Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Method101 on July 05, 2009, 01:39:03 PM
-
-
Looks very sad. Must suck to be a billionaire, getting millions of dollars for hitting a lil yellow ball with a racket. Life can be tough. ::)
-
dont think billionaire. that's tiger. lebron since that's all his is playing bball for ::). anyway...he got lucky nadel got hurt. he would have lost the france, and nadel would have dumped him again at wimmy. ? for greatest ever...since needed to go thru nadel for these last two, and the guy he cant beat of late is on injured reserve.
-
best ever. Fuck Nadal.
-
dont think billionaire. that's tiger. lebron since that's all his is playing bball for ::). anyway...he got lucky nadel got hurt. he would have lost the france, and nadel would have dumped him again at wimmy. ? for greatest ever...since needed to go thru nadel for these last two, and the guy he cant beat of late is on injured reserve.
he is a billionaire
i read it somewhere
-
His prize money earnings just went up to 47 million, a record in Tennis, Smapras made 43 or so, don;t know what Gillette and people are paying Federer though.......
-
His prize money earnings just went up to 47 million, a record in Tennis, Smapras made 43 or so, don;t know what Gillette and people are paying Federer though.......
nike is paying him 100 mio
-
on that level ur loaded nevertheless.
-
Let´s see
Federer is 28 and 15 grands slams
Nadal is 23 and 6 grands slams
best ever. Fuck Nadal.
(http://www.dafunkts.de/nelson25.gif)
-
Let´s see
Federer is 28 and 15 grands slams
Nadal is 23 and 6 grands slams
(http://www.dafunkts.de/nelson25.gif)
hahahaha, you're fucking retarded.
Ronnie coleman is 45 and has 8 Olympia wins
Cutler is 35 and has 2.
That makes cutler better right?
hahahahahah
-
hahahaha, you're fucking retarded.
Ronnie coleman is 45 and has 8 Olympia wins
Cutler is 35 and has 2.
That makes cutler better right?
hahahahahah
LOL...
another good point...
-
LOL...
another good point...
Im suprised how fucking Dumb people are at times
-
Federer is probably one of my favourite atheletes.......great player and seems like a fairly decent guy too.
-
Federer is probably one of my favourite atheletes.......great player and seems like a fairly decent guy too.
you're not exactly a bad player yourself there
-
you're not exactly a bad player yourself there
I am quite handy on the court, it is true.
-
method 101 bashing on the greatest player who ever lived and dominates tennis like none before
go figure
federer is in the same class with jordan , armstrong and woods BTW
-
on that level ur loaded nevertheless.
Not as loaded as you, God of War... :)
-
I think sev could take him.
-
i would pay to see sevastase play against federer
-
Looks very sad. Must suck to be a billionaire, getting millions of dollars for hitting a lil yellow ball with a racket. Life can be tough. ::)
He=living teh dream but not like you my friend. 8)
-
its ok to cry when you are the master, even though i dont follow tennis , sometimes i do a private crying sessions knowing i am the greatest poster and best tallest natural bodybuilder to ever grace the americas :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
-
method 101 bashing on the greatest player who ever lived and dominates tennis like none before
go figure
federer is in the same class with jordan , armstrong and woods BTW
He wouldnt beat a prime Sampras on grass, on hard court its a tossup, but Federer gets the nod as being a better overall player because he's so much better than Sampras was on clay.During Federers run the talent pool was/is far weaker than the 90's, so its also much easier to win slams and retain world number 1.
-
He=living teh dream but not like you my friend. 8)
I'm not living teh dream yet, I'm chasing teh dream. Huge difference my friend.
But I'm on a good way (still an insignificant lil dwarf compared to people making history like a Federer and others tough; But I won't rest till I changed that, and if i die trying so be it).
-
Federer had the last laugh yesterday when he won his record breaking 15-th grand slam.
He is the greatest tennis player who ever lived.
-
I'm not living teh dream yet, I'm chasing teh dream. Huge difference my friend.
But I'm on a good way (still an insignificant lil dwarf compared to people making history like a Federer and others tough; But I won't rest till I changed that, and if i die trying so be it).
We are all insignificant in a cosmic sense. ;)
-
how can nadal be the number one in the list then?
-
We are all insignificant in a cosmic sense. ;)
Would you call Obama insignificant in a cosmic sense?
-
how can nadal be the number one in the list then?
Since yesterday's final Nadal is no longer number one!Federer retakes N:1 and Nadal slips back to N:2!
-
Since yesterday's final Nadal is no longer number one!Federer retakes N:1 and Nadal slips back to N:2!
Lets be fair, even had Nadal just reached the quarters and not been injured he'd still be number 1.
-
HAVE A LITTLE RESPECT..............THE MAN WAS EMOTIONAL AFTER A MOMENTOUS VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
trying to say anyone is the best in any sport of all time is hard and difficult to do and has way too many variables involved: however.....
personally i put federer and sampras as co-best of all time.
in reality you can't put the number of grand slam titles as the only proof as the best of all time. for instance.
rod laver, who won the grand slam in 1962 and again in 1969 (TWICE!) is for one thing only one of two men who have won the calendar year grand slam in tennis history, the other being don budge, and of course he (laver) won the grand slame twice!
what commentators fail to say (including all media) is that from 1963 until 1968, laver couldn't play ANY GRAND SLAM TOURNAMENTS! because he had turned pro and pros were not allowed to play them until the open era of tennis started in 1968, so can you imagine how many grand slam titles he would have won if he was allowed to compete those 5 years during his prime? and he still had 11, only 4 short of the new record!
and laver's competition was very tough both as an amateur and a pro. then again....
back then 3 of the 4 majors (aussie, wimbledon and u.s.) were played on grass, so does this limit just how all around good laver was or wasn't. i mean a grass court expert who played like crap on any other surface could have an awesome record in grand slam titles?
for instance in regard to nadal, what if now, 3 of the 4 slams were on clay? or if that was the case back in the day when borg dominated on clay like nadal does? speaking of nadal....
personally i don't think he will have that much longer of a career, if he is constantly breaking down physically like he does already, but it's also his style of play that is so griding on him...
as far as head to head against federer, yes, he has a comfortable head to head record against federer, however, most people fail to mentioned even the so called tennis experts a.ka. mary carillo, mcenroe, etcetera, is that most of their head to head matches have been lopsided by playing on one surface way more than any other surface and that surface being clay! which nadal along with borg is already considered the best of all time on that one surface.
hardly indicative of a what i would call a true head to head mastery over federer, although nadal has beated federer on hard courts (in january at the aussie open) and of course last year on grass at wimbledon, by and large most of their matches that nadal has won have been on clay, although federer has also beaten nadal on clay i believe twice. the latest one just a week before the french open.
i believe the head to head with federer and nadal would be quite different in roger's favor if they played mostly on grass, indoor and hard courts.
in regard to sampras, he had infinitely more and tougher competition to go thru than federer. sampras had to go thru other grand slam champions, whereas federer has to content with besides nadal, only roddick (1 time grand slam winner), murray whose rising fast, and djokovic.
sampras competed against becker, edberg, courier, chang, agassi, lendle, a past his prime mcenroe, and more. plus different styles including the now almost defunct serve and volley game. which now with the advancement of racket technology improving in power every year even since sampras's recent retirement makes today's game like the women's game, power groundstroke bashing and that's it. federer of course being one of the few who can do it all.
i think prime sampras would barely beat prime federer on grass, on indoor court and hard court it's a toss up and federer tops sampras on clay. i think people think that federer's game is more all court that sampras and the shots that federer can come up with are amazing and genius and that's why some think he's better than sampras. lastly, would love to see federer play in the 80's to mid 90's with a less technological racket and play against serve and volleyers!!!
-
hahahaha, you're fucking retarded.
Ronnie coleman is 45 and has 8 Olympia wins
Cutler is 35 and has 2.
That makes cutler better right?
hahahahahah
Only if both wins were against Ronnie at his best...wich was the case with Federer.
WOOOOSSSHHHHHHHHHHHH
-
IS that a youtube link? I dont know why I cant open them anymore??
WOOOOSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !
-
trying to say anyone is the best in any sport of all time is hard and difficult to do and has way too many variables involved: however.....
personally i put federer and sampras as co-best of all time.
in reality you can't put the number of grand slam titles as the only proof as the best of all time. for instance.
rod laver, who won the grand slam in 1962 and again in 1969 (TWICE!) is for one thing only one of two men who have won the calendar year grand slam in tennis history, the other being don budge, and of course he (laver) won the grand slame twice!
what commentators fail to say (including all media) is that from 1963 until 1968, laver couldn't play ANY GRAND SLAM TOURNAMENTS! because he had turned pro and pros were not allowed to play them until the open era of tennis started in 1968, so can you imagine how many grand slam titles he would have won if he was allowed to compete those 5 years during his prime? and he still had 11, only 4 short of the new record!
and laver's competition was very tough both as an amateur and a pro. then again....
back then 3 of the 4 majors (aussie, wimbledon and u.s.) were played on grass, so does this limit just how all around good laver was or wasn't. i mean a grass court expert who played like crap on any other surface could have an awesome record in grand slam titles?
for instance in regard to nadal, what if now, 3 of the 4 slams were on clay? or if that was the case back in the day when borg dominated on clay like nadal does? speaking of nadal....
personally i don't think he will have that much longer of a career, if he is constantly breaking down physically like he does already, but it's also his style of play that is so griding on him...
as far as head to head against federer, yes, he has a comfortable head to head record against federer, however, most people fail to mentioned even the so called tennis experts a.ka. mary carillo, mcenroe, etcetera, is that most of their head to head matches have been lopsided by playing on one surface way more than any other surface and that surface being clay! which nadal along with borg is already considered the best of all time on that one surface.
hardly indicative of a what i would call a true head to head mastery over federer, although nadal has beated federer on hard courts (in january at the aussie open) and of course last year on grass at wimbledon, by and large most of their matches that nadal has won have been on clay, although federer has also beaten nadal on clay i believe twice. the latest one just a week before the french open.
i believe the head to head with federer and nadal would be quite different in roger's favor if they played mostly on grass, indoor and hard courts.
in regard to sampras, he had infinitely more and tougher competition to go thru than federer. sampras had to go thru other grand slam champions, whereas federer has to content with besides nadal, only roddick (1 time grand slam winner), murray whose rising fast, and djokovic.
sampras competed against becker, edberg, courier, chang, agassi, lendle, a past his prime mcenroe, and more. plus different styles including the now almost defunct serve and volley game. which now with the advancement of racket technology improving in power every year even since sampras's recent retirement makes today's game like the women's game, power groundstroke bashing and that's it. federer of course being one of the few who can do it all.
i think prime sampras would barely beat prime federer on grass, on indoor court and hard court it's a toss up and federer tops sampras on clay. i think people think that federer's game is more all court that sampras and the shots that federer can come up with are amazing and genius and that's why some think he's better than sampras. lastly, would love to see federer play in the 80's to mid 90's with a less technological racket and play against serve and volleyers!!!
Agreed, and looking at wimbledon specifically, Sampras had to beat a TON of huge serving serve and volleyers who were all capable of putting on great runs at wimbledon, a breed which has completely died out now.
-
dont think billionaire. that's tiger. lebron since that's all his is playing bball for ::). anyway...he got lucky nadel got hurt. he would have lost the france, and nadel would have dumped him again at wimmy. ? for greatest ever...since needed to go thru nadel for these last two, and the guy he cant beat of late is on injured reserve.
guy isn't a billionaire yet.....maybe one day in the future.... but not yet.....
-
trying to say anyone is the best in any sport of all time is hard and difficult to do and has way too many variables involved: however.....
personally i put federer and sampras as co-best of all time.
in reality you can't put the number of grand slam titles as the only proof as the best of all time. for instance.
rod laver, who won the grand slam in 1962 and again in 1969 (TWICE!) is for one thing only one of two men who have won the calendar year grand slam in tennis history, the other being don budge, and of course he (laver) won the grand slame twice!
what commentators fail to say (including all media) is that from 1963 until 1968, laver couldn't play ANY GRAND SLAM TOURNAMENTS! because he had turned pro and pros were not allowed to play them until the open era of tennis started in 1968, so can you imagine how many grand slam titles he would have won if he was allowed to compete those 5 years during his prime? and he still had 11, only 4 short of the new record!
and laver's competition was very tough both as an amateur and a pro. then again....
back then 3 of the 4 majors (aussie, wimbledon and u.s.) were played on grass, so does this limit just how all around good laver was or wasn't. i mean a grass court expert who played like crap on any other surface could have an awesome record in grand slam titles?
for instance in regard to nadal, what if now, 3 of the 4 slams were on clay? or if that was the case back in the day when borg dominated on clay like nadal does? speaking of nadal....
personally i don't think he will have that much longer of a career, if he is constantly breaking down physically like he does already, but it's also his style of play that is so griding on him...
as far as head to head against federer, yes, he has a comfortable head to head record against federer, however, most people fail to mentioned even the so called tennis experts a.ka. mary carillo, mcenroe, etcetera, is that most of their head to head matches have been lopsided by playing on one surface way more than any other surface and that surface being clay! which nadal along with borg is already considered the best of all time on that one surface.
hardly indicative of a what i would call a true head to head mastery over federer, although nadal has beated federer on hard courts (in january at the aussie open) and of course last year on grass at wimbledon, by and large most of their matches that nadal has won have been on clay, although federer has also beaten nadal on clay i believe twice. the latest one just a week before the french open.
i believe the head to head with federer and nadal would be quite different in roger's favor if they played mostly on grass, indoor and hard courts.
in regard to sampras, he had infinitely more and tougher competition to go thru than federer. sampras had to go thru other grand slam champions, whereas federer has to content with besides nadal, only roddick (1 time grand slam winner), murray whose rising fast, and djokovic.
sampras competed against becker, edberg, courier, chang, agassi, lendle, a past his prime mcenroe, and more. plus different styles including the now almost defunct serve and volley game. which now with the advancement of racket technology improving in power every year even since sampras's recent retirement makes today's game like the women's game, power groundstroke bashing and that's it. federer of course being one of the few who can do it all.
i think prime sampras would barely beat prime federer on grass, on indoor court and hard court it's a toss up and federer tops sampras on clay. i think people think that federer's game is more all court that sampras and the shots that federer can come up with are amazing and genius and that's why some think he's better than sampras. lastly, would love to see federer play in the 80's to mid 90's with a less technological racket and play against serve and volleyers!!!
no
it's actually easy
let me debunk your post :
sampras :
14 slams same era .. Fed has 15 AND the French Open ...CASE CLOSED
Laver : less slams and the level of competition was infinitely slimmer
Level of competition between Sampras and Fed : SAME !
Same era
actually Fed has currently MORE top contenders than Sampras had
raquet technology : same . nothing changed since the early eighties
what these guys actually play with and what you think they do are 2 different thingies
most pros play with frames similar to the ones everyone played in the eighties and nineties
you see more baseline games because players are TAUGHT that way to usher them in to biggger competition at an earlier age
The game evolves naturally this way
-
no
it's actually easy
let me debunk your post :
sampras :
14 slams same era .. Fed has 15 AND the French Open ...CASE CLOSED
Laver : less slams and the level of competition was infinitely slimmer
Level of competition between Sampras and Fed : SAME !
Same era
actually Fed has currently MORE top contenders than Sampras had
raquet technology : same . nothing changed since the early eighties
what these guys actually play with and what you think they do are 2 different thingies
most pros play with frames similar to the ones everyone played in the eighties and nineties
you see more baseline games because players are TAUGHT that way to usher them in to biggger competition at an earlier age
The game evolves naturally this way
Not true, Sampras had to go through WAY tougher comp to win his slams, not all sports evolve forward, look at basketball and boxing for examples of this.
-
Not true, Sampras had to go through WAY tougher comp to win his slams, not all sports evolve forward, look at basketball and boxing for examples of this.
wrong
Sampras had the same competition I'd say even slimmer
Fed has Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Rodick and Hewitt
I don't need to look at other sports as it is tennis we talk about
Again : 15 slams plus the French ...case closed ( and I am a Sampras fan! )
-
wrong
Sampras had the same competition I'd say even slimmer
Fed has Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Rodick and Hewitt
I don't need to look at other sports as it is tennis we talk about
Again : 15 slams plus the French ...case closed ( and I am a Sampras fan! )
Federer isnt even the best player at the moment when all players are fit, Nadal is.
-
Federer isnt even the best player at the moment when all players are fit, Nadal is.
I'm sorry but you have no fucking clue what you're talking about ... honestly :)
-
I'm sorry but you have no fucking clue what you're talking about ... honestly :)
So Nadal wasnt the best player in the world before he got injured?Just because you played tennis doesnt mean you are the best judge of talent.
-
nadal beats him at the france and wimmy. 14 and 15 big ? best ever? he still be sitting on 13 with a hlthly nadal
-
nadal beats him at the france and wimmy. 14 and 15 big ? best ever?
Dont forget the Australian.Federer's main strength is he is super consistent, but currently, when him and Nadal are healthy, Nadal is the better player.
-
Federer isnt even the best player at the moment when all players are fit, Nadal is.
nadal lacks pure talents he make up in speed and young engery running after the ball, problem is that works great when he is young, but won't last, he will be a shooting star in tennis and then gone, that kind of game can't hold up.
-
nadal lacks pure talents he make up in speed and young engery running after the ball, problem is that works great when he is young, but won't last, he will be a shooting star in tennis and then gone, that kind of game can't hold up.
:D :D :D
my fucking gay stalker and getbig chief homo resident and a great guy for sure is on the fucking money 100%
jtsunami u are very correct my friend
1 thing though ... Nadal is actually VERY talented and has an incredible mind
When his legs are gone you gonna notice the same thing as Hewitt ( the Nadal of 8-10 years ago )
-
How about we go with Borg as #1 of all time.
Quickest to 11 Majors. 25 years 1 day. Then he retired at 26 having only played a very lmiited schedule in 81 and 82.
The first to win the French and Wimbledon in the same year. Nadal and Federer have since done it but not 3 times in a row(78-80).
Has a winning record against everyone! Connors, MacEnroe, Nastaste, Lendl.
Has the best winning %age in Majors 89.3%.
6 French Opens.
No one ever played the Australian Open since it was in December back then and it was barely a 'major'. He played it only once!!!!!
Lost 4 Finals at the US Open which seemed to be his kryptonite.
Never lost a Davis Cup match. 33 straight!
82% winning percentage overall in his career! WOW!
-
Björn borg