> On Fri, 31 May 2019 10:48:08 -0700 (PDT), kaennorsing
> <
ljub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Op vrijdag 31 mei 2019 18:06:29 UTC+2 schreef bob:
>>> the bottom line of the measurement we're looking for is dominance. who
>>> was the better player. who dominated more. who achieved more.
>>>
>>> i brought it up a decade ago related to the men: was there a "sweet
>>> spot" for how much you won VS a given time period? is 10 slams in 10
>>> yrs better than 12 slams in 20 yrs?
>>>
>>> i know everybody relevant to this discussion replied. it can be
>>> googled. :-)
>>>
>>> so total trophies VS better slam trophy %. do we want to measure
>>> *dominance* or *achievement*.
>>>
>>> the answer is obvious. a far higher slam win % measure dominance.
>>> total slam count (or 7543 if you prefer) measures achievement. we're
>>> back to BOAT vs GOAT - all over again.
>>>
>>> bob
>>
>>Total numbers are what matter most.
>
> to you. but i'm not disagreeing. others with agendas may.
>
>> We can give bones points for concentrated dominance. Eg. Fed's 5 year fast court dominance at W/USO, Djoker's 4 slams in a row (2x?), Rafa's FO/clay streaks etc...
>>But that's also double counting. Besides, who decides what dominance measures count for what? Not objective at all.
>
> well, the objective measurement is fairly simple, slam winning %. by
> that i mean how many slams won out of how many slams entered.
I don't mind it as that's just a stat.
But then we use other stats too to get a fuller picture.