|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Best ever? |
| yes. |
|
46% |
[ 6 ] |
| no. |
|
53% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 13 |
|
| Author |
Message |
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:56 am Post subject: Re: The Best |
 |
|
| ajstew wrote: |
"I say no. I say Pete Sampras is the best of all time and many people who know a great deal about the game, including former greats such as John McEnroe, agree with me. Sampras could do everything - bassline tennis, at-the-net, power AND flair. He had everything and was a hero of mine in my teenage years during the 1990s. I'd LOVE to watch modern day Federer v Sampras in his prime. I wouldn't bet against Big Pete. Federer's a great, he's so awesome, but Sampras was an invincible destroyer. Totally gets to me how Sampras has a boring "all power, all serve" reputation. It's complete shlt." Spinoza
Federer is the best ever. Pete Sampras is just a little less one dimensional than Andy Roddick is today. It's amazing what the guy accomplished with a backhand as poor as his was... and quite frankly, in this age of heavy top-spin forehands... his forehand wouldn't hold up either. And most people who know the game... contrary to what Spinoza says, suggest that Federer is the best ever. Sampras did have a great serve... that's true, and it's a good thing because without it, he wouldn't have had enough to win on the tour consistently. Sampras could do everything? He couldn't win from the baseline and he had little flair. A modern day Federer v Sampras would end in a Federer win... and probably not even a close win. Federer returns fast serves, in my opinion, better than any before him, and he would get that important break of serve when needed, either in the set or in the tiebreak.
I think it's pretty sad, to hear Sampras say something along the lines of "If I played Federer today, he would have his hands full." Yeah right. He'd mop the floor with you. |
(see bold)
Some okay points, but the bold I cannot accept as serious arguments. You're having a laugh, bored at work, trying to push buttons I assume.
I really do think Federer is mightily, scarily great, but there's a cold, methodical way about Sampras's play that I just think Sampras during the 90s would beat today's Fed.
I reject theses that state x was only so great because x played in a poor era. Were Isaac Newton, Darwin, Milton, Einstein only good because their contemporaries couldn't be arsed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
otis
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:09 am Post subject: Re: The Best |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| ajstew wrote: |
"I say no. I say Pete Sampras is the best of all time and many people who know a great deal about the game, including former greats such as John McEnroe, agree with me. Sampras could do everything - bassline tennis, at-the-net, power AND flair. He had everything and was a hero of mine in my teenage years during the 1990s. I'd LOVE to watch modern day Federer v Sampras in his prime. I wouldn't bet against Big Pete. Federer's a great, he's so awesome, but Sampras was an invincible destroyer. Totally gets to me how Sampras has a boring "all power, all serve" reputation. It's complete shlt." Spinoza
Federer is the best ever. Pete Sampras is just a little less one dimensional than Andy Roddick is today. It's amazing what the guy accomplished with a backhand as poor as his was... and quite frankly, in this age of heavy top-spin forehands... his forehand wouldn't hold up either. And most people who know the game... contrary to what Spinoza says, suggest that Federer is the best ever. Sampras did have a great serve... that's true, and it's a good thing because without it, he wouldn't have had enough to win on the tour consistently. Sampras could do everything? He couldn't win from the baseline and he had little flair. A modern day Federer v Sampras would end in a Federer win... and probably not even a close win. Federer returns fast serves, in my opinion, better than any before him, and he would get that important break of serve when needed, either in the set or in the tiebreak.
I think it's pretty sad, to hear Sampras say something along the lines of "If I played Federer today, he would have his hands full." Yeah right. He'd mop the floor with you. |
(see bold)
Some okay points, but the bold I cannot accept as serious arguments. You're having a laugh, bored at work, trying to push buttons I assume.
I really do think Federer is mightily, scarily great, but there's a cold, methodical way about Sampras's play that I just think Sampras during the 90s would beat today's Fed.
I reject theses that state x was only so great because x played in a poor era. Were Isaac Newton, Darwin, Milton, Einstein only good because their contemporaries couldn't be arsed? |
That's ashame, Spinoza.
The World Cup is finished, your team lies in ruins, and now you are resorting to nancy-boy sports. Next thing you know, you'll be harping on the charms of golf.
But good times are just around the corner. You always have the EPL to fall back on. How many points will Chelsea win by this year?
Well, if that gets boring, you still have darts...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lendl.
End of conversation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Merlyn
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I reject theses that state x was only so great because x played in a poor era. Were Isaac Newton, Darwin, Milton, Einstein only good because their contemporaries couldn't be arsed?
|
But it is actually quite true in a lot of sports. As sports develop so have playing styles of the atheletes that were non-existent in the past. Take the best early pitchers in baseball who had one or two basic pitches because other pitches had not really even been attempted yet. Surely the modern pitcher who has mastered more pitches is better than the pitchers who did not. Sure in other cases, it has been the equipment that has changed which has allowed other players to do things that previous generations could not do. Like we have in tennis a lot it is argued that Nadal probably couldn't hit groundstrokes the same way with a wooden racket. Still, that's not the fault of the player, and because he can hit the ball harder and better, as can Federer of course, then the old Bjorgs and Connors ever did and have all the traditional shots they had as well, you could argue that this generation, especially Federer is better than anything we've ever seen before. Just watch some old tennis matches, they all look shitty when compared to today, and I'm talking about the way Sampras looked as well. The other earlier players, at best we can say were the first good tennis players to play the game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajstew
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:32 pm Post subject: tennis |
|
|
"Some okay points, but the bold I cannot accept as serious arguments. You're having a laugh, bored at work, trying to push buttons I assume.
I really do think Federer is mightily, scarily great, but there's a cold, methodical way about Sampras's play that I just think Sampras during the 90s would beat today's Fed.
I reject theses that state x was only so great because x played in a poor era. Were Isaac Newton, Darwin, Milton, Einstein only good because their contemporaries couldn't be arsed?" - Spinoza
Spoken like a true grand slam weekend or monthly tennis hack. You obviously don't know the basics of the game or the fundamentals of what make up a good ground stroke, so you can't appreciate the difference in quality that separates a Sampras game from a Federer game. Sampras wasn't a baseliner, his forehand was one-dimensional, and he was a rather one-dimensional player. Until you've studied the game seriously, or coached it, or played it seriously yourself, and probably have done all of the above, your opinions will carry no weight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:41 pm Post subject: Re: tennis |
|
|
| ajstew wrote: |
"Some okay points, but the bold I cannot accept as serious arguments. You're having a laugh, bored at work, trying to push buttons I assume.
I really do think Federer is mightily, scarily great, but there's a cold, methodical way about Sampras's play that I just think Sampras during the 90s would beat today's Fed.
I reject theses that state x was only so great because x played in a poor era. Were Isaac Newton, Darwin, Milton, Einstein only good because their contemporaries couldn't be arsed?" - Spinoza
Spoken like a true grand slam weekend or monthly tennis hack. You obviously don't know the basics of the game or the fundamentals of what make up a good ground stroke, so you can't appreciate the difference in quality that separates a Sampras game from a Federer game. Sampras wasn't a baseliner, his forehand was one-dimensional, and he was a rather one-dimensional player. Until you've studied the game seriously, or coached it, or played it seriously yourself, and probably have done all of the above, your opinions will carry no weight. |
(see bold)
Fook me, you've apparently studied the game seriously, coached it, played it seriously yourself, and you still haven't the foggiest. Clue 없어요 I'm afraid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajstew
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:49 pm Post subject: tennis |
|
|
Have played the game about 4 times a week for the better part of 10 years. Taught and coached it for 6 as the head pro in my city's club and city's recreation department in Canada. Instructed a course on the history and development of the game as a Kinesiology subject at a well-known university in Canada. Was a tennis team captain of my university in England. And have followed the results of just about every tournament for the past 14 years, along with the vast majority of interviews given. I'd say.... and most who me... would say I'm qualified to make such statements.
"I'm afraid" - Spinoza
Yep... if we stepped on the tennis court... that would be the appropriate response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:02 am Post subject: Re: tennis |
|
|
| ajstew wrote: |
Have played the game about 4 times a week for the better part of 10 years. Taught and coached it for 6 as the head pro in my city's club and city's recreation department in Canada. Instructed a course on the history and development of the game as a Kinesiology subject at a well-known university in Canada. Was a tennis team captain of my university in England. And have followed the results of just about every tournament for the past 14 years, along with the vast majority of interviews given. I'd say.... and most who me... would say I'm qualified to make such statements.
"I'm afraid" - Spinoza
Yep... if we stepped on the tennis court... that would be the appropriate response. |
The entire premise of your argument is at best laughable and at worst laughable.
I know fat, unathletic bstards - whose only pastime/sport is sitting in the pub and drinking and eating - who know more about soccer than professional soccer players, more about international Rugby than those who've won the Rugby League World Cup.
Your assumption that [played tennis, coached tennis] = [know what you're talking about] is the thesis of an intellectual amateur, which of course is why you have such a negative view of the greatest ever Tennis player. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Merlyn
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Spinoza, ajstew just served and aced you. What do you know about the sport. Your earlier post showed very little when you said what current and the greatest players have said about Federer. If you've been following at all for the past few years, everyone agrees that Federer is better than Sampras and it is just a matter of time till he breaks his records. Just because you use a philosopher as your sign in name here, doesn't mean you know much about tennis or give what you say any more weight. And knowing ajstew personally, what he says is true when he speaks about tennis. His word carries signifcant weight. He surely knows more about tennis than you, probably knows more about a lot of things actually.
Last edited by Merlyn on Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajstew
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:10 am Post subject: tennis |
|
|
| Forget it Spinoza... obviously you've got to be correct about everything just because you can't accept that someone else might know more about something than you do. Well... you know what you are... you know whether you are really qualified to make the statement... good on ya. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Merlyn wrote: |
| Spinoza, ajstew just served and aced you. What do you know about the sport. Your earlier post showed very little when you said what current and the greatest players have said about Federer. If you've been following at all for the past few years, everyone agrees that Federer is better than Sampras and it is just a matter of time till he breaks his records. Just because you use a philosopher as your sign in name here, doesn't mean you know much about tennis or give what you say any more weight. And knowing ajstew personally, what he says is true when he speaks about tennis. His word carries signifcant weight. He surely knows more about tennis then you, probably knows more about a lot of things actually. |
He knows so much about tennis that he's peddling conversation English in Korea....as opposed to being involved in the game professionally. I'm great at music, can play 3 instruments, yet I wouldn't give Steve Jones (guitarist, Sex Pistols) a lecture on how to play great Rock and Roll. I know Philosophy lecturers who've said "Honestly, I've never thought about it like that" to an undergraduate and gone on to write a paper on that very thing.
The analogy stands. That one can play, coach tennis does not automatically entail that one's opinion is worth more than a guy whose only Tennis experience is sitting on his arse and watching telly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Merlyn
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
He knows so much about tennis that he's peddling conversation English in Korea....as opposed to being involved in the game professionally. I'm great at music, can play 3 instruments, yet I wouldn't give Steve Jones (guitarist, Sex Pistols) a lecture on how to play great Rock and Roll. I know Philosophy lecturers who've said "Honestly, I've never thought about it like that" to an undergraduate and gone on to write a paper on that very thing.
The analogy stands. That one can play, coach tennis does not automatically entail that one's opinion is worth more than a guy whose only Tennis experience is sitting on his arse and watching telly.
|
He has been involved in the game professionally. For a self-proclaimed intellectual you seem unable to read. He has been a professor of tennis and a certified professional coach for many years. No he doesn't play on the professional tour, but he has won several tournaments. But like you say, that isn't necessary to know a lot about a given sport. The question is, how does what you have to say carry more weight than what he has to say on the subject? In this case, you're just relying on your weak opinion as a casual tennis observer and believe you're more intelligent because you studied a little philosophy. Clearly then you should trust his opinion more than your own. Hey, why not trust my opinion and his, because we have basically the same credentials when it comes to the sport. This is obviously now a pride thing for you. Some times it is best to just move on.
Last edited by Merlyn on Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:41 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajstew
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:37 am Post subject: spinoza |
|
|
I'm sorry Spinoza... maybe 'peddling conversation' in Korea is what you do. But for myself, who has worked at universities in Korea for 4 years, working about a little over half a year and 10-15 hours a week... I don't think there are many better jobs out there for avid tennis players like myself. It certainly isn't a poor situation to be in.
"The analogy stands. That one can play, coach tennis does not automatically entail that one's opinion is worth more than a guy whose only Tennis experience is sitting on his arse and watching telly." -Spinoza
I get you... I guess what you're saying is that you know more than the guy who does all of those things... simply because you are Spinoza... a know it all. And so; however, little you do, is worth more because it is you who did it. Sounds like someone is trying to overcompensate for his lack of appearance or something, by trying to appear intellectually superior to everyone else. That's understandable, we saw your photo on "How hot are you?". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| As the saying goes: "If you feel you must argue about it, you don't know it." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Merlyn
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As the saying goes: "If you feel you must argue about it, you don't know it." |
Spoken, like another idiot. I guess there are two on this topic now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
