- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Official French Open Discussion Thread
Posted on 6/1/12 at 5:08 pm to Unbiased Bama Fan
Posted on 6/1/12 at 5:08 pm to Unbiased Bama Fan
quote:
Well, I think there's a huge difference between being the best player of all-time and the greatest player of all-time. Serena certainly has a case for being the best player of all-time but she has no case for being the greatest player of all-time. At her absolute peak, I don't see any women's player beating her including Graf or Navratilova. However, she will never be greater than them. She trails them big-time in every major category such as Grand Slams won, weeks at #1, match winning percentage, and total tournaments won. I don't see her ever being ranked higher than 4th in any all-time great women's tennis player list unless she gets herself in shape and starts dominating again.
Your defintion of greatest is just a resume comparison. You're simply counting up trophies.
Assume:
(i) Lucy Longevity has lots and lots of trophies in her trophy room.
(ii) Sarah Sparingly has lots of trophies herself, but far fewer than Lucy.
(iii) Sarah will kick Lucy's arse in tennis every single day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Which of these is the most important consideration? If you're ranking players, do you rank Lucy or Sarah higher? What you're telling me is that you rank Lucy higher, and I think that's silly. That's like ranking Robert Horry as a better basketball player than Bernard King.
On my list, since Sarah is better at tennis than Lucy, I'm ranking her above Lucy. I like the alien test because it allows for a more meaningful apples to apples comparison. It really focuses the analysis.
This post was edited on 6/1/12 at 5:21 pm
Posted on 6/1/12 at 5:31 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
Assume:
(i) Lucy Longevity has lots and lots of trophies in her trophy room.
(ii) Sarah Sparingly has lots of trophies herself, but far fewer than Lucy.
(iii) Sarah will kick Lucy's arse in tennis every single day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Which of these is the most important consideration? If you're ranking players, do you rank Lucy or Sarah higher? What you're telling me is that you rank Lucy higher, and I think that's silly. That's like ranking Robert Horry as a better basketball player than Bernard King.
On my list, since Sarah is better at tennis than Lucy, I'm ranking her above Lucy. I like the alien test because it allows for a more meaningful apples to apples comparison. It really focuses the analysis.
Except three's definitely not the case. I believe peak Serena's probably the best ever but she's not often at her peak. I mean Serena's only 10-7 against Jennifer Capriati, 8-6 against Justine Henin, and 7-6 against Martina Hingis. None of those three players could shine Steffi Graf's shoes yet they were able to have a respectable head-to-head record against Serena. And the Robert Horry/Bernard King comparison might be the dumbest comparison ever. Unlike tennis, basketball is a team sport. You can compare tennis players statistically because it's an individual sport. You don't rely on teammates to win matches. You're out there all by yourself unlike a sport like basketball where Horry was lucky enough to win rings playing with prime Shaq, Hakeem, Kobe, and Duncan.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News