- View Single Post - "Every generation is better than the previous one. The game is always evolving"
View Single Post
post #62 of (permalink) Old Feb 2nd, 2013, 10:42 PM
country flag Alejandrawrrr
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,648
Re: "Every generation is better than the previous one. The game is always evolving"

Thank you Vika

Originally Posted by dsanders06 View Post
Again: I don't want to prove the 90s Generation is better than the current era. My whole point is that it's IMPOSSIBLE to definitively measure strength of an era, though my own personal view is that the 90s Generation and 00s Generation are roughly the same (stronger in some ways, weaker in others). Which is why the stats are the only quantifiable measuring stick.
So for future reference, stats come into play after you've already decided two eras are equal visually/subjectively? (Don't worry, there's no hidden argument there, I'm just trying to understand your logic here.)

I'm sorry, but again, this post is based on the circular argumentation that it HAS been universally-accepted that the Williams Generation was better than the previous one
I'm not seeing how your post applies to the statement of mine which you quoted. Is it your goal to give me a headache by misquoting my words, thus winning any debates by default? The posts you quoted stated how Kvitova, arguably hitting a couple mph faster off the ground, doesn't count as revolutionizing the game. Then it also detailed how the Williamses did at the end of the 1990s, by introducing a serve like that of the men's game(dominating first serve of 120+mph), coupled with hitting rockets off both wings, teeing off on second serves and combining that with elite athleticism to make the hard hitting off both wings even more lethal. More importantly, it is a model that has been followed and become ubiquitous by the mid 2000s, when 10 years earlier no one was playing it. Nowhere in my post did I state that the generation was "better", my post was in regards to you stating that the Williamses didn't revolutionize the game.

But anyway, if you don't accept the Kvitova example -- Moby made an excellent point in the other thread that Stosur is capable of producing MUCH heavier topspin than any player in history, and, given how prevalent topspin is in the men's game (and it really is a general rule that trends in the men's game arrive in the women's game about 10 years later), she is certainly progressing the sport. Does that mean, just because Stosur is better than Serena in that one respect, that she is better player overall? I certainly don't think so (despite their record in Slams indicating otherwise ). And if you don't accept Stosur is revolutionising the game with her topspin, then I CERTAINLY don't accept that the Williams sisters revolutionised the game "just" by serving better than anyone else in the game before (and yes, the serve is the only area they exceeded all predecessors, despite American commentators' bizarre mythologising that they were the first to turn defence into attack, which doesn't stand up to scrutiny for anyone who's seen more than 10 minutes of Graf playing ).
Adding something in your game that no one else uses doesn't automatically = revolution. I can grow a pair of tits, go pro on the WTA and make underhanded serves an integral part of my game, but if A) It doesn't make a significant impact on the game, and B) No one replicates it, it doesn't count as revolutionizing the game. No one has tried to emulate Stosur's game, and it hasn't been dominating enough for one to say it had a lasting impact on the game, therefore it is not a revolution

Alejandrawrrr is offline  
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome