Message from discussion De-lurk: Observations on era strength

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.news.ucla.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.pacific.net.au!nasal.pacific.net.au!not-for-mail
From: "David White" <n...@email.provided>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
References: <1143774264.047163.156330@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: De-lurk: Observations on era strength
Lines: 23
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <Wu1Xf.8$b6.507@nasal.pacific.net.au>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:32:44 +1000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.23.136.187
X-Complaints-To: news@pacific.net.au
X-Trace: nasal.pacific.net.au 1143776310 210.23.136.187 (Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:38:30 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:38:30 EST
Organization: Pacific Internet (Australia)

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