Warning: Fallacy(ies) spotted

OK 2 fallacies I think I've spotted people use on this forum, in particular Tenez & NITB (although not exclusively them)


1/ The idea that: aesthetically pleasing = talent.
Now of course in many cases there may be a lot of overlap, and shots that you find pretty to watch may take a lot of talent, but these two thing don't necessarily go hand in hand as some think.
In particular it always seems NITB always calls players she likes to watch as hugely talented and saviours of tennis automatically. Tenez is a bit more subtle, but the correlation between players with aesthetically pleasing games and apparently talented according to him is suspicious.

2/ This is the main point: Some players can't keep up a level of play for long periods
Every time an underdog has a dip against a top player, it is not always because of fitness.
Nadal gets a break at the latter end of set one and Tenez exclaims 'ah look, the opponent is tired'- and then when the second and third sets are even more competitive- we have no mention of tiredness.
RG 2011 apparently Federer got tired after 7 games in the first set, but still managed to win set number 3 ? Incredible stuff from Federer, winning a set against Nadal at RG, 2 and half hours after he had to get broken at 5-3 first set due to sheer exhaustion.
Of course fatigue may play a role in players dipping for some matches, for example towards the end of the deciding set.
However many players also dip in play because they're not good enough to keep a certain level up for the whole duration of the match. The better players are better at keeping up a higher level for longer periods in the match; in fact this is one of the main reasons some players are ranked high in the rankings.
Look at Klizan vs Djokovic yesterday for example, Klizan could not keep up his great play for a long duration of the match, while Djokovic even accounting for his 2nd set blip, was able to sustain a better level for much longer periods.

1- It is not a fallacy. Aesthetics and talent go usually hand in hand...though talent could be measured; aesthetics is subjective and cannot be measured. But in the same way there are models out there highly paid because they are "aesthetically" beautiful in the eyes of many, you will always find some that won't find them pretty.

Same with talented tennis players. Most consider Federer talented cause he is aesthically nice to watch. Like Stan’s BH or Monfils movement.

So there I am afraid you are wrong…again.

2 – Nadal himself says the game should have longer time between points. He does not say that should be the case after 3 or 4 sets. He says straight away and this is why he has cheated all his career after that Miami 05 final.. You know that a 30 shot rally is like racing a 200m, problem is that in this 200m you have to hit sharp risky shots….if you are Federer (not Nadal of course), so if you have 2 or 3 long rallies in succession, you get very tired at the end of those, regardless whether it is a 1 set or a 5th. Legs are fine in the first set,..it’s the red muscles which get tired quickly. A one min rest and a few short points can get you back into the match. This is why you have players with ups and downs.
So Wrong again…and again.

But feel free to come an visit this forum. To learn. I noticed that like Lydian….you actually pay lots of attention to what you read here. Good of you.

Oh please, pay some attention to what I'm actually saying:

1/ I think it's dangerous to assume that players you find subjectively aesthetically pleasing is necessarily talented.
Of course there can be overlap, but I feel you and others debate talent simply to prove that players you find better to watch are more talented.

2/ I am not saying that no dips in the match are causes by fatigue. Fatigue can have a part to play in a long physical match, or in the short period during and after one long rally.
However there are many dips caused by the fact players can't keep up their level for long periods, because they're not good enough. Better players can keep up their highest level for longer periods of time, someone like Klizan cannot do that.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Oh please, pay some attention to what I'm actually saying:

1/ I think it's dangerous to assume that players you find subjectively aesthetically pleasing is necessarily talented.
Of course there can be overlap, but I feel you and others debate talent simply to prove that players you find better to watch are more talented.

Well as I said it is linked. You can tell Mannarino can do more with less...that's talent.....and as consequence it's pleasing to the eye...though like everything pleasing to the eye, it is subjective.
Nadal doesn't make things look easy, one feel (and knows) there is lots of energy spent to win points and therefore he is not known for his talent...not for an "aestically" game...though some might like the energy he brings on the court, most won't say it is and beautiful game.

2/ I am not saying that no dips in the match are causes by fatigue. Fatigue can have a part to play in a long physical match, or in the short period during and after one long rally.
However there are many dips caused by the fact players can't keep up their level for long periods, because they're not good enough. Better players can keep up their highest level for longer periods of time, someone like Klizan cannot do that.

You seem to have retracted there. Loss of focus can also be a reason for bad patch. I have never said otherwise. Nonetheless, the fitter you are the more likely you will be able to keep the focus and level up. Nothing new here.

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Oh please, pay some attention to what I'm actually saying:

1/ I think it's dangerous to assume that players you find subjectively aesthetically pleasing is necessarily talented.
Of course there can be overlap, but I feel you and others debate talent simply to prove that players you find better to watch are more talented.

Well as I said it is linked. You can tell Mannarino can do more with less...that's talent.....and as consequence it's pleasing to the eye...though like everything pleasing to the eye, it is subjective.
Nadal doesn't make things look easy,  one feel (and knows) there is lots of energy spent to win points and therefore he is not known for his talent...not for an "aestically" game...though some might like the energy he brings on the court, most won't say it is and beautiful game.

So can you see my point that it may be dangerous to link the two things too closely ?
We end up trying to convince ourselves that what is more aesthetically pleasing is more talented- and then try to change the definition of talent to fit that pre-assumption.

Tenez wrote:

2/ I am not saying that no dips in the match are causes by fatigue. Fatigue can have a part to play in a long physical match, or in the short period during and after one long rally.
However there are many dips caused by the fact players can't keep up their level for long periods, because they're not good enough. Better players can keep up their highest level for longer periods of time, someone like Klizan cannot do that.

You seem to have retracted there. Loss of focus can also be a reason for bad patch. I have never said otherwise. Nonetheless, the fitter you are the more likely you will be able to keep the focus and level up. Nothing new here.

Certainly not a retraction, in the OP itself I said fatigue can cause dips in a match.
However you seem to try and attribute fatigue to every dip in a match when someone dips against a player you dislike, or a player you like has a dip.
Also you list loss of focus, that is true too, but also it's the case that some players just aren't good enough to play at their best level for prolonged periods.