tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 22 Dec 2008 17:06:57
From:
Subject: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=236218

Some less than favourable reaction though:

"no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."

"It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from his
arse."

"It is a very absurd idea."

Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
system?





 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 07:18:56
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 2:37=A0am, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Just disagree and move on to something else - repeating the same old
> > arguments is totally pointless.
>
> RST would have no traffic at all if we all took your advice.

Yes, I realised that after posting. :-)



 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 06:48:11
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
> Ah, the taste of victory for eternal loser...an ugly sight to witness
> for sure.
>

Good evasion - you conveniently forgot to answer the question about
whether you did know that Rosewall never won Wimbledon.

> Well Rosewall did win on all surfaces and furthermore for
> prestige-interested...he did not have a chance to win Wimbledon at his
> very peak as a pro...for ten years! I find it very reasonable to claim
> that missing Wimbledon is not worth paying attention to.
>

Rosewall missed Wimbledon for 10 years, did he? Thanks for telling us
that, since no-one who follows the game could possibly know that.

> Probably him not winning Wimbledon is a matter because he played in 5
> finals and lost them all...Which I, again, did not know.
>

Why did you not know?

Also Rosewall lost in 4 Wimbledon finals. You're counting the
Wimbledon Open pro event which is not a Wimbledon final. Obviously
taken from Wikipedia again.

> But I'm sure in your pretentious world everyone knows that too. Of
> course they do because they have all internet to search.
>

No - I knew that without having to look up the internet and indeed
before the internet was even widely available.

> Happy New Year and piss off you miserable git.

Happy New Year - maybe you should spend it learning about the game.



 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 04:27:42
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 11:14=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 1:43 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> jdeluise wrote:
> >>> On 30-Dec-2008, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Dec 31, 1:04 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact tha=
t
> >>>>>>>>> every
> >>>>>>>>> tennis fan knows.
> >>>>>>>> Of course I have read it, but dismissed as irrelevant since he d=
id
> >>>>>>>> win
> >>>>>>>> other majors on grass.
> >>>>>>> You just said that you didn't know that Rosewall didn't win Wimbl=
edon.
> >>>>>>> Now you say you did know - were you lying?
> >>>>>> I said have read it, but dismissed it as irrelevant. Learn how to =
read
> >>>>>> and reason.
> >>>>> I can read, fuckwit.
> >>>> I haven't noticed.
> >>>>> "Hell, even I didn't know Rosewall never won Wimbledon".
> >>>>> So you now admit that was a lie?
> >>>> Learn how to reason, dimwit...I read it - didn't think it as relevan=
t -
> >>>> forgot it.
> >>>> I have linked here many times Rosewall's 23 majors listed, obviously=
I
> >>>> have looked it through myself and noticed that Wimbledon is
> >>>> missing...but it's not important in his case.
> >>> Then why did you say you didn't know? =A0Perhaps it's the language ba=
rrier,
> >>> but generally saying you don't know something means just that. =A0It =
doesn't
> >>> normally mean "it was irrelevant". =A0What gives??
> >> Enough.
>
> > Good response ... dumbass
>
> I see you're coming out of the closet and letting us know that you're
> really a...cunt. How did you manage to fool us so long? Are you going to
> answer all my posts with obscenities from now on?

Only the ones where you are lying





 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 00:54:45
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
> Recognition leads to sentiment. You seem to argue we should not prefer
> one entity over another, or you can't fathom one entity being more
> popular than another in case of Wimbledon.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Recognition leads to sentiment indeed, I guess that's why Hitler, a
highly recognisable identity holds a sentimental place in so many
hearts.


 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 00:48:25
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 7:37=A0am, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
> Recognition leads to sentiment. You seem to argue we should not prefer
> one entity over another,

No, I am not arguing that. One can prefer any slam over another for
whatever reasons. I am saying the so-called superior prestige of
Wimbledon is mostly fluff at this point.

> or you can't fathom one entity being more
> popular than another in case of Wimbledon.

Of course I can. But we are not talking about the popularity of a
venue here. Is Christianity the more prestigious religion since it is
more popular than Buddhism?


 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 00:29:34
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 11:41=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 6:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> >>> Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
> >>> doesn't make it true.
>
> >> Wrong way round. I'm repeating it because it's true. Open your eyes.
> >> Listen to the players. Read the papers. Read the RG website.
>
> > You are living in a bygone era. Wimbledon just isn't that prestigious
> > anymore.
>
> I think we've lost him. His mind has gone.

Making dramatic comments like this will not prove anything. It's just
another expression of your denial.


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 18:09:04
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 1:22=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 1:04 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact that ev=
ery
> >>>>> tennis fan knows.
> >>>> Of course I have read it, but dismissed as irrelevant since he did w=
in
> >>>> other majors on grass.
> >>> You just said that you didn't know that Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon=
.
> >>> Now you say you did know - were you lying?
> >> I said have read it, but dismissed it as irrelevant. Learn how to read
> >> and reason.
>
> > I can read, fuckwit.
>
> I haven't noticed.
>
>
>
> > "Hell, even I didn't know Rosewall never won Wimbledon".
>
> > So you now admit that was a lie?
>
> Learn how to reason, dimwit...I read it - didn't think it as relevant -
> forgot it.

You forgot it!! Brilliant! So you decided in your infinite wisdom
that this fact about Rosewall (which everyone else knows) was
irrelevant and dismissed it from your mind so completely that there
was no memory of you ever having known it in the first place.

Except of course when it was mentioned again - then you suddenly
remembered that you had known it but had forgotten it ...
LOL




  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 13:32:35
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 31, 1:22 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Dec 31, 1:04 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact that every
>>>>>>> tennis fan knows.
>>>>>> Of course I have read it, but dismissed as irrelevant since he did win
>>>>>> other majors on grass.
>>>>> You just said that you didn't know that Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon.
>>>>> Now you say you did know - were you lying?
>>>> I said have read it, but dismissed it as irrelevant. Learn how to read
>>>> and reason.
>>> I can read, fuckwit.
>> I haven't noticed.
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Hell, even I didn't know Rosewall never won Wimbledon".
>>> So you now admit that was a lie?
>> Learn how to reason, dimwit...I read it - didn't think it as relevant -
>> forgot it.
>
> You forgot it!! Brilliant! So you decided in your infinite wisdom
> that this fact about Rosewall (which everyone else knows) was
> irrelevant and dismissed it from your mind so completely that there
> was no memory of you ever having known it in the first place.
>
> Except of course when it was mentioned again - then you suddenly
> remembered that you had known it but had forgotten it ...
> LOL
>
>

Ah, the taste of victory for eternal loser...an ugly sight to witness
for sure.

Well Rosewall did win on all surfaces and furthermore for
prestige-interested...he did not have a chance to win Wimbledon at his
very peak as a pro...for ten years! I find it very reasonable to claim
that missing Wimbledon is not worth paying attention to.

Probably him not winning Wimbledon is a matter because he played in 5
finals and lost them all...Which I, again, did not know.

But I'm sure in your pretentious world everyone knows that too. Of
course they do because they have all internet to search.

Happy New Year and piss off you miserable git.



--
"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: 30 Dec 2008 18:04:47
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 1:43=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> jdeluise wrote:
> > On 30-Dec-2008, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> >> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Dec 31, 1:04 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact that
> >>>>>>> every
> >>>>>>> tennis fan knows.
> >>>>>> Of course I have read it, but dismissed as irrelevant since he did
> >>>>>> win
> >>>>>> other majors on grass.
> >>>>> You just said that you didn't know that Rosewall didn't win Wimbled=
on.
> >>>>> Now you say you did know - were you lying?
> >>>> I said have read it, but dismissed it as irrelevant. Learn how to re=
ad
> >>>> and reason.
> >>> I can read, fuckwit.
> >> I haven't noticed.
>
> >>> "Hell, even I didn't know Rosewall never won Wimbledon".
>
> >>> So you now admit that was a lie?
> >> Learn how to reason, dimwit...I read it - didn't think it as relevant =
-
> >> forgot it.
>
> >> I have linked here many times Rosewall's 23 majors listed, obviously I
> >> have looked it through myself and noticed that Wimbledon is
> >> missing...but it's not important in his case.
>
> > Then why did you say you didn't know? =A0Perhaps it's the language barr=
ier,
> > but generally saying you don't know something means just that. =A0It do=
esn't
> > normally mean "it was irrelevant". =A0What gives??
>
> Enough.

Good response ... dumbass





  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 13:14:20
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 31, 1:43 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> jdeluise wrote:
>>> On 30-Dec-2008, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 31, 1:04 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact that
>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>> tennis fan knows.
>>>>>>>> Of course I have read it, but dismissed as irrelevant since he did
>>>>>>>> win
>>>>>>>> other majors on grass.
>>>>>>> You just said that you didn't know that Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon.
>>>>>>> Now you say you did know - were you lying?
>>>>>> I said have read it, but dismissed it as irrelevant. Learn how to read
>>>>>> and reason.
>>>>> I can read, fuckwit.
>>>> I haven't noticed.
>>>>> "Hell, even I didn't know Rosewall never won Wimbledon".
>>>>> So you now admit that was a lie?
>>>> Learn how to reason, dimwit...I read it - didn't think it as relevant -
>>>> forgot it.
>>>> I have linked here many times Rosewall's 23 majors listed, obviously I
>>>> have looked it through myself and noticed that Wimbledon is
>>>> missing...but it's not important in his case.
>>> Then why did you say you didn't know? Perhaps it's the language barrier,
>>> but generally saying you don't know something means just that. It doesn't
>>> normally mean "it was irrelevant". What gives??
>> Enough.
>
> Good response ... dumbass
>
>

I see you're coming out of the closet and letting us know that you're
really a...cunt. How did you manage to fool us so long? Are you going to
answer all my posts with obscenities from now on?


--
"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: 30 Dec 2008 17:37:39
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On 31 dec, 01:54, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 31, 6:38=A0am, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 31 dec, 01:31, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 31, 6:11=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > > Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
> > > > > doesn't make it true.
>
> > > > Wrong way round. I'm repeating it because it's true. Open your eyes=
. Listen to
> > > > the players. Read the papers. Read the RG website.
>
> > > You are living in a bygone era. Wimbledon just isn't that prestigious
> > > anymore. It's more about the tennis now, not the venue. If you follow
> > > the papers in the 1980s and then read the ones of today and observe
> > > how they talk about Wimbledon, you will see a vast change. In those
> > > days, Wimbledon was always described in glowing terms, superlatives
> > > flowing in every paragraph. It had its own idiosyncratic seeding
> > > system, players were very deferential, etc. It just isn't like that
> > > anymore.
>
> > Being not as prestigious as it once was obviously doesn't mean it
> > isn't still the most prestigious today. Many, if not most, players and
> > fans still think it is.
>
> > The RG website stating it is, makes it hard to argue with.
>
> It's always hard to argue against something based on emotion and
> nothing else. It has an almost cult-like undertone to it, as if it's a
> place of pilgrimage of sort.
>
> Let me give you an analogy. The Muslims view the city of Mecca as the
> holiest place on Earth. This is where Islam started. They do their
> annual pilgrimage there, every year. It's the most celebrated ritual
> in the Muslim world. Of course, it doesn't mean that much to people of
> other faith.
>
> The players and fans who speak of Wimbledon as the most prestigious,
> display a strong resemblance to the above. This is where tennis
> started, they say. It's like they are making their annual pilgrimage.
> It's gained a shrine-like quality. Perhaps it is human nature to find
> and establish such religion-like institutions. It probably gives it
> all some bigger meaning.

Maybe in 10 years Wimbledon will not be considered the most
prestigious by a majority of tennis folk. Mecca otoh will (likely)
always be a holy place for Muslims. No need to mention the more
obvious differences. Recognizing prestige in a certain entity does not
necessarily make one biased against or blind to another less
prestigious but similar entity. It may just be sentiment. It doesn't
make you a worshipper per se.

I think the prestige Wimbledon has attached to it is because of
players' and fans' 'recognition' with the tournament. There are a
number of causes.
- First and most prominent cause being that Wimbledon is the best
covered and viewed tennis event in the sports history.
- The second being the distinct entourage or feel of the place.
- The third because the tournament has deliberately maintained its
distinct surroundings.
- Fourth being because it represented a unique playing style for at
least a couple of decades (serve-volley and generally quick points,
adding to a sentiment among players and fans with a preference to his
style).
- Fifth being the actual history of the place and the tournaments
capability of exploiting this in terms of marketing / propaganda.

Recognition leads to sentiment. You seem to argue we should not prefer
one entity over another, or you can't fathom one entity being more
popular than another in case of Wimbledon.


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 17:13:00
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 1:04=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact that ever=
y
> >>> tennis fan knows.
> >> Of course I have read it, but dismissed as irrelevant since he did win
> >> other majors on grass.
>
> > You just said that you didn't know that Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon.
> > Now you say you did know - were you lying?
>
> I said have read it, but dismissed it as irrelevant. Learn how to read
> and reason.

I can read, fuckwit.

"Hell, even I didn't know Rosewall never won Wimbledon".

So you now admit that was a lie?


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 03:22:04
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 31, 1:04 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact that every
>>>>> tennis fan knows.
>>>> Of course I have read it, but dismissed as irrelevant since he did win
>>>> other majors on grass.
>>> You just said that you didn't know that Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon.
>>> Now you say you did know - were you lying?
>> I said have read it, but dismissed it as irrelevant. Learn how to read
>> and reason.
>
> I can read, fuckwit.

I haven't noticed.

>
> "Hell, even I didn't know Rosewall never won Wimbledon".
>
> So you now admit that was a lie?

Learn how to reason, dimwit...I read it - didn't think it as relevant -
forgot it.

I have linked here many times Rosewall's 23 majors listed, obviously I
have looked it through myself and noticed that Wimbledon is
missing...but it's not important in his case.


--
"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: 31 Dec 2008 01:35:32
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

On 30-Dec-2008, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 1:04 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact that
> >>>>> every
> >>>>> tennis fan knows.
> >>>> Of course I have read it, but dismissed as irrelevant since he did
> >>>> win
> >>>> other majors on grass.
> >>> You just said that you didn't know that Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon.
> >>> Now you say you did know - were you lying?
> >> I said have read it, but dismissed it as irrelevant. Learn how to read
> >> and reason.
> >
> > I can read, fuckwit.
>
> I haven't noticed.
>
> >
> > "Hell, even I didn't know Rosewall never won Wimbledon".
> >
> > So you now admit that was a lie?
>
> Learn how to reason, dimwit...I read it - didn't think it as relevant -
> forgot it.
>
> I have linked here many times Rosewall's 23 majors listed, obviously I
> have looked it through myself and noticed that Wimbledon is
> missing...but it's not important in his case.

Then why did you say you didn't know? Perhaps it's the language barrier,
but generally saying you don't know something means just that. It doesn't
normally mean "it was irrelevant". What gives??


    
Date: 31 Dec 2008 03:43:32
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 30-Dec-2008, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Dec 31, 1:04 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact that
>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>> tennis fan knows.
>>>>>> Of course I have read it, but dismissed as irrelevant since he did
>>>>>> win
>>>>>> other majors on grass.
>>>>> You just said that you didn't know that Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon.
>>>>> Now you say you did know - were you lying?
>>>> I said have read it, but dismissed it as irrelevant. Learn how to read
>>>> and reason.
>>> I can read, fuckwit.
>> I haven't noticed.
>>
>>> "Hell, even I didn't know Rosewall never won Wimbledon".
>>>
>>> So you now admit that was a lie?
>> Learn how to reason, dimwit...I read it - didn't think it as relevant -
>> forgot it.
>>
>> I have linked here many times Rosewall's 23 majors listed, obviously I
>> have looked it through myself and noticed that Wimbledon is
>> missing...but it's not important in his case.
>
> Then why did you say you didn't know? Perhaps it's the language barrier,
> but generally saying you don't know something means just that. It doesn't
> normally mean "it was irrelevant". What gives??

Enough.

--
"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: 31 Dec 2008 21:32:13
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT <gold@Olympics.org > writes:

> jdeluise wrote:
>> On 30-Dec-2008, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Dec 31, 1:04 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact that
>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>> tennis fan knows.
>>>>>>> Of course I have read it, but dismissed as irrelevant since he did
>>>>>>> win
>>>>>>> other majors on grass.
>>>>>> You just said that you didn't know that Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon.
>>>>>> Now you say you did know - were you lying?
>>>>> I said have read it, but dismissed it as irrelevant. Learn how to read
>>>>> and reason.
>>>> I can read, fuckwit.
>>> I haven't noticed.
>>>
>>>> "Hell, even I didn't know Rosewall never won Wimbledon".
>>>>
>>>> So you now admit that was a lie?
>>> Learn how to reason, dimwit...I read it - didn't think it as
>>> relevant -
>>> forgot it.
>>>
>>> I have linked here many times Rosewall's 23 majors listed, obviously I
>>> have looked it through myself and noticed that Wimbledon is
>>> missing...but it's not important in his case.
>>
>> Then why did you say you didn't know? Perhaps it's the language barrier,
>> but generally saying you don't know something means just that. It doesn't
>> normally mean "it was irrelevant". What gives??
>
> Enough.

Are you the same "TJT" that used to spam some of the finnish speaking
newsgroups?


      
Date: 02 Jan 2009 00:18:01
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
pok@me.not.invalid wrote:
> TT <gold@Olympics.org> writes:
>
>> jdeluise wrote:
>>> On 30-Dec-2008, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 31, 1:04 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact that
>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>> tennis fan knows.
>>>>>>>> Of course I have read it, but dismissed as irrelevant since he did
>>>>>>>> win
>>>>>>>> other majors on grass.
>>>>>>> You just said that you didn't know that Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon.
>>>>>>> Now you say you did know - were you lying?
>>>>>> I said have read it, but dismissed it as irrelevant. Learn how to read
>>>>>> and reason.
>>>>> I can read, fuckwit.
>>>> I haven't noticed.
>>>>
>>>>> "Hell, even I didn't know Rosewall never won Wimbledon".
>>>>>
>>>>> So you now admit that was a lie?
>>>> Learn how to reason, dimwit...I read it - didn't think it as
>>>> relevant -
>>>> forgot it.
>>>>
>>>> I have linked here many times Rosewall's 23 majors listed, obviously I
>>>> have looked it through myself and noticed that Wimbledon is
>>>> missing...but it's not important in his case.
>>> Then why did you say you didn't know? Perhaps it's the language barrier,
>>> but generally saying you don't know something means just that. It doesn't
>>> normally mean "it was irrelevant". What gives??
>> Enough.
>
> Are you the same "TJT" that used to spam some of the finnish speaking
> newsgroups?

No I am not. Never wrote in a Finnish speaking newsgroup.

--
"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: 02 Jan 2009 00:19:59
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
> pok@me.not.invalid wrote:
>> TT <gold@Olympics.org> writes:
>>
>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>> On 30-Dec-2008, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 31, 1:04 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact that
>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>> tennis fan knows.
>>>>>>>>> Of course I have read it, but dismissed as irrelevant since he did
>>>>>>>>> win
>>>>>>>>> other majors on grass.
>>>>>>>> You just said that you didn't know that Rosewall didn't win
>>>>>>>> Wimbledon.
>>>>>>>> Now you say you did know - were you lying?
>>>>>>> I said have read it, but dismissed it as irrelevant. Learn how to
>>>>>>> read
>>>>>>> and reason.
>>>>>> I can read, fuckwit.
>>>>> I haven't noticed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Hell, even I didn't know Rosewall never won Wimbledon".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you now admit that was a lie?
>>>>> Learn how to reason, dimwit...I read it - didn't think it as
>>>>> relevant - forgot it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have linked here many times Rosewall's 23 majors listed, obviously I
>>>>> have looked it through myself and noticed that Wimbledon is
>>>>> missing...but it's not important in his case.
>>>> Then why did you say you didn't know? Perhaps it's the language
>>>> barrier,
>>>> but generally saying you don't know something means just that. It
>>>> doesn't
>>>> normally mean "it was irrelevant". What gives??
>>> Enough.
>>
>> Are you the same "TJT" that used to spam some of the finnish speaking
>> newsgroups?
>
> No I am not. Never wrote in a Finnish speaking newsgroup.
>

Oh and btw whose sockpuppet are you?

--
"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: 31 Dec 2008 19:45:37
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

On 31-Dec-2008, pok@me.not.invalid wrote:

>
> Are you the same "TJT" that used to spam some of the finnish speaking
> newsgroups?

He is probably too drunk to answer right now. But if I had to guess I would
say yes. He is currently the most prolific poster in rst this month, even
topping Whisper!


       
Date: 02 Jan 2009 02:37:57
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 31-Dec-2008, pok@me.not.invalid wrote:
>
>> Are you the same "TJT" that used to spam some of the finnish speaking
>> newsgroups?
>
> He is probably too drunk to answer right now. But if I had to guess I would
> say yes. He is currently the most prolific poster in rst this month, even
> topping Whisper!

That's not very nice thing to say.

What's wrong with posting a lot, isn't this newgsroup about posting. I
checked I had 569 messages in December, while Whisper has around 40
months more posts than that in last few years.

I don't spam, but rather interact and change opinions.
--
"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: 02 Jan 2009 06:29:59
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

On 1-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> jdeluise wrote:
> > On 31-Dec-2008, pok@me.not.invalid wrote:
> >
> >> Are you the same "TJT" that used to spam some of the finnish speaking
> >> newsgroups?
> >
> > He is probably too drunk to answer right now. But if I had to guess I
> > would
> > say yes. He is currently the most prolific poster in rst this month,
> > even
> > topping Whisper!
>
> That's not very nice thing to say.
>
> What's wrong with posting a lot, isn't this newgsroup about posting. I
> checked I had 569 messages in December, while Whisper has around 40
> months more posts than that in last few years.
>
> I don't spam, but rather interact and change opinions.

You changed an opinion? When????


         
Date: 02 Jan 2009 17:20:34
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 1-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> jdeluise wrote:
>>> On 31-Dec-2008, pok@me.not.invalid wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you the same "TJT" that used to spam some of the finnish speaking
>>>> newsgroups?
>>> He is probably too drunk to answer right now. But if I had to guess I
>>> would
>>> say yes. He is currently the most prolific poster in rst this month,
>>> even
>>> topping Whisper!
>> That's not very nice thing to say.
>>
>> What's wrong with posting a lot, isn't this newgsroup about posting. I
>> checked I had 569 messages in December, while Whisper has around 40
>> months more posts than that in last few years.
>>
>> I don't spam, but rather interact and change opinions.
>
> You changed an opinion? When????

Is that and apology?

Perhaps the term I was after was "share" opinions.

--
"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: 30 Dec 2008 17:02:59
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 6:47=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 31, 12:38=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 6:23=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 30, 11:56=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > > > On Dec 31, 5:19=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 30, 10:49=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> w=
rote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 31, 4:05=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 10:21 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wro=
te:
> > > > > > > >> TT wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> Whisper wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> Iceberg wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >>>>>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iin=
et.net.au...
> > > > > > > >>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Wimbledonistas are rabid, intolerant, semi-religious =
freaks.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> You probe them a little and the inner ugliness shows =
up in the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> form of name-calling and plain stubbornness.
>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia =
& had the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downg=
rade the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Asian Championships, paying no regard to it having the=
longest &
> > > > > > > >>>>>> most famous tennis tradition?
>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Be honest now.
>
> > > > > > > >>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most India=
ns in India
> > > > > > > >>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>
> > > > > > > >>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>
> > > > > > > >>> "It just is" -Whisper
>
> > > > > > > >> Yes, only newbies don't get Wimbledon - or some recalcitra=
nt Asians.
>
> > > > > > > >> 'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.
>
> > > > > > > > "It just is" is not a good answer.
>
> > > > > > > It's a perfectly good answer.
>
> > > > > > No.
>
> > > > > > > Repeat after me: "It does not matter _why_
> > > > > > > Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament."
>
> > > > > > Why? How is this not Orwellian?
>
> > > > > > > =A0Prestige does not have to be
> > > > > > > rationalized. Why should it?
>
> > > > > > Otherwise it is meaningless. If you cannot rationally define wh=
y
> > > > > > something is the most prestigious, then it is probably not the =
most
> > > > > > prestigious. It's a baseless belief.
>
> > > > > > > Wimbledon is the most important tournament to the
> > > > > > > vast majority of players and fans. End of story.
>
> > > > > > Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
> > > > > > doesn't make it true. As it stands now, Wimbledon is one of the=
four
> > > > > > most important tournaments in tennis. It's the most important o=
nly to
> > > > > > long-time/old/traditional/conservative Wimbledon fans, most of =
whom
> > > > > > are British. I agree the notion of most prestigious is very
> > > > > > aristocratic and romantic. It makes Wimbledon sound like someth=
ing
> > > > > > grand and larger than life. It gives it a kind of cult-like sta=
ture.
> > > > > > Obviously a lot of people drank the kool-aid on this one, inclu=
ding a
> > > > > > lot of players.
>
> > > > > Look, why don't you give it up. You're entitled to your opinion,
> > > > > everyone is. But you'll have to accept that for the majority of t=
ennis
> > > > > fans, Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament around. That's
> > > > > based largely on the history of the game, which cannot be changed=
.
> > > > > That's just the way it is.
>
> > > > > Just disagree and move on to something else - repeating the same =
old
> > > > > arguments is totally pointless.
>
> > > > Give up on what? Look, it would have been nice if it just stopped a=
t
> > > > calling Wimbledon that most prestigious slam or whatever. But it
> > > > doesn't stop there, does it? The same guys who are the most rabid
> > > > Wimbledon fans around here, Whimpy and DavidW, want us to believe i=
n
> > > > something entirely nonsensical as 7543.
>
> > > > Why don't you ask Whimpy and DavidW to give up on 7543 instead? Or =
do
> > > > you believe in that nonsense too?
>
> > > You don't *have* to believe anything. 7543 is a theory proposed by
> > > someone and you don't have to agree with it.
>
> > I think it's obvious that I don't agree with it. Do you agree with it?
> > If not, do you agree that Whimpy et al are incorrectly using
> > Wimbledon's so-called "most prestigious" label as a basis for their
> > system?
>
> In my opinion Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament. There is a
> rough priority of the slams in my mind, though 7543 is oversimplifying
> things a bit, and it should not be used as a simple ranking scheme for
> players.
>

What is 7543 useful for then? And, correspondingly, what is the
superior prestige of Wimbledon useful for then, in terms of tennis?


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 12:30:03
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> In my opinion Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament. There is a
>> rough priority of the slams in my mind, though 7543 is oversimplifying
>> things a bit, and it should not be used as a simple ranking scheme for
>> players.
>>
>
> What is 7543 useful for then? And, correspondingly, what is the
> superior prestige of Wimbledon useful for then, in terms of tennis?


There are many players (most?) who wouldn't give up a single Wimbledon
for any number of other slams. Lendl for eg said he would swap all 8 of
his slams for just 1 Wimbledon crown. Federer is on record saying he'd
prefer to win an 11th Wimbledon over 1st FO crown.

Nobody talks about the other slams in these terms. This bias in favor
of Wimbledon exists in the mind of players, experts & all knowledgeable
fans. If you didn't know it existed you wouldn't be arguing like this.
You are annoyed that Wimbledon holds this place in the game & can't
accept it.

Now obviously something as desired as Wimbledon cannot be equal to
lesser slams. The great players try much harder to win it as it means
so much more for their legacy. The playing style of a great champ seems
to have little bearing on success rate - Borg was the ultimate baseliner
& he dominated for 5 or 6 yrs, Sampras power s/v'er did likewise. The
greatest players will find a way to win the greatest title. The great
players who fail make interesting case studies - Lendl failed for a
combination of factors - he chose wrong strategy (shoulda stayed on
baseline) & was brittle in the crunch. Rosewall failed because he
played pros in his peakest years - but generally the greats do break
through.

We can't have a situation where 1 Wimbledon trumps any number of slams -
that's ridiculous as the other slams have their own level of prestige &
it isn't zero. I start by reasoning winning Wimbledon & any other slam
beats any other 2-slam combo, thus Wim/AO has to be worth more than
USO/FO. It's better to win 1 Wimbledon than 2 AO's, but 3 AO's trumps 1
Wimbledon etc







 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 17:01:47
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 6:48=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 31, 12:31=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 6:11=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
> > > > doesn't make it true.
>
> > > Wrong way round. I'm repeating it because it's true. Open your eyes. =
Listen to
> > > the players. Read the papers. Read the RG website.
>
> > You are living in a bygone era. Wimbledon just isn't that prestigious
> > anymore. It's more about the tennis now, not the venue. If you follow
> > the papers in the 1980s and then read the ones of today and observe
> > how they talk about Wimbledon, you will see a vast change. In those
> > days, Wimbledon was always described in glowing terms, superlatives
> > flowing in every paragraph. It had its own idiosyncratic seeding
> > system, players were very deferential, etc. It just isn't like that
> > anymore.
>
> Which papers are you talking about?

New York Times for example.


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 16:57:14
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
> > Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact that every
> > tennis fan knows.
>
> Of course I have read it, but dismissed as irrelevant since he did win
> other majors on grass.

You just said that you didn't know that Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon.
Now you say you did know - were you lying?

> And you're a pretentious prick. That's not a basic fact that every
> tennis fan knows. Many don't even know who Rosewall is or that he won 23
> majors.

It may not be a fact that you know, but you don't seem to know much at
all.

Any real tennis fan should have heard of Rosewall. The most common
fact about him is that he didn't win Wimbledon - very few people know
that he won "23 majors", since that was a combination of amatuer and
professional titles.

Your knowledge appears to come from reading his Wikipedia entry.





  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 03:04:56
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact that every
>>> tennis fan knows.
>> Of course I have read it, but dismissed as irrelevant since he did win
>> other majors on grass.
>
> You just said that you didn't know that Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon.
> Now you say you did know - were you lying?

I said have read it, but dismissed it as irrelevant. Learn how to read
and reason.


   
Date: 31 Dec 2008 12:30:38
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact that every
>>>> tennis fan knows.
>>> Of course I have read it, but dismissed as irrelevant since he did win
>>> other majors on grass.
>>
>> You just said that you didn't know that Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon.
>> Now you say you did know - were you lying?
>
> I said have read it, but dismissed it as irrelevant. Learn how to read
> and reason.



If it's irrelevant he wouldn't be known for it.



    
Date: 31 Dec 2008 03:38:40
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact that every
>>>>> tennis fan knows.
>>>> Of course I have read it, but dismissed as irrelevant since he did win
>>>> other majors on grass.
>>>
>>> You just said that you didn't know that Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon.
>>> Now you say you did know - were you lying?
>>
>> I said have read it, but dismissed it as irrelevant. Learn how to read
>> and reason.
>
>
>
> If it's irrelevant he wouldn't be known for it.
>

He's won majors on clay, grass and 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: 30 Dec 2008 16:54:10
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 6:38=A0am, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 31 dec, 01:31, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 6:11=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
> > > > doesn't make it true.
>
> > > Wrong way round. I'm repeating it because it's true. Open your eyes. =
Listen to
> > > the players. Read the papers. Read the RG website.
>
> > You are living in a bygone era. Wimbledon just isn't that prestigious
> > anymore. It's more about the tennis now, not the venue. If you follow
> > the papers in the 1980s and then read the ones of today and observe
> > how they talk about Wimbledon, you will see a vast change. In those
> > days, Wimbledon was always described in glowing terms, superlatives
> > flowing in every paragraph. It had its own idiosyncratic seeding
> > system, players were very deferential, etc. It just isn't like that
> > anymore.
>
> Being not as prestigious as it once was obviously doesn't mean it
> isn't still the most prestigious today. Many, if not most, players and
> fans still think it is.
>
> The RG website stating it is, makes it hard to argue with.

It's always hard to argue against something based on emotion and
nothing else. It has an almost cult-like undertone to it, as if it's a
place of pilgrimage of sort.

Let me give you an analogy. The Muslims view the city of Mecca as the
holiest place on Earth. This is where Islam started. They do their
annual pilgrimage there, every year. It's the most celebrated ritual
in the Muslim world. Of course, it doesn't mean that much to people of
other faith.

The players and fans who speak of Wimbledon as the most prestigious,
display a strong resemblance to the above. This is where tennis
started, they say. It's like they are making their annual pilgrimage.
It's gained a shrine-like quality. Perhaps it is human nature to find
and establish such religion-like institutions. It probably gives it
all some bigger meaning.


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 16:48:36
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 12:31=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 31, 6:11=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
> > > doesn't make it true.
>
> > Wrong way round. I'm repeating it because it's true. Open your eyes. Li=
sten to
> > the players. Read the papers. Read the RG website.
>
> You are living in a bygone era. Wimbledon just isn't that prestigious
> anymore. It's more about the tennis now, not the venue. If you follow
> the papers in the 1980s and then read the ones of today and observe
> how they talk about Wimbledon, you will see a vast change. In those
> days, Wimbledon was always described in glowing terms, superlatives
> flowing in every paragraph. It had its own idiosyncratic seeding
> system, players were very deferential, etc. It just isn't like that
> anymore.

Which papers are you talking about?


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 16:47:22
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 12:38=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 31, 6:23=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 30, 11:56=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 31, 5:19=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 30, 10:49=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wro=
te:
>
> > > > > On Dec 31, 4:05=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > > > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > > > > > > On Dec 30, 10:21 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote=
:
> > > > > > >> TT wrote:
> > > > > > >>> Whisper wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> Iceberg wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > > > >>>>>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet=
.net.au...
> > > > > > >>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Wimbledonistas are rabid, intolerant, semi-religious fr=
eaks.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> You probe them a little and the inner ugliness shows up=
in the
> > > > > > >>>>>>> form of name-calling and plain stubbornness.
>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & =
had the
> > > > > > >>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgra=
de the
> > > > > > >>>>>> Asian Championships, paying no regard to it having the l=
ongest &
> > > > > > >>>>>> most famous tennis tradition?
>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Be honest now.
>
> > > > > > >>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians=
in India
> > > > > > >>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>
> > > > > > >>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>
> > > > > > >>> "It just is" -Whisper
>
> > > > > > >> Yes, only newbies don't get Wimbledon - or some recalcitrant=
Asians.
>
> > > > > > >> 'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.
>
> > > > > > > "It just is" is not a good answer.
>
> > > > > > It's a perfectly good answer.
>
> > > > > No.
>
> > > > > > Repeat after me: "It does not matter _why_
> > > > > > Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament."
>
> > > > > Why? How is this not Orwellian?
>
> > > > > > =A0Prestige does not have to be
> > > > > > rationalized. Why should it?
>
> > > > > Otherwise it is meaningless. If you cannot rationally define why
> > > > > something is the most prestigious, then it is probably not the mo=
st
> > > > > prestigious. It's a baseless belief.
>
> > > > > > Wimbledon is the most important tournament to the
> > > > > > vast majority of players and fans. End of story.
>
> > > > > Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
> > > > > doesn't make it true. As it stands now, Wimbledon is one of the f=
our
> > > > > most important tournaments in tennis. It's the most important onl=
y to
> > > > > long-time/old/traditional/conservative Wimbledon fans, most of wh=
om
> > > > > are British. I agree the notion of most prestigious is very
> > > > > aristocratic and romantic. It makes Wimbledon sound like somethin=
g
> > > > > grand and larger than life. It gives it a kind of cult-like statu=
re.
> > > > > Obviously a lot of people drank the kool-aid on this one, includi=
ng a
> > > > > lot of players.
>
> > > > Look, why don't you give it up. You're entitled to your opinion,
> > > > everyone is. But you'll have to accept that for the majority of ten=
nis
> > > > fans, Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament around. That's
> > > > based largely on the history of the game, which cannot be changed.
> > > > That's just the way it is.
>
> > > > Just disagree and move on to something else - repeating the same ol=
d
> > > > arguments is totally pointless.
>
> > > Give up on what? Look, it would have been nice if it just stopped at
> > > calling Wimbledon that most prestigious slam or whatever. But it
> > > doesn't stop there, does it? The same guys who are the most rabid
> > > Wimbledon fans around here, Whimpy and DavidW, want us to believe in
> > > something entirely nonsensical as 7543.
>
> > > Why don't you ask Whimpy and DavidW to give up on 7543 instead? Or do
> > > you believe in that nonsense too?
>
> > You don't *have* to believe anything. 7543 is a theory proposed by
> > someone and you don't have to agree with it.
>
> I think it's obvious that I don't agree with it. Do you agree with it?
> If not, do you agree that Whimpy et al are incorrectly using
> Wimbledon's so-called "most prestigious" label as a basis for their
> system?

In my opinion Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament. There is a
rough priority of the slams in my mind, though 7543 is oversimplifying
things a bit, and it should not be used as a simple ranking scheme for
players.

> > If you are secure in your own opinions, then you shouldn't need to
> > worry too much about different ones.
>
> What a bland, generic thing to say. If everyone followed that, then
> there would be no controversies, no discussions or debates.

OK, feel free then to continue trying to persuade others of your point
of view. But it looks pointless to me.



  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 02:59:22
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 31, 12:38 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 6:23 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 30, 11:56 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 31, 5:19 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 30, 10:49 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 31, 4:05 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 10:21 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wimbledonistas are rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You probe them a little and the inner ugliness shows up in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of name-calling and plain stubbornness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Asian Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest &
>>>>>>>>>>>>> most famous tennis tradition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Be honest now.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
>>>>>>>>>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>>>>>>>>>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>>>>>>>>>> "It just is" -Whisper
>>>>>>>>> Yes, only newbies don't get Wimbledon - or some recalcitrant Asians.
>>>>>>>>> 'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.
>>>>>>>> "It just is" is not a good answer.
>>>>>>> It's a perfectly good answer.
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>> Repeat after me: "It does not matter _why_
>>>>>>> Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament."
>>>>>> Why? How is this not Orwellian?
>>>>>>> Prestige does not have to be
>>>>>>> rationalized. Why should it?
>>>>>> Otherwise it is meaningless. If you cannot rationally define why
>>>>>> something is the most prestigious, then it is probably not the most
>>>>>> prestigious. It's a baseless belief.
>>>>>>> Wimbledon is the most important tournament to the
>>>>>>> vast majority of players and fans. End of story.
>>>>>> Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
>>>>>> doesn't make it true. As it stands now, Wimbledon is one of the four
>>>>>> most important tournaments in tennis. It's the most important only to
>>>>>> long-time/old/traditional/conservative Wimbledon fans, most of whom
>>>>>> are British. I agree the notion of most prestigious is very
>>>>>> aristocratic and romantic. It makes Wimbledon sound like something
>>>>>> grand and larger than life. It gives it a kind of cult-like stature.
>>>>>> Obviously a lot of people drank the kool-aid on this one, including a
>>>>>> lot of players.
>>>>> Look, why don't you give it up. You're entitled to your opinion,
>>>>> everyone is. But you'll have to accept that for the majority of tennis
>>>>> fans, Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament around. That's
>>>>> based largely on the history of the game, which cannot be changed.
>>>>> That's just the way it is.
>>>>> Just disagree and move on to something else - repeating the same old
>>>>> arguments is totally pointless.
>>>> Give up on what? Look, it would have been nice if it just stopped at
>>>> calling Wimbledon that most prestigious slam or whatever. But it
>>>> doesn't stop there, does it? The same guys who are the most rabid
>>>> Wimbledon fans around here, Whimpy and DavidW, want us to believe in
>>>> something entirely nonsensical as 7543.
>>>> Why don't you ask Whimpy and DavidW to give up on 7543 instead? Or do
>>>> you believe in that nonsense too?
>>> You don't *have* to believe anything. 7543 is a theory proposed by
>>> someone and you don't have to agree with it.
>> I think it's obvious that I don't agree with it. Do you agree with it?
>> If not, do you agree that Whimpy et al are incorrectly using
>> Wimbledon's so-called "most prestigious" label as a basis for their
>> system?
>
> In my opinion Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament. There is a
> rough priority of the slams in my mind, though 7543 is oversimplifying
> things a bit, and it should not be used as a simple ranking scheme for
> players.

If you're not willing to put forward more ranking points for Wimbledon
then prestige is just a word with no connection to reality. This debate
absurd.

--
"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: 30 Dec 2008 16:38:53
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 6:23=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 30, 11:56=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 5:19=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 30, 10:49=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > > > On Dec 31, 4:05=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 30, 10:21 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > >> TT wrote:
> > > > > >>> Whisper wrote:
> > > > > >>>> Iceberg wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > > >>>>>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.n=
et.au...
> > > > > >>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that
> > > > > >>>>>>> Wimbledonistas are rabid, intolerant, semi-religious frea=
ks.
> > > > > >>>>>>> You probe them a little and the inner ugliness shows up i=
n the
> > > > > >>>>>>> form of name-calling and plain stubbornness.
>
> > > > > >>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & ha=
d the
> > > > > >>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>
> > > > > >>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade=
the
> > > > > >>>>>> Asian Championships, paying no regard to it having the lon=
gest &
> > > > > >>>>>> most famous tennis tradition?
>
> > > > > >>>>>> Be honest now.
>
> > > > > >>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians i=
n India
> > > > > >>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>
> > > > > >>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>
> > > > > >>> "It just is" -Whisper
>
> > > > > >> Yes, only newbies don't get Wimbledon - or some recalcitrant A=
sians.
>
> > > > > >> 'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.
>
> > > > > > "It just is" is not a good answer.
>
> > > > > It's a perfectly good answer.
>
> > > > No.
>
> > > > > Repeat after me: "It does not matter _why_
> > > > > Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament."
>
> > > > Why? How is this not Orwellian?
>
> > > > > =A0Prestige does not have to be
> > > > > rationalized. Why should it?
>
> > > > Otherwise it is meaningless. If you cannot rationally define why
> > > > something is the most prestigious, then it is probably not the most
> > > > prestigious. It's a baseless belief.
>
> > > > > Wimbledon is the most important tournament to the
> > > > > vast majority of players and fans. End of story.
>
> > > > Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
> > > > doesn't make it true. As it stands now, Wimbledon is one of the fou=
r
> > > > most important tournaments in tennis. It's the most important only =
to
> > > > long-time/old/traditional/conservative Wimbledon fans, most of whom
> > > > are British. I agree the notion of most prestigious is very
> > > > aristocratic and romantic. It makes Wimbledon sound like something
> > > > grand and larger than life. It gives it a kind of cult-like stature=
.
> > > > Obviously a lot of people drank the kool-aid on this one, including=
a
> > > > lot of players.
>
> > > Look, why don't you give it up. You're entitled to your opinion,
> > > everyone is. But you'll have to accept that for the majority of tenni=
s
> > > fans, Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament around. That's
> > > based largely on the history of the game, which cannot be changed.
> > > That's just the way it is.
>
> > > Just disagree and move on to something else - repeating the same old
> > > arguments is totally pointless.
>
> > Give up on what? Look, it would have been nice if it just stopped at
> > calling Wimbledon that most prestigious slam or whatever. But it
> > doesn't stop there, does it? The same guys who are the most rabid
> > Wimbledon fans around here, Whimpy and DavidW, want us to believe in
> > something entirely nonsensical as 7543.
>
> > Why don't you ask Whimpy and DavidW to give up on 7543 instead? Or do
> > you believe in that nonsense too?
>
> You don't *have* to believe anything. 7543 is a theory proposed by
> someone and you don't have to agree with it.
>

I think it's obvious that I don't agree with it. Do you agree with it?
If not, do you agree that Whimpy et al are incorrectly using
Wimbledon's so-called "most prestigious" label as a basis for their
system?

> If you are secure in your own opinions, then you shouldn't need to
> worry too much about different ones.

What a bland, generic thing to say. If everyone followed that, then
there would be no controversies, no discussions or debates.


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 16:38:01
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On 31 dec, 01:31, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 31, 6:11=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
> > > doesn't make it true.
>
> > Wrong way round. I'm repeating it because it's true. Open your eyes. Li=
sten to
> > the players. Read the papers. Read the RG website.
>
> You are living in a bygone era. Wimbledon just isn't that prestigious
> anymore. It's more about the tennis now, not the venue. If you follow
> the papers in the 1980s and then read the ones of today and observe
> how they talk about Wimbledon, you will see a vast change. In those
> days, Wimbledon was always described in glowing terms, superlatives
> flowing in every paragraph. It had its own idiosyncratic seeding
> system, players were very deferential, etc. It just isn't like that
> anymore.

Being not as prestigious as it once was obviously doesn't mean it
isn't still the most prestigious today. Many, if not most, players and
fans still think it is.

The RG website stating it is, makes it hard to argue with.


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 16:31:40
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 6:11=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
>
> > Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
> > doesn't make it true.
>
> Wrong way round. I'm repeating it because it's true. Open your eyes. List=
en to
> the players. Read the papers. Read the RG website.

You are living in a bygone era. Wimbledon just isn't that prestigious
anymore. It's more about the tennis now, not the venue. If you follow
the papers in the 1980s and then read the ones of today and observe
how they talk about Wimbledon, you will see a vast change. In those
days, Wimbledon was always described in glowing terms, superlatives
flowing in every paragraph. It had its own idiosyncratic seeding
system, players were very deferential, etc. It just isn't like that
anymore.


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 16:41:52
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 31, 6:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
>>> doesn't make it true.
>>
>> Wrong way round. I'm repeating it because it's true. Open your eyes.
>> Listen to the players. Read the papers. Read the RG website.
>
> You are living in a bygone era. Wimbledon just isn't that prestigious
> anymore.

I think we've lost him. His mind has gone.





  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 11:35:50
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 31, 6:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>> Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
>>> doesn't make it true.
>> Wrong way round. I'm repeating it because it's true. Open your eyes. Listen to
>> the players. Read the papers. Read the RG website.
>
> You are living in a bygone era. Wimbledon just isn't that prestigious
> anymore. It's more about the tennis now, not the venue. If you follow
> the papers in the 1980s and then read the ones of today and observe
> how they talk about Wimbledon, you will see a vast change. In those
> days, Wimbledon was always described in glowing terms, superlatives
> flowing in every paragraph. It had its own idiosyncratic seeding
> system, players were very deferential, etc. It just isn't like that
> anymore.


er, why does Federer wear a dinner suit on court?



   
Date: 31 Dec 2008 10:14:13
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:35:50 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 6:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
>>>> doesn't make it true.
>>> Wrong way round. I'm repeating it because it's true. Open your eyes. Listen to
>>> the players. Read the papers. Read the RG website.
>>
>> You are living in a bygone era. Wimbledon just isn't that prestigious
>> anymore. It's more about the tennis now, not the venue. If you follow
>> the papers in the 1980s and then read the ones of today and observe
>> how they talk about Wimbledon, you will see a vast change. In those
>> days, Wimbledon was always described in glowing terms, superlatives
>> flowing in every paragraph. It had its own idiosyncratic seeding
>> system, players were very deferential, etc. It just isn't like that
>> anymore.
>
>
>er, why does Federer wear a dinner suit on court?


because he wants Mirka to "eat him" later ?


   
Date: 31 Dec 2008 03:09:22
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 6:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
>>>> doesn't make it true.
>>> Wrong way round. I'm repeating it because it's true. Open your eyes.
>>> Listen to
>>> the players. Read the papers. Read the RG website.
>>
>> You are living in a bygone era. Wimbledon just isn't that prestigious
>> anymore. It's more about the tennis now, not the venue. If you follow
>> the papers in the 1980s and then read the ones of today and observe
>> how they talk about Wimbledon, you will see a vast change. In those
>> days, Wimbledon was always described in glowing terms, superlatives
>> flowing in every paragraph. It had its own idiosyncratic seeding
>> system, players were very deferential, etc. It just isn't like that
>> anymore.
>
>
> er, why does Federer wear a dinner suit on court?
>

Because he's gonna eat bagels? ...err, that was French Open...

But the real question is...Why does he wear a purse?

--
"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: 31 Dec 2008 03:09:53
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 31, 6:11 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>> Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
>>>>> doesn't make it true.
>>>> Wrong way round. I'm repeating it because it's true. Open your eyes.
>>>> Listen to
>>>> the players. Read the papers. Read the RG website.
>>>
>>> You are living in a bygone era. Wimbledon just isn't that prestigious
>>> anymore. It's more about the tennis now, not the venue. If you follow
>>> the papers in the 1980s and then read the ones of today and observe
>>> how they talk about Wimbledon, you will see a vast change. In those
>>> days, Wimbledon was always described in glowing terms, superlatives
>>> flowing in every paragraph. It had its own idiosyncratic seeding
>>> system, players were very deferential, etc. It just isn't like that
>>> anymore.
>>
>>
>> er, why does Federer wear a dinner suit on court?
>>
>
> Because he's gonna eat bagels? ...err, that was French Open...
>
> But the real question is...Why does he wear a purse?
>

replace "purse" with handbag.

--
"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: 30 Dec 2008 16:24:13
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 12:07=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 31, 5:56=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 5:19=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 30, 10:49=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > > > On Dec 31, 4:05=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 30, 10:21 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > >> TT wrote:
> > > > > >>> Whisper wrote:
> > > > > >>>> Iceberg wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > > >>>>>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.n=
et.au...
> > > > > >>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that
> > > > > >>>>>>> Wimbledonistas are rabid, intolerant, semi-religious frea=
ks.
> > > > > >>>>>>> You probe them a little and the inner ugliness shows up i=
n the
> > > > > >>>>>>> form of name-calling and plain stubbornness.
>
> > > > > >>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & ha=
d the
> > > > > >>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>
> > > > > >>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade=
the
> > > > > >>>>>> Asian Championships, paying no regard to it having the lon=
gest &
> > > > > >>>>>> most famous tennis tradition?
>
> > > > > >>>>>> Be honest now.
>
> > > > > >>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians i=
n India
> > > > > >>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>
> > > > > >>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>
> > > > > >>> "It just is" -Whisper
>
> > > > > >> Yes, only newbies don't get Wimbledon - or some recalcitrant A=
sians.
>
> > > > > >> 'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.
>
> > > > > > "It just is" is not a good answer.
>
> > > > > It's a perfectly good answer.
>
> > > > No.
>
> > > > > Repeat after me: "It does not matter _why_
> > > > > Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament."
>
> > > > Why? How is this not Orwellian?
>
> > > > > =A0Prestige does not have to be
> > > > > rationalized. Why should it?
>
> > > > Otherwise it is meaningless. If you cannot rationally define why
> > > > something is the most prestigious, then it is probably not the most
> > > > prestigious. It's a baseless belief.
>
> > > > > Wimbledon is the most important tournament to the
> > > > > vast majority of players and fans. End of story.
>
> > > > Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
> > > > doesn't make it true. As it stands now, Wimbledon is one of the fou=
r
> > > > most important tournaments in tennis. It's the most important only =
to
> > > > long-time/old/traditional/conservative Wimbledon fans, most of whom
> > > > are British. I agree the notion of most prestigious is very
> > > > aristocratic and romantic. It makes Wimbledon sound like something
> > > > grand and larger than life. It gives it a kind of cult-like stature=
.
> > > > Obviously a lot of people drank the kool-aid on this one, including=
a
> > > > lot of players.
>
> > > Look, why don't you give it up. You're entitled to your opinion,
> > > everyone is. But you'll have to accept that for the majority of tenni=
s
> > > fans, Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament around. That's
> > > based largely on the history of the game, which cannot be changed.
> > > That's just the way it is.
>
> > > Just disagree and move on to something else - repeating the same old
> > > arguments is totally pointless.
>
> > Give up on what? Look, it would have been nice if it just stopped at
> > calling Wimbledon that most prestigious slam or whatever. But it
> > doesn't stop there, does it? The same guys who are the most rabid
> > Wimbledon fans around here, Whimpy and DavidW, want us to believe in
> > something entirely nonsensical as 7543.
>
> > Why don't you ask Whimpy and DavidW to give up on 7543 instead? Or do
> > you believe in that nonsense too?
>
> BTW, are you from Britain by any chance?

No


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 16:23:59
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 11:56=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 31, 5:19=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 30, 10:49=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 31, 4:05=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 30, 10:21 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > > >> TT wrote:
> > > > >>> Whisper wrote:
> > > > >>>> Iceberg wrote:
> > > > >>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > >>>>>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net=
.au...
> > > > >>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> > > > >>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that
> > > > >>>>>>> Wimbledonistas are rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks=
.
> > > > >>>>>>> You probe them a little and the inner ugliness shows up in =
the
> > > > >>>>>>> form of name-calling and plain stubbornness.
>
> > > > >>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had =
the
> > > > >>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>
> > > > >>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade t=
he
> > > > >>>>>> Asian Championships, paying no regard to it having the longe=
st &
> > > > >>>>>> most famous tennis tradition?
>
> > > > >>>>>> Be honest now.
>
> > > > >>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in =
India
> > > > >>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>
> > > > >>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>
> > > > >>> "It just is" -Whisper
>
> > > > >> Yes, only newbies don't get Wimbledon - or some recalcitrant Asi=
ans.
>
> > > > >> 'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.
>
> > > > > "It just is" is not a good answer.
>
> > > > It's a perfectly good answer.
>
> > > No.
>
> > > > Repeat after me: "It does not matter _why_
> > > > Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament."
>
> > > Why? How is this not Orwellian?
>
> > > > =A0Prestige does not have to be
> > > > rationalized. Why should it?
>
> > > Otherwise it is meaningless. If you cannot rationally define why
> > > something is the most prestigious, then it is probably not the most
> > > prestigious. It's a baseless belief.
>
> > > > Wimbledon is the most important tournament to the
> > > > vast majority of players and fans. End of story.
>
> > > Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
> > > doesn't make it true. As it stands now, Wimbledon is one of the four
> > > most important tournaments in tennis. It's the most important only to
> > > long-time/old/traditional/conservative Wimbledon fans, most of whom
> > > are British. I agree the notion of most prestigious is very
> > > aristocratic and romantic. It makes Wimbledon sound like something
> > > grand and larger than life. It gives it a kind of cult-like stature.
> > > Obviously a lot of people drank the kool-aid on this one, including a
> > > lot of players.
>
> > Look, why don't you give it up. You're entitled to your opinion,
> > everyone is. But you'll have to accept that for the majority of tennis
> > fans, Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament around. That's
> > based largely on the history of the game, which cannot be changed.
> > That's just the way it is.
>
> > Just disagree and move on to something else - repeating the same old
> > arguments is totally pointless.
>
> Give up on what? Look, it would have been nice if it just stopped at
> calling Wimbledon that most prestigious slam or whatever. But it
> doesn't stop there, does it? The same guys who are the most rabid
> Wimbledon fans around here, Whimpy and DavidW, want us to believe in
> something entirely nonsensical as 7543.
>
> Why don't you ask Whimpy and DavidW to give up on 7543 instead? Or do
> you believe in that nonsense too?

You don't *have* to believe anything. 7543 is a theory proposed by
someone and you don't have to agree with it.

If you are secure in your own opinions, then you shouldn't need to
worry too much about different ones.



 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 16:07:33
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 5:56=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 31, 5:19=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 30, 10:49=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 31, 4:05=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 30, 10:21 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > > >> TT wrote:
> > > > >>> Whisper wrote:
> > > > >>>> Iceberg wrote:
> > > > >>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > >>>>>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net=
.au...
> > > > >>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> > > > >>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that
> > > > >>>>>>> Wimbledonistas are rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks=
.
> > > > >>>>>>> You probe them a little and the inner ugliness shows up in =
the
> > > > >>>>>>> form of name-calling and plain stubbornness.
>
> > > > >>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had =
the
> > > > >>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>
> > > > >>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade t=
he
> > > > >>>>>> Asian Championships, paying no regard to it having the longe=
st &
> > > > >>>>>> most famous tennis tradition?
>
> > > > >>>>>> Be honest now.
>
> > > > >>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in =
India
> > > > >>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>
> > > > >>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>
> > > > >>> "It just is" -Whisper
>
> > > > >> Yes, only newbies don't get Wimbledon - or some recalcitrant Asi=
ans.
>
> > > > >> 'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.
>
> > > > > "It just is" is not a good answer.
>
> > > > It's a perfectly good answer.
>
> > > No.
>
> > > > Repeat after me: "It does not matter _why_
> > > > Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament."
>
> > > Why? How is this not Orwellian?
>
> > > > =A0Prestige does not have to be
> > > > rationalized. Why should it?
>
> > > Otherwise it is meaningless. If you cannot rationally define why
> > > something is the most prestigious, then it is probably not the most
> > > prestigious. It's a baseless belief.
>
> > > > Wimbledon is the most important tournament to the
> > > > vast majority of players and fans. End of story.
>
> > > Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
> > > doesn't make it true. As it stands now, Wimbledon is one of the four
> > > most important tournaments in tennis. It's the most important only to
> > > long-time/old/traditional/conservative Wimbledon fans, most of whom
> > > are British. I agree the notion of most prestigious is very
> > > aristocratic and romantic. It makes Wimbledon sound like something
> > > grand and larger than life. It gives it a kind of cult-like stature.
> > > Obviously a lot of people drank the kool-aid on this one, including a
> > > lot of players.
>
> > Look, why don't you give it up. You're entitled to your opinion,
> > everyone is. But you'll have to accept that for the majority of tennis
> > fans, Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament around. That's
> > based largely on the history of the game, which cannot be changed.
> > That's just the way it is.
>
> > Just disagree and move on to something else - repeating the same old
> > arguments is totally pointless.
>
> Give up on what? Look, it would have been nice if it just stopped at
> calling Wimbledon that most prestigious slam or whatever. But it
> doesn't stop there, does it? The same guys who are the most rabid
> Wimbledon fans around here, Whimpy and DavidW, want us to believe in
> something entirely nonsensical as 7543.
>
> Why don't you ask Whimpy and DavidW to give up on 7543 instead? Or do
> you believe in that nonsense too?

BTW, are you from Britain by any chance?


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 16:04:51
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On 30 dec, 23:08, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> TT wrote:
> > Whisper wrote:
> >> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>> On Dec 30, 6:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>
> >>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
> >>>> have ever
> >>>> heard of. Arnab knows that too.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> No, we have had coverage of all four slams for decades, as long as I
> >>> can remember. India's national TV channel Doordarshan was about the
> >>> only channel in the region which regularly aired the French Open.
> >>> Rupert Murdock's Star Sports has never bothered to cover French Open.
> >>> I think there could be a subtle anglo-bias there, but this is just
> >>> conjecture.
>
> >> It's a tennis bias. =A099% of clay tennis makes a very poor tv
> >> spectacle. =A0Matches/points are very 1-dimensioanl, long & lacking in
> >> explosive reflex-style points.
>
> > Clay tennis is most exciting and versatile tennis. Magnificent points.
>
> > You "explosive reflex-style points" is watching a very boring display o=
f
> > big serves and and no rallies or point construction.
>
> The ratings don't lie. =A0TV execs aren't stupid - they want to give
> people what they want to watch to make $$ - that ain't bumrooting on clay=
.

That's right. Ratings certainly do not lie and executives definitely
aren't paid to be stupid. That's why Wimbledon, and many other
tournaments, has kept slowed things down in a quest to become more
baseliner-friendly starting from late 90s / early 00s up until now.

Too much imo, but understandable they started this (what has become a)
trend when they did. They are not stupid, after all...


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 15:56:54
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 5:19=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 30, 10:49=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 4:05=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > > > On Dec 30, 10:21 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > >> TT wrote:
> > > >>> Whisper wrote:
> > > >>>> Iceberg wrote:
> > > >>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > > >>>>>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.a=
u...
> > > >>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that
> > > >>>>>>> Wimbledonistas are rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks.
> > > >>>>>>> You probe them a little and the inner ugliness shows up in th=
e
> > > >>>>>>> form of name-calling and plain stubbornness.
>
> > > >>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had th=
e
> > > >>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>
> > > >>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the
> > > >>>>>> Asian Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest=
&
> > > >>>>>> most famous tennis tradition?
>
> > > >>>>>> Be honest now.
>
> > > >>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in In=
dia
> > > >>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>
> > > >>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>
> > > >>> "It just is" -Whisper
>
> > > >> Yes, only newbies don't get Wimbledon - or some recalcitrant Asian=
s.
>
> > > >> 'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.
>
> > > > "It just is" is not a good answer.
>
> > > It's a perfectly good answer.
>
> > No.
>
> > > Repeat after me: "It does not matter _why_
> > > Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament."
>
> > Why? How is this not Orwellian?
>
> > > =A0Prestige does not have to be
> > > rationalized. Why should it?
>
> > Otherwise it is meaningless. If you cannot rationally define why
> > something is the most prestigious, then it is probably not the most
> > prestigious. It's a baseless belief.
>
> > > Wimbledon is the most important tournament to the
> > > vast majority of players and fans. End of story.
>
> > Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
> > doesn't make it true. As it stands now, Wimbledon is one of the four
> > most important tournaments in tennis. It's the most important only to
> > long-time/old/traditional/conservative Wimbledon fans, most of whom
> > are British. I agree the notion of most prestigious is very
> > aristocratic and romantic. It makes Wimbledon sound like something
> > grand and larger than life. It gives it a kind of cult-like stature.
> > Obviously a lot of people drank the kool-aid on this one, including a
> > lot of players.
>
> Look, why don't you give it up. You're entitled to your opinion,
> everyone is. But you'll have to accept that for the majority of tennis
> fans, Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament around. That's
> based largely on the history of the game, which cannot be changed.
> That's just the way it is.
>
> Just disagree and move on to something else - repeating the same old
> arguments is totally pointless.

Give up on what? Look, it would have been nice if it just stopped at
calling Wimbledon that most prestigious slam or whatever. But it
doesn't stop there, does it? The same guys who are the most rabid
Wimbledon fans around here, Whimpy and DavidW, want us to believe in
something entirely nonsensical as 7543.

Why don't you ask Whimpy and DavidW to give up on 7543 instead? Or do
you believe in that nonsense too?


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 11:32:43
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 31, 5:19 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 10:49 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 31, 4:05 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 30, 10:21 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that
>>>>>>>>>>> Wimbledonistas are rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks.
>>>>>>>>>>> You probe them a little and the inner ugliness shows up in the
>>>>>>>>>>> form of name-calling and plain stubbornness.
>>>>>>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
>>>>>>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>>>>>>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the
>>>>>>>>>> Asian Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest &
>>>>>>>>>> most famous tennis tradition?
>>>>>>>>>> Be honest now.
>>>>>>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
>>>>>>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>>>>>>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>>>>>>> "It just is" -Whisper
>>>>>> Yes, only newbies don't get Wimbledon - or some recalcitrant Asians.
>>>>>> 'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.
>>>>> "It just is" is not a good answer.
>>>> It's a perfectly good answer.
>>> No.
>>>> Repeat after me: "It does not matter _why_
>>>> Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament."
>>> Why? How is this not Orwellian?
>>>> Prestige does not have to be
>>>> rationalized. Why should it?
>>> Otherwise it is meaningless. If you cannot rationally define why
>>> something is the most prestigious, then it is probably not the most
>>> prestigious. It's a baseless belief.
>>>> Wimbledon is the most important tournament to the
>>>> vast majority of players and fans. End of story.
>>> Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
>>> doesn't make it true. As it stands now, Wimbledon is one of the four
>>> most important tournaments in tennis. It's the most important only to
>>> long-time/old/traditional/conservative Wimbledon fans, most of whom
>>> are British. I agree the notion of most prestigious is very
>>> aristocratic and romantic. It makes Wimbledon sound like something
>>> grand and larger than life. It gives it a kind of cult-like stature.
>>> Obviously a lot of people drank the kool-aid on this one, including a
>>> lot of players.
>> Look, why don't you give it up. You're entitled to your opinion,
>> everyone is. But you'll have to accept that for the majority of tennis
>> fans, Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament around. That's
>> based largely on the history of the game, which cannot be changed.
>> That's just the way it is.
>>
>> Just disagree and move on to something else - repeating the same old
>> arguments is totally pointless.
>
> Give up on what? Look, it would have been nice if it just stopped at
> calling Wimbledon that most prestigious slam or whatever. But it
> doesn't stop there, does it? The same guys who are the most rabid
> Wimbledon fans around here, Whimpy and DavidW, want us to believe in
> something entirely nonsensical as 7543.
>
> Why don't you ask Whimpy and DavidW to give up on 7543 instead? Or do
> you believe in that nonsense too?



It's nonsense if you equate winning AO to winning Wimbledon.


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 15:19:06
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 10:49=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 31, 4:05=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
> > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > > On Dec 30, 10:21 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > >> TT wrote:
> > >>> Whisper wrote:
> > >>>> Iceberg wrote:
> > >>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > >>>>>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au.=
..
> > >>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that
> > >>>>>>> Wimbledonistas are rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks.
> > >>>>>>> You probe them a little and the inner ugliness shows up in the
> > >>>>>>> form of name-calling and plain stubbornness.
>
> > >>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
> > >>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>
> > >>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the
> > >>>>>> Asian Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest &
> > >>>>>> most famous tennis tradition?
>
> > >>>>>> Be honest now.
>
> > >>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in Indi=
a
> > >>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>
> > >>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>
> > >>> "It just is" -Whisper
>
> > >> Yes, only newbies don't get Wimbledon - or some recalcitrant Asians.
>
> > >> 'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.
>
> > > "It just is" is not a good answer.
>
> > It's a perfectly good answer.
>
> No.
>
> > Repeat after me: "It does not matter _why_
> > Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament."
>
> Why? How is this not Orwellian?
>
> > =A0Prestige does not have to be
> > rationalized. Why should it?
>
> Otherwise it is meaningless. If you cannot rationally define why
> something is the most prestigious, then it is probably not the most
> prestigious. It's a baseless belief.
>
> > Wimbledon is the most important tournament to the
> > vast majority of players and fans. End of story.
>
> Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
> doesn't make it true. As it stands now, Wimbledon is one of the four
> most important tournaments in tennis. It's the most important only to
> long-time/old/traditional/conservative Wimbledon fans, most of whom
> are British. I agree the notion of most prestigious is very
> aristocratic and romantic. It makes Wimbledon sound like something
> grand and larger than life. It gives it a kind of cult-like stature.
> Obviously a lot of people drank the kool-aid on this one, including a
> lot of players.

Look, why don't you give it up. You're entitled to your opinion,
everyone is. But you'll have to accept that for the majority of tennis
fans, Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament around. That's
based largely on the history of the game, which cannot be changed.
That's just the way it is.

Just disagree and move on to something else - repeating the same old
arguments is totally pointless.





  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 23:37:25
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> Just disagree and move on to something else - repeating the same old
> arguments is totally pointless.

RST would have no traffic at all if we all took your advice.


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 15:12:59
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 10:40=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 10:14 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Dec 30, 9:04 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>> Iceberg wrote:
> >>>>> Ivan Lendl is best remembered by the majority of the world (who hav=
e heard
> >>>>> of him) as the guy who couldn't win Wimbledon.
> >>>> I think that's bs. Normal people remember him as a #1 and some infor=
med
> >>>> perhaps as French Open champion. I'm sure nobody remembers he didn't=
win
> >>>> Wimbledon, apart from us tennis freaks.
> >>> Wrong - Lendl is well-known for not winning Wimbledon, as well as his
> >>> other achievements.
> >> Ken Rosewall is also best known for never winning Wimbledon (4 time r/=
up).
>
> > You mean he's not best known for having won 23 majors?
>
> Whisper gets wackier by the day. Hell, even I didn't know Rosewall never
> won Wimbledon.

Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact that every
tennis fan knows.





  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 02:33:56
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 30, 10:40 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 10:14 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 30, 9:04 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>> Ivan Lendl is best remembered by the majority of the world (who have heard
>>>>>>> of him) as the guy who couldn't win Wimbledon.
>>>>>> I think that's bs. Normal people remember him as a #1 and some informed
>>>>>> perhaps as French Open champion. I'm sure nobody remembers he didn't win
>>>>>> Wimbledon, apart from us tennis freaks.
>>>>> Wrong - Lendl is well-known for not winning Wimbledon, as well as his
>>>>> other achievements.
>>>> Ken Rosewall is also best known for never winning Wimbledon (4 time r/up).
>>> You mean he's not best known for having won 23 majors?
>> Whisper gets wackier by the day. Hell, even I didn't know Rosewall never
>> won Wimbledon.
>
> Your lack of knowledge of the game is amazing. A basic fact that every
> tennis fan knows.
>
>
>

Of course I have read it, but dismissed as irrelevant since he did win
other majors on grass.

And you're a pretentious prick. That's not a basic fact that every
tennis fan knows. Many don't even know who Rosewall is or that he won 23
majors.

--
"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: 30 Dec 2008 14:55:27
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 4:31=A0am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 30-Dec-2008, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 30-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > The ratings don't lie. =A0TV execs aren't stupid - they want to give
> > > people what they want to watch to make $$ - that ain't bumrooting on
> > > clay.
>
> > I found this chart interesting.... too bad it's US only and there is no=
FO
> > to compare. =A0From a broadcasting perspective, you are certainly right=
the
> > coverage of Wimbledon is much better than for FO where I am.
>
> >http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973...
>
> And here is the version for the US Open. =A0Despite the fact that the
> tournament takes place in the US, it's still not as popular as Wimbledon =
*in
> the US*.
>
> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/09/12/us-tennis-open-tv-ratings-1972-2...

It could be the Federer-Nadal effect.

I bet the FO finals for the past three years for the world will show
even better ratings. They were also all Federer-Nadal just like
Wimbledon and Federer's NCYGS was riding on two of them, making those
two of the the most prestigious, most eagerly awaited matches ever.


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 10:21:13
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 31, 4:31 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 30-Dec-2008, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> The ratings don't lie. TV execs aren't stupid - they want to give
>>>> people what they want to watch to make $$ - that ain't bumrooting on
>>>> clay.
>>> I found this chart interesting.... too bad it's US only and there is no FO
>>> to compare. From a broadcasting perspective, you are certainly right the
>>> coverage of Wimbledon is much better than for FO where I am.
>>> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973...
>> And here is the version for the US Open. Despite the fact that the
>> tournament takes place in the US, it's still not as popular as Wimbledon *in
>> the US*.
>>
>> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/09/12/us-tennis-open-tv-ratings-1972-2...
>
> It could be the Federer-Nadal effect.
>
> I bet the FO finals for the past three years for the world will show
> even better ratings. They were also all Federer-Nadal just like
> Wimbledon and Federer's NCYGS was riding on two of them, making those
> two of the the most prestigious, most eagerly awaited matches ever.


Tennis these days is a snoozefest - granted it would be worse without
Federer around, but it's still dull compared to Mac days.

The way the guys play today it's enough to watch 1 hour tops before you
start thinking there are much better things to do.





   
Date: 31 Dec 2008 10:17:23
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:21:13 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 4:31 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 30-Dec-2008, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> The ratings don't lie. TV execs aren't stupid - they want to give
>>>>> people what they want to watch to make $$ - that ain't bumrooting on
>>>>> clay.
>>>> I found this chart interesting.... too bad it's US only and there is no FO
>>>> to compare. From a broadcasting perspective, you are certainly right the
>>>> coverage of Wimbledon is much better than for FO where I am.
>>>> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973...
>>> And here is the version for the US Open. Despite the fact that the
>>> tournament takes place in the US, it's still not as popular as Wimbledon *in
>>> the US*.
>>>
>>> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/09/12/us-tennis-open-tv-ratings-1972-2...
>>
>> It could be the Federer-Nadal effect.
>>
>> I bet the FO finals for the past three years for the world will show
>> even better ratings. They were also all Federer-Nadal just like
>> Wimbledon and Federer's NCYGS was riding on two of them, making those
>> two of the the most prestigious, most eagerly awaited matches ever.
>
>
>Tennis these days is a snoozefest - granted it would be worse without
>Federer around, but it's still dull compared to Mac days.
>
>The way the guys play today it's enough to watch 1 hour tops before you
>start thinking there are much better things to do.
>
>


It may not be as exciting as the "Borg/Mac" days but it is head and
shoulders more exciting than the Sampras ones.


   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 23:34:37
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

On 30-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 4:31 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 30-Dec-2008, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 30-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> The ratings don't lie. TV execs aren't stupid - they want to give
> >>>> people what they want to watch to make $$ - that ain't bumrooting on
> >>>> clay.
> >>> I found this chart interesting.... too bad it's US only and there is
> >>> no FO
> >>> to compare. From a broadcasting perspective, you are certainly right
> >>> the
> >>> coverage of Wimbledon is much better than for FO where I am.
> >>> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973...
> >> And here is the version for the US Open. Despite the fact that the
> >> tournament takes place in the US, it's still not as popular as
> >> Wimbledon *in
> >> the US*.
> >>
> >> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/09/12/us-tennis-open-tv-ratings-1972-2...
> >
> > It could be the Federer-Nadal effect.
> >
> > I bet the FO finals for the past three years for the world will show
> > even better ratings. They were also all Federer-Nadal just like
> > Wimbledon and Federer's NCYGS was riding on two of them, making those
> > two of the the most prestigious, most eagerly awaited matches ever.
>
>
> Tennis these days is a snoozefest - granted it would be worse without
> Federer around, but it's still dull compared to Mac days.
>
> The way the guys play today it's enough to watch 1 hour tops before you
> start thinking there are much better things to do.

In that chart I posted earlier, did you find it interesting to see the huge
drop in viewership in 1983? Strange isn't it that this would happen in the
US market when a US player (Mac) won two years in a row.


    
Date: 31 Dec 2008 11:31:49
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 30-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 31, 4:31 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 30-Dec-2008, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 30-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> The ratings don't lie. TV execs aren't stupid - they want to give
>>>>>> people what they want to watch to make $$ - that ain't bumrooting on
>>>>>> clay.
>>>>> I found this chart interesting.... too bad it's US only and there is
>>>>> no FO
>>>>> to compare. From a broadcasting perspective, you are certainly right
>>>>> the
>>>>> coverage of Wimbledon is much better than for FO where I am.
>>>>> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973...
>>>> And here is the version for the US Open. Despite the fact that the
>>>> tournament takes place in the US, it's still not as popular as
>>>> Wimbledon *in
>>>> the US*.
>>>>
>>>> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/09/12/us-tennis-open-tv-ratings-1972-2...
>>> It could be the Federer-Nadal effect.
>>>
>>> I bet the FO finals for the past three years for the world will show
>>> even better ratings. They were also all Federer-Nadal just like
>>> Wimbledon and Federer's NCYGS was riding on two of them, making those
>>> two of the the most prestigious, most eagerly awaited matches ever.
>>
>> Tennis these days is a snoozefest - granted it would be worse without
>> Federer around, but it's still dull compared to Mac days.
>>
>> The way the guys play today it's enough to watch 1 hour tops before you
>> start thinking there are much better things to do.
>
> In that chart I posted earlier, did you find it interesting to see the huge
> drop in viewership in 1983? Strange isn't it that this would happen in the
> US market when a US player (Mac) won two years in a row.



If you compare society in the 70's to today there is no resemblance. I
think generally with advent of technology people started having more
entertainment options so most sports would have suffered similar drops
in last couple decades. Also many are required to work irregular hours
& on the weekends so have no time/energy to devote to sports. The less
participants the less interested viewers.

Tennis/cricket were huge sports in Australia from 1950's to '70's -
everyone played. When I started playing in early 80's there were many
suburban backyard courts & thriving clubs, most clay which required
heavy maintenance. Now you'd be lucky to get 1 or 2 in each suburb &
pros ring you at home practically begging you to play in their
competitions. Big multi-court complexes are often empty. People had
limited entertainment options back then so everyone played
tennis/cricket out of boredom.

What I find amazing is we had more viewers watching 2001 Wimbledon than
you guys.






 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 14:49:52
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 31, 4:05=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 10:21 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> TT wrote:
> >>> Whisper wrote:
> >>>> Iceberg wrote:
> >>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that
> >>>>>>> Wimbledonistas are rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks.
> >>>>>>> You probe them a little and the inner ugliness shows up in the
> >>>>>>> form of name-calling and plain stubbornness.
>
> >>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
> >>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>
> >>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the
> >>>>>> Asian Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest &
> >>>>>> most famous tennis tradition?
>
> >>>>>> Be honest now.
>
> >>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
> >>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>
> >>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>
> >>> "It just is" -Whisper
>
> >> Yes, only newbies don't get Wimbledon - or some recalcitrant Asians.
>
> >> 'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.
>
> > "It just is" is not a good answer.
>
> It's a perfectly good answer.

No.

> Repeat after me: "It does not matter _why_
> Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament."

Why? How is this not Orwellian?

> Prestige does not have to be
> rationalized. Why should it?

Otherwise it is meaningless. If you cannot rationally define why
something is the most prestigious, then it is probably not the most
prestigious. It's a baseless belief.

> Wimbledon is the most important tournament to the
> vast majority of players and fans. End of story.

Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
doesn't make it true. As it stands now, Wimbledon is one of the four
most important tournaments in tennis. It's the most important only to
long-time/old/traditional/conservative Wimbledon fans, most of whom
are British. I agree the notion of most prestigious is very
aristocratic and romantic. It makes Wimbledon sound like something
grand and larger than life. It gives it a kind of cult-like stature.
Obviously a lot of people drank the kool-aid on this one, including a
lot of players.


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 11:11:26
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 31, 4:05 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 10:21 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that
>>>>>>>>> Wimbledonistas are rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks.
>>>>>>>>> You probe them a little and the inner ugliness shows up in the
>>>>>>>>> form of name-calling and plain stubbornness.
>>
>>>>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
>>>>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>>
>>>>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the
>>>>>>>> Asian Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest
>>>>>>>> & most famous tennis tradition?
>>
>>>>>>>> Be honest now.
>>
>>>>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in
>>>>>>> India have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>>
>>>>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>>
>>>>> "It just is" -Whisper
>>
>>>> Yes, only newbies don't get Wimbledon - or some recalcitrant
>>>> Asians.
>>
>>>> 'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.
>>
>>> "It just is" is not a good answer.
>>
>> It's a perfectly good answer.
>
> No.
>
>> Repeat after me: "It does not matter _why_
>> Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament."
>
> Why? How is this not Orwellian?

Pardon?????

>> Prestige does not have to be
>> rationalized. Why should it?
>
> Otherwise it is meaningless. If you cannot rationally define why
> something is the most prestigious, then it is probably not the most
> prestigious. It's a baseless belief.

You are in total denial. I've already said that prestige is communal. It
spreads and is passed down. That's the primary reason for it. That's why "It
just is" is a perfectly good answer.

>> Wimbledon is the most important tournament to the
>> vast majority of players and fans. End of story.
>
> Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
> doesn't make it true.

Wrong way round. I'm repeating it because it's true. Open your eyes. Listen to
the players. Read the papers. Read the RG website.





  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 10:19:12
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> Otherwise it is meaningless. If you cannot rationally define why
> something is the most prestigious, then it is probably not the most
> prestigious. It's a baseless belief.
>
>> Wimbledon is the most important tournament to the
>> vast majority of players and fans. End of story.
>
> Of course not. Merely saying the same thing over and over again
> doesn't make it true. As it stands now, Wimbledon is one of the four
> most important tournaments in tennis.



And any tune-up is 1 of the top 40 important tournaments in tennis.


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 14:20:10
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 10:14=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 9:04 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> Iceberg wrote:
> >>> Ivan Lendl is best remembered by the majority of the world (who have =
heard
> >>> of him) as the guy who couldn't win Wimbledon.
> >> I think that's bs. Normal people remember him as a #1 and some informe=
d
> >> perhaps as French Open champion. I'm sure nobody remembers he didn't w=
in
> >> Wimbledon, apart from us tennis freaks.
>
> > Wrong - Lendl is well-known for not winning Wimbledon, as well as his
> > other achievements.
>
> Ken Rosewall is also best known for never winning Wimbledon (4 time r/up)=
.

You mean he's not best known for having won 23 majors?



  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 00:40:37
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 30, 10:14 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 9:04 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>> Ivan Lendl is best remembered by the majority of the world (who have heard
>>>>> of him) as the guy who couldn't win Wimbledon.
>>>> I think that's bs. Normal people remember him as a #1 and some informed
>>>> perhaps as French Open champion. I'm sure nobody remembers he didn't win
>>>> Wimbledon, apart from us tennis freaks.
>>> Wrong - Lendl is well-known for not winning Wimbledon, as well as his
>>> other achievements.
>> Ken Rosewall is also best known for never winning Wimbledon (4 time r/up).
>
> You mean he's not best known for having won 23 majors?
>

Whisper gets wackier by the day. Hell, even I didn't know Rosewall never
won Wimbledon. But then again he probably won it as a pro and many other
grass majors...well he had to, unless he won FO 23 times...

--
"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: 30 Dec 2008 14:00:23
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 9:04=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Iceberg wrote:
> > Ivan Lendl is best remembered by the majority of the world (who have he=
ard
> > of him) as the guy who couldn't win Wimbledon.
>
> I think that's bs. Normal people remember him as a #1 and some informed
> perhaps as French Open champion. I'm sure nobody remembers he didn't win
> Wimbledon, apart from us tennis freaks.

Wrong - Lendl is well-known for not winning Wimbledon, as well as his
other achievements.





  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 09:14:00
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 30, 9:04 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Iceberg wrote:
>>> Ivan Lendl is best remembered by the majority of the world (who have heard
>>> of him) as the guy who couldn't win Wimbledon.
>> I think that's bs. Normal people remember him as a #1 and some informed
>> perhaps as French Open champion. I'm sure nobody remembers he didn't win
>> Wimbledon, apart from us tennis freaks.
>
> Wrong - Lendl is well-known for not winning Wimbledon, as well as his
> other achievements.
>
>
>


Ken Rosewall is also best known for never winning Wimbledon (4 time r/up).



 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 12:10:31
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

>
> you have to qualify for world cup,same goes to wimbledon and/or any tennis
> tournament.

LOL, so.....................?

point is, world cup is the *only* tournament open to all national
teams, hence its prestige above all others is self-evident.

Wimbledon enjoys no such advantage over FO/AO/USO. Its so-called
prestige is pure fantasy in some dreamers' heads.



  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 12:02:44
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"GOAT" <thetruetennisgoat@hotmail.co.uk > wrote in message
news:4a7c824a-f314-4bfd-96e1-e6a71e1dffb6@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> you have to qualify for world cup,same goes to wimbledon and/or any
>> tennis
>> tournament.
>
> LOL, so.....................?
>
> point is, world cup is the *only* tournament open to all national
> teams, hence its prestige above all others is self-evident.
>
> Wimbledon enjoys no such advantage over FO/AO/USO. Its so-called
> prestige is pure fantasy in some dreamers' heads.

bullshit.




   
Date: 31 Dec 2008 13:30:00
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:02:44 GMT, "Iceberg"
<big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:

>"GOAT" <thetruetennisgoat@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4a7c824a-f314-4bfd-96e1-e6a71e1dffb6@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>
>>> you have to qualify for world cup,same goes to wimbledon and/or any
>>> tennis
>>> tournament.
>>
>> LOL, so.....................?
>>
>> point is, world cup is the *only* tournament open to all national
>> teams, hence its prestige above all others is self-evident.
>>
>> Wimbledon enjoys no such advantage over FO/AO/USO. Its so-called
>> prestige is pure fantasy in some dreamers' heads.
>
>bullshit.
>


It has "prestige" but the quality of tennis is the lowest of any of
the slams and it is the least best at predicting the best player of
the year.

This has been the case since SV became obsolete as grass is not a
suitable surface to measure todays' champions.


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 09:11:14
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
GOAT wrote:
>> you have to qualify for world cup,same goes to wimbledon and/or any tennis
>> tournament.
>
> LOL, so.....................?
>
> point is, world cup is the *only* tournament open to all national
> teams, hence its prestige above all others is self-evident.
>
> Wimbledon enjoys no such advantage over FO/AO/USO. Its so-called
> prestige is pure fantasy in some dreamers' heads.
>



Federer's?



 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 11:02:02
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 4:29=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

>
> World cup is best soccer trophy for same reasons - 'it just is' because
> most say it is.- Hide quoted text -
>

stupid analogy. World Cup is the only soccer tournament open to all
national teams globally, hence its prestige, nothing to do with people
'just saying it is'. Wimbledon OTOH is one of four equal 128-draw
major tournaments in tennis.

Think before you reveal your stupidity next time.



  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 20:22:56
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

"GOAT" <thetruetennisgoat@hotmail.co.uk > wrote in message
news:6c7f4ff7-743b-4ac9-9396-ef0fdefba8f8@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 30, 4:29 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

>
> World cup is best soccer trophy for same reasons - 'it just is' because
> most say it is.- Hide quoted text -
>

stupid analogy. World Cup is the only soccer tournament open to all
national teams globally, hence its prestige, nothing to do with people
'just saying it is'. Wimbledon OTOH is one of four equal 128-draw
major tournaments in tennis.

Think before you reveal your stupidity next time.


you have to qualify for world cup,same goes to wimbledon and/or any tennis
tournament.




 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 09:18:29
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 11:02=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:
> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >> On Dec 30, 7:58 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>> Whisper wrote:
> >>>> Iceberg wrote:
> >>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas =
are
> >>>>>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little=
and
> >>>>>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
> >>>>>>> stubbornness.
> >>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
> >>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
> >>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asi=
an
> >>>>>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most
> >>>>>> famous tennis tradition?
> >>>>>> Be honest now.
> >>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
> >>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
> >>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
> >>> "It just is" -Whisper
>
> >> Yes. "It just is." As neanderthal as a reply can be. Whimpy is the
> >> original Wimbledonist mollah of rst, releasing fatwas like "It just
> >> is" for years. Believe it, heathen! Or the gods of tennis will punish
> >> you! No virgins for you!
>
> > World cup is best soccer trophy for same reasons - 'it just is' because
> > most say it is.
>
> Yup, the whole "one and only national team competition that includes the =
whole
> world in the field" is just an afterthought.

One begins to wonder whether Whimpy follows any sport besides Golf?
The lack of sporting knowledge displayed here is incredible.


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 09:07:07
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> Yup, the whole "one and only national team competition that includes the whole
>> world in the field" is just an afterthought.
>
> One begins to wonder whether Whimpy follows any sport besides Golf?
> The lack of sporting knowledge displayed here is incredible.


rich irony


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:56:29
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 10:32=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 30, 10:21=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > TT wrote:
> > > Whisper wrote:
> > >> Iceberg wrote:
> > >>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > >>>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> > >>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> > >>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas =
are
> > >>>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little=
and
> > >>>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
> > >>>>> stubbornness.
>
> > >>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
> > >>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>
> > >>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asi=
an
> > >>>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most
> > >>>> famous tennis tradition?
>
> > >>>> Be honest now.
>
> > >>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
> > >>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>
> > >> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>
> > > "It just is" -Whisper
>
> > Yes, only newbies don't get Wimbledon - or some recalcitrant Asians.
>
> > 'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.
>

BTW, Rafa also says Federer is the greatest and the most talented
player ever. Why don't you agree with him, Whimpy?


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 09:06:10
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
>>>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>>>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>>>> "It just is" -Whisper
>>> Yes, only newbies don't get Wimbledon - or some recalcitrant Asians.
>>> 'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.
>
> BTW, Rafa also says Federer is the greatest and the most talented
> player ever. Why don't you agree with him, Whimpy?



How would he know?



 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:45:44
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 10:28=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 6:18 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Iceberg wrote:
> >>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas ar=
e
> >>>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little a=
nd
> >>>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
> >>>>> stubbornness.
> >>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the Wimb=
ledon
> >>>> equivalent?
> >>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
> >>>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most famo=
us
> >>>> tennis tradition?
> >>>> Be honest now.
> >>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India ha=
ve ever
> >>> heard of. Arnab knows that too.
> >> Didn't think he'd answer this one.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Think again. Couldn't even wait a few hours, eh? Do you sit in front
> > of your computer in that basement all day?
>
> Unlike most here I play tennis 2 or 3 times a week & played a few hrs ago=
.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You sound like a bitter old fool that sits in front of his computer
all day and watch only Sampras and McEnroe videos.


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:44:48
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 10:29=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 7:58 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> Whisper wrote:
> >>> Iceberg wrote:
> >>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas a=
re
> >>>>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little =
and
> >>>>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
> >>>>>> stubbornness.
> >>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
> >>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
> >>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asia=
n
> >>>>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most
> >>>>> famous tennis tradition?
> >>>>> Be honest now.
> >>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
> >>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
> >>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
> >> "It just is" -Whisper
>
> > Yes. "It just is." As neanderthal as a reply can be. Whimpy is the
> > original Wimbledonist mollah of rst, releasing fatwas like "It just
> > is" for years. Believe it, heathen! Or the gods of tennis will punish
> > you! No virgins for you!
>
> World cup is best soccer trophy for same reasons - 'it just is' because
> most say it is.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But there is a crucial difference. World Cup is held every four years,
170+ countries in the world all get to take part in the qualifying
stage and the tournament is venue independent. Countries have to fight
to host the next world cup. It's an elaborate process. It's a
thoroughly international and global process.

If the World Cup Footbal was always being held in Wembley, London,
then you'd have a point. It doesn't. So you don't. Your analogy sucks.


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 10:09:49
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:44:48 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
<arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Dec 30, 10:29 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> > On Dec 30, 7:58 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> >> Whisper wrote:
>> >>> Iceberg wrote:
>> >>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> >>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> >>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
>> >>>>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
>> >>>>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
>> >>>>>> stubbornness.
>> >>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
>> >>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>> >>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
>> >>>>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most
>> >>>>> famous tennis tradition?
>> >>>>> Be honest now.
>> >>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
>> >>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>> >>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>> >> "It just is" -Whisper
>>
>> > Yes. "It just is." As neanderthal as a reply can be. Whimpy is the
>> > original Wimbledonist mollah of rst, releasing fatwas like "It just
>> > is" for years. Believe it, heathen! Or the gods of tennis will punish
>> > you! No virgins for you!
>>
>> World cup is best soccer trophy for same reasons - 'it just is' because
>> most say it is.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>But there is a crucial difference. World Cup is held every four years,
>170+ countries in the world all get to take part in the qualifying
>stage and the tournament is venue independent. Countries have to fight
>to host the next world cup. It's an elaborate process. It's a
>thoroughly international and global process.
>
>If the World Cup Footbal was always being held in Wembley, London,
>then you'd have a point. It doesn't. So you don't. Your analogy sucks.


whisper sucks generally.


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 05:37:11
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 30, 10:29 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 7:58 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
>>>>>>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
>>>>>>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
>>>>>>>> stubbornness.
>>>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
>>>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>>>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
>>>>>>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most
>>>>>>> famous tennis tradition?
>>>>>>> Be honest now.
>>>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
>>>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>>>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>>>> "It just is" -Whisper
>>> Yes. "It just is." As neanderthal as a reply can be. Whimpy is the
>>> original Wimbledonist mollah of rst, releasing fatwas like "It just
>>> is" for years. Believe it, heathen! Or the gods of tennis will punish
>>> you! No virgins for you!
>> World cup is best soccer trophy for same reasons - 'it just is' because
>> most say it is.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> But there is a crucial difference. World Cup is held every four years,
> 170+ countries in the world all get to take part in the qualifying
> stage and the tournament is venue independent. Countries have to fight
> to host the next world cup. It's an elaborate process. It's a
> thoroughly international and global process.
>
> If the World Cup Footbal was always being held in Wembley, London,
> then you'd have a point. It doesn't. So you don't. Your analogy sucks.


lol - I just hope you're serious. This is hilarious.



  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 17:54:19
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:6f990a89-c82b-4977-ac8d-854599c66c92@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 30, 10:29 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 7:58 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> Whisper wrote:
> >>> Iceberg wrote:
> >>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas
> >>>>>> are
> >>>>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
> >>>>>> stubbornness.
> >>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
> >>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
> >>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
> >>>>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most
> >>>>> famous tennis tradition?
> >>>>> Be honest now.
> >>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
> >>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
> >>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
> >> "It just is" -Whisper
>
> > Yes. "It just is." As neanderthal as a reply can be. Whimpy is the
> > original Wimbledonist mollah of rst, releasing fatwas like "It just
> > is" for years. Believe it, heathen! Or the gods of tennis will punish
> > you! No virgins for you!
>
> World cup is best soccer trophy for same reasons - 'it just is' because
> most say it is.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But there is a crucial difference. World Cup is held every four years,
170+ countries in the world all get to take part in the qualifying
stage and the tournament is venue independent. Countries have to fight
to host the next world cup. It's an elaborate process. It's a
thoroughly international and global process.

If the World Cup Footbal was always being held in Wembley, London,
then you'd have a point. It doesn't. So you don't. Your analogy sucks.

***

Why is Tour de France most prestigious cycling race in the world?




   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 19:55:00
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote in message
news:gjdjnv$mih$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>
> "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6f990a89-c82b-4977-ac8d-854599c66c92@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 30, 10:29 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> > On Dec 30, 7:58 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> >> Whisper wrote:
>> >>> Iceberg wrote:
>> >>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> >>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> >>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas
>> >>>>>> are
>> >>>>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
>> >>>>>> stubbornness.
>> >>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
>> >>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>> >>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the
>> >>>>> Asian
>> >>>>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most
>> >>>>> famous tennis tradition?
>> >>>>> Be honest now.
>> >>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
>> >>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>> >>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>> >> "It just is" -Whisper
>>
>> > Yes. "It just is." As neanderthal as a reply can be. Whimpy is the
>> > original Wimbledonist mollah of rst, releasing fatwas like "It just
>> > is" for years. Believe it, heathen! Or the gods of tennis will punish
>> > you! No virgins for you!
>>
>> World cup is best soccer trophy for same reasons - 'it just is' because
>> most say it is.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> But there is a crucial difference. World Cup is held every four years,
> 170+ countries in the world all get to take part in the qualifying
> stage and the tournament is venue independent. Countries have to fight
> to host the next world cup. It's an elaborate process. It's a
> thoroughly international and global process.
>
> If the World Cup Footbal was always being held in Wembley, London,
> then you'd have a point. It doesn't. So you don't. Your analogy sucks.
>
> ***
>
> Why is Tour de France most prestigious cycling race in the world?

according to arnab is probably isn't as cycling is now a global sport. :)




 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:41:37
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 10:27=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 6:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>
> >> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India hav=
e ever
> >> heard of. Arnab knows that too.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > No, we have had coverage of all four slams for decades, as long as I
> > can remember. India's national TV channel Doordarshan was about the
> > only channel in the region which regularly aired the French Open.
> > Rupert Murdock's Star Sports has never bothered to cover French Open.
> > I think there could be a subtle anglo-bias there, but this is just
> > conjecture.
>
> It's a tennis bias. =A099% of clay tennis makes a very poor tv spectacle.
> =A0 Matches/points are very 1-dimensioanl, long & lacking in explosive
> reflex-style points.

That's wrong. Clay provides a different kind of tennis experience and
almost 40% of the tournaments on the tour are on clay. If anything, it
needs more coverage.

You are a narrow-minded fool.


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 05:36:24
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 30, 10:27 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 6:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India have ever
>>>> heard of. Arnab knows that too.- Hide quoted text -
>>> No, we have had coverage of all four slams for decades, as long as I
>>> can remember. India's national TV channel Doordarshan was about the
>>> only channel in the region which regularly aired the French Open.
>>> Rupert Murdock's Star Sports has never bothered to cover French Open.
>>> I think there could be a subtle anglo-bias there, but this is just
>>> conjecture.
>> It's a tennis bias. 99% of clay tennis makes a very poor tv spectacle.
>> Matches/points are very 1-dimensioanl, long & lacking in explosive
>> reflex-style points.
>
> That's wrong. Clay provides a different kind of tennis experience and
> almost 40% of the tournaments on the tour are on clay. If anything, it
> needs more coverage.
>
> You are a narrow-minded fool.



TV executives only care about ratings - clay is not that good to watch.



   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 18:44:35
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

On 30-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 10:27 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>> On Dec 30, 6:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
> >>>> have ever
> >>>> heard of. Arnab knows that too.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> No, we have had coverage of all four slams for decades, as long as I
> >>> can remember. India's national TV channel Doordarshan was about the
> >>> only channel in the region which regularly aired the French Open.
> >>> Rupert Murdock's Star Sports has never bothered to cover French Open.
> >>> I think there could be a subtle anglo-bias there, but this is just
> >>> conjecture.
> >> It's a tennis bias. 99% of clay tennis makes a very poor tv spectacle.
> >> Matches/points are very 1-dimensioanl, long & lacking in explosive
> >> reflex-style points.
> >
> > That's wrong. Clay provides a different kind of tennis experience and
> > almost 40% of the tournaments on the tour are on clay. If anything, it
> > needs more coverage.
> >
> > You are a narrow-minded fool.
>
>
>
> TV executives only care about ratings - clay is not that good to watch.

What's your take on this wikipedia entry?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Open

"It is one of the most prestigious events in tennis,[1] and it has the
*****widest worldwide broadcasting and audience of all events in this
sport*****.[2] [3] Because of the slow playing surface and the five-set
men's singles matches without a tiebreak in the final set, some say that the
event is considered to be the most physically demanding tennis tournament in
the world.[4] [5]"

I didn't look too closely at the footnotes, but I didn't see where this was
confirmed from the sources.


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:39:51
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 10:26=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 6:51 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>> On Dec 30, 4:39 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>>>> To add a bit more,
> >>>> I wish it was only a bit.
> >>>>> I think the people who are the most likely to buy
> >>>>> that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament are firstl=
y
> >>>>> the Brits, then Americans and Canadians, and then North Europeans
> >>>>> (e.g., the Germanic countries). That's actually quite a big group.
> >>>> All you're saying is Asians don't buy it - lol what a fuckwit.
> >>> Look, calling me a fuckwit won't do you any good here. No, Asians
> >>> don't by all that.
> >>>>> Judging by the passionate, blind responses from DavidW, I guess
> >>>>> Australians are also into this. That's quite a lot of people.
> >>>>> Wimbledon is also popular in former British colonies.
> >>>>> Brits are obviously the most rabid of the lot. They consider Wimble=
don
> >>>>> part of their culture. It's like fish and chips. It's a staple on t=
he
> >>>>> TV. It's part of modern British life. It's part of British summer.
> >>>> Is there someone who doesn't know this? =A0Did you know 2+2 =3D 4 & =
3+3=3D6?
> >>> The point is Brits are naitonalistic when it comes to Wimbledon. It's
> >>> like asking them whether the Union Jack is the most pretigious flag i=
n
> >>> the world. So their words on the prestige of Wimbledon doesn't count.
> >>> They will forever be proud of it and try to sell it to other people.
> >>>>> It's like a big festival to them. There's no point talking to these
> >>>>> folks. If you dare say Wimbledon's prestige is falling and they wil=
l
> >>>>> vehemently deny it and the most crazy ones might even perform a wit=
ch-
> >>>>> hunting on you.
> >>>> er, if it wasn't most prestigious nobody would think so except the B=
rits
> >>>> & you wouldn't be defending your position so rabidly.
> >>> No. There are other factors in work here.
> >>>> You'll note nobody outside USA argues about Baseball & NFL being wor=
ld
> >>>> sports/most prestigious because they mean nothing to them.
> >>> That's different. Baseball and NFL are still niche sports played
> >>> almost exclusively in America and a few other countries. Tennis isn't=
.
> >>> Tennis is a global sport now.
> >>>> =A0If Wimbledon
> >>>> was only tops to Brits nobody would care. =A0But you ask all the
> >>>> players/media/experts/fans & you'll get well over 95% endorsing Wimb=
ledon.
> >>> Endorsing Wimbledon? For what? They might say that on the outside, bu=
t
> >>> they know it doesn't matter that much in terms of actual tennis. It's
> >>> still the same ranking points as the other three slams.
> >>>> Cunts like you give Asians a bad rap.
> >>> Look, badmouthing me will not establish anything. It just further
> >>> proves that Wimbledon freaks are an irrational, close-minded lot.
> >>>>> Then there are lots of Americans and Canadians who feel a certain b=
ond
> >>>>> to the mother country in the old world. They find the whole mystiqu=
e
> >>>>> and cultural uniqueness surrounding Wimbledon really romantic and
> >>>>> charming. Cliff Richard, strawberries and cream, grass surface, the
> >>>>> whites, the aristocratic touch, etc. It's really something differen=
t
> >>>>> from what one sees in Northern America and the "most prestigious"
> >>>>> brand is sold easily among these people.
> >>>>> Australians are probably conditioned just like Brits when they grow
> >>>>> up. It kind of against the grain to consider one's own national sla=
m
> >>>>> as inferior in prestige to Wimbledon. But the Aussies are forever
> >>>>> conditioned to play the little brother I think.
> >>>> You don't understand Aussie culture very well - we want to kill the =
Poms
> >>>> at everything.
> >>> I don't know. You seem pretty deferent about Wimbledon.
> >>>>> North European Germanic people have also shown in the recent decade=
s a
> >>>>> lot of affinity towards Wimbledon. This somewhat unusual love affai=
r
> >>>>> can probably be explained by the fact that Swedes and Germans won a
> >>>>> lot of Wimbledons back in the 70s, 80s and even 90s (Borg, Edberg,
> >>>>> Becker, Stich, Graf, etc)
> >>>> One day you might get some Asians who can play tennis & then you'll
> >>>> change your tune you slimy racist prick.
> >>> When you descend into abusing me like that, it means you have lost.
> >>>>> Which leaves us the rest of the world. In which live billions of
> >>>>> people who really don't care that much about Wimbledon's prestige.
> >>>>> They certainly don't grow a strong cultural and emotional attachmen=
t
> >>>>> to Wimbledon like the groups mentioned above.
> >>>> er, that would be people who don't follow tennis at all.
> >>> An extremely parochial world view. You are not thinking properly.
> >>>>> Of course, there are
> >>>>> many anglophiles and conditioned Wimbledonistas here as well, but I=
am
> >>>>> talking generally here. This is the world the sport of tennis is go=
ing
> >>>>> to expand in the next few decades.
> >>>> Asia will never have a tournament equal to GS status. =A0
> >>> It might. We don't know. Why do you say "never", though? Why does it
> >>> bother you so much? :)
> >>>> Get over it &
> >>>> start appreciating tennis for itself not for nationalistic reasons.
> >>> I appreciate tennis for itself, independent of venue and cultural
> >>> bias. That's why I am saying venue prestige doesn't matter as much.
> >>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
> >>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
> >>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
> >>> stubbornness.
> >> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
> >> Wimbledon equivalent?
>
> > No. I would be much more tolerant and respectful of other cultures and
> > countries. I am not an intolerant, close-minded dickhead.
>
> >> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
> >> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most famous
> >> tennis tradition?
>
> > No. I would realize that things have changed, that tennis has become a
> > global sport and instead of looking towards the past and acting like
> > an =EF=BF=BDber-conservative, I will look forward to a more multicultur=
al,
> > more international, more global tennis future. Above all, I will
> > always support the quality of actual tennis over provincial venue
> > prestige.
>
> Playing your best at a place where it means the most - that's what it's
> about.
>

That would be any of the four slams.

> The best ever tennis match may have been some intense practice session
> between Hoad & Laver, but it doesn't add anything to their legacy.
>

No. First of all, Hoad and Laver were not that good. Secondly, if it
was a practice session, then by definition it was not an official
match. Your argumentation abilities are poor.

> Sticking your head up your arse & pretending Wimbledon isn't that
> important serves no purpose - every player wants to win it most as they
> know what it means to their legacy.- Hide quoted text -
>

You still don't get it. Wimbledon is important. It is one of the four
slams. Of course every player will want to win it. But winning
Wimbledon is not a guarantee for tennis immortality. Michael Chang,
Sergi Bruguera, Ivan Lendl etc didn't win Wimbledon but were still
inducted into the Tennis Hall of Fame. They will be forever remembered
as some great tennis players of their era.


  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 20:21:39
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:9d704cd9-a144-471f-9d8a-dfbebbf41963@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 30, 10:26 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 6:51 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>> On Dec 30, 4:39 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>>>> To add a bit more,
> >>>> I wish it was only a bit.
> >>>>> I think the people who are the most likely to buy
> >>>>> that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament are firstly
> >>>>> the Brits, then Americans and Canadians, and then North Europeans
> >>>>> (e.g., the Germanic countries). That's actually quite a big group.
> >>>> All you're saying is Asians don't buy it - lol what a fuckwit.
> >>> Look, calling me a fuckwit won't do you any good here. No, Asians
> >>> don't by all that.
> >>>>> Judging by the passionate, blind responses from DavidW, I guess
> >>>>> Australians are also into this. That's quite a lot of people.
> >>>>> Wimbledon is also popular in former British colonies.
> >>>>> Brits are obviously the most rabid of the lot. They consider
> >>>>> Wimbledon
> >>>>> part of their culture. It's like fish and chips. It's a staple on
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> TV. It's part of modern British life. It's part of British summer.
> >>>> Is there someone who doesn't know this? Did you know 2+2 = 4 & 3+3=6?
> >>> The point is Brits are naitonalistic when it comes to Wimbledon. It's
> >>> like asking them whether the Union Jack is the most pretigious flag in
> >>> the world. So their words on the prestige of Wimbledon doesn't count.
> >>> They will forever be proud of it and try to sell it to other people.
> >>>>> It's like a big festival to them. There's no point talking to these
> >>>>> folks. If you dare say Wimbledon's prestige is falling and they will
> >>>>> vehemently deny it and the most crazy ones might even perform a
> >>>>> witch-
> >>>>> hunting on you.
> >>>> er, if it wasn't most prestigious nobody would think so except the
> >>>> Brits
> >>>> & you wouldn't be defending your position so rabidly.
> >>> No. There are other factors in work here.
> >>>> You'll note nobody outside USA argues about Baseball & NFL being
> >>>> world
> >>>> sports/most prestigious because they mean nothing to them.
> >>> That's different. Baseball and NFL are still niche sports played
> >>> almost exclusively in America and a few other countries. Tennis isn't.
> >>> Tennis is a global sport now.
> >>>> If Wimbledon
> >>>> was only tops to Brits nobody would care. But you ask all the
> >>>> players/media/experts/fans & you'll get well over 95% endorsing
> >>>> Wimbledon.
> >>> Endorsing Wimbledon? For what? They might say that on the outside, but
> >>> they know it doesn't matter that much in terms of actual tennis. It's
> >>> still the same ranking points as the other three slams.
> >>>> Cunts like you give Asians a bad rap.
> >>> Look, badmouthing me will not establish anything. It just further
> >>> proves that Wimbledon freaks are an irrational, close-minded lot.
> >>>>> Then there are lots of Americans and Canadians who feel a certain
> >>>>> bond
> >>>>> to the mother country in the old world. They find the whole mystique
> >>>>> and cultural uniqueness surrounding Wimbledon really romantic and
> >>>>> charming. Cliff Richard, strawberries and cream, grass surface, the
> >>>>> whites, the aristocratic touch, etc. It's really something different
> >>>>> from what one sees in Northern America and the "most prestigious"
> >>>>> brand is sold easily among these people.
> >>>>> Australians are probably conditioned just like Brits when they grow
> >>>>> up. It kind of against the grain to consider one's own national slam
> >>>>> as inferior in prestige to Wimbledon. But the Aussies are forever
> >>>>> conditioned to play the little brother I think.
> >>>> You don't understand Aussie culture very well - we want to kill the
> >>>> Poms
> >>>> at everything.
> >>> I don't know. You seem pretty deferent about Wimbledon.
> >>>>> North European Germanic people have also shown in the recent decades
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> lot of affinity towards Wimbledon. This somewhat unusual love affair
> >>>>> can probably be explained by the fact that Swedes and Germans won a
> >>>>> lot of Wimbledons back in the 70s, 80s and even 90s (Borg, Edberg,
> >>>>> Becker, Stich, Graf, etc)
> >>>> One day you might get some Asians who can play tennis & then you'll
> >>>> change your tune you slimy racist prick.
> >>> When you descend into abusing me like that, it means you have lost.
> >>>>> Which leaves us the rest of the world. In which live billions of
> >>>>> people who really don't care that much about Wimbledon's prestige.
> >>>>> They certainly don't grow a strong cultural and emotional attachment
> >>>>> to Wimbledon like the groups mentioned above.
> >>>> er, that would be people who don't follow tennis at all.
> >>> An extremely parochial world view. You are not thinking properly.
> >>>>> Of course, there are
> >>>>> many anglophiles and conditioned Wimbledonistas here as well, but I
> >>>>> am
> >>>>> talking generally here. This is the world the sport of tennis is
> >>>>> going
> >>>>> to expand in the next few decades.
> >>>> Asia will never have a tournament equal to GS status.
> >>> It might. We don't know. Why do you say "never", though? Why does it
> >>> bother you so much? :)
> >>>> Get over it &
> >>>> start appreciating tennis for itself not for nationalistic reasons.
> >>> I appreciate tennis for itself, independent of venue and cultural
> >>> bias. That's why I am saying venue prestige doesn't matter as much.
> >>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
> >>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
> >>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
> >>> stubbornness.
> >> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
> >> Wimbledon equivalent?
>
> > No. I would be much more tolerant and respectful of other cultures and
> > countries. I am not an intolerant, close-minded dickhead.
>
> >> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
> >> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most famous
> >> tennis tradition?
>
> > No. I would realize that things have changed, that tennis has become a
> > global sport and instead of looking towards the past and acting like
> > an �ber-conservative, I will look forward to a more multicultural,
> > more international, more global tennis future. Above all, I will
> > always support the quality of actual tennis over provincial venue
> > prestige.
>
> Playing your best at a place where it means the most - that's what it's
> about.
>
>
>That would be any of the four slams.
>
> The best ever tennis match may have been some intense practice session
> between Hoad & Laver, but it doesn't add anything to their legacy.
>
>
>No. First of all, Hoad and Laver were not that good. Secondly, if it
>was a practice session, then by definition it was not an official
>match. Your argumentation abilities are poor.
>
> Sticking your head up your arse & pretending Wimbledon isn't that
> important serves no purpose - every player wants to win it most as they
> know what it means to their legacy.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
>You still don't get it. Wimbledon is important. It is one of the four
>slams. Of course every player will want to win it. But winning
>Wimbledon is not a guarantee for tennis immortality. Michael Chang,
>Sergi Bruguera, Ivan Lendl etc didn't win Wimbledon but were still
>inducted into the Tennis Hall of Fame. They will be forever remembered
>as some great tennis players of their era.

Ivan Lendl is best remembered by the majority of the world (who have heard
of him) as the guy who couldn't win Wimbledon. Sampras is known for winning
Wimbledon, so is Connors despite 5 US Open's. By the layman Federer isn't
known as the guy who hasn't won the French Open, he's known as the guy who
won Wimbledon - do you get it? Wimbledon IS the most prestigious event, ask
Nadal, ask Federer and like I said there are good reasons for that, the
venue, the history, the tennis played there, the atmosphere etc.




   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 23:04:12
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Iceberg wrote:

> Ivan Lendl is best remembered by the majority of the world (who have heard
> of him) as the guy who couldn't win Wimbledon.

I think that's bs. Normal people remember him as a #1 and some informed
perhaps as French Open champion. I'm sure nobody remembers he didn't win
Wimbledon, apart from us tennis freaks.


--
"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: 30 Dec 2008 23:16:46
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:04:12 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Iceberg wrote:
>
>> Ivan Lendl is best remembered by the majority of the world (who have heard
>> of him) as the guy who couldn't win Wimbledon.
>
>I think that's bs. Normal people remember him as a #1 and some informed
>perhaps as French Open champion. I'm sure nobody remembers he didn't win
>Wimbledon, apart from us tennis freaks.

The truth is between those two comments. Lendl is remembered as a guy,
who was the best tennis player in the world for a long time and one of
the best players for a very long time, and as a guy who won many
slams. But also a big part of him that people remember is that he
didn't win Wimbledon. I know I hated it when that German kid who could
only serve beat him in the final, and it was ridiculous when that
Aussie kid somehow beat him too.


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:32:23
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 10:21=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> TT wrote:
> > Whisper wrote:
> >> Iceberg wrote:
> >>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> >>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas ar=
e
> >>>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little a=
nd
> >>>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
> >>>>> stubbornness.
>
> >>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
> >>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>
> >>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
> >>>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most
> >>>> famous tennis tradition?
>
> >>>> Be honest now.
>
> >>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
> >>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>
> >> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>
> > "It just is" -Whisper
>
> Yes, only newbies don't get Wimbledon - or some recalcitrant Asians.
>
> 'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>

"It just is" is not a good answer. Neither is referring to Rafa as if
he is some kind of an authority on this. Why are you not referring to
players who don't hold Wimbledon in such high prestige? I know. They
"just don't count", do they?

What is truly recalcitrant is being stubbornly neglectful about other
people's viewpoint re: Wimbledon.


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 09:05:55
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 30, 10:21 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that
>>>>>>> Wimbledonistas are rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks.
>>>>>>> You probe them a little and the inner ugliness shows up in the
>>>>>>> form of name-calling and plain stubbornness.
>>
>>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
>>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>>
>>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the
>>>>>> Asian Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest &
>>>>>> most famous tennis tradition?
>>
>>>>>> Be honest now.
>>
>>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
>>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>>
>>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>>
>>> "It just is" -Whisper
>>
>> Yes, only newbies don't get Wimbledon - or some recalcitrant Asians.
>>
>> 'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.
>>
>
> "It just is" is not a good answer.

It's a perfectly good answer. Repeat after me: "It does not matter _why_
Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament." Prestige does not have to be
rationalized. Why should it? Wimbledon is the most important tournament to the
vast majority of players and fans. End of story.





  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 05:33:57
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>
>> 'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> "It just is" is not a good answer. Neither is referring to Rafa as if
> he is some kind of an authority on this. Why are you not referring to
> players who don't hold Wimbledon in such high prestige? I know. They
> "just don't count", do they?
>
> What is truly recalcitrant is being stubbornly neglectful about other
> people's viewpoint re: Wimbledon.


rich irony


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:26:54
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...


arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 30, 11:24=EF=BF=BDam, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:fa7cd203-c654-4e6a-9057-21f7321a7596@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com.=
..
> > On Dec 29, 9:55 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
> >
> > >news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
> >
> > > > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > > >> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> > > >>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >
> > > >>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and t=
here
> > > >>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 y=
ears
> > > >>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for t=
he
> > > >>>> last 20 years?
> >
> > > >>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
> > > >>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
> >
> > > >> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of deni=
al
> > > >> ever posted on rst.
> >
> > > > So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
> >
> > > >>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 19=
90s.
> > > >>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
> > > >>>> need to catch up.
> >
> > > >>>>> but
> > > >>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
> > > >>>>> first and the AO last.
> >
> > > >>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, o=
r
> > > >>>> anything else that matters.
> >
> > > >>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to be=
t
> > > >>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
> >
> > > >> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
> > > >> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbl=
edon
> > > >> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
> > > >> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some polit=
ical
> > > >> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
> > > >> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues a=
nd
> > > >> media can make them dance to their tunes.
> >
> > > > I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
> > > > ability, not
> > > > to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media
> > > > conspire
> > > > to do
> > > > that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's ob=
vious
> > > > to
> > > > them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that pe=
ople
> > > > don't
> > > > really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that o=
ne,
> > > > so
> > > > now
> > > > the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings. Spe=
aking
> > > > of
> > > > arrant nonsense...
> >
> > > arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes h=
im
> > > overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general consid=
er
> > > Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.- Hide
> > > quoted text -
> >
> > Nonsense. Why hasn't Wimbledon's so-called superior prestige been
> > reflected in the ATP rankings for the past 20 years? What value is the
> > prestige when the official ranking system that calculates the
> > standings of players on the tour hasn't even acknowledged it for
> > nearly two decades?
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Imbecile. All masters series events give equall rankings pts yet some o=
f
> > them are considered to be more prestigious.
> > And we're talking about MS events, a second tier of tennis tournaments.=
- Hide quoted text -
> >
>
> So there's a 7543 for Masters Series tournies too? You nutjobs are
> incredible.

If one thinks about it, it's quite extraordinary how loser trolls
hiding behind an anonymous handle like "Whimser", "*skriptis", "TT",
"Iceberg", etc. can spontaneously launch into name-calling and
bullying and just stink up an entire discussion and we the posters
with real names still treat them with such respect. These are probably
some of the most cowardly POS to disgrace this discussion group. Only
on usenet is this possible.


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:18:52
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 11:24=A0am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fa7cd203-c654-4e6a-9057-21f7321a7596@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 29, 9:55 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>
> >news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
>
> > > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > >> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> > >>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> > >>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and the=
re
> > >>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 yea=
rs
> > >>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
> > >>>> last 20 years?
>
> > >>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
> > >>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>
> > >> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
> > >> ever posted on rst.
>
> > > So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>
> > >>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990=
s.
> > >>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
> > >>>> need to catch up.
>
> > >>>>> but
> > >>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
> > >>>>> first and the AO last.
>
> > >>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
> > >>>> anything else that matters.
>
> > >>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet
> > >>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>
> > >> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
> > >> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbled=
on
> > >> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
> > >> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some politic=
al
> > >> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
> > >> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
> > >> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>
> > > I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
> > > ability, not
> > > to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media
> > > conspire
> > > to do
> > > that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's obvi=
ous
> > > to
> > > them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that peop=
le
> > > don't
> > > really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that one=
,
> > > so
> > > now
> > > the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings. Speak=
ing
> > > of
> > > arrant nonsense...
>
> > arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes him
> > overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general consider
> > Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.- Hide
> > quoted text -
>
> Nonsense. Why hasn't Wimbledon's so-called superior prestige been
> reflected in the ATP rankings for the past 20 years? What value is the
> prestige when the official ranking system that calculates the
> standings of players on the tour hasn't even acknowledged it for
> nearly two decades?
>
> ***
>
> Imbecile. All masters series events give equall rankings pts yet some of
> them are considered to be more prestigious.
> And we're talking about MS events, a second tier of tennis tournaments.- =
Hide quoted text -
>

So there's a 7543 for Masters Series tournies too? You nutjobs are
incredible.



 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:12:53
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 7:58=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
> > Iceberg wrote:
> >> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> >>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
> >>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little an=
d
> >>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
> >>>> stubbornness.
>
> >>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
> >>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>
> >>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
> >>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most
> >>> famous tennis tradition?
>
> >>> Be honest now.
>
> >> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
> >> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>
> > Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>
> "It just is" -Whisper

Yes. "It just is." As neanderthal as a reply can be. Whimpy is the
original Wimbledonist mollah of rst, releasing fatwas like "It just
is" for years. Believe it, heathen! Or the gods of tennis will punish
you! No virgins for you!


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 03:29:51
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 30, 7:58 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
>>>>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
>>>>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
>>>>>> stubbornness.
>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
>>>>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most
>>>>> famous tennis tradition?
>>>>> Be honest now.
>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>> "It just is" -Whisper
>
> Yes. "It just is." As neanderthal as a reply can be. Whimpy is the
> original Wimbledonist mollah of rst, releasing fatwas like "It just
> is" for years. Believe it, heathen! Or the gods of tennis will punish
> you! No virgins for you!



World cup is best soccer trophy for same reasons - 'it just is' because
most say it is.



   
Date: 31 Dec 2008 10:12:00
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 03:29:51 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 7:58 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
>>>>>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
>>>>>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
>>>>>>> stubbornness.
>>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
>>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
>>>>>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most
>>>>>> famous tennis tradition?
>>>>>> Be honest now.
>>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
>>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>>> "It just is" -Whisper
>>
>> Yes. "It just is." As neanderthal as a reply can be. Whimpy is the
>> original Wimbledonist mollah of rst, releasing fatwas like "It just
>> is" for years. Believe it, heathen! Or the gods of tennis will punish
>> you! No virgins for you!
>
>
>
>World cup is best soccer trophy for same reasons - 'it just is' because
>most say it is.


They wouldn't if it was played on an obsolete almost never used
surface. In fact, nobody would even stand for it if they did.


   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 14:02:18
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 7:58 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
>>>>>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
>>>>>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
>>>>>>> stubbornness.
>>>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
>>>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>>>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
>>>>>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most
>>>>>> famous tennis tradition?
>>>>>> Be honest now.
>>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
>>>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>>>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>>> "It just is" -Whisper
>>
>> Yes. "It just is." As neanderthal as a reply can be. Whimpy is the
>> original Wimbledonist mollah of rst, releasing fatwas like "It just
>> is" for years. Believe it, heathen! Or the gods of tennis will punish
>> you! No virgins for you!
>
> World cup is best soccer trophy for same reasons - 'it just is' because
> most say it is.

Yup, the whole "one and only national team competition that includes the whole
world in the field" is just an afterthought.


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:07:30
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 6:18=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Iceberg wrote:
> > "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> >>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
> >>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
> >>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
> >>> stubbornness.
>
> >> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the Wimble=
don
> >> equivalent?
>
> >> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
> >> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most famous
> >> tennis tradition?
>
> >> Be honest now.
>
> > I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India have=
ever
> > heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>
> Didn't think he'd answer this one.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Think again. Couldn't even wait a few hours, eh? Do you sit in front
of your computer in that basement all day?


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 03:28:47
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 30, 6:18 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Iceberg wrote:
>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
>>>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
>>>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
>>>>> stubbornness.
>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the Wimbledon
>>>> equivalent?
>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
>>>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most famous
>>>> tennis tradition?
>>>> Be honest now.
>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India have ever
>>> heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Think again. Couldn't even wait a few hours, eh? Do you sit in front
> of your computer in that basement all day?


Unlike most here I play tennis 2 or 3 times a week & played a few hrs ago.



 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:06:17
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 6:06=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
>
>
>
> > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >> On Dec 30, 4:39 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>>> To add a bit more,
> >>> I wish it was only a bit.
>
> >>>> I think the people who are the most likely to buy
> >>>> that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament are firstly
> >>>> the Brits, then Americans and Canadians, and then North Europeans
> >>>> (e.g., the Germanic countries). That's actually quite a big group.
> >>> All you're saying is Asians don't buy it - lol what a fuckwit.
>
> >> Look, calling me a fuckwit won't do you any good here. No, Asians
> >> don't by all that.
>
> >>>> Judging by the passionate, blind responses from DavidW, I guess
> >>>> Australians are also into this. That's quite a lot of people.
> >>>> Wimbledon is also popular in former British colonies.
> >>>> Brits are obviously the most rabid of the lot. They consider Wimbled=
on
> >>>> part of their culture. It's like fish and chips. It's a staple on th=
e
> >>>> TV. It's part of modern British life. It's part of British summer.
> >>> Is there someone who doesn't know this? =A0Did you know 2+2 =3D 4 & 3=
+3=3D6?
>
> >> The point is Brits are naitonalistic when it comes to Wimbledon. It's
> >> like asking them whether the Union Jack is the most pretigious flag in
> >> the world. So their words on the prestige of Wimbledon doesn't count.
> >> They will forever be proud of it and try to sell it to other people.
>
> >>>> It's like a big festival to them. There's no point talking to these
> >>>> folks. If you dare say Wimbledon's prestige is falling and they will
> >>>> vehemently deny it and the most crazy ones might even perform a witc=
h-
> >>>> hunting on you.
> >>> er, if it wasn't most prestigious nobody would think so except the Br=
its
> >>> & you wouldn't be defending your position so rabidly.
>
> >> No. There are other factors in work here.
>
> >>> You'll note nobody outside USA argues about Baseball & NFL being worl=
d
> >>> sports/most prestigious because they mean nothing to them.
>
> >> That's different. Baseball and NFL are still niche sports played
> >> almost exclusively in America and a few other countries. Tennis isn't.
> >> Tennis is a global sport now.
>
> >>> =A0If Wimbledon
> >>> was only tops to Brits nobody would care. =A0But you ask all the
> >>> players/media/experts/fans & you'll get well over 95% endorsing
> >>> Wimbledon.
>
> >> Endorsing Wimbledon? For what? They might say that on the outside, but
> >> they know it doesn't matter that much in terms of actual tennis. It's
> >> still the same ranking points as the other three slams.
>
> >>> Cunts like you give Asians a bad rap.
>
> >> Look, badmouthing me will not establish anything. It just further
> >> proves that Wimbledon freaks are an irrational, close-minded lot.
>
> >>>> Then there are lots of Americans and Canadians who feel a certain bo=
nd
> >>>> to the mother country in the old world. They find the whole mystique
> >>>> and cultural uniqueness surrounding Wimbledon really romantic and
> >>>> charming. Cliff Richard, strawberries and cream, grass surface, the
> >>>> whites, the aristocratic touch, etc. It's really something different
> >>>> from what one sees in Northern America and the "most prestigious"
> >>>> brand is sold easily among these people.
> >>>> Australians are probably conditioned just like Brits when they grow
> >>>> up. It kind of against the grain to consider one's own national slam
> >>>> as inferior in prestige to Wimbledon. But the Aussies are forever
> >>>> conditioned to play the little brother I think.
> >>> You don't understand Aussie culture very well - we want to kill the P=
oms
> >>> at everything.
>
> >> I don't know. You seem pretty deferent about Wimbledon.
>
> >>>> North European Germanic people have also shown in the recent decades=
a
> >>>> lot of affinity towards Wimbledon. This somewhat unusual love affair
> >>>> can probably be explained by the fact that Swedes and Germans won a
> >>>> lot of Wimbledons back in the 70s, 80s and even 90s (Borg, Edberg,
> >>>> Becker, Stich, Graf, etc)
> >>> One day you might get some Asians who can play tennis & then you'll
> >>> change your tune you slimy racist prick.
>
> >> When you descend into abusing me like that, it means you have lost.
>
> >>>> Which leaves us the rest of the world. In which live billions of
> >>>> people who really don't care that much about Wimbledon's prestige.
> >>>> They certainly don't grow a strong cultural and emotional attachment
> >>>> to Wimbledon like the groups mentioned above.
> >>> er, that would be people who don't follow tennis at all.
>
> >> An extremely parochial world view. You are not thinking properly.
>
> >>>> Of course, there are
> >>>> many anglophiles and conditioned Wimbledonistas here as well, but I =
am
> >>>> talking generally here. This is the world the sport of tennis is goi=
ng
> >>>> to expand in the next few decades.
> >>> Asia will never have a tournament equal to GS status.
>
> >> It might. We don't know. Why do you say "never", though? Why does it
> >> bother you so much? :)
>
> >>> Get over it &
> >>> start appreciating tennis for itself not for nationalistic reasons.
>
> >> I appreciate tennis for itself, independent of venue and cultural
> >> bias. That's why I am saying venue prestige doesn't matter as much.
>
> >> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
> >> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
> >> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
> >> stubbornness.
>
> > Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the Wimbled=
on
> > equivalent?
>
> > Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
> > Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most famous
> > tennis tradition?
>
> > Be honest now.
>
> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India have e=
ver
> heard of. Arnab knows that too.- Hide quoted text -
>

No, we have had coverage of all four slams for decades, as long as I
can remember. India's national TV channel Doordarshan was about the
only channel in the region which regularly aired the French Open.
Rupert Murdock's Star Sports has never bothered to cover French Open.
I think there could be a subtle anglo-bias there, but this is just
conjecture.

Nowadays Star Sports cover only Australian Open and Wimbledon. French
Open is covered by other networks. And US Open is covered by a UAE-
based channel Ten Sports.


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 03:27:57
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 30, 6:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India have ever
>> heard of. Arnab knows that too.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> No, we have had coverage of all four slams for decades, as long as I
> can remember. India's national TV channel Doordarshan was about the
> only channel in the region which regularly aired the French Open.
> Rupert Murdock's Star Sports has never bothered to cover French Open.
> I think there could be a subtle anglo-bias there, but this is just
> conjecture.


It's a tennis bias. 99% of clay tennis makes a very poor tv spectacle.
Matches/points are very 1-dimensioanl, long & lacking in explosive
reflex-style points.




   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 19:57:15
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 6:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>
>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
>>> have ever
>>> heard of. Arnab knows that too.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>
>> No, we have had coverage of all four slams for decades, as long as I
>> can remember. India's national TV channel Doordarshan was about the
>> only channel in the region which regularly aired the French Open.
>> Rupert Murdock's Star Sports has never bothered to cover French Open.
>> I think there could be a subtle anglo-bias there, but this is just
>> conjecture.
>
>
> It's a tennis bias. 99% of clay tennis makes a very poor tv spectacle.
> Matches/points are very 1-dimensioanl, long & lacking in explosive
> reflex-style points.
>
>

Clay tennis is most exciting and versatile tennis. Magnificent points.

You "explosive reflex-style points" is watching a very boring display of
big serves and and no rallies or point construction.

--
"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: 31 Dec 2008 09:08:23
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 6:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
>>>> have ever
>>>> heard of. Arnab knows that too.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, we have had coverage of all four slams for decades, as long as I
>>> can remember. India's national TV channel Doordarshan was about the
>>> only channel in the region which regularly aired the French Open.
>>> Rupert Murdock's Star Sports has never bothered to cover French Open.
>>> I think there could be a subtle anglo-bias there, but this is just
>>> conjecture.
>>
>>
>> It's a tennis bias. 99% of clay tennis makes a very poor tv
>> spectacle. Matches/points are very 1-dimensioanl, long & lacking in
>> explosive reflex-style points.
>>
>>
>
> Clay tennis is most exciting and versatile tennis. Magnificent points.
>
> You "explosive reflex-style points" is watching a very boring display of
> big serves and and no rallies or point construction.
>



The ratings don't lie. TV execs aren't stupid - they want to give
people what they want to watch to make $$ - that ain't bumrooting on clay.






     
Date: 31 Dec 2008 00:43:56
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>> On Dec 30, 6:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
>>>>> have ever
>>>>> heard of. Arnab knows that too.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, we have had coverage of all four slams for decades, as long as I
>>>> can remember. India's national TV channel Doordarshan was about the
>>>> only channel in the region which regularly aired the French Open.
>>>> Rupert Murdock's Star Sports has never bothered to cover French Open.
>>>> I think there could be a subtle anglo-bias there, but this is just
>>>> conjecture.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a tennis bias. 99% of clay tennis makes a very poor tv
>>> spectacle. Matches/points are very 1-dimensioanl, long & lacking in
>>> explosive reflex-style points.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Clay tennis is most exciting and versatile tennis. Magnificent points.
>>
>> You "explosive reflex-style points" is watching a very boring display
>> of big serves and and no rallies or point construction.
>>
>
>
>
> The ratings don't lie. TV execs aren't stupid - they want to give
> people what they want to watch to make $$ - that ain't bumrooting on clay.
>

Eurosport thinks otherwise.


--
"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: 30 Dec 2008 22:25:10
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

On 30-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> The ratings don't lie. TV execs aren't stupid - they want to give
> people what they want to watch to make $$ - that ain't bumrooting on clay.

I found this chart interesting.... too bad it's US only and there is no FO
to compare. From a broadcasting perspective, you are certainly right the
coverage of Wimbledon is much better than for FO where I am.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973-2008/4209


      
Date: 30 Dec 2008 22:31:28
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

On 30-Dec-2008, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com > wrote:

> On 30-Dec-2008, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > The ratings don't lie. TV execs aren't stupid - they want to give
> > people what they want to watch to make $$ - that ain't bumrooting on
> > clay.
>
> I found this chart interesting.... too bad it's US only and there is no FO
> to compare. From a broadcasting perspective, you are certainly right the
> coverage of Wimbledon is much better than for FO where I am.
>
> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973-2008/4209

And here is the version for the US Open. Despite the fact that the
tournament takes place in the US, it's still not as popular as Wimbledon *in
the US*.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/09/12/us-tennis-open-tv-ratings-1972-2008/4887


    
Date: 30 Dec 2008 19:24:01
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

"TT" <gold@Olympics.org > wrote in message
news:%ht6l.111382$_03.87960@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> Whisper wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 6:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India have
>>>> ever
>>>> heard of. Arnab knows that too.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, we have had coverage of all four slams for decades, as long as I
>>> can remember. India's national TV channel Doordarshan was about the
>>> only channel in the region which regularly aired the French Open.
>>> Rupert Murdock's Star Sports has never bothered to cover French Open.
>>> I think there could be a subtle anglo-bias there, but this is just
>>> conjecture.
>>
>>
>> It's a tennis bias. 99% of clay tennis makes a very poor tv spectacle.
>> Matches/points are very 1-dimensioanl, long & lacking in explosive
>> reflex-style points.
>>
>>
>
> Clay tennis is most exciting and versatile tennis. Magnificent points.
>
> You "explosive reflex-style points" is watching a very boring display of
> big serves and and no rallies or point construction.


watching Rafa on clay may be much more exciting than watching Karlovic on
grass but...but
watching Rafa anywhere is more exciting than watching Karlovic.

overall, grass is much more enjoyable.




 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:02:03
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 4:04=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > On 29 joulu, 23:26, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes h=
im
> >>> overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general consid=
er
> >>> Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.- Hide =
quoted text -
> >> Nonsense. Why hasn't Wimbledon's so-called superior prestige been
> >> reflected in the ATP rankings for the past 20 years? What value is the
> >> prestige when the official ranking system that calculates the
> >> standings of players on the tour hasn't even acknowledged it for
> >> nearly two decades?
>
> > Wimbledon's (hidden) prestige has not been there (in official meters)
> > since 70:ies.
>
> > But during 70.ies there was a clear Wimbledon bias.
>
> > ITF named Borg "player of the year" 76-80 even though 76/77 clearly
> > were Connors/Vilas years.
>
> > 7543 sounds silly now but it was fully applicable 1983-87 (toss in
> > extra point or two for YEC if you want). See the co-incident with this
> > and Mac heyday...;)
>
> Ask Federer if 7543 is silly.
>

He would say it is silly. The whole tennis world will say it's silly.


  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 20:22:18
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:f7f7f8df-3783-41af-ad55-8eb79127bbf4@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 30, 4:04 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > On 29 joulu, 23:26, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
> >>> him
> >>> overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
> >>> consider
> >>> Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.- Hide
> >>> quoted text -
> >> Nonsense. Why hasn't Wimbledon's so-called superior prestige been
> >> reflected in the ATP rankings for the past 20 years? What value is the
> >> prestige when the official ranking system that calculates the
> >> standings of players on the tour hasn't even acknowledged it for
> >> nearly two decades?
>
> > Wimbledon's (hidden) prestige has not been there (in official meters)
> > since 70:ies.
>
> > But during 70.ies there was a clear Wimbledon bias.
>
> > ITF named Borg "player of the year" 76-80 even though 76/77 clearly
> > were Connors/Vilas years.
>
> > 7543 sounds silly now but it was fully applicable 1983-87 (toss in
> > extra point or two for YEC if you want). See the co-incident with this
> > and Mac heyday...;)
>
> Ask Federer if 7543 is silly.
>
>
>He would say it is silly. The whole tennis world will say it's silly.

have you asked them?




 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:00:55
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 6:51=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 4:39 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>> To add a bit more,
> >> I wish it was only a bit.
>
> >>> I think the people who are the most likely to buy
> >>> that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament are firstly
> >>> the Brits, then Americans and Canadians, and then North Europeans
> >>> (e.g., the Germanic countries). That's actually quite a big group.
> >> All you're saying is Asians don't buy it - lol what a fuckwit.
>
> > Look, calling me a fuckwit won't do you any good here. No, Asians
> > don't by all that.
>
> >>> Judging by the passionate, blind responses from DavidW, I guess
> >>> Australians are also into this. That's quite a lot of people.
> >>> Wimbledon is also popular in former British colonies.
> >>> Brits are obviously the most rabid of the lot. They consider Wimbledo=
n
> >>> part of their culture. It's like fish and chips. It's a staple on the
> >>> TV. It's part of modern British life. It's part of British summer.
> >> Is there someone who doesn't know this? =A0Did you know 2+2 =3D 4 & 3+=
3=3D6?
>
> > The point is Brits are naitonalistic when it comes to Wimbledon. It's
> > like asking them whether the Union Jack is the most pretigious flag in
> > the world. So their words on the prestige of Wimbledon doesn't count.
> > They will forever be proud of it and try to sell it to other people.
>
> >>> It's like a big festival to them. There's no point talking to these
> >>> folks. If you dare say Wimbledon's prestige is falling and they will
> >>> vehemently deny it and the most crazy ones might even perform a witch=
-
> >>> hunting on you.
> >> er, if it wasn't most prestigious nobody would think so except the Bri=
ts
> >> & you wouldn't be defending your position so rabidly.
>
> > No. There are other factors in work here.
>
> >> You'll note nobody outside USA argues about Baseball & NFL being world
> >> sports/most prestigious because they mean nothing to them.
>
> > That's different. Baseball and NFL are still niche sports played
> > almost exclusively in America and a few other countries. Tennis isn't.
> > Tennis is a global sport now.
>
> >> =A0If Wimbledon
> >> was only tops to Brits nobody would care. =A0But you ask all the
> >> players/media/experts/fans & you'll get well over 95% endorsing Wimble=
don.
>
> > Endorsing Wimbledon? For what? They might say that on the outside, but
> > they know it doesn't matter that much in terms of actual tennis. It's
> > still the same ranking points as the other three slams.
>
> >> Cunts like you give Asians a bad rap.
>
> > Look, badmouthing me will not establish anything. It just further
> > proves that Wimbledon freaks are an irrational, close-minded lot.
>
> >>> Then there are lots of Americans and Canadians who feel a certain bon=
d
> >>> to the mother country in the old world. They find the whole mystique
> >>> and cultural uniqueness surrounding Wimbledon really romantic and
> >>> charming. Cliff Richard, strawberries and cream, grass surface, the
> >>> whites, the aristocratic touch, etc. It's really something different
> >>> from what one sees in Northern America and the "most prestigious"
> >>> brand is sold easily among these people.
> >>> Australians are probably conditioned just like Brits when they grow
> >>> up. It kind of against the grain to consider one's own national slam
> >>> as inferior in prestige to Wimbledon. But the Aussies are forever
> >>> conditioned to play the little brother I think.
> >> You don't understand Aussie culture very well - we want to kill the Po=
ms
> >> at everything.
>
> > I don't know. You seem pretty deferent about Wimbledon.
>
> >>> North European Germanic people have also shown in the recent decades =
a
> >>> lot of affinity towards Wimbledon. This somewhat unusual love affair
> >>> can probably be explained by the fact that Swedes and Germans won a
> >>> lot of Wimbledons back in the 70s, 80s and even 90s (Borg, Edberg,
> >>> Becker, Stich, Graf, etc)
> >> One day you might get some Asians who can play tennis & then you'll
> >> change your tune you slimy racist prick.
>
> > When you descend into abusing me like that, it means you have lost.
>
> >>> Which leaves us the rest of the world. In which live billions of
> >>> people who really don't care that much about Wimbledon's prestige.
> >>> They certainly don't grow a strong cultural and emotional attachment
> >>> to Wimbledon like the groups mentioned above.
> >> er, that would be people who don't follow tennis at all.
>
> > An extremely parochial world view. You are not thinking properly.
>
> >>> Of course, there are
> >>> many anglophiles and conditioned Wimbledonistas here as well, but I a=
m
> >>> talking generally here. This is the world the sport of tennis is goin=
g
> >>> to expand in the next few decades.
> >> Asia will never have a tournament equal to GS status. =A0
>
> > It might. We don't know. Why do you say "never", though? Why does it
> > bother you so much? :)
>
> >> Get over it &
> >> start appreciating tennis for itself not for nationalistic reasons.
>
> > I appreciate tennis for itself, independent of venue and cultural
> > bias. That's why I am saying venue prestige doesn't matter as much.
>
> > The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
> > rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
> > the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
> > stubbornness.
>
> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
> Wimbledon equivalent?
>

No. I would be much more tolerant and respectful of other cultures and
countries. I am not an intolerant, close-minded dickhead.

> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most famous
> tennis tradition?
>

No. I would realize that things have changed, that tennis has become a
global sport and instead of looking towards the past and acting like
an =FCber-conservative, I will look forward to a more multicultural,
more international, more global tennis future. Above all, I will
always support the quality of actual tennis over provincial venue
prestige.






  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 03:26:01
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 30, 6:51 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 30, 4:39 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>> To add a bit more,
>>>> I wish it was only a bit.
>>>>> I think the people who are the most likely to buy
>>>>> that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament are firstly
>>>>> the Brits, then Americans and Canadians, and then North Europeans
>>>>> (e.g., the Germanic countries). That's actually quite a big group.
>>>> All you're saying is Asians don't buy it - lol what a fuckwit.
>>> Look, calling me a fuckwit won't do you any good here. No, Asians
>>> don't by all that.
>>>>> Judging by the passionate, blind responses from DavidW, I guess
>>>>> Australians are also into this. That's quite a lot of people.
>>>>> Wimbledon is also popular in former British colonies.
>>>>> Brits are obviously the most rabid of the lot. They consider Wimbledon
>>>>> part of their culture. It's like fish and chips. It's a staple on the
>>>>> TV. It's part of modern British life. It's part of British summer.
>>>> Is there someone who doesn't know this? Did you know 2+2 = 4 & 3+3=6?
>>> The point is Brits are naitonalistic when it comes to Wimbledon. It's
>>> like asking them whether the Union Jack is the most pretigious flag in
>>> the world. So their words on the prestige of Wimbledon doesn't count.
>>> They will forever be proud of it and try to sell it to other people.
>>>>> It's like a big festival to them. There's no point talking to these
>>>>> folks. If you dare say Wimbledon's prestige is falling and they will
>>>>> vehemently deny it and the most crazy ones might even perform a witch-
>>>>> hunting on you.
>>>> er, if it wasn't most prestigious nobody would think so except the Brits
>>>> & you wouldn't be defending your position so rabidly.
>>> No. There are other factors in work here.
>>>> You'll note nobody outside USA argues about Baseball & NFL being world
>>>> sports/most prestigious because they mean nothing to them.
>>> That's different. Baseball and NFL are still niche sports played
>>> almost exclusively in America and a few other countries. Tennis isn't.
>>> Tennis is a global sport now.
>>>> If Wimbledon
>>>> was only tops to Brits nobody would care. But you ask all the
>>>> players/media/experts/fans & you'll get well over 95% endorsing Wimbledon.
>>> Endorsing Wimbledon? For what? They might say that on the outside, but
>>> they know it doesn't matter that much in terms of actual tennis. It's
>>> still the same ranking points as the other three slams.
>>>> Cunts like you give Asians a bad rap.
>>> Look, badmouthing me will not establish anything. It just further
>>> proves that Wimbledon freaks are an irrational, close-minded lot.
>>>>> Then there are lots of Americans and Canadians who feel a certain bond
>>>>> to the mother country in the old world. They find the whole mystique
>>>>> and cultural uniqueness surrounding Wimbledon really romantic and
>>>>> charming. Cliff Richard, strawberries and cream, grass surface, the
>>>>> whites, the aristocratic touch, etc. It's really something different
>>>>> from what one sees in Northern America and the "most prestigious"
>>>>> brand is sold easily among these people.
>>>>> Australians are probably conditioned just like Brits when they grow
>>>>> up. It kind of against the grain to consider one's own national slam
>>>>> as inferior in prestige to Wimbledon. But the Aussies are forever
>>>>> conditioned to play the little brother I think.
>>>> You don't understand Aussie culture very well - we want to kill the Poms
>>>> at everything.
>>> I don't know. You seem pretty deferent about Wimbledon.
>>>>> North European Germanic people have also shown in the recent decades a
>>>>> lot of affinity towards Wimbledon. This somewhat unusual love affair
>>>>> can probably be explained by the fact that Swedes and Germans won a
>>>>> lot of Wimbledons back in the 70s, 80s and even 90s (Borg, Edberg,
>>>>> Becker, Stich, Graf, etc)
>>>> One day you might get some Asians who can play tennis & then you'll
>>>> change your tune you slimy racist prick.
>>> When you descend into abusing me like that, it means you have lost.
>>>>> Which leaves us the rest of the world. In which live billions of
>>>>> people who really don't care that much about Wimbledon's prestige.
>>>>> They certainly don't grow a strong cultural and emotional attachment
>>>>> to Wimbledon like the groups mentioned above.
>>>> er, that would be people who don't follow tennis at all.
>>> An extremely parochial world view. You are not thinking properly.
>>>>> Of course, there are
>>>>> many anglophiles and conditioned Wimbledonistas here as well, but I am
>>>>> talking generally here. This is the world the sport of tennis is going
>>>>> to expand in the next few decades.
>>>> Asia will never have a tournament equal to GS status.
>>> It might. We don't know. Why do you say "never", though? Why does it
>>> bother you so much? :)
>>>> Get over it &
>>>> start appreciating tennis for itself not for nationalistic reasons.
>>> I appreciate tennis for itself, independent of venue and cultural
>>> bias. That's why I am saying venue prestige doesn't matter as much.
>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
>>> stubbornness.
>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>>
>
> No. I would be much more tolerant and respectful of other cultures and
> countries. I am not an intolerant, close-minded dickhead.
>
>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most famous
>> tennis tradition?
>>
>
> No. I would realize that things have changed, that tennis has become a
> global sport and instead of looking towards the past and acting like
> an über-conservative, I will look forward to a more multicultural,
> more international, more global tennis future. Above all, I will
> always support the quality of actual tennis over provincial venue
> prestige.
>
>
>
>


Playing your best at a place where it means the most - that's what it's
about.

The best ever tennis match may have been some intense practice session
between Hoad & Laver, but it doesn't add anything to their legacy.

Sticking your head up your arse & pretending Wimbledon isn't that
important serves no purpose - every player wants to win it most as they
know what it means to their legacy.



 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 04:01:27
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On 30 joulu, 13:18, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > On 30 joulu, 12:04, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Kriek at his peak was a fantastic grass court player - he's in my top =
10
> >> faves.
>
> > I have read a lot of good articles about Kriek and after all the
> > praise I am still scratching my head "why he never was even briefly in
> > top10 with all that talent and praise?"...
>
> Yes very odd, but he was scary on grass. =A0Looked better than Leconte on
> his best days.
>
> Mac beat him twice at Wimbledon but I was fearful Kriek would win both
> times - he was a loose cannon if there ever was one.

I found one reason...talent may be but no good game enough against the
best:

Kriek - Borg 0-3
Kriek - Lendl 0-10
Kriek - Wilander 0-5 (three times at AO 83-85 with Wilander winning
each time in straight sets).
Kriek - Connors 2-7 (Kriek's another win 1989 and another 1983 in some
small tournament)
Kriek - Mac 5-12 (Kriek had 3 of those wins over Mac 85-88)

May be he was ljuboblakedenko of his own era ;)

.mikko




  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 15:55:38
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
MBDunc wrote:
> On 30 joulu, 13:18, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> MBDunc wrote:
>>> On 30 joulu, 12:04, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Kriek at his peak was a fantastic grass court player - he's in my top 10
>>>> faves.
>>> I have read a lot of good articles about Kriek and after all the
>>> praise I am still scratching my head "why he never was even briefly in
>>> top10 with all that talent and praise?"...
>> Yes very odd, but he was scary on grass. Looked better than Leconte on
>> his best days.
>>
>> Mac beat him twice at Wimbledon but I was fearful Kriek would win both
>> times - he was a loose cannon if there ever was one.
>
> I found one reason...talent may be but no good game enough against the
> best:
>
> Kriek - Borg 0-3
> Kriek - Lendl 0-10
> Kriek - Wilander 0-5 (three times at AO 83-85 with Wilander winning
> each time in straight sets).
> Kriek - Connors 2-7 (Kriek's another win 1989 and another 1983 in some
> small tournament)
> Kriek - Mac 5-12 (Kriek had 3 of those wins over Mac 85-88)
>
> May be he was ljuboblakedenko of his own era ;)
>
> .mikko
>
>

Bladenko

--
"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: 30 Dec 2008 23:17:42
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
MBDunc wrote:
> On 30 joulu, 13:18, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> MBDunc wrote:
>>> On 30 joulu, 12:04, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Kriek at his peak was a fantastic grass court player - he's in my top 10
>>>> faves.
>>> I have read a lot of good articles about Kriek and after all the
>>> praise I am still scratching my head "why he never was even briefly in
>>> top10 with all that talent and praise?"...
>> Yes very odd, but he was scary on grass. Looked better than Leconte on
>> his best days.
>>
>> Mac beat him twice at Wimbledon but I was fearful Kriek would win both
>> times - he was a loose cannon if there ever was one.
>
> I found one reason...talent may be but no good game enough against the
> best:
>
> Kriek - Borg 0-3


Yes, but he led Borg 2 sets to 0 *twice* at USO - not such a hack, just
couldn't keep it up.


> May be he was ljuboblakedenko of his own era ;)
>



At his best he was far more talented than those clowns. He even made
semis at FO late in his career. To me he never cared to be a top
player, just happy being a pro & having fun. I loved his shot making
though - incredible stuff.




 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 03:10:11
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On 30 joulu, 12:04, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > On 29 joulu, 23:26, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes h=
im
> >>> overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general consid=
er
> >>> Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.- Hide =
quoted text -
> >> Nonsense. Why hasn't Wimbledon's so-called superior prestige been
> >> reflected in the ATP rankings for the past 20 years? What value is the
> >> prestige when the official ranking system that calculates the
> >> standings of players on the tour hasn't even acknowledged it for
> >> nearly two decades?
>
> > Wimbledon's (hidden) prestige has not been there (in official meters)
> > since 70:ies.
>
> > But during 70.ies there was a clear Wimbledon bias.
>
> > ITF named Borg "player of the year" 76-80 even though 76/77 clearly
> > were Connors/Vilas years.
>
> > 7543 sounds silly now but it was fully applicable 1983-87 (toss in
> > extra point or two for YEC if you want). See the co-incident with this
> > and Mac heyday...;)
>
> Ask Federer if 7543 is silly.
>
> > But before 83 AO was hardly worth a point. Lack of quality field made
> > it. Just test your memory: Who remembers AO champs (or harder task:
> > finalists) 70-82 compared to same era Wimb/USO/FO champs. The common
> > quotes would contain "did Connors win it 74 or 75", "I think Vilas won
> > it once?", "I have definitely no idea who won it 1980", "Edmondson the
> > Janitor...what year it again was?", "Who is Kriek?
>
> I know all AO champs in open era. =A0Arthur Ashe said in 1971 (after
> losing to Rosewall 61 75 63 "AO is still a grand slam".

AO was in OK shape 1971 but not 76-82.

> Kriek at his peak was a fantastic grass court player - he's in my top 10
> faves.

I have read a lot of good articles about Kriek and after all the
praise I am still scratching my head "why he never was even briefly in
top10 with all that talent and praise?"...

> > Similarly a depleted field can make forgotten champs in other venues
> > as well. Who can without looking it up name 1973 Wimbledon finalists?
>
> I can name all open era Wimbledon finalists & scores.

But of course every tier1 should be able to do that...but whatabout
"lesser" experts...after all tier1 is only very selected hypotetical
handfull of experts....

> > Rome was definitely more prestigious late 70:ies than AO as well as
> > WCT Champs. It was more like 10-5-3-1 for slams during "Connors
> > era" (toss in extra points for WCT/YEC/DC if you want).
>
> > .mikko
>
> No. =A0You're confusing ca$h with prestige.

No I won't. Otherwise I would promote 70:ies Grand Prix series (or
90:ies GSC) which gave n x more money than slams and created obscure
top names at prize money stats (a'la Raminez #1 in price money 1976
and Dibbs #1 in price money 1978).

.mikko


  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 22:18:11
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
MBDunc wrote:
> On 30 joulu, 12:04, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Kriek at his peak was a fantastic grass court player - he's in my top 10
>> faves.
>
> I have read a lot of good articles about Kriek and after all the
> praise I am still scratching my head "why he never was even briefly in
> top10 with all that talent and praise?"...
>




Yes very odd, but he was scary on grass. Looked better than Leconte on
his best days.

Mac beat him twice at Wimbledon but I was fearful Kriek would win both
times - he was a loose cannon if there ever was one.


 
Date: 29 Dec 2008 23:33:22
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On 29 joulu, 23:26, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 29, 9:55=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>
> >news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
>
> > > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > >> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> > >>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> > >>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and the=
re
> > >>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 yea=
rs
> > >>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
> > >>>> last 20 years?
>
> > >>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
> > >>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>
> > >> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
> > >> ever posted on rst.
>
> > > So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>
> > >>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990=
s.
> > >>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
> > >>>> need to catch up.
>
> > >>>>> but
> > >>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
> > >>>>> first and the AO last.
>
> > >>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
> > >>>> anything else that matters.
>
> > >>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet
> > >>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>
> > >> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
> > >> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbled=
on
> > >> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
> > >> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some politic=
al
> > >> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
> > >> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
> > >> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>
> > > I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
> > > ability, not
> > > to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media cons=
pire
> > > to do
> > > that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's obvi=
ous
> > > to
> > > them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that peop=
le
> > > don't
> > > really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that one=
, so
> > > now
> > > the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings. Speak=
ing
> > > of
> > > arrant nonsense...
>
> > arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes him
> > overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general consider
> > Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.- Hide qu=
oted text -
>
> Nonsense. Why hasn't Wimbledon's so-called superior prestige been
> reflected in the ATP rankings for the past 20 years? What value is the
> prestige when the official ranking system that calculates the
> standings of players on the tour hasn't even acknowledged it for
> nearly two decades?

Wimbledon's (hidden) prestige has not been there (in official meters)
since 70:ies.

But during 70.ies there was a clear Wimbledon bias.

ITF named Borg "player of the year" 76-80 even though 76/77 clearly
were Connors/Vilas years.

7543 sounds silly now but it was fully applicable 1983-87 (toss in
extra point or two for YEC if you want). See the co-incident with this
and Mac heyday...;)

But before 83 AO was hardly worth a point. Lack of quality field made
it. Just test your memory: Who remembers AO champs (or harder task:
finalists) 70-82 compared to same era Wimb/USO/FO champs. The common
quotes would contain "did Connors win it 74 or 75", "I think Vilas won
it once?", "I have definitely no idea who won it 1980", "Edmondson the
Janitor...what year it again was?", "Who is Kriek?

Similarly a depleted field can make forgotten champs in other venues
as well. Who can without looking it up name 1973 Wimbledon finalists?

Rome was definitely more prestigious late 70:ies than AO as well as
WCT Champs. It was more like 10-5-3-1 for slams during "Connors
era" (toss in extra points for WCT/YEC/DC if you want).

.mikko



  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 21:04:18
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
MBDunc wrote:
> On 29 joulu, 23:26, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes him
>>> overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general consider
>>> Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.- Hide quoted text -
>> Nonsense. Why hasn't Wimbledon's so-called superior prestige been
>> reflected in the ATP rankings for the past 20 years? What value is the
>> prestige when the official ranking system that calculates the
>> standings of players on the tour hasn't even acknowledged it for
>> nearly two decades?
>
> Wimbledon's (hidden) prestige has not been there (in official meters)
> since 70:ies.
>
> But during 70.ies there was a clear Wimbledon bias.
>
> ITF named Borg "player of the year" 76-80 even though 76/77 clearly
> were Connors/Vilas years.
>
> 7543 sounds silly now but it was fully applicable 1983-87 (toss in
> extra point or two for YEC if you want). See the co-incident with this
> and Mac heyday...;)


Ask Federer if 7543 is silly.


>
> But before 83 AO was hardly worth a point. Lack of quality field made
> it. Just test your memory: Who remembers AO champs (or harder task:
> finalists) 70-82 compared to same era Wimb/USO/FO champs. The common
> quotes would contain "did Connors win it 74 or 75", "I think Vilas won
> it once?", "I have definitely no idea who won it 1980", "Edmondson the
> Janitor...what year it again was?", "Who is Kriek?


I know all AO champs in open era. Arthur Ashe said in 1971 (after
losing to Rosewall 61 75 63 "AO is still a grand slam".

Kriek at his peak was a fantastic grass court player - he's in my top 10
faves.


>
> Similarly a depleted field can make forgotten champs in other venues
> as well. Who can without looking it up name 1973 Wimbledon finalists?


I can name all open era Wimbledon finalists & scores.


>
> Rome was definitely more prestigious late 70:ies than AO as well as
> WCT Champs. It was more like 10-5-3-1 for slams during "Connors
> era" (toss in extra points for WCT/YEC/DC if you want).
>
> .mikko
>

No. You're confusing ca$h with prestige.


 
Date: 29 Dec 2008 15:29:30
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 5:23=A0am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:49593c88$0$22076$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
>
>
>
> > TT wrote:
> >> Whisper wrote:
> >>> TT wrote:
> >>>> Iceberg wrote:
> >>>>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
> >>>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
> >>>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
> >>>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good
> >>>>> reason.
>
> >>>> What is that good reason then?
>
> >>> I think now we are starting a new year it would be great to break rst
> >>> into 2 groups - 1 for newbies (ie to answer questions like 'why is
> >>> Wimbledon the best?', 'What is seve/volley?' etc) & the rest for more
> >>> advanced discussion.
>
> >> You didn't answer my question.
>
> > It just is. =A0Has been for > 100 yrs & everyone that matters in the ga=
me
> > agrees. =A0Why is Masters golf at Augusta prestigious?
>
> exactly, plus the place itself, atmosphere etc is quite unlike anywhere
> else! it IS prestige.- Hide quoted text -
>

Quick question: Are you British? Do you live in Britain?




  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 22:34:34
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:29:30 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
<arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:

>> exactly, plus the place itself, atmosphere etc is quite unlike anywhere
>> else! it IS prestige.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>Quick question: Are you British? Do you live in Britain?

He is, and I bet he has never been at any other slam. But he knows the
atmosphere is quite unlike anywhere else.



   
Date: 31 Dec 2008 11:59:59
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote in message
news:rb1ll41apvg7fs90ht7qr6b00ch7u66su7@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:29:30 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
> <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> exactly, plus the place itself, atmosphere etc is quite unlike anywhere
>>> else! it IS prestige.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>
>>Quick question: Are you British? Do you live in Britain?
>
> He is, and I bet he has never been at any other slam. But he knows the
> atmosphere is quite unlike anywhere else.

you complete moron, I said earlier I've been lucky enough to have visited
*ALL* the slams, more than once. That is why *I* do have some idea of what
I'm talking about.




    
Date: 01 Jan 2009 13:43:09
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:59:59 GMT, "Iceberg"
<big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:

>"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>news:rb1ll41apvg7fs90ht7qr6b00ch7u66su7@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:29:30 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>> <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> exactly, plus the place itself, atmosphere etc is quite unlike anywhere
>>>> else! it IS prestige.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>
>>>Quick question: Are you British? Do you live in Britain?
>>
>> He is, and I bet he has never been at any other slam. But he knows the
>> atmosphere is quite unlike anywhere else.
>
>you complete moron, I said earlier I've been lucky enough to have visited
>*ALL* the slams, more than once. That is why *I* do have some idea of what
>I'm talking about.

OK, sorry about that. You are lucky, I've only been to AO. I loved the
atmosphere there, very nice and relaxed.



    
Date: 31 Dec 2008 14:34:56
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

"Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote in message
news:39J6l.13150$Sp5.8700@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
> news:rb1ll41apvg7fs90ht7qr6b00ch7u66su7@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:29:30 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>> <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> exactly, plus the place itself, atmosphere etc is quite unlike anywhere
>>>> else! it IS prestige.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>
>>>Quick question: Are you British? Do you live in Britain?
>>
>> He is, and I bet he has never been at any other slam. But he knows the
>> atmosphere is quite unlike anywhere else.
>
> you complete moron, I said earlier I've been lucky enough to have visited
> *ALL* the slams, more than once. That is why *I* do have some idea of what
> I'm talking about.


Sakari's posting standards have significantly lowered.




 
Date: 29 Dec 2008 15:26:41
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 4:39=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > To add a bit more,
>
> I wish it was only a bit.
>
> > I think the people who are the most likely to buy
> > that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament are firstly
> > the Brits, then Americans and Canadians, and then North Europeans
> > (e.g., the Germanic countries). That's actually quite a big group.
>
> All you're saying is Asians don't buy it - lol what a fuckwit.
>

Look, calling me a fuckwit won't do you any good here. No, Asians
don't by all that.

> > Judging by the passionate, blind responses from DavidW, I guess
> > Australians are also into this. That's quite a lot of people.
> > Wimbledon is also popular in former British colonies.
>
> > Brits are obviously the most rabid of the lot. They consider Wimbledon
> > part of their culture. It's like fish and chips. It's a staple on the
> > TV. It's part of modern British life. It's part of British summer.
>
> Is there someone who doesn't know this? =A0Did you know 2+2 =3D 4 & 3+3=
=3D6?
>

The point is Brits are naitonalistic when it comes to Wimbledon. It's
like asking them whether the Union Jack is the most pretigious flag in
the world. So their words on the prestige of Wimbledon doesn't count.
They will forever be proud of it and try to sell it to other people.

> > It's like a big festival to them. There's no point talking to these
> > folks. If you dare say Wimbledon's prestige is falling and they will
> > vehemently deny it and the most crazy ones might even perform a witch-
> > hunting on you.
>
> er, if it wasn't most prestigious nobody would think so except the Brits
> & you wouldn't be defending your position so rabidly.
>

No. There are other factors in work here.

> You'll note nobody outside USA argues about Baseball & NFL being world
> sports/most prestigious because they mean nothing to them.

That's different. Baseball and NFL are still niche sports played
almost exclusively in America and a few other countries. Tennis isn't.
Tennis is a global sport now.

> =A0If Wimbledon
> was only tops to Brits nobody would care. =A0But you ask all the
> players/media/experts/fans & you'll get well over 95% endorsing Wimbledon=
.
>

Endorsing Wimbledon? For what? They might say that on the outside, but
they know it doesn't matter that much in terms of actual tennis. It's
still the same ranking points as the other three slams.

> Cunts like you give Asians a bad rap.
>

Look, badmouthing me will not establish anything. It just further
proves that Wimbledon freaks are an irrational, close-minded lot.

>
> > Then there are lots of Americans and Canadians who feel a certain bond
> > to the mother country in the old world. They find the whole mystique
> > and cultural uniqueness surrounding Wimbledon really romantic and
> > charming. Cliff Richard, strawberries and cream, grass surface, the
> > whites, the aristocratic touch, etc. It's really something different
> > from what one sees in Northern America and the "most prestigious"
> > brand is sold easily among these people.
>
> > Australians are probably conditioned just like Brits when they grow
> > up. It kind of against the grain to consider one's own national slam
> > as inferior in prestige to Wimbledon. But the Aussies are forever
> > conditioned to play the little brother I think.
>
> You don't understand Aussie culture very well - we want to kill the Poms
> at everything.
>

I don't know. You seem pretty deferent about Wimbledon.

>
> > North European Germanic people have also shown in the recent decades a
> > lot of affinity towards Wimbledon. This somewhat unusual love affair
> > can probably be explained by the fact that Swedes and Germans won a
> > lot of Wimbledons back in the 70s, 80s and even 90s (Borg, Edberg,
> > Becker, Stich, Graf, etc)
>
> One day you might get some Asians who can play tennis & then you'll
> change your tune you slimy racist prick.
>

When you descend into abusing me like that, it means you have lost.

>
>
> > Which leaves us the rest of the world. In which live billions of
> > people who really don't care that much about Wimbledon's prestige.
> > They certainly don't grow a strong cultural and emotional attachment
> > to Wimbledon like the groups mentioned above.
>
> er, that would be people who don't follow tennis at all.
>

An extremely parochial world view. You are not thinking properly.

> > Of course, there are
> > many anglophiles and conditioned Wimbledonistas here as well, but I am
> > talking generally here. This is the world the sport of tennis is going
> > to expand in the next few decades.
>
> Asia will never have a tournament equal to GS status. =A0

It might. We don't know. Why do you say "never", though? Why does it
bother you so much? :)

> Get over it &
> start appreciating tennis for itself not for nationalistic reasons.

I appreciate tennis for itself, independent of venue and cultural
bias. That's why I am saying venue prestige doesn't matter as much.

The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
stubbornness.


  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 11:51:33
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 30, 4:39 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> To add a bit more,
>> I wish it was only a bit.
>>
>>> I think the people who are the most likely to buy
>>> that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament are firstly
>>> the Brits, then Americans and Canadians, and then North Europeans
>>> (e.g., the Germanic countries). That's actually quite a big group.
>> All you're saying is Asians don't buy it - lol what a fuckwit.
>>
>
> Look, calling me a fuckwit won't do you any good here. No, Asians
> don't by all that.
>
>>> Judging by the passionate, blind responses from DavidW, I guess
>>> Australians are also into this. That's quite a lot of people.
>>> Wimbledon is also popular in former British colonies.
>>> Brits are obviously the most rabid of the lot. They consider Wimbledon
>>> part of their culture. It's like fish and chips. It's a staple on the
>>> TV. It's part of modern British life. It's part of British summer.
>> Is there someone who doesn't know this? Did you know 2+2 = 4 & 3+3=6?
>>
>
> The point is Brits are naitonalistic when it comes to Wimbledon. It's
> like asking them whether the Union Jack is the most pretigious flag in
> the world. So their words on the prestige of Wimbledon doesn't count.
> They will forever be proud of it and try to sell it to other people.
>
>>> It's like a big festival to them. There's no point talking to these
>>> folks. If you dare say Wimbledon's prestige is falling and they will
>>> vehemently deny it and the most crazy ones might even perform a witch-
>>> hunting on you.
>> er, if it wasn't most prestigious nobody would think so except the Brits
>> & you wouldn't be defending your position so rabidly.
>>
>
> No. There are other factors in work here.
>
>> You'll note nobody outside USA argues about Baseball & NFL being world
>> sports/most prestigious because they mean nothing to them.
>
> That's different. Baseball and NFL are still niche sports played
> almost exclusively in America and a few other countries. Tennis isn't.
> Tennis is a global sport now.
>
>> If Wimbledon
>> was only tops to Brits nobody would care. But you ask all the
>> players/media/experts/fans & you'll get well over 95% endorsing Wimbledon.
>>
>
> Endorsing Wimbledon? For what? They might say that on the outside, but
> they know it doesn't matter that much in terms of actual tennis. It's
> still the same ranking points as the other three slams.
>
>> Cunts like you give Asians a bad rap.
>>
>
> Look, badmouthing me will not establish anything. It just further
> proves that Wimbledon freaks are an irrational, close-minded lot.
>
>>> Then there are lots of Americans and Canadians who feel a certain bond
>>> to the mother country in the old world. They find the whole mystique
>>> and cultural uniqueness surrounding Wimbledon really romantic and
>>> charming. Cliff Richard, strawberries and cream, grass surface, the
>>> whites, the aristocratic touch, etc. It's really something different
>>> from what one sees in Northern America and the "most prestigious"
>>> brand is sold easily among these people.
>>> Australians are probably conditioned just like Brits when they grow
>>> up. It kind of against the grain to consider one's own national slam
>>> as inferior in prestige to Wimbledon. But the Aussies are forever
>>> conditioned to play the little brother I think.
>> You don't understand Aussie culture very well - we want to kill the Poms
>> at everything.
>>
>
> I don't know. You seem pretty deferent about Wimbledon.
>
>>> North European Germanic people have also shown in the recent decades a
>>> lot of affinity towards Wimbledon. This somewhat unusual love affair
>>> can probably be explained by the fact that Swedes and Germans won a
>>> lot of Wimbledons back in the 70s, 80s and even 90s (Borg, Edberg,
>>> Becker, Stich, Graf, etc)
>> One day you might get some Asians who can play tennis & then you'll
>> change your tune you slimy racist prick.
>>
>
> When you descend into abusing me like that, it means you have lost.
>
>>
>>> Which leaves us the rest of the world. In which live billions of
>>> people who really don't care that much about Wimbledon's prestige.
>>> They certainly don't grow a strong cultural and emotional attachment
>>> to Wimbledon like the groups mentioned above.
>> er, that would be people who don't follow tennis at all.
>>
>
> An extremely parochial world view. You are not thinking properly.
>
>>> Of course, there are
>>> many anglophiles and conditioned Wimbledonistas here as well, but I am
>>> talking generally here. This is the world the sport of tennis is going
>>> to expand in the next few decades.
>> Asia will never have a tournament equal to GS status.
>
> It might. We don't know. Why do you say "never", though? Why does it
> bother you so much? :)
>
>> Get over it &
>> start appreciating tennis for itself not for nationalistic reasons.
>
> I appreciate tennis for itself, independent of venue and cultural
> bias. That's why I am saying venue prestige doesn't matter as much.
>
> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
> stubbornness.



Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
Wimbledon equivalent?

Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most famous
tennis tradition?

Be honest now.




   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 12:06:02
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 4:39 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>> To add a bit more,
>>> I wish it was only a bit.
>>>
>>>> I think the people who are the most likely to buy
>>>> that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament are firstly
>>>> the Brits, then Americans and Canadians, and then North Europeans
>>>> (e.g., the Germanic countries). That's actually quite a big group.
>>> All you're saying is Asians don't buy it - lol what a fuckwit.
>>>
>>
>> Look, calling me a fuckwit won't do you any good here. No, Asians
>> don't by all that.
>>
>>>> Judging by the passionate, blind responses from DavidW, I guess
>>>> Australians are also into this. That's quite a lot of people.
>>>> Wimbledon is also popular in former British colonies.
>>>> Brits are obviously the most rabid of the lot. They consider Wimbledon
>>>> part of their culture. It's like fish and chips. It's a staple on the
>>>> TV. It's part of modern British life. It's part of British summer.
>>> Is there someone who doesn't know this? Did you know 2+2 = 4 & 3+3=6?
>>>
>>
>> The point is Brits are naitonalistic when it comes to Wimbledon. It's
>> like asking them whether the Union Jack is the most pretigious flag in
>> the world. So their words on the prestige of Wimbledon doesn't count.
>> They will forever be proud of it and try to sell it to other people.
>>
>>>> It's like a big festival to them. There's no point talking to these
>>>> folks. If you dare say Wimbledon's prestige is falling and they will
>>>> vehemently deny it and the most crazy ones might even perform a witch-
>>>> hunting on you.
>>> er, if it wasn't most prestigious nobody would think so except the Brits
>>> & you wouldn't be defending your position so rabidly.
>>>
>>
>> No. There are other factors in work here.
>>
>>> You'll note nobody outside USA argues about Baseball & NFL being world
>>> sports/most prestigious because they mean nothing to them.
>>
>> That's different. Baseball and NFL are still niche sports played
>> almost exclusively in America and a few other countries. Tennis isn't.
>> Tennis is a global sport now.
>>
>>> If Wimbledon
>>> was only tops to Brits nobody would care. But you ask all the
>>> players/media/experts/fans & you'll get well over 95% endorsing
>>> Wimbledon.
>>>
>>
>> Endorsing Wimbledon? For what? They might say that on the outside, but
>> they know it doesn't matter that much in terms of actual tennis. It's
>> still the same ranking points as the other three slams.
>>
>>> Cunts like you give Asians a bad rap.
>>>
>>
>> Look, badmouthing me will not establish anything. It just further
>> proves that Wimbledon freaks are an irrational, close-minded lot.
>>
>>>> Then there are lots of Americans and Canadians who feel a certain bond
>>>> to the mother country in the old world. They find the whole mystique
>>>> and cultural uniqueness surrounding Wimbledon really romantic and
>>>> charming. Cliff Richard, strawberries and cream, grass surface, the
>>>> whites, the aristocratic touch, etc. It's really something different
>>>> from what one sees in Northern America and the "most prestigious"
>>>> brand is sold easily among these people.
>>>> Australians are probably conditioned just like Brits when they grow
>>>> up. It kind of against the grain to consider one's own national slam
>>>> as inferior in prestige to Wimbledon. But the Aussies are forever
>>>> conditioned to play the little brother I think.
>>> You don't understand Aussie culture very well - we want to kill the Poms
>>> at everything.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know. You seem pretty deferent about Wimbledon.
>>
>>>> North European Germanic people have also shown in the recent decades a
>>>> lot of affinity towards Wimbledon. This somewhat unusual love affair
>>>> can probably be explained by the fact that Swedes and Germans won a
>>>> lot of Wimbledons back in the 70s, 80s and even 90s (Borg, Edberg,
>>>> Becker, Stich, Graf, etc)
>>> One day you might get some Asians who can play tennis & then you'll
>>> change your tune you slimy racist prick.
>>>
>>
>> When you descend into abusing me like that, it means you have lost.
>>
>>>
>>>> Which leaves us the rest of the world. In which live billions of
>>>> people who really don't care that much about Wimbledon's prestige.
>>>> They certainly don't grow a strong cultural and emotional attachment
>>>> to Wimbledon like the groups mentioned above.
>>> er, that would be people who don't follow tennis at all.
>>>
>>
>> An extremely parochial world view. You are not thinking properly.
>>
>>>> Of course, there are
>>>> many anglophiles and conditioned Wimbledonistas here as well, but I am
>>>> talking generally here. This is the world the sport of tennis is going
>>>> to expand in the next few decades.
>>> Asia will never have a tournament equal to GS status.
>>
>> It might. We don't know. Why do you say "never", though? Why does it
>> bother you so much? :)
>>
>>> Get over it &
>>> start appreciating tennis for itself not for nationalistic reasons.
>>
>> I appreciate tennis for itself, independent of venue and cultural
>> bias. That's why I am saying venue prestige doesn't matter as much.
>>
>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
>> stubbornness.
>
>
>
> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the Wimbledon
> equivalent?
>
> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most famous
> tennis tradition?
>
> Be honest now.

I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India have ever
heard of. Arnab knows that too.




    
Date: 30 Dec 2008 23:18:44
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Iceberg wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>
>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
>>> stubbornness.
>>
>>
>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the Wimbledon
>> equivalent?
>>
>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most famous
>> tennis tradition?
>>
>> Be honest now.
>
> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India have ever
> heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>
>


Didn't think he'd answer this one.


     
Date: 30 Dec 2008 15:58:24
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> Iceberg wrote:
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
>>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
>>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
>>>> stubbornness.
>>>
>>>
>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>>>
>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
>>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most
>>> famous tennis tradition?
>>>
>>> Be honest now.
>>
>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>>
>
>
> Didn't think he'd answer this one.

"It just is" -Whisper


--
"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: 31 Dec 2008 03:21:25
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> Iceberg wrote:
>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:49597095$0$22121$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The only thing this discussion has proved is that Wimbledonistas are
>>>>> rabid, intolerant, semi-religious freaks. You probe them a little and
>>>>> the inner ugliness shows up in the form of name-calling and plain
>>>>> stubbornness.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would you feel the same way if tennis started in Asia & had the
>>>> Wimbledon equivalent?
>>>>
>>>> Would you be just as zealous in your attempts to downgrade the Asian
>>>> Championships, paying no regard to it having the longest & most
>>>> famous tennis tradition?
>>>>
>>>> Be honest now.
>>>
>>> I bet Wimbledon's the only tennis tournament most Indians in India
>>> have ever heard of. Arnab knows that too.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Didn't think he'd answer this one.
>
> "It just is" -Whisper
>
>


Yes, only newbies don't get Wimbledon - or some recalcitrant Asians.

'It just is' is obvious answer - ask Rafa.





 
Date: 29 Dec 2008 15:24:06
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
>>> Your only tendency is towards blind Nadal-fucking
> >> That time of the month?
>
> > blah blah blah - drivel drivel drivel
>
> I everything ok with your life? Maybe you should take a short break off rst.

Why don't you? Or alternatively post something half-interesting?



 
Date: 29 Dec 2008 15:15:27
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 29, 11:06=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 10:53 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Dec 29, 8:57 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Dec 29, 8:16 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> Whisper wrote:
> >>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
> >>>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, a=
nd there
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly =
20 years
> >>>>>>>>>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping f=
or the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> last 20 years?
> >>>>>>>>>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunat=
ely,
> >>>>>>>>>>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
> >>>>>>>>>> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of =
denial
> >>>>>>>>>> ever posted on rst.
> >>>>>>>>> So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before th=
e 1990s.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed.=
You
> >>>>>>>>>>>> need to catch up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon=
is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> first and the AO last.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structur=
e, or
> >>>>>>>>>>>> anything else that matters.
> >>>>>>>>>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing t=
o bet
> >>>>>>>>>>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
> >>>>>>>>>> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go a=
long
> >>>>>>>>>> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that W=
imbledon
> >>>>>>>>>> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go a=
long
> >>>>>>>>>> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some p=
olitical
> >>>>>>>>>> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us th=
at
> >>>>>>>>>> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogu=
es and
> >>>>>>>>>> media can make them dance to their tunes.
> >>>>>>>>> I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's think=
ing
> >>>>>>>>> ability, not
> >>>>>>>>> to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the medi=
a
> >>>>>>>>> conspire to do
> >>>>>>>>> that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what'=
s
> >>>>>>>>> obvious to
> >>>>>>>>> them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue tha=
t
> >>>>>>>>> people don't
> >>>>>>>>> really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win th=
at
> >>>>>>>>> one, so now
> >>>>>>>>> the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings.
> >>>>>>>>> Speaking of
> >>>>>>>>> arrant nonsense...
> >>>>>>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge cau=
ses
> >>>>>>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-gener=
al
> >>>>>>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good =
reason.
> >>>>>>> arnab is a very dodgy character.
> >>>>>> Can you believe this guy TOLD OTHER POSTERS constantly not to repl=
y me
> >>>>>> and killfile me...what a total moral pit this guy is.
> >>>>>> That's like trying to isolate me and take my freedom of speech awa=
y,
> >>>>>> just because he doesn't agree with what I write. And this happenin=
g in
> >>>>>> an unmoderated newsgroup. Truly a dodgy character.
> >>>>> Just like telling people not to reply to a post in case it went to
> >>>>> other people in your killfile, eh?
> >>>> If I understood correctly what you're implying, no I don't recall
> >>>> pressuring anyone to do that.
> >>> Yes you did - posting a link to a live feed but saying not to reply t=
o
> >>> the post since you didn't want people in your killfile to be able to
> >>> view the feed
> >> Completely different thing...and btw I didn't want people who killfile=
d
> >> me to see it, not the other way around as you claim. Try to get over
> >> your hatred against me, even though I have tendency to out-debate you.
>
> > Your only tendency is towards blind Nadal-fucking
>
> That time of the month?

blah blah blah - drivel drivel drivel





  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 01:19:14
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 29, 11:06 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Dec 29, 10:53 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 29, 8:57 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 29, 8:16 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last 20 years?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
>>>>>>>>>>>> ever posted on rst.
>>>>>>>>>>> So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to catch up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first and the AO last.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything else that matters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>>>>>>>>>>>> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
>>>>>>>>>>>> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbledon
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
>>>>>>>>>>>> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some political
>>>>>>>>>>>> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
>>>>>>>>>>>> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
>>>>>>>>>>>> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>>>>>>>>>>> I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
>>>>>>>>>>> ability, not
>>>>>>>>>>> to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media
>>>>>>>>>>> conspire to do
>>>>>>>>>>> that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's
>>>>>>>>>>> obvious to
>>>>>>>>>>> them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that
>>>>>>>>>>> people don't
>>>>>>>>>>> really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that
>>>>>>>>>>> one, so now
>>>>>>>>>>> the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings.
>>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of
>>>>>>>>>>> arrant nonsense...
>>>>>>>>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
>>>>>>>>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
>>>>>>>>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.
>>>>>>>>> arnab is a very dodgy character.
>>>>>>>> Can you believe this guy TOLD OTHER POSTERS constantly not to reply me
>>>>>>>> and killfile me...what a total moral pit this guy is.
>>>>>>>> That's like trying to isolate me and take my freedom of speech away,
>>>>>>>> just because he doesn't agree with what I write. And this happening in
>>>>>>>> an unmoderated newsgroup. Truly a dodgy character.
>>>>>>> Just like telling people not to reply to a post in case it went to
>>>>>>> other people in your killfile, eh?
>>>>>> If I understood correctly what you're implying, no I don't recall
>>>>>> pressuring anyone to do that.
>>>>> Yes you did - posting a link to a live feed but saying not to reply to
>>>>> the post since you didn't want people in your killfile to be able to
>>>>> view the feed
>>>> Completely different thing...and btw I didn't want people who killfiled
>>>> me to see it, not the other way around as you claim. Try to get over
>>>> your hatred against me, even though I have tendency to out-debate you.
>>> Your only tendency is towards blind Nadal-fucking
>> That time of the month?
>
> blah blah blah - drivel drivel drivel
>
>

I everything ok with your life? Maybe you should take a short break off rst.


--
"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: 29 Dec 2008 15:04:05
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 29, 10:53=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 8:57 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Dec 29, 8:16 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>> Whisper wrote:
> >>>>> Iceberg wrote:
> >>>>>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
> >>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and=
there
> >>>>>>>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20=
years
> >>>>>>>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for=
the
> >>>>>>>>>> last 20 years?
> >>>>>>>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunatel=
y,
> >>>>>>>>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
> >>>>>>>> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of de=
nial
> >>>>>>>> ever posted on rst.
> >>>>>>> So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
> >>>>>>>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the =
1990s.
> >>>>>>>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. Y=
ou
> >>>>>>>>>> need to catch up.
> >>>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon i=
s
> >>>>>>>>>>> first and the AO last.
> >>>>>>>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure,=
or
> >>>>>>>>>> anything else that matters.
> >>>>>>>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to =
bet
> >>>>>>>>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
> >>>>>>>> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go alo=
ng
> >>>>>>>> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wim=
bledon
> >>>>>>>> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go alo=
ng
> >>>>>>>> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some pol=
itical
> >>>>>>>> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
> >>>>>>>> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues=
and
> >>>>>>>> media can make them dance to their tunes.
> >>>>>>> I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinkin=
g
> >>>>>>> ability, not
> >>>>>>> to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media
> >>>>>>> conspire to do
> >>>>>>> that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's
> >>>>>>> obvious to
> >>>>>>> them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that
> >>>>>>> people don't
> >>>>>>> really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that
> >>>>>>> one, so now
> >>>>>>> the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings.
> >>>>>>> Speaking of
> >>>>>>> arrant nonsense...
> >>>>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge cause=
s
> >>>>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
> >>>>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good re=
ason.
> >>>>> arnab is a very dodgy character.
> >>>> Can you believe this guy TOLD OTHER POSTERS constantly not to reply =
me
> >>>> and killfile me...what a total moral pit this guy is.
> >>>> That's like trying to isolate me and take my freedom of speech away,
> >>>> just because he doesn't agree with what I write. And this happening =
in
> >>>> an unmoderated newsgroup. Truly a dodgy character.
> >>> Just like telling people not to reply to a post in case it went to
> >>> other people in your killfile, eh?
> >> If I understood correctly what you're implying, no I don't recall
> >> pressuring anyone to do that.
>
> > Yes you did - posting a link to a live feed but saying not to reply to
> > the post since you didn't want people in your killfile to be able to
> > view the feed
>
> Completely different thing...and btw I didn't want people who killfiled
> me to see it, not the other way around as you claim. Try to get over
> your hatred against me, even though I have tendency to out-debate you.

Your only tendency is towards blind Nadal-fucking





  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 01:06:36
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 29, 10:53 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Dec 29, 8:57 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 29, 8:16 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>>>>>>>>>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>>>>>>>>>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> last 20 years?
>>>>>>>>>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
>>>>>>>>>>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>>>>>>>>> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
>>>>>>>>>> ever posted on rst.
>>>>>>>>> So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to catch up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first and the AO last.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>>>>>>>>>>>> anything else that matters.
>>>>>>>>>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet
>>>>>>>>>>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>>>>>>>>>> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
>>>>>>>>>> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbledon
>>>>>>>>>> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
>>>>>>>>>> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some political
>>>>>>>>>> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
>>>>>>>>>> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
>>>>>>>>>> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>>>>>>>>> I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
>>>>>>>>> ability, not
>>>>>>>>> to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media
>>>>>>>>> conspire to do
>>>>>>>>> that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's
>>>>>>>>> obvious to
>>>>>>>>> them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that
>>>>>>>>> people don't
>>>>>>>>> really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that
>>>>>>>>> one, so now
>>>>>>>>> the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings.
>>>>>>>>> Speaking of
>>>>>>>>> arrant nonsense...
>>>>>>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
>>>>>>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
>>>>>>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.
>>>>>>> arnab is a very dodgy character.
>>>>>> Can you believe this guy TOLD OTHER POSTERS constantly not to reply me
>>>>>> and killfile me...what a total moral pit this guy is.
>>>>>> That's like trying to isolate me and take my freedom of speech away,
>>>>>> just because he doesn't agree with what I write. And this happening in
>>>>>> an unmoderated newsgroup. Truly a dodgy character.
>>>>> Just like telling people not to reply to a post in case it went to
>>>>> other people in your killfile, eh?
>>>> If I understood correctly what you're implying, no I don't recall
>>>> pressuring anyone to do that.
>>> Yes you did - posting a link to a live feed but saying not to reply to
>>> the post since you didn't want people in your killfile to be able to
>>> view the feed
>> Completely different thing...and btw I didn't want people who killfiled
>> me to see it, not the other way around as you claim. Try to get over
>> your hatred against me, even though I have tendency to out-debate you.
>
> Your only tendency is towards blind Nadal-fucking
>
>

That time of the month?


--
"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: 29 Dec 2008 14:19:22
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 30, 3:26=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 29, 9:55=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>
> >news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
>
> > > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > >> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> > >>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> > >>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and the=
re
> > >>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 yea=
rs
> > >>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
> > >>>> last 20 years?
>
> > >>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
> > >>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>
> > >> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
> > >> ever posted on rst.
>
> > > So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>
> > >>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990=
s.
> > >>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
> > >>>> need to catch up.
>
> > >>>>> but
> > >>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
> > >>>>> first and the AO last.
>
> > >>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
> > >>>> anything else that matters.
>
> > >>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet
> > >>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>
> > >> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
> > >> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbled=
on
> > >> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
> > >> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some politic=
al
> > >> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
> > >> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
> > >> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>
> > > I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
> > > ability, not
> > > to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media cons=
pire
> > > to do
> > > that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's obvi=
ous
> > > to
> > > them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that peop=
le
> > > don't
> > > really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that one=
, so
> > > now
> > > the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings. Speak=
ing
> > > of
> > > arrant nonsense...
>
> > arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes him
> > overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general consider
> > Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.- Hide qu=
oted text -
>
> Nonsense. Why hasn't Wimbledon's so-called superior prestige been
> reflected in the ATP rankings for the past 20 years? What value is the
> prestige when the official ranking system that calculates the
> standings of players on the tour hasn't even acknowledged it for
> nearly two decades?

To add a bit more, I think the people who are the most likely to buy
that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament are firstly
the Brits, then Americans and Canadians, and then North Europeans
(e.g., the Germanic countries). That's actually quite a big group.
Judging by the passionate, blind responses from DavidW, I guess
Australians are also into this. That's quite a lot of people.
Wimbledon is also popular in former British colonies.

Brits are obviously the most rabid of the lot. They consider Wimbledon
part of their culture. It's like fish and chips. It's a staple on the
TV. It's part of modern British life. It's part of British summer.
It's like a big festival to them. There's no point talking to these
folks. If you dare say Wimbledon's prestige is falling and they will
vehemently deny it and the most crazy ones might even perform a witch-
hunting on you.

Then there are lots of Americans and Canadians who feel a certain bond
to the mother country in the old world. They find the whole mystique
and cultural uniqueness surrounding Wimbledon really romantic and
charming. Cliff Richard, strawberries and cream, grass surface, the
whites, the aristocratic touch, etc. It's really something different
from what one sees in Northern America and the "most prestigious"
brand is sold easily among these people.

Australians are probably conditioned just like Brits when they grow
up. It kind of against the grain to consider one's own national slam
as inferior in prestige to Wimbledon. But the Aussies are forever
conditioned to play the little brother I think.

North European Germanic people have also shown in the recent decades a
lot of affinity towards Wimbledon. This somewhat unusual love affair
can probably be explained by the fact that Swedes and Germans won a
lot of Wimbledons back in the 70s, 80s and even 90s (Borg, Edberg,
Becker, Stich, Graf, etc)

Which leaves us the rest of the world. In which live billions of
people who really don't care that much about Wimbledon's prestige.
They certainly don't grow a strong cultural and emotional attachment
to Wimbledon like the groups mentioned above. Of course, there are
many anglophiles and conditioned Wimbledonistas here as well, but I am
talking generally here. This is the world the sport of tennis is going
to expand in the next few decades.


  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 09:39:55
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:

> To add a bit more,


I wish it was only a bit.



> I think the people who are the most likely to buy
> that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament are firstly
> the Brits, then Americans and Canadians, and then North Europeans
> (e.g., the Germanic countries). That's actually quite a big group.


All you're saying is Asians don't buy it - lol what a fuckwit.



> Judging by the passionate, blind responses from DavidW, I guess
> Australians are also into this. That's quite a lot of people.
> Wimbledon is also popular in former British colonies.
>
> Brits are obviously the most rabid of the lot. They consider Wimbledon
> part of their culture. It's like fish and chips. It's a staple on the
> TV. It's part of modern British life. It's part of British summer.


Is there someone who doesn't know this? Did you know 2+2 = 4 & 3+3=6?



> It's like a big festival to them. There's no point talking to these
> folks. If you dare say Wimbledon's prestige is falling and they will
> vehemently deny it and the most crazy ones might even perform a witch-
> hunting on you.


er, if it wasn't most prestigious nobody would think so except the Brits
& you wouldn't be defending your position so rabidly.

You'll note nobody outside USA argues about Baseball & NFL being world
sports/most prestigious because they mean nothing to them. If Wimbledon
was only tops to Brits nobody would care. But you ask all the
players/media/experts/fans & you'll get well over 95% endorsing Wimbledon.

Cunts like you give Asians a bad rap.



>
> Then there are lots of Americans and Canadians who feel a certain bond
> to the mother country in the old world. They find the whole mystique
> and cultural uniqueness surrounding Wimbledon really romantic and
> charming. Cliff Richard, strawberries and cream, grass surface, the
> whites, the aristocratic touch, etc. It's really something different
> from what one sees in Northern America and the "most prestigious"
> brand is sold easily among these people.
>
> Australians are probably conditioned just like Brits when they grow
> up. It kind of against the grain to consider one's own national slam
> as inferior in prestige to Wimbledon. But the Aussies are forever
> conditioned to play the little brother I think.


You don't understand Aussie culture very well - we want to kill the Poms
at everything.


>
> North European Germanic people have also shown in the recent decades a
> lot of affinity towards Wimbledon. This somewhat unusual love affair
> can probably be explained by the fact that Swedes and Germans won a
> lot of Wimbledons back in the 70s, 80s and even 90s (Borg, Edberg,
> Becker, Stich, Graf, etc)



One day you might get some Asians who can play tennis & then you'll
change your tune you slimy racist prick.


>
> Which leaves us the rest of the world. In which live billions of
> people who really don't care that much about Wimbledon's prestige.
> They certainly don't grow a strong cultural and emotional attachment
> to Wimbledon like the groups mentioned above.



er, that would be people who don't follow tennis at all.



> Of course, there are
> many anglophiles and conditioned Wimbledonistas here as well, but I am
> talking generally here. This is the world the sport of tennis is going
> to expand in the next few decades.


Asia will never have a tournament equal to GS status. Get over it &
start appreciating tennis for itself not for nationalistic reasons.




   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 06:31:08
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:495951bc$0$22129$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

> Cunts like you give Asians a bad rap.

> One day you might get some Asians who can play tennis & then you'll change
> your tune you slimy racist prick.

> Asia will never have a tournament equal to GS status. Get over it & start
> appreciating tennis for itself not for nationalistic reasons.


All well said. This guy is really fucking pathetic.




 
Date: 29 Dec 2008 13:26:29
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 29, 9:55=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>
> news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
>
>
>
>
>
> > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> >>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
> >>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
> >>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
> >>>> last 20 years?
>
> >>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
> >>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>
> >> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
> >> ever posted on rst.
>
> > So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>
> >>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
> >>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
> >>>> need to catch up.
>
> >>>>> but
> >>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
> >>>>> first and the AO last.
>
> >>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
> >>>> anything else that matters.
>
> >>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet
> >>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>
> >> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
> >> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbledon
> >> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
> >> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some political
> >> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
> >> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
> >> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>
> > I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
> > ability, not
> > to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media conspi=
re
> > to do
> > that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's obviou=
s
> > to
> > them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that people
> > don't
> > really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that one, =
so
> > now
> > the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings. Speakin=
g
> > of
> > arrant nonsense...
>
> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes him
> overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general consider
> Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.- Hide quot=
ed text -

Nonsense. Why hasn't Wimbledon's so-called superior prestige been
reflected in the ATP rankings for the past 20 years? What value is the
prestige when the official ranking system that calculates the
standings of players on the tour hasn't even acknowledged it for
nearly two decades?


  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 06:24:09
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:fa7cd203-c654-4e6a-9057-21f7321a7596@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 29, 9:55 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>
> news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
>
>
>
>
>
> > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> >>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
> >>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
> >>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
> >>>> last 20 years?
>
> >>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
> >>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>
> >> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
> >> ever posted on rst.
>
> > So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>
> >>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
> >>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
> >>>> need to catch up.
>
> >>>>> but
> >>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
> >>>>> first and the AO last.
>
> >>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
> >>>> anything else that matters.
>
> >>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet
> >>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>
> >> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
> >> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbledon
> >> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
> >> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some political
> >> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
> >> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
> >> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>
> > I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
> > ability, not
> > to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media
> > conspire
> > to do
> > that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's obvious
> > to
> > them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that people
> > don't
> > really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that one,
> > so
> > now
> > the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings. Speaking
> > of
> > arrant nonsense...
>
> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes him
> overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general consider
> Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.- Hide
> quoted text -

Nonsense. Why hasn't Wimbledon's so-called superior prestige been
reflected in the ATP rankings for the past 20 years? What value is the
prestige when the official ranking system that calculates the
standings of players on the tour hasn't even acknowledged it for
nearly two decades?


***

Imbecile. All masters series events give equall rankings pts yet some of
them are considered to be more prestigious.
And we're talking about MS events, a second tier of tennis tournaments.




  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 09:28:45
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 29, 9:55 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>>>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>>>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>>>>>> last 20 years?
>>>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
>>>>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>>> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
>>>> ever posted on rst.
>>> So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>>>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>>>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
>>>>>> need to catch up.
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
>>>>>>> first and the AO last.
>>>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>>>>>> anything else that matters.
>>>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet
>>>>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>>>> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
>>>> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbledon
>>>> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
>>>> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some political
>>>> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
>>>> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
>>>> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>>> I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
>>> ability, not
>>> to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media conspire
>>> to do
>>> that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's obvious
>>> to
>>> them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that people
>>> don't
>>> really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that one, so
>>> now
>>> the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings. Speaking
>>> of
>>> arrant nonsense...
>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes him
>> overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general consider
>> Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Nonsense. Why hasn't Wimbledon's so-called superior prestige been
> reflected in the ATP rankings for the past 20 years? What value is the
> prestige when the official ranking system that calculates the
> standings of players on the tour hasn't even acknowledged it for
> nearly two decades?


Navratilova said she'd play Wimbledon for free. Does that mean it means
nothing to her?



  
Date: 30 Jan 2009 08:32:39
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> Nonsense. Why hasn't Wimbledon's so-called superior prestige been
> reflected in the ATP rankings for the past 20 years? What value is the
> prestige when the official ranking system that calculates the
> standings of players on the tour hasn't even acknowledged it for
> nearly two decades?

The rankings are not used for that purpose.





 
Date: 29 Dec 2008 13:16:03
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 29, 5:26=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ba08da31-75f6-47a2-a23e-6d126bc595d3@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > DavidW wrote:
> >> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >> > On Dec 27, 2:49 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >>> Not really. I am saying something much more profound. The prestige
> >> >>> thing in tennis developed as a completely localized phenomenon in
> >> >>> the West. Since the late 1990s, the game has become global and the
> >> >>> prestige norms developed in the West in the past century don't app=
ly
> >> >>> any more. Tennis is not a Western sport any more.
>
> >> >> You are not saying anything profound at all - you are talking
> >> >> nonsense. Wimbledon has prestige because that is where things
> >> >> started, whether you like it or not. The history of tennis does not
> >> >> change because the game has become more global. This history of the
> >> >> game stays the same regardless - that's why it's called history.
>
> >> > Wimbledon is not where tennis "started". Tennis started much before,
> >> > as Court Tennis, in France, an indoor sport. There were hundred of
> >> > these in Paris. Then British aristocrats imported it in England, too=
k
> >> > it outdoors and called it Lawn Tennis. It's not as if people in
> >> > Wimbledon sat down in 1870s and decided "Let there be tennis" and th=
en
> >> > poof! it appeared out of zero. These things are not clear cut. The
> >> > British championships started in late 1870s, then a few years after
> >> > came the US, a decade later came the French, and at the turn of the
> >> > century came the Australasian championships.
>
> >> > England is also where football, as we know it now, started. Does thi=
s
> >> > mean the football world cup staged in England is more prestigious of
> >> > all football world cups? No.
>
> >> > England is also where cricket started. Does this mean the world cup
> >> > 1993 won in Australia is less prestigious than the ones staged in
> >> > England? No.
>
> >> >>>> You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why
> >> >>>> the official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all th=
e
> >> >>>> great players including Fed & Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >>> You are missing the point. That prestige means nothing outside the
> >> >>> bubble of Western sphere and media. England, France, and other
> >> >>> European countries have their own monarchies and cute little
> >> >>> traditions and it's a big thing in the Western world only. Outside
> >> >>> the Western world, it means nothing. Tennis is a sport that has
> >> >>> recently gone global. Wimbledon's prestige has nothing to do with
> >> >>> this global tennis. It's an anachronism.
>
> >> >> I'm struggling to ignore this drivel, but what do you think is the
> >> >> most prestigious tournament in the world then? It can't be any of t=
he
> >> >> slams since these originated from colonial imperialists, right? May=
be
> >> >> it's the Shanghai Masters, but hasn't that just lost its event back
> >> >> to London (those damn Brits stealing it back again)? Or the China
> >> >> Open? What about that tournament in Bangkok?
>
> >> > Don't be silly. As of now, there are four most prestigious tennis
> >> > tournaments in the world, the four major championships, which stand
> >> > apart from the lesser tournaments in terms draw, format, duration an=
d
> >> > ranking points awarded. The four pillars of tennis. This is how it
> >> > stands now. It may change in the future. Who knows?
>
> >> > The point is Wimbledon's superior prestige is overrated.
>
> >> That makes no sense. By definition, the prestige of something is how
> >> people
> >> rate it. Prestige exists nowhere except in people's minds. Furthermore=
,
> >> more
> >> than just about anything else, prestige is communal. It is decided by =
the
> >> masses. I only rate Wimbledon first because it was obviously already
> >> rated
> >> first by the vast majority of players, spectators and the press before
> >> me. I
> >> only care because others do. For example, winning the World Cup is
> >> important to
> >> each Italian because he knows that it's important to most other Italia=
ns.
> >> What
> >> would be the point of a lone Italian celebrating something that no one
> >> else
> >> cares about? Your arguments about the British Empire and your other
> >> desperate
> >> efforts to dismiss the prestige of Wimbledon are irrelevant. For whate=
ver
> >> reasons, and they really don't matter, Wimbledon is the most highly
> >> prized
> >> title in tennis. It just doesn't make sense for a spectator of a sport=
to
> >> have
> >> a different view of prestige than the actual participants.
>
> > No, by claiming that Wimbledon is the prestigious tennis tournament
> > simply because of the venue, you are the one at odds with the trends
> > of the global sports community. You sound like someone from a bygone
> > era.
>
> > Tennis is just a sport like badminton, hockey, football, baseball,
> > cricket, etc. It can be played anywhere. A vast majority, if not all,
> > of these sports that are played globally now, put no premium on venue
> > prestige.
>
> > For every sport, there is a world governing body of some sort, and it
> > is that governing body which determines how the sport is to evolve,
> > the different tournament structures, and the relative importance and
> > accordingly, prestige, of different tournaments. The football world
> > cup is the prestigious tournament and it is supervised by FIFA, the
> > world governing body of the sport. Same with cricket and ICC.
>
> > Tennis was a niche sport for the most part of the 20th century, and
> > back in those days, venue prestige probably meant something. But now
> > it is global and it has to follow the global norms and precedents set
> > by other sports. This is the reason why ATP was formed in the 1990s.
> > Tennis had by then became sufficiently global so that a worldwide
> > governing body was necessary.
>
> so what, Wimbledon is still the most prestigious tournament in the world,
> the vast majority of people consider it so. Even better the venue lives u=
p
> to itself and so does the tennis there - guess you missed this year's
> Wimbledon final. You sound like some trendy lefty academic type who's nev=
er
> been in the real world.- Hide quoted text -
>

Look, it is quite obvious that you are in love with Wimbledon and
believe in all the "most prestigious" hype. I am sure you have good
reasons for it. I am guessing you are British. If that is true, then
it would be crazy for you to say otherwise. Wimbledon is part of your
cultural, and probably emotional, indentity and everything else needs
to be justified around it.

Like I said, it's very romantic. You are in love with this most
prestigious thing. You are star-struck. You are whipped. It's your
precious. Nothing I say can make you understand what I am getting at.


  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 09:27:38
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 29, 5:26 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>> so what, Wimbledon is still the most prestigious tournament in the world,
>> the vast majority of people consider it so. Even better the venue lives up
>> to itself and so does the tennis there - guess you missed this year's
>> Wimbledon final. You sound like some trendy lefty academic type who's never
>> been in the real world.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> Look, it is quite obvious that you are in love with Wimbledon and
> believe in all the "most prestigious" hype. I am sure you have good
> reasons for it. I am guessing you are British. If that is true, then
> it would be crazy for you to say otherwise. Wimbledon is part of your
> cultural, and probably emotional, indentity and everything else needs
> to be justified around it.



Wimbledon is part of tennis you dumb fuck. You'd have to be pretty anal
to go into a sport & try & turn all the established traditions upside
down - why change things that aren't broken? You must be a racist cunt
- can't come to any other conclusion.


 
Date: 29 Dec 2008 13:14:48
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 29, 8:57=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 8:16 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> Whisper wrote:
> >>> Iceberg wrote:
> >>>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
> >>>>news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
> >>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>>>>> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>>>>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and t=
here
> >>>>>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 y=
ears
> >>>>>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for t=
he
> >>>>>>>> last 20 years?
> >>>>>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
> >>>>>>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
> >>>>>> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of deni=
al
> >>>>>> ever posted on rst.
> >>>>> So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
> >>>>>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 19=
90s.
> >>>>>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
> >>>>>>>> need to catch up.
> >>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
> >>>>>>>>> first and the AO last.
> >>>>>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, o=
r
> >>>>>>>> anything else that matters.
> >>>>>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to be=
t
> >>>>>>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
> >>>>>> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
> >>>>>> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbl=
edon
> >>>>>> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
> >>>>>> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some polit=
ical
> >>>>>> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
> >>>>>> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues a=
nd
> >>>>>> media can make them dance to their tunes.
> >>>>> I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
> >>>>> ability, not
> >>>>> to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media
> >>>>> conspire to do
> >>>>> that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's
> >>>>> obvious to
> >>>>> them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that
> >>>>> people don't
> >>>>> really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that
> >>>>> one, so now
> >>>>> the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings.
> >>>>> Speaking of
> >>>>> arrant nonsense...
> >>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
> >>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
> >>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reas=
on.
> >>> arnab is a very dodgy character.
> >> Can you believe this guy TOLD OTHER POSTERS constantly not to reply me
> >> and killfile me...what a total moral pit this guy is.
>
> >> That's like trying to isolate me and take my freedom of speech away,
> >> just because he doesn't agree with what I write. And this happening in
> >> an unmoderated newsgroup. Truly a dodgy character.
>
> > Just like telling people not to reply to a post in case it went to
> > other people in your killfile, eh?
>
> If I understood correctly what you're implying, no I don't recall
> pressuring anyone to do that.
>

Yes you did - posting a link to a live feed but saying not to reply to
the post since you didn't want people in your killfile to be able to
view the feed





  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 00:53:17
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 29, 8:57 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Dec 29, 8:16 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>>>>>>>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>>>>>>>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>>>>>>>>>> last 20 years?
>>>>>>>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
>>>>>>>>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>>>>>>> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
>>>>>>>> ever posted on rst.
>>>>>>> So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>>>>>>>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>>>>>>>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
>>>>>>>>>> need to catch up.
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
>>>>>>>>>>> first and the AO last.
>>>>>>>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>>>>>>>>>> anything else that matters.
>>>>>>>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet
>>>>>>>>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>>>>>>>> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
>>>>>>>> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbledon
>>>>>>>> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
>>>>>>>> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some political
>>>>>>>> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
>>>>>>>> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
>>>>>>>> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>>>>>>> I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
>>>>>>> ability, not
>>>>>>> to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media
>>>>>>> conspire to do
>>>>>>> that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's
>>>>>>> obvious to
>>>>>>> them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that
>>>>>>> people don't
>>>>>>> really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that
>>>>>>> one, so now
>>>>>>> the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings.
>>>>>>> Speaking of
>>>>>>> arrant nonsense...
>>>>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
>>>>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
>>>>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.
>>>>> arnab is a very dodgy character.
>>>> Can you believe this guy TOLD OTHER POSTERS constantly not to reply me
>>>> and killfile me...what a total moral pit this guy is.
>>>> That's like trying to isolate me and take my freedom of speech away,
>>>> just because he doesn't agree with what I write. And this happening in
>>>> an unmoderated newsgroup. Truly a dodgy character.
>>> Just like telling people not to reply to a post in case it went to
>>> other people in your killfile, eh?
>> If I understood correctly what you're implying, no I don't recall
>> pressuring anyone to do that.
>>
>
> Yes you did - posting a link to a live feed but saying not to reply to
> the post since you didn't want people in your killfile to be able to
> view the feed
>
>

Completely different thing...and btw I didn't want people who killfiled
me to see it, not the other way around as you claim. Try to get over
your hatred against me, even though I have tendency to out-debate you.


--
"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: 30 Dec 2008 06:21:10
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

"TT" <gold@Olympics.org > wrote in message
news:Axc6l.111160$_03.14768@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Dec 29, 8:57 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Dec 29, 8:16 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and
>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20
>>>>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> last 20 years?
>>>>>>>>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
>>>>>>>>>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>>>>>>>> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of
>>>>>>>>> denial
>>>>>>>>> ever posted on rst.
>>>>>>>> So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>>>>>>>>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the
>>>>>>>>>>> 1990s.
>>>>>>>>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
>>>>>>>>>>> need to catch up.
>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
>>>>>>>>>>>> first and the AO last.
>>>>>>>>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure,
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> anything else that matters.
>>>>>>>>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to
>>>>>>>>>> bet
>>>>>>>>>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>>>>>>>>> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
>>>>>>>>> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that
>>>>>>>>> Wimbledon
>>>>>>>>> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
>>>>>>>>> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some
>>>>>>>>> political
>>>>>>>>> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
>>>>>>>>> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>>>>>>>> I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
>>>>>>>> ability, not
>>>>>>>> to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media
>>>>>>>> conspire to do
>>>>>>>> that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's
>>>>>>>> obvious to
>>>>>>>> them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that
>>>>>>>> people don't
>>>>>>>> really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that
>>>>>>>> one, so now
>>>>>>>> the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings.
>>>>>>>> Speaking of
>>>>>>>> arrant nonsense...
>>>>>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
>>>>>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
>>>>>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good
>>>>>>> reason.
>>>>>> arnab is a very dodgy character.
>>>>> Can you believe this guy TOLD OTHER POSTERS constantly not to reply me
>>>>> and killfile me...what a total moral pit this guy is.
>>>>> That's like trying to isolate me and take my freedom of speech away,
>>>>> just because he doesn't agree with what I write. And this happening in
>>>>> an unmoderated newsgroup. Truly a dodgy character.
>>>> Just like telling people not to reply to a post in case it went to
>>>> other people in your killfile, eh?
>>> If I understood correctly what you're implying, no I don't recall
>>> pressuring anyone to do that.
>>>
>>
>> Yes you did - posting a link to a live feed but saying not to reply to
>> the post since you didn't want people in your killfile to be able to
>> view the feed
>>
>
> Completely different thing...and btw I didn't want people who killfiled me
> to see it, not the other way around as you claim.


that was cool.




    
Date: 30 Dec 2008 12:04:33
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote in message
news:gjcb4a$t4a$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>
> "TT" <gold@Olympics.org> wrote in message
> news:Axc6l.111160$_03.14768@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Dec 29, 8:57 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 29, 8:16 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20
>>>>>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>>>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> last 20 years?
>>>>>>>>>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP.
>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately,
>>>>>>>>>>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>>>>>>>>> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of
>>>>>>>>>> denial
>>>>>>>>>> ever posted on rst.
>>>>>>>>> So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1990s.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to catch up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first and the AO last.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure,
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>> anything else that matters.
>>>>>>>>>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to
>>>>>>>>>>> bet
>>>>>>>>>>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>>>>>>>>>> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go
>>>>>>>>>> along
>>>>>>>>>> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that
>>>>>>>>>> Wimbledon
>>>>>>>>>> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go
>>>>>>>>>> along
>>>>>>>>>> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some
>>>>>>>>>> political
>>>>>>>>>> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
>>>>>>>>>> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>>>>>>>>> I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
>>>>>>>>> ability, not
>>>>>>>>> to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media
>>>>>>>>> conspire to do
>>>>>>>>> that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's
>>>>>>>>> obvious to
>>>>>>>>> them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that
>>>>>>>>> people don't
>>>>>>>>> really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that
>>>>>>>>> one, so now
>>>>>>>>> the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings.
>>>>>>>>> Speaking of
>>>>>>>>> arrant nonsense...
>>>>>>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
>>>>>>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
>>>>>>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good
>>>>>>>> reason.
>>>>>>> arnab is a very dodgy character.
>>>>>> Can you believe this guy TOLD OTHER POSTERS constantly not to reply
>>>>>> me
>>>>>> and killfile me...what a total moral pit this guy is.
>>>>>> That's like trying to isolate me and take my freedom of speech away,
>>>>>> just because he doesn't agree with what I write. And this happening
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> an unmoderated newsgroup. Truly a dodgy character.
>>>>> Just like telling people not to reply to a post in case it went to
>>>>> other people in your killfile, eh?
>>>> If I understood correctly what you're implying, no I don't recall
>>>> pressuring anyone to do that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes you did - posting a link to a live feed but saying not to reply to
>>> the post since you didn't want people in your killfile to be able to
>>> view the feed
>>>
>>
>> Completely different thing...and btw I didn't want people who killfiled
>> me to see it, not the other way around as you claim.
>
>
> that was cool.

yes and it was quite funny.




     
Date: 30 Dec 2008 15:56:57
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Iceberg wrote:
> "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote in message
> news:gjcb4a$t4a$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>> "TT" <gold@Olympics.org> wrote in message
>> news:Axc6l.111160$_03.14768@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Dec 29, 8:57 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 29, 8:16 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20
>>>>>>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> last 20 years?
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately,
>>>>>>>>>>>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>>>>>>>>>> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of
>>>>>>>>>>> denial
>>>>>>>>>>> ever posted on rst.
>>>>>>>>>> So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1990s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to catch up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first and the AO last.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything else that matters.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to
>>>>>>>>>>>> bet
>>>>>>>>>>>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>>>>>>>>>>> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go
>>>>>>>>>>> along
>>>>>>>>>>> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that
>>>>>>>>>>> Wimbledon
>>>>>>>>>>> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go
>>>>>>>>>>> along
>>>>>>>>>>> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some
>>>>>>>>>>> political
>>>>>>>>>>> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
>>>>>>>>>>> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>>>>>>>>>> I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
>>>>>>>>>> ability, not
>>>>>>>>>> to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media
>>>>>>>>>> conspire to do
>>>>>>>>>> that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's
>>>>>>>>>> obvious to
>>>>>>>>>> them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that
>>>>>>>>>> people don't
>>>>>>>>>> really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that
>>>>>>>>>> one, so now
>>>>>>>>>> the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings.
>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of
>>>>>>>>>> arrant nonsense...
>>>>>>>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
>>>>>>>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
>>>>>>>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good
>>>>>>>>> reason.
>>>>>>>> arnab is a very dodgy character.
>>>>>>> Can you believe this guy TOLD OTHER POSTERS constantly not to reply
>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>> and killfile me...what a total moral pit this guy is.
>>>>>>> That's like trying to isolate me and take my freedom of speech away,
>>>>>>> just because he doesn't agree with what I write. And this happening
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> an unmoderated newsgroup. Truly a dodgy character.
>>>>>> Just like telling people not to reply to a post in case it went to
>>>>>> other people in your killfile, eh?
>>>>> If I understood correctly what you're implying, no I don't recall
>>>>> pressuring anyone to do that.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes you did - posting a link to a live feed but saying not to reply to
>>>> the post since you didn't want people in your killfile to be able to
>>>> view the feed
>>>>
>>> Completely different thing...and btw I didn't want people who killfiled
>>> me to see it, not the other way around as you claim.
>>
>> that was cool.
>
> yes and it was quite funny.
>
>

But I was dead serious, of course. ;)

--
"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: 29 Dec 2008 12:42:32
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 29, 8:16=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
> > Iceberg wrote:
> >> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
> >>news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
> >>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> >>>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and the=
re
> >>>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 yea=
rs
> >>>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
> >>>>>> last 20 years?
> >>>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
> >>>>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>
> >>>> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
> >>>> ever posted on rst.
> >>> So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>
> >>>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990=
s.
> >>>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
> >>>>>> need to catch up.
> >>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
> >>>>>>> first and the AO last.
> >>>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
> >>>>>> anything else that matters.
> >>>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet
> >>>>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
> >>>> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
> >>>> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbled=
on
> >>>> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
> >>>> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some politic=
al
> >>>> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
> >>>> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
> >>>> media can make them dance to their tunes.
> >>> I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
> >>> ability, not
> >>> to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media
> >>> conspire to do
> >>> that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's
> >>> obvious to
> >>> them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that
> >>> people don't
> >>> really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that
> >>> one, so now
> >>> the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings.
> >>> Speaking of
> >>> arrant nonsense...
>
> >> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
> >> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
> >> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason=
.
>
> > arnab is a very dodgy character.
>
> Can you believe this guy TOLD OTHER POSTERS constantly not to reply me
> and killfile me...what a total moral pit this guy is.
>
> That's like trying to isolate me and take my freedom of speech away,
> just because he doesn't agree with what I write. And this happening in
> an unmoderated newsgroup. Truly a dodgy character.

Just like telling people not to reply to a post in case it went to
other people in your killfile, eh?





  
Date: 29 Dec 2008 22:57:15
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 29, 8:16 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>>>> news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>>>>>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>>>>>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>>>>>>>> last 20 years?
>>>>>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
>>>>>>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>>>>> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
>>>>>> ever posted on rst.
>>>>> So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>>>>>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>>>>>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
>>>>>>>> need to catch up.
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
>>>>>>>>> first and the AO last.
>>>>>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>>>>>>>> anything else that matters.
>>>>>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet
>>>>>>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>>>>>> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
>>>>>> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbledon
>>>>>> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
>>>>>> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some political
>>>>>> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
>>>>>> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
>>>>>> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>>>>> I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
>>>>> ability, not
>>>>> to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media
>>>>> conspire to do
>>>>> that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's
>>>>> obvious to
>>>>> them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that
>>>>> people don't
>>>>> really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that
>>>>> one, so now
>>>>> the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings.
>>>>> Speaking of
>>>>> arrant nonsense...
>>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
>>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
>>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.
>>> arnab is a very dodgy character.
>> Can you believe this guy TOLD OTHER POSTERS constantly not to reply me
>> and killfile me...what a total moral pit this guy is.
>>
>> That's like trying to isolate me and take my freedom of speech away,
>> just because he doesn't agree with what I write. And this happening in
>> an unmoderated newsgroup. Truly a dodgy character.
>
> Just like telling people not to reply to a post in case it went to
> other people in your killfile, eh?
>
>
>

If I understood correctly what you're implying, no I don't recall
pressuring anyone to do that.

Are you defending Arnab's actions?



--
"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: 29 Dec 2008 02:30:29
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...


DavidW wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 2:49 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> Not really. I am saying something much more profound. The prestige
> >>> thing in tennis developed as a completely localized phenomenon in
> >>> the West. Since the late 1990s, the game has become global and the
> >>> prestige norms developed in the West in the past century don't apply
> >>> any more. Tennis is not a Western sport any more.
> >>
> >> You are not saying anything profound at all - you are talking
> >> nonsense. Wimbledon has prestige because that is where things
> >> started, whether you like it or not. The history of tennis does not
> >> change because the game has become more global. This history of the
> >> game stays the same regardless - that's why it's called history.
> >>
> >
> > Wimbledon is not where tennis "started". Tennis started much before,
> > as Court Tennis, in France, an indoor sport. There were hundred of
> > these in Paris. Then British aristocrats imported it in England, took
> > it outdoors and called it Lawn Tennis. It's not as if people in
> > Wimbledon sat down in 1870s and decided "Let there be tennis" and then
> > poof! it appeared out of zero. These things are not clear cut. The
> > British championships started in late 1870s, then a few years after
> > came the US, a decade later came the French, and at the turn of the
> > century came the Australasian championships.
> >
> > England is also where football, as we know it now, started. Does this
> > mean the football world cup staged in England is more prestigious of
> > all football world cups? No.
> >
> > England is also where cricket started. Does this mean the world cup
> > 1993 won in Australia is less prestigious than the ones staged in
> > England? No.
> >
> >>>> You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why
> >>>> the official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the
> >>>> great players including Fed & Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >>> You are missing the point. That prestige means nothing outside the
> >>> bubble of Western sphere and media. England, France, and other
> >>> European countries have their own monarchies and cute little
> >>> traditions and it's a big thing in the Western world only. Outside
> >>> the Western world, it means nothing. Tennis is a sport that has
> >>> recently gone global. Wimbledon's prestige has nothing to do with
> >>> this global tennis. It's an anachronism.
> >>
> >> I'm struggling to ignore this drivel, but what do you think is the
> >> most prestigious tournament in the world then? It can't be any of the
> >> slams since these originated from colonial imperialists, right? Maybe
> >> it's the Shanghai Masters, but hasn't that just lost its event back
> >> to London (those damn Brits stealing it back again)? Or the China
> >> Open? What about that tournament in Bangkok?
> >>
> >
> > Don't be silly. As of now, there are four most prestigious tennis
> > tournaments in the world, the four major championships, which stand
> > apart from the lesser tournaments in terms draw, format, duration and
> > ranking points awarded. The four pillars of tennis. This is how it
> > stands now. It may change in the future. Who knows?
> >
> > The point is Wimbledon's superior prestige is overrated.
>
> That makes no sense. By definition, the prestige of something is how people
> rate it. Prestige exists nowhere except in people's minds. Furthermore, more
> than just about anything else, prestige is communal. It is decided by the
> masses. I only rate Wimbledon first because it was obviously already rated
> first by the vast majority of players, spectators and the press before me. I
> only care because others do. For example, winning the World Cup is important to
> each Italian because he knows that it's important to most other Italians. What
> would be the point of a lone Italian celebrating something that no one else
> cares about? Your arguments about the British Empire and your other desperate
> efforts to dismiss the prestige of Wimbledon are irrelevant. For whatever
> reasons, and they really don't matter, Wimbledon is the most highly prized
> title in tennis. It just doesn't make sense for a spectator of a sport to have
> a different view of prestige than the actual participants.

No, by claiming that Wimbledon is the prestigious tennis tournament
simply because of the venue, you are the one at odds with the trends
of the global sports community. You sound like someone from a bygone
era.

Tennis is just a sport like badminton, hockey, football, baseball,
cricket, etc. It can be played anywhere. A vast majority, if not all,
of these sports that are played globally now, put no premium on venue
prestige.

For every sport, there is a world governing body of some sort, and it
is that governing body which determines how the sport is to evolve,
the different tournament structures, and the relative importance and
accordingly, prestige, of different tournaments. The football world
cup is the prestigious tournament and it is supervised by FIFA, the
world governing body of the sport. Same with cricket and ICC.

Tennis was a niche sport for the most part of the 20th century, and
back in those days, venue prestige probably meant something. But now
it is global and it has to follow the global norms and precedents set
by other sports. This is the reason why ATP was formed in the 1990s.
Tennis had by then became sufficiently global so that a worldwide
governing body was necessary.


  
Date: 29 Dec 2008 11:26:04
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:ba08da31-75f6-47a2-a23e-6d126bc595d3@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> DavidW wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> > On Dec 27, 2:49 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >>> Not really. I am saying something much more profound. The prestige
>> >>> thing in tennis developed as a completely localized phenomenon in
>> >>> the West. Since the late 1990s, the game has become global and the
>> >>> prestige norms developed in the West in the past century don't apply
>> >>> any more. Tennis is not a Western sport any more.
>> >>
>> >> You are not saying anything profound at all - you are talking
>> >> nonsense. Wimbledon has prestige because that is where things
>> >> started, whether you like it or not. The history of tennis does not
>> >> change because the game has become more global. This history of the
>> >> game stays the same regardless - that's why it's called history.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Wimbledon is not where tennis "started". Tennis started much before,
>> > as Court Tennis, in France, an indoor sport. There were hundred of
>> > these in Paris. Then British aristocrats imported it in England, took
>> > it outdoors and called it Lawn Tennis. It's not as if people in
>> > Wimbledon sat down in 1870s and decided "Let there be tennis" and then
>> > poof! it appeared out of zero. These things are not clear cut. The
>> > British championships started in late 1870s, then a few years after
>> > came the US, a decade later came the French, and at the turn of the
>> > century came the Australasian championships.
>> >
>> > England is also where football, as we know it now, started. Does this
>> > mean the football world cup staged in England is more prestigious of
>> > all football world cups? No.
>> >
>> > England is also where cricket started. Does this mean the world cup
>> > 1993 won in Australia is less prestigious than the ones staged in
>> > England? No.
>> >
>> >>>> You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why
>> >>>> the official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the
>> >>>> great players including Fed & Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>> >>
>> >>> You are missing the point. That prestige means nothing outside the
>> >>> bubble of Western sphere and media. England, France, and other
>> >>> European countries have their own monarchies and cute little
>> >>> traditions and it's a big thing in the Western world only. Outside
>> >>> the Western world, it means nothing. Tennis is a sport that has
>> >>> recently gone global. Wimbledon's prestige has nothing to do with
>> >>> this global tennis. It's an anachronism.
>> >>
>> >> I'm struggling to ignore this drivel, but what do you think is the
>> >> most prestigious tournament in the world then? It can't be any of the
>> >> slams since these originated from colonial imperialists, right? Maybe
>> >> it's the Shanghai Masters, but hasn't that just lost its event back
>> >> to London (those damn Brits stealing it back again)? Or the China
>> >> Open? What about that tournament in Bangkok?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Don't be silly. As of now, there are four most prestigious tennis
>> > tournaments in the world, the four major championships, which stand
>> > apart from the lesser tournaments in terms draw, format, duration and
>> > ranking points awarded. The four pillars of tennis. This is how it
>> > stands now. It may change in the future. Who knows?
>> >
>> > The point is Wimbledon's superior prestige is overrated.
>>
>> That makes no sense. By definition, the prestige of something is how
>> people
>> rate it. Prestige exists nowhere except in people's minds. Furthermore,
>> more
>> than just about anything else, prestige is communal. It is decided by the
>> masses. I only rate Wimbledon first because it was obviously already
>> rated
>> first by the vast majority of players, spectators and the press before
>> me. I
>> only care because others do. For example, winning the World Cup is
>> important to
>> each Italian because he knows that it's important to most other Italians.
>> What
>> would be the point of a lone Italian celebrating something that no one
>> else
>> cares about? Your arguments about the British Empire and your other
>> desperate
>> efforts to dismiss the prestige of Wimbledon are irrelevant. For whatever
>> reasons, and they really don't matter, Wimbledon is the most highly
>> prized
>> title in tennis. It just doesn't make sense for a spectator of a sport to
>> have
>> a different view of prestige than the actual participants.
>
> No, by claiming that Wimbledon is the prestigious tennis tournament
> simply because of the venue, you are the one at odds with the trends
> of the global sports community. You sound like someone from a bygone
> era.
>
> Tennis is just a sport like badminton, hockey, football, baseball,
> cricket, etc. It can be played anywhere. A vast majority, if not all,
> of these sports that are played globally now, put no premium on venue
> prestige.
>
> For every sport, there is a world governing body of some sort, and it
> is that governing body which determines how the sport is to evolve,
> the different tournament structures, and the relative importance and
> accordingly, prestige, of different tournaments. The football world
> cup is the prestigious tournament and it is supervised by FIFA, the
> world governing body of the sport. Same with cricket and ICC.
>
> Tennis was a niche sport for the most part of the 20th century, and
> back in those days, venue prestige probably meant something. But now
> it is global and it has to follow the global norms and precedents set
> by other sports. This is the reason why ATP was formed in the 1990s.
> Tennis had by then became sufficiently global so that a worldwide
> governing body was necessary.

so what, Wimbledon is still the most prestigious tournament in the world,
the vast majority of people consider it so. Even better the venue lives up
to itself and so does the tennis there - guess you missed this year's
Wimbledon final. You sound like some trendy lefty academic type who's never
been in the real world.




  
Date: 29 Dec 2008 21:49:23
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> DavidW wrote:
> No, by claiming that Wimbledon is the prestigious tennis tournament
> simply because of the venue, you are the one at odds with the trends
> of the global sports community. You sound like someone from a bygone
> era.
>
> Tennis is just a sport like badminton, hockey, football, baseball,
> cricket, etc. It can be played anywhere. A vast majority, if not all,
> of these sports that are played globally now, put no premium on venue
> prestige.
>
> For every sport, there is a world governing body of some sort, and it
> is that governing body which determines how the sport is to evolve,
> the different tournament structures, and the relative importance and
> accordingly, prestige, of different tournaments. The football world
> cup is the prestigious tournament and it is supervised by FIFA, the
> world governing body of the sport. Same with cricket and ICC.
>
> Tennis was a niche sport for the most part of the 20th century, and
> back in those days, venue prestige probably meant something. But now
> it is global and it has to follow the global norms and precedents set
> by other sports. This is the reason why ATP was formed in the 1990s.
> Tennis had by then became sufficiently global so that a worldwide
> governing body was necessary.


Well hurry up & tell Federer, Nadal & all the experts, current & former
players & media. It's embarrassing for them to get it so wrong.
They'll probably laugh when they're older.

Also tell the people that run the Masters golf that there is no prestige
in their title or venue as golf is now global.



  
Date: 29 Jan 2009 21:44:14
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> DavidW wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 27, 2:49 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Not really. I am saying something much more profound. The prestige
>>>>> thing in tennis developed as a completely localized phenomenon in
>>>>> the West. Since the late 1990s, the game has become global and the
>>>>> prestige norms developed in the West in the past century don't
>>>>> apply any more. Tennis is not a Western sport any more.
>>>>
>>>> You are not saying anything profound at all - you are talking
>>>> nonsense. Wimbledon has prestige because that is where things
>>>> started, whether you like it or not. The history of tennis does not
>>>> change because the game has become more global. This history of the
>>>> game stays the same regardless - that's why it's called history.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wimbledon is not where tennis "started". Tennis started much before,
>>> as Court Tennis, in France, an indoor sport. There were hundred of
>>> these in Paris. Then British aristocrats imported it in England,
>>> took it outdoors and called it Lawn Tennis. It's not as if people in
>>> Wimbledon sat down in 1870s and decided "Let there be tennis" and
>>> then poof! it appeared out of zero. These things are not clear cut.
>>> The British championships started in late 1870s, then a few years
>>> after came the US, a decade later came the French, and at the turn
>>> of the century came the Australasian championships.
>>>
>>> England is also where football, as we know it now, started. Does
>>> this mean the football world cup staged in England is more
>>> prestigious of all football world cups? No.
>>>
>>> England is also where cricket started. Does this mean the world cup
>>> 1993 won in Australia is less prestigious than the ones staged in
>>> England? No.
>>>
>>>>>> You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why
>>>>>> the official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all
>>>>>> the great players including Fed & Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>> You are missing the point. That prestige means nothing outside the
>>>>> bubble of Western sphere and media. England, France, and other
>>>>> European countries have their own monarchies and cute little
>>>>> traditions and it's a big thing in the Western world only. Outside
>>>>> the Western world, it means nothing. Tennis is a sport that has
>>>>> recently gone global. Wimbledon's prestige has nothing to do with
>>>>> this global tennis. It's an anachronism.
>>>>
>>>> I'm struggling to ignore this drivel, but what do you think is the
>>>> most prestigious tournament in the world then? It can't be any of
>>>> the slams since these originated from colonial imperialists,
>>>> right? Maybe it's the Shanghai Masters, but hasn't that just lost
>>>> its event back to London (those damn Brits stealing it back
>>>> again)? Or the China Open? What about that tournament in Bangkok?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Don't be silly. As of now, there are four most prestigious tennis
>>> tournaments in the world, the four major championships, which stand
>>> apart from the lesser tournaments in terms draw, format, duration
>>> and ranking points awarded. The four pillars of tennis. This is how
>>> it stands now. It may change in the future. Who knows?
>>>
>>> The point is Wimbledon's superior prestige is overrated.
>>
>> That makes no sense. By definition, the prestige of something is how
>> people rate it. Prestige exists nowhere except in people's minds.
>> Furthermore, more than just about anything else, prestige is
>> communal. It is decided by the masses. I only rate Wimbledon first
>> because it was obviously already rated first by the vast majority of
>> players, spectators and the press before me. I only care because
>> others do. For example, winning the World Cup is important to each
>> Italian because he knows that it's important to most other Italians.
>> What would be the point of a lone Italian celebrating something that
>> no one else cares about? Your arguments about the British Empire and
>> your other desperate efforts to dismiss the prestige of Wimbledon
>> are irrelevant. For whatever reasons, and they really don't matter,
>> Wimbledon is the most highly prized title in tennis. It just doesn't
>> make sense for a spectator of a sport to have a different view of
>> prestige than the actual participants.
>
> No, by claiming that Wimbledon is the prestigious tennis tournament
> simply because of the venue, you are the one at odds with the trends
> of the global sports community. You sound like someone from a bygone
> era.

Stop saying it's just the "venue". It's the title. It's being able to say that
you are the Wimbledon champion.

> Tennis is just a sport like badminton, hockey, football, baseball,
> cricket, etc. It can be played anywhere. A vast majority, if not all,
> of these sports that are played globally now, put no premium on venue
> prestige.

Nevertheless, Wimbledon _is_ the most prestigious title in tennis. That renders
all your attempts to argue otherwise rather silly.

> For every sport, there is a world governing body of some sort, and it
> is that governing body which determines how the sport is to evolve,
> the different tournament structures, and the relative importance and
> accordingly, prestige, of different tournaments.

Rubbish. If the ITF introduced a new, big tournament, say like the short-lived
Grand Slam Cup, and awarded it more points than the slams and pronounced it the
most prestigious tennis title, do you think it would instantly have more
prestige than Wimbledon in the minds of the players and spectators? Of course
not. At best it would take many, many years, and it might never happen.





   
Date: 29 Dec 2008 12:38:24
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:44:14 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided >
wrote:

>arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> DavidW wrote:
>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>> On Dec 27, 2:49 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Not really. I am saying something much more profound. The prestige
>>>>>> thing in tennis developed as a completely localized phenomenon in
>>>>>> the West. Since the late 1990s, the game has become global and the
>>>>>> prestige norms developed in the West in the past century don't
>>>>>> apply any more. Tennis is not a Western sport any more.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are not saying anything profound at all - you are talking
>>>>> nonsense. Wimbledon has prestige because that is where things
>>>>> started, whether you like it or not. The history of tennis does not
>>>>> change because the game has become more global. This history of the
>>>>> game stays the same regardless - that's why it's called history.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wimbledon is not where tennis "started". Tennis started much before,
>>>> as Court Tennis, in France, an indoor sport. There were hundred of
>>>> these in Paris. Then British aristocrats imported it in England,
>>>> took it outdoors and called it Lawn Tennis. It's not as if people in
>>>> Wimbledon sat down in 1870s and decided "Let there be tennis" and
>>>> then poof! it appeared out of zero. These things are not clear cut.
>>>> The British championships started in late 1870s, then a few years
>>>> after came the US, a decade later came the French, and at the turn
>>>> of the century came the Australasian championships.
>>>>
>>>> England is also where football, as we know it now, started. Does
>>>> this mean the football world cup staged in England is more
>>>> prestigious of all football world cups? No.
>>>>
>>>> England is also where cricket started. Does this mean the world cup
>>>> 1993 won in Australia is less prestigious than the ones staged in
>>>> England? No.
>>>>
>>>>>>> You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why
>>>>>>> the official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all
>>>>>>> the great players including Fed & Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are missing the point. That prestige means nothing outside the
>>>>>> bubble of Western sphere and media. England, France, and other
>>>>>> European countries have their own monarchies and cute little
>>>>>> traditions and it's a big thing in the Western world only. Outside
>>>>>> the Western world, it means nothing. Tennis is a sport that has
>>>>>> recently gone global. Wimbledon's prestige has nothing to do with
>>>>>> this global tennis. It's an anachronism.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm struggling to ignore this drivel, but what do you think is the
>>>>> most prestigious tournament in the world then? It can't be any of
>>>>> the slams since these originated from colonial imperialists,
>>>>> right? Maybe it's the Shanghai Masters, but hasn't that just lost
>>>>> its event back to London (those damn Brits stealing it back
>>>>> again)? Or the China Open? What about that tournament in Bangkok?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't be silly. As of now, there are four most prestigious tennis
>>>> tournaments in the world, the four major championships, which stand
>>>> apart from the lesser tournaments in terms draw, format, duration
>>>> and ranking points awarded. The four pillars of tennis. This is how
>>>> it stands now. It may change in the future. Who knows?
>>>>
>>>> The point is Wimbledon's superior prestige is overrated.
>>>
>>> That makes no sense. By definition, the prestige of something is how
>>> people rate it. Prestige exists nowhere except in people's minds.
>>> Furthermore, more than just about anything else, prestige is
>>> communal. It is decided by the masses. I only rate Wimbledon first
>>> because it was obviously already rated first by the vast majority of
>>> players, spectators and the press before me. I only care because
>>> others do. For example, winning the World Cup is important to each
>>> Italian because he knows that it's important to most other Italians.
>>> What would be the point of a lone Italian celebrating something that
>>> no one else cares about? Your arguments about the British Empire and
>>> your other desperate efforts to dismiss the prestige of Wimbledon
>>> are irrelevant. For whatever reasons, and they really don't matter,
>>> Wimbledon is the most highly prized title in tennis. It just doesn't
>>> make sense for a spectator of a sport to have a different view of
>>> prestige than the actual participants.
>>
>> No, by claiming that Wimbledon is the prestigious tennis tournament
>> simply because of the venue, you are the one at odds with the trends
>> of the global sports community. You sound like someone from a bygone
>> era.
>
>Stop saying it's just the "venue". It's the title. It's being able to say that
>you are the Wimbledon champion.

Sure, you can say I won Wimbledon the most *prestigious* title in
tennis but that does *not* make you the greatest player in the game.
Perhaps on that day, perhaps in that month but *not* in that year and
certainly not ever anymore than winning any other slam does.


 
Date: 29 Dec 2008 02:18:28
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 29, 3:35=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 3:12 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> Sakari Lund wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:02:27 +1100, Whisper
> >>> <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:08:41 -0300, Javier Gonzalez
> >>>>> <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=3D236218
>
> >>>>>>> Some less than favourable reaction though:
>
> >>>>>>> "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>
> >>>>>>> "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from
> >>>>>>> his arse."
>
> >>>>>>> "It is a very absurd idea."
>
> >>>>>>> Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
> >>>>>>> system?
> >>>>>> Behold the incredible analytical skills of TalkTennis posters:
> >>>>>> "I bet the guy who created this is a Sampras fan."
>
> >>>>> Yes, that's what I noticed there too.
>
> >>>>> That's a second tennis discussion forum that laughs at 7543, but
> >>>>> still the 4 or 5 people here think the whole world agrees with it.
>
> >>>> There are people here who laugh at it too, but you guys are in the
> >>>> tiny minority (< 5%) & of no consequence.
>
> >>> Everyone in here except 4 or 5 people, and pretty much everyone in
> >>> the other forum too of the posts I read.
>
> >>>> The real world (made up of players
> >>>> including Fed/Rafa) fully accepts the slams are not equal & have a
> >>>> pecking order, with Wimbledon far out in front & AO 4th. It's only
> >>>> newbies & the dim who think they are 1111 based on ATP points.
>
> >>> I'd like to see when you ask Nadal "Rafa, don't you agree that
> >>> Wimbledon is worth 7 points, and FO 4? And USO 5? And AO 3? You talk
> >>> about that all the time with Roger, no?"
>
> >> People might not agree about the points, or not even assign points
> >> at all,
>
> > ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
> > have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
> > now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
> > last 20 years?
>
> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately, people'=
s
> minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>

What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
ever posted on rst.

> > Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
> > What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You need
> > to catch up.
>
> >> but
> >> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is first
> >> and the AO last.
>
> > Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
> > anything else that matters.
>
> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet that
> Wimbledon would not come first?

People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbledon
is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some political
issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
media can make them dance to their tunes.

So when you ask people whether Wimbledon is the most prestigious
tennis tournament, most of them will probably be parroting what they
heard in media. They won't be thinking there.

Let me ask you to do a different poll. Take a poll right here on rst
and any other big tennis forums on the Internet. Ask people whether
there exists a scale of slams and whether 7543 or some similar version
reflects it. Also asks them what they prefer ATPs 1111 scheme or 7543.

If the majority of the poll-takers say your position is absurd, can
you promise us stop with your nonsensical, anachronistic Wimbledonist
agenda?


  
Date: 29 Jan 2009 21:36:29
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>
>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>>> last 20 years?
>>
>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>
>
> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
> ever posted on rst.

So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?

>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
>>> need to catch up.
>>
>>>> but
>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
>>>> first and the AO last.
>>
>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>>> anything else that matters.
>>
>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet
>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>
> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbledon
> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some political
> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
> media can make them dance to their tunes.

I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking ability, not
to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media conspire to do
that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's obvious to
them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that people don't
really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that one, so now
the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings. Speaking of
arrant nonsense...





   
Date: 29 Dec 2008 15:55:54
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"DavidW" <no@email.provided > wrote in message
news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>
>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>>>> last 20 years?
>>>
>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
>>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>>
>>
>> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
>> ever posted on rst.
>
> So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>
>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
>>>> need to catch up.
>>>
>>>>> but
>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
>>>>> first and the AO last.
>>>
>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>>>> anything else that matters.
>>>
>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet
>>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>>
>> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
>> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbledon
>> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
>> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some political
>> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
>> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
>> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>
> I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
> ability, not
> to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media conspire
> to do
> that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's obvious
> to
> them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that people
> don't
> really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that one, so
> now
> the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings. Speaking
> of
> arrant nonsense...

arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes him
overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general consider
Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.




    
Date: 30 Dec 2008 04:26:57
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Iceberg wrote:
> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
> news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>>>>> last 20 years?
>>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
>>>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>>>
>>> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
>>> ever posted on rst.
>> So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>>
>>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
>>>>> need to catch up.
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
>>>>>> first and the AO last.
>>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>>>>> anything else that matters.
>>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet
>>>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>>> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
>>> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbledon
>>> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
>>> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some political
>>> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
>>> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
>>> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>> I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
>> ability, not
>> to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media conspire
>> to do
>> that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's obvious
>> to
>> them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that people
>> don't
>> really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that one, so
>> now
>> the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings. Speaking
>> of
>> arrant nonsense...
>
> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes him
> overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general consider
> Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.
>
>


arnab is a very dodgy character.



     
Date: 29 Dec 2008 22:16:29
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> Iceberg wrote:
>> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
>> news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>>>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>>>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>>>>>> last 20 years?
>>>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
>>>>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>>>>
>>>> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
>>>> ever posted on rst.
>>> So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>>>
>>>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>>>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
>>>>>> need to catch up.
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
>>>>>>> first and the AO last.
>>>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>>>>>> anything else that matters.
>>>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet
>>>>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>>>> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
>>>> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbledon
>>>> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
>>>> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some political
>>>> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
>>>> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
>>>> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>>> I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
>>> ability, not
>>> to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media
>>> conspire to do
>>> that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's
>>> obvious to
>>> them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that
>>> people don't
>>> really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that
>>> one, so now
>>> the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings.
>>> Speaking of
>>> arrant nonsense...
>>
>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.
>>
>
>
> arnab is a very dodgy character.
>

Can you believe this guy TOLD OTHER POSTERS constantly not to reply me
and killfile me...what a total moral pit this guy is.

That's like trying to isolate me and take my freedom of speech away,
just because he doesn't agree with what I write. And this happening in
an unmoderated newsgroup. Truly a dodgy character.


--
"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: 29 Dec 2008 22:17:08
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> Iceberg wrote:
>>> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
>>> news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>>>>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>>>>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>>>>>>> last 20 years?
>>>>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
>>>>>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
>>>>> ever posted on rst.
>>>> So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>>>>
>>>>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>>>>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
>>>>>>> need to catch up.
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
>>>>>>>> first and the AO last.
>>>>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>>>>>>> anything else that matters.
>>>>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet
>>>>>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>>>>> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
>>>>> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbledon
>>>>> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
>>>>> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some political
>>>>> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
>>>>> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
>>>>> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>>>> I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
>>>> ability, not
>>>> to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media
>>>> conspire to do
>>>> that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's
>>>> obvious to
>>>> them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that
>>>> people don't
>>>> really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that
>>>> one, so now
>>>> the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings.
>>>> Speaking of
>>>> arrant nonsense...
>>>
>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.
>>>
>>
>>
>> arnab is a very dodgy character.
>>
>
> Can you believe this guy TOLD OTHER POSTERS constantly not to reply me
> and killfile me...what a total moral pit this guy is.
>
> That's like trying to isolate me and take my freedom of speech away,
> just because he doesn't agree with what I write. And this happening in
> an unmoderated newsgroup. Truly a dodgy character.
>
>

Btw, should I sue him or just punch him in the face?

--
"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: 30 Dec 2008 08:07:39
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
>>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
>>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> arnab is a very dodgy character.
>>>
>>
>> Can you believe this guy TOLD OTHER POSTERS constantly not to reply me
>> and killfile me...what a total moral pit this guy is.
>>
>> That's like trying to isolate me and take my freedom of speech away,
>> just because he doesn't agree with what I write. And this happening in
>> an unmoderated newsgroup. Truly a dodgy character.
>>
>>
>
> Btw, should I sue him or just punch him in the face?
>


Just steal his play lunch money & slap him in the head a couple times.



        
Date: 30 Dec 2008 01:21:46
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
>>>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
>>>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good
>>>>> reason.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> arnab is a very dodgy character.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you believe this guy TOLD OTHER POSTERS constantly not to reply
>>> me and killfile me...what a total moral pit this guy is.
>>>
>>> That's like trying to isolate me and take my freedom of speech away,
>>> just because he doesn't agree with what I write. And this happening
>>> in an unmoderated newsgroup. Truly a dodgy character.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Btw, should I sue him or just punch him in the face?
>>
>
>
> Just steal his play lunch money & slap him in the head a couple times.
>

I might settle for the ping of death.

--
"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: 29 Dec 2008 17:59:09
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Iceberg wrote:
> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
> news:2J16l.37766$lX6.35917@newsfe06.iad...
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 29, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>>>>> last 20 years?
>>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
>>>> people's minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>>>
>>> What arrant nonsense! This has to be the biggest statement of denial
>>> ever posted on rst.
>> So people's minds _are_ controlled by the ATP?
>>
>>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You
>>>>> need to catch up.
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is
>>>>>> first and the AO last.
>>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>>>>> anything else that matters.
>>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet
>>>> that Wimbledon would not come first?
>>> People's minds are fickle and changeable. And they mostly go along
>>> with what is told by the media. If the media tells them that Wimbledon
>>> is the most prestigious, they would probably just nod and go along
>>> with it. And remember, tennis is just a sport, it's not some political
>>> issue or a decision to go to war, etc. And history shows us that
>>> people even go to wars based on entirely wrong ideas. Demagogues and
>>> media can make them dance to their tunes.
>> I had no idea you were so elitist, or gave other people's thinking
>> ability, not
>> to mention tennis writers, so little credit. Why would the media conspire
>> to do
>> that? What's in it for them? The media is only reflecting what's obvious
>> to
>> them from players and fans. You've given up trying to argue that people
>> don't
>> really place Wimbledon first, because you know you can't win that one, so
>> now
>> the public are just puppets with the media pulling the strings. Speaking
>> of
>> arrant nonsense...
>
> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes him
> overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general consider
> Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.
>
>

What is that good reason then?

--
"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: 30 Dec 2008 04:29:44
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
> Iceberg wrote:
>> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
>>
>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.
>>
>
> What is that good reason then?
>




I think now we are starting a new year it would be great to break rst
into 2 groups - 1 for newbies (ie to answer questions like 'why is
Wimbledon the best?', 'What is seve/volley?' etc) & the rest for more
advanced discussion.



      
Date: 30 Jan 2009 08:29:39
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Iceberg wrote:
>>> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
>>>
>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good
>>> reason.
>>>
>>
>> What is that good reason then?
>>
>
> I think now we are starting a new year it would be great to break rst
> into 2 groups - 1 for newbies (ie to answer questions like 'why is
> Wimbledon the best?', 'What is seve/volley?' etc)

A new group: rec.sport.tennis.newbie_or_duffer





      
Date: 29 Dec 2008 22:20:30
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Iceberg wrote:
>>> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.
>>>
>>
>> What is that good reason then?
>>
>
>
>
>
> I think now we are starting a new year it would be great to break rst
> into 2 groups - 1 for newbies (ie to answer questions like 'why is
> Wimbledon the best?', 'What is seve/volley?' etc) & the rest for more
> advanced discussion.
>

You didn't answer my question.

--
"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: 30 Dec 2008 08:09:28
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
>>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
>>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
>>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good reason.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is that good reason then?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think now we are starting a new year it would be great to break rst
>> into 2 groups - 1 for newbies (ie to answer questions like 'why is
>> Wimbledon the best?', 'What is seve/volley?' etc) & the rest for more
>> advanced discussion.
>>
>
> You didn't answer my question.
>


It just is. Has been for > 100 yrs & everyone that matters in the game
agrees. Why is Masters golf at Augusta prestigious?



        
Date: 29 Dec 2008 23:23:33
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:49593c88$0$22076$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> TT wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> TT wrote:
>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
>>>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
>>>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
>>>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good
>>>>> reason.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is that good reason then?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think now we are starting a new year it would be great to break rst
>>> into 2 groups - 1 for newbies (ie to answer questions like 'why is
>>> Wimbledon the best?', 'What is seve/volley?' etc) & the rest for more
>>> advanced discussion.
>>>
>>
>> You didn't answer my question.
>>
>
>
> It just is. Has been for > 100 yrs & everyone that matters in the game
> agrees. Why is Masters golf at Augusta prestigious?

exactly, plus the place itself, atmosphere etc is quite unlike anywhere
else! it IS prestige.




        
Date: 30 Dec 2008 01:22:25
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> TT wrote:
>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
>>>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge causes
>>>>> him overload. He knows 99% of players/spectators/people-in-general
>>>>> consider Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament and for good
>>>>> reason.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is that good reason then?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think now we are starting a new year it would be great to break rst
>>> into 2 groups - 1 for newbies (ie to answer questions like 'why is
>>> Wimbledon the best?', 'What is seve/volley?' etc) & the rest for more
>>> advanced discussion.
>>>
>>
>> You didn't answer my question.
>>
>
>
> It just is. Has been for > 100 yrs & everyone that matters in the game
> agrees. Why is Masters golf at Augusta prestigious?
>

"It just is" - Whisper 2008
:)

--
"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: 30 Dec 2008 10:46:36
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
>>>>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge
>>>>>> causes him overload. He knows 99% of
>>>>>> players/spectators/people-in-general consider Wimbledon the most
>>>>>> prestigious tournament and for good reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is that good reason then?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think now we are starting a new year it would be great to break
>>>> rst into 2 groups - 1 for newbies (ie to answer questions like 'why
>>>> is Wimbledon the best?', 'What is seve/volley?' etc) & the rest for
>>>> more advanced discussion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You didn't answer my question.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It just is. Has been for > 100 yrs & everyone that matters in the
>> game agrees. Why is Masters golf at Augusta prestigious?
>>
>
> "It just is" - Whisper 2008
> :)
>



Why do you need oxygen to survive?

You just do.



          
Date: 30 Dec 2008 02:12:55
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> TT wrote:
>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>>> Iceberg wrote:
>>>>>>> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
>>>>>>> arnab's a bit of a lefty academic, your real world challenge
>>>>>>> causes him overload. He knows 99% of
>>>>>>> players/spectators/people-in-general consider Wimbledon the most
>>>>>>> prestigious tournament and for good reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is that good reason then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think now we are starting a new year it would be great to break
>>>>> rst into 2 groups - 1 for newbies (ie to answer questions like 'why
>>>>> is Wimbledon the best?', 'What is seve/volley?' etc) & the rest for
>>>>> more advanced discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You didn't answer my question.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It just is. Has been for > 100 yrs & everyone that matters in the
>>> game agrees. Why is Masters golf at Augusta prestigious?
>>>
>>
>> "It just is" - Whisper 2008
>> :)
>>
>
>
>
> Why do you need oxygen to survive?
>
> You just do.
>

Well there's a scientific explanation too for that.

--
"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: 29 Dec 2008 01:26:05
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 29, 3:12=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:02:27 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Sakari Lund wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:08:41 -0300, Javier Gonzalez
> >>> <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=3D236218
>
> >>>>> Some less than favourable reaction though:
>
> >>>>> "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>
> >>>>> "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from
> >>>>> his arse."
>
> >>>>> "It is a very absurd idea."
>
> >>>>> Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
> >>>>> system?
> >>>> Behold the incredible analytical skills of TalkTennis posters:
> >>>> "I bet the guy who created this is a Sampras fan."
>
> >>> Yes, that's what I noticed there too.
>
> >>> That's a second tennis discussion forum that laughs at 7543, but
> >>> still the 4 or 5 people here think the whole world agrees with it.
>
> >> There are people here who laugh at it too, but you guys are in the
> >> tiny minority (< 5%) & of no consequence.
>
> > Everyone in here except 4 or 5 people, and pretty much everyone in the
> > other forum too of the posts I read.
>
> >> =A0The real world (made up of players
> >> including Fed/Rafa) fully accepts the slams are not equal & have a
> >> pecking order, with Wimbledon far out in front & AO 4th. =A0It's only
> >> newbies & the dim who think they are 1111 based on ATP points.
>
> > I'd like to see when you ask Nadal "Rafa, don't you agree that
> > Wimbledon is worth 7 points, and FO 4? And USO 5? And AO 3? You talk
> > about that all the time with Roger, no?"
>
> People might not agree about the points, or not even assign points at all=
,

ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
last 20 years?

Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You need
to catch up.

> but
> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is first and =
the AO
> last.

Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
anything else that matters.

> Once you accept that, however grudgingly in the case of some people a
> RST, it is implicit that there is a scale on which they can be placed. Al=
l that
> remains is to quantify it.

Except that nobody cares about it that much. The "scale" doesn't
exist. It's like the debate in the 19th century about whether Ether
existed or not. Any effort to quantify it will raise too many probing
questions and long debates and will eventually expose it for what it
is, a sham.


  
Date: 29 Dec 2008 20:35:35
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 29, 3:12 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:02:27 +1100, Whisper
>>> <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:08:41 -0300, Javier Gonzalez
>>>>> <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=236218
>>
>>>>>>> Some less than favourable reaction though:
>>
>>>>>>> "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>>
>>>>>>> "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from
>>>>>>> his arse."
>>
>>>>>>> "It is a very absurd idea."
>>
>>>>>>> Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
>>>>>>> system?
>>>>>> Behold the incredible analytical skills of TalkTennis posters:
>>>>>> "I bet the guy who created this is a Sampras fan."
>>
>>>>> Yes, that's what I noticed there too.
>>
>>>>> That's a second tennis discussion forum that laughs at 7543, but
>>>>> still the 4 or 5 people here think the whole world agrees with it.
>>
>>>> There are people here who laugh at it too, but you guys are in the
>>>> tiny minority (< 5%) & of no consequence.
>>
>>> Everyone in here except 4 or 5 people, and pretty much everyone in
>>> the other forum too of the posts I read.
>>
>>>> The real world (made up of players
>>>> including Fed/Rafa) fully accepts the slams are not equal & have a
>>>> pecking order, with Wimbledon far out in front & AO 4th. It's only
>>>> newbies & the dim who think they are 1111 based on ATP points.
>>
>>> I'd like to see when you ask Nadal "Rafa, don't you agree that
>>> Wimbledon is worth 7 points, and FO 4? And USO 5? And AO 3? You talk
>>> about that all the time with Roger, no?"
>>
>> People might not agree about the points, or not even assign points
>> at all,
>
> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
> last 20 years?

No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately, people's
minds are not controlled by the ATP.

> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You need
> to catch up.
>
>> but
>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is first
>> and the AO last.
>
> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
> anything else that matters.

But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet that
Wimbledon would not come first?





   
Date: 29 Dec 2008 11:28:01
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:35:35 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided >
wrote:

>arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 29, 3:12 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:02:27 +1100, Whisper
>>>> <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:08:41 -0300, Javier Gonzalez
>>>>>> <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=236218
>>>
>>>>>>>> Some less than favourable reaction though:
>>>
>>>>>>>> "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>>>
>>>>>>>> "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from
>>>>>>>> his arse."
>>>
>>>>>>>> "It is a very absurd idea."
>>>
>>>>>>>> Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
>>>>>>>> system?
>>>>>>> Behold the incredible analytical skills of TalkTennis posters:
>>>>>>> "I bet the guy who created this is a Sampras fan."
>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that's what I noticed there too.
>>>
>>>>>> That's a second tennis discussion forum that laughs at 7543, but
>>>>>> still the 4 or 5 people here think the whole world agrees with it.
>>>
>>>>> There are people here who laugh at it too, but you guys are in the
>>>>> tiny minority (< 5%) & of no consequence.
>>>
>>>> Everyone in here except 4 or 5 people, and pretty much everyone in
>>>> the other forum too of the posts I read.
>>>
>>>>> The real world (made up of players
>>>>> including Fed/Rafa) fully accepts the slams are not equal & have a
>>>>> pecking order, with Wimbledon far out in front & AO 4th. It's only
>>>>> newbies & the dim who think they are 1111 based on ATP points.
>>>
>>>> I'd like to see when you ask Nadal "Rafa, don't you agree that
>>>> Wimbledon is worth 7 points, and FO 4? And USO 5? And AO 3? You talk
>>>> about that all the time with Roger, no?"
>>>
>>> People might not agree about the points, or not even assign points
>>> at all,
>>
>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>> last 20 years?
>
>No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately, people's
>minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>
>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You need
>> to catch up.
>>
>>> but
>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is first
>>> and the AO last.
>>
>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>> anything else that matters.
>
>But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet that
>Wimbledon would not come first?
>
>


Most prestigious ? yes.

The best player in tennis always wins it ? no.

When it comes to determining the "goat" it is the player who :

1. Wins the most slams across the most surfaces.

Come up with a formula for that and you might have something !

Like maybe 1111 plus an additional 1 for each time you win a HC slam
matched by a clay court slam.

In Borgs case that would be 11 + 5 or 16.

In Sampras case that would be 14 + 0 or 14.

So, Borg is the goat.

I think this is fair as it demonstrates all surface greatness.

The goat by definition can not be "lame" on any surface as Sampras was
and especially the most populat most prominant surface in the sport
!!!


    
Date: 29 Dec 2008 18:12:01
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:35:35 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided>
> wrote:
>
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 29, 3:12 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:02:27 +1100, Whisper
>>>>> <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:08:41 -0300, Javier Gonzalez
>>>>>>> <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=236218
>>>>>>>>> Some less than favourable reaction though:
>>>>>>>>> "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>>>>>>>>> "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from
>>>>>>>>> his arse."
>>>>>>>>> "It is a very absurd idea."
>>>>>>>>> Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
>>>>>>>>> system?
>>>>>>>> Behold the incredible analytical skills of TalkTennis posters:
>>>>>>>> "I bet the guy who created this is a Sampras fan."
>>>>>>> Yes, that's what I noticed there too.
>>>>>>> That's a second tennis discussion forum that laughs at 7543, but
>>>>>>> still the 4 or 5 people here think the whole world agrees with it.
>>>>>> There are people here who laugh at it too, but you guys are in the
>>>>>> tiny minority (< 5%) & of no consequence.
>>>>> Everyone in here except 4 or 5 people, and pretty much everyone in
>>>>> the other forum too of the posts I read.
>>>>>> The real world (made up of players
>>>>>> including Fed/Rafa) fully accepts the slams are not equal & have a
>>>>>> pecking order, with Wimbledon far out in front & AO 4th. It's only
>>>>>> newbies & the dim who think they are 1111 based on ATP points.
>>>>> I'd like to see when you ask Nadal "Rafa, don't you agree that
>>>>> Wimbledon is worth 7 points, and FO 4? And USO 5? And AO 3? You talk
>>>>> about that all the time with Roger, no?"
>>>> People might not agree about the points, or not even assign points
>>>> at all,
>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>>> last 20 years?
>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately, people's
>> minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>
>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You need
>>> to catch up.
>>>
>>>> but
>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is first
>>>> and the AO last.
>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>>> anything else that matters.
>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet that
>> Wimbledon would not come first?
>>
>>
>
>
> Most prestigious ? yes.
>
> The best player in tennis always wins it ? no.
>
> When it comes to determining the "goat" it is the player who :
>
> 1. Wins the most slams across the most surfaces.
>
> Come up with a formula for that and you might have something !
>
> Like maybe 1111 plus an additional 1 for each time you win a HC slam
> matched by a clay court slam.
>
> In Borgs case that would be 11 + 5 or 16.
>
> In Sampras case that would be 14 + 0 or 14.
>
> So, Borg is the goat.
>
> I think this is fair as it demonstrates all surface greatness.
>
> The goat by definition can not be "lame" on any surface as Sampras was
> and especially the most populat most prominant surface in the sport
> !!!

I kind of like this approach. Add something for being 3 surface slammer
and career slam. 1 and 2?

Of course that is bad because of slammist approach, there should be
points for tms titles and Olympics too.
The difficulty would be telling tms level events from normal tournaments
- especially for the olden days.

--
"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: 30 Dec 2008 04:33:25
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:35:35 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>> On Dec 29, 3:12 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:02:27 +1100, Whisper
>>>>>> <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:08:41 -0300, Javier Gonzalez
>>>>>>>> <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=236218
>>>>>>>>>> Some less than favourable reaction though:
>>>>>>>>>> "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>>>>>>>>>> "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from
>>>>>>>>>> his arse."
>>>>>>>>>> "It is a very absurd idea."
>>>>>>>>>> Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
>>>>>>>>>> system?
>>>>>>>>> Behold the incredible analytical skills of TalkTennis posters:
>>>>>>>>> "I bet the guy who created this is a Sampras fan."
>>>>>>>> Yes, that's what I noticed there too.
>>>>>>>> That's a second tennis discussion forum that laughs at 7543, but
>>>>>>>> still the 4 or 5 people here think the whole world agrees with it.
>>>>>>> There are people here who laugh at it too, but you guys are in the
>>>>>>> tiny minority (< 5%) & of no consequence.
>>>>>> Everyone in here except 4 or 5 people, and pretty much everyone in
>>>>>> the other forum too of the posts I read.
>>>>>>> The real world (made up of players
>>>>>>> including Fed/Rafa) fully accepts the slams are not equal & have a
>>>>>>> pecking order, with Wimbledon far out in front & AO 4th. It's only
>>>>>>> newbies & the dim who think they are 1111 based on ATP points.
>>>>>> I'd like to see when you ask Nadal "Rafa, don't you agree that
>>>>>> Wimbledon is worth 7 points, and FO 4? And USO 5? And AO 3? You talk
>>>>>> about that all the time with Roger, no?"
>>>>> People might not agree about the points, or not even assign points
>>>>> at all,
>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>>>> last 20 years?
>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
>>> people's
>>> minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>>
>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You need
>>>> to catch up.
>>>>
>>>>> but
>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is first
>>>>> and the AO last.
>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>>>> anything else that matters.
>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet that
>>> Wimbledon would not come first?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Most prestigious ? yes.
>>
>> The best player in tennis always wins it ? no.
>>
>> When it comes to determining the "goat" it is the player who :
>>
>> 1. Wins the most slams across the most surfaces.
>>
>> Come up with a formula for that and you might have something !
>>
>> Like maybe 1111 plus an additional 1 for each time you win a HC slam
>> matched by a clay court slam.
>>
>> In Borgs case that would be 11 + 5 or 16.
>>
>> In Sampras case that would be 14 + 0 or 14.
>>
>> So, Borg is the goat.
>>
>> I think this is fair as it demonstrates all surface greatness.
>>
>> The goat by definition can not be "lame" on any surface as Sampras was
>> and especially the most populat most prominant surface in the sport
>> !!!
>
> I kind of like this approach. Add something for being 3 surface slammer
> and career slam. 1 and 2?
>
> Of course that is bad because of slammist approach, there should be
> points for tms titles and Olympics too.
> The difficulty would be telling tms level events from normal tournaments
> - especially for the olden days.
>



Any formula has to make sense at some level & resonate with real world
perceptions - eg absolutely nobody considers Wilander remotely near goat
level, yet this 'all surface competence' would rate him probably goat or
in very top echelon, a perception which doesn't exist in real world.

I'm not surprised Hazel came up with this - he didn't even know Borg
used 2-handed bh until recently.




      
Date: 29 Dec 2008 22:21:51
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:35:35 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 29, 3:12 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:02:27 +1100, Whisper
>>>>>>> <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:08:41 -0300, Javier Gonzalez
>>>>>>>>> <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=236218
>>>>>>>>>>> Some less than favourable reaction though:
>>>>>>>>>>> "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>>>>>>>>>>> "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from
>>>>>>>>>>> his arse."
>>>>>>>>>>> "It is a very absurd idea."
>>>>>>>>>>> Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
>>>>>>>>>>> system?
>>>>>>>>>> Behold the incredible analytical skills of TalkTennis posters:
>>>>>>>>>> "I bet the guy who created this is a Sampras fan."
>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's what I noticed there too.
>>>>>>>>> That's a second tennis discussion forum that laughs at 7543, but
>>>>>>>>> still the 4 or 5 people here think the whole world agrees with it.
>>>>>>>> There are people here who laugh at it too, but you guys are in the
>>>>>>>> tiny minority (< 5%) & of no consequence.
>>>>>>> Everyone in here except 4 or 5 people, and pretty much everyone in
>>>>>>> the other forum too of the posts I read.
>>>>>>>> The real world (made up of players
>>>>>>>> including Fed/Rafa) fully accepts the slams are not equal & have a
>>>>>>>> pecking order, with Wimbledon far out in front & AO 4th. It's only
>>>>>>>> newbies & the dim who think they are 1111 based on ATP points.
>>>>>>> I'd like to see when you ask Nadal "Rafa, don't you agree that
>>>>>>> Wimbledon is worth 7 points, and FO 4? And USO 5? And AO 3? You talk
>>>>>>> about that all the time with Roger, no?"
>>>>>> People might not agree about the points, or not even assign points
>>>>>> at all,
>>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>>>>> last 20 years?
>>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
>>>> people's
>>>> minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>>>
>>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You need
>>>>> to catch up.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is first
>>>>>> and the AO last.
>>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>>>>> anything else that matters.
>>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet that
>>>> Wimbledon would not come first?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Most prestigious ? yes.
>>>
>>> The best player in tennis always wins it ? no.
>>>
>>> When it comes to determining the "goat" it is the player who :
>>>
>>> 1. Wins the most slams across the most surfaces.
>>>
>>> Come up with a formula for that and you might have something !
>>>
>>> Like maybe 1111 plus an additional 1 for each time you win a HC slam
>>> matched by a clay court slam.
>>>
>>> In Borgs case that would be 11 + 5 or 16.
>>>
>>> In Sampras case that would be 14 + 0 or 14.
>>>
>>> So, Borg is the goat.
>>>
>>> I think this is fair as it demonstrates all surface greatness.
>>>
>>> The goat by definition can not be "lame" on any surface as Sampras was
>>> and especially the most populat most prominant surface in the sport
>>> !!!
>>
>> I kind of like this approach. Add something for being 3 surface
>> slammer and career slam. 1 and 2?
>>
>> Of course that is bad because of slammist approach, there should be
>> points for tms titles and Olympics too.
>> The difficulty would be telling tms level events from normal
>> tournaments - especially for the olden days.
>>
>
>
>
> Any formula has to make sense at some level & resonate with real world
> perceptions - eg absolutely nobody considers Wilander remotely near goat
> level, yet this 'all surface competence' would rate him probably goat or
> in very top echelon, a perception which doesn't exist in real world.
>
> I'm not surprised Hazel came up with this - he didn't even know Borg
> used 2-handed bh until recently.
>
>

Actually Borg didn't.

--
"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: 30 Dec 2008 08:10:37
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Any formula has to make sense at some level & resonate with real world
>> perceptions - eg absolutely nobody considers Wilander remotely near
>> goat level, yet this 'all surface competence' would rate him probably
>> goat or in very top echelon, a perception which doesn't exist in real
>> world.
>>
>> I'm not surprised Hazel came up with this - he didn't even know Borg
>> used 2-handed bh until recently.
>>
>>
>
> Actually Borg didn't.
>



Ever?



        
Date: 30 Dec 2008 00:54:16
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Any formula has to make sense at some level & resonate with real
>>> world perceptions - eg absolutely nobody considers Wilander remotely
>>> near goat level, yet this 'all surface competence' would rate him
>>> probably goat or in very top echelon, a perception which doesn't
>>> exist in real world.
>>>
>>> I'm not surprised Hazel came up with this - he didn't even know Borg
>>> used 2-handed bh until recently.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Actually Borg didn't.
>>
>
>
>
> Ever?
>

What? He did?

--
"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: 29 Dec 2008 13:49:12
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: PING: Mikko [Was: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...]
TT <gold@olympics.org > wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:35:35 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>> On Dec 29, 3:12 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:02:27 +1100, Whisper
>>>>>> <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:08:41 -0300, Javier Gonzalez
>>>>>>>> <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=236218
>>>>>>>>>> Some less than favourable reaction though:
>>>>>>>>>> "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>>>>>>>>>> "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from
>>>>>>>>>> his arse."
>>>>>>>>>> "It is a very absurd idea."
>>>>>>>>>> Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
>>>>>>>>>> system?
>>>>>>>>> Behold the incredible analytical skills of TalkTennis posters:
>>>>>>>>> "I bet the guy who created this is a Sampras fan."
>>>>>>>> Yes, that's what I noticed there too.
>>>>>>>> That's a second tennis discussion forum that laughs at 7543, but
>>>>>>>> still the 4 or 5 people here think the whole world agrees with it.
>>>>>>> There are people here who laugh at it too, but you guys are in the
>>>>>>> tiny minority (< 5%) & of no consequence.
>>>>>> Everyone in here except 4 or 5 people, and pretty much everyone in
>>>>>> the other forum too of the posts I read.
>>>>>>> The real world (made up of players
>>>>>>> including Fed/Rafa) fully accepts the slams are not equal & have a
>>>>>>> pecking order, with Wimbledon far out in front & AO 4th. It's only
>>>>>>> newbies & the dim who think they are 1111 based on ATP points.
>>>>>> I'd like to see when you ask Nadal "Rafa, don't you agree that
>>>>>> Wimbledon is worth 7 points, and FO 4? And USO 5? And AO 3? You talk
>>>>>> about that all the time with Roger, no?"
>>>>> People might not agree about the points, or not even assign points
>>>>> at all,
>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>>>> last 20 years?
>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately, people's
>>> minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>>
>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You need
>>>> to catch up.
>>>>
>>>>> but
>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is first
>>>>> and the AO last.
>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>>>> anything else that matters.
>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet that
>>> Wimbledon would not come first?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Most prestigious ? yes.
>>
>> The best player in tennis always wins it ? no.
>>
>> When it comes to determining the "goat" it is the player who :
>>
>> 1. Wins the most slams across the most surfaces.
>>
>> Come up with a formula for that and you might have something !
>>
>> Like maybe 1111 plus an additional 1 for each time you win a HC slam
>> matched by a clay court slam.
>>
>> In Borgs case that would be 11 + 5 or 16.
>>
>> In Sampras case that would be 14 + 0 or 14.
>>
>> So, Borg is the goat.
>>
>> I think this is fair as it demonstrates all surface greatness.
>>
>> The goat by definition can not be "lame" on any surface as Sampras was
>> and especially the most populat most prominant surface in the sport
>> !!!
>
> I kind of like this approach. Add something for being 3 surface slammer
> and career slam. 1 and 2?
>
> Of course that is bad because of slammist approach, there should be
> points for tms titles and Olympics too.
> The difficulty would be telling tms level events from normal tournaments
> - especially for the olden days.
>

Speaking of numeric formulas that take into account something other than slam
wins, Mikko, do you have an updated version of your chart?


     
Date: 29 Dec 2008 18:13:06
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:35:35 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>>> On Dec 29, 3:12 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:02:27 +1100, Whisper
>>>>>> <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:08:41 -0300, Javier Gonzalez
>>>>>>>> <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=236218
>>>>>>>>>> Some less than favourable reaction though:
>>>>>>>>>> "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>>>>>>>>>> "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from
>>>>>>>>>> his arse."
>>>>>>>>>> "It is a very absurd idea."
>>>>>>>>>> Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
>>>>>>>>>> system?
>>>>>>>>> Behold the incredible analytical skills of TalkTennis posters:
>>>>>>>>> "I bet the guy who created this is a Sampras fan."
>>>>>>>> Yes, that's what I noticed there too.
>>>>>>>> That's a second tennis discussion forum that laughs at 7543, but
>>>>>>>> still the 4 or 5 people here think the whole world agrees with it.
>>>>>>> There are people here who laugh at it too, but you guys are in the
>>>>>>> tiny minority (< 5%) & of no consequence.
>>>>>> Everyone in here except 4 or 5 people, and pretty much everyone in
>>>>>> the other forum too of the posts I read.
>>>>>>> The real world (made up of players
>>>>>>> including Fed/Rafa) fully accepts the slams are not equal & have a
>>>>>>> pecking order, with Wimbledon far out in front & AO 4th. It's only
>>>>>>> newbies & the dim who think they are 1111 based on ATP points.
>>>>>> I'd like to see when you ask Nadal "Rafa, don't you agree that
>>>>>> Wimbledon is worth 7 points, and FO 4? And USO 5? And AO 3? You talk
>>>>>> about that all the time with Roger, no?"
>>>>> People might not agree about the points, or not even assign points
>>>>> at all,
>>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>>>> last 20 years?
>>> No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately,
>>> people's
>>> minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>>
>>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You need
>>>> to catch up.
>>>>
>>>>> but
>>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is first
>>>>> and the AO last.
>>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>>>> anything else that matters.
>>> But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet that
>>> Wimbledon would not come first?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Most prestigious ? yes.
>>
>> The best player in tennis always wins it ? no.
>>
>> When it comes to determining the "goat" it is the player who :
>>
>> 1. Wins the most slams across the most surfaces.
>>
>> Come up with a formula for that and you might have something !
>>
>> Like maybe 1111 plus an additional 1 for each time you win a HC slam
>> matched by a clay court slam.
>>
>> In Borgs case that would be 11 + 5 or 16.
>>
>> In Sampras case that would be 14 + 0 or 14.
>>
>> So, Borg is the goat.
>>
>> I think this is fair as it demonstrates all surface greatness.
>>
>> The goat by definition can not be "lame" on any surface as Sampras was
>> and especially the most populat most prominant surface in the sport
>> !!!
>
> I kind of like this approach. Add something for being 3 surface slammer
> and career slam. 1 and 2?
>
> Of course that is bad because of slammist approach, there should be
> points for tms titles and Olympics too.
> The difficulty would be telling tms level events from normal tournaments
> - especially for the olden days.
>

And there could be point(s) for Grand Slam too.

--
"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: 29 Dec 2008 12:06:34
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:28:01 GMT, Dave Hazelwood
<the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com > wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:35:35 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided>
>wrote:
>
>>arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 29, 3:12 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:02:27 +1100, Whisper
>>>>> <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:08:41 -0300, Javier Gonzalez
>>>>>>> <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=236218
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some less than favourable reaction though:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from
>>>>>>>>> his arse."
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "It is a very absurd idea."
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
>>>>>>>>> system?
>>>>>>>> Behold the incredible analytical skills of TalkTennis posters:
>>>>>>>> "I bet the guy who created this is a Sampras fan."
>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, that's what I noticed there too.
>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a second tennis discussion forum that laughs at 7543, but
>>>>>>> still the 4 or 5 people here think the whole world agrees with it.
>>>>
>>>>>> There are people here who laugh at it too, but you guys are in the
>>>>>> tiny minority (< 5%) & of no consequence.
>>>>
>>>>> Everyone in here except 4 or 5 people, and pretty much everyone in
>>>>> the other forum too of the posts I read.
>>>>
>>>>>> The real world (made up of players
>>>>>> including Fed/Rafa) fully accepts the slams are not equal & have a
>>>>>> pecking order, with Wimbledon far out in front & AO 4th. It's only
>>>>>> newbies & the dim who think they are 1111 based on ATP points.
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to see when you ask Nadal "Rafa, don't you agree that
>>>>> Wimbledon is worth 7 points, and FO 4? And USO 5? And AO 3? You talk
>>>>> about that all the time with Roger, no?"
>>>>
>>>> People might not agree about the points, or not even assign points
>>>> at all,
>>>
>>> ATP has already agreed about the points and enforced them, and there
>>> have been a points-based ranking system in place for nearly 20 years
>>> now. What planet are you living in? Have you been sleeping for the
>>> last 20 years?
>>
>>No. Players and spectators don't agree with the ATP. Fortunately, people's
>>minds are not controlled by the ATP.
>>
>>> Italian Open used to be a "prestigious" tournament before the 1990s.
>>> What happened to it since? The tennis worldview has changed. You need
>>> to catch up.
>>>
>>>> but
>>>> the tennis world is pretty much in agreement that Wimbledon is first
>>>> and the AO last.
>>>
>>> Not reflected in ranking points awarded, tournament structure, or
>>> anything else that matters.
>>
>>But reflected in people's minds. Do a poll. Are you willing to bet that
>>Wimbledon would not come first?
>>
>>
>
>
>Most prestigious ? yes.
>
>The best player in tennis always wins it ? no.
>
>When it comes to determining the "goat" it is the player who :
>
>1. Wins the most slams across the most surfaces.
>
>Come up with a formula for that and you might have something !
>
>Like maybe 1111 plus an additional 1 for each time you win a HC slam
>matched by a clay court slam.
>
>In Borgs case that would be 11 + 5 or 16.
>
>In Sampras case that would be 14 + 0 or 14.
>
>So, Borg is the goat.
>
>I think this is fair as it demonstrates all surface greatness.
>
>The goat by definition can not be "lame" on any surface as Sampras was
>and especially the most populat most prominant surface in the sport
>!!!


BTW this formula also places Federer third with 13 + 0 or 13

Lendl would score 8 + 3 or 11

Wilander 7 + 3 or 10

Agassi would score 8 + 1 or 9

Connors would score 8 + 0 or 8

McEnroe would score 7 + 0 or 7

Edberg 6 + 0 or 6

Boris Becker 6 + 0 or 6

Rafa Nadal 5 + 1 or 6


So, there you have it. The top 10 open era:

1. Borg
2. Sampras
3. Federer
4. Lendl
5. Wilander
6. Agassi
7. Connors
8. McEnroe
9. Edberg
10. Becker and Nadal (tied)

I think this is a very accurate and respectible list for all
knowlegeable tennis afficianados excluding all fan fuckers
of course.

It rewards both total slam wins as well as all surface versatility.

I think most experts would have no problem with these rankings.
A whole lot more than could accept 7543 !


 
Date: 27 Dec 2008 11:13:13
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 27, 5:49=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7da472ea-2c1a-4f4f-8dc6-448dbcfae482@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 27, 10:51 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 1:51 am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
> > > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:c3e62f58-ff83-466c-b68d-dfb91d59f09e@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com=
...
> > > On Dec 26, 6:21 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
> > > > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:49f64fc6-f6c6-43e8-a103-daad1675beb2@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.c=
om...
> > > > On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
> > > > > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:2404431b-dc03-44fe-a9c3-535533403123@t39g2000prh.googlegroups=
.com...
> > > > > On Dec 25, 7:39 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > > > We are talking about tennis only here. IOW, all other things be=
ing
> > > > > > equal, the prestige of the titles you win determines your
> > > > > > marketability.
> > > > > > Try
> > > > > > to compare apples with apples.
>
> > > > > >You are contradicting yourself here. You say you are talking abo=
ut
> > > > > >only tennis. But it is clear that tennis has nothing to do with
> > > > > >prestige here. It's the venue that determines the prestige of a
> > > > > >tournament.
>
> > > > > >In other words, The Championships in Wimbledon is the most
> > > > > >prestigious
> > > > > >because it is staged in Wimbledon, London, England, the United
> > > > > >Kingdom. That's the only essential condition. The venue itself. =
It
> > > > > >has
> > > > > >nothing to do with tennis. The Championships of Wimbledon has be=
en
> > > > > >given, apparently by fiat, a permanent sovereignty over the most
> > > > > >prestigious tournament. Or so the Wimbledon people persistently
> > > > > >claim
> > > > > >as a marketing angle. The tradition self-perpetuates by repeatin=
g
> > > > > >the
> > > > > >same mantra over and over again. It's probably the longest runni=
ng
> > > > > >(benign) propaganda in tennis.
>
> > > > > >Don't get me wrong. I find it very charming, romantic, cute, etc=
.
> > > > > >But
> > > > > >the prestige of Wimbledon has very little to do with actual tenn=
is.
>
> > > > > If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other gra=
nd
> > > > > slam
> > > > > you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > >I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
> > > > >experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just=
a
> > > > >hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
> > > > >thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history,=
I
> > > > >also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
> > > > >capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years=
.
> > > > >My
> > > > >country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
> > > > >their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
> > > > >tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially cate=
red
> > > > >the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
> > > > >diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
> > > > >stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
> > > > >Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledo=
n
> > > > >displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it=
's
> > > > >the game of tennis that is that main thing.
>
> > > > you clearly are a hater with a very twisted view of history, the Br=
its
> > > > gave
> > > > an awful lot to your country and you know it - the railways, civil
> > > > service,
> > > > ended the thugee, modernised your army, democracy etc. If we're so
> > > > terrible
> > > > it's odd how so many of your countrymen made the journey over here =
and
> > > > live
> > > > here now. And by the way we got monuments thousands and thousands o=
f
> > > > years
> > > > old here too, but they don't really concern me when I'm watching
> > > > tennis, I
> > > > find it odd that that is the case with you, still at least this all
> > > > explains
> > > > your true reasons for disliking Wimbledon being the premier tennis
> > > > event.-
> > > > Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >You got it wrong. I don't dislike Wimbledon at all. Wimbledon has
> > > >offered, offers and will continue to offer some great tennis on gras=
s
> > > >for the viewers. I absolutely love this aspect of Wimbledon. It's a
> > > >slam, a major tournament on grass. It's very important and an integr=
al
> > > >part of any tennis fan's experience.
>
> > > >But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
> > > >tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
> > > >some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to som=
e
> > > >people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>
> > > No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event i=
n
> > > tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some idea o=
f
> > > this
> > > subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can yo=
u
> > > grasp
> > > that?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Not really. Is it because they play in whites? They sell more
> > memoribilia? Because players have to bow to British royalties? Could
> > you please describe what it is without sounding like a starry-eyed
> > romantic and purely in tennis terms? Do players play better tennis
> > there or something? Is it on a different ethereal plane than all other
> > tournaments? Do players seem to levitate as they are making shots? Do
> > they look like pristine, white angels? Do the rains make it more
> > heavenly, more charming, more romantic? What is it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> >I know. It must be the British received pronunciation, isn't it?
> >Sounds very royal, grand and Shakespearean, right?
>
> oh I'll give you a clue, go on web/youtube and take a look at the place,
> take a look at the tennis played there and what the top players say eg.Fe=
d &
> Nadal. Have a look on wiki and look up the history of the place. This may
> give you some vague idea. Now try to name a tenis venue in Asia that you =
can
> say the same about.- Hide quoted text -
>

I have read about Wimbledon's history. Nothing there suggests that its
so-called superior prestige is tied with the game of tennis as it is
played on the court. It's something else.

How is just calling Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament in the
world over and over again any different than calling one's religion or
one's own country the most superior one? How is it any different than
rabid patriotism, local myths, legends, folklore or religion? Does it
become true just by saying it over and over again?

The tennis played in Wimbledon doesn't look at all different to me
than other slams. The players volley the same way, hit groundstrokes
the same way, etc. There's nothing exceptional about it. It's just
another slam. On grass, and on a very charming suburban London area
where people pay a lot of attention to tennis heritage (just the
Wimbledon heritage; never see them play great FO, AO or USO matches,
of which I am sure there are just as many) and where commentators
never tire repeating how grand and quaint Wimbledon is evey 10
seconds. It's preening at an obsessive level. It seems quite shallow
to me honestly.

Tell me something, if you were having a conversation with some seller
and if he told you every 30 seconds how great his product is, what
would you think of him? You would think he is full of it. The same
thing with Wimbledon. The ads begin airing in May: "the pre-eminent
tennis tournament in the world", "the most prestigious tournament in
the world", etc. Then it rains for 4 days and matches are cancelled,
schedules are all messed up, and the tennis is not really anything out
of the ordinary, etc. and you think what on earth are these folks on
about? That was just cheap hawking.


  
Date: 28 Dec 2008 08:04:09
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:13:13 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
<arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Dec 27, 5:49 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>> "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7da472ea-2c1a-4f4f-8dc6-448dbcfae482@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 27, 10:51 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 27, 1:51 am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>
>> > > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:c3e62f58-ff83-466c-b68d-dfb91d59f09e@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
>> > > On Dec 26, 6:21 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>
>> > > > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > > >news:49f64fc6-f6c6-43e8-a103-daad1675beb2@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> > > > On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > > > >news:2404431b-dc03-44fe-a9c3-535533403123@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> > > > > On Dec 25, 7:39 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > We are talking about tennis only here. IOW, all other things being
>> > > > > > equal, the prestige of the titles you win determines your
>> > > > > > marketability.
>> > > > > > Try
>> > > > > > to compare apples with apples.
>>
>> > > > > >You are contradicting yourself here. You say you are talking about
>> > > > > >only tennis. But it is clear that tennis has nothing to do with
>> > > > > >prestige here. It's the venue that determines the prestige of a
>> > > > > >tournament.
>>
>> > > > > >In other words, The Championships in Wimbledon is the most
>> > > > > >prestigious
>> > > > > >because it is staged in Wimbledon, London, England, the United
>> > > > > >Kingdom. That's the only essential condition. The venue itself. It
>> > > > > >has
>> > > > > >nothing to do with tennis. The Championships of Wimbledon has been
>> > > > > >given, apparently by fiat, a permanent sovereignty over the most
>> > > > > >prestigious tournament. Or so the Wimbledon people persistently
>> > > > > >claim
>> > > > > >as a marketing angle. The tradition self-perpetuates by repeating
>> > > > > >the
>> > > > > >same mantra over and over again. It's probably the longest running
>> > > > > >(benign) propaganda in tennis.
>>
>> > > > > >Don't get me wrong. I find it very charming, romantic, cute, etc.
>> > > > > >But
>> > > > > >the prestige of Wimbledon has very little to do with actual tennis.
>>
>> > > > > If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand
>> > > > > slam
>> > > > > you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > >I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
>> > > > >experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
>> > > > >hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
>> > > > >thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
>> > > > >also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
>> > > > >capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years.
>> > > > >My
>> > > > >country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
>> > > > >their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
>> > > > >tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catered
>> > > > >the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
>> > > > >diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
>> > > > >stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
>> > > > >Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
>> > > > >displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
>> > > > >the game of tennis that is that main thing.
>>
>> > > > you clearly are a hater with a very twisted view of history, the Brits
>> > > > gave
>> > > > an awful lot to your country and you know it - the railways, civil
>> > > > service,
>> > > > ended the thugee, modernised your army, democracy etc. If we're so
>> > > > terrible
>> > > > it's odd how so many of your countrymen made the journey over here and
>> > > > live
>> > > > here now. And by the way we got monuments thousands and thousands of
>> > > > years
>> > > > old here too, but they don't really concern me when I'm watching
>> > > > tennis, I
>> > > > find it odd that that is the case with you, still at least this all
>> > > > explains
>> > > > your true reasons for disliking Wimbledon being the premier tennis
>> > > > event.-
>> > > > Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > >You got it wrong. I don't dislike Wimbledon at all. Wimbledon has
>> > > >offered, offers and will continue to offer some great tennis on grass
>> > > >for the viewers. I absolutely love this aspect of Wimbledon. It's a
>> > > >slam, a major tournament on grass. It's very important and an integral
>> > > >part of any tennis fan's experience.
>>
>> > > >But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
>> > > >tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>> > > >some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>> > > >people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>
>> > > No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event in
>> > > tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some idea of
>> > > this
>> > > subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you
>> > > grasp
>> > > that?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Not really. Is it because they play in whites? They sell more
>> > memoribilia? Because players have to bow to British royalties? Could
>> > you please describe what it is without sounding like a starry-eyed
>> > romantic and purely in tennis terms? Do players play better tennis
>> > there or something? Is it on a different ethereal plane than all other
>> > tournaments? Do players seem to levitate as they are making shots? Do
>> > they look like pristine, white angels? Do the rains make it more
>> > heavenly, more charming, more romantic? What is it?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >I know. It must be the British received pronunciation, isn't it?
>> >Sounds very royal, grand and Shakespearean, right?
>>
>> oh I'll give you a clue, go on web/youtube and take a look at the place,
>> take a look at the tennis played there and what the top players say eg.Fed &
>> Nadal. Have a look on wiki and look up the history of the place. This may
>> give you some vague idea. Now try to name a tenis venue in Asia that you can
>> say the same about.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>I have read about Wimbledon's history. Nothing there suggests that its
>so-called superior prestige is tied with the game of tennis as it is
>played on the court. It's something else.
>
>How is just calling Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament in the
>world over and over again any different than calling one's religion or
>one's own country the most superior one? How is it any different than
>rabid patriotism, local myths, legends, folklore or religion? Does it
>become true just by saying it over and over again?
>
>The tennis played in Wimbledon doesn't look at all different to me
>than other slams. The players volley the same way, hit groundstrokes
>the same way, etc. There's nothing exceptional about it. It's just
>another slam. On grass, and on a very charming suburban London area
>where people pay a lot of attention to tennis heritage (just the
>Wimbledon heritage; never see them play great FO, AO or USO matches,
>of which I am sure there are just as many) and where commentators
>never tire repeating how grand and quaint Wimbledon is evey 10
>seconds. It's preening at an obsessive level. It seems quite shallow
>to me honestly.
>
>Tell me something, if you were having a conversation with some seller
>and if he told you every 30 seconds how great his product is, what
>would you think of him? You would think he is full of it. The same
>thing with Wimbledon. The ads begin airing in May: "the pre-eminent
>tennis tournament in the world", "the most prestigious tournament in
>the world", etc. Then it rains for 4 days and matches are cancelled,
>schedules are all messed up, and the tennis is not really anything out
>of the ordinary, etc. and you think what on earth are these folks on
>about? That was just cheap hawking.


We all know that if Sampras had won 7 FO and 0 W Whisdpers world would
then be upside down.

Yeah yeah I know, Sampras is not even in his top five ...... and other
nauseating lies.


 
Date: 26 Dec 2008 20:53:21
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 27, 10:51=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 27, 1:51=A0am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:c3e62f58-ff83-466c-b68d-dfb91d59f09e@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Dec 26, 6:21 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
> > > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:49f64fc6-f6c6-43e8-a103-daad1675beb2@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com=
...
> > > On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
> > > > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:2404431b-dc03-44fe-a9c3-535533403123@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.c=
om...
> > > > On Dec 25, 7:39 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > > We are talking about tennis only here. IOW, all other things bein=
g
> > > > > equal, the prestige of the titles you win determines your
> > > > > marketability.
> > > > > Try
> > > > > to compare apples with apples.
>
> > > > >You are contradicting yourself here. You say you are talking about
> > > > >only tennis. But it is clear that tennis has nothing to do with
> > > > >prestige here. It's the venue that determines the prestige of a
> > > > >tournament.
>
> > > > >In other words, The Championships in Wimbledon is the most prestig=
ious
> > > > >because it is staged in Wimbledon, London, England, the United
> > > > >Kingdom. That's the only essential condition. The venue itself. It=
has
> > > > >nothing to do with tennis. The Championships of Wimbledon has been
> > > > >given, apparently by fiat, a permanent sovereignty over the most
> > > > >prestigious tournament. Or so the Wimbledon people persistently cl=
aim
> > > > >as a marketing angle. The tradition self-perpetuates by repeating =
the
> > > > >same mantra over and over again. It's probably the longest running
> > > > >(benign) propaganda in tennis.
>
> > > > >Don't get me wrong. I find it very charming, romantic, cute, etc. =
But
> > > > >the prestige of Wimbledon has very little to do with actual tennis=
.
>
> > > > If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand=
slam
> > > > you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
> > > >experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
> > > >hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
> > > >thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
> > > >also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
> > > >capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years. =
My
> > > >country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
> > > >their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
> > > >tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catere=
d
> > > >the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
> > > >diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
> > > >stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
> > > >Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
> > > >displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
> > > >the game of tennis that is that main thing.
>
> > > you clearly are a hater with a very twisted view of history, the Brit=
s
> > > gave
> > > an awful lot to your country and you know it - the railways, civil
> > > service,
> > > ended the thugee, modernised your army, democracy etc. If we're so
> > > terrible
> > > it's odd how so many of your countrymen made the journey over here an=
d
> > > live
> > > here now. And by the way we got monuments thousands and thousands of =
years
> > > old here too, but they don't really concern me when I'm watching tenn=
is, I
> > > find it odd that that is the case with you, still at least this all
> > > explains
> > > your true reasons for disliking Wimbledon being the premier tennis ev=
ent.-
> > > Hide quoted text -
>
> > >You got it wrong. I don't dislike Wimbledon at all. Wimbledon has
> > >offered, offers and will continue to offer some great tennis on grass
> > >for the viewers. I absolutely love this aspect of Wimbledon. It's a
> > >slam, a major tournament on grass. It's very important and an integral
> > >part of any tennis fan's experience.
>
> > >But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
> > >tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
> > >some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
> > >people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>
> > No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event in
> > tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some idea of =
this
> > subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you =
grasp
> > that?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Not really. Is it because they play in whites? They sell more
> memoribilia? Because players have to bow to British royalties? Could
> you please describe what it is without sounding like a starry-eyed
> romantic and purely in tennis terms? Do players play better tennis
> there or something? Is it on a different ethereal plane than all other
> tournaments? Do players seem to levitate as they are making shots? Do
> they look like pristine, white angels? Do the rains make it more
> heavenly, more charming, more romantic? What is it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I know. It must be the British received pronunciation, isn't it?
Sounds very royal, grand and Shakespearean, right?


  
Date: 27 Dec 2008 11:49:32
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:7da472ea-2c1a-4f4f-8dc6-448dbcfae482@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 27, 10:51 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 27, 1:51 am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:c3e62f58-ff83-466c-b68d-dfb91d59f09e@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 26, 6:21 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
> > > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:49f64fc6-f6c6-43e8-a103-daad1675beb2@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
> > > > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:2404431b-dc03-44fe-a9c3-535533403123@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Dec 25, 7:39 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > > We are talking about tennis only here. IOW, all other things being
> > > > > equal, the prestige of the titles you win determines your
> > > > > marketability.
> > > > > Try
> > > > > to compare apples with apples.
>
> > > > >You are contradicting yourself here. You say you are talking about
> > > > >only tennis. But it is clear that tennis has nothing to do with
> > > > >prestige here. It's the venue that determines the prestige of a
> > > > >tournament.
>
> > > > >In other words, The Championships in Wimbledon is the most
> > > > >prestigious
> > > > >because it is staged in Wimbledon, London, England, the United
> > > > >Kingdom. That's the only essential condition. The venue itself. It
> > > > >has
> > > > >nothing to do with tennis. The Championships of Wimbledon has been
> > > > >given, apparently by fiat, a permanent sovereignty over the most
> > > > >prestigious tournament. Or so the Wimbledon people persistently
> > > > >claim
> > > > >as a marketing angle. The tradition self-perpetuates by repeating
> > > > >the
> > > > >same mantra over and over again. It's probably the longest running
> > > > >(benign) propaganda in tennis.
>
> > > > >Don't get me wrong. I find it very charming, romantic, cute, etc.
> > > > >But
> > > > >the prestige of Wimbledon has very little to do with actual tennis.
>
> > > > If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand
> > > > slam
> > > > you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
> > > >experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
> > > >hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
> > > >thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
> > > >also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
> > > >capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years.
> > > >My
> > > >country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
> > > >their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
> > > >tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catered
> > > >the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
> > > >diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
> > > >stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
> > > >Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
> > > >displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
> > > >the game of tennis that is that main thing.
>
> > > you clearly are a hater with a very twisted view of history, the Brits
> > > gave
> > > an awful lot to your country and you know it - the railways, civil
> > > service,
> > > ended the thugee, modernised your army, democracy etc. If we're so
> > > terrible
> > > it's odd how so many of your countrymen made the journey over here and
> > > live
> > > here now. And by the way we got monuments thousands and thousands of
> > > years
> > > old here too, but they don't really concern me when I'm watching
> > > tennis, I
> > > find it odd that that is the case with you, still at least this all
> > > explains
> > > your true reasons for disliking Wimbledon being the premier tennis
> > > event.-
> > > Hide quoted text -
>
> > >You got it wrong. I don't dislike Wimbledon at all. Wimbledon has
> > >offered, offers and will continue to offer some great tennis on grass
> > >for the viewers. I absolutely love this aspect of Wimbledon. It's a
> > >slam, a major tournament on grass. It's very important and an integral
> > >part of any tennis fan's experience.
>
> > >But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
> > >tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
> > >some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
> > >people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>
> > No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event in
> > tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some idea of
> > this
> > subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you
> > grasp
> > that?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Not really. Is it because they play in whites? They sell more
> memoribilia? Because players have to bow to British royalties? Could
> you please describe what it is without sounding like a starry-eyed
> romantic and purely in tennis terms? Do players play better tennis
> there or something? Is it on a different ethereal plane than all other
> tournaments? Do players seem to levitate as they are making shots? Do
> they look like pristine, white angels? Do the rains make it more
> heavenly, more charming, more romantic? What is it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
>I know. It must be the British received pronunciation, isn't it?
>Sounds very royal, grand and Shakespearean, right?

oh I'll give you a clue, go on web/youtube and take a look at the place,
take a look at the tennis played there and what the top players say eg.Fed &
Nadal. Have a look on wiki and look up the history of the place. This may
give you some vague idea. Now try to name a tenis venue in Asia that you can
say the same about.




 
Date: 26 Dec 2008 20:51:33
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 27, 1:51=A0am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c3e62f58-ff83-466c-b68d-dfb91d59f09e@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 26, 6:21 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:49f64fc6-f6c6-43e8-a103-daad1675beb2@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
> > > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:2404431b-dc03-44fe-a9c3-535533403123@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com=
...
> > > On Dec 25, 7:39 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > We are talking about tennis only here. IOW, all other things being
> > > > equal, the prestige of the titles you win determines your
> > > > marketability.
> > > > Try
> > > > to compare apples with apples.
>
> > > >You are contradicting yourself here. You say you are talking about
> > > >only tennis. But it is clear that tennis has nothing to do with
> > > >prestige here. It's the venue that determines the prestige of a
> > > >tournament.
>
> > > >In other words, The Championships in Wimbledon is the most prestigio=
us
> > > >because it is staged in Wimbledon, London, England, the United
> > > >Kingdom. That's the only essential condition. The venue itself. It h=
as
> > > >nothing to do with tennis. The Championships of Wimbledon has been
> > > >given, apparently by fiat, a permanent sovereignty over the most
> > > >prestigious tournament. Or so the Wimbledon people persistently clai=
m
> > > >as a marketing angle. The tradition self-perpetuates by repeating th=
e
> > > >same mantra over and over again. It's probably the longest running
> > > >(benign) propaganda in tennis.
>
> > > >Don't get me wrong. I find it very charming, romantic, cute, etc. Bu=
t
> > > >the prestige of Wimbledon has very little to do with actual tennis.
>
> > > If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand s=
lam
> > > you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > >I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
> > >experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
> > >hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
> > >thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
> > >also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
> > >capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years. My
> > >country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
> > >their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
> > >tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catered
> > >the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
> > >diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
> > >stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
> > >Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
> > >displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
> > >the game of tennis that is that main thing.
>
> > you clearly are a hater with a very twisted view of history, the Brits
> > gave
> > an awful lot to your country and you know it - the railways, civil
> > service,
> > ended the thugee, modernised your army, democracy etc. If we're so
> > terrible
> > it's odd how so many of your countrymen made the journey over here and
> > live
> > here now. And by the way we got monuments thousands and thousands of ye=
ars
> > old here too, but they don't really concern me when I'm watching tennis=
, I
> > find it odd that that is the case with you, still at least this all
> > explains
> > your true reasons for disliking Wimbledon being the premier tennis even=
t.-
> > Hide quoted text -
>
> >You got it wrong. I don't dislike Wimbledon at all. Wimbledon has
> >offered, offers and will continue to offer some great tennis on grass
> >for the viewers. I absolutely love this aspect of Wimbledon. It's a
> >slam, a major tournament on grass. It's very important and an integral
> >part of any tennis fan's experience.
>
> >But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
> >tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
> >some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
> >people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>
> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event in
> tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some idea of th=
is
> subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you gr=
asp
> that?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Not really. Is it because they play in whites? They sell more
memoribilia? Because players have to bow to British royalties? Could
you please describe what it is without sounding like a starry-eyed
romantic and purely in tennis terms? Do players play better tennis
there or something? Is it on a different ethereal plane than all other
tournaments? Do players seem to levitate as they are making shots? Do
they look like pristine, white angels? Do the rains make it more
heavenly, more charming, more romantic? What is it?


  
Date: 27 Dec 2008 19:35:35
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event in
>> tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some idea of this
>> subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you grasp
>> that?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Not really. Is it because they play in whites? They sell more
> memoribilia? Because players have to bow to British royalties? Could
> you please describe what it is without sounding like a starry-eyed
> romantic and purely in tennis terms? Do players play better tennis
> there or something?


Newk said if you can't play your best tennis on centre court at
Wimbledon you couldn't play it anywhere.

Of course it's not about the quality of tennis (which usually is the
best anyway), but players hope to play their best where it means the
most - ie at Wimbledon.


   
Date: 27 Dec 2008 18:42:44
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event in
>>> tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some idea
>>> of this
>>> subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can
>>> you grasp
>>> that?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Not really. Is it because they play in whites? They sell more
>> memoribilia? Because players have to bow to British royalties? Could
>> you please describe what it is without sounding like a starry-eyed
>> romantic and purely in tennis terms? Do players play better tennis
>> there or something?
>
>
> Newk said if you can't play your best tennis on centre court at
> Wimbledon you couldn't play it anywhere.

Sounds like he wanted to tell us that since Wimbledon is least important
of the majors and if you can't make it there you sure are not going to
make it on important tournaments.

...Well that's not what he meant of course but that's what his statement
means.

Btw Newcombe played in different time, when Wimbledon indeed was most
important.


>
> Of course it's not about the quality of tennis (which usually is the
> best anyway), but players hope to play their best where it means the
> most - ie at Wimbledon.


--
"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: 27 Dec 2008 11:49:33
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:4955e8dc$0$15759$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event in
>>> tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some idea of
>>> this
>>> subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you
>>> grasp
>>> that?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Not really. Is it because they play in whites? They sell more
>> memoribilia? Because players have to bow to British royalties? Could
>> you please describe what it is without sounding like a starry-eyed
>> romantic and purely in tennis terms? Do players play better tennis
>> there or something?
>
>
> Newk said if you can't play your best tennis on centre court at Wimbledon
> you couldn't play it anywhere.
>
> Of course it's not about the quality of tennis (which usually is the best
> anyway), but players hope to play their best where it means the most - ie
> at Wimbledon.

yes, arnab and co missed the Wimbledon final, cos it wasn't prestigious
enough.




 
Date: 26 Dec 2008 20:28:27
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 27, 2:52=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
> > tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
> > some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
> > people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>
> Sure - but there will always be people who don't understand the game.

I understand the game very well. Tennis is a sport that can be played
anywhere on earth. Do you think Federer's or Samrpas's tennis talents
will just wither away if Wimbledon suddenly didn't exist anymore? I
understand many players and fans have a romantic attachment to
Wimbledon, but to say that somebody who doesn't have that kinda
romantic attachment doesn't understand the game of tennis is just
silly.


  
Date: 27 Dec 2008 19:29:53
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 27, 2:52 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>> Sure - but there will always be people who don't understand the game.
>
> I understand the game very well. Tennis is a sport that can be played
> anywhere on earth. Do you think Federer's or Samrpas's tennis talents
> will just wither away if Wimbledon suddenly didn't exist anymore? I
> understand many players and fans have a romantic attachment to
> Wimbledon, but to say that somebody who doesn't have that kinda
> romantic attachment doesn't understand the game of tennis is just
> silly.


It's a pretty fundamental thing. To say you don't understand Wimbledon
is most prestigious does say you don't understand the game very well.

If you were on 'Who wants to be a millionaire' & the million $ question
is 'What is the most prestigious tennis tournament?' you'd call a friend?



   
Date: 27 Dec 2008 18:57:05
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 2:52 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>> Sure - but there will always be people who don't understand the game.
>>
>> I understand the game very well. Tennis is a sport that can be played
>> anywhere on earth. Do you think Federer's or Samrpas's tennis talents
>> will just wither away if Wimbledon suddenly didn't exist anymore? I
>> understand many players and fans have a romantic attachment to
>> Wimbledon, but to say that somebody who doesn't have that kinda
>> romantic attachment doesn't understand the game of tennis is just
>> silly.
>
>
> It's a pretty fundamental thing. To say you don't understand Wimbledon
> is most prestigious does say you don't understand the game very well.
>
> If you were on 'Who wants to be a millionaire' & the million $ question
> is 'What is the most prestigious tennis tournament?' you'd call a friend?
>

Prestige is just a word, substance behind the word is just opinions.

--
"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: 27 Dec 2008 11:49:31
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:4955e787$0$15759$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 2:52 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>> Sure - but there will always be people who don't understand the game.
>>
>> I understand the game very well. Tennis is a sport that can be played
>> anywhere on earth. Do you think Federer's or Samrpas's tennis talents
>> will just wither away if Wimbledon suddenly didn't exist anymore? I
>> understand many players and fans have a romantic attachment to
>> Wimbledon, but to say that somebody who doesn't have that kinda
>> romantic attachment doesn't understand the game of tennis is just
>> silly.
>
>
> It's a pretty fundamental thing. To say you don't understand Wimbledon is
> most prestigious does say you don't understand the game very well.
>
> If you were on 'Who wants to be a millionaire' & the million $ question is
> 'What is the most prestigious tennis tournament?' you'd call a friend?

apparently some Asian tennis event is more prestigious and desirable these
days according to arnab, just wish he'd name it.




   
Date: 27 Dec 2008 18:28:41
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:29:53 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 2:52 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>> Sure - but there will always be people who don't understand the game.
>>
>> I understand the game very well. Tennis is a sport that can be played
>> anywhere on earth. Do you think Federer's or Samrpas's tennis talents
>> will just wither away if Wimbledon suddenly didn't exist anymore? I
>> understand many players and fans have a romantic attachment to
>> Wimbledon, but to say that somebody who doesn't have that kinda
>> romantic attachment doesn't understand the game of tennis is just
>> silly.
>
>
>It's a pretty fundamental thing. To say you don't understand Wimbledon
>is most prestigious does say you don't understand the game very well.
>
>If you were on 'Who wants to be a millionaire' & the million $ question
>is 'What is the most prestigious tennis tournament?' you'd call a friend?


Who wants to be a millionaire is a US show so what do you think ?


  
Date: 27 Dec 2008 12:52:51
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:28:27 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
<arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Dec 27, 2:52 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
>> > tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>> > some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>> > people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>
>> Sure - but there will always be people who don't understand the game.
>
>I understand the game very well. Tennis is a sport that can be played
>anywhere on earth. Do you think Federer's or Samrpas's tennis talents
>will just wither away if Wimbledon suddenly didn't exist anymore? I
>understand many players and fans have a romantic attachment to
>Wimbledon, but to say that somebody who doesn't have that kinda
>romantic attachment doesn't understand the game of tennis is just
>silly.


whisper doesn't understand the game at all. he thinks the game is all
serve and volley but tennis is much more than that. seems he's
"retarded" in that sense. perhaps he thinks swimming is all about the
"crawl" as well but it's not either. perhaps he thinks track is all
about the 100 meters but it's not either. guys like phelps and bolt
display a versility in there sport which are the mark of true
champions. the same is true for tennis and Federer is the best there
ever was at doing that. Federers game is far more all surface and far
more all ability than Sampras narrow twin surface SV game.

Sampras may be the best SV'er the game has ever known if you consider
SV to BE the game. But, the best tennis player of all time ? No way.
That honor goes to Roger Federer who can do more things on more
surfaces than anybody before him.


   
Date: 27 Dec 2008 11:49:51
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com > wrote in message
news:qecbl4pgqrvi4ljvut6ltvo9bujc68d5qs@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:28:27 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
> <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 27, 2:52 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> > But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
>>> > tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>>> > some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>>> > people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>
>>> Sure - but there will always be people who don't understand the game.
>>
>>I understand the game very well. Tennis is a sport that can be played
>>anywhere on earth. Do you think Federer's or Samrpas's tennis talents
>>will just wither away if Wimbledon suddenly didn't exist anymore? I
>>understand many players and fans have a romantic attachment to
>>Wimbledon, but to say that somebody who doesn't have that kinda
>>romantic attachment doesn't understand the game of tennis is just
>>silly.
>
>
> whisper doesn't understand the game at all. he thinks the game is all
> serve and volley but tennis is much more than that. seems he's
> "retarded" in that sense. perhaps he thinks swimming is all about the
> "crawl" as well but it's not either. perhaps he thinks track is all
> about the 100 meters but it's not either. guys like phelps and bolt
> display a versility in there sport which are the mark of true
> champions. the same is true for tennis and Federer is the best there
> ever was at doing that. Federers game is far more all surface and far
> more all ability than Sampras narrow twin surface SV game.
>
> Sampras may be the best SV'er the game has ever known if you consider
> SV to BE the game. But, the best tennis player of all time ? No way.
> That honor goes to Roger Federer who can do more things on more
> surfaces than anybody before him.

more "things", great non-romanticism there!




   
Date: 27 Dec 2008 19:57:10
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:28:27 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>
> whisper doesn't understand the game at all. he thinks the game is all
> serve and volley but tennis is much more than that. seems he's
> "retarded" in that sense. perhaps he thinks swimming is all about the
> "crawl" as well but it's not either. perhaps he thinks track is all
> about the 100 meters but it's not either. guys like phelps and bolt
> display a versility in there sport which are the mark of true
> champions. the same is true for tennis and Federer is the best there
> ever was at doing that. Federers game is far more all surface and far
> more all ability than Sampras narrow twin surface SV game.
>
> Sampras may be the best SV'er the game has ever known if you consider
> SV to BE the game. But, the best tennis player of all time ? No way.
> That honor goes to Roger Federer who can do more things on more
> surfaces than anybody before him.



I thought you said Borg was still greater than Fed you fucking cunt?



    
Date: 27 Dec 2008 18:27:02
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:57:10 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:28:27 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>>
>> whisper doesn't understand the game at all. he thinks the game is all
>> serve and volley but tennis is much more than that. seems he's
>> "retarded" in that sense. perhaps he thinks swimming is all about the
>> "crawl" as well but it's not either. perhaps he thinks track is all
>> about the 100 meters but it's not either. guys like phelps and bolt
>> display a versility in there sport which are the mark of true
>> champions. the same is true for tennis and Federer is the best there
>> ever was at doing that. Federers game is far more all surface and far
>> more all ability than Sampras narrow twin surface SV game.
>>
>> Sampras may be the best SV'er the game has ever known if you consider
>> SV to BE the game. But, the best tennis player of all time ? No way.
>> That honor goes to Roger Federer who can do more things on more
>> surfaces than anybody before him.
>
>
>
>I thought you said Borg was still greater than Fed you fucking cunt?


You didn't get the email update ?


 
Date: 26 Dec 2008 20:24:12
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 27, 2:49=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Not really. I am saying something much more profound. The prestige
> > thing in tennis developed as a completely localized phenomenon in the
> > West. Since the late 1990s, the game has become global and the
> > prestige norms developed in the West in the past century don't apply
> > any more. Tennis is not a Western sport any more.
>
> You are not saying anything profound at all - you are talking
> nonsense. Wimbledon has prestige because that is where things started,
> whether you like it or not. The history of tennis does not change
> because the game has become more global. This history of the game
> stays the same regardless - that's why it's called history.
>

Wimbledon is not where tennis "started". Tennis started much before,
as Court Tennis, in France, an indoor sport. There were hundred of
these in Paris. Then British aristocrats imported it in England, took
it outdoors and called it Lawn Tennis. It's not as if people in
Wimbledon sat down in 1870s and decided "Let there be tennis" and then
poof! it appeared out of zero. These things are not clear cut. The
British championships started in late 1870s, then a few years after
came the US, a decade later came the French, and at the turn of the
century came the Australasian championships.

England is also where football, as we know it now, started. Does this
mean the football world cup staged in England is more prestigious of
all football world cups? No.

England is also where cricket started. Does this mean the world cup
1993 won in Australia is less prestigious than the ones staged in
England? No.

> > > You have to use facts to make your case. =A0Start by explaining why t=
he
> > > official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the great
> > > players including Fed & Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > You are missing the point. That prestige means nothing outside the
> > bubble of Western sphere and media. England, France, and other
> > European countries have their own monarchies and cute little
> > traditions and it's a big thing in the Western world only. Outside the
> > Western world, it means nothing. Tennis is a sport that has recently
> > gone global. Wimbledon's prestige has nothing to do with this global
> > tennis. It's an anachronism.
>
> I'm struggling to ignore this drivel, but what do you think is the
> most prestigious tournament in the world then? It can't be any of the
> slams since these originated from colonial imperialists, right? Maybe
> it's the Shanghai Masters, but hasn't that just lost its event back to
> London (those damn Brits stealing it back again)? Or the China Open?
> What about that tournament in Bangkok?
>

Don't be silly. As of now, there are four most prestigious tennis
tournaments in the world, the four major championships, which stand
apart from the lesser tournaments in terms draw, format, duration and
ranking points awarded. The four pillars of tennis. This is how it
stands now. It may change in the future. Who knows?

The point is Wimbledon's superior prestige is overrated.

> > The only way Wimbledon can retain its prestige now is by offering
> > superior facilities, more money, etc. That is, offering more tangible
> > values to the new, global customer base. If for some reason Wimbledon
> > were the poorest slam in terms of facilities and stadiums, etc, its
> > stock would plummet quite sharply in this era.
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about. Prestige is nothing to do
> with facilities or prize money, if that were the case then the AO or
> USO could claim to be the most prestigious tournaments. Why is
> Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament in the world? Answer:
> because it is.

I am afraid it is not a good enough answer for me. It sounds like a
semi-religious answer. This is no better than Whimpy incessantly
claiming Mac is the talent goat or Sampras is the ability goat. You
ask Whimpy why Mac is the "talent goat"? And in the final analysis he
will answer because he feels that Mac just is. You ask him why Sampras
is the "ability goat" and he will reply "because he is". It's a
constant in his private fantasy. Everything must be bent around it.

IMO, today, AO and USO are just as prestigious as Wimbledon. So is FO.
Wimbledon's prestige is overrated. It's kind of like a religious
belief that has self-perpetuated over the century, to the point that
if anyone questions the merit of its prestige, he is answered
something along the lines of "because it is". It's a cult.


  
Date: 29 Dec 2008 20:31:00
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 27, 2:49 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Not really. I am saying something much more profound. The prestige
>>> thing in tennis developed as a completely localized phenomenon in
>>> the West. Since the late 1990s, the game has become global and the
>>> prestige norms developed in the West in the past century don't apply
>>> any more. Tennis is not a Western sport any more.
>>
>> You are not saying anything profound at all - you are talking
>> nonsense. Wimbledon has prestige because that is where things
>> started, whether you like it or not. The history of tennis does not
>> change because the game has become more global. This history of the
>> game stays the same regardless - that's why it's called history.
>>
>
> Wimbledon is not where tennis "started". Tennis started much before,
> as Court Tennis, in France, an indoor sport. There were hundred of
> these in Paris. Then British aristocrats imported it in England, took
> it outdoors and called it Lawn Tennis. It's not as if people in
> Wimbledon sat down in 1870s and decided "Let there be tennis" and then
> poof! it appeared out of zero. These things are not clear cut. The
> British championships started in late 1870s, then a few years after
> came the US, a decade later came the French, and at the turn of the
> century came the Australasian championships.
>
> England is also where football, as we know it now, started. Does this
> mean the football world cup staged in England is more prestigious of
> all football world cups? No.
>
> England is also where cricket started. Does this mean the world cup
> 1993 won in Australia is less prestigious than the ones staged in
> England? No.
>
>>>> You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why
>>>> the official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the
>>>> great players including Fed & Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> You are missing the point. That prestige means nothing outside the
>>> bubble of Western sphere and media. England, France, and other
>>> European countries have their own monarchies and cute little
>>> traditions and it's a big thing in the Western world only. Outside
>>> the Western world, it means nothing. Tennis is a sport that has
>>> recently gone global. Wimbledon's prestige has nothing to do with
>>> this global tennis. It's an anachronism.
>>
>> I'm struggling to ignore this drivel, but what do you think is the
>> most prestigious tournament in the world then? It can't be any of the
>> slams since these originated from colonial imperialists, right? Maybe
>> it's the Shanghai Masters, but hasn't that just lost its event back
>> to London (those damn Brits stealing it back again)? Or the China
>> Open? What about that tournament in Bangkok?
>>
>
> Don't be silly. As of now, there are four most prestigious tennis
> tournaments in the world, the four major championships, which stand
> apart from the lesser tournaments in terms draw, format, duration and
> ranking points awarded. The four pillars of tennis. This is how it
> stands now. It may change in the future. Who knows?
>
> The point is Wimbledon's superior prestige is overrated.

That makes no sense. By definition, the prestige of something is how people
rate it. Prestige exists nowhere except in people's minds. Furthermore, more
than just about anything else, prestige is communal. It is decided by the
masses. I only rate Wimbledon first because it was obviously already rated
first by the vast majority of players, spectators and the press before me. I
only care because others do. For example, winning the World Cup is important to
each Italian because he knows that it's important to most other Italians. What
would be the point of a lone Italian celebrating something that no one else
cares about? Your arguments about the British Empire and your other desperate
efforts to dismiss the prestige of Wimbledon are irrelevant. For whatever
reasons, and they really don't matter, Wimbledon is the most highly prized
title in tennis. It just doesn't make sense for a spectator of a sport to have
a different view of prestige than the actual participants.





   
Date: 29 Dec 2008 11:17:40
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:31:00 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided >
wrote:

>arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 2:49 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> Not really. I am saying something much more profound. The prestige
>>>> thing in tennis developed as a completely localized phenomenon in
>>>> the West. Since the late 1990s, the game has become global and the
>>>> prestige norms developed in the West in the past century don't apply
>>>> any more. Tennis is not a Western sport any more.
>>>
>>> You are not saying anything profound at all - you are talking
>>> nonsense. Wimbledon has prestige because that is where things
>>> started, whether you like it or not. The history of tennis does not
>>> change because the game has become more global. This history of the
>>> game stays the same regardless - that's why it's called history.
>>>
>>
>> Wimbledon is not where tennis "started". Tennis started much before,
>> as Court Tennis, in France, an indoor sport. There were hundred of
>> these in Paris. Then British aristocrats imported it in England, took
>> it outdoors and called it Lawn Tennis. It's not as if people in
>> Wimbledon sat down in 1870s and decided "Let there be tennis" and then
>> poof! it appeared out of zero. These things are not clear cut. The
>> British championships started in late 1870s, then a few years after
>> came the US, a decade later came the French, and at the turn of the
>> century came the Australasian championships.
>>
>> England is also where football, as we know it now, started. Does this
>> mean the football world cup staged in England is more prestigious of
>> all football world cups? No.
>>
>> England is also where cricket started. Does this mean the world cup
>> 1993 won in Australia is less prestigious than the ones staged in
>> England? No.
>>
>>>>> You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why
>>>>> the official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the
>>>>> great players including Fed & Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>> You are missing the point. That prestige means nothing outside the
>>>> bubble of Western sphere and media. England, France, and other
>>>> European countries have their own monarchies and cute little
>>>> traditions and it's a big thing in the Western world only. Outside
>>>> the Western world, it means nothing. Tennis is a sport that has
>>>> recently gone global. Wimbledon's prestige has nothing to do with
>>>> this global tennis. It's an anachronism.
>>>
>>> I'm struggling to ignore this drivel, but what do you think is the
>>> most prestigious tournament in the world then? It can't be any of the
>>> slams since these originated from colonial imperialists, right? Maybe
>>> it's the Shanghai Masters, but hasn't that just lost its event back
>>> to London (those damn Brits stealing it back again)? Or the China
>>> Open? What about that tournament in Bangkok?
>>>
>>
>> Don't be silly. As of now, there are four most prestigious tennis
>> tournaments in the world, the four major championships, which stand
>> apart from the lesser tournaments in terms draw, format, duration and
>> ranking points awarded. The four pillars of tennis. This is how it
>> stands now. It may change in the future. Who knows?
>>
>> The point is Wimbledon's superior prestige is overrated.
>
>That makes no sense. By definition, the prestige of something is how people
>rate it. Prestige exists nowhere except in people's minds. Furthermore, more
>than just about anything else, prestige is communal. It is decided by the
>masses. I only rate Wimbledon first because it was obviously already rated
>first by the vast majority of players, spectators and the press before me. I
>only care because others do. For example, winning the World Cup is important to
>each Italian because he knows that it's important to most other Italians. What
>would be the point of a lone Italian celebrating something that no one else
>cares about? Your arguments about the British Empire and your other desperate
>efforts to dismiss the prestige of Wimbledon are irrelevant. For whatever
>reasons, and they really don't matter, Wimbledon is the most highly prized
>title in tennis. It just doesn't make sense for a spectator of a sport to have
>a different view of prestige than the actual participants.
>
>


It may be the most highly prized title in tennis but that does not
mean the player who wins it the most time is the best player in the
sport.

I consider Borg who won it 5X in a row better than Sampras because
Borg also won the FO 6X (extreme opposite surfaces) and Sampras
could not win the FO or make a final even once.

My opinion is that Borg is the :

1. Overall goat
2. Clay Court goat

and Federer is the :

1. Hard Court goat

while Sampras is the :

1. No court goat who couldn't be arsed


    
Date: 30 Jan 2009 08:20:06
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:31:00 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided>
> wrote:
>
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 27, 2:49 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Not really. I am saying something much more profound. The prestige
>>>>> thing in tennis developed as a completely localized phenomenon in
>>>>> the West. Since the late 1990s, the game has become global and the
>>>>> prestige norms developed in the West in the past century don't
>>>>> apply any more. Tennis is not a Western sport any more.
>>>>
>>>> You are not saying anything profound at all - you are talking
>>>> nonsense. Wimbledon has prestige because that is where things
>>>> started, whether you like it or not. The history of tennis does not
>>>> change because the game has become more global. This history of the
>>>> game stays the same regardless - that's why it's called history.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wimbledon is not where tennis "started". Tennis started much before,
>>> as Court Tennis, in France, an indoor sport. There were hundred of
>>> these in Paris. Then British aristocrats imported it in England,
>>> took it outdoors and called it Lawn Tennis. It's not as if people in
>>> Wimbledon sat down in 1870s and decided "Let there be tennis" and
>>> then poof! it appeared out of zero. These things are not clear cut.
>>> The British championships started in late 1870s, then a few years
>>> after came the US, a decade later came the French, and at the turn
>>> of the century came the Australasian championships.
>>>
>>> England is also where football, as we know it now, started. Does
>>> this mean the football world cup staged in England is more
>>> prestigious of all football world cups? No.
>>>
>>> England is also where cricket started. Does this mean the world cup
>>> 1993 won in Australia is less prestigious than the ones staged in
>>> England? No.
>>>
>>>>>> You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why
>>>>>> the official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all
>>>>>> the great players including Fed & Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>> You are missing the point. That prestige means nothing outside the
>>>>> bubble of Western sphere and media. England, France, and other
>>>>> European countries have their own monarchies and cute little
>>>>> traditions and it's a big thing in the Western world only. Outside
>>>>> the Western world, it means nothing. Tennis is a sport that has
>>>>> recently gone global. Wimbledon's prestige has nothing to do with
>>>>> this global tennis. It's an anachronism.
>>>>
>>>> I'm struggling to ignore this drivel, but what do you think is the
>>>> most prestigious tournament in the world then? It can't be any of
>>>> the slams since these originated from colonial imperialists,
>>>> right? Maybe it's the Shanghai Masters, but hasn't that just lost
>>>> its event back to London (those damn Brits stealing it back
>>>> again)? Or the China Open? What about that tournament in Bangkok?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Don't be silly. As of now, there are four most prestigious tennis
>>> tournaments in the world, the four major championships, which stand
>>> apart from the lesser tournaments in terms draw, format, duration
>>> and ranking points awarded. The four pillars of tennis. This is how
>>> it stands now. It may change in the future. Who knows?
>>>
>>> The point is Wimbledon's superior prestige is overrated.
>>
>> That makes no sense. By definition, the prestige of something is how
>> people rate it. Prestige exists nowhere except in people's minds.
>> Furthermore, more than just about anything else, prestige is
>> communal. It is decided by the masses. I only rate Wimbledon first
>> because it was obviously already rated first by the vast majority of
>> players, spectators and the press before me. I only care because
>> others do. For example, winning the World Cup is important to each
>> Italian because he knows that it's important to most other Italians.
>> What would be the point of a lone Italian celebrating something that
>> no one else cares about? Your arguments about the British Empire and
>> your other desperate efforts to dismiss the prestige of Wimbledon
>> are irrelevant. For whatever reasons, and they really don't matter,
>> Wimbledon is the most highly prized title in tennis. It just doesn't
>> make sense for a spectator of a sport to have a different view of
>> prestige than the actual participants.
>>
>>
>
>
> It may be the most highly prized title in tennis but that does not
> mean the player who wins it the most time is the best player in the
> sport.

People aren't interested in the best player in the sport. They are interested
in the _greatest_ player in the sport, and that is the one with the most
prestigious titles.





  
Date: 27 Dec 2008 12:31:25
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:24:12 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
<arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Dec 27, 2:49 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > Not really. I am saying something much more profound. The prestige
>> > thing in tennis developed as a completely localized phenomenon in the
>> > West. Since the late 1990s, the game has become global and the
>> > prestige norms developed in the West in the past century don't apply
>> > any more. Tennis is not a Western sport any more.
>>
>> You are not saying anything profound at all - you are talking
>> nonsense. Wimbledon has prestige because that is where things started,
>> whether you like it or not. The history of tennis does not change
>> because the game has become more global. This history of the game
>> stays the same regardless - that's why it's called history.
>>
>
>Wimbledon is not where tennis "started". Tennis started much before,
>as Court Tennis, in France, an indoor sport. There were hundred of
>these in Paris. Then British aristocrats imported it in England, took
>it outdoors and called it Lawn Tennis. It's not as if people in
>Wimbledon sat down in 1870s and decided "Let there be tennis" and then
>poof! it appeared out of zero. These things are not clear cut. The
>British championships started in late 1870s, then a few years after
>came the US, a decade later came the French, and at the turn of the
>century came the Australasian championships.
>
>England is also where football, as we know it now, started. Does this
>mean the football world cup staged in England is more prestigious of
>all football world cups? No.
>
>England is also where cricket started. Does this mean the world cup
>1993 won in Australia is less prestigious than the ones staged in
>England? No.
>
>> > > You have to use facts to make your case.  Start by explaining why the
>> > > official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the great
>> > > players including Fed & Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > You are missing the point. That prestige means nothing outside the
>> > bubble of Western sphere and media. England, France, and other
>> > European countries have their own monarchies and cute little
>> > traditions and it's a big thing in the Western world only. Outside the
>> > Western world, it means nothing. Tennis is a sport that has recently
>> > gone global. Wimbledon's prestige has nothing to do with this global
>> > tennis. It's an anachronism.
>>
>> I'm struggling to ignore this drivel, but what do you think is the
>> most prestigious tournament in the world then? It can't be any of the
>> slams since these originated from colonial imperialists, right? Maybe
>> it's the Shanghai Masters, but hasn't that just lost its event back to
>> London (those damn Brits stealing it back again)? Or the China Open?
>> What about that tournament in Bangkok?
>>
>
>Don't be silly. As of now, there are four most prestigious tennis
>tournaments in the world, the four major championships, which stand
>apart from the lesser tournaments in terms draw, format, duration and
>ranking points awarded. The four pillars of tennis. This is how it
>stands now. It may change in the future. Who knows?
>
>The point is Wimbledon's superior prestige is overrated.
>
>> > The only way Wimbledon can retain its prestige now is by offering
>> > superior facilities, more money, etc. That is, offering more tangible
>> > values to the new, global customer base. If for some reason Wimbledon
>> > were the poorest slam in terms of facilities and stadiums, etc, its
>> > stock would plummet quite sharply in this era.
>>
>> You have no idea what you are talking about. Prestige is nothing to do
>> with facilities or prize money, if that were the case then the AO or
>> USO could claim to be the most prestigious tournaments. Why is
>> Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament in the world? Answer:
>> because it is.
>
>I am afraid it is not a good enough answer for me. It sounds like a
>semi-religious answer. This is no better than Whimpy incessantly
>claiming Mac is the talent goat or Sampras is the ability goat. You
>ask Whimpy why Mac is the "talent goat"? And in the final analysis he
>will answer because he feels that Mac just is. You ask him why Sampras
>is the "ability goat" and he will reply "because he is". It's a
>constant in his private fantasy. Everything must be bent around it.
>
>IMO, today, AO and USO are just as prestigious as Wimbledon. So is FO.
>Wimbledon's prestige is overrated. It's kind of like a religious
>belief that has self-perpetuated over the century, to the point that
>if anyone questions the merit of its prestige, he is answered
>something along the lines of "because it is". It's a cult.


I think they are all prestigious in their own individual way with none
being any better than another - just different primarily because of
the surface. The ATP has it right with 1111.

The best players win on ALL surfaces and the best example of that is
Roger Federer. Although he didn't win the French (yet) he would have
if not for the second greatest clay courter of all time in his way.
Having made 3 finals he is eons beyond Sampras and overall is the best
all surface player the world has ever known.


   
Date: 27 Dec 2008 19:32:10
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> The best players win on ALL surfaces and the best example of that is
> Roger Federer. Although he didn't win the French (yet) he would have
> if not for the second greatest clay courter of all time in his way.
> Having made 3 finals he is eons beyond Sampras and overall is the best
> all surface player the world has ever known.



...without a complete game (ie volley/net).



    
Date: 27 Dec 2008 18:28:49
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> The best players win on ALL surfaces and the best example of that is
>> Roger Federer. Although he didn't win the French (yet) he would have
>> if not for the second greatest clay courter of all time in his way.
>> Having made 3 finals he is eons beyond Sampras and overall is the best
>> all surface player the world has ever known.
>
>
>
> ...without a complete game (ie volley/net).
>

His volley is good enough to be best overall player. It's his groundgame
that's erratic depending on a day. Some days it just is that bad that he
can lose to Ramirez-Hidalgo.

Every 3rd match he plays great, on other two either his backhand sucks
or forehand breaks down. Sometimes even both. He gets away with it by
serving well, slicing a lot, defending great and opponent choking.

--
"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: 27 Dec 2008 19:31:06
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:24:12 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
> <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 27, 2:49 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> Not really. I am saying something much more profound. The prestige
>>>> thing in tennis developed as a completely localized phenomenon in the
>>>> West. Since the late 1990s, the game has become global and the
>>>> prestige norms developed in the West in the past century don't apply
>>>> any more. Tennis is not a Western sport any more.
>>> You are not saying anything profound at all - you are talking
>>> nonsense. Wimbledon has prestige because that is where things started,
>>> whether you like it or not. The history of tennis does not change
>>> because the game has become more global. This history of the game
>>> stays the same regardless - that's why it's called history.
>>>
>> Wimbledon is not where tennis "started". Tennis started much before,
>> as Court Tennis, in France, an indoor sport. There were hundred of
>> these in Paris. Then British aristocrats imported it in England, took
>> it outdoors and called it Lawn Tennis. It's not as if people in
>> Wimbledon sat down in 1870s and decided "Let there be tennis" and then
>> poof! it appeared out of zero. These things are not clear cut. The
>> British championships started in late 1870s, then a few years after
>> came the US, a decade later came the French, and at the turn of the
>> century came the Australasian championships.
>>
>> England is also where football, as we know it now, started. Does this
>> mean the football world cup staged in England is more prestigious of
>> all football world cups? No.
>>
>> England is also where cricket started. Does this mean the world cup
>> 1993 won in Australia is less prestigious than the ones staged in
>> England? No.
>>
>>>>> You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why the
>>>>> official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the great
>>>>> players including Fed & Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> You are missing the point. That prestige means nothing outside the
>>>> bubble of Western sphere and media. England, France, and other
>>>> European countries have their own monarchies and cute little
>>>> traditions and it's a big thing in the Western world only. Outside the
>>>> Western world, it means nothing. Tennis is a sport that has recently
>>>> gone global. Wimbledon's prestige has nothing to do with this global
>>>> tennis. It's an anachronism.
>>> I'm struggling to ignore this drivel, but what do you think is the
>>> most prestigious tournament in the world then? It can't be any of the
>>> slams since these originated from colonial imperialists, right? Maybe
>>> it's the Shanghai Masters, but hasn't that just lost its event back to
>>> London (those damn Brits stealing it back again)? Or the China Open?
>>> What about that tournament in Bangkok?
>>>
>> Don't be silly. As of now, there are four most prestigious tennis
>> tournaments in the world, the four major championships, which stand
>> apart from the lesser tournaments in terms draw, format, duration and
>> ranking points awarded. The four pillars of tennis. This is how it
>> stands now. It may change in the future. Who knows?
>>
>> The point is Wimbledon's superior prestige is overrated.
>>
>>>> The only way Wimbledon can retain its prestige now is by offering
>>>> superior facilities, more money, etc. That is, offering more tangible
>>>> values to the new, global customer base. If for some reason Wimbledon
>>>> were the poorest slam in terms of facilities and stadiums, etc, its
>>>> stock would plummet quite sharply in this era.
>>> You have no idea what you are talking about. Prestige is nothing to do
>>> with facilities or prize money, if that were the case then the AO or
>>> USO could claim to be the most prestigious tournaments. Why is
>>> Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament in the world? Answer:
>>> because it is.
>> I am afraid it is not a good enough answer for me. It sounds like a
>> semi-religious answer. This is no better than Whimpy incessantly
>> claiming Mac is the talent goat or Sampras is the ability goat. You
>> ask Whimpy why Mac is the "talent goat"? And in the final analysis he
>> will answer because he feels that Mac just is. You ask him why Sampras
>> is the "ability goat" and he will reply "because he is". It's a
>> constant in his private fantasy. Everything must be bent around it.
>>
>> IMO, today, AO and USO are just as prestigious as Wimbledon. So is FO.
>> Wimbledon's prestige is overrated. It's kind of like a religious
>> belief that has self-perpetuated over the century, to the point that
>> if anyone questions the merit of its prestige, he is answered
>> something along the lines of "because it is". It's a cult.
>
>
> I think they are all prestigious in their own individual way


So does everyone.

You'll note it's 7543 & not just 7.


   
Date: 27 Dec 2008 09:17:52
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com > wrote in message
news:blbbl496u4c2qj04m78tbvnbj0vbnodv7u@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:24:12 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
> <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 27, 2:49 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> > Not really. I am saying something much more profound. The prestige
>>> > thing in tennis developed as a completely localized phenomenon in the
>>> > West. Since the late 1990s, the game has become global and the
>>> > prestige norms developed in the West in the past century don't apply
>>> > any more. Tennis is not a Western sport any more.
>>>
>>> You are not saying anything profound at all - you are talking
>>> nonsense. Wimbledon has prestige because that is where things started,
>>> whether you like it or not. The history of tennis does not change
>>> because the game has become more global. This history of the game
>>> stays the same regardless - that's why it's called history.
>>>
>>
>>Wimbledon is not where tennis "started". Tennis started much before,
>>as Court Tennis, in France, an indoor sport. There were hundred of
>>these in Paris. Then British aristocrats imported it in England, took
>>it outdoors and called it Lawn Tennis. It's not as if people in
>>Wimbledon sat down in 1870s and decided "Let there be tennis" and then
>>poof! it appeared out of zero. These things are not clear cut. The
>>British championships started in late 1870s, then a few years after
>>came the US, a decade later came the French, and at the turn of the
>>century came the Australasian championships.
>>
>>England is also where football, as we know it now, started. Does this
>>mean the football world cup staged in England is more prestigious of
>>all football world cups? No.
>>
>>England is also where cricket started. Does this mean the world cup
>>1993 won in Australia is less prestigious than the ones staged in
>>England? No.
>>
>>> > > You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why the
>>> > > official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the great
>>> > > players including Fed & Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> > You are missing the point. That prestige means nothing outside the
>>> > bubble of Western sphere and media. England, France, and other
>>> > European countries have their own monarchies and cute little
>>> > traditions and it's a big thing in the Western world only. Outside the
>>> > Western world, it means nothing. Tennis is a sport that has recently
>>> > gone global. Wimbledon's prestige has nothing to do with this global
>>> > tennis. It's an anachronism.
>>>
>>> I'm struggling to ignore this drivel, but what do you think is the
>>> most prestigious tournament in the world then? It can't be any of the
>>> slams since these originated from colonial imperialists, right? Maybe
>>> it's the Shanghai Masters, but hasn't that just lost its event back to
>>> London (those damn Brits stealing it back again)? Or the China Open?
>>> What about that tournament in Bangkok?
>>>
>>
>>Don't be silly. As of now, there are four most prestigious tennis
>>tournaments in the world, the four major championships, which stand
>>apart from the lesser tournaments in terms draw, format, duration and
>>ranking points awarded. The four pillars of tennis. This is how it
>>stands now. It may change in the future. Who knows?
>>
>>The point is Wimbledon's superior prestige is overrated.
>>
>>> > The only way Wimbledon can retain its prestige now is by offering
>>> > superior facilities, more money, etc. That is, offering more tangible
>>> > values to the new, global customer base. If for some reason Wimbledon
>>> > were the poorest slam in terms of facilities and stadiums, etc, its
>>> > stock would plummet quite sharply in this era.
>>>
>>> You have no idea what you are talking about. Prestige is nothing to do
>>> with facilities or prize money, if that were the case then the AO or
>>> USO could claim to be the most prestigious tournaments. Why is
>>> Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament in the world? Answer:
>>> because it is.
>>
>>I am afraid it is not a good enough answer for me. It sounds like a
>>semi-religious answer. This is no better than Whimpy incessantly
>>claiming Mac is the talent goat or Sampras is the ability goat. You
>>ask Whimpy why Mac is the "talent goat"? And in the final analysis he
>>will answer because he feels that Mac just is. You ask him why Sampras
>>is the "ability goat" and he will reply "because he is". It's a
>>constant in his private fantasy. Everything must be bent around it.
>>
>>IMO, today, AO and USO are just as prestigious as Wimbledon. So is FO.
>>Wimbledon's prestige is overrated. It's kind of like a religious
>>belief that has self-perpetuated over the century, to the point that
>>if anyone questions the merit of its prestige, he is answered
>>something along the lines of "because it is". It's a cult.
>
>
> I think they are all prestigious in their own individual way with none
> being any better than another - just different primarily because of
> the surface. The ATP has it right with 1111.
>
> The best players win on ALL surfaces and the best example of that is
> Roger Federer. Although he didn't win the French (yet) he would have
> if not for the second greatest clay courter of all time in his way.
> Having made 3 finals he is eons beyond Sampras and overall is the best
> all surface player the world has ever known.


No he isn't.
Both Agassi, Wilander and Connors won slams on three different surfaces.




    
Date: 27 Dec 2008 18:21:44
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:17:52 +0100, "*skriptis"
<skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

>
>"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>news:blbbl496u4c2qj04m78tbvnbj0vbnodv7u@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:24:12 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>> <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 27, 2:49 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> > Not really. I am saying something much more profound. The prestige
>>>> > thing in tennis developed as a completely localized phenomenon in the
>>>> > West. Since the late 1990s, the game has become global and the
>>>> > prestige norms developed in the West in the past century don't apply
>>>> > any more. Tennis is not a Western sport any more.
>>>>
>>>> You are not saying anything profound at all - you are talking
>>>> nonsense. Wimbledon has prestige because that is where things started,
>>>> whether you like it or not. The history of tennis does not change
>>>> because the game has become more global. This history of the game
>>>> stays the same regardless - that's why it's called history.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Wimbledon is not where tennis "started". Tennis started much before,
>>>as Court Tennis, in France, an indoor sport. There were hundred of
>>>these in Paris. Then British aristocrats imported it in England, took
>>>it outdoors and called it Lawn Tennis. It's not as if people in
>>>Wimbledon sat down in 1870s and decided "Let there be tennis" and then
>>>poof! it appeared out of zero. These things are not clear cut. The
>>>British championships started in late 1870s, then a few years after
>>>came the US, a decade later came the French, and at the turn of the
>>>century came the Australasian championships.
>>>
>>>England is also where football, as we know it now, started. Does this
>>>mean the football world cup staged in England is more prestigious of
>>>all football world cups? No.
>>>
>>>England is also where cricket started. Does this mean the world cup
>>>1993 won in Australia is less prestigious than the ones staged in
>>>England? No.
>>>
>>>> > > You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why the
>>>> > > official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the great
>>>> > > players including Fed & Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> > You are missing the point. That prestige means nothing outside the
>>>> > bubble of Western sphere and media. England, France, and other
>>>> > European countries have their own monarchies and cute little
>>>> > traditions and it's a big thing in the Western world only. Outside the
>>>> > Western world, it means nothing. Tennis is a sport that has recently
>>>> > gone global. Wimbledon's prestige has nothing to do with this global
>>>> > tennis. It's an anachronism.
>>>>
>>>> I'm struggling to ignore this drivel, but what do you think is the
>>>> most prestigious tournament in the world then? It can't be any of the
>>>> slams since these originated from colonial imperialists, right? Maybe
>>>> it's the Shanghai Masters, but hasn't that just lost its event back to
>>>> London (those damn Brits stealing it back again)? Or the China Open?
>>>> What about that tournament in Bangkok?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Don't be silly. As of now, there are four most prestigious tennis
>>>tournaments in the world, the four major championships, which stand
>>>apart from the lesser tournaments in terms draw, format, duration and
>>>ranking points awarded. The four pillars of tennis. This is how it
>>>stands now. It may change in the future. Who knows?
>>>
>>>The point is Wimbledon's superior prestige is overrated.
>>>
>>>> > The only way Wimbledon can retain its prestige now is by offering
>>>> > superior facilities, more money, etc. That is, offering more tangible
>>>> > values to the new, global customer base. If for some reason Wimbledon
>>>> > were the poorest slam in terms of facilities and stadiums, etc, its
>>>> > stock would plummet quite sharply in this era.
>>>>
>>>> You have no idea what you are talking about. Prestige is nothing to do
>>>> with facilities or prize money, if that were the case then the AO or
>>>> USO could claim to be the most prestigious tournaments. Why is
>>>> Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament in the world? Answer:
>>>> because it is.
>>>
>>>I am afraid it is not a good enough answer for me. It sounds like a
>>>semi-religious answer. This is no better than Whimpy incessantly
>>>claiming Mac is the talent goat or Sampras is the ability goat. You
>>>ask Whimpy why Mac is the "talent goat"? And in the final analysis he
>>>will answer because he feels that Mac just is. You ask him why Sampras
>>>is the "ability goat" and he will reply "because he is". It's a
>>>constant in his private fantasy. Everything must be bent around it.
>>>
>>>IMO, today, AO and USO are just as prestigious as Wimbledon. So is FO.
>>>Wimbledon's prestige is overrated. It's kind of like a religious
>>>belief that has self-perpetuated over the century, to the point that
>>>if anyone questions the merit of its prestige, he is answered
>>>something along the lines of "because it is". It's a cult.
>>
>>
>> I think they are all prestigious in their own individual way with none
>> being any better than another - just different primarily because of
>> the surface. The ATP has it right with 1111.
>>
>> The best players win on ALL surfaces and the best example of that is
>> Roger Federer. Although he didn't win the French (yet) he would have
>> if not for the second greatest clay courter of all time in his way.
>> Having made 3 finals he is eons beyond Sampras and overall is the best
>> all surface player the world has ever known.
>
>
>No he isn't.
>Both Agassi, Wilander and Connors won slams on three different surfaces.
>

So ? Fed has outdone all three of those guys by a country mile.


    
Date: 27 Dec 2008 20:58:32
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
*skriptis wrote:
> "Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>
>> I think they are all prestigious in their own individual way with none
>> being any better than another - just different primarily because of
>> the surface. The ATP has it right with 1111.
>>
>> The best players win on ALL surfaces and the best example of that is
>> Roger Federer. Although he didn't win the French (yet) he would have
>> if not for the second greatest clay courter of all time in his way.
>> Having made 3 finals he is eons beyond Sampras and overall is the best
>> all surface player the world has ever known.
>
>
> No he isn't.
> Both Agassi, Wilander and Connors won slams on three different surfaces.
>
>


Wilander is the only male player in tennis history to win multi slams on
grass, HC & clay. Is he greater than Fed who could only do it on grass
& HC?



     
Date: 27 Dec 2008 18:23:08
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:58:32 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>*skriptis wrote:
>> "Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> I think they are all prestigious in their own individual way with none
>>> being any better than another - just different primarily because of
>>> the surface. The ATP has it right with 1111.
>>>
>>> The best players win on ALL surfaces and the best example of that is
>>> Roger Federer. Although he didn't win the French (yet) he would have
>>> if not for the second greatest clay courter of all time in his way.
>>> Having made 3 finals he is eons beyond Sampras and overall is the best
>>> all surface player the world has ever known.
>>
>>
>> No he isn't.
>> Both Agassi, Wilander and Connors won slams on three different surfaces.
>>
>>
>
>
>Wilander is the only male player in tennis history to win multi slams on
>grass, HC & clay. Is he greater than Fed who could only do it on grass
>& HC?


No because Fed won tons more slams on grass and HC and Wilander would
have won none on clay either if he had had to play Rafa !


      
Date: 27 Dec 2008 18:22:46
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:58:32 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> *skriptis wrote:
>>> "Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>> I think they are all prestigious in their own individual way with none
>>>> being any better than another - just different primarily because of
>>>> the surface. The ATP has it right with 1111.
>>>>
>>>> The best players win on ALL surfaces and the best example of that is
>>>> Roger Federer. Although he didn't win the French (yet) he would have
>>>> if not for the second greatest clay courter of all time in his way.
>>>> Having made 3 finals he is eons beyond Sampras and overall is the best
>>>> all surface player the world has ever known.
>>>
>>> No he isn't.
>>> Both Agassi, Wilander and Connors won slams on three different surfaces.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wilander is the only male player in tennis history to win multi slams on
>> grass, HC & clay. Is he greater than Fed who could only do it on grass
>> & HC?
>
>
> No because Fed won tons more slams on grass and HC and Wilander would
> have won none on clay either if he had had to play Rafa !

Stop being such a Rafa fanboy. Nadal sucks on clay and you know 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: 26 Dec 2008 12:52:47
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
>
> But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.

Sure - but there will always be people who don't understand the game.


  
Date: 27 Dec 2008 09:01:08
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 12:52:47 -0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:

>>
>> But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>
>Sure - but there will always be people who don't understand the game.

and some will never understand how winning a "peculiar" tournament on
a obsolete surface that favors the particular style of a very few
qualifies them to be considered greater players than those that win
slams on the most common most played surfaces by beating the most and
best competition from around the world and not just a few cows.


   
Date: 27 Dec 2008 19:10:51
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 12:52:47 -0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>> But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>> Sure - but there will always be people who don't understand the game.
>
> and some will never understand how winning a "peculiar" tournament on
> a obsolete surface that favors the particular style of a very few
> qualifies them to be considered greater players than those that win
> slams on the most common most played surfaces by beating the most and
> best competition from around the world and not just a few cows.



Yes, but you'll find it's only newbies who aren't across the history of
the game who might think this way. They have to learn to trust the
players, experts & media & assume they know what they're talking about.

It only takes a yr or 2 for newbies to get it so I don't think this is
an issue worth debating in rst.





    
Date: 27 Dec 2008 18:53:22
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 12:52:47 -0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>> Sure - but there will always be people who don't understand the game.
>>
>> and some will never understand how winning a "peculiar" tournament on
>> a obsolete surface that favors the particular style of a very few
>> qualifies them to be considered greater players than those that win
>> slams on the most common most played surfaces by beating the most and
>> best competition from around the world and not just a few cows.
>
>
>
> Yes, but you'll find it's only newbies who aren't across the history of
> the game who might think this way. They have to learn to trust the
> players, experts & media & assume they know what they're talking about.
>
> It only takes a yr or 2 for newbies to get it so I don't think this is
> an issue worth debating in rst.
>
>

It takes 2 years for continuous propaganda to work? Maybe that's because
you have a weak case, only one word and facts not supporting it. Good
job anyways.


--
"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: 27 Dec 2008 18:26:02
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:10:51 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 12:52:47 -0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>> Sure - but there will always be people who don't understand the game.
>>
>> and some will never understand how winning a "peculiar" tournament on
>> a obsolete surface that favors the particular style of a very few
>> qualifies them to be considered greater players than those that win
>> slams on the most common most played surfaces by beating the most and
>> best competition from around the world and not just a few cows.
>
>
>
>Yes, but you'll find it's only newbies who aren't across the history of
>the game who might think this way. They have to learn to trust the
>players, experts & media & assume they know what they're talking about.
>
>It only takes a yr or 2 for newbies to get it so I don't think this is
>an issue worth debating in rst.
>


That's only because you have no case.


     
Date: 27 Dec 2008 21:29:13
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:10:51 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 12:52:47 -0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>> Sure - but there will always be people who don't understand the game.
>>> and some will never understand how winning a "peculiar" tournament on
>>> a obsolete surface that favors the particular style of a very few
>>> qualifies them to be considered greater players than those that win
>>> slams on the most common most played surfaces by beating the most and
>>> best competition from around the world and not just a few cows.
>>
>>
>> Yes, but you'll find it's only newbies who aren't across the history of
>> the game who might think this way. They have to learn to trust the
>> players, experts & media & assume they know what they're talking about.
>>
>> It only takes a yr or 2 for newbies to get it so I don't think this is
>> an issue worth debating in rst.
>>
>
>
> That's only because you have no case.


All my views are mainstream - only look radical in rst.



 
Date: 26 Dec 2008 12:49:00
From:
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
> Not really. I am saying something much more profound. The prestige
> thing in tennis developed as a completely localized phenomenon in the
> West. Since the late 1990s, the game has become global and the
> prestige norms developed in the West in the past century don't apply
> any more. Tennis is not a Western sport any more.

You are not saying anything profound at all - you are talking
nonsense. Wimbledon has prestige because that is where things started,
whether you like it or not. The history of tennis does not change
because the game has become more global. This history of the game
stays the same regardless - that's why it's called history.

> > You have to use facts to make your case. =A0Start by explaining why the
> > official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the great
> > players including Fed & Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>
> You are missing the point. That prestige means nothing outside the
> bubble of Western sphere and media. England, France, and other
> European countries have their own monarchies and cute little
> traditions and it's a big thing in the Western world only. Outside the
> Western world, it means nothing. Tennis is a sport that has recently
> gone global. Wimbledon's prestige has nothing to do with this global
> tennis. It's an anachronism.
>

I'm struggling to ignore this drivel, but what do you think is the
most prestigious tournament in the world then? It can't be any of the
slams since these originated from colonial imperialists, right? Maybe
it's the Shanghai Masters, but hasn't that just lost its event back to
London (those damn Brits stealing it back again)? Or the China Open?
What about that tournament in Bangkok?

> The only way Wimbledon can retain its prestige now is by offering
> superior facilities, more money, etc. That is, offering more tangible
> values to the new, global customer base. If for some reason Wimbledon
> were the poorest slam in terms of facilities and stadiums, etc, its
> stock would plummet quite sharply in this era.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Prestige is nothing to do
with facilities or prize money, if that were the case then the AO or
USO could claim to be the most prestigious tournaments. Why is
Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament in the world? Answer:
because it is.


 
Date: 26 Dec 2008 04:52:09
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 26, 6:24=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:

> you're nuts. Ask any Indian challenger level player which tournament they=
'd
> most like to win and you can guarantee it's Wimbledon.- Hide quoted text =
-
>

Sure. Wimbledon is a slam, a major tournament. Who wouldn't want to
win a Slam? And there are still a lot of Indians who are even now
romantically attached to the British era. Some Indians are culturally,
and historically tied to all things British more than they are tied to
India itself. Colonial mentality dies hard. The craving to play
cricket in the Lords, or to win Wimbledon come from that. This is
apparent in all erstwhile British colonies. They looked up to Britain
like a mother for such a long time that they can't break the habit.
And as I said, Wimbledon's post-war image-making and advertising have
been excellent. The aggresive, religious advertising has paid off
beautifully. People don't think too much about these things. After
all, it's just tennis. And the recognition and fame that one gets from
winning an event is mostly a socially engineered phenomenon shaped by
history. If you win Wimbledon, you will be the darling of the British
media, which also happens to disportionately dominate the
international media, since the de facto global language is English.
Britain has done a great job not only to preserve Wimbledon, but to
probably sell it beyond what it is.

Look, I am no hater of Wimbledon, or any other tennis tournament. I
would love to be courtside at Wimbledon to watch Federer and Sampras
exchanged strokes. But sometimes you have to look at things more
dispassionately.


  
Date: 26 Dec 2008 19:52:08
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:7b608d8c-0afe-4bb4-acca-64d9a6840c2d@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 26, 6:24 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:

> you're nuts. Ask any Indian challenger level player which tournament
> they'd
> most like to win and you can guarantee it's Wimbledon.- Hide quoted text -
>

Sure. Wimbledon is a slam, a major tournament. Who wouldn't want to
win a Slam? And there are still a lot of Indians who are even now
romantically attached to the British era. Some Indians are culturally,
and historically tied to all things British more than they are tied to
India itself. Colonial mentality dies hard. The craving to play
cricket in the Lords, or to win Wimbledon come from that. This is
apparent in all erstwhile British colonies. They looked up to Britain
like a mother for such a long time that they can't break the habit.
And as I said, Wimbledon's post-war image-making and advertising have
been excellent. The aggresive, religious advertising has paid off
beautifully. People don't think too much about these things. After
all, it's just tennis. And the recognition and fame that one gets from
winning an event is mostly a socially engineered phenomenon shaped by
history. If you win Wimbledon, you will be the darling of the British
media, which also happens to disportionately dominate the
international media, since the de facto global language is English.
Britain has done a great job not only to preserve Wimbledon, but to
probably sell it beyond what it is.
***
are you seriously trying to argue that the US Open is less marketted than
Wimbledon?! you really are making yourself look stupid, just read up on some
tennis history and admit you were wrong on this one.

>Look, I am no hater of Wimbledon, or any other tennis tournament. I
>would love to be courtside at Wimbledon to watch Federer and Sampras
>exchanged strokes. But sometimes you have to look at things more
>dispassionately.

I've been lucky enough to attend the grand slams and Wimbledon IS tennis,
wish you had too.




 
Date: 26 Dec 2008 04:34:51
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 26, 6:21=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:49f64fc6-f6c6-43e8-a103-daad1675beb2@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:2404431b-dc03-44fe-a9c3-535533403123@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Dec 25, 7:39 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > We are talking about tennis only here. IOW, all other things being
> > > equal, the prestige of the titles you win determines your marketabili=
ty.
> > > Try
> > > to compare apples with apples.
>
> > >You are contradicting yourself here. You say you are talking about
> > >only tennis. But it is clear that tennis has nothing to do with
> > >prestige here. It's the venue that determines the prestige of a
> > >tournament.
>
> > >In other words, The Championships in Wimbledon is the most prestigious
> > >because it is staged in Wimbledon, London, England, the United
> > >Kingdom. That's the only essential condition. The venue itself. It has
> > >nothing to do with tennis. The Championships of Wimbledon has been
> > >given, apparently by fiat, a permanent sovereignty over the most
> > >prestigious tournament. Or so the Wimbledon people persistently claim
> > >as a marketing angle. The tradition self-perpetuates by repeating the
> > >same mantra over and over again. It's probably the longest running
> > >(benign) propaganda in tennis.
>
> > >Don't get me wrong. I find it very charming, romantic, cute, etc. But
> > >the prestige of Wimbledon has very little to do with actual tennis.
>
> > If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand sla=
m
> > you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> >I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
> >experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
> >hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
> >thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
> >also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
> >capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years. My
> >country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
> >their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
> >tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catered
> >the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
> >diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
> >stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
> >Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
> >displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
> >the game of tennis that is that main thing.
>
> you clearly are a hater with a very twisted view of history, the Brits ga=
ve
> an awful lot to your country and you know it - the railways, civil servic=
e,
> ended the thugee, modernised your army, democracy etc. If we're so terrib=
le
> it's odd how so many of your countrymen made the journey over here and li=
ve
> here now. And by the way we got monuments thousands and thousands of year=
s
> old here too, but they don't really concern me when I'm watching tennis, =
I
> find it odd that that is the case with you, still at least this all expla=
ins
> your true reasons for disliking Wimbledon being the premier tennis event.=
- Hide quoted text -
>

You got it wrong. I don't dislike Wimbledon at all. Wimbledon has
offered, offers and will continue to offer some great tennis on grass
for the viewers. I absolutely love this aspect of Wimbledon. It's a
slam, a major tournament on grass. It's very important and an integral
part of any tennis fan's experience.

But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
people it means nothing. You have to accept that.


  
Date: 26 Dec 2008 19:51:20
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:c3e62f58-ff83-466c-b68d-dfb91d59f09e@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 26, 6:21 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:49f64fc6-f6c6-43e8-a103-daad1675beb2@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:2404431b-dc03-44fe-a9c3-535533403123@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 25, 7:39 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > We are talking about tennis only here. IOW, all other things being
> > > equal, the prestige of the titles you win determines your
> > > marketability.
> > > Try
> > > to compare apples with apples.
>
> > >You are contradicting yourself here. You say you are talking about
> > >only tennis. But it is clear that tennis has nothing to do with
> > >prestige here. It's the venue that determines the prestige of a
> > >tournament.
>
> > >In other words, The Championships in Wimbledon is the most prestigious
> > >because it is staged in Wimbledon, London, England, the United
> > >Kingdom. That's the only essential condition. The venue itself. It has
> > >nothing to do with tennis. The Championships of Wimbledon has been
> > >given, apparently by fiat, a permanent sovereignty over the most
> > >prestigious tournament. Or so the Wimbledon people persistently claim
> > >as a marketing angle. The tradition self-perpetuates by repeating the
> > >same mantra over and over again. It's probably the longest running
> > >(benign) propaganda in tennis.
>
> > >Don't get me wrong. I find it very charming, romantic, cute, etc. But
> > >the prestige of Wimbledon has very little to do with actual tennis.
>
> > If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand slam
> > you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> >I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
> >experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
> >hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
> >thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
> >also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
> >capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years. My
> >country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
> >their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
> >tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catered
> >the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
> >diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
> >stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
> >Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
> >displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
> >the game of tennis that is that main thing.
>
> you clearly are a hater with a very twisted view of history, the Brits
> gave
> an awful lot to your country and you know it - the railways, civil
> service,
> ended the thugee, modernised your army, democracy etc. If we're so
> terrible
> it's odd how so many of your countrymen made the journey over here and
> live
> here now. And by the way we got monuments thousands and thousands of years
> old here too, but they don't really concern me when I'm watching tennis, I
> find it odd that that is the case with you, still at least this all
> explains
> your true reasons for disliking Wimbledon being the premier tennis event.-
> Hide quoted text -
>
>
>You got it wrong. I don't dislike Wimbledon at all. Wimbledon has
>offered, offers and will continue to offer some great tennis on grass
>for the viewers. I absolutely love this aspect of Wimbledon. It's a
>slam, a major tournament on grass. It's very important and an integral
>part of any tennis fan's experience.
>
>But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
>tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>people it means nothing. You have to accept that.

No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event in
tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some idea of this
subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you grasp
that?




   
Date: 27 Dec 2008 09:10:03
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:51:20 GMT, "Iceberg"
<big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:

>"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c3e62f58-ff83-466c-b68d-dfb91d59f09e@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
>On Dec 26, 6:21 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>> "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:49f64fc6-f6c6-43e8-a103-daad1675beb2@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:2404431b-dc03-44fe-a9c3-535533403123@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Dec 25, 7:39 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>> > > We are talking about tennis only here. IOW, all other things being
>> > > equal, the prestige of the titles you win determines your
>> > > marketability.
>> > > Try
>> > > to compare apples with apples.
>>
>> > >You are contradicting yourself here. You say you are talking about
>> > >only tennis. But it is clear that tennis has nothing to do with
>> > >prestige here. It's the venue that determines the prestige of a
>> > >tournament.
>>
>> > >In other words, The Championships in Wimbledon is the most prestigious
>> > >because it is staged in Wimbledon, London, England, the United
>> > >Kingdom. That's the only essential condition. The venue itself. It has
>> > >nothing to do with tennis. The Championships of Wimbledon has been
>> > >given, apparently by fiat, a permanent sovereignty over the most
>> > >prestigious tournament. Or so the Wimbledon people persistently claim
>> > >as a marketing angle. The tradition self-perpetuates by repeating the
>> > >same mantra over and over again. It's probably the longest running
>> > >(benign) propaganda in tennis.
>>
>> > >Don't get me wrong. I find it very charming, romantic, cute, etc. But
>> > >the prestige of Wimbledon has very little to do with actual tennis.
>>
>> > If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand slam
>> > you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
>> >experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
>> >hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
>> >thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
>> >also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
>> >capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years. My
>> >country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
>> >their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
>> >tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catered
>> >the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
>> >diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
>> >stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
>> >Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
>> >displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
>> >the game of tennis that is that main thing.
>>
>> you clearly are a hater with a very twisted view of history, the Brits
>> gave
>> an awful lot to your country and you know it - the railways, civil
>> service,
>> ended the thugee, modernised your army, democracy etc. If we're so
>> terrible
>> it's odd how so many of your countrymen made the journey over here and
>> live
>> here now. And by the way we got monuments thousands and thousands of years
>> old here too, but they don't really concern me when I'm watching tennis, I
>> find it odd that that is the case with you, still at least this all
>> explains
>> your true reasons for disliking Wimbledon being the premier tennis event.-
>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>>
>>You got it wrong. I don't dislike Wimbledon at all. Wimbledon has
>>offered, offers and will continue to offer some great tennis on grass
>>for the viewers. I absolutely love this aspect of Wimbledon. It's a
>>slam, a major tournament on grass. It's very important and an integral
>>part of any tennis fan's experience.
>>
>>But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
>>tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>>some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>>people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>
>No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event in
>tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some idea of this
>subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you grasp
>that?
>


Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis is not
affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the playing
surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is not a
good judge of who is the best player overall.

Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces around the
world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.


    
Date: 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event in
>> tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some idea of this
>> subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you grasp
>> that?
>>
>
>
> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis is not
> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the playing
> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is not a
> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>
> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces around the
> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
> never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.



It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete surface.

Think about it.



     
Date: 27 Dec 2008 18:25:09
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event in
>>> tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some idea of this
>>> subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you grasp
>>> that?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis is not
>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the playing
>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is not a
>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>
>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces around the
>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.
>
>
>
>It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete surface.
>
>Think about it.


No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing "style"
of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis players
in the world. Far from it.


      
Date: 27 Dec 2008 18:35:05
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event in
>>>> tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some idea of this
>>>> subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you grasp
>>>> that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis is not
>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the playing
>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is not a
>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>
>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces around the
>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.
>>
>>
>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete surface.
>>
>> Think about it.
>
>
> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing "style"
> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis players
> in the world. Far from it.

I must say I agree on this.

--
"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: 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event in
>>>> tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some idea of this
>>>> subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you grasp
>>>> that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis is not
>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the playing
>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is not a
>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>
>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces around the
>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.
>>
>>
>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete surface.
>>
>> Think about it.
>
>
> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing "style"
> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis players
> in the world. Far from it.



Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete surface as
it requires pure talent.

Are you saying Costa was one of the best players on earth when he won
FO? Thank god bumrooters like that don't get rewarded on true tennis
surfaces.



       
Date: 27 Dec 2008 20:43:06
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event in
>>>>> tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some idea of this
>>>>> subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you grasp
>>>>> that?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis is not
>>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the playing
>>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is not a
>>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>>
>>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces around the
>>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
>>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
>>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.
>>>
>>>
>>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete surface.
>>>
>>> Think about it.
>>
>>
>> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing "style"
>> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis players
>> in the world. Far from it.
>
>
>
>Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete surface as
>it requires pure talent.

er...No.

It requires a specific talent that is "no longer representative" of
tennis greatness. So say the keepers of the sport (ATP and ITF) when
they decided to abandon grass as a major surface (except for a few
quaint and historical tournaments like Queens and Wimbledon).

Time has moved on and the game with it. Some like you are stuck in the
past.

Yes, everybody enjoys Wimbledon. Me too, but it's not the measure of
greatness it once was and I predict it will have to change too. It's
only a matter of time.

Great Players are finalists or win everywhere on all surfaces. These
include Borg and Federer.

Unfortunately, Sampras didn't make the cut.


>
>Are you saying Costa was one of the best players on earth when he won
>FO? Thank god bumrooters like that don't get rewarded on true tennis
>surfaces.


        
Date: 27 Dec 2008 23:44:03
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>>>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>>>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event in
>>>>>> tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some idea of this
>>>>>> subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you grasp
>>>>>> that?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis is not
>>>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the playing
>>>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is not a
>>>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces around the
>>>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
>>>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
>>>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.
>>>>
>>>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete surface.
>>>>
>>>> Think about it.
>>>
>>> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing "style"
>>> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis players
>>> in the world. Far from it.
>>
>>
>> Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete surface as
>> it requires pure talent.
>
> er...No.
>
> It requires a specific talent that is "no longer representative" of
> tennis greatness. So say the keepers of the sport (ATP and ITF) when
> they decided to abandon grass as a major surface (except for a few
> quaint and historical tournaments like Queens and Wimbledon).
>
> Time has moved on and the game with it. Some like you are stuck in the
> past.
>


So why do the greatest & most talented players dominate it....?


         
Date: 27 Dec 2008 15:37:21
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:49562318$0$15738$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that
>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event
>>>>>>> in tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some
>>>>>>> idea of this subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely
>>>>>>> stands out. Can you grasp that?
>>>>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>>>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the playing
>>>>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is not a
>>>>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces around
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
>>>>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
>>>>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.
>>>>>
>>>>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete surface.
>>>>>
>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>
>>>> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing "style"
>>>> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis players
>>>> in the world. Far from it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete surface as
>>> it requires pure talent.
>>
>> er...No. It requires a specific talent that is "no longer
>> representative" of
>> tennis greatness. So say the keepers of the sport (ATP and ITF) when
>> they decided to abandon grass as a major surface (except for a few
>> quaint and historical tournaments like Queens and Wimbledon).
>>
>> Time has moved on and the game with it. Some like you are stuck in the
>> past.
>>
>
>
> So why do the greatest & most talented players dominate it....?

yep and in fact Wimbledon (and perhaps grass) may be gaining notoriety, I'd
like Dave to deny that THE world's media headline for tennis is the
Wimbledon final, esp this year.




          
Date: 28 Dec 2008 01:13:59
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:37:21 GMT, "Iceberg"
<big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:

>"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:49562318$0$15738$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that
>>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>>>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event
>>>>>>>> in tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some
>>>>>>>> idea of this subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely
>>>>>>>> stands out. Can you grasp that?
>>>>>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis is
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>>>>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the playing
>>>>>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is not a
>>>>>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces around
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
>>>>>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
>>>>>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete surface.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing "style"
>>>>> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis players
>>>>> in the world. Far from it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete surface as
>>>> it requires pure talent.
>>>
>>> er...No. It requires a specific talent that is "no longer
>>> representative" of
>>> tennis greatness. So say the keepers of the sport (ATP and ITF) when
>>> they decided to abandon grass as a major surface (except for a few
>>> quaint and historical tournaments like Queens and Wimbledon).
>>>
>>> Time has moved on and the game with it. Some like you are stuck in the
>>> past.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So why do the greatest & most talented players dominate it....?
>
>yep and in fact Wimbledon (and perhaps grass) may be gaining notoriety, I'd
>like Dave to deny that THE world's media headline for tennis is the
>Wimbledon final, esp this year.
>


I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and $$$$
at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.


           
Date: 28 Dec 2008 10:58:57
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:37:21 GMT, "Iceberg"
> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:49562318$0$15738$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that
>>>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>>>>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event
>>>>>>>>> in tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some
>>>>>>>>> idea of this subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely
>>>>>>>>> stands out. Can you grasp that?
>>>>>>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis is
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>>>>>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the playing
>>>>>>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is not a
>>>>>>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces around
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
>>>>>>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
>>>>>>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.
>>>>>>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete surface.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>>> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing "style"
>>>>>> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis players
>>>>>> in the world. Far from it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete surface as
>>>>> it requires pure talent.
>>>> er...No. It requires a specific talent that is "no longer
>>>> representative" of
>>>> tennis greatness. So say the keepers of the sport (ATP and ITF) when
>>>> they decided to abandon grass as a major surface (except for a few
>>>> quaint and historical tournaments like Queens and Wimbledon).
>>>>
>>>> Time has moved on and the game with it. Some like you are stuck in the
>>>> past.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So why do the greatest & most talented players dominate it....?
>> yep and in fact Wimbledon (and perhaps grass) may be gaining notoriety, I'd
>> like Dave to deny that THE world's media headline for tennis is the
>> Wimbledon final, esp this year.
>>
>
>
> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and $$$$
> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.



....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this yr. If
what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it, like
Costa at FO for eg.



            
Date: 28 Dec 2008 08:11:52
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:58:57 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:37:21 GMT, "Iceberg"
>> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>
>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:49562318$0$15738$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that
>>>>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to
>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>>>>>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event
>>>>>>>>>> in tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some
>>>>>>>>>> idea of this subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely
>>>>>>>>>> stands out. Can you grasp that?
>>>>>>>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis is
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>>>>>>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the playing
>>>>>>>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is not a
>>>>>>>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces around
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
>>>>>>>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
>>>>>>>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.
>>>>>>>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete surface.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>>>> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing "style"
>>>>>>> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis players
>>>>>>> in the world. Far from it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete surface as
>>>>>> it requires pure talent.
>>>>> er...No. It requires a specific talent that is "no longer
>>>>> representative" of
>>>>> tennis greatness. So say the keepers of the sport (ATP and ITF) when
>>>>> they decided to abandon grass as a major surface (except for a few
>>>>> quaint and historical tournaments like Queens and Wimbledon).
>>>>>
>>>>> Time has moved on and the game with it. Some like you are stuck in the
>>>>> past.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So why do the greatest & most talented players dominate it....?
>>> yep and in fact Wimbledon (and perhaps grass) may be gaining notoriety, I'd
>>> like Dave to deny that THE world's media headline for tennis is the
>>> Wimbledon final, esp this year.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and $$$$
>> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.
>
>
>
>....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this yr. If
>what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it, like
>Costa at FO for eg.


No. Flash in the pans rarely win any slam and you would think that
Sampras + Federer with 27 slams and 12 Wimbledons together would
have won the FO many times being the greatest in the game ?

No. In fact 27 slam winning Sampras + Federer have won exactly ZERO
French Opens.

So, they are the greatest at what again ? When they couldn't even win
ONE slam on the most popular widespread global surface the game is
played on in over a 20 year period ?

Great, my ass.


             
Date: 28 Dec 2008 09:07:58
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com > wrote in message
news:1lgdl41erev28c4n5drrqq3rp2e5an7b0a@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:58:57 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:37:21 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:49562318$0$15738$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100, Whisper
>>>>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper
>>>>>>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that
>>>>>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>>>>>>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier
>>>>>>>>>>> event
>>>>>>>>>>> in tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have
>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> idea of this subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> stands out. Can you grasp that?
>>>>>>>>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>>>>>>>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the
>>>>>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>>>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is
>>>>>>>>>> not a
>>>>>>>>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces
>>>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a
>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal
>>>>>>>>>> style.
>>>>>>>>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete
>>>>>>>>> surface.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>>>>> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing
>>>>>>>> "style"
>>>>>>>> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis
>>>>>>>> players
>>>>>>>> in the world. Far from it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete surface
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> it requires pure talent.
>>>>>> er...No. It requires a specific talent that is "no longer
>>>>>> representative" of
>>>>>> tennis greatness. So say the keepers of the sport (ATP and ITF) when
>>>>>> they decided to abandon grass as a major surface (except for a few
>>>>>> quaint and historical tournaments like Queens and Wimbledon).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time has moved on and the game with it. Some like you are stuck in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> past.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So why do the greatest & most talented players dominate it....?
>>>> yep and in fact Wimbledon (and perhaps grass) may be gaining notoriety,
>>>> I'd
>>>> like Dave to deny that THE world's media headline for tennis is the
>>>> Wimbledon final, esp this year.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and $$$$
>>> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.
>>
>>
>>
>>....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this yr. If
>>what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it, like
>>Costa at FO for eg.
>
>
> No. Flash in the pans rarely win any slam and you would think that
> Sampras + Federer with 27 slams and 12 Wimbledons together would
> have won the FO many times being the greatest in the game ?
>
> No. In fact 27 slam winning Sampras + Federer have won exactly ZERO
> French Opens.
>
> So, they are the greatest at what again ? When they couldn't even win
> ONE slam on the most popular widespread global surface the game is
> played on in over a 20 year period ?
>
> Great, my ass.


But you have to realise to surface basically sucks for pros. It's best as an
amatuer and learning surface.

Therefore




              
Date: 28 Dec 2008 12:29:05
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:07:58 +0100, "*skriptis"
<skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

>
>"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>news:1lgdl41erev28c4n5drrqq3rp2e5an7b0a@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:58:57 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:37:21 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>>> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:49562318$0$15738$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100, Whisper
>>>>>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper
>>>>>>>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier
>>>>>>>>>>>> event
>>>>>>>>>>>> in tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of this subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely
>>>>>>>>>>>> stands out. Can you grasp that?
>>>>>>>>>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>>>>>>>>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the
>>>>>>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>>>>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is
>>>>>>>>>>> not a
>>>>>>>>>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces
>>>>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a
>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal
>>>>>>>>>>> style.
>>>>>>>>>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete
>>>>>>>>>> surface.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>>>>>> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing
>>>>>>>>> "style"
>>>>>>>>> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis
>>>>>>>>> players
>>>>>>>>> in the world. Far from it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete surface
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> it requires pure talent.
>>>>>>> er...No. It requires a specific talent that is "no longer
>>>>>>> representative" of
>>>>>>> tennis greatness. So say the keepers of the sport (ATP and ITF) when
>>>>>>> they decided to abandon grass as a major surface (except for a few
>>>>>>> quaint and historical tournaments like Queens and Wimbledon).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Time has moved on and the game with it. Some like you are stuck in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> past.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So why do the greatest & most talented players dominate it....?
>>>>> yep and in fact Wimbledon (and perhaps grass) may be gaining notoriety,
>>>>> I'd
>>>>> like Dave to deny that THE world's media headline for tennis is the
>>>>> Wimbledon final, esp this year.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and $$$$
>>>> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this yr. If
>>>what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it, like
>>>Costa at FO for eg.
>>
>>
>> No. Flash in the pans rarely win any slam and you would think that
>> Sampras + Federer with 27 slams and 12 Wimbledons together would
>> have won the FO many times being the greatest in the game ?
>>
>> No. In fact 27 slam winning Sampras + Federer have won exactly ZERO
>> French Opens.
>>
>> So, they are the greatest at what again ? When they couldn't even win
>> ONE slam on the most popular widespread global surface the game is
>> played on in over a 20 year period ?
>>
>> Great, my ass.
>
>
>But you have to realise to surface basically sucks for pros. It's best as an
>amatuer and learning surface.
>
>Therefore
>


I don't see how you can call the most widely used worldwide surface in
the game anything but the "benchmark" for the sport. Name me any other
sport where the championships are played on any other surface except
the one in the most widespread professional use.

NONE !


               
Date: 28 Dec 2008 23:43:42
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:07:58 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>>>>
>>>>> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and $$$$
>>>>> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this yr. If
>>>> what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it, like
>>>> Costa at FO for eg.
>>>
>>> No. Flash in the pans rarely win any slam and you would think that
>>> Sampras + Federer with 27 slams and 12 Wimbledons together would
>>> have won the FO many times being the greatest in the game ?
>>>
>>> No. In fact 27 slam winning Sampras + Federer have won exactly ZERO
>>> French Opens.
>>>
>>> So, they are the greatest at what again ? When they couldn't even win
>>> ONE slam on the most popular widespread global surface the game is
>>> played on in over a 20 year period ?
>>>
>>> Great, my ass.
>>
>> But you have to realise to surface basically sucks for pros. It's best as an
>> amatuer and learning surface.
>>
>> Therefore
>>
>
>
> I don't see how you can call the most widely used worldwide surface in
> the game anything but the "benchmark" for the sport.



It's a benchmark for *claycourt tennis*, which is the lowest form of
tennis requiring least amount of skill & a premium on running/stamina.

It's the least interesting of all possible surfaces as a spectator
sport, but perversely is most fun for hackers to play on.

I don't see clay as 'slow' & other surfaces as 'fast', rather all
non-clay surfaces are normal for tennis while clay is an abomination
that pays no respect to skills.



> Name me any other
> sport where the championships are played on any other surface except
> the one in the most widespread professional use.
>
> NONE !



Clay court tennis would be equivalent to playing golf on sand instead of
grass.


                
Date: 28 Dec 2008 18:13:28
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:07:58 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and $$$$
>>>>>> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this yr. If
>>>>> what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it, like
>>>>> Costa at FO for eg.
>>>>
>>>> No. Flash in the pans rarely win any slam and you would think that
>>>> Sampras + Federer with 27 slams and 12 Wimbledons together would
>>>> have won the FO many times being the greatest in the game ?
>>>>
>>>> No. In fact 27 slam winning Sampras + Federer have won exactly ZERO
>>>> French Opens.
>>>>
>>>> So, they are the greatest at what again ? When they couldn't even win
>>>> ONE slam on the most popular widespread global surface the game is
>>>> played on in over a 20 year period ?
>>>>
>>>> Great, my ass.
>>>
>>> But you have to realise to surface basically sucks for pros. It's
>>> best as an amatuer and learning surface.
>>>
>>> Therefore
>>
>>
>> I don't see how you can call the most widely used worldwide surface in
>> the game anything but the "benchmark" for the sport.
>
>
>
> It's a benchmark for *claycourt tennis*, which is the lowest form of
> tennis requiring least amount of skill & a premium on running/stamina.
>
> It's the least interesting of all possible surfaces as a spectator
> sport, but perversely is most fun for hackers to play on.
>
> I don't see clay as 'slow' & other surfaces as 'fast', rather all
> non-clay surfaces are normal for tennis while clay is an abomination
> that pays no respect to skills.
>
>
>
>> Name me any other
>> sport where the championships are played on any other surface except
>> the one in the most widespread professional use.
>>
>> NONE !
>
>
>
> Clay court tennis would be equivalent to playing golf on sand instead of
> grass.

So your favourite player never succeeded on clay...Didn't learn how to
slide properly and didn't have consistent enough groundstrokes. I see.

--
"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: 29 Dec 2008 06:18:27
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:07:58 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and
>>>>>>> $$$$
>>>>>>> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this yr. If
>>>>>> what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it, like
>>>>>> Costa at FO for eg.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Flash in the pans rarely win any slam and you would think that
>>>>> Sampras + Federer with 27 slams and 12 Wimbledons together would
>>>>> have won the FO many times being the greatest in the game ?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. In fact 27 slam winning Sampras + Federer have won exactly ZERO
>>>>> French Opens.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, they are the greatest at what again ? When they couldn't even win
>>>>> ONE slam on the most popular widespread global surface the game is
>>>>> played on in over a 20 year period ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Great, my ass.
>>>>
>>>> But you have to realise to surface basically sucks for pros. It's
>>>> best as an amatuer and learning surface.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see how you can call the most widely used worldwide surface in
>>> the game anything but the "benchmark" for the sport.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's a benchmark for *claycourt tennis*, which is the lowest form of
>> tennis requiring least amount of skill & a premium on running/stamina.
>>
>> It's the least interesting of all possible surfaces as a spectator
>> sport, but perversely is most fun for hackers to play on.
>>
>> I don't see clay as 'slow' & other surfaces as 'fast', rather all
>> non-clay surfaces are normal for tennis while clay is an abomination
>> that pays no respect to skills.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Name me any other
>>> sport where the championships are played on any other surface except
>>> the one in the most widespread professional use.
>>>
>>> NONE !
>>
>>
>>
>> Clay court tennis would be equivalent to playing golf on sand instead
>> of grass.
>
> So your favourite player never succeeded on clay...Didn't learn how to
> slide properly and didn't have consistent enough groundstrokes. I see.
>



He was a great claycourter at his best. His very 1st big impact in the
sport was winning FO mixed doubles.

Problem with clay is it's *too* slow & allows low skilled types with big
stamina to compete equally with talented players - very much a handicap
surface & pure tennis skills are not very important.



                  
Date: 28 Dec 2008 22:35:14
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:07:58 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and
>>>>>>>> $$$$
>>>>>>>> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this
>>>>>>> yr. If
>>>>>>> what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it, like
>>>>>>> Costa at FO for eg.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. Flash in the pans rarely win any slam and you would think that
>>>>>> Sampras + Federer with 27 slams and 12 Wimbledons together would
>>>>>> have won the FO many times being the greatest in the game ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. In fact 27 slam winning Sampras + Federer have won exactly ZERO
>>>>>> French Opens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, they are the greatest at what again ? When they couldn't even win
>>>>>> ONE slam on the most popular widespread global surface the game is
>>>>>> played on in over a 20 year period ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great, my ass.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you have to realise to surface basically sucks for pros. It's
>>>>> best as an amatuer and learning surface.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how you can call the most widely used worldwide surface in
>>>> the game anything but the "benchmark" for the sport.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a benchmark for *claycourt tennis*, which is the lowest form of
>>> tennis requiring least amount of skill & a premium on running/stamina.
>>>
>>> It's the least interesting of all possible surfaces as a spectator
>>> sport, but perversely is most fun for hackers to play on.
>>>
>>> I don't see clay as 'slow' & other surfaces as 'fast', rather all
>>> non-clay surfaces are normal for tennis while clay is an abomination
>>> that pays no respect to skills.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Name me any other
>>>> sport where the championships are played on any other surface except
>>>> the one in the most widespread professional use.
>>>>
>>>> NONE !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Clay court tennis would be equivalent to playing golf on sand instead
>>> of grass.
>>
>> So your favourite player never succeeded on clay...Didn't learn how to
>> slide properly and didn't have consistent enough groundstrokes. I see.
>>
>
>
>
> He was a great claycourter at his best. His very 1st big impact in the
> sport was winning FO mixed doubles.
>
> Problem with clay is it's *too* slow & allows low skilled types with big
> stamina to compete equally with talented players - very much a handicap
> surface & pure tennis skills are not very important.
>

On clay one must construct a point in order to win it and having a big
serve isn't as decisive as on faster courts...so in short it's the true
measure of tennis skills.

If Sampras would've had 7 FO's instead of Wimbledons I would admit that
he would be greatest of open era...7 titles on fast and 7 on slow would
be perfect spread.

--
"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: 29 Dec 2008 11:09:13
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 22:35:14 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Whisper wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:07:58 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and
>>>>>>>>> $$$$
>>>>>>>>> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this
>>>>>>>> yr. If
>>>>>>>> what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it, like
>>>>>>>> Costa at FO for eg.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. Flash in the pans rarely win any slam and you would think that
>>>>>>> Sampras + Federer with 27 slams and 12 Wimbledons together would
>>>>>>> have won the FO many times being the greatest in the game ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. In fact 27 slam winning Sampras + Federer have won exactly ZERO
>>>>>>> French Opens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, they are the greatest at what again ? When they couldn't even win
>>>>>>> ONE slam on the most popular widespread global surface the game is
>>>>>>> played on in over a 20 year period ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Great, my ass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you have to realise to surface basically sucks for pros. It's
>>>>>> best as an amatuer and learning surface.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see how you can call the most widely used worldwide surface in
>>>>> the game anything but the "benchmark" for the sport.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a benchmark for *claycourt tennis*, which is the lowest form of
>>>> tennis requiring least amount of skill & a premium on running/stamina.
>>>>
>>>> It's the least interesting of all possible surfaces as a spectator
>>>> sport, but perversely is most fun for hackers to play on.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see clay as 'slow' & other surfaces as 'fast', rather all
>>>> non-clay surfaces are normal for tennis while clay is an abomination
>>>> that pays no respect to skills.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Name me any other
>>>>> sport where the championships are played on any other surface except
>>>>> the one in the most widespread professional use.
>>>>>
>>>>> NONE !
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clay court tennis would be equivalent to playing golf on sand instead
>>>> of grass.
>>>
>>> So your favourite player never succeeded on clay...Didn't learn how to
>>> slide properly and didn't have consistent enough groundstrokes. I see.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> He was a great claycourter at his best. His very 1st big impact in the
>> sport was winning FO mixed doubles.
>>
>> Problem with clay is it's *too* slow & allows low skilled types with big
>> stamina to compete equally with talented players - very much a handicap
>> surface & pure tennis skills are not very important.
>>
>
>On clay one must construct a point in order to win it and having a big
>serve isn't as decisive as on faster courts...so in short it's the true
>measure of tennis skills.
>
>If Sampras would've had 7 FO's instead of Wimbledons I would admit that
>he would be greatest of open era...7 titles on fast and 7 on slow would
>be perfect spread.


Borg had 5 and 6 on fast and slow. That's pretty damn close to 7 and
7 ! Closer than anyone else in fact.


                   
Date: 29 Dec 2008 09:16:30
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
>>
>> He was a great claycourter at his best. His very 1st big impact in
>> the sport was winning FO mixed doubles.
>>
>> Problem with clay is it's *too* slow & allows low skilled types with
>> big stamina to compete equally with talented players - very much a
>> handicap surface & pure tennis skills are not very important.
>>
>
> On clay one must construct a point in order to win it


No, one must keep constructing a point until someone makes a mistake -
doesn't reward true tennis talent.



>and having a big
> serve isn't as decisive as on faster courts...so in short it's the true
> measure of tennis skills.
>
> If Sampras would've had 7 FO's instead of Wimbledons I would admit that
> he would be greatest of open era...7 titles on fast and 7 on slow would
> be perfect spread.
>

Who's greatest then? Agassi or Wilander?






                    
Date: 29 Dec 2008 00:35:20
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
>>>
>>> He was a great claycourter at his best. His very 1st big impact in
>>> the sport was winning FO mixed doubles.
>>>
>>> Problem with clay is it's *too* slow & allows low skilled types with
>>> big stamina to compete equally with talented players - very much a
>>> handicap surface & pure tennis skills are not very important.
>>>
>>
>> On clay one must construct a point in order to win it
>
>
> No, one must keep constructing a point until someone makes a mistake -
> doesn't reward true tennis talent.
>
>
>
>> and having a big serve isn't as decisive as on faster courts...so in
>> short it's the true measure of tennis skills.
>>
>> If Sampras would've had 7 FO's instead of Wimbledons I would admit
>> that he would be greatest of open era...7 titles on fast and 7 on slow
>> would be perfect spread.
>>
>
> Who's greatest then? Agassi or Wilander?
>
>

Good choices, I'd rather take Borg or Lendl though.

Now GOAT is an entirely different thing.


--
"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: 28 Dec 2008 11:32:23
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:58:57 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:37:21 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:49562318$0$15738$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that
>>>>>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>>>>>>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event
>>>>>>>>>>> in tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some
>>>>>>>>>>> idea of this subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> stands out. Can you grasp that?
>>>>>>>>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis is
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>>>>>>>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the playing
>>>>>>>>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is not a
>>>>>>>>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces around
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
>>>>>>>>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
>>>>>>>>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.
>>>>>>>>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete surface.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>>>>> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing "style"
>>>>>>>> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis players
>>>>>>>> in the world. Far from it.
>>>>>>> Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete surface as
>>>>>>> it requires pure talent.
>>>>>> er...No. It requires a specific talent that is "no longer
>>>>>> representative" of
>>>>>> tennis greatness. So say the keepers of the sport (ATP and ITF) when
>>>>>> they decided to abandon grass as a major surface (except for a few
>>>>>> quaint and historical tournaments like Queens and Wimbledon).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time has moved on and the game with it. Some like you are stuck in the
>>>>>> past.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So why do the greatest & most talented players dominate it....?
>>>> yep and in fact Wimbledon (and perhaps grass) may be gaining notoriety, I'd
>>>> like Dave to deny that THE world's media headline for tennis is the
>>>> Wimbledon final, esp this year.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and $$$$
>>> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.
>>
>>
>> ....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this yr. If
>> what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it, like
>> Costa at FO for eg.
>
>
> No. Flash in the pans rarely win any slam and you would think that
> Sampras + Federer with 27 slams and 12 Wimbledons together would
> have won the FO many times being the greatest in the game ?
>
> No. In fact 27 slam winning Sampras + Federer have won exactly ZERO
> French Opens.
>
> So, they are the greatest at what again ? When they couldn't even win
> ONE slam on the most popular widespread global surface the game is
> played on in over a 20 year period ?
>
> Great, my ass.


So we're back to Borg being goat & Sampras/Fed fast court bunnies?



             
Date: 28 Dec 2008 02:16:16
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:58:57 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:37:21 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:49562318$0$15738$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that
>>>>>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>>>>>>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event
>>>>>>>>>>> in tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some
>>>>>>>>>>> idea of this subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> stands out. Can you grasp that?
>>>>>>>>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis is
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>>>>>>>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the playing
>>>>>>>>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is not a
>>>>>>>>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces around
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
>>>>>>>>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
>>>>>>>>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.
>>>>>>>>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete surface.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>>>>> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing "style"
>>>>>>>> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis players
>>>>>>>> in the world. Far from it.
>>>>>>> Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete surface as
>>>>>>> it requires pure talent.
>>>>>> er...No. It requires a specific talent that is "no longer
>>>>>> representative" of
>>>>>> tennis greatness. So say the keepers of the sport (ATP and ITF) when
>>>>>> they decided to abandon grass as a major surface (except for a few
>>>>>> quaint and historical tournaments like Queens and Wimbledon).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time has moved on and the game with it. Some like you are stuck in the
>>>>>> past.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So why do the greatest & most talented players dominate it....?
>>>> yep and in fact Wimbledon (and perhaps grass) may be gaining notoriety, I'd
>>>> like Dave to deny that THE world's media headline for tennis is the
>>>> Wimbledon final, esp this year.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and $$$$
>>> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.
>>
>>
>> ....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this yr. If
>> what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it, like
>> Costa at FO for eg.
>
>
> No. Flash in the pans rarely win any slam and you would think that
> Sampras + Federer with 27 slams and 12 Wimbledons together would
> have won the FO many times being the greatest in the game ?
>
> No. In fact 27 slam winning Sampras + Federer have won exactly ZERO
> French Opens.
>
> So, they are the greatest at what again ? When they couldn't even win
> ONE slam on the most popular widespread global surface the game is
> played on in over a 20 year period ?
>
> Great, my ass.

Surprising comment. And surprisingly honest.

--
"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: 28 Dec 2008 08:15:42
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:11:52 +0800, Dave Hazelwood
<the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com > wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:58:57 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:37:21 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:49562318$0$15738$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that
>>>>>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>>>>>>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event
>>>>>>>>>>> in tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some
>>>>>>>>>>> idea of this subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> stands out. Can you grasp that?
>>>>>>>>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis is
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>>>>>>>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the playing
>>>>>>>>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is not a
>>>>>>>>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces around
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
>>>>>>>>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
>>>>>>>>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.
>>>>>>>>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete surface.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>>>>> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing "style"
>>>>>>>> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis players
>>>>>>>> in the world. Far from it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete surface as
>>>>>>> it requires pure talent.
>>>>>> er...No. It requires a specific talent that is "no longer
>>>>>> representative" of
>>>>>> tennis greatness. So say the keepers of the sport (ATP and ITF) when
>>>>>> they decided to abandon grass as a major surface (except for a few
>>>>>> quaint and historical tournaments like Queens and Wimbledon).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time has moved on and the game with it. Some like you are stuck in the
>>>>>> past.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So why do the greatest & most talented players dominate it....?
>>>> yep and in fact Wimbledon (and perhaps grass) may be gaining notoriety, I'd
>>>> like Dave to deny that THE world's media headline for tennis is the
>>>> Wimbledon final, esp this year.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and $$$$
>>> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.
>>
>>
>>
>>....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this yr. If
>>what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it, like
>>Costa at FO for eg.
>
>
>No. Flash in the pans rarely win any slam and you would think that
>Sampras + Federer with 27 slams and 12 Wimbledons together would
>have won the FO many times being the greatest in the game ?
>
>No. In fact 27 slam winning Sampras + Federer have won exactly ZERO
>French Opens.
>
>So, they are the greatest at what again ? When they couldn't even win
>ONE slam on the most popular widespread global surface the game is
>played on in over a 20 year period ?
>
>Great, my ass.


or .... Grate my ass.


            
Date: 28 Dec 2008 02:06:11
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:37:21 GMT, "Iceberg"
>> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>
>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:49562318$0$15738$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper
>>>>>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something
>>>>>>>>>>> that makes
>>>>>>>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And
>>>>>>>>>>> to some
>>>>>>>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>>>>>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier
>>>>>>>>>> event in tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually
>>>>>>>>>> have some idea of this subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon
>>>>>>>>>> definitely stands out. Can you grasp that?
>>>>>>>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis
>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>>>>>>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the
>>>>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is
>>>>>>>>> not a
>>>>>>>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces
>>>>>>>>> around the
>>>>>>>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
>>>>>>>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
>>>>>>>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.
>>>>>>>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete surface.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>>>> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing
>>>>>>> "style"
>>>>>>> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis players
>>>>>>> in the world. Far from it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete
>>>>>> surface as it requires pure talent.
>>>>> er...No. It requires a specific talent that is "no longer
>>>>> representative" of
>>>>> tennis greatness. So say the keepers of the sport (ATP and ITF) when
>>>>> they decided to abandon grass as a major surface (except for a few
>>>>> quaint and historical tournaments like Queens and Wimbledon).
>>>>>
>>>>> Time has moved on and the game with it. Some like you are stuck in the
>>>>> past.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So why do the greatest & most talented players dominate it....?
>>> yep and in fact Wimbledon (and perhaps grass) may be gaining
>>> notoriety, I'd like Dave to deny that THE world's media headline for
>>> tennis is the Wimbledon final, esp this year.
>>
>>
>> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and $$$$
>> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.
>
>
>
> ....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this yr. If
> what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it, like
> Costa at FO for eg.
>

"Manuel Santana, Wimbledon champion 1966, sitting in the Royal Box: It
is 42 years since I won Wimbledon and for many years, I have tried to
persuade Spanish players to play there. Sergi Bruguera, Albert Costa,
Juan Carlos Ferrero - they won the French Open and never did well at
Wimbledon because they didn't have the faith. I would tell them:
“Wimbledon is the best tournament in the world.” *They wouldn't believe
me.* "

--
"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: 28 Dec 2008 08:14:52
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 02:06:11 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Whisper wrote:
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:37:21 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:49562318$0$15738$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper
>>>>>>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something
>>>>>>>>>>>> that makes
>>>>>>>>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And
>>>>>>>>>>>> to some
>>>>>>>>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>>>>>>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier
>>>>>>>>>>> event in tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually
>>>>>>>>>>> have some idea of this subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon
>>>>>>>>>>> definitely stands out. Can you grasp that?
>>>>>>>>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis
>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>>>>>>>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the
>>>>>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>>>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is
>>>>>>>>>> not a
>>>>>>>>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces
>>>>>>>>>> around the
>>>>>>>>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
>>>>>>>>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
>>>>>>>>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.
>>>>>>>>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete surface.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>>>>> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing
>>>>>>>> "style"
>>>>>>>> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis players
>>>>>>>> in the world. Far from it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete
>>>>>>> surface as it requires pure talent.
>>>>>> er...No. It requires a specific talent that is "no longer
>>>>>> representative" of
>>>>>> tennis greatness. So say the keepers of the sport (ATP and ITF) when
>>>>>> they decided to abandon grass as a major surface (except for a few
>>>>>> quaint and historical tournaments like Queens and Wimbledon).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time has moved on and the game with it. Some like you are stuck in the
>>>>>> past.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So why do the greatest & most talented players dominate it....?
>>>> yep and in fact Wimbledon (and perhaps grass) may be gaining
>>>> notoriety, I'd like Dave to deny that THE world's media headline for
>>>> tennis is the Wimbledon final, esp this year.
>>>
>>>
>>> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and $$$$
>>> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.
>>
>>
>>
>> ....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this yr. If
>> what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it, like
>> Costa at FO for eg.
>>
>
>"Manuel Santana, Wimbledon champion 1966, sitting in the Royal Box: It
>is 42 years since I won Wimbledon and for many years, I have tried to
>persuade Spanish players to play there. Sergi Bruguera, Albert Costa,
>Juan Carlos Ferrero - they won the French Open and never did well at
>Wimbledon because they didn't have the faith. I would tell them:
>“Wimbledon is the best tournament in the world.” *They wouldn't believe
>me.* "


If you didn't know him would *you* buy a used car from that man.


              
Date: 28 Dec 2008 02:18:46
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 02:06:11 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:37:21 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>>> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:49562318$0$15738$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper
>>>>>>>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier
>>>>>>>>>>>> event in tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually
>>>>>>>>>>>> have some idea of this subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon
>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely stands out. Can you grasp that?
>>>>>>>>>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis
>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>>>>>>>>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the
>>>>>>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>>>>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is
>>>>>>>>>>> not a
>>>>>>>>>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces
>>>>>>>>>>> around the
>>>>>>>>>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
>>>>>>>>>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
>>>>>>>>>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.
>>>>>>>>>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete surface.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>>>>>> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing
>>>>>>>>> "style"
>>>>>>>>> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis players
>>>>>>>>> in the world. Far from it.
>>>>>>>> Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete
>>>>>>>> surface as it requires pure talent.
>>>>>>> er...No. It requires a specific talent that is "no longer
>>>>>>> representative" of
>>>>>>> tennis greatness. So say the keepers of the sport (ATP and ITF) when
>>>>>>> they decided to abandon grass as a major surface (except for a few
>>>>>>> quaint and historical tournaments like Queens and Wimbledon).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Time has moved on and the game with it. Some like you are stuck in the
>>>>>>> past.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So why do the greatest & most talented players dominate it....?
>>>>> yep and in fact Wimbledon (and perhaps grass) may be gaining
>>>>> notoriety, I'd like Dave to deny that THE world's media headline for
>>>>> tennis is the Wimbledon final, esp this year.
>>>>
>>>> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and $$$$
>>>> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.
>>>
>>>
>>> ....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this yr. If
>>> what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it, like
>>> Costa at FO for eg.
>>>
>> "Manuel Santana, Wimbledon champion 1966, sitting in the Royal Box: It
>> is 42 years since I won Wimbledon and for many years, I have tried to
>> persuade Spanish players to play there. Sergi Bruguera, Albert Costa,
>> Juan Carlos Ferrero - they won the French Open and never did well at
>> Wimbledon because they didn't have the faith. I would tell them:
>> “Wimbledon is the best tournament in the world.” *They wouldn't believe
>> me.* "
>
>
> If you didn't know him would *you* buy a used car from that man.

Hell no.

--
"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: 28 Dec 2008 02:08:25
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:37:21 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:49562318$0$15738$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100, Whisper
>>>>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper
>>>>>>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something
>>>>>>>>>>>> that makes
>>>>>>>>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And to some
>>>>>>>>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>>>>>>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier
>>>>>>>>>>> event in tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually
>>>>>>>>>>> have some idea of this subject. I liked them all but
>>>>>>>>>>> Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you grasp that?
>>>>>>>>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The
>>>>>>>>>> tennis is not
>>>>>>>>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>>>>>>>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the
>>>>>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>>>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few
>>>>>>>>>> is not a
>>>>>>>>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces
>>>>>>>>>> around the
>>>>>>>>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a
>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal
>>>>>>>>>> style.
>>>>>>>>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete
>>>>>>>>> surface.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>>>>> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing
>>>>>>>> "style"
>>>>>>>> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis
>>>>>>>> players
>>>>>>>> in the world. Far from it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete
>>>>>>> surface as it requires pure talent.
>>>>>> er...No. It requires a specific talent that is "no longer
>>>>>> representative" of
>>>>>> tennis greatness. So say the keepers of the sport (ATP and ITF) when
>>>>>> they decided to abandon grass as a major surface (except for a few
>>>>>> quaint and historical tournaments like Queens and Wimbledon).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time has moved on and the game with it. Some like you are stuck in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> past.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So why do the greatest & most talented players dominate it....?
>>>> yep and in fact Wimbledon (and perhaps grass) may be gaining
>>>> notoriety, I'd like Dave to deny that THE world's media headline for
>>>> tennis is the Wimbledon final, esp this year.
>>>
>>>
>>> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and $$$$
>>> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.
>>
>>
>>
>> ....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this yr. If
>> what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it, like
>> Costa at FO for eg.
>>
>
> "Manuel Santana, Wimbledon champion 1966, sitting in the Royal Box: It
> is 42 years since I won Wimbledon and for many years, I have tried to
> persuade Spanish players to play there. Sergi Bruguera, Albert Costa,
> Juan Carlos Ferrero - they won the French Open and never did well at
> Wimbledon because they didn't have the faith. I would tell them:
> “Wimbledon is the best tournament in the world.” *They wouldn't believe
> me.* "
>

Testing

“Wimbledon is the best tournament in the world.” *They wouldn't believe
me* "



--
"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: 28 Dec 2008 02:09:17
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:37:21 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>>> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:49562318$0$15738$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100, Whisper
>>>>>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper
>>>>>>>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And to some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'premier event in tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I
>>>>>>>>>>>> do actually have some idea of this subject. I liked them all
>>>>>>>>>>>> but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you grasp that?
>>>>>>>>>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The
>>>>>>>>>>> tennis is not
>>>>>>>>>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>>>>>>>>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the
>>>>>>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>>>>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few
>>>>>>>>>>> is not a
>>>>>>>>>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces
>>>>>>>>>>> around the
>>>>>>>>>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a
>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased
>>>>>>>>>>> obsolete and
>>>>>>>>>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal
>>>>>>>>>>> style.
>>>>>>>>>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete
>>>>>>>>>> surface.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>>>>>> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing
>>>>>>>>> "style"
>>>>>>>>> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis
>>>>>>>>> players
>>>>>>>>> in the world. Far from it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete
>>>>>>>> surface as it requires pure talent.
>>>>>>> er...No. It requires a specific talent that is "no longer
>>>>>>> representative" of
>>>>>>> tennis greatness. So say the keepers of the sport (ATP and ITF) when
>>>>>>> they decided to abandon grass as a major surface (except for a few
>>>>>>> quaint and historical tournaments like Queens and Wimbledon).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Time has moved on and the game with it. Some like you are stuck
>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>> past.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So why do the greatest & most talented players dominate it....?
>>>>> yep and in fact Wimbledon (and perhaps grass) may be gaining
>>>>> notoriety, I'd like Dave to deny that THE world's media headline
>>>>> for tennis is the Wimbledon final, esp this year.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and $$$$
>>>> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this yr. If
>>> what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it, like
>>> Costa at FO for eg.
>>>
>>
>> "Manuel Santana, Wimbledon champion 1966, sitting in the Royal Box: It
>> is 42 years since I won Wimbledon and for many years, I have tried to
>> persuade Spanish players to play there. Sergi Bruguera, Albert Costa,
>> Juan Carlos Ferrero - they won the French Open and never did well at
>> Wimbledon because they didn't have the faith. I would tell them:
>> “Wimbledon is the best tournament in the world.” *They wouldn't
>> believe me.* "
>>
>
> Testing
>
> “Wimbledon is the best tournament in the world.” *They wouldn't believe
> me* "
>

testing 2

“Wimbledon is the best tournament in the world.”
*They wouldn't believe me.* "


--
"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: 28 Dec 2008 02:11:07
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:37:21 GMT, "Iceberg"
>>>>> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:49562318$0$15738$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100, Whisper
>>>>>>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:21:21 +1100, Whisper
>>>>>>>>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And to some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'premier event in tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do actually have some idea of this subject. I liked them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you grasp that?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> tennis is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
>>>>>>>>>>>> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by
>>>>>>>>>>>> the playing
>>>>>>>>>>>> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few
>>>>>>>>>>>> is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces
>>>>>>>>>>>> around the
>>>>>>>>>>>> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a
>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased
>>>>>>>>>>>> obsolete and
>>>>>>>>>>>> never played surface simply because it suits their personal
>>>>>>>>>>>> style.
>>>>>>>>>>> It takes a hell of a lot of talent to dominate an obsolete
>>>>>>>>>>> surface.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>>>>>>> No. It takes a "special" kind of talent that suits the playing
>>>>>>>>>> "style"
>>>>>>>>>> of a "few". That does not make these few the greatest tennis
>>>>>>>>>> players
>>>>>>>>>> in the world. Far from it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course it does. Only the greats can dominate an obsolete
>>>>>>>>> surface as it requires pure talent.
>>>>>>>> er...No. It requires a specific talent that is "no longer
>>>>>>>> representative" of
>>>>>>>> tennis greatness. So say the keepers of the sport (ATP and ITF)
>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>> they decided to abandon grass as a major surface (except for a few
>>>>>>>> quaint and historical tournaments like Queens and Wimbledon).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Time has moved on and the game with it. Some like you are stuck
>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>> past.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So why do the greatest & most talented players dominate it....?
>>>>>> yep and in fact Wimbledon (and perhaps grass) may be gaining
>>>>>> notoriety, I'd like Dave to deny that THE world's media headline
>>>>>> for tennis is the Wimbledon final, esp this year.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I won't deny that. I have said all along it's Madison Avenue and $$$$
>>>>> at play. Nothing to do with who is the best tennis player.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ....& yet Fed won it the 5 yrs he was best player & Rafa this yr.
>>>> If what you're saying is true then flash-in-the-pans would win it,
>>>> like Costa at FO for eg.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Manuel Santana, Wimbledon champion 1966, sitting in the Royal Box:
>>> It is 42 years since I won Wimbledon and for many years, I have tried
>>> to persuade Spanish players to play there. Sergi Bruguera, Albert
>>> Costa, Juan Carlos Ferrero - they won the French Open and never did
>>> well at Wimbledon because they didn't have the faith. I would tell
>>> them: “Wimbledon is the best tournament in the world.” *They wouldn't
>>> believe me.* "
>>>
>>
>> Testing
>>
>> “Wimbledon is the best tournament in the world.” *They wouldn't
>> believe me* "
>>
>
> testing 2
>
> “Wimbledon is the best tournament in the world.”
> *They wouldn't believe me.* "
>
>

testing 3

“Wimbledon is the best tournament in the world.”
*They wouldn't believe me* "
*They wouldn't believe me*
*They wouldn't believe me.*

--
"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: 27 Dec 2008 09:10:16
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com > wrote in message
news:530bl4516qp74ni5vbav7gm7njvtmcp8d5@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:51:20 GMT, "Iceberg"
> <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
>>"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:c3e62f58-ff83-466c-b68d-dfb91d59f09e@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
>>On Dec 26, 6:21 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>> "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:49f64fc6-f6c6-43e8-a103-daad1675beb2@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >news:2404431b-dc03-44fe-a9c3-535533403123@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>> > On Dec 25, 7:39 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > We are talking about tennis only here. IOW, all other things being
>>> > > equal, the prestige of the titles you win determines your
>>> > > marketability.
>>> > > Try
>>> > > to compare apples with apples.
>>>
>>> > >You are contradicting yourself here. You say you are talking about
>>> > >only tennis. But it is clear that tennis has nothing to do with
>>> > >prestige here. It's the venue that determines the prestige of a
>>> > >tournament.
>>>
>>> > >In other words, The Championships in Wimbledon is the most
>>> > >prestigious
>>> > >because it is staged in Wimbledon, London, England, the United
>>> > >Kingdom. That's the only essential condition. The venue itself. It
>>> > >has
>>> > >nothing to do with tennis. The Championships of Wimbledon has been
>>> > >given, apparently by fiat, a permanent sovereignty over the most
>>> > >prestigious tournament. Or so the Wimbledon people persistently claim
>>> > >as a marketing angle. The tradition self-perpetuates by repeating the
>>> > >same mantra over and over again. It's probably the longest running
>>> > >(benign) propaganda in tennis.
>>>
>>> > >Don't get me wrong. I find it very charming, romantic, cute, etc. But
>>> > >the prestige of Wimbledon has very little to do with actual tennis.
>>>
>>> > If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand
>>> > slam
>>> > you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> > - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> >I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
>>> >experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
>>> >hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
>>> >thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
>>> >also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
>>> >capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years. My
>>> >country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
>>> >their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
>>> >tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catered
>>> >the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
>>> >diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
>>> >stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
>>> >Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
>>> >displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
>>> >the game of tennis that is that main thing.
>>>
>>> you clearly are a hater with a very twisted view of history, the Brits
>>> gave
>>> an awful lot to your country and you know it - the railways, civil
>>> service,
>>> ended the thugee, modernised your army, democracy etc. If we're so
>>> terrible
>>> it's odd how so many of your countrymen made the journey over here and
>>> live
>>> here now. And by the way we got monuments thousands and thousands of
>>> years
>>> old here too, but they don't really concern me when I'm watching tennis,
>>> I
>>> find it odd that that is the case with you, still at least this all
>>> explains
>>> your true reasons for disliking Wimbledon being the premier tennis
>>> event.-
>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>
>>>You got it wrong. I don't dislike Wimbledon at all. Wimbledon has
>>>offered, offers and will continue to offer some great tennis on grass
>>>for the viewers. I absolutely love this aspect of Wimbledon. It's a
>>>slam, a major tournament on grass. It's very important and an integral
>>>part of any tennis fan's experience.
>>>
>>>But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
>>>tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>>>some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>>>people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>
>>No it is not just a cute tagline, Wimbledon *IS* THE 'premier event in
>>tennis' - I've attended every slam, so I do actually have some idea of
>>this
>>subject. I liked them all but Wimbledon definitely stands out. Can you
>>grasp
>>that?
>>
>
>
> Same draw, same players, same game at all the slams. The tennis is not
> affected by how prestigious, quaint, beautiful or whatever the
> history, grounds, loos or whatever are. It is affected by the playing
> surface and to play on an obsolete surface that favors a few is not a
> good judge of who is the best player overall.
>
> Clay and hardcourts are the most common and played surfaces around the
> world and the player who wins slams on those surfaces has a better
> claim on being the best than one who wins on a biased obsolete and
> never played surface simply because it suits their personal style.


You're not being very smart you know that? :)




 
Date: 26 Dec 2008 04:09:17
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 26, 5:43=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >> If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand sl=
am
> >> you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
> > experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
> > hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
> > thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
> > also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
> > capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years. My
> > country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
> > their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
> > tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catered
> > the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
> > diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
> > stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
> > Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
> > displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
> > the game of tennis that is that main thing.
>
> Is this like the tennis equivalent of 'short cock' syndrome? =A0You're
> pissed because there are no great Asian players or tournaments so take
> frustrations out on a tennis ng to make you feel better?
>

Not really. I am saying something much more profound. The prestige
thing in tennis developed as a completely localized phenomenon in the
West. Since the late 1990s, the game has become global and the
prestige norms developed in the West in the past century don't apply
any more. Tennis is not a Western sport any more.

> You have to use facts to make your case. =A0Start by explaining why the
> official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the great
> players including Fed & Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>

You are missing the point. That prestige means nothing outside the
bubble of Western sphere and media. England, France, and other
European countries have their own monarchies and cute little
traditions and it's a big thing in the Western world only. Outside the
Western world, it means nothing. Tennis is a sport that has recently
gone global. Wimbledon's prestige has nothing to do with this global
tennis. It's an anachronism.

The only way Wimbledon can retain its prestige now is by offering
superior facilities, more money, etc. That is, offering more tangible
values to the new, global customer base. If for some reason Wimbledon
were the poorest slam in terms of facilities and stadiums, etc, its
stock would plummet quite sharply in this era.


  
Date: 26 Dec 2008 12:24:14
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:ef6e8a9c-0565-48d5-9726-97cfcd192c94@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 26, 5:43 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >> If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand
> >> slam
> >> you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
> > experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
> > hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
> > thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
> > also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
> > capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years. My
> > country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
> > their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
> > tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catered
> > the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
> > diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
> > stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
> > Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
> > displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
> > the game of tennis that is that main thing.
>
> Is this like the tennis equivalent of 'short cock' syndrome? You're
> pissed because there are no great Asian players or tournaments so take
> frustrations out on a tennis ng to make you feel better?
>

Not really. I am saying something much more profound. The prestige
thing in tennis developed as a completely localized phenomenon in the
West. Since the late 1990s, the game has become global and the
prestige norms developed in the West in the past century don't apply
any more. Tennis is not a Western sport any more.

> You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why the
> official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the great
> players including Fed & Rafa.- Hide quoted text -
>

You are missing the point. That prestige means nothing outside the
bubble of Western sphere and media. England, France, and other
European countries have their own monarchies and cute little
traditions and it's a big thing in the Western world only. Outside the
Western world, it means nothing. Tennis is a sport that has recently
gone global. Wimbledon's prestige has nothing to do with this global
tennis. It's an anachronism.

The only way Wimbledon can retain its prestige now is by offering
superior facilities, more money, etc. That is, offering more tangible
values to the new, global customer base. If for some reason Wimbledon
were the poorest slam in terms of facilities and stadiums, etc, its
stock would plummet quite sharply in this era.
***
you're nuts. Ask any Indian challenger level player which tournament they'd
most like to win and you can guarantee it's Wimbledon.




 
Date: 26 Dec 2008 03:31:51
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 26, 5:06=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2404431b-dc03-44fe-a9c3-535533403123@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 25, 7:39 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > We are talking about tennis only here. IOW, all other things being
> > equal, the prestige of the titles you win determines your marketability=
.
> > Try
> > to compare apples with apples.
>
> >You are contradicting yourself here. You say you are talking about
> >only tennis. But it is clear that tennis has nothing to do with
> >prestige here. It's the venue that determines the prestige of a
> >tournament.
>
> >In other words, The Championships in Wimbledon is the most prestigious
> >because it is staged in Wimbledon, London, England, the United
> >Kingdom. That's the only essential condition. The venue itself. It has
> >nothing to do with tennis. The Championships of Wimbledon has been
> >given, apparently by fiat, a permanent sovereignty over the most
> >prestigious tournament. Or so the Wimbledon people persistently claim
> >as a marketing angle. The tradition self-perpetuates by repeating the
> >same mantra over and over again. It's probably the longest running
> >(benign) propaganda in tennis.
>
> >Don't get me wrong. I find it very charming, romantic, cute, etc. But
> >the prestige of Wimbledon has very little to do with actual tennis.
>
> If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand slam
> you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years. My
country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catered
the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
the game of tennis that is that main thing.


  
Date: 26 Dec 2008 12:21:39
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:49f64fc6-f6c6-43e8-a103-daad1675beb2@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2404431b-dc03-44fe-a9c3-535533403123@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 25, 7:39 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > We are talking about tennis only here. IOW, all other things being
> > equal, the prestige of the titles you win determines your marketability.
> > Try
> > to compare apples with apples.
>
> >You are contradicting yourself here. You say you are talking about
> >only tennis. But it is clear that tennis has nothing to do with
> >prestige here. It's the venue that determines the prestige of a
> >tournament.
>
> >In other words, The Championships in Wimbledon is the most prestigious
> >because it is staged in Wimbledon, London, England, the United
> >Kingdom. That's the only essential condition. The venue itself. It has
> >nothing to do with tennis. The Championships of Wimbledon has been
> >given, apparently by fiat, a permanent sovereignty over the most
> >prestigious tournament. Or so the Wimbledon people persistently claim
> >as a marketing angle. The tradition self-perpetuates by repeating the
> >same mantra over and over again. It's probably the longest running
> >(benign) propaganda in tennis.
>
> >Don't get me wrong. I find it very charming, romantic, cute, etc. But
> >the prestige of Wimbledon has very little to do with actual tennis.
>
> If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand slam
> you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
>I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
>experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
>hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
>thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
>also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
>capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years. My
>country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
>their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
>tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catered
>the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
>diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
>stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
>Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
>displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
>the game of tennis that is that main thing.

you clearly are a hater with a very twisted view of history, the Brits gave
an awful lot to your country and you know it - the railways, civil service,
ended the thugee, modernised your army, democracy etc. If we're so terrible
it's odd how so many of your countrymen made the journey over here and live
here now. And by the way we got monuments thousands and thousands of years
old here too, but they don't really concern me when I'm watching tennis, I
find it odd that that is the case with you, still at least this all explains
your true reasons for disliking Wimbledon being the premier tennis event.




   
Date: 27 Dec 2008 09:08:52
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

"Iceberg" <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote in message
news:n%35l.11481$Sp5.5047@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:49f64fc6-f6c6-43e8-a103-daad1675beb2@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>> "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2404431b-dc03-44fe-a9c3-535533403123@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 25, 7:39 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > We are talking about tennis only here. IOW, all other things being
>> > equal, the prestige of the titles you win determines your
>> > marketability.
>> > Try
>> > to compare apples with apples.
>>
>> >You are contradicting yourself here. You say you are talking about
>> >only tennis. But it is clear that tennis has nothing to do with
>> >prestige here. It's the venue that determines the prestige of a
>> >tournament.
>>
>> >In other words, The Championships in Wimbledon is the most prestigious
>> >because it is staged in Wimbledon, London, England, the United
>> >Kingdom. That's the only essential condition. The venue itself. It has
>> >nothing to do with tennis. The Championships of Wimbledon has been
>> >given, apparently by fiat, a permanent sovereignty over the most
>> >prestigious tournament. Or so the Wimbledon people persistently claim
>> >as a marketing angle. The tradition self-perpetuates by repeating the
>> >same mantra over and over again. It's probably the longest running
>> >(benign) propaganda in tennis.
>>
>> >Don't get me wrong. I find it very charming, romantic, cute, etc. But
>> >the prestige of Wimbledon has very little to do with actual tennis.
>>
>> If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand slam
>> you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
>>experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
>>hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
>>thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
>>also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
>>capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years. My
>>country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
>>their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
>>tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catered
>>the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
>>diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
>>stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
>>Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
>>displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
>>the game of tennis that is that main thing.
>
> you clearly are a hater with a very twisted view of history, the Brits
> gave an awful lot to your country and you know it - the railways, civil
> service, ended the thugee, modernised your army, democracy etc. If we're
> so terrible it's odd how so many of your countrymen made the journey over
> here and live here now. And by the way we got monuments thousands and
> thousands of years old here too, but they don't really concern me when I'm
> watching tennis, I find it odd that that is the case with you, still at
> least this all explains your true reasons for disliking Wimbledon being
> the premier tennis event.


He's just being primitive.




  
Date: 26 Dec 2008 22:43:30
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>> If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand slam
>> you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
> experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
> hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
> thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
> also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
> capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years. My
> country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
> their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
> tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catered
> the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
> diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
> stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
> Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
> displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
> the game of tennis that is that main thing.



Is this like the tennis equivalent of 'short cock' syndrome? You're
pissed because there are no great Asian players or tournaments so take
frustrations out on a tennis ng to make you feel better?

You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why the
official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the great
players including Fed & Rafa.



   
Date: 27 Dec 2008 08:34:37
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:4954c366$0$15741$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>> If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand slam
>>> you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
>> experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
>> hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
>> thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
>> also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
>> capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years. My
>> country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
>> their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
>> tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catered
>> the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
>> diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
>> stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
>> Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
>> displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
>> the game of tennis that is that main thing.
>
>
>
> Is this like the tennis equivalent of 'short cock' syndrome? You're
> pissed because there are no great Asian players or tournaments so take
> frustrations out on a tennis ng to make you feel better?
>
> You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why the
> official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the great
> players including Fed & Rafa.


Also he should try to not get that emotional over the fact that Europe ruled
the world.
I presume he's pissed off that we use latin alphabet in this ng?




   
Date: 27 Dec 2008 03:02:06
From: TT
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
Whisper wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>> If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand slam
>>> you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
>> experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
>> hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
>> thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
>> also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
>> capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years. My
>> country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
>> their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
>> tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catered
>> the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
>> diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
>> stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
>> Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
>> displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
>> the game of tennis that is that main thing.
>
>
>
> Is this like the tennis equivalent of 'short cock' syndrome? You're
> pissed because there are no great Asian players or tournaments so take
> frustrations out on a tennis ng to make you feel better?
>
> You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why the
> official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the great
> players including Fed & Rafa.
>

Obviously some Fedfanboys working there. Or French don't know English
well enough to understand what someone put on their site.

Nadal said Wimbledon was his dream, but probably thinks French as his
top priority. Many players see Roland Garros as most important event.
Wimbledon is for cows, remember?


Besides, prestige is not important. In tennis they are trying to find
out who is the best player...
If you think that winner of Wimbledon is 7/3 times as good as a player
than the winner of AO you're wrong. Or are you telling us that players
try over two times as hard at W compared to AO? Or is the draw over two
times harder?

And since Duchess of Kent stopped presenting the trophies there's not
even prestige. Just an event played on an obsolete surface and
spectators eating strawberries wearing large hats. Pathetic 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: 27 Dec 2008 19:17:30
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
>>
>
> Obviously some Fedfanboys working there. Or French don't know English
> well enough to understand what someone put on their site.
>
> Nadal said Wimbledon was his dream, but probably thinks French as his
> top priority. Many players see Roland Garros as most important event.
> Wimbledon is for cows, remember?
>
>
> Besides, prestige is not important. In tennis they are trying to find
> out who is the best player...
> If you think that winner of Wimbledon is 7/3 times as good as a player
> than the winner of AO you're wrong. Or are you telling us that players
> try over two times as hard at W compared to AO? Or is the draw over two
> times harder?
>



We've covered this already - it's more difficult to win a tune-up 60 60
every match with a boulder strapped to your back than any slam - doesn't
make it more prestigious.


> And since Duchess of Kent stopped presenting the trophies there's not
> even prestige. Just an event played on an obsolete surface and
> spectators eating strawberries wearing large hats. Pathetic stuff. :)
>


You & arnab types just have to get over it - no point pretending
Wimbledon isn't the world championship. All the evidence says it is.


    
Date: 27 Dec 2008 19:12:49
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>>
>> Is this like the tennis equivalent of 'short cock' syndrome? You're
>> pissed because there are no great Asian players or tournaments so take
>> frustrations out on a tennis ng to make you feel better?
>>
>> You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why the
>> official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the great
>> players including Fed & Rafa.
>>
>
> Obviously some Fedfanboys working there. Or French don't know English
> well enough to understand what someone put on their site.
>
> Nadal said Wimbledon was his dream, but probably thinks French as his
> top priority. Many players see Roland Garros as most important event.
> Wimbledon is for cows, remember?
>


Wimbledon is for goats.


   
Date: 26 Dec 2008 21:08:08
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 22:43:30 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>> If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand slam
>>> you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
>> experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
>> hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
>> thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
>> also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
>> capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years. My
>> country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
>> their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
>> tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catered
>> the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
>> diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
>> stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
>> Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
>> displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
>> the game of tennis that is that main thing.
>
>
>
>Is this like the tennis equivalent of 'short cock' syndrome? You're
>pissed because there are no great Asian players or tournaments so take
>frustrations out on a tennis ng to make you feel better?
>
>You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why the
>official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the great
>players including Fed & Rafa.

The word "Prestigious" is Madison Avenue lingo. It is not necessarily
synonomous with great tennis and only translates into $$$$ - so the
media, etc keeps hyping its tennis on an obsolete surface that favors
a few solely out of greed.

Wimbledon "was" the "7" you assign it back when grass was king. It no
longer is and this points out a major "flaw" in 7543 in that it does
not, has not and will not adapt to change.

You are simply one stuck in the mud old fart who will forever fan fuck
Sampras because you cannot appreciate moving on as the game moves
on, which it has.

Eventually. the Madison Avenue boys will drop Wimbledon like a hot
potato unless in anticipation the AEC is smart enough to react and
make major changes to the tournament.

And yes, this possibly means changing the surface which will be a kiss
of death to your nonsense once and for all.

Grass is doomed. The sooner you realize it the better.

Yeah, I am also nostalgic about it but in the end $$$$ rule and
Wimbledon is no different. Once the $$$$ dictate a change, it will
happen. Bet on it.


    
Date: 26 Dec 2008 19:51:13
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com > wrote in message
news:4mk9l4drsa5o296krqni2l328vhp31oub2@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 22:43:30 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>> On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>> If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand
>>>> slam
>>>> you'd realise how wrong you are.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> I am sure I would find it very charming. It would be a great
>>> experience. But the history of tennis is quite short, really. Just a
>>> hundred years. I have archaeological sites in my country that are
>>> thousands and thousands of years old. Since I am aware of history, I
>>> also know that Brits colonized my country and siphoned valuable
>>> capital and raw materials from my country to Britain for 200 years. My
>>> country suffered, people died here in never-ending famines and at
>>> their expense Britain prospered. Why should I be impressed with a
>>> tournament that is just about 100 years old and was initially catered
>>> the needs of the British royalty? Did you know that the biggest
>>> diamond in the British Crown Jewels is the Koh-i-Noor, a diamond
>>> stolen from the Indian subcontinent? I am no hater, but I am no
>>> Anglophile either. This almost religious fascination with Wimbledon
>>> displayed by a lot of tennis fans is very cute, but in the end, it's
>>> the game of tennis that is that main thing.
>>
>>
>>
>>Is this like the tennis equivalent of 'short cock' syndrome? You're
>>pissed because there are no great Asian players or tournaments so take
>>frustrations out on a tennis ng to make you feel better?
>>
>>You have to use facts to make your case. Start by explaining why the
>>official FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious, & all the great
>>players including Fed & Rafa.
>
> The word "Prestigious" is Madison Avenue lingo. It is not necessarily
> synonomous with great tennis and only translates into $$$$ - so the
> media, etc keeps hyping its tennis on an obsolete surface that favors
> a few solely out of greed.
>
> Wimbledon "was" the "7" you assign it back when grass was king. It no
> longer is and this points out a major "flaw" in 7543 in that it does
> not, has not and will not adapt to change.
>
> You are simply one stuck in the mud old fart who will forever fan fuck
> Sampras because you cannot appreciate moving on as the game moves
> on, which it has.
>
> Eventually. the Madison Avenue boys will drop Wimbledon like a hot
> potato unless in anticipation the AEC is smart enough to react and
> make major changes to the tournament.
>
> And yes, this possibly means changing the surface which will be a kiss
> of death to your nonsense once and for all.
>
> Grass is doomed. The sooner you realize it the better.
>
> Yeah, I am also nostalgic about it but in the end $$$$ rule and
> Wimbledon is no different. Once the $$$$ dictate a change, it will
> happen. Bet on it.

oh please, what a load of utter cack.




 
Date: 25 Dec 2008 06:21:15
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 25, 1:54=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> *skriptis wrote in message ...
>
> >"jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:P4y4l.8008$lX6.5290@newsfe06.iad...
>
> >> On 24-Dec-2008, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> >>> Don't apologize, it's not your fault, it's his.
>
> >> When you lose tennis matches, do you blame your grip and strings?
>
> >No.
> >David had and has no problems replying to other people,
>
> Oops. If that last post got through it will be dated 1980. Everything's
> screwed up here.
>
> Repost:
> I'm in an unusual location, due to Christmas. The bug is in my newsreader=
.
> It can't quote some posts, mostly those originating from GG.

You are in Newcastle?


 
Date: 24 Dec 2008 21:44:35
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 25, 11:17=A0am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 25, 1:47=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > ***
> > This is tiresome. We've been through all this before. Wimbledon is the =
most
> > prestigious tournament. That's a simple fact. The reasons don't matter.
> > ***
>
> The reasons do matter. But you are deliberately choosing to ignore it.
> Wimbledon's prestige is not dependent on tennis, but something else.
> It's about the venue, the amount of money put into it by British
> people for its upkeep and improvement, and, of course, aggressive,
> almost religious, advertising.

BTW, speaking of religious, Merry Christmas! :)


 
Date: 24 Dec 2008 21:17:08
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 25, 1:47=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:

> ***
> This is tiresome. We've been through all this before. Wimbledon is the mo=
st
> prestigious tournament. That's a simple fact. The reasons don't matter.
> ***

The reasons do matter. But you are deliberately choosing to ignore it.
Wimbledon's prestige is not dependent on tennis, but something else.
It's about the venue, the amount of money put into it by British
people for its upkeep and improvement, and, of course, aggressive,
almost religious, advertising.



  
Date: 25 Dec 2008 17:35:10
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 25, 1:47 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>> ***
>> This is tiresome. We've been through all this before. Wimbledon is the most
>> prestigious tournament. That's a simple fact. The reasons don't matter.
>> ***
>
> The reasons do matter. But you are deliberately choosing to ignore it.
> Wimbledon's prestige is not dependent on tennis, but something else.
> It's about the venue, the amount of money put into it by British
> people for its upkeep and improvement, and, of course, aggressive,
> almost religious, advertising.
>


You are one of the biggest fuckwits I've come across either in real life
or online - your denial is absolutely stunning.

I don't really think you believe what you're typing, but the possibility
you do does excite me somewhat. You're a very rare specimen.





   
Date: 26 Dec 2008 11:08:32
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:495329a0$0$15736$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 25, 1:47 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>> ***
>>> This is tiresome. We've been through all this before. Wimbledon is the
>>> most
>>> prestigious tournament. That's a simple fact. The reasons don't matter.
>>> ***
>>
>> The reasons do matter. But you are deliberately choosing to ignore it.
>> Wimbledon's prestige is not dependent on tennis, but something else.
>> It's about the venue, the amount of money put into it by British
>> people for its upkeep and improvement, and, of course, aggressive,
>> almost religious, advertising.
>>
>
>
> You are one of the biggest fuckwits I've come across either in real life
> or online - your denial is absolutely stunning.
>
> I don't really think you believe what you're typing, but the possibility
> you do does excite me somewhat. You're a very rare specimen.

yes, he's making himself look an absolute idiot yet refuses to admit it or
change his view.




 
Date: 24 Dec 2008 21:00:53
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 25, 1:43=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote in message
>
> <1f6976bc-c259-4f53-8652-8ffdc7b0b...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>...
> On Dec 25, 8:08 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
> > arnab.z@gmail wrote in message
>
> > <48f4e7fe-fc93-4f48-8380-9b44f1b52...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>...
> > On Dec 24, 12:09 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 24, 11:55 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 23, 6:06 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > >http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=3D236218
>
> > > > > Some less than favourable reaction though:
>
> > > > > "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>
> > > > > "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from =
his
> > > > > arse."
>
> > > > > "It is a very absurd idea."
>
> > > > > Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
> > > > > system?
>
> > > > I am surprised why Whisper made it 7543. I thought he would
> > > > make it 7502, for obvious reasons. The points for each slam
> > > > should equal the no. of times Sampras won it. 75 follow that patter=
n.
>
> > > I think he actually believes in it. There are some tennis fans that
> > > seem to agree with the WUFA philosophy. Nobody actually made the craz=
y
> > > numerical leap though. That's entirely Whimpy's invention.
>
> > To add: 7543 or any other version of WUFA is venue-based prestige, an
> > anachronism from the early 1980s. Tennis has gone global since then.
> > WUFA doesn't matter anymore. ATP has acknowledged this change since
> > 1990, when they gave all the slams equal amount of ranking points and
> > has stick to this since then. It's been nearly two decades now since
> > then, and with every passing year, the slams get more and more equal
> > in prestige.
>
> > WUFA people stuck in the 1980s need to embrace the reality of 21st
> > century. Tennis might see even more dramatic changes in the future. As
> > Asian countries grow in stature and start dominating the circuit,
> > there may be Asian Slams in the future. And they will be the most
> > prestigious because billions of people might prefer them instead of
> > European or American or Australian slams.
>
> > * * * *
>
> > As much as you'd like to convince yourself otherwise, the vast differen=
ce
> > in prestige between slams remains. Anyone who doesn't think Wimbledon i=
s
> the
> > biggest title in tennis is either in total denial or needs some serious
> > psychological analysis and medication. Why pretend that something as
> obvious
> > as the shining sun isn't so?
>
> Because it isn't. Wimbledon's prestige means nothing to me. I bet it
> means nothing to billions of Asian people like me as well. It just
> doesn't. Please give me a good reason why I should consider a tennis
> tournament staged in Britain as the most prestigious.
>
> ***
> I meant if you can't _see_ that it's the most prestigious etc. to the vas=
t
> majority.
> ***
>

I don't think the vast majority cares about Wimbledon's prestige that
much. They care more about watching some good tennis. The history is
cute, romantic, but not the main course.

> ***
> Does anyone not think that the World Cup is the most prestigious
> international football title? Maybe, but they don't matter so can be
> ignored.
> ***

But Wimbledon isn't the world cup of tennis. The world cup of football
changes venue every time. It takes place in all inhabited continents,
reaffirming the fact that football is indeed a global sport. The
prestige of the football world cup is venue-independent. South Africa
can hold the world cup, so can China, Italy, Argentina or the United
States. It can happen in all 5 continents. It's a much more global,
much more modern and democratic tradition. It has always been this
global. From the very beginning in the 1930s.

On the contrary, Wimbledon's prestige is venue-dependent. It's no
world cup of tennis. It's the previously-called British Tennis
Championships now masquerading as something else through aggressive
advertising.


  
Date: 25 Dec 2008 06:13:59
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:d2969150-0043-4c32-9429-2893737c7387@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 25, 1:43 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote in message
>
> <1f6976bc-c259-4f53-8652-8ffdc7b0b...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>...
> On Dec 25, 8:08 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
> > arnab.z@gmail wrote in message
>
> > <48f4e7fe-fc93-4f48-8380-9b44f1b52...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>...
> > On Dec 24, 12:09 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 24, 11:55 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 23, 6:06 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > >http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=236218
>
> > > > > Some less than favourable reaction though:
>
> > > > > "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>
> > > > > "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from
> > > > > his
> > > > > arse."
>
> > > > > "It is a very absurd idea."
>
> > > > > Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
> > > > > system?
>
> > > > I am surprised why Whisper made it 7543. I thought he would
> > > > make it 7502, for obvious reasons. The points for each slam
> > > > should equal the no. of times Sampras won it. 75 follow that
> > > > pattern.
>
> > > I think he actually believes in it. There are some tennis fans that
> > > seem to agree with the WUFA philosophy. Nobody actually made the crazy
> > > numerical leap though. That's entirely Whimpy's invention.
>
> > To add: 7543 or any other version of WUFA is venue-based prestige, an
> > anachronism from the early 1980s. Tennis has gone global since then.
> > WUFA doesn't matter anymore. ATP has acknowledged this change since
> > 1990, when they gave all the slams equal amount of ranking points and
> > has stick to this since then. It's been nearly two decades now since
> > then, and with every passing year, the slams get more and more equal
> > in prestige.
>
> > WUFA people stuck in the 1980s need to embrace the reality of 21st
> > century. Tennis might see even more dramatic changes in the future. As
> > Asian countries grow in stature and start dominating the circuit,
> > there may be Asian Slams in the future. And they will be the most
> > prestigious because billions of people might prefer them instead of
> > European or American or Australian slams.
>
> > * * * *
>
> > As much as you'd like to convince yourself otherwise, the vast
> > difference
> > in prestige between slams remains. Anyone who doesn't think Wimbledon is
> the
> > biggest title in tennis is either in total denial or needs some serious
> > psychological analysis and medication. Why pretend that something as
> obvious
> > as the shining sun isn't so?
>
> Because it isn't. Wimbledon's prestige means nothing to me. I bet it
> means nothing to billions of Asian people like me as well. It just
> doesn't. Please give me a good reason why I should consider a tennis
> tournament staged in Britain as the most prestigious.
>
> ***
> I meant if you can't _see_ that it's the most prestigious etc. to the vast
> majority.
> ***
>

I don't think the vast majority cares about Wimbledon's prestige that
much. They care more about watching some good tennis. The history is
cute, romantic, but not the main course.

> ***
> Does anyone not think that the World Cup is the most prestigious
> international football title? Maybe, but they don't matter so can be
> ignored.
> ***

But Wimbledon isn't the world cup of tennis. The world cup of football
changes venue every time. It takes place in all inhabited continents,
reaffirming the fact that football is indeed a global sport. The
prestige of the football world cup is venue-independent. South Africa
can hold the world cup, so can China, Italy, Argentina or the United
States. It can happen in all 5 continents. It's a much more global,
much more modern and democratic tradition. It has always been this
global. From the very beginning in the 1930s.

On the contrary, Wimbledon's prestige is venue-dependent. It's no
world cup of tennis. It's the previously-called British Tennis
Championships now masquerading as something else through aggressive
advertising.

***

Incorrect.

"The All England Lawn Tennis Club Single Handed Champion of the World"

"It certainly is a dream final for everyone," Federer said. "I love playing
him, especially here at Wimbledon, the most prestigious tournament we have.
Rafa deserves it totally. He's played a great tournament. It should be a
great match."




 
Date: 24 Dec 2008 05:50:56
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 25, 7:39=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:

> We are talking about tennis only here. IOW, all other things being
> equal, the prestige of the titles you win determines your marketability. =
Try
> to compare apples with apples.

You are contradicting yourself here. You say you are talking about
only tennis. But it is clear that tennis has nothing to do with
prestige here. It's the venue that determines the prestige of a
tournament.

In other words, The Championships in Wimbledon is the most prestigious
because it is staged in Wimbledon, London, England, the United
Kingdom. That's the only essential condition. The venue itself. It has
nothing to do with tennis. The Championships of Wimbledon has been
given, apparently by fiat, a permanent sovereignty over the most
prestigious tournament. Or so the Wimbledon people persistently claim
as a marketing angle. The tradition self-perpetuates by repeating the
same mantra over and over again. It's probably the longest running
(benign) propaganda in tennis.

Don't get me wrong. I find it very charming, romantic, cute, etc. But
the prestige of Wimbledon has very little to do with actual tennis.


  
Date: 27 Dec 2008 04:01:07
From: Fan
Subject: For troll only - Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
lol


  
Date: 26 Dec 2008 21:01:57
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 27, 10:52=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:28:27 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>
>
>
>
>
> <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 27, 2:52 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
> >> > tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
> >> > some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to som=
e
> >> > people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>
> >> Sure - but there will always be people who don't understand the game.
>
> >I understand the game very well. Tennis is a sport that can be played
> >anywhere on earth. Do you think Federer's or Samrpas's tennis talents
> >will just wither away if Wimbledon suddenly didn't exist anymore? I
> >understand many players and fans have a romantic attachment to
> >Wimbledon, but to say that somebody who doesn't have that kinda
> >romantic attachment doesn't understand the game of tennis is just
> >silly.
>
> whisper doesn't understand the game at all. he thinks the game is all
> serve and volley but tennis is much more than that. seems he's
> "retarded" in that sense. perhaps he thinks swimming is all about the
> "crawl" as well but it's not either. perhaps he thinks track is all
> about the 100 meters but it's not either. guys like phelps and bolt
> display a versility in there sport which are the mark of =A0true
> champions. the same is true for tennis and Federer is the best there
> ever was at doing that. Federers game is far more all surface and far
> more all ability than Sampras narrow twin surface SV game.
>
> Sampras may be the best SV'er the game has ever known if you consider
> SV to BE the game. But, the best tennis player of all time ? No way.
> That honor goes to Roger Federer who can do more things on more
> surfaces than anybody before him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

How on earth did you turn this into something about Whimpy and Sampras
vs. Federer? I was repying to greg there...


   
Date: 27 Dec 2008 13:23:00
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 21:01:57 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
<arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Dec 27, 10:52 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:28:27 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 27, 2:52 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> > But Wimbledon being the "premier event in tennis" is a just a cute
>> >> > tagline. It has nothing to do with tennis. It's something that makes
>> >> > some people go ooh and aah, all starry-eyed and romantic. And to some
>> >> > people it means nothing. You have to accept that.
>>
>> >> Sure - but there will always be people who don't understand the game.
>>
>> >I understand the game very well. Tennis is a sport that can be played
>> >anywhere on earth. Do you think Federer's or Samrpas's tennis talents
>> >will just wither away if Wimbledon suddenly didn't exist anymore? I
>> >understand many players and fans have a romantic attachment to
>> >Wimbledon, but to say that somebody who doesn't have that kinda
>> >romantic attachment doesn't understand the game of tennis is just
>> >silly.
>>
>> whisper doesn't understand the game at all. he thinks the game is all
>> serve and volley but tennis is much more than that. seems he's
>> "retarded" in that sense. perhaps he thinks swimming is all about the
>> "crawl" as well but it's not either. perhaps he thinks track is all
>> about the 100 meters but it's not either. guys like phelps and bolt
>> display a versility in there sport which are the mark of  true
>> champions. the same is true for tennis and Federer is the best there
>> ever was at doing that. Federers game is far more all surface and far
>> more all ability than Sampras narrow twin surface SV game.
>>
>> Sampras may be the best SV'er the game has ever known if you consider
>> SV to BE the game. But, the best tennis player of all time ? No way.
>> That honor goes to Roger Federer who can do more things on more
>> surfaces than anybody before him.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>How on earth did you turn this into something about Whimpy and Sampras
>vs. Federer? I was repying to greg there...


talent ?


  
Date: 26 Dec 2008 11:06:29
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:2404431b-dc03-44fe-a9c3-535533403123@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 25, 7:39 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:

> We are talking about tennis only here. IOW, all other things being
> equal, the prestige of the titles you win determines your marketability.
> Try
> to compare apples with apples.
>
>You are contradicting yourself here. You say you are talking about
>only tennis. But it is clear that tennis has nothing to do with
>prestige here. It's the venue that determines the prestige of a
>tournament.
>
>In other words, The Championships in Wimbledon is the most prestigious
>because it is staged in Wimbledon, London, England, the United
>Kingdom. That's the only essential condition. The venue itself. It has
>nothing to do with tennis. The Championships of Wimbledon has been
>given, apparently by fiat, a permanent sovereignty over the most
>prestigious tournament. Or so the Wimbledon people persistently claim
>as a marketing angle. The tradition self-perpetuates by repeating the
>same mantra over and over again. It's probably the longest running
>(benign) propaganda in tennis.
>
>Don't get me wrong. I find it very charming, romantic, cute, etc. But
>the prestige of Wimbledon has very little to do with actual tennis.

If you knew any history or had visited Wimbledon or any other grand slam
you'd realise how wrong you are.




  
Date: 25 Dec 2008 06:47:34
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...

arnab.z@gmail wrote in message
<2404431b-dc03-44fe-a9c3-535533403123@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com >...
On Dec 25, 7:39 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:

> We are talking about tennis only here. IOW, all other things being
> equal, the prestige of the titles you win determines your marketability.
Try
> to compare apples with apples.

You are contradicting yourself here. You say you are talking about
only tennis. But it is clear that tennis has nothing to do with
prestige here. It's the venue that determines the prestige of a
tournament.

***
Don't be pedantic. That's my job. The venue is a tennis venue and the title
is a tennis title. It's all to do with the game, unlike looks etc.
***

In other words, The Championships in Wimbledon is the most prestigious
because it is staged in Wimbledon, London, England, the United
Kingdom. That's the only essential condition. The venue itself. It has
nothing to do with tennis. The Championships of Wimbledon has been
given, apparently by fiat, a permanent sovereignty over the most
prestigious tournament. Or so the Wimbledon people persistently claim
as a marketing angle. The tradition self-perpetuates by repeating the
same mantra over and over again. It's probably the longest running
(benign) propaganda in tennis.

Don't get me wrong. I find it very charming, romantic, cute, etc. But
the prestige of Wimbledon has very little to do with actual tennis.

***
This is tiresome. We've been through all this before. Wimbledon is the most
prestigious tournament. That's a simple fact. The reasons don't matter.
***





  
Date: 25 Dec 2008 01:30:46
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 25, 7:39 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>> We are talking about tennis only here. IOW, all other things being
>> equal, the prestige of the titles you win determines your marketability. Try
>> to compare apples with apples.
>
> You are contradicting yourself here. You say you are talking about
> only tennis. But it is clear that tennis has nothing to do with
> prestige here. It's the venue that determines the prestige of a
> tournament.
>
> In other words, The Championships in Wimbledon is the most prestigious
> because it is staged in Wimbledon, London, England, the United
> Kingdom. That's the only essential condition. The venue itself. It has
> nothing to do with tennis. The Championships of Wimbledon has been
> given, apparently by fiat, a permanent sovereignty over the most
> prestigious tournament. Or so the Wimbledon people persistently claim
> as a marketing angle. The tradition self-perpetuates by repeating the
> same mantra over and over again. It's probably the longest running
> (benign) propaganda in tennis.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I find it very charming, romantic, cute, etc. But
> the prestige of Wimbledon has very little to do with actual tennis.



Why doesn't Federer agree with you?



 
Date: 24 Dec 2008 05:32:51
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 25, 8:08=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote in message
>
> <48f4e7fe-fc93-4f48-8380-9b44f1b52...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>...
> On Dec 24, 12:09 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 11:55 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 23, 6:06 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > >http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=3D236218
>
> > > > Some less than favourable reaction though:
>
> > > > "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>
> > > > "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from hi=
s
> > > > arse."
>
> > > > "It is a very absurd idea."
>
> > > > Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
> > > > system?
>
> > > I am surprised why Whisper made it 7543. I thought he would
> > > make it 7502, for obvious reasons. The points for each slam
> > > should equal the no. of times Sampras won it. 75 follow that pattern.
>
> > I think he actually believes in it. There are some tennis fans that
> > seem to agree with the WUFA philosophy. Nobody actually made the crazy
> > numerical leap though. That's entirely Whimpy's invention.
>
> To add: 7543 or any other version of WUFA is venue-based prestige, an
> anachronism from the early 1980s. Tennis has gone global since then.
> WUFA doesn't matter anymore. ATP has acknowledged this change since
> 1990, when they gave all the slams equal amount of ranking points and
> has stick to this since then. It's been nearly two decades now since
> then, and with every passing year, the slams get more and more equal
> in prestige.
>
> WUFA people stuck in the 1980s need to embrace the reality of 21st
> century. Tennis might see even more dramatic changes in the future. As
> Asian countries grow in stature and start dominating the circuit,
> there may be Asian Slams in the future. And they will be the most
> prestigious because billions of people might prefer them instead of
> European or American or Australian slams.
>
> * * * *
>
> As =A0much as you'd like to convince yourself otherwise, the vast differe=
nce
> in prestige between slams remains. Anyone who doesn't think Wimbledon is =
the
> biggest title in tennis is either in total denial or needs some serious
> psychological analysis and medication. Why pretend that something as obvi=
ous
> as the shining sun isn't so?

Because it isn't. Wimbledon's prestige means nothing to me. I bet it
means nothing to billions of Asian people like me as well. It just
doesn't. Please give me a good reason why I should consider a tennis
tournament staged in Britain as the most prestigious. Especially in
the light of the fact that we kicked the colonialist Brits out of our
country just a few decades ago? I am sure Wimbledon has certain
prestige in the West, but tennis is a global sport now. The whole
prestige thing with Wimbledon just does not resonate with somebody
outside the Western sphere of influence (and I bet doesn't resonate
with a big portion of the population living in the West as well). As
far as I am concerned, it's just a cute relic from the past, not to be
taken seriously.


  
Date: 26 Dec 2008 11:15:18
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1f6976bc-c259-4f53-8652-8ffdc7b0b756@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 25, 8:08 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote in message
>
> <48f4e7fe-fc93-4f48-8380-9b44f1b52...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>...
> On Dec 24, 12:09 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 11:55 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 23, 6:06 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > >http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=236218
>
> > > > Some less than favourable reaction though:
>
> > > > "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>
> > > > "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from his
> > > > arse."
>
> > > > "It is a very absurd idea."
>
> > > > Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
> > > > system?
>
> > > I am surprised why Whisper made it 7543. I thought he would
> > > make it 7502, for obvious reasons. The points for each slam
> > > should equal the no. of times Sampras won it. 75 follow that pattern.
>
> > I think he actually believes in it. There are some tennis fans that
> > seem to agree with the WUFA philosophy. Nobody actually made the crazy
> > numerical leap though. That's entirely Whimpy's invention.
>
> To add: 7543 or any other version of WUFA is venue-based prestige, an
> anachronism from the early 1980s. Tennis has gone global since then.
> WUFA doesn't matter anymore. ATP has acknowledged this change since
> 1990, when they gave all the slams equal amount of ranking points and
> has stick to this since then. It's been nearly two decades now since
> then, and with every passing year, the slams get more and more equal
> in prestige.
>
> WUFA people stuck in the 1980s need to embrace the reality of 21st
> century. Tennis might see even more dramatic changes in the future. As
> Asian countries grow in stature and start dominating the circuit,
> there may be Asian Slams in the future. And they will be the most
> prestigious because billions of people might prefer them instead of
> European or American or Australian slams.
>
> * * * *
>
> As much as you'd like to convince yourself otherwise, the vast difference
> in prestige between slams remains. Anyone who doesn't think Wimbledon is
> the
> biggest title in tennis is either in total denial or needs some serious
> psychological analysis and medication. Why pretend that something as
> obvious
> as the shining sun isn't so?
>
>Because it isn't. Wimbledon's prestige means nothing to me. I bet it
>means nothing to billions of Asian people like me as well. It just
>doesn't. Please give me a good reason why I should consider a tennis
>tournament staged in Britain as the most prestigious. Especially in
>the light of the fact that we kicked the colonialist Brits out of our
>country just a few decades ago? I am sure Wimbledon has certain
>prestige in the West, but tennis is a global sport now. The whole
>prestige thing with Wimbledon just does not resonate with somebody
>outside the Western sphere of influence (and I bet doesn't resonate
>with a big portion of the population living in the West as well).

rubbish, when I've been in Asia and people have asked me where I'm from, I
usually say Wimbledon and they say 'oh the tennis place'.

>As far as I am concerned, it's just a cute relic from the past, not to be
>taken seriously.

but other tournaments ARE to be taken seriously, LOL.




  
Date: 25 Dec 2008 06:43:35
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote in message
<1f6976bc-c259-4f53-8652-8ffdc7b0b756@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com >...
On Dec 25, 8:08 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote in message
>
> <48f4e7fe-fc93-4f48-8380-9b44f1b52...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>...
> On Dec 24, 12:09 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 11:55 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 23, 6:06 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > >http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=236218
>
> > > > Some less than favourable reaction though:
>
> > > > "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>
> > > > "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from his
> > > > arse."
>
> > > > "It is a very absurd idea."
>
> > > > Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
> > > > system?
>
> > > I am surprised why Whisper made it 7543. I thought he would
> > > make it 7502, for obvious reasons. The points for each slam
> > > should equal the no. of times Sampras won it. 75 follow that pattern.
>
> > I think he actually believes in it. There are some tennis fans that
> > seem to agree with the WUFA philosophy. Nobody actually made the crazy
> > numerical leap though. That's entirely Whimpy's invention.
>
> To add: 7543 or any other version of WUFA is venue-based prestige, an
> anachronism from the early 1980s. Tennis has gone global since then.
> WUFA doesn't matter anymore. ATP has acknowledged this change since
> 1990, when they gave all the slams equal amount of ranking points and
> has stick to this since then. It's been nearly two decades now since
> then, and with every passing year, the slams get more and more equal
> in prestige.
>
> WUFA people stuck in the 1980s need to embrace the reality of 21st
> century. Tennis might see even more dramatic changes in the future. As
> Asian countries grow in stature and start dominating the circuit,
> there may be Asian Slams in the future. And they will be the most
> prestigious because billions of people might prefer them instead of
> European or American or Australian slams.
>
> * * * *
>
> As much as you'd like to convince yourself otherwise, the vast difference
> in prestige between slams remains. Anyone who doesn't think Wimbledon is
the
> biggest title in tennis is either in total denial or needs some serious
> psychological analysis and medication. Why pretend that something as
obvious
> as the shining sun isn't so?

Because it isn't. Wimbledon's prestige means nothing to me. I bet it
means nothing to billions of Asian people like me as well. It just
doesn't. Please give me a good reason why I should consider a tennis
tournament staged in Britain as the most prestigious.

***
I meant if you can't _see_ that it's the most prestigious etc. to the vast
majority.
***

Especially in
the light of the fact that we kicked the colonialist Brits out of our
country just a few decades ago? I am sure Wimbledon has certain
prestige in the West, but tennis is a global sport now. The whole
prestige thing with Wimbledon just does not resonate with somebody
outside the Western sphere of influence (and I bet doesn't resonate
with a big portion of the population living in the West as well). As
far as I am concerned, it's just a cute relic from the past, not to be
taken seriously.

***
Does anyone not think that the World Cup is the most prestigious
international football title? Maybe, but they don't matter so can be
ignored.
***





  
Date: 25 Dec 2008 00:48:49
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 25, 8:08 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> arnab.z@gmail wrote in message
>>
>> <48f4e7fe-fc93-4f48-8380-9b44f1b52...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>...
>> On Dec 24, 12:09 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 24, 11:55 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 23, 6:06 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=236218
>>>>> Some less than favourable reaction though:
>>>>> "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>>>>> "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from his
>>>>> arse."
>>>>> "It is a very absurd idea."
>>>>> Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
>>>>> system?
>>>> I am surprised why Whisper made it 7543. I thought he would
>>>> make it 7502, for obvious reasons. The points for each slam
>>>> should equal the no. of times Sampras won it. 75 follow that pattern.
>>> I think he actually believes in it. There are some tennis fans that
>>> seem to agree with the WUFA philosophy. Nobody actually made the crazy
>>> numerical leap though. That's entirely Whimpy's invention.
>> To add: 7543 or any other version of WUFA is venue-based prestige, an
>> anachronism from the early 1980s. Tennis has gone global since then.
>> WUFA doesn't matter anymore. ATP has acknowledged this change since
>> 1990, when they gave all the slams equal amount of ranking points and
>> has stick to this since then. It's been nearly two decades now since
>> then, and with every passing year, the slams get more and more equal
>> in prestige.
>>
>> WUFA people stuck in the 1980s need to embrace the reality of 21st
>> century. Tennis might see even more dramatic changes in the future. As
>> Asian countries grow in stature and start dominating the circuit,
>> there may be Asian Slams in the future. And they will be the most
>> prestigious because billions of people might prefer them instead of
>> European or American or Australian slams.
>>
>> * * * *
>>
>> As much as you'd like to convince yourself otherwise, the vast difference
>> in prestige between slams remains. Anyone who doesn't think Wimbledon is the
>> biggest title in tennis is either in total denial or needs some serious
>> psychological analysis and medication. Why pretend that something as obvious
>> as the shining sun isn't so?
>
> Because it isn't. Wimbledon's prestige means nothing to me. I bet it
> means nothing to billions of Asian people like me as well. It just
> doesn't. Please give me a good reason why I should consider a tennis
> tournament staged in Britain as the most prestigious. Especially in
> the light of the fact that we kicked the colonialist Brits out of our
> country just a few decades ago? I am sure Wimbledon has certain
> prestige in the West, but tennis is a global sport now. The whole
> prestige thing with Wimbledon just does not resonate with somebody
> outside the Western sphere of influence (and I bet doesn't resonate
> with a big portion of the population living in the West as well). As
> far as I am concerned, it's just a cute relic from the past, not to be
> taken seriously.


You're the only one in rst who holds this view - which makes you wrong.



 
Date: 23 Dec 2008 23:39:59
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
On Dec 24, 12:09=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 24, 11:55=A0am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 6:06=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > >http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=3D236218
>
> > > Some less than favourable reaction though:
>
> > > "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>
> > > "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from his
> > > arse."
>
> > > "It is a very absurd idea."
>
> > > Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
> > > system?
>
> > =A0 =A0 I am surprised why Whisper made it 7543. I thought he would
> > make it 7502, for obvious reasons. The points for each slam
> > should equal the no. of times Sampras won it. 75 follow that pattern.
>
> I think he actually believes in it. There are some tennis fans that
> seem to agree with the WUFA philosophy. Nobody actually made the crazy
> numerical leap though. That's entirely Whimpy's invention.

To add: 7543 or any other version of WUFA is venue-based prestige, an
anachronism from the early 1980s. Tennis has gone global since then.
WUFA doesn't matter anymore. ATP has acknowledged this change since
1990, when they gave all the slams equal amount of ranking points and
has stick to this since then. It's been nearly two decades now since
then, and with every passing year, the slams get more and more equal
in prestige.

WUFA people stuck in the 1980s need to embrace the reality of 21st
century. Tennis might see even more dramatic changes in the future. As
Asian countries grow in stature and start dominating the circuit,
there may be Asian Slams in the future. And they will be the most
prestigious because billions of people might prefer them instead of
European or American or Australian slams.


  
Date: 24 Dec 2008 12:54:48
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...


Cycling is global sport as well yet order is always Tour de France, Giro
d'Italia, Vuelta a España
Not some other way around.

"There are similar races in Italy and Spain but the Tour de France is the
oldest, the most prestigious and the best known."
"After the Tour de France, it is the second most important stage race in the
world".


That's from wikipedia regarding Grand Tours.
When it comes to Grand Slams it's even better, because the quote comes from
French Open site and it says:

"Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world."




You know better?




   
Date: 24 Dec 2008 23:07:05
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
*skriptis wrote:
> Cycling is global sport as well yet order is always Tour de France, Giro
> d'Italia, Vuelta a España
> Not some other way around.
>
> "There are similar races in Italy and Spain but the Tour de France is the
> oldest, the most prestigious and the best known."
> "After the Tour de France, it is the second most important stage race in the
> world".
>
>
> That's from wikipedia regarding Grand Tours.
> When it comes to Grand Slams it's even better, because the quote comes from
> French Open site and it says:
>
> "Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world."
>
>
>
>
> You know better?
>
>


French Open site should hire arnab to educate them on the merits of
their own tournament - clearly they know shit & he can set them
straight. They probably don't even realize ATP gives them same points
as Wimbledon, thus making them equal.

They'll be so overjoyed to find this arnab genius on rst & laugh they
couldn't see it earlier themselves - arnb is one smart guy.



   
Date: 24 Dec 2008 11:58:30
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote in message
news:git7ui$g52$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>
>
> Cycling is global sport as well yet order is always Tour de France, Giro
> d'Italia, Vuelta a España
> Not some other way around.
>
> "There are similar races in Italy and Spain but the Tour de France is the
> oldest, the most prestigious and the best known."
> "After the Tour de France, it is the second most important stage race in
> the world".
>
>
> That's from wikipedia regarding Grand Tours.
> When it comes to Grand Slams it's even better, because the quote comes
> from French Open site and it says:
>
> "Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world."
>
> You know better?

LOL. Dave, a "ha ha ah" post perhaps.




  
Date: 24 Dec 2008 22:31:45
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Dec 24, 12:09 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 11:55 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 23, 6:06 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=236218
>>>> Some less than favourable reaction though:
>>>> "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>>>> "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from his
>>>> arse."
>>>> "It is a very absurd idea."
>>>> Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
>>>> system?
>>> I am surprised why Whisper made it 7543. I thought he would
>>> make it 7502, for obvious reasons. The points for each slam
>>> should equal the no. of times Sampras won it. 75 follow that pattern.
>> I think he actually believes in it. There are some tennis fans that
>> seem to agree with the WUFA philosophy. Nobody actually made the crazy
>> numerical leap though. That's entirely Whimpy's invention.
>
> To add: 7543 or any other version of WUFA is venue-based prestige, an
> anachronism from the early 1980s. Tennis has gone global since then.
> WUFA doesn't matter anymore. ATP has acknowledged this change since
> 1990, when they gave all the slams equal amount of ranking points and
> has stick to this since then. It's been nearly two decades now since
> then, and with every passing year, the slams get more and more equal
> in prestige.
>
> WUFA people stuck in the 1980s need to embrace the reality of 21st
> century. Tennis might see even more dramatic changes in the future. As
> Asian countries grow in stature and start dominating the circuit,
> there may be Asian Slams in the future. And they will be the most
> prestigious because billions of people might prefer them instead of
> European or American or Australian slams.



You're more clueless than I thought - didn't think it was possible.

For starters why don't you ask the top players if they think all slams
are equal?




   
Date: 24 Dec 2008 11:55:46
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: 7543 gaining exposure outside of RST ...
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:49521da3$0$15723$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 12:09 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 24, 11:55 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Dec 23, 6:06 am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=236218
>>>>> Some less than favourable reaction though:
>>>>> "no offense but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
>>>>> "It is not a system, it is something some random guy pulled from his
>>>>> arse."
>>>>> "It is a very absurd idea."
>>>>> Are the residents of TW unable to recognise the beauty of such a
>>>>> system?
>>>> I am surprised why Whisper made it 7543. I thought he would
>>>> make it 7502, for obvious reasons. The points for each slam
>>>> should equal the no. of times Sampras won it. 75 follow that pattern.
>>> I think he actually believes in it. There are some tennis fans that
>>> seem to agree with the WUFA philosophy. Nobody actually made the crazy
>>> numerical leap though. That's entirely Whimpy's invention.
>>
>> To add: 7543 or any other version of WUFA is venue-based prestige, an
>> anachronism from the early 1980s. Tennis has gone global since then.
>> WUFA doesn't matter anymore. ATP has acknowledged this change since
>> 1990, when they gave all the slams equal amount of ranking points and
>> has stick to this since then. It's been nearly two decades now since
>> then, and with every passing year, the slams get more and more equal
>> in prestige.
>>
>> WUFA people stuck in the 1980s need to embrace the reality of 21st
>> century. Tennis might see even more dramatic changes in the future. As
>> Asian countries grow in stature and start dominating the circuit,
>> there may be Asian Slams in the future. And they will be the most
>> prestigious because billions of people might prefer them instead of
>> European or American or Australian slams.
>
>
>
> You're more clueless than I thought - didn't think it was possible.
>
> For starters why don't you ask the top players if they think all slams are
> equal?

yes, I wish the nuter would do that