Official "sarcastic" US Open thread

[undertaker21]

In this thread, mental midget Sarcastic can talk about about tennis as he knows it to be where Federer is the 3rd best players of all time, Monica Seles is better than Steffi Graf, and the years 1991 and 1992 aren't considered "early 90s." I think we'd all prefer if you keep your tennis opinions in here, because they really have no place in the other thread. Thanks. :cheers:

Anyone second that?

[LJJ]

Yeah, what was he talking about again?

How Federer can't be the goat because Nadal dominated him on clay during his prime? Then he proceeds to claim Sampras is the greatestt even though Sampras was much worse on clay then Federer.

:facepalm

I don't mind people making an argument, but this is so inherently flawed.

[undertaker21]

^^ that's what i'm saying. Everyone has different opinions but his criteria for each different thing seems to change depending on what suits his argument and very little seems to be on the basis of facts.

[Sarcastic]

I never said Seles was better than Graf. I said Graf is number 2 GOAT behind Martina. I said the early 1990s are 1990-1993/4, which encompasses 1991 and 1992, so you are completely wrong about that.

I did rank Fed at 3 all time, so that you got right.

BTW thanks for dedicating an entire thread to me. If I could rep you I would, but I passed out too much recently. Cheers though
:cheers:

[bokes15]

:oldlol: I argued with him for a little while until I realized he had no idea what he was talking about and therefore there's no point. It kind of reminds me of what it was like arguing with Mathius about things he didn't know about.

[LJJ]

:oldlol: I argued with him for a little while until I realized he had no idea what he was talking about and therefore there's no point. It kind of reminds me of what it was like arguing with Mathius about things he didn't know about.

I enjoyed reading that thread though.

Sampras' era is tougher because of Edberg and Becker. :oldlol: These are gems.

[undertaker21]

I enjoyed reading that thread though.

Sampras' era is tougher because of Edberg and Becker. :oldlol: These are gems.
Yeah. :oldlol: Even though in the prime stretch for Pete Sampras (1995-2000) they were pretty much approaching the end of their career and not presenting nearly the same type of challenge they did in the late 80s and early 90s.

[Sarcastic]

I enjoyed reading that thread though.

Sampras' era is tougher because of Edberg and Becker. :oldlol: These are gems.

Not just those guys, but others as well.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me about the great players in this era besides Nadal and Federer. Maybe you can oblige.

[undertaker21]

Not just those guys, but others as well.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me about the great players in this era besides Nadal and Federer. Maybe you can oblige.
:oldlol: Nobody has done so because Becker and Lendl weren't even a part of Sampras' era. They overlapped, but Lendl is 11 years older than him and Becker won the vast majority of his titles in the late 80s and early 90s. Going by your criteria I might as well be saying that this era is greater because Federer had to contend with Agassi and Samprass.

[Sarcastic]

:oldlol: Nobody has done so because Becker and Lendl weren't even a part of Sampras' era. They overlapped, but Lendl is 11 years older than him and Becker won the vast majority of his titles in the late 80s and early 90s. Going by your criteria I might as well be saying that this era is greater because Federer had to contend with Agassi and Samprass.

I don't know why you are using Lendl's name. I never bring him up at all. I know his era is before Sampras.

But Becker was not. He continued to be a great player through the 1990s. His first title was at Wimbledon in 1985 at 17 years old. In the 1990s he was still in his mid 20s. He didn't hit 30 until 1997. He won the Aus Open in 1991 and 1996. He was still a major force at all the other tournaments too.

[undertaker21]

I guess we can pretty much add lying to your resume, if it wasn't bad enough already.



Besides Edberg, Becker, and Lendl, there were much better players in the 1990s than there are now.

BTW, Edberg and Becker were still capable of winning Majors in the 1990s and did so.

[Sarcastic]

I guess we can pretty much add lying to your resume, if it wasn't bad enough already.

Well Lendl was competitive until 1991-1992, right when Sampras was coming up. I bring him up more as a symbol of a stronger era than someone who really competed against Sampras.

[LJJ]

Not just those guys, but others as well.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me about the great players in this era besides Nadal and Federer. Maybe you can oblige.

Very much a chicken or the egg argument there. Not a whole lot of room for other greats to profile themselves when a prime Federer barely leaves anything on the table. And then there is Nadal right after Federer, very much on his way himself to reaching that same status.

If you look at the guys Sampras beat in the finals, though, it's not more impressive than Federer's. There is Agassi, but do you really think guys like Michael Chang, Ivanisevic and Pioline are better than guys like Roddick, Djokovic or Hewitt?

I don't see it.

[boozehound]

Boy, tennis is awesome! I cant watch enough of it!

Sarcastic enough for ya?

[boozehound]

oh noes! I got negged for this? You big meanie!

[Sarcastic]

Very much a chicken or the egg argument there. Not a whole lot of room for other greats to profile themselves when a prime Federer barely leaves anything on the table. And then there is Nadal right after Federer, very much on his way himself to reaching that same status.

If you look at the guys Sampras beat in the finals, though, it's not more impressive than Federer's. There is Agassi, but do you really think guys like Michael Chang, Ivanisevic and Pioline are better than guys like Roddick, Djokovic or Hewitt?

I don't see it.

Courier, prime Agassi, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Stich, Becker, and Muster were all better than Roddick, Djoker, and Hewitt.

All three of those guys are total head cases, and completely lose it in the tough moments. Aside from them, there is no one else in this era even worth mentioning. That is why this era is so weak.

[bokes15]

Courier, prime Agassi, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Stich, Becker, and Muster were all better than Roddick, Djoker, and Hewitt.

All three of those guys are total head cases, and completely lose it in the tough moments. Aside from them, there is no one else in this era even worth mentioning. That is why this era is so weak.
And i'd venture to say that Nadal when it's all said and done is going to be a better player than Agassi, so both players can't be discounted individually.

[Sarcastic]

And i'd venture to say that Nadal when it's all said and done is going to be a better player than Agassi, so both players can't be discounted individually.

Nadal and Federer are better than all those guys, yes. I am not arguing against them. They both will finish top 5 all time. After them, there is nothing else though.

[boozehound]

Nadal and Federer are better than all those guys, yes. I am not arguing against them. They both will finish top 5 all time. After them, there is nothing else though.
clearly you have never seen me play tennis.

[LJJ]

Courier, prime Agassi, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Stich, Becker, and Muster were all better than Roddick, Djoker, and Hewitt.

All three of those guys are total head cases, and completely lose it in the tough moments. Aside from them, there is no one else in this era even worth mentioning. That is why this era is so weak.

Courier was a beast for about three years, only relevant for maybe one year of Sampras' reign. Becker as a shell of his former self during Sampras' prime.

All of the other guys you mentioned (save Agassi) don't even remotely have the resume's to back you up.

The more you argue the less I see it. These were the giants during Sampras' prime that made his era so much stronger than Federer's era? Thomas Muster? Really?

[bokes15]

Nadal and Federer are better than all those guys, yes. I am not arguing against them. They both will finish top 5 all time. After them, there is nothing else though.
So you call guys like Djokovic, Murray, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin as nobody while you list guys like out of prime Becker, one title winning Muster, 2 time champ Kafelnikov, Stich who only won once and in 91, etc etc... Based on the people you've given as examples i'd say it's fairly even.

[Sarcastic]

Becker was not a shell, nor out of prime. He was in his mid 20s in the 1990s. He didn't hit 30 until 1997. Kafelnikov and Muster both were ranked number 1. Stich was a great player who got up as high as the number 2 in the world, and was always a force at Wimbledon.

Roddick, Djoker, and Hewitt have been some of the most inconsistent players of all time. All three have absolutely great games, but don't have the mental strength nor dedication to keep it up.

[bokes15]

Becker was not a shell, nor out of prime. He was in his mid 20s in the 1990s. He didn't hit 30 until 1997. Kafelnikov and Muster both were ranked number 1. Stich was a great player who got up as high as the number 2 in the world, and was always a force at Wimbledon.

Roddick, Djoker, and Hewitt have been some of the most inconsistent players of all time. All three have absolutely great games, but don't have the mental strength nor dedication to keep it up.
Sampras won the majority of his titles between 1995 and 2000. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Becker won 5 of his 6 slam titles between 1985-91, also not a opinion.

[bdreason]

Please continue this argument in this thread, not in the U.S. Open thread.

[Sarcastic]

Sampras won the majority of his titles between 1995 and 2000. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Becker won 5 of his 6 slam titles between 1985-91, also not a opinion.

That doesn't mean he wasn't competitive during that time. He was still making appearances in finals, and semi finals during that time, unlike guys like Hewitt and Roddick who are already out of the US Open this year in the first week.

[bokes15]

That doesn't mean he wasn't competitive during that time. He was still making appearances in finals, and semi finals during that time, unlike guys like Hewitt and Roddick who are already out of the US Open this year in the first week.
Hewitt's career was derailed by injuries, but in his prime he was one of the best counter punchers in the game. Roddick has been pretty consistent his entire career and has regularly found himself in the top 10 year after year making quarters, semi's, and finals, with the occasional early exit. But of course if you're judging his entire career based on his play after his epic loss to Federer at Wimbledon 09 then I would be able to see how that comment is justified.

[LJJ]

That doesn't mean he wasn't competitive during that time. He was still making appearances in finals, and semi finals during that time, unlike guys like Hewitt and Roddick who are already out of the US Open this year in the first week.

Dude, before you start posting more I have some vital information for you:

These days resources are readily available. There are these geeks who put all this data on a site called wikipedia. We can fact check what you say in about 1,27 seconds.

Just sayin'. Before you start spouting more random shit that can't be backed up.

[undertaker21]

Dude, before you start posting more I have some vital information for you:

These days resources are readily available. There are these geeks who put all this data on a site called wikipedia. We can fact check what you say in about 1,27 seconds.

Just sayin'. Before you start spouting more random shit that can't be backed up.
:roll: I know right? I've checked up on a TON of shit that he pulled out of his ass and found it to be false or made up. It's just getting pathetic at this point that he won't give it up. :ohwell:

[Sarcastic]

Hewitt's career was derailed by injuries, but in his prime he was one of the best counter punchers in the game. Roddick has been pretty consistent his entire career and has regularly found himself in the top 10 year after year making quarters, semi's, and finals, with the occasional early exit. But of course if you're judging his entire career based on his play after his epic loss to Federer at Wimbledon 09 then I would be able to see how that comment is justified.

Roddick has lost early at Wimbledon 5 times in 10 years, in a tournament he should do very well at. At the US Open, other than winning it in 2003 before Fed took off, he has not gotten past the quarter finals. At the Aus Open, he has made 4 semis, but also lost early on about 3 times too. Never made a final there. I won't even list the French Open.

Hewitt was really good in 2001 and 2002, but since then really hasn't been much of a factor in anything else. He has made a final here and there, but there has been almost no consistency from him.

[Sarcastic]

Dude, before you start posting more I have some vital information for you:

These days resources are readily available. There are these geeks who put all this data on a site called wikipedia. We can fact check what you say in about 1,27 seconds.

Just sayin'. Before you start spouting more random shit that can't be backed up.

Everything I said is completely backed up by fact. I didn't say he won some shit like the Mars Open or something.

Becker was ranked in the top 6 in 1996, and top 3 in 1995. He was still a factor.

[undertaker21]

I think we should just tell him "you're right" and hope that it makes him go away.

[Sarcastic]

:roll: I know right? I've checked up on a TON of shit that he pulled out of his ass and found it to be false or made up. It's just getting pathetic at this point that he won't give it up. :ohwell:

Please give me an example of a fact that I got wrong.

[Sarcastic]

I think we should just tell him "you're right" and hope that it makes him go away.

You can continue to argue, or go away. I could care less. But remember, you are the one that made this thread.

[undertaker21]

You can continue to argue, or go away. I could care less. But remember, you are the one that made this thread.
Nope. You are absolutely right about everything. Nothing you said is wrong, unfactual, or retarded. Have a great day! :cheers:

[Sarcastic]

Nope. You are absolutely right about everything. Nothing you said is wrong, unfactual, or retarded. Have a great day! :cheers:

Ok bye. Have a good day. Just leave me without letting me know of the facts that I got wrong. I won't be sad.

[Sarcastic]

Here is the list of the players both Sampras and Federer have played in a Grand Slam Finals. The first parenthesis is total slams won, and the second one is highest ranking achieved.

Sampras Opponents
1. Todd Martin (0) [4]
2. Carlos Moya (1) [1]
3. Jim Courier (4) [1]
4. Goran Ivanisevic (1) [2]
5. Boris Becker (6) [1]
6. C

[Lebron23]

The guy always loves talking out of his @$$. I don't think a normal person would like to start a conversation with this guy.