v2 G.OA.T Round 2 Match 1

Round 2 kicks off today with the first 1 on 1 match up.

Today’s match see's Tennis gland slam champion Roger Federer taking on Boxing legend Henry Armstrong.

Please vote for the participant you believe has achieved the most in sport

Below are the previous round 1 articles written by forum members

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Roger Federer- Tennis- Championed by emancipator

2001, Wimbledon Centre Court; defending and seven time Wimbledon champion 'Pistol' Pete Sampras, the man who had reigned at the top of men's tennis for close to a decade and considered by many to be unbeatable on this hallowed turf is at crisis point. At two sets all, 5-6 and 15-40 down in the deciding set, the ruthlessly efficient Sampras is facing match point. It had been five years since anyone had managed to beat him in this tournament. His opponent is a relatively unknown challenger in the form of Swiss teenager, 19 year old Roger Federer. On countless occasions throughout his career Sampras had bailed himself out of tight spots with his booming, swerving, pin-point accurate serve; the serve universally acclaimed as the greatest in history. He wipes sweat from his brow, bounces the ball twice, looks up, coils himself into the releasing position, then with a seamlessly fluid motion he serves a missile out wide to Federer's forehand and charges towards the net. Federer takes a step towards the ball and unleashes a forehand that whizzes past Sampras for a clean winner. He crumples to his knees in disbelief and celebration. The BBC commentator proclaims the birth of a new star. The crowd rise as one to salute the new King. It is the dawn of a new era.. The Federer era.

It would be another couple of years before Federer would really hit the heights, and what heights! 17 grand slams from 24 finals, including 7 Wimbledon titles. Over 300 weeks as the number one player in the world, including 237 consecutive weeks at the top spot. 6 World Tour Final victories from 8 finals. 23 consecutive grand slam semi-finals; 34 consecutive grand slam quarter finals (and counting); a run of 24 consecutive finals victories in all tournaments, 65 consecutive match wins on grass, 56 consecutive match wins on hardcourt, five consecutive Wimbledon and US Open titles, a run of 18 grand slam finals out of 19 grand slam tournaments played, 21 masters titles.. and on and on.. all of them records, many of them by a considerable distance. There are at least half a dozen Wikipedia articles dedicated to the career achievements and complied statistics/records of Roger Federer. Peruse them at your own leisure - if you've got a few days to spare that is

But what makes Federer really stand out amongst the legends of tennis and indeed any sport is his unique game. Everything about his game is beautiful, everything is seemingly effortless. He glides around the court unhurried, with uncanny footwork and balletic grace. A sixth sense for being at the right place at the right time. He plays with perfect technique. Like an artist, Federer creates masterpieces; the court is his canvas. At heart, he is an attacking player who plays the game the right way; always looking to seize the initiative, to hit outright winners, to win spectacularly and brilliantly. He can hit every shot in the book. But he can also grind and play great defense. If it is so required he can switch to plan b, c, d, whatever it takes. In a sport dominated by super athletes, Federer at his peak was as fast and durable as they come. Modern tennis is played predominantly from the baseline (a stark difference to the tennis of Sampras's heydey which was mainly serve and volley based, with the majority of points won at the net) and Roger Federer can play the baseline game as well as anyone. But he can do so much more. He can mix spins and slices, lobs and dropshots, powerful winners and delicate touch, from the back of the court or at the net. It is this unique fusion of power, skill and aesthetic grace, that has captured the imagination of millions of fans around the world. Federer doesn't just win, he wins with style.

Federer's style and success has allowed him to transcend the sport in a way that few sportsmen in history can match. He is a record four time winner of the prestigious Laureus Sportsman of the Year Award. In a recent poll conducted across 25 countries with 51,000 participants he was voted as the second most trusted person in the world after Nelson Mandela. During the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony, Federer received the loudest cheer of the night when he carried the Swiss flag into the stadium https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddojLWIjKK4 At the London Olympics Federer's pre-Olympic presser had more than 700 journalists, more than any other star at the games. He was mobbed by crowds during his recent tour of South America with political and sporting dignitaries (including Pele and Maradonna) feting him. He has the most impressive endorsement portfolio in all of sports including blue chip companies such as Nike, Mercedes-Benz (global ambassador), Wilson, Rolex, Credite Suisse, Gillette, Moet & Chandon etc.

But despite all the accolades Federer has remained a likeable, down to earth person. His fellow tennis professionals have voted him the winner of the annual Steffan Edberg Sportsmanship award a record eight times. He is the President of the ATP players council and in this capacity has campaigned for the benefit of all the players on the tour, including negotiating a fairer distribution of prize money for players who lose in the earlier rounds of the slams. The Roger Federer foundation is a charitable organisation with the stated mission of empowering children through education; it is involved in numerous projects throughout Africa.

It is incredible that with so many distractions (he's married with two young children to boot) Federer has still managed to stay at the top of such a global and competitive sport. As things stand he is the number 2 ranked player in the world and indeed was, just a few short months ago, the number one player in the world. Tennis has traditionally been a young man's sport but Roger Federer has redefined the parameters. An incredible work ethic, pure sporting genius with exemplary conduct has moulded one of the greatest sporting careers ever witnessed. And it's not over yet. Federer has declared his intention to play until the 2016 Olympic Games. There may yet be a few more pages to add to Wikipedia

Some quotes:

"[In the modern game], you're either a clay court specialist, a grass court specialist or a hard court specialist ... or you're Roger Federer" - Jimmy Connors

"He is the most naturally talented player I have ever seen in my life" - John McEnroe

"He moves like a whisper and executes like a wrecking ball" - Nick Bollettieri (legendary tennis coach)

"He is the most perfect machine I have ever seen playing tennis" - Diego Maradonna

"Federer plays shots that other players don't even think of" - Ivan Lendl

"We are witnessing history. This is the most dominant athlete on planet earth today" - Jim Courier (4 time grand slam champion)

"Federer is the best player in history - no other player has ever had so much quality" - Rafael Nadal

"Roger's got too many shots, too much talent in one body. It's hardly fair that one person can do all this—his backhands, his forehands, volleys, serving, his court position. The way he moves around the court, you feel like he's barely touching the ground. That's the sign of a great champion." - Rod Laver

"He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go. There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts. Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them [other players], so many years; there's a safety zone, there's a place to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision." - Andre Agassi

"He's a real person. He's not an enigma. Off the court he's not trying to be somebody. If you met him at McDonald's and you didn't know who he was, you would have no idea that he's one of the best athletes in the world" - Andy Roddick

"Today I was playing my best tennis, trying lots of different things, but nothing worked. When you're playing like that and he still comes up with all those great shots you really have to wonder if he's even from the same planet" - Novak Djokovic

ps - For those of you who haven't seen the The Fed Express in action, the following video might give you some idea of what he's all about
http://vimeo.com/40765561


Henry Armstrong- Boxing- Championed by superflyweight

It's probably the case that for all but the more historically minded posters from the boxing forum, Henry Armstrong is going to be a bit of a mystery name. However, ""Homicide Hank"" has every right to be considered in this process and his exploits known to a wider audience. Armstrong might not be a household name but amongst keen boxing historians, he's pretty much a universal pick in the top 5 pound for pound fighters of all time. The respected IBRO picked him as the third greatest fighter of all time (Sugar Ray Robinson and Harry Greb took the top 2 spots).

Having turned pro in 1931, Armstrong fought frequently (he'd eventually rack up 181 fights by the time he retired) mostly with great success until in 1937 his career really took off. Incredibly so! Henry fought 27 times in 1937. 27!!! Unthinkable now when the top fighters barely manage three fights in a year. In the first 22 of those 27 fights he won 21 of them by knockout. In the 23rd fight he knocked out reigning champion, Petey Sarron in the 6th round to win the featherweight world title. He won his remaining four fights of 1937 with four more knockouts. So across 27 fights in 1937, Armstrong won 27 times and 26 of those victories came by knockout. Added to that he now had the featherweight title belt in his possession. A truly incredible year but Armstrong was about to surpass it. What Armstrong did in 1938 is simply the greatest calendar year any boxer has ever had. Harry Greb's 1922 is amazing but Armstrong's 1938 is staggering and almost beyond comprehension.

Homicide Hank managed 14 wins out of 14 fights in 1938 - all while he was still reigning featherweight champion. He'd continue the run of knockouts he's accumulated in 1937 by knocking out his first 7 opponents of the year (including future champion, Chalky Wright). In his 8th fights of the year, the very good Baby Arizmendi would see the final bell to end the run of knockouts but not the run of victories. However, Armstrong's finest moments were just around the corner. Armstrong jumped up a couple of weight divisions to challenge the great welterweight champion Barney Ross. Armstrong weighing in at less than the lightweight limit comprehensively beat the great Ross over 15 rounds to add the welterweight title to his featherweight title. Not satisfied with this, Armstrong immediately challenged the excellent lightweight champion Lou Ambers. Armstrong would take the title courtesy of a split decision and became the first person to ever hold three different world titles at different weights concurrently. In an era when there were only eight different weight divisions, Armstrong held nearly half of the available belts on offer.

Much has been made of Manny Pacquiao’s weight hopping exploits over the last few years and whilst what Manny has done has been impressive, it pales in comparison to Armstrong’s exploits. Armstrong gathered almost half of the available weight belts in less than 12 months and did so by beating the best men in each weight class. There were no weight stipulations imposed on his opponents and Armstrong would take the welterweight title whilst weighing in as a lightweight.

Although Armstrong would contentiously lose the lightweight title in a rematch with Ambers, he would go on to defend the welterweight title several times and would have a pop at the middleweight title (which he would have won but for the judges dubiously scoring his fight with Cerefino Garcia a draw). He'd eventually lose the welterweight title in 1940 to Fritzie Zivic but he would continue to fight until 1945.

Armstrong would finish with a record of 150 wins (101 knockouts) from his 181 fights but it's the period between 1937 and 1940 that truly stands out. From 1937 to late 1940, he lost only one fight. His record against topflight competition during this time was 59 wins, 1defeat and 1 draw with 51 knockouts. He scored 27 straight knockouts during 1937-1938. It's arguable that during that 3 year period, Armstrong was the greatest and most dominant sportsman on the planet.

Let ‘s turn to the excellent Monte Cox to get a picture of what Armstrong was like in the ring:

""Armstrong was a marvel of the ring. He worked at a fast pace, had quick hands and unlike most fighters seemed to pick up speed as the rounds went on. He was also a strong puncher and defensively his bob and weave style kept him from receiving the full impact of his opponent’s blows. The truth of Henry Armstrong is that he had much better boxing skills than some give him credit for.

Most fighters tried to run from Henry, but he never let them get away. He stuck to his opponent’s like superglue and drove them into a corner or trapped them against the ropes and them proceeded to give them a good pasting. Fighters who tried to stand their ground against Hank had difficulty keeping up with his work rate. He would overwhelm them until they were forced to back up and then he would chase them down, pounding away until they were beaten men.

Upon his death it was discovered that Armstrong’s heart was a third larger than that of the average person. This allowed him to fight at a ferocious pace for 15 rounds without loss of breath. It seems certain that he could have done the same thing in a 20 round bout.""

Armstrong won't be the most celebrated name of the 64 men and women that will be considered in this process, but there should be no doubt that he is fully deserving of his place among the greatest sports stars that the world has ever seen.

Voted for Federer, as the best ever tennis player he blows Armstrong out of the water.

Fed Express every time.

Voted for Roger Federer. Greatest tennis player of all-time.

Federer. The tennis fans say he's the best ever, so that's enough for me.

Despite my championing of Armstrong, I have to go for Federer. Simply the best tennis player I have ever seen and combined huge success with beautiful, elegant tennis.

I fear Hank is going to get a terrible pasting here unless the Nadal fans get militant.

I fear Henry Armstrong's pre-war vintage won't be down with the kidz of today. Fed it is.

Stella wrote:Federer. The tennis fans say he's the best ever, so that's enough for me.

He really really isn't.

superflyweight wrote:Despite my championing of Armstrong, I have to go for Federer. Simply the best tennis player I have ever seen and combined huge success with beautiful, elegant tennis.

I fear Hank is going to get a terrible pasting here unless the Nadal fans get militant.

Not many people can see the truth about Federer, let's be honest.
Most British tennis fans watched him just continually paste Roddick at Wimbledon, saw his pretty tennis, and boom.

Anyway I still believe he's a better candidate than this Armstrong guy, so I won't campaign against him now. In-fact I'll vote for Federer.

superflyweight wrote:Despite my championing of Armstrong, I have to go for Federer.

Splitter!

This is a mismatch for me. Federer by a mile as good as Armstrong sounds.

And I'm sure we'll get the "he's still playing" brigade bleating on here yet again, but he is towards the end of his career now and has already amassed a phenomenal record.

Is this were it gets nasty


Federer for the win!

IMBL doesn't feel that Federer is the greatest of all time, which is his prerogative. At this stage, the only man who can possibly be ahead of Fed is Laver, however (Nadal is "merely" the best clay courter of all time, Sampras is edged by Federer in almost every worthwhile category, Borg lacks the longevity and couldn't win a US Open). There are plenty of professional tennis experts who would be happy to give their vote to the Swiss, so he's got to be a strong contender for overall honours.

As far as today is concerned, I'm a die-hard Armstrong fan, but he doesn't win this head to head. Just for once, Hank is going to need the referee to come to his aid at some point this afternoon to save him from further punishment.

It Must Be Love wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Despite my championing of Armstrong, I have to go for Federer. Simply the best tennis player I have ever seen and combined huge success with beautiful, elegant tennis.

I fear Hank is going to get a terrible pasting here unless the Nadal fans get militant.

Not many people can see the truth about Federer, let's be honest.
Most British tennis fans watched him just continually paste Roddick at Wimbledon, saw his pretty tennis, and boom.

Anyway I still believe he's a better candidate than this Armstrong guy, so I won't campaign against him now. In-fact I'll vote for Federer.

Is this where you tell us the truth about the Matrix?

Yeah whats this truth no one in britain knows about federer??

I'm only a very casual tennis fan and I am asking an honest question here and not trying to wind anyone up.
I just looked up most successful tennis players on wiki and it says Rod Laver won 200 titles and Federer has 80 odd so far. Can anyone explain how the two are comparable?

Slight edit, just seen major titles are Laver - 19, Federer - 17.
Ken Rosewall won 23.

Can someone please educate me a little?

mystiroakey wrote:Yeah whats this truth no one in britain knows about federer??

IMBL is a very, very, very big Nadal fan, so the 'truth' comes from that perspective.

It Must Be Love wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Despite my championing of Armstrong, I have to go for Federer. Simply the best tennis player I have ever seen and combined huge success with beautiful, elegant tennis.

I fear Hank is going to get a terrible pasting here unless the Nadal fans get militant.

Not many people can see the truth about Federer, let's be honest.
Most British tennis fans watched him just continually paste Roddick at Wimbledon, saw his pretty tennis, and boom.

Anyway I still believe he's a better candidate than this Armstrong guy, so I won't campaign against him now. In-fact I'll vote for Federer.

As opposed to the tennis fans in Melbourne, New York, the turgid Red Muck of Roland Garros, and anywhere else you care to mention, who saw what exactly? Federer paste much better players than Roddick? Federer win all there is and all there ever will be? Federer single-handedly elevate the sport by wrestling it from the hands of the rudimentary baseline hitters and turning it into an artform?

In tennis there is but one sacred truth: there has never been anyone better than Roger Federer.

We will be saying the same thing when this competition repeats in 50 years. All respect to Hank, but this isn't a fair fight.

NB. We will post a couple of classics from the TME Vault at a later time to further strengthen the case for King Roger.

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:


NB. We will post a couple of classics from the TME Vault at a later time to further strengthen the case for King Roger.

There's no hurry.

As great as Hank was and as much as I admire his achievements this is a mismatch. Fed one of the favourites for the whole competition and will breeze into the next round.

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:
NB. We will post a couple of classics from the TME Vault at a later time to further strengthen the case for King Roger.

Sounds like a lot of hassle going into a non-existent vault of a non-existent organisation. So if its easier, we (by "we" in this case I mean everyone on 606v2, not myself) wont mind if you don't bother.

great as Armstrong was, Federer is IMO fairly comfortably the best (male) tennis player of all time, whereas very few boxing fans would have Armstrong at the top of the pile (as a consensus he's behind at least SRR). Simply put, Federer for me is one of maybe 5 favourites for the overall title, so he takes this round.

MIG wrote:I'm only a very casual tennis fan and I am asking an honest question here and not trying to wind anyone up.
I just looked up most successful tennis players on wiki and it says Rod Laver won 200 titles and Federer has 80 odd so far. Can anyone explain how the two are comparable?

Slight edit, just seen major titles are Laver - 19, Federer - 17.
Ken Rosewall won 23.

Can someone please educate me a little?

It was a very different structure back in the days of amateur tennis and then the pro-am split. Laver won the Grand slam in 1962 and also won 18 other tournaments. Most pros these days wouldn't play 22 tournaments in a year. The size of the field was much smaller back then - many of those 18 tournaments would have only had 8 players, or 16 - sometimes only 4 players.
Then in '63 Laver turned professional, so could only play the Pro Slams, against fellow pros, not the Majors - Aus Open, French Open, Wimby, US Open.
Comparisons between the Open Era (1969) onwards and the pre-Open Era are very difficult. However, Laver retains legendary status even among today's top players.

mystiroakey wrote:Yeah whats this truth no one in britain knows about federer??

Just wait.
In the next round I'll say.
You'll see.

It Must Be Love wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Yeah whats this truth no one in britain knows about federer??

Just wait.
In the next round I'll say.
You'll see.

Will you also finally explain why Rafa is 'heroic'?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Yeah whats this truth no one in britain knows about federer??

Just wait.
In the next round I'll say.
You'll see.

Will you also finally explain why Rafa is 'heroic'?

???

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:

NB. We will

*I

JuliusHMarx wrote:

MIG wrote:I'm only a very casual tennis fan and I am asking an honest question here and not trying to wind anyone up.
I just looked up most successful tennis players on wiki and it says Rod Laver won 200 titles and Federer has 80 odd so far. Can anyone explain how the two are comparable?

Slight edit, just seen major titles are Laver - 19, Federer - 17.
Ken Rosewall won 23.

Can someone please educate me a little?

It was a very different structure back in the days of amateur tennis and then the pro-am split. Laver won the Grand slam in 1962 and also won 18 other tournaments. Most pros these days wouldn't play 22 tournaments in a year. The size of the field was much smaller back then - many of those 18 tournaments would have only had 8 players, or 16 - sometimes only 4 players.
Then in '63 Laver turned professional, so could only play the Pro Slams, against fellow pros, not the Majors - Aus Open, French Open, Wimby, US Open.
Comparisons between the Open Era (1969) onwards and the pre-Open Era are very difficult. However, Laver retains legendary status even among today's top players.

Thank you, makes sense now.

bit of a landslide seemingly. Top 3 p4p boxer against no 1 tennis player, guess it was always going to be that way.

Along with cricket, the 3 most over-populated sports in this, and i suspect those that got through, that aren't clearly top dog in their sport, will take a kicking in this round unless drawn against each other.

what a battering its been today so far..

Looking forward to a close match up

Round 2 works on the basis of: Group winners from round 1 face group runners up.

There are plenty of interesting match ups coming up but some definite bankers as well.

sweet good work Mtothec

could be interesting. There were some fairly weak group winners IIRC, and some strong runner-ups (Merckx springs to mind obviously, but there were others), so there should be some close ties in there.

Im don't think Feds the best ever sportsman, mines a cricketer most likely, but I feel hes the clear winner of this bracket, he's defo top 5 best ever sportsman for me... for what that's worth of course

Kind of thought we would still have groups of 4 but with obviously in the main more evenly matched contenders.
Anyway not tricky today, easy win for the Fex Express.

MIG wrote:I'm only a very casual tennis fan and I am asking an honest question here and not trying to wind anyone up.
I just looked up most successful tennis players on wiki and it says Rod Laver won 200 titles and Federer has 80 odd so far. Can anyone explain how the two are comparable?

Slight edit, just seen major titles are Laver - 19, Federer - 17.
Ken Rosewall won 23.

Can someone please educate me a little?

Don't worry MIG, the Main Event Lads are always willing to educate.

First and foremost, Rosewall and Laver's unofficial 'Major tallies' include Grand Slam titles that they won against an amateur field, prior to the inaugural Open Era Grand Slam - the 1968 French Open. During the professional-amateur divide, the top players played on the Pro Tour and competed in their own Pro Slams. As such, Slam titles won in this amateur fashion are worthless. Laver won 6 amateur Slams and Rosewall claimed 4, which can all be subtracted without a second thought. It should also be noted that Rosewall won 2 of his 4 Open Era Slams at the Australian Open, a tournament that non-Australians never bothered traveling to and at which, according to persistent rumors, Rosewall received suspiciously favorable treatment from line judges and officials.

Not only did Rosewall fail to win a Wimbledon Championship in either its amateur or fully professional guise, he also shockingly failed to win the 'Australian Pro' Slam. During an 11-year professional career, Rosewall failed to win a single championship at his 'Home-Town' major, sparking murmurs of discontent among the locals regarding Rosewall's perceived desire for American acceptance, with some feeling that he was 'ashamed to be an Aussie'.

This is an article we penned back in 2010 pertaining to Rod Laver and his legacy - you'll find that many of the points also apply to Rosewall.

For years, since ‘Potato’ Pete Sampras and Roger Federer respectively set new records for Grand Slam titles won, journalists and casual observers have mentioned the name Laver as a contender to the throne.

Laver won 11 Grand Slam titles but ‘missed’ 5 years of Grand Slam events (21 in total) during the professional-amateur divide. Laver won all 4 Grand Slams in 1962, his final year before turning pro, and won all 4 again in his first full season back, 1969. On paper this seems impressive.

The Laver Ol’ Boys would have you believe that ‘The Rocket’ is the best ever. They say that he would have won 15 plus Grand Slams during his 21 event ‘exile’. This would have left Rod with 26 plus Grand Slams to his name. Too good to be true?

Of course it is.

It is important to remember that Laver’s first 6 Slams were won as an amateur, when all of the top players were playing as professionals. These 6 titles are worthless. There were many superior players to Laver at this time – Gonzales, Rosewall and Hoad, to name a few – and Laver wouldn’t have won any of those 6 Slams if he was competing against the strongest field.

When Laver did turn professional, he was totally uncompetitive against the top pros for a year and a half. This proves that Laver's first 6 Slams carry no credibility. But Laver did, eventually, become the top man. In total, during his pro career, he won 8 out of the 15 professional Slams.

If there had been 4 pro Slams per year, perhaps Laver would have 2 more, maybe 3 if we account for the 21st Slam he ‘missed’. That, generously, gives him 11 out of 21 Slams. Very good, but nothing like the 15/16 that the Ol’ Boys ramble on about. In addition to the 5 Slams he won during the Open Era, that gives him 16.

But something that the Ol’ Boys never mention is that the pro Slams only contained 16 players in the draw. Nothing like the 128 player draws that the modern day Grand Slams have. Laver only had 15 other players to contend with in all 15 pro Slams that he played.

Possibly the most important factor in this debate is the depth of talent in the game at that time. Only someone totally detached from logic would disagree that it’s harder to win Slams in the modern era than it was in the ‘60s.

Ken Rosewall, in 1974, reached 2 Grand Slam Finals aged 39. Inconceivable in today’s game. That is a damning indictment on the level competiton at the time. What does that say about Laver? If Rosewall could reach Finals aged 39, why couldn’t a 32 year old Laver reach any Slam Finals? Laver failed to adapt. He didn’t have the power or the guile to pit his wits against the younger generation.

Pancho Gonzales was generally regarded as the best player of the pre-Open era. In 1970, Gonzales defeated Laver in a $10,000 winner-take-all, five-set match at Madison Square Gardens - when Gonzales was 41 years old.

Another important factor is that 3 out of the 4 Slams were played on grass during Laver’s era. How many more Slams would Roger Federer have if that was the case today? 4 at least. That takes Federer’s hypothetical tally to 21. Laver won his last Slam (his hypothetical 16th) aged 31. Federer only recently turned 31 and still has time to extend his lead (hypothetically 5 Slams) over Laver in the Grand Slam stakes.

The Ol’ Boys are blinkered by their lust for the past. They have told and retold Laver's story. But when we consider the facts, it is clear that the story of Rod Laver’s greatness is simply a myth.

"He moves like a whisper and executes like a wrecking ball"- I love this quote

From the house rules:

• If your post is deemed illegible because it is done in l33t speak, sTiCkY CaPs, uses excessive punctuation, unnecessary formatting (inappropriate size and color), or contains excessive typing errors/abbreviations, you will be asked to retype your post in a more readable manner.

Rowley wrote:From the house rules:

• If your post is deemed illegible because it is done in l33t speak, sTiCkY CaPs, uses excessive punctuation, unnecessary formatting (inappropriate size and color), or contains excessive typing errors/abbreviations, you will be asked to retype your post in a more readable manner.

WhO HavE You AIMeD THat CoMMENt At???????????????

Would you mind rewriting that comment in a more readable manner Tina?

I’m like the Nick Clegg of this forum, a fancy title and the illusion of power but nobody actually pays any attention to anything I say.

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:the Main Event Lads are always willing to educate.

If not able.

Are there any houserules against individuals referring to themselves as a collective.

Honestly if I read the words "Main Event Lads" on here again I think my laptop is going through the window. Thankfully it's a work laptop/window.

VTR wrote:Are there any houserules against individuals referring to themselves as a collective.

No but the Rowley team are more than happy to add one.

Rowley wrote:I’m like the Nick Clegg of this forum, a fancy title and the illusion of power but nobody actually pays any attention to anything I say.

I always see you more as Norman Clegg, rowley.

On behalf of The Marx Brothers (and I include Gummo), I trust we can all post as one.

Rowley wrote:

VTR wrote:Are there any houserules against individuals referring to themselves as a collective.

No but the Rowley team are more than happy to add one.

Good man. Please add it asap, I can feel Hans is preparing to post another of his classic ramblings!

Can I assume that the Main Event Lads are Hans, Knees and Boomps a Daisy?