Stop the Posturing

[El Dude]

"My favorite tennis player is better than your favorite tennis player, who was just lucky when he beat my tennis player, who was injured and/or not playing his best."

I don't know how many times I've heard some variation of the above from (supposedly) grown men (women tend not to stoop this low, or at least have their own version of posturing that is a bit more subtle).

It gets ridiculous and, unfortunately, obfuscates more interesting conversation. I'm all for comparing the records of players and discussing their relative levels, but every time posturing creeps into the conversation, the waters get muddied. I just don't see the point of it. I mean, I know people identify with their favorite sports team/player, but it seems there is this common, unconscious assumption that the performance and greatness of one's favorite player somehow translates into one's self-worth and standing, as if I am great because Roger is (or was) great; as if I beat you because Roger beat your favorite player.

Look, for you Rafa fans out there that are doing this, let it go. Rafa is an amazing player who is having a third peak - enjoy that. I certainly am, although probably not as much as you. Enjoy it not only because Rafa is amazing, but because it won't last - and this is another reason to stop the posturing, because it gets in the way of your own enjoyment. Stop belittling Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, and fans of other players. Enjoy Rafa's greatness in its own right, not in relation to how you can feel a false sense of superiority over your fellow tennis fans.

I could say the same thing to Novak fans when he was on top, or Roger fans when he was on top (although they/we seemed more humble last year for that short spell because it was so unexpected and appreciated; I can't remember because I didn't hang out on tennis forums and was pretty much a solo fan back then, but I imagine they/we were rather annoying in 2004-2008).

Let's get back to enjoying the game of tennis. And yes, let's talk about how great Novak was in 2011 compared to Nadal in 2013. Let's talk about whether or not Andy is as good as Novak. But let's try to stop, or at least minimize, the posturing. Not only is it obfuscating, its just plain unelegant, like a post-2012 Federer shank .

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Like I always say, play the ball instead of the man. If everyone here posts about tennis, rather that posting about each other, then there won't be any name-calling or personal attacks.

 

[Front242]

Ironic that the first reply to El Dude's post was from the biggest gloater on this forum.

 

[Kieran]

In fairness, fan altercations are part and parcel of forums. How often have we heard the GOAT stuff, 2011, Rafa's knees, etc? These are belief systems. We all actually believe the same, except of different players.

Long as it doesn't become personal, it's fine, and even though it inevitably will become personal, long as it doesn't stay that way...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

As long as people realise that they cannot push their opinions as facts, we should be good.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

But there should be a ban on anyone who describes a poster in a derogatory manner. You can understand conflicts in real life because people are behaving off the cuff. But online, there is time between your thought and the typing and posting. Surely enough time to realize you are about to cross the line. People will learn this if 2 week suspensions are handed out for name-calling.

 

[nehmeth]

But there should be a ban on anyone who describes a poster in a derogatory manner. You can understand conflicts in real life because people are behaving off the cuff. But online, there is time between your thought and the typing and posting. Surely enough time to realize you are about to cross the line. People will learn this if 2 week suspensions are handed out for name-calling.

So while you "play the ball" and not the person, if someone's posts are so over the top and beyond sound reason as to exacerbate the good sense of another poster to the point where he says something about it, you are exhorting the moderators to play the person for you. That's baiting... and it's wrong too.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I just read that a poster was forbidding me from predicting Nadal would win 18-22 slam titles. Am I baiting? I'm giving my honest opinion on how many slam titles Nadal will win. Call it whatever you want, but I'm not going to reduce my prediction to help with the anger management of others.

 

[Kieran]

NADAL2005RG, what people are objecting to is your black and white fandom. You don't give credit for victories against Nadal, and you talk about Rafa as if he'll never lose another match, unless he's injured. Personally, I don't mind extreme views and fanboy stuff, I think it a'' adds to the mix, but you also have to give credit where it's due, ya know?

Even if it's through gritted teeth and with your fingers crossed! :snigger

 

[El Dude]

In fairness, fan altercations are part and parcel of forums. How often have we heard the GOAT stuff, 2011, Rafa's knees, etc? These are belief systems. We all actually believe the same, except of different players.

Long as it doesn't become personal, it's fine, and even though it inevitably will become personal, long as it doesn't stay that way...

I get that, Kieran -and I (obviously) enjoy the GOAT discussion etc. But I do not engage in those discussions as a mask for me trying to tout my favorite player, which is in turn a mask for me trying to prop up my own ego. That's what I mean by posturing, and what I find distracting and irritating from the actual discussion of tennis.

In other words, even though Roger Federer is my favorite player, I have no interest in seeing him for anything other than what he is, good and bad. When discussing the GOAT, I don't do so to try to prove that Roger is the GOAT because I want him to be the GOAT, but because I'm interested in understanding who the GOAT is - whether that's Roger or not. For instance, I've been dabbling with a blog post that seeks to answer what I feel is the key to Roger's legacy as the possible GOAT: whether his dominance in 2004-08 was because of weak competition or if the competition only looked weak relative to Roger's greatness.

Maybe its just that I'm a teacher and counselor and I have a hard time not thinking about the psychological level of such discussions. I just can't ignore that stuff. I know that its very hard for people (myself included) to separate their subjectivity from the discussion; my view is that we should start by being conscious of it, including how we posture around our favorite players. What I see all too often is people not even realizing how they're posturing around their favorite player, which leads to these arguments that remind me of two 8-year old boys yelling at each other, "My dad is stronger than your dad!"

It may come down to what is more important to us: truth or wish fulfillment (sort of like the red or blue pill in The Matrix). Do we really want to know how good our favorite player actually is, now and historically, or is it more important that we perceive them as the greatest, whether or not they actually are? I think this posturing comes from at least some degree of the latter.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

In the PRP treatment thread you said if such things as magic injections existed there'd have been no losses at Halle 2012 and Wimbledon 2012. Way to credit the great play of Kohlschreiber and Rosol. Anyway, I'd say the magic injections have been just that personally. Seen Nadal play well lately?

I notice you didn't want to quote me, you instead wanted to come up with your own imaginary post. I wonder why that is..... :laydownlaughing

Again, you need to stick to the facts. We all know you are going trying to personally attack me (rather than discussing tennis). The least you can do is use direct quotes. Otherwise, your attack means nothing but slander. And YOU are the poster who brought up "magical injections". You said "Djokovic hasn't had any magic injections in his knee" as if to insinuate that Nadal had a magical injection.

 

[Kieran]

In fairness, fan altercations are part and parcel of forums. How often have we heard the GOAT stuff, 2011, Rafa's knees, etc? These are belief systems. We all actually believe the same, except of different players.

Long as it doesn't become personal, it's fine, and even though it inevitably will become personal, long as it doesn't stay that way...

I get that, Kieran -and I (obviously) enjoy the GOAT discussion etc. But I do not engage in those discussions as a mask for me trying to tout my favorite player, which is in turn a mask for me trying to prop up my own ego. That's what I mean by posturing, and what I find distracting and irritating from the actual discussion of tennis.

In other words, even though Roger Federer is my favorite player, I have no interest in seeing him for anything other than what he is, good and bad. When discussing the GOAT, I don't do so to try to prove that Roger is the GOAT because I want him to be the GOAT, but because I'm interested in understanding who the GOAT is - whether that's Roger or not. For instance, I've been dabbling with a blog post that seeks to answer what I feel is the key to Roger's legacy as the possible GOAT: whether his dominance in 2004-08 was because of weak competition or if the competition only looked weak relative to Roger's greatness.

Maybe its just that I'm a teacher and counselor and I have a hard time not thinking about the psychological level of such discussions. I just can't ignore that stuff. I know that its very hard for people (myself included) to separate their subjectivity from the discussion; my view is that we should start by being conscious of it, including how we posture around our favorite players. What I see all too often is people not even realizing how they're posturing around their favorite player, which leads to these arguments that remind me of two 8-year old boys yelling at each other, "My dad is stronger than your dad!"

It may come down to what is more important to us: truth or wish fulfillment (sort of like the red or blue pill in The Matrix). Do we really want to know how good our favorite player actually is, now and historically, or is it more important that we perceive them as the greatest, whether or not they actually are? I think this posturing comes from at least some degree of the latter.

That's true, El Dude, but isn't all this arguing a part of the purpose of sports? I mean, it's most likely foolish on all levels to argue about multi-millionaires who don't care about much more than themselves in a self-centred sport, but this is part of modern life. It's vicarious competition, battle by proxy. I know you try to be objective in the GOAT stuff, but it isn't the only way of looking at things. It's interesting and it's informative, and always welcome, much more so than saying somebody's doping and then citing lies or misinformation.

I wholeheartedly concur with anyone who wants to decrease personal attacks and nonsense, but amid the noise and clamour, you get a real reflection of tennis fan thoughts on forums, and I'd say, let it happen. In terms of the psychological level of such discussions, it's open to debate, but can't you influence these debates positively by letting them happen and being a presence for sense and good reason? Our job here isn't to judge anyone - we have mods for that.

But I certainly prefer partisanship to neutrality when it comes to sport. I can't enjoy sports unless I'm for one and agin t'other. It's not possible. It's an oxymoron. It's like eating soup with a fork, etc, pointless. The level of partisanship and the decency of the debate, well, that might be what bothers you.

I look forward to your analysis of 2004-2008, always like to read your blog!

 

[Kieran]

NADAL2005RG, what people are objecting to is your black and white fandom. You don't give credit for victories against Nadal, and you talk about Rafa as if he'll never lose another match, unless he's injured. Personally, I don't mind extreme views and fanboy stuff, I think it a'' adds to the mix, but you also have to give credit where it's due, ya know?

Even if it's through gritted teeth and with your fingers crossed! :snigger

So I'm supposed to deny Nadal his injuries now? Even Nadal has pointed out when he was injured. Do you admonish Nadal for telling the truth?

I talk as if Nadal will never lose another match unless he's injured? Can you provide a quote please? You really need to stick to the facts for your next personal attack.

And this kind of touchiness as well. It's an off switch...

 

[El Dude]

Good post, Kieran, and I basically agree with you. I just think it is less foolish to argue over multi-millionaires if we're actually interested in truth before our own wish fulfillment.

Partisanship can take the form of just cheering on your favorite player - which is part of sports and fandom - or arguing for your favorite player no matter what, which is what I find irking. I mean, its another form of caring more about "being right" (that is, winning an argument) than what is actually true.

So being for a player doesn't mean that one needs to see them in a skewed manner. For instance, I appreciate Cali's love of David Nalbandian and would never say he shouldn't continue to love and appreciate the nuances of his game, but trying to have a rational conversation with him about Nalbandian's greatness relative to other players is like banging one's head against a wall (No offense, Cali - I've enjoyed our conversations for the most part, although I think they'd best be done on the forum rather than via PM!).

And you're right - being an example is more effective than judging. I generally try to present a reasonable, balanced view as best I can. I guess I just "popped" and felt like I needed to express this. Ironically enough, it was partially based upon the "What ingredients made Djokovic..." thread started by NADAL2005RG.

 

[Kieran]

I agree, El Dude, the tit for tat threads by NADAL2005RG and Mastoor were more typical of them than the forum. Not welcome, either. I'm not sure what "true" is when applied to tennis and GOATS etc, but you and I know where we are on that. I applaud your efforts in it though, because they're systematic and reasonable.

Cali thinks Daveed is a GOAT of sorts and Rafa is a MULE (Most Unlikely Loser Ever). Rafa is a Victorian donkey dragging coal carts out of a hole in the ground. See? We all have blind spots. We just have them about different things. Cal's blind spot is the scoreboard.

Come on, Cali, that was funny! :lolz:

 

[El Dude]

Funny stuff, Kieran.

My latest reply to Cali can be viewed here:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1154&page=4

It isn't even just about the scoreboard, its about the total picture of a player's game. Cali chooses to look at Nalbandian with a very narrow lens. An extreme version of this would be if I said, "Ivo Karlovic is of the greatest tennis players of all time because his serving was amazing, and all other factors are inconsequential." Now Cali isn't THAT extreme, but its still pretty glaring.

Obviously we all have our blind-spots, but not all blind-spots are equal!

Re: the GOAT - I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "you and I know where we are on that", because I do NOT know where I am on that! I think at this moment, Roger's record is the best in the Open Era, but the problem is that his record is much closer to completion than Rafa's, so Rafa has time to catch him. If we look beyond the Open Era, I think there are about half a dozen players that all have legitimate arguments: Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Federer, and Nadal, with Tilden and Borg also being worth mentioning.

In the end, I don't think we can come up with a final, definitely answer (at least not unless and until Rafa wins #18 and/or is at #1 for another 100++ weeks), but I'm more interested in looking at how we can come up with different perspectives.

 

[Kieran]

I think with the GOAT thingy, context and criteria are impossible to establish. As you know, in science, you compare relative strengths under the exact same conditions. As I've been told, this isn't science, which is exactly my point. But I enjoy your posts on this and they're based upon an honest effort to understand...

 

[El Dude]

I'm a big fan of baseball, which is the sport most heavily analyzed in a statistical sense. In baseball a lot of attempts have been made to establish context and to create "uber-stats" that take all factors into account (or at least as many as possible).

Anyhow, one of the things baseball stat-heads do is normalize statistics for the era. For example, Baseball-Reference.com has a stat called "Adjusted OPS" which is a context-neutral version of OPS (On-base percentage + Slugging percentage). Basically it takes a player's OPS and compares it to the league average, and if at all possible takes into account the ballpark. This allows us to get a sense of how a statistic compares over time, given that stats fluctuate wildly.

To give a specific example of this, in 1968 Carl Yasztremski won the American League batting title by hitting .301. In 2000, Nomar Garciaparra won the AL batting title by hitting .372. On face value, one would think that Garciaparra had a much better average than Yaz did, but then we look at what the league average was: .276 in 2000 and .230 in 1968. Furthermore, in 1968 Yaz was the only player to hit over .300 in the AL; #2 was all the way down at .290. Whereas in 2000, Nomar was one of 25 players to hit. 300+ in the AL.

To go a bit further with it, Nomar had a 1.033 OPS in 2000 and Yaz a .922 OPS in 1968. You'd think Nomar had a better season, right? Well their Adjusted OPS - which takes into account league context - are to 156 for Nomar and 172 for Yaz (100 being league average). In other words, Yaz had a better year...relative to the league.

Of course there are other factors involved, but the point is simple: we must take the context into account, and focus on how a player (baseball or tennis) performed relative to the context in which they played. Babe Ruth is considered so great not because people speculate that he would be better than Albert Pujols or Miguel Cabrera if he played today, but because relative to the rest of baseball at the time he played he was far greater than Pujols and Cabrera were and are relative to their era.

People have been analyzing baseball statistics in a serious (dare I say, nerdy) manner for over 30 years, starting with Bill James, at least in terms of a popular sense. No one has (as yet or probably ever will) done the same with tennis, so any analysis is far more rudimentary and crude. But I think some nuance is needed, some complexity. We've got to start somewhere!

 

[Front242]

NADAL2005RG, what people are objecting to is your black and white fandom. You don't give credit for victories against Nadal, and you talk about Rafa as if he'll never lose another match, unless he's injured. Personally, I don't mind extreme views and fanboy stuff, I think it a'' adds to the mix, but you also have to give credit where it's due, ya know?

Even if it's through gritted teeth and with your fingers crossed! :snigger

So I'm supposed to deny Nadal his injuries now? Even Nadal has pointed out when he was injured. Do you admonish Nadal for telling the truth? Yes, Nadal is good at telling the world why he lost big matches, much like you. Is the true, no? Kneed I go on?

I talk as if Nadal will never lose another match unless he's injured? Can you provide a quote please? You really need to stick to the facts for your next personal attack.

In the PRP treatment thread you said if such things as magic injections existed there'd have been no losses at Halle 2012 and Wimbledon 2012. Way to credit the great play of Kohlschreiber and Rosol. Anyway, I'd say the magic injections have been just that personally. Seen Nadal play well lately?

 

[zalvar]

NADAL2005RG, what people are objecting to is your black and white fandom. You don't give credit for victories against Nadal, and you talk about Rafa as if he'll never lose another match, unless he's injured. Personally, I don't mind extreme views and fanboy stuff, I think it a'' adds to the mix, but you also have to give credit where it's due, ya know?

Even if it's through gritted teeth and with your fingers crossed! :snigger

So I'm supposed to deny Nadal his injuries now? Even Nadal has pointed out when he was injured. Do you admonish Nadal for telling the truth? Yes, Nadal is good at telling the world why he lost big matches, much like you. Is the true, no? Kneed I go on?

I talk as if Nadal will never lose another match unless he's injured? Can you provide a quote please? You really need to stick to the facts for your next personal attack.

In the PRP treatment thread you said if such things as magic injections existed there'd have been no losses at Halle 2012 and Wimbledon 2012. Way to credit the great play of Kohlschreiber and Rosol. Anyway, I'd say the magic injections have been just that personally. Seen Nadal play well lately?

Really, ugh!? This is why I get bristly with these so called "more humble" Fed and Nole fans. They hide under a guise of civility but then you will find then clinging unto the most disgusting, unfounded rumor to down play Rafa's successes. These big-headed and uppity people, who would scoff at Rafa just because they don't like his freakin stroke production. Get over yourselves!

The truth is, everyone had their chance to gloat:

Fed fans have been spoiled for several years that they feel like every megalomania that comes out of their mouth about their precious Fed is cold hard truth, that it's obvious, "duh", how can I not know!?!? Now, they're frustrated they can't talk like that for very obvious reasons. So these green-eyed monsters are out policing everyone now.

Nole fans have had a couple of years now to beat on their chest and rip their shirts, spelling out doom and gloom for Rafa, Fed and others "when Nole is on," as if no actually has a chance. puh-leeeeeze.

Now, Rafa fans get the chance to another turn at the top and will be trying to dispel all the crazy claims with crazy claims of their own. Now Rafa fans are claiming phoenix rising out of the ashes, forgetting that they do burn out.

The common theme here is that they all did seem true ... until they weren't. We're all passionate about tennis here and have biases, no one can claim other wise! There's no fan base "better" in this area - don't make me gag.