美网女单决赛

PACIFIC

根本就不是一个级别的，ZVONAREVA象牛一样在底线跑来跑去救球，对手小克打得象闲庭信步。

已经冠军点了。

等纳豆血洗小德

老猫晒太阳

纳豆

沉默需烈酒香烟

CLIJSTERS生了孩子反倒冠军越拿越多，祝福CLIJSTERS的同时，也为现在的WTA汗颜，联想几个月前，几位从没拿过大满贯的女选手轮番做庄世界第一，也着实让人觉得无趣。几个早走下坡路吃老本的大小威小克仍然统治WTA，WTA的吸引力这几年有些下降。ATP总体竞争力水平也不如当年SAMPLUS时代，但好在有FEDERER跟NADAL撑着，还不至于下降太大，最起码这二位的水平，放在SAMPLUS时代，也照样是个中翘楚。FEDERER能拿16个大满贯，更多占的是ATP整体水平下降的光。估计几小时后世界第三位金满贯得主悬念不大，提前恭喜RAFA。

Nocturnal

"FEDERER能拿16个大满贯，更多占的是ATP整体水平下降的光。"

i doubt you put much thoughts into what you say as your logic is laughable.

using your logic, you are basically saying that Sampras is not a great player too, it just happens that in his era, other players are weak compared to him so it enabled him to get 14 grand slams.

江山代有人才出, 明白吗?

Explorer

不要打架

沉默需烈酒香烟

原帖由 Nocturnal 于 2010-9-13 11:20 发表
"FEDERER能拿16个大满贯，更多占的是ATP整体水平下降的光。"

i doubt you put much thoughts into what you say as your logic is laughable.

using your logic, you are basically saying that Sampras is not a g ...

看过几年球？你从哪里得出的结论我是说SAMPRAS差一些？我说的ATP整体水平下降是因为有竞争力的选手太少，也就这二年才蹦出个MURRAY,DJOKOVIC,还有那个DEL POTRO。既使这样，这三位加起来大满贯的数量也只不过才两块，这跟张德培那时不到十七岁就拿到大满贯能比吗？NADAL世界排名第二当了多少年？DAVYDENKO这位一个大满贯也没拿过的坐世界第三坐了多少年？SAMPRAS拿十四块那是因为同时代有竞争力的选手相当多，先不说AGASSI了，还有BACKER、LENDL、SAFIN、COURIER、ZHANG，挑出哪位来也都是相当当的大满贯得主。反观FEDERER自从04年拿到第一个大满贯以来，几乎全部都由他跟NADAL包揽，其他选手根本造不成什么威胁，连五盘都打不了，何谈赢球？今年澳网以后FEDERER四大皆空，与其说是其他选手发挥出色，不如说是FEDERER年龄大了水平下降的必然结果。
江山代有人才出，书读得太呆了吧？从没拿过大满贯的轮流坐世界第一，这也叫江山代有人才出？前途是光明的，道路是曲折的，马拉多纳是历史，不代表现在就能找出一个比他踢球还要强的来。

[ 本帖最后由 沉默需烈酒香烟 于 2010-9-13 16:39 编辑 ]

PACIFIC

淡定，淡定

public_enemy

.....

magnolia0903

很喜欢小克，自然卷+婴儿肥让她显得很可爱可亲~，当了孩子妈还是没啥大变化~~，支持小克~~~(monkey16)

Nocturnal

原帖由 沉默需烈酒香烟 于 2010-9-13 16:22 发表

看过几年球？你从哪里得出的结论我是说SAMPRAS差一些？我说的ATP整体水平下降是因为有竞争力的选手太少，也就这二年才蹦出个MURRAY,DJOKOVIC,还有那个DEL POTRO。既使这样，这三位加起来大满贯的数量也只不过才两块，这跟张德 ...

the basic error in your logic is this: the tennis players we are talking about are of 2 different eras, non of them have competed against each other at their peak, therefore, just because nadal or federer dominated their era, it does not prove that current players are playing at lower skill levels compared to sampras's era, it can only mean that federer and nadal are way above the rest in their era. This situation in sampras's era did not happen. Your statement can only be proven true if federer or nadal was in sampras's era and they did not dominate the sport, or if djokovic or murray was in sampras's era and they were easily beaten by the previous grand slam winners you have mentioned. since these scenario will never happen, there is no evidence to support your statement, hence the error in your logic.

put simply: if A>B and B>C then A>C. but if A cant be proven to be > B, and B>C, you cannot say A>C. understood?

also, while it is true that you have watched more tennis than me, it is very important not to get confused with facts. safin is only 30, he was born 1980, he was actually active in federer's era, im not sure why you included him in sampras's era.
lendl was born in 1960, he is 11 years older than sampras, his LAST grand slam win was in 1990, but sampras's FIRST grand slam win was in 1990. again, im not sure why you include him in sampras's era.
do you see what i mean here, your logic is weird. just because sampras played safin, doesnt mean safin is in his era. i am guessing if i dont point this out, you would even include hewitt in sampras's era. federer had played sampras once in wimbledon, does that mean federer is in sampras's era as well?

michael chang has only won 1 grand slam, and made another 3 grand slam finals throughout his whole career. yet you rate him very highly. given your logic on this matter, why do you look down on players such as murray or djokovic or roddick? roddick at least was ranked no 1 in the world (highest ranking for chang was no 2), roddick has won 1 grand slam and was in another 4 grand slam finals. djokovic is ranked no 2 now, has won 1 grand slam and has been in another 2 grand slam finals and he is 23. i am not having a go at chang, i like him as a player and i believe a lot of chinese players look up to him. but do you see what i mean, your logic is very strange!!

"江山代有人才出，书读得太呆了吧？"  你书读得太呆了吧, 一个时代有两个杰出大师 (federer and nadal)，其成就称霸一时，令人仰慕, 和之前的网球大师不是一个时代，不能用"江山代有人才出"吗？

Hardyfarm

看好Andy Murray，比小德有出息

沉默需烈酒香烟

原帖由 Nocturnal 于 2010-9-14 15:47 发表


the basic error in your logic is this: the tennis players we are talking about are of 2 different eras, non of them have competed against each other at their peak, therefore, just because nadal or federer dominated their era, it does not prove that current players are playing at lower skill levels compared to sampras's era, it can only mean that federer and nadal are way above the rest in their era. This situation in sampras's era did not happen. Your statement can only be proven true if federer or nadal was in sampras's era and they did not dominate the sport, or if djokovic or murray was in sampras's era and they were easily beaten by the previous grand slam winners you have mentioned. since these scenario will never happen, there is no evidence to support your statement, hence the error in your logic.

put simply: if A>B and B>C then A>C. but if A cant be proven to be > B, and B>C, you cannot say A>C. understood?

also, while it is true that you have watched more tennis than me, it is very important not to get confused with facts. safin is only 30, he was born 1980, he was actually active in federer's era, im not sure why you included him in sampras's era.
lendl was born in 1960, he is 11 years older than sampras, his LAST grand slam win was in 1990, but sampras's FIRST grand slam win was in 1990. again, im not sure why you include him in sampras's era.
do you see what i mean here, your logic is weird. just because sampras played safin, doesnt mean safin is in his era. i am guessing if i dont point this out, you would even include hewitt in sampras's era. federer had played sampras once in wimbledon, does that mean federer is in sampras's era as well?

michael chang has only won 1 grand slam, and made another 3 grand slam finals throughout his whole career. yet you rate him very highly. given your logic on this matter, why do you look down on players such as murray or djokovic or roddick? roddick at least was ranked no 1 in the world (highest ranking for chang was no 2), roddick has won 1 grand slam and was in another 4 grand slam finals. djokovic is ranked no 2 now, has won 1 grand slam and has been in another 2 grand slam finals and he is 23. i am not having a go at chang, i like him as a player and i believe a lot of chinese players look up to him. but do you see what i mean, your logic is very strange!!

"江山代有人才出，书读得太呆了吧？"  你书读得太呆了吧, 一个时代有两个杰出大师 (federer and nadal)，其成就称霸一时，令人仰慕, 和之前的网球大师不是一个时代，不能用"江山代有人才出"吗？

谈逻辑的前提是有根有据，不知道你从我哪句话看到的djokovic 和 murray 如果在SAMPRAS时代会很容易被击败？靠想象和你不知所谓的”逻辑“？
你又哪里推出的我说现在的ATP水平下降是因为ROGER跟RAFA横扫天下？如果是这种逻辑，WTA世界第一轮流坐，我应该得出WTA水平上升的结论，可是我的结论是现在的ATP和WTA的整体水平都不如以前。明白？
你认为的时代是什么？交过手的就叫一代？没交过手的才能叫两代？不知道你有没有打过网球，一个时代说的不单纯是年龄，一个时代的竞技手段、场地、球拍工艺，明白？博格当年拿着木拍打天下，复出后拿着纤维、合金做成的球拍，只能满地找牙，你说他是哪个时代的？一个时代所涵内容不要只看年龄，如果只看年龄，SAFIN哪个时代不是，明白？
MICHAEL的确是只得过一个大满贯，但人家是十七岁还不到就拿到的，这跟你20大几了还没拿到一个或者只拿了一个不是一个概念，明白？谈逻辑先弄清楚别人在说什么先，别人在说A，你在谈论B，拜托

”江山代有人才出“，如果你明白这句跟“个中翘楚”的区别就不会这么说了

Hardyfarm

别吵架啊，呵呵，有话好好说

Nocturnal

looks like you just say things without running it through the logic part of your head.

firstly,  YOU said:  "FEDERER能拿16个大满贯，更多占的是ATP整体水平下降的光", "ATP整体水平下降是因为有竞争力的选手太少，也就这二年才蹦出个MURRAY,DJOKOVIC,还有那个DEL POTRO。既使这样，这三位加起来大满贯的数量也只不过才两块",  
i didnt say these things, and i didnt make these up.  just because nadal and federer is way above the rest in this era, is not proof that ATP players's level has dropped compared to previous eras, there is no way you can prove it. thats your basic logic error. I dont think you read english clearly and analyze the information well, so i recommend you to read what i have typed a few more times before you embarrass yourself.

as i have said, if murray, djokovic or other players in current era can compete in sampras's era, and they are not competitive, that means their level is lower than sampras's era, only in this case, can your statement be correct. only then it can be said that the current ATP players' level have dropped compared to previous era, thus nadal and federer can dominate current era. as this cannot be proven, therefore, your statement is wrong due to the logic error.
i have even simplied this logic to A>B, B>C, so A>C. but if A is not > B, B>C, then A is not >C. i really dont know what is stopping you from seeing this simple logic error of yours. maybe your MANY YEARS of knowledge in tennis is blocking your access to the logic side of your head.

secondly, why you always drag WTA into our discussion, please point out where i have disagreed with your statements on WTA? you are the one who is talking B when I am talking A. is this your way of trying to save face on your erroneous logic on the ATP side?

thirdly, it seems your MANY YEARS of knowledge in tennis is stripping you of common sense. let me say this again, lendl is 11 years older than sampras, his LAST grand slam win was in 1990  and sampras's FIRST grand slam win was in 1990. safin is 9 years younger than sampras, and federer is 10 years younger than sampras.  yet YOU said: "SAMPRAS拿十四块那是因为同时代有竞争力的选手相当多，先不说AGASSI了，还有BACKER、LENDL、SAFIN、COURIER、ZHANG".   

tennis is a sport where you run around all day and hit balls with force and precision. 10 years difference in age makes a huge difference for any sport. safin is only 1 year older than federer, yet you put him in sampras's era, in which safin is 9 years younger than sampras. dont throw at me all your MANY YEARS of knowledge when your common sense is not even right. YOU said "如果只看年龄，SAFIN哪个时代不是，明白？" who made you the boss of which era safin belongs to? i dont see logic or reason in what you say.

lastly, lets talk about michael chang, he had won his only grand slam at 17, thats a great achievement and record breaking. I respect him. but djokovic or murray or del potro is only 23-24, their career has just began. what is the meaning of YOUR statements "也就这二年才蹦出个MURRAY,DJOKOVIC,还有那个DEL POTRO。既使这样，这三位加起来大满贯的数量也只不过才两块", "MICHAEL的确是只得过一个大满贯，但人家是十七岁还不到就拿到的，这跟你20大几了还没拿到一个或者只拿了一个不是一个概念，明白？"
so now you are comparing an athlete who has completed life achievements to other few athletes whose career just began?!! Do you see why your logic is weird?!! you suppose to compare apples to apples. but im not too surprised now. this is probably why you made your first logic error anyway.

And whats with your attitude towards these young athletes? I think in tennis world, people measure success by the records broken or grand slams won, sure these young guys may not be able to break chang's age record, but they can still achieve grand slam success. no need for your level of disrespect.

this is my last post for this discussion as i realise it is impossible to get through to you. you make statements with no supporting evidence, your lack of basic logic is shocking, and you keep trying to drag the topic to WTA in which was never part of our discussion.

To save you from future embarrassment, despite your MANY YEARS of knowledge in tennis, next time, please take time to learn players' names properly. Its "Sampras", not "Samplus", its "Becker" not "Backer", its "Chang" not "Zhang". this is very basic, and this is basic respect. if people are really knowledgeable in chinese history, they wouldn't confuse "诸葛亮" with "猪哥靓".

沉默需烈酒香烟

原帖由 Nocturnal 于 2010-9-15 15:36 发表
looks like you just say things without running it through the logic part of your head.

firstly,  YOU said:  "FEDERER能拿16个大满贯，更多占的是ATP整体水平下降的光", "ATP整体水平下降是因为有竞争力的选手太少，也就这二年才蹦出个MURRAY,DJOKOVIC,还有那个DEL POTRO。既使这样，这三位加起来大满贯的数量也只不过才两块",  
i didnt say these things, and i didnt make these up.  just because nadal and federer is way above the rest in this era, is not proof that ATP players's level has dropped compared to previous eras, there is no way you can prove it. thats your basic logic error. I dont think you read english clearly and analyze the information well, so i recommend you to read what i have typed a few more times before you embarrass yourself.

as i have said, if murray, djokovic or other players in current era can compete in sampras's era, and they are not competitive, that means their level is lower than sampras's era, only in this case, can your statement be correct. only then it can be said that the current ATP players' level have dropped compared to previous era, thus nadal and federer can dominate current era. as this cannot be proven, therefore, your statement is wrong due to the logic error.
i have even simplied this logic to A>B, B>C, so A>C. but if A is not > B, B>C, then A is not >C. i really dont know what is stopping you from seeing this simple logic error of yours. maybe your MANY YEARS of knowledge in tennis is blocking your access to the logic side of your head.

secondly, why you always drag WTA into our discussion, please point out where i have disagreed with your statements on WTA? you are the one who is talking B when I am talking A. is this your way of trying to save face on your erroneous logic on the ATP side?

thirdly, it seems your MANY YEARS of knowledge in tennis is stripping you of common sense. let me say this again, lendl is 11 years older than sampras, his LAST grand slam win was in 1990  and sampras's FIRST grand slam win was in 1990. safin is 9 years younger than sampras, and federer is 10 years younger than sampras.  yet YOU said: "SAMPRAS拿十四块那是因为同时代有竞争力的选手相当多，先不说AGASSI了，还有BACKER、LENDL、SAFIN、COURIER、 ZHANG".   

tennis is a sport where you run around all day and hit balls with force and precision. 10 years difference in age makes a huge difference for any sport. safin is only 1 year older than federer, yet you put him in sampras's era, in which safin is 9 years younger than sampras. dont throw at me all your MANY YEARS of knowledge when your common sense is not even right. YOU said "如果只看年龄，SAFIN哪个时代不是，明白？" who made you the boss of which era safin belongs to? i dont see logic or reason in what you say.

lastly, lets talk about michael chang, he had won his only grand slam at 17, thats a great achievement and record breaking. I respect him. but djokovic or murray or del potro is only 23-24, their career has just began. what is the meaning of YOUR statements "也就这二年才蹦出个MURRAY,DJOKOVIC,还有那个DEL POTRO。既使这样，这三位加起来大满贯的数量也只不过才两块", "MICHAEL的确是只得过一个大满贯，但人家是十七岁还不到就拿到的，这跟你20大几了还没拿到一个或者只拿了一个不是一个概念，明白？"
so now you are comparing an athlete who has completed life achievements to other few athletes whose career just began?!! Do you see why your logic is weird?!! you suppose to compare apples to apples. but im not too surprised now. this is probably why you made your first logic error anyway.

And whats with your attitude towards these young athletes? I think in tennis world, people measure success by the records broken or grand slams won, sure these young guys may not be able to break chang's age record, but they can still achieve grand slam success. no need for your level of disrespect.

this is my last post for this discussion as i realise it is impossible to get through to you. you make statements with no supporting evidence, your lack of basic logic is shocking, and you keep trying to drag the topic to WTA in which was never part of our discussion.

To save you from future embarrassment, despite your MANY YEARS of knowledge in tennis, next time, please take time to learn players' names properly. Its "Sampras", not "Samplus", its "Becker" not "Backer", its "Chang" not "Zhang". this is very basic, and this is basic respect. if people are really knowledgeable in chinese history, they wouldn't confuse "诸葛亮" with "猪哥靓".

1.我的观点是FEDERER23岁拿到第一个大满贯起,区区几年时间就拿到16块大满贯金牌,一定程度上是沾了ATP竞争力下降水平比以前有缩水的光.你的逻辑难道是FEDERER横扫天下,就能证明这个时代比以前还要强吗?如果你不能证明,你又如何证明我的逻辑是错误的呢?反证需要也需要逻辑,也需要论证,我没见到你反证的东西,何谈反驳,大哥

2.既然你较真儿,那我也不妨罗嗦几句.本来第一个回贴只是点到为止,并没有展开.我判断ATP,WTA水平比以前下降看的是成绩,但不是唯成绩论,如果唯成绩论,我不会得出ATP WTA水平都下降的结论,因为ATP与WTA的成绩现状刚好恰恰相反.不知道你是不是学数学出身,你那A B C的所谓公式是一种数字判断,但网球不是数字判断,是一种模糊判断,网球的比较远比你那什么A B C远远要复杂得多,如果你以为拿个公式就能证明什么,那是书呆子作风.

3.我为什么不能把WTA扯进来?因为我原贴本来就提到ATP跟WTA水平都在下降,是你选择性无视,以你想象的逻辑证明我的推断是不正确的,但你想象的逻辑却只能推出我的ATP推断是错误的,如果去推WTA却又证明我是正确的.同一种逻辑,却是两种结果,是你选择性的只找"错误"的那个,我当然要提WTA,我用我的逻辑推出ATP WTA水平都在下降,但用你认为的我的逻辑却推不出,这只能说明你认为的我的逻辑是错的,是你主观揣测了一个错误的并非是我本意的逻辑,因为选择性无视只能是你自己打自己嘴巴.

4.我提MICHAEL的事,并不能证明我就认为他如何如何,不到十七岁拿到大满贯你当然可以说他没什么,你理解力如此差,我就多说几句:十七岁不到的优势是什么?年轻,有冲劲,能拼,能跑,如果你看过当年的比赛就应该知道,MICHAEL是靠跑动活活把LENDL拖死才拿下的大满贯,技术含量并不高.但我为什么要提这事,那是因为MICHAEL是SAMPRAS的竞争对手,说明SAMPRAS的竞争对手是多样花的,他要面对的是不同打法,不同类型的选手,反观现在的选手就单调得很,比如发上类型的球员,左右双反的男选手貌似几乎绝迹,明白?这只是一个例子,并不是我推祟MICHAEL,这是两种意思,你的逻辑真是奇怪的很,我举个例子就代表推祟某人?

5.我的确不能决定谁是哪个时代,因为时代的界限本来就模糊,但拜托我决定不了,不代表你就能决定得了,既然你决定不了,何谈我说的时代是错误的?兄弟

6.没错,我的确拼错了很多人名,但我相信我写储葛亮,没人会认为是猪哥靓,最起码你就不会,不知道我拼的哪个人的名字让你误会成了另外一位?就像我说你是SB,你非要说我在夸你,那我也无话可说,OK?能打汉字就别打英文,在中文论坛莫要装B,卖弄英文去白人论坛.明白?语言只是交流工具,就像我从不挑某些人中式英文的刺,因为语言能明白是怎么回事就行了,毕竟这不是语言课,没人会为语言而语言,脑袋可以指挥屁股,但这不妨碍有人屁股指挥脑袋,没影响到交流但却会挑你的人名拼写,这就是差距,这也是一个人思维的一个典型表现,孰高孰低,自己判断,问题是干嘛不去当语文老师啊,屈才

[ 本帖最后由 沉默需烈酒香烟 于 2010-9-15 20:23 编辑 ]

DEC

两位都是神辩手，每一个帖子放倒一个对..头。
强，学习了

steve25

干脆约个时间，出来网球场上单挑一把，输了的闭嘴请客～

t_guoguo

原帖由 PACIFIC 于 2010-9-12 18:24 发表
根本就不是一个级别的，ZVONAREVA象牛一样在底线跑来跑去救球，对手小克打得象闲庭信步。

已经冠军点了。

等纳豆血洗小德

看成了“美女决赛”