tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 03 Feb 2009 18:40:58
From:
Subject: It took Pete 52 slams ........
.......to win his number 14




 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 22:14:53
From: Fan
Subject: Re: It took Pete 52 slams ........
On Feb 5, 11:21=A0pm, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 5, 12:25=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 10:11=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > Fan wrote:
> > > > On Feb 4, 3:50 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> > > >> Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> > > >>> .......to win his number 14
>
> > > >> It took Steffi Graf, who turned pro aged 13, 53 slams to win her
> > > >> number 22 (41.5%).
>
> > > > Must you troll?
>
> > > Not trolling, just putting Sampras's achievement into perspective.
>
> > The thread was about men's tennis and you know the other reason why it
> > is trolling to chime in with Graf=92s 22 slams=85
> > Let=92s not go into it.
>
> Sampras is not a man, he is a monkey (just like you). Aggasi seconds
> that!-

Our racist little monkey, raja is suffering from banana overdose


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 14:22:18
From:
Subject: Re: It took Pete 52 slams ........
On Feb 5, 3:40=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> On Feb 3, 9:50=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> > > .......to win his number 14
>
> > It took Steffi Graf, who turned pro aged 13, 53 slams to win her number=
22
> > (41.5%).
>
> Interesting that the 2 Open Era GOATs had to wait almost the same
> number of slams, 52 for Pete and 53 for Steffi to achieve GOATness....

Sampras is 90s goat. He is not an open era goat. He is below Laver,
Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl and Federer.



  
Date: 06 Feb 2009 11:39:32
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: It took Pete 52 slams ........
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:22:18 -0800 (PST), zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Feb 5, 3:40 pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 9:50 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>> > Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>> > > .......to win his number 14
>>
>> > It took Steffi Graf, who turned pro aged 13, 53 slams to win her number 22
>> > (41.5%).
>>
>> Interesting that the 2 Open Era GOATs had to wait almost the same
>> number of slams, 52 for Pete and 53 for Steffi to achieve GOATness....
>
>Sampras is 90s goat. He is not an open era goat. He is below Laver,
>Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl and Federer.


i agree


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 14:21:17
From:
Subject: Re: It took Pete 52 slams ........
On Feb 5, 12:25=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 10:11=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > Fan wrote:
> > > On Feb 4, 3:50 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> > >> Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> > >>> .......to win his number 14
>
> > >> It took Steffi Graf, who turned pro aged 13, 53 slams to win her
> > >> number 22 (41.5%).
>
> > > Must you troll?
>
> > Not trolling, just putting Sampras's achievement into perspective.
>
> The thread was about men's tennis and you know the other reason why it
> is trolling to chime in with Graf=92s 22 slams=85
> Let=92s not go into it.

Sampras is not a man, he is a monkey (just like you). Aggasi seconds
that!


 
Date: 05 Feb 2009 13:40:37
From:
Subject: Re: It took Pete 52 slams ........
On Feb 3, 9:50=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> > .......to win his number 14
>
> It took Steffi Graf, who turned pro aged 13, 53 slams to win her number 2=
2
> (41.5%).

Interesting that the 2 Open Era GOATs had to wait almost the same
number of slams, 52 for Pete and 53 for Steffi to achieve GOATness....


 
Date: 04 Feb 2009 22:25:11
From: Fan
Subject: Re: It took Pete 52 slams ........
On Feb 4, 10:11=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Fan wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 3:50 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> >>> .......to win his number 14
>
> >> It took Steffi Graf, who turned pro aged 13, 53 slams to win her
> >> number 22 (41.5%).
>
> > Must you troll?
>
> Not trolling, just putting Sampras's achievement into perspective.

The thread was about men's tennis and you know the other reason why it
is trolling to chime in with Graf=92s 22 slams=85
Let=92s not go into it.


 
Date: 04 Feb 2009 06:19:09
From:
Subject: Re: It took Pete 52 slams ........
On Feb 4, 9:02=A0am, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:47=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 9:40=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > .......to win his number 14
>
> > So? Agassi, Connors, Edberg and Lendl all played more Slams.
>
> But Lendl won his 8 slams quite fast. From 1984-90.
>
>
>
>
>
> > If it were so easy to win 14 I guess they woulda done it too.- Hide quo=
ted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

He had chances to win others before age 25 and he didn't win those key
matches.


 
Date: 04 Feb 2009 06:02:36
From: Raja
Subject: Re: It took Pete 52 slams ........
On Feb 3, 8:47=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 3, 9:40=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > .......to win his number 14
>
> So? Agassi, Connors, Edberg and Lendl all played more Slams.

But Lendl won his 8 slams quite fast. From 1984-90.

>
> If it were so easy to win 14 I guess they woulda done it too.



 
Date: 04 Feb 2009 05:54:55
From: Mark
Subject: Re: It took Pete 52 slams ........
On Feb 3, 8:40=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> .......to win his number 14

Please. So what? And the very last time he played it was winning his
14th slam. How many other plays can say that. It just showed that
over the course of more than 10 years (from the time he won his first
slam) he was the best player around. Will Federer be able to win his
last slam more than ten years after winning his first? Highly, highly
unlikely.


 
Date: 04 Feb 2009 13:50:58
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: It took Pete 52 slams ........
Arancione@selin.com wrote:
> .......to win his number 14

It took Steffi Graf, who turned pro aged 13, 53 slams to win her number 22
(41.5%).




  
Date: 04 Feb 2009 08:50:17
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: It took Pete 52 slams ........
"DavidW" <no@email.provided > wrote in message
news:Xo7il.49$Pm6.45@newsfe08.iad...
> Arancione@selin.com wrote:
>> .......to win his number 14
>
> It took Steffi Graf, who turned pro aged 13, 53 slams
and a KNIFE
> to win her number 22 (41.5%).




 
Date: 04 Feb 2009 03:57:37
From: Fan
Subject: Re: It took Pete 52 slams ........
On Feb 4, 3:50=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> > .......to win his number 14
>
> It took Steffi Graf, who turned pro aged 13, 53 slams to win her number 2=
2
> (41.5%).

Must you troll?


  
Date: 05 Feb 2009 08:11:48
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: It took Pete 52 slams ........
Fan wrote:
> On Feb 4, 3:50 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>> .......to win his number 14
>>
>> It took Steffi Graf, who turned pro aged 13, 53 slams to win her
>> number 22 (41.5%).
>
> Must you troll?

Not trolling, just putting Sampras's achievement into perspective.




   
Date: 04 Feb 2009 16:28:11
From: Ted S.
Subject: Re: It took Pete 52 slams ........
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 08:11:48 +1100, DavidW wrote:

> Fan wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 3:50 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>> Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>> .......to win his number 14
>>>
>>> It took Steffi Graf, who turned pro aged 13, 53 slams to win her
>>> number 22 (41.5%).
>>
>> Must you troll?
>
> Not trolling, just putting Sampras's achievement into perspective.

So Steffi played in a clown era? :-)

--
Ted Schuerzinger
tedstennis at myrealbox dot com
If you're afraid of the ball, don't sit in the front row. --Anastasia
Rodionova


 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 18:47:48
From:
Subject: Re: It took Pete 52 slams ........
On Feb 3, 9:40=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> .......to win his number 14

So? Agassi, Connors, Edberg and Lendl all played more Slams.

If it were so easy to win 14 I guess they woulda done it too.