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

[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 " you can't compare eras " card and then try to hype an era over the other with subjective claims of "compe iveness".

So the 60's Boston Celtics are the greatest NBA team of all-time? Tell my why they won 8 straight les 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 re edly 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 les 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 re edly 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 re ed 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. 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 les 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 re edly 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 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 compe ion. 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 re ed 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. 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 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 compe ion. 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.

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 le 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 bull .

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 for ude.

[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 for ude.

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 compe ion 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 re ed like "today's talent pool is more limited than 20 years ago" then you are not providing context, you are saying re ed .

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 compe ion" argument when there are only 8 teams on a league is valid. Saying there's a lack of compe ion when there are more compe ors than ever is not.

[140]

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

[DAF86]

Quality>quan y, 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 compe ion" argument when there are only 8 teams on a league is valid. Saying there's a lack of compe ion when there are more compe ors than ever is not.

How is there more compe ion 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.