Tennis Demagogues & the Self

[borg number one]

Chopin,

Let me add the following as to Borg. I think that you are leaving this out of your analysis above. Borg had to face down tougher competition AT THE TOP (SF/Finals) in the Grand Slams vs. both Federer and Sampras. Who did Borg face in his prime at the GS tournaments in producing his record? It was Connors (US Open and Wimbledon), McEnroe (US Open and Wimbledon), Gerulitas (Wimbledon), Vilas (French) and Lendl (French). All those guys, except perhaps Gerulitas, were WARRIORS, who were extremely tough to put away in matches, especially during the final rounds of the majors. Meanwhile, Sampras' biggest rival was Andre Agassi, and Federer has faced down a past his prime Agassi, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray. Of course, as Nadal has gotten a bit older, he has basically outperformed Federer (AO, FO, and Wimbledon wins against him).

So, Borg, in my estimation, has faced tougher competition in those final rounds. Plus, as I've mentioned, Borg's red clay record head and shoulders above the clay court records of both Federer and Sampras. He was a huge threat to win on any surface, including indoors, that he played on, and I don't think you can always say that about Federer and Sampras was typically a non-factor at RG and the last FO win by Federer still does not elevate him on clay to anything close to Borg's level. Stamina on the part of Federer is also a concern at the French, in that at times vs. Nadal he looked completely overwhelmed. The same thing occurred perhaps at this year's US Open vs. Del Potro. Borg never exhibited that. I do agree with you that both Federer and Sampras have sustained their efforts over more years and they each have "faced down" competition. Yet, I would point out that such competition is not on par with the competition that Borg faced, in terms of the other star players he was competing against.

[bojsag]

Originally Posted by Chopin

Well, I don't understand your point, or how my defense of Federer as the so-called "GOAT" somehow justifies people rating all my threads 1 star (even those aimed at giving or seeking instructional, string, apparel or racquet advice). I could make a genuine thread calling for world peace and there are still certain posters (specific ones) who would rate my thread 1 star just because I made it.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't dislike older tennis--I quite enjoy it. I enjoyed watching Borg v. Laver on the Tennis Channel last night but I do think many of the posters in the former pro player section are fanboys (albeit older ones) masquerading as objective tennis historians.

Well you unjustly pile on Nadal, Laver, Sampras and other great players. A lot of truth-bending for sole purpose of glorifying one player you consider great. As a Federer fan myself, I understand your bias. But clearly others are more objective and less understanding than myself. I doubt anyone would berate your threads out of spite as you are suspecting. I am sure each thread is judged on its own merit.

[Chopin]

borg number one
^^I understand that Borg competed against other great players, and agree that he had an amazing ability to meet challenges, but this still does not change the fact that he lost his grip on the game and walked away. This isn't a personal criticism of Borg, but in my book, at least, a serious detriment to his GOAT status.

I also don't quite agree that Sampras didn't have incredibly tough competition--I don't even think it's debatable. As for Federer, contrary to many, I do think he's faced tough competition in the sense that many of the players he routinely faced would be probably be multiple slam winners if Federer was not winning all the slams. It's the chicken and the egg question when it comes to Federer's performance, but I will say that guys like Hewitt, Safin and Roddick would be much more accomplished if Federer were not around. People gripe about the lack of slam winners today, but I think it's an unconvincing argument just because there are four slams played every year (same as always) and if Federer wins most of them for years on end, how can other people amount slam totals? You know? Either everyone else sucks, or Federer is that good. I think it's the latter.

In general, I feel that the level of tennis competition has only gone up and up as tennis has expanded around the globe. I personally think it's harder in the objective sense to dominate today than in Borg's era by virtue of the global game (not tennis's popularity in the media).

I hear your argument loud and clear though, and I do appreciate Borg (and Laver)--I watched them play on the TTC the other night--and certainly think Borg is a legend of the game, and one who deserves respect.

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by bojsag

Well you unjustly pile on Nadal, Laver, Sampras and other great players. A lot of truth-bending for sole purpose of glorifying one player you consider great. As a Federer fan myself, I understand your bias. But clearly others are more objective and less understanding than myself. I doubt anyone would berate your threads out of spite as you are suspecting. I am sure each thread is judged on its own merit.

OK, I am a little harsh on Laver, but I strongly believe that he's overrated.

I don't think that Sampras and Nadal are overrated though. I don't even particularly like Sampras, but I still think he's #2 all time behind Federer. And I respect Nadal a lot, I just don't think we should read into his head to head with Federer until he proves that he's as great a player as Federer in the long-run. Nadal has proved that he's very, very good at playing Federer on clay, and good at playing him off clay, but he hasn't proved that he's as good as Federer in the grand scheme of tennis.

And it might sound harsh, but I'm not going to make excuses for the guy when he play way too many tournaments and when his very style of play, the very thing that makes him tough, is not an easy style of play for his body to handle. Injuries go hand in hand with how he plays tennis. Nadal wouldn't want us making excuses for him either.

We can agree to disagree on this though.

However, trust me, my threads are not judged on their merits. I've made lots of helpful threads about apparel and racquet reviews (completely benign stuff) and within a few minutes of posting, they're 1 star. These losers follow me around. It's a running joke between me and some other posters who find their behavior juvenile as well. They can't beat me and they can't win though, so it just adds fuel to the fire and motivates me to become an even greater poster.

[bojsag]

Originally Posted by Chopin

OK, I am a little harsh on Laver, but I strongly believe that he's overrated.

I don't think that Sampras and Nadal are overrated though. I don't even particularly like Sampras, but I still think he's #2 all time behind Federer. And I respect Nadal a lot, I just don't think we should read into his head to head with Federer until he proves that he's as great a player as Federer in the long-run. Nadal has proved that he's very, very good at playing Federer on clay, and good at playing him off clay, but he hasn't proved that he's as good as Federer in the grand scheme of tennis.

And it might sound harsh, but I'm not going to make excuses for the guy when he play way too many tournaments and when his very style of play, the very thing that makes him tough, is not an easy style of play for his body to handle. Injuries go hand in hand with how he plays tennis. Nadal wouldn't want us making excuses for him either.

We can agree to disagree on this though.

However, trust me, my threads are not judged on their merits. I've made lots of helpful threads about apparel and racquet reviews (completely benign stuff) and within a few minutes of posting, they're 1 star. These losers follow me around. It's a running joke between me and some other posters who find their behavior juvenile as well. They can't beat me and they can't win though, so it just adds fuel to the fire and motivates me to become an even greater poster.

Nothing wrong with being a little harsh on Laver. And Sampras as you know won record 14 slams fair and square. But forget those two for a moment.

How can you say that Federer could be considered greatest? Forget Laver and Sampras for a second. There is a living breathing real man by the name of Nadal who instills fear into Federer’s little heart. Not in the 90s, not preopen era. Here and now in Federer’s prime. Forget about all the numerous clay beatdowns. Last 3 slams they played each other were on 3 different surfaces – clay, grass, HC. Same story every time.

Now if some horrible people are berating your innocent threads on purpose, that is horrible. Do you know who those posters are? I am sure we all want to know.

[Ventolin]

Originally Posted by Chopin

The answer is hero-worship and the personal connection to past greats these posters have (however false and misguided).

Many of you continue to put players on pedestals (Laver being the prime example, though worse still, egotistical players like Mac and Connors) and argue, essentially, that these players are inherently greater than today's players. Now I fully understand that there is a difference between admiring a person's accomplishment and admiring the person, but again and again, many posters come across as grown-up, adult fanboys, who defend these players not for tennis reasons, but out of a sense of personal connection to these players (despite not knowing them). For example, the love for Borg from many of you defies logic (many of you seem to ignore Mac getting the best of him). Borg is neither a role-model or hero for me, nor is he GOAT. I ask some of you: do you know Borg personally?

I'll leave you all with the following question. How can tennis strive in the United States if some of it's biggest and most passionate fans refuse to acknowledge the amazing depth and high level of play of today's players? Is this about tennis or your own personal memories of growing up and watching Borg?

Furthermore, Is this about tennis greatness--or your own egos?

Kind Regards,
Chopin

*1 Footnote: There is no legitimate way to statistically prove the strength of an era. Looking at slam distribution tells us nothing of value in regards to this specific question

Originally Posted by Chopin

OK, I am a little harsh on Laver, but I strongly believe that he's overrated.

I don't think that Sampras and Nadal are overrated though. I don't even particularly like Sampras, but I still think he's #2 all time behind Federer. And I respect Nadal a lot, I just don't think we should read into his head to head with Federer until he proves that he's as great a player as Federer in the long-run. Nadal has proved that he's very, very good at playing Federer on clay, and good at playing him off clay, but he hasn't proved that he's as good as Federer in the grand scheme of tennis.

And it might sound harsh, but I'm not going to make excuses for the guy when he play way too many tournaments and when his very style of play, the very thing that makes him tough, is not an easy style of play for his body to handle. Injuries go hand in hand with how he plays tennis. Nadal wouldn't want us making excuses for him either.

Sounds like your doing with Federer exactly what you accuse others of doing.

It doesn't make it ok for you to be a total hypocrite because in your mind you are correct and Federer is GOAT.

The debate about who is GOAT is far from over and it probably never will be. Your opinion on who is GOAT is just that, your opinion. Your opinion is not more valuable than anyone else.

Many people disagree with you. Deal with it in another way besides making childish threads calling other people names because they don't agree with your opinions.

I don't find it at all surprising that people dislike you enough to stalk your threads and vote everything 1 star.

You come across as incredibly arrogant, pretentious, and misinformed.

[borg number one]

Chopin, I hear what you are saying, believe me. I would agree that there is more overall depth in the game today. For example, there are more countries, such as Spain and Argentina who are producing a larger number of very good/great players, but that is besides the central point of my last post.

I am talking about who a top player must face in those final two rounds of slams only, not rounds 1-5. In that respect, I contend that most posters are overlooking this aspect when making the analysis as to who is the hypothetical "greatest player of all time". I don't think I can overemphasize enough just how difficult it was to beat BOTH Connors and McEnroe on a consistent basis in the Grand Slams. Only McEnroe really matched him head to head, and even in that case, Borg beat him in a GS final, at W, on arguably McEnroe's very best surface. Here is my central point in all this:

Just as Borg was not CLEARLY the greatest of all time without argument, arguments can be made for and against him having that hypothetical title. The same applies to Laver, Sampras, and yes, even to Federer.


I would like Laver, Sampras and Federer supporters for the hypothetical "greatest of all time" title to acknowledge this inescapable truth, that there ARE reasonable arguments to be made as to some other players, that's all.

It's like asking who was the "greatest politician" of all time. How would one answer such a question? Is there CLEARLY one right answer?

Well, the same thing applies in tennis. It's as much Art as Science. The analysis must be both quantitative and qualitative, and one must necessarily introduce a lot of theories, and subjectivity in order to try and answer such a question. So, let's recognize what this exercise is all about and acknowledge that no one has the indisputable "right" answer. It's just not that simple and we must all become comfortable with the uncertainty that is necessarily a part of this question. There are no easy answers here, but several viable ones.

In terms of "walking away" from the game, while that is technically true in the case of Borg, we both know that it's more complicated than that, in that there are also other things that are true about his "early" departure from tennis.

Yes, he "just walked away from the game" in a sense, but he was also facing burnout after about 10 years of playing a crazy schedule and facing court specialists galore, PLUS facing down an unreasonable governing body in Tennis that insisted on him continuing to play a heavy schedule and QUALIFY for grand slams potentially, instead of facilitating a temporarily lighter schedule. How would Federer have handled such a schedule for example? Would he have had the same success at GS tourneys if he had done so? Perhaps not.

Tennis' governing body did not work with him and in essence did the Game a great disservice, though Borg also made mistakes, no question. That still does not change my emphasis on peak performance rather than simple longevity when analyzing these greats.

I think you have brought up some excellent points, but I could argue that Federer also has several weaknesses when this analysis is done, as does Laver, as does Borg, as does Sampras.

No player can escape such criticisms, but as others have noted to be "the greatest of all time", without question, requires some monumental accomplishments over a sustained period. The fact that Federer has lost to Nadal at the last two GS finals on fast surfaces that are supposed to favor his game are chinks in his armor, just as Borg's departure is a weakness, just as Sampras' failure to win much on the slow stuff, just as Laver's supposed "physical limitations" compared to other great players are "chinks" in their armor.

Such credible arguments can be made against any of those four great players, so let's get used to such uncertainty and embrace it, and understand that in life, we tend to want an easy answer to everything, but that's just not reality.

[Clintspin]

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/desc...WCTDALLAS.html

Chopin buy the DVD above, watch and report back to me. It's all different from era to era. Laver and Rosewall play a different game but an amazing game. They volley so well, cover the court so well and hit such great angles. It is an interesting game to watch. Today players are very athletic and hit as hard as the human reflexes will allow. I don't think we can go anywhere as far as speed goes. Tennis has reached a peak in speed. Where do we go from here?

As for comparing players from other eras, it is like comparing apples and oranges. There are so many things to factor in. Grand Slams are not enough. I have a big collection of tennis books, some very old. The same discussions come up in every generation of books I have. Comparisons of players and playing styles. It is interesting that one clear pattern is the dominance of baseliners being followed by serve and volley dominance and then baseliners again and so on. Can that happen again?

Players used to skip some tournaments because of money or the amount of travel. Many players in the early days of tennis would not make the trip to Australia. Someone like Tilden would have accumulated even more slams. Also Davis Cup used to be more important than the big tournaments. You can also factor in the two world wars and of course pro vs. open era tennis.

It is clearly impossible to label anybody the GOAT.

[Chopin]

A number of interesting responses, some of which I agree with, and some of which I don't.

I will say that I agree with Clintspin that it's impossible to label anyone the GOAT as any type of definitive label.

I will reply in length to some of the other criticisms and commentary later today.

Kind Regards,
Chopin

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by bojsag

Nothing wrong with being a little harsh on Laver. And Sampras as you know won record 14 slams fair and square. But forget those two for a moment.

How can you say that Federer could be considered greatest? Forget Laver and Sampras for a second. There is a living breathing real man by the name of Nadal who instills fear into Federer’s little heart. Not in the 90s, not preopen era. Here and now in Federer’s prime. Forget about all the numerous clay beatdowns. Last 3 slams they played each other were on 3 different surfaces – clay, grass, HC. Same story every time.

Now if some horrible people are berating your innocent threads on purpose, that is horrible. Do you know who those posters are? I am sure we all want to know.

I think Federer is the “GOAT” (if I were forced to choose one) because he’s won 15 slams, on all surfaces, in an incredibly competitive modern game. Not only that, but his list of achievements and records is baffling. Prime Federer (Federer is clearly no longer prime) was playing the most jaw-dropping and amazing tennis I’ve ever seen.

I think the Nadal-Federer head to head certainly is significant, but it’s also a very nuanced thing. Federer is 2-2 in slam finals off of clay against Nadal and overall leads Nadal 5-4 off of clay. This is not a bad record, by any means. And of course, Nadal rarely played (or plays) Federer on faster hardcourts (never made it to the US final) where you’d have to favor a prime Federer’s chances. Yes, Nadal is superior on clay, but why fault Federer for being good enough to play Nadal on his best surface when Nadal has rarely been good enough to play Federer off clay? It’s not logical.

And unfortunately, there is this misconception that a 27 or 28 year old Federer is somehow “prime.” I think it’s pretty clear to people who know tennis that Federer isn’t moving (at least on a consistent basis) like he was a few years back when he’d literally lose practically no matches and would win almost every single tournament he entered.

And finally, I’m not the only one who considers Federer the best tennis player ever. J-Mac, Agassi, Sampras, and many other legends of the game have said the same thing.

I ask myself the following question: as of this moment, whose career would I rather have had: Federer’s or Nadal’s? The answer is a “no-brainer.”

Anyhow, we can agree to disagree, of course.

Kind regards,
Chopin

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by Clintspin

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/desc...WCTDALLAS.html

Chopin buy the DVD above, watch and report back to me. It's all different from era to era. Laver and Rosewall play a different game but an amazing game. They volley so well, cover the court so well and hit such great angles. It is an interesting game to watch. Today players are very athletic and hit as hard as the human reflexes will allow. I don't think we can go anywhere as far as speed goes. Tennis has reached a peak in speed. Where do we go from here?

As for comparing players from other eras, it is like comparing apples and oranges. There are so many things to factor in. Grand Slams are not enough. I have a big collection of tennis books, some very old. The same discussions come up in every generation of books I have. Comparisons of players and playing styles. It is interesting that one clear pattern is the dominance of baseliners being followed by serve and volley dominance and then baseliners again and so on. Can that happen again?

Players used to skip some tournaments because of money or the amount of travel. Many players in the early days of tennis would not make the trip to Australia. Someone like Tilden would have accumulated even more slams. Also Davis Cup used to be more important than the big tournaments. You can also factor in the two world wars and of course pro vs. open era tennis.

It is clearly impossible to label anybody the GOAT.

I agree with your post. Well said.

I have, of course, watched the old tennis of tennis and do admire many elements of the game. Boy, could those guys volley! The transition game was also much more of an art.

That being said, I think that players have gotten better not just in terms of fitness, and gene pool, but in terms of technique--regardless of racquets. I personally believe that if prime Sampras were given a wooden racquet and a little time to practice that he'd handily beat prime Laver due to his superior technique and physical skills. I see no reason why a service motion like Sampras had couldn't translate well into wood. I always note how little players like Laver bend their knees in comparison to modern pros.

Thanks for adding to the discussion.

Kind regards,
Chopin

This, of course, cannot be proven, but I do think that tennis has evolved to a higher standard in absolute terms.

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by Ventolin

Sounds like your doing with Federer exactly what you accuse others of doing.

It doesn't make it ok for you to be a total hypocrite because in your mind you are correct and Federer is GOAT.

The debate about who is GOAT is far from over and it probably never will be. Your opinion on who is GOAT is just that, your opinion. Your opinion is not more valuable than anyone else.

Many people disagree with you. Deal with it in another way besides making childish threads calling other people names because they don't agree with your opinions.

I don't find it at all surprising that people dislike you enough to stalk your threads and vote everything 1 star.

You come across as incredibly arrogant, pretentious, and misinformed.

This thread is not about Roger Federer--it's about tennis--nothing more, nothing less. Nor is this thread about the GOAT--it's about the self in relation to tennis.

Meditate on this for seven years and return to me.

Regards,
Chopin

[Chopin]

borg number one:

I won't quote your post to save space, but I will say that you're a very good poster. Your point about the GOAT discussion being an art and not a science is outstanding, and I agree with you 100%. You also do a good job bringing us a more nuanced perspective on Borg walking away from tennis.

I foresee you becoming a great poster on the boards.

Kind regards,
CHopin

[borg number one]

Thanks, very much, I really appreciate that Chopin.

When I started posting on these boards, especially the former pro player threads, I was reminded of what it's like to be surrounded by folks that are as "into this Game" as I am. I am enjoying all the reading and posting I am doing, and I am now certain that I will continue to learn about tennis until my advanced years. I have always planned to play tennis my whole life and this forum has only further educated me and reminded me of why I and so many others are passionate about this game. It's filled with intelligent, competitive folks, of all backgrounds, such as yourself and many others, who understand the mind/body connection and who appreciate just how complex, difficult, and yes, beautiful the sport of Tennis is.

[Ventolin]

Originally Posted by Chopin

This thread is not about Roger Federer--it's about tennis--nothing more, nothing less. Nor is this thread about the GOAT--it's about the self in relation to tennis.

Meditate on this for seven years and return to me.

Regards,
Chopin

No this thread is about you claiming others are blinded by being 'fanboys' of their favorite players when discussing them, while ignoring that you yourself are as big a 'fanboy' as anyone on this board.

Perhaps you should have meditated on that before posting this drivel.

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by Ventolin

No this thread is about you claiming others are blinded by being 'fanboys' of their favorite players when discussing them, while ignoring that you yourself are as big a 'fanboy' as anyone on this board.

Perhaps you should have meditated on that before posting this drivel.

See, that's the kind of response that tells me that you've only meditated for a single day. Open up your mind, my friend! Logic is the beginning of knowledge--not the end.

[Ventolin]

And that's the kind of response that lets everyone here know that your an arrogant windbag who cannot see his own failures when they are right in front of him.

Why don't you stop with the patronizing response and explain to everyone exactly why you believe that you are any different from the 'fanboys' your describing?

You get 10 gold stars if you come up a a logical response. You lose 1 gold star for each for each statement that cannot be proven and for each patronising or arrogant smart *** remark.

Hopefully you will have at least 1 star left by the end of your response.

Your time starts now.

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by Ventolin

And that's the kind of response that lets everyone here know that your an arrogant windbag who cannot see his own failures when they are right in front of him.

Why don't you stop with the patronizing response and explain to everyone exactly why you believe that you are any different from the 'fanboys' your describing?

You get 10 gold stars if you come up a a logical response. You lose 1 gold star for each for each statement that cannot be proven and for each patronising or arrogant smart *** remark.

Hopefully you will have at least 1 star left by the end of your response.

Your time starts now.

My friend, no need to get all bent out of shape! You went after me in your original post, despite never having had any interactions with me. Yet still, you felt the need to post the following:

"I don't find it at all surprising that people dislike you enough to stalk your threads and vote everything 1 star. You come across as incredibly arrogant, pretentious, and misinformed."

You actually expected me to dignify you with a serious response?

No hard feelings, but this would conclude my interaction with you at this particular juncture in time. Perhaps in the future we can engage in a more civilized discussion.

Kind regards,
Chopin

[Ventolin]

Originally Posted by Chopin

My friend, no need to get all bent out of shape! You went after me in your original post, despite never having had any interactions with me. Yet still, you felt the need to post the following:

"I don't find it at all surprising that people dislike you enough to stalk your threads and vote everything 1 star. You come across as incredibly arrogant, pretentious, and misinformed."

You actually expected me to dignify you with a serious response?

No hard feelings, but this would conclude my interaction with you at this particular juncture in time. Perhaps in the future we can engage in a more civilized discussion.

Kind regards,
Chopin

Fail. Your failure to even mount an argument only confirms you know how wrong you are in this instance.

I give you 1 out of 5 stars for this post.

I foresee you remaining an ignored and disrespected member of this forum in the future.

Footnote 1: I also rated your original post (and this thread) 1 star. That makes 2 failed assessments for you.

You will need to repeat this course next semester unfortunately.

I hope in time you will learn from your mistakes. See you next year.

Kind regards, friend.

[Ventolin]

Originally Posted by Chopin

You went after me in your original post, despite never having had any interactions with me. Yet still, you felt the need to post the following:

"I don't find it at all surprising that people dislike you enough to stalk your threads and vote everything 1 star. You come across as incredibly arrogant, pretentious, and misinformed."

I judged you and your intent by your long winded initial post. Your initial post was indeed arrogant, it was indeed pretentious, and it was indeed misinformed. I judged you by your own words. My not knowing you or not having interactions with you doesn't mean a thing to me. If you put a blatant attack of a post out there for the world to see you will be judged for it.

And now your getting 'bent out of shape' because I, a person who the attack was not aimed at, is calling you out.

You also obviously know I'm right in my theory that you are every bit as much as a fan boy as those you are addressing, and you are taking the cowards approach of simply ignoring me rather than attempting to prove your feeble position.

My ridiculous grading of you may offend you but only because it so closely mirrors your own silly posting style that you believed was your own.

Please try and be strong rather than continuing to try to be the martyr and proclaiming me as one of your long list of imaginary assailants. I doubt anyone here feels sorry for you.

I will not be responding to your posts in the future as you seem to be intellectually unable to defend yourself.

End communication.