Alcaraz and Sinner have 4x the slams that 89-99 born generations

[Hitman]

Scientific method identifies issues with the use of stats.

This illustrates the point well enough. Only looking at the stat that say 1 title won does not add to the understanding of dominance.

What scientific method is going to be able to tell me that 6 titles is better than 7 titles?

Federer fans had no problem saying 17>14>12 without talking about scientific methods back in the day, now you want to talk dominance. Sure, but I'd stick with winning titles, the way I gave Federer the nod without question when he overtook Sampras.

 

[Hitman]

7 titles is the record , no one argues that 7 titles is less than 6 with several unbeaten runs in terms of absolute numbers

But the way the numbers are accumulated tells a story. It is up to you to choose to recognize it or not. You may choose not to because it doesn’t suit your narrative but the story cannot be swept under .

Djokovic won four titles in a row, and then also won two titles back to back in his mid 30s. I think his legacy is perfectly fine.

He has 7 titles, he has the record, the analysis is for those that want their cake and eat it also.

 

[canta_Brian]

What scientific method is going to be able to tell me that 6 titles is better than 7 titles?

Federer fans had no problem saying 17>14>12 without talking about scientific methods back in the day, now you want to talk dominance. Sure, but I'd stick with winning titles, the way I gave Federer the nod without question when he overtook Sampras.

Methodology requires you to compare non heterogeneous cohorts if you want be able to rely on the results.

 

[ND-13]

Djokovic won four titles in a row, and then also won two titles back to back in his mid 30s. I think his legacy is perfectly fine.

He has 7 titles, he has the record, the analysis is for those that want their cake and eat it also.

That has lots of prose and not sure any of them relate to what I mentioned

 

[Hitman]

Methodology requires you to compare non heterogeneous cohorts if you want be able to rely on the results.

I wonder where all this talk from Federer fans were, when he had all the numbers.

 

[Djokovic2011]

That has lots of prose and not sure any of them relate to what I mentioned

What point are you trying to make exactly?

 

[canta_Brian]

I wonder where all this talk from Federer fans were, when he had all the numbers.

At the time we were just going by eye test

 

[ND-13]

What point are you trying to make exactly?

Sad it needs to be restated. Federer’s runs were more impressive .

 

[Hitman]

At the time we were just going by eye test

Ah yes, the eye test. Because the eyes chico, they never lie.

 

[TheAssassin]

I wonder where all this talk from Federer fans were, when he had all the numbers.

The non heterogenous cohorts were compared and they aligned with the numbers back then probably.

 

[mike danny]

Didn’t one of those guys I’m referring to win 3 of the slams in 2023? Mythological indeed

I said after

 

[ojo rojo]

I said after

You know I’m only really here for bantz & memez Mike. I generally leave the hypothetical-goat-stat wrestling to the grownups

 

[abmk]

Absolutely. And contrary to the BS abmk comes out with his level was actually very high that year. I doubt we'll ever witness such a level of play from a 36 year old ever again.

djokovic level was very high in 23?

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

he'd have had 0 slams in a good competition year.

all 3 slam draws he won were absolute jokes.

he could've lost to djere in USO, med flopped again, should've lost to alcaraz in RG, and no one played even 1/5th decent at the AO and atrocious^^5 2nd set TB in the final.

shelton in USO semi, ruud in RG final, paul in AO semi ................

djokovic level were merely good in 2023. that's it.

 

[abmk]

So you believe Djokovic's winning the 2023 WTF was well deserved then?

it was a good level from Djokovic nothing more.

He was significantly better in YEC 18 for example (most dominant till the final) and zverev put him down in straights that final. he'd do the same vs a clearly worse djokovic in 23.

and competition was ultra weak. so another vultured title for djokovic.

If its not clear, 7-8 vultured slams and 2 vultured YECs


vultured = not high enough level AND weak/meh competition

 

[Djokovic2011]

djokovic level was very high in 23?

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

he'd have had 0 slams in a good competition year.

all 3 draws were absolute jokes.

he could've lost to djere in USO, med flopped again, should've lost to alcaraz in RG, and no one played even 1/5th decent at the AO and atrocious^^5 2nd set TB in the final.

djokovic level were merely good in 2023. that's it.

He still holds the slam record regardless.

 

[abmk]

He still holds the slam record regardless.

with berretini, paul, kyrgios, shapo, shelton, ruud slams, LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO.... absolute v-ulturovic and Luckiest of all time.

not in the top 3 greatest : fed, laver, pancho.

 

[Djokovic2011]

it was a good level from Djokovic nothing more.

He was significantly better in YEC 18 for example (most dominant till the final) and zverev put him down in straights that final. he'd do the same vs a clearly worse djokovic in 23.

and competition was ultra weak. so another vultured title for djokovic.

If its not clear, 7-8 vultured slams and 2 vultured YECs


vultured = not high enough level AND weak/meh competition

You've become completely deranged. It's actually quite sad to see.

 

[abmk]

You've become completely deranged. It's actually quite sad to see.

that's you pal. because I crushing your delusions.


if you want to say djokovic in 23 YEC was better than the one who gave a return masterclass vs Isner and GOATed vs cilic and everyone else in YEC 18 before the final, you've gone beyond mental.

 

[Djokovic2011]

with berretini, paul, kyrgios, shapo, shelton, ruud slams, LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO.... absolute v-ulturovic and Luckiest of all time.

not in the top 3 greatest : fed, laver, pancho.

You keep telling yourself that and it still won't be true.

 

[abmk]

You keep telling yourself that and it still won't be true.

it is all true
berretini, paul, kyrgios, shapo, shelton, ruud slams, LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO.... absolute v-ulturovic and Luckiest of all time.

 

[Djokovic2011]

that's you pal. because I crushing your delusions.


if you want to say djokovic in 23 YEC was better than the one who gave a return masterclass vs Isner and GOATed vs cilic and everyone else in YEC 18 before the final, you've gone beyond mental.

But why should it matter if he played worse than 2018 or any other year? At the end of the day he played well enough to beat the players in front of him in 2023 and that's all that counts. You seem to have an obsession with constantly looking back and making comparisons with past events. That's really not a healthy way to go through life.

 

[mike danny]

You know I’m only really here for bantz & memez Mike. I generally leave the hypothetical-goat-stat wrestling to the grownups

I should really try that too

 

[abmk]

But why should it matter if he played worse than 2018 or any other year? At the end of the day he played well enough to beat the players in front of him in 2023 and that's all that counts. You seem to have an obsession with constantly looking back and making comparisons with past events. That's really not a healthy way to go through life.

because he faced well below par competition in YEC 23. that's why. again, UltraLuckovic.

and no, its not all that counts.

level of play matters among many other things.

if stan had vultured 3 slams in this crap era playing at just good level instead of actually what he did, you think he'd be rated as highly as he is?

 

[Djokovic2011]

because he faced well below par competition in YEC 23. that's why. again, UltraLuckovic.

and no, its not all that counts.

level of play matters among many other things.

The record books don't give a rat's backside about level of play. Let it go.

 

[abmk]

The record books don't give a rat's backside about level of play. Let it go.

so stick your head in record books. why are you even watching tennis?

if stan had vultured 3 slams in this crap era playing at just good level instead of actually what he did, you think he'd be rated as highly as he is?

if safin had played slightly above johansson level and won a AO (lets say 02) instead of winning AO 05 epically, he'd be rated as highly as he is?

if krajicek had played merely decent level and beaten berretini and shapo instead of sampras and stich, he'd be rated as highly as he is?

 

[insideoutforehanders]

The record books don't give a rat's backside about level of play. Let it go.

Indeed, which is why nearly everyone calls Margaret Court who holds virtually every womens statistical record; in her case both in singles and even almost all combined singles + doubles ones, the female tennis GOAT. Oh wait.

 

[TMF]

Look at the context on that board of Wimbledon winners. Incredible context telling us which titles matters more and which are asterisked.

Nice picture. Every win has a story, and my point still stands that every winners are not equally impressive and equal quality. Depth and strength of competition, I value the wins more during peak/prime years more than old/past prime years.

Sorry we don't share the same sentiment

 

[Hitman]

Nice picture. Every win has a story, and my point still stands that every winners are not equally impressive and equal quality. Depth and strength of competition, I value the wins more during peak/prime years more than old/past prime years.

Sorry we don't share the same sentiment

Looks like Wimbledon's board doesn't share your sentiment either.

No asterisks or the words Inflation Era written on that board by the officially governing body of the tournament. I'll stick with that.

To each their own I guess.

 

[TMF]

Indeed, which is why nearly everyone calls Margaret Court who holds virtually every womens statistical record; in her case both in singles and even almost all combined singles + doubles ones, the female tennis GOAT. Oh wait.

That's why we can never judge the book by its cover

 

[TMF]

Looks like Wimbledon's board doesn't share your sentiment either.

No asterisks or the words Inflation Era written on that board by the officially governing body of the tournament. I'll stick with that.

To each their own I guess.

You would need hundreds of board if one want to write a story for every single Wimbledon event. LOL
You can read the book cover, but I will read the contents of the book to get better perspective and discernment.

To each their own.

 

[Hitman]

You would need hundreds of board if one want to write a story for every single Wimbledon event. LOL
You can read the book cover, but I will read the contents of the book to get better perspective and discernment.

To each their own.

But why don't they put a simple asterisk next to the wins. LOL

That's not so hard. Asterisk to say according to some on the internet, these are slams that were not considered good wins or inflated wins.

No one is asking for a War & Peace here, just a simple asterisk.

There is no book, just subjective bias. Only wins matter in the end, as that board shows.

 

[MichaelNadal]

2019 is stronger than any year post 2019. but yeah, nothing much different b/w 22 and 24/25.

2019 was epic af

 

[TMF]

But why don't they put a simple asterisk next to the wins. LOL

That's not so hard. Asterisk to say according to some on the internet, these are slams that were not considered good wins or inflated wins.

No one is asking for a War & Peace here, just a simple asterisk.

There is no book, just subjective bias. Only wins matter in the end, as that board shows.

So Laver 200 titles >>>>> Nole 100 titles, right ?

No context, no asterisk, just strictly go by the numbers, because that's the only thing that matter

 

[Hitman]

So Laver 200 titles >>>>> Nole 100 titles, right ?

No context, no asterisk, just strictly go by the numbers, because that's the only thing that matter

Well Laver won CYGS in 1969 at 31

Where is the uproar about context there? Why don't they say he won it past his peak years also so it is inflated?

Oh, because Laver isn't the threat here, when everyone is fixated on the big 3 slam race.

 

[RS]

 

[TMF]

Well Laver won CYGS in 1969 at 31

Where is the uproar about context there? Why don't they say he won it past his peak years also so it is inflated?

Oh, because Laver isn't the threat here, when everyone is fixated on the big 3 slam race.

I'm just saying that going by your simple and lazy method in evaluating greatness, numbers is all that matter. No context, no knowledge, no nothing.

200 titles is twice as great as 100 titles. Just be consistent

 

[mike danny]

That Nole & Rafa destroyed the self-confidence of Next Gen tennis players (especially Zverev, Medvedev, Tsitsipas). Without self-confidence, Grand Slams cannot be won.

Then they were never champions to begin with

 

[mike danny]

Yeah it is but slating an era for having old guys dominating and then praising the next one when younger ones dominate with an arguably lower level of play is quite hypocritical in my eyes.

To me these years aren’t stronger. Sinneraz just replaced Djokodal in owning this weak era, that’s it

 

[mike danny]

How were they "weak"?? From 2017-2020 he lost 3 total sets at Roland Garros, including 2017 and 2020 without dropping a set. 2 USO titles (including the best Final of the 2010s decade at the USO), and one of the greatest comebacks ever at AO 2022. I only ask this because only Nadal has his slam wins criticized as "weak". Novak NEVER does, Fed NEVER does. Novak can beat a gassed Anderson coming off a 26-24 fifth set SF @ Wimbledon, and nobody blinks an eyelash. He can face Kyrgios in a Wimby Final, nobody bats an eyelash. He can emerge from a COVID locker room breakout in 2022 Wimbledon (and a Nadal WD in the semis), nobody bats an eyelash

Where have you been the last 15 years?

 

[Hood_Man]

Yeah it is but slating an era for having old guys dominating and then praising the next one when younger ones dominate with an arguably lower level of play is quite hypocritical in my eyes.

Well, that's the point isn't it? The 90s gen were being beaten consistently by the 80s gen and are now being beaten by the 2000s. Where's the hypocrisy?

 

[mike danny]

The whole 90’s born have reached about as many slam finals as the entire Fed gen of 80-84 without Fed. That really says it all if people still think they are even

 

[Hood_Man]

You know I’m only really here for bantz & memez Mike. I generally leave the hypothetical-goat-stat wrestling to the grownups

What are these "grownups" you speak of?

 

[mike danny]

It's crazy how good and Alcaraz and Sinner are.

It's crazy how good you have to be to beat them both back to back in straights without dropping more than 3 games per set

Hyping up Alcaraz indoors now? He is worse than young Rafa there

 

[mike danny]

Absolutely. And contrary to the BS abmk comes out with his level was actually very high that year. I doubt we'll ever witness such a level of play from a 36 year old ever again.

Well yes, because 36 year old Fed came before Djoko

 

[Racquet_smash]

To me these years aren’t stronger. Sinneraz just replaced Djokodal in owning this weak era, that’s it

Yeah and i hate the hypocrisy of "tennis is saved" just because they are younger. My issue with the previous years is that players didn't really have to come up with super impressive tennis to win. It's the same now.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Well, that's the point isn't it? The 90s gen were being beaten consistently by the 80s gen and are now being beaten by the 2000s. Where's the hypocrisy?

The reason the previous years were criticized is that the 3 could win as much as they did in their prime by playing significantly inferior tennis. But at least in my eyes Sinner and Alcaraz aren't really playing better tennis than they were, they just replaced them as they got too old.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah and i hate the hypocrisy of "tennis is saved" just because they are younger. My issue with the previous years is that players didn't really have to come up with super impressive tennis to win. It's the same now.

What these years proved is that the 90’s born were always weak and it wasn’t about the Big 3 being too good

 

[abmk]

Yeah and i hate the hypocrisy of "tennis is saved" just because they are younger. My issue with the previous years is that players didn't really have to come up with super impressive tennis to win. It's the same now.

I agree. Alcaraz and Sinner prime level is no better than that of Hewitt/Safin/Roddick et. al in slams.
But they also helped prove how bad the 89-99 born gens were/are.

 

[mike danny]

The reason the previous years were criticized is that the 3 could win as much as they did in their prime by playing significantly inferior tennis. But at least in my eyes Sinner and Alcaraz aren't really playing better tennis than they were, they just replaced them as they got too old.

They aren’t playing better tennis. Rafa wouldn’t need 5 sets to beat Zverev in a RG F. And it’s arguable whether 2023 Raz at Wimb was even better than 2019 Fed.

 

[Hitman]

I'm just saying that going by your simple and lazy method in evaluating greatness, numbers is all that matter. No context, no knowledge, no nothing.

200 titles is twice as great as 100 titles. Just be consistent

Nope. I always say slams first. I've never said a 250 is as great as a slam. That is you deflecting and trying to put words in my mouth.

If you don't see anyone complaining about Laver winning a CYGS in his 30s, what makes you think the bigger world cares? You're a Federer fan, it is very easy to see where you agenda comes from.

Now, you are entitled to your opinion of course, but understand this, Wimbledon itself doesn't agree with you, they don't put asterisks out, you know they announced Djokovic as a then six time Wimbledon champion, in the 2022 champion's parade. You don't have to like it, but that is the truth.

Your context is based on subjective opinionated bias, you see what you want to see. Winning matters. If Laver's CYGS won in his 30s is celebrated without anyone questioning it, and no, they don't talk weak era, or inflation era, or weak draws, or he was not peak for an athlete at 31, then as time passes and the smaller hardcore fans are gone, the wins and titles remain. This is how things are seen. Records stand for the next future great to break.