tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 17 Dec 2008 19:47:18
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Nadal - Can he keep up his 4 months of mania and domination and extend
his grasp elsewhere? Will he save enough energy to play through the
Barclay ATP World Tour Finals?

Federer - Can he rediscover his sublime play even as his body and mind
age relentlessly? More importantly, can he avoid a slamless year?

Murray - Will his new musculature get in the way of repeating his
stellar victories? Can he get more wins over the Top 3 at a slam to
build on his Nadal win at the US Open?

Djokovic - Can he avoid becoming the new #4? Can he defend a title?

Anyone else - Any chance of breaking into Top 4? Or even getting close?

--
Cheers,

vc




 
Date: 20 Dec 2008 07:33:20
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Dec 17, 7:53=A0pm, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net > wrote:
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> > jdeluise wrote:
> >> On 17-Dec-2008, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Nadal - Can he keep up his 4 months of mania and domination and exten=
d
> >>> his grasp elsewhere? Will he save enough energy to play through the
> >>> Barclay ATP World Tour Finals?
>
> >> I would like to know more about his physical condition before commenti=
ng.
>
> > Nadal fans report that he has been training normally for a while now.
>
> > And he didn't wear his knee bandages at the beach.
>
> More importantly:
>
> Nadal has been practicing for at least 3 weeks. Looks like he started
> practicing one week after the Davis Cup finals.
>
> At the recent Malaria fundraiser that he is a cohost of, he played
> soccer and tennis without knee bandages. That is good news.
>
> Of course, I expect him to be bandaged come Doha. It is an important
> part of his match preparation by now. He has been wearing them long
> enough that Nike should give him elastic knee bands to go on top of the
> bandage. A marketing coup, if you ask me!
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> vc

Every time I read one of your posts, I'm just waiting for where you're
going to insert the
exclamation mark! And sure enough! There is was right there at the end!


  
Date: 20 Dec 2008 17:41:49
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Dec 17, 7:53 pm, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>> On 17-Dec-2008, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>>> Nadal - Can he keep up his 4 months of mania and domination and extend
>>>>> his grasp elsewhere? Will he save enough energy to play through the
>>>>> Barclay ATP World Tour Finals?
>>>> I would like to know more about his physical condition before commenting.
>>> Nadal fans report that he has been training normally for a while now.
>>> And he didn't wear his knee bandages at the beach.
>> More importantly:
>>
>> Nadal has been practicing for at least 3 weeks. Looks like he started
>> practicing one week after the Davis Cup finals.
>>
>> At the recent Malaria fundraiser that he is a cohost of, he played
>> soccer and tennis without knee bandages. That is good news.
>>
>> Of course, I expect him to be bandaged come Doha. It is an important
>> part of his match preparation by now. He has been wearing them long
>> enough that Nike should give him elastic knee bands to go on top of the
>> bandage. A marketing coup, if you ask me!
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> vc
>
> Every time I read one of your posts, I'm just waiting for where you're
> going to insert the
> exclamation mark! And sure enough! There is was right there at the end!

And looks like he has dropped all those gay smileys! ;)

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 20 Dec 2008 06:12:54
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Dec 20, 7:01=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 20, 4:13=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > > On Dec 19, 8:25 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> > >> On Dec 19, 2:41 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > >>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > >>>> On Dec 18, 1:42 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > >>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed the=
n why the
> > >>>>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
> > >>>>>>> Correct observation.
> > >>>>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
> > >>>>>> experience.
> > >>>>>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
> > >>>>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not wi=
dely
> > >>>>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
> > >>>>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins =
before
> > >>>>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vila=
s'
> > >>>>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
> > >>>>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
> > >>>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know with=
out
> > >>>>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
> > >>>>>> important before Phelps broke it.
> > >>>>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Ho=
ckey
> > >>>>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an imp=
ortant
> > >>>>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was=
a big
> > >>>>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the rec=
ord
> > >>>>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
> > >>>>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was =
Babe
> > >>>>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans cou=
ld not
> > >>>>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had z=
ero
> > >>>>>> impact on the record's prestige.
> > >>>>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on =
these
> > >>>>> examples one would have to know current record holder and person =
who
> > >>>>> held it before...while in reality people remember only the curren=
t
> > >>>>> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
> > >>>>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
> > >>>>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record b=
efore
> > >>>>> Federer...or do we...Connors?
> > >>>> Lendl.
> > >>>>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals =
before
> > >>>>> Federer broke it.
> > >>>>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did=
_ know
> > >>>>> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
> > >>>>> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
> > >>>> No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
> > >>>> individual gold medals at a single
> > >>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz=
*.
> > >>>> Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in 1972=
and
> > >>>> remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did n=
ot
> > >>>> know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz. I
> > >>>> watched the Munich Olympics on TV as a kid and I can tell you that=
the
> > >>>> importance of Spitz's record did *not* depend on knowing who held =
the
> > >>>> previous record. All anyone cared was that seven was the new offic=
ial
> > >>>> record and that seven was clearly a fantastic achievement.
> > >>>> *Five* good examples already have been provided in this thread (Vi=
las,
> > >>>> Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
> > >>>> opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends=
on
> > >>>> common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
> > >>>> waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
> > >>>> examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
> > >>>> however.
> > >>>> Joe Ramirez
> > >>> er, are you seriously this stupid or just trolling?
> > >>> I'll give you a little clue but you better sharpen up from hereon -
> > >>> Spitz's record (and all those other guys you mention) involved 'win=
ning'
> > >>> gold medals, hitting home runs, scoring goals etc - Fed's 'record'
> > >>> involves losing - get it?
> > >> Federer's streak is important because of the magnitude by which it h=
as
> > >> eclipsed the next best. Your argument that it involves "losing" is
> > >> typical antipodean sophistry. Suffice it to say that the achievement
> > >> is *winning* sufficient matches to reach the semifinal in the first
> > >> place.
>
> > >> Joe Ramirez
>
> > > Whimpy seems to be saying that Federer "lost" in the earlier rounds o=
f
> > > slams to reach all those consecutive semifinals? This is pretty bad
> > > even by Whimpy's standards.
>
> > I don't ever hear any swimming, track etc streaks that include coming
> > 2nd, 3rd or 4th. =A0Have you ever heard anyone say 'That's the 29th
> > consecutive time Phelps has come top 3'? =A0Of course not you dumb cunt=
-
> > no one gives a fuck.
>

That's a wrong analogy. Reaching the semifinals in tennis is different
than coming 3rd in swimming track, etc. There will be plenty of times
where the semifinalist will go on to the final and even win the
tournament. To compare a semifinal appearance in tennis with that of
track and field would be the wrong thing to do.

The semifinals streak is not about winning the tournament, it's about
consistency. It proves that a player has given himself the chance to
compete in the penultimate round of the tournament. It is better than
quarterfinal streaks and worse than finals streaks. There is a
gradation here.

A semifinals streak means the player has been one of the top 4
contenders for a grand slam for a long time, which automatically means
he is a consistent and formidable competitor, a cut above the rest of
the top players.

Of course, Federer's finals streak (from 2005 Wimbledon to 2007 USO;
10 consecutive slam finals) is even more impressive than his
semifinals streak.


  
Date: 21 Dec 2008 20:40:02
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 20, 7:01 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 4:13 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>> On Dec 19, 8:25 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 19, 2:41 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 1:42 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
>>>>>>>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>>>>>>>> Correct observation.
>>>>>>>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>>>>>>>> experience.
>>>>>>>>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>>>>>>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>>>>>>>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>>>>>>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>>>>>>>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>>>>>>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>>>>>>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>>>>>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>>>>>>>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>>>>>>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>>>>>>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>>>>>>>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>>>>>>>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>>>>>>>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>>>>>>>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>>>>>>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>>>>>>>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>>>>>>>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>>>>>>>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>>>>>>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on these
>>>>>>>> examples one would have to know current record holder and person who
>>>>>>>> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
>>>>>>>> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>>>>>>>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>>>>>>>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record before
>>>>>>>> Federer...or do we...Connors?
>>>>>>> Lendl.
>>>>>>>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals before
>>>>>>>> Federer broke it.
>>>>>>>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ know
>>>>>>>> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
>>>>>>>> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>>>>>>> No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
>>>>>>> individual gold medals at a single
>>>>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz*.
>>>>>>> Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in 1972 and
>>>>>>> remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did not
>>>>>>> know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz. I
>>>>>>> watched the Munich Olympics on TV as a kid and I can tell you that the
>>>>>>> importance of Spitz's record did *not* depend on knowing who held the
>>>>>>> previous record. All anyone cared was that seven was the new official
>>>>>>> record and that seven was clearly a fantastic achievement.
>>>>>>> *Five* good examples already have been provided in this thread (Vilas,
>>>>>>> Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
>>>>>>> opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends on
>>>>>>> common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
>>>>>>> waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
>>>>>>> examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
>>>>>>> however.
>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>>>>> er, are you seriously this stupid or just trolling?
>>>>>> I'll give you a little clue but you better sharpen up from hereon -
>>>>>> Spitz's record (and all those other guys you mention) involved 'winning'
>>>>>> gold medals, hitting home runs, scoring goals etc - Fed's 'record'
>>>>>> involves losing - get it?
>>>>> Federer's streak is important because of the magnitude by which it has
>>>>> eclipsed the next best. Your argument that it involves "losing" is
>>>>> typical antipodean sophistry. Suffice it to say that the achievement
>>>>> is *winning* sufficient matches to reach the semifinal in the first
>>>>> place.
>>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>>> Whimpy seems to be saying that Federer "lost" in the earlier rounds of
>>>> slams to reach all those consecutive semifinals? This is pretty bad
>>>> even by Whimpy's standards.
>>> I don't ever hear any swimming, track etc streaks that include coming
>>> 2nd, 3rd or 4th. Have you ever heard anyone say 'That's the 29th
>>> consecutive time Phelps has come top 3'? Of course not you dumb cunt -
>>> no one gives a fuck.
>
> That's a wrong analogy. Reaching the semifinals in tennis is different
> than coming 3rd in swimming track, etc. There will be plenty of times
> where the semifinalist will go on to the final and even win the
> tournament. To compare a semifinal appearance in tennis with that of
> track and field would be the wrong thing to do.
>
> The semifinals streak is not about winning the tournament, it's about
> consistency. It proves that a player has given himself the chance to
> compete in the penultimate round of the tournament. It is better than
> quarterfinal streaks and worse than finals streaks. There is a
> gradation here.
>
> A semifinals streak means the player has been one of the top 4
> contenders for a grand slam for a long time, which automatically means
> he is a consistent and formidable competitor, a cut above the rest of
> the top players.
>
> Of course, Federer's finals streak (from 2005 Wimbledon to 2007 USO;
> 10 consecutive slam finals) is even more impressive than his
> semifinals streak.



Even 1 more AO title would far outweigh all of these streaks.



 
Date: 20 Dec 2008 05:01:51
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Dec 20, 4:13=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 8:25 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 19, 2:41 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 18, 1:42 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> >>>>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then =
why the
> >>>>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
> >>>>>>> Correct observation.
> >>>>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
> >>>>>> experience.
> >>>>>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
> >>>>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not wide=
ly
> >>>>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
> >>>>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins be=
fore
> >>>>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
> >>>>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
> >>>>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
> >>>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know withou=
t
> >>>>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
> >>>>>> important before Phelps broke it.
> >>>>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hock=
ey
> >>>>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an impor=
tant
> >>>>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a=
big
> >>>>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the recor=
d
> >>>>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
> >>>>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Ba=
be
> >>>>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could=
not
> >>>>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zer=
o
> >>>>>> impact on the record's prestige.
> >>>>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on th=
ese
> >>>>> examples one would have to know current record holder and person wh=
o
> >>>>> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
> >>>>> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
> >>>>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
> >>>>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record bef=
ore
> >>>>> Federer...or do we...Connors?
> >>>> Lendl.
> >>>>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals be=
fore
> >>>>> Federer broke it.
> >>>>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ =
know
> >>>>> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
> >>>>> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
> >>>> No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
> >>>> individual gold medals at a single
> >>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz*.
> >>>> Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in 1972 a=
nd
> >>>> remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did not
> >>>> know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz. I
> >>>> watched the Munich Olympics on TV as a kid and I can tell you that t=
he
> >>>> importance of Spitz's record did *not* depend on knowing who held th=
e
> >>>> previous record. All anyone cared was that seven was the new officia=
l
> >>>> record and that seven was clearly a fantastic achievement.
> >>>> *Five* good examples already have been provided in this thread (Vila=
s,
> >>>> Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
> >>>> opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends o=
n
> >>>> common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
> >>>> waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
> >>>> examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
> >>>> however.
> >>>> Joe Ramirez
> >>> er, are you seriously this stupid or just trolling?
> >>> I'll give you a little clue but you better sharpen up from hereon -
> >>> Spitz's record (and all those other guys you mention) involved 'winni=
ng'
> >>> gold medals, hitting home runs, scoring goals etc - Fed's 'record'
> >>> involves losing - get it?
> >> Federer's streak is important because of the magnitude by which it has
> >> eclipsed the next best. Your argument that it involves "losing" is
> >> typical antipodean sophistry. Suffice it to say that the achievement
> >> is *winning* sufficient matches to reach the semifinal in the first
> >> place.
>
> >> Joe Ramirez
>
> > Whimpy seems to be saying that Federer "lost" in the earlier rounds of
> > slams to reach all those consecutive semifinals? This is pretty bad
> > even by Whimpy's standards.
>
> I don't ever hear any swimming, track etc streaks that include coming
> 2nd, 3rd or 4th. =A0Have you ever heard anyone say 'That's the 29th
> consecutive time Phelps has come top 3'? =A0Of course not you dumb cunt -
> no one gives a fuck.
>
> That's because they include losses (losing a slam semi is a loss).
> That's the reason no one cared about this 'record' previously & only
> Fedfuckers deem it important now. =A0It has no relevance whatsoever.-

But to play devil's advocate here, they did make a big deal of Tiger's
streak of not missing cuts.
I'm not saying that type of record would ever be as important as
majors won, Masters won, etc. but they
did make a big deal about that in the news, and it was a significant
story when he finally missed one.

Also, hypothetically speaking, what if Tiger had a streak of 100 top
10 finishes? Don't you think that could
be a record people would pay attention to?


  
Date: 21 Dec 2008 20:37:02
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Dec 20, 4:13 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 19, 8:25 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 19, 2:41 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 18, 1:42 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
>>>>>>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>>>>>>> Correct observation.
>>>>>>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>>>>>>> experience.
>>>>>>>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>>>>>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>>>>>>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>>>>>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>>>>>>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>>>>>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>>>>>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>>>>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>>>>>>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>>>>>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>>>>>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>>>>>>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>>>>>>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>>>>>>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>>>>>>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>>>>>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>>>>>>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>>>>>>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>>>>>>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>>>>>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on these
>>>>>>> examples one would have to know current record holder and person who
>>>>>>> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
>>>>>>> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>>>>>>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>>>>>>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record before
>>>>>>> Federer...or do we...Connors?
>>>>>> Lendl.
>>>>>>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals before
>>>>>>> Federer broke it.
>>>>>>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ know
>>>>>>> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
>>>>>>> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>>>>>> No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
>>>>>> individual gold medals at a single
>>>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz*.
>>>>>> Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in 1972 and
>>>>>> remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did not
>>>>>> know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz. I
>>>>>> watched the Munich Olympics on TV as a kid and I can tell you that the
>>>>>> importance of Spitz's record did *not* depend on knowing who held the
>>>>>> previous record. All anyone cared was that seven was the new official
>>>>>> record and that seven was clearly a fantastic achievement.
>>>>>> *Five* good examples already have been provided in this thread (Vilas,
>>>>>> Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
>>>>>> opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends on
>>>>>> common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
>>>>>> waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
>>>>>> examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
>>>>>> however.
>>>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>>>> er, are you seriously this stupid or just trolling?
>>>>> I'll give you a little clue but you better sharpen up from hereon -
>>>>> Spitz's record (and all those other guys you mention) involved 'winning'
>>>>> gold medals, hitting home runs, scoring goals etc - Fed's 'record'
>>>>> involves losing - get it?
>>>> Federer's streak is important because of the magnitude by which it has
>>>> eclipsed the next best. Your argument that it involves "losing" is
>>>> typical antipodean sophistry. Suffice it to say that the achievement
>>>> is *winning* sufficient matches to reach the semifinal in the first
>>>> place.
>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>> Whimpy seems to be saying that Federer "lost" in the earlier rounds of
>>> slams to reach all those consecutive semifinals? This is pretty bad
>>> even by Whimpy's standards.
>> I don't ever hear any swimming, track etc streaks that include coming
>> 2nd, 3rd or 4th. Have you ever heard anyone say 'That's the 29th
>> consecutive time Phelps has come top 3'? Of course not you dumb cunt -
>> no one gives a fuck.
>>
>> That's because they include losses (losing a slam semi is a loss).
>> That's the reason no one cared about this 'record' previously & only
>> Fedfuckers deem it important now. It has no relevance whatsoever.-
>
> But to play devil's advocate here, they did make a big deal of Tiger's
> streak of not missing cuts.
> I'm not saying that type of record would ever be as important as
> majors won, Masters won, etc. but they
> did make a big deal about that in the news, and it was a significant
> story when he finally missed one.
>
> Also, hypothetically speaking, what if Tiger had a streak of 100 top
> 10 finishes? Don't you think that could
> be a record people would pay attention to?



The attention would be transitory/fleeting - ie it would be newsworthy
because it's something else to fill the sports pages. Make no mistake -
Tiger is ultimately measured against Jack's 18 - other numbers pale into
insignificance by comparison.



  
Date: 20 Dec 2008 15:57:27
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Dec 20, 4:13 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 19, 8:25 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 19, 2:41 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 18, 1:42 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
>>>>>>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>>>>>>> Correct observation.
>>>>>>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>>>>>>> experience.
>>>>>>>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>>>>>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>>>>>>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>>>>>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>>>>>>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>>>>>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>>>>>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>>>>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>>>>>>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>>>>>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>>>>>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>>>>>>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>>>>>>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>>>>>>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>>>>>>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>>>>>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>>>>>>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>>>>>>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>>>>>>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>>>>>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on these
>>>>>>> examples one would have to know current record holder and person who
>>>>>>> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
>>>>>>> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>>>>>>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>>>>>>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record before
>>>>>>> Federer...or do we...Connors?
>>>>>> Lendl.
>>>>>>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals before
>>>>>>> Federer broke it.
>>>>>>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ know
>>>>>>> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
>>>>>>> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>>>>>> No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
>>>>>> individual gold medals at a single
>>>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz*.
>>>>>> Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in 1972 and
>>>>>> remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did not
>>>>>> know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz. I
>>>>>> watched the Munich Olympics on TV as a kid and I can tell you that the
>>>>>> importance of Spitz's record did *not* depend on knowing who held the
>>>>>> previous record. All anyone cared was that seven was the new official
>>>>>> record and that seven was clearly a fantastic achievement.
>>>>>> *Five* good examples already have been provided in this thread (Vilas,
>>>>>> Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
>>>>>> opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends on
>>>>>> common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
>>>>>> waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
>>>>>> examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
>>>>>> however.
>>>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>>>> er, are you seriously this stupid or just trolling?
>>>>> I'll give you a little clue but you better sharpen up from hereon -
>>>>> Spitz's record (and all those other guys you mention) involved 'winning'
>>>>> gold medals, hitting home runs, scoring goals etc - Fed's 'record'
>>>>> involves losing - get it?
>>>> Federer's streak is important because of the magnitude by which it has
>>>> eclipsed the next best. Your argument that it involves "losing" is
>>>> typical antipodean sophistry. Suffice it to say that the achievement
>>>> is *winning* sufficient matches to reach the semifinal in the first
>>>> place.
>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>> Whimpy seems to be saying that Federer "lost" in the earlier rounds of
>>> slams to reach all those consecutive semifinals? This is pretty bad
>>> even by Whimpy's standards.
>> I don't ever hear any swimming, track etc streaks that include coming
>> 2nd, 3rd or 4th. Have you ever heard anyone say 'That's the 29th
>> consecutive time Phelps has come top 3'? Of course not you dumb cunt -
>> no one gives a fuck.
>>
>> That's because they include losses (losing a slam semi is a loss).
>> That's the reason no one cared about this 'record' previously & only
>> Fedfuckers deem it important now. It has no relevance whatsoever.-
>
> But to play devil's advocate here, they did make a big deal of Tiger's
> streak of not missing cuts.

Must be similar type of hero worship.

> I'm not saying that type of record would ever be as important as
> majors won, Masters won, etc. but they
> did make a big deal about that in the news, and it was a significant
> story when he finally missed one.
>
> Also, hypothetically speaking, what if Tiger had a streak of 100 top
> 10 finishes? Don't you think that could
> be a record people would pay attention to?

Because of the number 100 perhaps.

But my question is that would federer fanboys(and girl) be happy if feds
lost in all slam semifinals next year continuing his streak that way. He
would have 22 semis in a row, amazing! You bet fedfans would feel great
about it.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


   
Date: 21 Dec 2008 20:38:35
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
TT wrote:
> Jason Catlin wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 4:13 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>> On Dec 19, 8:25 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 19, 2:41 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 1:42 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed
>>>>>>>>>>> then why the
>>>>>>>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>>>>>>>> Correct observation.
>>>>>>>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>>>>>>>> experience.
>>>>>>>>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>>>>>>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not
>>>>>>>>> widely
>>>>>>>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>>>>>>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins
>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>>>>>>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>>>>>>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>>>>>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know
>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>>>>>>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>>>>>>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National
>>>>>>>>> Hockey
>>>>>>>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an
>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit
>>>>>>>>> was a big
>>>>>>>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the
>>>>>>>>> record
>>>>>>>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>>>>>>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was
>>>>>>>>> Babe
>>>>>>>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans
>>>>>>>>> could not
>>>>>>>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had
>>>>>>>>> zero
>>>>>>>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>>>>>>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on
>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>> examples one would have to know current record holder and person
>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
>>>>>>>> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>>>>>>>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>>>>>>>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record
>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>> Federer...or do we...Connors?
>>>>>>> Lendl.
>>>>>>>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals
>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>> Federer broke it.
>>>>>>>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we
>>>>>>>> _did_ know
>>>>>>>> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
>>>>>>>> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>>>>>>> No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
>>>>>>> individual gold medals at a single
>>>>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz*.
>>>>>>> Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in
>>>>>>> 1972 and
>>>>>>> remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did not
>>>>>>> know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz. I
>>>>>>> watched the Munich Olympics on TV as a kid and I can tell you
>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>> importance of Spitz's record did *not* depend on knowing who held
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> previous record. All anyone cared was that seven was the new
>>>>>>> official
>>>>>>> record and that seven was clearly a fantastic achievement.
>>>>>>> *Five* good examples already have been provided in this thread
>>>>>>> (Vilas,
>>>>>>> Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
>>>>>>> opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance
>>>>>>> depends on
>>>>>>> common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
>>>>>>> waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
>>>>>>> examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
>>>>>>> however.
>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>>>>> er, are you seriously this stupid or just trolling?
>>>>>> I'll give you a little clue but you better sharpen up from hereon -
>>>>>> Spitz's record (and all those other guys you mention) involved
>>>>>> 'winning'
>>>>>> gold medals, hitting home runs, scoring goals etc - Fed's 'record'
>>>>>> involves losing - get it?
>>>>> Federer's streak is important because of the magnitude by which it has
>>>>> eclipsed the next best. Your argument that it involves "losing" is
>>>>> typical antipodean sophistry. Suffice it to say that the achievement
>>>>> is *winning* sufficient matches to reach the semifinal in the first
>>>>> place.
>>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>>> Whimpy seems to be saying that Federer "lost" in the earlier rounds of
>>>> slams to reach all those consecutive semifinals? This is pretty bad
>>>> even by Whimpy's standards.
>>> I don't ever hear any swimming, track etc streaks that include coming
>>> 2nd, 3rd or 4th. Have you ever heard anyone say 'That's the 29th
>>> consecutive time Phelps has come top 3'? Of course not you dumb cunt -
>>> no one gives a fuck.
>>>
>>> That's because they include losses (losing a slam semi is a loss).
>>> That's the reason no one cared about this 'record' previously & only
>>> Fedfuckers deem it important now. It has no relevance whatsoever.-
>>
>> But to play devil's advocate here, they did make a big deal of Tiger's
>> streak of not missing cuts.
>
> Must be similar type of hero worship.
>
>> I'm not saying that type of record would ever be as important as
>> majors won, Masters won, etc. but they
>> did make a big deal about that in the news, and it was a significant
>> story when he finally missed one.
>>
>> Also, hypothetically speaking, what if Tiger had a streak of 100 top
>> 10 finishes? Don't you think that could
>> be a record people would pay attention to?
>
> Because of the number 100 perhaps.
>
> But my question is that would federer fanboys(and girl) be happy if feds
> lost in all slam semifinals next year continuing his streak that way. He
> would have 22 semis in a row, amazing! You bet fedfans would feel great
> about it.
>


Fed's legacy boost from winning 1 more slam & reaching 14 would far
outweigh 100 straight slam semis - that's not the main ballgame.





   
Date: 20 Dec 2008 16:20:19
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
TT wrote:
> Jason Catlin wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 4:13 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>> On Dec 19, 8:25 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 19, 2:41 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 1:42 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed
>>>>>>>>>>> then why the
>>>>>>>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>>>>>>>> Correct observation.
>>>>>>>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>>>>>>>> experience.
>>>>>>>>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>>>>>>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not
>>>>>>>>> widely
>>>>>>>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>>>>>>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins
>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>>>>>>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>>>>>>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>>>>>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know
>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>>>>>>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>>>>>>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National
>>>>>>>>> Hockey
>>>>>>>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an
>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit
>>>>>>>>> was a big
>>>>>>>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the
>>>>>>>>> record
>>>>>>>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>>>>>>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was
>>>>>>>>> Babe
>>>>>>>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans
>>>>>>>>> could not
>>>>>>>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had
>>>>>>>>> zero
>>>>>>>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>>>>>>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on
>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>> examples one would have to know current record holder and person
>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
>>>>>>>> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>>>>>>>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>>>>>>>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record
>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>> Federer...or do we...Connors?
>>>>>>> Lendl.
>>>>>>>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals
>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>> Federer broke it.
>>>>>>>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we
>>>>>>>> _did_ know
>>>>>>>> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
>>>>>>>> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>>>>>>> No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
>>>>>>> individual gold medals at a single
>>>>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz*.
>>>>>>> Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in
>>>>>>> 1972 and
>>>>>>> remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did not
>>>>>>> know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz. I
>>>>>>> watched the Munich Olympics on TV as a kid and I can tell you
>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>> importance of Spitz's record did *not* depend on knowing who held
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> previous record. All anyone cared was that seven was the new
>>>>>>> official
>>>>>>> record and that seven was clearly a fantastic achievement.
>>>>>>> *Five* good examples already have been provided in this thread
>>>>>>> (Vilas,
>>>>>>> Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
>>>>>>> opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance
>>>>>>> depends on
>>>>>>> common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
>>>>>>> waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
>>>>>>> examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
>>>>>>> however.
>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>>>>> er, are you seriously this stupid or just trolling?
>>>>>> I'll give you a little clue but you better sharpen up from hereon -
>>>>>> Spitz's record (and all those other guys you mention) involved
>>>>>> 'winning'
>>>>>> gold medals, hitting home runs, scoring goals etc - Fed's 'record'
>>>>>> involves losing - get it?
>>>>> Federer's streak is important because of the magnitude by which it has
>>>>> eclipsed the next best. Your argument that it involves "losing" is
>>>>> typical antipodean sophistry. Suffice it to say that the achievement
>>>>> is *winning* sufficient matches to reach the semifinal in the first
>>>>> place.
>>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>>> Whimpy seems to be saying that Federer "lost" in the earlier rounds of
>>>> slams to reach all those consecutive semifinals? This is pretty bad
>>>> even by Whimpy's standards.
>>> I don't ever hear any swimming, track etc streaks that include coming
>>> 2nd, 3rd or 4th. Have you ever heard anyone say 'That's the 29th
>>> consecutive time Phelps has come top 3'? Of course not you dumb cunt -
>>> no one gives a fuck.
>>>
>>> That's because they include losses (losing a slam semi is a loss).
>>> That's the reason no one cared about this 'record' previously & only
>>> Fedfuckers deem it important now. It has no relevance whatsoever.-
>>
>> But to play devil's advocate here, they did make a big deal of Tiger's
>> streak of not missing cuts.
>
> Must be similar type of hero worship.
>
>> I'm not saying that type of record would ever be as important as
>> majors won, Masters won, etc. but they
>> did make a big deal about that in the news, and it was a significant
>> story when he finally missed one.
>>
>> Also, hypothetically speaking, what if Tiger had a streak of 100 top
>> 10 finishes? Don't you think that could
>> be a record people would pay attention to?
>
> Because of the number 100 perhaps.
>
> But my question is that would federer fanboys(and girl) be happy if feds
> lost in all slam semifinals next year continuing his streak that way. He
> would have 22 semis in a row, amazing! You bet fedfans would feel great
> about it.
>

P.S. Personally I would draw the line at finals, semifinals...well
honestly I don't care much. 10 consecutive slam finals is good
achievement from Roger no doubt about it.

But what I find more exciting when it comes to finals was Lendl's 8
consecutive USO finals and 9! consecutive YEC. We're talking about 8 and
9 YEARS here. He was always competing for the title in the finals during
that time.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


    
Date: 21 Dec 2008 20:41:57
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
TT wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Jason Catlin wrote:
>>> Also, hypothetically speaking, what if Tiger had a streak of 100 top
>>> 10 finishes? Don't you think that could
>>> be a record people would pay attention to?
>>
>> Because of the number 100 perhaps.
>>
>> But my question is that would federer fanboys(and girl) be happy if
>> feds lost in all slam semifinals next year continuing his streak that
>> way. He would have 22 semis in a row, amazing! You bet fedfans would
>> feel great about it.
>>
>
> P.S. Personally I would draw the line at finals, semifinals...well
> honestly I don't care much. 10 consecutive slam finals is good
> achievement from Roger no doubt about it.



Graf made 13 in a row yet she gets no extra legacy cred for it - can't
see why Fed is more deserving?


     
Date: 21 Dec 2008 16:22:17
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Jason Catlin wrote:
>>>> Also, hypothetically speaking, what if Tiger had a streak of 100 top
>>>> 10 finishes? Don't you think that could
>>>> be a record people would pay attention to?
>>>
>>> Because of the number 100 perhaps.
>>>
>>> But my question is that would federer fanboys(and girl) be happy if
>>> feds lost in all slam semifinals next year continuing his streak that
>>> way. He would have 22 semis in a row, amazing! You bet fedfans would
>>> feel great about it.
>>>
>>
>> P.S. Personally I would draw the line at finals, semifinals...well
>> honestly I don't care much. 10 consecutive slam finals is good
>> achievement from Roger no doubt about it.
>
>
>
> Graf made 13 in a row yet she gets no extra legacy cred for it - can't
> see why Fed is more deserving?

I wanted to be nice to fedfans. You think "good achievement" was
overstating it a bit?

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


  
Date: 20 Dec 2008 21:30:50
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:01:51 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
<jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Dec 20, 4:13 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> > On Dec 19, 8:25 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 19, 2:41 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> >>>> On Dec 18, 1:42 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> >>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
>> >>>>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>> >>>>>>> Correct observation.
>> >>>>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>> >>>>>> experience.
>> >>>>>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>> >>>>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>> >>>>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>> >>>>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>> >>>>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>> >>>>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>> >>>>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>> >>>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>> >>>>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>> >>>>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>> >>>>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>> >>>>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>> >>>>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>> >>>>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>> >>>>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>> >>>>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>> >>>>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>> >>>>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>> >>>>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>> >>>>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on these
>> >>>>> examples one would have to know current record holder and person who
>> >>>>> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
>> >>>>> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>> >>>>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>> >>>>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record before
>> >>>>> Federer...or do we...Connors?
>> >>>> Lendl.
>> >>>>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals before
>> >>>>> Federer broke it.
>> >>>>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ know
>> >>>>> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
>> >>>>> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>> >>>> No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
>> >>>> individual gold medals at a single
>> >>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz*.
>> >>>> Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in 1972 and
>> >>>> remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did not
>> >>>> know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz. I
>> >>>> watched the Munich Olympics on TV as a kid and I can tell you that the
>> >>>> importance of Spitz's record did *not* depend on knowing who held the
>> >>>> previous record. All anyone cared was that seven was the new official
>> >>>> record and that seven was clearly a fantastic achievement.
>> >>>> *Five* good examples already have been provided in this thread (Vilas,
>> >>>> Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
>> >>>> opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends on
>> >>>> common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
>> >>>> waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
>> >>>> examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
>> >>>> however.
>> >>>> Joe Ramirez
>> >>> er, are you seriously this stupid or just trolling?
>> >>> I'll give you a little clue but you better sharpen up from hereon -
>> >>> Spitz's record (and all those other guys you mention) involved 'winning'
>> >>> gold medals, hitting home runs, scoring goals etc - Fed's 'record'
>> >>> involves losing - get it?
>> >> Federer's streak is important because of the magnitude by which it has
>> >> eclipsed the next best. Your argument that it involves "losing" is
>> >> typical antipodean sophistry. Suffice it to say that the achievement
>> >> is *winning* sufficient matches to reach the semifinal in the first
>> >> place.
>>
>> >> Joe Ramirez
>>
>> > Whimpy seems to be saying that Federer "lost" in the earlier rounds of
>> > slams to reach all those consecutive semifinals? This is pretty bad
>> > even by Whimpy's standards.
>>
>> I don't ever hear any swimming, track etc streaks that include coming
>> 2nd, 3rd or 4th.  Have you ever heard anyone say 'That's the 29th
>> consecutive time Phelps has come top 3'?  Of course not you dumb cunt -
>> no one gives a fuck.
>>
>> That's because they include losses (losing a slam semi is a loss).
>> That's the reason no one cared about this 'record' previously & only
>> Fedfuckers deem it important now.  It has no relevance whatsoever.-
>
>But to play devil's advocate here, they did make a big deal of Tiger's
>streak of not missing cuts.
>I'm not saying that type of record would ever be as important as
>majors won, Masters won, etc. but they
>did make a big deal about that in the news, and it was a significant
>story when he finally missed one.
>
>Also, hypothetically speaking, what if Tiger had a streak of 100 top
>10 finishes? Don't you think that could
>be a record people would pay attention to?


It's pointless. Whisper is an asshole.


 
Date: 19 Dec 2008 23:18:30
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Dec 19, 8:25=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2:41=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > > On Dec 18, 1:42 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > >> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > >>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > >>>> Whisper wrote:
> > >>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then w=
hy the
> > >>>>> fuck is it important now....?
> > >>>> Correct observation.
> > >>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
> > >>> experience.
> > >>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
> > >>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widel=
y
> > >>> known, even by fans of the sport.
> > >>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins bef=
ore
> > >>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
> > >>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
> > >>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
> > >>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
> > >>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
> > >>> important before Phelps broke it.
> > >>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hocke=
y
> > >>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an import=
ant
> > >>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a =
big
> > >>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
> > >>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
> > >>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Bab=
e
> > >>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could =
not
> > >>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
> > >>> impact on the record's prestige.
> > >> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on the=
se
> > >> examples one would have to know current record holder and person who
> > >> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
> > >> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
> > >> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
> > >> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record befo=
re
> > >> Federer...or do we...Connors?
>
> > > Lendl.
>
> > >> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals bef=
ore
> > >> Federer broke it.
> > >> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ k=
now
> > >> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
> > >> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>
> > > No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
> > > individual gold medals at a single
> > > Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz*.
> > > Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in 1972 an=
d
> > > remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did not
> > > know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz. I
> > > watched the Munich Olympics on TV as a kid and I can tell you that th=
e
> > > importance of Spitz's record did *not* depend on knowing who held the
> > > previous record. All anyone cared was that seven was the new official
> > > record and that seven was clearly a fantastic achievement.
>
> > > *Five* good examples already have been provided in this thread (Vilas=
,
> > > Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
> > > opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends on
> > > common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
> > > waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
> > > examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
> > > however.
>
> > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > er, are you seriously this stupid or just trolling?
>
> > I'll give you a little clue but you better sharpen up from hereon -
> > Spitz's record (and all those other guys you mention) involved 'winning=
'
> > gold medals, hitting home runs, scoring goals etc - Fed's 'record'
> > involves losing - get it?
>
> Federer's streak is important because of the magnitude by which it has
> eclipsed the next best. Your argument that it involves "losing" is
> typical antipodean sophistry. Suffice it to say that the achievement
> is *winning* sufficient matches to reach the semifinal in the first
> place.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Whimpy seems to be saying that Federer "lost" in the earlier rounds of
slams to reach all those consecutive semifinals? This is pretty bad
even by Whimpy's standards.


  
Date: 20 Dec 2008 20:13:09
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 19, 8:25 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 2:41 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>> On Dec 18, 1:42 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
>>>>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>>>>> Correct observation.
>>>>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>>>>> experience.
>>>>>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>>>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>>>>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>>>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>>>>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>>>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>>>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>>>>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>>>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>>>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>>>>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>>>>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>>>>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>>>>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>>>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>>>>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>>>>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>>>>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>>>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on these
>>>>> examples one would have to know current record holder and person who
>>>>> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
>>>>> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>>>>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>>>>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record before
>>>>> Federer...or do we...Connors?
>>>> Lendl.
>>>>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals before
>>>>> Federer broke it.
>>>>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ know
>>>>> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
>>>>> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>>>> No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
>>>> individual gold medals at a single
>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz*.
>>>> Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in 1972 and
>>>> remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did not
>>>> know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz. I
>>>> watched the Munich Olympics on TV as a kid and I can tell you that the
>>>> importance of Spitz's record did *not* depend on knowing who held the
>>>> previous record. All anyone cared was that seven was the new official
>>>> record and that seven was clearly a fantastic achievement.
>>>> *Five* good examples already have been provided in this thread (Vilas,
>>>> Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
>>>> opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends on
>>>> common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
>>>> waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
>>>> examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
>>>> however.
>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>> er, are you seriously this stupid or just trolling?
>>> I'll give you a little clue but you better sharpen up from hereon -
>>> Spitz's record (and all those other guys you mention) involved 'winning'
>>> gold medals, hitting home runs, scoring goals etc - Fed's 'record'
>>> involves losing - get it?
>> Federer's streak is important because of the magnitude by which it has
>> eclipsed the next best. Your argument that it involves "losing" is
>> typical antipodean sophistry. Suffice it to say that the achievement
>> is *winning* sufficient matches to reach the semifinal in the first
>> place.
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
> Whimpy seems to be saying that Federer "lost" in the earlier rounds of
> slams to reach all those consecutive semifinals? This is pretty bad
> even by Whimpy's standards.


I don't ever hear any swimming, track etc streaks that include coming
2nd, 3rd or 4th. Have you ever heard anyone say 'That's the 29th
consecutive time Phelps has come top 3'? Of course not you dumb cunt -
no one gives a fuck.

That's because they include losses (losing a slam semi is a loss).
That's the reason no one cared about this 'record' previously & only
Fedfuckers deem it important now. It has no relevance whatsoever.



 
Date: 19 Dec 2008 20:21:27
From: Carey
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...


Whisper wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 2:41 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>> Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
> >>> opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends on
> >>> common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
> >>> waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
> >>> examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
> >>> however.
> >>> Joe Ramirez
> >> er, are you seriously this stupid or just trolling?
> >>
> >> I'll give you a little clue but you better sharpen up from hereon -
> >> Spitz's record (and all those other guys you mention) involved 'winning'
> >> gold medals, hitting home runs, scoring goals etc - Fed's 'record'
> >> involves losing - get it?
> >
> > So you now concede that your original contention -- that a record is
> > meaningful only if everyone knows who formerly held it -- is wrong?
>
>
> No. If any new pseudo record that was unimportant previously is
> suddenly important today we have to suspect ceibs is in play.

Really.

The *record* for Major titles won by a player was not a
matter of significant interest until Sampras and the
requisite PR machine made it so. CEIBs at work?

Great job, Lisper! :)


  
Date: 20 Dec 2008 13:48:51
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:21:27 -0800 (PST), Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>
>
>Whisper wrote:
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> > On Dec 19, 2:41 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >>> Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
>> >>> opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends on
>> >>> common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
>> >>> waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
>> >>> examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
>> >>> however.
>> >>> Joe Ramirez
>> >> er, are you seriously this stupid or just trolling?
>> >>
>> >> I'll give you a little clue but you better sharpen up from hereon -
>> >> Spitz's record (and all those other guys you mention) involved 'winning'
>> >> gold medals, hitting home runs, scoring goals etc - Fed's 'record'
>> >> involves losing - get it?
>> >
>> > So you now concede that your original contention -- that a record is
>> > meaningful only if everyone knows who formerly held it -- is wrong?
>>
>>
>> No. If any new pseudo record that was unimportant previously is
>> suddenly important today we have to suspect ceibs is in play.
>
>Really.
>
>The *record* for Major titles won by a player was not a
>matter of significant interest until Sampras and the
>requisite PR machine made it so. CEIBs at work?
>
>Great job, Lisper! :)


exactly !! I was going to point that out as well !!!

according to whisperlogic EVERY record was and is unimportant UNTIL
Sampras breaks it and that is when it becomes "suddenly important".


 
Date: 19 Dec 2008 06:25:49
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Dec 19, 2:41=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 1:42 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> >>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>> Whisper wrote:
> >>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why=
the
> >>>>> fuck is it important now....?
> >>>> Correct observation.
> >>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
> >>> experience.
> >>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
> >>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
> >>> known, even by fans of the sport.
> >>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins befor=
e
> >>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
> >>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
> >>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
> >>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
> >>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
> >>> important before Phelps broke it.
> >>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
> >>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an importan=
t
> >>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a bi=
g
> >>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
> >>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
> >>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
> >>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could no=
t
> >>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
> >>> impact on the record's prestige.
> >> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on these
> >> examples one would have to know current record holder and person who
> >> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
> >> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
> >> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
> >> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record before
> >> Federer...or do we...Connors?
>
> > Lendl.
>
> >> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals befor=
e
> >> Federer broke it.
> >> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ kno=
w
> >> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
> >> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>
> > No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
> > individual gold medals at a single
> > Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz*.
> > Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in 1972 and
> > remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did not
> > know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz. I
> > watched the Munich Olympics on TV as a kid and I can tell you that the
> > importance of Spitz's record did *not* depend on knowing who held the
> > previous record. All anyone cared was that seven was the new official
> > record and that seven was clearly a fantastic achievement.
>
> > *Five* good examples already have been provided in this thread (Vilas,
> > Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
> > opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends on
> > common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
> > waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
> > examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
> > however.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> er, are you seriously this stupid or just trolling?
>
> I'll give you a little clue but you better sharpen up from hereon -
> Spitz's record (and all those other guys you mention) involved 'winning'
> gold medals, hitting home runs, scoring goals etc - Fed's 'record'
> involves losing - get it?

So you now concede that your original contention -- that a record is
meaningful only if everyone knows who formerly held it -- is wrong?
Refuting that piece of nonsense from you (which TJT endorsed because
it was anti-Federer in this context) was the only reason I entered
this thread. I am not going to follow you around as your loopy
rhetoric advances from Plan A to Plan B to Plan C. Of course the SF
streak is a minor record compared to slam totals, which are the
principal measure of tennis greatness. That's not in dispute. But
Federer's streak is important because of the magnitude by which it has
eclipsed the next best. Your argument that it involves "losing" is
typical antipodean sophistry. Suffice it to say that the achievement
is *winning* sufficient matches to reach the semifinal in the first
place.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 20 Dec 2008 01:36:45
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2:41 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
>>> opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends on
>>> common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
>>> waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
>>> examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
>>> however.
>>> Joe Ramirez
>> er, are you seriously this stupid or just trolling?
>>
>> I'll give you a little clue but you better sharpen up from hereon -
>> Spitz's record (and all those other guys you mention) involved 'winning'
>> gold medals, hitting home runs, scoring goals etc - Fed's 'record'
>> involves losing - get it?
>
> So you now concede that your original contention -- that a record is
> meaningful only if everyone knows who formerly held it -- is wrong?


No. If any new pseudo record that was unimportant previously is
suddenly important today we have to suspect ceibs is in play.



> Refuting that piece of nonsense from you (which TJT endorsed because
> it was anti-Federer in this context) was the only reason I entered
> this thread. I am not going to follow you around as your loopy
> rhetoric advances from Plan A to Plan B to Plan C. Of course the SF
> streak is a minor record compared to slam totals, which are the
> principal measure of tennis greatness. That's not in dispute. But
> Federer's streak is important because of the magnitude by which it has
> eclipsed the next best.


If it's worth less than 1 AO then not worth this much bandwidth.



> Your argument that it involves "losing" is
> typical antipodean sophistry.


Translation : 'Whisper caught me out again & I'm too gutless to apologize.'


 
Date: 19 Dec 2008 05:40:50
From: Fan
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Dec 19, 1:04=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:20:27 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Sakari Lund wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:28:52 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au=
>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
> >>>>>> Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't
> >>>>>> pretty much impossible to imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and =
1 away
> >>>>> >from matching Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3=
, IIRC.
>
> >>>>> I've been saying before that the slam SF streak is totally
> >>>>> unbelievable.
>
> >>>> It would be if we were conscious of the previous record. =A0As we ar=
en't
> >>>> then it's simple ceibs.
> >>> It is not a famous record or anything, but if you just think about it=
,
> >>> it is unbelievable. It just is. You don't have to admit it or
> >>> anything, that's not the point.
>
> >> It's not as big a deal as winning another Wimbledon for eg.
>
> > if he wins both W and the USO this year Fed becomes the undisputed
> > goat !
>
> > add another W+USO+AO over the next 7 years and he becomes
> > "untouchable" with sampras being relegated to the dustbin of tennis
> > history.
>
> What happened to FO? One can't be greatest overall player of all time
> without winning FO.

If Federer wins mor slams than Sampras, Federer takes ove Sampras.
Get it monkeyboy?


 
Date: 19 Dec 2008 04:17:34
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Dec 19, 7:04=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:20:27 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Sakari Lund wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:28:52 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au=
>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
> >>>>>> Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't
> >>>>>> pretty much impossible to imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and =
1 away
> >>>>> >from matching Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3=
, IIRC.
>
> >>>>> I've been saying before that the slam SF streak is totally
> >>>>> unbelievable.
>
> >>>> It would be if we were conscious of the previous record. =A0As we ar=
en't
> >>>> then it's simple ceibs.
> >>> It is not a famous record or anything, but if you just think about it=
,
> >>> it is unbelievable. It just is. You don't have to admit it or
> >>> anything, that's not the point.
>
> >> It's not as big a deal as winning another Wimbledon for eg.
>
> > if he wins both W and the USO this year Fed becomes the undisputed
> > goat !
>
> > add another W+USO+AO over the next 7 years and he becomes
> > "untouchable" with sampras being relegated to the dustbin of tennis
> > history.
>
> What happened to FO? One can't be greatest overall player of all time
> without winning FO.
>
> --
> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think Hazel has finally given up on that pipedream.


  
Date: 19 Dec 2008 14:27:10
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Dec 19, 7:04 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:20:27 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:28:52 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
>>>>>>>> Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't
>>>>>>>> pretty much impossible to imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and 1 away
>>>>>>> >from matching Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3, IIRC.
>>>>>>> I've been saying before that the slam SF streak is totally
>>>>>>> unbelievable.
>>>>>> It would be if we were conscious of the previous record. As we aren't
>>>>>> then it's simple ceibs.
>>>>> It is not a famous record or anything, but if you just think about it,
>>>>> it is unbelievable. It just is. You don't have to admit it or
>>>>> anything, that's not the point.
>>>> It's not as big a deal as winning another Wimbledon for eg.
>>> if he wins both W and the USO this year Fed becomes the undisputed
>>> goat !
>>> add another W+USO+AO over the next 7 years and he becomes
>>> "untouchable" with sampras being relegated to the dustbin of tennis
>>> history.
>> What happened to FO? One can't be greatest overall player of all time
>> without winning FO.
>>
>> --
>> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
>> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I think Hazel has finally given up on that pipedream.

Wow. Kinda sad.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 18 Dec 2008 15:01:11
From:
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Dec 18, 8:43=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:
> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
> > fuck is it important now....?
>
> Most people don't know who Miguel Indurain is. It doesn't make Lance Arms=
trong
> irrelevant.

Who's Lance Armstrong? :-)


 
Date: 18 Dec 2008 11:26:26
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Dec 18, 1:42=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> Whisper wrote:
>
> >>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why t=
he
> >>> fuck is it important now....?
> >> Correct observation.
>
> > Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
> > experience.
> > There are numerous examples of respected sports records
> > held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
> > known, even by fans of the sport.
>
> > -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
> > Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
> > record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
> > -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
> > Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
> > looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
> > important before Phelps broke it.
> > -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
> > League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
> > NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
> > story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
> > before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
> > -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
> > Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
> > have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
> > impact on the record's prestige.
>
> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on these
> examples one would have to know current record holder and person who
> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record before
> Federer...or do we...Connors?

Lendl.

> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals before
> Federer broke it.
> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ know
> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.

No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
individual gold medals at a single
Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz*.
Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in 1972 and
remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did not
know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz. I
watched the Munich Olympics on TV as a kid and I can tell you that the
importance of Spitz's record did *not* depend on knowing who held the
previous record. All anyone cared was that seven was the new official
record and that seven was clearly a fantastic achievement.

*Five* good examples already have been provided in this thread (Vilas,
Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends on
common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
however.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 19 Dec 2008 18:41:35
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Dec 18, 1:42 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>> Correct observation.
>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>> experience.
>>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on these
>> examples one would have to know current record holder and person who
>> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
>> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record before
>> Federer...or do we...Connors?
>
> Lendl.
>
>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals before
>> Federer broke it.
>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ know
>> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
>> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>
> No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
> individual gold medals at a single
> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz*.
> Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in 1972 and
> remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did not
> know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz. I
> watched the Munich Olympics on TV as a kid and I can tell you that the
> importance of Spitz's record did *not* depend on knowing who held the
> previous record. All anyone cared was that seven was the new official
> record and that seven was clearly a fantastic achievement.
>
> *Five* good examples already have been provided in this thread (Vilas,
> Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
> opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends on
> common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
> waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
> examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
> however.
>
> Joe Ramirez


er, are you seriously this stupid or just trolling?

I'll give you a little clue but you better sharpen up from hereon -
Spitz's record (and all those other guys you mention) involved 'winning'
gold medals, hitting home runs, scoring goals etc - Fed's 'record'
involves losing - get it?

Probably not.



   
Date: 19 Dec 2008 13:22:56
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Whisper wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 1:42 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then
>>>>>> why the
>>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>>> Correct observation.
>>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>>> experience.
>>>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on these
>>> examples one would have to know current record holder and person who
>>> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
>>> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record before
>>> Federer...or do we...Connors?
>>
>> Lendl.
>>
>>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals before
>>> Federer broke it.
>>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ know
>>> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
>>> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>>
>> No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
>> individual gold medals at a single
>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz*.
>> Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in 1972 and
>> remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did not
>> know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz. I
>> watched the Munich Olympics on TV as a kid and I can tell you that the
>> importance of Spitz's record did *not* depend on knowing who held the
>> previous record. All anyone cared was that seven was the new official
>> record and that seven was clearly a fantastic achievement.
>>
>> *Five* good examples already have been provided in this thread (Vilas,
>> Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
>> opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends on
>> common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
>> waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
>> examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
>> however.
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
>
> er, are you seriously this stupid or just trolling?
>
> I'll give you a little clue but you better sharpen up from hereon -
> Spitz's record (and all those other guys you mention) involved 'winning'
> gold medals, hitting home runs, scoring goals etc - Fed's 'record'
> involves losing - get it?
>
> Probably not.
>

So are you saying that nobody cares how many times Spitz got inside top 4?

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


  
Date: 18 Dec 2008 22:40:56
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Joe Ramirez wrote:

> No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
> individual gold medals at a single
> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz*.
> Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in 1972 and
> remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did not
> know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz.

That's not surprising though.

I guess the thunderous applauds had settled for the Olympic athlete that
previously broke the record, American gymnast Anton Heida in 1904...

And that previous record of 5 golds in single Olympics, which Spitz
broke, was held by several athletes:

Anton Heida, 1904
Nedo Nadi, 1920
Willis A Leee, 1920
Paavo Nurmi, 1920

So not a very good example there.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


  
Date: 18 Dec 2008 21:50:12
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Dec 18, 1:42 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>> Correct observation.
>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>> experience.
>>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on these
>> examples one would have to know current record holder and person who
>> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
>> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record before
>> Federer...or do we...Connors?
>
> Lendl.
>
>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals before
>> Federer broke it.
>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ know
>> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
>> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>
> No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
> individual gold medals at a single
> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz*.
> Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in 1972 and
> remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did not
> know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz. I
> watched the Munich Olympics on TV as a kid and I can tell you that the
> importance of Spitz's record did *not* depend on knowing who held the
> previous record. All anyone cared was that seven was the new official
> record and that seven was clearly a fantastic achievement.
>
> *Five* good examples already have been provided in this thread (Vilas,
> Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
> opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends on
> common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
> waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
> examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
> however.
>
> Joe Ramirez

You misunderstood my position and point I was making. Point I was here
making was that if we draw parallel with your examples and Federer SF
streak - Then we should know, according to you, who held the record
before Lendl...in order for your examples to be valid.

And my position is that I agree with both you and Whisper here. With you
for that a new record can be impressive/overwhelming enough to become
significant even though it hasn't been before. With Whisper that these
kind of cherrypicked stats are not true records.

And I disagree on importance of this record. That Evert example is
rather good one and your weak-era argument is not valid since same can
be argued about Federer and this era.

Vilas is mostly forgotten, although people do remember Evert's 125 clay
streak...for me to defend Nadal's streak record legitimacy, which I thin
k is wonderful stat but not sure if even that classifies as true record,
as anything "consecutive" is a derivative record of most tournaments won.
Joe DiMaggio...well I don't know anything about baseball but I have
noticed that baseball fans list many kinds of fishy sounding records for
which I as an outsider can not relate to.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


   
Date: 19 Dec 2008 18:46:23
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
TT wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 1:42 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then
>>>>>> why the
>>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>>> Correct observation.
>>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>>> experience.
>>>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on these
>>> examples one would have to know current record holder and person who
>>> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
>>> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record before
>>> Federer...or do we...Connors?
>>
>> Lendl.
>>
>>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals before
>>> Federer broke it.
>>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ know
>>> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
>>> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>>
>> No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
>> individual gold medals at a single
>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz*.
>> Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in 1972 and
>> remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did not
>> know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz. I
>> watched the Munich Olympics on TV as a kid and I can tell you that the
>> importance of Spitz's record did *not* depend on knowing who held the
>> previous record. All anyone cared was that seven was the new official
>> record and that seven was clearly a fantastic achievement.
>>
>> *Five* good examples already have been provided in this thread (Vilas,
>> Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
>> opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends on
>> common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
>> waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
>> examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
>> however.
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
> You misunderstood my position and point I was making. Point I was here
> making was that if we draw parallel with your examples and Federer SF
> streak - Then we should know, according to you, who held the record
> before Lendl...in order for your examples to be valid.
>
> And my position is that I agree with both you and Whisper here. With you
> for that a new record can be impressive/overwhelming enough to become
> significant even though it hasn't been before. With Whisper that these
> kind of cherrypicked stats are not true records.
>
> And I disagree on importance of this record. That Evert example is
> rather good one and your weak-era argument is not valid since same can
> be argued about Federer and this era.
>
> Vilas is mostly forgotten, although people do remember Evert's 125 clay
> streak...for me to defend Nadal's streak record legitimacy, which I thin
> k is wonderful stat but not sure if even that classifies as true record,
> as anything "consecutive" is a derivative record of most tournaments won.
> Joe DiMaggio...well I don't know anything about baseball but I have
> noticed that baseball fans list many kinds of fishy sounding records for
> which I as an outsider can not relate to.
>



Joe is either trolling or drunk - if he's a lawyer he shouldn't be dumb
enough to equate Fed's 'losing' streak in semis with Spitz 'winning' 7
gold. I see a difference between winning & losing.

I find Vilas/Rafa consecutive clay wins very significant as they don't
include losses - also have regard for Gretzky/Ruth records for similar
reasons. Fed's semi record is not in this equation for fucking obvious
reasons.




    
Date: 19 Dec 2008 13:13:09
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> On Dec 18, 1:42 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then
>>>>>>> why the
>>>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>>>> Correct observation.
>>>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>>>> experience.
>>>>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>>>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>>>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>>>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>>>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>>>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>>>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>>>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>>>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>>>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>>>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on these
>>>> examples one would have to know current record holder and person who
>>>> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
>>>> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>>>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>>>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record before
>>>> Federer...or do we...Connors?
>>>
>>> Lendl.
>>>
>>>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals before
>>>> Federer broke it.
>>>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ know
>>>> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
>>>> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>>>
>>> No, the question I asked was this: "Who held the record for most
>>> individual gold medals at a single
>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz?" Not before Phelps; before *Spitz*.
>>> Believe it or not, Spitz's record was a sensation when set in 1972 and
>>> remained very famous all the way until 2008. Yet most people did not
>>> know -- and did not care -- who held the record before Spitz. I
>>> watched the Munich Olympics on TV as a kid and I can tell you that the
>>> importance of Spitz's record did *not* depend on knowing who held the
>>> previous record. All anyone cared was that seven was the new official
>>> record and that seven was clearly a fantastic achievement.
>>>
>>> *Five* good examples already have been provided in this thread (Vilas,
>>> Spitz, Gretzky, Ruth, DiMaggio) to illustrate the fallacy of the
>>> opinion held by you and Whisper that a record's importance depends on
>>> common knowledge of the previous holder. Any person who wanted to
>>> waste the time with you guys could easily come up with dozens more
>>> examples, because the pattern is common. I am not that person,
>>> however.
>>>
>>> Joe Ramirez
>>
>> You misunderstood my position and point I was making. Point I was here
>> making was that if we draw parallel with your examples and Federer SF
>> streak - Then we should know, according to you, who held the record
>> before Lendl...in order for your examples to be valid.
>>
>> And my position is that I agree with both you and Whisper here. With
>> you for that a new record can be impressive/overwhelming enough to
>> become significant even though it hasn't been before. With Whisper
>> that these kind of cherrypicked stats are not true records.
>>
>> And I disagree on importance of this record. That Evert example is
>> rather good one and your weak-era argument is not valid since same can
>> be argued about Federer and this era.
>>
>> Vilas is mostly forgotten, although people do remember Evert's 125
>> clay streak...for me to defend Nadal's streak record legitimacy, which
>> I thin k is wonderful stat but not sure if even that classifies as
>> true record, as anything "consecutive" is a derivative record of most
>> tournaments won.
>> Joe DiMaggio...well I don't know anything about baseball but I have
>> noticed that baseball fans list many kinds of fishy sounding records
>> for which I as an outsider can not relate to.
>>
>
>
>
> Joe is either trolling or drunk - if he's a lawyer he shouldn't be dumb
> enough to equate Fed's 'losing' streak in semis with Spitz 'winning' 7
> gold. I see a difference between winning & losing.
>
> I find Vilas/Rafa consecutive clay wins very significant as they don't
> include losses - also have regard for Gretzky/Ruth records for similar
> reasons. Fed's semi record is not in this equation for fucking obvious
> reasons.
>
>

Well yes. Reaching semifinals is not a record that is kept, but rather
merely an interesting stat for those who are keen on stats.

I used to be a huge snooker fan, records one hears in snooker are:

Number of World Championships titles
Number of other titles etc
Breaks over 100
Maximum breaks
h2h

Also I recall hearing as interesting stats that Jimmy White never lost
in 1st round at Crucible and how many tournaments Hendry won one season.
But one doesn't see actual record lists of these things.

And nowadays nobody remembers that Hendry won 5 consecutive World
Championships. The important figure is the total of 7 world titles, a
modern era record.

Indeed it appears that the magic 7 is the maximum norm at snooker and
tennis. I expect Nadal to win 7 FO's which would be magnificent. 8 would
be MIND BOGGLING and UNBELIEVABLE in true sense of the words.



--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 18 Dec 2008 09:59:34
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Dec 18, 12:04=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 18, 11:21=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 8:02=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> > > Whisper wrote:
>
> > > > Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why=
the
> > > > fuck is it important now....?
>
> > > Correct observation.
>
> > Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
> > experience. There are numerous examples of respected sports records
> > held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
> > known, even by fans of the sport.
>
> > -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
> > Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
> > record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
> > -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
> > Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
> > looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
> > important before Phelps broke it.
> > -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
> > League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
> > NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
> > story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
> > before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
> > -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
> > Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
> > have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
> > impact on the record's prestige.
>
> > The fact is that no sports record has "always" been regarded as
> > significant. Records *become* important when the magnitude of the
> > achievement which they represent cannot be denied. If a rather
> > difficult feat has been accomplished five times by one athlete, four
> > times by another athlete, and three times by a third, the record might
> > not attract much attention. But if a new player comes along and
> > accomplishes the difficult feat, say, *15* times, you can be sure
> > attention will follow. Obliterating the old standard is much more
> > crucial to establishing prestige than the identity of the previous
> > record holder. That is why Federer's slam SF streak is now an
> > important record.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Yes, I think you make a good point here. Who held the record for the
> longest hitting streak
> before Joe D? Hell if I know. And now that's probably the second most
> significant record in all of baseball.

It was Wee Willie Keeler, at 44. The reason I know that offhand is
that I once read a book about DiMaggio's 1941 season. Interestingly,
however, Keeler's record -- set in the 19th century -- had been all
but forgotten at the time of DiMaggio's streak. After DiMaggio passed
George Sisler (41), people thought he owned the record, but a reporter
did some digging and said hold on -- there's a guy with 44 from way
back when. But that uncertainty and confusion did not diminish the
excitement about DiMaggio's streak.

>
> Also, certainly how long the record that someone sets manages to stand
> will have a lot to do with how prestigious it is deemed in the future,
> and not just whether the record was known before you broke it.

Yes, good point. Longstanding records become self-justifying to a
degree.

> However, back to the issue of Fed's semifinal streak, I think Whisper
> does have a point that Evert has a much longer one and almost no one
> talks about it.

That is a different objection from the claim that a record is
insignificant unless the previous holder is well-known, which is
false. The Evert argument focuses on the importance of the underlying
accomplishments -- i.e., people supposedly don't care that much about
slam semi-finalists. However, men's and women's tennis records usually
have been viewed as pretty independent of each other. I think most
tennis fans have a basic understanding that talent was pretty thinly
spread in women's tennis in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the men's
game of that time, and certainly compared to the contemporary men's
game. Thus, I don't believe that the significance, or lack thereof, of
an Evert record has much bearing on the significance of a similar
Federer record.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 19 Dec 2008 16:24:50
From:
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
In article
<fcb33865-8000-43fb-9737-33b46b2edaf6@k24g2000pri.googlegroups.com >,
josephmramirez@netzero.com (Joe Ramirez) wrote:

> That is a different objection from the claim that a record is
> insignificant unless the previous holder is well-known, which is
> false. The Evert argument focuses on the importance of the
> underlying
> accomplishments -- i.e., people supposedly don't care that much
> about
> slam semi-finalists. However, men's and women's tennis records
> usually
> have been viewed as pretty independent of each other. I think most
> tennis fans have a basic understanding that talent was pretty thinly
> spread in women's tennis in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the
> men's
> game of that time, and certainly compared to the contemporary men's
> game. Thus, I don't believe that the significance, or lack thereof,
> of
> an Evert record has much bearing on the significance of a similar
> Federer record.

I don't really think of her record as insignificant. After all, it's not
like anyone else achieved it.

wg


   
Date: 20 Dec 2008 20:01:13
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article
> <fcb33865-8000-43fb-9737-33b46b2edaf6@k24g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> josephmramirez@netzero.com (Joe Ramirez) wrote:
>
>> That is a different objection from the claim that a record is
>> insignificant unless the previous holder is well-known, which is
>> false. The Evert argument focuses on the importance of the
>> underlying
>> accomplishments -- i.e., people supposedly don't care that much
>> about
>> slam semi-finalists. However, men's and women's tennis records
>> usually
>> have been viewed as pretty independent of each other. I think most
>> tennis fans have a basic understanding that talent was pretty thinly
>> spread in women's tennis in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the
>> men's
>> game of that time, and certainly compared to the contemporary men's
>> game. Thus, I don't believe that the significance, or lack thereof,
>> of
>> an Evert record has much bearing on the significance of a similar
>> Federer record.
>
> I don't really think of her record as insignificant. After all, it's not
> like anyone else achieved it.
>
> wg



Bet she'd swap it for even 1 more AO - that would give her 19 slams & MN 18.



  
Date: 19 Dec 2008 18:32:41
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Dec 18, 12:04 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 11:21 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>> Correct observation.
>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>> experience. There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>> The fact is that no sports record has "always" been regarded as
>>> significant. Records *become* important when the magnitude of the
>>> achievement which they represent cannot be denied. If a rather
>>> difficult feat has been accomplished five times by one athlete, four
>>> times by another athlete, and three times by a third, the record might
>>> not attract much attention. But if a new player comes along and
>>> accomplishes the difficult feat, say, *15* times, you can be sure
>>> attention will follow. Obliterating the old standard is much more
>>> crucial to establishing prestige than the identity of the previous
>>> record holder. That is why Federer's slam SF streak is now an
>>> important record.
>>> Joe Ramirez
>> Yes, I think you make a good point here. Who held the record for the
>> longest hitting streak
>> before Joe D? Hell if I know. And now that's probably the second most
>> significant record in all of baseball.
>
> It was Wee Willie Keeler, at 44. The reason I know that offhand is
> that I once read a book about DiMaggio's 1941 season. Interestingly,
> however, Keeler's record -- set in the 19th century -- had been all
> but forgotten at the time of DiMaggio's streak. After DiMaggio passed
> George Sisler (41), people thought he owned the record, but a reporter
> did some digging and said hold on -- there's a guy with 44 from way
> back when. But that uncertainty and confusion did not diminish the
> excitement about DiMaggio's streak.
>
>> Also, certainly how long the record that someone sets manages to stand
>> will have a lot to do with how prestigious it is deemed in the future,
>> and not just whether the record was known before you broke it.
>
> Yes, good point. Longstanding records become self-justifying to a
> degree.
>
>> However, back to the issue of Fed's semifinal streak, I think Whisper
>> does have a point that Evert has a much longer one and almost no one
>> talks about it.
>
> That is a different objection from the claim that a record is
> insignificant unless the previous holder is well-known, which is
> false. The Evert argument focuses on the importance of the underlying
> accomplishments -- i.e., people supposedly don't care that much about
> slam semi-finalists. However, men's and women's tennis records usually
> have been viewed as pretty independent of each other. I think most
> tennis fans have a basic understanding that talent was pretty thinly
> spread in women's tennis in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the men's
> game of that time, and certainly compared to the contemporary men's
> game. Thus, I don't believe that the significance, or lack thereof, of
> an Evert record has much bearing on the significance of a similar
> Federer record.
>
> Joe Ramirez



Very unconvincing argument. You just have to accept Fed will not be
remembered for his s/f record as it is far less valuable than even 1
more AO title.



  
Date: 18 Dec 2008 20:48:55
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Dec 18, 12:04 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 11:21 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>> Correct observation.
>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>> experience. There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>> The fact is that no sports record has "always" been regarded as
>>> significant. Records *become* important when the magnitude of the
>>> achievement which they represent cannot be denied. If a rather
>>> difficult feat has been accomplished five times by one athlete, four
>>> times by another athlete, and three times by a third, the record might
>>> not attract much attention. But if a new player comes along and
>>> accomplishes the difficult feat, say, *15* times, you can be sure
>>> attention will follow. Obliterating the old standard is much more
>>> crucial to establishing prestige than the identity of the previous
>>> record holder. That is why Federer's slam SF streak is now an
>>> important record.
>>> Joe Ramirez
>> Yes, I think you make a good point here. Who held the record for the
>> longest hitting streak
>> before Joe D? Hell if I know. And now that's probably the second most
>> significant record in all of baseball.
>
> It was Wee Willie Keeler, at 44. The reason I know that offhand is
> that I once read a book about DiMaggio's 1941 season. Interestingly,
> however, Keeler's record -- set in the 19th century -- had been all
> but forgotten at the time of DiMaggio's streak. After DiMaggio passed
> George Sisler (41), people thought he owned the record, but a reporter
> did some digging and said hold on -- there's a guy with 44 from way
> back when. But that uncertainty and confusion did not diminish the
> excitement about DiMaggio's streak.
>
>> Also, certainly how long the record that someone sets manages to stand
>> will have a lot to do with how prestigious it is deemed in the future,
>> and not just whether the record was known before you broke it.
>
> Yes, good point. Longstanding records become self-justifying to a
> degree.
>
>> However, back to the issue of Fed's semifinal streak, I think Whisper
>> does have a point that Evert has a much longer one and almost no one
>> talks about it.
>
> That is a different objection from the claim that a record is
> insignificant unless the previous holder is well-known, which is
> false. The Evert argument focuses on the importance of the underlying
> accomplishments -- i.e., people supposedly don't care that much about
> slam semi-finalists. However, men's and women's tennis records usually
> have been viewed as pretty independent of each other. I think most
> tennis fans have a basic understanding that talent was pretty thinly
> spread in women's tennis in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the men's
> game of that time, and certainly compared to the contemporary men's
> game. Thus, I don't believe that the significance, or lack thereof, of
> an Evert record has much bearing on the significance of a similar
> Federer record.
>
> Joe Ramirez

You are very close to admitting that this "record" of Federer is hogwash
and you were simply influenced by your fanboyism on your arguments. You
will grow as a person if you're able to admit this to yourself.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 18 Dec 2008 09:04:55
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Dec 18, 11:21=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Dec 18, 8:02=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> > Whisper wrote:
>
> > > Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why t=
he
> > > fuck is it important now....?
>
> > Correct observation.
>
> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
> experience. There are numerous examples of respected sports records
> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
> known, even by fans of the sport.
>
> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
> important before Phelps broke it.
> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
> impact on the record's prestige.
>
> The fact is that no sports record has "always" been regarded as
> significant. Records *become* important when the magnitude of the
> achievement which they represent cannot be denied. If a rather
> difficult feat has been accomplished five times by one athlete, four
> times by another athlete, and three times by a third, the record might
> not attract much attention. But if a new player comes along and
> accomplishes the difficult feat, say, *15* times, you can be sure
> attention will follow. Obliterating the old standard is much more
> crucial to establishing prestige than the identity of the previous
> record holder. That is why Federer's slam SF streak is now an
> important record.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Yes, I think you make a good point here. Who held the record for the
longest hitting streak
before Joe D? Hell if I know. And now that's probably the second most
significant record in all of baseball.

Also, certainly how long the record that someone sets manages to stand
will have a lot to do with how prestigious it is deemed in the future,
and not just whether the record was known before you broke it.

However, back to the issue of Fed's semifinal streak, I think Whisper
does have a point that Evert has a much longer one and almost no one
talks about it.


  
Date: 19 Dec 2008 18:28:28
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Dec 18, 11:21 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>> Correct observation.
>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>> experience. There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>
>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>> important before Phelps broke it.
>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>
>> The fact is that no sports record has "always" been regarded as
>> significant. Records *become* important when the magnitude of the
>> achievement which they represent cannot be denied. If a rather
>> difficult feat has been accomplished five times by one athlete, four
>> times by another athlete, and three times by a third, the record might
>> not attract much attention. But if a new player comes along and
>> accomplishes the difficult feat, say, *15* times, you can be sure
>> attention will follow. Obliterating the old standard is much more
>> crucial to establishing prestige than the identity of the previous
>> record holder. That is why Federer's slam SF streak is now an
>> important record.
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
> Yes, I think you make a good point here. Who held the record for the
> longest hitting streak
> before Joe D? Hell if I know. And now that's probably the second most
> significant record in all of baseball.
>
> Also, certainly how long the record that someone sets manages to stand
> will have a lot to do with how prestigious it is deemed in the future,
> and not just whether the record was known before you broke it.
>
> However, back to the issue of Fed's semifinal streak, I think Whisper
> does have a point that Evert has a much longer one and almost no one
> talks about it.


Yes, & Evert winning a 4th Wimbledon woulda added far more to her legacy
- that gives you some perspective where these lower level records stand
- basically nowhere.





   
Date: 19 Dec 2008 13:27:03
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Whisper wrote:
> Jason Catlin wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 11:21 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why
>>>>> the
>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>> Correct observation.
>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>> experience. There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>>
>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>>
>>> The fact is that no sports record has "always" been regarded as
>>> significant. Records *become* important when the magnitude of the
>>> achievement which they represent cannot be denied. If a rather
>>> difficult feat has been accomplished five times by one athlete, four
>>> times by another athlete, and three times by a third, the record might
>>> not attract much attention. But if a new player comes along and
>>> accomplishes the difficult feat, say, *15* times, you can be sure
>>> attention will follow. Obliterating the old standard is much more
>>> crucial to establishing prestige than the identity of the previous
>>> record holder. That is why Federer's slam SF streak is now an
>>> important record.
>>>
>>> Joe Ramirez
>>
>> Yes, I think you make a good point here. Who held the record for the
>> longest hitting streak
>> before Joe D? Hell if I know. And now that's probably the second most
>> significant record in all of baseball.
>>
>> Also, certainly how long the record that someone sets manages to stand
>> will have a lot to do with how prestigious it is deemed in the future,
>> and not just whether the record was known before you broke it.
>>
>> However, back to the issue of Fed's semifinal streak, I think Whisper
>> does have a point that Evert has a much longer one and almost no one
>> talks about it.
>
>
> Yes, & Evert winning a 4th Wimbledon woulda added far more to her legacy
> - that gives you some perspective where these lower level records stand
> - basically nowhere.
>
>


Actually evert winning one more FO would have been better for her
legacy. But 7 is not bad either...


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 18 Dec 2008 08:21:36
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Dec 18, 8:02=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>
> > Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
> > fuck is it important now....?
>
> Correct observation.

Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
experience. There are numerous examples of respected sports records
held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
known, even by fans of the sport.

-Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
-Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
important before Phelps broke it.
-Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
-For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
impact on the record's prestige.

The fact is that no sports record has "always" been regarded as
significant. Records *become* important when the magnitude of the
achievement which they represent cannot be denied. If a rather
difficult feat has been accomplished five times by one athlete, four
times by another athlete, and three times by a third, the record might
not attract much attention. But if a new player comes along and
accomplishes the difficult feat, say, *15* times, you can be sure
attention will follow. Obliterating the old standard is much more
crucial to establishing prestige than the identity of the previous
record holder. That is why Federer's slam SF streak is now an
important record.

Joe Ramirez




  
Date: 19 Dec 2008 18:25:33
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>
>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
>>> fuck is it important now....?
>> Correct observation.
>
> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
> experience. There are numerous examples of respected sports records
> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
> known, even by fans of the sport.
>
> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
> important before Phelps broke it.
> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
> impact on the record's prestige.
>
> The fact is that no sports record has "always" been regarded as
> significant. Records *become* important when the magnitude of the
> achievement which they represent cannot be denied. If a rather
> difficult feat has been accomplished five times by one athlete, four
> times by another athlete, and three times by a third, the record might
> not attract much attention. But if a new player comes along and
> accomplishes the difficult feat, say, *15* times, you can be sure
> attention will follow. Obliterating the old standard is much more
> crucial to establishing prestige than the identity of the previous
> record holder. That is why Federer's slam SF streak is now an
> important record.
>
> Joe Ramirez
>
>


Fed winning 1 more Wimbledon adds far more to his legacy than s/f sequence.



  
Date: 18 Dec 2008 20:42:45
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>
>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
>>> fuck is it important now....?
>> Correct observation.
>
> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
> experience.
> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
> known, even by fans of the sport.
>
> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
> important before Phelps broke it.
> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
> impact on the record's prestige.
>

Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on these
examples one would have to know current record holder and person who
held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record before
Federer...or do we...Connors?

Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals before
Federer broke it.
Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ know
of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.


> The fact is that no sports record has "always" been regarded as
> significant. Records *become* important when the magnitude of the
> achievement which they represent cannot be denied. If a rather
> difficult feat has been accomplished five times by one athlete, four
> times by another athlete, and three times by a third, the record might
> not attract much attention. But if a new player comes along and
> accomplishes the difficult feat, say, *15* times, you can be sure
> attention will follow. Obliterating the old standard is much more
> crucial to establishing prestige than the identity of the previous
> record holder.

Yes, you have a point here.

That is why Federer's slam SF streak is now an
> important record.
>

No, it is not, it's not particularly impressive - actually I'm surprised
nobody reached more semifinals consecutively.

I was going to point out that nobody talks about women's same
record(which I didn't even know it was held by Evert before Jason
mentioned it).

Consecutive sf's is a rather cherrypicked stat, which was invented by
fedfans after fed's run of consecutive slam finals ended. If Federer
loses at quarters we'll probably be hearing about this new great record
of consecutive gf appearances...


And then there's the word "consecutive". From this we come to conclusion
that the real record is "most slam semifinal appearances"...which is
held by whom and how many? ...Exactly.


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


   
Date: 18 Dec 2008 23:34:52
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:42:45 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>> Correct observation.
>>
>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>> experience.
>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>
>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>> important before Phelps broke it.
>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>
>
>Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on these
>examples one would have to know current record holder and person who
>held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
>record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record before
>Federer...or do we...Connors?
>
>Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals before
>Federer broke it.
>Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ know
>of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
>absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>
>
>> The fact is that no sports record has "always" been regarded as
>> significant. Records *become* important when the magnitude of the
>> achievement which they represent cannot be denied. If a rather
>> difficult feat has been accomplished five times by one athlete, four
>> times by another athlete, and three times by a third, the record might
>> not attract much attention. But if a new player comes along and
>> accomplishes the difficult feat, say, *15* times, you can be sure
>> attention will follow. Obliterating the old standard is much more
>> crucial to establishing prestige than the identity of the previous
>> record holder.
>
>Yes, you have a point here.
>
>That is why Federer's slam SF streak is now an
>> important record.
>>
>
>No, it is not, it's not particularly impressive - actually I'm surprised
>nobody reached more semifinals consecutively.
>
>I was going to point out that nobody talks about women's same
>record(which I didn't even know it was held by Evert before Jason
>mentioned it).
>
>Consecutive sf's is a rather cherrypicked stat, which was invented by
>fedfans after fed's run of consecutive slam finals ended. If Federer
>loses at quarters we'll probably be hearing about this new great record
>of consecutive gf appearances...
>
>
>And then there's the word "consecutive". From this we come to conclusion
>that the real record is "most slam semifinal appearances"...which is
>held by whom and how many? ...Exactly.

I think everyone is missing the point here. Federer's consecutive slam
SF record is not a really important record, and it is a bit
artificial. The point is, when you think about it, 18 is an
unbelievable number. What was it, 5 players have a streak of 5 in the
open era. A player like Sampras has a streak of 3. Federer has 18! It
is a sign of amazing consistency over years and over surfaces, and
also a sign of avoiding injuries.

No, it is not a really important record. But the only reason to say it
is not unbelievable number, is if you simply cannot say Federer has
done anything unbelievable.



    
Date: 19 Dec 2008 18:52:49
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:42:45 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>> Correct observation.
>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>> experience.
>>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>>
>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>>
>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on these
>> examples one would have to know current record holder and person who
>> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
>> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record before
>> Federer...or do we...Connors?
>>
>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals before
>> Federer broke it.
>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ know
>> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
>> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>>
>>
>>> The fact is that no sports record has "always" been regarded as
>>> significant. Records *become* important when the magnitude of the
>>> achievement which they represent cannot be denied. If a rather
>>> difficult feat has been accomplished five times by one athlete, four
>>> times by another athlete, and three times by a third, the record might
>>> not attract much attention. But if a new player comes along and
>>> accomplishes the difficult feat, say, *15* times, you can be sure
>>> attention will follow. Obliterating the old standard is much more
>>> crucial to establishing prestige than the identity of the previous
>>> record holder.
>> Yes, you have a point here.
>>
>> That is why Federer's slam SF streak is now an
>>> important record.
>>>
>> No, it is not, it's not particularly impressive - actually I'm surprised
>> nobody reached more semifinals consecutively.
>>
>> I was going to point out that nobody talks about women's same
>> record(which I didn't even know it was held by Evert before Jason
>> mentioned it).
>>
>> Consecutive sf's is a rather cherrypicked stat, which was invented by
>> fedfans after fed's run of consecutive slam finals ended. If Federer
>> loses at quarters we'll probably be hearing about this new great record
>> of consecutive gf appearances...
>>
>>
>> And then there's the word "consecutive". From this we come to conclusion
>> that the real record is "most slam semifinal appearances"...which is
>> held by whom and how many? ...Exactly.
>
> I think everyone is missing the point here. Federer's consecutive slam
> SF record is not a really important record, and it is a bit
> artificial. The point is, when you think about it, 18 is an
> unbelievable number. What was it, 5 players have a streak of 5 in the
> open era. A player like Sampras has a streak of 3. Federer has 18! It
> is a sign of amazing consistency over years and over surfaces, and
> also a sign of avoiding injuries.
>
> No, it is not a really important record. But the only reason to say it
> is not unbelievable number, is if you simply cannot say Federer has
> done anything unbelievable.
>


I don't find it unbelievable at all - I can't think of any good players
who could put up a fight besides Rafa?



    
Date: 19 Dec 2008 00:09:58
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:42:45 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>> Correct observation.
>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>> experience.
>>> There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>>
>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>>
>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on these
>> examples one would have to know current record holder and person who
>> held it before...while in reality people remember only the current
>> record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record before
>> Federer...or do we...Connors?
>>
>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals before
>> Federer broke it.
>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_ know
>> of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper is
>> absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>>
>>
>>> The fact is that no sports record has "always" been regarded as
>>> significant. Records *become* important when the magnitude of the
>>> achievement which they represent cannot be denied. If a rather
>>> difficult feat has been accomplished five times by one athlete, four
>>> times by another athlete, and three times by a third, the record might
>>> not attract much attention. But if a new player comes along and
>>> accomplishes the difficult feat, say, *15* times, you can be sure
>>> attention will follow. Obliterating the old standard is much more
>>> crucial to establishing prestige than the identity of the previous
>>> record holder.
>> Yes, you have a point here.
>>
>> That is why Federer's slam SF streak is now an
>>> important record.
>>>
>> No, it is not, it's not particularly impressive - actually I'm surprised
>> nobody reached more semifinals consecutively.
>>
>> I was going to point out that nobody talks about women's same
>> record(which I didn't even know it was held by Evert before Jason
>> mentioned it).
>>
>> Consecutive sf's is a rather cherrypicked stat, which was invented by
>> fedfans after fed's run of consecutive slam finals ended. If Federer
>> loses at quarters we'll probably be hearing about this new great record
>> of consecutive gf appearances...
>>
>>
>> And then there's the word "consecutive". From this we come to conclusion
>> that the real record is "most slam semifinal appearances"...which is
>> held by whom and how many? ...Exactly.
>
> I think everyone is missing the point here. Federer's consecutive slam
> SF record is not a really important record, and it is a bit
> artificial. The point is, when you think about it, 18 is an
> unbelievable number. What was it, 5 players have a streak of 5 in the
> open era. A player like Sampras has a streak of 3. Federer has 18! It
> is a sign of amazing consistency over years and over surfaces, and
> also a sign of avoiding injuries.
>
> No, it is not a really important record. But the only reason to say it
> is not unbelievable number, is if you simply cannot say Federer has
> done anything unbelievable.
>

Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a great
statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.

What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info? How
long was Evert's sf run?

I'm not even certain they have included pre-open era stats...or when
someone has simply skipped a slam.

What next...consecutive matches not losing to over top 67 ranked players
since 1990?

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


     
Date: 19 Dec 2008 00:27:52
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
TT wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:42:45 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then
>>>>>> why the
>>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>>> Correct observation.
>>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>>> experience. There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>>>
>>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>>>
>>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on
>>> these examples one would have to know current record holder and
>>> person who held it before...while in reality people remember only the
>>> current record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record
>>> before Federer...or do we...Connors?
>>>
>>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals
>>> before Federer broke it.
>>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_
>>> know of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper
>>> is absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The fact is that no sports record has "always" been regarded as
>>>> significant. Records *become* important when the magnitude of the
>>>> achievement which they represent cannot be denied. If a rather
>>>> difficult feat has been accomplished five times by one athlete, four
>>>> times by another athlete, and three times by a third, the record might
>>>> not attract much attention. But if a new player comes along and
>>>> accomplishes the difficult feat, say, *15* times, you can be sure
>>>> attention will follow. Obliterating the old standard is much more
>>>> crucial to establishing prestige than the identity of the previous
>>>> record holder.
>>> Yes, you have a point here.
>>>
>>> That is why Federer's slam SF streak is now an
>>>> important record.
>>>>
>>> No, it is not, it's not particularly impressive - actually I'm
>>> surprised nobody reached more semifinals consecutively.
>>>
>>> I was going to point out that nobody talks about women's same
>>> record(which I didn't even know it was held by Evert before Jason
>>> mentioned it).
>>>
>>> Consecutive sf's is a rather cherrypicked stat, which was invented by
>>> fedfans after fed's run of consecutive slam finals ended. If Federer
>>> loses at quarters we'll probably be hearing about this new great
>>> record of consecutive gf appearances...
>>>
>>>
>>> And then there's the word "consecutive". From this we come to
>>> conclusion that the real record is "most slam semifinal
>>> appearances"...which is held by whom and how many? ...Exactly.
>>
>> I think everyone is missing the point here. Federer's consecutive slam
>> SF record is not a really important record, and it is a bit
>> artificial. The point is, when you think about it, 18 is an
>> unbelievable number. What was it, 5 players have a streak of 5 in the
>> open era. A player like Sampras has a streak of 3. Federer has 18! It
>> is a sign of amazing consistency over years and over surfaces, and
>> also a sign of avoiding injuries.
>>
>> No, it is not a really important record. But the only reason to say it
>> is not unbelievable number, is if you simply cannot say Federer has
>> done anything unbelievable.
>>
>
> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a great
> statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>
> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info? How
> long was Evert's sf run?

Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some AOs
and FOs during that streak. Navratilova 18 SF streak, Graf around same.
Hingis 11.

Evert lost couple of times on third round...so she has a streak of 56
for 3rd round appearances. ;)

Lendl has 10? sf streak. Connors around 30 QF streak...Borg lost once in
QF during 1978-1981.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


      
Date: 19 Dec 2008 18:54:05
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
TT wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:42:45 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then
>>>>>>> why the
>>>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>>>> Correct observation.
>>>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>>>> experience. There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>>>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins before
>>>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>>>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>>>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an important
>>>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a big
>>>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>>>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>>>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could not
>>>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>>>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>>>>
>>>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on
>>>> these examples one would have to know current record holder and
>>>> person who held it before...while in reality people remember only
>>>> the current record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>>>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>>>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record
>>>> before Federer...or do we...Connors?
>>>>
>>>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals
>>>> before Federer broke it.
>>>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_
>>>> know of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper
>>>> is absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The fact is that no sports record has "always" been regarded as
>>>>> significant. Records *become* important when the magnitude of the
>>>>> achievement which they represent cannot be denied. If a rather
>>>>> difficult feat has been accomplished five times by one athlete, four
>>>>> times by another athlete, and three times by a third, the record might
>>>>> not attract much attention. But if a new player comes along and
>>>>> accomplishes the difficult feat, say, *15* times, you can be sure
>>>>> attention will follow. Obliterating the old standard is much more
>>>>> crucial to establishing prestige than the identity of the previous
>>>>> record holder.
>>>> Yes, you have a point here.
>>>>
>>>> That is why Federer's slam SF streak is now an
>>>>> important record.
>>>>>
>>>> No, it is not, it's not particularly impressive - actually I'm
>>>> surprised nobody reached more semifinals consecutively.
>>>>
>>>> I was going to point out that nobody talks about women's same
>>>> record(which I didn't even know it was held by Evert before Jason
>>>> mentioned it).
>>>>
>>>> Consecutive sf's is a rather cherrypicked stat, which was invented
>>>> by fedfans after fed's run of consecutive slam finals ended. If
>>>> Federer loses at quarters we'll probably be hearing about this new
>>>> great record of consecutive gf appearances...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And then there's the word "consecutive". From this we come to
>>>> conclusion that the real record is "most slam semifinal
>>>> appearances"...which is held by whom and how many? ...Exactly.
>>>
>>> I think everyone is missing the point here. Federer's consecutive slam
>>> SF record is not a really important record, and it is a bit
>>> artificial. The point is, when you think about it, 18 is an
>>> unbelievable number. What was it, 5 players have a streak of 5 in the
>>> open era. A player like Sampras has a streak of 3. Federer has 18! It
>>> is a sign of amazing consistency over years and over surfaces, and
>>> also a sign of avoiding injuries.
>>>
>>> No, it is not a really important record. But the only reason to say it
>>> is not unbelievable number, is if you simply cannot say Federer has
>>> done anything unbelievable.
>>>
>>
>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a great
>> statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>
>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info? How
>> long was Evert's sf run?
>
> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some AOs
> and FOs during that streak. Navratilova 18 SF streak, Graf around same.
> Hingis 11.
>
> Evert lost couple of times on third round...so she has a streak of 56
> for 3rd round appearances. ;)
>
> Lendl has 10? sf streak. Connors around 30 QF streak...Borg lost once in
> QF during 1978-1981.
>


None of these threaten even 1 AO title in significance in the real world.



       
Date: 19 Dec 2008 12:53:01
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:42:45 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 18, 8:02 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then
>>>>>>>> why the
>>>>>>>> fuck is it important now....?
>>>>>>> Correct observation.
>>>>>> Incorrect observation. This is not a question of logic, but of
>>>>>> experience. There are numerous examples of respected sports records
>>>>>> held by famous players for which the previous holders are not widely
>>>>>> known, even by fans of the sport.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Who held the record for most consecutive clay court match wins
>>>>>> before
>>>>>> Vilas? How many tennis fans know without looking it up? Yet Vilas'
>>>>>> record was already regarded as important when Nadal broke it.
>>>>>> -Who held the record for most individual gold medals at a single
>>>>>> Olympic Games before Mark Spitz? How many Olympic fans know without
>>>>>> looking it up? Yet Spitz's record was universally regarded as
>>>>>> important before Phelps broke it.
>>>>>> -Wayne Gretzky holds the record for most consecutive National Hockey
>>>>>> League games with at least one point scored (51). This is an
>>>>>> important
>>>>>> NHL mark, and when Mario Lemieux was chasing it, the pursuit was a
>>>>>> big
>>>>>> story (he finished with 46). Yet I have no idea who held the record
>>>>>> before Gretzky, and I follow hockey.
>>>>>> -For 40 years, the most revered record in American baseball was Babe
>>>>>> Ruth's career home runs total of 714. Yet most baseball fans could
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> have said who held the record before Ruth. Their ignorance had zero
>>>>>> impact on the record's prestige.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Joe, your basic assumption is wrong here. You're arguing that on
>>>>> these examples one would have to know current record holder and
>>>>> person who held it before...while in reality people remember only
>>>>> the current record holder and forget soon the previous record holder.
>>>>> Of course when record is being broken the last record holder gets
>>>>> mentioned, which is the only reason we know who held the record
>>>>> before Federer...or do we...Connors?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody remembered this previous record of consecutive semifinals
>>>>> before Federer broke it.
>>>>> Phelps broke Spitz's record - the difference here is that we _did_
>>>>> know of Spitz's record before Phelps broke it. On this part Whisper
>>>>> is absolutely correct and you are wrong Joe.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact is that no sports record has "always" been regarded as
>>>>>> significant. Records *become* important when the magnitude of the
>>>>>> achievement which they represent cannot be denied. If a rather
>>>>>> difficult feat has been accomplished five times by one athlete, four
>>>>>> times by another athlete, and three times by a third, the record
>>>>>> might
>>>>>> not attract much attention. But if a new player comes along and
>>>>>> accomplishes the difficult feat, say, *15* times, you can be sure
>>>>>> attention will follow. Obliterating the old standard is much more
>>>>>> crucial to establishing prestige than the identity of the previous
>>>>>> record holder.
>>>>> Yes, you have a point here.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is why Federer's slam SF streak is now an
>>>>>> important record.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is not, it's not particularly impressive - actually I'm
>>>>> surprised nobody reached more semifinals consecutively.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was going to point out that nobody talks about women's same
>>>>> record(which I didn't even know it was held by Evert before Jason
>>>>> mentioned it).
>>>>>
>>>>> Consecutive sf's is a rather cherrypicked stat, which was invented
>>>>> by fedfans after fed's run of consecutive slam finals ended. If
>>>>> Federer loses at quarters we'll probably be hearing about this new
>>>>> great record of consecutive gf appearances...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And then there's the word "consecutive". From this we come to
>>>>> conclusion that the real record is "most slam semifinal
>>>>> appearances"...which is held by whom and how many? ...Exactly.
>>>>
>>>> I think everyone is missing the point here. Federer's consecutive slam
>>>> SF record is not a really important record, and it is a bit
>>>> artificial. The point is, when you think about it, 18 is an
>>>> unbelievable number. What was it, 5 players have a streak of 5 in the
>>>> open era. A player like Sampras has a streak of 3. Federer has 18! It
>>>> is a sign of amazing consistency over years and over surfaces, and
>>>> also a sign of avoiding injuries.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not a really important record. But the only reason to say it
>>>> is not unbelievable number, is if you simply cannot say Federer has
>>>> done anything unbelievable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a great
>>> statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>>
>>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info? How
>>> long was Evert's sf run?
>>
>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some AOs
>> and FOs during that streak. Navratilova 18 SF streak, Graf around
>> same. Hingis 11.
>>
>> Evert lost couple of times on third round...so she has a streak of 56
>> for 3rd round appearances. ;)
>>
>> Lendl has 10? sf streak. Connors around 30 QF streak...Borg lost once
>> in QF during 1978-1981.
>>
>
>
> None of these threaten even 1 AO title in significance in the real world.
>

But it makes Evert the goat though.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


        
Date: 21 Dec 2008 07:45:27
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>>
>>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some
>>> AOs and FOs during that streak. Navratilova 18 SF streak, Graf
>>> around same. Hingis 11.
>>>
>>> Evert lost couple of times on third round...so she has a streak of
>>> 56 for 3rd round appearances. ;)
>>>
>>> Lendl has 10? sf streak. Connors around 30 QF streak...Borg lost
>>> once in QF during 1978-1981.
>>>
>>
>>
>> None of these threaten even 1 AO title in significance in the real
>> world.
>>
>
> But it makes Evert the goat though.

Semis score zero in GOAT calculations. 34 x 0 = 0.





         
Date: 21 Dec 2008 20:42:48
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
DavidW wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> TT wrote:
>>>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some
>>>> AOs and FOs during that streak. Navratilova 18 SF streak, Graf
>>>> around same. Hingis 11.
>>>>
>>>> Evert lost couple of times on third round...so she has a streak of
>>>> 56 for 3rd round appearances. ;)
>>>>
>>>> Lendl has 10? sf streak. Connors around 30 QF streak...Borg lost
>>>> once in QF during 1978-1981.
>>>>
>>>
>>> None of these threaten even 1 AO title in significance in the real
>>> world.
>>>
>> But it makes Evert the goat though.
>
> Semis score zero in GOAT calculations. 34 x 0 = 0.
>
>
>



Correct.


      
Date: 19 Dec 2008 00:57:18
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:27:52 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>>> I think everyone is missing the point here. Federer's consecutive slam
>>> SF record is not a really important record, and it is a bit
>>> artificial. The point is, when you think about it, 18 is an
>>> unbelievable number. What was it, 5 players have a streak of 5 in the
>>> open era. A player like Sampras has a streak of 3. Federer has 18! It
>>> is a sign of amazing consistency over years and over surfaces, and
>>> also a sign of avoiding injuries.
>>>
>>> No, it is not a really important record. But the only reason to say it
>>> is not unbelievable number, is if you simply cannot say Federer has
>>> done anything unbelievable.
>>>
>>
>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a great
>> statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>
>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info? How
>> long was Evert's sf run?
>
>Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some AOs
>and FOs during that streak.

So she does not have a streak of 34.

>Lendl has 10? sf streak.

Yes, I think Lendl had a previous record with 10. AFAIR, other with 5
are Becker, Djokovic and someone else. Prety good for Djokovic too.


       
Date: 19 Dec 2008 01:13:04
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:27:52 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>>>> I think everyone is missing the point here. Federer's consecutive slam
>>>> SF record is not a really important record, and it is a bit
>>>> artificial. The point is, when you think about it, 18 is an
>>>> unbelievable number. What was it, 5 players have a streak of 5 in the
>>>> open era. A player like Sampras has a streak of 3. Federer has 18! It
>>>> is a sign of amazing consistency over years and over surfaces, and
>>>> also a sign of avoiding injuries.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not a really important record. But the only reason to say it
>>>> is not unbelievable number, is if you simply cannot say Federer has
>>>> done anything unbelievable.
>>>>
>>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a great
>>> statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>>
>>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info? How
>>> long was Evert's sf run?
>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some AOs
>> and FOs during that streak.
>
> So she does not have a streak of 34.

By that logic that kind of streak is historically totally meaningless.
Everyone used to skip AO. Evert played 12 years without losing at slam SF.

>
>> Lendl has 10? sf streak.
>
> Yes, I think Lendl had a previous record with 10. AFAIR, other with 5
> are Becker, Djokovic and someone else. Prety good for Djokovic too.


Remarkable. Graf won 6 consecutive slams he took part in, skipped couple
AOs. Helen Wills Moody and Maureen Connolly Brinker both won 9 slams in
a row they took part in.

Evert didn't lose before semifinals stage at slams in 12 years.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


        
Date: 19 Dec 2008 01:40:30
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:13:04 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:27:52 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I think everyone is missing the point here. Federer's consecutive slam
>>>>> SF record is not a really important record, and it is a bit
>>>>> artificial. The point is, when you think about it, 18 is an
>>>>> unbelievable number. What was it, 5 players have a streak of 5 in the
>>>>> open era. A player like Sampras has a streak of 3. Federer has 18! It
>>>>> is a sign of amazing consistency over years and over surfaces, and
>>>>> also a sign of avoiding injuries.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is not a really important record. But the only reason to say it
>>>>> is not unbelievable number, is if you simply cannot say Federer has
>>>>> done anything unbelievable.
>>>>>
>>>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a great
>>>> statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>>>
>>>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info? How
>>>> long was Evert's sf run?
>>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some AOs
>>> and FOs during that streak.
>>
>> So she does not have a streak of 34.
>
>By that logic that kind of streak is historically totally meaningless.
>Everyone used to skip AO. Evert played 12 years without losing at slam SF.

That's always a bit unfair to players from 70's. Borg would have
probably won more slams, if he played AO.

But it is even more unfair if you count streaks, but count only those
slams that a player played in. That is totally meaningless if anything
ever is.






         
Date: 19 Dec 2008 10:54:15
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:13:04 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:27:52 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I think everyone is missing the point here. Federer's
>>>>>> consecutive slam SF record is not a really important record, and
>>>>>> it is a bit artificial. The point is, when you think about it,
>>>>>> 18 is an unbelievable number. What was it, 5 players have a
>>>>>> streak of 5 in the open era. A player like Sampras has a streak
>>>>>> of 3. Federer has 18! It is a sign of amazing consistency over
>>>>>> years and over surfaces, and also a sign of avoiding injuries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is not a really important record. But the only reason to
>>>>>> say it is not unbelievable number, is if you simply cannot say
>>>>>> Federer has done anything unbelievable.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a
>>>>> great statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>>>>
>>>>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info?
>>>>> How long was Evert's sf run?
>>>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some
>>>> AOs and FOs during that streak.
>>>
>>> So she does not have a streak of 34.
>>
>> By that logic that kind of streak is historically totally
>> meaningless. Everyone used to skip AO. Evert played 12 years without
>> losing at slam SF.
>
> That's always a bit unfair to players from 70's. Borg would have
> probably won more slams, if he played AO.
>
> But it is even more unfair if you count streaks, but count only those
> slams that a player played in. That is totally meaningless if anything
> ever is.

Yes, you can just pick the ones you have the best chance in. You wouldn't count
the streak of a clay-courter who skipped Wimbledon every year.




          
Date: 19 Dec 2008 02:00:14
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
DavidW wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:13:04 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:27:52 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> I think everyone is missing the point here. Federer's
>>>>>>> consecutive slam SF record is not a really important record, and
>>>>>>> it is a bit artificial. The point is, when you think about it,
>>>>>>> 18 is an unbelievable number. What was it, 5 players have a
>>>>>>> streak of 5 in the open era. A player like Sampras has a streak
>>>>>>> of 3. Federer has 18! It is a sign of amazing consistency over
>>>>>>> years and over surfaces, and also a sign of avoiding injuries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is not a really important record. But the only reason to
>>>>>>> say it is not unbelievable number, is if you simply cannot say
>>>>>>> Federer has done anything unbelievable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a
>>>>>> great statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info?
>>>>>> How long was Evert's sf run?
>>>>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some
>>>>> AOs and FOs during that streak.
>>>> So she does not have a streak of 34.
>>> By that logic that kind of streak is historically totally
>>> meaningless. Everyone used to skip AO. Evert played 12 years without
>>> losing at slam SF.
>> That's always a bit unfair to players from 70's. Borg would have
>> probably won more slams, if he played AO.
>>
>> But it is even more unfair if you count streaks, but count only those
>> slams that a player played in. That is totally meaningless if anything
>> ever is.
>
> Yes, you can just pick the ones you have the best chance in. You wouldn't count
> the streak of a clay-courter who skipped Wimbledon every year.
>
>

What if one has 20 slam finals in a row but a sickness or ban or death
of a relative etc in one slam bang in the middle. Would other player
with a record of 11 slam finals be better? Not in my opinion. It's
tennis skills and success we're measuring here.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


           
Date: 19 Dec 2008 11:14:21
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
TT wrote:
> DavidW wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:13:04 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:27:52 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think everyone is missing the point here. Federer's
>>>>>>>> consecutive slam SF record is not a really important record,
>>>>>>>> and it is a bit artificial. The point is, when you think about
>>>>>>>> it, 18 is an unbelievable number. What was it, 5 players have a
>>>>>>>> streak of 5 in the open era. A player like Sampras has a streak
>>>>>>>> of 3. Federer has 18! It is a sign of amazing consistency over
>>>>>>>> years and over surfaces, and also a sign of avoiding injuries.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it is not a really important record. But the only reason to
>>>>>>>> say it is not unbelievable number, is if you simply cannot say
>>>>>>>> Federer has done anything unbelievable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a
>>>>>>> great statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info?
>>>>>>> How long was Evert's sf run?
>>>>>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some
>>>>>> AOs and FOs during that streak.
>>>>> So she does not have a streak of 34.
>>>> By that logic that kind of streak is historically totally
>>>> meaningless. Everyone used to skip AO. Evert played 12 years
>>>> without losing at slam SF.
>>> That's always a bit unfair to players from 70's. Borg would have
>>> probably won more slams, if he played AO.
>>>
>>> But it is even more unfair if you count streaks, but count only
>>> those slams that a player played in. That is totally meaningless if
>>> anything ever is.
>>
>> Yes, you can just pick the ones you have the best chance in. You
>> wouldn't count the streak of a clay-courter who skipped Wimbledon
>> every year.
>
> What if one has 20 slam finals in a row but a sickness or ban

You're seriously suggesting that a ban shouldn't break the streak?

> or death
> of a relative etc in one slam bang in the middle.

Tough.

> Would other player
> with a record of 11 slam finals be better? Not in my opinion.

It depends on what exactly you are asking. Two streaks of 10 are better than one
streak of 11, but the streak of 11 is better than either one of the streaks of
10 in isolation.

> It's
> tennis skills and success we're measuring here.

You don't know that he would have reached the semi of the slam he missed. That's
why it breaks the streak.




            
Date: 19 Dec 2008 02:30:52
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
DavidW wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> DavidW wrote:
>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:13:04 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:27:52 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think everyone is missing the point here. Federer's
>>>>>>>>> consecutive slam SF record is not a really important record,
>>>>>>>>> and it is a bit artificial. The point is, when you think about
>>>>>>>>> it, 18 is an unbelievable number. What was it, 5 players have a
>>>>>>>>> streak of 5 in the open era. A player like Sampras has a streak
>>>>>>>>> of 3. Federer has 18! It is a sign of amazing consistency over
>>>>>>>>> years and over surfaces, and also a sign of avoiding injuries.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, it is not a really important record. But the only reason to
>>>>>>>>> say it is not unbelievable number, is if you simply cannot say
>>>>>>>>> Federer has done anything unbelievable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a
>>>>>>>> great statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info?
>>>>>>>> How long was Evert's sf run?
>>>>>>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some
>>>>>>> AOs and FOs during that streak.
>>>>>> So she does not have a streak of 34.
>>>>> By that logic that kind of streak is historically totally
>>>>> meaningless. Everyone used to skip AO. Evert played 12 years
>>>>> without losing at slam SF.
>>>> That's always a bit unfair to players from 70's. Borg would have
>>>> probably won more slams, if he played AO.
>>>>
>>>> But it is even more unfair if you count streaks, but count only
>>>> those slams that a player played in. That is totally meaningless if
>>>> anything ever is.
>>> Yes, you can just pick the ones you have the best chance in. You
>>> wouldn't count the streak of a clay-courter who skipped Wimbledon
>>> every year.
>> What if one has 20 slam finals in a row but a sickness or ban
>
> You're seriously suggesting that a ban shouldn't break the streak?
>
>> or death
>> of a relative etc in one slam bang in the middle.
>
> Tough.
>
>> Would other player
>> with a record of 11 slam finals be better? Not in my opinion.
>
> It depends on what exactly you are asking. Two streaks of 10 are better than one
> streak of 11, but the streak of 11 is better than either one of the streaks of
> 10 in isolation.
>
>> It's
>> tennis skills and success we're measuring here.
>
> You don't know that he would have reached the semi of the slam he missed. That's
> why it breaks the streak.
>
>

But he still had to get into 20 finals that he played, 20 times in a
row. The one with 11 had to get to 11 finals.

Is one unbeaten if he has a record of 100-0 in a season but skipped one
slam?

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


             
Date: 19 Dec 2008 11:45:48
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
TT wrote:
> DavidW wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>> Yes, you can just pick the ones you have the best chance in. You
>>>> wouldn't count the streak of a clay-courter who skipped Wimbledon
>>>> every year.
>>>
>>> What if one has 20 slam finals in a row but a sickness or ban
>>
>> You're seriously suggesting that a ban shouldn't break the streak?
>>
>>> or death
>>> of a relative etc in one slam bang in the middle.
>>
>> Tough.
>>
>>> Would other player
>>> with a record of 11 slam finals be better? Not in my opinion.
>>
>> It depends on what exactly you are asking. Two streaks of 10 are
>> better than one streak of 11, but the streak of 11 is better than
>> either one of the streaks of 10 in isolation.
>>
>>> It's
>>> tennis skills and success we're measuring here.
>>
>> You don't know that he would have reached the semi of the slam he
>> missed. That's why it breaks the streak.
>>
>
> But he still had to get into 20 finals that he played, 20 times in a
> row. The one with 11 had to get to 11 finals.

No good. He missed one. He might have lost in 1R.

> Is one unbeaten if he has a record of 100-0 in a season but skipped
> one slam?

Of course. Zero losses is what "unbeaten" means.




              
Date: 19 Dec 2008 19:02:21
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
DavidW wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> DavidW wrote:
>>> TT wrote:
>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>> Yes, you can just pick the ones you have the best chance in. You
>>>>> wouldn't count the streak of a clay-courter who skipped Wimbledon
>>>>> every year.
>>>> What if one has 20 slam finals in a row but a sickness or ban
>>> You're seriously suggesting that a ban shouldn't break the streak?
>>>
>>>> or death
>>>> of a relative etc in one slam bang in the middle.
>>> Tough.
>>>
>>>> Would other player
>>>> with a record of 11 slam finals be better? Not in my opinion.
>>> It depends on what exactly you are asking. Two streaks of 10 are
>>> better than one streak of 11, but the streak of 11 is better than
>>> either one of the streaks of 10 in isolation.
>>>
>>>> It's
>>>> tennis skills and success we're measuring here.
>>> You don't know that he would have reached the semi of the slam he
>>> missed. That's why it breaks the streak.
>>>
>> But he still had to get into 20 finals that he played, 20 times in a
>> row. The one with 11 had to get to 11 finals.
>
> No good. He missed one. He might have lost in 1R.
>
>> Is one unbeaten if he has a record of 100-0 in a season but skipped
>> one slam?
>
> Of course. Zero losses is what "unbeaten" means.
>
>



Fed's semi streak includes beatings.



              
Date: 19 Dec 2008 03:04:56
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
DavidW wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> DavidW wrote:
>>> TT wrote:
>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>> Yes, you can just pick the ones you have the best chance in. You
>>>>> wouldn't count the streak of a clay-courter who skipped Wimbledon
>>>>> every year.
>>>> What if one has 20 slam finals in a row but a sickness or ban
>>> You're seriously suggesting that a ban shouldn't break the streak?
>>>
>>>> or death
>>>> of a relative etc in one slam bang in the middle.
>>> Tough.
>>>
>>>> Would other player
>>>> with a record of 11 slam finals be better? Not in my opinion.
>>> It depends on what exactly you are asking. Two streaks of 10 are
>>> better than one streak of 11, but the streak of 11 is better than
>>> either one of the streaks of 10 in isolation.
>>>
>>>> It's
>>>> tennis skills and success we're measuring here.
>>> You don't know that he would have reached the semi of the slam he
>>> missed. That's why it breaks the streak.
>>>
>> But he still had to get into 20 finals that he played, 20 times in a
>> row. The one with 11 had to get to 11 finals.
>
> No good. He missed one. He might have lost in 1R.
>

Yes, but now you're counting it as a loss even though he didn't play.
His fucking dog died and he couldn't play. He was stabbed with a banana.
The only time he got sick it was before a slam. He was banned because
he travelled to South Africa.

>> Is one unbeaten if he has a record of 100-0 in a season but skipped
>> one slam?
>
> Of course. Zero losses is what "unbeaten" means.
>
>

But the guy with 20 finals had unbeaten record of matches before finals.
That's what a statistic such as consecutive finals is all about, not
being beaten before final.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


               
Date: 19 Dec 2008 12:19:12
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
TT wrote:
> DavidW wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, you can just pick the ones you have the best chance in. You
>>>>>> wouldn't count the streak of a clay-courter who skipped Wimbledon
>>>>>> every year.
>>>>> What if one has 20 slam finals in a row but a sickness or ban
>>>> You're seriously suggesting that a ban shouldn't break the streak?
>>>>
>>>>> or death
>>>>> of a relative etc in one slam bang in the middle.
>>>> Tough.
>>>>
>>>>> Would other player
>>>>> with a record of 11 slam finals be better? Not in my opinion.
>>>> It depends on what exactly you are asking. Two streaks of 10 are
>>>> better than one streak of 11, but the streak of 11 is better than
>>>> either one of the streaks of 10 in isolation.
>>>>
>>>>> It's
>>>>> tennis skills and success we're measuring here.
>>>> You don't know that he would have reached the semi of the slam he
>>>> missed. That's why it breaks the streak.
>>>>
>>> But he still had to get into 20 finals that he played, 20 times in a
>>> row. The one with 11 had to get to 11 finals.
>>
>> No good. He missed one. He might have lost in 1R.
>>
>
> Yes, but now you're counting it as a loss even though he didn't play.

I'm counting it as a "loss for all we know".

> His fucking dog died and he couldn't play. He was stabbed with a
> banana. The only time he got sick it was before a slam. He was
> banned because he travelled to South Africa.

Whatever. His consecutive finals streak is now fucked.

>>> Is one unbeaten if he has a record of 100-0 in a season but skipped
>>> one slam?
>>
>> Of course. Zero losses is what "unbeaten" means.
>>
>>
>
> But the guy with 20 finals had unbeaten record of matches before
> finals. That's what a statistic such as consecutive finals is all
> about, not being beaten before final.

But he didn't play them all.

Look, let's call this kind of streak a tier-2 streak. A sort of consolation if
you don't have a real one.




                
Date: 19 Dec 2008 04:02:56
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
DavidW wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> DavidW wrote:
>>> TT wrote:
>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, you can just pick the ones you have the best chance in. You
>>>>>>> wouldn't count the streak of a clay-courter who skipped Wimbledon
>>>>>>> every year.
>>>>>> What if one has 20 slam finals in a row but a sickness or ban
>>>>> You're seriously suggesting that a ban shouldn't break the streak?
>>>>>
>>>>>> or death
>>>>>> of a relative etc in one slam bang in the middle.
>>>>> Tough.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Would other player
>>>>>> with a record of 11 slam finals be better? Not in my opinion.
>>>>> It depends on what exactly you are asking. Two streaks of 10 are
>>>>> better than one streak of 11, but the streak of 11 is better than
>>>>> either one of the streaks of 10 in isolation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's
>>>>>> tennis skills and success we're measuring here.
>>>>> You don't know that he would have reached the semi of the slam he
>>>>> missed. That's why it breaks the streak.
>>>>>
>>>> But he still had to get into 20 finals that he played, 20 times in a
>>>> row. The one with 11 had to get to 11 finals.
>>> No good. He missed one. He might have lost in 1R.
>>>
>> Yes, but now you're counting it as a loss even though he didn't play.
>
> I'm counting it as a "loss for all we know".
>
>> His fucking dog died and he couldn't play. He was stabbed with a
>> banana. The only time he got sick it was before a slam. He was
>> banned because he travelled to South Africa.
>
> Whatever. His consecutive finals streak is now fucked.
>
>>>> Is one unbeaten if he has a record of 100-0 in a season but skipped
>>>> one slam?
>>> Of course. Zero losses is what "unbeaten" means.
>>>
>>>
>> But the guy with 20 finals had unbeaten record of matches before
>> finals. That's what a statistic such as consecutive finals is all
>> about, not being beaten before final.
>
> But he didn't play them all.
>
> Look, let's call this kind of streak a tier-2 streak. A sort of consolation if
> you don't have a real one.
>
>

All these hypotheticals don't lessen the *real* and amazing slam finals
streak and SF streak that Federer has fashioned.

Federer reached 10 slam finals in a row. No one else has come anywhere
near this.

Lendl's 10 slam SFs in a row was truly mind boggling. The nearest to
that was a 5 in a row. That casts the right light on Federer's massively
bigger streak.

I guess the bozos in this thread don't realize the meaning of the
addition of one more to a streak that was already unbelievable. Small minds!

--
Cheers,

vc


                 
Date: 19 Dec 2008 19:05:46
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> DavidW wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes, you can just pick the ones you have the best chance in. You
>>>>>>>> wouldn't count the streak of a clay-courter who skipped Wimbledon
>>>>>>>> every year.
>>>>>>> What if one has 20 slam finals in a row but a sickness or ban
>>>>>> You're seriously suggesting that a ban shouldn't break the streak?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or death
>>>>>>> of a relative etc in one slam bang in the middle.
>>>>>> Tough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would other player
>>>>>>> with a record of 11 slam finals be better? Not in my opinion.
>>>>>> It depends on what exactly you are asking. Two streaks of 10 are
>>>>>> better than one streak of 11, but the streak of 11 is better than
>>>>>> either one of the streaks of 10 in isolation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>> tennis skills and success we're measuring here.
>>>>>> You don't know that he would have reached the semi of the slam he
>>>>>> missed. That's why it breaks the streak.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But he still had to get into 20 finals that he played, 20 times in a
>>>>> row. The one with 11 had to get to 11 finals.
>>>> No good. He missed one. He might have lost in 1R.
>>>>
>>> Yes, but now you're counting it as a loss even though he didn't play.
>>
>> I'm counting it as a "loss for all we know".
>>
>>> His fucking dog died and he couldn't play. He was stabbed with a
>>> banana. The only time he got sick it was before a slam. He was
>>> banned because he travelled to South Africa.
>>
>> Whatever. His consecutive finals streak is now fucked.
>>
>>>>> Is one unbeaten if he has a record of 100-0 in a season but skipped
>>>>> one slam?
>>>> Of course. Zero losses is what "unbeaten" means.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But the guy with 20 finals had unbeaten record of matches before
>>> finals. That's what a statistic such as consecutive finals is all
>>> about, not being beaten before final.
>>
>> But he didn't play them all.
>>
>> Look, let's call this kind of streak a tier-2 streak. A sort of
>> consolation if you don't have a real one.
>>
>>
>
> All these hypotheticals don't lessen the *real* and amazing slam finals
> streak and SF streak that Federer has fashioned.
>
> Federer reached 10 slam finals in a row. No one else has come anywhere
> near this.
>
> Lendl's 10 slam SFs in a row was truly mind boggling. The nearest to
> that was a 5 in a row. That casts the right light on Federer's massively
> bigger streak.
>
> I guess the bozos in this thread don't realize the meaning of the
> addition of one more to a streak that was already unbelievable. Small
> minds!
>





When Fed loses in a slam final or s/f there is zero pressure on him to
reach next slam semi or final - he, or real fans don't give a fuck about
this. He's disappointed he's lost & any streak pressure has been snapped.



                  
Date: 19 Dec 2008 12:51:23
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Whisper wrote:
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>> DavidW wrote:
>>> TT wrote:
>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yes, you can just pick the ones you have the best chance in. You
>>>>>>>>> wouldn't count the streak of a clay-courter who skipped Wimbledon
>>>>>>>>> every year.
>>>>>>>> What if one has 20 slam finals in a row but a sickness or ban
>>>>>>> You're seriously suggesting that a ban shouldn't break the streak?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or death
>>>>>>>> of a relative etc in one slam bang in the middle.
>>>>>>> Tough.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would other player
>>>>>>>> with a record of 11 slam finals be better? Not in my opinion.
>>>>>>> It depends on what exactly you are asking. Two streaks of 10 are
>>>>>>> better than one streak of 11, but the streak of 11 is better than
>>>>>>> either one of the streaks of 10 in isolation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>> tennis skills and success we're measuring here.
>>>>>>> You don't know that he would have reached the semi of the slam he
>>>>>>> missed. That's why it breaks the streak.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But he still had to get into 20 finals that he played, 20 times in a
>>>>>> row. The one with 11 had to get to 11 finals.
>>>>> No good. He missed one. He might have lost in 1R.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, but now you're counting it as a loss even though he didn't play.
>>>
>>> I'm counting it as a "loss for all we know".
>>>
>>>> His fucking dog died and he couldn't play. He was stabbed with a
>>>> banana. The only time he got sick it was before a slam. He was
>>>> banned because he travelled to South Africa.
>>>
>>> Whatever. His consecutive finals streak is now fucked.
>>>
>>>>>> Is one unbeaten if he has a record of 100-0 in a season but skipped
>>>>>> one slam?
>>>>> Of course. Zero losses is what "unbeaten" means.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> But the guy with 20 finals had unbeaten record of matches before
>>>> finals. That's what a statistic such as consecutive finals is all
>>>> about, not being beaten before final.
>>>
>>> But he didn't play them all.
>>>
>>> Look, let's call this kind of streak a tier-2 streak. A sort of
>>> consolation if you don't have a real one.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> All these hypotheticals don't lessen the *real* and amazing slam
>> finals streak and SF streak that Federer has fashioned.
>>
>> Federer reached 10 slam finals in a row. No one else has come anywhere
>> near this.
>>
>> Lendl's 10 slam SFs in a row was truly mind boggling. The nearest to
>> that was a 5 in a row. That casts the right light on Federer's
>> massively bigger streak.
>>
>> I guess the bozos in this thread don't realize the meaning of the
>> addition of one more to a streak that was already unbelievable. Small
>> minds!
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> When Fed loses in a slam final or s/f there is zero pressure on him to
> reach next slam semi or final - he, or real fans don't give a fuck about
> this. He's disappointed he's lost & any streak pressure has been snapped.
>

But this is mind boggling and unbelievable stuff to Vari, which is mind
boggling and unbelievable at least.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


                   
Date: 19 Dec 2008 13:44:46
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>>>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you can just pick the ones you have the best chance in. You
>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't count the streak of a clay-courter who skipped Wimbledon
>>>>>>>>>> every year.
>>>>>>>>> What if one has 20 slam finals in a row but a sickness or ban
>>>>>>>> You're seriously suggesting that a ban shouldn't break the streak?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or death
>>>>>>>>> of a relative etc in one slam bang in the middle.
>>>>>>>> Tough.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Would other player
>>>>>>>>> with a record of 11 slam finals be better? Not in my opinion.
>>>>>>>> It depends on what exactly you are asking. Two streaks of 10 are
>>>>>>>> better than one streak of 11, but the streak of 11 is better than
>>>>>>>> either one of the streaks of 10 in isolation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>>> tennis skills and success we're measuring here.
>>>>>>>> You don't know that he would have reached the semi of the slam he
>>>>>>>> missed. That's why it breaks the streak.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But he still had to get into 20 finals that he played, 20 times in a
>>>>>>> row. The one with 11 had to get to 11 finals.
>>>>>> No good. He missed one. He might have lost in 1R.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but now you're counting it as a loss even though he didn't play.
>>>>
>>>> I'm counting it as a "loss for all we know".
>>>>
>>>>> His fucking dog died and he couldn't play. He was stabbed with a
>>>>> banana. The only time he got sick it was before a slam. He was
>>>>> banned because he travelled to South Africa.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever. His consecutive finals streak is now fucked.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Is one unbeaten if he has a record of 100-0 in a season but skipped
>>>>>>> one slam?
>>>>>> Of course. Zero losses is what "unbeaten" means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> But the guy with 20 finals had unbeaten record of matches before
>>>>> finals. That's what a statistic such as consecutive finals is all
>>>>> about, not being beaten before final.
>>>>
>>>> But he didn't play them all.
>>>>
>>>> Look, let's call this kind of streak a tier-2 streak. A sort of
>>>> consolation if you don't have a real one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> All these hypotheticals don't lessen the *real* and amazing slam
>>> finals streak and SF streak that Federer has fashioned.
>>>
>>> Federer reached 10 slam finals in a row. No one else has come
>>> anywhere near this.
>>>
>>> Lendl's 10 slam SFs in a row was truly mind boggling. The nearest to
>>> that was a 5 in a row. That casts the right light on Federer's
>>> massively bigger streak.
>>>
>>> I guess the bozos in this thread don't realize the meaning of the
>>> addition of one more to a streak that was already unbelievable. Small
>>> minds!
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> When Fed loses in a slam final or s/f there is zero pressure on him to
>> reach next slam semi or final - he, or real fans don't give a fuck
>> about this. He's disappointed he's lost & any streak pressure has
>> been snapped.
>>
>
> But this is mind boggling and unbelievable stuff to Vari, which is mind
> boggling and unbelievable at least.
>

Vari must be really hoping that Federer can extend his unbelievable
streak by losing in the semis at all slams next year. He might even run
out of superlatives facing this enormous achievement.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


                
Date: 19 Dec 2008 03:29:20
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
DavidW wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> DavidW wrote:
>>> TT wrote:
>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, you can just pick the ones you have the best chance in. You
>>>>>>> wouldn't count the streak of a clay-courter who skipped Wimbledon
>>>>>>> every year.
>>>>>> What if one has 20 slam finals in a row but a sickness or ban
>>>>> You're seriously suggesting that a ban shouldn't break the streak?
>>>>>
>>>>>> or death
>>>>>> of a relative etc in one slam bang in the middle.
>>>>> Tough.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Would other player
>>>>>> with a record of 11 slam finals be better? Not in my opinion.
>>>>> It depends on what exactly you are asking. Two streaks of 10 are
>>>>> better than one streak of 11, but the streak of 11 is better than
>>>>> either one of the streaks of 10 in isolation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's
>>>>>> tennis skills and success we're measuring here.
>>>>> You don't know that he would have reached the semi of the slam he
>>>>> missed. That's why it breaks the streak.
>>>>>
>>>> But he still had to get into 20 finals that he played, 20 times in a
>>>> row. The one with 11 had to get to 11 finals.
>>> No good. He missed one. He might have lost in 1R.
>>>
>> Yes, but now you're counting it as a loss even though he didn't play.
>
> I'm counting it as a "loss for all we know".
>
>> His fucking dog died and he couldn't play. He was stabbed with a
>> banana. The only time he got sick it was before a slam. He was
>> banned because he travelled to South Africa.
>
> Whatever. His consecutive finals streak is now fucked.
>
>>>> Is one unbeaten if he has a record of 100-0 in a season but skipped
>>>> one slam?
>>> Of course. Zero losses is what "unbeaten" means.
>>>
>>>
>> But the guy with 20 finals had unbeaten record of matches before
>> finals. That's what a statistic such as consecutive finals is all
>> about, not being beaten before final.
>
> But he didn't play them all.
>

Yes he did. I'm not counting that slam he skipped as one of those
finals...If I did the figure would be 21 not 20. That of course would be
wrong, but so would be counting the slam he didn't play in as a 1st
round loss. This has nothing to do what would or wouldn't have happened.
It's about what actually happened when he played. Goddamn this guy was
never beaten before finals in a slam.


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


         
Date: 19 Dec 2008 01:54:20
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:13:04 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:27:52 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I think everyone is missing the point here. Federer's consecutive slam
>>>>>> SF record is not a really important record, and it is a bit
>>>>>> artificial. The point is, when you think about it, 18 is an
>>>>>> unbelievable number. What was it, 5 players have a streak of 5 in the
>>>>>> open era. A player like Sampras has a streak of 3. Federer has 18! It
>>>>>> is a sign of amazing consistency over years and over surfaces, and
>>>>>> also a sign of avoiding injuries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is not a really important record. But the only reason to say it
>>>>>> is not unbelievable number, is if you simply cannot say Federer has
>>>>>> done anything unbelievable.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a great
>>>>> statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>>>>
>>>>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info? How
>>>>> long was Evert's sf run?
>>>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some AOs
>>>> and FOs during that streak.
>>> So she does not have a streak of 34.
>> By that logic that kind of streak is historically totally meaningless.
>> Everyone used to skip AO. Evert played 12 years without losing at slam SF.
>
> That's always a bit unfair to players from 70's. Borg would have
> probably won more slams, if he played AO.
>
> But it is even more unfair if you count streaks, but count only those
> slams that a player played in. That is totally meaningless if anything
> ever is.
>
>

Well Borg probably would've done well in grass AOs he skipped. And Evert
at FOs she skipped.
I think slams entered is a better stat. Unless one skips slams they're
poor at.

Connors for example was once banned from FO.

Then of course if we want to estimate one's overall performance in slams
we have winning percentage in slams. One doesn't really need to go to
consecutive stuff.


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


          
Date: 19 Dec 2008 10:57:23
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
TT wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:13:04 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:27:52 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> I think everyone is missing the point here. Federer's
>>>>>>> consecutive slam SF record is not a really important record,
>>>>>>> and it is a bit artificial. The point is, when you think about
>>>>>>> it, 18 is an unbelievable number. What was it, 5 players have a
>>>>>>> streak of 5 in the open era. A player like Sampras has a streak
>>>>>>> of 3. Federer has 18! It is a sign of amazing consistency over
>>>>>>> years and over surfaces, and also a sign of avoiding injuries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is not a really important record. But the only reason to
>>>>>>> say it is not unbelievable number, is if you simply cannot say
>>>>>>> Federer has done anything unbelievable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a
>>>>>> great statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info?
>>>>>> How long was Evert's sf run?
>>>>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some
>>>>> AOs and FOs during that streak.
>>>> So she does not have a streak of 34.
>>> By that logic that kind of streak is historically totally
>>> meaningless. Everyone used to skip AO. Evert played 12 years
>>> without losing at slam SF.
>>
>> That's always a bit unfair to players from 70's. Borg would have
>> probably won more slams, if he played AO.
>>
>> But it is even more unfair if you count streaks, but count only those
>> slams that a player played in. That is totally meaningless if
>> anything ever is.
>>
>>
>
> Well Borg probably would've done well in grass AOs he skipped. And
> Evert at FOs she skipped.
> I think slams entered is a better stat. Unless one skips slams they're
> poor at.

Which then makes it subjective. For a record like this you need simple,
straightforward rules. And what if a player missed one because of injury?
Federer's streak required him to be healthy for every slam.




           
Date: 19 Dec 2008 02:01:15
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
DavidW wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:13:04 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:27:52 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think everyone is missing the point here. Federer's
>>>>>>>> consecutive slam SF record is not a really important record,
>>>>>>>> and it is a bit artificial. The point is, when you think about
>>>>>>>> it, 18 is an unbelievable number. What was it, 5 players have a
>>>>>>>> streak of 5 in the open era. A player like Sampras has a streak
>>>>>>>> of 3. Federer has 18! It is a sign of amazing consistency over
>>>>>>>> years and over surfaces, and also a sign of avoiding injuries.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it is not a really important record. But the only reason to
>>>>>>>> say it is not unbelievable number, is if you simply cannot say
>>>>>>>> Federer has done anything unbelievable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a
>>>>>>> great statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info?
>>>>>>> How long was Evert's sf run?
>>>>>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some
>>>>>> AOs and FOs during that streak.
>>>>> So she does not have a streak of 34.
>>>> By that logic that kind of streak is historically totally
>>>> meaningless. Everyone used to skip AO. Evert played 12 years
>>>> without losing at slam SF.
>>> That's always a bit unfair to players from 70's. Borg would have
>>> probably won more slams, if he played AO.
>>>
>>> But it is even more unfair if you count streaks, but count only those
>>> slams that a player played in. That is totally meaningless if
>>> anything ever is.
>>>
>>>
>> Well Borg probably would've done well in grass AOs he skipped. And
>> Evert at FOs she skipped.
>> I think slams entered is a better stat. Unless one skips slams they're
>> poor at.
>
> Which then makes it subjective. For a record like this you need simple,
> straightforward rules. And what if a player missed one because of injury?
> Federer's streak required him to be healthy for every slam.
>
>

Is that an achievement?
You admit he never had mono? :)

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


            
Date: 19 Dec 2008 11:20:33
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
TT wrote:
> DavidW wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:13:04 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:27:52 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think everyone is missing the point here. Federer's
>>>>>>>>> consecutive slam SF record is not a really important record,
>>>>>>>>> and it is a bit artificial. The point is, when you think about
>>>>>>>>> it, 18 is an unbelievable number. What was it, 5 players have
>>>>>>>>> a streak of 5 in the open era. A player like Sampras has a
>>>>>>>>> streak of 3. Federer has 18! It is a sign of amazing
>>>>>>>>> consistency over years and over surfaces, and also a sign of
>>>>>>>>> avoiding injuries. No, it is not a really important record. But the
>>>>>>>>> only reason
>>>>>>>>> to say it is not unbelievable number, is if you simply cannot
>>>>>>>>> say Federer has done anything unbelievable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a
>>>>>>>> great statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this
>>>>>>>> info? How long was Evert's sf run?
>>>>>>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped
>>>>>>> some AOs and FOs during that streak.
>>>>>> So she does not have a streak of 34.
>>>>> By that logic that kind of streak is historically totally
>>>>> meaningless. Everyone used to skip AO. Evert played 12 years
>>>>> without losing at slam SF.
>>>> That's always a bit unfair to players from 70's. Borg would have
>>>> probably won more slams, if he played AO.
>>>>
>>>> But it is even more unfair if you count streaks, but count only
>>>> those slams that a player played in. That is totally meaningless if
>>>> anything ever is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well Borg probably would've done well in grass AOs he skipped. And
>>> Evert at FOs she skipped.
>>> I think slams entered is a better stat. Unless one skips slams
>>> they're poor at.
>>
>> Which then makes it subjective. For a record like this you need
>> simple, straightforward rules. And what if a player missed one
>> because of injury? Federer's streak required him to be healthy for
>> every slam.
>
> Is that an achievement?

Yes. There's a significant risk of injury or ill-health at least once over such
a long period. I would say that it's more likely than not. Also, to win some
tough matches requires more physical effort, more running, more stretching, more
twisting etc. than normal, which increases the risk of serious injury, so it is
an important factor.

> You admit he never had mono? :)

Healthy enough to reach the semis.




   
Date: 18 Dec 2008 21:03:02
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
TT wrote:
>
> Consecutive sf's is a rather cherrypicked stat, which was invented by
> fedfans after fed's run of consecutive slam finals ended. If Federer
> loses at quarters we'll probably be hearing about this new great record
> of consecutive gf appearances...

Come to think of it, even consecutive slam finals is a derivative record
for *not winning* FO, and therefore rather artificial.
Or on the other hand it is also a fanboy celebration record for Fed's
good but not great achievements on his worst surface.

In fact "consecutive" and "SF" is an oxymoron. "Consecutive" measures
dominance...while reaching SF is arguably not dominance.


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 18 Dec 2008 05:06:53
From:
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Dec 18, 10:35=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> > Sakari Lund wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
> >> <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Federer - Can he rediscover his sublime play even as his body and m=
ind
> >>>>> age relentlessly? More importantly, can he avoid a slamless year?
> >>>> He will probably do fine in slams, and win at least 1, wither
> >>>> Wimbledon or
> >>>> US Open.
>
> >>> He has to put an end to the strange losses. If not, his slam streak
> >>> will definitely become history.
>
> >> He hasn't had a strange loss at a slam in ages, since Luis Horna or
> >> something. Strange losses in Dubai and Indian Wells don't make slam
> >> streaks history.
>
> >>> Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't pretty much impossible to
> >>> imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and 1 away from matching
> >>> Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3, IIRC.
>
> >> I've been saying before that the slam SF streak is totally
> >> unbelievable.
>
> > Is there anyone with working brain cells saying something different?
>
> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
> fuck is it important now....?

Like the "Sampras won a slam in eight consecutive years" record?



  
Date: 18 Dec 2008 15:02:22
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 18, 10:35 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
>>>> <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Federer - Can he rediscover his sublime play even as his body and mind
>>>>>>> age relentlessly? More importantly, can he avoid a slamless year?
>>>>>> He will probably do fine in slams, and win at least 1, wither
>>>>>> Wimbledon or
>>>>>> US Open.
>>>>> He has to put an end to the strange losses. If not, his slam streak
>>>>> will definitely become history.
>>>> He hasn't had a strange loss at a slam in ages, since Luis Horna or
>>>> something. Strange losses in Dubai and Indian Wells don't make slam
>>>> streaks history.
>>>>> Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't pretty much impossible to
>>>>> imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and 1 away from matching
>>>>> Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3, IIRC.
>>>> I've been saying before that the slam SF streak is totally
>>>> unbelievable.
>>> Is there anyone with working brain cells saying something different?
>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
>> fuck is it important now....?
>
> Like the "Sampras won a slam in eight consecutive years" record?
>

What about slams in your teens, 20s and 30s? Isn't that a dandy too,
something all aspiring tennis pros talk about all the time?

--
Cheers,

vc


 
Date: 17 Dec 2008 19:53:53
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...

On 17-Dec-2008, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cinicke@netscape.net > wrote:

> Nadal - Can he keep up his 4 months of mania and domination and extend
> his grasp elsewhere? Will he save enough energy to play through the
> Barclay ATP World Tour Finals?

I would like to know more about his physical condition before commenting.

> Federer - Can he rediscover his sublime play even as his body and mind
> age relentlessly? More importantly, can he avoid a slamless year?

He will probably do fine in slams, and win at least 1, wither Wimbledon or
US Open.

> Murray - Will his new musculature get in the way of repeating his
> stellar victories? Can he get more wins over the Top 3 at a slam to
> build on his Nadal win at the US Open?

Personally, I think it will be his mind more than his new-found musculature
that will get in his way. I don't buy it when people say he has suddenly
matured.

> Djokovic - Can he avoid becoming the new #4? Can he defend a title?

I think we will see consistency from him, but not a lot of tournament wins.

> Anyone else - Any chance of breaking into Top 4? Or even getting close?

Tsonga is a good possibility in my opinion, but I have a feeling it will be
short-lived.


  
Date: 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 17-Dec-2008, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cinicke@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> Nadal - Can he keep up his 4 months of mania and domination and extend
>> his grasp elsewhere? Will he save enough energy to play through the
>> Barclay ATP World Tour Finals?
>
> I would like to know more about his physical condition before commenting.
>

Nadal fans report that he has been training normally for a while now.

And he didn't wear his knee bandages at the beach.

>> Federer - Can he rediscover his sublime play even as his body and mind
>> age relentlessly? More importantly, can he avoid a slamless year?
>
> He will probably do fine in slams, and win at least 1, wither Wimbledon or
> US Open.
>

He has to put an end to the strange losses. If not, his slam streak will
definitely become history. Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't
pretty much impossible to imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and 1 away
from matching Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3, IIRC.

Of course, winning a slam is Federer's principal goal at this stage of
his career.

>> Murray - Will his new musculature get in the way of repeating his
>> stellar victories? Can he get more wins over the Top 3 at a slam to
>> build on his Nadal win at the US Open?
>
> Personally, I think it will be his mind more than his new-found musculature
> that will get in his way. I don't buy it when people say he has suddenly
> matured.
>

Hard to predict but beating Nadal at the US Open was a big hurdle and
seems to have done wonders to his self belief. The fact that he is
working his butt off and looking forward to the challenge of the slams
in 2009 are good signs.

>> Djokovic - Can he avoid becoming the new #4? Can he defend a title?
>
> I think we will see consistency from him, but not a lot of tournament wins.
>

He did finish the year well even though his claims that a YEC is
practically a slam is laughable.

The AO is critical for him. He also takes on Nadal on clay in Spain for
Davis Cup duties. Who knows?

>> Anyone else - Any chance of breaking into Top 4? Or even getting close?
>
> Tsonga is a good possibility in my opinion, but I have a feeling it will be
> short-lived.

He has a significant mountain to climb at the AO but the Paris win eases
the burden a bit. Can he stay light (ok, lightheavyweight?) and healthy?

--
Cheers,

vc


   
Date: 20 Dec 2008 22:41:36
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Dec 21, 2:45=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> TT wrote:
> > Whisper wrote:
> >> TT wrote:
>
> >>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some
> >>> AOs and FOs during that streak. Navratilova 18 SF streak, Graf
> >>> around same. Hingis 11.
>
> >>> Evert lost couple of times on third round...so she has a streak of
> >>> 56 for 3rd round appearances. ;)
>
> >>> Lendl has 10? sf streak. Connors around 30 QF streak...Borg lost
> >>> once in QF during 1978-1981.
>
> >> None of these threaten even 1 AO title in significance in the real
> >> world.
>
> > But it makes Evert the goat though.
>
> Semis score zero in GOAT calculations. 34 x 0 =3D 0.

There is no such thing as GOAT calculations.


    
Date: 21 Dec 2008 14:16:24
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2:45 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some
>>>>> AOs and FOs during that streak. Navratilova 18 SF streak, Graf
>>>>> around same. Hingis 11.
>>>>> Evert lost couple of times on third round...so she has a streak of
>>>>> 56 for 3rd round appearances. ;)
>>>>> Lendl has 10? sf streak. Connors around 30 QF streak...Borg lost
>>>>> once in QF during 1978-1981.
>>>> None of these threaten even 1 AO title in significance in the real
>>>> world.
>>> But it makes Evert the goat though.
>> Semis score zero in GOAT calculations. 34 x 0 = 0.
>
> There is no such thing as GOAT calculations.

Some people think all questions can be answered by a quick
back-of-the-envelope calculation in an objective universal way. DavidW
seems to trust in simple formulas to answer complex questions involving
incommensurable entities.

--
Cheers,

vc


     
Date: 22 Dec 2008 08:49:49
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 2:45 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>> TT wrote:
>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some
>>>>>> AOs and FOs during that streak. Navratilova 18 SF streak, Graf
>>>>>> around same. Hingis 11.
>>>>>> Evert lost couple of times on third round...so she has a streak of
>>>>>> 56 for 3rd round appearances. ;)
>>>>>> Lendl has 10? sf streak. Connors around 30 QF streak...Borg lost
>>>>>> once in QF during 1978-1981.
>>>>> None of these threaten even 1 AO title in significance in the real
>>>>> world.
>>>> But it makes Evert the goat though.
>>> Semis score zero in GOAT calculations. 34 x 0 = 0.
>>
>> There is no such thing as GOAT calculations.
>
> Some people think all questions can be answered by a quick
> back-of-the-envelope calculation in an objective universal way. DavidW
> seems to trust in simple formulas to answer complex questions involving
> incommensurable entities.
>


Not difficult to measure eg Phelp's 8 Gold medals.



    
Date: 21 Dec 2008 20:43:29
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2:45 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some
>>>>> AOs and FOs during that streak. Navratilova 18 SF streak, Graf
>>>>> around same. Hingis 11.
>>>>> Evert lost couple of times on third round...so she has a streak of
>>>>> 56 for 3rd round appearances. ;)
>>>>> Lendl has 10? sf streak. Connors around 30 QF streak...Borg lost
>>>>> once in QF during 1978-1981.
>>>> None of these threaten even 1 AO title in significance in the real
>>>> world.
>>> But it makes Evert the goat though.
>> Semis score zero in GOAT calculations. 34 x 0 = 0.
>
> There is no such thing as GOAT calculations.



Yet you've called Fed goat many times?



    
Date: 21 Dec 2008 10:14:01
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...

"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:6c3e963a-90de-451e-83ae-1e4008c119e0@m22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 21, 2:45 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> TT wrote:
> > Whisper wrote:
> >> TT wrote:
>
> >>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some
> >>> AOs and FOs during that streak. Navratilova 18 SF streak, Graf
> >>> around same. Hingis 11.
>
> >>> Evert lost couple of times on third round...so she has a streak of
> >>> 56 for 3rd round appearances. ;)
>
> >>> Lendl has 10? sf streak. Connors around 30 QF streak...Borg lost
> >>> once in QF during 1978-1981.
>
> >> None of these threaten even 1 AO title in significance in the real
> >> world.
>
> > But it makes Evert the goat though.
>
> Semis score zero in GOAT calculations. 34 x 0 = 0.

There is no such thing as GOAT calculations.


yes there is, 7543




     
Date: 21 Dec 2008 20:44:19
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
*skriptis wrote:
> "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6c3e963a-90de-451e-83ae-1e4008c119e0@m22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 21, 2:45 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>> Evert had a sf run of 34 if I counted correctly. She skipped some
>>>>> AOs and FOs during that streak. Navratilova 18 SF streak, Graf
>>>>> around same. Hingis 11.
>>>>> Evert lost couple of times on third round...so she has a streak of
>>>>> 56 for 3rd round appearances. ;)
>>>>> Lendl has 10? sf streak. Connors around 30 QF streak...Borg lost
>>>>> once in QF during 1978-1981.
>>>> None of these threaten even 1 AO title in significance in the real
>>>> world.
>>> But it makes Evert the goat though.
>> Semis score zero in GOAT calculations. 34 x 0 = 0.
>
> There is no such thing as GOAT calculations.
>
>
> yes there is, 7543
>
>



Correct.

Goat = best record while factoring in prestige.


   
Date: 18 Dec 2008 17:14:12
From:
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Dec 18, 10:35=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 18, 5:09=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a great
> > statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>
> > What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info? How
> > long was Evert's sf run?
>
> 34 consecutive semis from 1971-1983, finally broken when she lost in
> the 3rd round of the 1983 Wimbledon to somebody.

Kathy Jordan - and Evert was sick the night before the match and
according to reports was nowhere near 100% fit



   
Date: 18 Dec 2008 14:53:59
From:
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...

> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a great
> statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>
> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info?

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/cons_semifinals.html

Strange that, as you've regulalarly posted links to this site when it
contains information supporting your own arguments





    
Date: 19 Dec 2008 01:27:59
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a great
>> statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>
>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info?
>
> http://www.tennis28.com/slams/cons_semifinals.html
>

Ok, thanks.

> Strange that, as you've regulalarly posted links to this site when it
> contains information supporting your own arguments
>

You must be a pretty big cheat yourself because you always seem to
suspect others of foul play. I'm honest and straight.


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


    
Date: 19 Dec 2008 01:00:25
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:53:59 -0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a great
>> statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>
>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info?
>
>http://www.tennis28.com/slams/cons_semifinals.html
>
>Strange that, as you've regulalarly posted links to this site when it
>contains information supporting your own arguments

So I didn't miss anyone, seems to be only Federer, Lendl (twice),
Becker and Djokovic with 5 or more.





     
Date: 19 Dec 2008 01:37:16
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:53:59 -0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a great
>>> statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>>
>>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info?
>> http://www.tennis28.com/slams/cons_semifinals.html
>>
>> Strange that, as you've regulalarly posted links to this site when it
>> contains information supporting your own arguments
>
> So I didn't miss anyone, seems to be only Federer, Lendl (twice),
> Becker and Djokovic with 5 or more.
>
>

And I was correct about Connors, he has 11 sf appearances in slams
entered. 27 QFs.
He lists both consecutive slams and slams entered.


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


   
Date: 18 Dec 2008 14:35:56
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Dec 18, 5:09=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:

>
> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a great
> statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>
> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info? How
> long was Evert's sf run?

34 consecutive semis from 1971-1983, finally broken when she lost in
the 3rd round of the 1983 Wimbledon to somebody.


    
Date: 19 Dec 2008 00:41:59
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Dec 18, 5:09 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a great
>> statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>
>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info? How
>> long was Evert's sf run?
>
> 34 consecutive semis from 1971-1983, finally broken when she lost in
> the 3rd round of the 1983 Wimbledon to somebody.

I think 1971-1983 is even more impressive than the figure of 34.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


    
Date: 19 Dec 2008 00:40:36
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Dec 18, 5:09 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a great
>> statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>
>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info? How
>> long was Evert's sf run?
>
> 34 consecutive semis from 1971-1983, finally broken when she lost in
> the 3rd round of the 1983 Wimbledon to somebody.

Yup. Evert never lost earlier than 3rd round in 56 slams he took part.
Federer has lost 6 times in first round, same as Lendl.
Nadal has never lost slam first round either(knock on wood).

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


     
Date: 19 Dec 2008 18:55:12
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
TT wrote:
> Jason Catlin wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 5:09 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Pretty much so. I thought it was less than 18. Indeed that is a great
>>> statistic, but as you say rather artificial as a record.
>>>
>>> What were the previous "records" and where can I find this info? How
>>> long was Evert's sf run?
>>
>> 34 consecutive semis from 1971-1983, finally broken when she lost in
>> the 3rd round of the 1983 Wimbledon to somebody.
>
> Yup. Evert never lost earlier than 3rd round in 56 slams he took part.
> Federer has lost 6 times in first round, same as Lendl.
> Nadal has never lost slam first round either(knock on wood).
>



Evert only failed to make a slam semi 4 times in her career - made about
60 all up. Funny no one gives a shit.



   
Date: 18 Dec 2008 00:53:59
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> jdeluise wrote:
>> On 17-Dec-2008, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cinicke@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Nadal - Can he keep up his 4 months of mania and domination and extend
>>> his grasp elsewhere? Will he save enough energy to play through the
>>> Barclay ATP World Tour Finals?
>>
>> I would like to know more about his physical condition before commenting.
>>
>
> Nadal fans report that he has been training normally for a while now.
>
> And he didn't wear his knee bandages at the beach.
>

More importantly:

Nadal has been practicing for at least 3 weeks. Looks like he started
practicing one week after the Davis Cup finals.

At the recent Malaria fundraiser that he is a cohost of, he played
soccer and tennis without knee bandages. That is good news.

Of course, I expect him to be bandaged come Doha. It is an important
part of his match preparation by now. He has been wearing them long
enough that Nike should give him elastic knee bands to go on top of the
bandage. A marketing coup, if you ask me!

--
Cheers,

vc


    
Date: 18 Dec 2008 09:17:39
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:53:59 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
<cinicke@netscape.net > wrote:

>Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>> jdeluise wrote:
>>> On 17-Dec-2008, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cinicke@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nadal - Can he keep up his 4 months of mania and domination and extend
>>>> his grasp elsewhere? Will he save enough energy to play through the
>>>> Barclay ATP World Tour Finals?
>>>
>>> I would like to know more about his physical condition before commenting.
>>>
>>
>> Nadal fans report that he has been training normally for a while now.
>>
>> And he didn't wear his knee bandages at the beach.
>>
>
>More importantly:
>
>Nadal has been practicing for at least 3 weeks. Looks like he started
>practicing one week after the Davis Cup finals.
>
>At the recent Malaria fundraiser that he is a cohost of, he played
>soccer and tennis without knee bandages. That is good news.
>
>Of course, I expect him to be bandaged come Doha. It is an important
>part of his match preparation by now. He has been wearing them long
>enough that Nike should give him elastic knee bands to go on top of the
>bandage. A marketing coup, if you ask me!


He's finished. At the next "pop" he's gonna "drop".


   
Date: 18 Dec 2008 00:04:43
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
<cinicke@netscape.net > wrote:

>>> Federer - Can he rediscover his sublime play even as his body and mind
>>> age relentlessly? More importantly, can he avoid a slamless year?
>>
>> He will probably do fine in slams, and win at least 1, wither Wimbledon or
>> US Open.
>>
>
>He has to put an end to the strange losses. If not, his slam streak will
>definitely become history.

He hasn't had a strange loss at a slam in ages, since Luis Horna or
something. Strange losses in Dubai and Indian Wells don't make slam
streaks history.

>Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't
>pretty much impossible to imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and 1 away
>from matching Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3, IIRC.

I've been saying before that the slam SF streak is totally
unbelievable.

>>> Djokovic - Can he avoid becoming the new #4? Can he defend a title?
>>
>> I think we will see consistency from him, but not a lot of tournament wins.
>>
>
>He did finish the year well even though his claims that a YEC is
>practically a slam is laughable.
>
>The AO is critical for him. He also takes on Nadal on clay in Spain for
>Davis Cup duties. Who knows?

People are too quick to write Djokovic out.


    
Date: 18 Dec 2008 14:59:32
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Sakari Lund wrote:
Strange losses in Dubai and Indian Wells don't make slam
> streaks history.
>

He lost to Murray in Dubai.


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


     
Date: 18 Dec 2008 15:19:02
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:59:32 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
> Strange losses in Dubai and Indian Wells don't make slam
>> streaks history.
>>
>
>He lost to Murray in Dubai.

If he has a strange loss in Dubai 2009, it doesn't make his slam
streak history, is what I said.


    
Date: 18 Dec 2008 21:28:52
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
>> Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't
>> pretty much impossible to imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and 1 away
>>from matching Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3, IIRC.
>
> I've been saying before that the slam SF streak is totally
> unbelievable.
>


It would be if we were conscious of the previous record. As we aren't
then it's simple ceibs.



     
Date: 18 Dec 2008 15:21:53
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:28:52 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
>>> Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't
>>> pretty much impossible to imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and 1 away
>>>from matching Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3, IIRC.
>>
>> I've been saying before that the slam SF streak is totally
>> unbelievable.
>>
>
>
>It would be if we were conscious of the previous record. As we aren't
>then it's simple ceibs.

It is not a famous record or anything, but if you just think about it,
it is unbelievable. It just is. You don't have to admit it or
anything, that's not the point.


      
Date: 19 Dec 2008 18:20:27
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:28:52 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
>>>> Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't
>>>> pretty much impossible to imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and 1 away
>>> >from matching Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3, IIRC.
>>>
>>> I've been saying before that the slam SF streak is totally
>>> unbelievable.
>>>
>>
>> It would be if we were conscious of the previous record. As we aren't
>> then it's simple ceibs.
>
> It is not a famous record or anything, but if you just think about it,
> it is unbelievable. It just is. You don't have to admit it or
> anything, that's not the point.


It's not as big a deal as winning another Wimbledon for eg.



       
Date: 19 Dec 2008 19:56:20
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:20:27 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:28:52 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
>>>>> Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't
>>>>> pretty much impossible to imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and 1 away
>>>> >from matching Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3, IIRC.
>>>>
>>>> I've been saying before that the slam SF streak is totally
>>>> unbelievable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It would be if we were conscious of the previous record. As we aren't
>>> then it's simple ceibs.
>>
>> It is not a famous record or anything, but if you just think about it,
>> it is unbelievable. It just is. You don't have to admit it or
>> anything, that's not the point.
>
>
>It's not as big a deal as winning another Wimbledon for eg.


if he wins both W and the USO this year Fed becomes the undisputed
goat !

add another W+USO+AO over the next 7 years and he becomes
"untouchable" with sampras being relegated to the dustbin of tennis
history.


        
Date: 19 Dec 2008 14:04:14
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:20:27 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:28:52 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
>>>>>> Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't
>>>>>> pretty much impossible to imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and 1 away
>>>>> >from matching Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3, IIRC.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been saying before that the slam SF streak is totally
>>>>> unbelievable.
>>>>>
>>>> It would be if we were conscious of the previous record. As we aren't
>>>> then it's simple ceibs.
>>> It is not a famous record or anything, but if you just think about it,
>>> it is unbelievable. It just is. You don't have to admit it or
>>> anything, that's not the point.
>>
>> It's not as big a deal as winning another Wimbledon for eg.
>
>
> if he wins both W and the USO this year Fed becomes the undisputed
> goat !
>
> add another W+USO+AO over the next 7 years and he becomes
> "untouchable" with sampras being relegated to the dustbin of tennis
> history.

What happened to FO? One can't be greatest overall player of all time
without winning FO.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


         
Date: 19 Dec 2008 22:14:43
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:04:14 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:20:27 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:28:52 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
>>>>>>> Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't
>>>>>>> pretty much impossible to imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and 1 away
>>>>>> >from matching Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3, IIRC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been saying before that the slam SF streak is totally
>>>>>> unbelievable.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It would be if we were conscious of the previous record. As we aren't
>>>>> then it's simple ceibs.
>>>> It is not a famous record or anything, but if you just think about it,
>>>> it is unbelievable. It just is. You don't have to admit it or
>>>> anything, that's not the point.
>>>
>>> It's not as big a deal as winning another Wimbledon for eg.
>>
>>
>> if he wins both W and the USO this year Fed becomes the undisputed
>> goat !
>>
>> add another W+USO+AO over the next 7 years and he becomes
>> "untouchable" with sampras being relegated to the dustbin of tennis
>> history.
>
>What happened to FO? One can't be greatest overall player of all time
>without winning FO.

Yes ! So glad you agree with me !!!

BORG !!!!!! RULES !


          
Date: 20 Dec 2008 16:25:58
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:04:14 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:20:27 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:28:52 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
>>>>>>>> Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't
>>>>>>>> pretty much impossible to imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and 1 away
>>>>>>> >from matching Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3, IIRC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been saying before that the slam SF streak is totally
>>>>>>> unbelievable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be if we were conscious of the previous record. As we aren't
>>>>>> then it's simple ceibs.
>>>>> It is not a famous record or anything, but if you just think about it,
>>>>> it is unbelievable. It just is. You don't have to admit it or
>>>>> anything, that's not the point.
>>>> It's not as big a deal as winning another Wimbledon for eg.
>>>
>>> if he wins both W and the USO this year Fed becomes the undisputed
>>> goat !
>>>
>>> add another W+USO+AO over the next 7 years and he becomes
>>> "untouchable" with sampras being relegated to the dustbin of tennis
>>> history.
>> What happened to FO? One can't be greatest overall player of all time
>> without winning FO.
>
> Yes ! So glad you agree with me !!!
>
> BORG !!!!!! RULES !

Yes. And imagine that Nadal will be even greater than him.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


           
Date: 21 Dec 2008 09:58:48
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:25:58 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:04:14 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:20:27 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:28:52 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
>>>>>>>>> Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't
>>>>>>>>> pretty much impossible to imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and 1 away
>>>>>>>> >from matching Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3, IIRC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've been saying before that the slam SF streak is totally
>>>>>>>> unbelievable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be if we were conscious of the previous record. As we aren't
>>>>>>> then it's simple ceibs.
>>>>>> It is not a famous record or anything, but if you just think about it,
>>>>>> it is unbelievable. It just is. You don't have to admit it or
>>>>>> anything, that's not the point.
>>>>> It's not as big a deal as winning another Wimbledon for eg.
>>>>
>>>> if he wins both W and the USO this year Fed becomes the undisputed
>>>> goat !
>>>>
>>>> add another W+USO+AO over the next 7 years and he becomes
>>>> "untouchable" with sampras being relegated to the dustbin of tennis
>>>> history.
>>> What happened to FO? One can't be greatest overall player of all time
>>> without winning FO.
>>
>> Yes ! So glad you agree with me !!!
>>
>> BORG !!!!!! RULES !
>
>Yes. And imagine that Nadal will be even greater than him.

I deal in reality. Not imagination.


      
Date: 18 Dec 2008 15:00:53
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:28:52 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
>>>> Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't
>>>> pretty much impossible to imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and 1 away
>>> >from matching Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3, IIRC.
>>>
>>> I've been saying before that the slam SF streak is totally
>>> unbelievable.
>>>
>>
>> It would be if we were conscious of the previous record. As we aren't
>> then it's simple ceibs.
>
> It is not a famous record or anything, but if you just think about it,
> it is unbelievable. It just is. You don't have to admit it or
> anything, that's not the point.

How can Whisper admit the value of this when his "god of tennis" only
made 3 SFs in a row? His head would explode!

--
Cheers,

vc


    
Date: 17 Dec 2008 23:15:08
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
> <cinicke@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Federer - Can he rediscover his sublime play even as his body and mind
>>>> age relentlessly? More importantly, can he avoid a slamless year?
>>> He will probably do fine in slams, and win at least 1, wither Wimbledon or
>>> US Open.
>>>
>> He has to put an end to the strange losses. If not, his slam streak will
>> definitely become history.
>
> He hasn't had a strange loss at a slam in ages, since Luis Horna or
> something. Strange losses in Dubai and Indian Wells don't make slam
> streaks history.
>
>> Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't
>> pretty much impossible to imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and 1 away
>>from matching Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3, IIRC.
>
> I've been saying before that the slam SF streak is totally
> unbelievable.
>

Is there anyone with working brain cells saying something different?

>>>> Djokovic - Can he avoid becoming the new #4? Can he defend a title?
>>> I think we will see consistency from him, but not a lot of tournament wins.
>>>
>> He did finish the year well even though his claims that a YEC is
>> practically a slam is laughable.
>>
>> The AO is critical for him. He also takes on Nadal on clay in Spain for
>> Davis Cup duties. Who knows?
>
> People are too quick to write Djokovic out.

Saying he might become #4 is not writing him out. After all, he is
defending 1000 points at the AO whereas Murray is defending 5 points.

If, to give a not too outlandish example, Murray reaches the AO final
and Djokovic loses in the SF, won't Murray gain 1,195 points and
Djokovic lose 280 points?

How do the new points work with the old ones? Do we double everyone's
points going into the new year?

Mindless decision to double the points though the extra rewards for
winning the tournaments is a plus.

--
Cheers,

vc


     
Date: 18 Dec 2008 21:35:44
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:35:28 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
>> <cinicke@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Federer - Can he rediscover his sublime play even as his body and mind
>>>>> age relentlessly? More importantly, can he avoid a slamless year?
>>>> He will probably do fine in slams, and win at least 1, wither
>>>> Wimbledon or
>>>> US Open.
>>>>
>>> He has to put an end to the strange losses. If not, his slam streak
>>> will definitely become history.
>>
>> He hasn't had a strange loss at a slam in ages, since Luis Horna or
>> something. Strange losses in Dubai and Indian Wells don't make slam
>> streaks history.
>>
>>> Not that the insane slam SF streak isn't pretty much impossible to
>>> imagine. For example, Nadal is at 4 and 1 away from matching
>>> Djokovic's best streak of 5. Sampras never crossed 3, IIRC.
>>
>> I've been saying before that the slam SF streak is totally
>> unbelievable.
>>
>
> Is there anyone with working brain cells saying something different?
>



Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
fuck is it important now....?

Seems to me records only become meaningful once Fed sets them. This is
not good tennis analysis - simple starfucking.






      
Date: 18 Dec 2008 17:43:56
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
>
> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
> fuck is it important now....?
>

Most people don't know who Miguel Indurain is. It doesn't make Lance Armstrong
irrelevant.


       
Date: 19 Dec 2008 18:50:31
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
>> fuck is it important now....?
>>
>
> Most people don't know who Miguel Indurain is. It doesn't make Lance Armstrong
> irrelevant.



Fed's streak includes many losses so is of no relevance.





      
Date: 18 Dec 2008 15:02:38
From: TT
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
Whisper wrote:
>
> Look, if you didn't know who held this 'record' before Fed then why the
> fuck is it important now....?
>

Correct observation.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


     
Date: 18 Dec 2008 01:39:34
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:15:08 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
<cinicke@netscape.net > wrote:

>How do the new points work with the old ones? Do we double everyone's
>points going into the new year?

That's what I understood from Jarkko's press conference in November.
Otherwise the player winning AO would get much more (double?) the
points than FO, W, and USO winners have from last year.


      
Date: 18 Dec 2008 01:01:42
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 2009 ATP Questions ...

"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote in message
news:293jk41r4i6pr58eijkgu7onakupj17cur@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:15:08 GMT, "Vari L. Cinicke"
> <cinicke@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>How do the new points work with the old ones? Do we double everyone's
>>points going into the new year?
>
> That's what I understood from Jarkko's press conference in November.
> Otherwise the player winning AO would get much more (double?) the
> points than FO, W, and USO winners have from last year.


It's a complete rescaling, not just "doubling" if I am correct.

Nadal is at 6675, Federer at 5305. The gap is 1370.
I assume the difference will be >2740.

Nadal's lead over Federer won't just "go double" ie remain the same, the
gap should become even bigger in relative terms considering the new system
gives more pts for tournament wins. The ratios are different for lower
rounds, they've remained the same only for tournament wins.



Otherwise, if they just "double" the points, it means the rankings would
change after AO, even if the whole performes the same way as in January
2008.