Slam distribution objectively doesn't matter

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#1
Subjectively, an argument can be made for that winning more evenly in the four slams is more impressive than dominating just one and winning the others to a much lesser degree. Problem is, this can be argued the exact opposite way round. Why is it not more impressive to dominate one of the slams in a degree no man ever has before and still do reasonably well in the others? It's just as subjectively reasonable to say that a player who can dominate at one slam is more impressive than being fairly great in all 4 slams, but outstanding in none. It's an argument of versatility vs otherworldy domination. I would not consider Nadal a better/greater player had he lost 5 of his FO's to Djokovic/Federer and gained 5 slams elsewhere. He'd have a more 'balanced' resume, and be a more 'balanced' player, but by no means be a 'better' or 'greater' player because he still has won the same amount of titles. In fact, you could argue his peak level would be lower, because he could not dominate anywhere.
 
Last edited:

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#7
Well, I included it in the argument that you addressed.

Didn't you read it?

:cool:
Fair enough, I concede your argument can work on a subjective basis, but it isn't relevant to the argument made in this thread. My point can be can be made for any hypothetical player who wins far more at one slam than they do at the others.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#8
Fair enough, I concede your argument can work on a subjective basis, but it isn't relevant to the argument made in this thread. My point can be can be made for any hypothetical player who wins far more at one slam than they do at the others.
Can you make the same argument as in the OP without using the careers of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic?

:cool:
 
#13
Subjectively, an argument can be made for that winning more evenly in the four slams is more impressive than dominating just one and winning the others to a much lesser degree. Problem is, this can be argued the exact opposite way round. Why is it not more impressive to dominate one of the slams in a degree no man ever has before and still do reasonably well in the others? It's just as subjectively reasonable to say that a player who can dominate at one slam is more impressive than being fairly great in all 4 slams, but outstanding in none. It's like praising mediocrity lmao. I would not consider Nadal a better/greater player had he lost 5 of his FO's to Djokovic/Federer and gained 5 slams elsewhere. He'd have a more 'balanced' resume, and be a more 'balanced' player, but by no means be a 'better' or 'greater' player because he still has won the same amount of titles. In fact, you could argue his peak level would be lower, because he could not dominate anywhere.
As a Federer fan I still agree with you.

For example, imagine two players with 20 Slams both:
A) 3-3-3-11
B) 5-5-5-5

Why should player B be better? Only because he "dominates" the other one on 3 of the 4 Slams? No, that wouldn’t value that the dominance of player A on the fourth Slam is way bigger. And that HAS to count for something. That’s why the total number is the best factor already. It evens everything out.
 
Last edited:

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#15
I am asking you whether you can illustrate your idea with tennis players other than Federer, Djokovic and Nadal.

:cool:
Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are the most relevant players today, so this thread would relate most closely to them as they are all increasing their slam counts, and some have a chance of equalling or surpassing others. But this thread can apply to hypothetical players too with the same slam count but with different distributions. But, I thought the OP was general enough to get the point across that this doesn't necessarily have to be about active players, but any players.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#17
Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are the most relevant players today, so this thread would relate most closely to them as they are all increasing their slam counts, and some have a chance of equalling or surpassing others. But this thread can apply to hypothetical players too with the same slam count but with different distributions. But, I thought the OP was general enough to get the point across that this doesn't necessarily have to be about active players, but any players.
So, if it is so, it should be easy for you to illustrate your example, no?

:cool:
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#20
Are these combinations from a safe code? How am I supposed to know what skillset and competition is hidden behind them?

I need real tennis players, with real achievements.

Can you provide me with such an example?

:cool:
If you need real examples of other players, I think you missed the point of the thread, as this is not about the level of competition they faced, but how the distribution of their slam count by itself affects how great a player is.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#21
If you need real examples of other players, I think you missed the point of the thread, as this is not about the level of competition they faced, but how the distribution of their slam count by itself affects how great a player is.
Yes, but if a Majors count is influenced by these trivial matters, how do you compare: you need to compare apples to apples.

If a player won X number of titles you need to know why. You cannot just assume that there is no differentiation in the skillset, and subsequently the results are all the same.

This hypothetical scenario doesn't make sense. It has no substance.

Putting aside the mess you created in the OP with the use of "objective" and "subjective", you use comparative words like "more/less impressive", "better", "greater" etc , which requires a comparison not on paper. At the same time you say that they cannot be compared.

The fact is, you can say for any achievement that it is unique, depending on the measuring stick.

It just happens so that consistent excellence in displaying vastly different tennis skills is historically valued the most in the tennis world. If you value something else, then that is also OK. However, if you want to argue that your measuring stick should be universally accepted, you should make a case why: putting forward numbers without substance won't do it.

:cool:
 
#22
An example of where "distributionists" got a little carried away, in my opinion, is Sampras and Agassi.

I recall reading some writers/pundits rating Andre's career at the same level or higher than Pete's because he had the career GS, and Sampras, of course, never won a FO. Although I rooted for Andre in that matchup, I found that line of thought to be ridiculous.
 
#23
As a Federer fan I still agree with you.

For example, imagine two players with 20 Slams both:
A) 3-3-3-11
B) 5-5-5-5

Why should player B be better? Only because he "dominates" the other one on 3 of the 4 Slams? No, that wouldn’t value that the dominance of player A on the fourth Slam is way bigger. And that HAS to count for something. That’s why the total number is the best factor already. It evens everything out.
Its a tricky one...I like the way Fed has a great spread shall we say....However I like the fact Rafa has won the most physically demanding slam the most (just my opinion)....I suppose total number counts the most....Either way all 3 are great.....
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#24
Yes, but if a Majors count is influenced by these trivial matters, how do you compare: you need to compare apples to apples.

If a player won X number of titles you need to know why. You cannot just assume that there is no differentiation in the skillset, and subsequently the results are all the same.
That is what we are assuming, as assuming otherwise would not be a fair test when looking at how 'slam distribution,' affects greatness, but of how level of competition does. You can make whatever arguments you want based off competition, it's not relevant here.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#26
That is what we are assuming, as assuming otherwise would not be a fair test when looking at how 'slam distribution,' affects greatness, but of how level of competition does. You can make whatever arguments you want based off competition, it's not relevant here.
That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read here.

I guess that Emerson is greater than Borg after all.

:cool:
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#27
That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read here.

I guess that Emerson is greater than Borg after all.

:cool:
Lol, finally the ad hominem attacks come, I was wondering how long it would take.

I'm guessing you were trying to draw a comparison to the level of competition at the AO from the 60's to the FO from 2005-present. By all means, knock yourself out. You can have an opinion when it comes the competition, but as far as slam distribution goes it's irrelevant. You would be making a case for a specific player's slam count being inflated, thus greatness being inflated, because competition was poor at that certain slam, not because their slam resume was 'unbalanced' or distributed unevenly.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#28
Its not praising mediocrity. It’s praising versatility. Of course winning a slam so much shouldn’t be held against you, but when we’re talking about two players on level terms, a player with a more even distribution gets the nod in my eyes.
I appreciate it as a subjective argument for sure, but I could say the same for someone who holds the opposite position.
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#29
Lol, finally the ad hominem attacks come, I was wondering how long it would take.

I'm guessing you were trying to draw a comparison to the level of competition at the AO from the 60's to the FO from 2005-present. By all means, knock yourself out. You can have an opinion when it comes the competition, but as far as slam distribution goes it's irrelevant. You would be making a case for a specific player's slam count being inflated, thus greatness being inflated, because competition was poor at that certain slam, not because their slam resume was 'unbalanced' or distributed unevenly.
I said that that is "one of the dumbest things I have ever read here". It is a comment on the written, not on you.

You might be joking or writing stupid stuff deliberately, I wouldn't know.

So, according to your OP, and considering everything else that you said in this thread, "Slam distribution" is irrelevant, and 12 > 11.

:cool:
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
#30
I appreciate it as a subjective argument for sure, but the same could be said for someone who holds the opposite position.
I support your view. It is an incredible level on particular surface vs versatility+very high level on each surface. 20 vs 4x5 evens out as the magnitude of single surface dominance is so huge that it matches very high level on each surface. it is a trade off.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#31
I support your view. It is an incredible level on particular surface vs versatility+very high level on each surface. 20 vs 4x5 events out as the magnitude of single surface dominance is so huge that it matches very high level on each surface. it is a trade off.
The OP's claim is that these are unrelated, or, rather, that they are two separate claims.

Sorry.

:cool:
 
#33
Its not praising mediocrity. It’s praising versatility. Of course winning a slam so much shouldn’t be held against you, but when we’re talking about two players on level terms, a player with a more even distribution gets the nod in my eyes.
I agree with you that the word "mediocrity" downgrades the achievement(s) and "versatility" is more apt here.

But, I, generally, am not a (my term) "distributionist" - generally, and specifically in Rafa's case. He has proven himself as an easy Hall of Famer, even without counting his unprecedented accomplishments on clay. The game is played by human beings. It can also be credibly suggested that his going "all in" on clay has probably taken away from what he may have achieved elsewhere.

But that aside, if we consider (as the tour does) each of the majors to have an equal value, why should the distribution of those titles matter?
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#34
I said that that is "one of the dumbest things I have ever read here". It is a comment on the written, not on you.

You might be joking or writing stupid stuff deliberately, I wouldn't know.

So, according to your OP, and considering everything else that you said in this thread, "Slam distribution" is irrelevant, and 12 > 11.

:cool:
12 > 11 is a true statement. But if you consider Borg greater than Emerson, then I'm assuming you are doing so based off competition.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#39
We can play with words all day or you can answer the question.

Your call.
Lol, why the hostility? It really doesn't matter which words I used because the argument remains the same anyway, however, in terms of how I used the words in the OP, 11 is the cut-off, but the meaning of exceptional may change in the coming months as the word is just relative to how others perform.
 
Last edited:
#40
Lol, why the hostility? It really doesn't matter which words as I used because the argument remains the same anyway, however, in terms of how I used the words in the OP, 11 is the cut-off, but the meaning of exceptional may change in the coming months as the word is just relative to how others perform.
Must have 11 titles at given slam to be considered exceptional :-D

Gotcha.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
#41
Must have 11 titles at given slam to be considered exceptional :-D

Gotcha.
:unsure: Lol. That's what you got out of this. *pats on the back*

Never used the word 'must' either. Use whatever word you want to, but 11 is on a different level from 7/8, if you got a better word than exceptional, by all means share and I can edit my post.
 
#42
Subjectively, an argument can be made for that winning more evenly in the four slams is more impressive than dominating just one and winning the others to a much lesser degree. Problem is, this can be argued the exact opposite way round. Why is it not more impressive to dominate one of the slams in a degree no man ever has before and still do reasonably well in the others? It's just as subjectively reasonable to say that a player who can dominate at one slam is more impressive than being fairly great in all 4 slams, but outstanding in none. It's like praising mediocrity lmao. I would not consider Nadal a better/greater player had he lost 5 of his FO's to Djokovic/Federer and gained 5 slams elsewhere. He'd have a more 'balanced' resume, and be a more 'balanced' player, but by no means be a 'better' or 'greater' player because he still has won the same amount of titles. In fact, you could argue his peak level would be lower, because he could not dominate anywhere.
Nadal has his Grand Slams more evenly distributed by surface than both Federer and Djokovic. In effect, Nadal has won at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay). Federer and Djokovic only have won 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 Grand Slams on each surface >>>>>> 1 Grand Slam on each surface.

Other than that, your arguments are correct. Federer and Djokovic can be criticized for not being super dominant on any single Grand Slam (none has 10 titles on any Major).
 

alexio88

Professional
#43
:unsure: Lol. That's what you got out of this. *pats on the back*

Never used the word 'must' either. Use whatever word you want to, but 11 is on a different level from 7/8, if you got a better word than exceptional, by all means share and I can edit my post.
dominate or impressive.. maybe
 
#44
It is more impressive to dominate one thing way more than anyone else has before in the history of the sport, than to perform reasonably well everywhere but exceptional nowhere.

:cool:
Well, to be fair Federer has 8 WB (exceptional) and Djokovic 7 AO (exceptional). No one has 8 WB and 7 AO except Fedovic.

The most you can say is that Fedeer and Djokovic never achieved super dominance of any Major (none won 10 titles at one Major).
 

alexio88

Professional
#45
In effect, Nadal has won at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay). Federer and Djokovic only have won 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 Grand Slams on each surface >>>>>> 1 Grand Slam on each surface.

Other than that, your arguments are correct. Federer and Djokovic can be criticized for not being super dominant on any single Grand Slam (none has 10 titles on any Major).
unequal conditions, irrelevant comparison, nadal had 2x attempts per year than djoko(fed)..
better be well-rounded than narrow-focused (not only in tennis but everywhere else)
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#46
It is more impressive to dominate one thing way more than anyone else has before in the history of the sport, than to perform reasonably well everywhere but exceptional nowhere.

:cool:
Well, the one with great slam distribution actually performed exceptionally somewhere.

:cool:
 
#47
Player 1 wins 20 Wimbledons. Player 2 wins each slam five times. You say there is no difference? (Or 4 Wimbledons vs winning each slam once)
 
#48
That would be correct.

They are equal. Winning the US Open 4 times, versus winning each slam once (and let's assume these players did exactly the same in the ones that they did not win - like they went to the QF and lost in each of them)

There is no reason why one would be better than the other.
 
#50
:unsure: Lol. That's what you got out of this. *pats on the back*

Never used the word 'must' either. Use whatever word you want to, but 11 is on a different level from 7/8, if you got a better word than exceptional, by all means share and I can edit my post.
I'll use whatever word I want :cool:
 
Top