So "not even top 10" peak Sampras lost to a 19 year old Federrer.

[apalisoc_9]

Can you imagine this nigga trying to win against Peak Djoker, Nadal, Fed, Wawarinka, Murray etc

https://www.thecoli.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/mjlol.png

[DAF86]

Heck, forget about Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Look at him vs Safin, Hewitt and Roddick.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msmelVjUAgY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bcOm116RhA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ryl3HcoLvk

These are the guys that Federer dominated throughout his career and that Sampras' fans call "weak competition".

[apalisoc_9]

New Ranking

Fed
Nadal
Djoker.



Irrelevant.

[DAF86]

Just for comparation sake, let's look at Federer against Sampras' competition:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZsdoK2DTRM

What a fucking masterclass, tbh.

[DAF86]

8COaMKbNrX0

So, it seems like athletes ARE getting better afterall, but apparently tennis and basketball are the exception to this rule for some folks here.

[apalisoc_9]

8COaMKbNrX0

So, it seems like athletes ARE getting better afterall, but apparently tennis and basketball are the exception to this rule for some folks here.

Djoker would win 40 Slams in the 90s era.

Can you imagine him palying against agasi lol

[midnightpulp]

8COaMKbNrX0

So, it seems like athletes ARE getting better afterall, but apparently tennis and basketball are the exception to this rule for some folks here.

Of course, but you seem to think it's happening at some evolutionary genetic level, which is scientifically impossible. Evolution takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Athletes aren't better because human beings are physiologically "evolving" but because the "environment" (i.e. training techniques, nutrition, sports medicine, medicine in general) has evolved to better unlock human athletic/physiological potential (which was already genetic hard coded hundreds of thousands of years ago. There's no fundamental "change" occurring at the genetic level, the genes we already have are simply being better expressed due to environmental conditions). To further the point, you seem to have the belief that if you took Rafael Nadal's (or any modern athlete's) DNA and traveled back in time to have Nadal's clone born in 1960, he'd be the "same" Nadal in 1990 as he is today. Wrong.

[midnightpulp]

:lol Did DAF86 even watch or understand the video he posted? The author states what I've been saying all along, and even illustrates there's little intrinsic athletic difference between Bolt and Jesse Owens confirmed by biomechanical analysis. Forget Owens having the luxury of modern training methods, nutrition, etc, etc. It's stated in the video that if Owens, straight from 1936, had simply been running on the same surface (this is also a point never mentioned in these era debates, how modern equipment/playing conditions can make athletes appear more athletic/better) alongside Bolt, he'd be within one stride of Bolt. But yeah, modern athletes are the Avengers or some shit :lol.

This is the point ambchang and I keep trying to pound through your heads. The only way you can ever compare athletes across eras is too magically have it to where they're born within about 5 years of each other.

[Bynumite]

Outdoor ping pong :lmao

[lefty20]

Outdoor ping pong :lmao

More like a marathon the way Nadal plays, tbh.

[ambchang]

:lol Did DAF86 even watch or understand the video he posted? The author states what I've been saying all along, and even illustrates there's little intrinsic athletic difference between Bolt and Jesse Owens confirmed by biomechanical analysis. Forget Owens having the luxury of modern training methods, nutrition, etc, etc. It's stated in the video that if Owens, straight from 1936, had simply been running on the same surface (this is also a point never mentioned in these era debates, how modern equipment/playing conditions can make athletes appear more athletic/better) alongside Bolt, he'd be within one stride of Bolt. But yeah, modern athletes are the Avengers or some shit :lol.

This is the point ambchang and I keep trying to pound through your heads. The only way you can ever compare athletes across eras is too magically have it to where they're born within about 5 years of each other.

Thanks mid. That’s the entire point.

If we rank players and professionals based on what they can do without any context of the surrounding factors, some high school math teacher is a better mathematician than pascal or Euclid because we have excel now.

[DAF86]

:lol Did DAF86 even watch or understand the video he posted? The author states what I've been saying all along, and even illustrates there's little intrinsic athletic difference between Bolt and Jesse Owens confirmed by biomechanical analysis. Forget Owens having the luxury of modern training methods, nutrition, etc, etc. It's stated in the video that if Owens, straight from 1936, had simply been running on the same surface (this is also a point never mentioned in these era debates, how modern equipment/playing conditions can make athletes appear more athletic/better) alongside Bolt, he'd be within one stride of Bolt. But yeah, modern athletes are the Avengers or some shit :lol.

This is the point ambchang and I keep trying to pound through your heads. The only way you can ever compare athletes across eras is too magically have it to where they're born within about 5 years of each other.

I did, did you watch it all the way through? the conclusion is that yes, athletes are bigger, stronger and better now because of "...changing technologies, changing genes and changing mindsets...".

And regardless of if the reason for improved athletes is related to genetics or not, the point still remains that competition is harder now than it was in previous eras. Whether it is for genetics, or technology, or an increase in talent pool, competition is tougher, both in quantity and quality. That is a fact that can't be denied, yet you and ambchang were trying to argue that unargable fact.

[apalisoc_9]

Tennis is so much more accessible now too.

Face it, Fed, nadal, Djoker are all dominating their era better than sampras and anyone else.


Get that into your head oldies

[DAF86]

Thanks mid. That’s the entire point.

If we rank players and professionals based on what they can do without any context of the surrounding factors, some high school math teacher is a better mathematician than pascal or Euclid because we have excel now.

Yeah, the problem is what criteria you use to determine that context. If you say retarded shit like "today's talent pool is more limited than 20 years ago" then you are not providing context, you are saying retarded shit.

[midnightpulp]

I did, did you watch it all the way through? the conclusion is that yes, athletes are bigger, stronger and better now because of "...changing technologies, changing genes and changing mindsets...".

And regardless of if the reason for improved athletes is related to genetics or not, the point still remains that competition is harder now than it was in previous eras. Whether it is for genetics, or technology, or an increase in talent pool, competition is tougher, both in quantity and quality. That is a fact that can't be denied, yet you and ambchang were trying to argue that unargable fact.

Did you read my first reply? Do you know how genes "change?" It's due to environmental conditions, and these environmental conditions are simply facilitating a better expression of the hard coded DNA we already have. We're not going to magically develop any new physiological traits that allow us to sprint over 50 mph. Nadal, Federer, etc weren't born with a "better" genetic "tennis makeup" than Boris Becker. Federer would be a different player if he were born in 1957 and we have absolutely no idea how Roger Federer born in 1957 would do against Bjorg in 1979, so to unequivocally claim he's a better player is asinine. That point is still lost on you for some reason. Furthermore, this point is clearly illustrated when the video compares Owens to Bolt and finds basically no athletic difference between them.

How is competition "tougher" in tennis when players in their physiological athletic primes (20-25ish) aren't really threats to do much? A robust talent pool has more parity. That's been the case since the beginning of time in all matters of competition, sports or otherwise. In any other sport, we'd see a 20-25 year old (or a few) start to emerge as the new guard. In any other tennis era, players in this age group would have a few majors already How many slams did Nadal, Fed, Novak have by 25? Yet no player under-25 not of the Big 3 has won a major since 2004. I find that strange. The big 3 even come back from injuries like it's nothing :lol

[midnightpulp]

Tennis is so much more accessible now too.

Face it, Fed, nadal, Djoker are all dominating their era better than sampras and anyone else.


Get that into your head oldies

I don't know why you always view these debates through some silly "old vs. new" lens. That's really not what the argument is about. If anything, I think it's great that a 37 year old can remain the number 1 or 2 player in the world. It just makes zero fuckin' sense that tennis has no emerging new guard that have won multiple slams already, as what has always happened since the beginning of tennis. And get it into your head that comparing across era is fuckin' stupid. Nadal isn't the same Nadal if was born in 1965, yet you seem to believe he's a new "tennis species" or something and that his DNA would magically translate to any time period. You do believe shit like this, as I remember you once saying that NBA players will be dunking from the 3 point line in 20 years because modern athletes are Marvel superheroes :lol

[apalisoc_9]

I don't know why you always view these debates through some silly "old vs. new" lens. That's really not what the argument is about. If anything, I think it's great that a 37 year old can remain the number 1 or 2 player in the world. It just makes zero fuckin' sense that tennis has no emerging new guard that have won multiple slams already, as what has always happened since the beginning of tennis. And get it into your head that comparing across era is fuckin' stupid. Nadal isn't the same Nadal if was born in 1965, yet you seem to believe he's a new "tennis species" or something and that his DNA would magically translate to any time period. You do believe shit like this, as I remember you once saying that NBA players will be dunking from the 3 point line in 20 years because modern athletes are Marvel superheroes :lol

Dude get this.

Sampras couldnt dominate the players that played in his era the same way Nadal, Djoker, Federeer dominated their era. You're the guys having trouble understanding.

Stop making shit up. I never claimed players today are genetically better.

[ambchang]

I did, did you watch it all the way through? the conclusion is that yes, athletes are bigger, stronger and better now because of "...changing technologies, changing genes and changing mindsets...".

And regardless of if the reason for improved athletes is related to genetics or not, the point still remains that competition is harder now than it was in previous eras. Whether it is for genetics, or technology, or an increase in talent pool, competition is tougher, both in quantity and quality. That is a fact that can't be denied, yet you and ambchang were trying to argue that unargable fact.
How is there an increase in talent pool?

How is there increase in competition when all the players get the same training nutrition and technology?

And genetics? How? You watch too much x men? Humans have evolved for a few million years and you’d think that our genes would suddenly make drastic changes to play a sport while our ancestors couldn’t evolve enough to our run a lion?

[ambchang]

Yeah, the problem is what criteria you use to determine that context. If you say retarded shit like "today's talent pool is more limited than 20 years ago" then you are not providing context, you are saying retarded shit.

Yeah because putting quotation marks around something meant I said it.

Here’s a tip for you, try to understand a point first before arguing. Try listening, it will do you wonders.

[midnightpulp]

Dude get this.

Sampras couldnt dominate the players that played in his era the same way Nadal, Djoker, Federeer dominated their era. You're the guys having trouble understanding.

Stop making shit up. I never claimed players today are genetically better.

:lol there's no trouble at all. Trace of all sports history. Do you know what produces top heavy dominance (i.e. when the field is dominated by 1-3 guys/teams)? A shallow talent pool. The reason the big 3 can dominate to that extent is because there's fewer mid-tier players who are threats to knock them off. I'll boil it down. Here's how tennis used to work:

1 to 4 players within a 5 year age range dominate the Grand Slam scene for about a decade. For example, from 1974-1982 it was the Connors, Borg, McEnroe era. The end of that era was ushered in by Mats Wilender, who won his first slam at 18 and then arrived Edberg, Becker, and Lendl. They dominated until about 1992, when Sampras, Agassi, Courier arrived on the scene. Then that generation gave way to Federer, Nadal, Novak who have had an iron grip on the grand slam scene for 15 years and counting. No less top heavy than in past eras, but what this era is lacking are the 20 year old wunderkinds who would've won a couple majors and the variety of 2nd tier upset threats.

And no, appealing to "modern training methods" isn't an answer here, since the younger players on tour would have the same access to modern training. In fact, a 20 year old today was probably reared under more advanced training methods during his youth than the Big 3. So why can't they break through and upset? It's not because the big 3 are magical beings. Either tennis isn't drawing the athletes it once did or youth level training isn't as good as it used to be.

Yeah, you constantly imply today's athletes are naturally more athletic, which implies a genetic difference. You imply this every time you make some shitty thread about modern athletes vs. yesterday's, like Zach Lavine in the dunk contest, saying, "Imagine an 80s basketball player doing this! Today's athletes are amazing!" David Thompson had plenty of enough athleticism to do anything Lavine, Gordon, whoever can do. Dunking creativity has certainly evolved, but a uber athlete from the 60s could learn to do Aaron Gordon's muppet dunk in a half-an-hour.

Furthering this point, I know you didn't watch the video DAF posted, but if you did, you'd see that 1936 Jesse Owens isn't really any slower than Usain Bolt, who I'm sure you hold up as a modern day Marvel superhero. The primary difference in their times was due to track surfaces, not because Bolt is a "new breed" of sprinter/athlete. It could be argued Owens would beat Bolt if he had access to the same training methods. He was already within a stride of Bolt just because of track surface alone. Now imagine giving Owens all the sports medicine, nutrition, weight training, computer analysis of stride mechanics, etc, etc that Bolt has. This idea translates to any sport.

[midnightpulp]

How is there an increase in talent pool?

How is there increase in competition when all the players get the same training nutrition and technology?

And genetics? How? You watch too much x men? Humans have evolved for a few million years and you’d think that our genes would suddenly make drastic changes to play a sport while our ancestors couldn’t evolve enough to our run a lion?

I don't think he got the video. When the author summed up his talk with "changing genetics," he was referring to the increase over the years in genetic diversity across sports. It was once thought the ideal athlete was around 6 feet, 175lb, for any sport, whether it be sprinting or shotputting. This idea was obviously wrong, and the changing mindset over the years brought in many body types to sports that didn't compete in the early-20th century. 7 foot people in 1930 probably made their living in a freak show. Today, they play in the NBA. The talent pool has certainly grew by leaps and bounds across all sports because of this fact, but for whatever reason, tennis is an outlier right now. It's funny they think we're being argumentative because we're Sampras fanboys or something. No. What's happening in tennis is fuckin' peculiar. >30 year olds and a near 40 year old showing no signs of slowing down, despite coming back from injuries. You had Laver-to-Borg, Borg-to-Lendl, Lendl-to-Sampras, Sampras-to-Fed. So where's the X player-to-Fed? And no, Fed's replacement(s) aren't Nadal, Novak. The next generation is typically about a decade younger.

[DAF86]

Did you read my first reply? Do you know how genes "change?" It's due to environmental conditions, and these environmental conditions are simply facilitating a better expression of the hard coded DNA we already have. We're not going to magically develop any new physiological traits that allow us to sprint over 50 mph. Nadal, Federer, etc weren't born with a "better" genetic "tennis makeup" than Boris Becker. Federer would be a different player if he were born in 1957 and we have absolutely no idea how Roger Federer born in 1957 would do against Bjorg in 1979, so to unequivocally claim he's a better player is asinine. That point is still lost on you for some reason. Furthermore, this point is clearly illustrated when the video compares Owens to Bolt and finds basically no athletic difference between them.

How is competition "tougher" in tennis when players in their physiological athletic primes (20-25ish) aren't really threats to do much? A robust talent pool has more parity. That's been the case since the beginning of time in all matters of competition, sports or otherwise. In any other sport, we'd see a 20-25 year old (or a few) start to emerge as the new guard. In any other tennis era, players in this age group would have a few majors already How many slams did Nadal, Fed, Novak have by 25? Yet no player under-25 not of the Big 3 has won a major since 2004. I find that strange. The big 3 even come back from injuries like it's nothing :lol

Exactly, that's why the best way to compare players from different eras is to see how much they dominated theirs.

If a player has 17 GS and a winning pct. of 85%, then it is safe to say he is better than the player that won 14 and has a winning pct. of 80%.

You can't pull the ":cry you can't compare eras :cry" card and then try to hype an era over the other with subjective claims of "competitiveness".

[DAF86]

How is there an increase in talent pool?

For the same reason there is an increase on World population.


How is there increase in competition when all the players get the same training nutrition and technology?

Because there are more players than ever.


And genetics? How? You watch too much x men? Humans have evolved for a few million years and you’d think that our genes would suddenly make drastic changes to play a sport while our ancestors couldn’t evolve enough to our run a lion?

The "changing genes" part isn't something I came up with; it is in the video. The guy with the glasses and that studied this in depth was the one who said it.

[DAF86]

Yeah because putting quotation marks around something meant I said it.

Here’s a tip for you, try to understand a point first before arguing. Try listening, it will do you wonders.

When did I say you said it? Although, if you think that's not the case, then you could have said something instead of playing along with midnightpulp when he said it, tbh.

[DAF86]

Thanks mid. That’s the entire point.

If we rank players and professionals based on what they can do without any context of the surrounding factors, some high school math teacher is a better mathematician than pascal or Euclid because we have excel now.

Well, that's my entire point too. I'm not saying Nadal is better than Sampras because of some subjective predilection of one style of play over the other. In fact, I have already said I liked Sampras, more than I like Nadal. But it's just that Nadal has Sampras beat on the vast majority of objective metrics.

I'm not saying Nadal is better than Sampras because with his style of play he would punish Sampras' backhand relentlessly and he would get passing shot after passing shot when Pete came to the net. No, I'm saying Nadal is better because he has more GS, more master Series and a better lifetime winning %. Simple as that. I'm not comparing eras, I'm not getting into subjective arguments. I'm just stating facts. You are the ones doing what you say you shouldn't do by comparing eras and coming up with subjective, totally unprovable comments such as "this era is weaker than the previous one" and "today's tennis has a shallow talent pool".

[midnightpulp]

Exactly, that's why the best way to compare players from different eras is to see how much they dominated theirs.

If a player has 17 GS and a winning pct. of 85%, then it is safe to say he is better than the player that won 14 and has a winning pct. of 80%.

You can't pull the ":cry you can't compare eras :cry" card and then try to hype an era over the other with subjective claims of "competitiveness".

So the 60's Boston Celtics are the greatest NBA team of all-time? Tell my why they won 8 straight titles in the decade? Also, one essential problem with your comparison of Federer's stats to Sampras's doesn't take into account that Sampras was basically done by 30. He didn't get an extra 2-5 years as he likely would've today due to better training methods. And just the same, you can't compare Connors, Borg, McEnroe to Sampras. Reading a bit, in 70s era, grand slams weren't the be-all, end-all of player worth, and it was common for players to skip Slams. Borg only played in one Australian Open.

For the record, I don't think Sampras is better than Federer, Nadal, etc. The comparison is impossible to make. What irks me (and this goes for any player vs. player debate in any sport) is how these debates tend to always favor the modern player without exploring the context. "Bob Cousy sucked! Couldn't even dribble with his left!" Guess what, if Allen Iverson or Kyrie Irving were born in 1935, they ain't dribbling with their left either. Cousy is an all-time great player, regardless of the fact that a 16 year old modern PG prospect is a better player in a vacuum. Cousy innovated the game far more than some modern player who profited from the techniques Cousy and players of past eras innovated. Someone like Apa always retardedly assumes that you could just throw a modern athlete's DNA back in time and he's the same.

We can never know who really is better between players born a decade or more apart. Their primes will never overlap enough to make a reasonable judgement.

[DAF86]

So the 60's Boston Celtics are the greatest NBA team of all-time? Tell my why they won 8 straight titles in the decade? Also, one essential problem with your comparison of Federer's stats to Sampras's doesn't take into account that Sampras was basically done by 30. He didn't get an extra 2-5 years as he likely would've today due to better training methods. And just the same, you can't compare Connors, Borg, McEnroe to Sampras. Reading a bit, in 70s era, grand slams weren't the be-all, end-all of player worth, and it was common for players to skip Slams. Borg only played in one Australian Open.

For the record, I don't think Sampras is better than Federer, Nadal, etc. The comparison is impossible to make. What irks me (and this goes for any player vs. player debate in any sport) is how these debates tend to always favor the modern player without exploring the context. "Bob Cousy sucked! Couldn't even dribble with his left!" Guess what, if Allen Iverson or Kyrie Irving were born in 1935, they ain't dribbling with their left either. Cousy is an all-time great player, regardless of the fact that a 16 year old modern PG prospect is a better player in a vacuum. Cousy innovated the game far more than some modern player who profited from the techniques Cousy and players of past eras innovated. Someone like Apa always retardedly assumes that you could just throw a modern athlete's DNA back in time and he's the same.

We can never know who really is better between players born a decade or more apart. Their primes will never overlap enough to make a reasonable judgement.

Hey, don't look at me bro. I have Chamberlain as my second best NBA player of all-time. I have Bird and Magic on my top 5, or close to it. Russell on my top 10. Heck, I would need to recount my all-time great list, but I think I have Oscar Robertson top 10 too, and Moses Malone pretty damn close.

I understand the difference between eras, and that's why despite knowing that a guy like Safin would probably beat a guy like Rod Laver pretty easily, I still put Laver top 5 on my all-time tennis players list, and Safin is nowhere close to that. You have to respect eras and how some guys dominated theirs. That's why ambchang, and you, need to respect the level of dominance guys like Nadal and Djokovic are displaying.

[midnightpulp]

Well, that's my entire point too. I'm not saying Nadal is better than Sampras because of some subjective predilection of one style of play over the other. In fact, I have already said I liked Sampras, more than I like Nadal. But it's just that Nadal has Sampras beat on the vast majority of objective metrics.

I'm not saying Nadal is better than Sampras because with his style of play he would punish Sampras' backhand relentlessly and he would get passing shot after passing shot when Pete came to the net. No, I'm saying Nadal is better because he has more GS, more master Series and a better lifetime winning %. Simple as that. I'm not comparing eras, I'm not getting into subjective arguments. I'm just stating facts. You are the ones doing what you say you shouldn't do by comparing eras and coming up with subjective, totally unprovable comments such as "this era is weaker than the previous one" and "today's tennis has a shallow talent pool".

This is another wrong idea you have. New skills can be learned, especially more so today with how efficient modern training techniques are. There's nothing intrinsically limiting a Pete Sampras from adapting to a modern style provided he was young enough. By the time of that Safin video you always post, Pete was about 30, which was ancient in tennis in those days. No time to adapt at that point. This would be like saying in 2014 that Tim Duncan (let's say he retired in 2007 at 31) would be a subpar big because he was too post-reliant as the game became perimeter oriented and he was too slow-footed to step out and switch on modern pick-and-roll centric modern offense. But we saw Duncan's adaptation first hand. He lost weight. He developed his spot up jumper more. He relied more on movement within the offense to get fed than just posting up every time down. His metrics confirmed in 2014 that he was still one of the league's top 10 players.

This retarded idea is also used by Michael Jordan detractors. I do believe that the mythology of Jordan is overblown, but people think since perimeter defenders of his day weren't as long and athletic as today, Jordan would somehow be reduced to a 2nd tier all-star. :lol Jordan wouldn't have any problem going off on any perimeter player, from Kawhi Leonard to Doug McDermott. And knowing his pathological work ethic, he's probably one of the best 3 point shooters in the league today. It would be his and Lebron's league. Jordan would be superior to Durant, Harden, Leonard, etc.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Individual sports... who gives a rat's ass.

[apalisoc_9]

So the 60's Boston Celtics are the greatest NBA team of all-time? Tell my why they won 8 straight titles in the decade? Also, one essential problem with your comparison of Federer's stats to Sampras's doesn't take into account that Sampras was basically done by 30. He didn't get an extra 2-5 years as he likely would've today due to better training methods. And just the same, you can't compare Connors, Borg, McEnroe to Sampras. Reading a bit, in 70s era, grand slams weren't the be-all, end-all of player worth, and it was common for players to skip Slams. Borg only played in one Australian Open.

For the record, I don't think Sampras is better than Federer, Nadal, etc. The comparison is impossible to make. What irks me (and this goes for any player vs. player debate in any sport) is how these debates tend to always favor the modern player without exploring the context. "Bob Cousy sucked! Couldn't even dribble with his left!" Guess what, if Allen Iverson or Kyrie Irving were born in 1935, they ain't dribbling with their left either. Cousy is an all-time great player, regardless of the fact that a 16 year old modern PG prospect is a better player in a vacuum. Cousy innovated the game far more than some modern player who profited from the techniques Cousy and players of past eras innovated. Someone like Apa always retardedly assumes that you could just throw a modern athlete's DNA back in time and he's the same.

We can never know who really is better between players born a decade or more apart. Their primes will never overlap enough to make a reasonable judgement.

Stop making shit up. I never said todays players are better genetically.

My main argument is accessibility. Players who dominate in an era where the sport is virtually everywhere by virture have defeated better competition. Its not even the skillset and physicallity that todays players are clearly better at...Its the fact that they go through challenges far more than your average 80s players.

[DAF86]

This is another wrong idea you have. New skills can be learned, especially more so today with how efficient modern training techniques are. There's nothing intrinsically limiting a Pete Sampras from adapting to a modern style provided he was young enough. By the time of that Safin video you always post, Pete was about 30, which was ancient in tennis in those days. No time to adapt at that point. This would be like saying in 2014 that Tim Duncan (let's say he retired in 2007 at 31) would be a subpar big because he was too post-reliant as the game became perimeter oriented and he was too slow-footed to step out and switch on modern pick-and-roll centric modern offense. But we saw Duncan's adaptation first hand. He lost weight. He developed his spot up jumper more. He relied more on movement within the offense to get fed than just posting up every time down. His metrics confirmed in 2014 that he was still one of the league's top 10 players.

This retarded idea is also used by Michael Jordan detractors. I do believe that the mythology of Jordan is overblown, but people think since perimeter defenders of his day weren't as long and athletic as today, Jordan would somehow be reduced to a 2nd tier all-star. :lol Jordan wouldn't have any problem going off on any perimeter player, from Kawhi Leonard to Doug McDermott. And knowing his pathological work ethic, he's probably one of the best 3 point shooters in the league today. It would be his and Lebron's league. Jordan would be superior to Durant, Harden, Leonard, etc.

What part of I'm not using any of that arguing angle didn't you understand? Yeah, in today's tennis, Sampras probably wouldn't do serve and volley. We still would need to see just how effective of a baseline game he could have developed, tbh.

[midnightpulp]

Hey, don't look at me bro. I have Chamberlain as my second best NBA player of all-time. I have Bird and Magic on my top 5, or close to it. Russell on my top 10. Heck, I would need to recount my all-time great list, but I think I have Oscar Robertson top 10 too, and Moses Malone pretty damn close.

I understand the difference between eras, and that's why despite knowing that a guy like Safin would probably beat a guy like Rod Laver pretty easily, I still put Laver top 5 on my all-time tennis players list, and Safin is nowhere close to that. You have to respect eras and how some guys dominated theirs. That's why ambchang, and you, need to respect the level of dominance guys like Nadal and Djokovic are displaying.

I do. I just don't believe in trying to compare these players to Sampras or Borg or Laver, whoever. We have no clue if a 1950 born Roger Federer's success would translate to the 70's and vice versa. All we can definitely say is that these players are the best players of the past 15 years. That's it. I'm drawn into this kind of debate because it tends to be heavily biased, usually with insults (not you, but we know who), toward past players who had nowhere the same luxuries of today's players. I would destroy Plato on a science test if he were transported directly here, but I have nowhere near the raw intellect he has, and if you gave him a year or two, he probably breezes his way to PHD. Same with an athlete. Transport Jesse Owens here, we know he'd lose to Bolt (but only by a step). Give him a year, he possibly beats Bolt.

That said, there are some sports/positions where this idea breaks down, sports that are heavily reliant on specific body types. A great defensive lineman from 1940 has no chance at ever making the NFL. Too undersized, obviously, and if he gained the extra weight, it probably wouldn't help since he wouldn't be used to that frame. Modern lineman are fat asses from the time they're toddlers. But a Unitas could adapt if young enough. He was 6'1" (they measured in bare feet back then, so he's probably 6'3" per modern NFL measurements), so tall enough, and had a great arm and football IQ. But you'd have people today saying he'd be no better than a HS QB. Maybe at first, but Unitas would leave him in the dust in a year, just like Plato would leave me in the dust.

[midnightpulp]

Stop making shit up. I never said todays players are better genetically.

My main argument is accessibility. Players who dominate in an era where the sport is virtually everywhere by virture have defeated better competition. Its not even the skillset and physicallity that todays players are clearly better at...Its the fact that they go through challenges far more than your average 80s players.

:lol What "challenges?" AAU basketball where they basically play no defense? The high school game is essentially dead now, since players don't take it seriously, preferring to focus on AAU because that's where all the exposure is. In the 80's, high school basketball rivalries used to be blood feuds, with atmospheres more intense than NBA games. Now players are all friends with each since they grow up playing at the same camps and take it easy when they matchup in AAU tournaments so every player gets their "moments" in order to impress scouts. Nor do they stay long enough in college to experience the level of pressure during March Madness. They're one and done. It used to be a touted prospect was the centerpiece of a national title contender for at least 3 years, and the pressure would mount every year. Now NCAA basketball is treated as an inconvenient speed bump on the way to NBA cash.

Modern NBA players are babies who avoid challenges, because they're not used to them, which is why you're seeing all this superteam bullshit.

And again, yes, you do imply modern athletes are basically superheroes at some fundamental physiological level. "Ooooh, Aaron Gordon jumped over a muppet! Imagine an 80's player doing that." Any 80's player with a >36 vert could do it, and there were many of them.

[apalisoc_9]

Here we go again with the silly BS that Modern players are babies.

You do realize the difference in athletisicm and skillset is due to these kids having a relentless amount of discipline.

Its takes thousands of hours to master a craft and it takes discipline to abide by dietary rules that has allowed these players to develop into wherw they are now.

That takes a lot of mental fortitude.

[midnightpulp]

Here we go again with the silly BS that Modern players are babies.

You do realize the difference in athletisicm and skillset is due to these kids having a relentless amount of discipline.

Its takes thousands of hours to master a craft and it takes discipline to abide by dietary rules that has allowed these players to develop into wherw they are now.

That takes a lot of mental fortitude.

You're telling me past athletes didn't have the same discipline? They spent the same time in the weight room, same time training, same time working on their skills. They likely did it less effectively back then, though. Bird had to teach himself his mechanics, while modern players are hand held by coaches and trainers starting at very young ages.

[ambchang]

For the same reason there is an increase on World population.



Because there are more players than ever.



The "changing genes" part isn't something I came up with; it is in the video. The guy with the glasses and that studied this in depth was the one who said it.

The first two points are totally part of context and environment then.

The genetics one was explained by mid.

[ambchang]

When did I say you said it? Although, if you think that's not the case, then you could have said something instead of playing along with midnightpulp when he said it, tbh.

So I didn’t. Thanks for admitting you can’t distinguish between people.

[ambchang]

Well, that's my entire point too. I'm not saying Nadal is better than Sampras because of some subjective predilection of one style of play over the other. In fact, I have already said I liked Sampras, more than I like Nadal. But it's just that Nadal has Sampras beat on the vast majority of objective metrics.

I'm not saying Nadal is better than Sampras because with his style of play he would punish Sampras' backhand relentlessly and he would get passing shot after passing shot when Pete came to the net. No, I'm saying Nadal is better because he has more GS, more master Series and a better lifetime winning %. Simple as that. I'm not comparing eras, I'm not getting into subjective arguments. I'm just stating facts. You are the ones doing what you say you shouldn't do by comparing eras and coming up with subjective, totally unprovable comments such as "this era is weaker than the previous one" and "today's tennis has a shallow talent pool".

The increase in technical ability is something we all agreed to, so that’s a moot point. It’s around the concept of dominance. Which i contend is the lack of new talent while you believe is definitive proof of their greatness.

Jabbar dominated in the 70s like nobody else not because he was that great, but because aba diluted the talent.

It’s comical how apo is speaking out of both sides of his mouth when he denigrates Jordan’s competition in the 90s to say lebron’s the goat but ignored the entire point in tennis.

[ambchang]

Hey, don't look at me bro. I have Chamberlain as my second best NBA player of all-time. I have Bird and Magic on my top 5, or close to it. Russell on my top 10. Heck, I would need to recount my all-time great list, but I think I have Oscar Robertson top 10 too, and Moses Malone pretty damn close.

I understand the difference between eras, and that's why despite knowing that a guy like Safin would probably beat a guy like Rod Laver pretty easily, I still put Laver top 5 on my all-time tennis players list, and Safin is nowhere close to that. You have to respect eras and how some guys dominated theirs. That's why ambchang, and you, need to respect the level of dominance guys like Nadal and Djokovic are displaying.

Now you are just being inconsistent. You think bird and magic can dominate going head to head with even Durant?

[DAF86]

So I didn’t. Thanks for admitting you can’t distinguish between people.

Which part of "when did I say you said it" you didn't understand?

[DAF86]

Now you are just being inconsistent. You think bird and magic can dominate going head to head with even Durant?

No, but since Magic and Bird dominated their era like Durant hasn't dominated his, I have Bird and Magic ahead of him. This is totally consistent with my point, if you actually read it carefully and pay attention.

[ambchang]

Which part of "when did I say you said it" you didn't understand?


Yeah, the problem is what criteria you use to determine that context. If you say retarded shit like "today's talent pool is more limited than 20 years ago" then you are not providing context, you are saying retarded shit.

Yeah, you clearly didn’t.

[ambchang]

No, but since Magic and Bird dominated their era like Durant hasn't dominated his, I have Bird and Magic ahead of him. This is totally consistent with my point, if you actually read it carefully and pay attention.

So russel’s the goat and Cousy > duncan. Got it.

[DAF86]

Yeah, you clearly didn’t.

That "you" wasn't directed to you specifically. It was a generalization, maybe I should have said "if one says" instead of "if you say" to make it more clear.

[DAF86]

So russel’s the goat and Cousy > duncan. Got it.

If basketball was an individual sport I would probably believe Russell is the GOAT, tbh. Since it isn't, I don't.

[ambchang]

If basketball was an individual sport I would probably believe Russell is the GOAT, tbh. Since it isn't, I don't.

Then the Celtics is the greatest team ever.

[DAF86]

Then the Celtics is the greatest team ever.

Yeah, could be. They are definitely up there. They never won 72/73 games on a single season though.

That's where the context you talk about comes to play. But it has to be reasonable context. Pulling the "lack of competition" argument when there are only 8 teams on a league is valid. Saying there's a lack of competition when there are more competitors than ever is not.

[140]

Quality>quantity, we've gone over this before tbh son

[DAF86]

Quality>quantity, we've gone over this before tbh son

Tell me how do you quantify quality.

[ambchang]

Yeah, could be. They are definitely up there. They never won 72/73 games on a single season though.

That's where the context you talk about comes to play. But it has to be reasonable context. Pulling the "lack of competition" argument when there are only 8 teams on a league is valid. Saying there's a lack of competition when there are more competitors than ever is not.

How is there more competition than ever? The sport is becoming prohibitively expensive to enter and barriers of entry is high. One of my previous staffs daughter is on her way to turning pro and he admitted that there’s little chance because the costs of training is extremely high and the time commitments from the parents is ridiculous. And Even if she did make it she won’t make a decent living unless she makes it to top 50 in the world. There’s little chance she’d make it that high.

[koriwhat]

Can you imagine this nigga trying to win against Peak Djoker, Nadal, Fed, Wawarinka, Murray etc

https://www.thecoli.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/mjlol.png

i can't imagine any dude watching tennis to begin with...

[DAF86]

How is there more competition than ever?

Because the number of professional tennis players is at an all-time high right now.


The sport is becoming prohibitively expensive to enter and barriers of entry is high. One of my previous staffs daughter is on her way to turning pro and he admitted that there’s little chance because the costs of training is extremely high and the time commitments from the parents is ridiculous. And Even if she did make it she won’t make a decent living unless she makes it to top 50 in the world. There’s little chance she’d make it that high.

:lmao

An unkown 100 player makes a better living than the average working folk.

[ambchang]

Because the number of professional tennis players is at an all-time high right now.



:lmao

An unkown 100 player makes a better living than the average working folk.

High number doesn’t mean high quality. The barrier of entry is getting higher and higher with more advanced training and nutrition as less and less people can afford it. Those who made it in aren’t necessarily of the best quality.

And making an Average living for a few years is a lot worse than making an average living for a few decades.

Btw, a friend of mine was a pro in the 90s and ranked in the hundreds for two years. The only reason he can get there is because his family is loaded which allowed him to practice everyday or hours and not do anything else.

[DAF86]

High number doesn’t mean high quality. The barrier of entry is getting higher and higher with more advanced training and nutrition as less and less people can afford it. Those who made it in aren’t necessarily of the best quality.

A totally subjective and unproven argument.


And making an Average living for a few years is a lot worse than making an average living for a few decades.

Btw, a friend of mine was a pro in the 90s and ranked in the hundreds for two years. The only reason he can get there is because his family is loaded which allowed him to practice everyday or hours and not do anything else.

If you made it to the top 100 in professional tennis you aren't going poor any time soon, tbh. Many of those players get jobs in the tennis academies of their country, or as coaches, or as tennis commentators, etc.

[spurraider21]

Then the Celtics is the greatest team ever.
in a league with 8 times. when there are more teams, it gets more difficult. and iirc on the previous page he argued the talent pool is deeper now as there are more players on the circuit. so its not an exact parallel

[ambchang]

A totally subjective and unproven argument.



If you made it to the top 100 in professional tennis you aren't going poor any time soon, tbh. Many of those players get jobs in the tennis academies of their country, or as coaches, or as tennis commentators, etc.

Of course these are subjective measures. If you want to count the number of grand slams (and pros) one, then Djoker isn't in the top 5. If he is, then it becomes curiously odd that three of the top 5 players ever would all play together when one of them was clearly not the best player even in his own time.

[ambchang]

in a league with 8 times. when there are more teams, it gets more difficult. and iirc on the previous page he argued the talent pool is deeper now as there are more players on the circuit. so its not an exact parallel

Which is not the case. The barrier of entry is higher. There are more centers in the NBA today, doesn't mean that there are better centers than the NBA had in the 90s.