Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tennis...Anyone?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Tennis...Anyone?

    Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
    I'd strongly disagree with this. The guys outside the top 5 are much stronger than they were in sampras' day. All the players take every facet of their game so much more serious now too. If you like at the last 10 years there hasn't been one surprising grand slam winner.
    I tend to agree with this, but I would point out that there were more specialists for the majority of Sampras' career, and the courts (particularly at Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows) favored those specialists. For example, Goran Ivanisevic was a great serve-and-volley player who could dominate at the fastest surface (Wimbledon, where he appeared in all 4 of his career Grand Slam finals and won his only Grand Slam (2001)). He was outside the Top 5 for much of his career, but might be one of the best 10-15 players to ever play on the grass.

    Of course, if Sampras had to play on the slower Wimbledon of today, he likely would not have won 7 titles there. The same could be said of Federer...if he had to play on the fast Wimbledon courts of Sampras' era, he likely does not win 8 titles there.
    North Dakota
    National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

    Comment


    • Re: Tennis...Anyone?

      Um, that fewer randoms have won during this era is proof the competition was more difficult then not less. What a putrid argument, but reminds me why I have him on ignore.

      Comment


      • Re: Tennis...Anyone?

        Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
        Um, that fewer randoms have won during this era is proof the competition was more difficult then not less.
        Thank you. I had an "Is this Opposite Day?" moment and thought I was stroking out.
        Cornell University
        National Champion 1967, 1970
        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

        Comment


        • Re: Tennis...Anyone?

          Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
          Um, that fewer randoms have won during this era is proof the competition was more difficult then not less. What a putrid argument, but reminds me why I have him on ignore.
          Again, the reason why more "randoms" won back in Sampras' era had more to do with the number of specialists and the playing surfaces at the grand slams. Now, I believe that is certainly a factor weighing in favor of your argument. However, there are more "generational greats" playing in their primes than Sampras really ever had to contend with (Agassi is the only one I can think of at the moment (and he was extremely inconsistent)...anyone else?). Ultimately, it really is a different game today than it was just 15-20 years ago.
          North Dakota
          National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
            Um, that fewer randoms have won during this era is proof the competition was more difficult then not less. What a putrid argument, but reminds me why I have him on ignore.
            I guess you might not see this or whatever, but look at the Australian open this year. I'm not saying the random guys are going to win the tourney, definitely not, but they make the first few rounds much tougher than they used to be for the guys who are in contention.
            Originally posted by BobbyBrady
            Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

            Comment


            • Re: Tennis...Anyone?

              Originally posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post
              Again, the reason why more "randoms" won back in Sampras' era had more to do with the number of specialists and the playing surfaces at the grand slams. Now, I believe that is certainly a factor weighing in favor of your argument. However, there are more "generational greats" playing in their primes than Sampras really ever had to contend with (Agassi is the only one I can think of at the moment (and he was extremely inconsistent)...anyone else?). Ultimately, it really is a different game today than it was just 15-20 years ago.
              You might want to check out the list of Grand Slam winners Pete was up against during his tenure, although there are some generational gaps in which the wins were acquired. Agassi won all 4 although only 1 French, Courier won 2 AO and 2 FO, Edberg won 2 W and 4 AO/USO, Becker won all except a FO, no one dominated the FO during his run and I'm not seeing a ton of "specialists" that could be argued added to the "random" argument being anything other than the competition was better. And in the 00's there were just as many one-time GS winners as during the 90's.

              Comment


              • Re: Tennis...Anyone?

                Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
                You might want to check out the list of Grand Slam winners Pete was up against during his tenure, although there are some generational gaps in which the wins were acquired. Agassi won all 4 although only 1 French, Courier won 2 AO and 2 FO, Edberg won 2 W and 4 AO/USO, Becker won all except a FO, no one dominated the FO during his run and I'm not seeing a ton of "specialists" that could be argued added to the "random" argument being anything other than the competition was better. And in the 00's there were just as many one-time GS winners as during the 90's.
                I'm not really sure who you are arguing with, but I'll respond since you quoted me.

                First, I'm not sure that Stefan Edberg and Boris Becker were generational greats...at least by my standards (i.e. one of the 10-15 greats of all-time). To the extent they were, the majority of Sampras' grand slams were earned after Edberg and Becker were at the top of their game. 13 of Sampras' 14 grand slams came after Edberg's last (1992). Becker was still pretty strong through the mid-1990s, but only managed 2 grand slam finals after 1991...well before Sampras' run of greatness. Courier was very good for about 3 years (making 7 finals from 1991-1993, but never made another)...I'm not quite seeing how he is listed in the same sentence with Edberg and Becker.

                Second, I think you misunderstood my specialists argument. I think it favors your argument.

                Third, you seem to ignore the elephant in the room, i.e. the changes to the playing surfaces and their effect on the game overall. You pretty much need to be an all-around/baseline player these days to compete at the grand slams. In Sampras' era, you could rely on your serve and win Wimbledon or the US Open. The changes have largely wiped out the specialists, which is why you have the great all-around/baseline players winning all the tournaments...not because of a lack of competition.
                North Dakota
                National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

                Comment


                • Re: Tennis...Anyone?

                  Sampras was a very solid player from the baseline and although his serve was wicked you shouldn't leave out the, "volley" part of the equation. And although he never won at Roland Garros he did win a few tournaments on clay. Perhaps he wasn't up against as many "generational greats" but I still believe the overall depth in his time was stiffer. Also remember they only seeded to 16 back then which meant he could randomly face what would be considered 17-32 in the 1st or 2nd round of a tournament vs. the 3rd round since, and men's top seeds are 10% more likely to reach 3rd+ now than before the 32-seeded era began.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Tennis...Anyone?

                    Originally posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post
                    you seem to ignore .... the changes to the playing surfaces and their effect on the game overall.
                    or the changes in what the rackets are made of, or in string technology, or in nutrition and personal training.

                    Even differences in travel arrangements: more global traveling, for example.

                    About the only real measure we have is how a player fares against his/her contemporaries.



                    also, the GOAT argument really seems to be about singles, and not about the total game: Billie Jean King twice won singles, doubles, and mixed doubles at the same major tournament, IIRC. Martina Navritalova probably did as well.
                    "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                    "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                    "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                    "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                    Comment


                    • Re: Tennis...Anyone?

                      Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
                      Sampras was a very solid player from the baseline and although his serve was wicked you shouldn't leave out the, "volley" part of the equation. And although he never won at Roland Garros he did win a few tournaments on clay. Perhaps he wasn't up against as many "generational greats" but I still believe the overall depth in his time was stiffer. Also remember they only seeded to 16 back then which meant he could randomly face what would be considered 17-32 in the 1st or 2nd round of a tournament vs. the 3rd round since, and men's top seeds are 10% more likely to reach 3rd+ now than before the 32-seeded era began.
                      Don't get me wrong, Pete Sampras is my favorite player of all-time. I tried to emulate his game as much as possible when I played in high school (I was a serve-and-volleyer and used Pete's racket), and I always appreciated his reserved attitude...particularly in contrast with Agassi. You definitely bring up a good point regarding seeding, and one that counters the perceived overall depth of today's game...at least in the opening rounds of the tournament. IMO, the thing that tips the balance in favor of today's competition is that to win a grand slam you have to go through potentially 2-3 generational greats. I think that is slightly more difficult than going through court-specialists...although I do believe it is very close. Perhaps the real difference is that in Sampras' era, it was more difficult to get to the Round of 16, while today it is more difficult to win the whole tournament. Realistically, given the tremendous changes in the game over the last 15-20 years, it is probably too difficult to truly determine which fields were more competitive.
                      North Dakota
                      National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

                      Comment


                      • Re: Tennis...Anyone?

                        To MaizeRage's point a couple weeks ago: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/bl...ts-anti-doping

                        It seemed suspicious to me how all of Nadal's matches followed the same pattern during the US open as far as energy level went.
                        Originally posted by BobbyBrady
                        Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

                        Comment


                        • Re: Tennis...Anyone?

                          Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
                          To MaizeRage's point a couple weeks ago: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/bl...ts-anti-doping

                          It seemed suspicious to me how all of Nadal's matches followed the same pattern during the US open as far as energy level went.
                          FWIW, nowhere in that article do they mention Nadal or suggest that Nadal engaged in doping. If anything, it casts doubt on the whole sport, and perhaps all these "generational greats" are really just all doped up with PEDs? Maybe Slap Shot was correct all along?
                          North Dakota
                          National Champions: 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2000, 2016

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post
                            FWIW, nowhere in that article do they mention Nadal or suggest that Nadal engaged in doping. If anything, it casts doubt on the whole sport, and perhaps all these "generational greats" are really just all doped up with PEDs? Maybe Slap Shot was correct all along?
                            Ha, the doping exacerbates the difference, but I still think without it the guys today are much better. The guys in the 90's were very solid but they didn't have the big serves and groundies like they do today. In a lot of ways Sampras was ahead of his time(outside of going to net a lot.)
                            Originally posted by BobbyBrady
                            Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

                            Comment


                            • Re: Tennis...Anyone?

                              Originally posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post
                              Don't get me wrong, Pete Sampras is my favorite player of all-time. I tried to emulate his game as much as possible when I played in high school (I was a serve-and-volleyer and used Pete's racket), and I always appreciated his reserved attitude...particularly in contrast with Agassi. You definitely bring up a good point regarding seeding, and one that counters the perceived overall depth of today's game...at least in the opening rounds of the tournament. IMO, the thing that tips the balance in favor of today's competition is that to win a grand slam you have to go through potentially 2-3 generational greats. I think that is slightly more difficult than going through court-specialists...although I do believe it is very close. Perhaps the real difference is that in Sampras' era, it was more difficult to get to the Round of 16, while today it is more difficult to win the whole tournament. Realistically, given the tremendous changes in the game over the last 15-20 years, it is probably too difficult to truly determine which fields were more competitive.
                              A lot of fair points to be sure. In a way it's like arguing Jordan or LeBron or even Russell and Wilt.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Tennis...Anyone?

                                Originally posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post
                                FWIW, nowhere in that article do they mention Nadal or suggest that Nadal engaged in doping. If anything, it casts doubt on the whole sport, and perhaps all these "generational greats" are really just all doped up with PEDs? Maybe Slap Shot was correct all along?
                                Is pro tennis really that bad at testing for PEDs, or like MLB did, are they overlooking the obvious in the name of profit? Alternatively, are the PED pushers just getting really good at creating designer PEDs that aren't tested for/banned yet?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X