At what point does dominance lose its meaning?

S

Samprodal

Banned
You have 3 players that make more in a year than the rest of the tour does in their entire careers. Money that is used on things we take for granted: coaching, physio training, nutritional supplementation, and so on. Federer became a different player after taking Paganini on. Nole turned into Ultron after changing his diet and lifestyle. If world #22 can't afford a world reknown trainer, or a cryosleep capsule, or frankly an entire team of coaches and scientists to tend to their every conceivable need or issue, can you really expect them to compete with the ultra-rich who can?

That's why in my book all this hooplah about consistency, historic domination, golden age is horsecrock. The only players you can really meaningfully compare results for are the big 3 since they don't have any significantly greater resources that gives one an advantage over the other. And we all know the pecking order there...
 
NatF said:
Kinda sad that the PETE fan doesn't think his record can stand on its own...
Click to expand...
This is actually a serious thread. How do we take seriously the dominance of the big 3 when the rest of the field is at such a hilarious disadvantage in terms of training, nutrition and preparation? Batman is gonna have a hard time beating Bane, but if he's sleep deprived and can't access his resources, a win is impossible.
 
These three dudes canceled each other out. Pete was greatest of his era no questions about it. Always gonna be a question mark of who was greatest out of big 3.
 
Samprodal said:
exactly. That's why we can only compare how well each did relative to his generation. Pete lead his Wolf pack, Roger was the bronze medalist of his. No shame in that, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
Fed is part of an older generation than Nadal and Djokovic. 5-6 years of difference pretty much constitutes an entire generation in tennis terms. 5-6 years is actually about half of a typical career.
 
Third Serve said:
Fed is part of an older generation than Nadal and Djokovic. 5-6 years of difference pretty much constitutes an entire generation in tennis terms. 5-6 years is actually about half of a typical career.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is then you concede Federer's era is Baghdatis, Roddick, injured Scud, ancient Backassi, baby Rafa, baby Nole, etc.
Plus Federer has shown himself to be the first of a new trend of ATG's having much lengthier careers than ATG's of the past, so the point is moot anyways.

But back to the thread - how do you reconcile the dominance of the Big 3 with the undeniable unfair advantage they have over the rest of the field? Almost like 2 different sports. Club tennis v Mech suit tennis
 
Samprodal said:
exactly. That's why we can only compare how well each did relative to his generation. Pete lead his Wolf pack, Roger was the Delta of his. No shame in that, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
Today's wolf pack has three guys with 17+ Slams though. Even with more variety across surfaces and specialists during the 90s, that's quite something, especially since the Big 3 denied each other even more wins.

Fed is the best of his era as it stands. We'll see where they all end up.
 
Im(moral) Winner said:
Fed has been with Paganini since he was 13 :unsure:
Click to expand...
True, thanks. Still, Federer has hilariously unfair advantages over the rest of the field due to his wealth and team. Like putting unsuited Batman against Venom pumped Bane

Edit: Actually, its like putting John Blake from Dark Knight Rises (Jordan Levy's character: the barely trained rogue cop who helps Bats out) against Venom pumped Bane.

Edit: Actually, its like putting that random cop who Bane one-shots in the Dark Knight Rises end battle against a Bane without breathing issues.

Edit: Actually, its like putting that random cop Bane one-shots in the battle at the end of Dark Knight Rises against the 7 foot tall Bane from the comics who has no breathing issues and a venom suit that amps him to superhuman levels of strength. RIP Porkins.
 
Last edited:
Samprodal said:
This is actually a serious thread. How do we take seriously the dominance of the big 3 when the rest of the field is at such a hilarious disadvantage in terms of training, nutrition and preparation? Batman is gonna have a hard time beating Bane, but if he's sleep deprived and can't access his resources, a win is impossible.
Click to expand...
Bruce Wayne is rich enough to sleep during the day before his night time galas and crimefighting.
 
Dominance loses meaning when the public stops appreciating the competition.

Example, Thiem. He is probably the best and most consistent player outside of B3.

But their dominance has robbed him of so many achievements that his resume is thin. And so he looks like a less impressive opponent when the history is written.
 
TheAssassin said:
Today's wolf pack has three guys with 17+ Slams though. Even with more variety across surfaces and specialists during the 90s, that's quite something, especially since the Big 3 denied each other even more wins.

Fed is the best of his era as it stands. We'll see where they all end up.
Click to expand...
Back to the OP please - how do you reconcile the Big 3's dominance over the field with their hilarious resource advantage over them? How does this affect the overall significance we place on their domination?
 
Samprodal said:
True, thanks. Still, Federer has hilariously unfair advantages over the rest of the field due to his wealth and team. Like putting unsuited Batman against Venom pumped Bane

Edit: Actually, its like putting John Blake from Dark Knight Rises (Jordan Levy's character: the barely trained rogue cop who helps Bats out) against Venom pumped Bane.

Edit: Actually, its like putting that random cop who Bane one-shots in the Dark Knight Rises end battle against an even more enhanced, amped Bane.
Click to expand...

Federer is Batman. Only became great after he conquered his fear.

Nadal is Bane. Brawny and pumped full of enhancing juices. Broke Batman and sent him back to the drawing board, and eventually regretted it.

Djoker is...well, do I even need to say it?
 
Rosstour said:
Dominance loses meaning when the public stops appreciating the competition.

Example, Thiem. He is probably the best and most consistent player outside of B3.

But their dominance has robbed him of so many achievements that his resume is thin. And so he looks like a less impressive opponent when the history is written.
Click to expand...
Thank you for responding to OP. You are wrong, but I appreciate the class shown.
 
Samprodal said:
The problem with this is then you concede Federer's era is Baghdatis, Roddick, injured Scud, ancient Backassi, baby Rafa, baby Nole, etc.
Plus Federer has shown himself to be the first of a new trend of ATG's having much lengthier careers than ATG's of the past, so the point is moot anyways.

But back to the thread - how do you reconcile the dominance of the Big 3 with the undeniable unfair advantage they have over the rest of the field? Almost like 2 different sports. Club tennis v Mech suit tennis
Click to expand...
Baghdatis and Philippoussis don’t need to be on that list. Replace them with Hewitt and Safin if you want to take the steelman argument route. I don’t have a huge problem with that anyway. I think Fed wouldn’t have as many problems if he was put in, say, Djokovic’s era in place of the Serb as many people seem to believe. But that’s his generation and I don’t think it’s possible to argue otherwise. Matchups start getting funky when you compare across different generations so I went with that route.

As for your main point, I do think that the Big 3’s numbers have been a bit inflated. Obviously, part of it is that they’ve been able to decline more slowly than some ATGs of the past (look at how quickly Sampras fell after 2000, for example). But the main part is, like you said, that the difference in quality between them and the rest of the field is a gap a mile wide.

There’s been a definite trend with the top 10. It’s become more top-heavy starting from the late 2000s. Not saying that’s a bad thing: it signals good competition if the people at the top are genuinely that good and they compete against each other most of the time. Starting from about 2017, that hasn’t been the case. The Big 3 are meeting each other less often now which means that most of their battles are with the lackluster younger generations. It’s a weird time, for sure.
 
On the other hand, here are some of the disadvantages that the dominant big 3 face: extra pressure from the expectation that they will win every one of their matches; the extra motivation that makes everyone else go gunning for them. World # 98 would just love to beat Fedal at least once. Loss of motivation--all that $$$ can lead one to say what the hell, I'm tired of playing 10 months and training for the other 2. Or, I'm not going to risk my body going for the 5th set. And, not least, with all that fame and $$$ having to deal with the constant distractions (and threats like kidnapping) and dishonest "friends" who just want something from you.

So, with all the coddling the "big ones" get while on tour, I think there are plenty nails sticking up in their beds as well.
 
So Fed has 20 slams WHILE having to deal with the other 2, but Sampras only has 14 WITHOUT having to deal with 2 other "rich" guys? Still not sure what the OP main point is.
 
Third Serve said:
Baghdatis and Philippoussis don’t need to be on that list. Replace them with Hewitt and Safin if you want to take the steelman argument route. I don’t have a huge problem with that anyway. I think Fed wouldn’t have as many problems if he was put in, say, Djokovic’s era in place of the Serb as many people seem to believe. But that’s his generation and I don’t think it’s possible to argue otherwise. Matchups start getting funky when you compare across different generations so I went with that route.

As for your main point, I do think that the Big 3’s numbers have been a bit inflated. Obviously, part of it is that they’ve been able to decline more slowly than some ATGs of the past (look at how quickly Sampras fell after 2000, for example). But the main part is, like you said, that the difference in quality between them and the rest of the field is a gap a mile wide.

There’s been a definite trend with the top 10. It’s become more top-heavy starting from the late 2000s. Not saying that’s a bad thing: it signals good competition if the people at the top are genuinely that good and they compete against each other most of the time. Starting from about 2017, that hasn’t been the case. The Big 3 are meeting each other less often now which means that most of their battles are with the lackluster younger generations. It’s a weird time, for sure.
Click to expand...

Good points generally. We can put headcase Safin and victim-of-homogenization Hewitt on this list and remove Scud and Bags. In my defense, I didn't put Gonzales on the list.

PETE didn't decline in 2000 just because. He declined because of a back injury that took a lot of spring out of his step and prematurely cut his career down. Probably coulda won a couple more slams between '99-'03 if that hadn't happened. Overall though I do think his game had a shorter lifespan than Big 3's due to its explosiveness and the lack of a training regime that could minimize the damage done to the body by Serve and volley.

The thing is, most of these players over the last 15 years or so haven't been that good. Roddick was Fed's main grass and hardcourt competition from '04-06 (was a fluke he didn't make the W final, Fed said so himself in post final interview) and arguably even '07 on hards, and yet all the guy had was a serve, and forehand initially...and then he lost his forehand. No backhand. No movement, no stamina...in an era of base lining. Not to mention his atrocious lack of finesses or brains.

And don't get me started on the second tier of Fed's golden years...the Nalbandians, Safins of the world who put no time or care into training or winning the big titles. No hunger for competition.

Anyways, I think all this has to be taken into consideration when evaluating Big 3's dominance. The resource advantage over the rest of their weak field is something other ATGs never enjoyed
 
zipplock said:
So Fed has 20 slams WHILE having to deal with the other 2, but Sampras only has 14 WITHOUT having to deal with 2 other "rich" guys? Still not sure what the OP main point is.
Click to expand...
Fed has 4 slams dealing with the other 2. He has 16 dealing with Roddick, Baghdatis, injured Scud, ancient Backassi, gusto Gonzales, grosjean, ancic, kiefer, babydal, baby nole, you get the picture
 
Samprodal said:
Back to the OP please - how do you reconcile the Big 3's dominance over the field with their hilarious resource advantage over them? How does this affect the overall significance we place on their domination?
Click to expand...
For all we know the biggest tennis potential never picked up a racquet. But the field is not as top heavy as you make it out to be, world #22 doesn't have to worry about those necessities that are taken for granted. The Big 3 mastering the full package of skill, consistency and mentality is primarily to their credit, not the resources.
 
Samprodal said:
Good points generally. We can put headcase Safin and victim-of-homogenization Hewitt on this list and remove Scud and Bags. In my defense, I didn't put Gonzales on the list.

PETE didn't decline in 2000 just because. He declined because of a back injury that took a lot of spring out of his step and prematurely cut his career down. Probably coulda won a couple more slams between '99-'03 if that hadn't happened. Overall though I do think his game had a shorter lifespan than Big 3's due to its explosiveness and the lack of a training regime that could minimize the damage done to the body by Serve and volley.

The thing is, most of these players over the last 15 years or so haven't been that good. Roddick was Fed's main grass and hardcourt competition from '04-06 (was a fluke he didn't make the W final, Fed said so himself in post final interview) and arguably even '07 on hards, and yet all the guy had was a serve, and forehand initially...and then he lost his forehand. No backhand. No movement, no stamina...in an era of base lining. Not to mention his atrocious lack of finesses or brains.

And don't get me started on the second tier of Fed's golden years...the Nalbandians, Safins of the world who put no time or care into training or winning the big titles. No hunger for competition.

Anyways, I think all this has to be taken into consideration when evaluating Big 3's dominance. The resource advantage over the rest of their weak field is something other ATGs never enjoyed
Click to expand...
I disagree with a lot of your points but I can respect the PoV. Well, bar the third paragraph. That one I really disagree with. Not willing to get into an argument atm tho.
 
Third Serve said:
I disagree with a lot of your points but I can respect the PoV. Well, bar the third paragraph. That one I really disagree with. Not willing to get into an argument atm tho.
Click to expand...
No need for an argument. Tell me why ya disagree with my analysis of Roddick. For what its worth I do honestly believe it. Forehand was beastly in '03 and '04, such that even with his tremendously inferior movement, fitness, and overall package he could credibly threaten Fed on medium/fast surfaces. Then it fell off a cliff in '05 and went AWOL until Wimbledon '09. I think that was the best version of Roddick ever: vastly improved fitness, good movement, backhands down the line on big points, forehands not as big as his heyday, but better: better placed, better angles, and still with a lot of power. But...even peak Roddick lacked belief on big points and that's why he lost an historic match to Fed he shoulda won. Story of his career sadly
 
Samprodal said:
Thank you for responding to OP. You are wrong, but I appreciate the class shown.
Click to expand...

I don’t think you should tell people they are wrong when you are soliciting their opinion, that attitude lacks class. Kinda like all the batman reference in a “serious” thread IMO.
 
It’s a good question. One slam difference isn’t that much and when 3 players won that much it’s hard for one of them to be “the ultimate goat”. None of them will end up w a dominant slam count.
 
I agree. Sampras's dominance due to facing no other greats other than cokehead Agassi who only began to mature and prime after Sampras's 6 year dominance was over was so boring. He probably could have made it 9 years instead but got so bored finishing year over #1 over people like Chang, Ivanisevic, Rafter regularly.. Far better today when you have 3 greats facing each other and trading back years they are on top.

That is what you meant right?
 
flutzingitaway said:
I agree. Sampras's dominance due to facing no other greats other than cokehead Agassi who only began to mature and prime after Sampras's 6 year dominance was over was so boring. He probably could have made it 9 years instead but got so bored finishing year over #1 over people like Chang, Ivanisevic, Rafter regularly.. Far better today when you have 3 greats facing each other and trading back years they are on top.

That is what you meant right?
Click to expand...
nope, reading is fundamental kiddo
 
Samprodal said:
Fed has 4 slams dealing with the other 2. He has 16 dealing with Roddick, Baghdatis, injured Scud, ancient Backassi, gusto Gonzales, grosjean, ancic, kiefer, babydal, baby nole, you get the picture
Click to expand...
I have to tell you, for a guy that will never play to 1/10th the level of all those "other" guys, your take is pretty disrespectful to those other players. You're basically calling them chumps, not recognizing their talent. Do you have any clue how good the number 100 ATP ranked tennis player is? Seriously???
 
NatF said:
Kinda sad that the PETE fan doesn't think his record can stand on its own...
Click to expand...
"New User" OP:

Peteporn for ya so you can take a break from the borefest threads you're starting here.

cd3772e1328d325707661e1a4d57c206.jpg
200.gif
 
Samprodal said:
You have 3 players that make more in a year than the rest of the tour does in their entire careers. Money that is used on things we take for granted: coaching, physio training, nutritional supplementation, and so on. Federer became a different player after taking Paganini on. Nole turned into Ultron after changing his diet and lifestyle. If world #22 can't afford a world reknown trainer, or a cryosleep capsule, or frankly an entire team of coaches and scientists to tend to their every conceivable need or issue, can you really expect them to compete with the ultra-rich who can?

That's why in my book all this hooplah about consistency, historic domination, golden age is horsecrock. The only players you can really meaningfully compare results for are the big 3 since they don't have any significantly greater resources that gives one an advantage over the other. And we all know the pecking order there...
Click to expand...
Oh yeah? What’s the pecking order then?
 
Wasn't Sampras much richer than others too?

Anyway I agree you can't be the best ever if you're not the best in your era in the first place.
 
BeatlesFan said:
"New User" OP:

Peteporn for ya so you can take a break from the borefest threads you're starting here.

cd3772e1328d325707661e1a4d57c206.jpg
200.gif
Click to expand...
I can't stop laughing. That Jack Nicholson pic! Probably the only other thing guys can do during this Covid nightmare except eat, sleep and binge watch TV. As for Pete, isn't he known as a "bear" in some circles? :D
 
Samprodal said:
You have 3 players that make more in a year than the rest of the tour does in their entire careers. Money that is used on things we take for granted: coaching, physio training, nutritional supplementation, and so on. Federer became a different player after taking Paganini on. Nole turned into Ultron after changing his diet and lifestyle. If world #22 can't afford a world reknown trainer, or a cryosleep capsule, or frankly an entire team of coaches and scientists to tend to their every conceivable need or issue, can you really expect them to compete with the ultra-rich who can?

That's why in my book all this hooplah about consistency, historic domination, golden age is horsecrock. The only players you can really meaningfully compare results for are the big 3 since they don't have any significantly greater resources that gives one an advantage over the other. And we all know the pecking order there...
Click to expand...
Not sure what "horsecrock" is. That's a new euphemism for me. ;)

But I think the huge success of the Big 3 is partly talent - to some extent they really have been as good as they seem - and partly a set of circumstanced that has been very beneficial to that talent. Whenever a few people dominate a sport, you will never be able to prove how much of that is due to a failure of the competition unless there are objective measures that prove how good the top guys are. We can only rate the best tennis players by how they perform against the rest of the field.

It does seem to me, having looked carefully at stats from the beginning of the open era, that some eras are more competitive. Everything was very unpredictable during the 90s except for the dominance of Sampras, and during that era results on clay were very unpredictable. Seeds were far less likely to make it through to the end of slams, and for sure there were far more names for the players winning slams.

So it's hard for me to believe that the system is not "rigged" today in favor of a few guys at the top. I use "rigged" figuratively. I'm not saying there is cheating, but I do think that money plays a larger part than ever in holding the top guys in place and makes challenging them ever harder.
 
King No1e said:
How can the guy who has 14 full-fledged grandslams be superior to a guy with 17 full-fledged grandslams and a CGS?
Click to expand...
I edited your post because the word full-fledged is important. Emerson has won 12 grandslams, but no one considers him a better tennis player than Borg, Lendl or McEnroe, who have won fewer grandslams but their titles are full-fledged, while Emerson's titles are inferior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rovesciarete
What exactly does the PTPA want? Who could profit, who lose?
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
Bartelby
Bartelby
Back
Top