The ERA fallacy -- let's give it a name

[1HBH Rocks]

It is about tennis, but I use math as an analogy.
Say you have X-Y > A-B. You simply compare two differences where one's value is greater than the other. Let's put numbers... 240 versus 35. Can you tell me something about X or Y or A or B individually? Of course not. We'd need either literally the value of one of each pair or further equations to compute them to find out how each is worth.

Well, this is exactly what happens when you compare players from different era using simply results. There's a finite amount of tournaments and players compete against one another: the results tell you about the gap between them, but nothing about them individually. You wouldn't do that in a math exam, why don't you use the knowledge you acquired at school and avoid falling in that same trap when we swap words and call this "tennis statistics"?

Saying Federer had weak opponents because he won so much is as dumb as saying X must be worth less than B because 35 is smaller than 240... it's the exact same thought structure, just swap numbers for statistics and letters for players. So, let's give this logical fallacy a name -- the ERA fallacy. It's a type of non sequitur that occurs when jumping from a comparison of differences to the qualification of the individual elements contained within.

EDIT
Regardless of my opinion on any subject, logic speaks. If the facts are coherent with many explanations, you have no reason to bump one out and doing so is a fallacy. You need other inputs to narrow the choices until only one remains.

[DRII]

Weak, or more correctly 'weaker', era argument is not simply a statistical one; it is in large part a qualitative one.

Many of us have seen players and the tennis played in previous generations and come to the conclusion that the current era is weaker than others preceeding it (with far less depth).

The same is true for the women's game, and very few would argue with that...

[TMF]

Originally Posted by DRII

Weak, or more correctly 'weaker', era argument is not simply a statistical one; it is in large part a qualitative one.

Many of us have seen players and the tennis played in previous generations and come to the conclusion that the current era is weaker than others preceeding it (with far less depth).

The same is true for the women's game, and very few would argue with that...

mmm..NOPE. The ATP is strong and the WTA is weak. Having the #2 best player(Henin) retired is like Nadal retired. Or sharapova recovering from shoulder injury is like Nole faces the same dilemma. Or an unmotivated Serena playing part-time, uninspired tennis would be like Federer doing the same.

Big difference !

[1HBH Rocks]

Originally Posted by DRII

Weak, or more correctly 'weaker', era argument is not simply a statistical one; it is in large part a qualitative one.

Many of us have seen players and the tennis played in previous generations and come to the conclusion that the current era is weaker than others preceeding it (with far less depth).

The same is true for the women's game, and very few would argue with that...

That's the not fallacy I highlighted, but it's an other mistake. You can't just use impression and your memory of former players to compare... I have seen them play and I must contend that today's game is much more physical and players are actually much more complete than before. Today, you can't be number one with a weak side and very limited serve and volley game; just ten years ago, it was still possible to not be good on one surface and retain the pole.

[813wilson]

This thread seems similar to the end of the OP's signature - Anonymous and drunk

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by DRII

Weak, or more correctly 'weaker', era argument is not simply a statistical one; it is in large part a qualitative one.

Many of us have seen players and the tennis played in previous generations and come to the conclusion that the current era is weaker than others preceeding it (with far less depth).

The same is true for the women's game, and very few would argue with that...

in other words, there are a bunch of morons who base their views on nostalgia without any data to back their claims, and expect to be taken seriously? got it.

[DRII]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

in other words, there are a bunch of morons who base their views on nostalgia without any data to back their claims, and expect to be taken seriously? got it.

Data can be used in many different ways!

For example insecure Federer freaks like yourself are constantly defending your demigod against the data driven argument that Federer's competition was relatively weak during his most dominant years. The OP did just that in his post.

Recognize...

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by DRII

Weak, or more correctly 'weaker', era argument is not simply a statistical one; it is in large part a qualitative one.

Many of us have seen players and the tennis played in previous generations and come to the conclusion that the current era is weaker than others preceeding it (with far less depth).

The same is true for the women's game, and very few would argue with that...

it doesn't prove that the top 3 is anything weaker than any top 3 from the previous eras, it's your pure asumption probably based on hatred towards one player, let me take a guess, Federer?

Having said that I agree that players ranked 5th and lower seem somewhat weaker than even 10 years ago. I'm not quite sure where to put Murray, he's as consistent as anyone but his highest level is probably a tad lower than the current top 3.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by DRII

Data can be used in many different ways!

For example insecure Federer freaks like yourself are constantly defending your demigod against the data driven argument that Federer's competition was relatively weak during his most dominant years. The OP did just that in his post.

Recognize...

You might have an argument if you had stayed far from any "data" and just relied on perception, feeling, personal preferences, etc. However, there is no hard "data" that can help compare two different "eras", simply because you have no constant reference that you can "measure" said eras against. In other words, subjectivity reigns supreme in such matters. So I'm afraid any purportedly "data-driven argument" is just a bunch of hogwash.

On the other hand, perceptions such as "ye ole geezers think that Renshaw was the best ever" are as valid as "the schoolkids think that Nadal rocks more than anybody else". As I said, it's all a matter of subjectivity and personal taste, anyway...

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by DRII

Data can be used in many different ways!

For example insecure Federer freaks like yourself are constantly defending your demigod against the data driven argument that Federer's competition was relatively weak during his most dominant years. The OP did just that in his post.

Recognize...

"data driven" argument is not what you presented.

Originally Posted by DRII

Weak, or more correctly 'weaker', era argument is not simply a statistical one; it is in large part a qualitative one.

Many of us have seen players and the tennis played in previous generations and come to the conclusion that the current era is weaker than others preceeding it (with far less depth).

The same is true for the women's game, and very few would argue with that...

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by DRII

Data can be used in many different ways!

For example insecure Federer freaks like yourself are constantly defending your demigod against the data driven argument that Federer's competition was relatively weak during his most dominant years. The OP did just that in his post.

Recognize...

It works both ways. If Sampras was able to win 7 out of 8 Wimbledons, that means that the grass field in the 90's was weak, ain't that right James?

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

It works both ways. If Sampras was able to win 7 out of 8 Wimbledons, that means that the grass field in the 90's was weak, ain't that right James?

nopes, that means he is the king of grass (nevermind cedric pioline and washington as finalists in a "strong" era)..

[JustBob]

I always find it odd when people argue that era 'X' was much stronger because it included many multiple slam winners, hence there was more competition. Logically that makes no sense because whatever time period you choose, there will always be a fixed number of slams to be won. So if we take 5 years, that's 20 slams. And it should be rather obvious that if one player wins 10, then there are only 10 slams to distribute between the rest of the players. So a distribution of say:

10, 7, 2, 1

Does not make an era inherently weaker or stronger than a distribution of:

5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by JustBob

I always find it odd when people argue that era 'X' was much stronger because it included many multiple slam winners, hence there was more competition. Logically that makes no sense because whatever time period you choose, there will always be a fixed number of slams to be won. So if we take 5 years, that's 20 slams. And it should be rather obvious that if one player wins 10, then there are only 10 slams to distribute between the rest of the players. So a distribution of say:

10, 7, 2, 1

Does not make an era inherently weaker or stronger than a distribution of:

5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2

exactly. the weak-era clowns just don't get it.

[DRII]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

it doesn't prove that the top 3 is anything weaker than any top 3 from the previous eras, it's your pure asumption probably based on hatred towards one player, let me take a guess, Federer?

Having said that I agree that players ranked 5th and lower seem somewhat weaker than even 10 years ago. I'm not quite sure where to put Murray, he's as consistent as anyone but his highest level is probably a tad lower than the current top 3.

Well having said that... you are basically saying the same thing I have been saying! Stop letting your Federer insecurity get the better of you.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

in other words, there are a bunch of morons who base their views on nostalgia without any data to back their claims, and expect to be taken seriously? got it.

It´s weak when just 3 players can aspire to win the majors.They are really good ones, but the rest of the field just sucks...

[DRII]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

You might have an argument if you had stayed far from any "data" and just relied on perception, feeling, personal preferences, etc. However, there is no hard "data" that can help compare two different "eras", simply because you have no constant reference that you can "measure" said eras against. In other words, subjectivity reigns supreme in such matters. So I'm afraid any purportedly "data-driven argument" is just a bunch of hogwash.

On the other hand, perceptions such as "ye ole geezers think that Renshaw was the best ever" are as valid as "the schoolkids think that Nadal rocks more than anybody else". As I said, it's all a matter of subjectivity and personal taste, anyway...

The data argument is not mine regarding weaker eras vs stronger eras, at least not the main basis for my opinion.

I am simply pointing out that Federer-fanatics are constantly arguing against the so called data driven, statistical argument; which in turn gives it credence...

[DRII]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

"data driven" argument is not what you presented.

Duh!

That was my whole point.

It was the OP, representative of other Federerphants, that mostly bring up the statistical, quantitative argument. Of course you are arguing against it, but you all are also giving it weight by revealing your insecurity regarding it...

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by DRII

Duh!

That was my whole point.

It was the OP, representative of other Federerphants, that mostly bring up the statistical, quantitative argument. Of course you are arguing against it, but you all are also giving it weight by revealing your insecurity regarding it...

so, in your world Nostalgia driven opinions > Data driven opinions.

and any one indulges in data driven opinions = displaying insecurity

got it!!

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by TMF

mmm..NOPE. The ATP is strong and the WTA is weak.

I agree. I think we're going to look back on this era in a decade and view it as being extremely competitive.

It's generally a case that people romanticise the past somewhat. It happens in most sports.