[cowking]

Second statement is true, first isn't...whatever era you're born into, you play whoever is your competition across the net. And really, the further apart 2 players are in time, the more difficult it is to compare them. It really just becomes subjective eventually, how much each person gives weight to certain factors such as competition, tour size, training. etc. will vary. That being said, I think Serena is a greater player than Margaret Court ever was And not just because Court's a crotchety old homophobe...

[dsanders06]

Originally Posted by cowking

Second statement is true, first isn't...whatever era you're born into, you play whoever is your competition across the net. And really, the further apart 2 players are in time, the more difficult it is to compare them. It really just becomes subjective eventually, how much each person gives weight to certain factors such as competition, tour size, training. etc. will vary. That being said, I think Serena is a greater player than Margaret Court ever was And not just because Court's a crotchety old homophobe...

Agreed.

[Roookie]

We don't call them Generation Suck (Azarenka, Kvitova, Wozniacki) for nothing.

[.Ivan.]

Originally Posted by dsanders06

But see (and I really am trying to keep this as polite as possible so that this doesn't get locked ), here you are completely contradicting what you said in the other thread

I will just let you keep thinking that.

[*JR*]

Regarding the phrase:

"Every generation is better than the previous one. The game is always evolving"

There's a reason, @ least in most big money sports. Simply that the money increases the number of kids trained to play whichever, and the sophistication of the training.

[binky-GOAT]

In WTA, the game is devolving. It is becoming primitive and less sophisticated.

[moby]

The average college math major knows more math than Archimedes. Does that that make them better mathematicians?
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." - Newton

Obviously Serena plays very formidable tennis now (or rather at her peak), but do you think she would have that same game if Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles didn't come before her? What if she were playing in the early 90s as a contemporary of Graf and Seles? Would the Williamses have reined in their aggressive games if Legend Wingis didn't make them pay for their unforced errors in their formative years?

Like Serena, Evert-Navratilova-Graf all played roughly against 3 generations of tennis (except in their dotage they had to play against actual greats-to-be, and not Generation Suck) and came out on top a lot. That's all anyone can do, really.

[Imperfect Angel]

"generation" means all the player as a whole. Not just Vika, Petra, Aga etc. The whole generation doesn't just evolve with these few players.

[bandabou]

What's it with Dsanders and all these threads trying to bring Serena down? Ok good..Vika and Kvitova are gonna be better than Serena in his eyes..does that mean that they're gonna be greater than Sharapova ( who is from another generation) too?

Why's dsanders always discussing other players who aren't even his fav?

[Sam L]

I don't think you can say every generation is better than the last one. But once in a while, there comes a generation that lifts the bar. Monica Seles is often thought of as a transformational player in the women's game because she brought power on both wings and a strong baseline game.

The generation of Pierce, Capriati, Davenport, Williams, Clijsters, Henin etc... all took this concept to the next level. That's why the early 2000s is often seen as a sort of Golden Age in women's tennis.

Before, Seles was the only one hitting like that. Now you have to hit like her to win slams. That's where Hingis fell behind because she couldn't keep up when the bar got lifted even though she herself actually improved.

So until another generation comes along that lifts the bar like that, I'd say that generation is the standard.

And as Serena was the last woman to hold all four majors and doing so during that period, I guess that makes her by default the standard female tennis player as well. I mean, let's face it, which female player wouldn't kill to have a serve like that?

[stromatolite]

It's interesting to discuss how the game changes and evolves over time. But the statement that every generation is always better than the previous one is not a very promising way to initiate such a discussion, even if it's not (entirely) intended as trollbait

[BH both wings]

Originally Posted by Asadinator

In WTA, the game is devolving. It is becoming primitive and less sophisticated.

But it still becomes more effective. You know, the fitness function of evolution is not about beauty or sophistication, it's about success.

However, you cannot compare different generations in sports, especially if they don't compete directly. Even in sports where performance is measurable (athletics etc.), too many things evolve: equipment, training methods, doping, diet ...

If you did time-machine the '88 Graf to the tour right now, she wouldn't stand a chance. And I'm pretty sure, if you time-machined S.Williams to the 2030s, she would be lucky to see a second week of a GS once in a while ...

But that is no base for a comparison.

[dsanders06]

Originally Posted by stromatolite

It's interesting to discuss how the game changes and evolves over time. But the statement that every generation is always better than the previous one is not a very promising way to initiate such a discussion, even if it's not (entirely) intended as trollbait

For the record, I personally don't see any of the new generation so far as having more potential/talent than Serena, and I would only consider any of them to be greater than her if they exceed her achievements.

My point is (even if it's not the most eloquent point I've ever made) is that, in debates comparing Serena to Graf/Navratilova/Evert, many people (not always Serena fans) are quick to say that, even though Serena has achieved less, her achievements have more weight simply because this era is (so the theory goes) stronger and better due to sport always evolving. And my point is, if you take that argument to its logical conclusion, those same people would have to say that if Azarenka/Kvitova/Stephens/Keys/Vekic/whoever got to 10 Slams or something, they would surely have to be considered better than Serena (again, ONLY going by the logic that they're applying to comparisons between Serena and former generations).

Originally Posted by Sam L

I don't think you can say every generation is better than the last one. But once in a while, there comes a generation that lifts the bar. Monica Seles is often thought of as a transformational player in the women's game because she brought power on both wings and a strong baseline game.

The generation of Pierce, Capriati, Davenport, Williams, Clijsters, Henin etc... all took this concept to the next level. That's why the early 2000s is often seen as a sort of Golden Age in women's tennis.

Before, Seles was the only one hitting like that. Now you have to hit like her to win slams. That's where Hingis fell behind because she couldn't keep up when the bar got lifted even though she herself actually improved.

So until another generation comes along that lifts the bar like that, I'd say that generation is the standard.

And as Serena was the last woman to hold all four majors and doing so during that period, I guess that makes her by default the standard female tennis player as well. I mean, let's face it, which female player wouldn't kill to have a serve like that?

But see, if you start making exceptions to the "each era is better than the last one" theory, then the whole argument for Serena being better than Graf/Navratilova/Evert collapses, because it's so easy for people to justifiably argue that the current era isn't stronger than the 1990s Era at all. Saying that the current era is stronger is entirely subjective, and any argument pointing to a general rule that the sport generally always evolves will, again, mean that you would have to accept by that argument's logical limits that Serena would be exceeded by the next generation. Either it's an ironclad rule that every generation exceeds the previous one, or it's not a rule at all, seeing as there would be all kind of subjective ways of saying a certain era is not stronger than the previous one.

(and for the record, even if the last few days I've been doing a good impression of a Steffica Greles Blastfromthepast-ian, I don't believe the current era is weaker than the 1990s. I think it's stronger in some ways and weaker in others, but overall, there isn't any quantifiable way in which this era is overall stronger than the 90s, or that it's harder to dominate the sport to the extent Graf did now than it used to be. And that's why I don't accept the argument that Serena is greater than players that have accomplished more than her, simply because of the era she's in.)

[stromatolite]

Originally Posted by dsanders06

For the record, I personally don't see any of the new generation so far as having more potential/talent than Serena, and I would only consider any of them to be greater than her if they exceed her achievements.

My point is (even if it's not the most eloquent point I've ever made) is that, in debates comparing Serena to Graf/Navratilova/Evert, many people (not always Serena fans) are quick to say that, even though Serena has achieved less, her achievements have more weight simply because this era is (so the theory goes) stronger and better due to sport always evolving. And my point is, if you take that argument to its logical conclusion, those same people would have to say that if Azarenka/Kvitova/Stephens/Keys/Vekic/whoever got to 10 Slams or something, they would surely have to be considered better than Serena (again, ONLY going by the logic that they're applying to comparisons between Serena and former generations).

Don't worry, I didn't really think you did think that.

Still, helluva lot of trouble to go to to get up the noses of a few Serena fans. I actually think there is a more eloquent point lurking in here somewhere. Something along the lines that any comparison between players of different generations rests to some extent on assumptions that not everybody is likely to share. Which is why most GOAT discussions soon descend into silly bickering at cross purposes.

[bandabou]

Originally Posted by dsanders06

For the record, I personally don't see any of the new generation so far as having more potential/talent than Serena, and I would only consider any of them to be greater than her if they exceed her achievements.

My point is (even if it's not the most eloquent point I've ever made) is that, in debates comparing Serena to Graf/Navratilova/Evert, many people (not always Serena fans) are quick to say that, even though Serena has achieved less, her achievements have more weight simply because this era is (so the theory goes) stronger and better due to sport always evolving. And my point is, if you take that argument to its logical conclusion, those same people would have to say that if Azarenka/Kvitova/Stephens/Keys/Vekic/whoever got to 10 Slams or something, they would surely have to be considered better than Serena (again, ONLY going by the logic that they're applying to comparisons between Serena and former generations).



But see, if you start making exceptions to the "each era is better than the last one" theory, then the whole argument for Serena being better than Graf/Navratilova/Evert collapses, because it's so easy for people to justifiably argue that the current era isn't stronger than the 1990s Era at all. Saying that the current era is stronger is entirely subjective, and any argument pointing to a general rule that the sport generally always evolves will, again, mean that you would have to accept by that argument's logical limits that Serena would be exceeded by the next generation. Either it's an ironclad rule that every generation exceeds the previous one, or it's not a rule at all, seeing as there would be all kind of subjective ways of saying a certain era is not stronger than the previous one.

(and for the record, even if the last few days I've been doing a good impression of a Steffica Greles Blastfromthepast-ian, I don't believe the current era is weaker than the 1990s. I think it's stronger in some ways and weaker in others, but overall, there isn't any quantifiable way in which this era is overall stronger than the 90s, or that it's harder to dominate the sport to the extent Graf did now than it used to be. And that's why I don't accept the argument that Serena is greater than players that have accomplished more than her, simply because of the era she's in.)

What are you talking about?!

The gap between the Serena and the current gap is waaayyyyyy wider, than the gap between Graf/Court/Nav/Evert vs Serena. And even then nobody says Serena is greater than those four..she has ways to go. She's in the conversation, that's all.

Nobody of the current generation is even in sniffing distance of Hingis for Christ's sake. Let them surpass Hingis, then catching up with Vee/Juju, then Seles.... so please stop with your stupidity already.