If Djokovic stays the No. 1 until October, he will overtake Nadal... - Page 18 - MensTennisForums.com

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #256 of 742 (permalink) Old 12-13-2012, 08:45 PM
Registered User
 
Alex999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kanata
Posts: 11,581
                     
Re: If Djokovic stays the No. 1 until October, he will overtake Nadal...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Litotes View Post
This gap? they're very different gaps, I'd say. It would be no shocker if Djokovic surpassed the 102 weeks this year, whereas the eleven slams will not come about as quickly under any circumstances.
I wasn't even thinking about 11 slams, I was strictly referring to 102 weeks.
Alex999 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #257 of 742 (permalink) Old 12-14-2012, 11:39 AM
Registered User
 
Roy Emerson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,769
                     
Re: If Djokovic stays the No. 1 until October, he will overtake Nadal...

I'm pretty sure Djokovic will overtake Nadal when it comes to weeks as #1. Winning more than 11 slams will be tough. If Nadal wins one more Roland Garros before retiring then it will be even harder for Djokovic to win 13 slams... Only Federer and Sampras won more than 12 slams and they both had around 10 slams when they were Djokovic's age.

Last edited by Roy Emerson; 12-14-2012 at 11:57 AM.
Roy Emerson is offline  
post #258 of 742 (permalink) Old 12-14-2012, 01:20 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,947
                     
Re: If Djokovic stays the No. 1 until October, he will overtake Nadal...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Emerson View Post
Only Federer and Sampras won more than 12 slams and they both had around 10 slams when they were Djokovic's age.
9 for Fed, 8 for Sampras (10 for Nadal, 11 for Borg)

... but Djokovic should have less competition than Fed when he gets old (he had more when he was younger).

The future will say if Djokovic will last great (which I think) or follow the steps of McEnroe, Wilander (7 slams at that age) or Becker-Edberg (5 slams at that age)

useless old guy
duong is offline  
post #259 of 742 (permalink) Old 12-14-2012, 02:23 PM
Registered User
 
Roy Emerson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,769
                     
Re: If Djokovic stays the No. 1 until October, he will overtake Nadal...

Quote:
Originally Posted by duong View Post
9 for Fed, 8 for Sampras (10 for Nadal, 11 for Borg)

... but Djokovic should have less competition than Fed when he gets old (he had more when he was younger).

The future will say if Djokovic will last great (which I think) or follow the steps of McEnroe, Wilander (7 slams at that age) or Becker-Edberg (5 slams at that age)
Djokovic is 25 years and a half(almost 7 months old). Federer was the same age back in March 2007, Federer had 10 slams at the time. Sampras was that age in March 1997, he had 9 slams at the time. I'm not sure Djokovic will reach 14-17 slams when he only has 5 slams atm. Maybe if he was close to 10 slams now then he would end up in that range. It's not just about competition but also mileage. Sampras' competition was not that great after 1997 but he won just 4 slams after August 1997 when he turned 26. Federer is an anomaly. Just because he went on to win 7 more slams when he was Djokovic's current age does not mean Nole will do it as well. Most players decline once they turn 26. What Federer has done since turning 26 is not the norm.

Last edited by Roy Emerson; 12-14-2012 at 02:44 PM.
Roy Emerson is offline  
post #260 of 742 (permalink) Old 12-14-2012, 04:45 PM
Registered User
 
Alex999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kanata
Posts: 11,581
                     
Re: If Djokovic stays the No. 1 until October, he will overtake Nadal...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Emerson View Post
Djokovic is 25 years and a half(almost 7 months old). Federer was the same age back in March 2007, Federer had 10 slams at the time. Sampras was that age in March 1997, he had 9 slams at the time. I'm not sure Djokovic will reach 14-17 slams when he only has 5 slams atm. Maybe if he was close to 10 slams now then he would end up in that range. It's not just about competition but also mileage. Sampras' competition was not that great after 1997 but he won just 4 slams after August 1997 when he turned 26. Federer is an anomaly. Just because he went on to win 7 more slams when he was Djokovic's current age does not mean Nole will do it as well. Most players decline once they turn 26. What Federer has done since turning 26 is not the norm.
I'm pretty sure Fed had 9 slams when he was 25 yo.
Alex999 is offline  
post #261 of 742 (permalink) Old 12-14-2012, 04:54 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,947
                     
Re: If Djokovic stays the No. 1 until October, he will overtake Nadal...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex999 View Post
I'm pretty sure Fed had 9 slams when he was 25 yo.
because Fed (and Sampras) was born in august and Djokovic in june, which means that at today's Djoko's precise age, AO 2007 was already played (same for AO 97 for Sampras)

useless old guy
duong is offline  
post #262 of 742 (permalink) Old 12-14-2012, 04:54 PM
#1
 
ProdigyEng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 23
Posts: 32,887
                     
Re: If Djokovic stays the No. 1 until October, he will overtake Nadal...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Emerson View Post
Djokovic is 25 years and a half(almost 7 months old). Federer was the same age back in March 2007, Federer had 10 slams at the time. Sampras was that age in March 1997, he had 9 slams at the time. I'm not sure Djokovic will reach 14-17 slams when he only has 5 slams atm. Maybe if he was close to 10 slams now then he would end up in that range. It's not just about competition but also mileage. Sampras' competition was not that great after 1997 but he won just 4 slams after August 1997 when he turned 26. Federer is an anomaly. Just because he went on to win 7 more slams when he was Djokovic's current age does not mean Nole will do it as well. Most players decline once they turn 26. What Federer has done since turning 26 is not the norm.
Players aint gonna decline at that age any more and it's proven with guys like Stepanek and Ferrer reaching their peak in their 30s and Fed still doing stuff into his 30s. Technologies advanced now and IMO players will reach their peaks around 25-27 and still be able to do stuff until their 30s. Besides young crop sucks.

Mark Lenders banged your girlfriend, I'm sorry to tell you that mate.
ProdigyEng is offline  
post #263 of 742 (permalink) Old 12-14-2012, 04:57 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,947
                     
Re: If Djokovic stays the No. 1 until October, he will overtake Nadal...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProdigyEng View Post
Players aint gonna decline at that age any more and it's proven with guys like Stepanek and Ferrer reaching their peak in their 30s and Fed still doing stuff into his 30s. Technologies advanced now and IMO players will reach their peaks around 25-27 and still be able to do stuff until their 30s. Besides young crop sucks.
I think your final sentence is the main factor

Very old players like Haas or Stepanek are not that successful today, it's more that young players emerge later ... and as far as top-top-players are concerned, there will probably be no big emergence in next years.

Besides, comparing to McEnroe, Borg and Wilander, players now have more incentives to keep on making efforts rather than just enjoying life

useless old guy
duong is offline  
post #264 of 742 (permalink) Old 12-14-2012, 05:14 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 37
Posts: 1,233
                     
Talking Re: If Djokovic stays the No. 1 until October, he will overtake Nadal...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Emerson View Post
Djokovic is 25 years and a half(almost 7 months old). Federer was the same age back in March 2007, Federer had 10 slams at the time. Sampras was that age in March 1997, he had 9 slams at the time. I'm not sure Djokovic will reach 14-17 slams when he only has 5 slams atm. Maybe if he was close to 10 slams now then he would end up in that range. It's not just about competition but also mileage. Sampras' competition was not that great after 1997 but he won just 4 slams after August 1997 when he turned 26. Federer is an anomaly. Just because he went on to win 7 more slams when he was Djokovic's current age does not mean Nole will do it as well. Most players decline once they turn 26. What Federer has done since turning 26 is not the norm.
Pretty dumb of you to compare players by their age when they are not even the same generation but please continue since you fancy yourself as an expert. I like to laugh as well.
munZe konZa is offline  
post #265 of 742 (permalink) Old 12-15-2012, 10:33 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Alaricus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 495
                     
Re: If Djokovic stays the No. 1 until October, he will overtake Nadal...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
Because that's my argument. So either agree, or find a fault in my reasoning.
I did not say that Sampras is a expert tennis historian/statistician. I said that he is an tennis expert. So, if I agree with your argument, it will not mean that you rebuted what I said.

Quote:
That's assertion, not argument. I could take a debate about anything and make that claim. X topic is complex issue, only experts on X have the knowledge to comprehend which argument is more sound. Y is an expert on X, because he is widely recognized to have practical knowledge of the subject (take any media personality here). We're not publicly recognized experts, hence just have to agree with Y.
The massive hole in your argument is that you don't need to be a publicly recognized expert to have expertise on a subject.
Can you quote post where I said that you must be a publicly recognized expert to have expertise on a subject?

Quote:
Otherwise only 'experts' could debate anything. And essentially anyone can read and post on MTF, even Sampras himself. When someone presents an argument, they're not saying "believe me because I'm some anonymous internet person"; they're not asking for your faith. They're presenting a series of claims backed up by certain evidence, for others to evaluate.
Your response is to say "How dare you make an argument on this topic! We're all too stupid to discuss this issue, so lets just blindly believe what this other person says, because he's good at playing tennis".
I do not claim that reasonable non-experts should blindly believe what Sampras says. I just say that reasonable non-experts will more trust Sampras than anonymous posters on MTF.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Han Solo View Post
Only what he has posted before on MTF. And much of what he has posted before seems quite sensible, supported with apt illustration or reasoned argument.
Ca you prove that he is a tennis expert?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Litotes View Post
When you've posted a while on the forum, many posters will no longer be anonymous. You with your 103 posts will obviously not have aquainted yourself with the posters here to the same degree as many others have.
"Definition of anonymous
adjective
(of a person) not identified by name; of unknown name
"
http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...lish/anonymous

Quote:
So you should not speak about their expertise until you know them better. When you do you too will take the word of some of them over Sampras unless you're dead set against it happening from the outset.
Can you prove that they are tennis experts?

Quote:
By the way, did you find out what odds bookies give for Djokovic reaching 10+ majors?
No, I have not found it.

Last edited by Alaricus; 12-15-2012 at 10:41 AM.
Alaricus is offline  
post #266 of 742 (permalink) Old 12-15-2012, 10:40 AM
ALT-0
 
Litotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway
Age: 43
Posts: 56,895
                     
Re: If Djokovic stays the No. 1 until October, he will overtake Nadal...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5555 View Post
Can you prove that they are tennis experts?
Not really relevant. I can't even prove the Sun will rise again next morning after it sets each night, but I'm pretty convinced it will do so anyway. Some things you infer from empirical evidence, you don't try to prove them. Unless proving things is a hobby of yours. If so, be advised that I don't share it.
Litotes is offline  
post #267 of 742 (permalink) Old 12-15-2012, 01:19 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,104
                     
Re: If Djokovic stays the No. 1 until October, he will overtake Nadal...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5555 View Post
I did not say that Sampras is a expert tennis historian/statistician. I said that he is an tennis expert. So, if I agree with your argument, it will not mean that you rebuted what I said.
Fine. Do you agree or not?

Quote:
Can you quote post where I said that you must be a publicly recognized expert to have expertise on a subject?
You said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5555 View Post
The debate here is a complex issue. Non-experts on tennis do not have knowledge to comprehend which argument is more sound in debate about a complex tennis issue. In this context I said that every reasonable person will rather believe Sampras than an anonymous poster on MTF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5555 View Post
The best evidence of expertise is proof that a person is widely recognized as a expert.
My response is that you do not need to be "widely recognized as a expert" in order to have the expertise necessary to "comprehend which argument is more sound in debate about a complex tennis issue". Of the people who have the relevant expertise, only a tiny fraction are "widely recognized as expert[s]". And as the people posting on MTF are anonymous, it is quite possible that they have this expertise. You have not demonstrated otherwise.


Quote:
I do not claim that reasonable non-experts should blindly believe what Sampras says. I just say that reasonable non-experts will more trust Sampras than anonymous posters on MTF.
That is true but irrelevant, because discussions on forums are not based on trust, but rather on arguments backed up by evidence. And you do not need to be a "publicly recognized expert", to be able to make valid arguments, or assess the arguments of others.
Singularity is offline  
post #268 of 742 (permalink) Old 12-15-2012, 05:08 PM
Registered User
 
Alex999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kanata
Posts: 11,581
                     
Re: If Djokovic stays the No. 1 until October, he will overtake Nadal...

Quote:
Originally Posted by duong View Post
because Fed (and Sampras) was born in august and Djokovic in june, which means that at today's Djoko's precise age, AO 2007 was already played (same for AO 97 for Sampras)
Nole was born in May
Alex999 is offline  
post #269 of 742 (permalink) Old 12-15-2012, 05:13 PM
Banned!
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Age: 29
Posts: 4,295
                     
Re: If Djokovic stays the No. 1 until October, he will overtake Nadal...

If No1e stays #1 5 more years he'll overtake Uglyrer.
nick the greek is offline  
post #270 of 742 (permalink) Old 12-17-2012, 02:52 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Alaricus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 495
                     
Re: If Djokovic stays the No. 1 until October, he will overtake Nadal...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Litotes View Post
Not really relevant.
It's relevant. I'm a non-expert on tennis and the debate here is about a complex tennis issue. Non-experts can not comprehend which argument is more solid on an complex issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
Do you agree or not?
Why I need to answer that question?

Quote:
My response is that you do not need to be "widely recognized as a expert" in order to have the expertise necessary to "comprehend which argument is more sound in debate about a complex tennis issue". Of the people who have the relevant expertise, only a tiny fraction are "widely recognized as expert[s]".
You quoted post where I stated that "best evidence of expertise is proof that a person is widely recognized as a expert". Now, explain why that statement means that I said you "need to be publicitly recognized expert to have expertise on a subject"?

Quote:
And as the people posting on MTF are anonymous, it is quite possible that they have this expertise. You have not demonstrated otherwise.
Burden of proof is on person who makes positive claim, so the burden of proof is not on me.

Quote:
That is true but irrelevant, because discussions on forums are not based on trust, but rather on arguments backed up by evidence. And you do not need to be a "publicly recognized expert", to be able to make valid arguments, or assess the arguments of others.
It's irrelevant for people who are tennis experts. It's relevant for people, including me, who are not tennis experts, they can not comprehend which argument is more sound in regard to this complex issue.

Last edited by Alaricus; 12-17-2012 at 03:09 PM.
Alaricus is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome