Discussion about W/L ratio

First topic message reminder :

Discussion about W/L ratios, Nadal's spread of tournaments in terms of surface, music, and whether GOAT debates can be concluded objectively.


Edited extract from one of the posts about subjectivity in GOAT debates:

summerblues wrote:In principle, you cannot ever avoid this type of subjectivity - even falzy's square with four sides ultimately requires agreement on subjective definitions.  But that does not mean that the statement itself does not reflect objective reality.

Good you bring up a square has 4 sides.
For me the debate is not whether the square having 4 sides is similar to a player being the best at tennis. It's just obviously not true. I think the real question now is why is resolving the question as to who is best at tennis not comparable to how many sides a square has.


First let me start with this statement:
Even if Player A has slightly better statistics in every department to Player B, it does not mean necessarily he is better, although it is likely he is.
Now most reasonable people will agree with that, but in case some don't, I'll clarify further.
We can take any statistic, and show what the statement just said. I've talked at length about slams and the natural fluctuations in difficulty to win them in the past; this time let me choose another statistic... let's say finishing year end number 1.
Now let's say hypothetically in 2015: Federer retires in January, Djokovic takes a year break to look after his kids, Murray starts trying to rebuild Hadrian's wall, and Nadal, Cilic, Del Potro, Wawrinka all have injury problems. Ferrer turns out to be the guy heading to number 1 in the rankings. Now let's say you are called 'Player A'.
For Player A, it would be require you to be a better tennis player to be number 1 in 2007/2010 (where Federer and Nadal had stunning years respectively) than in this dystopian 2015 (let's keep ceteris paribus in terms of technology and say you simply have access to the best technology at the time).

For those now who think they have a valid counter point by saying 'Yes IMBL, but how do you prove that you have to have a better tennis level in 2007 to be year end number 1 than this dystopian 2015??'- I can assure you- you don't actually have a valid counter point. Think about it, my statement said it is 'not necessary' a player with better stats is a better player- so therefore the burden of proof is on you- I just have to show that what I'm saying is a possibility for that statement to be correct.

So when this statement is acknowledged, that is when the problem to get a definition really emerges:
Even if Player A has slightly better statistics in every department to Player B, it does not mean necessarily he is better.

If the statement is true (which is demonstrably is), then it can mean that any definition that just looks at statistics (can be all, can be some) simply cannot be reliably accurate.

So therefore any definition would have to include factors as well as the statistics, and this simply cannot be objective in reality.
So the definition of 'better player' will remain subjective- and this is why GOAT debates cannot be objectively resolved like 'the square has four sides'.

legendkillarV2 wrote:White Men Can't Jump!!

Correct! Classic film.

legendkillarV2 wrote:White Men Can't Jump!!

This Man can, with assistance of a rather long walking stick -

The Beatles gives a good example of objective v subjective.

Objectively, they were the most successful band of the 60s (and I am pretty sure of all time).

Subjectively, The Kinks wrote better songs (especially lyrics) and sustained their success over a longer period. And the Jimi Hendrix Experience did more to move music on than either of them.

dummy_half wrote: And the Jimi Hendrix Experience did more to move music on than either of them.

You think Hendrix moved music on more between 1967 and 1970 than the Beatles did between 1963 and 1967?

I would like to throw Pink Floyd into ring in terms of moving music forward and also give The Velvet Underground some a shout

It Must Be Love wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

As a matter of curiosity, is Fed's overall WL % going up or down since he turned 30? Given his relatively poor WL in his early career, I would guess it may still be slightly rising?

It went down in 2013 for sure, let me check 2014 now.

His W/L ratio in 2014 was very good, he didn't play many match, but he was very consistent (his final record was poor though); it improved the overall W/L ratio- but by less than 0.3%

HM Murdoch wrote:

kingraf wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

kingraf wrote:Nothing and no one in the sixties touches The Hendrix Experience, although one could argue the Beatles best years behind them by the time Jimi made the guitar moan at his best. Mind you BB King was peerless throughout the early sixties, and maybe history. The geezer is still performing

Darn it! I'd love to explain to you how wrong you are but that would contradict my last comment.

You're quite obviously not Experienced

Oh, but I am. In fact, by uncanny coincidence, I was listening to Axis: Bold As Love just this morning.

I like Hendrix a lot but I don't agree with the "best guitarist ever" title he seems to have been eternally bestowed. It's a bit like the way Pele always comes top in footballer polls. He's there for being the first to do something rather than being the best.

But then, as a white guy, maybe I can't 'hear' Jimi.*

*bonus point for anyone who knows what film I'm referencing.

I thought "Best guitarist" wasnt even up for debate? With the only discussion being "Greatest musician in the history of mankind"? I feel Jimi deserves marks for creativity, and pioneering. I mean, if I absolutely had to, I'm pretty sure I could engineer a lightbulb, and it would take me less than 1000 attempts, probably less than a week. That doesn't make me a better engineer than Edison. I don't even think music has moved that far forward from Hendrix. There's no way his repertoire could be considered "basic" for musicians, in the way, say, the Cruyff turn, or Goose step have become.

dummy_half wrote:The Beatles gives a good example of objective v subjective.

Objectively, they were the most successful band of the 60s (and I am pretty sure of all time).

Subjectively, The Kinks wrote better songs (especially lyrics) and sustained their success over a longer period. And the Jimi Hendrix Experience did more to move music on than either of them.

Good point d_h; the distinction between 'most successful' and 'best' is indeed existent, and the latter is subjective.

Although one thing I would like to point out is that I think tennis statistics is a better indicator to the best than charts in music; simple as charts are measuring popularity while doing better in statistics does actually mean you've won more. Of course winning more doesn't necessarily mean better, for all sorts of reasons; but it's a better place to start than popularity.

Before The Beatles came along, it was almost unheard of for bands to write their own music. Record labels had 'artistes' who were given songs to sing.

The songs were usually written by a composer and a lyricist. The idea of one person doing both was almost unheard of.

Before The Beatles, bands didn't really exist in the modern sense. It was a front man and a backing band: Cliff Richard and The Shadows, Buddy Holly and The Crickets etc. The Beatles effectively had four front men.

Musically, they were completely unorthodox. There are so many musical 'oddities' in their music.

In the studio, they and George Martin opened a world of possibilities.

And what other band has developed as much as The Beatles transition from things like Love Me Do through to the kind of things on Sergeant Pepper? They made that progression in 4 years!

Even things like album covers they turned into an artform!

I can accept that people may or may not like the music but I don't think the scale of their influence can be debated. They must be the most influential band ever.

kingraf wrote: I don't even think music has moved that far forward from Hendrix. There's no way his repertoire could be considered "basic" for musicians, in the way, say, the Cruyff turn, or Goose step have become.

From a technical point-of-view, Hendrix is not that difficult to play. Most of it "just" mutated blues. Distinctive, innovative, unorthodox (at the time)... but not hugely demanding. I think he also gains marks as a showman. Looked great, was very cool and stuff like burning his guitar added to the legend.

I find Eddie Van Halen a more impressive musician. Technically tougher but just as influential on guitar playing.

Shame Lydian is a less frequent visitor these days, I reckon he'd have a strong view on this.

I wasn't talking about the skill involved (with music, I'm not sure difficult is better, it's just more difficult). I'm talking about his ability to form ridiculous melodies. The guitar riff in May This Be Love is insane. It isn't face melting, but it does exactly what it was supposed to, not to mention relaying the "waterfall" theme, as the drums did earlier ob. The distortion in Are You Experienced,there's nothing technically difficult in creating distortion, or then playing two keys on the piano... but when put together, it was a masterpiece. For me May This be Love is pretty much the greatest song ever. And, by chance impossible to cover.

Beatles weren't exactly the leading lights in complicated music either. I mean, Come Together? Lucy in The Sky With Diamonds? Hey Jude? Hardly the most taxing technical efforts.

No, I agree, technically tough doesn't mean better. I was responding to your comment "There's no way his repertoire could be considered "basic" for musicians, in the way, say, the Cruyff turn, or Goose step have become." Maybe I misunderstood your point.

But if it's the ability to form ridiculous melodies that we're talking about, or startling arrangements, I'd still put the Beatles in front of Hendrix.

Hendrix revolutionised guitar playing.

The Beatles revolutionised music.

I love both though and would hate to be without either.

Anyway, what about Nadal's W/L stats, eh?

HM Murdoch wrote:No, I agree, technically tough doesn't mean better. I was responding to your comment "There's no way his repertoire could be considered "basic" for musicians, in the way, say, the Cruyff turn, or Goose step have become." Maybe I misunderstood your point.

But if it's the ability to form ridiculous melodies that we're talking about, or startling arrangements, I'd still put the Beatles in front of Hendrix.

Hendrix revolutionised guitar playing.

The Beatles revolutionised music.

I love both though and would hate to be without either.

Anyway, what about Nadal's W/L stats, eh?

Not much else to say I guess, its a general agreement that Nadal w/l stats are really good, but might come down to how he goes when hes older. Its also agreed that Jimmy Connors is a total machine

Hendrix was an extension of delta blues forefathers before him...and 30s jazz players. It's all derivative...as was Eddie that followed, although for me George Lynch is far better (Eddie got his finger tapping ala Eruption from George). GL plays all the CAGED system not just boxed pentatonics that Eddie and his derivative Zakk Wylde play. But who's the best? Mainly a matter of taste and influence. All are extremely influential for sure. As was Led Zeppelin around the same time as Hendrix...and now they have a derivative, check these guys out...freaking awesome, this is an acoustic version of their full blown same rock track (check that out too), good lord this guy has an amazing set of pipes...you first heard about them here before their world domination!

"Keep on swinging" - obviously an ode to tennis players!


Same band...!

It Must Be Love wrote:

summerblues wrote:most people tend to gravitate towards a fairly similar definition of "better", and would even - in vacuum - agree a set of criteria that would provide something close to an unbiased estimator of the quality of various players.

Even if the whole population of the earth all held hands, signed documents, and pinky swore that they all agreed on a certain criteria; it is still subjective.

I think what you are trying to say is that something that is subjective does not become objective just because everyone agrees on it.  That is obviously true, but I am not sure how you are trying to relate it to what I said above.

It Must Be Love wrote:The point is that a player may be statistically superior in all regards to another one; but that doesn't necessarily mean he's a better player (although I would argue it's highly likely he is).

You mangled this somewhat.  Or, at the very least you obfuscate the issue.

The issue is NOT that being statistically superior does not mean you are necessarily a better player.  The issue is that the term "better player" is empty of meaning until we endow it with some meaning.  And while obviously whatever meaning we give to the word will always be subjective, the discussion itself can, given that particular meaning, be objective.

In principle, you cannot ever avoid this type of subjectivity - even falzy's square with four sides ultimately requires agreement on subjective definitions.  But that does not mean that the statement itself does not reflect objective reality.

Amri, to give you another example:

A prime number is normally defined as a positive integer greater than 1 that has no positive integer divisors other than itself and 1.

However, we could - in principle - define prime numbers to include 1 itself (in some sense it is less natural to do so, but there would certainly be nothing wrong with it).

In that sense, the definition of a prime number is subjective.

With our definition, we can make and prove statements and Theorems.  A very simple "theorem" will be:

"There are exactly two prime numbers that divide number 6".

This theorem is true with our definition of the prime numbers (2 and 3 being the only two prime numbers dividing 6) but it would be false with the alternative definition (there would be three, not two prime numbers dividing 6 - 1, 2 and 3).

Even though the validity of the theorem is "subjective" in the sense that it is only true under our subjectively picked definition of a prime number, it nevertheless expresses an objective fact.  The same objective fact would be true if we defined "prime number" differently, except that with that different language we would then have to express that fact differently.

It is similar with "better player" in tennis.  Just because the term itself is subjective, it does not mean we cannot have objective discussions about it - as long as most people use materially similar definition of the term.  If everyone used an entirely different definition, the discussions would obviously become impossible - because of "language barrier", so to speak.  Of course, any objective agreement we can hope to arrive at will always be relative to our subjective choice of the term "better player".  But that is fine - just like in the prime number example.

summerblues wrote:Amri, to give you another example:

A prime number is normally defined as a positive integer greater than 1 that has no positive integer divisors other than itself and 1.

However, we could - in principle - define prime numbers to include 1 itself (in some sense it is less natural to do so, but there would certainly be nothing wrong with it).

In that sense, the definition of a prime number is subjective.

With our definition, we can make and prove statements and Theorems.  A very simple "theorem" will be:

"There are exactly two prime numbers that divide number 6".

This theorem is true with our definition of the prime numbers (2 and 3 being the only two prime numbers dividing 6) but it would be false with the alternative definition (there would be three, not two prime numbers dividing 6 - 1, 2 and 3).

Even though the validity of the theorem is "subjective" in the sense that it is only true under our subjectively picked definition of a prime number, it nevertheless expresses an objective fact.  The same objective fact would be true if we defined "prime number" differently, except that with that different language we would then have to express that fact differently.

It is similar with "better player" in tennis.  Just because the term itself is subjective, it does not mean we cannot have objective discussions about it - as long as most people use materially similar definition of the term.  If everyone used an entirely different definition, the discussions would obviously become impossible - because of "language barrier", so to speak.  Of course, any objective agreement we can hope to arrive at will always be relative to our subjective choice of the term "better player".  But that is fine - just like in the prime number example.

Prime numbers are an odd thing. The definition you describe is correct in that it makes it a bit unclear. In really proper uni level pure maths, prime numbers are defined differently to exclude 1 from the definition. I cant remember it but it essentially states that the two numbers that divide it cant be the same number. However your point is perfectly correct

.

temporary21 wrote:I cant remember it but it essentially states that the two numbers that divide it cant be the same number.

(edited as I think I misunderstood you first time around - I cannot remember exactly how we went about it either)

My background is in math - that is why I like these kinds of geeky meaningless topics .  If I remember it correctly you were doing PhD in math or some related area?  But maybe I remember wrong.

Yes a phd in statistics, i did a pure maths course once that piddled around in prime numbers, god knows if I can remember any details though, I just remember that bit vaguely

I like the feel of this debate already SB. Anyway, let's have a loook:

SB wrote:I think what you are trying to say is that something that is subjective does not become objective just because everyone agrees on it.  That is obviously true, but I am not sure how you are trying to relate it to what I said above.

OK sorry, I got an impression that you were hinting somehow that if everyone agrees on a criteria it becomes objective; which as you say now clearly isn't true

summerblues wrote:In principle, you cannot ever avoid this type of subjectivity - even falzy's square with four sides ultimately requires agreement on subjective definitions.  But that does not mean that the statement itself does not reflect objective reality.

Good you bring up a square has 4 sides.
For me the debate is not whether the square having 4 sides is similar to a player being the best at tennis. It's just obviously not true. I think the real question now is why is resolving the question as to who is best at tennis not comparable to how many sides a square has.

Also I liked your prime number example; but for me the question of who is better at tennis is even more complex. Let me expand-

First let me start with this statement:
Even if Player A has slightly better statistics in every department to Player B, it does not mean necessarily he is better, although it is likely he is.
Now most reasonable people will agree with that, but in case some don't, I'll clarify further.
We can take any statistic, and show what the statement just said. I've talked at length about slams and the natural fluctuations in difficulty to win them in the past; this time let me choose another statistic... let's say finishing year end number 1.
Now let's say hypothetically in 2015: Federer retires in January, Djokovic takes a year break to look after his kids, Murray starts trying to rebuild Hadrian's wall, and Nadal, Cilic, Del Potro, Wawrinka all have injury problems. Ferrer turns out to be the guy heading to number 1 in the rankings. Now let's say you are called 'Player A'.
For Player A, it would be require you to be a better tennis player to be number 1 in 2007/2010 (where Federer and Nadal had stunning years respectively) than in this dystopian 2015 (let's keep ceteris paribus in terms of technology and say you simply have access to the best technology at the time).

For those now who think they have a valid counter point by saying 'Yes IMBL, but how do you prove that you have to have a better tennis level in 2007 to be year end number 1 than this dystopian 2015??'- I can assure you- you don't actually have a valid counter point. Think about it, my statement said it is 'not necessary' a player with better stats is a better player- so therefore the burden of proof is on you- I just have to show that what I'm saying is a possibility for that statement to be correct.

So when this statement is acknowledged, that is when the problem to get a definition really emerges:
Even if Player A has slightly better statistics in every department to Player B, it does not mean necessarily he is better.

If the statement is true (which is demonstrably is), then it can mean that any definition that just looks at statistics (can be all, can be some) simply cannot be reliably accurate.

So therefore any definition would have to include factors as well as the statistics, and this simply cannot be objective in reality.
So the definition of 'better player' will remain subjective- and this is why GOAT debates cannot be objectively resolved like 'the square has four sides'.

It Must Be Love wrote:

......................................................................................................

....................................................................................................

...........................................................................................


So the definition of 'better player' will remain subjective- and this is why GOAT debates cannot be objectively resolved like 'the square has four sides'.

Well that's something I can happily agree on. Mind you, I had worked out a long long time ago that 'who is the best?' assessments are subjective .... always have been, always will be, and hence GOAT debates can never be resolved. So, nothing new there as they say.......

I put in the effort to read through your whole post very carefully IMBL, and in all honesty that closing sentence was the only bit that made any sense to me.

But then I'd be the first to admit that I'm not the brightest button in the box (least of all where complex statistical theories/analysis is concerned) so please don't be offended by that. I suspect it's just me.

lags, I think what IMBL means is that if a poster believes subjectively believes that Player A is better than Player B, then no-one can prove otherwise.

JuliusHMarx wrote:lags, I think what IMBL means is that if a poster believes subjectively believes that Player A is better than Player B, then no-one can prove otherwise.

And here I was trying to prove Hendrix is greater than the Beatles

JuliusHMarx wrote:lags, I think what IMBL means is that if a poster believes subjectively believes that Player A is better than Player B, then no-one can prove otherwise.  

Agreed, unless you had an absolutely indisputable formula to prove it, then thats all you can do. Since most people agree that personal taste is part of what makes someone view player as better, see people viewing Federers fluid style as in his favour, then you cant split them unless theyre soo massively separated.

kingraf wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:lags, I think what IMBL means is that if a poster believes subjectively believes that Player A is better than Player B, then no-one can prove otherwise.

And here I was trying to prove Hendrix is greater than the Beatles

Well I just dropped by to tell you that you're wrong on that one kingraf.....

Mind you, there was a healthy amount of mutual admiration & respect between them of course. And I think I almost prefer the Hendrix cover of the Sgt Pepper title track - performed live during a London gig by the JH experience just three days after the iconic album was released. Poor quality here, but enjoy all the same ....
http://www.beatlesbible.com/1967/06/04/mccartney-harrison-watch-jimi-hendrix-london/

I know soo little about Hendrix that the only thing I knew was that he supposedly made small cuts in his forehead soo he could put "caffeine" on his bandana during a gig. Nowhere near old enough to appreciate his music sadly.

temporary21 wrote:I know soo little about Hendrix ..................Nowhere near old enough to appreciate his music sadly.

Ah but Jimi was kind enough to think ahead about people such as your goodself temporary, and he took the precaution of recording much of his work for posterity. And those recordings have since appeared in various formats & media, including some new-fangled thing called 'iTunes' where you can spend countless hours listening to Hendrix music.

(but.... I know what you mean ..... )

lags72 wrote:

temporary21 wrote:I know soo little about Hendrix ..................Nowhere near old enough to appreciate his music sadly.

Ah but Jimi was kind enough to think ahead about people such as your goodself temporary, and he took the precaution of recording much of his work for posterity. And those recordings have since appeared in various formats & media, including some new-fangled thing called 'iTunes' where you can spend countless hours listening to Hendrix music.

(but.... I know what you mean ..... )

Believe it or not, this is how I heard Hendrix. Funny old world. You're telling me you've heard of this YouTube as well?

Youtube? Is that some nasty slang?

Never did quite get the Beatles. I do like some of their stuff were Macca was in charge, and I've consumed questionable substances listening to Harrison's solo stuff. But on the whole, I'm kinda meh about the Beatles. Maybe I'm not white enough to bump to them. Muhammad Ali once described the music as "We're going on train today, nanana". Feels the same to me.

Stones are probably a little more up my alley. I love Satisfaction. Elton John's earlier stufff pretty good as well.