Create an account


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sports Discussion

#21
(07-29-2019, 04:13 PM)MACK IS GOD Wrote:
(07-29-2019, 03:28 PM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote: To me Sampras will always be overrated.

1) Hes Greek. So thats reason enough to hate him. - Cheap Shot, so you can suck it
2) He married Bridgette Wilson. She was meant to be with me. - Bridgette Wilson = overrated
3) He benefitted from a thin talent pool and beating up on a lot of over the hill bums. - Jim Courier, Andre Agassi, Ivo, Michael Stich, Boris Becker, Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander, Patrick Rafter, Michael Chang, Yannick Noah, Stefan Edberg (who I forgot to add as part of that 80's to 90's torch passing), Thomas Muster.

As you can see, that's a pretty deep field of top level talent. Some on that list are legends. Thomas Muster was probably the most hated player in the 90's and he gaved both Sampras and Agassi fits. Obviously not all are legend status in my list, but they were still really damn good and would have been really damn good in any era. Then Don't forget Sampras' 02 US Open. That was fantastic and a great way to go out.


That being said, while I feel Sampras is the secdond greatest player I have seen, he is nowhere NEAR Federer. No one is, was, or will be. Djokovic will probably break his Slam record, but that's also because like I said, no one has stepped up to challenge these 3, and most of Djokovic's wins are post prime Federer, if not all of them. Roger is 37 and is ranked third in the world. That shouldn't happen the way tennis has traditionally been.
None of what I say is in any way meant to knock Federer. I have never seen anyone play at his level. He is by far my favorite player ever, and he is a great human being.

I never hated Agassi, but yeah, him with hair is a completely different person, and I became a HUUUUUUUGE fan of his as he pulled himself out of the gutter. His redemption story should have been a biopic by now.

Ok first off, take back the Bridgette Wilson comment or things will never be the same between us. Seriously. 

Also. The list of guys you put up were ALL at the tail end of there careers when Sampras came of age. 

2) Sampras' dominance was 70% Wimbledon. He didnt win a hard court Major after 97 until his last one in 02 against Agassi and if the tie break rules for every other Major were in effect except for the US Open Agassi would have beat him. Thats why he retired like a bitch right after that cuz he knew Fed was gonna push his shit in. While Andre still hung 8n thete and made it to the 05 final..

All them cats you listed were either bums or over the hill scrubs still playing with wooden rackets. Go look up Rafter Sampras 98 on Jewtube and look at Pete crying like a bitch at the umpire.

No DOUBT Sampras was a beast. Not saying he wasnt. But he was a 2 trick pony. Huge serve. And after he got you on your heels off the serve he killed you. Agassi was the better player overall by far, except he couldnt compete with the Sampras serve. Which was absolutely world class.

Also this is a thr3ad about one of our beloved brothers making the ultimate sacrifice for all of us. So if someone with mod abilities could maybe move this convo to a sports thread Id appreciate it.

I dont want to disrespect PREs announcement by talking about tennis. Although we will still continue this convo Jung........
Funny that I was just thinking along this same line. Our ability to derail a thread in so subtle and inoffensive a manner is utterly legendary.
Reply

#22
(07-29-2019, 04:42 PM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote:
(07-29-2019, 04:13 PM)MACK IS GOD Wrote: Ok first off, take back the Bridgette Wilson comment or things will never be the same between us. Seriously. 

Also. The list of guys you put up were ALL at the tail end of there careers when Sampras came of age. 

2) Sampras' dominance was 70% Wimbledon. He didnt win a hard court Major after 97 until his last one in 02 against Agassi and if the tie break rules for every other Major were in effect except for the US Open Agassi would have beat him. Thats why he retired like a bitch right after that cuz he knew Fed was gonna push his shit in. While Andre still hung 8n thete and made it to the 05 final..

All them cats you listed were either bums or over the hill scrubs still playing with wooden rackets. Go look up Rafter Sampras 98 on Jewtube and look at Pete crying like a bitch at the umpire.

No DOUBT Sampras was a beast. Not saying he wasnt. But he was a 2 trick pony. Huge serve. And after he got you on your heels off the serve he killed you. Agassi was the better player overall by far, except he couldnt compete with the Sampras serve. Which was absolutely world class.

Also this is a thr3ad about one of our beloved brothers making the ultimate sacrifice for all of us. So if someone with mod abilities could maybe move this convo to a sports thread Id appreciate it.

I dont want to disrespect PREs announcement by talking about tennis. Although we will still continue this convo Jung........
Funny that I was just thinking along this same line. Our ability to derail a thread in so subtle and inoffensive a manner is utterly legendary.


Just to continue on the Federer thing and try to put into perspective on how great he was, I like to use a technique that takes the "best" player from a sport and gauge the distance between the "next" best player in their sport to get a true read on how good they are.

For example we can look at Michael Jordan from 87-92.

The difference in skill and ability from him to the 2nd best player was at a minimum 2 standard deviations. MAYBE you could throw Olajowon in there as being in the same class simply because of his overall skill and dominance in every area of the game, but thats it. 

Looking strictly at 2s and 3s there was nobody even in the conversation with Jordan. Youd have the occasional Magic or Bird fag who would throw out the whole "her derp! Magics a better passer!" Or "Her derp Birds a better rebounder and pure shooter!"

But when you WATCHED them play, you saw there was a difference. Yes there were 2s who were better passers, yes there were 2s who were better pure shooters, but when you WATCHED MJ play, you knew you were witnessing something that NOBODY ELSE in the world could do.

Im a Knicks fan. And I can vividly recall during they early 90s when he decided he was going to take over a game. And there wasnt a single fucking thing anyone on the planet could do to stop him. Period.

Federer is on that same level. Even more so as tennis is truly a singular sport. There are no teammates to rely on or blame. Its just you and your opponent.

Federer is the ONLY athlete who I ever considered as being better at his sport than Jordan.

There is a dignity and class to tennis that doesnt exist in other sports. Ive been an athlete my whole life. Football, basketball, baseball, boxing, all that shit. But my proudest moments were playing tennis against a friend of mine who was a much better player, and slowly getting better. And honestly calling faults and long shots etc. Theres a dignity to watching that passing shot hit the line and saying "yep, you got that. Nice shot".

When I finally beat my friend it was one of the most proud moments of my life. Just 2 men diving and sweating and stuggling to beat the other and being totally honest with calls. Im a total scumbag as a human being and I never once lied or tried to steal a point with a bullshit call.

For me the 3 purest sports a man can compete in are boxing/combat, tennis, and golf. Its just you and your opponent. No teammates to blame. Its just you and your will. Thats why I reapect Fed so much and honestly put him as the greatest athlete Ive ever had the pleasure to watch. Factor that in with his class, humility, and respect and the guy is just about as good as it gets.
Reply

#23
(07-30-2019, 12:34 AM)MACK IS GOD Wrote:
(07-29-2019, 04:42 PM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote: Funny that I was just thinking along this same line. Our ability to derail a thread in so subtle and inoffensive a manner is utterly legendary.


Just to continue on the Federer thing and try to put into perspective on how great he was, I like to use a technique that takes the "best" player from a sport and gauge the distance between the "next" best player in their sport to get a true read on how good they are.

For example we can look at Michael Jordan from 87-92.

The difference in skill and ability from him to the 2nd best player was at a minimum 2 standard deviations. MAYBE you could throw Olajowon in there as being in the same class simply because of his overall skill and dominance in every area of the game, but thats it. 

Looking strictly at 2s and 3s there was nobody even in the conversation with Jordan. Youd have the occasional Magic or Bird fag who would throw out the whole "her derp! Magics a better passer!" Or "Her derp Birds a better rebounder and pure shooter!"

But when you WATCHED them play, you saw there was a difference. Yes there were 2s who were better passers, yes there were 2s who were better pure shooters, but when you WATCHED MJ play, you knew you were witnessing something that NOBODY ELSE in the world could do.

Im a Knicks fan. And I can vividly recall during they early 90s when he decided he was going to take over a game. And there wasnt a single fucking thing anyone on the planet could do to stop him. Period.

Federer is on that same level. Even more so as tennis is truly a singular sport. There are no teammates to rely on or blame. Its just you and your opponent.

Federer is the ONLY athlete who I ever considered as being better at his sport than Jordan.

There is a dignity and class to tennis that doesnt exist in other sports. Ive been an athlete my whole life. Football, basketball, baseball, boxing, all that shit. But my proudest moments were playing tennis against a friend of mine who was a much better player, and slowly getting better. And honestly calling faults and long shots etc. Theres a dignity to watching that passing shot hit the line and saying "yep, you got that. Nice shot".

When I finally beat my friend it was one of the most proud moments of my life. Just 2 men diving and sweating and stuggling to beat the other and being totally honest with calls. Im a total scumbag as a human being and I never once lied or tried to steal a point with a bullshit call.

For me the 3 purest sports a man can compete in are boxing/combat, tennis, and golf. Its just you and your opponent. No teammates to blame. Its just you and your will. Thats why I reapect Fed so much and honestly put him as the greatest athlete Ive ever had the pleasure to watch. Factor that in with his class, humility, and respect and the guy is just about as good as it gets.

Can't argue with anything said here. Certain things Jordan isn't credited with being great at because he didn't do them as much as others. MJ was an incredible passer, but for most of his career he was option A through J so that part of his game didn't shine as much. I know what you are getting at, I just wanted to point that out.
As an opinion, I'd say golf is even more pure than the others, and not because I love the game so much. Whether you on the first tee on a Sunday morning just getting a round in, or in a tournament, it's really just you against the golf course. Sure your objective is to beat the field, but you don't necessarily do that by making others succumb to your skill. You have to tame the golf course. Master its conditions. Even in a match play format, you need to master the golf course better than the next guy.

Tennis absolutely. You have no one to blame but yourself if you lose. You get outplayed, it's because YOU weren't as good as the other guy. Not because your teammate missed a shot (or a field goal after your team played poorly all game, yet managed to march down the field to put you in a position to win it).
Reply

#24
And just cuz I'm silly like that, I'll bring it back to tennis. It's been shown a one dimensional player can never sustain a seat at the top. Nadal was a surface specialist, but he had layers to his game, which are now deteriorating where Federer has been able to hide his decline because he is that damn good.

Andy Roddick comes to mind as one dimensional. All he had was power. Ridiculous, uncontrollable power. He sat on the baseline, but his ankles were weak, so he couldn't chase down anything. He wore ankle braces his entire career.

We talked offline and you mentioned that had he developed even a serve and volley aspect to his game that he would have been an all timer, and I tend to agree. He even realized that he needed to adapt and improve, so he reached out to Jimmy Connors, remember? Even Connors couldn't reach him. Roddick was way too stubborn, but had he acquiesced and threw his ego aside, he could have been something. And we know how stubborn Connors was, so I don't think he could find a way to put HIS ego aside to try and work around Roddick's. McEnroe would have had the same issue, except I think he'd have beat the crap out of Roddick. Like legit beat the tar out of him.
Reply

#25
(07-30-2019, 11:34 AM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote: And just cuz I'm silly like that, I'll bring it back to tennis. It's been shown a one dimensional player can never sustain a seat at the top. Nadal was a surface specialist, but he had layers to his game, which are now deteriorating where Federer has been able to hide his decline because he is that damn good.

Andy Roddick comes to mind as one dimensional. All he had was power. Ridiculous, uncontrollable power. He sat on the baseline, but his ankles were weak, so he couldn't chase down anything. He wore ankle braces his entire career.

We talked offline and you mentioned that had he developed even a serve and volley aspect to his game that he would have been an all timer, and I tend to agree. He even realized that he needed to adapt and improve, so he reached out to Jimmy Connors, remember? Even Connors couldn't reach him. Roddick was way too stubborn, but had he acquiesced and threw his ego aside, he could have been something. And we know how stubborn Connors was, so I don't think he could find a way to put HIS ego aside to try and work around Roddick's. McEnroe would have had the same issue, except I think he'd have beat the crap out of Roddick. Like legit beat the tar out of him.

Roddick was a prodigy that liked being a celebrity. He actually won his 1st and only Major in 03 at the US Open before Federer went on his run. I think winning that 1 early probably hurt him more than helped him career wise. He also liked the nightlife and the ladies (nothing wrong with that) so he was always going to stagnate. The kid did bust his ass on the court though. He definitely left it all out there every match.

Edit: Federer won his 1st Major at Wimbledon in 03.
Reply

#26
(07-30-2019, 11:55 AM)MACK IS GOD Wrote:
(07-30-2019, 11:34 AM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote: And just cuz I'm silly like that, I'll bring it back to tennis. It's been shown a one dimensional player can never sustain a seat at the top. Nadal was a surface specialist, but he had layers to his game, which are now deteriorating where Federer has been able to hide his decline because he is that damn good.

Andy Roddick comes to mind as one dimensional. All he had was power. Ridiculous, uncontrollable power. He sat on the baseline, but his ankles were weak, so he couldn't chase down anything. He wore ankle braces his entire career.

We talked offline and you mentioned that had he developed even a serve and volley aspect to his game that he would have been an all timer, and I tend to agree. He even realized that he needed to adapt and improve, so he reached out to Jimmy Connors, remember? Even Connors couldn't reach him. Roddick was way too stubborn, but had he acquiesced and threw his ego aside, he could have been something. And we know how stubborn Connors was, so I don't think he could find a way to put HIS ego aside to try and work around Roddick's. McEnroe would have had the same issue, except I think he'd have beat the crap out of Roddick. Like legit beat the tar out of him.

Roddick was a prodigy that liked being a celebrity. He actually won his 1st and only Major in 03 at the US Open before Federer went on his run. I think winning that 1 early probably hurt him more than helped him career wise. He also liked the nightlife and the ladies (nothing wrong with that) so he was always going to stagnate. The kid did bust his ass on the court though. He definitely left it all out there every match.

Edit: Federer won his 1st Major at Wimbledon in 03.

No doubt he gave it his all, that's what endeared him to the fans; especially at Flushing. He killed himself out there, but it took him too long to realize he needed to outsmart instead of overpower his opponents. I wanted him to get better so bad so that he could challenge Federer consistently at least as the number 2 or 3 guy and inspire the next generation of US men's players. He was the last great American player. Now we are stuck with John Isner, who's only claim to fame are a couple of long Wimbledon tiebreakers and the fact that he's almost 7 feet tall.
Reply

#27
(07-30-2019, 12:10 PM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote:
(07-30-2019, 11:55 AM)MACK IS GOD Wrote: Roddick was a prodigy that liked being a celebrity. He actually won his 1st and only Major in 03 at the US Open before Federer went on his run. I think winning that 1 early probably hurt him more than helped him career wise. He also liked the nightlife and the ladies (nothing wrong with that) so he was always going to stagnate. The kid did bust his ass on the court though. He definitely left it all out there every match.

Edit: Federer won his 1st Major at Wimbledon in 03.

No doubt he gave it his all, that's what endeared him to the fans; especially at Flushing. He killed himself out there, but it took him too long to realize he needed to outsmart instead of overpower his opponents. I wanted him to get better so bad so that he could challenge Federer consistently at least as the number 2 or 3 guy and inspire the next generation of US men's players. He was the last great American player. Now we are stuck with John Isner, who's only claim to fame are a couple of long Wimbledon tiebreakers and the fact that he's almost 7 feet tall.

Yea he and Federer had probably half a dozen matches in Wimbledon and US Open finals that were absolutely epic.

In retrospect it really was like watching an Ali\Foreman fight or something similar. Roddick just throwing the kitchen sink while Federer deftly used his own power against him.

I really loved that we sparked this conversation because its made me go back and watch some of these guys just to reestablish my opinions and solidify what my rankings were in my own head. After going over some matches, Roddick was really a victim of just running into the best ever. Like Ewing and the Knicks. He was just unfortunate to have the GOAT at his prime every time that poor bastard made a Major final.

And that said, Roddick absolutely BROUGHT it to that motherfucker every time. Check out a couple of their Wimbledon finals. That kid would have had 5-8 Majors if not for the fact he was just running into the GOAT every time. He definitely wasnt some pretty boy cheeser. He laid it on the line. I would say prime Roddick was as good as Sampras but because of competition level nobody will ever give hime that credit.

I also did a reevaluation of Djokovic. And he is absolutely Top 5 All Time. Its unfortunate that he peaked abput 5 years after Fed so we never really saw peak Fed against peak Djokovic.

Idont even put Nadal in the mix because hes a clay court guy and a blatant PED user. Tennis is all about matchups and styles. I think Djokovic gets a check over Fed because he could beat Nadal on his own surface more easily. If I had to make a comparison I would say Djokovic was like that reliable F150 that you could bring to any job and know its getting done while Fed was like a GSXR that you knew was just gonna dust you.

I also rank Majors differently. Djokovic has like 8 Australian Opens.

The rankings are as follows Wimbledon=>US Open, then its dealers choice between Assie Open and French Open. The French Open can be won and has been won by any 5'6" faggot who can chase down slowed down winners for 5 hours so if I had to rank them it would be Wimbledon and US Open, large power gap, the Aussie Open, then French Open.

To me the French Open is like the PGA Championship of majors. So I value them much less. Until Nadal you had literal nobodies winning them shits every year. I also value the Aussie Open much less than Wimbledon or the US Open.

Iwould be more impressed with a player who had won 4 Wimbledons and 6 Us Opens than a guy who won 7 French Opens and 6 Aussie Opens. There just a level of prestige involved that cant be accounted for and a fungibility that is unavoidable.

Now after going back and watching these dudes here is my final rankings.

These are all at peak level who would beat who, not overall accomplishments.

1) Federer. Absolutely the best there ever was. Unbeatable at his best.
2) Djokovic. After reviewing his career and play he is pretty much a flawless player. But there is no doubt in my mind if prime Sampras played prime Djokovic Sampras MIGHT have 6 Majors.
3) Sampras. Hate putting him here because as you know I think circumstance and timing allowed him to feast on Majors he might not have ever won otherwise.
4)Agassi/Nadal. I rank them together because Nadal has so many more Majors. Otherwise I would put Andre ahead. But stats are stats and have to be repsected. I think of ALL of the players weve talked about, the absolute best match we would ever see would be Agassi Nadal on the hard court at a US Open. I cant even imagine the electricity in the crowd as those 2 had a 15 shot baseline rally going on every other point.

As far as the other guys like Becker, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, etc I just didnt include them. Not because they are unworthy. But the equipment and game is so different now its just not possible to compare the different styles.

(07-30-2019, 06:16 AM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote:
(07-30-2019, 12:34 AM)MACK IS GOD Wrote: Just to continue on the Federer thing and try to put into perspective on how great he was, I like to use a technique that takes the "best" player from a sport and gauge the distance between the "next" best player in their sport to get a true read on how good they are.

For example we can look at Michael Jordan from 87-92.

The difference in skill and ability from him to the 2nd best player was at a minimum 2 standard deviations. MAYBE you could throw Olajowon in there as being in the same class simply because of his overall skill and dominance in every area of the game, but thats it. 

Looking strictly at 2s and 3s there was nobody even in the conversation with Jordan. Youd have the occasional Magic or Bird fag who would throw out the whole "her derp! Magics a better passer!" Or "Her derp Birds a better rebounder and pure shooter!"

But when you WATCHED them play, you saw there was a difference. Yes there were 2s who were better passers, yes there were 2s who were better pure shooters, but when you WATCHED MJ play, you knew you were witnessing something that NOBODY ELSE in the world could do.

Im a Knicks fan. And I can vividly recall during they early 90s when he decided he was going to take over a game. And there wasnt a single fucking thing anyone on the planet could do to stop him. Period.

Federer is on that same level. Even more so as tennis is truly a singular sport. There are no teammates to rely on or blame. Its just you and your opponent.

Federer is the ONLY athlete who I ever considered as being better at his sport than Jordan.

There is a dignity and class to tennis that doesnt exist in other sports. Ive been an athlete my whole life. Football, basketball, baseball, boxing, all that shit. But my proudest moments were playing tennis against a friend of mine who was a much better player, and slowly getting better. And honestly calling faults and long shots etc. Theres a dignity to watching that passing shot hit the line and saying "yep, you got that. Nice shot".

When I finally beat my friend it was one of the most proud moments of my life. Just 2 men diving and sweating and stuggling to beat the other and being totally honest with calls. Im a total scumbag as a human being and I never once lied or tried to steal a point with a bullshit call.

For me the 3 purest sports a man can compete in are boxing/combat, tennis, and golf. Its just you and your opponent. No teammates to blame. Its just you and your will. Thats why I reapect Fed so much and honestly put him as the greatest athlete Ive ever had the pleasure to watch. Factor that in with his class, humility, and respect and the guy is just about as good as it gets.

Can't argue with anything said here. Certain things Jordan isn't credited with being great at because he didn't do them as much as others. MJ was an incredible passer, but for most of his career he was option A through J so that part of his game didn't shine as much. I know what you are getting at, I just wanted to point that out.
As an opinion, I'd say golf is even more pure than the others, and not because I love the game so much. Whether you on the first tee on a Sunday morning just getting a round in, or in a tournament, it's really just you against the golf course. Sure your objective is to beat the field, but you don't necessarily do that by making others succumb to your skill. You have to tame the golf course. Master its conditions. Even in a match play format, you need to master the golf course better than the next guy.

Tennis absolutely. You have no one to blame but yourself if you lose. You get outplayed, it's because YOU weren't as good as the other guy. Not because your teammate missed a shot (or a field goal after your team played poorly all game, yet managed to march down the field to put you in a position to win it).

Just responding to this struck a nerve for me.

You know how much of a cinephile I am. And I always had this idea for a movie where the golf thing came into play. Similar to "For the Love of the Game" with Kevin Costner.

Something along the lines of an older man maybe playing a course with his son, and as they played each hole, he would revisit events in his life that mirrored the obsticles during the match on the course. For some reason I just think that would make for a great story if done right.
Reply

#28
(07-30-2019, 11:43 PM)MACK IS GOD Wrote:
(07-30-2019, 12:10 PM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote: No doubt he gave it his all, that's what endeared him to the fans; especially at Flushing. He killed himself out there, but it took him too long to realize he needed to outsmart instead of overpower his opponents. I wanted him to get better so bad so that he could challenge Federer consistently at least as the number 2 or 3 guy and inspire the next generation of US men's players. He was the last great American player. Now we are stuck with John Isner, who's only claim to fame are a couple of long Wimbledon tiebreakers and the fact that he's almost 7 feet tall.

Yea he and Federer had probably half a dozen matches in Wimbledon and US Open finals that were absolutely epic.

In retrospect it really was like watching an Ali\Foreman fight or something similar. Roddick just throwing the kitchen sink while Federer deftly used his own power against him.

I really loved that we sparked this conversation because its made me go back and watch some of these guys just to reestablish my opinions and solidify what my rankings were in my own head. After going over some matches, Roddick was really a victim of just running into the best ever. Like Ewing and the Knicks. He was just unfortunate to have the GOAT at his prime every time that poor bastard made a Major final.

And that said, Roddick absolutely BROUGHT it to that motherfucker every time. Check out a couple of their Wimbledon finals. That kid would have had 5-8 Majors if not for the fact he was just running into the GOAT every time. He definitely wasnt some pretty boy cheeser. He laid it on the line. I would say prime Roddick was as good as Sampras but because of competition level nobody will ever give hime that credit.

I also did a reevaluation of Djokovic. And he is absolutely Top 5 All Time. Its unfortunate that he peaked abput 5 years after Fed so we never really saw peak Fed against peak Djokovic.

Idont even put Nadal in the mix because hes a clay court guy and a blatant PED user. Tennis is all about matchups and styles. I think Djokovic gets a check over Fed because he could beat Nadal on his own surface more easily. If I had to make a comparison I would say Djokovic was like that reliable F150 that you could bring to any job and know its getting done while Fed was like a GSXR that you knew was just gonna dust you.

I also rank Majors differently. Djokovic has like 8 Australian Opens.

The rankings are as follows Wimbledon=>US Open, then its dealers choice between Assie Open and French Open. The French Open can be won and has been won by any 5'6" faggot who can chase down slowed down winners for 5 hours so if I had to rank them it would be Wimbledon and US Open, large power gap, the Aussie Open, then French Open.

To me the French Open is like the PGA Championship of majors. So I value them much less. Until Nadal you had literal nobodies winning them shits every year. I also value the Aussie Open much less than Wimbledon or the US Open.

Iwould be more impressed with a player who had won 4 Wimbledons and 6 Us Opens than a guy who won 7 French Opens and 6 Aussie Opens. There just a level of prestige involved that cant be accounted for and a fungibility that is unavoidable.

Now after going back and watching these dudes here is my final rankings.

These are all at peak level who would beat who, not overall accomplishments.

1) Federer. Absolutely the best there ever was. Unbeatable at his best.
2) Djokovic. After reviewing his career and play he is pretty much a flawless player. But there is no doubt in my mind if prime Sampras played prime Djokovic Sampras MIGHT have 6 Majors.
3) Sampras. Hate putting him here because as you know I think circumstance and timing allowed him to feast on Majors he might not have ever won otherwise.
4)Agassi/Nadal. I rank them together because Nadal has so many more Majors. Otherwise I would put Andre ahead. But stats are stats and have to be repsected. I think of ALL of the players weve talked about, the absolute best match we would ever see would be Agassi Nadal on the hard court at a US Open. I cant even imagine the electricity in the crowd as those 2 had a 15 shot baseline rally going on every other point.

As far as the other guys like Becker, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, etc I just didnt include them. Not because they are unworthy. But the equipment and game is so different now its just not possible to compare the different styles.

(07-30-2019, 06:16 AM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote: Can't argue with anything said here. Certain things Jordan isn't credited with being great at because he didn't do them as much as others. MJ was an incredible passer, but for most of his career he was option A through J so that part of his game didn't shine as much. I know what you are getting at, I just wanted to point that out.
As an opinion, I'd say golf is even more pure than the others, and not because I love the game so much. Whether you on the first tee on a Sunday morning just getting a round in, or in a tournament, it's really just you against the golf course. Sure your objective is to beat the field, but you don't necessarily do that by making others succumb to your skill. You have to tame the golf course. Master its conditions. Even in a match play format, you need to master the golf course better than the next guy.

Tennis absolutely. You have no one to blame but yourself if you lose. You get outplayed, it's because YOU weren't as good as the other guy. Not because your teammate missed a shot (or a field goal after your team played poorly all game, yet managed to march down the field to put you in a position to win it).

Just responding to this struck a nerve for me.

You know how much of a cinephile I am. And I always had this idea for a movie where the golf thing came into play. Similar to "For the Love of the Game" with Kevin Costner.

Something along the lines of an older man maybe playing a course with his son, and as they played each hole, he would revisit events in his life that mirrored the obsticles during the match on the course. For some reason I just think that would make for a great story if done right.

Roddick definitely would have had more majors if not for Federer, and if he would have put his own ego aside and adapted his game, he should have probably won some more in spite of Federer. I have to put McEnroe and hell, possibly even Borg in a top 5, or a top 7, as your list and these added 2 from 3 down could be interchangeable. Put them with today's equipment and where do they match up? I think they would have been right up there near the top and probably held the top spot for a little while here and there.

If you keep your own personal beliefs out of this, a slight variation of your movie just happened this past April at Augusta National.
Reply

#29
(07-30-2019, 06:16 AM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote:
(07-30-2019, 12:34 AM)MACK IS GOD Wrote: Just to continue on the Federer thing and try to put into perspective on how great he was, I like to use a technique that takes the "best" player from a sport and gauge the distance between the "next" best player in their sport to get a true read on how good they are.

For example we can look at Michael Jordan from 87-92.

The difference in skill and ability from him to the 2nd best player was at a minimum 2 standard deviations. MAYBE you could throw Olajowon in there as being in the same class simply because of his overall skill and dominance in every area of the game, but thats it. 

Looking strictly at 2s and 3s there was nobody even in the conversation with Jordan. Youd have the occasional Magic or Bird fag who would throw out the whole "her derp! Magics a better passer!" Or "Her derp Birds a better rebounder and pure shooter!"

But when you WATCHED them play, you saw there was a difference. Yes there were 2s who were better passers, yes there were 2s who were better pure shooters, but when you WATCHED MJ play, you knew you were witnessing something that NOBODY ELSE in the world could do.

Im a Knicks fan. And I can vividly recall during they early 90s when he decided he was going to take over a game. And there wasnt a single fucking thing anyone on the planet could do to stop him. Period.

Federer is on that same level. Even more so as tennis is truly a singular sport. There are no teammates to rely on or blame. Its just you and your opponent.

Federer is the ONLY athlete who I ever considered as being better at his sport than Jordan.

There is a dignity and class to tennis that doesnt exist in other sports. Ive been an athlete my whole life. Football, basketball, baseball, boxing, all that shit. But my proudest moments were playing tennis against a friend of mine who was a much better player, and slowly getting better. And honestly calling faults and long shots etc. Theres a dignity to watching that passing shot hit the line and saying "yep, you got that. Nice shot".

When I finally beat my friend it was one of the most proud moments of my life. Just 2 men diving and sweating and stuggling to beat the other and being totally honest with calls. Im a total scumbag as a human being and I never once lied or tried to steal a point with a bullshit call.

For me the 3 purest sports a man can compete in are boxing/combat, tennis, and golf. Its just you and your opponent. No teammates to blame. Its just you and your will. Thats why I reapect Fed so much and honestly put him as the greatest athlete Ive ever had the pleasure to watch. Factor that in with his class, humility, and respect and the guy is just about as good as it gets.

Can't argue with anything said here. Certain things Jordan isn't credited with being great at because he didn't do them as much as others. MJ was an incredible passer, but for most of his career he was option A through J so that part of his game didn't shine as much. I know what you are getting at, I just wanted to point that out.
As an opinion, I'd say golf is even more pure than the others, and not because I love the game so much. Whether you on the first tee on a Sunday morning just getting a round in, or in a tournament, it's really just you against the golf course. Sure your objective is to beat the field, but you don't necessarily do that by making others succumb to your skill. You have to tame the golf course. Master its conditions. Even in a match play format, you need to master the golf course better than the next guy.

Tennis absolutely. You have no one to blame but yourself if you lose. You get outplayed, it's because YOU weren't as good as the other guy. Not because your teammate missed a shot (or a field goal after your team played poorly all game, yet managed to march down the field to put you in a position to win it).

Your last paragraph here reminded me of a discussion or interview with John McEnroe and how the locker room dynamic changes drastically during a tennis Major.

He was speaking towards how when the tournament begins, the locker room is packed with every Tom Dick and Harry because theres literally 100ish guys playing.

What was interesting is how he said things changed as the field was cut down. Initially there would be a lot of locker room hijinks and joking, but when the field continued to narrow it would eventually be 8, 4, 2 guys. And the mental aspect really crept in at that point. When there 50 Alphas snapping towels its not really an issue, but he said when it was Borg and him and 2 other guys, there was no question who the lead dog was. He said many of those matches were won in the locker room before they ever hit the court.

And I have to agree. Imagine getting your gear set up next to Fed as he acts like hes heading out to a BBQ and you are wonder8ng how the fuck you are just gonna keep yourself from getting embarrassed.

He said Borg would prep in full silence and it was so disconcerting he would rather have been screaming and talking shit to him.

The mental fortitude to be at that level is just as impressive as the physical to me.

(07-31-2019, 07:44 AM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote:
(07-30-2019, 11:43 PM)MACK IS GOD Wrote: Yea he and Federer had probably half a dozen matches in Wimbledon and US Open finals that were absolutely epic.

In retrospect it really was like watching an Ali\Foreman fight or something similar. Roddick just throwing the kitchen sink while Federer deftly used his own power against him.

I really loved that we sparked this conversation because its made me go back and watch some of these guys just to reestablish my opinions and solidify what my rankings were in my own head. After going over some matches, Roddick was really a victim of just running into the best ever. Like Ewing and the Knicks. He was just unfortunate to have the GOAT at his prime every time that poor bastard made a Major final.

And that said, Roddick absolutely BROUGHT it to that motherfucker every time. Check out a couple of their Wimbledon finals. That kid would have had 5-8 Majors if not for the fact he was just running into the GOAT every time. He definitely wasnt some pretty boy cheeser. He laid it on the line. I would say prime Roddick was as good as Sampras but because of competition level nobody will ever give hime that credit.

I also did a reevaluation of Djokovic. And he is absolutely Top 5 All Time. Its unfortunate that he peaked abput 5 years after Fed so we never really saw peak Fed against peak Djokovic.

Idont even put Nadal in the mix because hes a clay court guy and a blatant PED user. Tennis is all about matchups and styles. I think Djokovic gets a check over Fed because he could beat Nadal on his own surface more easily. If I had to make a comparison I would say Djokovic was like that reliable F150 that you could bring to any job and know its getting done while Fed was like a GSXR that you knew was just gonna dust you.

I also rank Majors differently. Djokovic has like 8 Australian Opens.

The rankings are as follows Wimbledon=>US Open, then its dealers choice between Assie Open and French Open. The French Open can be won and has been won by any 5'6" faggot who can chase down slowed down winners for 5 hours so if I had to rank them it would be Wimbledon and US Open, large power gap, the Aussie Open, then French Open.

To me the French Open is like the PGA Championship of majors. So I value them much less. Until Nadal you had literal nobodies winning them shits every year. I also value the Aussie Open much less than Wimbledon or the US Open.

Iwould be more impressed with a player who had won 4 Wimbledons and 6 Us Opens than a guy who won 7 French Opens and 6 Aussie Opens. There just a level of prestige involved that cant be accounted for and a fungibility that is unavoidable.

Now after going back and watching these dudes here is my final rankings.

These are all at peak level who would beat who, not overall accomplishments.

1) Federer. Absolutely the best there ever was. Unbeatable at his best.
2) Djokovic. After reviewing his career and play he is pretty much a flawless player. But there is no doubt in my mind if prime Sampras played prime Djokovic Sampras MIGHT have 6 Majors.
3) Sampras. Hate putting him here because as you know I think circumstance and timing allowed him to feast on Majors he might not have ever won otherwise.
4)Agassi/Nadal. I rank them together because Nadal has so many more Majors. Otherwise I would put Andre ahead. But stats are stats and have to be repsected. I think of ALL of the players weve talked about, the absolute best match we would ever see would be Agassi Nadal on the hard court at a US Open. I cant even imagine the electricity in the crowd as those 2 had a 15 shot baseline rally going on every other point.

As far as the other guys like Becker, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, etc I just didnt include them. Not because they are unworthy. But the equipment and game is so different now its just not possible to compare the different styles.


Just responding to this struck a nerve for me.

You know how much of a cinephile I am. And I always had this idea for a movie where the golf thing came into play. Similar to "For the Love of the Game" with Kevin Costner.

Something along the lines of an older man maybe playing a course with his son, and as they played each hole, he would revisit events in his life that mirrored the obsticles during the match on the course. For some reason I just think that would make for a great story if done right.

Roddick definitely would have had more majors if not for Federer, and if he would have put his own ego aside and adapted his game, he should have probably won some more in spite of Federer. I have to put McEnroe and hell, possibly even Borg in a top 5, or a top 7, as your list and these added 2 from 3 down could be interchangeable. Put them with today's equipment and where do they match up? I think they would have been right up there near the top and probably held the top spot for a little while here and there.

If you keep your own personal beliefs out of this, a slight variation of your movie just happened this past April at Augusta National.

Bro. Love me some Tiger Woods. Im the LAST guy to shit on anybody for being a degenerate scumbag who fucks skanks like its my job.

My issue with Woods was always the media. I couldnt care less that he was a Chigger. Who cares? He was fucking great. That should be enough. I never once cares what color his skin was. If youre great, youre great. Dont force feed me the racial bullshit.

However, in trying to "Tigerproof" courses after he began to dominate, they actually inadvertently helped him. Because all they did was stretch the holes which allowed his long game to dominate even more. He was also a frontrunner and never had to battle for any of his Majors. He either shot out of the gate and ran away and hid, or he sat in the middle.

I will admit though that it gives me great joy he will never beat Jack's Major record.

Theres an interesting article I read about how after Tigers dad died he went on some crazy shit train8ng for real with the Navy SEALS. Around 2006. And the physical beating fucked his game up.
Reply

#30
Dizee, Hitman, or 1UP, can you please move the great discussion Mack and I are having to this thread?

Thanks gentlemen...
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Forum software by © MyBB Theme © iAndrew 2016