Mens Tennis Forums banner
41 - 60 of 89 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,235 Posts
Yeah, uh, the biggest flaw in this is that men's and women's should be on separate lists (top 20 women, top 20 men). It doesn't really make much sense comparing women's achievements to men's, because if that was the case, then Evert, Navratilova, Court, etc. would all be quite a bit ahead of Sampras, Laver, Borg, etc. Seles, Serena, etc. would be surpassing or at least staying around the same place as Becker, Wilander, Agassi, and so on. (This is based on Grand Slam count, but I'm sure a similar case can be made that women 'achieve more' - because of the difference between the two games - than men in other areas as well.)

(P.S. Mirkaland, here - http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html - is a detailed comparison between Sampras and Federer at the same age. According to that, Federer is one Slam behind, three titles behind, and about four months behind on the number one ranking. So Sampras is still ahead, but they're pretty damn close in just about everything.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70,026 Posts
ezekiel said:
Weak argument? :retard:
Graf went on to win 4 straight slams unchallenged after the stabbing where she managed only 2 in past 3 years. I guess I'll always be in service to remind arseholes of these subtle facts :wavey:
What happened to Seles is terrible, but using it to take away from what Graf was able to accomplish would be terrible as well.
 

·
1,000 Baby!
Joined
·
19,909 Posts
Discussion Starter · #43 ·
Flibbertigibbet said:
(P.S. Mirkaland, here - http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html - is a detailed comparison between Sampras and Federer at the same age. According to that, Federer is one Slam behind, three titles behind, and about four months behind on the number one ranking. So Sampras is still ahead, but they're pretty damn close in just about everything.)
Oops, my bad. Thanks for the link. It's amazing how close they are, especially considering Roger was a bit of a late bloomer. How old was Pete when he won his first slam - 19? And Roger was what 21 or 22 when he won his first?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
ezekiel said:
11 legit before the Seles stabbing :mad:
And here we have it folks. The most confused perception of the Graf/Seles rivalry. The one based on the assumption that Monica Seles was Graf's main rival and had she not been stabbed would have gone on to dominate Graf, the slams and tennis history!

Let's examine the truth. The h2h between Graf/Seles pre stabbing was 6-3 Graf. Seles had a 3-2 win over Graf before the stabbing in the SLAMS. Typically it's the pre-stabbing GS stats folks like to use to talk up Seles dominance while overlooking the fact that Seles never dominated Graf on fast surfaces during the same period of the alleged Seles domination. How Seles can be considered as dominating Graf because of wins on clay is a superficial examination of the facts.

After Seles' initial surprise wins over Graf on clay in the 1990-1991 season, she did not continue to improve as a player. In fact in 1992-1993 it took Seles 3 difficult sets to beat Graf unlike the straight sets wins she had between 1990-1991. And Seles was dominating Graf?

Quite the contrary, Graf regained her more complete dominance over Seles on fast surfaces and, in 1992, won half of their matches on clay.

Need I go on?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,671 Posts
mirkaland said:
There's only three active players in the top 20 of this list...so I'd say Roger is not being slighted at all by being placed at #19. I'm not a huge Serena fan, but she has won all four slams and has eight slams compared to Roger's six. Obviously slams are heavily weighted on this list. Plus she's American. ;)
It doesn't matter that Serena won all 4 slams. The WTA is very shallow without a contingency of clay court specialists.

I really don't think the mens' and women's records can be compared.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
Roger has the "potential" to overtake Sampras' records. This doesn't mean he will and it doesn't mean he won't. He just hasn't. Sampras' records in the mens field stands the highest.

I'm more concerned about whether Roger has a crack at toppling Graf as the GTPE. I doubt anyone ever will but what the heck, as a Federer fan I don't mind watching him try.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,023 Posts
KarolBeckFan said:
What happened to Seles is terrible, but using it to take away from what Graf was able to accomplish would be terrible as well.
it would be terrible injustice to justify and/or ignore the crime and its consequences . Like everything else in life, it needs to be put into perspective and to occasionally inform the ignorant. I mean, aren't decent people offended that the perv was absolved by the flawed german legal system but some want to pretend it never happened ? :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,235 Posts
mirkaland said:
Oops, my bad. Thanks for the link. It's amazing how close they are, especially considering Roger was a bit of a late bloomer. How old was Pete when he won his first slam - 19? And Roger was what 21 or 22 when he won his first?
Yeah, Federer is slightly above average in terms of winning his first slam (I believe the average age was around 20ish, he was 21, almost 22). Sampras won the 1990 US Open at 19, but then didn't win a slam till the 1993 Wimbledon, where he was... 21, almost 22. Basically, the '90 US Open is the Slam that separates the two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,671 Posts
mirkaland said:
How are you coming up with top opponents? I know Andy and Lleyton are top 5, but Roger owns both of them right now, there is no rivalry there. Even Andre, Roger's beaten him 8 times in a row now. I mean at what point does beating Andy and/or Lleyton become not a big deal because he's done it so many times? They may be top opponents compared to everyone else on the tour, but as far as Roger's concerned they're just his little bitches right now...
Look at http://www.setratings.com/article.php?art_id=2

They compare all players at their peak time and they are the one's saying Roger's record puts him as the #2 of all time just below McEnroe. This is all mathematically done by looking at the W/L record calculating in the ranking of the opponent and the point value of the match/tournament.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,671 Posts
wcr said:
Roger has the "potential" to overtake Sampras' records. This doesn't mean he will and it doesn't mean he won't. He just hasn't. Sampras' records in the mens field stands the highest.

I'm more concerned about whether Roger has a crack at toppling Graf as the GTPE. I doubt anyone ever will but what the heck, as a Federer fan I don't mind watching him try.
I am not concerned with comparing Roger to Steffi. The women's field has always been less deep if you look at the top 50 players. There is not huge group of clay court specialists. In women's tennis the surface doesn't matter as much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
ezekiel said:
it would be terrible injustice to justify and/or ignore the crime and its consequences . Like everything else in life, it needs to be put into perspective and to occasionally inform the ignorant. I mean, aren't decent people offended that the perv was absolved by the flawed german legal system but some want to pretend it never happened ? :eek:
No one has justified or ignored the crime against Monica Seles. It was a deeply tragic event. I have trouble with folks who feel sentimental about Monica's tragedy and confuse that sentiment with factual truths about the Graf/Seles rivalry in such a way to discredit Graf's dominance of the game. It's phony and most disrespectful to Monica not to mention Graf.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,671 Posts
mirkaland said:
How many slams did Graff win, like 22 or something? I'm sure she won't be placed above Sampras, but she should be. But how does Evert make top 4 over Laver and Borg (besides her connection with the magazine)?
That's why I think this ranking is more a matter of the writers own personal prefrences. It's far easier to win a major in women's tennis because there isn't much danger in the early rounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,235 Posts
PamV said:
Look at http://www.setratings.com/article.php?art_id=2

They compare all players at their peak time and they are the one's saying Roger's record puts him as the #2 of all time just below McEnroe. This is all mathematically done by looking at the W/L record calculating in the ranking of the opponent and the point value of the match/tournament.
I think the argument would be that Federer's rivals right now are not as strong and varied as, say, the assortment of top players in the '90s or '80s. In any matter, it's tough to calculate tennis results mathematically - for example, that formula doesn't even put Sampras in top 5 grass results wise, yet he had 7 Wimbledons and won two Queen's Club titles; consequently, most fans/tennis analysts/etc. would put Sampras as the top grass court player or #2 behind Borg. It's tough to gauge Federer's peak performance as a basis of comparison against, say, Laver's, or Connor's, or Wilander's, who all had three or more Slams each in their peak years, since it's different eras, technology, and player depth.

Nonetheless, it's still interesting to see that site.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,671 Posts
alfonsojose said:
I think number of GS, weeks at no. 1 and doubles performance
So it does not take in to consideration who the opponents were and give weight to the opponents' ranking? It does not give weight to the over all number of tournaments won....it only counts GS ???? Not a very logical analysis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
mirkaland said:
How many slams did Graff win, like 22 or something? I'm sure she won't be placed above Sampras, but she should be. But how does Evert make top 4 over Laver and Borg (besides her connection with the magazine)?
It's not just the GS title count (not to mention the Golden Slam) that puts Graf above Sampras. She set the record for the longest hold on the #1 spot in history amongst many other things. You might want to compare their careers. Graf's is mind boggling and, most likely, a result of her intense love of playing the game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,671 Posts
Flibbertigibbet said:
I think the argument would be that Federer's rivals right now are not as strong and varied as, say, the assortment of top players in the '90s or '80s. In any matter, it's tough to calculate tennis results mathematically - for example, that formula doesn't even put Sampras in top 5 grass results wise, yet he had 7 Wimbledons and won two Queen's Club titles; consequently, most fans/tennis analysts/etc. would put Sampras as the top grass court player or #2 behind Borg. It's tough to gauge Federer's peak performance as a basis of comparison against, say, Laver's, or Connor's, or Wilander's, who all had three or more Slams each in their peak years, since it's different eras, technology, and player depth.

Nonetheless, it's still interesting to see that site.
I think the set ratings site is pretty accurate. I believe their examination of "peak" performance is looking at the players' one best year. It's always going to be subjective to judge the opponents of the era if you rely only on hear say and personal recollections. The mathmatical approach looks at what the opponent has won and who he has beaten etc, it calculates the W/L record along with the weight of the match.

I don't think when some here say that if Roger beats a certain opponent like Hewitt so many times that means Roger doesn't have competition. How has Hewitt stacked up against other opponents? Maybe Hewitt is one of the best players ever but Roger is just that good. Hewitt was #1 for a couple of years. Also as for variety the current ATP is quite varied. We have everything from Santoro to Karlovic to the clay court specialists.

When some people say the field was stronger back in a certain other time. They are probably remembering the top 5 of that time but not realizing that the #1 didn't always meet those guys or that sometimes those guys were injured or starting to fail. That is what happens today too. A given set of players from an era is not static always competing all at there best level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,671 Posts
Flibbertigibbet said:
I think the argument would be that Federer's rivals right now are not as strong and varied as, say, the assortment of top players in the '90s or '80s. In any matter, it's tough to calculate tennis results mathematically - for example, that formula doesn't even put Sampras in top 5 grass results wise, yet he had 7 Wimbledons and won two Queen's Club titles; consequently, most fans/tennis analysts/etc. would put Sampras as the top grass court player or #2 behind Borg. It's tough to gauge Federer's peak performance as a basis of comparison against, say, Laver's, or Connor's, or Wilander's, who all had three or more Slams each in their peak years, since it's different eras, technology, and player depth.

Nonetheless, it's still interesting to see that site.
The field today is far stronger than it was in McEnroe's day.....even he says that. I think the 90's and today are equal for depth and athleticism.

I didn't see on the Set Ratings site where the rank by surface? Where is that? I see where they rank the top players overall. Sampras must be lower than Borg because in his best year he didn't win as many tournaments as Borg did in his best year. Maybe Borg beat higher ranked opponents and had a better W/L match record.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,671 Posts
wcr said:
It's not just the GS title count (not to mention the Golden Slam) that puts Graf above Sampras. She set the record for the longest hold on the #1 spot in history amongst many other things. You might want to compare their careers. Graf's is mind boggling and, most likely, a result of her intense love of playing the game.
But isn't the level of difficulty in holding the #1 spot much higher in men's tennis? Everything is much more difficult in men's tennis where physically the top 100 can be just as fit and able to serve as the top 5. In men's tennis there are more surface specialists where as there really aren't in women's tennis. In Men's tennis a #100 ranked player (Almagro) might beat a #3 ranked player if they are playing on clay. That wouldn't happen in women's tennis unless the higher ranked player was injured.
 
41 - 60 of 89 Posts
Top