The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[Carol]

There is no treatment except rest and hoping it goes away. Ask Ancic or Soderling. I've noticed a trend that when you're caught with your pants down and links like that in front of you from a doctor you can't counter it with anything but a silly retort.

Don't tell lies - again.

The treatments are legal. I know this because you posted the WADA regulations and we realised you hadn't read them yourself. You now agree that they're legal. Stop trying to spread muck...

You are so stubborn and naive. There are no lies here except you lying to yourself but not reading it's performance enhancing. I know it's legal and I also know it's performance enhancing. Seeing as you
are too scared and blind to read it I'll post the whole damn article here so it's staring you and other Nadal fans in the face. This link is from a doctor. If people who aren't native speakers can't fully understand it, use google translate 'cos it's enlightening stuff.

"Could platelet-rich plasma be used for doping?
January 23, 2013 • Analysis
Email, RSS Follow

I’ve written many times about platelet-rich plasma and talked about it in detail on my show. I have
discussed what the treatment is, the theory behind why it was thought to speed the healing process, and the data about its effectiveness.

Drawing blood
Platelet-rich plasma involves drawing blood from the athlete, isolating the plasma with its growth-factor containing platelets, and reinjecting it into the injured area.
Platelet-rich plasma has received tremendous attention from athletes and the media for its theoretical benefits to speed the healing of injured tendons, ligaments, and muscle. While scientific evidence showing a definitive benefit has been lacking, many elite athletes undergo the procedure to try to return
to sports faster.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has been concerned that PRP has an ergogenic effect. While PRP is currently allowed, concern that it could increase levels of growth factors that are currently banned still exists.

Also read:
Ask Dr. Geier – Platelet-Rich Plasma
Is platelet-rich plasma a true scientific breakthrough or just hype?
A study in the January 2013 issue of the American Journal of Sports Medicine by Amy S. Wasterlain et al looks at the effects of PRP injections and if they increase levels of growth factors within the body. They measured levels of six growth factors thought to be performance enhancing by WADA in 25 athletes receiving PRP injections.

The authors found that serum levels of three or ergogenic growth factors – IGF-1, VEGF and bFGF –
increased significantly after PRP injections. They also found that the levels of these growth factors rose
because the PRP started a biological process that led to the athletes’ bodies producing more of the
growth factors, not from the growth factors within the injected PRP alone.



These findings lead to some important questions:

Can a test be developed that can accurately determine if growth factors are elevated due to PRP injections instead of due to separate use (for performance-enhancing reasons)?

Do these increases in growth factors, especially the increases from PRP injections, actually help improve performance?

Should WADA revisit its prior ban on platelet-rich plasma?

Further research into these questions, and further research into whether or not platelet-rich plasma is effective for healing of sports injuries, is needed in the coming years.

Do you think that platelet-rich plasma has the potential to be misused for performance-enhancing reasons? How should WADA and sports organizations treat athletes who want to use it to treat injuries? Share your thoughts below!"

http://www.drdavidgeier.com/platelet-rich-plasma-doping-performance-enhancing/


^ And do read the thoughts below the article too. There are some good ones.

Don't try so hard. Whatever Rafa was treated was LEGAL and more smart decision than to go through a surgery which was the last option. If not ask Delpo and his surgeries.....:s

 

[brokenshoelace]

The reason for that was because I very much doubt anyone else but Djokovic could have beaten him at RG even this year. Despite the poor season he's had, he played well still at RG eventhough he lost in straight sets to Djokovic. Apart from set 3 where he had pretty much accepted his fate, he tried very hard and played well the first 2 sets so in that respect he's still very good, but no longer in his prime and hence why Djokovic (who is in his prime) was finally able to win.

How does that make the comparison to 2008 Federer any sillier? Roger was not losing to a player he was 1828282-3 against (Berdych) or some no name (Brown) in majors, nor was he ranked 10th in the world. It's still a terrible analogy.

Just 'cos you've beaten a player umpteen times in the past does not mean you will always continue to do so (Berdych/Wawrinka) I think Stan Wawrinka has shown that. Players get better. Even when ranked number 1, Nadal was having awful trouble against Haase and Petzschner the year he won Wimbledon in 2010. Him struggling at Wimbledon has nothing to do with being past his prime or ageing. He almost always struggled, even when he won it. So no, it's not a terrible analogy at all. Roger on the other hand did start losing to a lot of guys he had always beaten in 2008 which was kinda sudden considering his prime years were 2004-2007.

You're basically equating struggling but winning a major to losing in the second round. I'm done here. This is an incredibly dumb analogy and you're only embarrassing yourself further by backing it up. Federer won a major in 2008. Hell according to Darth, he was an overwhelming favorite to win another (Wimbledon, and was a favorite in that final). Do you think Nadal's got a chance in hell at winning a major this year? Federer was far and away the second best player in the world in 2008. Nadal is ranked 9th at the moment.

Please, stop, you're making this place stupider as a result.

 

[Front242]

How does that make the comparison to 2008 Federer any sillier? Roger was not losing to a player he was 1828282-3 against (Berdych) or some no name (Brown) in majors, nor was he ranked 10th in the world. It's still a terrible analogy.

Just 'cos you've beaten a player umpteen times in the past does not mean you will always continue to do so (Berdych/Wawrinka) I think Stan Wawrinka has shown that. Players get better. Even when ranked number 1, Nadal was having awful trouble against Haase and Petzschner the year he won Wimbledon in 2010. Him struggling at Wimbledon has nothing to do with being past his prime or ageing. He almost always struggled, even when he won it. So no, it's not a terrible analogy at all. Roger on the other hand did start losing to a lot of guys he had always beaten in 2008 which was kinda sudden considering his prime years were 2004-2007.

You're basically equating struggling but winning a major to losing in the second round. I'm done here. This is an incredibly dumb analogy and you're only embarrassing yourself further by backing it up. Federer won a major in 2008. Hell according to Darth, he was an overwhelming favorite to win another (Wimbledon, and was a favorite in that final). Do you think Nadal's got a chance in hell at winning a major this year? Federer was far and away the second best player in the world in 2008. Nadal is ranked 9th at the moment.

Please, stop, you're making this place stupider as a result.

Nadal has always struggled early in Wimbledon and had to use gamesmanship to get past Petzschner in 2010 and could've lost in the third round there and he knew it well so hence why those crafty medical timeouts came to the rescue so no, it's not any different when you use every dirty trick in the rulebook to win or lose in the 2nd round. That's why this analogy is not the slightest bit dumb and embarrassing. In fact, it's embarrassing to have to pretend your knee is hanging off just 'cos your opponent is serving out of his mind and hitting forehand bombs left, right and centre and then proceed to resume running around like a gazelle for the rest of the match as good as new, except that the running before and after looked exactly the same. That's embarrassing. Why not try and overcome the hurdle like real men do and not deliberately stop your opponent's momentum and cause him to lose to next 2 sets pathetically as a result?

Anyway, do I think Nadal has a chance in winning the USO this year? Of course. Will he? Probably not but of course he has a chance and nothing would surprise me these days as no one expected Cilic to win last year either or Wawrinka at RG.

 

[Front242]

Don't tell lies - again.

The treatments are legal. I know this because you posted the WADA regulations and we realised you hadn't read them yourself. You now agree that they're legal. Stop trying to spread muck...

You are so stubborn and naive. There are no lies here except you lying to yourself but not reading it's performance enhancing. I know it's legal and I also know it's performance enhancing. Seeing as you
are too scared and blind to read it I'll post the whole damn article here so it's staring you and other Nadal fans in the face. This link is from a doctor. If people who aren't native speakers can't fully understand it, use google translate 'cos it's enlightening stuff.

"Could platelet-rich plasma be used for doping?
January 23, 2013 • Analysis
Email, RSS Follow

I’ve written many times about platelet-rich plasma and talked about it in detail on my show. I have
discussed what the treatment is, the theory behind why it was thought to speed the healing process, and the data about its effectiveness.

Drawing blood
Platelet-rich plasma involves drawing blood from the athlete, isolating the plasma with its growth-factor containing platelets, and reinjecting it into the injured area.
Platelet-rich plasma has received tremendous attention from athletes and the media for its theoretical benefits to speed the healing of injured tendons, ligaments, and muscle. While scientific evidence showing a definitive benefit has been lacking, many elite athletes undergo the procedure to try to return
to sports faster.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has been concerned that PRP has an ergogenic effect. While PRP is currently allowed, concern that it could increase levels of growth factors that are currently banned still exists.

Also read:
Ask Dr. Geier – Platelet-Rich Plasma
Is platelet-rich plasma a true scientific breakthrough or just hype?
A study in the January 2013 issue of the American Journal of Sports Medicine by Amy S. Wasterlain et al looks at the effects of PRP injections and if they increase levels of growth factors within the body. They measured levels of six growth factors thought to be performance enhancing by WADA in 25 athletes receiving PRP injections.

The authors found that serum levels of three or ergogenic growth factors – IGF-1, VEGF and bFGF –
increased significantly after PRP injections. They also found that the levels of these growth factors rose
because the PRP started a biological process that led to the athletes’ bodies producing more of the
growth factors, not from the growth factors within the injected PRP alone.



These findings lead to some important questions:

Can a test be developed that can accurately determine if growth factors are elevated due to PRP injections instead of due to separate use (for performance-enhancing reasons)?

Do these increases in growth factors, especially the increases from PRP injections, actually help improve performance?

Should WADA revisit its prior ban on platelet-rich plasma?

Further research into these questions, and further research into whether or not platelet-rich plasma is effective for healing of sports injuries, is needed in the coming years.

Do you think that platelet-rich plasma has the potential to be misused for performance-enhancing reasons? How should WADA and sports organizations treat athletes who want to use it to treat injuries? Share your thoughts below!"

http://www.drdavidgeier.com/platelet-rich-plasma-doping-performance-enhancing/


^ And do read the thoughts below the article too. There are some good ones.

Don't try so hard. Whatever Rafa was treated was LEGAL and more smart decision than to go through a surgery which was the last option. If not ask Delpo and his surgeries.....:s

I've already stated multiple times I know it's legal. What you and other Nadal fans don't care to notice is that PRP treatment is performance enhancing. For a legal treatment it brings a lot of benefits and it's therefore no surprise as I pointed out that Nadal stormed back in 2010 winning 3 slams and same again in 2013 winning 2 slams and 5 masters 1000s and that link also shows they're again questioning if it should be legal because of said performance enhancing qualities.

 

[DarthFed]

why do you keep pushing the term Prime when we have established that peak is more appropriate.It's a vast different my good friend. The others (Front )on this board will miss the point not Federerberg, he gets it.

I won't miss anything. If prime or peak Federer means going 5 sets with Benneteau and having back spasms against Malisse then I'm a monkey's uncle. He wouldn't have struggled like that against Benneteau in his prime or peak years. He played great for the most part in that tournament but nothing like his best years so it was nothing close to his peak or prime years or performances.

I think AP is making a reasonable distinction between "prime" Roger of the 04 - 07 years, and an elite athlete who is past his prime but is able to play himself into peak form. I don't believe AP is saying that Federer in 2012 was in his prime, but he did manage to get his peak form right to be able win Wimbledon. That's not an unreasonable representation of what happened.

Just like it wouldn't be unreasonable, and I believe Becker made this point, to say that Roger peaked one round too early in this years Wimbledon. Perhaps we're getting to caught up with our use of the term peak Federer, when in reality we mean Federer in his prime?

I've taken AP's posts to mean that Federer's prime extended out to 2012, meaning we'd be talking about 2004-2012 as Roger's "prime" which I strongly disagree with. Now did Roger play his best tennis and kind of turn back the clocks to win Wimbledon 2012? Absolutely. There is no argument there. Roger in 2012 played at or near the absolute best of his abilities (at that time) to win Wimbledon. The point is at Roger's advanced age the "best of his abilities" were much less than what they were 5-6 years before and that's what made it more remarkable. I also don't agree with the whole idea that "since Roger won Wimbledon in 2012 he was at peak level." If so, would we be saying that it extended to 2014 if Roger had won 2 more games in last year's Wimbledon final?

 

[the AntiPusher]

I won't miss anything. If prime or peak Federer means going 5 sets with Benneteau and having back spasms against Malisse then I'm a monkey's uncle. He wouldn't have struggled like that against Benneteau in his prime or peak years. He played great for the most part in that tournament but nothing like his best years so it was nothing close to his peak or prime years or performances.

I think AP is making a reasonable distinction between "prime" Roger of the 04 - 07 years, and an elite athlete who is past his prime but is able to play himself into peak form. I don't believe AP is saying that Federer in 2012 was in his prime, but he did manage to get his peak form right to be able win Wimbledon. That's not an unreasonable representation of what happened.

Just like it wouldn't be unreasonable, and I believe Becker made this point, to say that Roger peaked one round too early in this years Wimbledon. Perhaps we're getting to caught up with our use of the term peak Federer, when in reality we mean Federer in his prime?

I've taken AP's posts to mean that Federer's prime extended out to 2012, meaning we'd be talking about 2004-2012 as Roger's "prime" which I strongly disagree with. Now did Roger play his best tennis and kind of turn back the clocks to win Wimbledon 2012? Absolutely. There is no argument there. Roger in 2012 played at or near the absolute best of his abilities (at that time) to win Wimbledon. The point is at Roger's advanced age the "best of his abilities" were much less than what they were 5-6 years before and that's what made it more remarkable. I also don't agree with the whole idea that "since Roger won Wimbledon in 2012 he was at peak level." If so, would we be saying that it extended to 2014 if Roger had won 2 more games in last year's Wimbledon final?

Then you have taken it incorrectly. His prime ended in 2010,he was able to peak again during 2012. Don't twist it , we (Federerberg and I clarified it numerous posts ago. So you can delete your post if you feel it's necessary. No worries

 

[DarthFed]

I think AP is making a reasonable distinction between "prime" Roger of the 04 - 07 years, and an elite athlete who is past his prime but is able to play himself into peak form. I don't believe AP is saying that Federer in 2012 was in his prime, but he did manage to get his peak form right to be able win Wimbledon. That's not an unreasonable representation of what happened.

Just like it wouldn't be unreasonable, and I believe Becker made this point, to say that Roger peaked one round too early in this years Wimbledon. Perhaps we're getting to caught up with our use of the term peak Federer, when in reality we mean Federer in his prime?

I've taken AP's posts to mean that Federer's prime extended out to 2012, meaning we'd be talking about 2004-2012 as Roger's "prime" which I strongly disagree with. Now did Roger play his best tennis and kind of turn back the clocks to win Wimbledon 2012? Absolutely. There is no argument there. Roger in 2012 played at or near the absolute best of his abilities (at that time) to win Wimbledon. The point is at Roger's advanced age the "best of his abilities" were much less than what they were 5-6 years before and that's what made it more remarkable. I also don't agree with the whole idea that "since Roger won Wimbledon in 2012 he was at peak level." If so, would we be saying that it extended to 2014 if Roger had won 2 more games in last year's Wimbledon final?

Then you have taken it incorrectly. His prime ended in 2010,he was able to peak again during 2012. Don't twist it , we (Federerberg and I clarified it numerous posts ago. So you can delete your post if you feel it's necessary. No worries

We are all good bud, just wasn't reading it correctly.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I've taken AP's posts to mean that Federer's prime extended out to 2012, meaning we'd be talking about 2004-2012 as Roger's "prime" which I strongly disagree with. Now did Roger play his best tennis and kind of turn back the clocks to win Wimbledon 2012? Absolutely. There is no argument there. Roger in 2012 played at or near the absolute best of his abilities (at that time) to win Wimbledon. The point is at Roger's advanced age the "best of his abilities" were much less than what they were 5-6 years before and that's what made it more remarkable. I also don't agree with the whole idea that "since Roger won Wimbledon in 2012 he was at peak level." If so, would we be saying that it extended to 2014 if Roger had won 2 more games in last year's Wimbledon final?

Then you have taken it incorrectly. His prime ended in 2010,he was able to peak again during 2012. Don't twist it , we (Federerberg and I clarified it numerous posts ago. So you can delete your post if you feel it's necessary. No worries

We are all good bud, just wasn't reading it correctly.

no worries sir. have a great day

 

[Carol]

You are so stubborn and naive. There are no lies here except you lying to yourself but not reading it's performance enhancing. I know it's legal and I also know it's performance enhancing. Seeing as you
are too scared and blind to read it I'll post the whole damn article here so it's staring you and other Nadal fans in the face. This link is from a doctor. If people who aren't native speakers can't fully understand it, use google translate 'cos it's enlightening stuff.

"Could platelet-rich plasma be used for doping?
January 23, 2013 • Analysis
Email, RSS Follow

I’ve written many times about platelet-rich plasma and talked about it in detail on my show. I have
discussed what the treatment is, the theory behind why it was thought to speed the healing process, and the data about its effectiveness.



Drawing blood
Platelet-rich plasma involves drawing blood from the athlete, isolating the plasma with its growth-factor containing platelets, and reinjecting it into the injured area.
Platelet-rich plasma has received tremendous attention from athletes and the media for its theoretical benefits to speed the healing of injured tendons, ligaments, and muscle. While scientific evidence showing a definitive benefit has been lacking, many elite athletes undergo the procedure to try to return

to sports faster.


The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has been concerned that PRP has an ergogenic effect. While PRP is currently allowed, concern that it could increase levels of growth factors that are currently banned still exists.

Also read:

Ask Dr. Geier – Platelet-Rich Plasma
Is platelet-rich plasma a true scientific breakthrough or just hype?

A study in the January 2013 issue of the American Journal of Sports Medicine by Amy S. Wasterlain et al looks at the effects of PRP injections and if they increase levels of growth factors within the body. They measured levels of six growth factors thought to be performance enhancing by WADA in 25 athletes receiving PRP injections.







The authors found that serum levels of three or ergogenic growth factors – IGF-1, VEGF and bFGF –
increased significantly after PRP injections. They also found that the levels of these growth factors rose
because the PRP started a biological process that led to the athletes’ bodies producing more of the

growth factors, not from the growth factors within the injected PRP alone.





These findings lead to some important questions:

Can a test be developed that can accurately determine if growth factors are elevated due to PRP injections instead of due to separate use (for performance-enhancing reasons)?


Do these increases in growth factors, especially the increases from PRP injections, actually help improve performance?

Should WADA revisit its prior ban on platelet-rich plasma?

Further research into these questions, and further research into whether or not platelet-rich plasma is effective for healing of sports injuries, is needed in the coming years.


Do you think that platelet-rich plasma has the potential to be misused for performance-enhancing reasons? How should WADA and sports organizations treat athletes who want to use it to treat injuries? Share your thoughts below!"






http://www.drdavidgeier.com/platelet-rich-plasma-doping-performance-enhancing/



^ And do read the thoughts below the article too. There are some good ones.

Don't try so hard. Whatever Rafa was treated was LEGAL and more smart decision than to go through a surgery which was the last option. If not ask Delpo and his surgeries.....:s

I've already stated multiple times I know it's legal. What you and other Nadal fans don't care to notice is that PRP treatment is performance enhancing. For a legal treatment it brings a lot of benefits and it's therefore no surprise as I pointed out that Nadal stormed back in 2010 winning 3 slams and same again in 2013 winning 2 slams and 5 masters 1000s and that link also shows they're again questioning if it
should be legal because of said performance enhancing qualities.

That treatment helped to regenerate the Rafa's battered knee tendon, the best option to avoid the surgery therefore he has been able to play in better conditions without pain like he used to play before, so yes, you can say enhancing qualities, isn't? come on, don't try to find five legs to the cat, or maybe you should study more others systems like the CVAC, not a necessary medical treatment but a big help for what you call "enhancing qualities" :s uzzled

 

[Riotbeard]

You are so stubborn and naive. There are no lies here except you lying to yourself but not reading it's performance enhancing. I know it's legal and I also know it's performance enhancing. Seeing as you
are too scared and blind to read it I'll post the whole damn article here so it's staring you and other Nadal fans in the face. This link is from a doctor. If people who aren't native speakers can't fully understand it, use google translate 'cos it's enlightening stuff.

"Could platelet-rich plasma be used for doping?
January 23, 2013 • Analysis
Email, RSS Follow

I’ve written many times about platelet-rich plasma and talked about it in detail on my show. I have
discussed what the treatment is, the theory behind why it was thought to speed the healing process, and the data about its effectiveness.

Drawing blood
Platelet-rich plasma involves drawing blood from the athlete, isolating the plasma with its growth-factor containing platelets, and reinjecting it into the injured area.
Platelet-rich plasma has received tremendous attention from athletes and the media for its theoretical benefits to speed the healing of injured tendons, ligaments, and muscle. While scientific evidence showing a definitive benefit has been lacking, many elite athletes undergo the procedure to try to return
to sports faster.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has been concerned that PRP has an ergogenic effect. While PRP is currently allowed, concern that it could increase levels of growth factors that are currently banned still exists.

Also read:
Ask Dr. Geier – Platelet-Rich Plasma
Is platelet-rich plasma a true scientific breakthrough or just hype?
A study in the January 2013 issue of the American Journal of Sports Medicine by Amy S. Wasterlain et al looks at the effects of PRP injections and if they increase levels of growth factors within the body. They measured levels of six growth factors thought to be performance enhancing by WADA in 25 athletes receiving PRP injections.

The authors found that serum levels of three or ergogenic growth factors – IGF-1, VEGF and bFGF –
increased significantly after PRP injections. They also found that the levels of these growth factors rose
because the PRP started a biological process that led to the athletes’ bodies producing more of the
growth factors, not from the growth factors within the injected PRP alone.



These findings lead to some important questions:

Can a test be developed that can accurately determine if growth factors are elevated due to PRP injections instead of due to separate use (for performance-enhancing reasons)?

Do these increases in growth factors, especially the increases from PRP injections, actually help improve performance?

Should WADA revisit its prior ban on platelet-rich plasma?

Further research into these questions, and further research into whether or not platelet-rich plasma is effective for healing of sports injuries, is needed in the coming years.

Do you think that platelet-rich plasma has the potential to be misused for performance-enhancing reasons? How should WADA and sports organizations treat athletes who want to use it to treat injuries? Share your thoughts below!"

http://www.drdavidgeier.com/platelet-rich-plasma-doping-performance-enhancing/


^ And do read the thoughts below the article too. There are some good ones.

Don't try so hard. Whatever Rafa was treated was LEGAL and more smart decision than to go through a surgery which was the last option. If not ask Delpo and his surgeries.....:s

I've already stated multiple times I know it's legal. What you and other Nadal fans don't care to notice is that PRP treatment is performance enhancing. For a legal treatment it brings a lot of benefits and it's therefore no surprise as I pointed out that Nadal stormed back in 2010 winning 3 slams and same again in 2013 winning 2 slams and 5 masters 1000s and that link also shows they're again questioning if it should be legal because of said performance enhancing qualities.

Performance enhancing sure, but it's hardly taking steroids and acting like they are a cure for a bad back. PRP's most important sports medical properties are it's ability to reduce inflammation, cure serious joint issues, back problems, etc.. I think it's a great medical breakthrough, but hardly the equivalent to doping.

 

[El Dude]

Wow, this thread really went down the toilet since I last was here. Too bad, because there was some interesting stuff about prime and peak.

I like the differentiation between "prime" and "peak." A player's "prime" is a somewhat arbitrary span of time during which a player was in their very best form. It differs for every player, but historically great players usually enter their prime in the 20-22 window and exit it sometime in the 25-27 range. I think it is interchangeable with "peak phase." For some greats, I'd say their primes were:

Djokovic: 2011-present
Nadal: 2008-13
Federer: 2004-09
Sampras: 1993-97
Edberg: 1987-92
Lendl: 1984-90
McEnroe: 1980-84
Borg: 1978-80 (or maybe 76-81?)
Connors: 1974-78

Some players are really hard to determine - like Becker or Agassi or even Wilander.

And yes, I do think that Roger's prime was through 2009, and that Roland Garros in 2010 saw its end. Now he wasn't quite the same player in 2008-09 as he was in 2004-07, but he wasn't the same player in 2007 as he was in 2006, so it all depends upon where we want to draw the line. I like 2009, or even early 2010, because he was still making almost every final and winning many of them. Before 2010 Roland Garros he had won three of the last four Slams and four of the last six. It is hard not to call that prime, although we can probably all agree that it wasn't his "absolute prime."

But the way AntiPusher was using peak, was what could be called "peak form" - when a player is able to come close to the form of their prime years, "peek into" their prime for a tournament or match or even just a game. Roger's defeat of Andy at Wimbledon is a classic example of "peak form Federer."

So we have:

Prime - span of time when a player is in their best form, usually a span of 3-6 years and from the early to mid or late 20s.
Absolute Prime/Peak - a player's very best year or two.
Peak - can have two meanings:
A) Phase/Years - When referring to a span of time, what we could call "peak phase" or "peak years," it is synonymous with "prime."
B) Form - When referring to a specific instant or match, it means "peak form" - when a post-prime player is able to "peek into" a form close to their prime level.


I find this interesting because for older players winning big tournaments becomes about timing. I imagine Roger realizes this. In a way, he "peaked" too early at Wimbledon - or he wasn't able to maintain that peak into the final against Djokovic. Roger's (peak) form in semifinal defeats Novak's (prime) form in the final.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

^^2009 is part of federers prime..played all 4 major finals. that's very rare.

for borg I'd have 1976-1981 inclusive, he usually won 2 majors per year, often in final of all 3 majors he played. in 1981 he won French, played wimb/usopen final, won 1980 wtf played jan1981.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Wow, this thread really went down the toilet since I last was here. Too bad, because there was some interesting stuff about prime and peak.

I like the differentiation between "prime" and "peak." A player's "prime" is a somewhat arbitrary span of time during which a player was in their very best form. It differs for every player, but historically great players usually enter their prime in the 20-22 window and exit it sometime in the 25-27 range. I think it is interchangeable with "peak phase." For some greats, I'd say their primes were:

Djokovic: 2011-present
Nadal: 2008-13
Federer: 2004-09
Sampras: 1993-97
Edberg: 1987-92
Lendl: 1984-90
McEnroe: 1980-84
Borg: 1978-80 (or maybe 76-81?)
Connors: 1974-78

Some players are really hard to determine - like Becker or Agassi or even Wilander.

And yes, I do think that Roger's prime was through 2009, and that Roland Garros in 2010 saw its end. Now he wasn't quite the same player in 2008-09 as he was in 2004-07, but he wasn't the same player in 2007 as he was in 2006, so it all depends upon where we want to draw the line. I like 2009, or even early 2010, because he was still making almost every final and winning many of them. Before 2010 Roland Garros he had won three of the last four Slams and four of the last six. It is hard not to call that prime, although we can probably all agree that it wasn't his "absolute prime."

But the way AntiPusher was using peak, was what could be called "peak form" - when a player is able to come close to the form of their prime years, "peek into" their prime for a tournament or match or even just a game. Roger's defeat of Andy at Wimbledon is a classic example of "peak form Federer."

So we have:

Prime - span of time when a player is in their best form, usually a span of 3-6 years and from the early to mid or late 20s.
Absolute Prime/Peak - a player's very best year or two.
Peak - can have two meanings:
A) Phase/Years - When referring to a span of time, what we could call "peak phase" or "peak years," it is synonymous with "prime."
B) Form - When referring to a specific instant or match, it means "peak form" - when a post-prime player is able to "peek into" a form close to their prime level.


I find this interesting because for older players winning big tournaments becomes about timing. I imagine Roger realizes this. In a way, he "peaked" too early at Wimbledon - or he wasn't able to maintain that peak into the final against Djokovic. Roger's (peak) form in semifinal defeats Novak's (prime) form in the final.

Absolutely Brilliant El Dude :clap. Thanks good Sir

 

[Fiero425]

Wow, this thread really went down the toilet since I last was here. Too bad, because there was some interesting stuff about prime and peak.

I like the differentiation between "prime" and "peak." A player's "prime" is a somewhat arbitrary span of time during which a player was in their very best form. It differs for every player, but historically great players usually enter their prime in the 20-22 window and exit it sometime in the 25-27 range. I think it is interchangeable with "peak phase." For some greats, I'd say their primes were:

Djokovic: 2011-present
Nadal: 2008-13
Federer: 2004-09
Sampras: 1993-97
Edberg: 1987-92
Lendl: 1984-90
McEnroe: 1980-84
Borg: 1978-80 (or maybe 76-81?)
Connors: 1974-78

Some players are really hard to determine - like Becker or Agassi or even Wilander.

And yes, I do think that Roger's prime was through 2009, and that Roland Garros in 2010 saw its end. Now he wasn't quite the same player in 2008-09 as he was in 2004-07, but he wasn't the same player in 2007 as he was in 2006, so it all depends upon where we want to draw the line. I like 2009, or even early 2010, because he was still making almost every final and winning many of them. Before 2010 Roland Garros he had won three of the last four Slams and four of the last six. It is hard not to call that prime, although we can probably all agree that it wasn't his "absolute prime."

But the way AntiPusher was using peak, was what could be called "peak form" - when a player is able to come close to the form of their prime years, "peek into" their prime for a tournament or match or even just a game. Roger's defeat of Andy at Wimbledon is a classic example of "peak form Federer."

So we have:

Prime - span of time when a player is in their best form, usually a span of 3-6 years and from the early to mid or late 20s.
Absolute Prime/Peak - a player's very best year or two.
Peak - can have two meanings:
A) Phase/Years - When referring to a span of time, what we could call "peak phase" or "peak years," it is synonymous with "prime."
B) Form - When referring to a specific instant or match, it means "peak form" - when a post-prime player is able to "peek into" a form close to their prime level.


I find this interesting because for older players winning big tournaments becomes about timing. I imagine Roger realizes this. In a way, he "peaked" too early at Wimbledon - or he wasn't able to maintain that peak into the final against Djokovic. Roger's (peak) form in semifinal defeats Novak's (prime) form in the final.

Absolutely Brilliant El Dude :clap. Thanks good Sir

Worth saving to my latest blog! Thanks! :clap :angel: :dodgy:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

2008 is not definitely part of Roger's prime. In fact that was the year when the media pundits first began writing him off and asking him "Is this the beginning of the end?" question in the pressers.
Sure, Roger did do very well in 2009. But, I think by definition prime cannot be discontinuous.
So, I would say that Roger's prime is 2004-2007. I believe many would agree as well.

 

[brokenshoelace]

This idea that losing in the 4th round or earlier four years in a row is not a sign of anything unusual for Nadal because he always struggled is the most baffling piece of crap thrown around here. You're basically saying losing to Steve Darcis in straight sets in the first round isn't a sign of anything unusual because he once had to navigate through a couple of five setters before WINNING THE TOURNAMENT.

FYI: Nadal didn't struggle at Wimbledon in 2008 on his way to the final, where he only dropped one set, nor did he struggle in 2011. He had one five setter in 2006 while the rest of his matches were smooth.

Please stop with this absolutely ludicrous narrative.

 

[Fiero425]

2008 is not definitely part of Roger's prime. In fact that was the year when the media pundits first began writing him off and asking him "Is this the beginning of the end?" question in the pressers.
Sure, Roger did do very well in 2009. But, I think by definition prime cannot be discontinuous.
So, I would say that Roger's prime is 2004-2007. I believe many would agree as well.

If the experts see someone win 3 out of 4 majors, playing and making the finals year in and year out, what else can they say? Must be the end when Rafa took Federer's Wimbledon title in '08 and only salvaged his year with a 5th USO later that summer! That really showed greatness by even thinking Roger "salvaged" his season with a USO! :lolz: :angel: :dodgy: :eyepop :cover

 

[the AntiPusher]

2008 is not definitely part of Roger's prime. In fact that was the year when the media pundits first began writing him off and asking him "Is this the beginning of the end?" question in the pressers.
Sure, Roger did do very well in 2009. But, I think by definition prime cannot be discontinuous.
So, I would say that Roger's prime is 2004-2007. I believe many would agree as well.

A grand slam finalist in all four major slams. I am assuming because Roger couldn't put a lump of coal between his buttocks and produce "diamonds(victories at AO vs Rafa in 5 or US Open vs JMDP) is your rational. Yeah, you are correct , many( Front and probably I hate to say it Darthfed ) will most likely support your hypothesis.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You are so stubborn and naive. There are no lies here except you lying to yourself but not reading it's performance enhancing. I know it's legal and I also know it's performance enhancing. Seeing as you
are too scared and blind to read it I'll post the whole damn article here so it's staring you and other Nadal fans in the face. This link is from a doctor. If people who aren't native speakers can't fully understand it, use google translate 'cos it's enlightening stuff.

"Could platelet-rich plasma be used for doping?
January 23, 2013 • Analysis
Email, RSS Follow

I’ve written many times about platelet-rich plasma and talked about it in detail on my show. I have
discussed what the treatment is, the theory behind why it was thought to speed the healing process, and the data about its effectiveness.

Drawing blood
Platelet-rich plasma involves drawing blood from the athlete, isolating the plasma with its growth-factor containing platelets, and reinjecting it into the injured area.
Platelet-rich plasma has received tremendous attention from athletes and the media for its theoretical benefits to speed the healing of injured tendons, ligaments, and muscle. While scientific evidence showing a definitive benefit has been lacking, many elite athletes undergo the procedure to try to return
to sports faster.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has been concerned that PRP has an ergogenic effect. While PRP is currently allowed, concern that it could increase levels of growth factors that are currently banned still exists.

Also read:
Ask Dr. Geier – Platelet-Rich Plasma
Is platelet-rich plasma a true scientific breakthrough or just hype?
A study in the January 2013 issue of the American Journal of Sports Medicine by Amy S. Wasterlain et al looks at the effects of PRP injections and if they increase levels of growth factors within the body. They measured levels of six growth factors thought to be performance enhancing by WADA in 25 athletes receiving PRP injections.

The authors found that serum levels of three or ergogenic growth factors – IGF-1, VEGF and bFGF –
increased significantly after PRP injections. They also found that the levels of these growth factors rose
because the PRP started a biological process that led to the athletes’ bodies producing more of the
growth factors, not from the growth factors within the injected PRP alone.



These findings lead to some important questions:

Can a test be developed that can accurately determine if growth factors are elevated due to PRP injections instead of due to separate use (for performance-enhancing reasons)?

Do these increases in growth factors, especially the increases from PRP injections, actually help improve performance?

Should WADA revisit its prior ban on platelet-rich plasma?

Further research into these questions, and further research into whether or not platelet-rich plasma is effective for healing of sports injuries, is needed in the coming years.

Do you think that platelet-rich plasma has the potential to be misused for performance-enhancing reasons? How should WADA and sports organizations treat athletes who want to use it to treat injuries? Share your thoughts below!"

http://www.drdavidgeier.com/platelet-rich-plasma-doping-performance-enhancing/


^ And do read the thoughts below the article too. There are some good ones.

Don't try so hard. Whatever Rafa was treated was LEGAL and more smart decision than to go through a surgery which was the last option. If not ask Delpo and his surgeries.....:s

I've already stated multiple times I know it's legal. What you and other Nadal fans don't care to notice is that PRP treatment is performance enhancing. For a legal treatment it brings a lot of benefits and it's therefore no surprise as I pointed out that Nadal stormed back in 2010 winning 3 slams and same again in 2013 winning 2 slams and 5 masters 1000s and that link also shows they're again questioning if it should be legal because of said performance enhancing qualities.

Ahahahahahahahaahahahahaha.

Oh boy. So now Nadal won 3 slams in 2010 because he was on what should have been illegal PED's. You see, Nadal was lucky to get tendinitis. He was treated and turned into Superman.

Note to GSM, Federberg, Darth and others: Whenever you take a shot at Nadal fans, just keep remember that the above argument is employed by someone on your side, and you're in no position to throw stones.

This is the same person who implied Nadal's success is partially due to operation Fuentes and that his sample was among the blood samples collected, even though the police raid was conducted in 2006. I don't know how to explain the subsequent successful years. I guess he just found a different doctor.

 

[Front242]

This idea that losing in the 4th round or earlier four years in a row is not a sign of anything unusual for Nadal because he always struggled is the most baffling piece of crap thrown around here. You're basically saying losing to Steve Darcis in straight sets in the first round isn't a sign of anything unusual because he once had to navigate through a couple of five setters before WINNING THE TOURNAMENT.

FYI: Nadal didn't struggle at Wimbledon in 2008 on his way to the final, where he only dropped one set, nor did he struggle in 2011. He had one five setter in 2006 while the rest of his matches were smooth.

Please stop with this absolutely ludicrous narrative.

The difference is he was either told to stop using those medical timeouts or he decided to play fair and hence had no way to stop the rot when losing. Otherwise there is no difference between the last few years and him against Petzschner where he was also losing but used gamesmanship as his get out jail free card.