tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 18 Feb 2009 17:39:51
From: *skriptis
Subject: Nadal equals Wilander
according to 7543.


But let's first look at it subjectively.

Both had one YE#1 so far. Tied.

Wilander had a 3-slam year, Rafa otoh holds three slam in the last 52 weeks
+ Olympics. Just as good.

Rafa won slams on all surfaces, so did Wilander.

Rafa has 6 slams, Wilander 7, but Rafa's mix is better, has Wimbledon title.
And FO/W combo. More than enough to compensate for one slam.

Rafa's been ultra-dominant at FO, 4 consecutive titles there, but otoh,
Wilander was dominant at two different slams, winning both AO/FO at least
three times.



Back to the objective approach:

Wilander:
9+12+0+5 = 26

Nadal:
3+16+7+0 = 26


7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
Fair and correct.



Of course, Rafa legacy is enhanced by him beating an all-time great, tier 1
Federer in all those finals on grass, clay and HC, while Wilander gets less
credit for beating tier 3 champ in clay, grass and HC slam finals.

So some small ceibs and it goes to Rafa's favour.






 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 22:11:04
From: drew
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 18, 11:39=A0am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> according to 7543.
>
> But let's first look at it subjectively.
>
> Both had one YE#1 so far. Tied.
>
> Wilander had a 3-slam year, Rafa otoh holds three slam in the last 52 wee=
ks
> + Olympics. Just as good.
>
> Rafa won slams on all surfaces, so did Wilander.
>
> Rafa has 6 slams, Wilander 7, but Rafa's mix is better, has Wimbledon tit=
le.
> And FO/W combo. More than enough to compensate for one slam.
>
> Rafa's been ultra-dominant at FO, 4 consecutive titles there, but otoh,
> Wilander was dominant at two different slams, winning both AO/FO at least
> three times.
>
> Back to the objective approach:
>
> Wilander:
> 9+12+0+5 =3D 26
>
> Nadal:
> 3+16+7+0 =3D 26
>
> 7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
> Fair and correct.

*Striptease =3D Whisper
Fair and correct.


Consider this and forget about anything else for a second. Nadal is
still playing tennis at the top of his game. Wilander is long
retired.

At least wait until Nadal is retired before you embark upon your
heartless simpleminded beancounting experiments, you shallow little
man.


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 09:29:42
From:
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 20, 9:06=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 5:04 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> drew wrote:
> >>> On Feb 18, 11:39 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>> according to 7543.
> >>>> But let's first look at it subjectively.
> >>>> Both had one YE#1 so far. Tied.
> >>>> Wilander had a 3-slam year, Rafa otoh holds three slam in the last 5=
2 weeks
> >>>> + Olympics. Just as good.
> >>>> Rafa won slams on all surfaces, so did Wilander.
> >>>> Rafa has 6 slams, Wilander 7, but Rafa's mix is better, has Wimbledo=
n title.
> >>>> And FO/W combo. More than enough to compensate for one slam.
> >>>> Rafa's been ultra-dominant at FO, 4 consecutive titles there, but ot=
oh,
> >>>> Wilander was dominant at two different slams, winning both AO/FO at =
least
> >>>> three times.
> >>>> Back to the objective approach:
> >>>> Wilander:
> >>>> 9+12+0+5 =3D 26
> >>>> Nadal:
> >>>> 3+16+7+0 =3D 26
> >>>> 7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
> >>>> Fair and correct.
> >>> *Striptease =3D Whisper
> >>> Fair and correct.
> >>> Consider this and forget about anything else for a second. =A0Nadal i=
s
> >>> still playing tennis at the top of his game. =A0Wilander is long
> >>> retired.
> >>> At least wait until Nadal is retired before you embark upon your
> >>> heartless simpleminded beancounting experiments, =A0you shallow littl=
e
> >>> man.
> >> Wilander was done winning slams at age Rafa turns this yr - food for
> >> thought.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Wilander won his last slam in 1988 at age 24. Rafa is 22.
>
> 23 in a few months.

Still not 24.


   
Date: 21 Feb 2009 08:56:12
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Arancione@selin.com wrote:
> On Feb 20, 9:06 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 20, 5:04 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> drew wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 18, 11:39 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>> according to 7543.
>>>>>> But let's first look at it subjectively.
>>>>>> Both had one YE#1 so far. Tied.
>>>>>> Wilander had a 3-slam year, Rafa otoh holds three slam in the last 52 weeks
>>>>>> + Olympics. Just as good.
>>>>>> Rafa won slams on all surfaces, so did Wilander.
>>>>>> Rafa has 6 slams, Wilander 7, but Rafa's mix is better, has Wimbledon title.
>>>>>> And FO/W combo. More than enough to compensate for one slam.
>>>>>> Rafa's been ultra-dominant at FO, 4 consecutive titles there, but otoh,
>>>>>> Wilander was dominant at two different slams, winning both AO/FO at least
>>>>>> three times.
>>>>>> Back to the objective approach:
>>>>>> Wilander:
>>>>>> 9+12+0+5 = 26
>>>>>> Nadal:
>>>>>> 3+16+7+0 = 26
>>>>>> 7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
>>>>>> Fair and correct.
>>>>> *Striptease = Whisper
>>>>> Fair and correct.
>>>>> Consider this and forget about anything else for a second. Nadal is
>>>>> still playing tennis at the top of his game. Wilander is long
>>>>> retired.
>>>>> At least wait until Nadal is retired before you embark upon your
>>>>> heartless simpleminded beancounting experiments, you shallow little
>>>>> man.
>>>> Wilander was done winning slams at age Rafa turns this yr - food for
>>>> thought.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Wilander won his last slam in 1988 at age 24. Rafa is 22.
>> 23 in a few months.
>
> Still not 24.



In the ballpark.



    
Date: 21 Feb 2009 21:24:48
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:56:12 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Arancione@selin.com wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 9:06 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 20, 5:04 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> drew wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 18, 11:39 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>>> according to 7543.
>>>>>>> But let's first look at it subjectively.
>>>>>>> Both had one YE#1 so far. Tied.
>>>>>>> Wilander had a 3-slam year, Rafa otoh holds three slam in the last 52 weeks
>>>>>>> + Olympics. Just as good.
>>>>>>> Rafa won slams on all surfaces, so did Wilander.
>>>>>>> Rafa has 6 slams, Wilander 7, but Rafa's mix is better, has Wimbledon title.
>>>>>>> And FO/W combo. More than enough to compensate for one slam.
>>>>>>> Rafa's been ultra-dominant at FO, 4 consecutive titles there, but otoh,
>>>>>>> Wilander was dominant at two different slams, winning both AO/FO at least
>>>>>>> three times.
>>>>>>> Back to the objective approach:
>>>>>>> Wilander:
>>>>>>> 9+12+0+5 = 26
>>>>>>> Nadal:
>>>>>>> 3+16+7+0 = 26
>>>>>>> 7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
>>>>>>> Fair and correct.
>>>>>> *Striptease = Whisper
>>>>>> Fair and correct.
>>>>>> Consider this and forget about anything else for a second. Nadal is
>>>>>> still playing tennis at the top of his game. Wilander is long
>>>>>> retired.
>>>>>> At least wait until Nadal is retired before you embark upon your
>>>>>> heartless simpleminded beancounting experiments, you shallow little
>>>>>> man.
>>>>> Wilander was done winning slams at age Rafa turns this yr - food for
>>>>> thought.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> Wilander won his last slam in 1988 at age 24. Rafa is 22.
>>> 23 in a few months.
>>
>> Still not 24.
>
>
>
>In the ballpark.

Not this again.


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 06:05:34
From:
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 20, 5:04=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> drew wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 11:39 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> according to 7543.
>
> >> But let's first look at it subjectively.
>
> >> Both had one YE#1 so far. Tied.
>
> >> Wilander had a 3-slam year, Rafa otoh holds three slam in the last 52 =
weeks
> >> + Olympics. Just as good.
>
> >> Rafa won slams on all surfaces, so did Wilander.
>
> >> Rafa has 6 slams, Wilander 7, but Rafa's mix is better, has Wimbledon =
title.
> >> And FO/W combo. More than enough to compensate for one slam.
>
> >> Rafa's been ultra-dominant at FO, 4 consecutive titles there, but otoh=
,
> >> Wilander was dominant at two different slams, winning both AO/FO at le=
ast
> >> three times.
>
> >> Back to the objective approach:
>
> >> Wilander:
> >> 9+12+0+5 =3D 26
>
> >> Nadal:
> >> 3+16+7+0 =3D 26
>
> >> 7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
> >> Fair and correct.
>
> > *Striptease =3D Whisper
> > Fair and correct.
>
> > Consider this and forget about anything else for a second. =A0Nadal is
> > still playing tennis at the top of his game. =A0Wilander is long
> > retired.
>
> > At least wait until Nadal is retired before you embark upon your
> > heartless simpleminded beancounting experiments, =A0you shallow little
> > man.
>
> Wilander was done winning slams at age Rafa turns this yr - food for
> thought.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wilander won his last slam in 1988 at age 24. Rafa is 22.


   
Date: 21 Feb 2009 01:06:47
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Arancione@selin.com wrote:
> On Feb 20, 5:04 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> drew wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 11:39 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> according to 7543.
>>>> But let's first look at it subjectively.
>>>> Both had one YE#1 so far. Tied.
>>>> Wilander had a 3-slam year, Rafa otoh holds three slam in the last 52 weeks
>>>> + Olympics. Just as good.
>>>> Rafa won slams on all surfaces, so did Wilander.
>>>> Rafa has 6 slams, Wilander 7, but Rafa's mix is better, has Wimbledon title.
>>>> And FO/W combo. More than enough to compensate for one slam.
>>>> Rafa's been ultra-dominant at FO, 4 consecutive titles there, but otoh,
>>>> Wilander was dominant at two different slams, winning both AO/FO at least
>>>> three times.
>>>> Back to the objective approach:
>>>> Wilander:
>>>> 9+12+0+5 = 26
>>>> Nadal:
>>>> 3+16+7+0 = 26
>>>> 7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
>>>> Fair and correct.
>>> *Striptease = Whisper
>>> Fair and correct.
>>> Consider this and forget about anything else for a second. Nadal is
>>> still playing tennis at the top of his game. Wilander is long
>>> retired.
>>> At least wait until Nadal is retired before you embark upon your
>>> heartless simpleminded beancounting experiments, you shallow little
>>> man.
>> Wilander was done winning slams at age Rafa turns this yr - food for
>> thought.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Wilander won his last slam in 1988 at age 24. Rafa is 22.


23 in a few months.



  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 10:34:25
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
drew <drew@technologist.com > wrote:
>
> *Striptease = Whisper
> Fair and correct.

I don't think skripi _is_ whisper, but since he double-checks his opinions to
see if they match whisper's exactly, you can usually skip one or the other
while reading a thread - why read the same stuff twice?


   
Date: 21 Feb 2009 11:56:08
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> drew <drew@technologist.com> wrote:
>>
>> *Striptease = Whisper
>> Fair and correct.
>
> I don't think skripi _is_ whisper, but since he double-checks his
> opinions to see if they match whisper's exactly, you can usually skip
> one or the other while reading a thread - why read the same stuff
> twice?


Repetitio est mater studiorum.




  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 21:04:36
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
drew wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:39 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> according to 7543.
>>
>> But let's first look at it subjectively.
>>
>> Both had one YE#1 so far. Tied.
>>
>> Wilander had a 3-slam year, Rafa otoh holds three slam in the last 52 weeks
>> + Olympics. Just as good.
>>
>> Rafa won slams on all surfaces, so did Wilander.
>>
>> Rafa has 6 slams, Wilander 7, but Rafa's mix is better, has Wimbledon title.
>> And FO/W combo. More than enough to compensate for one slam.
>>
>> Rafa's been ultra-dominant at FO, 4 consecutive titles there, but otoh,
>> Wilander was dominant at two different slams, winning both AO/FO at least
>> three times.
>>
>> Back to the objective approach:
>>
>> Wilander:
>> 9+12+0+5 = 26
>>
>> Nadal:
>> 3+16+7+0 = 26
>>
>> 7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
>> Fair and correct.
>
> *Striptease = Whisper
> Fair and correct.
>
>
> Consider this and forget about anything else for a second. Nadal is
> still playing tennis at the top of his game. Wilander is long
> retired.
>
> At least wait until Nadal is retired before you embark upon your
> heartless simpleminded beancounting experiments, you shallow little
> man.



Wilander was done winning slams at age Rafa turns this yr - food for
thought.



 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 09:45:54
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 18, 4:39=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> according to 7543.
>
> But let's first look at it subjectively.
>
> Both had one YE#1 so far. Tied.
>
> Wilander had a 3-slam year, Rafa otoh holds three slam in the last 52 wee=
ks
> + Olympics. Just as good.
>
> Rafa won slams on all surfaces, so did Wilander.
>
> Rafa has 6 slams, Wilander 7, but Rafa's mix is better, has Wimbledon tit=
le.
> And FO/W combo. More than enough to compensate for one slam.
>
> Rafa's been ultra-dominant at FO, 4 consecutive titles there, but otoh,
> Wilander was dominant at two different slams, winning both AO/FO at least
> three times.
>
> Back to the objective approach:
>
> Wilander:
> 9+12+0+5 =3D 26
>
> Nadal:
> 3+16+7+0 =3D 26
>
> 7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
> Fair and correct.
>
> Of course, Rafa legacy is enhanced by him beating an all-time great, tier=
1
> Federer in all those finals on grass, clay and HC, while Wilander gets le=
ss
> credit for beating tier 3 champ in clay, grass and HC slam finals.
>
> So some small ceibs and it goes to Rafa's favour.

FUCK OFF SKI TRIPS!!
lol!! :-D


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 09:28:08
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 18, 11:39=A0am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

> Back to the objective approach:
>
> Wilander:
> 9+12+0+5 =3D 26
>
> Nadal:
> 3+16+7+0 =3D 26
>
> 7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
> Fair and correct.

I don't seriously object to viewing Nadal's and Wilander's careers as
roughly equal -- each has important achievements that the other lacks;
both are greats; Nadal's legacy is still growing -- but of course it's
worth noting again that 7543 is not an "objective approach." As I've
pointed out many times (others have too), only the *application* of
the criteria (the point values) is objective. The *selection* of the
criteria is subjective. E.g., the precise 7/3 Wimbledon/AO ratio
cannot be verified by any objective means. For that matter, the
exclusion of points for myriad other factors is also purely
subjective. Anyone who does not recognize that has no business using
the term "objective."

Joe Ramirez




  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 18:37:11
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 21, 6:09=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 20-Feb-2009, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Would you rather win 1 gold for your country or 2 silver?
>
> That makes no sense. =A0Silver goes to best loser. =A0This is not relevan=
t when
> we compare slam wins.

You know, it seems that not everyone is able to understand that simple
fact.

Rodjk #613


  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 06:20:36
From: Quincy
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 20, 7:44=A0am, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 12:28=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > 7543 tells us 1 Wimbledon is marginally better than 2 AO's. =A0That's t=
he
> > way 99% of tennis people see it.
>
> 99% of the people in rst think you are full of shit. =A0

Then I am one of the 1%, because I somehow like Whipser, BUT: When I
bring good arguments, especially concerning the loadshit of opponents
of Sampras' second half of his career, then he just doesn't reply
anymore.


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 13:59:58
From:
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 20, 4:42=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> > I love how you always call out other people for wasting bandwidth,
> > when you have made how many posts???
> > 62000 or something....... no?
>
> 90% of them fending off complete bullshit. =A0You stop the bull posts &
> there will be no need for me to refute them. I mean c'mon - at least we
> should be well beyond "is Wimbledon tops? =A0Huh no one told me." type
> posts which account for maybe 25% of all traffic.

The main argument in this thread has not been about whether Wimbledon
is "tops." It has been about whether Wimbledon is more than twice as
significant as the Australian Open.

Is Mt. Everest taller than K2? Is it 2.33 times as tall?

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 09:03:38
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 20, 3:31=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Rodjk #613 wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 3:19 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Sakari Lund wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:04:59 +0100, "*skriptis"
> >>> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
> >>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.=
au >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
> >>>>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning t=
wo
> >>>>> slams better than one? Um, let me think...
> >>>> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
> >>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
> >>> medal's relation to bronze medal?
> >> Would you rather win 1 gold for your country or 2 silver?
>
> > Wrong analogy (as if I have not commented enough on your lack of
> > reasoning skills). Your question is biased, as everyone already
> > assumes that a gold medal is worth more than a silver. You are trying
> > to convince someone that one gold medal is worth more than another.
> > Silver means you came in second, so it is not equivalent.
>
> > Try it this way:
> > Would you rather win a gold medal in the 100M or in the 400M?
> > Or maybe:
> > Would you rather win a gold medal in the 100M or in the Hammer Throw?
>
> > Rodjk #613
>
> Whatever, the point is we waste 90% of b/w arguing duh stuff like 'is
> Wimbledon tops?'. =A0In the real world nobody questions this at all.

I love how you always call out other people for wasting bandwidth,
when you have made how many posts???
62000 or something....... no?


   
Date: 21 Feb 2009 08:42:21
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:31 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Rodjk #613 wrote:
>>> On Feb 20, 3:19 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:04:59 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>>>> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>>>>>>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
>>>>>>> slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>>>>>> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>>>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
>>>>> medal's relation to bronze medal?
>>>> Would you rather win 1 gold for your country or 2 silver?
>>> Wrong analogy (as if I have not commented enough on your lack of
>>> reasoning skills). Your question is biased, as everyone already
>>> assumes that a gold medal is worth more than a silver. You are trying
>>> to convince someone that one gold medal is worth more than another.
>>> Silver means you came in second, so it is not equivalent.
>>> Try it this way:
>>> Would you rather win a gold medal in the 100M or in the 400M?
>>> Or maybe:
>>> Would you rather win a gold medal in the 100M or in the Hammer Throw?
>>> Rodjk #613
>> Whatever, the point is we waste 90% of b/w arguing duh stuff like 'is
>> Wimbledon tops?'. In the real world nobody questions this at all.
>
> I love how you always call out other people for wasting bandwidth,
> when you have made how many posts???
> 62000 or something....... no?


90% of them fending off complete bullshit. You stop the bull posts &
there will be no need for me to refute them. I mean c'mon - at least we
should be well beyond "is Wimbledon tops? Huh no one told me." type
posts which account for maybe 25% of all traffic.


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 07:34:57
From: drew
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 20, 5:06 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> drew wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 5:51 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> >> The whole point of the analogy is to illustrate that even though Wimbledon and
> >> AO are slams there is a vast difference in prestige between them.
>
> > You are overstating the value of Wimbledon.
>
> > Winning two majors is always a bigger accomplishment than winning
> > one. The only substantive difference between the majors is the
> > playing surface.
>
> So kids grow up thinking of surface rather than prestige...?

Well, you have clearly not grown up but you DO think along the surface
of all issues.
>

If you owned a car that didn't start it wouldn't matter to you if it
was called something like a Plymouth Prestige. You could then say,
"Hey man, I've got Prestige!" Everybody would be saying, "You got
shit, man!" But you'd insist that you've got prestige. "See, it's
written over here on my rusty tailgate."



  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 07:27:48
From: drew
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 20, 4:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> I think given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the onus is on
> you to prove Wimbledon is not the most prestigious & important tennis title.

Why don't we just let you make up the rules of the debate as we go
along?

That will make it easier for you when you start getting tangled up in
your own contradictions.

You decide when and if you want to apply the rules. If that fails you
can draw the "99% of all people know" trump card. That is yours
alone to use.





  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 07:02:15
From: drew
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 20, 4:19 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:04:59 +0100, "*skriptis"
> > <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> >> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
> >>news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
> >>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
> >>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
> >>> slams better than one? Um, let me think...
> >> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>
> > So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
> > medal's relation to bronze medal?
>
> Would you rather win 1 gold for your country or 2 silver?


I'd rather get the endorsement money. I'd rather win silver in the
100 metres than gold in judo.

If you're going to use bad analogies at least make them humorous.


   
Date: 21 Feb 2009 02:32:22
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
drew wrote:
> On Feb 20, 4:19 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:04:59 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>>>>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
>>>>> slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>>>> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
>>> medal's relation to bronze medal?
>> Would you rather win 1 gold for your country or 2 silver?
>
>
> I'd rather get the endorsement money. I'd rather win silver in the
> 100 metres than gold in judo.
>
> If you're going to use bad analogies at least make them humorous.


Point stands. Even FO site says Wimbledon is tops & none of this is
ever contested outside rst.


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 06:55:00
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 20, 3:19=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:04:59 +0100, "*skriptis"
> > <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> >> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
> >>news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
> >>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au=
>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
> >>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
> >>> slams better than one? Um, let me think...
> >> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>
> > So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
> > medal's relation to bronze medal?
>
> Would you rather win 1 gold for your country or 2 silver?

Wrong analogy (as if I have not commented enough on your lack of
reasoning skills). Your question is biased, as everyone already
assumes that a gold medal is worth more than a silver. You are trying
to convince someone that one gold medal is worth more than another.
Silver means you came in second, so it is not equivalent.

Try it this way:
Would you rather win a gold medal in the 100M or in the 400M?
Or maybe:
Would you rather win a gold medal in the 100M or in the Hammer Throw?


Rodjk #613


   
Date: 21 Feb 2009 02:31:19
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Rodjk #613 wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:19 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:04:59 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>>>>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
>>>>> slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>>>> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
>>> medal's relation to bronze medal?
>> Would you rather win 1 gold for your country or 2 silver?
>
> Wrong analogy (as if I have not commented enough on your lack of
> reasoning skills). Your question is biased, as everyone already
> assumes that a gold medal is worth more than a silver. You are trying
> to convince someone that one gold medal is worth more than another.
> Silver means you came in second, so it is not equivalent.
>
> Try it this way:
> Would you rather win a gold medal in the 100M or in the 400M?
> Or maybe:
> Would you rather win a gold medal in the 100M or in the Hammer Throw?
>
>
> Rodjk #613


Whatever, the point is we waste 90% of b/w arguing duh stuff like 'is
Wimbledon tops?'. In the real world nobody questions this at all.


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 01:39:23
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On 20 helmi, 11:19, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:04:59 +0100, "*skriptis"
> > <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> >> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
> >>news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
> >>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
> >>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
> >>> slams better than one? Um, let me think...
> >> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>
> > So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
> > medal's relation to bronze medal?
>
> Would you rather win 1 gold for your country or 2 silver?

No...the analogy is: Would you rather win Hammer Throw twice in
Olympics or 100m once.

.mikko


   
Date: 20 Feb 2009 23:45:58
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
MBDunc wrote:
> On 20 helmi, 11:19, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:04:59 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>>>>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
>>>>> slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>>>> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
>>> medal's relation to bronze medal?
>> Would you rather win 1 gold for your country or 2 silver?
>
> No...the analogy is: Would you rather win Hammer Throw twice in
> Olympics or 100m once.
>
> .mikko


If you were a tennis player would you rather live with 2 AO's or being
forever known as a Wimbledon champ?



  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 01:36:13
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On 20 helmi, 00:15, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:04:59 +0100, "*skriptis"
> > <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> >> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
> >>news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
> >>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper
> >>> <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>
> >>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning
> >>> two slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>
> >> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>
> > So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
> > medal's relation to bronze medal?
>
> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one Olympic gold
> medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on the planet who wouldn't prefer
> the Olympic gold.

Unless the event is Soccer...or boxing (olympic gold vs pro world
champ title match)...or.

In Winter sports winning ski World Cup (slalom/downhill etc not
crosscountry) is nowadays considered better achievement than OG...

The best analogy is:

Would you rather win 100m Olympic Gold (most prestige?), 1500m Olympic
Gold (high prestige). Long Jump Olympic Gold (quite high relative
prestige) or Hammer Throw Gold (least prestige of these four
examples).

.mikko


  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 22:44:26
From: drew
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 20, 12:28=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> 7543 tells us 1 Wimbledon is marginally better than 2 AO's. =A0That's the
> way 99% of tennis people see it.

99% of the people in rst think you are full of shit. Well, it might
be greater than 99% but it's probably in that ballpark judging from
the responses I read.

And at least that's objective.

You pull your numbers straight out of your ass.



   
Date: 20 Feb 2009 06:56:31
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:44:26 -0800 (PST), drew <drew@technologist.com >
wrote:

>On Feb 20, 12:28 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> 7543 tells us 1 Wimbledon is marginally better than 2 AO's.  That's the
>> way 99% of tennis people see it.
>
>99% of the people in rst think you are full of shit. Well, it might
>be greater than 99% but it's probably in that ballpark judging from
>the responses I read.
>
>And at least that's objective.
>
>You pull your numbers straight out of your ass.


you are absolutely correct drew.

most experts and rst people think whisper is a fool and only use him
as a punching bag to get a laugh or two.

the reason is that he is totally over the top where Sampras is
concerned that he can't even admit the guy had ANY flaw and was
the BEST at everything including he was better than Federer on clay
because he won once Rome by accident !

ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha



  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 22:41:54
From: drew
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 19, 6:42=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:

>
> Well, my guess is that most players would either think hard about whether=
they'd
> prefer 2*AO or 1*W, or take the 1*W without hesitation.

The idea that a player would be so arrogant as to even think he has
the luxury of the choice is ludicrous.

Winning one major in a year is a huge accomplishment.

I don't think you can quantify the difference between any single major
and two majors. It's too great a difference to contemplate.


  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 22:37:23
From: drew
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 19, 6:08=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:


>
> I'm not trying to "prove" the difference in prestige with the analogy. It
> doesn't need to be proven because it's so obvious.

Yes, but what is also obvious to anybody with even a passing knowledge
of tennis is that Wimbledon is not supported by a significant grass
court season. Nobody really plays tennis on grass anymore so where
prestige and history favour Wimbledon, the game as it is really played
in the real world is best reflected at the other majors because tennis
is played on hard court and clay.

So to be fair to the other majors you would have to consider 'surface
relevance' as something that favours the other majors over Wimbledon.

In other words, "Wimbledon is a prestigious event to win but winning
any other major is a better test of how you fare against the rest of
the players in the world in the real game of tennis."

Wimbledon has lost relevance because the surface is irrelevant. You
have to be a fast learner to win at Wimbledon because you only get two
weeks a year to play competitive ball on the surface.

I'm sure that takes something away from Wimbledon. Blame it on the AO
becuase they got rid of their grass surface.



   
Date: 20 Feb 2009 06:47:26
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:37:23 -0800 (PST), drew <drew@technologist.com >
wrote:

>On Feb 19, 6:08 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I'm not trying to "prove" the difference in prestige with the analogy. It
>> doesn't need to be proven because it's so obvious.
>
>Yes, but what is also obvious to anybody with even a passing knowledge
>of tennis is that Wimbledon is not supported by a significant grass
>court season. Nobody really plays tennis on grass anymore so where
>prestige and history favour Wimbledon, the game as it is really played
>in the real world is best reflected at the other majors because tennis
>is played on hard court and clay.
>
>So to be fair to the other majors you would have to consider 'surface
>relevance' as something that favours the other majors over Wimbledon.
>
>In other words, "Wimbledon is a prestigious event to win but winning
>any other major is a better test of how you fare against the rest of
>the players in the world in the real game of tennis."
>
>Wimbledon has lost relevance because the surface is irrelevant. You
>have to be a fast learner to win at Wimbledon because you only get two
>weeks a year to play competitive ball on the surface.
>
>I'm sure that takes something away from Wimbledon. Blame it on the AO
>becuase they got rid of their grass surface.


well i think they should either "bring grass back into the mainstream
or Wimbledon should convert to clay.


    
Date: 20 Feb 2009 21:15:01
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Superdave wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:37:23 -0800 (PST), drew <drew@technologist.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 19, 6:08 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm not trying to "prove" the difference in prestige with the analogy. It
>>> doesn't need to be proven because it's so obvious.
>> Yes, but what is also obvious to anybody with even a passing knowledge
>> of tennis is that Wimbledon is not supported by a significant grass
>> court season. Nobody really plays tennis on grass anymore so where
>> prestige and history favour Wimbledon, the game as it is really played
>> in the real world is best reflected at the other majors because tennis
>> is played on hard court and clay.
>>
>> So to be fair to the other majors you would have to consider 'surface
>> relevance' as something that favours the other majors over Wimbledon.
>>
>> In other words, "Wimbledon is a prestigious event to win but winning
>> any other major is a better test of how you fare against the rest of
>> the players in the world in the real game of tennis."
>>
>> Wimbledon has lost relevance because the surface is irrelevant. You
>> have to be a fast learner to win at Wimbledon because you only get two
>> weeks a year to play competitive ball on the surface.
>>
>> I'm sure that takes something away from Wimbledon. Blame it on the AO
>> becuase they got rid of their grass surface.
>
>
> well i think they should either "bring grass back into the mainstream
> or Wimbledon should convert to clay.


Sure, if you want to kill tennis completely. Wimbledon supports the
rest of the tennis calendar. Can you imagine the fans leaving in droves
if they didn't have the Wimbledon grass to look forward to?





     
Date: 20 Feb 2009 13:06:47
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:15:01 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Superdave wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:37:23 -0800 (PST), drew <drew@technologist.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 19, 6:08 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm not trying to "prove" the difference in prestige with the analogy. It
>>>> doesn't need to be proven because it's so obvious.
>>> Yes, but what is also obvious to anybody with even a passing knowledge
>>> of tennis is that Wimbledon is not supported by a significant grass
>>> court season. Nobody really plays tennis on grass anymore so where
>>> prestige and history favour Wimbledon, the game as it is really played
>>> in the real world is best reflected at the other majors because tennis
>>> is played on hard court and clay.
>>>
>>> So to be fair to the other majors you would have to consider 'surface
>>> relevance' as something that favours the other majors over Wimbledon.
>>>
>>> In other words, "Wimbledon is a prestigious event to win but winning
>>> any other major is a better test of how you fare against the rest of
>>> the players in the world in the real game of tennis."
>>>
>>> Wimbledon has lost relevance because the surface is irrelevant. You
>>> have to be a fast learner to win at Wimbledon because you only get two
>>> weeks a year to play competitive ball on the surface.
>>>
>>> I'm sure that takes something away from Wimbledon. Blame it on the AO
>>> becuase they got rid of their grass surface.
>>
>>
>> well i think they should either "bring grass back into the mainstream
>> or Wimbledon should convert to clay.
>
>
>Sure, if you want to kill tennis completely. Wimbledon supports the
>rest of the tennis calendar. Can you imagine the fans leaving in droves
>if they didn't have the Wimbledon grass to look forward to?
>
>


er.....no


  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 22:24:27
From: drew
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 19, 5:51=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:

> The whole point of the analogy is to illustrate that even though Wimbledo=
n and
> AO are slams there is a vast difference in prestige between them.

You are overstating the value of Wimbledon.

Winning two majors is always a bigger accomplishment than winning
one. The only substantive difference between the majors is the
playing surface.

I think that winning a French Open and a USO is probably the best
combo today for two majors but only because the USO is the fastest
surface and the FO is the slowest. Winning both shows a versatility
that is impressive beyond the numbers.

Winning one Wimbledon is more or less the same as winning one FO or
winning one USO for me. AO really should be considered the same as
winning USO and it probably will be in the minds of most soon.
They've changed surfaces a little too often for me at the AO so it's
kind of hard to get a perspective on the kind of player and the kind
of skills necessary to win this particular major.

. Would have preferred that they stayed with Rebound Ace at the AO
but I guess too many players thought the surface too sticky and
dangerous. If they stick with Plexicushion for many years, it will
resonate. Surface defines the major as much as anything.



   
Date: 20 Feb 2009 21:08:41
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
drew wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:51 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>> The whole point of the analogy is to illustrate that even though Wimbledon and
>> AO are slams there is a vast difference in prestige between them.
>
> You are overstating the value of Wimbledon.
>
> Winning two majors is always a bigger accomplishment than winning
> one. The only substantive difference between the majors is the
> playing surface.
>
> I think that winning a French Open and a USO is probably the best
> combo today for two majors but only because the USO is the fastest
> surface and the FO is the slowest. Winning both shows a versatility
> that is impressive beyond the numbers.
>
> Winning one Wimbledon is more or less the same as winning one FO or
> winning one USO for me. AO really should be considered the same as
> winning USO and it probably will be in the minds of most soon.
> They've changed surfaces a little too often for me at the AO so it's
> kind of hard to get a perspective on the kind of player and the kind
> of skills necessary to win this particular major.
>
> . Would have preferred that they stayed with Rebound Ace at the AO
> but I guess too many players thought the surface too sticky and
> dangerous. If they stick with Plexicushion for many years, it will
> resonate. Surface defines the major as much as anything.
>


In one way that's true - eg FO is only > AO due to being on clay & we
already have HC slam at USO. But it's dumb beyond belief to suggest
Wimbledon is equal to FO.





    
Date: 20 Feb 2009 13:07:32
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:08:41 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>drew wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 5:51 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>> The whole point of the analogy is to illustrate that even though Wimbledon and
>>> AO are slams there is a vast difference in prestige between them.
>>
>> You are overstating the value of Wimbledon.
>>
>> Winning two majors is always a bigger accomplishment than winning
>> one. The only substantive difference between the majors is the
>> playing surface.
>>
>> I think that winning a French Open and a USO is probably the best
>> combo today for two majors but only because the USO is the fastest
>> surface and the FO is the slowest. Winning both shows a versatility
>> that is impressive beyond the numbers.
>>
>> Winning one Wimbledon is more or less the same as winning one FO or
>> winning one USO for me. AO really should be considered the same as
>> winning USO and it probably will be in the minds of most soon.
>> They've changed surfaces a little too often for me at the AO so it's
>> kind of hard to get a perspective on the kind of player and the kind
>> of skills necessary to win this particular major.
>>
>> . Would have preferred that they stayed with Rebound Ace at the AO
>> but I guess too many players thought the surface too sticky and
>> dangerous. If they stick with Plexicushion for many years, it will
>> resonate. Surface defines the major as much as anything.
>>
>
>
>In one way that's true - eg FO is only > AO due to being on clay & we
>already have HC slam at USO. But it's dumb beyond belief to suggest
>Wimbledon is equal to FO.
>
>


Exactly, the FO is greater. Hardest to win.


   
Date: 20 Feb 2009 21:06:48
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
drew wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:51 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>> The whole point of the analogy is to illustrate that even though Wimbledon and
>> AO are slams there is a vast difference in prestige between them.
>
> You are overstating the value of Wimbledon.
>
> Winning two majors is always a bigger accomplishment than winning
> one. The only substantive difference between the majors is the
> playing surface.
>


So kids grow up thinking of surface rather than prestige...?

Any links to support that you fucking drunk moron?


  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 15:20:26
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 19, 5:54=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 5:41 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> Bob wrote:
> >>> DavidW wrote:
> >>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
> >>>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as
> >>>>> gold medal's relation to bronze medal?
>
> >>>> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one
> >>>> Olympic gold medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on the
> >>>> planet who wouldn't prefer the Olympic gold.
>
> >>> What you need is a good analogy, a better one isn't necessarily
> >>> sufficient.
>
> >> It's a good analogy.
>
> > Not really. What you are saying is
> > Olympic gold : WC gold :: Wimbledon title : AO title
>
> > One obvious problem is that your analogy fails to account for the
> > unique scheduling of the Olympics. An event held only once every four
> > years will automatically create considerable prestige for its
> > champions simply by their relative scarcity. Most world championships
> > are still held every year, or every two years.
>
> I specified athletics, which is every two years, but that doesn't matter.=
Make
> it every four (which it used to be) and the analogy holds.
>
> > However, Wimbledon and
> > the Australian Open are both annual events, so a major factor in the
> > Olympics-WC relationship is completely missing from the Wim.-AO
> > relationship.
>
> > That's just one defect, by the way.
>
> By all means continue then.

LOL -- you should be the one producing cogent arguments to show why
the analogy holds. But OK, two more obvious defects:

1. The Olympics have been around since 1896. The world championships
in track/"athletics" began in 1983. That is a huge disparity, and
another reason for the considerably greater importance attached to the
Olympics. In contrast, although Wimbledon is older than the Australian
Open, the age difference is nowhere near as great. Both are very old
tournaments in tennis terms. Both had had plenty of time to become
part of the sport's tradition.

2. Wimbledon and the AO are part of a universally recognized set that
is greater than either of them: the Grand Slam. Wimbledon is the most
prestigious as a freestanding tournament, but as *elements of the
Grand Slam*, the two tournaments are equal (as are the FO and USO).
Winning either one makes you a "slam champion" and gets you 25% of the
way to a Grand Slam. This factor connects all the slam events. In
contrast, the Olympics stand alone. There is no extra glory derived
from winning the Olympics + something else.

The trouble with the 7543 shtick is that its proponents take a simple,
relatively uncontroversial fact -- Wimbledon is the most prestigious
tennis tournament -- and first blow it way out of proportion ("More
than twice as big as the AO!"), then quantify it beyond all reason
("In fact, exactly 2.33 times as big!").

Joe Ramirez


   
Date: 20 Feb 2009 10:27:58
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Joe Ramirez <josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote:
> The trouble with the 7543 shtick is that its proponents take a simple,
> relatively uncontroversial fact -- Wimbledon is the most prestigious
> tennis tournament -- and first blow it way out of proportion ("More
> than twice as big as the AO!"), then quantify it beyond all reason
> ("In fact, exactly 2.33 times as big!").

Well said. Given the choice, random current player would take 1 wimbledon over
1 AO? Not controversial at all, and probably only false for australian players
with very patriotic tendencies. Random current player takes 1 wimbledon over
TWO australian open? Not buying it. Three words for you: "One slam wonder".


    
Date: 20 Feb 2009 13:43:27
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:27:58 -0300, Javier Gonzalez
<ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com > wrote:

>Joe Ramirez <josephmramirez@netzero.com> wrote:
>> The trouble with the 7543 shtick is that its proponents take a simple,
>> relatively uncontroversial fact -- Wimbledon is the most prestigious
>> tennis tournament -- and first blow it way out of proportion ("More
>> than twice as big as the AO!"), then quantify it beyond all reason
>> ("In fact, exactly 2.33 times as big!").
>
>Well said. Given the choice, random current player would take 1 wimbledon over
>1 AO? Not controversial at all, and probably only false for australian players
>with very patriotic tendencies. Random current player takes 1 wimbledon over
>TWO australian open? Not buying it. Three words for you: "One slam wonder".


and you can add for whisper's amusement .....


once can be an accident !


   
Date: 20 Feb 2009 20:50:55
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:54 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 5:41 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> Bob wrote:
>>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as
>>>>>>> gold medal's relation to bronze medal?
>>>>>> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one
>>>>>> Olympic gold medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on the
>>>>>> planet who wouldn't prefer the Olympic gold.
>>>>> What you need is a good analogy, a better one isn't necessarily
>>>>> sufficient.
>>>> It's a good analogy.
>>> Not really. What you are saying is
>>> Olympic gold : WC gold :: Wimbledon title : AO title
>>> One obvious problem is that your analogy fails to account for the
>>> unique scheduling of the Olympics. An event held only once every four
>>> years will automatically create considerable prestige for its
>>> champions simply by their relative scarcity. Most world championships
>>> are still held every year, or every two years.
>> I specified athletics, which is every two years, but that doesn't matter. Make
>> it every four (which it used to be) and the analogy holds.
>>
>>> However, Wimbledon and
>>> the Australian Open are both annual events, so a major factor in the
>>> Olympics-WC relationship is completely missing from the Wim.-AO
>>> relationship.
>>> That's just one defect, by the way.
>> By all means continue then.
>
> LOL -- you should be the one producing cogent arguments to show why
> the analogy holds. But OK, two more obvious defects:
>
> 1. The Olympics have been around since 1896. The world championships
> in track/"athletics" began in 1983. That is a huge disparity, and
> another reason for the considerably greater importance attached to the
> Olympics. In contrast, although Wimbledon is older than the Australian
> Open, the age difference is nowhere near as great. Both are very old
> tournaments in tennis terms. Both had had plenty of time to become
> part of the sport's tradition.
>
> 2. Wimbledon and the AO are part of a universally recognized set that
> is greater than either of them: the Grand Slam. Wimbledon is the most
> prestigious as a freestanding tournament, but as *elements of the
> Grand Slam*, the two tournaments are equal (as are the FO and USO).
> Winning either one makes you a "slam champion" and gets you 25% of the
> way to a Grand Slam. This factor connects all the slam events. In
> contrast, the Olympics stand alone. There is no extra glory derived
> from winning the Olympics + something else.
>
> The trouble with the 7543 shtick is that its proponents take a simple,
> relatively uncontroversial fact -- Wimbledon is the most prestigious
> tennis tournament -- and first blow it way out of proportion ("More
> than twice as big as the AO!"), then quantify it beyond all reason
> ("In fact, exactly 2.33 times as big!").
>
> Joe Ramirez


There's nothing wrong with allocating values that match the way most
experts/fans/players feel. Most agree 1 Wimbledon is slightly more
significant than 2 AO's (ie the difference between 7 v 6 pts), while 3
AO's is superior (9 v 7 pts). 7543 matches that thinking.



    
Date: 21 Feb 2009 20:51:04
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:50:55 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>There's nothing wrong with allocating values that match the way most
>experts/fans/players feel. Most agree 1 Wimbledon is slightly more
>significant than 2 AO's (ie the difference between 7 v 6 pts), while 3
>AO's is superior (9 v 7 pts). 7543 matches that thinking.

Oh FFS. So you know that "most experts/fans/players agree that 1
Wimbledon is slightly more significant than 2 AO's ?"


   
Date: 20 Feb 2009 10:42:24
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:54 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 5:41 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> Bob wrote:
>>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as
>>>>>>> gold medal's relation to bronze medal?
>>
>>>>>> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one
>>>>>> Olympic gold medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on
>>>>>> the planet who wouldn't prefer the Olympic gold.
>>
>>>>> What you need is a good analogy, a better one isn't necessarily
>>>>> sufficient.
>>
>>>> It's a good analogy.
>>
>>> Not really. What you are saying is
>>> Olympic gold : WC gold :: Wimbledon title : AO title
>>
>>> One obvious problem is that your analogy fails to account for the
>>> unique scheduling of the Olympics. An event held only once every
>>> four years will automatically create considerable prestige for its
>>> champions simply by their relative scarcity. Most world
>>> championships are still held every year, or every two years.
>>
>> I specified athletics, which is every two years, but that doesn't
>> matter. Make it every four (which it used to be) and the analogy
>> holds.
>>
>>> However, Wimbledon and
>>> the Australian Open are both annual events, so a major factor in the
>>> Olympics-WC relationship is completely missing from the Wim.-AO
>>> relationship.
>>
>>> That's just one defect, by the way.
>>
>> By all means continue then.
>
> LOL -- you should be the one producing cogent arguments to show why
> the analogy holds. But OK, two more obvious defects:
>
> 1. The Olympics have been around since 1896. The world championships
> in track/"athletics" began in 1983. That is a huge disparity, and
> another reason for the considerably greater importance attached to the
> Olympics.

Doubtful. There's no sign that the WC are gaining in prestige, but I guess we'll
have to wait a hundred years to see if the gap closes.

> In contrast, although Wimbledon is older than the Australian
> Open, the age difference is nowhere near as great. Both are very old
> tournaments in tennis terms. Both had had plenty of time to become
> part of the sport's tradition.
>
> 2. Wimbledon and the AO are part of a universally recognized set that
> is greater than either of them: the Grand Slam. Wimbledon is the most
> prestigious as a freestanding tournament, but as *elements of the
> Grand Slam*, the two tournaments are equal (as are the FO and USO).
> Winning either one makes you a "slam champion" and gets you 25% of the
> way to a Grand Slam.

The Grand Slam is rarely a factor because it's so unlikely, and it certainly
isn't relevant to the comparison in question.

> This factor connects all the slam events. In
> contrast, the Olympics stand alone.

Yes, so it says something for Wimbledon that it's so much bigger despite that
connection.

Anyway, the comparison of 2*AO with 1*W is as stand-alone titles.

> There is no extra glory derived
> from winning the Olympics + something else.
>
> The trouble with the 7543 shtick is that its proponents take a simple,
> relatively uncontroversial fact -- Wimbledon is the most prestigious
> tennis tournament -- and first blow it way out of proportion ("More
> than twice as big as the AO!"), then quantify it beyond all reason
> ("In fact, exactly 2.33 times as big!").

Well, my guess is that most players would either think hard about whether they'd
prefer 2*AO or 1*W, or take the 1*W without hesitation.




    
Date: 20 Feb 2009 20:55:49
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
DavidW wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 5:54 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>> On Feb 19, 5:41 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>> Bob wrote:
>>>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as
>>>>>>>> gold medal's relation to bronze medal?
>>>>>>> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one
>>>>>>> Olympic gold medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on
>>>>>>> the planet who wouldn't prefer the Olympic gold.
>>>>>> What you need is a good analogy, a better one isn't necessarily
>>>>>> sufficient.
>>>>> It's a good analogy.
>>>> Not really. What you are saying is
>>>> Olympic gold : WC gold :: Wimbledon title : AO title
>>>> One obvious problem is that your analogy fails to account for the
>>>> unique scheduling of the Olympics. An event held only once every
>>>> four years will automatically create considerable prestige for its
>>>> champions simply by their relative scarcity. Most world
>>>> championships are still held every year, or every two years.
>>> I specified athletics, which is every two years, but that doesn't
>>> matter. Make it every four (which it used to be) and the analogy
>>> holds.
>>>
>>>> However, Wimbledon and
>>>> the Australian Open are both annual events, so a major factor in the
>>>> Olympics-WC relationship is completely missing from the Wim.-AO
>>>> relationship.
>>>> That's just one defect, by the way.
>>> By all means continue then.
>> LOL -- you should be the one producing cogent arguments to show why
>> the analogy holds. But OK, two more obvious defects:
>>
>> 1. The Olympics have been around since 1896. The world championships
>> in track/"athletics" began in 1983. That is a huge disparity, and
>> another reason for the considerably greater importance attached to the
>> Olympics.
>
> Doubtful. There's no sign that the WC are gaining in prestige, but I guess we'll
> have to wait a hundred years to see if the gap closes.
>
>> In contrast, although Wimbledon is older than the Australian
>> Open, the age difference is nowhere near as great. Both are very old
>> tournaments in tennis terms. Both had had plenty of time to become
>> part of the sport's tradition.
>>
>> 2. Wimbledon and the AO are part of a universally recognized set that
>> is greater than either of them: the Grand Slam. Wimbledon is the most
>> prestigious as a freestanding tournament, but as *elements of the
>> Grand Slam*, the two tournaments are equal (as are the FO and USO).
>> Winning either one makes you a "slam champion" and gets you 25% of the
>> way to a Grand Slam.
>
> The Grand Slam is rarely a factor because it's so unlikely, and it certainly
> isn't relevant to the comparison in question.
>
>> This factor connects all the slam events. In
>> contrast, the Olympics stand alone.
>
> Yes, so it says something for Wimbledon that it's so much bigger despite that
> connection.
>
> Anyway, the comparison of 2*AO with 1*W is as stand-alone titles.
>
>> There is no extra glory derived
>> from winning the Olympics + something else.
>>
>> The trouble with the 7543 shtick is that its proponents take a simple,
>> relatively uncontroversial fact -- Wimbledon is the most prestigious
>> tennis tournament -- and first blow it way out of proportion ("More
>> than twice as big as the AO!"), then quantify it beyond all reason
>> ("In fact, exactly 2.33 times as big!").
>
> Well, my guess is that most players would either think hard about whether they'd
> prefer 2*AO or 1*W, or take the 1*W without hesitation.
>
>


Yes. I also think most would happily take 3 AOs over 1 Wimbledon as
winning that many times makes a real statement in historical terms, a
little more than 1 lone Wimbledon win.



  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 14:50:46
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 19, 5:41=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > DavidW wrote:
> >> Sakari Lund wrote:
> >>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
> >>> medal's relation to bronze medal?
>
> >> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one
> >> Olympic gold medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on the
> >> planet who wouldn't prefer the Olympic gold.
>
> > What you need is a good analogy, a better one isn't necessarily
> > sufficient.
>
> It's a good analogy.

Not really. What you are saying is
Olympic gold : WC gold :: Wimbledon title : AO title

One obvious problem is that your analogy fails to account for the
unique scheduling of the Olympics. An event held only once every four
years will automatically create considerable prestige for its
champions simply by their relative scarcity. Most world championships
are still held every year, or every two years. However, Wimbledon and
the Australian Open are both annual events, so a major factor in the
Olympics-WC relationship is completely missing from the Wim.-AO
relationship.

That's just one defect, by the way.

Joe Ramirez


   
Date: 20 Feb 2009 20:42:47
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:41 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> Bob wrote:
>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
>>>>> medal's relation to bronze medal?
>>>> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one
>>>> Olympic gold medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on the
>>>> planet who wouldn't prefer the Olympic gold.
>>> What you need is a good analogy, a better one isn't necessarily
>>> sufficient.
>> It's a good analogy.
>
> Not really. What you are saying is
> Olympic gold : WC gold :: Wimbledon title : AO title
>
> One obvious problem is that your analogy fails to account for the
> unique scheduling of the Olympics. An event held only once every four
> years will automatically create considerable prestige for its
> champions simply by their relative scarcity. Most world championships
> are still held every year, or every two years. However, Wimbledon and
> the Australian Open are both annual events, so a major factor in the
> Olympics-WC relationship is completely missing from the Wim.-AO
> relationship.
>
> That's just one defect, by the way.
>
> Joe Ramirez


I think given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the onus is on
you to prove Wimbledon is not the most prestigious & important tennis title.



    
Date: 20 Feb 2009 13:04:44
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:42:47 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 5:41 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>> Bob wrote:
>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
>>>>>> medal's relation to bronze medal?
>>>>> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one
>>>>> Olympic gold medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on the
>>>>> planet who wouldn't prefer the Olympic gold.
>>>> What you need is a good analogy, a better one isn't necessarily
>>>> sufficient.
>>> It's a good analogy.
>>
>> Not really. What you are saying is
>> Olympic gold : WC gold :: Wimbledon title : AO title
>>
>> One obvious problem is that your analogy fails to account for the
>> unique scheduling of the Olympics. An event held only once every four
>> years will automatically create considerable prestige for its
>> champions simply by their relative scarcity. Most world championships
>> are still held every year, or every two years. However, Wimbledon and
>> the Australian Open are both annual events, so a major factor in the
>> Olympics-WC relationship is completely missing from the Wim.-AO
>> relationship.
>>
>> That's just one defect, by the way.
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
>
>I think given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the onus is on
>you to prove Wimbledon is not the most prestigious & important tennis title.


Why ? Because YOU say it is ?

And besides what does that have to do with who is the best tennis
player ?

Lot's of jerks have won Wimbledon and lot's of great players never won
it.

So, fuck off !


   
Date: 20 Feb 2009 09:54:25
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:41 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> Bob wrote:
>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as
>>>>> gold medal's relation to bronze medal?
>>
>>>> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one
>>>> Olympic gold medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on the
>>>> planet who wouldn't prefer the Olympic gold.
>>
>>> What you need is a good analogy, a better one isn't necessarily
>>> sufficient.
>>
>> It's a good analogy.
>
> Not really. What you are saying is
> Olympic gold : WC gold :: Wimbledon title : AO title
>
> One obvious problem is that your analogy fails to account for the
> unique scheduling of the Olympics. An event held only once every four
> years will automatically create considerable prestige for its
> champions simply by their relative scarcity. Most world championships
> are still held every year, or every two years.

I specified athletics, which is every two years, but that doesn't matter. Make
it every four (which it used to be) and the analogy holds.

> However, Wimbledon and
> the Australian Open are both annual events, so a major factor in the
> Olympics-WC relationship is completely missing from the Wim.-AO
> relationship.
>
> That's just one defect, by the way.

By all means continue then.




    
Date: 20 Feb 2009 20:45:02
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
DavidW wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 5:41 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>> Bob wrote:
>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as
>>>>>> gold medal's relation to bronze medal?
>>>>> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one
>>>>> Olympic gold medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on the
>>>>> planet who wouldn't prefer the Olympic gold.
>>>> What you need is a good analogy, a better one isn't necessarily
>>>> sufficient.
>>> It's a good analogy.
>> Not really. What you are saying is
>> Olympic gold : WC gold :: Wimbledon title : AO title
>>
>> One obvious problem is that your analogy fails to account for the
>> unique scheduling of the Olympics. An event held only once every four
>> years will automatically create considerable prestige for its
>> champions simply by their relative scarcity. Most world championships
>> are still held every year, or every two years.
>
> I specified athletics, which is every two years, but that doesn't matter. Make
> it every four (which it used to be) and the analogy holds.
>
>> However, Wimbledon and
>> the Australian Open are both annual events, so a major factor in the
>> Olympics-WC relationship is completely missing from the Wim.-AO
>> relationship.
>>
>> That's just one defect, by the way.
>
> By all means continue then.
>
>


Yes, I'm eager to hear more.



  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 12:41:31
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 19, 2:36=A0pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:04=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> > "Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
>
> > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au=
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >>Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>
> > > That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
> > > slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>
> > Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>
> You think coming in 3rd twice compares to winning once?
>
> Rodjk #613

I just asked a question. I notice that you did not answer it.

Rodjk #613


  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 12:36:16
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 19, 2:04=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
>
> > On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>
> > That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
> > slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>
> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?

You think coming in 3rd twice compares to winning once?

Rodjk #613


   
Date: 19 Feb 2009 21:38:30
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Rodjk #613 wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:04 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper
>>> <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>>
>>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning
>>> two slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>>
>> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>
> You think coming in 3rd twice compares to winning once?


Well you obviously think winning 2 AO equals one Wimbledon.




  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 05:02:14
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 19, 12:56=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "Silence, Fedfucker!" <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:2de5bb56-815d-4920-b9aa-03d6b8745dee@l16g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon? =A0Is winning Wim/AO in
> >> same yr better than winning FO/USO?
>
> > Yes winning 2 slams is better than one. All non-fanfuckers agree on
> > this.
>
> False

Yes but you are whisper ski trips.


  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 04:58:41
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 19, 12:24=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 11:39 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> >> Back to the objective approach:
>
> >> Wilander:
> >> 9+12+0+5 =3D 26
>
> >> Nadal:
> >> 3+16+7+0 =3D 26
>
> >> 7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
> >> Fair and correct.
>
> > I don't seriously object to viewing Nadal's and Wilander's careers as
> > roughly equal -- each has important achievements that the other lacks;
> > both are greats; Nadal's legacy is still growing -- but of course it's
> > worth noting again that 7543 is not an "objective approach." As I've
> > pointed out many times (others have too), only the *application* of
> > the criteria (the point values) is objective. The *selection* of the
> > criteria is subjective. E.g., the precise 7/3 Wimbledon/AO ratio
> > cannot be verified by any objective means. For that matter, the
> > exclusion of points for myriad other factors is also purely
> > subjective. Anyone who does not recognize that has no business using
> > the term "objective."
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon? =A0Is winning Wim/AO in
> same yr better than winning FO/USO?

yes i'd take two AO's over 1 wimby and so would nearly everyone but
you.


   
Date: 20 Feb 2009 16:28:41
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:24 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 11:39 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> Back to the objective approach:
>>>> Wilander:
>>>> 9+12+0+5 = 26
>>>> Nadal:
>>>> 3+16+7+0 = 26
>>>> 7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
>>>> Fair and correct.
>>> I don't seriously object to viewing Nadal's and Wilander's careers as
>>> roughly equal -- each has important achievements that the other lacks;
>>> both are greats; Nadal's legacy is still growing -- but of course it's
>>> worth noting again that 7543 is not an "objective approach." As I've
>>> pointed out many times (others have too), only the *application* of
>>> the criteria (the point values) is objective. The *selection* of the
>>> criteria is subjective. E.g., the precise 7/3 Wimbledon/AO ratio
>>> cannot be verified by any objective means. For that matter, the
>>> exclusion of points for myriad other factors is also purely
>>> subjective. Anyone who does not recognize that has no business using
>>> the term "objective."
>>> Joe Ramirez
>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon? Is winning Wim/AO in
>> same yr better than winning FO/USO?
>
> yes i'd take two AO's over 1 wimby and so would nearly everyone but
> you.


7543 tells us 1 Wimbledon is marginally better than 2 AO's. That's the
way 99% of tennis people see it.

Federer is a nutter as he'd take 1 Wimbledon over 11 FO's, but he's an
extreme outlier & can be ignored.



   
Date: 19 Feb 2009 13:27:40
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:58:41 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 19, 12:24 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> > On Feb 18, 11:39 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>> >> Back to the objective approach:
>>
>> >> Wilander:
>> >> 9+12+0+5 = 26
>>
>> >> Nadal:
>> >> 3+16+7+0 = 26
>>
>> >> 7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
>> >> Fair and correct.
>>
>> > I don't seriously object to viewing Nadal's and Wilander's careers as
>> > roughly equal -- each has important achievements that the other lacks;
>> > both are greats; Nadal's legacy is still growing -- but of course it's
>> > worth noting again that 7543 is not an "objective approach." As I've
>> > pointed out many times (others have too), only the *application* of
>> > the criteria (the point values) is objective. The *selection* of the
>> > criteria is subjective. E.g., the precise 7/3 Wimbledon/AO ratio
>> > cannot be verified by any objective means. For that matter, the
>> > exclusion of points for myriad other factors is also purely
>> > subjective. Anyone who does not recognize that has no business using
>> > the term "objective."
>>
>> > Joe Ramirez
>>
>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?  Is winning Wim/AO in
>> same yr better than winning FO/USO?
>
>yes i'd take two AO's over 1 wimby and so would nearly everyone but
>you.


and Sampras of course because he couldn't win more than two.


  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 04:28:21
From: Silence, Fedfucker!
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander

>
> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon? Is winning Wim/AO in
> same yr better than winning FO/USO?

Yes winning 2 slams is better than one. All non-fanfuckers agree on
this.


   
Date: 19 Feb 2009 13:56:45
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander

"Silence, Fedfucker!" <thetruetennisgoat@hotmail.co.uk > wrote in message
news:2de5bb56-815d-4920-b9aa-03d6b8745dee@l16g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon? Is winning Wim/AO in
>> same yr better than winning FO/USO?
>
> Yes winning 2 slams is better than one. All non-fanfuckers agree on
> this.


False




  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:39 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> Back to the objective approach:
>>
>> Wilander:
>> 9+12+0+5 = 26
>>
>> Nadal:
>> 3+16+7+0 = 26
>>
>> 7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
>> Fair and correct.
>
> I don't seriously object to viewing Nadal's and Wilander's careers as
> roughly equal -- each has important achievements that the other lacks;
> both are greats; Nadal's legacy is still growing -- but of course it's
> worth noting again that 7543 is not an "objective approach." As I've
> pointed out many times (others have too), only the *application* of
> the criteria (the point values) is objective. The *selection* of the
> criteria is subjective. E.g., the precise 7/3 Wimbledon/AO ratio
> cannot be verified by any objective means. For that matter, the
> exclusion of points for myriad other factors is also purely
> subjective. Anyone who does not recognize that has no business using
> the term "objective."
>
> Joe Ramirez
>
>


Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon? Is winning Wim/AO in
same yr better than winning FO/USO?


   
Date: 19 Feb 2009 20:42:03
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?

That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
slams better than one? Um, let me think...





    
Date: 20 Feb 2009 20:01:26
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>
> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
> slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>
>
>


Is AO = slam to Wimbledon?

Unbelievable I have to ask this of a tennis commentator. Do they
actually pay you for your insight?


     
Date: 21 Feb 2009 21:23:33
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:01:26 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>>
>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
>> slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Is AO = slam to Wimbledon?

I was asking are you saying that winning one slam is better than
winning two slams.

>Unbelievable I have to ask this of a tennis commentator. Do they
>actually pay you for your insight?

I wouldn't call myself a tennis commentator base on those few matches
at Olympics.



    
Date: 19 Feb 2009 16:41:01
From:
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:42:03 +0200, Sakari Lund <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>
>That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
>slams better than one? Um, let me think...

Heck, to some of us, winning two AOs barely trumps winning Indian Wells and
Miami, and is slightly behind the Italian/German Open double.

-- Larry


     
Date: 20 Feb 2009 09:09:09
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
who@nobodyhome.org wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:42:03 +0200, Sakari Lund
> <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper
>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>>
>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
>> slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>
> Heck, to some of us, winning two AOs barely trumps winning Indian
> Wells and Miami, and is slightly behind the Italian/German Open
> double.

It doesn't make sense to me that a spectator can be so at odds with everyone
else regarding the prestige of an event. It's like saying that a Pan Pac gold
medal is more important than an Olympic gold medal*. Are you going to throw a
big party when your favourite swimmer wins a Pan Pac and celebrate it on your
own? (Since, to the swimmer swimmer himself and everyone else, it's no big
deal.) Usually, a title's importance to a fan is roughly what it is to the
players, almost by definition.

*No, I'm not equating AO and Olympics; it's just an example of events of vastly
different prestige, like AO and German Open.




    
Date: 19 Feb 2009 21:04:59
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander

"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote in message
news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>
> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
> slams better than one? Um, let me think...

Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?




     
Date: 19 Feb 2009 17:32:28
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
>
> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
> news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>>
>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
>> slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>
> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?

AO trophy: You won.
Bronze medal: You lost.
You: FAIL.


      
Date: 19 Feb 2009 22:12:47
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>> news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper
>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>>>
>>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning
>>> two slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>>
>> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>
> AO trophy: You won.
> Bronze medal: You lost.
> You: FAIL.


Would you rather have Chile won Copa America or World Cup?

Sure entry to Copa america is limited and the event is less prestigeus
because that, among other thingss.
But the point stays.

What about cycling races?

Would Armstrong rather add another Tour de France title to his tally or 2
Vueltas?


I am really disapointed by you if you actually think 2AO >Wim.




       
Date: 20 Feb 2009 20:28:00
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
*skriptis wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper
>>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>>>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning
>>>> two slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>>> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>> AO trophy: You won.
>> Bronze medal: You lost.
>> You: FAIL.
>
>
> Would you rather have Chile won Copa America or World Cup?
>
> Sure entry to Copa america is limited and the event is less prestigeus
> because that, among other thingss.
> But the point stays.
>
> What about cycling races?
>
> Would Armstrong rather add another Tour de France title to his tally or 2
> Vueltas?
>
>
> I am really disapointed by you if you actually think 2AO>Wim.
>
>


3 AO > Wimbledon as winning 3 is rare & really makes a statement, even
though it is only 4th biggest tournament. It's clear most consider
Stich or Cash's lone Wimbledon superior to Courier's 2 AO's.



       
Date: 19 Feb 2009 19:44:39
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper
>>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>>>>
>>>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning
>>>> two slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>>>
>>> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>>
>> AO trophy: You won.
>> Bronze medal: You lost.
>> You: FAIL.
>
>
> Would you rather have Chile won Copa America or World Cup?
>
> Sure entry to Copa america is limited and the event is less prestigeus
> because that, among other thingss.
> But the point stays.

World cup, obviously - and the point does NOT stand, since they are not
basically the same tournament held at a different venue.

> What about cycling races?
>
> Would Armstrong rather add another Tour de France title to his tally or 2
> Vueltas?

No opinion here since I don't follow cycling.

> I am really disapointed by you if you actually think 2AO>Wim.

And I couldn't care less that I disappoint you. I don't take the wimbledonist
vision you and your master espouse. I can dig someone taking one Wimbledon
over one Australian Open, but one Wimbledon over *two* Aussie opens, in this
day and age? That's just crazy talk.


        
Date: 20 Feb 2009 20:35:28
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper
>>>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>>>>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning
>>>>> two slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>>>> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>>> AO trophy: You won.
>>> Bronze medal: You lost.
>>> You: FAIL.
>>
>> Would you rather have Chile won Copa America or World Cup?
>>
>> Sure entry to Copa america is limited and the event is less prestigeus
>> because that, among other thingss.
>> But the point stays.
>
> World cup, obviously - and the point does NOT stand, since they are not
> basically the same tournament held at a different venue.
>
>> What about cycling races?
>>
>> Would Armstrong rather add another Tour de France title to his tally or 2
>> Vueltas?
>
> No opinion here since I don't follow cycling.
>
>> I am really disapointed by you if you actually think 2AO>Wim.
>
> And I couldn't care less that I disappoint you. I don't take the wimbledonist
> vision you and your master espouse. I can dig someone taking one Wimbledon
> over one Australian Open, but one Wimbledon over *two* Aussie opens, in this
> day and age? That's just crazy talk.


It's only marginally ahead - 7 v 6.


     
Date: 19 Feb 2009 22:34:37
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:04:59 +0100, "*skriptis"
<skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

>
>"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>>
>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
>> slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>
>Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?

So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
medal's relation to bronze medal?



      
Date: 20 Feb 2009 20:19:54
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:04:59 +0100, "*skriptis"
> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>> news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning two
>>> slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>
> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
> medal's relation to bronze medal?
>


Would you rather win 1 gold for your country or 2 silver?



       
Date: 22 Feb 2009 00:09:22
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander

On 20-Feb-2009, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> Would you rather win 1 gold for your country or 2 silver?

That makes no sense. Silver goes to best loser. This is not relevant when
we compare slam wins.


      
Date: 20 Feb 2009 09:15:56
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:04:59 +0100, "*skriptis"
> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>> news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper
>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>>>
>>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning
>>> two slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>>
>> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>
> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
> medal's relation to bronze medal?

A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one Olympic gold
medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on the planet who wouldn't prefer
the Olympic gold.




       
Date: 19 Feb 2009 14:40:13
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
DavidW wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
>> medal's relation to bronze medal?
>
> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one
> Olympic gold medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on the
> planet who wouldn't prefer the Olympic gold.

What you need is a good analogy, a better one isn't necessarily sufficient.
A slam title is a slam title whereas an olympic title isn't a world
championship title. Anyway, the olympic gold > championship gold doesn't
hold in tennis so it's hardly a universal rule one could use as a reference
for tennis.




        
Date: 20 Feb 2009 09:41:58
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Bob wrote:
> DavidW wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
>>> medal's relation to bronze medal?
>>
>> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one
>> Olympic gold medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on the
>> planet who wouldn't prefer the Olympic gold.
>
> What you need is a good analogy, a better one isn't necessarily
> sufficient.

It's a good analogy.




         
Date: 19 Feb 2009 14:46:32
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
DavidW wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>> DavidW wrote:
>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as
>>>> gold medal's relation to bronze medal?
>>>
>>> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one
>>> Olympic gold medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on the
>>> planet who wouldn't prefer the Olympic gold.
>>
>> What you need is a good analogy, a better one isn't necessarily
>> sufficient.
>
> It's a good analogy.

Not as long as you don't address the part of my post you chopped: "A slam
title is a slam title whereas an olympic title isn't a world
championship title. Anyway, the olympic gold > championship gold doesn't
hold in tennis so it's hardly a universal rule one could use as a reference
for tennis"




          
Date: 20 Feb 2009 20:41:29
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Bob wrote:
> DavidW wrote:
>> Bob wrote:
>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as
>>>>> gold medal's relation to bronze medal?
>>>> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one
>>>> Olympic gold medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on the
>>>> planet who wouldn't prefer the Olympic gold.
>>> What you need is a good analogy, a better one isn't necessarily
>>> sufficient.
>> It's a good analogy.
>
> Not as long as you don't address the part of my post you chopped: "A slam
> title is a slam title whereas an olympic title isn't a world
> championship title.


Semantics. 'Slam title' simply means top 4 events as they are bigger
than everything else. They have never been, & will never be equal.


          
Date: 20 Feb 2009 09:51:07
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Bob wrote:
> DavidW wrote:
>> Bob wrote:
>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as
>>>>> gold medal's relation to bronze medal?
>>>>
>>>> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one
>>>> Olympic gold medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on the
>>>> planet who wouldn't prefer the Olympic gold.
>>>
>>> What you need is a good analogy, a better one isn't necessarily
>>> sufficient.
>>
>> It's a good analogy.
>
> Not as long as you don't address the part of my post you chopped: "A
> slam title is a slam title whereas an olympic title isn't a world
> championship title. Anyway, the olympic gold > championship gold
> doesn't hold in tennis so it's hardly a universal rule one could use
> as a reference for tennis"

The whole point of the analogy is to illustrate that even though Wimbledon and
AO are slams there is a vast difference in prestige between them.




           
Date: 20 Feb 2009 20:44:42
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
DavidW wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>> DavidW wrote:
>>> Bob wrote:
>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as
>>>>>> gold medal's relation to bronze medal?
>>>>> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one
>>>>> Olympic gold medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on the
>>>>> planet who wouldn't prefer the Olympic gold.
>>>> What you need is a good analogy, a better one isn't necessarily
>>>> sufficient.
>>> It's a good analogy.
>> Not as long as you don't address the part of my post you chopped: "A
>> slam title is a slam title whereas an olympic title isn't a world
>> championship title. Anyway, the olympic gold > championship gold
>> doesn't hold in tennis so it's hardly a universal rule one could use
>> as a reference for tennis"
>
> The whole point of the analogy is to illustrate that even though Wimbledon and
> AO are slams there is a vast difference in prestige between them.
>
>


That's right. 'Grand Slam' simply means top 4, not equal top 4.

Are the top 4 players equal? When Federer was ranked No.1 & winning
everything & Blake no.4, were they essentially equal as they were both
in top 4 group?



           
Date: 19 Feb 2009 14:59:56
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
DavidW wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>> DavidW wrote:
>>> Bob wrote:
>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as
>>>>>> gold medal's relation to bronze medal?
>>>>>
>>>>> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one
>>>>> Olympic gold medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on the
>>>>> planet who wouldn't prefer the Olympic gold.
>>>>
>>>> What you need is a good analogy, a better one isn't necessarily
>>>> sufficient.
>>>
>>> It's a good analogy.
>>
>> Not as long as you don't address the part of my post you chopped: "A
>> slam title is a slam title whereas an olympic title isn't a world
>> championship title. Anyway, the olympic gold > championship gold
>> doesn't hold in tennis so it's hardly a universal rule one could use
>> as a reference for tennis"
>
> The whole point of the analogy is to illustrate that even though
> Wimbledon and AO are slams there is a vast difference in prestige
> between them.

Hand waving about 'prestige' and irrelevent analogies don't show that 2 AO <
1 W. Try again.




            
Date: 20 Feb 2009 10:08:46
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Bob wrote:
> DavidW wrote:
>> Bob wrote:
>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>> Bob wrote:
>>>>> DavidW wrote:
>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as
>>>>>>> gold medal's relation to bronze medal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A better analogy is two World Championship gold medals versus one
>>>>>> Olympic gold medal in athletics. I doubt there's an athlete on
>>>>>> the planet who wouldn't prefer the Olympic gold.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you need is a good analogy, a better one isn't necessarily
>>>>> sufficient.
>>>>
>>>> It's a good analogy.
>>>
>>> Not as long as you don't address the part of my post you chopped: "A
>>> slam title is a slam title whereas an olympic title isn't a world
>>> championship title. Anyway, the olympic gold > championship gold
>>> doesn't hold in tennis so it's hardly a universal rule one could use
>>> as a reference for tennis"
>>
>> The whole point of the analogy is to illustrate that even though
>> Wimbledon and AO are slams there is a vast difference in prestige
>> between them.
>
> Hand waving about 'prestige' and irrelevent analogies don't show that
> 2 AO < 1 W. Try again.

I'm not trying to "prove" the difference in prestige with the analogy. It
doesn't need to be proven because it's so obvious. I'm simply illustrating the
difference with two other events that have a similar difference.




      
Date: 19 Feb 2009 21:40:36
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:04:59 +0100, "*skriptis"
> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>> news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper
>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>>>
>>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning
>>> two slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>>
>> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>
> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
> medal's relation to bronze medal?

Do I have to answer?




       
Date: 19 Feb 2009 23:57:30
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:40:36 +0100, "*skriptis"
<skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:04:59 +0100, "*skriptis"
>> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cp9rp4hoc295bll46so0bt3oo8vr1prdh8@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper
>>>> <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon?
>>>>
>>>> That's just unbelievable you ask a question like that. Is winning
>>>> two slams better than one? Um, let me think...
>>>
>>> Is winning two bronze medals better than 1 gold?
>>
>> So are you now saying Wimbledon's relation to AO is the same as gold
>> medal's relation to bronze medal?
>
>Do I have to answer?

You don't have to do anything here. I am just slightly curious how the
system works. Why AO isn't comparable to 4th place? Are USO and FO
both comparable to silver medals? Do you have any idea how silly this
number game seems? Do you ask instructions from Whisper before your
every post? Are you Whisper as people increasingly think? Or are you a
Whisper fan who has no independent thought processes as I am inclined
to think? What the hell am I doing wasting my time with questions like
this? Life is full of questions...



   
Date: 19 Feb 2009 12:53:30
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:24:38 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 11:39 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>> Back to the objective approach:
>>>
>>> Wilander:
>>> 9+12+0+5 = 26
>>>
>>> Nadal:
>>> 3+16+7+0 = 26
>>>
>>> 7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
>>> Fair and correct.
>>
>> I don't seriously object to viewing Nadal's and Wilander's careers as
>> roughly equal -- each has important achievements that the other lacks;
>> both are greats; Nadal's legacy is still growing -- but of course it's
>> worth noting again that 7543 is not an "objective approach." As I've
>> pointed out many times (others have too), only the *application* of
>> the criteria (the point values) is objective. The *selection* of the
>> criteria is subjective. E.g., the precise 7/3 Wimbledon/AO ratio
>> cannot be verified by any objective means. For that matter, the
>> exclusion of points for myriad other factors is also purely
>> subjective. Anyone who does not recognize that has no business using
>> the term "objective."
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>>
>>
>
>
>Do you think winning 2 AOs trumps 1 Wimbledon? Is winning Wim/AO in
>same yr better than winning FO/USO?


yes and no


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 09:53:33
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
On Feb 18, 12:32=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8556c275-e5be-4378-a794-5ae10ee77308@v15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 11:39 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Back to the objective approach:
>
> > Wilander:
> > 9+12+0+5 =3D 26
>
> > Nadal:
> > 3+16+7+0 =3D 26
>
> > 7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
> > Fair and correct.
> >I don't seriously object to viewing Nadal's and Wilander's careers as
> >roughly equal -- each has important achievements that the other lacks;
> >both are greats; Nadal's legacy is still growing -- but of course it's
> >worth noting again that 7543 is not an "objective approach." As I've
> >pointed out many times (others have too), only the *application* of
> >the criteria (the point values) is objective. The *selection* of the
> >criteria is subjective. E.g., the precise 7/3 Wimbledon/AO ratio
> >cannot be verified by any objective means. For that matter, the
> >exclusion of points for myriad other factors is also purely
> >subjective. Anyone who does not recognize that has no business using
> >the term "objective."
>
> Our decision that "homocide" is something bad is also "subjective".
> We don't question that. We accept it.

It's obviously ludicrous trollery to compare 7543 to any kind of moral
norm, let alone a near-universal one. So I guess I'll be parachuting
out of this thread.

Joe Ramirez


   
Date: 19 Feb 2009 05:48:47
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Feb 18, 12:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8556c275-e5be-4378-a794-5ae10ee77308@v15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 18, 11:39 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Back to the objective approach:
>>
>>> Wilander:
>>> 9+12+0+5 = 26
>>
>>> Nadal:
>>> 3+16+7+0 = 26
>>
>>> 7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
>>> Fair and correct.
>>> I don't seriously object to viewing Nadal's and Wilander's careers
>>> as roughly equal -- each has important achievements that the other
>>> lacks; both are greats; Nadal's legacy is still growing -- but of
>>> course it's worth noting again that 7543 is not an "objective
>>> approach." As I've pointed out many times (others have too), only
>>> the *application* of the criteria (the point values) is objective.
>>> The *selection* of the criteria is subjective. E.g., the precise
>>> 7/3 Wimbledon/AO ratio cannot be verified by any objective means.
>>> For that matter, the exclusion of points for myriad other factors
>>> is also purely subjective. Anyone who does not recognize that has
>>> no business using the term "objective."
>>
>> Our decision that "homocide" is something bad is also "subjective".
>> We don't question that. We accept it.
>
> It's obviously ludicrous trollery to compare 7543 to any kind of moral
> norm, let alone a near-universal one. So I guess I'll be parachuting
> out of this thread.

Why? I am not saying accepting 7543 is as important as accepting the fact
that homocide is a bad thing.
But we're talking about the same principle here.




  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 18:32:40
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Nadal equals Wilander

"Joe Ramirez" <josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote in message
news:8556c275-e5be-4378-a794-5ae10ee77308@v15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 18, 11:39 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

> Back to the objective approach:
>
> Wilander:
> 9+12+0+5 = 26
>
> Nadal:
> 3+16+7+0 = 26
>
> 7543 has them tied at 26 pts each.
> Fair and correct.

>I don't seriously object to viewing Nadal's and Wilander's careers as
>roughly equal -- each has important achievements that the other lacks;
>both are greats; Nadal's legacy is still growing -- but of course it's
>worth noting again that 7543 is not an "objective approach." As I've
>pointed out many times (others have too), only the *application* of
>the criteria (the point values) is objective. The *selection* of the
>criteria is subjective. E.g., the precise 7/3 Wimbledon/AO ratio
>cannot be verified by any objective means. For that matter, the
>exclusion of points for myriad other factors is also purely
>subjective. Anyone who does not recognize that has no business using
>the term "objective."


Our decision that "homocide" is something bad is also "subjective".
We don't question that. We accept it.