Weak era debates

Hayole

Hayole

Rookie
Seeing these weak era tweets and posts about Djokovic current run after every record he breaks honestly reminds me how we've had it about every dominant champion in history

Laver, Graf, Serena, Sampras, Federer and now Djokovic

Even in chess which i've followed for a while I see some people always claim that Karpov, Fischer, Kasparov or even Carlsen now beat up on inferior competion


So my point is basically that future and past champions will always have their fans inflating their status while others try to deflate their status and it's just never ending

In the end the achievements are what will tell the story and they're what people will remember most
 
Last edited:
Hayole said:
Seeing these weak era tweets and posts about Djokovic current run after every record he breaks honestly reminds me how we've honestly had it about every dominate champion in history

Even in chess which i've followed for a while I see some people always claim that Karpov, Fischer, Kasparov or even Carlsen now are beat up on inferior competion


So my point is basically that future and past champions will always have their fans inflating their status while others try to deflate their status and it's just never ending
Click to expand...
Yeah, Literally no one here talks about tour competition/opposition during Laver, Borg or Sampras era. Only biggest rivals are mentioned, and that's it.
It will be the same with big3 in the future, only their achievements are gonna count and be compared with future champions.
Big3 popularity, brand identity, game aesthetic, todays debates... it will all slowly fade away, leaving only greatest achievements to shine trough the tennis history.
That's why I don't bother with weak era talk and arguments, it's all meaningless from a future standpoint.
 
itrium84 said:
Yeah, Literally no one here talks about tour competition/opposition during Laver, Borg or Sampras era. Only biggest rivals are mentioned, and that's it.
It will be the same with big3 in the future, only their achievements are gonna count and be compared with future champions.
Big3 popularity, brand identity, game aesthetic, todays debates... it will all slowly fade away, leaving only greatest achievements to shine trough the tennis history.
That's why I don't bother with weak era talk and arguments, it's all meaningless from a future standpoint.
Click to expand...

I fully agree

In the future only achievements will be mentioned
 
tumblr_msdupfY1aD1sh28k6o1_250.gif
 
Hayole said:
Seeing these weak era tweets and posts about Djokovic current run after every record he breaks honestly reminds me how we've had it about every dominant champion in history

Laver, Graff, Serena, Sampras, Federer and now Djokovic

Even in chess which i've followed for a while I see some people always claim that Karpov, Fischer, Kasparov or even Carlsen now are beat up on inferior competion


So my point is basically that future and past champions will always have their fans inflating their status while others try to deflate their status and it's just never ending

In the end the achievements are what will tell the story and they're what people will remember most
Click to expand...

Of those on your list, the only ones who were seriously mentioned in the context of weak era before Djokovic were Federer(his generation was lacking great players except for a couple of talented underachievers) and Graf(Seles was stabbed).
 
It is not true.

Nobody really talks about Laver in the context of open era.

Borg won slams in a competitive era. Sampras's lack of competition during mid to late nineties is spoken after 25 years still. Federers' 2003-07 is both listed as a most dominant era by fans and weak era by haters. Similarly Djokovic's 2015-202x will also be remembered.
 
skaj said:
Of those on your list, the only ones who were seriously mentioned in the context of weak era before Djokovic were Federer(his generation was lacking great players except for a couple of talented underachievers) and Graf(Seles was stabbed).
Click to expand...

People call Serena's late career run that led to 10 slams a "weak era" too tbh
 
Would you be saying there’s no such thing as a weak era if, say, Medvedev wins more USOs than Djokovic and people proclaim him as the better US Open player?

Or if someone like tsitsipas wins 4 FOs and people say he’s a better clay player than Djokovic?
 
Kralingen said:
Would you be saying there’s no such thing as a weak era if, say, Medvedev wins more USOs than Djokovic and people proclaim him as the better US Open player?
Click to expand...

That's a hypothetical i can't answer because we don't know who he'll beat and how he'll play in those tournaments

The point is every era that's dominated by a single player is by definition weak era to the detractors of said player because they keep winning

That's always going to be the case

Meanwhile see Sampras fans romanticize the 90s and McEnroe fans the 80s etc etc...way of life
 
It seems to be no coincidence that the three sports I more or less follow have been experiencing a mug era in recent years (at least weaker then before).
 
Hayole said:
No but dominance usually means competitors aren't on par with you

It's literally 1+1
Click to expand...

Problem is the dominant players are clpuding your observation.

For example - the current Djokovic will lose 10 out of 10 matches to 2014-15 Djokovic. Nobody calls 2007-2014 as weak era (except couple of majors here and there). So, one needs to look a little deeper , major by major, year by year and conclude. Using player names is a very wrong way to make any deduction
 
skaj said:
I don't mean in this forum. Here you can hear all kind of crazy things.
Click to expand...

Thing is big 3 and Serena have spanned several eras... in Federer & Serena's case 3 and Rafole 2 so when we say weak era we gotta specify

I bet many Fed fans would claim that 34 year old Federer wins 3 slams this year too because he didn't have it that easy at that age... meanwhile Nole fans would say if 23 year Nole faced Baghdatis and Gonzalez in slam finals he might've won them

It's all fun to debate but at the end it's fruitless becuase no one picks who they meet.... just luck
 
ND-13 said:
Problem is the dominant players are clpuding your observation.

For example - the current Djokovic will lose 10 out of 10 matches to 2014-15 Djokovic. Nobody calls 2007-2014 as weak era (except couple of majors here and there). So, one needs to look a little deeper , major by major, year by year and conclude. Using player names is a very wrong way to make any deduction
Click to expand...

He might but 90% of 2015 Djokovic is the best player on tour today and thus dominating big titles

It's not his fault but you can understand why detractors would blame competition becuase detractors have done it with every dominant champion in history
 
Hayole said:
Thing is big 3 and Serena have spanned several eras... in Federer & Serena's case 3 and Rafole 2 so when we say weak era we gotta specify

I bet many Fed fans would claim that 34 year old Federer wins 3 slams this year too because he didn't have it that easy at that age... meanwhile Nole fans would say if 23 year Nole faced Baghdatis and Gonzalez in slam finals he might've won them

It's all fun to debate but at the end it's fruitless becuase no one picks who they meet.... just luck
Click to expand...

My point from my last post was(beside that you can hear all kinds of crazy things in this forum) that fans say all kinds of things, but that before Djokovic only those two have been seriously mentioned in a context of weak era.
 
skaj said:
My point from my last post was(beside that you can hear all kinds of crazy things in this forum) that fans say all kinds of things, but that before Djokovic only those two have been seriously mentioned in a context of weak era.
Click to expand...

Maybe true but personally I've barely seen any great champion escape that tag (in chess or tennis)
 
The " every proceeding generation is better than the previous due to modern etc, etc, " is what gets me the most.

I mean sure, if we're being honest about players such as Laver playing 3/4 Slams on grass and attending AO when other players routinely skipped it due to air travel of the time or other factors, yeah, Federer would destroy him in modern times. But there are certain aspects in sport where the legends are underscored.

Bobby Hull would still be a top player in today's NHL.
Dan Marino would put up even better numbers in today's NFL.
Djokovic would demolish most 90s players including Sampras at certain events.

Truly weak eras are defined by a large group of inconsistent players at the top. The early 00s would fit this bill as Johansson, Moya, Ivanisevic, Novak were also rans with volatile records and guys like Haas, Hewitt & Safin were dealing with injuries and upsets.

Federer and Nadal benefited from a depleted field in 2017-2019.

I'm not saying 2021- is a strong era per say, but it's better than 2016-2019.
 
Hayole said:
Thing is big 3 and Serena have spanned several eras... in Federer & Serena's case 3 and Rafole 2 so when we say weak era we gotta specify

I bet many Fed fans would claim that 34 year old Federer wins 3 slams this year too because he didn't have it that easy at that age... meanwhile Nole fans would say if 23 year Nole faced Baghdatis and Gonzalez in slam finals he might've won them

It's all fun to debate but at the end it's fruitless becuase no one picks who they meet.... just luck
Click to expand...

Both can be true. 2015 Federer was obviously good enough at least at WB & USO to win them in 2021, and prime Djokovic would sure beat Baghs and Gonzo if perhaps a bit less dominantly. It's the likes of Windassi and Peakdick he could really struggle with (and obviously Peakfin).
 
The notion that era weakness depends on dominance is goofy of course. If Djokovic got injured tomorrow, the tour would obviously become even weaker, the weakest of weak pretty much.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Both can be true. 2015 Federer was obviously good enough at least at WB & USO to win them in 2021, and prime Djokovic would sure beat Baghs and Gonzo if perhaps a bit less dominantly. It's the likes of Windassi and Peakdick he could really struggle with (and obviously Peakfin).
Click to expand...

Peakfin was rare so meh

an Agassi matchup would've been amazing however
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
The notion that era weakness depends on dominance is goofy of course. If Djokovic got injured tomorrow, the tour would obviously become even weaker, the weakest of weak pretty much.
Click to expand...

I mean Auger Aliassime madness top 10 today with 0 career titles so....

I can only imagine how bad it'd look with no Nole around. We'd honestly get 3 or 4 different slam winners every year (and we will soon)
 
Hayole said:
Seeing these weak era tweets and posts about Djokovic current run after every record he breaks honestly reminds me how we've had it about every dominant champion in history

Laver, Graff, Serena, Sampras, Federer and now Djokovic

Even in chess which i've followed for a while I see some people always claim that Karpov, Fischer, Kasparov or even Carlsen now are beat up on inferior competion


So my point is basically that future and past champions will always have their fans inflating their status while others try to deflate their status and it's just never ending

In the end the achievements are what will tell the story and they're what people will remember most
Click to expand...
Yep, fully agree. It is the numbers that will stand forever, specifically for those that weren't around to witness it.

That said, I feel like you are saying people will remember Djoker more because of the achievements and Fed and Rafa will be remembered as inferior.... Which I dont like, so, I take back what I said, above.... Trash OP.
 
Lleytonstation said:
Yep, fully agree. It is the numbers that will stand forever, specifically for those that weren't around to witness it.

That said, I feel like you are saying people will remember Djoker more because of the achievements and Fed and Rafa will be remembered as inferior.... Which I dont like, so, I take back what I said, above.... Trash OP.
Click to expand...

:-D :-D that wasn't my point you fool
 
Hayole said:
I mean Auger Aliassime madness top 10 today with 0 career titles so....

I can only imagine how bad it'd look with no Nole around. We'd honestly get 3 or 4 different slam winners every year (and we will soon)
Click to expand...

That's the point. Djokovic is hoarding a feeble era now, but when he gets really old we'll get a bunch of young mugs who aren't even good enough to hoard properly. Medvedev the closest but he only peaks in spurts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
"Weak Era" is weak excuse
2 3 4
Replies
173
Views
14K
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
D
why the double standard regarding serenas weak era?
Replies
3
Views
569
dominikk1985
D
Megafanoftennis100
Addressing the weak era argument (2019-2023)
Replies
44
Views
3K
jl809
jl809
The Guru
The end of the weak era
2 3
Replies
101
Views
6K
AnOctorokForDinner
AnOctorokForDinner
D
Has Novak earned this "Weak Era"
2 3
Replies
111
Views
7K
vanioMan
vanioMan
Back
Top