Another angle on comparing tennis greats (with a pretty chart)

[Jelenafan]

My apologies, Jelenafan. I will serve my penance by creating a shrine to Holger Rune.

A monument will do, take this as inspiration:

 

[Kieran]

Now I didn’t know where to put this but it probably fits here since it describes clearly why the Big 3 were able to accumulate and dominate slams in an unprecedented way.

It doesn’t mention that the number is seeds at slams was increased to 32 from 16, which further eased their passage, and makes it more difficult to compare the modern era with the ones just before.

 

[El Dude]

Good stuff, Kieran. I'm really mixed on this. I like a greater diversity of courts and even wish we still had a few carpet tournaments for novelty (hey, why not indoor wood?!), but I also can see the logic of slowing things down. But it can go too far, as we've seen plenty of 5+ hour baseline wars of attrition.

Anyhow, I see it more that the default has become baseline, but some players can still employ serve & volley to great effect.

 

[Jelenafan]

Good stuff, Kieran. I'm really mixed on this. I like a greater diversity of courts and even wish we still had a few carpet tournaments for novelty (hey, why not indoor wood?!), but I also can see the logic of slowing things down. But it can go too far, as we've seen plenty of 5+ hour baseline wars of attrition.

Anyhow, I see it more that the default has become baseline, but some players can still employ serve & volley to great effect.

I talked about this with Fiero;

More than changes to surfaces, strings & types of balls used, but especially string tech.

Polyester strings or hybrid polyester strings, pros generate both more power, control & spin. The serve & volleyer is severely handicapped.

Think of World War I and trench warfare, at that juncture the tech made defensive warfare trump offensive.

Is a battle of grinding baseline attrition more skillful than S-V? A subjective call, look at ping pong S-V grass court from the 70’s & early 80’s , I don’t know if modern fans would prefer that or not.

 

[El Dude]

A monument will do, take this as inspiration:

View attachment 10102

Should we call him the little Numenorean?

 

[atttomole]

Now I didn’t know where to put this but it probably fits here since it describes clearly why the Big 3 were able to accumulate and dominate slams in an unprecedented way.

It doesn’t mention that the number is seeds at slams was increased to 32 from 16, which further eased their passage, and makes it more difficult to compare the modern era with the ones just before.

Yeah, it became so much easier to win than during Sampras’ time? Sampras would have gobbled up slams if he had played in the big 3 era.

 

[Jelenafan]

Should we call him the little Numenorean?

Didn’t hubris sink them? ; )

 

[El Dude]

Didn’t hubris sink them? ; )

Pretty much. They were deceived by Sauron and challenged the Valar, sailing west towards Valinor. Their fleet--and island home--was sunk. But they left cool stuff behind, and some survived as the leadership of Gondor and Arnor.

And yes, I'm a big Tolkien nerd. I've actually read the Silmarillion...two or three times.

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, it became so much easier to win than during Sampras’ time? Sampras would have gobbled up slams if he had played in the big 3 era.

I actually think Sampras is a guy who wouldn't have been much different during the current era. I mean, I suppose he might have faired a bit better at Roland Garros, but still don't think he would have won it - not with Rafa and Novak, or even Roger. But his hard and grass game would have translated just fine and he would have reduced the Slam count of all of the Big Three (and who knows if Andy would have won any with Pete added to the mix).

Anyhow, I don't think you can really translate era to era all that well - I've argued that the best way to look at it is comparing relative dominance (that is, how dominant a player was in their era vs. how dominant another player was in his). For one, the context of the game has changed. Secondly, you don't even have the modern tour structure with specific Masters and a big title schedule of mandatory events until 1990.

So you can compare how dominant, say, Borg was in his peak of 1978-80 vs. Roger in 2004-07, but you can't really compare them as players because the context was so different. Borg's absolute peak--especially 1979-80--matches up with the best of almost anyone, except maybe a year or two in Roger's and Novak's careers, and Laver's 1969 and Mac's 1984. His relative weakness on hard courts kept him from having a true candidate for "Greatest Season of All Time." That is, his best years were--like Rafa and Lendl--top 10-15, but not top 5. Sampras' greatest seasons were more top 20-25, because he was (relative to other greats) crap on clay.

But imagining Sampras in the Big Three era, and I think he and Roger would have had epic battles. Roger was a better all-courter and I think would have had the edge on hards, but Pete was at least Roger's equal on grass. I also think he would have faired better than Roger against Rafa, at least on grass and hards. Pete was stronger minded and more tactical; Roger's main fault with Rafa--as Rafa himself said--was tactics. He didn't adjust, couldn't figure out how to counter-act Rafa's approach. And I think Roger's arrogance also played a factor: in the early years, it was almost like he couldn't fathom that Rafa was a different breed than the Roddicks and Hewitts of the world. How could anyone possibly be my equal? As for Pete vs. Novak, that's the hardest to imagine, though I think Pete would have had the clear edge on grass, but Novak the edge on hards and would have dominated him on clay.

I sort of like this narrative: In a way, Roger was the culmination of Open Era tennis - the result of 35+ years of tennis development, and as close to a perfect player as you could imagine. Agassi, much more than Pete and before Roger, transitioned from the game of the 90s to the game of the 2000s..his style just worked that way, which allowed him to stay relevant into his 30s. Rafa, and then Novak, upset the order and--more so than Roger--ushered in the new paradigm.

In other words, Agassi bridged the two eras, Roger was the pinnacle of the previous era with traits of the new, and Rafa/Novak were the exemplars and leaders of the new paradigm.

One thing that is noteworthy to me and factors in is the relatively scarcity of talent among players born in the 1990s. You see Djokovic/Murray born in 1987 and then no true greats born until Sinner in 2001. In other words, Lost and Next Gens. Next Gen was better than Lost, and the new generation of Sinner, Alcaraz, and even the second tier, seems to be the best generation since the great Nadal-Djokovic group born in the mid-80s. So in a way, it took over a decade for the tour to catch up to the "Nadalkovic Era" of tennis...Roger was good enough to adjust somewhat and hang with them, but the rest of the tour wasn't. Until Sinner/Alcaraz who, in a way, combined the best of various elements of the Big Three and took the baton from there.

 

[Jelenafan]

Pretty much. They were deceived by Sauron and challenged the Valar, sailing west towards Valinor. Their fleet--and island home--was sunk. But they left cool stuff behind, and some survived as the leadership of Gondor and Arnor.

And yes, I'm a big Tolkien nerd. I've actually read the Silmarillion...two or three times.

What’s your take on the Amazon Tolkien series, IMO it’s getting better per this 2nd season, though their take on Numenor is a little less grandiose than the image I had of those near god-like humans.

Back to tennis, Little Holger has a golden opportunity to get going at Wimbledon, this time can’t fault getting a top seed early in the R16, as happened at both the AO ( Sinner) & the FO (Musetti) , but at a certain point he just has to breakthrough regardless.

Remind myself he’s top 10 & only just turned 22. Create aggressive opportunity as opposed to just trying to force it. ****Construction.*****. Ain’t sexy but it works.

Nevertheless , less flash & more meat & potatoes I say.

 

[Jelenafan]

Yeah, it became so much easier to win than during Sampras’ time? Sampras would have gobbled up slams if he had played in the big 3 era.

That’s an interesting question, but it’s like comparing, say, in the NFL a QB in the early 80’s with the “protected” QBs of today.

Not sure if those QB’s ( such as Joe Montana, Dan Marino, Joe Theisman, etc) you can quantify if they were better or worse than the QB’s of the recent past ( Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees)

IMO Each group of athletes thrived within their era and with a different set of parameters.

Ditto 9O’s Pete Sampras….

 

[El Dude]

What’s your take on the Amazon Tolkien series, IMO it’s getting better per this 2nd season, though their take on Numenor is a little less grandiose than the image I had of those near god-like humans.

I think it is a mockery of Tolkien. The original trilogy was great - Tolkien would have hated it, but it captures a nice atmosphere and are just beautiful films. The Hobbit trilogy was pretty bad - it was too long and got lost in the CGI - though had a few nice moments. But Rings of Power is...soul-less. It feels like Tolkien fan fic made by and for "Modern Audiences" with no clue of Tolkien's mythos.

Back to tennis, Little Holger has a golden opportunity to get going at Wimbledon, this time can’t fault getting a top seed early in the R16, as happened at both the AO ( Sinner) & the FO (Musetti) , but at a certain point he just has to breakthrough regardless.

Remind myself he’s top 10 & only just turned 22. Create aggressive opportunity as opposed to just trying to force it. ****Construction.*****. Ain’t sexy but it works.

Nevertheless , less flash & more meat & potatoes I say.

Keep hoping, my friend. I admire your steadfastness, but am pretty much off the train - at least in terms of him being a special player, or in the very upper echelon of the game. He reminds me a bit of Tomas Berdych, who won a Masters back in 2005 just after turning 20, then never won another big title. But after that title, he took a few years to fully mature and had a nice seven year run in the top 10 from 2010-16, or age 25-31.

I think Rune will have a better career than Berdych in that I'd be surprised if he didn't win at least a few more Masters, maybe a Slam or two. Of course he isn't playing in the heart of the Big Four era like poor Berdych. But the point being, if you projected Berdych after his Masters title at age 20, you'd think he'd win a bunch of big titles. Similarly with Rune winning a Masters at 19: definitely promising, but if he were going to become a great we'd have seen more by now. Best-case scenario is that he's one of the best of the "second tier" - a solid tier down from Sinner, Alcaraz, and hopefully Fonseca, but more in the next group with guys like Mensik, Fils, Draper, maybe Tien, Shelton, etc.

 

[Kieran]

I think it is a mockery of Tolkien. The original trilogy was great - Tolkien would have hated it, but it captures a nice atmosphere and are just beautiful films. The Hobbit trilogy was pretty bad - it was too long and got lost in the CGI - though had a few nice moments. But Rings of Power is...soul-less. It feels like Tolkien fan fic made by and for "Modern Audiences" with no clue of Tolkien's mythos.

That’s a very interesting take. I first read the LOTR aged 18 and have lost count of how many times I read it. Even the appendices are masterpieces, the story of Aragorn’s last days is epic. There’s good reason why TV shows and movies should not make up their own stories: Tolkien was a genius. He was telling a story and he didn’t care if people liked it, or even read it. TV writers are trying to please an audience while also including everyone who’s watching in the fricking thing they’re making. That’s tasteless.

His writing was pure, his ability to create characters we’ll never forget was fairly incredible, he understood drama, there was humour, there was real wisdom. He understood mythology. You’d know this stuff far more than me. I read the Silmarillion but I’d like to read more of the legendary tales, if you could recommend some books.

The Hobbit was typical of the modern problem: franchises. It was awkward to watch, eventually, but the LOTR trilogy, for all its modern concessions, was perfect, and if anything, too short.

I actually think Sampras is a guy who wouldn't have been much different during the current era….

With this kind of comparison we also have to factor in that if Pete played in the Big 3 era, he would have grown up learning the game differently. I think at the French he’d have been something like Roger, trying to adapt his natural instincts to take an opportunity, if one came along. The FO would have seemed more accessible to him then.

I often wonder about things in reverse, too: if the 3 were playing in the 90’s, Rafa and Novak aren’t going to 5 with Pete at Wimbledon - but I’d have to extended to them the same courtesy, that they’d have learned the game differently. On the faster surfaces, Pete was very oppressive, even to players with great returns.

In the end, they’re all arrogant, greedy alpha giants, and it’s fascinating to imagine them facing each other.

I really admire the way Pete left the sport, the same way he played it: no fuss, low-key, pure class. He broke his silence a while back to say that his wife had ovarian cancer, which is brutal. Very sad, but she’s battling it and hopefully she wins that battle.

With regards to Bjorn being downgraded above for lack of success on hards, sure, he lost 3 USO finals on that surface, but I think it was a relatively new surface that suited the Americans better. But even now I still watch the fifth set between Mac and Connors in the semi in 1980 and curse Jimmy for choking. Bjorn would have done him in the final like he did him in the semi in ‘81.

At the time, that New York atmosphere, the match played under poor quality floodlights with airplanes flying low and an interactive crowd, was considered to be as much or more a hindrance to him. We used to be amazed when we watched fans in the stands drinking beer and yelling at players. It was so strange, and I think he was less suited to that recent arrival to the sport. The great what-if with him, of course, (what if he’d persevered and gotten a second wind) is still the greatest tennis mystery of all…

 

[Federberg]

think it is a mockery of Tolkien. The original trilogy was great - Tolkien would have hated it, but it captures a nice atmosphere and are just beautiful films. The Hobbit trilogy was pretty bad - it was too long and got lost in the CGI - though had a few nice moments. But Rings of Power is...soul-less. It feels like Tolkien fan fic made by and for "Modern Audiences" with no clue of Tolkien's mythos.

the series is an abomination.. Filled with woke nonsense. Tolkien would have more than hated it. Somehow they did more violence to Tolkien than Disney has done to Marvel and Star Wars.. I never imagined that was possible. True vandalism. Ugh! I agree the LOTR trilogy films were actually decent. No Tom Bombadil pissed me off. Hobbit trilogies were a cash grab. I think they somehow made Galadriel too powerful, but at the same time got Gandalf just about right.

 

[Kieran]

the series is an abomination.. Filled with woke nonsense. Tolkien would have more than hated it. Somehow they did more violence to Tolkien than Disney has done to Marvel and Star Wars.. I never imagined that was possible. True vandalism. Ugh! I agree the LOTR trilogy films were actually decent. No Tom Bombadil pissed me off. Hobbit trilogies were a cash grab. I think they somehow made Galadriel too powerful, but at the same time got Gandalf just about right.

Tom Bombadil, what a character! Desperately missed in the film. Amazing creation by Tolkien!

 

[Jelenafan]

the series is an abomination.. Filled with woke nonsense. Tolkien would have more than hated it. Somehow they did more violence to Tolkien than Disney has done to Marvel and Star Wars.. I never imagined that was possible. True vandalism. Ugh! I agree the LOTR trilogy films were actually decent. No Tom Bombadil pissed me off. Hobbit trilogies were a cash grab. I think they somehow made Galadriel too powerful, but at the same time got Gandalf just about right.

Per Star Wars; How the hell did Disney hire the original stars (Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, & Mark Hamilton) and not give them a single scene together?

 

[Federberg]

Per Star Wars; How the hell did Disney hire the original stars (Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, & Mark Hamilton) and not give them a single scene together?

It's the entire philosophy of this woke nonsense. They were there less as a tribute to their prior work, than to show that newer is better. Their heads are so up their own asses they don't comprehend that they're ruining the entire franchise. They don't respect the story, that's why Snow White can be Latina, and an untrained woman can pick up a light sabre and kick the ass of a man who's been practicing his entire life

 

[El Dude]

Not to get too side-tracked but, hey, it is my f-ing nerd thread, and we can nerd out in another way ;-). Anyhow, nice to know there's some Tolkien fans here. I probably haven't mentioned this here, but I'm a bit of a writer - I've been working on a big epic fantasy series for years and years, and Tolkien is (of course) one of my main sources of inspiration (though my story is quite different), with Ursula K Le Guin a close second. I have a 220K word manuscript gathering dust, and several sequels in various stages, but still haven't had the balls to try to get it published, though.

LotR film trilogy...I'm mixed on Tom Bombadil being excluded. I'm not sure if they could have done him well. Maybe someone like Robin Williams could have pulled it off, but we're talking about one of the great mysteries of Middle-earth: Who/what is Tom Bombadil? I'm not even sure Tolkien knew, but speculation runs from Iluvatar the One God, a demigod Maia, some sort of Middle-earth version of Santa Claus, to Tolkien himself. But I think the point was to keep the mystery. Tolkien famously disliked allegory and didn't like to force any particular interpretation on the reader. But I especially love the element that Bombadil refused the ring - he was theoretically the only being capable of resisting its temptation.

Anyhow, I re-watch the extended LotR trilogy probably every year or two. I personally think Tolkien would have disliked even the original films - he was a luddite curmudgeon, and would have hated the "Hollywoodification" of it - but I actually think Peter Jackson did about as good as humanly possible. There were a few parts I didn't like (e.g. Galadriel's goofy freakout), but the visuals and atmosphere and cast are all great.

But the Rings of Power...I mean, come on. There is literally nothing I liked about it. Actually, the Galadriel actress was really good in a horror flick Saint Maud, but terrible in Rings of Power ("I have a tempest in me!"). The silliness of forced diversity - the hobbits looking like a troupe straight out of a Brooklyn coffee shop, with every possible ethnicity on display. Orc children, elves that are too petty and human, the terrible usage of space (somehow they manage to make ME seem tiny), the confusing time line, etc etc. It is bad in every conceivable way, to the point that it almost seems a deliberately mockery of "dead white man" Tolkien's great work.

Star Wars...I just can't watch any of the newer stuff. It just feels ruined for me. It is a case of every single movie or show diminishing the franchise as a whole, since the original trilogy. That isn't entirely fair, as there were one or two things later on that were good, but the total effect seems to be that of taking a great, generational mythic story and diminishing it with each new offering. Good old franchising. The prequel trilogy was amazing visually, with Lucas' imagination on full display, but the Anakin/Padme romance (and Anakin's acting) killed it, and it also felt a bit soul-less. Don't get me started on the Force Awakens trilogy, starting with Rey as the ultimate "Mary Sue," as Federberg pointed out (the problem isn't a strong female lead...its one who is instantly perfect in every way, with no texture to her personality or narrative arc). And yeah, they seemed to deliberately diminish both Luke and Han Solo.

MCU...I sort of burned out on it after the Thanos stuff, haven't watched much since. I'm curious what they'll do with the X-Men, though, as I was a huge fan as a kid back in the 80s/early 90s, during the heyday of Chris Claremont's run. I must admit, the Fantastic Four film looks pretty fun. Anyhow, the best recent superhero film I've seen was The Batman with Robert Pattinson...that was surprisingly good, and I liked the noir vibe.

 

[Jelenafan]

Not to get too side-tracked but, hey, it is my f-ing nerd thread, and we can nerd out in another way ;-). Anyhow, nice to know there's some Tolkien fans here. I probably haven't mentioned this here, but I'm a bit of a writer - I've been working on a big epic fantasy series for years and years, and Tolkien is (of course) one of my main sources of inspiration (though my story is quite different), with Ursula K Le Guin a close second. I have a 220K word manuscript gathering dust, and several sequels in various stages, but still haven't had the balls to try to get it published, though.

LotR film trilogy...I'm mixed on Tom Bombadil being excluded. I'm not sure if they could have done him well. Maybe someone like Robin Williams could have pulled it off, but we're talking about one of the great mysteries of Middle-earth: Who/what is Tom Bombadil? I'm not even sure Tolkien knew, but speculation runs from Iluvatar the One God, a demigod Maia, some sort of Middle-earth version of Santa Claus, to Tolkien himself. But I think the point was to keep the mystery. Tolkien famously disliked allegory and didn't like to force any particular interpretation on the reader. But I especially love the element that Bombadil refused the ring - he was theoretically the only being capable of resisting its temptation.

Anyhow, I re-watch the extended LotR trilogy probably every year or two. I personally think Tolkien would have disliked even the original films - he was a luddite curmudgeon, and would have hated the "Hollywoodification" of it - but I actually think Peter Jackson did about as good as humanly possible. There were a few parts I didn't like (e.g. Galadriel's goofy freakout), but the visuals and atmosphere and cast are all great.

But the Rings of Power...I mean, come on. There is literally nothing I liked about it. Actually, the Galadriel actress was really good in a horror flick Saint Maud, but terrible in Rings of Power ("I have a tempest in me!"). The silliness of forced diversity - the hobbits looking like a troupe straight out of a Brooklyn coffee shop, with every possible ethnicity on display. Orc children, elves that are too petty and human, the terrible usage of space (somehow they manage to make ME seem tiny), the confusing time line, etc etc. It is bad in every conceivable way, to the point that it almost seems a deliberately mockery of "dead white man" Tolkien's great work.

Star Wars...I just can't watch any of the newer stuff. It just feels ruined for me. It is a case of every single movie or show diminishing the franchise as a whole, since the original trilogy. That isn't entirely fair, as there were one or two things later on that were good, but the total effect seems to be that of taking a great, generational mythic story and diminishing it with each new offering. Good old franchising. The prequel trilogy was amazing visually, with Lucas' imagination on full display, but the Anakin/Padme romance (and Anakin's acting) killed it, and it also felt a bit soul-less. Don't get me started on the Force Awakens trilogy, starting with Rey as the ultimate "Mary Sue," as Federberg pointed out (the problem isn't a strong female lead...its one who is instantly perfect in every way, with no texture to her personality or narrative arc). And yeah, they seemed to deliberately diminish both Luke and Han Solo.

MCU...I sort of burned out on it after the Thanos stuff, haven't watched much since. I'm curious what they'll do with the X-Men, though, as I was a huge fan as a kid back in the 80s/early 90s, during the heyday of Chris Claremont's run. I must admit, the Fantastic Four film looks pretty fun. Anyhow, the best recent superhero film I've seen was The Batman with Robert Pattinson...that was surprisingly good, and I liked the noir vibe.

Per Star Wars I don’t mind the Andor TV series. There are some interesting developments there.

 

[El Dude]

Per Star Wars I don’t mind the Andor TV series. There are some interesting developments there.

Yeah, I've heard that's good. I haven't watched it, mainly because I tend to dislike prequels.