Greater Player: Murray or Courier?

[Lew II]

The same point stands, obviously.

Courier's field and Murray's field are two separate fields, a couple of decades apart. Elo itself makes absolutely zero claims about the absolute skill level in either field. It only measures thecdistribution of *relative* dominance *within* a field.

Whatever.

Your example made zero sense, btw.

 

[Sysyphus]

Whatever.

Your example made zero sense, btw.

About the level of rebuttal i've come to expect from you, granted

 

[Lew II]

About the level of rebuttal i've come to expect from you, granted

Sorry if I don't appreciate examples of a field of amateurs compared to the field that 61,500,000$ prize money winner Murray played...

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Sorry if I don't appreciate examples of a field of amateurs compared to the field that 61,500,000$ prize money winner Murray played...

The example was obviously a reductio ad absurdum to the concept that ELO isn't severely compromised by the lack of inter-field relativism. Appreciate what you like but saying it makes no sense is just obtuse.

 

[Sysyphus]

Sorry if I don't appreciate examples of a field of amateurs compared to the field that 61,500,000$ prize money winner Murray played...

Do you need it with a teaspoon?

The fact that the amateurs suck compared to the pros is *exactly* the point... Elo ratings, however, would have no way of telling this. If an amateur named Shmovak Frederer dominated my hypothetical amateur field completely, his Elo could reach the same rating number as the best pro does against the pro field. Elo doesn't care because Elo makes *zero* judgments about absolute level. It's only and purely a *relative* number.

Again, the guy who made the system was very clear about this.

 

[Lew II]

Do you need it with a teaspoon?

The fact that the amateurs suck compared to the pros is *exactly* the point... Elo ratings, however, would have no way of telling this. If an amateur named Shmovak Frederer dominated my hypothetical amateur field completely, his Elo could reach the same rating number as the best pro does against the pro field. Elo doesn't care because Elo makes *zero* judgments about absolute level. It's only and purely a *relative* number.

Again, the guy who made the system was very clear about this.

The Elo I was talking about was calculated in pro tournaments.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Do you need it with a teaspoon?

The fact that the amateurs suck compared to the pros is *exactly* the point... Elo ratings, however, would have no way of telling this. If an amateur named Shmovak Frederer dominated my hypothetical amateur field completely, his Elo could reach the same rating number as the best pro does against the pro field. Elo doesn't care because Elo makes *zero* judgments about absolute level. It's only and purely a *relative* number.

Again, the guy who made the system was very clear about this.

Your analogy is an analogy instead of the actual thing, so your point is moot.

 

[Sysyphus]

The Elo I was talking about was calculated in pro tournaments.

Yes, in two separate fields decades apart.

As the creator of Elo pointed out, you still cannot say anything at all about the absolute level of play between those two fields on the basis of Elo ratings.

In essence, you are abusing a system you don't really understand.

 

[Lew II]

Yes, in two separate fields decades apart.

As the creator of Elo pointed out, you still cannot say anything at all about the absolute level of play between those two fields on the basis of Elo ratings.

In essence, you are abusing a system you don't really understand.

LOL don't tell me what I do or do not understand.

 

[Sysyphus]

LOL don't tell me what I do or do not understand.

True, you are doing a swell job of showcasing your confusion all by yourself, so my spelling it out is indeed a bit redundant.

 

[Lew II]

True, you are doing a swell job of showcasing your confusion all by yourself, so my spelling it out is indeed a bit redundant.

Shut up then.

 

[Lew II]

The example was obviously a reductio ad absurdum to the concept that ELO isn't severely compromised by the lack of inter-field relativism. Appreciate what you like but saying it makes no sense is just obtuse.

Isn't this valid for every stat? not just Elo.

 

[NatF]

Yes, in two separate fields decades apart.

As the creator of Elo pointed out, you still cannot say anything at all about the absolute level of play between those two fields on the basis of Elo ratings.

In essence, you are abusing a system you don't really understand.

Lew's been told this before, either he doesn't have the cognitive ability to comprehend why he keeps making a fool of himself over and over, or he does but lacks the intellectual honesty to abandon ELO and the "likes" it gets from other TTW mouth breathers.

 

[Crazy Finn]

Here it for the record...

(from Tennis Abstract)

Once we attach a single peak rating to every player, it’s only natural to start comparing across eras. While it’s always fun to do so, I’m not sure any rating system allows for useful cross-era comparisons in tennis. Elo doesn’t, either.

What you can do with Elo is compare how each player fared against her competition. In 1990, Helena Sukova achieved a rating of 2123–exactly the same as Barty’s today. That doesn’t mean that Sukova then was as good as Barty is now. But it does mean that their performance relative to their peers was similar. The second tier of players was considerably weaker thirty years ago, so in a sense it was easier to achieve such a rating. At the time, Sukova’s rating was only good for 11th place, far behind Steffi Graf’s 2600.

Thus, Elo doesn’t allow you rank players across eras unless you are confident that the level of competition was similar–or unless you have some other way of dealing with that issue, a minefield that many researchers have tried to cross, with little success.

An Introduction to Tennis Elo – Heavy Topspin

www.tennisabstract.com

Not that this will convince someone when it conflicts with their worldview....

 

[mike danny]

If the accepted knowledge is that 2006 is weak, then 15-16 is absolutely weak, probably weaker since no claydal. 2017+ is a new level of weakness.

2016 is pretty much as weak as 2006.

But 2015 is better than 2006. On the same level as 2004, 2005 and 2007. Good seasons, but below the best ones like 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2012. Although 2007 is not that much below 2008.

 

[Lew II]

Lew's been told this before, either he doesn't have the cognitive ability to comprehend why he keeps making a fool of himself over and over, or he does but lacks the intellectual honesty to abandon ELO and the "likes" it gets from other TTW mouth breathers.

Or I simply disagree.

 

[mike danny]

The consistency isn't a huge deal for me, just that he didn't really face a legit challenger at the 3 majors, someone who came in with the mentality to beat him and could stay with him all the way. I guess you can say the same for 05 Wimby/USO and 07 AO as well, so Fed did face a softer period from 05 Wimby to 07 AO, similar to 14 Wimby to 16 RG.

In general my rough estimation is that 04-06 and 14-16 are similar periods of competition (I think the former is a little better) and 07-09 and 11-13 are similar periods of competition (again former likely tougher). Perhaps Fed was luckier to have that stretch come at the start, but maybe that's actually bad luck, and he also outperformed Djokovic over both. Then of course you get to post prime competition and it's a landslide, which is why I think pretty clearly that Fed had the toughest competition of the 3, and perhaps only 2nd all time to Lendl.

2005 USO had good competition. Hewitt and Agassi both played well and Fed needed to be clutch against both. The only downside was that Agassi collapsed in the 5th set, which is understandable given his age at that time. But he played a better final than 2013 USO final Djokovic.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah, I disagree. It's easier when you face vanilla baseliners in homogenized conditions than guys who have games specifically tailored for the surface. There's a reason that it used to be very uncommon to see the same player make deep runs on both grass and clay.

Agassi was a freak in how early he took the ball, none of the big 3 are as good ballstrikers as he was even they're better baseliners overall. I doubt anyone else could have had so much success on real grass from the baseline as Dre did.



I've seen people compare Pete with a clumsy mug like Raonic who isn't fit to carry his gym bag and Murray is frequently brought up as a 10 slam winner in a different era.

I think Fed is a better shotmaker, but Agassi is a better pure ballstriker.

 

[RS]

Yes, in two separate fields decades apart.

As the creator of Elo pointed out, you still cannot say anything at all about the absolute level of play between those two fields on the basis of Elo ratings.

In essence, you are abusing a system you don't really understand.

Interesting reading about it noe. It does say it can only be used it was established in.....

 

[travlerajm]

Big3 made the field look bad.

The top5 of 2015 (Big4 + Stan) has won more Slams (62) than a hypothetical top10 made only of ATGs winners of 6 Slams each (total 60 titles).

For an objective analysis one should also compare the ranking points rather than just names. But the ranking system has changed, so I'll try with this:

Average of the 10 highest win percentages in the years Courier ended top5:

1991 - 75.1
1992 - 74.4
1993 - 75.3

average: 74.9

Average of the 10 highest win percentages in the years Murray ended top5:

2008 - 76.4
2009 - 77.5
2010 - 75.4
2011 - 77.9
2012 - 78.1
2013 - 76.5
2015 - 77.8
2016 - 76.4

average: 77.0

Murray faced arguably stronger competition and for way more years.

I agree that Big3 made the field look bad. But that’s not why I consider circa 2016 to be the weakest field in history. It’s the fact that the entire generation of young players that should have been peaking then turned out to worse than the generation ahead of it. Not just Big3, but other guys in their early 30s started winning titles because there were no young players around better than them to force them out. The reasons for this are debatable, but my personal theory is that the younger NextGen was the first generation to grow up training with poly strings, wristy uppercut strokes, and lighter swing weights. Djokovic’s generation was the last to grow up with synthetic gut, softer frames, heavier racquets requiring better technique.

 

[NoleFam]

Haha that is a bit harsh but I sure tell you one thing. Nadal, Murray, and even Djokovic would all have a harder time on the faster conditions of the 90s. They have all admitted so themselves. They are very happy to all be born into yes a tough era in the sense there are several GOATs, but of slower court conditions that favor the baseliners, heavy topspin, grinders, and players with their grips, etc...nearly everything they each posses in their games. Nadal and Djokovic I doubt are even double slam winners anymore, although Nadal would still win a ton of RG titles in any era.

Murray loves faster conditions so I don't think he would struggle no more than someone like Agassi. He even won a title on carpet, and both he and Djokovic had around a 70% win rate, more or less, at a young age. The one who wouldn't like carpet and low bouncing quick courts is Nadal.

 

[RS]

Murray loves faster conditions so I don't think he would struggle no more than someone like Agassi. He even won a title on carpet, and both he and Djokovic had around a 70% win rate, more or less, at a young age. The one who wouldn't like carpet and low bouncing quick courts is Nadal.

I will say I think Nadal and Agassi have higher peaks than Murray on faster courts though.

 

[NoleFam]

I will say I think Nadal and Agassi have higher peaks than Murray on faster Courts though.

Not on a lower bouncing fast court does Nadal have a higher peak. Agassi, yes most likely.

 

[RS]

Not on a lower bouncing fast court does Nadal have a higher peak. Agassi, yes most likely.

Murray is better than Nadal indoors on HC generally but I think Nadal is better at Wim and USO.

 

[NoleFam]

Murray is better than Nadal indoors but I think Nadal is better at Wim and USO.

Those courts aren't fast and low bouncing though.

 

[RS]

Those courts aren't fast and low bouncing though.

USO was before recent years. Murray is better at Shanghai and Cincy though so maybe your not far off. I though Wimbledon was never really slower until 2019.

 

[Sysyphus]

Those courts aren't fast and low bouncing though.

Wimbledon surely qualifies?

Though it's arguable which of them has a higher peak there.

 

[RS]

Wimbledon surely qualifies?

Though it's arguable which of them has a higher peak there.

Nadal 2007/2008 finals vs Federer is too much for Murray. Murray faced comparable Federer in 2012/2015 at Wim and lost clearly.

 

[NoleFam]

USO was before recent years. Murray is better at Shanghai and Cincy though so maybe your not far off. I though Wimbledon was never really slower until 2019.

This past Wimbledon was low bouncing but slow. That's the most low bouncing it has been since before they changed it imo but it was quite slow. USO has never really been that low bouncing like carpet and indoor, even when it was fast. Hamburg clay was low bouncing. Federer loved it, Nadal not as much. Cincy, Paris, WTF. Shanghai, etc. are faster low bouncing courts. Carpet was even even faster and lower bouncing.

 

[NoleFam]

Wimbledon surely qualifies?

Though it's arguable which of them has a higher peak there.

Look how high that ball is bouncing at Wimbledon even in 2001. These later years it definitely wasn't low bouncing especially in those Fedal finals.

 

[RS]

This past Wimbledon was low bouncing but slow. That's the most low bouncing it has been since before they changed it imo but it was quite slow. USO has never really been that low bouncing like carpet and indoor, even when it was fast. Hamburg clay was low bouncing. Federer loved it, Nadal not as much. Cincy, Paris, WTF. Shanghai, etc. are faster low bouncing courts. Carpet was even even faster and lower bouncing.

Fair enough. We are giving worth to different things. Murray is probably better on a faster indoor tournament then with a really low bounce . I do not consider Paris fast though.

 

[Sysyphus]

Nadal 2007/2008 finals vs Federer is too much for Murray. Murray faced comparable Federer in 2012/2015 at Wim and lost clearly.

Murray has three impressive straight-set wins vs. Nole and Fed on the Wimbledon grass.

I can totally understand leaning toward Nadal here -- most surely will -- but don't act like it isn't at least open to debate.

 

[RS]

Murray has three impressive straight-set wins vs. Nole and Fed on the Wimbledon grass.

I can totally understand leaning toward Nadal here -- most surely will -- but don't act like it isn't at least open to debate.

Yeah Fed in Olympics 2012 was quite bad though. The Oly 2012 win vs Nole was very impressive but Wim 13 Djokovic was drained. And Nadal best Murray in Wim 10 when both were playing very well at Wimbledon. Murray is the most consistent grass player though and has achieved more on the surface.

 

[NoleFam]

Fair enough. We are giving worth to different things. Murray is probably better on a faster indoor tournament then with a really low bounce . I do not consider Paris fast though.

Paris was fast until like 2011 or 2012. Then they sped it back up in 2016.

 

[zagor]

I actually do think the Big 3 would do fine from the baseline in the '90s. Of course Fed probably would come in a lot more often (I agree with @slice serve ace and metsman that '03 was by and large his very best Wimby showing), and Rafa would need to learn to return closer to the baseline, but they're all great movers on grass with enough artillery to do major damage mostly from the baseline at SW19. Think good ol' Data was right to say Lendl would've been better off sticking to his strengths rather than trying to match his peers with S&V. Ditto the Big 3 on the old grass.

Don't see it, not on that dead bounce grass, Nadal is very vulnerable to getting rushed (why he nearly always has trouble with journeymen in early rounds, when grass is still somewhat fast) and Novak even to this day has at times trouble with his footing on grass. They'd have to transition to the net which they both would be capable of doing (I firmly believe Novak is very underrated at the net) but it would still be way out of their comfort zone compared to grinding down people on ***** grass.

Now Fed would adapt the best (though he'd still be more vulnerable to an upset) but the caveat is he wouldn't be as good on the slower surfaces, that's the price to pay when you actually have different conditions. Grass aside, I remember when Fed way back in mid 2000s was saying how the courts have gotten slower and how old US open courts where "unplayable from the baseline" (exact words he used), we've gone from that to Nadal winning USO by returning serve from the stands.

In terms of managing to play his game no matter if you put him on ice or mud, Agassi stands alone IMO. Some of it is in-born talent, some of it due to the unconventional coaching from his dad. Needlees to say, for me his Career Grand Slam stands far above others.

Lendl shouldn't have gone full serve-volley, probably found some middle ground, stay back on majority of 2nd serve for example. That said, I think he would have done great on modern, slower grass or modern game in general. Today's conditions would have been tailor made for him.

Forget younger Sampras. Pistol at the '90s USO showed more variety and skill than anyone today not named Roger Federer ever has:

My fave moments from the final:

Yep, showed he could baseline with Lendl and Agassi and volley with McEnroe. People fail to understand that Sampras was Fed of his time, the guy who was considered to be the most complete player on tour with every shot in the book.

 

[NatF]

Nadal 2007/2008 finals vs Federer is too much for Murray. Murray faced comparable Federer in 2012/2015 at Wim and lost clearly.

Faced a worse Fed and got straight setted, open and shut for Nadal.

 

[Sysyphus]

Look how high that ball is bouncing at Wimbledon even in 2001. These later years it definitely wasn't low bouncing especially in those Fedal finals.

I reckon it is quite surely the lowest bouncing slam by far, although the wear around the baseline changes this a bit later in the tournament. But I might be wrong. I would've thought the speed was more debatable. Low-bouncing and medium-to-fast is how I'd peg it compared to today's tour.

 

[zagor]

I think Fed is a better shotmaker, but Agassi is a better pure ballstriker.

Nadal is also a better shotmaker (and Novak is a better ballstriker than both. However Agassi IMO is the best ballstriker ever, taking the ball early and hitting it cleanly no matter what type of ball you throw at him or what surface he's playing on.

There's a reason the guy was able to go toe-to-toe with the best Fed even though he was struggling physically. For my money, both Agassi and Sampras are quite underrated these days, each in their own way.

 

[NoleFam]

I reckon it is quite surely the lowest bouncing slam by far, although the wear around the baseline changes this a bit later in the tournament. But I might be wrong. I would've thought the speed was more debatable. Low-bouncing and medium-to-fast is how I'd peg it compared to today's tour.

But the ball bounces so high in recent years, even up to shoulder height at times. That's just not comparable to how it would be to play on carpet for example. I do think people saying how slow it is are exaggerating quite a bit though because other than 2019 and maybe 2007 (probably because of all the rain), it wasn't really slow.

 

[zagor]

Faced a worse Fed and got straight setted, open and shut for Nadal.

2015 was worse Fed but also worse Murray. Consistency was still there but Murray's top level wasn't what it was in 2012/2013.
2012 Wimbledon is a much better example though Fed did turn the clock for the SF and F. Didn't serve as well in the F as he did against Novak but played some great all-court tennis.

On modern grass it's still Nadal but on old grass? Hard to say, Murray does have some qualities that would translate well to pre 2000s grass though that 2nd serve would still remain a weak point.

 

[NatF]

2015 was worse Fed but also worse Murray. Consistency was still there but Murray's top level wasn't what it was in 2012/2013.
2012 Wimbledon is a much better example though Fed did turn the clock for the SF and F. Didn't serve as well in the F as he did against Novak but played some great all-court tennis.

On modern grass it's still Nadal but on old grass? Hard to say, Murray does have some qualities that would translate well to pre 2000s grass though that 2nd serve would still remain a weak point.

Murray's hold game would be a bit of a liability with the old sticks IMO. His serve percentage and second serve have often been on the weaker side even in this uber serving era letalone with full gut. This is not to say I don't think he'd have success but I think his skillset isn't so suited for past era's as some like to think. He has great hands and a fantastic return, he's also a very good mover on grass so I'm sure he'd be successful - but Sampras would take him to the cleaners IMO.

 

[NoleFam]

Faced a worse Fed and got straight setted, open and shut for Nadal.

A worse Federer? Murray faced something out of the Twilight zone which is why he got straight setted. Federer served 85% in the 1st set and 81% in the 3rd set, and hit 20 aces in just three sets. This is against Murray who is one of the best returners on grass. Federer hit 56 winners and 11 unforced errors in that match, and just smothered Murray and didn't let him play. Federer didn't reach those highs in either 2007 or 2008 finals imo. It was vintage Federer where he turned the clock.

 

[zagor]

Murray's hold game would be a bit of a liability with the old sticks IMO. His serve percentage and second serve have often been on the weaker side even in this uber serving era letalone with full gut. This is not to say I don't think he'd have success but I think his skillset isn't so suited for past era's as some like to think. He has great hands and a fantastic return, he's also a very good mover on grass so I'm sure he'd be successful - but Sampras would take him to the cleaners IMO.

Yeah, that is a good point. If there's one thing poly did for servers it's higher 1st serve % across the board and yet even then Murray lags behind.

Wasn't thinking about Sampras, more in general terms. Taking on Pete on grass without a very dominant service game is doomed to failure in advance. There's a reason he was very of Goran on grass but his confidence was sky high against nearly everyone else.

 

[NonP]

Don't see it, not on that dead bounce grass, Nadal is very vulnerable to getting rushed (why he nearly always has trouble with journeymen in early rounds, when grass is still somewhat fast) and Novak even to this day has at times trouble with his footing on grass. They'd have to transition to the net which they both would be capable of doing (I firmly believe Novak is very underrated at the net) but it would still be way out of their comfort zone compared to grinding down people on ***** grass.

Now Fed would adapt the best (though he'd still be more vulnerable to an upset) but the caveat is he wouldn't be as good on the slower surfaces, that's the price to pay when you actually have different conditions. Grass aside, I remember when Fed way back in mid 2000s was saying how the courts have gotten slower and how old US open courts where "unplayable from the baseline" (exact words he used), we've gone from that to Nadal winning USO by returning serve from the stands.

In terms of managing to play his game no matter if you put him on ice or mud, Agassi stands alone IMO. Some of it is in-born talent, some of it due to the unconventional coaching from his dad. Needlees to say, for me his Career Grand Slam stands far above others.

Lendl shouldn't have gone full serve-volley, probably found some middle ground, stay back on majority of 2nd serve for example. That said, I think he would have done great on modern, slower grass or modern game in general. Today's conditions would have been tailor made for him.

K we disagree then, though perhaps not much. For starters Borg himself used to struggle a lot in the early rounds, I'd say the guy turned out pretty well nonetheless. Of course Rafa doesn't have Borg's serve (in most years), but I don't think that'll be as big a issue when almost everyone else plays mostly from the baseline. Like I said he'd need to be more aggressive on return for sure, and also flatten his FH more which he's capable of.

And I just can't NOT give a 5-time champ the benefit of the doubt at his 2nd-best major. Like you said Novak's net game is more than decent, and while his overhead will never win any awards he's come a long way from those excruciating yips in the '13 final. Return goes without saying and passing shots are almost as good as Rafa's. I've said before that even a Sampras or Becker would have his hands full with '15 Djoko if he doesn't bring his A game and I stand by it.

As for Fed I thought we were talking about grass only. Of course those varied conditions and 16 rather than 32 seeds would make upsets more likely, but that goes for everyone, really. Also I'd be very careful about taking players' assessment of anything at face value. I've got stats for whole tourneys going back to the '90s and can tell you the hold frequency at the USO hasn't changed all that much. Granted that doesn't necessarily mean that the courts haven't gotten slower, but if players are holding serve roughly with as much ease what's the beef here?

Dre's career GS is indeed a big plus for him, though I do think the Big 3 would have a good shot in the '90s as well. And maybe even Pistol too in this era!

And yeah there's some middle ground between Edberg/Rafter-style S&V and Ferreresque grinding. Simply put, though, Lendl never got comfortable with those bounces on grass. Oh yeah and his return, particularly on the BH. That probably was the decisive factor in the '89 nail-biter between him and Boris.

Yep, showed he could baseline with Lendl and Agassi and volley with McEnroe. People fail to understand that Sampras was Fed of his time, the guy who was considered to be the most complete player on tour with every shot in the book.

Hear, hear!

 

[RS]

Faced a worse Fed and got straight setted, open and shut for Nadal.

Federer was at his best in 2015 SF vs Murray. In the 2012 F no but prime level because of the last 3 sets.

Nadal vs Murray on grass isn’t a full open shut but to me Nadal showed a higher level.

 

[RS]

A worse Federer? Murray faced something out of the Twilight zone which is why he got straight setted. Federer served 85% in the 1st set and 81% in the 3rd set, and hit 20 aces in just three sets. This is against Murray who is one of the best returners on grass. Federer hit 56 winners and 11 unforced errors in that match, and just smothered Murray and didn't let him play. Federer didn't reach those highs in either 2007 or 2008 finals imo. It was vintage Federer where he turned the clock.

Zagor and Nat are not very Murray friendly so it wouldn’t work convincing them. Federer was on fire in Wim 15 before the final the Murray performance was one of the best on grass by him and maybe any player.

 

[NatF]

A worse Federer? Murray faced something out of the Twilight zone which is why he got straight setted. Federer served 85% in the 1st set and 81% in the 3rd set, and hit 20 aces in just three sets. This is against Murray who is one of the best returners on grass. Federer hit 56 winners and 11 unforced errors in that match, and just smothered Murray and didn't let him play. Federer didn't reach those highs in either 2007 or 2008 finals imo. It was vintage Federer where he turned the clock.

Zagor and Nat are not very Murray friendly so it wouldn’t work. Federer was on fire in Wim 15 before the final the Murray performance was one of the best on grass.

Insane serving performance and then very much taking advantage of Murray's jitters at the end of sets to get the break. Perhaps it was better than the 07/08 finals where Federer's return wasn't firing either? Maybe I'm putting too much emphasis on ground game.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

And yeah there's some middle ground between Edberg/Rafter-style S&V and Ferreresque grinding. Simply put, though, Lendl never got comfortable with those bounces on grass. Oh yeah and his return, particularly on the BH. That probably was the decisive factor in the '89 nail-biter between him and Boris.

Choked from up a break in the fourth. Allowed himself to get rattled by a questionable call, double faulted on BP and everything went awry. Never had enough confidence in his grasscourt game and paid for it.

 

[Red Rick]

The same point stands, obviously.

Courier's field and Murray's field are two separate fields, a couple of decades apart. Elo itself makes absolutely zero claims about the absolute skill level in either field. It only measures the distribution of *relative* dominance *within* a field.

Yeah ELO's not good.

I've been thinking a bit lately about if there's any way to compare other than just raw numbers, and I'm thinking variance and deviations make much more sense to look at than raw numbers when comparing different area's. I guess it doesn't really have much appeal in that it'll get dismissed cause it's not cookie cutter enough

 

[RS]

Yeah ELO's not good.

I've been thinking a bit lately about if there's any way to compare other than just raw numbers, and I'm thinking variance and deviations make much more sense to look at than raw numbers when comparing different area's. I guess it doesn't really have much appeal in that it'll get dismissed cause it's not cookie cutter enough

Problem is nothing around is a lot better.....