What do you think tennis was played on before cement came along? You actually have to know how to skate to win on clay. If I had to take a tennis player for a hockey team, it would be Nadal.
Also playing on clay is annoying as . It ruins ur shoes, socks, shorts and even the strings get clay all over them. Never played on grass though. I want to but I don't even know if there's any grass courts near me.
What do you think tennis was played on before cement came along? You actually have to know how to skate to win on clay. If I had to take a tennis player for a hockey team, it would be Nadal.
Are we really calling what moonballing retrievers do "playing tennis"?
I like that the clay surface at Roland Garros is part of the gamut; but I don't think it is at all the best surface for testing a player's overall skills. If they played on ice, too, Nadal might have the advantage; that wouldn't prove he's GOAT though.
Beats the out of 1 and a half stroke rallies, tbh.
Of course you'd think "the modern" generation is the best.
The compe ion is literally after the big 3 (Andy Murray is the most overrated tennis player in history). Historically, tennis was a young man's (and woman's) game, and once you hit 30, your chances of winning a major tournament were slim-to-none. And the overall talent pool was significantly deeper. Don't believe me? Look at the parity difference before the Nadal, Fed, Joker generation took hold:
From 2004-2017, only 5 men have won multiple majors. From 1990-2003, 10 men won multiple majors.
Even tennis nerds agree. I read them saying the reason a 35 year old Federer (who is kind of a tweener generation-wise, between Sampras, Agassi, Hewitt, etc and modern players) can still win majors is because he actually knows how to play tennis, while a lot of the younger players just rely on power serves, power shots, length (tennis players are trending much taller than ever before), and athleticism.
Sampras still>>>Nadal.
An "irrefutable fact" is the fact that Sampras's generation was far deeper than Nadal's. Check the parity differences in my above post. You probably had 10 legitimate threats to win a major, while Nadal's gen has been the Fed, Joker, sometimes Murray, sometimes Warwinka show, with no one being able to challenge Nadal on Clay, where he padded most of his majors.
I'm no tennis player nor "tennis nerd" like am I a basketball and baseball nerd, but researching this, grass seems far, far harder to play on than Clay. Faster speeds (meaning faster reaction time demands), faster perceived speeds, less angle bounce. I can kind of understand DAF's argument in saying that grass favors more one-dimensional players who over-rely on service and power, but the results seem anything but. Federer, Borg and McEnroe are/were "tennis players" in the truest sense of the word, and are 3 of 4 most successful players at Wimbledon.
Players can certainly affect other players directly. If you don't think a player is affected by another player sinking birdies behind him, then I don't know what to tell you. And from my experience, psychological barriers are much more difficult to "play against" than physical ones.
You're kind of taking the soccer crew angle here in pigeonholing "real sports" into something that involves "movement" and "contact." One of the reasons I highly respect golf (and other sports where you have more time to "think" about your actions, like baseball) is because the ability to keep your fine motor skills under control in relatively static pressure situations is far more impressive (and difficult) than just "reacting" to a physical challenge. Football was an absolute joke in this regard. It's all reaction. No time to psyche yourself out (unless you're the place kicker). Even playing QB, you're basically reading and reacting. But that's a "real sport." Basketball, the same thing, unless at the free-throw line.
In "athletic" games, you just kind of zone out and let muscle memory do the work. Golf probably has the highest choke factor out of any sport in existence, which is why many people think it's the hardest sport in the world.
That's not an irrefutable fact, tbh. Where you see "a deeper generation of threats to win a major" others may see less dominant top players. I don't care to argue either way about that, I'm just pointing out that what you brought to the table is highly arguable.
While the feats Nadal has over Sampras aren't. I know you being the obsessive, compulsive, quasi pathological, arguer that you are, will look for some obscure data to try and spin reality as much as possible, but the facts are really clear on this matter to me.
More tles, more majors, more master series, more Davis Cups, gold in both singles and doubles. It's just a lot of different things going one way, tbh.
Also, ignoring all of that. Who do you see with better chances of upsetting the other guy on their favourite surface, i.e: what's more likely: Sampras beating Nadal on Roland Garros or Nadal beating Sampras on Wimbledon?
Lol at trying to bound debate. None of the facts I ever present to you in debates are "obscure." You just don't like the fact they usually wind up defeating your qualitative arguments.
Finland wins the Pesapello world championship every year, guess that means Finland is just that dominant and nothing to do with the fact that the Pesapello talent pool is pretty much restricted to Finland. One fact that calls into question your assertion that "this gen is just that dominant" is how Federer is still winning majors at 35. Go look up any of the past greats. They were pretty much done around their late 20's. When tennis was a much bigger sport in the 80's and 90's, there was a new crop of young guns like every 5 years to challenge the old guard. The current old guard has been dominating for over 13 years and show no signs of ceding dominance to younger players. (Nadal is over 30 himself).
Yeah, Nadal is unbeatable on clay. But extend it to grass, hard, composite, with 25 matches each, and Pete is beating Nadal more than 50% of the time on ALL surfaces.
Oh, and Sampras has 5 Masters to Nadal's 0, if this is the tourney you were talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Finals
or its like playing pacman at an arcade when the guy before you got a really good score and now you feel pressure, even though the game itself is completely identical to when you played the other day in a low-stress situation. its like a free throw shooting contest. sure, pressure gets to you, but they're free throws, routine, etc
nobody is physically making it more difficult to make your shot, unlike tennis, baseball, soccer, etc
lol son. You bore people to death with your wall of words so that when they stop replaying out of boredom you can think you won the argument.
Sure in 2017 there's less talent pool than in the 1980's, seems reasonable.Finland wins the Pesapello world championship every year, guess that means Finland is just that dominant and nothing to do with the fact that the Pesapello talent pool is pretty much restricted to Finland. One fact that calls into question your assertion that "this gen is just that dominant" is how Federer is still winning majors at 35. Go look up any of the past greats. They were pretty much done around their late 20's. When tennis was a much bigger sport in the 80's and 90's, there was a new crop of young guns like every 5 years to challenge the old guard. The current old guard has been dominating for over 13 years and show no signs of ceding dominance to younger players. (Nadal is over 30 himself).
Tennis popularity is pretty healthy, tbh. This era of Federer and Nadal is one of the most popular eras in tennis history, their Australian Open final this year was one of the most watched tennis games ever. Stop being self centered and thinking that just because Americans lost interest in tennis, thanks to not having a player worth a damn, the entire World lost interest too, tbh.
And the reason Federer and Nadal are winning majors deep into their 30's is simple: Human Evolution. Is the same reason basketball players play untill they are 40 now, and why humans live longer.
If Nadal and Federed never faced each other I'm sure you would be saying the same about their matchup.Yeah, Nadal is unbeatable on clay. But extend it to grass, hard, composite, with 25 matches each, and Pete is beating Nadal more than 50% of the time on ALL surfaces.
Sampras serve and volley game is tailor made for Nadal's return and passing game. Nadal is the GOAT at hitting tight targets with a guy on the net. Nadal would also murder Sampras'weak backhand when playing from the baseline. There's just no way Sampras comes out on the winning side on more than half the times vs Nadal. I mean, if the undisputed GOAT can't do it, I doubt a lesser player with some of the same weaknesses would.
If I need to clarify what tournaments I'm talking about then you are way out of your comofrt zone on this argument, tbh.
Videogames don't require anywhere near the level of hand-eye coordination and fine motor skill control as golf does. You use your entire body in golf, despite its reputation as an "unathletic sport."
Comparisons to a free-throw shooting contest is absurd. You're trying to hit a ball over 300 yards and control it to the point where it lands where you want it (generally). And then, you have to execute another shot anywhere from 120-200 yards and place that shot in a 20 foot spot to have a a good chance at scoring an underpar shot.
Point is, though, you don't need anyone making it more difficult through physicality. It's more difficult without that aspect than basketball, football, and even baseball. Think about it in terms of learning curve. A newbie will be able to step out onto a basketball court and make a few shots and probably hit rim on longer shots. Put that same newbie on a driving range and he isn't hitting one shot straight nor with legitimate distance.
im not comparing their physical difficulty. i'm just talking about the "pressure" you referenced. i have no doubt that golf is incredibly challenging, but your opponent has no tangible effect on your goals or performance
[QUOTE=DAF86;9092895]No. Your lot spouts bull (i.e. fatball) that is easily debunked with facts (i.e. the average body fat percentage of MLB players and the fact that no player worth a in baseball is fat). Then after you get shutdown, you use the "loldidntread" deflection.lol son. You bore people to death with your wall of words so that when they stop replaying out of boredom you can think you won the argument.
Tennis was huge in the 80's and 90's. Just because we're in 2017 doesn't automatically mean growth. Tennis is probably a kid's 4th or 5th choice as a sport in the US and is obviously behind soccer, basketball, cricket, rugby, etc, etc in most other countries in the world. What's my point here? Sports like tennis are typically played by athletes not good enough for a particular country's "big sports." But now instead of going into tennis, videogames, internet, etc have filled that void. Australia was one of the great tennis powers in the 20th century. Look how participation numbers have tanked since '01:Sure in 2017 there's less talent pool than in the 1980's, seems reasonable.
In the UK:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/bl...on-andy-murray
And furthermore, look at all the different nationalities that were multiple major winners in the past compared to now.
And at foreigners always reflexively thinking that when an American criticizes a sport, it's because "we're not good at it!" Over the past 15 years, Serena Williams proved herself as the most dominant women's player of all-time while the Bryan Brothers became the most dominant doubles team of all-time. We're plenty good at it. And still, the game is largely irrelevant here now.
"Cuz you don't have a men's singles player!"
Wrong. Chris Evert and Martina matches would dominate the American sports world when they went on. Monica Seles (after defecting) became something of an "American sweetheart" before Graf had her stabbed. Women's players have always just been as marketable as men's here. Again, I blame tennis's growing irrelevance on technology and other entertainment options that are more accessible. Where parents might've once introduced their children to tennis, they'll likely play Pokemon with them instead. It's happening to all sports, not just tennis.
And at thinking human evolutionary changes can happen in 15 years.
Federer is 5 years older than Nadal. 5 years can be like 20 years difference in tennis, which illustrates my point of how the young guns would always dispatch of the late-20 something old guard. That doesn't happen now, and it's not because of "human evolution."
I thought you meant the Masters Cup, which is kind of like the 5th major.
Oh, you were talking about "regular season" tennis tournaments
Oh, and Serena also can illustrate my point. She's by far the most famous female athlete in the US and maybe the world, so inspired by Serena, there's bound to be a bunch of young female tennis players in the ranks coming up. After Evert and Martina, you knew the next gen would belong to Seles and Graf. And after them, Hingis and Williams. And...
Nothing. There isn't one young female tennis prodigy out there challenging for and winning majors at 16 like twenty years ago. Venus almost won Wimbledon at 37 coming off the most tragic period in her life
"Human evolution." Sure.
If motherhood doesn't make Serena complacent, she'll continue to win over the next five years at least.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 07-18-2017 at 01:57 AM.
You have me confused with apo or lefty, tbh. I've never been high on the whole fatball thing. I just say that is ing boring and that soccer is clearly much more demanding physically. This last one is an irrefutable fact that you will surely try to spin some way.
Having individuals to relate to in sports is what helps bust its popularity, specially for less established sports. Do you think Tiger would have caused the kind of revolution that he caused for golf in the US if he was from Finland? Of course not. Do you think tennis wouldn't be much more popupar in the US if Federed was from New York and Nadal from Boston? Of course it would. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just human nature.Tennis was huge in the 80's and 90's. Just because we're in 2017 doesn't automatically mean growth. Tennis is probably a kid's 4th or 5th choice as a sport in the US and is obviously behind soccer, basketball, cricket, rugby, etc, etc in most other countries in the world. What's my point here? Sports like tennis are typically played by athletes not good enough for a particular country's "big sports." But now instead of going into tennis, videogames, internet, etc have filled that void. Australia was one of the great tennis powers in the 20th century. Look how participation numbers have tanked since '01:
In the UK:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/bl...on-andy-murray
And furthermore, look at all the different nationalities that were multiple major winners in the past compared to now.
And at foreigners always reflexively thinking that when an American criticizes a sport, it's because "we're not good at it!" Over the past 15 years, Serena Williams proved herself as the most dominant women's player of all-time while the Bryan Brothers became the most dominant doubles team of all-time. We're plenty good at it. And still, the game is largely irrelevant here now.
"Cuz you don't have a men's singles player!"
Wrong. Chris Evert and Martina matches would dominate the American sports world when they went on. Monica Seles (after defecting) became something of an "American sweetheart" before Graf had her stabbed. Women's players have always just been as marketable as men's here. Again, I blame tennis's growing irrelevance on technology and other entertainment options that are more accessible. Where parents might've once introduced their children to tennis, they'll likely play Pokemon with them instead. It's happening to all sports, not just tennis.
It's not human evolutionary changes. It's changes on medicine, nutrition, rest and overall technology available.And at thinking human evolutionary changes can happen in 15 years.
Federer is 5 years older than Nadal. 5 years can be like 20 years difference in tennis, which illustrates my point of how the young guns would always dispatch of the late-20 something old guard. That doesn't happen now, and it's not because of "human evolution."
Analogies to American Sports. Yeah son, you are way out of your depth.
Not my analogy. The ATP considers it a "2nd tier" event (the only 2nd tier event, in fact).
In game, sure. But physically demanding doesn't mean anything (in that it makes a sport more entertaining/difficult). What I argue is that the physical demands to become a great baseball player are just as much to become a great soccer player. The workout routines aren't that much different aside from the differences in strength/stamina training (baseball players obviously put in more work in the weight room while soccer players put in more cardio work). And baseball players do put in cardio work. Jose Fernandez was doing 600 mile pelontons per week prior to the season (then he died).
These "fat" players are washing out. Fielder. Retired. Sandoval. Benched again. Colon. 100.00 era or some . Sabathia. Eternally on the DL.
Serena is a top ten name in American sports. And I'm telling you as someone who lived through McEnroe, Connors, that Evert was just as big of a name. Williams, just as big a name as Sampras. Also, golf was huge before Woods. Palmer, Nicklaus, Watson, all household names. And I would bet that the television ratings are similar when any of those players were contending for a major. Tiger made golf pop culture big in a sense, but he really didn't revolutionize/save golf from ratings doldrums like say Magic and Bird saved the NBA.Having individuals to relate to in sports is what helps bust its popularity, specially for less established sports. Do you think Tiger would have caused the kind of revolution that he caused for golf in the US if he was from Finland? Of course not. Do you think tennis wouldn't be much more popupar in the US if Federed was from New York and Nadal from Boston? Of course it would. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just human nature.
No amount of high tech medicine sans PEDs can give a 35 year old man (or even a 30 year old man) the athleticism of a 23 year old.It's not human evolutionary changes. It's changes on medicine, nutrition, rest and overall technology available.
So either: maybe tennis's talent pool is bigger than ever, but modern coaching methods with regards to skills are worse (tennis nerds agree here).
Tennis's talent pool is overall smaller.
Combination of both. Shrinking talent pool + bad coaching.
Tennis used to be:
17 year old star(s) rising through the ranks. Starts to hit prime at around 19. Dispatches of "old" late-20s stars who retire around 30. Rinse/repeat.
The top 4 players in the world: Joker, Nadal, Murray, Fed are all 30+, with Fed at 35. You just don't see that in ANY sport really (aside from maybe golf).
Last edited by midnightpulp; 07-18-2017 at 02:34 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)