5 ms·

Actually the ratio between 25 and 31 is Larger than the ratio between 31 and 37. You mean that both of them were considered to be in their prime.

bshimmin 8y ago
In the nineties - in fact, the era directly pre-Federer - most players would be thinking pretty hard about retirement at 31! The current situation where all of the top three men's players (and six of the top seven) are over thirty is pretty much unheard of (with some notable exceptions of course, like Connors getting to the US Open semifinal at 39). (The ages of the women in the top twenty currently is much more how it used to be in the men's game.)
- faceplanted 8y ago
  > The current situation where all of the top three men's players (and six of the top seven) are over thirty is pretty much unheard of I wonder if that has anything to do with modern sport science keeping people at peak longer or even to do with steroids. Could also be that they're just all exceptional, but I've been burned by optimism about sport personalities before.
  - bshimmin 8y ago
    I think (hope!) it's probably a combination of factors - firstly that the top three really are exceptional, probably the best men's tennis has ever seen; vast improvements in modern sports science - nutrition, strength training and conditioning, etc; being much more selective with their schedules (especially Federer of late); improvements in equipment; and some weird quirk that has meant the younger generation hasn't really come through and the older ones have been able to stay at the top with a periodic cycle of displacing each other as they get injured, struggle with form, and so on. Or maybe it's just drugs, though they get tested regularly and punished very severely (but you could say the same about cycling...).
jstimpfle 8y ago
Actually it's smaller. (Picking a nit for you :->)
- cicero 8y ago
  The ratio between the the gap in their ages and their ages is larger when they are younger. This is why age difference in a couple becomes less significant as they both grow older. Five years is a big difference between teenagers but not between octogenarians.
  - jstimpfle 8y ago
    25/31 < 31/37. There, I did the math for you. Now if you did the downvote, would you kindly consider undoing it?
    - faceplanted 8y ago
      Wrong maths bro, we're talking about the ration between the difference in their ages and their ages, so 6/31 > 6/37
      - emmelaich 8y ago
        Nope, jstmpfile had it right. > 25/31 < 31/37. Is what I meant. Clearly I should have been more specific.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

bshimmin 8y ago

In the nineties - in fact, the era directly pre-Federer - most players would be thinking pretty hard about retirement at 31! The current situation where all of the top three men's players (and six of the top seven) are over thirty is pretty much unheard of (with some notable exceptions of course, like Connors getting to the US Open semifinal at 39). (The ages of the women in the top twenty currently is much more how it used to be in the men's game.)

faceplanted 8y ago
> The current situation where all of the top three men's players (and six of the top seven) are over thirty is pretty much unheard of I wonder if that has anything to do with modern sport science keeping people at peak longer or even to do with steroids. Could also be that they're just all exceptional, but I've been burned by optimism about sport personalities before.
- bshimmin 8y ago
  I think (hope!) it's probably a combination of factors - firstly that the top three really are exceptional, probably the best men's tennis has ever seen; vast improvements in modern sports science - nutrition, strength training and conditioning, etc; being much more selective with their schedules (especially Federer of late); improvements in equipment; and some weird quirk that has meant the younger generation hasn't really come through and the older ones have been able to stay at the top with a periodic cycle of displacing each other as they get injured, struggle with form, and so on. Or maybe it's just drugs, though they get tested regularly and punished very severely (but you could say the same about cycling...).

jstimpfle 8y ago

Actually it's smaller. (Picking a nit for you :->)

cicero 8y ago
The ratio between the the gap in their ages and their ages is larger when they are younger. This is why age difference in a couple becomes less significant as they both grow older. Five years is a big difference between teenagers but not between octogenarians.
- jstimpfle 8y ago
  25/31 < 31/37. There, I did the math for you. Now if you did the downvote, would you kindly consider undoing it?
  - faceplanted 8y ago
    Wrong maths bro, we're talking about the ration between the difference in their ages and their ages, so 6/31 > 6/37
    - emmelaich 8y ago
      Nope, jstmpfile had it right. > 25/31 < 31/37. Is what I meant. Clearly I should have been more specific.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]