Is Stan the greatest 'late bloomer' in open era?

[Whisper]

He won his 1st slam just just short of his 29th b'day & could have 4 by
age 32 if he wins on sunday. Well technically he could have 7 slams
before his 33rd b'day, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

If he does win it would mean he's beaten Djoker in 2 of those finals &
Rafa (most likely) in 2 - that's pretty hardcore for a late bloomer.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Federer Fanatic]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 01:52:22 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
|
| He won his 1st slam just just short of his 29th b'day & could have 4 by
| age 32 if he wins on sunday. Well technically he could have 7 slams
| before his 33rd b'day, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
|
| If he does win it would mean he's beaten Djoker in 2 of those finals &
| Rafa (most likely) in 2 - that's pretty hardcore for a late bloomer.
|
|

No idea. But certainly should be a candidate. Pity he didn't find this
form earlier in his career. No Swedish Svengali was present?

FF

[StephenJ]

On 6/9/2017 11:52 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
> He won his 1st slam just just short of his 29th b'day & could have 4 by
> age 32 if he wins on sunday.

In a word, yes. And as you say, he's earned each slam, beating Joker and
Nadal to win all of them so far. A fourth would be amazing.

[Manuel aka Xax]

I can't think of a better candidate right now, yet I must confess that my mind hasn't been on tennis for some times.

[Yama]

Yeah, that's the best part. It's not like he has been beating mugs to
fluke out a big win.

http://i.imgur.com/JTWWhq9.png

[bob]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 01:52:22 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

>He won his 1st slam just just short of his 29th b'day & could have 4 by
>age 32 if he wins on sunday. Well technically he could have 7 slams
>before his 33rd b'day, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
>If he does win it would mean he's beaten Djoker in 2 of those finals &
>Rafa (most likely) in 2 - that's pretty hardcore for a late bloomer.

good post, hard to see guys peaking that late anymore but stan has
done the seemingly impossible. and he plays a game that's appealing to
the eye.

while i'd like to see rafa win for obvious reasons, i like stan and if
he wins congrats to him.

bob

[StephenJ]

On 6/9/2017 7:40 PM, bob wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 01:52:22 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> He won his 1st slam just just short of his 29th b'day & could have 4 by
>> age 32 if he wins on sunday. Well technically he could have 7 slams
>> before his 33rd b'day, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
>> If he does win it would mean he's beaten Djoker in 2 of those finals &
>> Rafa (most likely) in 2 - that's pretty hardcore for a late bloomer.
>
> good post, hard to see guys peaking that late anymore

I think with the improved training we're going to just see more of
everything in the 30s from now on - more guys who won in their 20s win
in their 30s, more guys who never won doing so, etc. We're already
seeing it.

[MBDunc]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:45:36 PM UTC+3, StephenJ wrote:
> I think with the improved training we're going to just see more of
> everything in the 30s from now on - more guys who won in their 20s win
> in their 30s, more guys who never won doing so, etc. We're already
> seeing it.

Not only normal physical training but pro attitude. No more room for sex/drugs/partylife even off-season.

Duller? Yes, but more quality and sustainability -> pros at top live longer.

.mikko

[StephenJ]

Yes, and in a way, a return to how things were in the very early days of
the open era and before, when it wasn't rare for top players like
rosewall, laver, gonzo, etc. to win big titles in their 30s.

[bob]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:45:37 -0400, StephenJ <step...@flex.com>
wrote:

lebron james is peak at 33. johnon retired at 31.

bob

[StephenJ]

And Manning and Brady maintained MVP form up to pushing 40. We're seeing
it everywhere! :)

I think Mikko is right as well, it's not just the training but also that
being a top athlete is a 24/7 job these days, between extended seasons
and commercial commitments and the never ending glare of social media,
there's no off season where a guy can let himself go, etc. The guys who
do just don't last long.

[bob]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 08:31:16 -0400, StephenJ <step...@flex.com>

i agree the whole lifestyle changed for the top champs. fed, nadal,
lebron, brady - these are incredibly focused and disciplined folks.

but IMO the real changer has been the generation of 15-25yr olds are
a lot of lazy-ish, spoiled whiners who don't want to do the real
drudgery and road work.

same whiners who have hunger strikes at yale and "tap out" and eat
when they're hungry, yet claim to be in a hunger strike. it's that
mentality perhaps why we've not had any young guns coming up to knock
the old big 3 out, and lebron/brady keep thriving.

isn't that funny how it went?

bob

[StephenJ]

Yes, the 'snowflake' syndrome seems alive and well with the kyrigos
types, LOL. That has helped the feds and nadals stay on top, LOL.

[MBDunc]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 3:44:22 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
> i agree the whole lifestyle changed for the top champs. fed, nadal,
> lebron, brady - these are incredibly focused and disciplined folks.
>
> but IMO the real changer has been the generation of 15-25yr olds are
> a lot of lazy-ish, spoiled whiners who don't want to do the real
> drudgery and road work.

Men's tour is fine. No actual evidence of sudden "worse generation". Same could have said around 1968-69 when stars from fifties came to tour and instantly were top dogs. Rock'n roll examples like Tomic, Gulbis and Kyrgious have always been and maybe earlier (Nastase, Gerulaitis) they were actually winning slams.

But WTA ... Serena has done superb job even 2012-> ... but others? WTA marketing office surely have had horrible times for years. Whenever someone distantly looks promising - she falls, fails and fucks up multiple ways...

WTA was in superb state around 2005-2006....

.mikko

[Whisper]

It's great that players can play on til old age I agree, but we need
more characters like in the old days.

[Federer Fanatic]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:31:49 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
| On 10/06/2017 9:53 PM, MBDunc wrote:
|> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:45:36 PM UTC+3, StephenJ wrote:
|>> I think with the improved training we're going to just see more of
|>> everything in the 30s from now on - more guys who won in their 20s win
|>> in their 30s, more guys who never won doing so, etc. We're already
|>> seeing it.
|>
|> Not only normal physical training but pro attitude. No more room for sex/drugs/partylife even off-season.
|>
|> Duller? Yes, but more quality and sustainability -> pros at top live longer.
|>
|> .mikko
|>
|
| It's great that players can play on til old age I agree, but we need
| more characters like in the old days.
|
|

Too much money in the game today. Big corporate interests want athletes who promote their products.

FF

[bob]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:27:15 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 3:44:22 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
>> i agree the whole lifestyle changed for the top champs. fed, nadal,
>> lebron, brady - these are incredibly focused and disciplined folks.
>>
>> but IMO the real changer has been the generation of 15-25yr olds are
>> a lot of lazy-ish, spoiled whiners who don't want to do the real
>> drudgery and road work.
>
>Men's tour is fine. No actual evidence of sudden "worse generation".

? we've had the same 4 guys dominating over a decade. when a top
youngster?

> Same could have said around 1968-69 when stars from fifties came to tour and instantly were top dogs. Rock'n roll examples like Tomic, Gulbis and Kyrgious have always been and maybe earlier (Nastase, Gerulaitis) they were actually winning slams.

key phrase: they were actually winning slams.

>But WTA ... Serena has done superb job even 2012-> ... but others? WTA marketing office surely have had horrible times for years. Whenever someone distantly looks promising - she falls, fails and fucks up multiple ways...
>WTA was in superb state around 2005-2006....

btw, serena still at the top is more proof of jaros' claim.

bob

[heyg...@gmail.com]

Serena is still at the top because she did what she needed to improve. Her serve got even better, modern strings helped her consistency with no loss of power, and a professional coach improved her strategy. Serena w/o all this maybe wins half the slams she won since 2012 and prob no FOs.

[MBDunc]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 4:47:43 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:27:15 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>

> >On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 3:44:22 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
> >> i agree the whole lifestyle changed for the top champs. fed, nadal,
> >> lebron, brady - these are incredibly focused and disciplined folks.
> >>
> >> but IMO the real changer has been the generation of 15-25yr olds are
> >> a lot of lazy-ish, spoiled whiners who don't want to do the real
> >> drudgery and road work.
> >
> >Men's tour is fine. No actual evidence of sudden "worse generation".
>
> ? we've had the same 4 guys dominating over a decade. when a top
> youngster?

Apples and oranges. As tennis is not measurable sport - it is all about subjective biases. Facts are that we have three 10+ slammists in the mix who have provided legacy-defining historic matches constantly over the last dozen years. What is actually miissing? Justin Biebers of tennis named Bill Bazooka?

> > Same could have said around 1968-69 when stars from fifties came to tour and instantly were top dogs. Rock'n roll examples like Tomic, Gulbis and Kyrgious have always been and maybe earlier (Nastase, Gerulaitis) they were actually winning slams.
>
> key phrase: they were actually winning slams.

Yet, Running 100m 10sec flat would have easily brought OG during all 70:ies events. Now with this time you will fight for final outer tracks.

.mikko

[Whisper]

On 11/06/2017 7:17 PM, MBDunc wrote:

>
> Yet, Running 100m 10sec flat would have easily brought OG during all 70:ies events. Now with this time you will fight for final outer tracks.
>
> .mikko
>

You can't compare timed events to non-timed. To win a race you have to
train to be fast, so beating the clock is a key performance indicator.

To be no.1 in tennis & win slams you don't have to be better than past
greats, as the measure is the actual winning of a slam title against the
available competition of the day. Do you have to serve better, hit
better groundies etc than past generations to win slams? Of course not.
Why would you?

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 11.6.2017 12:40, Whisper wrote:
> On 11/06/2017 7:17 PM, MBDunc wrote:
>
>>
>> Yet, Running 100m 10sec flat would have easily brought OG during all
>> 70:ies events. Now with this time you will fight for final outer tracks.
>>
>> .mikko
>>
>
>
> You can't compare timed events to non-timed. To win a race you have to
> train to be fast, so beating the clock is a key performance indicator.

You can look at thing like, how many ranking points do you need to have
to be ranked #100? Does that increase/decrease in time?

That's a clock. The tougher that gets, the harder it is to go anywhere
with 10 secs.

> To be no.1 in tennis & win slams you don't have to be better than past
> greats, as the measure is the actual winning of a slam title against the
> available competition of the day. Do you have to serve better, hit
> better groundies etc than past generations to win slams? Of course not.
> Why would you?

This we can see with our own eyes. There's no question that Federer has
umpteen times better groundies than Sampras. Sampras had better
groundies than Becker, Becker had better groundies than Johnny Mac, ...

... once there was 1 Lendl, now there's 10k.

--
“Donald Trump is the weak man’s vision of a strong man.”
-- Charles Cooke

[Whisper]

Give these guys wood rackets let's see how they look.

; )



--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 02:17:26 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 4:47:43 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:27:15 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>>
>> >On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 3:44:22 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
>> >> i agree the whole lifestyle changed for the top champs. fed, nadal,
>> >> lebron, brady - these are incredibly focused and disciplined folks.
>> >>
>> >> but IMO the real changer has been the generation of 15-25yr olds are
>> >> a lot of lazy-ish, spoiled whiners who don't want to do the real
>> >> drudgery and road work.
>> >
>> >Men's tour is fine. No actual evidence of sudden "worse generation".
>>
>> ? we've had the same 4 guys dominating over a decade. when a top
>> youngster?
>
>Apples and oranges. As tennis is not measurable sport - it is all about subjective biases. Facts are that we have three 10+ slammists in the mix who have provided legacy-defining historic matches constantly over the last dozen years. What is actually miissing? Justin Biebers of tennis named Bill Bazooka?

your opinion that these 3 12+ slammers of past decade are the
"greatest players in history." duly noted.

>> > Same could have said around 1968-69 when stars from fifties came to tour and instantly were top dogs. Rock'n roll examples like Tomic, Gulbis and Kyrgious have always been and maybe earlier (Nastase, Gerulaitis) they were actually winning slams.
>>
>> key phrase: they were actually winning slams.
>
>Yet, Running 100m 10sec flat would have easily brought OG during all 70:ies events. Now with this time you will fight for final outer tracks.

i'm sure kyrgios could beat borg, if you take kyrgios' 2017 level VS
borg's 1980 level. what does that have to do with anything?

>.mikko

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 13:25:59 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.com>
wrote:

>On 11.6.2017 12:40, Whisper wrote:
>> On 11/06/2017 7:17 PM, MBDunc wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yet, Running 100m 10sec flat would have easily brought OG during all
>>> 70:ies events. Now with this time you will fight for final outer tracks.
>>>
>>> .mikko
>>>
>>
>>
>> You can't compare timed events to non-timed. To win a race you have to
>> train to be fast, so beating the clock is a key performance indicator.
>
>You can look at thing like, how many ranking points do you need to have
>to be ranked #100? Does that increase/decrease in time?

irrelevant cause you're still playing the opponents of the day to get
those points. practice up on your #s pelle. :-)


bob

[MBDunc]

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 3:14:14 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
> >Apples and oranges. As tennis is not measurable sport - it is all about subjective biases. Facts are that we have three 10+ slammists in the mix who have provided legacy-defining historic matches constantly over the last dozen years. What is actually miissing? Justin Biebers of tennis named Bill Bazooka?
>
> your opinion that these 3 12+ slammers of past decade are the
> "greatest players in history." duly noted.

3rd time: they actually have a fact based case - many good names do not have that luxury and digging through evidence pile can reveal items like...."Gee, that Hoad guy actually never won anything but some amateur slams".

If pressed ... my personal top3: Tilden, Pancho, Federer.

Tier2: Laver, Borg, Sampras, Nadal, ... Laver and Sampras being very close to tier1.

.mikko

[Pelle Svanslös]

:)

The assumption is that if you have to have more points for #100 in 2017
than in 2000, then presumably the #100 ranked player in 2017 is better
in 2000. And anybody playing that guy in 2017 will face a fiercer
opposition.

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 05:38:39 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 3:14:14 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
>> >Apples and oranges. As tennis is not measurable sport - it is all about subjective biases. Facts are that we have three 10+ slammists in the mix who have provided legacy-defining historic matches constantly over the last dozen years. What is actually miissing? Justin Biebers of tennis named Bill Bazooka?
>>
>> your opinion that these 3 12+ slammers of past decade are the
>> "greatest players in history." duly noted.
>
>3rd time:

4th but who's counting.

>they actually have a fact based case - many good names do not have that luxury and digging through evidence pile can reveal items like...."Gee, that Hoad guy actually never won anything but some amateur slams".
>If pressed ... my personal top3: Tilden, Pancho, Federer.
>Tier2: Laver, Borg, Sampras, Nadal, ... Laver and Sampras being very close to tier1.

ok, finally was able to bait you out.

disclaimer: i don't rate anything pre open, simply cause:
(1) the obvious amateur issue, i.e. the changing times of $$ vs titles
vs which slam titles.
(2) i wasn't alive to see it. i like to see - or at least be alive
during the - times i'm going to form this type of opinion on.

i'd have fed in a tier of his own, except for the H2H with nadal, only
1 clay slam and no OG. everyone has some flaws, those are fed's. if
fed had only 1 of those flaw, i'd have him in his own tier. fed surely
has the GOAT hardware (atm), but if we're going to pick a tier i've
got fed, nadal, sampras, borg, laver. same as you!

laver earned it in the 60s, borg 70s, sampras 90s, fed 2000s, rafa
2010s. only decade missing is 80s. 80s was fairly deep IMO - mcenroe,
lendl, becker.

bob

[Whisper]

On 11/06/2017 10:38 PM, MBDunc wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 3:14:14 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
>>> Apples and oranges. As tennis is not measurable sport - it is all about subjective biases. Facts are that we have three 10+ slammists in the mix who have provided legacy-defining historic matches constantly over the last dozen years. What is actually miissing? Justin Biebers of tennis named Bill Bazooka?
>>
>> your opinion that these 3 12+ slammers of past decade are the
>> "greatest players in history." duly noted.
>
> 3rd time: they actually have a fact based case - many good names do not have that luxury and digging through evidence pile can reveal items like...."Gee, that Hoad guy actually never won anything but some amateur slams".
>
> If pressed ... my personal top3: Tilden, Pancho, Federer.

Not bad, but I have a slight problem with Federer. Tilden & Pancho
seemed to be able to win at will, even giving opponents head starts etc.
They certainly were the best of their generation at peak.
Unfortunately for Roger he looked 2nd fiddle to his main rival, & not
just on clay. I agree if we ignore Rafa then Fed would be a good candidate.

>
> Tier2: Laver, Borg, Sampras, Nadal, ... Laver and Sampras being very close to tier1.
>

I kinda have McEnroe & Hoad in a special bubble. While they may be
behind in sheer numbers, the quality of their peaks is considered by
many (peers & experts) to be best ever stuff.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Djok with his NCYGS HAS to be tier 1. Besides, he's the (sunk) BOAT.

[Whisper]

That would only be true if the conditions are similar in 2017 to
previous eras, otherwise it's apples/oranges comparison.

We know today there is little difference between the surfaces, & no
variety in opponent styles. That means the higher your ranking the more
points you will accumulate, as your style will prevail everywhere as
there are no 'booby traps'. Those are critical issues that distort a
direct comparison - ie 'wow this orange is much better than this apple',
rather than 'this orange is better than that orange'.

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 16:00:33 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.com>
wrote:

djok's results aren't tier I yet IMO. but he does have a claim to HC
BOAT.

bob

[MBDunc]

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 3:58:01 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> > If pressed ... my personal top3: Tilden, Pancho, Federer.
>
>
> Not bad, but I have a slight problem with Federer. Tilden & Pancho
> seemed to be able to win at will, even giving opponents head starts etc.

Fed's absolute numbers are just too good compared to other open era greats. You have to use "soft values" like gutfeelings/methinks/other subjective proritization to degrade his position.

> They certainly were the best of their generation at peak.
> Unfortunately for Roger he looked 2nd fiddle to his main rival, & not
> just on clay. I agree if we ignore Rafa then Fed would be a good candidate.
>
>
> >
> > Tier2: Laver, Borg, Sampras, Nadal, ... Laver and Sampras being very close to tier1.
> >
>
>
> I kinda have McEnroe & Hoad in a special bubble. While they may be
> behind in sheer numbers, the quality of their peaks is considered by
> many (peers & experts) to be best ever stuff.

Those peers and experts are 100y old. Same thing as declaring WW Beetle from '57 the greatest car ever..

.mikko

[Pelle Svanslös]

Not, really. Who cares how you play. If you win, you're the better player.

> We know today there is little difference between the surfaces,

We don't really know this. We do know that around 2002 a couple of
things changed, which did slow some things down. That's 15 years ago,
however. My hunch is, that things have changed a bit since.

& no
> variety in opponent styles.

That's true. But they have been converging all the time --> what is
optimal 52 weeks out of 52.

> That means the higher your ranking the more
> points you will accumulate, as your style will prevail everywhere as
> there are no 'booby traps'.

That's assuming the surfaces really are the same. One look at what Rafa
has done makes you question that.

> Those are critical issues that distort a
> direct comparison -

Not really. A win is a win is a win.

[Whisper]

I keep disagreeing with all your analogies because they are very poor.
There is a *reason* for cars to improve, for track runners to run faster
etc. There is never any reason for the quality of tennis to improve.
All you have to do is beat the players in your era. Are you saying if
current guys aren't as good as past eras they wouldn't win slams?
That's clearly wrong as somebody will win them, irrespective of player
quality.

[Whisper]

I need something more meaty than 'not really'. It's no more satisfying
than 'methinks'.

--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

[Pelle Svanslös]

Would FU suffice?

Seriously, all your efforts are non-starters.

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 06:12:24 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 3:58:01 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
>> > If pressed ... my personal top3: Tilden, Pancho, Federer.
>>
>>
>> Not bad, but I have a slight problem with Federer. Tilden & Pancho
>> seemed to be able to win at will, even giving opponents head starts etc.
>
>Fed's absolute numbers are just too good compared to other open era greats. You have to use "soft values" like gutfeelings/methinks/other subjective proritization to degrade his position.

i prefer to use "something fishy going on" but not just cause of fed.
cause of fed, nadal, djok all CGS, all very high slam counts, and
even stan winning 3/4 of slams.

>> They certainly were the best of their generation at peak.
>> Unfortunately for Roger he looked 2nd fiddle to his main rival, & not
>> just on clay. I agree if we ignore Rafa then Fed would be a good candidate.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Tier2: Laver, Borg, Sampras, Nadal, ... Laver and Sampras being very close to tier1.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I kinda have McEnroe & Hoad in a special bubble. While they may be
>> behind in sheer numbers, the quality of their peaks is considered by
>> many (peers & experts) to be best ever stuff.
>
>Those peers and experts are 100y old. Same thing as declaring WW Beetle from '57 the greatest car ever..

and maybe 65 mustang or 57 beetle are the greatest though, far better
than any 2015 corolla. you need to consider it. mcenroe, for my money,
had the most raw talent of anyone i've seen. and the most pleasing
game to watch also.

bob

[John Liang]

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 10:58:01 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> On 11/06/2017 10:38 PM, MBDunc wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 3:14:14 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
> >>> Apples and oranges. As tennis is not measurable sport - it is all about subjective biases. Facts are that we have three 10+ slammists in the mix who have provided legacy-defining historic matches constantly over the last dozen years. What is actually miissing? Justin Biebers of tennis named Bill Bazooka?
> >>
> >> your opinion that these 3 12+ slammers of past decade are the
> >> "greatest players in history." duly noted.
> >
> > 3rd time: they actually have a fact based case - many good names do not have that luxury and digging through evidence pile can reveal items like...."Gee, that Hoad guy actually never won anything but some amateur slams".
> >
> > If pressed ... my personal top3: Tilden, Pancho, Federer.
>
>
> Not bad, but I have a slight problem with Federer. Tilden & Pancho
> seemed to be able to win at will, even giving opponents head starts etc.
> They certainly were the best of their generation at peak.
> Unfortunately for Roger he looked 2nd fiddle to his main rival, & not
> just on clay. I agree if we ignore Rafa then Fed would be a good candidate.

If Nadal was your first fiddle then why he wasn't able to defend a single slam off clay, let's put it this way not even a single non clay court titles in his whole career. Federer as a second fiddle player defended Wimbledon 4 times and USO also 4 times. If Nadal was winning at will in non clay court slams then their difference at two of the bluest blue ribbon slam should not be more than 8.

>
>
> >
> > Tier2: Laver, Borg, Sampras, Nadal, ... Laver and Sampras being very close to tier1.
> >
>
>
> I kinda have McEnroe & Hoad in a special bubble. While they may be
> behind in sheer numbers, the quality of their peaks is considered by
> many (peers & experts) to be best ever stuff.

Mac had one year fluke in 1984 and wasn't able to repeat it. Hoad lost what 27 out of 36 and he is certainly not in the running in any GOAT or BOAT debate.

[Patrick Kehoe]

You'd have to understand the concept of dynamical progression to understand why generations (governed and competitive within a set of principles and 'functions') manifest qualities of differentiation and nuance which allow for incremental movement against given norms. Applied to sports it means that to exact or manifest success (to win) each competitor re-adjusts and redesigns (according to their own ability horizons) competences and variation over time. Given that sports (especially pro sports) also manifests as a (conditional)hierarchy, the elites are constantly 'rivalled' and (to simplify things here) eventually overcome within the game structure (bounds of givenness of technique, strategy, application of elements (equipment) AND personal entropy as well as many other factors. Generations also overlap and create randomizing factors... and etc.

NOTE: Seldom are there clean breakages AND some generations are more resistant to on coming encroachments BECAUSE they themselves are so highly adaptable even over inordinant time periods (in fact that helps define them as beyond exceptional (champions); they are singularities (iconic greatness manifest) a AND BECAUSE they can recreate structures/factors for maintaining 'singularity' (another concept too complex to explain in full).

P

[jdeluise]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:06:51 -0700, Patrick Kehoe wrote:

> You'd have to understand the concept of dynamical progression to
> understand why generations (governed and competitive within a set of
> principles and 'functions') manifest qualities of differentiation and
> nuance which allow for incremental movement against given norms. Applied
> to sports it means that to exact or manifest success (to win) each
> competitor re-adjusts and redesigns (according to their own ability
> horizons) competences and variation over time. Given that sports
> (especially pro sports) also manifests as a (conditional)hierarchy, the
> elites are constantly 'rivalled' and (to simplify things here)
> eventually overcome within the game structure (bounds of givenness of
> technique, strategy, application of elements (equipment) AND personal
> entropy as well as many other factors. Generations also overlap and
> create randomizing factors... and etc.

Ah yes, the typical Kehoe gibberish employeed to mask the fact you seem
to lack even the most basic understanding of grammar, spelling or
sentence construction. My god, your editor must be a saint.

[jdeluise]

Although it would have been more effective had I not misspelled
"employed" :)

[Carey]

I was thinking Kehoe had to be satirizing himself, but maybe not. o;

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

no - he's just that good. :-)

bob

[Gracchus]

That's okay. The grammar gods will probably forgive you.

As for the content, maybe Patrick doesn't write this way when he's working professionally. The style we see here might be reserved solely for informal forum posts. I don't know why he would do that, but it's possible. Or a simpler explanation is that he only posts on RST when he's stoned.

[Whisper]

I see Patrick as a hippie, pot-smoking poet. He does add a certain
something to this group?

[jdeluise]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 01:54:45 +1000, Whisper wrote:

> I see Patrick as a hippie, pot-smoking poet. He does add a certain
> something to this group?

Sure. I like him a lot despite my typically abrasive comments.

[Whisper]

Yes, we'll only know when he posts sober 1 day.

[*skriptis]

Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

Maybe but I don't necessarily feel that e.g. a lion somewhere in
Africa today is a more dangerous alfa predator who bullies other
lions and fights for females, than his predecessor 2 thousands
years ago was.


More likely that we got, not necessarily most talented even though
they're talented, but what we're seeing is probably most
*motivated* generation of players that keep motivating each other
and push each other.
Like the cycling teams.


That could mean e.g. sharp decline in quality once they retire,
with having Kyrgios types winning slam or two and then go
partying.




--

[bob]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 01:54:45 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

most certainly.

bob

[Whisper]

He seems to be too stoned/happy to take offense & continues producing
poetry.

[Gracchus]

Same here. I enjoy his spirit and observations. It's just hard to get through those long posts with dense blocks of text heaped with adjectives and ellipses, and meandering in every direction before arriving at the point--maybe. Like Kerouac writing a sports column, it's not a natural mix.

[Guypers]

Sentence Examples

» more...
Adequate and vivid) from obscure, fragmentary and incoherent conceptions.
From the mazy and incoherent alchemical and iatrochemical doctrines, the former based on false conceptions of matter, the latter on erroneous views of life processes and physiology, a new science arose - the study of the composition of substances.
Yet this apparently incoherent aggregate held its ground successfully against the powerful armies often sent against the place both by the king of Dahomey from the west, and by the people of Ibadan from the north-east.
These being too incoherent to serve for a legal report, a false account of the friar's avowals was drawn up and published.
From this vague, incoherent, yet gifted writer our author acquired some of his strong feeling for the naive.

Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/incoherent#oLJ1U2giqtqUZ1VJ.99

[Patrick Kehoe]

Well, the lion is manifesting his naturally attuned predatory/instinctual survival 'skills' he's not playing a 'game' or sport which has governing law/rules conditioning performance. So, there's that... :)

>
>
> More likely that we got, not necessarily most talented even though
> they're talented, but what we're seeing is probably most
> *motivated* generation of players that keep motivating each other
> and push each other.

Motivation runs concurrently through 'generations' so, it's 'more' normative as a factor, than others...

> Like the cycling teams.

yes...

> That could mean e.g. sharp decline in quality once they retire,
> with having Kyrgios types winning slam or two and then go
> partying.

But within the given generation (the one in ascendency, chronological and/or by merit) there are still elites and those (or the one) that dominate(s) the elites... and typically over the generations competences (normative performance ability) tends to improve precisely because it takes outlying excellence to enact dominance incrementally all along the time line of progressive insurgency at each phase just to be a champion and then enact dominance... that's what pro sport becomes, methodologies for enacting dominance to re-create patterns for continued success game after game, season after season, with ever changing oppositions and conditions. In 1988, it looked for all the world that the defining great player after the Borg would be either Lendl or young Becker and within an eye blink came Sampras... :)

P

[Court_1]

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:09:43 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:

> djok's results aren't tier I yet IMO. but he does have a claim to HC
> BOAT.

Djokovic has a claim to HC BOAT?

He has 6 AOs and 2 USOs vs Federer's 5 AOs and 5 USOs. Djokovic isn't the hc BOAT/GOAT/SCHMOAT/or whatever else you want to call it.

[*skriptis]

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:

Muster had a claim for clay boat even with 1 FO.
You're clueless about boat and what it means.


--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[John Liang]

Look who is posting this type of rubbish. Muster had a claim for clay boat ? The guys was a dominating figure on clay for that 1 year and he won 12 tournaments, other than two master series events on clay and FO in 1995, he just went on to play little clay court tournaments that top players did not even bother to turn up when majority of them were playing Wimbledon or preparing for USO on hard court. When we talked about great clay court players during that era Muster would be well behind Guga, Bruguera and Courier. Good on Muster for winning Umag, Kitzbuel, San Marino, Estoril but they are not comparable to a FO even Muster win 24 of them in a season.

[John Liang]

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 7:01:02 PM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:

> Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:09:43 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >
> >> djok's results aren't tier I yet IMO. but he does have a claim to HC
> >> BOAT.
> >
> > Djokovic has a claim to HC BOAT?
> >
> > He has 6 AOs and 2 USOs vs Federer's 5 AOs and 5 USOs. Djokovic isn't the hc BOAT/GOAT/SCHMOAT/or whatever else you want to call it.
> >
>
> Muster had a claim for clay boat even with 1 FO.

So Krajecek must also have a claim for grass boat with that 1 Wimbledon titles too if we follow your logic.

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:14:58 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:09:43 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:

>> djok's results aren't tier I yet IMO. but he does have a claim to HC
>> BOAT.

>Djokovic has a claim to HC BOAT?

BOAT, not GOAT. be even GOAT, he's not far off. he played some very
good HC stuff.

>He has 6 AOs and 2 USOs vs Federer's 5 AOs and 5 USOs. Djokovic isn't the hc BOAT/GOAT/SCHMOAT/or whatever else you want to call it.

bob

[Court_1]

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 8:15:00 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:


> BOAT, not GOAT. be even GOAT, he's not far off. he played some very
> good HC stuff.

He's none of the above. And stop this BOAT nonsense. It's the dumbest term I've ever heard and not "real" in the land of real tennis analysts.

Djokovic played some great hc tennis but he's not the HC GOAT/BOAT/ or SCHMOAT.
You can't be the hc GOAT when you only have two USOs.

[John Liang]

So bob give us you definition of BOAT, what qualify a player as a BOAT on a surface. Skriptis suggested that it would be good enough to be BOAT on a surface even with just 1 slam win on that surface.

[Court_1]

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 9:36:58 PM UTC-4, John Liang wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 10:15:00 AM UTC+10, bob wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:14:58 -0700 (PDT), Court_1

> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:09:43 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >
> > >> djok's results aren't tier I yet IMO. but he does have a claim to HC
> > >> BOAT.
> >
> > >Djokovic has a claim to HC BOAT?
> >
> > BOAT, not GOAT. be even GOAT, he's not far off. he played some very
> > good HC stuff.
> >
> > >He has 6 AOs and 2 USOs vs Federer's 5 AOs and 5 USOs. Djokovic isn't the hc BOAT/GOAT/SCHMOAT/or whatever else you want to call it.
> >
> > bob
>
> So bob give us you definition of BOAT, what qualify a player as a BOAT on a surface. Skriptis suggested that it would be good enough to be BOAT on a surface even with just 1 slam win on that surface.

Where did the stupid term BOAT come from? It's not something used in day to day expert tennis analysis. It's DUMB.

[John Liang]

It came from the same guy who developed 7543 because 7543 as a numerical system could no longer put Sampras on top in any meaningful measures in term of slam record, record at each individual slams.

[Court_1]

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 10:01:57 PM UTC-4, John Liang wrote:

> > Where did the stupid term BOAT come from? It's not something used in day to day expert tennis analysis. It's DUMB.
>
> It came from the same guy who developed 7543 because 7543 as a numerical system could no longer put Sampras on top in any meaningful measures in term of slam record, record at each individual slams.

They are both stupid concepts and only used on this ng.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Any concept that doesn't award anything to your dearie is "stupid". Oh
no, make that "STUPID".

Just relax and admit to yourself what every commentator of the game has
admitted, that Djok played BOAT tennis in 2015-2016.

No question about that one. And his BOAT-epsilon level was enough to pwn
a couple of ATGs on all surfaces. Not just on your pet surface.

--
“Donald Trump is the weak man’s vision of a strong man.”
-- Charles Cooke

[bob]

i believe i either coined BOAT or at least endeavored deep into its
meaning while discussing the fact that the most hardware doesn't mean
the best player, on absolute terms for say a given year timeframe.

bob

[John Liang]

Without further explanation we know the term of BOAT is rubbish, it is the same as 'absolute terms'. The players can be judge on one performance without even able to repeat such a performance on regular basis. krajicek beat a peak Sampras at Wimbledon in straight sets in 96 when Sampras was without doubt at peak of his career, base on what bob said above Krajicek would definitely qualified as the best player on a grass court.

[bob]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:48:05 -0700 (PDT), John Liang
<jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 12:49:26 PM UTC+10, bob wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 19:08:58 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 10:01:57 PM UTC-4, John Liang wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Where did the stupid term BOAT come from? It's not something used in day to day expert tennis analysis. It's DUMB.
>> >>
>> >> It came from the same guy who developed 7543 because 7543 as a numerical system could no longer put Sampras on top in any meaningful measures in term of slam record, record at each individual slams.
>> >
>> >They are both stupid concepts and only used on this ng.
>>
>> i believe i either coined BOAT or at least endeavored deep into its
>> meaning while discussing the fact that the most hardware doesn't mean
>> the best player, on absolute terms for say a given year timeframe.
>>
>> bob
>
>Without further explanation we know the term of BOAT is rubbish, it is the same as 'absolute terms'. The players can be judge on one performance without even able to repeat such a performance on regular basis.

no, it was discussed at length yrs ago that BOAT had to count for at
least a year, preferably a couple. not a point, game, set, match,
tournament or even season.

> krajicek beat a peak Sampras at Wimbledon in straight sets in 96 when Sampras was without doubt at peak of his career, base on what bob said above Krajicek would definitely qualified as the best player on a grass court.

bob

[John Liang]

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 6:48:21 AM UTC+10, bob wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:48:05 -0700 (PDT), John Liang
> <jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 12:49:26 PM UTC+10, bob wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 19:08:58 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> >> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 10:01:57 PM UTC-4, John Liang wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > Where did the stupid term BOAT come from? It's not something used in day to day expert tennis analysis. It's DUMB.
> >> >>
> >> >> It came from the same guy who developed 7543 because 7543 as a numerical system could no longer put Sampras on top in any meaningful measures in term of slam record, record at each individual slams.
> >> >
> >> >They are both stupid concepts and only used on this ng.
> >>
> >> i believe i either coined BOAT or at least endeavored deep into its
> >> meaning while discussing the fact that the most hardware doesn't mean
> >> the best player, on absolute terms for say a given year timeframe.
> >>
> >> bob
> >
> >Without further explanation we know the term of BOAT is rubbish, it is the same as 'absolute terms'. The players can be judge on one performance without even able to repeat such a performance on regular basis.
>
> no, it was discussed at length yrs ago that BOAT had to count for at
> least a year, preferably a couple. not a point, game, set, match,
> tournament or even season.

Fine, then Sampras did not qualify for BOAT on grass, hard court and carpet, since Krajicek lead him on everyone of those surface, 1:0 on grass, 4:3 on hard court and 2:0 on carpet over 7 years. So a guy without enough silver ware can caim to be BOAT. And you say Mac was BOAT when he was trailing 3:7 against Lendl in grand slam play. This is why no serious tennis analysts believe in your theory of BOAT because it is not how tennis players are measured. Djoker and Federer are better HC player because they actually won far more on that surface than Nadal. When a player had such a regularity of getting beaten by players that ranked so far below him like Nadal did then he is not the BOAT.

[bob]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 19:08:21 -0700 (PDT), John Liang

<jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 6:48:21 AM UTC+10, bob wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:48:05 -0700 (PDT), John Liang
>> <jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 12:49:26 PM UTC+10, bob wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 19:08:58 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> >> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 10:01:57 PM UTC-4, John Liang wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Where did the stupid term BOAT come from? It's not something used in day to day expert tennis analysis. It's DUMB.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It came from the same guy who developed 7543 because 7543 as a numerical system could no longer put Sampras on top in any meaningful measures in term of slam record, record at each individual slams.
>> >> >
>> >> >They are both stupid concepts and only used on this ng.
>> >>
>> >> i believe i either coined BOAT or at least endeavored deep into its
>> >> meaning while discussing the fact that the most hardware doesn't mean
>> >> the best player, on absolute terms for say a given year timeframe.
>> >>
>> >> bob
>> >
>> >Without further explanation we know the term of BOAT is rubbish, it is the same as 'absolute terms'. The players can be judge on one performance without even able to repeat such a performance on regular basis.
>>
>> no, it was discussed at length yrs ago that BOAT had to count for at
>> least a year, preferably a couple. not a point, game, set, match,
>> tournament or even season.
>
>Fine, then Sampras did not qualify for BOAT on grass, hard court and carpet, since Krajicek lead him on everyone of those surface, 1:0 on grass, 4:3 on hard court and 2:0 on carpet over 7 years. So a guy without enough silver ware can caim to be BOAT. And you say Mac was BOAT when he was trailing 3:7 against Lendl in grand slam play. This is why no serious tennis analysts believe in your theory of BOAT because it is not how tennis players are measured. Djoker and Federer are better HC player because they actually won far more on that surface than Nadal. When a player had such a regularity of getting beaten by players that ranked so far below him like Nadal did then he is not the BOAT.

if you're not going to read my posts, don't bother replying with
gibberish that is completely unrelated.

bob

[John Liang]

I have read you post, I can see the your theory of BOAT is absolute crap and you think you get a gibberish response that is because your definition of BOAT is gibberish. Your BOAT theory is like Titanic it sinks more than 100 years ago.

[Court_1]

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 10:13:32 AM UTC-4, John Liang wrote:

> I have read you post, I can see the your theory of BOAT is absolute crap and you think you get a gibberish response that is because your definition of BOAT is gibberish. Your BOAT theory is like Titanic it sinks more than 100 years ago.

+1. The whole BOAT theory is pure nonsense. Who cares. All that matters is which players are the greatest overall based on the accomplishments the tennis world deems as most important, i.e. slams, #1 stats. That's it. It's simple.

[John Liang]

Yes. if Nadal manages to win more slam than Federer then it does not matter what the argument is that he is a greater player than Federer. Getting a better mix of slam like winning more W and on HC will just solidify his claim if he manage to win more slam than Federer.

[bob]

was a slam count the #1 factor for borg? connors?

if you really want to go down that road, we should address everything
and everyone. not just since 2003.

bob

[Court_1]

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 8:56:43 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:

> was a slam count the #1 factor for borg?

Yes! Borg won 11 slams and McEnroe won 7. Borg is greater than McEnroe by the measure of every proper tennis analyst. Who would put McEnroe above Borg except for stupid fanatics?

[John Liang]

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 10:56:43 AM UTC+10, bob wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 16:31:21 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 10:13:32 AM UTC-4, John Liang wrote:
> >
> >> I have read you post, I can see the your theory of BOAT is absolute crap and you think you get a gibberish response that is because your definition of BOAT is gibberish. Your BOAT theory is like Titanic it sinks more than 100 years ago.
> >
> >+1. The whole BOAT theory is pure nonsense. Who cares. All that matters is which players are the greatest overall based on the accomplishments the tennis world deems as most important, i.e. slams, #1 stats. That's it. It's simple.
>
> was a slam count the #1 factor for borg? connors?

Borg and Connors were in a different era but for the last quarter of century slam count is the #1 factor that is for players including Mac, Lend, Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Djoker and Nadal.

>
> if you really want to go down that road, we should address everything
> and everyone. not just since 2003.

Well, go ahead, it does not matter how you like to address it, Nadal is not BOAT on non clay court surfaces, certainly not with his success rate on those surfaces, or comparing his success on those surface to what his arch rivals have achieved. Nadal may ended up been the greatest player ever overall but he may not be the greatest or the boat on HC/GC.
>
> bob

[Whisper]

Does Jimmy Connors count? He played peak Borg & Mac more than anybody,
& he said he'd pick Mac if he had to pick 1 guy to play for his life.

Maybe he's a 'stupid fanatic' compared to rst analysts who obviously
would know more than him?

: )

[John Liang]

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 10:19:12 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> On 19/06/2017 11:05 AM, Court_1 wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 8:56:43 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >
> >> was a slam count the #1 factor for borg?
> >
> > Yes! Borg won 11 slams and McEnroe won 7. Borg is greater than McEnroe by the measure of every proper tennis analyst. Who would put McEnroe above Borg except for stupid fanatics?
> >
> >
>
> Does Jimmy Connors count? He played peak Borg & Mac more than anybody,
> & he said he'd pick Mac if he had to pick 1 guy to play for his life.
>
> Maybe he's a 'stupid fanatic' compared to rst analysts who obviously
> would know more than him?

Did Connors also pick Federer to win 1 slam or Roddick to be Sampras on steroid like some other idiot name Whisper did ? I don't think so. We can certainly respect Connors opinion but not yours base on the track records of some of your fantastic off target analysis. Hey whimp, is Tomic ready to win Wimbledon this year ? He should be having at least two Wimbledons by now base on your prediction. I am still eagerly waiting for that straight set demolition of Nadal by Tomic since 2013.

[bob]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 18:05:40 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 8:56:43 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> was a slam count the #1 factor for borg?
>
>Yes!

then why did he skip so many?

> Borg won 11 slams and McEnroe won 7. Borg is greater than McEnroe by the measure of every proper tennis analyst. Who would put McEnroe above Borg except for stupid fanatics?

kbob

[MBDunc]

keskiviikko 21. kesäkuuta 2017 1.34.22 UTC+3 bob kirjoitti:
> >> was a slam count the #1 factor for borg?
> >
> >Yes!
>
> then why did he skip so many?
>
> > Borg won 11 slams and McEnroe won 7. Borg is greater than McEnroe by the measure of every proper tennis analyst. Who would put McEnroe above Borg except for stupid fanatics?
>
> kbob

I have read two Borg biographies (official) in both he clearly says "it was/is all about Wimbledon" *) -> 7-5-4-3 -> for Borg it was more like 10-5-3-0.

*) One of those those biographies was written 1979.

.mikko

[bob]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 23:12:36 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:

>keskiviikko 21. kesäkuuta 2017 1.34.22 UTC+3 bob kirjoitti:
>> >> was a slam count the #1 factor for borg?
>> >
>> >Yes!
>>
>> then why did he skip so many?
>>
>> > Borg won 11 slams and McEnroe won 7. Borg is greater than McEnroe by the measure of every proper tennis analyst. Who would put McEnroe above Borg except for stupid fanatics?
>>
>> kbob
>
>I have read two Borg biographies (official) in both he clearly says "it was/is all about Wimbledon" *) -> 7-5-4-3 -> for Borg it was more like 10-5-3-0.

well that's what i keep saying. and of course times have changed for
the players. slam counting originated around the time sampras had 10
slams, and tennis wasn't all that popular anymore.

>
>*) One of those those biographies was written 1979.

makes sense.

bob