Sampras: Federer is playing better now, than 10 years ago.

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Federer has played the last year and half at an incredibly high level. Do I think he played better than 10 years ago? Yes and no. Today, he has a better serve, better volley and anticipation at the net, and his backhand is equal or better than what it was 10 years ago. However, the forehand is clearly not at its best and he is not as athletic, which means he can't grind like he could when he was 24 and his defense to offense is not the same. I do believe he is more aggressive today than he was 10 years ago and his opponents do have less time to react, which translates into him ending points quicker. So from a tennis player standpoint, you could argue that he is better in some ways but he is not the athlete that he once was.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
Did anyone like Sampras better when he didn't talk much?

This is beyond stupid. Fed's return of serve, court speed and overall defense are nowhere near where they were at his peak. And his serve, while he can still hit his spots, isn't as consistent (and doesn't have quite as much pop), especially in big matches. At his peak, it was rare that players even got a sniff of a break against Fed on grass and faster hardcourt.

Sorry, Pete. It's obvious you're talking up Djokovic - but if you're trying to equate Djokovic's wins over Fed to the ones when Fed dominated their H2H, you're just really wrong.
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
It is really amazing how some armchair players whose only contact with tennis is through a small TV screen dismiss the words of a superchampion Sampras whose view is from inside the game.

To them: when Pete speaks you just shut up in awe and learn. You certainly don't discuss nor contradict him, you are ants compared to him regarding tennis knowledge. Then you humbly say thanks for the lesson, meditate about it and go to sleep like good children.
 
Last edited:
It is really amazing how some armchair players whose only contact with tennis is through a small TV screen dismiss the words of a superchampion Sampras whose view is from inside the game.

To them: when Pete speaks you just shut up in awe and learn. You certainly don't discuss nor contradict him, you are ants compared to him regarding tennis knowledge. Then you humbly say thanks for the lesson, meditate about it and go to sleep like good children.
Advanced understanding is balanced out by increased bias as a non-neutral observer (everyone has personal preferences).
Nadal once said the following,
Personally, to watch a Pete Sampras versus Goran Ivanisevic match, or one between those kind of players, is not enjoyable, It's not really tennis, it is a few swings of the racquet.
It was less eye-catching than what we do now. Everyone enjoys the tennis we play much more. I am not saying we are playing better tennis, just more enjoyable tennis. For me, in the past it was just serve, serve, serve.
Do we take his words for granted, since he is, after all, a great champion?
 

SoBad

G.O.A.T.
So Hewitt was old, tired and worn out at 23-24 years of age? :D
Extra early bloomer worn out by the peak of the gold era, start of weak era. Even 5'5'' tall, Hewitt would have swept up the 2003-2007 slams otherwise, and you know that.
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
Advanced understanding is balanced out by increased bias as a non-neutral observer (everyone has personal preferences).
Nadal once said the following,

Do we take his words for granted, since he is, after all, a great champion?
Well in any case Pete loves Federer so as Fedfans here he would have the opposite bias, to say he is losing because he is old. So... No bias.

As for Nadal, first he is right on spot. Ivanisevic tennis was quite boring. But in any case Nadal is talking about taste. That is certainly subjective. He is saying he prefers strawberry ice-cream to chocolate, nothing to do with what Pete is stating.
 
Well in any case Pete loves Federer so as Fedfans here he would have the opposite bias, to say he is losing because he is old. So... No bias.

As for Nadal, first he is right on spot. Ivanisevic tennis was quite boring. But in any case Nadal is talking about taste. That is certainly subjective. He is saying he prefers strawberry ice-cream to chocolate, nothing to do with what Pete is stating.
Tastes are subjective, but opinions isn't? Hello! Reality check: only facts are objective, nothing else is. Ergo, in the absence of factual proof any opinion is just as wild is any other.
I don't think Sampras "loves Federer" the way you seem to think, so no.
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
Tastes are subjective, but opinions isn't? Hello! Reality check: only facts are objective, nothing else is. Ergo, in the absence of factual proof any opinion is just as wild is any other.
I don't think Sampras "loves Federer" the way you seem to think, so no.
Suppose you are a businessman. You see an Engineer making a bridge. Do you discuss with him and say hey that bridge is weak? No, you just listen and learn, the man is a pro. Then you talk business, the Engineer must shut up and learn from the businessman.

Sampras is a pro. Not only a pro, but probably among the top 5 pros ever. So no, you can't discuss with him.

In any case if it were opinion, it is fundamented opinion. Yours is not.

That guy above saying "sorry Pete, you are wrong". It is hilarious. Does a dog tell his Master that he is wrong about anything, other than maybe smelling ? Nope.
 
Suppose you are a businessman. You see an Engineer making a bridge. Do you discuss with him and say hey that bridge is weak? No, you just listen and learn, the man is a pro. Then you talk business, the Engineer must shut up and learn from the businessman.
I ask for him to show me the relevant analysis and calculations (and explain it in generally understandable terms) so I can see that it is based on an actual method, that the process has been checked against possible flaws. I'm not going to take anyone's words for granted without a good measure of evidence; why would I? There are careless people in every walk of life. Like anything, there have been cases of bridges ruined because of negligence.
I am not taking any statement for granted; show me how you came to it, lay out the logic and the calculations. The rules of logic are the same for everyone, so we can see.

Not that my opinion must be closer to the truth, what I do is withhold fully subscribing to a specific view until more evidence is uncovered.
Not that you have the moral ground to lecture me, having opined that McEnroe "evolved tennis" without sufficient evidence. Apparently you can dish out opinions, but not others?
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
It doesn't take a genius to realize it's easier to play aggressive against a 35-year-old surviving on back injections, who was coming off three five-set matches in a row, than against one of the best players and defenders of all-time.


Fed doesn't move like he used to.
 

Laver777

Rookie
Federer is still playing great. The biggest difference to me is his movement. He still moves very well but not as well as his prime. Which is why he stuggles against Djokovic and only over 5 sets. Look at him in 04-07 how quick that first step was. If he wants to beat Djokovic over 5 he has to be more aggresive and take risks.
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
I ask for him to show me the relevant analysis and calculations (and explain it in generally understandable terms) so I can see that it is based on an actual method, that the process has been checked against possible flaws. I'm not going to take anyone's words for granted without a good measure of evidence; why would I? There are careless people in every walk of life. Like anything, there have been cases of bridges ruined because of negligence.
I am not taking any statement for granted; show me how you came to it, lay out the logic and the calculations. The rules of logic are the same for everyone, so we can see.

Not that my opinion must be closer to the truth, what I do is withhold fully subscribing to a specific view until more evidence is uncovered.
Not that you have the moral ground to lecture me, having opined that McEnroe "evolved tennis" without sufficient evidence. Apparently you can dish out opinions, but not others?
Sure. You have a five minutes interview with Einstein about physics and you start to question the easiest cinematic equation... No no no.

This was a short interview to Sampras, the equivalent to Einstein in tennis. Or a statement.

You simply listen in awe.
 

The Green Mile

Bionic Poster
Suppose you are a businessman. You see an Engineer making a bridge. Do you discuss with him and say hey that bridge is weak? No, you just listen and learn, the man is a pro. Then you talk business, the Engineer must shut up and learn from the businessman.

Sampras is a pro. Not only a pro, but probably among the top 5 pros ever. So no, you can't discuss with him.

In any case if it were opinion, it is fundamented opinion. Yours is not.

That guy above saying "sorry Pete, you are wrong". It is hilarious. Does a dog tell his Master that he is wrong about anything, other than maybe smelling ? Nope.
Bro, Wilander said that he thought Monfils could win the AO last year, after he came back from two sets down against Pouille in the 1st round..........

Treating former players words like gospel is not my thing, that's for sure.
 
Sure. You have a five minutes interview with Einstein about physics and you start to question the easiest cinematic equation... No no no.

This was a short interview to Sampras, the equivalent to Einstein in tennis. Or a statement.

You simply listen in awe.
A big fat no. So if you're a great someone you think you're above explaining things to 'stupid commoners' like me and your word should be taken as the unquestionable truth? Well, screw you, I know well myself how to push opinion under the pretense of facts regarding something I am (supposed to be) extensively knowledgeable of. If I can do it, then anyone else can do it. I'm not taking anyone for granted. Now, if you specify that it is an opinion, I will accept it as a very likely informed opinion that has a basis to it, but it isn't an irrefutable fact.
 

billnepill

Hall of Fame
It is really amazing how some armchair players whose only contact with tennis is through a small TV screen dismiss the words of a superchampion Sampras whose view is from inside the game.

To them: when Pete speaks you just shut up in awe and learn. You certainly don't discuss nor contradict him, you are ants compared to him regarding tennis knowledge. Then you humbly say thanks for the lesson, meditate about it and go to sleep like good children.
I question Pete's judgment since he claimed he played his best towards the end of his career when he was being straigth setted by Hewitt in slams he previously owned. Not to mention that his personality tends to be petty and has been quite bitter about Federer breaking his records ever since he did.
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
I question Pete's judgment since he claimed he played his best towards the end of his career when he was being straigth setted by Hewitt in slams he previously owned. Not to mention that his personality tends to be petty and has been quite bitter about Federer breaking his records ever since he did.
First part, he is saying tennis evolved more than he did. He improved but the others improved faster. Similar to what is happening to Federer (and he said more or less the same). Everybody lies, says Dr House, you have to figure out why. Why would Pete lie in this? It is not helping to build his case, on the contrary.

Last sentence btw is a complete lie. Sampras has always praised Federer, they are friends, trained and exhoed together, respect each other like hell. Which again he has to do, imagine him saying Federer is weak, what would that make to his own game?

Sure you can question him. Like an ant can question me.
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
Bro, Wilander said that he thought Monfils could win the AO last year, after he came back from two sets down against Pouille in the 1st round..........

Treating former players words like gospel is not my thing, that's for sure.
Wilander nade a prediction which most of the time are doomed. That means nothing. Ask him proper questions about the game. You can't compare your knowledge to his, sorry. Unless you were a top ten player who has dedicated all his day to play and compete?
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
Wilander nade a prediction which most of the time are doomed. That means nothing. Ask him proper questions about the game. You can't compare your knowledge to his, sorry. Unless you were a top ten player who has dedicated all his day to play and compete?
Marat Safin believes today is a weak era. Going to disagree with him even though he's a former No.1 with a truckload more knowledge about the game than you'll ever have?
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
Marat Safin believes today is a weak era. Going to disagree with him even though he's a former No.1 with a truckload more knowledge about the game than you'll ever have?
Generally yes, I would let him discuss with his colleagues and same weight champions. Of course I can always question his motives, like, is he defending himself by attacking current era? Was he an intelligent player or behaved rather stupidly in his life?

They say it takes 10.000 hours dedication to make an expert. We are not. They are. Instead of resisting, we should try to learn. Leave aside our egos and urge to responde, and consider.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
This was a short interview to Sampras, the equivalent to Einstein in tennis. Or a statement.
You simply listen in awe.
Lol no, what are you smoking?

Sampras is a tennis player, not a tennis historian or analyst.

He is qualified to win points, not to rank the best players ever or to make judgements on Federer.
They're different things. :rolleyes:
So I'll sit in awe when he tells me how to hit a serve - not when he ambles up to a microphone and gives his opinion on the state of Federer's game.

Some of the players know shockingly little outside of the game itself as a matter of fact. Being good at tennis =/= Being qualified to analyze tennis on a larger scale.
Some players, like McEnroe, cross over into tennis analysis and commentary - Pete, meanwhile, is sitting on a couch somewhere in California.

The issue is made hairier by the fact that even many actual tennis historians are basically media employees and as such are laughably biased or have a motive behind what they say (like trying to sell that tennis/Federer/the field is in the best state it has ever been in).

Sorry to burst your bubble.
 

The Green Mile

Bionic Poster
Wilander nade a prediction which most of the time are doomed. That means nothing. Ask him proper questions about the game. You can't compare your knowledge to his, sorry. Unless you were a top ten player who has dedicated all his day to play and compete?
I'm sorry, but I just don't follow that logic. Being a former pro, certainly doesn't put you automatically in front of every living being in terms of knowledge and analysing the game. Certainly not in my book at least. The former pros can just be as guilty as we are, when it comes to favourites, recency bias, lack of understanding, ETC.

Of course a lot of it is still very subjective, but I can't tell you how many ridiculous statements (IMO) I've heard over the years from these "experts", predictions or not.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
Generally yes, I would let him discuss with his colleagues and same weight champions. Of course I can always question his motives, like, is he defending himself by attacking current era? Was he an intelligent player or behaved rather stupidly in his life?

They say it takes 10.000 hours dedication to make an expert. We are not. They are. Instead of resisting, we should try to learn. Leave aside our egos and urge to responde, and consider.
So what you're saying is that you'll believe them when it suits your agenda, but not when it doesn't.

Wow, I'm so surprised.
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
You sa
Lol no, what are you smoking?

Sampras is a tennis player, not a tennis historian or analyst.

He is qualified to win points, not to rank the best players ever or to make judgements on Federer.
They're different things. :rolleyes:
So I'll sit in awe when he tells me how to hit a serve - not when he ambles up to a microphone and gives his opinion on the state of Federer's game.

Some of the players know shockingly little outside of the game itself as a matter of fact. Being good at tennis =/= Being qualified to analyze tennis on a larger scale.
Some players, like McEnroe, cross over into tennis analysis and commentary - Pete, meanwhile, is sitting on a couch somewhere in California.

The issue is made hairier by the fact that even many actual tennis historians are basically media employees and as such are laughably biased or have a motive behind what they say (like trying to sell that tennis/Federer/the field is in the best state it has ever been in).

Sorry to burst your bubble.
You said it yourself, they know little outside the game. They didn't go to college. Outside being the key word. Everything within the game.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
Wilander nade a prediction which most of the time are doomed. That means nothing. Ask him proper questions about the game. You can't compare your knowledge to his, sorry. Unless you were a top ten player who has dedicated all his day to play and compete?
Federer > Djokovic
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
So what you're saying is that you'll believe them when it suits your agenda, but not when it doesn't.

Wow, I'm so surprised.
On the contrary, I am try to read below their own agenda, forcing me to leave mine aside. If I have one. I am not involved in this, nor do I get anything here, nor I am from their countries,etc.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
Generally yes, I would let him discuss with his colleagues and same weight champions. Of course I can always question his motives, like, is he defending himself by attacking current era? Was he an intelligent player or behaved rather stupidly in his life?

They say it takes 10.000 hours dedication to make an expert. We are not. They are. Instead of resisting, we should try to learn. Leave aside our egos and urge to responde, and consider.
Why not question the motives of champions praising Djokovic?
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
You sa


You said it yourself, they know little outside the game. They didn't go to college. Outside being the key word. Everything within the game.
Playing the game.
Not looking at it from the outside.

This is why they have coaches, duh.
Instead of just doing it themselves.
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
Playing the game.
Not looking at it from the outside.

This is why they have coaches, duh.
Instead of just doing it themselves.
Why would they choose former players like coaches btw? Why not Bud Collins or ine of you guys? Wouldn't any of them pay a for having Sampras as coach or would they prefer the armchair warrior that mantains "Pete you are wrong"?
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
Why would they choose former players like coaches btw? Why not Bud Collins or ine of you guys? Wouldn't any of them pay a for having Sampras as coach or would they prefer the armchair warrior that mantains "Pete you are wrong"?
Because some players do both or make the switch - like I said.

Pete is not one of them - like I said.
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
Why not question the motives of champions praising Djokovic?
Ok let's do that, I am not opposed to it instead of jumping to conclusions. Why would Agassi say that they couldn't even compete in today tennis, what's in there for him when he says so? Just dissing out Pete? Or maybe that is what he really feels, given that in fact goes against his legacy.
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
Because some players do both or make the switch - like I said.

Pete is not one of them - like I said.
Pete would not coach because he doesn't want to travel and he is beyond rich. Not because he can't, certainly. Every player would take him.

Didn't Rocky hire Apollo?
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
Ok let's do that, I am not opposed to it instead of jumping to conclusions. Why would Agassi say that they couldn't even compete in today tennis, what's in there for him when he says so? Just dissing out Pete? Or maybe that is what he really feels, given that in fact goes against his legacy.
Nah, he just hates Pete. I doubt his "legacy" really means that much to him either given he's actively involved in what he wants to do now.
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
Nah, he just hates Pete. I doubt his "legacy" really means that much to him either given he's actively involved in what he wants to do now.
Ok possible. Why would Brad Gilbert say the game is much more physical nowadays. Faster bigger. What is his agenda? Would Laver also hang on with today players?

Why you don't see it, like top players being now around 1.90 with exceptions like Nishi but the rule stays. Is this bothering your position towards your favourite player?

I also love watching Federer as much as you do, but I try to make a point on not being a fan on nobody. In no subject or sport. Fan = brainless. I am biased regarding my country players but there are few and not at the top now.
 
Last edited:

RF-18

G.O.A.T.
Lol no, what are you smoking?

Sampras is a tennis player, not a tennis historian or analyst.

He is qualified to win points, not to rank the best players ever or to make judgements on Federer.
They're different things. :rolleyes:
So I'll sit in awe when he tells me how to hit a serve - not when he ambles up to a microphone and gives his opinion on the state of Federer's game.

Some of the players know shockingly little outside of the game itself as a matter of fact. Being good at tennis =/= Being qualified to analyze tennis on a larger scale.
Some players, like McEnroe, cross over into tennis analysis and commentary - Pete, meanwhile, is sitting on a couch somewhere in California.

The issue is made hairier by the fact that even many actual tennis historians are basically media employees and as such are laughably biased or have a motive behind what they say (like trying to sell that tennis/Federer/the field is in the best state it has ever been in).

Sorry to burst your bubble.
What the hell are you talking about? No matter How good or bad analyst he is, he still knows more about the game and analyse players better than this whole forum combined. You can have your opinions of course, but mocking him and laughing makes you guys look like total idiots cause you know very little compared to him and all other pros.
 

Urkezi

Semi-Pro
It is really amazing how some armchair players whose only contact with tennis is through a small TV screen dismiss the words of a superchampion Sampras whose view is from inside the game.
To them: when Pete speaks you just shut up in awe and learn. You certainly don't discuss nor contradict him, you are ants compared to him regarding tennis knowledge. Then you humbly say thanks for the lesson, meditate about it and go to sleep like good children.
OK, let me address this and all the subsequent BS you've been posting. Basically you say that someone who is an expert in something makes a claim, and everyone that even slightly disagrees with it is an ant. Well, let me see if you find the ant in this little post:

Schulz R, Curnow C. Peak performance and age among superathletes: track and field, swimming, baseball, tennis, and golf. J Gerontol. 1988;43:p113–P120.[PubMed]
"The purpose of this study is to identify the age of peak performance in a broad range of athletic events incorporating multiple, diverse biological systems, learned skills, and motivation. Although many researchers have noted that the absolute levels of peak performance among superathletes have improved dramatically in the last 100 years, to date no one has answered the question of stability of peak performance age over this time period. Analyses of Olympic track and field and swimming data show that the age at which peak performance is achieved has remained remarkably consistent. For both men and women, the age of peak performance increases with the length of the foot race, and women generally achieve peak performance at younger ages. The pattern of increased age with increasing distance is reversed for female swimmers, where younger ages are associated with increasing distance. For most categories of performance in baseball, the peak age of performance is equivalent to that of a long distance runner, about 28 years of age, while top tennis players reach their highest levels of performance at age 24. Golfers, in comparison, peak at about 31 years of age, although recent data suggest movement toward younger ages. A task analysis of each event is carried out, and the relative roles of biology and learning are discussed as determinants of peak performance."

Dr. Richard Schulz, University of Pittsburgh, is a social psychologist who has spent most of his career doing research and writing on adult development and aging.

So, I expect to read a sincere apology to me and many forum members here and a complete retraction of what you were saying earlier, Antboy. :)

By the way, just to make it clear I would never in a million years consider just shutting off my brain and believing what someone says, no matter what an expert they are. You could simply shut this place and all similar forums down if that was the case as nobody would have a valid opinion. Brainless stuff from some people here.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
What the hell are you talking about? No matter How good or bad analyst he is, he still knows more about the game and analyse players better than this whole forum combined. You can have your opinions of course, but mocking him and laughing makes you guys look like total idiots cause you know very little compared to him and all other pros.
I'm speaking the truth - instead of just holding up Pete to support my biased views on the subject like you guys seem to enjoy doing on a regular basis.

Yep - Federer's never been better.
He is currently better than in 2005 and 2006.
Of course. That must be it.
It's so obvious.

Look at him go - he's putting away slams like nobody's business right now... oh actually he's lost to Raonic, lost in the SF of the AO, and has now been off with injury for weeks.
Surely his strongest start to the season ever.

Imagine how great he'll be at 50.
 

billnepill

Hall of Fame
First part, he is saying tennis evolved more than he did. He improved but the others improved faster. Similar to what is happening to Federer (and he said more or less the same). Everybody lies, says Dr House, you have to figure out why. Why would Pete lie in this? It is not helping to build his case, on the contrary.

Last sentence btw is a complete lie. Sampras has always praised Federer, they are friends, trained and exhoed together, respect each other like hell. Which again he has to do, imagine him saying Federer is weak, what would that make to his own game?

Sure you can question him. Like an ant can question me.
Ok, so it appears that you imply that Hewitt was a better player than Sampras ever was, level-wise? Fine, be my guest. It is ambiguous what you are trying to achieve with quoting House on this - can you elaborate? Is Sampras lying? About himself? About Federer?
On to the next- Why would he lie[about Federer playing better now than in 2006]? I provided the reason why. He is bitter that Federer beat his records. They were close BEFORE that but not after. Since then, he's retracted some of his 'praise' and has made more backhanded 'compliments'. You also ask what would it do to him if he said Federer is weak. I don't know. He hasn't said that. However, by saying Federer is better now than ever while not winning any slams, he is implying that weakER version of Federer won his slams in an era that lacked the current competion that he is facing and thus Sampras can still claim to be the greater player with fewer slams.

Lastly, the sycophantic fanboyism attempting to compare me to an ant is really curious. First, interestingly, if an ant holds opposite views to yours, it would win a good number of the arguments as we humans are wrong a lot and looking at the positions you are defending here, the ant is winning imo. Second, do you feel like every single thing that a high-ranking person or authority says is correct and shouldn't be questioned? If Trump is winning the republican race so far and I am not, then are Trump's views on politics more correct than mine? Yours? Or do you believe everything he says too?
 
Last edited:
As cknobman pointed out early on, Sampras didn't really say Fed IS playing better than 10 years ago unambiguously. To quote, "He's 34 now, he's still ranked two, three in the world. He's competing for majors, he's still playing great tennis. He's almost playing better now than he did 10 ten years ago. He's improving!"

That sounds reasonable mostly and only somewhat exaggerated. I mean, phrasing it as "almost playing as well as 10 years ago" would be nearer the mark. But Fed is so successful now with an aggressive S&V/chip charge based approach now which I am not sure he could have been in 2005-06. He used to come in behind outrageous approaches back then, calling the bluff constantly on his opponents. He could afford to because only Nadal used to bother him on passing shots at the time. That he can execute a high risk approach well against Djokovic, albeit only to still lose, does suggest he has improved his service game, i.e the combination of serve and approach/volley. He's tactically sharper now than back then. Of course that can't make up for what he's lost physically but again, it's not quite as much as it seems when you look at the numbers. Maybe not this year but in 2015 he was still producing a very high level of tennis so to that extent Sampras isn't really being so disingenuous.
 

Tiki-Taka

Hall of Fame
He will have to win the remaining 3 Slams so his 2016 can be better than his 2006 results wise.

Federer is more experienced now, but his tennis level is not as high as it was. It isn't low either.
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
OK, let me address this and all the subsequent BS you've been posting. Basically you say that someone who is an expert in something makes a claim, and everyone that even slightly disagrees with it is an ant. Well, let me see if you find the ant in this little post:

Schulz R, Curnow C. Peak performance and age among superathletes: track and field, swimming, baseball, tennis, and golf. J Gerontol. 1988;43:p113–P120.[PubMed]
"The purpose of this study is to identify the age of peak performance in a broad range of athletic events incorporating multiple, diverse biological systems, learned skills, and motivation. Although many researchers have noted that the absolute levels of peak performance among superathletes have improved dramatically in the last 100 years, to date no one has answered the question of stability of peak performance age over this time period. Analyses of Olympic track and field and swimming data show that the age at which peak performance is achieved has remained remarkably consistent. For both men and women, the age of peak performance increases with the length of the foot race, and women generally achieve peak performance at younger ages. The pattern of increased age with increasing distance is reversed for female swimmers, where younger ages are associated with increasing distance. For most categories of performance in baseball, the peak age of performance is equivalent to that of a long distance runner, about 28 years of age, while top tennis players reach their highest levels of performance at age 24. Golfers, in comparison, peak at about 31 years of age, although recent data suggest movement toward younger ages. A task analysis of each event is carried out, and the relative roles of biology and learning are discussed as determinants of peak performance."

Dr. Richard Schulz, University of Pittsburgh, is a social psychologist who has spent most of his career doing research and writing on adult development and aging.

So, I expect to read a sincere apology to me and many forum members here and a complete retraction of what you were saying earlier, Antboy. :)

By the way, just to make it clear I would never in a million years consider just shutting off my brain and believing what someone says, no matter what an expert they are. You could simply shut this place and all similar forums down if that was the case as nobody would have a valid opinion. Brainless stuff from some people here.
Pay attention, antman. This paper merely tries to make a nirmal curve of peaking, ok? Statistics of general population. Best case, the only thing it would say about Federer is that his probability of peaking let's say at 24 are high. It is all it says. It doesn't predict anything. Then of course you must know about ourliers of a curve. Federer can perfectly be an outlier. Moreover, being more thab a candidate to GOAT, he certainly is an outlier.

Then I haven't read it but at least you fail to mention causality. Not just correlation. I believe that the causes of this are injuries (Agassi) and loss of motivation (Sampras). Unarguably, Federer has had none of them. In any case this us my theory and not proven, and not proven otherwise as well.

Also, you have the fact that in the last decade tennis peak has moved to later. That would change his calculation of peak age for a couple of years maybe? Again why? Maybe because it is more physically demanding like all platers are saying?

Lastly, you started saying that peak performance in absolute levels has increased dramatically. That is my general view. Ten years has passed since 2005. Tennis level has gone up. Keeps going up. As every player ir former player has been saying.

Ten years ago forums were discussing whether Roger was better than Pete. Except some stubborn people it is now generally accepted that Federer plays better. The same is likely to happen ten years from now.

Beware of the Aadvark.
 

Urkezi

Semi-Pro
Pay attention, antman. This paper merely tries to make a nirmal curve of peaking, ok? Statistics of general population. Best case, the only thing it would say about Federer is that his probability of peaking let's say at 24 are high. It is all it says. It doesn't predict anything. Then of course you must know about ourliers of a curve. Federer can perfectly be an outlier. Moreover, being more thab a candidate to GOAT, he certainly is an outlier.

Then I haven't read it but at least you fail to mention causality. Not just correlation. I believe that the causes of this are injuries (Agassi) and loss of motivation (Sampras). Unarguably, Federer has had none of them. In any case this us my theory and not proven, and not proven otherwise as well.
Also, you have the fact that in the last decade tennis peak has moved to later. That would change his calculation of peak age for a couple of years maybe? Again why? Maybe because it is more physically demanding like all platers are saying?
Lastly, you started saying that peak performance in absolute levels has increased dramatically. That is my general view. Ten years has passed since 2005. Tennis level has gone up. Keeps going up. As every player ir former player has been saying.
Ten years ago forums were discussing whether Roger was better than Pete. Except some stubborn people it is now generally accepted that Federer plays better. The same is likely to happen ten years from now.
Beware of the Aadvark.
No, no, and no. I didn't even read your mumbo-jumbo because you were only allowed to post an apology and a self-evaluation of what a hypocrite you actually are:
a) you made such a big fuss about listening to the experts, remember? I've made it easier for you and changed the corresponding words:
"To them: when EXPERT speaks you just shut up in awe and learn. You certainly don't discuss nor contradict him, you are ants compared to him regarding knowledge ABOUT THE TENNIS PLAYERS' BODIES. Then you humbly say thanks for the lesson, meditate about it and go to sleep like good children."

So, I ask you again, why on Earth are you even giving your pathetic views, let alone contradicting a PhD with decades more experience than you, when all you CAN do is "shut up in awe and learn"? Where is the meditation and sleeping like a good kid? The expert has spoken, and that is it. Follow your own advice at least, even though it's coming from a human joke.
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
No, no, and no. I didn't even read your mumbo-jumbo because you were only allowed to post an apology and a self-evaluation of what a hypocrite you actually are:
a) you made such a big fuss about listening to the experts, remember? I've made it easier for you and changed the corresponding words:
"To them: when EXPERT speaks you just shut up in awe and learn. You certainly don't discuss nor contradict him, you are ants compared to him regarding knowledge ABOUT THE TENNIS PLAYERS' BODIES. Then you humbly say thanks for the lesson, meditate about it and go to sleep like good children."

So, I ask you again, why on Earth are you even giving your pathetic views, let alone contradicting a PhD with decades more experience than you, when all you CAN do is "shut up in awe and learn"? Where is the meditation and sleeping like a good kid? The expert has spoken, and that is it. Follow your own advice at least, even though it's coming from a human joke.
So you are not reading and worse, you don't understand Statistics. And you want to discuss. I am not talking to an expert, I am talking to you. Hope you have finished high school at least.
 

Urkezi

Semi-Pro
So you are not reading and worse, you don't understand Statistics. And you want to discuss. I am not talking to an expert, I am talking to you. Hope you have finished high school at least.
Yp, avoid the subject and pray nobody sees how dumb you really are. Well, that ain't happening, buddy. Not only have you become the laughing stock of this thread (at least) when you posted your argument about Federer being in peak condition by supporting it with "I am as fast in my 40's as I was in my 20's", you've also managed to deny any sort of physical decline and attribute literally 1000's of tennis players' retirement to "lack of motivation or injuries". But now you've hit the jackpot. After making a point in 3-4 posts about how "no expert's opinion should be doubted by ants", you've just exposed yourself as a hypocrite. All in a week's time, impressive.

My advice is make a new profile, this one is done for, buddy :)
 

Alien

Hall of Fame
Ok, so it appears that you imply that Hewitt was a better player than Sampras ever was, level-wise? Fine, be my guest. It is ambiguous what you are trying to achieve with quoting House on this - can you elaborate? Is Sampras lying? About himself? About Federer?
On to the next- Why would he lie[about Federer playing better now than in 2006]? I provided the reason why. He is bitter that Federer beat his records. They were close BEFORE that but not after. Since then, he's retracted some of his 'praise' and has made more backhanded 'compliments'. You also ask what would it do to him if he said Federer is weak. I don't know. He hasn't said that. However, by saying Federer is better now than ever while not winning any slams, he is implying that weakER version of Federer won his slams in an era that lacked the current competion that he is facing and thus Sampras can still claim to be the greater player with fewer slams.

Lastly, the sycophantic fanboyism attempting to compare me to an ant is really curious. First, interestingly, if an ant holds opposite views to yours, it would win a good number of the arguments as we humans are wrong a lot and looking at the positions you are defending here, the ant is winning imo. Second, do you feel like every single thing that a high-ranking person or authority says is correct and shouldn't be questioned? If Trump is winning the republican race so far and I am not, then are Trump's views on politics more correct than mine? Yours? Or do you believe everything he says too?
No, I am not implying Hewitt was better. I personally believe tennis level evolution goes upward but in a seesaw. He brought something new to the table and he surprised Pete. The latter retired so he had no time to adjust.

Trump cannot lecture you on politics. He can lecture you a lot about how to win elections or sort of. Or being a billionaire. Or on real estate.
 
Top