Jump to content
IGNORED

Athletes in Every Sport are Better


iacas
Note: This thread is 2081 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Thought of this thread yesterday while watching the end of the Wimbledon Men's final.  It also had me thinking of the Jack Tiger thread and the strength of field Jack Tiger thread.

I agree with the premise that the athletes are better today, no question, but I saw a stat yesterday that I couldn't quite reconcile.  It was the list of most career majors won and it now looks like this:

Roger Federer: 20, Rafael Nadal: 17, Pete Sampras: 14, Novak Djokovic: 13.   Three of those four have careers that overlapped considerably, almost entirely.  We say in the Tiger Jack threads that part of why Tiger has fewer majors than Jack and why 14 is possibly equal to or perhaps even more impressive than 18 is because of the stronger fields.  How do we reconcile this argument with what's going on in tennis?  I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
7 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Thought of this thread yesterday while watching the end of the Wimbledon Men's final.  It also had me thinking of the Jack Tiger thread and the strength of field Jack Tiger thread.

I agree with the premise that the athletes are better today, no question, but I saw a stat yesterday that I couldn't quite reconcile.  It was the list of most career majors won and it now looks like this:

Roger Federer: 20, Rafael Nadal: 17, Pete Sampras: 14, Novak Djokovic: 13.   Three of those four have careers that overlapped considerably, almost entirely.  We say in the Tiger Jack threads that part of why Tiger has fewer majors than Jack and why 14 is possibly equal to or perhaps even more impressive than 18 is because of the stronger fields.  How do we reconcile this argument with what's going on in tennis?  I don't know.

Tennis is played one on one. HUGE difference in results.

It’s also not as random as 18 holes. They play many many many shots.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Thought of this thread yesterday while watching the end of the Wimbledon Men's final.  It also had me thinking of the Jack Tiger thread and the strength of field Jack Tiger thread.

I agree with the premise that the athletes are better today, no question, but I saw a stat yesterday that I couldn't quite reconcile.  It was the list of most career majors won and it now looks like this:

Roger Federer: 20, Rafael Nadal: 17, Pete Sampras: 14, Novak Djokovic: 13.   Three of those four have careers that overlapped considerably, almost entirely.  We say in the Tiger Jack threads that part of why Tiger has fewer majors than Jack and why 14 is possibly equal to or perhaps even more impressive than 18 is because of the stronger fields.  How do we reconcile this argument with what's going on in tennis?  I don't know.

I was thinking the same. Found this, which has some interesting bits I didn't know, like better strings, kind of like better shafts and head design.

https://www.quora.com/Are-tennis-players-much-better-nowadays-than-they-used-to-be-and-why

Quote

Andre Agassi, a player at the top of the game through the 90's, admits that what the guys today are doing is just a whole different level: "These guys over the last 10, 12 years have redefined the rules of engagement on a tennis court. This is really the golden age of tennis.”

I would guess anecdotally, take a 1st or 2nd round match between players ranked below 75, find it on YouTube and try and compare a match between similarly ranked players today? 

I watched a lot of live tennis in the 90s and not much, but some today, and the players today hit the ball harder, at sharper angles with insane amounts of spin and move quicker. Leaner and taller too.

The Joker is 6'2" and Anderson is 6'8", Isner is what, taller than Anderson?

Steve

Kill slow play. Allow walking. Reduce ineffective golf instruction. Use environmentally friendly course maintenance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Tennis is played one on one. HUGE difference in results.

It’s also not as random as 18 holes. They play many many many shots.

But just relative to each other - like the "parity" that's achieved in so many other sports as the competition continues to get better and better, how is it that these three guys seem to win almost everything?  It's fascinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

But just relative to each other - like the "parity" that's achieved in so many other sports as the competition continues to get better and better, how is it that these three guys seem to win almost everything?  It's fascinating.

Because tennis is one on one. They aren’t playing against the field. The field eliminates the vast majority. They only have to beat a few players to win.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The court types in tennis have recently, in the past 20 or so years, become more alike. They all tend to favor a similar type of tennis player. You don't have as many clay or grass court specialists anymore. It was a lot harder to rack up major wins every year with such different court conditions. And if you basically throwing one or two grand slam a year away every year because they don't fit your style, you won't be able win as many majors. This is why nobody won the career grand slam between 1964 and 1999.

The courts now are all slower and allow for longer rallies. The common thread between Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal is that they all are great baseline players, which fits the courts now perfectly.

Article about this: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/05/clay-grass-hard-court-for-tenniss-top-players-it-doesnt-matter-anymore/257556/

-- Daniel

In my bag: :callaway: Paradym :callaway: Epic Flash 3.5W (16 degrees)

:callaway: Rogue Pro 3-PW :edel: SMS Wedges - V-Grind (48, 54, 58):edel: Putter

 :aimpoint:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Because tennis is one on one. They aren’t playing against the field. The field eliminates the vast majority. They only have to beat a few players to win.

I don't understand.

You're saying that if golf just up and switched to match play for all tournaments that the strength and depth of field that allows for so many different players to win would be gone and all of the titles would be concentrated amongst just a handful of players?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
11 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

The court types in tennis have recently, in the past 20 or so years, become more alike. They all tend to favor a similar type of tennis player. You don't have as many clay or grass court specialists anymore. It was a lot harder to rack up major wins every year with such different court conditions. And if you basically throwing one or two grand slam a year away every year because they don't fit your style, you won't be able win as many majors. This is why nobody won the career grand slam between 1964 and 1999.

The courts now are all slower and allow for longer rallies. The common thread between Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal is that they all are great baseline players, which fits the courts now perfectly.

Article about this: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/05/clay-grass-hard-court-for-tenniss-top-players-it-doesnt-matter-anymore/257556/

Haven't read that piece, but from what I've read, and now only a casual watcher, the Wimbledon surface is a lot slower now and doesn't bounce fast and low as it used to.

Steve

Kill slow play. Allow walking. Reduce ineffective golf instruction. Use environmentally friendly course maintenance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
6 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I don't understand.

You're saying that if golf just up and switched to match play for all tournaments that the strength and depth of field that allows for so many different players to win would be gone and all of the titles would be concentrated amongst just a handful of players?

No. Did you read the rest of my first post? Golf is also more volatile.

But also if Tiger had to beat only a few players a week… also yes.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
11 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I don't understand.

You're saying that if golf just up and switched to match play for all tournaments that the strength and depth of field that allows for so many different players to win would be gone and all of the titles would be concentrated amongst just a handful of players?

I think 3 out of 5 sets imho gives more chances for the better player to prevail vs one 18 hole match.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-number-of-points-per-set-in-professional-tennis

60 points a set anywhere from 180 to 300 points to determine who's the better player that day. 

In golf, you're facing like the best 4 days of a 100 players, I think that's tougher to go through than 5-6 random guys any of whom might not be having a good day and less likely to get that one guy who has a great day.

Steve

Kill slow play. Allow walking. Reduce ineffective golf instruction. Use environmentally friendly course maintenance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I don't understand.

You're saying that if golf just up and switched to match play for all tournaments that the strength and depth of field that allows for so many different players to win would be gone and all of the titles would be concentrated amongst just a handful of players?

Besides being one on one, you have offense and defense in tennis.  If you're playing against Tiger, and he drives a ball 180 mph, it goes a little farther, but it doesn't affect your play (unless you let it).  But if Federer hits a serve at 130 mph with vicious spin, you bet it affects your play.  Similarly, if you hit a good drive, there's nothing Tiger can do about it.  If you hit a good serve, Federer might make an even better return, and you still lose the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


4 hours ago, brocks said:

Besides being one on one, you have offense and defense in tennis.  If you're playing against Tiger, and he drives a ball 180 mph, it goes a little farther, but it doesn't affect your play (unless you let it).  But if Federer hits a serve at 130 mph with vicious spin, you bet it affects your play.  Similarly, if you hit a good drive, there's nothing Tiger can do about it.  If you hit a good serve, Federer might make an even better return, and you still lose the point.

Right, but none of those things are variables in this equation.  Every one of those points has been true about tennis forever.  The things that have changed are that athletes in every sport are better, and I think it’s also true that the strength and depth of field in tennis is stronger.  With those two things in mind, it seems to me that having so many major titles concentrated amongst so few players is a bit of an anomaly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator

Not sure what you’re asking anymore Drew. Sampras was awhile ago. I think we took it as players are still able to dominate now like back in the day.

Tennis and golf are ultimately very different in that sense.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 2081 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • Makes sense.  Like I said, I wouldn't have been upset at their original offer either, and based on the fine print it seems like they've held up their end of the deal.  
    • If you've only had to adjust retroactively one time in 8 years and have around 5 people each year without handicaps, that's like 40-50 people total so it sounds like you're doing a pretty good job. I think your questions give enough to go off of. This might be a good way to get new people to actually post a few scores during the 6 weeks leading into the first event. Something like "New members will be eligible for tournament money once they have at least 3 posted rounds in GHIN" or something like that. If they can get 3 rounds in prior to their first event, then they're eligible. If not, they'll soon become eligible after an event or two assuming they play a little bit outside of events.
    • This is a loooooong winded narrative so if you don't like long stories, move on. 😉 Our senior club typically gets about 25 new members each year. We lose about 25 members each year for various reasons (moved to FL/AZ, disabled, dead, too expensive). Of the new members, usually 20 have an active GHIN handicap. About 5 each year do not have a GHIN handicap. When they join our club, we give each member a state association membership that includes GHIN handicapping services. We play a series of handicapped tournaments over the summer. When we sign up a new member who does not have a GHIN handicap, we attempt to give them an estimated index until they have sufficient scores posted to have an actual GHIN index.  Our first event typically is around May 15 so, in theory, a new member has about 6 weeks to post a few scores. Posting season in the Mitten starts April 1. Inevitably, several of the unhandicapped individuals seem  to either not play until the first tournament or can't figure out how to enter scores (hey, they are seniors). That situation then leads to my contacting the new member and asking a series of questions: a. Did you ever have a GHIN handicap? If yes, which State and do you recall what it was? b. Do you have an alternate handicap through a non-GHIN handicap service or a league? c. What do you think your average score was last year (for 9 or 18) d. What was your best score last year? Where did you play and which tee was used? e. What do you consider a very good score for yourself? Based on their responses I attempt to give them an index that makes them competitive in the first couple events BUT does not allow them to win their flight in the first couple events. We don't want the new members to finish last and at the same time, we don't want someone with a "20" playing handicap to win the third flight with a net 57. In the event some new member did shoot a net 57, we also advise everyone that we can and will adjust handicaps retroactively when it is clear to us that a member's handicap does not accurately reflect their potential. We don't like to adjust things retroactively and in the 8 years I have chaired the Handicap Committee, we have only done it once. So here are the questions to the mob: Any ideas how to do this better? Any questions one might ask an unhandicapped individual to better estimate their index/handicap? Would it be reasonable to have a new player play once (or more?) without being eligible to place in the money?
    • Wordle 1,013 4/6 ⬜🟨⬜🟨🟨 ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Awesome! I got that a while back with my start word! Wordle 1,013 4/6 ⬜⬜🟨⬜🟨 ⬜🟨⬜🟩⬜ ⬜⬜🟩🟩🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...