Ten commandments in modern societies -4

"Listen, and verify."

The corresponding old phrase is "Trust, and verify".  My deviation is based on two overwhelming factors.

The first is that little with any major significance can be trusted to begin with in modern societies.  Our perception of the world is influenced by many artificial, conscious, and subconscious distortions.  Politicians lie, "experts" lie, news media lie, and corporations lie: the more important something is, the more they lie, and the longer they lie.  We all know that political power corrupts, but so does economic power, which is not realized by many people and ignored by others. 

A case in point, the 2003 Iraq War and WMD stuff.  The West establishment was hyping Iraqis WMD since 1991.  It would constantly bombard the populace with misinformation and instill an image of evil, fear, and urgency.  By 2002 and 2003, the brainwashing was so complete that when Dick Cheney proclaimed that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons, most people in the US thought it flowed naturally. 

The list goes on and on and on.  Every war by the US or the West in recent memories follows the same pattern.  Long time demonization, then war in a relatively short notice.  If you have any dissent, you are unpatriotic, pro-Hitler, or both. 

It is happening again in the Iran discussion right now.  It is truly amazing that those liars in the administration, the warmongering Congress, the cheer-leading media, other blood-thirsty, "independent" experts, so many of them, having uttered so much falsehood before, including regarding Iraq, still retain so much credibility to be able to propagate nonsense on TV every day.  The whole system is absolutely rotten to its core.

In short, New York Times can not be trusted, except, perhaps, the sports scores.  Read it, but remember by default it is propaganda from the system.  Verify even the scores from time to time.

The second is that it is easier now than ever to spread misinformation faster and farther but also easier to check something for accuracy.  When NYT reported something not in your neighborhood 50 years ago, it was very hard to confirm the accuracy.  The best you could do is to read other newspapers, but they are all likely from the same company or source.  With the internet it is now simple to check for yourself, if you are diligent and vigilant.

Coming back to the Iraq story.  From the beginning you would have been very suspicious about the attention, tone, and coverage by the Western establishment.  Countering every single one of the outlandish claims, you would have known, from your own little research, that Iraq's WMD were weak from the start, Iraq was subjected to serious sanctions and inspections, Iraq could not buy the ingredients and equipment, Iraq's original WMD, if not uncovered by the inspectors, would have been useless by 2003.   Such information was out there, even in the UN reports, although it never received the same attention as the nonsense and was buried in A25 if ever reported.  In fact, stuff like the aluminum tubes, mobile labs, yellow cake, connection to 911, was already debunked even before the war began, yet the officials stuck to their guns, and newspapers continued to print them on A1.

If you have had followed this commandment, you would have been opposed to the war on solid ground in 2002, and are against the impending Iran war by now. 


The remaining point is, how do you or what can you verify?

There could be diverse opinions on any subject, but cold facts should be the first and foremost things upon which everything else must be based. 

Whether you have WMD can be verified, eventually.  But whether you committed genocide or ethic cleansing is mostly an opinion.  This is why Clinton got away with his war crime in Kosovo easier than Bush.  Again, following years of vilification, Clinton and Blair bombed to stop a modern Hitler or genocide in 1998, or later when it was not, ethic cleansing, or nowadays according to the Western media when neither was no longer verifiable, the so-called "brutal crackdown by the Serbs".  The media can change their prints, but dead people do not come back alive.  If you followed the news in the Balkans since early 1990s, you would have smelled the fishy miles away.  Reports of atrocities contained so much bias and deceptions (how many died, who they were, how they died, when and where they died?) that the overall NATO story could be easily nullified before the war.

The key is to look through the fog and seek out the truth before everything is irreversible.  There is little use of saying sorry after the sad facts or re-writing old stories.  Countless offenders have got away too easily with their crimes with a simple, meaningless apology, and the societies do not punish them severely enough.  

If one questions these wars, then he also must question other common knowledge, the many unquestionables, in the societies.  The political systems, the economic structures, laws, histories, the underlying rationales, etc.  Not everything will turn out wrong or reversed, but most likely deserve significant modifications for the good of the human race.

Lastly, two more examples of mis-perceptions, both related to World War II.  These days when people in the US talk about it or Hitler, the first image that comes to mind is the Holocaust.  As terrible as it was, the Holocaust was only part and arguably not the worst part of World War II.  You can't say with a straight face that more Russians did not die, or they were less innocent than the Jews because they had a larger population or many were soldiers.  This subtlety is fed to the people because it is advantageous from the West's viewpoints to emphasize human rights but de-emphasize wars, which the West is waging a lot now.  

Many Chinese also died at the hands of the Japanese from 1931 to 1945.  A common number is about 20 million, but if better census numbers were available, like the ones used to "demonstrate" that more than 30 million people "starved" during 1959-1961, the death toll during the war would have been much higher.  But most people in China and Japan now only argue about Nanjing massacre in 1937.  Did it happen?  How many died?  300,000 or fewer?  How many were soldiers?  Many Japanese, including ministers, governors, congressmen, deny it wholly or in part, some perhaps as a way to skirt the entire issue of World War II.  To me, tangling in the Nanjing massacre debate is useless, as it is largely a red herring.

One just needs to remember: War of aggression is never justified, nor is any resulting death from self defense.

Can 韩寒 salvage the fight against 方舟子

方舟子 vs 韩寒 is a clash between two heavyweights of Chinese online culture.  They both have millions of followers online as well as many famous friends and enemies in real life, with 韩寒's base being larger.  In essence, 方舟子 argues that 韩寒 had ghostwriting based on his and others' analyses of 韩寒's early articles and novels and of what 韩寒 and his people said about the events surrounding those writings.  韩寒 has no effective answers to the criticisms and has now gone to the court trying to stop 方舟子.  The funny part is that 韩寒 has long had a reputation of bashing writers, artists, officials, and other people, and always came up on top, until now.   方舟子has a similar track record, although his area has been mostly in science which is quite different from 韩寒's, making this encounter even more surprising.

In the court of public opinion, 韩寒 has decidedly lost the fight so far, although his fans still flood many polls.  This is because of two reasons.  First is that 方舟子 has support from the older, more educated people, while 韩寒's fans are mostly young and more superficial.  Even many of 方舟子's high profile enemies are at least not against him this time, and a lot of people resent the fact that a high school failure, i.e., 韩寒, would enjoy such a success in life for so long and openly advocate for it.  Second is the way both sides argue their cases.  方舟子 uses steady analysis and logic and receives help from online to discover many holes in 韩寒's stories.  韩寒 misread many of 方舟子's arguments, which makes people question his intelligence and ability, and resorted to personal attacks, which turns more people off.  韩寒's close family and friends offer little help, and his fans are loud yet useless. 

There are quite a few lessons from this ongoing fight.  One is that education is critical.  Unlike Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who left college, 韩寒 is just not a learned person.  His popularity is mostly a result of shrewd marketing, landing him among top 100 influential something in many lists including on the Time magazine in 2010.  Yet his image is always fragile, and he rarely does interviews and other public events.  On the other hand, 方舟子was well educated in China and the US and reads and writes in a wide range of subjects.

The second is that people need to know how to do PR.  韩寒's PR was awful; if handled better early on, e.g., without the personal attacks and other silly stuff, 方舟子 might not even have turned his gun on 韩寒.  The irony is that 韩寒 and his so-called "public intellectual" friends frequently bash other people including government officials, earning them media exposure and popularity.  A common argument of theirs is that the officials do not know how to deal with incidents, thereby making things worse and justifying more suspicion or criticisms, even though the officials might be innocent to begin with.  But when the sudden situation happened to 韩寒, his response was equally or more unreasonable than those he and friends have always protested.  We are just not good at following our own advice.

This fight also shows that scientific reasoning is important even in the literature field and likely in very aspect of our daily life, itself an enlightenment process.  And as it is going to the court, a whole new different level, we will have a chance to see how the legal system defines or decides on authorship, literature analysis and criticism, and libel. 

What should 韩寒 have done and do now?  If 韩寒 had had been modest and stayed low, he might not even have had this fight.  But 韩寒 has such a flamboyant personality and has been so pampered that he thought he would easily run over this opponent like countless others before.  Unfortunately, 方舟子 is unique and at a completely different level intellectually.  His personal attacks did not scare 方舟子 at all. 

The damage is done.  People now see that 韩寒 lost his footing just like anybody else in the face of adversities, his image of "public intellectual" shattered, so is his legendary image of a literature genius. 

So how to salvage the fight?  Both sides have advantages and disadvantages.  For 韩寒 to succeed, it is not enough to defend that one or two articles are legit with original drafts, which have questionable relevance anyway.  For 方舟子 to suggest ghostwriting, all he needs is to find just one instance, out of hundreds of 韩寒's long and short assays, and he has found plenty of inconsistencies. 

A key fact to remember, however, is that ghostwriting is very difficult to prove.  There is no smoking gun here, and there is perhaps not even a gun.  方舟子 suspects it was 韩寒's father, but he is certainly not coming forward.  方舟子may have been largely successful in the public, but his case is still weak if ever presented in court.  韩寒's decision to going to the court has been widely ridiculed, but it is the only way left to limit or reverse the damage on his part.  It will divert at least some people's attention, introduce new variables, and open a new battle front.


Here is what 韩寒's people should or will do.  They will say or admit in public and in court that his writings were mostly fictional (so 方舟子's scientific analyses do not apply), the discrepancies in their own accounts are due to faulty memories (so 方舟子's many criticisms are blunted), 韩寒's prior words about himself and work contain many inaccuracies and hyperboles, and 韩寒 did learn (life experience, etc) from others, but maintain that he wrote the articles and novels himself (so 方舟子's attacks lose traction). 

韩寒 has started doing these in recent days.  He needs to do more and sticks to the above three points at every chance he has, i.e., in interviews, public appearances, and court.  This way, most of his fans will probably still accept him as somebody with gift as well as common shortcomings.

After this fight, 韩寒 definitely needs to improve himself.  Not just in PR.  He needs to learn more, reading books that have not been in his comfort zones.  He also needs to befriend people with serious science background.  This way, he would not make the same mistakes he has been making as a "public intellectual" or "opinion leader" for these many years.  He should feel very lucky that he was not exposed until now.

Ten commandments in modern societies -3

"Fight only the worthy fights."

Everybody has limited time and resources, but many temptations in this world.  How to achieve your goals and harness or tame your urge? 

Referring back to the first commandment.  It is natural that no one can fight for everything he wants.  Most would prioritize and go for the biggest prize first, then the bigger, then the big, if given the same time scale.

Here is an example unique for the 21st century.  We are now flooded with information from the internet and are tempted in every minute to respond to new messages from the smartphones, facebook, twitter, etc.  There are two considerations.  One is that the initial information is often incomplete and even wrong.  What a waste if you respond with your passion and only turn out to be fooled.  The other is, even if the information is correct, is it worthwhile to engage in a fight with some real or virtual person for it?  

Now, how to rank the worthiness of a fight?  As the first approximation, worthiness W=T*E*S/(Y*C), the higher, the more meaningful.

T is your target, a person, phenomenon, or system.  We can assume the rich, famous, and powerful top the list.  At a scale of 0-100, for example, a political or economic system is 100, the President of the USA is also high, while a clerk at 711 is close to 0.  Essentially how much attention is or should be paid to the target per se.

E is the real or potential effects of the T's particular action, or its career or net worth or audience size, i.e., how much you expect your action, IF SUCCESSFUL, will affect T's subjects.  For example, Bush's decision of Iraq War has a huge E, as it was expected to affect the life, health, wealth, properties, and other attributes of whole population of the Iraq and US (the true number might be bigger or smaller).  A reporter or piece of nonsense at NYT is expected to affect many more readers than an obscure blog like this.  The E of returning a T-shirt at Wal-Mart is basically what you paid for the T-shirt, not the market value of Wal-Mart.

S is your conviction, how much you are willing to sacrifice.  Time, money, reputation, career, health, even life. 

Y means you, with the same scale as T.  Incorporating Y helps an "objective" observer to compare different Ys and Ws.

C is the cost and risk for actually challenging T, including not doing the other things you would have done with the same amount of time and energy.  Similar but not identical to S.


This formula is obviously simplistic.  Just point out a few issues here.  First is that it does not relate to a person's official duties.  A firefighter has a job of fighting fire; evasion is not an option.
 
Second is that the formula says nothing about how to fight (though reflected in S and C) and the legality.

Third is that T, E, and S are often not independent, so the formula sometimes overestimates the numerator.  A president, not a 711 clerk, can instigate a war.  Stopping a war is much harder than returning a merchandise at Amazon.com.

Fourth is that it says nothing about the prospect of succeeding.  Before one does anything he typically has an idea of how much he can achieve his goal, then he will partition his time and energy for it.  Hence, S and C are flexible, often interrelated, and related to one's selfishness or selflessness.  Although challenging the big guys on big issues has the most significant, potential outcomes, few people do it because the chance of winning is tiny, and most automatically assign a small S and big C.  Nonetheless, chance of winning could still be partially revealed by W assessing risk and reward.

A saint considers W=E on only morality not monetary values, with no regard for other factors.  For a mere mortal, it seems utterly a waste arguing on any internet discussion boards or twitter.

Note: These ten commandments summarizing largely accepted principles in the modern world are simple and may have been advocated by others before in a different shape, way, or form.  Just like Moses' Decalogue, which only stipulated common codes of conducts at the time, with religious messages. 

Ten commandments in modern societies -2

"Don't think we are that much better or different than our ancestors 2000 years ago."

There are two very common scenarios of which we all have experience.  In the first, older people all like to think fondly of the golden ages they were part of when talking (down) to the newer generations: son, when I was of your age, I didn't have to worry about this and that, or we played baseball like this and that, which was much better than what you are doing now.  In reality, most of it is vanity, and, even if true, irrelevant.  In the other, the younger people always view the old times and old timers as dinosaurs, at most revered in an abstract sense, but never want to live in their eras, because ours is that much better.

The societies we are living in, i.e., modern societies, are certainly very different from the ones hundreds or thousands of years ago.  In many parts of this planet people have much better access to food and shelter, are living longer and traveling faster and farther.  An average college student knows much more about the universe than Issac Newton.  Morality also evolves, so if Winston Churchill had used chemical weapons in 2012 instead of ninety years ago, he would likely have not become the PM of GB.

But are modern societies really better than the "primitive" ones?  How do we define "better"?

The null hypothesis is that there are no significant differences, as everybody is the product of his times, and we have simply substituted old and severe problems with new and severe problems.

It is easy to find aspects of our life more favorable than before, but one needs to think harder to find things that have not changed for the better, and they tend to be the most important to the human race.  Degrading environment.  Still endless fighting and the threat of wars, with much more destructive weapons.  Ruling class more skillful at manipulation to keep the powerless populace at bay.  We owe our better lives much more to scientific and technological advances than to apt governance.  

In a sense, this is entirely expected.  A few thousand years won't make much dent in our genes.  At the societal level, a horde has always been ruled or controlled by a small number of elites.  Unless one or both of these situations change, the society will see only cosmetic evolution.

No person, society, or country should view the current way of life as the best or ultimate human experience.  Because ten thousand years later humans might think the 20-21st centuries as barbaric and primitive.  And they are likely right.

Ten commandments in modern societies -1

Here comes the first of ten semi-serious blogs about how to view the modern societies, their decisions, discourse, and activities.  The only thing not serious is the word "commandments", which also forces the concoction of ten statements. 

"No matter how much you love your daughter, if you make the wrong choice between war and peace, you deserve no respect as a human being."

This statement is based on the truism that the relative significance of almost everything can be quantified or estimated and compared.  There are ample examples in the daily functions of every person and society.  We can tell if a certain item or activity is good or bad, or, alternatively, better or more worth-telling than another, and consciously or subconsciously use the comparisons to make our choices hundreds of times a day.  So, if you could buy the same bread for $1 instead of $5 at the same place and time, you would pay only $1.

Three points worthy of making about this statement.

First is, why war and peace?   In essence, the wrong choice between war and peace means the war of aggression, which has produced and will produce the most destruction and the most severe suffering in human history and contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole (Nuremberg Tribunal).  Even if you are not directly involved in the fighting and suffering, as James Madison averred: Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded.  Of course, self-defense is still justified. 

Second is that the intentions should also be considered, regarding the decisions and consequences (not just about war and peace).  A careful analysis may come to a reasonable conclusion about what people thought, sometimes many years later.

Third is its universality.  Comparisons can be applied much more broadly than many people usually do.  The more one realizes this, the more knowledgeable or intelligent one is.

In light of all these, this statement is clearly the most important, hence #1, of the Ten Commandments.

Jesus Montero for Michael Pineda: a terrible trade by the Yankees

On Jan 13, 2012, the New York Yankees traded Jesus Montero and Hector Noesi to the Seattle Mariners for Michael Pineda and Jose Campos.  The main players are Jesus Montero and Michael Pineda.

NYY hasn't had any success with pitcher trades for a long time.  Think: Jeff Weaver.  Reactions to the trade are mostly positive, especially "officially", by the so-called reporters and analysts.  I can't help but think many people mindlessly follow the flow, assuming that Cashman or whoever from the great NYY organization must know what he is doing.  The same people said the same thing about the Jeff and other NYY pitcher trades as well, and they have been so wrong for so many years.

As a Yankees fan since mid-1990s, it is sad to see JM gone.  We have been hearing his name for years, and when he finally arrived in late 2011, he did not disappoint, hitting .328/.406/.590 in one month.  He is clearly the most exciting hitter from the Yankees farm system since Cano, and was expected to significantly contribute to the Yankees' offense in 2012 and beyond.  While MP went 9-10, 171 IP, 3.74 ERA, 3.42 FIP, 3.53 xFIP, and 3.4 WAR in 2011, he is by no means a lock in AL East.  Besides, hitting ability is more a sure thing than pitching.  You can't predict how a young arm like MP will turn out years after years.  The trade became more perplexing as NYY also acquired Hiroki Kuroda the same day, a pitcher tested only in NL West. 

It is fine if JM was traded for a real ace, like Cliff Lee or Felix Hernandez, but MP is not.  The main knock on JM is that some people think he can't catch, and if he DH, it will block Jeter, ARod, or Tex having a rest once in while.  But the thinking has many faults and fails to see a real problem in the Yankees for the past few years and likely ahead.

Firstly, the catching problem.  Posada was never a great catcher, but he did just fine at least early in his career.  It is hard to imagine Russel Martin or others to catch so brilliantly to offset their hitting woes, unless Martin shows he can hit consistently in averages and power.  Secondly, JM blocking DH being even an issue is comical.  Jeter, ARod, or Tex needs outright rest, not DH, if they can't play the field.  When they do need a rest, nobody is significantly better a hitter than a regular JM, who can rest once in a while to clear the spot as well.  JM can also catch, although we will never know now.

The most pressing issue, which is quite apparent yet few people like to acknowledge, is that the Yankees offense is facing a decline that has proved fatal in the playoffs.

Jeter hasn't been the good old playoff hitter since 2005.  ARod is hot in one year and then ice cold for many years.  Tex and Swisher have never hit in the playoffs.  Cano is consistent but has never had the same, big, game changing hits like others did.  Gardner has potential getting on base but definitely no power.  That leaves Granderson, who is unlikely to repeat his 2011 early, regular season performance.

So the Yankees can still get into the playoffs, but they have been having big trouble there.  In 2009 they needed ARod to bail them out late multiple times and then Matsui's 6 RBI Game 6.  But in 2010 and 2011 they were shut down in many close games.  They would get on base, but the big hits just didn't come frequently enough.  The current class of players can't be counted to reverse this trend, neither can the "newer" players like Nunez and Andruw Jones.

Teams need a standout hitter in the playoffs, like Bernie Williams and Jim Leyritz in 1996, Scott Brosius in 1998, Mike Napoli and David Freese in 2011.  Without a fresh big bat like JM, I predict that Yankees will not have any success in October, one day after this trade announcement.

Interesting to see if the prediction pans out in October 2012 and 5 years later.

On the birthday of Mao Zedong

Mao Zedong (12/26/1893-9/9/1976) is one of the few, most capable persons that ever lived.  Few people could be ranked among the most prominent thinkers, doers, or writers ever in the world, let alone in all three. 

One of the founding members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).  MZD didn’t play a key role in the founding of the party, but he did attend the first National Congress of the Communist Party of China in 1921.  Most of 13 delegates and the other, most eminent members dropped out or died early, so MZD turned out to be among the few left standing by 1949.  In MZD’s case, as in all others in the human history, credits and blame must be shared, and luck plays an important yet hard-to-quantify role. 

The most decisive founder of the PRC in 1949.  By leading the Autumn Harvest Uprising in 1927, MZD established one of the first armed forces controlled by CCP.  Even more importantly, he established a base(s) for the army and local government, which served as an example for others and later revolutionary efforts.  As an underdog he fought the warlords and Chinese Nationalists (KMT, 1927-1936), the Japanese (1937-1945), and KMT (1946-1949).  He took part in the legendary Long March (1934-1935) and gradually assumed the leadership of the party and army during that time.  In 1945, KMT outnumbered CCP by about 4:1, yet lost a civil war in less than four years. 

In addition to planning many of the fierce campaigns, MZD was also a theorist, philosopher, and strategist that guided the Revolution.  He was among the first to realize the importance of peasants and countryside in late 1920s, when most communists were looking at only cities.  He initiated reforms and mass organization in rural areas that strengthened the party and army.  He advocated the guerrilla warfare strategies to fight the better-equipped KMT forces and, in 1938, wrote the assay On Protracted War on how to fight and win the war against the Japanese aggression.  He wrote many other books and assays that dealt with the practical strategies of the revolution, the building of the party, army, and PRC.  Only through his deeds and words did MZD become the undisputed leader of CCP by late 1930s. 

One of the most influential literary figures.  MZD’s writing, even ignoring the political messages, is well versed, gripping to read, and easy to understand.  He coined many of phrases still commonly used in China and around the world nowadays.  Also likely the last traditional Chinese poet and one of the best ever.  It is not a stretch to say that he could rank among top 10 or top 5 in over 2000 years of Chinese history.

It is hard to find a comparable figure in China and outside.  In China, a close example is Cao Cao (~ 200 A.D.), who established a kingdom and was a great poet.  But he faced fewer challengers, was less successful, and was never a theorist.  For the rest of the world, George Washington’s men didn’t win any major battles by themselves, Thomas Jefferson was no general, Churchill, even with a Nobel??

MZD’s life is a subject of many studies.  Every single sentence above and below could be expanded into a one-million-word book and more.  Obviously, he has many political opponents and enemies.  Here are some of the most common criticisms, e.g., found in Wiki.

One is that during the anti-Japanese War (1937-1945), MZD advocated a strategy of avoiding open confrontations with the Japanese army and concentrate on guerrilla warfare, while leaving the KMT to take on the brunt of the fighting and suffered tremendous casualties.  This is pure red herring.  CCP forces at the time were few and poorly equipped, even near the end of the War.  Fighting the Japanese head on would have been suicidal and served no good purpose.  In 1937 KMT controlled most of China, most of the manpower and economies, of course they had to assume a bigger role.  Thus, MZD advocated the correct strategy, and there was no “leaving”.  In fact, KMT should have adopted a similar strategy early on, used the still mostly intact armies to attack the advanced Japanese in the countryside, instead of fighting them at the cities.  This would avoid many of the unnecessary casualties, and Japanese would have a hard time defending many cities as well.  Unfortunately, KMT fought hard, lost big, but had little to show for in 1937.  More than one million KMT armies and government officials also surrendered to the Japanese.  There was no major surrender from the CCP side throughout the war, as CCP expanded into many areas lost by KMT.  According to On Protracted War, this was exactly what CCP should be doing and surviving in formerly hostile territories, whose success was by no means guaranteed.  KMT fought many major campaigns and lost most of them and much of the country, right until the very end of the War.  CCP fought and sacrificed in many more, smaller battles and greatly expanded its influence by 1945.  Not discounting KMT’s contributions, anyone would prefer the second outcome.

Another is Great Leap Forward (1958-1961).  Since 1980s, once in a while someone would make a startling discovery, inevitably picked up by the  major news networks, that GLF caused a famine that 20, 30,  to 80 million Chinese starved to death.  This is based on flimsy evidence and politically slanted.  GLF was implemented to quickly industrialize China, and it did achieve some of the goals in many areas but cause food shortage in the countryside in several provinces.  There were many reasons for food shortage, but the headline has always been how many people starved to death or died unnaturally during the period most people look at, 1959-1961.  Most studies used the raw data from中国统计年鉴, published in 1983.  It gives the numbers of "registered" population, births, deaths, and other statistics from the 50s to 70s in China.  A few other studies considered the census results by 1982.  Unfortunately, the statistics did not exactly add up, not only within the same lines, also with later census.  For example, later statistics indicated that people born during 1959-1961 were under-counted.  Some of the startling discoverers then claimed that the 中国统计年鉴authors must have fabricated the numbers to minimize the deaths, so the actual deaths must be corrected further upwards.  The inconsistency, however, is most probably because there was simply no better statistics, and the available data were imprecise in 1983.  China was a vast, poor country with incomplete record or documentation and little experience in census in the 1950-60s, and there were 670 million Chinese, so even a 5% uncertainty could lead to a fluctuation of 33 million in statistics.  In a cold analysis, what likely happened is that GLF caused severe food shortage in some rural areas, which led to migration, reduced births, and unnatural deaths.  But the number of 20, 30, or 80 million, has never been supported by real evidence.  One also needs to remember that famine had always been a norm from, e.g., 1900-1949, and the Chinese population and life expectancy increased significantly since 1949.  After GLF and industrialization, there hasn’t been any major famine in China.  And we are not even talking about MZD’s intentions or responsibilities yet.

The last one is Cultural Revolution (1966-1976).  MZD bore more, though not all, responsibility for CR than for GLF, but by all accounts many fewer people died unnaturally than during GLF.  Much of what happened during CR was negative, although CR is a complex issue that defies any simple characterization.  Again, major changes occurred inside China and in its relationship to other countries, and the Chinese population and life expectancy continued to improve, as did most people's life. 

MZD had a lot of power and did a lot of things in his life.  Depending on how one was affected or ideology, it is natural to have very different, even polarizing opinions.  An objective analysis must take into account of what he knew, what he had, what he did, what happened before and after he acted, and what other people did.  There is no denying of his ability, his being a towering figure.  In this sense, one is left agonizing over what might have happened had he not had initiated GLF or CR, especially regarding the negative aspects or consequences?  Here lies a lesson everybody understands but few practice: no matter the system constrains, a person with great ability or authority must always remember to use his power judiciously. 

Which is better, World Championship, Olympics, or World Cup?

For sports that are not the most professionalized (tennis, etc), you can be viewed the best of the profession if you win the World Championship, Olympics, or World Cup.  Which title is the most prestigious?  Perhaps "difficult" is the more objective and appropriate word than "prestigious". 

About the difficulty in winning a title in one's finite career, one needs to consider the competition and format in an event and how often the event is held.  Olympics is once every four years.  World Championship is variable, usually once every one or two years.  World Cup (not the FIFA variety) is typically once a year, and some sports don't have it.  As anyone will compete in fewer Olympics than Worlds or Cups, the gold medal is more desirable personally.  Not to mention that your gold medal will count towards your country's totals, whose significance is dubious.

Obviously, if you want to win it badly, you will try hard.  On the other hand, how stiff the competition is also impacts whether you win it or not.  This is where Olympics is not technically the hardest.  Both Olympics and World Cup severely limits participants, so sometimes the top players (e.g., from the top 8) are left out.  It is debatable that the pre-selection process should be considered as part of the events as well, but it disregards the non-trivial timing of players' peaks.  Also, because upsets happen all the times in sports, winning an Olympic involves a higher degree of luck.  The World Championship typically has 128 players in the main draw, like GS in tennis.  Essentially all the top players are present, so this is the most difficult event to win.   In sports like table tennis, many players enter multiple events like singles, doubles, and mixed doubles, which take place at the same time.  This is serious stuff, as in the final, you are probably far from your best physically.  In Olympics and World Cup you are less affected by that, playing higher ranked opponents from the beginning notwithstanding.

So I think winning a World qualifies one on top of the profession better than the other two titles, even though its honor might not be as high as that for a gold medal for casual viewers. 

The purpose of this blog is to slightly knock down Olympics and to set a standard to compare players. 

For example, Wang Liqin, Ma Lin, and Zhang Yining were not selected to play in 2000 Olympics, even though they were already quite good then, with Ma and Zhang coming second in 1999 World.  Wang and Ma were the best male table tennis players from 2001-2008, while Zhang is one of the best female players of all-time.  Xie Xingfang played in only 2008 Olympics, while in 2004 she was already one of the best badminton players.  There were legitimate reasons that they didn't qualify, but the real issue is the Olympic quota.  If some of the very best players can't compete, how representative and strong can the field be?

As a result, a gold medal has to be taken with caution, not to say that the winner is not worthy.  Take Ji Xinpeng, the winner of 2000 Olympic Badminton.  He played the best tournament of his career, beating the three other best players in the world at the time.  So he absolutely deserved it.  But he hardly won anything else.  If you are the best in only one event, no matter how prestigious the event is, you may be the luckiest, but not the best of your profession.  Yoo Nam-Kyu, the 1998 table tennis gold medalist, is in the same category.  And he didn't beat any apparent top players at the time, and he didn't have any major, good results before or after.  Ryu Seung-Min, a better player than Yoo.  He beat an old Waldner and a nervous Wang Hao in 2004.  He got better results in the Worlds and Cups than Yoo, although never winning.  The accomplishment of Ryu is probably slightly ahead of that of Werner Schlager, winner of 2003 World but nothing else, both below Timo Boll, the two time World Cup winner.

A problem with the overemphasis on Olympics is that players who barely miss out qualifying or winning it lose motivation fast.  Wang Hao lost in two finals, and after winning the 2009 World, he has no other goals except the 2012 Olympics, but he will be "old" by then.  Xie Xingfeng lost interest completely after 2008 Olympics, as she had won everything else, often multiple times, and by 2012 she will be too old.  They should be considered better players than some of the gold medalists, despite not winning the most prestigious honor in many people's views.

An interesting issue is how to compare Wang Liqin and Ma Lin.  In terms of teams and doubles competitions, both are excellent to similar extents.  In singles, their head-to-head is about equal, and Wang won three Worlds, Ma four Cups and one Gold, all records since 1980.  Winning three Worlds is definitely more difficult, but is Wang better?  Well, Ma is probably the most unlucky player ever.  He lost in three World finals, all in close contests, all having good chances of winning.  In addition to luck not coming his way, Ma was likely affected by playing too many matches in Worlds (doubles, mixed doubles, etc), as his style is more demanding, and Wang is naturally a physically stronger player.  This can explain why Ma performed better in World Cups and the 2008 Olympics.     

Simplify the Olympic medal ceremonies

The Summer Olympics alone has about 300 events that result in a gold medal followed by a gold, silver, and bronze medal presentation ceremony.  For the drill, which has been repeated so many times on TV and other media, after the medals are presented, the organizer will raise the national flags of the three medalists and play the national anthem of the gold medalist's country. 

It would be fresher if flag and anthem things could be scraped from the medal ceremony.  I suspect the ancient Greeks didn't do it, and how many of us actually watch them anyway?  I don't remember I ever watch any in full in the past 20 years.  They are getting too old, and the audience are getting tired, mentally if not verbally.  Who the medalists are will still be well known, since TV will still show all the information, including the national flags of the medalists, on the screen, and newspapers and internet will give you the same information and more.  If you want to see the flags and hear the anthems, the opening ceremony will do.  If you want to see more of the flags, the sports arena will display them, and the announcer can play the anthems randomly, just not every time somebody wins.

In addition to saving everybody time, this simplification will reduce the self-importance of sports and jingoism.

The Overhyped Nobel Prizes

The announcements of Nobel Prizes every October are probably the most famous, regular news events in the world, comparable to the results of presidential elections and FIFA World Cup final.  The latter are actually often predictable beforehand, hence, with less drama, while the public has no idea who are being seriously considered for the Prizes.   

Winning a Nobel Prize guarantees such mentioning in every introduction and all the media-promoted glory that is accepted without critical thinking.   But a Nobel Prize is just an exercise of a handful of people in the Nobel committee, and a winner should not be received like a gold standard.  

The Nobel Prizes are in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace, and Economics.  The first three categories are the most credible but least appreciated by the public.  I work in the science field, so I can evaluate some of the winners directly and rank their relative contributions.  I believe some winners are more qualified than others, while some are not qualified at all.  Ruling by judges is always subjective, unlike in many sports.  For example, by comparing the winning times of a particular race in recent World Championships or Olympics, one can clearly tell which winner (competition) is better than others, even if he does not win all the time.  Competent people can make the same comparison in science as well, although with less precision.  I would say most winning is probably deservedly so.  A bigger problem is often some scientists should have been included but were left out.   

If we could stop with only those three prizes , the world would be a better place.  But people are much more exposed to the other, less credible prizes.  Of the remaining Prizes, the Economics Prize is not an original Nobel.  Economics is not as a serious science as, e.g., chemistry or physics anyway.  I’d accept that most economists try to be serious, but how more often are they right about the status of the economies than by chance? 

The Literature Prize has been irrelevant for a long time, its main effect being selling a few more books for the largely obscure author-winners.  Even the more famous writers do not sell many books these days, and we all know Harry Potter is not going to win it.  It is like print newspapers.  Who cares?

That leaves the Peace Prize, which most lay people can understand, but has also been abused in any way imaginable. 

According to Alfred Nobel, the winners “have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”  The winner selection these days indicates that this criterion has been greatly expanded, such that anything a person can possibly do is in.  But it still begs the question: is he qualified?

I would argue that many winners are not.  For example, many politicians are better suited in war crime courts than in the shrines.  What many politicians and organizations do or did is often more anti-peace than for peace.  If, say, a doctor stops hand bleeding for 10 people, but kills two people who shouldn’t have died, is he still a good doctor deserving the Nobel Peace Prize?  Like the literature prize, some obscure winners got to justify their existence, but it does not mean they were that important.  Mother Teresa basically had little true, positive influence on the ground. 

Dalai Lama is another case in point.  He won supposedly because he “consistently has opposed the use of violence.”  This is patently false, because he was the head of a government-in-exile, which has used and supported violence openly as well as secretly since 1950s.  Dalai can claim all day whether he knew or did not know it, but many books have been written about this subject, using various sources including from the supporting CIA and people in his government-in-exile, some even Dalai’s own siblings.  No dispute here.

The real effect from the Prize is that regular folks tend to think Dalai is such a godlike figure that whatever he says must be true, original, and unquestionable.  He is traveling all over the world preaching, not unlike the American evangelicals on TV or in big churches.  Like the evangelicals, what he really wants is the money, too.  So he has to meet those world leaders to keep a high profile and reminding people of his importance, and then ask the common folks to give money to his government, whose survival depends solely on donations.  This is what his whole meaning of life is.  Dealing with the Chinese government is useless, and he knows what he is doing now is not going to change anything, but it is the only thing he knows how to do.  In a sense, the Peace Prize has the opposite, anti-peace consequence.

It is even funnier about what Dalai preaches.  For an audience not familiar with Buddhism’s teaching, it may sound novel, although I suspect people are driven more to stardom than to the messages, which will get boring once hearing it a few times.  Dalai also hedges his words carefully not to offend the governments that feed him, so his answers to current-event questions, e.g., how he views certain wars, are quite banal.  And for people familiar with Buddhism, what he says is just cliché. 

The other example is Xiaobo Liu.  Did he deserve the Prize?  

I doubt the Nobel committee really understood who Liu is or what he thinks.  Or, perhaps they truly believe in what he believes?  Below is a tidbit of what Liu said or wrote in interviews or articles over the years.  They are not necessarily the exact words, but there is no distortion of his meaning, and all evidence indicates that he still holds these views.  His only ever defense was that he was too emotional.  All can be found or verified online, e.g., in wiki.

1. I think problems with the Chinese culture have something to do with the Chinese race, so it is very difficult to solve.

   

2.  I have a problem that I can’t get rid of, that is, language.  I can’t use English to express myself well.  If I were good in language, I would have nothing to do with China.  My ultimate sadness is that I am limited to Chinese, so I have to talk to something very stupid, which makes me sink lower and lower.   

3.  China needs 300 years of colonialism.  Whether 300 years is enough, I have my doubts. 

4.  Liu supports Bush’s Iraq War, perhaps more so than most Americans.  In fact, he absolutely supports every war by the West, including the Israelis’ oppression and occupation in the Palestine. 

5.  The Iraq and Afghanistan prisoner abuse by the US and UK is no big deal, nor even a deal.

To any rational person, 1 and 2 are racist.  3 is colonialism, so I don’t even know where to start.  4 and 5 are pro-wars.  Liu is not a casual, but a fervent advocator of all of them.  (He didn’t go to jail for it.)  No distortion, the above and similar writings by Liu can be found over and over.  So if anyone thinks he is worthy of the Peace Prize, let peace burn in hell. 

It is very easy and precise to summarize all his views in a short sentence: the West is absolutely good, everything else is evil, including China, Islam, and whatever.  This was actually a common thinking in the 1980s among some Chinese, although most people have outgrown it.  Few people, even the anti-government Chinese, can stomach such views now.  Yet Liu is trapped in the 1980s, his golden days when he was one of the few people who had had contact with the world outside of China.  He “complained” that people use the “300 years” against him, but really?  Is it justified or not?  

I suspect if Hitler had won, Liu would be singing praises for Hitler, too.  After all, Hitler was a racist, waged wars and invaded other countries for colonization. 

On "911十周年系列访谈之对话方舟子"

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_474068790102dsda.html?tj=1

In this Q &A 方舟子made a few assertions.  Most are mundane.  In many situations people see the same thing but arrive at different conclusions; that is normal, and analogous to whether you want the Lakers or Celtics to win, it says little to nothing about one’s character.  But, if you make the wrong choice about war and peace, no matter how much you love your daughter, you deserve no respect as a human being.

So the major issue is how 方舟子 views 阿富汗战争和伊拉克战争. 

自由谈访谈：您怎么看待美国发动的阿富汗战争和伊拉克战争？ 　　

方舟子：发动伊拉克战争和阿富汗战争就是推翻独裁统治，美国的初衷和战争初期是受到阿富汗人和伊拉克人欢迎的。从电视上就可以看到他们是欢呼的，美国 打伊拉克的时候，大家都放下武器。但是，战争拖久之后可能就开始变质，那是另外一回事。 　　我觉得推翻萨达姆和塔利班，对于当地人民来说，是一件好事。我们应该站在他们本国人民的角度来看问题，对他们来说是不是有好处，不管美国打伊拉克到底 出于什么动机，为了石油也好，为了国际的政治也好，或者为了本国的利益。 　　

There are many fundamental, verifiable fallacies with his answers. 

1.  “发动伊拉克战争和阿富汗战争就是推翻独裁统治.”  These words are deliberately misleading, more likely complete nonsense.  There are indisputable, documented records of history here.  Justification of 阿富汗战争 was that Taliban refused to turn over Al-Qaeda.  The primary justification of 伊拉克战争 was WMD.  The secondary was that Iraq was collaborating with Al-Qaeda.  The third, purely an afterthought, was democracy.   Without the first and second, most important justifications which are utterly bogus, the third had no legs.  

If he meant “发动伊拉克战争和阿富汗战争就是推翻独裁统治” regardless of the justifications, then the consequences of the wars are much than 推翻独裁统治.

2.  “美国的初衷和战争初期是受到阿富汗人和伊拉克人欢迎的。从电视上就可以看到他们是欢呼的，美国 打伊拉克的时候，大家都放下武器。”As the old saying goes, don’t believe everything you see on TV.  It has been abundantly documented that many celebrations were staged or shown from an overtly optimistic angle, like the infamous toppling of Saddam’s statue. I don’t even know how方舟子could claim “美国的初衷和战争初期是受到阿富汗人和伊拉克人欢迎的”.  Were  there any real polls that said most 阿富汗人和伊拉克人 welcoming the impending wars?  In 阿富汗战争 there was a weak Northern alliance against Taliban, and伊拉克战争 was even worse.

How does one, with a common sense, view the reactions of 阿富汗人和伊拉克人 to the wars?  At least most shouldn’t like being bombed and invaded beforehand.  But as all hell broke loose, and they had no chance in the battlefield, it was simply natural to feel relief once the fighting stopped.  Hence, you will find some“阿富汗人和伊拉克人欢迎”the winning forces.  But that was mostly about resigning to the fact on the ground than rejoicing about the wars.  Sure, you will always find some 阿富汗人和伊拉克人 truly happy about the wars, and the media would duly show their faces, as in any other wars in the human history, but the majority? 

3. “战争拖久之后可能就开始变质，那是另外一回事。” They are still the same wars!  Nothing 变质!  And akin to asking:  Mrs Lincoln, how do you like the night at the theater, except the part the President was shot?

4. “我觉得推翻萨达姆和塔利班，对于当地人民来说，是一件好事。我们应该站在他们本国人民的角度来看问题，对他们来说是不是有好处.”  Well, if one says that overthrowing the American government/empire is good for the Americans and the whole world, is it OK to do it?  萨达姆和塔利班 were bad, but one always has to consider the costs and benefits of every action.  Are the wars worthy?  Hard question but also irrelevant.  Tell that to > one million of dead or injured people, and millions more living under constant fear of bombs and raids till today.   

These same views have been reported in other places and earlier, so it is something 方舟子believes in for a long time.  This is even worse, as we know a lot more about the wars now than 8-9 years ago.  This just shows that how hard it is to change an adult’s mind.  We all use our own frames to view and rationalize the world.  刘三百 believed in 300 years’ colonization in 1980s and still do.

There is no secret why 方舟子 feels this way.  Although in the same Q&A he denied he亲美, he actually has a long-standing, romanticized view of US: 美国人插手其他国家的事情，并不纯粹出于国家利益，而是出于人道主义，很天真地去管。But the excuse of naiveness rings hollow: exactly the same could have been said about the masses in Nazi Germany or Japanese empire in the 1930s.

Moreover, the fatal problem with this view: it is not “美国人”插手其他国家的事情, it is always “美国政府” 插手其他国家的事情.  Did Bush invade Iraq because enough of the average Joes wrote him letters urging him to do so?  No, it never works that way. 

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” -- Hermann Goering.

Like John McCain, 方舟子 may never have an American war that he doesn’t like.  

Why Steffi Graf?

It is close, but I think Steffi Graf is the best female singles tennis player ever.

Steffi Graf's career is well known to any tennis fan.  She won 22 Grand Slam (GS) singles titles and an Olympics gold, and was No.1 for the longest time.  She successfully challenged legends of the past (Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert), dominated her generation (Gabriela Sabatini, Monica Seles, Arantxa Sánchez Vicario), and played well against the younger generation (Martina Hingis , Lindsay Davenport, the Williams sisters).  She was good on all courts.

The argument basically comes down to two issues.

First is that Margaret Court won 24 GS singles.  But Court spent only half of her career in the open era.  So it is not a stretch to say Graf did at least as well as Court.

The second, the Seles factor.  Some people feel strongly that without Seles's stabbing in 1993, Graf would not have won that many GS.  However, no one can predict what might have happened, and this notion might well be a wishful thinking.

Conventional wisdom is that Seles dominated against Graf.  This is simply not true.  Graf had a winning record against Seles before and after the stabbing.   People got the idea from 1990-1992.  It should be noted that Seles is younger than Graf, and Graf was also going through a hard time due to injuries, diseases, and legal/family problems then, so the result was not a surprise, but one should never take it for granted that it would continue forever.  Seles was new and rising, so people thought she would be the next big one.  Did she have it to be it, though?  Not likely.  Remember, many "next big ones" failed to materialize. 

For one, people with the power game like Seles usually do not age well and will have more injuries later in their career.  Seles also never moved that well, which would be exploited as opponents adjusted to her play.  Seles missed 10 GS during her timeout, Graf won only 6 of those, not a huge advantage as one would think.  The most telling part is Seles herself.  Her timeout was much more than needed for the wound to heal, suggesting mostly a mental hesitation.  But to be great, one needs to be tough mentally and overcomes adversities.  Everybody including Graf went through that.  Seles could have come back strong in a few months, but she clearly didn't do well to overcome the incident, no matter how terrible it was, especially since steps had long been taken to prevent it from happening again.  Seles might look tough on the courts and was still a great champion, but she was not as tough as other legends of the game.

Seles was certainly not napping during her timeout.  She was still training, and one would think that she would be fresh and ready to revive her career, minus more than two years' grinding on the tour.  When she came back in 1995, she was indeed still a top player, easily got to the final of US Open.  There, Graf beat her.  She won the next Australian Open (Graf was missing).  When they met in the 1996 US Open, Graf beat her again.  Thus, while Seles could still beat most people, there was just no real evidence that she could have dominated Graf had she not been out.  Especially when Seles was fresh, and Graf was another two years older on the WTA tour age scale.  The rust factor can be largely discounted because Seles had little problem with anybody else in 1995 and 1996.

Seles faded after 1996.  Graf is older, played much longer, and was still a top player in 2000.  So, what might have happened?  Assuming Seles maintained her intensity of play, not a given, she could take away a couple of Graf's GS titles during 1993-1995, but Graf might also simply trade her losses to Arantxa Sánchez Vicario to losses to Seles and got a similar number of GS.  If Graf suffered a few more defeats by Seles, perhaps Graf would be fresher for more tennis, or she would be more motivated.  Seles could have faded in 1994 instead of 1997.  We will never know, but based on their characters, Graf was the stronger person.  Their head-to-head record says the same thing.

Graf didn't win every GS she entered.  With challengers like Seles, Graf could still have won 22 GS, perhaps just in slightly different years and different events. 

Publish Post

Is Jan-Ove Waldner the best male table tennis player ever?

Waldner is a Swedish table tennis player who has a remarkable career.  He won the World Championship twice in singles and four times in teams, one World Cup, and one Olympics Gold.  He appeared in a few other major finals as well, and won numerous other titles.  Nobody can argue he is not one of the greatest ever, but is he the GOAT, as many people believe?  Objectively, does he pass the litmus test with the three criteria?

First, the achievements.  Waldner has an impressive collection of major titles (team and singles only).  But keep in mind that World Cup didn’t exist until 1980, and Olympics 1988.   Guo Yuehua, who played from mid-1970s to 1983, won the World Championship twice in singles and three times in teams, and two World Cups.  In more recent times, Wang Liqin won three World Championship singles and four team titles, and one Olympics team gold.  Ma Lin won five team World Championships, four World Cups, and Olympics team and singles gold medals.  Waldner stood up well against anyone else, but did not go far and beyond. 

Second, head-to-head records against rivals.  This is one area Waldner did not exactly excel as GOATs would.  Waldner competed with a long list of players, in terms of generations of Chinese, Jiang Jialiang (most of the 1980s)-Ma Wenge (1989-early 1990s)-Kong Linghui/Liu Guoliang (mid-1990s to early 2000s)-Ma Lin/Wang Liqin (Waldner played longer, but those were his chief rivals).  Waldner dominated only against Ma Wenge.  Jiang Jialiang always gave Waldner a headache.  Liu Guoliang was tough on Waldner until 2000, while Waldner beat Kong until 2000.  Waldner’s records against Ma Lin or Wang Liqin are not good, although then Waldner was already past his prime.  His teammate Jörgen Persson also played about 50:50 against Waldner. 

So come to criterion #3, it is safe to leave GOAT open, because nobody has been THAT dominant.  This certainly does not diminish Waldner’s immense influence on the sport. 

Now the more technical:  how about the intangibles, and will or should they affect the consideration of GOAT?

The most impressive aspect about Waldner’s career is definitively its longevity, beginning from his first world championship team final appearance in 1983 till his run in 2004 Olympics.  Only Jörgen Persson could match it in duration but not in brilliance.  But as great as Jimmy Connors was, few consider him as GOAT. 

The playing style, will or should it add a few points?  This is too subjective.  Waldner had a great table tennis instinct, excellent and deceptive serves followed by devastating attacks, and his rallies were steady, innovative, but not overpowering.  Many “new tricks” attributed to Waldner were actually not his inventions, although his high profile enhanced their acceptance.  The fact that Waldner was a finesse player who relied more on instinct and experience than on athleticism explains his longevity but also why players like Jiang Jialiang and Liu Guoliang whose styles of play caused a natural trouble for Waldner. 

Should Waldner get extra credits for challenging the Chinese all by himself?  This argument is in reality not valid because it ignores the fact that Sweden was one of the best table tennis countries for a long time and has a rich history and tradition.  Waldner is the most outstanding, yet he was aided by great coaches, mentors, and teammates along the way.  Stellan Bengtsson was the first Swedish world singles champion in 1971 and a huge influence, and two of the most successful teammates of Waldner were Mikael Appelgren and Jörgen Persson.  From 1980s till mid-1990s Europe also had many other elite players like Andrzej Grubba, Zoran Primorac, Jörg Roßkopf, Jean-Philippe Gatien, Jean-Michel Saive, and Vladimir Samsonov.   

In sum, Waldner has a strong case but weaker than Federer in tennis.  By the way, I think Steffi Graf is, but Federer is not GOAT.