Povl Carstensen
Legend
I am looking foreward to a demonstration of this theory.
I'm not greatest player - Roger Federer
- Thread starter tennissportsrog
- Start date
- Status
abmk
Bionic Poster
I'm pretty sure the % points won by the top 10 would be in a very similar range to what it was in the years from 2004-08 if the same ranking system was used ..
not necessarily ... for instance, if federer was as strong in 2008 as he was in 2007, he'd have quite a few more points than djokovic for sure. as a result , you'd see more of a gap b/w #1 & #2 when compared to #3 than what is actually there in 2008 ....
it will mainly remain a judgement call - how much of the difference in 2004-07 was due to federer being that good and how much of it was because the others were weaker .... happens with all dominant players ....
Last edited:
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Thanks for your answer Mightyrick. It's very interesting to compare the percentage of points won by the top 10. As you said, it hints of how consistent were the top 10 players against the rest of the field. I would like to make some test of my own. How do you know the total amount of points available each years?
On an other note, AMBK's remark on the change of the points distribution between the later and earlier round in 2009 is very interesting. The composition of the top 10 is basically the same in 2008 and 2009, except for two players. Beside, Nadal and Djokovic, who had clearly better years in 2009 than in 2009, both by a good margin, post a better percentage in 2009 than in 2008. This suggest that this change in the points distribution amount for a huge part of the rise of the percentage won by the top 10.
pds999
Hall of Fame
Not entirely sure about that. Nadal would adapt his game because he is that good.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Carlos Moya did that (for a little while, anyway). Carlos adapted to hardcourts, but he could not manage on grass.
I have a feeling Nadal would only be able to adapt to (grass) as hardcourts would be too much of a struggle to adapt to. He was good at the Australian Open before he was good at the US Open. He might be able to sneak in an Australian Open trophy and a final (like now) but he would not dominate there. The US Open wouldn't be his either.
So, all up if he started his career in 1990, he would win.
1992 Roland Garros.
1993 Roland Garros.
1994 Roland Garros.
1994 Wimbledon.
1995 Australian Open.
1995 Roland Garros.
1996 Roland Garros.
1997 Roland Garros.
1998 Roland Garros.
2000 Roland Garros.
That is 10 slams. Similar to today, actually.
mightyrick
Legend
If Nadal started his career in 1990, he'd be lucky to have half the titles that he has. In the French, he'd have to contend with Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Kuerten. Those guys are a little bit better than the mugs he has been having to play in the mid 2000s. I'm not saying Nadal couldn't beat them... but wow... it would be tough.
Also... him winning the 1994 Wimbledon or 1995 Aussie Open... no way. Here's the Top-10 at the end of 1994.
1. Pete Sampras
2. Andre Agassi
3. Boris Becker
4. Sergi Bruguera
5. Goran Ivanisevic
6. Michael Chang
7. Stefan Edberg
8. Alberto Berasategui
9. Michael Stich
10. Todd Martin
Nadal isn't getting through those guys on any kind of HC or grass.
mightyrick
Legend
NatF
Bionic Poster
I'm just here for discussion.. not to gather supporters. The vast majority can think what they want. Being in the majority doesn't make you correct or incorrect.
Being in the majority just means you belong to a bigger club, that's all.
The results of 1994's top 10 were hardly better than 2004's, if atall for the most part. Certainly not enough for one to be strong and the other to be full of mugs.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Federer's 2004 was also better than Pete's 1994.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Yep, less points for the other top 10 players to grab. The top 10 of 2004 only looks weak because in hindsight we know Federer owned them all and they could never break through. They were still great players. Easy to forget Federer scooped up 11 slams in 4 years, doesn't leave much for anyone else.
kiki
Banned
I'm just here for discussion.. not to gather supporters. The vast majority can think what they want. Being in the majority doesn't make you correct or incorrect.
Being in the majority just means you belong to a bigger club, that's all.
...and this bigger club makes you feel secure...if you are a natural unsecure...
I'm just here for discussion.. not to gather supporters. The vast majority can think what they want. Being in the majority doesn't make you correct or incorrect.
Being in the majority just means you belong to a bigger club, that's all.
But majority means closer to reality. If vast majority say Jordan > Kobe, then it's likely to be true.
Actually no. People are more comfortable with being part of the majority group.
We're talking about modern sport not comparing modern science to 5 centuries ago when technology was non-existent.
But majority are likely to be accurate than the minority. If most people say Jordan > Kobe, I say they are smarter, more knowledgeable than the minority.
World Beater
Hall of Fame
When evaluating the strength of opponents, people tend to use too much revisionist history.
In 2003, 2004 and 2005. Roddick was seen as a tough opponent for federer. Now apparently, he sucks and is the ultimate pigeon.
Federer had quite a few close contests with roddick and had to outclutch him in some tighsets.
Similarly for hewitt, and other slightly lesser players like gonzalez, blake, ljubicic.
When evaluating the strength of opponents, you have to look at how strong they were at the time, their confidence, their game. Using the end of their career as a time marker makes little sense.
In 2003, 2004 and 2005. Roddick was seen as a tough opponent for federer. Now apparently, he sucks and is the ultimate pigeon.
Federer had quite a few close contests with roddick and had to outclutch him in some tighsets.
Similarly for hewitt, and other slightly lesser players like gonzalez, blake, ljubicic.
When evaluating the strength of opponents, you have to look at how strong they were at the time, their confidence, their game. Using the end of their career as a time marker makes little sense.
The-Champ
Legend
It's not about technology, it's about the fact that the majority of people believed in something inaccurate. Logic is applicable everywhere unless you are a ******** person who cannot grasp it.
If most people say Justin Bieber > James Brown, you say they are smarter, more knowledgeable than minority. yes we get it.
Last edited:
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Yep. Can't say it much better than that.
This is about sport isn't it ??
So let stick to it. If most people believe Jordan and Federer is the greatest, they have more merit than the minority.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
It is not necessarily about the amount of people that say it. I know TMF doesn't make sense sometimes, but I get what he's trying to say. He's just not saying it right. Besides you are using bad examples. Music is a matter of taste and has different genres, but in sports stats can be used to determine who's better than who. The majority of people who can read stats and be objective them will tell you that Jordan has a better career than Kobe to this point, and Federer has had a better career than Nadal to this point.
Anybody who thinks otherwise about either of those at this time is deluding themselves to be brutally honest.
tennissportsrog
Rookie
great humble Roger.
I like this.
I think it was very safe for Roger to make comments that give the old guard something to chew on. I'm sure he sort of meant it.
But couldn't you see Roger sitting around, watching his own matches, rewinding his great shots and watching them in slow motion?
Sorana fan
Banned
:lol: :lol: so funny
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Some employ that kind of thinking; that is the frightening, historically ignorant part of such thoughts.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
fake humility
the guy is chasing the records like a re*ard and now he is saying "i'm not the greatest " :lol:
this guy is such an hypocrit, come on :lol:
the guy is chasing the records like a re*ard and now he is saying "i'm not the greatest " :lol:
this guy is such an hypocrit, come on :lol:
Eragon
Banned
So if you're chasing records, you should believe you're the GOAT? So Tomic must think he's the GOAT :lol:
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
LOL you've been owned yet again.
Here's the thing with your whole majority crap. There are those that think that Sampras is greatest, there are those that think Borg is, Laver, Federer...
Now you add those that think either Sampras, Borg or Laver is greatest than that is equal to a greater majority than those that think Federer is greatest. Therefore the majority of people DON'T think Fed is greatest...
Now of course, I can't prove this, but then again, you can't prove that majority think Fed is greatest either...
Eragon
Banned
You and I both know that more people consider Federer the GOAT than anybody else. Let's not get all petty.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
There's no evidence of "more," and it is telling when those pushing that notion never produce the numbers to support the fantasy.
5555
Hall of Fame
Argumentum ad populum
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.
Examples
Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
Everyone's doing it.
In a court of law, the jury vote by majority; therefore they will always make the correct decision.
Google gives more hits when this spelling is applied, therefore this has to be the correct spelling.
Many people buy extended warranties, therefore it is wise to buy them.
Explanation
The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answer A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness.
There is the problem of determining just how many are needed to have a majority or consensus. Is merely greater than 50% significant enough and why? Should the percentage be larger, such as 80 or 90 percent, and how does that make a real difference? Is there real consensus if there are one or even two people who have a different claim that is proven to be true?
It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A, this argument fails, because if opinion did determine truth, then there be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small the percentage of those polled is distributed among any remaining answers, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers.
This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of supposed experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one's community over a long period of time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition.
One who commits this fallacy may assume that individuals commonly analyze and edit their beliefs and behaviors. This is often not the case (see conformity).
Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.
Examples
Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
Everyone's doing it.
In a court of law, the jury vote by majority; therefore they will always make the correct decision.
Google gives more hits when this spelling is applied, therefore this has to be the correct spelling.
Many people buy extended warranties, therefore it is wise to buy them.
Explanation
The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answer A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness.
There is the problem of determining just how many are needed to have a majority or consensus. Is merely greater than 50% significant enough and why? Should the percentage be larger, such as 80 or 90 percent, and how does that make a real difference? Is there real consensus if there are one or even two people who have a different claim that is proven to be true?
It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A, this argument fails, because if opinion did determine truth, then there be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small the percentage of those polled is distributed among any remaining answers, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers.
This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of supposed experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one's community over a long period of time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition.
One who commits this fallacy may assume that individuals commonly analyze and edit their beliefs and behaviors. This is often not the case (see conformity).
Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Eragon
Banned
We don't have the means to and those who do won't bother. Suffice it to say that most pros and former pros have called Federer the GOAT; more so than they have any other player. Want me to list them?
Laver
Borg
McEnroe
Connors
Sampras
Agassi
Courier
Ivanisevic
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray
Roddick
Safin
Hewitt
Del Potro
Navratilova
Evert
Do I need to go on?
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
So you think there are more supporting Fed as the greatest than the combined total of those that think Laver, Borg or Sampras is?
Let's say that 40% think Fed is goat, and we have 25% that think Laver is, 20% that think Sampras is and 15% that think that Borg is goat. That means 60% of people (the majority) DON'T think Fed is greatest...
Eragon
Banned
Read what I posted again.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Read what I posted again.
Eragon
Banned
Work on your comprehension. Because your response to my post makes no sense.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Work on your comprehension. Because your response to my post makes no sense.
If you combined the all time great players in the past 100 years and compare to Roger, then yeah, that's likely to be true. However, if you compare him to individual, Roger has the most votes. Anyone who's been watching tennis can see that most fans, experts, commentators pick Roger as the greatest.
Except for a few detractors who can't accept the truth.
Why would you compare one player to all the players combined from the entire history of the sport? You want to compare a player to each individual.
swedenparty
Rookie
Many of you haters forget that there is no discussion if FEd is the GOAT tennis player.
The only argument that still exists if Fed is the greatest athlete ever born.
The only argument that still exists if Fed is the greatest athlete ever born.
Last edited:
swedenparty
Rookie
Ehmmm...no
It's more like: 5% Sampras, 3% Laver, 1% Borg, 5% rest of the greats, 86% Federer.
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Ehmmm...no
It's more like: 5% Sampras, 3% Laver, 1% Borg, 5% rest of the greats, 86% Federer.
Did you know that 80% of stats are made up on the spot?
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Fortunately, your stat here is one of the 20% that wasn't. :wink:
Sorana fan
Banned
Nah, he's been a mediocre player lucky enough to play in a weak era
When the weak era ended and the big4 showed up, he was clearly outplayed and had to resort to doping. That only got him a WB in a lucky way again as Rafa fell injured.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
In just the past month, McEnroe and Courier have claimed Nadal to be the GOAT. Laver has been quoted as saying there's no way to judge such a thing, and noted historian Bud Collins does not rank Federer as the GOAT. Nadal is--typically--taking the attention away from himself, due to his well-known modesty.
..and there's no sweeping list of tennis fans claiming anything of the sort. To this day, the Federer fringe simply says a thing, and expects it to be true. Children expect Shrek and Angry Birds to be real, but that does not mean it will happen anytime soon.
The dream is over.
Last edited:
Ehmmm...no
It's more like: 5% Sampras, 3% Laver, 1% Borg, 5% rest of the greats, 86% Federer.
swedenparty, what do you smoke at parties in Sweden?
- Status
Similar threads
