Peak is overrated

  • Thread starter Deleted member 805385
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 805385

Guest
Longevity and consistency are just as important. Being able to win with your B game or C game is just as important.

Djokovic vs Safin peak for peak at the AO

2005 Safin > Any version of Djokovic (lol)

Titles > peak. I'd rather have shiny trophies than hypothetically peaking higher.
 

InsuranceMan

Hall of Fame
M3YFhB.gif
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
I would even go as far as say that longevity and consistency are even MORE important...you can take all the ATGs ever especially GOAT-tier like Sampras or Borg and take one or two specific year they reached hypothetical peak, where they played better than the rest of their career and claim that they vultured all other slam titles by using that logic, because their game prior or after hitting that hypothetical peak has never been the same, then Borg would only have 3 or 4 slams towards the end of the 70's, Sampras only 4 or 5 during the mid 90's that you could claim that they "earned" while the rest of their slams wouldn't even matter, because PEAK man...LOL
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
With guys like Roddick it's overrated. But not with the big 3.

No, not really...big-3 is no exception, nobody in 20-30 years outside of this silly little place called - TTW will know exactly how many titles they won while at their peak, everybody will look at their career results, their numbers and draw conclusions based on that...the only people who care even remotely about trivial things like this are those of us, who watched things unfolding live before our eyes and thus those memories are engraved with us forever, but history of the sport is bigger than us and like i mentioned nobody will care 20-30 years from now...just like nobody cares now where exactly and when Sampras' or Borg hit their peak, while winning their slams, people just see 11 and 14 numbers respectively accross their names and get impressed by that...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
Djokovic is arguably 6th peak-level wise in Australia. Below Federer, Safin, Edberg, Agassi and Sampras. Djokovic peaked at vulturing in Australia roflmao

I mean wouldn't go as far as that, i will take maybe Federer and Agassi, but the other three? doubt it...especially Edberg i mean come on now...i mean i get what you're saying, but that's a huge stretch...LOL
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Safin destroyed peak Djokovic at the AO 2005, thus earning the "Melbourne's Peak King" crown:


Agreed upon all objective tennis observers. :cool:
 
D

Deleted member 805385

Guest
2004 Roddick > any version of Djokovic at Wimbledon

Any good example for the US Open?
 

zakopinjo

Professional
Longevity and consistency are just as important. Being able to win with your B game or C game is just as important.

Djokovic vs Safin peak for peak at the AO

2005 Safin > Any version of Djokovic (lol)

Titles > peak. I'd rather have shiny trophies than hypothetically peaking higher.
Fedt@rds love this more.
 
IMO there are different ways to define greatness, peak is one - longevity and consistency is another. It's mostly just personal preference/bias for which you prefer.
This. It's the combo of everything that makes one the GOAT. Federer had ALL 3
 

thrust

Legend
IMO there are different ways to define greatness, peak is one - longevity and consistency is another. It's mostly just personal preference/bias for which you prefer.
Consistency, longevity over peak. Big titles and slams won, overall titles won, number top 10 rankings, winning on various surfaces. Certainly, the today's big 3 qualify in all categories, as does: Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras
 
Last edited:

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Biggest issue with Peak is that you can’t measure it, which is why the Eye Test Brigade can’t predict anything in real life

as Novak and others have said today many players have incredible technique, training is so much more intense than in the past. Anyone can have a great day. What you need to stand out is to have a very high level for a very long time.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Biggest issue with Peak is that you can’t measure it, which is why the Eye Test Brigade can’t predict anything in real life

as Novak and others have said today many players have incredible technique, training is so much more intense than in the past. Anyone can have a great day. What you need to stand out is to have a very high level for a very long time.
Domination + Longevity is goat.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Biggest issue with Peak is that you can’t measure it, which is why the Eye Test Brigade can’t predict anything in real life

as Novak and others have said today many players have incredible technique, training is so much more intense than in the past. Anyone can have a great day. What you need to stand out is to have a very high level for a very long time.
Yep.
 
Biggest issue with Peak is that you can’t measure it, which is why the Eye Test Brigade can’t predict anything in real life

as Novak and others have said today many players have incredible technique, training is so much more intense than in the past. Anyone can have a great day. What you need to stand out is to have a very high level for a very long time.
Helps when you have the CIE though. Notice how Nole is no longer relevant once Alcaraz and Sinner peaked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMF

RS

Bionic Poster
It's not even clear Ali or Lewis would beat all today's top heavyweights. There is a chance they could lose.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Longevity and consistency are just as important. Being able to win with your B game or C game is just as important.

Djokovic vs Safin peak for peak at the AO

2005 Safin > Any version of Djokovic (lol)

Titles > peak. I'd rather have shiny trophies than hypothetically peaking higher.

Depth and strength of the competition is just as important.

As for peak performance vs. longevity, I value the former more
 

thrust

Legend
Biggest issue with Peak is that you can’t measure it, which is why the Eye Test Brigade can’t predict anything in real life

as Novak and others have said today many players have incredible technique, training is so much more intense than in the past. Anyone can have a great day. What you need to stand out is to have a very high level for a very long time.
CORRECT
Being able to win with B/C game is certainly very important in a field full of D/E/F players.

It is good to see Djokovic fans all admitting in the same thread that his peak wasn't very high.
Djokovic's peak was good enough to hold his own, at least, with Fedal. GET REAL!
 

zakopinjo

Professional
Being able to win with B/C game is certainly very important in a field full of D/E/F players.

It is good to see Djokovic fans all admitting in the same thread that his peak wasn't very high.
On what basis do you estimate the height of Federer's peak? Based on the strength of his rivals and his success against them? If that is the case, then Federer's peak was below Novak's.
 
Everybody at his peak looks invincible. They call it GOD mode. But when chips are down and you have to dig deep inside to find a way to overcome your opponent that matters most. Peak stan was too good for novak and rafa but his peak was for not long. Murray at his best was able to beat novak for 2 slams but other than that nothing to show. Consistency and longevity is much more important . You dont need to be superhuman level to beat your opponent but just little bit more better than your opponent.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Helps when you have the CIE though. Notice how Nole is no longer relevant once Alcaraz and Sinner peaked.
That's why stat means nothing without context.

And it helps when you actually watch live matches to distinct between quality and second-rated performance.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Everybody at his peak looks invincible. They call it GOD mode. But when chips are down and you have to dig deep inside to find a way to overcome your opponent that matters most. Peak stan was too good for novak and rafa but his peak was for not long. Murray at his best was able to beat novak for 2 slams but other than that nothing to show. Consistency and longevity is much more important . You dont need to be superhuman level to beat your opponent but just little bit more better than your opponent.
This is God mode :)

 

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
Longevity and consistency are just as important. Being able to win with your B game or C game is just as important.

Djokovic vs Safin peak for peak at the AO

2005 Safin > Any version of Djokovic (lol)

Titles > peak. I'd rather have shiny trophies than hypothetically peaking higher.
Peak is overrated if it is a short term peak. The big 3 had massive 5+ year peaks, so I have to disagree.
 
Top