User talk:Vandyboy712
Welcome!
[edit]
Hello, Vandyboy712, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Your first article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
- Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
- and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 08:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Stop with the Djokovic chest-thumping
[edit]No need to keep adding fancruft adverbs to Djokovic articles, which are pretty much the only articles you edit. Lots of tennis players have watercooler fans who think certain players are the greatest. As the years go by there are less press reports as new generations of players supplant the old. The word "many" covers things well, though "one of the greatest" would actually be better for an encyclopedia. Much less subjective. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hey man, I hear what you are saying, but other athletes on wikipedia have the same language. Brady and Phelps have on their pages "widely regarded." Why is it a problem if Djokovic has that label but okay if they do? At this point he holds every single major record in the sport and it's really not a discussion. I get where you are coming from but I get where I am coming from too. Vandyboy712 (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, so did Roy Emerson... for decades. His tallies blew the rest away, but he was never considered close to the greatest. There is always more to it than that. Numbers don't tell the whole story. Any other time in history, Federer is number 1 in 2017, it was a no brainer visually, but that's not what happened. And there are plenty of records Djokovic doesn't have. It should say "He is considered one of the greatest tennis players of all-time"... simple and to the point. No water cooler fluff to boost magazine sales. No looking at the futuristic rackets and balls he played with compared to Borg and Laver. No looking at the huge change in court surfaces. What he has going for himself is longevity. It's truly amazing the high level he still competes with and I've never seen anything like it. But every few years new polls are taken and older players get pushed aside in favor of newer because they are fresh on peoples minds. No chance in their peak years do I take Djokovic over Federer on grass or carpet. No chance do I take Djokovic over Nadal on clay. And I'd take Djokovic over both on hardcourts. And I never had Federer as the greatest during his reign either. For me that would be Laver with two Grand Slams (three if you include his incredible 1967 Pro Grand Slam+). But again, that's water cooler stuff not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Laver should say the same thing as Djokovic with "He is considered one of the greatest tennis players of all-time." Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- We could argue all day about this debate sure, but I am not interested in that. I will relent especially if you are constantly monitoring the article, but at this point, it's silly to name anyone other than Djokovic as the GOAT in terms of number and achievement in the sport. Vandyboy712 (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hey Fyunck, now that Djokovic has won the gold medal, I think it's time to once and for all put "widely regarded as the GOAT" on his page. It is truly moronic at this point to not, anyone who knows tennis is in agreement on it. Vandyboy712 (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- He is certainly now widely regarded as one of the all-time greats. But goat in tennis eludes everyone. Do you go with the best single season of 78–1, 95 match win streak, seven straight Davis Cup titles? That's not Djokovic. Do you go with winning a Grand Slam? Djokovic couldn't do it, and Laver did it twice. Winning percentage at US Open, that's Tilden at 91%. Best winning percentage at Wimbledon, that's Borg at 93% (Tilden at 91%). There are about 5–10 men that could lay claim to greatest. Some had shorter but more brilliant time periods at the their peaks, and some like Djokovic can still play great tennis at 37. He's amazing. And the women's side have that same situation. Is it Wills, Lenglen, Connolly, Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Williams. Numbers tell us Court. Dominance is Wills, shorter period dominance and Grand Slam is Connolly. Modern you'd be looking at Graf or Navratilova. Equipment enhancements and homogenized surfaces you have Williams. It'll always be tough because of so many changes in the 2000s, so many changes in the 70s, so many changes in the 60s, etc... It will likely always be water-cooler talk. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lol this is ridiculous, legit can't believe what I'm reading. Whatever Vandyboy712 (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- You aren't alone in thinking the current era is best (CEIB). It's a common misconception to forget 150 years of tennis history and to also forget that what is important now was not as important then. Djokovic is right there with the very best and it's always fun to talk about what-ifs. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lol this is ridiculous, legit can't believe what I'm reading. Whatever Vandyboy712 (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- He is certainly now widely regarded as one of the all-time greats. But goat in tennis eludes everyone. Do you go with the best single season of 78–1, 95 match win streak, seven straight Davis Cup titles? That's not Djokovic. Do you go with winning a Grand Slam? Djokovic couldn't do it, and Laver did it twice. Winning percentage at US Open, that's Tilden at 91%. Best winning percentage at Wimbledon, that's Borg at 93% (Tilden at 91%). There are about 5–10 men that could lay claim to greatest. Some had shorter but more brilliant time periods at the their peaks, and some like Djokovic can still play great tennis at 37. He's amazing. And the women's side have that same situation. Is it Wills, Lenglen, Connolly, Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Williams. Numbers tell us Court. Dominance is Wills, shorter period dominance and Grand Slam is Connolly. Modern you'd be looking at Graf or Navratilova. Equipment enhancements and homogenized surfaces you have Williams. It'll always be tough because of so many changes in the 2000s, so many changes in the 70s, so many changes in the 60s, etc... It will likely always be water-cooler talk. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, so did Roy Emerson... for decades. His tallies blew the rest away, but he was never considered close to the greatest. There is always more to it than that. Numbers don't tell the whole story. Any other time in history, Federer is number 1 in 2017, it was a no brainer visually, but that's not what happened. And there are plenty of records Djokovic doesn't have. It should say "He is considered one of the greatest tennis players of all-time"... simple and to the point. No water cooler fluff to boost magazine sales. No looking at the futuristic rackets and balls he played with compared to Borg and Laver. No looking at the huge change in court surfaces. What he has going for himself is longevity. It's truly amazing the high level he still competes with and I've never seen anything like it. But every few years new polls are taken and older players get pushed aside in favor of newer because they are fresh on peoples minds. No chance in their peak years do I take Djokovic over Federer on grass or carpet. No chance do I take Djokovic over Nadal on clay. And I'd take Djokovic over both on hardcourts. And I never had Federer as the greatest during his reign either. For me that would be Laver with two Grand Slams (three if you include his incredible 1967 Pro Grand Slam+). But again, that's water cooler stuff not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Laver should say the same thing as Djokovic with "He is considered one of the greatest tennis players of all-time." Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
August 2024
[edit]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Novak Djokovic, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. It's not like this Djokovic chest thumping hasn't been mentioned to you before Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- So who crowned you as the official Djokovic page monitor? Why does your opinion hold more weight than all the players, pundits, analysts and fans who all at this point pretty much universally view Novak as the goat. Vandyboy712 (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not, but when a fanboy keeps adding fancruft I keep an eye out, as I do on all tennis articles. And Tennis Project has consensus not to include any water-cooler stuff in the lead. You must be young and haven't seen all the other great players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Whether or not I grew up watching Bill Tilden play does not change the numbers and statistics of the game. It does not change the fact that Djokovic has the most slams, most masters, most weeks at #1, most year end #1 finishes, and best career win percentage, among so many other records. He possesses pretty much every major statical record in the game.
- Earlier you said “But goat in tennis eludes everyone. Do you go with the best single season of 78–1, 95 match win streak, seven straight Davis Cup titles? That's not Djokovic.”
- These examples are not records that reflect an entire careers worth of achievement, they are singular records focused on a short time span. If you evaluate the records that look at the players career on the whole, Djokovic possesses them all, regardless of how the game has changed over time. At this point in time, I would even go as far as to say that is it misleading to put that he is regarded by “many” as the GOAT instead of saying he is "widely regarded." If the wording was changed to “most statistically successful player of all time” you would not have an issue with that because as a serious tennis fan, you can’t argue with the stats. Vandyboy712 (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- The numbers have never ever been the sole aspect of greatest. As I explained before, the only player we would have been talking about was Emerson since he had the numbers.... but we didn't. There are many intangible things to greatest ever. In the past what historians looked at was more like the best 5-8 year period of a players career. When they played their best tennis against their peers. Some like Connors had all kinds of longevity records. But you had players like Borg who shown brightly but burned out fast. Djokovic is the most statistically successful player over the long haul. But he could not win a Grand Slam, let alone two. He could not manage a 95 match win streak, or win seven straight Davis Cups. When folks sit around the water cooler they talk about who would win what event in their primes not just the numbers. Who was the best player. That will always be elusive. In the last 20 years I would always take Djokovic on hard court, Nadal on clay, and Federer on grass. That's a no brainer. But none of them accomplished the biggest aspect of the sport in winning a Grand Slam or going 78-1. Or playing on surfaces that were no homogenized to keep the speed as consistent as possible. This is what I mean by water-cooler fun. GOAT opinion is a term made to sell magazines, not something for an encyclopedia. It brings us down to tabloid level. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I will give this argument up. You are speaking french and I am speaking spanish. Vandyboy712 (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- The numbers have never ever been the sole aspect of greatest. As I explained before, the only player we would have been talking about was Emerson since he had the numbers.... but we didn't. There are many intangible things to greatest ever. In the past what historians looked at was more like the best 5-8 year period of a players career. When they played their best tennis against their peers. Some like Connors had all kinds of longevity records. But you had players like Borg who shown brightly but burned out fast. Djokovic is the most statistically successful player over the long haul. But he could not win a Grand Slam, let alone two. He could not manage a 95 match win streak, or win seven straight Davis Cups. When folks sit around the water cooler they talk about who would win what event in their primes not just the numbers. Who was the best player. That will always be elusive. In the last 20 years I would always take Djokovic on hard court, Nadal on clay, and Federer on grass. That's a no brainer. But none of them accomplished the biggest aspect of the sport in winning a Grand Slam or going 78-1. Or playing on surfaces that were no homogenized to keep the speed as consistent as possible. This is what I mean by water-cooler fun. GOAT opinion is a term made to sell magazines, not something for an encyclopedia. It brings us down to tabloid level. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not, but when a fanboy keeps adding fancruft I keep an eye out, as I do on all tennis articles. And Tennis Project has consensus not to include any water-cooler stuff in the lead. You must be young and haven't seen all the other great players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)