[Singularity]

Originally Posted by 5555

Can you prove that those several users are tennis experts? Pay attention: the only way you can prove it to people who are not tennis experts is to provide reliable source which shows that they are recognized as tennis experts.

What is a tennis expert? Someone who is really good at playing tennis? Someone who can memorize a lot of tennis statistics? Someone who understands point construction in great detail? Someone who reports on tennis for a living?

None of these things mean a person will be good at making predictions about events that will happen 2 - 3 years from now, where there are a huge number of unknowns. Knowledge about a subject doesn't enable you to see the future.

The best evidence of expertise is to look at the predictors' track record.

[duong]

Originally Posted by Alex999

Have you guys noticed that Nole, lately, is using one hand BH more and more often? It's usually when his on the stretch, but also in regular rallies. I didn't want to open a new thread and this place seems like a good one to talk about it as everyone is bored

really ? I hadn't noticed that. Do you have videos ?

I think this would need/deserve a proper thread

[Time Violation]

Originally Posted by duong

really ? I hadn't noticed that. Do you have videos ?

I think this would need/deserve a proper thread

Second that, videos or it didn't happen

[Yolita]

Originally Posted by Alex999

Have you guys noticed that Nole, lately, is using one hand BH more and more often? It's usually when his on the stretch, but also in regular rallies. I didn't want to open a new thread and this place seems like a good one to talk about it as everyone is bored

I did notice Novak using a SHBH once ot twice, but then I thought I was probably wrong... I haven't noticed it very often, though.

[Alex999]

OK, maybe I exaggerated a bit, because he never did it before. it's here and there. I'll try to find videos, the problem it is time consuming but I'll try

[5555]

Originally Posted by Singularity

What is a tennis expert?

Tennis expert is a person who is very knowledgeable about tennis.

Knowledge about a subject doesn't enable you to see the future.

Knowledge about a subject enables you to establish what is likely to happen in future.

The best evidence of expertise is to look at the predictors' track record.

The best evidence of expertise is proof that a person is widely recognized as a expert.

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by 5555

Tennis expert is a person who is very knowledgeable about tennis.



Knowledge about a subject enables you to establish what is likely to happen in future.



The best evidence of expertise is proof that a person is widely recognized as a expert.

Yes, but how do you determine who is very knowledgeable??


And not, "widely regonized" is not a proof. Millions of people may believe/think something and still be wrong.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by 5555

Knowledge about a subject enables you to establish what is likely to happen in future.

Knowledge about what subject? How to hit a tennis ball? What the results of past tennis matches are? How to report on a match effectively?

The best evidence of expertise is proof that a person is widely recognized as a expert.

An expert on what? I'm sure Sampras is widely regarded as an expert on hitting awkward volleys and making booming first serves. Does that mean he can tell us what the top 10 will be 5 years from now?

[5555]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

And not, "widely regonized" is not a proof. Millions of people may believe/think something and still be wrong.

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt. It does not mean proof beyond a whimsical or an imaginary doubt, or proof beyond all possibility of innocence. A reasonable doubt does not mean the kind of doubt that could be conjured up by someone who is
seeking for doubts or for an excuse to acquit a defendant. Instead, a reasonable doubt means such doubt as remains in the mind of a reasonable person who is earnestly seeking the truth."
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsand...ate-charge.pdf

If you can provide a reliable source which says that a person is widely regonized as a tennis expert by tennis experts, that person is beyond a reasonable doubt a tennis expert.

Originally Posted by Singularity

Knowledge about what subject? How to hit a tennis ball? What the results of past tennis matches are? How to report on a match effectively?


An expert on what? I'm sure Sampras is widely regarded as an expert on hitting awkward volleys and making booming first serves. Does that mean he can tell us what the top 10 will be 5 years from now?

Pete Sampras was a top professional player in tennis for a long time, so it's logical that he is very knowledgeable about tennis.

[duong]

Originally Posted by 5555

Pete Sampras was a top professional player in tennis for a long time, so it's logical that he is very knowledgeable about tennis.

he surely is, as Mats Wilander is (please note that Wilander as a player was recognized as a very clever tactician, one might have expected him to be a great expert and predictor) ... but the main problem about those experts who talk in the media is not about their real expertise, it's about the fact that they mostly talk to provide what is asked from them : entertainment and good publicity for the sport.

If real experts like tennis coaches (who imo are much better experts than these old players) really revealed us what they really know about this or that player, we would know a lot of things which we don't know at the moment. Unfortunately they don't reveal us all of that. For instance Mouratoglou (Serena Wiliams' coach) had a tribune on French Eurosport website ... and what he said was only very banal things, or things mostly designed to attract audience.

Wilander has chosen to be the "public entertainer" (one could say "clown") because it's part of his personality and he's always had talent for that, McEnroe and Gilbert being on US TV where tennis is very much on competition for audience, try to say the things which will attract viewers, Becker delivers what every media wants him to say for money, Cash provokes as he has always been good for, Sampras and Borg more punctually deliver their "benediction message from tennis pope", Guy Forget keeps on speaking of modern players as if they were players of his time in the 90s ...

All these are not parts of a serious research project, they are part of an entertainment industry ...

Coaches have more serious goals but they won't reveal us their secrets ...

[Sophocles]

Originally Posted by 5555

Pete Sampras was a top professional player in tennis for a long time, so it's logical that he is very knowledgeable about tennis.

No it is not. My ex was a professional hooker for a long time but she weren't no expert on human biology. She even gave a crap blow job.

Point is, you can be good at doing something without being good at talking about it. You can "know" how to do something as in being able to do it, without being able to explain how you do it, or knowing anything about anybody else who can do it.

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by 5555

Pete Sampras was a top professional player in tennis for a long time, so it's logical that he is very knowledgeable about tennis.

Not necessarily. Maradona was the best football player ever and he was a disaster as a coach and anything he says about the sport is bullshit 90% of the time.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Sophocles

No it is not. My ex was a professional hooker for a long time but she weren't no expert on human biology. She even gave a crap blow job.

Point is, you can be good at doing something without being good at talking about it. You can "know" how to do something as in being able to do it, without being able to explain how you do it, or knowing anything about anybody else who can do it.

Here's a brief post about this:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...e-best-coaches

"But, it's not just that trying to describe your performance can disrupt it. Skilled performers often have trouble putting their actions into words in the first place. That's why those who perform at the highest levels should think twice about teaching their skills to others. When a scratch golfer in my lab, for instance, was asked to describe a putt he just took, he replied, "I don't know, I don't think while I putt." When your performance flows largely outside of your conscious awareness, your memories of what you've done are just not that good."

Being good at something, and understanding what it means to be good at something are two different competencies. Evidence of expertise in the former should not count as evidence of expertise in the latter.

[duong]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Here's a brief post about this:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...e-best-coaches

"But, it's not just that trying to describe your performance can disrupt it. Skilled performers often have trouble putting their actions into words in the first place. That's why those who perform at the highest levels should think twice about teaching their skills to others. When a scratch golfer in my lab, for instance, was asked to describe a putt he just took, he replied, "I don't know, I don't think while I putt." When your performance flows largely outside of your conscious awareness, your memories of what you've done are just not that good."

Being good at something, and understanding what it means to be good at something are two different competencies. Evidence of expertise in the former should not count as evidence of expertise in the latter.

this is of course true : when I meant Sampras was an expert, I meant comparing to most MTFers, I didn't target a very high goal

But the best experts should be coaches because they had to practise their skills to understand how players who are not them work ... and also their skills to explain things about that.

And another problem with guys like Sampras or Guy Forget, players of the old time ... is that the game has changed a lot comparing to their time. I'm always fed-up when I hear Guy Forget because for everything a modern player does, he has a referrence to what older players did ... which led to saying things like "Federer should do against Nadal what Stich did against Muster" or that kind of things

But still apart from that, even when people are really experts, it doesn't mean that what they tell us is really the result of their expertise : first they may not want to reveal their secrets (here I mostly think of coaches and current players), secondly they'd rather tell us what was dictated by other goals like publicity and entertainment ...

and that's my main concern with these "public experts" : I don't pretend at all to know better about tennis than Mats Wilander but I can surely pretend to have a more objective and serious talk

[se7en]

Originally Posted by Freak3yman84

Rule number 1. Don't respond to a banned poster. Ever.

Rule no. 2: I don't give a fuck whether you are banned or not, I will respond when I want to, clown.