tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 11 Jan 2009 00:17:06
From: Dr. GroundAxe
Subject: Agree of disagree...
The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which he
won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made up the
competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their prime.





 
Date: 17 Jan 2009 08:41:51
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 17, 11:12=A0am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On 17 Jan., 18:19, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 16, 8:56 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 16 Jan., 22:56, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 16, 11:46 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 16, 2:59 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jan 16, 9:39 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote=
:
> >>>>>>> MBDunc wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:
> >>>>>>>> "eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in abs=
olute
> >>>>>>>> terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his name, =
&
> >>>>>>>> Hewitt
> >>>>>>>> was still 16. =A0Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Whisp=
er 2004.
> >>>>>>>> And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughable
> >>>>>>>> doublestandards.
> >>>>>>>> .mikko
> >>>>>>> Whisper has been the sad sack of rst for so many years that it su=
rprises
> >>>>>>> me that people still bother responding to his poor posts. But you=
r
> >>>>>>> public service is appreciated.
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>> vc
> >>>>>> But let me guess, you'll peek out from under your killfile and res=
pond
> >>>>>> to his posts once Fed breaks Sampras'
> >>>>>> record, right?
> >>>>>> This ng is like kindergarden.
> >>>>> Vari already responds to his posts by proxy when he comments on
> >>>>> others' replies to Whisper. Of course he is far too cowardly to
> >>>>> confront Whisper himself.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> No. I've seen him do it. Right after Fed won last year's USO.
> >>> You smell like a semi-troll.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> The fact is that Mikko, Topspin and I were having a perfectly civil
> >> discussion about different generations
> >> and eras. Because Vari doesn't like my opinions, he accuses me of
> >> having *no trace of honesty*
>
> >> Don't you think that's a little harsh? How would you respond if
> >> someone said that about you?
>
> > I agree that was a little harsh, but Vari isn't usually like that.
> > Whimpy's trolling has a lot to do with this. I am guessing he is
> > considering your particular position to be Whimpy-lite and worthy of
> > harsh treatment.
>
> When I see Jason Caitlin condemn Sampras's achievements which include 3
> Wimbledons without meeting anyone in the Top 16, I will take his
> campaign to denigrate Federer a bit more seriously. Until then, I can't
> see his attack on Federer as anything but biased and dishonest.
>
> If he has indeed condemned the Sampras achievement that makes the 7
> Wimbledon wins meaningless, in his view, because of serious questions
> about the competition, then he deserves to be taken more seriously than
> I have taken his trying to discount Federer's achievements.
>
> I shall not hold my breath.
>
> JC does carry on his attack in a civil manner. I am not questioning the
> civility of it all. Oh, and perhaps saying there is no trace of honesty
> in JC's war on Federer's status is harsh. Let me just say that his
> current campaign is largely dishonest.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> vc- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In my exchange of posts with Mikko and Topspin, I referred to the
generation of players born in 1973-77
as possibly the weakest on fast courts ever. Had those players been
tougher, I've said they *might* have put
a dent in Sampras' or Agassi's achievements. Of course we don't really
have any evidence in the form of actual results to back that statement
up. Maybe Sampras would have still won all his Wimbledons even with
tougher comp say from 1997-2000. He was still a younger guy than what
he was when he lost those late-career USO final so certainly would've
been very difficult to beat. I honestly can't say either way.

But the fact is you choose to ignore anything I might have said that
could be construed as denigrating Sampras and only focus on what you
construe to be my *campaign* to denigrate Federer. I happen to think
Fed is one of the greatest players of all time, but I also think there
is some evidence (which I've mentioned repeatedly in this thread and
don't need to repeat again) that his generation wasn't as tough as
some others. My position is hardly controversial when you think about
it, but you think you can read into what my motivations are and think
you know that I'm being "largely dishonest."

And of course, you've killfiled me so you can just launch attacks
without hearing a response. How very honorable of you.



 
Date: 17 Jan 2009 06:32:03
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 15 jan, 04:33, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 14, 4:53=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I will just refer you to mikko's excellent reply, which makes many of
> > the points I would make. Just some points I would reiterate
> > - you cannot talk about 'Agassi' without acknowledging how he went
> > awol for a period. That is the flaw with just referring to names as a
> > measure of competition.
>
> Sure he did go awol. But before he went awol he was one hell of a
> great player in 1995 and
> he still couldn't beat Pete in anything that mattered. Maybe Fed
> could've dealt with that threat

He did deal with Roddick and Hewitt and with Ferrero, Nalbandian who
were looking destined for greatness similar to Murray and Djokovic now
and Agassi in the early '90.

So he did do ok against them. Occasionally had to deal with Safin who
was no pushover when he was on.

> just as well. We don't know. I don't think I'm being very
> controversial in saying Fed didn't have to deal
> with anyone as strong as Agassi on fast courts until 2007. By that
> time he had 9 Slams.

Not controversial on this newsgroup, no. But like I said above, he did
actually deal with people arguably as strong as Agassi on hardcourts
such as Roddick, Hewitt and Safin. He also dealt with the old Agassi
himself pretty decently and he was arguably as strong mid '90s Agassi.
The one Sampras had to deal with in his peak.

> But if we're talking Fed's *generation* (which I've loosely defined as
> players born from 1978-1982) I just don't see it. Roddick has major
> holes in his game with backhand and movement. Nalby and Denko just
> don't have champions' minds and Denko's too slight and lacking in
> power anyway. Hewitt
> is also a bit of lightweight (Agassi was still owning him at age 32 or
> so). Safin was an impressive talent but also such a headcase it didn't
> matter.

Looking at the record between Hewitt and Agassi I wouldn't exactly
consider it owning. 4-4 H2H and just two tight consecutive victories
for Andre at Cincinnati 6-3 3-6 6-2 in '04 and the US open '02 6-4 7-6
(5) 6-7(1) 6-2.

Hewitt OTOH scored three consecutive victories over Andre from ' 01 to
' 02. Two of them in straights, while Andre never beat Hewitt in
straights.

BTW all of Agassi's victories came with the US home crowd advantage.

> Nadal and Murray are from the next generation and were clearly not at
> peak until 2007 and late 2008, respectively (despite his No. 2
> ranking, Nadal's performance off of clay, with the exception of one
> incredible run to the Wimbledon final in '06 is clear evidence of
> this)

No clear evidence at all. In a few years we will see which were peak
years for Nadal and Murray.


 
Date: 17 Jan 2009 05:13:09
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 15 jan, 13:19, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 3:10=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 15 Jan, 03:33, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If we're talking about *eras* I don't have a problem with calling thi=
s
> > > a good *era*.
>
> > Let me be absolutely clear where I stand. I think this current time,
> > has a claim to be not just a 'good' era, but 'the toughest competitive
> > era' ever, for the reasons I said. The other times which in my opinion
> > can compare with it are the mid-50s to early 60s for the professional
> > circuit (the equivalent of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, etc
> > playing only each other all the time), and the mid-70s to around
> > mid-80s (tennis at its peak public interest and the unusual
> > combination of three great players instead of the more usual two). If
> > push came to shove I would drop the 70-80s.
>
> > I really don't hold with all the splitting of eras and generations. I
> > am with the others who think the timeline is much more complex than 5,
> > 10, 20 year chunks.
>
> > I also am adamant in my belief, often expressed here, that we cannot
> > really judge a player until 10 years after they have retired, to fully
> > assess their legacy. That is because there are so many interactions
> > going on while they are playing - competitive, technical, social,
> > environmental - that it is hard while you are in that milieu to fully
> > understand their impacts. It is like looking at a building with a
> > microscope, all you see is sand particles, or plaster, or wood fibres,
> > or whatever. Stand back, and you see it for what it is.
>
> > So we cannot really assess Sampras until 2012, and if Federer is to
> > carry on until 2016, as he has said he plans to, then we will not
> > fully be able to assess his legacy until 2026. I think it is possible
> > to make some stabs at Sampras' position right now, but any assessment
> > of Federer, or predictions, is just guesswork, fine for opinion, but
> > not really worth a lot.
>
> We know Federer is going to go down as AN all-time great if not THE
> all-time great. That's not in
> question here. But if we're talking about his group of immediate peers
> and the contention of many people
> on this ng - hardly me alone - that it is a relatively weak one, I
> think if that is NOT going to be considered the case there have to be
> tangible results to prove otherwise. All I've seen is Roddick sort of
> intimidating the tour for maybe a brief 2 year period and then getting
> *found out* and having not much of a plan B. Hewitt snuck in between
> two legends to win Slams he probably wouldn't have won otherwise. None
> of them seem to have much staying power, although I grant you - let's
> wait and see. If those players have a late-career surge I'm certain
> willing to reassess Fed's generation.
>
> But getting back to your assertion that we need distance to evaluate,
> can you acknowledge that it makes sense with a enough hindsight to
> conclude that if Agassi is a No. 1 player and winning Slams at age 32
> and if no one from among Fed's peers can do the same there is at least
> a strong argument that Sampras' peers were tougher? That's all I'm
> asking.
>
> As for your contention that this *era* is tougher than Sampras' era or
> any earlier era, it seems to me that you're getting way ahead of the
> game in saying that. You're mentioning Murray and Djokovic to prove
> your point and, while I understand why you would point to them rather
> than Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, etc., I don't see how we can make much of
> an evaluation of this era's merit at this point.

Your argument about longevity of Federer's peers is certainly
interesting and defensible to a point. This hypothesis though can be
rebutted in a couple of ways.

First of all the changes in the game or as topspin described "the
interactions going on while they are playing - competitive, technical,
social, environmental" make it impossible to determine how history
will judge them.

My personal (perhaps premature) opinion is that the inventions in
string and racquet technology in combination with the slowing down of
courts and balls have made it harder and more draining to compete as
players age. This is imo especially true on hard courts.

Secondly as Joe Ramirez, Arnab and myself have pointed to is the
"Federer-effect" on the atp tour; If one player is to raise the game
to a significantly higher level, the ones suffering from this are the
competitors of similar or advanced age. As Joe Ramirez put it "Players
from his own generation were already 'set' and thus unable to improve
enough."

(Sure you can keep pointing to Agassi's late career success, but there
are plenty examples of players older than Agassi doing even better in
previous eras and as you said yourself no way of telling what Roddick,
Nalbandian, Safin etc. have in store)

Third point is what others have referred to as well; Though the
quality of competition can't be judged objectively by anyone, the size
of the field did expand and has steadily increased throughout tennis
history. The more players, the more kids pick up tennis, the more
likely it is to have a stiffer competition at the top.


 
Date: 17 Jan 2009 04:27:27
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 17 Jan., 18:19, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 8:56=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16 Jan., 22:56, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 11:46=A0am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 16, 2:59 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 16, 9:39 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrot=
e:
>
> > > > > > MBDunc wrote:
> > > > > > > I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:
>
> > > > > > > "eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in =
absolute
> > > > > > > terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his nam=
e, &
> > > > > > > Hewitt
> > > > > > > was still 16. =A0Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Wh=
isper 2004.
>
> > > > > > > And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughabl=
e
> > > > > > > doublestandards.
>
> > > > > > > .mikko
>
> > > > > > Whisper has been the sad sack of rst for so many years that it =
surprises
> > > > > > me that people still bother responding to his poor posts. But y=
our
> > > > > > public service is appreciated.
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Cheers,
>
> > > > > > vc
>
> > > > > But let me guess, you'll peek out from under your killfile and re=
spond
> > > > > to his posts once Fed breaks Sampras'
> > > > > record, right?
>
> > > > > This ng is like kindergarden.
>
> > > > Vari already responds to his posts by proxy when he comments on
> > > > others' replies to Whisper. Of course he is far too cowardly to
> > > > confront Whisper himself.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > No. I've seen him do it. Right after Fed won last year's USO.
>
> > You smell like a semi-troll.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The fact is that Mikko, Topspin and I were having a perfectly civil
> discussion about different generations
> and eras. Because Vari doesn't like my opinions, he accuses me of
> having *no trace of honesty*
>
> Don't you think that's a little harsh? How would you respond if
> someone said that about you?

I agree that was a little harsh, but Vari isn't usually like that.
Whimpy's trolling has a lot to do with this. I am guessing he is
considering your particular position to be Whimpy-lite and worthy of
harsh treatment.


  
Date: 17 Jan 2009 16:12:19
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On 17 Jan., 18:19, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 8:56 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 16 Jan., 22:56, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 16, 11:46 am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 16, 2:59 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 16, 9:39 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> MBDunc wrote:
>>>>>>>> I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:
>>>>>>>> "eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in absolute
>>>>>>>> terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his name, &
>>>>>>>> Hewitt
>>>>>>>> was still 16. Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Whisper 2004.
>>>>>>>> And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughable
>>>>>>>> doublestandards.
>>>>>>>> .mikko
>>>>>>> Whisper has been the sad sack of rst for so many years that it surprises
>>>>>>> me that people still bother responding to his poor posts. But your
>>>>>>> public service is appreciated.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> vc
>>>>>> But let me guess, you'll peek out from under your killfile and respond
>>>>>> to his posts once Fed breaks Sampras'
>>>>>> record, right?
>>>>>> This ng is like kindergarden.
>>>>> Vari already responds to his posts by proxy when he comments on
>>>>> others' replies to Whisper. Of course he is far too cowardly to
>>>>> confront Whisper himself.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> No. I've seen him do it. Right after Fed won last year's USO.
>>> You smell like a semi-troll.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> The fact is that Mikko, Topspin and I were having a perfectly civil
>> discussion about different generations
>> and eras. Because Vari doesn't like my opinions, he accuses me of
>> having *no trace of honesty*
>>
>> Don't you think that's a little harsh? How would you respond if
>> someone said that about you?
>
> I agree that was a little harsh, but Vari isn't usually like that.
> Whimpy's trolling has a lot to do with this. I am guessing he is
> considering your particular position to be Whimpy-lite and worthy of
> harsh treatment.

When I see Jason Caitlin condemn Sampras's achievements which include 3
Wimbledons without meeting anyone in the Top 16, I will take his
campaign to denigrate Federer a bit more seriously. Until then, I can't
see his attack on Federer as anything but biased and dishonest.

If he has indeed condemned the Sampras achievement that makes the 7
Wimbledon wins meaningless, in his view, because of serious questions
about the competition, then he deserves to be taken more seriously than
I have taken his trying to discount Federer's achievements.

I shall not hold my breath.

JC does carry on his attack in a civil manner. I am not questioning the
civility of it all. Oh, and perhaps saying there is no trace of honesty
in JC's war on Federer's status is harsh. Let me just say that his
current campaign is largely dishonest.

--
Cheers,

vc


  
Date: 18 Jan 2009 02:27:27
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> The fact is that Mikko, Topspin and I were having a perfectly civil
>> discussion about different generations
>> and eras. Because Vari doesn't like my opinions, he accuses me of
>> having *no trace of honesty*
>>
>> Don't you think that's a little harsh? How would you respond if
>> someone said that about you?
>
> I agree that was a little harsh, but Vari isn't usually like that.
> Whimpy's trolling has a lot to do with this. I am guessing he is
> considering your particular position to be Whimpy-lite and worthy of
> harsh treatment.



Yes, anybody who doesn't kiss Fed's arse has to be at least a semi-troll
right?



 
Date: 17 Jan 2009 04:19:57
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 16, 8:56=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 16 Jan., 22:56, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 11:46=A0am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 2:59 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 16, 9:39 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > MBDunc wrote:
> > > > > > I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:
>
> > > > > > "eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in ab=
solute
> > > > > > terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his name,=
&
> > > > > > Hewitt
> > > > > > was still 16. =A0Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Whis=
per 2004.
>
> > > > > > And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughable
> > > > > > doublestandards.
>
> > > > > > .mikko
>
> > > > > Whisper has been the sad sack of rst for so many years that it su=
rprises
> > > > > me that people still bother responding to his poor posts. But you=
r
> > > > > public service is appreciated.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Cheers,
>
> > > > > vc
>
> > > > But let me guess, you'll peek out from under your killfile and resp=
ond
> > > > to his posts once Fed breaks Sampras'
> > > > record, right?
>
> > > > This ng is like kindergarden.
>
> > > Vari already responds to his posts by proxy when he comments on
> > > others' replies to Whisper. Of course he is far too cowardly to
> > > confront Whisper himself.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > No. I've seen him do it. Right after Fed won last year's USO.
>
> You smell like a semi-troll.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The fact is that Mikko, Topspin and I were having a perfectly civil
discussion about different generations
and eras. Because Vari doesn't like my opinions, he accuses me of
having *no trace of honesty*

Don't you think that's a little harsh? How would you respond if
someone said that about you?


 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 18:20:36
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 16 Jan., 20:35, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 7:52=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > > On 16 Jan., 16:12, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> > >> I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:
>
> > >> "eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in absolut=
e
> > >> terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his name, &
> > >> Hewitt
> > >> was still 16. =A0Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Whisper 2=
004.
>
> > >> And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughable
> > >> doublestandards.
>
> > >> .mikko
>
> > > If this doesn't prove how big a troll Whimpy is, then nothing does. H=
e
> > > doesn't believe in the stuff he writes. He is just playing this ng
> > > with trolls and trolls so the attention is on to him. Always been the
> > > case.
>
> > I meant every word of it. =A0The Hewitt Fed beat in 2004 USO final was =
a
> > shadow of that guy & Fed can in no way get credit for beating peak Hewi=
tt.
>
> Complete nonsense. Hewitt clearly was at peak from 2001 through 2005.
> Only at the end of 2005 did family distractions and then physical
> problems significantly drag down his game, to the point that he was no
> longer capable of threatening to win the biggest tournaments.
>
> Your mistake -- which you make all the time -- is confusing "at peak"
> with "best year." Of course a year in which a player wins a slam is
> better than a year in which he does not. That does not mean that he is
> a mere shadow of himself in the non-slam-winning years, particularly
> if he loses to an all-time great. You commit the same error in your
> analysis of McEnroe, who according to you was at peak only in 1984, so
> that Lendl and Borg get no credit for their slam victories over him in
> previous years.
>
> Hewitt was a transitional champion who could not have been expected to
> win slams regularly. He made the most of his opportunities in the
> brief window between the reigns of Sampras and Federer. The level of
> his tennis, however, especially at the big events, was high through
> the end of 2005. It usually took Fed to stop him from wrapping up
> major titles.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Yes, but this is all common knowledge. Anyone who has been watching
tennis for the last 5-6 years knows this. It is obvious that Whimpy
was trolling again. And he does that 99% of the time.

Whimpy comes up with his one-liner trolls/nonsense statements and to
untangle it people have to respond in lengthy paragraphs, explaining
in depth the obvious. And this has been repeated thousands and
thousands of times ever since the troll came on board. So much energy
wasted to explain the obvious just to reply the nonsense of one filthy
little troll. Imagine if all of us used it for better purposes.


  
Date: 17 Jan 2009 21:57:08
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> Yes, but this is all common knowledge. Anyone who has been watching
> tennis for the last 5-6 years knows this. It is obvious that Whimpy
> was trolling again. And he does that 99% of the time.
>
> Whimpy comes up with his one-liner trolls/nonsense statements and to
> untangle it people have to respond in lengthy paragraphs, explaining
> in depth the obvious. And this has been repeated thousands and
> thousands of times ever since the troll came on board. So much energy
> wasted to explain the obvious just to reply the nonsense of one filthy
> little troll. Imagine if all of us used it for better purposes.


Like circle-jerk Fedfucking?



 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 17:56:15
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 16 Jan., 22:56, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 11:46=A0am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 2:59 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 9:39 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > > MBDunc wrote:
> > > > > I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:
>
> > > > > "eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in abso=
lute
> > > > > terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his name, &
> > > > > Hewitt
> > > > > was still 16. =A0Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Whispe=
r 2004.
>
> > > > > And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughable
> > > > > doublestandards.
>
> > > > > .mikko
>
> > > > Whisper has been the sad sack of rst for so many years that it surp=
rises
> > > > me that people still bother responding to his poor posts. But your
> > > > public service is appreciated.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers,
>
> > > > vc
>
> > > But let me guess, you'll peek out from under your killfile and respon=
d
> > > to his posts once Fed breaks Sampras'
> > > record, right?
>
> > > This ng is like kindergarden.
>
> > Vari already responds to his posts by proxy when he comments on
> > others' replies to Whisper. Of course he is far too cowardly to
> > confront Whisper himself.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> No. I've seen him do it. Right after Fed won last year's USO.

You smell like a semi-troll.


 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 17:55:28
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 16 Jan., 20:59, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 9:39=A0am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > MBDunc wrote:
> > > I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:
>
> > > "eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in absolute
> > > terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his name, &
> > > Hewitt
> > > was still 16. =A0Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Whisper 20=
04.
>
> > > And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughable
> > > doublestandards.
>
> > > .mikko
>
> > Whisper has been the sad sack of rst for so many years that it surprise=
s
> > me that people still bother responding to his poor posts. But your
> > public service is appreciated.
>
> > --
> > Cheers,
>
> > vc
>
> But let me guess, you'll peek out from under your killfile

Why would someone "peek out from under his killfile"?

Killfile is not a curtain. It's more like insect spray. You kill the
insects with it. If you choose stop using them, they will come back.


 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 08:56:57
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 16, 11:46=A0am, GOAT <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2:59 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 9:39 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > MBDunc wrote:
> > > > I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:
>
> > > > "eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in absolu=
te
> > > > terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his name, &
> > > > Hewitt
> > > > was still 16. =A0Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Whisper =
2004.
>
> > > > And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughable
> > > > doublestandards.
>
> > > > .mikko
>
> > > Whisper has been the sad sack of rst for so many years that it surpri=
ses
> > > me that people still bother responding to his poor posts. But your
> > > public service is appreciated.
>
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
>
> > > vc
>
> > But let me guess, you'll peek out from under your killfile and respond
> > to his posts once Fed breaks Sampras'
> > record, right?
>
> > This ng is like kindergarden.
>
> Vari already responds to his posts by proxy when he comments on
> others' replies to Whisper. Of course he is far too cowardly to
> confront Whisper himself.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No. I've seen him do it. Right after Fed won last year's USO.


 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 08:46:00
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 16, 2:59 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 9:39 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > MBDunc wrote:
> > > I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:
>
> > > "eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in absolute
> > > terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his name, &
> > > Hewitt
> > > was still 16. Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Whisper 2004.
>
> > > And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughable
> > > doublestandards.
>
> > > .mikko
>
> > Whisper has been the sad sack of rst for so many years that it surprises
> > me that people still bother responding to his poor posts. But your
> > public service is appreciated.
>
> > --
> > Cheers,
>
> > vc
>
> But let me guess, you'll peek out from under your killfile and respond
> to his posts once Fed breaks Sampras'
> record, right?
>
> This ng is like kindergarden.

Vari already responds to his posts by proxy when he comments on
others' replies to Whisper. Of course he is far too cowardly to
confront Whisper himself.


 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 06:59:02
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 16, 9:39=A0am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:
>
> > "eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in absolute
> > terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his name, &
> > Hewitt
> > was still 16. =A0Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Whisper 2004=
.
>
> > And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughable
> > doublestandards.
>
> > .mikko
>
> Whisper has been the sad sack of rst for so many years that it surprises
> me that people still bother responding to his poor posts. But your
> public service is appreciated.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> vc

But let me guess, you'll peek out from under your killfile and respond
to his posts once Fed breaks Sampras'
record, right?

This ng is like kindergarden.


 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 06:35:07
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 16, 7:52=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On 16 Jan., 16:12, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >> I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:
>
> >> "eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in absolute
> >> terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his name, &
> >> Hewitt
> >> was still 16. =A0Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Whisper 200=
4.
>
> >> And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughable
> >> doublestandards.
>
> >> .mikko
>
> > If this doesn't prove how big a troll Whimpy is, then nothing does. He
> > doesn't believe in the stuff he writes. He is just playing this ng
> > with trolls and trolls so the attention is on to him. Always been the
> > case.
>
> I meant every word of it. =A0The Hewitt Fed beat in 2004 USO final was a
> shadow of that guy & Fed can in no way get credit for beating peak Hewitt=
.

Complete nonsense. Hewitt clearly was at peak from 2001 through 2005.
Only at the end of 2005 did family distractions and then physical
problems significantly drag down his game, to the point that he was no
longer capable of threatening to win the biggest tournaments.

Your mistake -- which you make all the time -- is confusing "at peak"
with "best year." Of course a year in which a player wins a slam is
better than a year in which he does not. That does not mean that he is
a mere shadow of himself in the non-slam-winning years, particularly
if he loses to an all-time great. You commit the same error in your
analysis of McEnroe, who according to you was at peak only in 1984, so
that Lendl and Borg get no credit for their slam victories over him in
previous years.

Hewitt was a transitional champion who could not have been expected to
win slams regularly. He made the most of his opportunities in the
brief window between the reigns of Sampras and Federer. The level of
his tennis, however, especially at the big events, was high through
the end of 2005. It usually took Fed to stop him from wrapping up
major titles.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 04:49:30
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 16 Jan., 18:24, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> On 16 tammi, 13:39, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > MBDunc wrote:
> > > I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:
>
> > > "eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in absolute
> > > terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his name, &
> > > Hewitt
> > > was still 16. =A0Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Whisper 20=
04.
>
> > > And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughable
> > > doublestandards.
>
> > > .mikko
>
> > You can't use 'Hewitt' as an absolute - I'm talking peak Hewitt which
> > was a very short period (a little over 12 months). =A0Hewitt at 100% co=
uld
> > beat almost anybody, but at 98% he ranks where he does today. =A0By 200=
3
> > Hewitt was well & truly fucked as a top player - no way could he
> > maintain 100% intensity with that kind of game.
>
> Your quotes were from 04 and you clearly had faith on him then (as you
> had faith on Roddick similarly).
>
> Hewitt reached two slam finals in a row (USO 04, AO 05) and USO final
> was reached without losing a set. If for Bruguera it is peak with a
> ranking of 70 and barely winning a match (1996), howabout this 2 slam
> winner who still is in top3. Doublestandards.
>
> And you have used that "reaches a final without losing a set as a
> proof for being peak in other examples"
>
> And Hewitt stayed in top5 (mostly top3) during 04 summer -> late 06.
> Without Fed he would have been #1 04. Just numbers.
>
> .mikko

He's just playing you.


 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 04:24:40
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 16 tammi, 13:39, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:
>
> > "eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in absolute
> > terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his name, &
> > Hewitt
> > was still 16. Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Whisper 2004.
>
> > And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughable
> > doublestandards.
>
> > .mikko
>
> You can't use 'Hewitt' as an absolute - I'm talking peak Hewitt which
> was a very short period (a little over 12 months). Hewitt at 100% could
> beat almost anybody, but at 98% he ranks where he does today. By 2003
> Hewitt was well & truly fucked as a top player - no way could he
> maintain 100% intensity with that kind of game.

Your quotes were from 04 and you clearly had faith on him then (as you
had faith on Roddick similarly).

Hewitt reached two slam finals in a row (USO 04, AO 05) and USO final
was reached without losing a set. If for Bruguera it is peak with a
ranking of 70 and barely winning a match (1996), howabout this 2 slam
winner who still is in top3. Doublestandards.

And you have used that "reaches a final without losing a set as a
proof for being peak in other examples"

And Hewitt stayed in top5 (mostly top3) during 04 summer - > late 06.
Without Fed he would have been #1 04. Just numbers.

.mikko





 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 04:23:57
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 16 Jan., 16:12, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:
>
> "eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in absolute
> terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his name, &
> Hewitt
> was still 16. =A0Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Whisper 2004.
>
> And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughable
> doublestandards.
>
> .mikko

If this doesn't prove how big a troll Whimpy is, then nothing does. He
doesn't believe in the stuff he writes. He is just playing this ng
with trolls and trolls so the attention is on to him. Always been the
case.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 23:52:09
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On 16 Jan., 16:12, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>> I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:
>>
>> "eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in absolute
>> terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his name, &
>> Hewitt
>> was still 16. Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Whisper 2004.
>>
>> And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughable
>> doublestandards.
>>
>> .mikko
>
> If this doesn't prove how big a troll Whimpy is, then nothing does. He
> doesn't believe in the stuff he writes. He is just playing this ng
> with trolls and trolls so the attention is on to him. Always been the
> case.


I meant every word of it. The Hewitt Fed beat in 2004 USO final was a
shadow of that guy & Fed can in no way get credit for beating peak Hewitt.





 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 04:22:17
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 16 Jan., 16:08, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> On 16 tammi, 11:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> > > MBDunc wrote:
> > >> On 15 tammi, 14:32, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
> > >>> world who
> > >>> have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers =
to
> > >>> show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at =
No.
> > >>> 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>
> > >>> Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while=
it
> > >>> was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
> > >>> hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years wi=
ll
> > >>> be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
> > >>> would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
> > >>> and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>
> > >> Irrelevant. I mean totally irrirelevant. So Gonzales and Rosewall wi=
th
> > >> their 40y age tags (late 60:ies - early/mid 70:ies) proved that thei=
r
> > >> peak 50:ies were a lot tougher era? Rosewall even won 4 slams and
> > >> reached 2 GS finals at age of 39. Or that Kramer is the best of them
> > >> all as he trounced Gonzales late 40:ies?
>
> > >>> If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
> > >>> that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed=
to
> > >>> lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed.
>
> > >> That's nothing new. Of course they hype current top dog. Even Mac wi=
th
> > >> his relatively limited record was at many medias hyped as "the
> > >> greatest ever" around 84/85.
>
> > >> .mikko
>
> > > Yet Mac was hyping Federer as maybe the best ever when he had fewer t=
han
> > > 5 slams.
>
> > > By JC's argument, Sampras's 7 Wimbledons is a meaningless achievement
> > > because he won thrice there without meeting anyone in the Top 16 well
> > > after his best had clearly passed.
>
> > No, as he faced Pat Rafter in the final, an opponent clearly superior t=
o
> > any clown playing today.
>
> Whisper quotes about Rafter 2004: (available via google-groups)
>
> "Sure, another personality to the mix would be good, but his game
> wasn't that
> good - Hewitt is better..... "
>
> "It's a super effort - but Hewitt has clearly surpassed him....." -
> super effort means Rafter's 2 USOpens.
>
> "Hewitt is a better player in absolute terms, as evidence by his
> superior
> achievements & better head to head.... " - direct Whisper quote from
> 2004.
>
> ...and this is your point of view of Hewitt (co-incidentally before
> Fed had started to gather serious # of slams)
>
> "No, as he won the 2 biggest slams, straight sets both finals, beat
> the
> god of tennis/USO in USO final, 2 Masters, 2 yr-end No.1s. =A0If it was
> a
> fluke, he sure sustained it for a relatively long period of time,
> which
> goes against fluke definition.... "
>
> "It looks like Hewitt would do better against the big guys who beat
> Chang
> - eg Rafter killed Chang in '97 USO semi, but Hewitt seemed to always
> beat Rafter pretty comfortably. =A0The only issue is how would Hewitt go
> v
> Chang himself, & how do their games matchup? - that's something to
> discuss.... I don't think it's a particularly interesting issue unless
> you're a big
> Hewitt/Chang fan - but my gut feeling is Hewitt would win as he is
> more
> obsessed & has more power"
>
> ...and there are dozens of similar posts from Whispers...but then Fed
> just happened and came doublestandards.
>
> .mikko

Devastating. If Whimpy had any shame, he wouldn't post anything for
the next six months.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 12:32:33
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:22:17 -0800 (PST), "arnab.z@gmail"
<arnab.zaheen@gmail.com > wrote:

>On 16 Jan., 16:08, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>> On 16 tammi, 11:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>> > > MBDunc wrote:
>> > >> On 15 tammi, 14:32, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>> The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
>> > >>> world who
>> > >>> have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
>> > >>> show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
>> > >>> 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>>
>> > >>> Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
>> > >>> was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
>> > >>> hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
>> > >>> be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
>> > >>> would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
>> > >>> and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>>
>> > >> Irrelevant. I mean totally irrirelevant. So Gonzales and Rosewall with
>> > >> their 40y age tags (late 60:ies - early/mid 70:ies) proved that their
>> > >> peak 50:ies were a lot tougher era? Rosewall even won 4 slams and
>> > >> reached 2 GS finals at age of 39. Or that Kramer is the best of them
>> > >> all as he trounced Gonzales late 40:ies?
>>
>> > >>> If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
>> > >>> that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed to
>> > >>> lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed.
>>
>> > >> That's nothing new. Of course they hype current top dog. Even Mac with
>> > >> his relatively limited record was at many medias hyped as "the
>> > >> greatest ever" around 84/85.
>>
>> > >> .mikko
>>
>> > > Yet Mac was hyping Federer as maybe the best ever when he had fewer than
>> > > 5 slams.
>>
>> > > By JC's argument, Sampras's 7 Wimbledons is a meaningless achievement
>> > > because he won thrice there without meeting anyone in the Top 16 well
>> > > after his best had clearly passed.
>>
>> > No, as he faced Pat Rafter in the final, an opponent clearly superior to
>> > any clown playing today.
>>
>> Whisper quotes about Rafter 2004: (available via google-groups)
>>
>> "Sure, another personality to the mix would be good, but his game
>> wasn't that
>> good - Hewitt is better..... "
>>
>> "It's a super effort - but Hewitt has clearly surpassed him....." -
>> super effort means Rafter's 2 USOpens.
>>
>> "Hewitt is a better player in absolute terms, as evidence by his
>> superior
>> achievements & better head to head.... " - direct Whisper quote from
>> 2004.
>>
>> ...and this is your point of view of Hewitt (co-incidentally before
>> Fed had started to gather serious # of slams)
>>
>> "No, as he won the 2 biggest slams, straight sets both finals, beat
>> the
>> god of tennis/USO in USO final, 2 Masters, 2 yr-end No.1s.  If it was
>> a
>> fluke, he sure sustained it for a relatively long period of time,
>> which
>> goes against fluke definition.... "
>>
>> "It looks like Hewitt would do better against the big guys who beat
>> Chang
>> - eg Rafter killed Chang in '97 USO semi, but Hewitt seemed to always
>> beat Rafter pretty comfortably.  The only issue is how would Hewitt go
>> v
>> Chang himself, & how do their games matchup? - that's something to
>> discuss.... I don't think it's a particularly interesting issue unless
>> you're a big
>> Hewitt/Chang fan - but my gut feeling is Hewitt would win as he is
>> more
>> obsessed & has more power"
>>
>> ...and there are dozens of similar posts from Whispers...but then Fed
>> just happened and came doublestandards.
>>
>> .mikko
>
>Devastating. If Whimpy had any shame, he wouldn't post anything for
>the next six months.


never fear. he does not even know what the word shame means.


 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 02:12:45
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:

"eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in absolute
terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his name, &
Hewitt
was still 16. Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Whisper 2004.

And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughable
doublestandards.

.mikko


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 14:39:49
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
MBDunc wrote:
> I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:
>
> "eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in absolute
> terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his name, &
> Hewitt
> was still 16. Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Whisper 2004.
>
> And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughable
> doublestandards.
>
> .mikko

Whisper has been the sad sack of rst for so many years that it surprises
me that people still bother responding to his poor posts. But your
public service is appreciated.

--
Cheers,

vc


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 22:39:26
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
MBDunc wrote:
> I left out the best Whispers' Hewitt/Rafter related quote:
>
> "eg in '98 I said he was the best Aussie player I'd seen (in absolute
> terms) - better than Rafter who already had 2 USOs to his name, &
> Hewitt
> was still 16. Don't misrepresent me.... it's boring." - Whisper 2004.
>
> And now Fed has never met anyone Rafter's caliber?...laughable
> doublestandards.
>
> .mikko


You can't use 'Hewitt' as an absolute - I'm talking peak Hewitt which
was a very short period (a little over 12 months). Hewitt at 100% could
beat almost anybody, but at 98% he ranks where he does today. By 2003
Hewitt was well & truly fucked as a top player - no way could he
maintain 100% intensity with that kind of game.



   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 14:36:17
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Whisper wrote:
>
> (snip) I'm talking peak Hewitt which
> was a very short period (a little over 12 months). Hewitt at 100% could
> beat almost anybody, but at 98% he ranks where he does today.

Interesting. Why do you think that is so?

Why did Hewitt and say Ferrero peak for such a short period and after
that such a big drop for former rank ones?


--
"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: 16 Jan 2009 23:55:22
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>>
>> (snip) I'm talking peak Hewitt which was a very short period (a
>> little over 12 months). Hewitt at 100% could beat almost anybody, but
>> at 98% he ranks where he does today.
>
> Interesting. Why do you think that is so?
>
> Why did Hewitt and say Ferrero peak for such a short period and after
> that such a big drop for former rank ones?
>
>


Courier too.

These guys had little natural talent but huge ambition & motivation to
succeed. This means while they were burning on all 4 cylinders they
were pretty awesome players, but the nature of their game & sum of their
talents meant they simply could not keep it up. Sampras, Fed & Mac
could coast through, raising game at just the right moments & still win.
Hewitt/Courier couldn't do that.



     
Date: 16 Jan 2009 15:52:37
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip) I'm talking peak Hewitt which was a very short period (a
>>> little over 12 months). Hewitt at 100% could beat almost anybody,
>>> but at 98% he ranks where he does today.
>>
>> Interesting. Why do you think that is so?
>>
>> Why did Hewitt and say Ferrero peak for such a short period and after
>> that such a big drop for former rank ones?
>>
>>
>
>
> Courier too.
>
> These guys had little natural talent but huge ambition & motivation to
> succeed. This means while they were burning on all 4 cylinders they
> were pretty awesome players, but the nature of their game & sum of their
> talents meant they simply could not keep it up. Sampras, Fed & Mac
> could coast through, raising game at just the right moments & still win.
> Hewitt/Courier couldn't do that.
>

Makes sense. They got burnt out quickly. Also the problem might have
been that they were not trying to improve while maximizing their current
talent...while after first shock their peers weren't awestruck anymore,
learned their weaknesses and went after their scalps.

Still, imo Ferrero has some weapons and is quite complete player so I'm
somewhat puzzled with his early demise.
--
"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: 16 Jan 2009 11:02:18
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
TT <gold@olympics.org > wrote:
>
> Still, imo Ferrero has some weapons and is quite complete player so I'm
> somewhat puzzled with his early demise.

I believe his illness + racquet switch combo did irremediable damage to his
confidence.


       
Date: 16 Jan 2009 16:16:47
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> TT <gold@olympics.org> wrote:
>> Still, imo Ferrero has some weapons and is quite complete player so I'm
>> somewhat puzzled with his early demise.
>
> I believe his illness + racquet switch combo did irremediable damage to his
> confidence.

Yes could be a confidence thing...not being the chaser but chased etc.

--
"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: 16 Jan 2009 02:08:15
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 16 tammi, 11:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> > MBDunc wrote:
> >> On 15 tammi, 14:32, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
> >>> world who
> >>> have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
> >>> show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
> >>> 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>
> >>> Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
> >>> was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
> >>> hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
> >>> be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
> >>> would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
> >>> and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>
> >> Irrelevant. I mean totally irrirelevant. So Gonzales and Rosewall with
> >> their 40y age tags (late 60:ies - early/mid 70:ies) proved that their
> >> peak 50:ies were a lot tougher era? Rosewall even won 4 slams and
> >> reached 2 GS finals at age of 39. Or that Kramer is the best of them
> >> all as he trounced Gonzales late 40:ies?
>
> >>> If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
> >>> that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed to
> >>> lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed.
>
> >> That's nothing new. Of course they hype current top dog. Even Mac with
> >> his relatively limited record was at many medias hyped as "the
> >> greatest ever" around 84/85.
>
> >> .mikko
>
> > Yet Mac was hyping Federer as maybe the best ever when he had fewer than
> > 5 slams.
>
> > By JC's argument, Sampras's 7 Wimbledons is a meaningless achievement
> > because he won thrice there without meeting anyone in the Top 16 well
> > after his best had clearly passed.
>
> No, as he faced Pat Rafter in the final, an opponent clearly superior to
> any clown playing today.

Whisper quotes about Rafter 2004: (available via google-groups)

"Sure, another personality to the mix would be good, but his game
wasn't that
good - Hewitt is better..... "

"It's a super effort - but Hewitt has clearly surpassed him....." -
super effort means Rafter's 2 USOpens.

"Hewitt is a better player in absolute terms, as evidence by his
superior
achievements & better head to head.... " - direct Whisper quote from
2004.

...and this is your point of view of Hewitt (co-incidentally before
Fed had started to gather serious # of slams)

"No, as he won the 2 biggest slams, straight sets both finals, beat
the
god of tennis/USO in USO final, 2 Masters, 2 yr-end No.1s. If it was
a
fluke, he sure sustained it for a relatively long period of time,
which
goes against fluke definition.... "

"It looks like Hewitt would do better against the big guys who beat
Chang
- eg Rafter killed Chang in '97 USO semi, but Hewitt seemed to always
beat Rafter pretty comfortably. The only issue is how would Hewitt go
v
Chang himself, & how do their games matchup? - that's something to
discuss.... I don't think it's a particularly interesting issue unless
you're a big
Hewitt/Chang fan - but my gut feeling is Hewitt would win as he is
more
obsessed & has more power"

...and there are dozens of similar posts from Whispers...but then Fed
just happened and came doublestandards.

.mikko




  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 22:36:14
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
MBDunc wrote:
> On 16 tammi, 11:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>> MBDunc wrote:
>>>> On 15 tammi, 14:32, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
>>>>> world who
>>>>> have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
>>>>> show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
>>>>> 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>>>>> Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
>>>>> was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
>>>>> hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
>>>>> be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
>>>>> would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
>>>>> and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>>>> Irrelevant. I mean totally irrirelevant. So Gonzales and Rosewall with
>>>> their 40y age tags (late 60:ies - early/mid 70:ies) proved that their
>>>> peak 50:ies were a lot tougher era? Rosewall even won 4 slams and
>>>> reached 2 GS finals at age of 39. Or that Kramer is the best of them
>>>> all as he trounced Gonzales late 40:ies?
>>>>> If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
>>>>> that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed to
>>>>> lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed.
>>>> That's nothing new. Of course they hype current top dog. Even Mac with
>>>> his relatively limited record was at many medias hyped as "the
>>>> greatest ever" around 84/85.
>>>> .mikko
>>> Yet Mac was hyping Federer as maybe the best ever when he had fewer than
>>> 5 slams.
>>> By JC's argument, Sampras's 7 Wimbledons is a meaningless achievement
>>> because he won thrice there without meeting anyone in the Top 16 well
>>> after his best had clearly passed.
>> No, as he faced Pat Rafter in the final, an opponent clearly superior to
>> any clown playing today.
>
> Whisper quotes about Rafter 2004: (available via google-groups)
>
> "Sure, another personality to the mix would be good, but his game
> wasn't that
> good - Hewitt is better..... "
>
> "It's a super effort - but Hewitt has clearly surpassed him....." -
> super effort means Rafter's 2 USOpens.
>
> "Hewitt is a better player in absolute terms, as evidence by his
> superior
> achievements & better head to head.... " - direct Whisper quote from
> 2004.
>
> ...and this is your point of view of Hewitt (co-incidentally before
> Fed had started to gather serious # of slams)
>
> "No, as he won the 2 biggest slams, straight sets both finals, beat
> the
> god of tennis/USO in USO final, 2 Masters, 2 yr-end No.1s. If it was
> a
> fluke, he sure sustained it for a relatively long period of time,
> which
> goes against fluke definition.... "
>
> "It looks like Hewitt would do better against the big guys who beat
> Chang
> - eg Rafter killed Chang in '97 USO semi, but Hewitt seemed to always
> beat Rafter pretty comfortably. The only issue is how would Hewitt go
> v
> Chang himself, & how do their games matchup? - that's something to
> discuss.... I don't think it's a particularly interesting issue unless
> you're a big
> Hewitt/Chang fan - but my gut feeling is Hewitt would win as he is
> more
> obsessed & has more power"
>
> ...and there are dozens of similar posts from Whispers...but then Fed
> just happened and came doublestandards.
>
> .mikko
>
>



I've also quoted many times Hewitt at 100% is a great player, but at 98%
he's barely top 30. That means he only has to be very slightly off his
best form & he's crap.

Sampras by contrast could be at 40% & still beat no.1 in straights.





   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 11:52:04
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:36:14 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>MBDunc wrote:
>> On 16 tammi, 11:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>>> MBDunc wrote:
>>>>> On 15 tammi, 14:32, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
>>>>>> world who
>>>>>> have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
>>>>>> show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
>>>>>> 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>>>>>> Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
>>>>>> was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
>>>>>> hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
>>>>>> be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
>>>>>> would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
>>>>>> and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>>>>> Irrelevant. I mean totally irrirelevant. So Gonzales and Rosewall with
>>>>> their 40y age tags (late 60:ies - early/mid 70:ies) proved that their
>>>>> peak 50:ies were a lot tougher era? Rosewall even won 4 slams and
>>>>> reached 2 GS finals at age of 39. Or that Kramer is the best of them
>>>>> all as he trounced Gonzales late 40:ies?
>>>>>> If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
>>>>>> that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed to
>>>>>> lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed.
>>>>> That's nothing new. Of course they hype current top dog. Even Mac with
>>>>> his relatively limited record was at many medias hyped as "the
>>>>> greatest ever" around 84/85.
>>>>> .mikko
>>>> Yet Mac was hyping Federer as maybe the best ever when he had fewer than
>>>> 5 slams.
>>>> By JC's argument, Sampras's 7 Wimbledons is a meaningless achievement
>>>> because he won thrice there without meeting anyone in the Top 16 well
>>>> after his best had clearly passed.
>>> No, as he faced Pat Rafter in the final, an opponent clearly superior to
>>> any clown playing today.
>>
>> Whisper quotes about Rafter 2004: (available via google-groups)
>>
>> "Sure, another personality to the mix would be good, but his game
>> wasn't that
>> good - Hewitt is better..... "
>>
>> "It's a super effort - but Hewitt has clearly surpassed him....." -
>> super effort means Rafter's 2 USOpens.
>>
>> "Hewitt is a better player in absolute terms, as evidence by his
>> superior
>> achievements & better head to head.... " - direct Whisper quote from
>> 2004.
>>
>> ...and this is your point of view of Hewitt (co-incidentally before
>> Fed had started to gather serious # of slams)
>>
>> "No, as he won the 2 biggest slams, straight sets both finals, beat
>> the
>> god of tennis/USO in USO final, 2 Masters, 2 yr-end No.1s. If it was
>> a
>> fluke, he sure sustained it for a relatively long period of time,
>> which
>> goes against fluke definition.... "
>>
>> "It looks like Hewitt would do better against the big guys who beat
>> Chang
>> - eg Rafter killed Chang in '97 USO semi, but Hewitt seemed to always
>> beat Rafter pretty comfortably. The only issue is how would Hewitt go
>> v
>> Chang himself, & how do their games matchup? - that's something to
>> discuss.... I don't think it's a particularly interesting issue unless
>> you're a big
>> Hewitt/Chang fan - but my gut feeling is Hewitt would win as he is
>> more
>> obsessed & has more power"
>>
>> ...and there are dozens of similar posts from Whispers...but then Fed
>> just happened and came doublestandards.
>>
>> .mikko
>>
>>
>
>
>
>I've also quoted many times Hewitt at 100% is a great player, but at 98%
>he's barely top 30. That means he only has to be very slightly off his
>best form & he's crap.
>
>Sampras by contrast could be at 40% & still beat no.1 in straights.
>
>


or lose to galo blanco in r1/r2 ?


 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 01:57:41
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 16 tammi, 11:32, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> > MBDunc wrote:
>
> > The way Jason Catlin argues, the fact that Sampras won slams in his
> > teens, twenties and thirties is proof positive that he faced no one any
> > good.
>
> > The additional fact that Sampras won 3 Wimbledons without meeting anyon=
e
> > in the Top 16 would be confirmation of the free ride Sampras got on his
> > way to 14 slams.
>
> No it wouldn't as he faced Pat Rafter in the final, an opponent tougher
> than any Fed has faced. =A0Indeed Rafter has a perfect 3-0 record v Fed.

You have said here (multiple references available via google groups)
2004 that Hewitt is *far* superior to Rafter with both achievements
and peak play with absolute terms and you proved this with Hewitt-
Rafter h2h record. Double standards.

Rafter is 3-0 over Fed but that is as relevant as Rostagno having
winning h2h over Sampras. Hint may be Fed has not yet peaked then as
he was at their meetings way lower in rankings as Rafter? Could it be?

.mikko


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 22:34:11
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
MBDunc wrote:
> On 16 tammi, 11:32, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>> MBDunc wrote:
>>> The way Jason Catlin argues, the fact that Sampras won slams in his
>>> teens, twenties and thirties is proof positive that he faced no one any
>>> good.
>>> The additional fact that Sampras won 3 Wimbledons without meeting anyone
>>> in the Top 16 would be confirmation of the free ride Sampras got on his
>>> way to 14 slams.
>> No it wouldn't as he faced Pat Rafter in the final, an opponent tougher
>> than any Fed has faced. Indeed Rafter has a perfect 3-0 record v Fed.
>
> You have said here (multiple references available via google groups)
> 2004 that Hewitt is *far* superior to Rafter with both achievements
> and peak play with absolute terms and you proved this with Hewitt-
> Rafter h2h record. Double standards.
>
> Rafter is 3-0 over Fed but that is as relevant as Rostagno having
> winning h2h over Sampras. Hint may be Fed has not yet peaked then as
> he was at their meetings way lower in rankings as Rafter? Could it be?
>
> .mikko


Could also be Fed's weakness v good s/v players. Evidence is Fed taking
5 marathon sets to beat a rock bottom Sampras at Wimbledon 2001.



   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 11:52:52
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:34:11 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>MBDunc wrote:
>> On 16 tammi, 11:32, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>>> MBDunc wrote:
>>>> The way Jason Catlin argues, the fact that Sampras won slams in his
>>>> teens, twenties and thirties is proof positive that he faced no one any
>>>> good.
>>>> The additional fact that Sampras won 3 Wimbledons without meeting anyone
>>>> in the Top 16 would be confirmation of the free ride Sampras got on his
>>>> way to 14 slams.
>>> No it wouldn't as he faced Pat Rafter in the final, an opponent tougher
>>> than any Fed has faced. Indeed Rafter has a perfect 3-0 record v Fed.
>>
>> You have said here (multiple references available via google groups)
>> 2004 that Hewitt is *far* superior to Rafter with both achievements
>> and peak play with absolute terms and you proved this with Hewitt-
>> Rafter h2h record. Double standards.
>>
>> Rafter is 3-0 over Fed but that is as relevant as Rostagno having
>> winning h2h over Sampras. Hint may be Fed has not yet peaked then as
>> he was at their meetings way lower in rankings as Rafter? Could it be?
>>
>> .mikko
>
>
>Could also be Fed's weakness v good s/v players. Evidence is Fed taking
>5 marathon sets to beat a rock bottom Sampras at Wimbledon 2001.


the rock bottom sampras that you just touted for being so good he even
won a slam in his last match ?

that one ?


 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 00:23:59
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 16 Jan, 02:08, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 8:22=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16 Jan., 07:12, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 15, 5:31=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 15 Jan, 22:13, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Sampras
> > > > > won over a span of 12 years.
> > > > > Agassi - 11 years
>
> > > > I could say ... only because Sampras wasn't good enough to snuff hi=
m
> > > > out on the early days. If Sampras had been better then Agassi might
> > > > only have a couple of victories at the end. The mirror image of Hew=
itt
> > > > and Safin at the start of Federer's career. So proof in fact that
> > > > Federer is the stronger player...
>
> > > > It is the great Tennis Uncertainty Principle. Cause <-> effect; eff=
ect
> > > > <-> cause? Great champion creates apparent dwarves; real dwarves
> > > > create apparent Champions.
>
> > > > It is a brave, foolhardy, or biassed individual who claims to 'know=
'
> > > > the answer...
>
> > > I don't claim to know the answer. I'm saying there is a legitimate
> > > question mark about
> > > the rest of Fed's generation. They're not *clowns*. They're top-notch
> > > pros. Just not *greats* imo.
>
> > But how can they be "greats" if Federer is winning everything left and
> > right? Are you saying Federer's wins against his top-notch pro peers
> > are not legitimate? Is this another clown era theory in disguise?- Hide=
quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> For me a *great* is either a 5-6 Slam winner or someone who can span
> generations by winning Slams over
> a long period of time (maybe 6 or 7+ years). Hopefully both.
>
> But I think we've all exhausted each other on this thread. No one can
> convince anyone of anything, which is fine.
> It's only tennis.

FWIW my observation is that the definition of 'really great' shifts
and evolves with time, but the general principle seems to be that it
relates to

- achievements which stand for many years, and
- have some sort of resonance for players and audience.

It has been noted before that when Laver achieved his second Grand
Slam there was no big fuss at the time. Only with time has it become
to seem really great.

So for Federer (and Sampras and Agassi), if you want to assess how
they will be evaluated in 50 years you have to ask

- which of their records will stand the test of time, and
- which will be seen as significant 40-50 years from now.

The most likely achievements to be valued (in no particular order) are

- total victories
- combination victories
- unbeaten sequences
- victories against other perceived to be great players

That's all folks!


 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 00:12:50
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 16 Jan, 07:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> topspin wrote:
> > On 15 Jan, 08:59, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >> On 15 tammi, 10:10, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I really don't hold with all the splitting of eras and generations. I
> >>> am with the others who think the timeline is much more complex than 5=
,
> >>> 10, 20 year chunks.
> >> True and the sample size for open era tennis is just too small
> >> offering a lot of chances to stats misintepreptions.
>
> >>> I also am adamant in my belief, often expressed here, that we cannot
> >>> really judge a player until 10 years after they have retired, to full=
y
> >>> assess their legacy. That is because there are so many interactions
> >>> going on while they are playing - competitive, technical, social,
> >>> environmental - that it is hard while you are in that milieu to fully
> >>> understand their impacts. It is like looking at a building with a
> >>> microscope, all you see is sand particles, or plaster, or wood fibres=
,
> >>> or whatever. Stand back, and you see it for what it is.
> >> That removes CEIBS. Rare have patience to take a step back to see the
> >> big picture.
>
> >> Though PEIBS is even worse syndrome than CEIBS as in addition to "gut
> >> feelings which CEIBS needs for food" PEIBS constantly need to fight
> >> against already proven facts/stats and information with replacing them
> >> with stat cherrypicking and doublestandards.
>
> >> "CEIBS" =3D current-era-is-best-syndrome.
> >> "PEIBS" =3D previous-era-is-best-syndome.
>
> >>> So we cannot really assess Sampras until 2012, and if Federer is to
> >>> carry on until 2016, as he has said he plans to, then we will not
> >>> fully be able to assess his legacy until 2026. I think it is possible
> >>> to make some stabs at Sampras' position right now, but any assessment
> >>> of Federer, or predictions, is just guesswork, fine for opinion, but
> >>> not really worth a lot.
> >> Actually I think Sampras' legacy has in reality risen with Fed's
> >> succee. People have realized that with all the unreal succee Fed has
> >> had since 03 he is still trailing Sampras in key number
> >> gategories...Sampras had to be smt. extra special too.
>
> >> .mikko
>
> > The trouble I have with Jason's analysis is that it is indeed like
> > trying to look at a structure with a microscope. If you do that then
> > indeed you will find flawed areas. You will also find areas of great
> > strength. But the microdetail is meaningless, it is the overall final
> > structure which matters (*).
>
> > My other problem is that he has one template for measuring a player -
> > how his peers do 'after' he declines. But not all careers have the
> > same trajectory. What if a player is a late developer, in tennis
> > terms. Is it not more likely that their their peers will fill the void
> > early, when 'they' are in their tennis prime, rather than later? =A0We
> > all know that Federer was indeed a late developer in tennis terms. So
> > how did his age peers - Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Roddick, JCF - do?
> > They did exactly what you would expect.
>
> > So Jason, for all his detail, is going down the same track as others -
> > decide your preferred hero/era/etc, then set the criteria which they
> > met, and say that others should do the same.
>
> > (* Of course if you look at things in too little detail - just add up
> > slams - then the analogy would be that you have two structures. One is
> > 10,000 square metres, the other is 11,000. If someone is not
> > interested in the detail they declare the the 11,000 square metre
> > structure the greatest. The 11,000 square metre structure is a
> > distribution warehouse, The 10,000 square metre structure is the Taj
> > Mahal.)
>
> Idiot.
>
> 7 Wimbledons is always greater than 5 no matter how you want to package
> it. =A0Only a complete dickhead would prefer 5 over 7.

So you prefer Emerson's 12 slams to anything Laver did?


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 22:30:36
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
topspin wrote:
> On 16 Jan, 07:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> topspin wrote:
>>> On 15 Jan, 08:59, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>>> On 15 tammi, 10:10, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I really don't hold with all the splitting of eras and generations. I
>>>>> am with the others who think the timeline is much more complex than 5,
>>>>> 10, 20 year chunks.
>>>> True and the sample size for open era tennis is just too small
>>>> offering a lot of chances to stats misintepreptions.
>>>>> I also am adamant in my belief, often expressed here, that we cannot
>>>>> really judge a player until 10 years after they have retired, to fully
>>>>> assess their legacy. That is because there are so many interactions
>>>>> going on while they are playing - competitive, technical, social,
>>>>> environmental - that it is hard while you are in that milieu to fully
>>>>> understand their impacts. It is like looking at a building with a
>>>>> microscope, all you see is sand particles, or plaster, or wood fibres,
>>>>> or whatever. Stand back, and you see it for what it is.
>>>> That removes CEIBS. Rare have patience to take a step back to see the
>>>> big picture.
>>>> Though PEIBS is even worse syndrome than CEIBS as in addition to "gut
>>>> feelings which CEIBS needs for food" PEIBS constantly need to fight
>>>> against already proven facts/stats and information with replacing them
>>>> with stat cherrypicking and doublestandards.
>>>> "CEIBS" = current-era-is-best-syndrome.
>>>> "PEIBS" = previous-era-is-best-syndome.
>>>>> So we cannot really assess Sampras until 2012, and if Federer is to
>>>>> carry on until 2016, as he has said he plans to, then we will not
>>>>> fully be able to assess his legacy until 2026. I think it is possible
>>>>> to make some stabs at Sampras' position right now, but any assessment
>>>>> of Federer, or predictions, is just guesswork, fine for opinion, but
>>>>> not really worth a lot.
>>>> Actually I think Sampras' legacy has in reality risen with Fed's
>>>> succee. People have realized that with all the unreal succee Fed has
>>>> had since 03 he is still trailing Sampras in key number
>>>> gategories...Sampras had to be smt. extra special too.
>>>> .mikko
>>> The trouble I have with Jason's analysis is that it is indeed like
>>> trying to look at a structure with a microscope. If you do that then
>>> indeed you will find flawed areas. You will also find areas of great
>>> strength. But the microdetail is meaningless, it is the overall final
>>> structure which matters (*).
>>> My other problem is that he has one template for measuring a player -
>>> how his peers do 'after' he declines. But not all careers have the
>>> same trajectory. What if a player is a late developer, in tennis
>>> terms. Is it not more likely that their their peers will fill the void
>>> early, when 'they' are in their tennis prime, rather than later? We
>>> all know that Federer was indeed a late developer in tennis terms. So
>>> how did his age peers - Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Roddick, JCF - do?
>>> They did exactly what you would expect.
>>> So Jason, for all his detail, is going down the same track as others -
>>> decide your preferred hero/era/etc, then set the criteria which they
>>> met, and say that others should do the same.
>>> (* Of course if you look at things in too little detail - just add up
>>> slams - then the analogy would be that you have two structures. One is
>>> 10,000 square metres, the other is 11,000. If someone is not
>>> interested in the detail they declare the the 11,000 square metre
>>> structure the greatest. The 11,000 square metre structure is a
>>> distribution warehouse, The 10,000 square metre structure is the Taj
>>> Mahal.)
>> Idiot.
>>
>> 7 Wimbledons is always greater than 5 no matter how you want to package
>> it. Only a complete dickhead would prefer 5 over 7.
>
> So you prefer Emerson's 12 slams to anything Laver did?



Depends what 7543 tells us.



 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 23:42:20
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 16 tammi, 00:13, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 8:17=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 tammi, 14:32, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
> > > world who
> > > have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
> > > show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No=
.
> > > 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>
> > > Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while i=
t
> > > was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
> > > hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
> > > be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
> > > would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
> > > and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>
> > Irrelevant. I mean totally irrirelevant. So Gonzales and Rosewall with
> > their 40y age tags (late 60:ies - early/mid 70:ies) proved that their
> > peak 50:ies were a lot tougher era? Rosewall even won 4 slams and
> > reached 2 GS finals at age of 39. Or that Kramer is the best of them
> > all as he trounced Gonzales late 40:ies?
>
> It's not. Longevity is one of the hallmarks of a great player. Sampras
> won over a span of 12 years.
> Agassi - 11 years, Becker 11 years. Edberg 7 yrs. Connors 9 years.

There was also one theory here at r.s.t some years ago that if your
slam titles are scattered (slam every now and then) then that is a
sign of lucking out slams instead of real dominance (this argument was
used to dismiss Agassi's career).

But longevity counts sure. Paradoxally the only great (5 or more
slams) players open era who have limited longevity are all Swedish
(we cannot judge Fed/Nadal yet). Borg quitted, Wilander quitted,
Edberg declined "smoothly" during his last three years).

Laver was still in top10 at age 36
Rosewall won 4 slams + several finals between ages 33-39.
Connors, Agassi, Sampras, Becker, Lendl - all had long and respected
career.
Mac was in Wimb semi 1977 and last time 1992...

Hewitt stopped at his tracks similarly Courier did early 90:ies. For a
while looked dominant but then the field exploited their weaknesses.

.mikko


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 20:23:40
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 16 Jan., 08:08, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 8:22=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16 Jan., 07:12, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 15, 5:31=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 15 Jan, 22:13, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Sampras
> > > > > won over a span of 12 years.
> > > > > Agassi - 11 years
>
> > > > I could say ... only because Sampras wasn't good enough to snuff hi=
m
> > > > out on the early days. If Sampras had been better then Agassi might
> > > > only have a couple of victories at the end. The mirror image of Hew=
itt
> > > > and Safin at the start of Federer's career. So proof in fact that
> > > > Federer is the stronger player...
>
> > > > It is the great Tennis Uncertainty Principle. Cause <-> effect; eff=
ect
> > > > <-> cause? Great champion creates apparent dwarves; real dwarves
> > > > create apparent Champions.
>
> > > > It is a brave, foolhardy, or biassed individual who claims to 'know=
'
> > > > the answer...
>
> > > I don't claim to know the answer. I'm saying there is a legitimate
> > > question mark about
> > > the rest of Fed's generation. They're not *clowns*. They're top-notch
> > > pros. Just not *greats* imo.
>
> > But how can they be "greats" if Federer is winning everything left and
> > right? Are you saying Federer's wins against his top-notch pro peers
> > are not legitimate? Is this another clown era theory in disguise?- Hide=
quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> For me a *great* is either a 5-6 Slam winner or someone who can span
> generations by winning Slams over
> a long period of time (maybe 6 or 7+ years). Hopefully both.

If we apply these criteria to 1990s, only Sampras, Agassi and Becker
qualify. Three players.

If we apply them to 2000s, only Federer, Nadal and Safin (USO 2000, AO
2005; six season gap) qualify, making it three for this decade, too.

So what's different? The difference seems to be Federer's
unprecedented concentration of success that tends to warp and confuse
the mind.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 21:56:51
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On 16 Jan., 08:08, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 8:22 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 16 Jan., 07:12, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 15, 5:31 pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 15 Jan, 22:13, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Sampras
>>>>>> won over a span of 12 years.
>>>>>> Agassi - 11 years
>>>>> I could say ... only because Sampras wasn't good enough to snuff him
>>>>> out on the early days. If Sampras had been better then Agassi might
>>>>> only have a couple of victories at the end. The mirror image of Hewitt
>>>>> and Safin at the start of Federer's career. So proof in fact that
>>>>> Federer is the stronger player...
>>>>> It is the great Tennis Uncertainty Principle. Cause <-> effect; effect
>>>>> <-> cause? Great champion creates apparent dwarves; real dwarves
>>>>> create apparent Champions.
>>>>> It is a brave, foolhardy, or biassed individual who claims to 'know'
>>>>> the answer...
>>>> I don't claim to know the answer. I'm saying there is a legitimate
>>>> question mark about
>>>> the rest of Fed's generation. They're not *clowns*. They're top-notch
>>>> pros. Just not *greats* imo.
>>> But how can they be "greats" if Federer is winning everything left and
>>> right? Are you saying Federer's wins against his top-notch pro peers
>>> are not legitimate? Is this another clown era theory in disguise?- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> For me a *great* is either a 5-6 Slam winner or someone who can span
>> generations by winning Slams over
>> a long period of time (maybe 6 or 7+ years). Hopefully both.
>
> If we apply these criteria to 1990s, only Sampras, Agassi and Becker
> qualify. Three players.
>
> If we apply them to 2000s, only Federer, Nadal and Safin (USO 2000, AO
> 2005; six season gap) qualify, making it three for this decade, too.
>
> So what's different? The difference seems to be Federer's
> unprecedented concentration of success that tends to warp and confuse
> the mind.


It would if he beat up on good players like Rafa - record shows he was
well beaten by Rafa.



   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 11:14:41
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:56:51 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>> On 16 Jan., 08:08, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 15, 8:22 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 16 Jan., 07:12, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 15, 5:31 pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 15 Jan, 22:13, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sampras
>>>>>>> won over a span of 12 years.
>>>>>>> Agassi - 11 years
>>>>>> I could say ... only because Sampras wasn't good enough to snuff him
>>>>>> out on the early days. If Sampras had been better then Agassi might
>>>>>> only have a couple of victories at the end. The mirror image of Hewitt
>>>>>> and Safin at the start of Federer's career. So proof in fact that
>>>>>> Federer is the stronger player...
>>>>>> It is the great Tennis Uncertainty Principle. Cause <-> effect; effect
>>>>>> <-> cause? Great champion creates apparent dwarves; real dwarves
>>>>>> create apparent Champions.
>>>>>> It is a brave, foolhardy, or biassed individual who claims to 'know'
>>>>>> the answer...
>>>>> I don't claim to know the answer. I'm saying there is a legitimate
>>>>> question mark about
>>>>> the rest of Fed's generation. They're not *clowns*. They're top-notch
>>>>> pros. Just not *greats* imo.
>>>> But how can they be "greats" if Federer is winning everything left and
>>>> right? Are you saying Federer's wins against his top-notch pro peers
>>>> are not legitimate? Is this another clown era theory in disguise?- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> For me a *great* is either a 5-6 Slam winner or someone who can span
>>> generations by winning Slams over
>>> a long period of time (maybe 6 or 7+ years). Hopefully both.
>>
>> If we apply these criteria to 1990s, only Sampras, Agassi and Becker
>> qualify. Three players.
>>
>> If we apply them to 2000s, only Federer, Nadal and Safin (USO 2000, AO
>> 2005; six season gap) qualify, making it three for this decade, too.
>>
>> So what's different? The difference seems to be Federer's
>> unprecedented concentration of success that tends to warp and confuse
>> the mind.
>
>
>It would if he beat up on good players like Rafa - record shows he was
>well beaten by Rafa.


Just like Sampras was well beaten by Fed at the World Championships ?



 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 20:05:32
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 16 Jan., 08:08, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 8:22=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16 Jan., 07:12, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 15, 5:31=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 15 Jan, 22:13, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Sampras
> > > > > won over a span of 12 years.
> > > > > Agassi - 11 years
>
> > > > I could say ... only because Sampras wasn't good enough to snuff hi=
m
> > > > out on the early days. If Sampras had been better then Agassi might
> > > > only have a couple of victories at the end. The mirror image of Hew=
itt
> > > > and Safin at the start of Federer's career. So proof in fact that
> > > > Federer is the stronger player...
>
> > > > It is the great Tennis Uncertainty Principle. Cause <-> effect; eff=
ect
> > > > <-> cause? Great champion creates apparent dwarves; real dwarves
> > > > create apparent Champions.
>
> > > > It is a brave, foolhardy, or biassed individual who claims to 'know=
'
> > > > the answer...
>
> > > I don't claim to know the answer. I'm saying there is a legitimate
> > > question mark about
> > > the rest of Fed's generation. They're not *clowns*. They're top-notch
> > > pros. Just not *greats* imo.
>
> > But how can they be "greats" if Federer is winning everything left and
> > right? Are you saying Federer's wins against his top-notch pro peers
> > are not legitimate? Is this another clown era theory in disguise?- Hide=
quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> For me a *great* is either a 5-6 Slam winner or someone who can span
> generations by winning Slams over
> a long period of time (maybe 6 or 7+ years). Hopefully both.
>

But you need to realize that your definition of greatness is relative,
not absolute and timeless.

Nobody has ever won in such a concentrated fashion in the Open Era as
Federer has. Peak Federer was truly a monster that gobbled up
everything in its path. Everything about his success is unprecedented.
He reached 10 slam finals in a row and he won 12/13 slams in the
matter of 5 years. He has warped the entire decade of 2000s with the
weight of his achievements from 2003-2007 (the middle 5 years). And he
did it against legitimate competitions from his older generation, his
own generation, and the next generation.

With his unprecedented concentration of success, Federer has changed
what it means to be "great" in this decade. Your definition of
"greatness" just doesn't apply for this decade. This is exceptional
stuff.

You may have misgivings about Federer's success or maybe about the
prematurity of the lavish praise bestowed upon him by the media and
others (which seems more than justified now), but that doesn't change
the sheer effect of what Federer was able to do in reality.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 21:55:30
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>
> With his unprecedented concentration of success, Federer has changed
> what it means to be "great" in this decade. Your definition of
> "greatness" just doesn't apply for this decade. This is exceptional
> stuff.
>
> You may have misgivings about Federer's success or maybe about the
> prematurity of the lavish praise bestowed upon him by the media and
> others (which seems more than justified now), but that doesn't change
> the sheer effect of what Federer was able to do in reality.


We all know what he did in reality - beat up Blake/Ljubo relentlessly
while waiting for good players to emerge.



   
Date: 19 Jan 2009 05:01:07
From:
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
In article <497067a5$0$2584$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au >,
beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:

>
> We all know what he did in reality - beat up Blake/Ljubo
> relentlessly while waiting for good players to emerge.
>

I'd buy that if he'd been successful for a year - like Hingis's 1997, when
Graf was injured, Seles was preoccupied with her father's cancer, and
Davenport and Wx2 weren't ready yet. But you don't win as much as Federer
did for *five years* just by being lucky in who your opponents are.

wg


   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 11:14:04
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:55:30 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>arnab.z@gmail wrote:
>>
>> With his unprecedented concentration of success, Federer has changed
>> what it means to be "great" in this decade. Your definition of
>> "greatness" just doesn't apply for this decade. This is exceptional
>> stuff.
>>
>> You may have misgivings about Federer's success or maybe about the
>> prematurity of the lavish praise bestowed upon him by the media and
>> others (which seems more than justified now), but that doesn't change
>> the sheer effect of what Federer was able to do in reality.
>
>
>We all know what he did in reality - beat up relentlessly on weak players
>while waiting for good players to emerge.


Like Sampras ?

Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World Championships.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 21:54:25
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On 16 Jan., 08:08, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> For me a *great* is either a 5-6 Slam winner or someone who can span
>> generations by winning Slams over
>> a long period of time (maybe 6 or 7+ years). Hopefully both.
>>
>
> But you need to realize that your definition of greatness is relative,
> not absolute and timeless.
>
> Nobody has ever won in such a concentrated fashion in the Open Era as
> Federer has. Peak Federer was truly a monster that gobbled up
> everything in its path.


Except of course Rafa. Peak Fed even got crushed by rookie Rafa on HC
in their very 1st match 63 63. It's not impressive to gobble up v clowns.



 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 18:08:32
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 15, 8:22=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 16 Jan., 07:12, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 5:31=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 15 Jan, 22:13, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Sampras
> > > > won over a span of 12 years.
> > > > Agassi - 11 years
>
> > > I could say ... only because Sampras wasn't good enough to snuff him
> > > out on the early days. If Sampras had been better then Agassi might
> > > only have a couple of victories at the end. The mirror image of Hewit=
t
> > > and Safin at the start of Federer's career. So proof in fact that
> > > Federer is the stronger player...
>
> > > It is the great Tennis Uncertainty Principle. Cause <-> effect; effec=
t
> > > <-> cause? Great champion creates apparent dwarves; real dwarves
> > > create apparent Champions.
>
> > > It is a brave, foolhardy, or biassed individual who claims to 'know'
> > > the answer...
>
> > I don't claim to know the answer. I'm saying there is a legitimate
> > question mark about
> > the rest of Fed's generation. They're not *clowns*. They're top-notch
> > pros. Just not *greats* imo.
>
> But how can they be "greats" if Federer is winning everything left and
> right? Are you saying Federer's wins against his top-notch pro peers
> are not legitimate? Is this another clown era theory in disguise?- Hide q=
uoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

For me a *great* is either a 5-6 Slam winner or someone who can span
generations by winning Slams over
a long period of time (maybe 6 or 7+ years). Hopefully both.

But I think we've all exhausted each other on this thread. No one can
convince anyone of anything, which is fine.
It's only tennis.


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 17:22:49
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 16 Jan., 07:12, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 5:31=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 15 Jan, 22:13, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Sampras
> > > won over a span of 12 years.
> > > Agassi - 11 years
>
> > I could say ... only because Sampras wasn't good enough to snuff him
> > out on the early days. If Sampras had been better then Agassi might
> > only have a couple of victories at the end. The mirror image of Hewitt
> > and Safin at the start of Federer's career. So proof in fact that
> > Federer is the stronger player...
>
> > It is the great Tennis Uncertainty Principle. Cause <-> effect; effect
> > <-> cause? Great champion creates apparent dwarves; real dwarves
> > create apparent Champions.
>
> > It is a brave, foolhardy, or biassed individual who claims to 'know'
> > the answer...
>
> I don't claim to know the answer. I'm saying there is a legitimate
> question mark about
> the rest of Fed's generation. They're not *clowns*. They're top-notch
> pros. Just not *greats* imo.

But how can they be "greats" if Federer is winning everything left and
right? Are you saying Federer's wins against his top-notch pro peers
are not legitimate? Is this another clown era theory in disguise?


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 17:20:01
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 16 Jan., 07:10, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 6:46=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > We just would've had a generation of completely banal parity, with
> > > Agassi proving how bad it is by winning the USO
> > > at age 35 in all probability, considering how much he owned Hewitt.
>
> > Yes, at 4-4 he was completely owned. Wait, what?
>
> There was some match at YEC where I thought Hewitt had something on
> Agassi.
>
> But the 2002 USO semi showed who was boss. Then Agassi won again in an
> MS final at age 34.

But Hewitt thrashed an younger Sampras in 2001 USO final and Sampras
>> Agassi, so it all cancels out then?


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 17:12:37
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 15, 5:31=A0pm, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 15 Jan, 22:13, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sampras
> > won over a span of 12 years.
> > Agassi - 11 years
>
> I could say ... only because Sampras wasn't good enough to snuff him
> out on the early days. If Sampras had been better then Agassi might
> only have a couple of victories at the end. The mirror image of Hewitt
> and Safin at the start of Federer's career. So proof in fact that
> Federer is the stronger player...
>
> It is the great Tennis Uncertainty Principle. Cause <-> effect; effect
> <-> cause? Great champion creates apparent dwarves; real dwarves
> create apparent Champions.
>
> It is a brave, foolhardy, or biassed individual who claims to 'know'
> the answer...

I don't claim to know the answer. I'm saying there is a legitimate
question mark about
the rest of Fed's generation. They're not *clowns*. They're top-notch
pros. Just not *greats* imo.


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 17:10:46
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 15, 6:46=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:
> Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > We just would've had a generation of completely banal parity, with
> > Agassi proving how bad it is by winning the USO
> > at age 35 in all probability, considering how much he owned Hewitt.
>
> Yes, at 4-4 he was completely owned. Wait, what?

There was some match at YEC where I thought Hewitt had something on
Agassi.

But the 2002 USO semi showed who was boss. Then Agassi won again in an
MS final at age 34.


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 17:06:29
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 15, 8:52=A0am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > On 15 tammi, 14:32, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
> >> world who
> >> have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
> >> show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
> >> 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>
> >> Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
> >> was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
> >> hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
> >> be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
> >> would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
> >> and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>
> > Irrelevant. I mean totally irrirelevant. So Gonzales and Rosewall with
> > their 40y age tags (late 60:ies - early/mid 70:ies) proved that their
> > peak 50:ies were a lot tougher era? Rosewall even won 4 slams and
> > reached 2 GS finals at age of 39. Or that Kramer is the best of them
> > all as he trounced Gonzales late 40:ies?
>
> >> If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
> >> that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed to
> >> lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed.
>
> > That's nothing new. Of course they hype current top dog. Even Mac with
> > his relatively limited record was at many medias hyped as "the
> > greatest ever" around 84/85.
>
> > .mikko
>
> Yet Mac was hyping Federer as maybe the best ever when he had fewer than
> 5 slams.

Fine. *Maybe* I can understand.

Oh, I forgot. You're hiding behind your killfile.


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 17:04:14
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 15, 8:44=A0am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > On 15 tammi, 14:19, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 15, 3:10 am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> tangible results to prove otherwise. All I've seen is Roddick sort of
> >> intimidating the tour for maybe a brief 2 year period and then getting
> >> *found out* and having not much of a plan B.
>
> > Roddick clearly modified his game several times (most notably with
> > Connors...which was his most effective period against peak-Fed...until
> > toileted with AO 07).
>
> > Hewitt snuck in between
> >> two legends to win Slams he probably wouldn't have won otherwise. None
> >> of them seem to have much staying power, although I grant you - let's
> >> wait and see. If those players have a late-career surge I'm certain
> >> willing to reassess Fed's generation.
>
> > As unjuicy game Hewitt has he also had other succee as well. He was #1
> > for surprisingly long and also won 2 YEC:s (and the other was with
> > totally dominating fashion). He was far from fluke slam winner who
> > otherwise barely entered in the top10. Instead he had very credible
> > h2h record against all his peers (Rafter, Kafelnikov, Sampras,
> > Agassi).
>
> >> But getting back to your assertion that we need distance to evaluate,
> >> can you acknowledge that it makes sense with a enough hindsight to
> >> conclude that if Agassi is a No. 1 player and winning Slams at age 32
> >> and if no one from among Fed's peers can do the same there is at least
> >> a strong argument that Sampras' peers were tougher? That's all I'm
> >> asking.
>
> > Age factor is overrated. The proof is that there have been even 35y
> > sprinters (where age/slowing process/physical handicap should be most
> > clearly visible) at the very top of the world. Why tennis should be an
> > expection as it also gives a lot more room for experience factor. And
> > yes. Agassi was a great player.
>
> > .mikko
>
> The way Jason Catlin argues, the fact that Sampras won slams in his
> teens, twenties and thirties is proof positive that he faced no one any
> good.
>
> The additional fact that Sampras won 3 Wimbledons without meeting anyone
> in the Top 16 would be confirmation of the free ride Sampras got on his
> way to 14 slams.
>
> Jason Catlin should be condemning Sampras's Wimbledon and Slam records
> as totally bereft of meaning. If JC had any trace of honesty, that is.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> vc-

If you had any trace of honesty, you'd note above that I've said the
generation's after Pete's was one of the
worst ever. So of course that helped Pete out, even though he still
had to deal with a great player from his own
generation who also took advantage of that weak next generation.

That's the difference between you and me. I'm actually interested in
the truth, whereas it seems all you want
is to do anything and everything to make people believe that Fed is
head and shoulders above Pete and anyone
else who's ever played. And the funny thing is you seem to think you
can fool people into thinking you're not blatantly biased in favor of
Fed. Laughable.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 05:20:28
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Jan 15, 8:44 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> MBDunc wrote:
>>> On 15 tammi, 14:19, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 15, 3:10 am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> tangible results to prove otherwise. All I've seen is Roddick sort of
>>>> intimidating the tour for maybe a brief 2 year period and then getting
>>>> *found out* and having not much of a plan B.
>>> Roddick clearly modified his game several times (most notably with
>>> Connors...which was his most effective period against peak-Fed...until
>>> toileted with AO 07).
>>> Hewitt snuck in between
>>>> two legends to win Slams he probably wouldn't have won otherwise. None
>>>> of them seem to have much staying power, although I grant you - let's
>>>> wait and see. If those players have a late-career surge I'm certain
>>>> willing to reassess Fed's generation.
>>> As unjuicy game Hewitt has he also had other succee as well. He was #1
>>> for surprisingly long and also won 2 YEC:s (and the other was with
>>> totally dominating fashion). He was far from fluke slam winner who
>>> otherwise barely entered in the top10. Instead he had very credible
>>> h2h record against all his peers (Rafter, Kafelnikov, Sampras,
>>> Agassi).
>>>> But getting back to your assertion that we need distance to evaluate,
>>>> can you acknowledge that it makes sense with a enough hindsight to
>>>> conclude that if Agassi is a No. 1 player and winning Slams at age 32
>>>> and if no one from among Fed's peers can do the same there is at least
>>>> a strong argument that Sampras' peers were tougher? That's all I'm
>>>> asking.
>>> Age factor is overrated. The proof is that there have been even 35y
>>> sprinters (where age/slowing process/physical handicap should be most
>>> clearly visible) at the very top of the world. Why tennis should be an
>>> expection as it also gives a lot more room for experience factor. And
>>> yes. Agassi was a great player.
>>> .mikko
>> The way Jason Catlin argues, the fact that Sampras won slams in his
>> teens, twenties and thirties is proof positive that he faced no one any
>> good.
>>
>> The additional fact that Sampras won 3 Wimbledons without meeting anyone
>> in the Top 16 would be confirmation of the free ride Sampras got on his
>> way to 14 slams.
>>
>> Jason Catlin should be condemning Sampras's Wimbledon and Slam records
>> as totally bereft of meaning. If JC had any trace of honesty, that is.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> vc-
>
> If you had any trace of honesty, you'd note above that I've said the
> generation's after Pete's was one of the
> worst ever. So of course that helped Pete out, even though he still
> had to deal with a great player from his own
> generation who also took advantage of that weak next generation.
>
> That's the difference between you and me. I'm actually interested in
> the truth, whereas it seems all you want
> is to do anything and everything to make people believe that Fed is
> head and shoulders above Pete and anyone
> else who's ever played. And the funny thing is you seem to think you
> can fool people into thinking you're not blatantly biased in favor of
> Fed. Laughable.

word.

--
"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: 15 Jan 2009 14:31:25
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 15 Jan, 22:13, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Sampras
> won over a span of 12 years.
> Agassi - 11 years

I could say ... only because Sampras wasn't good enough to snuff him
out on the early days. If Sampras had been better then Agassi might
only have a couple of victories at the end. The mirror image of Hewitt
and Safin at the start of Federer's career. So proof in fact that
Federer is the stronger player...

It is the great Tennis Uncertainty Principle. Cause <- > effect; effect
<- > cause? Great champion creates apparent dwarves; real dwarves
create apparent Champions.

It is a brave, foolhardy, or biassed individual who claims to 'know'
the answer...


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 21:24:51
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
topspin wrote:
> On 15 Jan, 22:13, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sampras
>> won over a span of 12 years.
>> Agassi - 11 years
>
> I could say ... only because Sampras wasn't good enough to snuff him
> out on the early days. If Sampras had been better then Agassi might
> only have a couple of victories at the end. The mirror image of Hewitt
> and Safin at the start of Federer's career. So proof in fact that
> Federer is the stronger player...
>
> It is the great Tennis Uncertainty Principle. Cause <-> effect; effect
> <-> cause? Great champion creates apparent dwarves; real dwarves
> create apparent Champions.
>
> It is a brave, foolhardy, or biassed individual who claims to 'know'
> the answer...


You seem to think Fed is the greater player, so I'm glad you agree you
are a fool.



 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 14:13:24
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 15, 8:17=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> On 15 tammi, 14:32, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
> > world who
> > have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
> > show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
> > 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>
> > Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
> > was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
> > hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
> > be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
> > would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
> > and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>
> Irrelevant. I mean totally irrirelevant. So Gonzales and Rosewall with
> their 40y age tags (late 60:ies - early/mid 70:ies) proved that their
> peak 50:ies were a lot tougher era? Rosewall even won 4 slams and
> reached 2 GS finals at age of 39. Or that Kramer is the best of them
> all as he trounced Gonzales late 40:ies?

It's not. Longevity is one of the hallmarks of a great player. Sampras
won over a span of 12 years.
Agassi - 11 years, Becker 11 years. Edberg 7 yrs. Connors 9 years.

Compare that with Hewitt - 1 year and a half. Safin to his credit did
win over 5 years and in my opinion he's the second most talented
player in Fed's group. A total headcase though.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 21:23:50
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Jan 15, 8:17 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>> On 15 tammi, 14:32, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
>>> world who
>>> have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
>>> show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
>>> 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>>> Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
>>> was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
>>> hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
>>> be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
>>> would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
>>> and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>> Irrelevant. I mean totally irrirelevant. So Gonzales and Rosewall with
>> their 40y age tags (late 60:ies - early/mid 70:ies) proved that their
>> peak 50:ies were a lot tougher era? Rosewall even won 4 slams and
>> reached 2 GS finals at age of 39. Or that Kramer is the best of them
>> all as he trounced Gonzales late 40:ies?
>
> It's not. Longevity is one of the hallmarks of a great player. Sampras
> won over a span of 12 years.
> Agassi - 11 years, Becker 11 years. Edberg 7 yrs. Connors 9 years.
>
> Compare that with Hewitt - 1 year and a half.


But 'John' said Hewitt had surpassed Sampras' peak game & is ahead of
him....?


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 14:03:57
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 15, 3:00=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:

> Because had not Fed existed then Hewitt/Roddick both would have
> together extra 6-7 slams (divide them as you like between those who).
> May be Agassi had sneaked one/two more. Then era would look
> exceptionally strong "look Hewitt trounced Sampras, was #1 01-02 and
> went toe-to-toe with Roddick for five more years, what a great era".

> Instead of having Fed-Fed-Fed for fast court slam winners...we could
> have had following bunch (fantasy stuff obviously)
>
> Roddick: Wimb 03, 05....USO 03, 06....AO 07
> Hewitt: =A0 Wimb 02. 04....USO 01, 04,
> Safin: =A0 =A0 AO =A0 =A0 04, 05...USO 00
> Agassi: =A0USO 05 (+ his previous succee).
> Djokovic: USO 07......AO 08,

But still then we wouldn't have one player meeting Joe Ramirez'
qualifications for greatness.
And that even though they had absolutely no competition whatsover from
the previous generation.

We just would've had a generation of completely banal parity, with
Agassi proving how bad it is by winning the USO
at age 35 in all probability, considering how much he owned Hewitt.

> + Nadal with his FO/Wimb succee in the mix.
>
> That HC era would cream every HC era to date. But Fed spoiled it with
> constant trouncing of Hewitt/Roddick/Agassi at slams. Averagejoes do
> not understand this math.

Again, I have no problem with the era. The problem is Fed's
generation. If these guys were great players they would be ... Oh ok
I'm worn out now ;-)



  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 21:20:20
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Jan 15, 3:00 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
>> Because had not Fed existed then Hewitt/Roddick both would have
>> together extra 6-7 slams (divide them as you like between those who).
>> May be Agassi had sneaked one/two more. Then era would look
>> exceptionally strong "look Hewitt trounced Sampras, was #1 01-02 and
>> went toe-to-toe with Roddick for five more years, what a great era".
>
>> Instead of having Fed-Fed-Fed for fast court slam winners...we could
>> have had following bunch (fantasy stuff obviously)
>>
>> Roddick: Wimb 03, 05....USO 03, 06....AO 07
>> Hewitt: Wimb 02. 04....USO 01, 04,
>> Safin: AO 04, 05...USO 00
>> Agassi: USO 05 (+ his previous succee).
>> Djokovic: USO 07......AO 08,
>
> But still then we wouldn't have one player meeting Joe Ramirez'
> qualifications for greatness.
> And that even though they had absolutely no competition whatsover from
> the previous generation.
>
> We just would've had a generation of completely banal parity, with
> Agassi proving how bad it is by winning the USO
> at age 35 in all probability, considering how much he owned Hewitt.
>
>> + Nadal with his FO/Wimb succee in the mix.
>>
>> That HC era would cream every HC era to date. But Fed spoiled it with
>> constant trouncing of Hewitt/Roddick/Agassi at slams. Averagejoes do
>> not understand this math.
>
> Again, I have no problem with the era. The problem is Fed's
> generation. If these guys were great players they would be ... Oh ok
> I'm worn out now ;-)
>


Give it up. You're conversing with baboons.



   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 11:04:35
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:20:20 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Jason Catlin wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 3:00 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Because had not Fed existed then Hewitt/Roddick both would have
>>> together extra 6-7 slams (divide them as you like between those who).
>>> May be Agassi had sneaked one/two more. Then era would look
>>> exceptionally strong "look Hewitt trounced Sampras, was #1 01-02 and
>>> went toe-to-toe with Roddick for five more years, what a great era".
>>
>>> Instead of having Fed-Fed-Fed for fast court slam winners...we could
>>> have had following bunch (fantasy stuff obviously)
>>>
>>> Roddick: Wimb 03, 05....USO 03, 06....AO 07
>>> Hewitt: Wimb 02. 04....USO 01, 04,
>>> Safin: AO 04, 05...USO 00
>>> Agassi: USO 05 (+ his previous succee).
>>> Djokovic: USO 07......AO 08,
>>
>> But still then we wouldn't have one player meeting Joe Ramirez'
>> qualifications for greatness.
>> And that even though they had absolutely no competition whatsover from
>> the previous generation.
>>
>> We just would've had a generation of completely banal parity, with
>> Agassi proving how bad it is by winning the USO
>> at age 35 in all probability, considering how much he owned Hewitt.
>>
>>> + Nadal with his FO/Wimb succee in the mix.
>>>
>>> That HC era would cream every HC era to date. But Fed spoiled it with
>>> constant trouncing of Hewitt/Roddick/Agassi at slams. Averagejoes do
>>> not understand this math.
>>
>> Again, I have no problem with the era. The problem is Fed's
>> generation. If these guys were great players they would be ... Oh ok
>> I'm worn out now ;-)
>>
>
>
>Give it up. You're conversing with baboons.

so you answered ?


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 20:46:34
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Jason Catlin <jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote:
> We just would've had a generation of completely banal parity, with
> Agassi proving how bad it is by winning the USO
> at age 35 in all probability, considering how much he owned Hewitt.

Yes, at 4-4 he was completely owned. Wait, what?



 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 06:01:57
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 15 Jan, 12:19, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 3:10=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 15 Jan, 03:33, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If we're talking about *eras* I don't have a problem with calling thi=
s
> > > a good *era*.
>
> > Let me be absolutely clear where I stand. I think this current time,
> > has a claim to be not just a 'good' era, but 'the toughest competitive
> > era' ever, for the reasons I said. The other times which in my opinion
> > can compare with it are the mid-50s to early 60s for the professional
> > circuit (the equivalent of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, etc
> > playing only each other all the time), and the mid-70s to around
> > mid-80s (tennis at its peak public interest and the unusual
> > combination of three great players instead of the more usual two). If
> > push came to shove I would drop the 70-80s.
>
> > I really don't hold with all the splitting of eras and generations. I
> > am with the others who think the timeline is much more complex than 5,
> > 10, 20 year chunks.
>
> > I also am adamant in my belief, often expressed here, that we cannot
> > really judge a player until 10 years after they have retired, to fully
> > assess their legacy. That is because there are so many interactions
> > going on while they are playing - competitive, technical, social,
> > environmental - that it is hard while you are in that milieu to fully
> > understand their impacts. It is like looking at a building with a
> > microscope, all you see is sand particles, or plaster, or wood fibres,
> > or whatever. Stand back, and you see it for what it is.
>
> > So we cannot really assess Sampras until 2012, and if Federer is to
> > carry on until 2016, as he has said he plans to, then we will not
> > fully be able to assess his legacy until 2026. I think it is possible
> > to make some stabs at Sampras' position right now, but any assessment
> > of Federer, or predictions, is just guesswork, fine for opinion, but
> > not really worth a lot.
>
> We know Federer is going to go down as AN all-time great if not THE
> all-time great. That's not in
> question here. But if we're talking about his group of immediate peers
> and the contention of many people
> on this ng - hardly me alone - that it is a relatively weak one, I
> think if that is NOT going to be considered the case there have to be
> tangible results to prove otherwise.

Yes

> All I've seen is Roddick sort of
> intimidating the tour for maybe a brief 2 year period and then getting
> *found out* and having not much of a plan B. Hewitt snuck in between
> two legends to win Slams he probably wouldn't have won otherwise. None
> of them seem to have much staying power, although I grant you - let's
> wait and see. If those players have a late-career surge I'm certain
> willing to reassess Fed's generation.

Lots of perjorative phrases in there. If I strip them out it reads
"Roddick was strong on the tour for 2 years, Hewitt won between two
legends". That sounds exactly what you might expect from an
interregnum between two great players. You say it should happen at the
end of Federer's tenure. I say that the production of great players is
not an assembly line. They come in spurts, with random gaps and
eddies, and the pattern of their individual success is different. If I
strip your perjorative phrases down to the facts, I see nothing other
than what might be expected.
>
> But getting back to your assertion that we need distance to evaluate,
> can you acknowledge that it makes sense with a enough hindsight to
> conclude that if Agassi is a No. 1 player and winning Slams at age 32
> and if no one from among Fed's peers can do the same there is at least
> a strong argument that Sampras' peers were tougher? That's all I'm
> asking.

Yes, and no. Yes there is an argument. No, it is not strong. That is
because, as I say, the production of tennis players is not an assembly
line. So your definition of 'peers' is too narrow to be meaningful,
unless you want to take the Sampras/Agassi age relationship as the
only template. I don't.

> As for your contention that this *era* is tougher than Sampras' era or
> any earlier era, it seems to me that you're getting way ahead of the
> game in saying that. You're mentioning Murray and Djokovic to prove
> your point and, while I understand why you would point to them rather
> than Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, etc., I don't see how we can make much of
> an evaluation of this era's merit at this point.

I am saying the 2000s are tougher not because of any individuals, that
would be the microscopic approach, but because of the increased
competiteveness of Wimbledon because of the changes in the surface.

No more, and no less than that.

Individuals will come and go, have form and lose it, be injured and
recover, but across the board there are more players from more
countries, and their belief across the board (not any one individual)
that they can win anywhere, on any of the surfaces, is higher than in
the 90s. So that is my argument why, competitively, the 2000s have a
strong case.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 20:41:39
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
topspin wrote:
>
> I am saying the 2000s are tougher not because of any individuals, that
> would be the microscopic approach, but because of the increased
> competiteveness of Wimbledon because of the changes in the surface.
>
> No more, and no less than that.
>
> Individuals will come and go, have form and lose it, be injured and
> recover, but across the board there are more players from more
> countries, and their belief across the board (not any one individual)
> that they can win anywhere, on any of the surfaces, is higher than in
> the 90s. So that is my argument why, competitively, the 2000s have a
> strong case.



I'm framing this if you don't mind. It's up there with my best Dilbert
cartoons for when I need a good belly laugh.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 20:40:15
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
topspin wrote:
> On 15 Jan, 12:19, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All I've seen is Roddick sort of
>> intimidating the tour for maybe a brief 2 year period and then getting
>> *found out* and having not much of a plan B. Hewitt snuck in between
>> two legends to win Slams he probably wouldn't have won otherwise. None
>> of them seem to have much staying power, although I grant you - let's
>> wait and see. If those players have a late-career surge I'm certain
>> willing to reassess Fed's generation.
>
> Lots of perjorative phrases in there. If I strip them out it reads
> "Roddick was strong on the tour for 2 years, Hewitt won between two
> legends". That sounds exactly what you might expect from an
> interregnum between two great players. You say it should happen at the
> end of Federer's tenure. I say that the production of great players is
> not an assembly line. They come in spurts, with random gaps and
> eddies, and the pattern of their individual success is different. If I
> strip your perjorative phrases down to the facts, I see nothing other
> than what might be expected.


Sounds like you have excuses to cover Fed's butt - pity they don't stand
up to scrutiny. 'Oh gee, Fed beat Murray & Djokovic at USO (1 slam
between them) so must be toughest era ever'. Are you for real? I'll
excuse you as you clearly must be drunk out of your mind.


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 16:15:07
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:01:57 -0800 (PST), topspin
<goolagongfan@hotmail.com > wrote:

>I am saying the 2000s are tougher not because of any individuals, that
>would be the microscopic approach, but because of the increased
>competiteveness of Wimbledon because of the changes in the surface.
>
>No more, and no less than that.
>
>Individuals will come and go, have form and lose it, be injured and
>recover, but across the board there are more players from more
>countries, and their belief across the board (not any one individual)
>that they can win anywhere, on any of the surfaces, is higher than in
>the 90s. So that is my argument why, competitively, the 2000s have a
>strong case.

I haven't read all of this thread, but saw this. And this is a good
point. Both that the surfaces are closer to each other (no really fast
surfaces any more), AND there are not really clay-only players any
more anywhere in the top 50 or so.

This is especially true for Wimbledon where in the 90's and early 00's
a significant number of top players skipped it or went there with the
attitude that they have no chance to go beyond first couple of rounds.


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 05:35:49
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 15 Jan., 19:17, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:

>
> > If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
> > that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed to
> > lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed.
>
> That's nothing new. Of course they hype current top dog. Even Mac with
> his relatively limited record was at many medias hyped as "the
> greatest ever" around 84/85.
>
> .mikko

Happened with Sampras too. Whimpy always likes to bring up some Aussie
Magazine excerpt where the journalist compared young Sampras with all-
time greats of other sports like Pele, Nicklaus, etc. after his 1990
USO win. This is how sports journalism works. They go overboard.


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 05:17:25
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 15 tammi, 14:32, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
> world who
> have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
> show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
> 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>
> Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
> was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
> hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
> be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
> would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
> and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.

Irrelevant. I mean totally irrirelevant. So Gonzales and Rosewall with
their 40y age tags (late 60:ies - early/mid 70:ies) proved that their
peak 50:ies were a lot tougher era? Rosewall even won 4 slams and
reached 2 GS finals at age of 39. Or that Kramer is the best of them
all as he trounced Gonzales late 40:ies?

> If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
> that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed to
> lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed.

That's nothing new. Of course they hype current top dog. Even Mac with
his relatively limited record was at many medias hyped as "the
greatest ever" around 84/85.

.mikko


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 13:52:08
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
MBDunc wrote:
> On 15 tammi, 14:32, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
>> world who
>> have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
>> show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
>> 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>>
>> Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
>> was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
>> hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
>> be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
>> would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
>> and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>
> Irrelevant. I mean totally irrirelevant. So Gonzales and Rosewall with
> their 40y age tags (late 60:ies - early/mid 70:ies) proved that their
> peak 50:ies were a lot tougher era? Rosewall even won 4 slams and
> reached 2 GS finals at age of 39. Or that Kramer is the best of them
> all as he trounced Gonzales late 40:ies?
>
>> If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
>> that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed to
>> lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed.
>
> That's nothing new. Of course they hype current top dog. Even Mac with
> his relatively limited record was at many medias hyped as "the
> greatest ever" around 84/85.
>
> .mikko

Yet Mac was hyping Federer as maybe the best ever when he had fewer than
5 slams.

By JC's argument, Sampras's 7 Wimbledons is a meaningless achievement
because he won thrice there without meeting anyone in the Top 16 well
after his best had clearly passed.

Great players raise the bar for future generations. Sampras had his
uncanny serve that no one could imitate. His serve is still ridiculous
several years after his retirement. Federer has his all court game and
the youngsters have stepped up to meet him half way.

Tennis today has a depth as well as height that are unrivaled. Fitness
and training are the best they have been.

--
Cheers,

vc


   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 20:37:08
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
>> On 15 tammi, 14:32, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
>>> world who
>>> have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
>>> show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
>>> 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>>>
>>> Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
>>> was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
>>> hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
>>> be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
>>> would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
>>> and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>>
>> Irrelevant. I mean totally irrirelevant. So Gonzales and Rosewall with
>> their 40y age tags (late 60:ies - early/mid 70:ies) proved that their
>> peak 50:ies were a lot tougher era? Rosewall even won 4 slams and
>> reached 2 GS finals at age of 39. Or that Kramer is the best of them
>> all as he trounced Gonzales late 40:ies?
>>
>>> If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
>>> that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed to
>>> lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed.
>>
>> That's nothing new. Of course they hype current top dog. Even Mac with
>> his relatively limited record was at many medias hyped as "the
>> greatest ever" around 84/85.
>>
>> .mikko
>
> Yet Mac was hyping Federer as maybe the best ever when he had fewer than
> 5 slams.
>
> By JC's argument, Sampras's 7 Wimbledons is a meaningless achievement
> because he won thrice there without meeting anyone in the Top 16 well
> after his best had clearly passed.
>

No, as he faced Pat Rafter in the final, an opponent clearly superior to
any clown playing today.

Remember Rafter thrashed Agassi & Chang at USO, & also beat Sampras in 5
sets. We know how 35 yr old Agassi would perform v peak Fed at USO as
we have the 2 matches available for analysis from 2004 & 2005 when Fed
was peakest. To cement the point Rafter has perfect 3-0 record v Federer.

I know facts are a bitch, but it's best to deal in reality.


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 04:48:42
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 15 tammi, 14:19, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 3:10=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> tangible results to prove otherwise. All I've seen is Roddick sort of
> intimidating the tour for maybe a brief 2 year period and then getting
> *found out* and having not much of a plan B.

Roddick clearly modified his game several times (most notably with
Connors...which was his most effective period against peak-Fed...until
toileted with AO 07).

Hewitt snuck in between
> two legends to win Slams he probably wouldn't have won otherwise. None
> of them seem to have much staying power, although I grant you - let's
> wait and see. If those players have a late-career surge I'm certain
> willing to reassess Fed's generation.

As unjuicy game Hewitt has he also had other succee as well. He was #1
for surprisingly long and also won 2 YEC:s (and the other was with
totally dominating fashion). He was far from fluke slam winner who
otherwise barely entered in the top10. Instead he had very credible
h2h record against all his peers (Rafter, Kafelnikov, Sampras,
Agassi).

> But getting back to your assertion that we need distance to evaluate,
> can you acknowledge that it makes sense with a enough hindsight to
> conclude that if Agassi is a No. 1 player and winning Slams at age 32
> and if no one from among Fed's peers can do the same there is at least
> a strong argument that Sampras' peers were tougher? That's all I'm
> asking.

Age factor is overrated. The proof is that there have been even 35y
sprinters (where age/slowing process/physical handicap should be most
clearly visible) at the very top of the world. Why tennis should be an
expection as it also gives a lot more room for experience factor. And
yes. Agassi was a great player.

.mikko





  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 13:44:50
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
MBDunc wrote:
> On 15 tammi, 14:19, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 3:10 am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> tangible results to prove otherwise. All I've seen is Roddick sort of
>> intimidating the tour for maybe a brief 2 year period and then getting
>> *found out* and having not much of a plan B.
>
> Roddick clearly modified his game several times (most notably with
> Connors...which was his most effective period against peak-Fed...until
> toileted with AO 07).
>
> Hewitt snuck in between
>> two legends to win Slams he probably wouldn't have won otherwise. None
>> of them seem to have much staying power, although I grant you - let's
>> wait and see. If those players have a late-career surge I'm certain
>> willing to reassess Fed's generation.
>
> As unjuicy game Hewitt has he also had other succee as well. He was #1
> for surprisingly long and also won 2 YEC:s (and the other was with
> totally dominating fashion). He was far from fluke slam winner who
> otherwise barely entered in the top10. Instead he had very credible
> h2h record against all his peers (Rafter, Kafelnikov, Sampras,
> Agassi).
>
>> But getting back to your assertion that we need distance to evaluate,
>> can you acknowledge that it makes sense with a enough hindsight to
>> conclude that if Agassi is a No. 1 player and winning Slams at age 32
>> and if no one from among Fed's peers can do the same there is at least
>> a strong argument that Sampras' peers were tougher? That's all I'm
>> asking.
>
> Age factor is overrated. The proof is that there have been even 35y
> sprinters (where age/slowing process/physical handicap should be most
> clearly visible) at the very top of the world. Why tennis should be an
> expection as it also gives a lot more room for experience factor. And
> yes. Agassi was a great player.
>
> .mikko
>
>
>

The way Jason Catlin argues, the fact that Sampras won slams in his
teens, twenties and thirties is proof positive that he faced no one any
good.

The additional fact that Sampras won 3 Wimbledons without meeting anyone
in the Top 16 would be confirmation of the free ride Sampras got on his
way to 14 slams.

Jason Catlin should be condemning Sampras's Wimbledon and Slam records
as totally bereft of meaning. If JC had any trace of honesty, that is.

--
Cheers,

vc


   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 20:32:07
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
>>
>
> The way Jason Catlin argues, the fact that Sampras won slams in his
> teens, twenties and thirties is proof positive that he faced no one any
> good.
>
> The additional fact that Sampras won 3 Wimbledons without meeting anyone
> in the Top 16 would be confirmation of the free ride Sampras got on his
> way to 14 slams.



No it wouldn't as he faced Pat Rafter in the final, an opponent tougher
than any Fed has faced. Indeed Rafter has a perfect 3-0 record v Fed.


>
> Jason Catlin should be condemning Sampras's Wimbledon and Slam records
> as totally bereft of meaning. If JC had any trace of honesty, that is.
>


See above for comprehensive debunking.


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 04:45:38
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 15, 5:22=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
> The trouble I have with Jason's analysis is that it is indeed like
> trying to look at a structure with a microscope. If you do that then
> indeed you will find flawed areas. You will also find areas of great
> strength. But the microdetail is meaningless, it is the overall final
> structure which matters (*).

That's what I think people did prematurely with Fed. He was seen as
the greatest ever because he
dominated like no one else dominated in Open Era when at peak. Let's
stand back a bit. Let's look how he'll do against this next group and
whether he can get to some of the numbers that Sampras set, at least
as far as OE.
Let's also see how the players he dominated will do against the next
group as well.

> My other problem is that he has one template for measuring a player -
> how his peers do 'after' he declines. But not all careers have the
> same trajectory. What if a player is a late developer, in tennis
> terms. Is it not more likely that their their peers will fill the void
> early, when 'they' are in their tennis prime, rather than later? =A0We
> all know that Federer was indeed a late developer in tennis terms. So
> how did his age peers - Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Roddick, JCF - do?
> They did exactly what you would expect.

But why is it so ridiculous for me to expect that if these guys are
great players they will
make up for their years of frustration with some great late-career
play? Lendl did that. So did Agassi.
I know you followed Rosewall much more than I did. How did he do after
age 25? How did Navratilova do?
I acknowledge we can't evaluate how great they are yet and I'm
perfectly willing to accept your idea of waiting 10 years after a
player retires. But if a player has 1 relatively small run of success
and then nothing else, isn't it
reasonable to conclude he wasn't all that great to begin with, and
that we can't forever make excuses like "well, he was a Fed-generation
player and no one could do anything but just watch Fed collect
trophies at that time. Just bad luck for them."

> So Jason, for all his detail, is going down the same track as others -
> decide your preferred hero/era/etc, then set the criteria which they
> met, and say that others should do the same.

My only preference is for who has the biggest numbers. That player in
my view is Sampras in the Open Era. And I still think he has the best
of OE title by a sizable margin because of most Wimbledons, most
overall Slams, most weeks at No. 1, most YE No. 1s, tied for most
USOs, etc. Federer may very well get there, but in my view he has been
given goat status too quickly by too many journalists and other
observers.

Now, I'm not so dogmatic as to say that my criteria are the only/best
ones. But if you think goat-hood should be based on success on clay,
then obviously neither Fed or Sampras are even in the ballpark. But I
think you'd admit that would be very much a minority viewpoint.


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 04:32:51
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 15, 3:59=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
>
> Actually I think Sampras' legacy has in reality risen with Fed's
> succee. People have realized that with all the unreal succee Fed has
> had since 03 he is still trailing Sampras in key number
> gategories...Sampras had to be smt. extra special too.
>
> .mikko

The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
world who
have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
1, year-end No. 1s, etc.

Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.

If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed to
lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed. In my opinion,
that's because his game was more palatable to them (prettier, less
reliant on a huge serve than Pete was) and they *wanted* to think of
him as the game's greatest-ever player, whether that was true or not.


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 13:01:33
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:32:51 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
<jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Jan 15, 3:59 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>
>> Actually I think Sampras' legacy has in reality risen with Fed's
>> succee. People have realized that with all the unreal succee Fed has
>> had since 03 he is still trailing Sampras in key number
>> gategories...Sampras had to be smt. extra special too.
>>
>> .mikko
>
>The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
>world who
>have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
>show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
>1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>
>Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
>was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
>hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
>be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
>would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
>and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>
>If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
>that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed to
>lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed. In my opinion,
>that's because his game was more palatable to them (prettier, less
>reliant on a huge serve than Pete was) and they *wanted* to think of
>him as the game's greatest-ever player, whether that was true or not.


Look pal nobody ever gave a shit about emersons record nor considered
him the goat until madison avenue decided to make a big deal about
winning the most slams to make pete a hero and lots of $$$$ out of it!

consider all the goat discussions here in rst. is emerson ever
mentioned ? NO ! why not ? he had the most slams ever and until
recently was second.

so fuck off. sampras has no claim to fame other than that. he sucked
on clay. he was lame at tune ups. and they tailored the grass for him
at wimbledon.

roger is 10x the champions pete ever was.


   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 19:03:53
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:32:51 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
> <jason-catlin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 15, 3:59 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>> Actually I think Sampras' legacy has in reality risen with Fed's
>>> succee. People have realized that with all the unreal succee Fed has
>>> had since 03 he is still trailing Sampras in key number
>>> gategories...Sampras had to be smt. extra special too.
>>>
>>> .mikko
>> The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
>> world who
>> have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
>> show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
>> 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>>
>> Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
>> was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
>> hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
>> be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
>> would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
>> and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>>
>> If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
>> that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed to
>> lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed. In my opinion,
>> that's because his game was more palatable to them (prettier, less
>> reliant on a huge serve than Pete was) and they *wanted* to think of
>> him as the game's greatest-ever player, whether that was true or not.
>
>
> Look pal nobody ever gave a shit about emersons record nor considered
> him the goat until madison avenue decided to make a big deal about
> winning the most slams to make pete a hero and lots of $$$$ out of it!
>
> consider all the goat discussions here in rst. is emerson ever
> mentioned ? NO ! why not ? he had the most slams ever and until
> recently was second.


6 of his 12 slams were AO - ie 7543 applies.


>
> so fuck off. sampras has no claim to fame other than that. he sucked
> on clay. he was lame at tune ups. and they tailored the grass for him
> at wimbledon.
>
> roger is 10x the champions pete ever was.


Roger is Sampras-lite.

Biggest difference between them is Sampras chalked up greatest ever
record playing half-arsed in tough era, while Fed is busting his arse in
every match v clowns.




    
Date: 16 Jan 2009 11:08:42
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:03:53 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:32:51 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
>> <jason-catlin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 15, 3:59 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>>> Actually I think Sampras' legacy has in reality risen with Fed's
>>>> succee. People have realized that with all the unreal succee Fed has
>>>> had since 03 he is still trailing Sampras in key number
>>>> gategories...Sampras had to be smt. extra special too.
>>>>
>>>> .mikko
>>> The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
>>> world who
>>> have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
>>> show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
>>> 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>>>
>>> Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
>>> was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
>>> hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
>>> be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
>>> would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
>>> and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>>>
>>> If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
>>> that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed to
>>> lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed. In my opinion,
>>> that's because his game was more palatable to them (prettier, less
>>> reliant on a huge serve than Pete was) and they *wanted* to think of
>>> him as the game's greatest-ever player, whether that was true or not.
>>
>>
>> Look pal nobody ever gave a shit about emersons record nor considered
>> him the goat until madison avenue decided to make a big deal about
>> winning the most slams to make pete a hero and lots of $$$$ out of it!
>>
>> consider all the goat discussions here in rst. is emerson ever
>> mentioned ? NO ! why not ? he had the most slams ever and until
>> recently was second.
>
>
>6 of his 12 slams were AO - ie 7543 applies.

7543 does NOT apply you smelly cunt, except in your delierous mind.

>
>>
>> so fuck off. sampras has no claim to fame other than that. he sucked
>> on clay. he was lame at tune ups. and they tailored the grass for him
>> at wimbledon.
>>
>> roger is 10x the champions pete ever was.
>
>
>Roger is Sampras-lite.
>
>Biggest difference between them is Sampras chalked up greatest ever
>record playing half-arsed in tough era, while Fed is busting his arse in
>every match v clowns.
>


Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the world championships. The defense rests.


   
Date: 15 Jan 2009 16:36:01
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:32:51 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
> <jason-catlin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 15, 3:59 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>> Actually I think Sampras' legacy has in reality risen with Fed's
>>> succee. People have realized that with all the unreal succee Fed has
>>> had since 03 he is still trailing Sampras in key number
>>> gategories...Sampras had to be smt. extra special too.
>>>
>>> .mikko
>> The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
>> world who
>> have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
>> show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
>> 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>>
>> Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
>> was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
>> hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
>> be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
>> would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
>> and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>>
>> If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
>> that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed to
>> lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed. In my opinion,
>> that's because his game was more palatable to them (prettier, less
>> reliant on a huge serve than Pete was) and they *wanted* to think of
>> him as the game's greatest-ever player, whether that was true or not.
>
>
> Look pal nobody ever gave a shit about emersons record nor considered
> him the goat until madison avenue decided to make a big deal about
> winning the most slams to make pete a hero and lots of $$$$ out of it!
>
> consider all the goat discussions here in rst. is emerson ever
> mentioned ? NO ! why not ? he had the most slams ever and until
> recently was second.
>
> so fuck off. sampras has no claim to fame other than that. he sucked
> on clay. he was lame at tune ups.

You have a point there. They compared Sampras to Emerson sidestepping
greater players in the process and now we're stuck with fourteen is the
number for goat crap.


--
"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: 16 Jan 2009 20:46:50
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
TT wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:32:51 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
>> <jason-catlin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 15, 3:59 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>>> Actually I think Sampras' legacy has in reality risen with Fed's
>>>> succee. People have realized that with all the unreal succee Fed has
>>>> had since 03 he is still trailing Sampras in key number
>>>> gategories...Sampras had to be smt. extra special too.
>>>>
>>>> .mikko
>>> The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
>>> world who
>>> have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
>>> show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
>>> 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>>>
>>> Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
>>> was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
>>> hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
>>> be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
>>> would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
>>> and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>>>
>>> If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
>>> that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed to
>>> lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed. In my opinion,
>>> that's because his game was more palatable to them (prettier, less
>>> reliant on a huge serve than Pete was) and they *wanted* to think of
>>> him as the game's greatest-ever player, whether that was true or not.
>>
>>
>> Look pal nobody ever gave a shit about emersons record nor considered
>> him the goat until madison avenue decided to make a big deal about
>> winning the most slams to make pete a hero and lots of $$$$ out of it!
>>
>> consider all the goat discussions here in rst. is emerson ever
>> mentioned ? NO ! why not ? he had the most slams ever and until
>> recently was second.
>>
>> so fuck off. sampras has no claim to fame other than that. he sucked
>> on clay. he was lame at tune ups.
>
> You have a point there. They compared Sampras to Emerson sidestepping
> greater players in the process and now we're stuck with fourteen is the
> number for goat crap.
>
>


14 has never been the number - 7543 tells us who is the real goat.
Remember half of Emerson's & Agassi's slams were AO - bummer for them.



     
Date: 16 Jan 2009 11:06:22
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:46:50 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>TT wrote:
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:32:51 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
>>> <jason-catlin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 15, 3:59 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>>>> Actually I think Sampras' legacy has in reality risen with Fed's
>>>>> succee. People have realized that with all the unreal succee Fed has
>>>>> had since 03 he is still trailing Sampras in key number
>>>>> gategories...Sampras had to be smt. extra special too.
>>>>>
>>>>> .mikko
>>>> The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
>>>> world who
>>>> have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
>>>> show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
>>>> 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
>>>> was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
>>>> hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
>>>> be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
>>>> would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
>>>> and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>>>>
>>>> If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
>>>> that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed to
>>>> lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed. In my opinion,
>>>> that's because his game was more palatable to them (prettier, less
>>>> reliant on a huge serve than Pete was) and they *wanted* to think of
>>>> him as the game's greatest-ever player, whether that was true or not.
>>>
>>>
>>> Look pal nobody ever gave a shit about emersons record nor considered
>>> him the goat until madison avenue decided to make a big deal about
>>> winning the most slams to make pete a hero and lots of $$$$ out of it!
>>>
>>> consider all the goat discussions here in rst. is emerson ever
>>> mentioned ? NO ! why not ? he had the most slams ever and until
>>> recently was second.
>>>
>>> so fuck off. sampras has no claim to fame other than that. he sucked
>>> on clay. he was lame at tune ups.
>>
>> You have a point there. They compared Sampras to Emerson sidestepping
>> greater players in the process and now we're stuck with fourteen is the
>> number for goat crap.
>>
>>
>
>
>14 has never been the number - 7543 tells us who is the real goat.
>Remember half of Emerson's & Agassi's slams were AO - bummer for them.


7543 is nothing but bullshit invented by you to glorify sampras.


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 04:19:34
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 15, 3:10=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 15 Jan, 03:33, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If we're talking about *eras* I don't have a problem with calling this
> > a good *era*.
>
> Let me be absolutely clear where I stand. I think this current time,
> has a claim to be not just a 'good' era, but 'the toughest competitive
> era' ever, for the reasons I said. The other times which in my opinion
> can compare with it are the mid-50s to early 60s for the professional
> circuit (the equivalent of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, etc
> playing only each other all the time), and the mid-70s to around
> mid-80s (tennis at its peak public interest and the unusual
> combination of three great players instead of the more usual two). If
> push came to shove I would drop the 70-80s.
>
> I really don't hold with all the splitting of eras and generations. I
> am with the others who think the timeline is much more complex than 5,
> 10, 20 year chunks.
>
> I also am adamant in my belief, often expressed here, that we cannot
> really judge a player until 10 years after they have retired, to fully
> assess their legacy. That is because there are so many interactions
> going on while they are playing - competitive, technical, social,
> environmental - that it is hard while you are in that milieu to fully
> understand their impacts. It is like looking at a building with a
> microscope, all you see is sand particles, or plaster, or wood fibres,
> or whatever. Stand back, and you see it for what it is.
>
> So we cannot really assess Sampras until 2012, and if Federer is to
> carry on until 2016, as he has said he plans to, then we will not
> fully be able to assess his legacy until 2026. I think it is possible
> to make some stabs at Sampras' position right now, but any assessment
> of Federer, or predictions, is just guesswork, fine for opinion, but
> not really worth a lot.

We know Federer is going to go down as AN all-time great if not THE
all-time great. That's not in
question here. But if we're talking about his group of immediate peers
and the contention of many people
on this ng - hardly me alone - that it is a relatively weak one, I
think if that is NOT going to be considered the case there have to be
tangible results to prove otherwise. All I've seen is Roddick sort of
intimidating the tour for maybe a brief 2 year period and then getting
*found out* and having not much of a plan B. Hewitt snuck in between
two legends to win Slams he probably wouldn't have won otherwise. None
of them seem to have much staying power, although I grant you - let's
wait and see. If those players have a late-career surge I'm certain
willing to reassess Fed's generation.

But getting back to your assertion that we need distance to evaluate,
can you acknowledge that it makes sense with a enough hindsight to
conclude that if Agassi is a No. 1 player and winning Slams at age 32
and if no one from among Fed's peers can do the same there is at least
a strong argument that Sampras' peers were tougher? That's all I'm
asking.

As for your contention that this *era* is tougher than Sampras' era or
any earlier era, it seems to me that you're getting way ahead of the
game in saying that. You're mentioning Murray and Djokovic to prove
your point and, while I understand why you would point to them rather
than Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, etc., I don't see how we can make much of
an evaluation of this era's merit at this point.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 18:51:38
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Jan 15, 3:10 am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15 Jan, 03:33, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If we're talking about *eras* I don't have a problem with calling this
>>> a good *era*.
>> Let me be absolutely clear where I stand. I think this current time,
>> has a claim to be not just a 'good' era, but 'the toughest competitive
>> era' ever, for the reasons I said. The other times which in my opinion
>> can compare with it are the mid-50s to early 60s for the professional
>> circuit (the equivalent of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, etc
>> playing only each other all the time), and the mid-70s to around
>> mid-80s (tennis at its peak public interest and the unusual
>> combination of three great players instead of the more usual two). If
>> push came to shove I would drop the 70-80s.
>>
>> I really don't hold with all the splitting of eras and generations. I
>> am with the others who think the timeline is much more complex than 5,
>> 10, 20 year chunks.
>>
>> I also am adamant in my belief, often expressed here, that we cannot
>> really judge a player until 10 years after they have retired, to fully
>> assess their legacy. That is because there are so many interactions
>> going on while they are playing - competitive, technical, social,
>> environmental - that it is hard while you are in that milieu to fully
>> understand their impacts. It is like looking at a building with a
>> microscope, all you see is sand particles, or plaster, or wood fibres,
>> or whatever. Stand back, and you see it for what it is.
>>
>> So we cannot really assess Sampras until 2012, and if Federer is to
>> carry on until 2016, as he has said he plans to, then we will not
>> fully be able to assess his legacy until 2026. I think it is possible
>> to make some stabs at Sampras' position right now, but any assessment
>> of Federer, or predictions, is just guesswork, fine for opinion, but
>> not really worth a lot.
>
> We know Federer is going to go down as AN all-time great if not THE
> all-time great. That's not in
> question here. But if we're talking about his group of immediate peers
> and the contention of many people
> on this ng - hardly me alone - that it is a relatively weak one, I
> think if that is NOT going to be considered the case there have to be
> tangible results to prove otherwise. All I've seen is Roddick sort of
> intimidating the tour for maybe a brief 2 year period and then getting
> *found out* and having not much of a plan B. Hewitt snuck in between
> two legends to win Slams he probably wouldn't have won otherwise. None
> of them seem to have much staying power, although I grant you - let's
> wait and see. If those players have a late-career surge I'm certain
> willing to reassess Fed's generation.
>
> But getting back to your assertion that we need distance to evaluate,
> can you acknowledge that it makes sense with a enough hindsight to
> conclude that if Agassi is a No. 1 player and winning Slams at age 32
> and if no one from among Fed's peers can do the same there is at least
> a strong argument that Sampras' peers were tougher? That's all I'm
> asking.
>
> As for your contention that this *era* is tougher than Sampras' era or
> any earlier era, it seems to me that you're getting way ahead of the
> game in saying that. You're mentioning Murray and Djokovic to prove
> your point and, while I understand why you would point to them rather
> than Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, etc., I don't see how we can make much of
> an evaluation of this era's merit at this point.


Excellent analysis. I'm quite stunned - I've rarely seen this level of
logical clarity in rst. Most of it seems to be rambling fanboy stuff
from tennis newbies & frankly it's embarrassing for me to even converse
with them.




   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 11:10:26
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:51:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Jason Catlin wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 3:10 am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 15 Jan, 03:33, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If we're talking about *eras* I don't have a problem with calling this
>>>> a good *era*.
>>> Let me be absolutely clear where I stand. I think this current time,
>>> has a claim to be not just a 'good' era, but 'the toughest competitive
>>> era' ever, for the reasons I said. The other times which in my opinion
>>> can compare with it are the mid-50s to early 60s for the professional
>>> circuit (the equivalent of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, etc
>>> playing only each other all the time), and the mid-70s to around
>>> mid-80s (tennis at its peak public interest and the unusual
>>> combination of three great players instead of the more usual two). If
>>> push came to shove I would drop the 70-80s.
>>>
>>> I really don't hold with all the splitting of eras and generations. I
>>> am with the others who think the timeline is much more complex than 5,
>>> 10, 20 year chunks.
>>>
>>> I also am adamant in my belief, often expressed here, that we cannot
>>> really judge a player until 10 years after they have retired, to fully
>>> assess their legacy. That is because there are so many interactions
>>> going on while they are playing - competitive, technical, social,
>>> environmental - that it is hard while you are in that milieu to fully
>>> understand their impacts. It is like looking at a building with a
>>> microscope, all you see is sand particles, or plaster, or wood fibres,
>>> or whatever. Stand back, and you see it for what it is.
>>>
>>> So we cannot really assess Sampras until 2012, and if Federer is to
>>> carry on until 2016, as he has said he plans to, then we will not
>>> fully be able to assess his legacy until 2026. I think it is possible
>>> to make some stabs at Sampras' position right now, but any assessment
>>> of Federer, or predictions, is just guesswork, fine for opinion, but
>>> not really worth a lot.
>>
>> We know Federer is going to go down as AN all-time great if not THE
>> all-time great. That's not in
>> question here. But if we're talking about his group of immediate peers
>> and the contention of many people
>> on this ng - hardly me alone - that it is a relatively weak one, I
>> think if that is NOT going to be considered the case there have to be
>> tangible results to prove otherwise. All I've seen is Roddick sort of
>> intimidating the tour for maybe a brief 2 year period and then getting
>> *found out* and having not much of a plan B. Hewitt snuck in between
>> two legends to win Slams he probably wouldn't have won otherwise. None
>> of them seem to have much staying power, although I grant you - let's
>> wait and see. If those players have a late-career surge I'm certain
>> willing to reassess Fed's generation.
>>
>> But getting back to your assertion that we need distance to evaluate,
>> can you acknowledge that it makes sense with a enough hindsight to
>> conclude that if Agassi is a No. 1 player and winning Slams at age 32
>> and if no one from among Fed's peers can do the same there is at least
>> a strong argument that Sampras' peers were tougher? That's all I'm
>> asking.
>>
>> As for your contention that this *era* is tougher than Sampras' era or
>> any earlier era, it seems to me that you're getting way ahead of the
>> game in saying that. You're mentioning Murray and Djokovic to prove
>> your point and, while I understand why you would point to them rather
>> than Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, etc., I don't see how we can make much of
>> an evaluation of this era's merit at this point.
>
>
>Excellent analysis. I'm quite stunned - I've rarely seen this level of
>logical clarity in rst. Most of it seems to be rambling fanboy stuff
>from tennis newbies & frankly it's embarrassing for me to even converse
>with them.
>

That's only because "they" put you to shame. Just like Fed is about to
do to Pete.


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 02:55:36
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 15 Jan, 10:34, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > "PEIBS" = previous-era-is-best-syndome.
>
> or "BABES" = borg-acknowledged-best-era-syndrome.

Or LABES, or GABES, or SABES, or FABES, or....NABES??


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 16:29:49
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
topspin wrote:
> On 15 Jan, 10:34, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> MBDunc wrote:
>>> "PEIBS" = previous-era-is-best-syndome.
>> or "BABES" = borg-acknowledged-best-era-syndrome.
>
> Or LABES, or GABES, or SABES, or FABES, or....NABES??

NABES definitely.

Did you know:
Most people who have FABES are also members of NAMBLA


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 02:22:21
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 15 Jan, 08:59, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> On 15 tammi, 10:10, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I really don't hold with all the splitting of eras and generations. I
> > am with the others who think the timeline is much more complex than 5,
> > 10, 20 year chunks.
>
> True and the sample size for open era tennis is just too small
> offering a lot of chances to stats misintepreptions.
>
> > I also am adamant in my belief, often expressed here, that we cannot
> > really judge a player until 10 years after they have retired, to fully
> > assess their legacy. That is because there are so many interactions
> > going on while they are playing - competitive, technical, social,
> > environmental - that it is hard while you are in that milieu to fully
> > understand their impacts. It is like looking at a building with a
> > microscope, all you see is sand particles, or plaster, or wood fibres,
> > or whatever. Stand back, and you see it for what it is.
>
> That removes CEIBS. Rare have patience to take a step back to see the
> big picture.
>
> Though PEIBS is even worse syndrome than CEIBS as in addition to "gut
> feelings which CEIBS needs for food" PEIBS constantly need to fight
> against already proven facts/stats and information with replacing them
> with stat cherrypicking and doublestandards.
>
> "CEIBS" = current-era-is-best-syndrome.
> "PEIBS" = previous-era-is-best-syndome.
>
> > So we cannot really assess Sampras until 2012, and if Federer is to
> > carry on until 2016, as he has said he plans to, then we will not
> > fully be able to assess his legacy until 2026. I think it is possible
> > to make some stabs at Sampras' position right now, but any assessment
> > of Federer, or predictions, is just guesswork, fine for opinion, but
> > not really worth a lot.
>
> Actually I think Sampras' legacy has in reality risen with Fed's
> succee. People have realized that with all the unreal succee Fed has
> had since 03 he is still trailing Sampras in key number
> gategories...Sampras had to be smt. extra special too.
>
> .mikko

The trouble I have with Jason's analysis is that it is indeed like
trying to look at a structure with a microscope. If you do that then
indeed you will find flawed areas. You will also find areas of great
strength. But the microdetail is meaningless, it is the overall final
structure which matters (*).

My other problem is that he has one template for measuring a player -
how his peers do 'after' he declines. But not all careers have the
same trajectory. What if a player is a late developer, in tennis
terms. Is it not more likely that their their peers will fill the void
early, when 'they' are in their tennis prime, rather than later? We
all know that Federer was indeed a late developer in tennis terms. So
how did his age peers - Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Roddick, JCF - do?
They did exactly what you would expect.

So Jason, for all his detail, is going down the same track as others -
decide your preferred hero/era/etc, then set the criteria which they
met, and say that others should do the same.

(* Of course if you look at things in too little detail - just add up
slams - then the analogy would be that you have two structures. One is
10,000 square metres, the other is 11,000. If someone is not
interested in the detail they declare the the 11,000 square metre
structure the greatest. The 11,000 square metre structure is a
distribution warehouse, The 10,000 square metre structure is the Taj
Mahal.)


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 18:37:08
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
topspin wrote:
> On 15 Jan, 08:59, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>> On 15 tammi, 10:10, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I really don't hold with all the splitting of eras and generations. I
>>> am with the others who think the timeline is much more complex than 5,
>>> 10, 20 year chunks.
>> True and the sample size for open era tennis is just too small
>> offering a lot of chances to stats misintepreptions.
>>
>>> I also am adamant in my belief, often expressed here, that we cannot
>>> really judge a player until 10 years after they have retired, to fully
>>> assess their legacy. That is because there are so many interactions
>>> going on while they are playing - competitive, technical, social,
>>> environmental - that it is hard while you are in that milieu to fully
>>> understand their impacts. It is like looking at a building with a
>>> microscope, all you see is sand particles, or plaster, or wood fibres,
>>> or whatever. Stand back, and you see it for what it is.
>> That removes CEIBS. Rare have patience to take a step back to see the
>> big picture.
>>
>> Though PEIBS is even worse syndrome than CEIBS as in addition to "gut
>> feelings which CEIBS needs for food" PEIBS constantly need to fight
>> against already proven facts/stats and information with replacing them
>> with stat cherrypicking and doublestandards.
>>
>> "CEIBS" = current-era-is-best-syndrome.
>> "PEIBS" = previous-era-is-best-syndome.
>>
>>> So we cannot really assess Sampras until 2012, and if Federer is to
>>> carry on until 2016, as he has said he plans to, then we will not
>>> fully be able to assess his legacy until 2026. I think it is possible
>>> to make some stabs at Sampras' position right now, but any assessment
>>> of Federer, or predictions, is just guesswork, fine for opinion, but
>>> not really worth a lot.
>> Actually I think Sampras' legacy has in reality risen with Fed's
>> succee. People have realized that with all the unreal succee Fed has
>> had since 03 he is still trailing Sampras in key number
>> gategories...Sampras had to be smt. extra special too.
>>
>> .mikko
>
> The trouble I have with Jason's analysis is that it is indeed like
> trying to look at a structure with a microscope. If you do that then
> indeed you will find flawed areas. You will also find areas of great
> strength. But the microdetail is meaningless, it is the overall final
> structure which matters (*).
>
> My other problem is that he has one template for measuring a player -
> how his peers do 'after' he declines. But not all careers have the
> same trajectory. What if a player is a late developer, in tennis
> terms. Is it not more likely that their their peers will fill the void
> early, when 'they' are in their tennis prime, rather than later? We
> all know that Federer was indeed a late developer in tennis terms. So
> how did his age peers - Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Roddick, JCF - do?
> They did exactly what you would expect.
>
> So Jason, for all his detail, is going down the same track as others -
> decide your preferred hero/era/etc, then set the criteria which they
> met, and say that others should do the same.
>
> (* Of course if you look at things in too little detail - just add up
> slams - then the analogy would be that you have two structures. One is
> 10,000 square metres, the other is 11,000. If someone is not
> interested in the detail they declare the the 11,000 square metre
> structure the greatest. The 11,000 square metre structure is a
> distribution warehouse, The 10,000 square metre structure is the Taj
> Mahal.)


Idiot.

7 Wimbledons is always greater than 5 no matter how you want to package
it. Only a complete dickhead would prefer 5 over 7.



 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 02:08:53
From:
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
> p.s. It seems that you think there was no public opinion in -85 and it
> wasn't reflected in media. Ridiculous.

How was it reflected in the media? How did the media get access to the
thoughts of all these people who nowadays post to internet forums and
newsgroups?

BTW, I never said there was a clown era back in 1985 - my point is
that if the basis for the opinion that there is one at present comes
from "the internet", then how can anyone be sure what the opinion of
the general public was without that?




 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 00:59:39
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 15 tammi, 10:10, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> I really don't hold with all the splitting of eras and generations. I
> am with the others who think the timeline is much more complex than 5,
> 10, 20 year chunks.

True and the sample size for open era tennis is just too small
offering a lot of chances to stats misintepreptions.

> I also am adamant in my belief, often expressed here, that we cannot
> really judge a player until 10 years after they have retired, to fully
> assess their legacy. That is because there are so many interactions
> going on while they are playing - competitive, technical, social,
> environmental - that it is hard while you are in that milieu to fully
> understand their impacts. It is like looking at a building with a
> microscope, all you see is sand particles, or plaster, or wood fibres,
> or whatever. Stand back, and you see it for what it is.

That removes CEIBS. Rare have patience to take a step back to see the
big picture.

Though PEIBS is even worse syndrome than CEIBS as in addition to "gut
feelings which CEIBS needs for food" PEIBS constantly need to fight
against already proven facts/stats and information with replacing them
with stat cherrypicking and doublestandards.

"CEIBS" = current-era-is-best-syndrome.
"PEIBS" = previous-era-is-best-syndome.

> So we cannot really assess Sampras until 2012, and if Federer is to
> carry on until 2016, as he has said he plans to, then we will not
> fully be able to assess his legacy until 2026. I think it is possible
> to make some stabs at Sampras' position right now, but any assessment
> of Federer, or predictions, is just guesswork, fine for opinion, but
> not really worth a lot.

Actually I think Sampras' legacy has in reality risen with Fed's
succee. People have realized that with all the unreal succee Fed has
had since 03 he is still trailing Sampras in key number
gategories...Sampras had to be smt. extra special too.

.mikko


  
Date: 17 Jan 2009 16:18:42
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 16, 5:52=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:36:14 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >MBDunc wrote:
> >> On 16 tammi, 11:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> >>>> MBDunc wrote:
> >>>>> On 15 tammi, 14:32, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
> >>>>>> world who
> >>>>>> have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers=
to
> >>>>>> show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at=
No.
> >>>>>> 1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
> >>>>>> Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, whil=
e it
> >>>>>> was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
> >>>>>> hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years w=
ill
> >>>>>> be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
> >>>>>> would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surg=
e
> >>>>>> and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
> >>>>> Irrelevant. I mean totally irrirelevant. So Gonzales and Rosewall w=
ith
> >>>>> their 40y age tags (late 60:ies - early/mid 70:ies) proved that the=
ir
> >>>>> peak 50:ies were a lot tougher era? Rosewall even won 4 slams and
> >>>>> reached 2 GS finals at age of 39. Or that Kramer is the best of the=
m
> >>>>> all as he trounced Gonzales late 40:ies?
> >>>>>> If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era=
,
> >>>>>> that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seeme=
d to
> >>>>>> lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed.
> >>>>> That's nothing new. Of course they hype current top dog. Even Mac w=
ith
> >>>>> his relatively limited record was at many medias hyped as "the
> >>>>> greatest ever" around 84/85.
> >>>>> .mikko
> >>>> Yet Mac was hyping Federer as maybe the best ever when he had fewer =
than
> >>>> 5 slams.
> >>>> By JC's argument, Sampras's 7 Wimbledons is a meaningless achievemen=
t
> >>>> because he won thrice there without meeting anyone in the Top 16 wel=
l
> >>>> after his best had clearly passed.
> >>> No, as he faced Pat Rafter in the final, an opponent clearly superior=
to
> >>> any clown playing today.
>
> >> Whisper quotes about Rafter 2004: (available via google-groups)
>
> >> "Sure, another personality to the mix would be good, but his game
> >> wasn't that
> >> good - Hewitt is better..... "
>
> >> "It's a super effort - but Hewitt has clearly surpassed him....." -
> >> super effort means Rafter's 2 USOpens.
>
> >> "Hewitt is a better player in absolute terms, as evidence by his
> >> superior
> >> achievements & better head to head.... " - direct Whisper quote from
> >> 2004.
>
> >> ...and this is your point of view of Hewitt (co-incidentally before
> >> Fed had started to gather serious # of slams)
>
> >> "No, as he won the 2 biggest slams, straight sets both finals, beat
> >> the
> >> god of tennis/USO in USO final, 2 Masters, 2 yr-end No.1s. =A0If it wa=
s
> >> a
> >> fluke, he sure sustained it for a relatively long period of time,
> >> which
> >> goes against fluke definition.... "
>
> >> "It looks like Hewitt would do better against the big guys who beat
> >> Chang
> >> - eg Rafter killed Chang in '97 USO semi, but Hewitt seemed to always
> >> beat Rafter pretty comfortably. =A0The only issue is how would Hewitt =
go
> >> v
> >> Chang himself, & how do their games matchup? - that's something to
> >> discuss.... I don't think it's a particularly interesting issue unless
> >> you're a big
> >> Hewitt/Chang fan - but my gut feeling is Hewitt would win as he is
> >> more
> >> obsessed & has more power"
>
> >> ...and there are dozens of similar posts from Whispers...but then Fed
> >> just happened and came doublestandards.
>
> >> .mikko
>
> >I've also quoted many times Hewitt at 100% is a great player, but at 98%
> >he's barely top 30. =A0That means he only has to be very slightly off hi=
s
> >best form & he's crap.
>
> >Sampras by contrast could be at 40% & still beat no.1 in straights.
>
> or lose to galo blanco in r1/r2 ?

Come on, Dave.
You cannot take the chief troll at his word.

And please lay off the Sampras bashing; just cause Whisper is a troll
is no reason to bash Pete.

Rodjk #613


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 12:34:05
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
MBDunc wrote:

> "PEIBS" = previous-era-is-best-syndome.

or "BABES" = borg-acknowledged-best-era-syndrome.


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 00:10:11
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 15 Jan, 03:33, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> If we're talking about *eras* I don't have a problem with calling this
> a good *era*.

Let me be absolutely clear where I stand. I think this current time,
has a claim to be not just a 'good' era, but 'the toughest competitive
era' ever, for the reasons I said. The other times which in my opinion
can compare with it are the mid-50s to early 60s for the professional
circuit (the equivalent of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, etc
playing only each other all the time), and the mid-70s to around
mid-80s (tennis at its peak public interest and the unusual
combination of three great players instead of the more usual two). If
push came to shove I would drop the 70-80s.

I really don't hold with all the splitting of eras and generations. I
am with the others who think the timeline is much more complex than 5,
10, 20 year chunks.

I also am adamant in my belief, often expressed here, that we cannot
really judge a player until 10 years after they have retired, to fully
assess their legacy. That is because there are so many interactions
going on while they are playing - competitive, technical, social,
environmental - that it is hard while you are in that milieu to fully
understand their impacts. It is like looking at a building with a
microscope, all you see is sand particles, or plaster, or wood fibres,
or whatever. Stand back, and you see it for what it is.

So we cannot really assess Sampras until 2012, and if Federer is to
carry on until 2016, as he has said he plans to, then we will not
fully be able to assess his legacy until 2026. I think it is possible
to make some stabs at Sampras' position right now, but any assessment
of Federer, or predictions, is just guesswork, fine for opinion, but
not really worth a lot.



 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 00:00:06
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 15 tammi, 05:20, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2:05 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> OK, you've looked at 1998. But what about what happened after that.
> 1999 was dominated
> by Sampras and Andre. I'll admit that the fact that guys aged 27 and
> 28 were dominating
> the sport in 1999 and continued to play at the very highest level for
> 4-5 more years (and that Ivanisevic and Rafter played in the 2001
> Wimbledon final and that Martin played in the '99 USO final) *could*
> have been because the next generation was weak, in addition to how
> good Pete's generation was.
> I'm not forgetting it and I've said repeatedly that the generation
> after Pete's was weak. I don't
> even think that's up for discussion. No Wimbledons or USOs by anyone
> born in the years 1973-77. I'm no tennis
> historian but I'd be interested if there's any other similar
> generation with that poor of a record.

I am THE tennis historian. ;).

The birthyears 1953-58 included only Borg as multislamchamp. That is
of course what happens when someone wins a lot of slams. Others get
only debris. Birthyears

Birthyears 1947-51....is there any slam winner from that
period???...at least there is noone with 2 or more slams....Ashe,
Newcombe, Kodes, Nastase, Smith were all born 46 or earlier. Connors/
Vilas were born 1952.

> What you're not acknowledging is that questions about Fed's generation
> (I don't use the term *clown
> era*) stem from the fact that no one else besides Fed is doing much of
> anything where it counts these days. Only 2 of 15 big events last year
> were won by Fed generation guys. Can you at least admit that Fed's
> generation would look better if he played Roddick in last year's
> Wimbledon final and Nalbandian in last year's USO final?

I know it does not matter. Most averagejoes still can not understand
my mac/connors/agassi are not anymore playing at USO final...

> The generation of players born 1973-77 didn't have 1 truly great fast
> court player, imo. That's Joe Ramirez'
> "missing champions" group. So if that generation didn't have 1 truly
> great player (maybe the closest was Guga, and only on clay?), why is
> it so hard to accept that Fed was the only great player from his?

Because had not Fed existed then Hewitt/Roddick both would have
together extra 6-7 slams (divide them as you like between those who).
May be Agassi had sneaked one/two more. Then era would look
exceptionally strong "look Hewitt trounced Sampras, was #1 01-02 and
went toe-to-toe with Roddick for five more years, what a great era".

Instead of having Fed-Fed-Fed for fast court slam winners...we could
have had following bunch (fantasy stuff obviously)

Roddick: Wimb 03, 05....USO 03, 06....AO 07
Hewitt: Wimb 02. 04....USO 01, 04,
Safin: AO 04, 05...USO 00
Agassi: USO 05 (+ his previous succee).
Djokovic: USO 07......AO 08,

+ Nadal with his FO/Wimb succee in the mix.

That HC era would cream every HC era to date. But Fed spoiled it with
constant trouncing of Hewitt/Roddick/Agassi at slams. Averagejoes do
not understand this math.

Alone 04 Fed stopped Hewitt's route at slams 3 times (AO, Wimb, USO).

.mikko




  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 16:12:38
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
MBDunc wrote:
> On 15 tammi, 05:20, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 2:05 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>> OK, you've looked at 1998. But what about what happened after that.
>> 1999 was dominated
>> by Sampras and Andre. I'll admit that the fact that guys aged 27 and
>> 28 were dominating
>> the sport in 1999 and continued to play at the very highest level for
>> 4-5 more years (and that Ivanisevic and Rafter played in the 2001
>> Wimbledon final and that Martin played in the '99 USO final) *could*
>> have been because the next generation was weak, in addition to how
>> good Pete's generation was.
>> I'm not forgetting it and I've said repeatedly that the generation
>> after Pete's was weak. I don't
>> even think that's up for discussion. No Wimbledons or USOs by anyone
>> born in the years 1973-77. I'm no tennis
>> historian but I'd be interested if there's any other similar
>> generation with that poor of a record.
>
> I am THE tennis historian. ;).
>
> The birthyears 1953-58 included only Borg as multislamchamp. That is
> of course what happens when someone wins a lot of slams. Others get
> only debris. Birthyears
>
> Birthyears 1947-51....is there any slam winner from that
> period???...at least there is noone with 2 or more slams....Ashe,
> Newcombe, Kodes, Nastase, Smith were all born 46 or earlier. Connors/
> Vilas were born 1952.
>
>> What you're not acknowledging is that questions about Fed's generation
>> (I don't use the term *clown
>> era*) stem from the fact that no one else besides Fed is doing much of
>> anything where it counts these days. Only 2 of 15 big events last year
>> were won by Fed generation guys. Can you at least admit that Fed's
>> generation would look better if he played Roddick in last year's
>> Wimbledon final and Nalbandian in last year's USO final?
>
> I know it does not matter. Most averagejoes still can not understand
> my mac/connors/agassi are not anymore playing at USO final...
>
>> The generation of players born 1973-77 didn't have 1 truly great fast
>> court player, imo. That's Joe Ramirez'
>> "missing champions" group. So if that generation didn't have 1 truly
>> great player (maybe the closest was Guga, and only on clay?), why is
>> it so hard to accept that Fed was the only great player from his?
>
> Because had not Fed existed then Hewitt/Roddick both would have
> together extra 6-7 slams (divide them as you like between those who).
> May be Agassi had sneaked one/two more. Then era would look
> exceptionally strong "look Hewitt trounced Sampras, was #1 01-02 and
> went toe-to-toe with Roddick for five more years, what a great era".
>
> Instead of having Fed-Fed-Fed for fast court slam winners...we could
> have had following bunch (fantasy stuff obviously)
>
> Roddick: Wimb 03, 05....USO 03, 06....AO 07
> Hewitt: Wimb 02. 04....USO 01, 04,
> Safin: AO 04, 05...USO 00
> Agassi: USO 05 (+ his previous succee).
> Djokovic: USO 07......AO 08,
>
> + Nadal with his FO/Wimb succee in the mix.
>
> That HC era would cream every HC era to date. But Fed spoiled it with
> constant trouncing of Hewitt/Roddick/Agassi at slams. Averagejoes do
> not understand this math.
>


You're making one very big mistake - can you see what it is?



   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 05:40:15
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:12:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>MBDunc wrote:
>> On 15 tammi, 05:20, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 2:05 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>> OK, you've looked at 1998. But what about what happened after that.
>>> 1999 was dominated
>>> by Sampras and Andre. I'll admit that the fact that guys aged 27 and
>>> 28 were dominating
>>> the sport in 1999 and continued to play at the very highest level for
>>> 4-5 more years (and that Ivanisevic and Rafter played in the 2001
>>> Wimbledon final and that Martin played in the '99 USO final) *could*
>>> have been because the next generation was weak, in addition to how
>>> good Pete's generation was.
>>> I'm not forgetting it and I've said repeatedly that the generation
>>> after Pete's was weak. I don't
>>> even think that's up for discussion. No Wimbledons or USOs by anyone
>>> born in the years 1973-77. I'm no tennis
>>> historian but I'd be interested if there's any other similar
>>> generation with that poor of a record.
>>
>> I am THE tennis historian. ;).
>>
>> The birthyears 1953-58 included only Borg as multislamchamp. That is
>> of course what happens when someone wins a lot of slams. Others get
>> only debris. Birthyears
>>
>> Birthyears 1947-51....is there any slam winner from that
>> period???...at least there is noone with 2 or more slams....Ashe,
>> Newcombe, Kodes, Nastase, Smith were all born 46 or earlier. Connors/
>> Vilas were born 1952.
>>
>>> What you're not acknowledging is that questions about Fed's generation
>>> (I don't use the term *clown
>>> era*) stem from the fact that no one else besides Fed is doing much of
>>> anything where it counts these days. Only 2 of 15 big events last year
>>> were won by Fed generation guys. Can you at least admit that Fed's
>>> generation would look better if he played Roddick in last year's
>>> Wimbledon final and Nalbandian in last year's USO final?
>>
>> I know it does not matter. Most averagejoes still can not understand
>> my mac/connors/agassi are not anymore playing at USO final...
>>
>>> The generation of players born 1973-77 didn't have 1 truly great fast
>>> court player, imo. That's Joe Ramirez'
>>> "missing champions" group. So if that generation didn't have 1 truly
>>> great player (maybe the closest was Guga, and only on clay?), why is
>>> it so hard to accept that Fed was the only great player from his?
>>
>> Because had not Fed existed then Hewitt/Roddick both would have
>> together extra 6-7 slams (divide them as you like between those who).
>> May be Agassi had sneaked one/two more. Then era would look
>> exceptionally strong "look Hewitt trounced Sampras, was #1 01-02 and
>> went toe-to-toe with Roddick for five more years, what a great era".
>>
>> Instead of having Fed-Fed-Fed for fast court slam winners...we could
>> have had following bunch (fantasy stuff obviously)
>>
>> Roddick: Wimb 03, 05....USO 03, 06....AO 07
>> Hewitt: Wimb 02. 04....USO 01, 04,
>> Safin: AO 04, 05...USO 00
>> Agassi: USO 05 (+ his previous succee).
>> Djokovic: USO 07......AO 08,
>>
>> + Nadal with his FO/Wimb succee in the mix.
>>
>> That HC era would cream every HC era to date. But Fed spoiled it with
>> constant trouncing of Hewitt/Roddick/Agassi at slams. Averagejoes do
>> not understand this math.
>>
>
>
>You're making one very big mistake - can you see what it is?


he forgot to wear a condom when he buggered you ?


 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 21:09:07
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 8:30=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 14, 10:58=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 7:20=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 14, 2:05 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Well noone of Sampras' generation took an advantage of Sampras'
> > > > relatively lull year of 1998 (similar to Fed's 2008) and of newer
> > > > generation Moya / Rios / Rafter / Corretja all subcumbed to take ye=
ar-
> > > > end #1 from Sampras. (I am counting Rafter in later generation as h=
e
> > > > clearly was late-bloomer as he barely stayed in top50 pre 97 ).
>
> > > > 1 Sampras, Pete =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0USA =A0 =A00 =A03915 =A0=
4547 =A0-632 =A03131 =A0784 =A022
> > > > =A0 =A02 Rios, Marcelo =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0CHI =A0 =A08 =A03=
670 =A02317 =A01353 =A02920 =A0750
> > > > 23
> > > > =A0 =A03 Corretja, Alex =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ESP =A0 =A09 =A0339=
8 =A02275 =A01123 =A02759 =A0639
> > > > 24
> > > > =A0 =A04 Rafter, Patrick =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0AUS =A0 -2 =A03315 =
=A03210 =A0 105 =A02464 =A0851
> > > > 26
> > > > =A0 =A05 Moya, Carlos =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ESP =A0 =A02 =A03=
159 =A02508 =A0 651 =A02432 =A0727
> > > > 24
> > > > =A0 =A06 Agassi, Andre =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0USA =A0116 =A0287=
9 =A0 375 =A02504 =A02135 =A0744
> > > > 20
> > > > =A0 =A07 Henman, Tim =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0GBR =A0 10 =A02=
620 =A01929 =A0 691 =A01804 =A0816
> > > > 29
> > > > =A0 =A08 Kucera, Karol =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0SLV =A0 16 =A0257=
9 =A01423 =A01156 =A01820 =A0759
> > > > 25
> > > > =A0 =A09 Rusedski, Greg =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 GBR =A0 -3 =A02573 =
=A02617 =A0 -44 =A01849 =A0724
> > > > 25
> > > > =A0 10 Krajicek, Richard =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0NED =A0 =A01 =A02548 =
=A02299 =A0 249 =A01815 =A0733
> > > > 18
>
> > > > Very lull year for Sampras' gen. There is Agassi in top10 and if yo=
u
> > > > strech you can include Krajicek to same generation. Sampras did win
> > > > slam but noone of Sampras' generation won any supernines (Master
> > > > Series of 90:ies).
>
> > > OK, you've looked at 1998. But what about what happened after that.
> > > 1999 was dominated
> > > by Sampras and Andre. I'll admit that the fact that guys aged 27 and
> > > 28 were dominating
> > > the sport in 1999 and continued to play at the very highest level for
> > > 4-5 more years (and that Ivanisevic and Rafter played in the 2001
> > > Wimbledon final and that Martin played in the '99 USO final) *could*
> > > have been because the next generation was weak, in addition to how
> > > good Pete's generation was. Can you admit I've got an argument that
> > > the fact that guys like Roddick, Nalby, Denko, etc are not doing much
> > > and don't appear they will do much against the next generation *could=
*
> > > be because they just aren't all that great? They certainly have all
> > > the motivation in the world to step up and have a late career surge
> > > after all the accumulated frustration of their losses to Fed when he
> > > was dominating everything.
>
> > > > > BUT, I grant that Javier made a good point, this is all subjectiv=
e.
> > > > > There are other ways to explain the results. Maybe the generation
> > > > > after Sampras' (Henman, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya) was just weak and
> > > > > that's why Agassi was still racking up Slams at age 31. Maybe Mur=
ray
> > > > > and Nadal and Djoke are really strong and that's why Roddick, Nal=
by,
> > > > > etc seem to have been passed by.
> > > > > But I think if Fed's generation continues to perform poorly again=
st
> > > > > the next generation (by the way, only 1 MS event and 1 Slam won l=
ast
> > > > > year by Fed's gen) and Fed's record against the guys who are like=
ly
> > > > > the two best players from the next generation continues to be a l=
osing
> > > > > one, then there's absolutely no way we can call Fed goat now.
>
> > > > Sampras still edges Fed with absolute numbers sure.
>
> > > > > At the very least, we need to say that Fed *could* have benefited=
from
> > > > > a slight lull in competition while Nadal's generation was coming =
into
> > > > > form. So we can't be giving him bonus points for dominance and se=
nding
> > > > > him past Sampras when Pete's ahead of him in total Slams, total w=
eeks
> > > > > at No. 1, total Wimbledons, etc.
>
> > > > Sampras benefitted from weak 97-98 a lot more. Suddenly of previous
> > > > era players.
>
> > > > Stich quitted..
> > > > Becker quitted (after strong 95-96).
> > > > Edberg quitted (well he was heading out of it anyway).
> > > > Agassi went hiatus 97.
> > > > Courier was spent force.
> > > > Muster went severely downhill after spring 97.
> > > > Ivanisevic had problems to enter in top10 after 1996.
> > > > Krajicek went into injuries.
> > > > Bruguera never won even a minor title after 1994. (though he climbe=
d
> > > > back in top10 1997 with FO final).
>
> > > > Instead we had "flash in the pan" top10 players with all the kucera=
s,
> > > > lapenttis, bjorkmans etc.
>
> > > > > If we're measuring goat-hood in terms of Slams (and obviously I'm
> > > > > restricting this only to Open Era) imho I'd go as far to say that=
even
> > > > > if they're tied at 14, they're still not tied. Fed with 15 Slams =
but 5
> > > > > Wimbledons, call it even. Fed with 15 Slams and 6 Wimbledons then
> > > > > Fed's goat.
>
> > > > It was generally a good and well-though post from you but above you
> > > > contradict yourself. your quote: "> BUT, I grant that Javier made a
> > > > good point, this is all subjective." which reveals some doublestand=
ard
> > > > stuff (especially when you seem to forget the relatively lullest er=
a
> > > > of modern tennis (97-98)...and yes as weak as it is I do not buy th=
e
> > > > clown era theory even for that weakish period.
>
> > > I'm not forgetting it and I've said repeatedly that the generation
> > > after Pete's was weak. I don't
> > > even think that's up for discussion. No Wimbledons or USOs by anyone
> > > born in the years 1973-77. I'm no tennis
> > > historian but I'd be interested if there's any other similar
> > > generation with that poor of a record.
>
> > > > And again had Fed lost two of his Wimb/USO's (even if the reason ha=
d
> > > > bee injury, =A0or w/o, strange early round hiccup) to Roddick then =
we
> > > > absolutely never would have had any of these stupid "clown era"
> > > > theories here.
>
> > > What you're not acknowledging is that questions about Fed's generatio=
n
> > > (I don't use the term *clown
> > > era*) stem from the fact that no one else besides Fed is doing much o=
f
> > > anything where it counts these days. Only 2 of 15 big events last yea=
r
> > > were won by Fed generation guys. Can you at least admit that Fed's
> > > generation would look better if he played Roddick in last year's
> > > Wimbledon final and Nalbandian in last year's USO final?
>
> > > > Fed has been lucky not to have any match decising physical issues i=
n
> > > > his GS finals (or earlier rounds) - a'la Becker's thigh Wimb 91,
> > > > Edberg's stomatch AO 90, Lendl's cramps USO 83, Sampras' food diges=
t
> > > > USO 92...eventhough statistically he should have had some of those
> > > > problems (he had his ankle problem at AO 06 where he struggled and
> > > > whole mono-theory *maybe* ruined his AO 08, along with these his on=
ly
> > > > usual occasional minor flu - which all have).
>
> > > > It is truly open era in attractive sport event. It is not
> > > > mathematically possible to have any kind of clown era as player poo=
l
> > > > is bigger than ever (not just aussies or yankees with odd europeans=
in
> > > > the mix a'la early open era). There is no artificial restrictions o=
n
> > > > tour (multiple tours/contracts which caused top players to skip sla=
ms
> > > > for money a'la 70:ies). We have no banned nations. =CDnstead of hav=
ing
> > > > club players / 50y former champions in the slam draws (a'la 60/70:i=
es)
> > > > we have just but highly trained professional athletes. Some eye-can=
dy
> > > > factor and some personality may be lost but that has happened at al=
l
> > > > professional sport as things have gotten more serious.
>
> > > As I mentioned in my post to Topspin, I'm not talking about *eras* I'=
m
> > > talking about
> > > generations.
>
> > > The generation of players born 1973-77 didn't have 1 truly great fast
> > > court player, imo. That's Joe Ramirez'
> > > "missing champions" group. So if that generation didn't have 1 truly
> > > great player (maybe the closest was Guga, and only on clay?), why is
> > > it so hard to accept that Fed was the only great player from his?- Hi=
de quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > ++ This is an interesting debate (discussion) but honesty the
> > subdivisions (era, generations, sub-divisions) are not only arbitrary
> > but do not comport with reality IN THE SENSE THAT from the time a
> > player jointly reaches maturation and distinction in slams he begins a
> > timeline of continuance and the players he faces until that timeline
> > ends ARE EFFECTIVELY HIS GENERATION, his foes, his peers IN THAT he
> > must play and defeat them to progress... and a player faces a mixture
> > of players at various stages of their relative career stages (nearing,
> > at, or moving from peak abilities) just as the player in question
> > moves through his stages and so it goes from the beginning of that
> > time line till the end... what really matters is the players ability
> > to perform and win over a prolonged period of time and/or at a
> > distinctive rate of success in relation to ones competition... and it
> > is over the totality of a career defined by slam greatness that comes
> > the full measure of ability realized as singular merit and
> > accomplishment... and that is TRUE for all players of all eras no
> > matter what point in tennis history you wish to inspect and
> > evaluate... the beginning of a players peak might get the end of a
> > great era, move through a more normative one and end within the
> > dawning of another... or that order might be reversed... BUT... play
> > at the elite level long enough, as Sampras and Federer and Laver and
> > Connors and Agassi and McEnroe did and you will inevitably face an
> > almost equal mixture of elite talent or SOMETHING fairly close to
> > it... and that's why micro dividing a champions timeline, while an
> > interesting exercise, is a parallexing distortion of analytic
> > perception... it can fool the mind into drawing erroneous estimations
> > that the more historically minded avoid... only against the full
> > measure of a players timeline can one even attempt to identify
> > anything like reasonable conclusions to do with merit...
>
> > P-
>
> Fair enough. I said before in another post that I think it will all
> even out. The post-Fed generation is
> tougher than the post-Sampras generation (making up for a relative
> dearth of talent among Fed's own generation), so if Fed can get more
> total Slams, more total weeks at No. 1, complete the CGS, get more
> Wimbledons, or whatever criteria you want to use, he's goat.
>
> But I think Fed has been given goat status by too many people way too
> prematurely.

++ Ya... I agree... he's a unique talent but GOAT is about the records
and for me (imo) the Open Era slam record is the pinnacle... that's
hard on Laver and Pancho etc. but... there it is... also the evolution
of the game since 1975 has been tremendous... Pete is GOAT because he
took on the record and topped it while winning over a long period of
time... Fed is almost there... but... not quite yet... and I agree
with you any slam wins now will show us a lot about Federer... not to
diminish his career achievements to date in any way... but the end
phase of a great career does give us the complete modelling, if you
will... Borg being a notable exception OR one who we judge having
played at the world level (Davis Cup at 16) until 25 represents his
full measure, if an odd one in terms of normal chronology in relation
to physical prime... an anomaly

P


 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 20:30:28
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 10:58=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:
> On Jan 14, 7:20=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 14, 2:05 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
> > > Well noone of Sampras' generation took an advantage of Sampras'
> > > relatively lull year of 1998 (similar to Fed's 2008) and of newer
> > > generation Moya / Rios / Rafter / Corretja all subcumbed to take year=
-
> > > end #1 from Sampras. (I am counting Rafter in later generation as he
> > > clearly was late-bloomer as he barely stayed in top50 pre 97 ).
>
> > > 1 Sampras, Pete =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0USA =A0 =A00 =A03915 =A045=
47 =A0-632 =A03131 =A0784 =A022
> > > =A0 =A02 Rios, Marcelo =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0CHI =A0 =A08 =A0367=
0 =A02317 =A01353 =A02920 =A0750
> > > 23
> > > =A0 =A03 Corretja, Alex =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ESP =A0 =A09 =A03398 =
=A02275 =A01123 =A02759 =A0639
> > > 24
> > > =A0 =A04 Rafter, Patrick =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0AUS =A0 -2 =A03315 =
=A03210 =A0 105 =A02464 =A0851
> > > 26
> > > =A0 =A05 Moya, Carlos =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ESP =A0 =A02 =A0315=
9 =A02508 =A0 651 =A02432 =A0727
> > > 24
> > > =A0 =A06 Agassi, Andre =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0USA =A0116 =A02879 =
=A0 375 =A02504 =A02135 =A0744
> > > 20
> > > =A0 =A07 Henman, Tim =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0GBR =A0 10 =A0262=
0 =A01929 =A0 691 =A01804 =A0816
> > > 29
> > > =A0 =A08 Kucera, Karol =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0SLV =A0 16 =A02579 =
=A01423 =A01156 =A01820 =A0759
> > > 25
> > > =A0 =A09 Rusedski, Greg =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 GBR =A0 -3 =A02573 =
=A02617 =A0 -44 =A01849 =A0724
> > > 25
> > > =A0 10 Krajicek, Richard =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0NED =A0 =A01 =A02548 =A02=
299 =A0 249 =A01815 =A0733
> > > 18
>
> > > Very lull year for Sampras' gen. There is Agassi in top10 and if you
> > > strech you can include Krajicek to same generation. Sampras did win
> > > slam but noone of Sampras' generation won any supernines (Master
> > > Series of 90:ies).
>
> > OK, you've looked at 1998. But what about what happened after that.
> > 1999 was dominated
> > by Sampras and Andre. I'll admit that the fact that guys aged 27 and
> > 28 were dominating
> > the sport in 1999 and continued to play at the very highest level for
> > 4-5 more years (and that Ivanisevic and Rafter played in the 2001
> > Wimbledon final and that Martin played in the '99 USO final) *could*
> > have been because the next generation was weak, in addition to how
> > good Pete's generation was. Can you admit I've got an argument that
> > the fact that guys like Roddick, Nalby, Denko, etc are not doing much
> > and don't appear they will do much against the next generation *could*
> > be because they just aren't all that great? They certainly have all
> > the motivation in the world to step up and have a late career surge
> > after all the accumulated frustration of their losses to Fed when he
> > was dominating everything.
>
> > > > BUT, I grant that Javier made a good point, this is all subjective.
> > > > There are other ways to explain the results. Maybe the generation
> > > > after Sampras' (Henman, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya) was just weak and
> > > > that's why Agassi was still racking up Slams at age 31. Maybe Murra=
y
> > > > and Nadal and Djoke are really strong and that's why Roddick, Nalby=
,
> > > > etc seem to have been passed by.
> > > > But I think if Fed's generation continues to perform poorly against
> > > > the next generation (by the way, only 1 MS event and 1 Slam won las=
t
> > > > year by Fed's gen) and Fed's record against the guys who are likely
> > > > the two best players from the next generation continues to be a los=
ing
> > > > one, then there's absolutely no way we can call Fed goat now.
>
> > > Sampras still edges Fed with absolute numbers sure.
>
> > > > At the very least, we need to say that Fed *could* have benefited f=
rom
> > > > a slight lull in competition while Nadal's generation was coming in=
to
> > > > form. So we can't be giving him bonus points for dominance and send=
ing
> > > > him past Sampras when Pete's ahead of him in total Slams, total wee=
ks
> > > > at No. 1, total Wimbledons, etc.
>
> > > Sampras benefitted from weak 97-98 a lot more. Suddenly of previous
> > > era players.
>
> > > Stich quitted..
> > > Becker quitted (after strong 95-96).
> > > Edberg quitted (well he was heading out of it anyway).
> > > Agassi went hiatus 97.
> > > Courier was spent force.
> > > Muster went severely downhill after spring 97.
> > > Ivanisevic had problems to enter in top10 after 1996.
> > > Krajicek went into injuries.
> > > Bruguera never won even a minor title after 1994. (though he climbed
> > > back in top10 1997 with FO final).
>
> > > Instead we had "flash in the pan" top10 players with all the kuceras,
> > > lapenttis, bjorkmans etc.
>
> > > > If we're measuring goat-hood in terms of Slams (and obviously I'm
> > > > restricting this only to Open Era) imho I'd go as far to say that e=
ven
> > > > if they're tied at 14, they're still not tied. Fed with 15 Slams bu=
t 5
> > > > Wimbledons, call it even. Fed with 15 Slams and 6 Wimbledons then
> > > > Fed's goat.
>
> > > It was generally a good and well-though post from you but above you
> > > contradict yourself. your quote: "> BUT, I grant that Javier made a
> > > good point, this is all subjective." which reveals some doublestandar=
d
> > > stuff (especially when you seem to forget the relatively lullest era
> > > of modern tennis (97-98)...and yes as weak as it is I do not buy the
> > > clown era theory even for that weakish period.
>
> > I'm not forgetting it and I've said repeatedly that the generation
> > after Pete's was weak. I don't
> > even think that's up for discussion. No Wimbledons or USOs by anyone
> > born in the years 1973-77. I'm no tennis
> > historian but I'd be interested if there's any other similar
> > generation with that poor of a record.
>
> > > And again had Fed lost two of his Wimb/USO's (even if the reason had
> > > bee injury, =A0or w/o, strange early round hiccup) to Roddick then we
> > > absolutely never would have had any of these stupid "clown era"
> > > theories here.
>
> > What you're not acknowledging is that questions about Fed's generation
> > (I don't use the term *clown
> > era*) stem from the fact that no one else besides Fed is doing much of
> > anything where it counts these days. Only 2 of 15 big events last year
> > were won by Fed generation guys. Can you at least admit that Fed's
> > generation would look better if he played Roddick in last year's
> > Wimbledon final and Nalbandian in last year's USO final?
>
> > > Fed has been lucky not to have any match decising physical issues in
> > > his GS finals (or earlier rounds) - a'la Becker's thigh Wimb 91,
> > > Edberg's stomatch AO 90, Lendl's cramps USO 83, Sampras' food digest
> > > USO 92...eventhough statistically he should have had some of those
> > > problems (he had his ankle problem at AO 06 where he struggled and
> > > whole mono-theory *maybe* ruined his AO 08, along with these his only
> > > usual occasional minor flu - which all have).
>
> > > It is truly open era in attractive sport event. It is not
> > > mathematically possible to have any kind of clown era as player pool
> > > is bigger than ever (not just aussies or yankees with odd europeans i=
n
> > > the mix a'la early open era). There is no artificial restrictions on
> > > tour (multiple tours/contracts which caused top players to skip slams
> > > for money a'la 70:ies). We have no banned nations. =CDnstead of havin=
g
> > > club players / 50y former champions in the slam draws (a'la 60/70:ies=
)
> > > we have just but highly trained professional athletes. Some eye-candy
> > > factor and some personality may be lost but that has happened at all
> > > professional sport as things have gotten more serious.
>
> > As I mentioned in my post to Topspin, I'm not talking about *eras* I'm
> > talking about
> > generations.
>
> > The generation of players born 1973-77 didn't have 1 truly great fast
> > court player, imo. That's Joe Ramirez'
> > "missing champions" group. So if that generation didn't have 1 truly
> > great player (maybe the closest was Guga, and only on clay?), why is
> > it so hard to accept that Fed was the only great player from his?- Hide=
quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> ++ This is an interesting debate (discussion) but honesty the
> subdivisions (era, generations, sub-divisions) are not only arbitrary
> but do not comport with reality IN THE SENSE THAT from the time a
> player jointly reaches maturation and distinction in slams he begins a
> timeline of continuance and the players he faces until that timeline
> ends ARE EFFECTIVELY HIS GENERATION, his foes, his peers IN THAT he
> must play and defeat them to progress... and a player faces a mixture
> of players at various stages of their relative career stages (nearing,
> at, or moving from peak abilities) just as the player in question
> moves through his stages and so it goes from the beginning of that
> time line till the end... what really matters is the players ability
> to perform and win over a prolonged period of time and/or at a
> distinctive rate of success in relation to ones competition... and it
> is over the totality of a career defined by slam greatness that comes
> the full measure of ability realized as singular merit and
> accomplishment... and that is TRUE for all players of all eras no
> matter what point in tennis history you wish to inspect and
> evaluate... the beginning of a players peak might get the end of a
> great era, move through a more normative one and end within the
> dawning of another... or that order might be reversed... BUT... play
> at the elite level long enough, as Sampras and Federer and Laver and
> Connors and Agassi and McEnroe did and you will inevitably face an
> almost equal mixture of elite talent or SOMETHING fairly close to
> it... and that's why micro dividing a champions timeline, while an
> interesting exercise, is a parallexing distortion of analytic
> perception... it can fool the mind into drawing erroneous estimations
> that the more historically minded avoid... only against the full
> measure of a players timeline can one even attempt to identify
> anything like reasonable conclusions to do with merit...
>
> P-

Fair enough. I said before in another post that I think it will all
even out. The post-Fed generation is
tougher than the post-Sampras generation (making up for a relative
dearth of talent among Fed's own generation), so if Fed can get more
total Slams, more total weeks at No. 1, complete the CGS, get more
Wimbledons, or whatever criteria you want to use, he's goat.

But I think Fed has been given goat status by too many people way too
prematurely.


 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 19:58:20
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 7:20=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2:05 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Well noone of Sampras' generation took an advantage of Sampras'
> > relatively lull year of 1998 (similar to Fed's 2008) and of newer
> > generation Moya / Rios / Rafter / Corretja all subcumbed to take year-
> > end #1 from Sampras. (I am counting Rafter in later generation as he
> > clearly was late-bloomer as he barely stayed in top50 pre 97 ).
>
> > 1 Sampras, Pete =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0USA =A0 =A00 =A03915 =A04547=
=A0-632 =A03131 =A0784 =A022
> > =A0 =A02 Rios, Marcelo =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0CHI =A0 =A08 =A03670 =
=A02317 =A01353 =A02920 =A0750
> > 23
> > =A0 =A03 Corretja, Alex =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ESP =A0 =A09 =A03398 =
=A02275 =A01123 =A02759 =A0639
> > 24
> > =A0 =A04 Rafter, Patrick =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0AUS =A0 -2 =A03315 =A03=
210 =A0 105 =A02464 =A0851
> > 26
> > =A0 =A05 Moya, Carlos =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ESP =A0 =A02 =A03159 =
=A02508 =A0 651 =A02432 =A0727
> > 24
> > =A0 =A06 Agassi, Andre =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0USA =A0116 =A02879 =
=A0 375 =A02504 =A02135 =A0744
> > 20
> > =A0 =A07 Henman, Tim =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0GBR =A0 10 =A02620 =
=A01929 =A0 691 =A01804 =A0816
> > 29
> > =A0 =A08 Kucera, Karol =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0SLV =A0 16 =A02579 =
=A01423 =A01156 =A01820 =A0759
> > 25
> > =A0 =A09 Rusedski, Greg =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 GBR =A0 -3 =A02573 =A02=
617 =A0 -44 =A01849 =A0724
> > 25
> > =A0 10 Krajicek, Richard =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0NED =A0 =A01 =A02548 =A0229=
9 =A0 249 =A01815 =A0733
> > 18
>
> > Very lull year for Sampras' gen. There is Agassi in top10 and if you
> > strech you can include Krajicek to same generation. Sampras did win
> > slam but noone of Sampras' generation won any supernines (Master
> > Series of 90:ies).
>
> OK, you've looked at 1998. But what about what happened after that.
> 1999 was dominated
> by Sampras and Andre. I'll admit that the fact that guys aged 27 and
> 28 were dominating
> the sport in 1999 and continued to play at the very highest level for
> 4-5 more years (and that Ivanisevic and Rafter played in the 2001
> Wimbledon final and that Martin played in the '99 USO final) *could*
> have been because the next generation was weak, in addition to how
> good Pete's generation was. Can you admit I've got an argument that
> the fact that guys like Roddick, Nalby, Denko, etc are not doing much
> and don't appear they will do much against the next generation *could*
> be because they just aren't all that great? They certainly have all
> the motivation in the world to step up and have a late career surge
> after all the accumulated frustration of their losses to Fed when he
> was dominating everything.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > BUT, I grant that Javier made a good point, this is all subjective.
> > > There are other ways to explain the results. Maybe the generation
> > > after Sampras' (Henman, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya) was just weak and
> > > that's why Agassi was still racking up Slams at age 31. Maybe Murray
> > > and Nadal and Djoke are really strong and that's why Roddick, Nalby,
> > > etc seem to have been passed by.
> > > But I think if Fed's generation continues to perform poorly against
> > > the next generation (by the way, only 1 MS event and 1 Slam won last
> > > year by Fed's gen) and Fed's record against the guys who are likely
> > > the two best players from the next generation continues to be a losin=
g
> > > one, then there's absolutely no way we can call Fed goat now.
>
> > Sampras still edges Fed with absolute numbers sure.
>
> > > At the very least, we need to say that Fed *could* have benefited fro=
m
> > > a slight lull in competition while Nadal's generation was coming into
> > > form. So we can't be giving him bonus points for dominance and sendin=
g
> > > him past Sampras when Pete's ahead of him in total Slams, total weeks
> > > at No. 1, total Wimbledons, etc.
>
> > Sampras benefitted from weak 97-98 a lot more. Suddenly of previous
> > era players.
>
> > Stich quitted..
> > Becker quitted (after strong 95-96).
> > Edberg quitted (well he was heading out of it anyway).
> > Agassi went hiatus 97.
> > Courier was spent force.
> > Muster went severely downhill after spring 97.
> > Ivanisevic had problems to enter in top10 after 1996.
> > Krajicek went into injuries.
> > Bruguera never won even a minor title after 1994. (though he climbed
> > back in top10 1997 with FO final).
>
> > Instead we had "flash in the pan" top10 players with all the kuceras,
> > lapenttis, bjorkmans etc.
>
> > > If we're measuring goat-hood in terms of Slams (and obviously I'm
> > > restricting this only to Open Era) imho I'd go as far to say that eve=
n
> > > if they're tied at 14, they're still not tied. Fed with 15 Slams but =
5
> > > Wimbledons, call it even. Fed with 15 Slams and 6 Wimbledons then
> > > Fed's goat.
>
> > It was generally a good and well-though post from you but above you
> > contradict yourself. your quote: "> BUT, I grant that Javier made a
> > good point, this is all subjective." which reveals some doublestandard
> > stuff (especially when you seem to forget the relatively lullest era
> > of modern tennis (97-98)...and yes as weak as it is I do not buy the
> > clown era theory even for that weakish period.
>
> I'm not forgetting it and I've said repeatedly that the generation
> after Pete's was weak. I don't
> even think that's up for discussion. No Wimbledons or USOs by anyone
> born in the years 1973-77. I'm no tennis
> historian but I'd be interested if there's any other similar
> generation with that poor of a record.
>
> > And again had Fed lost two of his Wimb/USO's (even if the reason had
> > bee injury, =A0or w/o, strange early round hiccup) to Roddick then we
> > absolutely never would have had any of these stupid "clown era"
> > theories here.
>
> What you're not acknowledging is that questions about Fed's generation
> (I don't use the term *clown
> era*) stem from the fact that no one else besides Fed is doing much of
> anything where it counts these days. Only 2 of 15 big events last year
> were won by Fed generation guys. Can you at least admit that Fed's
> generation would look better if he played Roddick in last year's
> Wimbledon final and Nalbandian in last year's USO final?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Fed has been lucky not to have any match decising physical issues in
> > his GS finals (or earlier rounds) - a'la Becker's thigh Wimb 91,
> > Edberg's stomatch AO 90, Lendl's cramps USO 83, Sampras' food digest
> > USO 92...eventhough statistically he should have had some of those
> > problems (he had his ankle problem at AO 06 where he struggled and
> > whole mono-theory *maybe* ruined his AO 08, along with these his only
> > usual occasional minor flu - which all have).
>
> > It is truly open era in attractive sport event. It is not
> > mathematically possible to have any kind of clown era as player pool
> > is bigger than ever (not just aussies or yankees with odd europeans in
> > the mix a'la early open era). There is no artificial restrictions on
> > tour (multiple tours/contracts which caused top players to skip slams
> > for money a'la 70:ies). We have no banned nations. =CDnstead of having
> > club players / 50y former champions in the slam draws (a'la 60/70:ies)
> > we have just but highly trained professional athletes. Some eye-candy
> > factor and some personality may be lost but that has happened at all
> > professional sport as things have gotten more serious.
>
> As I mentioned in my post to Topspin, I'm not talking about *eras* I'm
> talking about
> generations.
>
> The generation of players born 1973-77 didn't have 1 truly great fast
> court player, imo. That's Joe Ramirez'
> "missing champions" group. So if that generation didn't have 1 truly
> great player (maybe the closest was Guga, and only on clay?), why is
> it so hard to accept that Fed was the only great player from his?- Hide q=
uoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ This is an interesting debate (discussion) but honesty the
subdivisions (era, generations, sub-divisions) are not only arbitrary
but do not comport with reality IN THE SENSE THAT from the time a
player jointly reaches maturation and distinction in slams he begins a
timeline of continuance and the players he faces until that timeline
ends ARE EFFECTIVELY HIS GENERATION, his foes, his peers IN THAT he
must play and defeat them to progress... and a player faces a mixture
of players at various stages of their relative career stages (nearing,
at, or moving from peak abilities) just as the player in question
moves through his stages and so it goes from the beginning of that
time line till the end... what really matters is the players ability
to perform and win over a prolonged period of time and/or at a
distinctive rate of success in relation to ones competition... and it
is over the totality of a career defined by slam greatness that comes
the full measure of ability realized as singular merit and
accomplishment... and that is TRUE for all players of all eras no
matter what point in tennis history you wish to inspect and
evaluate... the beginning of a players peak might get the end of a
great era, move through a more normative one and end within the
dawning of another... or that order might be reversed... BUT... play
at the elite level long enough, as Sampras and Federer and Laver and
Connors and Agassi and McEnroe did and you will inevitably face an
almost equal mixture of elite talent or SOMETHING fairly close to
it... and that's why micro dividing a champions timeline, while an
interesting exercise, is a parallexing distortion of analytic
perception... it can fool the mind into drawing erroneous estimations
that the more historically minded avoid... only against the full
measure of a players timeline can one even attempt to identify
anything like reasonable conclusions to do with merit...

P


 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 19:33:28
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 4:53=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
> I will just refer you to mikko's excellent reply, which makes many of
> the points I would make. Just some points I would reiterate
> - you cannot talk about 'Agassi' without acknowledging how he went
> awol for a period. That is the flaw with just referring to names as a
> measure of competition.

Sure he did go awol. But before he went awol he was one hell of a
great player in 1995 and
he still couldn't beat Pete in anything that mattered. Maybe Fed
could've dealt with that threat
just as well. We don't know. I don't think I'm being very
controversial in saying Fed didn't have to deal
with anyone as strong as Agassi on fast courts until 2007. By that
time he had 9 Slams.

> - in terms of your definitions the way I see it is that as Sampras
> waned, Federer's generation did indeed step into the breach. Safin
> Hewitt, Nalbandian and JCF stepped in, just as you would imagine, and
> then what? The way you argue it, they quietly subsided and let Federer
> walk all over them. All of them. No fight, just let him win.Hmmm.... I
> think a stronger argument is that he was too good for them, and theyb
> were a 'normal' transition group.

I never said they did quietly subside and let him walk over them. I
agree with you. He was
too good for them and the next couple of great players to come along -
Nadal and Murray - are also
too good for them.

> - I would argue that, rather than say the 2000s are a weak era, they
> have a great case for being the strongest era ever. No amateur/pro
> split, no political splits and arguments, more players from more
> countries playing than ever before, and with the change of Wimbledon
> to a higher, truer bouncing surface, more players with a chance of
> victory and a belief in that chance than ever before.

If we're talking about *eras* I don't have a problem with calling this
a good *era*. Fed is an all-time great. So
is Nadal. We still had Sampras giving it one last go. Agassi was still
very strong until 2005. Murray is showing a lot of promise.

But if we're talking Fed's *generation* (which I've loosely defined as
players born from 1978-1982) I just don't see it. Roddick has major
holes in his game with backhand and movement. Nalby and Denko just
don't have champions' minds and Denko's too slight and lacking in
power anyway. Hewitt
is also a bit of lightweight (Agassi was still owning him at age 32 or
so). Safin was an impressive talent but also such a headcase it didn't
matter.

Nadal and Murray are from the next generation and were clearly not at
peak until 2007 and late 2008, respectively (despite his No. 2
ranking, Nadal's performance off of clay, with the exception of one
incredible run to the Wimbledon final in '06 is clear evidence of
this)





 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 19:29:12
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 9:58=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 14, 9:01=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > we can also have a
> > > generation (say 1978-1982) with only one true champion and then a
> > > bunch of guys who aren't particularly strong,
> > Strong compared to whom? Compared to Federer? That's a given, but it
> > can't prove that they are weak rather than that Fed is exceptional.
> > Compared to previous generations in the 1990s and earlier? No direct
> > comparison is possible. We have only inferences, most of which are
> > circular.
>
> Fed is exceptional. I don't think there's more than a handful of
> posters in this ng who would argue that.
> He himself makes his generation strong relative to the previous one
> (which I think was particularly bad), but imo a good generation should
> have more than 1 great player - 2 at least. That was the case of
> Sampras' generation.
>
> I also think that a characteristic of a great player is that they can
> *span* generations. Even when slightly past their peak, they can still
> win the big titles if given the opportunity. That was the case with
> Agassi. Even if he was denied repeatedly by Sampras in big matches, he
> was still so good that he kept plugging away and did plenty of damage
> against the better players from the next 2 generations. Now, maybe he
> wouldn't have been able to do that if the next generation after his
> had been stronger. I can admit that. But can Sampras fans acknowledge
> that, because no one else in Fed's generation won more than 2 Slams
> and they're also showing little sign of any late-career surge, it's
> hardly surprising that people are questioning the quality of Fed's
> peers?
>
> > >with the evidence being
> > > that they're proving to be fairly inept against the next generation.
>
> > 1. As with the Mac/Lendl case, we won't know how all these players
> > truly matched up for at least another five years, maybe 10.
>
> That is true. All I'm saying is that if we see no Slam wins or even
> Slam finals out of Roddick, Nalby, Denko, the usual suspects, going
> forward I think Fed's generation is going to be rated as relatively
> weak. That said, if Fed gets the Slam record he deserves to be called
> goat because things even out. The next generation is strong, imo. But
> I do think all the goat talk surrounding Federer has been and remains
> premature. He's still behind Sampras in a lot of big numbers and that
> with having no true peer (Nadal imo does not count because he's 5
> years younger and didn't really come into his own until after Fed had
> racked up 9 Slams) who is as good as Agassi was.

I still have Sampras slightly ahead of Fed. Fed will pass him with one
FO or two slams of any other kind. What happened, I think, is that
sloppy writers and overenthusiastic fans moved too quickly from "could
be the greatest of all time?" to "the greatest of all time!" But this
is very typical human oversimplification, and is not the result of
"fedfuckery" or any other idiotic make-believe maladies.

A paleontologist named David Raup once did a quantitative analysis of
the Permian extinction event and concluded that *up to* 95% of certain
species *in the seas* likely went extinct at that time. But that
conclusion is almost invariably misreported in popular science TV
shows, magazines, etc., as being that 95% of life on earth perished.
Period, no qualifiers. Qualifiers just don't stick in the popular
imagination.


> > 2. How one generation stacks up against its successor in direct, head-
> > to-head encounters is an empirical matter. I have yet to see anything
> > approaching a thorough analysis of this claim of ineptness. For
> > example, what about the fact that Blake is 3-2 against Nadal?
>
> Nadal has started to turn that rivalry with Blake around. I hate to
> use a Whisperism, but look at Rafter v. Fed. Great players can have
> all kinds of losses before they reach their peak, and for me Rafa was
> not at peak b/c his
> performances off his beloved clay were not all that great. His peak
> started in 2007 imo and that's still fairly young for hitting one's
> peak. Rafa didn't turn 21 until June of that year.
>
> > Meaningless data point? Most of the argument is along the lines of,
> > "Well, we know Davydenko is a loser and Murray is destined for multi-
> > slam greatness, so case closed." And the analysis is complicated by
> > the fact that the first generation is starting to decline while the
> > other is still rising.
>
> Well of course one rises and the other falls. But if you got a bunch a
> players who never did anything because
> they were stymied by Fed and now Fed's starting to decline and they're
> still not doing much the only
> conclusion we can draw, it seems to me, is that they just weren't all
> that great to begin with.

Not the *only* conclusion. Another plausible, though similarly
unproved, hypothesis is that Fed forced other players to match his
innovations and higher level in order to compete. Players from his own
generation were already "set" and thus unable to improve enough.
Younger players were better able to adapt. Others here have advanced
this idea as well, I believe. I agree that it's not clear-cut.

My final comment on this topic is that the label "clown era" was ill-
chosen. All the arguments from that school of thought are really
directed at an alleged clown *generation*. A tennis generation is
about five years; an era, 10 years. Because generations always overlap
and mix within eras, the very claim that the supposedly excellent
Nadal-Djokovic-Murray cohort has ended the "clown era" ironically
proves that a clown *era* has not existed.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 19:20:03
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 2:05 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:

> Well noone of Sampras' generation took an advantage of Sampras'
> relatively lull year of 1998 (similar to Fed's 2008) and of newer
> generation Moya / Rios / Rafter / Corretja all subcumbed to take year-
> end #1 from Sampras. (I am counting Rafter in later generation as he
> clearly was late-bloomer as he barely stayed in top50 pre 97 ).
>
> 1 Sampras, Pete USA 0 3915 4547 -632 3131 784 22
> 2 Rios, Marcelo CHI 8 3670 2317 1353 2920 750
> 23
> 3 Corretja, Alex ESP 9 3398 2275 1123 2759 639
> 24
> 4 Rafter, Patrick AUS -2 3315 3210 105 2464 851
> 26
> 5 Moya, Carlos ESP 2 3159 2508 651 2432 727
> 24
> 6 Agassi, Andre USA 116 2879 375 2504 2135 744
> 20
> 7 Henman, Tim GBR 10 2620 1929 691 1804 816
> 29
> 8 Kucera, Karol SLV 16 2579 1423 1156 1820 759
> 25
> 9 Rusedski, Greg GBR -3 2573 2617 -44 1849 724
> 25
> 10 Krajicek, Richard NED 1 2548 2299 249 1815 733
> 18
>
> Very lull year for Sampras' gen. There is Agassi in top10 and if you
> strech you can include Krajicek to same generation. Sampras did win
> slam but noone of Sampras' generation won any supernines (Master
> Series of 90:ies).

OK, you've looked at 1998. But what about what happened after that.
1999 was dominated
by Sampras and Andre. I'll admit that the fact that guys aged 27 and
28 were dominating
the sport in 1999 and continued to play at the very highest level for
4-5 more years (and that Ivanisevic and Rafter played in the 2001
Wimbledon final and that Martin played in the '99 USO final) *could*
have been because the next generation was weak, in addition to how
good Pete's generation was. Can you admit I've got an argument that
the fact that guys like Roddick, Nalby, Denko, etc are not doing much
and don't appear they will do much against the next generation *could*
be because they just aren't all that great? They certainly have all
the motivation in the world to step up and have a late career surge
after all the accumulated frustration of their losses to Fed when he
was dominating everything.


> > BUT, I grant that Javier made a good point, this is all subjective.
> > There are other ways to explain the results. Maybe the generation
> > after Sampras' (Henman, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya) was just weak and
> > that's why Agassi was still racking up Slams at age 31. Maybe Murray
> > and Nadal and Djoke are really strong and that's why Roddick, Nalby,
> > etc seem to have been passed by.

> > But I think if Fed's generation continues to perform poorly against
> > the next generation (by the way, only 1 MS event and 1 Slam won last
> > year by Fed's gen) and Fed's record against the guys who are likely
> > the two best players from the next generation continues to be a losing
> > one, then there's absolutely no way we can call Fed goat now.
>
> Sampras still edges Fed with absolute numbers sure.
>
> > At the very least, we need to say that Fed *could* have benefited from
> > a slight lull in competition while Nadal's generation was coming into
> > form. So we can't be giving him bonus points for dominance and sending
> > him past Sampras when Pete's ahead of him in total Slams, total weeks
> > at No. 1, total Wimbledons, etc.
>
> Sampras benefitted from weak 97-98 a lot more. Suddenly of previous
> era players.
>
> Stich quitted..
> Becker quitted (after strong 95-96).
> Edberg quitted (well he was heading out of it anyway).
> Agassi went hiatus 97.
> Courier was spent force.
> Muster went severely downhill after spring 97.
> Ivanisevic had problems to enter in top10 after 1996.
> Krajicek went into injuries.
> Bruguera never won even a minor title after 1994. (though he climbed
> back in top10 1997 with FO final).
>
> Instead we had "flash in the pan" top10 players with all the kuceras,
> lapenttis, bjorkmans etc.
>
> > If we're measuring goat-hood in terms of Slams (and obviously I'm
> > restricting this only to Open Era) imho I'd go as far to say that even
> > if they're tied at 14, they're still not tied. Fed with 15 Slams but 5
> > Wimbledons, call it even. Fed with 15 Slams and 6 Wimbledons then
> > Fed's goat.
>
> It was generally a good and well-though post from you but above you
> contradict yourself. your quote: "> BUT, I grant that Javier made a
> good point, this is all subjective." which reveals some doublestandard
> stuff (especially when you seem to forget the relatively lullest era
> of modern tennis (97-98)...and yes as weak as it is I do not buy the
> clown era theory even for that weakish period.

I'm not forgetting it and I've said repeatedly that the generation
after Pete's was weak. I don't
even think that's up for discussion. No Wimbledons or USOs by anyone
born in the years 1973-77. I'm no tennis
historian but I'd be interested if there's any other similar
generation with that poor of a record.

> And again had Fed lost two of his Wimb/USO's (even if the reason had
> bee injury, or w/o, strange early round hiccup) to Roddick then we
> absolutely never would have had any of these stupid "clown era"
> theories here.

What you're not acknowledging is that questions about Fed's generation
(I don't use the term *clown
era*) stem from the fact that no one else besides Fed is doing much of
anything where it counts these days. Only 2 of 15 big events last year
were won by Fed generation guys. Can you at least admit that Fed's
generation would look better if he played Roddick in last year's
Wimbledon final and Nalbandian in last year's USO final?

> Fed has been lucky not to have any match decising physical issues in
> his GS finals (or earlier rounds) - a'la Becker's thigh Wimb 91,
> Edberg's stomatch AO 90, Lendl's cramps USO 83, Sampras' food digest
> USO 92...eventhough statistically he should have had some of those
> problems (he had his ankle problem at AO 06 where he struggled and
> whole mono-theory *maybe* ruined his AO 08, along with these his only
> usual occasional minor flu - which all have).
>
> It is truly open era in attractive sport event. It is not
> mathematically possible to have any kind of clown era as player pool
> is bigger than ever (not just aussies or yankees with odd europeans in
> the mix a'la early open era). There is no artificial restrictions on
> tour (multiple tours/contracts which caused top players to skip slams
> for money a'la 70:ies). We have no banned nations. =CDnstead of having
> club players / 50y former champions in the slam draws (a'la 60/70:ies)
> we have just but highly trained professional athletes. Some eye-candy
> factor and some personality may be lost but that has happened at all
> professional sport as things have gotten more serious.

As I mentioned in my post to Topspin, I'm not talking about *eras* I'm
talking about
generations.

The generation of players born 1973-77 didn't have 1 truly great fast
court player, imo. That's Joe Ramirez'
"missing champions" group. So if that generation didn't have 1 truly
great player (maybe the closest was Guga, and only on clay?), why is
it so hard to accept that Fed was the only great player from his?


 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 18:58:04
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 9:01=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:

> > we can also have a
> > generation (say 1978-1982) with only one true champion and then a
> > bunch of guys who aren't particularly strong,

> Strong compared to whom? Compared to Federer? That's a given, but it
> can't prove that they are weak rather than that Fed is exceptional.
> Compared to previous generations in the 1990s and earlier? No direct
> comparison is possible. We have only inferences, most of which are
> circular.

Fed is exceptional. I don't think there's more than a handful of
posters in this ng who would argue that.
He himself makes his generation strong relative to the previous one
(which I think was particularly bad), but imo a good generation should
have more than 1 great player - 2 at least. That was the case of
Sampras' generation.

I also think that a characteristic of a great player is that they can
*span* generations. Even when slightly past their peak, they can still
win the big titles if given the opportunity. That was the case with
Agassi. Even if he was denied repeatedly by Sampras in big matches, he
was still so good that he kept plugging away and did plenty of damage
against the better players from the next 2 generations. Now, maybe he
wouldn't have been able to do that if the next generation after his
had been stronger. I can admit that. But can Sampras fans acknowledge
that, because no one else in Fed's generation won more than 2 Slams
and they're also showing little sign of any late-career surge, it's
hardly surprising that people are questioning the quality of Fed's
peers?

> >with the evidence being
> > that they're proving to be fairly inept against the next generation.
>
> 1. As with the Mac/Lendl case, we won't know how all these players
> truly matched up for at least another five years, maybe 10.

That is true. All I'm saying is that if we see no Slam wins or even
Slam finals out of Roddick, Nalby, Denko, the usual suspects, going
forward I think Fed's generation is going to be rated as relatively
weak. That said, if Fed gets the Slam record he deserves to be called
goat because things even out. The next generation is strong, imo. But
I do think all the goat talk surrounding Federer has been and remains
premature. He's still behind Sampras in a lot of big numbers and that
with having no true peer (Nadal imo does not count because he's 5
years younger and didn't really come into his own until after Fed had
racked up 9 Slams) who is as good as Agassi was.

> 2. How one generation stacks up against its successor in direct, head-
> to-head encounters is an empirical matter. I have yet to see anything
> approaching a thorough analysis of this claim of ineptness. For
> example, what about the fact that Blake is 3-2 against Nadal?

Nadal has started to turn that rivalry with Blake around. I hate to
use a Whisperism, but look at Rafter v. Fed. Great players can have
all kinds of losses before they reach their peak, and for me Rafa was
not at peak b/c his
performances off his beloved clay were not all that great. His peak
started in 2007 imo and that's still fairly young for hitting one's
peak. Rafa didn't turn 21 until June of that year.

> Meaningless data point? Most of the argument is along the lines of,
> "Well, we know Davydenko is a loser and Murray is destined for multi-
> slam greatness, so case closed." And the analysis is complicated by
> the fact that the first generation is starting to decline while the
> other is still rising.

Well of course one rises and the other falls. But if you got a bunch a
players who never did anything because
they were stymied by Fed and now Fed's starting to decline and they're
still not doing much the only
conclusion we can draw, it seems to me, is that they just weren't all
that great to begin with.




 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 18:24:33
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 9:17=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 5:49 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 14, 5:29 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 14, 5:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>> john wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au..=
.
> >>>>>>>> john wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >>>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the o=
ne in
> >>>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other=
jokers
> >>>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today eve=
n if they
> >>>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
> >>>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he=
managed
> >>>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-20=
07.
> >>>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. =A0If in the next few years we have an=
other two or
> >>>>>>>>> three clay courter
> >>>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then a=
re you
> >>>>>>>>> guys going to
> >>>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on=
clay,
> >>>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
> >>>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? =A0We =
should strip
> >>>>>>> of all his
> >>>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 =
out 5
> >>>>>>> times. =A0I think
> >>>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
> >>>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, =A0you can't take in t=
he fact that
> >>>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
> >>>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. =
=A0You can
> >>>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
> >>>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite h=
ard court
> >>>>>>> and grass court means
> >>>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. =A0It is sad but true.
> >>>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Rag=
a on
> >>>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way woul=
d he
> >>>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
> >>>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so=
no
> >>>>>> age related excuses.
> >>>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than =
happy
> >>>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
> >>>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nad=
al/
> >>>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the li=
kes
> >>>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
> >>>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian.=
..
> >>>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good a=
s
> >>>>> they should have been.
> >>>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, =
not
> >>>>> that it was an era of clowns.
> >>>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn=
't
> >>>> come with no reason.
> >>>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were racki=
ng
> >>>> up majors.
> >>> You should know by now never to fully trust your personal recollectio=
n
> >>> of social phenomena, *especially* when it comes to proving a negative
> >>> ("I don't remember X, so it never happened ...."). Your recollection
> >>> is colored by your biases and limited by your experience. As an
> >>> example, when McEnroe and Navratilova were at their absolute peaks in
> >>> 1984, here's what Sports Illustrated said after the U.S. Open:
> >>> "United States Open! The National Championships! Third Leg of the
> >>> Grand Slam! New York, New York! Tennis! Live, it's Serious Tedium!
> >>> "With apologies to Joe Piscopo -- and, needless to say, to John
> >>> McEnroe and Martina Navratilova, whose continuing brilliance in the
> >>> face of the numbing mediocrity surrounding them absolves them of all
> >>> blame -- daily bulletins from Flushing Meadow proved more convincingl=
y
> >>> than ever that tennis is in a fairly monotonous way. ... The question
> >>> concerns the supply side of tennis -- where are the reserves? -- and
> >>> the answer is: nowhere. There ain't nobody on the bench to play this
> >>> game."
> >>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> But that observation also came when it looked as if Lendl was a choker
> >> who would never amount to much. After Lendl proved to be a great
> >> champ, Mac's generation looks much better.
>
> > That's true, but it's because virtually all "clown era" criticisms are
> > premature pronouncements made in the heat of the moment, as it were.
> > Peaks and valleys typically look a lot less dramatic in the rear-view
> > mirror. However, my point is that a "clown era" diagnosis indisputably
> > *occurred* at Mac's peak. It doesn't matter that it was unjustified --
> > it's unjustified now as well.
>
> Nope. If Federer's own generation would have had other greats it would
> be noticed already...Unless you think Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero;
> nalby have several slams ahead of them still.
>
> Lendl and Mac were same age.
>
>
>
> >> But getting back to Fed, if we can have a generation of missing
> >> champions (players born say from 1973-1977)
>
> > The missing champions are a quasi-objective fact. No 6+ slam champions
> > appeared between Sampras/Agassi and Federer/Nadal. Deciding *why* they
> > did not appear is where the "clown era" temptation lies. (I say "quasi-
> > objective" because describing them as "missing," as I admit I have
> > done in the past, implies that we have sufficient reason to expect
> > them to have appeared. Whether the open era data up to that time
> > supports the expectation is arguable.)
>
> Missing champion theory is supported by stats, I have looked into it.

I know it is supported by stats. As far as I know, I'm the person who
coined the expression (as applied to the mid-1990s) in RST:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_thread/thread/947659=
e74466421b?q=3D%22missing+champions%22

I'm saying that the hypothesis is supported, but not indisuputable. We
know for a fact they did not appear. We do not know for a fact that
they *should* have appeared.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 04:30:28
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Joe Ramirez wrote:
>
> I'm saying that the hypothesis is supported, but not indisuputable. We
> know for a fact they did not appear. We do not know for a fact that
> they *should* have appeared.

Well they/him should have appeared according to stats from years
past...according to my quick research couple of days ago.

Unless one sees Agassi and Sampras being greats at the same time and
this balancing the missing champion. That still doesn't make Fed's era
any harder though, no great little older champions to fight off
early-middle career.


--
"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: 15 Jan 2009 19:11:32
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...

On 14-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> >
> > I'm saying that the hypothesis is supported, but not indisuputable. We
> > know for a fact they did not appear. We do not know for a fact that
> > they *should* have appeared.
>
> Well they/him should have appeared according to stats from years
> past...according to my quick research couple of days ago.

I don't think tennis has been around long enough to say for sure, do you?


 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 18:14:35
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 8:41=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 8:08 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> >> p.s. It seems that you think there was no public opinion in -85 and it
> >> wasn't reflected in media. Ridiculous.
>
> > I've already posted a highly relevant excerpt of media opinion from
> > late 1984, and you dismissed it for no reason other than its
> > inconsistency with your unsupported hypothesis. Now that's ridiculous.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> That merely supports my point that public opinion would be reflected in
> media.
>
> Are you seriously claiming that there was talk about clown era in mid 80'=
s?
> The writer was obviously referring to that USO final and possibly
> Wimbledon final before that. The difference with talk of clown era
> nowadays is that this clown era lasted longer than half a year and
> history proved the writer wrong...Mac's opponent would become great
> hardcourter very soon.

History always proves "clown era" theses wrong, as I've pointed out in
my last reply to Jason. What you don't recognize is that 25 years from
now, Federer's primary competition during his reign will be viewed as
*Nadal*, not Ljubicic or Blake. Nadal will be considered a great
champion, and he and Federer will completely legitimize each other
(for the few who would otherwise have questions about their legitimacy
as champions). This is the way it always works. Focusing on current
"clowns" is like fretting about MaliVai Washington in the 1990s or
Gene Mayer in the 1980s. It's short-sighted. Go back and read Hops'
classic post from 2006.

>
> Do you personally remember discussions about weak era back then? Does
> anyone here? Did anyone think it was a weak era in Mac's time?
> Or do you just google an old article and fully support it without sense
> of history and personal agreement with the said column in order to
> underline a point?

I did not Google anything. I knew what I wanted and obtained it
directly. You might benefit from some Googling, however. It's
bafflling that you believe hazy recollections of 25-year-old barstool
bullshitting would be more reliable than a little research into
contemporaneous records.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 04:24:31
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Jan 14, 8:41 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 8:08 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> p.s. It seems that you think there was no public opinion in -85 and it
>>>> wasn't reflected in media. Ridiculous.
>>> I've already posted a highly relevant excerpt of media opinion from
>>> late 1984, and you dismissed it for no reason other than its
>>> inconsistency with your unsupported hypothesis. Now that's ridiculous.
>>> Joe Ramirez
>> That merely supports my point that public opinion would be reflected in
>> media.
>>
>> Are you seriously claiming that there was talk about clown era in mid 80's?
>> The writer was obviously referring to that USO final and possibly
>> Wimbledon final before that. The difference with talk of clown era
>> nowadays is that this clown era lasted longer than half a year and
>> history proved the writer wrong...Mac's opponent would become great
>> hardcourter very soon.
>
> History always proves "clown era" theses wrong, as I've pointed out in
> my last reply to Jason. What you don't recognize is that 25 years from
> now, Federer's primary competition during his reign will be viewed as
> *Nadal*, not Ljubicic or Blake. Nadal will be considered a great
> champion, and he and Federer will completely legitimize each other
> (for the few who would otherwise have questions about their legitimacy
> as champions). This is the way it always works. Focusing on current
> "clowns" is like fretting about MaliVai Washington in the 1990s or
> Gene Mayer in the 1980s. It's short-sighted. Go back and read Hops'
> classic post from 2006.
>

I further answered to your answer to Jason.

I agree that Nadal will be considered great champion and fed's main
rival...But they haven't played a single time in hc slam.

Federer did manage well against Nadal on grass though, since 2007 when
Nadal begun to know a thing or two on grass court play. Fed's main rival
on hc was Roddick, Safin etc.

There still was that 10 year gap between sampy/Agassi-Federer. Quite
soft introduction to the game for feds.


>> Do you personally remember discussions about weak era back then? Does
>> anyone here? Did anyone think it was a weak era in Mac's time?
>> Or do you just google an old article and fully support it without sense
>> of history and personal agreement with the said column in order to
>> underline a point?
>
> I did not Google anything. I knew what I wanted and obtained it
> directly. You might benefit from some Googling, however. It's
> bafflling that you believe hazy recollections of 25-year-old barstool
> bullshitting would be more reliable than a little research into
> contemporaneous records.

Wonder where you get that idea.


 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 18:01:29
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 5:49=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 14, 5:29=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 14, 5:13=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> > > Professor X wrote:
> > > > On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > >> john wrote:
> > > >>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > > >>>news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au..=
.
> > > >>>> john wrote:
> > > >>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
> > > >>>>>news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > > >>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > >>>>>>news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> > > >>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the o=
ne in
> > > >>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other=
jokers
> > > >>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today eve=
n if they
> > > >>>>>>> were in their prime.
> > > >>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he=
managed
> > > >>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-20=
07.
> > > >>>>> This is totally rubbish. =A0If in the next few years we have an=
other two or
> > > >>>>> three clay courter
> > > >>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then a=
re you
> > > >>>>> guys going to
> > > >>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on=
clay,
> > > >>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
> > > >>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? =A0We =
should strip
> > > >>> of all his
> > > >>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 =
out 5
> > > >>> times. =A0I think
> > > >>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
> > > >>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, =A0you can't take in t=
he fact that
> > > >>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
> > > >>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. =
=A0You can
> > > >>> continue to insist that Sampras
> > > >>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite h=
ard court
> > > >>> and grass court means
> > > >>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. =A0It is sad but true.
> > > >> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Rag=
a on
> > > >> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way woul=
d he
> > > >> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
>
> > > >> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so=
no
> > > >> age related excuses.
>
> > > >> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than =
happy
> > > >> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
>
> > > > yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nad=
al/
> > > > djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the li=
kes
> > > > of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
> > > > talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian.=
..
> > > > unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good a=
s
> > > > they should have been.
>
> > > > B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, =
not
> > > > that it was an era of clowns.
>
> > > But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn'=
t
> > > come with no reason.
> > > I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were rackin=
g
> > > up majors.
>
> > You should know by now never to fully trust your personal recollection
> > of social phenomena, *especially* when it comes to proving a negative
> > ("I don't remember X, so it never happened ...."). Your recollection
> > is colored by your biases and limited by your experience. As an
> > example, when McEnroe and Navratilova were at their absolute peaks in
> > 1984, here's what Sports Illustrated said after the U.S. Open:
>
> > "United States Open! The National Championships! Third Leg of the
> > Grand Slam! New York, New York! Tennis! Live, it's Serious Tedium!
>
> > "With apologies to Joe Piscopo -- and, needless to say, to John
> > McEnroe and Martina Navratilova, whose continuing brilliance in the
> > face of the numbing mediocrity surrounding them absolves them of all
> > blame -- daily bulletins from Flushing Meadow proved more convincingly
> > than ever that tennis is in a fairly monotonous way. ... The question
> > concerns the supply side of tennis -- where are the reserves? -- and
> > the answer is: nowhere. There ain't nobody on the bench to play this
> > game."
>
> > Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> But that observation also came when it looked as if Lendl was a choker
> who would never amount to much. After Lendl proved to be a great
> champ, Mac's generation looks much better.

That's true, but it's because virtually all "clown era" criticisms are
premature pronouncements made in the heat of the moment, as it were.
Peaks and valleys typically look a lot less dramatic in the rear-view
mirror. However, my point is that a "clown era" diagnosis indisputably
*occurred* at Mac's peak. It doesn't matter that it was unjustified --
it's unjustified now as well.

>
> But getting back to Fed, if we can have a generation of missing
> champions (players born say from 1973-1977)

The missing champions are a quasi-objective fact. No 6+ slam champions
appeared between Sampras/Agassi and Federer/Nadal. Deciding *why* they
did not appear is where the "clown era" temptation lies. (I say "quasi-
objective" because describing them as "missing," as I admit I have
done in the past, implies that we have sufficient reason to expect
them to have appeared. Whether the open era data up to that time
supports the expectation is arguable.)

> we can also have a
> generation (say 1978-1982) with only one true champion and then a
> bunch of guys who aren't particularly strong,

Strong compared to whom? Compared to Federer? That's a given, but it
can't prove that they are weak rather than that Fed is exceptional.
Compared to previous generations in the 1990s and earlier? No direct
comparison is possible. We have only inferences, most of which are
circular.

>with the evidence being
> that they're proving to be fairly inept against the next generation.

1. As with the Mac/Lendl case, we won't know how all these players
truly matched up for at least another five years, maybe 10.

2. How one generation stacks up against its successor in direct, head-
to-head encounters is an empirical matter. I have yet to see anything
approaching a thorough analysis of this claim of ineptness. For
example, what about the fact that Blake is 3-2 against Nadal?
Meaningless data point? Most of the argument is along the lines of,
"Well, we know Davydenko is a loser and Murray is destined for multi-
slam greatness, so case closed." And the analysis is complicated by
the fact that the first generation is starting to decline while the
other is still rising.

Here's my guess (and that's all it is): The only 6+ slam champ from
Nadal's generation will be Nadal. The other top players in his cohort
will win relatively small numbers of slams. The final numbers for
Nadal-Djokovic-Murray-whomever won't be dramatically different in
their distribution pattern from the numbers for Federer (13+)-Hewitt
(2)-Safin (2)-Roddick (1), except that because Nadal's individual
total is likely to be lower than Federer's, the individual totals for
the next three guys may be a little higher.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 04:17:00
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Jan 14, 5:49 pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 5:29 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 14, 5:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
>>>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they
>>>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed
>>>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
>>>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. If in the next few years we have another two or
>>>>>>>>> three clay courter
>>>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are you
>>>>>>>>> guys going to
>>>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on clay,
>>>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
>>>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? We should strip
>>>>>>> of all his
>>>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 out 5
>>>>>>> times. I think
>>>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
>>>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, you can't take in the fact that
>>>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
>>>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. You can
>>>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
>>>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite hard court
>>>>>>> and grass court means
>>>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. It is sad but true.
>>>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga on
>>>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would he
>>>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
>>>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so no
>>>>>> age related excuses.
>>>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than happy
>>>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
>>>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nadal/
>>>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the likes
>>>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
>>>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian...
>>>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good as
>>>>> they should have been.
>>>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, not
>>>>> that it was an era of clowns.
>>>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn't
>>>> come with no reason.
>>>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were racking
>>>> up majors.
>>> You should know by now never to fully trust your personal recollection
>>> of social phenomena, *especially* when it comes to proving a negative
>>> ("I don't remember X, so it never happened ...."). Your recollection
>>> is colored by your biases and limited by your experience. As an
>>> example, when McEnroe and Navratilova were at their absolute peaks in
>>> 1984, here's what Sports Illustrated said after the U.S. Open:
>>> "United States Open! The National Championships! Third Leg of the
>>> Grand Slam! New York, New York! Tennis! Live, it's Serious Tedium!
>>> "With apologies to Joe Piscopo -- and, needless to say, to John
>>> McEnroe and Martina Navratilova, whose continuing brilliance in the
>>> face of the numbing mediocrity surrounding them absolves them of all
>>> blame -- daily bulletins from Flushing Meadow proved more convincingly
>>> than ever that tennis is in a fairly monotonous way. ... The question
>>> concerns the supply side of tennis -- where are the reserves? -- and
>>> the answer is: nowhere. There ain't nobody on the bench to play this
>>> game."
>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> But that observation also came when it looked as if Lendl was a choker
>> who would never amount to much. After Lendl proved to be a great
>> champ, Mac's generation looks much better.
>
> That's true, but it's because virtually all "clown era" criticisms are
> premature pronouncements made in the heat of the moment, as it were.
> Peaks and valleys typically look a lot less dramatic in the rear-view
> mirror. However, my point is that a "clown era" diagnosis indisputably
> *occurred* at Mac's peak. It doesn't matter that it was unjustified --
> it's unjustified now as well.

Nope. If Federer's own generation would have had other greats it would
be noticed already...Unless you think Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero;
nalby have several slams ahead of them still.

Lendl and Mac were same age.


>
>> But getting back to Fed, if we can have a generation of missing
>> champions (players born say from 1973-1977)
>
> The missing champions are a quasi-objective fact. No 6+ slam champions
> appeared between Sampras/Agassi and Federer/Nadal. Deciding *why* they
> did not appear is where the "clown era" temptation lies. (I say "quasi-
> objective" because describing them as "missing," as I admit I have
> done in the past, implies that we have sufficient reason to expect
> them to have appeared. Whether the open era data up to that time
> supports the expectation is arguable.)
>

Missing champion theory is supported by stats, I have looked into it.
There seems always to be many great champions at same time or great
champion around little before another great champion. There was this gap
from birth years 71-81...only Kuerten with 3 slams in between.


Federer had very easy during his early years and his peak. Sampras
during his latter years...although Agassi was same generation.


 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 17:23:13
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 8:08=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:

> p.s. It seems that you think there was no public opinion in -85 and it
> wasn't reflected in media. Ridiculous.

I've already posted a highly relevant excerpt of media opinion from
late 1984, and you dismissed it for no reason other than its
inconsistency with your unsupported hypothesis. Now that's ridiculous.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 03:41:42
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Jan 14, 8:08 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> p.s. It seems that you think there was no public opinion in -85 and it
>> wasn't reflected in media. Ridiculous.
>
> I've already posted a highly relevant excerpt of media opinion from
> late 1984, and you dismissed it for no reason other than its
> inconsistency with your unsupported hypothesis. Now that's ridiculous.
>
> Joe Ramirez

That merely supports my point that public opinion would be reflected in
media.

Are you seriously claiming that there was talk about clown era in mid 80's?
The writer was obviously referring to that USO final and possibly
Wimbledon final before that. The difference with talk of clown era
nowadays is that this clown era lasted longer than half a year and
history proved the writer wrong...Mac's opponent would become great
hardcourter very soon.

Do you personally remember discussions about weak era back then? Does
anyone here? Did anyone think it was a weak era in Mac's time?
Or do you just google an old article and fully support it without sense
of history and personal agreement with the said column in order to
underline a point?

--
"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: 14 Jan 2009 17:07:02
From:
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 15, 12:52=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 12:39 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Jan 15, 12:10 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 14, 11:55 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jan 14, 11:27 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 11:06 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 10:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wro=
te:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.=
net.au...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in mes=
sage
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher th=
an the one in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and t=
he other jokers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver t=
oday even if they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be=
what he managed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from=
2003-2007.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. =A0If in the next few years we=
have another two or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three clay courter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning F=
O then are you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guys going to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clow=
n era on clay,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper =
? =A0We should strip
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of all his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who bea=
t him 4 out 5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times. =A0I think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, =A0you can't t=
ake in the fact that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO f=
inal. =A0You can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras fav=
ourite hard court
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and grass court means
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. =A0It is sad but =
true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Mu=
rray/Raga on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no =
way would he
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turn=
ed 27 so no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> age related excuses.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though mo=
re than happy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken mu=
rray/nadal/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensiona=
l the likes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones w=
ith any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nal=
bandian...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never a=
s good as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> they should have been.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was=
great, not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that it was an era of clowns.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net.=
It hasn't
> >>>>>>>>>>>> come with no reason.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats we=
re racking
> >>>>>>>>>>>> up majors.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's not something just made up to deny Federer's achievemen=
ts. It's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> because many people actually feel that way.
> >>>>>>>>>>> How do you know many people feel that way?
> >>>>>>>>>> "It's all over the net"
> >>>>>>>>> So presumably it was "all over the net" in 1985 (say) that it w=
asn't a
> >>>>>>>>> clown era at that time?
> >>>>>>>> Yes, Lendl didn't shank his backhand as much as Federer does.
> >>>>>>> Really? So the internet was around in 1985?
> >>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_board_system#Historyhttp://en=
.w...
> >>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_(communication)http://en.wikiped=
ia...
> >>>>> So which tennis newsgroups and forums were available back in '85?
> >>>> Instead of trying to prove (rather desperately too might I add) that
> >>>> there couldn't have been clown era discussion in internet back in
> >>>> 1985...I advice you to prove that there *was* clown era discussion i=
n
> >>>> 1985 in any media, in order to deny my position.
> >>> I don't have to prove anything - if the main source of the clown era
> >>> theory comes from internet newsgroups and web forums then there is no
> >>> way to know what the opinion of the average person (who are posting t=
o
> >>> these forums) was in 1985 since these facilities were not widely
> >>> available then.
> >> No you are wrong here. Much of discussion has moved to forums and
> >> newsgroups because of the internet. The same discussion was elsewhere =
in
> >> =A0 the past...and what was discussed would be found on media of that =
time.
>
> > What media? We're talking about every Tom, Dick and Harry having an
> > opinion now, with thousands of posts each month across many forums.
> > Where was this volume of opinion in 1985?
>
> Tom and Dick were reading newspapers and talking with their friends etc,
> Harry was discussing sports on a bbs

The only people who can get opinions published in newspapers are
professional journalists, not anyone else. We still have newspapers
today, funnily enough.

You must have had dozens of friends who spent all of their time
talking to you about tennis.

The volume just doesn't compare.





  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 03:17:20
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 15, 12:52 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 15, 12:39 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 15, 12:10 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 11:55 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 11:27 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 11:06 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 10:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. If in the next few years we have another two or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three clay courter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guys going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on clay,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? We should strip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of all his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 out 5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times. I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, you can't take in the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. You can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite hard court
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and grass court means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. It is sad but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> age related excuses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than happy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nadal/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the likes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they should have been.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it was an era of clowns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come with no reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were racking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up majors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not something just made up to deny Federer's achievements. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because many people actually feel that way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know many people feel that way?
>>>>>>>>>>>> "It's all over the net"
>>>>>>>>>>> So presumably it was "all over the net" in 1985 (say) that it wasn't a
>>>>>>>>>>> clown era at that time?
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Lendl didn't shank his backhand as much as Federer does.
>>>>>>>>> Really? So the internet was around in 1985?
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_board_system#Historyhttp://en.w...
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_(communication)http://en.wikipedia...
>>>>>>> So which tennis newsgroups and forums were available back in '85?
>>>>>> Instead of trying to prove (rather desperately too might I add) that
>>>>>> there couldn't have been clown era discussion in internet back in
>>>>>> 1985...I advice you to prove that there *was* clown era discussion in
>>>>>> 1985 in any media, in order to deny my position.
>>>>> I don't have to prove anything - if the main source of the clown era
>>>>> theory comes from internet newsgroups and web forums then there is no
>>>>> way to know what the opinion of the average person (who are posting to
>>>>> these forums) was in 1985 since these facilities were not widely
>>>>> available then.
>>>> No you are wrong here. Much of discussion has moved to forums and
>>>> newsgroups because of the internet. The same discussion was elsewhere in
>>>> the past...and what was discussed would be found on media of that time.
>>> What media? We're talking about every Tom, Dick and Harry having an
>>> opinion now, with thousands of posts each month across many forums.
>>> Where was this volume of opinion in 1985?
>> Tom and Dick were reading newspapers and talking with their friends etc,
>> Harry was discussing sports on a bbs
>
> The only people who can get opinions published in newspapers are
> professional journalists, not anyone else. We still have newspapers
> today, funnily enough.
>
> You must have had dozens of friends who spent all of their time
> talking to you about tennis.
>
> The volume just doesn't compare.
>

The volume does compare. It's quite a large group percentage wise that
talks about clown era...even though in the past all opinions wouldn't
have been available the percentage of opinions would still had been the
same and voice of this group would have been heard.

I already posted a link to six degrees of separation. But with you one
has to say same things over and over again. You're a high maintenance troll.

It seems that you think there was no public opinion in -85 and it wasn't
reflected in media. Ridiculous.

Also you conveniently sidestep my point that if there was talk of clown
era at that time the posters here would have acknowledged this and it
would be general knowledge...in internet, nowadays.


--
"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: 14 Jan 2009 16:46:49
From:
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 15, 12:39=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 12:10 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Jan 14, 11:55 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 14, 11:27 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jan 14, 11:06 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 10:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote=
:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.ne=
t.au...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in messa=
ge
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than=
the one in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the=
other jokers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver tod=
ay even if they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be w=
hat he managed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2=
003-2007.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. =A0If in the next few years we h=
ave another two or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three clay courter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO =
then are you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guys going to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown =
era on clay,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? =
=A0We should strip
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of all his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat =
him 4 out 5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> times. =A0I think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, =A0you can't tak=
e in the fact that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO fin=
al. =A0You can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favou=
rite hard court
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and grass court means
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. =A0It is sad but tr=
ue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murr=
ay/Raga on
> >>>>>>>>>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no wa=
y would he
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned=
27 so no
> >>>>>>>>>>>> age related excuses.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more=
than happy
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
> >>>>>>>>>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murr=
ay/nadal/
> >>>>>>>>>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional =
the likes
> >>>>>>>>>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones wit=
h any
> >>>>>>>>>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalba=
ndian...
> >>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as =
good as
> >>>>>>>>>>> they should have been.
> >>>>>>>>>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was g=
reat, not
> >>>>>>>>>>> that it was an era of clowns.
> >>>>>>>>>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. I=
t hasn't
> >>>>>>>>>> come with no reason.
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were=
racking
> >>>>>>>>>> up majors.
> >>>>>>>>>> It's not something just made up to deny Federer's achievements=
. It's
> >>>>>>>>>> because many people actually feel that way.
> >>>>>>>>> How do you know many people feel that way?
> >>>>>>>> "It's all over the net"
> >>>>>>> So presumably it was "all over the net" in 1985 (say) that it was=
n't a
> >>>>>>> clown era at that time?
> >>>>>> Yes, Lendl didn't shank his backhand as much as Federer does.
> >>>>> Really? So the internet was around in 1985?
> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_board_system#Historyhttp://en.w=
...
> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_(communication)http://en.wikipedia=
...
> >>> So which tennis newsgroups and forums were available back in '85?
> >> Instead of trying to prove (rather desperately too might I add) that
> >> there couldn't have been clown era discussion in internet back in
> >> 1985...I advice you to prove that there *was* clown era discussion in
> >> 1985 in any media, in order to deny my position.
>
> > I don't have to prove anything - if the main source of the clown era
> > theory comes from internet newsgroups and web forums then there is no
> > way to know what the opinion of the average person (who are posting to
> > these forums) was in 1985 since these facilities were not widely
> > available then.
>
> No you are wrong here. Much of discussion has moved to forums and
> newsgroups because of the internet. The same discussion was elsewhere in
> =A0 the past...and what was discussed would be found on media of that tim=
e.

What media? We're talking about every Tom, Dick and Harry having an
opinion now, with thousands of posts each month across many forums.
Where was this volume of opinion in 1985?

>
> Even if this info somehow couldn't be found... Us, the posters here,
> have memories of those times and I doubt many will confirm having
> discussions or reading opinions on weak era in tennis at that time.
> Usually the talk is exactly opposite, how strong the current era
> is...
>

Who were you having discussions with?




  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 02:52:36
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 15, 12:39 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 15, 12:10 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 14, 11:55 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 11:27 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 11:06 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 10:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. If in the next few years we have another two or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three clay courter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guys going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on clay,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? We should strip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of all his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 out 5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times. I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, you can't take in the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. You can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite hard court
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and grass court means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. It is sad but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> age related excuses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than happy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nadal/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the likes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they should have been.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it was an era of clowns.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> come with no reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were racking
>>>>>>>>>>>> up majors.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not something just made up to deny Federer's achievements. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>> because many people actually feel that way.
>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know many people feel that way?
>>>>>>>>>> "It's all over the net"
>>>>>>>>> So presumably it was "all over the net" in 1985 (say) that it wasn't a
>>>>>>>>> clown era at that time?
>>>>>>>> Yes, Lendl didn't shank his backhand as much as Federer does.
>>>>>>> Really? So the internet was around in 1985?
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_board_system#Historyhttp://en.w...
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_(communication)http://en.wikipedia...
>>>>> So which tennis newsgroups and forums were available back in '85?
>>>> Instead of trying to prove (rather desperately too might I add) that
>>>> there couldn't have been clown era discussion in internet back in
>>>> 1985...I advice you to prove that there *was* clown era discussion in
>>>> 1985 in any media, in order to deny my position.
>>> I don't have to prove anything - if the main source of the clown era
>>> theory comes from internet newsgroups and web forums then there is no
>>> way to know what the opinion of the average person (who are posting to
>>> these forums) was in 1985 since these facilities were not widely
>>> available then.
>> No you are wrong here. Much of discussion has moved to forums and
>> newsgroups because of the internet. The same discussion was elsewhere in
>> the past...and what was discussed would be found on media of that time.
>
> What media? We're talking about every Tom, Dick and Harry having an
> opinion now, with thousands of posts each month across many forums.
> Where was this volume of opinion in 1985?

Tom and Dick were reading newspapers and talking with their friends etc,
Harry was discussing sports on a bbs.


   
Date: 15 Jan 2009 03:08:56
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
TT wrote:
> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 12:39 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Jan 15, 12:10 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 14, 11:55 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 11:27 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 11:06 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 10:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the one in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the other jokers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today even if they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be what he managed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from 2003-2007.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. If in the next few years we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have another two or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three clay courter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FO then are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guys going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clown era on clay,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? We should strip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of all his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beat him 4 out 5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times. I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take in the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final. You can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favourite hard court
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and grass court means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. It is sad but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Murray/Raga on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way would he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turned 27 so no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> age related excuses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than happy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> murray/nadal/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-dimensional the likes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nalbandian...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they should have been.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was great, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it was an era of clowns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> net. It hasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> come with no reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats
>>>>>>>>>>>>> were racking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up majors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not something just made up to deny Federer's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> achievements. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because many people actually feel that way.
>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know many people feel that way?
>>>>>>>>>>> "It's all over the net"
>>>>>>>>>> So presumably it was "all over the net" in 1985 (say) that it
>>>>>>>>>> wasn't a
>>>>>>>>>> clown era at that time?
>>>>>>>>> Yes, Lendl didn't shank his backhand as much as Federer does.
>>>>>>>> Really? So the internet was around in 1985?
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_board_system#Historyhttp://en.w...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_(communication)http://en.wikipedia...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So which tennis newsgroups and forums were available back in '85?
>>>>> Instead of trying to prove (rather desperately too might I add) that
>>>>> there couldn't have been clown era discussion in internet back in
>>>>> 1985...I advice you to prove that there *was* clown era discussion in
>>>>> 1985 in any media, in order to deny my position.
>>>> I don't have to prove anything - if the main source of the clown era
>>>> theory comes from internet newsgroups and web forums then there is no
>>>> way to know what the opinion of the average person (who are posting to
>>>> these forums) was in 1985 since these facilities were not widely
>>>> available then.
>>> No you are wrong here. Much of discussion has moved to forums and
>>> newsgroups because of the internet. The same discussion was elsewhere in
>>> the past...and what was discussed would be found on media of that
>>> time.
>>
>> What media? We're talking about every Tom, Dick and Harry having an
>> opinion now, with thousands of posts each month across many forums.
>> Where was this volume of opinion in 1985?
>
> Tom and Dick were reading newspapers and talking with their friends etc,
> Harry was discussing sports on a bbs.

p.s. It seems that you think there was no public opinion in -85 and it
wasn't reflected in media. Ridiculous.

--
"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: 14 Jan 2009 16:29:32
From:
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 11:56=A0pm, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 11:27=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Jan 14, 11:06 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> >> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >>> On Jan 14, 10:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> >>>> Professor X wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> john wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>>news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.a=
u...
> >> >>>>>>>> john wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>>>>news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >> >>>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>>>>>news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than th=
e one in
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the ot=
her jokers
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today =
even if they
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what=
he managed
> >> >>>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003=
-2007.
> >> >>>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. =A0If in the next few years we have=
another two or
> >> >>>>>>>>> three clay courter
> >> >>>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO the=
n are you
> >> >>>>>>>>> guys going to
> >> >>>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era=
on clay,
> >> >>>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
> >> >>>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? =A0=
We should strip
> >> >>>>>>> of all his
> >> >>>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him=
4 out 5
> >> >>>>>>> times. =A0I think
> >> >>>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
> >> >>>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, =A0you can't take i=
n the fact that
> >> >>>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
> >> >>>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final.=
=A0You can
> >> >>>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
> >> >>>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourit=
e hard court
> >> >>>>>>> and grass court means
> >> >>>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. =A0It is sad but true.
> >> >>>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/=
Raga on
> >> >>>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way w=
ould he
> >> >>>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
> >> >>>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27=
so no
> >> >>>>>> age related excuses.
> >> >>>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more th=
an happy
> >> >>>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
> >> >>>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/=
nadal/
> >> >>>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the=
likes
> >> >>>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with a=
ny
> >> >>>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandi=
an...
> >> >>>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as goo=
d as
> >> >>>>> they should have been.
> >> >>>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was grea=
t, not
> >> >>>>> that it was an era of clowns.
> >> >>>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It h=
asn't
> >> >>>> come with no reason.
> >> >>>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were ra=
cking
> >> >>>> up majors.
> >> >>>> It's not something just made up to deny Federer's achievements. I=
t's
> >> >>>> because many people actually feel that way.
> >> >>> How do you know many people feel that way?
> >> >> "It's all over the net"
>
> >> > So presumably it was "all over the net" in 1985 (say) that it wasn't=
a
> >> > clown era at that time?
>
> >> Yes, Lendl didn't shank his backhand as much as Federer does.
>
> > Really? So the internet was around in 1985?
>
> Sure it was - but it wasn't open to the bunch of howling baboons that inf=
est
> it these days

Ok - obviously the internet was around mainly for academic/military
use, but outside that there was little until the WWW came long - good
old TBL





 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 16:26:35
From:
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 15, 12:10=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 11:55 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Jan 14, 11:27 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 14, 11:06 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jan 14, 10:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.=
au...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than t=
he one in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the o=
ther jokers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today=
even if they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be wha=
t he managed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 200=
3-2007.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. =A0If in the next few years we hav=
e another two or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> three clay courter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO th=
en are you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> guys going to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown er=
a on clay,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? =
=A0We should strip
> >>>>>>>>>>> of all his
> >>>>>>>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat hi=
m 4 out 5
> >>>>>>>>>>> times. =A0I think
> >>>>>>>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
> >>>>>>>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, =A0you can't take =
in the fact that
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
> >>>>>>>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final=
. =A0You can
> >>>>>>>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
> >>>>>>>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favouri=
te hard court
> >>>>>>>>>>> and grass court means
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. =A0It is sad but true=
.
> >>>>>>>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray=
/Raga on
> >>>>>>>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way =
would he
> >>>>>>>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
> >>>>>>>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 2=
7 so no
> >>>>>>>>>> age related excuses.
> >>>>>>>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more t=
han happy
> >>>>>>>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
> >>>>>>>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray=
/nadal/
> >>>>>>>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional th=
e likes
> >>>>>>>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with =
any
> >>>>>>>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalband=
ian...
> >>>>>>>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as go=
od as
> >>>>>>>>> they should have been.
> >>>>>>>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was gre=
at, not
> >>>>>>>>> that it was an era of clowns.
> >>>>>>>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It =
hasn't
> >>>>>>>> come with no reason.
> >>>>>>>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were r=
acking
> >>>>>>>> up majors.
> >>>>>>>> It's not something just made up to deny Federer's achievements. =
It's
> >>>>>>>> because many people actually feel that way.
> >>>>>>> How do you know many people feel that way?
> >>>>>> "It's all over the net"
> >>>>> So presumably it was "all over the net" in 1985 (say) that it wasn'=
t a
> >>>>> clown era at that time?
> >>>> Yes, Lendl didn't shank his backhand as much as Federer does.
> >>> Really? So the internet was around in 1985?
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_board_system#Historyhttp://en.w..=
.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_(communication)http://en.wikipedia..=
.
>
> > So which tennis newsgroups and forums were available back in '85?
>
> Instead of trying to prove (rather desperately too might I add) that
> there couldn't have been clown era discussion in internet back in
> 1985...I advice you to prove that there *was* clown era discussion in
> 1985 in any media, in order to deny my position.
>

I don't have to prove anything - if the main source of the clown era
theory comes from internet newsgroups and web forums then there is no
way to know what the opinion of the average person (who are posting to
these forums) was in 1985 since these facilities were not widely
available then.




  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 02:39:21
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 15, 12:10 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 11:55 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 14, 11:27 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 11:06 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 10:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. If in the next few years we have another two or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three clay courter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guys going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on clay,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? We should strip
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of all his
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 out 5
>>>>>>>>>>>>> times. I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, you can't take in the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. You can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite hard court
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and grass court means
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. It is sad but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga on
>>>>>>>>>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would he
>>>>>>>>>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so no
>>>>>>>>>>>> age related excuses.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than happy
>>>>>>>>>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
>>>>>>>>>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nadal/
>>>>>>>>>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the likes
>>>>>>>>>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
>>>>>>>>>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian...
>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good as
>>>>>>>>>>> they should have been.
>>>>>>>>>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, not
>>>>>>>>>>> that it was an era of clowns.
>>>>>>>>>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn't
>>>>>>>>>> come with no reason.
>>>>>>>>>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were racking
>>>>>>>>>> up majors.
>>>>>>>>>> It's not something just made up to deny Federer's achievements. It's
>>>>>>>>>> because many people actually feel that way.
>>>>>>>>> How do you know many people feel that way?
>>>>>>>> "It's all over the net"
>>>>>>> So presumably it was "all over the net" in 1985 (say) that it wasn't a
>>>>>>> clown era at that time?
>>>>>> Yes, Lendl didn't shank his backhand as much as Federer does.
>>>>> Really? So the internet was around in 1985?
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_board_system#Historyhttp://en.w...
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_(communication)http://en.wikipedia...
>>> So which tennis newsgroups and forums were available back in '85?
>> Instead of trying to prove (rather desperately too might I add) that
>> there couldn't have been clown era discussion in internet back in
>> 1985...I advice you to prove that there *was* clown era discussion in
>> 1985 in any media, in order to deny my position.
>>
>
> I don't have to prove anything - if the main source of the clown era
> theory comes from internet newsgroups and web forums then there is no
> way to know what the opinion of the average person (who are posting to
> these forums) was in 1985 since these facilities were not widely
> available then.
>
>

No you are wrong here. Much of discussion has moved to forums and
newsgroups because of the internet. The same discussion was elsewhere in
the past...and what was discussed would be found on media of that time.

Even if this info somehow couldn't be found... Us, the posters here,
have memories of those times and I doubt many will confirm having
discussions or reading opinions on weak era in tennis at that time.
Usually the talk is exactly opposite, how strong the current era
is...But not during Federer's peak.


 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 15:59:59
From:
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 11:55=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 11:27 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Jan 14, 11:06 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 14, 10:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> john wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au=
...
> >>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the=
one in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the oth=
er jokers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today e=
ven if they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what =
he managed
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-=
2007.
> >>>>>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. =A0If in the next few years we have =
another two or
> >>>>>>>>>>> three clay courter
> >>>>>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then=
are you
> >>>>>>>>>>> guys going to
> >>>>>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era =
on clay,
> >>>>>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? =A0W=
e should strip
> >>>>>>>>> of all his
> >>>>>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him =
4 out 5
> >>>>>>>>> times. =A0I think
> >>>>>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
> >>>>>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, =A0you can't take in=
the fact that
> >>>>>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
> >>>>>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. =
=A0You can
> >>>>>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
> >>>>>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite=
hard court
> >>>>>>>>> and grass court means
> >>>>>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. =A0It is sad but true.
> >>>>>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/R=
aga on
> >>>>>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way wo=
uld he
> >>>>>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
> >>>>>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 =
so no
> >>>>>>>> age related excuses.
> >>>>>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more tha=
n happy
> >>>>>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
> >>>>>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/n=
adal/
> >>>>>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the =
likes
> >>>>>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with an=
y
> >>>>>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandia=
n...
> >>>>>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good=
as
> >>>>>>> they should have been.
> >>>>>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great=
, not
> >>>>>>> that it was an era of clowns.
> >>>>>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It ha=
sn't
> >>>>>> come with no reason.
> >>>>>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were rac=
king
> >>>>>> up majors.
> >>>>>> It's not something just made up to deny Federer's achievements. It=
's
> >>>>>> because many people actually feel that way.
> >>>>> How do you know many people feel that way?
> >>>> "It's all over the net"
> >>> So presumably it was "all over the net" in 1985 (say) that it wasn't =
a
> >>> clown era at that time?
> >> Yes, Lendl didn't shank his backhand as much as Federer does.
>
> > Really? So the internet was around in 1985?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_board_system#Historyhttp://en.wikip=
edia.org/wiki/Usenet#Historyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#History
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_(communication)http://en.wikipedia.org=
/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation
>

So which tennis newsgroups and forums were available back in '85?





  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 02:10:58
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 14, 11:55 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 11:27 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 14, 11:06 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 10:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. If in the next few years we have another two or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> three clay courter
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> guys going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on clay,
>>>>>>>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? We should strip
>>>>>>>>>>> of all his
>>>>>>>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 out 5
>>>>>>>>>>> times. I think
>>>>>>>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
>>>>>>>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, you can't take in the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
>>>>>>>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. You can
>>>>>>>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
>>>>>>>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite hard court
>>>>>>>>>>> and grass court means
>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. It is sad but true.
>>>>>>>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga on
>>>>>>>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would he
>>>>>>>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
>>>>>>>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so no
>>>>>>>>>> age related excuses.
>>>>>>>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than happy
>>>>>>>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
>>>>>>>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nadal/
>>>>>>>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the likes
>>>>>>>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
>>>>>>>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian...
>>>>>>>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good as
>>>>>>>>> they should have been.
>>>>>>>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, not
>>>>>>>>> that it was an era of clowns.
>>>>>>>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn't
>>>>>>>> come with no reason.
>>>>>>>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were racking
>>>>>>>> up majors.
>>>>>>>> It's not something just made up to deny Federer's achievements. It's
>>>>>>>> because many people actually feel that way.
>>>>>>> How do you know many people feel that way?
>>>>>> "It's all over the net"
>>>>> So presumably it was "all over the net" in 1985 (say) that it wasn't a
>>>>> clown era at that time?
>>>> Yes, Lendl didn't shank his backhand as much as Federer does.
>>> Really? So the internet was around in 1985?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_board_system#Historyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#Historyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#History
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_(communication)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation
>>
>
> So which tennis newsgroups and forums were available back in '85?
>
>
>

Instead of trying to prove (rather desperately too might I add) that
there couldn't have been clown era discussion in internet back in
1985...I advice you to prove that there *was* clown era discussion in
1985 in any media, in order to deny my position.


--
"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: 14 Jan 2009 14:46:05
From:
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 10:13=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> john wrote:
> >>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>>> john wrote:
> >>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one i=
n
> >>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jok=
ers
> >>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if=
they
> >>>>>>> were in their prime.
> >>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he man=
aged
> >>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
> >>>>> This is totally rubbish. =A0If in the next few years we have anothe=
r two or
> >>>>> three clay courter
> >>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are y=
ou
> >>>>> guys going to
> >>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on cla=
y,
> >>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
> >>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? =A0We shou=
ld strip
> >>> of all his
> >>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 out =
5
> >>> times. =A0I think
> >>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
> >>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, =A0you can't take in the f=
act that
> >>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
> >>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. =A0You=
can
> >>> continue to insist that Sampras
> >>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite hard =
court
> >>> and grass court means
> >>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. =A0It is sad but true.
> >> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga on
> >> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would he
> >> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
>
> >> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so no
> >> age related excuses.
>
> >> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than happ=
y
> >> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
>
> > yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nadal/
> > djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the likes
> > of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
> > talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian...
> > unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good as
> > they should have been.
>
> > B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, not
> > that it was an era of clowns.
>
> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn't
> come with no reason.
> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were racking
> up majors.
>
> It's not something just made up to deny Federer's achievements. It's
> because many people actually feel that way.
>

How do you know many people feel that way?





  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 01:06:07
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 14, 10:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Professor X wrote:
>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> john wrote:
>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they
>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed
>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. If in the next few years we have another two or
>>>>>>> three clay courter
>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are you
>>>>>>> guys going to
>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on clay,
>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? We should strip
>>>>> of all his
>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 out 5
>>>>> times. I think
>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, you can't take in the fact that
>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. You can
>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite hard court
>>>>> and grass court means
>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. It is sad but true.
>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga on
>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would he
>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so no
>>>> age related excuses.
>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than happy
>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nadal/
>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the likes
>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian...
>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good as
>>> they should have been.
>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, not
>>> that it was an era of clowns.
>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn't
>> come with no reason.
>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were racking
>> up majors.
>>
>> It's not something just made up to deny Federer's achievements. It's
>> because many people actually feel that way.
>>
>
> How do you know many people feel that way?
>

"It's all over the net"


--
"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: 15 Jan 2009 01:08:42
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
>
> "It's all over the net"
>

Just like Federer's backhand.



--
"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: 14 Jan 2009 15:39:32
From:
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 11:27=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 11:06 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Jan 14, 10:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>> john wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au..=
.
> >>>>>>>> john wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >>>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the o=
ne in
> >>>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other=
jokers
> >>>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today eve=
n if they
> >>>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
> >>>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he=
managed
> >>>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-20=
07.
> >>>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. =A0If in the next few years we have an=
other two or
> >>>>>>>>> three clay courter
> >>>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then a=
re you
> >>>>>>>>> guys going to
> >>>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on=
clay,
> >>>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
> >>>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? =A0We =
should strip
> >>>>>>> of all his
> >>>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 =
out 5
> >>>>>>> times. =A0I think
> >>>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
> >>>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, =A0you can't take in t=
he fact that
> >>>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
> >>>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. =
=A0You can
> >>>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
> >>>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite h=
ard court
> >>>>>>> and grass court means
> >>>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. =A0It is sad but true.
> >>>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Rag=
a on
> >>>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way woul=
d he
> >>>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
> >>>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so=
no
> >>>>>> age related excuses.
> >>>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than =
happy
> >>>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
> >>>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nad=
al/
> >>>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the li=
kes
> >>>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
> >>>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian.=
..
> >>>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good a=
s
> >>>>> they should have been.
> >>>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, =
not
> >>>>> that it was an era of clowns.
> >>>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn=
't
> >>>> come with no reason.
> >>>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were racki=
ng
> >>>> up majors.
> >>>> It's not something just made up to deny Federer's achievements. It's
> >>>> because many people actually feel that way.
> >>> How do you know many people feel that way?
> >> "It's all over the net"
>
> > So presumably it was "all over the net" in 1985 (say) that it wasn't a
> > clown era at that time?
>
> Yes, Lendl didn't shank his backhand as much as Federer does.
>

Really? So the internet was around in 1985?




  
Date: 14 Jan 2009 20:56:16
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 14, 11:27 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > On Jan 14, 11:06 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> >> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >>> On Jan 14, 10:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> >>>> Professor X wrote:
>> >>>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >>>>>> john wrote:
>> >>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> >>>>>>>> john wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>>>news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>> >>>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>>>>news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>> >>>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
>> >>>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they
>> >>>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
>> >>>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed
>> >>>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
>> >>>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish.  If in the next few years we have another two or
>> >>>>>>>>> three clay courter
>> >>>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are you
>> >>>>>>>>> guys going to
>> >>>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on clay,
>> >>>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
>> >>>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ?  We should strip
>> >>>>>>> of all his
>> >>>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 out 5
>> >>>>>>> times.  I think
>> >>>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
>> >>>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper,  you can't take in the fact that
>> >>>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
>> >>>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final.  You can
>> >>>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
>> >>>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite hard court
>> >>>>>>> and grass court means
>> >>>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras.  It is sad but true.
>> >>>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga on
>> >>>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would he
>> >>>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
>> >>>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so no
>> >>>>>> age related excuses.
>> >>>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than happy
>> >>>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
>> >>>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nadal/
>> >>>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the likes
>> >>>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
>> >>>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian...
>> >>>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good as
>> >>>>> they should have been.
>> >>>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, not
>> >>>>> that it was an era of clowns.
>> >>>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn't
>> >>>> come with no reason.
>> >>>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were racking
>> >>>> up majors.
>> >>>> It's not something just made up to deny Federer's achievements. It's
>> >>>> because many people actually feel that way.
>> >>> How do you know many people feel that way?
>> >> "It's all over the net"
>>
>> > So presumably it was "all over the net" in 1985 (say) that it wasn't a
>> > clown era at that time?
>>
>> Yes, Lendl didn't shank his backhand as much as Federer does.
>>
>
> Really? So the internet was around in 1985?
>
>

Sure it was - but it wasn't open to the bunch of howling baboons that infest
it these days.


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 01:55:56
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 14, 11:27 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 11:06 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 14, 10:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed
>>>>>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. If in the next few years we have another two or
>>>>>>>>>>> three clay courter
>>>>>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are you
>>>>>>>>>>> guys going to
>>>>>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on clay,
>>>>>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
>>>>>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? We should strip
>>>>>>>>> of all his
>>>>>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 out 5
>>>>>>>>> times. I think
>>>>>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
>>>>>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, you can't take in the fact that
>>>>>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
>>>>>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. You can
>>>>>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
>>>>>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite hard court
>>>>>>>>> and grass court means
>>>>>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. It is sad but true.
>>>>>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga on
>>>>>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would he
>>>>>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
>>>>>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so no
>>>>>>>> age related excuses.
>>>>>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than happy
>>>>>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
>>>>>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nadal/
>>>>>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the likes
>>>>>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
>>>>>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian...
>>>>>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good as
>>>>>>> they should have been.
>>>>>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, not
>>>>>>> that it was an era of clowns.
>>>>>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn't
>>>>>> come with no reason.
>>>>>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were racking
>>>>>> up majors.
>>>>>> It's not something just made up to deny Federer's achievements. It's
>>>>>> because many people actually feel that way.
>>>>> How do you know many people feel that way?
>>>> "It's all over the net"
>>> So presumably it was "all over the net" in 1985 (say) that it wasn't a
>>> clown era at that time?
>> Yes, Lendl didn't shank his backhand as much as Federer does.
>>
>
> Really? So the internet was around in 1985?
>
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_board_system#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#History

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_(communication)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation

--
"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: 14 Jan 2009 15:12:42
From:
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 11:06=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 10:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> Professor X wrote:
> >>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> john wrote:
> >>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>>>>> john wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one=
in
> >>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other j=
okers
> >>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even =
if they
> >>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
> >>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he m=
anaged
> >>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007=
.
> >>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. =A0If in the next few years we have anot=
her two or
> >>>>>>> three clay courter
> >>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are=
you
> >>>>>>> guys going to
> >>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on c=
lay,
> >>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
> >>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? =A0We sh=
ould strip
> >>>>> of all his
> >>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 ou=
t 5
> >>>>> times. =A0I think
> >>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
> >>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, =A0you can't take in the=
fact that
> >>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
> >>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. =A0Y=
ou can
> >>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
> >>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite har=
d court
> >>>>> and grass court means
> >>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. =A0It is sad but true.
> >>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga =
on
> >>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would =
he
> >>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
> >>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so n=
o
> >>>> age related excuses.
> >>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than ha=
ppy
> >>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
> >>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nadal=
/
> >>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the like=
s
> >>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
> >>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian...
> >>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good as
> >>> they should have been.
> >>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, no=
t
> >>> that it was an era of clowns.
> >> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn't
> >> come with no reason.
> >> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were racking
> >> up majors.
>
> >> It's not something just made up to deny Federer's achievements. It's
> >> because many people actually feel that way.
>
> > How do you know many people feel that way?
>
> "It's all over the net"

So presumably it was "all over the net" in 1985 (say) that it wasn't a
clown era at that time?







  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 01:27:40
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 14, 11:06 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 10:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
>>>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they
>>>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed
>>>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
>>>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. If in the next few years we have another two or
>>>>>>>>> three clay courter
>>>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are you
>>>>>>>>> guys going to
>>>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on clay,
>>>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
>>>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? We should strip
>>>>>>> of all his
>>>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 out 5
>>>>>>> times. I think
>>>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
>>>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, you can't take in the fact that
>>>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
>>>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. You can
>>>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
>>>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite hard court
>>>>>>> and grass court means
>>>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. It is sad but true.
>>>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga on
>>>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would he
>>>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
>>>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so no
>>>>>> age related excuses.
>>>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than happy
>>>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
>>>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nadal/
>>>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the likes
>>>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
>>>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian...
>>>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good as
>>>>> they should have been.
>>>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, not
>>>>> that it was an era of clowns.
>>>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn't
>>>> come with no reason.
>>>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were racking
>>>> up majors.
>>>> It's not something just made up to deny Federer's achievements. It's
>>>> because many people actually feel that way.
>>> How do you know many people feel that way?
>> "It's all over the net"
>
> So presumably it was "all over the net" in 1985 (say) that it wasn't a
> clown era at that time?
>

Yes, Lendl didn't shank his backhand as much as Federer does.


--
"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: 14 Jan 2009 14:49:07
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 5:29=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Jan 14, 5:13=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Professor X wrote:
> > > On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > >> john wrote:
> > >>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > >>>news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> > >>>> john wrote:
> > >>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
> > >>>>>news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > >>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >>>>>>news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> > >>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one=
in
> > >>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other j=
okers
> > >>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even =
if they
> > >>>>>>> were in their prime.
> > >>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he m=
anaged
> > >>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007=
.
> > >>>>> This is totally rubbish. =A0If in the next few years we have anot=
her two or
> > >>>>> three clay courter
> > >>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are=
you
> > >>>>> guys going to
> > >>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on c=
lay,
> > >>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
> > >>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? =A0We sh=
ould strip
> > >>> of all his
> > >>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 ou=
t 5
> > >>> times. =A0I think
> > >>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
> > >>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, =A0you can't take in the=
fact that
> > >>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
> > >>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. =A0Y=
ou can
> > >>> continue to insist that Sampras
> > >>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite har=
d court
> > >>> and grass court means
> > >>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. =A0It is sad but true.
> > >> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga =
on
> > >> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would =
he
> > >> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
>
> > >> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so n=
o
> > >> age related excuses.
>
> > >> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than ha=
ppy
> > >> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
>
> > > yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nadal=
/
> > > djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the like=
s
> > > of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
> > > talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian...
> > > unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good as
> > > they should have been.
>
> > > B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, no=
t
> > > that it was an era of clowns.
>
> > But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn't
> > come with no reason.
> > I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were racking
> > up majors.
>
> You should know by now never to fully trust your personal recollection
> of social phenomena, *especially* when it comes to proving a negative
> ("I don't remember X, so it never happened ...."). Your recollection
> is colored by your biases and limited by your experience. As an
> example, when McEnroe and Navratilova were at their absolute peaks in
> 1984, here's what Sports Illustrated said after the U.S. Open:
>
> "United States Open! The National Championships! Third Leg of the
> Grand Slam! New York, New York! Tennis! Live, it's Serious Tedium!
>
> "With apologies to Joe Piscopo -- and, needless to say, to John
> McEnroe and Martina Navratilova, whose continuing brilliance in the
> face of the numbing mediocrity surrounding them absolves them of all
> blame -- daily bulletins from Flushing Meadow proved more convincingly
> than ever that tennis is in a fairly monotonous way. ... The question
> concerns the supply side of tennis -- where are the reserves? -- and
> the answer is: nowhere. There ain't nobody on the bench to play this
> game."
>
> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But that observation also came when it looked as if Lendl was a choker
who would never amount to much. After Lendl proved to be a great
champ, Mac's generation looks much better.

But getting back to Fed, if we can have a generation of missing
champions (players born say from 1973-1977) we can also have a
generation (say 1978-1982) with only one true champion and then a
bunch of guys who aren't particularly strong, with the evidence being
that they're proving to be fairly inept against the next generation.

Now again, my observation could be proven wrong if someone like
Roddick or Hewitt or Davydenko or Nalbandian has a late career surge
and wins a Slam title or two in the coming years.


 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 14:29:25
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 14, 5:13=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> john wrote:
> >>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>>> john wrote:
> >>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one i=
n
> >>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jok=
ers
> >>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if=
they
> >>>>>>> were in their prime.
> >>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he man=
aged
> >>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
> >>>>> This is totally rubbish. =A0If in the next few years we have anothe=
r two or
> >>>>> three clay courter
> >>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are y=
ou
> >>>>> guys going to
> >>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on cla=
y,
> >>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
> >>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? =A0We shou=
ld strip
> >>> of all his
> >>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 out =
5
> >>> times. =A0I think
> >>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
> >>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, =A0you can't take in the f=
act that
> >>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
> >>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. =A0You=
can
> >>> continue to insist that Sampras
> >>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite hard =
court
> >>> and grass court means
> >>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. =A0It is sad but true.
> >> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga on
> >> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would he
> >> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
>
> >> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so no
> >> age related excuses.
>
> >> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than happ=
y
> >> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
>
> > yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nadal/
> > djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the likes
> > of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
> > talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian...
> > unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good as
> > they should have been.
>
> > B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, not
> > that it was an era of clowns.
>
> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn't
> come with no reason.
> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were racking
> up majors.

You should know by now never to fully trust your personal recollection
of social phenomena, *especially* when it comes to proving a negative
("I don't remember X, so it never happened ...."). Your recollection
is colored by your biases and limited by your experience. As an
example, when McEnroe and Navratilova were at their absolute peaks in
1984, here's what Sports Illustrated said after the U.S. Open:

"United States Open! The National Championships! Third Leg of the
Grand Slam! New York, New York! Tennis! Live, it's Serious Tedium!

"With apologies to Joe Piscopo -- and, needless to say, to John
McEnroe and Martina Navratilova, whose continuing brilliance in the
face of the numbing mediocrity surrounding them absolves them of all
blame -- daily bulletins from Flushing Meadow proved more convincingly
than ever that tennis is in a fairly monotonous way. ... The question
concerns the supply side of tennis -- where are the reserves? -- and
the answer is: nowhere. There ain't nobody on the bench to play this
game."

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 01:04:46
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Jan 14, 5:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Professor X wrote:
>>> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> john wrote:
>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>> john wrote:
>>>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
>>>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they
>>>>>>>>> were in their prime.
>>>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed
>>>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
>>>>>>> This is totally rubbish. If in the next few years we have another two or
>>>>>>> three clay courter
>>>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are you
>>>>>>> guys going to
>>>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on clay,
>>>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
>>>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? We should strip
>>>>> of all his
>>>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 out 5
>>>>> times. I think
>>>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
>>>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, you can't take in the fact that
>>>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
>>>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. You can
>>>>> continue to insist that Sampras
>>>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite hard court
>>>>> and grass court means
>>>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. It is sad but true.
>>>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga on
>>>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would he
>>>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
>>>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so no
>>>> age related excuses.
>>>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than happy
>>>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
>>> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nadal/
>>> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the likes
>>> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
>>> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian...
>>> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good as
>>> they should have been.
>>> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, not
>>> that it was an era of clowns.
>> But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn't
>> come with no reason.
>> I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were racking
>> up majors.
>
> You should know by now never to fully trust your personal recollection
> of social phenomena, *especially* when it comes to proving a negative
> ("I don't remember X, so it never happened ...."). Your recollection
> is colored by your biases and limited by your experience. As an
> example, when McEnroe and Navratilova were at their absolute peaks in
> 1984, here's what Sports Illustrated said after the U.S. Open:
>
> "United States Open! The National Championships! Third Leg of the
> Grand Slam! New York, New York! Tennis! Live, it's Serious Tedium!
>
> "With apologies to Joe Piscopo -- and, needless to say, to John
> McEnroe and Martina Navratilova, whose continuing brilliance in the
> face of the numbing mediocrity surrounding them absolves them of all
> blame -- daily bulletins from Flushing Meadow proved more convincingly
> than ever that tennis is in a fairly monotonous way. ... The question
> concerns the supply side of tennis -- where are the reserves? -- and
> the answer is: nowhere. There ain't nobody on the bench to play this
> game."
>
> Joe Ramirez

One reporter doesn't a clown era make. I don't think Mac's opponent was
that mediocre either. :)

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


 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 07:51:51
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 11, 11:33=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> john wrote:
> > "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >> john wrote:
> >>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
> >>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other joker=
s
> >>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if t=
hey
> >>>>> were in their prime.
> >>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he manag=
ed
> >>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
> >>> This is totally rubbish. =A0If in the next few years we have another =
two or
> >>> three clay courter
> >>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are you
> >>> guys going to
> >>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on clay,
>
> >> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
>
> > Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? =A0We should=
strip
> > of all his
> > 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 out 5
> > times. =A0I think
> > you would agree wholeheartedly....
>
> > You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, =A0you can't take in the fac=
t that
> > Hewitt beat Sampras because
> > he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. =A0You c=
an
> > continue to insist that Sampras
> > was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite hard co=
urt
> > and grass court means
> > Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. =A0It is sad but true.
>
> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga on
> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would he
> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
>
> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so no
> age related excuses.
>
> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than happy
> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.

yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nadal/
djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the likes
of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian...
unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good as
they should have been.

B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, not
that it was an era of clowns.


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 00:13:29
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Professor X wrote:
> On Jan 11, 11:33 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> john wrote:
>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>> john wrote:
>>>>> "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
>>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they
>>>>>>> were in their prime.
>>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed
>>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
>>>>> This is totally rubbish. If in the next few years we have another two or
>>>>> three clay courter
>>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are you
>>>>> guys going to
>>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on clay,
>>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
>>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? We should strip
>>> of all his
>>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 out 5
>>> times. I think
>>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
>>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, you can't take in the fact that
>>> Hewitt beat Sampras because
>>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. You can
>>> continue to insist that Sampras
>>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite hard court
>>> and grass court means
>>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. It is sad but true.
>> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga on
>> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would he
>> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.
>>
>> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so no
>> age related excuses.
>>
>> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than happy
>> to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.
>
> yes that is a very strong argument. You see it has taken murray/nadal/
> djokovic to come along for us to realise how one-dimensional the likes
> of rod/ljubo/flake/ and hewitt are/were.... the only ones with any
> talent other than fed in that generation were safin and nalbandian...
> unfortunately they are both utter headcases so were never as good as
> they should have been.
>
> B/c Fed was blowing away the field we simply assumed he was great, not
> that it was an era of clowns.

But there was this talk of clown era. It's all over the net. It hasn't
come with no reason.
I don't recall talks of weak eras in the past when greats were racking
up majors.

It's not something just made up to deny Federer's achievements. It's
because many people actually feel that way.

--
"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: 14 Jan 2009 07:49:07
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 11, 11:28=A0am, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:4969bb96$0$2633$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> > Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
> >> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in whi=
ch
> >> he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that ma=
de
> >> up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in
> >> their prime.
>
> > Agree, but Murray is still finding his feet so it's not as tough as it
> > will be in a yr or so.
>
> Like Roddick was still looking for those 11 slams your predicted in 2003 =
?
> If Murray does not
> deliver in the next few months he will become another member of the clown
> brigade.... =A0Roddick
> was Sampras on steroid at end of USO 03 and what is he now Whisper ?

lol Murray is far more talented than Roddick... Don't expect muzza to
join clown brigade any time soon.


 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 07:47:46
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 11, 10:33=A0am, p...@me.not.invalid wrote:
> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
> > The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
> > which he won most of his slams.
>
> Not really. The slightly past-his-prime Federer just isn't arsed about
> the tuneups anymore. Recent events, even of no consequence, usually have
> more weight, so newbs might easily fall into this tougher competition
> trap.
>
> > Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
> > that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they
> > were in their prime.
>
> Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
>
> Roddick and Hewitt possessed 3 blue-chip titles amongst them. Murray,
> Djokovic and Nadal have a grand total of one. And since it is HC season,
> the latter group also has only one HC title combined. Despite hard courts
> supposedly being the surface of preference for 2/3s of them.
>
> The competion looks weaker than before. And as Federer is entering the
> last, entry-fee laundering stage of his career, we're back at parity,
> not quality.

roddick & hewitt had a crack at fed over a longer period dipshit


 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 04:05:59
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 14 tammi, 13:48, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "topspin" <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >them. All of them. No fight, just let him win.Hmmm.... I
>
> that's exactly what happened. I remember back then sitting watching Fed
> matches in disbelief at the lack of fight from his opponent. Canas and
> Murray were the first two 'regular' players to crack this trait, huge credit
> to those two for this, cos soon afterwards the gates started to open and has
> made tennis much more interesting.

That's a luxury every great and dominating player has had. Borg/
Sampras/Fed all share this. They all won matches already in locker
room. Just see their opponents' comments (whether it was Gerulaitis
talking about Borg (French) Open or Kafelnikov thanking about Pete's
absence at AO 99).

I think the additional factor for Borg/Sampras/Fed dominance was that
they simply could not be hated enough which did not bring enough
killer instict for opponents (compare this to attitude when playing
against the "bad boys" a'la Connors, Nastase, Mac, younger Agassi,
Becker at his most arrogant days...even Lendl..and as a lesser example
Hewitt....opposing players just had an additional urge to shut them up
with a racket.

With "nice" fellows this attitude is harder to summon? (could this
finally explain "too" good succee of someone like Wilander?)

.mikko



 
Date: 14 Jan 2009 01:53:24
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 13 Jan, 20:07, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 13, 11:43=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13 Jan, 14:08, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 12, 4:24=A0pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 12 jan, 00:37, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 11, 6:22=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not s=
een before
> > > > > > > in tennis history, ie;
>
> > > > > > > 5 straight Wimbledons won
> > > > > > > 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> > > > > > > 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> > > > > > > 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> > > > > > > This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> > > > > > Exactly. end of story.
>
> > > > > I can see clown era arguments regarding Fed much sooner than rega=
rding
> > > > > Rafa, since in Fed's case there's an argument that the disappeara=
nce
> > > > > of serve and volley helps Roger on fast courts.
>
> > > > How does that argument work? Does it only help Roger but not all th=
e
> > > > others? Did all others prefer playing against other serve volleyers=
so
> > > > it didn't help them? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
>
> > > > Or are you saying players magically unlearnt to play serve volley j=
ust
> > > > so Roger could suddenly coast to one fast court title after another=
?
>
> > > > You can just as easily say Federer has been unlucky for not having =
had
> > > > the chance to play more serve volley himself. Perhaps he would have
> > > > won six Wimbledons in a row by now. Remember, Federer did win his
> > > > first Wimbledon title playing serve volley against another serve
> > > > volleyer in Phillipoussis. And quite convincingly I must say...
>
> > > Even if I accept your argument that it was impossible to effectively
> > > play serve and volley from 2004-onward at
> > > fast court Slams and that therefore even past greats like Sampras,
> > > Becker, Edberg, etc would've been at a severe
> > > disadvantage, we're still left with the question of Fed's immediate
> > > generation and how strong it was.
>
> > > I'm familiar with Fed's *defense*. If one player is racking up a
> > > million Slams then there are no Slams for anyone else in his
> > > generation to win. But if that group is strong, then they should be
> > > ready to pounce when Fed's level drops (last year). Instead, what I
> > > observed last year was Fed's generation unable to capitalize
> > > whatsoever on Fed's poor play to win hardly anything. Out of 15 big
> > > tournaments played, only 2 were won by players of Fed's generation
> > > (Denko at KB). We see Roddick repeatedly unable to do anything agains=
t
> > > Djoke/Murray. Davydenko handily beaten by Djoke in TMC final, etc.
> > > Safin did beat Djoke at Wimby, but that guy is such a flake that I
> > > don't think he's the one you want to use to prove that Fed's
> > > generation is strong.
>
> > > I guess you can respond that Fed's generation is now *old* and we
> > > can't expect them to beat 21 and 22 year olds from Nadal's generation=
.
> > > But if that's the case, then all arguments about Hewitt and Safin
> > > *matching up* so well with 29-year-old Pete need to go out the window=
.
> > > But I think we do need to expect more out of guys who are 26/27 years
> > > old. I know that's not typically a peak age for a tennis player, but
> > > surely it's not old either. Lendl was a dominant No. 1 at age 27.
> > > Laver won the Grand Slam at age 30/31. Connors won USO at 29/30, etc.
>
> > > So, I refuse to use *clown* era and I don't like the use of the term.
> > > And anyway, I think Fed's *era* is pretty good because it includes
> > > Nadal and Murray. But I don't rate his *generation* that high and I
> > > think the evidence of that is that they're doing very poorly against
> > > the next generation.
>
> > Well.....
>
> > Just how much 'pouncing' did Agassi, Krajcek, Philippousis, Rios,
> > Martin, Pioline, Ivanisevic, Rusedski, Hewitt, Safin, Rafter, Old
> > Uncle Tom Cobbley and all do after Sampras left in 2002. I think you
> > will find the grand total of 2 (count them) slams - Agassi and Safin.
> > I won't even begin talk about how Hewitt got annihilated at the USO by
> > Federer.
>
> OK, let me clarify what I'm talking about a bit more so we're not
> talking apples and oranges here.
>
> First of all, my terminology. I've been referring to *generations* and
> *eras* A generation for me is typically a
> five-year period in tennis while an era spans roughly four
> generations. I'm using these terms in the way that Joe Ramirez uses
> them, a guy we can probably both agree is (was?) one of the more
> thoughtful posters in the is ng.
>
> So (a bit arbitrarily I admit but no great stretch) Sampras'
> generation also included Agassi, Courier, Chang, Martin, Rafter, etc,
> while his *era* included Becker, Edberg, etc from the previous
> generation, Flipper, Moya, Rios, Kafelnikov, Henman from the next
> generation and then Federer, Safin, Hewitt, etc from the generation
> after that.
>
> Typically (and of course there are many exceptions to this) a
> generation will be at *peak* when its members are between the ages of
> 21-25/26. For example, Federer just broke a long streak of players
> under 27 winning Slam titles. There have been other long such streaks
> throughout tennis history but that was one of the longest.
>
> So, what does that all have to do with Fed and Sampras? I'm trying to
> compare the quality of players in each of their respective
> generations. As is plainly obvious by the record, Sampras' generation
> excelled over a long period of time and not only because of the
> greatness of Sampras and Agassi. Rafter won the U.S. Open in 97 and 98
> when members of the next generation should've been at peak. Ivanisevic
> and Rafter squared off in the 2001 Wimby final when both of those
> Sampras generation guys were well past peak. Agassi even outdid
> Connors in terms of how long he was able to win big titles. That's
> what I meant by *pouncing*. I'm taking it as somewhat of a given that
> there's little anyone could've done to stop Sampras and Fed from
> winning big-time when at peak. But the ? is what happens after they
> fall down a bit. Do other guys from their own generation pick up the
> scraps or does the new generation just start mopping up everything?
>
> The record shows that when Sampras fell down a bit, no one from the
> next generation was able to capitalize at USO/Wimbledon. In Fed's
> case, I admit that we don't know yet what will happen but if Roddick,
> Davydenko, Hewitt, Safin, Nalby, don't step up to take advantage of
> Fed's decline I think his generation as a whole will be judged poorly
> by historical standards.
>
> BUT, I grant that Javier made a good point, this is all subjective.
> There are other ways to explain the results. Maybe the generation
> after Sampras' (Henman, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya) was just weak and
> that's why Agassi was still racking up Slams at age 31. Maybe Murray
> and Nadal and Djoke are really strong and that's why Roddick, Nalby,
> etc seem to have been passed by.
>
> I guess the point of all this mini thesis :-) is that there is enough
> evidence in terms of results for us to cast some doubt on Fed's
> dominance. If his generation was relatively weak (and I'm hardly the
> only one to hold this view) then maybe that had something to do with
> the fact he won 3 Slams in three different years. Maybe if he were in
> a strong generation he never would've done better than 2. I'll admit
> I'll never be able to convince Fed fans of that.
>
> But I think if Fed's generation continues to perform poorly against
> the next generation (by the way, only 1 MS event and 1 Slam won last
> year by Fed's gen) and Fed's record against the guys who are likely
> the two best players from the next generation continues to be a losing
> one, then there's absolutely no way we can call Fed goat now.
>
> At the very least, we need to say that Fed *could* have benefited from
> a slight lull in competition while Nadal's generation was coming into
> form. So we can't be giving him bonus points for dominance and sending
> him past Sampras when Pete's ahead of him in total Slams, total weeks
> at No. 1, total Wimbledons, etc.
>
> If we're measuring goat-hood in terms of Slams (and obviously I'm
> restricting this only to Open Era) imho I'd go as far to say that even
> if they're tied at 14, they're still not tied. Fed with 15 Slams but 5
> Wimbledons, call it even. Fed with 15 Slams and 6 Wimbledons then
> Fed's goat.

I will just refer you to mikko's excellent reply, which makes many of
the points I would make. Just some points I would reiterate
- you cannot talk about 'Agassi' without acknowledging how he went
awol for a period. That is the flaw with just referring to names as a
measure of competition.

- in terms of your definitions the way I see it is that as Sampras
waned, Federer's generation did indeed step into the breach. Safin
Hewitt, Nalbandian and JCF stepped in, just as you would imagine, and
then what? The way you argue it, they quietly subsided and let Federer
walk all over them. All of them. No fight, just let him win.Hmmm.... I
think a stronger argument is that he was too good for them, and theyb
were a 'normal' transition group.

- I would argue that, rather than say the 2000s are a weak era, they
have a great case for being the strongest era ever. No amateur/pro
split, no political splits and arguments, more players from more
countries playing than ever before, and with the change of Wimbledon
to a higher, truer bouncing surface, more players with a chance of
victory and a belief in that chance than ever before.

And, on a personal level, I have never subscribed to GOAThood on the
basis of slams alone. It should be based on the quality of play, the
quality of victories, the quality of the competition, and the context.
All of which shift and evolve with time.


  
Date: 14 Jan 2009 11:48:53
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
"topspin" <goolagongfan@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:bb72f95c-2ab0-47c0-9947-c896148a88c5@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On 13 Jan, 20:07, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 13, 11:43 am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13 Jan, 14:08, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 12, 4:24 pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 12 jan, 00:37, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 11, 6:22 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not
> > > > > > > seen before
> > > > > > > in tennis history, ie;
>
> > > > > > > 5 straight Wimbledons won
> > > > > > > 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> > > > > > > 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> > > > > > > 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> > > > > > > This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> > > > > > Exactly. end of story.
>
> > > > > I can see clown era arguments regarding Fed much sooner than
> > > > > regarding
> > > > > Rafa, since in Fed's case there's an argument that the
> > > > > disappearance
> > > > > of serve and volley helps Roger on fast courts.
>
> > > > How does that argument work? Does it only help Roger but not all the
> > > > others? Did all others prefer playing against other serve volleyers
> > > > so
> > > > it didn't help them? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
>
> > > > Or are you saying players magically unlearnt to play serve volley
> > > > just
> > > > so Roger could suddenly coast to one fast court title after another?
>
> > > > You can just as easily say Federer has been unlucky for not having
> > > > had
> > > > the chance to play more serve volley himself. Perhaps he would have
> > > > won six Wimbledons in a row by now. Remember, Federer did win his
> > > > first Wimbledon title playing serve volley against another serve
> > > > volleyer in Phillipoussis. And quite convincingly I must say...
>
> > > Even if I accept your argument that it was impossible to effectively
> > > play serve and volley from 2004-onward at
> > > fast court Slams and that therefore even past greats like Sampras,
> > > Becker, Edberg, etc would've been at a severe
> > > disadvantage, we're still left with the question of Fed's immediate
> > > generation and how strong it was.
>
> > > I'm familiar with Fed's *defense*. If one player is racking up a
> > > million Slams then there are no Slams for anyone else in his
> > > generation to win. But if that group is strong, then they should be
> > > ready to pounce when Fed's level drops (last year). Instead, what I
> > > observed last year was Fed's generation unable to capitalize
> > > whatsoever on Fed's poor play to win hardly anything. Out of 15 big
> > > tournaments played, only 2 were won by players of Fed's generation
> > > (Denko at KB). We see Roddick repeatedly unable to do anything against
> > > Djoke/Murray. Davydenko handily beaten by Djoke in TMC final, etc.
> > > Safin did beat Djoke at Wimby, but that guy is such a flake that I
> > > don't think he's the one you want to use to prove that Fed's
> > > generation is strong.
>
> > > I guess you can respond that Fed's generation is now *old* and we
> > > can't expect them to beat 21 and 22 year olds from Nadal's generation.
> > > But if that's the case, then all arguments about Hewitt and Safin
> > > *matching up* so well with 29-year-old Pete need to go out the window.
> > > But I think we do need to expect more out of guys who are 26/27 years
> > > old. I know that's not typically a peak age for a tennis player, but
> > > surely it's not old either. Lendl was a dominant No. 1 at age 27.
> > > Laver won the Grand Slam at age 30/31. Connors won USO at 29/30, etc.
>
> > > So, I refuse to use *clown* era and I don't like the use of the term.
> > > And anyway, I think Fed's *era* is pretty good because it includes
> > > Nadal and Murray. But I don't rate his *generation* that high and I
> > > think the evidence of that is that they're doing very poorly against
> > > the next generation.
>
> > Well.....
>
> > Just how much 'pouncing' did Agassi, Krajcek, Philippousis, Rios,
> > Martin, Pioline, Ivanisevic, Rusedski, Hewitt, Safin, Rafter, Old
> > Uncle Tom Cobbley and all do after Sampras left in 2002. I think you
> > will find the grand total of 2 (count them) slams - Agassi and Safin.
> > I won't even begin talk about how Hewitt got annihilated at the USO by
> > Federer.
>
> OK, let me clarify what I'm talking about a bit more so we're not
> talking apples and oranges here.
>
> First of all, my terminology. I've been referring to *generations* and
> *eras* A generation for me is typically a
> five-year period in tennis while an era spans roughly four
> generations. I'm using these terms in the way that Joe Ramirez uses
> them, a guy we can probably both agree is (was?) one of the more
> thoughtful posters in the is ng.
>
> So (a bit arbitrarily I admit but no great stretch) Sampras'
> generation also included Agassi, Courier, Chang, Martin, Rafter, etc,
> while his *era* included Becker, Edberg, etc from the previous
> generation, Flipper, Moya, Rios, Kafelnikov, Henman from the next
> generation and then Federer, Safin, Hewitt, etc from the generation
> after that.
>
> Typically (and of course there are many exceptions to this) a
> generation will be at *peak* when its members are between the ages of
> 21-25/26. For example, Federer just broke a long streak of players
> under 27 winning Slam titles. There have been other long such streaks
> throughout tennis history but that was one of the longest.
>
> So, what does that all have to do with Fed and Sampras? I'm trying to
> compare the quality of players in each of their respective
> generations. As is plainly obvious by the record, Sampras' generation
> excelled over a long period of time and not only because of the
> greatness of Sampras and Agassi. Rafter won the U.S. Open in 97 and 98
> when members of the next generation should've been at peak. Ivanisevic
> and Rafter squared off in the 2001 Wimby final when both of those
> Sampras generation guys were well past peak. Agassi even outdid
> Connors in terms of how long he was able to win big titles. That's
> what I meant by *pouncing*. I'm taking it as somewhat of a given that
> there's little anyone could've done to stop Sampras and Fed from
> winning big-time when at peak. But the ? is what happens after they
> fall down a bit. Do other guys from their own generation pick up the
> scraps or does the new generation just start mopping up everything?
>
> The record shows that when Sampras fell down a bit, no one from the
> next generation was able to capitalize at USO/Wimbledon. In Fed's
> case, I admit that we don't know yet what will happen but if Roddick,
> Davydenko, Hewitt, Safin, Nalby, don't step up to take advantage of
> Fed's decline I think his generation as a whole will be judged poorly
> by historical standards.
>
> BUT, I grant that Javier made a good point, this is all subjective.
> There are other ways to explain the results. Maybe the generation
> after Sampras' (Henman, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya) was just weak and
> that's why Agassi was still racking up Slams at age 31. Maybe Murray
> and Nadal and Djoke are really strong and that's why Roddick, Nalby,
> etc seem to have been passed by.
>
> I guess the point of all this mini thesis :-) is that there is enough
> evidence in terms of results for us to cast some doubt on Fed's
> dominance. If his generation was relatively weak (and I'm hardly the
> only one to hold this view) then maybe that had something to do with
> the fact he won 3 Slams in three different years. Maybe if he were in
> a strong generation he never would've done better than 2. I'll admit
> I'll never be able to convince Fed fans of that.
>
> But I think if Fed's generation continues to perform poorly against
> the next generation (by the way, only 1 MS event and 1 Slam won last
> year by Fed's gen) and Fed's record against the guys who are likely
> the two best players from the next generation continues to be a losing
> one, then there's absolutely no way we can call Fed goat now.
>
> At the very least, we need to say that Fed *could* have benefited from
> a slight lull in competition while Nadal's generation was coming into
> form. So we can't be giving him bonus points for dominance and sending
> him past Sampras when Pete's ahead of him in total Slams, total weeks
> at No. 1, total Wimbledons, etc.
>
> If we're measuring goat-hood in terms of Slams (and obviously I'm
> restricting this only to Open Era) imho I'd go as far to say that even
> if they're tied at 14, they're still not tied. Fed with 15 Slams but 5
> Wimbledons, call it even. Fed with 15 Slams and 6 Wimbledons then
> Fed's goat.

>- in terms of your definitions the way I see it is that as Sampras
>waned, Federer's generation did indeed step into the breach. Safin
>Hewitt, Nalbandian and JCF stepped in, just as you would imagine, and
>then what?
>The way you argue it, they quietly subsided and let Federer walk all over
**************************************************************************
>them. All of them. No fight, just let him win.Hmmm.... I

that's exactly what happened. I remember back then sitting watching Fed
matches in disbelief at the lack of fight from his opponent. Canas and
Murray were the first two 'regular' players to crack this trait, huge credit
to those two for this, cos soon afterwards the gates started to open and has
made tennis much more interesting.

>think a stronger argument is that he was too good for them, and theyb
>were a 'normal' transition group.
>And, on a personal level, I have never subscribed to GOAThood on the
>basis of slams alone. It should be based on the quality of play, the
>quality of victories, the quality of the competition, and the context.
>All of which shift and evolve with time.

The goat thing for Fed finished on Jan 1st 2009, a crucial record went
beyond his reach.




   
Date: 15 Jan 2009 00:47:21
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Iceberg wrote:
> "topspin" <goolagongfan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bb72f95c-2ab0-47c0-9947-c896148a88c5@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 13 Jan, 20:07, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 11:43 am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 13 Jan, 14:08, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 12, 4:24 pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12 jan, 00:37, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 11, 6:22 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not
>>>>>>>> seen before
>>>>>>>> in tennis history, ie;
>>>>>>>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
>>>>>>>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>>>>>>>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>>>>>>>> 3 of 4 AO's won
>>>>>>>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>>>>>>> Exactly. end of story.
>>>>>> I can see clown era arguments regarding Fed much sooner than
>>>>>> regarding
>>>>>> Rafa, since in Fed's case there's an argument that the
>>>>>> disappearance
>>>>>> of serve and volley helps Roger on fast courts.
>>>>> How does that argument work? Does it only help Roger but not all the
>>>>> others? Did all others prefer playing against other serve volleyers
>>>>> so
>>>>> it didn't help them? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
>>>>> Or are you saying players magically unlearnt to play serve volley
>>>>> just
>>>>> so Roger could suddenly coast to one fast court title after another?
>>>>> You can just as easily say Federer has been unlucky for not having
>>>>> had
>>>>> the chance to play more serve volley himself. Perhaps he would have
>>>>> won six Wimbledons in a row by now. Remember, Federer did win his
>>>>> first Wimbledon title playing serve volley against another serve
>>>>> volleyer in Phillipoussis. And quite convincingly I must say...
>>>> Even if I accept your argument that it was impossible to effectively
>>>> play serve and volley from 2004-onward at
>>>> fast court Slams and that therefore even past greats like Sampras,
>>>> Becker, Edberg, etc would've been at a severe
>>>> disadvantage, we're still left with the question of Fed's immediate
>>>> generation and how strong it was.
>>>> I'm familiar with Fed's *defense*. If one player is racking up a
>>>> million Slams then there are no Slams for anyone else in his
>>>> generation to win. But if that group is strong, then they should be
>>>> ready to pounce when Fed's level drops (last year). Instead, what I
>>>> observed last year was Fed's generation unable to capitalize
>>>> whatsoever on Fed's poor play to win hardly anything. Out of 15 big
>>>> tournaments played, only 2 were won by players of Fed's generation
>>>> (Denko at KB). We see Roddick repeatedly unable to do anything against
>>>> Djoke/Murray. Davydenko handily beaten by Djoke in TMC final, etc.
>>>> Safin did beat Djoke at Wimby, but that guy is such a flake that I
>>>> don't think he's the one you want to use to prove that Fed's
>>>> generation is strong.
>>>> I guess you can respond that Fed's generation is now *old* and we
>>>> can't expect them to beat 21 and 22 year olds from Nadal's generation.
>>>> But if that's the case, then all arguments about Hewitt and Safin
>>>> *matching up* so well with 29-year-old Pete need to go out the window.
>>>> But I think we do need to expect more out of guys who are 26/27 years
>>>> old. I know that's not typically a peak age for a tennis player, but
>>>> surely it's not old either. Lendl was a dominant No. 1 at age 27.
>>>> Laver won the Grand Slam at age 30/31. Connors won USO at 29/30, etc.
>>>> So, I refuse to use *clown* era and I don't like the use of the term.
>>>> And anyway, I think Fed's *era* is pretty good because it includes
>>>> Nadal and Murray. But I don't rate his *generation* that high and I
>>>> think the evidence of that is that they're doing very poorly against
>>>> the next generation.
>>> Well.....
>>> Just how much 'pouncing' did Agassi, Krajcek, Philippousis, Rios,
>>> Martin, Pioline, Ivanisevic, Rusedski, Hewitt, Safin, Rafter, Old
>>> Uncle Tom Cobbley and all do after Sampras left in 2002. I think you
>>> will find the grand total of 2 (count them) slams - Agassi and Safin.
>>> I won't even begin talk about how Hewitt got annihilated at the USO by
>>> Federer.
>> OK, let me clarify what I'm talking about a bit more so we're not
>> talking apples and oranges here.
>>
>> First of all, my terminology. I've been referring to *generations* and
>> *eras* A generation for me is typically a
>> five-year period in tennis while an era spans roughly four
>> generations. I'm using these terms in the way that Joe Ramirez uses
>> them, a guy we can probably both agree is (was?) one of the more
>> thoughtful posters in the is ng.
>>
>> So (a bit arbitrarily I admit but no great stretch) Sampras'
>> generation also included Agassi, Courier, Chang, Martin, Rafter, etc,
>> while his *era* included Becker, Edberg, etc from the previous
>> generation, Flipper, Moya, Rios, Kafelnikov, Henman from the next
>> generation and then Federer, Safin, Hewitt, etc from the generation
>> after that.
>>
>> Typically (and of course there are many exceptions to this) a
>> generation will be at *peak* when its members are between the ages of
>> 21-25/26. For example, Federer just broke a long streak of players
>> under 27 winning Slam titles. There have been other long such streaks
>> throughout tennis history but that was one of the longest.
>>
>> So, what does that all have to do with Fed and Sampras? I'm trying to
>> compare the quality of players in each of their respective
>> generations. As is plainly obvious by the record, Sampras' generation
>> excelled over a long period of time and not only because of the
>> greatness of Sampras and Agassi. Rafter won the U.S. Open in 97 and 98
>> when members of the next generation should've been at peak. Ivanisevic
>> and Rafter squared off in the 2001 Wimby final when both of those
>> Sampras generation guys were well past peak. Agassi even outdid
>> Connors in terms of how long he was able to win big titles. That's
>> what I meant by *pouncing*. I'm taking it as somewhat of a given that
>> there's little anyone could've done to stop Sampras and Fed from
>> winning big-time when at peak. But the ? is what happens after they
>> fall down a bit. Do other guys from their own generation pick up the
>> scraps or does the new generation just start mopping up everything?
>>
>> The record shows that when Sampras fell down a bit, no one from the
>> next generation was able to capitalize at USO/Wimbledon. In Fed's
>> case, I admit that we don't know yet what will happen but if Roddick,
>> Davydenko, Hewitt, Safin, Nalby, don't step up to take advantage of
>> Fed's decline I think his generation as a whole will be judged poorly
>> by historical standards.
>>
>> BUT, I grant that Javier made a good point, this is all subjective.
>> There are other ways to explain the results. Maybe the generation
>> after Sampras' (Henman, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya) was just weak and
>> that's why Agassi was still racking up Slams at age 31. Maybe Murray
>> and Nadal and Djoke are really strong and that's why Roddick, Nalby,
>> etc seem to have been passed by.
>>
>> I guess the point of all this mini thesis :-) is that there is enough
>> evidence in terms of results for us to cast some doubt on Fed's
>> dominance. If his generation was relatively weak (and I'm hardly the
>> only one to hold this view) then maybe that had something to do with
>> the fact he won 3 Slams in three different years. Maybe if he were in
>> a strong generation he never would've done better than 2. I'll admit
>> I'll never be able to convince Fed fans of that.
>>
>> But I think if Fed's generation continues to perform poorly against
>> the next generation (by the way, only 1 MS event and 1 Slam won last
>> year by Fed's gen) and Fed's record against the guys who are likely
>> the two best players from the next generation continues to be a losing
>> one, then there's absolutely no way we can call Fed goat now.
>>
>> At the very least, we need to say that Fed *could* have benefited from
>> a slight lull in competition while Nadal's generation was coming into
>> form. So we can't be giving him bonus points for dominance and sending
>> him past Sampras when Pete's ahead of him in total Slams, total weeks
>> at No. 1, total Wimbledons, etc.
>>
>> If we're measuring goat-hood in terms of Slams (and obviously I'm
>> restricting this only to Open Era) imho I'd go as far to say that even
>> if they're tied at 14, they're still not tied. Fed with 15 Slams but 5
>> Wimbledons, call it even. Fed with 15 Slams and 6 Wimbledons then
>> Fed's goat.
>
>> - in terms of your definitions the way I see it is that as Sampras
>> waned, Federer's generation did indeed step into the breach. Safin
>> Hewitt, Nalbandian and JCF stepped in, just as you would imagine, and
>> then what?
>> The way you argue it, they quietly subsided and let Federer walk all over
> **************************************************************************
>> them. All of them. No fight, just let him win.Hmmm.... I
>
> that's exactly what happened. I remember back then sitting watching Fed
> matches in disbelief at the lack of fight from his opponent. Canas and
> Murray were the first two 'regular' players to crack this trait, huge credit
> to those two for this, cos soon afterwards the gates started to open and has
> made tennis much more interesting.
>

Congratulations on being one of the few having ability to notice that.

I do believe that many Federer fans have noticed it too...but they do
not want to admit this even to us or to themselves.

Jimmy Connors:
"Roger is surrounded by players who just let him run away with it...he
couldn't be in a better position...if I was Roger, i'd be very, very
grateful".

Thomas Muster:
"These players today...when they see Roger hit a few great shots they
give up. They shouldn't be playing Roger...they should be plying tennis.

Tipsarevic:
I always watched these guys on tv trying too much against Federer and
not playing their own game.


    
Date: 15 Jan 2009 20:02:28
From: john
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...

"TT" <gold@Olympics.org > wrote in message
news:8Ytbl.119047$_03.84441@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> Iceberg wrote:
>> "topspin" <goolagongfan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:bb72f95c-2ab0-47c0-9947-c896148a88c5@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On 13 Jan, 20:07, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 13, 11:43 am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 13 Jan, 14:08, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 12, 4:24 pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12 jan, 00:37, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 11, 6:22 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen
>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>> in tennis history, ie;
>>>>>>>>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
>>>>>>>>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>>>>>>>>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>>>>>>>>> 3 of 4 AO's won
>>>>>>>>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>>>>>>>> Exactly. end of story.
>>>>>>> I can see clown era arguments regarding Fed much sooner than
>>>>>>> regarding
>>>>>>> Rafa, since in Fed's case there's an argument that the disappearance
>>>>>>> of serve and volley helps Roger on fast courts.
>>>>>> How does that argument work? Does it only help Roger but not all the
>>>>>> others? Did all others prefer playing against other serve volleyers
>>>>>> so
>>>>>> it didn't help them? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
>>>>>> Or are you saying players magically unlearnt to play serve volley
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> so Roger could suddenly coast to one fast court title after another?
>>>>>> You can just as easily say Federer has been unlucky for not having
>>>>>> had
>>>>>> the chance to play more serve volley himself. Perhaps he would have
>>>>>> won six Wimbledons in a row by now. Remember, Federer did win his
>>>>>> first Wimbledon title playing serve volley against another serve
>>>>>> volleyer in Phillipoussis. And quite convincingly I must say...
>>>>> Even if I accept your argument that it was impossible to effectively
>>>>> play serve and volley from 2004-onward at
>>>>> fast court Slams and that therefore even past greats like Sampras,
>>>>> Becker, Edberg, etc would've been at a severe
>>>>> disadvantage, we're still left with the question of Fed's immediate
>>>>> generation and how strong it was.
>>>>> I'm familiar with Fed's *defense*. If one player is racking up a
>>>>> million Slams then there are no Slams for anyone else in his
>>>>> generation to win. But if that group is strong, then they should be
>>>>> ready to pounce when Fed's level drops (last year). Instead, what I
>>>>> observed last year was Fed's generation unable to capitalize
>>>>> whatsoever on Fed's poor play to win hardly anything. Out of 15 big
>>>>> tournaments played, only 2 were won by players of Fed's generation
>>>>> (Denko at KB). We see Roddick repeatedly unable to do anything against
>>>>> Djoke/Murray. Davydenko handily beaten by Djoke in TMC final, etc.
>>>>> Safin did beat Djoke at Wimby, but that guy is such a flake that I
>>>>> don't think he's the one you want to use to prove that Fed's
>>>>> generation is strong.
>>>>> I guess you can respond that Fed's generation is now *old* and we
>>>>> can't expect them to beat 21 and 22 year olds from Nadal's generation.
>>>>> But if that's the case, then all arguments about Hewitt and Safin
>>>>> *matching up* so well with 29-year-old Pete need to go out the window.
>>>>> But I think we do need to expect more out of guys who are 26/27 years
>>>>> old. I know that's not typically a peak age for a tennis player, but
>>>>> surely it's not old either. Lendl was a dominant No. 1 at age 27.
>>>>> Laver won the Grand Slam at age 30/31. Connors won USO at 29/30, etc.
>>>>> So, I refuse to use *clown* era and I don't like the use of the term.
>>>>> And anyway, I think Fed's *era* is pretty good because it includes
>>>>> Nadal and Murray. But I don't rate his *generation* that high and I
>>>>> think the evidence of that is that they're doing very poorly against
>>>>> the next generation.
>>>> Well.....
>>>> Just how much 'pouncing' did Agassi, Krajcek, Philippousis, Rios,
>>>> Martin, Pioline, Ivanisevic, Rusedski, Hewitt, Safin, Rafter, Old
>>>> Uncle Tom Cobbley and all do after Sampras left in 2002. I think you
>>>> will find the grand total of 2 (count them) slams - Agassi and Safin.
>>>> I won't even begin talk about how Hewitt got annihilated at the USO by
>>>> Federer.
>>> OK, let me clarify what I'm talking about a bit more so we're not
>>> talking apples and oranges here.
>>>
>>> First of all, my terminology. I've been referring to *generations* and
>>> *eras* A generation for me is typically a
>>> five-year period in tennis while an era spans roughly four
>>> generations. I'm using these terms in the way that Joe Ramirez uses
>>> them, a guy we can probably both agree is (was?) one of the more
>>> thoughtful posters in the is ng.
>>>
>>> So (a bit arbitrarily I admit but no great stretch) Sampras'
>>> generation also included Agassi, Courier, Chang, Martin, Rafter, etc,
>>> while his *era* included Becker, Edberg, etc from the previous
>>> generation, Flipper, Moya, Rios, Kafelnikov, Henman from the next
>>> generation and then Federer, Safin, Hewitt, etc from the generation
>>> after that.
>>>
>>> Typically (and of course there are many exceptions to this) a
>>> generation will be at *peak* when its members are between the ages of
>>> 21-25/26. For example, Federer just broke a long streak of players
>>> under 27 winning Slam titles. There have been other long such streaks
>>> throughout tennis history but that was one of the longest.
>>>
>>> So, what does that all have to do with Fed and Sampras? I'm trying to
>>> compare the quality of players in each of their respective
>>> generations. As is plainly obvious by the record, Sampras' generation
>>> excelled over a long period of time and not only because of the
>>> greatness of Sampras and Agassi. Rafter won the U.S. Open in 97 and 98
>>> when members of the next generation should've been at peak. Ivanisevic
>>> and Rafter squared off in the 2001 Wimby final when both of those
>>> Sampras generation guys were well past peak. Agassi even outdid
>>> Connors in terms of how long he was able to win big titles. That's
>>> what I meant by *pouncing*. I'm taking it as somewhat of a given that
>>> there's little anyone could've done to stop Sampras and Fed from
>>> winning big-time when at peak. But the ? is what happens after they
>>> fall down a bit. Do other guys from their own generation pick up the
>>> scraps or does the new generation just start mopping up everything?
>>>
>>> The record shows that when Sampras fell down a bit, no one from the
>>> next generation was able to capitalize at USO/Wimbledon. In Fed's
>>> case, I admit that we don't know yet what will happen but if Roddick,
>>> Davydenko, Hewitt, Safin, Nalby, don't step up to take advantage of
>>> Fed's decline I think his generation as a whole will be judged poorly
>>> by historical standards.
>>>
>>> BUT, I grant that Javier made a good point, this is all subjective.
>>> There are other ways to explain the results. Maybe the generation
>>> after Sampras' (Henman, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya) was just weak and
>>> that's why Agassi was still racking up Slams at age 31. Maybe Murray
>>> and Nadal and Djoke are really strong and that's why Roddick, Nalby,
>>> etc seem to have been passed by.
>>>
>>> I guess the point of all this mini thesis :-) is that there is enough
>>> evidence in terms of results for us to cast some doubt on Fed's
>>> dominance. If his generation was relatively weak (and I'm hardly the
>>> only one to hold this view) then maybe that had something to do with
>>> the fact he won 3 Slams in three different years. Maybe if he were in
>>> a strong generation he never would've done better than 2. I'll admit
>>> I'll never be able to convince Fed fans of that.
>>>
>>> But I think if Fed's generation continues to perform poorly against
>>> the next generation (by the way, only 1 MS event and 1 Slam won last
>>> year by Fed's gen) and Fed's record against the guys who are likely
>>> the two best players from the next generation continues to be a losing
>>> one, then there's absolutely no way we can call Fed goat now.
>>>
>>> At the very least, we need to say that Fed *could* have benefited from
>>> a slight lull in competition while Nadal's generation was coming into
>>> form. So we can't be giving him bonus points for dominance and sending
>>> him past Sampras when Pete's ahead of him in total Slams, total weeks
>>> at No. 1, total Wimbledons, etc.
>>>
>>> If we're measuring goat-hood in terms of Slams (and obviously I'm
>>> restricting this only to Open Era) imho I'd go as far to say that even
>>> if they're tied at 14, they're still not tied. Fed with 15 Slams but 5
>>> Wimbledons, call it even. Fed with 15 Slams and 6 Wimbledons then
>>> Fed's goat.
>>
>>> - in terms of your definitions the way I see it is that as Sampras
>>> waned, Federer's generation did indeed step into the breach. Safin
>>> Hewitt, Nalbandian and JCF stepped in, just as you would imagine, and
>>> then what?
>>> The way you argue it, they quietly subsided and let Federer walk all
>>> over
>> **************************************************************************
>>> them. All of them. No fight, just let him win.Hmmm.... I
>>
>> that's exactly what happened. I remember back then sitting watching Fed
>> matches in disbelief at the lack of fight from his opponent. Canas and
>> Murray were the first two 'regular' players to crack this trait, huge
>> credit to those two for this, cos soon afterwards the gates started to
>> open and has made tennis much more interesting.
>>
>
> Congratulations on being one of the few having ability to notice that.
>
>
> Thomas Muster:
> "These players today...when they see Roger hit a few great shots they give
> up. They shouldn't be playing Roger...they should be plying tennis.
>

So what was Muster doing when he played Edberg ? He lost to him 10x and
even
lost to Edberg on clay. He should have taken his own advice during his own
playing
career....




  
Date: 14 Jan 2009 21:25:31
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
topspin wrote:
> - I would argue that, rather than say the 2000s are a weak era, they
> have a great case for being the strongest era ever.


Lol! Post of the day.


   
Date: 14 Jan 2009 11:48:53
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:496dbd9c$0$2635$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> topspin wrote:
>> - I would argue that, rather than say the 2000s are a weak era, they
>> have a great case for being the strongest era ever.
>
>
> Lol! Post of the day.

it is quite funny!




   
Date: 14 Jan 2009 13:15:10
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Whisper wrote:
> topspin wrote:
>> - I would argue that, rather than say the 2000s are a weak era, they
>> have a great case for being the strongest era ever.
>
>
> Lol! Post of the day.

It could be easily, and accurately, argued that late 90's and early
2000's was in fact a weak era...by listing birth years of great
champions. We would see that there was an unusually long gap after
Sampras&Agassi to times of Federer...10 years. Normally there would have
been a great champion in between.

But I will not bother to do the charts today. Maybe later.

--
"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: 14 Jan 2009 12:14:53
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:15:10 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Whisper wrote:
>> topspin wrote:
>>> - I would argue that, rather than say the 2000s are a weak era, they
>>> have a great case for being the strongest era ever.
>>
>>
>> Lol! Post of the day.
>
>It could be easily, and accurately, argued that late 90's and early
>2000's was in fact a weak era...by listing birth years of great
>champions. We would see that there was an unusually long gap after
>Sampras&Agassi to times of Federer...10 years. Normally there would have
>been a great champion in between.
>
>But I will not bother to do the charts today. Maybe later.


There is absolutely NO question that Sampras played in a weak era.

I think this era now is perhaps the toughest ever especially
considering the latest equipment and training. Very hard to dominate
today as anyone in the top 20 or 30 is capable of knocking off the top
5 and nobody would be the least bit surprised by it either.

Witness guys like Tsonga, Simone, Gulbis, Monfils, Del Potro chasing
guys like Nadal, Federer, Murray and Djokovic.

There was NEVER depth like that or even close to it in the Sampras
era.


     
Date: 15 Jan 2009 00:18:05
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:15:10 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> topspin wrote:
>>>> - I would argue that, rather than say the 2000s are a weak era, they
>>>> have a great case for being the strongest era ever.
>>>
>>> Lol! Post of the day.
>> It could be easily, and accurately, argued that late 90's and early
>> 2000's was in fact a weak era...by listing birth years of great
>> champions. We would see that there was an unusually long gap after
>> Sampras&Agassi to times of Federer...10 years. Normally there would have
>> been a great champion in between.
>>
>> But I will not bother to do the charts today. Maybe later.
>
>
> There is absolutely NO question that Sampras played in a weak era.
>
> I think this era now is perhaps the toughest ever especially
> considering the latest equipment and training. Very hard to dominate
> today as anyone in the top 20 or 30 is capable of knocking off the top
> 5 and nobody would be the least bit surprised by it either.
>
> Witness guys like Tsonga, Simone, Gulbis, Monfils, Del Potro chasing
> guys like Nadal, Federer, Murray and Djokovic.
>
> There was NEVER depth like that or even close to it in the Sampras
> era.

You are mixing concepts of the general level of the field and level
sharpest top.

Also, yes...Sampras DID benefit from that weak era in his latter
years...but in no way did he benefit as much as Federer did since weak
era was during Federer's early years and peak.

--
"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: 14 Jan 2009 23:33:00
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:15:10 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> topspin wrote:
>>>> - I would argue that, rather than say the 2000s are a weak era, they
>>>> have a great case for being the strongest era ever.
>>>
>>> Lol! Post of the day.
>> It could be easily, and accurately, argued that late 90's and early
>> 2000's was in fact a weak era...by listing birth years of great
>> champions. We would see that there was an unusually long gap after
>> Sampras&Agassi to times of Federer...10 years. Normally there would have
>> been a great champion in between.
>>
>> But I will not bother to do the charts today. Maybe later.
>
>
> There is absolutely NO question that Sampras played in a weak era.
>
> I think this era now is perhaps the toughest ever especially
> considering the latest equipment and training. Very hard to dominate
> today as anyone in the top 20 or 30 is capable of knocking off the top
> 5 and nobody would be the least bit surprised by it either.


I just proved to you more than 1 guy is winning 5 straight slams in this
era dumb ass - how come all these guys good enough to win aren't sharing
all the slams? Fuck you're getting dumber by the day.



>
> Witness guys like Tsonga, Simone, Gulbis, Monfils, Del Potro chasing
> guys like Nadal, Federer, Murray and Djokovic.


Idiot.


>
> There was NEVER depth like that or even close to it in the Sampras
> era.


You're just proving my case - this is the weakest era since MN v Evert
late 70's days.



 
Date: 13 Jan 2009 23:05:57
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 13 tammi, 22:07, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> First of all, my terminology. I've been referring to *generations* and
> *eras* A generation for me is typically a
> five-year period in tennis while an era spans roughly four
> generations. I'm using these terms in the way that Joe Ramirez uses
> them, a guy we can probably both agree is (was?) one of the more
> thoughtful posters in the is ng.
>
> So (a bit arbitrarily I admit but no great stretch) Sampras'
> generation also included Agassi, Courier, Chang, Martin, Rafter, etc,
> while his *era* included Becker, Edberg, etc from the previous
> generation, Flipper, Moya, Rios, Kafelnikov, Henman from the next
> generation and then Federer, Safin, Hewitt, etc from the generation
> after that.
> The record shows that when Sampras fell down a bit, no one from the
> next generation was able to capitalize at USO/Wimbledon.

Sampras remained Wimbledon king sure but he also struggled a lot more
at USO (and AO) at his latter years.


In Fed's
> case, I admit that we don't know yet what will happen but if Roddick,
> Davydenko, Hewitt, Safin, Nalby, don't step up to take advantage of
> Fed's decline I think his generation as a whole will be judged poorly
> by historical standards.

Well noone of Sampras' generation took an advantage of Sampras'
relatively lull year of 1998 (similar to Fed's 2008) and of newer
generation Moya / Rios / Rafter / Corretja all subcumbed to take year-
end #1 from Sampras. (I am counting Rafter in later generation as he
clearly was late-bloomer as he barely stayed in top50 pre 97 ).

1 Sampras, Pete USA 0 3915 4547 -632 3131 784 22
2 Rios, Marcelo CHI 8 3670 2317 1353 2920 750
23
3 Corretja, Alex ESP 9 3398 2275 1123 2759 639
24
4 Rafter, Patrick AUS -2 3315 3210 105 2464 851
26
5 Moya, Carlos ESP 2 3159 2508 651 2432 727
24
6 Agassi, Andre USA 116 2879 375 2504 2135 744
20
7 Henman, Tim GBR 10 2620 1929 691 1804 816
29
8 Kucera, Karol SLV 16 2579 1423 1156 1820 759
25
9 Rusedski, Greg GBR -3 2573 2617 -44 1849 724
25
10 Krajicek, Richard NED 1 2548 2299 249 1815 733
18

Very lull year for Sampras' gen. There is Agassi in top10 and if you
strech you can include Krajicek to same generation. Sampras did win
slam but noone of Sampras' generation won any supernines (Master
Series of 90:ies).

> BUT, I grant that Javier made a good point, this is all subjective.
> There are other ways to explain the results. Maybe the generation
> after Sampras' (Henman, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya) was just weak and
> that's why Agassi was still racking up Slams at age 31. Maybe Murray
> and Nadal and Djoke are really strong and that's why Roddick, Nalby,
> etc seem to have been passed by.

Henman - lite-lite Sampras.
Kafelnikov - he was great and had great peak play but was mentally
very suspect.
Rios, Moya - should have done better BUT they both had severe injury
problems (Moya 99-00 when he should have peaked, Rios practically had
to end his career with recurring back problems ).

What kind of "clown era" tags we would receive if suddenly Djokovic
and Murray would start two year injury circle (both have very similar
record to Rios, Moya ten years later)? That exactly what happened
1998.

> But I think if Fed's generation continues to perform poorly against
> the next generation (by the way, only 1 MS event and 1 Slam won last
> year by Fed's gen) and Fed's record against the guys who are likely
> the two best players from the next generation continues to be a losing
> one, then there's absolutely no way we can call Fed goat now.

Sampras still edges Fed with absolute numbers sure.

> At the very least, we need to say that Fed *could* have benefited from
> a slight lull in competition while Nadal's generation was coming into
> form. So we can't be giving him bonus points for dominance and sending
> him past Sampras when Pete's ahead of him in total Slams, total weeks
> at No. 1, total Wimbledons, etc.

Sampras benefitted from weak 97-98 a lot more. Suddenly of previous
era players.

Stich quitted..
Becker quitted (after strong 95-96).
Edberg quitted (well he was heading out of it anyway).
Agassi went hiatus 97.
Courier was spent force.
Muster went severely downhill after spring 97.
Ivanisevic had problems to enter in top10 after 1996.
Krajicek went into injuries.
Bruguera never won even a minor title after 1994. (though he climbed
back in top10 1997 with FO final).

Instead we had "flash in the pan" top10 players with all the kuceras,
lapenttis, bjorkmans etc.

> If we're measuring goat-hood in terms of Slams (and obviously I'm
> restricting this only to Open Era) imho I'd go as far to say that even
> if they're tied at 14, they're still not tied. Fed with 15 Slams but 5
> Wimbledons, call it even. Fed with 15 Slams and 6 Wimbledons then
> Fed's goat.

It was generally a good and well-though post from you but above you
contradict yourself. your quote: " > BUT, I grant that Javier made a
good point, this is all subjective." which reveals some doublestandard
stuff (especially when you seem to forget the relatively lullest era
of modern tennis (97-98)...and yes as weak as it is I do not buy the
clown era theory even for that weakish period.

And again had Fed lost two of his Wimb/USO's (even if the reason had
bee injury, or w/o, strange early round hiccup) to Roddick then we
absolutely never would have had any of these stupid "clown era"
theories here.

Fed has been lucky not to have any match decising physical issues in
his GS finals (or earlier rounds) - a'la Becker's thigh Wimb 91,
Edberg's stomatch AO 90, Lendl's cramps USO 83, Sampras' food digest
USO 92...eventhough statistically he should have had some of those
problems (he had his ankle problem at AO 06 where he struggled and
whole mono-theory *maybe* ruined his AO 08, along with these his only
usual occasional minor flu - which all have).


It is truly open era in attractive sport event. It is not
mathematically possible to have any kind of clown era as player pool
is bigger than ever (not just aussies or yankees with odd europeans in
the mix a'la early open era). There is no artificial restrictions on
tour (multiple tours/contracts which caused top players to skip slams
for money a'la 70:ies). We have no banned nations. =CDnstead of having
club players / 50y former champions in the slam draws (a'la 60/70:ies)
we have just but highly trained professional athletes. Some eye-candy
factor and some personality may be lost but that has happened at all
professional sport as things have gotten more serious.

.mikko



  
Date: 14 Jan 2009 19:09:25
From: john
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...

"MBDunc" <michaelb@mail.suomi.net > wrote in message
news:433ecc2b-25fd-422e-83d6-50d12a3b90ba@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On 13 tammi, 22:07, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> First of all, my terminology. I've been referring to *generations* and
> *eras* A generation for me is typically a
> five-year period in tennis while an era spans roughly four
> generations. I'm using these terms in the way that Joe Ramirez uses
> them, a guy we can probably both agree is (was?) one of the more
> thoughtful posters in the is ng.
>
> So (a bit arbitrarily I admit but no great stretch) Sampras'
> generation also included Agassi, Courier, Chang, Martin, Rafter, etc,
> while his *era* included Becker, Edberg, etc from the previous
> generation, Flipper, Moya, Rios, Kafelnikov, Henman from the next
> generation and then Federer, Safin, Hewitt, etc from the generation
> after that.
> The record shows that when Sampras fell down a bit, no one from the
> next generation was able to capitalize at USO/Wimbledon.

Sampras remained Wimbledon king sure but he also struggled a lot more
at USO (and AO) at his latter years.


In Fed's
> case, I admit that we don't know yet what will happen but if Roddick,
> Davydenko, Hewitt, Safin, Nalby, don't step up to take advantage of
> Fed's decline I think his generation as a whole will be judged poorly
> by historical standards.

Well noone of Sampras' generation took an advantage of Sampras'
relatively lull year of 1998 (similar to Fed's 2008) and of newer
generation Moya / Rios / Rafter / Corretja all subcumbed to take year-
end #1 from Sampras. (I am counting Rafter in later generation as he
clearly was late-bloomer as he barely stayed in top50 pre 97 ).

1 Sampras, Pete USA 0 3915 4547 -632 3131 784 22
2 Rios, Marcelo CHI 8 3670 2317 1353 2920 750
23
3 Corretja, Alex ESP 9 3398 2275 1123 2759 639
24
4 Rafter, Patrick AUS -2 3315 3210 105 2464 851
26
5 Moya, Carlos ESP 2 3159 2508 651 2432 727
24
6 Agassi, Andre USA 116 2879 375 2504 2135 744
20
7 Henman, Tim GBR 10 2620 1929 691 1804 816
29
8 Kucera, Karol SLV 16 2579 1423 1156 1820 759
25
9 Rusedski, Greg GBR -3 2573 2617 -44 1849 724
25
10 Krajicek, Richard NED 1 2548 2299 249 1815 733
18

Very lull year for Sampras' gen. There is Agassi in top10 and if you
strech you can include Krajicek to same generation. Sampras did win
slam but noone of Sampras' generation won any supernines (Master
Series of 90:ies).

> BUT, I grant that Javier made a good point, this is all subjective.
> There are other ways to explain the results. Maybe the generation
> after Sampras' (Henman, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya) was just weak and
> that's why Agassi was still racking up Slams at age 31. Maybe Murray
> and Nadal and Djoke are really strong and that's why Roddick, Nalby,
> etc seem to have been passed by.

Henman - lite-lite Sampras.
Kafelnikov - he was great and had great peak play but was mentally
very suspect.
Rios, Moya - should have done better BUT they both had severe injury
problems (Moya 99-00 when he should have peaked, Rios practically had
to end his career with recurring back problems ).

What kind of "clown era" tags we would receive if suddenly Djokovic
and Murray would start two year injury circle (both have very similar
record to Rios, Moya ten years later)? That exactly what happened
1998.

> But I think if Fed's generation continues to perform poorly against
> the next generation (by the way, only 1 MS event and 1 Slam won last
> year by Fed's gen) and Fed's record against the guys who are likely
> the two best players from the next generation continues to be a losing
> one, then there's absolutely no way we can call Fed goat now.

Sampras still edges Fed with absolute numbers sure.

> At the very least, we need to say that Fed *could* have benefited from
> a slight lull in competition while Nadal's generation was coming into
> form. So we can't be giving him bonus points for dominance and sending
> him past Sampras when Pete's ahead of him in total Slams, total weeks
> at No. 1, total Wimbledons, etc.

Sampras benefitted from weak 97-98 a lot more. Suddenly of previous
era players.

Stich quitted..
Becker quitted (after strong 95-96).
Edberg quitted (well he was heading out of it anyway).
Agassi went hiatus 97.
Courier was spent force.
Muster went severely downhill after spring 97.
Ivanisevic had problems to enter in top10 after 1996.
Krajicek went into injuries.
Bruguera never won even a minor title after 1994. (though he climbed
back in top10 1997 with FO final).

Instead we had "flash in the pan" top10 players with all the kuceras,
lapenttis, bjorkmans etc.

> If we're measuring goat-hood in terms of Slams (and obviously I'm
> restricting this only to Open Era) imho I'd go as far to say that even
> if they're tied at 14, they're still not tied. Fed with 15 Slams but 5
> Wimbledons, call it even. Fed with 15 Slams and 6 Wimbledons then
> Fed's goat.

It was generally a good and well-though post from you but above you
contradict yourself. your quote: " > BUT, I grant that Javier made a
good point, this is all subjective." which reveals some doublestandard
stuff (especially when you seem to forget the relatively lullest era
of modern tennis (97-98)...and yes as weak as it is I do not buy the
clown era theory even for that weakish period.

And again had Fed lost two of his Wimb/USO's (even if the reason had
bee injury, or w/o, strange early round hiccup) to Roddick then we
absolutely never would have had any of these stupid "clown era"
theories here.

Fed has been lucky not to have any match decising physical issues in
his GS finals (or earlier rounds) - a'la Becker's thigh Wimb 91,
Edberg's stomatch AO 90, Lendl's cramps USO 83, Sampras' food digest
USO 92...eventhough statistically he should have had some of those
problems (he had his ankle problem at AO 06 where he struggled and
whole mono-theory *maybe* ruined his AO 08, along with these his only
usual occasional minor flu - which all have).


It is truly open era in attractive sport event. It is not
mathematically possible to have any kind of clown era as player pool
is bigger than ever (not just aussies or yankees with odd europeans in
the mix a'la early open era). There is no artificial restrictions on
tour (multiple tours/contracts which caused top players to skip slams
for money a'la 70:ies). We have no banned nations. Ínstead of having
club players / 50y former champions in the slam draws (a'la 60/70:ies)
we have just but highly trained professional athletes. Some eye-candy
factor and some personality may be lost but that has happened at all
professional sport as things have gotten more serious.

.mikko


This is top notch analysis, Whispy and Jason take notes that all your craps
won't
make the grade compare to mikko's contribution above.




   
Date: 14 Jan 2009 10:38:01
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:09:25 +1100, "john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>
>"MBDunc" <michaelb@mail.suomi.net> wrote in message
>news:433ecc2b-25fd-422e-83d6-50d12a3b90ba@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>On 13 tammi, 22:07, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> First of all, my terminology. I've been referring to *generations* and
>> *eras* A generation for me is typically a
>> five-year period in tennis while an era spans roughly four
>> generations. I'm using these terms in the way that Joe Ramirez uses
>> them, a guy we can probably both agree is (was?) one of the more
>> thoughtful posters in the is ng.
>>
>> So (a bit arbitrarily I admit but no great stretch) Sampras'
>> generation also included Agassi, Courier, Chang, Martin, Rafter, etc,
>> while his *era* included Becker, Edberg, etc from the previous
>> generation, Flipper, Moya, Rios, Kafelnikov, Henman from the next
>> generation and then Federer, Safin, Hewitt, etc from the generation
>> after that.
>> The record shows that when Sampras fell down a bit, no one from the
>> next generation was able to capitalize at USO/Wimbledon.
>
>Sampras remained Wimbledon king sure but he also struggled a lot more
>at USO (and AO) at his latter years.
>

Wimbledon king ? Only because they "tailored" the grass bigtime for
his style of play.


>
> In Fed's
>> case, I admit that we don't know yet what will happen but if Roddick,
>> Davydenko, Hewitt, Safin, Nalby, don't step up to take advantage of
>> Fed's decline I think his generation as a whole will be judged poorly
>> by historical standards.
>
>Well noone of Sampras' generation took an advantage of Sampras'
>relatively lull year of 1998 (similar to Fed's 2008) and of newer
>generation Moya / Rios / Rafter / Corretja all subcumbed to take year-
>end #1 from Sampras. (I am counting Rafter in later generation as he
>clearly was late-bloomer as he barely stayed in top50 pre 97 ).
>
>1 Sampras, Pete USA 0 3915 4547 -632 3131 784 22
> 2 Rios, Marcelo CHI 8 3670 2317 1353 2920 750
>23
> 3 Corretja, Alex ESP 9 3398 2275 1123 2759 639
>24
> 4 Rafter, Patrick AUS -2 3315 3210 105 2464 851
>26
> 5 Moya, Carlos ESP 2 3159 2508 651 2432 727
>24
> 6 Agassi, Andre USA 116 2879 375 2504 2135 744
>20
> 7 Henman, Tim GBR 10 2620 1929 691 1804 816
>29
> 8 Kucera, Karol SLV 16 2579 1423 1156 1820 759
>25
> 9 Rusedski, Greg GBR -3 2573 2617 -44 1849 724
>25
> 10 Krajicek, Richard NED 1 2548 2299 249 1815 733
>18
>
>Very lull year for Sampras' gen. There is Agassi in top10 and if you
>strech you can include Krajicek to same generation. Sampras did win
>slam but noone of Sampras' generation won any supernines (Master
>Series of 90:ies).
>
>> BUT, I grant that Javier made a good point, this is all subjective.
>> There are other ways to explain the results. Maybe the generation
>> after Sampras' (Henman, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya) was just weak and
>> that's why Agassi was still racking up Slams at age 31. Maybe Murray
>> and Nadal and Djoke are really strong and that's why Roddick, Nalby,
>> etc seem to have been passed by.
>
>Henman - lite-lite Sampras.
>Kafelnikov - he was great and had great peak play but was mentally
>very suspect.
>Rios, Moya - should have done better BUT they both had severe injury
>problems (Moya 99-00 when he should have peaked, Rios practically had
>to end his career with recurring back problems ).
>
>What kind of "clown era" tags we would receive if suddenly Djokovic
>and Murray would start two year injury circle (both have very similar
>record to Rios, Moya ten years later)? That exactly what happened
>1998.
>
>> But I think if Fed's generation continues to perform poorly against
>> the next generation (by the way, only 1 MS event and 1 Slam won last
>> year by Fed's gen) and Fed's record against the guys who are likely
>> the two best players from the next generation continues to be a losing
>> one, then there's absolutely no way we can call Fed goat now.
>
>Sampras still edges Fed with absolute numbers sure.
>
>> At the very least, we need to say that Fed *could* have benefited from
>> a slight lull in competition while Nadal's generation was coming into
>> form. So we can't be giving him bonus points for dominance and sending
>> him past Sampras when Pete's ahead of him in total Slams, total weeks
>> at No. 1, total Wimbledons, etc.
>
>Sampras benefitted from weak 97-98 a lot more. Suddenly of previous
>era players.
>
>Stich quitted..
>Becker quitted (after strong 95-96).
>Edberg quitted (well he was heading out of it anyway).
>Agassi went hiatus 97.
>Courier was spent force.
>Muster went severely downhill after spring 97.
>Ivanisevic had problems to enter in top10 after 1996.
>Krajicek went into injuries.
>Bruguera never won even a minor title after 1994. (though he climbed
>back in top10 1997 with FO final).
>
>Instead we had "flash in the pan" top10 players with all the kuceras,
>lapenttis, bjorkmans etc.
>
>> If we're measuring goat-hood in terms of Slams (and obviously I'm
>> restricting this only to Open Era) imho I'd go as far to say that even
>> if they're tied at 14, they're still not tied. Fed with 15 Slams but 5
>> Wimbledons, call it even. Fed with 15 Slams and 6 Wimbledons then
>> Fed's goat.
>
>It was generally a good and well-though post from you but above you
>contradict yourself. your quote: "> BUT, I grant that Javier made a
>good point, this is all subjective." which reveals some doublestandard
>stuff (especially when you seem to forget the relatively lullest era
>of modern tennis (97-98)...and yes as weak as it is I do not buy the
>clown era theory even for that weakish period.
>
>And again had Fed lost two of his Wimb/USO's (even if the reason had
>bee injury, or w/o, strange early round hiccup) to Roddick then we
>absolutely never would have had any of these stupid "clown era"
>theories here.
>
>Fed has been lucky not to have any match decising physical issues in
>his GS finals (or earlier rounds) - a'la Becker's thigh Wimb 91,
>Edberg's stomatch AO 90, Lendl's cramps USO 83, Sampras' food digest
>USO 92...eventhough statistically he should have had some of those
>problems (he had his ankle problem at AO 06 where he struggled and
>whole mono-theory *maybe* ruined his AO 08, along with these his only
>usual occasional minor flu - which all have).
>
>
>It is truly open era in attractive sport event. It is not
>mathematically possible to have any kind of clown era as player pool
>is bigger than ever (not just aussies or yankees with odd europeans in
>the mix a'la early open era). There is no artificial restrictions on
>tour (multiple tours/contracts which caused top players to skip slams
>for money a'la 70:ies). We have no banned nations. Ínstead of having
>club players / 50y former champions in the slam draws (a'la 60/70:ies)
>we have just but highly trained professional athletes. Some eye-candy
>factor and some personality may be lost but that has happened at all
>professional sport as things have gotten more serious.
>
>.mikko
>
>
>This is top notch analysis, Whispy and Jason take notes that all your craps
>won't
>make the grade compare to mikko's contribution above.
>


 
Date: 13 Jan 2009 20:12:50
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 13, 12:07=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 13, 11:43=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13 Jan, 14:08, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 12, 4:24=A0pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 12 jan, 00:37, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 11, 6:22=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not s=
een before
> > > > > > > in tennis history, ie;
>
> > > > > > > 5 straight Wimbledons won
> > > > > > > 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> > > > > > > 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> > > > > > > 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> > > > > > > This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> > > > > > Exactly. end of story.
>
> > > > > I can see clown era arguments regarding Fed much sooner than rega=
rding
> > > > > Rafa, since in Fed's case there's an argument that the disappeara=
nce
> > > > > of serve and volley helps Roger on fast courts.
>
> > > > How does that argument work? Does it only help Roger but not all th=
e
> > > > others? Did all others prefer playing against other serve volleyers=
so
> > > > it didn't help them? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
>
> > > > Or are you saying players magically unlearnt to play serve volley j=
ust
> > > > so Roger could suddenly coast to one fast court title after another=
?
>
> > > > You can just as easily say Federer has been unlucky for not having =
had
> > > > the chance to play more serve volley himself. Perhaps he would have
> > > > won six Wimbledons in a row by now. Remember, Federer did win his
> > > > first Wimbledon title playing serve volley against another serve
> > > > volleyer in Phillipoussis. And quite convincingly I must say...
>
> > > Even if I accept your argument that it was impossible to effectively
> > > play serve and volley from 2004-onward at
> > > fast court Slams and that therefore even past greats like Sampras,
> > > Becker, Edberg, etc would've been at a severe
> > > disadvantage, we're still left with the question of Fed's immediate
> > > generation and how strong it was.
>
> > > I'm familiar with Fed's *defense*. If one player is racking up a
> > > million Slams then there are no Slams for anyone else in his
> > > generation to win. But if that group is strong, then they should be
> > > ready to pounce when Fed's level drops (last year). Instead, what I
> > > observed last year was Fed's generation unable to capitalize
> > > whatsoever on Fed's poor play to win hardly anything. Out of 15 big
> > > tournaments played, only 2 were won by players of Fed's generation
> > > (Denko at KB). We see Roddick repeatedly unable to do anything agains=
t
> > > Djoke/Murray. Davydenko handily beaten by Djoke in TMC final, etc.
> > > Safin did beat Djoke at Wimby, but that guy is such a flake that I
> > > don't think he's the one you want to use to prove that Fed's
> > > generation is strong.
>
> > > I guess you can respond that Fed's generation is now *old* and we
> > > can't expect them to beat 21 and 22 year olds from Nadal's generation=
.
> > > But if that's the case, then all arguments about Hewitt and Safin
> > > *matching up* so well with 29-year-old Pete need to go out the window=
.
> > > But I think we do need to expect more out of guys who are 26/27 years
> > > old. I know that's not typically a peak age for a tennis player, but
> > > surely it's not old either. Lendl was a dominant No. 1 at age 27.
> > > Laver won the Grand Slam at age 30/31. Connors won USO at 29/30, etc.
>
> > > So, I refuse to use *clown* era and I don't like the use of the term.
> > > And anyway, I think Fed's *era* is pretty good because it includes
> > > Nadal and Murray. But I don't rate his *generation* that high and I
> > > think the evidence of that is that they're doing very poorly against
> > > the next generation.
>
> > Well.....
>
> > Just how much 'pouncing' did Agassi, Krajcek, Philippousis, Rios,
> > Martin, Pioline, Ivanisevic, Rusedski, Hewitt, Safin, Rafter, Old
> > Uncle Tom Cobbley and all do after Sampras left in 2002. I think you
> > will find the grand total of 2 (count them) slams - Agassi and Safin.
> > I won't even begin talk about how Hewitt got annihilated at the USO by
> > Federer.
>
> OK, let me clarify what I'm talking about a bit more so we're not
> talking apples and oranges here.
>
> First of all, my terminology. I've been referring to *generations* and
> *eras* A generation for me is typically a
> five-year period in tennis while an era spans roughly four
> generations. I'm using these terms in the way that Joe Ramirez uses
> them, a guy we can probably both agree is (was?) one of the more
> thoughtful posters in the is ng.
>
> So (a bit arbitrarily I admit but no great stretch) Sampras'
> generation also included Agassi, Courier, Chang, Martin, Rafter, etc,
> while his *era* included Becker, Edberg, etc from the previous
> generation, Flipper, Moya, Rios, Kafelnikov, Henman from the next
> generation and then Federer, Safin, Hewitt, etc from the generation
> after that.
>
> Typically (and of course there are many exceptions to this) a
> generation will be at *peak* when its members are between the ages of
> 21-25/26. For example, Federer just broke a long streak of players
> under 27 winning Slam titles. There have been other long such streaks
> throughout tennis history but that was one of the longest.
>
> So, what does that all have to do with Fed and Sampras? I'm trying to
> compare the quality of players in each of their respective
> generations. As is plainly obvious by the record, Sampras' generation
> excelled over a long period of time and not only because of the
> greatness of Sampras and Agassi. Rafter won the U.S. Open in 97 and 98
> when members of the next generation should've been at peak. Ivanisevic
> and Rafter squared off in the 2001 Wimby final when both of those
> Sampras generation guys were well past peak. Agassi even outdid
> Connors in terms of how long he was able to win big titles. That's
> what I meant by *pouncing*. I'm taking it as somewhat of a given that
> there's little anyone could've done to stop Sampras and Fed from
> winning big-time when at peak. But the ? is what happens after they
> fall down a bit. Do other guys from their own generation pick up the
> scraps or does the new generation just start mopping up everything?
>
> The record shows that when Sampras fell down a bit, no one from the
> next generation was able to capitalize at USO/Wimbledon. In Fed's
> case, I admit that we don't know yet what will happen but if Roddick,
> Davydenko, Hewitt, Safin, Nalby, don't step up to take advantage of
> Fed's decline I think his generation as a whole will be judged poorly
> by historical standards.
>
> BUT, I grant that Javier made a good point, this is all subjective.
> There are other ways to explain the results. Maybe the generation
> after Sampras' (Henman, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya) was just weak and
> that's why Agassi was still racking up Slams at age 31. Maybe Murray
> and Nadal and Djoke are really strong and that's why Roddick, Nalby,
> etc seem to have been passed by.
>
> I guess the point of all this mini thesis :-) is that there is enough
> evidence in terms of results for us to cast some doubt on Fed's
> dominance. If his generation was relatively weak (and I'm hardly the
> only one to hold this view) then maybe that had something to do with
> the fact he won 3 Slams in three different years. Maybe if he were in
> a strong generation he never would've done better than 2. I'll admit
> I'll never be able to convince Fed fans of that.
>
> But I think if Fed's generation continues to perform poorly against
> the next generation (by the way, only 1 MS event and 1 Slam won last
> year by Fed's gen) and Fed's record against the guys who are likely
> the two best players from the next generation continues to be a losing
> one, then there's absolutely no way we can call Fed goat now.
>
> At the very least, we need to say that Fed *could* have benefited from
> a slight lull in competition while Nadal's generation was coming into
> form. So we can't be giving him bonus points for dominance and sending
> him past Sampras when Pete's ahead of him in total Slams, total weeks
> at No. 1, total Wimbledons, etc.
>
> If we're measuring goat-hood in terms of Slams (and obviously I'm
> restricting this only to Open Era) imho I'd go as far to say that even
> if they're tied at 14, they're still not tied. Fed with 15 Slams but 5
> Wimbledons, call it even. Fed with 15 Slams and 6 Wimbledons then
> Fed's goat

++ Personally, I still put Pete as Open Era GOAT... he's the man...
biggest game in slam finals, most slam wins and dominate at the 2
biggest slams (in my opinion) Wimbledon and USO, spanning 12 plus
years... the alternate figures are Laver and Borg and Federer in
whatever order you choose... the reasons for selecting one over the
other are so varied and relative as to almost defy analytic
quantification... Fed certainly is on the cusp of GOAT status, but the
hard work truly has begun for him as a historical figure... most
generations are blended... their are not clear cut fault lines within
tennis historically, generally speaking... add up the talented
champions Sampras and Federer faced (at the end of Federer's career)
and LIKELY there will be little in it either way... you dominate you
times from the developmental stages of your emerging prime through
your most pristine peak years and then hold on finding your best
tennis at critical junctures as your skills set is both diminished
(internal) and eclipsed (external)... Federer now begins the latter
stage of his career... let's see what he can do???

P


 
Date: 13 Jan 2009 12:07:56
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 13, 11:43=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 13 Jan, 14:08, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 4:24=A0pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 12 jan, 00:37, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 11, 6:22=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not see=
n before
> > > > > > in tennis history, ie;
>
> > > > > > 5 straight Wimbledons won
> > > > > > 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> > > > > > 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> > > > > > 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> > > > > > This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> > > > > Exactly. end of story.
>
> > > > I can see clown era arguments regarding Fed much sooner than regard=
ing
> > > > Rafa, since in Fed's case there's an argument that the disappearanc=
e
> > > > of serve and volley helps Roger on fast courts.
>
> > > How does that argument work? Does it only help Roger but not all the
> > > others? Did all others prefer playing against other serve volleyers s=
o
> > > it didn't help them? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
>
> > > Or are you saying players magically unlearnt to play serve volley jus=
t
> > > so Roger could suddenly coast to one fast court title after another?
>
> > > You can just as easily say Federer has been unlucky for not having ha=
d
> > > the chance to play more serve volley himself. Perhaps he would have
> > > won six Wimbledons in a row by now. Remember, Federer did win his
> > > first Wimbledon title playing serve volley against another serve
> > > volleyer in Phillipoussis. And quite convincingly I must say...
>
> > Even if I accept your argument that it was impossible to effectively
> > play serve and volley from 2004-onward at
> > fast court Slams and that therefore even past greats like Sampras,
> > Becker, Edberg, etc would've been at a severe
> > disadvantage, we're still left with the question of Fed's immediate
> > generation and how strong it was.
>
> > I'm familiar with Fed's *defense*. If one player is racking up a
> > million Slams then there are no Slams for anyone else in his
> > generation to win. But if that group is strong, then they should be
> > ready to pounce when Fed's level drops (last year). Instead, what I
> > observed last year was Fed's generation unable to capitalize
> > whatsoever on Fed's poor play to win hardly anything. Out of 15 big
> > tournaments played, only 2 were won by players of Fed's generation
> > (Denko at KB). We see Roddick repeatedly unable to do anything against
> > Djoke/Murray. Davydenko handily beaten by Djoke in TMC final, etc.
> > Safin did beat Djoke at Wimby, but that guy is such a flake that I
> > don't think he's the one you want to use to prove that Fed's
> > generation is strong.
>
> > I guess you can respond that Fed's generation is now *old* and we
> > can't expect them to beat 21 and 22 year olds from Nadal's generation.
> > But if that's the case, then all arguments about Hewitt and Safin
> > *matching up* so well with 29-year-old Pete need to go out the window.
> > But I think we do need to expect more out of guys who are 26/27 years
> > old. I know that's not typically a peak age for a tennis player, but
> > surely it's not old either. Lendl was a dominant No. 1 at age 27.
> > Laver won the Grand Slam at age 30/31. Connors won USO at 29/30, etc.
>
> > So, I refuse to use *clown* era and I don't like the use of the term.
> > And anyway, I think Fed's *era* is pretty good because it includes
> > Nadal and Murray. But I don't rate his *generation* that high and I
> > think the evidence of that is that they're doing very poorly against
> > the next generation.
>
> Well.....
>
> Just how much 'pouncing' did Agassi, Krajcek, Philippousis, Rios,
> Martin, Pioline, Ivanisevic, Rusedski, Hewitt, Safin, Rafter, Old
> Uncle Tom Cobbley and all do after Sampras left in 2002. I think you
> will find the grand total of 2 (count them) slams - Agassi and Safin.
> I won't even begin talk about how Hewitt got annihilated at the USO by
> Federer.

OK, let me clarify what I'm talking about a bit more so we're not
talking apples and oranges here.

First of all, my terminology. I've been referring to *generations* and
*eras* A generation for me is typically a
five-year period in tennis while an era spans roughly four
generations. I'm using these terms in the way that Joe Ramirez uses
them, a guy we can probably both agree is (was?) one of the more
thoughtful posters in the is ng.

So (a bit arbitrarily I admit but no great stretch) Sampras'
generation also included Agassi, Courier, Chang, Martin, Rafter, etc,
while his *era* included Becker, Edberg, etc from the previous
generation, Flipper, Moya, Rios, Kafelnikov, Henman from the next
generation and then Federer, Safin, Hewitt, etc from the generation
after that.

Typically (and of course there are many exceptions to this) a
generation will be at *peak* when its members are between the ages of
21-25/26. For example, Federer just broke a long streak of players
under 27 winning Slam titles. There have been other long such streaks
throughout tennis history but that was one of the longest.

So, what does that all have to do with Fed and Sampras? I'm trying to
compare the quality of players in each of their respective
generations. As is plainly obvious by the record, Sampras' generation
excelled over a long period of time and not only because of the
greatness of Sampras and Agassi. Rafter won the U.S. Open in 97 and 98
when members of the next generation should've been at peak. Ivanisevic
and Rafter squared off in the 2001 Wimby final when both of those
Sampras generation guys were well past peak. Agassi even outdid
Connors in terms of how long he was able to win big titles. That's
what I meant by *pouncing*. I'm taking it as somewhat of a given that
there's little anyone could've done to stop Sampras and Fed from
winning big-time when at peak. But the ? is what happens after they
fall down a bit. Do other guys from their own generation pick up the
scraps or does the new generation just start mopping up everything?

The record shows that when Sampras fell down a bit, no one from the
next generation was able to capitalize at USO/Wimbledon. In Fed's
case, I admit that we don't know yet what will happen but if Roddick,
Davydenko, Hewitt, Safin, Nalby, don't step up to take advantage of
Fed's decline I think his generation as a whole will be judged poorly
by historical standards.

BUT, I grant that Javier made a good point, this is all subjective.
There are other ways to explain the results. Maybe the generation
after Sampras' (Henman, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya) was just weak and
that's why Agassi was still racking up Slams at age 31. Maybe Murray
and Nadal and Djoke are really strong and that's why Roddick, Nalby,
etc seem to have been passed by.

I guess the point of all this mini thesis :-) is that there is enough
evidence in terms of results for us to cast some doubt on Fed's
dominance. If his generation was relatively weak (and I'm hardly the
only one to hold this view) then maybe that had something to do with
the fact he won 3 Slams in three different years. Maybe if he were in
a strong generation he never would've done better than 2. I'll admit
I'll never be able to convince Fed fans of that.

But I think if Fed's generation continues to perform poorly against
the next generation (by the way, only 1 MS event and 1 Slam won last
year by Fed's gen) and Fed's record against the guys who are likely
the two best players from the next generation continues to be a losing
one, then there's absolutely no way we can call Fed goat now.

At the very least, we need to say that Fed *could* have benefited from
a slight lull in competition while Nadal's generation was coming into
form. So we can't be giving him bonus points for dominance and sending
him past Sampras when Pete's ahead of him in total Slams, total weeks
at No. 1, total Wimbledons, etc.

If we're measuring goat-hood in terms of Slams (and obviously I'm
restricting this only to Open Era) imho I'd go as far to say that even
if they're tied at 14, they're still not tied. Fed with 15 Slams but 5
Wimbledons, call it even. Fed with 15 Slams and 6 Wimbledons then
Fed's goat.


 
Date: 13 Jan 2009 10:13:13
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 12, 3:24=A0pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 12 jan, 00:37, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 6:22=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > > Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen be=
fore
> > > > in tennis history, ie;
>
> > > > 5 straight Wimbledons won
> > > > 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> > > > 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> > > > 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> > > > This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> > > Exactly. end of story.
>
> > I can see clown era arguments regarding Fed much sooner than regarding
> > Rafa, since in Fed's case there's an argument that the disappearance
> > of serve and volley helps Roger on fast courts.
>
> How does that argument work? Does it only help Roger but not all the
> others? Did all others prefer playing against other serve volleyers so
> it didn't help them? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
>
> Or are you saying players magically unlearnt to play serve volley just
> so Roger could suddenly coast to one fast court title after another?
>
> You can just as easily say Federer has been unlucky for not having had
> the chance to play more serve volley himself. Perhaps he would have
> won six Wimbledons in a row by now. Remember, Federer did win his
> first Wimbledon title playing serve volley against another serve
> volleyer in Phillipoussis. And quite convincingly I must say...
>
> > But in Rafa's case, if baseline play is what it's all about and always
> > has been about on clay and if EVERYONE plays from the baseline and
> > that's what everyone works on every day their whole tennis lives, how
> > would you figure that the level of baseline play would magically drop
> > so that Rafa could just coast to one clay court title after another?
>
> That argument is as silly as the other, isn't it? What you could argue
> though is that Rafa may have benefited from the introduction of
> Luxillon, which helped his spin oriented game. Also the slowing down
> of the courts - in general - works more in his favour than in
> Federers.
>
> > Makes absolutely no sense.
>
> Clown era arguments never do, so don't make them.

Rafa does not play with Luxillon.

Rodjk #613


 
Date: 13 Jan 2009 08:43:06
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 13 Jan, 14:08, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 12, 4:24=A0pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 12 jan, 00:37, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 11, 6:22=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen =
before
> > > > > in tennis history, ie;
>
> > > > > 5 straight Wimbledons won
> > > > > 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> > > > > 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> > > > > 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> > > > > This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> > > > Exactly. end of story.
>
> > > I can see clown era arguments regarding Fed much sooner than regardin=
g
> > > Rafa, since in Fed's case there's an argument that the disappearance
> > > of serve and volley helps Roger on fast courts.
>
> > How does that argument work? Does it only help Roger but not all the
> > others? Did all others prefer playing against other serve volleyers so
> > it didn't help them? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
>
> > Or are you saying players magically unlearnt to play serve volley just
> > so Roger could suddenly coast to one fast court title after another?
>
> > You can just as easily say Federer has been unlucky for not having had
> > the chance to play more serve volley himself. Perhaps he would have
> > won six Wimbledons in a row by now. Remember, Federer did win his
> > first Wimbledon title playing serve volley against another serve
> > volleyer in Phillipoussis. And quite convincingly I must say...
>
> Even if I accept your argument that it was impossible to effectively
> play serve and volley from 2004-onward at
> fast court Slams and that therefore even past greats like Sampras,
> Becker, Edberg, etc would've been at a severe
> disadvantage, we're still left with the question of Fed's immediate
> generation and how strong it was.
>
> I'm familiar with Fed's *defense*. If one player is racking up a
> million Slams then there are no Slams for anyone else in his
> generation to win. But if that group is strong, then they should be
> ready to pounce when Fed's level drops (last year). Instead, what I
> observed last year was Fed's generation unable to capitalize
> whatsoever on Fed's poor play to win hardly anything. Out of 15 big
> tournaments played, only 2 were won by players of Fed's generation
> (Denko at KB). We see Roddick repeatedly unable to do anything against
> Djoke/Murray. Davydenko handily beaten by Djoke in TMC final, etc.
> Safin did beat Djoke at Wimby, but that guy is such a flake that I
> don't think he's the one you want to use to prove that Fed's
> generation is strong.
>
> I guess you can respond that Fed's generation is now *old* and we
> can't expect them to beat 21 and 22 year olds from Nadal's generation.
> But if that's the case, then all arguments about Hewitt and Safin
> *matching up* so well with 29-year-old Pete need to go out the window.
> But I think we do need to expect more out of guys who are 26/27 years
> old. I know that's not typically a peak age for a tennis player, but
> surely it's not old either. Lendl was a dominant No. 1 at age 27.
> Laver won the Grand Slam at age 30/31. Connors won USO at 29/30, etc.
>
> So, I refuse to use *clown* era and I don't like the use of the term.
> And anyway, I think Fed's *era* is pretty good because it includes
> Nadal and Murray. But I don't rate his *generation* that high and I
> think the evidence of that is that they're doing very poorly against
> the next generation.

Well.....

Just how much 'pouncing' did Agassi, Krajcek, Philippousis, Rios,
Martin, Pioline, Ivanisevic, Rusedski, Hewitt, Safin, Rafter, Old
Uncle Tom Cobbley and all do after Sampras left in 2002. I think you
will find the grand total of 2 (count them) slams - Agassi and Safin.
I won't even begin talk about how Hewitt got annihilated at the USO by
Federer.

And if you are going to compare eras I will just add my unshakeable
belief, from watching tennis since 1960, that Wimbledon in the 1990s
was competitively at its lowest ebb because of the decline of grass
court tournaments. Nothing will budge me from that opinion.


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 14:08:27
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 15, 8:01=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:32:51 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
>
>
>
>
>
> <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 15, 3:59=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
> >> Actually I think Sampras' legacy has in reality risen with Fed's
> >> succee. People have realized that with all the unreal succee Fed has
> >> had since 03 he is still trailing Sampras in key number
> >> gategories...Sampras had to be smt. extra special too.
>
> >> .mikko
>
> >The trouble is there have also been a lot of people in the tennis
> >world who
> >have anointed Fed the greatest ever without his having the numbers to
> >show for it - total Slams, total Wimbledons, a CGS, total weeks at No.
> >1, year-end No. 1s, etc.
>
> >Part of the reason for that was his short-term dominance and, while it
> >was impressive, I think it will be considered somewhat less so in
> >hindsight because the level of his competition in his peak years will
> >be regarded as relatively weak (no other great player), imo. That
> >would change, imo, if anyone from his group had a late-career surge
> >and proved themselves to be truly great, like Agassi did for Pete.
>
> >If Fed were getting lots of hype as maybe the 2nd best of Open Era,
> >that would be fine. But a lot of journalists and others just seemed to
> >lose all sense of perspective when it came to Fed. In my opinion,
> >that's because his game was more palatable to them (prettier, less
> >reliant on a huge serve than Pete was) and they *wanted* to think of
> >him as the game's greatest-ever player, whether that was true or not.
>
> Look pal nobody ever gave a shit about emersons record nor considered
> him the goat until madison avenue decided to make a big deal about
> winning the most slams to make pete a hero and lots of $$$$ out of it!
>
> consider all the goat discussions here in rst. is emerson ever
> mentioned ? NO ! why not ? he had the most slams ever and until
> recently was second.
>
> so fuck off. sampras has no claim to fame other than that. he sucked
> on clay. he was lame at tune ups. and they tailored the grass for him
> at wimbledon.
>
> roger is 10x the champions pete ever was.-

Of course, so I guess we can expect 140 Slams, 60 year-end No. 1s,
2,860 weeks at No. 1, etc.
out of hero Fed.



   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 21:22:45
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Jan 15, 8:01 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>>
>> roger is 10x the champions pete ever was.-
>
> Of course, so I guess we can expect 140 Slams, 60 year-end No. 1s,
> 2,860 weeks at No. 1, etc.
> out of hero Fed.
>



Math isn't Haze's strong point. He's pretty good at finger painting though.


 
Date: 13 Jan 2009 06:41:26
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 13, 9:14=A0am, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:
> Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > So, I refuse to use *clown* era and I don't like the use of the term.
> > And anyway, I think Fed's *era* is pretty good because it includes
> > Nadal and Murray. But I don't rate his *generation* that high and I
> > think the evidence of that is that they're doing very poorly against
> > the next generation.
>
> So you have generation A doing "poorly" against younger generation
> B. That could be evidence of A being a bad generation, B being a very goo=
d
> one, or any combination of both. Generation A could be good, but inferior=
to
> generation B. Generation B could be good, but not as good as A, making th=
e
> guys in A look very good (which I think happened in the 90's: Moya, Rios,
> Flipper, Kuerten, those are the guys that would be Nadal's generation to
> Sampras/Agassi/Rafter/etc.)

I've made very similar arguments myself. In the end, it's simply not
possible to prove which generation was
better and so I recognize it's a futile exercise trying to convince
anyone one way or the other.

However, there is the matter of historical legacy. And irrespective of
what the *truth* (which can never be agreed upon anyway), imo Fed's
generation will not be considered as strong as Sampras' due to
performance against the next generation, unless Roddick, Davydenko,
Nalbandian, Hewitt, etc. miraculously rise up and start winning big
tournaments . Is that fair or not? I don't know.

But I do think that it is relevant as a response to people who want to
anoint Fed the goat before his overall achievements trump Sampras.


  
Date: 13 Jan 2009 11:51:06
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Jason Catlin <jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 13, 9:14 am, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote:
>> Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > So, I refuse to use *clown* era and I don't like the use of the term.
>> > And anyway, I think Fed's *era* is pretty good because it includes
>> > Nadal and Murray. But I don't rate his *generation* that high and I
>> > think the evidence of that is that they're doing very poorly against
>> > the next generation.
>>
>> So you have generation A doing "poorly" against younger generation
>> B. That could be evidence of A being a bad generation, B being a very good
>> one, or any combination of both. Generation A could be good, but inferior to
>> generation B. Generation B could be good, but not as good as A, making the
>> guys in A look very good (which I think happened in the 90's: Moya, Rios,
>> Flipper, Kuerten, those are the guys that would be Nadal's generation to
>> Sampras/Agassi/Rafter/etc.)
>
> I've made very similar arguments myself. In the end, it's simply not
> possible to prove which generation was
> better and so I recognize it's a futile exercise trying to convince
> anyone one way or the other.



> However, there is the matter of historical legacy. And irrespective of
> what the *truth* (which can never be agreed upon anyway), imo Fed's
> generation will not be considered as strong as Sampras' due to
> performance against the next generation, unless Roddick, Davydenko,
> Nalbandian, Hewitt, etc. miraculously rise up and start winning big
> tournaments . Is that fair or not? I don't know.

I think the historical legacy angle won't be complete until we see how the
Nadal/Murray/Djoke/etc generation ends up. If they live up to the hype, you'd
have three players in the all-time list, and that would add some perspective
to the "Fed's generation is weak because they did poorly against next gen". Of
course you'll do poorly if the next gen is a bunch of all timers. If they do
not measure up to the hype, they'll be a bunch of wankers that got their asses
handed by another bunch of wankers.

> But I do think that it is relevant as a response to people who want to
> anoint Fed the goat before his overall achievements trump Sampras.

Fair point, and agree here (Fed is in a stellar position to take the GOAT
title, but the facts still fall on Sampras side)


 
Date: 13 Jan 2009 06:08:37
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 12, 4:24=A0pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 12 jan, 00:37, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 6:22=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > > Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen be=
fore
> > > > in tennis history, ie;
>
> > > > 5 straight Wimbledons won
> > > > 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> > > > 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> > > > 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> > > > This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> > > Exactly. end of story.
>
> > I can see clown era arguments regarding Fed much sooner than regarding
> > Rafa, since in Fed's case there's an argument that the disappearance
> > of serve and volley helps Roger on fast courts.
>
> How does that argument work? Does it only help Roger but not all the
> others? Did all others prefer playing against other serve volleyers so
> it didn't help them? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
>
> Or are you saying players magically unlearnt to play serve volley just
> so Roger could suddenly coast to one fast court title after another?
>
> You can just as easily say Federer has been unlucky for not having had
> the chance to play more serve volley himself. Perhaps he would have
> won six Wimbledons in a row by now. Remember, Federer did win his
> first Wimbledon title playing serve volley against another serve
> volleyer in Phillipoussis. And quite convincingly I must say...

Even if I accept your argument that it was impossible to effectively
play serve and volley from 2004-onward at
fast court Slams and that therefore even past greats like Sampras,
Becker, Edberg, etc would've been at a severe
disadvantage, we're still left with the question of Fed's immediate
generation and how strong it was.

I'm familiar with Fed's *defense*. If one player is racking up a
million Slams then there are no Slams for anyone else in his
generation to win. But if that group is strong, then they should be
ready to pounce when Fed's level drops (last year). Instead, what I
observed last year was Fed's generation unable to capitalize
whatsoever on Fed's poor play to win hardly anything. Out of 15 big
tournaments played, only 2 were won by players of Fed's generation
(Denko at KB). We see Roddick repeatedly unable to do anything against
Djoke/Murray. Davydenko handily beaten by Djoke in TMC final, etc.
Safin did beat Djoke at Wimby, but that guy is such a flake that I
don't think he's the one you want to use to prove that Fed's
generation is strong.

I guess you can respond that Fed's generation is now *old* and we
can't expect them to beat 21 and 22 year olds from Nadal's generation.
But if that's the case, then all arguments about Hewitt and Safin
*matching up* so well with 29-year-old Pete need to go out the window.
But I think we do need to expect more out of guys who are 26/27 years
old. I know that's not typically a peak age for a tennis player, but
surely it's not old either. Lendl was a dominant No. 1 at age 27.
Laver won the Grand Slam at age 30/31. Connors won USO at 29/30, etc.

So, I refuse to use *clown* era and I don't like the use of the term.
And anyway, I think Fed's *era* is pretty good because it includes
Nadal and Murray. But I don't rate his *generation* that high and I
think the evidence of that is that they're doing very poorly against
the next generation.


  
Date: 14 Jan 2009 06:11:50
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Jan 12, 4:24 pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12 jan, 00:37, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 11, 6:22 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before
>>>>> in tennis history, ie;
>>>>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
>>>>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>>>>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>>>>> 3 of 4 AO's won
>>>>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>>>> Exactly. end of story.
>>> I can see clown era arguments regarding Fed much sooner than regarding
>>> Rafa, since in Fed's case there's an argument that the disappearance
>>> of serve and volley helps Roger on fast courts.
>> How does that argument work? Does it only help Roger but not all the
>> others? Did all others prefer playing against other serve volleyers so
>> it didn't help them? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
>>
>> Or are you saying players magically unlearnt to play serve volley just
>> so Roger could suddenly coast to one fast court title after another?
>>
>> You can just as easily say Federer has been unlucky for not having had
>> the chance to play more serve volley himself. Perhaps he would have
>> won six Wimbledons in a row by now. Remember, Federer did win his
>> first Wimbledon title playing serve volley against another serve
>> volleyer in Phillipoussis. And quite convincingly I must say...
>
> Even if I accept your argument that it was impossible to effectively
> play serve and volley from 2004-onward at
> fast court Slams and that therefore even past greats like Sampras,
> Becker, Edberg, etc would've been at a severe
> disadvantage, we're still left with the question of Fed's immediate
> generation and how strong it was.
>
> I'm familiar with Fed's *defense*. If one player is racking up a
> million Slams then there are no Slams for anyone else in his
> generation to win. But if that group is strong, then they should be
> ready to pounce when Fed's level drops (last year). Instead, what I
> observed last year was Fed's generation unable to capitalize
> whatsoever on Fed's poor play to win hardly anything. Out of 15 big
> tournaments played, only 2 were won by players of Fed's generation
> (Denko at KB). We see Roddick repeatedly unable to do anything against
> Djoke/Murray. Davydenko handily beaten by Djoke in TMC final, etc.
> Safin did beat Djoke at Wimby, but that guy is such a flake that I
> don't think he's the one you want to use to prove that Fed's
> generation is strong.
>
> I guess you can respond that Fed's generation is now *old* and we
> can't expect them to beat 21 and 22 year olds from Nadal's generation.
> But if that's the case, then all arguments about Hewitt and Safin
> *matching up* so well with 29-year-old Pete need to go out the window.
> But I think we do need to expect more out of guys who are 26/27 years
> old. I know that's not typically a peak age for a tennis player, but
> surely it's not old either. Lendl was a dominant No. 1 at age 27.
> Laver won the Grand Slam at age 30/31. Connors won USO at 29/30, etc.
>
> So, I refuse to use *clown* era and I don't like the use of the term.
> And anyway, I think Fed's *era* is pretty good because it includes
> Nadal and Murray. But I don't rate his *generation* that high and I
> think the evidence of that is that they're doing very poorly against
> the next generation.



You're on fire! Top tier analysis.

Only downside is we now have to put up with banal Fedfucker
rebuttals.... : (



   
Date: 14 Jan 2009 19:24:07
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...

On 13-Jan-2009, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

>
> You're on fire! Top tier analysis.
>
> Only downside is we now have to put up with banal Fedfucker
> rebuttals.... : (

Somehow I don't think Jason is interested in your seduction attempts ;)


  
Date: 13 Jan 2009 11:14:54
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Jason Catlin <jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote:
> So, I refuse to use *clown* era and I don't like the use of the term.
> And anyway, I think Fed's *era* is pretty good because it includes
> Nadal and Murray. But I don't rate his *generation* that high and I
> think the evidence of that is that they're doing very poorly against
> the next generation.

So you have generation A doing "poorly" against younger generation
B. That could be evidence of A being a bad generation, B being a very good
one, or any combination of both. Generation A could be good, but inferior to
generation B. Generation B could be good, but not as good as A, making the
guys in A look very good (which I think happened in the 90's: Moya, Rios,
Flipper, Kuerten, those are the guys that would be Nadal's generation to
Sampras/Agassi/Rafter/etc.)

To take it to the extreme (ridiculously exaggerated examples for
emphasis? In your newsgroup? It's more likely than you think!), you could have a
generation A made of a bunch of, say, Agassi/Becker/Ivanisevic clones, and
generation B of Sampras clones. Generation B would shut down generation A,
even though generation A are supposedly great.

(what do you mean "what's your point"? I need a point to post in RST?
Rubbish!)


 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 13:25:32
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 12 jan, 09:25, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> john wrote:
> > "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:496a3e8b$0$2599$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> Raja wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote=
:
> >>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
> >>>>>> which he
> >>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that m=
ade
> >>>>>> up the
> >>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in thei=
r
> >>>>>> prime.
> >>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
> >>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
> >>>>> Agassi.
>
> >>>> Incorrect. =A0Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than F=
ederer
> >>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. =A0Also prevented Becker=
from
> >>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
> >>>> customer at his peak etc
> >>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams sho=
rt
> >>> of Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would
> >>> already be
> >>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from
> >>> McEnroe, all
> >>> of this at 22.
>
> >>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't sui=
t
> >>> me?
> >>> Why, color me surprised!
>
> >> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen befor=
e in
> >> tennis history, ie;
>
> >> 5 straight Wimbledons won
> >> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> >> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> >> 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> >> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> > In fact it is pretty poor eveidence for tennis clow era judging by the
> > players featured in
> > those finals certainly no Martins or Pioline types in those finals. =A0=
The 4
> > FO final had
> > the 2 best player of the time, =A05 Wimbledon also featured 3 of the be=
st
> > grass court player
> > of those five years. The only odd one out is AO where there was Bagman =
and
> > Gonzales
> > in the final but they are not disgrace compare to Johanson and Schutler
> > types. =A0Winning
> > GS against Pioline and Martin types is much better indication of clown
> > era....
>
> er, Martin pushed peak Agassi to 5 sets in USO final, even leading 2
> sets to 1. =A0When we look at how peak Fed did v very old Agassi in USO
> final I think you should be showing more respect to Mr Martin.

So Yzaga is GOAT material?


 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 13:24:12
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 12 jan, 00:37, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 11, 6:22=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen befo=
re
> > > in tennis history, ie;
>
> > > 5 straight Wimbledons won
> > > 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> > > 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> > > 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> > > This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> > Exactly. end of story.
>
> I can see clown era arguments regarding Fed much sooner than regarding
> Rafa, since in Fed's case there's an argument that the disappearance
> of serve and volley helps Roger on fast courts.

How does that argument work? Does it only help Roger but not all the
others? Did all others prefer playing against other serve volleyers so
it didn't help them? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Or are you saying players magically unlearnt to play serve volley just
so Roger could suddenly coast to one fast court title after another?

You can just as easily say Federer has been unlucky for not having had
the chance to play more serve volley himself. Perhaps he would have
won six Wimbledons in a row by now. Remember, Federer did win his
first Wimbledon title playing serve volley against another serve
volleyer in Phillipoussis. And quite convincingly I must say...

> But in Rafa's case, if baseline play is what it's all about and always
> has been about on clay and if EVERYONE plays from the baseline and
> that's what everyone works on every day their whole tennis lives, how
> would you figure that the level of baseline play would magically drop
> so that Rafa could just coast to one clay court title after another?

That argument is as silly as the other, isn't it? What you could argue
though is that Rafa may have benefited from the introduction of
Luxillon, which helped his spin oriented game. Also the slowing down
of the courts - in general - works more in his favour than in
Federers.

> Makes absolutely no sense.

Clown era arguments never do, so don't make them.


  
Date: 14 Jan 2009 05:16:00
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 14 tammi, 14:33, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

>
> You're just proving my case - this is the weakest era since MN v Evert
> late 70's days.

Didn't that era still feature peak Austin (USO 79, 81 + #1 briefly),
peak Evonne (Wimb 80 at his last hurrah) and not-yet-finished BJK?

Navratilova/Evert-pair record 1982- > even up to 1986 was just silly.

.mikko


 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:30:18
From:
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 12, 7:03=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > On 12 tammi, 13:36, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Jan 12, 8:25 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>> john wrote:
> >>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>>news:496a3e8b$0$2599$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >>>>>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Raja wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wr=
ote:
> >>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one=
in
> >>>>>>>>> which he
> >>>>>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers tha=
t made
> >>>>>>>>> up the
> >>>>>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in t=
heir
> >>>>>>>>> prime.
> >>>>>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nad=
al.
> >>>>>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1=
.
> >>>>>>>> Agassi.
> >>>>>>> Incorrect. =A0Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better tha=
n Federer
> >>>>>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. =A0Also prevented Bec=
ker from
> >>>>>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
> >>>>>>> customer at his peak etc
> >>>>>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams =
short
> >>>>>> of Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal wo=
uld
> >>>>>> already be
> >>>>>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from
> >>>>>> McEnroe, all
> >>>>>> of this at 22.
> >>>>>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't =
suit
> >>>>>> me?
> >>>>>> Why, color me surprised!
> >>>>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen be=
fore in
> >>>>> tennis history, ie;
> >>>>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
> >>>>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> >>>>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> >>>>> 3 of 4 AO's won
> >>>>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
> >>>> In fact it is pretty poor eveidence for tennis clow era judging by t=
he
> >>>> players featured in
> >>>> those finals certainly no Martins or Pioline types in those finals. =
=A0The 4
> >>>> FO final had
> >>>> the 2 best player of the time, =A05 Wimbledon also featured 3 of the=
best
> >>>> grass court player
> >>>> of those five years. The only odd one out is AO where there was Bagm=
an and
> >>>> Gonzales
> >>>> in the final but they are not disgrace compare to Johanson and Schut=
ler
> >>>> types. =A0Winning
> >>>> GS against Pioline and Martin types is much better indication of clo=
wn
> >>>> era....
> >>> er, Martin pushed peak Agassi to 5 sets in USO final, even leading 2
> >>> sets to 1. =A0When we look at how peak Fed did v very old Agassi in U=
SO
> >>> final I think you should be showing more respect to Mr Martin
> >> This tiresome old argument would have more validity if Agassi gave
> >> Federer tough matches all the time - however a quick look at their
> >> other matches over that period shows Federer beating Agassi
> >> convincingly with a couple of thrashings for good measure.
>
> >> 32-year-old Connors pushed peak McEnroe to five sets at the 1984 USO,
> >> so obviously at his peak Connors would have had no problem with
> >> Mac ...
>
> > Or better. 37y Connors beat peak Edberg (finalist in FO/Wimb and later
> > won YEC that year) in quick three sets at 1989 USO. So Edberg was
> > garbage compared to peak Connors?
>
> > .mikko
>
> So, as always we come down to what the actual record is irrespective how
> anybody feels about the subjective 'quality' of play.
>

Yes, and the record shows that Federer beat Agassi in those two USO
matches you keep going on about, which is all that matters.





  
Date: 13 Jan 2009 23:12:03
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> GS against Pioline and Martin types is much better indication of clown
>>>>>> era....
>>>>> er, Martin pushed peak Agassi to 5 sets in USO final, even leading 2
>>>>> sets to 1. When we look at how peak Fed did v very old Agassi in USO
>>>>> final I think you should be showing more respect to Mr Martin
>>>> This tiresome old argument would have more validity if Agassi gave
>>>> Federer tough matches all the time - however a quick look at their
>>>> other matches over that period shows Federer beating Agassi
>>>> convincingly with a couple of thrashings for good measure.
>>>> 32-year-old Connors pushed peak McEnroe to five sets at the 1984 USO,
>>>> so obviously at his peak Connors would have had no problem with
>>>> Mac ...
>>> Or better. 37y Connors beat peak Edberg (finalist in FO/Wimb and later
>>> won YEC that year) in quick three sets at 1989 USO. So Edberg was
>>> garbage compared to peak Connors?
>>> .mikko
>> So, as always we come down to what the actual record is irrespective how
>> anybody feels about the subjective 'quality' of play.
>>
>
> Yes, and the record shows that Federer beat Agassi in those two USO
> matches you keep going on about, which is all that matters.
>
>
>


So if Fed at age 35 gives the No.1 player a tough 5-setter at USO you
don't think this would be testament to his talent & that maybe he coulda
beaten him at his peak?



   
Date: 13 Jan 2009 12:45:23
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:12:03 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> GS against Pioline and Martin types is much better indication of clown
>>>>>>> era....
>>>>>> er, Martin pushed peak Agassi to 5 sets in USO final, even leading 2
>>>>>> sets to 1. When we look at how peak Fed did v very old Agassi in USO
>>>>>> final I think you should be showing more respect to Mr Martin
>>>>> This tiresome old argument would have more validity if Agassi gave
>>>>> Federer tough matches all the time - however a quick look at their
>>>>> other matches over that period shows Federer beating Agassi
>>>>> convincingly with a couple of thrashings for good measure.
>>>>> 32-year-old Connors pushed peak McEnroe to five sets at the 1984 USO,
>>>>> so obviously at his peak Connors would have had no problem with
>>>>> Mac ...
>>>> Or better. 37y Connors beat peak Edberg (finalist in FO/Wimb and later
>>>> won YEC that year) in quick three sets at 1989 USO. So Edberg was
>>>> garbage compared to peak Connors?
>>>> .mikko
>>> So, as always we come down to what the actual record is irrespective how
>>> anybody feels about the subjective 'quality' of play.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and the record shows that Federer beat Agassi in those two USO
>> matches you keep going on about, which is all that matters.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>So if Fed at age 35 gives the No.1 player a tough 5-setter at USO you
>don't think this would be testament to his talent & that maybe he coulda
>beaten him at his peak?

This is even better !

Galo Blanco, Jeremy Yzaga and George bastle beating Pete at a slam
when he *was* peak* !!!!



 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 07:08:48
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 11, 11:05=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> Raja wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote=
:
> >>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in=
which he
> >>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that m=
ade up the
> >>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in thei=
r prime.
> >>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
> >>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
> >>>>> Agassi.
>
> >>>> Incorrect. =A0Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than F=
ederer
> >>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. =A0Also prevented Becker=
from
> >>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
> >>>> customer at his peak etc
> >>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams sho=
rt of
> >>> Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would al=
ready be
> >>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from McE=
nroe, all
> >>> of this at 22.
>
> >>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't sui=
t me?
> >>> Why, color me surprised!
>
> >> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen befor=
e
> >> in tennis history, ie;
>
> >> 5 straight Wimbledons won
> >> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> >> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> >> 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> >> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> > It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly talent=
ed and
> > very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.
>
> > Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis pros=
are
> > off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential te=
nnis
> > pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say, sept=
ember
> > 2002.
>
> What if both Fed & Rafa win 15 slams - what's the odds the 2 goats just
> happen to be playing today?

What are the odds of having Chris and Martina at the same time?

Rodjk #613


 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 03:48:01
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 12 tammi, 13:36, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 12, 8:25=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > john wrote:
> > > "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > >news:496a3e8b$0$2599$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> > >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > >>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > >>>> Raja wrote:
> > >>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wro=
te:
> > >>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one =
in
> > >>>>>> which he
> > >>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that=
made
> > >>>>>> up the
> > >>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in th=
eir
> > >>>>>> prime.
> > >>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nada=
l.
> > >>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
> > >>>>> Agassi.
>
> > >>>> Incorrect. =A0Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than=
Federer
> > >>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. =A0Also prevented Beck=
er from
> > >>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
> > >>>> customer at his peak etc
> > >>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams s=
hort
> > >>> of Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal wou=
ld
> > >>> already be
> > >>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from
> > >>> McEnroe, all
> > >>> of this at 22.
>
> > >>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't s=
uit
> > >>> me?
> > >>> Why, color me surprised!
>
> > >> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen bef=
ore in
> > >> tennis history, ie;
>
> > >> 5 straight Wimbledons won
> > >> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> > >> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> > >> 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> > >> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> > > In fact it is pretty poor eveidence for tennis clow era judging by th=
e
> > > players featured in
> > > those finals certainly no Martins or Pioline types in those finals. =
=A0The 4
> > > FO final had
> > > the 2 best player of the time, =A05 Wimbledon also featured 3 of the =
best
> > > grass court player
> > > of those five years. The only odd one out is AO where there was Bagma=
n and
> > > Gonzales
> > > in the final but they are not disgrace compare to Johanson and Schutl=
er
> > > types. =A0Winning
> > > GS against Pioline and Martin types is much better indication of clow=
n
> > > era....
>
> > er, Martin pushed peak Agassi to 5 sets in USO final, even leading 2
> > sets to 1. =A0When we look at how peak Fed did v very old Agassi in USO
> > final I think you should be showing more respect to Mr Martin
>
> This tiresome old argument would have more validity if Agassi gave
> Federer tough matches all the time - however a quick look at their
> other matches over that period shows Federer beating Agassi
> convincingly with a couple of thrashings for good measure.
>
> 32-year-old Connors pushed peak McEnroe to five sets at the 1984 USO,
> so obviously at his peak Connors would have had no problem with
> Mac ...

Or better. 37y Connors beat peak Edberg (finalist in FO/Wimb and later
won YEC that year) in quick three sets at 1989 USO. So Edberg was
garbage compared to peak Connors?

.mikko


  
Date: 13 Jan 2009 06:03:22
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
MBDunc wrote:
> On 12 tammi, 13:36, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Jan 12, 8:25 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> john wrote:
>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:496a3e8b$0$2599$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> Raja wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>>>>>> which he
>>>>>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made
>>>>>>>>> up the
>>>>>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their
>>>>>>>>> prime.
>>>>>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>>>>>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>>>>>>>> Agassi.
>>>>>>> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
>>>>>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
>>>>>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
>>>>>>> customer at his peak etc
>>>>>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams short
>>>>>> of Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would
>>>>>> already be
>>>>>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from
>>>>>> McEnroe, all
>>>>>> of this at 22.
>>>>>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't suit
>>>>>> me?
>>>>>> Why, color me surprised!
>>>>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before in
>>>>> tennis history, ie;
>>>>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
>>>>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>>>>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>>>>> 3 of 4 AO's won
>>>>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>>>> In fact it is pretty poor eveidence for tennis clow era judging by the
>>>> players featured in
>>>> those finals certainly no Martins or Pioline types in those finals. The 4
>>>> FO final had
>>>> the 2 best player of the time, 5 Wimbledon also featured 3 of the best
>>>> grass court player
>>>> of those five years. The only odd one out is AO where there was Bagman and
>>>> Gonzales
>>>> in the final but they are not disgrace compare to Johanson and Schutler
>>>> types. Winning
>>>> GS against Pioline and Martin types is much better indication of clown
>>>> era....
>>> er, Martin pushed peak Agassi to 5 sets in USO final, even leading 2
>>> sets to 1. When we look at how peak Fed did v very old Agassi in USO
>>> final I think you should be showing more respect to Mr Martin
>> This tiresome old argument would have more validity if Agassi gave
>> Federer tough matches all the time - however a quick look at their
>> other matches over that period shows Federer beating Agassi
>> convincingly with a couple of thrashings for good measure.
>>
>> 32-year-old Connors pushed peak McEnroe to five sets at the 1984 USO,
>> so obviously at his peak Connors would have had no problem with
>> Mac ...
>
> Or better. 37y Connors beat peak Edberg (finalist in FO/Wimb and later
> won YEC that year) in quick three sets at 1989 USO. So Edberg was
> garbage compared to peak Connors?
>
> .mikko


So, as always we come down to what the actual record is irrespective how
anybody feels about the subjective 'quality' of play.

Thus Sampras is goat & there is nothing Fedfuckers can say to change
this fact.


 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 03:36:58
From:
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 12, 8:25=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> john wrote:
> > "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:496a3e8b$0$2599$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> Raja wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote=
:
> >>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
> >>>>>> which he
> >>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that m=
ade
> >>>>>> up the
> >>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in thei=
r
> >>>>>> prime.
> >>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
> >>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
> >>>>> Agassi.
>
> >>>> Incorrect. =A0Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than F=
ederer
> >>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. =A0Also prevented Becker=
from
> >>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
> >>>> customer at his peak etc
> >>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams sho=
rt
> >>> of Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would
> >>> already be
> >>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from
> >>> McEnroe, all
> >>> of this at 22.
>
> >>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't sui=
t
> >>> me?
> >>> Why, color me surprised!
>
> >> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen befor=
e in
> >> tennis history, ie;
>
> >> 5 straight Wimbledons won
> >> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> >> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> >> 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> >> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> > In fact it is pretty poor eveidence for tennis clow era judging by the
> > players featured in
> > those finals certainly no Martins or Pioline types in those finals. =A0=
The 4
> > FO final had
> > the 2 best player of the time, =A05 Wimbledon also featured 3 of the be=
st
> > grass court player
> > of those five years. The only odd one out is AO where there was Bagman =
and
> > Gonzales
> > in the final but they are not disgrace compare to Johanson and Schutler
> > types. =A0Winning
> > GS against Pioline and Martin types is much better indication of clown
> > era....
>
> er, Martin pushed peak Agassi to 5 sets in USO final, even leading 2
> sets to 1. =A0When we look at how peak Fed did v very old Agassi in USO
> final I think you should be showing more respect to Mr Martin

This tiresome old argument would have more validity if Agassi gave
Federer tough matches all the time - however a quick look at their
other matches over that period shows Federer beating Agassi
convincingly with a couple of thrashings for good measure.

32-year-old Connors pushed peak McEnroe to five sets at the 1984 USO,
so obviously at his peak Connors would have had no problem with
Mac ...








 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 03:30:58
From:
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 12, 2:40=A0am, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>
> news:YTxal.42166$%o3.37212@newsfe02.iad...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
> >> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>> It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly
> >>> talented and
> >>> very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.
>
> >>> Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis
> >>> pros are
> >>> off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential
> >>> tennis
> >>> pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say,
> >>> september
> >>> 2002.
>
> >>> BTW, nice dodge in sidestepping the "Nadal if no Federer > Agassi if
> >>> no Sampras, and just at 22" argument.
>
> >> Your dichotomy is entirely false. The contention is that a few out of
> >> the pool of potential pro's who came through are measurably inferior
> >> to those faced in another era. The weakness about which we talk is
> >> not evident outside the top 10, it is within the top 10. The guys who
> >> should have been challenging Federer simply were not particularly
> >> good players, or were players who never lived up to their potential.
> >> How is it that Federer has such a rotten record against the only 2
> >> players to emerge in his era who are likely to be remembered (Nadal
> >> and Murray)?
>
> > Didn't you used to stick the boot into Murray on a regular basis? Now
> > you're touting him, still slamless, as a player likely to be remembered=
.
>
> My criticism was based on his (at the time) unwillingness to address his
> fitness as urgently as was needed. I always said he had the talent to win
> slams, but his attitude was such that unless he changed dramatically he
> would probably fail. As it happens he has matured, is nowhere near as
> volatile on court and keeps his focus. The Murray of today is a very
> different proposition to the Murray of 12 months ago

No, you said before Wimbledon that he would never make the QF of a
slam - no qualifications




 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 00:56:56
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 12 tammi, 10:16, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > On 12 tammi, 07:05, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >>>>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>> Raja wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wro=
te:
> >>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one =
in which he
> >>>>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that=
made up the
> >>>>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in th=
eir prime.
> >>>>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nada=
l.
> >>>>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
> >>>>>>> Agassi.
> >>>>>> Incorrect. =A0Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than=
Federer
> >>>>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. =A0Also prevented Beck=
er from
> >>>>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
> >>>>>> customer at his peak etc
> >>>>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams s=
hort of
> >>>>> Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would =
already be
> >>>>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from M=
cEnroe, all
> >>>>> of this at 22.
> >>>>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't s=
uit me?
> >>>>> Why, color me surprised!
> >>>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen bef=
ore
> >>>> in tennis history, ie;
> >>>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
> >>>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> >>>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> >>>> 3 of 4 AO's won
> >>>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
> >>> It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly tale=
nted and
> >>> very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.
> >>> Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis pr=
os are
> >>> off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential =
tennis
> >>> pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say, se=
ptember
> >>> 2002.
> >> What if both Fed & Rafa win 15 slams - what's the odds the 2 goats jus=
t
> >> happen to be playing today?
>
> > At this point hypotetical. Fed is in tier1, Rafa in tier3.
>
> > And of course that has happened in the past.
>
> > Gonzo/Rosewall (both have wouldacouldashoulda GOAT claim)
>
> > Laver/Rosewall (Laver has strong GOAT claim, Rosewall has
> > wouldacouldashoulda GOAT claim).
>
> > Even the bunch Borg/Connors/Mac/Lendl could have easily produced three
> > players with GOAT claim with results slightly altered (now there is
> > Borg and three tier2 players).
>
> > Had Agassi won 2 more USO's with expense of Sampras =A0they both would
> > be in GOAT discussions (Sampras now tier1, Agassi bottom of tier2).
>
> > Greats seems to emerge in pairs. So it looks like it is more rule than
> > obscurity to have 2+ greats playing in the same era.
>
> > Probably too complicated to you...
>
> > .mikko
>
> I'm not convinced about this theory, having a quick look at:http://tennis=
28.com/slams/wins_birthyear.html
> ...And looking at birth years of players who got 5 or more slams.
>
> If you have a theory that they peak in pairs, I'd like to hear why this
> is so?

I do not have a reason. But in reality there has never been a great
player who has cakewalked his career without strong opposition/peer.
Peak Tilden was stopped by French Armada. Peak Gonzales had his hands
full with Hoad (briefly though). Peak Connors was stopped by Borg.
Peak Borg was stopped by Mac, Peak Lendl was stopped by Becker...etc.

Sampras managed regurlarly beat his strongest opposition (Becker/
Agassi/Courier) when it mattered and that is shown in his succee
meters. Similarly Peak Fed did same with Hewitt/Roddick/others but
then met very strong rival in a form of peak Nadal.

.mikko





 
Date: 11 Jan 2009 23:39:27
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On 12 tammi, 07:05, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> Raja wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote=
:
> >>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in=
which he
> >>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that m=
ade up the
> >>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in thei=
r prime.
> >>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
> >>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
> >>>>> Agassi.
>
> >>>> Incorrect. =A0Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than F=
ederer
> >>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. =A0Also prevented Becker=
from
> >>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
> >>>> customer at his peak etc
> >>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams sho=
rt of
> >>> Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would al=
ready be
> >>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from McE=
nroe, all
> >>> of this at 22.
>
> >>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't sui=
t me?
> >>> Why, color me surprised!
>
> >> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen befor=
e
> >> in tennis history, ie;
>
> >> 5 straight Wimbledons won
> >> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> >> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> >> 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> >> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> > It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly talent=
ed and
> > very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.
>
> > Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis pros=
are
> > off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential te=
nnis
> > pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say, sept=
ember
> > 2002.
>
> What if both Fed & Rafa win 15 slams - what's the odds the 2 goats just
> happen to be playing today?

At this point hypotetical. Fed is in tier1, Rafa in tier3.

And of course that has happened in the past.

Gonzo/Rosewall (both have wouldacouldashoulda GOAT claim)

Laver/Rosewall (Laver has strong GOAT claim, Rosewall has
wouldacouldashoulda GOAT claim).

Even the bunch Borg/Connors/Mac/Lendl could have easily produced three
players with GOAT claim with results slightly altered (now there is
Borg and three tier2 players).

Had Agassi won 2 more USO's with expense of Sampras they both would
be in GOAT discussions (Sampras now tier1, Agassi bottom of tier2).

Greats seems to emerge in pairs. So it looks like it is more rule than
obscurity to have 2+ greats playing in the same era.

Probably too complicated to you...

.mikko



  
Date: 12 Jan 2009 14:41:10
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:39:27 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
<michaelb@mail.suomi.net > wrote:

>On 12 tammi, 07:05, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> > Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> >>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >>>> Raja wrote:
>> >>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which he
>> >>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made up the
>> >>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their prime.
>> >>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>> >>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>> >>>>> Agassi.
>>
>> >>>> Incorrect.  Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
>> >>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record.  Also prevented Becker from
>> >>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
>> >>>> customer at his peak etc
>> >>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams short of
>> >>> Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would already be
>> >>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from McEnroe, all
>> >>> of this at 22.
>>
>> >>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't suit me?
>> >>> Why, color me surprised!
>>
>> >> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before
>> >> in tennis history, ie;
>>
>> >> 5 straight Wimbledons won
>> >> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>> >> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>> >> 3 of 4 AO's won
>>
>> >> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>>
>> > It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly talented and
>> > very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.
>>
>> > Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis pros are
>> > off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential tennis
>> > pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say, september
>> > 2002.
>>
>> What if both Fed & Rafa win 15 slams - what's the odds the 2 goats just
>> happen to be playing today?
>
>At this point hypotetical. Fed is in tier1, Rafa in tier3.
>
>And of course that has happened in the past.
>
>Gonzo/Rosewall (both have wouldacouldashoulda GOAT claim)
>
>Laver/Rosewall (Laver has strong GOAT claim, Rosewall has
>wouldacouldashoulda GOAT claim).
>
>Even the bunch Borg/Connors/Mac/Lendl could have easily produced three
>players with GOAT claim with results slightly altered (now there is
>Borg and three tier2 players).
>
>Had Agassi won 2 more USO's with expense of Sampras they both would
>be in GOAT discussions (Sampras now tier1, Agassi bottom of tier2).
>
>Greats seems to emerge in pairs. So it looks like it is more rule than
>obscurity to have 2+ greats playing in the same era.
>
>Probably too complicated to you...

Yes. Nothing strange with Fed/Nadal. And of course Nadal is far from
15 slams.



  
Date: 12 Jan 2009 10:16:09
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
MBDunc wrote:
> On 12 tammi, 07:05, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Raja wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which he
>>>>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made up the
>>>>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their prime.
>>>>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>>>>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>>>>>>> Agassi.
>>>>>> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
>>>>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
>>>>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
>>>>>> customer at his peak etc
>>>>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams short of
>>>>> Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would already be
>>>>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from McEnroe, all
>>>>> of this at 22.
>>>>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't suit me?
>>>>> Why, color me surprised!
>>>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before
>>>> in tennis history, ie;
>>>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
>>>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>>>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>>>> 3 of 4 AO's won
>>>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>>> It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly talented and
>>> very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.
>>> Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis pros are
>>> off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential tennis
>>> pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say, september
>>> 2002.
>> What if both Fed & Rafa win 15 slams - what's the odds the 2 goats just
>> happen to be playing today?
>
> At this point hypotetical. Fed is in tier1, Rafa in tier3.
>
> And of course that has happened in the past.
>
> Gonzo/Rosewall (both have wouldacouldashoulda GOAT claim)
>
> Laver/Rosewall (Laver has strong GOAT claim, Rosewall has
> wouldacouldashoulda GOAT claim).
>
> Even the bunch Borg/Connors/Mac/Lendl could have easily produced three
> players with GOAT claim with results slightly altered (now there is
> Borg and three tier2 players).
>
> Had Agassi won 2 more USO's with expense of Sampras they both would
> be in GOAT discussions (Sampras now tier1, Agassi bottom of tier2).
>
> Greats seems to emerge in pairs. So it looks like it is more rule than
> obscurity to have 2+ greats playing in the same era.
>
> Probably too complicated to you...
>
> .mikko
>

I'm not convinced about this theory, having a quick look at:
http://tennis28.com/slams/wins_birthyear.html
...And looking at birth years of players who got 5 or more slams.

If you have a theory that they peak in pairs, I'd like to hear why this
is so?



--
"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: 11 Jan 2009 22:33:29
From:
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 11, 11:05=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> > Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> >>> Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> Raja wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote=
:
> >>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in=
which he
> >>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that m=
ade up the
> >>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in thei=
r prime.
> >>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
> >>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
> >>>>> Agassi.
>
> >>>> Incorrect. =A0Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than F=
ederer
> >>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. =A0Also prevented Becker=
from
> >>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
> >>>> customer at his peak etc
> >>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams sho=
rt of
> >>> Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would al=
ready be
> >>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from McE=
nroe, all
> >>> of this at 22.
>
> >>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't sui=
t me?
> >>> Why, color me surprised!
>
> >> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen befor=
e
> >> in tennis history, ie;
>
> >> 5 straight Wimbledons won
> >> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> >> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> >> 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> >> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> > It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly talent=
ed and
> > very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.
>
> > Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis pros=
are
> > off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential te=
nnis
> > pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say, sept=
ember
> > 2002.
>
> What if both Fed & Rafa win 15 slams - what's the odds the 2 goats just
> happen to be playing today?

Something similar happened with Chris and Martina.....well in the
arguments at least.



 
Date: 11 Jan 2009 15:37:02
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 11, 6:22=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> > Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before
> > in tennis history, ie;
>
> > 5 straight Wimbledons won
> > 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> > 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> > 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> > This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> Exactly. end of story.

I can see clown era arguments regarding Fed much sooner than regarding
Rafa, since in Fed's case there's an argument that the disappearance
of serve and volley helps Roger on fast courts.

But in Rafa's case, if baseline play is what it's all about and always
has been about on clay and if EVERYONE plays from the baseline and
that's what everyone works on every day their whole tennis lives, how
would you figure that the level of baseline play would magically drop
so that Rafa could just coast to one clay court title after another?

Makes absolutely no sense.


  
Date: 12 Jan 2009 19:41:31
From: john
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...

"Jason Catlin" <jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:8c30a9f0-c78e-4128-8e74-065cb217e498@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 11, 6:22 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> > Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before
> > in tennis history, ie;
>
> > 5 straight Wimbledons won
> > 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> > 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> > 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> > This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> Exactly. end of story.

>I can see clown era arguments regarding Fed much sooner than regarding
>Rafa, since in Fed's case there's an argument that the disappearance
>of serve and volley helps Roger on fast courts.

Disappearance of serve and volley on fast courts came about when Wimbledon
slowed
down the grass court and also came about when players were getting stronger
and focus
more on their returning game. Sampras with his heavy serving game was still
dominating
in late 90s but when players like Hewitt emerged in early 2000 they bought
them much
better returning game, it was not all the sudden that Sampras' serve lost
its power but guys
were making more effective returns making life more difficult for serve and
volley players.
Hewitt himself had very good record against serve and volley types players,
he beat Rafter
3 times and was beating Rafter when Rafter was at his peak while he was
still a teenage.
Hewitt also completely owned Tim Henman and won 4 out of their last 5
matches against
Sampras. If serve and volley was a reliable grand slam winning tactic on
today's slower
grass court and hard court then I don't see why the game shifted towards
baseline oriented
game today. The serve and volley game was forced to disappear because of
the improvement
of the counter serve and volley game honed by first Hewitt and then by many
other players.
So your argument of saying Federer benefit from disappearance of s/v on fast
court is very
debatable.


>But in Rafa's case, if baseline play is what it's all about and always
>has been about on clay and if EVERYONE plays from the baseline and
>that's what everyone works on every day their whole tennis lives, how
>would you figure that the level of baseline play would magically drop
>so that Rafa could just coast to one clay court title after another?

>Makes absolutely no sense.




  
Date: 12 Jan 2009 00:48:53
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:37:02 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
<jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Jan 11, 6:22 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>> > Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before
>> > in tennis history, ie;
>>
>> > 5 straight Wimbledons won
>> > 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>> > 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>> > 3 of 4 AO's won
>>
>> > This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>>
>> Exactly. end of story.
>
>I can see clown era arguments regarding Fed much sooner than regarding
>Rafa, since in Fed's case there's an argument that the disappearance
>of serve and volley helps Roger on fast courts.
>
>But in Rafa's case, if baseline play is what it's all about and always
>has been about on clay and if EVERYONE plays from the baseline and
>that's what everyone works on every day their whole tennis lives, how
>would you figure that the level of baseline play would magically drop
>so that Rafa could just coast to one clay court title after another?
>
>Makes absolutely no sense.


no sense is what whisper nonsense is all about no sense.


 
Date: 11 Jan 2009 15:22:21
From:
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...

>
> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before
> in tennis history, ie;
>
> 5 straight Wimbledons won
> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.

Exactly. end of story.


 
Date: 11 Jan 2009 15:17:06
From:
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 10, 7:17=A0pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which =
he
> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made up =
the
> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their prime=
.

Agreed. Fed won most of his slams in the clown era when Rafa, Murray
and Nole were teens or barely 20, not in their peaks yet. As soon as
Rafa, Murray and Nole hit their peaks Fed was fucked and his dominance
ended.


 
Date: 11 Jan 2009 06:45:30
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 11, 4:29=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Raja wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in whi=
ch he
> >> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made =
up the
> >> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their pr=
ime.
>
> > Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
> > That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
> > Agassi.
>
> Incorrect. =A0Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federe=
r
> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. =A0

You just wrote the other day that Chang at peak was better than Agassi
when that suited your argument.

Or was that one of your *non-core* posts?


  
Date: 12 Jan 2009 05:39:40
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Jan 11, 4:29 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Raja wrote:
>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which he
>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made up the
>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their prime.
>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>>> Agassi.
>> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record.
>
> You just wrote the other day that Chang at peak was better than Agassi
> when that suited your argument.
>
> Or was that one of your *non-core* posts?



Chang at peak was a very brief period.


 
Date: 11 Jan 2009 12:33:01
From:
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
"Dr. GroundAxe" <groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk > writes:

> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
> which he won most of his slams.

Not really. The slightly past-his-prime Federer just isn't arsed about
the tuneups anymore. Recent events, even of no consequence, usually have
more weight, so newbs might easily fall into this tougher competition
trap.

> Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they
> were in their prime.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Roddick and Hewitt possessed 3 blue-chip titles amongst them. Murray,
Djokovic and Nadal have a grand total of one. And since it is HC season,
the latter group also has only one HC title combined. Despite hard courts
supposedly being the surface of preference for 2/3s of them.

The competion looks weaker than before. And as Federer is entering the
last, entry-fee laundering stage of his career, we're back at parity,
not quality.


 
Date: 11 Jan 2009 20:27:45
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which
> he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made
> up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in
> their prime.


Agree, but Murray is still finding his feet so it's not as tough as it
will be in a yr or so.



  
Date: 11 Jan 2009 22:28:11
From: john
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:4969bb96$0$2633$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which
>> he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made
>> up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in
>> their prime.
>
>
> Agree, but Murray is still finding his feet so it's not as tough as it
> will be in a yr or so.
>

Like Roddick was still looking for those 11 slams your predicted in 2003 ?
If Murray does not
deliver in the next few months he will become another member of the clown
brigade.... Roddick
was Sampras on steroid at end of USO 03 and what is he now Whisper ?




 
Date: 10 Jan 2009 16:40:32
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 10, 7:36=A0pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> > The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in whic=
h
> > he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that mad=
e
> > up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in th=
eir
> > prime.
>
> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed to
> acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.

oh really? so if Federer wins AO 2009, will we have any kind of
agreement?


  
Date: 11 Jan 2009 00:47:04
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
"wkhedr" <wkhedr@my-deja.com > wrote in message
news:5199e608-3545-4e1b-b5fd-7531b356e0c5@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 10, 7:36 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> > The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which
> > he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made
> > up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in
> > their
> > prime.
>
> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed to
> acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.

>>oh really? so if Federer wins AO 2009, will we have any kind of
agreement?<<

Oh if he pulls that out of his arse, I'll be worshipping him forever.




   
Date: 11 Jan 2009 04:48:03
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:47:04 GMT, "Stapler" <d@d.com > wrote:

>"wkhedr" <wkhedr@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:5199e608-3545-4e1b-b5fd-7531b356e0c5@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 10, 7:36 pm, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> > The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which
>> > he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made
>> > up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in
>> > their
>> > prime.
>>
>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed to
>> acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
>
>>>oh really? so if Federer wins AO 2009, will we have any kind of
>agreement?<<
>
>Oh if he pulls that out of his arse, I'll be worshipping him forever.
>


start warming up your tongue.


 
Date: 11 Jan 2009 00:36:07
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
"Dr. GroundAxe" <groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk > wrote in message
news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which
> he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made
> up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their
> prime.


Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed to
acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.



  
Date: 11 Jan 2009 18:06:32
From: john
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...

"Stapler" <d@d.com > wrote in message
news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> "Dr. GroundAxe" <groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which
>> he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made
>> up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in
>> their prime.
>
>
> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed to
> acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.

This is totally rubbish. If in the next few years we have another two or
three clay courter
emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are you guys
going to
say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on clay, the
greatest measure
of Nadal will be how he manage to achieve against those clay courter who can
beat him while
ignoring all his past achievement of winning a few FO. What Federer did in
2003-2007 was
he maximized his own talent and move himself a few notches above what was a
pretty even
field with likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, Safin and Nalbandian. What
made Federer different
to Nadal was Federer's ability to make almost any finals during his absolute
peak in those 4 years.
I just can't think any comments more ridiculus than the one posted above.
So should we judge
Lendl on his result after 1988, McEnroe after 1984, Wilander after 1988.
The greatest measure
of any player is how he manage to achieve in his whole career rather than
how he did in certain
period of time. How many slams and other record he/she hold at the end of
his/her career decide
his/her standing amongst the greats of the game.




   
Date: 11 Jan 2009 21:49:37
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
john wrote:
> "Stapler" <d@d.com> wrote in message
> news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which
>>> he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made
>>> up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in
>>> their prime.
>>
>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed to
>> acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
>
> This is totally rubbish. If in the next few years we have another two or
> three clay courter
> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are you guys
> going to
> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on clay,


er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?


    
Date: 11 Jan 2009 22:25:03
From: john
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> john wrote:
>> "Stapler" <d@d.com> wrote in message
>> news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they
>>>> were in their prime.
>>>
>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed
>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
>>
>> This is totally rubbish. If in the next few years we have another two or
>> three clay courter
>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are you
>> guys going to
>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on clay,
>
>
> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?

Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? We should strip
of all his
14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 out 5
times. I think
you would agree wholeheartedly....

You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, you can't take in the fact that
Hewitt beat Sampras because
he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. You can
continue to insist that Sampras
was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite hard court
and grass court means
Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. It is sad but true.




     
Date: 11 Jan 2009 22:33:18
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
john wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> john wrote:
>>> "Stapler" <d@d.com> wrote in message
>>> news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they
>>>>> were in their prime.
>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed
>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
>>> This is totally rubbish. If in the next few years we have another two or
>>> three clay courter
>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are you
>>> guys going to
>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on clay,
>>
>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
>
> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? We should strip
> of all his
> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 out 5
> times. I think
> you would agree wholeheartedly....
>
> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, you can't take in the fact that
> Hewitt beat Sampras because
> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. You can
> continue to insist that Sampras
> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite hard court
> and grass court means
> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. It is sad but true.
>
>


Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga on
grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would he
have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.

It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so no
age related excuses.

Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than happy
to accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.



      
Date: 11 Jan 2009 23:30:20
From: john
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:4969d904$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> john wrote:
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4969cec7$0$2638$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> john wrote:
>>>> "Stapler" <d@d.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:X9bal.5363$Es4.4736@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:6Uaal.18427$Sp5.3900@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
>>>>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if
>>>>>> they were in their prime.
>>>>> Pretty much agree. The greatest measure of Fed will be what he managed
>>>>> to acheive from 2008-2012 rather then what he did from 2003-2007.
>>>> This is totally rubbish. If in the next few years we have another two
>>>> or three clay courter
>>>> emerge and start winning FO by stopping Nadal winning FO then are you
>>>> guys going to
>>>> say 'oh, Nadal won FO because he was played in the clown era on clay,
>>>
>>> er, isn't this what you say about Hewitt v Sampras?
>>
>> Yes, Sampras was coward base on that logic right Whisper ? We should
>> strip of all his
>> 14 slams because none of them were against Hewitt who beat him 4 out 5
>> times. I think
>> you would agree wholeheartedly....
>>
>> You are still as ignorant as ever Whisper, you can't take in the fact
>> that Hewitt beat Sampras because
>> he was a better player on the day for that match in USO final. You can
>> continue to insist that Sampras
>> was not at his best but 4 out of 5 matches on Sampras favourite hard
>> court and grass court means
>> Hewitt had the game to trouble Sampras. It is sad but true.
>
>
> Ok, then you have to accept if Fed starts losing now to Murray/Raga on
> grass/HC slams then they had the game to trouble Fed & no way would he
> have won 13 slams if they were at peak at same age as he.

So do you accept losing USO 2000/2001 to Safin and Hewitt was a clear
indication
if those guys were born 10 years ago Sampras would not win 12 GS ? If your
answer
to that question is yes then I will say yes to the question you have posted
above. Somehow
I have the feeling you are pretty dumb and you will say yes because you have
the ability to
ignore the obvious and doing everything possbile to perform that perfect
blow job for pete.


>
> It's a pretty strong argument given Fed has only just turned 27 so no age
> related excuses.
>
> Somehow I don't think you'll agree to that, even though more than happy to
> accept it for Sampras at age 30 you hypocrite.

Sampras began to loss to Hewitt when he was a 28 years old multiple
Wimbledon champion
and was reigning GS champion while Hewitt was only 18. Once again truth
hurt when for
years the likes of Kuerten, Moya and Costa type could not do anything on
hard court.
>




 
Date: 11 Jan 2009 02:23:25
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which
> he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made
> up the competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in
> their prime.

Agree

--
"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: 11 Jan 2009 21:15:38
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
TT wrote:
> Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if
>> they were in their prime.
>
> Agree

You already post far too much, so the most predictable, redundant replies such
as this can be dispensed with.





   
Date: 11 Jan 2009 21:47:27
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
DavidW wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>> which he won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers
>>> that made up the competition would be chopped liver today even if
>>> they were in their prime.
>> Agree
>
> You already post far too much, so the most predictable, redundant replies such
> as this can be dispensed with.
>
>

Thanks for advice, but shouldn't you be wearing a silly hat and praising
7543 instead?


--
"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: 10 Jan 2009 16:20:46
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 10, 6:17=A0pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which =
he
> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made up =
the
> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their prime=
.

Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
Agassi.



  
Date: 11 Jan 2009 20:29:50
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Raja wrote:
> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which he
>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made up the
>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their prime.
>
> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
> Agassi.
>



Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
customer at his peak etc

This era is really very soft when you look at it objectively.



   
Date: 11 Jan 2009 12:58:52
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Raja wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which he
>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made up the
>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their prime.
>>
>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>> Agassi.
>>
>
>
>
> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
> customer at his peak etc

By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams short of
Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would already be
ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from McEnroe, all
of this at 22.

What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't suit me?
Why, color me surprised!


    
Date: 12 Jan 2009 05:46:29
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Raja wrote:
>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which he
>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made up the
>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their prime.
>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>>> Agassi.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
>> customer at his peak etc
>
> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams short of
> Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would already be
> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from McEnroe, all
> of this at 22.
>
> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't suit me?
> Why, color me surprised!


Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before
in tennis history, ie;

5 straight Wimbledons won
5 straight (& counting) USO's won
4 straight (& counting) FO's won
3 of 4 AO's won

This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.




     
Date: 12 Jan 2009 19:21:07
From: john
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:496a3e8b$0$2599$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Raja wrote:
>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>> which he
>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made
>>>>> up the
>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their
>>>>> prime.
>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>>>> Agassi.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
>>> customer at his peak etc
>>
>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams short
>> of Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would
>> already be
>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from
>> McEnroe, all
>> of this at 22.
>>
>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't suit
>> me?
>> Why, color me surprised!
>
>
> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before in
> tennis history, ie;
>
> 5 straight Wimbledons won
> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.

In fact it is pretty poor eveidence for tennis clow era judging by the
players featured in
those finals certainly no Martins or Pioline types in those finals. The 4
FO final had
the 2 best player of the time, 5 Wimbledon also featured 3 of the best
grass court player
of those five years. The only odd one out is AO where there was Bagman and
Gonzales
in the final but they are not disgrace compare to Johanson and Schutler
types. Winning
GS against Pioline and Martin types is much better indication of clown
era....




      
Date: 13 Jan 2009 17:18:08
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Jan 13, 7:45=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:12:03 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> GS against Pioline and Martin types is much better indication of =
clown
> >>>>>>> era....
> >>>>>> er, Martin pushed peak Agassi to 5 sets in USO final, even leading=
2
> >>>>>> sets to 1. =A0When we look at how peak Fed did v very old Agassi i=
n USO
> >>>>>> final I think you should be showing more respect to Mr Martin
> >>>>> This tiresome old argument would have more validity if Agassi gave
> >>>>> Federer tough matches all the time - however a quick look at their
> >>>>> other matches over that period shows Federer beating Agassi
> >>>>> convincingly with a couple of thrashings for good measure.
> >>>>> 32-year-old Connors pushed peak McEnroe to five sets at the 1984 US=
O,
> >>>>> so obviously at his peak Connors would have had no problem with
> >>>>> Mac ...
> >>>> Or better. 37y Connors beat peak Edberg (finalist in FO/Wimb and lat=
er
> >>>> won YEC that year) in quick three sets at 1989 USO. So Edberg was
> >>>> garbage compared to peak Connors?
> >>>> .mikko
> >>> So, as always we come down to what the actual record is irrespective =
how
> >>> anybody feels about the subjective 'quality' of play.
>
> >> Yes, and the record shows that Federer beat Agassi in those two USO
> >> matches you keep going on about, which is all that matters.
>
> >So if Fed at age 35 gives the No.1 player a tough 5-setter at USO you
> >don't think this would be testament to his talent & that maybe he coulda
> >beaten him at his peak?
>
> This is even better !
>
George bastle beating Pete at a slam
> when he *was* peak* !!!!-

OK, so now Pete's at *peak* at age 30. I don't think you want to see
Fed's results in 2012. They're not going
to look anything like what you got used to from 2004-2007, assuming
he's still playing.



       
Date: 14 Jan 2009 06:02:52
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:18:08 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
<jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Jan 13, 7:45 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:12:03 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>>>> GS against Pioline and Martin types is much better indication of clown
>> >>>>>>> era....
>> >>>>>> er, Martin pushed peak Agassi to 5 sets in USO final, even leading 2
>> >>>>>> sets to 1.  When we look at how peak Fed did v very old Agassi in USO
>> >>>>>> final I think you should be showing more respect to Mr Martin
>> >>>>> This tiresome old argument would have more validity if Agassi gave
>> >>>>> Federer tough matches all the time - however a quick look at their
>> >>>>> other matches over that period shows Federer beating Agassi
>> >>>>> convincingly with a couple of thrashings for good measure.
>> >>>>> 32-year-old Connors pushed peak McEnroe to five sets at the 1984 USO,
>> >>>>> so obviously at his peak Connors would have had no problem with
>> >>>>> Mac ...
>> >>>> Or better. 37y Connors beat peak Edberg (finalist in FO/Wimb and later
>> >>>> won YEC that year) in quick three sets at 1989 USO. So Edberg was
>> >>>> garbage compared to peak Connors?
>> >>>> .mikko
>> >>> So, as always we come down to what the actual record is irrespective how
>> >>> anybody feels about the subjective 'quality' of play.
>>
>> >> Yes, and the record shows that Federer beat Agassi in those two USO
>> >> matches you keep going on about, which is all that matters.
>>
>> >So if Fed at age 35 gives the No.1 player a tough 5-setter at USO you
>> >don't think this would be testament to his talent & that maybe he coulda
>> >beaten him at his peak?
>>
>> This is even better !
>>
>George bastle beating Pete at a slam
>> when he *was* peak* !!!!-
>
>OK, so now Pete's at *peak* at age 30. I don't think you want to see
>Fed's results in 2012. They're not going
>to look anything like what you got used to from 2004-2007, assuming
>he's still playing.


pete won 2 slams after that right ? so if he wasn't at peak Fed can
also win 2 or more at 30 and beyond and certainly a few more before so
kiss petes slam record goodbye !


      
Date: 12 Jan 2009 19:25:27
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
john wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:496a3e8b$0$2599$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Raja wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>>> which he
>>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made
>>>>>> up the
>>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their
>>>>>> prime.
>>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>>>>> Agassi.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
>>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
>>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
>>>> customer at his peak etc
>>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams short
>>> of Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would
>>> already be
>>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from
>>> McEnroe, all
>>> of this at 22.
>>>
>>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't suit
>>> me?
>>> Why, color me surprised!
>>
>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before in
>> tennis history, ie;
>>
>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>> 3 of 4 AO's won
>>
>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> In fact it is pretty poor eveidence for tennis clow era judging by the
> players featured in
> those finals certainly no Martins or Pioline types in those finals. The 4
> FO final had
> the 2 best player of the time, 5 Wimbledon also featured 3 of the best
> grass court player
> of those five years. The only odd one out is AO where there was Bagman and
> Gonzales
> in the final but they are not disgrace compare to Johanson and Schutler
> types. Winning
> GS against Pioline and Martin types is much better indication of clown
> era....
>
>


er, Martin pushed peak Agassi to 5 sets in USO final, even leading 2
sets to 1. When we look at how peak Fed did v very old Agassi in USO
final I think you should be showing more respect to Mr Martin.



       
Date: 12 Jan 2009 13:40:37
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:25:27 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>john wrote:
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:496a3e8b$0$2599$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> Raja wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>>>> which he
>>>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made
>>>>>>> up the
>>>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their
>>>>>>> prime.
>>>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>>>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>>>>>> Agassi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
>>>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
>>>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
>>>>> customer at his peak etc
>>>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams short
>>>> of Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would
>>>> already be
>>>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from
>>>> McEnroe, all
>>>> of this at 22.
>>>>
>>>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't suit
>>>> me?
>>>> Why, color me surprised!
>>>
>>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before in
>>> tennis history, ie;
>>>
>>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
>>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>>> 3 of 4 AO's won
>>>
>>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>>
>> In fact it is pretty poor eveidence for tennis clow era judging by the
>> players featured in
>> those finals certainly no Martins or Pioline types in those finals. The 4
>> FO final had
>> the 2 best player of the time, 5 Wimbledon also featured 3 of the best
>> grass court player
>> of those five years. The only odd one out is AO where there was Bagman and
>> Gonzales
>> in the final but they are not disgrace compare to Johanson and Schutler
>> types. Winning
>> GS against Pioline and Martin types is much better indication of clown
>> era....
>>
>>
>
>
>er, Martin pushed peak Agassi to 5 sets in USO final, even leading 2
>sets to 1. When we look at how peak Fed did v very old Agassi in USO
>final I think you should be showing more respect to Mr Martin.


my pig homer knows more about tennis than you do.


       
Date: 12 Jan 2009 19:51:36
From: john
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:496afe77$0$2634$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> john wrote:
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:496a3e8b$0$2599$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> Raja wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>>>> which he
>>>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that
>>>>>>> made up the
>>>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their
>>>>>>> prime.
>>>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>>>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>>>>>> Agassi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than
>>>>> Federer on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented
>>>>> Becker from becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly
>>>>> tough customer at his peak etc
>>>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams short
>>>> of Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would
>>>> already be
>>>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from
>>>> McEnroe, all
>>>> of this at 22.
>>>>
>>>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't suit
>>>> me?
>>>> Why, color me surprised!
>>>
>>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before
>>> in tennis history, ie;
>>>
>>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
>>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>>> 3 of 4 AO's won
>>>
>>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>>
>> In fact it is pretty poor eveidence for tennis clow era judging by the
>> players featured in
>> those finals certainly no Martins or Pioline types in those finals. The
>> 4 FO final had
>> the 2 best player of the time, 5 Wimbledon also featured 3 of the best
>> grass court player
>> of those five years. The only odd one out is AO where there was Bagman
>> and Gonzales
>> in the final but they are not disgrace compare to Johanson and Schutler
>> types. Winning
>> GS against Pioline and Martin types is much better indication of clown
>> era....
>
>
> er, Martin pushed peak Agassi to 5 sets in USO final, even leading 2 sets
> to 1. When we look at how peak Fed did v very old Agassi in USO final I
> think you should be showing more respect to Mr Martin.

Cherry picking Whisper. Agassi had 4 AO titles and clearly RA surface is
much better for
his game and even there he was thrashed by Federer in 2005 in 3. Fed beat
Agassi in USO
in a pro Agassi crowd so the better yardstick of how Federer would have done
against Agassi
is in a neutral venue like in AO. Sorry Martin and Pioline type are still
inferior competition
compare to Hewitt, Roddick, Safin or Djokovic, Martin and Pioline type are
clowns because
they were not capable of winning GS in their career... Show some respect for
the softcock game
of Hewitt who manage to beat the bazooka serving of Sampras in 4 out their 5
matches something
Agassi failed to do in his entire career, Hewitt also repeatedly humiliate
Rafter and Kafelnikov even
as a teenager.
>




     
Date: 11 Jan 2009 18:14:16
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Raja wrote:
>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which he
>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made up the
>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their prime.
>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>>>> Agassi.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
>>> customer at his peak etc
>>
>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams short of
>> Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would already be
>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from McEnroe, all
>> of this at 22.
>>
>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't suit me?
>> Why, color me surprised!
>
>
> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before
> in tennis history, ie;
>
> 5 straight Wimbledons won
> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
> 3 of 4 AO's won
>
> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.

It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly talented and
very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.

Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis pros are
off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential tennis
pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say, september
2002.

BTW, nice dodge in sidestepping the "Nadal if no Federer > Agassi if no
Sampras, and just at 22" argument.


      
Date: 12 Jan 2009 16:05:06
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Raja wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which he
>>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made up the
>>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their prime.
>>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>>>>> Agassi.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
>>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
>>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
>>>> customer at his peak etc
>>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams short of
>>> Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would already be
>>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from McEnroe, all
>>> of this at 22.
>>>
>>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't suit me?
>>> Why, color me surprised!
>>
>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before
>> in tennis history, ie;
>>
>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>> 3 of 4 AO's won
>>
>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly talented and
> very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.
>
> Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis pros are
> off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential tennis
> pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say, september
> 2002.
>


What if both Fed & Rafa win 15 slams - what's the odds the 2 goats just
happen to be playing today?


       
Date: 12 Jan 2009 09:50:56
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> Raja wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which he
>>>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made up the
>>>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their prime.
>>>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>>>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>>>>>> Agassi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
>>>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
>>>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
>>>>> customer at his peak etc
>>>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams short of
>>>> Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would already be
>>>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from McEnroe, all
>>>> of this at 22.
>>>>
>>>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't suit me?
>>>> Why, color me surprised!
>>>
>>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before
>>> in tennis history, ie;
>>>
>>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
>>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>>> 3 of 4 AO's won
>>>
>>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>>
>> It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly talented and
>> very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.
>>
>> Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis pros are
>> off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential tennis
>> pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say, september
>> 2002.
>>
>
> What if both Fed & Rafa win 15 slams - what's the odds the 2 goats just
> happen to be playing today?

According to your precious 7543, before the 90s you had the whole top 4 of the
open era minus Laver playing at the same time. What are the odds, again?

(btw, is 15 slams your current prediction for Nadal?)


        
Date: 13 Jan 2009 06:22:41
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Raja wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which he
>>>>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made up the
>>>>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their prime.
>>>>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>>>>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>>>>>>> Agassi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
>>>>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
>>>>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
>>>>>> customer at his peak etc
>>>>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams short of
>>>>> Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would already be
>>>>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from McEnroe, all
>>>>> of this at 22.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't suit me?
>>>>> Why, color me surprised!
>>>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before
>>>> in tennis history, ie;
>>>>
>>>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
>>>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>>>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>>>> 3 of 4 AO's won
>>>>
>>>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>>> It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly talented and
>>> very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.
>>>
>>> Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis pros are
>>> off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential tennis
>>> pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say, september
>>> 2002.
>>>
>> What if both Fed & Rafa win 15 slams - what's the odds the 2 goats just
>> happen to be playing today?
>
> According to your precious 7543, before the 90s you had the whole top 4 of the
> open era minus Laver playing at the same time. What are the odds, again?
>
> (btw, is 15 slams your current prediction for Nadal?)


The point is Rafa is only 22 & 15 slams would be the pinnacle slam
number in 140 yrs of tennis history - can anyone rule him out at this stage?

No one is game to say he won't win 3 or 4 more FO's, & if he's that good
he will automatically cash in some other slams too.



         
Date: 12 Jan 2009 16:59:19
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> Raja wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which he
>>>>>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made up the
>>>>>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their prime.
>>>>>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>>>>>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>>>>>>>> Agassi.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
>>>>>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
>>>>>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
>>>>>>> customer at his peak etc
>>>>>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams short of
>>>>>> Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would already be
>>>>>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from McEnroe, all
>>>>>> of this at 22.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't suit me?
>>>>>> Why, color me surprised!
>>>>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before
>>>>> in tennis history, ie;
>>>>>
>>>>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
>>>>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>>>>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>>>>> 3 of 4 AO's won
>>>>>
>>>>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>>>> It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly talented and
>>>> very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.
>>>>
>>>> Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis pros are
>>>> off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential tennis
>>>> pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say, september
>>>> 2002.
>>>>
>>> What if both Fed & Rafa win 15 slams - what's the odds the 2 goats just
>>> happen to be playing today?
>>
>> According to your precious 7543, before the 90s you had the whole top 4 of the
>> open era minus Laver playing at the same time. What are the odds, again?
>>
>> (btw, is 15 slams your current prediction for Nadal?)
>
>
> The point is Rafa is only 22 & 15 slams would be the pinnacle slam
> number in 140 yrs of tennis history - can anyone rule him out at this stage?
>
> No one is game to say he won't win 3 or 4 more FO's, & if he's that good
> he will automatically cash in some other slams too.

No, the point is that the "unconceivable" situation you painted before (two
all-time greats duking it out at the same time) has already happened before.
The 15 slams for Nadal is an afterthought. But of course, you focused on that
and dogded the point.


        
Date: 12 Jan 2009 15:25:10
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:50:56 -0300, Javier Gonzalez
<ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com > wrote:

>Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Raja wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which he
>>>>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made up the
>>>>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their prime.
>>>>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>>>>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>>>>>>> Agassi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
>>>>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
>>>>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
>>>>>> customer at his peak etc
>>>>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams short of
>>>>> Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would already be
>>>>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from McEnroe, all
>>>>> of this at 22.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't suit me?
>>>>> Why, color me surprised!
>>>>
>>>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before
>>>> in tennis history, ie;
>>>>
>>>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
>>>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>>>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>>>> 3 of 4 AO's won
>>>>
>>>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>>>
>>> It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly talented and
>>> very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.
>>>
>>> Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis pros are
>>> off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential tennis
>>> pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say, september
>>> 2002.
>>>
>>
>> What if both Fed & Rafa win 15 slams - what's the odds the 2 goats just
>> happen to be playing today?
>
>According to your precious 7543, before the 90s you had the whole top 4 of the
>open era minus Laver playing at the same time. What are the odds, again?
>
>(btw, is 15 slams your current prediction for Nadal?)

And Federer? :-)


       
Date: 12 Jan 2009 07:29:20
From: TT
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Whisper wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> Raja wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one
>>>>>>> in which he
>>>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that
>>>>>>> made up the
>>>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in
>>>>>>> their prime.
>>>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>>>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>>>>>> Agassi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than
>>>>> Federer on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented
>>>>> Becker from becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was
>>>>> incredibly tough customer at his peak etc
>>>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams
>>>> short of Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer,
>>>> Nadal would already be
>>>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from
>>>> McEnroe, all
>>>> of this at 22.
>>>>
>>>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't
>>>> suit me?
>>>> Why, color me surprised!
>>>
>>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen
>>> before in tennis history, ie;
>>>
>>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
>>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>>> 3 of 4 AO's won
>>>
>>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>>
>> It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly
>> talented and
>> very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.
>>
>> Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis
>> pros are
>> off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential
>> tennis
>> pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say,
>> september
>> 2002.
>>
>
>
> What if both Fed & Rafa win 15 slams - what's the odds the 2 goats just
> happen to be playing today?

Rather minimal odds. Then again 15 majors is not enough for instant goat
status.
Odds that 2 best players since 1970 play each other other at the same
era are considerably higher, especially since their careers have an
overlap only.

--
"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: 12 Jan 2009 01:35:11
From: Dr. GroundAxe
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...

"Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com > wrote in message
news:824q36-5oh.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Raja wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>>> which he
>>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made
>>>>>> up the
>>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their
>>>>>> prime.
>>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>>>>> Agassi.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than
>>>> Federer
>>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
>>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
>>>> customer at his peak etc
>>>
>>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams short
>>> of
>>> Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would
>>> already be
>>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from
>>> McEnroe, all
>>> of this at 22.
>>>
>>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't suit
>>> me?
>>> Why, color me surprised!
>>
>>
>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before
>> in tennis history, ie;
>>
>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>> 3 of 4 AO's won
>>
>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>
> It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly talented
> and
> very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.
>
> Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis pros
> are
> off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential
> tennis
> pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say,
> september
> 2002.
>
> BTW, nice dodge in sidestepping the "Nadal if no Federer > Agassi if no
> Sampras, and just at 22" argument.

Your dichotomy is entirely false. The contention is that a few out of the
pool of potential pro's who came through are measurably inferior to those
faced in another era. The weakness about which we talk is not evident
outside the top 10, it is within the top 10. The guys who should have been
challenging Federer simply were not particularly good players, or were
players who never lived up to their potential. How is it that Federer has
such a rotten record against the only 2 players to emerge in his era who are
likely to be remembered (Nadal and Murray)? What's that, don't think one
slam winners like Roddick and Djokovic will be forgotten in a hurry? I give
you Hewitt and Safin and Gaudio as examples that winning a slam or two
doesn't keep you on the radar long if you do bugger all else for several
years thereafter.



       
Date: 12 Jan 2009 00:03:29
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Dr. GroundAxe <groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
>
> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
> news:824q36-5oh.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> Raja wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in
>>>>>>> which he
>>>>>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made
>>>>>>> up the
>>>>>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their
>>>>>>> prime.
>>>>>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>>>>>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>>>>>> Agassi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than
>>>>> Federer
>>>>> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
>>>>> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
>>>>> customer at his peak etc
>>>>
>>>> By the same token, Federer has prevented Nadal from being 4 slams short
>>>> of
>>>> Borg's record at just 22. If fact, if not for Federer, Nadal would
>>>> already be
>>>> ahead of Agassi in your precious 7543 and 1 non-AO slam away from
>>>> McEnroe, all
>>>> of this at 22.
>>>>
>>>> What is it I hear? I refuse to apply my own logic when it doesn't suit
>>>> me?
>>>> Why, color me surprised!
>>>
>>>
>>> Since 2003 we have seen some extraordinary slam streaks not seen before
>>> in tennis history, ie;
>>>
>>> 5 straight Wimbledons won
>>> 5 straight (& counting) USO's won
>>> 4 straight (& counting) FO's won
>>> 3 of 4 AO's won
>>>
>>> This is good evidence for a tennis clown era.
>>
>> It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly talented
>> and
>> very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.
>>
>> Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis pros
>> are
>> off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential
>> tennis
>> pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say,
>> september
>> 2002.
>>
>> BTW, nice dodge in sidestepping the "Nadal if no Federer > Agassi if no
>> Sampras, and just at 22" argument.
>
> Your dichotomy is entirely false. The contention is that a few out of the
> pool of potential pro's who came through are measurably inferior to those
> faced in another era. The weakness about which we talk is not evident
> outside the top 10, it is within the top 10. The guys who should have been
> challenging Federer simply were not particularly good players, or were
> players who never lived up to their potential.

Whoa, somebody get me a golf cart to chase those goalposts...

> How is it that Federer has
> such a rotten record against the only 2 players to emerge in his era who are
> likely to be remembered (Nadal and Murray)?

Nadal he has met mostly on his best surface, is younger, and has strengths
that play very well to his weaknesses. Nine out of twelve Nadal victories have
been on clay. If Federer was a worse claycourter (did not reach as many clay
finals) he'd have a better record.

Murray also plays very well to Federer's weaknesses. I could also trot out the
Whisper "tuneups" excuse, which is what he uses for Krajicek's positive h2h vs
Sampras, but that would be bullshit. Also, see below.

> What's that, don't think one
> slam winners like Roddick and Djokovic will be forgotten in a hurry? I give
> you Hewitt and Safin and Gaudio as examples that winning a slam or two
> doesn't keep you on the radar long if you do bugger all else for several
> years thereafter.

First: Winning a slam or two doesn't keep you on the radar long, but we're
likely to remember Murray? What, the completely useless player now it's good
for more than one or two slams? Right, it's "Murray bandwagon" week for you.

Safin forgotten? ROFL! Dude, are you for real? Safin's celebrity goes further
than his results, like Agassi's - Sampras was the better player, but Agassi
got the better fame/rockstar treatment. Guy could be playing challengers, and
we'd still be seeing press about him.

Hewitt won two slams and was #1 for about 18 consecutive months, including two
YE#1s. You might not *like* the prick or his style of play, but he rates
better than, say, Kafelnikov or Bruguera in the forgettable scale.

Gaudio? Of course he'll be mostly forgotten, as out-of-the-blue 1-GS champs like
him, Gomez, Korda, Stitch, Johansson, Costa or Krajicek will.

Djokovic might go this way if he fails to make any further impact. Roddick
(should he not bag another slam, which is the most probable outcome to his
career) will be put in the same shelf as Ivanisevic. Goran will have the
cinderella-like wimbledon win going for him, but when it comes to history,
both are 1 slam champs that could never come up with the goods against the top
dog of their generation, mowing draw after draw at the slams only to get
beaten handily in the final by Sampras/Federer.


       
Date: 12 Jan 2009 13:26:33
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly
>> talented and
>> very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.
>>
>> Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis
>> pros are
>> off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential
>> tennis
>> pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say,
>> september
>> 2002.
>>
>> BTW, nice dodge in sidestepping the "Nadal if no Federer > Agassi if
>> no Sampras, and just at 22" argument.
>
> Your dichotomy is entirely false. The contention is that a few out of
> the pool of potential pro's who came through are measurably inferior
> to those faced in another era. The weakness about which we talk is
> not evident outside the top 10, it is within the top 10. The guys who
> should have been challenging Federer simply were not particularly
> good players, or were players who never lived up to their potential.
> How is it that Federer has such a rotten record against the only 2
> players to emerge in his era who are likely to be remembered (Nadal
> and Murray)?

Didn't you used to stick the boot into Murray on a regular basis? Now you're
touting him, still slamless, as a player likely to be remembered.




        
Date: 12 Jan 2009 02:40:32
From: Dr. GroundAxe
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...

"DavidW" <no@email.provided > wrote in message
news:YTxal.42166$%o3.37212@newsfe02.iad...
> Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
>> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> It also doubles as good evidence for the existence of two highly
>>> talented and
>>> very motivated players. The slam streaks evidence does not say which.
>>>
>>> Now which is more likely - two out of millions of potential tennis
>>> pros are
>>> off-the-charts good and dedicated, or the same millions of potential
>>> tennis
>>> pros, *all at tha same time* forgot how to play tennis after, say,
>>> september
>>> 2002.
>>>
>>> BTW, nice dodge in sidestepping the "Nadal if no Federer > Agassi if
>>> no Sampras, and just at 22" argument.
>>
>> Your dichotomy is entirely false. The contention is that a few out of
>> the pool of potential pro's who came through are measurably inferior
>> to those faced in another era. The weakness about which we talk is
>> not evident outside the top 10, it is within the top 10. The guys who
>> should have been challenging Federer simply were not particularly
>> good players, or were players who never lived up to their potential.
>> How is it that Federer has such a rotten record against the only 2
>> players to emerge in his era who are likely to be remembered (Nadal
>> and Murray)?
>
> Didn't you used to stick the boot into Murray on a regular basis? Now
> you're touting him, still slamless, as a player likely to be remembered.
>
>

My criticism was based on his (at the time) unwillingness to address his
fitness as urgently as was needed. I always said he had the talent to win
slams, but his attitude was such that unless he changed dramatically he
would probably fail. As it happens he has matured, is nowhere near as
volatile on court and keeps his focus. The Murray of today is a very
different proposition to the Murray of 12 months ago.



   
Date: 11 Jan 2009 14:41:20
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:4969bc14$0$2633$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Raja wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which
>>> he
>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made up
>>> the
>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their
>>> prime.
>>
>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>> Agassi.
>>
>
>
>
> Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
> on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
> becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough customer
> at his peak etc
>
> This era is really very soft when you look at it objectively.

Good post.




   
Date: 11 Jan 2009 12:53:26
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Agree of disagree...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:29:50 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Raja wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 6:17 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The era Federer is competing in now is far tougher than the one in which he
>>> won most of his slams. Hewitt, Roddick and the other jokers that made up the
>>> competition would be chopped liver today even if they were in their prime.
>>
>> Federer has had only one quality opponent so far and that is Nadal.
>> That is equal to the number of quality opponents Sampras had - 1.
>> Agassi.
>>
>
>
>
>Incorrect. Sampras prevented Agassi (who is clearly better than Federer
>on HC's) from setting all time slam record. Also prevented Becker from
>becoming a 6 time Wimbledon champ - Courier was incredibly tough
>customer at his peak etc
>
>This era is really very soft when you look at it objectively.


You are a fucking lunatic. Really.