PDA

View Full Version : Sugiyama, Suarez & Frazier - how the game moved on


Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 12:50 PM
Ai Sugiyama (29), Paola Suarez (28) and Amy Frazier (32) are veterans on the tour who still are well in the top-20 today. They are a bridge between the times of Graf, Novotna and Sabatini and the times of today's "power players".
When we want to compare former greats with today's top players it might help to have a look how those three players fared against both groups.

Miss Frazier was able to beat FO 04 winner Myskina at Wimbledon 4 weeks later (4-6, 6-4, 6-4) and fell only to later Wimbledon champ Sharapova - after a tight clash (4-6, 5-7).
Between 1991 and 1996 Graf played Frazier 6 times, winning all 6 matches.
One was a 3-setter (Graf winning decider with 6-2), the other 5 wins were blow-outs (Amy winning only 3, 3, 5, 5, and 3 games).
But obviously a 32-year-old Frazier is better than a 19-25 year-old Frazier. Because the game has moved on since Graf ....

Miss Sugiyama beat Zvonareva and Henin in fall of 2003 and took later Wimbledon 04 champ Sharapova to 3 sets in the quarters there.
Sugiyama played Graf 5 times in 98/99 when an old Graf with reconstructed knee returned to the tour for 15 months again. Sugiyama won one match, a tough 3-setter. In the other 4 matches she was blown off the court by the former great. Ai made only 13 games in 8 sets ......
But obviously a 29-year-old Sugiyama is better than a 23, 24 year-old Sugiyama.
Because the game has moved on since Graf .....

Miss Suarez beat Wimbledon 04 champ Sharapova like a drum at FO 04. At the Canadian Open 03 she beat USO 04 champ Kuznetsova and Vera Zvonareva, at L.A. 03 she beat Bovina.
Suarez played Graf 3 times (1996-99). She lost all matches.She made only 14 games in 6 sets ....
But obviously a 28 year-old Suarez is better than a 20-23 year-old Suarez.
Because the game has moved on since Graf ....

Oh boy, just imagine what today's Sugiyma, Frazier and Suarez and especially what today's top power players would have done with Graf of the 90ies.
Steffi really dodged some bullets there!

Mr_Molik
Oct 2nd, 2004, 12:56 PM
Oh boy, just imagine what today's Sugiyma, Frazier and Suarez and especially what today's top power players would have done with Graf of the 90ies.
Steffi really dodged some bullets there!
r u being sarcastic?

kabuki
Oct 2nd, 2004, 01:38 PM
Oh boy, just imagine what today's Sugiyma, Frazier and Suarez and especially what today's top power players would have done with Graf of the 90ies.
Steffi really dodged some bullets there!

This argument has no logic to it.

Mr_Molik
Oct 2nd, 2004, 01:41 PM
This argument has no logic to it.
i think (and hope) hes being sarcastic

kabuki
Oct 2nd, 2004, 01:44 PM
i think (and hope) hes being sarcastic

I dunno, but there's a little too much data for sarcasm.

It is either bad sarcasm, or just plain bad.

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 01:59 PM
I dunno, but there's a little too much data for sarcasm.

It is either bad sarcasm, or just plain bad.


We know
1) that Graf usually thrashed Frazier, Sugiyama, Suarez 5, 10 years ago AND
2) that "the game has moved on" in the last 5 years ("power players" etc.).

So we can conclude that Frazier, Sugiyama and Suarez must be FAAAR better as 30-year-olds than they were as youngsters (20-25 years old).

That "the-game-has-moved-on" theory is common wisdom here in WTAWorld, isn't it?

BTW, do you need an emoticon ALL the time?

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 02:10 PM
Come on cali....they didn´t win majors then and they aren´t winning majors now..so what´s the fuss?!

Daniel
Oct 2nd, 2004, 02:13 PM
Paola :D

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 02:14 PM
Come on cali....they didn´t win majors then and they aren´t winning majors now..so what´s the fuss?!


They weren't able to touch Graf back then.
But now they trouble the Myskinas, Sharapovas and Kuznetsovas.
Proof how extremely they have improved in the last 5, 10 years.
Because we all know how the game has moved on since Graf's heyday (power players etc.).

rwb196
Oct 2nd, 2004, 02:18 PM
So we can conclude that Frazier, Sugiyama and Suarez must be FAAAR better as 30-year-olds than they were as youngsters (20-25 years old).

No they are not FAAAR better now than 5-8 years ago, I would break it down like this -

Frazier = FAAR better
Sugiyama = FAR better
Suarez = FAAaR better

Other than this you have proven beyond any argument that Graf was better than any of them.

Thank you so much!

faboozadoo15
Oct 2nd, 2004, 02:38 PM
these three players are the exception... they ARE better now than they were then. it IS possible. just look at silvia farina elia, as well. some girls play their best tennis as veterans. usually they aren't the robust physical types, and they learn to scram and learn the court better than they did in their more youthful days.

but sure, graf was better than them then.

kabuki
Oct 2nd, 2004, 02:50 PM
Oh boy, just imagine what today's Sugiyma, Frazier and Suarez and especially what today's top power players would have done with Graf of the 90ies.
Steffi really dodged some bullets there!

I can't believe I am going to do this, but...

Yes, the game does evolve and improve. Tape shows us defininitively that this is true. BUT, if Sug, Fraz, and Suar were the players they are now in their 28+ years back 5 years or more ago, they would have grown up contemporaneously with Graf. They would not have be the players that they are today at this age if they were born 5+ years earlier. Conversely, if Steffi had come along 5+ years later, she would have been even better. Get it?

fammmmedspin
Oct 2nd, 2004, 02:58 PM
We know
1) that Graf usually thrashed Frazier, Sugiyama, Suarez 5, 10 years ago AND
2) that "the game has moved on" in the last 5 years ("power players" etc.).

So we can conclude that Frazier, Sugiyama and Suarez must be FAAAR better as 30-year-olds than they were as youngsters (20-25 years old).

That "the-game-has-moved-on" theory is common wisdom here in WTAWorld, isn't it?

BTW, do you need an emoticon ALL the time?
The problem with the logic - why it gets a F - is that you assume 1) that the margin by which Graf beat those players in the past was not enough to beat them and the modern players you mention today which is far from clear. You could equally and more convincingly argue that the players those players have been beating (and your list doesn't include many top players or top players who were on form at the time) are simply not as good as Graf.

You also assume 2) that all those players have improved since they played Graf but miss the obvious point that Graf wouldn't be playing like she did in 1999 either . With modern technology the most consistent fast server of her day wouldn't be hitting serves at 100 MPH now she would be hitting them at 115+ and if she wasn't playing a game that had matured to counter the Williams wouldn't be playing at all. A Graf serving that fast and who could play the pre 2004 Venus competitively would be beating those players by embarassing margins.

You also assume 3) that those players would ever find the mental strength to beat Graf - you could equally argue that after a few more defeats they would have folded even further mentally and would by now have produced one sided H2Hs of MJF dimensions.

Ravsieg
Oct 2nd, 2004, 04:10 PM
Basically I think he's considering Graf and today's top players to have the same level. That's why he says those 3 players have improved: they used to be crushed by the top player some years ago while they were younger, now they give hard fights to any top player.

That can either mean that:

1) they improved (as you're trying to explain)
2) the top players are weaker than Graf was (the most likely one, yet you try to refuse it)
3) both of these

I don't agree with that technology thing, Graf didn't have it back then... but all the other mentioned players didn't aswell. And nowadays, they do have it. But so do the top players.

I don't think that post stupid at all, it was an interesting thought in my opinion.

Pengwin
Oct 2nd, 2004, 05:07 PM
The playing field is much more even now. Most of the top 20 could beat each other on given days. Graf was in a league of her own.

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 05:15 PM
But Frazier, Paola, Ai...they aren´t touching the Serena´s and Justine´s either, even in their improved form.

faboozadoo15
Oct 2nd, 2004, 06:10 PM
But Frazier, Paola, Ai...they aren´t touching the Serena´s and Justine´s either, even in their improved form.
good point. ai improved tremendously and still can only challenge the top players and MAYBE beat 1 or 2 of them on an incredible day.

thelittlestelf
Oct 2nd, 2004, 06:13 PM
I don't get the point of this thread :confused:

Crazy_Fool
Oct 2nd, 2004, 06:14 PM
See Cami is at it again :rolleyes:

These players rarely cause problems for the top players, and i'm not quite sure why Zvonerava is talked about, seeing as she can't beat most top players most of the time anyway.

Crazy_Fool
Oct 2nd, 2004, 06:15 PM
I don't get the point of this thread :confused:
Calmerilo is an obssessive Graf fan

CooCooCachoo
Oct 2nd, 2004, 06:15 PM
All three deserve a lot of respect :bounce: :)

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 07:24 PM
I can't believe I am going to do this, but...

Yes, the game does evolve and improve. Tape shows us defininitively that this is true. BUT, if Sug, Fraz, and Suar were the players they are now in their 28+ years back 5 years or more ago, they would have grown up contemporaneously with Graf. They would not have be the players that they are today at this age if they were born 5+ years earlier. Conversely, if Steffi had come along 5+ years later, she would have been even better. Get it?


No.

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 07:26 PM
The problem with the logic - why it gets a F - is that you assume 1) that the margin by which Graf beat those players in the past was not enough to beat them and the modern players you mention today which is far from clear. You could equally and more convincingly argue that the players those players have been beating (and your list doesn't include many top players or top players who were on form at the time) are simply not as good as Graf.

You also assume 2) that all those players have improved since they played Graf but miss the obvious point that Graf wouldn't be playing like she did in 1999 either . With modern technology the most consistent fast server of her day wouldn't be hitting serves at 100 MPH now she would be hitting them at 115+ and if she wasn't playing a game that had matured to counter the Williams wouldn't be playing at all. A Graf serving that fast and who could play the pre 2004 Venus competitively would be beating those players by embarassing margins.

You also assume 3) that those players would ever find the mental strength to beat Graf - you could equally argue that after a few more defeats they would have folded even further mentally and would by now have produced one sided H2Hs of MJF dimensions.

You'r making fun of me, aren't you .... ?

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 07:27 PM
Basically I think he's considering Graf and today's top players to have the same level. That's why he says those 3 players have improved: ...

You're making fun of me, aren't you?

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 07:28 PM
I don't think Frazier has improved a lot since 8 years... She has exactly the same game. She was dangerous and she still IS dangerous. No difference. ;) She had ups and downs, but it's normal.

You might have a point here ......

kabuki
Oct 2nd, 2004, 07:29 PM
No.

O.K.

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 07:34 PM
See Cami is at it again :rolleyes:

These players rarely cause problems for the top players, and i'm not quite sure why Zvonerava is talked about, seeing as she can't beat most top players most of the time anyway.


What about "Suarez thrashed Sharapova at FO 04" or
"Suarez beat Kuznetsova at CanO 03" or
"Frazier humiliated Myskina at Wim 04" or
"Sugiyama beat Henin at Chase Champs 03"
didn't sink in?

Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Myskina, Henin are this year's slam champs ....

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 07:45 PM
What about "Suarez thrashed Sharapova at FO 04" or
"Suarez beat Kuznetsova at CanO 03" or
"Frazier humiliated Myskina at Wim 04" or
"Sugiyama beat Henin at Chase Champs 03"
didn't sink in?

Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Myskina, Henin are this year's slam champs ....


Yet...you rate them like this:

peak graf
peak Justine
peak Martina N
peak Serena

wanna change your mind? Your second best player is the only one to lose to Sugi, Kuznetsova AND Myskina....

Crazy_Fool
Oct 2nd, 2004, 07:48 PM
What about "Suarez thrashed Sharapova at FO 04" or
"Suarez beat Kuznetsova at CanO 03" or
"Frazier humiliated Myskina at Wim 04" or
"Sugiyama beat Henin at Chase Champs 03"
didn't sink in?

Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Myskina, Henin are this year's slam champs ....
The Wimby win is all that Maria has done this year, I would hardly call her an elite player right now.
Frazier did beat Myskina at Wimby, but one lucky win hardly proves anything.
Sugiyama beat Henin in some meaningless match, not really sure what that proves.
Kutznesova is another streaky player, again i don't know how elite she is because she's only just won a couple of tournaments recently, hardly an established star.

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 07:54 PM
Don´t know which is worse: Losing to Lori Mcneil or losing to Frazier?! Hmm....

Crazy_Fool
Oct 2nd, 2004, 07:57 PM
Don´t know which is worse: Losing to Lori Mcneil or losing to Frazier?! Hmm....
Who lost to Lori Mcneil? Graf pressumably......but then again i'm not sure she actually lost to her, she probably just beat herself or had some issues.

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 07:59 PM
Who lost to Lori Mcneil? Graf pressumably......but then again i'm not sure she actually lost to her, she probably just beat herself or had some issues.


And you think Frazier and Ai actually BEAT somebody?!

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 08:03 PM
The Wimby win is all that Maria has done this year, I would hardly call her an elite player right now.
Frazier did beat Myskina at Wimby, but one lucky win hardly proves anything.
Sugiyama beat Henin in some meaningless match, not really sure what that proves.
Kutznesova is another streaky player, again i don't know how elite she is because she's only just won a couple of tournaments recently, hardly an established star.


Myskina, Sharapova and Kuznetsova are #4, #8 and #5 players.
OK, how did Graf fare against #2 Davenport and #9 JenCap in her heyday?

9-1 against Jenny in 90-93.
(And a 6-1,6-0 drubbing in 1999. OK, we don't want to count that one .....)

5-1 against Lindsay in 94-96 (LD being 18-20 years old - perfect slam winning age).
LD was 5-3 against Graf in 98/99, Graf had had reconstructive knee surgery and had to default in 3rd set at two of those losses. LD was #1 or #2 at that time.

Of course LD and JC are faaar better nowadays than back then. Because the game has moved on .....

Crazy_Fool
Oct 2nd, 2004, 08:06 PM
:haha: 94-96 are poor years to judge LD, she was not at the top of the game whether you like to admit it or not. Sure she beat her in 99, but I'm not sure what this proves, because she still had a losing record against her, and remember she won the biggest match of all.

As for Capriati, very overrated anyway, she's not a player who wins a lot.

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 08:09 PM
Myskina, Sharapova and Kuznetsova are #4, #8 and #5 players.
OK, how did Graf fare against #2 Davenport and #9 JenCap in her heyday?

9-1 against Jenny in 90-93.
(And a 6-1,6-0 drubbing in 1999. OK, we don't want to count that one .....)

5-1 against Lindsay in 94-96 (LD being 18-20 years old - perfect slam winning age).
LD was 5-3 against Graf in 98/99, Graf had had reconstructive knee surgery and had to default in 3rd set at two of those losses. LD was #1 or #2 at that time.

Of course LD and JC are faaar better nowadays than back then. Because the game has moved on .....

again.....it´s your no.2 peak player who´s the worst record against those 2 players...

Crazy_Fool
Oct 2nd, 2004, 08:11 PM
again.....it´s your no.2 peak player who´s the worst record against those 2 players...
This guy is funny, but what is he trying to prove?

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 08:12 PM
:haha: 94-96 are poor years to judge LD, she was not at the top of the game whether you like to admit it or not. Sure she beat her in 99, but I'm not sure what this proves, because she still had a losing record against her, and remember she won the biggest match of all.

As for Capriati, very overrated anyway, she's not a player who wins a lot.


:haha: :rolls: Funny ain´t it?! When you know who beats you there, it´s the biggest match and the only one that matters....but when she loses there, it doesn´t matter....

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 08:19 PM
Don´t know which is worse: Losing to Lori Mcneil or losing to Frazier?! Hmm....

From 87 until 96 Graf played 36 slams.
She won 21 of them.
She lost only 15 matches at slams in that time. :worship:
3 against Navi and Seles, 4 against ASV.
One against Sabatini, Pierce, Novotna, Garrison (#5 then).

And one against #17 McNeil, a serve&volley specialist in Wimbledon, probably one of the best 6 grass-court players in the Wimbledon draw that year.

Yes, Lori was a danger girl throughout her career.
Frazier, Sugi and Suarez are jokes compared to her.

Nevertheless, when Myskina, Sharapova, Kuznetsova manage to have only one slam loss in 10 years to those type of players, then I will start to call their names in the same sentence as Graf's one (Oops ..... )

Crazy_Fool
Oct 2nd, 2004, 08:20 PM
No-one was putting them in the same sentence as Graf, so i don't really know what your point is :confused:

irma
Oct 2nd, 2004, 08:37 PM
:haha: 94-96 are poor years to judge LD, she was not at the top of the game whether you like to admit it or not. Sure she beat her in 99, but I'm not sure what this proves, because she still had a losing record against her, and remember she won the biggest match of all.

As for Capriati, very overrated anyway, she's not a player who wins a lot.
98-99 are poor years to judge Steffi, she was not at the top of her game wheter you like to admit it or not :wavey: ;)


Other then that I don't know what this thread proves. Nobody with a healthy mind would say that these players are anywhere near Steffi. Even the roberts of this world wouldn't claim that (well he would but only to stir up dumbo's like me who are too sensitive :devil: )

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 08:37 PM
:haha: 94-96 are poor years to judge LD, she was not at the top of the game whether you like to admit it or not. Sure she beat her in 99, but I'm not sure what this proves, because she still had a losing record against her, and remember she won the biggest match of all.
....


At Wimby 99 Graf was 30 years old, 4 weeks before her retirement, had the flu (was in bed for the whole week after Wimbledon). Nevertheless LD made only 68-64 points against her.

At FO 99 Graf beat LD in a 3-setter but made 107-86 points on the way.

From the rest LD won 4 out of 6. But two wins came when Graf had to default in the deciding set because of injury.

Today LD is #2 in the rankings. Do you want to tell me that she is better today than in 98-00?

No, Graf of 98/99 would be top-3 still today.
And Graf of 88/89 or 95/96 would have won at least 3 slams this year ...

And I'd like to see what Navratilova of the 80ies would have done with Sharapova. No, not what you are thinking .....

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 08:39 PM
again.....it´s your no.2 peak player who´s the worst record against those 2 players...


My #2 peak player is and was Navi.

BTW, don't you know what "peak" means?

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 08:40 PM
This guy is funny, but what is he trying to prove?


That Frazier, Sugiyama, Suarez and Davenport have improved tremendously in the last 5-10 years. Because the game has moved on ("power players" etc.).

Crazy_Fool
Oct 2nd, 2004, 08:42 PM
98-99 are poor years to judge Steffi, she was not at the top of her game wheter you like to admit it or not :wavey: ;)


Other then that I don't know what this thread proves. Nobody with a healthy mind would say that these players are anywhere near Steffi. Even the roberts of this world wouldn't claim that (well he would but only to stir up dumbo's like me who are too sensitive :devil: )
Yes, but you can't say that, then claim that Steffi's wins over LD in 94 really mean something big.

I'm not sure what the thread proves either, other than trying to make Graf look good.

Crazy_Fool
Oct 2nd, 2004, 08:45 PM
At Wimby 99 Graf was 30 years old, 4 weeks before her retirement, had the flu (was in bed for the whole week after Wimbledon). Nevertheless LD made only 68-64 points against her.

At FO 99 Graf beat LD in a 3-setter but made 107-86 points on the way.

From the rest LD won 4 out of 6. But two wins came when Graf had to default in the deciding set because of injury.

Today LD is #2 in the rankings. Do you want to tell me that she is better today than in 98-00?

No, Graf of 98/99 would be top-3 still today.
And Graf of 88/89 or 95/96 would have won at least 3 slams this year ...

And I'd like to see what Navratilova of the 80ies would have done with Sharapova. No, not what you are thinking .....
Excuses again for the Wimbledon defeat, she was beaten convincingly, she might have won almost the same points as LD, but LD was always ahead in that match, and rarely looked in much trouble.

LD is certainly fitter than in 98 yeah, so i would say she is a better player.

Seeing as Maria S has yet to really develop her game, I don't know what yu are claiming there, she may one day turn into an all time great.

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 08:53 PM
No-one was putting them in the same sentence as Graf, so i don't really know what your point is :confused:


That "the game has moved on" in the last 5 or 10 years.
And how extremely Sugi, Frazier and Suarez must have improved since the 90ies.

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 08:57 PM
98-99 are poor years to judge Steffi, she was not at the top of her game wheter you like to admit it or not :wavey: ;)


Other then that I don't know what this thread proves. Nobody with a healthy mind would say that these players are anywhere near Steffi. Even the roberts of this world wouldn't claim that (well he would but only to stir up dumbo's like me who are too sensitive :devil: )


Well, Irma, Graf beat those players like a drum in the 90ies.
Now, although being 30 years old, those same players beat young russian slam winners.
Do you get my point?

I know, it is a very complicated process of deduction.
But you can do it!

;)

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:04 PM
Yes, but you can't say that, then claim that Steffi's wins over LD in 94 really mean something big.

I'm not sure what the thread proves either, other than trying to make Graf look good.


The topic of the thread is obviously the question whether "the game has moved" on in the last 5 or 8 years.
When we consider that players like Frazier, Sugi and Suarez were beaten like a drum by the 90ies top player (Graf) but can still be top-20 material even today (being 30 years old) and beat young russian slam winners - then that says a lot for me. That this makes "Graf look good" is the inevitable consequence of course. Reality and statistics just make her look good ...

:angel:

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:07 PM
My #2 peak player is and was Navi.

BTW, don't you know what "peak" means?

You rated Justine above Serena in any case....and those losses I´m talking about happened during her peak: ´03! peak Serena wouldn´t lose to Myskina and Sugiyama...

Crazy_Fool
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:07 PM
Of course the game has moved on, it has actually become alot more powerful than before. Most of the top players are pretty powerful thesedays.

And i'm afraid a win for Suarez, Frazier or Sugiyama actually proves nothing at all.

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:09 PM
Excuses again for the Wimbledon defeat, she was beaten convincingly, she might have won almost the same points as LD, but LD was always ahead in that match, and rarely looked in much trouble.
...


LD had exactly two break points, same as Graf.
LD converted them, Graf not.
"Not looking in trouble"? That is almost Selesian .......

LD was #1 back then, SG 30 years old, ill (flu), injured (bandaged, had to cancel mixed doubles), 4 weeks before retirement.


What do you think peak Graf (of 88/89 or 95/96) would do with a 30-year-old LD, who is injured and has flu at Wimbledon?
Double-bagel her?
Or would LD win 1 game?

Do you get the point?

:lol:

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:10 PM
It ain´t about the game percé....it´s about TIME, TIME!!! Just like time has moved past Martina N, so would have time moved past Steffi....of course she would be competitive and when the top players go down with injuries maybe even snatch a major, but you can possibly say that Steffi would keep competing with so many generation next playres forever.

kabuki
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:11 PM
The topic of the thread is obviously the question whether "the game has moved" on in the last 5 or 8 years.
When we consider that players like Frazier, Sugi and Suarez were beaten like a drum by the 90ies top player (Graf) but can still be top-20 material even today (being 30 years old) and beat young russian slam winners - then that says a lot for me. That this makes "Graf look good" is the inevitable consequence of course. Reality and statistics just make her look good ...

:angel:

Then why was you original post "Steffi sure dodged some bullets" or whatever? Has your point flip-flopped, or what?

Crazy_Fool
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:12 PM
Cami, we don't even know(or may never find) what LD plays like when she is 30. Unless you know, why try to say what you think she would be like, after all some ppl hit top form at 30.

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:12 PM
You rated Justine above Serena in any case....and those losses I´m talking about happened during her peak: ´03! peak Serena wouldn´t lose to Myskina and Sugiyama...

Only to giants Schnyder and Rubin .....


:p

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:14 PM
But of course we forgot: every loss of steffi was because she was too young, too old, had cramps, etc...how could we ever forget?!

Funny how ldvtennis is raving about how Justine would be the only contemporary players that could trouble Graf and that her game and genetics made it easier for her to bounce back from injuries.....we´re still waiting for Juju. 2r loss at RG on her best surface and 4r loss at the Open...defending champion at both. At least Serena´s still good enough to reach QF´s.

Crazy_Fool
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:16 PM
But of course we forgot: every loss of steffi was because she was too young, too old, had cramps, etc...how could we ever forget?!

You have to admire them for sticking up for their favourite :lol:

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:17 PM
Then why was you original post "Steffi sure dodged some bullets" or whatever? Has your point flip-flopped, or what?


When I first call you "the most intelligent poster in decades" and later simply "dumbo", has my point "flip-flopped" then?
What do you think?


;)
(some people simply NEED emoticons ..... )

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:17 PM
Only to giants Schnyder and Rubin .....


:p


Aaah......so Justine is still no.3?! Then I thin you shouldn´t be putting those girls: Sugiyama, Frazier,etc down....because that means putting Justine down as well.

P.s.: schnyder beat Graf as well, soooo....

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:18 PM
Cami, we don't even know(or may never find) what LD plays like when she is 30. Unless you know, why try to say what you think she would be like, after all some ppl hit top form at 30.

Who ever did that?

Oh, I forgot, Frazier ....



:lol:

Crazy_Fool
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:22 PM
Who ever did that?

Oh, I forgot, Frazier ....



:lol:
You, besides i think its too hard to judge generations, the game has moved on.

P.s.: schnyder beat Graf as well, soooo....
She was ill in that match remember ;)

irma
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:22 PM
It ain´t about the game percé....it´s about TIME, TIME!!! Just like time has moved past Martina N, so would have time moved past Steffi....of course she would be competitive and when the top players go down with injuries maybe even snatch a major, but you can possibly say that Steffi would keep competing with so many generation next playres forever.
I am not saying that Steffi had won more slams if she had continued. (but the us open 99 of course, considering the player who won was just a bad player without any talents and touch :p :devil: ;) )
But I don't see a reason why Steffi would have been different from Nav or Evert who were in the top 5 when they retired at 38 resp 35
With the exception that she was different because she retired and so the rest is in fact irrelevant (with as exception as I said before the us open that year. that would have been an easy win for sure. she just wanted to give the lesser players a chance. that was nice :devil: ;) )

kabuki
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:23 PM
When I first call you "the most intelligent poster in decades" and later simply "dumbo", has my point "flip-flopped" then?
What do you think?


;)
(some people simply NEED emoticons ..... )


No need to get nasty, I'm sorry you don't express yourself well. But if you love smilies so much, here you go...
:) :devil: :worship: :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :wavey: :angel: :sad: :kiss: :hearts: :drool: :bounce: :fiery: :lick: :tape: :lol:

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:23 PM
But of course we forgot: every loss of steffi was because she was too young, too old, had cramps, etc...how could we ever forget?!...

Alzheimer?


BTW, not EVERY loss.
There were at least a dozen legit losses.

Wimbledon 87, , Amelia Island 88, FO 92 .... erm, ....
OK, almost a dozen.

Well, many before 87, too!

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:28 PM
I am not saying that Steffi had won more slams if she had continued. (but the us open 99 of course, considering the player who won was just a bad player without any talents and touch :p :devil: ;) )
But I don't see a reason why Steffi would have been different from Nav or Evert who were in the top 5 when they retired at 38 resp 35
With the exception that she was different because she retired and so the rest is in fact irrelevant (with as exception as I said before the us open that year. that would have been an easy win for sure. she just wanted to give the lesser players a chance. that was nice :devil: ;) )


How sweet of Steffi! That´s why the player who won the ´99 Open always calls her ms Graf! :eek: Because she knows how lucky she was...

I know you´re only kidding, but you know some fellow Graphites do really believe that stuff.

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:30 PM
I am not saying that Steffi had won more slams if she had continued. (but the us open 99 of course, considering the player who won was just a bad player without any talents and touch :p :devil: ;) )
But I don't see a reason why Steffi would have been different from Nav or Evert who were in the top 5 when they retired at 38 resp 35
With the exception that she was different because she retired and so the rest is in fact irrelevant (with as exception as I said before the us open that year. that would have been an easy win for sure. she just wanted to give the lesser players a chance. that was nice :devil: ;) )


Good point.
Navi won 3 slams with 30+ years, Evert 2.
Court 3, King 2.

Why would Steffi not been able to do at least the same?
She would have had the advantage that in 00-02 no all-time great would have blocked her way.

If Graf had not lost the love for the game in 99 she almost certainly would have ended her career this or last year with 25 or 26 slams under her belt ....


:worship:

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:30 PM
Alzheimer?


BTW, not EVERY loss.
There were at least a dozen legit losses.

Wimbledon 87, , Amelia Island 88, FO 92 .... erm, ....
OK, almost a dozen.

Well, many before 87, too!

So her last legit loss was in ´92?! Hmmm...interesting.

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:31 PM
Aaah......so Justine is still no.3?! Then I thin you shouldn´t be putting those girls: Sugiyama, Frazier,etc down....because that means putting Justine down as well.

P.s.: schnyder beat Graf as well, soooo....


Sir, me thinks you are obsessed with Henin .....

Crazy_Fool
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:33 PM
So her last legit loss was in ´92?! Hmmm...interesting.
:haha:

pcrtennis
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:33 PM
This is a rediculous thread, Ai has played her best tennis as the power game has come onn strong. Same with Paola!

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:33 PM
Good point.
Navi won 3 slams with 30+ years, Evert 2.
Court 3, King 2.

Why would Steffi not been able to do at least the same?
She would have had the advantage that in 00-02 no all-time great would have blocked her way.

If Graf had not lost the love for the game in 99 she almost certainly would have ended her career this or last year with 25 or 26 slams under her belt ....


:worship:

May very well be....so which ones you think she could have won?! Do we have to think of one more in ´99 or do have to go less further in time?!

kabuki
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:33 PM
After re-re-reading your initial, I finally get your intent. That was a particularly poor way to try to argue an esentially moot point. But good luck with it.

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:33 PM
No need to get nasty, I'm sorry you don't express yourself well. But if you love smilies so much, here you go...
:) :devil: :worship: :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes: :mad: :eek: :confused: :wavey: :angel: :sad: :kiss: :hearts: :drool: :bounce: :fiery: :lick: :tape: :lol:


Oops, what is nasty here?
"Most intelligent"?
Or the cute little elephant from a Disney movie?


:confused: :p ;) :wavey:

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:36 PM
Sir, me thinks you are obsessed with Henin .....

Why´s that?!

Your own words:
peak Graf
peak Navratilova
peak Henin
peak Serena

Or am I wrong?!

Now if your no.3 peak player is the only one who has losses to the trio you wanna put down, that means either your no.3 is overrated or that maybe those players aren´t that bad.

what is it?!

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:36 PM
You, besides i think its too hard to judge generations, the game has moved on. ...

As I said in post #1.
And Frazier, Sugi and Suarez have moved on even more than the game.
They literally overtook the game. They age well ....


:lol:

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:42 PM
How sweet of Steffi! That´s why the player who won the ´99 Open always calls her ms Graf! :eek: Because she knows how lucky she was...

I know you´re only kidding, but you know some fellow Graphites do really believe that stuff.


Yes, I know, it's crazy to believe that a person who was able to beat the #2, #3 and #1 player in one slam tournament in June 1999 to lift the trophy in the end would be able to win another slam in the next 2 or 3 years.
Just because every professional player who has won more than 10 slams did achieve at least two slams wins after her 30th birthday .....

:lol: :lol:

Bandy, you're losing your usual zing!

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:44 PM
So her last legit loss was in ´92?! Hmmm...interesting.


OK, maybe Hamburg 94 as well ....

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:48 PM
This is a rediculous thread, Ai has played her best tennis as the power game has come onn strong. Same with Paola!


I know, they were still maturing in 96-99 when they were flogged by Graf.
After all they were only 20-24 years old back then ....

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:51 PM
Yes, I know, it's crazy to believe that a person who was able to beat the #2, #3 and #1 player in one slam tournament in June 1999 to lift the trophy in the end would be able to win another slam in the next 2 or 3 years.
Just because every professional player who has won more than 10 slams did achieve at least two slams wins after her 30th birthday .....

:lol: :lol:

Bandy, you're losing your usual zing!

You know it....Steffi would have easily won that ´99 Open...I mean look at the SF´s and the F...how many players there have beaten Steffi that year or even in their careers?! Venus?! Please....she has 2 career wins but only because Steffi was too old. Martina?! :haha: She was Steffi´s personal muppet.

Lindsay?! Nearly lost twice in three weeks to a Steffi with a reconstructed knee.

Serena?! Only won that one match because she went on an ASV-type of game.

Steffi would have wiped the floor with them for real.

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:52 PM
May very well be....so which ones you think she could have won?! Do we have to think of one more in ´99 or do have to go less further in time?!


She would have had her - very good - chances at every slam.
Best perhaps at Wimbledon 00 & 01.
Beating Serena at Wimbledon in 02 (Graf with 33) would have been too much probably ......

Otherwise, the sky was the limit only .....

:worship: :worship: :worship:

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:54 PM
After re-re-reading your initial, I finally get your intent. That was a particularly poor way to try to argue an esentially moot point. But good luck with it.


We are at post #81 by now (OK, 50 % coming from me .... ).
Not bad for one day, isn't it?

;)

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:54 PM
OK, maybe Hamburg 94 as well ....


That makes like 6...so all the other 6 came before ´87?!

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:56 PM
She would have had her - very good - chances at every slam.
Best perhaps at Wimbledon 00 & 01.
Beating Serena at Wimbledon in 02 (Graf with 33) would have been too much probably ......

Otherwise, the sky was the limit only .....

:worship: :worship: :worship:

I see....so only Serena would have stopped Steffi....hmmmm. What about ´03 after Serena went down?! Or would Justine be too tough as well?!

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 09:57 PM
Why´s that?!

Your own words:
peak Graf
peak Navratilova
peak Henin
peak Serena

Or am I wrong?!

Now if your no.3 peak player is the only one who has losses to the trio you wanna put down, that means either your no.3 is overrated or that maybe those players aren´t that bad.

what is it?!


Hell, Graf lost to McNeil in Wimbledon 1994!
;)
Point is that Frazier et al. are most certainly not better as 30-year-olds than they were 5 or 8 years ago. And that is AT LEAST very powerful circumstantial evidence against the idea that "the game has moved on".

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 10:00 PM
Hell, Graf lost to McNeil in Wimbledon 1994!
;)
Point is that Frazier et al. are most certainly not better as 30-year-olds than they were 5 or 8 years ago. And that is AT LEAST very powerful circumstantial evidence against the idea that "the game has moved on".

aaah...so just fluke losses?! Still no.3 on the list, no matter what.

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 10:01 PM
That makes like 6...so all the other 6 came before ´87?!

In 87-96 Graf lost, what, 45 matches (Oops, quite a lot!), 4.5 matches every year.
I don't remember all her losses.
But a dozen legit losses, plus/minus some, is a good estimate, don't you think?

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 10:04 PM
I see....so only Serena would have stopped Steffi....hmmmm. What about ´03 after Serena went down?! Or would Justine be too tough as well?!


A 22-year-old Enna against a 34-year-old Graf - sorry, Steffi ....
:sad:

But in this year's FO, Wimby, USO - who knows?
I watched Graf in the Berlin exhibition last Saturday and was "wow!" .......

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 10:04 PM
In 87-96 Graf lost, what, 45 matches (Oops, quite a lot!), 4.5 matches every year.
I don't remember all her losses.
But a dozen legit losses, plus/minus some, is a good estimate, don't you think?

I see..that´s the period that matters.

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 10:07 PM
A 22-year-old Enna against a 34-year-old Graf - sorry, Steffi ....
:sad:

But in this year's FO, Wimby, USO - who knows?
I watched Graf in the Berlin exhibition last Saturday and was "wow!" .......

So wimbledon ´00-´01, and then ´04 french, wimby and u.s.open.


You added 4 majors that you think Steffi would have won....hmm, she would have had to take all the chances.

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 10:23 PM
So wimbledon ´00-´01, and then ´04 french, wimby and u.s.open.


You added 4 majors that you think Steffi would have won....hmm, she would have had to take all the chances.


No, I added majors that I think Steffi would have had good chances at.
Nothing more.
As I said earlier, Graf would have had chances at all slams in 00-04.
Of course more in 00 than in 03 because even the greatest grow older.
But when you see the dismal level of this year's slams you have to admit that even a 35-year-old Graf would have had her chances. As Demented had her chances. Or Kuzzy, Myskina and the rest.

Court, King, Evert, Navi - all the great pros of the past had their chances in their 30ies. And they won now and then! I don't know why somebody can say Graf would not have been able to emulate those greats.
Especially when you consider that Graf is "the best of them all" (Ted Tinling, 1989) and that Graf was the first and only woman ever to beat the #3, #2 and #1 player of the world in a slam - at FO 99, 6 weeks before her retirement .....................

:worship:

fammmmedspin
Oct 2nd, 2004, 10:23 PM
What about "Suarez thrashed Sharapova at FO 04" or
"Suarez beat Kuznetsova at CanO 03" or
"Frazier humiliated Myskina at Wim 04" or
"Sugiyama beat Henin at Chase Champs 03"
didn't sink in?

Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Myskina, Henin are this year's slam champs ....Logical problem here too. One win doesn't prove anything. top players have off days. By your logic Marianne De Swardt would be a better player than Steffi.

The problem with your question is you can't compare players over time. Sugiyama was not as good as Graf and most days she now is not as good as about the same number of people who beat her in the mid-nineties.By that logic not much changed. Where the games of people like Sugiyama have changed its been in response to how the game is now played and how technology has changed. If Graf was the fastest consistent server of her days it is very unlikely that she would have been serving slower than any of the top 20 at the USO with a new racket. As she mastered the styles of people as disimilar as Martina, Martina, Venus, ASV, Gabi, Jana, Amanda, Mary and Monica it seems likely she would have adapted to todays styles too. If she had mastered the technology and if age wasn't a factor there is no reason to think she would have problems now with the Fraziers and Sugiyamas. If she could still serve at 60-70% first serves in you wonder who in the top ten could beat her if they came in at 115mph not 100 mph. Serena, Lindsay, Kim and a more consistent Sveta might do it to name a few. Wouldn't bet much on it though.

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 10:31 PM
No, I added majors that I think Steffi would have had good chances at.
Nothing more.
As I said earlier, Graf would have had chances at all slams in 00-04.
Of course more in 00 than in 03 because even the greatest grow older.
But when you see the dismal level of this year's slams you have to admit that even a 35-year-old Graf would have had her chances. As Demented had her chances. Or Kuzzy, Myskina and the rest.

Court, King, Evert, Navi - all the great pros of the past had their chances in their 30ies. And they won now and then! I don't know why somebody can say Graf would not have been able to emulate those greats.
Especially when you consider that Graf is "the best of them all" (Ted Tinling, 1989) and that Graf was the first and only woman ever to beat the #3, #2 and #1 player of the world in a slam - at FO 99, 6 weeks before her retirement .....................

:worship:

I see...and if she was healthy she´d probably snatch a few.

faboozadoo15
Oct 2nd, 2004, 10:33 PM
omG... never thought i'd see the day where people speculated how steffi graf could have won more slams... :eek:
didn't she get enough while the getting was good?

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 10:35 PM
omG... never thought i'd see the day where people speculated how steffi graf could have won more slams... :eek:
didn't she get enough while the getting was good?

:lol:

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 11:01 PM
omG... never thought i'd see the day where people speculated how steffi graf could have won more slams... :eek:
didn't she get enough while the getting was good?


Hmmm ...
Add 3 or 4 more slams in 90/92 without the 1990/91 scandal.
And 4 or 5 in 95-98 without her missing 6 slams due to injury and playing 3 slams clearly injured (AO 97, FO 97, USO 98)
And 2 or 3 more slams without her early retirement in 00-02.
That sums up to 9-12 more slams.
As I have a tendency to be modest when Graf's success is concerned I stay at 9 or let's say 8 more slams.
Talent-wise Graf was an underachiever in slams. She should have won 30 slams ......

9 Wimbledons, 7 each at FO, AO and USO.
At least one more Grand Slam (95, 96 or 97),
About 200 more weeks as #1 (adding up to about 600 weeks in total).

It was within reach. But it was not meant to be .....

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 11:07 PM
Hmmm ...
Add 3 or 4 more slams in 90/92 without the 1990/91 scandal.
And 4 or 5 in 95-98 without her missing 6 slams due to injury and playing 3 slams clearly injured (AO 97, FO 97, USO 98)
And 2 or 3 more slams without her early retirement in 00-02.
That sums up to 9-12 more slams.
As I have a tendency to be modest when Graf's success is concerned I stay at 9 or let's say 8 more slams.
Talent-wise Graf was an underachiever in slams. She should have won 30 slams ......

9 Wimbledons, 7 each at FO, AO and USO.
At least one more Grand Slam (95, 96 or 97),
About 200 more weeks as #1 (adding up to about 600 weeks in total).

It was within reach. But it was not meant to be .....


:lol: And to think what Margaret Court could have achieved if she didn´t have to leave for child-birth....

Calimero377
Oct 2nd, 2004, 11:11 PM
:lol: And to think what Margaret Court could have achieved if she didn´t have to leave for child-birth....


And what Bandy and Cali would have achieved if they only had had more tennis talent .....

bandabou
Oct 2nd, 2004, 11:16 PM
And what Bandy and Cali would have achieved if they only had had more tennis talent .....

:lol: Now we´re talking....

MAURO
Oct 3rd, 2004, 01:01 AM
Graf was the best

Paola is my local player and a very great player

as Sugiyama a good one.

Frazier is an old great player. Dangerous always

Calimero377
Feb 18th, 2005, 10:35 PM
Yet...you rate them like this:

peak graf
peak Justine
peak Martina N
peak Serena

wanna change your mind? ....

No, that's OK so ...


:wavey:

lloyders76
Feb 18th, 2005, 11:16 PM
fan of ur posts cali but are u seriously saying that if steffi's father scandal hadn't surfaced monica wouldn't have won the slams she did. credit where its due, i was never a graf fan til the last 3 yrs when i had nothing but respect for her battling achievements and a new found respect for her achievements of the eighties and nineties, but monica wasn't a second rate player benefiting from the trails of her betters a la sanchez, martinez, fernandez, sukova/pierce, ok offended enough people yet?

Grachka
Feb 18th, 2005, 11:23 PM
Calimero - how do you get people to believe you are being serious in your initial post? That people were baited is staggering.

Anyway, Graf was brilliant, Sugiyama, Suarez and Frazier were good at 24 but better older. What's the big deal?

Calimero377
Feb 18th, 2005, 11:37 PM
fan of ur posts cali but are u seriously saying that if steffi's father scandal hadn't surfaced monica wouldn't have won the slams she did. credit where its due, i was never a graf fan til the last 3 yrs when i had nothing but respect for her battling achievements and a new found respect for her achievements of the eighties and nineties, but monica wasn't a second rate player benefiting from the trails of her betters a la sanchez, martinez, fernandez, sukova/pierce, ok offended enough people yet?


Graf had won 66 consecutive matches, won 11 consecutive tournaments, reached 13 consecutive slam finals as of May 1990. Then the scandal struck.

She lost the next 3 consecutive tournaments, lost not only twice to a 16-year-old Seles but to good old Garrison (!) in Wimbledon. She missed 5 of 9 slam finals from summer 90 until end of 92. She lost 8 of 12 matches against Sabatini until spring of 92. She lost 3 times to Novotna in 12 months (her only losses to Novotna ever). She was beaten 0-6, 2-6 by ASV at FO 91.

Seles would have been a threat of course. Seles would have won several slams. But I think we don't have to discuss that Graf in her 88/89 form would not have had all the above mentioned losses. And she would have won more than 3 slams in 90/92.

But no excuses. Mental stability is a part of the game. Graf didn't have it in 90/92. Period.

Calimero377
Feb 18th, 2005, 11:47 PM
Calimero - how do you get people to believe you are being serious in your initial post? That people were baited is staggering.

Anyway, Graf was brilliant, Sugiyama, Suarez and Frazier were good at 24 but better older. What's the big deal?


Yes, they "moved on" with the game. As did Davenport (today's #1), Farina Elia, Raymond, Likhovtseva, Smashnova.
All obviously far better than at 22-24!

It is really interesting: In earlier decades there were vey few players who were better at 28-30 than at 22-24, almost none. Today we have many, many of those.

Perhaps better nutrition is the cause .... ?
;)


Graf and Navi can be really glad that they weren't born 10 or 20 years later. They would struggle big-time ....

LDVTennis
Feb 19th, 2005, 03:15 AM
Ai Sugiyama (29), Paola Suarez (28) and Amy Frazier (32) are veterans on the tour who still are well in the top-20 today. They are a bridge between the times of Graf, Novotna and Sabatini and the times of today's "power players".
When we want to compare former greats with today's top players it might help to have a look how those three players fared against both groups.

Miss Frazier was able to beat FO 04 winner Myskina at Wimbledon 4 weeks later (4-6, 6-4, 6-4) and fell only to later Wimbledon champ Sharapova - after a tight clash (4-6, 5-7).
Between 1991 and 1996 Graf played Frazier 6 times, winning all 6 matches.
One was a 3-setter (Graf winning decider with 6-2), the other 5 wins were blow-outs (Amy winning only 3, 3, 5, 5, and 3 games).
But obviously a 32-year-old Frazier is better than a 19-25 year-old Frazier. Because the game has moved on since Graf ....

Miss Sugiyama beat Zvonareva and Henin in fall of 2003 and took later Wimbledon 04 champ Sharapova to 3 sets in the quarters there.
Sugiyama played Graf 5 times in 98/99 when an old Graf with reconstructed knee returned to the tour for 15 months again. Sugiyama won one match, a tough 3-setter. In the other 4 matches she was blown off the court by the former great. Ai made only 13 games in 8 sets ......
But obviously a 29-year-old Sugiyama is better than a 23, 24 year-old Sugiyama.
Because the game has moved on since Graf .....

Miss Suarez beat Wimbledon 04 champ Sharapova like a drum at FO 04. At the Canadian Open 03 she beat USO 04 champ Kuznetsova and Vera Zvonareva, at L.A. 03 she beat Bovina.
Suarez played Graf 3 times (1996-99). She lost all matches.She made only 14 games in 6 sets ....
But obviously a 28 year-old Suarez is better than a 20-23 year-old Suarez.
Because the game has moved on since Graf ....

Oh boy, just imagine what today's Sugiyma, Frazier and Suarez and especially what today's top power players would have done with Graf of the 90ies.
Steffi really dodged some bullets there!

If you were my student, Calimero, this is what I would have to say about your argument.

Whether or not your conclusion can actually be validated - I doubt it can, your premise is suggestive and at least partially proven from the beginning since logically we do tend to assume that with time comes progress and that the general tendency in all things is to degrade after a certain point, not to get better.

You certainly attack these common assumptions by showing us that if our assumptions held true in women's tennis it would not be the case now that Frazier, Sugiyama, or Suarez could be ranked as high as they are and that furthermore they could not be as much of a threat to today's top players as they are. Compelling setup for an argument, particularly for someone like me (an intellectual) who is well aware of what has happened over the last 30 or so years to the idea of progress and time as an untrammeled path to greater and greater human freedom and enrichment.

As much I would like you to prove that premise, I am not sure you can because, however cunning your question is, it is framed counter to the idea of progress and not, as it should be, outside of it to give you the maneuvering room you need to avoid some really trivial demands on the argument. For instance, given the way you have framed the argument, there is nothing stopping someone from asking, what if on the day that Frazier played Myskina, Myskina was having a rather off day? Seems like a rather trivial question but you've left yourself open to such questions. The more questions like this that come up, the more and more your premise remains unproven.

Which is not to say that your argument does not have any value. It does raise a very puzzling set of questions: Why are they ranked so high years after what supposedly would have been their prime years? And, why is it that their games trouble today's top players whereas those same games might not have posed much a of threat to yesterday's top players? All very serious question and worth asking.

You know I am very sympathetic to the conclusion you want to reach, that today's game really hasn't advanced that much, even regressed, from the days when Steffi reigned supreme at the majors and in the rankings. I've tried to make the same argument indirectly by taking a top player like Davenport, Clijsters, Sharapova, Serena, Venus, etc., and demonstrating how one-dimensional the game has become in the hands of these players. Whether he realizes it or not, even a person like AlfaJeffster has bordered on making the same argument in his criticism of how the game is taught today, from grips to strategy.

It is better in logical situations like this to adopt a more evolutionary model for historical development. In this model, there is no concept of progress, just adaptation. Moroever, under the guidance of this model, it is possible for any historical entity to reach a state of perfection in a previous period and then to disappear. I think really that is what we are experiencing here. Something has disappeared.

(By the way, for the premise and set up of the argument alone, I would give you a B.)

MrYonex
Feb 19th, 2005, 04:18 AM
Seriously, you people need to stop being such asses to Steffi Graf, or trying to bash other players in general. At the same time it doesn't help the situation when Steffi fans are asses right back. I think that some of you people who consistantly come on here to bash other people should get a life. Seriously. This is you --> :retard:

Calimero377
Feb 19th, 2005, 12:23 PM
...
You certainly attack these common assumptions by showing us that if our assumptions held true in women's tennis it would not be the case now that Frazier, Sugiyama, or Suarez could be ranked as high as they are and that furthermore they could not be as much of a threat to today's top players as they are. Compelling setup for an argument, particularly for someone like me (an intellectual) who is well aware of what has happened over the last 30 or so years to the idea of progress and time as an untrammeled path to greater and greater human freedom and enrichment.
....


Wrong.
Women's tennis hasn't improved much indeed. At the top it even has deteriorated.
But there is far more human freedom and enrichment today than 30 years ago. We have faaaar more democracies (Eastern Europe, Latin America etc. ) today, the percentage of the world's population dying from hunger has decreased considerably.
No intellectual pessimism here in GM, please ...

:wavey: