Stronger, weaker or ?

[Ricardo]

hahahaha! You can't stop can you? Poor poor baby. I can see that even a basic explanation escapes you, so clearly your IQ is even lower than I thought!! Wow! Is someone helping you write this stuff? Out of sheer pity, I'll humour you, but really for adults it's basic syllogistic reasoning, so if you could only understand the original premise I wouldn't have to bother. But yes, absolutely...

Maybe this will help you?

Singles
Season record 68-15 (81.93%)
Calendar titles 3
Year-end ranking No. 2
Ranking change from previous year

1
Grand Slam results
Australian Open QF
French Open W
Wimbledon F
US Open F
Doubles
Season record 9-5 (64.29%)
Calendar titles 1
Davis Cup
Davis Cup W

A year end ranking of no 2. He won one slam, lost 2 to Novak, and was a runner up in a stack of other matches to Novak. So yes, by definition he was dominant. Was he the most dominant player? Well... no! Novak was. But for Rafa to have reached all those finals is clear evidence that he was dominating the field, but losing to a more dominant player.

Now, I'm not even sure if you can read, so maybe you should ask the person who's helping you communicate on this forum, but here's a definition of the word dominant..."occupying or being in a commanding or elevated position." He was clearly in an elevated position, I dare say even a muppet knows that, but I was giving you far too much credit, you're no way near as smart as a muppet. I tried so hard not to point out the obvious, because I really thought you had enough brain cells to figure it out for yourself. I was so so wrong, and I'm sorry for that.

Perhaps you're confusing dominant with predominant? Anyway, lesson over. Now run along little boy, the next time I need to take you to school I'll be forced to charge you

ok then, so officially you declared that Rafa DOMINATED in 2011.

Ladies and gentlemen, please give your round of applause for Shemaleberg.... truly astonishing.

 

[Federberg]

ok then, so officially you declared that Rafa DOMINATED in 2011.

Ladies and gentlemen, please give your round of applause for Shemaleberg.... truly astonishing.

Sigh... I guess your helper wasn't around to actually.. .help you. If you understood what the word meant you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself. So sad..

 

[Ricardo]

Now now! I know you're not very smart, so if you just get your helper to read through the thread, you'll see (ooops! I mean your helper will tell you) that my focus has been on the big guys. Bye bye

ok if that was just referring to the big guys, then they must have done better than the top guys from previous era.... simply because your assumption that they are just 'better'. when you assume these guys are born with better natural tennis ability then transporting them back means they would've achieved more than the guys who were born less talented, regardless court/technology difference.

somehow you contradicted yourself saying that you are 'unsure' that they would have, again you proved to everyone what an idiot you really are.

save your primary school trick, i'll expose each and every one of those you pull out.

 

[Ricardo]

Sigh... I guess your helper wasn't around to actually.. .help you. If you understood what the word meant you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself. So sad..

useless whinging, you are not getting out of this one hehe.

i'll clarify myself here unlike you who avoided for so long. NO, Rafa didn't dominate 2011, ONLY Novak did; he was the boss.

Let's see if anyone would support your logic.

 

[Ricardo]

I'll also say this, no player can qualify to be dominating if he is dominated by someone.

otherwise we might as claim Ferrer as being dominant, since he kept going deep on clay losing to 1 or 2 guys consistently.

 

[Federberg]

ok if that was just referring to the big guys, then they must have done better than the top guys from previous era.... simply because your assumption that they are just 'better'. when you assume these guys are born with better natural tennis ability then transporting them back means they would've achieved more than the guys who were born less talented, regardless court/technology difference.

somehow you contradicted yourself saying that you are 'unsure' that they would have, again you proved to everyone what an idiot you really are.

save your primary school trick, i'll expose each and every one of those you pull out.

Well... this is fun! You're not exposing anyone buddy. I've been having an interesting discussion with actual adults. Dealing with you is just my guilty entertainment. Get your helper to read through the thread. I'm sure they'll understand.

PS, You know what? I reckon your helper is a woman, and you secretly resent her. That's probably why you've demonstrated misogynistic tendencies on this forum. But really.. how you are is not her fault. It's not even your fault. And I accept that you're simply not smart enough to get my point even if everyone else does. My persisting with engaging with you is actually cruel so I'll stop. Maybe if it's just an age thing, you'll grow up and get it at some point. Every time you go on you just look silly. Sigh...

 

[Ricardo]

Well... this is fun! You're not exposing anyone buddy. I've been having an interesting discussion with actual adults. Dealing with you is just my guilty entertainment. Get your helper to read through the thread. I'm sure they'll understand.

PS, You know what? I reckon your helper is a woman, and you secretly resent her. That's probably why you've demonstrated misogynistic tendencies on this forum. But really.. how you are is not her fault. It's not even your fault. And I accept that you're simply not smart enough to get my point even if everyone else does. My persisting with engaging with you is actually cruel so I'll stop. Maybe if it's just an age thing, you'll grow up and get it at some point. Every time you go on you just look silly. Sigh...

this is why you are nothing but a puss, using cheap label of 'misogyny' when you can't win an argument. I've seen people like you, who patronise and drop their knees to feminists so can feel 'updated' or in some kind of twisted way, resort to cheap PC stuff.

There are men who hate women and vice versa, these feminist PC terms have been, and always will be used by gutless and cheap idiots who don't know any better, when real thoughts are required. now try hard as you want to side track the issue, you are still not getting out of this one puss.

 

[Ricardo]

back to the topic, if the big guys back then would be 'eaten alive' by the big 3 of this era now, yet somehow the big 3 wouldn't have done well against them in the past.......but aren't the big 3 just 'better'? better players do well against lesser players, surface/equipment are not variables since they would've been adjusted accordingly.

cut the crap, shemaleberg doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[Moxie]

back to the topic, if the big guys back then would be 'eaten alive' by the big 3 of this era now, yet somehow the big 3 wouldn't have done well against them in the past.......but aren't the big 3 just 'better'? better players do well against lesser players, surface/equipment are not variables since they would've been adjusted accordingly.

cut the crap, shemaleberg doesn't know what he is talking about.

You have lost all the subtleties of the argument. You don't even know what the argument is anymore. You sold your soul for a cheap mud wrestle with F-berg. Try reading back and see if you can join the real conversation.

 

[Ricardo]

stop nagging me, what are you an old hen? it doesn't concern you moxie.

 

[Rides]

There are plenty of reasons why comparing eras is a fool's errand.

One of those issues is that players train to beat the competition as is stands, not as it *might* become. It's classic Brad Gilbert philosophy: you don't need to be the best of the field, you need only be better than your opponent on that day.


*IF* the field is stronger now, it is only because the marquee players of this era have made it so. Federer's dominance during the mid aughts was a causal factor in raising the overall level of the field in order to be competitive. What this has created, IMO, is a real disparity between the top 10 and the top 100-10. Teams of coaches, nutritionists, psychologists and whomever else the extreme elite are able to hire to hone the talent and skills separate them from the field where talent alone will only take you so far.

 

[Federberg]

There are plenty of reasons why comparing eras is a fool's errand.

One of those issues is that players train to beat the competition as is stands, not as it *might* become. It's classic Brad Gilbert philosophy: you don't need to be the best of the field, you need only be better than your opponent on that day.


*IF* the field is stronger now, it is only because the marquee players of this era have made it so. Federer's dominance during the mid aughts was a causal factor in raising the overall level of the field in order to be competitive. What this has created, IMO, is a real disparity between the top 10 and the top 100-10. Teams of coaches, nutritionists, psychologists and whomever else the extreme elite are able to hire to hone the talent and skills separate them from the field where talent alone will only take you so far.

Brilliantly said. This is the difficulty I always have with this topic. To me it's never as simple as transplanting individuals into different eras and stating that they are better or worse. We're talking about extremely complex temporal systems that have dependencies that are far more complicated that some forum participants might want to consider. At the end of the day we're all just speculating. And as I've said before I have a great deal of difficulty buying some of the assumptions that others might be happy to make.

PS, I also appreciate your comment about Brad Gilberts strategy. That's a microcosm which illustrates what's so great about tennis. We've seen specifics like Rafa's performance in 2011 being called into question. Which to my mind betrays a lack of understanding or appreciation for what Rafa achieved. One player, Novak, prevented Rafa from having a career year. He dominated everyone else. It was an impressive, and yes even dominant year. I repeat, you can dominate and still get dominated. That's sport, heck.. that's life!