Is ma long the GOAT ?

[zeio]

I'm sorry you felt ganged up.
I'm not trying to convince every tt fan out there that ML is the GOAT. By my humble standard, he is the GOAT (purely personal subjective opinion). In fact, I don't even care who your GOAT tt player is.

I was just curious about how you differentiate between "most decorated" and "greatest".

The two references you listed don't explain your point. I even read the second article about Michael Phelps, just trying to understand your point. Phelps is the GOAT Olympian because of his passion and talent for the sport? Because of defining moments like the 200 fly event in 2012 Olympic? Because of his focus/desire to win after coming back from DUI suspension? Which one of the above makes Phelps GOAT? Or is it none of the above? You referenced this article, you clearly agree with at least some parts of it.

References can be used to support an argument, but you can't just throw a bunch of quotes together and call it an explanation.
Could you clearly articulate your reason(s)? What, in your opinion, makes someone (e.g. Phelps) GOAT, without being the most decorated?

My condolences to Chris Chase who passed away in 2018. He speaks my mind on the issue of competition.

https://www.foxsports.com/tennis/st...tralian-open-2017-venus-martina-steffi-012817

Serena Williams is the best tennis player ever. So why isn’t her career the greatest?

Serena Williams, now the winner of the most Grand Slams in the history of professional tennis, is undisputedly the best player to ever step on the court...The only opponent she’s ever had trouble with is herself. Serena Williams is the most dominant tennis player ever, full stop. But does that mean she’s had the greatest career?

There’s two ways to define the G.O.A.T.: Looking at play and figuring out who was subjectively best (that’s where you find debate in the men’s game; even if Roger Federer were to finish with a slightly better résumé than Rafael Nadal, there will be a compelling G.O.A.T. argument to make on Nadal’s behalf, especially if he wins Sunday night’s final) or looking at the stats and trying to make it objective. Serena obviously gets the nod on the first. Anyone who believes there’s been a player with as many all-around tennis attributes as Serena is either wrong or a liar.

And now with Slam No. 23, Serena should have the stats down pat too, right? No. Assuming that makes the mistake of believing Grand Slams are the sole measure of a tennis player. They aren’t and never have been (see Federer and Nadal). Comparing players through eras actually tells a different story. (Not surprising given our insta-history, “everything is the greatest ever” sports analysis of today.)

...

Serena’s competition can’t compare. She had Justine Henin for a few years and Venus for a few more. That’s it. Her level of competition paled in comparison to the stacked fields Martina and Chrissie used to play, namely themselves. Fourteen times the rivals played in Slam finals and 22 times overall in majors. Throw in the fact that Martina had Steffi and Monica at the tail-end of her career and they had other top-tier talent surrounding them and Serena’s level of competition looks like the minor leagues.

She came up at a great time to dominate but without the competition that would provide her the greatest test. Henin dominated the sport during those years when Serena seemed disinterested, both due to injuries, outside interests and family issues. Kim Clijsters was a fine player and fun to watch and root for, but was hardly a worthy adversary.

...

That seems unfair. Serena won the matches that were in front of her. Should it be her fault she didn’t have a Chrissie or a Martina or a Steffi? Why would Serena be penalized for a situation entirely out of her control? (And it is entirely out of her control. The argument that her opponents are weak because she makes her opponents week doesn’t hold water for various reasons.) But flip the situation. Andy Roddick is surely punished because of a situation entirely out of his control – being born at the same time as Roger Federer. The American was just voted into the Hall of Fame (an easy decision) and has a Slam title so he’s hardly a tragic case. But if The Fed had decided to play soccer, Roddick would won a handful of Slams and have been No. 1 for weeks on weeks on weeks. His legacy would be vastly different.

In that way, it’s acceptable, even essential, to factor in Serena’s competition, or lack thereof. Then you also look at the things she’s done that others haven’t: Serena gets major points for dominating into her mid-30s and posting a longevity not seen since Navratilova. She’s winning Slams at an age no one else has, though in an era where more 30-something tennis players (men and women) are able to prolong their careers thanks to improved training, diet and recovery. And I don’t care who’s in the field – two Grand Slams with seven wins is remarkable. (Not dropping a set en route to a Slam title at 35 years old ain’t bad either.)

None of the facts/stats/comparisons discussed above change the fact that Serena Williams is the greatest to ever play the sport. They do, however, absolutely shape the opinion of how her career should be regarded. These are mostly frivolous distinctions – barroom debates among tennis fans and things to ponder when coming up with lists. But right now, even with title No. 23, Serena’s career, and those years of relative struggles and apathy and inconsistency, doesn’t stack up to Martina’s or, possibly, Chrissie’s.

 

[zeio]

The video where the script I posted came from. ML went in depth on his losses to WH in WTTC 2013 and ZJK in WC 2014. I'll just translate the part on mental strength...

　　我第三次遇到王皓的时候呢,其实自己前两次的比赛阴影,在心里还是会有,也让我挥之不去.可能那场半决赛里自己一上来就零比三落后,更多的还是自己觉得,哦又遇到王皓,可能自己的这种消极信号更多，信心方面可能也没有那么足,所以才会一上来被对手打了个三比零.
　　如果从12年来说,自己其实跟王皓在平时的比赛中,应该来说胜的更多.但在这样大赛的比赛里,拼的不光是技术,有的时候更多的可能是你的内心,你的思想.在这个时候,可能有过前两次的比赛失利,在这个时候让我觉得,自己的自信心并没有那么强,然而王皓可能那天的比赛他发挥的更好.所以说一上来自己零比三落后,虽然自己追了两局,但我觉得,其实自己的内心可能也会有一点认命了,可能觉得,哦零比三落后了,追两局也是输,就算再赢一局,可能自己觉得自己还是会输.
　　所以从内心当中,自己……那天的比赛我觉得是我,自己这辈子我觉得最为遗憾的一场比赛,哪怕到现在都记忆犹新.
　　赛后他还问我,诶,今天你比赛怎么打这么差,是不是受了伤啊,因为其实跟平时的比赛相比,自己那天的发挥确实非常不好.但当时自己也无言以对,只能默默低头.因为其实已经不知道要说什么了,说自己打得好呢有点丢人,说打得不好呢,其实自己平时比赛打得非常好,为什么这个时候不行呢?只好选择沉默,默默地一个人走开.

When I met Wang Hao for the 3rd time, in fact, the shadow of my previous 2 matches still haunted me. Perhaps in that semi-final, trailing 0-3 in games had more to do with how I felt, that it's Wang Hao again. I might have more negative signals and thus my confidence was not as ample. That's why I was 0-3 down right out of the gate.

Say from 2012 on, I actually had more wins against Wang Hao in the usual tournaments. But in this kind of major, it is not just about techniques, but sometimes more about your mentality, your mindset. At this moment in time, perhaps because of those 2 defeats, I felt at the time that my self-confidence was not so strong. However, perhaps Wang Hao played better that day. So after trailing behind 0-3, even though I took the next 2, I felt that deep down I might have given in to fate. Perhaps I felt that oh, 0-3 behind, I was gonna lose even taking the next 2 games. Even if I took another game, perhaps I felt that I would've lost no matter what.

So deep down, I...I feel that match on that day is the most regrettable match in my life, the memory of which is still vivid to this day.

He[WH] also asked me after the match, "hey, why did you play so bad today, injured?" Because when compared to the usual matches, my performance was really bad that day. But at the time, I was speechless. I could only keep my head down in silence. Because I didn't know what to say. Say I played well, it’s a bit shameful, but say I didn’t play well, when in fact, I usually played very well. Why not this time? So, all I could do was walk away in silence.

If you take ML's words so seriously, he said he lost to WH in 2013 WTTC not due to lack of mental strength

 

[zeio]

Some statements are puzzling. If ZJK was not in his prime in 2016, then Wang Hao was not in his prime in 2012.

Come again? Prime is a relative word. By 2016 people were not even sure that ZJK should be playing Olympics.

In 2012, WH was by any strength measure still one of the top players in the world. Almost impossible to beat. And 1 year later he returned to prove it again against Ma Long.

It is things like this that make me wonder what it is like to be a fangirl.

Ma Long is clearly the king of the plastic ball era. No argument. Lol.

For the sake of comparison...

"If I could stay away from ML in the draw, I feel I have a chance. Given ZJK's current state, I feel I have a chance. Who knows, before I could meet him, he could very well be eliminated."

 

[NextLevel]

For the sake of comparison...

Yeah. We also had Rosskopf saying that Fan Zhendong should have gone and that sending ZJK created an opening.

The funny thing is that despite all this, I still think Ma Long is the GOAT. I just don't think these things should be lied about.

 

[Musa]

Hey guys, I don’t think on this discussion many people are willing to let go of their stand. I would understand because of their idols. Having read all your input I still believe a persons career would still be judged based on the medals they won in their career irrespective of when they were at peak or injuries or what ifs. Dominance is an added advantage.
No one should blame Zhang jike for not having to face Ma long in his WTTC finals even though Ma long was the most dominant player on all other events in that period. Ma long simply could not get past Wang Hao. So ZJ WTTCs were rightfully deserved.

The same way no one would blame Ma Lin for not getting past Wang Liqin on WTTCs or Wang Hao for not being able to get past Ma Lin in Major events.

The same way no one should blame Ma long for being the GOAT by winning it all and having more medals than all the others in ALL competitions combined including majors, secondly for also having dominance against all the other players. All the other issues are just side shows.

The above are just facts irrespective of whoever a person’s Idol is!!

 

[yoass]

Probably not many mathematicians here. However, a basic thing of that realm seems to be of importance here.

Whenever asked to provide the solution to a particular problem, the first challenge to be met when delivering the actual proof (solution) is to verify the existence of a solution. If you don't, you can reason away and apply the immense instrumentarium of mathematics in an unfounded way.

Asking a question is not done without assumpsions. In particular, in the question "who's the GOAT?" the implicit assumption is made of the existence of such a thing: a unique individual, something people of the mathematics persuasion would identify as the supremum of a pointed directed-complete partial ordered set.

Key notion there is comparability. Given two arbitrary elements of a set S, a and b, a and b are comparable if and only if either a>b, b>a or a=b; and set S is comparable if every combination of two elements of S are.

Now take the set of all table tennis players. The supremum ("GOAT") would be induced by the relation "is a greater player than", and it would exist if and only if for for any two different players it is true that either the one is greater than the other, or the other is greater than the one.

Now I'd say this isn't true. I'd actually argue that many players are, basically, incomparable. With Victor Barna and Zhang Jike as obvious witnessess from that set of all players.

From that observation, it follows that the principal question is unsound. There's no GOAT.

 

[zeio]

 

[yoass]

What?

 

[zeio]

I don't want trouble...

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Okay. Yoass and Zeio both made me laugh.

As far as I am concerned, Der_Echte is the goat....or, at least he is the Satyr. And there is nobody who can beat him in a chicken and beer bet.

 

[usualsuspect]

My condolences to Chris Chase who passed away in 2018. He speaks my mind on the issue of competition.

You know, you could've just written that high level competition is the main criterion when I gauge my GOAT athletes.
You don't have to answer every question with a lengthy 10-paragraph reference... Don't just read and plagiarize, summarizing your knowledge, then synthesizing your own ideas are important too.
Anyways, I got the answer, cheers!

 

[zeio]

You know, you could've just written that high level competition is the main criterion when I gauge my GOAT athletes.
You don't have to answer every question with a lengthy 10-paragraph reference... Don't just read and plagiarize, summarizing your knowledge, then synthesizing your own ideas are important too.
Anyways, I got the answer, cheers!

If quoting is plagiarizing, so be it. I've written enough of my own and people still question it. So to prove I'm not navel-gazing, I quote other people's work that are in direct support of my argument, and people call it plagiarizing. Nice. Why don't you quote someone's work that supports your argument?

https://www.plagiarism.org/article/quoting-material

What is Quoting?

Taking the exact words from an original source is called quoting. You should quote material when you believe the way the original author expresses an idea is the most effective means of communicating the point you want to make. If you want to borrow an idea from an author, but do not need his or her exact words, you should try paraphrasing instead of quoting.

 

[tropical]

You know, you could've just written that high level competition is the main criterion when I gauge my GOAT athletes.
You don't have to answer every question with a lengthy 10-paragraph reference... Don't just read and plagiarize, summarizing your knowledge, then synthesizing your own ideas are important too.
Anyways, I got the answer, cheers!

Now you know why some people are called copycats ha ha ...

 

[NextLevel]

Hey guys, I don’t think on this discussion many people are willing to let go of their stand. I would understand because of their idols. Having read all your input I still believe a persons career would still be judged based on the medals they won in their career irrespective of when they were at peak or injuries or what ifs. Dominance is an added advantage.
No one should blame Zhang jike for not having to face Ma long in his WTTC finals even though Ma long was the most dominant player on all other events in that period. Ma long simply could not get past Wang Hao. So ZJ WTTCs were rightfully deserved.

The same way no one would blame Ma Lin for not getting past Wang Liqin on WTTCs or Wang Hao for not being able to get past Ma Lin in Major events.

The same way no one should blame Ma long for being the GOAT by winning it all and having more medals than all the others in ALL competitions combined including majors, secondly for also having dominance against all the other players. All the other issues are just side shows.

The above are just facts irrespective of whoever a person’s Idol is!!

It is not about "blame". It is about whether you should be more careful when using the numbers to measure someone's dominance. I have no problem with Ma Long using both the eye test and the stat test. But I fully understand why anyone would hold those losses to Wang Hao against him and stress that his career got better as Wang Hao retired and ZJK got worse and cleared the way for him.

 

[tropical]

So .. still a lot of debates on this subjective post? Well .. everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion especially on a subjective matter so I don't blame you. Since it is subjective (as some folks don't like stats and don't want to use it to measure GOAT and there is no set of rules to define what a GOAT must have) why don't we just vote? Then I can conclude ML is the GOAT (of all time not just his time, ok?)

 

[zeio]

So .. still a lot of debates on this subjective post? Well .. everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion especially on a subjective matter so I don't blame you. Since it is subjective (as some folks don't like stats and don't want to use it to measure GOAT and there is no set of rules to define what a GOAT must have) why don't we just vote? Then I can conclude ML is the GOAT (of all time not just his time, ok?)

Ya, when the people of your country voted for a controversial president that so many find unwelcoming. 3 years in and your own people still question if Russia had a hand in his election. So much for democracy.

 

[usualsuspect]

If quoting is plagiarizing, so be it. I've written enough of my own and people still question it. So to prove I'm not navel-gazing, I quote other people's work that are in direct support of my argument, and people call it plagiarizing. Nice. Why don't you quote someone's work that supports your argument?

Com'on zeio, I don't mean to split hair. But in your previous post about Serena Williams, exactly 1 sentence was written by you, while rest of the lengthy post was quote, which could've been summarized in one short sentence to answer my question. I was just asking for your opinion on the matter, I don't necessarily care where you got it from or whether you came up with it yourself.

Regardless of how you feel about the correct usage of quotations, if I submit something like that to turnitin.com or even just a middle school teacher, I would be covered in plagiarism alert.

If your goal is to make people tired of reading long quotes and stop having discussions with you, then this is an excellent technique (in fact, I might employ this technique at some point! ). Otherwise, people who genuinely want to have intelligent discussions with you will feel super tedious and tiresome.

 

[usualsuspect]

Ya, when the people of your country voted for a controversial president that so many find unwelcoming. 3 years in and your own people still question if Russia had a hand in his election. So much for democracy.

Hey, that's not true! You take that back!
I think Mr. President Trump is a tremendous president, who will make many countries stronger biggly, especially Russia & China (the US not included).

 

[zeio]

No, I had to so people wouldn't accuse me of taking things out of context. I had to quote as much as possible as it addresses the issue of most decorated, greatest of all time, level of competition, longevity and whatnot. The whole nine yards.

 

[NextLevel]

No, I had to so people wouldn't accuse me of taking things out of context. I had to quote as much as possible as it addresses the issue of most decorated, greatest of all time, level of competition, longevity and whatnot. The whole nine yards.

Usualsuspect accuses me of unsportsmanlike behavior because I say certain players are not great (or not as great as others). He argues I can't do so because I am not a journalist. I suspect his real goal is to make you write it so he can accuse you of being disrespectful and unsportsmanlike.