Australian philosopher claims Djokovic is not the goat
because he had unfair advantage.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
Australian philosopher claims Djokovic is not the goat
because he had unfair advantage.
I read the article and I am really shocked.
So ridiculous! The author is entitled to his opinion,
but his arguments were simply so awful that they
cannot convince many.
To bring up just *one thing* about the article:
Nobody ever based their Djokovic=GOAT argument on
the Grand Slam singles victories only.
Djokovic
has so much more to his credit and everybody
knows that.
It's a bad article. However, ... I think questioning the "manageability"
of actually having to have a GOAT is warranted. Why do we have to have a GOAT? Having to have one results in absurdities. For example, having had Sampras as a "GOAT" was one of the most ridiculous things in tennis
history. A slam cunting induced nightmare.
It's impossible to determine who the GOAT is because in order to do that, you'd have to have all the greats play at the same time.
However, we can determine who the better player is out of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer as they've played each other in longstanding rivalries.
This is how I look at the Big Three:
Djokovic--most accomplished out of the big Three. Has shown by his stats that he's a bit of a cut above and he's not done so he'll build on it.
Nadal--best clay court player of all time
Federer-most aesthetically pleasing player of all time and the player who made the biggest impact on the sport, made the most money, was the most marketable, popular, etc.
They're all insanely good players. Three of the greatest of all time.
On 6/12/23 5:26 PM, Court_1 wrote:
It's impossible to determine who the GOAT is because in order to do that, you'd have to have all the greats play at the same time.
However, we can determine who the better player is out of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer as they've played each other in longstanding rivalries.
This is how I look at the Big Three:
Djokovic--most accomplished out of the big Three. Has shown by his stats that he's a bit of a cut above and he's not done so he'll build on it.
Nadal--best clay court player of all time
Federer-most aesthetically pleasing player of all time and the player who made the biggest impact on the sport, made the most money, was the most marketable, popular, etc.
They're all insanely good players. Three of the greatest of all time.Agreed.
There is a lot to be said for Nadal, who deliberately tooled his game to
win on other surfaces.
He's an extremely determined competitor whose strength is also his weakness...attention to detail drifting over to OCD. This *may* have
made him somewhat vulnerable to Djokovich's subtle mind trips.
In a sense, Fed feared Nadal and Djokovich, Nadal feared Djokovich (on
some surfaces), and Djokovich feared only himself.
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 8:41:51 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/12/23 5:26 PM, Court_1 wrote:I think it's also fair to say that Djokovic feared Nadal on clay especially at RG.
It's impossible to determine who the GOAT is because in order to do that, you'd have to have all the greats play at the same time.Agreed.
However, we can determine who the better player is out of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer as they've played each other in longstanding rivalries.
This is how I look at the Big Three:
Djokovic--most accomplished out of the big Three. Has shown by his stats that he's a bit of a cut above and he's not done so he'll build on it.
Nadal--best clay court player of all time
Federer-most aesthetically pleasing player of all time and the player who made the biggest impact on the sport, made the most money, was the most marketable, popular, etc.
They're all insanely good players. Three of the greatest of all time.
There is a lot to be said for Nadal, who deliberately tooled his game to
win on other surfaces.
He's an extremely determined competitor whose strength is also his
weakness...attention to detail drifting over to OCD. This *may* have
made him somewhat vulnerable to Djokovich's subtle mind trips.
In a sense, Fed feared Nadal and Djokovich, Nadal feared Djokovich (on
some surfaces), and Djokovich feared only himself.
Yes, Nadal is probably still the best competitor of all time. I think he's overall better than Djokovic because at the beginning of Djokovic's career, he often retired in matches and it went on for years until 2011.
I also agree with you that Nadal is to be commended for figuring out his game on non-clay surfaces and for making Federer his pigeon for a decade. Those Wimbledon 2008, AO 2009 finals still haunt me! :)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/12/novak-djokovic-not-the-goat-greatest-of-all-time-wins-french-open-record-23rd-grand-slam
Australian philosopher claims Djokovic is not the goat because he had unfair advantage.
On 6/12/23 5:26 PM, Court_1 wrote:
It's impossible to determine who the GOAT is because in order to do that, you'd have to have all the greats play at the same time.
However, we can determine who the better player is out of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer as they've played each other in longstanding rivalries.
This is how I look at the Big Three:
Djokovic--most accomplished out of the big Three. Has shown by his stats that he's a bit of a cut above and he's not done so he'll build on it.
Nadal--best clay court player of all time
Federer-most aesthetically pleasing player of all time and the player who made the biggest impact on the sport, made the most money, was the most marketable, popular, etc.
They're all insanely good players. Three of the greatest of all time.Agreed.
There is a lot to be said for Nadal, who deliberately tooled his game to
win on other surfaces.
He's an extremely determined competitor whose strength is also his weakness...attention to detail drifting over to OCD. This *may* have
made him somewhat vulnerable to Djokovich's subtle mind trips.
In a sense, Fed feared Nadal and Djokovich, Nadal feared Djokovich (on
some surfaces), and Djokovich feared only himself.
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 8:41:51 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/12/23 5:26 PM, Court_1 wrote:
It's impossible to determine who the GOAT is because in order to do that, you'd have to have all the greats play at the same time.
However, we can determine who the better player is out of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer as they've played each other in longstanding rivalries.
This is how I look at the Big Three:
Djokovic--most accomplished out of the big Three. Has shown by his stats that he's a bit of a cut above and he's not done so he'll build on it.
Nadal--best clay court player of all time
Federer-most aesthetically pleasing player of all time and the player who made the biggest impact on the sport, made the most money, was the most marketable, popular, etc.
They're all insanely good players. Three of the greatest of all time.Agreed.
There is a lot to be said for Nadal, who deliberately tooled his game to win on other surfaces.
He's an extremely determined competitor whose strength is also his weakness...attention to detail drifting over to OCD. This *may* have
made him somewhat vulnerable to Djokovich's subtle mind trips.
In a sense, Fed feared Nadal and Djokovich, Nadal feared Djokovich (on some surfaces), and Djokovich feared only himself.I think it's also fair to say that Djokovic feared Nadal on clay especially at RG.
Yes, Nadal is probably still the best competitor of all time. I think he's overall better than Djokovic because at the beginning of Djokovic's career, he often retired in matches and it went on for years until 2011.
I also agree with you that Nadal is to be commended for figuring out his game on non-clay surfaces and for making Federer his pigeon for a decade. Those Wimbledon 2008, AO 2009 finals still haunt me! :)
On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 12:25:44 PM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/12/novak-djokovic-not-the-goat-greatest-of-all-time-wins-french-open-record-23rd-grand-slam
Australian philosopher claims Djokovic is not the goat because he had unfair advantage.
For once I agree. Worst article ever. Poorly written. Who is this clown? Do they publish anything these days?
On Tuesday, 13 June 2023 at 01:41:51 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:Yes to both.
On 6/12/23 5:26 PM, Court_1 wrote:Djoker feared Murray who beat him in all the most important matches - Olympics, Wimbledon finals, USO finals, for World #1 etc. He also feared Wawrinka who could smash him if necessary.
It's impossible to determine who the GOAT is because in order to do that, you'd have to have all the greats play at the same time.Agreed.
However, we can determine who the better player is out of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer as they've played each other in longstanding rivalries.
This is how I look at the Big Three:
Djokovic--most accomplished out of the big Three. Has shown by his stats that he's a bit of a cut above and he's not done so he'll build on it.
Nadal--best clay court player of all time
Federer-most aesthetically pleasing player of all time and the player who made the biggest impact on the sport, made the most money, was the most marketable, popular, etc.
They're all insanely good players. Three of the greatest of all time.
There is a lot to be said for Nadal, who deliberately tooled his game to
win on other surfaces.
He's an extremely determined competitor whose strength is also his
weakness...attention to detail drifting over to OCD. This *may* have
made him somewhat vulnerable to Djokovich's subtle mind trips.
In a sense, Fed feared Nadal and Djokovich, Nadal feared Djokovich (on
some surfaces), and Djokovich feared only himself.
Agree with Court1's assessment, also would like to add
1) Fed was the pioneering and ground-breaker being first to the landmark 20 slams
2) Nadal was the pioneer in taking on Fed whilst everyone else was scared, he also showed you could change game(as Court1 said)
3) Djoker kind of followed those two, so it was easier in a sense. Whilst getting to 25 is staggerign, he has to hit 30 slams to truly break new ground.
On 6/12/23 5:53 PM, Court_1 wrote:
He "cucked" Fed on grass...
You could *see* it on TV...
Amazing. An act of will...
On Tuesday, 13 June 2023 at 01:41:51 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/12/23 5:26 PM, Court_1 wrote:
It's impossible to determine who the GOAT is because in order to do that, you'd have to have all the greats play at the same time.
However, we can determine who the better player is out of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer as they've played each other in longstanding rivalries.
This is how I look at the Big Three:
Djokovic--most accomplished out of the big Three. Has shown by his stats that he's a bit of a cut above and he's not done so he'll build on it.
Nadal--best clay court player of all time
Federer-most aesthetically pleasing player of all time and the player who made the biggest impact on the sport, made the most money, was the most marketable, popular, etc.
They're all insanely good players. Three of the greatest of all time.Agreed.
There is a lot to be said for Nadal, who deliberately tooled his game to win on other surfaces.
He's an extremely determined competitor whose strength is also his weakness...attention to detail drifting over to OCD. This *may* have
made him somewhat vulnerable to Djokovich's subtle mind trips.
In a sense, Fed feared Nadal and Djokovich, Nadal feared Djokovich (on some surfaces), and Djokovich feared only himself.
Djoker feared Murray who beat him in all the most important matches - Olympics, Wimbledon finals, USO finals, for World #1 etc.
He also feared Wawrinka who could smash him if necessary.
On Tuesday, 13 June 2023 at 01:41:51 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/12/23 5:26 PM, Court_1 wrote:
It's impossible to determine who the GOAT is because in order to do that, you'd have to have all the greats play at the same time.Agreed.
However, we can determine who the better player is out of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer as they've played each other in longstanding rivalries.
This is how I look at the Big Three:
Djokovic--most accomplished out of the big Three. Has shown by his stats that he's a bit of a cut above and he's not done so he'll build on it.
Nadal--best clay court player of all time
Federer-most aesthetically pleasing player of all time and the player who made the biggest impact on the sport, made the most money, was the most marketable, popular, etc.
They're all insanely good players. Three of the greatest of all time.
There is a lot to be said for Nadal, who deliberately tooled his game to
win on other surfaces.
He's an extremely determined competitor whose strength is also his
weakness...attention to detail drifting over to OCD. This *may* have
made him somewhat vulnerable to Djokovich's subtle mind trips.
In a sense, Fed feared Nadal and Djokovich, Nadal feared Djokovich (on
some surfaces), and Djokovich feared only himself.
Djoker feared Murray who beat him in all the most important matches - Olympics, Wimbledon finals, USO finals, for World #1 etc. He also feared Wawrinka who could smash him if necessary.
Agree with Court1's assessment, also would like to add
1) Fed was the pioneering and ground-breaker being first to the landmark 20 slams
2) Nadal was the pioneer in taking on Fed whilst everyone else was scared, he also showed you could change game(as Court1 said)
3) Djoker kind of followed those two, so it was easier in a sense. Whilst getting to 25 is staggerign, he has to hit 30 slams to truly break new ground.
And btw, let's not forget how Djok possibly pissed away the 2020 US Open
when he lost his composure and hit a line judge with a tennis ball...
That would be #24. But he did that to himself so it won't count.
--
And btw, let's not forget how Djok possibly pissed away the 2020 US Open
when he lost his composure and hit a line judge with a tennis ball...
That would be #24. But he did that to himself so it won't count.
--
He'll have #24 soon enough. I don't see anybody even challenging him at Wimbledon.
On 14/06/2023 12:41 pm, Two-pack wrote:
And btw, let's not forget how Djok possibly pissed away the 2020 US Open >> when he lost his composure and hit a line judge with a tennis ball...
That would be #24. But he did that to himself so it won't count.
--
He'll have #24 soon enough. I don't see anybody even challenging him at Wimbledon.On paper he's the biggest Wimbledon fave since Sampras, largely because nobody else has any grass pedigree. Still you never know in tennis,
Sinner led Djoker 2-0 last year so nothing is certain, need to to hold
the trophy to prove it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/12/novak-djokovic-not-the-goat-greatest-of-all-time-wins-french-open-record-23rd-grand-slam
Australian philosopher claims Djokovic is not the goat because he had unfair advantage.
On 13/06/2023 3:25 am, *skriptis wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/12/novak-djokovic-not-the-goat-greatest-of-all-time-wins-french-open-record-23rd-grand-slam
Australian philosopher claims Djokovic is not the goat because he had
unfair advantage.
This guy is not that smart. His ideas are dismissed by logical thinkers.
"But can the numbers lie? Yes!"
No, numbers never lie. They are tangible proof. Opinions can lie as
they are based on hypotheticals.
"Suppose a tennis player comes along who is 10 feet tall. Every serve is
an ace. He never loses a service game. He wins 30 grand slams. Is he the GOAT (greatest of all time)? No. The idea is ridiculous."
Ludicrous. Embarrassing he would even use this as an example. What
does an ace machine have to do with Novak Djokovic? He's the exact
opposite of a serve bot.
"Or suppose that in the next few years there is another world war, and
the majority of young men are conscripted. But the grand slams are still played, and Dave wins 30 of them. Is Dave the greatest? Certainly not."
This guy is hilarious. Any guy good enough to win 30 slams in a
depleted field must be helluvva player and is worthy of goat
conversation. We've already had depleted fields during 2 world wars and nobody dominated to that extent. Again this example has fuck all to do
with Novak Djokovic. Novak is playing in the opposite of a depleted field.
"So, let’s do that. Since 2019, Djokovic has won eight slams. But during this time, Federer was too old and injured to play his best, and the competition was generally pretty weak. It is not that these eight slams don’t count. But they are worth less."
This guy is a certified moron. Are Federer's slams post Sampras and
pre-peak Rafa/Novak also worthless?
On 14.6.2023 13.50, Whisper wrote:
On 13/06/2023 3:25 am, *skriptis wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/12/novak-djokovic-not-the-goat-greatest-of-all-time-wins-french-open-record-23rd-grand-slam
Australian philosopher claims Djokovic is not the goat because he had
unfair advantage.
This guy is not that smart. His ideas are dismissed by logical thinkers. >>
"But can the numbers lie? Yes!"
No, numbers never lie. They are tangible proof. Opinions can lie as
they are based on hypotheticals.
Algorithms are opinions. ("Pelle!") Rankings is a good example. That
GOAThood is defined by counting slams is another. Opinions, opinions, opinions. Hypotheticals, hypotheticals, hypotheticals.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:> Australian philosopher claims Djokovic is not the goat > because he had unfair advantage.I read the article and I am really shocked. So ridiculous! The author is entitled to his opinion,but his arguments weresimply so awful that theycannot convince many.To bring up just *one thing* about the article: Nobody ever based their Djokovic=GOAT argument on the Grand Slam singles victories only. Djokovichas so much more to his credit and everybodyknows that.br,KK
On 15/06/2023 7:17 pm, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 14.6.2023 13.50, Whisper wrote:
On 13/06/2023 3:25 am, *skriptis wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/12/novak-djokovic-not-the-goat-greatest-of-all-time-wins-french-open-record-23rd-grand-slam
Australian philosopher claims Djokovic is not the goat because he had >>> unfair advantage.
This guy is not that smart. His ideas are dismissed by logical thinkers. >>
"But can the numbers lie? Yes!"
No, numbers never lie. They are tangible proof. Opinions can lie as
they are based on hypotheticals.
Algorithms are opinions. ("Pelle!") Rankings is a good example. That GOAThood is defined by counting slams is another. Opinions, opinions, opinions. Hypotheticals, hypotheticals, hypotheticals.
Phelps and Bolt aren't really great as that's based on hypotheticals, counting gold medals etc
On 13/06/2023 3:25 am, *skriptis wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/12/novak-djokovic-not-the-goat-greatest-of-all-time-wins-french-open-record-23rd-grand-slam
Australian philosopher claims Djokovic is not the goat because he had unfair advantage.
This guy is not that smart. His ideas are dismissed by logical thinkers.
"But can the numbers lie? Yes!"
No, numbers never lie. They are tangible proof. Opinions can lie as
they are based on hypotheticals.
"Suppose a tennis player comes along who is 10 feet tall. Every serve is
an ace. He never loses a service game. He wins 30 grand slams. Is he the GOAT (greatest of all time)? No. The idea is ridiculous."
Ludicrous. Embarrassing he would even use this as an example. What
does an ace machine have to do with Novak Djokovic? He's the exact
opposite of a serve bot.
"Or suppose that in the next few years there is another world war, and
the majority of young men are conscripted. But the grand slams are still played, and Dave wins 30 of them. Is Dave the greatest? Certainly not."
This guy is hilarious. Any guy good enough to win 30 slams in a
depleted field must be helluvva player and is worthy of goat
conversation. We've already had depleted fields during 2 world wars and nobody dominated to that extent. Again this example has fuck all to do
with Novak Djokovic. Novak is playing in the opposite of a depleted field.
"If there is any meaningful sense in which we can ask who is the
greatest of all time, the answer can not simply be given by crudely
adding up slams. You’ve got to factor in other things, like who else was playing at the time, and physical advantages."
What matters is that no players were barred from entering slams. Novak actually was barred a couple times so that argument is even more in his favor.
"So, let’s do that. Since 2019, Djokovic has won eight slams. But during this time, Federer was too old and injured to play his best, and the competition was generally pretty weak. It is not that these eight slams don’t count. But they are worth less."
This guy is a certified moron. Are Federer's slams post Sampras and
pre-peak Rafa/Novak also worthless?
"Consider next physical advantages. Djokovic isn’t 10 feet tall but he
is extremely fast and flexible. He is, as they say, “the rubber man”. This is an immense physical advantage. "
There are millions of people on this planet as fast and flexible as
Novak, yet every single one of them hasn't made top 1,000 in tennis.
Phelps had flippers for feet = not fair? Argument dismissed.
"His abilities as a returner and defender, and indeed a strategist who
runs his opponents around, are part of his greatness. But his physical advantages, at the same time, reduce the greatness of his achievements."
Reduce it? I think he means enhance. Must be smoking something funny.
"You might say Djokovic has a winning head-to-head record against
Federer. But this is irrelevant, since they peaked at different times. Federer was in his prime from 2004 to 2009. Djokovic peaked from 2011 to 2016."
Federer won slams up to 2018 so was peak til then. He would have been
world no.1 every yr up to 2018 if Rafa/Novak never existed. If you're
no.3 behind Rafa/Novak that counts as being no.1 and at your peak,
because that's what your ranking would be if 2 better players weren't around.
"You might say the greatest of all time is determined by a hypothetical, namely who would have beaten whom at their peaks. But people’s tennis games match up differently. It could be that Federer at his peak would
beat Djokovic at his peak, who in turn would beat Nadal at his peak, and
yet also be true that Nadal would beat Federer! Actually, it could be
that Kyrgios at his peak would beat any of these players at their peaks,
yet this would not make Kyrgios the greatest of all time."
Absolutely nobody credible would say this. Kyrgios can never be
considered a goat as he never won 20+ slams. We will have to wait and
see if he can get to 20 slams before seriously considering him as a goat candidate.
"I think that the greatest tennis player of all time, if we can make
sense of this notion, is some function of who, at their peak, would consistently beat the other candidate greats at their peaks, on a
variety of different surfaces. A huge factor here is going to be
mentality. A common characteristic of “the big three” (Federer, Djokovic and Nadal) is their ability to play the important points well and to
stay mentally tough."
No, this is never accepted as the goat criteria as it is impossible to compare across eras. What matters is how thoroughly you dominate your
own era. Duh. How much more obvious can it be?
"In the end, the greatest might come down just to this factor: mental toughness. It is unclear who is best in this regard."
Well it's clear to me Novak has the best argument for mental toughness
in this era. That's all any great player can do, prove it and win slams
in their own era. Nobody has done it better than Novak.
"If Carlos Alcaraz goes on to win 30 slams across eras when otherThe wise man conflates BOAT GOAT and Most Talented all in the same thought process.
candidate greats are playing as well, then we might be able to say, with plausibility, that Alcaraz is the greatest player of all time. But we don’t have to say this about Djokovic just because he has notched up his 23rd slam."
Absolutely every player would take slam trophies over opinions. Why?
Because you can't argue he didn't win 23 slams and that's the highest
number of all time. If you want to be the best, you have to have the
best record. Very simple.
The wise man conflates BOAT GOAT and Most Talented all in the same thought process.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 103:59:26 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,167 |