De-lurk: Observations on era strength - rec.sport.tennis

Message from discussion De-lurk: Observations on era strength
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Breeder" <withba...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Re: De-lurk: Observations on era strength
Date: 30 Mar 2006 19:42:49 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <1143776569.392927.276130@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
References: <1143774264.047163.156330@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <Wu1Xf.8$b6.507@nasal.pacific.net.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.200.116.131
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1143776574 9002 127.0.0.1 (31 Mar 2006 03:42:54 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 03:42:54 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <Wu1Xf.8$b6.507@nasal.pacific.net.au>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 Turboweb [ntc-td101 8.3.5], HTTP/1.0 cache-ntc-ac02.proxy.aol.com[CFC87483] (Traffic-Server/5.4.3 [uScM])
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=207.200.116.131;
   posting-account=vCIe_wwAAACDtw4zntUp2n0F14f9hiQ7


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.