View Single Post
Old 01-06-2013, 01:25 PM   #22
timnz
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,860
Default I think

Quote:
Originally Posted by ollinger View Post
Threads don't get much sillier than this one. Should we "normalize" the slam count of a guy who chose not to play some slams but let stand the counts of innumerable players (like Laver) who for years weren't allowed to play in slams before the advent of open tennis? "Normalize" their counts as well and suddenly the diffident Borg gets left far behind in tennis history, on the sidelines reading his beloved comic books.
I think what the OP is trying to do here is say that the standards by which we assess players has changed over time. Total number of slams became the gold standard in the 1990's. Before that it was other things eg number of year end number 1 positions etc etc. It is okay having this new standard, but where it is unfair is when we judge older players by this new standard, when at the time they had other goals. Yes it is only inference, but this is an attempt to find some level of equivalency.

I tried by creating an open era ranking system, by comparing players with events rated over 1000 points.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=445573
timnz is offline   Reply With Quote