josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote: > This is my first post since early November of 2004, but I've remained a > regular reader of rst, and have been vastly entertained by the subtle > and not-at-all-repetitious discussions of Federer, Sampras, Nadal, > Borg, Graf, Seles, chips, chimps, goats, knives, clowns, etc. The > reason for my de-lurk is to offer some observations on the relative > strength of the current and recent past tennis eras.
> I. The Missing Champions
> I define the top champions of men's tennis in the open era as those who > have won six or more slam titles. There seems to me to be a clear > difference -- in terms of career achievements, short-term dominance, > reputation, and lasting impact on the game -- between the players in > the 6+ group and those below. For example, many more people are likely > to consider Becker a true all-time great than, say, Vilas.
> For the purpose of this analysis, a champion's career is "launched" > when the player reaches his first slam final (doesn't have to win it, > although most of them do). That's the point at which he truly announces > himself as a force to be reckoned with in the game.
> Below is the list of 6+ slam champions in the open era, listed by year > of launch. I have grandfathered in Laver and Newcombe because they each > won five slams in the open era, plus more as amateurs, making their > inclusion reasonable. Leaving them out would have given a distorted > perspective of the dawn of the slam era, suggesting that there were no > greats active. I also have listed the blank years to make it easy to > visualize the length of the gaps.
> Note that the gap between 2003 (Fed) and 1990 (Agassi/Sampras) is more > than twice as long as the typical five-year gap that recurs throughout > the rest of the era. Also note that champions tend to launch in pairs, > either in the same year or in adjacent years. Thus, if the years since > 1990 had followed the pattern of the rest of the era, we would have > expected that an additional *four* 6+ slam champions would have > launched after Andre and Pete but before Fed. Where are they? > These are the missing champions.
> It is now pretty obvious that Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick are not going > to become 6+ champions. Nadal perhaps has a chance. In any event, none > of these players can cure the deficiency identified here. Nor does the > explanation lie in the fact that Sampras, with his long career and > heavy bag of slams, somehow "suppressed" the emergence of other > champions. In the 1990s there were about 33% *more* slams available to > be won than previously, because most of the top players entered the > Australian Open routinely, instead of skipping it routinely as they had > in the 70s and 80s. Also, even if Sampras were counted as two players > to reflect his outsized slam total, we would still be short three 6+ > players. Pete is not the cause of the missing champions.
> II. What Happened? Equilibrium
> It's simplistic and misleading to define the 1990s and beyond as an era > (or eras) of "clown." In fact, it has been an era of equilibrium. > Equilibrium in a system tends to reduce the extremes -- in the case of > tennis, the number of very high (and very low) achievers. We have fewer > 6+ champions now because the relative equilibrium of the current era > has produced a type of parity that makes it less likely that any given > player will greatly exceed the performance of his peers.
> For a detailed explanation of this phenomenon, I refer you to the book > "Full House" by Stephen Jay Gould, which uses the theory of system > equilibrium to explain why there were lots of .400 hitters in the > early, immature days of major league baseball, but fewer, and then none > at all, in the league's mature era. Hitters didn't become "worse"; > rather, as the system matured it achieved a greater equilibrium among > all its elements (hitting, pitching, defense, strategy, etc.), making > it more difficult for one element to dominate another.
> I am arguing that a sports system also can move from equilibrium to > disequilibrium. A single dramatic change can be sufficient. Baseball's > steroid craze in the 90s produced hitting and slugging statistics that > were markedly discontinuous with those of the previous decades. The > National Hockey League's expansion at the beginning of the 980s, > through the absorption of entire teams from the defunct World Hockey > Association, created the conditions for the explosive scoring and > incredible stats of the Gretzky/Lemieux era.
> Grand slam tournament tennis in 1968 was pretty similar to grand slam > tournament tennis in 1948. The system had reached equilibrium. But over > the next 20 to 25 years, the sport underwent a series of drastic > changes that destabilized it and paved the way for the emergence of > large numbers of high achievers -- our 6+ champions. Here are some > examples:
> Players > * Influx of pros > * Globalization of the sport
> Rackets > * Disappearance of wood > * Rise and fall of metal > * Rise of composites > * Rise of large-head models > * Rise of wide-body frames
> Surfaces > * Decline of grass > * Rise and fall of Har-Tru/green clay > * Rise and fall of carpet > * Rise of hard courts
> Techniques > * Rise of two-handed backhand > * Rise and fall of heavy topspin > * Decline of serve-and-volley > * Rise of power hitting
> Tournaments > * Rise and fall of WCT > * Decline and resurrection of Australian Open > * Venue and surface changes at U.S. Open
> Preparation > * Spread of rigorous training > * Rise of coaches
> As these changes rippled through the game in the open era, they were > assimilated at different rates and to different degrees by different > players. As a result, the game viewed as a system was very unstable. > The disequilibrium yielded more standout champs (and chumps too, > according to Gould's theory, though we often tend not to notice them > down there at the bottom of the ladder). When the major developments > had been incorporated into the game for a while, and the rate of change > diminished, tennis entered a period of relative equilibrium, making it > harder to excel. This was in the mid-1990s and beyond -- the era of the > missing champions.
> III. Counterintuitive Conclusion
> Most people in rst seem to hold the view that a relative dearth of top > champions makes it easier for a good player to become dominant and pad > his slam totals. Borg, Connors, and Mac had to contend with each other, > goes this line of reasoning -- who is Federer's challenger? However, > viewing tennis as a complex system rather than as a series of > disconnected battles between pairs of players yields the opposite > conclusion: it is *more difficult*, not less difficult, for a standout > champion to emerge in an era of equilibrium. Parity tends to suppress > extremes in performance, so Fed's success actually defies the odds. He > has become a 6+ champion in an era in which we might reasonably have > expected the 6+ champ to be extinct.
josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote: > topspin wrote: > > josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote: > > > This is my first post since early November of 2004, but I've remained a > > > regular reader of rst, and have been vastly entertained by the subtle > > > and not-at-all-repetitious discussions of Federer, Sampras, Nadal, > > > Borg, Graf, Seles, chips, chimps, goats, knives, clowns, etc. The > > > reason for my de-lurk is to offer some observations on the relative > > > strength of the current and recent past tennis eras.
> > Thanks for the post. Very interesting and thought-provoking. You are > > undoubtedly right about the nature of the shocks to the tennis system.
> > A couple of observations:
> > Scale of scrutiny
> > If you increase your scale of scrutiny to 11+ slams (actually you could > > say 9+), and your time period back a bit, and take Emerson out as an > > outlier (because he didn't join the pro tour when that was the norm), > > you get
> > So maybe truly exceptional ;'championship winning' players arrive about > > every 14 years, irrespective of shocks to the 'system'; Federer has > > arrived exactly on schedule; the next oustanding player will arrive in > > about 2017. And we have had 5 outstanding players since WW2 - but the > > way they have demonstrated their oustanding ability has been affected > > by the times in which they play.
> I don't disagree -- see my response to Jaros in this thread, where I'm > saying something similar about 10+ champs.
> > When you down to 6+ you see perturbations (but see my comment > > below)...what happens at 4+? I'm not suggesting anyone looks at it (!), > > but it is a thought.
> A weakness of my analysis is its lack of rigor in this regard. I think > that my choice of 6+ to define top champions accurately reflects the > collective subjective view of the tennis world -- it's the "common > sense" definition. However, someone would have to do more work to show > that the difference between winning six slams and winning fewer than > six is statistically significant before my conclusions could be > confirmed. But that someone will not be me. :)
> Yeah right. All the newborns now playing in this generation somehow > had their genes stunted, their parents denied them meat to eat and > all the tennis schools decided to leave anyone with talent behind.
> Far more likely is that with the huge amounts of money in the game > today there is far more talent being bred, raised and trained to play > top tennis than ever before and this is what has led to the "equilibrium" > mentioned in the subject post.
Far more money means no motive to bust a gut out there - people criticize Hewitt/Roddick, but they are multi-millionaires living the good life. You're theory is demolished in a couple seconds....
> As I said before, imagine if Fed never appeared: Hewitt, Safin, > Roddick, and Nadal would each be taking turns winning GS's (USO, AO, W, > and FO respectively, perhaps?) with no one exclusively dominating the > field, ie. parity. The main reason why the first three have had recent > problems is because Fed has completely demoralized them and/or forced > them to change their game against him, causing their fall in the ranks.
True, but they aren't that great - mainly because there's too much money in the game & competition is no longer life or death. Roddick makes more money in 1 summer than Borg in his whole career, & he's won 1 slam....
> While I do not want to get sucked into the "Federer vs. the world" > debate, I should state that Dave's argument here correctly identifies > an implicit premise of my analysis that I probably should have made > explicit: There are no *biological* (e.g., current players are weaker, > slower, or stupider than those of the past) or *social* (e.g., > outstanding athletes are no longer going into tennis) reasons that > would explain the decline in the number of 6+ champions in recent men's > tennis. If anything, the biological and social factors (better > nutrition, more money) would seem to be conducive to the creation of > top champs.
I think the exact opposite - even great natural talents like Gasquet are very wealthy & they've won nothing. Where's the motivation to bust a gut on the practice court 10 hrs/day when you have millions in the bank & can bang hot chicks every day..?
> But I think I can argue that the field's equilibrium was not first > broken by Federer but by Sampras. You are ignoring the fact that even > before Federer, Sampras threw a kink in your system by winning a > disproportionate number of slams.
> If you split Sampras's mammoth 14 slams into two rough halves --- one > from 1990 - 1995 and another from 1995-2002 then I think you'll find > your HUGE GAP between 1990 and 2003 is not so big anymore.
> So, sampras was the first one to break the ice - to put it crudely.
> I DO think that depth of the field has increased since 1990's cuz of > the reasons you mentioned and I think both Sampras AND Federer are > amazing for dominating even under such "equilibrious" conditions.
> However, I also think that this sort of dominance sort of precludes the > possible slams of some decent tennis players. > I mean with the absence of Federer you may have your 2 or more 6+ slam > winners -- with Roddick dominating Wimbledon, Roddick/Nadal/Hewitt > dominating US Open, and Nadal dominating French Open. So, you may get > your 6+ slam winners but that doesn't prove anything about the actual > field of players - since their own quality of game hasn't changed -- > its just that someone better hasn't appeared.
> For instance, if Laver dominated the Newcombe years, by continuing to > win THE Grand Slam because of his own brilliance then would that reduce > the worth of the field of players of that generation and of Newcombe?
Yes, & Sampras clearly repressed many guys from great careers - eg Courier would have career slam & about 8 total if no Sampras, Agassi 12-14....
Whisper wrote: > Yes, & Sampras clearly repressed many guys from great careers - eg > Courier would have career slam & about 8 total if no Sampras, Agassi > 12-14....
Possibly true, but irrelevant to the system-wide phenomenon I've described. I rebutted this argument in my original post, yet it won't die. "No Sampras" means Courier becomes Agassi, Agassi becomes Sampras, and the leftover slams are distributed among some "clowns." "No Sampras" probably adds at most one net member to the 6+ group, so the recent era remains three 6+ champs short. Sampras is not the explanation.
>>Yes, & Sampras clearly repressed many guys from great careers - eg >>Courier would have career slam & about 8 total if no Sampras, Agassi >>12-14....
> Possibly true, but irrelevant to the system-wide phenomenon I've > described. I rebutted this argument in my original post, yet it won't > die. "No Sampras" means Courier becomes Agassi, Agassi becomes Sampras, > and the leftover slams are distributed among some "clowns." "No > Sampras" probably adds at most one net member to the 6+ group, so the > recent era remains three 6+ champs short. Sampras is not the > explanation.
Whisper wrote: > josephmramirez@netzero >> While I do not want to get sucked into the "Federer vs. the world" >> debate, I should state that Dave's argument here correctly identifies >> an implicit premise of my analysis that I probably should have made >> explicit: There are no *biological* (e.g., current players are weaker, >> slower, or stupider than those of the past) or *social* (e.g., >> outstanding athletes are no longer going into tennis) reasons that >> would explain the decline in the number of 6+ champions in recent men's >> tennis. If anything, the biological and social factors (better >> nutrition, more money) would seem to be conducive to the creation of >> top champs.
> I think the exact opposite - even great natural talents like Gasquet are > very wealthy & they've won nothing. Where's the motivation to bust a > gut on the practice court 10 hrs/day when you have millions in the bank > & can bang hot chicks every day..?
Fuck that. Donald Young is a millionaire and is yet to win a set on the ATP tour.
Today, it's no longer just top player from Country A (McEnroe) commonly facing 10th best from Country A (who probably wouldn't be in the draw if more countries were involved). The likelihood of you getting upset by Country B's best player is higher than if you were playing 10th best from (AUS) or (USA).
Of course, when the Macs/Jimbos/Borgs played the best from the smaller countries in the past, keep in mind those places were in infant stages. It was like watching Dream Team basketball vs. the rest of the World in 1992. Now with proper training, know-how, interest from more people, the rest of the world has leveled the playing field. US basketball team loses to Puerto Rico, LMAO. 20 years ago, that just could not happen. It doesn't mean the USA won't win gold next time or soon. But it's no longer a sure thing. Times are changing.
Level playing field is what has happened in tennis. Shows how special you have to be (i.e. Federer) to be able to stand out. It might not last too much longer, but it's impressive to have lasted even this long. Nadal has been great as well, but we've seen recently how it is just to get the two of them to meet. Nadal has been close enough to the rest of the pack to keep it from happening. It'd be nice if he could become the consistent rival instead of becoming more of a weekly casualty going thru the mine field draws. Yes, the timing of their injuries hasn't helped, either.
"Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:UO9Xf.45419
. Parity tends to suppress
>> extremes in performance, so Fed's success actually defies the odds. He >> has become a 6+ champion in an era in which we might reasonably have >> expected the 6+ champ to be extinct.
> When did tennis become a closed system?
Only four slams per year. Usual method of measuring greatness is slam wins can only be measured in context of peers. If we cloned 20 Samprases and put them all on the tour at the same time, they can't all win 14 slams.
Hops wrote: > "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:UO9Xf.45419
> . Parity tends to suppress >>> extremes in performance, so Fed's success actually defies the odds. He >>> has become a 6+ champion in an era in which we might reasonably have >>> expected the 6+ champ to be extinct.
>> When did tennis become a closed system?
> Only four slams per year. Usual method of measuring greatness is slam wins > can only be measured in context of peers. If we cloned 20 Samprases and put > them all on the tour at the same time, they can't all win 14 slams.
Is Federer the reason the likes of Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Davydenko and Coria aren't winning slams? Their results suggest not.
You make this assumption that what happened chronologically is how the sport evolved. My arguments against that is that first of all your sample size is not long enough (at least for tennis). What if Fed suppresses 6+ champs for the 2000s, then another champ does the same in the 2010 decade, etc, etc. Then this latter pattern would be more evident than the earlier pattern of having 6+ champs.
Also, comparison with baseball or basketball does not work since they are team sports so they have many more variables that affect the equilibrium.
cost...@gmail.com wrote: > Also, comparison with baseball or basketball does not work since they > are team sports so they have many more variables that affect the > equilibrium.
I don't know that I agree with this. After all, the roles in a team sport, especially baseball, are very specific and defined. A first baseman does this, a pitcher does that, a shortstop does this, etc... As such, a baseball "team" can be seen as a sum of its parts, much like a tennis player.
The equilibrium will develop through the alternating evolution of it's multiple parts. First, for example, let's say players start working mainly on hitting very well, since offense is generally the most enjoyable and most directly rewarding part of any sport. Over time, the individual defensive players will develop increasingly better skills to cope with this superior firepower. Defensive players might get faster - to track down more balls; stronger - allowing them to throw faster and for more distance, perhaps reducing would-be triples to doubles, and doubles to singles. Or, for another possibility, development of advanced tactics could come next instead, to help the inferior defenses deal with the hitters through better preparation and awareness. The evolution of these different facets would come, for the most part, in spurts, and rarely simultaneously. Look at basketball today - virtually everyone can dunk and display some pretty spectacular one-on-one offensive talent. But coaches can't count on any but a hand-full of players to shoot a decent free-throw or three-pointer. So perhaps the next step of the basketball evolution is a rise of long-distance marksmen, who would complete a MUCH more balanced offense, and pose a huge problem for many of today's defenses - potentially causing them to evolve new tactics. And so on, and so forth.
Tennis is an individual sport, but comprised of a number of facets. Shotmaking, endurance, speed, power, control, groundstrokes, volleys,serves, backhands, forehands, even equipment technology, etc...the list descends on and on into finer and finer details. These things evolve in very spurts which are more than comparable to those we observe in team sports. For one example, the 90's saw the evolution of the serve - perhaps the second such evolution, the first being when it began to be used as an offensive weapon - into a match-altering, if not sport-altering, facet of the game. Player's began cracking the 120mph barrier - a barrier which, nowadays, is considered a pretty good speed. Pretty good. What began happening towards the late-90s, and continues today? The evolution of the serve return. Players like Hewitt, Safin, Federer, Nalbandian, etc..., who can get even the biggest of serves back into play. As technology improved in the 90's, players began to hit harder in general, the result? Players today are fitter and faster in order to chase down said shots. Certainly, you can argue that as a result of these alternating improvements, all aspects of tennis improve in each era. And this, I would argue, is true to an extent. However, certain periods till become well-known for a particular advancement - or a particular regression. The 90's will likely be known more for the rise of the big serve, whereas the late 90's-to-early-00's will be known for the rise of the big hitters and regression of variety. Again, not because players can't play a varied game, but because they're not taught it because the big-hitting game is so effective.
To me, this, as I've mentioned before, is one reason I think the label of 'clown era' for today's field is inaccurate. Many of these clowns would likely blow many of the 90's all-court, mentally-strong (going by HC's definition) non-clowns right the hell off the court. Chang would probably take one look at Gonzalez's 100mph forehand, unleashed against Federer *down the line* at last year's Wimbledon, and piss himself near to drowning.
>> As I said before, imagine if Fed never appeared: Hewitt, Safin, >> Roddick, and Nadal would each be taking turns winning GS's (USO, AO, W, >> and FO respectively, perhaps?) with no one exclusively dominating the >> field, ie. parity. The main reason why the first three have had recent >> problems is because Fed has completely demoralized them and/or forced >> them to change their game against him, causing their fall in the ranks.
> True, but they aren't that great - mainly because there's too much money > in the game & competition is no longer life or death. Roddick makes > more money in 1 summer than Borg in his whole career, & he's won 1 slam....
It has not changed since era of Pancho Gonzales who had dozens of luxury cars and one palace-like mansion...
Sasidhar wrote: > However, I think that's also the reason that Federer is so *special*, > because he is showing that variety is also useful if used in the right > doses.
Well, yes, of course. The truly great players, who win the afore-mentioned 6+ slams, generally are better than the rest of the field at something. Sampras had the huge serve and humongous forehand, not to mention the great movement, and fantastic net skills later on in his career. Mac is considered perhaps the most talented volleyer of all time, and had a great serve for his day as well, etc...
On 31 Mar 2006 14:56:00 -0800, "Habib" <alha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Sasidhar wrote: >> However, I think that's also the reason that Federer is so *special*, >> because he is showing that variety is also useful if used in the right >> doses.
>Well, yes, of course. The truly great players, who win the >afore-mentioned 6+ slams, generally are better than the rest of the >field at something. Sampras had the huge serve and humongous forehand, >not to mention the great movement, and fantastic net skills later on in >his career. Mac is considered perhaps the most talented volleyer of all >time, and had a great serve for his day as well, etc...
i think macs serve was very underrated. i think mac was a far better player than sampras. too bad he was a bit of a loon. but then again that is what made mac mac.
>>> As I said before, imagine if Fed never appeared: Hewitt, Safin, >>> Roddick, and Nadal would each be taking turns winning GS's (USO, AO, W, >>> and FO respectively, perhaps?) with no one exclusively dominating the >>> field, ie. parity. The main reason why the first three have had recent >>> problems is because Fed has completely demoralized them and/or forced >>> them to change their game against him, causing their fall in the ranks.
>> True, but they aren't that great - mainly because there's too much money >> in the game & competition is no longer life or death. Roddick makes more >> money in 1 summer than Borg in his whole career, & he's won 1 slam....
right, Agassi never let money and the trappings of fame affect his dedication ... players should be more like Gerulaitis was in the old days.
'Vitas, come to the party with us'
'No, tennis is life and death. I must practice, sorry'.
> To me, this, as I've mentioned before, is one reason I think the label > of 'clown era' for today's field is inaccurate.
You have mentioned it, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Many of these clowns
> would likely blow many of the 90's all-court, mentally-strong (going by > HC's definition) non-clowns right the hell off the court. Chang would > probably take one look at Gonzalez's 100mph forehand, unleashed against > Federer *down the line* at last year's Wimbledon, and piss himself near > to drowning.
So why is Agassi competing for blue-chip slams v Federer & almost beating him at 36, yet never came as close v Sampras when he was younger...?
Sasidhar wrote: > Good analysis... I agree with your argument about the evolution of the > game.
> However, I think that's also the reason that Federer is so *special*, > because he is showing that variety is also useful if used in the right > doses.
>> To me, this, as I've mentioned before, is one reason I think the label >> of 'clown era' for today's field is inaccurate.
>You have mentioned it, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
> Many of these clowns >> would likely blow many of the 90's all-court, mentally-strong (going by >> HC's definition) non-clowns right the hell off the court. Chang would >> probably take one look at Gonzalez's 100mph forehand, unleashed against >> Federer *down the line* at last year's Wimbledon, and piss himself near >> to drowning.
>So why is Agassi competing for blue-chip slams v Federer & almost >beating him at 36, yet never came as close v Sampras when he was younger...?
Agassi beat Sampras 14 times. Agassi hasn't beat Fed in 4 years ! Agassi has NEVER beat Fed at his peak. Agassi beat Sampras all the time at his peak.
|
