Evidence of Computer Simulation (tennis related)

Swingmaster

Professional
In your opinion, what is the best tennis related evidence that we are living in a computer simulation? Obviously the big three’s dominance is pretty strange. Also, it seems like Djokovic fans are not real flesh and blood. Also, why is it that an 18 or 19 year old can make a huge leap to the top in a year or two, but it never ever ever happens with a 28 or 29 year old? Like a supremely athletic guy with some bad technique who’s 400 in the world meets a brilliant coach, puts it all together and just comes out of nowhere to be top twenty. Shouldn’t that happen at some point? Shouldn’t there be more abberations? I’d appreciate your thoughts.
 

Swingmaster

Professional
Also Tennys Sandgren from Tennessee. Who said some controversial things because he needs to feel like tennis is not his entire identity. Though he wants to be seen as more than a player, he’s actually one of the hardest workers on tour. Kind of like Johnny Cash’s Boy Named Sue, but not really. He wants to be someone else while also living up to the name. Coincidentally, or not, depending on your view of simulation theory, he wore a Johnny Cash shirt when receiving his trophy for winning Adelaide earlier this year. The shirt showed Cash’s face with American Rebel underneath. It was kind of strange when he put on that shirt but it was also in keeping with the new identity he chose for himself. Also, there’s the Tennessee connection. I guess it made sense. Still a weird and desperate thing to do. I like him though. Good work ethic.
 

Tennisbg

Semi-Pro
In your opinion, what is the best tennis related evidence that we are living in a computer simulation? Obviously the big three’s dominance is pretty strange. Also, it seems like Djokovic fans are not real flesh and blood. Also, why is it that an 18 or 19 year old can make a huge leap to the top in a year or two, but it never ever ever happens with a 28 or 29 year old? Like a supremely athletic guy with some bad technique who’s 400 in the world meets a brilliant coach, puts it all together and just comes out of nowhere to be top twenty. Shouldn’t that happen at some point? Shouldn’t there be more abberations? I’d appreciate your thoughts.
Probably because you start to believe less and less with age, if you hve not made the jump at this age probably you are already not working so hard and just playing for money.
 

Swingmaster

Professional
True, but there lots of little technical problems holding back some extremely athletic players. Guys who can move like Monfils but who are not grasping some basic mechanical issue. Take a guy like Stevie Johnson. He’s pretty good but his backhand is non existent. Why can’t that be cleared up in a year or two? People say, no it’s too late because it takes forever to build up muscle memory, but not really. We see little kids with better backhands than Johnson. It just doesn’t add up to me. Maybe a small glitch in the system that points to a simulation.
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
In your opinion, what is the best tennis related evidence that we are living in a computer simulation? Obviously the big three’s dominance is pretty strange. Also, it seems like Djokovic fans are not real flesh and blood. Also, why is it that an 18 or 19 year old can make a huge leap to the top in a year or two, but it never ever ever happens with a 28 or 29 year old? Like a supremely athletic guy with some bad technique who’s 400 in the world meets a brilliant coach, puts it all together and just comes out of nowhere to be top twenty. Shouldn’t that happen at some point? Shouldn’t there be more abberations? I’d appreciate your thoughts.
W
A
W
R
I
N
K
A
 

TripleATeam

Legend
In your opinion, what is the best tennis related evidence that we are living in a computer simulation? Obviously the big three’s dominance is pretty strange. Also, it seems like Djokovic fans are not real flesh and blood. Also, why is it that an 18 or 19 year old can make a huge leap to the top in a year or two, but it never ever ever happens with a 28 or 29 year old? Like a supremely athletic guy with some bad technique who’s 400 in the world meets a brilliant coach, puts it all together and just comes out of nowhere to be top twenty. Shouldn’t that happen at some point? Shouldn’t there be more abberations? I’d appreciate your thoughts.
1. 28-29 year olds have already been on tour for years and tried various things.
2. They are already slightly past their physical prime, younger people can make up for bad technique with athleticism, but by then you need technique to stay relevant. This is also why a kid ranked 200 can suddenly jump - they were ranked that high because of athleticism, then they added technique.
3. You're describing what Stan Wawrinka did in his 30s.

Also me being a computer doesn't discount my existence.
 

Swingmaster

Professional
1. 28-29 year olds have already been on tour for years and tried various things.
2. They are already slightly past their physical prime, younger people can make up for bad technique with athleticism, but by then you need technique to stay relevant. This is also why a kid ranked 200 can suddenly jump - they were ranked that high because of athleticism, then they added technique.
3. You're describing what Stan Wawrinka did in his 30s.

Also me being a computer doesn't discount my existence.
Good points, but Stan is our best example and he started turning it on in his mid 20s. I’m just saying there should be more abberations. Better and more good examples than Stan.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Good points, but Stan is our best example and he started turning it on in his mid 20s. I’m just saying there should be more abberations. Better and more good examples than Stan.
Well, another few things.
If you're looking for someone with nothing that suddenly turns it on, you're looking for a 100+ ranked pro that goes to top 5. Very few people in the world have top 5 talent, and largely coaches can catch that early - hence why most players that have that talent take advantage of it early in their careers.

Someone like that would have to have technique so bad that it hinders them hopelessly, talent like nobody else (because they'd need to learn technique in a couple years and compete with those that have practiced that way for at least a decade). Moreover, those people often just don't want to be better - if their technique was so hopeless, you'd think they'd see that and try to fix it themselves at least somewhat.

So in essence, the limiting factors are:
1. A technique so bad that it limits innate talent is easy to identify and is generally quickly fixed. Especially because coaches are looking to coach top 200 players.
2. They'd need talent as good as ATGs just in order to match top 5 players if they suddenly learned a new technique. Very few people have that.
3. By the late 20s, pros have already lost that mojo that early 20s young men and women have.
 

Swingmaster

Professional
Also, Soderling’s existence seems a little suspicious to me. Came out of nowhere to defeat Nadal at the French then had to retire soon after. Like Stan, Soderling drastically improved after hiring Magnus Norman, who is a pretty contradictory character if you think about it. He’s a pretty calm and reserved guy but who dated Hingis when Hingis was crazy. Doesn’t add up. Hingis’s career was one of the strangest in history. There was something unreal about her.
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
Also, Soderling’s existence seems a little suspicious to me. Came out of nowhere to defeat Nadal at the French then had to retire soon after. Like Stan, Soderling drastically improved after hiring Magnus Norman, who is a pretty contradictory character if you think about it. He’s a pretty calm and reserved guy but who dated Hingis when Hingis was crazy. Doesn’t add up. Hingis’s career was one of the strangest in history. There was something unreal about her.
Soderling didn't just fade out after beating Nadal. He was a top 10, later top 5 player for much of the next 2 years. He was on the rise before his career got cut short.
 

Swingmaster

Professional
Well, another few things.
If you're looking for someone with nothing that suddenly turns it on, you're looking for a 100+ ranked pro that goes to top 5. Very few people in the world have top 5 talent, and largely coaches can catch that early - hence why most players that have that talent take advantage of it early in their careers.

Someone like that would have to have technique so bad that it hinders them hopelessly, talent like nobody else (because they'd need to learn technique in a couple years and compete with those that have practiced that way for at least a decade). Moreover, those people often just don't want to be better - if their technique was so hopeless, you'd think they'd see that and try to fix it themselves at least somewhat.

So in essence, the limiting factors are:
1. A technique so bad that it limits innate talent is easy to identify and is generally quickly fixed. Especially because coaches are looking to coach top 200 players.
2. They'd need talent as good as ATGs just in order to match top 5 players if they suddenly learned a new technique. Very few people have that.
3. By the late 20s, pros have already lost that mojo that early 20s young men and women have.
Good points and I do mostly agree, but the lost mojo thing seems a little off to me. These guys practice every day for like, what, five hours or so? Plus other training. They should want to fix their technique. You’d think they’d want to be the best they can be. So Stevie Johnson, who has a great serve, forehand, and competitive drive, was like, “Ah, screw it. I can’t learn a backhand.” Johnson has been a pro since before Sinner got serious about tennis. And I’m not necessarily talking top five here. Just an incredibly surprising rise in the rankings. Remember when that one guy came out of obscurity to play Federer at Wimbledon? He might’ve been teaching tennis at the time. Forget his name. Anyway, I remember being like, finally this is happening. This kind of thing should happen more than it actually does.
 

Swingmaster

Professional
Soderling didn't just fade out after beating Nadal. He was a top 10, later top 5 player for much of the next 2 years. He was on the rise before his career got cut short.
Still, what he’s known for is beating Nadal to allow Federer to win his only French, then Nadal avenging the loss to Soderling the following year. Then he’s pretty much done and Magnus Norman moves on to Stan.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Good points and I do mostly agree, but the lost mojo thing seems a little off to me. These guys practice every day for like, what, five hours or so? Plus other training. They should want to fix their technique. You’d think they’d want to be the best they can be. So Stevie Johnson, who has a great serve, forehand, and competitive drive, was like, “Ah, screw it. I can’t learn a backhand.” Johnson has been a pro since before Sinner got serious about tennis. And I’m not necessarily talking top five here. Just an incredibly surprising rise in the rankings. Remember when that one guy came out of obscurity to play Federer at Wimbledon? He might’ve been teaching tennis at the time. Forget his name. Anyway, I remember being like, finally this is happening. This kind of thing should happen more than it actually does.
True, but I imagine Steve Johnson needs to work on his strengths so they don't get worse - that's his win condition in matches. I imagine he thinks his backhand is good enough to allow him to play around his serve.
 

Swingmaster

Professional
Definitely something weird going on with the Swedes and the Swiss. Swedes: Magnus, Soderling, Borg who’s story is one of the strangest. Made his comeback using a wooden racket. Was he hibernating in a capsule for all those intervening years? Swiss: Fed (longevity champion), Stan, and Hingis.
 

Swingmaster

Professional
True, but I imagine Steve Johnson needs to work on his strengths so they don't get worse - that's his win condition in matches. I imagine he thinks his backhand is good enough to allow him to play around his serve.
Talent is a pretty mysterious thing. Johnson is an incredibly talented guy. Best college player in history I think? But for 15 years or so he failed to shore up his glaring weakness. It took McEnroe like two years of serious playing to have no major weaknesses. But he didn’t dominate for as long as expected. Now, he’s playing guys like Roddick and Blake and keeping it close.
 

Swingmaster

Professional
Djokovic and Nadal can't lose 5th set if they won 1st and 3rd, almost no matter how close they are.
That’s a good example if it’s true. Little things like that. Like, a certain player with an inexplicably dominate record against a way better player, and not because of a match up problem.
 

Swingmaster

Professional
Also, how Rod Laver is everywhere at once, and he’s disproportionately admired by players who weren’t alive when he was playing. There’s something unusual about that guy. Then there’s Margaret Court’s court and her decline in the court of public opinion. Also her record hanging like a thread along with her belief system in the world, but the woman who might beat that record, Serena obviously, is a Jehovah’s Witness whose beliefs are, presumably, more extreme than Court’s.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
The entire universe might be a gigantic computer simulation and none of us may really exist at all. We just think we do.
 

Swingmaster

Professional
Nice topic OP! Gathering thoughts...
Feel free to bring up Outliers, which I remember you mentioning somewhere else. If the 10,000 rule is true, then it’s possible that the computer is using that number as a way of determining when a given person should be excelling at whatever it is they’re trying to master. I always thought it unusual that a magical number like that could exist. Way too many variables. But if it really is true to some degree, I would say that it’s strong evidence of a simulation.
 

Swingmaster

Professional
The entire universe might be a gigantic computer simulation and none of us may really exist at all. We just think we do.
Yeah, that’s the point of this. Since we all know about tennis and its minutiae, maybe we can point out some examples of glitches in the system. For example, have you ever seen someone hit a shot that just didn’t look right? Maybe the trajectory changed mid flight? Or the way someone slid into a ball kind of defied physics? Something like that?
 

ForehandCross

Hall of Fame
Way too much TTW for a day , for me.

I was going to shut down, but I am going through an existential crisis , as someone asked me if I run on Windows or Mac.
 

Clay lover

Hall of Fame
what's with the matrix Descartes stuff. In the matrix a déjà vu means there's a glitch and we've had all too many déjà vus especially at a particular "working class" event. It's obvious getting Corona is the red pill and the woke af players like Djokovic know what's up. It's all a conspiracy. It's portrayed as a deadly disease so people don't think of getting it to leave the matrix. Djokovic is Neo, the leader of them all and Pepe Morpheus.
 
Last edited:

EdSWright

Professional
In your opinion, what is the best tennis related evidence that we are living in a computer simulation? Obviously the big three’s dominance is pretty strange. Also, it seems like Djokovic fans are not real flesh and blood. Also, why is it that an 18 or 19 year old can make a huge leap to the top in a year or two, but it never ever ever happens with a 28 or 29 year old? Like a supremely athletic guy with some bad technique who’s 400 in the world meets a brilliant coach, puts it all together and just comes out of nowhere to be top twenty. Shouldn’t that happen at some point? Shouldn’t there be more abberations? I’d appreciate your thoughts.
Mortally injured? You get a second life, then another.
 

EdSWright

Professional
Also, Soderling’s existence seems a little suspicious to me. Came out of nowhere to defeat Nadal at the French then had to retire soon after. Like Stan, Soderling drastically improved after hiring Magnus Norman, who is a pretty contradictory character if you think about it. He’s a pretty calm and reserved guy but who dated Hingis when Hingis was crazy. Doesn’t add up. Hingis’s career was one of the strangest in history. There was something unreal about her.
Yeah, let’s cast suspicion on the guy who had a couple of good runs at the French, and ignore the guy who has been doing it for 15 years.
 

Crazy Finn

Semi-Pro
In your opinion, what is the best tennis related evidence that we are living in a computer simulation? Obviously the big three’s dominance is pretty strange. Also, it seems like Djokovic fans are not real flesh and blood. Also, why is it that an 18 or 19 year old can make a huge leap to the top in a year or two, but it never ever ever happens with a 28 or 29 year old? Like a supremely athletic guy with some bad technique who’s 400 in the world meets a brilliant coach, puts it all together and just comes out of nowhere to be top twenty. Shouldn’t that happen at some point? Shouldn’t there be more abberations? I’d appreciate your thoughts.
Lol about the Djokovic fans (there are exceptions).

The supremely athletic guy with bad technique would be out of tennis by 28. He probably wouldn't have even been a pro, to begin with. Supreme athleticism isn't enough to make up for poor tennis skills. There are guys who have deficiencies in their game, who aren't that good, top 100-200 players. But, those guys usually look at the writing on the wall around 28, realize it's not going anywhere and move on to something else.

Basically, your idea is a fairy tale.
True, but there lots of little technical problems holding back some extremely athletic players. Guys who can move like Monfils but who are not grasping some basic mechanical issue. Take a guy like Stevie Johnson. He’s pretty good but his backhand is non existent. Why can’t that be cleared up in a year or two? People say, no it’s too late because it takes forever to build up muscle memory, but not really. We see little kids with better backhands than Johnson. It just doesn’t add up to me. Maybe a small glitch in the system that points to a simulation.
Good points and I do mostly agree, but the lost mojo thing seems a little off to me. These guys practice every day for like, what, five hours or so? Plus other training. They should want to fix their technique. You’d think they’d want to be the best they can be. So Stevie Johnson, who has a great serve, forehand, and competitive drive, was like, “Ah, screw it. I can’t learn a backhand.” Johnson has been a pro since before Sinner got serious about tennis. And I’m not necessarily talking top five here. Just an incredibly surprising rise in the rankings. Remember when that one guy came out of obscurity to play Federer at Wimbledon? He might’ve been teaching tennis at the time. Forget his name. Anyway, I remember being like, finally this is happening. This kind of thing should happen more than it actually does.
Talent is a pretty mysterious thing. Johnson is an incredibly talented guy. Best college player in history I think? But for 15 years or so he failed to shore up his glaring weakness. It took McEnroe like two years of serious playing to have no major weaknesses. But he didn’t dominate for as long as expected. Now, he’s playing guys like Roddick and Blake and keeping it close.
Monfils doesn't have mechanical issues. I'm not sure what's not there, but it's not mechanics. It's worth it's own thread and I have no idea. Mac's game was variable, because he didn't exactly have amazing groundstroke mechanics/technique and kind of relied on talent and feel and pure shotmaking. He was brilliant at it, when he was brilliant, but he couldn't hit consistent groundstrokes like Lendl or Borg - thus, sometimes he was amazing, sometimes less so. Anyway that's my take on that.

Steve Johnson is another matter. He's another prototypical American tennis player of the modern era. There was a whole thread devoted to this - which I won't rehash. Being a good college player is fine, but I'm not sure it matters much in terms of the pro tour - anyone worth their salt in tennis goes pro early. There's ample evidence of this for the last couple of decades - I can't think of a college player that had success at the top levels of the pro tour since the 90's. Also, I think the college game less multi-dimensional and might actually stunt a development of an all around game. Basically, you need more than a serve, forehand, and drive to succeed at the top most levels of the game today. Those things are more than enough in college, but not enough at the upper end of the pro level. Steve's a solid player, but it's not just his backhand that's holding him back. Actually, he's probably peaking out his level at times with the skills and weapons at his disposal.

It's much easier to develop tennis skill at a younger age. You don't have years of a certain technique to overcome, the brain is at a good age for imprinting new skills, and your physical side is developing along with your technical side. Also, and just as importantly, YOU HAVE TIME TO WORK ON THESE THINGS. You're a kid, maybe you're not studying a ton of school stuff, because tennis. So, you do tennis. You can break down your backhand and rebuild it, because you have time. Also, a lot of people in the top end of the pro game, learned the strokes very early and spent this time refining them, not redoing them.

If you're Steve Johnson, you played in college very successfully and your Steve Johnson backhand was good enough. You didn't need it to win. Get to the pros - well, people can sometimes deal with your serve and your forehand, they have a better backhand, and all around game and well, move great, serve great, and volley well, so it's a whole lot harder than it was in college. It's be great to sit down and fix your backhand, but you've been hitting it that way for probably a decade plus, and you've got another tournament next week, so there isn't time. Pros are actually busy playing on the tour, so it's actually hard to work on big changes. Fine tuning and tweaks, sure. Fixing that kinda clumsy stroke? Difficult.

Stan is a good example of what you are talking about, except he's been playing pro since he was a teen and he's been in around the top 50 since he was 20. So, he didn't exactly come out of nowhere and he didn't have bad strokes clearly. He just made a leap from the top 50 to the top 10-5 much later than is normal. I don't know why, I'm curious as to thoughts. This is obviously uncommon.

I think people do improve some things as they age, but as they age, they lose physical abilities. It balances out until it doesn't. The Big 3-4 is a real anomaly, as they've actually improved parts of their game and approach as their youth faded and those young physical traits depreciated. Federer worked hard on improving his backhand late in his career - I think partially during some time off to injury - and that paid off in his Wimbledon run last year. Incredibly rare, that this happens.

I'm too far removed from Philosophy 201 to debate Descartes level of thought. I no longer care. Is my beer, whiskey, or margarita real or just a program. Don't care, because they taste just fine.
 

Swingmaster

Professional
Lol about the Djokovic fans (there are exceptions).

The supremely athletic guy with bad technique would be out of tennis by 28. He probably wouldn't have even been a pro, to begin with. Supreme athleticism isn't enough to make up for poor tennis skills. There are guys who have deficiencies in their game, who aren't that good, top 100-200 players. But, those guys usually look at the writing on the wall around 28, realize it's not going anywhere and move on to something else.

Basically, your idea is a fairy tale.



Monfils doesn't have mechanical issues. I'm not sure what's not there, but it's not mechanics. It's worth it's own thread and I have no idea. Mac's game was variable, because he didn't exactly have amazing groundstroke mechanics/technique and kind of relied on talent and feel and pure shotmaking. He was brilliant at it, when he was brilliant, but he couldn't hit consistent groundstrokes like Lendl or Borg - thus, sometimes he was amazing, sometimes less so. Anyway that's my take on that.

Steve Johnson is another matter. He's another prototypical American tennis player of the modern era. There was a whole thread devoted to this - which I won't rehash. Being a good college player is fine, but I'm not sure it matters much in terms of the pro tour - anyone worth their salt in tennis goes pro early. There's ample evidence of this for the last couple of decades - I can't think of a college player that had success at the top levels of the pro tour since the 90's. Also, I think the college game less multi-dimensional and might actually stunt a development of an all around game. Basically, you need more than a serve, forehand, and drive to succeed at the top most levels of the game today. Those things are more than enough in college, but not enough at the upper end of the pro level. Steve's a solid player, but it's not just his backhand that's holding him back. Actually, he's probably peaking out his level at times with the skills and weapons at his disposal.

It's much easier to develop tennis skill at a younger age. You don't have years of a certain technique to overcome, the brain is at a good age for imprinting new skills, and your physical side is developing along with your technical side. Also, and just as importantly, YOU HAVE TIME TO WORK ON THESE THINGS. You're a kid, maybe you're not studying a ton of school stuff, because tennis. So, you do tennis. You can break down your backhand and rebuild it, because you have time. Also, a lot of people in the top end of the pro game, learned the strokes very early and spent this time refining them, not redoing them.

If you're Steve Johnson, you played in college very successfully and your Steve Johnson backhand was good enough. You didn't need it to win. Get to the pros - well, people can sometimes deal with your serve and your forehand, they have a better backhand, and all around game and well, move great, serve great, and volley well, so it's a whole lot harder than it was in college. It's be great to sit down and fix your backhand, but you've been hitting it that way for probably a decade plus, and you've got another tournament next week, so there isn't time. Pros are actually busy playing on the tour, so it's actually hard to work on big changes. Fine tuning and tweaks, sure. Fixing that kinda clumsy stroke? Difficult.

Stan is a good example of what you are talking about, except he's been playing pro since he was a teen and he's been in around the top 50 since he was 20. So, he didn't exactly come out of nowhere and he didn't have bad strokes clearly. He just made a leap from the top 50 to the top 10-5 much later than is normal. I don't know why, I'm curious as to thoughts. This is obviously uncommon.

I think people do improve some things as they age, but as they age, they lose physical abilities. It balances out until it doesn't. The Big 3-4 is a real anomaly, as they've actually improved parts of their game and approach as their youth faded and those young physical traits depreciated. Federer worked hard on improving his backhand late in his career - I think partially during some time off to injury - and that paid off in his Wimbledon run last year. Incredibly rare, that this happens.

I'm too far removed from Philosophy 201 to debate Descartes level of thought. I no longer care. Is my beer, whiskey, or margarita real or just a program. Don't care, because they taste just fine.
I agree with pretty much everything and I don’t think that my point was super strong to begin with, but it was really just a feeling. A feeling that the simulation kind of mistakenly put too much emphasis on the top 3 guys and neglected to create a compelling world of tennis outside of them, other than having Murray win his home tournament (which was an obvious narrative that a computer would come up with, like the Cubs finally winning) and Stan using Magnus Norman (Soderling’s old coach) to show that things are not so predictable. I say mistakenly because I would think that the computer’s job is to make us keep believing, not question the nature of reality. But then again, everything going on in the past few years should be making us question it, so maybe it actually wants us to question things for some reason. In that case, having Federer come back next year and win the Australian again over Nadal would be predictable. But I guess if it really wanted to get our attention, it would just have someone like Stevie Johnson win the Australian Open after figuring out his backhand. There’s also the possibility that the simulation is trying to teach us things. Like never give up. But what would be the point of us learning anything, except for it to gather information?
 

Swingmaster

Professional
Yeah, let’s cast suspicion on the guy who had a couple of good runs at the French, and ignore the guy who has been doing it for 15 years.
Not ignoring Nadal, he’s just the most obvious piece of evidence and I was looking for some minor clues. I think the computer would want to distract us from its little quirks by giving us something obvious to marvel at. For example, while Nadal is winning yet another French, maybe a guy at a challenger tournament hit a ball that disappeared for a split second.
 

Swingmaster

Professional
what's with the matrix Descartes stuff. In the matrix a déjà vu means there's a glitch and we've had all too many déjà vus especially at a particular "working class" event. It's obvious getting Corona is the red pill and the woke af players like Djokovic know what's up. It's all a conspiracy. It's portrayed as a deadly disease so people don't think of getting it to leave the matrix. Djokovic is Neo, the leader of them all and Pepe Morpheus.
Deja vu could be a glitch, but in the tennis world it could be the yips. It could be that the computer is inelegantly responding to a player that is good enough to win, but needs to be temporarily or permanently held back for some reason, maybe to accomplish another narrative. For example, Zverev’s serve and FAAs serve. During the Australian wildfires, when Zverev said he’d donate his whole check if he won the tournament, I had a strong feeling that it was meant to be. But then, he didn’t win. It wasn’t his time yet.
 

weakera

Legend
In your opinion, what is the best tennis related evidence that we are living in a computer simulation? Obviously the big three’s dominance is pretty strange. Also, it seems like Djokovic fans are not real flesh and blood. Also, why is it that an 18 or 19 year old can make a huge leap to the top in a year or two, but it never ever ever happens with a 28 or 29 year old? Like a supremely athletic guy with some bad technique who’s 400 in the world meets a brilliant coach, puts it all together and just comes out of nowhere to be top twenty. Shouldn’t that happen at some point? Shouldn’t there be more abberations? I’d appreciate your thoughts.

Lol. I definitely agree with this to some degree, satire aside. There is a robotic quality to them and I do find it fascinating how the three fanbases are uniquely different, even en masse. Federer fans are very self righteous and snobby, Nadal fans are very brash and loud, Djokovic fans are very robotic and stiff.
 

Swingmaster

Professional
Lol. I definitely agree with this to some degree, satire aside. There is a robotic quality to them and I do find it fascinating how the three fanbases are uniquely different, even en masse. Federer fans are very self righteous and snobby, Nadal fans are very brash and loud, Djokovic fans are very robotic and stiff.
And Djoker fans are kind of insecure about Djoker, like Djoker is about himself. If I were him, I’d be like, think what you want, I’m the best of all time. Federer is the so called religious experience. I’ve never been to a bullfight, but famous matadors seem to be looked upon like gods. Djoker chooses to be a martyr because that is more powerful than being a lesser god, I guess.
 

weakera

Legend
And Djoker fans are kind of insecure about Djoker, like Djoker is about himself. If I were him, I’d be like, think what you want, I’m the best of all time. Federer is the so called religious experience. I’ve never been to a bullfight, but famous matadors seem to be looked upon like gods. Djoker chooses to be a martyr because that is more powerful than being a lesser god, I guess.

My question is, do the fans emulate the player, or are we simply attracted to the player that is more similar to us? Likely the latter I would imagine.
 

Swingmaster

Professional
My question is, do the fans emulate the player, or are we simply attracted to the player that is more similar to us? Likely the latter I would imagine.
Or who we want to be. Though I don’t hate anyone, I’m definitely a Federer guy. But I’m probably more similar to Djoker as a person, unfortunately.
 

Swingmaster

Professional
Well, like I was saying in the other thread. He had to overcome the overwhelming love and support for the other two. It’s admirable. When I go to the job I dislike, my mentality is like, I may not be appreciated, but I will still do a good job in spite of it. That’s Djoker.
 

FatHead250

Semi-Pro
I once fought a skyrim npc in my yard. a literal skyrim npc appeared in my yeard and i had to fight him off he was real and i ould touch him. that was after i played skyrim. so it just kind of why i started believign. in superficial
 

Swingmaster

Professional
The number one player, who seems like either a great person or a terrible person, was defaulted for an act of debatable intent. We are living in a simulation, people.
 
Top