I have.
I mean, have a look at my OP in this thread. I have rated him Tier 2b Open Era and Tier 3a All Time.
Even as a Djokovic fan, you have to admit that that is reasonable.
Tiers
- Thread starter Logic
- Start date
I have.
I mean, have a look at my OP in this thread. I have rated him Tier 2b Open Era and Tier 3a All Time.
Even as a Djokovic fan, you have to admit that that is reasonable.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Yes I think it is reasonable and you did a good job. Out of interest what do you think Novak needs to achieve in order to go from 3a to at least 2b in the all time tiers?
5555
Hall of Fame
You can not accurately find out greatness if you use your criteria.
5555
Hall of Fame
Numbers are often misleading.
Not much, to be honest. For me:
1 FO or (1 non-FO + 1 WTF) or 2 non-FO takes him to 2b.
2 majors (including FO) or (2 non-FO + 1 WTF) or 3 non-FO takes him to 2a.
4 majors (including FO) or (4 non-FO + 2 WTF) or 5 non-FO takes him to (the bottom of) 1b.
10 majors (including FO) + 3 WTF takes him to 1a.
My criteria give a reasonable basis for an opinion on relative greatness.
You can never find out the "fact" of the matter, because as I've discussed earlier, it is too hard to compare eras.
This is why we have forums and debates.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Sounds about right to me. I don't think he's need to win 2 more majors to be in 2b though. Probably 1 more major + 1 WTF or YE#1 would be enough in my opinion.
I said 1 Major + 1 WTF. I just added 2 Majors as another option for him in case he misses out on the WTF.
5555
Hall of Fame
My criteria is less flawed than yours (I've provided reasoning in my previous posts).
NatF
Bionic Poster
Then I guess we should just give up.
I disagree.
Unless you can show that you can accurately compare levels of competition from different eras, then your criteria are at least as flawed/inaccurate.
Can you do this? Could you give me an example of how you can accurately compare levels of competition from different eras?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Maybe one way is by adding up how many majors x player's rivals won compared to the rivals of y player but even that is probably flawed so who knows lol?
5555
Hall of Fame
No, it's not. My criteria takes all factors into account, yours does not.
Yes, this is flawed, because if you are amazing and win everything, it will appear (by this metric) that your competition is weak (even though they may or may not be).
My point is that there is no accurate way of comparing field strengths from different eras, short of perhaps time-travel.
Do your criteria include an accurate comparison of levels of competition in different eras?
If so, can you please demonstrate this with an example where you accurately compare the levels of competition in different eras?
(Note: If you do not do this, how can I know that you can use the criteria which you claim?)
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
The way modern technology is going I think time-travel will probably be a reality very soon. Who knows, maybe it will be proved that I could've beaten Tilden back in the 30s?!
The way modern technology is going I think time-travel will probably be a reality very soon. Who knows, maybe it will be proved that I could've beaten Tilden back in the 30s?!
Make sure you read his book, "How to play better tennis", then go back in time to before he wrote it and use his own future self's tricks to defeat him.
5555
Hall of Fame
If accurate comparison of levels of competition in different eras can not be done, it does not mean that my criteria is at least as flawed as yours.
OK, well if you cannot do it, then why are your criteria any less flawed than mine (as you claimed earlier)?
Down_the_line
Legend
I wouldn't even bother with him. He isn't posting anything with any sort of substance. He just sounds ridiculous at this point.
I know, but it is fun to parody his style of discussion while having a debate with him.
Wouldn't you agree?
5555
Hall of Fame
5555
Hall of Fame
How does it do so accurately?
Please give me an example where you compare the level of competition from different eras accurately, so that I can verify your claim.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
If I can interrupt for a second here, to those of you who are saying competition shouldn't be taken into account, WHY do people often refer to open era vs pre open era for achievements?
The competition was different. Back in the day you only had to play one match to defend your Wimbledon title. French Open was only for French players. You cannot compare the achievements of guys who won 8 Wimbledon's and 8 French Opens with that of the players in the open era.
Competition is a HUGE factor. Would Agassi have his career slam if Nadal was around? Not a chance. Would he have Wimbledon with Federer around? Not a chance.
He had a hard enough time dealing with Sampras in the majors, if was in Novak's position, I can imagine him having a similar resume if not worse.
The competition was different. Back in the day you only had to play one match to defend your Wimbledon title. French Open was only for French players. You cannot compare the achievements of guys who won 8 Wimbledon's and 8 French Opens with that of the players in the open era.
Competition is a HUGE factor. Would Agassi have his career slam if Nadal was around? Not a chance. Would he have Wimbledon with Federer around? Not a chance.
He had a hard enough time dealing with Sampras in the majors, if was in Novak's position, I can imagine him having a similar resume if not worse.
5555
Hall of Fame
I've told you that my criteria includes level of competition. I've not told you that I can accurately compare the level of competition from different eras.
No-one is saying that competition shouldn't be taken into account.
People are just saying that we don't have the ability to take it into account accurately, because we can't accurately compare field strengths of different eras.
For example, all of your claims about Agassi are purely conjectural - we can never know if you would be right or wrong. Tennis isn't played on paper.
OK, but can you do it accurately or not?
5555
Hall of Fame
Sure, that's fine, but could you answer my question, please?
Can you accurately compare the level of competition in different eras?
5555
Hall of Fame
Why do you ask this question? What's the point?
I just want to know. Could you please be polite and answer it?
5555
Hall of Fame
What if your question is pointless? I do not want to answer pointless questions.
So, why do you ask that question?
The point of my question is to help me make an analysis of your criteria.
Now that you know the point of my question, please be polite and answer it.
5555
Hall of Fame
The point of your question is this:
If I can not make accurate comparison of level of competition from different eras it means that my criteria is at least as flawed as yours.
Am I right?
No, that is not the point.
The point is, if you cannot make accurate comparisons of the level of competition from different eras, then having "comparisons of the level of competition from different eras" as a criterion which you use is flawed.
5555
Hall of Fame
This is false.
If your criteria take all factors into account, that does not make them less flawed than mine, unless you can accurately judge those factors.
Last edited:
5555
Hall of Fame
You're wrong.
Mayonnaise
Banned
5555
Hall of Fame
I'll explain tomorrow at 2PM Britsh time. I have to go now.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
Please stop with all this bumping, I'm getting bruised to the point of tiers.
_____ ____ _ __ _-__ -- _____ _--r_- --______ ____ ___ -- _
_- -_ --________ +_- ________ - r ______--e- ___-
__________________
_____ ____ _ __ _-__ -- _____ _--r_- --______ ____ ___ -- _
_- -_ --________ +_- ________ - r ______--e- ___-
__________________
Last edited:
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
kiki
Banned
OK, that is fair.But, again, Open era starts in 1968.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
That's like saying we'd never know if Federer could beat me at Wimbledon, or Nadal beat me at RG.
I know tennis isn't played on paper but common sense has to be used, the vast majority of people who have been following the sport and give an objective view on things would clearly tell you that Agassi would not have a career grand slam if he had to deal with Nadal at RG or Federer at Wimbledon.
On the flip side, if Novak didn't have to deal with Nadal at RG, he most likely would've won at least 1 by now and got the career slam. I'm certain Novak would've loved to have seen Medvedev on the other side of the net in this year's final instead of Rafa.
So how can we say Agassi > Novak because Agassi has career slam and Novak doesn't?
90's Clay
Banned
I quit reading when I saw Budge in tier 1 A yet somehow you got Borg, Nadal, Sampras in Tier 1B :shock::shock:
Logic, Budge was lucky during his amateur career to not having to deal with Vines, Perry (after 1936), Nüsslein (on clay!) and Tilden. In 1938 also von Cramm was absent. I doubt that he had won the Grand Slam in an open field.
In 1939 he lost the Southport tournament, also called "British Pro" to 46 years old Tilden who in final lost to Nüsslein. Tilden beat Budge at least 3 times in 1939. Nüsslein (not a typical indoor player) almost beat Budge at Wembley.
Vines in his pro tour with Budge in 1939 was handicapped in a certain period by injuries.
In 1941 Don was clearly outplayed by Perry.
The Order, I agree that competition is a huge factor.
But playing only one match at Wimbledon, and French "Open" only for French players have passed long ago (early 1920s).
Similar threads
- Poll
