tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 15 Jan 2009 22:40:46
From: Whisper
Subject: Clown era proof - argument killer


Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
slam finals, an all time record. And there's good chances they'll
extend that record.

No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
clowns.





 
Date: 18 Jan 2009 10:55:01
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
On Jan 16, 7:27=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:29:39 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Professor X wrote:
> >>> On Jan 15, 11:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 =
in a
> >>>> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in=
6
> >>>> slam finals, an all time record. =A0And there's good chances they'll
> >>>> extend that record.
>
> >>>> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko =
type
> >>>> clowns.
> >>> yes and imagine if you took rafa out the equation
> >>> fed would have =A03consecutive FO
> >>> + =A06 consecutive wimbledons
> >>> and a total of 17 slams at the moment LMAO
> >>> indeed we would prob also in that instance regard him as clay goat as
> >>> he would win 4th consecutive FO this year... but that would be since
> >>> we simply DID NOT know any better. Thanks mainly to rafa, with a
> >>> little help from nole/murray we have uncovered the truth of the
> >>> fraudulent swiss.
>
> >>> how people can say fed did not win the majority of his slams in clown
> >>> era i don't know. Seriously, how many more times do you expect the
> >>> likes of gonzalez, roddick, safin, hewitt to reach slam finals? The
> >>> answer would be 0, despite the fact that none of them are old, and
> >>> should still actually be playing their best tennis.
>
> >> Yes, Fed could have 3 or 4 calendar slams without Rafa around. =A0He's
> >> good but not that good.
>
> > he's simply the best. better than all the rest. haven't you heard the
> > music ?
>
> This would be more suitable for Roger.
>
> http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=3DoOpIfbneeHg
>
> --
> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And this would be the theme tune of most of his defeated opponents:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dk2kxlZDOHeQ


 
Date: 16 Jan 2009 03:24:35
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
On Jan 16, 10:55=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:57:22 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:29:39 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 15, 11:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5=
in a
> >>>>> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other i=
n 6
> >>>>> slam finals, an all time record. =A0And there's good chances they'l=
l
> >>>>> extend that record.
>
> >>>>> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko=
type
> >>>>> clowns.
> >>>> yes and imagine if you took rafa out the equation
> >>>> fed would have =A03consecutive FO
> >>>> + =A06 consecutive wimbledons
> >>>> and a total of 17 slams at the moment LMAO
> >>>> indeed we would prob also in that instance regard him as clay goat a=
s
> >>>> he would win 4th consecutive FO this year... but that would be since
> >>>> we simply DID NOT know any better. Thanks mainly to rafa, with a
> >>>> little help from nole/murray we have uncovered the truth of the
> >>>> fraudulent swiss.
>
> >>>> how people can say fed did not win the majority of his slams in clow=
n
> >>>> era i don't know. Seriously, how many more times do you expect the
> >>>> likes of gonzalez, roddick, safin, hewitt to reach slam finals? The
> >>>> answer would be 0, despite the fact that none of them are old, and
> >>>> should still actually be playing their best tennis.
>
> >>> Yes, Fed could have 3 or 4 calendar slams without Rafa around. =A0He'=
s
> >>> good but not that good.
>
> >> he's simply the best. better than all the rest. haven't you heard the
> >> music ?
>
> >He's not even better than Rafa.
>
> er ...... 13 to 5 says he is.

er how many slams did fed have at rafas age?


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 12:30:27
From:
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
On Jan 15, 5:29=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 11:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in=
a
> >> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
> >> slam finals, an all time record. =A0And there's good chances they'll
> >> extend that record.
>
> >> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko ty=
pe
> >> clowns.
>
> > yes and imagine if you took rafa out the equation
> > fed would have =A03consecutive FO
> > + =A06 consecutive wimbledons
> > and a total of 17 slams at the moment LMAO
> > indeed we would prob also in that instance regard him as clay goat as
> > he would win 4th consecutive FO this year... but that would be since
> > we simply DID NOT know any better. Thanks mainly to rafa, with a
> > little help from nole/murray we have uncovered the truth of the
> > fraudulent swiss.
>
> > how people can say fed did not win the majority of his slams in clown
> > era i don't know. Seriously, how many more times do you expect the
> > likes of gonzalez, roddick, safin, hewitt to reach slam finals? The
> > answer would be 0, despite the fact that none of them are old, and
> > should still actually be playing their best tennis.
>
> Yes, Fed could have 3 or 4 calendar slams without Rafa around. =A0He's
> good but not that good.

How do you work that out?

There were only two years where Nadal prevented Federer winning all
four majors ...



 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 12:32:09
From: Hops
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
On Jan 15, 3:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
> slam finals, an all time record. And there's good chances they'll
> extend that record.
>
> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
> clowns.


of course the same logic can be applied to any great player.

Player X accomplishes Unprecedented Feat Y, not due to their own
abilities, but due to inferior competition.

Sampras 6 straight years at #1? Obviously due to inferior competition
from 1993-98
Borg 5 straight Wimbledons? Obviously due to inferior competition
from 1976-80
Laver Grand Slam in 1969? Obviously due to inferior competition in
1969

Taken to its logical conclusion, no great player has ever existed,
only mediocre players with even more mediocre competition.




 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 12:33:34
From: Shakes
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
On Jan 15, 3:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
> slam finals, an all time record. And there's good chances they'll
> extend that record.
>
> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
> clowns.

So, which is more likely ?

20 yrs from now, people will look at fed's records and marvel at his
consistency.

Or 20 yrs from now, people will dig out the scores of all his slam
wins, his opponents and their rankings, and try to determine if it was
a clown era ?


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 18:56:41
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
Shakes wrote:
> On Jan 15, 3:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
>> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
>> slam finals, an all time record. And there's good chances they'll
>> extend that record.
>>
>> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
>> clowns.
>
> So, which is more likely ?
>
> 20 yrs from now, people will look at fed's records and marvel at his
> consistency.
>
> Or 20 yrs from now, people will dig out the scores of all his slam
> wins, his opponents and their rankings, and try to determine if it was
> a clown era ?


Point taken. Nobody looks closely at Tilden's era to determine
clownability.

End of the day it's the record that counts & Sampras is still on top
with most slams, most Wimbledons (the most important/prestigious world
title) & 6 yr-end No.1's in a row. Fed won't threaten his no.1 record
but slam record is still possible. He's not likely to better Sampras' 7
Wimbledons.





 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 14:06:11
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
On Jan 15, 8:33=A0pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 3:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in =
a
> > row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
> > slam finals, an all time record. =A0And there's good chances they'll
> > extend that record.
>
> > No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko typ=
e
> > clowns.
>
> So, which is more likely ?
>
> 20 yrs from now, people will look at fed's records and marvel at his
> consistency.
>
> Or 20 yrs from now, people will dig out the scores of all his slam
> wins, his opponents and their rankings, and try to determine if it was
> a clown era ?

those with primary experience of the time ie ME in 20 years, will
remember clown era... and as primary evidence I would count for more
than those new Tennis fans who simply saw that fed had "x" number of
slams, however many it turns out to be.


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 09:33:13
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
On Jan 15, 2:33=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 9:07=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 11:40=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 i=
n a
> > > row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in =
6
> > > slam finals, an all time record. =A0And there's good chances they'll
> > > extend that record.
>
> > > No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko t=
ype
> > > clowns.
>
> > yes and imagine if you took rafa out the equation
> > fed would have =A03consecutive FO
> > + =A06 consecutive wimbledons
> > and a total of 17 slams at the moment LMAO
> > indeed we would prob also in that instance regard him as clay goat as
> > he would win 4th consecutive FO this year... but that would be since
> > we simply DID NOT know any better. Thanks mainly to rafa, with a
> > little help from nole/murray we have uncovered the truth of the
> > fraudulent swiss.
>
> Fraudulent? You mean like trying to pass oneself off as a cretin named
> "Baxter D. Wall"? That kind of fraud?
>
> Why do you call yourself a professor, anyway? Your imitation of one is
> very poor.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Actually Baxter was a beloved Tennis playing friend of mine who I
introduced to R.S.T. He sadly passed away after the stresses induced
by reading some of the posts around here, and would no doubt be
greatly offended at your phraseology. I remember Bax, he was always so
polite, always said thank you. Unlike you, gutter-snipe, who feels
insulting the dead to be perfectly appropriate.

As for me, I am actually a Professor in Professorology, which is the
study of Professing to be anything that you are not ;-)





 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 06:33:59
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
On Jan 15, 9:07=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 11:40=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in =
a
> > row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
> > slam finals, an all time record. =A0And there's good chances they'll
> > extend that record.
>
> > No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko typ=
e
> > clowns.
>
> yes and imagine if you took rafa out the equation
> fed would have =A03consecutive FO
> + =A06 consecutive wimbledons
> and a total of 17 slams at the moment LMAO
> indeed we would prob also in that instance regard him as clay goat as
> he would win 4th consecutive FO this year... but that would be since
> we simply DID NOT know any better. Thanks mainly to rafa, with a
> little help from nole/murray we have uncovered the truth of the
> fraudulent swiss.

Fraudulent? You mean like trying to pass oneself off as a cretin named
"Baxter D. Wall"? That kind of fraud?

Why do you call yourself a professor, anyway? Your imitation of one is
very poor.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 06:07:21
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
On Jan 15, 11:40=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
> slam finals, an all time record. =A0And there's good chances they'll
> extend that record.
>
> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
> clowns.

yes and imagine if you took rafa out the equation
fed would have 3consecutive FO
+ 6 consecutive wimbledons
and a total of 17 slams at the moment LMAO
indeed we would prob also in that instance regard him as clay goat as
he would win 4th consecutive FO this year... but that would be since
we simply DID NOT know any better. Thanks mainly to rafa, with a
little help from nole/murray we have uncovered the truth of the
fraudulent swiss.

how people can say fed did not win the majority of his slams in clown
era i don't know. Seriously, how many more times do you expect the
likes of gonzalez, roddick, safin, hewitt to reach slam finals? The
answer would be 0, despite the fact that none of them are old, and
should still actually be playing their best tennis.



  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 04:29:39
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
Professor X wrote:
> On Jan 15, 11:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
>> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
>> slam finals, an all time record. And there's good chances they'll
>> extend that record.
>>
>> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
>> clowns.
>
> yes and imagine if you took rafa out the equation
> fed would have 3consecutive FO
> + 6 consecutive wimbledons
> and a total of 17 slams at the moment LMAO
> indeed we would prob also in that instance regard him as clay goat as
> he would win 4th consecutive FO this year... but that would be since
> we simply DID NOT know any better. Thanks mainly to rafa, with a
> little help from nole/murray we have uncovered the truth of the
> fraudulent swiss.
>
> how people can say fed did not win the majority of his slams in clown
> era i don't know. Seriously, how many more times do you expect the
> likes of gonzalez, roddick, safin, hewitt to reach slam finals? The
> answer would be 0, despite the fact that none of them are old, and
> should still actually be playing their best tennis.
>



Yes, Fed could have 3 or 4 calendar slams without Rafa around. He's
good but not that good.


   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 05:37:24
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:29:39 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Professor X wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 11:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
>>> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
>>> slam finals, an all time record. And there's good chances they'll
>>> extend that record.
>>>
>>> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
>>> clowns.
>>
>> yes and imagine if you took rafa out the equation
>> fed would have 3consecutive FO
>> + 6 consecutive wimbledons
>> and a total of 17 slams at the moment LMAO
>> indeed we would prob also in that instance regard him as clay goat as
>> he would win 4th consecutive FO this year... but that would be since
>> we simply DID NOT know any better. Thanks mainly to rafa, with a
>> little help from nole/murray we have uncovered the truth of the
>> fraudulent swiss.
>>
>> how people can say fed did not win the majority of his slams in clown
>> era i don't know. Seriously, how many more times do you expect the
>> likes of gonzalez, roddick, safin, hewitt to reach slam finals? The
>> answer would be 0, despite the fact that none of them are old, and
>> should still actually be playing their best tennis.
>>
>
>
>
>Yes, Fed could have 3 or 4 calendar slams without Rafa around. He's
>good but not that good.


he's simply the best. better than all the rest. haven't you heard the
music ?


    
Date: 16 Jan 2009 18:57:22
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:29:39 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Professor X wrote:
>>> On Jan 15, 11:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
>>>> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
>>>> slam finals, an all time record. And there's good chances they'll
>>>> extend that record.
>>>>
>>>> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
>>>> clowns.
>>> yes and imagine if you took rafa out the equation
>>> fed would have 3consecutive FO
>>> + 6 consecutive wimbledons
>>> and a total of 17 slams at the moment LMAO
>>> indeed we would prob also in that instance regard him as clay goat as
>>> he would win 4th consecutive FO this year... but that would be since
>>> we simply DID NOT know any better. Thanks mainly to rafa, with a
>>> little help from nole/murray we have uncovered the truth of the
>>> fraudulent swiss.
>>>
>>> how people can say fed did not win the majority of his slams in clown
>>> era i don't know. Seriously, how many more times do you expect the
>>> likes of gonzalez, roddick, safin, hewitt to reach slam finals? The
>>> answer would be 0, despite the fact that none of them are old, and
>>> should still actually be playing their best tennis.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, Fed could have 3 or 4 calendar slams without Rafa around. He's
>> good but not that good.
>
>
> he's simply the best. better than all the rest. haven't you heard the
> music ?



He's not even better than Rafa.



     
Date: 16 Jan 2009 10:55:55
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:57:22 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:29:39 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>> On Jan 15, 11:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
>>>>> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
>>>>> slam finals, an all time record. And there's good chances they'll
>>>>> extend that record.
>>>>>
>>>>> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
>>>>> clowns.
>>>> yes and imagine if you took rafa out the equation
>>>> fed would have 3consecutive FO
>>>> + 6 consecutive wimbledons
>>>> and a total of 17 slams at the moment LMAO
>>>> indeed we would prob also in that instance regard him as clay goat as
>>>> he would win 4th consecutive FO this year... but that would be since
>>>> we simply DID NOT know any better. Thanks mainly to rafa, with a
>>>> little help from nole/murray we have uncovered the truth of the
>>>> fraudulent swiss.
>>>>
>>>> how people can say fed did not win the majority of his slams in clown
>>>> era i don't know. Seriously, how many more times do you expect the
>>>> likes of gonzalez, roddick, safin, hewitt to reach slam finals? The
>>>> answer would be 0, despite the fact that none of them are old, and
>>>> should still actually be playing their best tennis.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, Fed could have 3 or 4 calendar slams without Rafa around. He's
>>> good but not that good.
>>
>>
>> he's simply the best. better than all the rest. haven't you heard the
>> music ?
>
>
>
>He's not even better than Rafa.


er ...... 13 to 5 says he is.


      
Date: 16 Jan 2009 22:41:56
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:57:22 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:29:39 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 15, 11:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
>>>>>> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
>>>>>> slam finals, an all time record. And there's good chances they'll
>>>>>> extend that record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
>>>>>> clowns.
>>>>> yes and imagine if you took rafa out the equation
>>>>> fed would have 3consecutive FO
>>>>> + 6 consecutive wimbledons
>>>>> and a total of 17 slams at the moment LMAO
>>>>> indeed we would prob also in that instance regard him as clay goat as
>>>>> he would win 4th consecutive FO this year... but that would be since
>>>>> we simply DID NOT know any better. Thanks mainly to rafa, with a
>>>>> little help from nole/murray we have uncovered the truth of the
>>>>> fraudulent swiss.
>>>>>
>>>>> how people can say fed did not win the majority of his slams in clown
>>>>> era i don't know. Seriously, how many more times do you expect the
>>>>> likes of gonzalez, roddick, safin, hewitt to reach slam finals? The
>>>>> answer would be 0, despite the fact that none of them are old, and
>>>>> should still actually be playing their best tennis.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, Fed could have 3 or 4 calendar slams without Rafa around. He's
>>>> good but not that good.
>>>
>>> he's simply the best. better than all the rest. haven't you heard the
>>> music ?
>>
>>
>> He's not even better than Rafa.
>
>
> er ...... 13 to 5 says he is.


Yet 1-0 says Fed > Sampras...?



       
Date: 16 Jan 2009 11:49:53
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:41:56 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:57:22 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:29:39 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 15, 11:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
>>>>>>> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
>>>>>>> slam finals, an all time record. And there's good chances they'll
>>>>>>> extend that record.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
>>>>>>> clowns.
>>>>>> yes and imagine if you took rafa out the equation
>>>>>> fed would have 3consecutive FO
>>>>>> + 6 consecutive wimbledons
>>>>>> and a total of 17 slams at the moment LMAO
>>>>>> indeed we would prob also in that instance regard him as clay goat as
>>>>>> he would win 4th consecutive FO this year... but that would be since
>>>>>> we simply DID NOT know any better. Thanks mainly to rafa, with a
>>>>>> little help from nole/murray we have uncovered the truth of the
>>>>>> fraudulent swiss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> how people can say fed did not win the majority of his slams in clown
>>>>>> era i don't know. Seriously, how many more times do you expect the
>>>>>> likes of gonzalez, roddick, safin, hewitt to reach slam finals? The
>>>>>> answer would be 0, despite the fact that none of them are old, and
>>>>>> should still actually be playing their best tennis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Fed could have 3 or 4 calendar slams without Rafa around. He's
>>>>> good but not that good.
>>>>
>>>> he's simply the best. better than all the rest. haven't you heard the
>>>> music ?
>>>
>>>
>>> He's not even better than Rafa.
>>
>>
>> er ...... 13 to 5 says he is.
>
>
>Yet 1-0 says Fed > Sampras...?


That's obvious and will be very much so very very soon. Or, is he
barely half way still ?


    
Date: 16 Jan 2009 09:27:57
From: TT
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:29:39 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Professor X wrote:
>>> On Jan 15, 11:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
>>>> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
>>>> slam finals, an all time record. And there's good chances they'll
>>>> extend that record.
>>>>
>>>> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
>>>> clowns.
>>> yes and imagine if you took rafa out the equation
>>> fed would have 3consecutive FO
>>> + 6 consecutive wimbledons
>>> and a total of 17 slams at the moment LMAO
>>> indeed we would prob also in that instance regard him as clay goat as
>>> he would win 4th consecutive FO this year... but that would be since
>>> we simply DID NOT know any better. Thanks mainly to rafa, with a
>>> little help from nole/murray we have uncovered the truth of the
>>> fraudulent swiss.
>>>
>>> how people can say fed did not win the majority of his slams in clown
>>> era i don't know. Seriously, how many more times do you expect the
>>> likes of gonzalez, roddick, safin, hewitt to reach slam finals? The
>>> answer would be 0, despite the fact that none of them are old, and
>>> should still actually be playing their best tennis.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, Fed could have 3 or 4 calendar slams without Rafa around. He's
>> good but not that good.
>
>
> he's simply the best. better than all the rest. haven't you heard the
> music ?

This would be more suitable for Roger.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpIfbneeHg

--
"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 15:19:17
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer

"Professor X" <suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:d017715d-d30c-4363-87c2-aa93f5bba74e@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 15, 11:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
> slam finals, an all time record. And there's good chances they'll
> extend that record.
>
> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
> clowns.

yes and imagine if you took rafa out the equation
fed would have 3consecutive FO
+ 6 consecutive wimbledons
and a total of 17 slams at the moment LMAO


---

Never happened in women's tennis not even back in the 20s and it almost
happened in the 21st century in the men's game.




 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 15:42:46
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:40:46 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>
>
>Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
>row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
>slam finals, an all time record. And there's good chances they'll
>extend that record.
>
>No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
>clowns.

This doesn't prove anything more than all your other claims. It proves
either that we have two great players, or that players #3-1500 are
much worse than before. Pick what is more likely.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 04:28:08
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:40:46 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
>> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
>> slam finals, an all time record. And there's good chances they'll
>> extend that record.
>>
>> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
>> clowns.
>
> This doesn't prove anything more than all your other claims. It proves
> either that we have two great players, or that players #3-1500 are
> much worse than before. Pick what is more likely.



Somewhere in the middle is most likely - ie Fed/Rafa are excellent
players but not super goats, & the field is much worse than before.




  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 16:05:20
From: TT
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:40:46 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
>> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
>> slam finals, an all time record. And there's good chances they'll
>> extend that record.
>>
>> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
>> clowns.
>
> This doesn't prove anything more than all your other claims. It proves
> either that we have two great players, or that players #3-1500 are
> much worse than before. Pick what is more likely.

It proves neither.

--
"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 13:56:27
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:40:46 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
>> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
>> slam finals, an all time record. And there's good chances they'll
>> extend that record.
>>
>> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
>> clowns.
>
> This doesn't prove anything more than all your other claims. It proves
> either that we have two great players, or that players #3-1500 are
> much worse than before. Pick what is more likely.

With the advances in sports and fitness training and the added depth
that more money brings to the tour, it is obvious that #3-1500 have
deteriorated totally.

Djokovic and Murray would be hard pressed to make even Qualies in the
Sampras era. They were great players back then. Pioline would cream
Murray or Djokovic in 3 bagel sets at Wimbledon even today if he wants
to! ;-) ;-)

--
Cheers,

vc


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 05:34:11
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
On Jan 15, 12:20 pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 15, 11:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
> > row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
> > slam finals, an all time record. And there's good chances they'll
> > extend that record.
>
> > No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
> > clowns.
>
> Sampras and Agassi played in 5 slam finals (3 USO, 1 Wimb, 1 AO).
>

True but that was over a period of 12 years (1990-2002). Fed and Nadal
have met six times in three years (every clay/grass slam final since
2006). Point is no one was close to Fed and Nadal, whereas many
stopped Sampras and Agassi from meeting over a period of more than a
decade.


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 04:20:13
From:
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
On Jan 15, 11:40=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
> slam finals, an all time record. =A0And there's good chances they'll
> extend that record.
>
> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
> clowns.

Sampras and Agassi played in 5 slam finals (3 USO, 1 Wimb, 1 AO).

They would have played in more had Agassi not managed to blow chances
to make the finals - e.g.

- Wimbledon 1995 SF was 6-2 4-1 up against Becker before somehow
losing.
- 1996 USO SF lost in straights to Chang playing "40% of what my game
was"

Also:
The two times that Sampras won the AO (94 and 97) Agassi did not play.
Sampras did not play the 1999 USO which Agassi won
They played in other slam QFs and SFs because they were not ranked 1
and 2 at the time






 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 03:59:04
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Clown era proof - argument killer
On 15 Jan, 11:40, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Not only do we have same guys completely dominating the slams (ie 5 in a
> row Wim, USO & FO this yr), but Fed v Rafa have played each other in 6
> slam finals, an all time record. =A0And there's good chances they'll
> extend that record.
>
> No way would this be possible if the era wasn't infested with Denko type
> clowns.

It would be entirely possible if you had the two of the best ever clay
and HC/Grass players playing at the same time. The clowndom or
otherwise of other players would be irrelevant.