Some facts regarding the weak/strong Era discussion

[Nickzor]

So I dunno if someones already put these stats up somewhere but i haven't seen it anywhere so I'll chuck these up here, first I'll say this is in no way a GOAT thread nor am I insinuating who's the GOAT, GOAT discussions are just silly to me.

During Pete Sampras career, in all of his 14 Grandslam wins, he faced a total of 14 players in Grand Slam finals, there were 6 players that had a Grand Slam title, here's the list, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Becker, Chang, Courier and Moya
, of the 6 there were 3 players who were multi-Slam winners, Agassi, Courier and Becker

The total number of Grand Slam titles owned by players that Sampras beat in finals is 23 , Agassi with 8, Becker with 6, Courier with 4, Rafter with 2, Chang with 1, Moya with 1 and Ivanisevic with 1

Now for Federer

During Roger Federer's career, in all of his 17 Grand slam wins, he faced a total of 17 players in Grand Slam finals, of the 17 there were 7 players whom had won a Grand Slam title, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, and of the 7 they are 6 players who are multi Slam winners, Safin, Hewitt, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray

In Federer's case the total number of Grand Slam titles owned by players that Federer beat in Slam Finals is 34 , Nadal with 13, Agassi with 8, Djokovic with 6, Murray with 2, Safin with 2, Hewitt with 2 and Roddick with 1

I mean you can't exactly say that Federer's or this Era of tennis is weak if you look at these stats, nor is Sampras Era too

I've only included the Slams of Sampras and Federer as a list including Masters and WTF's would be a little too comprehensive and the Slams are the best indicator as players always play there best in Grand Slam tournaments

Just for a fun fact Nadal has beaten just 2 players in Slam Finals who actually have Slam titles themselves and they are Federer and Djokovic, talk about monopolization of Grand Slams between the big 3

 

[captainbryce]

During Pete Sampras career, in all of his 14 Grandslam wins, he faced a total of 14 players in Grand Slam finals, there were 6 players that had a Grand Slam title, here's the list, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Becker, Chang, Courier and Moya, of the 6 there were 3 players who were multi-Slam winners, Agassi, Courier and Becker

The total number of Grand Slam titles owned by players that Sampras beat in finals is 22 , Agassi with 8, Becker with 6, Courier with 4, Chang with 1, Moya with 1 and Rafter with 1

You forgot Goran Ivanisevic, who won Wimbledon in 2001. Also Rafter won two slams, not one (1997 and 1998 US Open).

Just for a fun fact Nadal has beaten just 2 players in Slam Finals who actually have Slam titles themselves and they are Federer and Djokovic,

However, he did LOSE to someone in a final other than Federer and Djokovic who has a slam title. Stanislas Wawrenka!

 

[Nickzor]

You forgot Goran Ivanisevic, who won Wimbledon in 2001. Also Rafter won two slams, not one (1997 and 1998 US Open).

However, he did LOSE to someone in a final other than Federer and Djokovic who has a slam title. Stanislas Wawrenka!

Oh yeh thanks, I forgot Rafter won 2 slams, i knew that in the back of my head though, hehe

 

[Manus Domini]

There are, however, numerous problems with your heuristics. Let's take only your stats on grand slam winners the player faces in finals.

Let's say Undisputed Goat is literally the best tennis player to ever grace the earth, and is literally invincible on the court (that is, no one, no matter how good, can defeat him). Now, let's say all slam players retire for some reason. Let's further say that Goat wins all slams for seven years (that is, seven Grand Slams, accumulating 28 consecutive majors). Let's also say that all of Goat's opponents are of equal calibre, and are second in ability only to Goat. That is, every single opponent Goat faces would always beat Sampras, Federer, Nadal, you name it. They are so good, in fact, that they almost defeat Undisputed Goat in every match.

Now, these superstar players have never won slams, but are better than any player in history. Does their combined lack of majors really affect the legitimacy of Goat's domination?

 

[NEW_BORN]

Why only look at the opponents faced in the final??

For instance if an unseeded newcomer happens to beat Nadal in the 1st round of RG and goes on to win the tournament by beating 6 other unseeded chumps, do we still focus on who this guy beat in the final round?

Come on, use some common sense.

 

[sbengte]

Why only look at the opponents faced in the final??

For instance if an unseeded newcomer happens to beat Nadal in the 1st round of RG and goes on to win the tournament by beating 6 other unseeded chumps, do we still focus on who this guy beat in the final round?

Come on, use some common sense.

This. It is meaningless to look at only final opponents, as if we are still in the pre- open era. A slam is won playing 7 matches, not 1. Many a time , a QF or SF opponent may be tougher than the opponent in the final.

 

[NEW_BORN]

This. It is meaningless to look at only final opponents, as if we are still in the pre- open era. A slam is won playing 7 matches, not 1. Many a time , a QF or SF opponent may be tougher than the opponent in the final.

Exactly. The most logical way would be to look at the highest ranked opponent faced on route to the title and not focus on any one particular round.

 

[Manus Domini]

Exactly. The most logical way would be to look at the highest ranked opponent faced on route to the title and not focus on any one particular round.

Yes and no.

I mean, let's say someone aside from Rafa won RG 2008.

Is the player who beat the 1, 3, 5, 9 and 17 seed better than the one who only beat clay-goat Rafa in the first round, but didn't play a seeded player since?

 

[sbengte]

Exactly. The most logical way would be to look at the highest ranked opponent faced on route to the title and not focus on any one particular round.

My point is why limit to one opponent , as in look only at the highest ranked opponent ?

Let's take the most recent example. Wawrinka beat #2 and #1 (and also Berdych) on the way to his AO title. Why should he get credit for only one of the two wins ? Both should count.

 

[NEW_BORN]

Yes and no.

I mean, let's say someone aside from Rafa won RG 2008.

Is the player who beat the 1, 3, 5, 9 and 17 seed better than the one who only beat clay-goat Rafa in the first round, but didn't play a seeded player since?

It's impossible to come up with a criteria that everyone will agree upon.

But if a player beat 1, 3, 5, 9 and 17 on route to winning the title, then who's to say he wouldn't have beaten Nadal as well?

In this instance this player definitely had it tougher than the guy who only beat Nadal in R1 but did not face another seeded player on route to him winning the title.

 

[NEW_BORN]

My point is why limit to one opponent , as in look only at the highest ranked opponent ?

Let's take the most recent example. Wawrinka beat #2 and #1 (and also Berdych) on the way to his AO title. Why should he get credit for only one of the two wins ? Both should count.

For sure, the whole tournament and every opponent the winner faced (as well as their opponents' level of play) should be taken into consideration when it comes to analysing the difficulty of a particular draw.

 

[TMF]

Should count all 7 matches.

There's a reason for Rosol, Darcis at 2012/13 Wimbledon , Soderling 2009 RG, or Federer 2001 Wimbledon. Any player can lose in any round. This is not the 60s when the field lacks depth.

 

[NEW_BORN]

However, he did LOSE to someone in a final other than Federer and Djokovic who has a slam title. Stanislas Wawrenka!

If Wawrinka ever got together with Azarenka...Wawrenka will be born.

 

[Manus Domini]

It's impossible to come up with a criteria that everyone will agree upon.

But if a player beat 1, 3, 5, 9 and 17 on route to winning the title, then who's to say he wouldn't have beaten Nadal as well?

In this instance this player definitely had it tougher than the guy who only beat Nadal in R1 but did not face another seeded player on route to him winning the title.

Ok, that's true. Let's say that a player wins RG by only playing non-seeded 2008-Rafa-level opponents. Isn't that a more worthy victory?

 

[mtshishimbi]

Guys, you're missing a simple point that invalidates the strong/weak era argument (aside from the fact that there is no concrete definition of an era). The ONLY way for an "era" to be OBJECTIVELY stronger is for the best in the "era" to lost MORE often, thereby strengthening the era...so does it makes sense that by losing MORE you're considered a greater champion?

That just doesn't makes sense at all and is completely contradictory to the whole point of sports. The objective is to WIN MORE, not less.

 

[Candide]

So I dunno if someones already put these stats up somewhere but i haven't seen it anywhere so I'll chuck these up here, first I'll say this is in no way a GOAT thread nor am I insinuating who's the GOAT, GOAT discussions are just silly to me.

During Pete Sampras career, in all of his 14 Grandslam wins, he faced a total of 14 players in Grand Slam finals, there were 6 players that had a Grand Slam title, here's the list, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Becker, Chang, Courier and Moya
, of the 6 there were 3 players who were multi-Slam winners, Agassi, Courier and Becker

The total number of Grand Slam titles owned by players that Sampras beat in finals is 23 , Agassi with 8, Becker with 6, Courier with 4, Rafter with 2, Chang with 1, Moya with 1 and Ivanisevic with 1

Now for Federer

During Roger Federer's career, in all of his 17 Grand slam wins, he faced a total of 17 players in Grand Slam finals, of the 17 there were 7 players whom had won a Grand Slam title, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, and of the 7 they are 6 players who are multi Slam winners, Safin, Hewitt, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray

In Federer's case the total number of Grand Slam titles owned by players that Federer beat in Slam Finals is 34 , Nadal with 13, Agassi with 8, Djokovic with 6, Murray with 2, Safin with 2, Hewitt with 2 and Roddick with 1

I mean you can't exactly say that Federer's or this Era of tennis is weak if you look at these stats, nor is Sampras Era too

I've only included the Slams of Sampras and Federer as a list including Masters and WTF's would be a little too comprehensive and the Slams are the best indicator as players always play there best in Grand Slam tournaments

Just for a fun fact Nadal has beaten just 2 players in Slam Finals who actually have Slam titles themselves and they are Federer and Djokovic, talk about monopolization of Grand Slams between the big 3

I'm not crazy about the bean counting premise of your argument here, however, as it's designed as a rebuttal of a bunch of Chartered Nadal Accountants I think it's worthwhile. Their whole M.O. is based on the risible idea that somehow between the retirement of Sampras and the blooming of the Mallorcan Bullock everyone in the world forgot how to hold a tennis racquet - except Roger Federer: the luckiest man in the history of world sport according to them.

Their proof? Peter Bodo swept down from Mt. Sinai with it inscribed on the back of a post-it and he wrote it in a tennis magazine to fill a contractual commitment and generate a bit of a kerfuffle which is what sports writers generally do. Nothing against him, I assume he never said he was the messiah.

So, in that case, nice countin'.

 

[NEW_BORN]

Ok, that's true. Let's say that a player wins RG by only playing non-seeded 2008-Rafa-level opponents. Isn't that a more worthy victory?

I don't think so.

Beating a higher ranked opponent, especially say back-back top10 players is not an easy task. It actually takes an incredible amount of both physical and mental conditioning to pull off such a feat.

On the other hand, when you face an unseeded player, even if they are playing lights out tennis, you always feel like you can make a comeback because you see yourself as the better player.

 

[Manus Domini]

Guys, you're missing a simple point that invalidates the strong/weak era argument (aside from the fact that there is no concrete definition of an era). The ONLY way for an "era" to be OBJECTIVELY stronger is for the best in the "era" to lost MORE often, thereby strengthening the era...so does it makes sense that by losing MORE you're considered a greater champion?

That just doesn't makes sense at all and is completely contradictory to the whole point of sports. The objective is to WIN MORE, not less.

Err, what? This isn't a reply, and is easily countered by the same logic that allows the weak era theory to exist.

There are much better arguments against the weak era than this. Much better.

 

[Manus Domini]

I don't think so.

Beating a higher ranked opponent, especially say back-back top10 players is not an easy task. It actually takes an incredible amount of both physical and mental conditioning to pull off such a feat.

On the other hand, when you face an unseeded player, even if they are playing lights out tennis, you always feel like you can make a comeback because you see yourself as the better player.

This might be generally true, but it is not always true. It is easier to beet #1 seeded Sampras on clay than a non-seeded Borg, for example.

 

[NEW_BORN]

This might be generally true, but it is not always true. It is easier to beet #1 seeded Sampras on clay than a non-seeded Borg, for example.

Yeah i agree with you on this example, but as long as it's not completely washed-up Borg.

 

[Manus Domini]

Yeah i agree with you on this example, but as long as it's not completely washed-up Borg.

I dunno. I think Borg today would still beat Sampras on clay.

 

[vernonbc]

Now for Federer

During Roger Federer's career, in all of his 17 Grand slam wins, he faced a total of 17 players in Grand Slam finals, of the 17 there were 7 players whom had won a Grand Slam title, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, and of the 7 they are 6 players who are multi Slam winners, Safin, Hewitt, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray

In Federer's case the total number of Grand Slam titles owned by players that Federer beat in Slam Finals is 34 , Nadal with 13, Agassi with 8, Djokovic with 6, Murray with 2, Safin with 2, Hewitt with 2 and Roddick with 1

Your premise is widely skewed to favour Federer. What you should be counting is the number of slams that Federer's (or Sampras) opponents had won at the time Fed or Pete won their particular slam final. I mean you can hardly count all 13 of Nadals career slam wins as a credit to Federer in 2006 and 2007 when Fed hasn't beaten him in any slam since then when they were both very different players. When Fed beat him at Wimbledon, Nadal only had 2 and then 3 slams.

My totals for Federer would be:
AO:
2004 - Safin 1
2006 - Baghdatis 0
2007 - Gonzalez 0
2010 - Murray 0
FO:
2009 - Soderling 0
Wimb:
2003 - Philippoussis - 0
2004 - Roddick - 1
2005 - Roddick - 1
2006 - Nadal - 2
2007 - Nadal - +1 = 3
2009 - Roddick -1
2012 - Murray - 0
USO:
2004 - Hewitt - 2
2005 - Agassis - 8
2006 - Roddick - 1
2007 - Djokovic - 0
2008 - Murray - 0

Therefore Federer's total is 15.

Totals for Nadal:
AO:
2009 - Federer - +2 = 9
FO:
2005 - Puerto - 0
2006 - Federer -7
2007 - Federer - +1 = 10
2008 - Federer - +1 = 11
2010 - Soderling - 0
2011 - Federer - +5 = 16
2012 - Djokovic - +4 = 5
2013 - Ferrer - 0
Wimb:
2008 - Federer - +1 = 12
2010 - Berdych - 0
USO :
2010 - Djokovic - 1
2013 - Djokovic - +1 = 6

Therefore Nadals number is 23.

(Too much work to try and do Djokovic's or anyone else's. )

 

[sbengte]

You know very well that looking at only the final opponent's credentials is meaningless when a guy beats 7 players to win a slam , but you still went into all that trouble to make those lists ? Good for you.

 

[mellowyellow]

AHAHAHA, the amount of time ***** will spend defending their doped hero. This is priceless shi t here

 

[shakes1975]

So I dunno if someones already put these stats up somewhere but i haven't seen it anywhere so I'll chuck these up here, first I'll say this is in no way a GOAT thread nor am I insinuating who's the GOAT, GOAT discussions are just silly to me.

During Pete Sampras career, in all of his 14 Grandslam wins, he faced a total of 14 players in Grand Slam finals, there were 6 players that had a Grand Slam title, here's the list, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Becker, Chang, Courier and Moya
, of the 6 there were 3 players who were multi-Slam winners, Agassi, Courier and Becker

The total number of Grand Slam titles owned by players that Sampras beat in finals is 23 , Agassi with 8, Becker with 6, Courier with 4, Rafter with 2, Chang with 1, Moya with 1 and Ivanisevic with 1

Now for Federer

During Roger Federer's career, in all of his 17 Grand slam wins, he faced a total of 17 players in Grand Slam finals, of the 17 there were 7 players whom had won a Grand Slam title, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, and of the 7 they are 6 players who are multi Slam winners, Safin, Hewitt, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray

In Federer's case the total number of Grand Slam titles owned by players that Federer beat in Slam Finals is 34 , Nadal with 13, Agassi with 8, Djokovic with 6, Murray with 2, Safin with 2, Hewitt with 2 and Roddick with 1

I mean you can't exactly say that Federer's or this Era of tennis is weak if you look at these stats, nor is Sampras Era too

I've only included the Slams of Sampras and Federer as a list including Masters and WTF's would be a little too comprehensive and the Slams are the best indicator as players always play there best in Grand Slam tournaments

Just for a fun fact Nadal has beaten just 2 players in Slam Finals who actually have Slam titles themselves and they are Federer and Djokovic, talk about monopolization of Grand Slams between the big 3

First off, there are no weak eras in a global sport. These guys are professionals and they all play at a high level, a very high level. However, for a variety of reasons, I think some eras are more stronger than others at the top.

My own belief is that the era that Sampras played in - except for 1997 and 1998 - was stronger than the one that Fed played in, due to a few reasons.

1. Variety in playing styles

For most of the 90's, not only were both S & V and baseline play still viable, they were both successfully practiced by the top guys, not just the fringe players.

The die-out, while having something to do with improved strings, slowing down of the surfaces, has a LOT MORE to do with how youngsters are taught and shaped. And this started during the 90's itself. Once Becker, Edberg retired around 1996-1997, for example, you only had Sampras, Rafter and Henman as the sole practitioners of the style at the top.

2. Polarity in surfaces - this goes hand-in-hand with the playing styles - making it difficult to dominate across all surfaces.

3. Seedings - 16 instead of 32.

4. Overlap of greats, as in slam winning champs, from previous eras.

 

[Manus Domini]

Your premise is widely skewed to favour Federer. What you should be counting is the number of slams that Federer's (or Sampras) opponents had won at the time Fed or Pete won their particular slam final. I mean you can hardly count all 13 of Nadals career slam wins as a credit to Federer in 2006 and 2007 when Fed hasn't beaten him in any slam since then when they were both very different players. When Fed beat him at Wimbledon, Nadal only had 2 and then 3 slams.

My totals for Federer would be:
AO:
2004 - Safin 1
2006 - Baghdatis 0
2007 - Gonzalez 0
2010 - Murray 0
FO:
2009 - Soderling 0
Wimb:
2003 - Philippoussis - 0
2004 - Roddick - 1
2005 - Roddick - 1
2006 - Nadal - 2
2007 - Nadal - +1 = 3
2009 - Roddick -1
2012 - Murray - 0
USO:
2004 - Hewitt - 2
2005 - Agassis - 8
2006 - Roddick - 1
2007 - Djokovic - 0
2008 - Murray - 0

Therefore Federer's total is 15.

Totals for Nadal:
AO:
2009 - Federer - +2 = 9
FO:
2005 - Puerto - 0
2006 - Federer -7
2007 - Federer - +1 = 10
2008 - Federer - +1 = 11
2010 - Soderling - 0
2011 - Federer - +5 = 16
2012 - Djokovic - +4 = 5
2013 - Ferrer - 0
Wimb:
2008 - Federer - +1 = 12
2010 - Berdych - 0
USO :
2010 - Djokovic - 1
2013 - Djokovic - +1 = 6

Therefore Nadals number is 23.

(Too much work to try and do Djokovic's or anyone else's. )

First, if Nadal can get better, Federer can get worse. So, that difference is meaningless.

Second, how can Fed beat a slam champion when he's winning all the slams? :neutral:

 

[mellowyellow]

First, if Nadal can get better, Federer can get worse. So, that difference is meaningless.

Second, how can Fed beat a slam champion when he's winning all the slams? :neutral:

It's just a way to spin the weak era into an advantageous stat for Nads. No credit for the guy actually winning them, but credit to the guy beating him. Hypocrisy at its finest, let the PRP treatments continue.....

 

[Smasher08]

Your premise is widely skewed to favour Federer.

So precedes a premise widely skewed to favour Nadal! :lol:

 

[Smasher08]

It's just a way to spin the weak era into an advantageous stat for Nads. No credit for the guy actually winning them, but credit to the guy beating him. Hypocrisy at its finest, let the PRP treatments continue.....

Apparently they're "stem cell therapy" now

 

[mellowyellow]

Apparently they're "stem cell therapy" now

Yes, I know lol, I only mention it because it was hypocritical for governing bodies to allow PRP treatments for professional athletes knowing what they involved. Was just playing off the hypocrisy comment. ..