The eye test: was it a thing before 2015?
- Thread starter Biotic
- Start date
abmk
Bionic Poster
No, there were no videos available before 2015.
Only tons and tons of stats. TennisAbstract, ultimatetennisstatistics websites and all were there since beginning of open era. People never used to watch matches lest it ruin on their parade.
never ever watch matches before 2015 (videos are available now) to ascertain how they went, how the players. Why?
they might just burst bubble of THE Djokovic far and away greatest of all time, best in every shot etc.
/end sarcasm
Only tons and tons of stats. TennisAbstract, ultimatetennisstatistics websites and all were there since beginning of open era. People never used to watch matches lest it ruin on their parade.
never ever watch matches before 2015 (videos are available now) to ascertain how they went, how the players. Why?
they might just burst bubble of THE Djokovic far and away greatest of all time, best in every shot etc.
/end sarcasm
RS
Bionic Poster
You mean when people say that 2000-2006 players were playing better than Djokovic and his opponents or when they say mid 2000s Federer would dominate a peak Djokovic?
That's probably because although there have always been defensive baseline bots reach the number 1 spot, since late in 2012 there have only been 8 weeks when we didn't have that kind of player as number 1.
With playing conditions so heavily skewed towards the baseline bots, stats are almost meaningless and if you're actually a tennis fan (as opposed to fanbio) you have to rely on more objective and accurate measures.
Tennis_Freak99
Legend
'Eye tests' will obviously be biased towards your fave player. Stats >>>>>> personal bias
Up until about 15 years ago, you didn't need to. The tour was balanced and results reflected who was the best overall tennis player, not just the best defensive pusher.
RaulRamirez
Legend
To adapt a saying, this appears to be the motto among many here:
When stats are on your side, use stats.
When the eye test works for you, use the eye test.
When neither helps you, insult others
Some blend the three while feigning objectivity. (Yes, this applies to all "camps", but not all posters.)
When stats are on your side, use stats.
When the eye test works for you, use the eye test.
When neither helps you, insult others
Some blend the three while feigning objectivity. (Yes, this applies to all "camps", but not all posters.)
mike danny
Bionic Poster
RS
Bionic Poster
Why do you think? You tell us since you made the claim.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Obviously people have used their eyes to evaluate tennis quality going back to it's inception. Whether it was called "the eye test" or not is irrelevant. What a bizarre thread. Like it or not the only way to actually appraise match level is by watching it, seeing the twists and turns, the play on the big points, quality of defence and hitting etc...The idea that it's more objective to use stats from outside the matches in order to evaluate what happened in them is lunacy. Yes there are some who will twist narratives and evaluate match play in a heavily biased manner but you get that with cherry picked stats etc...as well.
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
Can it be that you have never read/heard of ‘Roger Federer as Religious Experience’? A piece of writing penned at a time when it did not exist in isolation, and people genuinely mused on whether a man with single digit slams was the best ever? The eye test is not a retroactive, defensive invention of this forum, believe it or not.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hell you even have McEnroe talking making comments about it during the USO 2004 QF with Agassi. Embarassing fail of an OP tbh. I'm sure certain Djokovic fans would love it if the "eye test" was a forum invention but people have been using their eyes longer than they've been using stats that's for sure. To go for an even older example you need only look at the Old Big 4 of Laver, Pancho, Rosewall and Hoad - the first three pretty much sweared up and down that Hoad was the greatest of all time and the best player they ever played, despite all being much more accomplished than him by nearly any metric. Hell you look at the rankings the old timers give their peers and they're heavily slanted towards how they evaluate players games rather than the traditional bean counting that's common now. This pseudo-intellectual movement towards trying to use stats like "How many slam matches were won across the entire year by top 10 players" to evaluate how someone actually played on the day needs to die, hell these guys don't even pay attention to the actual scoreline when trying to determine how tough an opponent was but apparently we're the biased ones...
Someone could hit 27 consecutive double faults, but if they hadn't dropped a set on the way to the final certain posters would still argue they were a tough opponent and it was simply the Djokovic intimidation factor at work and they'd beat basically anyone else.
Last edited:
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
Well it exists in other sports too 
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Everyone uses the eye test, whether you like it or not.
Classic examples:
1. The usual individuals who give 2005 USO F Fed a hard time do it precisely because of the eye test. It doesn't matter that stats show that Federer served at over 70% or that he fired lots of winners, he was bad according to the eye test of some people just because Agassi pushed him. Those same people use the eye test to say old Fed was better because to them he looked like he was moving better, even if he didn't do other things better.
2. 2011 USO Nadal. It doesn't matter that he was broken a heck of a lot of times or that he didn't serve well or that he got breadsticked by an injured Djokovic. All of these being objective things. No, Nadal was great because according to their eye test Djokovic was too good and made Nadal play bad. Personal bias at play here again.
Classic examples:
1. The usual individuals who give 2005 USO F Fed a hard time do it precisely because of the eye test. It doesn't matter that stats show that Federer served at over 70% or that he fired lots of winners, he was bad according to the eye test of some people just because Agassi pushed him. Those same people use the eye test to say old Fed was better because to them he looked like he was moving better, even if he didn't do other things better.
2. 2011 USO Nadal. It doesn't matter that he was broken a heck of a lot of times or that he didn't serve well or that he got breadsticked by an injured Djokovic. All of these being objective things. No, Nadal was great because according to their eye test Djokovic was too good and made Nadal play bad. Personal bias at play here again.
RS
Bionic Poster
It sounded more like a dig but okay
Biotic
Hall of Fame
Where exactly is the fail in the OP?
I clarified in the OP that I was asking about this forum only. Is there a flood of eye test is king threads/posts in recent times compared to 10 or 15 years back (if the search function works correctly)? And if so, why?
I don't mind if McEnroe uses it all the time. He has more tennis knowledge than all users here put together, so it's ok. Sometimes it doesn't mean much - Wilander said that 2015 QF Djokovic was the highest claycourt tennis level ever, so there's that.
NatF
Bionic Poster
The fail was you using the phrase, "objective criteria" as if actually watching matches is to be shunned in light of pseudo relevant bean counting, likewise your OP seemed to posit that people actually evaluating matches with their eyes was scarce before 2015.
The eye test is old as time, every post where some comments on how well someone played is the eye test. Go back to any random match thread from 2007 and I'm sure you'll see tons of eye test, calling visual analysis of matches the eye test is a recent invention to demean it's value so whether or not you've found specific mention of it in your searches is irrelevant. The forum has certainly gotten worse in terms of the dick measuring in recent years but your fanbase is a culpable as any other...
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
The obsession with numbers and statistics is a far more recent phenomena.
Some use it honestly.
Others demonstrate almost insufferable stupidity.
Many substitute what the senses are taking in almost solely for dry, hollow numbers which are only interpretative abstractions of the real thing, and never the full picture.
An honest use of stats and interpretation combined with actually observing play might lead some to higher enlightenment. But don't assume that the existing metrics are flawless measures, much like one can't trust their memory nor rely solely on what ostensibly is the case through their senses in order to come to some well-balanced conclusion for the order of things.
Some use it honestly.
Others demonstrate almost insufferable stupidity.
Many substitute what the senses are taking in almost solely for dry, hollow numbers which are only interpretative abstractions of the real thing, and never the full picture.
An honest use of stats and interpretation combined with actually observing play might lead some to higher enlightenment. But don't assume that the existing metrics are flawless measures, much like one can't trust their memory nor rely solely on what ostensibly is the case through their senses in order to come to some well-balanced conclusion for the order of things.
Biotic
Hall of Fame
"The eye test" is a subjective criterion, no matter what. It can be correct or not, it is always subjective. I mentioned Wilander's case. It is extreme, but McEnroe didn't agree with him, and we had two very different views both based on eye test.
Obviously, stats, when put into context (clay, grass, fast, slow, high bounce, low bounce, etc) are more objective.
I'm not interested in arguing the importance of the eye test here. People obviously evaluated matches with their own eyes well before 2015, but for some reason, looks like hardly anyone used "the eye test" card to prove something on this forum. Did it start in 2014-2015? Why?
D
Deleted member 779124
Guest
Your agenda is so obvious.
NatF
Bionic Poster
As someone who has been here since 2012 I can tell you that's not the case. If anything the heavy stats bias is newer...
Also a subjective criterion (with match stats themselves) is cetainly better than unrelated numbers lol.
InsideOut900
Legend
Here is an observation. The objective criteria changes based on playing conditions like surface, match-up in general, the specific manner a player chooses to play on that day and other factors like tiredness, general tendancy to play better/worse in tight situations.
Tennis ain't exact science that can be quantified with numbers alone.
You cannot get the full scope of things without seeing what determined the match stats to be what they are and you need to fall on the match stats after watching in order to analyse what you may have overlooked while watching the actual play.
Another thing is to understand the match dynamic. Why something happened the way it did?
If for instance someone gets an early lead, but the other player turns the match around, did it happen because of relaxed play, off a choke, off the other player just raising his game a lot, which one ot which combination of these factors?
There are so many nuances that can only be understood after watching a match.
In the end, a healthy dose of both is required.
Is the eye test biased for some? Yes.
But if you understood the nuances of a match correctly after watching, then the match stats are gonna reflect that too.
If someone supports a view that the combination of eye test and stats doesn't reflect, you can easily dismiss or refute it.
Biotic
Hall of Fame
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Lew is irreplaceable for the Djokovic fanbase.
Biotic
Hall of Fame
Fully agree. But it doesn't explain the trend of using it as a trump card on this forum, which seems to be recent.
Is observation correct? Does such trend exist or not?
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
This would be true if fans did not consciously or unconsciously cherry pick stats to support their personal biases.
As for the eye test, the same thing happens. Fans notice things that prop up their faves and don't even see - or want to see - the things that do not prop them up.
There is nothing in the universe that counters lack of objectivity in the minds of those incapable of objectivity.
InsideOut900
Legend
Hard to evaluate at the whole forum level. There are people who are stat junkies, people who watch the matches but are to bored to dip into stats and a mix-up.
And of course their are people talking about ELO, please stay away from them
If you ask me, people dipped less into stats when I first joined 5 years ago, but they still did to some extent.
At least in the corner of the forum that concernes me. Now, @Lew II turned the forum into cherry-pick land
Last edited:
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
The question is utterly ridiculous. I could only reply after settling down from a genuinely lengthy chuckle.
Yeh I'm shaming the OP. It's an atrocious thread.
I'm a bully.
wang07
Semi-Pro
It's not nearly as obvious as many would suggest: you can remain fairly objective without using a single stat, as well as you can skew your stats to such a degree that it'll never reflect on reality in its entirety, but only on a tiny slice of it (perhaps, and most often the one that suits your agenda best). And then there's cherry picking and many other things. You can find many examples around here for both. As always, most people simply resort to polarization and argue that "eye test"(whatever you name it) = entirely subjective and stats = entirely and completely objective. Or the reverse, depending on which side you're on. Well, it's just not that simple.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
I like your wording a lot!
NatF
Bionic Poster
Well at least you're not trying to subtly (or not so subtly) shame people for watching matches and having an educated opinion on them. The actual progression of a match is in fact more important than what they had for breakfast *shock* *horror*
Also I remember years ago when we spoke about setting up a dedicated stats-subforum. Loo was probably still in nappies.
Biotic
Hall of Fame
The OP clearly asks about this forum only. Not McEnroe or someone else. Your inability to comprehend the question does not give you the right to shame anyone.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
OK I'll give you 1/10th of a pass which still makes it 90% bollox.
NatF
Bionic Poster
So what you're saying is posters on this forum didn't start commenting on actual match play until 2015? Were all those match threads just for reciting the scores?
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
It's an obvious response to the emergence of CIE* and dedicated fans' acceptance of CIE achievements at face value as it suits them under the guise of objectivity.
*CIE = Career Inflation Era
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Still think it's a shame that never happened. Instead, dedicated stats talk has to sort of float around in a far more general forum and as such some insights get lost. I think a higher quality of analysis would be seen if there was a designated home for that analysis. I'd certainly have contributed substantially more.
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
Well, the eye test did always exist. Not just in tennis. The name eye test is probably new.
Biotic
Hall of Fame
No. I'm saying that I couldn't find anyone using his own eye test as a trump card.
OP i dont understand what do you mean by eye test
Biotic
Hall of Fame
So, PETE = GOAT?
NatF
Bionic Poster
I had a bunch of projects I was interested in, I think it would have been easier to put our heads together and collaborate in a meaningful and exciting way if there was specific forum. The way things are unless we're using private chats it's essentially just one man projects which boil down to filtering UTS or TA in different ways.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
PETE is just a watered down version of the true GOAT that is PANCHO.
RS
Bionic Poster
Your threads have the most eye test use
Biotic
Hall of Fame
Wut? Blasphemy.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
I still lament greatly that nothing came to fruition of this idea. It ultimately sapped at my motivation to do stat work since the effect is barely there as any conclusions that could've been reached in a honest knowledgeable discussion just wither and die in this sea of side-taking belligerence.
Similar threads
