying Federer won his first slam at age 23.

    There's not a single valid argument to mantain that this era is weaker than the previous one, none.

    -% of victory against players that crossed eras- I already proved that the new guys win by a devastating majority.

    -Eye test- undoubtfully if favour of this era, for anyone that is objective. Many players of previous eras had several weaknesses to their game and only got by by serving and volleying. You can't do that now. Yesterday's players always had a weak backhand, or a weak forehand, or weak both. Player nowadays are like 6'0'' to 6'6'' robots that hit 100 mph groundstrokes from either side. Just try to imagine a Michael Chang facing a Del Potro, for example. And I'm talking about Michael Chang, a player who got to be N 2 in the World, vs Del Potro, who only got to N 4.

    -Surprise Grand Slam winners- Folks like Petr Korda, Andres Gomez, Thomas Johanson, Albert Costa and Gaston Gaudio got to win slams on that era, that's not parity son, that's mediocrity, tbh.
    Reaction time declines about 1% per year after age 24, so Federer has an automatic 12% handicap on that front against a player in their athletic prime (reaction time crosses over into handeye coordination, as well). There's no denying the fact that a player of his age is at a significant physiological disadvantage (unless he's a physical outlier or doped to the gills). Obviously Federer will have advantages over younger players in the knowledge, tennis IQ, and instinct departments, but in every sport, we usually start to see the next generation (usually 23-27) start dispatching the old guard 30 and over players. Your last line is the very definition of parity. When there's more threats to upset/win tournaments/championships, it typically means a more balanced talent pool across the board.

    I do think modern greats are better than Sampras, Borg, etc in a vacuum, but I don't like vacuum arguments since they punish past generations who obviously didn't have the same luxuries as modern players (goes for any sport). If Nadal were born in 1972, I don't think he's as good as Sampras in that era. Basketball example is Steph Curry. I don't think he'd be any better than his dad if he were born in 1960. Where players like Larry Bird and such learned to shoot in their driveways, players of Steph's generation are taught fundamentals with cutting edge training methods from the moment they pick up a ball.

    I don't really have much of dog in this fight, but when a couple of players can dominate a sport where 30 used to be considered a senior citizen, it suggests a top heavy talent pool.
    _____________________________

  6. #81
    We've got a job to do. Darth_Pelican's Avatar
    My Team
    New Orleans Pelicans
    Post Count
    7,353
    Nadal vs. Djokovic in the semis this morning.
    _____________________________

  7. #82
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    41,822
    John Isner is the most unwatchable good player I've ever seen, tbh

    Everything other than serving is disgusting..

  8. #83
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    37,026
    Reaction time declines about 1% per year after age 24, so Federer has an automatic 12% handicap on that front against a player in their athletic prime (reaction time crosses over into handeye coordination, as well). There's no denying the fact that a player of his age is at a significant physiological disadvantage (unless he's a physical outlier or doped to the gills). Obviously Federer will have advantages over younger players in the knowledge, tennis IQ, and instinct departments, but in every sport, we usually start to see the next generation (usually 23-27) start dispatching the old guard 30 and over players. Your last line is the very definition of parity. When there's more threats to upset/win tournaments/championships, it typically means a more balanced talent pool across the board.

    I do think modern greats are better than Sampras, Borg, etc in a vacuum, but I don't like vacuum arguments since they punish past generations who obviously didn't have the same luxuries as modern players (goes for any sport). If Nadal were born in 1972, I don't think he's as good as Sampras in that era. Basketball example is Steph Curry. I don't think he'd be any better than his dad if he were born in 1960. Where players like Larry Bird and such learned to shoot in their driveways, players of Steph's generation are taught fundamentals with cutting edge training methods from the moment they pick up a ball.
    It's obvious that a 24 years old Federer is going to be better than a 36 years old Federer. At similar levels of skill, the physical aspect obviously makes the difference. But tennis is one of the sports (after golf and baseball, where players barely move) that most favours skill over physical aspects.

    I don't really have much of dog in this fight, but when a couple of players can dominate a sport where 30 used to be considered a senior citizen, it suggests a top heavy talent pool.
    30 was considered a senior citizen on pretty much every sport, yet more and more players of over 30 are starting to dominate in every sport: Lebron in basketball, Brady in the NFL, Messi and Ronaldo in soccer, Federer and Nadal on tennis, Mayweather on boxing, etc, etc, etc. (I don't know who the best player on the NHL is, but I'm sure he must be over 30 too). Does this mean that every sport has a top heavy talent pool? Of course not. We have already gone through this, no reason to keep arguing the same things over and over again. Specially not on an argument as clear as this one, tbh.
    Last edited by DAF86; 07-13-2018 at 12:06 PM.
    _____________________________
    Top 5 SG of all-time

    Win Shares/48

    1-Jordan - .250
    2-West - .213
    3-Ginobili - .190

    BPM

    1-Jordan - 8.09
    2-Drexler - 5.98
    3-Ginobili - 4.95

    Championships

    1-Jordan - 6
    2-Bryant - 5
    3-Ginobili - 4



  9. #84
    Veteran Arcadian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    7,851
    What an amazing matchup. 6'8 vs 6'10, both can serve 140 mph.

    Isner won the longest match of all time, so he should be good
    Last edited by Arcadian; 07-13-2018 at 12:16 PM.

  10. #85
    Thank You Tim, Tony, Manu -21-'s Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    2,009
    What an amazing matchup. 6'8 vs 6'10, both can serve 140 mph.

    Isner won the longest match of all time, so he should be good
    I got Anderson. Currently 14 all.
    _____________________________

  11. #86
    Veteran Arcadian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    7,851
    "Maybe this will be the match that gets the rule changed."

    Oh yeah, 70-68 didn't, but this will

  12. #87
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    37,026
    "Maybe this will be the match that gets the rule changed."

    Oh yeah, 70-68 didn't, but this will
    70-68 doesn't bother when it's a third round match, tbh.

  13. #88
    Veteran Arcadian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    7,851
    70-68 doesn't bother when it's a third round match, tbh.
    I don't see why that should matter. It's the principle of the thing.

    At the same time, I don't know if I want it changed. I find it entertaining in a funny way to see how long this shit goes.

  14. #89
    Klaw apalisoc_9's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    23,518
    Theres idiots that actually sampras is better than feds? What world do we live in?

    Its like saying Malone is better than Lebron.

    Shit is ridiculous.

    Sampras aint even a top 4 all time player
    _____________________________

  15. #90
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    37,026
    I don't see why that should matter. It's the principle of the thing.

    At the same time, I don't know if I want it changed. I find it entertaining in a funny way to see how long this shit goes.
    Maybe for you. For the guys that are putting the money and should already have Nadal and Djokovic playing on their network it does matter.

  16. #91
    Veteran Arcadian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    7,851
    Maybe for you. For the guys that are putting the money and should already have Nadal and Djokovic playing on their network it does matter.
    No I was saying it shouldn't matter that Isner-Mahut was in an earlier round.

  17. #92
    Thank You Tim, Tony, Manu -21-'s Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    2,009
    I don't see why that should matter. It's the principle of the thing.

    At the same time, I don't know if I want it changed. I find it entertaining in a funny way to see how long this shit goes.
    Agreed. As ridiculous and exhausting as it is, it's very entertaining.

  18. #93
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    37,026
    No I was saying it shouldn't matter that Isner-Mahut was in an earlier round.
    But it does matter. A 70-68 5th set on a third round is harmless for TV. They can go back and forth between different matches. They can stop broadcasting it when it's time for another show to start. You can't do that with a semifinal match.

    You must bet that network owners and sponsors are ing seizing right now that they don't have Nadal and Djokovic on their screens on this moment. And since these are the people that decide the changes, a semifinal match going this long (between two non-rating drawing players) is something that might be the turning point for a rule change.

  19. #94
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    41,822
    Agreed. As ridiculous and exhausting as it is, it's very entertaining.
    I don't know if I'd say it's entertaining IMO

    The intensity of such a long tiebreaker is entertaining, but the actual game isn't..Isner's serve is unstoppable and not even human, but he's so bad at everything else

  20. #95
    Thank You Tim, Tony, Manu -21-'s Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    2,009
    I don't know if I'd say it's entertaining IMO

    The intensity of such a long tiebreaker is entertaining, but the actual game isn't..Isner's serve is unstoppable and not even human, but he's so bad at everything else
    Yeah, not exactly entertaining. Can't find the right word.

    Agreed on Isner, his serve is keeping him alive. Anderson won't back down. You gotta think whoever comes out on top here will be too tired vs. Rafa/Novak.

  21. #96
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    37,026
    I don't know if I'd say it's entertaining IMO

    The intensity of such a long tiebreaker is entertaining, but the actual game isn't..Isner's serve is unstoppable and not even human, but he's so bad at everything else
    Tell me you betted on games spread on whoever the underdog of this match was.

  22. #97
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    41,822
    Tell me you betted on games spread on whoever the underdog of this match was.
    Took the over on games and aces lost the games over the other day by 0.5 on Isner/Raonic, took it again today..

  23. #98
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    37,026
    Took the over on games and aces lost the games over the other day by 0.5 on Isner/Raonic, took it again today..
    What was the line for today's match? (or however that thing is called)

  24. #99
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    41,822
    What was the line for today's match? (or however that thing is called)
    48.5 games

  25. #100
    Veteran Arcadian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    7,851
    This is their championship. The final will be a formality. The real final is coming up next.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •