Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Phenotyx t1_jase4w8 wrote

Reply to comment by hi-Im-gosu in Rafael Nadal to exit the ATP top ten for the first time in almost 18 years by atemthegod

The more you type the more clear it is you just don’t like nadal which discredits your opinion by exposing it as biased

57

SkolCity407 t1_jasfsuv wrote

Lmao guy just straight up hates Nadal. "But, they WOULD have done it if they (insert meaningless reason to why they didn't achieve it)...."

28

Phenotyx t1_jasgms3 wrote

his response to what I said shows that the guys thought process is just a bit…… how do I put this, unorthodox?

8

235_and_five t1_jatbxvi wrote

Lol. This comment thread is kinda like that one in /r/nfl where the guy basically said Patrick Mahomes is overrated if you misinterpret and/or outright change his stats for no discernable reason

6

Phenotyx t1_jau0kl9 wrote

idk why people don’t just say I don’t like X player for Y reason instead of trying to like deceive people into also disliking the player but for “real” reasons

(cuz we all know our merit as a human being comes from your professional sports stats)

1

hi-Im-gosu t1_jaseiws wrote

Nothing about my original comment is biased, I congratulated Nadal on his achievement and then I made a statement based on objective evidence and statistics.

If you interpret that as bias then so be it, you're just delusional lmfao

−53

Yayareasports t1_jasurkl wrote

This isn't bias?

> with that being said, federer and djokovic both have more weeks at number 1 than nadal so it’s not irrational to assume they would have not accomplished the same thing if not better.

You're trying so hard to not sound biased but it's super obvious in the angle you take on your response. You could've flipped it and said:

> if Nadal didn't have many more small injuries throughout his career, it's not irrational to assume he'd have the record of weeks at number 1

Of course that'd be biased too - see what I did there?

14

CarlThe94Pathfinder t1_jasv76p wrote

My dog, you're not being objective or non-biased at all. Reread your comment, it comes off as "i know X is great, but ACKCHULLY, blah blah blah injuries..."

That's what sports are: anyone can go for a record, but not everyone can compete for those records. Injuries are just as much a part of sports as winning and losing are

5

hi-Im-gosu t1_jath0rh wrote

>My dog, you're not being objective or non-biased at all.

You clearly lack basic comprehension skills, because everything in my original statement was objective.

>it’s clear rafa had smaller (in severity) but more (in quantity) nagging injures but fed and djokovic had fewer but more significant injuries where they had to miss much more time.

Name one thing here that is objectively wrong?

>tennis ranking points drop off if you don’t play for a period of time, but nadal never missed enough in a consecutive manner to where it was ever enough to drop him out of the top 10.

Name one thing here that is objectively wrong?

>with that being said, federer and djokovic both have more weeks at number 1 than nadal so it’s not irrational to assume they would have not accomplished the same thing if not better.

Name one thing here that is objectively wrong?

Obviously injuries are a part of sports, I never said they weren't I simply compared the types of injuries nadal had to djokovic and federer's and made a very obvious conclusion that any logical person would come to.

−4