The reason level of competition debates are pointless

Since lets face it everyone will skew things to say the people they like had tough competition to build up their achievements further or make excuses for things they didn't achieve, and the people they don't like had easier competition to downplay their achievements.

Just look at the last year here for instance.

Federer fan: "Djokovic's achievements mean nothing, he is playing in a mug era." "Roddick is one of the greatest players ever, he would have atleast 10 majors if it weren't for Federer, he is better than Sampras, that is just how amazing Federer is to beat a robbed all time great so often." "Federer is 2nd best or best all time on clay. He would have 10 French Opens if not for Nadal."

Djokovic fan: "Federer ruled in a mug era before Nadal and Djokovic matured. He would be lucky to win a major today." "Djokovic had it amazingly tough with Federer, Nadal, and Murray, he would have 20 majors otherwise." "Federer is playing his best ever tennis today at 34, Djokovic is just way better."

Serena fan: "20 majors today are worth 40 majors in any other era." "Serena in her prime would blow Graf, Evert or Navratilova to bits, the game had no depth back then."

Serena hater: "Serena sucks, she is just winning all her majors in this ridiculous mug era. She isn't even in the class of Graf, or Martina and Chrissie." "Chris and Martina would have 50 majors if they didn't play each other, Serena is 10 levels below them." "If Justine had not retired Serena would have 8 majors."

Murray hater: "Murray didn't deserve either of his majors. He only beat Berdych and Djokovic at the U.S Open since they were tired, and the wind, and Del Potro wore Djokovic out at Wimbledon." "Murray was lucky he didn't play Federer or Nadal in the 2 majors he won, they don't count."

These are the kind of things you typically see, and just some examples that could apply to almost anyone.
 

Checkmate

Legend
Federer fan: "Djokovic's achievements mean nothing, he is playing in a mug era." "Roddick is one of the greatest players ever, he would have atleast 10 majors if it weren't for Federer, he is better than Sampras, that is just how amazing Federer is to beat a robbed all time great so often." "Federer is 2nd best or best all time on clay. He would have 10 French Opens if not for Nadal."

_Tennis_Federer_Farm.jpg
 

Krish872007

Talk Tennis Guru
Since lets face it everyone will skew things to say the people they like had tough competition to build up their achievements further or make excuses for things they didn't achieve, and the people they don't like had easier competition to downplay their achievements.

Just look at the last year here for instance.

Federer fan: "Djokovic's achievements mean nothing, he is playing in a mug era." "Roddick is one of the greatest players ever, he would have atleast 10 majors if it weren't for Federer, he is better than Sampras, that is just how amazing Federer is to beat a robbed all time great so often." "Federer is 2nd best or best all time on clay. He would have 10 French Opens if not for Nadal."

Djokovic fan: "Federer ruled in a mug era before Nadal and Djokovic matured. He would be lucky to win a major today." "Djokovic had it amazingly tough with Federer, Nadal, and Murray, he would have 20 majors otherwise." "Federer is playing his best ever tennis today at 34, Djokovic is just way better."

Serena fan: "20 majors today are worth 40 majors in any other era." "Serena in her prime would blow Graf, Evert or Navratilova to bits, the game had no depth back then."

Serena hater: "Serena sucks, she is just winning all her majors in this ridiculous mug era. She isn't even in the class of Graf, or Martina and Chrissie." "Chris and Martina would have 50 majors if they didn't play each other, Serena is 10 levels below them." "If Justine had not retired Serena would have 8 majors."

Murray hater: "Murray didn't deserve either of his majors. He only beat Berdych and Djokovic at the U.S Open since they were tired, and the wind, and Del Potro wore Djokovic out at Wimbledon." "Murray was lucky he didn't play Federer or Nadal in the 2 majors he won, they don't count."

These are the kind of things you typically see, and just some examples that could apply to almost anyone.

What? A sensible post? On TTW? How dare you! Ha.
 

Indio

Semi-Pro
Professional sports serve absolutely no purpose other than to entertain. If debates about various aspects of sports are entertaining (and possibly even thought provoking) why shouldn't they take place?
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
The funniest part of this is that all of this is garbage and I have never heard anyone say these things besides the Djokovic one....LOL
 
N

Navdeep Srivastava

Guest
Since lets face it everyone will skew things to say the people they like had tough competition to build up their achievements further or make excuses for things they didn't achieve, and the people they don't like had easier competition to downplay their achievements.

Just look at the last year here for instance.

Federer fan: "Djokovic's achievements mean nothing, he is playing in a mug era." "Roddick is one of the greatest players ever, he would have atleast 10 majors if it weren't for Federer, he is better than Sampras, that is just how amazing Federer is to beat a robbed all time great so often." "Federer is 2nd best or best all time on clay. He would have 10 French Opens if not for Nadal."

Djokovic fan: "Federer ruled in a mug era before Nadal and Djokovic matured. He would be lucky to win a major today." "Djokovic had it amazingly tough with Federer, Nadal, and Murray, he would have 20 majors otherwise." "Federer is playing his best ever tennis today at 34, Djokovic is just way better."

Serena fan: "20 majors today are worth 40 majors in any other era." "Serena in her prime would blow Graf, Evert or Navratilova to bits, the game had no depth back then."

Serena hater: "Serena sucks, she is just winning all her majors in this ridiculous mug era. She isn't even in the class of Graf, or Martina and Chrissie." "Chris and Martina would have 50 majors if they didn't play each other, Serena is 10 levels below them." "If Justine had not retired Serena would have 8 majors."

Murray hater: "Murray didn't deserve either of his majors. He only beat Berdych and Djokovic at the U.S Open since they were tired, and the wind, and Del Potro wore Djokovic out at Wimbledon." "Murray was lucky he didn't play Federer or Nadal in the 2 majors he won, they don't count."

These are the kind of things you typically see, and just some examples that could apply to almost anyone.
Now I am going to create a thread to illustrate how this is weak era in women tennis and Serena will loose 6-0,6-0 to Graf, Martina and Evert ........hehehehe, Are you ready for new war. (j/k).
 
Now I am going to create a thread to illustrate how this is weak era in women tennis and Serena will loose 6-0,6-0 to Graf, Martina and Evert ........hehehehe, Are you ready for new war. (j/k).

Haha the scary thing is on this forum you would be insanely popular for starting a thread like that (sad but reality). Arent you from Serbia? I am just curious.
 

joekapa

Legend
The weak era/strong era has a premise, if we insist that there is a player that can be labelled as the GOAT.

As long as the Fed fanboys insist that he is the GOAT, then the weak era/strong era theory will exist.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Since lets face it everyone will skew things to say the people they like had tough competition to build up their achievements further or make excuses for things they didn't achieve, and the people they don't like had easier competition to downplay their achievements.

Just look at the last year here for instance.

Federer fan: "Djokovic's achievements mean nothing, he is playing in a mug era." "Roddick is one of the greatest players ever, he would have atleast 10 majors if it weren't for Federer, he is better than Sampras, that is just how amazing Federer is to beat a robbed all time great so often." "Federer is 2nd best or best all time on clay. He would have 10 French Opens if not for Nadal."

Djokovic fan: "Federer ruled in a mug era before Nadal and Djokovic matured. He would be lucky to win a major today." "Djokovic had it amazingly tough with Federer, Nadal, and Murray, he would have 20 majors otherwise." "Federer is playing his best ever tennis today at 34, Djokovic is just way better."

Serena fan: "20 majors today are worth 40 majors in any other era." "Serena in her prime would blow Graf, Evert or Navratilova to bits, the game had no depth back then."

Serena hater: "Serena sucks, she is just winning all her majors in this ridiculous mug era. She isn't even in the class of Graf, or Martina and Chrissie." "Chris and Martina would have 50 majors if they didn't play each other, Serena is 10 levels below them." "If Justine had not retired Serena would have 8 majors."

Murray hater: "Murray didn't deserve either of his majors. He only beat Berdych and Djokovic at the U.S Open since they were tired, and the wind, and Del Potro wore Djokovic out at Wimbledon." "Murray was lucky he didn't play Federer or Nadal in the 2 majors he won, they don't count."

These are the kind of things you typically see, and just some examples that could apply to almost anyone.

I agree with you with these types of statements and I have heard lots of these in the forum, but I think it is possible to do a level of competition analysis.
 
I agree with you with these types of statements and I have heard lots of these in the forum, but I think it is possible to do a level of competition analysis.

It is but it is hard for most people to overlook their own biases or agendas. It is better with people who are neither a large fan or someone who dislikes any of the parties involved, which isn't easy to find (or who have the ability to be completely objective regardless). I am not implying I don't have my own biases btw (I am not as blinded to logic as say TMF or other extremists but I would face many of the same inevitable dilemnas).
 
N

Navdeep Srivastava

Guest
No , not possible when commonwealth games were held my masters midsem were scheduled in 2010, really it was a huge letdown for me.
 
N

Navdeep Srivastava

Guest
I agree with you with these types of statements and I have heard lots of these in the forum, but I think it is possible to do a level of competition analysis.
No , I never commented on your thread and I have done masters in Statistics, your data has a flaw like Roddick was going to 6+slams if there was no Fed like statement.
For starter if somebody didn't win competition, the reason is not always that he was bad, sometimes your opponent is very good.
Take Goran for example, let say he never won Wimbledon 01 , then he is not a bad grass player because he faced peak Agassi and later peak Sampras.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
They need to do this MTF style

Create a thread called "Endless era debates" or something to that effect and merging "weak era" threads into it
 
E

Emperor of Belgrade

Guest
He is dominating a weak era, agreed. No excuses, just telling it like it is.
He is dominating because he is too good for everyone else. Weak era is an excuse used by those who can't stand him. It is very clear.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Just look at the field in general, Rafa out of form and nowhere near where he was 3-4 years ago, Federer injury riddled and going through surgery, younger players unable to step up.

If you can't admit today is relatively weak it's more proof you're biased but it's not like we need more proof of that, is it?
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
He is dominating because he is too good for everyone else. Weak era is an excuse used by those who can't stand him. It is very clear.
Weak era isn't an excuse, it's the damn truth. In no other time period would Stretch be "dominating" like he is right now.
 

mika1979

Professional
So 2010 wasn't a weak year (I take it from your avatar you are a Nadal fan).
Would an time span which didn't yield any champion players especially at the top be considered sub par? This is why I believe early 00s and late 90s were a little worse than the last 10. Thoughts?
 

5555

Hall of Fame
Can you prove that it's not?

When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof. You assert so burden of proof is on you.

Just look at the field in general, Rafa out of form and nowhere near where he was 3-4 years ago, Federer injury riddled and going through surgery, younger players unable to step up.

It's not proof. You have to analyse player by player all of them.

If you can't admit today is relatively weak it's more proof you're biased but it's not like we need more proof of that, is it?

You have not proven your claim so try again with something different.
 

insideguy

G.O.A.T.
I think its a weak era for posters on this board. You only gof so many likes mattsogrant cause its a weak era hereo_O
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Would an time span which didn't yield any champion players especially at the top be considered sub par? This is why I believe early 00s and late 90s were a little worse than the last 10. Thoughts?
There were champion players, you just don't like them and won't acknowledge what they brought to tennis.

Today lacks depth, players from bygone eras are allowed to keep their ranking(s) and the younger players NEVER step up.

Guys from the late 90s and early 2000s would have BEATEN Federer years ago. Why can't the young guns today do anything? You keep saying they are "more talented" but why aren't we ever seeing proof of it?
 
E

Emperor of Belgrade

Guest
Weak era isn't an excuse, it's the damn truth. In no other time period would Stretch be "dominating" like he is right now.
If it was damn truth, we wouldn't have so many posters who are all "coincidentally" Fed or Rafa fans talking about it 24/7 like broken records. Repeating it so much in aggressive manner doesn't make it truth and never will.
2011 says hi btw.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof. You assert so burden of proof is on you.
In other words you can't prove that it's not.

I've already provided you with a snippet of proof.


5555 said:
It's not proof. Level of competition is not just about 2 players and you mentioned only Federer and Nadal.
Who else is there to really 'mention'? Murray (who is basically a current day Lleyton Hewitt) or Wawrinka who shows up once every 5 months?



5555 said:
You have not proven your claim so try again with something different.
I've interjected my own opinion. If you want to dispute it, go right ahead; but all I'm seeing is chase-your-tail reasoning in retaliation.
 

mika1979

Professional
Weak era isn't an excuse, it's the damn truth. In no other time period would Stretch be "dominating" like he is right now.
Talking more rubbish once again just no basis. All the top guys today have achieved far more played well during strong(according to you) times then during many other times. Your anti Djokovic agenda is clear. It is just not based on reality. If we are talking what ifs than any era could be strong if this or that didn't happen.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
If it was damn truth, we wouldn't have so many posters who are all "coincidentally" Fed or Rafa fans talking about it 24/7 like broken records. Repeating it so much in aggressive manner doesn't make it truth and never will.
2011 says hi btw.
He didn't dominate like today in 2011.. Just because he won 3 slams in that year doesn't mean it's automatically on par with 2015 on paper.

Dude, there aren't just Fed/Rafa fans talking about it. The only people in denial are the Djoker crowd.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Talking more rubbish once again just no basis. All the top guys today have achieved far more played well during strong(according to you) times then during many other times. Your anti Djokovic agenda is clear. It is just not based on reality. If we are talking what ifs than any era could be strong if this or that didn't happen.
1) Federer achieved more during his pomp because he was at his best.
2) Nadal; same as above.
3) It's clear to most people Stretch had to wait out Rafa and Fed to even get a chance to "dominate" the tour like he does now; go back to 2012-2013 to see what difference a prime Roger or Rafa makes to the tour.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
If it was damn truth, we wouldn't have so many posters who are all "coincidentally" Fed or Rafa fans talking about it 24/7 like broken records. Repeating it so much in aggressive manner doesn't make it truth and never will.
2011 says hi btw.

The very fact you have to quote 2011 and not 2015 , even though Novak won the same number of majors tells that you inherently know that this is a weak era
 

5555

Hall of Fame
In other words you can't prove that it's not.

Burden of proof is on you.

I've already provided you with a snippet of proof.

You have not proven it's a fact that 2014, 2015 and 2016 is weak era.

Who else is there to really 'mention'? Murray (who is basically a current day Lleyton Hewitt) or Wawrinka who shows up once every 5 months?

How many players are there on the tour?

I've interjected my own opinion.

Opinion? You said it's a fact that 2014, 2015 and 2016 is weak era.

If you want to dispute it, go right ahead; but all I'm seeing is chase-your-tail reasoning in retaliation.

Burden of proof is on you.
 

mika1979

Professional
There were champion players, you just don't like them and won't acknowledge what they brought to tennis.

Today lacks depth, players from bygone eras are allowed to keep their ranking(s) and the younger players NEVER step up.

Guys from the late 90s and early 2000s would have BEATEN Federer years ago. Why can't the young guns today do anything? You keep saying they are "more talented" but why aren't we ever seeing proof of it?
Very inconsistent in your assessment Wawrinka shows up every five months is way more consistent than any of those guys who practically never showed up. There aren't any second tier playes in that time which you are speaking of that are in the same league as some of the guys playing today. And murray even if he is on par with hewitt like you said wasnt at any stage a dominant number one so i ask you how can that time be stronger? Once again not a clue and i fully expect you to disappear when confronted with facts.
 
Top