What is a weak era or strong era in tennis?

[pc1]

We've had a lot of discussions on so called weak eras in tennis. Some of the reasons are because they may serve as explanations for why one player may have done well in a certain era. If one player dominates it may have been because of the so call weak era.

I do believe that just by logic alone, there had to be times in tennis history in which the relative quality of play more have been lower. However I do think it's hard to pinpoint and a so call weak era may be in reality a strong era.

For example I do believe in Pre-Open tennis that perhaps there were very weak eras in the amateur ranks. Roy Emerson won a lot of majors in the 1960's and yet he may not have been one of the very top players in the world. Would he have won so many majors if Gonzalez, Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Hoad were playing in the majors? I would doubt it. But that was the times. The Pros had all the best players and while there were some strong players in the amateurs, there weren't of the level of the pros.

So I'm curious what people consider a "WEAK ERA" and what is a "STRONG ERA" in tennis and why? Please don't just give an explanation that currently we have the strongest era in history just because it's the present. I want some explanations if possible.

Obviously there is no right or wrong answers here. No one can prove anything but it would be interesting to see the explanations and perhaps learn from them.

[FiveO]

IMO strong v. weak eras can be identified by the strength/weakness of two elements:

1- generational overlap both front and rear. IOW the holdover apex players of the generation prior, coming to the big tour 5-6 years earlier than the current generation currently enjoying their prime AND early door kickers, the young guns from the "next gen" breaking in 5-6 years after the current crop had. Sometimes it becomes further enhanced when 1 or 2 great players from two gens prior hang long enough to be a factor in the first part of a current generations run.

2- health - of the top echelon current and crossover generations, but mostly the current generations nearest peers all peaking at or about the the same period of time.

I think that the history of the game shows that each generation produces somewhere between 2 and 3 truly elite players and it's the presence and overlap of multiple generations that makes any particular era great. The vast majority of any era are draw fillers and would remain draw fillers in any generation, there's a second tier of very good, but there's only a couple of great players per generation. The absence of such players from any of those generations creates a vacuum or weaker era.

5

[TMF]

Originally Posted by FiveO

IMO strong v. weak eras can be identified by the strength/weakness of two elements:

1- generational overlap both front and rear. IOW the holdover apex players of the generation prior, coming to the big tour 5-6 years earlier than the current generation currently enjoying their prime AND early door kickers, the young guns from the "next gen" breaking in 5-6 years after the current crop had. Sometimes it becomes further enhanced when 1 or 2 great players from two gens prior hang long enough to be a factor in the first part of a current generations run.

2- health - of the top echelon current and crossover generations, but mostly the current generations nearest peers all peaking at or about the the same period of time.

I think that the history of the game shows that each generation produces somewhere between 2 and 3 truly elite players and it's the presence and overlap of multiple generations that makes any particular era great. The vast majority of any era are draw fillers and would remain draw fillers in any generation, there's a second tier of very good, but there's only a couple of great players per generation. The absence of such players from any of those generations creates a vacuum or weaker era.

5

You left out one element and it's the most important one....

Increase in number of athletes and countries competiting. Logic say the bigger pool, the greater depth and talent. It doesn't necessary has to be tennis, but in other sports too. It's natural that the game continue to progress, it cannot stay still and improvement is the only way to survive.

While it's true that each generation produces 2 or 3 dominant players, but the quality of tennis in their respective era are not the same. For example, no one in there right mind would say Court would have won 11 AO in this current era.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

You left out one element and it's the most important one....

Increase in number of athletes and countries competiting. Logic say the bigger pool, the greater depth and talent. It doesn't necessary has to be tennis, but in other sports too. It's natural that the game continue to progress, it cannot stay still and improvement is the only way to survive.

While it's true that each generation produces 2 or 3 dominant players, but the quality of tennis in their respective era are not the same. For example, no one in there right mind would say Court would have won 11 AO in this current era.

That's is a great point and extremely valid.

But let's say Court played in this era. I believe she was around Serena's height with world class speed in her time. What if she had the training of today? Clijsters is shorter (or at least near Court's height) than Court and she's one of the dominant players in the game today.

I do think Court would be one of the top players today. She would be different and probably play with a different style but I don't think her physical gifts and mental desire would be denied.

Did Court play in a weak era? Her main competition was Bueno, Wade and Billie Jean King with Evert and Goolagong coming in at the tail end of her dominance in the early 1970's. Is it as strong as today? Offhand I would think the top players could compete but perhaps there weren't as many good players then as there are now. It's a gut feeling.

The increase pool of course is a tremendous help and logically there should be greater athletes but we can never assume that genius cannot be found from a little pond.

Writers in the United States used to complain all the time how the United States players were being dominated by the population of a small country in Australian for years. Why were the Aussies so powerful for such a long time? Perhaps it was Hopman, who may have been very unique. I guess Hopman can claim credit for developing John McEnroe and Vitas Gerulaitis also among all the great Australians.

Is tennis better today? Are the athletes better today? Hard to say. But clearly the talent pool is larger. Would that make Roger Federer of 2005 a weak player relatively speaking twenty years from now when the talent pool should be even larger? I don't think so. I think Federer's genius would probably be valid in 2031 but obviously I wouldn't know for sure now.

In watching John McEnroe compete against some of the athletes of today I am convinced a young John McEnroe would do extremely well today. His speed and hand/eye coordination and his great touch would still be very effective today in my opinion and this a player who's peak was over 25 years ago. It was from a smaller talent pool.

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by pc1

That's is a great point and extremely valid.

But let's say Court played in this era. I believe she was around Serena's height with world class speed in her time. What if she had the training of today? Clijsters is shorter (or at least near Court's height) than Court and she's one of the dominant players in the game today.

I do think Court would be one of the top players today. She would be different and probably play with a different style but I don't think her physical gifts and mental desire would be denied.

Did Court play in a weak era? Her main competition was Bueno, Wade and Billie Jean King with Evert and Goolagong coming in at the tail end of her dominance in the early 1970's. Is it as strong as today? Offhand I would think the top players could compete but perhaps there weren't as many good players then as there are now. It's a gut feeling.

The increase pool of course is a tremendous help and logically there should be greater athletes but we can never assume that genius cannot be found from a little pond.

Writers in the United States used to complain all the time how the United States players were being dominated by the population of a small country in Australian for years. Why were the Aussies so powerful for such a long time? Perhaps it was Hopman, who may have been very unique. I guess Hopman can claim credit for developing John McEnroe and Vitas Gerulaitis also among all the great Australians.

Is tennis better today? Are the athletes better today? Hard to say. But clearly the talent pool is larger. Would that make Roger Federer of 2005 a weak player relatively speaking twenty years from now when the talent pool should be even larger? I don't think so. I think Federer's genius would probably be valid in 2031 but obviously I wouldn't know for sure now.

In watching John McEnroe compete against some of the athletes of today I am convinced a young John McEnroe would do extremely well today. His speed and hand/eye coordination and his great touch would still be very effective today in my opinion and this a player who's peak was over 25 years ago. It was from a smaller talent pool.

How a past champion might adapt to today's tennis is not just about how their physical game and training would be altered, but would the sport still fit their personality or temperament. That is one individual characteristic that is not easily altered by training or even the best sport psychologist. Court might not succeed in the modern era because her shy, diffident personality could not handle the modern pressure cooker of public eye and Mac might simply implode too often and far earlier in his career

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

Increase in number of athletes and countries competiting. Logic say the bigger pool, the greater depth and talent. It doesn't necessary has to be tennis, but in other sports too. It's natural that the game continue to progress, it cannot stay still and improvement is the only way to survive.

While it's true that each generation produces 2 or 3 dominant players, but the quality of tennis in their respective era are not the same. For example, no one in there right mind would say Court would have won 11 AO in this current era.

"This is not a good post." Logic "says" nothing here.

Probability suggests that if a given set of organisms is more populous, the specimens who survive are probably better adapted to survive. But in reality the exact opposite could happen. Probability means that it is more likely to happen, but offers no guarantee that it will actually happen.

Logical results are dependable; probable results are only more likely.

"It is only a fool who presumes evolution means progress or improvement in human beings."
--Bertrand Russell

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

"This is not a good post." Logic "says" nothing here.

Probability suggests that if a given set of organisms is more populous, the specimens who survive are probably better adapted to survive. But in reality the exact opposite could happen. Probability means that it is more likely to happen, but offers no guarantee that it will actually happen.

Logical results are dependable; probable results are only more likely.

"It is only a fool who presumes evolution means progress or improvement in human beings."
--Bertrand Russell

but in the absence of indisputable proof, which one would you rather trust? probability or the subjective opinion of some tennis-crazy, self-proclaimed expert?

[FiveO]

Originally Posted by TMF

You left out one element and it's the most important one....

Increase in number of athletes and countries competiting. Logic say the bigger pool, the greater depth and talent. It doesn't necessary has to be tennis, but in other sports too. It's natural that the game continue to progress, it cannot stay still and improvement is the only way to survive.

While it's true that each generation produces 2 or 3 dominant players, but the quality of tennis in their respective era are not the same. For example, no one in there right mind would say Court would have won 11 AO in this current era.

Looked at in a vacuum perhaps. But this isn't a vacuum. World population only has an impact if participation in tennis increases in a like percentage and if other established locales maintain their own level of participation.

Number of countries has little to do with it. As the former USSR and Eastern European countries fragmented it doesn't mean more players playing it merely means players playing under more flags. About the only country that could have an impact is China but that depends on if the sport catches enough people's interest there. Aside from that many countries are no larger in terms of area or population than states in America.

The decline in participation in New York is just one example of once established tennis playing locales being a shell of themselves as far as participation. A large local public par of 16 courts here was jammed with 2-3 hour waits in the 70's and 80's. One is lucky to find 3 or 4 courts occupied at a time nowadays. The majority of indoor clubs that sprang up like mushrooms during the "tennis boom", whose JD programs lured the best coaches in the world to suburban and even urban New York have either been downsized to accomodate other sports or training facilities or sold off outright for their land value. Having been in the industry here since before the bubble burst, there isn't 1/10th the participation in tennis there was in the sport's hey day here. That's just one state whose area and population rivals many of the "new countries" you speak of. About the only locales it has survived in numbers are the traditional US sunshine states.

Tennis has to compete against many more leisure time activities today than ever before, that's worldwide. X-sports, more water sports, vehicle sports, etc. Also every sport has to compete against ever more sedentary generations attracted more to video/computer games and activities than outdoor sports.

So merely because the world's population has increased doesn't mean there are more potential elite tennis players in the pool of potential prospects.

As far as other sports go, look no further than baseball. Where are the .400 hitters? W/O drugs who has hit more homeruns in a season than Ruth or Maris? Why aren't all pitchers throwing 120 mph today?

Lebron James is held up as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Better than MJ? Better then Kareem? Chamberlain? Based on what exactly? He was recently quoted as saying the league is watered down by having too many franchises and preventing teams being formed with multiple tier 1 stars as they were in the 1980's. Why would he say that?

Why is a country like Jamaica producing all the world class sprinters not caught doping? Why aren't all those "new countries" producing them? It's only my opinion, based on almost all other record breaking 100m times being rolled back as each of those athletes were discovered to have been PED enhanced, is that Jamaica is merely just somehow ahead of the testing curve. If that isn't the case then how is a sport like horseracing, one that has control over all the variables of the subject population, engages in selective breeding, bioengineering and various types of doping (legal and illegal) able to produce ever faster horses? The simple answer is there are limits. And to think with that much "control" over their subjects horseracing can't produce ever better "athletes" but with human subjects, by shear chance, to multiple powers (i.e. parent's genes, the offspring choosing the sport, finding the right environment, the right training, the right competition, remaining healthy), simply through the passage of time and increasing general population, human beings MUST produce better tennis players is a concept that is rendered amusing.

5

[Wuornos]

Originally Posted by TMF

You left out one element and it's the most important one....

Increase in number of athletes and countries competiting. Logic say the bigger pool, the greater depth and talent. It doesn't necessary has to be tennis, but in other sports too. It's natural that the game continue to progress, it cannot stay still and improvement is the only way to survive.

While it's true that each generation produces 2 or 3 dominant players, but the quality of tennis in their respective era are not the same. For example, no one in there right mind would say Court would have won 11 AO in this current era.

Yes I agree with this 100%. The calculations I make to try to estimate playing standard show this in practice (see my post 'The Rating of Singles Tennis Players Past and Present'. It is possible to draw a line through the top women's single payers ratings if plotted on a graph and see the gradual increase as the population grows.

The same can be said for men although the increase is more marked immediately following WWII.

I feel there is a great tendancy to throw out the perforformances of players for the pre open amateur days as always being down to weak opposition. While this is true to a certain extent a high level of domination within the amateur ranks is still worthy of respect even if the subesequent rating is deflated. E.g. Emerson hit 2768 during the 1965 year and Laver 2762 during 1962.

We cannot dismiss all performances because an era was weak but we do need to temper achievements to better reflect the real performance level.

Just my humble opinion.

Tim

[hoodjem]

Is this the definition of a weak era:

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

The fact that even PLAYER A and PLAYER B whose best days have clearly gone (PLAYER A's best days have been gone for about 4-5 years now). PLAYER B probably a good 2 years past his prime yet they along with PLAYER C have monopolized the sport for a good few years now. And the only other player who has presented "somewhat" of a challenge is PLAYER D who is slamless still himself, and has never broke the shackles of being "the best of the rest" in the past 4 years.

Just wondering?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

You left out one element and it's the most important one....

Increase in number of athletes and countries competiting. Logic say the bigger pool, the greater depth and talent. It doesn't necessary has to be tennis, but in other sports too. It's natural that the game continue to progress, it cannot stay still and improvement is the only way to survive.

While it's true that each generation produces 2 or 3 dominant players, but the quality of tennis in their respective era are not the same. For example, no one in there right mind would say Court would have won 11 AO in this current era.

true.She would have won around 20.

[urban]

Lets better talk about strong eras, and leave the weak era debate to others like Mats. Otherwise we get the usual flame war with the usual suspects. If you have 6-7 great players competing for the big titles and top ranks, you imo have a strong era. Three of these strong eras were imo the late 50s at he pro game, the early open era around 1970, and the late 80s until ca. 1991.
While i certainly agree about the problems of the pro-amateur-split, i don't see the 60s as a particular weak era in the shamateurs. Because the National Federations spent money to control and hold their amateurs, great and very good players remained amateurs like Emerson, Santana, Pietrangeli, Stolle (till 1966), Fraser, later the upcoming Newcombe, Ashe, Roche. The semi final lineup of the Australian of 1967 with Emerson, Ashe, Newcombe or Roche was certainly not bad. When the younger ones came into age in the late 60s, they faced the older pro generation and the older amateur generation, so we got together a very strong era imo. The early and mid 50s had also a very strong amateur game, with Sedgman, Patty, Drobny, Schroeder, Rosewall, Hoad, Rose, Trabert, Seixas and others competing. A weak amateur era were the late 50s, when virtually all top players had turned pro. That resulted in the strong pro era, mentioned above.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by urban

Lets better talk about strong eras, and leave the weak era debate to others like Mats. Otherwise we get the usual flame war with the usual suspects. If you have 6-7 great players competing for the big titles and top ranks, you imo have a strong era. Three of these strong eras were imo the late 50s at he pro game, the early open era around 1970, and the late 80s until ca. 1991.
While i certainly agree about the problems of the pro-amateur-split, i don't see the 60s as a particular weak era in the shamateurs. Because the National Federations spent money to control and hold their amateurs, great and very good players remained amateurs like Emerson, Santana, Pietrangeli, Stolle (till 1966), Fraser, later the upcoming Newcombe, Ashe, Roche. The semi final lineup of the Australian of 1967 with Emerson, Ashe, Newcombe or Roche was certainly not bad. When the younger ones came into age in the late 60s, they faced the older pro generation and the older amateur generation, so we got together a very strong era imo. The early and mid 50s had also a very strong amateur game, with Sedgman, Patty, Drobny, Schroeder, Rosewall, Hoad, Rose, Trabert, Seixas and others competing. A weak amateur era were the late 50s, when virtually all top players had turned pro. That resulted in the strong pro era, mentioned above.

Yes the names you brought up in the shamateurs were almost legendary so for the amateurs the 1960's may very well have been a strong era. Still it would have been interesting to see how it would have played out if the top pros played in a true Open Era in the 1960's. I would bet Gonzalez, Laver and Rosewall would dominate but some names like Gimeno, Emerson, Newcombe and Roche might break in to win some majors.

As far as the late 1950's are concerned I read in Jack Kramer's book that he thought Cooper and Anderson were the best of a bad group so he agree with you that time was poor for the amateurs also.

[Manus Domini]

Originally Posted by pc1

As far as the late 1950's are concerned I read in Jack Kramer's book that he thought Cooper and Anderson were the best of a bad group so he agree with you that time was poor for the amateurs also.

Anderson Cooper was a tennis player?

In my opinion, it is shown a few ways:

1} how the older players of the previous generation do against the newer ones at the newer one's prime

2} Now, champion's series. If the old-men players can keep up with/beat the younger guys, they obviously would do well in the current era.

[piece]

Originally Posted by urban

Lets better talk about strong eras, and leave the weak era debate to others like Mats. Otherwise we get the usual flame war with the usual suspects. If you have 6-7 great players competing for the big titles and top ranks, you imo have a strong era. Three of these strong eras were imo the late 50s at he pro game, the early open era around 1970, and the late 80s until ca. 1991.
While i certainly agree about the problems of the pro-amateur-split, i don't see the 60s as a particular weak era in the shamateurs. Because the National Federations spent money to control and hold their amateurs, great and very good players remained amateurs like Emerson, Santana, Pietrangeli, Stolle (till 1966), Fraser, later the upcoming Newcombe, Ashe, Roche. The semi final lineup of the Australian of 1967 with Emerson, Ashe, Newcombe or Roche was certainly not bad. When the younger ones came into age in the late 60s, they faced the older pro generation and the older amateur generation, so we got together a very strong era imo. The early and mid 50s had also a very strong amateur game, with Sedgman, Patty, Drobny, Schroeder, Rosewall, Hoad, Rose, Trabert, Seixas and others competing. A weak amateur era were the late 50s, when virtually all top players had turned pro. That resulted in the strong pro era, mentioned above.

That kind of definition entails absurdities: for one, it implies that were a group of 6-7 players who were competing for major titles in a way that satisfies your conditions for a strong era to suddenly faced with a new player who was so vastly superior to all of these elite players that they could rarely win sets off of him, then the era would be weakened according to your definition because of the lack of competition for big titles, when in fact all that has happened is a very strong player has been added to the era. Surely such an addition cannot fail to strengthen an era.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by urban

Lets better talk about strong eras, and leave the weak era debate to others like Mats. Otherwise we get the usual flame war with the usual suspects. If you have 6-7 great players competing for the big titles and top ranks, you imo have a strong era. Three of these strong eras were imo the late 50s at he pro game, the early open era around 1970, and the late 80s until ca. 1991.
While i certainly agree about the problems of the pro-amateur-split, i don't see the 60s as a particular weak era in the shamateurs. Because the National Federations spent money to control and hold their amateurs, great and very good players remained amateurs like Emerson, Santana, Pietrangeli, Stolle (till 1966), Fraser, later the upcoming Newcombe, Ashe, Roche. The semi final lineup of the Australian of 1967 with Emerson, Ashe, Newcombe or Roche was certainly not bad. When the younger ones came into age in the late 60s, they faced the older pro generation and the older amateur generation, so we got together a very strong era imo. The early and mid 50s had also a very strong amateur game, with Sedgman, Patty, Drobny, Schroeder, Rosewall, Hoad, Rose, Trabert, Seixas and others competing. A weak amateur era were the late 50s, when virtually all top players had turned pro. That resulted in the strong pro era, mentioned above.

Originally Posted by piece

That kind of definition entails absurdities: for one, it implies that were a group of 6-7 players who were competing for major titles in a way that satisfies your conditions for a strong era to suddenly faced with a new player who was so vastly superior to all of these elite players that they could rarely win sets off of him, then the era would be weakened according to your definition because of the lack of competition for big titles, when in fact all that has happened is a very strong player has been added to the era. Surely such an addition cannot fail to strengthen an era.

Urban is emphasizing GREAT PLAYERS so if they are so great then if would be very very hard if not impossible I would guess for one player to be so dominant.

I do think Urban is pointing that we all want to see greatness and also great competition, hopefully lots of it.

Bottom line is that we all want to see super skilled players with great physical talent play each other because I think we all love tennis and want to see great rallies. To see Isner and Mahut never lose serve is not my idea of fun and skilled tennis unless you love serving exhibitions. I'm not exactly a fan of Isner's groundies.

In the 1920's Suzanne Lenglen was virtually unbeatable and rarely lost games, much less sets. She was a great player of course but I would think the competition wasn't of the highest quality, to say the least.

To have one player dominant doesn't necessarily make it a weak era. Rod Laver was very dominant in 1969, not only winning the Grand Slam but a lot of other top tournaments. But in 1969 you had greats like John Newcombe playing, Tony Roche, Arthur Ashe, Ken Rosewall, Tom Okker, Andres Gimeno and while they didn't beat Laver in big matches, they were to make big impacts in later years. Newcombe won a few Wimbledons, US Opens, Australian and a WCT title. Roche was very good for a few years. Ashe was to be number one and was one of the top players for years. Rosewall had a few majors left to win plus he won a few WCT championships. Okker and Gimeno also did well. I think 1969 was very strong but you can see it from a perspective of time. You couldn't tell in 1969. All of Laver's top competition in 1969 could have done terribly afterwards and in this case you may say it was a weak era.

The era we have now has Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, del Potro, Roddick and some others. Maybe they all will do well in the future. But even if players like Murray do well is it because he fulfilled his talent or is it because Federer and Nadal has declined. Who knows? Only years from now can we truly get an idea of how strong this era is. It could be one of the best or one of the worst.

A lot of it is also very subjective. I for one don't think Roddick is very talented so I'm never that impressed by him. outside of his great serve. I think Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray and del Potro are very talented and there is the makings of great competition here. Others may think Roddick is more gifted than anyone. What I'm getting at is that one person looking at the names and experiencing that particular era may consider it a great era for skills and talent. Another one may see and experience the same tennis era and think it stinks.

[piece]

Originally Posted by pc1

Urban is emphasizing GREAT PLAYERS so if they are so great then if would be very very hard if not impossible I would guess for one player to be so dominant.

I do think Urban is pointing that we all want to see greatness and also great competition, hopefully lots of it.

Bottom line is that we all want to see super skilled players with great physical talent play each other because I think we all love tennis and want to see great rallies. To see Isner and Mahut never lose serve is not my idea of fun and skilled tennis unless you love serving exhibitions. I'm not exactly a fan of Isner's groundies.

In the 1920's Suzanne Lenglen was virtually unbeatable and rarely lost games, much less sets. She was a great player of course but I would think the competition wasn't of the highest quality, to say the least.

To have one player dominant doesn't necessarily make it a weak era. Rod Laver was very dominant in 1969, not only winning the Grand Slam but a lot of other top tournaments. But in 1969 you had greats like John Newcombe playing, Tony Roche, Arthur Ashe, Ken Rosewall, Tom Okker, Andres Gimeno and while they didn't beat Laver in big matches, they were to make big impacts in later years. Newcombe won a few Wimbledons, US Opens, Australian and a WCT title. Roche was very good for a few years. Ashe was to be number one and was one of the top players for years. Rosewall had a few majors left to win plus he won a few WCT championships. Okker and Gimeno also did well. I think 1969 was very strong but you can see it from a perspective of time. You couldn't tell in 1969. All of Laver's top competition in 1969 could have done terribly afterwards and in this case you may say it was a weak era.

The era we have now has Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, del Potro, Roddick and some others. Maybe they all will do well in the future. But even if players like Murray do well is it because he fulfilled his talent or is it because Federer and Nadal has declined. Who knows? Only years from now can we truly get an idea of how strong this era is. It could be one of the best or one of the worst.

A lot of it is also very subjective. I for one don't think Roddick is very talented so I'm never that impressed by him. outside of his great serve. I think Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray and del Potro are very talented and there is the makings of great competition here. Others may think Roddick is more gifted than anyone. What I'm getting at is that one person looking at the names and experiencing that particular era may consider it a great era for skills and talent. Another one may see and experience the same tennis era and think it stinks.

No doubt it would be great to see that kind of competitiveness at the highest level, but as regards urban's definition of a strong era, my point still stands. The possibility of a player with the kind of dominant abilities of envisioned is of no import because there can be no doubt that the addition of such a player, whether possible or not, to an era could only serve to make it stronger, but on urban's definition of strong era it would do exactly the opposite. As a side note, I do think such a player is possible. Just imagine if Nadal had a serve close to the caliber of Wayne Arthurs' serve, surely such a combination of talents is unlikey, to be sure, but not impossible.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by piece

That kind of definition entails absurdities: for one, it implies that were a group of 6-7 players who were competing for major titles in a way that satisfies your conditions for a strong era to suddenly faced with a new player who was so vastly superior to all of these elite players that they could rarely win sets off of him, then the era would be weakened according to your definition because of the lack of competition for big titles, when in fact all that has happened is a very strong player has been added to the era. Surely such an addition cannot fail to strengthen an era.

I believe that Urban's point stands.

If you allow the hypothetical in which you do have the "new player" who enters competition and completely dominates the other 6, then his domination indicates that it was indeed a weak era in general--because he is the single strong player.

If on the other hand, the same "new player" enters competition and competes well, wins his share but does not dominate, then one can say it is a generally strong era with more than several great players. (It is also possible that this period is a weak era with more than several weak players.)

I do think the only way to be certain whether a short term period is weak or strong is to introduce a new variable, such as a past "great" player coming out of retirement. If this past great player is able to completely dominate--much more so than when the player was in his prime, this would tend to indicate that it is a weak era.

I am not sure how to ascertain a strong era. Maybe the inverse.?

[piece]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I believe that Urban's point stands.

If you allow the hypothetical in which you do have the "new player" who enters competition and completely dominates the other 6, then his domination indicates that it was indeed a weak era in general--because he is the single strong player.

If on the other hand, the same "new player" enters competition and competes well, wins his share but does not dominate, then one can say it is a generally strong era with more than several great players. (It is also possible that this period is a weak era with more than several weak players.)

I do think the only way to be certain whether a short term period is weak or strong is to introduce a new variable, such as a past "great" player coming out of retirement. If this past great player is able to completely dominate--much more so than when the player was in his prime, this would tend to indicate that it is a weak era.

I am not sure how to ascertain a strong era. Maybe the inverse.?

I don't think that explanation properly addresses the point I'm making. By urban's criteria for a strong era an era of 6-7 elite players fighting it out for the major titles is strong. However, the addition of a much stronger player to this era would, on urban's definition, make it a weaker era if that much stronger player had a stranglehold on the majors. I think it is absurd to suppose that adding strong players to an era could do anything but make it stronger.

It seems to me that what you're addressing is more of an epistemological problem, specifically: how do we tell whether an era is weak or strong. In which case a situation involving a player arriving and dominating players who were previously thought to be strong competition may be reason to revise our opinions on the strength of the era, but if a strong era has already been defined as 6-7 elite players competing fairly evenly for majors, then no such revision can be made. The era is/was strong by definition.

urban wasn't, as far as I can tell, trying to propose a scientific method for determining whether an era was weak or strong, rather he was defining what a weak or strong era is, something that is a necessary precursor to the issue of era-strength-determination that you discussed in your last post. All I'm saying is his definition is inadequate, and your points about revising our beliefs about the strength of an era can only stand if you too find this definition inadequate, so I think we are, at least implicitly, in agreement.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by piece

I don't think that explanation properly addresses the point I'm making. By urban's criteria for a strong era an era of 6-7 elite players fighting it out for the major titles is strong. However, the addition of a much stronger player to this era would, on urban's definition, make it a weaker era if that much stronger player had a stranglehold on the majors. I think it is absurd to suppose that adding strong players to an era could do anything but make it stronger.

It seems to me that what you're addressing is more of an epistemological problem, specifically: how do we tell whether an era is weak or strong. In which case a situation involving a player arriving and dominating players who were previously thought to be strong competition may be reason to revise our opinions on the strength of the era, but if a strong era has already been defined as 6-7 elite players competing fairly evenly for majors, then no such revision can be made. The era is/was strong by definition.

urban wasn't, as far as I can tell, trying to propose a scientific method for determining whether an era was weak or strong, rather he was defining what a weak or strong era is, something that is a necessary precursor to the issue of era-strength-determination that you discussed in your last post. All I'm saying is his definition is inadequate, and your points about revising our beliefs about the strength of an era can only stand if you too find this definition inadequate, so I think we are, at least implicitly, in agreement.

This is a good, persuasive point: how does one tell a weak era from a super-strong era?

If the definition of a weak era is one that has 6-7 mediocre players battling it out for slam titles. If the definition of a super-strong era one has 6-7 great players battling it out for all the slam titles. The only distinction would seem to be the determination that the top players are either mediocre or great. And how does one make this determination that the top players are either mediocre or great?

Most look at the records, and say if player X has more than one slam title, then player X is a great player, but this is very problematic. Because records are entirely a function of the quality of the competition. Perhaps it could work if you have 6-7 players at the top, all of whom have some minimum like 5+ slam titles. I am not sure.

PC1 has proposed looking at the skill-sets of the players at the top. Does player X have a complete skill-set? Can player X hit every shot in the book, and will to beat all comers? Or does player X have only one way of playing and a very limited repertoire (for instance, "a serve and a forehand"), it just happens to be a little better than everyone else's. This seems more plausible and more fruitful.

Take for example, 2002-03. Here are the slam winners:
2002: Thomas Johansson--Albert Costa--Lleyton Hewitt--Pete Sampras
2003 Andre Agassi--Juan Carlos Ferrero--Roger Federer--Andy Roddick

Eight different players. I believe that is only through hindsight, that we can look back and conclude that this was not a strong era.