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.
> 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.
Oh my. In a nutshell, you appear to be arguing scientifically that Federer has actually been _underrated_ so far, even by Hazel. He will frame your post and refer to it constantly henceforth I expect.
David White wrote: > josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> [snip]
> > 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.
> Oh my. In a nutshell, you appear to be arguing scientifically that Federer has actually > been _underrated_ so far, even by Hazel. He will frame your post and refer to it > constantly henceforth I expect.
> David<<
Yes. The above is just fucking stupid. It's fairly easy to discern the exceptional players from the very good; you do so by "watching them" and "knowing what to look for." Aside from Federer & Nadal, there exists a dearth of players with both great tennis talent and great mental strength. This is a fallow period, aside from those two. Yawn.
josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote: > 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.
good insight.
> 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.
well-supported conclusion.
> 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.
Ok, but then why are the 6+ champs who have emerged better than average amongst the 6+ guys? Agassi (8 slams) and Sampras (14 slams) both won more slams than most of the other 6+ guys did. And Federer, with 7, will surely join them.
So why is it that the decline in pairs had led to fewer champs, but those fewer champs are exceptional even by champ standards?
> 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.
Yes, but to equal what we have now in tennis, we should have seen say one .500 hitter (equal to Sampras or a federer) to replace three .400 hitters (becker, edberg, lendl). But of course we haven't seen that in baseball. Baseball lost the three .400 hitters but didn't gain a .500 hitter.
-- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the markets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
David White wrote: > josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> [snip]
> > 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.
> Oh my. In a nutshell, you appear to be arguing scientifically that Federer has actually > been _underrated_ so far, even by Hazel. He will frame your post and refer to it > constantly henceforth I expect.
> David
I am attempting to analyze and compare eras systematically, not players. Federer's achievements are interesting because they are unexpected, in view of the current equilibrium. They do not necessarily make him "better" or "greater" than past champions. An inability to get beyond head-butting one-on-one comparisons seems to be a curse of rst.
>> Oh my. In a nutshell, you appear to be arguing scientifically that >> Federer has actually been _underrated_ so far, even by Hazel. He >> will frame your post and refer to it constantly henceforth I expect.
>> David<<
> Yes. The above is just fucking stupid. It's fairly easy to discern the > exceptional players from the very good; you do so by "watching them" > and "knowing what to look for." Aside from Federer & Nadal, there > exists a dearth of players with both great tennis talent and great > mental strength. This is a fallow period, aside from those two. Yawn.
I'm not so sure. Statistically it's highly unlikely that the entire tour bar one or two players will be hopeless all at the same time compared with a decade earlier. It's the opposite of stephenj's nonsense contention that Steffi Graf would have been cannon fodder for today's "big babes". You are just as unlikely to get a fall in standards across the board as you are to get a rise. Humans haven't suddenly evolved to be relatively super beings compared with a decade ago. Nor have they de-evolved to become worse.
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:32:44 +1000, "David White" <n...@email.provided> wrote: >josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>[snip]
>> 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.
>Oh my. In a nutshell, you appear to be arguing scientifically that Federer has actually >been _underrated_ so far, even by Hazel. He will frame your post and refer to it >constantly henceforth I expect.
>David
Anybody with eyes and an open mind can see this for themselves. The field is better and deeper than ever before and more equal meaning in the absence of Fed you would have two or three times as many slam winners with fewer slams than previous eras.
The fact that Fed can manage to dominate in such an era is truly remarkable. Then again having seen all the greats play since Borg I can say that Fed is the best I have ever seen. It's not even close. Not talking about records now but just what I see with my own eyes. His game is so versatile. He relies on no one particular strength like Sampras did with his serve. He can change his game easily and almost instantaneously, something Nadal says is impossible for him.
Because of his versatility Fed has a more secure game and one which is easy on his body and that means longevity. As he gets older he will be able to use this to stay effective for longer. Much longer than a Nadal or a guy who relies on a big serve.
Sure, somebody may come along down the road who will also rise above the rest but even if they manage (unlikely) to equal Fed I can't see them bettering him because Fed is about as good as a human being can get as a tennis player.
I say in all seriousness that as great as Pete was, Federer is far better. This is because while he does nothing in particular, he does it all very well.
Forget Nadal, he is a nice kid but not in the same league. Not even close. Nadal is not versatile, can't change his game, can't hit anything useful except top spin and is 100% reliant on his legs and therefore his longevity is short.
Breeder wrote: > David White wrote: > > josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > 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.
> > Oh my. In a nutshell, you appear to be arguing scientifically that Federer has actually > > been _underrated_ so far, even by Hazel. He will frame your post and refer to it > > constantly henceforth I expect.
> > David<<
> Yes. The above is just fucking stupid. It's fairly easy to discern the > exceptional players from the very good; you do so by "watching them" > and "knowing what to look for." Aside from Federer & Nadal, there > exists a dearth of players with both great tennis talent and great > mental strength. This is a fallow period, aside from those two. Yawn.
Well, in addition to "watching them" and "knowing what to look for," and perhaps on occasion "getting up from the couch to go to the bathroom," I also try "thinking" from time to time. But it's not obligatory -- enjoy your yawns.
josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote: > David White wrote:
>> Oh my. In a nutshell, you appear to be arguing scientifically that >> Federer has actually been _underrated_ so far, even by Hazel. He >> will frame your post and refer to it constantly henceforth I expect.
>> David
> I am attempting to analyze and compare eras systematically, not > players. Federer's achievements are interesting because they are > unexpected, in view of the current equilibrium. They do not > necessarily make him "better" or "greater" than past champions.
But that seems to be the unavoidable conclusion. You've argued that we are in a period of equilibrium, so we are less likely to have a dominating player than in a period of change. Yet Federer is dominating.
> An > inability to get beyond head-butting one-on-one comparisons seems to > be a curse of rst.
Well, I'm objective where Federer is concerned. He's good to watch, but it doesn't bother me particularly if he loses.
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.
> Joe Ramirez
Enjoyed reading that. I will have to think about that and read Gould's book -- in reverse order perhaps.
>David White wrote: >> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > 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.
>> Oh my. In a nutshell, you appear to be arguing scientifically that Federer has actually >> been _underrated_ so far, even by Hazel. He will frame your post and refer to it >> constantly henceforth I expect.
>> David<<
>Yes. The above is just fucking stupid. It's fairly easy to discern the >exceptional players from the very good; you do so by "watching them" >and "knowing what to look for." Aside from Federer & Nadal, there >exists a dearth of players with both great tennis talent and great >mental strength. This is a fallow period, aside from those two. Yawn.
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.
It is far far far far far more likely that Federer is just an anomaly, a once in a lifetime truly great player than it is to believe the entire world of tennis building ironically fell apart just for him.
> > 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.
> good insight.
> > 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.
> well-supported conclusion.
> > 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.
> Ok, but then why are the 6+ champs who have emerged better than average > amongst the 6+ guys? Agassi (8 slams) and Sampras (14 slams) both won > more slams than most of the other 6+ guys did. And Federer, with 7, will > surely join them.
> So why is it that the decline in pairs had led to fewer champs, but > those fewer champs are exceptional even by champ standards?
First, Sampras is exceptional, but Agassi is not. His total is about average for the 6+ group. Second, I don't know. I don't claim that my analysis answers every question. I am looking mainly at the numbers of high achievers, not relative levels of achievement within the group of high achievers.
Still, there are many ways of considering the data. It may be, for example, that the tennis system is capable of supporting no more than about one 10+ slam champ per decade. I.e., Laver in the 60s, Borg in the 70s, Sampras in the 90s, and Federer (probably) in the 00s. Lendl would have completed the pattern in the 80s had he won his slam finals at the rate normally expected of top champions.
> > 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.
> Yes, but to equal what we have now in tennis, we should have seen say > one .500 hitter (equal to Sampras or a federer) to replace three .400 > hitters (becker, edberg, lendl). But of course we haven't seen that in > baseball. Baseball lost the three .400 hitters but didn't gain a .500 > hitter.
You are correct that the tennis system and the baseball system have not responded identically to patterns of equilibrium and disequilibrium. However, they are very different sports (the team vs. individual aspect is probably enough to explain much). I think it's sufficient that both sports *have responded.*
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.
Dave Hazelwood wrote: > On 30 Mar 2006 19:42:49 -0800, "Breeder" <withba...@aol.com> wrote:
> >David White wrote: > >> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> > 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.
> >> Oh my. In a nutshell, you appear to be arguing scientifically that Federer has actually > >> been _underrated_ so far, even by Hazel. He will frame your post and refer to it > >> constantly henceforth I expect.
> >> David<<
> >Yes. The above is just fucking stupid. It's fairly easy to discern the > >exceptional players from the very good; you do so by "watching them" > >and "knowing what to look for." Aside from Federer & Nadal, there > >exists a dearth of players with both great tennis talent and great > >mental strength. This is a fallow period, aside from those two. Yawn.
> 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.
> It is far far far far far more likely that Federer is just an anomaly, a once > in a lifetime truly great player than it is to believe the entire world of > tennis building ironically fell apart just for him.
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. That is why we have to seek a systematic explanation, and that's what I've tried to do.
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?
David White wrote: > Breeder wrote: > > David White wrote:
> >> Oh my. In a nutshell, you appear to be arguing scientifically that > >> Federer has actually been _underrated_ so far, even by Hazel. He > >> will frame your post and refer to it constantly henceforth I expect.
> >> David<<
> > Yes. The above is just fucking stupid. It's fairly easy to discern the > > exceptional players from the very good; you do so by "watching them" > > and "knowing what to look for." Aside from Federer & Nadal, there > > exists a dearth of players with both great tennis talent and great > > mental strength. This is a fallow period, aside from those two. Yawn.
> I'm not so sure. Statistically it's highly unlikely that the entire tour bar one or two > players will be hopeless all at the same time compared with a decade earlier.<<
Which of course was not my point. Right now we have a lot of "very good" players, but very few "exceptional" players, or even "very, very good" players.
I think your "equilibrium" is one case of a stable system. The opposite example of a "stable system" is one like the sampras era, and even more so the current Federer era where one dominates the field.
In a stable system, where there is no revolution of techniques, surface, etc, talent (which is orthogonal to the other factors) becomes the only differentiator. In a stable system, a truely exceptional player has the chance to dominate the field for a longer time -- for lack of the elements to disturb the order.
> 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.
Ahhh, but sometimes a good cigar is just a good cigar. And all of the time, a clown is a clown is a clown. Take one very gifted player and put him in a field mainly comprised of palookas and chumps, and what do you have? Dominance, of course. Roger's "Bum of the Day" club.
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.
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.
Sample size/period
Is there really a 'hole' after Sampras?.....the number of sample's and time period is relatively short. So maybe a longer gap is the 'norm', and the series analysis started an an exceptionally short interval period. We will only know after a much longer period of time - by when we will all be dead of avian flu (now that will affect the numbers!!), or tennis will have changed so much again it won't be the same sport....
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.
> 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.
> Sample size/period
> Is there really a 'hole' after Sampras?.....the number of sample's and > time period is relatively short. So maybe a longer gap is the 'norm', > and the series analysis started an an exceptionally short interval > period. We will only know after a much longer period of time - by when > we will all be dead of avian flu (now that will affect the numbers!!), > or tennis will have changed so much again it won't be the same sport....
PS I might as well go for broke.....! Tilden 1922 Budge 1937 (gap = 15 years) Gonzalez 1948 (gap = 11 years)
> > I'm not so sure. Statistically it's highly unlikely that the entire tour bar one or two > > players will be hopeless all at the same time compared with a decade earlier.<<
> Which of course was not my point. Right now we have a lot of "very > good" players, but very few "exceptional" players, or even "very, very > good" players.
Maybe. I don't know. Statistically again, you'd expect roughly a certain number of players of any given quality, with the frequency decreasing and the relative deviation increasing as the quality increases. The small numbers involved near the very top do mean that an anomaly there is not particularly unlikely, though I'd be surprised if lower-than-statistically-likely quality extended below the top five to ten players.
As far as I can recall, in past eras even the no. 1 player regularly had tough matches against much lower ranked players. Five-set matches at slams in which a high seed scraped through, or even lost, against no. 20 or lower weren't all that rare, except maybe on a surface on which the high-ranked player had an obviously huge advantage. For as long as I can remember before Federer, everyone seemed to agree that the standard on the men's side, even down to below no. 100, was so high that the top seeds were vulnerable against almost anyone if they weren't in pretty good form.
So, it would be interesting to look at the top players' results from _all_ matches during comparatively similar periods of their careers, because you'd be measuring them against a good representation of the entire, stable-quality field. You could then compare Federer with Nadal and Roddick et al, and each of them with players of similar rank or achievements from past eras and find out if, statistically at least, Federer is too good or his closest rivals are below par or both.
josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote: > stephenj wrote: > Still, there are many ways of considering the data. It may be, for > example, that the tennis system is capable of supporting no more than > about one 10+ slam champ per decade. I.e., Laver in the 60s, Borg in > the 70s, Sampras in the 90s, and Federer (probably) in the 00s. Lendl > would have completed the pattern in the 80s had he won his slam finals > at the rate normally expected of top champions.
Ok.
-- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the markets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
> 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.
I think I answered your objections about Sampras in my original post. Pete's slam total was not the cause of the missing champions, and splitting him in two is not the solution.
Also note that neither Sampras nor Federer "broke" equilibrium, which is a systemic value that cannot be affected by a single player. It's the result of maturity and stability in the system as a whole. Don't confuse equilibrium with parity, which appears to be an effect of equilibrium in the tennis case.
Finally, Sampras launched in the last part of the era of disequilibrium, when significant changes were still being assimilated. By my reckoning, equilibrium set in about the mid-1990s, which the same time we first notice missing 6+ champs.
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. :)
|
