Does any of the pros believe in weak era or weak competition? I doubt it.
At least not pros from different sports that I know. They laugh or feel insulted anyone even suggesting that competition is weak.
In all fairness to Laver and Sampras...
- Thread starter McEnborg
- Start date
Does any of the pros believe in weak era or weak competition? I doubt it.
At least not pros from different sports that I know. They laugh or feel insulted anyone even suggesting that competition is weak.
NikeWilson
Semi-Pro
Now you're talking. I would really love to see these great players of today play against the great Serve & Volleyers of the Past. The 2 different styles would be very interesting to watch.
I would love to see how the players of today would do against returning Edberg's wicked kick-serve on grass. And then deal with the followed-up pressure of Edberg sprinting in behind it and putting away any shanky return as a result of that crazy kicker. Same goes for Rafter's endless onslaught of crazy kick-serves and masterful putaway volleys.
And Pete Sampras too. With his superior pin-point accurate Serving skills and clutch net play. And Becker too.
The constant net-rushing pressure from these 4 players will force tons of errors out of today's baseline-dominant players. These guys were super-fast at coming to the net. The best in the business. And they had far superior volley-skills than any player in the game today.
The fact that John McEnroe believes Rafa Nadal is the best volleyer in today's Singles game, really illustrates how bad today's players are at the net.
Gold and couldn't agree more.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
No offense, but you're overthinking this a little. Although if you are a philosophy instructor or a philosopher yourself... I'm not surprised.
Sometimes, people just want to have fun without producing something. For me, this kind of discussion is like candy. It is trash TV that produces nothing, kills brain cells, and tastes so sweet.
It isn't for everybody. Some don't like it. That's fine. To each his own.
I agree. And I wouldn't be here if it didn't entertain me to a certain degree. I'm not saying I'm different. I use the exact same categories, I think the same way. It's just that some people feel the need to shove it down our throats and that's where I draw the line. When we watch trash tv like TLC everybody is aware that it's meaningless, but when a GOAT discussion arises a few people really engage themselves as if it were a matter of principle. And that's where the conversation becomes very poor, with the usual "defences of honour", anathemas and bans. I worry more about the quality of debate than its content(s).
abmk
Bionic Poster
umm, lets see , all surfaces are essentially one and the same today and yet nadal has 7 slams at RG and has been beaten only once there.
he gets thrashed at the other majors by tsonga, gonzalez, delpo etc .
makes perfect sense :roll:
sampras was a point away from going slamless in his peak year of 96 ( MP vs corretja ) and he would "dominate" for a decade ? LOL !
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Federer would take them all at once if he had to instead of playing Nadal in every final.
mightyrick
Legend
Professionals don't have these discussions. They have a job.
As far as believing in weak competition, they absolutely believe it. Watch Federer's interview after his defeat in Rome. He talks about how he had some really easy matches and nothing to really prepare him for Nadal.
Federer himself has referenced his own golden era of tennis.
Watch Nadal's interview after he beat Gulbis. He directly says that if you're 3rd or 4th or 5th... you will have a tougher draw than someone who is 1st, 2nd, or 3rd seed.
But weak or strong era does not matter -- in and of itself. What matters is how a player perform in a weak era... or how they perform in a strong era.
Fed has a better record than Pete against the top 10 players, despite still continue playing in his 30s. Fed beat Pete in all area, the only debatable surface is grass, but many fans have picked Fed due to having a better stats(eg better win/loss records, more grass tittles). And Pete is not as consistent as Fed during their prime, not even close.
Mustard, Yes, and the old pro top players seldom played against a weak opponent unlike the amateur stars who met rather weak players in the first few rounds.
Not big difference between then and now. And there is no direct relation between the pool and the top. In the 1970s we had more great or excellent players than today...
Monk, If you had studied history you would know how great Laver's opponents were. For instance Rosewall has won 137 tournaments and 23 majors. Federer would have to play 20 more years trying to cope with Muscles but he would never reach him...
Ah, good that you admitted, that Rosewall"s form dipped in 1969.
Tennis Hands, Can you explain why it's good or not good to admit that Rosewall's form dipped in 1969? By the way, this Rosewall demolished Roche (No.2 in the world) in the SFs of FO.
mightyrick, I'm still in doubt if this list or the Tennis Channel list if the worst ever produced...
kiki
Banned
statistics prove Mustard right.many more countries have fallen down than others climbed up...
Laver played against much stronger opponents than the top players today.
kiki
Banned
well said---
Feather
Legend
Yeah, I agree very well with you. You need to witness the entire history to name a GOAT. It's impossible and different players played with different technology against different opponents. It's also a disservice to all the legends of the game
Some people claiming one player is GOAT is beyond me also.
Yes, and tell us more about the world population was continuing to decrease since the day of William Renshaw.
kiki
Banned
let´s take 1971´s top players list.
USA had Ashe,Smith,Riessen,Gorman,Lutz,Richey,Graebner,Pasarell,Froehling
SAF had Drisdale,Hewitt,Mc Millan
NZ had Parun and Brian Fairlie
Australia has Laver,Rosewall,Newk,Roche,emerson,Stolle,Alexander,Dent
Spain had Gimeno,Orantes and Gisbert
Yugoslavia had Pilic and Franulovic
Germany ( then BDR) had Bungert,Kunkhe,Meiler,Fassbender
Hungary had Gulyas
Italy had Panatta,Bertolucci,Zugarelli
Chili had Fillol and Alvarez
Czekoslovakia had Kodes,Pala,Kukal
Romania has Nastase and Tiriac
France had proisy,Barthes,Jauffret and Goven
USSR had Metrevali
Britain had Taylor,Cox
Netherlands had Okker
and soon we´d have India´s Amritraj, Argentina´s Vilas and Sweden´s Bjorn Borg
many of those countries don´t even have a top 100 player nowadays...
USA had Ashe,Smith,Riessen,Gorman,Lutz,Richey,Graebner,Pasarell,Froehling
SAF had Drisdale,Hewitt,Mc Millan
NZ had Parun and Brian Fairlie
Australia has Laver,Rosewall,Newk,Roche,emerson,Stolle,Alexander,Dent
Spain had Gimeno,Orantes and Gisbert
Yugoslavia had Pilic and Franulovic
Germany ( then BDR) had Bungert,Kunkhe,Meiler,Fassbender
Hungary had Gulyas
Italy had Panatta,Bertolucci,Zugarelli
Chili had Fillol and Alvarez
Czekoslovakia had Kodes,Pala,Kukal
Romania has Nastase and Tiriac
France had proisy,Barthes,Jauffret and Goven
USSR had Metrevali
Britain had Taylor,Cox
Netherlands had Okker
and soon we´d have India´s Amritraj, Argentina´s Vilas and Sweden´s Bjorn Borg
many of those countries don´t even have a top 100 player nowadays...
watungga
Professional
I dunno if this contention is valid.
Top player from one era is not the representation of that era when we apply him to another era.
We do not know who among the entire generation of tennis population in the world, if they are given the racquet technology from an era in another generation. If we want 21yr old Sampras to have the Wilson 99S and challenge 2013 French Open, we are not sure if he's the best man of maybe Jimmy Arias or Pernfors (both with Babolat/poly techno). These players could pose challenge to Nadal or Djoker.
Maybe 20yr old Thomas Muster (with APD Babolat/poly) could probably the greatest Clay-COAT.
We just don't know.
Top player from one era is not the representation of that era when we apply him to another era.
We do not know who among the entire generation of tennis population in the world, if they are given the racquet technology from an era in another generation. If we want 21yr old Sampras to have the Wilson 99S and challenge 2013 French Open, we are not sure if he's the best man of maybe Jimmy Arias or Pernfors (both with Babolat/poly techno). These players could pose challenge to Nadal or Djoker.
Maybe 20yr old Thomas Muster (with APD Babolat/poly) could probably the greatest Clay-COAT.
We just don't know.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
You should go ahead and move Djokovic up to no. 3 now.
Skip the idea of achievements.
I think there is very little doubt there are many more people playing tennis competitively today than in 1970. I don't understand why this is not obvious to everyone.
From a recent interview with Chris Lewis, the 1983 Wimbledon finalist:
In my era, there were far fewer lower-level pro tournaments, and, subsequently, far fewer players. Imagine if, today, 75 per cent of the futures and challengers events were discontinued. You would see an immediate drop in the number of players pursuing a pro career as there wouldn’t be enough early opportunities to support them. I cannot tell you how many ambitious junior players in my time would have liked to chase a pro career, but weren’t able to as there just weren’t enough tournaments around.
And I don't understand why you come to this strange conclusion. Do you have any facts?
There are two separate issues here. One is whether there are more players (especially young players) participating in tennis tournaments worldwide today than in 1970. The other is whether this means the top 4 or 5 players today are better.
The answer to the first question is Yes. Without any doubt. The pool of competitive players trying to make it as pros is much larger today.
The answer to the second question is not known. The pool of players by 1970 was most likely large enough already to produce some players at or very near the limit of the human natural ability for tennis. The larger pool today means that the density at the top is likely to be higher today. Meaning that the distance between say the number one and the number 100 is probably shorter today than it was 40 years ago. There is no certainty that this is the case, but it seems a matter of common sense.
But to argue that there aren’t more players entering the game as youngsters today is rather silly. What Lewis is saying in that interview is simply confirming what we know and what many other players have said. And it explains why the game has expanded so much globally. In the 70s, about half the top 100 came from only two countries. In 1980, more than 40% of players came from one country.
This article has some maps illustrating these matters:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...bringing-the-sport-to-new-markets-an-analysis
Benhur, I repeat myself: In the 1970s and 1980s there were more top players than today. And they came from many countries.
kiki
Banned
You got a point.But mine is also solid.from the early 70´s all the way through, the pool of competitive nations throwing in good or great players was already established.In fact, as I have proved so long ago to TMF, many countries have clearly decreased if you compare their best players now vs 70´s-80´s.
Sweden,Italy,Czeckoslovakia ( now two countries yet both added are less competitive),France ( a close call but their 1980 cast was tougher IMO), Argentina ( again a close call, anyway), USA,New Zealand,South Africa,Ecuador,Mexico,India,Netherlands,Poland,Hungary,Peru,Holand,Germany,Australia.
Britain had far better density then even if there was no Murray.
Switzerland had no Federer but their 80´s players included doubles expert Heinz Gunthardt, for a while an accomplished singles guy too, Marc Rosset and Jacob Hlasek.that means more competitive number of players.
That is just an example.
In fact, if we imagine a DC competition with the same countries ( like Safin and Davidenkho playing for the USSr against Metrevali and Lejus, for instance) or Gimeno and Orantes vs Nadal and Ferrer in a Spain vs Spain rubber, I think there would be a very reduced number of " rubbers" where current squad would defeat the old squad.
Certainly, none of the countries I listed above would.I can only see a Yugoslavian team with Djokovic,Ancic,Lubjicic and Tipsarevic beating a Pilic and Franulovic team ( but it would be tough for them), maybe Fed and wavrinka beating Hlasek and Rosset ( also tough for Fed squad too).Current Spain and current USSr would probably win, although both Gimeno and Orantes were far better players than Ferrer and Gisbert was a much tougher doubles player than any spanish one nowadays...I think, over 10 matches it´s be tied at 5-5.
A 1970 British team with Cox and Taylor would beat the current UK team, unless we put together Henman and Murray ( it´d be tough but Henma and Murray would take 7 out of 10 IMO)...1980 french team with Noah,Leconte,Forget vs LLodra,Tsonga and Monfils? very tough, but if all played their peak tennis, I have very few, if any, doubt that the Noah team would prevail..and what if we pitt Vilas and Clerc ( with Pecci as a back up since Victor became argentinan citizen in the late 80´s) vs Nalbandian,gaudio,Coria and Cañas??.agains, soooo close.
That suffices to say that tennis has regresed as aglobal sport if we compare current era to Golden Era ( 70´s and 80´s)
Yours is an odd method. Picking a few DC teams from the past, comparing them with the present, and concluding that most of them were better back then. You could begin by going through the 16 teams currently in the World Group, do a similar comparison with where they were in 1970, and conclude that most of them are much better today. Either way, none of this proves anything.
If by tennis regression you mean that today’s players have generally less tennis ability than 40 years ago, I see no way to support that conclusion. Given it is a fact that there are a lot more players today all over the world trying to pursue a pro career, I would find it rather miraculous if the overall ability has decreased. The only possible assessment is a totally subjective one, but if you are going to do it, there would be better methods. Take for example a list of the current top 100 and pair them up with the top 100 fourty years ago, such that number 1 plays number 1, number 2 plays number 2 and so on. My guess is that it might be somewhat close near the top, but as you move down the rankings the current players are likely to be better. But as I said, this is nothing but speculation. I disagree with the worshippers of progress who believe that tennis players are getting better and better every year, but I also disagree with these exercises in subjective nostalgia to glorify the golden past.
Omega_7000
Legend
In all fairness Laver did not have access to this generation's racquet technology and access to Nadal's doctors. ;-)
Keep repeating but you prove nothing. When more athletes competing, common sense say there likely more and better players at the top AND at the bottom than a much smaller pool. You put top players in the 70s in today's competition they would be an average player, but put the average players today would be an elite group if they play in the 70s. Tennis and every other sports get better in every decade. That's the fact.
mightyrick
Legend
But my opinions are backup with facts. There are much more athletes in every sports competing today than in the past. It's ashamed that a few would even try to argue against it.
mightyrick
Legend
But my opinions are backup with facts. There are much more athletes in every sports competing today than in the past. It's ashamed that a few would even try to argue against it.
Really?
Can you please post your proof that a larger athlete pool means better skill at the top? ... as opposed to more scrubs at the bottom?
LuckyR
Legend
True, also he didn't train like pros do now. All evidence that his owning similarly suboptimally prepared tennis players, is a lot less impressive than modern pros dominating other pros who are going all out to optimize their games.
LuckyR
Legend
Why does high school football get divided into divisions based on attendance? By your logic as long as a high school has at least 45 boys in the school it is possible that they could be as good as a school with 3000 students. You are correct of course, it is possible, yet highly improbable.
Assuming that talent etc are evenly distributed (sort of true), a larger pool will have a higher chance of better talent at the top.
Second issue:
Old days: poor training/prep, lousy tech, skill and practice are amplified as the cause certain players dominate. This leads to great stats as the most talented get no competition.
Modern game: Better tech, better training, grinding schedule leads to more injuries, true skill is also a factor but it's impact is diluted. The tech especially advances moderate players into better games, where they can knock off a top player once a career or so, but a Loss is still an L. Isners exist who can beat anyone on a good day, which in single elimination costs better players trophies.
kiki
Banned
I agree that, from top 30-35 down current players would normally dominate...but a guy ranked 50 never wins a major, be it nowsadays or be it in 1970...
Take the best high school basketball team in one state and compete against the best high school basketball team in the nation and tell me which team is likely to win. You know everyone including yourself would pick the best team in a nation in a heartbeat !
mightyrick
Legend
The reason why a school with 45 boys doesn't do as well as a school with 3000 students is purely because of money. A 45-boy school can't afford the coaches, the facilities, et cetera.
Why not ask that same question about basketball? The answer changes dramatically.
It isn't about population. It is about resources and money.
That is not true. In tennis, the best players are at the top. Regardless of the size of the field. You are assuming that in 1950, there were probably a lot of tennis geniuses that were passed over. That is wholly untrue. A great tennis talent played tennis. Tennis had a worldwide, well-funded, international body which delivered a top-quality product.
Isner will beat anyone on a good day in best-of-three. Isner will not beat anyone on a good day in best-of-five. Case in point... he has never been past the quarters of a major. Ever. In fact, he's only made it to the quarters twice. If someone makes it past the quarters of a major... it is because they are good enough.
In the old days, they had just as many injuries as today. Also, those guys were lean, muscular, and extremely fit. They could and did run for miles, they lifted weights, they were conditioned. It is a ridiculous myth that the players of olden days were not in great shape. Go look at pictures.
You are right: Hoad's playing arm was more voluminous than even Nadal's, Emerson and Borg could run faster than Federer, the Hopman troupe (Sedgman, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Emerson and so on) could play five or six hours per match...
There has to be a natural physical limit to the set of skills required to be a great tennis player. With a pool of a few thousand players, you are probably going to get some specimens that are very close to that limit. If you multiply the size of the pool three fold, it does not mean you are going to find players that are 3 times better than the best player from the smaller pool. But it should mean that you are 3 times more likely to find players with a similar level of ability as the best player from the smaller pool. And same thing for number 2 and for number 3 and so on.
This means that the level of play (based on natural ability) at the very top probably does not change very much as you increase the size of the pool, provided the initial size is large enough (btw, 45 boys most certainly does not sound like enough, and no amount of money will turn a clutz into a great player). But the average distance in ability between one rank and the next should decrease in proportion to the increase with respect to the original pool, so by the time you get to, say, number 20, there should be a more significant difference between the two pools.
That at least is what one would expect in theory.
This means that the level of play (based on natural ability) at the very top probably does not change very much as you increase the size of the pool, provided the initial size is large enough (btw, 45 boys most certainly does not sound like enough, and no amount of money will turn a clutz into a great player). But the average distance in ability between one rank and the next should decrease in proportion to the increase with respect to the original pool, so by the time you get to, say, number 20, there should be a more significant difference between the two pools.
That at least is what one would expect in theory.
LuckyR
Legend
You've got it totally backwards. Large inner city schools bursting at the seams with students have squat for funding. Small, elite, private schools are the ones with the funding.
The reason I chose football is that unlike basketball, players who can excel in the sport are more evenly distributed than basketball, where any school can attract a couple of stars from across town and have great team with a small student body and huge funding because they are a small, elite private school.
Your comment about quality in the olden days is true... for the US, France and Australia (and a couple of others). Where were the Novak Djokovic and Tipsarevic precursors in the 1960s? They didn't exist.
I guess you're saying Roger isn't very good...
I am not saying that the players of yore didn't train, but training can be divided into Before Cross training and After Cross training. Since you're making a big deal about money and resources, what exactly do you think that money is buying? Maybe a nutritionist, a physio guy, a massage guy etc.
I don't think Conners had a nutritionist...
Last edited:
TennisBatman
Semi-Pro
You failed to give a good case of why Nadal ranks higher than Sampras.
I'll agree that Federer has outranked Sampras in terms of overall mastery, but maybe not specific mastery of one surface (Sampras's mastery of grass was clearly better than Federer's mastery of grass).
It's still open as to whether Sampras or Nadal ranks better in overall mastery of the tennis game. Nadal has the edge in specific mastery (his mastery of clay is better than Sampras's mastery of grass), but it can also be argued that Sampras's mastery of both grass and hardcourts is better than Nadal's mastery of any two surfaces.
Just count the majors from two different slams. Nadal has 10 from French Open and Wimbledon (8+2), but Sampras has 12 from US Open and Wimbledon (5+7).
I would say that Sampras still has the edge over Nadal in terms of overall mastery of tennis, and the edge over Federer in terms of specific mastery of one surface.
Last edited:
The Lakers made 9 out of 10 championship finals. Good luck making that kind of run in the current field. The depth and talent wouldn't allow that to happen.
But my opinion is CLOSER to reality than yours. Much closer.
We have been through this before but it continue to fall on deaf ears. There are more athletes competing in basketball than ever before. The best players in the NBA is littered with foreign players not just the American. In the 80s, there's very few foreign players. It's the same for MLB, the depth is so deep because many great foreign players join the league.
Similar threads
