Stats - precedence over sport?

[Azure]

It’s hard to disagree with any existing stats really, that’s part of the problem here.

Every stat we have ultimately boils down to who won and lost, which we already know.

Few stats yield any interesting information on why and how they won/lost.

You’re right.

It’s just not much fun talking about truisms.

That's called cherry picking.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

That's called cherry picking.

I can consume cherries, they just aren’t my favourite fruit

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Thank you but threads on looks and boobs get more hits

Stats on looks and boobs would probably be the holy grail.

 

[Pheasant]

Stats are interesting but overused in determining "greatness".

Baseball is my greatest love so I have to start with that --- Take H2H stats for example... Pedro Martinez, Hall of Famer and one of the greatest pitchers that ever stood on a mound was owned by some very sub-par guys -- Enrique Wilson is the first one that comes to mind. He had a career .244 BA against everyone else but against Pedro he hit .440. Was Enrique a GOAT because he consistently kicked the arse of an ATG? No, he was just a below average hitter that had an ATG's number. H2H is overused. It doesn't always determine the better overall player not in baseball OR tennis.

And career totals can be overrated too -- Sandy Koufax, another Hall of Famer and true ATG but because he retired at 30, retired with only 165 wins that number has him tied at 208th all-time in most wins. 208th!

Now anyone that ever saw Sandy Koufax (before my time) or Pedro Martinez pitch knew they were witnessing two of the greatest that ever lived, even if some stat head could show marked weaknesses if they so chose.

The same holds true for tennis. Most GS ever is a lovely number but Bjorn Borg only had 11 (because he retired at 26) does that mean he was a lesser player than Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Djokovic and Roy Emerson. Hell no. It means he retired while he was still in his prime. No single stat or in many cases even a group of cherry-picked stats prove anything besides someone likes numbers and is desperate to prove a point. # of GS, # of Masters, H2H, longevity, years of domination, weeks at number one... take any group of numbers you want and you can make it prove whatever you like.

Me, I'll chose my GOAT with my eyes.

Great post! Also, it is great to see another baseball fan. We are becoming extinct.

 

[Pheasant]

We cannot accurately compare eras. Players can play longer due to huge advances in medicine, diet, and training. Also , the surfaces are far more homogenized, which allows the same style to carry over to all 4slam events. Ivan Lendl actually skipped the FO a few years so that he could practice his game on grass for a longer period of time. He needed to change his game. And Ivan won 3 FO titles. As a matter of fact, even track and field records cannot be compared. Jesse Owens ran on a dirt and cinder track with heavier shoes and clothing and no starting blocks. An experiment was done. Andre Degrasse, a man that won a bronze medal in the 100 meter dash at the 2016 Olympics, decided to run 100 meters under Jesse Owens’ conditions. He had to ditch his dimpled and more aerodynamic clothes, his lighter shoes, starting blocks,and the super fast composite track. He ran an 11.0, which is a universe away from the 9.91that he ran under modern conditions. Now granted, he probably would have gotten closer to Owens’ 10.3 had he practiced a lot more running under these conditions. But we learned that comparing track and field times is like comparing apples and oranges. Many track and field gurus that I am acquainted with consider Bullet Bob Hayes the fastest runner ever. He ran a 10.02 on a garbage track with heavier shoes and less aerodynamic clothing. But at least he had starting blocks.

Everybody is obssessed with records. As kids, we were obsessed with breaking the high score On a video game. A new record high temperature will make the front page of the newspaper and people will talk about it for days.

 

[Ann]

Great post! Also, it is great to see another baseball fan. We are becoming extinct.

We are across the country but it's still thriving in Boston.

 

[insideguy]

We are across the country but it's still thriving in Boston.

I actually think its just fine. People are always predicting the demise of a sport. I actually kind tire of hearing it. Heck you can see it here with tennis every other day.

 

[Ann]

I actually think its just fine. People are always predicting the demise of a sport. I actually kind tire of hearing it. Heck you can see it here with tennis every other day.

Tennis will survive globally but unless an American steps up in the next couple of years its popularity will continue to diminish here. I'm now up to 3 streaming subscriptions and the sports package with cable to be able to watch matches. If it gets anymore unpopular I'll have to give up food to be able to afford to watch it.

 

[Azure]

We cannot accurately compare eras. Players can play longer due to huge advances in medicine, diet, and training. Also , the surfaces are far more homogenized, which allows the same style to carry over to all 4slam events. Ivan Lendl actually skipped the FO a few years so that he could practice his game on grass for a longer period of time. He needed to change his game. And Ivan won 3 FO titles. As a matter of fact, even track and field records cannot be compared. Jesse Owens ran on a dirt and cinder track with heavier shoes and clothing and no starting blocks. An experiment was done. Andre Degrasse, a man that won a bronze medal in the 100 meter dash at the 2016 Olympics, decided to run 100 meters under Jesse Owens’ conditions. He had to ditch his dimpled and more aerodynamic clothes, his lighter shoes, starting blocks,and the super fast composite track. He ran an 11.0, which is a universe away from the 9.91that he ran under modern conditions. Now granted, he probably would have gotten closer to Owens’ 10.3 had he practiced a lot more running under these conditions. But we learned that comparing track and field times is like comparing apples and oranges. Many track and field gurus that I am acquainted with consider Bullet Bob Hayes the fastest runner ever. He ran a 10.02 on a garbage track with heavier shoes and less aerodynamic clothing. But at least he had starting blocks.

Everybody is obssessed with records. As kids, we were obsessed with breaking the high score On a video game. A new record high temperature will make the front page of the newspaper and people will talk about it for days.

Very nice post. I agree with what you say that we are wired to tune into breaking records. It's just that it has become an obsession of sorts in tennis of late because of 4 people - fed, Rafa, Nole and Serena. It may have helped with popularity of the sport but the players may not be necessarily enjoying them at this stage.

 

[Azure]

Tennis will survive globally but unless an American steps up in the next couple of years its popularity will continue to diminish here. I'm now up to 3 streaming subscriptions and the sports package with cable to be able to watch matches. If it gets anymore unpopular I'll have to give up food to be able to afford to watch it.

At the same time a Chinese player is enough to make it one of the most popular sport. It will also encourage so many more kids from Asia to pick the sport. Nishikori I hear is huge in Japan.

 

[Steve0904]

Having never contributed to goat threads on this forum, I feel that I am missing out a major driver of the sport.

Any sport is driven by stats - highest goals in a year in football, number of world championships in F1, number of centuries in cricket...the list is endless in each sport and so it is with our sport too.

In tennis, more so than in other sports it is almost an insult to compare eras owing to the political scene that existed in the past eras, the skewed importance to certain slams, surfaces of the courts at slams changing to the mere homogenisation coupled with great strides made in medicine and technology today.

The past few years - starting from 2005 have been a lot about records - will Fed overtake Pete, will Rafa overtake Borg, will Djokovic lead h2h against these two and now the very notion of greatness is being justified by stats.

Federer looks highly disgruntled on the courts and there's no doubt that he wants to keep the record, Rafa clearly is chasing slam record and the fact that physical limitations are out to get him are clearly frustrating to him. Djokovic, if he is close to eclipsing these two in the records and god forbid he faces problems, we are going to see a very angry man on the courts.

Are we killing the joy of watching players play without the need to chase something on the courts? How vital are stats other than for armchair critics to evaluate? On the flip side, if there were no stats do you think the players wouldn't be motivated enough? If so, how did the past greats even play without such driving forces?

Discuss.

Great thread first off. I've said the following many times here now in the last number of years. Stats aren't the end all be all for me. I've always enjoyed watching Federer play. I know he wants to keep the slam record, and I want him to keep it too, but it won't change my opinion at all if he loses it. He's the reason I started watching tennis, and he's actually the reason I'll continue to watch after he retires because I watch matches now that have nothing to do with Federer.

I'd also like the slam race narrative to jump off a cliff and die, but it won't. Not until all 3 are retired, and it's getting worse since no new players can actually win a slam, and even if they did, they'd have to win the CYGS (or 3 out of 4 without a Big 3 win at the other slam) and show true domination over all of the Big 3 to truly change the narrative since that would be the only way it might look like all of them are actually finished winning slams.

It's sad really because while I don't actually feel for the younger guys, it's at the point now where even if one of them wins one slam, people will just consider it a fluke and go on talking about the slam race at the next slam.

About the stats themselves, I think stats are pretty cool because I'm a math major myself, but I do hate the essence with which many fans/fanboys/fangirls use them around here. The GS Total stat is important yes, other stats are important too, but those stats are only used because they're the easiest for people to understand, and people like simple. They know 20 is the target now, and they know that the gods will sing the praises of their favourite player if he ever ties and/or surpasses it, and that's really all they want, with the added side benefit of seeing that cretin that has the record now lose it, never to get it back again. The more extreme fans in particular. Or glory hunters if you prefer.

As far as past greats go, I would say that they didn't necessarily play for records, but they did play for the slams they considered most important back in the day (i.e Wimbledon for most of them) even if they didn't have a "target" as such. They also played for money since they weren't making near as much, and certainly not in endorsements.

But I do think stats have always motivated players and will continue to do so. I believe Sampras retired when he realized Agassi would never catch him if his life depended on it and that if Agassi was within striking distance Sampras would've played for a few more years. I think it's obvious that while Federer does in fact love the game of tennis, he is still playing because of Nadal, and now to a lesser extent, Djokovic.

But again, I love the idea behind this thread.

 

[nolefam_2024]

As Stats are not made out of thin air, every slam these players won, or every final they made, they have created memories.

More stats, more memories.

Anyway, the players are probably getting more grumpy because they are advancing in age and can't play as well as they hope to.

Still Novak was pretty calm after the win. He is not under any extra pressure to chess slam record. He has his own records to make.

 

[Azure]

Great thread first off.

Thank you, this is a wonderful post. I have tried to address some of the points you state here.

I've said the following many times here now in the last number of years. Stats aren't the end all be all for me. I've always enjoyed watching Federer play. I know he wants to keep the slam record, and I want him to keep it too, but it won't change my opinion at all if he loses it. He's the reason I started watching tennis, and he's actually the reason I'll continue to watch after he retires because I watch matches now that have nothing to do with Federer.

Which is why a fan like you is much more useful for the sport in general because here you have an idol who brought you joy and knowledge beyond the sport itself. Federer is a gift - a once in a lifetime athlete that I love to watch. To watch him or the other greats in full flight and confidence is a joy to behold. Its almost as if someone is scripting their win in the perfect way.

I'd also like the slam race narrative to jump off a cliff and die, but it won't. Not until all 3 are retired, and it's getting worse since no new players can actually win a slam, and even if they did, they'd have to win the CYGS (or 3 out of 4 without a Big 3 win at the other slam) and show true domination over all of the Big 3 to truly change the narrative since that would be the only way it might look like all of them are actually finished winning slams.

I don't mind the asserted lack of will or thirst in the lower ranked players. It will come one day. Its not that the sport is dying, with so much money and fame to be earned, there are lots of players out there and a few will break the ranks soon. I have watched a few more dominant eras in other sports as well and I know that there can never be a dull period forever.

It's sad really because while I don't actually feel for the younger guys, it's at the point now where even if one of them wins one slam, people will just consider it a fluke and go on talking about the slam race at the next slam.
Not something I worry about because one slam wonders are so easily dismissed (as if!) but yes, I agree in general.


About the stats themselves, I think stats are pretty cool because I'm a math major myself, but I do hate the essence with which many fans/fanboys/fangirls use them around here. The GS Total stat is important yes, other stats are important too, but those stats are only used because they're the easiest for people to understand, and people like simple. They know 20 is the target now, and they know that the gods will sing the praises of their favourite player if he ever ties and/or surpasses it, and that's really all they want, with the added side benefit of seeing that cretin that has the record now lose it, never to get it back again. The more extreme fans in particular. Or glory hunters if you prefer.

Ah!! @Hydrocella a man after our own heart!

I agree with your last line, glory hunters indeed.

As far as past greats go, I would say that they didn't necessarily play for records, but they did play for the slams they considered most important back in the day (i.e Wimbledon for most of them) even if they didn't have a "target" as such. They also played for money since they weren't making near as much, and certainly not in endorsements.

Now this is tricky to deal with here. They did not play for records but they played to win the most prestigious titles. Today these guys, as much as they love the sport, are playing for the numbers rather than the winning. No matter how many times Federer has been asked this question of which of his wins has been the best, he says its his first wimbledon - never the 14th slam. Clearly, the joy of winning something is higher than the joy of 'breaking' something. Something to ponder, perhaps.

But I do think stats have always motivated players and will continue to do so. I believe Sampras retired when he realized Agassi would never catch him if his life depended on it and that if Agassi was within striking distance Sampras would've played for a few more years. I think it's obvious that while Federer does in fact love the game of tennis, he is still playing because of Nadal, and now to a lesser extent, Djokovic.

I still largely blame the american media for hyping this all up.

But again, I love the idea behind this thread.

 

[Azure]

As Stats are not made out of thin air, every slam these players won, or every final they made, they have created memories.

More stats, more memories.

Anyway, the players are probably getting more grumpy because they are advancing in age and can't play as well as they hope to.

Still Novak was pretty calm after the win. He is not under any extra pressure to chess slam record. He has his own records to make.

I don't know how young or old you are. I don't know if you've ever seen a 45 year old Navratilova on a doubles court in wimbledon. She wasn't chasing records. She was playing to win but most importantly she was playing because her life was for that sport only. She did not look unhappy or forced to be there. Being grumpy because of advancing age is a sign of frustration for sure. It may be the case with Fed and Rafa. Nole is still not close to the end of slam count. If he looks just as happy then as now, I will be glad for him. I hope he is not playing for the numbers though. The fake notion of immortality is as real as the reflection of the moon in water.

 

[Steve0904]

Now this is tricky to deal with here. They did not play for records but they played to win the most prestigious titles. Today these guys, as much as they love the sport, are playing for the numbers rather than the winning. No matter how many times Federer has been asked this question of which of his wins has been the best, he says its his first wimbledon - never the 14th slam. Clearly, the joy of winning something is higher than the joy of 'breaking' something. Something to ponder, perhaps.

I was actually going to mention something like this in my previous post, and then forgot it all the longer I went on.

It seems to me you're correct. I think of the women's side lately for example. Woz and Halep in particular showed great joy this year. Kerber winning Wimbledon for the first time, and Osaka as well. Let's not forgot she hugged her mom for a solid minute before she said she was "sorry" for winning. Many first time winners seem happier than the ones that have done it before, to me. Understandable perhaps, but in my mind nothing beats the sheer joy of a first time winner. You will never be able to wipe the smiles off their faces if you talk about those tournaments. Ivanisevic and Roddick as examples on the men's side. Obviously Ivanisevic's is legendary, but I won't forget Roddick's either, and the way he hugged that trophy. It was very memorable.

Contrast that to the way Federer talks about breaking Sampras's record. I'm sure he's happy enough, don't get me wrong, but he often talks about having a target himself, because of Sampras, and not being able to compare eras.

Also agree with the American media line.

 

[Azure]

I was actually going to mention something like this in my previous post, and then forgot it all the longer I went on.

It seems to me you're correct. I think of the women's side lately for example. Woz and Halep in particular showed great joy this year. Kerber winning Wimbledon for the first time, and Osaka as well. Let's not forgot she hugged her mom for a solid minute before she said she was "sorry" for winning. Many first time winners seem happier than the ones that have done it before, to me. Understandable perhaps, but in my mind nothing beats the sheer joy of a first time winner. You will never be able to wipe the smiles off their faces if you talk about those tournaments. Ivanisevic and Roddick as examples on the men's side. Obviously Ivanisevic's is legendary, but I won't forget Roddick's either, and the way he hugged that trophy. It was very memorable.

Contrast that to the way Federer talks about breaking Sampras's record. I'm sure he's happy enough, don't get me wrong, but he often talks about having a target himself, because of Sampras, and not being able to compare eras.

Also agree with the American media line.

You reminded me why I like mathematicians what's your major in math?

 

[Steve0904]

You reminded me why I like mathematicians what's your major in math?

It's a Bachelor of Science actually, with a joint major in applied math and physics. Working towards being a teacher.

 

[Azure]

It's a Bachelor of Science actually, with a joint major in applied math and physics. Working towards being a teacher.

Nice..very nice. Applied math makes more sense to me than pure math lol. I am not bright enough to understand pure math much Applied math makes sense coupled with Physics too. Good luck!

 

[Steve0904]

Nice..very nice. Applied math makes more sense to me than pure math lol. I am not bright enough to understand pure math much Applied math makes sense coupled with Physics too. Good luck!

Applied Math makes much more sense to me as well. After all, you have to be smart to understand pure math.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I don't know how young or old you are. I don't know if you've ever seen a 45 year old Navratilova on a doubles court in wimbledon. She wasn't chasing records. She was playing to win but most importantly she was playing because her life was for that sport only. She did not look unhappy or forced to be there. Being grumpy because of advancing age is a sign of frustration for sure. It may be the case with Fed and Rafa. Nole is still not close to the end of slam count. If he looks just as happy then as now, I will be glad for him. I hope he is not playing for the numbers though. The fake notion of immortality is as real as the reflection of the moon in water.

One thing is we don't know if these are behaving agitated under pressure.

Second, Martina tried hard to get that 10th Wimbledon and didn't succeed. She didn't give up. Same as Federer and Nadal. Not giving up got Federer 3 more slams. So I don't know why they should stop trying.

Finally everyone of them is playing for love of tennis. Agassi did with all his back issues, Federer and Nadal are doing right now. They are successful despite the limitations. They are ready to commit. So its part of their career and should not be avoided.

 

[insideguy]

Tennis will survive globally but unless an American steps up in the next couple of years its popularity will continue to diminish here. I'm now up to 3 streaming subscriptions and the sports package with cable to be able to watch matches. If it gets anymore unpopular I'll have to give up food to be able to afford to watch it.

See I kinda disagree with this. I have tennis channel and see much more tennis than I ever did when I was younger. The us open and Indian wells sell more tickets than ever, the other us tournaments all do well.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

The reason why people look up to stats is because its always exciting to see next hurdle to be overcome! I can't tell you exactly why, but its like a drug! Once you take it, it stays! When i was younger and wasn't fan of particular player or more players on the tour i had the same mindset as you, that game matters more! But the closer your favorites get to particular records, the more milestones they achieve, the more you root them to reach new heights over and over again, until there is no more records to chase! Like i said, its like a drug and its very addictive! Thats my personal take! Obviously i am not saying game doesn't matter at all, but one doesn't undermine the other!

 

[Ann]

See I kinda disagree with this. I have tennis channel and see much more tennis than I ever did when I was younger. The us open and Indian wells sell more tickets than ever, the other us tournaments all do well.

I don't get tennis channel only tennis channel plus (as a streaming subscription) because my cable provider won't carry tennis channel. That's how popular tennis is in my area.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Great thread first off. I've said the following many times here now in the last number of years. Stats aren't the end all be all for me. I've always enjoyed watching Federer play. I know he wants to keep the slam record, and I want him to keep it too, but it won't change my opinion at all if he loses it. He's the reason I started watching tennis, and he's actually the reason I'll continue to watch after he retires because I watch matches now that have nothing to do with Federer.

I'd also like the slam race narrative to jump off a cliff and die, but it won't. Not until all 3 are retired, and it's getting worse since no new players can actually win a slam, and even if they did, they'd have to win the CYGS (or 3 out of 4 without a Big 3 win at the other slam) and show true domination over all of the Big 3 to truly change the narrative since that would be the only way it might look like all of them are actually finished winning slams.

It's sad really because while I don't actually feel for the younger guys, it's at the point now where even if one of them wins one slam, people will just consider it a fluke and go on talking about the slam race at the next slam.

About the stats themselves, I think stats are pretty cool because I'm a math major myself, but I do hate the essence with which many fans/fanboys/fangirls use them around here. The GS Total stat is important yes, other stats are important too, but those stats are only used because they're the easiest for people to understand, and people like simple. They know 20 is the target now, and they know that the gods will sing the praises of their favourite player if he ever ties and/or surpasses it, and that's really all they want, with the added side benefit of seeing that cretin that has the record now lose it, never to get it back again. The more extreme fans in particular. Or glory hunters if you prefer.

As far as past greats go, I would say that they didn't necessarily play for records, but they did play for the slams they considered most important back in the day (i.e Wimbledon for most of them) even if they didn't have a "target" as such. They also played for money since they weren't making near as much, and certainly not in endorsements.

But I do think stats have always motivated players and will continue to do so. I believe Sampras retired when he realized Agassi would never catch him if his life depended on it and that if Agassi was within striking distance Sampras would've played for a few more years. I think it's obvious that while Federer does in fact love the game of tennis, he is still playing because of Nadal, and now to a lesser extent, Djokovic.

But again, I love the idea behind this thread.

Thank you, this is a wonderful post. I have tried to address some of the points you state here.

I've said the following many times here now in the last number of years. Stats aren't the end all be all for me. I've always enjoyed watching Federer play. I know he wants to keep the slam record, and I want him to keep it too, but it won't change my opinion at all if he loses it. He's the reason I started watching tennis, and he's actually the reason I'll continue to watch after he retires because I watch matches now that have nothing to do with Federer.

Which is why a fan like you is much more useful for the sport in general because here you have an idol who brought you joy and knowledge beyond the sport itself. Federer is a gift - a once in a lifetime athlete that I love to watch. To watch him or the other greats in full flight and confidence is a joy to behold. Its almost as if someone is scripting their win in the perfect way.

I'd also like the slam race narrative to jump off a cliff and die, but it won't. Not until all 3 are retired, and it's getting worse since no new players can actually win a slam, and even if they did, they'd have to win the CYGS (or 3 out of 4 without a Big 3 win at the other slam) and show true domination over all of the Big 3 to truly change the narrative since that would be the only way it might look like all of them are actually finished winning slams.

I don't mind the asserted lack of will or thirst in the lower ranked players. It will come one day. Its not that the sport is dying, with so much money and fame to be earned, there are lots of players out there and a few will break the ranks soon. I have watched a few more dominant eras in other sports as well and I know that there can never be a dull period forever.

It's sad really because while I don't actually feel for the younger guys, it's at the point now where even if one of them wins one slam, people will just consider it a fluke and go on talking about the slam race at the next slam.
Not something I worry about because one slam wonders are so easily dismissed (as if!) but yes, I agree in general.


About the stats themselves, I think stats are pretty cool because I'm a math major myself, but I do hate the essence with which many fans/fanboys/fangirls use them around here. The GS Total stat is important yes, other stats are important too, but those stats are only used because they're the easiest for people to understand, and people like simple. They know 20 is the target now, and they know that the gods will sing the praises of their favourite player if he ever ties and/or surpasses it, and that's really all they want, with the added side benefit of seeing that cretin that has the record now lose it, never to get it back again. The more extreme fans in particular. Or glory hunters if you prefer.

Ah!! @Hydrocella a man after our own heart!

I agree with your last line, glory hunters indeed.

As far as past greats go, I would say that they didn't necessarily play for records, but they did play for the slams they considered most important back in the day (i.e Wimbledon for most of them) even if they didn't have a "target" as such. They also played for money since they weren't making near as much, and certainly not in endorsements.

Now this is tricky to deal with here. They did not play for records but they played to win the most prestigious titles. Today these guys, as much as they love the sport, are playing for the numbers rather than the winning. No matter how many times Federer has been asked this question of which of his wins has been the best, he says its his first wimbledon - never the 14th slam. Clearly, the joy of winning something is higher than the joy of 'breaking' something. Something to ponder, perhaps.

But I do think stats have always motivated players and will continue to do so. I believe Sampras retired when he realized Agassi would never catch him if his life depended on it and that if Agassi was within striking distance Sampras would've played for a few more years. I think it's obvious that while Federer does in fact love the game of tennis, he is still playing because of Nadal, and now to a lesser extent, Djokovic.

I still largely blame the american media for hyping this all up.

But again, I love the idea behind this thread.

I was actually going to mention something like this in my previous post, and then forgot it all the longer I went on.

It seems to me you're correct. I think of the women's side lately for example. Woz and Halep in particular showed great joy this year. Kerber winning Wimbledon for the first time, and Osaka as well. Let's not forgot she hugged her mom for a solid minute before she said she was "sorry" for winning. Many first time winners seem happier than the ones that have done it before, to me. Understandable perhaps, but in my mind nothing beats the sheer joy of a first time winner. You will never be able to wipe the smiles off their faces if you talk about those tournaments. Ivanisevic and Roddick as examples on the men's side. Obviously Ivanisevic's is legendary, but I won't forget Roddick's either, and the way he hugged that trophy. It was very memorable.

Contrast that to the way Federer talks about breaking Sampras's record. I'm sure he's happy enough, don't get me wrong, but he often talks about having a target himself, because of Sampras, and not being able to compare eras.

Also agree with the American media line.

This is precisely the reason I love tennis.

While much of the current talk is centred around this or that person when you dig right into things many of us also enjoy how it is played - the science and math of it, the emotion of it, for some of us even the culture of it, because of its global popularity.

Wins and losses on their own, as we saw in earlier generations, in a simpler bygone era, are just one little part.

People may not always have thought very deeply about the forces at work on them. It’s enough for many to like or dislike it.

I blame Sir Isaac Newton, renowned inventor of the milled-edged coin and cat flap.

 

[insideguy]

I don't get tennis channel only tennis channel plus (as a streaming subscription) because my cable provider won't carry tennis channel. That's how popular tennis is in my area.

Odd its on any satellite companies channel list in my area. I have direct tv and before that I had another company and both of them had it.

 

[Ann]

Odd its on any satellite companies channel list in my area. I have direct tv and before that I had another company and both of them had it.

What odd? It's not part of Xfinity.

 

[Deleted member 756486]

I think stats are a good way to determine a player’s greatness if I’m honest.

Some people will watch Santoro or Monfils and think they must be the greatest player of all time just because they have a flashy game.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

I think stats are a good way to determine a player’s greatness if I’m honest.

Some people will watch Santoro or Monfils and think they must be the greatest player of all time just because they have a flashy game.

I am confident at some level everyone can agree with this.

How would it even work?

Imagine some of the wiki entries:

Federer: some tennis player
Nadal: some tennis player
Graf: some tennis player
Agassi: some bald tennis player
MacEnroe: some angry tennis player
Borg: some tennis player with great hair
Laver: some tennis player before HD TV
Court: some racist tennis player

 

[Azure]

This is precisely the reason I love tennis.

While much of the current talk is centred around this or that person when you dig right into things many of us also enjoy how it is played - the science and math of it, the emotion of it, for some of us even the culture of it, because of its global popularity.

Wins and losses on their own, as we saw in earlier generations, in a simpler bygone era, are just one little part.

People may not always have thought very deeply about the forces at work on them. It’s enough for many to like or dislike it.

I blame Sir Isaac Newton, renowned inventor of the milled-edged coin and cat flap.

If the apple would have fallen on my head,rest assured it would have gone straight to my tummy. As a kid I used to think there were several Newtons like Newton senior, newton junior etc because he was so ubiquitous in science. Every chapter in physics and math had his reference. Imagine my shock when I came to know that it was just one man!

 

[Azure]

One thing is we don't know if these are behaving agitated under pressure.

Second, Martina tried hard to get that 10th Wimbledon and didn't succeed. She didn't give up. Same as Federer and Nadal. Not giving up got Federer 3 more slams. So I don't know why they should stop trying.

Finally everyone of them is playing for love of tennis. Agassi did with all his back issues, Federer and Nadal are doing right now. They are successful despite the limitations. They are ready to commit. So its part of their career and should not be avoided.

Hi Nachiket, I think there's a subtle difference that I am alluding to. There's no doubt that champions have and will push themselves. Chasing a number is quite different from wanting to win the precious trophy. If Nadal would have won the USO, his joy of winning the trophy would have been diminished because most of the media and fans are going to point out to how close he is to 20, therefore he would imnediately have the next next next on mind. That's not healthy. I don't know if I am making sense here.

 

[Azure]

I think stats are a good way to determine a player’s greatness if I’m honest.

Some people will watch Santoro or Monfils and think they must be the greatest player of all time just because they have a flashy game.

We are talking about greats who are actually quite close in 'greatness' if you may. It's not just eye test. Winning is the true hallmark but winning 19 or 20 is not.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

If the apple would have fallen on my head,rest assured it would have gone straight to my tummy. As a kid I used to think there were several Newtons like Newton senior, newton junior etc because he was so ubiquitous in science. Every chapter in physics and math had his reference. Imagine my shock when I came to know that it was just one man!

I don’t know what you’re talking about.

I’m talking about the cat flap. A device of utmost cunning and invention. A door within a door.

Gravity was there as well, I suppose. Though that, of course, was merely a discovery. They even keep it on at weekends. Someone was bound to notice sooner or later.

The cat flap ah there’s a different matter. Invention, pure creative invention. It is a door within a door you see.

 

[Azure]

I don’t know what you’re talking about.

His real genius was the catflap. A device of utmost cunning and invention. A door within a door, you see.

Gravity was there as well, I supposed. Though that, of course, was merely a discovery. They even keep it on at weekends. Someone was bound to notice sooner or later.

The catflap ah there’s a different matter. Invention, pure creative invention. It is a door within a door you see.

yeah just throw out gravitation, Newton's laws, corpuscular theory, calculus...all out of the cat flap!

 

[Deleted member 742196]

yeah just throw out gravitation, Newton's laws, corpuscular theory, calculus...all out of the cat flap!

Look around the internet you’ll see why the cat flap is his most impressive invention.

A door within a door.

 

[Azure]

Look around the internet you’ll see why the cat flap is his most impressive invention.

A door within a door.

That's infiniteverse...like John Malkovich!

 

[Lukhas]

Tennis stats?

They’re stuck in some bygone era. Seriously, have we seen any real advancement of stats in the last decade with all this incredible technology at our fingertips?

I remember reading in an online article from French newspaper l'Équipe that you had to pay to access the stats harvested by the Hawk-Eye, and they didn't have a subscription. Fairly obviously, the first few comments in the comment section were on why on Earth a sports newspaper wouldn't pay to get those stats... There's a huge gap between what the SlamTracker application during slams makes available and the average stat sheet from the ATP/WTA, where they pick a few stats at the end of a set that basically tell you nothing new. So it's most likely a money issue as to why no one seems to bother with getting those stats. Nevermind that they have to be sorted and analysed by an human operator after all.

Anyway, maybe you're aware of that website, but I can at least recommend taking a look at Tennis Abstract and its Match Charting Project if you like statistical analysis, and especially the blog which has some interesting case studies. I don't necessarily agree with every position the author takes, but overall it's really good.
http://www.tennisabstract.com/

 

[nolefam_2024]

Hi Nachiket, I think there's a subtle difference that I am alluding to. There's no doubt that champions have and will push themselves. Chasing a number is quite different from wanting to win the precious trophy. If Nadal would have won the USO, his joy of winning the trophy would have been diminished because most of the media and fans are going to point out to how close he is to 20, therefore he would imnediately have the next next next on mind. That's not healthy. I don't know if I am making sense here.

What you are saying makes sense for a Boris Becker, at 18, feeling pressure. Or a Simona Halep, who is mentally weak.

Nadal is 32 now. He has had multiple injury breaks.
Djokovic has had an injury break. He learnt to have patience.

Federer, the lucky SOB, even he had an injury break. He was ready to retire at AO 2017.

In my opinion, these players are now very mature. They are not phased by opinions of others.

What they are doing right now is for 2 reasons.
They are good at it.
They can still post some big results.

That's what Novak said in his press.

"I don't want to compare my year to any other year, or think about how much sacrifice I have to make to get to that level etc. I want to create results as good as I can from this moment. Play hard, play smart and THRIVE."

I think that's how mature people will think. Of course they want to break all records. But they are not 20 something.

Novak has 2 kids which is his priority. Roger, Andy both too. That actually shows in their interviews now. And that's good.


There are no Nolefam live chat videos anymore, no impersonations. He is pretty much business all the time. Even his facebook, twitter and instagram accounts are run by someone. Nole probably had twitter earlier than all top players and he used to post himself.

 

[nolefam_2024]

BTW pressure is good.

Novak played under pressure in Cincinnati. Played 4 BO3 matches back to back and won his trophy as he wanted to be first man to win all 9 masters.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

That's infiniteverse...like John Malkovich!

Long before that attention seeking poof Einstein with his hole this and bridge that and a very long time before that hater Schrödinger imagined torturing cats with radiation, Sir Isaac Newton wanted to have afternoon tea peacefully while allowing life to get on with its business.

Few things today would even be possible without his cat flap. If Egyptians had them, all this might be happening in hieroglyphics.

How would that be for your statistics?

 

[Azure]

BTW pressure is good.

Novak played under pressure in Cincinnati. Played 4 BO3 matches back to back and won his trophy as he wanted to be first man to win all 9 masters.

I like the goofy Novak. I kind of miss that personality

 

[Azure]

Long before that attention seeking poof Einstein with his hole this and bridge that and a very long time before that hater Schrödinger imagined torturing cats with radiation, Sir Isaac Newton wanted to have afternoon tea peacefully while allowing life to get on with its business.

Few things today would even be possible without his cat flap. If Egyptians had them, all this might be happening in hieroglyphics.

How would that be for your statistics?

Schrodinger was a nice old man when he started thinking about cats. Wouldn't associate bazookas with him. I have a soft corner for him. His greatness dawned on him long after he finished his phd. Gives hopes for lowlifes like us

 

[Azure]

BTW pressure is good.

Novak played under pressure in Cincinnati. Played 4 BO3 matches back to back and won his trophy as he wanted to be first man to win all 9 masters.

I had made the conjecture in my original post. You seem to be taking the second view that stats are motivators for the greats. Fair enough. I hope they are happy though. The first time I felt that the record chasing wasn't helping was when Fed broke down at AO '09. He had won the USO and was in the finals but the number 14 was weighing heavily on him. As Rafa and Nole are chasing him, I see the grumpy version of Fed again. I hope its temporary though.

 

[RaulRamirez]

No doubt but in the process she has had a breakdown of sorts. Is this the cost?

Yes, but she (and other players) have had breakdowns/meltdowns without being that close to Everest's peak. I'll reflect more on your OP, but for now, I'd simply say that the greats (of all sports) are not only phenomenally talented but also intensely competitive individuals.

 

[RaulRamirez]

If you talk about sex in a statistical way, what happens?
Magic getting lost.

Tennis is not sex, but its not too far off a comparison.

So...is tennis a form of sex, but with more love and an equal amount of bagels?

 

[RaulRamirez]

Great post! Also, it is great to see another baseball fan. We are becoming extinct.

Me, three - huge baseball fan. I will say, though, (and while I got Ann's greater point), that head-to-heads in tennis - especially among a few greats - are much more telling than the occasional pitcher/batter matchup.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Having never contributed to goat threads on this forum, I feel that I am missing out a major driver of the sport.

Any sport is driven by stats - highest goals in a year in football, number of world championships in F1, number of centuries in cricket...the list is endless in each sport and so it is with our sport too.

In tennis, more so than in other sports it is almost an insult to compare eras owing to the political scene that existed in the past eras, the skewed importance to certain slams, surfaces of the courts at slams changing to the mere homogenisation coupled with great strides made in medicine and technology today.

The past few years - starting from 2005 have been a lot about records - will Fed overtake Pete, will Rafa overtake Borg, will Djokovic lead h2h against these two and now the very notion of greatness is being justified by stats.

Federer looks highly disgruntled on the courts and there's no doubt that he wants to keep the record, Rafa clearly is chasing slam record and the fact that physical limitations are out to get him are clearly frustrating to him. Djokovic, if he is close to eclipsing these two in the records and god forbid he faces problems, we are going to see a very angry man on the courts.

Are we killing the joy of watching players play without the need to chase something on the courts? How vital are stats other than for armchair critics to evaluate? On the flip side, if there were no stats do you think the players wouldn't be motivated enough? If so, how did the past greats even play without such driving forces?

Discuss.

I didn't see this thread prior to today, and the OP brought up a lot of different issues, with the full discussion adding a lot more elements - even before dissecting Newton's theories, laws and innovations. All in all, a good, fun thread.

I'll wade into some of these waters. Does the chasing of records diminish the joy of the achievement itself? For example, right after winning this year's Wimbledon, was Novak enjoying his great feat and the acknowledgment that he is on the road back to the top, which I'm sure he was...or was that joy/satisfaction diminished by the internal/external "Oh sh*t, 4 more (at the time) to Rafa, and 7 more to Roger." It's hard to know the answer to that, but these guys (and the stars of the WTA, as well) are remarkable athletes with a huge drive to compete and achieve. Now, some may enjoy the process - and the hard work - more than others. I think this is true for all sports, team and individual alike.

Has all the metrics...especially as it relates to the MYTHICAL GOAT...diminished the joy of simply watching tennis and enjoying the game? My quick answer is "yes", or at least it's changed the conversations, and not only on message boards like this. Ever since I was a kid, and an incurable sports fan (first baseball, American football, basketball and hockey - and then tennis), it was common to debate who was the better team, the better players, etc. Since perhaps forever, I and others would debate the all-time baseball team (position by position), basketball team, etc.

It seems like a fairly recent phenomenon, though, that we have started debating GOATs in each sport. And it gets silly and quasi-destructive when we not only can't enjoy the games/matches themselves and have an almost pathological need for our favorites to win. I think that the very first mention of "GOAT" I ever heard was from Muhammad Ali (the greatest showman and charismatic self-promoting athlete ever) who would declare, "I am the greatest of all times!" That said, the need for pundits to declare "GOATs" didn't seen to arise in earnest till decades later.

What's so unique about men's tennis is that we have three all-time greats who have played more matches head-to-head than any other duos - all of whom can lay some claim to this title based on accomplishments and just a little projection. It's different than golf when Tiger was (is) still chasing Jack's 18 majors because he didn't compete with the likes of Fed/Rafa/Novak, and golf isn't usually head to head.

(Sorry for the length of this post). Here's where this all gets weird for me - in no part. order of annoyance:

• when we'd rather hear about a result than watch a match because we're too nervous to watch it
• when it seems as if our self-esteem is riding on a game or match
• A sub-point to that: A few times, I've seen fans congratulating other fans when their favorite wins a title. I probably only have three close friends who I can discuss tennis with, For what it's worth, all are Fed fans, with differing levels of tennis knowledge and objectivity. One may congratulate me when Rafa or Novak wins a title, to which I want to say, "What the hell did I accomplish?"
• when it's almost to the point where you need to disparage other players' achievements to artificially bolster your own guy...or when it becomes a binary world where you're either the GOAT (subjective as that is) or not very good.

 

[Azure]

I didn't see this thread prior to today, and the OP brought up a lot of different issues, with the full discussion adding a lot more elements - even before dissecting Newton's theories, laws and innovations. All in all, a good, fun thread.

I'll wade into some of these waters. Does the chasing of records diminish the joy of the achievement itself? For example, right after winning this year's Wimbledon, was Novak enjoying his great feat and the acknowledgment that he is on the road back to the top, which I'm sure he was...or was that joy/satisfaction diminished by the internal/external "Oh sh*t, 4 more (at the time) to Rafa, and 7 more to Roger." It's hard to know the answer to that, but these guys (and the stars of the WTA, as well) are remarkable athletes with a huge drive to compete and achieve. Now, some may enjoy the process - and the hard work - more than others. I think this is true for all sports, team and individual alike.

Has all the metrics...especially as it relates to the MYTHICAL GOAT...diminished the joy of simply watching tennis and enjoying the game? My quick answer is "yes", or at least it's changed the conversations, and not only on message boards like this. Ever since I was a kid, and an incurable sports fan (first baseball, American football, basketball and hockey - and then tennis), it was common to debate who was the better team, the better players, etc. Since perhaps forever, I and others would debate the all-time baseball team (position by position), basketball team, etc.

It seems like a fairly recent phenomenon, though, that we have started debating GOATs in each sport. And it gets silly and quasi-destructive when we not only can't enjoy the games/matches themselves and have an almost pathological need for our favorites to win. I think that the very first mention of "GOAT" I ever heard was from Muhammad Ali (the greatest showman and charismatic self-promoting athlete ever) who would declare, "I am the greatest of all times!" That said, the need for pundits to declare "GOATs" didn't seen to arise in earnest till decades later.

What's so unique about men's tennis is that we have three all-time greats who have played more matches head-to-head than any other duos - all of whom can lay some claim to this title based on accomplishments and just a little projection. It's different than golf when Tiger was (is) still chasing Jack's 18 majors because he didn't compete with the likes of Fed/Rafa/Novak, and golf isn't usually head to head.

(Sorry for the length of this post). Here's where this all gets weird for me - in no part. order of annoyance:

• when we'd rather hear about a result than watch a match because we're too nervous to watch it
• when it seems as if our self-esteem is riding on a game or match
• A sub-point to that: A few times, I've seen fans congratulating other fans when their favorite wins a title. I probably only have three close friends who I can discuss tennis with, For what it's worth, all are Fed fans, with differing levels of tennis knowledge and objectivity. One may congratulate me when Rafa or Novak wins a title, to which I want to say, "What the hell did I accomplish?"
• when it's almost to the point where you need to disparage other players' achievements to artificially bolster your own guy...or when it becomes a binary world where you're either the GOAT (subjective as that is) or not very good.

Thank you and I don't mind the length of the post when it has pertinent questions in its labyrinth of words.

Don't mind @Hydrocella . He is always out to derail this thread but never succeeds and Newton helps keeping this thread alive long after he has left his mortal body.

So, back to tennis. You seem to feel that this goat debate is fervent now and especially true of the current era while some other posters have unceremoniously dumped it on Lendl and Sampras and myself on the American media. Team sports is different. Atleast in some sense it's a shared burden and that is one reason why I prefer singles to doubles in tennis as well. It's as much a mental battle out there as its physical.

Now, the grouse that you seem to have about this whole brouhaha about this goat drivel is centered around what many would call glory hunters. I can understand liking a player and hoping to see him win but I don't understand the disparaging of an athlete on account of that.

My whole concern is from an athlete's perspective and I have moaned and belaboured the point quite a few times in this very thread. It's almost as if these great players are not playing for the joy or love of the game anymore, but out of a sense of insecurity.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Thank you and I don't mind the length of the post when it has pertinent questions in its labyrinth of words.

Don't mind @Hydrocella . He is always out to derail this thread but never succeeds and Newton helps keeping this thread alive long after he has left his mortal body.

So, back to tennis. You seem to feel that this goat debate is fervent now and especially true of the current era while some other posters have unceremoniously dumped it on Lendl and Sampras and myself on the American media. Team sports is different. Atleast in some sense it's a shared burden and that is one reason why I prefer singles to doubles in tennis as well. It's as much a mental battle out there as its physical.

Now, the grouse that you seem to have about this whole brouhaha about this goat drivel is centered around what many would call glory hunters. I can understand liking a player and hoping to see him win but I don't understand the disparaging of an athlete on account of that.

My whole concern is from an athlete's perspective and I have moaned and belaboured the point quite a few times in this very thread. It's almost as if these great players are not playing for the joy or love of the game anymore, but out of a sense of insecurity.

I tried to answer your main concern in my second paragraph, and while it's all speculative (even if the greats spoke in public to that question), it's a worthy query. I guess a similar question would be, Does the media's and the public's agenda, if you will (i.e. constant GOAT talk) distort the players' own goals?" I think it's a slightly different question, and I'd like your perspective on that.

To me, to be a Federer, or Rafa or Djokovic (and to a lesser extent Murray, Stan and a few others), you must be extremely driven to succeed, and outdo your rivals. Rafa has spoken about just being healthy and confident enough to compete at the highest levels. It seems to me that Federer enjoys all of the trappings that surround the game more than Rafa, and probably even more than Novak does. So, Fed enjoys the process, the interviews, being an ambassador, locker room camaraderie, the whole nine. I'm not taking a shot at him, but I also think (while I think he's a good guy) that he loves being adored, etc. There's a certain entitlement and arrogance there that I don't see in the others.

By impressions, I think Rafa may more of a pure competitor. I think all 3 love the game, but Rafa could take or leave all the other trappings that surround it. Novak is probably in the middle, but I think he's also more of a life searcher who is a little more intellectual and spiritual (and interesting) by nature. Perhaps, his slump had to do with that as much as injuries (though I think he was confronting an injury for the first time in a long time) and other rumored marital strains, etc. He also put so much into winning the "Nole Slam" and finally taking RG, that he was due for a slide, but he probably questioned a lot of this "stuff", and how important it is, as well.

So, what does all this ruminating mean? I think that they all enjoy the process of becoming better and they are all competitive enough to be in the conversation of "GOAT", whether they truly give it credence or not. Even as a dad of four, Fed's fire still burns and his health and style of play has him playing at a very high level at age 37. I get the sense that bagging the most majors may be the most important to him as he's used to being regarded as the "GOAT" and had that province to himself for several years. Perhaps, Novak wants it just as badly, as he was in both of their shadows for so long, and had to be cocky just to believe he could get to the top, which of course he did. He's never had the acceptance level of Rafa let alone Roger, and still fights the outsider stigma. Does this diminish his joy of winning? I don't know. And Rafa? I think it would mean a lot to him to get it, but somehow, he just wants to win every match he steps on the court for.

 

[Azure]

I tried to answer your main concern in my second paragraph, and while it's all speculative (even if the greats spoke in public to that question), it's a worthy query. I guess a similar question would be, Does the media's and the public's agenda, if you will (i.e. constant GOAT talk) distort the players' own goals?" I think it's a slightly different question, and I'd like your perspective on that.

I like this question better actually. There is no doubt that the media is distorting the player's goals. Look at the number of times the players are asked about the same numbers over and over again. Most players dream of winning a slam and the special ones, and some. The greatest or the elite players bring something refreshing to the sport, they lift them to levels hitherto unseen. When we stack additional goals for them to reach, its bound to get to them. They thrive in competition and rivalry but not in mythical stats that anoint them as the greatest. Rafa is a competitor and he revels in the fight on court but the pressure of getting to 20 is huge on his mind. It doesn't help when his former coach has often alluded to it as well.

To me, to be a Federer, or Rafa or Djokovic (and to a lesser extent Murray, Stan and a few others), you must be extremely driven to succeed, and outdo your rivals. Rafa has spoken about just being healthy and confident enough to compete at the highest levels. It seems to me that Federer enjoys all of the trappings that surround the game more than Rafa, and probably even more than Novak does. So, Fed enjoys the process, the interviews, being an ambassador, locker room camaraderie, the whole nine. I'm not taking a shot at him, but I also think (while I think he's a good guy) that he loves being adored, etc. There's a certain entitlement and arrogance there that I don't see in the others.

Federer thrives in the limelight. There is no question about that and that is partly what makes him a more endearing champion than Sampras who hated the publicity that is a natural byproduct of success in popular sport.

By impressions, I think Rafa may more of a pure competitor. I think all 3 love the game, but Rafa could take or leave all the other trappings that surround it. Novak is probably in the middle, but I think he's also more of a life searcher who is a little more intellectual and spiritual (and interesting) by nature. Perhaps, his slump had to do with that as much as injuries (though I think he was confronting an injury for the first time in a long time) and other rumored marital strains, etc. He also put so much into winning the "Nole Slam" and finally taking RG, that he was due for a slide, but he probably questioned a lot of this "stuff", and how important it is, as well.

All the three and many many more love the sport. Rafa would compete till he breaks down and then he is going to literally walk into the sunset and rarely look back. That's the vibes I get from his personality. Federer will continue to be associated with tennis and be a spectator, sharing seats with other greats watching the younger guys lifting trophies. Novak without doubt is the middle guy sort of. An intelligent man questions a lot of things in life and we have seen that in him, which is what makes him a more unconventional champion.

So, what does all this ruminating mean? I think that they all enjoy the process of becoming better and they are all competitive enough to be in the conversation of "GOAT", whether they truly give it credence or not. Even as a dad of four, Fed's fire still burns and his health and style of play has him playing at a very high level at age 37. I get the sense that bagging the most majors may be the most important to him as he's used to being regarded as the "GOAT" and had that province to himself for several years. Perhaps, Novak wants it just as badly, as he was in both of their shadows for so long, and had to be cocky just to believe he could get to the top, which of course he did. He's never had the acceptance level of Rafa let alone Roger, and still fights the outsider stigma. Does this diminish his joy of winning? I don't know. And Rafa? I think it would mean a lot to him to get it, but somehow, he just wants to win every match he steps on the court for.

My two cents - Fed is the greatest in his own mind. Articles like what the writer Wallace had written must have got to him for sure and he has been sort of enjoying the epithet for a while but he also knows that there is every possibility that the title may not last because a silly stat called total slam haul. Now why this number is as important as it is, I squarely blame the media, especially the American. I don't think Fed needs to worry about the slam haul because his achievements are not confined to that alone but I don't think my view is the popular sentiment. Rafa is like a single mined bull at this point. He clearly wants it. Again, he has so many other great achievements that he needn't worry about his legacy but either he has been reading this forum or his uncle has. As for Novak, a slightly more balanced individual, I think he will feel the same pressure when he inches towards the overall slam count. I hope he doesn't. I don't talk about these three alone. In the midst of all the talk on the men's side, Serena on the women's side is facing the same bottled up pressure. She wants Court's record...badly.

Bottom line, while they are all such great competitors and thrive on the court, they are chasing mythical unicorns.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Cool story! But when its all said and done, its the records people look up to...not quite unicorns, eh? So when someone enters the arena, commentators give a rundown info on who holds an all-time record, so that person gets the spotlight! You get spotlight - it keeps you relevant even when your career is finished! It is as simple as that, why iys so damn hard to grasp? Lol