tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 21 Feb 2009 09:16:14
From: Professor X
Subject: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
H2H +/-
Gomez 2-0 +
Lendl 0-1 -
Kriek 0-1 -
Wilander 1-0 +
Bruguera 4-1 +
Courier 1-2 -
Edberg 1-3 -
Becker 1-1 /
Stich 2-7 -
Noah 1-1 /
Korda 4-3 +
Chang 2-2 /
Muster 4-3 +
Kuerten 1-1 /
Rafter 1-1 /
Johansson 3-6 -
Kafelnikov 0-6 -
Costa 1-4 -
Agassi 3-3 /
Krajicek 2-5 -
Ivanisevic 3-5 -
Sampras 3-4 -
Gaudio 1-1 /
Ferrero 2-4 -
Roddick 1-4 -
Safin 7-2 +
Hewitt 2-2 /
Federer 2-9 -
Nadal 0-1 -
Djokovic 1-1 /

Murray?? 0-2 -

56- 84
56- 86 w/murray

Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven't
missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on who
else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.

This really is quite amazing.





 
Date: 22 Feb 2009 01:54:46
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 22, 9:53=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 22, 9:46=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Professor X wrote:
> > >>>> How do you define 'better'? =A0Federer should be better as he was =
raised
> > >>>> on clay & is a baseliner. =A0If Fed played s/v like Sampras he wou=
ldn't
> > >>>> have made a FO final either.
> > >>>> If we measure it by who won the bigger clay title then Sampras win=
s -
> > >>>> Italian Open has a lot more prestige/history than any clay event o=
utside FO.
> > >>>> No point getting angry about it - it's all factual.- Hide quoted t=
ext -
> > >>>> - Show quoted text -
> > >>> Anyone but you and striptease can see that
> > >>> 3FO finals
> > >>> + 4 Clay masters series with (6 other clay masters finals)
> > >>> easily trumps
> > >>> 1 FO Semi
> > >>> 1 Clay masters series
> > >>> 1 Dcup on clay.
> > >> The thing is Sampras has the Italian Open trophy in his cabinet - Ro=
ger
> > >> has some Hamburger trophies am I right?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Yes agreed Federer has won 4 Hamburgs which I admit are less
> > > prestigious. However, surely the 3FO finals must trump the italian
> > > open ;-) ?
>
> > I've never been a huge fan of slam r/ups. =A0The reason being these guy=
s
> > would have lost 1st rd had they played the champ in the 1st rd rather
> > than the final. =A0How many people here realize Tilden was r/up twice a=
t
> > FO, once going down 9-11 in 5th set? =A0As you see he gets zero credit =
for
> > this achievement & we only look at what he won.
>
> > It may seem harsh, but we only have to look at history to see how
> > current players will be assessed in 50 yrs time (filter out ceibs) - ie
> > the same as all the previous players.
>
> > End of the day it's all about what you won.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Okay lets argue it from your point of view then. If it is all about
> what you won, then surely 7 clay titles for Federer trumps 2 for
> Sampras?
> And 4 hamburgs must be worth at least 2 italian opens.- Hide quoted text =
-
>
> - Show quoted text -

Got to go out now, might continue this argument later.


 
Date: 22 Feb 2009 01:53:11
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 22, 9:46=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> >>>> How do you define 'better'? =A0Federer should be better as he was ra=
ised
> >>>> on clay & is a baseliner. =A0If Fed played s/v like Sampras he would=
n't
> >>>> have made a FO final either.
> >>>> If we measure it by who won the bigger clay title then Sampras wins =
-
> >>>> Italian Open has a lot more prestige/history than any clay event out=
side FO.
> >>>> No point getting angry about it - it's all factual.- Hide quoted tex=
t -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Anyone but you and striptease can see that
> >>> 3FO finals
> >>> + 4 Clay masters series with (6 other clay masters finals)
> >>> easily trumps
> >>> 1 FO Semi
> >>> 1 Clay masters series
> >>> 1 Dcup on clay.
> >> The thing is Sampras has the Italian Open trophy in his cabinet - Roge=
r
> >> has some Hamburger trophies am I right?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yes agreed Federer has won 4 Hamburgs which I admit are less
> > prestigious. However, surely the 3FO finals must trump the italian
> > open ;-) ?
>
> I've never been a huge fan of slam r/ups. =A0The reason being these guys
> would have lost 1st rd had they played the champ in the 1st rd rather
> than the final. =A0How many people here realize Tilden was r/up twice at
> FO, once going down 9-11 in 5th set? =A0As you see he gets zero credit fo=
r
> this achievement & we only look at what he won.
>
> It may seem harsh, but we only have to look at history to see how
> current players will be assessed in 50 yrs time (filter out ceibs) - ie
> the same as all the previous players.
>
> End of the day it's all about what you won.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Okay lets argue it from your point of view then. If it is all about
what you won, then surely 7 clay titles for Federer trumps 2 for
Sampras?
And 4 hamburgs must be worth at least 2 italian opens.


  
Date: 22 Feb 2009 21:04:49
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 22, 9:46 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>>> How do you define 'better'? Federer should be better as he was raised
>>>>>> on clay & is a baseliner. If Fed played s/v like Sampras he wouldn't
>>>>>> have made a FO final either.
>>>>>> If we measure it by who won the bigger clay title then Sampras wins -
>>>>>> Italian Open has a lot more prestige/history than any clay event outside FO.
>>>>>> No point getting angry about it - it's all factual.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> Anyone but you and striptease can see that
>>>>> 3FO finals
>>>>> + 4 Clay masters series with (6 other clay masters finals)
>>>>> easily trumps
>>>>> 1 FO Semi
>>>>> 1 Clay masters series
>>>>> 1 Dcup on clay.
>>>> The thing is Sampras has the Italian Open trophy in his cabinet - Roger
>>>> has some Hamburger trophies am I right?- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Yes agreed Federer has won 4 Hamburgs which I admit are less
>>> prestigious. However, surely the 3FO finals must trump the italian
>>> open ;-) ?
>> I've never been a huge fan of slam r/ups. The reason being these guys
>> would have lost 1st rd had they played the champ in the 1st rd rather
>> than the final. How many people here realize Tilden was r/up twice at
>> FO, once going down 9-11 in 5th set? As you see he gets zero credit for
>> this achievement & we only look at what he won.
>>
>> It may seem harsh, but we only have to look at history to see how
>> current players will be assessed in 50 yrs time (filter out ceibs) - ie
>> the same as all the previous players.
>>
>> End of the day it's all about what you won.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Okay lets argue it from your point of view then. If it is all about
> what you won, then surely 7 clay titles for Federer trumps 2 for
> Sampras?
> And 4 hamburgs must be worth at least 2 italian opens.


That's your Federer bias showing. If I were a player I'd much rather
have Italian Open trophy than 4 of lesser/forgettable tune-ups.

End of the day it doesn't matter if Fed was better than Sampras on clay
if they both failed to hold up FO trophy. At the goat level the only
thing that matters is slams won, & in their case they need a FO trophy
or 2 to lay any claims to clay prowess. This is how history treats all
players from the past & you're kidding yourself big time if you think
Federer is an exception.





 
Date: 22 Feb 2009 01:49:49
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 22, 9:42=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> >>>http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as.=
..
> >>>http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3D=
S...
> >>>http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as.=
..
> >>>http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DSantoro=
%...
> >>>http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as.=
..
> >>>http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DSantoro=
%...
> >>>http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DSantoro=
%...
> >>>http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DSantoro=
%...
> >>> Feeling VERY stupid now whispy?
> >>> What nonsense will you spout now?
> >> No, just asking for clarification before proceeding with analysis.
>
> >> Ok good effort from Fabrice, but I note he couldn't beat FO champs at =
FO
> >> is that correct? =A0At least he couldn't beat 4 FO champions at the FO=
.
>
> >> Anyway you cut it Sampras was a far superior claycourter than Santoro =
-
> >> I'm sure you can't argue that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I agree, Sampras WAS a far better claycourter than Santoro. My point
> > is merely that since Santoro beat more fo champs on clay than Sampras,
> > that surely the whole "sampras beat clay court champs" argument is
> > invalid. Since a less accomplished player bettered that feat.
>
> The core feat was beating FO champs at FO - clay tune-ups are quite a
> step down.
>
> I use this line to refute the ass clown claims of Sampras being useless
> on clay. =A0Clearly he was dangerous in any given match, but fortunately
> for the field his priority was Wimbledon & he was never going to hone a
> bumrooting game with Wimbledon just around the corner. =A0Yes he wanted t=
o
> win FO, but not enough to change his game to a more clay-friendly
> version. =A0He wouldn't be the goat if he won say 3 Wim/3 FOs instead of =
7/0.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ok so we have already changed tack from beating the 7 Fo champs, to
just beating FO champs at the FO now? Thing is not many think that
Sampras was useless on Clay in an absolute sense. But relative to his
ability and performances on hard court and grass, he was.



  
Date: 22 Feb 2009 20:59:48
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 22, 9:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
>>>>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=S...
>>>>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
>>>>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Santoro%...
>>>>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
>>>>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Santoro%...
>>>>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Santoro%...
>>>>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Santoro%...
>>>>> Feeling VERY stupid now whispy?
>>>>> What nonsense will you spout now?
>>>> No, just asking for clarification before proceeding with analysis.
>>>> Ok good effort from Fabrice, but I note he couldn't beat FO champs at FO
>>>> is that correct? At least he couldn't beat 4 FO champions at the FO.
>>>> Anyway you cut it Sampras was a far superior claycourter than Santoro -
>>>> I'm sure you can't argue that.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> I agree, Sampras WAS a far better claycourter than Santoro. My point
>>> is merely that since Santoro beat more fo champs on clay than Sampras,
>>> that surely the whole "sampras beat clay court champs" argument is
>>> invalid. Since a less accomplished player bettered that feat.
>> The core feat was beating FO champs at FO - clay tune-ups are quite a
>> step down.
>>
>> I use this line to refute the ass clown claims of Sampras being useless
>> on clay. Clearly he was dangerous in any given match, but fortunately
>> for the field his priority was Wimbledon & he was never going to hone a
>> bumrooting game with Wimbledon just around the corner. Yes he wanted to
>> win FO, but not enough to change his game to a more clay-friendly
>> version. He wouldn't be the goat if he won say 3 Wim/3 FOs instead of 7/0.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Ok so we have already changed tack from beating the 7 Fo champs, to
> just beating FO champs at the FO now? Thing is not many think that
> Sampras was useless on Clay in an absolute sense. But relative to his
> ability and performances on hard court and grass, he was.
>


But was that because he did everything he could to win FO, or just hoped
to win with his normal game as he feared changing it drastically to
improve clay results so close to Wimbledon?

If you remember Sampras was a helluvva power baseliner when he exploded
on tour & it was clear he had the tools to win FO if he put all his
resources into that area. I mean what kind of moron would play a
grass/HC game at FO if he really was hellbent on winning it? It's clear
he just hoped it was good enough & he'd get a little lucky.

You can blame him for not taking FO as seriously as Wimbledon, but I &
many experts (Newk/Stolle are both on record) think he never put in a
good effort to win FO - ie move to Europe 3 months before FO & play 100%
on clay.

This doesn't excuse him & no coulda/woulda for FO, but it's just the
reality of the situation. Playing 1 or 2 clay tune-ups & losing early
is not 'doing all he could to win FO' as Fedfuckers like to fantasize.

There's no point saying 'How come Roger did it?' when Roger is a
baseliner & should do very well on clay.









 
Date: 22 Feb 2009 01:46:34
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 22, 9:38=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> No, no, no, no. you have very poor comprehension skills. Of course
> >>> Sampras was better on clay than Santoro. I reiterate that if you
> >>> understood the posts we were spending time poking holes in Whispers
> >>> logic by using Santoro. Indeed it is quite funny that you think we
> >>> were being serious.
> >>> The point was simply that it proves how STUPID Whisper is for using
> >>> the Sampras beat former FO champs argument, when Santoro (who was obv
> >>> not as good as Sampras on clay really) did even better at beating FO
> >>> champs.
> >>> However, since the "Sampras beating former FO champs" argument no
> >>> longer holds up because of Santoro Whisper will now have very little
> >>> to hide behind to defend his beloved Sampras clay record in compariso=
n
> >>> to other greats such as Federer.
> >>> So simple question ski trips, Is Federer far better than Sampras on
> >>> clay? Quite simple and easy question.
> >> How do you define 'better'? =A0Federer should be better as he was rais=
ed
> >> on clay & is a baseliner. =A0If Fed played s/v like Sampras he wouldn'=
t
> >> have made a FO final either.
>
> >> If we measure it by who won the bigger clay title then Sampras wins -
> >> Italian Open has a lot more prestige/history than any clay event outsi=
de FO.
>
> >> No point getting angry about it - it's all factual.- Hide quoted text =
-
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > "If fed played s/v like Sampras he wouldn't have made an FO final
> > either."
> > To say that is one of the most moronic things I have ever seen. Maybe
> > if Sampras had served under arm, he would never have won all those
> > slams? ;-)
>
> > lol. Do you see the idiocy of your post now?
>
> No?
>
> Sampras clearly was gearing up to win the title that really mattered so
> obviously was not going to fuck around & employ a bumrooting game just
> to win FO.
>
> Wimbledon is always the top priority for any aspiring goat - any other
> slams can come where they may but for maximum legacy boost you really
> want to win Wimbledon every year.
>
> Sure we can crap on in rst how nice it is to have all the slams etc but
> in the real world not many even know what a FO is. =A0The smart guys
> always want Wimbledon 1st - Rafa said years ago his top dream was to win
> Wimbledon.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Using your own logic once again:

One of your favourite phrases whisper is that "shoulda, woulda,
coulda," does not matter. On that basis, how can you argue that
Sampras could have won FO if he had played a bumrooting game, and not
been using it to gear up to Wimbledon?

No "shoulda, woulda, coulda," remember.


  
Date: 22 Feb 2009 20:50:57
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 22, 9:38 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> No, no, no, no. you have very poor comprehension skills. Of course
>>>>> Sampras was better on clay than Santoro. I reiterate that if you
>>>>> understood the posts we were spending time poking holes in Whispers
>>>>> logic by using Santoro. Indeed it is quite funny that you think we
>>>>> were being serious.
>>>>> The point was simply that it proves how STUPID Whisper is for using
>>>>> the Sampras beat former FO champs argument, when Santoro (who was obv
>>>>> not as good as Sampras on clay really) did even better at beating FO
>>>>> champs.
>>>>> However, since the "Sampras beating former FO champs" argument no
>>>>> longer holds up because of Santoro Whisper will now have very little
>>>>> to hide behind to defend his beloved Sampras clay record in comparison
>>>>> to other greats such as Federer.
>>>>> So simple question ski trips, Is Federer far better than Sampras on
>>>>> clay? Quite simple and easy question.
>>>> How do you define 'better'? Federer should be better as he was raised
>>>> on clay & is a baseliner. If Fed played s/v like Sampras he wouldn't
>>>> have made a FO final either.
>>>> If we measure it by who won the bigger clay title then Sampras wins -
>>>> Italian Open has a lot more prestige/history than any clay event outside FO.
>>>> No point getting angry about it - it's all factual.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> "If fed played s/v like Sampras he wouldn't have made an FO final
>>> either."
>>> To say that is one of the most moronic things I have ever seen. Maybe
>>> if Sampras had served under arm, he would never have won all those
>>> slams? ;-)
>>> lol. Do you see the idiocy of your post now?
>> No?
>>
>> Sampras clearly was gearing up to win the title that really mattered so
>> obviously was not going to fuck around & employ a bumrooting game just
>> to win FO.
>>
>> Wimbledon is always the top priority for any aspiring goat - any other
>> slams can come where they may but for maximum legacy boost you really
>> want to win Wimbledon every year.
>>
>> Sure we can crap on in rst how nice it is to have all the slams etc but
>> in the real world not many even know what a FO is. The smart guys
>> always want Wimbledon 1st - Rafa said years ago his top dream was to win
>> Wimbledon.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Using your own logic once again:
>
> One of your favourite phrases whisper is that "shoulda, woulda,
> coulda," does not matter. On that basis, how can you argue that
> Sampras could have won FO if he had played a bumrooting game, and not
> been using it to gear up to Wimbledon?
>
> No "shoulda, woulda, coulda," remember.


Sampras only gets credit for what he won from me. It's a fact Wimbledon
was his top priority so that explains why he didn't tamper with his
style too much. I believe he would have, had there been a bigger gap
between FO/Wimbledon, but they are so close he couldn't risk honing a
grass-unfriendly style. Roger is different as he was raised on clay &
is a baseliner, so he doesn't have to change his game at all.






 
Date: 22 Feb 2009 01:36:54
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 22, 9:30=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 6:19 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Professor X wrote:
> >>> On Feb 21, 8:16 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 21, 7:56 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:45 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrot=
e:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googleg=
roups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2H +/-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 56- 84
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (=
If
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> future depending on who else from this era wins a slam --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Murray for example.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeate=
d
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *eight* French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's =
one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> more than the clay court god Sampras was able to knock off.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now no one can ever again claim that Santoro was "lame on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> clay." :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on cl=
ay
> >>>>>>>>>>>> than Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Sant=
oro
> >>>>>>>>>>>> comes out top.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
> >>>>>>>>>>> Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras playe=
d
> >>>>>>>>>>> twice as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Bor=
g"
> >>>>>>>>>>> line of reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whispe=
r
> >>>>>>>>>>> Inc. (i.e., your employer). After all, it's what you win that
> >>>>>>>>>>> counts, right, not how many attempts those wins required? Ple=
ase
> >>>>>>>>>>> read the employee handbook and try again. :)
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially
> >>>>>>>>>> for someone who achieves GOAT status.
> >>>>>>>>>> Santoro is past 36. He played to much.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>> So if a player in the future plays from the age of 16-40 on the
> >>>>>>>>> pro tour and somehow won 15 slams, 4 of which were past the age
> >>>>>>>>> of 30, would you say that his slams won after 30 do not count,
> >>>>>>>>> simply because he played for longer? Don't be silly.
> >>>>>>>>> If we apply that logic does it mean that Agassi only won 6 slam=
s,
> >>>>>>>>> since he played longer than Sampras, so the last two do not cou=
nt?
> >>>>>>>>> If Federer wins his 15th slam past the age of 30 will all you
> >>>>>>>>> Sampras fans then say it doesn't count? Some of you should real=
ly
> >>>>>>>>> wake up.
> >>>>>>>> No, as I said, players play to win slams, that's the goal and
> >>>>>>>> that's the measure of greatness.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>> Players also *play* to win matches. Yet matches alone past 30 do =
not
> >>>>>>> count, but slams do?
> >>>>>> Matches per se are irrelevant. Sampras gets no historical credit f=
or
> >>>>>> beating all those FO champs.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> So you disagree with Whisper for once? He will not be very happy wi=
th
> >>>>> you for that, i'd be careful since he may not pay you now. Remember=
,
> >>>>> Whisper seems to think that beating FO champs on clay as being very
> >>>>> important. Indeed, did he not create that argument in the first pla=
ce
> >>>>> to somewhat try and cover up the poor results that Sampras had at t=
he
> >>>>> French? Moreover, you say to me on one hand that only winning slams
> >>>>> matter, yet on the other you mention Sampras reaching the French Op=
en
> >>>>> semi-final, I thought you said that only winning mattered a minute
> >>>>> ago?
> >>>>> This is not really going to skript.is.it?
> >>>> You're not good at this, see, Joe already backed off because he was =
just
> >>>> joking, but you continue with this pointless discussion...
> >>>> Sampras lame on clay <> IO title, FO sf and multiple qf, DC on clay,=
beating
> >>>> 7 FO champs.
> >>>> I don't know where did you get "poor results at French, or on clay i=
n
> >>>> general for that matter"?
> >>>> He's the type of player who could beat anyone, bar Rafa and similar =
guys, if
> >>>> it came to one match. Even on clay.
> >>>> otoh, he did have problems with gruelleing FO schedule, lack of stam=
ina,
> >>>> proximity of Wimbledon and since he never won FO he gets 0 credit fo=
r it.
> >>>> Same as Federer, Becker, Connors etc.,
> >>>> I don't know which part exactly gives you problems here.- Hide quote=
d text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> No, no, no, no. you have very poor comprehension skills. Of course
> >>> Sampras was better on clay than Santoro. I reiterate that if you
> >>> understood the posts we were spending time poking holes in Whispers
> >>> logic by using Santoro. Indeed it is quite funny that you think we
> >>> were being serious.
> >>> The point was simply that it proves how STUPID Whisper is for using
> >>> the Sampras beat former FO champs argument, when Santoro (who was obv
> >>> not as good as Sampras on clay really) did even better at beating FO
> >>> champs.
> >>> However, since the "Sampras beating former FO champs" argument no
> >>> longer holds up because of Santoro Whisper will now have very little
> >>> to hide behind to defend his beloved Sampras clay record in compariso=
n
> >>> to other greats such as Federer.
> >>> So simple question ski trips, Is Federer far better than Sampras on
> >>> clay? Quite simple and easy question.
> >> How do you define 'better'? =A0Federer should be better as he was rais=
ed
> >> on clay & is a baseliner. =A0If Fed played s/v like Sampras he wouldn'=
t
> >> have made a FO final either.
>
> >> If we measure it by who won the bigger clay title then Sampras wins -
> >> Italian Open has a lot more prestige/history than any clay event outsi=
de FO.
>
> >> No point getting angry about it - it's all factual.- Hide quoted text =
-
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Anyone but you and striptease can see that
> > 3FO finals
> > + 4 Clay masters series with (6 other clay masters finals)
>
> > easily trumps
>
> > 1 FO Semi
> > 1 Clay masters series
> > 1 Dcup on clay.
>
> The thing is Sampras has the Italian Open trophy in his cabinet - Roger
> has some Hamburger trophies am I right?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes agreed Federer has won 4 Hamburgs which I admit are less
prestigious. However, surely the 3FO finals must trump the italian
open ;-) ?


  
Date: 22 Feb 2009 20:46:26
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
>>>> How do you define 'better'? Federer should be better as he was raised
>>>> on clay & is a baseliner. If Fed played s/v like Sampras he wouldn't
>>>> have made a FO final either.
>>>> If we measure it by who won the bigger clay title then Sampras wins -
>>>> Italian Open has a lot more prestige/history than any clay event outside FO.
>>>> No point getting angry about it - it's all factual.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Anyone but you and striptease can see that
>>> 3FO finals
>>> + 4 Clay masters series with (6 other clay masters finals)
>>> easily trumps
>>> 1 FO Semi
>>> 1 Clay masters series
>>> 1 Dcup on clay.
>> The thing is Sampras has the Italian Open trophy in his cabinet - Roger
>> has some Hamburger trophies am I right?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes agreed Federer has won 4 Hamburgs which I admit are less
> prestigious. However, surely the 3FO finals must trump the italian
> open ;-) ?


I've never been a huge fan of slam r/ups. The reason being these guys
would have lost 1st rd had they played the champ in the 1st rd rather
than the final. How many people here realize Tilden was r/up twice at
FO, once going down 9-11 in 5th set? As you see he gets zero credit for
this achievement & we only look at what he won.

It may seem harsh, but we only have to look at history to see how
current players will be assessed in 50 yrs time (filter out ceibs) - ie
the same as all the previous players.

End of the day it's all about what you won.







 
Date: 22 Feb 2009 01:34:35
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 22, 9:28=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 6:06 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0H2H +/-
> >>>> Gomez =A0 =A0 =A02-0 =A0 =A0+
> >>>> Lendl =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0-1 =A0 =A0 -
> >>>> Kriek =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0-1 =A0 =A0 -
> >>>> Wilander =A0 =A01-0 =A0 =A0+
> >>>> Bruguera =A0 =A04-1 =A0 =A0+
> >>>> Courier =A0 =A0 =A0 1-2 =A0 =A0 -
> >>>> Edberg =A0 =A0 =A0 1-3 =A0 =A0 -
> >>>> Becker =A0 =A0 =A0 1-1 =A0 =A0 /
> >>>> Stich =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-7 =A0 =A0-
> >>>> Noah =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0 =A0/
> >>>> Korda =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 4-3 =A0 =A0+
> >>>> Chang =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-2 =A0 =A0/
> >>>> Muster =A0 =A0 =A0 4-3 =A0 =A0+
> >>>> Kuerten =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0 =A0/
> >>>> Rafter =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1-1 =A0 /
> >>>> Johansson =A03-6 =A0 =A0-
> >>>> Kafelnikov =A0 0-6 =A0 =A0-
> >>>> Costa =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1-4 =A0 =A0-
> >>>> Agassi =A0 =A0 =A0 =A03-3 =A0 /
> >>>> Krajicek =A0 =A0 =A02-5 =A0 -
> >>>> Ivanisevic =A0 =A03-5 =A0 -
> >>>> Sampras =A0 =A0 3-4 =A0-
> >>>> Gaudio =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0/
> >>>> Ferrero =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-4 =A0 -
> >>>> Roddick =A0 =A0 =A01-4 =A0 -
> >>>> Safin =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 7-2 =A0+
> >>>> Hewitt =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2-2 =A0/
> >>>> Federer =A0 =A0 =A0 2-9 =A0-
> >>>> Nadal =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A00-1 =A0-
> >>>> Djokovic =A0 =A0 =A01-1 /
> >>>> Murray?? =A0 =A00-2 -
> >>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 56- 84
> >>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 56- 86 =A0 w/murray
> >>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven=
't
> >>>> missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on wh=
o
> >>>> else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.
> >>>> This really is quite amazing.
> >>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
> >>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
> >>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
> >>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
> >>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
> >>> Joe Ramirez
> >> He beat them on clay? =A0Links?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Here are all your links:
>
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DS.=
..
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DSantoro%.=
..
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DSantoro%.=
..
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DSantoro%.=
..
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DSantoro%.=
..
>
> > Feeling VERY stupid now whispy?
> > What nonsense will you spout now?
>
> No, just asking for clarification before proceeding with analysis.
>
> Ok good effort from Fabrice, but I note he couldn't beat FO champs at FO
> is that correct? =A0At least he couldn't beat 4 FO champions at the FO.
>
> Anyway you cut it Sampras was a far superior claycourter than Santoro -
> I'm sure you can't argue that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree, Sampras WAS a far better claycourter than Santoro. My point
is merely that since Santoro beat more fo champs on clay than Sampras,
that surely the whole "sampras beat clay court champs" argument is
invalid. Since a less accomplished player bettered that feat.


  
Date: 22 Feb 2009 20:42:32
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
>>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
>>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=S...
>>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
>>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Santoro%...
>>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.as...
>>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Santoro%...
>>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Santoro%...
>>> http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Santoro%...
>>> Feeling VERY stupid now whispy?
>>> What nonsense will you spout now?
>> No, just asking for clarification before proceeding with analysis.
>>
>> Ok good effort from Fabrice, but I note he couldn't beat FO champs at FO
>> is that correct? At least he couldn't beat 4 FO champions at the FO.
>>
>> Anyway you cut it Sampras was a far superior claycourter than Santoro -
>> I'm sure you can't argue that.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I agree, Sampras WAS a far better claycourter than Santoro. My point
> is merely that since Santoro beat more fo champs on clay than Sampras,
> that surely the whole "sampras beat clay court champs" argument is
> invalid. Since a less accomplished player bettered that feat.


The core feat was beating FO champs at FO - clay tune-ups are quite a
step down.

I use this line to refute the ass clown claims of Sampras being useless
on clay. Clearly he was dangerous in any given match, but fortunately
for the field his priority was Wimbledon & he was never going to hone a
bumrooting game with Wimbledon just around the corner. Yes he wanted to
win FO, but not enough to change his game to a more clay-friendly
version. He wouldn't be the goat if he won say 3 Wim/3 FOs instead of 7/0.




 
Date: 22 Feb 2009 01:32:27
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 22, 6:19=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 8:16 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> Professor X wrote:
> >>> On Feb 21, 7:56 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 21, 7:45 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegro=
ups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> H2H +/-
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 56- 84
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> future depending on who else from this era wins a slam --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Murray for example.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
> >>>>>>>>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated
> >>>>>>>>>>> *eight* French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's on=
e
> >>>>>>>>>>> more than the clay court god Sampras was able to knock off.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Now no one can ever again claim that Santoro was "lame on
> >>>>>>>>>>> clay." :)
> >>>>>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay
> >>>>>>>>>> than Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santor=
o
> >>>>>>>>>> comes out top.
> >>>>>>>>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
> >>>>>>>>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
> >>>>>>>>> Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played
> >>>>>>>>> twice as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg"
> >>>>>>>>> line of reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper
> >>>>>>>>> Inc. (i.e., your employer). After all, it's what you win that
> >>>>>>>>> counts, right, not how many attempts those wins required? Pleas=
e
> >>>>>>>>> read the employee handbook and try again. :)
> >>>>>>>> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially
> >>>>>>>> for someone who achieves GOAT status.
> >>>>>>>> Santoro is past 36. He played to much.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>> So if a player in the future plays from the age of 16-40 on the
> >>>>>>> pro tour and somehow won 15 slams, 4 of which were past the age
> >>>>>>> of 30, would you say that his slams won after 30 do not count,
> >>>>>>> simply because he played for longer? Don't be silly.
> >>>>>>> If we apply that logic does it mean that Agassi only won 6 slams,
> >>>>>>> since he played longer than Sampras, so the last two do not count=
?
> >>>>>>> If Federer wins his 15th slam past the age of 30 will all you
> >>>>>>> Sampras fans then say it doesn't count? Some of you should really
> >>>>>>> wake up.
> >>>>>> No, as I said, players play to win slams, that's the goal and
> >>>>>> that's the measure of greatness.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> Players also *play* to win matches. Yet matches alone past 30 do no=
t
> >>>>> count, but slams do?
> >>>> Matches per se are irrelevant. Sampras gets no historical credit for
> >>>> beating all those FO champs.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> So you disagree with Whisper for once? He will not be very happy with
> >>> you for that, i'd be careful since he may not pay you now. Remember,
> >>> Whisper seems to think that beating FO champs on clay as being very
> >>> important. Indeed, did he not create that argument in the first place
> >>> to somewhat try and cover up the poor results that Sampras had at the
> >>> French? Moreover, you say to me on one hand that only winning slams
> >>> matter, yet on the other you mention Sampras reaching the French Open
> >>> semi-final, I thought you said that only winning mattered a minute
> >>> ago?
> >>> This is not really going to skript.is.it?
> >> You're not good at this, see, Joe already backed off because he was ju=
st
> >> joking, but you continue with this pointless discussion...
>
> >> Sampras lame on clay <> IO title, FO sf and multiple qf, DC on clay, b=
eating
> >> 7 FO champs.
> >> I don't know where did you get "poor results at French, or on clay in
> >> general for that matter"?
>
> >> He's the type of player who could beat anyone, bar Rafa and similar gu=
ys, if
> >> it came to one match. Even on clay.
>
> >> otoh, he did have problems with gruelleing FO schedule, lack of stamin=
a,
> >> proximity of Wimbledon and since he never won FO he gets 0 credit for =
it.
> >> Same as Federer, Becker, Connors etc.,
>
> >> I don't know which part exactly gives you problems here.- Hide quoted =
text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > No, no, no, no. you have very poor comprehension skills. Of course
> > Sampras was better on clay than Santoro. I reiterate that if you
> > understood the posts we were spending time poking holes in Whispers
> > logic by using Santoro. Indeed it is quite funny that you think we
> > were being serious.
>
> > The point was simply that it proves how STUPID Whisper is for using
> > the Sampras beat former FO champs argument, when Santoro (who was obv
> > not as good as Sampras on clay really) did even better at beating FO
> > champs.
>
> > However, since the "Sampras beating former FO champs" argument no
> > longer holds up because of Santoro Whisper will now have very little
> > to hide behind to defend his beloved Sampras clay record in comparison
> > to other greats such as Federer.
>
> > So simple question ski trips, Is Federer far better than Sampras on
> > clay? Quite simple and easy question.
>
> How do you define 'better'? =A0Federer should be better as he was raised
> on clay & is a baseliner. =A0If Fed played s/v like Sampras he wouldn't
> have made a FO final either.
>
> If we measure it by who won the bigger clay title then Sampras wins -
> Italian Open has a lot more prestige/history than any clay event outside =
FO.
>
> No point getting angry about it - it's all factual.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"If fed played s/v like Sampras he wouldn't have made an FO final
either."
To say that is one of the most moronic things I have ever seen. Maybe
if Sampras had served under arm, he would never have won all those
slams? ;-)

lol. Do you see the idiocy of your post now?



  
Date: 22 Feb 2009 20:38:03
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> No, no, no, no. you have very poor comprehension skills. Of course
>>> Sampras was better on clay than Santoro. I reiterate that if you
>>> understood the posts we were spending time poking holes in Whispers
>>> logic by using Santoro. Indeed it is quite funny that you think we
>>> were being serious.
>>> The point was simply that it proves how STUPID Whisper is for using
>>> the Sampras beat former FO champs argument, when Santoro (who was obv
>>> not as good as Sampras on clay really) did even better at beating FO
>>> champs.
>>> However, since the "Sampras beating former FO champs" argument no
>>> longer holds up because of Santoro Whisper will now have very little
>>> to hide behind to defend his beloved Sampras clay record in comparison
>>> to other greats such as Federer.
>>> So simple question ski trips, Is Federer far better than Sampras on
>>> clay? Quite simple and easy question.
>> How do you define 'better'? Federer should be better as he was raised
>> on clay & is a baseliner. If Fed played s/v like Sampras he wouldn't
>> have made a FO final either.
>>
>> If we measure it by who won the bigger clay title then Sampras wins -
>> Italian Open has a lot more prestige/history than any clay event outside FO.
>>
>> No point getting angry about it - it's all factual.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> "If fed played s/v like Sampras he wouldn't have made an FO final
> either."
> To say that is one of the most moronic things I have ever seen. Maybe
> if Sampras had served under arm, he would never have won all those
> slams? ;-)
>
> lol. Do you see the idiocy of your post now?
>


No?

Sampras clearly was gearing up to win the title that really mattered so
obviously was not going to fuck around & employ a bumrooting game just
to win FO.

Wimbledon is always the top priority for any aspiring goat - any other
slams can come where they may but for maximum legacy boost you really
want to win Wimbledon every year.

Sure we can crap on in rst how nice it is to have all the slams etc but
in the real world not many even know what a FO is. The smart guys
always want Wimbledon 1st - Rafa said years ago his top dream was to win
Wimbledon.


 
Date: 22 Feb 2009 01:29:05
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 22, 6:19=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 8:16 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> Professor X wrote:
> >>> On Feb 21, 7:56 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 21, 7:45 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegro=
ups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> H2H +/-
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 56- 84
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> future depending on who else from this era wins a slam --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Murray for example.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
> >>>>>>>>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated
> >>>>>>>>>>> *eight* French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's on=
e
> >>>>>>>>>>> more than the clay court god Sampras was able to knock off.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Now no one can ever again claim that Santoro was "lame on
> >>>>>>>>>>> clay." :)
> >>>>>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay
> >>>>>>>>>> than Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santor=
o
> >>>>>>>>>> comes out top.
> >>>>>>>>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
> >>>>>>>>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
> >>>>>>>>> Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played
> >>>>>>>>> twice as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg"
> >>>>>>>>> line of reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper
> >>>>>>>>> Inc. (i.e., your employer). After all, it's what you win that
> >>>>>>>>> counts, right, not how many attempts those wins required? Pleas=
e
> >>>>>>>>> read the employee handbook and try again. :)
> >>>>>>>> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially
> >>>>>>>> for someone who achieves GOAT status.
> >>>>>>>> Santoro is past 36. He played to much.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>> So if a player in the future plays from the age of 16-40 on the
> >>>>>>> pro tour and somehow won 15 slams, 4 of which were past the age
> >>>>>>> of 30, would you say that his slams won after 30 do not count,
> >>>>>>> simply because he played for longer? Don't be silly.
> >>>>>>> If we apply that logic does it mean that Agassi only won 6 slams,
> >>>>>>> since he played longer than Sampras, so the last two do not count=
?
> >>>>>>> If Federer wins his 15th slam past the age of 30 will all you
> >>>>>>> Sampras fans then say it doesn't count? Some of you should really
> >>>>>>> wake up.
> >>>>>> No, as I said, players play to win slams, that's the goal and
> >>>>>> that's the measure of greatness.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> Players also *play* to win matches. Yet matches alone past 30 do no=
t
> >>>>> count, but slams do?
> >>>> Matches per se are irrelevant. Sampras gets no historical credit for
> >>>> beating all those FO champs.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> So you disagree with Whisper for once? He will not be very happy with
> >>> you for that, i'd be careful since he may not pay you now. Remember,
> >>> Whisper seems to think that beating FO champs on clay as being very
> >>> important. Indeed, did he not create that argument in the first place
> >>> to somewhat try and cover up the poor results that Sampras had at the
> >>> French? Moreover, you say to me on one hand that only winning slams
> >>> matter, yet on the other you mention Sampras reaching the French Open
> >>> semi-final, I thought you said that only winning mattered a minute
> >>> ago?
> >>> This is not really going to skript.is.it?
> >> You're not good at this, see, Joe already backed off because he was ju=
st
> >> joking, but you continue with this pointless discussion...
>
> >> Sampras lame on clay <> IO title, FO sf and multiple qf, DC on clay, b=
eating
> >> 7 FO champs.
> >> I don't know where did you get "poor results at French, or on clay in
> >> general for that matter"?
>
> >> He's the type of player who could beat anyone, bar Rafa and similar gu=
ys, if
> >> it came to one match. Even on clay.
>
> >> otoh, he did have problems with gruelleing FO schedule, lack of stamin=
a,
> >> proximity of Wimbledon and since he never won FO he gets 0 credit for =
it.
> >> Same as Federer, Becker, Connors etc.,
>
> >> I don't know which part exactly gives you problems here.- Hide quoted =
text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > No, no, no, no. you have very poor comprehension skills. Of course
> > Sampras was better on clay than Santoro. I reiterate that if you
> > understood the posts we were spending time poking holes in Whispers
> > logic by using Santoro. Indeed it is quite funny that you think we
> > were being serious.
>
> > The point was simply that it proves how STUPID Whisper is for using
> > the Sampras beat former FO champs argument, when Santoro (who was obv
> > not as good as Sampras on clay really) did even better at beating FO
> > champs.
>
> > However, since the "Sampras beating former FO champs" argument no
> > longer holds up because of Santoro Whisper will now have very little
> > to hide behind to defend his beloved Sampras clay record in comparison
> > to other greats such as Federer.
>
> > So simple question ski trips, Is Federer far better than Sampras on
> > clay? Quite simple and easy question.
>
> How do you define 'better'? =A0Federer should be better as he was raised
> on clay & is a baseliner. =A0If Fed played s/v like Sampras he wouldn't
> have made a FO final either.
>
> If we measure it by who won the bigger clay title then Sampras wins -
> Italian Open has a lot more prestige/history than any clay event outside =
FO.
>
> No point getting angry about it - it's all factual.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Anyone but you and striptease can see that
3FO finals
+ 4 Clay masters series with (6 other clay masters finals)

easily trumps

1 FO Semi
1 Clay masters series
1 Dcup on clay.



  
Date: 22 Feb 2009 20:30:36
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 22, 6:19 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Professor X wrote:
>>> On Feb 21, 8:16 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:56 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:45 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H2H +/-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 56- 84
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future depending on who else from this era wins a slam --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Murray for example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *eight* French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than the clay court god Sampras was able to knock off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now no one can ever again claim that Santoro was "lame on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clay." :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay
>>>>>>>>>>>> than Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro
>>>>>>>>>>>> comes out top.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>>>>>>>>>>> Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played
>>>>>>>>>>> twice as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg"
>>>>>>>>>>> line of reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper
>>>>>>>>>>> Inc. (i.e., your employer). After all, it's what you win that
>>>>>>>>>>> counts, right, not how many attempts those wins required? Please
>>>>>>>>>>> read the employee handbook and try again. :)
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially
>>>>>>>>>> for someone who achieves GOAT status.
>>>>>>>>>> Santoro is past 36. He played to much.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>> So if a player in the future plays from the age of 16-40 on the
>>>>>>>>> pro tour and somehow won 15 slams, 4 of which were past the age
>>>>>>>>> of 30, would you say that his slams won after 30 do not count,
>>>>>>>>> simply because he played for longer? Don't be silly.
>>>>>>>>> If we apply that logic does it mean that Agassi only won 6 slams,
>>>>>>>>> since he played longer than Sampras, so the last two do not count?
>>>>>>>>> If Federer wins his 15th slam past the age of 30 will all you
>>>>>>>>> Sampras fans then say it doesn't count? Some of you should really
>>>>>>>>> wake up.
>>>>>>>> No, as I said, players play to win slams, that's the goal and
>>>>>>>> that's the measure of greatness.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>> Players also *play* to win matches. Yet matches alone past 30 do not
>>>>>>> count, but slams do?
>>>>>> Matches per se are irrelevant. Sampras gets no historical credit for
>>>>>> beating all those FO champs.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> So you disagree with Whisper for once? He will not be very happy with
>>>>> you for that, i'd be careful since he may not pay you now. Remember,
>>>>> Whisper seems to think that beating FO champs on clay as being very
>>>>> important. Indeed, did he not create that argument in the first place
>>>>> to somewhat try and cover up the poor results that Sampras had at the
>>>>> French? Moreover, you say to me on one hand that only winning slams
>>>>> matter, yet on the other you mention Sampras reaching the French Open
>>>>> semi-final, I thought you said that only winning mattered a minute
>>>>> ago?
>>>>> This is not really going to skript.is.it?
>>>> You're not good at this, see, Joe already backed off because he was just
>>>> joking, but you continue with this pointless discussion...
>>>> Sampras lame on clay <> IO title, FO sf and multiple qf, DC on clay, beating
>>>> 7 FO champs.
>>>> I don't know where did you get "poor results at French, or on clay in
>>>> general for that matter"?
>>>> He's the type of player who could beat anyone, bar Rafa and similar guys, if
>>>> it came to one match. Even on clay.
>>>> otoh, he did have problems with gruelleing FO schedule, lack of stamina,
>>>> proximity of Wimbledon and since he never won FO he gets 0 credit for it.
>>>> Same as Federer, Becker, Connors etc.,
>>>> I don't know which part exactly gives you problems here.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> No, no, no, no. you have very poor comprehension skills. Of course
>>> Sampras was better on clay than Santoro. I reiterate that if you
>>> understood the posts we were spending time poking holes in Whispers
>>> logic by using Santoro. Indeed it is quite funny that you think we
>>> were being serious.
>>> The point was simply that it proves how STUPID Whisper is for using
>>> the Sampras beat former FO champs argument, when Santoro (who was obv
>>> not as good as Sampras on clay really) did even better at beating FO
>>> champs.
>>> However, since the "Sampras beating former FO champs" argument no
>>> longer holds up because of Santoro Whisper will now have very little
>>> to hide behind to defend his beloved Sampras clay record in comparison
>>> to other greats such as Federer.
>>> So simple question ski trips, Is Federer far better than Sampras on
>>> clay? Quite simple and easy question.
>> How do you define 'better'? Federer should be better as he was raised
>> on clay & is a baseliner. If Fed played s/v like Sampras he wouldn't
>> have made a FO final either.
>>
>> If we measure it by who won the bigger clay title then Sampras wins -
>> Italian Open has a lot more prestige/history than any clay event outside FO.
>>
>> No point getting angry about it - it's all factual.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Anyone but you and striptease can see that
> 3FO finals
> + 4 Clay masters series with (6 other clay masters finals)
>
> easily trumps
>
> 1 FO Semi
> 1 Clay masters series
> 1 Dcup on clay.
>


The thing is Sampras has the Italian Open trophy in his cabinet - Roger
has some Hamburger trophies am I right?



 
Date: 22 Feb 2009 01:22:34
From: Led-Yes-Pin-Bea-Rol
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 22, 12:19=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 8:16 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> Professor X wrote:
> >>> On Feb 21, 7:56 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 21, 7:45 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegro=
ups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> H2H +/-
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 56- 84
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> future depending on who else from this era wins a slam --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Murray for example.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
> >>>>>>>>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated
> >>>>>>>>>>> *eight* French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's on=
e
> >>>>>>>>>>> more than the clay court god Sampras was able to knock off.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Now no one can ever again claim that Santoro was "lame on
> >>>>>>>>>>> clay." :)
> >>>>>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay
> >>>>>>>>>> than Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santor=
o
> >>>>>>>>>> comes out top.
> >>>>>>>>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
> >>>>>>>>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
> >>>>>>>>> Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played
> >>>>>>>>> twice as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg"
> >>>>>>>>> line of reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper
> >>>>>>>>> Inc. (i.e., your employer). After all, it's what you win that
> >>>>>>>>> counts, right, not how many attempts those wins required? Pleas=
e
> >>>>>>>>> read the employee handbook and try again. :)
> >>>>>>>> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially
> >>>>>>>> for someone who achieves GOAT status.
> >>>>>>>> Santoro is past 36. He played to much.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>> So if a player in the future plays from the age of 16-40 on the
> >>>>>>> pro tour and somehow won 15 slams, 4 of which were past the age
> >>>>>>> of 30, would you say that his slams won after 30 do not count,
> >>>>>>> simply because he played for longer? Don't be silly.
> >>>>>>> If we apply that logic does it mean that Agassi only won 6 slams,
> >>>>>>> since he played longer than Sampras, so the last two do not count=
?
> >>>>>>> If Federer wins his 15th slam past the age of 30 will all you
> >>>>>>> Sampras fans then say it doesn't count? Some of you should really
> >>>>>>> wake up.
> >>>>>> No, as I said, players play to win slams, that's the goal and
> >>>>>> that's the measure of greatness.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> Players also *play* to win matches. Yet matches alone past 30 do no=
t
> >>>>> count, but slams do?
> >>>> Matches per se are irrelevant. Sampras gets no historical credit for
> >>>> beating all those FO champs.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> So you disagree with Whisper for once? He will not be very happy with
> >>> you for that, i'd be careful since he may not pay you now. Remember,
> >>> Whisper seems to think that beating FO champs on clay as being very
> >>> important. Indeed, did he not create that argument in the first place
> >>> to somewhat try and cover up the poor results that Sampras had at the
> >>> French? Moreover, you say to me on one hand that only winning slams
> >>> matter, yet on the other you mention Sampras reaching the French Open
> >>> semi-final, I thought you said that only winning mattered a minute
> >>> ago?
> >>> This is not really going to skript.is.it?
> >> You're not good at this, see, Joe already backed off because he was ju=
st
> >> joking, but you continue with this pointless discussion...
>
> >> Sampras lame on clay <> IO title, FO sf and multiple qf, DC on clay, b=
eating
> >> 7 FO champs.
> >> I don't know where did you get "poor results at French, or on clay in
> >> general for that matter"?
>
> >> He's the type of player who could beat anyone, bar Rafa and similar gu=
ys, if
> >> it came to one match. Even on clay.
>
> >> otoh, he did have problems with gruelleing FO schedule, lack of stamin=
a,
> >> proximity of Wimbledon and since he never won FO he gets 0 credit for =
it.
> >> Same as Federer, Becker, Connors etc.,
>
> >> I don't know which part exactly gives you problems here.- Hide quoted =
text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > No, no, no, no. you have very poor comprehension skills. Of course
> > Sampras was better on clay than Santoro. I reiterate that if you
> > understood the posts we were spending time poking holes in Whispers
> > logic by using Santoro. Indeed it is quite funny that you think we
> > were being serious.
>
> > The point was simply that it proves how STUPID Whisper is for using
> > the Sampras beat former FO champs argument, when Santoro (who was obv
> > not as good as Sampras on clay really) did even better at beating FO
> > champs.
>
> > However, since the "Sampras beating former FO champs" argument no
> > longer holds up because of Santoro Whisper will now have very little
> > to hide behind to defend his beloved Sampras clay record in comparison
> > to other greats such as Federer.
>
> > So simple question ski trips, Is Federer far better than Sampras on
> > clay? Quite simple and easy question.
>
> How do you define 'better'? =A0Federer should be better as he was raised
> on clay & is a baseliner. =A0If Fed played s/v like Sampras he wouldn't
> have made a FO final either.

Bullshit, nice try.... Sampras never played serve volley at FO.

>
> If we measure it by who won the bigger clay title then Sampras wins -
> Italian Open has a lot more prestige/history than any clay event outside =
FO.
>
> No point getting angry about it - it's all factual.



 
Date: 22 Feb 2009 01:18:19
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 22, 6:06=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0H2H +/-
> >> Gomez =A0 =A0 =A02-0 =A0 =A0+
> >> Lendl =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0-1 =A0 =A0 -
> >> Kriek =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0-1 =A0 =A0 -
> >> Wilander =A0 =A01-0 =A0 =A0+
> >> Bruguera =A0 =A04-1 =A0 =A0+
> >> Courier =A0 =A0 =A0 1-2 =A0 =A0 -
> >> Edberg =A0 =A0 =A0 1-3 =A0 =A0 -
> >> Becker =A0 =A0 =A0 1-1 =A0 =A0 /
> >> Stich =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-7 =A0 =A0-
> >> Noah =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0 =A0/
> >> Korda =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 4-3 =A0 =A0+
> >> Chang =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-2 =A0 =A0/
> >> Muster =A0 =A0 =A0 4-3 =A0 =A0+
> >> Kuerten =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0 =A0/
> >> Rafter =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1-1 =A0 /
> >> Johansson =A03-6 =A0 =A0-
> >> Kafelnikov =A0 0-6 =A0 =A0-
> >> Costa =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1-4 =A0 =A0-
> >> Agassi =A0 =A0 =A0 =A03-3 =A0 /
> >> Krajicek =A0 =A0 =A02-5 =A0 -
> >> Ivanisevic =A0 =A03-5 =A0 -
> >> Sampras =A0 =A0 3-4 =A0-
> >> Gaudio =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0/
> >> Ferrero =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-4 =A0 -
> >> Roddick =A0 =A0 =A01-4 =A0 -
> >> Safin =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 7-2 =A0+
> >> Hewitt =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2-2 =A0/
> >> Federer =A0 =A0 =A0 2-9 =A0-
> >> Nadal =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A00-1 =A0-
> >> Djokovic =A0 =A0 =A01-1 /
>
> >> Murray?? =A0 =A00-2 -
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 56- 84
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 56- 86 =A0 w/murray
>
> >> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven't
> >> missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on who
> >> else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.
>
> >> This really is quite amazing.
>
> > And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
> > French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
> > Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
> > court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
> > claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> He beat them on clay? =A0Links?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Here are all your links:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?play=
ernum1=3DS424&playernum2=3DG023
http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DSanto=
ro%2C+Fabrice&player2=3Dwilander
http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?play=
ernum1=3DS424&playernum2=3DB350
http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DSantoro%2C+F=
abrice&player2=3DNoah
http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?play=
ernum1=3DS424&playernum2=3DC274
http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DSantoro%2C+F=
abrice&player2=3DMuster
http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DSantoro%2C+F=
abrice&player2=3DKuerten
http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=3DSantoro%2C+F=
abrice&player2=3DAgassi


Feeling VERY stupid now whispy?
What nonsense will you spout now?






  
Date: 22 Feb 2009 20:28:30
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 22, 6:06 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> H2H +/-
>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>>>> Courier 1-2 -
>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
>>>> Becker 1-1 /
>>>> Stich 2-7 -
>>>> Noah 1-1 /
>>>> Korda 4-3 +
>>>> Chang 2-2 /
>>>> Muster 4-3 +
>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>>>> Costa 1-4 -
>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
>>>> Safin 7-2 +
>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>>>> Federer 2-9 -
>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>>> 56- 84
>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven't
>>>> missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on who
>>>> else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.
>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
>>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
>>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
>>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
>>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>>> Joe Ramirez
>> He beat them on clay? Links?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Here are all your links:
>
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=S424&playernum2=G023
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Santoro%2C+Fabrice&player2=wilander
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=S424&playernum2=B350
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Santoro%2C+Fabrice&player2=Noah
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=S424&playernum2=C274
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Santoro%2C+Fabrice&player2=Muster
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Santoro%2C+Fabrice&player2=Kuerten
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Santoro%2C+Fabrice&player2=Agassi
>
>
> Feeling VERY stupid now whispy?
> What nonsense will you spout now?
>
>
>
>


No, just asking for clarification before proceeding with analysis.

Ok good effort from Fabrice, but I note he couldn't beat FO champs at FO
is that correct? At least he couldn't beat 4 FO champions at the FO.

Anyway you cut it Sampras was a far superior claycourter than Santoro -
I'm sure you can't argue that.



 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 20:05:07
From: Manolo
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On 21 f=E9v, 21:16, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 7:56 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> Professor X wrote:
> >>> On Feb 21, 7:45 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 21, 7:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>>>>>>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroup=
s.com...
> >>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> H2H +/-
> >>>>>>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
> >>>>>>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
> >>>>>>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
> >>>>>>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
> >>>>>>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
> >>>>>>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
> >>>>>>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
> >>>>>>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
> >>>>>>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
> >>>>>>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>
> >>>>>>>>>> 56- 84
> >>>>>>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If
> >>>>>>>>>> I haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the
> >>>>>>>>>> future depending on who else from this era wins a slam --
> >>>>>>>>>> Murray for example.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>
> >>>>>>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated
> >>>>>>>>> *eight* French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander,
> >>>>>>>>> Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one
> >>>>>>>>> more than the clay court god Sampras was able to knock off.
> >>>>>>>>> Now no one can ever again claim that Santoro was "lame on
> >>>>>>>>> clay." :)
>
> >>>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay
> >>>>>>>> than Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro
> >>>>>>>> comes out top.
>
> >>>>>>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
> >>>>>>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>
> >>>>>>> Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played
> >>>>>>> twice as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg"
> >>>>>>> line of reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper
> >>>>>>> Inc. (i.e., your employer). After all, it's what you win that
> >>>>>>> counts, right, not how many attempts those wins required? Please
> >>>>>>> read the employee handbook and try again. :)
>
> >>>>>> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially
> >>>>>> for someone who achieves GOAT status.
>
> >>>>>> Santoro is past 36. He played to much.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>> So if a player in the future plays from the age of 16-40 on the
> >>>>> pro tour and somehow won 15 slams, 4 of which were past the age
> >>>>> of 30, would you say that his slams won after 30 do not count,
> >>>>> simply because he played for longer? Don't be silly.
> >>>>> If we apply that logic does it mean that Agassi only won 6 slams,
> >>>>> since he played longer than Sampras, so the last two do not count?
>
> >>>>> If Federer wins his 15th slam past the age of 30 will all you
> >>>>> Sampras fans then say it doesn't count? Some of you should really
> >>>>> wake up.
>
> >>>> No, as I said, players play to win slams, that's the goal and
> >>>> that's the measure of greatness.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> Players also *play* to win matches. Yet matches alone past 30 do not
> >>> count, but slams do?
>
> >> Matches per se are irrelevant. Sampras gets no historical credit for
> >> beating all those FO champs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So you disagree with Whisper for once? He will not be very happy with
> > you for that, i'd be careful since he may not pay you now. Remember,
> > Whisper seems to think that beating FO champs on clay as being very
> > important. Indeed, did he not create that argument in the first place
> > to somewhat try and cover up the poor results that Sampras had at the
> > French? Moreover, you say to me on one hand that only winning slams
> > matter, yet on the other you mention Sampras reaching the French Open
> > semi-final, I thought you said that only winning mattered a minute
> > ago?
>
> > This is not really going to skript.is.it?
>
> You're not good at this, see, Joe already backed off because he was just
> joking, but you continue with this pointless discussion...
>
> Sampras lame on clay <> IO title, FO sf and multiple qf, DC on clay, beat=
ing
> 7 FO champs.
> I don't know where did you get "poor results at French, or on clay in
> general for that matter"?
>
> He's the type of player who could beat anyone, bar Rafa and similar guys,=
if
> it came to one match. Even on clay.
>
> otoh, he did have problems with gruelleing FO schedule, lack of stamina,
> proximity of Wimbledon and since he never won FO he gets 0 credit for it.
> Same as Federer, Becker, Connors etc.,
>
> I don't know which part exactly gives you problems here.

too bad there is no "negative stars" to reward such stupid post.
I gave you one, but it's far beyond what I had in mind.

Share & Enjoy,
Manolo


 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 19:58:19
From: Manolo
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On 21 f=E9v, 20:08, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > H2H +/-
> > Gomez 2-0 +
> > Lendl 0-1 -
> > Kriek 0-1 -
> > Wilander 1-0 +
> > Bruguera 4-1 +
> > Courier 1-2 -
> > Edberg 1-3 -
> > Becker 1-1 /
> > Stich 2-7 -
> > Noah 1-1 /
> > Korda 4-3 +
> > Chang 2-2 /
> > Muster 4-3 +
> > Kuerten 1-1 /
> > Rafter 1-1 /
> > Johansson 3-6 -
> > Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> > Costa 1-4 -
> > Agassi 3-3 /
> > Krajicek 2-5 -
> > Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> > Sampras 3-4 -
> > Gaudio 1-1 /
> > Ferrero 2-4 -
> > Roddick 1-4 -
> > Safin 7-2 +
> > Hewitt 2-2 /
> > Federer 2-9 -
> > Nadal 0-1 -
> > Djokovic 1-1 /
>
> > Murray?? 0-2 -
>
> > 56- 84
> > 56- 86 w/murray
>
> > Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven't
> > missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on who
> > else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.
>
> > This really is quite amazing.
>
> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> Joe Ramirez

Please, no...

Sampras never beat 7 FO champ.
He beat 7 players who ended up as FO champ.
Slightly different.
I guess it's the same for Santoro, yet I've no will to check dates.
I really doubt that Fab Fab beat 8 former FO champs.

Share & Enjoy,
Manolo


 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 13:47:21
From: Led-Yes-Pin-Bea-Rol
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 2:58=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 8:53=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:39:41 -0800 (PST), josephmrami...@netzero.com
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Feb 21, 2:32=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> > >> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> > >> > On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> > >> >> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> >>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups=
.com...
> > >> >> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>
> > >> >>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >>>> H2H +/-
> > >> >>>> Gomez 2-0 +
> > >> >>>> Lendl 0-1 -
> > >> >>>> Kriek 0-1 -
> > >> >>>> Wilander 1-0 +
> > >> >>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
> > >> >>>> Courier 1-2 -
> > >> >>>> Edberg 1-3 -
> > >> >>>> Becker 1-1 /
> > >> >>>> Stich 2-7 -
> > >> >>>> Noah 1-1 /
> > >> >>>> Korda 4-3 +
> > >> >>>> Chang 2-2 /
> > >> >>>> Muster 4-3 +
> > >> >>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
> > >> >>>> Rafter 1-1 /
> > >> >>>> Johansson 3-6 -
> > >> >>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> > >> >>>> Costa 1-4 -
> > >> >>>> Agassi 3-3 /
> > >> >>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
> > >> >>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> > >> >>>> Sampras 3-4 -
> > >> >>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
> > >> >>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
> > >> >>>> Roddick 1-4 -
> > >> >>>> Safin 7-2 +
> > >> >>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
> > >> >>>> Federer 2-9 -
> > >> >>>> Nadal 0-1 -
> > >> >>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>
> > >> >>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>
> > >> >>>> 56- 84
> > >> >>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>
> > >> >>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
> > >> >>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
> > >> >>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
> > >> >>>> example.
>
> > >> >>>> This really is quite amazing.
>
> > >> >>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *ei=
ght*
> > >> >>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noa=
h,
> > >> >>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the cla=
y
> > >> >>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever aga=
in
> > >> >>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> > >> >>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >> >> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay th=
an
> > >> >> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes =
out
> > >> >> top.
>
> > >> >> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
> > >> >> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>
> > >> > Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played twi=
ce
> > >> > as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg" line of
> > >> > reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper Inc. (i.e.,
> > >> > your employer). After all, it's what you win that counts, right, n=
ot
> > >> > how many attempts those wins required? Please read the employee
> > >> > handbook and try again. :)
>
> > >> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially for
> > >> someone who achieves GOAT status.
>
> > >> =A0Santoro is past 36. He played to much.
>
> > >8 > 7
>
> > >After Santoro passed Sampras, he couldn't be arsed to collect any more
> > >"scalps."
>
> > Yes, he had the target clearly in mind. If Sampras had beaten 15 FO
> > champs on clay, Santoro would have beaten 16. You just know it. He has
> > the ability to beat FO champs on clay, when he is arsed. 99% of
> > players/fans/experts agree about that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> lol, careful, Ski Trips will think you are being serious.

*striptease is the stupidest bastard on usenet. Don't expect him to
follow any of what you guys are doing to the poor guy.



 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 12:58:55
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 8:53=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:39:41 -0800 (PST), josephmrami...@netzero.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 21, 2:32=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >> > On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> >> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.c=
om...
> >> >> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>
> >> >>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>> H2H +/-
> >> >>>> Gomez 2-0 +
> >> >>>> Lendl 0-1 -
> >> >>>> Kriek 0-1 -
> >> >>>> Wilander 1-0 +
> >> >>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
> >> >>>> Courier 1-2 -
> >> >>>> Edberg 1-3 -
> >> >>>> Becker 1-1 /
> >> >>>> Stich 2-7 -
> >> >>>> Noah 1-1 /
> >> >>>> Korda 4-3 +
> >> >>>> Chang 2-2 /
> >> >>>> Muster 4-3 +
> >> >>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
> >> >>>> Rafter 1-1 /
> >> >>>> Johansson 3-6 -
> >> >>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> >> >>>> Costa 1-4 -
> >> >>>> Agassi 3-3 /
> >> >>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
> >> >>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> >> >>>> Sampras 3-4 -
> >> >>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
> >> >>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
> >> >>>> Roddick 1-4 -
> >> >>>> Safin 7-2 +
> >> >>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
> >> >>>> Federer 2-9 -
> >> >>>> Nadal 0-1 -
> >> >>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>
> >> >>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>
> >> >>>> 56- 84
> >> >>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>
> >> >>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
> >> >>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
> >> >>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
> >> >>>> example.
>
> >> >>>> This really is quite amazing.
>
> >> >>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eigh=
t*
> >> >>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
> >> >>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
> >> >>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
> >> >>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> >> >>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
> >> >> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes ou=
t
> >> >> top.
>
> >> >> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
> >> >> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>
> >> > Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played twice
> >> > as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg" line of
> >> > reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper Inc. (i.e.,
> >> > your employer). After all, it's what you win that counts, right, not
> >> > how many attempts those wins required? Please read the employee
> >> > handbook and try again. :)
>
> >> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially for
> >> someone who achieves GOAT status.
>
> >> =A0Santoro is past 36. He played to much.
>
> >8 > 7
>
> >After Santoro passed Sampras, he couldn't be arsed to collect any more
> >"scalps."
>
> Yes, he had the target clearly in mind. If Sampras had beaten 15 FO
> champs on clay, Santoro would have beaten 16. You just know it. He has
> the ability to beat FO champs on clay, when he is arsed. 99% of
> players/fans/experts agree about that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

lol, careful, Ski Trips will think you are being serious.


  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 23:02:40
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:58:55 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 21, 8:53 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:39:41 -0800 (PST), josephmrami...@netzero.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 21, 2:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>> >> > On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >> >> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>> H2H +/-
>> >> >>>> Gomez 2-0 +
>> >> >>>> Lendl 0-1 -
>> >> >>>> Kriek 0-1 -
>> >> >>>> Wilander 1-0 +
>> >> >>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>> >> >>>> Courier 1-2 -
>> >> >>>> Edberg 1-3 -
>> >> >>>> Becker 1-1 /
>> >> >>>> Stich 2-7 -
>> >> >>>> Noah 1-1 /
>> >> >>>> Korda 4-3 +
>> >> >>>> Chang 2-2 /
>> >> >>>> Muster 4-3 +
>> >> >>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>> >> >>>> Rafter 1-1 /
>> >> >>>> Johansson 3-6 -
>> >> >>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>> >> >>>> Costa 1-4 -
>> >> >>>> Agassi 3-3 /
>> >> >>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>> >> >>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>> >> >>>> Sampras 3-4 -
>> >> >>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>> >> >>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>> >> >>>> Roddick 1-4 -
>> >> >>>> Safin 7-2 +
>> >> >>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>> >> >>>> Federer 2-9 -
>> >> >>>> Nadal 0-1 -
>> >> >>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>
>> >> >>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>
>> >> >>>> 56- 84
>> >> >>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>
>> >> >>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
>> >> >>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
>> >> >>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
>> >> >>>> example.
>>
>> >> >>>> This really is quite amazing.
>>
>> >> >>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
>> >> >>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
>> >> >>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
>> >> >>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
>> >> >>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>>
>> >> >>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
>> >> >> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
>> >> >> top.
>>
>> >> >> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
>> >> >> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>>
>> >> > Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played twice
>> >> > as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg" line of
>> >> > reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper Inc. (i.e.,
>> >> > your employer). After all, it's what you win that counts, right, not
>> >> > how many attempts those wins required? Please read the employee
>> >> > handbook and try again. :)
>>
>> >> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially for
>> >> someone who achieves GOAT status.
>>
>> >>  Santoro is past 36. He played to much.
>>
>> >8 > 7
>>
>> >After Santoro passed Sampras, he couldn't be arsed to collect any more
>> >"scalps."
>>
>> Yes, he had the target clearly in mind. If Sampras had beaten 15 FO
>> champs on clay, Santoro would have beaten 16. You just know it. He has
>> the ability to beat FO champs on clay, when he is arsed. 99% of
>> players/fans/experts agree about that.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>lol, careful, Ski Trips will think you are being serious.

As if I care what he thinks.





 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 12:57:59
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 8:16=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 7:56 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> Professor X wrote:
> >>> On Feb 21, 7:45 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>> Professor X wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 21, 7:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>>>>>>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroup=
s.com...
> >>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> H2H +/-
> >>>>>>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
> >>>>>>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
> >>>>>>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
> >>>>>>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
> >>>>>>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
> >>>>>>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
> >>>>>>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
> >>>>>>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
> >>>>>>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
> >>>>>>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>
> >>>>>>>>>> 56- 84
> >>>>>>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If
> >>>>>>>>>> I haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the
> >>>>>>>>>> future depending on who else from this era wins a slam --
> >>>>>>>>>> Murray for example.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>
> >>>>>>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated
> >>>>>>>>> *eight* French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander,
> >>>>>>>>> Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one
> >>>>>>>>> more than the clay court god Sampras was able to knock off.
> >>>>>>>>> Now no one can ever again claim that Santoro was "lame on
> >>>>>>>>> clay." :)
>
> >>>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay
> >>>>>>>> than Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro
> >>>>>>>> comes out top.
>
> >>>>>>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
> >>>>>>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>
> >>>>>>> Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played
> >>>>>>> twice as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg"
> >>>>>>> line of reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper
> >>>>>>> Inc. (i.e., your employer). After all, it's what you win that
> >>>>>>> counts, right, not how many attempts those wins required? Please
> >>>>>>> read the employee handbook and try again. :)
>
> >>>>>> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially
> >>>>>> for someone who achieves GOAT status.
>
> >>>>>> Santoro is past 36. He played to much.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>> So if a player in the future plays from the age of 16-40 on the
> >>>>> pro tour and somehow won 15 slams, 4 of which were past the age
> >>>>> of 30, would you say that his slams won after 30 do not count,
> >>>>> simply because he played for longer? Don't be silly.
> >>>>> If we apply that logic does it mean that Agassi only won 6 slams,
> >>>>> since he played longer than Sampras, so the last two do not count?
>
> >>>>> If Federer wins his 15th slam past the age of 30 will all you
> >>>>> Sampras fans then say it doesn't count? Some of you should really
> >>>>> wake up.
>
> >>>> No, as I said, players play to win slams, that's the goal and
> >>>> that's the measure of greatness.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> Players also *play* to win matches. Yet matches alone past 30 do not
> >>> count, but slams do?
>
> >> Matches per se are irrelevant. Sampras gets no historical credit for
> >> beating all those FO champs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So you disagree with Whisper for once? He will not be very happy with
> > you for that, i'd be careful since he may not pay you now. Remember,
> > Whisper seems to think that beating FO champs on clay as being very
> > important. Indeed, did he not create that argument in the first place
> > to somewhat try and cover up the poor results that Sampras had at the
> > French? Moreover, you say to me on one hand that only winning slams
> > matter, yet on the other you mention Sampras reaching the French Open
> > semi-final, I thought you said that only winning mattered a minute
> > ago?
>
> > This is not really going to skript.is.it?
>
> You're not good at this, see, Joe already backed off because he was just
> joking, but you continue with this pointless discussion...
>
> Sampras lame on clay <> IO title, FO sf and multiple qf, DC on clay, beat=
ing
> 7 FO champs.
> I don't know where did you get "poor results at French, or on clay in
> general for that matter"?
>
> He's the type of player who could beat anyone, bar Rafa and similar guys,=
if
> it came to one match. Even on clay.
>
> otoh, he did have problems with gruelleing FO schedule, lack of stamina,
> proximity of Wimbledon and since he never won FO he gets 0 credit for it.
> Same as Federer, Becker, Connors etc.,
>
> I don't know which part exactly gives you problems here.- Hide quoted tex=
t -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, no, no, no. you have very poor comprehension skills. Of course
Sampras was better on clay than Santoro. I reiterate that if you
understood the posts we were spending time poking holes in Whispers
logic by using Santoro. Indeed it is quite funny that you think we
were being serious.

The point was simply that it proves how STUPID Whisper is for using
the Sampras beat former FO champs argument, when Santoro (who was obv
not as good as Sampras on clay really) did even better at beating FO
champs.

However, since the "Sampras beating former FO champs" argument no
longer holds up because of Santoro Whisper will now have very little
to hide behind to defend his beloved Sampras clay record in comparison
to other greats such as Federer.

So simple question ski trips, Is Federer far better than Sampras on
clay? Quite simple and easy question.


  
Date: 22 Feb 2009 17:19:55
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 21, 8:16 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> Professor X wrote:
>>> On Feb 21, 7:56 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:45 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>>>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> H2H +/-
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>>>>>>>>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
>>>>>>>>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
>>>>>>>>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>>>>>>>>>>> 56- 84
>>>>>>>>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If
>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> future depending on who else from this era wins a slam --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Murray for example.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>>>>>>>>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated
>>>>>>>>>>> *eight* French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander,
>>>>>>>>>>> Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one
>>>>>>>>>>> more than the clay court god Sampras was able to knock off.
>>>>>>>>>>> Now no one can ever again claim that Santoro was "lame on
>>>>>>>>>>> clay." :)
>>>>>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay
>>>>>>>>>> than Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro
>>>>>>>>>> comes out top.
>>>>>>>>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
>>>>>>>>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>>>>>>>>> Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played
>>>>>>>>> twice as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg"
>>>>>>>>> line of reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper
>>>>>>>>> Inc. (i.e., your employer). After all, it's what you win that
>>>>>>>>> counts, right, not how many attempts those wins required? Please
>>>>>>>>> read the employee handbook and try again. :)
>>>>>>>> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially
>>>>>>>> for someone who achieves GOAT status.
>>>>>>>> Santoro is past 36. He played to much.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>> So if a player in the future plays from the age of 16-40 on the
>>>>>>> pro tour and somehow won 15 slams, 4 of which were past the age
>>>>>>> of 30, would you say that his slams won after 30 do not count,
>>>>>>> simply because he played for longer? Don't be silly.
>>>>>>> If we apply that logic does it mean that Agassi only won 6 slams,
>>>>>>> since he played longer than Sampras, so the last two do not count?
>>>>>>> If Federer wins his 15th slam past the age of 30 will all you
>>>>>>> Sampras fans then say it doesn't count? Some of you should really
>>>>>>> wake up.
>>>>>> No, as I said, players play to win slams, that's the goal and
>>>>>> that's the measure of greatness.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> Players also *play* to win matches. Yet matches alone past 30 do not
>>>>> count, but slams do?
>>>> Matches per se are irrelevant. Sampras gets no historical credit for
>>>> beating all those FO champs.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> So you disagree with Whisper for once? He will not be very happy with
>>> you for that, i'd be careful since he may not pay you now. Remember,
>>> Whisper seems to think that beating FO champs on clay as being very
>>> important. Indeed, did he not create that argument in the first place
>>> to somewhat try and cover up the poor results that Sampras had at the
>>> French? Moreover, you say to me on one hand that only winning slams
>>> matter, yet on the other you mention Sampras reaching the French Open
>>> semi-final, I thought you said that only winning mattered a minute
>>> ago?
>>> This is not really going to skript.is.it?
>> You're not good at this, see, Joe already backed off because he was just
>> joking, but you continue with this pointless discussion...
>>
>> Sampras lame on clay <> IO title, FO sf and multiple qf, DC on clay, beating
>> 7 FO champs.
>> I don't know where did you get "poor results at French, or on clay in
>> general for that matter"?
>>
>> He's the type of player who could beat anyone, bar Rafa and similar guys, if
>> it came to one match. Even on clay.
>>
>> otoh, he did have problems with gruelleing FO schedule, lack of stamina,
>> proximity of Wimbledon and since he never won FO he gets 0 credit for it.
>> Same as Federer, Becker, Connors etc.,
>>
>> I don't know which part exactly gives you problems here.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> No, no, no, no. you have very poor comprehension skills. Of course
> Sampras was better on clay than Santoro. I reiterate that if you
> understood the posts we were spending time poking holes in Whispers
> logic by using Santoro. Indeed it is quite funny that you think we
> were being serious.
>
> The point was simply that it proves how STUPID Whisper is for using
> the Sampras beat former FO champs argument, when Santoro (who was obv
> not as good as Sampras on clay really) did even better at beating FO
> champs.
>
> However, since the "Sampras beating former FO champs" argument no
> longer holds up because of Santoro Whisper will now have very little
> to hide behind to defend his beloved Sampras clay record in comparison
> to other greats such as Federer.
>
> So simple question ski trips, Is Federer far better than Sampras on
> clay? Quite simple and easy question.


How do you define 'better'? Federer should be better as he was raised
on clay & is a baseliner. If Fed played s/v like Sampras he wouldn't
have made a FO final either.

If we measure it by who won the bigger clay title then Sampras wins -
Italian Open has a lot more prestige/history than any clay event outside FO.

No point getting angry about it - it's all factual.




 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 12:49:54
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 8:18=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> Mortimer wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 2:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
> >> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
> >> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
> >> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
> >> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> >> Joe Ramirez
>
> > That's amazing! WOW...
>
> Has Santoro ever made FO qf? Won DC by himself? Won Italian Open?
>
> Hm.
> They try to make look someone silly and in the end they end up looking li=
ke
> complete fools. :D

I don't think me or Ramirez were actually being serious when we were
saying Santoro was better than Sampras on clay, we were actually doing
it to point out the flaw in Whispers logic.

It is you who has egg on your face.


 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 12:09:07
From: Mortimer
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 2:08=A0pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> Joe Ramirez

That's amazing! WOW...


  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 21:18:41
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Mortimer wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
> That's amazing! WOW...


Has Santoro ever made FO qf? Won DC by himself? Won Italian Open?

Hm.
They try to make look someone silly and in the end they end up looking like
complete fools. :D




 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 12:08:36
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 7:56=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 7:45 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> Professor X wrote:
> >>> On Feb 21, 7:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>>>>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.=
com...
> >>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> H2H +/-
> >>>>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
> >>>>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
> >>>>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
> >>>>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
> >>>>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
> >>>>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
> >>>>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
> >>>>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
> >>>>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
> >>>>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
> >>>>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> >>>>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
> >>>>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
> >>>>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
> >>>>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> >>>>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
> >>>>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
> >>>>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
> >>>>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
> >>>>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
> >>>>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
> >>>>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
> >>>>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
> >>>>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>
> >>>>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>
> >>>>>>>> 56- 84
> >>>>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>
> >>>>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
> >>>>>>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
> >>>>>>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
> >>>>>>>> example.
>
> >>>>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>
> >>>>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated
> >>>>>>> *eight* French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander,
> >>>>>>> Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one
> >>>>>>> more than the clay court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now
> >>>>>>> no one can ever again claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> >>>>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay
> >>>>>> than Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro
> >>>>>> comes out top.
>
> >>>>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
> >>>>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>
> >>>>> Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played
> >>>>> twice as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg"
> >>>>> line of reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper
> >>>>> Inc. (i.e., your employer). After all, it's what you win that
> >>>>> counts, right, not how many attempts those wins required? Please
> >>>>> read the employee handbook and try again. :)
>
> >>>> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially for
> >>>> someone who achieves GOAT status.
>
> >>>> Santoro is past 36. He played to much.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> So if a player in the future plays from the age of 16-40 on the pro
> >>> tour and somehow won 15 slams, 4 of which were past the age of 30,
> >>> would you say that his slams won after 30 do not count, simply
> >>> because he played for longer? Don't be silly.
> >>> If we apply that logic does it mean that Agassi only won 6 slams,
> >>> since he played longer than Sampras, so the last two do not count?
>
> >>> If Federer wins his 15th slam past the age of 30 will all you
> >>> Sampras fans then say it doesn't count? Some of you should really
> >>> wake up.
>
> >> No, as I said, players play to win slams, that's the goal and that's
> >> the measure of greatness.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Players also *play* to win matches. Yet matches alone past 30 do not
> > count, but slams do?
>
> Matches per se are irrelevant. Sampras gets no historical credit for beat=
ing
> all those FO champs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So you disagree with Whisper for once? He will not be very happy with
you for that, i'd be careful since he may not pay you now. Remember,
Whisper seems to think that beating FO champs on clay as being very
important. Indeed, did he not create that argument in the first place
to somewhat try and cover up the poor results that Sampras had at the
French? Moreover, you say to me on one hand that only winning slams
matter, yet on the other you mention Sampras reaching the French Open
semi-final, I thought you said that only winning mattered a minute
ago?

This is not really going to skript.is.it?


  
Date: 22 Feb 2009 17:16:05
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> So if a player in the future plays from the age of 16-40 on the pro
>>>>> tour and somehow won 15 slams, 4 of which were past the age of 30,
>>>>> would you say that his slams won after 30 do not count, simply
>>>>> because he played for longer? Don't be silly.
>>>>> If we apply that logic does it mean that Agassi only won 6 slams,
>>>>> since he played longer than Sampras, so the last two do not count?
>>>>> If Federer wins his 15th slam past the age of 30 will all you
>>>>> Sampras fans then say it doesn't count? Some of you should really
>>>>> wake up.
>>>> No, as I said, players play to win slams, that's the goal and that's
>>>> the measure of greatness.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Players also *play* to win matches. Yet matches alone past 30 do not
>>> count, but slams do?
>> Matches per se are irrelevant. Sampras gets no historical credit for beating
>> all those FO champs.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So you disagree with Whisper for once? He will not be very happy with
> you for that, i'd be careful since he may not pay you now. Remember,
> Whisper seems to think that beating FO champs on clay as being very
> important.


It's a valid counter to your claim he was 'lame on clay'. The 2 cannot
co-exist so one must be wrong - either Sampras did not win Italian Open,
DC, beat 7 FO champs on clay etc, or your assessment was wrong.

My reason for raising this fact was to prove you wrong - & I think it
succeeded.



  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 21:16:58
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 21, 7:56 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> Professor X wrote:
>>> On Feb 21, 7:45 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>>> news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> H2H +/-
>>>>>>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
>>>>>>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
>>>>>>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
>>>>>>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
>>>>>>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>>>>>>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
>>>>>>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
>>>>>>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
>>>>>>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
>>>>>>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
>>>>>>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
>>>>>>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
>>>>>>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>>>>>>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
>>>>>>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
>>>>>>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>>>>>>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>>>>>>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
>>>>>>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>>>>>>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
>>>>>>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>>>>>>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
>>>>>>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>
>>>>>>>>>> 56- 84
>>>>>>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If
>>>>>>>>>> I haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the
>>>>>>>>>> future depending on who else from this era wins a slam --
>>>>>>>>>> Murray for example.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>>
>>>>>>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated
>>>>>>>>> *eight* French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander,
>>>>>>>>> Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one
>>>>>>>>> more than the clay court god Sampras was able to knock off.
>>>>>>>>> Now no one can ever again claim that Santoro was "lame on
>>>>>>>>> clay." :)
>>
>>>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay
>>>>>>>> than Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro
>>>>>>>> comes out top.
>>
>>>>>>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
>>>>>>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>>
>>>>>>> Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played
>>>>>>> twice as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg"
>>>>>>> line of reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper
>>>>>>> Inc. (i.e., your employer). After all, it's what you win that
>>>>>>> counts, right, not how many attempts those wins required? Please
>>>>>>> read the employee handbook and try again. :)
>>
>>>>>> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially
>>>>>> for someone who achieves GOAT status.
>>
>>>>>> Santoro is past 36. He played to much.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>> So if a player in the future plays from the age of 16-40 on the
>>>>> pro tour and somehow won 15 slams, 4 of which were past the age
>>>>> of 30, would you say that his slams won after 30 do not count,
>>>>> simply because he played for longer? Don't be silly.
>>>>> If we apply that logic does it mean that Agassi only won 6 slams,
>>>>> since he played longer than Sampras, so the last two do not count?
>>
>>>>> If Federer wins his 15th slam past the age of 30 will all you
>>>>> Sampras fans then say it doesn't count? Some of you should really
>>>>> wake up.
>>
>>>> No, as I said, players play to win slams, that's the goal and
>>>> that's the measure of greatness.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> Players also *play* to win matches. Yet matches alone past 30 do not
>>> count, but slams do?
>>
>> Matches per se are irrelevant. Sampras gets no historical credit for
>> beating all those FO champs.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So you disagree with Whisper for once? He will not be very happy with
> you for that, i'd be careful since he may not pay you now. Remember,
> Whisper seems to think that beating FO champs on clay as being very
> important. Indeed, did he not create that argument in the first place
> to somewhat try and cover up the poor results that Sampras had at the
> French? Moreover, you say to me on one hand that only winning slams
> matter, yet on the other you mention Sampras reaching the French Open
> semi-final, I thought you said that only winning mattered a minute
> ago?
>
> This is not really going to skript.is.it?


You're not good at this, see, Joe already backed off because he was just
joking, but you continue with this pointless discussion...

Sampras lame on clay < > IO title, FO sf and multiple qf, DC on clay, beating
7 FO champs.
I don't know where did you get "poor results at French, or on clay in
general for that matter"?


He's the type of player who could beat anyone, bar Rafa and similar guys, if
it came to one match. Even on clay.

otoh, he did have problems with gruelleing FO schedule, lack of stamina,
proximity of Wimbledon and since he never won FO he gets 0 credit for it.
Same as Federer, Becker, Connors etc.,


I don't know which part exactly gives you problems here.




   
Date: 22 Feb 2009 17:48:44
From: john
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)

"*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote in message
news:gnpnfu$sc7$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
> Professor X wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 7:56 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>> On Feb 21, 7:45 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>> Professor X wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>>>>> news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> H2H +/-
>>>>>>>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
>>>>>>>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
>>>>>>>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
>>>>>>>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>>>>>>>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
>>>>>>>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
>>>>>>>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
>>>>>>>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
>>>>>>>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
>>>>>>>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
>>>>>>>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
>>>>>>>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>>>>>>>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
>>>>>>>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
>>>>>>>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>>>>>>>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>>>>>>>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
>>>>>>>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>>>>>>>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>>>>>>>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
>>>>>>>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>>>>>>>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
>>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 56- 84
>>>>>>>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If
>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the
>>>>>>>>>>> future depending on who else from this era wins a slam --
>>>>>>>>>>> Murray for example.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated
>>>>>>>>>> *eight* French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander,
>>>>>>>>>> Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one
>>>>>>>>>> more than the clay court god Sampras was able to knock off.
>>>>>>>>>> Now no one can ever again claim that Santoro was "lame on
>>>>>>>>>> clay." :)
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay
>>>>>>>>> than Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro
>>>>>>>>> comes out top.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
>>>>>>>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>>>
>>>>>>>> Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played
>>>>>>>> twice as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg"
>>>>>>>> line of reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper
>>>>>>>> Inc. (i.e., your employer). After all, it's what you win that
>>>>>>>> counts, right, not how many attempts those wins required? Please
>>>>>>>> read the employee handbook and try again. :)
>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially
>>>>>>> for someone who achieves GOAT status.
>>>
>>>>>>> Santoro is past 36. He played to much.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>>>> So if a player in the future plays from the age of 16-40 on the
>>>>>> pro tour and somehow won 15 slams, 4 of which were past the age
>>>>>> of 30, would you say that his slams won after 30 do not count,
>>>>>> simply because he played for longer? Don't be silly.
>>>>>> If we apply that logic does it mean that Agassi only won 6 slams,
>>>>>> since he played longer than Sampras, so the last two do not count?
>>>
>>>>>> If Federer wins his 15th slam past the age of 30 will all you
>>>>>> Sampras fans then say it doesn't count? Some of you should really
>>>>>> wake up.
>>>
>>>>> No, as I said, players play to win slams, that's the goal and
>>>>> that's the measure of greatness.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>> Players also *play* to win matches. Yet matches alone past 30 do not
>>>> count, but slams do?
>>>
>>> Matches per se are irrelevant. Sampras gets no historical credit for
>>> beating all those FO champs.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> So you disagree with Whisper for once? He will not be very happy with
>> you for that, i'd be careful since he may not pay you now. Remember,
>> Whisper seems to think that beating FO champs on clay as being very
>> important. Indeed, did he not create that argument in the first place
>> to somewhat try and cover up the poor results that Sampras had at the
>> French? Moreover, you say to me on one hand that only winning slams
>> matter, yet on the other you mention Sampras reaching the French Open
>> semi-final, I thought you said that only winning mattered a minute
>> ago?
>>
>> This is not really going to skript.is.it?
>
>
> You're not good at this, see, Joe already backed off because he was just
> joking, but you continue with this pointless discussion...
>
> Sampras lame on clay <> IO title, FO sf and multiple qf, DC on clay,
> beating 7 FO champs.
> I don't know where did you get "poor results at French, or on clay in
> general for that matter"?


So strip for a No.1 and 14 time slam champion losing 8 times in 1st and 2nd
round of a slam
is not a poor result in that slam then what is poor result.

>
>
> He's the type of player who could beat anyone, bar Rafa and similar guys,
> if it came to one match. Even on clay.
>
> otoh, he did have problems with gruelleing FO schedule, lack of stamina,
> proximity of Wimbledon and since he never won FO he gets 0 credit for it.
> Same as Federer, Becker, Connors etc.,

Who was to blame for lack of stamina ? Sampras himself. Is FO schedule
more gruelling
than the other grand slam ? To say it is it is absolute rubbish, FO played
best of 5 sets and
player get a rest day between their match days.
>
>
> I don't know which part exactly gives you problems here.


I don't know why for a No.1 who lost repeatedly in first two rounds of a
slam 8 times can't be
considered as a bad result for him in that slam. Don't know what your
problem is in accepting
that fact.
>
>




 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 11:52:52
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 7:45=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 7:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >>> On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.co=
m...
> >>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> H2H +/-
> >>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
> >>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
> >>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
> >>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
> >>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
> >>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
> >>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
> >>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
> >>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
> >>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
> >>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
> >>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
> >>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
> >>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
> >>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
> >>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
> >>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> >>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
> >>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
> >>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
> >>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> >>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
> >>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
> >>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
> >>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
> >>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
> >>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
> >>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
> >>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
> >>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>
> >>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>
> >>>>>> 56- 84
> >>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>
> >>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
> >>>>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
> >>>>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
> >>>>>> example.
>
> >>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>
> >>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated
> >>>>> *eight* French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander,
> >>>>> Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one
> >>>>> more than the clay court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now
> >>>>> no one can ever again claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> >>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
> >>>> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes
> >>>> out top.
>
> >>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
> >>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>
> >>> Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played twice
> >>> as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg" line of
> >>> reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper Inc. (i.e.,
> >>> your employer). After all, it's what you win that counts, right, not
> >>> how many attempts those wins required? Please read the employee
> >>> handbook and try again. :)
>
> >> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially for
> >> someone who achieves GOAT status.
>
> >> Santoro is past 36. He played to much.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So if a player in the future plays from the age of 16-40 on the pro
> > tour and somehow won 15 slams, 4 of which were past the age of 30,
> > would you say that his slams won after 30 do not count, simply because
> > he played for longer? Don't be silly.
> > If we apply that logic does it mean that Agassi only won 6 slams,
> > since he played longer than Sampras, so the last two do not count?
>
> > If Federer wins his 15th slam past the age of 30 will all you Sampras
> > fans then say it doesn't count? Some of you should really wake up.
>
> No, as I said, players play to win slams, that's the goal and that's the
> measure of greatness.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Players also *play* to win matches. Yet matches alone past 30 do not
count, but slams do?


  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 20:56:30
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 21, 7:45 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> Professor X wrote:
>>> On Feb 21, 7:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>> news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> H2H +/-
>>>>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
>>>>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
>>>>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
>>>>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
>>>>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>>>>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
>>>>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
>>>>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
>>>>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
>>>>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
>>>>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
>>>>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
>>>>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
>>>>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>>>>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
>>>>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
>>>>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>>>>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
>>>>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
>>>>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>>>>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>>>>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
>>>>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>>>>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>>>>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
>>>>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
>>>>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>>>>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
>>>>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
>>>>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>
>>>>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>
>>>>>>>> 56- 84
>>>>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>
>>>>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
>>>>>>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
>>>>>>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
>>>>>>>> example.
>>
>>>>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>>
>>>>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated
>>>>>>> *eight* French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander,
>>>>>>> Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one
>>>>>>> more than the clay court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now
>>>>>>> no one can ever again claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>>
>>>>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay
>>>>>> than Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro
>>>>>> comes out top.
>>
>>>>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
>>>>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>>
>>>>> Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played
>>>>> twice as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg"
>>>>> line of reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper
>>>>> Inc. (i.e., your employer). After all, it's what you win that
>>>>> counts, right, not how many attempts those wins required? Please
>>>>> read the employee handbook and try again. :)
>>
>>>> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially for
>>>> someone who achieves GOAT status.
>>
>>>> Santoro is past 36. He played to much.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> So if a player in the future plays from the age of 16-40 on the pro
>>> tour and somehow won 15 slams, 4 of which were past the age of 30,
>>> would you say that his slams won after 30 do not count, simply
>>> because he played for longer? Don't be silly.
>>> If we apply that logic does it mean that Agassi only won 6 slams,
>>> since he played longer than Sampras, so the last two do not count?
>>
>>> If Federer wins his 15th slam past the age of 30 will all you
>>> Sampras fans then say it doesn't count? Some of you should really
>>> wake up.
>>
>> No, as I said, players play to win slams, that's the goal and that's
>> the measure of greatness.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Players also *play* to win matches. Yet matches alone past 30 do not
> count, but slams do?


Matches per se are irrelevant. Sampras gets no historical credit for beating
all those FO champs.





 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 11:51:51
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 7:42=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 7:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.=
..
> >> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> H2H +/-
> >>>> Gomez 2-0 +
> >>>> Lendl 0-1 -
> >>>> Kriek 0-1 -
> >>>> Wilander 1-0 +
> >>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
> >>>> Courier 1-2 -
> >>>> Edberg 1-3 -
> >>>> Becker 1-1 /
> >>>> Stich 2-7 -
> >>>> Noah 1-1 /
> >>>> Korda 4-3 +
> >>>> Chang 2-2 /
> >>>> Muster 4-3 +
> >>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
> >>>> Rafter 1-1 /
> >>>> Johansson 3-6 -
> >>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> >>>> Costa 1-4 -
> >>>> Agassi 3-3 /
> >>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
> >>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> >>>> Sampras 3-4 -
> >>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
> >>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
> >>>> Roddick 1-4 -
> >>>> Safin 7-2 +
> >>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
> >>>> Federer 2-9 -
> >>>> Nadal 0-1 -
> >>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>
> >>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>
> >>>> 56- 84
> >>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>
> >>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
> >>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
> >>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
> >>>> example.
>
> >>>> This really is quite amazing.
>
> >>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
> >>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
> >>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
> >>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
> >>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> >>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
> >> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
> >> top.
>
> >> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
> >> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > But if you want to twist things like that then surely Federer must be
> > over 2x greater than Sampras since Sampras won slams over 12 years,
> > whilst Federer has won slams over only 5.
>
> > Sampras 7 more years
> > only one more slam ;-)
>
> > Now I have applied your own twisted logic once again. Find a way out
> > of this one please whisptease
>
> Yu guys enjoy "catching me" or Whisper...it's pretty funny what gives you
> pleasure.
> But sadly, you never do "catch" anything.
>
> Clearly, winning a slam is an accomplishment.
> Beating an FO champ is also an accomplishment, a lesser one, however.
>
> But you play to win slams, not to beat FO champions on clay.
> Once when your mission is completed, when you have enough slams or you th=
ink
> you're done winning slams, you quit.
>
> You don't think "ah I need to beat one more FO champ on clay and then I'l=
l
> quit".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Then why does whisper constantly use this argument himself when
writing about the achievements of Sampras on clay? It is not Ramirez
who has pulled it out of thin air just now. Regardless, you have shot
yourself in the foot once more. Since discussing only results at the
French open takes us back to the situation whereby Sampras was losing
to the likes of Galo Blanco, and never reaching an FO final. Whilst
fed has reached 3, which he no doubt would have won, had it not been
for perhaps the greatest clay courter of all time. So I agree, please
let us only talk about the slam results.

The Sampras beat "x" French open champs argument is now officially
redundant.


  
Date: 22 Feb 2009 17:13:06
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 21, 7:42 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> Professor X wrote:
>>> On Feb 21, 7:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> H2H +/-
>>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
>>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
>>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
>>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
>>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
>>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
>>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
>>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
>>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
>>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
>>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
>>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
>>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
>>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
>>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
>>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
>>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
>>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
>>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
>>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
>>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
>>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>>>>> 56- 84
>>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
>>>>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
>>>>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
>>>>>> example.
>>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
>>>>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
>>>>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
>>>>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
>>>>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
>>>> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
>>>> top.
>>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
>>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> But if you want to twist things like that then surely Federer must be
>>> over 2x greater than Sampras since Sampras won slams over 12 years,
>>> whilst Federer has won slams over only 5.
>>> Sampras 7 more years
>>> only one more slam ;-)
>>> Now I have applied your own twisted logic once again. Find a way out
>>> of this one please whisptease
>> Yu guys enjoy "catching me" or Whisper...it's pretty funny what gives you
>> pleasure.
>> But sadly, you never do "catch" anything.
>>
>> Clearly, winning a slam is an accomplishment.
>> Beating an FO champ is also an accomplishment, a lesser one, however.
>>
>> But you play to win slams, not to beat FO champions on clay.
>> Once when your mission is completed, when you have enough slams or you think
>> you're done winning slams, you quit.
>>
>> You don't think "ah I need to beat one more FO champ on clay and then I'll
>> quit".- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Then why does whisper constantly use this argument himself when
> writing about the achievements of Sampras on clay? It is not Ramirez
> who has pulled it out of thin air just now. Regardless, you have shot
> yourself in the foot once more. Since discussing only results at the
> French open takes us back to the situation whereby Sampras was losing
> to the likes of Galo Blanco, and never reaching an FO final. Whilst
> fed has reached 3, which he no doubt would have won, had it not been
> for perhaps the greatest clay courter of all time. So I agree, please
> let us only talk about the slam results.
>
> The Sampras beat "x" French open champs argument is now officially
> redundant.


Joe still hasn't proven Santoro beat 8 FO champs on clay, so any ensuing
posts are invalid.





  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 20:55:20
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 21, 7:42 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> Professor X wrote:
>>> On Feb 21, 7:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> H2H +/-
>>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
>>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
>>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
>>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
>>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
>>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
>>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
>>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
>>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
>>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
>>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
>>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
>>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
>>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
>>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
>>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
>>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
>>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
>>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
>>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
>>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
>>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>
>>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>
>>>>>> 56- 84
>>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>
>>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
>>>>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
>>>>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
>>>>>> example.
>>
>>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>>
>>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated
>>>>> *eight* French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander,
>>>>> Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one
>>>>> more than the clay court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now
>>>>> no one can ever again claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>>
>>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
>>>> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes
>>>> out top.
>>
>>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
>>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> But if you want to twist things like that then surely Federer must
>>> be over 2x greater than Sampras since Sampras won slams over 12
>>> years, whilst Federer has won slams over only 5.
>>
>>> Sampras 7 more years
>>> only one more slam ;-)
>>
>>> Now I have applied your own twisted logic once again. Find a way out
>>> of this one please whisptease
>>
>> Yu guys enjoy "catching me" or Whisper...it's pretty funny what
>> gives you pleasure.
>> But sadly, you never do "catch" anything.
>>
>> Clearly, winning a slam is an accomplishment.
>> Beating an FO champ is also an accomplishment, a lesser one, however.
>>
>> But you play to win slams, not to beat FO champions on clay.
>> Once when your mission is completed, when you have enough slams or
>> you think you're done winning slams, you quit.
>>
>> You don't think "ah I need to beat one more FO champ on clay and
>> then I'll quit".- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Then why does whisper constantly use this argument himself when
> writing about the achievements of Sampras on clay? It is not Ramirez
> who has pulled it out of thin air just now. Regardless, you have shot
> yourself in the foot once more.

No I did not. You're quite blind if you think so.



> Since discussing only results at the
> French open takes us back to the situation whereby Sampras was losing
> to the likes of Galo Blanco, and never reaching an FO final.

Winning IO, making FO sf, winning DC on clay, and beating 7 FO champs pretty
much proves he wasn't "lame on clay".

That's the whole point of that argument.



> Whilst
> fed has reached 3, which he no doubt would have won, had it not been
> for perhaps the greatest clay courter of all time. So I agree, please
> let us only talk about the slam results.
>
> The Sampras beat "x" French open champs argument is now officially
> redundant.


wtf?





 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 11:42:59
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 7:39=A0pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2:32=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> > >> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.co=
m...
> > >> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>
> > >>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> H2H +/-
> > >>>> Gomez 2-0 +
> > >>>> Lendl 0-1 -
> > >>>> Kriek 0-1 -
> > >>>> Wilander 1-0 +
> > >>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
> > >>>> Courier 1-2 -
> > >>>> Edberg 1-3 -
> > >>>> Becker 1-1 /
> > >>>> Stich 2-7 -
> > >>>> Noah 1-1 /
> > >>>> Korda 4-3 +
> > >>>> Chang 2-2 /
> > >>>> Muster 4-3 +
> > >>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
> > >>>> Rafter 1-1 /
> > >>>> Johansson 3-6 -
> > >>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> > >>>> Costa 1-4 -
> > >>>> Agassi 3-3 /
> > >>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
> > >>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> > >>>> Sampras 3-4 -
> > >>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
> > >>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
> > >>>> Roddick 1-4 -
> > >>>> Safin 7-2 +
> > >>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
> > >>>> Federer 2-9 -
> > >>>> Nadal 0-1 -
> > >>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>
> > >>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>
> > >>>> 56- 84
> > >>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>
> > >>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
> > >>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
> > >>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
> > >>>> example.
>
> > >>>> This really is quite amazing.
>
> > >>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight=
*
> > >>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
> > >>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
> > >>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
> > >>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> > >>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
> > >> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
> > >> top.
>
> > >> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
> > >> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>
> > > Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played twice
> > > as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg" line of
> > > reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper Inc. (i.e.,
> > > your employer). After all, it's what you win that counts, right, not
> > > how many attempts those wins required? Please read the employee
> > > handbook and try again. :)
>
> > Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially for
> > someone who achieves GOAT status.
>
> > =A0Santoro is past 36. He played to much.
>
> 8 > 7
>
> After Santoro passed Sampras, he couldn't be arsed to collect any more
> "scalps."
>
> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

lol... Yes poor santoro was only ever half-arsed. That must also
answer my earlier question about why Santoro never made it past the
australian open quarterfinal, because he was really GOAT but knew it
was only worth 3 on 7543.


 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 11:40:53
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 7:32=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.=
..
> >> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> H2H +/-
> >>>> Gomez 2-0 +
> >>>> Lendl 0-1 -
> >>>> Kriek 0-1 -
> >>>> Wilander 1-0 +
> >>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
> >>>> Courier 1-2 -
> >>>> Edberg 1-3 -
> >>>> Becker 1-1 /
> >>>> Stich 2-7 -
> >>>> Noah 1-1 /
> >>>> Korda 4-3 +
> >>>> Chang 2-2 /
> >>>> Muster 4-3 +
> >>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
> >>>> Rafter 1-1 /
> >>>> Johansson 3-6 -
> >>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> >>>> Costa 1-4 -
> >>>> Agassi 3-3 /
> >>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
> >>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> >>>> Sampras 3-4 -
> >>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
> >>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
> >>>> Roddick 1-4 -
> >>>> Safin 7-2 +
> >>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
> >>>> Federer 2-9 -
> >>>> Nadal 0-1 -
> >>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>
> >>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>
> >>>> 56- 84
> >>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>
> >>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
> >>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
> >>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
> >>>> example.
>
> >>>> This really is quite amazing.
>
> >>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
> >>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
> >>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
> >>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
> >>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> >>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
> >> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
> >> top.
>
> >> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
> >> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>
> > Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played twice
> > as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg" line of
> > reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper Inc. (i.e.,
> > your employer). After all, it's what you win that counts, right, not
> > how many attempts those wins required? Please read the employee
> > handbook and try again. :)
>
> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially for
> someone who achieves GOAT status.
>
> =A0Santoro is past 36. He played to much.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So if a player in the future plays from the age of 16-40 on the pro
tour and somehow won 15 slams, 4 of which were past the age of 30,
would you say that his slams won after 30 do not count, simply because
he played for longer? Don't be silly.
If we apply that logic does it mean that Agassi only won 6 slams,
since he played longer than Sampras, so the last two do not count?

If Federer wins his 15th slam past the age of 30 will all you Sampras
fans then say it doesn't count? Some of you should really wake up.


  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 20:45:59
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 21, 7:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> H2H +/-
>>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
>>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
>>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
>>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
>>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
>>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
>>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
>>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
>>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
>>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
>>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
>>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
>>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
>>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
>>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
>>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
>>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
>>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
>>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
>>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
>>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
>>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>
>>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>
>>>>>> 56- 84
>>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>
>>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
>>>>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
>>>>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
>>>>>> example.
>>
>>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>>
>>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated
>>>>> *eight* French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander,
>>>>> Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one
>>>>> more than the clay court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now
>>>>> no one can ever again claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>>
>>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
>>>> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes
>>>> out top.
>>
>>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
>>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>>
>>> Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played twice
>>> as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg" line of
>>> reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper Inc. (i.e.,
>>> your employer). After all, it's what you win that counts, right, not
>>> how many attempts those wins required? Please read the employee
>>> handbook and try again. :)
>>
>> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially for
>> someone who achieves GOAT status.
>>
>> Santoro is past 36. He played to much.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So if a player in the future plays from the age of 16-40 on the pro
> tour and somehow won 15 slams, 4 of which were past the age of 30,
> would you say that his slams won after 30 do not count, simply because
> he played for longer? Don't be silly.
> If we apply that logic does it mean that Agassi only won 6 slams,
> since he played longer than Sampras, so the last two do not count?
>
> If Federer wins his 15th slam past the age of 30 will all you Sampras
> fans then say it doesn't count? Some of you should really wake up.


No, as I said, players play to win slams, that's the goal and that's the
measure of greatness.




   
Date: 22 Feb 2009 00:50:04
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:45:59 +0100, "*skriptis"
<skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

>Professor X wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 7:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> H2H +/-
>>>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
>>>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
>>>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
>>>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
>>>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>>>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
>>>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
>>>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
>>>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
>>>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
>>>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
>>>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
>>>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
>>>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>>>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
>>>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
>>>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>>>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
>>>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
>>>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>>>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>>>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
>>>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>>>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>>>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
>>>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
>>>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>>>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
>>>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
>>>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>>
>>>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>>
>>>>>>> 56- 84
>>>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>>
>>>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
>>>>>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
>>>>>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
>>>>>>> example.
>>>
>>>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>>>
>>>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated
>>>>>> *eight* French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander,
>>>>>> Bruguera, Noah, Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one
>>>>>> more than the clay court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now
>>>>>> no one can ever again claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>>>
>>>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
>>>>> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes
>>>>> out top.
>>>
>>>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
>>>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>>>
>>>> Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played twice
>>>> as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg" line of
>>>> reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper Inc. (i.e.,
>>>> your employer). After all, it's what you win that counts, right, not
>>>> how many attempts those wins required? Please read the employee
>>>> handbook and try again. :)
>>>
>>> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially for
>>> someone who achieves GOAT status.
>>>
>>> Santoro is past 36. He played to much.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> So if a player in the future plays from the age of 16-40 on the pro
>> tour and somehow won 15 slams, 4 of which were past the age of 30,
>> would you say that his slams won after 30 do not count, simply because
>> he played for longer? Don't be silly.
>> If we apply that logic does it mean that Agassi only won 6 slams,
>> since he played longer than Sampras, so the last two do not count?
>>
>> If Federer wins his 15th slam past the age of 30 will all you Sampras
>> fans then say it doesn't count? Some of you should really wake up.
>
>
>No, as I said, players play to win slams, that's the goal and that's the
>measure of greatness.
>


yes whisper in your mind.


 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 11:39:41
From:
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 2:32=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.=
..
> >> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> H2H +/-
> >>>> Gomez 2-0 +
> >>>> Lendl 0-1 -
> >>>> Kriek 0-1 -
> >>>> Wilander 1-0 +
> >>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
> >>>> Courier 1-2 -
> >>>> Edberg 1-3 -
> >>>> Becker 1-1 /
> >>>> Stich 2-7 -
> >>>> Noah 1-1 /
> >>>> Korda 4-3 +
> >>>> Chang 2-2 /
> >>>> Muster 4-3 +
> >>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
> >>>> Rafter 1-1 /
> >>>> Johansson 3-6 -
> >>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> >>>> Costa 1-4 -
> >>>> Agassi 3-3 /
> >>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
> >>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> >>>> Sampras 3-4 -
> >>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
> >>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
> >>>> Roddick 1-4 -
> >>>> Safin 7-2 +
> >>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
> >>>> Federer 2-9 -
> >>>> Nadal 0-1 -
> >>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>
> >>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>
> >>>> 56- 84
> >>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>
> >>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
> >>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
> >>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
> >>>> example.
>
> >>>> This really is quite amazing.
>
> >>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
> >>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
> >>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
> >>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
> >>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> >>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
> >> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
> >> top.
>
> >> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
> >> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>
> > Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played twice
> > as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg" line of
> > reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper Inc. (i.e.,
> > your employer). After all, it's what you win that counts, right, not
> > how many attempts those wins required? Please read the employee
> > handbook and try again. :)
>
> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially for
> someone who achieves GOAT status.
>
> =A0Santoro is past 36. He played to much.

8 > 7

After Santoro passed Sampras, he couldn't be arsed to collect any more
"scalps."

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 22 Feb 2009 17:11:03
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
josephmramirez@netzero.com wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> H2H +/-
>>>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
>>>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
>>>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
>>>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
>>>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>>>>>> Courier 1-2 -
>>>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
>>>>>> Becker 1-1 /
>>>>>> Stich 2-7 -
>>>>>> Noah 1-1 /
>>>>>> Korda 4-3 +
>>>>>> Chang 2-2 /
>>>>>> Muster 4-3 +
>>>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>>>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
>>>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
>>>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>>>>>> Costa 1-4 -
>>>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
>>>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>>>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>>>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
>>>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>>>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>>>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
>>>>>> Safin 7-2 +
>>>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>>>>>> Federer 2-9 -
>>>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
>>>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>>>>> 56- 84
>>>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
>>>>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
>>>>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
>>>>>> example.
>>>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>>>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
>>>>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
>>>>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
>>>>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
>>>>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
>>>> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
>>>> top.
>>>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
>>>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>>> Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played twice
>>> as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg" line of
>>> reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper Inc. (i.e.,
>>> your employer). After all, it's what you win that counts, right, not
>>> how many attempts those wins required? Please read the employee
>>> handbook and try again. :)
>> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially for
>> someone who achieves GOAT status.
>>
>> Santoro is past 36. He played to much.
>
> 8 > 7
>
> After Santoro passed Sampras, he couldn't be arsed to collect any more
> "scalps."
>
> Joe Ramirez


But has he beat them on clay? This thread can't continue until some
facts are established.



  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 22:53:59
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:39:41 -0800 (PST), josephmramirez@netzero.com
wrote:

>On Feb 21, 2:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>> > On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> H2H +/-
>> >>>> Gomez 2-0 +
>> >>>> Lendl 0-1 -
>> >>>> Kriek 0-1 -
>> >>>> Wilander 1-0 +
>> >>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>> >>>> Courier 1-2 -
>> >>>> Edberg 1-3 -
>> >>>> Becker 1-1 /
>> >>>> Stich 2-7 -
>> >>>> Noah 1-1 /
>> >>>> Korda 4-3 +
>> >>>> Chang 2-2 /
>> >>>> Muster 4-3 +
>> >>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>> >>>> Rafter 1-1 /
>> >>>> Johansson 3-6 -
>> >>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>> >>>> Costa 1-4 -
>> >>>> Agassi 3-3 /
>> >>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>> >>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>> >>>> Sampras 3-4 -
>> >>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>> >>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>> >>>> Roddick 1-4 -
>> >>>> Safin 7-2 +
>> >>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>> >>>> Federer 2-9 -
>> >>>> Nadal 0-1 -
>> >>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>
>> >>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>
>> >>>> 56- 84
>> >>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>
>> >>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
>> >>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
>> >>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
>> >>>> example.
>>
>> >>>> This really is quite amazing.
>>
>> >>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
>> >>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
>> >>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
>> >>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
>> >>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>>
>> >>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
>> >> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
>> >> top.
>>
>> >> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
>> >> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>>
>> > Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played twice
>> > as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg" line of
>> > reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper Inc. (i.e.,
>> > your employer). After all, it's what you win that counts, right, not
>> > how many attempts those wins required? Please read the employee
>> > handbook and try again. :)
>>
>> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially for
>> someone who achieves GOAT status.
>>
>>  Santoro is past 36. He played to much.
>
>8 > 7
>
>After Santoro passed Sampras, he couldn't be arsed to collect any more
>"scalps."

Yes, he had the target clearly in mind. If Sampras had beaten 15 FO
champs on clay, Santoro would have beaten 16. You just know it. He has
the ability to beat FO champs on clay, when he is arsed. 99% of
players/fans/experts agree about that.





 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 11:32:41
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 7:15=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > H2H +/-
> > > Gomez 2-0 +
> > > Lendl 0-1 -
> > > Kriek 0-1 -
> > > Wilander 1-0 +
> > > Bruguera 4-1 +
> > > Courier 1-2 -
> > > Edberg 1-3 -
> > > Becker 1-1 /
> > > Stich 2-7 -
> > > Noah 1-1 /
> > > Korda 4-3 +
> > > Chang 2-2 /
> > > Muster 4-3 +
> > > Kuerten 1-1 /
> > > Rafter 1-1 /
> > > Johansson 3-6 -
> > > Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> > > Costa 1-4 -
> > > Agassi 3-3 /
> > > Krajicek 2-5 -
> > > Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> > > Sampras 3-4 -
> > > Gaudio 1-1 /
> > > Ferrero 2-4 -
> > > Roddick 1-4 -
> > > Safin 7-2 +
> > > Hewitt 2-2 /
> > > Federer 2-9 -
> > > Nadal 0-1 -
> > > Djokovic 1-1 /
>
> > > Murray?? 0-2 -
>
> > > 56- 84
> > > 56- 86 w/murray
>
> > > Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven'=
t
> > > missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on who
> > > else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.
>
> > > This really is quite amazing.
>
> > And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
> > French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
> > Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
> > court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
> > claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> > Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
> top.
>
> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But if you want to twist things like that then surely Federer must be
over 2x greater than Sampras since Sampras won slams over 12 years,
whilst Federer has won slams over only 5.

Sampras 7 more years
only one more slam ;-)


Now I have applied your own twisted logic once again. Find a way out
of this one please whisptease


  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 20:42:02
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 21, 7:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> H2H +/-
>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>>>> Courier 1-2 -
>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
>>>> Becker 1-1 /
>>>> Stich 2-7 -
>>>> Noah 1-1 /
>>>> Korda 4-3 +
>>>> Chang 2-2 /
>>>> Muster 4-3 +
>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>>>> Costa 1-4 -
>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
>>>> Safin 7-2 +
>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>>>> Federer 2-9 -
>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>
>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>
>>>> 56- 84
>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>
>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
>>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
>>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
>>>> example.
>>
>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>>
>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
>>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
>>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
>>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
>>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>>
>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
>> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
>> top.
>>
>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> But if you want to twist things like that then surely Federer must be
> over 2x greater than Sampras since Sampras won slams over 12 years,
> whilst Federer has won slams over only 5.
>
> Sampras 7 more years
> only one more slam ;-)
>
>
> Now I have applied your own twisted logic once again. Find a way out
> of this one please whisptease


Yu guys enjoy "catching me" or Whisper...it's pretty funny what gives you
pleasure.
But sadly, you never do "catch" anything.

Clearly, winning a slam is an accomplishment.
Beating an FO champ is also an accomplishment, a lesser one, however.

But you play to win slams, not to beat FO champions on clay.
Once when your mission is completed, when you have enough slams or you think
you're done winning slams, you quit.

You don't think "ah I need to beat one more FO champ on clay and then I'll
quit".






 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 11:27:58
From:
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 2:15=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > H2H +/-
> > > Gomez 2-0 +
> > > Lendl 0-1 -
> > > Kriek 0-1 -
> > > Wilander 1-0 +
> > > Bruguera 4-1 +
> > > Courier 1-2 -
> > > Edberg 1-3 -
> > > Becker 1-1 /
> > > Stich 2-7 -
> > > Noah 1-1 /
> > > Korda 4-3 +
> > > Chang 2-2 /
> > > Muster 4-3 +
> > > Kuerten 1-1 /
> > > Rafter 1-1 /
> > > Johansson 3-6 -
> > > Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> > > Costa 1-4 -
> > > Agassi 3-3 /
> > > Krajicek 2-5 -
> > > Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> > > Sampras 3-4 -
> > > Gaudio 1-1 /
> > > Ferrero 2-4 -
> > > Roddick 1-4 -
> > > Safin 7-2 +
> > > Hewitt 2-2 /
> > > Federer 2-9 -
> > > Nadal 0-1 -
> > > Djokovic 1-1 /
>
> > > Murray?? 0-2 -
>
> > > 56- 84
> > > 56- 86 w/murray
>
> > > Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven'=
t
> > > missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on who
> > > else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.
>
> > > This really is quite amazing.
>
> > And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
> > French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
> > Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
> > court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
> > claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> > Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
> top.
>
> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..

Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played twice
as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg" line of
reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper Inc. (i.e.,
your employer). After all, it's what you win that counts, right, not
how many attempts those wins required? Please read the employee
handbook and try again. :)

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 20:32:23
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
josephmramirez@netzero.com wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> H2H +/-
>>>> Gomez 2-0 +
>>>> Lendl 0-1 -
>>>> Kriek 0-1 -
>>>> Wilander 1-0 +
>>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>>>> Courier 1-2 -
>>>> Edberg 1-3 -
>>>> Becker 1-1 /
>>>> Stich 2-7 -
>>>> Noah 1-1 /
>>>> Korda 4-3 +
>>>> Chang 2-2 /
>>>> Muster 4-3 +
>>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>>>> Rafter 1-1 /
>>>> Johansson 3-6 -
>>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>>>> Costa 1-4 -
>>>> Agassi 3-3 /
>>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>>>> Sampras 3-4 -
>>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>>>> Roddick 1-4 -
>>>> Safin 7-2 +
>>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>>>> Federer 2-9 -
>>>> Nadal 0-1 -
>>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>
>>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>
>>>> 56- 84
>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>
>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
>>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
>>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
>>>> example.
>>
>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>>
>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
>>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
>>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
>>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
>>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>>
>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
>> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
>> top.
>>
>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>
> Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played twice
> as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg" line of
> reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper Inc. (i.e.,
> your employer). After all, it's what you win that counts, right, not
> how many attempts those wins required? Please read the employee
> handbook and try again. :)


Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially for
someone who achieves GOAT status.

Santoro is past 36. He played to much.




 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 11:26:32
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 5:16=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0H2H +/-
> Gomez =A0 =A0 =A02-0 =A0 =A0+
> Lendl =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0-1 =A0 =A0 -
> Kriek =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0-1 =A0 =A0 -
> Wilander =A0 =A01-0 =A0 =A0+
> Bruguera =A0 =A04-1 =A0 =A0+
> Courier =A0 =A0 =A0 1-2 =A0 =A0 -
> Edberg =A0 =A0 =A0 1-3 =A0 =A0 -
> Becker =A0 =A0 =A0 1-1 =A0 =A0 /
> Stich =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-7 =A0 =A0-
> Noah =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0 =A0/
> Korda =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 4-3 =A0 =A0+
> Chang =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-2 =A0 =A0/
> Muster =A0 =A0 =A0 4-3 =A0 =A0+
> Kuerten =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0 =A0/
> Rafter =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1-1 =A0 /
> Johansson =A03-6 =A0 =A0-
> Kafelnikov =A0 0-6 =A0 =A0-
> Costa =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1-4 =A0 =A0-
> Agassi =A0 =A0 =A0 =A03-3 =A0 /
> Krajicek =A0 =A0 =A02-5 =A0 -
> Ivanisevic =A0 =A03-5 =A0 -
> Sampras =A0 =A0 3-4 =A0-
> Gaudio =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0/
> Ferrero =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-4 =A0 -
> Roddick =A0 =A0 =A01-4 =A0 -
> Safin =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 7-2 =A0+
> Hewitt =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2-2 =A0/
> Federer =A0 =A0 =A0 2-9 =A0-
> Nadal =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A00-1 =A0-
> Djokovic =A0 =A0 =A01-1 /
>
> Murray?? =A0 =A00-2 -
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 56- 84
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 56- 86 =A0 w/murray
>
> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven't
> missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on who
> else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.
>
> This really is quite amazing.

Considering the guy played 140 matches against some of the greatest
players in history (with a 40% winning record to boot) it's perhaps a
shame that he never went further than one grand slam quarterfinal.
However I think it does show the significance of variety in Tennis.
Santoro could cause anyone problems simply because nobody else played
like he did. Indeed, I wish that many youngsters could look at Santoro
and see that you do not neccessarily have to play manufactured 'robo-
tennis' to be successful. It would certainly make for a more
interesting game in the future if some did.

* As a side note, for the "Was Santoro better on Clay than Sampras
debate?" - Santoro also won the French open in 2005!
(Mixed doubles)


  
Date: 22 Feb 2009 17:09:22
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 21, 5:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> H2H +/-
>> Gomez 2-0 +
>> Lendl 0-1 -
>> Kriek 0-1 -
>> Wilander 1-0 +
>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>> Courier 1-2 -
>> Edberg 1-3 -
>> Becker 1-1 /
>> Stich 2-7 -
>> Noah 1-1 /
>> Korda 4-3 +
>> Chang 2-2 /
>> Muster 4-3 +
>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>> Rafter 1-1 /
>> Johansson 3-6 -
>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>> Costa 1-4 -
>> Agassi 3-3 /
>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>> Sampras 3-4 -
>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>> Roddick 1-4 -
>> Safin 7-2 +
>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>> Federer 2-9 -
>> Nadal 0-1 -
>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>
>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>
>> 56- 84
>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>
>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven't
>> missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on who
>> else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.
>>
>> This really is quite amazing.
>
> Considering the guy played 140 matches against some of the greatest
> players in history (with a 40% winning record to boot) it's perhaps a
> shame that he never went further than one grand slam quarterfinal.
> However I think it does show the significance of variety in Tennis.
> Santoro could cause anyone problems simply because nobody else played
> like he did. Indeed, I wish that many youngsters could look at Santoro
> and see that you do not neccessarily have to play manufactured 'robo-
> tennis' to be successful. It would certainly make for a more
> interesting game in the future if some did.
>
> * As a side note, for the "Was Santoro better on Clay than Sampras
> debate?" - Santoro also won the French open in 2005!
> (Mixed doubles)


Santoro actually played Ramesh Krishnan one time - wish that was on tape.



 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 11:13:00
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 7:08=A0pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> On Feb 21, 12:16=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0H2H +/-
> > Gomez =A0 =A0 =A02-0 =A0 =A0+
> > Lendl =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0-1 =A0 =A0 -
> > Kriek =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0-1 =A0 =A0 -
> > Wilander =A0 =A01-0 =A0 =A0+
> > Bruguera =A0 =A04-1 =A0 =A0+
> > Courier =A0 =A0 =A0 1-2 =A0 =A0 -
> > Edberg =A0 =A0 =A0 1-3 =A0 =A0 -
> > Becker =A0 =A0 =A0 1-1 =A0 =A0 /
> > Stich =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-7 =A0 =A0-
> > Noah =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0 =A0/
> > Korda =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 4-3 =A0 =A0+
> > Chang =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-2 =A0 =A0/
> > Muster =A0 =A0 =A0 4-3 =A0 =A0+
> > Kuerten =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0 =A0/
> > Rafter =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1-1 =A0 /
> > Johansson =A03-6 =A0 =A0-
> > Kafelnikov =A0 0-6 =A0 =A0-
> > Costa =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1-4 =A0 =A0-
> > Agassi =A0 =A0 =A0 =A03-3 =A0 /
> > Krajicek =A0 =A0 =A02-5 =A0 -
> > Ivanisevic =A0 =A03-5 =A0 -
> > Sampras =A0 =A0 3-4 =A0-
> > Gaudio =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0/
> > Ferrero =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-4 =A0 -
> > Roddick =A0 =A0 =A01-4 =A0 -
> > Safin =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 7-2 =A0+
> > Hewitt =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2-2 =A0/
> > Federer =A0 =A0 =A0 2-9 =A0-
> > Nadal =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A00-1 =A0-
> > Djokovic =A0 =A0 =A01-1 /
>
> > Murray?? =A0 =A00-2 -
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 56- 84
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 56- 86 =A0 w/murray
>
> > Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven't
> > missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on who
> > else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.
>
> > This really is quite amazing.
>
> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
top.



  
Date: 22 Feb 2009 17:08:25
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> H2H +/-
>>> Gomez 2-0 +
>>> Lendl 0-1 -
>>> Kriek 0-1 -
>>> Wilander 1-0 +
>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>>> Courier 1-2 -
>>> Edberg 1-3 -
>>> Becker 1-1 /
>>> Stich 2-7 -
>>> Noah 1-1 /
>>> Korda 4-3 +
>>> Chang 2-2 /
>>> Muster 4-3 +
>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>>> Rafter 1-1 /
>>> Johansson 3-6 -
>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>>> Costa 1-4 -
>>> Agassi 3-3 /
>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>>> Sampras 3-4 -
>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>>> Roddick 1-4 -
>>> Safin 7-2 +
>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>>> Federer 2-9 -
>>> Nadal 0-1 -
>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>> 56- 84
>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven't
>>> missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on who
>>> else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.
>>> This really is quite amazing.
>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>>
>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
> top.
>

Joe hasn't verified his post yet.

Is Santoro better than Sampras on clay? Were his achievements greater
than Italian Open champ, DC final on clay, Multiple FO semis/Q/f's etc?



  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 20:15:45
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)

"Professor X" <suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > H2H +/-
> > Gomez 2-0 +
> > Lendl 0-1 -
> > Kriek 0-1 -
> > Wilander 1-0 +
> > Bruguera 4-1 +
> > Courier 1-2 -
> > Edberg 1-3 -
> > Becker 1-1 /
> > Stich 2-7 -
> > Noah 1-1 /
> > Korda 4-3 +
> > Chang 2-2 /
> > Muster 4-3 +
> > Kuerten 1-1 /
> > Rafter 1-1 /
> > Johansson 3-6 -
> > Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> > Costa 1-4 -
> > Agassi 3-3 /
> > Krajicek 2-5 -
> > Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> > Sampras 3-4 -
> > Gaudio 1-1 /
> > Ferrero 2-4 -
> > Roddick 1-4 -
> > Safin 7-2 +
> > Hewitt 2-2 /
> > Federer 2-9 -
> > Nadal 0-1 -
> > Djokovic 1-1 /
>
> > Murray?? 0-2 -
>
> > 56- 84
> > 56- 86 w/murray
>
> > Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven't
> > missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on who
> > else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.
>
> > This really is quite amazing.
>
> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
top.


Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
6 years more and only 1 scalp more..




   
Date: 22 Feb 2009 00:49:16
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
O
>> > 56- 86 w/murray
>>
>> > Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven't
>> > missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on who
>> > else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.
>>
>> > This really is quite amazing.
>>
>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>>
>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
>Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
>top.
>
>
>Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
>6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>


er .... sampras played 25 slama and 7 years more than borg. won a
meager 3 more.


    
Date: 22 Feb 2009 17:00:48
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
Superdave wrote:
> O
>>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven't
>>>> missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on who
>>>> else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.
>>>> This really is quite amazing.
>>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
>>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
>>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
>>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
>>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>>>
>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
>> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
>> top.
>>
>>
>> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
>> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>>
>
>
> er .... sampras played 25 slama and 7 years more than borg. won a
> meager 3 more.



Borg coulda played to 39 & still may not have won another slam -
Mac/Wilander were all done winning slams at younger age than Borg so
there is no way he can get credit for coulda/woulda. What if Mac quit
straight after '84 USO & Wilander '88 USO? Everyone would think they
coulda won 20 slam easy as they were still so young.

History shows players get no coulda/woulda credit for running away at
peak. If you're going to compare him to guys that played more then the
only fair way to do it is give him credit for 1st rd slam losses,
otherwise it's cheating giving credit for imaginary wins.




 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 11:09:06
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 6:52=A0pm, M <matt.tip...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 21 Feb, 18:30, Led-Yes-Pin-Bea-Rol <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 21, 11:16=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0H2H +/-
> > > Lendl =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0-1 =A0 =A0 -
> > > Sampras =A0 =A0 3-4 =A0-
> > > Federer =A0 =A0 =A0 2-9 =A0-
>
> > Pretty much proves my point.
>
> funny Kafelnikov ( who I always thought underachieved ) seemed to know
> how to play him

It's interesting to note that davydenko also has a 5-0 winning record
against Santoro (and he is perhaps the guy most like kafelnikov since
kafelnikov) in terms of playing style- ping-pong tennis, being
russian, and being a mercenary!


 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 11:08:49
From:
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 12:16=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0H2H +/-
> Gomez =A0 =A0 =A02-0 =A0 =A0+
> Lendl =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0-1 =A0 =A0 -
> Kriek =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0-1 =A0 =A0 -
> Wilander =A0 =A01-0 =A0 =A0+
> Bruguera =A0 =A04-1 =A0 =A0+
> Courier =A0 =A0 =A0 1-2 =A0 =A0 -
> Edberg =A0 =A0 =A0 1-3 =A0 =A0 -
> Becker =A0 =A0 =A0 1-1 =A0 =A0 /
> Stich =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-7 =A0 =A0-
> Noah =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0 =A0/
> Korda =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 4-3 =A0 =A0+
> Chang =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-2 =A0 =A0/
> Muster =A0 =A0 =A0 4-3 =A0 =A0+
> Kuerten =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0 =A0/
> Rafter =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1-1 =A0 /
> Johansson =A03-6 =A0 =A0-
> Kafelnikov =A0 0-6 =A0 =A0-
> Costa =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1-4 =A0 =A0-
> Agassi =A0 =A0 =A0 =A03-3 =A0 /
> Krajicek =A0 =A0 =A02-5 =A0 -
> Ivanisevic =A0 =A03-5 =A0 -
> Sampras =A0 =A0 3-4 =A0-
> Gaudio =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0/
> Ferrero =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-4 =A0 -
> Roddick =A0 =A0 =A01-4 =A0 -
> Safin =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 7-2 =A0+
> Hewitt =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2-2 =A0/
> Federer =A0 =A0 =A0 2-9 =A0-
> Nadal =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A00-1 =A0-
> Djokovic =A0 =A0 =A01-1 /
>
> Murray?? =A0 =A00-2 -
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 56- 84
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 56- 86 =A0 w/murray
>
> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven't
> missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on who
> else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.
>
> This really is quite amazing.

And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 22 Feb 2009 17:06:37
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
josephmramirez@netzero.com wrote:
> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> H2H +/-
>> Gomez 2-0 +
>> Lendl 0-1 -
>> Kriek 0-1 -
>> Wilander 1-0 +
>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>> Courier 1-2 -
>> Edberg 1-3 -
>> Becker 1-1 /
>> Stich 2-7 -
>> Noah 1-1 /
>> Korda 4-3 +
>> Chang 2-2 /
>> Muster 4-3 +
>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>> Rafter 1-1 /
>> Johansson 3-6 -
>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>> Costa 1-4 -
>> Agassi 3-3 /
>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>> Sampras 3-4 -
>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>> Roddick 1-4 -
>> Safin 7-2 +
>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>> Federer 2-9 -
>> Nadal 0-1 -
>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>
>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>
>> 56- 84
>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>
>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven't
>> missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on who
>> else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.
>>
>> This really is quite amazing.
>
> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> Joe Ramirez


He beat them on clay? Links?



  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 13:08:17
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 9:02=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:58:55 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
>
>
>
>
> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 21, 8:53=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:39:41 -0800 (PST), josephmrami...@netzero.com
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Feb 21, 2:32=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> >> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >> >> > On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> >> >> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroup=
s.com...
> >> >> >> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> >> >> >>>> H2H +/-
> >> >> >>>> Gomez 2-0 +
> >> >> >>>> Lendl 0-1 -
> >> >> >>>> Kriek 0-1 -
> >> >> >>>> Wilander 1-0 +
> >> >> >>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
> >> >> >>>> Courier 1-2 -
> >> >> >>>> Edberg 1-3 -
> >> >> >>>> Becker 1-1 /
> >> >> >>>> Stich 2-7 -
> >> >> >>>> Noah 1-1 /
> >> >> >>>> Korda 4-3 +
> >> >> >>>> Chang 2-2 /
> >> >> >>>> Muster 4-3 +
> >> >> >>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
> >> >> >>>> Rafter 1-1 /
> >> >> >>>> Johansson 3-6 -
> >> >> >>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
> >> >> >>>> Costa 1-4 -
> >> >> >>>> Agassi 3-3 /
> >> >> >>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
> >> >> >>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
> >> >> >>>> Sampras 3-4 -
> >> >> >>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
> >> >> >>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
> >> >> >>>> Roddick 1-4 -
> >> >> >>>> Safin 7-2 +
> >> >> >>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
> >> >> >>>> Federer 2-9 -
> >> >> >>>> Nadal 0-1 -
> >> >> >>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>
> >> >> >>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>
> >> >> >>>> 56- 84
> >> >> >>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>
> >> >> >>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
> >> >> >>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
> >> >> >>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
> >> >> >>>> example.
>
> >> >> >>>> This really is quite amazing.
>
> >> >> >>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *e=
ight*
> >> >> >>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, No=
ah,
> >> >> >>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the cl=
ay
> >> >> >>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever ag=
ain
> >> >> >>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>
> >> >> >>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> >> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay t=
han
> >> >> >> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes=
out
> >> >> >> top.
>
> >> >> >> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
> >> >> >> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>
> >> >> > Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played tw=
ice
> >> >> > as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg" line of
> >> >> > reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper Inc. (i.e.=
,
> >> >> > your employer). After all, it's what you win that counts, right, =
not
> >> >> > how many attempts those wins required? Please read the employee
> >> >> > handbook and try again. :)
>
> >> >> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially for
> >> >> someone who achieves GOAT status.
>
> >> >> =A0Santoro is past 36. He played to much.
>
> >> >8 > 7
>
> >> >After Santoro passed Sampras, he couldn't be arsed to collect any mor=
e
> >> >"scalps."
>
> >> Yes, he had the target clearly in mind. If Sampras had beaten 15 FO
> >> champs on clay, Santoro would have beaten 16. You just know it. He has
> >> the ability to beat FO champs on clay, when he is arsed. 99% of
> >> players/fans/experts agree about that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >lol, careful, Ski Trips will think you are being serious.
>
> As if I care what he thinks.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually don't worry about that. The real problem is that he DOESN'T
think. He just regurgitates the whispy playbook.


   
Date: 21 Feb 2009 23:15:27
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:08:17 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 21, 9:02 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:58:55 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 21, 8:53 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:39:41 -0800 (PST), josephmrami...@netzero.com
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Feb 21, 2:32 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >> >> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>> >> >> > On Feb 21, 2:15 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Professor X" <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> >>news:cacac3af-1cf1-4d0e-91ef-cfcc80535352@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >> On Feb 21, 7:08 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>> On Feb 21, 12:16 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>> H2H +/-
>> >> >> >>>> Gomez 2-0 +
>> >> >> >>>> Lendl 0-1 -
>> >> >> >>>> Kriek 0-1 -
>> >> >> >>>> Wilander 1-0 +
>> >> >> >>>> Bruguera 4-1 +
>> >> >> >>>> Courier 1-2 -
>> >> >> >>>> Edberg 1-3 -
>> >> >> >>>> Becker 1-1 /
>> >> >> >>>> Stich 2-7 -
>> >> >> >>>> Noah 1-1 /
>> >> >> >>>> Korda 4-3 +
>> >> >> >>>> Chang 2-2 /
>> >> >> >>>> Muster 4-3 +
>> >> >> >>>> Kuerten 1-1 /
>> >> >> >>>> Rafter 1-1 /
>> >> >> >>>> Johansson 3-6 -
>> >> >> >>>> Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>> >> >> >>>> Costa 1-4 -
>> >> >> >>>> Agassi 3-3 /
>> >> >> >>>> Krajicek 2-5 -
>> >> >> >>>> Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>> >> >> >>>> Sampras 3-4 -
>> >> >> >>>> Gaudio 1-1 /
>> >> >> >>>> Ferrero 2-4 -
>> >> >> >>>> Roddick 1-4 -
>> >> >> >>>> Safin 7-2 +
>> >> >> >>>> Hewitt 2-2 /
>> >> >> >>>> Federer 2-9 -
>> >> >> >>>> Nadal 0-1 -
>> >> >> >>>> Djokovic 1-1 /
>>
>> >> >> >>>> Murray?? 0-2 -
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 56- 84
>> >> >> >>>> 56- 86 w/murray
>>
>> >> >> >>>> Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I
>> >> >> >>>> haven't missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future
>> >> >> >>>> depending on who else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for
>> >> >> >>>> example.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> This really is quite amazing.
>>
>> >> >> >>> And the best thing is that we now know that Santoro defeated *eight*
>> >> >> >>> French Open champions *on clay*! (Gomez, Wilander, Bruguera, Noah,
>> >> >> >>> Chang, Muster, Kuerten, Agassi). 8! That's one more than the clay
>> >> >> >>> court god Sampras was able to knock off. Now no one can ever again
>> >> >> >>> claim that Santoro was "lame on clay." :)
>>
>> >> >> >>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >> Yes, surely Whisper must admit that Santoro was better on clay than
>> >> >> >> Sampras? Since you have applied his own logic, and Santoro comes out
>> >> >> >> top.
>>
>> >> >> >> Er, Sampras retired in 2002, Santoro is still ative.
>> >> >> >> 6 years more and only 1 scalp more..
>>
>> >> >> > Uh oh -- this sounds remarkably similar to the "Sampras played twice
>> >> >> > as many slams as Borg, but won only three more than Borg" line of
>> >> >> > reasoning that has been officially rejected by Whisper Inc. (i.e.,
>> >> >> > your employer). After all, it's what you win that counts, right, not
>> >> >> > how many attempts those wins required? Please read the employee
>> >> >> > handbook and try again. :)
>>
>> >> >> Yes, but reasonable retirement age is cca above 30, especially for
>> >> >> someone who achieves GOAT status.
>>
>> >> >>  Santoro is past 36. He played to much.
>>
>> >> >8 > 7
>>
>> >> >After Santoro passed Sampras, he couldn't be arsed to collect any more
>> >> >"scalps."
>>
>> >> Yes, he had the target clearly in mind. If Sampras had beaten 15 FO
>> >> champs on clay, Santoro would have beaten 16. You just know it. He has
>> >> the ability to beat FO champs on clay, when he is arsed. 99% of
>> >> players/fans/experts agree about that.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >lol, careful, Ski Trips will think you are being serious.
>>
>> As if I care what he thinks.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Actually don't worry about that. The real problem is that he DOESN'T
>think. He just regurgitates the whispy playbook.

Yes, that's what I've been saying.


 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 10:52:55
From: M
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On 21 Feb, 18:30, Led-Yes-Pin-Bea-Rol <zepflo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 11:16=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0H2H +/-
> > Lendl =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0-1 =A0 =A0 -
> > Sampras =A0 =A0 3-4 =A0-
> > Federer =A0 =A0 =A0 2-9 =A0-
>
> Pretty much proves my point.

haha yes it does..

he got better with age too ..


 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 10:52:19
From: M
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On 21 Feb, 18:30, Led-Yes-Pin-Bea-Rol <zepflo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 11:16=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0H2H +/-
> > Lendl =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0-1 =A0 =A0 -
> > Sampras =A0 =A0 3-4 =A0-
> > Federer =A0 =A0 =A0 2-9 =A0-
>
> Pretty much proves my point.

funny Kafelnikov ( who I always thought underachieved ) seemed to know
how to play him


 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 10:30:22
From: Led-Yes-Pin-Bea-Rol
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 11:16=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0H2H +/-

> Lendl =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0-1 =A0 =A0 -
> Sampras =A0 =A0 3-4 =A0-
> Federer =A0 =A0 =A0 2-9 =A0-

Pretty much proves my point.


 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 09:31:22
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite
On Feb 21, 5:23=A0pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:16:14 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
>
>
>
>
> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 H2H +/-
> >Gomez =A0 =A0 =A02-0 =A0 =A0+
> >Lendl =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0-1 =A0 =A0 -
> >Kriek =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 0-1 =A0 =A0 -
> >Wilander =A0 =A01-0 =A0 =A0+
> >Bruguera =A0 =A04-1 =A0 =A0+
> >Courier =A0 =A0 =A0 1-2 =A0 =A0 -
> >Edberg =A0 =A0 =A0 1-3 =A0 =A0 -
> >Becker =A0 =A0 =A0 1-1 =A0 =A0 /
> >Stich =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-7 =A0 =A0-
> >Noah =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0 =A0/
> >Korda =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 4-3 =A0 =A0+
> >Chang =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-2 =A0 =A0/
> >Muster =A0 =A0 =A0 4-3 =A0 =A0+
> >Kuerten =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0 =A0/
> >Rafter =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1-1 =A0 /
> >Johansson =A03-6 =A0 =A0-
> >Kafelnikov =A0 0-6 =A0 =A0-
> >Costa =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1-4 =A0 =A0-
> >Agassi =A0 =A0 =A0 =A03-3 =A0 /
> >Krajicek =A0 =A0 =A02-5 =A0 -
> >Ivanisevic =A0 =A03-5 =A0 -
> >Sampras =A0 =A0 3-4 =A0-
> >Gaudio =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01-1 =A0/
> >Ferrero =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02-4 =A0 -
> >Roddick =A0 =A0 =A01-4 =A0 -
> >Safin =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 7-2 =A0+
> >Hewitt =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2-2 =A0/
> >Federer =A0 =A0 =A0 2-9 =A0-
> >Nadal =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A00-1 =A0-
> >Djokovic =A0 =A0 =A01-1 /
>
> >Murray?? =A0 =A00-2 -
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A056- 84
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A056- 86 =A0 w/murray
>
> >Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven't
> >missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on who
> >else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.
>
> >This really is quite amazing.
>
> They don't call him the "magician" for nothing.
>
> He really is a "special" player.
>
> Ya just gotta love him !!!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

yes and he has W's against all but four of them aswell!


 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 17:23:39
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Open Era champions that Fabrice Santoro has played (Quite Amazing)
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:16:14 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

> H2H +/-
>Gomez 2-0 +
>Lendl 0-1 -
>Kriek 0-1 -
>Wilander 1-0 +
>Bruguera 4-1 +
>Courier 1-2 -
>Edberg 1-3 -
>Becker 1-1 /
>Stich 2-7 -
>Noah 1-1 /
>Korda 4-3 +
>Chang 2-2 /
>Muster 4-3 +
>Kuerten 1-1 /
>Rafter 1-1 /
>Johansson 3-6 -
>Kafelnikov 0-6 -
>Costa 1-4 -
>Agassi 3-3 /
>Krajicek 2-5 -
>Ivanisevic 3-5 -
>Sampras 3-4 -
>Gaudio 1-1 /
>Ferrero 2-4 -
>Roddick 1-4 -
>Safin 7-2 +
>Hewitt 2-2 /
>Federer 2-9 -
>Nadal 0-1 -
>Djokovic 1-1 /
>
>Murray?? 0-2 -
>
> 56- 84
> 56- 86 w/murray
>
>Wow Santoro has played 30 out of 53 open era slam champs (If I haven't
>missed anyone) --- and that could rise in the future depending on who
>else from this era wins a slam -- Murray for example.
>
>This really is quite amazing.


They don't call him the "magician" for nothing.

He really is a "special" player.

Ya just gotta love him !!!