Obsessed Winners, Are They Accepted in Tennis Culture?

[Murat Baslamisli]

...aaand years later, "practice revisited"


[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IdoCLk3kCo[/video]


:lolz::lolz:

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think, at the end of the day, it all comes down to the new cultural realities of the time, which I really hate. Example: In schools today (some, I guess), they do not keep score of sporting events, so that there is no "loser". Because apparently that affects the child "negatively". In Canada, the teachers are not allowed to give 0 as a mark, even though the worth of the test or the assignment might be just that.In the past (in my school days at least), when I got a bad mark, I was responsible and faced the music. Today, when a kid gets a bad grade, the parents go to the school to blame the teacher! Boy these kids will have a rude awakening when they go in the real world, get a job...
So , taking competition and personal accountability out of our culture, it is not surprising to see athletes that do not hate losing...it was someone else's fault in the first place.

Canada is becoming unbearable in that regard (I say this as someone who lives there). Have you read this:

http://www.cbc.ca/thisisthat/blog/2013/09/03/to-ensure-every-child-wins-ontario-athletic-association-removes-ball-from-soccer/

Yes..."No Ball" Soccer, to ensure that every child wins. Soccer...with no ball. You read that right.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I think, at the end of the day, it all comes down to the new cultural realities of the time, which I really hate. Example: In schools today (some, I guess), they do not keep score of sporting events, so that there is no "loser". Because apparently that affects the child "negatively". In Canada, the teachers are not allowed to give 0 as a mark, even though the worth of the test or the assignment might be just that.In the past (in my school days at least), when I got a bad mark, I was responsible and faced the music. Today, when a kid gets a bad grade, the parents go to the school to blame the teacher! Boy these kids will have a rude awakening when they go in the real world, get a job...
So , taking competition and personal accountability out of our culture, it is not surprising to see athletes that do not hate losing...it was someone else's fault in the first place.

Canada is becoming unbearable in that regard (I say this as someone who lives there). Have you read this:

http://www.cbc.ca/thisisthat/blog/2013/09/03/to-ensure-every-child-wins-ontario-athletic-association-removes-ball-from-soccer/

Yes..."No Ball" Soccer, to ensure that every child wins. Soccer...with no ball. You read that right.

I wanted to tear away my arm and throw it at the laptop....Where is this country going???

 

[I.Haychew]

Soccer has always been my favorite sport. Tennis has come second. Yet, growing up, my favorite athlete was Michael Jordan, even today. If you go to Youtube and hear former teammates, opponents and various Basketball greats talk about him, especially those who knew him best, one theme constantly pops up: the will to win.

Yeah, they'll bring up his athleticism, great defense, hard work, improvement, his mid range jumper, his improved post game, his dunking, etc... but more than anything, they talk about him being an obsessed winner. That's part of the reason why he is arguably the greatest player in the clutch, in any sport, period. His obsession in winning made him the hardest working, the hungriest, the best... It allowed him to maximize his talent.

And yet, as inspiring as all of this sounds, there is a "darker" side to Jordan. Despite being one of the most popular athletes in history, Jordan's qualities (beyond Basketball) weren't the kind of qualities we discuss in tennis players (ie: humble, funny, etc...). Most were in awe of him, and everyone had huge respect for his game, but Michael "the person" is not something you hear about often. There are stories of him berating teammates when they couldn't perform, even to the point of bullying. He was at times an a$$hole to opponents, and a trash talking machine. All you have to do is listen to his 2009 hall of fame speech. It's actually a pretty telling trip down the mind of the one of the greatest sportsmen ever.

If you have time to kill, watch these two videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9ZaudNTSeQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLzBMGXfK4c

Magic Johnson talks about how during the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona, he, Jordan, Pippen and Barkley would stay up till 5 in the morning playing cards because Jordan refused to leave the table until he won. In fact, that's part of the reason Jordan wanted to play Baseball. His obsession with winning led him to continuously set new challenges for himself, and he felt, at the time (1994) that he had nothing left to prove in Basketball.

If you listen to Jordan rivals like Reggie Miller talk about him, they all talk (in admiration) of his "win at all costs" attitude. That is not to be confused with shady or dirty tactics (that's Isiah Tomas' job), but anything that gave him an edge, Jordan did it. He was accused of "conning" the likes of Barkley, Ewing and Oakley, befriending them, softening them up, and then destroying them on the Bastkeball court...

Now, this isn't a history lesson about Michael Jordan. This is about Michael Jordan's mentality, and what it represented. A mentality that can transcend into every sport. In fact, most greats share it, to varying degrees. Ali, Tiger Woods, Jose Mourinho and others always shared some of these traits.

Which led me to thinking about tennis, and especially, today's game. By comparison, tennis today is "softer" than say, the NBA in the 80's/90's, Boxing, Soccer, and even tennis itself in the 80's. Of course, there is a difference in culture between different sports and that's fine. However, it seems to me that many of the above-mentioned traits, which in many ways, are considered qualities in other sports, would be frowned up in today's game. Players should be humble, gracious, give credit to the opponent all the time, play exactly by the book, act and talk a certain way... and to this I ask, why?

Why can't they be obsessed with winning, first and foremost? Why can't they ONLY be obsessed with winning? When Jordan did some of the things that gave him an edge, or Shaq and Barkley gave small elbows in the paint to establish their presence and intimidate opponents, they were praised for it. It was part of the game.

This isn't the case in tennis. Nadal is often criticized (and perhaps rightly so) for taking too much time between points, making players wait at the net...etc. Yet, someone like Jordan would probably praise him for doing little things that give him an edge.

I look at many top tennis players today, and I don't see this "winning is everything" attitude. There is an obvious example: Rafael Nadal. I saw videos of him playing video games, and you can see how competitive he is, even when doing something as minor. Recently, Novak has become somewhat similar, albeit more laid back. Hewitt in his day, was certainly another example. Federer is interesting, because you don't win as much as he did without having this mentality, even if he doesn't appear to be as intense as someone like Nadal or Djokovic. Ditto for Pete. And yet, ALL these players are criticized if they show signs of being sore losers, making arrogant comments, etc... I personally don't get it. The game could use a bit of spice. I want sore losers (not to be confused with excuse makers). I want players who would do anything that gives them an edge (not to be confused with downright illegal actions). I want players to be less friendly, and I want them to be able to speak up their minds without the sportsmanship police jumping on them.

I'm not saying tennis needs to turn into the 90's NBA. Different sports, different cultures, different times, etc... But I do think it's becoming a bit too idealistic, and it shows with the mentality of some of the players, and the fans too.

when it comes to who finds certain sports appealing, we are talking about very different demographics. In the United States, tennis is generally for people who fall into at least one or two of these categories: 1) more intellectual, 2) more refined, 3) wealthier (and by "wealthier" I mean among the most elite, such as northeast bankers), 4) more aesthetic, 5) more analytical, 6) more nerdy, and 7) less athletic. Most of these categories are "good" ones, but the fact that the likes of John Isner and especially Sam Querrey are among the most notable American tennis players shows that in America tennis is mostly a game for less athletic white geeks. Sounds brutal but it's just the honest truth, especially in the case of Querrey. Of course this isn't the case 100% of the time, but most of the time it is.

Culturally, because it is a game for the more polished and wealthier higher classes, tennis quite naturally adopts some very conservative tendencies in its cultural standards, as Broken alludes to. But some of these standards are not so much the result of refinement as they are feeble-mindedness and lack of assertive drive as compared to the culture in other sports.

In my opinion, Cali pretty well nailed it...particularly with the above statement.

 

[I.Haychew]

I think, at the end of the day, it all comes down to the new cultural realities of the time, which I really hate. Example: In schools today (some, I guess), they do not keep score of sporting events, so that there is no "loser". Because apparently that affects the child "negatively". In Canada, the teachers are not allowed to give 0 as a mark, even though the worth of the test or the assignment might be just that.In the past (in my school days at least), when I got a bad mark, I was responsible and faced the music. Today, when a kid gets a bad grade, the parents go to the school to blame the teacher! Boy these kids will have a rude awakening when they go in the real world, get a job...
So , taking competition and personal accountability out of our culture, it is not surprising to see athletes that do not hate losing...it was someone else's fault in the first place.

Crap like this is just insane! What's the world coming to?

 

[I.Haychew]

I think, at the end of the day, it all comes down to the new cultural realities of the time, which I really hate. Example: In schools today (some, I guess), they do not keep score of sporting events, so that there is no "loser". Because apparently that affects the child "negatively". In Canada, the teachers are not allowed to give 0 as a mark, even though the worth of the test or the assignment might be just that.In the past (in my school days at least), when I got a bad mark, I was responsible and faced the music. Today, when a kid gets a bad grade, the parents go to the school to blame the teacher! Boy these kids will have a rude awakening when they go in the real world, get a job...
So , taking competition and personal accountability out of our culture, it is not surprising to see athletes that do not hate losing...it was someone else's fault in the first place.

Canada is becoming unbearable in that regard (I say this as someone who lives there). Have you read this:

http://www.cbc.ca/thisisthat/blog/2013/09/03/to-ensure-every-child-wins-ontario-athletic-association-removes-ball-from-soccer/

Yes..."No Ball" Soccer, to ensure that every child wins. Soccer...with no ball. You read that right.

Why even bother taking the field? How 'bout this, instead?...
Kids can just stay at home and THINK about playing soccer...as long as they don't dare think about winning or losing.

 

[calitennis127]

Iverson's "Practice" monologue was an exercise in Socratic brilliance. It was utterly ingenious.

He was making a brilliantly profound argument that the procedures of institutions are largely dishonest formalities in which individual progress does not take place and is not fostered. Please name anyone who has been part of a corporation or a team and could not concede that there is at least some truth in this, even if they are among the most cluelessly optimistic buffoons you can find

He's not wrong in what he said. The way he went on about it was just hilarious.

It was, but over time it has become apparent that the interpretation of Iverson's rant was not so innocently frivolous. It has been held up as the model of a modern primadonna black athlete "just not getting it". It has been called immature, childish, etc. etc.

Of course, since pretty much everyone is more concerned with decorum and social convention, no one actually confronted the content of what Iverson was saying. What he was saying was that going to practice and doing push-ups with Larry Brown to warm up would not make Eric Snow capable of shooting outside of 12 feet or Dikembe Mutumbo an offensive threat.

This was an entirely rational and valid position, but because it challenged "the coach", it was summarily dismissed - not rationally, but temperamentally. "Stop being impertinent" was the reaction, not rational engagement.

 

[huntingyou]

MJ grew 4 inches from one year to the next after being cut the first time for Varsity. Not saying he willingly grew 4 inches.....actually maybe he did. Jordan was the ultimate competitor, consummate winner and borderline mentally unstable. Darth mentioned he was an egomaniac; sure, but I believe in his core he was always trying to prove himself.......that fueled him to go beyond 100%.

But let's not kid ourselves, Jordan had that Attitude because his talent allowed him to. Basically, he was so good and gifted that his drive gave him the edge and ultimately allowed him to become the greatest player and athlete in recorded history.

As far as the OP, it's all cultural and CONTEXT. First look at tennis ROOTS vs Basketball roots, the economic background of those who play each sport and there you have it. I think race has very little to do with it; mostly nurture over nature in this case.

As far as tennis players; they don't have it. Those who have a small dose of that drive that fueled Jordan are the ones winning all the slams and big tournaments. Rafa certainly qualifies as one and maybe his game makes it easier for us to notice since it's very physical (in tennis terms) and violent. The way he looks at his opponents during a match......yeah there is some Michael in there. No coincidence he is my favorite, I always look for Jordan in all athletes that I watch and although its impossible to match; there are glimpses out there.

 

[brokenshoelace]

MJ grew 4 inches from one year to the next after being cut the first time for Varsity. Not saying he willingly grew 4 inches.....actually maybe he did. Jordan was the ultimate competitor, consummate winner and borderline mentally unstable. Darth mentioned he was an egomaniac; sure, but I believe in his core he was always trying to prove himself.......that fueled him to go beyond 100%.

But let's not kid ourselves, Jordan had that Attitude because his talent allowed him to. Basically, he was so good and gifted that his drive gave him the edge and ultimately allowed him to become the greatest player and athlete in recorded history.

As far as the OP, it's all cultural and CONTEXT. First look at tennis ROOTS vs Basketball roots, the economic background of those who play each sport and there you have it. I think race has very little to do with it; mostly nurture over nature in this case.

As far as tennis players; they don't have it. Those who have a small dose of that drive that fueled Jordan are the ones winning all the slams and big tournaments. Rafa certainly qualifies as one and maybe his game makes it easier for us to notice since it's very physical (in tennis terms) and violent. The way he looks at his opponents during a match......yeah there is some Michael in there. No coincidence he is my favorite, I always look for Jordan in all athletes that I watch and although its impossible to match; there are glimpses out there.

Yeah, it's an important distinction to make: the obsession with winning cannot be present if it isn't backed up by the ability to do so. So unless you're ridiculously good, you cannot have that attitude. At least not to that extent.

What fascinates me the most is the ability to be that obsessed with winning, yet not let a defeat completely crush you. It sounds simple but it's really not, because it's easy to love winning so much that a defeat is so devastating, you're unable to recover. That's really what I loved about Jordan the most. The guy was borderline crazy when it came to competitiveness, and his ego would be crushed when he loses, yet he was always somehow able to fuel that to motivate him to come back stronger, as cliched as it sounds. When he lost 3 times in a row to the Pistons, he realized he needed to bulk up physically and match their intensity mentally. He realized that athleticism and talent were not enough. Sure enough, he surmounted that challenge on his way to his first NBA ring. When he came back from his first retirement and the Bulls were embarrassed by the Orlando Magic, that fueled him to work harder than ever and have arguably his best all around season the next year, which included a destruction of the Magic in the playoffs. When that guy set his eyes on something, he reached it. It's really not easy to want to win so much, but to avoid being fully discouraged if you fail.

Nadal reminds me of him in that regard, when it comes to how he handles defeat. Look at his ability to bounce back from every big loss, whether it's a devastating five setter in the final or a first round upset to an unknown. Look at his willingness to constantly improve and work on specific things that previously led to his downfall in some key matches. It amazes me how he bounced back from the 2012 AO final to beat Novak 3 times in a row. It's easy to look back now, but back then, it was his 7th consecutive defeat and the most heartbreaking one. Things really looked grim. His comeback from injury was equally astounding, and reminds me of Jordan's comeback after his fractured foot to drop 63 points on the Celtics.

I also think the ability to better deal with defeat has been instrumental in Novak's success since 2011. Keep in mind, he openly admitted to being crushed by the Nadal loss in Madrid (2009) and struggling to rediscover his form after that. Or his loss to Safin in Wimbledon the previous year. Likewise, remember how much the Roddick incident at the 2008 US Open affected him for about a year later. Since 2011 he's been much better about that, where he just puts things behind him and regroups.

Obviously there will never be another Jordan in any sport. But you can see bits and pieces of him in most great athletes, even Federer. Personality wise, Roger isn't exactly Jordan-esque. Yet if you look at the confidence, the sense of entitlement, the belief that he is so superior to his opponents, the hard work to get to the top and stay on top (one of Jordan's ultimate accomplishments, and definitely Roger's) and the moments of genius, you can definitely see Jordan's traits.

 

[huntingyou]

I could summarized the top 4 for Jordan-esque traits.....

Federer - like you said, supreme confidence in his own abilities, he truly believes all matches (except Rafa on clay after the 1000 defeat) are on his racket. Even when matches were not going his way, he knew it would turn around...especially at the slam level.

Rafa - Alpha male, imposing his persona on the court. control proceedings at his own pace. physically intimidating (I'm talking frame, not biceps) the dog that bite and don't let go. the most visceral traits out of the big four; thus the most easier to spot

Murray - He studies his rivals from A to Z. Incredible work ethic, always looking for solutions outside the court. Preparation its his pocket Ace.

Novak - The clutch performer. The guy hits the biggest shots during crucial moments. Especially after 2011, methodical in the way he operates during big matches. When on the zone, similar to Jordan when he was on the zone.......unstoppable.

 

[Moxie]

MJ grew 4 inches from one year to the next after being cut the first time for Varsity. Not saying he willingly grew 4 inches.....actually maybe he did. Jordan was the ultimate competitor, consummate winner and borderline mentally unstable. Darth mentioned he was an egomaniac; sure, but I believe in his core he was always trying to prove himself.......that fueled him to go beyond 100%.

But let's not kid ourselves, Jordan had that Attitude because his talent allowed him to. Basically, he was so good and gifted that his drive gave him the edge and ultimately allowed him to become the greatest player and athlete in recorded history.

As far as the OP, it's all cultural and CONTEXT. First look at tennis ROOTS vs Basketball roots, the economic background of those who play each sport and there you have it. I think race has very little to do with it; mostly nurture over nature in this case.

As far as tennis players; they don't have it. Those who have a small dose of that drive that fueled Jordan are the ones winning all the slams and big tournaments. Rafa certainly qualifies as one and maybe his game makes it easier for us to notice since it's very physical (in tennis terms) and violent. The way he looks at his opponents during a match......yeah there is some Michael in there. No coincidence he is my favorite, I always look for Jordan in all athletes that I watch and although its impossible to match; there are glimpses out there.

Yeah, it's an important distinction to make: the obsession with winning cannot be present if it isn't backed up by the ability to do so. So unless you're ridiculously good, you cannot have that attitude. At least not to that extent.

What fascinates me the most is the ability to be that obsessed with winning, yet not let a defeat completely crush you. It sounds simple but it's really not, because it's easy to love winning so much that a defeat is so devastating, you're unable to recover. That's really what I loved about Jordan the most. The guy was borderline crazy when it came to competitiveness, and his ego would be crushed when he loses, yet he was always somehow able to fuel that to motivate him to come back stronger, as cliched as it sounds. When he lost 3 times in a row to the Pistons, he realized he needed to bulk up physically and match their intensity mentally. He realized that athleticism and talent were not enough. Sure enough, he surmounted that challenge on his way to his first NBA ring. When he came back from his first retirement and the Bulls were embarrassed by the Orlando Magic, that fueled him to work harder than ever and have arguably his best all around season the next year, which included a destruction of the Magic in the playoffs. When that guy set his eyes on something, he reached it. It's really not easy to want to win so much, but to avoid being fully discouraged if you fail.

Nadal reminds me of him in that regard, when it comes to how he handles defeat. Look at his ability to bounce back from every big loss, whether it's a devastating five setter in the final or a first round upset to an unknown. Look at his willingness to constantly improve and work on specific things that previously led to his downfall in some key matches. It amazes me how he bounced back from the 2012 AO final to beat Novak 3 times in a row. It's easy to look back now, but back then, it was his 7th consecutive defeat and the most heartbreaking one. Things really looked grim. His comeback from injury was equally astounding, and reminds me of Jordan's comeback after his fractured foot to drop 63 points on the Celtics.

I also think the ability to better deal with defeat has been instrumental in Novak's success since 2011. Keep in mind, he openly admitted to being crushed by the Nadal loss in Madrid (2009) and struggling to rediscover his form after that. Or his loss to Safin in Wimbledon the previous year. Likewise, remember how much the Roddick incident at the 2008 US Open affected him for about a year later. Since 2011 he's been much better about that, where he just puts things behind him and regroups.

Obviously there will never be another Jordan in any sport. But you can see bits and pieces of him in most great athletes, even Federer. Personality wise, Roger isn't exactly Jordan-esque. Yet if you look at the confidence, the sense of entitlement, the belief that he is so superior to his opponents, the hard work to get to the top and stay on top (one of Jordan's ultimate accomplishments, and definitely Roger's) and the moments of genius, you can definitely see Jordan's traits.

TBH, I have been striving to figure out what is the point you're trying to make. Is it that too few tennis players are as cutthroat about winning as Michael Jordan, or that the culture of tennis doesn't favor it? You say "tennis players don't have it," so I guess you mean 'the field?' You say that Rafa does, and we all agree. He says himself he actually prefers winning to tennis. And maybe it is some inherent 'gentility' in the sport that inhibits the killer instinct in a lot of the players. Too rich/too soft? Maybe that explains all the Serbian players (men and women) who come from nothing and tennis is a way out. Likewise the Russians a decade ago.

Anyway, you also make a really interesting point about bouncing back from failure, improving and what that says about champions. But again, we're talking about the top few, and the rest of the field doesn't hold up on this at all.

I could summarized the top 4 for Jordan-esque traits.....

Federer - like you said, supreme confidence in his own abilities, he truly believes all matches (except Rafa on clay after the 1000 defeat) are on his racket. Even when matches were not going his way, he knew it would turn around...especially at the slam level.

Rafa - Alpha male, imposing his persona on the court. control proceedings at his own pace. physically intimidating (I'm talking frame, not biceps) the dog that bite and don't let go. the most visceral traits out of the big four; thus the most easier to spot

Murray - He studies his rivals from A to Z. Incredible work ethic, always looking for solutions outside the court. Preparation its his pocket Ace.

Novak - The clutch performer. The guy hits the biggest shots during crucial moments. Especially after 2011, methodical in the way he operates during big matches. When on the zone, similar to Jordan when he was on the zone.......unstoppable.

Agree with all of these, especially of Novak as clutch. He's about the bravest with his back against the wall of any athlete I've ever seen.

But again, that's the top 4. The rest of them…wilting violets?

 

[atttomole]

MJ grew 4 inches from one year to the next after being cut the first time for Varsity. Not saying he willingly grew 4 inches.....actually maybe he did. Jordan was the ultimate competitor, consummate winner and borderline mentally unstable. Darth mentioned he was an egomaniac; sure, but I believe in his core he was always trying to prove himself.......that fueled him to go beyond 100%.

But let's not kid ourselves, Jordan had that Attitude because his talent allowed him to. Basically, he was so good and gifted that his drive gave him the edge and ultimately allowed him to become the greatest player and athlete in recorded history.

As far as the OP, it's all cultural and CONTEXT. First look at tennis ROOTS vs Basketball roots, the economic background of those who play each sport and there you have it. I think race has very little to do with it; mostly nurture over nature in this case.

As far as tennis players; they don't have it. Those who have a small dose of that drive that fueled Jordan are the ones winning all the slams and big tournaments. Rafa certainly qualifies as one and maybe his game makes it easier for us to notice since it's very physical (in tennis terms) and violent. The way he looks at his opponents during a match......yeah there is some Michael in there. No coincidence he is my favorite, I always look for Jordan in all athletes that I watch and although its impossible to match; there are glimpses out there.

Not so sure if we could say without doubt that Jordan is the greatest athlete in history. Many people from other sports may disagree with that. I would pick Maradona, Ronaldo (the Brazilian), Bubka and even Tiger Woods, but there are others. They were all obsessed with winning and may have shown it in different ways.

 

[brokenshoelace]

MJ grew 4 inches from one year to the next after being cut the first time for Varsity. Not saying he willingly grew 4 inches.....actually maybe he did. Jordan was the ultimate competitor, consummate winner and borderline mentally unstable. Darth mentioned he was an egomaniac; sure, but I believe in his core he was always trying to prove himself.......that fueled him to go beyond 100%.

But let's not kid ourselves, Jordan had that Attitude because his talent allowed him to. Basically, he was so good and gifted that his drive gave him the edge and ultimately allowed him to become the greatest player and athlete in recorded history.

As far as the OP, it's all cultural and CONTEXT. First look at tennis ROOTS vs Basketball roots, the economic background of those who play each sport and there you have it. I think race has very little to do with it; mostly nurture over nature in this case.

As far as tennis players; they don't have it. Those who have a small dose of that drive that fueled Jordan are the ones winning all the slams and big tournaments. Rafa certainly qualifies as one and maybe his game makes it easier for us to notice since it's very physical (in tennis terms) and violent. The way he looks at his opponents during a match......yeah there is some Michael in there. No coincidence he is my favorite, I always look for Jordan in all athletes that I watch and although its impossible to match; there are glimpses out there.

Not so sure if we could say without doubt that Jordan is the greatest athlete in history. Many people from other sports may disagree with that. I would pick Maradona, Ronaldo (the Brazilian), Bubka and even Tiger Woods, but there are others. They were all obsessed with winning and may have shown it in different ways.

I'm a Soccer fan first and foremost, but it is highly debatable to say Ronaldo is greater than Jordan. Despite his great accomplishments his career was just too plagued by injuries (which in turn led to inconsistencies) for him to be considered greater than Jordan. Jordan's numbers on a year to year basis are insane, and that's not even what made him so great.

As far as pure talent goes, I have never seen, in any sport, anyone remotely as talented as Diego Armando Maradona. Nobody. But as far as greatness goes, I wouldn't even rank him over Jordan, especially given the fact that he ruined his career in many ways.

To me, the only one who I'd entertain as being as great as MJ would be Ali. Actually, there's one more. I'll probably catch flack for this, but I'd seriously consider Federer in the same caliber, as his accomplishments and consistency alone put him in the discussion. Though I still wouldn't say he's greater than Jordan. Jordan's greatness was not just about what he did on the court. Jordan's impact on NBA, and the popularity it reached because of him is astronomical. Nobody else compares...except for Ali.

 

[brokenshoelace]

MJ grew 4 inches from one year to the next after being cut the first time for Varsity. Not saying he willingly grew 4 inches.....actually maybe he did. Jordan was the ultimate competitor, consummate winner and borderline mentally unstable. Darth mentioned he was an egomaniac; sure, but I believe in his core he was always trying to prove himself.......that fueled him to go beyond 100%.

But let's not kid ourselves, Jordan had that Attitude because his talent allowed him to. Basically, he was so good and gifted that his drive gave him the edge and ultimately allowed him to become the greatest player and athlete in recorded history.

As far as the OP, it's all cultural and CONTEXT. First look at tennis ROOTS vs Basketball roots, the economic background of those who play each sport and there you have it. I think race has very little to do with it; mostly nurture over nature in this case.

As far as tennis players; they don't have it. Those who have a small dose of that drive that fueled Jordan are the ones winning all the slams and big tournaments. Rafa certainly qualifies as one and maybe his game makes it easier for us to notice since it's very physical (in tennis terms) and violent. The way he looks at his opponents during a match......yeah there is some Michael in there. No coincidence he is my favorite, I always look for Jordan in all athletes that I watch and although its impossible to match; there are glimpses out there.

Yeah, it's an important distinction to make: the obsession with winning cannot be present if it isn't backed up by the ability to do so. So unless you're ridiculously good, you cannot have that attitude. At least not to that extent.

What fascinates me the most is the ability to be that obsessed with winning, yet not let a defeat completely crush you. It sounds simple but it's really not, because it's easy to love winning so much that a defeat is so devastating, you're unable to recover. That's really what I loved about Jordan the most. The guy was borderline crazy when it came to competitiveness, and his ego would be crushed when he loses, yet he was always somehow able to fuel that to motivate him to come back stronger, as cliched as it sounds. When he lost 3 times in a row to the Pistons, he realized he needed to bulk up physically and match their intensity mentally. He realized that athleticism and talent were not enough. Sure enough, he surmounted that challenge on his way to his first NBA ring. When he came back from his first retirement and the Bulls were embarrassed by the Orlando Magic, that fueled him to work harder than ever and have arguably his best all around season the next year, which included a destruction of the Magic in the playoffs. When that guy set his eyes on something, he reached it. It's really not easy to want to win so much, but to avoid being fully discouraged if you fail.

Nadal reminds me of him in that regard, when it comes to how he handles defeat. Look at his ability to bounce back from every big loss, whether it's a devastating five setter in the final or a first round upset to an unknown. Look at his willingness to constantly improve and work on specific things that previously led to his downfall in some key matches. It amazes me how he bounced back from the 2012 AO final to beat Novak 3 times in a row. It's easy to look back now, but back then, it was his 7th consecutive defeat and the most heartbreaking one. Things really looked grim. His comeback from injury was equally astounding, and reminds me of Jordan's comeback after his fractured foot to drop 63 points on the Celtics.

I also think the ability to better deal with defeat has been instrumental in Novak's success since 2011. Keep in mind, he openly admitted to being crushed by the Nadal loss in Madrid (2009) and struggling to rediscover his form after that. Or his loss to Safin in Wimbledon the previous year. Likewise, remember how much the Roddick incident at the 2008 US Open affected him for about a year later. Since 2011 he's been much better about that, where he just puts things behind him and regroups.

Obviously there will never be another Jordan in any sport. But you can see bits and pieces of him in most great athletes, even Federer. Personality wise, Roger isn't exactly Jordan-esque. Yet if you look at the confidence, the sense of entitlement, the belief that he is so superior to his opponents, the hard work to get to the top and stay on top (one of Jordan's ultimate accomplishments, and definitely Roger's) and the moments of genius, you can definitely see Jordan's traits.

TBH, I have been striving to figure out what is the point you're trying to make. Is it that too few tennis players are as cutthroat about winning as Michael Jordan, or that the culture of tennis doesn't favor it? You say "tennis players don't have it," so I guess you mean 'the field?' You say that Rafa does, and we all agree. He says himself he actually prefers winning to tennis. And maybe it is some inherent 'gentility' in the sport that inhibits the killer instinct in a lot of the players. Too rich/too soft? Maybe that explains all the Serbian players (men and women) who come from nothing and tennis is a way out. Likewise the Russians a decade ago.

Anyway, you also make a really interesting point about bouncing back from failure, improving and what that says about champions. But again, we're talking about the top few, and the rest of the field doesn't hold up on this at all.

I could summarized the top 4 for Jordan-esque traits.....

Federer - like you said, supreme confidence in his own abilities, he truly believes all matches (except Rafa on clay after the 1000 defeat) are on his racket. Even when matches were not going his way, he knew it would turn around...especially at the slam level.

Rafa - Alpha male, imposing his persona on the court. control proceedings at his own pace. physically intimidating (I'm talking frame, not biceps) the dog that bite and don't let go. the most visceral traits out of the big four; thus the most easier to spot

Murray - He studies his rivals from A to Z. Incredible work ethic, always looking for solutions outside the court. Preparation its his pocket Ace.

Novak - The clutch performer. The guy hits the biggest shots during crucial moments. Especially after 2011, methodical in the way he operates during big matches. When on the zone, similar to Jordan when he was on the zone.......unstoppable.

Agree with all of these, especially of Novak as clutch. He's about the bravest with his back against the wall of any athlete I've ever seen.

But again, that's the top 4. The rest of them…wilting violets?

Why does there need to be one specific point? I've made a few points, and most touched on them accurately.

-- Nobody in tennis is as cutthroat about winning as Michael Jordan.
-- And if someone comes along with these characteristics, would he be accepted?
-- Why do we expect tennis players to act a certain way, and have a certain attitude?
-- The above question leads to another point, about the difference in cultures between tennis and other sports.
-- That in and of itself can lead to different discussions of race, upbringing, social status, etc.. Issues that Cali touched on.
-- I'm not saying everyone should adopt this attitude. You can't have an entire field of Michael Jordans.
-- However, it is interesting to see that those who share some of his traits are the ones having the most success.

These are but some of the points I'm getting at. I hope that's clear enough. If you find it vague and open to discussion, it is that way by design. That's the whole point of the thread. It's a topic that can go in so many directions... Not for Luxilon Borg though, he finds this thread pointless as it promotes violence, thug behavior, and knife fights. In which case it'd be better to create "7 questions" threads, including issues as interesting and as pressing as whether Del Potro will change rackets for no particular reason.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

It is so tough to compare greatness across different sports though Broken. I mean, is 6 rings better than 17 slams? Even the question itself does not sound right. We cannot even decide what gauge to use when we are comparing different eras in the same sport! When we compare , say, Laver and Roger, we struggle , because of equipment, surface, training methods etc...

I have never seen a basketball player like Jordan, and I have never seen a tennis player like Roger, but I cannot say Jordan is better at basketball than Roger is at tennis, or Ali at boxing. If you replace the word "at" in the previous sentence with "for" , there might be a bit of room for discussion, in my opinion.

 

[Moxie]

MJ grew 4 inches from one year to the next after being cut the first time for Varsity. Not saying he willingly grew 4 inches.....actually maybe he did. Jordan was the ultimate competitor, consummate winner and borderline mentally unstable. Darth mentioned he was an egomaniac; sure, but I believe in his core he was always trying to prove himself.......that fueled him to go beyond 100%.

But let's not kid ourselves, Jordan had that Attitude because his talent allowed him to. Basically, he was so good and gifted that his drive gave him the edge and ultimately allowed him to become the greatest player and athlete in recorded history.

As far as the OP, it's all cultural and CONTEXT. First look at tennis ROOTS vs Basketball roots, the economic background of those who play each sport and there you have it. I think race has very little to do with it; mostly nurture over nature in this case.

As far as tennis players; they don't have it. Those who have a small dose of that drive that fueled Jordan are the ones winning all the slams and big tournaments. Rafa certainly qualifies as one and maybe his game makes it easier for us to notice since it's very physical (in tennis terms) and violent. The way he looks at his opponents during a match......yeah there is some Michael in there. No coincidence he is my favorite, I always look for Jordan in all athletes that I watch and although its impossible to match; there are glimpses out there.

Yeah, it's an important distinction to make: the obsession with winning cannot be present if it isn't backed up by the ability to do so. So unless you're ridiculously good, you cannot have that attitude. At least not to that extent.

What fascinates me the most is the ability to be that obsessed with winning, yet not let a defeat completely crush you. It sounds simple but it's really not, because it's easy to love winning so much that a defeat is so devastating, you're unable to recover. That's really what I loved about Jordan the most. The guy was borderline crazy when it came to competitiveness, and his ego would be crushed when he loses, yet he was always somehow able to fuel that to motivate him to come back stronger, as cliched as it sounds. When he lost 3 times in a row to the Pistons, he realized he needed to bulk up physically and match their intensity mentally. He realized that athleticism and talent were not enough. Sure enough, he surmounted that challenge on his way to his first NBA ring. When he came back from his first retirement and the Bulls were embarrassed by the Orlando Magic, that fueled him to work harder than ever and have arguably his best all around season the next year, which included a destruction of the Magic in the playoffs. When that guy set his eyes on something, he reached it. It's really not easy to want to win so much, but to avoid being fully discouraged if you fail.

Nadal reminds me of him in that regard, when it comes to how he handles defeat. Look at his ability to bounce back from every big loss, whether it's a devastating five setter in the final or a first round upset to an unknown. Look at his willingness to constantly improve and work on specific things that previously led to his downfall in some key matches. It amazes me how he bounced back from the 2012 AO final to beat Novak 3 times in a row. It's easy to look back now, but back then, it was his 7th consecutive defeat and the most heartbreaking one. Things really looked grim. His comeback from injury was equally astounding, and reminds me of Jordan's comeback after his fractured foot to drop 63 points on the Celtics.

I also think the ability to better deal with defeat has been instrumental in Novak's success since 2011. Keep in mind, he openly admitted to being crushed by the Nadal loss in Madrid (2009) and struggling to rediscover his form after that. Or his loss to Safin in Wimbledon the previous year. Likewise, remember how much the Roddick incident at the 2008 US Open affected him for about a year later. Since 2011 he's been much better about that, where he just puts things behind him and regroups.

Obviously there will never be another Jordan in any sport. But you can see bits and pieces of him in most great athletes, even Federer. Personality wise, Roger isn't exactly Jordan-esque. Yet if you look at the confidence, the sense of entitlement, the belief that he is so superior to his opponents, the hard work to get to the top and stay on top (one of Jordan's ultimate accomplishments, and definitely Roger's) and the moments of genius, you can definitely see Jordan's traits.

TBH, I have been striving to figure out what is the point you're trying to make. Is it that too few tennis players are as cutthroat about winning as Michael Jordan, or that the culture of tennis doesn't favor it? You say "tennis players don't have it," so I guess you mean 'the field?' You say that Rafa does, and we all agree. He says himself he actually prefers winning to tennis. And maybe it is some inherent 'gentility' in the sport that inhibits the killer instinct in a lot of the players. Too rich/too soft? Maybe that explains all the Serbian players (men and women) who come from nothing and tennis is a way out. Likewise the Russians a decade ago.

Anyway, you also make a really interesting point about bouncing back from failure, improving and what that says about champions. But again, we're talking about the top few, and the rest of the field doesn't hold up on this at all.

I could summarized the top 4 for Jordan-esque traits.....

Federer - like you said, supreme confidence in his own abilities, he truly believes all matches (except Rafa on clay after the 1000 defeat) are on his racket. Even when matches were not going his way, he knew it would turn around...especially at the slam level.

Rafa - Alpha male, imposing his persona on the court. control proceedings at his own pace. physically intimidating (I'm talking frame, not biceps) the dog that bite and don't let go. the most visceral traits out of the big four; thus the most easier to spot

Murray - He studies his rivals from A to Z. Incredible work ethic, always looking for solutions outside the court. Preparation its his pocket Ace.

Novak - The clutch performer. The guy hits the biggest shots during crucial moments. Especially after 2011, methodical in the way he operates during big matches. When on the zone, similar to Jordan when he was on the zone.......unstoppable.

Agree with all of these, especially of Novak as clutch. He's about the bravest with his back against the wall of any athlete I've ever seen.

But again, that's the top 4. The rest of them…wilting violets?

Why does there need to be one specific point? I've made a few points, and most touched on them accurately.

-- Nobody in tennis is as cutthroat about winning as Michael Jordan.
-- And if someone comes along with these characteristics, would he be accepted?
-- Why do we expect tennis players to act a certain way, and have a certain attitude?
-- The above question leads to another point, about the difference in cultures between tennis and other sports.
-- That in and of itself can lead to different discussions of race, upbringing, social status, etc.. Issues that Cali touched on.
-- I'm not saying everyone should adopt this attitude. You can't have an entire field of Michael Jordans.
-- However, it is interesting to see that those who share some of his traits are the ones having the most success.

These are but some of the points I'm getting at. I hope that's clear enough. If you find it vague and open to discussion, it is that way by design. That's the whole point of the thread. It's a topic that can go in so many directions... Not for Luxilon Borg though, he finds this thread pointless as it promotes violence, thug behavior, and knife fights. In which case it'd be better to create "7 questions" threads, including issues as interesting and as pressing as whether Del Potro will change rackets for no particular reason.

That actually is very clarifying, thank you. It was becoming more and more clear as other posted. I appreciate an open-for-riffing question, but I was having trouble grasping where you were going. Perhaps you were speaking on a frequency that only dogs and men could hear. :snigger

I think I was touching on your point of "class," perhaps, and how it relates, when some tennis players lives depend on it more than others. Serbian, Croation and Russian players, of late, have seen it as a meal ticket, whereas in the US men's game, it's left to doughy also-rans. However, Venus and Serena flew out of Compton with an axe to grind, and the tennis world to turn upside down. And in that case, no, the tennis world isn't completely accepting of that kind of upsetting the gentility applecart, because Serena is a divisive figure, to this day. And one of the hungriest, most driven players in the women's game.

Am I getting warmer? :lolz:

 

[I.Haychew]

What's the definition of an "athlete"? I don't consider golfers, race car drivers, or pool players to be "athletes". I suppose it's pretty subjective. Are designated hitters "athletes"? Are punters/place kickers athletes? Offensive lineman? Synchronized swimmers? I heart pool/billiards, but I'd never classify most decorated fat, out-of-shape nine-ballers to be "athletes". Supremely skilled and ultra-competitive? Yes. Athletes? No. Just my opinion.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It is so tough to compare greatness across different sports though Broken. I mean, is 6 rings better than 17 slams? Even the question itself does not sound right. We cannot even decide what gauge to use when we are comparing different eras in the same sport! When we compare , say, Laver and Roger, we struggle , because of equipment, surface, training methods etc...

I have never seen a basketball player like Jordan, and I have never seen a tennis player like Roger, but I cannot say Jordan is better at basketball than Roger is at tennis, or Ali at boxing. If you replace the word "at" in the previous sentence with "for" , there might be a bit of room for discussion, in my opinion.

That's precisely why I mentioned that "stats are not even what makes Jordan so great." There is no way to compare 6 championships to 17 slams and assess which one weighs heavier, especially since one is an individual sport and the other a team sport. Likewise, there is nothing that would compare to the World Cup in soccer, since that takes place once every 4 years only (so you have less opportunities to win it).

So to me, I don't mind saying Federer is as good as tennis as Jordan was at Basketball, or at least of the same caliber. Both are considered best ever (arguably) in their respective sports, both dominated, both won a lot, etc...

However, "greatness" is about more than that. To me (and this is admittedly subjective), Jordan's greatness is not simply about what he did on court. It's the full package.The man was so great, that his popularity was immeasurable. The NBA's popularity exploded worldwide because of him. I've never seen any athlete whose peers are so much in awe of. Larry Bird called him "god" after the infamous 63 point playoff game, and that was only the start of his career. With Jordan, it's about the clutch plays, the confidence, the flu game, the swagger, the charisma, the popularity, the endorsements, the 1992 dream team, the buzzer beaters...

Again, I admit this is highly subjective, but I think greatness goes beyond stats and abilities. The reason I say Jordan and Ali stand in a league of their own was because of impact. Yes, Roger helped tennis' popularity but not on the same scale. If you look at Ali, his impact was arguably greater than Jordan's too (in fact, I'd say it most certainly is). Ali was more than just a cultural icon. He became a symbol. His refusal to go to Vietnam for instance, whether you agree with his decision or not, adds to his legacy, which in turn adds to his greatness, whether it's fair or not.

The worldwide impact of Ali is something no other sportsman has come close to. There's a brilliant documentary called "When We Were Kings" (I recommend everyone to watch it) showing the build-up to his fight with Foreman, and it really helps understand just how big Ali was. Just seeing him jogging through Zaire with dozens of African children following him around captures his greatness.

Maradona wasn't as popular worldwide, but in Argentina, the man is almost literally a living god (people really stop short of worshiping him), and he was a phenomenon in more ways than one.

If I had to rank the three greatest, those three would top the list, with Jordan and Ali sharing the number 1 spot.

 

[atttomole]

MJ grew 4 inches from one year to the next after being cut the first time for Varsity. Not saying he willingly grew 4 inches.....actually maybe he did. Jordan was the ultimate competitor, consummate winner and borderline mentally unstable. Darth mentioned he was an egomaniac; sure, but I believe in his core he was always trying to prove himself.......that fueled him to go beyond 100%.

But let's not kid ourselves, Jordan had that Attitude because his talent allowed him to. Basically, he was so good and gifted that his drive gave him the edge and ultimately allowed him to become the greatest player and athlete in recorded history.

As far as the OP, it's all cultural and CONTEXT. First look at tennis ROOTS vs Basketball roots, the economic background of those who play each sport and there you have it. I think race has very little to do with it; mostly nurture over nature in this case.

As far as tennis players; they don't have it. Those who have a small dose of that drive that fueled Jordan are the ones winning all the slams and big tournaments. Rafa certainly qualifies as one and maybe his game makes it easier for us to notice since it's very physical (in tennis terms) and violent. The way he looks at his opponents during a match......yeah there is some Michael in there. No coincidence he is my favorite, I always look for Jordan in all athletes that I watch and although its impossible to match; there are glimpses out there.

Not so sure if we could say without doubt that Jordan is the greatest athlete in history. Many people from other sports may disagree with that. I would pick Maradona, Ronaldo (the Brazilian), Bubka and even Tiger Woods, but there are others. They were all obsessed with winning and may have shown it in different ways.

I'm a Soccer fan first and foremost, but it is highly debatable to say Ronaldo is greater than Jordan. Despite his great accomplishments his career was just too plagued by injuries (which in turn led to inconsistencies) for him to be considered greater than Jordan. Jordan's numbers on a year to year basis are insane, and that's not even what made him so great.

As far as pure talent goes, I have never seen, in any sport, anyone remotely as talented as Diego Armando Maradona. Nobody. But as far as greatness goes, I wouldn't even rank him over Jordan, especially given the fact that he ruined his career in many ways.

To me, the only one who I'd entertain as being as great as MJ would be Ali. Actually, there's one more. I'll probably catch flack for this, but I'd seriously consider Federer in the same caliber, as his accomplishments and consistency alone put him in the discussion. Though I still wouldn't say he's greater than Jordan. Jordan's greatness was not just about what he did on the court. Jordan's impact on NBA, and the popularity it reached because of him is astronomical. Nobody else compares...except for Ali.

Soccer is my number one sport too. I did not imply that Ronaldo is greater Jordan, but was just giving examples of athletes who excelled in other sports, and whose respective fans may consider them the greatest across all sports. Ronaldo was a special case because his career was derailed when he was still on the rise (getting injured at 23 years old), and was expected by many to end being the greatest. I also think that Maradona is the greatest pure talent across all sports. He made football look so easy. He also had that obsession to win, and was always able to find a way to win. People in Italy used to say that they were willing to pay to watch him practising.

 

[brokenshoelace]

What's the definition of an "athlete"? I don't consider golfers, race car drivers, or pool players to be "athletes". I suppose it's pretty subjective. Are designated hitters "athletes"? Are punters/place kickers athletes? Offensive lineman? Synchronized swimmers? I heart pool/billiards, but I'd never classify most decorated fat, out-of-shape nine-ballers to be "athletes". Supremely skilled and ultra-competitive? Yes. Athletes? No. Just my opinion.

I agree it gets blurry. Maybe we should just say "sportsmen"?