Federer: "The real No 1, we all know who that is."

[Scott]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/federer-looking-1-rest-atp-170222216--ten.html

''The real No. 1, we know who that is,'' Federer said, referring to Djokovic. ''I don't think there should be any debate around that. The rankings is something that shows you how you've played over a 365-day period. OK, it might all change again in two months at the Australian Open.''

[Professor X]

On Monday, 5 November 2012 17:45:42 UTC, Scott wrote:
> http://sports.yahoo.com/news/federer-looking-1-rest-atp-170222216--ten.html
>
>
>
> ''The real No. 1, we know who that is,'' Federer said, referring to Djokovic. ''I don't think there should be any debate around that. The rankings is something that shows you how you've played over a 365-day period. OK, it might all change again in two months at the Australian Open.''

I agree. Even though I usually take the view that the biggest titles should count the most. And Murray DOES have the best mix of big titles so far this year with OG + Wimby rather than just the one slam. However, Murrays performance outside of those two tournaments has been SO FAR short of djoker and federer that it is too big a gap to bridge purely by having one extra marginally bigger tournament IMHO.

I mean, Djoker has practically cleaned up the masters series this year on a hard-court & 3 slam finals.

However, I think if Murray could win the YEC then I would give him true no.1 status as YEC +OG + USOpen would def be the best year, and would bridge the consistency gap between him and fed/djok

but right now, just the USO/OG/Wim Final combo is not quite enough, because that's all he's done all year but for a couple of MS finals.

[TT]

5.11.2012 19:45, Scott kirjoitti:
> http://sports.yahoo.com/news/federer-looking-1-rest-atp-170222216--ten.html
>
> ''The real No. 1, we know who that is,'' Federer said, referring to Djokovic. ''I don't think there should be any debate around that. The rankings is something that shows you how you've played over a 365-day period. OK, it might all change again in two months at the Australian Open.''
>

Can't that fucker even pay a compliment without ifs and buts!

What an sorry self centred asshole he is.

[felangey]

> Can't that fucker even pay a compliment without ifs and buts!
>
> What an sorry self centred asshole he is.

Ah....a young man and his muse.

And: "...an sorry..."? Things going downhill this week. You need to breathe!
:^)

[TT]

You think yourself as some sort of comedian?

Yeah, I think that was typical Federer... can't even say that Djoker
deserves #1 for the year without hinting that he might not be #1 after AO...

That's just pathetic from someone who has achieved so much.

[felangey]

> Yeah, I think that was typical Federer... can't even say that Djoker
> deserves #1 for the year without hinting that he might not be #1 after
> AO...
>
> That's just pathetic from someone who has achieved so much.

Why do you care so much that you have to publically rant at everything the
guys says? Some would say that you protesteth too much! :^)

[*skriptis]

Imagine *if* he hadn't achived all that? I see someone like Koellerer. :D

[Scott]

Federer's subtle digs are just part of the same psychological makeup
that enables him to win so much. He never, ever concedes to his
rivals no matter what the situation is.

[TT]

Nonsense.

[Gracchus]

On Nov 6, 1:49 am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> I agree. Even though I usually take the view that the biggest titles should count the most. And Murray DOES have the best mix of big titles so far this year with OG + Wimby rather than just the one slam.

Murray won Wimby? I seem to recall a different guy lifting the
trophy...last name started with an "F"? Ah well, after a certain age,
the memory starts playing tricks on you.

[Gracchus]

On Nov 6, 6:31 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Federer's subtle digs are just part of the same psychological makeup
> that enables him to win so much.  He never, ever concedes to his
> rivals no matter what the situation is.

It is part of the "off-court game." Just like Rafa's, "He's the
favorite, no?" We have to wait until their careers are over to hear
honest assessments.

It reminds me of a boxing documentary I saw where Sugar Ray Leonard
recalled how impressed he was by Thomas Hearns' talent the first time
he saw him fight. No way he would have said that when both were still
vying for top tog.

[Iceberg]

because you Fedfan morons then go and give him a sportsmanship award
despite smashing his racket to pieces. I wouldn't be surprised if
you'll give him a modesty award next year, despite this being yet
another example of pure arrogance.

[Iceberg]

the AO 2009 trophy presentation says it all.

[Iceberg]

it's fairly obvious, Fed says stuff like more people were upset that I
lost than were happy that Nadal won, doesn't that give you a clue??
Nadal, however, has been brought up to be modest by his uncle and
family. They're almost polar opposite personalities.

[Gracchus]

On Nov 6, 8:06 pm, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

> it's fairly obvious, Fed says stuff like more people were upset that I
> lost than were happy that Nadal won, doesn't that give you a clue??
> Nadal, however, has been brought up to be modest by his uncle and
> family. They're almost polar opposite personalities.

The "modest" interpretation is feasible for a talented teenager rising
through the ranks. Not so for a seasoned pro who has dominated on clay
for years saying that his opponent is the "favorite" to win a match
against him on that surface. It is thoroughly disingenuous and
obviously intended to shift the burden of expectation to his opponent.
Only saps like you and bob are gullible enough to swallow that act.

Federer on the other hand makes tactless remarks, but often they are
true.

[Court_1]

Both Nadal's and Federer's comments need to be taken with a grain of
salt. Nadal and his camp are FOS most of the time, between his false
modesty and the inconsistent BS injury claims put out there you would
have to be a freaking dope to believe much of it.
Federer on the other hand is very PC in most of his pressers, to the
point where it often sounds like ATP rehearsed claptrap, but from time
to time Federer will take a subtle dig at a rival and true or not, it
is NOT something that he should do.

[soccerfan777]

> is NOT something that he should do.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The way this Fedhating nutters talk it seems like Fed is the first
one to take a dig at his opponents. Agassi called Sampras a monkey,
Becker said Edberg is not a true rival, McEnroe and Connors said a lot
of things about Lendl, Lendl always mocked his rivals. Its always been
part of tennis history.

[Gracchus]

On Nov 6, 8:56 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Both Nadal's and Federer's comments need to be taken with a grain of
> salt. Nadal and his camp are FOS most of the time, between his false
> modesty and the inconsistent BS injury claims put out there you would
> have to be a freaking dope to believe much of it.
> Federer on the other hand is very PC in most of his pressers, to the
> point where it often sounds like ATP rehearsed claptrap, but from time
> to time Federer will take a subtle dig at a rival and true or not, it
> is NOT something that he should do.

I agree. After all, the stuff Serena says is true sometimes too, but
choosing to say those things doesn't reflect well upon her, nor
Federer when he does it. Federer has more of a problem with lapses in
tact though--just not realizing when he's saying something that sounds
bad to many people.

[soccerfan777]

Federer is no saint but he is no Serena either or John McEnroe or
Jimmy Connors. I think Fedfans need to stop defending him against
unreasonable Fed hating nuts with a "so what, piss off". No one is a
saint and no one is perfect, unless you are Steffi Graf ;-)

[Gracchus]

On Nov 6, 9:38 pm, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The way this Fedhating nutters talk  it seems like Fed is the first
> one to take a dig at his opponents. Agassi called Sampras a monkey,
> Becker said Edberg is not a true rival, McEnroe and Connors said a lot
> of things about Lendl, Lendl always mocked his rivals. Its always been
> part of tennis history.

Beyond that, one could argue that it has long been a part of sports
rivalries in general. Polite society calls it bad form, but at least
some people think it adds spice to the stew.

[Gracchus]

On Nov 6, 9:50 pm, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Federer is no saint but he is no Serena either or John McEnroe or
> Jimmy Connors. I think Fedfans need to stop defending him against
> unreasonable Fed hating nuts with a "so what, piss off". No one is a
> saint and no one is perfect, unless you are Steffi Graf ;-)

Lol, well even Graf took her digs once in a while.

[Court_1]

Of course, mocking of rivals has always been a part of the sport. It
is part of the "game" to try and psychologically disarm your opponent
before a match. Roger does it so infrequently compared to past greats.
Plus, Roger is such a good ambassador for the sport as a whole, that
any negative traits are almost non-existent. What other current player
could be such great ambassador for tennis? There is nobody even close
imo. How anybody could hate Federer is beyond me. I think the people
who hate him are failures in certain areas of life and they can't
stand to see all of the money and success Federer has enjoyed. What
else could it be?

[soccerfan777]

Links? I doubt she did any after her teenage phase.

[soccerfan777]

> else could it be?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree. Look at Whipser, an abject failure in life.

[TT]

I think Fed displayed great sportsmanship with his rain dance at
Shanghai against Murray... Dear Lord, Andy could have hurt himself due
to those two raindrops on the court.

[Gracchus]

On Nov 6, 10:35 pm, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Lol, well even Graf took her digs once in a while.
>
> Links? I doubt she did any after her teenage phase.

Her "teenage phase"? She reached #1 at 18.

She said didn't have a "rivalry" with Sabatini cause she was 10-0 at
the time, said that Capriati beating her meant nothing cause it was an
exo, and that Hingis beating her in Rome was meaningless too. But
obviously those were rare moments.

[Court_1]

Yet, it is Federer who wins both the Edberg and fan favorite award
time and time again. People have free will to vote for Nadal you know.
Forget the Edberg award as that is a highly political award, why
doesn't Nadal win fan favorite? He came in fourth this year behind
Murray and Djokovic. Ouch!

[soccerfan777]

On Nov 6, 8:52 am, Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 10:35 pm, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Lol, well even Graf took her digs once in a while.
>
> > Links? I doubt she did any after her teenage phase.
>
> Her "teenage phase"? She reached #1 at 18.
>

How does that preclude that adolescents are bound to say stupid things
and hurt people which they regret later?

[Gracchus]

On Nov 6, 11:00 pm, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 8:52 am, Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Her "teenage phase"? She reached #1 at 18.
>
> How does that preclude that adolescents are bound to say stupid things
> and hurt people which they regret later?

Because you elevated her to saint and goddess status, which means even
as a teen she is supposed to be perfect. :)

[Pelle Svanslös]

Scott also believes planes bounce off buildings.

*Rolls eyes*

--
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/FEDERER_Roger-24x30-1998.jpg

[Iceberg]

On Nov 6, 2:57 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:40 am, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 6.11.2012 14:03, Iceberg kirjoitti:
>
> > > On Nov 5, 7:02 pm, "felangey" <oncl...@nine.com> wrote:
> > >>> Yeah, I think that was typical Federer... can't even say that Djoker
> > >>> deserves #1 for the year without hinting that he might not be #1 after
> > >>> AO...
>
> > >>> That's just pathetic from someone who has achieved so much.
>
> > >> Why do you care so much that you have to publically rant at everything the
> > >> guys says? Some would say that you protesteth too much! :^)
>
> > > because you Fedfan morons then go and give him a sportsmanship award
> > > despite smashing his racket to pieces. I wouldn't be surprised if
> > > you'll give him a modesty award next year, despite this being yet
> > > another example of pure arrogance.
>
> > I think Fed displayed great sportsmanship with his rain dance at
> > Shanghai against Murray... Dear Lord, Andy could have hurt himself due
> > to those two raindrops on the court.
>
> Yet, it is Federer who wins both the Edberg and fan favorite award
> time and time again. People have free will to vote for Nadal you know.

t> doesn't Nadal win fan favorite? He came in fourth this year behind
> Murray and Djokovic. Ouch!

if you don't see that as pure evidence of the force of the Fedfans,
then I don't know what it will take.

[ca1houn]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 10:52:48 AM UTC-8, TT wrote:
> 5.11.2012 20:46, felangey kirjoitti:
>
> >> Can't that fucker even pay a compliment without ifs and buts!
>
> >>
>
> >> What an sorry self centred asshole he is.
>
> >
>
> > Ah....a young man and his muse.
>
> >
>
> > And: "...an sorry..."? Things going downhill this week. You need to
>
> > breathe! :^)
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> You think yourself as some sort of comedian?
>
>
>

> Yeah, I think that was typical Federer... can't even say that Djoker
>
> deserves #1 for the year without hinting that he might not be #1 after AO...
>
>
>
> That's just pathetic from someone who has achieved so much.

WTF stating that he might not be #1 after the AO is your problem? TT that a fact. why is it wrong to state it.

[soccerfan777]

How can you be perfect when you are not even physically and mature
yet? Give her a break. Find me something she said she was 20 years or
older.

[ahonkan]

The Edberg Sportsmanship Award is *not* political. It is *not*
awarded by the ATP but is *voted* by *fellow players*. It is
obvious
that except for 3-4 nutcases on rst who detest him desperately,
the entire tennis universe absolutely adores Federer.
Here's a reference to the Edberg Award criteria:
There is an annual ATP Sportsman of the Year award and
a player is elected by other players to choose who seemed
to have the best sportsmanship based on their attitude and
respect for the game, opponents, the umpire, and the crowd.
It's when players can stand tall and be proud of their effort
after being defeated, and not taunting or bragging in the faces
of the opponent after a win.
I have always admired Rafa's sportsmanship too. The best
example was when he chose to commiserate with his
vanquished opponent and then shook hands with all members
of the rival team after winning the Davis Cup before joining his
teammates for celebration. It will remain in my memory forever.
Djoker too has been unfailing nice in victory *and* defeat.

[ahonkan]

Having heard/ read a lot of Graf's interviews, I do clearly
recall that she was very likely to say that she didn't play
well when lost rather than saying that her opponent
played better and deserved to win.
A bit like Serena. Then again, going by how awesome
those two have been, who is to argue that they were
not telling the truth?

[ahonkan]

Ah. So Fedfans decide among themselves to split
their votes three ways - among Fed, Djoker & Murray
just to diss Rafa. That's a classic.

[ahonkan]

On Nov 6, 5:28 pm, Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Federer on the other hand makes tactless remarks, but often they are
> true.

I think Fed is not good with cracking non-offensive
jokes and ends up inadvertently insulting / hurting
some people. An excellent example is when Fed
said something like "Britain hasn't had a slam
champion for the last 150,000 years" when trying
to commiserate with Andy after beating him at
AO 2010. Fed was actually trying to say that
there is enormous pressure on Andy to win but
the joke could have ended up hurting the
sentiments of all Brits.

Djoker is very good at humour, even
self-deprecating. Murray has dry Brit
humour but is mostly humourless.
Rafa is not very comfortable in English
so rarely strays from the 'gracious &
modest' mode during interviews.

I would cut a lot of slack to Fed since
he is interviewed about 100 times more
than the next guy and so the chance
of making a carelees/ tactless remark
is that much more.

[Sakari Lund]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:02:17 -0800 (PST), ahonkan <aho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> . An excellent example is when Fed
> said something like "Britain hasn't had a slam
> champion for the last 150,000 years" when trying
> to commiserate with Andy after beating him at
> AO 2010. Fed was actually trying to say that
> there is enormous pressure on Andy to win but
> the joke could have ended up hurting the
> sentiments of all Brits.

Nobody who saw that specific case can possibly think there was
anything bad in that. I think it was actually after his SF speculating
the final in advance. On-court interview with Courier (they don't do
those after the final). One of the best on-court interviews I have
ever seen, very funny.

Of course people who didn't see it and read about it somewhere can get
a different idea.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 6.11.2012 20:02, ahonkan wrote:
> On Nov 6, 5:28 pm, Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Federer on the other hand makes tactless remarks, but often they are
>> true.
>
> I think Fed is not good with cracking non-offensive
> jokes and ends up inadvertently insulting / hurting
> some people. An excellent example is when Fed
> said something like "Britain hasn't had a slam
> champion for the last 150,000 years" when trying
> to commiserate with Andy after beating him at
> AO 2010.

No need to beat around the bush, there's a name for that. "Stupidity".

--
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/FEDERER_Roger-24x30-1998.jpg

[*skriptis]

Federer was seeded #1 so it's obvoious French considered him to be the
favourite to win in those FO finals.
Nadal didn't lie.

[*skriptis]

Pelle Svansl�s wrote:
> On 6.11.2012 20:02, ahonkan wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 5:28 pm, Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Federer on the other hand makes tactless remarks, but often they are
>>> true.
>>
>> I think Fed is not good with cracking non-offensive
>> jokes and ends up inadvertently insulting / hurting
>> some people. An excellent example is when Fed
>> said something like "Britain hasn't had a slam
>> champion for the last 150,000 years" when trying
>> to commiserate with Andy after beating him at
>> AO 2010.
>
> No need to beat around the bush, there's a name for that. "Stupidity".

lol

[ahonkan]

On Nov 7, 12:12 am, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> wrote:

>
> No need to beat around the bush, there's a name for that. "Stupidity".
>

> --http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/FEDERER_Roger-24x3...

The reason why I cut a slack to pro athletes is
that they are (almost always) not well-educated
and so are not well-versed with being PC. At
the same time, I'd rather hear some non-PC
honest stuff than the usual 'I am going to take
it one match at a time', 'my next opponent is
a great champion and I am expecting a very
tough match', 'I am going to stay focused
and execute my game plan' kind of inanities.

[Court_1]

Do you have a link to how Edberg Award nominees come about? I read
that the ATP itself issues the nominees. The players vote based on the
names the ATP provides. I don't have the time to look it up and
research it now.

[TT]

Can't agree with that, Rafa was always the favourite on clay.
Maybe he didn't lie and he wasn't favourite in his own head... or at
least that's what Toni tried to brainwash him to believe. Still in the
endgame I'm sure Rafa believed in himself, that much is obvious from
their matches.

Federer's remarks, true or not, are often unneeded praise for himself or
belittling the others. Nothing defensible in that. Being self centred
asshole is not end of the world for an athlete or it's fans, but what
rubs the wrong way is fedfans pretending like he's an angel, and even
bragging with his sportsmanship awards when the guy speaks what he
speaks and even uses blatant gamesmanship like in the case of 2
raindrops on the court, and many others.

[soccerfan777]

On Nov 6, 12:49 pm, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 10:42 pm, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 9:19 am, Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 6, 11:00 pm, soccerfan777 <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 6, 8:52 am, Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Her "teenage phase"? She reached #1 at 18.
>
> > > > How does that preclude that adolescents are bound to say stupid things
> > > > and hurt people which they regret later?
>
> > > Because you elevated her to saint and goddess status, which means even
> > > as a teen she is supposed to be perfect. :)
>
> > How can you be perfect when you are not even physically and mature
> > yet? Give her a break. Find me something she said she was 20 years or
> > older.
>
>     Having heard/ read a lot of Graf's interviews, I do clearly
>     recall that she was very likely to say that she didn't play
>     well when lost rather than saying that her opponent
>     played better and deserved to win.

Obviously she did not play well. Thats why she lost (unless it was a
really tight match). What's wrong in that statement? If asked about
her opponent and if she said something "well she just stood there, I
made all the errors", then it is very ungraceful.

>     A bit like Serena. Then again, going by how awesome
>     those two have been, who is to argue that they were

>     not telling the truth?- Hide quoted text -

Pass the crack pipe please.

[TT]

6.11.2012 22:02, ahonkan kirjoitti:
> The reason why I cut a slack to pro athletes is
> that they are (almost always) not well-educated
> and so are not well-versed with being PC.

Well Rafa sure does it with ease. He's almost TOO PC.

So nope, being interviewed a lot/jock education doesn't count for excuse.

[Gracchus]

On Nov 7, 4:01 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:

> Federer was seeded #1 so it's obvoious French considered him to be the
> favourite to win in those FO finals.
> Nadal didn't lie.

Right...neither did Bill Clinton when he denied having "sexual
relations" with Lewinsky.

[Gracchus]

Most of the vicious things Hingis said came before she was 20 too.
Maybe she became a nicer person, maybe not, but the remarks were still
an expression of her character during her championship years.

It's funny how quickly your sense of humor vanishes when one of your
heroes is criticized even mildly.

[soccerfan777]

After Graf and Sharapova, Hingis is probably my third favorite. Hingis
didnt win crap after she was a teenager, so I don't how to judge her.
I think we have leave her alone.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:02:17 AM UTC+11, ahonkan wrote:

> I would cut a lot of slack to Fed since
>
> he is interviewed about 100 times more
>
> than the next guy and so the chance
>
> of making a carelees/ tactless remark
>
> is that much more.

Yeah, there are people here (rst) that never get interviewed but manage to say ten stupid things in one day! :)

[felangey]

>and even bragging with his sportsmanship awards when the guy speaks what he
>speaks

You mean the one voted for by people that actually know him and his work,
rather than some little hater scroat on the internet?

Get over it wee man.

[ahonkan]

On Nov 7, 2:06 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Do you have a link to how Edberg Award nominees come about? I read
> that the ATP itself issues the nominees. The players vote based on the
> names the ATP provides.  I don't have the time to look it up and
> research it now.

I tried to look it up but couldn't find one.
Yes, the ATP selects the nominees
but I don't know the criteria used. I can't
understand why Cilic, Ferrer and Delpo
were chosen in addition to Federer and
Djoker, Murray, Nadal et al were not.
BTW, Djoker, Nadal & Pakistan's
Aisam-al-Haq Qureishi were nominated
last year in addition to Fed.

[Court_1]

That is why I am saying to some degree it is politically based if the
ATP itself selects the nominees. Who the heck is going to vote for
Cilic even though he is a very nice guy (or seems like one) or
Ferrer? The ATP wants Federer as the face of tennis globally, let's
be honest and that is who the face of tennis should be. I know it is
the players themselves who vote but again are they going to vote for
Ferrer as the ultimate Sportsman and face of tennis? The winner is
always going to be one of the most popular players globally.

The fan favorite is more telling imo because it is the fans who vote
and Federer received 57% of the votes apparently.

[ahonkan]

But you realize that Fed won last year too when they had Djoker
& Nadal in the fray and Djoker was the #1. I am still trying to
figure out if the ATP invites names from tournament directors,
randomly selected players etc for the Edberg award. I see nothing
common between the last year's nominees and this year's (except
for Fed, of course).

[Court_1]

Who knows what they do but Fed is the man!

[TT]

As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that
Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.

There are countless examples of his silly utterings and there even was a
recent an example of gamesmanship at Shangai against Murray with the 2
raindrops on court.

1+1=2 despite what people vote about it.

> Get over it wee man.

Could you be more condescending. You're a true keyboard warrior who
would be slapped around in real life. You should be the last person to
act condescending, a true dork.

[Scott]

how many times was Sampras seeded #1?

[Joe Ramirez]

On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> 7.11.2012 3:32, felangey kirjoitti:
>
> >> and even bragging with his sportsmanship awards when the guy speaks
> >> what he speaks
>
> > You mean the one voted for by people that actually know him and his
> > work, rather than some little hater scroat on the internet?
>
> As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that
> Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.
>

Bad analogy. The Edberg Award is an election, not a poll. It's not
players talking about how they may/will/intend to vote; it's the
actual voting. You are of course free to *disagree* with their
collective view, just as Republicans remain free to disgree with the
majority of Americans that Obama should be president, but you have no
basis to claim that the result of the voting does not accurately
reflect their view.

[TT]

8.11.2012 0:17, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
> On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> 7.11.2012 3:32, felangey kirjoitti:
>>
>>>> and even bragging with his sportsmanship awards when the guy speaks
>>>> what he speaks
>>
>>> You mean the one voted for by people that actually know him and his
>>> work, rather than some little hater scroat on the internet?
>>
>> As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that
>> Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.
>>
> Bad analogy. The Edberg Award is an election, not a poll. It's not

I think it's a good analogy: Max tried to justify Rasmussen's results by
claiming "prestige", same as fedfans try to justify his behaviour by
claiming "Edberg Award". Exactly same thing.

And I didn't have the "correct" results at the time of debate with max
either, I based my claim that they're wrong on common sense.

> players talking about how they may/will/intend to vote; it's the
> actual voting. You are of course free to *disagree* with their
> collective view, just as Republicans remain free to disgree with the
> majority of Americans that Obama should be president, but you have no
> basis to claim that the result of the voting does not accurately
> reflect their view.
>

But I see Federer engaging in clear cut gamesmaship and read his
comments... it's same as 1+1=2, not up for debate.

[Joe Ramirez]

On Nov 7, 5:29 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> 8.11.2012 0:17, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>
> > On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >> 7.11.2012 3:32, felangey kirjoitti:
>
> >>>> and even bragging with his sportsmanship awards when the guy speaks
> >>>> what he speaks
>
> >>> You mean the one voted for by people that actually know him and his
> >>> work, rather than some little hater scroat on the internet?
>
> >> As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that
> >> Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.
>
> > Bad analogy. The Edberg Award is an election, not a poll. It's not
>
> I think it's a good analogy: Max tried to justify Rasmussen's results

Not results -- *predictions*. Max said Rasmussen was reliable -- i.e.,
would be proved correct -- because it's supposedly prestigious. But
it's been proved wrong by the actual election results. The Edberg
Award voting is not a prediction of anything. It won't be tested by a
subsequent election. It IS the election. And its result is as valid a
summary of the collective opinion of the voters as in any clean
election. You don't have to share that collective opinion, but you
can't deny that it exists.

>by
> claiming "prestige", same as fedfans try to justify his behaviour by
> claiming "Edberg Award". Exactly same thing.
>
> And I didn't have the "correct" results at the time of debate with max
> either, I based my claim that they're wrong on common sense.
>
> > players talking about how they may/will/intend to vote; it's the
> > actual voting. You are of course free to *disagree* with their
> > collective view, just as Republicans remain free to disgree with the
> > majority of Americans that Obama should be president, but you have no
> > basis to claim that the result of the voting does not accurately
> > reflect their view.
>
> But I see Federer engaging in clear cut gamesmaship and read his
> comments... it's same as 1+1=2, not up for debate.

It doesn't matter what you think, or what I think. The Edberg Award
shows what the *players* think. All you can say is that you disagree
with them. You can't say that the award was invalidly bestowed.

[TT]

8.11.2012 0:53, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
> On Nov 7, 5:29 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> 8.11.2012 0:17, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>>
>>> On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>> 7.11.2012 3:32, felangey kirjoitti:
>>
>>>>>> and even bragging with his sportsmanship awards when the guy speaks
>>>>>> what he speaks
>>
>>>>> You mean the one voted for by people that actually know him and his
>>>>> work, rather than some little hater scroat on the internet?
>>
>>>> As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that
>>>> Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.
>>
>>> Bad analogy. The Edberg Award is an election, not a poll. It's not
>>
>> I think it's a good analogy: Max tried to justify Rasmussen's results
>
> Not results -- *predictions*. Max said Rasmussen was reliable -- i.e.,
> would be proved correct -- because it's supposedly prestigious.

I meant prediction of results aka polls.

> But
> it's been proved wrong by the actual election results.

Not relevant. We knew before yesterday that Rasmussen's polls were
nonsense, they were too far off statistically and methodically (as in
polling methods).

> The Edberg
> Award voting is not a prediction of anything. It won't be tested by a
> subsequent election. It IS the election.

No, my analogy was about polls therefore Edberg award here is also a "poll".

> And its result is as valid a
> summary of the collective opinion of the voters as in any clean
> election.

Yes it's a valid polling result, which doesn't mean that the poll is
correct.

If you want to say that it's the final US election result... it
certainly is not: Edberg Award is still an opinion of voters, not a fact
about Fed's spotsmanship qualities.

> You don't have to share that collective opinion, but you
> can't deny that it exists.
>

It exists, as do Rasmussen polls.

>
> It doesn't matter what you think, or what I think. The Edberg Award
> shows what the *players* think. All you can say is that you disagree
> with them. You can't say that the award was invalidly bestowed.
>

Yes I can. It was done by the rules and no doubt the vote is correct,
but the evidence with Fed's poor behaviour are facts and no popularity
award can change them.

[Court_1]

What poor behavior? The fact that Fed was using gamesmanship against
Murray in Shanghai when he said the courts were too wet to continue
play? What about all of Fed's overriding good behavior as the face of
tennis? Can you think of a player who is more popular globally than
Fed? It is a politically motivated award. The ATP picks the yearly
nominees and the players vote. Are they going to pick Marin Cilic as
best sportsmanship of the year and global face of tennis? Get over it.
Fed is not perfect but he is certainly the best ambassador for tennis
the game has ever seen and your obsessive idolatry of Nadal is not
going to change that.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 8:49:14 AM UTC+11, TT wrote:

> As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that
>
> Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.
>

You are confusing a poll and a vote. The SE award is obtained by a vote, not a poll.

[felangey]

>> Get over it wee man.
>
> Could you be more condescending.

Yes, of course. :)

> You're a true keyboard warrior who would be slapped around in real life.
> You should be the last person to act condescending, a true dork.

You really seem to struggle with this dual personality disorder....you know
the one....the one half of you that acts the ill-mannered, juvenille,
hateful, obtuse, lying, racist, sexist, foul-mouthed little punk....and the
other that acts incensed when anyone treats you with derision or
condescension. I'd have thought that you would be pretty bullet-proof to
such treatment by now....unless the latter persona really only exists
online....in which case....it is thee that is the keyboard warrior, wee man!
:)

[Patrick Kehoe]

But it DOES reflect the views of those that vote for the award and
they vote the way they do to pick the person that reflects/embodies
what the sportsmanship award represents/is awarded for and Federer, in
the view of the players, embodies those ideals/criteria... so the
players, at least, feel Federer does embody the kind of sportsmanship
that best represents the sport... IN THEIR OPINION(S)... and since
they ACTUALLY KNOW THE GUY, and it's the players award... that counts
for something, surely... :)))

> Yes I can. It was done by the rules and no doubt the vote is correct,
> but the evidence with Fed's poor behaviour are facts and no popularity
> award can change them.

I doubt the players are unaware of what the criteria of the award
entails... they are voting on the most sportsmanlike player, the guy
who represents the ideals of the award... in their view... he won't
win it forever... never fear!

P

[soccerfan777]

TT throws a hissy fit when he gets attacked. He is Rudepski like in
that way.

[TT]

You're just not following my analogy which is...

Rasmussen polls vs facts
Edberg award vs facts

Indeed, the analogy has proven to be spot on; just as Max fowrwarded
Rasmussen's prestige... at least 3 fedfans have now quoted Edberg award
as proving Fed's good sportsmanship.

[TT]

So you agree it was gamesmanship.

> What about all of Fed's overriding good behavior as the face of
> tennis?

Such as his self serving comments, racket breaking and wanting to turn
hawkeye off, taking digs at other players etc?

Now surely there are other players that are exemplary with their
sportsmanship, Fed certainly is not one of them...

> Can you think of a player who is more popular globally than
> Fed? It is a politically motivated award. The ATP picks the yearly
> nominees and the players vote. Are they going to pick Marin Cilic as
> best sportsmanship of the year and global face of tennis? Get over it.
> Fed is not perfect but he is certainly the best ambassador for tennis
> the game has ever seen and your obsessive idolatry of Nadal is not
> going to change that.
>

Sounds like you actually agree with me; "politically motivated". The
award is obviously not granted on sportsmanship merits, but something
else such as popularity etc...

[TT]

Sounds like I hit the nail judging by your reply...

[TT]

That does count for something... but it still doesn't make his behaviour
any better.

>> Yes I can. It was done by the rules and no doubt the vote is correct,
>> but the evidence with Fed's poor behaviour are facts and no popularity
>> award can change them.
>
> I doubt the players are unaware of what the criteria of the award
> entails... they are voting on the most sportsmanlike player, the guy
> who represents the ideals of the award... in their view... he won't
> win it forever... never fear!
>
> P
>

Well, it's possible that many actually don't know the meaning of word
sportsmanship.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 2:04:10 AM UTC+11, TT wrote:

"Rasmussen polls vs facts": in this case the "facts" are the election results.
"Edberg award vs facts": in this case the Edberg award is the election results.
Therefore Edberg award = facts.

See how bad your analogy is?

[Sakari Lund]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 16:56:11 -0800 (PST), phamqu...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

As the commentators said today, Fed won the Stefan Edberg Backhand
Volley Award :-)

[TT]

No, it's just that it's apparently too hard for you to follow...

Edberg award is not facts despite being a result of an election. The
facts is Fed's actual behaviour.

[TT]

Not backhanded compliment award?

[ahonkan]

On Nov 8, 8:31 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>
> Well, it's possible that many actually don't know the meaning of word
> sportsmanship.

Maybe it was the case in 2010 when they voted for Rafa?

[Patrick Kehoe]

> sportsmanship.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

?

ok...

P

[Court_1]

On Nov 8, 10:12 am, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

> So you agree it was gamesmanship.

Of course it was gamesmanship.

> Such as his self serving comments, racket breaking and wanting to turn
> hawkeye off, taking digs at other players etc?
> Now surely there are other players that are exemplary with their
> sportsmanship, Fed certainly is not one of them...

Yes Federer IS one of the players who shows exemplary behavior and
sportsmanship more often than not. These examples you are coming up
with of Fed's poor sportsmanship happen very infrequently. Every
player has engaged in poor sportsmanship at some point. Fed's behavior
is A plus 99% of the time.

> Sounds like you actually agree with me; "politically motivated". The
> award is obviously not granted on sportsmanship merits, but something
> else such as popularity etc...

Of course it is a politically motivated award. If it were not, why
wouldn't guys like Cilic win it? BUT, although it has political
motivations, Federer is still the guy who is selected time after time.
Why? Because he is the best face of tennis like it or not TT and the
players have to take that into account if they want to continue to go
around the world and make a lot of money. Remember these lesser
players who vote piggyback off of the success that players like
Federer bring to the game. Players like Federer fill the majority of
seats in stadiums around the world.