PDA

View Full Version : GOAT Focus Group


BorisBeckerFan
05-13-2009, 01:21 AM
I work in the advertising/graphics industry. We conducted a focus group for various local car dealers. Just in case some aren't aware, a focus group is not a scientific poll with large groups to draw solid conclusions but rather like dropping a leaf to see what the wind is doing. We brought in 11 people who were looking to purchase a vehicle within in the next 3 months and asked various questions like who would you buy from and why. Which dealership seems honest etc. I printed out a couple of the GOAT threads and brought them with me. At the end of the group I asked if they would be willing to stay another 10 to 15 minutes and read through the threads and answer some quick questions. Not surprisingly 3 of them immediately said they would not have the time. After handing out the copies one of them said "I love Pete Sampras" I said thank you for your time I would like to get the point of view of people who don't follow tennis. That only left me with 7 people. 5 male and 2 female. 3 to 4 minutes into it one of the men said "these people are all childish, I don't have time for this." I said you are welcome to leave at anytime since it is not the focus session you agreed to participate in. Down to 6.

Once they were done reading. I asked them if they thought Pete Sampras or Roger Federer was the better player. 3 said Pete 2 said Federer and one said he was undecided caliming both sides made good arguments. Throughout the brief session people asked things like what does GOAT mean and what is S&V. I already felt bad for wasting these peoples time as it was running a little longer than I anticipated but they seemed willing. I asked what they thought of BorisBeckerFan. 2 said he was a clown. The rest didn't really have much of an opinion one said "if what he's saying is true, he makes a good point but I really don't know"

I wanted to ask more questions but I chose not too keep abusing there time.
There really wasn't as much to be drawn from the session as I had hoped for a lack of time and lack of participants. At most, and this is a stretch, you could say "to non tennis fans who don't know if the stats that are given are factual or not, Sampras supporters made a stronger case than Federer supporters by a margin of 3 to 2." Out of the countless stats that have been tossed out in these threads the one stat which seemed to pop out the most to them was Fed's record vs Nadal. 4 of them pretty much came up to same conclusion that it makes no sense to be the best ever when someone else is beating you most of the time. Yet one of those 4 remained undecided. I guess a Fed supporter must have said something pretty compelling to avoid this being 4 to 2 Sampras. I have no idea what these people's reading comprehenssion level is or what biases they might have. They only read through the copies once and didn't really have a chance to digest it all so this just there general impression. I personally would have thought the fact that Federer had beat Pete in there only meeting or that Pete had 14 slams would have been the most significant sats that would have stood out but nope it was Fed's head to head aginst Nadal that seemed to have the greatest impact.

This was in no way shape or form scientific but I did try my best to keep my explanations to any questions they had simple with out favoring one or the other and just presented the blog as is.Had this taken this not taken twice the amount of time I had told them I would have liked to find out more about why they answered the way they did.

Despite this not being of much value at all I did find the little it revealed interesting in regards to what non tennis fans thought after reading these threads. I personally think that Roger's and Pete's accomplishments stand well on their own. This is also a stretch but it could also be said that to outsiders looking in Nadal is spoiling the show for Federer.

chiru
05-13-2009, 02:44 AM
this was a very interesting experiment you did. i kinda wish you could do this more frequently with more focus groups you bring together, again on a purely voluntary basis like the above.

thanks for this. I am actually quite impressed with your discipline in putting this together. good post.

pc1
05-13-2009, 05:46 AM
Very interesting study.

BorisBeckerFan
05-13-2009, 08:34 AM
People who participate in focus groups are paid for their time. These people were willing to stay a little extra for free. I think it would be hard to do this again because it took much longer than I had anticipated it would and I still feel somewhat guilty for taking up there time like I did even though the 6 who stayed didn't seem to mind. I would be interested in putting something together with a larger amount of participants and at least an hour of time just to see what there reactions would be. I'm not willing to pay people out of my own money to this and don't think I could get enough people willing to participate for free. With only 6 people participating in a relatively short amount of time the results don't really mean much.

seffina
05-13-2009, 08:42 AM
I am transcribing a focus group recording right now. They're such a pain to transcribe when the person conducting it is not very good.

Anyways, a bigger sample would indeed be very interesting.

Chadwixx
05-13-2009, 09:02 AM
"to non tennis fans who don't know if the stats that are given are factual or not, Sampras supporters made a stronger case than Federer supporters by a margin of 3 to 2." Out of the countless stats that have been tossed out in these threads the one stat which seemed to pop out the most to them was Fed's record vs Nadal"

Ill bet a dollar you neglected to mention feds head to head record vs pete on petes best surface.

btw its pretty sad you resort to a group of people who know nothing about tennis so you can justify your beliefs, may wanna get some help, its seems to be a major issue in life for you.

How many accounts do you now have gamesampras/380pete, 4 or 5 now?

BorisBeckerFan
05-13-2009, 09:27 AM
"to non tennis fans who don't know if the stats that are given are factual or not, Sampras supporters made a stronger case than Federer supporters by a margin of 3 to 2." Out of the countless stats that have been tossed out in these threads the one stat which seemed to pop out the most to them was Fed's record vs Nadal"

Ill bet a dollar you neglected to mention feds head to head record vs pete on petes best surface.

btw its pretty sad you resort to a group of people who know nothing about tennis so you can justify your beliefs, may wanna get some help, its seems to be a major issue in life for you.

How many accounts do you now have gamesampras/380pete, 4 or 5 now?

I don't have the time to post for so many users. I did neglect to mention everything and anything as to not taint or bias their answers. I did not highlight anything. I presented printed copies of the trheads then asked some questions. Do you know what my beliefs are? I did not vote for pete on the is Pete the GOAT yes or no poll. So what is it that you think I am trying to justify? I have clearly stated many times on this bard that I don't like Nadal's style of play. What sort of help do you think I should get?

BorisBeckerFan
05-13-2009, 09:43 AM
Chadwixx, I also stated that making a statement based on the conditons of the session was a "stretch." If these groups weren't held in anonymity I would upload the video so you could see what took place because you don't seem to grasp what it is I did. I am open to the possibility of me not describing what took place well enough for you to understand.
For me this was a fun little thing to do, not something I need to justify anything. Specially GOAT discussions which are subjective to what GOAT criteria one finds more important, or the even worse "he's the GOAT because he is my favorite" people. My favorite player ever is Boris Becker and I don't claim he's the best ever so what is it that you think I am justifying?

West Coast Ace
05-13-2009, 10:47 AM
How many accounts do you now have gamesampras/380pete, 4 or 5 now?I'd never considered that but now that you bring it up you might be right. Similar levels of hysteria and anger in 'their' posts... :)

Assuming the OP is legit, focus groups can be useful for consumer products, TV and movie shows - but not for determining the best player of a sport. Products can be altered based on the feedback; TV shows and movies re-edited or scrapped before millions of dollars are lost.

BorisBeckerFan
05-13-2009, 10:53 AM
I am not accusing Chadwixx of anything but he is accusing me of being gamesampras or 380pete (maybe he means 380pistol) and having multiple accounts. To West Cost Ace I ask who is the angry one? Please read my response to Chadwixx. I am stating points without defaming Chadwixx.

BorisBeckerFan
05-13-2009, 11:04 AM
To West Coast Ace,

This was pure entertainment, not scientific, something I did for fun. I did not do this to determine who was the GOAT since the people had little knowledge of tennis. I did this to see who they thought who posed a better argument. They had no Idea what some of the terminology being used was and if the stats being stated were factual. I said this was not of much value. I also said it did not mean much. I simply wanted to share a little something I did for fun. I can easily be mistaken but based on yours and Chadwixx's response I think you guys think I am taking this as a serious experiment vs what I did wich was very simple and just for fun.

Chadwixx
05-13-2009, 04:55 PM
"I would like to get the point of view of people who don't follow tennis"

Why?

Sorry if your not a multi account user. Just seems like a very far fetched way to validate your opinion, something along the lines of 380 or game. Dont get me wrong i like to read their pasionate posts, they are great fans.

Becker was one of my favs too, i copied his high low high forehand.

West Coast Ace
05-13-2009, 05:50 PM
To West Cost Ace I ask who is the angry one? Please read my response to Chadwixx. Angry? Me? Try bemused. I can't believe you would think for a second - please see my reasons above - you'd think this was even worth considering.

And if you're so thin-skinned that an anonymous post that questions one of your ideas can unnerve you so, maybe the Internet isn't the place for you.

BorisBeckerFan
05-14-2009, 04:35 AM
Angry? Me? Try bemused. I can't believe you would think for a second - please see my reasons above - you'd think this was even worth considering.

And if you're so thin-skinned that an anonymous post that questions one of your ideas can unnerve you so, maybe the Internet isn't the place for you.

This is a very good use of the word if, since I am not thin skinned I know the rest of what you said doesn't apply to me. Hindsight is 20/20. I openly admitted that any conclusion from this was a stretch and it did not have value. Prior to doing this I thought it may have some value not as to the validity of a GOAT, but as to the convincingness of the posters. I decided to share what I did despite it's lack of value so if I were thin skinned I wouldn't post something that I know didn't turn out like I had hoped.

BorisBeckerFan
05-14-2009, 04:40 AM
"I would like to get the point of view of people who don't follow tennis"

Why?

Sorry if your not a multi account user. Just seems like a very far fetched way to validate your opinion, something along the lines of 380 or game. Dont get me wrong i like to read their pasionate posts, they are great fans.

Becker was one of my favs too, i copied his high low high forehand.

To see who outsiders would think was presenting the more convincing presentation. Even if 100 percent of the posters here agree that there is such a thing as a GOAT and The GOAT player A, doesn't make it so. The point of them not knowing much about tennis is so that their own opinion doesn't bias their answer. Not so that they would determine who the GOAT is.

veroniquem
05-14-2009, 07:05 AM
"to non tennis fans who don't know if the stats that are given are factual or not, Sampras supporters made a stronger case than Federer supporters by a margin of 3 to 2." Out of the countless stats that have been tossed out in these threads the one stat which seemed to pop out the most to them was Fed's record vs Nadal"

Ill bet a dollar you neglected to mention feds head to head record vs pete on petes best surface.

btw its pretty sad you resort to a group of people who know nothing about tennis so you can justify your beliefs, may wanna get some help, its seems to be a major issue in life for you.

How many accounts do you now have gamesampras/380pete, 4 or 5 now?
Federer and Sampras are not in the same era, not even remotely (that's why they only met once), they are almost 10 years difference in age. A single encounter between an old guy and a young guy is totally irrelevant to the conversation.

Chadwixx
05-14-2009, 08:37 AM
I was talking about their match at wimbledon where pete was a 4 time defending champion, not the exo's.

veroniquem
05-14-2009, 08:45 AM
I was talking about their match at wimbledon where pete was a 4 time defending champion, not the exo's.
I was talking about the W match as well. I never consider exos at all.

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
05-14-2009, 09:05 AM
There seemed to be key points some posters missed in the OPs initial intro, those being it was completely for fun to get some idea of how people who dont actively follow tennis would view who the GOAT is. They attempted to make it unfun, and totally uncool and needlessly heavy. All I can do is shake my head. Some people take themselves and their ideas too seriously sometimes. And try to indicate someone else is thin-skinned. Go figure.

Chadwixx
05-14-2009, 09:24 AM
I was talking about the W match as well. I never consider exos at all.

Some old guy who isnt very good winning wimbledon 4 times in a row? I dont get it. Are you saying it was a very weak era or something?

veroniquem
05-14-2009, 09:35 AM
Some old guy who isnt very good winning wimbledon 4 times in a row? I dont get it. Are you saying it was a very weak era or something?
No, I'm saying there are (actually exactly) 10 years difference between Sampras and Fed. On their lone encounter Sampras was almost 30, Federer almost 20. I don't think one can draw any conclusion from such a match, Sampras was not only out of his prime but he won 0 tournament that year, he would never win Wimbledon after 2000 and he would not win a single tournament until his good-bye USO in 2002 (a retirement with panache!)
Once again beating an aging Sampras on the decline once has 0 meaning in terms of comparing both guys' careers.

TheTruth
05-14-2009, 07:28 PM
No, I'm saying there are (actually exactly) 10 years difference between Sampras and Fed. On their lone encounter Sampras was almost 30, Federer almost 20. I don't think one can draw any conclusion from such a match, Sampras was not only out of his prime but he won 0 tournament that year, he would never win Wimbledon after 2000 and he would not win a single tournament until his good-bye USO in 2002 (a retirement with panache!)
Once again beating an aging Sampras on the decline once has 0 meaning in terms of comparing both guys' careers.

So well put!

egn
05-14-2009, 07:36 PM
Federer and Sampras are not in the same era, not even remotely (that's why they only met once), they are almost 10 years difference in age. A single encounter between an old guy and a young guy is totally irrelevant to the conversation.

I agree I don't hold the wimbledon win with high regard but Sampras as pointed out was the 4 time defending champion at that given moment, but Sampras 2001 was far from Sampras 2000.

Anyway on topic this was a very interesting experiment you conducted.

egn
05-14-2009, 07:37 PM
So well put!

Holy s**t i thought you were dead..

nice to see you back whats with the change of heart.

TheTruth
05-19-2009, 01:50 PM
Holy s**t i thought you were dead..

nice to see you back whats with the change of heart.

Why would I be dead? Because I didn't post on an insignificant forum? I post the same way I've always posted. Strange, that you think it's so different.