WHEN Novak Djokovic beat Roger Federer to win the Wimbledon men’s singles championship on July 12th, he gave his supporters fresh ammunition to argue that he is playing better tennis than anyone in history. It was his 14th victory in his past 21 matches against the Swiss maestro.
Younger fans might presume that only Mr Federer’s superlative run from 2004-09 could compete with Mr Djokovic’s dominance. But those with longer memories could make a compelling claim for Rod Laver, who won a record 200 tournaments from 1956-76, or even Bill Tilden, who dominated the 1920s. Mr Federer’s oft-cited status as the best player ever, and Mr Djokovic’s as the heir apparent, rest on a widely held but hard-to-prove assumption: because the quality of play has increased so much over time, today’s finest sportsmen must be superior to their predecessors.
Cross-era comparisons are easiest in sports like running, jumping and weightlifting, which are measured in units like time, distance or mass. In general, performance in such contests has improved substantially over the years: the average top-ten finisher in the men’s 100-metre sprint has cut his time from...
from The Economist: International http://ift.tt/1Jk9Z6W
No comments:
Post a Comment