tennis eras & the age of posters

[mxmx]

Hi there

Do you guys feel that when discussing tennis eras or how great certain players were, posters' age should be of relevance?

For me it is pointless trying to argue that someone like Rod Laver is the ATG when I have not watched his era in context.

I believe older members probably have a more realistic chance of debating the goat correctly.
The only problem is that many of the older players have not actually played against modern players themselves. Playing tennis does help ones knowledge...but it is not to say non-players do not know what they are talking about either...

 

[JohanLiebert]

True to some extent. We can debate, who the Goat is, but not the Boat.

 

[Bender]

Age is one thing, and you are right to an extent that younger posters may not have the relevant context or understanding of the sport and its players of the past.

However, if we were to place importance on age, we should ideally also consider posters' analytical skills and objectivity--the latter which has proven time and time again to cancel out any benefits that age brings in the form of nostalgia and rose tinted glasses.

The current way of doing things, ie taking the message in the post as opposed to the person making it is far more practical, since there are fewer factors to consider, and because at the end of the day, it's the argument that matters, not the person who is making it.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Some people say that most of the Djoko fans were born after Sampras retired. Could explain things.

 

[BVSlam]

I feel like older posters have just as little right to declare a GOAT as younger ones because they're still random forum members with an opinion that will never turn into a fact. But yes, when discussing someone's level from an earlier era, posters who have actually been able to witness it have a lot more content to bring up, naturally.

 

[hobl4]

I remember when I was a kid in the late 1800's. Boy, that William Renshaw sure knew how to swing a racquet. He was the GOAT, I tell yea, the GOAT!

 

[Phoenix1983]

Most posters tend to state that their first tennis idol is the GOAT, or at least a GOAT contender.

So I've found that it doesn't really matter what age a poster is, they're still going to be biased towards their (usually early) favourites. You can see this by visiting the Former Pro Player forum - retired men arguing endlessly about who was greater out of Rosewall and Hoad.

I am of course one of the few objective posters on this forum. Although Sampras was my first tennis idol, I place him only 3rd in the all-time list.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I am of course one of the few objective posters on this forum. Although Sampras was my first tennis idol, I place him only 3rd in the all-time list.

I wonder though, where do you put yourself in your all-time list of unbiased tennis analysts, hmm?

 

[Phoenix1983]

I wonder though, where do you put yourself in your all-time list of unbiased tennis analysts, hmm?

I think @krosero is probably the GOAT of unbiased posters.

I'm pretty unbiased in most cases except being anti-Djokovic.

 

[tacou]

I think it is less about age and more about the individual's history of watching/being involved with tennis.
I started following the tour seriously around 2004. While I preferred Rafa to Fed, I basically got in just in time to see his amazing run of dominance.
So, it's hard for me to compare anyone else to Federer. The ATGs before him I've only seen via crappy youtube highlights, and the stuff Djokovic is doing now basically just depresses me because I'm reminded of how all the players I fell in love with the sport watching are gone or soon to be gone.

So yeah, it's difficult to remain objective for many reasons, especially if you did not devote the time/emotion to watching players in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc.; how cna you accurately rate those players?
One of the many reasons the GOAT debate interests me none.

 

[nowhereman]

Older members are more knowledgeable and have witnessed more of the game, but what they say is just an opinion just like what we all say here.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Older members are more knowledgeable and have witnessed more of the game, but what they say is just an opinion just like what we all say here.

But therefore some opinions carry more weight!?

 

[nowhereman]

But therefore some opinions carry more weight!?

Yeah that's true too, although not always. I've seen some old posters who are stuck in the past and are completely blinded by nostalgia. Those type of posters aren't too prominent around here though.

 

[NatF]

Older members are more knowledgeable and have witnessed more of the game, but what they say is just an opinion just like what we all say here.

Being influenced by memories and feelings from decades back isn't necessarily helpful. The most knowledgeable members are those that regularly watch old matches in full, read books and have made an effort to do some research on prior era's. In other words someone like me .

Credit to @SpinToWin

 

[nowhereman]

Being influenced by memories and feelings from decades back isn't necessarily helpful. The most knowledgeable members are those that regularly watch old matches in full, read books and have made an effort to do some research on prior era's. In other words someone like me .

Credit to @SpinToWin

You've gone full arrogant-erer mode, how can I trust what you have to say?

 

[augustobt]

Well, it's not only about the age. We see a lot of people who started watching tennis in 2012 (and barely watch matches today apart from GS Finals) commenting about things that happened in 2005 or even before, based on wikipedia and general numbers/stats.

 

[Sysyphus]

yes, there should be a minimum required age to participate with nonsensical opinions about absolutely meaningless gobbledygook.

 

[Jay_The_Nomad]

Well, it's not only about the age. We see a lot of people who started watching tennis in 2012 (and barely watch matches today apart from GS Finals) commenting about things that happened in 2005 or even before, based on wikipedia and general numbers/stats.

Says the guy who joined these boards in 2012.

Just j/k.

 

[Steve0904]

Age is irrelevant. As long as the person seems to have a working knowledge of tennis and doesn't resort to completely asinine arguments to discredit a player they don't like then they're good in my books. Unfortunately, on a forum that has all kinds, those people are few and far between. There's no use arguing with someone who thinks the 70-80's were the best thing since sliced bread and the current era and all the players in it are crap when they obviously aren't. It's also no use arguing with someone who's in love with a particular player (or two) and thinks the other player(s) are not fit to shine his shoes when they obviously are (and in some cases, "other player(s)" are statistically superior).

For example, if you're a 25 year old Federer fan (me) that has no real interest in looking for videos of Sampras matches and you go into an argument and start trashing Sampras without having much of a clue about what you're talking about then your opinion is basically useless. Hence why I don't get involved in many Sampras debates and when I do it's usually general and only scratches the surface of what a real Sampras fan could tell you.

Likewise if you're a 15 year old Djokovic/Nadal fan today who loves the current era and trashes Federer, all the while being about 4-5 years of age when his domination happened first hand. Then your "opinion" really doesn't matter, especially if it's tinged with the old "weak era" bias. Basically the only way you'll even start to be taken seriously is if you come into the debate nicely and with something that passes for a legitimate argument. Which goes back to what I said at the beginning.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Being influenced by memories and feelings from decades back isn't necessarily helpful. The most knowledgeable members are those that regularly watch old matches in full, read books and have made an effort to do some research on prior era's. In other words someone like me .

Credit to @SpinToWin

Now that you mentioned it, him and Nathaniel haven't posted in a while and were also removed from the notable members list. Did they leave permanently or were banned for some reason?

 

[NatF]

Now that you mentioned it, him and Nathaniel haven't posted in a while and were also removed from the notable members list. Did they leave permanently or were banned for some reason?

Not sure about SpinToWin. Nathaniel is just taking some time out, should be back at some point.

 

[Inanimate_object]

I think age is incredibly important and provides valuable context to a poster's opinion. Not insofar as the "GOAT" argument is concerned, as that is a fool's debate, but when we talk about eras and the superstars in those eras and what it felt like to watch them play, you absolutely miss something by looking at old matches and listening to old tennis broadcasters telling you what to think.

There's a sort of collective amnesia in tennis. We know the old names, we know their slam records and we may even know a few matches. But what is lost is the context in which those people played - a context which again and again is abused as young fans assume to supplant the conditions in the past with what they know today. Something most people here are guilty of - and is categorically incorrect.

This is a part why so few younger fans today realize how much of a giant Jimmy Connors was. They don't understand what Borg actually achieved beyond the slams or can't truly evaluate McEnroe's approach to the game. Accordingly, I will never really know Rod Laver's rise and fall. I can read about it, sure. But there's something I'm missing - and why I never comment on that period with any degree of certainty or feigned expertise.

It's endemic here to say Federer has more slams than McEnroe ergo Federer > McEnroe. This sort of reasoning is why knowing the age of a poster is very valuable in contextualizing their opinion.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It's endemic here to say Federer has more slams than McEnroe ergo Federer > McEnroe. This sort of reasoning is why knowing the age of a poster is very valuable in contextualizing their opinion.

You can't compare players like that regardless of what era they belong to, as long as each was the best of his time at some point. Everyone played in their own time. One can clearly say that Federer's singles career is superior to McEnroe's, though. But also one shouldn't outright say without checking the context of the time that Federer had a greater influence on the game than McEnroe, although, in the end, I would expect that to be true, given Federer's colossal fame. What's your observation on that?

 

[Inanimate_object]

You can't compare players like that regardless of what era they belong to, as long as each was the best of his time at some point. Everyone played in their own time. One can clearly say that Federer's singles career is superior to McEnroe's, though. But also one shouldn't outright say without checking the context of the time that Federer had a greater influence on the game than McEnroe, although, in the end, I would expect that to be true, given Federer's colossal fame. What's your observation on that?

I don't know what that means. Everything is contextual - even singles titles. How many slams would McEnroe have won if slams were as important an achievement as they are now? You think he would have skipped the Australian Open (a small tourney on the other side of the world)? I don't know, and that's the point. How many more singles titles would he have won if McEnroe knew doubles achievements were as obscure and trivial as they are now? How many more tournaments would McEnroe have even played had the tournament guarantees been as financially lucrative as those in Federer's time?

This is the sort of thing that is seldom ever considered when young fans try to validate their own status as being contemporary to greatness. Clearly, nothing is clear. I don't know how people make these sort of declarative statements particularly in regards to players whom they have never seen play. Sure people understand that McEnroe had a great 1984, but they don't get how unbelievably surreal it was. In fact even more than what Federer or Djokovic has done. Because we understood why Djokovic and Federer were dominating. Nobody could understand how McEnroe was making all of those shots and how he was reacting as quick as he did. He was playing alien tennis. But no one knows that. No one knows the tourneys he skipped, the battles he had with the tour, the different priorities (mostly financial) back then. All they know is 82-3. And they pretend like its the whole story. But it's not even close!

 

[Phoenix1983]

^ I think you're over-mythologizing Mac a bit there. Yes, his 1984 was one of the greatest seasons of all time, but he was not supernatural - as proven by Lendl in the 1984 FO final.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I don't know what that means. Everything is contextual - even singles titles. How many slams would McEnroe have won if slams were as important an achievement as they are now? You think he would have skipped the Australian Open (a small tourney on the other side of the world)? I don't know, and that's the point. How many more singles titles would he have won if McEnroe knew doubles achievements were as obscure and trivial as they are now? How many more tournaments would McEnroe have even played had the tournament guarantees been as financially lucrative as those in Federer's time?

This is the sort of thing that is seldom ever considered when young fans try to validate their own status as being contemporary to greatness. Clearly, nothing is clear. I don't know how people make these sort of declarative statements particularly in regards to players whom they have never seen play. Sure people understand that McEnroe had a great 1984, but they don't get how unbelievably surreal it was. In fact even more than what Federer or Djokovic has done. Because we understood why Djokovic and Federer were dominating. Nobody could understand how McEnroe was making all of those shots and how he was reacting as quick as he did. He was playing alien tennis. But no one knows that. No one knows the tourneys he skipped, the battles he had with the tour, the different priorities (mostly financial) back then. All they know is 82-3. And they pretend like its the whole story. But it's not even close!

McEnroe played one major fewer but one YEC more, so it evens out. He's got 7+8=15 topmost tournaments. Doesn't get close to Fed's 17+6=23. Fact is, JMac's results dropped sharply after the '86 sabbatical and never got back. It was his own fault that he didn't achieve nearly as much as he could have. I'm not comparing peak McEnroe to peak Federer or anyone - that would be silly, given that apparently for all I know McEnroe in his finest days owned the tour just as much if not a little more. But for overall career Fed and a couple of other well-known guys have the clear edge, because McEnroe fell off mid-career to become a regular non-major-winning top player.

 

[Inanimate_object]

McEnroe played one major fewer but one YEC more, so it evens out. He's got 7+8=15 topmost tournaments. Doesn't get close to Fed's 17+6=23. Fact is, JMac's results dropped sharply after the '86 sabbatical and never got back. It was his own fault that he didn't achieve nearly as much as he could have. I'm not comparing peak McEnroe to peak Federer or anyone - that would be silly, given that apparently for all I know McEnroe in his finest days owned the tour just as much if not a little more. But for overall career Fed and a couple of other well-known guys have the clear edge, because McEnroe fell off mid-career to become a regular non-major-winning top player.

Unfortunately you are doing exactly what I expected would happen...

Collective amnesia, and an eagerness to reframe history in contemporary standards in order to play a loose game of tennis algebra and make horribly confused career venn diagrams.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Unfortunately you are doing exactly what I expected would happen...

Collective amnesia, and an eagerness to reframe history in contemporary standards in order to play a loose game of tennis algebra and make horribly confused career venn diagrams.

Are you saying McEnroe's results did not drop post-1986 sabbatical? What lol, hmm?

 

[mxmx]

I think it is less about age and more about the individual's history of watching/being involved with tennis.
I started following the tour seriously around 2004. While I preferred Rafa to Fed, I basically got in just in time to see his amazing run of dominance.
So, it's hard for me to compare anyone else to Federer. The ATGs before him I've only seen via crappy youtube highlights, and the stuff Djokovic is doing now basically just depresses me because I'm reminded of how all the players I fell in love with the sport watching are gone or soon to be gone.

So yeah, it's difficult to remain objective for many reasons, especially if you did not devote the time/emotion to watching players in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc.; how cna you accurately rate those players?
One of the many reasons the GOAT debate interests me none.

Thanks for the honesty. I feel that people with the most potential to "really know" are retired players who played across various eras. Someone like McEnroe or Courier and Evert. The problem comes that they may have personal bias or agendas and not really be true to the answer. But if they were truly truthful they should have fair reaaons as to who the atg's are (at least in the span of a few decades)

Personally Agassi was always my favourite player until Sampras overtook him in greatness. Federer has made me like Sampras even more. I just feel so many younger folk has not really lived to see the tennis of years gone by...I believe Rf would still have been great years ago...maybe the best...but having watched many matches of both eras should give one better insight as to a person a third my age who only saw one?

I still play tennis and believe the modern strokes and technique are superior...I changed my technique together with the times....modern technique us superior but not the talent. I have seen older players own younger ones in local clubs and local tournaments. To me tennis has declined over the years...culture has changed and people are too busy with other things. Yes there are more players...but to me they are watered down and one dimensional.

 

[Say Chi Sin Lo]

I feel like there should have been an intelligence/IQ test administered to these posters before they were given an account here.

 

[I am the Greatest!]

Says the guy who joined these boards in 2012.

Just j/k.

I joined this board this year but I've been watching tennis since 1995. Is the join date relevant?

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Unfortunately you are doing exactly what I expected would happen...

Collective amnesia, and an eagerness to reframe history in contemporary standards in order to play a loose game of tennis algebra and make horribly confused career venn diagrams.

Yikes. Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic are all superior to Mcenroe. Are you seriously saying one can't have that opinion without all the biases and flaws you are ascribing? That's just ridiculous.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I'm pretty sure I read a post from Nathaniel talking about a change in work schedule.

yes, there should be a minimum required age to participate with nonsensical opinions about absolutely meaningless gobbledygook.

I'm too old to talk about Djokovic.

 

[JRAJ1988]

Most posters tend to state that their first tennis idol is the GOAT, or at least a GOAT contender.

So I've found that it doesn't really matter what age a poster is, they're still going to be biased towards their (usually early) favourites. You can see this by visiting the Former Pro Player forum - retired men arguing endlessly about who was greater out of Rosewall and Hoad.

I am of course one of the few objective posters on this forum. Although Sampras was my first tennis idol, I place him only 3rd in the all-time list.

Lol with that said, I really don't think Andy Murray is the GOAT or GOAT contender, more of a TWOAT.

 

[mxmx]

Lol with that said, I really don't think Andy Murray is the GOAT or GOAT contender, more of a TWOAT.

Perhaps if Murray had more conventional good looks, people would like him more. Too many people have boy crushes on RF hehe. I guess that's part of the reason I liked Capriati, Hingis and Sabatini. I did prefer Seles to Graf though...

 

[Russeljones]

Hi there

Do you guys feel that when discussing tennis eras or how great certain players were, posters' age should be of relevance?

For me it is pointless trying to argue that someone like Rod Laver is the ATG when I have not watched his era in context.

I believe older members probably have a more realistic chance of debating the goat correctly.
The only problem is that many of the older players have not actually played against modern players themselves. Playing tennis does help ones knowledge...but it is not to say non-players do not know what they are talking about either...

Posters born in the 90's should be more reserved with their opinions.

 

[mxmx]

Yikes. Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic are all superior to Mcenroe. Are you seriously saying one can't have that opinion without all the biases and flaws you are ascribing? That's just ridiculous.

I think people are severely underestimating how good he was. He may have had a weak forehand but he was extremely intelligent on court.

Edit: people should relook the match between Mac and Roddick to see what I mean.

 

[Russeljones]

Yikes. Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic are all superior to Mcenroe. Are you seriously saying one can't have that opinion without all the biases and flaws you are ascribing? That's just ridiculous.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I wonder how you would support it, however.

 

[heninfan99]

mostly yes. It is the same with the music we prefer.
You have to have a real love for music or tennis to go beyond your era or country or origin.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I wonder how you would support it, however.

I could cite all the usual metrics and statistics which all 3 of Fedovical would be well ahead of JMac, I could even crudely attempt to adjust for era and lop off (perhaps unfairly) some of their records to "match" Jmac's time, I could give countless quotes on this matter from J-Mac himself putting all 3 ahead of him, but the problem is if you are looking to play the contrarian, you can always do so. And you can say things like "that's why we can't compare eras etc." and render any discussion outside of rote facts basically meaningless.

To me, saying the 3 players listed are superior (meaning all 3 have had superior careers, are greater (whatever semantic way you would wish to slice it)), is so obvious as to be a given. It would make me seriously question a user's motives if he didn't agree because there is such a wide chasm in achievements that it is not a logical conclusion. I would think the onus would be on them to explain their position, rather then bizarrely ascribe ad hominems to those who disagree, when in fact theirs is the unsupported, usubstantiated, extreme minority opinion.

 

[Russeljones]

Let me ask you this then, 125, do you ever look at metrics other than singles titles? Don't you think JMac's ability to have an ATG doubles career parallel to his ATG singles career marks him out as a very special player?

 

[Algo]

Anyone over 20 should be expected to have done their homework already and not belittle older eras.

 

[droliver]

One of the amazing things when I look back on tennis in the late 1970's (when I started following tennis and taking lessons as a child) is just how much of it you can watch now. Back then you had limited coverage of the majors and none of the Australian Open. You were more likely to see wierd tennis exhibitions on ABC's Wide world of sports then the QF of Wimbledon.

Specific to McEnroe, he was a pop culture phenom (tennis was at super levels of popularity) but his top form seemed so brief at the time. The emergence of Lendl and Becker and the power game with graphite rackets emerging just made him seem so dated even though he remained on the fringe of slam contention for several more years. He, Borg, and Connors seemed like relics of the 1970's

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Anyone over 20 should be expected to have done their homework already and not belittle older eras.

Are you talking about Nadal and his comments about grass tennis from Sampras's time not being a real tennis?

 

[Algo]

Are you talking about Nadal and his comments about grass tennis from Sampras's time not being a real tennis?

Not specifically, but yeah.

 

[ultradr]

Hi there

Do you guys feel that when discussing tennis eras or how great certain players were, posters' age should be of relevance?

For me it is pointless trying to argue that someone like Rod Laver is the ATG when I have not watched his era in context.

I believe older members probably have a more realistic chance of debating the goat correctly.
The only problem is that many of the older players have not actually played against modern players themselves. Playing tennis does help ones knowledge...but it is not to say non-players do not know what they are talking about either...

legends survive test of time.

it's not clear what we would talk about players decades later.

it's all about records. and how significant they are and how long they last....

young people tend to ignore past gen players but they will mature and learn to appreciate them later, slow process though. simply when they get older...

 

[roger presley]

Let me ask you this then, 125, do you ever look at metrics other than singles titles? Don't you think JMac's ability to have an ATG doubles career parallel to his ATG singles career marks him out as a very special player?

I do!

 

[I am the Greatest!]

Are you talking about Nadal and his comments about grass tennis from Sampras's time not being a real tennis?

That was ****ing disrespectful. Just because he knows that he won't be able to return most of Sampras' serves, and just because he won't be able to have that kind of serve, ever, he resorted to such comment.

 

[mxmx]

There is this good high school player at my club. My guess is that he is a Federer fan and think that he is the greatest ever. I told him Sampras would probably often beat him head to head. He had this look that he didnt even know who Sampras was. Perhaps he did....
My point is that so many younger fans just do not have the background to make a informed decision

 

[NGM]

The one who has seen a lot of tennis and have a objective, unbised mind is obviously the best source of tennis.
But the fact is, very few old man (I mean > 60 years old) actually have open mind. Their brain has been shut down right at the time their favourites retired. The world has changed but they dont. So their opinion are not worth a cent.
So we have only unchangable facts which are records, video tapes, documents to rely on. They are the most reliable source for debating.