"Deep" Questions

RaulRamirez

RaulRamirez

Legend
In no particular order:
  • At what point, does a tourney/slam become a "pet" tourney/slam?
  • Why is it so important to define "peak" and "prime"?
  • Why is it useful to pin down the definition of an ATG (all-time great)?
Feel free to answer and/or add to the list. Please keep it non-partisan and civil.
 
Not all wins against an opponent are the same. It depends if they were at their peak or prime or decline.

Categorizing someone as ATG is just to make sure that players are not hyped beyond what they are due

I would say when you win 5+ times at an event, it becomes a ‘pet’.
 
1. If a player starts winning a high concentration of titles at the tournament, I'll call it a pet Slam. For example, results like these:

W - SF - W - W - W - QF - W

Would suggest domination of that Slam. It's a high concentration of wins over a time period (5/7). Something like 5 wins over a period of 12 years, for example, would not suggest domination at all because the wins are so far spaced out that the player has never truly locked down the Slam or felt like THE man to beat.

2. Helps pin down that exact period when a player was at his or her best. I don't think there's much I can add here.

3. It's not actually that useful but it's a fun debate so that's why that topic creates pages and pages of threads.
 
Dominic & Andrey said:
Personally I am just curious to know for how long this thread will remain civil and non-partisan
Click to expand...


Federer doesn't have a pet slam, his tally at WB can't compare to other two of the same era. Novak and Rafa like numbers or Pete's 7-0 is required for having a pet slam. Even Federer's 8 is gonna be surpassed by Novak.
 
My thoughts:

#1 - I'm not sure it can be defined -- perhaps, five titles at one tourney/slam (not sure if it matters in what period of time they were amassed), but I find the term to be more pejorative than complimentary. As in, "Ah, he should win - that's his pet slam." Silly.
#2 - It can help give context, but it's used so disingenuously and disproportionately here, that it becomes a distortion.
#3 -- Yes, I've participated in these discussions/disgust-ions about where the ATG line is, but I don't know what the usefulness is. Again, it becomes a term that is often just used to weaponize bad arguments. "Yeah, but which ATG (feel free to say "younger ATG") did he beat", as if there's a hard-and-fast line between ATGs and non-ATGS, and that one type of victory is monumental, and the other type is inconsequential.
 
ForehandCross said:
Federer doesn't have a pet slam, his tally at WB can't compare to other two of the same era. Novak and Rafa like numbers or Pete's 7-0 is required for having a pet slam. Even Federer's 8 is gonna be surpassed by Novak.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not, but let's keep it non-partisan.
And yes, I don't know why someone would need a "pet slam" or want to call it that.
 
ForehandCross said:
Federer doesn't have a pet slam, his tally at WB can't compare to other two of the same era. Novak and Rafa like numbers or Pete's 7-0 is required for having a pet slam. Even Federer's 8 is gonna be surpassed by Novak.
Click to expand...
He does have a pet slam. The guy has 8 titles and 12 finals in total. That is a pet slam.

That he didn't get as fortunate as the other 2 with his 30's competition is a different matter.
 
mike danny said:
He does have a pet slam. The guy has 8 titles and 12 finals in total. That is a pet slam.

That he didn't get as fortunate as the other 2 with his 30's competition is a different matter.
Click to expand...
I understand your defense, but I really didn't want this.
My post is about the terminology, itself.
 
RaulRamirez said:
In no particular order:
  • At what point, does a tourney/slam become a "pet" tourney/slam?
  • Why is it so important to define "peak" and "prime"?
  • Why is it useful to pin down the definition of an ATG (all-time great)?
Feel free to answer and/or add to the list. Please keep it non-partisan and civil.
Click to expand...
IMO, a tourney becomes a pet slam when the player in question dominates it over a certain period of time.

Peak and prime are important to define when a player in question played his best and most consistent tennis. It's usually when a player's level and results both coincide.

Usually the term ATG is used to separate the true elite from the more ordinary players so to speak.
 
mike danny said:
IMO, a tourney becomes a pet slam when the player in question dominates it over a certain period of time.

Peak and prime are important to define when a player in question played his best and most consistent tennis. It's usually when a player's level and results both coincide.

Usually the term ATG is used to separate the true elite from the more ordinary players so to speak.
Click to expand...
Understood, but do you agree that all of these terms get distorted (by so many on all "sides") to ridiculous proportions?
 
RaulRamirez said:
In no particular order:
  • At what point, does a tourney/slam become a "pet" tourney/slam?
  • Why is it so important to define "peak" and "prime"?
  • Why is it useful to pin down the definition of an ATG (all-time great)?
Feel free to answer and/or add to the list. Please keep it non-partisan and civil.
Click to expand...

Nearly all subjects fall within the realm of nuance.
You can not argue nuance. You need superlatives to start an argument.
The internet's prime reason for existence is to allow people to argue with strangers on the other side of the planet when they both have free time that they should be using for far more productive endeavours.
 
ForehandCross said:
Even Federer's 8 is gonna be surpassed by Novak.
Click to expand...
09f54105ef07924ec651771c2d69a554.gif
 
Third Serve said:
1. If a player starts winning a high concentration of titles at the tournament, I'll call it a pet Slam. For example, results like these:

W - SF - W - W - W - QF - W

Would suggest domination of that Slam. It's a high concentration of wins over a time period (5/7). Something like 5 wins over a period of 12 years, for example, would not suggest domination at all because the wins are so far spaced out that the player has never truly locked down the Slam or felt like THE man to beat.

2. Helps pin down that exact period when a player was at his or her best. I don't think there's much I can add here.

3. It's not actually that useful but it's a fun debate so that's why that topic creates pages and pages of threads.
Click to expand...
Id add that "pet Slam" only means anything if player in question only dominates that Slam. I'd contend Federer has never had a "pet Slam" because he's either owned 3 of the 4 (04-09), or none of them (post-prime)
 
it isn't

eye test is fine. we should just watch tennis and stop arguing and caring so much about whether 2008 semifinal second set was truly peak or just a micro era false dawn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tennisanity
Slam losses during prime for the big 3
Replies
39
Views
3K
DreddyTennis45
DreddyTennis45
N
Peak/Prime is just suggestion, not a binding clause
2
Replies
96
Views
5K
nolefam_2024
N
7
8 year definition of prime (long)
Replies
24
Views
2K
fedfan39
F
James P
All Time Great
2
Replies
85
Views
6K
thrust
T
okdude1992
Were any All Time Greats one-dimensional?
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
Bender
Bender
Back
Top