The most dominant 12 month period in tennis history [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The most dominant 12 month period in tennis history

Johnny Groove
05-03-2009, 06:48 PM
I was reading something in the match result thread about how good Rafa's last 12 months have been. So, I did a little calculations, and came up with this:

Nadal from Hamburg 2008-Rome 2009 (Converted to 2009 Points)

Hamburg- 1000
Roland Garros- 2000
Queens- 250
Wimbledon- 2000
Toronto- 1000
Cincinnati- 360
Gold Medal- 800
US Open- 720
Madrid- 360
Paris- 180
Doha- 45
Australian Open- 2000
Rotterdam- 300
Indian Wells- 1000
Miami- 180
Monte Carlo- 1000
Barcelona- 500
Rome- 1000

Total- 14,695

Federer’s complete 2006 (Converted to 2009 Points)

Doha- 250
Aussie Open- 2000
Dubai- 300
Indian Wells- 1000
Miami- 1000
Monte Carlo- 600
Rome- 600
Roland Garros- 1200
Halle- 250
Wimbledon- 2000
Toronto- 1000
Cincinnati- 45
US Open- 2000
Tokyo- 500
Madrid- 1000
Basel- 500
TMC- 1500

Total- 15,745

Just for shits and giggles, I did Sampras too.

Sampras from Canada 1993 to Wimbledon 1994 (Converted to 2009 points)

Canada- 90
LA- 90
Cincy- 360
Indy- 45
USO- 2000
Lyon- 250
Stockholm- 45
Paris- 180
Antwerp- 250
TMC- 1000
Sydney- 250
AO- 2000
IW- 1000
Miami- 1000
Osaka- 250
Tokyo- 500
Rome- 1000
RG- 360
Queens- 150
Wimbledon- 2000

Total- 12,820

Federer- 15,745
Nadal- 14,695
Sampras- 12,820

Now, that's 2009 points. How about 2008 points?

Nadal from Hamburg 2008-Rome 2009 (Converted to 2008 Points)

Hamburg- 500
Roland Garros- 1000
Queens- 225
Wimbledon- 1000
Toronto- 500
Cincinnati- 225
Gold Medal- 400
US Open- 450
Madrid- 225
Paris- 125
Doha- 60
Australian Open- 1000
Rotterdam- 210
Indian Wells- 500
Miami- 125
Monte Carlo- 500
Barcelona- 300
Rome- 500

Total- 7,845

Federer’s complete 2006 (Converted to 2008 Points)

Doha- 250
Aussie Open- 1000
Dubai- 210
Indian Wells- 500
Miami- 500
Monte Carlo- 350
Rome- 350
Roland Garros- 700
Halle- 225
Wimbledon- 1000
Toronto- 500
Cincinnati- 35
US Open- 1000
Tokyo- 250
Madrid- 500
Basel- 250
TMC- 750

Total- 8,370

Sampras from Canada 1993 to Wimbledon 1994 (Converted to 2008 points)

Canada- 75
LA- 75
Cincy- 225
Indy- 40
USO- 1000
Lyon- 200
Stockholm- 35
Paris- 125
Antwerp- 250
TMC- 500
Sydney- 175
AO- 1000
IW- 500
Miami- 500
Osaka- 175
Tokyo- 250
Rome- 500
RG- 250
Queens- 155
Wimbledon- 1000

Total- 7,030
----------------------------------------------
So, comparing 2008 to 2009 conversions

Federer- 8,370 compared to 15,745 (x 1.88)
Nadal- 7,845 compared to 14,695 (x 1.87)
Sampras- 7,030 compared to 12,820 (x 1.82)

Of course this is an imperfect science, Sampras and Federer probably would have played more "500's" if they existed, I didn't feel like doing the Davis Cup points cause the 2009 system is :retard:, and comparing eras is always difficult, but it is what it is.

Federer's 2006 was the most dominant year in the history of the sport, it appears.

Is there any other 12 month period anyone can think of to compare it to?

Howard
05-03-2009, 06:53 PM
McEnroe 1984.

rafa_maniac
05-03-2009, 06:54 PM
Not bad from Nadal considering he forfeited in Paris and withdrew from the Masters Cup. :yeah: Federer still has that points record secured for a while though seeing as Nadal can't gain a thing until Cincinatti :tape:

scarecrows
05-03-2009, 06:58 PM
Federer in 2006 skipped Hamburg and Paris has to be said

Sunset of Age
05-03-2009, 06:59 PM
Interesting stats, Jon.
It will be even more interesting to see whether Rafa will be able to take over the top spot from Roger this year. By the way things are going right now - I guess it's just a matter of time. :)

Nathaliia
05-03-2009, 07:01 PM
I think Federer fared so well only because it was mug era. Not now when Nadal has such a big competition.

Sunset of Age
05-03-2009, 07:01 PM
I think Federer fared so well only because it was mug era. Not now when Nadal has such a big competition.

:lol:

Action Jackson
05-03-2009, 07:03 PM
McEnroe 82-3

LinkMage
05-03-2009, 07:09 PM
Nadulltards have too much free time it seems.

Johnny Groove
05-03-2009, 07:21 PM
Johnny Mac (2009 points)

Wembley 83 (November 7, 1983) to Stockholm 84 (October 29, 1984)

Wembley- 250
AO- 720
TMC- 1500
Philly- 250
Richmond- 250
Madrid- 250
Brussels- 250
Dallas- 250
Forest Hills- 250
WTC- 250
RG- 1200
Queens- 250
Wimbledon- 2000
Canada- 1000
Cincy- 10
USO- 2000
San Fran- 250
Stockholm- 1000

Total- 11,930

Its tough to do J-Mac, since he didn't play many "Masters" events, instead opting for "250's", or at least the equivalent of both.

Johnny Groove
05-03-2009, 07:22 PM
Nadulltards have too much free time it seems.

Or maybe I'm actually interested in the history of tennis instead of complaining like a little bitch about vbookie odds :rolleyes:

Albop
05-03-2009, 07:28 PM
Congratulations.

He is still a moonballer mug.

LinkMage
05-03-2009, 07:30 PM
Or maybe I'm actually interested in the history of tennis instead of complaining like a little bitch about vbookie odds :rolleyes:

LOL

You made this thread to praise your precious idol Rafito.

Johnny Groove
05-03-2009, 07:32 PM
LOL

You made this thread to praise your precious idol Rafito.

Yeah, that's also why I spent the time to do Federer, Sampras, and McEnroe's points. Twice. :rolleyes:

Not to mention Agassi, who once had an 11,000 pt 12 month period, and a 12,000+ point period. Wilander in '88 was just under 10,000.

Sunset of Age
05-03-2009, 07:32 PM
LOL

You made this thread to praise your precious idol Rafito.

So you didn't even notice that Federer comes out as the winner? ;)

rtgy
05-03-2009, 07:35 PM
Or maybe I'm actually interested in the history of tennis instead of complaining like a little bitch about vbookie odds :rolleyes:


:lol:



:worship::worship::worship::worship::worship:

jonathancrane
05-03-2009, 07:43 PM
Rod Laver in 1969

1) Australian Open
2) Philadelphia Indoor Open WCT
3) Orlando Professional Championships, Florida
4) Los Angeles Professional Championships
5) South African Open, Johannesburg
6) Anaheim Professional Championships, California
7) World Professional Championship, Wembley Arena, London
8) French Open, Paris
9) Wimbledon, London
10) U.S. Professional Championships, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts,
11) Saint Louis Professional Championships, Missouri
12) Fort Worth Professional Championships, Texas
13) Binghamton Professional Championships, New York, U.S.
14) Baltimore Professional Championships, Maryland, U.S
15) U.S. Open, New York City
16) British Covered Court Championships, London
17) Madrid Professional Championships, Spain

LinkMage
05-03-2009, 07:44 PM
Yeah, that's also why I spent the time to do Federer, Sampras, and McEnroe's points. Twice. :rolleyes:

Not to mention Agassi, who once had an 11,000 pt 12 month period, and a 12,000+ point period. Wilander in '88 was just under 10,000.

Why didn't you make this thread at the start of 2007?

So you didn't even notice that Federer comes out as the winner? ;)

Of course. But he will update it when Nadull wins the US Open and TMC. Only one that can stop him is Murray.

Johnny Groove
05-03-2009, 07:53 PM
Rod Laver in 1969

1) Australian Open
2) Philadelphia Indoor Open WCT
3) Orlando Professional Championships, Florida
4) Los Angeles Professional Championships
5) South African Open, Johannesburg
6) Anaheim Professional Championships, California
7) World Professional Championship, Wembley Arena, London
8) French Open, Paris
9) Wimbledon, London
10) U.S. Professional Championships, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts,
11) Saint Louis Professional Championships, Missouri
12) Fort Worth Professional Championships, Texas
13) Binghamton Professional Championships, New York, U.S.
14) Baltimore Professional Championships, Maryland, U.S
15) U.S. Open, New York City
16) British Covered Court Championships, London
17) Madrid Professional Championships, Spain

Most of the draws of those events were 8 player draws, but he would have had 11,220 points.

Why didn't you make this thread at the start of 2007?

Of course. But he will update it when Nadull wins the US Open and TMC. Only one that can stop him is Murray.

Nadal won't be winning the USO and TMC. He'd do well to win one of the two.

Jimnik
05-03-2009, 07:59 PM
Interesting. Goes to show Sampras was never that dominant although he had great longevity. But I do think the difference in surface speeds was greater back in the 90s.

scarecrows
05-03-2009, 08:03 PM
Goes to show Sampras was never that dominant

guess why

star
05-03-2009, 08:07 PM
I think Federer fared so well only because it was mug era. Not now when Nadal has such a big competition.

Seriously. Stop with this. It's getting so old.


Interesting. Goes to show Sampras was never that dominant although he had great longevity. But I do think the difference in surface speeds was greater back in the 90s.

My memory, and perhaps born out of frustration, is that Sampras would be lagging behind in the points every year and then go to the indoor circuit in the fall and winter in Europe and clean up on the (then) fast as glass courts and ensure that he kept the year end #1.

:hatoff: to the thread starter!

Nathaliia
05-03-2009, 08:08 PM
guess why
Because he had to face Ferrero at the end of his career :confused:

Chair Umpire
05-03-2009, 08:10 PM
Nadulltards have too much free time it seems.


At least he's doing something more interesting and less pathetic with his time than bitching through all Nadal's threads, LinkMug. ;)

Nathaliia
05-03-2009, 08:13 PM
Seriously. Stop with this. It's getting so old.


As long as Nadulltards still react to this kind of jokes they will not get old or unfunny :D

prafull
05-03-2009, 08:15 PM
Don't know how you are calculating points. Nadal already crossed 15k mark two weeks ago. Infact, before this week he had 14890 points and he is all set to gain 990 points from Rome. So he should be at 15880.

CyBorg
05-03-2009, 08:17 PM
Johnny Mac (2009 points)

Wembley 83 (November 7, 1983) to Stockholm 84 (October 29, 1984)

Wembley- 250
AO- 720
TMC- 1500
Philly- 250
Richmond- 250
Madrid- 250
Brussels- 250
Dallas- 250
Forest Hills- 250
WTC- 250
RG- 1200
Queens- 250
Wimbledon- 2000
Canada- 1000
Cincy- 10
USO- 2000
San Fran- 250
Stockholm- 1000

Total- 11,930

Its tough to do J-Mac, since he didn't play many "Masters" events, instead opting for "250's", or at least the equivalent of both.

Ummm... It would help if you knew what you were talking about.

Events like Dallas and Forrest Hills were all masters quality, as was arguably Wembley.

star
05-03-2009, 08:19 PM
As long as Nadulltards still react to this kind of jokes they will not get old or unfunny :D

You have a gift for tolerating repetition then. :hatoff:

Johnny Groove
05-03-2009, 08:19 PM
Ummm... It would help if you knew what you were talking about.

Events like Dallas and Forrest Hills were all masters quality, as was arguably Wembley.

What other events do you think were Master quality?

CyBorg
05-03-2009, 08:20 PM
Most of the draws of those events were 8 player draws, but he would have had 11,220 points.

You're wrong.

I'm going to agree with those here who say that you are (as they say) a Nadal-tard. Assuming that this means "a blind fanboy, who will either misuse or manufacture facts so that they fit his or her own predetermined agenda".

jonathancrane
05-03-2009, 08:20 PM
Most of the draws of those events were 8 player draws, but he would have had 11,220 points.



We're talking about dominance or about winning points in a determined era? Do you think that last 12 Rafita months or Fed 2006 are above Laver 1969 in dominance?

And until 2007:
-All MS finals except Canada & Cincy, and a lot of ISG were best of 5.
- To win a MS you must win 6 matches (except Madrid & Bercy). Now this only happens in IW & Miami
How to fix that?

star
05-03-2009, 08:20 PM
Ummm... It would help if you knew what you were talking about.

Events like Dallas and Forrest Hills were all masters quality, as was arguably Wembley.

Good point -- minus the personal insult though.

CyBorg
05-03-2009, 08:22 PM
What other events do you think were Master quality?

This constantly changed from year-to-year.

The big ones from those decades tended to be Philadelphia, Dallas, Forrest Hills, Monte Carlo, Rome, Canada, Cincy, Wembley, Stockholm, Tokyo. But not at the same time. It depends on the year.

In the 70s, Boston and Indianapolis were quite big. Maybe Sydney.

Johnny Groove
05-03-2009, 08:22 PM
Perhaps instead (or in addition to) points, W/L record, and titles should be included.

star
05-03-2009, 08:23 PM
You're wrong.

I'm going to agree with those here who say that you are (as they say) a Nadal-tard. Assuming that this means "a blind fanboy, who will either misuse or manufacture facts so that they fit his or her own predetermined agenda".

Hey, you know this is an interesting thread. It's hard to compare different eras, so I would be interested if you presented facts about why the tournaments should be more highly rated and how much. That would be helpful to try to make some correlation.

Edit: :hatoff: Thanks. You did give more information. :)

scarecrows
05-03-2009, 08:23 PM
And until 2007:
-All MS finals except Canada & Cincy, and a lot of ISG were best of 5.
- To win a MS you must win 6 matches (except Madrid & Bercy). Now this only happens in IW & Miami
How to fix that?

hmmm, never thought of this, Spartan Nadal is dominating in an era with reduced schedule

Johnny Groove
05-03-2009, 08:25 PM
Mac was 88-3 with 15 titles during those 12 months.

Johnny Groove
05-03-2009, 08:27 PM
You're wrong.

I'm going to agree with those here who say that you are (as they say) a Nadal-tard. Assuming that this means "a blind fanboy, who will either misuse or manufacture facts so that they fit his or her own predetermined agenda".

:rolleyes:

Look, Nadal and Federer have both had very dominant 12 month spans recently, and I'm trying to get some perspective as to just how dominant they were while at the same time learning a little bit about past champions as well as how the tour was back in the days. No need for the insults.

CyBorg
05-03-2009, 08:28 PM
Nadal's stretch is undoubtedly dominant, but it's not the greatest ever. The greatest 12-month period ever would be one in which the player owned all surfaces at the same time. So we're looking back at Laver and Rosewall. A close one would also be Borg - his peak tennis compares to that of McEnroe and Federer; with little warts here and there. Borg made some finals at the US Open, where he didn't win. McEnroe came close at the French. Federer also lost in the final of the French. Otherwise, pure perfection.

Nadal has a bigger weakness - he did not even make a final at the US Open, nor did he do particularly well indoors, making no finals. Otherwise, we can say that he dominates on clay and grass and very well on outdoor hardcourt events - though again not too well on fast ones (US Open and Cincinnati).

Jimnik
05-03-2009, 08:29 PM
guess why
Tell me oh wise one.

I assumed he simply wasn't as good as Federer but maybe I've missed something.

CyBorg
05-03-2009, 08:30 PM
:rolleyes:

Look, Nadal and Federer have both had very dominant 12 month spans recently, and I'm trying to get some perspective as to just how dominant they were while at the same time learning a little bit about past champions as well as how the tour was back in the days. No need for the insults.

People who want to learn ask questions. They don't devise crafty formulas.

So pardon me if I don't believe you.

prafull
05-03-2009, 08:32 PM
Correct Nadal points:-

Hamburg- 1000
Roland Garros- 2000
Queens- 450
Wimbledon- 2000
Toronto- 1000
Cincinnati- 450
Gold Medal- 800
US Open- 900
Madrid- 450
Paris- 250
Australian Open- 2000
Rotterdam- 300
Indian Wells- 1000
Miami- 180
Monte Carlo- 1000
Barcelona- 500
Rome- 1000
Daviscup- 80 (or doha 45 if you want)

Total- 15360

Johnny Groove
05-03-2009, 08:34 PM
People who want to learn ask questions. They don't devise crafty formulas.

So pardon me if I don't believe you.

Federer's 2006 was the most dominant year in the history of the sport, it appears.

Is there any other 12 month period anyone can think of to compare it to?

You're telling me this isn't a question? Instead of being a total dick, how about contributing to the thread? I'm sure many of us would love for you to impart some of your historical analysis of past players as compared to present players, seeing as you seem to possess said knowledge.

Lee
05-03-2009, 08:35 PM
Nadal's stretch is undoubtedly dominant, but it's not the greatest ever. The greatest 12-month period ever would be one in which the player owned all surfaces at the same time. So we're looking back at Laver and Rosewall. A close one would also be Borg - his peak tennis compares to that of McEnroe and Federer; with little warts here and there. Borg made some finals at the US Open, where he didn't win. McEnroe came close at the French. Federer also lost in the final of the French. Otherwise, pure perfection.

Nadal has a bigger weakness - he did not even make a final at the US Open, nor did he do particularly well indoors, making no finals. Otherwise, we can say that he dominates on clay and grass and very well on outdoor hardcourt events - though again not too well on fast ones (US Open and Cincinnati).


I am really interested to know the following since I only start following tennis in 90s.

1. What were the surfaces that Laver and Rosewell won on? How many on each? What sizes were the draw?
2. Other the French Open and Wimbledon, how far did Borg advance in USO and AO?

star
05-03-2009, 08:40 PM
I am really interested to know the following since I only start following tennis in 90s.

1. What were the surfaces that Laver and Rosewell won on? How many on each? What sizes were the draw?
2. Other the French Open and Wimbledon, how far did Borg advance in USO and AO?

Borg didn't play the AO. Lots of players skipped it back then. That was before the craze with records. It was on grass, and Borg says now (with a laugh) that maybe he should have. :)

jonathancrane
05-03-2009, 08:55 PM
Borg played in the 1974 AO. Lost in the 3rd round

prafull
05-03-2009, 09:09 PM
I was looking at fedex scores from 2006 (The so called God mode era for him):-

Note: These are all the matches that he won in deciding set. Apart from these he lost to Andy murray (rank 21) at Cincinnati and to Nadal at FO, Rome,MC and dubai (the only two players to have beaten him that year and still beating him)

TMC-
RR Nalbandian (Rank 7) 3-6,6-1,6-1
RR Roddick (Rank 5) 4-6,7-6,6-4

Basel-
SF Paradorn Srichapan (Rank 54) 6-4,3-6,7-6

Tokyo-
QF Suzuki Takao (Rank 1078) 4-6,7-5,7-6

Canada-
R16 Tursunov (rank 27) 6-3,5-7,6-0
QF Malisse (rank 41) 7-6,6-7,6-3
SF Gonzalez (rank 16) 6-1,5-7,6-3
F Gasquet (rank 51) 2-6,6-3,6-2

Halle-
R16 Gasquet (rank 51) 7-6,6-7,6-4
QF Oliver Rochus (rank 29) 6-7,7-6,7-6
SF tommy haas (rank 26)6-4,6-7,6-3
F Berdych (rank 15) 6-0,6-7,6-2

Rome
QF- Almagro (rank 54) 6-3,6-7,7-5
SF- Nalbandian (rank 3)6-3,3-6,7-6

Monte carlo
R64 Djokovic (rank 67) 6-3,2-6,6-3

Miami
R64 Clement (rank 53) 6-2,6-7,6-0

IWells
R32 O Rochus (rank 32) 3-6,6-2,7-5

It looks like he wasn't dominating at all and his victories weren't convincing. Infact he struggled against lower ranked players but somehow won the match when it mattered the most.

nkhera1
05-03-2009, 09:33 PM
17 matches out of 90+ isn't really that bad. Plus it just goes to show he could play at lower than best and still come through with a win.

MacTheKnife
05-03-2009, 10:34 PM
McEnroe 1984.

:yeah:

pogotheorist
05-03-2009, 11:06 PM
Don't know how you are calculating points. Nadal already crossed 15k mark two weeks ago. Infact, before this week he had 14890 points and he is all set to gain 990 points from Rome. So he should be at 15880.
Correct Nadal points:-

Queens- 450
Cincinnati- 450
US Open- 900
Madrid- 450
Paris- 250
Rotterdam- 300

Total- 15360

OP said corrected to 2009 points; Queen's and Rotterdam are 250s now, Master's SF is worth 360, GS semi is 720, Master's QF is 180.

heartbroken
05-04-2009, 06:01 AM
Groove Dude, I think your thread is just fine, and a good point for discussion. :yeah: I'm not sure why some think you are lobbying for Nadal, when Federer is on the top line in your comparison. I think Fed also stands a great chance of keeping that points record, as the bar is pretty high on that one. I see your thread as just an attempt to show some accomplishments in relation to each other, which is good. It does get really tricky if you try to compare eras that are too far apart, but I don't think you were attempting to slight any player. Anyway, I appreciate the thread. I like number comparisons, even knowing the limitations they can have. I just keep in mind that numbers cannot tell the whole story, and that everyone has their own way of defining greatness. :wavey:

prima donna
05-04-2009, 06:28 AM
I just love how we've suddenly modified the criteria to be applied when juxtaposing achievements. For example, instead of basing our analysis on titles won in a season, the 12-month criterion has been inserted, so that achievements from one year carry over into the next, thereby creating the illusion that player A has been more dominant than in reality he truly has.

What is this 12-month business ? The boy won Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the Olympics in 2008. Thus far, in 2009, he has won the Australian Open and seems to be on the path to capturing Roland Garros. Perhaps I would be more forgiving of this sort of stats tinkering were it not for the fact that other players are measured according to what they've accomplished in a single season, not some extended timeframe that carries over from one year into the other.

Nadal was routed by Tsonga in the '08 Australian SF, and lost in 4-sets to Andrew Murray in the 2008 US Open SF. It seems rather disingenuous to try to create a parallel between three slams won over the span of two seasons and, say, three slams won in a single season.

MrChopin
05-04-2009, 08:05 AM
I was looking at fedex scores from 2006 (The so called God mode era for him):-

Note: These are all the matches that he won in deciding set. Apart from these he lost to Andy murray (rank 21) at Cincinnati and to Nadal at FO, Rome,MC and dubai (the only two players to have beaten him that year and still beating him)...

It looks like he wasn't dominating at all and his victories weren't convincing. Infact he struggled against lower ranked players but somehow won the match when it mattered the most.

In Nadal's 39 victories thus far (including DC and a walkover), he has won 7 in the deciding set for a 2009 rate of 17.95%. Fed's 2006 was 17/92 = 18.48%, yielding a difference of 0.53%. Nadal's better half of the season is 3-4 tournaments from being over, so I'd imagine either more losses or closer wins in the later stages of '09.

Further, Fed's victories-in-deciding-sets are noticeably slanted towards early rounds, only 4 in the SF and 2 in F. By contrast, Nadal already has 1 in SF and 2 in F. If this continues throughout '09 for Nadal, such a comparison would indicate that (on average) Fed was more dominant against the best players in the biggest matches.

That all said, the W/L ratio is historically seen as a better (if not best) summary of dominance than percentage-of-victories-in-deciding-sets. Nadal's current 2009 record of 42-3 gives him a W/L percentage of 89.4%. That is already significantly behind pace for Fed's 92-5 in '06 (94.8%), and Nadal's second-half performance is traditionally weaker than his first half.

***

I'm all for the comparisons and such so thanks for the update (Nadal is indeed at a very high pace right now), but I'm with PD: let's wait until the end of 2009 to determine who had the best year. 12 month period is rather wishy-washy given that "year" is historically important. If we are talking about random time periods, why 12 months as opposed to something else?

desigundah
05-04-2009, 08:45 AM
I was reading something in the match result thread about how good Rafa's last 12 months have been. So, I did a little calculations, and came up with this:

Nadal from Hamburg 2008-Rome 2009 (Converted to 2009 Points)

Hamburg- 1000
Roland Garros- 2000
Queens- 250
Wimbledon- 2000
Toronto- 1000
Cincinnati- 360
Gold Medal- 800
US Open- 720
Madrid- 360
Paris- 180
Doha- 45
Australian Open- 2000
Rotterdam- 300
Indian Wells- 1000
Miami- 180
Monte Carlo- 1000
Barcelona- 500
Rome- 1000

Total- 14,695

Federer’s complete 2006 (Converted to 2009 Points)

Doha- 250
Aussie Open- 2000
Dubai- 300
Indian Wells- 1000
Miami- 1000
Monte Carlo- 600
Rome- 600
Roland Garros- 1200
Halle- 250
Wimbledon- 2000
Toronto- 1000
Cincinnati- 45
US Open- 2000
Tokyo- 500
Madrid- 1000
Basel- 500
TMC- 1500

Total- 15,745

Just for shits and giggles, I did Sampras too.

Sampras from Canada 1993 to Wimbledon 1994 (Converted to 2009 points)

Canada- 90
LA- 90
Cincy- 360
Indy- 45
USO- 2000
Lyon- 250
Stockholm- 45
Paris- 180
Antwerp- 250
TMC- 1000
Sydney- 250
AO- 2000
IW- 1000
Miami- 1000
Osaka- 250
Tokyo- 500
Rome- 1000
RG- 360
Queens- 150
Wimbledon- 2000

Total- 12,820

Federer- 15,745
Nadal- 14,695
Sampras- 12,820

Now, that's 2009 points. How about 2008 points?

Nadal from Hamburg 2008-Rome 2009 (Converted to 2008 Points)

Hamburg- 500
Roland Garros- 1000
Queens- 225
Wimbledon- 1000
Toronto- 500
Cincinnati- 225
Gold Medal- 400
US Open- 450
Madrid- 225
Paris- 125
Doha- 60
Australian Open- 1000
Rotterdam- 210
Indian Wells- 500
Miami- 125
Monte Carlo- 500
Barcelona- 300
Rome- 500

Total- 7,845

Federer’s complete 2006 (Converted to 2008 Points)

Doha- 250
Aussie Open- 1000
Dubai- 210
Indian Wells- 500
Miami- 500
Monte Carlo- 350
Rome- 350
Roland Garros- 700
Halle- 225
Wimbledon- 1000
Toronto- 500
Cincinnati- 35
US Open- 1000
Tokyo- 250
Madrid- 500
Basel- 250
TMC- 750

Total- 8,370

Sampras from Canada 1993 to Wimbledon 1994 (Converted to 2008 points)

Canada- 75
LA- 75
Cincy- 225
Indy- 40
USO- 1000
Lyon- 200
Stockholm- 35
Paris- 125
Antwerp- 250
TMC- 500
Sydney- 175
AO- 1000
IW- 500
Miami- 500
Osaka- 175
Tokyo- 250
Rome- 500
RG- 250
Queens- 155
Wimbledon- 1000

Total- 7,030
----------------------------------------------
So, comparing 2008 to 2009 conversions

Federer- 8,370 compared to 15,745 (x 1.88)
Nadal- 7,845 compared to 14,695 (x 1.87)
Sampras- 7,030 compared to 12,820 (x 1.82)

Of course this is an imperfect science, Sampras and Federer probably would have played more "500's" if they existed, I didn't feel like doing the Davis Cup points cause the 2009 system is :retard:, and comparing eras is always difficult, but it is what it is.

Federer's 2006 was the most dominant year in the history of the sport, it appears.

Is there any other 12 month period anyone can think of to compare it to?


I agree that Federer's 2006 season was absolutely breath taking, just as you proved above, but theres a vital difference between the 2. In 2006 Federer had no peers. In 2008-2009 Nadal has single handedly picked apart the man who was inches away from being known as the GOAT. Nadal has competed against, owned, and destroyed a man who will be remembered as atleast a top 5 tennis player of all time. He's stopped him from getting 20 grand slams at the age of 28, from getting the Golden Slam and the career Grand Slam. Thats why Nadal's season is more dominant. If, however, you just look at tournaments won and how frequently they were won, you'd have to give the edge to Fed, jsut as the points system proves.

madlove
05-04-2009, 09:44 AM
nadal is still better

DhammaTiger
05-04-2009, 10:33 AM
GD thanks so much for the effort you put into a very interesting thread :yeah : :hatoff:

rafa_maniac
05-04-2009, 01:39 PM
I just love how we've suddenly modified the criteria to be applied when juxtaposing achievements. For example, instead of basing our analysis on titles won in a season, the 12-month criterion has been inserted, so that achievements from one year carry over into the next, thereby creating the illusion that player A has been more dominant than in reality he truly has.

What is this 12-month business ? The boy won Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the Olympics in 2008. Thus far, in 2009, he has won the Australian Open and seems to be on the path to capturing Roland Garros. Perhaps I would be more forgiving of this sort of stats tinkering were it not for the fact that other players are measured according to what they've accomplished in a single season, not some extended timeframe that carries over from one year into the other.

Nadal was routed by Tsonga in the '08 Australian SF, and lost in 4-sets to Andrew Murray in the 2008 US Open SF. It seems rather disingenuous to try to create a parallel between three slams won over the span of two seasons and, say, three slams won in a single season.

:lol: This would read less like bitter Fedtard whining if it was clear that some sort of biased advantage was being given to Rafa. The OP applied the same criteria to ALL players (it just so happens that Federer's best 12 month stretch took place within one calendar year) and guess what? Federer came out on top :eek:! Noone said this was a definitive way to measure dominance or success or whatever, just one way that the OP chose to do it in his own thread, as he is entitled to (and a valid way seeing as tennis works off of a protected 52 week ranking system).

prima donna
05-04-2009, 05:05 PM
:lol: This would read less like bitter Fedtard whining if it was clear
There's only one minor problem: I'm not a Fedtard; I'm a tennis fan, a fan of aesthetically pleasing tennis that retains some semblance of tennis in its natural form.

Moreover, what should I be bitter about ? This journey began in 2003, and since that year my favorite player has won at least a slam per season. 13 Grand Slams certainly don't leave an acerbic taste in my mouth.

I've given the boy his dues, but that doesn't excuse his fans for attempting to pillage this forum with foolish trivia geared towards enhancing his achievements.

rafa_maniac
05-04-2009, 05:15 PM
There's only one minor problem: I'm not a Fedtard; I'm a tennis fan, a fan of aesthetically pleasing tennis that retains some semblance of tennis in its purest form.

Anyone who throws about words such as "asthetically pleasing" and "purest form" in relation to Federer as if they were speaking objectively is a tard. Don't kid yourself, because you're certainly not fooling anyone else.

Moreover, what should I be bitter about ?

The fact that anyone relates Rafa's successes in a positive light, let alone in comparison in any way to Federer's is more than enough to rile you.

I've given the boy his dues

Oh yes? :rolleyes: Link?

but that doesn't excuse his fans for attempting to pillage this forum with foolish trivia geared towards enhancing his achievements.

"Enhancing" would indicate some sort of doctoring with the figures, and at the very least a hyperbolic conclusion. These are cold hard figures, and the OP doesn't make any claims based off of them EXCEPT in fact in relation to Federer. :wavey:

prima donna
05-04-2009, 05:36 PM
Anyone who throws about words such as "asthetically pleasing" and "purest form" in relation to Federer as if they were speaking objectively is a tard. Don't kid yourself, because you're certainly not fooling anyone else.
Oh, is that so ? Well, you might try explaining to me why I found myself involved in a minor confrontation with other more ardent Federer fans following the creation of a thread in which I compared Stefan Edberg to Roger Federer. Moreover, you might try explaining to me why I've been critical of his failures against serve-and-volleyers in general. I mean, if my objective were to cheer only for Federer, why would I even bother to raise such points ?

Again, you haven't been around long enough to realize it, but I've been a supporter of Richard Gasquet since 2005. Same story for Davydenko. I'm not trying to conceal the fact that Roger is by far my favorite player, but that doesn't make me a "Fedtard."




Oh yes? :rolleyes: Link?
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=8513491&postcount=117
For example, Nadal has humiliated Roger on several occasions, yet I've never been bothered by the presence of his father, Sebastian Nadal. Actually, it seems that Rafael is embracing the responsibility that comes along with being the best player in the world. I like that, it demonstrates both class and maturity. The Nadal family are a classy bunch, or at least they behave as such publicly.

This quote is just one of many. I realize that you're relatively new to this forum, however, I've never had any problem showing my face following each of Nadal's Grand Slam titles. In 2007, instead of lamenting the fact that he had gotten the better of Roger, I was one of the first Federer fans to post a kind remark in his Roland Garros thread, as was the case in 2006.

I don't dislike Rafael Nadal as an individual. I just find his fan base to be an unsightly blemish on the very dignity of this message board.


"Enhancing" would indicate some sort of doctoring with the figures, and at the very least a hyperbolic conclusion.
This is anything but a scientific conclusion. At any rate, we've always judged players based on their results from season-to-season.

McEnroe is known for his superb 1984 season.
Federer is known for his 2006 season (also 2007).
Nadal is known for his 2008 and 2009 season, thus combining his results in order to create the illusion of supreme dominance. It's intellectually dishonest.

rafa_maniac
05-04-2009, 05:48 PM
if my objective were to cheer only for Federer

I never said this, but this isn't mutually exclusive with being a Fedtard I'm afraid. :wavey:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=8513491&postcount=117

Wow, praise for the decorum of his family where you qualify it with "or at least they behave as such publicly.". I'm blown away :rolleyes:

This quote is just one of many. I realize that you're relatively new to this forum, however,

Been lurking since mid 2006, joined beginning of 2007 :shrug:

I don't dislike Rafael Nadal as an individual. I just find his fan base to be an unsightly blemish on the very dignity of this message board.

A very reasonable and unbiased positon. :lol:

This is anything but a scientific conclusion. At any rate, we've always judged players based on their results from season-to-season.

Whose "we"? Why do we need yet another thread then on the respective merits of calendar years? C'Mon Aussie already has a detailed and informative thread on the topic if you care to do a search. This is just another way of looking at the topic, one that hasn't been done to death. You're going to have to explain how it's either "unscientific" or "intellectually dishonest" :confused:

kingfederer
05-04-2009, 06:07 PM
Oh, is that so ? Well, you might try explaining to me why I found myself involved in a minor confrontation with other more ardent Federer fans following the creation of a thread in which I compared Stefan Edberg to Roger Federer. Moreover, you might try explaining to me why I've been critical of his failures against serve-and-volleyers in general. I mean, if my objective were to cheer only for Federer, why would I even bother to raise such points ?

Again, you haven't been around long enough to realize it, but I've been a supporter of Richard Gasquet since 2005. Same story for Davydenko. I'm not trying to conceal the fact that Roger is by far my favorite player, but that doesn't make me a "Fedtard."




http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=8513491&postcount=117


This quote is just one of many. I realize that you're relatively new to this forum, however, I've never had any problem showing my face following each of Nadal's Grand Slam titles. In 2007, instead of lamenting the fact that he had gotten the better of Roger, I was one of the first Federer fans to post a kind remark in his Roland Garros thread, as was the case in 2006.

I don't dislike Rafael Nadal as an individual. I just find his fan base to be an unsightly blemish on the very dignity of this message board.


This is anything but a scientific conclusion. At any rate, we've always judged players based on their results from season-to-season.

McEnroe is known for his superb 1984 season.
Federer is known for his 2006 season (also 2007).
Nadal is known for his 2008 and 2009 season, thus combining his results in order to create the illusion of supreme dominance. It's intellectually dishonest.


blah blah blah, u just a bitter fedmug tard and a nadal hater.

prima donna
05-04-2009, 06:10 PM
I never said this, but this isn't mutually exclusive with being a Fedtard I'm afraid. :wavey:
I may be guilty of being a tennis purist, but it seems rather far-fetched to define someone of my ilk as a mere "Fedtard."



Wow, praise for the decorum of his family where you qualify it with "or at least they behave as such publicly.". I'm blown away :rolleyes:


Actually, it seems that Rafael is embracing the responsibility that comes along with being the best player in the world.
This phrase contains two acknowledgements:
1). Nadal has handled well the transition from #2 to #1;
2). The acknowledgement that he is the best player in the world, which tacitly acknowledges his superiority over Federer at this point in time.

I don't have any problems with basic facts.





A very reasonable and unbiased positon. :lol:
I dislike what you people represent. It has everything to do with tennis decorum -- or more appropriately, lack thereof. This is bigger than tennis. Am I being partial ? Oh, sure, only a fool would deny such an obvious thing. After all, all subjective remarks inherently contain partiality.

It's an opinion, not a fact.



Whose "we"? Why do we need yet another thread then on the respective merits of calendar years? C'Mon Aussie already has a detailed and informative thread on the topic if you care to do a search. This is just another way of looking at the topic, one that hasn't been done to death. You're going to have to explain how it's either "unscientific" or "intellectually dishonest" :confused:

Let's cut the nonsense. This discussion has become rather feminized. It's fine to argue about subjective points, but this is an objective point that should be clear to any reasonable person:

Players should be judged based on their achievements in a single season. 2008 is history. We've always done it that way (by we I mean the few people who care to discuss such matters).

Nadal won 2 Grand Slams in 2008. That's it -- no extended "12-month" timeframes to carry over results from one tennis year into the next. It's intellectually dishonest to equate 3 Grand Slams won from one season to the next with three Grand Slams won in a single season.

Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open - 2007 accomplishments
Roland Garros, Wimbledon - 2008 accomplishments
Australian Open, Roland Garros - 2009 accomplishments

If a man running a marathon decides to take a break, should the clock stop, or do those minutes spent slumped over count against him ? If a player takes winter break, comes back the next year refreshed, both mentally and physically, do we merely discount that break and resume the clock in order to combine the slams won before and after said winter break ?

rafa_maniac
05-04-2009, 06:27 PM
We're getting off track, so to focus...


Players should be judged based on their achievements in a single season.

They are. Just not in this one particular thread on this one insignificant message board. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Nadal won 2 Grand Slams in 2008. That's it -- no extended "12-month" timeframes to carry over results from one tennis year into the next. It's intellectually dishonest to equate 3 Grand Slams won from one season to the next with three Grand Slams won in a single season.

Yet you still haven't explained WHY it's "intellectually dishonest"? A calendar year is exactly the same span as the period being discussed here. Remember that the issue of ranking points is being discussed here primarily, and as such the time period that is most relevant to the discussion is the LAST 12 MONTHS, not necessarily in a calendar year, which is of arbitrary importance.

If a man running a marathon decides to take a break, should the clock stop, or do those minutes spent slumped over count against him ? If a player takes winter break, comes back the next year refreshed, both mentally and physically, do we merely discount that break and resume the clock in order to combine the slams won before and after said winter break ?

:retard: How about if a player takes a break due to injury mid season then? I assume it's unfair then to compare results in that year before and after the break? :lol: Please try and pick relevant analogies next time.

prima donna
05-04-2009, 06:37 PM
:retard: How about if a player takes a break due to injury mid season then? I assume it's unfair then to compare results in that year before and after the break? :lol: Please try and pick relevant analogies next time.
Winter break (however short it may be) allows all players time to refresh themselves, both mentally and physically. An injured player would be at a natural disadvantage due to the rehabilitative measures he'd be required to take in order to return to form. So, no, the two are not mutually exclusive.

One simple question before I make what is going to seem an illustration that should be required only for a 4-year old: Do you believe at your intellectual core that three Grand Slams won in a single year are equivalent to three Grand Slams won in two separate seasons ? Numerically, yes, they are equal. 3 is 3, but with the constant clamor to fix the cluttered schedule, it surely cannot be considered the same thing.

Winter break represents a transition from one year to the next:

Australian Open
North American Clay Court Swing (Indian Wells, Miami)
European/South American Clay Court season
Roland Garros
Halle, Queens, Newport
Wimbledon
North American Hard Court Swing (Montreal/Toronto alternate, Cincy)
US Open
Indoor Season
TMC
Winter Break (with tennis to resume the following year, exhibitions being the exception to the rule)

pogotheorist
05-04-2009, 06:46 PM
PD - have you taken in the fact that Federer came out ahead in the first-post comparison?
Dissonant with the "dis-honest Rafatard" storyline, is it not?

rafa_maniac
05-04-2009, 06:49 PM
Do you believe at your intellectual core that three Grand Slams won in a single year are equivalent to three Grand Slams won in two separate seasons ?

As far as the purpose of this thread is concerned, there's no difference at all. In terms of historical clout in general? No, and I never claimed as much. There's obviously much more importance placed on a calendar year GS than a non-calendar year GS.

Your analogy is still ill suited. There are various breaks WITHIN the calendar where players take time off to regroup. Nadal has gone a month after Wimbledon without playing a title in the past. Federer after the Australian Open this year took 6 weeks off.

prima donna
05-04-2009, 06:53 PM
PD - have you taken in the fact that Federer came out ahead in the first-post comparison?
Dissonant with the "dis-honest Rafatard" storyline, is it not?
That's not the point. All players ought to be on equal footing.

If we're going to compare McEnroe's 1984 record with Nadal's 2008, it should be done using the same criteria; that is, each player being judged according to results amassed in a single tennis year.

McEnroe 1984
Federer 2006
Nadal 2008 (Not Nadal 2008 + 2009)

This formula has been devised in such a way so as to enhance Nadal's achievements, so that players such as McEnroe are not allowed level footing.

Action Jackson
05-04-2009, 06:56 PM
It should always be done in a calendar year and nothing else, then this would be just like asking people to fill out a survey with the questions that will lead to one answer only.

rafa_maniac
05-04-2009, 06:56 PM
If we're going to compare McEnroe's 1984 record with Nadal's, it should be done using the same criteria; that is, each player being judged according to results amassed in a single tennis year.


Which in this case could be said to favour McEnroe and thus be "intellectually dishonest" :lol: The same criteria WAS applied to both players.

prima donna
05-04-2009, 06:58 PM
As far as the purpose of this thread is concerned, there's no difference at all.
In that case, I'm afraid you're being unreasonable. We have nothing further to discuss. I rather enjoy debating with others; however, such an exercise is debased by intellectual dishonesty.

rafa_maniac
05-04-2009, 07:00 PM
In that case, I'm afraid you're being unreasonable. We have nothing further to discuss. I rather enjoy debating with others; however, such an exercise is debased by intellectual dishonesty.

I'm sorry you feel that way :awww:

Johnny Groove
05-04-2009, 07:13 PM
Didn't think this thread would rile so many feathers.

I'll bump it after TMC 2009.

prima donna
05-04-2009, 07:20 PM
Didn't think this thread would rile so many feathers.

I'll bump it after TMC 2009.
For what purpose, may I ask ? It won't change the indelible, fundamental flaw that is part of this formula that you've devised. Rafael Nadal may well capture three slams this year, in which case it would remain illogical nevertheless to carry over achievements from the 2008 calendar year to the 2009 calendar year.

pogotheorist
05-04-2009, 07:20 PM
Put it this way: all the OP is actually asking is, "Corrected to the extent possible for changes in the system, what are the highest ATP ranking scores ever achieved?" (Such scores of course always based on a rolling 12-month period.) Doesn't sound like an evil or unreasonable question. Good on him for making an attempt to work it out.

Johnny Groove
05-04-2009, 07:22 PM
For what purpose, may I ask ? It won't change the indelible, fundamental flaw that is part of this formula that you've devised. Rafael Nadal may well capture three slams this year, in which case it would remain illogical nevertheless to carry over achievements from the 2008 calendar year to the 2009 calendar year.

After the TMC this year, we will see the entirety of Nadal's season and can objectively compare it to McEnroe of '84 and Federer of '06. Nadal's complete '09 season will most likely fall short of those two marks, but it will be interesting to see nonetheless.

rafa_maniac
05-04-2009, 07:24 PM
Indeed, it's an interesting way to look at the question of peak dominance by looking at various player's ranking score peak, reflecting their most impressive 12 month period. The problem as has been pointed out comes when comparing between eras, but that will always be an issue with any such topic.

prima donna
05-04-2009, 07:30 PM
The trouble is that many Nadal fans are simply too impatient. There will come the appropriate time when Nadal will receive his accolades, but right now isn't that time. He's an exceptional tennis player -- just like Boris Becker, Wilander, and a host of other players.

Johnny Groove
05-04-2009, 07:49 PM
You're right, PD, but impatience is a common thread everywhere.

How many Federer fans (like celia with her stupid thread) were expecting Federer to destroy the 14 slam record?

How many Djokovic fans were predicting the Golden Slam last year and God knows what else?

How many Murray fans were getting ahead of themselves with all his TMS events before he fell to Verdasco down in Australia?

finishingmove
05-04-2009, 07:58 PM
djokovic was unlucky not to win the golden slam last year, tbh.

prima donna
05-04-2009, 08:00 PM
You're right, PD, but impatience is a common thread everywhere.

How many Federer fans (like celia with her stupid thread) were expecting Federer to destroy the 14 slam record?

How many Djokovic fans were predicting the Golden Slam last year and God knows what else?

How many Murray fans were getting ahead of themselves with all his TMS events before he fell to Verdasco down in Australia?
Well, Federer has amassed 13 Grand Slams. With respect to Djokovic and Murray, their careers are both young. Some players are able to live up to the incredible level of hype surrounding them; others aren't. Numbers speak for themselves.

Nadal is a good player, but these sorts of threads are merely roundabout ways of trying to compare him to a player against whom he has a winning record. In truth, there are no similarities -- as of yet.

You can harp on age until you're blue in the face but Nadal isn't winning 13 Grand Slams. He'd be fortunate to have one season like Federer's 2004, 2006 and 2007. Those are just cold, hard facts.

scarecrows
05-04-2009, 08:01 PM
djokovic was unlucky not to win the golden slam last year, tbh.

the sore throat destroyed his chances

JolánGagó
05-04-2009, 08:37 PM
Nadal isn't winning 13 Grand Slams. He'd be fortunate to have one season like Federer's 2004, 2006 and 2007. Those are just cold, hard facts.

Mere speculations.

prima donna
05-04-2009, 08:39 PM
Mere speculations.
Based on historical perspective. How many players have won 13 or more Grand Slams ? Let me guess, you've been watching tennis since 2006.

JolánGagó
05-04-2009, 08:43 PM
Based on historical perspective. How many players have won 13 or more Grand Slams ? Let me guess, you've been watching tennis since 2006.

Based on some "historical perspective" you speculate he won't. Fair enough but that isn't a fact, let alone a cold hard one.

Guess again.

prima donna
05-04-2009, 08:50 PM
Based on some "historical perspective" you speculate he won't. Fair enough but that isn't a fact, let alone a cold hard one.

You've misinterpreted my post. It is factual that any tennis player would be fortunate to duplicate Federer's 2004, 2006 and 2007. How many others players in the history of tennis have been able to accomplish such feats ?

Hint: this isn't the first time a given player has dominated a particular surface, nor is it the first time that a given player has won six Grand Slams. Borg, Edberg, McEnroe, Wilander, Tilden, Laver, and Jimmy Connors each won six or more Grand Slams -- how many of them retired with 13 or more slams ? Take an educated guess.

JolánGagó
05-04-2009, 09:01 PM
You've misinterpreted my post. It is factual that any tennis player would be fortunate to duplicate Federer's 2004, 2006 and 2007. How many others players in the history of tennis have been able to accomplish such feats ?

Hint: this isn't the first time a given player has dominated a particular surface, nor is it the first time that a given player has won six Grand Slams. Borg, Edberg, McEnroe, Wilander, Tilden, Laver, and Jimmy Connors each won six or more Grand Slams -- how many of them retired with 13 or more slams ? Take an educated guess.

I haven't.

Hint: An educated guess is still a guess.

prima donna
05-04-2009, 09:03 PM
I haven't.

Hint: An educated guess is still a guess.
You're evading my question. How many of the aforementioned players retired with 13 or more Grand Slam titles ?

Commander Data
05-04-2009, 09:06 PM
The trouble is that many Nadal fans are simply too impatient. There will come the appropriate time when Nadal will receive his accolades, but right now isn't that time. He's an exceptional tennis player -- just like Boris Becker, Wilander, and a host of other players.

:yeah:

JolánGagó
05-04-2009, 09:10 PM
You're evading my question. How many of the aforementioned players retired with 13 or more Grand Slam titles ?

I don't do rethorical questions. Do you have a point besides the probabilistic one?

Commander Data
05-04-2009, 09:14 PM
djokovic was unlucky not to win the golden slam last year, tbh.

That damn sore throat! Not even the Joker is almighty...

prima donna
05-04-2009, 09:16 PM
I don't do rethorical questions. Do you have a point besides the probabilistic one?
It's not a rhetorical question.

Once more: Sampras, Boris Becker, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg, Ivan Lendl, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Bill Tilden, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe -- how many of these players retired with 13 or more Grand Slam titles ?

How many of these players were dominate on a particular surface ? Historical perspective matters. I'm not guilty of wishful thinking by saying that Nadal won't win 13 Grand Slams; to the contrary, those who genuinely believe that he will reach all sorts of milestones are naively optimistic.

pogotheorist
05-04-2009, 09:16 PM
PD, you point out that Rafa will not end up the GOAT unless he exceeds the norms of even the all-time Top 10 list. Well, right: the GOAT is the all-time Top 1.

Is Rafa likely to turn out to have been the GOAT? Of course not. Is he doing what an actual GOAT would do so far? Yes. When your first three cards dealt are the jack, queen and king of one suit, you don't have a royal flush yet - and the odds are you won't end up with one - but it remains possible, and you're already into rarefied air, and the hope begins to grow. Nothing wrong with that.

FedFan_2007
05-04-2009, 09:18 PM
No matter which you slice it Fed's 2006 is the greatest year in the Open Era. However, Rafa has a chance to eclipse it.

prima donna
05-04-2009, 09:38 PM
PD, you point out that Rafa will not end up the GOAT unless he exceeds the norms of even the all-time Top 10 list. Well, right: the GOAT is the all-time Top 1.
To be sure, I've never made reference to any perceived Greatest of All-Time. I think it's a meaningless designation that can never be proven exact. It's entirely subjective.


Is Rafa likely to turn out to have been the GOAT? Of course not. Is he doing what an actual GOAT would do so far? Yes. When your first three cards dealt are the jack, queen and king of one suit, you don't have a royal flush yet - and the odds are you won't end up with one - but it remains possible, and you're already into rarefied air, and the hope begins to grow. Nothing wrong with that.
Oh, sure, following that rationale one could also deduce that Federer has a shot at amassing 20 or more Grand Slams, given that he's already reached 13. Likely ? No.

One cannot even be sure as to whether Federer will tie Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slam titles. Meanwhile, some people seem willing to believe that Nadal has a serious chance at reaching 13 Grand Slams.

Just to put things in perspective here: Nadal would need to win at least the same number of slams which he currently has to his name.

2005 - 2009 - 6 Grand Slams

He'd need to win six more and do himself one better in order to equal Federer's current number of slams. Worst case scenario: He ends 2009 with a mere 7 Grand Slams. Best case scenario: He ends 2009 with 9 Grand Slams. In the one case, where would the other 6 come from, and in the other, where would the other 4 come from ?

I think people are taking for granted just how impressive of a feat even winning 1 Grand Slam per season is.

Ackms421
05-04-2009, 10:09 PM
I just love how we've suddenly modified the criteria to be applied when juxtaposing achievements. For example, instead of basing our analysis on titles won in a season, the 12-month criterion has been inserted, so that achievements from one year carry over into the next, thereby creating the illusion that player A has been more dominant than in reality he truly has.

What is this 12-month business ? The boy won Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the Olympics in 2008. Thus far, in 2009, he has won the Australian Open and seems to be on the path to capturing Roland Garros. Perhaps I would be more forgiving of this sort of stats tinkering were it not for the fact that other players are measured according to what they've accomplished in a single season, not some extended timeframe that carries over from one year into the other.

Nadal was routed by Tsonga in the '08 Australian SF, and lost in 4-sets to Andrew Murray in the 2008 US Open SF. It seems rather disingenuous to try to create a parallel between three slams won over the span of two seasons and, say, three slams won in a single season.

He took their best twelve months. That happpens to be 2006 for Federer, a combination of 12 consecutive months for Nadal, and a combination of 12 consecutive months for Sampras as well. It's not biased. Achievements happening from January to December don't necessarily hold any less weight than those happening over any other 12 month period. All the same tournaments are included.

Fedex
05-05-2009, 12:54 AM
Seems like you're catching a lot of crap in this thread, but I think it is an excellent thread. Great topic dude. :):cool:

Arkulari
05-05-2009, 02:39 AM
McEnroe and Roger have had the most dominant years, heck in fact Roger had two super dominant years back to back: 2006/2007 ;)
Rafa is slowly getting to that kind of dominance and I have faith he will have even better years :)

rafa_maniac
05-05-2009, 06:38 AM
It's not a rhetorical question.

Once more: Sampras, Boris Becker, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg, Ivan Lendl, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Bill Tilden, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe -- how many of these players retired with 13 or more Grand Slam titles ?

How many of these players were dominate on a particular surface ? Historical perspective matters. I'm not guilty of wishful thinking by saying that Nadal won't win 13 Grand Slams; to the contrary, those who genuinely believe that he will reach all sorts of milestones are naively optimistic.

The problem is you said that Nadal definitively WON'T win 13 GSs and that that is a "cold hard fact", not that "historical precedents tell us that he almost certainly won't". Can you spot the difference? I'm sure you can :cool: On a related note, few genuine Rafa fans I know of (discounting the GMs trolls who are mostly glory hunters, Fedhaters and multiple accounts) expect him to achieve anything of the sort. You're projecting based off of your disdain for the fanbase.

heya
05-05-2009, 08:34 AM
Cowards, chokers (Roddick, Nalbandian), non-dominant players (Djokovic, Murray, Agassi), and declined retirees (Sampras, Kuerten) inflated Federer's record. Has-beens (Safin, Moya, Ferrero, Coria), and lucky no-weapon players (Hewitt, Gaudio) never recovered. Sampras had a little more compettion.

pogotheorist
05-05-2009, 08:45 PM
I'm not guilty of wishful thinking by saying that Nadal won't win 13 Grand Slams; to the contrary, those who genuinely believe that he will reach all sorts of milestones are naively optimistic.
What you are guilty of is logical innacuracy. You stress your perception of improbability by declaring impossibility.

Those who regard it as certain or very likely that Nadal will (for example) set the total-slams record are naive; those who observe that he has done everything possible at this stage to stay on track for that, though the probability remains low, are right; and you, declaring categorically that he won't, are naively (or dishonestly) pessimistic.

You have presented no argument against Nadal, only a false argument that rare events never occur.

JolanGago (and, two up, Rafa Maniac) already made this point more compactly. They were right, and you had no answer. You seem to have a self-image of intellectual sophistication and indeed superiority, but the substance and the discipline aren't there. Being haughty is not really all there is to it. It's more about being fair, clear and accurate.

prima donna
05-06-2009, 12:44 AM
What you are guilty of is logical innacuracy. You stress your perception of improbability by declaring impossibility. You have presented no argument against Nadal, only a false argument that rare events never occur.
Actually, I have presented an argument: if we're going to compare achievements, then we should do so by applying the same criteria in the case of each player. Your response to that very simple, yet valid point, was something along the lines of "PD, you do realize that Federer still has more points than Nadal" -- notwithstanding the fact that Grand Slam titles from two calendar seasons were factored into Nadal's point total, which is the fundamental weakness of the formula.

Whether or not Federer's point total is greater than Nadal's is irrelevant. It's the inconsistent way in which point totals were arrived at which delegitimizes such a formula. Although there should be an even greater differential between their respective point totals, given that only titles which were won in 2008 should have been factored into the calculation of Nadal's point total.

I'm hardly guilty of being the only person who has questioned the formula devised by the author of this thread. ActionJackson and CyBorg have expressed concerns, too.

However, I am the only person who has recognized this thread for just what it is: a roundabout way of categorizing Nadal with the likes of Borg, Sampras and Federer. He doesn't have the numbers to warrant such a categorization, and people ought to apply a bit of historical perspective in terms of just how difficult a feat it would be to emulate such players.

It's not enough to say, well, he has six Grand Slams and therefore he has a decent shot at matching Federer's slam total or surpassing Sampras' record. There have been players who, despite having dominated and amassed six or more slams, have retired with fewer than 10 Grand Slams, or, what is the same thing, without having reached the double digit mark.

I will however concede one point: I went too far in declaring what I believe to be, or at least what should be, obvious to the knowledgeable tennis fan as fact; that is, my comment regarding the likelihood of Nadal winning 13 Slams is based in subjective reasoning. It's an opinion, not an absolute fact that he won't dominate the tour for the next three years, leapfrogging both Federer and Sampras.

I'm not a 19-year-old who just started watching tennis last year. I've been an avid fan since the '80s, and one of the gifts that I've acquired during that period is my ability to appreciate just how short-lived success can be.


You seem to have a self-image of intellectual sophistication and indeed superiority, but the substance and the discipline aren't there.
MTF is hardly congenial to intellectual discourse. Moreover, given that we're discussing sport, to what extent is it possible for a person to be substantive ? I've already established that I don't take people seriously who use terms such as "GOAT." It's entirely too subjective for my taste. You used an analogy involving card games to support your argument that Nadal has a legitimate shot at winning 13 Grand Slams. While such an analogy may be of interest to you, it's hardly substantive -- if by substance you mean raw facts, data, history; on the other hand, if you're apt to conflate hypothetical scenarios with substantive details (and you most likely are), such an analogy may be considered "substantive" in your book.

As to your ad hominem attacks (which are regularly waged against me), I have no "self-image" of "intellectual sophistication" for one very simple reason: I haven't the slightest clue as to what that even means. What is "intellectual sophistication" supposed to denote ? I'm not at all being condescending. I'd like an honest answer, because other than analogies involving card games, ad hominem attacks, and silly designations, i.e., G.O.A.T, you've only attacked my tone.

Being haughty is not really all there is to it. It's more about being fair, clear and accurate.
Fairness and clarity:

The trouble is that many Nadal fans are simply too impatient. There will come the appropriate time when Nadal will receive his accolades, but right now isn't that time. He's an exceptional tennis player -- just like Boris Becker, Wilander, and a host of other players.

As to your accusation of haughtiness, how is it possible to arrive at such a bold conclusion with so little knowledge of an individual ? I can't be held culpable for your assumptions. Thus far, I've said nothing that would lead anyone to believe that I'm haughty.

I'd much prefer to discuss tennis with, say, ActionJackson. Why ? He's full of knowledge, and he doesn't deem it necessary to intellectualize very simple concepts. Historical perspective, realism -- these are very simple concepts. I find myself wondering why I even bother posting in General Messages when I'm forced to respond to posts of this nature. It's almost as if there's always someone who wants to challenge me for coming across as an adult.

One can be intellectually honest while engaging in a non-academic discussion. We're discussing Rafael Nadal's career, not Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. It's only tennis.

rafa_maniac
05-06-2009, 04:47 PM
It's the inconsistent way in which point totals were arrived at which delegitimizes such a formula.

No such inconsistency occurs, the exact same formula was applied to all players. This isn't even debatable, it's plain to see in the OP. You'd realise this if you recognised this thread for what it represents, instead of what you assume it must. Which brings us to...

However, I am the only person who has recognized this thread for just what it is: a roundabout way of categorizing Nadal with the likes of Borg, Sampras and Federer.

Comparison, not categorization, and Borg has not been involved in this thread whatsoever. This is not a GOAT debate, it's a numerical approach using the ATP ranking points system to the question of peak dominance. Nobody seriously thinks Nadal's overall career is at all comparable to some of the ultimate greats as of yet, and noone in this thread has even indicated anything of the sort.

prima donna
05-06-2009, 05:00 PM
the exact same formula was applied to all players.

You're wrong.
I'm going to agree with those here who say that you are (as they say) a Nadal-tard. Assuming that this means "a blind fanboy, who will either misuse or manufacture facts so that they fit his or her own predetermined agenda".

It should always be done in a calendar year and nothing else, then this would be just like asking people to fill out a survey with the questions that will lead to one answer only.


This is not a GOAT debate
PD, you point out that Rafa will not end up the GOAT unless he exceeds the norms of even the all-time Top 10 list. Well, right: the GOAT is the all-time Top 1.


Are you thick or what ?

rafa_maniac
05-06-2009, 05:08 PM
Are you thick or what ?

Please tell me you are aware that George was being sacrcastic :lol: Please read the OP again and pay special attention to the formula applied to Sampras.

Notice how noone brought up anything to do with the GOAT debate until YOU did, and pogotheorist was merely responding to your points? :wavey:

habibko
05-06-2009, 05:15 PM
Federer had the most dominant period of the sport, 12 months or 4 years, no one in history won Slams in the pace he did.

if someone is trying to dispute this fact, no one can help you.

prima donna
05-06-2009, 05:15 PM
Please tell me you are aware that George was being sacrcastic
I don't think so. Although I should probably allow him to speak for himself. I'll private message him a link to this thread. I'm usually able to detect sarcasm in his tone, given that I've been reading his posts for nearly four years.


Notice how noone brought up anything to do with the GOAT debate
I haven't used the term 'G.O.A.T' at all in this thread, that element of the discussion was raised by pogotheorist. If you're really interested in knowing how the topic came about, do the necessary reading. Try properly contextualizing things.

rafa_maniac
05-06-2009, 05:30 PM
I haven't used the term 'G.O.A.T' at all in this thread, that element of the discussion was raised by pogotheorist. If you're really interested in knowing how the topic came about, do the necessary reading. Try properly contextualizing things.

The trouble is that many Nadal fans are simply too impatient. There will come the appropriate time when Nadal will receive his accolades, but right now isn't that time. He's an exceptional tennis player -- just like Boris Becker, Wilander, and a host of other players.

This is the first time anyone made any indication that Nadal (or any other player for that matter) was being judged in this thread on the basis of anything other than an impressive 12 month stretch of dominance... posted by you.

prima donna
05-06-2009, 05:47 PM
This is the first time anyone made any indication that Nadal (or any other player for that matter)
The quote that you've taken out of context dovetails with the theory that this thread is a contrivance geared towards elevating Nadal's accomplishments -- which you can either agree or disagree with -- but the objective was to acknowledge that such contrivances are unnecessary. Nadal is a fine player with or without such contrivances, and categorizing him with the likes of Boris Becker and Mats Wilander was merely a way of illustrating that point. In other words, mentioning his name in the presence of the aforementioned players is a kind gesture, a compliment. I'm not at all alluding to the Greatest Player of All-Time.

Pogotheorist took it upon himself to initiate the discussion regarding "G.O.A.T" -- a term which isn't even part of my vocabulary. That's fine, but don't deny that the topic has been raised and then try to blame me for having raised it.

rafa_maniac
05-06-2009, 05:51 PM
this thread is a contrivance geared towards elevating Nadal's accomplishments.

Considering there isn't anything with suggests as such outside of your deranged ramblings, I'll disagree. :wavey:

Why aren't you ever on the chat thread anymore? :(

prima donna
05-06-2009, 06:11 PM
Considering there isn't anything with suggests as such outside of your deranged ramblings, I'll disagree. :wavey:
I just can't compete with your unbridled creativity and eloquence -- smiley faces and phrases like "Considering there isn't anything with suggests as such outside of your deranged ramblings."

I'm not the only person who believes this thread is a contrivance -- which I've already demonstrated by quoting other skeptical members. You don't have to demean others simply because they disagree with you. Just accept it and walk away.


Why aren't you ever on the chat thread anymore? :(
I'm in my office working, so I can't be bothered with having to click the reload button every five minutes to read meaningless chatter. It's difficult enough to keep track of General Messages, let alone the Nadal forum.

Action Jackson
05-06-2009, 06:12 PM
Considering there isn't anything with suggests as such outside of your deranged ramblings, I'll disagree. :wavey:

Why aren't you ever on the chat thread anymore? :(

You really think it was that hard to decipher what I meant. Jan 1 to Dec 31, that is how the tennis year operates.

GlennMirnyi
05-06-2009, 06:14 PM
This thread should be called "the feeblest 12-month period in tennis history".

Period.

rafa_maniac
05-06-2009, 06:20 PM
Jan 1 to Dec 31, that is how the tennis year operates.

Thankyou professor :rolleyes:

Action Jackson
05-06-2009, 06:24 PM
Thankyou professor :rolleyes:

To you, that is Mr Professor.

If you really find it hard to understand why there is scepticism about the thread, then that is your problem not mine. Here it is, the intention wasn't bad, but flawed for the reasons already stated.

So a calendar tennis year doesn't start from Jan 1 to Dec 31?

rafa_maniac
05-06-2009, 06:26 PM
I'm not the only person who believes this thread is a contrivance

But you yourself said you are the only one who supposedly sees this thread for "what it really is", am I right?

You don't have to demean others simply because they disagree with you. Just accept it and walk away.

I'm not demeaning you, I'm critiqueing your opinion of this thread. Demeaning would be more like telling someone they are being "intellectually dishonest" without properly demonstrating why other than to declare apparently self-evident theories.

I'm in my office working, so I can't be bothered with having to click the reload button every five minutes to read meaningless chatter. It's difficult enough to keep track of General Messages, let alone the Nadal forum.

:tears:

rafa_maniac
05-06-2009, 06:29 PM
If you really find it hard to understand why there is scepticism about the thread, then that is your problem not mine.

I don't find it hard to understand at all why certain people wouldn't appreciate reading this thread.

So a calendar tennis year doesn't start from Jan 1 to Dec 31?

Did I say otherwise? :scratch:

Action Jackson
05-06-2009, 06:35 PM
I don't find it hard to understand at all why certain people wouldn't appreciate reading this thread.


Unless you are deliberately taking the piss, then the actual thread content isn't an issue.

Did I say otherwise? :scratch:

If you know this, then you know why it's inherently flawed.

rafa_maniac
05-06-2009, 06:39 PM
then the actual thread content isn't an issue.

:confused:

If you know this, then you know why it's inherently flawed.

Perhaps if the purpose of this thread was in any way reliant on the notion of a calendar tennis year I might.

pogotheorist
05-06-2009, 08:24 PM
For the record, PD, here is a misrepresentation:
Pogotheorist took it upon himself to initiate the discussion regarding "G.O.A.T" -- a term which isn't even part of my vocabulary... don't try to blame me for having raised it.
In fact, here is what I said:PD, you point out that Rafa will not end up the GOAT unless he exceeds the norms of even the all-time Top 10 list...
So I was clearly referring to a statement of yours, which was this:
Nadal isn't winning 13 Grand Slams... (plus list of greats who didn't)
My remark was thus clearly about your claim and its logic. You were the one who brought up the weary topic of career greatness, as measured by slam totals - with which the thread was thankfully unconcerned until that point. (Use of the term "GOAT" to refer to your topic was, I allow, loose - but clear, in light of the reference.)

prima donna
05-06-2009, 08:32 PM
For the record, PD, here is a misrepresentation:

In fact, here is what I said:
So I was clearly referring to a statement of yours, which was this:

My remark was thus clearly about your claim and its logic. You were the one who brought up the weary topic of career greatness, as measured by slam totals - with which the thread was thankfully unconcerned until that point. (Use of the term "GOAT" to refer to your topic was, I allow, loose - but clear, in light of the reference.)
I've devoted enough time to your provocations:

What you are guilty of is logical innacuracy. You stress your perception of improbability by declaring impossibility. You have presented no argument against Nadal, only a false argument that rare events never occur.
Actually, I have presented an argument: if we're going to compare achievements, then we should do so by applying the same criteria in the case of each player. Your response to that very simple, yet valid point, was something along the lines of "PD, you do realize that Federer still has more points than Nadal" -- notwithstanding the fact that Grand Slam titles from two calendar seasons were factored into Nadal's point total, which is the fundamental weakness of the formula.

Whether or not Federer's point total is greater than Nadal's is irrelevant. It's the inconsistent way in which point totals were arrived at which delegitimizes such a formula. Although there should be an even greater differential between their respective point totals, given that only titles which were won in 2008 should have been factored into the calculation of Nadal's point total.

I'm hardly guilty of being the only person who has questioned the formula devised by the author of this thread. ActionJackson and CyBorg have expressed concerns, too.

However, I am the only person who has recognized this thread for just what it is: a roundabout way of categorizing Nadal with the likes of Borg, Sampras and Federer. He doesn't have the numbers to warrant such a categorization, and people ought to apply a bit of historical perspective in terms of just how difficult a feat it would be to emulate such players.

It's not enough to say, well, he has six Grand Slams and therefore he has a decent shot at matching Federer's slam total or surpassing Sampras' record. There have been players who, despite having dominated and amassed six or more slams, have retired with fewer than 10 Grand Slams, or, what is the same thing, without having reached the double digit mark.

I will however concede one point: I went too far in declaring what I believe to be, or at least what should be, obvious to the knowledgeable tennis fan as fact; that is, my comment regarding the likelihood of Nadal winning 13 Slams is based in subjective reasoning. It's an opinion, not an absolute fact that he won't dominate the tour for the next three years, leapfrogging both Federer and Sampras.

I'm not a 19-year-old who just started watching tennis last year. I've been an avid fan since the '80s, and one of the gifts that I've acquired during that period is my ability to appreciate just how short-lived success can be.


You seem to have a self-image of intellectual sophistication and indeed superiority, but the substance and the discipline aren't there.
MTF is hardly congenial to intellectual discourse. Moreover, given that we're discussing sport, to what extent is it possible for a person to be substantive ? I've already established that I don't take people seriously who use terms such as "GOAT." It's entirely too subjective for my taste. You used an analogy involving card games to support your argument that Nadal has a legitimate shot at winning 13 Grand Slams. While such an analogy may be of interest to you, it's hardly substantive -- if by substance you mean raw facts, data, history; on the other hand, if you're apt to conflate hypothetical scenarios with substantive details (and you most likely are), such an analogy may be considered "substantive" in your book.

As to your ad hominem attacks (which are regularly waged against me), I have no "self-image" of "intellectual sophistication" for one very simple reason: I haven't the slightest clue as to what that even means. What is "intellectual sophistication" supposed to denote ? I'm not at all being condescending. I'd like an honest answer, because other than analogies involving card games, ad hominem attacks, and silly designations, i.e., G.O.A.T, you've only attacked my tone.

Being haughty is not really all there is to it. It's more about being fair, clear and accurate.
Fairness and clarity:

The trouble is that many Nadal fans are simply too impatient. There will come the appropriate time when Nadal will receive his accolades, but right now isn't that time. He's an exceptional tennis player -- just like Boris Becker, Wilander, and a host of other players.

As to your accusation of haughtiness, how is it possible to arrive at such a bold conclusion with so little knowledge of an individual ? I can't be held culpable for your assumptions. Thus far, I've said nothing that would lead anyone to believe that I'm haughty.

I'd much prefer to discuss tennis with, say, ActionJackson. Why ? He's full of knowledge, and he doesn't deem it necessary to intellectualize very simple concepts. Historical perspective, realism -- these are very simple concepts. I find myself wondering why I even bother posting in General Messages when I'm forced to respond to posts of this nature. It's almost as if there's always someone who wants to challenge me for coming across as an adult.

One can be intellectually honest while engaging in a non-academic discussion. We're discussing Rafael Nadal's career, not Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. It's only tennis.

Johnny Groove
05-06-2009, 08:41 PM
However, I am the only person who has recognized this thread for just what it is: a roundabout way of categorizing Nadal with the likes of Borg, Sampras and Federer. He doesn't have the numbers to warrant such a categorization, and people ought to apply a bit of historical perspective in terms of just how difficult a feat it would be to emulate such players.

Do you seriously think this was my intention with this thread? :o

Nadal has already been mentioned with the likes of Federer, Borg, and Sampras before I started this thread. I started it on a whim, just a flash-in-the-pan thought that I believed to be interesting comparing numbers from one generation to the other.

If you think my sole purpose was to create yet another Nadal worshiping thread (as if MTF needed another one), you are sadly mistaken.

prima donna
05-06-2009, 08:51 PM
Do you seriously think this was my intention with this thread? :o

I can't speculate as to what your intentions were, but it does appear to be that way based on the formula which was applied. Why else would I even bother ? I don't have a vendetta against you. It's not as if you and I are sworn enemies. If you claim that your intention wasn't to distort, then fine, I'll accept that explanation.

pogotheorist
05-06-2009, 09:04 PM
GD, if you changed the title to "Highest-ever ATP ranking score?" it might go a long way toward correcting the impression that you have invented something new and artificial.

rafa_maniac
05-06-2009, 09:09 PM
GD, if you changed the title to "Highest-ever ATP ranking score?" it might go a long way toward correcting the impression that you have invented something new and artificial.

GD doesn't need to do shit to satisfy the protests of certain petulant posters.

prima donna
05-06-2009, 09:12 PM
GD doesn't need to do shit to satisfy the protests of certain petulant posters.
Brava -- you're finally showing your true colors.

rafa_maniac
05-06-2009, 09:19 PM
Brava -- you're finally showing your true colors.

My plebian qualities? :D

JolánGagó
05-06-2009, 09:25 PM
This thread has degenerated a lot from its already abysmal starting point.

pogotheorist
05-07-2009, 11:34 PM
What is "intellectual sophistication" supposed to denote ? I'm not at all being condescending. I'd like an honest answer, because other than analogies involving card games, ad hominem attacks, and silly designations, i.e., G.O.A.T, you've only attacked my tone.
Obviously this invitation for elucidation must be taken with a grain of salt in light of your subsequent post. However: intellectual sophistication is a state in which logical structure, and the logical status of arguments and their components, are obvious. If you know music, it only takes a second to hear that someone is singing out of key. Similarly, to the logically literate, improprieties stick out like sore thumbs. Jolan Gago thus displayed sophistication when he succinctly and correctly pointed out a logical misrepresentation on your part - and you displayed unsophistication in responding, not to the logical point, but as though his remark was a meaningless incivility. (You also condescended, one example of haughtiness; it doesn't take many to make an impression.)

Regarding "card games": you represent it as vulgar to cite them as illustrations of probabilistic concepts. Well, actually as simple cases people are familiar with, they are ideal; and were much used when I studied math at MIT. Thus your disparagement of my use of them is a good example both of haughtiness and of how ironically misguided it is. The physicist Ernest Rutherford famously said that any scientist worth his salt should be able to explain his work to a barmaid over a beer; the best illustrations and metaphors are the most vivid and familiar, and truly sophisticated explanations will find them.

As for the term "GOAT" - as pointed out above, I used it to identify an argument you had made - but you noticed the word and ignored the meaning, and now represent it as my introduction of a topic (which it wasn't), and a topic beneath your dignity (absurdly, since it was your topic).

If you regard this as an ad hominem attack, that will be another error of logical categorization. It is a calm and unhostile diagnosis of real errors of perception, of a sort which make dialog impossible.

Finally: I realize (at least in theory) that no-one is to blame for the culture they have inherited - and certainly believe that everyone has the talent to be logically sophisticated, and that it is a tragedy of history, with consequences written in blood, that good training is still so patchy. I apologize for having been less civil than a wiser person would be. Some facts are by their nature hard to hear, but animosity makes it worse, and is crude and counterproductive.

FedFan_2007
05-07-2009, 11:42 PM
if Nadal wins CYGS, then he is the GOAT. There will be no debates on it. 9 slams including CYGS > 13 slams w/o even a NCYGS.

Joao
05-08-2009, 02:33 AM
if Nadal wins CYGS, then he is the GOAT. There will be no debates on it. 9 slams including CYGS > 13 slams w/o even a NCYGS.


You're being too naive ... there will always be debates no matter what happens.:devil:

The GOAT concept really is a subjective thing. Different people have different criteria. And clearly winning the calendar year slam (CYGS) won't make Nadal the GOAT .. Laver would then still be ahead of Nadal (in terms of GOATness) cuz' he won two CYGS.:wavey:

Bazooka
05-08-2009, 02:43 AM
You're being too naive ... there will always be debates no matter what happens.:devil:

The GOAT concept really is a subjective thing. Different people have different criteria. And clearly winning the calendar year slam (CYGS) won't make Nadal the GOAT .. Laver would then still be ahead of Nadal (in terms of GOATness) cuz' he won two CYGS.:wavey:

(All open era)
I think 15 slams including winning all four at least once, and no less than 3 in each surface, would be defined as GOAT by 99.9% of tennis crowd (i.e., excluding GlennMyrni and Prima Donna). A notch under that and debate would start. Will Nadal do that? No.

FedFan_2007
05-08-2009, 03:25 AM
You're being too naive ... there will always be debates no matter what happens.:devil:

The GOAT concept really is a subjective thing. Different people have different criteria. And clearly winning the calendar year slam (CYGS) won't make Nadal the GOAT .. Laver would then still be ahead of Nadal (in terms of GOATness) cuz' he won two CYGS.:wavey:

BULLSHIT. 1962 was amateur slam. 1969 was on 2 surfaces(clay and grass). If Nadal does it this year he would have done it on 4 different surfaces(medium-fast hardcourt, clay, grass, decoturf hardcourt). That would be GOAT-clinching accomplishment. Of course if Federer were to win a 5th Wimbly/USO double that would make him almost a GOAT in my mind.

CyBorg
05-08-2009, 04:01 AM
BULLSHIT. 1962 was amateur slam. 1969 was on 2 surfaces(clay and grass). If Nadal does it this year he would have done it on 4 different surfaces(medium-fast hardcourt, clay, grass, decoturf hardcourt). That would be GOAT-clinching accomplishment. Of course if Federer were to win a 5th Wimbly/USO double that would make him almost a GOAT in my mind.

How creative.

prima donna
05-08-2009, 04:27 AM
I apologize for having been less civil than a wiser person would be.
Now that you've finished pontificating, I accept your backhanded apology. Move on.

Frank Winkler
05-08-2009, 05:03 AM
what about Lendl.
i think he had 1, 2, 3 super years as well.
one year he got to the final at Wimbledon his worst slam tournament. Did he win U.S and Rolland Garros that year?