The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[Horsa]

I thought you could be joking by revealing your age so casually (everyone on inet can spit lies about their physical age and look) but you've repeated it few times now so it must be a truth that you're proud of. And rightly so in the context of this thread: you bear the Federer's age! Congratulations!

No one would have known my age unless I said so anyway because everyone can tell I have the sensitivity of a child sometimes & when adrenaline kicks in I can seem like a child but with some things I say & some of my likes I can be seen as someone older as I've always been seen as someone older most of the time except in appearance. I'm often seen as younger when people see me. I needed I.D. to buy booze up until the age of 29. Age is just a number to me.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I could have gone off & expressed myself poetically or something.

That's much better. I'm waiting impatiently for it (when I have time to be online) as you promised elsewhere. Maybe debriefing your current experience with monfed in subtle "poetic" terms, is what doc prescribed for you? Monfed will not try to understand said debrief because he does not function in such reality. So you escape the risk of being offended. Myself, I try to talk here in such terms that monfed does not care about so he has no reason to engage with me offensively. He may prove me wrong and that he understand and care so he does engage with me, but I hope he doesn't and we're all happy

 

[Horsa]

That's much better. I'm waiting impatiently for it (when I have time to be online) as you promised elsewhere. Maybe debriefing your current experience with monfed in subtle "poetic" terms, is what doc prescribed for you? Monfed will not try to understand said debrief because he does not function in such reality. So you escape the risk of being offended. Myself, I try to talk here in such terms that monfed does not care about so he has no reason to engage with me offensively. He may prove me wrong and that he understand and care so he does engage with me, but I hope he doesn't and we're all happy

O.K. I'm much calmer now & feel a lot better. I write my poetry spontaneously most of the time. I'm very sorry for acting like an idiot. I realised that when I was fighting fire with fire & trading insults with him instead of taking the high road & being classy I made myself look as bad as him which I'm not. Like you intimated, people who don't know me & witnessed the argument who haven't seen my other stuff & seen how I normally interact with others could have seen it as being 6 of 1 & 1/2 a dozen of the other if they judge people on 1 interaction on 1 topic instead of trying to see the whole picture. I've decided to take Broken Shoelaces advice now & ignore him & it's bliss. I've got a few things to do then I will type my poem out. Thank you very much for the idea. It's a good 1. I'll see what I can think of. Writing poetry is a good way to vent, air grievances, express myself & make myself feel better. Maybe so. I hope you're right for your sake. :0)

 

[brokenshoelace]

LOL @ "Nadal never looked like winning the US Open before 2010." Well, he had made 2 back to back semi finals, and more importantly, he was twenty three years old. People improve. Hell, we're saying Thiem has all the time in the world to win a major and he's already over that age.

 

[monfed]

I have mixed feelings about Lopez passing this record given that he had bombed out by Rd 2 or Rd 3 of many slams compared to Fed who made a bazillion QFs and SFs. However hes also an economical S&Ver so I'm happy for him. Better him than a pusher.

 

[monfed]

Ah, give one over to Lopez. That kind of record is not about quality, especially, it's about quantity and consistency. What it does say, in terms of quality, is that he was good enough to get into the main draw of every major for 16.5 years. Good for him and congratulations. Personally, some years back, I wouldn't have said he'd have kept his interest up to be at such a good level, or even playing, this many years in.

You are so insecure. I gave him more than enough credit and it is a fact that his longevity is not comparable with Fed's longevity for reasons already mentioned. Guy's not even won a slam or made a slam SF FFS.

Cry all you want, Fed's longevity is more impressive, doesn't matter if Lopez makes 100 consecutive GS appearances.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I have mixed feelings about Lopez passing this record given that he had bombed out by Rd 2 or Rd 3 of many slams compared to Fed who made a bazillion QFs and SFs. However hes also an economical S&Ver so I'm happy for him. Better him than a pusher.

This is a record about number of consecutive appearances in GSs. It has nothing to do with what they did in those GSs.

 

[monfed]

This is a record about number of consecutive appearances in GSs. It has nothing to do with what they did in those GSs.

It has EVERYTHING to do with that because it is not about age, it's about mileage.

If Fed made 2nd and 3rd Rd exits in slams like Lopez instead of making 23 consecutive GS SFs, and 36 consecutive GS QFs, he'd have enough mileage to go 100 consecutive slams given his economical playing style.

It's essentially an apples to oranges comparison. That's not to take away credit away from Lopez but an injection of context is necessary.

 

[Moxie]

You are so insecure. I gave him more than enough credit and it is a fact that his longevity is not comparable with Fed's longevity for reasons already mentioned. Guy's not even won a slam or made a slam SF FFS.

Cry all you want, Fed's longevity is more impressive, doesn't matter if Lopez makes 100 consecutive GS appearances.

Oh, relax. I wasn't crying and I did see that you gave him credit. Try to follow the conversation.

 

[monfed]

Oh, relax. I wasn't crying and I did see that you gave him credit. Try to follow the conversation.

Quit back peddling when your flawed logic got exposed. Own up your mistake and move on.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It has EVERYTHING to do with that because it is not about age, it's about mileage.

If Fed made 2nd and 3rd Rd exits in slams like Lopez instead of making 23 consecutive GS SFs, and 36 consecutive GS QFs, he'd have enough mileage to go 100 consecutive slams given his economical playing style.

It's essentially an apples to oranges comparison. That's not to take away credit away from Lopez but an injection of context is necessary.

You are not getting the point at all. Nobody is saying having this record is better than having GS title record or weeks at #1 record or YE#1 record etc etc. You are trying to turn the debate into importance of the record. That is not what is being said at all.

 

[monfed]

You are not getting the point at all. Nobody is saying having this record is better than having GS title record or weeks at #1 record or YE#1 record etc etc. You are trying to turn the debate into importance of the record. That is not what is being said at all.

Fed's 65 consecutive GS appearances is more impressive because he went deep in those slams unlike Lopez who repeatedly bombed out at Rd 2 and Rd 3 at slams because the former is far more physically demanding. You do understand the difference in the physical demands of the two right? It's an apples to oranges comparison.

To give a similar analogy, if Fed broke Connors record of 108 tournaments by winning a majority of 250s and 500s it's not as impressive.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Fed's 65 consecutive GS appearances is more impressive because he went deep in those slams unlike Lopez who repeatedly bombed out at Rd 2 and Rd 3 at slams because the former is far more physically demanding. You do understand the difference in the physical demands of the two right? It's an apples to oranges comparison.

To give a similar analogy, if Fed broke Connors record of 108 tournaments by winning a majority of 250s and 500s it's not as impressive.

Let me try one last time before giving up.

No one is claiming that longevity records are important ones. The problem is you are assuming that we are all claiming that Lopez is better he has this record of 66 consecutive appearances. No one with an iota of brain would make such a claim. But a record is a record in a stated, well defined category. You may not give a hoot to that record. Also, no one is claiming that longevity records are important ones. That is perfectly fine. There are several records from Guinness book of records that most people won't give a hoot, but nonetheless they are still records.

If someone beats Connors record of 108 titles by winning mostly 250s and 500s, it would still be a record. Moreover, it would indeed be impressive, as Connors himself got to that figure only with lowly titles. Of course, it would not be as impressive as when Fed overtakes that record as most of Fed's title are big ones.

 

[monfed]

Let me try one last time before giving up.

No one is claiming that longevity records are important ones. The problem is you are assuming that we are all claiming that Lopez is better he has this record of 66 consecutive appearances. No one with an iota of brain would make such a claim. But a record is a record in a stated, well defined category. You may not give a hoot to that record. Also, no one is claiming that longevity records are important ones. That is perfectly fine. There are several records from Guinness book of records that most people won't give a hoot, but nonetheless they are still records.

You should've given up two posts back but I'm more than happy to expose your flawed logic all day long.

If you don't give context to records, then there is no difference between you and a person who knows nothing about tennis reading off of a wikipedia page.

If someone beats Connors record of 108 titles by winning mostly 250s and 500s, it would still be a record. Moreover, it would indeed be impressive, as Connors himself got to that figure only with lowly titles. Of course, it would not be as impressive as when Fed overtakes that record as most of Fed's title are big ones.

Yes it would still be a record, albeit a farcical one. Just like if Nadull equals/breaks Fed's slam record by padding up his slam count with a bazillion RGs.

Any player can play a bazillion consecutive slams by crashing out in Rd 2 or Rd3. It's 100 times more difficult to achieve the same outcome if you made 36 consecutive QFs and 23 consecutive SFs. Not exactly rocket science.

Lopez basically took the easier route to break Fed's record that is why I don't find it impressive. Anyone with half a brain can understand such a simple truth.

 

[Moxie]

Jaysus, you're such a tool. You congratulate the guy, then you back-track and go all hysterical over why Roger's record is better. Everyone gives the guy the gracious nod. Get over it. Everyone else has. Including Roger.

 

[monfed]

Jaysus, you're such a tool. You congratulate the guy, then you back-track and go all hysterical over why Roger's record is better. Everyone gives the guy the gracious nod. Get over it. Everyone else has. Including Roger.

Don't misrepresent what I'm saying. I said clearly I have mixed feelings about this record because although Lopez broke it, he did it taking the easier route which I don't find impressive. They're not EQUAL IN WEIGHT. So, instead of calling me a tool and getting so damn triggered by my analysis, why don't YOU get over what I said?

 

[Moxie]

Don't misrepresent what I'm saying. I said clearly I have mixed feelings about this record because although Lopez broke it, he did it taking the easier route which I don't find impressive. They're not EQUAL IN WEIGHT. So, instead of calling me a tool and getting so damn triggered by my analysis, why don't YOU get over what I said?

I've been over you basically since you joined here. When you make cogent points, I engage. When you act like a troll, I ignore you. Lopez didn't take any "easier route" to his 66 consecutive Major appearances. This is beyond ridiculous as a statement. If Lopez could have done better and gone deeper at Majors, even if it had cost him this (fairly innocuous and unimportant record,) don't you think he would have? He didn't spend his career thinking: If I just bow out early in enough rounds of Majors, I might just pass Roger's consecutive record. So let me lose early, just to make sure. This is a record that just happened. No one calculates it. Perhaps you could rein in your hysteria for long enough to realize that it's just a minor record, and, for whatever reasons, Feliciano Lopez got it.

 

[monfed]

I've been over you basically since you joined here. When you make cogent points, I engage. When you act like a troll, I ignore you. Lopez didn't take any "easier route" to his 66 consecutive Major appearances. This is beyond ridiculous as a statement. If Lopez could have done better and gone deeper at Majors, even if it had cost him this (fairly innocuous and unimportant record,) don't you think he would have? He didn't spend his career thinking: If I just bow out early in enough rounds of Majors, I might just pass Roger's consecutive record. So let me lose early, just to make sure. This is a record that just happened. No one calculates it. Perhaps you could rein in your hysteria for long enough to realize that it's just a minor record, and, for whatever reasons, Feliciano Lopez got it.

This is not only a cogent point, it's basically me dishing out raw data that is apparently hurting your precious feelings. You've been over me and yet you keep quoting me because you're insecure about facts that favour Federer.

Sure it's a record that just happened like every other record that just happened only it's not as impressive as Fed's as has been stated for the nth time so you can quit quoting me now, tyvm.

I find it funny that this is such a minor record that has you so badly triggered.

 

[monfed]

If Lopez had gone deep in many consecutive slams, he would've fallen short by about 20 to 30 slams even with his economical playing style.

How many consecutive slams has a player of a comparable resume as Fed played? Probably not even 50.

 

[Moxie]

This is not only a cogent point, it's basically me dishing out raw data that is apparently hurting your precious feelings. You've been over me and yet you keep quoting me because you're insecure about facts that favour Federer.

Sure it's a record that just happened like every other record that just happened only it's not as impressive as Fed's as has been stated for the nth time so you can quit quoting me now, tyvm.

I find it funny that this is such a minor record that has you so badly triggered.

You attribute too much importance to things that others are discussing casually. I've also noticed that when you are told off, you ask people to stop quoting you. You've made a mountain out of a mole hill. I have no idea why. Even your fellow Feddies said, "good on Feli," and moved on. I think we all have. I suggest you do, too. It's a very minor factoid/record.