Peak is overrated

  • Thread starter Deleted member 805385
  • Start date

Neptune

Hall of Fame
The establishment and Nike love how the hivemind, fails to understand or evaluate peak, and can be easily captivated and overwhelmed by the Rock-Paper-Scissors dynamic just for example. :-D
 

SonnyT

Legend
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.
Dog****! Safin is lucky if he's in the top 15 all time!

If that's true, then 2005 Safin > any version of Federer or Nadal
 
I prefer leak level really. I don’t care if you hang around 20 years like say Lebron. Dude has only 4 titles to show for himself in 2 decades despite loads of talent around him for years LOL. Fed was around 800 years but he didn’t do much the last few years of his career. It’s what you do accomplish in our time around
 

zakopinjo

Professional
The establishment and Nike love how the hivemind, fails to understand or evaluate peak, and can be easily captivated and overwhelmed by the Rock-Paper-Scissors dynamic just for example. :-D
Nike has a dangerous influence on public opinion.

It is enough to flood all traffic locations with billboards of their players and they have already done half the job. If that player becomes good at his sport, then the second phase follows, paving the way for greatness.
 

RSJfan

Hall of Fame
Opinions that belong in garbage

giphy.gif
 

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
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.

Context matters. If someone is saying that Djokovic is not at his peak in 2024, would you disagree?
 

duaneeo

Legend
One can't go higher than peak, so the greatest of champions knows how to consistently maintain their peak level once it's reached. There's nothing overrated about that.

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

Being able to dominate (not simply win) with a past-prime B game or C game simply says how weak the competition is.
 

AndrewUtz

Semi-Pro
I agree. 1984 Mcenroe is still the most dominant season in all of tennis. But it doesn’t mean as much in the goat debate as he kinda faded away after.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I do agree, movies don’t hit like they used to. Spiderman 2 is EXTREMELY good. But even so, its a bit overrated the way people act over it.
No way home drops down a bit after all the hype and nostalgia dwindle. That happened to me when I watched it.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
wasn't '08 Federer losing to muppets like Fish and Simon and Stepanek on clay?
Federer lost to Stepanek at 2008 Rome, which was a quarter final match that Stepanek won 7-6, 7-6. Federer lost to Nadal in the finals of Monte Carlo, Hamburg and the French Open, while also winning Estoril. In the 2008 matches against Nadal on clay, Federer had set leads in Monte Carlo and Hamburg before losing those sets, most infamously Federer leading 5-1 in the first set of the 2008 Hamburg final before Nadal won 7-5, 6-7, 6-3. Nadal then crushed Federer 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 in the 2008 French Open final, a tournament where Nadal's playing level had gone up several pegs to his absolute peak form.

Also, Federer, in his first match at 2008 Monte Carlo, played against Ruben Ramirez Hidalgo, and Hidalgo was ranked 137 in the world at the time (and Hidalgo's highest ever ranking was number 50 in October 2006). Hidalgo led 5-1 in the third set and was up 30-15, just 2 points from victory. Federer won 6-1, 3-6, 7-6 in the end, preventing what would have been a shock result.

Federer's 2008 loss to Fish was at Indian Wells, and the losses to Simon were at Toronto and at the YEC in Shanghai.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
wasn't '08 Federer losing to muppets like Fish and Simon and Stepanek on clay?
He was already doing that in 07 too. But you already knew I wasn't talking about B03. Regardless, Nadal and Djokovic don't even have 2 consecutive years much less 3 or 4 or wherever you want to draw the line for Fed
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Beerus/StefanV is just baiting Fed fans tbh.
No, as an ardent Djokovic fan this thread is very troubling and sad to me. But I'm glad @StefanV has at least ripped the bandaid open and made us all admit certain inconvenient facts. After all, no one can take away the 26 majors, 430 weeks at #1, 8 YECs, career golden masters etc.
 
No, as an ardent Djokovic fan this thread is very troubling and sad to me. But I'm glad @StefanV has at least ripped the bandaid open and made us all admit certain inconvenient facts. After all, no one can take away the 26 majors, 430 weeks at #1, 8 YECs, career golden masters etc.
26 majors . Did you knowingly type that gifting 2 major trophy to novak or it is typing error !!!!
 
I agree. 1984 Mcenroe is still the most dominant season in all of tennis. But it doesn’t mean as much in the goat debate as he kinda faded away after.
It’s absolutely still does matter because we talk about it today. Yes, the big three had better careers than JMacm but none of them is all that much “greater” than Borg or McEnroe or Sampras. Ridiculous aggregate bean counting is not what this sport is about.
 

TearTheRoofOff

G.O.A.T.
No, as an ardent Djokovic fan this thread is very troubling and sad to me. But I'm glad @StefanV has at least ripped the bandaid open and made us all admit certain inconvenient facts. After all, no one can take away the 26 majors, 430 weeks at #1, 8 YECs, career golden masters etc.
Luckily extended periods of peak performance don't really matter so as a Djokovic fan I've been able to be super efficient in my partisanship by simply perusing match results and green squares on Wikipedia.
 

The Guru

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.
To say it's just personal preference is to kill any examination about the relative values of peak and consistency. With a coherent criteria for greatness they will be valued differently.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Personally I don't think peak is overrated, it's one of the focal points of discussion in pretty much any sport.

I think Novak's peak is underrated however.
Peak is so much open to bias in sports..it's overrated..

People can go in circles forever. Won't change a thing.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
To say it's just personal preference is to kill any examination about the relative values of peak and consistency. With a coherent criteria for greatness they will be valued differently.
Is there an objective criteria for weighing them against each other? I'm not saying it can't be discussed. For me I think a "consistent peak" is obviously more important but if someone were to argue that say Rosewall, is the GOAT because he was at the top of the game for so so long then I think that's a fine opinion.
 
D

Deleted member 805385

Guest
The 2012 US Open QF Djokovic > any version of Federer on HC?
 
Regardless, Nadal and Djokovic don't even have 2 consecutive years much less 3 or 4 or wherever you want to draw the line for Fed
who are the muppets between AO '08-USO '10 for Nadal and USO '10-Wimbly '14 for Djokovic? thought you were decently high on the Murrays in the former period (maybe not in the latter), and the other miscellaneous losses like Tsonga and Federer were high level opponents
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Personally I don't think peak is overrated, it's one of the focal points of discussion in pretty much any sport.

I think Novak's peak is underrated however.
I meant on ttw it's overrated. I think there is value in discussing it but as this was touched on already in here is that it's not something that can be measured accurately just by looking at someone play, so people tend to overrate and underrate it like you said.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
I meant on ttw it's overrated. I think there is value in discussing it but as this was touched on already in here is that it's not something that can be measured accurately just by looking at someone play, so people tend to overrate and underrate it like you said.
Would you say is overrated when it comes to the big 3?
 
D

Deleted member 805385

Guest
Peak cannot be properly measured in many cases. I mean it's obvious that peak Djokovic > peak me, but when it comes to the Big 3, it becomes mostly opinion based.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Would you say is overrated when it comes to the big 3?
It's probably been overrated on many players including the big 3 but the big 3 actually have the numbers to back it up. Plenty of others don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Would you say is overrated when it comes to the big 3?
With enough context a lot of things are explinable.

Context
1. This era is baseline based , forget pre 2002 era thinking.
2. Winners are same points as forced errors
3. High winners not same as great quality. See surface speed , rally length and most importantly errors and forced errors
4. A lot depends on matchups. Some players match up badly vs a lower ranked player but check it vs field not 1 player.
5. Nobody is a god. Beating some great player adds some to your legacy but let's not go overboard. And 1 win out of nowhere is not a trend. No extrapolation. Zero extrapolation.

When you LIVE in real world and then talk about peak, then it's fine. But not in imaginary world.

Yes there are many ways to define peak. But they should be context based. Not related to bygone era or vs players who have massive shortfalls.
 
Last edited:

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
We had among us some of the worst of the worst posters before. The alpha beta gamma gang was really the extreme of biased fanboyism.

Numbers are cold hard truth. You have numbers like point dominance, game dominance and other numbers like dominance ratio. Along with few other numbers as average opposition rank, top 5/10 matches and elo of opponents because not all eras are equal.



Deep down, I think if people are really HONEST and that's a big if I understand, we wouldn't have issues. But not many are, so the peak term is ********.
 
Top