Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Russia banned from all competitions for 4 years!
If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all EmptyToday at 4:25 pm by noleisthebest

» Some humour for this forum
If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all EmptyFri Nov 29, 2019 6:51 pm by naxroy

» Generation Worthless
If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all EmptySun Nov 24, 2019 10:43 pm by BEL19VE

» World Tour Final - London 2019
If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all EmptySun Nov 24, 2019 12:23 am by naxroy

» Will Nadal ever win a Tour Finals title?
If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all EmptySat Nov 16, 2019 2:34 am by summerblues

» When cupcake draws can't save you
If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all EmptyFri Nov 15, 2019 10:16 pm by Daniel2

» General Election 2019: Advice
If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all EmptyFri Nov 15, 2019 7:01 pm by bogbrush

» Fall 2019 tournaments
If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all EmptyFri Nov 15, 2019 2:16 pm by legendkillar

» Has Rafa asked Fed to his nuptials, and would Fed go if asked?
If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all EmptyFri Oct 18, 2019 6:11 pm by barrystar

December 2019
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Calendar Calendar

Affiliates
free forum


If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by BEL19VE on Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:30 pm

So many times I see people on this forum especially on this.

People have a theory, that they are set on believing. Then whatever happens, whichever way it has turned out, it is conveniently construed as evidence for the theory you believe in.
Either that, or you only talk about your theory when you believe the outcome at that particular point in time helps your case

Examples:

'Nadal plays well for a sustained period of time'-
This shows Nadal is doping as doping technologies have now improved so you can either cycle up for a long period of time, or don't have to cycle down for very long.
'Nadal plays well for a short period of time, and can't sustain it'-
This shows Nadal is doping as he was clearly cycling up for the short period of time, and then needed to cycle down or the doping in the long run would no longer be effective if he didn't.

'Nadal misses Olympics 2012'-
This shows Nadal is doping as the Olympics has harsher testing which is why he didn't take the risk
'Nadal misses tournaments even after Olympics 2012'-
Ignore what I said earlier (about the harsher testing), this shows that Nadal is doping as he's received a silent ban

'Nadal gets an easy draw'-
This shows the ATP is corrupt and trying to help Nadal in every way they can.
'Nadal gets a tough draw'-
Let's not talk about the draw.

'If Nadal retired when he was 25'
This shows Nadal is doping as he's putting so much physical effort on his body it can't last
'When Nadal didn't retire and went on to dominate even in 2013'
This shows Nadal is doping as he's using science to elongate his career


As the title says, if someone's mind is set so that whatever the outcome they will always find a way for it to back up their theory; the whole argument is extremely unreliable and flawed.
Theories have to be responsive to evidence and put under scrutiny, rather than having evidence warped to try and fit the theory.

BEL19VE

Posts : 5417
Join date : 2013-05-03

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by noleisthebest on Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:42 pm

Kim Jong-Un wrote:
People have a theory, that they are set on believing. Then whatever happens, whichever way it has turned out, it is conveniently construed as evidence for the theory you believe in.
Either that, or you only talk about your theory when you believe the outcome at that particular point in time helps your case.
......
As the title says, if someone's mind is set so that whatever the outcome they will always find a way for it to back up their theory; the whole argument is extremely unreliable and flawed.
Theories have to be responsive to evidence and put under scrutiny, rather than having evidence warped to try and fit the theory.

I don't know whether you realise it, but these two paragraphs describe you perfectly.

I don't think anyone here has any theories.
We are just following our favourite sport sharing observations along the way. Agreeing and disagreeing is part of us being different.


It can be very enjoyable, heated, funny, even silly...but it should never, ever be so serious Winking

noleisthebest

Posts : 27761
Join date : 2012-06-18

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Tenez on Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:01 pm

Yes, your theories that Nadal is talented and is no cheat yet failed to demo them so far.

Tenez

Posts : 20363
Join date : 2012-06-18

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by truffin1 on Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:39 pm

I think I see what everyone else is seeing Amri--  your description fits you to a T.    You honestly can't see that you yourself are guilty of these same behaviors?     Of course, we all fit things into whatever box we want them to be-- in all aspects of life.  That's human nature. Any fan of any sport, team, athlete is going to have some hypocricy or twisting to fit into what he/she wants to see.

What's comical and makes it not even worth discussing is that you can claim those with negative opinions of Nadal do this, but you won't/can't admit you yourself do it just as much.. just from a different angle.

An example that you use where you don't even understand both can be correct.

'Nadal plays well for a sustained period of time'-
This shows Nadal is doping as doping technologies have now improved so you can either cycle up for a long period of time, or don't have to cycle down for very long.
'Nadal plays well for a short period of time, and can't sustain it'-
This shows Nadal is doping as he was clearly cycling up for the short period of time, and then needed to cycle down or the doping in the long run would no longer be effective if he didn't.


The reality of Nadal's career is he for the majority of years he "plays well for a short period of time, and can't sustain it"   Yes, this does show the cycling up and down of classic athlete dopers.  It's been a clear pattern.. so that is a correct theory and observation if someone wants to use it.

At the same time, Nadal has basically had two spurts of sustained play and dominance over multiple surfaces. This also can be that he decided in order to get the monkey off his back and show he could do it- that he doped without properly cycling down and/or his doctors felt that technology (which we know it has progressed) had gotten to the point he could dope without the normal down cycles.    What happened though?  His body broke down after each spurt-  which can be seen as the damage that the doping did without being properly used.

So there is no contradiction if people say both things.   Nadal can dope as little or as often as he wants- and it will create different outcomes.  If we see him going up and down - knowing he is a doper- we can accurately say he's cycling up and down.   IF suddenly he starts winning for longer than normal-  knowing he is a doper- the obvious conclusion is he decided to forgo the usual down cycles in order to win more.

truffin1

Posts : 861
Join date : 2012-10-13

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by BEL19VE on Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:56 pm

The thing is Truffin, these patterns could also be explained by Nadal not being a doper.
As soon as you start looking at the evidence saying 'ah this period doesn't fit my normal theory, so we'll say the technology changed exactly to fit the pattern.'

So then whatever Nadal does, you can change your argument to 'the science technology changed to fit this pattern'.

BEL19VE

Posts : 5417
Join date : 2013-05-03

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by noleisthebest on Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:08 pm

Kim Jong-Un wrote:The thing is Truffin, these patterns could also be explained by Nadal not being a doper.
As soon as you start looking at the evidence saying 'ah this period doesn't fit my normal theory, so we'll say the technology changed exactly to fit the pattern.'

So then whatever Nadal does, you can change your argument to 'the science technology changed to fit this pattern'.  
Not quite. Nadal's energy highly inefficient ball-striking would be impossible without dope.
If it is exhausting for his opposition to cope with, then how much more exhausting it is for him to generate that extra spin over and over, hour after hour from far behind the base-line often having to run balls to far corners and all over the court.




noleisthebest

Posts : 27761
Join date : 2012-06-18

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by truffin1 on Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:16 pm

Kim Jong-Un wrote:The thing is Truffin, these patterns could also be explained by Nadal not being a doper.
As soon as you start looking at the evidence saying 'ah this period doesn't fit my normal theory, so we'll say the technology changed exactly to fit the pattern.'

So then whatever Nadal does, you can change your argument to 'the science technology changed to fit this pattern'.  

Yes, just like you look at the evidence of whatever and try to fit it into what you want to believe.

That's the point everyone is trying to make to you-- it's comical you can post about how everyone looks at  the evidence to fit into their "hate Nadal" angle, while you yourself look at the evidence to fit into your "love Nadal" angle.    You are just as guilty.

truffin1

Posts : 861
Join date : 2012-10-13

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by BEL19VE on Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:02 pm

Where have I made this same mistake of having all possible outcomes as evidence for one particular theory ?

BEL19VE

Posts : 5417
Join date : 2013-05-03

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by BEL19VE on Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:04 pm

I am 'guilty' of being a Nadal fan- but I can't recall every falling into this fallacy/trap.

And even if I, or any other Nadal fan, has; two wrongs don't make a right.

BEL19VE

Posts : 5417
Join date : 2013-05-03

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Tenez on Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:07 am

Kim what is the difference between you and a Lance fan? Really? It's not clear to me.

They went on and on about how clean he was.


Tenez

Posts : 20363
Join date : 2012-06-18

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Aut0Gr4ph on Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:12 am

truffin1 wrote:
Kim Jong-Un wrote:The thing is Truffin, these patterns could also be explained by Nadal not being a doper.
As soon as you start looking at the evidence saying 'ah this period doesn't fit my normal theory, so we'll say the technology changed exactly to fit the pattern.'

So then whatever Nadal does, you can change your argument to 'the science technology changed to fit this pattern'.  

Yes, just like you look at the evidence of whatever and try to fit it into what you want to believe.

That's the point everyone is trying to make to you-- it's comical you can post about how everyone looks at  the evidence to fit into their "hate Nadal" angle, while you yourself look at the evidence to fit into your "love Nadal" angle.    You are just as guilty.

I don't think you're being entirely fair on Kim truffin. Clearly, as a Nadal fan, he has a pro-Nadal bias. That is to be expected. But to put him in the same league as the majority of the Federer faithful on this forum is, I think, a mistake.

Before I get written off as a love struck Rafa acolyte, I should point out that I massively prefer Roger's style of play and, although I don't really believe in GOAT labels, if pushed, my vote would definitely go to Roger. However, the anti-Nadal rhetoric that is spouted on this forum is beyond a joke and, as a more reasoned poster, I'm surprised you can't see that.

Frankly, the idea that Nadal is just a talentless hack, who only succeeds because he's doping, is laughable in the extreme. In fact, the very suggestion is an insult to Federer. Sure, tennis has become more physical in recent times, but, ultimately, it's still a game of incredible skill. Do you really believe that talent has become such a useless currency in the sport that someone as supremely talented as Federer can be dominated in H2H just because the other guy has the physical edge? If Nadal has no talent, why can't others reproduce his style of play as successfully as him? Shouldn't there be masses of Nadal clones nipping at his heels by now? If it's not some measure of talent, what is it that sets him apart from the pack?

Personally, I think the biggest mistake made by the anti-Nadal brigade on this forum is confusing aesthetics with talent. It's totally understandable that some people find an attacking style more pleasing on the eye, but the idea that more naturally defensive players are automatically less talented is, in my opinion, utter unsubstantiated tosh.

Aut0Gr4ph

Posts : 66
Join date : 2015-01-08
Age : 38
Location : UK

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Aut0Gr4ph on Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:24 am

Tenez wrote:Kim what is the difference between you and a Lance fan? Really? It's not clear to me.

They went on and on about how clean he was.

And what is the difference between you and the archetypal Internet conspiracy theorist who thinks the moon landings were faked or 9/11 was an inside job or the earth is flat and so on? Sure, their ideas are probably a bit wackier than yours, but, ultimately, aren't you just another keyboard warrior that clings steadfastly to a belief without a shred of actual evidence to support it?

Aut0Gr4ph

Posts : 66
Join date : 2015-01-08
Age : 38
Location : UK

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Aut0Gr4ph on Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:33 am

And no, the fact that Lance Armstrong had fans and that these fans did not believe he was doping until he was exposed is not proof that Nadal is doping.

Aut0Gr4ph

Posts : 66
Join date : 2015-01-08
Age : 38
Location : UK

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by noleisthebest on Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:11 am

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:
I don't think you're being entirely fair on Kim truffin. Clearly, as a Nadal fan, he has a pro-Nadal bias. That is to be expected. But to put him in the same league as the majority of the Federer faithful on this forum is, I think, a mistake.

Before I get written off as a love struck Rafa acolyte, I should point out that I massively prefer Roger's style of play and, although I don't really believe in GOAT labels, if pushed, my vote would definitely go to Roger. However, the anti-Nadal rhetoric that is spouted on this forum is beyond a joke and, as a more reasoned poster, I'm surprised you can't see that.

Frankly, the idea that Nadal is just a talentless hack, who only succeeds because he's doping, is laughable in the extreme. In fact, the very suggestion is an insult to Federer. Sure, tennis has become more physical in recent times, but, ultimately, it's still a game of incredible skill. Do you really believe that talent has become such a useless currency in the sport that someone as supremely talented as Federer can be dominated in H2H just because the other guy has the physical edge? If Nadal has no talent, why can't others reproduce his style of play as successfully as him? Shouldn't there be masses of Nadal clones nipping at his heels by now? If it's not some measure of talent, what is it that sets him apart from the pack?

[b[Personally, I think the biggest mistake made by the anti-Nadal brigade on this forum is confusing aesthetics with talent. [/b]It's totally understandable that some people find an attacking style more pleasing on the eye, but the idea that more naturally defensive players are automatically less talented is, in my opinion, utter unsubstantiated tosh.

Welcome to OTF, Autograph.

I can reassure you we do not confuse talent with aesthetics, though talent (high level of hand to eye coordination) generally results in effortless, sweat-free, aesthetic tennis.

I think the mistake lies in confusing success with talent and fans' unwillingness to accept it.

I perfectly understand Kimmy's liking of Nadal. There are millions of Kimmies around the world.
They love the fighting spirit etc.
But please let's not call his sweaty efforts talent because it's not. And it's not the end of the world that it's not.

I tried to explain that point of view in a longish post on the OTF's GOAT debate thread last night.

noleisthebest

Posts : 27761
Join date : 2012-06-18

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by BEL19VE on Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:21 pm

Autograph, welcome to the forum ! Thumbs Up

If I may ask, how did you find this forum ? smiley You seem to have followed us here quite a while, and glad you've joined, but I always wonder how new people find us! It's difficult on google, and it's not hugely advertised.


As for what you say, thanks.
Look I may be a Nadal fan, but when I argue something I try and see whether it is logical, rational, and reasonable. If not I know I'm likely to be beaten in debates (especially on here as there aren't many people to back me up...), so I make special care to only argue something if I'm sure it's accurate.

noleisthebest wrote:There are millions of Kimmies around the world.
They love the fighting spirit etc.
No. There's only one leader of North Korea. There's only one Kim Jong-Un.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30311763

BEL19VE

Posts : 5417
Join date : 2013-05-03

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Tenez on Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:49 pm

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:
Tenez wrote:Kim what is the difference between you and a Lance fan? Really? It's not clear to me.

They went on and on about how clean he was.

And what is the difference between you and the archetypal Internet conspiracy theorist who thinks the moon landings were faked or 9/11 was an inside job or the earth is flat and so on? Sure, their ideas are probably a bit wackier than yours, but, ultimately, aren't you just another keyboard warrior that clings steadfastly to a belief without a shred of actual evidence to support it?
Sure I also was an archetypal Lance A cheating internet conspiracy theorist. What were you then? An archetypal gullible, credulous turkey we can stuff at will for fear of being labelled a "conspirator"?

Tenez

Posts : 20363
Join date : 2012-06-18

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by noleisthebest on Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:45 pm

Btw, what's wrong with being a conspirationist?
I've always thought it's cool & healthy to think outside the box and refuse media brainwash.

noleisthebest

Posts : 27761
Join date : 2012-06-18

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Aut0Gr4ph on Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:22 pm

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Autograph, welcome to the forum !   Thumbs Up

If I may ask, how did you find this forum ? smiley You seem to have followed us here quite a while, and glad you've joined, but I always wonder how new people find us! It's difficult on google, and it's not hugely advertised.

Thanks Kim. You're right about me following the forum for a while. I'm an inveterate lurker I'm afraid, although I am trying to reform. It was quite a roundabout route to OTF. First 606, then MTL, then 606v2 and now here as well. I arrived on v2 after the whole Tenez/NITB Nadal doping controversy, but the legend lived on and I came here out of curiousity. You're right about it not being that easy to find.

As I said, I'm not much of a contributor, so you probably wouldn't recognise me from my posting history. I tend to only post when I get particularly riled and, perhaps ironically, the only poster who has managed to do that on v2 is Hawkeye. I will try to do better in future.

Aut0Gr4ph

Posts : 66
Join date : 2015-01-08
Age : 38
Location : UK

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by BEL19VE on Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:24 pm

Riskysports ?

BEL19VE

Posts : 5417
Join date : 2013-05-03

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Aut0Gr4ph on Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:23 pm

Tenez wrote:
Aut0Gr4ph wrote:
Tenez wrote:Kim what is the difference between you and a Lance fan? Really? It's not clear to me.

They went on and on about how clean he was.

And what is the difference between you and the archetypal Internet conspiracy theorist who thinks the moon landings were faked or 9/11 was an inside job or the earth is flat and so on? Sure, their ideas are probably a bit wackier than yours, but, ultimately, aren't you just another keyboard warrior that clings steadfastly to a belief without a shred of actual evidence to support it?
Sure I also was an archetypal Lance A cheating internet conspiracy theorist. What were you then? An arche
typal gullible, credulous turkey we can stuff at will for fear of being labelled a "conspirator"?
Firstly, apologies for the tone of my post last night. I was suffering a bout of insomnia and I fear I got a bit carried away in my sleep deprived state. I've followed the forum for a while and do recognise that you are a very knowledgeable poster (certainly much more knowledgeable than me!). What I object to is the constant denigration of Nadal, which, let's face it, on this forum is almost of cultish proportions.

On the Lance Armstrong point, by reaching the pinnacle of his sport, Lance did, of course, attract legions of fans and, naturally, these fans were reluctant to accept their idol was a cheat. However, this has absolutely no bearing on whether Nadal dopes or not. Tennis and cycling are totally different sports and, thus, the balance of risk and reward from doping is not in any way comparable. Just because doping was/is widespread in cycling, it does not necessarily follow that tennis will have the same problem.

I agree that, as a Nadal fan, Kim is unlikely to have a totally objective viewpoint on whether Nadal dopes or not, but let's not pretend that others on OTF are any different. I suspect that a lot of the fervent anti-Nadal sentiment on OTF is fuelled by Nadal's dominating H2H against Fed, which, in some eyes (but not mine!), risks tarnishing his GOAT legacy. I wonder if, had Nadal been right-handed and this change in the match-up resulted in the H2H being reversed, those same Fed fans that spit bile at Nadal would instead have celebrated him as a great champion and rival, just not quite good enough for old Rog. Of course, I can never prove that, but that's my theory.

Aut0Gr4ph

Posts : 66
Join date : 2015-01-08
Age : 38
Location : UK

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Aut0Gr4ph on Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:07 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Aut0Gr4ph wrote:
I don't think you're being entirely fair on Kim truffin. Clearly, as a Nadal fan, he has a pro-Nadal bias. That is to be expected. But to put him in the same league as the majority of the Federer faithful on this forum is, I think, a mistake.

Before I get written off as a love struck Rafa acolyte, I should point out that I massively prefer Roger's style of play and, although I don't really believe in GOAT labels, if pushed, my vote would definitely go to Roger. However, the anti-Nadal rhetoric that is spouted on this forum is beyond a joke and, as a more reasoned poster, I'm surprised you can't see that.

Frankly, the idea that Nadal is just a talentless hack, who only succeeds because he's doping, is laughable in the extreme. In fact, the very suggestion is an insult to Federer. Sure, tennis has become more physical in recent times, but, ultimately, it's still a game of incredible skill. Do you really believe that talent has become such a useless currency in the sport that someone as supremely talented as Federer can be dominated in H2H just because the other guy has the physical edge? If Nadal has no talent, why can't others reproduce his style of play as successfully as him? Shouldn't there be masses of Nadal clones nipping at his heels by now? If it's not some measure of talent, what is it that sets him apart from the pack?

[b[Personally, I think the biggest mistake made by the anti-Nadal brigade on this forum is confusing aesthetics with talent. [/b]It's totally understandable that some people find an attacking style more pleasing on the eye, but the idea that more naturally defensive players are automatically less talented is, in my opinion, utter unsubstantiated tosh.

Welcome to OTF, Autograph.

I can reassure you we do not confuse talent with aesthetics, though talent (high level of hand to eye coordination) generally results in effortless, sweat-free, aesthetic tennis.

I think the mistake lies in confusing success with talent and fans' unwillingness to accept it.

I perfectly understand Kimmy's liking of Nadal. There are millions of Kimmies around the world.
They love the fighting spirit etc.
But please let's not call his sweaty efforts talent because it's not. And it's not the end of the world that it's not.

I tried to explain that point of view in a longish post on the OTF's GOAT debate thread last night.
Thanks also for the welcome NITB. I certainly don't agree with all your views, but I do respect the openness of this forum that you've helped to create. On v2, there is tendency for hysteria and a lot of posters seem too precious to handle good old fashioned debate. The unfortunate result is heavy-handed moderation and the strangling of debate, which I don't appreciate much.

The question of talent is an interesting one. It is a nebulous concept that can be hard to pin down. However, my view of talent is that it can manifest itself in many ways and your definition seems way too narrow for me. I also think you're kidding yourself if you think that Nadal does not have excellent hand-eye coordination. His ability to pull off incredible counter-punching shots consistently when under pressure speaks for that.

Sure, Nadal has been helped during his career by the general slowing of conditions, which better suits his natural playing style. However, I don't see how the abilities needed to thrive in fast conditions are necessarily superior to those needed to thrive in slower conditions. Is Krajicek automatically more talented than Ferrero because he won Wimbledon instead of the French?

Ultimately, I guess talent, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder. So, who am I to argue with your take on it? However, from my perspective, I think the speed of Nadal's rise to the top is highly suggestive of an exceptional talent (unless you want to argue that the quality of opposition around the time he burst onto the scene wasn't up to much, which as a Fed fan is probably not a road you want to go down!).

Aut0Gr4ph

Posts : 66
Join date : 2015-01-08
Age : 38
Location : UK

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by BEL19VE on Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:09 pm

I post on 606v2 as well.

BEL19VE

Posts : 5417
Join date : 2013-05-03

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Tenez on Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:36 pm

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Firstly, apologies for the tone of my post last night*. I was suffering a bout of insomnia and I fear I got a bit carried away in my sleep deprived state. I've followed the forum for a while and do recognise that you are a very knowledgeable poster (certainly much more knowledgeable than me!)**. What I object to is the constant denigration of Nadal, which, let's face it, on this forum is almost of cultish proportions.
* - Accepted.
** - Clearly you know how to talk to me! Winking
The denigration of Nadal is for me funded and not hysterical. he is as fair a player to federer as a powerful chess computer is to Kasparov. because I know a bit about tennis I know why nadal wins....and loses....when most fans simply see 2 players on the court. However I agree it can get emotional at timee...but seeing the way he was trying to abuse gamesmanship in that last game v Berrer really infuriates me as this is something that characterised this player.....a player may I remind you who has violated the time rule after every single point of his career almost. Again, most fans see simply an OCD while others see clear gamesmanship.  


On the Lance Armstrong point, by reaching the pinnacle of his sport, Lance did, of course, attract legions of fans and, naturally, these fans were reluctant to accept their idol was a cheat. However, this has absolutely no bearing on whether Nadal dopes or not. Tennis and cycling are totally different sports and, thus, the balance of risk and reward from doping is not in any way comparable. Just because doping was/is widespread in cycling, it does not necessarily follow that tennis will have the same problem.
Too easy and wrong a response. Nadal is not LA but sport is sport and human nature is human nature regardless the sport. Sure in itself it is no proof but we are in 2015 and there is no secret nowadays for those producing "extra" ordinary feats. Nadal's game is based on fitness, therefore we know very well how to improve fitness in our day and age. All athletes know. where I agree OTF might be unfair is that we concentrate on Nadal more than all the other cheating players. I guess this can be explained by the fact he pushed the bar higher first and again abused the time rule to maximise his excess of red cells (If you have been reading OTF, you know the correlation between red cells and taking extra time between points).

I agree that, as a Nadal fan, Kim is unlikely to have a totally objective viewpoint on whether Nadal dopes or not, but let's not pretend that others on OTF are any different. I suspect that a lot of the fervent anti-Nadal sentiment on OTF is fuelled by Nadal's dominating H2H against Fed, which, in some eyes (but not mine!), risks tarnishing his GOAT legacy. I wonder if, had Nadal been right-handed and this change in the match-up resulted in the H2H being reversed, those same Fed fans that spit bile at Nadal would instead have celebrated him as a great champion and rival, just not quite good enough for old Rog. Of course, I can never prove that, but that's my theory.
Don;t worry about Kim. he is free to come and go and we don;t ban people here for liking or disliking players, we like to think we are a bit more mature than that.

Good point about Nadal's H2H but the pain essentially comes from the fact that money in the sport has helped Nadal achieve that H2H and not natural skills. When Nadal was only able to be a force on clay, they managed to slow all the other tournaments to cash in on the Fedal rivalry. they slowed the USO and Wimbledon to the point that retrievers were simply unstoppable there when before one had to be a shot maker to win those tournaments with the names of the greatest attackers of the sport engraved on the trophies.

However I am not concerned by the H2H, I watch tennis and can separate what is skills and what is brawn. I know that over time, nadal's fame will fade as it is likely his "secrets" will come out.

Tenez

Posts : 20363
Join date : 2012-06-18

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by truffin1 on Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:37 pm

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:
truffin1 wrote:
Kim Jong-Un wrote:The thing is Truffin, these patterns could also be explained by Nadal not being a doper.
As soon as you start looking at the evidence saying 'ah this period doesn't fit my normal theory, so we'll say the technology changed exactly to fit the pattern.'

So then whatever Nadal does, you can change your argument to 'the science technology changed to fit this pattern'.  

Yes, just like you look at the evidence of whatever and try to fit it into what you want to believe.

That's the point everyone is trying to make to you-- it's comical you can post about how everyone looks at  the evidence to fit into their "hate Nadal" angle, while you yourself look at the evidence to fit into your "love Nadal" angle.    You are just as guilty.

I don't think you're being entirely fair on Kim truffin. Clearly, as a Nadal fan, he has a pro-Nadal bias. That is to be expected. But to put him in the same league as the majority of the Federer faithful on this forum is, I think, a mistake.

Before I get written off as a love struck Rafa acolyte, I should point out that I massively prefer Roger's style of play and, although I don't really believe in GOAT labels, if pushed, my vote would definitely go to Roger. However, the anti-Nadal rhetoric that is spouted on this forum is beyond a joke and, as a more reasoned poster, I'm surprised you can't see that.

Frankly, the idea that Nadal is just a talentless hack, who only succeeds because he's doping, is laughable in the extreme. In fact, the very suggestion is an insult to Federer. Sure, tennis has become more physical in recent times, but, ultimately, it's still a game of incredible skill. Do you really believe that talent has become such a useless currency in the sport that someone as supremely talented as Federer can be dominated in H2H just because the other guy has the physical edge? If Nadal has no talent, why can't others reproduce his style of play as successfully as him? Shouldn't there be masses of Nadal clones nipping at his heels by now? If it's not some measure of talent, what is it that sets him apart from the pack?

Personally, I think the biggest mistake made by the anti-Nadal brigade on this forum is confusing aesthetics with talent. It's totally understandable that some people find an attacking style more pleasing on the eye, but the idea that more naturally defensive players are automatically less talented is, in my opinion, utter unsubstantiated tosh.

Thank you for seeing me as a more reasoned poster.  However, I'm not sure why your response directed to me would go into others views that Nadal is a "talentless hack".  I think I've been pretty clear and where Tenez, NITB and I disagree that I do see talent in Nadal.   I even said a couple of days ago if he goes clean, he can stay in the top 10 this year, thought Amri sees his state as needing to retire.   What I see and know though is while Nadal would be a very good pro and extremely good naturally on clay--  PEDS puts him into legend quality.  No different than Lance Armstrong since that name is being used here in this debate.   I don't know if you know my background, but I worked in the sports industry most of my life.  I and anyone who knows sports well understand that the difference between a top player and a Goat level player is a few %...   I also know factually that players who are close can gain that few % through PEds.  That's what I see in Nadal.    I've seen good boxers become great boxers through Peds.  I've seen and the whole world has seen good baseball players like Sosa, Mcquire, Bonds go from being good pros to record breaking legends-  all from Peds..     Looks at their stats before they have now admitted or being exposed as starting to dope...   Nice quality, talented, midrange pros.   A top 15ish type Tennis Player..  What happened on Peds?   Breaking records and hall of fame quality carreers.  Your questions above are all answered by looking at what PEds did for them.  

Another way to understand how close it is at top- look at Fed in 2013.  Widely regarded as the most talented player in history. He himself in interviews has said the back injury put him at 95% of what he felt he could normally do. Annacone said he was lacking 10% of his burst and movemen..  5 to 10% loss to the most or one of the most talented players in history reduced him to a "horror"  top 8-6 player in 2013.    Regaining that 5-10% through the back being better brought him to sniffing distance of #1 in the world at an age that no one else in the open era has achieved.    Can you see that and understand that if a top 10 level player like Fed in 2013 could gain that 5% through PEds, that could elevate them to the very top especially when in their prime age?

I don't know how long you have followed this forum or me, but I know factually and without a doubt in my mind that Nadal has been caught before and had a slap on the wrist that became later a farce in how it went down.  Ignoring that as that's just my word and I could just be one of those crazy internet liars like Amri likes to think (her high level sources have told her different along with the speeds of the AO)  but look at all the signs.   Insiders gossiping about it for years, media saying it with a wink and no lawsuits ever coming from it for defamation (I can tell you why if you want),  the physical evidence from what we see, the classic cycling up and down of his success, the balding, the break down of his body, the medical procedures that he has undergone that just happen to be ones that have been proven to be used as Peds masking procedures, the Spanish scandal where the presiding judge who is personal friends and from the same club as Nadas father sealed the names of Spanish Tennis players who were tied to a doping doctor, the low level tennis players who have been banned for doping that have publically pointed to Nadal and asking why they are made scapegoats while he and others continue to play, the Spanish athletic federation who were guiding Nadal early as a youngster being caught using a systematic doping regimen with athletes, Nadals and his teams obvious disregard for other rules...  it goes on and on... One thing in itself doesn't mean anything, but put all together- how can you possibly think Nadal is not doping?

Where there is smoke there is fire- it's proven again and again.  How many times have you read in media about some celebrity couple getting divorce, or some scandal and it not turn out true eventually?  99 out of 100 it happens.  Other than the curious case of Nadal (so far) How many athletes have the word gotten out that they dope, their fans scream it's not true, the athletes and his team scream about it, and it turn out that they were innocent?  It hasn't happened yet.  This type of stuff doesn't make it very far unless there is truth to it.  In the USA, we had baseball players in front of congress at risk of jail time swearing they didn't dope. Guys that do great charity work and were highly respected.  Oops- they eventually got caught.  Good people lie and cheat all the time.  Sorry- if people don't understand that but it happens. Some of the most famous fights in history were rigged, some of the greatest games in history were altered, some of the greatest players in history cheated. 

As of now, I can't think of an athtlete who has more smoke out there in terms of PEds than Nadal and eventually it will come billowing out.

 I know the inner workings of sports and what money, human nature, and business creates.  One of the things that bothers me most about someone like an Amri is the naïve view of sports where they don't understand its a business , and like any business- corners are cut, heads are put in the sand, people cheat when millions of dollars are at stake. Nadal is prob a good kid with a good heart, but he's human and humans cheat on their loved ones, cheat in business, cheat in sports..   Not all but some do.  I believe he is one that does.

truffin1

Posts : 861
Join date : 2012-10-13

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Jan 09, 2015 1:44 pm

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:  The question of talent is an interesting one. It is a nebulous concept that can be hard to pin down. However, my view of talent is that it can manifest itself in many ways and your definition seems way too narrow for me. I also think you're kidding yourself if you think that Nadal does not have excellent hand-eye coordination. His ability to pull off incredible counter-punching shots consistently when under pressure speaks for that.

Sure, Nadal has been helped during his career by the general slowing of conditions, which better suits his natural playing style. However, I don't see how the abilities needed to thrive in fast conditions are necessarily superior to those needed to thrive in slower conditions. Is Krajicek automatically more talented than Ferrero because he won Wimbledon instead of the French?

Ultimately, I guess talent, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder. So, who am I to argue with your take on it? However, from my perspective, I think the speed of Nadal's rise to the top is highly suggestive of an exceptional talent (unless you want to argue that the quality of opposition around the time he burst onto the scene wasn't up to much, which as a Fed fan is probably not a road you want to go down!).

I don't think I'm kidding myself.
In that post about ball-striking, I did say that all pros have certain level of coordination, most well above average in fact...you have to in order to play any sport.
But where the pros separate themselves from us is the time they spend practising as well as a few other factors such as personal circumstances, health, finance etc.

Now regarding your particular admiration for Nadal's retrieving skills and deriving to perceive and illustrate his talent from there (I suppose there is nowhere else to draw from...), as well as assuming you have played at least one sport, I'll put it to you this way, what requires more talent: to attack or to defend?

As far as I'm concerned it is infinitely more difficult to attack than defend, why? Because it takes so much more skill and talent.

Why is it that football values and celebrates strikers more than goal-keepers?
Why is Maradona the best footballer and not Schmeichel?
Why is 100m race more popular than 10 000m?


Because it requires talent, exceptional talent to create.

Anyone can reproduce and react, and defending is just that.

noleisthebest

Posts : 27761
Join date : 2012-06-18

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Tenez on Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:13 pm

Well it is very simple. Attacking requires more eye/hand coordination cause the attacker has to take the ball earlier, therefore hit a pacier ball to start with, and needs to aim for thin margin shots to shorten the rally in order not to be dragged into long rallies by the retriever.

The retriever compensate for lesser eyehand coordination by having to cover more ground, and bringing the ball back with much bigger margins.

Saying Nadal has great eye/hand coord is not very helping a debate. It's like saying Gasquet is a super fit athlete. Indeed he is but compared to who?

What people do not understand is that Nadal doesn't actually want to win matches based on eye/hand coordination. It's just too risky. He wants to win matches by imposing a very physical game. This can guarantee many more wins than a risky eye/hand coord game. This i swhy he stands so far back, so he can have plenty of time to see the ball and make sure he doesn't frame it as we know the ball pace drops very quickly after the bounce.

Now the question is can he take the ball early (that requires eye/hand coord) and win? We do not have many examples of him winning while dooing so, so it is impossible to say whether his eye/hand coord is better than a top 50. What we know is that he wants to take the ball earlier versus Djoko (he can do without against the rest of teh field)....but has not quite succeeded yet.

Tenez

Posts : 20363
Join date : 2012-06-18

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Aut0Gr4ph on Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:18 am

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Riskysports ?
Nope.

Aut0Gr4ph

Posts : 66
Join date : 2015-01-08
Age : 38
Location : UK

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Aut0Gr4ph on Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:21 am

Kim Jong-Un wrote:I post on 606v2 as well.
I know you do.....
(Hope that doesn't sound creepy!)

Aut0Gr4ph

Posts : 66
Join date : 2015-01-08
Age : 38
Location : UK

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by BEL19VE on Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:23 am

It doesn't ! Winking

Which forum so you find more fun reading ?

BEL19VE

Posts : 5417
Join date : 2013-05-03

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by summerblues on Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:39 am

noleisthebest wrote:
Why is it that football values and celebrates strikers more than goal-keepers?
Why is Maradona the best footballer and not Schmeichel?
Why is 100m race more popular than 10 000m?

Because it requires talent, exceptional talent to create.
I very much doubt that.

summerblues

Posts : 4907
Join date : 2012-05-19

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by summerblues on Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:41 am

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Theories have to be responsive to evidence and put under scrutiny, rather than having evidence warped to try and fit the theory.
LOL, this is pretty rich coming from you.

summerblues

Posts : 4907
Join date : 2012-05-19

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by BEL19VE on Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:44 am

SB:
ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t777-us-presidential-campaign-2016-thread

BEL19VE

Posts : 5417
Join date : 2013-05-03

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by summerblues on Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:48 am

Kim Jong-Un wrote:SB:
ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t777-us-presidential-campaign-2016-thread
I noted the first time you pointed me to it.  What do you want me to do with it?

summerblues

Posts : 4907
Join date : 2012-05-19

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by BEL19VE on Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:51 am

summerblues wrote:
Kim Jong-Un wrote:SB:
ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t777-us-presidential-campaign-2016-thread
I noted the first time you pointed me to it.  What do you want me to do with it?
Why do you suspect I'm plugging my own thread ?

BEL19VE

Posts : 5417
Join date : 2013-05-03

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by summerblues on Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:54 am

This is a tennis forum; I am not sure I will spend (waste?) any effort to talk about US elections here.

summerblues

Posts : 4907
Join date : 2012-05-19

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by BEL19VE on Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:55 am

OK ok no need to get angry.

BEL19VE

Posts : 5417
Join date : 2013-05-03

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by BEL19VE on Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:58 am

summerblues wrote:
LOL, this is pretty rich coming from you.
I was making a broader point, it applies to anyone equally of they fall into the fallacy I refer to in the title; I'm not saying I should be excluded from that scrutiny.

BEL19VE

Posts : 5417
Join date : 2013-05-03

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by summerblues on Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:01 am

I am not angry, I even think it is a good thread to enliven the forum, just cannot see myself getting into it.

In two hours I will be watching my first match of the 2015 season - I think that is my current priority smiley

summerblues

Posts : 4907
Join date : 2012-05-19

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Aut0Gr4ph on Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:16 am

truffin1 wrote:
Aut0Gr4ph wrote:
truffin1 wrote:
Kim Jong-Un wrote:The thing is Truffin, these patterns could also be explained by Nadal not being a doper.
As soon as you start looking at the evidence saying 'ah this period doesn't fit my normal theory, so we'll say the technology changed exactly to fit the pattern.'

So then whatever Nadal does, you can change your argument to 'the science technology changed to fit this pattern'.  

Yes, just like you look at the evidence of whatever and try to fit it into what you want to believe.

That's the point everyone is trying to make to you-- it's comical you can post about how everyone looks at  the evidence to fit into their "hate Nadal" angle, while you yourself look at the evidence to fit into your "love Nadal" angle.    You are just as guilty.

I don't think you're being entirely fair on Kim truffin. Clearly, as a Nadal fan, he has a pro-Nadal bias. That is to be expected. But to put him in the same league as the majority of the Federer faithful on this forum is, I think, a mistake.

Before I get written off as a love struck Rafa acolyte, I should point out that I massively prefer Roger's style of play and, although I don't really believe in GOAT labels, if pushed, my vote would definitely go to Roger. However, the anti-Nadal rhetoric that is spouted on this forum is beyond a joke and, as a more reasoned poster, I'm surprised you can't see that.

Frankly, the idea that Nadal is just a talentless hack, who only succeeds because he's doping, is laughable in the extreme. In fact, the very suggestion is an insult to Federer. Sure, tennis has become more physical in recent times, but, ultimately, it's still a game of incredible skill. Do you really believe that talent has become such a useless currency in the sport that someone as supremely talented as Federer can be dominated in H2H just because the other guy has the physical edge? If Nadal has no talent, why can't others reproduce his style of play as successfully as him? Shouldn't there be masses of Nadal clones nipping at his heels by now? If it's not some measure of talent, what is it that sets him apart from the pack?

Personally, I think the biggest mistake made by the anti-Nadal brigade on this forum is confusing aesthetics with talent. It's totally understandable that some people find an attacking style more pleasing on the eye, but the idea that more naturally defensive players are automatically less talented is, in my opinion, utter unsubstantiated tosh.

Thank you for seeing me as a more reasoned poster.  However, I'm not sure why your response directed to me would go into others views that Nadal is a "talentless hack".  I think I've been pretty clear and where Tenez, NITB and I disagree that I do see talent in Nadal.   I even said a couple of days ago if he goes clean, he can stay in the top 10 this year, thought Amri sees his state as needing to retire.   What I see and know though is while Nadal would be a very good pro and extremely good naturally on clay--  PEDS puts him into legend quality.  No different than Lance Armstrong since that name is being used here in this debate.   I don't know if you know my background, but I worked in the sports industry most of my life.  I and anyone who knows sports well understand that the difference between a top player and a Goat level player is a few %...   I also know factually that players who are close can gain that few % through PEds.  That's what I see in Nadal.    I've seen good boxers become great boxers through Peds.  I've seen and the whole world has seen good baseball players like Sosa, Mcquire, Bonds go from being good pros to record breaking legends-  all from Peds..     Looks at their stats before they have now admitted or being exposed as starting to dope...   Nice quality, talented, midrange pros.   A top 15ish type Tennis Player..  What happened on Peds?   Breaking records and hall of fame quality carreers.  Your questions above are all answered by looking at what PEds did for them.  

Another way to understand how close it is at top- look at Fed in 2013.  Widely regarded as the most talented player in history. He himself in interviews has said the back injury put him at 95% of what he felt he could normally do. Annacone said he was lacking 10% of his burst and movemen..  5 to 10% loss to the most or one of the most talented players in history reduced him to a "horror"  top 8-6 player in 2013.    Regaining that 5-10% through the back being better brought him to sniffing distance of #1 in the world at an age that no one else in the open era has achieved.    Can you see that and understand that if a top 10 level player like Fed in 2013 could gain that 5% through PEds, that could elevate them to the very top especially when in their prime age?

I don't know how long you have followed this forum or me, but I know factually and without a doubt in my mind that Nadal has been caught before and had a slap on the wrist that became later a farce in how it went down.  Ignoring that as that's just my word and I could just be one of those crazy internet liars like Amri likes to think (her high level sources have told her different along with the speeds of the AO)  but look at all the signs.   Insiders gossiping about it for years, media saying it with a wink and no lawsuits ever coming from it for defamation (I can tell you why if you want),  the physical evidence from what we see, the classic cycling up and down of his success, the balding, the break down of his body, the medical procedures that he has undergone that just happen to be ones that have been proven to be used as Peds masking procedures, the Spanish scandal where the presiding judge who is personal friends and from the same club as Nadas father sealed the names of Spanish Tennis players who were tied to a doping doctor, the low level tennis players who have been banned for doping that have publically pointed to Nadal and asking why they are made scapegoats while he and others continue to play, the Spanish athletic federation who were guiding Nadal early as a youngster being caught using a systematic doping regimen with athletes, Nadals and his teams obvious disregard for other rules...  it goes on and on... One thing in itself doesn't mean anything, but put all together- how can you possibly think Nadal is not doping?

Where there is smoke there is fire- it's proven again and again.  How many times have you read in media about some celebrity couple getting divorce, or some scandal and it not turn out true eventually?  99 out of 100 it happens.  Other than the curious case of Nadal (so far) How many athletes have the word gotten out that they dope, their fans scream it's not true, the athletes and his team scream about it, and it turn out that they were innocent?  It hasn't happened yet.  This type of stuff doesn't make it very far unless there is truth to it.  In the USA, we had baseball players in front of congress at risk of jail time swearing they didn't dope. Guys that do great charity work and were highly respected.  Oops- they eventually got caught.  Good people lie and cheat all the time.  Sorry- if people don't understand that but it happens. Some of the most famous fights in history were rigged, some of the greatest games in history were altered, some of the greatest players in history cheated. 

As of now, I can't think of an athtlete who has more smoke out there in terms of PEds than Nadal and eventually it will come billowing out.

 I know the inner workings of sports and what money, human nature, and business creates.  One of the things that bothers me most about someone like an Amri is the naïve view of sports where they don't understand its a business , and like any business- corners are cut, heads are put in the sand, people cheat when millions of dollars are at stake. Nadal is prob a good kid with a good heart, but he's human and humans cheat on their loved ones, cheat in business, cheat in sports..   Not all but some do.  I believe he is one that does.
Thanks for the detailed response truffin. It made for interesting reading. The point I was initially trying to make was that, while Kim clearly displays a pro-Nadal bias, it is quite within the normal range for a fan. In contrast, the anti-Nadal feeling that seems to be the bedrock of this forum is, in my opinion, much more extreme and, in some cases, bordering on the pathological. So, in short, I disagree with your suggestion that Kim is 'just as guilty' as others when it comes to the mangling of facts to suit pet theories. Anyway, I won't labour the point.

On the doping question, I'm not sure I find your 'no smoke without a fire' argument all that convincing. It sounds rather tenous to me. In my experience, a lot of the smoke on the Internet seems to originate from the message board chatter of die hard Federer fans. Not the most credible of sources, I'm sure you'll agree.

Out of curiousity, other than Nadal, roughly how many players in the top 50 do you think are doping and can you name those that top your list of suspects? Apologies in advance for such a naive question, but can you also describe the main ways that a top tennis player might benefit from doping? I've clearly got a lot to learn on the topic.....

Aut0Gr4ph

Posts : 66
Join date : 2015-01-08
Age : 38
Location : UK

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Aut0Gr4ph on Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:35 am

noleisthebest wrote:Btw, what's wrong with being a conspirationist?
I've always thought it's cool & healthy to think outside the box and refuse media brainwash.
Ah yes, if I don't swallow your theory, I must be a victim of media brainwashing. It can't be that I thought about it critically and reached my own conclusion. To be brutally honest, the uniformity of views on this forum hardly makes me think you're a bunch of free-thinkers.....

Aut0Gr4ph

Posts : 66
Join date : 2015-01-08
Age : 38
Location : UK

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Aut0Gr4ph on Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:26 am

noleisthebest wrote:
Aut0Gr4ph wrote:  The question of talent is an interesting one. It is a nebulous concept that can be hard to pin down. However, my view of talent is that it can manifest itself in many ways and your definition seems way too narrow for me. I also think you're kidding yourself if you think that Nadal does not have excellent hand-eye coordination. His ability to pull off incredible counter-punching shots consistently when under pressure speaks for that.

Sure, Nadal has been helped during his career by the general slowing of conditions, which better suits his natural playing style. However, I don't see how the abilities needed to thrive in fast conditions are necessarily superior to those needed to thrive in slower conditions. Is Krajicek automatically more talented than Ferrero because he won Wimbledon instead of the French?

Ultimately, I guess talent, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder. So, who am I to argue with your take on it? However, from my perspective, I think the speed of Nadal's rise to the top is highly suggestive of an exceptional talent (unless you want to argue that the quality of opposition around the time he burst onto the scene wasn't up to much, which as a Fed fan is probably not a road you want to go down!).

I don't think I'm kidding myself.
In that post about ball-striking, I did say that all pros have certain level of coordination, most well above average in fact...you have to in order to play any sport.
But where the pros separate themselves from us is the time they spend practising as well as a few other factors such as personal circumstances, health, finance etc.

Now regarding your particular admiration for Nadal's retrieving skills and deriving to perceive and illustrate his talent from there (I suppose there is nowhere else to draw from...), as well as assuming you have played at least one sport, I'll put it to you this way, what requires more talent: to attack or to defend?

As far as I'm concerned it is infinitely more difficult to attack than defend, why? Because it takes so much more skill and talent.

Why is it that football values and celebrates strikers more than goal-keepers?
Why is Maradona the best footballer and not Schmeichel?
Why is 100m race more popular than 10 000m?


Because it requires talent, exceptional talent to create.

Anyone can reproduce and react, and defending is just that.
You dodged my question re Krajicek and Ferrero.

Still think your notion that attacking tennis automatically requires more talent than more defensive/counter punching tennis is way too simplistic. There are many different ways to attack or defend, each requiring different levels of talent to execute successfully. Personally, I find that some attacking players are very one-dimensional. Hence, my Krajicek teaser above. If I rush the net every point, does that mean I'm supremely talented or am I simply trying to conceal the fact that I can't hit a backhand to save my life?

One area that we'd probably agree on is that current tennis conditions overly favour a defensive approach and this is something that should be addressed. However, you have to ask yourself why those employing unsuccessful attacking strategies don't adapt their games accordingly. Are they such purists that they are simply unwilling to compromise their attacking ideals or is it perhaps more likely that they simply don't have the talent or imagination to adapt? I think the most talented players will always be able to adapt to make the most of whatever conditions they are presented with.

Aut0Gr4ph

Posts : 66
Join date : 2015-01-08
Age : 38
Location : UK

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Tenez on Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:40 am

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Out of curiousity, other than Nadal, roughly how many players in the top 50 do you think are doping

Close to 50...pretty much.

Apologies in advance for such a naive question, but can you also describe the main ways that a top tennis player might benefit from doping? I've clearly got a lot to learn on the topic
You certainly do! But not only on PED but also about human nature.

Tenez

Posts : 20363
Join date : 2012-06-18

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Tenez on Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:55 am

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:One area that we'd probably agree on is that current tennis conditions overly favour a defensive approach and this is something that should be addressed. However, you have to ask yourself why those employing unsuccessful attacking strategies don't adapt their games accordingly. Are they such purists that they are simply unwilling to compromise their attacking ideals or is it perhaps more likely that they simply don't have the talent or imagination to adapt? I think the most talented players will always be able to adapt to make the most of whatever conditions they are presented with.
This is where you are quite naive. The only way you can improve your chance of winning on a slow surface, if you haven't got Fed's talent, is to get much fitter like Nadal, Djoko, Murray and the rest of the tour did. And you don;t get fitter by "working harder" you get fitter by taking the right stuff. Haven't you noticed that Nadal was protrayed as a once in a century physical phenomenon at the beginning of his career and then Djoko, the asthmatic and Murray the originally matchstick caught up with him on the physical side?

But clearly while everybody in tennis talks about becoming fitter, you still can't see how PED could help a tennis player. erm

Tenez

Posts : 20363
Join date : 2012-06-18

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by noleisthebest on Sat Jan 10, 2015 8:32 am

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Still think your notion that attacking tennis automatically requires more talent than more defensive/counter punching tennis is way too simplistic. There are many different ways to attack or defend, each requiring different levels of talent to execute successfully. Personally, I find that some attacking players are very one-dimensional. Hence, my Krajicek teaser above. If I rush the net every point, does that mean I'm supremely talented or am I simply trying to conceal the fact that I can't hit a backhand to save my life?

One area that we'd probably agree on is that current tennis conditions overly favour a defensive approach and this is something that should be addressed. However, you have to ask yourself why those employing unsuccessful attacking strategies don't adapt their games accordingly. Are they such purists that they are simply unwilling to compromise their attacking ideals or is it perhaps more likely that they simply don't have the talent or imagination to adapt? I think the most talented players will always be able to adapt to make the most of whatever conditions they are presented with.

If you can rush the net at every point and win why would you need to stay back and scramble?
Especially in today's conditions.


noleisthebest

Posts : 27761
Join date : 2012-06-18

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by truffin1 on Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:43 pm

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:
truffin1 wrote:
Aut0Gr4ph wrote:
truffin1 wrote:
Kim Jong-Un wrote:The thing is Truffin, these patterns could also be explained by Nadal not being a doper.
As soon as you start looking at the evidence saying 'ah this period doesn't fit my normal theory, so we'll say the technology changed exactly to fit the pattern.'

So then whatever Nadal does, you can change your argument to 'the science technology changed to fit this pattern'.  

Yes, just like you look at the evidence of whatever and try to fit it into what you want to believe.

That's the point everyone is trying to make to you-- it's comical you can post about how everyone looks at  the evidence to fit into their "hate Nadal" angle, while you yourself look at the evidence to fit into your "love Nadal" angle.    You are just as guilty.

I don't think you're being entirely fair on Kim truffin. Clearly, as a Nadal fan, he has a pro-Nadal bias. That is to be expected. But to put him in the same league as the majority of the Federer faithful on this forum is, I think, a mistake.

Before I get written off as a love struck Rafa acolyte, I should point out that I massively prefer Roger's style of play and, although I don't really believe in GOAT labels, if pushed, my vote would definitely go to Roger. However, the anti-Nadal rhetoric that is spouted on this forum is beyond a joke and, as a more reasoned poster, I'm surprised you can't see that.

Frankly, the idea that Nadal is just a talentless hack, who only succeeds because he's doping, is laughable in the extreme. In fact, the very suggestion is an insult to Federer. Sure, tennis has become more physical in recent times, but, ultimately, it's still a game of incredible skill. Do you really believe that talent has become such a useless currency in the sport that someone as supremely talented as Federer can be dominated in H2H just because the other guy has the physical edge? If Nadal has no talent, why can't others reproduce his style of play as successfully as him? Shouldn't there be masses of Nadal clones nipping at his heels by now? If it's not some measure of talent, what is it that sets him apart from the pack?

Personally, I think the biggest mistake made by the anti-Nadal brigade on this forum is confusing aesthetics with talent. It's totally understandable that some people find an attacking style more pleasing on the eye, but the idea that more naturally defensive players are automatically less talented is, in my opinion, utter unsubstantiated tosh.

Thank you for seeing me as a more reasoned poster.  However, I'm not sure why your response directed to me would go into others views that Nadal is a "talentless hack".  I think I've been pretty clear and where Tenez, NITB and I disagree that I do see talent in Nadal.   I even said a couple of days ago if he goes clean, he can stay in the top 10 this year, thought Amri sees his state as needing to retire.   What I see and know though is while Nadal would be a very good pro and extremely good naturally on clay--  PEDS puts him into legend quality.  No different than Lance Armstrong since that name is being used here in this debate.   I don't know if you know my background, but I worked in the sports industry most of my life.  I and anyone who knows sports well understand that the difference between a top player and a Goat level player is a few %...   I also know factually that players who are close can gain that few % through PEds.  That's what I see in Nadal.    I've seen good boxers become great boxers through Peds.  I've seen and the whole world has seen good baseball players like Sosa, Mcquire, Bonds go from being good pros to record breaking legends-  all from Peds..     Looks at their stats before they have now admitted or being exposed as starting to dope...   Nice quality, talented, midrange pros.   A top 15ish type Tennis Player..  What happened on Peds?   Breaking records and hall of fame quality carreers.  Your questions above are all answered by looking at what PEds did for them.  

Another way to understand how close it is at top- look at Fed in 2013.  Widely regarded as the most talented player in history. He himself in interviews has said the back injury put him at 95% of what he felt he could normally do. Annacone said he was lacking 10% of his burst and movemen..  5 to 10% loss to the most or one of the most talented players in history reduced him to a "horror"  top 8-6 player in 2013.    Regaining that 5-10% through the back being better brought him to sniffing distance of #1 in the world at an age that no one else in the open era has achieved.    Can you see that and understand that if a top 10 level player like Fed in 2013 could gain that 5% through PEds, that could elevate them to the very top especially when in their prime age?

I don't know how long you have followed this forum or me, but I know factually and without a doubt in my mind that Nadal has been caught before and had a slap on the wrist that became later a farce in how it went down.  Ignoring that as that's just my word and I could just be one of those crazy internet liars like Amri likes to think (her high level sources have told her different along with the speeds of the AO)  but look at all the signs.   Insiders gossiping about it for years, media saying it with a wink and no lawsuits ever coming from it for defamation (I can tell you why if you want),  the physical evidence from what we see, the classic cycling up and down of his success, the balding, the break down of his body, the medical procedures that he has undergone that just happen to be ones that have been proven to be used as Peds masking procedures, the Spanish scandal where the presiding judge who is personal friends and from the same club as Nadas father sealed the names of Spanish Tennis players who were tied to a doping doctor, the low level tennis players who have been banned for doping that have publically pointed to Nadal and asking why they are made scapegoats while he and others continue to play, the Spanish athletic federation who were guiding Nadal early as a youngster being caught using a systematic doping regimen with athletes, Nadals and his teams obvious disregard for other rules...  it goes on and on... One thing in itself doesn't mean anything, but put all together- how can you possibly think Nadal is not doping?

Where there is smoke there is fire- it's proven again and again.  How many times have you read in media about some celebrity couple getting divorce, or some scandal and it not turn out true eventually?  99 out of 100 it happens.  Other than the curious case of Nadal (so far) How many athletes have the word gotten out that they dope, their fans scream it's not true, the athletes and his team scream about it, and it turn out that they were innocent?  It hasn't happened yet.  This type of stuff doesn't make it very far unless there is truth to it.  In the USA, we had baseball players in front of congress at risk of jail time swearing they didn't dope. Guys that do great charity work and were highly respected.  Oops- they eventually got caught.  Good people lie and cheat all the time.  Sorry- if people don't understand that but it happens. Some of the most famous fights in history were rigged, some of the greatest games in history were altered, some of the greatest players in history cheated. 

As of now, I can't think of an athtlete who has more smoke out there in terms of PEds than Nadal and eventually it will come billowing out.

 I know the inner workings of sports and what money, human nature, and business creates.  One of the things that bothers me most about someone like an Amri is the naïve view of sports where they don't understand its a business , and like any business- corners are cut, heads are put in the sand, people cheat when millions of dollars are at stake. Nadal is prob a good kid with a good heart, but he's human and humans cheat on their loved ones, cheat in business, cheat in sports..   Not all but some do.  I believe he is one that does.
Thanks for the detailed response truffin. It made for interesting reading. The point I was initially trying to make was that, while Kim clearly displays a pro-Nadal bias, it is quite within the normal range for a fan. In contrast, the anti-Nadal feeling that seems to be the bedrock of this forum is, in my opinion, much more extreme and, in some cases, bordering on the pathological. So, in short, I disagree with your suggestion that Kim is 'just as guilty' as others when it comes to the mangling of facts to suit pet theories. Anyway, I won't labour the point.

On the doping question, I'm not sure I find your 'no smoke without a fire' argument all that convincing. It sounds rather tenous to me. In my experience, a lot of the smoke on the Internet seems to originate from the message board chatter of die hard Federer fans. Not the most credible of sources, I'm sure you'll agree.

Out of curiousity, other than Nadal, roughly how many players in the top 50 do you think are doping and can you name those that top your list of suspects? Apologies in advance for such a naive question, but can you also describe the main ways that a top tennis player might benefit from doping? I've clearly got a lot to learn on the topic.....

I wrote another long detailed response on my phone and it froze up and deleted.. Not sure I have the strength for another lengthy one- so I will make this a "little" less comprehensive. 

The fact that you have fallen for the trap or feel that the Nadal peds rumors are internet chatter created by Fed fans tells me that you haven't been paying attention or simply don't have an open mind at all.  If you really think that- you are not ready for the debate, it's just a fan war to you, and it's kind of pointless, but like I do with Amri- I'll give it one more go.

Simply put- it's not-  he's been pointed at by fellow players caught doping (the same as Armstrong was btw) which like him has been ignored by his fans and powers, (so has Ferrer) it's been insinuated and openly talked about in newspapers and media, its been shown by his national federation that guided him being proven to systematically used peds on their athtletes, court scandals, on and on.  Federer fans didn't start it.

Your question- back in my day- I would roughly estimate 75% of athtletes were on illegal Peds or ones that eventually became banned.   I get the feeling by your questions of benefits that you think of Peds as anabolic steroids that build people into muscle freaks, gym dope.  No, it's anything that will "enhance performance" some legal some not.    In my day it was even uppers or "speed" that baseball players popped like candy in the dugouts.. energy, concentration.    It's medicines that behave like Ritalin- that force the mind to laser focus on the task you are performing.  What is the one major thing Federer fans have pointed out in the past few years that has caused him some losses and something McEnroe always talks about as the hardest thing he dealt with as he aged?  Concentration- the mind wandering during big moments and losing focus.    If you have a pill that forces the mind to not wander, you don't think that's a huge benefit?  What about able to run faster, how about endurance, how about quicker muscle twitch-  different Peds does all that.  Tennis is the perfect sport for peds.

Now as info became better about long term effects on health, and especially later crackdowns in certain sports due to public outcry and lower attendance (the only thing that will clean tennis- hurting the pocketbooks of the promoters)  I would say that level dropped to around 50%.   Now with better masking technology,etc- that might rise.. but I am pretty confident that whether it be 4 out of 10 or 6 out of 10--   it's a safe bet around half are on some form of PEDS illegaly.  (illegal in the sense that it's banned by their sport)

I urge you to do some research if you are serious about this-  look at the MLB report on their doping scandal, NFL, Wada... you will see the same or similar statistic levels in every sport that has studied it...  you really thing Tennis is magically made up of different types of humans?   Surely not..  take a group of 100 men in any business, any area of the world, any sport and similar % will cheat on their wives, cheat on their taxes, cheat in their work.  Add in the potential to gain millions of dollars, unimaginable glory, gorgeous woman flocking to you the more successful you are, and the desire to do what you have to do to succeed rises even more.

So- I believe around 50%--  and its just a pure fact that there are dopers in every sport.  Even the tennis player past and present acknowledge that.  So if it's 50% and we take the top 10 guys--     5 out of those guys dope.  You are telling me with all that we know of Nadal, the eye test, the rumors, the procedures that he just happens to have nearly every year that just happen to be the most famous procedures used to mask doping (do some research on PRP procedures and how some of the most famous and origniators of the procedure have been caught using it to mask doping in athletes) that out of those 5- he's not one of them?   Really?   

Now do we focus on Nadal more than we should and ignore others-- of course we do- he's at the top and a legend and they will always get more scrutiny. Does Federer get every word he says picked over? yes. Do fans of other players scream about him daring to say "Be quiet" to hecklers who happen to be relatives of another player and bring it up at every point while ignoring what other players do. of course.   Do people ignore or not care about two players getting into an argument on an outer court, but someone like Amri starts threads on multiple forums and spend hours talking about Fed getting into a 10 minute argument with Stan. yes.    A week later Stan gets into a locker room argument with the French DC team and not one thread about it.. Why-- because he's not a Federer or a Nadal..  Legends are going to be the poster childs of anything that happens.  Nadal is not the only top player who dopes, but he is the GOAT of one of the main surfaces of tennis, and a top all time player-    he's the one that will be talked about.

Just like Armstrong got far more press than any other cyclist, just like ARod is talked about more than any other baseball player.


I will close with this and I've said it before. I know for a fact based on 1st hand knowledge and human nature does not change that EVERY athlete will take some type of enhancement to within the very limits of whats legal.  Why wouldn't you and why not?  If the limits of a certain endurance hormone is set by the sport at 95 parts, and the natural level in the body is 90- I guarantee you that someone with the resources, technology that is available to the top athtletes will take their level to 95... and that's okay. I include Federer in that stat.  No one is 100% relying on what their body naturally produces. No different than you and I taking vitamins to boost our energy or health.   It's the ones that take it to 96, 97, 98 that are cheating, and many do.

truffin1

Posts : 861
Join date : 2012-10-13

Back to top Go down

If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all Empty Re: If you're mindset is such that all possible outcomes would be registered by you as 'evidence' for one specific theory, it's not evidence at all

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum