Will djoker’s numbers be surpassed in our lifetime?

BorgTheGOAT said:
Any interesting points to refute this? They might not be the absolute GOAT level players they were in the 60s but to think they would be role players is ridiculous. But waiting for your well thought-out arguments.
Click to expand...

This is a simple issue of mathematics. The quality of competition in the 50s-60s was so much lower than it is today because the game was not played on a global scale, and that's to say nothing of how much more accessible basketball is in America today. So thinking about it from that perspective, it becomes obvious that Russell and Wilt, who were only able to dominate to a statistical degree than is generally on par or lesser than that of hall of fame talents today (in many instances today's players are clearly superior), would "wilt" in the face of today's substantially deeper pool of talent. The same applies to Babe Ruth's dominance before the color barrier was broken or baseball became a global sport. I don't care how heavy his bat was, he would be Matt Stairs today at best.
 
weakera said:
This is a simple issue of mathematics. The quality of competition in the 50s-60s was so much lower than it is today because the game was not played on a global scale, and that's to say nothing of how much more accessible basketball is in America today. So thinking about it from that perspective, it becomes obvious that Russell and Wilt, who were only able to dominate to a statistical degree than is generally on par or lesser than that of hall of fame talents today (in many instances today's players are clearly superior), would "wilt" in the face of today's substantially deeper pool of talent.
Click to expand...
Sorry what? Wilt to this day holds 72 NBA records and he dominated his peers way more than the dominating players of later eras dominated theirs so not sure what you mean with “to a statistical degree on par or less than HOF talents today”. You can of course (what you are actually doing) quibble about lower competition but let’s also not forget that a) fouls weren’t called as strictly as today and b) travelling rules were enforced way stricter than today. So there were several rules in place that made dominating harder.
 
There's this Alcaraz dude and very soon, there is going to be nobody left to challenge him. I could see him surpass Novak.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Sorry what? Wilt to this day holds 72 NBA records and he dominated his peers way more than the dominating players of later eras dominated theirs so not sure what you mean with “to a statistical degree on par or less than HOF talents today”. You can of course (what you are actually doing) quibble about lower competition but let’s also not forget that a) fouls weren’t called as strictly as today and b) travelling rules were enforced way stricter than today. So there were several rules in place that made dominating harder.
Click to expand...

You are taking the wrong, elementary view of records and NBA performance. Let's take Wilt's legendary 50.4 PPG season, for starters. Please recognize that when measuring points per team possession, Wilt's 1961-1962 season ranks behind Kobe's 2005-2006 season, Michael Jordan's 1986-1987 season, George Gervin's 1979-1980 season, etc. When measuring points per 100 possessions, Wilt's 1961-1962 season ranks behind the seasons of many players, including the aforementioned plus T-Mac, Wade, Durant, Curry, Harden, Giannis, etc. Plus, most of these players outscored Wilt when adjusted for pace, or per 100 possessions, with significantly better efficiency.

Wilt and Russell were good enough relative to their peers that I believe they would be productive enough NBA players today. However like Babe Ruth dominating part-time insurance salesmen in a color-locked league, they could not possibly receive the benefit of the doubt to the extent that you could ever believe their production would nearly translate the same to today's NBA. The pool of talent is deeper by magnitudes, it would be the equivalent of going from 8th grade varsity to division II.
 
RS said:
Some people would say Laver/Gonzales and co had better numbers.
Click to expand...
Yes, some will say so but keep in mind that Gonzales had career win/loss percentage of around 67%, big no in my books. Laver is high up, worthy contender for sure...
 
It depends on what numbers you mean. I seriously doubt anyone will get a triple CGS or double career Masters. But obviously some other player could get to 400+ weeks at #1, win 100+ tournaments and even get to 25 slams.

Remember all these future players will have a clear target to aim for, knowing Djoker's numbers.

The only tennis record that won't be surpassed in the next 50 years is Rafa's RG titles.
 
Matrix968 said:
Yes, some will say so but keep in mind that Gonzales had career win/loss percentage of around 67%, big no in my books. Laver is high up, worthy contender for sure...
Click to expand...
I hear him and Tilden played ridiculously long though so the even though the winning percentage dropped they get huge longevity points.
 
weakera said:
You are taking the wrong, elementary view of records and NBA performance. Let's take Wilt's legendary 50.4 PPG season, for starters. Please recognize that when measuring points per team possession, Wilt's 1961-1962 season ranks behind Kobe's 2005-2006 season, Michael Jordan's 1986-1987 season, George Gervin's 1979-1980 season, etc. When measuring points per 100 possessions, Wilt's 1961-1962 season ranks behind the seasons of many players, including the aforementioned plus T-Mac, Wade, Durant, Curry, Harden, Giannis, etc. Plus, most of these players outscored Wilt when adjusted for pace, or per 100 possessions, with significantly better efficiency.
Click to expand...
This is all known to me but nevertheless they dominated their peers more (relatively speaking) than later players did. Also, what you already dodged twice now, they changed a lot of rules over the years to make it easier to dominate offence-wise (travelling, fouls), not to mention shoes, courts, less luxurious travels etc. so it comes to no surprise that other players have better points per 100 possession stats than Wilt. If he played today or in the 90s, Wilt would benefit from all those rule changes as well and would still be a top player (maybe not quite on the same level as during his time).
 
weakera said:
You simply don't understand the way of the sporting world. In time, the legacies of the big three will not be dissimilar to that of Rod Laver's today. It is inevitable as medicine and sports science continue to advance what was thought of as possible for modern athletes. It's more difficult to measure in slow motion or real-time, particularly as Djokovic is still active. But give it 20-30 years and the gap in the average athletic ability/prowess between the modern tennis player and today's average tennis player will be glaring. This has happened in every single sport in the world over time - sometimes it takes a little less, sometimes a little more, but it is inevtiable.
Click to expand...
Therefore their competition will also get stronger. Sounds like a net neutral to me. How myopic.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
This is all known to me but nevertheless they dominated their peers more (relatively speaking) than later players did. Also, what you already dodged twice now, they changed a lot of rules over the years to make it easier to dominate offence-wise (travelling, fouls), not to mention shoes, courts, less luxurious travels etc. so it comes to no surprise that other players have better points per 100 possession stats than Wilt. If he played today or in the 90s, Wilt would benefit from all those rule changes as well and would still be a top player (maybe not quite on the same level as during his time).
Click to expand...

Do you realize that if there was some mega advantage to handchecking/being allowed to kick players in the head on drives, other boomer arguments, etc.. it would have applied to Russell on the *defensive* end, and given him tools that would have artificially aided his defensive performance, which is the core of his entire legacy? You certainly can't have it both ways.

Someone who is claiming that Wilt would simply be "not quite" on the same level today, is not being honest. The level of physicality is exaggerated even in the 1990's


The NBA has never been fed by a more global, deep pool of talent. The idea that the league isn't meaningfully stronger as a result, does not hold water.
 
I would assume health & fitness knowledge and technologies will only continue to improve. Novak's superhuman resilience and longevity might not look so superhuman a couple decades from now. Also how many slams did he lose to Federer and Nadal? It's been said plenty of times, but if you have a Big 3-level talent with no other Big 3 members... well, the stats could rack up quickly.
 
ND-13 said:
Alcaraz is born to demolish the records. You can see it in his eyes. Who exactly is going to stop him ?
Click to expand...
Many factors outside of just regular competition. Physical issues/injuries, family/personal problems, burnout or slight drop in motivation. It’s not just beating the players but balancing tennis life with life outside tennis. We also can’t predict who may rise in future and also whether alcaraz will be strong in his later career like Novak has been. It’s to early and lots of unknowns.
 
Sampras-Bruguera 1993 said:
I can’t see it happening as this new group of guys are all missing that fire and drive that the older generation had. The younger they get, the lazier and more complacent they seem to be. None of them have that same tennis IQ as well
Click to expand...
His inexhaustible number of weak draws in Major tournaments, surely not.
:X3:
 
weakera said:
Do you realize that if there was some mega advantage to handchecking/being allowed to kick players in the head on drives, other boomer arguments, etc.. it would have applied to Russell on the *defensive* end, and given him tools that would have artificially aided his defensive performance, which is the core of his entire legacy? You certainly can't have it both ways.

Someone who is claiming that Wilt would simply be "not quite" on the same level today, is not being honest. The level of physicality is exaggerated even in the 1990's
Click to expand...
Have you watched games of Russ and Wilt? Do you know about their accolades in track and field? Those guys were world class athletes. Russ’ rebounds and blocking ability isn’t really aided by hand-checking or fouls. Point is eras are different, and while there might have been things in the 60s that made it easier to dominate (like lower average competition due to reduced talent pool), there were also other factors that made it harder (rules, equipment, circumstances). The best of the best would be great in any era, and while I give you that Wilt would score 50.4 today, he will definitely be a star player and ATG.
weakera said:
The NBA has never been fed by a more global, deep pool of talent. The idea that the league isn't meaningfully stronger as a result, does not hold water.
Click to expand...
Already addressed it in my prior post. The average level might be higher. The GOAT candidates (best of the best) are not necessarily better.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
The average level might be higher. The GOAT candidates (best of the best) are not necessarily better.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense.

"Might be higher" - not debating in good faith or honestly, not worth anyone's time.

How do you think Laver would perform on tour today, lol?
 
Djokovic_is_the_best#1 said:
Many factors outside of just regular competition. Physical issues/injuries, family/personal problems, burnout or slight drop in motivation. It’s not just beating the players but balancing tennis life with life outside tennis. We also can’t predict who may rise in future and also whether alcaraz will be strong in his later career like Novak has been. It’s to early and lots of unknowns.
Click to expand...

He already has tasted success and earned 20 million in a couple of years. He will break Djokovic’s prize money first then break rest of the big 3 records.

Only Rafa’s RG record is safe
 
Djokovic_is_the_best#1 said:
It’s possible but there is no guarantee. It will probably be broken but it maybe when we all gone, who knows?

A player needs to basically have everything the big 3 had a maintain it and the drive for 20 years. Alcaraz or Simone might do it but it’s still tough.

It is like golf where Jack Nicklaus still holds the record despite at one point it looked like tiger woods would pass him. In the end he hasn’t and golf players usually have a longer window to achieve it.

Same in darts. Will anyone beat Phil Taylor’s records. That seems very difficult to see considering what he did, how talented and dedicated he was.

Alcaraz is the best chance until we see another but it’s hard to see now.
Click to expand...
Federer accumulated 16 majors over 6 or so years and that was despite being stopped numerous times by Nadal. If Nadal had not been there, Federer would've crossed 20+ majors in that period. Imagine another new big 3 level guy who does not have anyone to stop him. Just pure domination. A new Djokovic, Nadal, Federer could touch or pass the records.
 
weakera said:
That doesn't make any sense.

"Might be higher" - not debating in good faith or honestly, not worth anyone's time.

How do you think Laver would perform on tour today, lol?
Click to expand...
That the average level is higher does not mean that each and every player is better or that the absolute best from prior eras wouldn’t be able to compete. Don’t really see what is so tough to understand. Do you also think Pele wouldn’t be great today? What about Bird or Magic?
 
I am afraid that the very interesting OP question can't be answered with the needed accuracy because none of us knows how long our lifetime will be.
Also, all our lifetimes are not synchronized.

Sad.
 
It’s a weird pickle the tour is in…

…if you introduce more variety to the game to ensure that one style of play doesn’t reign supreme (and I’m not merely talking about “speeding up surfaces”), that’ll probably close the door on the possibility of any player surpassing TB3 numerically for quite some time.

Which is bad for the GOAT-obsessed flavour of fan (IOW, most fans today).

However, if things are kept as they are, baseline tennis will dominate the tour inexorably.

This, IMO, is also bad.

Maybe the Genie should’ve just stayed in the bottle.
 
Last edited:
This were I agreed a lot with this relative vs absolute argument. It's really true in many/some aspects even people like to meme it.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
That the average level is higher does not mean that each and every player is better or that the absolute best from prior eras wouldn’t be able to compete. Don’t really see what is so tough to understand. Do you also think Pele wouldn’t be great today? What about Bird or Magic?
Click to expand...

None would be nearly as great. Magic in particular would be somewhat exposed given his lack of a reliable outside shot.

Michael Phelps has lost *every* single one of his notable individual records. Think on that.
 
NeutralFan said:
Why are you surprised? There are many deluded ttw scholars who think 80s players will be beating Djokodal on grass in their peak. Look at the pace of the game now and then , it has changed drastically in every sport.
Click to expand...
Any explanation why there are track and field records from the 90s that still stand? Even Bolt now has the record for 14 years and it doesn’t look to be broken soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
weakera said:
None would be nearly as great. Magic in particular would be somewhat exposed given his lack of a reliable outside shot.

Michael Phelps has lost *every* single one of his notable individual records. Think on that.
Click to expand...

Nice discussion, although I feel like y’all talk past each other a little.


To your credit, I think it’s inarguable that the level in basketball (and many other sports) is higher today.

That said, I’m squeamish about dinging past players for this because it’s a matter of chronology. The pesky flow of time will nearly always (and I’d argue unduly) penalize players of yore.

Shohei Ohtani, for instance, is a better baseball player than Babe Ruth in absolute terms, but does that remain the case if you reverse their birth years? Impossible to say.

At the same time, league quality *does* still matter in baseball, so you also *can’t* just refer to their raw statistical output…there’s a reason only 2 players whose careers have occurred within the last 60 years are in the Top 15 in career baseball WAR.

Much harder to separate oneself from the historical pack today, precisely because LQ is higher.

With basketball it’s, IMO, a little murkier because while the quality of the league has improved, the statistical difference between top players and replacement-level players has barely shifted. Part of this is due to b-ball evolving into a more heliocentric sport, with team playbooks being more slanted toward squeezing every bit of juice from a teams star player…TL;DR - top players appear to be optimized better today. Unlike in baseball, the bulk of best all-time (per-possession) statistical seasons did not occur in the early years of the sport. There’s actually a pretty even statistical distribution.


As for the specific examples you cite, I can’t speak on Phelps as I have next-to-no knowledge of swimming but I know for certain that Magic was a pretty good shooter. He was deadeye from the line and had a very good long-two game. Much like with Jordan, there’s an inverse correlation between attempts and poor %’s from the arc, meaning the more he took the better he shot. If you teleport him to todays game, does he become an elite 3 point shooter? No, I don’t think so. But what if he were born in, say, 1990? Ultimately it’s unknowable. Same w the question of how, say, a ‘40-born Durant would fare in the 60’s. By the rules of the day, he’d get called for palming on every possession if he dribbled the same way.
 
Last edited:
weakera said:
Of course the competition will also be stronger, how does that in any way negate anything I've said lol?
Click to expand...
You’re saying that Djokovic’s records will be surpassed because new athletes will be bigger, faster, stronger in years to come. Yes of course they will be. But they’re also competing against each other still.

You say Djoko will go the way of Rod laver because of this.
 
Curtennis said:
You’re saying that Djokovic’s records will be surpassed because new athletes will be bigger, faster, stronger in years to come. Yes of course they will be. But they’re also competing against each other still.

You say Djoko will go the way of Rod laver because of this.
Click to expand...

While the new athletes will be improved, there are always a select few who are head and shoulders above their contemporaries. This isn't difficult.

Every athlete goes the way of Laver eventually. It is inevitable.
 
Tyson Fury is the perfect example. He isn't greater than Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes and George Foreman in fact he far behind in overall standing and career but could they hang with him?
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Any explanation why there are track and field records from the 90s that still stand? Even Bolt now has the record for 14 years and it doesn’t look to be broken soon.
Click to expand...

What a dishonest cherry picking argument but anyways I'll address it.as @weak era said sports are changing and some changes faster and then some takes times. athletes from 80s are not faster than today's atheletes. Watch any sport and tell me if the pace of the game and the required atheletecism is same or even close? Do you seriously believe Laver will be winning more than one slam or J mac will ? let's say Borg was quite an athletic guy himself but the pace of the game wasn't that fast and ridiculously slow compared to modern game. Does it mean Borg will be winning slams today just because he was relatively more atheltic than his peers?Sheer delusion.
 
weakera said:
While the new athletes will be improved, there are always a select few who are head and shoulders above their contemporaries. This isn't difficult.

Every athlete goes the way of Laver eventually. It is inevitable.
Click to expand...
no one will score more career points than Wayne Gretzky.

No one will strike out more batters than Nolan Ryan.

Some records will stand for a very long time.
 
TheFifthSet said:
Nice discussion, although I feel like y’all talk past each other a little.


To your credit, I think it’s inarguable that the level in basketball (and many other sports) is higher today.

That said, I’m squeamish about dinging past players for this because it’s a matter of chronology. The pesky flow of time will nearly always (and I’d argue unduly) penalize players of yore.

Shohei Ohtani, for instance, is a better baseball player than Babe Ruth in absolute terms, but does that remain the case if you reverse their birth years? Impossible to say.

At the same time, league quality *does* still matter in baseball, so you also *can’t* just refer to their raw statistical output…there’s a reason only 2 players whose careers have occurred within the last 60 years are in the Top 15 in career baseball WAR.

Much harder to separate oneself from the historical pack today, precisely because LQ is higher.

With basketball it’s, IMO, a little murkier because while the quality of the league has improved, the statistical difference between top players and replacement-level players has barely shifted. Part of this is due to b-ball evolving into a more heliocentric sport, with team playbooks being more slanted toward squeezing every bit of juice from a teams star player…TL;DR - top players appear to be optimized better today. Unlike in baseball, the bulk of best all-time (per-possession) statistical seasons did not occur in the early years of the sport. There’s actually a pretty even statistical distribution.


As for the specific examples you cite, I can’t speak on Phelps as I have next-to-no knowledge of swimming but I know for certain that Magic was a pretty good shooter. He was deadeye from the line and had a very good long-two game. Much like with Jordan, there’s an inverse correlation between attempts and poor %’s from the arc, meaning the more he took the better he shot. If you teleport him to todays game, does he become an elite 3 point shooter? No, I don’t think so. But what if he were born in, say, 1990? Ultimately it’s unknowable. Same w the question of how, say, a ‘40-born Durant would fare in the 60’s. By the rules of the day, he’d get called for palming on every possession if he dribbled the same way.
Click to expand...
Good post.
 
NeutralFan said:
What a dishonest cherry picking argument but anyways I'll address it.as @weak era said sports are changing and some changes faster and then some takes times. athletes from 80s are not faster than today's atheletes. Watch any sport and tell me if the pace of the game and the required atheletecism is same or even close? Do you seriously believe Laver will be winning more than one slam or J mac will ? let's say Borg was quite an athletic guy himself but the pace of the game wasn't that fast and ridiculously slow compared to modern game. Does it mean Borg will be winning slams today just because he was relatively more atheltic than his peers?Sheer delusion.
Click to expand...
Haha comparing generations in absolute terms is nonsensical.
 
NeutralFan said:
What a dishonest cherry picking argument but anyways I'll address it.as @weak era said sports are changing and some changes faster and then some takes times. athletes from 80s are not faster than today's atheletes. Watch any sport and tell me if the pace of the game and the required atheletecism is same or even close? Do you seriously believe Laver will be winning more than one slam or J mac will ? let's say Borg was quite an athletic guy himself but the pace of the game wasn't that fast and ridiculously slow compared to modern game. Does it mean Borg will be winning slams today just because he was relatively more atheltic than his peers?Sheer delusion.
Click to expand...
Dishonest and cherry-picking to name track and field records? I didn’t say btw that athletes from the 80s were faster than today but as you mention it, Flo-Jo’s records from 1988 still stand. I don’t deny that sports evolve and players from today in next to every sport are on average better, but the difference at the very top is vastly overrated. To say that GOAT candidates from yore would be role players today is ridiculous.
 
Curtennis said:
no one will score more career points than Wayne Gretzky.

No one will strike out more batters than Nolan Ryan.

Some records will stand for a very long time.
Click to expand...

Right-o, that must mean Nolan Ryan and Cy Young are the greatest pitchers ever :) (y)

Obviously those volume records are a consequence of who is greatest, and not the nature of the sports evolving
 
No, but not because of reasons stated so far in this thread

Djokovic will save the world from a one-way Carlos domination


2775a398350d51f377280b3406fc2273.jpg
 
weakera said:
Right-o, that must mean Nolan Ryan and Cy Young are the greatest pitchers ever :) (y)

Obviously those volume records are a consequence of who is greatest, and not the nature of the sports evolving
Click to expand...
You do know what thread you’re in, correct?

Will djoker’s numbers be surpassed in our lifetime?​

 
Cannot see Novak’s numbers being eclipsed, and I think he will add significantly to them before he leaves the game. His health and fitness is unbelievable, not in a ped’s use sense, just overall in the sports world. Tennis I think can be much harder on one’s body than many other activities. The guy is a rock…but like a rubber rock!

I’d like to see him get to 25 slam’s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jon Rudy
Will we see it in our lifetime?
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
superstition
superstition
mike danny
Numbers of each Big 3 member that will never be surpassed by the other 2
Replies
2
Views
550
LaVie en Rose
LaVie en Rose
D
So what happens when Fed's 20 is surpassed?
12 13 14
Replies
679
Views
23K
tennis3
T
Centre Court
How long will it take Tennis to recover when big 4 retire?
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
TheGhostOfAgassi
TheGhostOfAgassi
U
Tennis player achievements feel hollow to me now. The Big 3 will dominate into their 40s unopposed
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
Sartorius
Sartorius
Back
Top