Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,385 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
1. Borg .823
2. Connors .820
3. Lendl .818
4. McEnroe .817
5. Federer .803

Hmm, I think all those guy ahead of Federer really cleaned up on a lot of
mickey-mouse events to be ahead of the TMF. If they played as few MM events
as Fed averages, I think his .803 would be #1 all time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,894 Posts
Nice attempt at justifying statistics. :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,250 Posts
1. Borg .823
2. Connors .820
3. Lendl .818
4. McEnroe .817
5. Federer .803

Hmm, I think all those guy ahead of Federer really cleaned up on a lot of
mickey-mouse events to be ahead of the TMF. If they played as few MM events
as Fed averages, I think his .803 would be #1 all time.
Well, let's not forget that Federer was on the tour for years losing loads of matches before he got his game together.

On the other hand, Borg broke through at a very early age and quite at age 26 when he started to decline. He never really had a period on tour where he lost loads of matches, so it's not really surprising that he's #1 on the list.

Connors numbers are impressive given that he had a loooooong career, but in all fairness, Connors was the king of MM events.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,385 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Connors was indeed the GOAT of MM events. It's why in every intelligent person's mind you ultimately look to slams + Masters Cup + MS + WCT events to know the real story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,673 Posts
Borg entered 27 GS singles event and won 11(41%)
He won 89,8% of GS singles matches he played. Both are Open Era records. How is he mickeymouse player, if his GS matches winning percentage is lot higher than career average?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,459 Posts
Borg entered 27 GS singles event and won 11(41%)
He won 89,8% of GS singles matches he played. Both are Open Era records. How is he mickeymouse player, if his GS matches winning percentage is lot higher than career average?!
He wasn't a MM player.

The other guy got it right: all of them started dominating very early into their career... except Connors who was also a MM king. :devil:

On the other hand, Fed started really dominating at the age of 22, so that's 4-5 years of 'struggling' (using quotes because it wasn't really struggling - most ppl on the tour would be happy to struggle like that, just compared to other potential GOATs, who usually became big much earlier, esp. Borg)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,459 Posts
Nice attempt at justifying statistics. :p
'Justifying'? You make it sound as if isn't valid at all.

It would be as if I someone said that all great scientists before 20th century were white, to which I replied that it's small wonder given that black people were mostly slaves and simply didn't have the same opportunity - and then you said 'nice attempt to justify the statistics'.

Borg and McEnroe started rocking much earlier than Fed (Borg even retired early), Connors and Lendl indeed played a whole crapload of MM events. Those are facts, not 'attempts of justification'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,673 Posts
to compare stats, here is Federer :
35 GS tournaments played, 12 won(34%)
166 GS matches played, 143 won (86%)
He probably will not break Borg`s percentage records on slams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,894 Posts
'Justifying'? You make it sound as if isn't valid at all.

It would be as if I someone said that all great scientists before 20th century were white, to which I replied that it's small wonder given that black people were mostly slaves and simply didn't have the same opportunity - and then you said 'nice attempt to justify the statistics'.

Borg and McEnroe started rocking much earlier than Fed (Borg even retired early), Connors and Lendl indeed played a whole crapload of MM events. Those are facts, not 'attempts of justification'.
It is what it is. They have a better career winning percentage than Federer from whichever angle you look at it from. :shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,459 Posts
It is what it is. They have a better career winning percentage than Federer from whichever angle you look at it from. :shrug:
Yes, it is what it is. 99% of great scientists from before 20th century were males. Whichever angle you look at it from. :rolleyes:

The question remains: and the point would be? I can read facts just the same as you. So what exactly did you want to say with 'nice attempt...'? I'll ask again: did you try to imply that the reasoning behind those 'justifications' was false in any way?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,285 Posts
1. Borg .823
2. Connors .820
3. Lendl .818
4. McEnroe .817
5. Federer .803

Hmm, I think all those guy ahead of Federer really cleaned up on a lot of
mickey-mouse events to be ahead of the TMF. If they played as few MM events
as Fed averages, I think his .803 would be #1 all time.
Except for the fact that the first four players played each other numerous times:

Lendl-McEnroe 36 matches
Lendl- Connors 35 matches
Connors-McEnroe 34 matches
Borg-Connors 21 matches
Borg-McEnroe 14 matches
Borg-Lendl 8 matches
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,894 Posts
Yes, it is what it is. 99% of great scientists from before 20th century were males. Whichever angle you look at it from. :rolleyes:

The question remains: and the point would be? I can read facts just the same as you. So what exactly did you want to say with 'nice attempt...'? I'll ask again: did you try to imply that the reasoning behind those 'justifications' was false in any way?
No, not at all. But I don't think there's any need to touch on it really. It doesn't matter why the record stands. I'm sure if we looked further into the cases of the other 4, we'd find a few injuries which limited the player's capacity to function at full flight. Federer has been very fortunate with injuries, one ankle injury was the only substantial injury I can recall during his period of dominance (obviously not including the mononucleosis).

He took longer to reach his peak; well doesn't that just deem him was developmentally inferior?

There will always be reasoning behind statistics- easy draws, weaker era, injuries etc. I don't think we should try to discredit the history books.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,135 Posts
When I am taking my dog for a walk, statistically we both have three legs.

You can always do what you want with the numbers, I can take some numbers and prove that Albert Montanes is GOAT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,714 Posts
He took longer to reach his peak; well doesn't that just deem him was developmentally inferior?
It has more to do with how complex your style of play is and many more variables. Development-wise, for example, I wouldn't say Roddick is being superior to Federer.

A quote that kinda fits in here:
Aaron Levenstein said:
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,928 Posts
statistics are statistiscs.. they don't lie.

people could also say that during the last 4 years fo domination, only nadal standed as a threat to federer, so his wins were also easy ones..

but that just doesn't count.

The maths do everything and explain everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,459 Posts
But I don't think there's any need to touch on it really. It doesn't matter why the record stands. I'm sure if we looked further into the cases of the other 4, we'd find a few injuries which limited the player's capacity to function at full flight. Federer has been very fortunate with injuries, one ankle injury was the only substantial injury I can recall during his period of dominance (obviously not including the mononucleosis).

He took longer to reach his peak; well doesn't that just deem him was developmentally inferior?

There will always be reasoning behind statistics- easy draws, weaker era, injuries etc. I don't think we should try to discredit the history books.
Interpretation of historic facts is not the same as discrediting them. In fact, history itself is of little value if not interpreted - mere facts are useless. It's human reason that gives meaning to them.

As for the question of the time to reach your peak - yes, he was 'developmentally' inferior (whatever that means) because it took him longer to get his head straight. He was a choker and a headcase, but even in those days he was widely regarded as extremely talented.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,459 Posts
statistics are statistiscs.. they don't lie.

people could also say that during the last 4 years fo domination, only nadal standed as a threat to federer, so his wins were also easy ones..

but that just doesn't count.

The maths do everything and explain everything.
No, they don't.

99% of scientists you learned about in your elementary school were males. I don't see any of you wiseguys commenting on that. Does it mean women are intellectually inferior, because 'statistics don't lie'?

Numbers alone mean absolutely nothing, if not placed in the right context. In some cases the context is so obvious that people get that funny idea that 'numbers speak for themselves'. Numbers never speak for themselves. Numbers are useless to dogs and cows who don't have the capacity for abstract thought of that level. Therefore, reason is an absolute neccesity for interpreting numbers, which also means that without reason, numbers alone are worthless.

Whether you are aware of it or not, every time you see numbers in a particular context (i.e. statistics), you INTERPRET them. And that interpretation is what I argue over, not the numbers themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,250 Posts
Borg entered 27 GS singles event and won 11(41%)
He won 89,8% of GS singles matches he played. Both are Open Era records. How is he mickeymouse player, if his GS matches winning percentage is lot higher than career average?!
Read the thread again. Noone is claiming that Borg was a MM player.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,821 Posts
You'd enjoy tennis much more if you didn't analyse every painful detail. Do you lose sleep at night when Federer loses? I know you're a big fan, but man, come on, just enjoy the guys tennis while he's here...win or lose.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top