GabeT
G.O.A.T.
The hypotheticals being discussed are directly comparing two performances that we've already observed - e.g. compare Djokovic from the 100 UEs match vs Simon against the Djokovic who absolutely shellacked Ferrer that time. Same form, quality, movement, ballstriking, health etc. How would you compare their levels? Who do you think put in the more impressive performance? It's basically asking who did you think was better from the matches we've actually seen. I've used this specific example just to provide a stark contrast for clarity as to how one might clearly lean one way. When pitting hypothetical matchups, one might of course add a little matchup nuance to the question but the observed levels are obviously the key ingredients.
This is different to predicting future matches in which a player's day form is simply unknown until it happens. It seems you're fixed on the semantic of 'hypothetical' and lumping these two exercises together, presumably just to outright discredit people not siding with Djokovic. Yes they can't be proven wrong but that's why they are discussed and debated. Wouldn't be much point if there was a simple Wikipedia W we could turn to.
Exactly. The conflation of these two different scenarios borders on the intellectually dishonest.
If the debates here solely centered on comparing matches that have happened and nothing else, I would agree with you. But that's not what's happening.
Let's pick two matches, say WB10 and WB05 finals. If the debate were purely about whether Nadal or Federer played better against their competition, I wouldn't be raising any issues at all. In this scenario, we could compare some aspects @TearTheRoofOff mentions, like UEs, movement, or ball striking. It still wouldn't be easy to reach a consensus since some of these comparisons lack data (how, exactly, would you compare movement?). And of course, each faced different competition, making it even more difficult.
But if you stopped there, it would tell us nothing about how Nadal from WB10 would fare against Federer from WB 05. All we could say, for example, would be that Nadal in WB10 played better against his competition than Fed in WB05 (making this up btw, I don't actually have an opinion on this comparison).
The argument I'm addressing, though, is different. That argument doesn't stop with comparing relative performances. It goes one step further and pretends to predict outcomes, for example, to claim that Nadal from WB10 would beat Fed from WB05. That is a very different argument.
If you claim that Djokovic in WB 15 played worse than Federer in WB09 (or some other example) that is not the same as claiming that Fed WB09 would beat Novak WB15. That's when you start predicting hypotheticals.
And a lot of posters here do that. They claim that they can look at the level of Player A at Time X and the level of Player B in time Y and predict who would win (note that this is a precondition for any weak era claim). And that's where they start to predict hypotheticals.