- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,163
- Reactions
- 5,847
- Points
- 113
In the Agassi thread, I mentioned the idea of putting together an "official" (or unofficial) Tennis Frontier Greatest Players of all Time rankings and wanted to start a thread of its own to discuss the idea. If we go through with this, I want it to be a we; I'm willing to organize it, come up with a ranking system, etc, but I want it to include as many members as possible - and even things like ranking system I want to get feedback on.
How('s it going to work)?
I want us to take our time, to have discussions (and debates), to hash things out. I envision the process taking two or three months, maybe completing itself sometime around Wimbledon. I see a series of threads, something like this:
Part One - Preliminary Thoughts. Here we can discuss the the process itself and perhaps come up with some parameters.
Part Two - Ranking System. Come up with a system by which the rankings are determined.
Part Three - Initial Rankings. Members offer preliminary lists and debates ensue.
Part Four - Revised Rankings. If Part 3 is the "rough draft," this is the "revised draft" in which members offer revised lists based upon the previous thread. More discussion, loose ends are ironed out.
Part Five - Final Rankings. A third go around, after which I put together the (Un)Official Tennis Frontier All-Time Rankings.
Or something like that. Not sure if that's the way to go, but it is what comes to mind right now.
When?
The history of organized tennis goes back over a century, with the first Wimbledon occurring in 1877. Since then there have been, in my mind, three broad eras:
1. The Early Years (1877-1925)
2. The Professional Era (1926-1968)
3. The Open Era (1968-present)
There are many ways to slice the cake, and it could be argued that the cake needs more slices. But I think those three broad eras suffice. I would suggest that we focus on the Open Era for this rankings and perhaps look at All-Time later on.
Who?
Now one problem is crossover players - players who played before and after the Open Era began. I would suggest two things:
1. Players who played half or more of their career before the Open Era began are eliminated from consideration. This includes such greats as Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Pancho Gonzales, and Roy Emerson.
2. For those players who played half or more after the Open Era began, we consider their full career. This includes players like John Newcombe, Stan Smith, and Arthur Ashe.
What (Criteria for Greatness)?
A second problem is what criteria should be used. I'd like to keep this open-ended and for people to discuss, but again I have a suggestion - that we take into account two basic factors:
1. Peak Dominance
2. Career Greatness, or Longevity
We can and should discuss which is more important, and to what degree, but I would argue that both should be accounted for. Beyond that, it depends upon the individual. I don't think there should be a statistical formula that people should follow, but that it is up to participants to determine their own rankings, but that at the least, the rankings should take into account both peak dominance and longevity.
Anything else? Any thoughts? Hopes, dreams, paramount objections?
p.s. If the moderators approve of this project, can we have the current thread as a sticky?
How('s it going to work)?
I want us to take our time, to have discussions (and debates), to hash things out. I envision the process taking two or three months, maybe completing itself sometime around Wimbledon. I see a series of threads, something like this:
Part One - Preliminary Thoughts. Here we can discuss the the process itself and perhaps come up with some parameters.
Part Two - Ranking System. Come up with a system by which the rankings are determined.
Part Three - Initial Rankings. Members offer preliminary lists and debates ensue.
Part Four - Revised Rankings. If Part 3 is the "rough draft," this is the "revised draft" in which members offer revised lists based upon the previous thread. More discussion, loose ends are ironed out.
Part Five - Final Rankings. A third go around, after which I put together the (Un)Official Tennis Frontier All-Time Rankings.
Or something like that. Not sure if that's the way to go, but it is what comes to mind right now.
When?
The history of organized tennis goes back over a century, with the first Wimbledon occurring in 1877. Since then there have been, in my mind, three broad eras:
1. The Early Years (1877-1925)
2. The Professional Era (1926-1968)
3. The Open Era (1968-present)
There are many ways to slice the cake, and it could be argued that the cake needs more slices. But I think those three broad eras suffice. I would suggest that we focus on the Open Era for this rankings and perhaps look at All-Time later on.
Who?
Now one problem is crossover players - players who played before and after the Open Era began. I would suggest two things:
1. Players who played half or more of their career before the Open Era began are eliminated from consideration. This includes such greats as Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Pancho Gonzales, and Roy Emerson.
2. For those players who played half or more after the Open Era began, we consider their full career. This includes players like John Newcombe, Stan Smith, and Arthur Ashe.
What (Criteria for Greatness)?
A second problem is what criteria should be used. I'd like to keep this open-ended and for people to discuss, but again I have a suggestion - that we take into account two basic factors:
1. Peak Dominance
2. Career Greatness, or Longevity
We can and should discuss which is more important, and to what degree, but I would argue that both should be accounted for. Beyond that, it depends upon the individual. I don't think there should be a statistical formula that people should follow, but that it is up to participants to determine their own rankings, but that at the least, the rankings should take into account both peak dominance and longevity.
Anything else? Any thoughts? Hopes, dreams, paramount objections?
p.s. If the moderators approve of this project, can we have the current thread as a sticky?
