Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1yellowbanana t1_jasabpg wrote

Reply to comment by hi-Im-gosu in Rafael Nadal to exit the ATP top ten for the first time in almost 18 years by atemthegod

But they didn’t.

64

hi-Im-gosu t1_jascwm4 wrote

I mean who cares if they didn’t, it’s a meaningless record while fed and djoker are still more accomplished and have peaked higher than nadal

−77

Phenotyx t1_jase4w8 wrote

The more you type the more clear it is you just don’t like nadal which discredits your opinion by exposing it as biased

57

SkolCity407 t1_jasfsuv wrote

Lmao guy just straight up hates Nadal. "But, they WOULD have done it if they (insert meaningless reason to why they didn't achieve it)...."

28

Phenotyx t1_jasgms3 wrote

his response to what I said shows that the guys thought process is just a bit…… how do I put this, unorthodox?

8

235_and_five t1_jatbxvi wrote

Lol. This comment thread is kinda like that one in /r/nfl where the guy basically said Patrick Mahomes is overrated if you misinterpret and/or outright change his stats for no discernable reason

6

Phenotyx t1_jau0kl9 wrote

idk why people don’t just say I don’t like X player for Y reason instead of trying to like deceive people into also disliking the player but for “real” reasons

(cuz we all know our merit as a human being comes from your professional sports stats)

1

hi-Im-gosu t1_jaseiws wrote

Nothing about my original comment is biased, I congratulated Nadal on his achievement and then I made a statement based on objective evidence and statistics.

If you interpret that as bias then so be it, you're just delusional lmfao

−53

Yayareasports t1_jasurkl wrote

This isn't bias?

> with that being said, federer and djokovic both have more weeks at number 1 than nadal so it’s not irrational to assume they would have not accomplished the same thing if not better.

You're trying so hard to not sound biased but it's super obvious in the angle you take on your response. You could've flipped it and said:

> if Nadal didn't have many more small injuries throughout his career, it's not irrational to assume he'd have the record of weeks at number 1

Of course that'd be biased too - see what I did there?

14

CarlThe94Pathfinder t1_jasv76p wrote

My dog, you're not being objective or non-biased at all. Reread your comment, it comes off as "i know X is great, but ACKCHULLY, blah blah blah injuries..."

That's what sports are: anyone can go for a record, but not everyone can compete for those records. Injuries are just as much a part of sports as winning and losing are

5

hi-Im-gosu t1_jath0rh wrote

>My dog, you're not being objective or non-biased at all.

You clearly lack basic comprehension skills, because everything in my original statement was objective.

>it’s clear rafa had smaller (in severity) but more (in quantity) nagging injures but fed and djokovic had fewer but more significant injuries where they had to miss much more time.

Name one thing here that is objectively wrong?

>tennis ranking points drop off if you don’t play for a period of time, but nadal never missed enough in a consecutive manner to where it was ever enough to drop him out of the top 10.

Name one thing here that is objectively wrong?

>with that being said, federer and djokovic both have more weeks at number 1 than nadal so it’s not irrational to assume they would have not accomplished the same thing if not better.

Name one thing here that is objectively wrong?

Obviously injuries are a part of sports, I never said they weren't I simply compared the types of injuries nadal had to djokovic and federer's and made a very obvious conclusion that any logical person would come to.

−4

MrFunnie t1_jastc7u wrote

I don’t even follow tennis super closely, but you cannot say Fed is more accomplished. Rafa has 22 majors, Djokovic has 22, but Fed has 20.

4

CarlThe94Pathfinder t1_jasuue3 wrote

How is it a meaningless record? If anything, it makes it that much more meaningful

2

hi-Im-gosu t1_jathk9t wrote

Beacuse nobody cares about top 10, they care about top 1.

Who is the best player? Who was the highest ranked for the longest? This is what people debate.

Do we praise or care about a Nascar driver for finishing top 10 in bunch of races, do we praise or care about golfers for finishing top 10 in tournaments, do we praise an NBA team for finishing top 10 at the end of the season?

You're actually delusional if you think this accomplishment means anything significant.

−4

AmbassadorParking392 t1_jatmxtc wrote

>“Who was the highest ranked for the longest?”

This is literally what we’re debating. Nadal is the highest ranked for the longest. He is top 1 for longest time spent ranked in the top 10.

Many factors come into play in determining the greatest player in any sport, and longevity is certainly one of those factors.

1

hi-Im-gosu t1_jauwnuk wrote

Top 10 isn’t shit in tennis, people only care about number 1 just like every other sport.

your pathetic attempt at word play doesn’t change that fact. Weeks at number 1 is the most important metric when determining dominance because it means you were consistently the best player in the world for the longest time.

nobody cares if you were top 10, why couldn’t you get number 1?

if you care about longevity, total titles is a better stat to represent that but even then it pales in comparison to weeks at number 1 because not all tennis tournaments are equal, some are far easier than others.

it seems you don’t understand the true objective goal of professional tennis which is why you can’t comprehend my argument

the sole goal of professional tennis is to earn as many ATP points as possible, the number 1 player does this making them the best.

1