All-Time Mens' Rankings
CloudsRest
Joe Ramirez
> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/372632-who-is-the-goat-some-stats-...
>
> Objective analysis.
Quantitative, not necessarily "objective." Two main comments:
1. The four performance categories are weighted equally in determining
the final result -- why? Such weighting must be *justified*; it cannot
simply be tacitly assumed as part of the calculation. For example, why
is slam performance no more important than "matches & titles" or
surface allroundness? No explanation is offered. Frankly, it is this
decision -- the relative devaluing of slam performance -- that enables
Connors to rise so high. The decision perhaps can be defended, but it
cannot be deemed "objective."
2. The first part of the "surface allrounder" analysis is similar to
Raja's recent effort; still not entirely convincing. The second part
of the surface allrounder analysis is weak. It's skewed by the fact
that Agassi won only one grass title in his entire career (finals get
no credit). That fact drives Agassi's "matches per title" way, way up,
hurting his overall surface allrounder ranking. No way should Sampras
finish ahead of Agassi in this category.
SliceAndDice
> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/372632-who-is-the-goat-some-stats-...
>
> Objective analysis.
Who is Llendl?
Joe Ramirez
Chris Evert's first husband.
Raja, The Great
Good observations. I think the guy did a decent job, but his
calculation is way too complicated for normal people to understand.
Whisper
> On Apr 3, 9:19 pm, Joe Ramirez<josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 9:12 pm, CloudsRest<spartan-warrio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/372632-who-is-the-goat-some-stats-...
>>
>>> Objective analysis.
>>
>> Quantitative, not necessarily "objective." Two main comments:
>>
>> 1. The four performance categories are weighted equally in determining
>> the final result -- why? Such weighting must be *justified*; it cannot
>> simply be tacitly assumed as part of the calculation. For example, why
>> surface allroundness? No explanation is offered. Frankly, it is this
>> decision -- the relative devaluing of slam performance -- that enables
>> Connors to rise so high. The decision perhaps can be defended, but it
>> cannot be deemed "objective."
>>
>> 2. The first part of the "surface allrounder" analysis is similar to
>> Raja's recent effort; still not entirely convincing. The second part
>> of the surface allrounder analysis is weak. It's skewed by the fact
>> that Agassi won only one grass title in his entire career (finals get
>> no credit). That fact drives Agassi's "matches per title" way, way up,
>> hurting his overall surface allrounder ranking. No way should Sampras
>> finish ahead of Agassi in this category.
>
> Good observations. I think the guy did a decent job, but his
> calculation is way too complicated for normal people to understand.
If Lendl is ranked highly the calculations have to be extremely
complicated. Nobody remembers Lendl as he won relatively few slams & no
Wimbledon, so nothing of note by all time standards.
Raja, The Great
Lendl won 8 slams and made 19 finals, so only lesser than Borg,
Sampras and Federer in Open era. Stop talking shit.
stephenJ
> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/372632-who-is-the-goat-some-stats-from-the-open-era#page/1
>
> Objective analysis.
problem here is that it counts an AO win equal to W, and we all know
that's not true.
--
The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from
enacting stupid laws.
- Thurgood Marshall
stephenJ
Most would rather have Agassi, Connors, and Mac's slam records, because
of their superior mix (all won W, for starters).
--
"if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,
the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands
of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form
they please".
- Thomas Jefferson
Whisper
No-brainer. I feel sorry for Lendl having no Wimbledon in his mix.
Seems like a 3rd class citizen.
CloudsRest
> > CloudsRest wrote:
> >http://bleacherreport.com/articles/372632-who-is-the-goat-some-stats-...
>
> > Objective analysis.
>
> problem here is that it counts an AO win equal to W, and we all know
> that's not true.
>
There are people in this world that evaluate strictly by the numbers.
No extra credit based on emotional factors or prestige. From what
I've seen, Federer tries equally hard at all four majors. I agree
results at the majors should be given more weight, but it doesn't mean
the other factors should be completely ignored.
bob
<spartan-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 4, 5:47 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>> > CloudsRest wrote:
>> >http://bleacherreport.com/articles/372632-who-is-the-goat-some-stats-...
>>
>> > Objective analysis.
>>
>> problem here is that it counts an AO win equal to W, and we all know
>> that's not true.
>>
>
>There are people in this world that evaluate strictly by the numbers.
>No extra credit based on emotional factors or prestige. From what
>I've seen, Federer tries equally hard at all four majors.
problem is what you don't see. Wimbledon is most important to fed -
and he admitted it many times.
bob
Raja, The Great
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 18:27:47 -0700 (PDT), CloudsRest
>
I don't see Nadal saying that. Anyone who wins a certain slam a lot
more often than the rest is going to trumpet it. Henin says FO is what
she respects the most. Better luck trolling next time.
Raja, The Great
You both have been trolling on this topic for so long now. You both
deserve each other.
CloudsRest
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 18:27:47 -0700 (PDT), CloudsRest
>
I think experts doing the rankings need to be more objective. If
it's based solely on Fed's preference, then his Basel tournament ranks
top five in importance. Those in charge of tennis must step away from
individual preferences also, otherwise Wimbledon would be given more
ranking points. For Potro, his dream is US Open. Should we award him
more points for his wins there based on his personal feelings too?
SliceAndDice
Nadal actually has said Wimbledon is the slam he cares most about. And
Henin made a comeback just to win Wimbledon.
Raja, The Great
Yeah after he won it.
> And
> Henin made a comeback just to win Wimbledon.
If she was missing USO she would have comeback for that... or AO.
SliceAndDice
>
> If she was missing USO she would have comeback for that... or AO.
Making a comeback to win a AO? Highly implausible.
Raja, The Great
Why not. Everyone wants to win all 4. Borg would have gone there, if
he had won the USO. Even McEnroe went there trying to win it.
Superdave
I feel sorry for Sampras having no French Opens in his mix.
Erm....not even a single final.
Seems like a 4th class citizen.
Whisper
>>>>> Wimbledon, so nothing of note by all time standards.
>>>>
>>>> Lendl won 8 slams and made 19 finals, so only lesser than Borg,
>>>> Sampras and Federer in Open era. Stop talking shit.
>>>
>>> Most would rather have Agassi, Connors, and Mac's slam records, because
>>> of their superior mix (all won W, for starters).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> No-brainer. I feel sorry for Lendl having no Wimbledon in his mix.
>> Seems like a 3rd class citizen.
>
> I feel sorry for Sampras having no French Opens in his mix.
> Erm....not even a single final.
>
> Seems like a 4th class citizen.
See, nobody else does. Everyone feels sorry for Lendl/Rosewall, but 7
Wimbledons means no sympathy necessary. It's like feeling sorry for a
guy who won 7 best actor oscars, but no Emmys.
CloudsRest
>
> - Show quoted text -
His poor French results only hurt when compared to Federer and Laver.
The stellar results at the other majors keep him above everyone else.
Raja, The Great
Wimbledon is an Oscar but rest of the slams are Emmy's. What kind of a
retard are you? Do you honestly believe the bullshit you type. All the
4 slams have the same competitors, the same prize money, same ranking
points and the same effort by all top players. And you still believe
in this Wimbledon hype. This nonsense Wimbledon hype in the western
world has got to change. I think winning Wimbledon does not even prove
you are a dominant player... if you a have a big serve, it is highly
favorable to you. A lot more effort is needed in the other slams. In
fact in terms of difficulty Wimbledon is the least important.
stephenJ
yeah, pretty much.
stephenJ
yep. it's only a black mark at the very highest level, against all
others it doesn't matter.
--
Unhappy women are given to protect their sensitiveness
by cynical gossip, by whining, by high-church and new-thought
religions, or by a fog of vagueness.
- Sinclair Lewis
Raja, The Great
> Whisper wrote:
> > On 4/5/2010 4:03 PM, Superdave wrote:
I have a feeling you agree with Whisper, because you just like to
troll. How long will you put up this with. It is almost 10 years of
relentless trolling. At least at one spot in your life, you ought to
grow up. Doesn't seem like it is gonna happen anytime soon. You will
continue to exist as a pathetic individual.
SliceAndDice
I do not think Wimbledon proves you are a dominant player or you are
the most skillful player. It is just the crown jewel of tennis, for
historical reasons. The title all tennis players covet. The relative
prestige gap between Wimby and the other slams is narrowing, but it
has always been "the slam to win", even more so in Lendl's days.
Raja, The Great
But winning Wim over AO doesnt prove anything. If you are missing a
Wimbledon or a FO you are still missing the 4th slam. Borg/Connors/
Lendl/McEnroe/Becker/Wilander/Edberg/Sampras all missed the 4th slam.
And each one of them would have wanted to have it.
Borg and McEnroe never even won their 3rd slam but they do miss the AO
because it wasnt really important back. But Borg would have
desperatedly wanted USO and McEnroe has made it clear FO still gives
him nightmares.
Superdave
wrote:
it's his calling. not everybody can be a brain surgeon.
Whisper
Yes, but that's gravy. Wimbledon is the one to win every single year.
If you do that you'll never be disappointed with the year - best actor
oscar.
Raja, The Great
> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:58:45 -0700 (PDT), "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com>
Speaking of brains... I think both Whisper and Jaroast have been
lobotomized since birth. They "think" alike.
Raja, The Great
Repeating bullshit doesn't make it true...
bob
wrote:
when i see lendl i almost want to shed a tear - i was a lendl fan. :-(
bob
bob
it proves you were able to win the event that everybody most wants to
win. that says quite a bit.
bob
bob
<zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 4, 8:36 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 18:27:47 -0700 (PDT), CloudsRest
>>
>> <spartan-warrio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 4, 5:47 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>> >> > CloudsRest wrote:
>> >> >http://bleacherreport.com/articles/372632-who-is-the-goat-some-stats-...
>>
>> >> > Objective analysis.
>>
>> >> problem here is that it counts an AO win equal to W, and we all know
>> >> that's not true.
>>
>> >There are people in this world that evaluate strictly by the numbers.
>> >No extra credit based on emotional factors or prestige. From what
>> >I've seen, Federer tries equally hard at all four majors.
>>
>> problem is what you don't see. Wimbledon is most important to fed -
>> and he admitted it many times.
>
>I don't see Nadal saying that.
he did say it - before he won Wimbledon.
> Anyone who wins a certain slam a lot
>more often than the rest is going to trumpet it. Henin says FO is what
>she respects the most. Better luck trolling next time.
henin said that because of a special family sentimental reason, no
other reason.
bob
Raja, The Great
>
>
> when i see lendl i almost want to shed a tear - i was a lendl fan. :-(
lol, you are not a Lendl fan. you have said enough bullshit about him
for all of us to see. You are a big Sampras fan though.
Sakari Lund
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>On Apr 3, 10:29 pm, SliceAndDice <visha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 9:12 pm, CloudsRest <spartan-warrio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://bleacherreport.com/articles/372632-who-is-the-goat-some-stats-...
>>
>> > Objective analysis.
>>
>> Who is Llendl?
>
>Chris Evert's first husband.
I thought it was Kim Clijsters' former fiancé.
bob
i liked lendl more than pete; i preferred pete's game (and results)
more than lendl's.
bob
Raja, The Great
> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:20:02 -0700 (PDT), "Raja, The Great"
>
> >On Apr 5, 4:01 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> when i see lendl i almost want to shed a tear - i was a lendl fan. :-(
>
> >lol, you are not a Lendl fan. you have said enough bullshit about him
> >for all of us to see. You are a big Sampras fan though.
>
> i liked lendl more than pete; i preferred pete's game (and results)
> more than lendl's.
Is that why you trumpet Sampras 99% of the time and mock Lendl 99% of
the time?
stephenJ
Yes, i've never heard of anyone winning Wimbledon and yet thinking of it
as a disappointing year.
--
She had the neophyte's shock of discovery that ...
conservatives do not tremble and find no answer
when an iconoclast turns on them, but retort with
agility and confusing statistics.
- Sinclair Lewis
bob
i don't knock lendl - i think a bad call prevented him from winning
Wimbledon. i simply cannot put a guy's "achievement status" in tier I
w/out winning multiple Wimbledons, let alone 1. it's just too
important to tennis. lendl knew this too, but he also was very money
driven so focused on that a lot also.
i cheered for lendl in probably every match he played from 1985-1990.
bob
MBDunc
> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 19:38:43 -0700 (PDT), "Raja, The Great"
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 5, 8:49 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:20:02 -0700 (PDT), "Raja, The Great"
>
> >> <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 5, 4:01 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> when i see lendl i almost want to shed a tear - i was a lendl fan. :-(
>
> >> >lol, you are not a Lendl fan. you have said enough bullshit about him
> >> >for all of us to see. You are a big Sampras fan though.
>
> >> i liked lendl more than pete; i preferred pete's game (and results)
> >> more than lendl's.
>
> >Is that why you trumpet Sampras 99% of the time and mock Lendl 99% of
> >the time?
>
> i don't knock lendl - i think a bad call prevented him from winning
> Wimbledon. i simply cannot put a guy's "achievement status" in tier I
> w/out winning multiple Wimbledons, let alone 1. it's just too
> important to tennis. lendl knew this too, but he also was very money
> driven so focused on that a lot also.
>
> i cheered for lendl in probably every match he played from 1985-1990.
>
I am one of those who learned to love Lendl. Most probably because
Becker is my all-time favourite player there was no room to cheer
Lendl at the same time. However when Lendl retired I gradually started
to like him more and more.
But Edberg...I never learned to like him...
.mikko
CloudsRest
>
>
Lendl's take:
"He agrees that 16-time major winner Federer should be considered the
Greatest Of All Time based on his record haul of Slams — but only in
the professional era. He argues that two-time calendar Grand Slam
winner Rod Laver is the best of the pre-1969 Open era, and the Swiss
Maestro is the best since.
'I have struggled with this question, and I came to the conclusion
that you have to separate history into two eras,' he says.
He adds: 'The only way we could take that away is if (Federer) wins
the calendar year Grand Slam.' "
Superdave
I said the same thing here is rst long ago. You cannot mix the two eras.