Reply With Quote
Heck, forget about Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Look at him vs Safin, Hewitt and Rod .
These are the guys that Federer dominated throughout his career and that Sampras' fans call "weak compe ion".
Can you imagine this trying to win against Peak Djoker, Nadal, Fed, Wawarinka, Murray etc
Heck, forget about Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Look at him vs Safin, Hewitt and Rod .
These are the guys that Federer dominated throughout his career and that Sampras' fans call "weak compe ion".
New Ranking
Fed
Nadal
Djoker.
Irrelevant.
Just for comparation sake, let's look at Federer against Sampras' compe ion:
What a ing masterclass, tbh.
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
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.
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
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.
Outdoor ping pong
More like a marathon the way Nadal plays, tbh.Outdoor ping pong
Thanks mid. That’s the entire point.
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.
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.
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...".
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.
And regardless of if the reason for improved athletes is related to genetics or not, the point still remains that compe ion is harder now than it was in previous eras. Whether it is for genetics, or technology, or an increase in talent pool, compe ion is tougher, both in quan y and quality. That is a fact that can't be denied, yet you and ambchang were trying to argue that unargable fact.
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
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 .
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 compe ion "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 compe ion, 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
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 in' 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 in' 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 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
Dude get this.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 in' 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 in' 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 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
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 up. I never claimed players today are genetically better.
How is there an increase in talent pool?
How is there increase in compe ion 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?
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.
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 ty 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.
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 in' 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.
Exactly, that's why the best way to compare players from different eras is to see how much they dominated theirs.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 compe ion "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 compe ion, 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
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
For the same reason there is an increase on World population.
Because there are more players than ever.How is there increase in compe ion when all the players get the same training nutrition and technology?
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.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?
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.
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".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
