snowychap Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 outclassaʊtˈklɑːs/verbpast tense: outclassed; past participle: outclassedbe far superior to.Brilliant work, Steveo.Is there any point to your post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 10, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) I did try to write more on that post but pasting in that definition messed it all up! The point was, by the definition of the word, I don't see anything wrong with what Paul said. Federer was far superior to Murray today. It is a synonym for beaten. But it specifically means beaten well. Edited July 10, 2015 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 The point was, by the definition of the word, I don't see anything wrong with what Paul said.People don't just write things/read things/comment on things according to some dictionary definition of stuff and that ought to be effing obvious when you take in to account a little thing called context.I even said the following first off:I hate the phrase 'outclassed' - it's as though the result was meant to be because the person who won was a better class of player anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 Federer was far superior to Murray today. It is a synonym for beaten. But it specifically means beaten well.Yes. No and no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 10, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 10, 2015 Okayyyyyyy You seem to be quite angry about this Just seems to be a weird thing to be debating when what Paul said made perfect sense. I'm off to bed anyway. Don't keep yourself up worrying about this! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 11, 2015 Author Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Okayyyyyyy You seem to be quite angry about this Not at all, Steven. I don't see why you think thorough equals angry. Edited July 11, 2015 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginko Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 But you're not being thorough, your interpretation of the word is incorrect. He used 'outclassed' correctly, so I'm not sure what you're on about. Federer beat Murray well and was 'far superior' to him on this occasion. As for your suggestion that that's the case when anyone beats anyone, that's just not true, is it? If the match was a much closer contest, you wouldn't use 'outclassed' in reference to the winner. In other news, upon googling 'outclassed' it came up with the definition and this example: "Villa totally outclassed us in the first half" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 11, 2015 Author Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) But you're not being thorough, your interpretation of the word is incorrect. He used 'outclassed' correctly... Edit: I am being (or attempting to be) thorough by trying to explain why I dislike the word's use. In having a discussion about semantics (rather than just quoting 'the free dictionary' - or whichever one it was - like anyone with the internet and a working finger could do), I was attempting to get across why I had a problem with the use of 'outclass' (or, specifically, 'outclassed' in this case). As for substituting the dictionary definition in to Paul's sentence - how can someone be 'a bit' far superior to someone else? Yes Murray a bit outclassed today Edited July 11, 2015 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginko Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Firstly, he was speaking colloquially and that's just how people talk sometimes. Secondly, people often say things like that to understate the obvious in a sarcastic manner for emphasis. I didn't think I'd have to explain that to you, it's a pretty well known facet of conversation. Either way, your definition of the word is incorrect according not only to the free dictionary, but a number of them online it would seem. Hardly surprising though, since that is the correct and widely accepted definition. I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. I can't explain it any clearer than that, so I'm just going to leave it there. Edited July 11, 2015 by Ginko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 11, 2015 Author Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Secondly, people often say things like that to understate the obvious in a sarcastic manner for emphasis.So he was being sarcastic now, was he? I'm not really sure what you're arguing here.I'm not really 'arguing' anything - I began by indicating my dislike of the word and its use and then went on to respond to further comments (not with the aim of persuading anyone to share my point of view or in a heated way - the effing was to indicate annoyance at what I seemed to be a rather pointless interjection .I'll leave the arguing and the winning of internet points to others. Edited July 11, 2015 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I can't agree that Federer would have beaten anyone today. Tbh, I wouldn't have thought you would because that wouldn't have fitted with your ' outclassed' comment and the subsequent posts. Edit: I think he would - you think he wouldn't. You think he 'outclassed' his opponent; I think he played so well that he would probably have beaten any opponent. Point is Djokovic isn't Murray. He's the best player in the world. Yes he can be beaten on the rare occasion like the French Open final and Federer beats him sometimes but I don't think Federer would have been allowed to play as well as he did against Djokovic. Guess sunday will show just how well Federer is playing. Murray who is mentally weak? Do you win major tennis tournaments being mentally weak? I just don't think you can come out with those statements. He has always been mentally weak except for the time he had Lendl as his coach. Thats the only time he was was a winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Federer definitely outclassed Murray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 11, 2015 Author Share Posted July 11, 2015 He has always been mentally weak except for the time he had Lendl as his coach. Thats the only time he was was a winner I can see why you say that - I don't think I agree (obviously not disputing the facts of his wins under Lendl) but you may be right. Guess sunday will show just how well Federer is playing. Maybe but it'll show how well Federer is playing on sunday rather than how well he played yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Yes fair enough. I can't pick a winner of the final. The Federer performance against Murray has really made it difficult to predict. Guess if Federer has 76% first serves then he has a decent chance of winning. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 11, 2015 Author Share Posted July 11, 2015 I can't pick a winner of the final. I've now got to decide whether to cash out my bet (Williams S having just won) or let it ride (on Djokovic). £29.62 to cash out or £56 if it wins (both minus £10 as it's a free bet). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I'm in a similar position having had bets on Murray and Federer. I always back against Djokovic as his odds are always low. Really smart bet yours though! I might do the same for the US Open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Well played Serena was very good. Got to be one of the best ever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Well played Serena was very good. Got to be one of the best ever? She has the physical advantages but yes her or Graf for me the greatest in the modern era. Theres others like Maureen Connolly who by the age of 19 had won 9 slams but sadly after her a horse accident had to retire at the age of 20, then died of cancer at the age of 34 would have won the most slams i think. Then theres Margaret Court who holds the record for slams i think and Graf. Serena is getting there though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 What a brilliant display of tennis from Djokovic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Well deserved for Nole. Fed tried his best at his age but how many forehands did he feebly net when in a decent position in the rally? Aside from the 2nd tie break which he messed up, Djokovic was brilliant at the crucial moments especially on his serve. Think he can surpass Nadal in slams now which is about right for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts