Do things necessarily need to be competitive at the top?

First topic message reminder :

Djokovic is number 1 in the world right now and by some distance. From reading posts this year so far I get the feeling that people here aren't satisfied with this state of affairs or that it's somehow worse now than it has been before. I'm not saying this is shaping up to be the most exciting year in tennis ever but is it really so bad, relative to the last 5 years, that the others need to step their game up to save us from some kind of viewing catastrophe? Yes they need to step their game up if they want to beat him and I'm sure they are doing all they can but the feeling I'm getting from here is that it is all too imperative that they succeed in order to avert a crisis.

I'll admit that I didn't watch much of Miami apart from highlights but across these last two tournaments he's been challenged a few times but in the end proved too good. The game moves on every year and if he's done the best with keeping up with that and improving then more credit to him. He's not my favourite player but if he should win the majority of everything significant this year then so be it. It seems that on here there is a strong desire not to have a single player dominate and that if that is the case then competition is weak; maybe no one wants to see domination of a "weak era" like 2004-2007 again and anything resembling that can't be good for the game. I, on the other hand, believe it's possible to just gave a player who is much better than everyone else at a given time. The competition is ok this year and we're not at a point where the matches are foregone conclusions , at least no more or less significantly so than previous years.

Jahu wrote:CC, kiss papi, relax.

I'll await the apology for false accusations eh.

It Must Be Love wrote:So let me ask you the question Bogbrush:
Is it a) possible or b) not possible that- Federer is better than Sampras.

It is impossible to prove objectively, as if Federer was better because of better stats, then Federer's competition was also worse because they had worse stats than Sampras's opposition, in which case we have a zero sum game. So we have to make a subjective judgement.
What is unknowable for sure (in terms of proof) is whether Federer is really better than Sampras or not (we have to make a subjective judgement in the absence of proof).
However that is NOT the same as it being unknowable whether it is possible Federer is better than Sampras. The possibility is absolutely present. Understand ?

It's possible that it's impossible not only to know if A is better than B, but that because of that impossibility it becomes impossible for the event to have any meaning, therefore the answer becomes C

Possibly.

HM Murdoch wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Suppose you are standing outside a barn, and there is a farm animal inside the barn. You are not allowed to look inside the barn, so you can't prove for sure exactly which farm animal is in the barn.
However you can listen to try and hear for noises, and then by hearing the noises you can relate it to an animal (cluck, moo, neigh etc.)- basically come to a subjective judgement as to which animal you feel is more likely.

If I hear the animal in the barn "moo", and I therefore conclude there is a cow in it, why is it only a subjective opinion?

What are the circumstances in which my conclusion is wrong?

Because there may be another farm animal who makes a similar sound ? The animal may also make a noise which doesn't make it clear exactly which animal it is. I'm not an expert in animal sounds so I'm sorry I can't go into more detail.

That's not what I was asking BB, though, what is your stance on the debate I'm having with Bogbrush ? Would your answer to my question be a) or b) ?

Well if there are two grass court slams, we can also argue that the dynamic of the tour my also be different and so are the grass court slam winners, as players have more chances to play on grass and hence may be more competent and competitive on them.

All said and done, if Rafa gets to 5 or 6 HC slams, then there's no argument that he's good on at least two surfaces like Fed is - 10-5-2 = 9-7-1.

At this point could I introduce a fourth option?

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:So let me ask you the question Bogbrush:
Is it a) possible or b) not possible that- Federer is better than Sampras.

It is impossible to prove objectively, as if Federer was better because of better stats, then Federer's competition was also worse because they had worse stats than Sampras's opposition, in which case we have a zero sum game. So we have to make a subjective judgement.
What is unknowable for sure (in terms of proof) is whether Federer is really better than Sampras or not (we have to make a subjective judgement in the absence of proof).
However that is NOT the same as it being unknowable whether it is possible Federer is better than Sampras. The possibility is absolutely present. Understand ?

It's possible that it's impossible not only to know if A is better than B, but that because of that impossibility it becomes impossible for the event to have any meaning, therefore the answer becomes C

Possibly.

So you think that it's not possible or impossible for Federer to be a better player than Sampras, just because you can't prove which one of them is better ?
That's obviously totally illogical, just think about it.
Whether it's knowable in terms of proof is irrelevant to whether the event itself is possible.

It Must Be Love wrote: I'm not an expert in animal sounds so I'm sorry I can't go into more detail

This may be the single finest sentence ever typed on this forum!

lk, hahahaahahah nice

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:So let me ask you the question Bogbrush:
Is it a) possible or b) not possible that- Federer is better than Sampras.

It is impossible to prove objectively, as if Federer was better because of better stats, then Federer's competition was also worse because they had worse stats than Sampras's opposition, in which case we have a zero sum game. So we have to make a subjective judgement.
What is unknowable for sure (in terms of proof) is whether Federer is really better than Sampras or not (we have to make a subjective judgement in the absence of proof).
However that is NOT the same as it being unknowable whether it is possible Federer is better than Sampras. The possibility is absolutely present. Understand ?

It's possible that it's impossible not only to know if A is better than B, but that because of that impossibility it becomes impossible for the event to have any meaning, therefore the answer becomes C

Possibly.

So you think that it's not possible or impossible for Federer to be a better player than Sampras, just because you can't prove which one of them is better ?
That's obviously totally illogical, just think about it.
Whether it's knowable in terms of proof is irrelevant to whether the event itself is possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

[quote="It Must Be Love"]

Blue Moon wrote:
I mean the nature of competition is never mentioned in the ATP when they record a tournament win by so-and-so player.

This is the third post in a row from you when you've made exactly the same point, and for the third time I agree with you. I don't doubt the ATP record players winning accurately.
However my point is when doing further analysis, it is important to have a look at other factors, and competition is one of them. [/quote

Now you've lost me. I repeated because you asked me what it means. Go back to 2:08. you indicated here you didn't get it, despite the repetition.

Bogbrush, I think you're overcomplicating what is actually quite simple.
Presumably you've dropped your earlier theory that things always balance out with the time period of over one year (because due to your uncertainty principle, we can't prove one year is the correct time period...?).

This is making it very simple:
For the statements 'Federer is better than Sampras' OR 'Djokovic faces tougher competition from a time period compared to another':
It's either a) possible or b) not possible

For me the answer for both statements must be a).
I agree that it is impossible to prove whether Federer is better than Sampras, or whether Djokovic faced tougher competition form a certain time period. (So in absence of proof we from a subjective judgement)
However just because we can't prove it either way, it is still POSSIBLE that Federer is better than Sampras.

Let me ask you in this way:
True/False- Is it possible Federer is better than Sampras

It Must Be Love wrote:Is it a) possible or b) not possible that- Federer is better than Sampras.

It's possible

Here's the proof:

Hhahaahah, top banana!!

HM Murdoch wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Is it a) possible or b) not possible that- Federer is better than Sampras.

It's possible

Here's the proof:

Joking aside HM, do you actually agree with me on this ?

Edit: I've got another analogy for Jahu

A woman finds out that she is pregnant. Her only two sexual partners in the last year have been two people named Mark and Dan. She knows the father is either Mark or Dan, but she can't figure out which one. She doesn't at this point have access to the DNA test results.
So, for the statement: The father is Mark rather than Dan, is it:

a) Possible
b) Impossible

I think the answer is obviously a). The fact she can't find out at that point whether it's Mark or Dan is irrelevant to the question, as it is still possible then that it could be Mark.
Bogbrush is arguing that because there is absence of proof on whether it is Mark or Dan, means that somehow it's neither possible or impossible that it is Mark. That doesn't make any logical sense.

It Must Be Love wrote:Bogbrush, I think you're overcomplicating what is actually quite simple.
Presumably you've dropped your earlier theory that things always balance out with the time period of over one year (because due to your uncertainty principle, we can't prove one year is the correct time period...?).

This is making it very simple:
For the statements 'Federer is better than Sampras' OR 'Djokovic faces tougher competition from a time period compared to another':
It's either a) possible or b) not possible

For me the answer for both statements must be a).
I agree that it is impossible to prove whether Federer is better than Sampras, or whether Djokovic faced tougher competition form a certain time period. (So in absence of proof we from a subjective judgement)
However just because we can't prove it either way, it is still POSSIBLE that Federer is better than Sampras.

Let me ask you in this way:
True/False- Is it possible Federer is better than Sampras

I didn't say minor fluctuation must cancel out, just that in practical terms the probabilities make it virtually inevitable.

Your second question is an entirely different subject from the one about strength of competition. Are you changing the subject (a) deliberately, (b) accidentally, (c) another reason or (d) all of the above?

bogbrush wrote:
I didn't say minor fluctuation must cancel out, just that in practical terms the probabilities make it virtually inevitable.

So what is the manifestation of this exactly ?
Does it mean that it's not possible that over a 1 year period that there is a difference in average competition. Let's take 2004-2007 and 2009-2012. Or 2010-2011 and 2014-2015. Because it's a time period greater than one year, is it therefore 'inevitable' that the fluctuations cancel out, so inevitable there is no difference in average competition for Slams?
This would mean the answer to the question earlier is b).

bogbrush wrote:
Your second question is an entirely different subject from the one about strength of competition.

I don't think it is at all, but we can talk about just competition for now.

Im always upset to miss Schrodinger's Cat being applied in any walk of life

kingraf wrote:Im always upset to miss Schrodinger's Cat being applied in any walk of life

This debate isn't similar at all though, as I said.

It Must Be Love wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Is it a) possible or b) not possible that- Federer is better than Sampras.

It's possible

Here's the proof:

Joking aside HM, do you actually agree with me on this ?

Edit: I've got another analogy for Jahu

A woman finds out that she is pregnant. Her only two sexual partners in the last year have been two people named Mark and Dan. She knows the father is either Mark or Dan, but she can't figure out which one. She doesn't at this point have access to the DNA test results.
So, for the statement: The father is Mark rather than Dan, is it:

a) Possible
b) Impossible

I think the answer is obviously a). The fact she can't find out at that point whether it's Mark or Dan is irrelevant to the question, as it is still possible then that it could be Mark.
Bogbrush is arguing that because there is absence of proof on whether it is Mark or Dan, means that somehow it's neither possible or impossible that it is Mark. That doesn't make any logical sense.

I guess the difference is you cannot prove which year had better competition but you can prove Dan or Mark are the father. Thus making it possible?

CAS wrote:

I guess the difference is you cannot prove which year had better competition but you can prove Dan or Mark are the father. Thus making it possible?

Suppose she was in a forest away from civilisation (i.e. not close to any DNA testing), and Dan and Mark were identical twins. Then the analogy works better. Is it still possible that Dan was the father ?
(The answer is yes btw).

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
I didn't say minor fluctuation must cancel out, just that in practical terms the probabilities make it virtually inevitable.

So what is the manifestation of this exactly ?
Does it mean that it's not possible that over a 1 year period that there is a difference in average competition. Let's take 2004-2007 and 2009-2012. Or 2010-2011 and 2014-2015. Because it's a time period greater than one year, is it therefore 'inevitable' that the fluctuations cancel out, so inevitable there is no difference in average competition for Slams?  
This would mean the answer to the question earlier is b).

bogbrush wrote:
Your second question is an entirely different subject from the one about strength of competition.

I don't think it is at all, but we can talk about just competition for now.

My personal opinion is that the fluctuations will almost certainly cancel out. Since the only objective measurement of accomplishment is the number of titles I feel confident my hypothesis is soundly backed up by the evidence.
I checked over the last 27 years and each one delivered exactly four Slams, except 1990 when I was on honeymoon far away for four weeks in the Summer and I'm certain Wimbledon was cancelled. I'll look further back when I have more time.

bogbrush wrote:
My personal opinion is that the fluctuations will almost certainly cancel out. Since the only objective measurement of accomplishment is the number of titles I feel confident my hypothesis is soundly backed up by the evidence.
I checked over the last 27 years and each one delivered exactly four Slams, except 1990 when I was on honeymoon far away for four weeks in the Summer and I'm certain the French and Wimbledon were cancelled. I'll look further back when I have more time.

This genuinely couldn't be less relevant. I'm talking about competition at the top of the games in terms of quality. How can you be certain that will cancel out ?
How can you be 'certain' that 2011-2012 would have equal level of competition on average to 2014-2015 in terms of quality?

1. The measure of a players accomplishment is titles.

2. The total accomplishment of all players is total titles, adjusted to a present value by discounting titles as we go further back (ie counting Lleyton Hewitts titles less than Novak Djokovic's) and by a discounted value of all players future titles (so applying a discount to Nick Kyriogos's 2019 Winbledon, for example).

3. The total value of this number represents the aggregate accomplishment value of all active players.

4. This determines the total quantity of completion.

5. I feel confident this number varies only slightly, with minor fluctuations quickly being evened out.

bogbrush wrote:1. The measure of a players accomplishment is titles.

2. The total accomplishment of all players is total titles, adjusted to a present value by discounting titles as we go further back (ie counting Lleyton Hewitts titles less than Novak Djokovic's) and by a discounted value of all players future titles (so applying a discount to Nick Kyriogos's 2019 Winbledon, for example).

3. The total value of this number represents the aggregate accomplishment value of all active players.

4. This determines the total quantity of completion.

5. I feel confident this number varies only slightly, with minor fluctuations quickly being evened out.

I'm talking about quality, not quantity.
You could have 2011 where Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer are all playing great. The quality at the top is super.
Then you could have 2016, where the Big 4 have retired, and the next generation aren't as good, so the quality at the top is not that great.
Or maybe not, who knows ? It may be even better, if the young guns have taken off.

The point is I'm talking about quality, not quantity of titles or ATP ranking points. And on that regard you can NOT be certain that the quality will be the same.

The measure of greatness is titles.

bogbrush wrote:The measure of greatness is titles.

Well in that case; as Nadal's competition in Slams won had more titles than Federer's competition in Slams won- Nadal's competition was greater than Federer's competition ?
That doesn't work Bogbrush, it's a zero sum game.

Your whole argument is in tatters, first you tried to say it is not possible for Djokovic's competition to be greater in 2011-2012 than 2014-2015, then you tried to pretend I was talking about quantity of titles and not quality (when it's distinctly obvious that by competition I am referring to quality of the competition), and now you're falling in the zero-sum-game trap that you yourself identified earlier.

I can't think of any sport which doesn't have accepted fluctuations. Things happen, boundaries changed. The idea of homeostasis, to me seems to rely on the "Reactants" remaining the same, by which means the product should remain reasonably the same. The factors which go into finding and creating sports stars, however don't have any equilibrium. It's an ever changing dynamic. Population groups grow, some population groups stop watching/partaking in the sport. The field of sport science evolves.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The measure of greatness is titles.

Well in that case; as Nadal's competition in Slams won had more titles than Federer's competition in Slams won- Nadal's competition was greater than Federer's competition ?

No I can't agree that is the sole measure. For example I rate bjorn borgs achievement of 5 Wimbledon's and 5 French opens much higher than nadals achievement because the surfaces were so drastically different whearas nadal barely changes his game. That's not nadal's fault, in fact that is a reason for reintroducing court speed differences, to allow the players to challenge themselves. So I think context does have a part to play.

kingraf wrote:I can't think of any sport which doesn't have accepted fluctuations. Things happen, boundaries changed. The idea of homeostasis, to me seems to rely on the "Reactants" remaining the same, by which means the product should remain reasonably the same. The factors which go into finding and creating sports stars, however don't have any equilibrium. It's an ever changing dynamic. Population groups grow, some population groups stop watching/partaking in the sport. The field of sport science evolves.

Even if there is a vague homeostasis (which is possible, with the exception of technology which just goes up); then it's still entirely possible that a few years will have weaker competition at the top in terms of quality while other years may have greater competition. As I explained earlier, it's because the frequency with which players of a certain level (i.e. those we know as ATGs), is totally irregular. Nadal, Djokovic, Murray all born within one year of each other, then 5 years after that no player was born as good as those 3 (imo).

Edit: Greengoblin, I was disagreeing with Bogbrush there.

This thread is absolutely hysterical!

Think it's peaked, personally. the number crunching in the fifth and sixth paged were fantastic

This is why we asked, politely to move this onto the sticky.

kingraf wrote:Think it's peaked, personally. the number crunching in the fifth and sixth paged were fantastic

No it hasn't, if you notice the number of the posts per page adds up to exactly the same number.

I was talking about the quality and overall far fetchedness of the matter.

You and BB are just going in circles.

The measure of greatness is titles... Unless the courts slow or s clay court, or the standard deviation  is too low or you didn't beat federer

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:So let me ask you the question Bogbrush:
Is it a) possible or b) not possible that- Federer is better than Sampras.

It is impossible to prove objectively, as if Federer was better because of better stats, then Federer's competition was also worse because they had worse stats than Sampras's opposition, in which case we have a zero sum game. So we have to make a subjective judgement.
What is unknowable for sure (in terms of proof) is whether Federer is really better than Sampras or not (we have to make a subjective judgement in the absence of proof).
However that is NOT the same as it being unknowable whether it is possible Federer is better than Sampras. The possibility is absolutely present. Understand ?

It's possible that it's impossible not only to know if A is better than B, but that because of that impossibility it becomes impossible for the event to have any meaning, therefore the answer becomes C

Possibly.

This.

Federer's level is actually a linear combination of states both better and worse than Sampras. Haha.

Well seriously though although surprisingly enough the analogy between quantum mechanics and tennis isn't perfect, he does raise a point about concerning oneself with something that can never be verified. If trying to say which player had better competition within acceptable limits of uncertainty is as futile as say trying to say which electron in an atom is further from the nucleus at an instant in time then the fact that it's completely impossible to answer devalues the question to the point where it's not worth considering.

temporary21 wrote:This is why we asked, politely to move this onto the sticky.

I'm dying to know exactly what you'd like to see the forum full of.

Me and JuliusHMarx both agreed to make the sticky so comparisons of Nadal abd federer didn't clog up the forums because JuliusHMarx was sick of it. If you're going over title spreads of them both that's what the sticky is for. We're asking nicely. We do gsee what the attitude is for

Reverse linear Equations obviously.

I think this thread has long run its course as far as original intentions go.

For me it's ok if a player dominates as long as I don't dislike their game. There's no real difference to me whether or not they are challenged. It's even better if I regard that player as some kind of a genius and enjoy their game. That's when tennis viewing is at its best for me.

kingraf wrote:Think it's peaked, personally. the number crunching in the fifth and sixth paged were fantastic

Oh, I was definitely being factitious. It's funny to watch though, I guess.

It's got to the point where it's hard to even remember what the point of debate even was. Imbl could you remind me what the point is again?

break_in_the_fifth wrote:
Federer's level is actually a linear combination of states both better and worse than Sampras. Haha.

Well seriously though although surprisingly enough the analogy between quantum mechanics and tennis isn't perfect, he does raise a point about concerning oneself with something that can never be verified. If trying to say which player had better competition within acceptable limits of uncertainty is as futile as say trying to say which electron in an atom is further from the nucleus at an instant in time then the fact that it's completely impossible to answer devalues the question to the point where it's not worth considering.

Whether you think it's worth considering or not is a bit irrelevant imo.

Again it goes back to the pregnancy analogy. Someone is pregnant, and has two sexual partners, and without access to a DNA test doesn't know which of the two the father is (and for those being pedantic about the analogy exactly matching, let's say the woman is in the woods away from civilisation, and the two sexual partners happen to be identical twins).
So although there is no way to prove which of the two sexual partners the father is at that point, it's obviously possible that one of them could be father.
Just like that it is possible Federer is better than Sampras. And it's possible Djokovic will face easier competition from 2014-2015 compared to 2011-2012.
I've seen no rebuttal to this point.

I dont mind seeing my favorite player dominates, whether its absolute dominance or hard fought ones. If it's some other player(s) dominating, then I hope for more competition and hard fought victories for the one who's dominating.

It Must Be Love wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:
Federer's level is actually a linear combination of states both better and worse than Sampras. Haha.

Well seriously though although surprisingly enough the analogy between quantum mechanics and tennis isn't perfect, he does raise a point about concerning oneself with something that can never be verified. If trying to say which player had better competition within acceptable limits of uncertainty is as futile as say trying to say which electron in an atom is further from the nucleus at an instant in time then the fact that it's completely impossible to answer devalues the question to the point where it's not worth considering.

Whether you think it's worth considering or not is a bit irrelevant imo.

Again it goes back to the pregnancy analogy. Someone is pregnant, and has two sexual partners, and without access to a DNA test doesn't know which of the two the father is (and for those being pedantic about the analogy exactly matching, let's say the woman is in the woods away from civilisation, and the two sexual partners happen to be identical twins).
So although there is no way to prove which of the two sexual partners the father is at that point, it's obviously possible that one of them could be father.
Just like that it is possible Federer is better than Sampras. And it's possible Djokovic will face easier competition from 2014-2015 compared to 2011-2012.
I've seen no rebuttal to this point.

Unless you can see a reason why the tennis situation should be any more similar to the pregnancy one than the quantum one then the rebuttal is right there.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:
Federer's level is actually a linear combination of states both better and worse than Sampras. Haha.

Well seriously though although surprisingly enough the analogy between quantum mechanics and tennis isn't perfect, he does raise a point about concerning oneself with something that can never be verified. If trying to say which player had better competition within acceptable limits of uncertainty is as futile as say trying to say which electron in an atom is further from the nucleus at an instant in time then the fact that it's completely impossible to answer devalues the question to the point where it's not worth considering.

Whether you think it's worth considering or not is a bit irrelevant imo.

Again it goes back to the pregnancy analogy. Someone is pregnant, and has two sexual partners, and without access to a DNA test doesn't know which of the two the father is (and for those being pedantic about the analogy exactly matching, let's say the woman is in the woods away from civilisation, and the two sexual partners happen to be identical twins).
So although there is no way to prove which of the two sexual partners the father is at that point, it's obviously possible that one of them could be father.
Just like that it is possible Federer is better than Sampras. And it's possible Djokovic will face easier competition from 2014-2015 compared to 2011-2012.
I've seen no rebuttal to this point.

Unless you can see a reason why the tennis situation should be any more similar to the pregnancy one than the quantum one then the rebuttal is right there.

Well the pregnancy one exactly matches the tennis situation I believe, because bogbrush is basing his case on the fact we can't prove which competition is harder in terms of quality.
Can you lay out your alternative analogy ?

Ok to try and focus the debate a bit because this is getting a bit esoteric. Clearly we need it measure the level of competitiveness if the field. His would you actually so that? Title spread has a problem soo how do you do it?

It is also an open-ended question originally asked. I take it they mean does it need to be competitive at the top for tennis to be enjoyable?

The concept of "better" is as clearly defined as the identity of a father?

In a world where we didn't know about DNA, it would be magic that verifies with certainty previously unanswerable questions. Perhaps such a thing exists for resolving these unanswerable tennis questions but we don't know about it yet. I think the alternative opinion is more than ok for now. It's your call on how likely we are to discover the "DNA" for tennis that answers these questions or whether it even exists.