info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
measuring dominance? or achievement?
31 views
Skip to first unread message
bob
May 31, 2019, 12:06:29 PM5/31/19
to
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
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
soccerfan777
May 31, 2019, 12:16:40 PM5/31/19
to
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 11:06:29 AM UTC-5, bob wrote:
> the bottom line of the measurement we're looking for is dominance. who
> was the better player. who dominated more. who achieved more.
>
I go with dominance. It makes more sense. I would rather go for a champion who was great day in day out (Graf) than someone who randomly popped in times and took advantage of a clown field (Serena).
> the bottom line of the measurement we're looking for is dominance. who
> was the better player. who dominated more. who achieved more.
>
That's why averaging the 7 best years of win-loss is the best measure for evaluating dominance. Anything less than a 7 is too less and anything more than 7 is too much IMO. Besides Borg, McEnroe and Wilander had 7 great years and then there is a huge drop off for McEnroe and Wilander and nothing for Borg (since he retired so young).
Whisper
May 31, 2019, 12:19:00 PM5/31/19
to
softer era like eg Fed 2003-2009. After that Rafa & Djoker started
coming on & Fed barely defended a slam after that. In this example does
it really show 'dominance' in absolute terms? Dominance over a weaker
field to be sure, but in goat/boat level terms? Personally I don't
think so.
If you can keep winning a slam like eg Rafa at FO, then yes he did it
for an insanely long period over the cream of the best players.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
*skriptis
May 31, 2019, 12:27:08 PM5/31/19
to
soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
You're not even making an argument for 7 consecutive years, not to
mention the fact that the number itself is purely random or that
nobody cares about percentages.
>
>
>
>
>> 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
>
>
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
> On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 11:06:29 AM UTC-5, bob wrote:
>> the bottom line of the measurement we're looking for is dominance. who
>> was the better player. who dominated more. who achieved more.
>>
>
> I go with dominance. It makes more sense. I would rather go for a champion who was great day in day out (Graf) than someone who randomly popped in times and took advantage of a clown field (Serena).
>
> That's why averaging the 7 best years of win-loss is the best measure for evaluating dominance. Anything less than a 7 is too less and anything more than 7 is too much IMO. Besides Borg, McEnroe and Wilander had 7 great years and then there is a huge drop off for McEnroe and Wilander and nothing for Borg (since he retired so young).
Dumb post.
>> the bottom line of the measurement we're looking for is dominance. who
>> was the better player. who dominated more. who achieved more.
>>
>
> I go with dominance. It makes more sense. I would rather go for a champion who was great day in day out (Graf) than someone who randomly popped in times and took advantage of a clown field (Serena).
>
> That's why averaging the 7 best years of win-loss is the best measure for evaluating dominance. Anything less than a 7 is too less and anything more than 7 is too much IMO. Besides Borg, McEnroe and Wilander had 7 great years and then there is a huge drop off for McEnroe and Wilander and nothing for Borg (since he retired so young).
You're not even making an argument for 7 consecutive years, not to
mention the fact that the number itself is purely random or that
nobody cares about percentages.
>
>
>
>
>> 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
>
>
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
*skriptis
May 31, 2019, 12:29:47 PM5/31/19
to
Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:
But that's different.
Rafa winning it year in year out is not longevity. It's excellence
as he's winning more than anyone else.
What's better? Winning two consecutive USO titles or winning two
but 10 years apart?
That's the real question.
Rafa winning it year in year out is not longevity. It's excellence
as he's winning more than anyone else.
What's better? Winning two consecutive USO titles or winning two
but 10 years apart?
That's the real question.
soccerfan777
May 31, 2019, 12:30:29 PM5/31/19
to
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 11:27:08 AM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
> soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 11:06:29 AM UTC-5, bob wrote:
> >> the bottom line of the measurement we're looking for is dominance. who
> >> was the better player. who dominated more. who achieved more.
> >>
> >
> > I go with dominance. It makes more sense. I would rather go for a champion who was great day in day out (Graf) than someone who randomly popped in times and took advantage of a clown field (Serena).
> >
> > That's why averaging the 7 best years of win-loss is the best measure for evaluating dominance. Anything less than a 7 is too less and anything more than 7 is too much IMO. Besides Borg, McEnroe and Wilander had 7 great years and then there is a huge drop off for McEnroe and Wilander and nothing for Borg (since he retired so young).
>
>
> Dumb post.
Quit describing yourself.
> soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 11:06:29 AM UTC-5, bob wrote:
> >> the bottom line of the measurement we're looking for is dominance. who
> >> was the better player. who dominated more. who achieved more.
> >>
> >
> > I go with dominance. It makes more sense. I would rather go for a champion who was great day in day out (Graf) than someone who randomly popped in times and took advantage of a clown field (Serena).
> >
> > That's why averaging the 7 best years of win-loss is the best measure for evaluating dominance. Anything less than a 7 is too less and anything more than 7 is too much IMO. Besides Borg, McEnroe and Wilander had 7 great years and then there is a huge drop off for McEnroe and Wilander and nothing for Borg (since he retired so young).
>
>
> Dumb post.
bob
May 31, 2019, 12:31:31 PM5/31/19
to
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 02:18:50 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:
i agree about the field - if we want to go the "clown era" route, we
can for both men & women.
i was just saying, statistically, dominance VS achievement is what
we're talking about with % vs titles.
so who is "better" depends on if you prefer dominance or achievement.
for ex: who was the most dominant physicist? who achieved the most?
bob
wrote:
can for both men & women.
i was just saying, statistically, dominance VS achievement is what
we're talking about with % vs titles.
so who is "better" depends on if you prefer dominance or achievement.
for ex: who was the most dominant physicist? who achieved the most?
bob
kaennorsing
May 31, 2019, 1:48:10 PM5/31/19
to
Op vrijdag 31 mei 2019 18:06:29 UTC+2 schreef bob:
Total numbers are what matter most. 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.
Indeed extreme dominance argument work both ways: as true dominance or true clown field. We'll never agree.
In the end you just add everything up and that's that.
But that's also double counting. Besides, who decides what dominance measures count for what? Not objective at all.
Indeed extreme dominance argument work both ways: as true dominance or true clown field. We'll never agree.
In the end you just add everything up and that's that.
undecided
May 31, 2019, 1:58:58 PM5/31/19
to
bob
May 31, 2019, 2:26:08 PM5/31/19
to
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.
<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.
> 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.
that i mean how many slams won out of how many slams entered.
>Indeed extreme dominance argument work both ways: as true dominance or true clown field. We'll never agree.
>In the end you just add everything up and that's that.
bob
*skriptis
May 31, 2019, 3:03:59 PM5/31/19
to
bob <b...@bob.com> Wrote in message:
I don't mind it as that's just a stat.
But then we use other stats too to get a fuller picture.
> 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.
So you enter 1, you win it and we should praise your 100%?
> <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.
MBDunc
May 31, 2019, 4:37:51 PM5/31/19
to
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 9:26:08 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
> well, the objective measurement is fairly simple, slam winning %. by
> that i mean how many slams won out of how many slams entered.
Open era Borg tops this stat with 11/27.
> well, the objective measurement is fairly simple, slam winning %. by
> that i mean how many slams won out of how many slams entered.
Then there is Budge who won his last 6 slams he played and won smt. like 99 of his last played 100 matches until turning pro.
.mikko
bob
Jun 1, 2019, 5:23:54 PM6/1/19
to
do in statistics.
>I don't mind it as that's just a stat.
>But then we use other stats too to get a fuller picture.
bob
Jun 1, 2019, 5:24:37 PM6/1/19
to
On Fri, 31 May 2019 13:37:49 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:
>On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 9:26:08 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
>> well, the objective measurement is fairly simple, slam winning %. by
>> that i mean how many slams won out of how many slams entered.
>
>Open era Borg tops this stat with 11/27.
yeah, which is why borg has been considered a near god for so long. if
<mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:
>On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 9:26:08 PM UTC+3, bob wrote:
>> well, the objective measurement is fairly simple, slam winning %. by
>> that i mean how many slams won out of how many slams entered.
>
>Open era Borg tops this stat with 11/27.
only not for mac...
>Then there is Budge who won his last 6 slams he played and won smt. like 99 of his last played 100 matches until turning pro.
0 new messages