tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 16 Feb 2009 23:30:20
From: ghell666
Subject: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
You can include just about the whole top ten / 20 here

If Pioline / an old MacEnroe could return his serve and break him now
where they couldnt 10 yrs ago its says a lot about how much technology
has enable relatively weak returners of before to challange the
greater servers of yestyear .

I know Sampras is older etc but Im only basing this too on the fact he
says himself the serves still the same .

I dont think technology has influenced the serve that much more than
it did before i.e. I dont think Pete would of had any more of
advantage using new technology as his recent defeats show.








 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 08:02:20
From: guyana
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 21, 8:07=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 12:58=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > > On Feb 20, 5:25 am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Whisper wrote:
> > >>> No one can say for certain.
>
> > >> Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions in
> > >> here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>
> > >> PS:
>
> > > ++ When pathological people keep insisting that players 25/35/45 year=
s
> > > ago were technically superior to now or that the game speed of today
> > > is not a defining factor... you have to suspect either delusion,
> > > romantic hazing of nostalgic sentiment or just plain blindness... the=
y
> > > played in comparative SLOW MOTION... the groundies were so much more
> > > casual than today... Lendl wouldn't be a big hitter today by a long
> > > shot... no WONDER they could volley so well then... volleying
> > > beachballs - by comparison - wouldn't tax the guys now... good lord..=
.
> > > Mac himself has been saying for 5 YEARS the game is WAY beyond the
> > > game he played and beyond the level of play in the mid-1990s as well
> > > now... Federer and Nadal both say if the ball was coming at them at
> > > the speed of the mid-1990s play they would FOR SURE be at the net mor=
e
> > > but net game HAS to be situational now because of the power of the
> > > return ground game... the all court power game is generations ahead o=
f
> > > the tennis played in the 80s and the 90s... if people cannot grasp
> > > that... then there is no real value in discussing this, except as
> > > fantasy speculation and romantic nostalgia, which is fine... but
> > > that's what it is...
>
> > > And thus follows GOAT talk... when ever a sports fan gets mired in th=
e
> > > past for too long he/she is denying the fact of developmental
> > > specialization over time and how norms, standards, measures and
> > > technical ability progresses precisely because sports like tennis are
> > > systematic (the game) and methodological (technique) which tend to
> > > refine over time due to experimentation, practice, technical
> > > innovation, technology, coaching, financial incentives and other
> > > elements... that's just the way it is... regression to norms are
> > > quickly swallowed up, retrenching elements filtered out, episodic
> > > aspects forced along by various necessities... the game gets more
> > > refined, varied, faster as athleticism increases... 15 years from now
> > > Federer and Nadal won't look that fast... just the way it is/will
> > > be...
>
> > > P
>
> > This is an awful post.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I actually agree with it.

It was a brilliant post!


 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 05:07:04
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 21, 12:58=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 5:25 am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Whisper wrote:
> >>> No one can say for certain.
>
> >> Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions in
> >> here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>
> >> PS:
>
> > ++ When pathological people keep insisting that players 25/35/45 years
> > ago were technically superior to now or that the game speed of today
> > is not a defining factor... you have to suspect either delusion,
> > romantic hazing of nostalgic sentiment or just plain blindness... they
> > played in comparative SLOW MOTION... the groundies were so much more
> > casual than today... Lendl wouldn't be a big hitter today by a long
> > shot... no WONDER they could volley so well then... volleying
> > beachballs - by comparison - wouldn't tax the guys now... good lord...
> > Mac himself has been saying for 5 YEARS the game is WAY beyond the
> > game he played and beyond the level of play in the mid-1990s as well
> > now... Federer and Nadal both say if the ball was coming at them at
> > the speed of the mid-1990s play they would FOR SURE be at the net more
> > but net game HAS to be situational now because of the power of the
> > return ground game... the all court power game is generations ahead of
> > the tennis played in the 80s and the 90s... if people cannot grasp
> > that... then there is no real value in discussing this, except as
> > fantasy speculation and romantic nostalgia, which is fine... but
> > that's what it is...
>
> > And thus follows GOAT talk... when ever a sports fan gets mired in the
> > past for too long he/she is denying the fact of developmental
> > specialization over time and how norms, standards, measures and
> > technical ability progresses precisely because sports like tennis are
> > systematic (the game) and methodological (technique) which tend to
> > refine over time due to experimentation, practice, technical
> > innovation, technology, coaching, financial incentives and other
> > elements... that's just the way it is... regression to norms are
> > quickly swallowed up, retrenching elements filtered out, episodic
> > aspects forced along by various necessities... the game gets more
> > refined, varied, faster as athleticism increases... 15 years from now
> > Federer and Nadal won't look that fast... just the way it is/will
> > be...
>
> > P
>
> This is an awful post.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I actually agree with it.


 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 03:21:16
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 21 helmi, 12:00, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> It's pretty fucking stupid to think tennis quality improves with every
> generation.

Even more stupid is to think that it suddenly could enter into "clown
era" mode...

> The guys that ranked top 10 in this era like Blake, Berdych
> & Ljubo are some of the most pathetic top 10 players I've ever seen in
> my life - complete & utter garbage & I turn the tv off when they are on
> as it gives me heartburn watching them attempt to play tennis.

That is not only subjective biased non-sense but just stupid
ignorance.

.mikko



 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 03:18:45
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 21, 11:16=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 10:00=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > > On Feb 20, 5:25 am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Whisper wrote:
> > >>> No one can say for certain.
> > >> Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions in
> > >> here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>
> > >> PS:
>
> > > ++ When pathological people keep insisting that players 25/35/45 year=
s
> > > ago were technically superior to now or that the game speed of today
> > > is not a defining factor... you have to suspect either delusion,
> > > romantic hazing of nostalgic sentiment or just plain blindness... the=
y
> > > played in comparative SLOW MOTION... the groundies were so much more
> > > casual than today... Lendl wouldn't be a big hitter today by a long
> > > shot... no WONDER they could volley so well then... volleying
> > > beachballs - by comparison - wouldn't tax the guys now... good lord..=
.
> > > Mac himself has been saying for 5 YEARS the game is WAY beyond the
> > > game he played and beyond the level of play in the mid-1990s as well
> > > now... Federer and Nadal both say if the ball was coming at them at
> > > the speed of the mid-1990s play they would FOR SURE be at the net mor=
e
> > > but net game HAS to be situational now because of the power of the
> > > return ground game... the all court power game is generations ahead o=
f
> > > the tennis played in the 80s and the 90s... if people cannot grasp
> > > that... then there is no real value in discussing this, except as
> > > fantasy speculation and romantic nostalgia, which is fine... but
> > > that's what it is...
>
> > > And thus follows GOAT talk... when ever a sports fan gets mired in th=
e
> > > past for too long he/she is denying the fact of developmental
> > > specialization over time and how norms, standards, measures and
> > > technical ability progresses precisely because sports like tennis are
> > > systematic (the game) and methodological (technique) which tend to
> > > refine over time due to experimentation, practice, technical
> > > innovation, technology, coaching, financial incentives and other
> > > elements... that's just the way it is... regression to norms are
> > > quickly swallowed up, retrenching elements filtered out, episodic
> > > aspects forced along by various necessities... the game gets more
> > > refined, varied, faster as athleticism increases... 15 years from now
> > > Federer and Nadal won't look that fast... just the way it is/will
> > > be...
>
> > > P
>
> > It's pretty fucking stupid to think tennis quality improves with every
> > generation. =A0You're the type of guy who believes house values double
> > every 7 yrs, even though the average price would be > 10 mil if that
> > were true. =A0The guys that ranked top 10 in this era like Blake, Berdy=
ch
> > & Ljubo are some of the most pathetic top 10 players I've ever seen in
> > my life - complete & utter garbage & I turn the tv off when they are on
> > as it gives me heartburn watching them attempt to play tennis.
>
> > The volleys Fed misses at the net are absolute sitters - there is almos=
t
> > zero pace on them & they are sitting up nicely to be punched away. =A0H=
e
> > simply hasn't got the skill to do it - has fuck all to do with modern
> > equipment/strings etc. =A0Use your eyes & judge for yourself.- Hide quo=
ted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Blake Berdych and Ljubo are no worse than Henman/Enqvist/Norman/Kiefer/
> Rusedski/Bjorkman/Wayne Ferreira.
>
> all top 10 "greats" in samp era LMFAO.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In fact Wayne Ferreira was one of the most embarassing to 10ers of all
time

he had a 0-11 record against agassi ROTFL and only won ONE set in 11
meetings!!!! This same Ferreira caused Sampras NO END of difficulty
with a 6-7 record .....

HAHAHAHA

Agassi had more talent than Dullass


  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 22:20:27
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 21, 11:16 am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 10:00 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>> On Feb 20, 5:25 am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>> No one can say for certain.
>>>>> Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions in
>>>>> here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>>>>> PS:
>>>> ++ When pathological people keep insisting that players 25/35/45 years
>>>> ago were technically superior to now or that the game speed of today
>>>> is not a defining factor... you have to suspect either delusion,
>>>> romantic hazing of nostalgic sentiment or just plain blindness... they
>>>> played in comparative SLOW MOTION... the groundies were so much more
>>>> casual than today... Lendl wouldn't be a big hitter today by a long
>>>> shot... no WONDER they could volley so well then... volleying
>>>> beachballs - by comparison - wouldn't tax the guys now... good lord...
>>>> Mac himself has been saying for 5 YEARS the game is WAY beyond the
>>>> game he played and beyond the level of play in the mid-1990s as well
>>>> now... Federer and Nadal both say if the ball was coming at them at
>>>> the speed of the mid-1990s play they would FOR SURE be at the net more
>>>> but net game HAS to be situational now because of the power of the
>>>> return ground game... the all court power game is generations ahead of
>>>> the tennis played in the 80s and the 90s... if people cannot grasp
>>>> that... then there is no real value in discussing this, except as
>>>> fantasy speculation and romantic nostalgia, which is fine... but
>>>> that's what it is...
>>>> And thus follows GOAT talk... when ever a sports fan gets mired in the
>>>> past for too long he/she is denying the fact of developmental
>>>> specialization over time and how norms, standards, measures and
>>>> technical ability progresses precisely because sports like tennis are
>>>> systematic (the game) and methodological (technique) which tend to
>>>> refine over time due to experimentation, practice, technical
>>>> innovation, technology, coaching, financial incentives and other
>>>> elements... that's just the way it is... regression to norms are
>>>> quickly swallowed up, retrenching elements filtered out, episodic
>>>> aspects forced along by various necessities... the game gets more
>>>> refined, varied, faster as athleticism increases... 15 years from now
>>>> Federer and Nadal won't look that fast... just the way it is/will
>>>> be...
>>>> P
>>> It's pretty fucking stupid to think tennis quality improves with every
>>> generation. You're the type of guy who believes house values double
>>> every 7 yrs, even though the average price would be > 10 mil if that
>>> were true. The guys that ranked top 10 in this era like Blake, Berdych
>>> & Ljubo are some of the most pathetic top 10 players I've ever seen in
>>> my life - complete & utter garbage & I turn the tv off when they are on
>>> as it gives me heartburn watching them attempt to play tennis.
>>> The volleys Fed misses at the net are absolute sitters - there is almost
>>> zero pace on them & they are sitting up nicely to be punched away. He
>>> simply hasn't got the skill to do it - has fuck all to do with modern
>>> equipment/strings etc. Use your eyes & judge for yourself.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> Blake Berdych and Ljubo are no worse than Henman/Enqvist/Norman/Kiefer/
>> Rusedski/Bjorkman/Wayne Ferreira.
>>
>> all top 10 "greats" in samp era LMFAO.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> In fact Wayne Ferreira was one of the most embarassing to 10ers of all
> time
>
> he had a 0-11 record against agassi ROTFL and only won ONE set in 11
> meetings!!!! This same Ferreira caused Sampras NO END of difficulty
> with a 6-7 record .....
>
> HAHAHAHA
>
> Agassi had more talent than Dullass


Your thinking explains a lot about you. You have absolutely nothing to
contribute to intelligent tennis discussion than 'yay team'.


 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 03:16:28
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 21, 10:00=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 5:25 am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Whisper wrote:
> >>> No one can say for certain.
> >> Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions in
> >> here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>
> >> PS:
>
> > ++ When pathological people keep insisting that players 25/35/45 years
> > ago were technically superior to now or that the game speed of today
> > is not a defining factor... you have to suspect either delusion,
> > romantic hazing of nostalgic sentiment or just plain blindness... they
> > played in comparative SLOW MOTION... the groundies were so much more
> > casual than today... Lendl wouldn't be a big hitter today by a long
> > shot... no WONDER they could volley so well then... volleying
> > beachballs - by comparison - wouldn't tax the guys now... good lord...
> > Mac himself has been saying for 5 YEARS the game is WAY beyond the
> > game he played and beyond the level of play in the mid-1990s as well
> > now... Federer and Nadal both say if the ball was coming at them at
> > the speed of the mid-1990s play they would FOR SURE be at the net more
> > but net game HAS to be situational now because of the power of the
> > return ground game... the all court power game is generations ahead of
> > the tennis played in the 80s and the 90s... if people cannot grasp
> > that... then there is no real value in discussing this, except as
> > fantasy speculation and romantic nostalgia, which is fine... but
> > that's what it is...
>
> > And thus follows GOAT talk... when ever a sports fan gets mired in the
> > past for too long he/she is denying the fact of developmental
> > specialization over time and how norms, standards, measures and
> > technical ability progresses precisely because sports like tennis are
> > systematic (the game) and methodological (technique) which tend to
> > refine over time due to experimentation, practice, technical
> > innovation, technology, coaching, financial incentives and other
> > elements... that's just the way it is... regression to norms are
> > quickly swallowed up, retrenching elements filtered out, episodic
> > aspects forced along by various necessities... the game gets more
> > refined, varied, faster as athleticism increases... 15 years from now
> > Federer and Nadal won't look that fast... just the way it is/will
> > be...
>
> > P
>
> It's pretty fucking stupid to think tennis quality improves with every
> generation. =A0You're the type of guy who believes house values double
> every 7 yrs, even though the average price would be > 10 mil if that
> were true. =A0The guys that ranked top 10 in this era like Blake, Berdych
> & Ljubo are some of the most pathetic top 10 players I've ever seen in
> my life - complete & utter garbage & I turn the tv off when they are on
> as it gives me heartburn watching them attempt to play tennis.
>
> The volleys Fed misses at the net are absolute sitters - there is almost
> zero pace on them & they are sitting up nicely to be punched away. =A0He
> simply hasn't got the skill to do it - has fuck all to do with modern
> equipment/strings etc. =A0Use your eyes & judge for yourself.- Hide quote=
d text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Blake Berdych and Ljubo are no worse than Henman/Enqvist/Norman/Kiefer/
Rusedski/Bjorkman/Wayne Ferreira.

all top 10 "greats" in samp era LMFAO.



  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 22:18:45
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 21, 10:00 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>> On Feb 20, 5:25 am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>> No one can say for certain.
>>>> Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions in
>>>> here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>>>> PS:
>>> ++ When pathological people keep insisting that players 25/35/45 years
>>> ago were technically superior to now or that the game speed of today
>>> is not a defining factor... you have to suspect either delusion,
>>> romantic hazing of nostalgic sentiment or just plain blindness... they
>>> played in comparative SLOW MOTION... the groundies were so much more
>>> casual than today... Lendl wouldn't be a big hitter today by a long
>>> shot... no WONDER they could volley so well then... volleying
>>> beachballs - by comparison - wouldn't tax the guys now... good lord...
>>> Mac himself has been saying for 5 YEARS the game is WAY beyond the
>>> game he played and beyond the level of play in the mid-1990s as well
>>> now... Federer and Nadal both say if the ball was coming at them at
>>> the speed of the mid-1990s play they would FOR SURE be at the net more
>>> but net game HAS to be situational now because of the power of the
>>> return ground game... the all court power game is generations ahead of
>>> the tennis played in the 80s and the 90s... if people cannot grasp
>>> that... then there is no real value in discussing this, except as
>>> fantasy speculation and romantic nostalgia, which is fine... but
>>> that's what it is...
>>> And thus follows GOAT talk... when ever a sports fan gets mired in the
>>> past for too long he/she is denying the fact of developmental
>>> specialization over time and how norms, standards, measures and
>>> technical ability progresses precisely because sports like tennis are
>>> systematic (the game) and methodological (technique) which tend to
>>> refine over time due to experimentation, practice, technical
>>> innovation, technology, coaching, financial incentives and other
>>> elements... that's just the way it is... regression to norms are
>>> quickly swallowed up, retrenching elements filtered out, episodic
>>> aspects forced along by various necessities... the game gets more
>>> refined, varied, faster as athleticism increases... 15 years from now
>>> Federer and Nadal won't look that fast... just the way it is/will
>>> be...
>>> P
>> It's pretty fucking stupid to think tennis quality improves with every
>> generation. You're the type of guy who believes house values double
>> every 7 yrs, even though the average price would be > 10 mil if that
>> were true. The guys that ranked top 10 in this era like Blake, Berdych
>> & Ljubo are some of the most pathetic top 10 players I've ever seen in
>> my life - complete & utter garbage & I turn the tv off when they are on
>> as it gives me heartburn watching them attempt to play tennis.
>>
>> The volleys Fed misses at the net are absolute sitters - there is almost
>> zero pace on them & they are sitting up nicely to be punched away. He
>> simply hasn't got the skill to do it - has fuck all to do with modern
>> equipment/strings etc. Use your eyes & judge for yourself.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Blake Berdych and Ljubo are no worse than Henman/Enqvist/Norman/Kiefer/
> Rusedski/Bjorkman/Wayne Ferreira.

Links?


 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 03:08:02
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 21, 1:50=A0am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:00=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 5:36=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 20, 5:25=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > > > Whisper wrote:
> > > > > No one can say for certain.
>
> > > > Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions i=
n
> > > > here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>
> > > > PS:
>
> > > ++ When pathological people keep insisting that players 25/35/45 year=
s
> > > ago were technically superior to now or that the game speed of today
> > > is not a defining factor... you have to suspect either delusion,
> > > romantic hazing of nostalgic sentiment or just plain blindness... the=
y
> > > played in comparative SLOW MOTION... the groundies were so much more
> > > casual than today... Lendl wouldn't be a big hitter today by a long
> > > shot... no WONDER they could volley so well then... volleying
> > > beachballs - by comparison - wouldn't tax the guys now... good lord..=
.
> > > Mac himself has been saying for 5 YEARS the game is WAY beyond the
> > > game he played and beyond the level of play in the mid-1990s as well
> > > now... Federer and Nadal both say if the ball was coming at them at
> > > the speed of the mid-1990s play they would FOR SURE be at the net mor=
e
> > > but net game HAS to be situational now because of the power of the
> > > return ground game... the all court power game is generations ahead o=
f
> > > the tennis played in the 80s and the 90s... if people cannot grasp
> > > that... then there is no real value in discussing this, except as
> > > fantasy speculation and romantic nostalgia, which is fine... but
> > > that's what it is...
>
> > > And thus follows GOAT talk... when ever a sports fan gets mired in th=
e
> > > past for too long he/she is denying the fact of developmental
> > > specialization over time and how norms, standards, measures and
> > > technical ability progresses precisely because sports like tennis are
> > > systematic (the game) and methodological (technique) which tend to
> > > refine over time due to experimentation, practice, technical
> > > innovation, technology, coaching, financial incentives and other
> > > elements... that's just the way it is... regression to norms are
> > > quickly swallowed up, retrenching elements filtered out, episodic
> > > aspects forced along by various necessities... the game gets more
> > > refined, varied, faster as athleticism increases... 15 years from now
> > > Federer and Nadal won't look that fast... just the way it is/will
> > > be...
>
> > > P
>
> > But I think the people who might say Laver or Hoad or Tilden is goat
> > are not saying those guys could
> > use their old equipment and the games they developed to make the best
> > use of it and beat today's players using
> > the latest technology. If they are, then I agree it's delusional. If
> > you pop in a tape of Borg playing Vilas in the 78 FO final, it's
> > obvious that those two couldn't even be in today's FO draw with those
> > games. But there's a way to look beyond the surface and say that it's
> > still pretty amazing that Borg, using the same equipment as everyone
> > else, was THAT much better. Maybe that's more impressive than what
> > Guga did in the late 90s. Maybe it's just as impressive as what Rafa
> > is doing today. And under such an analysis he can be the greatest,
> > even though we take as a given that the shot production is better now
> > for obvious reasons.
>
> ++ I agree with you... but the people around here who want to pull
> people out of time and context and state, as if it's an obvious fact,
> that so and so from 25 years ago was superior to Federer and Nadal are
> simply delusional or simpleminded or caught in the rose coloured haze
> of historical nostalgia... and they don't know tennis history...
> haven't watched much tennis with ANYTHING like an objective eye...
> those that keep to the he was great in his time and freeze frame
> players within the context of their times and try and cross index and
> compare across the divide of history citing various criteria, that's
> great... its complete hypothetical of course and CANNOT be proved and
> that is the FUN of it really... but when you get partisans and raving
> fanboys saying Hoad was superior to Federer or Connors' play to
> Nadals... it just defies common sense and anything like perceptual
> thinking... because when the swearing and name calling starts flying
> what else is one to think... these guys REALLY DO THINK Lendl could
> walk on a court and wax Nadal now... which is just mindless jabber...
> now comparing his record within the context of his time vs. now and
> what he accomplished in his time to Nadal that's totally cool...
>
> P- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Lendl was a communist shit.


 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 03:06:56
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 21, 4:54=A0am, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 8:50=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 3:00=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 20, 5:36=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 20, 5:25=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wro=
te:
>
> > > > > Whisper wrote:
> > > > > > No one can say for certain.
>
> > > > > Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions=
in
> > > > > here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>
> > > > > PS:
>
> > > > ++ When pathological people keep insisting that players 25/35/45 ye=
ars
> > > > ago were technically superior to now or that the game speed of toda=
y
> > > > is not a defining factor... you have to suspect either delusion,
> > > > romantic hazing of nostalgic sentiment or just plain blindness... t=
hey
> > > > played in comparative SLOW MOTION... the groundies were so much mor=
e
> > > > casual than today... Lendl wouldn't be a big hitter today by a long
> > > > shot... no WONDER they could volley so well then... volleying
> > > > beachballs - by comparison - wouldn't tax the guys now... good lord=
...
> > > > Mac himself has been saying for 5 YEARS the game is WAY beyond the
> > > > game he played and beyond the level of play in the mid-1990s as wel=
l
> > > > now... Federer and Nadal both say if the ball was coming at them at
> > > > the speed of the mid-1990s play they would FOR SURE be at the net m=
ore
> > > > but net game HAS to be situational now because of the power of the
> > > > return ground game... the all court power game is generations ahead=
of
> > > > the tennis played in the 80s and the 90s... if people cannot grasp
> > > > that... then there is no real value in discussing this, except as
> > > > fantasy speculation and romantic nostalgia, which is fine... but
> > > > that's what it is...
>
> > > > And thus follows GOAT talk... when ever a sports fan gets mired in =
the
> > > > past for too long he/she is denying the fact of developmental
> > > > specialization over time and how norms, standards, measures and
> > > > technical ability progresses precisely because sports like tennis a=
re
> > > > systematic (the game) and methodological (technique) which tend to
> > > > refine over time due to experimentation, practice, technical
> > > > innovation, technology, coaching, financial incentives and other
> > > > elements... that's just the way it is... regression to norms are
> > > > quickly swallowed up, retrenching elements filtered out, episodic
> > > > aspects forced along by various necessities... the game gets more
> > > > refined, varied, faster as athleticism increases... 15 years from n=
ow
> > > > Federer and Nadal won't look that fast... just the way it is/will
> > > > be...
>
> > > > P
>
> > > But I think the people who might say Laver or Hoad or Tilden is goat
> > > are not saying those guys could
> > > use their old equipment and the games they developed to make the best
> > > use of it and beat today's players using
> > > the latest technology. If they are, then I agree it's delusional. If
> > > you pop in a tape of Borg playing Vilas in the 78 FO final, it's
> > > obvious that those two couldn't even be in today's FO draw with those
> > > games. But there's a way to look beyond the surface and say that it's
> > > still pretty amazing that Borg, using the same equipment as everyone
> > > else, was THAT much better. Maybe that's more impressive than what
> > > Guga did in the late 90s. Maybe it's just as impressive as what Rafa
> > > is doing today. And under such an analysis he can be the greatest,
> > > even though we take as a given that the shot production is better now
> > > for obvious reasons.
>
> > ++ I agree with you... but the people around here who want to pull
> > people out of time and context and state, as if it's an obvious fact,
> > that so and so from 25 years ago was superior to Federer and Nadal are
> > simply delusional or simpleminded or caught in the rose coloured haze
> > of historical nostalgia... and they don't know tennis history...
> > haven't watched much tennis with ANYTHING like an objective eye...
> > those that keep to the he was great in his time and freeze frame
> > players within the context of their times and try and cross index and
> > compare across the divide of history citing various criteria, that's
> > great... its complete hypothetical of course and CANNOT be proved and
> > that is the FUN of it really... but when you get partisans and raving
> > fanboys saying Hoad was superior to Federer or Connors' play to
> > Nadals... it just defies common sense and anything like perceptual
> > thinking... because when the swearing and name calling starts flying
> > what else is one to think... these guys REALLY DO THINK Lendl could
> > walk on a court and wax Nadal now... which is just mindless jabber...
> > now comparing his record within the context of his time vs. now and
> > what he accomplished in his time to Nadal that's totally cool...
>
> > P
>
> The game is already catching up to Federer. =A0That's how fast it
> changes and how quickly a player has to adapt to stay competitive.
>
> I think this is why I have so much respect for players who can compete
> even in the top 50 in their mid-thirties. =A0Clearly they have to be
> able to adapt to an ever changing environment over a period of close
> to 20 years.
>
> The big difference that I've seen is the foot speed of the top players
> today.
>
> Look at how well Nadal, Federer, Murray and Djokovic move from side to
> side to track down heavily angled groundstrokes.
>
> It is hard to say how many former greats would be able to run down
> balls like these guys do but I think it is safe to say that the game
> rewards a different set of skills today than even 12 years ago and it
> is difficult to see guys who were not the best movers in the 90s
> having even moderate success today. =A0Look at the balls that come back
> over the net in today's game. =A0Groundstrokes that would have been
> outright winners a few years back are being returned plus interest
> today.
>
> It's great stuff in my opinion. =A0Biggest disappointment for me is the
> failure of the women's game. =A0I've never seen such a big gap between
> the sexes as now.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Agreed completely. That's why Sampras would be a 2/3 slam champ in
this era.


  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 22:18:05
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 21, 4:54 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 8:50 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 20, 3:00 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 20, 5:36 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 20, 5:25 am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>> No one can say for certain.
>>>>>> Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions in
>>>>>> here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>>>>>> PS:
>>>>> ++ When pathological people keep insisting that players 25/35/45 years
>>>>> ago were technically superior to now or that the game speed of today
>>>>> is not a defining factor... you have to suspect either delusion,
>>>>> romantic hazing of nostalgic sentiment or just plain blindness... they
>>>>> played in comparative SLOW MOTION... the groundies were so much more
>>>>> casual than today... Lendl wouldn't be a big hitter today by a long
>>>>> shot... no WONDER they could volley so well then... volleying
>>>>> beachballs - by comparison - wouldn't tax the guys now... good lord...
>>>>> Mac himself has been saying for 5 YEARS the game is WAY beyond the
>>>>> game he played and beyond the level of play in the mid-1990s as well
>>>>> now... Federer and Nadal both say if the ball was coming at them at
>>>>> the speed of the mid-1990s play they would FOR SURE be at the net more
>>>>> but net game HAS to be situational now because of the power of the
>>>>> return ground game... the all court power game is generations ahead of
>>>>> the tennis played in the 80s and the 90s... if people cannot grasp
>>>>> that... then there is no real value in discussing this, except as
>>>>> fantasy speculation and romantic nostalgia, which is fine... but
>>>>> that's what it is...
>>>>> And thus follows GOAT talk... when ever a sports fan gets mired in the
>>>>> past for too long he/she is denying the fact of developmental
>>>>> specialization over time and how norms, standards, measures and
>>>>> technical ability progresses precisely because sports like tennis are
>>>>> systematic (the game) and methodological (technique) which tend to
>>>>> refine over time due to experimentation, practice, technical
>>>>> innovation, technology, coaching, financial incentives and other
>>>>> elements... that's just the way it is... regression to norms are
>>>>> quickly swallowed up, retrenching elements filtered out, episodic
>>>>> aspects forced along by various necessities... the game gets more
>>>>> refined, varied, faster as athleticism increases... 15 years from now
>>>>> Federer and Nadal won't look that fast... just the way it is/will
>>>>> be...
>>>>> P
>>>> But I think the people who might say Laver or Hoad or Tilden is goat
>>>> are not saying those guys could
>>>> use their old equipment and the games they developed to make the best
>>>> use of it and beat today's players using
>>>> the latest technology. If they are, then I agree it's delusional. If
>>>> you pop in a tape of Borg playing Vilas in the 78 FO final, it's
>>>> obvious that those two couldn't even be in today's FO draw with those
>>>> games. But there's a way to look beyond the surface and say that it's
>>>> still pretty amazing that Borg, using the same equipment as everyone
>>>> else, was THAT much better. Maybe that's more impressive than what
>>>> Guga did in the late 90s. Maybe it's just as impressive as what Rafa
>>>> is doing today. And under such an analysis he can be the greatest,
>>>> even though we take as a given that the shot production is better now
>>>> for obvious reasons.
>>> ++ I agree with you... but the people around here who want to pull
>>> people out of time and context and state, as if it's an obvious fact,
>>> that so and so from 25 years ago was superior to Federer and Nadal are
>>> simply delusional or simpleminded or caught in the rose coloured haze
>>> of historical nostalgia... and they don't know tennis history...
>>> haven't watched much tennis with ANYTHING like an objective eye...
>>> those that keep to the he was great in his time and freeze frame
>>> players within the context of their times and try and cross index and
>>> compare across the divide of history citing various criteria, that's
>>> great... its complete hypothetical of course and CANNOT be proved and
>>> that is the FUN of it really... but when you get partisans and raving
>>> fanboys saying Hoad was superior to Federer or Connors' play to
>>> Nadals... it just defies common sense and anything like perceptual
>>> thinking... because when the swearing and name calling starts flying
>>> what else is one to think... these guys REALLY DO THINK Lendl could
>>> walk on a court and wax Nadal now... which is just mindless jabber...
>>> now comparing his record within the context of his time vs. now and
>>> what he accomplished in his time to Nadal that's totally cool...
>>> P
>> The game is already catching up to Federer. That's how fast it
>> changes and how quickly a player has to adapt to stay competitive.
>>
>> I think this is why I have so much respect for players who can compete
>> even in the top 50 in their mid-thirties. Clearly they have to be
>> able to adapt to an ever changing environment over a period of close
>> to 20 years.
>>
>> The big difference that I've seen is the foot speed of the top players
>> today.
>>
>> Look at how well Nadal, Federer, Murray and Djokovic move from side to
>> side to track down heavily angled groundstrokes.
>>
>> It is hard to say how many former greats would be able to run down
>> balls like these guys do but I think it is safe to say that the game
>> rewards a different set of skills today than even 12 years ago and it
>> is difficult to see guys who were not the best movers in the 90s
>> having even moderate success today. Look at the balls that come back
>> over the net in today's game. Groundstrokes that would have been
>> outright winners a few years back are being returned plus interest
>> today.
>>
>> It's great stuff in my opinion. Biggest disappointment for me is the
>> failure of the women's game. I've never seen such a big gap between
>> the sexes as now.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Agreed completely. That's why Sampras would be a 2/3 slam champ in
> this era.


Closer to 23 than 2/3.



 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 03:03:01
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 20, 3:25=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 7:37 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> Sure it's eye-candy as well. =A0Who seriously doesn't enjoy watching a
> >> player move the ball around & attack the net on a consistent basis?
>
> >> There is no doubt in my mind the fully evolved attacking player has a
> >> lot more options & is far more likely to beat the bumrooter who has a
> >> very limited range of shots/strategy.
>
> >> Tennis has a big problem & I'm not sure how to solve it. =A0Needs to b=
e
> >> emphasis on long term development rather than just producing good
> >> results from solid bumrooting.
>
> > You seem to think that playing styles can be selected and applied
> > effectively more or less independently of equipment and playing
> > surfaces. That is simply not the case. As I've argued before, tennis
> > playing styles evolve, and over time tend to *converge* on the
> > approach that is the most effective for the conditions of the era. S&V
> > is not inherently superior to baselining; it is superior on fast,
> > slick, bumpy grass with small-headed wooden rackets. And on medium-
> > pace and slow surfaces with a true bounce, using large-headed
> > composite rackets with high-spin strings, baselining is superior.
> > That's all there is to it. As long as these conditions persist, "long-
> > term development" will do nothing to increase the ranks of S&V players
> > at the top of the pro game. Forcing players to adopt a losing style
> > will just cause them to lose. If you see a lone wolf S&V player here
> > and there, be grateful. They will not return en masse in the
> > contemporary game.
>
> But they *can* return if the emphasis is on longer term development
> rather than instant gratification. =A0Nobody wants to turn down ca$h toda=
y
> for bigger bucks tomorrow - it may never come so make hay while the sun
> shines is the credo.
>
> It's not the equipment that makes net play obsolete - rather I think the
> modern equipment can be used to develop a more dynamic net game, but it
> takes longer to develop due to more moving parts & complexity. =A0There's
> no way Rafter could have beaten Agassi in all those slams, even took him
> to 5 in AO semi if what you say is true. =A0It took Rafter many years to
> get to this level & he isn't particularly talented. =A0Imagine what the
> really talented guys could do if they went down that path?- Hide quoted t=
ext -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The reason net play has died is simple, because you can never
guarentee to finish points quickly in Tennis anymore. Players like
Murray and Nadal are just never *out* of the point, and can hit
passing shots from anywhere. I remember watching Henman in his final
few years and it was painful to watch, he was just a sitting duck most
of the time, he didn't have the power to come in behind.

Sampras in this era would be succesful, simply because he would have
the power and that serve, but he wouldn't win close to 14 slams in
this era.... s/v tennis is dead for a reason, not because no-one could
do it. Plus the general slowing of courts. I think Sampras would win
2/3/4 slams if he came through now.


  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 17:20:19
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Professor X wrote:
> Sampras in this era would be succesful, simply because he would have
> the power and that serve, but he wouldn't win close to 14 slams in
> this era.... s/v tennis is dead for a reason, not because no-one could
> do it. Plus the general slowing of courts. I think Sampras would win
> 2/3/4 slams if he came through now.

But as always it is meaningless to compare. Sampras would, like every
player does, adjust his game. We will never know how well he would have
done that! Can we end these GOAT discussions now??? :-D

PS.


  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 22:16:47
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:25 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 20, 7:37 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Sure it's eye-candy as well. Who seriously doesn't enjoy watching a
>>>> player move the ball around & attack the net on a consistent basis?
>>>> There is no doubt in my mind the fully evolved attacking player has a
>>>> lot more options & is far more likely to beat the bumrooter who has a
>>>> very limited range of shots/strategy.
>>>> Tennis has a big problem & I'm not sure how to solve it. Needs to be
>>>> emphasis on long term development rather than just producing good
>>>> results from solid bumrooting.
>>> You seem to think that playing styles can be selected and applied
>>> effectively more or less independently of equipment and playing
>>> surfaces. That is simply not the case. As I've argued before, tennis
>>> playing styles evolve, and over time tend to *converge* on the
>>> approach that is the most effective for the conditions of the era. S&V
>>> is not inherently superior to baselining; it is superior on fast,
>>> slick, bumpy grass with small-headed wooden rackets. And on medium-
>>> pace and slow surfaces with a true bounce, using large-headed
>>> composite rackets with high-spin strings, baselining is superior.
>>> That's all there is to it. As long as these conditions persist, "long-
>>> term development" will do nothing to increase the ranks of S&V players
>>> at the top of the pro game. Forcing players to adopt a losing style
>>> will just cause them to lose. If you see a lone wolf S&V player here
>>> and there, be grateful. They will not return en masse in the
>>> contemporary game.
>> But they *can* return if the emphasis is on longer term development
>> rather than instant gratification. Nobody wants to turn down ca$h today
>> for bigger bucks tomorrow - it may never come so make hay while the sun
>> shines is the credo.
>>
>> It's not the equipment that makes net play obsolete - rather I think the
>> modern equipment can be used to develop a more dynamic net game, but it
>> takes longer to develop due to more moving parts & complexity. There's
>> no way Rafter could have beaten Agassi in all those slams, even took him
>> to 5 in AO semi if what you say is true. It took Rafter many years to
>> get to this level & he isn't particularly talented. Imagine what the
>> really talented guys could do if they went down that path?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The reason net play has died is simple, because you can never
> guarentee to finish points quickly in Tennis anymore. Players like
> Murray and Nadal are just never *out* of the point, and can hit
> passing shots from anywhere. I remember watching Henman in his final
> few years and it was painful to watch, he was just a sitting duck most
> of the time, he didn't have the power to come in behind.
>
> Sampras in this era would be succesful, simply because he would have
> the power and that serve, but he wouldn't win close to 14 slams in
> this era.... s/v tennis is dead for a reason, not because no-one could
> do it. Plus the general slowing of courts. I think Sampras would win
> 2/3/4 slams if he came through now.


That opinion means as much as me saying Sampras would win 47 slams in
this era.



 
Date: 21 Feb 2009 01:57:15
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 21 helmi, 06:54, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:

> The big difference that I've seen is the foot speed of the top players
> today.
>
> Look at how well Nadal, Federer, Murray and Djokovic move from side to
> side to track down heavily angled groundstrokes.
>
> It is hard to say how many former greats would be able to run down
> balls like these guys do but I think it is safe to say that the game
> rewards a different set of skills today than even 12 years ago and it
> is difficult to see guys who were not the best movers in the 90s
> having even moderate success today. Look at the balls that come back
> over the net in today's game. Groundstrokes that would have been
> outright winners a few years back are being returned plus interest
> today.

Above is smt. eyecandy-seeking averagejoes just do not understand.

Add the fact that they actually try & do it...(+ Nadal breaks
occasionally some laws of physics with his retrieving ;) )...which
also makes game more fitness based thus demanding. Trading and running
big shots for 5-10 shots during each rally takes some fitness compared
to 2-3 point strokes where seemingly unreachable ball is not even
tried...

.mikko
.mikko

.mikko


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 20:54:10
From: drew
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 20, 8:50=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:00=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 5:36=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 20, 5:25=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote=
:
>
> > > > Whisper wrote:
> > > > > No one can say for certain.
>
> > > > Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions i=
n
> > > > here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>
> > > > PS:
>
> > > ++ When pathological people keep insisting that players 25/35/45 year=
s
> > > ago were technically superior to now or that the game speed of today
> > > is not a defining factor... you have to suspect either delusion,
> > > romantic hazing of nostalgic sentiment or just plain blindness... the=
y
> > > played in comparative SLOW MOTION... the groundies were so much more
> > > casual than today... Lendl wouldn't be a big hitter today by a long
> > > shot... no WONDER they could volley so well then... volleying
> > > beachballs - by comparison - wouldn't tax the guys now... good lord..=
.
> > > Mac himself has been saying for 5 YEARS the game is WAY beyond the
> > > game he played and beyond the level of play in the mid-1990s as well
> > > now... Federer and Nadal both say if the ball was coming at them at
> > > the speed of the mid-1990s play they would FOR SURE be at the net mor=
e
> > > but net game HAS to be situational now because of the power of the
> > > return ground game... the all court power game is generations ahead o=
f
> > > the tennis played in the 80s and the 90s... if people cannot grasp
> > > that... then there is no real value in discussing this, except as
> > > fantasy speculation and romantic nostalgia, which is fine... but
> > > that's what it is...
>
> > > And thus follows GOAT talk... when ever a sports fan gets mired in th=
e
> > > past for too long he/she is denying the fact of developmental
> > > specialization over time and how norms, standards, measures and
> > > technical ability progresses precisely because sports like tennis are
> > > systematic (the game) and methodological (technique) which tend to
> > > refine over time due to experimentation, practice, technical
> > > innovation, technology, coaching, financial incentives and other
> > > elements... that's just the way it is... regression to norms are
> > > quickly swallowed up, retrenching elements filtered out, episodic
> > > aspects forced along by various necessities... the game gets more
> > > refined, varied, faster as athleticism increases... 15 years from now
> > > Federer and Nadal won't look that fast... just the way it is/will
> > > be...
>
> > > P
>
> > But I think the people who might say Laver or Hoad or Tilden is goat
> > are not saying those guys could
> > use their old equipment and the games they developed to make the best
> > use of it and beat today's players using
> > the latest technology. If they are, then I agree it's delusional. If
> > you pop in a tape of Borg playing Vilas in the 78 FO final, it's
> > obvious that those two couldn't even be in today's FO draw with those
> > games. But there's a way to look beyond the surface and say that it's
> > still pretty amazing that Borg, using the same equipment as everyone
> > else, was THAT much better. Maybe that's more impressive than what
> > Guga did in the late 90s. Maybe it's just as impressive as what Rafa
> > is doing today. And under such an analysis he can be the greatest,
> > even though we take as a given that the shot production is better now
> > for obvious reasons.
>
> ++ I agree with you... but the people around here who want to pull
> people out of time and context and state, as if it's an obvious fact,
> that so and so from 25 years ago was superior to Federer and Nadal are
> simply delusional or simpleminded or caught in the rose coloured haze
> of historical nostalgia... and they don't know tennis history...
> haven't watched much tennis with ANYTHING like an objective eye...
> those that keep to the he was great in his time and freeze frame
> players within the context of their times and try and cross index and
> compare across the divide of history citing various criteria, that's
> great... its complete hypothetical of course and CANNOT be proved and
> that is the FUN of it really... but when you get partisans and raving
> fanboys saying Hoad was superior to Federer or Connors' play to
> Nadals... it just defies common sense and anything like perceptual
> thinking... because when the swearing and name calling starts flying
> what else is one to think... these guys REALLY DO THINK Lendl could
> walk on a court and wax Nadal now... which is just mindless jabber...
> now comparing his record within the context of his time vs. now and
> what he accomplished in his time to Nadal that's totally cool...
>
> P

The game is already catching up to Federer. That's how fast it
changes and how quickly a player has to adapt to stay competitive.

I think this is why I have so much respect for players who can compete
even in the top 50 in their mid-thirties. Clearly they have to be
able to adapt to an ever changing environment over a period of close
to 20 years.

The big difference that I've seen is the foot speed of the top players
today.

Look at how well Nadal, Federer, Murray and Djokovic move from side to
side to track down heavily angled groundstrokes.

It is hard to say how many former greats would be able to run down
balls like these guys do but I think it is safe to say that the game
rewards a different set of skills today than even 12 years ago and it
is difficult to see guys who were not the best movers in the 90s
having even moderate success today. Look at the balls that come back
over the net in today's game. Groundstrokes that would have been
outright winners a few years back are being returned plus interest
today.

It's great stuff in my opinion. Biggest disappointment for me is the
failure of the women's game. I've never seen such a big gap between
the sexes as now.



 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 17:50:29
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 20, 3:00=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 20, 5:36=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 5:25=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Whisper wrote:
> > > > No one can say for certain.
>
> > > Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions in
> > > here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>
> > > PS:
>
> > ++ When pathological people keep insisting that players 25/35/45 years
> > ago were technically superior to now or that the game speed of today
> > is not a defining factor... you have to suspect either delusion,
> > romantic hazing of nostalgic sentiment or just plain blindness... they
> > played in comparative SLOW MOTION... the groundies were so much more
> > casual than today... Lendl wouldn't be a big hitter today by a long
> > shot... no WONDER they could volley so well then... volleying
> > beachballs - by comparison - wouldn't tax the guys now... good lord...
> > Mac himself has been saying for 5 YEARS the game is WAY beyond the
> > game he played and beyond the level of play in the mid-1990s as well
> > now... Federer and Nadal both say if the ball was coming at them at
> > the speed of the mid-1990s play they would FOR SURE be at the net more
> > but net game HAS to be situational now because of the power of the
> > return ground game... the all court power game is generations ahead of
> > the tennis played in the 80s and the 90s... if people cannot grasp
> > that... then there is no real value in discussing this, except as
> > fantasy speculation and romantic nostalgia, which is fine... but
> > that's what it is...
>
> > And thus follows GOAT talk... when ever a sports fan gets mired in the
> > past for too long he/she is denying the fact of developmental
> > specialization over time and how norms, standards, measures and
> > technical ability progresses precisely because sports like tennis are
> > systematic (the game) and methodological (technique) which tend to
> > refine over time due to experimentation, practice, technical
> > innovation, technology, coaching, financial incentives and other
> > elements... that's just the way it is... regression to norms are
> > quickly swallowed up, retrenching elements filtered out, episodic
> > aspects forced along by various necessities... the game gets more
> > refined, varied, faster as athleticism increases... 15 years from now
> > Federer and Nadal won't look that fast... just the way it is/will
> > be...
>
> > P
>
> But I think the people who might say Laver or Hoad or Tilden is goat
> are not saying those guys could
> use their old equipment and the games they developed to make the best
> use of it and beat today's players using
> the latest technology. If they are, then I agree it's delusional. If
> you pop in a tape of Borg playing Vilas in the 78 FO final, it's
> obvious that those two couldn't even be in today's FO draw with those
> games. But there's a way to look beyond the surface and say that it's
> still pretty amazing that Borg, using the same equipment as everyone
> else, was THAT much better. Maybe that's more impressive than what
> Guga did in the late 90s. Maybe it's just as impressive as what Rafa
> is doing today. And under such an analysis he can be the greatest,
> even though we take as a given that the shot production is better now
> for obvious reasons.

++ I agree with you... but the people around here who want to pull
people out of time and context and state, as if it's an obvious fact,
that so and so from 25 years ago was superior to Federer and Nadal are
simply delusional or simpleminded or caught in the rose coloured haze
of historical nostalgia... and they don't know tennis history...
haven't watched much tennis with ANYTHING like an objective eye...
those that keep to the he was great in his time and freeze frame
players within the context of their times and try and cross index and
compare across the divide of history citing various criteria, that's
great... its complete hypothetical of course and CANNOT be proved and
that is the FUN of it really... but when you get partisans and raving
fanboys saying Hoad was superior to Federer or Connors' play to
Nadals... it just defies common sense and anything like perceptual
thinking... because when the swearing and name calling starts flying
what else is one to think... these guys REALLY DO THINK Lendl could
walk on a court and wax Nadal now... which is just mindless jabber...
now comparing his record within the context of his time vs. now and
what he accomplished in his time to Nadal that's totally cool...

P


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 15:00:39
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 20, 5:36=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 5:25=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Whisper wrote:
> > > No one can say for certain.
>
> > Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions in
> > here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>
> > PS:
>
> ++ When pathological people keep insisting that players 25/35/45 years
> ago were technically superior to now or that the game speed of today
> is not a defining factor... you have to suspect either delusion,
> romantic hazing of nostalgic sentiment or just plain blindness... they
> played in comparative SLOW MOTION... the groundies were so much more
> casual than today... Lendl wouldn't be a big hitter today by a long
> shot... no WONDER they could volley so well then... volleying
> beachballs - by comparison - wouldn't tax the guys now... good lord...
> Mac himself has been saying for 5 YEARS the game is WAY beyond the
> game he played and beyond the level of play in the mid-1990s as well
> now... Federer and Nadal both say if the ball was coming at them at
> the speed of the mid-1990s play they would FOR SURE be at the net more
> but net game HAS to be situational now because of the power of the
> return ground game... the all court power game is generations ahead of
> the tennis played in the 80s and the 90s... if people cannot grasp
> that... then there is no real value in discussing this, except as
> fantasy speculation and romantic nostalgia, which is fine... but
> that's what it is...
>
> And thus follows GOAT talk... when ever a sports fan gets mired in the
> past for too long he/she is denying the fact of developmental
> specialization over time and how norms, standards, measures and
> technical ability progresses precisely because sports like tennis are
> systematic (the game) and methodological (technique) which tend to
> refine over time due to experimentation, practice, technical
> innovation, technology, coaching, financial incentives and other
> elements... that's just the way it is... regression to norms are
> quickly swallowed up, retrenching elements filtered out, episodic
> aspects forced along by various necessities... the game gets more
> refined, varied, faster as athleticism increases... 15 years from now
> Federer and Nadal won't look that fast... just the way it is/will
> be...
>
> P

But I think the people who might say Laver or Hoad or Tilden is goat
are not saying those guys could
use their old equipment and the games they developed to make the best
use of it and beat today's players using
the latest technology. If they are, then I agree it's delusional. If
you pop in a tape of Borg playing Vilas in the 78 FO final, it's
obvious that those two couldn't even be in today's FO draw with those
games. But there's a way to look beyond the surface and say that it's
still pretty amazing that Borg, using the same equipment as everyone
else, was THAT much better. Maybe that's more impressive than what
Guga did in the late 90s. Maybe it's just as impressive as what Rafa
is doing today. And under such an analysis he can be the greatest,
even though we take as a given that the shot production is better now
for obvious reasons.


  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 21:03:21
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 20, 5:36 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 5:25 am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> No one can say for certain.
>>> Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions in
>>> here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>>> PS:
>> ++ When pathological people keep insisting that players 25/35/45 years
>> ago were technically superior to now or that the game speed of today
>> is not a defining factor... you have to suspect either delusion,
>> romantic hazing of nostalgic sentiment or just plain blindness... they
>> played in comparative SLOW MOTION... the groundies were so much more
>> casual than today... Lendl wouldn't be a big hitter today by a long
>> shot... no WONDER they could volley so well then... volleying
>> beachballs - by comparison - wouldn't tax the guys now... good lord...
>> Mac himself has been saying for 5 YEARS the game is WAY beyond the
>> game he played and beyond the level of play in the mid-1990s as well
>> now... Federer and Nadal both say if the ball was coming at them at
>> the speed of the mid-1990s play they would FOR SURE be at the net more
>> but net game HAS to be situational now because of the power of the
>> return ground game... the all court power game is generations ahead of
>> the tennis played in the 80s and the 90s... if people cannot grasp
>> that... then there is no real value in discussing this, except as
>> fantasy speculation and romantic nostalgia, which is fine... but
>> that's what it is...
>>
>> And thus follows GOAT talk... when ever a sports fan gets mired in the
>> past for too long he/she is denying the fact of developmental
>> specialization over time and how norms, standards, measures and
>> technical ability progresses precisely because sports like tennis are
>> systematic (the game) and methodological (technique) which tend to
>> refine over time due to experimentation, practice, technical
>> innovation, technology, coaching, financial incentives and other
>> elements... that's just the way it is... regression to norms are
>> quickly swallowed up, retrenching elements filtered out, episodic
>> aspects forced along by various necessities... the game gets more
>> refined, varied, faster as athleticism increases... 15 years from now
>> Federer and Nadal won't look that fast... just the way it is/will
>> be...
>>
>> P
>
> But I think the people who might say Laver or Hoad or Tilden is goat
> are not saying those guys could
> use their old equipment and the games they developed to make the best
> use of it and beat today's players using
> the latest technology. If they are, then I agree it's delusional. If
> you pop in a tape of Borg playing Vilas in the 78 FO final, it's
> obvious that those two couldn't even be in today's FO draw with those
> games. But there's a way to look beyond the surface and say that it's
> still pretty amazing that Borg, using the same equipment as everyone
> else, was THAT much better. Maybe that's more impressive than what
> Guga did in the late 90s. Maybe it's just as impressive as what Rafa
> is doing today. And under such an analysis he can be the greatest,
> even though we take as a given that the shot production is better now
> for obvious reasons.


Sensible post. Very stark contrast to the post your responding to.


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 14:36:54
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 20, 5:25=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
> > No one can say for certain.
>
> Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions in
> here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>
> PS:

++ When pathological people keep insisting that players 25/35/45 years
ago were technically superior to now or that the game speed of today
is not a defining factor... you have to suspect either delusion,
romantic hazing of nostalgic sentiment or just plain blindness... they
played in comparative SLOW MOTION... the groundies were so much more
casual than today... Lendl wouldn't be a big hitter today by a long
shot... no WONDER they could volley so well then... volleying
beachballs - by comparison - wouldn't tax the guys now... good lord...
Mac himself has been saying for 5 YEARS the game is WAY beyond the
game he played and beyond the level of play in the mid-1990s as well
now... Federer and Nadal both say if the ball was coming at them at
the speed of the mid-1990s play they would FOR SURE be at the net more
but net game HAS to be situational now because of the power of the
return ground game... the all court power game is generations ahead of
the tennis played in the 80s and the 90s... if people cannot grasp
that... then there is no real value in discussing this, except as
fantasy speculation and romantic nostalgia, which is fine... but
that's what it is...

And thus follows GOAT talk... when ever a sports fan gets mired in the
past for too long he/she is denying the fact of developmental
specialization over time and how norms, standards, measures and
technical ability progresses precisely because sports like tennis are
systematic (the game) and methodological (technique) which tend to
refine over time due to experimentation, practice, technical
innovation, technology, coaching, financial incentives and other
elements... that's just the way it is... regression to norms are
quickly swallowed up, retrenching elements filtered out, episodic
aspects forced along by various necessities... the game gets more
refined, varied, faster as athleticism increases... 15 years from now
Federer and Nadal won't look that fast... just the way it is/will
be...

P


  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 13:58:10
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Feb 20, 5:25 am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> No one can say for certain.
>>
>> Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions in
>> here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>>
>> PS:
>
> ++ When pathological people keep insisting that players 25/35/45 years
> ago were technically superior to now or that the game speed of today
> is not a defining factor... you have to suspect either delusion,
> romantic hazing of nostalgic sentiment or just plain blindness... they
> played in comparative SLOW MOTION... the groundies were so much more
> casual than today... Lendl wouldn't be a big hitter today by a long
> shot... no WONDER they could volley so well then... volleying
> beachballs - by comparison - wouldn't tax the guys now... good lord...
> Mac himself has been saying for 5 YEARS the game is WAY beyond the
> game he played and beyond the level of play in the mid-1990s as well
> now... Federer and Nadal both say if the ball was coming at them at
> the speed of the mid-1990s play they would FOR SURE be at the net more
> but net game HAS to be situational now because of the power of the
> return ground game... the all court power game is generations ahead of
> the tennis played in the 80s and the 90s... if people cannot grasp
> that... then there is no real value in discussing this, except as
> fantasy speculation and romantic nostalgia, which is fine... but
> that's what it is...
>
> And thus follows GOAT talk... when ever a sports fan gets mired in the
> past for too long he/she is denying the fact of developmental
> specialization over time and how norms, standards, measures and
> technical ability progresses precisely because sports like tennis are
> systematic (the game) and methodological (technique) which tend to
> refine over time due to experimentation, practice, technical
> innovation, technology, coaching, financial incentives and other
> elements... that's just the way it is... regression to norms are
> quickly swallowed up, retrenching elements filtered out, episodic
> aspects forced along by various necessities... the game gets more
> refined, varied, faster as athleticism increases... 15 years from now
> Federer and Nadal won't look that fast... just the way it is/will
> be...
>
> P


This is an awful post.




  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 21:00:48
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Feb 20, 5:25 am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> No one can say for certain.
>> Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions in
>> here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>>
>> PS:
>
> ++ When pathological people keep insisting that players 25/35/45 years
> ago were technically superior to now or that the game speed of today
> is not a defining factor... you have to suspect either delusion,
> romantic hazing of nostalgic sentiment or just plain blindness... they
> played in comparative SLOW MOTION... the groundies were so much more
> casual than today... Lendl wouldn't be a big hitter today by a long
> shot... no WONDER they could volley so well then... volleying
> beachballs - by comparison - wouldn't tax the guys now... good lord...
> Mac himself has been saying for 5 YEARS the game is WAY beyond the
> game he played and beyond the level of play in the mid-1990s as well
> now... Federer and Nadal both say if the ball was coming at them at
> the speed of the mid-1990s play they would FOR SURE be at the net more
> but net game HAS to be situational now because of the power of the
> return ground game... the all court power game is generations ahead of
> the tennis played in the 80s and the 90s... if people cannot grasp
> that... then there is no real value in discussing this, except as
> fantasy speculation and romantic nostalgia, which is fine... but
> that's what it is...
>
> And thus follows GOAT talk... when ever a sports fan gets mired in the
> past for too long he/she is denying the fact of developmental
> specialization over time and how norms, standards, measures and
> technical ability progresses precisely because sports like tennis are
> systematic (the game) and methodological (technique) which tend to
> refine over time due to experimentation, practice, technical
> innovation, technology, coaching, financial incentives and other
> elements... that's just the way it is... regression to norms are
> quickly swallowed up, retrenching elements filtered out, episodic
> aspects forced along by various necessities... the game gets more
> refined, varied, faster as athleticism increases... 15 years from now
> Federer and Nadal won't look that fast... just the way it is/will
> be...
>
> P


It's pretty fucking stupid to think tennis quality improves with every
generation. You're the type of guy who believes house values double
every 7 yrs, even though the average price would be > 10 mil if that
were true. The guys that ranked top 10 in this era like Blake, Berdych
& Ljubo are some of the most pathetic top 10 players I've ever seen in
my life - complete & utter garbage & I turn the tv off when they are on
as it gives me heartburn watching them attempt to play tennis.

The volleys Fed misses at the net are absolute sitters - there is almost
zero pace on them & they are sitting up nicely to be punched away. He
simply hasn't got the skill to do it - has fuck all to do with modern
equipment/strings etc. Use your eyes & judge for yourself.






   
Date: 21 Feb 2009 17:16:32
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Whisper wrote:
> It's pretty fucking stupid to think tennis quality improves with every
> generation. You're the type of guy who believes house values double
> every 7 yrs, even though the average price would be > 10 mil if that
> were true. The guys that ranked top 10 in this era like Blake, Berdych
> & Ljubo are some of the most pathetic top 10 players I've ever seen in
> my life - complete & utter garbage & I turn the tv off when they are on
> as it gives me heartburn watching them attempt to play tennis.

You obviously could not have seen Berdych's performance against Federer
at AO. He finally lost, but his performance in the first two sets was
stunning.

PS.


    
Date: 22 Feb 2009 11:43:27
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Petter Solbu wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> It's pretty fucking stupid to think tennis quality improves with every
>> generation. You're the type of guy who believes house values double
>> every 7 yrs, even though the average price would be > 10 mil if that
>> were true. The guys that ranked top 10 in this era like Blake,
>> Berdych & Ljubo are some of the most pathetic top 10 players I've ever
>> seen in my life - complete & utter garbage & I turn the tv off when
>> they are on as it gives me heartburn watching them attempt to play
>> tennis.
>
> You obviously could not have seen Berdych's performance against Federer
> at AO. He finally lost, but his performance in the first two sets was
> stunning.
>
> PS.


Not stunning, but very good. His performance in the last 3 was so
pathetic it made the 1st 2 irrelevant.



     
Date: 22 Feb 2009 02:52:53
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Whisper wrote:
> Petter Solbu wrote:
>> You obviously could not have seen Berdych's performance against
>> Federer at AO. He finally lost, but his performance in the first two
>> sets was stunning.
>
> Not stunning, but very good. His performance in the last 3 was so
> pathetic it made the 1st 2 irrelevant.

Not really. He was very competitive in the third and fourth set also.
Fed could easily have lost both sets. In the fifth Berdych started to
make a lot of errors.

PS.


      
Date: 22 Feb 2009 17:25:02
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Petter Solbu wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> Petter Solbu wrote:
>>> You obviously could not have seen Berdych's performance against
>>> Federer at AO. He finally lost, but his performance in the first two
>>> sets was stunning.
>>
>> Not stunning, but very good. His performance in the last 3 was so
>> pathetic it made the 1st 2 irrelevant.
>
> Not really. He was very competitive in the third and fourth set also.
> Fed could easily have lost both sets. In the fifth Berdych started to
> make a lot of errors.
>
> PS.


When Fed won 3rd set it was 99.9% likely he'd go on to win & Berdych
would collapse like a bag of shit - I even predicted the 5th set score.



    
Date: 21 Feb 2009 16:59:55
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:16:32 +0100, Petter Solbu
<pettermann1984@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Whisper wrote:
>> It's pretty fucking stupid to think tennis quality improves with every
>> generation. You're the type of guy who believes house values double
>> every 7 yrs, even though the average price would be > 10 mil if that
>> were true. The guys that ranked top 10 in this era like Blake, Berdych
>> & Ljubo are some of the most pathetic top 10 players I've ever seen in
>> my life - complete & utter garbage & I turn the tv off when they are on
>> as it gives me heartburn watching them attempt to play tennis.
>
>You obviously could not have seen Berdych's performance against Federer
>at AO. He finally lost, but his performance in the first two sets was
>stunning.
>
>PS.


Yes, it was. Then I have seen this from him before. When he is "on" he
is terrific. Absolutely terrific. Unfortunately, like Nalbandian in
October, it happens only now and then. He simply can't control his
game day to day .

Unlike Nadal, who grinds people down because his game is NEVER out of
control. This is why he wins most of the time but also loses to so
many different "so-so" players like Blake, Youzhny, Tsonga etc when
they have have one of their "better" days including losing to Blake
and Berdych 3x in a row.

Nadal is not a better peak player than they are but he is a more
consistent day to day player. Fed OTOH knows how to handle these
players on their better days but has a matchup problem with Nadal.

Remove Nadal and Fed is already top super goat bar none. EVERYBODY
knows it. Yet, guys Fed beats ALL the time also beat Rafa a LOT of the
time.

Fed needs to find a solution to the matchup issue and if he can (which
I think he will), it's lights out for Sampras because barring Rafa,
Fed has many many more slams in him.

Whisper knows this which is why he stoops so low as to fan fuck a clay
court bum rooting monkey like Rafa. Yes, this is what he used to call
them before Fed came within striking distance of 14 slams (in
whisperese that is "barely half way by the way"). Now, he needs a
"saviour" and Rafa is his ONLY hope.

Some whores will fuck anybody for a smack of crack.


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 09:20:33
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 20 helmi, 14:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> The biggest problem is lack of players coming through with those skills.
> Remember even Rafter beat Agassi at USO & 2 Wimbledon semis, & Agassi
> did very well in mid 30's in this modern era. Rafter would do very well
> in this era with his constant net aggression. Ok he's not likely to
> beat Fed/Rafa too often, but he'd be good for no.3.

How that is possible as 2003-2004 you said that Hewitt is a lot better
player (both achievement and absolute terms) than Rafter and you used
their h2h as evidence to pack up Hewitt's superioty over Rafter.
(multiple posts available via google groups).

You cannot use same example for totally opposite agendas. (but of
course you can. That's your favourite trademark: Doublestandards).

> Problem is they all play the same way because it's less risky, very easy
> to learn & you can get great results just by defending great. It's a
> poor man's version of great tennis.

1970 Brazil and 1974 are Soccer's Tier1 ideal play...fancy, full of
skill and golden era of Soccer...yet still they would get trounced by
today's teams. They would just run over golden era teams with their
speed and fitness.

> Tennis has a big problem & I'm not sure how to solve it. Needs to be
> emphasis on long term development rather than just producing good
> results from solid bumrooting.

Tennis has no problem. Big finals with Fed/Nadal have been a huge
drawing card and tennis is in very good shape.

Nostalgic nonsense and twisted doublestandard fanboyism on the other
hand...

.mikko



  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 08:55:30
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
MBDunc wrote:
> On 20 helmi, 14:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> The biggest problem is lack of players coming through with those skills.
>> Remember even Rafter beat Agassi at USO & 2 Wimbledon semis, & Agassi
>> did very well in mid 30's in this modern era. Rafter would do very well
>> in this era with his constant net aggression. Ok he's not likely to
>> beat Fed/Rafa too often, but he'd be good for no.3.
>
> How that is possible as 2003-2004 you said that Hewitt is a lot better
> player (both achievement and absolute terms) than Rafter and you used
> their h2h as evidence to pack up Hewitt's superioty over Rafter.
> (multiple posts available via google groups).


OK, but did Hewitt have longevity? I've always maintained Hewitt is the
kind of guy who has no choice but to be firing at minimum 98% of his
full ability to stay tops - if he drops to 95% he's ranked 20 at best.
Hewitt right now is maybe 70% on his best days so ranks outside 50. Yes
I would tip Hewitt at 100% to beat Rafter at 100%, but over the course
of a career Rafter would probably edge him out. Anyway the point of
using Rafter in my argument is to prove a guy with even mediocre talent
can develop a world beating s/v game, & as he has shown it takes many
yrs longer to develop than bumrooting success as a teen.


>
> You cannot use same example for totally opposite agendas. (but of
> course you can. That's your favourite trademark: Doublestandards).


Not really. Tennis is a moving landscape with many variables. There
are times Hewitt is superior & other times Rafter comes out tops. When
I made that Hewitt analysis I framed the context & did not make it an
absolute.


>
>> Problem is they all play the same way because it's less risky, very easy
>> to learn & you can get great results just by defending great. It's a
>> poor man's version of great tennis.
>
> 1970 Brazil and 1974 are Soccer's Tier1 ideal play...fancy, full of
> skill and golden era of Soccer...yet still they would get trounced by
> today's teams. They would just run over golden era teams with their
> speed and fitness.
>
>> Tennis has a big problem & I'm not sure how to solve it. Needs to be
>> emphasis on long term development rather than just producing good
>> results from solid bumrooting.
>
> Tennis has no problem. Big finals with Fed/Nadal have been a huge
> drawing card and tennis is in very good shape.


I wouldn't say that. The gap between the top 2 & the rest is huge,
despite some promise from Murray/Djoker. You'll note I said Fed was
fucked when Rafa pulled out the huge win v Verdasco & woulda been
cursing his luck, even given Rafa's depleted physical condition. There
is no doubt in my mind Verdasco woulda rolled over 62 63 64 type for
Fed. It's kinda sad only Rafa has the balls to stand up & really believe
he can win. Berdych is the antithesis & represents everything I hate
about modern tennis & lack of balls. The guy has the physical game to
go down guns blazing v Fed, but instead rolls over & lets Fed scratch
his tummy, same as Blake & the rest.


>
> Nostalgic nonsense and twisted doublestandard fanboyism on the other
> hand...
>
> .mikko
>


Little to do with nostalgia for it's own sake - we miss the real tennis
with real warriors. Only 2 guys does not make it a great era.


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 07:23:54
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 20, 10:19=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 1:34 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >> Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
> >> against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
> >> thin.
>
> > Mac surpassed Borg by a thin margin on fast 80s grass, fast hard
> > courts, and fast carpet. There were really no medium-speed hard courts
> > at that time, and they never played on any type of clay.
>
> > Given Mac's lefty serve, great volleying talent, and a game that was
> > designed for the fast courts of that era, that fact that Borg stayed
> > as close to him as he did on grass and hard courts is a testament to
> > Borg's extraordinary athleticism and power of concentration.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Fair point. =A0Still you gotta go with Mac in a big 'winner takes all' ba=
ttle.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But on what surface are we talking about?


  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 02:34:59
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 20, 10:19 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 20, 1:34 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>>> Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
>>>> against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
>>>> thin.
>>> Mac surpassed Borg by a thin margin on fast 80s grass, fast hard
>>> courts, and fast carpet. There were really no medium-speed hard courts
>>> at that time, and they never played on any type of clay.
>>> Given Mac's lefty serve, great volleying talent, and a game that was
>>> designed for the fast courts of that era, that fact that Borg stayed
>>> as close to him as he did on grass and hard courts is a testament to
>>> Borg's extraordinary athleticism and power of concentration.
>>> Joe Ramirez
>> Fair point. Still you gotta go with Mac in a big 'winner takes all' battle.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> But on what surface are we talking about?


Ok, not clay. Though that woulda been great to see - Mac woulda had a
chance & he said that was his goal - beat Borg at FO. Rafa beat Fed on
grass, which few expected, so it wouldn't have been a huge shock for him
to do it once. Too bad Borg ran away when he couldn't be No.1 anymore &
3rd straight loss in slam final to Mac.



 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 06:30:02
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 20, 7:37=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> Sure it's eye-candy as well. =A0Who seriously doesn't enjoy watching a
> player move the ball around & attack the net on a consistent basis?
>
> There is no doubt in my mind the fully evolved attacking player has a
> lot more options & is far more likely to beat the bumrooter who has a
> very limited range of shots/strategy.
>
> Tennis has a big problem & I'm not sure how to solve it. =A0Needs to be
> emphasis on long term development rather than just producing good
> results from solid bumrooting.

You seem to think that playing styles can be selected and applied
effectively more or less independently of equipment and playing
surfaces. That is simply not the case. As I've argued before, tennis
playing styles evolve, and over time tend to *converge* on the
approach that is the most effective for the conditions of the era. S&V
is not inherently superior to baselining; it is superior on fast,
slick, bumpy grass with small-headed wooden rackets. And on medium-
pace and slow surfaces with a true bounce, using large-headed
composite rackets with high-spin strings, baselining is superior.
That's all there is to it. As long as these conditions persist, "long-
term development" will do nothing to increase the ranks of S&V players
at the top of the pro game. Forcing players to adopt a losing style
will just cause them to lose. If you see a lone wolf S&V player here
and there, be grateful. They will not return en masse in the
contemporary game.

If you really prefer to watch all-out attacking play, you should
switch to table tennis. In that sport, equipment changes over the
years have made the purely *defensive* players close to exinct. See my
past posts on this for the juicy details.

Joe Ramirez




  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 02:25:00
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
josephmramirez@netzero.com wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:37 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Sure it's eye-candy as well. Who seriously doesn't enjoy watching a
>> player move the ball around & attack the net on a consistent basis?
>>
>> There is no doubt in my mind the fully evolved attacking player has a
>> lot more options & is far more likely to beat the bumrooter who has a
>> very limited range of shots/strategy.
>>
>> Tennis has a big problem & I'm not sure how to solve it. Needs to be
>> emphasis on long term development rather than just producing good
>> results from solid bumrooting.
>
> You seem to think that playing styles can be selected and applied
> effectively more or less independently of equipment and playing
> surfaces. That is simply not the case. As I've argued before, tennis
> playing styles evolve, and over time tend to *converge* on the
> approach that is the most effective for the conditions of the era. S&V
> is not inherently superior to baselining; it is superior on fast,
> slick, bumpy grass with small-headed wooden rackets. And on medium-
> pace and slow surfaces with a true bounce, using large-headed
> composite rackets with high-spin strings, baselining is superior.
> That's all there is to it. As long as these conditions persist, "long-
> term development" will do nothing to increase the ranks of S&V players
> at the top of the pro game. Forcing players to adopt a losing style
> will just cause them to lose. If you see a lone wolf S&V player here
> and there, be grateful. They will not return en masse in the
> contemporary game.
>

But they *can* return if the emphasis is on longer term development
rather than instant gratification. Nobody wants to turn down ca$h today
for bigger bucks tomorrow - it may never come so make hay while the sun
shines is the credo.

It's not the equipment that makes net play obsolete - rather I think the
modern equipment can be used to develop a more dynamic net game, but it
takes longer to develop due to more moving parts & complexity. There's
no way Rafter could have beaten Agassi in all those slams, even took him
to 5 in AO semi if what you say is true. It took Rafter many years to
get to this level & he isn't particularly talented. Imagine what the
really talented guys could do if they went down that path?





 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 06:19:22
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 20, 1:34=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
>
> Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
> against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
> thin.

Mac surpassed Borg by a thin margin on fast 80s grass, fast hard
courts, and fast carpet. There were really no medium-speed hard courts
at that time, and they never played on any type of clay.

Given Mac's lefty serve, great volleying talent, and a game that was
designed for the fast courts of that era, that fact that Borg stayed
as close to him as he did on grass and hard courts is a testament to
Borg's extraordinary athleticism and power of concentration.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 15:40:26
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:19:22 -0800 (PST), josephmramirez@netzero.com
wrote:

>On Feb 20, 1:34 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>
>> Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
>> against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
>> thin.
>
>Mac surpassed Borg by a thin margin on fast 80s grass, fast hard
>courts, and fast carpet. There were really no medium-speed hard courts
>at that time, and they never played on any type of clay.
>
>Given Mac's lefty serve, great volleying talent, and a game that was
>designed for the fast courts of that era, that fact that Borg stayed
>as close to him as he did on grass and hard courts is a testament to
>Borg's extraordinary athleticism and power of concentration.
>
>Joe Ramirez


you're a pretty smart guy !


  
Date: 21 Feb 2009 02:19:00
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
josephmramirez@netzero.com wrote:
> On Feb 20, 1:34 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>> Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
>> against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
>> thin.
>
> Mac surpassed Borg by a thin margin on fast 80s grass, fast hard
> courts, and fast carpet. There were really no medium-speed hard courts
> at that time, and they never played on any type of clay.
>
> Given Mac's lefty serve, great volleying talent, and a game that was
> designed for the fast courts of that era, that fact that Borg stayed
> as close to him as he did on grass and hard courts is a testament to
> Borg's extraordinary athleticism and power of concentration.
>
> Joe Ramirez


Fair point. Still you gotta go with Mac in a big 'winner takes all' battle.



   
Date: 20 Feb 2009 15:45:45
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:19:00 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>josephmramirez@netzero.com wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 1:34 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>> Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
>>> against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
>>> thin.
>>
>> Mac surpassed Borg by a thin margin on fast 80s grass, fast hard
>> courts, and fast carpet. There were really no medium-speed hard courts
>> at that time, and they never played on any type of clay.
>>
>> Given Mac's lefty serve, great volleying talent, and a game that was
>> designed for the fast courts of that era, that fact that Borg stayed
>> as close to him as he did on grass and hard courts is a testament to
>> Borg's extraordinary athleticism and power of concentration.
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
>
>Fair point. Still you gotta go with Mac in a big 'winner takes all' battle.


No we do not because Mac was never good enough to meet him on clay
where he would have been crucified !

This is the same lame argument you use to push Sampras over Federer
when in fact Sampras was just never good enough to make an FO final
let alone win it.

Borg vs Mac was 7-7 off clay. Had they played 14 matches on clay it
would have been 21-7 in Borgs favor !



    
Date: 21 Feb 2009 02:55:44
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Superdave wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:19:00 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> josephmramirez@netzero.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 20, 1:34 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>>> Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
>>>> against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
>>>> thin.
>>> Mac surpassed Borg by a thin margin on fast 80s grass, fast hard
>>> courts, and fast carpet. There were really no medium-speed hard courts
>>> at that time, and they never played on any type of clay.
>>>
>>> Given Mac's lefty serve, great volleying talent, and a game that was
>>> designed for the fast courts of that era, that fact that Borg stayed
>>> as close to him as he did on grass and hard courts is a testament to
>>> Borg's extraordinary athleticism and power of concentration.
>>>
>>> Joe Ramirez
>>
>> Fair point. Still you gotta go with Mac in a big 'winner takes all' battle.
>
>
> No we do not because Mac was never good enough to meet him on clay
> where he would have been crucified !
>
> This is the same lame argument you use to push Sampras over Federer
> when in fact Sampras was just never good enough to make an FO final
> let alone win it.
>
> Borg vs Mac was 7-7 off clay. Had they played 14 matches on clay it
> would have been 21-7 in Borgs favor !
>


Borg enjoyed playing Mac when he was peak, but then when Mac peaked he
ran away. Poor form.



     
Date: 20 Feb 2009 16:07:49
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:55:44 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Superdave wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:19:00 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> josephmramirez@netzero.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 20, 1:34 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>>>> Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
>>>>> against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
>>>>> thin.
>>>> Mac surpassed Borg by a thin margin on fast 80s grass, fast hard
>>>> courts, and fast carpet. There were really no medium-speed hard courts
>>>> at that time, and they never played on any type of clay.
>>>>
>>>> Given Mac's lefty serve, great volleying talent, and a game that was
>>>> designed for the fast courts of that era, that fact that Borg stayed
>>>> as close to him as he did on grass and hard courts is a testament to
>>>> Borg's extraordinary athleticism and power of concentration.
>>>>
>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>>
>>> Fair point. Still you gotta go with Mac in a big 'winner takes all' battle.
>>
>>
>> No we do not because Mac was never good enough to meet him on clay
>> where he would have been crucified !
>>
>> This is the same lame argument you use to push Sampras over Federer
>> when in fact Sampras was just never good enough to make an FO final
>> let alone win it.
>>
>> Borg vs Mac was 7-7 off clay. Had they played 14 matches on clay it
>> would have been 21-7 in Borgs favor !
>>
>
>
>Borg enjoyed playing Mac when he was peak, but then when Mac peaked he
>ran away. Poor form.


That's bullshit and you know it. Just another reason your credibility
is zero here.


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 06:15:03
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 20, 12:43=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > On 20 helmi, 08:53, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> MBDunc wrote:
> >>> On 19 helmi, 17:26, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> *skriptis wrote:
> >>>>> MBDunc wrote:
> >>>>>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> >>>>>>> You're in a party of one who doesn't think Fed and Rafa are truly
> >>>>>>> great players.
> >>>>>> Whisper's "Nadal tune" has been changed. Before Nadal's Wimbledon
> >>>>>> title Whisper for years touted how great he will (multiple Wimbled=
ons
> >>>>>> etc) and how great his game is (even said that Nadal's display at
> >>>>>> Wimbledon 2008 was best he had ever seen save Sampras' 99 - link
> >>>>>> available via googlegroups). Then he probably realized that it is
> >>>>>> Nadal who is threatening Sampras' legacy along with Fed...and then=
the
> >>>>>> tone changed suddenly...and recently "clown era" tag (Fed's USO08 =
must
> >>>>>> have been a shock) has slowly creeped back eventhough whispabobs
> >>>>>> claimed it over thanks to Djoko's succee (and Fed's hiccup monthts=
)
> >>>>>> 2008 - which is a real evidence that "clown era" tag is directly
> >>>>>> linked to Fed's succee level as it similarly as suddenly emerged a=
s
> >>>>>> Fed started to collect slam titles).
> >>>>>> The most laughable aspect is of course that Nadal really improved =
a
> >>>>>> lot 2008...but this improvement (bh, strategy by a lot) of course =
is
> >>>>>> now ignored and again hypotetical peak play of previous era champs
> >>>>>> suddenly would cream Nadal...(again it was very different tune bef=
ore
> >>>>>> Nadal actually got his Wimb 2008).
> >>>>> What would be the point of comparing Nadal pre-Wimb 08 with past gr=
eat
> >>>>> grass/HC players?
> >>>>> At the time he didn't even have 1 AO/W/USO title so obviously it wo=
uld make
> >>>>> no sense to analyse.
> >>>> Correct. =A0What I've been analysing with Rafa is his potential in *=
this*
> >>>> era & how he'd go v Federer. =A0I've seen enough of current tennis t=
o be
> >>>> able to accurately predict his slam success & superiority over Feder=
er.
> >>>> You can't take my high endorsement of Rafa *in this context* & attem=
pt
> >>>> to transfer it to Sampras/Laver eras - that's typically idiotic tact=
ic
> >>>> in rst.
> >>>> If you want me to compare Sampras/Laver v Rafa or Federer then I don=
't
> >>>> think there would be any surprises - hint Sampras trashes Rafa easil=
y at
> >>>> Wim/USO/YEC but loses on clay.
> >>> Before Nadal's Wimb title you clearly had totally other opinion, belo=
w
> >>> is Whisper's opinion about Nadal's Wimbledon/grasscourt form after
> >>> Murray match 2008.
> >>> "Sampras' 99 Wimbledon final is tops, but Rafa's effort v Murray is
> >>> best
> >>> since then.
> >>> Hat's off to the kid - what a talent. =A0He'd actually play a pretty
> >>> nice
> >>> match v peak Pete in this form. "
> >>> .mikko
> >> Ok, but I didn''t say I was immune to ceibs - but I'm better at gettin=
g
> >> over it quickly than most of rst.
>
> > You had campaigns against ceibs already 2004-2005...
>
> > Also it is a bit questionable that you have never slipped with Fed
> > (even though Fed has a enormous bank of ceibs material)...yet still
> > you "ceibsed" with Roddick/Nadal relatively long...
>
> > .mikko
>
> Federer's results speak for themselves & they are way off the charts so
> doesn't need any ceibs boosting from me. =A0However they are a little
> misleading in that he really hasn't had any decent opposition until Rafa
> matured a yr or so ago. =A0The fact Rafa is now beating him pretty much
> everywhere on every surface backs up the soft era claims.
>
> Using the argument Fed is 'past it' doesn't wash as he'd clearly still
> be winning all the slams & rank no.1 in Rafa's absence.

over four years to rack up as many posts as you have made on
here......
take away 9 hours sleep and it would take close to a decade...... you
really must spend your whole life trolling on here........ HECK YOU
HAVE SPENT A WHOLE DECADE POSTING SHIT ON HERE.... ALL DAY EVERY DAY

stfu and get a life........ I think i'm bad enough with my 277 this
month but you take uselessness to a whole new level around here. The
weird thing is that you actually seem to write too well/ come across
as too intelligent to genuinely believe the shit you write which makes
it even worse. Since you've spent your whole life as an internet troll
despite not actually being that thick.


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 06:11:03
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 20, 12:43=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > On 20 helmi, 08:53, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> MBDunc wrote:
> >>> On 19 helmi, 17:26, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> *skriptis wrote:
> >>>>> MBDunc wrote:
> >>>>>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> >>>>>>> You're in a party of one who doesn't think Fed and Rafa are truly
> >>>>>>> great players.
> >>>>>> Whisper's "Nadal tune" has been changed. Before Nadal's Wimbledon
> >>>>>> title Whisper for years touted how great he will (multiple Wimbled=
ons
> >>>>>> etc) and how great his game is (even said that Nadal's display at
> >>>>>> Wimbledon 2008 was best he had ever seen save Sampras' 99 - link
> >>>>>> available via googlegroups). Then he probably realized that it is
> >>>>>> Nadal who is threatening Sampras' legacy along with Fed...and then=
the
> >>>>>> tone changed suddenly...and recently "clown era" tag (Fed's USO08 =
must
> >>>>>> have been a shock) has slowly creeped back eventhough whispabobs
> >>>>>> claimed it over thanks to Djoko's succee (and Fed's hiccup monthts=
)
> >>>>>> 2008 - which is a real evidence that "clown era" tag is directly
> >>>>>> linked to Fed's succee level as it similarly as suddenly emerged a=
s
> >>>>>> Fed started to collect slam titles).
> >>>>>> The most laughable aspect is of course that Nadal really improved =
a
> >>>>>> lot 2008...but this improvement (bh, strategy by a lot) of course =
is
> >>>>>> now ignored and again hypotetical peak play of previous era champs
> >>>>>> suddenly would cream Nadal...(again it was very different tune bef=
ore
> >>>>>> Nadal actually got his Wimb 2008).
> >>>>> What would be the point of comparing Nadal pre-Wimb 08 with past gr=
eat
> >>>>> grass/HC players?
> >>>>> At the time he didn't even have 1 AO/W/USO title so obviously it wo=
uld make
> >>>>> no sense to analyse.
> >>>> Correct. =A0What I've been analysing with Rafa is his potential in *=
this*
> >>>> era & how he'd go v Federer. =A0I've seen enough of current tennis t=
o be
> >>>> able to accurately predict his slam success & superiority over Feder=
er.
> >>>> You can't take my high endorsement of Rafa *in this context* & attem=
pt
> >>>> to transfer it to Sampras/Laver eras - that's typically idiotic tact=
ic
> >>>> in rst.
> >>>> If you want me to compare Sampras/Laver v Rafa or Federer then I don=
't
> >>>> think there would be any surprises - hint Sampras trashes Rafa easil=
y at
> >>>> Wim/USO/YEC but loses on clay.
> >>> Before Nadal's Wimb title you clearly had totally other opinion, belo=
w
> >>> is Whisper's opinion about Nadal's Wimbledon/grasscourt form after
> >>> Murray match 2008.
> >>> "Sampras' 99 Wimbledon final is tops, but Rafa's effort v Murray is
> >>> best
> >>> since then.
> >>> Hat's off to the kid - what a talent. =A0He'd actually play a pretty
> >>> nice
> >>> match v peak Pete in this form. "
> >>> .mikko
> >> Ok, but I didn''t say I was immune to ceibs - but I'm better at gettin=
g
> >> over it quickly than most of rst.
>
> > You had campaigns against ceibs already 2004-2005...
>
> > Also it is a bit questionable that you have never slipped with Fed
> > (even though Fed has a enormous bank of ceibs material)...yet still
> > you "ceibsed" with Roddick/Nadal relatively long...
>
> > .mikko
>
> Federer's results speak for themselves & they are way off the charts so
> doesn't need any ceibs boosting from me. =A0However they are a little
> misleading in that he really hasn't had any decent opposition until Rafa
> matured a yr or so ago. =A0The fact Rafa is now beating him pretty much
> everywhere on every surface backs up the soft era claims.
>
> Using the argument Fed is 'past it' doesn't wash as he'd clearly still
> be winning all the slams & rank no.1 in Rafa's absence.

If someone were to make a post on R.S.T every half and hour of the
whole day for 24 hours 7 days a week, it would take them


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 03:47:06
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 20 Feb, 09:29, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> robin wrote:
>
> > You are stupid, even by rst standards.
>
> > I would regard the ATP website as an authority on tennis related
> > information. If I want to know, for example, who won the 2006 Halle
> > tournament, that will be my first port of call.
>
> > I would not regard the ATP website as any more accurate than wiki,
> > with regards to player trivia information. I doubt very much that a
> > great deal of time and effort is allocated to ensuring that the
> > information regarding a players weight is up to date and accurate.
>
> > That does not mean that the ATP are lying. Nadal and Monfils, for
> > example, will likely have increased in weight since joining the tour.
> > If the weights listed are quite old, then the information will be
> > inaccurate. No need for a conspiracy.
>
> > Now, answer the question...
>
> > Do you believe that Monfils being 3 inches taller but 5 KG lighter
> > than Federer, is likely to be accurate?
>
> Sure, why not? =A0Fed often carries a bit of a paunch around the gut whil=
e
> Monfils is very lean.

Federer would need a proper beer belly to account for that difference.
Monfils is clearly more heavily built than Federer.


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 01:22:24
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 20 helmi, 08:53, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > On 19 helmi, 17:26, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> *skriptis wrote:
> >>> MBDunc wrote:
> >>>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> >>>>> You're in a party of one who doesn't think Fed and Rafa are truly
> >>>>> great players.
> >>>> Whisper's "Nadal tune" has been changed. Before Nadal's Wimbledon
> >>>> title Whisper for years touted how great he will (multiple Wimbledon=
s
> >>>> etc) and how great his game is (even said that Nadal's display at
> >>>> Wimbledon 2008 was best he had ever seen save Sampras' 99 - link
> >>>> available via googlegroups). Then he probably realized that it is
> >>>> Nadal who is threatening Sampras' legacy along with Fed...and then t=
he
> >>>> tone changed suddenly...and recently "clown era" tag (Fed's USO08 mu=
st
> >>>> have been a shock) has slowly creeped back eventhough whispabobs
> >>>> claimed it over thanks to Djoko's succee (and Fed's hiccup monthts)
> >>>> 2008 - which is a real evidence that "clown era" tag is directly
> >>>> linked to Fed's succee level as it similarly as suddenly emerged as
> >>>> Fed started to collect slam titles).
> >>>> The most laughable aspect is of course that Nadal really improved a
> >>>> lot 2008...but this improvement (bh, strategy by a lot) of course is
> >>>> now ignored and again hypotetical peak play of previous era champs
> >>>> suddenly would cream Nadal...(again it was very different tune befor=
e
> >>>> Nadal actually got his Wimb 2008).
> >>> What would be the point of comparing Nadal pre-Wimb 08 with past grea=
t
> >>> grass/HC players?
> >>> At the time he didn't even have 1 AO/W/USO title so obviously it woul=
d make
> >>> no sense to analyse.
> >> Correct. =A0What I've been analysing with Rafa is his potential in *th=
is*
> >> era & how he'd go v Federer. =A0I've seen enough of current tennis to =
be
> >> able to accurately predict his slam success & superiority over Federer=
.
>
> >> You can't take my high endorsement of Rafa *in this context* & attempt
> >> to transfer it to Sampras/Laver eras - that's typically idiotic tactic
> >> in rst.
>
> >> If you want me to compare Sampras/Laver v Rafa or Federer then I don't
> >> think there would be any surprises - hint Sampras trashes Rafa easily =
at
> >> Wim/USO/YEC but loses on clay.
>
> > Before Nadal's Wimb title you clearly had totally other opinion, below
> > is Whisper's opinion about Nadal's Wimbledon/grasscourt form after
> > Murray match 2008.
>
> > "Sampras' 99 Wimbledon final is tops, but Rafa's effort v Murray is
> > best
> > since then.
>
> > Hat's off to the kid - what a talent. =A0He'd actually play a pretty
> > nice
> > match v peak Pete in this form. "
>
> > .mikko
>
> Ok, but I didn''t say I was immune to ceibs - but I'm better at getting
> over it quickly than most of rst.

You had campaigns against ceibs already 2004-2005...

Also it is a bit questionable that you have never slipped with Fed
(even though Fed has a enormous bank of ceibs material)...yet still
you "ceibsed" with Roddick/Nadal relatively long...

.mikko


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 23:43:58
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
MBDunc wrote:
> On 20 helmi, 08:53, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> MBDunc wrote:
>>> On 19 helmi, 17:26, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> *skriptis wrote:
>>>>> MBDunc wrote:
>>>>>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>>>>>>> You're in a party of one who doesn't think Fed and Rafa are truly
>>>>>>> great players.
>>>>>> Whisper's "Nadal tune" has been changed. Before Nadal's Wimbledon
>>>>>> title Whisper for years touted how great he will (multiple Wimbledons
>>>>>> etc) and how great his game is (even said that Nadal's display at
>>>>>> Wimbledon 2008 was best he had ever seen save Sampras' 99 - link
>>>>>> available via googlegroups). Then he probably realized that it is
>>>>>> Nadal who is threatening Sampras' legacy along with Fed...and then the
>>>>>> tone changed suddenly...and recently "clown era" tag (Fed's USO08 must
>>>>>> have been a shock) has slowly creeped back eventhough whispabobs
>>>>>> claimed it over thanks to Djoko's succee (and Fed's hiccup monthts)
>>>>>> 2008 - which is a real evidence that "clown era" tag is directly
>>>>>> linked to Fed's succee level as it similarly as suddenly emerged as
>>>>>> Fed started to collect slam titles).
>>>>>> The most laughable aspect is of course that Nadal really improved a
>>>>>> lot 2008...but this improvement (bh, strategy by a lot) of course is
>>>>>> now ignored and again hypotetical peak play of previous era champs
>>>>>> suddenly would cream Nadal...(again it was very different tune before
>>>>>> Nadal actually got his Wimb 2008).
>>>>> What would be the point of comparing Nadal pre-Wimb 08 with past great
>>>>> grass/HC players?
>>>>> At the time he didn't even have 1 AO/W/USO title so obviously it would make
>>>>> no sense to analyse.
>>>> Correct. What I've been analysing with Rafa is his potential in *this*
>>>> era & how he'd go v Federer. I've seen enough of current tennis to be
>>>> able to accurately predict his slam success & superiority over Federer.
>>>> You can't take my high endorsement of Rafa *in this context* & attempt
>>>> to transfer it to Sampras/Laver eras - that's typically idiotic tactic
>>>> in rst.
>>>> If you want me to compare Sampras/Laver v Rafa or Federer then I don't
>>>> think there would be any surprises - hint Sampras trashes Rafa easily at
>>>> Wim/USO/YEC but loses on clay.
>>> Before Nadal's Wimb title you clearly had totally other opinion, below
>>> is Whisper's opinion about Nadal's Wimbledon/grasscourt form after
>>> Murray match 2008.
>>> "Sampras' 99 Wimbledon final is tops, but Rafa's effort v Murray is
>>> best
>>> since then.
>>> Hat's off to the kid - what a talent. He'd actually play a pretty
>>> nice
>>> match v peak Pete in this form. "
>>> .mikko
>> Ok, but I didn''t say I was immune to ceibs - but I'm better at getting
>> over it quickly than most of rst.
>
> You had campaigns against ceibs already 2004-2005...
>
> Also it is a bit questionable that you have never slipped with Fed
> (even though Fed has a enormous bank of ceibs material)...yet still
> you "ceibsed" with Roddick/Nadal relatively long...
>
> .mikko


Federer's results speak for themselves & they are way off the charts so
doesn't need any ceibs boosting from me. However they are a little
misleading in that he really hasn't had any decent opposition until Rafa
matured a yr or so ago. The fact Rafa is now beating him pretty much
everywhere on every surface backs up the soft era claims.

Using the argument Fed is 'past it' doesn't wash as he'd clearly still
be winning all the slams & rank no.1 in Rafa's absence.


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 23:23:23
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 20 helmi, 08:49, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > On 19 helmi, 17:16, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. =A0The problem is th=
at
> >>>> he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. =A0If he was carrying 20 po=
unds
> >>>> less he'd take the load off of the knees and maybe that would help h=
is
> >>>> knees. =A0Maybe not.
> >>> The greatness of Nadal and his biggest problem are down to the same
> >>> thing, just otherworldly defensive skills.
> >> A great offensive player will always get the better of a great defensi=
ve
> >> player - proven time & again, & makes perfect sense.
>
> > Ok. Prove it one more time and try to be objective. I give you some
> > hints where to start:
>
> > List great defensive players with great talent: How many slams they
> > have won open era.
> > List great defensive players without apparent talent: How many slams
> > they have won open era.
> > List great offensive players with great talent. How many slams they
> > have won open era.
> > List great offensive players without apparent talent: How many slams
> > they have won open era.
>
> > Then try to find a good objective explanation why some defensive
> > players without apparent talent have collected some serious # of
> > slams...
>
> > .mikko
>
> It's far more difficult to maintain a top notch attacking game at it's
> highest levels, but when it happens there is little the defensive guy
> can do but just react to what's thrown at him.

That's the main problem for S&V strategy nowadays. In every seven slam
rounds you have quality opponent who can catch S&V player's off day.
There are no club players/50y former champs in the slam draws a'la
60/70:ies and earlier. The player pool with new nations and even
continents in the mix is bigger than ever now...

>=A0Laver was better than
> everyone as was Hoad at peaks, Mac > Borg, Mac > Lendl, Becker/Edberg >
> Lendl, Sampras > Agassi etc-

For fast court play sure. Somehow at all of above examples the pair
above have played 90% of their matches on fast courts which by nature
favors offensive mindset.

What happens when really talented defensive player (lets assume that
Lendl/Borg/Agassi/Wilander were not that talented compared to
"offensive" examples) emerges?

After all Laver/Hoad/Mac/Sampras have been said to have enormous
talent compared to their other peers. Could be even somewhat true.

Is Nadal that "really talented defensive player" who has been
relatively missing throughout the tennis history? Makes sense as his
results (and game) back that claim up.

Of open era greats (open era slams only 4 slams minimum):

Baseliners:

Fed 13 slams (I would rather call him allcourter)
Borg 11 slams
Lendl 8 slams
Agassi 8 slams
Connors 8 slams
Wilander 7 slams
Nadal 6 slams
Courier 4 slams
Vilas 4 slams
Rosewall 4 slams

S&V:

Sampras 14 slams.
Mac 7 slams
Becker 6 slams
Edberg 6 slams
Newcombe 5 slams
Laver 5 slams (I would rather call him allcourter)

Does it initially look like S&V list possess more talent? If so...then
explain how with relatively limited talent (baseliners' slam list)
those slam numbers are possible?

How many slams Sampras/Mac would have had he had Lendl's talent?
How many slams Lendl would have had he had Mac/Sampras' talent?

Or is talent smt. very blurry subjective stuff? Like "most intelligent
weightlifter" or "most dark haired sprinter"..."most eye-candy discus
thrower"

Or is above comparision a proof that baseline play > S&V play as with
relatively limited talent a great baseliner can get even better record
more probable?

Or is it just eye candy over results...

.mikko


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 23:37:30
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
MBDunc wrote:
> On 20 helmi, 08:49, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> MBDunc wrote:
>>> On 19 helmi, 17:16, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem is that
>>>>>> he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was carrying 20 pounds
>>>>>> less he'd take the load off of the knees and maybe that would help his
>>>>>> knees. Maybe not.
>>>>> The greatness of Nadal and his biggest problem are down to the same
>>>>> thing, just otherworldly defensive skills.
>>>> A great offensive player will always get the better of a great defensive
>>>> player - proven time & again, & makes perfect sense.
>>> Ok. Prove it one more time and try to be objective. I give you some
>>> hints where to start:
>>> List great defensive players with great talent: How many slams they
>>> have won open era.
>>> List great defensive players without apparent talent: How many slams
>>> they have won open era.
>>> List great offensive players with great talent. How many slams they
>>> have won open era.
>>> List great offensive players without apparent talent: How many slams
>>> they have won open era.
>>> Then try to find a good objective explanation why some defensive
>>> players without apparent talent have collected some serious # of
>>> slams...
>>> .mikko
>> It's far more difficult to maintain a top notch attacking game at it's
>> highest levels, but when it happens there is little the defensive guy
>> can do but just react to what's thrown at him.
>
> That's the main problem for S&V strategy nowadays. In every seven slam
> rounds you have quality opponent who can catch S&V player's off day.



The biggest problem is lack of players coming through with those skills.
Remember even Rafter beat Agassi at USO & 2 Wimbledon semis, & Agassi
did very well in mid 30's in this modern era. Rafter would do very well
in this era with his constant net aggression. Ok he's not likely to
beat Fed/Rafa too often, but he'd be good for no.3.




> There are no club players/50y former champs in the slam draws a'la
> 60/70:ies and earlier. The player pool with new nations and even
> continents in the mix is bigger than ever now...
>



Problem is they all play the same way because it's less risky, very easy
to learn & you can get great results just by defending great. It's a
poor man's version of great tennis.




>> Laver was better than
>> everyone as was Hoad at peaks, Mac > Borg, Mac > Lendl, Becker/Edberg >
>> Lendl, Sampras > Agassi etc-
>
> For fast court play sure. Somehow at all of above examples the pair
> above have played 90% of their matches on fast courts which by nature
> favors offensive mindset.
>
> What happens when really talented defensive player (lets assume that
> Lendl/Borg/Agassi/Wilander were not that talented compared to
> "offensive" examples) emerges?


The great defensive player would have to make 100 great passing shots
under constant pressure, & off very low & difficult balls to get a good
swing.


>
> After all Laver/Hoad/Mac/Sampras have been said to have enormous
> talent compared to their other peers. Could be even somewhat true.
>
> Is Nadal that "really talented defensive player" who has been
> relatively missing throughout the tennis history? Makes sense as his
> results (and game) back that claim up.


Be careful when you assess Rafa in all time terms - he's having his
success in an era when everyone is camped on the baseline & he has no
real pressure from there. There is no one serving huge & attacking him
& forcing great passing shots after another - not just 1 per game but
under constant strain.


>
> Of open era greats (open era slams only 4 slams minimum):
>
> Baseliners:
>
> Fed 13 slams (I would rather call him allcourter)
> Borg 11 slams
> Lendl 8 slams
> Agassi 8 slams
> Connors 8 slams
> Wilander 7 slams
> Nadal 6 slams
> Courier 4 slams
> Vilas 4 slams
> Rosewall 4 slams
>
> S&V:
>
> Sampras 14 slams.
> Mac 7 slams
> Becker 6 slams
> Edberg 6 slams
> Newcombe 5 slams
> Laver 5 slams (I would rather call him allcourter)
>
> Does it initially look like S&V list possess more talent? If so...then
> explain how with relatively limited talent (baseliners' slam list)
> those slam numbers are possible?


It's not difficult to explain. Great net attacking skills are very
difficult & take a long time to develop - most players won't make that
kind of sacrifice as they are under pressure as juniors to produce
results immediately - & that means bumroot your heart out & outlast the
other guy.



>
> How many slams Sampras/Mac would have had he had Lendl's talent?
> How many slams Lendl would have had he had Mac/Sampras' talent?
>
> Or is talent smt. very blurry subjective stuff? Like "most intelligent
> weightlifter" or "most dark haired sprinter"..."most eye-candy discus
> thrower"
>
> Or is above comparision a proof that baseline play > S&V play as with
> relatively limited talent a great baseliner can get even better record
> more probable?
>
> Or is it just eye candy over results...
>
> .mikko


Sure it's eye-candy as well. Who seriously doesn't enjoy watching a
player move the ball around & attack the net on a consistent basis?

There is no doubt in my mind the fully evolved attacking player has a
lot more options & is far more likely to beat the bumrooter who has a
very limited range of shots/strategy.

Tennis has a big problem & I'm not sure how to solve it. Needs to be
emphasis on long term development rather than just producing good
results from solid bumrooting.



 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 22:34:43
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 20 helmi, 08:11, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Petter Solbu wrote:
> > Whisper wrote:
> >>>> No it won't. =A0Did you just completely ignore my post where I
> >>>> explained perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment in
> >>>> historical terms while they are still playing?
>
> >>> Yes, I ignored it. I still think it is better than numbers.
>
> >> Well then it has to apply to all players. =A0Mac was declared goat in
> >> 1984 so it still stands as we don't have to allow for ceibs.
>
> > I don't know. I don't care about GOAT issues, but I am sure McEnroe was
> > a splendid tennis player at that time. I guess most people still will
> > say that Borg at the same time was more dominant, but I admit I am no
> > expert on this.
>
> Borg was more dominant in the feeble 70's until Mac came along & started
> beating him in big slam finals - same deal with Rafa v Fed now. =A0Borg
> was greater than Mac, but Mac clearly was a better tennis player & far
> more talented. =A0Federer is greater than Rafa & more talented, but Rafa
> is better than him & would be expected to beat win 4/5 if both at peak.
>
>
>
> > To compare Federer, Nadal or Sampras to McEnroe, Borg or even Laver can
> > only be described by one word - ridiculous. It is now a completely
> > different sport with different competitors. It is like comparing Pele o=
r
> > Maradona to Zidane, Kaka or Rolandinho. It can't be done.
>
> > PS.
>
> We're not comparing them with each other as that is subjective. =A0Clearl=
y
> Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver had
> despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't beat
> them. =A0It only appears he wouldn't be able to do it when you assess
> their individual skills base, but who knows maybe his more 1-dimensional
> game may still come through? =A0No one can say for certain.

Was above really Whisper's post? Actually it was one of his most
objective posts.

Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
thin.

I remember combined Mac/Borg interview where both agreed that based on
their actual play at those finals their Wimb titles should have been
reversed (Borg for 81 Wimb and Mac for 80 Wimb).

.mikko


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 06:44:56
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:34:43 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
<michaelb@mail.suomi.net > wrote:

>On 20 helmi, 08:11, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Petter Solbu wrote:
>> > Whisper wrote:
>> >>>> No it won't.  Did you just completely ignore my post where I
>> >>>> explained perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment in
>> >>>> historical terms while they are still playing?
>>
>> >>> Yes, I ignored it. I still think it is better than numbers.
>>
>> >> Well then it has to apply to all players.  Mac was declared goat in
>> >> 1984 so it still stands as we don't have to allow for ceibs.
>>
>> > I don't know. I don't care about GOAT issues, but I am sure McEnroe was
>> > a splendid tennis player at that time. I guess most people still will
>> > say that Borg at the same time was more dominant, but I admit I am no
>> > expert on this.
>>
>> Borg was more dominant in the feeble 70's until Mac came along & started
>> beating him in big slam finals - same deal with Rafa v Fed now.  Borg
>> was greater than Mac, but Mac clearly was a better tennis player & far
>> more talented.  Federer is greater than Rafa & more talented, but Rafa
>> is better than him & would be expected to beat win 4/5 if both at peak.
>>
>>
>>
>> > To compare Federer, Nadal or Sampras to McEnroe, Borg or even Laver can
>> > only be described by one word - ridiculous. It is now a completely
>> > different sport with different competitors. It is like comparing Pele or
>> > Maradona to Zidane, Kaka or Rolandinho. It can't be done.
>>
>> > PS.
>>
>> We're not comparing them with each other as that is subjective.  Clearly
>> Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver had
>> despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't beat
>> them.  It only appears he wouldn't be able to do it when you assess
>> their individual skills base, but who knows maybe his more 1-dimensional
>> game may still come through?  No one can say for certain.
>
>Was above really Whisper's post? Actually it was one of his most
>objective posts.
>
>Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
>against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
>thin.
>
>I remember combined Mac/Borg interview where both agreed that based on
>their actual play at those finals their Wimb titles should have been
>reversed (Borg for 81 Wimb and Mac for 80 Wimb).
>
>.mikko

Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver had
despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't
beat them.  

In fact he DID beat ONE of them !

Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World Championships !!!


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 16:49:39
From: jem*gal
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 19 Feb, 15:29, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Petter Solbu wrote:
> > Whisper wrote:
> >> No it won't. =A0Did you just completely ignore my post where I explain=
ed
> >> perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment in historical
> >> terms while they are still playing?
>
> > Yes, I ignored it. I still think it is better than numbers.
>
> > PS.
>
> Well then it has to apply to all players. =A0Mac was declared goat in 198=
4
> so it still stands as we don't have to allow for ceibs.

Who told you that , and why did you listen to them ?


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 20:57:12
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
jem*gal wrote:
> On 19 Feb, 15:29, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Petter Solbu wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> No it won't. Did you just completely ignore my post where I explained
>>>> perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment in historical
>>>> terms while they are still playing?
>>> Yes, I ignored it. I still think it is better than numbers.
>>> PS.
>> Well then it has to apply to all players. Mac was declared goat in 1984
>> so it still stands as we don't have to allow for ceibs.
>
> Who told you that , and why did you listen to them ?


Why are you listening to current idea Fed is goat?



 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 16:37:30
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 19, 2:02=A0pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 19 Feb, 21:32, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > robin wrote:
> > > On 19 Feb, 20:57, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> > >> robin wrote:
> > >>> On 19 Feb, 20:14, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> > >>>> "robin" <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>>>news:a04613c8-18d5-4380-aed1-3e00d96d74c2@c12g2000yqj.googlegroups.=
com...
>
> > >>>>> On 19 Feb, 15:50, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Feb 18, 10:25 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote=
:
> > >>>>>>>> drew wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Feb 18, 11:03 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Nadal already has his place in tennis history in my book.
> > >>>>>>>>>> He's the first player to have a real claim
> > >>>>>>>>>> to being the best on hard, grass and clay at the same time i=
n
> > >>>>>>>>>> tennis history.
>
> > >>>>>>>>> Nadal is awesome but he has no real claim to being the best o=
n
> > >>>>>>>>> hard court unless he wins USO soon. His results on hard court
> > >>>>>>>>> are strong but not great so far.
>
> > >>>>>>>>> If his knees are shot, the
> > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion would be he pushed himself to the limit and
> > >>>>>>>>>> achieved incredible things for a short period of time.
> > >>>>>>>>>> But in the end it's better to have the more effortless power
> > >>>>>>>>>> of a Sampras or Fed and not rely so much on
> > >>>>>>>>>> defense because it's better for longevity, which is a
> > >>>>>>>>>> hallmark of greatness.
>
> > >>>>>>>>> Sampras played till he was 31. I don't consider that
> > >>>>>>>>> longevity. Connors and Agassi played for a long time. Anybody
> > >>>>>>>>> who quits before age 35 hasn't proven longevity in my books.
> > >>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean you have to be racking up majors at 34. It
> > >>>>>>>>> just means that you are in the hunt still at that age. We'll
> > >>>>>>>>> see how Federer does. If he quits at 30 or 31 then so much
> > >>>>>>>>> for the longevity idea.
>
> > >>>>>>>>> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem i=
s
> > >>>>>>>>> that he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was
> > >>>>>>>>> carrying 20 pounds less he'd take the load off of the knees
> > >>>>>>>>> and maybe that would help his knees. Maybe not.
>
> > >>>>>>>> Federer has the same weight/height as Nadal.
> > >>>>>>>> Go figure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >>>>>>> ++ Federer's 10 pounds lighter... 1/2-ish shorter...
>
> > >>>>>> Not according to ATP
>
> > >>>>> According to the ATP, Monfils is 3 inches taller, but 5 KG lighte=
r
> > >>>>> than Federer.
>
> > >>>>> Do you really believe that is accurate?
>
> > >>>> Let's get that straight, you're acusing ATP of lying?
>
> > >>> Don't be an imbecile.
>
> > >> So Federer's data is not correct, Nadal's, Monfil's....if the ATP
> > >> doesn't lie, you lie.
>
> > > You are stupid, even by rst standards.
>
> > > I would regard the ATP website as an authority on tennis related
> > > information. If I want to know, for example, who won the 2006 Halle
> > > tournament, that will be my first port of call.
>
> > > I would not regard the ATP website as any more accurate than wiki,
> > > with regards to player trivia information. I doubt very much that a
> > > great deal of time and effort is allocated to ensuring that the
> > > information regarding a players weight is up to date and accurate.
>
> > > That does not mean that the ATP are lying. Nadal and Monfils, for
> > > example, will likely have increased in weight since joining the tour.
> > > If the weights listed are quite old, then the information will be
> > > inaccurate. No need for a conspiracy.
>
> > Do you honestly believe Nadal did last weight measuring =A05 or more ye=
ars
> > ago?
>
> No, but that doesn't mean the information on the atp website can't be
> out of date.
>
> > Because he had same height/weight numbers as Federer for quite some tim=
e.
>
> > I'd assume they update those infos at least once a year, and we're talk=
ing
> > about TOP guys.
>
> It is possible they keep that information up to date, but it is
> equally possible that they consider it trivia and do not invest much
> effort in ensuring its accuracy.
>
> > Those things are on tv every day, during every tournament..
>
> > But that's just me, I accept it may seem unusal for some of you on rst.
>
> > > Now, answer the question...
>
> > > Do you believe that Monfils being 3 inches taller but 5 KG lighter
> > > than Federer, is likely to be accurate?
>
> > I don't know, Monfils isn't regular in late stages.
>
> He is the world number 11 and a big draw player. If they have
> procedures for keeping website info of player's weights up to date, he
> will clearly qualify. You have presumably seen Monfils, so answer the
> question. Do you think it is likely that he is 3 inches taller but 5
> kg lighter than Federer?
>
> Here is a pic, if it helps...
>
> http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2008/06/05/zzMonfils_narro...

++ And from the waist down is a relative toothpick...

P


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 16:36:13
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 19, 1:32=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> robin wrote:
> > On 19 Feb, 20:57, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> robin wrote:
> >>> On 19 Feb, 20:14, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>> "robin" <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:a04613c8-18d5-4380-aed1-3e00d96d74c2@c12g2000yqj.googlegroups.co=
m...
>
> >>>>> On 19 Feb, 15:50, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 18, 10:25 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> drew wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 18, 11:03 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nadal already has his place in tennis history in my book.
> >>>>>>>>>> He's the first player to have a real claim
> >>>>>>>>>> to being the best on hard, grass and clay at the same time in
> >>>>>>>>>> tennis history.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Nadal is awesome but he has no real claim to being the best on
> >>>>>>>>> hard court unless he wins USO soon. His results on hard court
> >>>>>>>>> are strong but not great so far.
>
> >>>>>>>>> If his knees are shot, the
> >>>>>>>>>> conclusion would be he pushed himself to the limit and
> >>>>>>>>>> achieved incredible things for a short period of time.
> >>>>>>>>>> But in the end it's better to have the more effortless power
> >>>>>>>>>> of a Sampras or Fed and not rely so much on
> >>>>>>>>>> defense because it's better for longevity, which is a
> >>>>>>>>>> hallmark of greatness.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Sampras played till he was 31. I don't consider that
> >>>>>>>>> longevity. Connors and Agassi played for a long time. Anybody
> >>>>>>>>> who quits before age 35 hasn't proven longevity in my books.
> >>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean you have to be racking up majors at 34. It
> >>>>>>>>> just means that you are in the hunt still at that age. We'll
> >>>>>>>>> see how Federer does. If he quits at 30 or 31 then so much
> >>>>>>>>> for the longevity idea.
>
> >>>>>>>>> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem is
> >>>>>>>>> that he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was
> >>>>>>>>> carrying 20 pounds less he'd take the load off of the knees
> >>>>>>>>> and maybe that would help his knees. Maybe not.
>
> >>>>>>>> Federer has the same weight/height as Nadal.
> >>>>>>>> Go figure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>> ++ Federer's 10 pounds lighter... 1/2-ish shorter...
>
> >>>>>> Not according to ATP
>
> >>>>> According to the ATP, Monfils is 3 inches taller, but 5 KG lighter
> >>>>> than Federer.
>
> >>>>> Do you really believe that is accurate?
>
> >>>> Let's get that straight, you're acusing ATP of lying?
>
> >>> Don't be an imbecile.
>
> >> So Federer's data is not correct, Nadal's, Monfil's....if the ATP
> >> doesn't lie, you lie.
>
> > You are stupid, even by rst standards.
>
> > I would regard the ATP website as an authority on tennis related
> > information. If I want to know, for example, who won the 2006 Halle
> > tournament, that will be my first port of call.
>
> > I would not regard the ATP website as any more accurate than wiki,
> > with regards to player trivia information. I doubt very much that a
> > great deal of time and effort is allocated to ensuring that the
> > information regarding a players weight is up to date and accurate.
>
> > That does not mean that the ATP are lying. Nadal and Monfils, for
> > example, will likely have increased in weight since joining the tour.
> > If the weights listed are quite old, then the information will be
> > inaccurate. No need for a conspiracy.
>
> Do you honestly believe Nadal did last weight measuring =A05 or more year=
s
> ago?
> Because he had same height/weight numbers as Federer for quite some time.
>
> I'd assume they update those infos at least once a year, and we're talkin=
g
> about TOP guys.
> Those things are on tv every day, during every tournament..
>
> But that's just me, I accept it may seem unusal for some of you on rst.
>
> > Now, answer the question...
>
> > Do you believe that Monfils being 3 inches taller but 5 KG lighter
> > than Federer, is likely to be accurate?
>
> I don't know, Monfils isn't regular in late stages.

++ Feds weight is in the mid-high 170s and Nadal's is in the mid-high
180s... they are approximately 10 pounds apart and have been for years
now...

P


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 14:02:12
From: robin
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 19 Feb, 21:32, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> robin wrote:
> > On 19 Feb, 20:57, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> robin wrote:
> >>> On 19 Feb, 20:14, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>> "robin" <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:a04613c8-18d5-4380-aed1-3e00d96d74c2@c12g2000yqj.googlegroups.co=
m...
>
> >>>>> On 19 Feb, 15:50, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 18, 10:25 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> drew wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 18, 11:03 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nadal already has his place in tennis history in my book.
> >>>>>>>>>> He's the first player to have a real claim
> >>>>>>>>>> to being the best on hard, grass and clay at the same time in
> >>>>>>>>>> tennis history.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Nadal is awesome but he has no real claim to being the best on
> >>>>>>>>> hard court unless he wins USO soon. His results on hard court
> >>>>>>>>> are strong but not great so far.
>
> >>>>>>>>> If his knees are shot, the
> >>>>>>>>>> conclusion would be he pushed himself to the limit and
> >>>>>>>>>> achieved incredible things for a short period of time.
> >>>>>>>>>> But in the end it's better to have the more effortless power
> >>>>>>>>>> of a Sampras or Fed and not rely so much on
> >>>>>>>>>> defense because it's better for longevity, which is a
> >>>>>>>>>> hallmark of greatness.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Sampras played till he was 31. I don't consider that
> >>>>>>>>> longevity. Connors and Agassi played for a long time. Anybody
> >>>>>>>>> who quits before age 35 hasn't proven longevity in my books.
> >>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean you have to be racking up majors at 34. It
> >>>>>>>>> just means that you are in the hunt still at that age. We'll
> >>>>>>>>> see how Federer does. If he quits at 30 or 31 then so much
> >>>>>>>>> for the longevity idea.
>
> >>>>>>>>> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem is
> >>>>>>>>> that he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was
> >>>>>>>>> carrying 20 pounds less he'd take the load off of the knees
> >>>>>>>>> and maybe that would help his knees. Maybe not.
>
> >>>>>>>> Federer has the same weight/height as Nadal.
> >>>>>>>> Go figure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>> ++ Federer's 10 pounds lighter... 1/2-ish shorter...
>
> >>>>>> Not according to ATP
>
> >>>>> According to the ATP, Monfils is 3 inches taller, but 5 KG lighter
> >>>>> than Federer.
>
> >>>>> Do you really believe that is accurate?
>
> >>>> Let's get that straight, you're acusing ATP of lying?
>
> >>> Don't be an imbecile.
>
> >> So Federer's data is not correct, Nadal's, Monfil's....if the ATP
> >> doesn't lie, you lie.
>
> > You are stupid, even by rst standards.
>
> > I would regard the ATP website as an authority on tennis related
> > information. If I want to know, for example, who won the 2006 Halle
> > tournament, that will be my first port of call.
>
> > I would not regard the ATP website as any more accurate than wiki,
> > with regards to player trivia information. I doubt very much that a
> > great deal of time and effort is allocated to ensuring that the
> > information regarding a players weight is up to date and accurate.
>
> > That does not mean that the ATP are lying. Nadal and Monfils, for
> > example, will likely have increased in weight since joining the tour.
> > If the weights listed are quite old, then the information will be
> > inaccurate. No need for a conspiracy.
>
> Do you honestly believe Nadal did last weight measuring =A05 or more year=
s
> ago?

No, but that doesn't mean the information on the atp website can't be
out of date.

> Because he had same height/weight numbers as Federer for quite some time.
>
> I'd assume they update those infos at least once a year, and we're talkin=
g
> about TOP guys.

It is possible they keep that information up to date, but it is
equally possible that they consider it trivia and do not invest much
effort in ensuring its accuracy.

> Those things are on tv every day, during every tournament..
>
> But that's just me, I accept it may seem unusal for some of you on rst.
>
> > Now, answer the question...
>
> > Do you believe that Monfils being 3 inches taller but 5 KG lighter
> > than Federer, is likely to be accurate?
>
> I don't know, Monfils isn't regular in late stages.

He is the world number 11 and a big draw player. If they have
procedures for keeping website info of player's weights up to date, he
will clearly qualify. You have presumably seen Monfils, so answer the
question. Do you think it is likely that he is 3 inches taller but 5
kg lighter than Federer?

Here is a pic, if it helps...

http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2008/06/05/zzMonfils_narrowweb__=
300x422,0.jpg






 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 13:24:44
From: drew
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 19, 11:14=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> To compare Federer, Nadal or Sampras to McEnroe, Borg or even Laver can
> only be described by one word - ridiculous. It is now a completely
> different sport with different competitors. It is like comparing Pele or
> Maradona to Zidane, Kaka or Rolandinho. It can't be done.

You can compare an apple to a woman's vagina if you care to but only a
comedian or an idiot can do it with a serious look on the face.

And as hard as Whisper tries to be funny he fails miserably even there
so one has to conclude that he is an idiot.





 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 13:23:23
From: robin
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 19 Feb, 20:57, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> robin wrote:
> > On 19 Feb, 20:14, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> "robin" <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:a04613c8-18d5-4380-aed1-3e00d96d74c2@c12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> On 19 Feb, 15:50, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 18, 10:25 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>> drew wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 18, 11:03 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Nadal already has his place in tennis history in my book. He's
> >>>>>>>> the first player to have a real claim
> >>>>>>>> to being the best on hard, grass and clay at the same time in
> >>>>>>>> tennis history.
>
> >>>>>>> Nadal is awesome but he has no real claim to being the best on
> >>>>>>> hard court unless he wins USO soon. His results on hard court
> >>>>>>> are strong but not great so far.
>
> >>>>>>> If his knees are shot, the
> >>>>>>>> conclusion would be he pushed himself to the limit and achieved
> >>>>>>>> incredible things for a short period of time.
> >>>>>>>> But in the end it's better to have the more effortless power
> >>>>>>>> of a Sampras or Fed and not rely so much on
> >>>>>>>> defense because it's better for longevity, which is a hallmark
> >>>>>>>> of greatness.
>
> >>>>>>> Sampras played till he was 31. I don't consider that longevity.
> >>>>>>> Connors and Agassi played for a long time. Anybody who quits
> >>>>>>> before age 35 hasn't proven longevity in my books. That doesn't
> >>>>>>> mean you have to be racking up majors at 34. It just means that
> >>>>>>> you are in the hunt still at that age. We'll see how Federer
> >>>>>>> does. If he quits at 30 or 31 then so much for the longevity
> >>>>>>> idea.
>
> >>>>>>> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem is
> >>>>>>> that he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was
> >>>>>>> carrying 20 pounds less he'd take the load off of the knees and
> >>>>>>> maybe that would help his knees. Maybe not.
>
> >>>>>> Federer has the same weight/height as Nadal.
> >>>>>> Go figure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>> ++ Federer's 10 pounds lighter... 1/2-ish shorter...
>
> >>>> Not according to ATP
>
> >>> According to the ATP, Monfils is 3 inches taller, but 5 KG lighter
> >>> than Federer.
>
> >>> Do you really believe that is accurate?
>
> >> Let's get that straight, you're acusing ATP of lying?
>
> > Don't be an imbecile.
>
> So Federer's data is not correct, Nadal's, Monfil's....if the ATP doesn't
> lie, you lie.

You are stupid, even by rst standards.

I would regard the ATP website as an authority on tennis related
information. If I want to know, for example, who won the 2006 Halle
tournament, that will be my first port of call.

I would not regard the ATP website as any more accurate than wiki,
with regards to player trivia information. I doubt very much that a
great deal of time and effort is allocated to ensuring that the
information regarding a players weight is up to date and accurate.

That does not mean that the ATP are lying. Nadal and Monfils, for
example, will likely have increased in weight since joining the tour.
If the weights listed are quite old, then the information will be
inaccurate. No need for a conspiracy.

Now, answer the question...

Do you believe that Monfils being 3 inches taller but 5 KG lighter
than Federer, is likely to be accurate?


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 20:29:44
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
robin wrote:
>
> You are stupid, even by rst standards.
>
> I would regard the ATP website as an authority on tennis related
> information. If I want to know, for example, who won the 2006 Halle
> tournament, that will be my first port of call.
>
> I would not regard the ATP website as any more accurate than wiki,
> with regards to player trivia information. I doubt very much that a
> great deal of time and effort is allocated to ensuring that the
> information regarding a players weight is up to date and accurate.
>
> That does not mean that the ATP are lying. Nadal and Monfils, for
> example, will likely have increased in weight since joining the tour.
> If the weights listed are quite old, then the information will be
> inaccurate. No need for a conspiracy.
>
> Now, answer the question...
>
> Do you believe that Monfils being 3 inches taller but 5 KG lighter
> than Federer, is likely to be accurate?



Sure, why not? Fed often carries a bit of a paunch around the gut while
Monfils is very lean.



  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 22:32:15
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
robin wrote:
> On 19 Feb, 20:57, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> robin wrote:
>>> On 19 Feb, 20:14, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> "robin" <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:a04613c8-18d5-4380-aed1-3e00d96d74c2@c12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>> On 19 Feb, 15:50, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 18, 10:25 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>>>> drew wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 18, 11:03 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nadal already has his place in tennis history in my book.
>>>>>>>>>> He's the first player to have a real claim
>>>>>>>>>> to being the best on hard, grass and clay at the same time in
>>>>>>>>>> tennis history.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Nadal is awesome but he has no real claim to being the best on
>>>>>>>>> hard court unless he wins USO soon. His results on hard court
>>>>>>>>> are strong but not great so far.
>>
>>>>>>>>> If his knees are shot, the
>>>>>>>>>> conclusion would be he pushed himself to the limit and
>>>>>>>>>> achieved incredible things for a short period of time.
>>>>>>>>>> But in the end it's better to have the more effortless power
>>>>>>>>>> of a Sampras or Fed and not rely so much on
>>>>>>>>>> defense because it's better for longevity, which is a
>>>>>>>>>> hallmark of greatness.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Sampras played till he was 31. I don't consider that
>>>>>>>>> longevity. Connors and Agassi played for a long time. Anybody
>>>>>>>>> who quits before age 35 hasn't proven longevity in my books.
>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean you have to be racking up majors at 34. It
>>>>>>>>> just means that you are in the hunt still at that age. We'll
>>>>>>>>> see how Federer does. If he quits at 30 or 31 then so much
>>>>>>>>> for the longevity idea.
>>
>>>>>>>>> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem is
>>>>>>>>> that he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was
>>>>>>>>> carrying 20 pounds less he'd take the load off of the knees
>>>>>>>>> and maybe that would help his knees. Maybe not.
>>
>>>>>>>> Federer has the same weight/height as Nadal.
>>>>>>>> Go figure.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>> ++ Federer's 10 pounds lighter... 1/2-ish shorter...
>>
>>>>>> Not according to ATP
>>
>>>>> According to the ATP, Monfils is 3 inches taller, but 5 KG lighter
>>>>> than Federer.
>>
>>>>> Do you really believe that is accurate?
>>
>>>> Let's get that straight, you're acusing ATP of lying?
>>
>>> Don't be an imbecile.
>>
>> So Federer's data is not correct, Nadal's, Monfil's....if the ATP
>> doesn't lie, you lie.
>
> You are stupid, even by rst standards.
>
> I would regard the ATP website as an authority on tennis related
> information. If I want to know, for example, who won the 2006 Halle
> tournament, that will be my first port of call.
>
> I would not regard the ATP website as any more accurate than wiki,
> with regards to player trivia information. I doubt very much that a
> great deal of time and effort is allocated to ensuring that the
> information regarding a players weight is up to date and accurate.
>
> That does not mean that the ATP are lying. Nadal and Monfils, for
> example, will likely have increased in weight since joining the tour.
> If the weights listed are quite old, then the information will be
> inaccurate. No need for a conspiracy.

Do you honestly believe Nadal did last weight measuring 5 or more years
ago?
Because he had same height/weight numbers as Federer for quite some time.

I'd assume they update those infos at least once a year, and we're talking
about TOP guys.
Those things are on tv every day, during every tournament..

But that's just me, I accept it may seem unusal for some of you on rst.




> Now, answer the question...
>
> Do you believe that Monfils being 3 inches taller but 5 KG lighter
> than Federer, is likely to be accurate?

I don't know, Monfils isn't regular in late stages.




 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 12:46:42
From: robin
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 19 Feb, 20:14, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "robin" <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a04613c8-18d5-4380-aed1-3e00d96d74c2@c12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 19 Feb, 15:50, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >> > On Feb 18, 10:25 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> >> drew wrote:
> >> >>> On Feb 18, 11:03 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> >>>> Nadal already has his place in tennis history in my book. He's the
> >> >>>> first player to have a real claim
> >> >>>> to being the best on hard, grass and clay at the same time in
> >> >>>> tennis history.
>
> >> >>> Nadal is awesome but he has no real claim to being the best on hard
> >> >>> court unless he wins USO soon. His results on hard court are strong
> >> >>> but not great so far.
>
> >> >>> If his knees are shot, the
> >> >>>> conclusion would be he pushed himself to the limit and achieved
> >> >>>> incredible things for a short period of time.
> >> >>>> But in the end it's better to have the more effortless power of a
> >> >>>> Sampras or Fed and not rely so much on
> >> >>>> defense because it's better for longevity, which is a hallmark of
> >> >>>> greatness.
>
> >> >>> Sampras played till he was 31. I don't consider that longevity.
> >> >>> Connors and Agassi played for a long time. Anybody who quits before
> >> >>> age 35 hasn't proven longevity in my books. That doesn't mean you
> >> >>> have to be racking up majors at 34. It just means that you are in
> >> >>> the hunt still at that age. We'll see how Federer does. If he quits
> >> >>> at 30 or 31 then so much for the longevity idea.
>
> >> >>> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem is that
> >> >>> he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was carrying 20
> >> >>> pounds less he'd take the load off of the knees and maybe that
> >> >>> would help his knees. Maybe not.
>
> >> >> Federer has the same weight/height as Nadal.
> >> >> Go figure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > ++ Federer's 10 pounds lighter... 1/2-ish shorter...
>
> >> Not according to ATP
>
> > According to the ATP, Monfils is 3 inches taller, but 5 KG lighter
> > than Federer.
>
> > Do you really believe that is accurate?
>
> Let's get that straight, you're acusing ATP of lying?

Don't be an imbecile.


  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 21:57:23
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
robin wrote:
> On 19 Feb, 20:14, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> "robin" <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a04613c8-18d5-4380-aed1-3e00d96d74c2@c12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 19 Feb, 15:50, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 18, 10:25 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>> drew wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 18, 11:03 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Nadal already has his place in tennis history in my book. He's
>>>>>>>> the first player to have a real claim
>>>>>>>> to being the best on hard, grass and clay at the same time in
>>>>>>>> tennis history.
>>
>>>>>>> Nadal is awesome but he has no real claim to being the best on
>>>>>>> hard court unless he wins USO soon. His results on hard court
>>>>>>> are strong but not great so far.
>>
>>>>>>> If his knees are shot, the
>>>>>>>> conclusion would be he pushed himself to the limit and achieved
>>>>>>>> incredible things for a short period of time.
>>>>>>>> But in the end it's better to have the more effortless power
>>>>>>>> of a Sampras or Fed and not rely so much on
>>>>>>>> defense because it's better for longevity, which is a hallmark
>>>>>>>> of greatness.
>>
>>>>>>> Sampras played till he was 31. I don't consider that longevity.
>>>>>>> Connors and Agassi played for a long time. Anybody who quits
>>>>>>> before age 35 hasn't proven longevity in my books. That doesn't
>>>>>>> mean you have to be racking up majors at 34. It just means that
>>>>>>> you are in the hunt still at that age. We'll see how Federer
>>>>>>> does. If he quits at 30 or 31 then so much for the longevity
>>>>>>> idea.
>>
>>>>>>> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem is
>>>>>>> that he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was
>>>>>>> carrying 20 pounds less he'd take the load off of the knees and
>>>>>>> maybe that would help his knees. Maybe not.
>>
>>>>>> Federer has the same weight/height as Nadal.
>>>>>> Go figure.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>> ++ Federer's 10 pounds lighter... 1/2-ish shorter...
>>
>>>> Not according to ATP
>>
>>> According to the ATP, Monfils is 3 inches taller, but 5 KG lighter
>>> than Federer.
>>
>>> Do you really believe that is accurate?
>>
>> Let's get that straight, you're acusing ATP of lying?
>
> Don't be an imbecile.

So Federer's data is not correct, Nadal's, Monfil's....if the ATP doesn't
lie, you lie.




 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 10:56:43
From: robin
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 19 Feb, 15:50, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 10:25 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> drew wrote:
> >>> On Feb 18, 11:03 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>> Nadal already has his place in tennis history in my book. He's the
> >>>> first player to have a real claim
> >>>> to being the best on hard, grass and clay at the same time in
> >>>> tennis history.
>
> >>> Nadal is awesome but he has no real claim to being the best on hard
> >>> court unless he wins USO soon. His results on hard court are strong
> >>> but not great so far.
>
> >>> If his knees are shot, the
> >>>> conclusion would be he pushed himself to the limit and achieved
> >>>> incredible things for a short period of time.
> >>>> But in the end it's better to have the more effortless power of a
> >>>> Sampras or Fed and not rely so much on
> >>>> defense because it's better for longevity, which is a hallmark of
> >>>> greatness.
>
> >>> Sampras played till he was 31. I don't consider that longevity.
> >>> Connors and Agassi played for a long time. Anybody who quits before
> >>> age 35 hasn't proven longevity in my books. That doesn't mean you
> >>> have to be racking up majors at 34. It just means that you are in
> >>> the hunt still at that age. We'll see how Federer does. If he quits
> >>> at 30 or 31 then so much for the longevity idea.
>
> >>> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem is that
> >>> he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was carrying 20
> >>> pounds less he'd take the load off of the knees and maybe that
> >>> would help his knees. Maybe not.
>
> >> Federer has the same weight/height as Nadal.
> >> Go figure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > ++ Federer's 10 pounds lighter... 1/2-ish shorter...
>
> Not according to ATP

According to the ATP, Monfils is 3 inches taller, but 5 KG lighter
than Federer.

Do you really believe that is accurate?


  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 21:14:07
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest

"robin" <robinson.neil@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:a04613c8-18d5-4380-aed1-3e00d96d74c2@c12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On 19 Feb, 15:50, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>> > On Feb 18, 10:25 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >> drew wrote:
>> >>> On Feb 18, 11:03 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Nadal already has his place in tennis history in my book. He's the
>> >>>> first player to have a real claim
>> >>>> to being the best on hard, grass and clay at the same time in
>> >>>> tennis history.
>>
>> >>> Nadal is awesome but he has no real claim to being the best on hard
>> >>> court unless he wins USO soon. His results on hard court are strong
>> >>> but not great so far.
>>
>> >>> If his knees are shot, the
>> >>>> conclusion would be he pushed himself to the limit and achieved
>> >>>> incredible things for a short period of time.
>> >>>> But in the end it's better to have the more effortless power of a
>> >>>> Sampras or Fed and not rely so much on
>> >>>> defense because it's better for longevity, which is a hallmark of
>> >>>> greatness.
>>
>> >>> Sampras played till he was 31. I don't consider that longevity.
>> >>> Connors and Agassi played for a long time. Anybody who quits before
>> >>> age 35 hasn't proven longevity in my books. That doesn't mean you
>> >>> have to be racking up majors at 34. It just means that you are in
>> >>> the hunt still at that age. We'll see how Federer does. If he quits
>> >>> at 30 or 31 then so much for the longevity idea.
>>
>> >>> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem is that
>> >>> he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was carrying 20
>> >>> pounds less he'd take the load off of the knees and maybe that
>> >>> would help his knees. Maybe not.
>>
>> >> Federer has the same weight/height as Nadal.
>> >> Go figure.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > ++ Federer's 10 pounds lighter... 1/2-ish shorter...
>>
>> Not according to ATP
>
> According to the ATP, Monfils is 3 inches taller, but 5 KG lighter
> than Federer.
>
> Do you really believe that is accurate?


Let's get that straight, you're acusing ATP of lying?




 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 09:16:46
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 19 helmi, 17:29, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Petter Solbu wrote:
> > Whisper wrote:
> >> No it won't. Did you just completely ignore my post where I explained
> >> perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment in historical
> >> terms while they are still playing?
>
> > Yes, I ignored it. I still think it is better than numbers.
>
> > PS.
>
> Well then it has to apply to all players. Mac was declared goat in 1984
> so it still stands as we don't have to allow for ceibs.

By a couple of US journalists....

Who would have been your goat 1984?

Mac actually had a minor case at that time. Noone was calculating
total slam counts back then. DC/WCT played a big role also.

Of course with today's standards his record won't hold the water
against Laver/Borg but back then it was a little bit different.

.mikko




 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 09:12:06
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 19 helmi, 17:26, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> *skriptis wrote:
> > MBDunc wrote:
> >> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> >>> You're in a party of one who doesn't think Fed and Rafa are truly
> >>> great players.
> >> Whisper's "Nadal tune" has been changed. Before Nadal's Wimbledon
> >> title Whisper for years touted how great he will (multiple Wimbledons
> >> etc) and how great his game is (even said that Nadal's display at
> >> Wimbledon 2008 was best he had ever seen save Sampras' 99 - link
> >> available via googlegroups). Then he probably realized that it is
> >> Nadal who is threatening Sampras' legacy along with Fed...and then the
> >> tone changed suddenly...and recently "clown era" tag (Fed's USO08 must
> >> have been a shock) has slowly creeped back eventhough whispabobs
> >> claimed it over thanks to Djoko's succee (and Fed's hiccup monthts)
> >> 2008 - which is a real evidence that "clown era" tag is directly
> >> linked to Fed's succee level as it similarly as suddenly emerged as
> >> Fed started to collect slam titles).
>
> >> The most laughable aspect is of course that Nadal really improved a
> >> lot 2008...but this improvement (bh, strategy by a lot) of course is
> >> now ignored and again hypotetical peak play of previous era champs
> >> suddenly would cream Nadal...(again it was very different tune before
> >> Nadal actually got his Wimb 2008).
>
> > What would be the point of comparing Nadal pre-Wimb 08 with past great
> > grass/HC players?
> > At the time he didn't even have 1 AO/W/USO title so obviously it would make
> > no sense to analyse.
>
> Correct. What I've been analysing with Rafa is his potential in *this*
> era & how he'd go v Federer. I've seen enough of current tennis to be
> able to accurately predict his slam success & superiority over Federer.
>
> You can't take my high endorsement of Rafa *in this context* & attempt
> to transfer it to Sampras/Laver eras - that's typically idiotic tactic
> in rst.
>
> If you want me to compare Sampras/Laver v Rafa or Federer then I don't
> think there would be any surprises - hint Sampras trashes Rafa easily at
> Wim/USO/YEC but loses on clay.

Before Nadal's Wimb title you clearly had totally other opinion, below
is Whisper's opinion about Nadal's Wimbledon/grasscourt form after
Murray match 2008.

"Sampras' 99 Wimbledon final is tops, but Rafa's effort v Murray is
best
since then.

Hat's off to the kid - what a talent. He'd actually play a pretty
nice
match v peak Pete in this form. "

.mikko


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 17:53:42
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
MBDunc wrote:
> On 19 helmi, 17:26, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> *skriptis wrote:
>>> MBDunc wrote:
>>>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>>>>> You're in a party of one who doesn't think Fed and Rafa are truly
>>>>> great players.
>>>> Whisper's "Nadal tune" has been changed. Before Nadal's Wimbledon
>>>> title Whisper for years touted how great he will (multiple Wimbledons
>>>> etc) and how great his game is (even said that Nadal's display at
>>>> Wimbledon 2008 was best he had ever seen save Sampras' 99 - link
>>>> available via googlegroups). Then he probably realized that it is
>>>> Nadal who is threatening Sampras' legacy along with Fed...and then the
>>>> tone changed suddenly...and recently "clown era" tag (Fed's USO08 must
>>>> have been a shock) has slowly creeped back eventhough whispabobs
>>>> claimed it over thanks to Djoko's succee (and Fed's hiccup monthts)
>>>> 2008 - which is a real evidence that "clown era" tag is directly
>>>> linked to Fed's succee level as it similarly as suddenly emerged as
>>>> Fed started to collect slam titles).
>>>> The most laughable aspect is of course that Nadal really improved a
>>>> lot 2008...but this improvement (bh, strategy by a lot) of course is
>>>> now ignored and again hypotetical peak play of previous era champs
>>>> suddenly would cream Nadal...(again it was very different tune before
>>>> Nadal actually got his Wimb 2008).
>>> What would be the point of comparing Nadal pre-Wimb 08 with past great
>>> grass/HC players?
>>> At the time he didn't even have 1 AO/W/USO title so obviously it would make
>>> no sense to analyse.
>> Correct. What I've been analysing with Rafa is his potential in *this*
>> era & how he'd go v Federer. I've seen enough of current tennis to be
>> able to accurately predict his slam success & superiority over Federer.
>>
>> You can't take my high endorsement of Rafa *in this context* & attempt
>> to transfer it to Sampras/Laver eras - that's typically idiotic tactic
>> in rst.
>>
>> If you want me to compare Sampras/Laver v Rafa or Federer then I don't
>> think there would be any surprises - hint Sampras trashes Rafa easily at
>> Wim/USO/YEC but loses on clay.
>
> Before Nadal's Wimb title you clearly had totally other opinion, below
> is Whisper's opinion about Nadal's Wimbledon/grasscourt form after
> Murray match 2008.
>
> "Sampras' 99 Wimbledon final is tops, but Rafa's effort v Murray is
> best
> since then.
>
> Hat's off to the kid - what a talent. He'd actually play a pretty
> nice
> match v peak Pete in this form. "
>
> .mikko


Ok, but I didn''t say I was immune to ceibs - but I'm better at getting
over it quickly than most of rst.

It's clear peak Sampras wouldn't give Rafa the same type of balls to do
his stuff, so it's tough to say if he could make a good match of it.




 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 09:07:53
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 19 helmi, 17:16, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem is that
> >> he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was carrying 20 pounds
> >> less he'd take the load off of the knees and maybe that would help his
> >> knees. Maybe not.
>
> > The greatness of Nadal and his biggest problem are down to the same
> > thing, just otherworldly defensive skills.
>
> A great offensive player will always get the better of a great defensive
> player - proven time & again, & makes perfect sense.

Ok. Prove it one more time and try to be objective. I give you some
hints where to start:

List great defensive players with great talent: How many slams they
have won open era.
List great defensive players without apparent talent: How many slams
they have won open era.
List great offensive players with great talent. How many slams they
have won open era.
List great offensive players without apparent talent: How many slams
they have won open era.

Then try to find a good objective explanation why some defensive
players without apparent talent have collected some serious # of
slams...

.mikko





  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 17:49:28
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
MBDunc wrote:
> On 19 helmi, 17:16, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem is that
>>>> he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was carrying 20 pounds
>>>> less he'd take the load off of the knees and maybe that would help his
>>>> knees. Maybe not.
>>> The greatness of Nadal and his biggest problem are down to the same
>>> thing, just otherworldly defensive skills.
>> A great offensive player will always get the better of a great defensive
>> player - proven time & again, & makes perfect sense.
>
> Ok. Prove it one more time and try to be objective. I give you some
> hints where to start:
>
> List great defensive players with great talent: How many slams they
> have won open era.
> List great defensive players without apparent talent: How many slams
> they have won open era.
> List great offensive players with great talent. How many slams they
> have won open era.
> List great offensive players without apparent talent: How many slams
> they have won open era.
>
> Then try to find a good objective explanation why some defensive
> players without apparent talent have collected some serious # of
> slams...
>
> .mikko
>
>
>


It's far more difficult to maintain a top notch attacking game at it's
highest levels, but when it happens there is little the defensive guy
can do but just react to what's thrown at him. Laver was better than
everyone as was Hoad at peaks, Mac > Borg, Mac > Lendl, Becker/Edberg >
Lendl, Sampras > Agassi etc





 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 07:50:53
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 19, 5:43=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 19, 8:19=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>
> > > You're in a party of one who doesn't think Fed and Rafa are truly
> > > great players.
>
> > Whisper's "Nadal tune" has been changed. Before Nadal's Wimbledon
> > title Whisper for years touted how great he will (multiple Wimbledons
> > etc) and how great his game is (even said that Nadal's display at
> > Wimbledon 2008 was best he had ever seen save Sampras' 99 - link
> > available via googlegroups). Then he probably realized that it is
> > Nadal who is threatening Sampras' legacy along with Fed...and then the
> > tone changed suddenly...and recently "clown era" tag (Fed's USO08 must
> > have been a shock) has slowly creeped back eventhough whispabobs
> > claimed it over thanks to Djoko's succee (and Fed's hiccup monthts)
> > 2008 - which is a real evidence that "clown era" tag is directly
> > linked to Fed's succee level as it similarly as suddenly emerged as
> > Fed started to collect slam titles).
>
> > The most laughable aspect is of course that Nadal really improved a
> > lot 2008...but this improvement (bh, strategy by a lot) of course is
> > now ignored and again hypotetical peak play of previous era champs
> > suddenly would cream Nadal...(again it was very different tune before
> > Nadal actually got his Wimb 2008).
>
> > .mikko
>
> I still think this is all about Fed/Sampras. If Fed's competition is
> terrible then Sampras is ability goat and
> Mac is talent goat even if Fed goes past 80 points on 7543.
>
> If Nadal is a great player and Fed manages to beat Rafa or beat people
> who beat Rafa at the big tournaments then Fed's a deserving goat.
> Whisper can't have that.

++ Mac had average groundies... even in his own era compared to elites
of his era... only decent movement... can't be Talent GOAT... net play
is not the entire game of tennis, even for Johnny Mac :))

Call him Volley GOAT :)

P

P



 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 07:47:05
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 18, 10:25=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> drew wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 11:03 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Nadal already has his place in tennis history in my book. He's the
> >> first player to have a real claim
> >> to being the best on hard, grass and clay at the same time in tennis
> >> history.
>
> > Nadal is awesome but he has no real claim to being the best on hard
> > court unless he wins USO soon. =A0His results on hard court are strong
> > but not great so far.
>
> > =A0If his knees are shot, the
> >> conclusion would be he pushed himself to the limit and achieved
> >> incredible things for a short period of time.
> >> But in the end it's better to have the more effortless power of a
> >> Sampras or Fed and not rely so much on
> >> defense because it's better for longevity, which is a hallmark of
> >> greatness.
>
> > Sampras played till he was 31. =A0I don't consider that longevity.
> > Connors and Agassi played for a long time. =A0Anybody who quits before
> > age 35 hasn't proven longevity in my books. =A0That doesn't mean you
> > have to be racking up majors at 34. =A0It just means that you are in th=
e
> > hunt still at that age. =A0We'll see how Federer does. =A0If he quits a=
t
> > 30 or 31 then so much for the longevity idea.
>
> > There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. =A0The problem is that
> > he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. =A0If he was carrying 20 pound=
s
> > less he'd take the load off of the knees and maybe that would help his
> > knees. =A0Maybe not.
>
> Federer has the same weight/height as Nadal.
> Go figure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ Federer's 10 pounds lighter... 1/2-ish shorter...

P


  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 16:50:17
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Feb 18, 10:25 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> drew wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 11:03 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Nadal already has his place in tennis history in my book. He's the
>>>> first player to have a real claim
>>>> to being the best on hard, grass and clay at the same time in
>>>> tennis history.
>>
>>> Nadal is awesome but he has no real claim to being the best on hard
>>> court unless he wins USO soon. His results on hard court are strong
>>> but not great so far.
>>
>>> If his knees are shot, the
>>>> conclusion would be he pushed himself to the limit and achieved
>>>> incredible things for a short period of time.
>>>> But in the end it's better to have the more effortless power of a
>>>> Sampras or Fed and not rely so much on
>>>> defense because it's better for longevity, which is a hallmark of
>>>> greatness.
>>
>>> Sampras played till he was 31. I don't consider that longevity.
>>> Connors and Agassi played for a long time. Anybody who quits before
>>> age 35 hasn't proven longevity in my books. That doesn't mean you
>>> have to be racking up majors at 34. It just means that you are in
>>> the hunt still at that age. We'll see how Federer does. If he quits
>>> at 30 or 31 then so much for the longevity idea.
>>
>>> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem is that
>>> he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was carrying 20
>>> pounds less he'd take the load off of the knees and maybe that
>>> would help his knees. Maybe not.
>>
>> Federer has the same weight/height as Nadal.
>> Go figure.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ++ Federer's 10 pounds lighter... 1/2-ish shorter...


Not according to ATP




 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 07:13:37
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 19, 3:08=A0pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:25=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Whisper kirjoitti:
>
> > > Incorrect again. =A0This was not the 'same' Hewitt as it was 3 years =
after
> > > he beat old Sampras, & in fact it was more than 2 years after Hewitt =
won
> > > his last slam ie well past his peak.
>
> > If not Fed =A0Hewitt would have been #1 2004 with atleast one slam
> > (USO). To boot he lost 2 other times to Fed at slams and even got his
> > best FO result that year (QF). Actually without Fed Hewitt's 2004
> > would have been his best year ever record wise (titles/general gs
> > succee).
>
> > Hewitt was playing great 2004 (and he was still only 23 years...) as
> > his record show. He even got USO final without losing a set.
>
> > When actually 23y is nothing but prime year? Doublestandards.
>
> > =A0Also Fed's win over Safin was 4
>
> > > years after he beat old Sampras in USO final, & also 4 years after Sa=
fin
> > > had ranked No.1 - ie very well past his peak. =A0This analysis is way
> > > beyond sloppy & is fraudulent.
>
> > Any tennis expert knows that Safin had a lot of injury problems
> > 2001-2003 (wrist,knee,back). Whenever he got his act composed he
> > continued with a great play (like Autumn 2004-Winter 2005).
>
> > > You forgot to mention Sampras beat Hewitt & Safin in USO semis in 200=
0 &
> > > 2001 for some reason? - more sloppiness.
>
> > Hewitt was 19y at Sampras USO match. Quite logical to lose to reigning
> > Wimbledon champ who was ahead of Hewitt in rankings (and had home
> > venue support as well). Yet still the match was relatively close (you
> > often refer similar scorelines in Fed's cases as "almost lost").
> > Doublestandards.
>
> > (Sampras btw played great at Safin 2001 match).
>
> > > Federer is superior to Hewitt/Safin but so is every great player. =A0=
It's
> > > very clear peak Sampras would humble Roger after we see what Rafa is
> > > doing to him on all 3 surfaces.
>
> > Subjective opinion and far from clear. Rafa's upper hand over Roger
> > does not tell anything about hypotetical Fed-Sampras clash. Every
> > tennis expert knows that as tennis is also matchup issue.
> > Doublestandards or just general lack of tennis knowledge by you.
> > Nothing surprising.
>
> > .mikko
>
> I think it is a matter of whisper trolling about a subject he does not
> know that much about. "Just general lack of tennis knowledge" and a
> lot of time to kill pretty much sums up whisper on RST.
>
> Rodjk #613

But you'd have thought all the time spent on rst would =3D a lot of
tennis knowledge... obviously not.


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 07:08:26
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 19, 12:25=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> Whisper kirjoitti:
>
> > Incorrect again. =A0This was not the 'same' Hewitt as it was 3 years af=
ter
> > he beat old Sampras, & in fact it was more than 2 years after Hewitt wo=
n
> > his last slam ie well past his peak.
>
> If not Fed =A0Hewitt would have been #1 2004 with atleast one slam
> (USO). To boot he lost 2 other times to Fed at slams and even got his
> best FO result that year (QF). Actually without Fed Hewitt's 2004
> would have been his best year ever record wise (titles/general gs
> succee).
>
> Hewitt was playing great 2004 (and he was still only 23 years...) as
> his record show. He even got USO final without losing a set.
>
> When actually 23y is nothing but prime year? Doublestandards.
>
> =A0Also Fed's win over Safin was 4
>
> > years after he beat old Sampras in USO final, & also 4 years after Safi=
n
> > had ranked No.1 - ie very well past his peak. =A0This analysis is way
> > beyond sloppy & is fraudulent.
>
> Any tennis expert knows that Safin had a lot of injury problems
> 2001-2003 (wrist,knee,back). Whenever he got his act composed he
> continued with a great play (like Autumn 2004-Winter 2005).
>
> > You forgot to mention Sampras beat Hewitt & Safin in USO semis in 2000 =
&
> > 2001 for some reason? - more sloppiness.
>
> Hewitt was 19y at Sampras USO match. Quite logical to lose to reigning
> Wimbledon champ who was ahead of Hewitt in rankings (and had home
> venue support as well). Yet still the match was relatively close (you
> often refer similar scorelines in Fed's cases as "almost lost").
> Doublestandards.
>
> (Sampras btw played great at Safin 2001 match).
>
> > Federer is superior to Hewitt/Safin but so is every great player. =A0It=
's
> > very clear peak Sampras would humble Roger after we see what Rafa is
> > doing to him on all 3 surfaces.
>
> Subjective opinion and far from clear. Rafa's upper hand over Roger
> does not tell anything about hypotetical Fed-Sampras clash. Every
> tennis expert knows that as tennis is also matchup issue.
> Doublestandards or just general lack of tennis knowledge by you.
> Nothing surprising.
>
> .mikko

I think it is a matter of whisper trolling about a subject he does not
know that much about. "Just general lack of tennis knowledge" and a
lot of time to kill pretty much sums up whisper on RST.

Rodjk #613


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 07:05:38
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 19, 9:51=A0am, "Silence, Fedfucker!"
<thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 1:19 pm, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>
> > > You're in a party of one who doesn't think Fed and Rafa are truly
> > > great players.
>
> > Whisper's "Nadal tune" has been changed. Before Nadal's Wimbledon
> > title Whisper for years touted how great he will (multiple Wimbledons
> > etc) and how great his game is (even said that Nadal's display at
> > Wimbledon 2008 was best he had ever seen save Sampras' 99 - link
> > available via googlegroups). Then he probably realized that it is
> > Nadal who is threatening Sampras' legacy along with Fed...and then the
> > tone changed suddenly...and recently "clown era" tag (Fed's USO08 must
> > have been a shock) has slowly creeped back eventhough whispabobs
> > claimed it over thanks to Djoko's succee (and Fed's hiccup monthts)
> > 2008 - which is a real evidence that "clown era" tag is directly
> > linked to Fed's succee level as it similarly as suddenly emerged as
> > Fed started to collect slam titles).
>
> > The most laughable aspect is of course that Nadal really improved a
> > lot 2008...but this improvement (bh, strategy by a lot) of course is
> > now ignored and again hypotetical peak play of previous era champs
> > suddenly would cream Nadal...(again it was very different tune before
> > Nadal actually got his Wimb 2008).
>
> > .mikko
>
> So what you're saying basically is that Whisper denigrates all great
> champs who threaten Sampras. What a surprise!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Whisper isn't concerned in the slightest about Nadal because he'll
never get close to Pete on 7543.

The irony here is that 5 years ago 7543 was the be-all, end-all, so to
speak. Just insert the numbers and Whisper's
ingenious creation would spit out the proper result. I remember posts
where Whisper was so proud of how 7543 would show Becker just a little
bit better than Edberg, for example, as proof of his system's near-
infallibility.

His problem now is that under this very same *ingenious* system Fed is
likely to end up No. 1 and that *doesn't compute* for Whisper. He
can't throw his baby away, but he does have to scramble around say
that while achievement goat is the ultimate thing, *clown era* can
skew results and Fed's not *ability goat* because he wouldn't beat
peak Sampras and Agassi, etc., etc.

Not quite the pure *magic* he thought he had with 7543 when Sampras
was unchallenged.


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 06:51:01
From: Silence, Fedfucker!
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 19, 1:19 pm, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>
> > You're in a party of one who doesn't think Fed and Rafa are truly
> > great players.
>
> Whisper's "Nadal tune" has been changed. Before Nadal's Wimbledon
> title Whisper for years touted how great he will (multiple Wimbledons
> etc) and how great his game is (even said that Nadal's display at
> Wimbledon 2008 was best he had ever seen save Sampras' 99 - link
> available via googlegroups). Then he probably realized that it is
> Nadal who is threatening Sampras' legacy along with Fed...and then the
> tone changed suddenly...and recently "clown era" tag (Fed's USO08 must
> have been a shock) has slowly creeped back eventhough whispabobs
> claimed it over thanks to Djoko's succee (and Fed's hiccup monthts)
> 2008 - which is a real evidence that "clown era" tag is directly
> linked to Fed's succee level as it similarly as suddenly emerged as
> Fed started to collect slam titles).
>
> The most laughable aspect is of course that Nadal really improved a
> lot 2008...but this improvement (bh, strategy by a lot) of course is
> now ignored and again hypotetical peak play of previous era champs
> suddenly would cream Nadal...(again it was very different tune before
> Nadal actually got his Wimb 2008).
>
> .mikko

So what you're saying basically is that Whisper denigrates all great
champs who threaten Sampras. What a surprise!


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 05:43:23
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 19, 8:19=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>
> > You're in a party of one who doesn't think Fed and Rafa are truly
> > great players.
>
> Whisper's "Nadal tune" has been changed. Before Nadal's Wimbledon
> title Whisper for years touted how great he will (multiple Wimbledons
> etc) and how great his game is (even said that Nadal's display at
> Wimbledon 2008 was best he had ever seen save Sampras' 99 - link
> available via googlegroups). Then he probably realized that it is
> Nadal who is threatening Sampras' legacy along with Fed...and then the
> tone changed suddenly...and recently "clown era" tag (Fed's USO08 must
> have been a shock) has slowly creeped back eventhough whispabobs
> claimed it over thanks to Djoko's succee (and Fed's hiccup monthts)
> 2008 - which is a real evidence that "clown era" tag is directly
> linked to Fed's succee level as it similarly as suddenly emerged as
> Fed started to collect slam titles).
>
> The most laughable aspect is of course that Nadal really improved a
> lot 2008...but this improvement (bh, strategy by a lot) of course is
> now ignored and again hypotetical peak play of previous era champs
> suddenly would cream Nadal...(again it was very different tune before
> Nadal actually got his Wimb 2008).
>
> .mikko

I still think this is all about Fed/Sampras. If Fed's competition is
terrible then Sampras is ability goat and
Mac is talent goat even if Fed goes past 80 points on 7543.

If Nadal is a great player and Fed manages to beat Rafa or beat people
who beat Rafa at the big tournaments then Fed's a deserving goat.
Whisper can't have that.


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 05:19:49
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest


jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> You're in a party of one who doesn't think Fed and Rafa are truly
> great players.

Whisper's "Nadal tune" has been changed. Before Nadal's Wimbledon
title Whisper for years touted how great he will (multiple Wimbledons
etc) and how great his game is (even said that Nadal's display at
Wimbledon 2008 was best he had ever seen save Sampras' 99 - link
available via googlegroups). Then he probably realized that it is
Nadal who is threatening Sampras' legacy along with Fed...and then the
tone changed suddenly...and recently "clown era" tag (Fed's USO08 must
have been a shock) has slowly creeped back eventhough whispabobs
claimed it over thanks to Djoko's succee (and Fed's hiccup monthts)
2008 - which is a real evidence that "clown era" tag is directly
linked to Fed's succee level as it similarly as suddenly emerged as
Fed started to collect slam titles).

The most laughable aspect is of course that Nadal really improved a
lot 2008...but this improvement (bh, strategy by a lot) of course is
now ignored and again hypotetical peak play of previous era champs
suddenly would cream Nadal...(again it was very different tune before
Nadal actually got his Wimb 2008).

.mikko


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 02:21:41
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
MBDunc wrote:
>
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>> You're in a party of one who doesn't think Fed and Rafa are truly
>> great players.
>
> Whisper's "Nadal tune" has been changed. Before Nadal's Wimbledon
> title Whisper for years touted how great he will (multiple Wimbledons
> etc) and how great his game is (even said that Nadal's display at
> Wimbledon 2008 was best he had ever seen save Sampras' 99 - link
> available via googlegroups). Then he probably realized that it is
> Nadal who is threatening Sampras' legacy along with Fed...and then the
> tone changed suddenly...and recently "clown era" tag (Fed's USO08 must
> have been a shock) has slowly creeped back eventhough whispabobs
> claimed it over thanks to Djoko's succee (and Fed's hiccup monthts)
> 2008 - which is a real evidence that "clown era" tag is directly
> linked to Fed's succee level as it similarly as suddenly emerged as
> Fed started to collect slam titles).
>
> The most laughable aspect is of course that Nadal really improved a
> lot 2008...but this improvement (bh, strategy by a lot) of course is
> now ignored and again hypotetical peak play of previous era champs
> suddenly would cream Nadal...(again it was very different tune before
> Nadal actually got his Wimb 2008).
>
> .mikko


You don't understand context - eg I would always defend even Lendl if
he's compared v Vilas & that level player, but put him up against
Mac/Jimbo, let alone Sampras/Laver he's simply not in the conversation.

My assessment of Rafa/Roddick is based on current era level & not
overall absolute assessments.



  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 14:24:04
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
MBDunc wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>> You're in a party of one who doesn't think Fed and Rafa are truly
>> great players.
>
> Whisper's "Nadal tune" has been changed. Before Nadal's Wimbledon
> title Whisper for years touted how great he will (multiple Wimbledons
> etc) and how great his game is (even said that Nadal's display at
> Wimbledon 2008 was best he had ever seen save Sampras' 99 - link
> available via googlegroups). Then he probably realized that it is
> Nadal who is threatening Sampras' legacy along with Fed...and then the
> tone changed suddenly...and recently "clown era" tag (Fed's USO08 must
> have been a shock) has slowly creeped back eventhough whispabobs
> claimed it over thanks to Djoko's succee (and Fed's hiccup monthts)
> 2008 - which is a real evidence that "clown era" tag is directly
> linked to Fed's succee level as it similarly as suddenly emerged as
> Fed started to collect slam titles).
>
> The most laughable aspect is of course that Nadal really improved a
> lot 2008...but this improvement (bh, strategy by a lot) of course is
> now ignored and again hypotetical peak play of previous era champs
> suddenly would cream Nadal...(again it was very different tune before
> Nadal actually got his Wimb 2008).

What would be the point of comparing Nadal pre-Wimb 08 with past great
grass/HC players?
At the time he didn't even have 1 AO/W/USO title so obviously it would make
no sense to analyse.




   
Date: 20 Feb 2009 02:26:28
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
*skriptis wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>>> You're in a party of one who doesn't think Fed and Rafa are truly
>>> great players.
>> Whisper's "Nadal tune" has been changed. Before Nadal's Wimbledon
>> title Whisper for years touted how great he will (multiple Wimbledons
>> etc) and how great his game is (even said that Nadal's display at
>> Wimbledon 2008 was best he had ever seen save Sampras' 99 - link
>> available via googlegroups). Then he probably realized that it is
>> Nadal who is threatening Sampras' legacy along with Fed...and then the
>> tone changed suddenly...and recently "clown era" tag (Fed's USO08 must
>> have been a shock) has slowly creeped back eventhough whispabobs
>> claimed it over thanks to Djoko's succee (and Fed's hiccup monthts)
>> 2008 - which is a real evidence that "clown era" tag is directly
>> linked to Fed's succee level as it similarly as suddenly emerged as
>> Fed started to collect slam titles).
>>
>> The most laughable aspect is of course that Nadal really improved a
>> lot 2008...but this improvement (bh, strategy by a lot) of course is
>> now ignored and again hypotetical peak play of previous era champs
>> suddenly would cream Nadal...(again it was very different tune before
>> Nadal actually got his Wimb 2008).
>
> What would be the point of comparing Nadal pre-Wimb 08 with past great
> grass/HC players?
> At the time he didn't even have 1 AO/W/USO title so obviously it would make
> no sense to analyse.
>
>



Correct. What I've been analysing with Rafa is his potential in *this*
era & how he'd go v Federer. I've seen enough of current tennis to be
able to accurately predict his slam success & superiority over Federer.

You can't take my high endorsement of Rafa *in this context* & attempt
to transfer it to Sampras/Laver eras - that's typically idiotic tactic
in rst.

If you want me to compare Sampras/Laver v Rafa or Federer then I don't
think there would be any surprises - hint Sampras trashes Rafa easily at
Wim/USO/YEC but loses on clay.








 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 05:05:50
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 19, 12:58=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:52=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 18, 7:54 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> But, the real big issue here, imo, is what Joe Ramirez has pointed =
out
> > >>> - the missing champions generation. We can't overlook the fact that
> > >>> Fed is a bit past peak playing a younger all-time great at peak, wh=
ile
> > >>> Pete never faced such a situation in his career. He may have - as
> > >>> Whisper contends - risen up and smashed any emerging Rafa type in
> > >>> 1998-2000 but the fact is he never had to. Rafter maybe was the
> > >>> closest thing, even though he was pretty close to Pete's age and no=
t
> > >>> of the same stature as Rafa.
> > >> That was because "surface specialization". The gap with clay/fast
> > >> court was the biggest ever during 90:ies and you had totally differe=
nt
> > >> base player pool for fast surfaces (Sampras/Krajicek/Rafter/Ivo/etc
> > >> and for clay (Muster/Kuerten/Spanish Armada/etc). Only Agassi was
> > >> regular "multisurface" contender and even then very inconsistent one=
.
>
> > >> Since ranking system changed and general baseline HC game became mor=
e
> > >> important (due to the mandatory events in rankings vs best-14 pre 20=
00
> > >> and general slowing of non-clay surfaces) it has droven single surfa=
ce
> > >> specialists into journeyman pool. (it is very difficult to climb to
> > >> top5 with only clay or with only fast court succee).
>
> > >> That's the reason why now there are same names (Nadal, Fed, Djoko,
> > >> Murray) as favourites in each slam event compared to 90:ies when the=
re
> > >> were Bruguera/Muster/Kafelnikov/Medvedev/Kuerten as top FO favourite=
s
> > >> and totally other players favourites at Wimb/US...and for Wimb even
> > >> more extreme specialist list. The players have adapted. May be some
> > >> eye-candy (S&V) has been lost in the process but baseline play in
> > >> general has never been as efficient/ruthless/powerfull as it is now.
>
> > >> .mikko
>
> > > But even if we say the 90s was all about surface specialization, wher=
e
> > > was the big-time fast court player to rise
> > > up in the generation after Pete's? There obviously was no one. I thin=
k
> > > Guga could've been a 5-6 Slam winner if he hadn't gotten injured and
> > > not partied so much in Brazil when he should've been preparing for AO=
!
> > > But at the end of the day, I just don't think Guga - even if he were
> > > playing today - would be as adaptable as Rafa is. I don't think his
> > > defense was as good and so was more vulnerable to fast-court
> > > specialists. So, I stand by the point that Pete didn't face a younger
> > > all-time great of Rafa's stature - not until he played Fed at 2001
> > > Wimby, and that was just one match.
>
> > I think you're slightly overstimating today's players in absolute
> > ability. =A0I'd easily tip Sampras to beat Fed/Rafa on all non-clay
> > surfaces, & probaby go with Agassi as well.-
>
> That's a separate issue entirely. No one is disputing that Sampras/
> Agassi are all-time
> greats so it would take some doing for any player to beat those guys
> at their peaks.
>
> But that's an opinion and you're certainly entitled to yours. What is
> a fact, however, is that there was not one Wimby/USO won by any player
> from the Henman, Kafelnikov, Moya, Flipper, Rios generation. And it's
> not only because of Pete and Andre. Even when those guys got older and
> were less dependably great that *lost generation* still couldn't
> capitalize and win the fast court majors. And they couldn't do much
> against the next generation either. See Fed destroying Flipper at
> Wimby final or Hewitt annihilating Kafelnikov at 01 USO, Hewitt
> beating Henman at 02 Wimby, etc.

yes peak henman in this era probably wouldn't cope at all... top 50 at
best... too lightweight a game with no power.


  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 14:10:51
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:58 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 12:52 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 18, 7:54 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But, the real big issue here, imo, is what Joe Ramirez has
>>>>>> pointed out - the missing champions generation. We can't
>>>>>> overlook the fact that Fed is a bit past peak playing a younger
>>>>>> all-time great at peak, while Pete never faced such a situation
>>>>>> in his career. He may have - as Whisper contends - risen up and
>>>>>> smashed any emerging Rafa type in 1998-2000 but the fact is he
>>>>>> never had to. Rafter maybe was the closest thing, even though he
>>>>>> was pretty close to Pete's age and not of the same stature as
>>>>>> Rafa.
>>>>> That was because "surface specialization". The gap with clay/fast
>>>>> court was the biggest ever during 90:ies and you had totally
>>>>> different base player pool for fast surfaces
>>>>> (Sampras/Krajicek/Rafter/Ivo/etc and for clay
>>>>> (Muster/Kuerten/Spanish Armada/etc). Only Agassi was regular
>>>>> "multisurface" contender and even then very inconsistent one.
>>
>>>>> Since ranking system changed and general baseline HC game became
>>>>> more important (due to the mandatory events in rankings vs
>>>>> best-14 pre 2000 and general slowing of non-clay surfaces) it has
>>>>> droven single surface specialists into journeyman pool. (it is
>>>>> very difficult to climb to top5 with only clay or with only fast
>>>>> court succee).
>>
>>>>> That's the reason why now there are same names (Nadal, Fed, Djoko,
>>>>> Murray) as favourites in each slam event compared to 90:ies when
>>>>> there were Bruguera/Muster/Kafelnikov/Medvedev/Kuerten as top FO
>>>>> favourites and totally other players favourites at Wimb/US...and
>>>>> for Wimb even more extreme specialist list. The players have
>>>>> adapted. May be some eye-candy (S&V) has been lost in the process
>>>>> but baseline play in general has never been as
>>>>> efficient/ruthless/powerfull as it is now.
>>
>>>>> .mikko
>>
>>>> But even if we say the 90s was all about surface specialization,
>>>> where was the big-time fast court player to rise
>>>> up in the generation after Pete's? There obviously was no one. I
>>>> think Guga could've been a 5-6 Slam winner if he hadn't gotten
>>>> injured and not partied so much in Brazil when he should've been
>>>> preparing for AO! But at the end of the day, I just don't think
>>>> Guga - even if he were playing today - would be as adaptable as
>>>> Rafa is. I don't think his defense was as good and so was more
>>>> vulnerable to fast-court specialists. So, I stand by the point
>>>> that Pete didn't face a younger all-time great of Rafa's stature -
>>>> not until he played Fed at 2001 Wimby, and that was just one match.
>>
>>> I think you're slightly overstimating today's players in absolute
>>> ability. I'd easily tip Sampras to beat Fed/Rafa on all non-clay
>>> surfaces, & probaby go with Agassi as well.-
>>
>> That's a separate issue entirely. No one is disputing that Sampras/
>> Agassi are all-time
>> greats so it would take some doing for any player to beat those guys
>> at their peaks.
>>
>> But that's an opinion and you're certainly entitled to yours. What is
>> a fact, however, is that there was not one Wimby/USO won by any
>> player from the Henman, Kafelnikov, Moya, Flipper, Rios generation.
>> And it's not only because of Pete and Andre. Even when those guys
>> got older and were less dependably great that *lost generation*
>> still couldn't capitalize and win the fast court majors. And they
>> couldn't do much against the next generation either. See Fed
>> destroying Flipper at Wimby final or Hewitt annihilating Kafelnikov
>> at 01 USO, Hewitt beating Henman at 02 Wimby, etc.
>
> yes peak henman in this era probably wouldn't cope at all... top 50 at
> best... too lightweight a game with no power.


Yes, that's why he owned Federer until he became really old and that's why
he made FO sf in 2004.

2004 isn't Sampras' era is it?

Federer was #1 back then, what was his result at that FO?




 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 04:58:59
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 19, 12:52=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 7:54 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
> >>> But, the real big issue here, imo, is what Joe Ramirez has pointed ou=
t
> >>> - the missing champions generation. We can't overlook the fact that
> >>> Fed is a bit past peak playing a younger all-time great at peak, whil=
e
> >>> Pete never faced such a situation in his career. He may have - as
> >>> Whisper contends - risen up and smashed any emerging Rafa type in
> >>> 1998-2000 but the fact is he never had to. Rafter maybe was the
> >>> closest thing, even though he was pretty close to Pete's age and not
> >>> of the same stature as Rafa.
> >> That was because "surface specialization". The gap with clay/fast
> >> court was the biggest ever during 90:ies and you had totally different
> >> base player pool for fast surfaces (Sampras/Krajicek/Rafter/Ivo/etc
> >> and for clay (Muster/Kuerten/Spanish Armada/etc). Only Agassi was
> >> regular "multisurface" contender and even then very inconsistent one.
>
> >> Since ranking system changed and general baseline HC game became more
> >> important (due to the mandatory events in rankings vs best-14 pre 2000
> >> and general slowing of non-clay surfaces) it has droven single surface
> >> specialists into journeyman pool. (it is very difficult to climb to
> >> top5 with only clay or with only fast court succee).
>
> >> That's the reason why now there are same names (Nadal, Fed, Djoko,
> >> Murray) as favourites in each slam event compared to 90:ies when there
> >> were Bruguera/Muster/Kafelnikov/Medvedev/Kuerten as top FO favourites
> >> and totally other players favourites at Wimb/US...and for Wimb even
> >> more extreme specialist list. The players have adapted. May be some
> >> eye-candy (S&V) has been lost in the process but baseline play in
> >> general has never been as efficient/ruthless/powerfull as it is now.
>
> >> .mikko
>
> > But even if we say the 90s was all about surface specialization, where
> > was the big-time fast court player to rise
> > up in the generation after Pete's? There obviously was no one. I think
> > Guga could've been a 5-6 Slam winner if he hadn't gotten injured and
> > not partied so much in Brazil when he should've been preparing for AO!
> > But at the end of the day, I just don't think Guga - even if he were
> > playing today - would be as adaptable as Rafa is. I don't think his
> > defense was as good and so was more vulnerable to fast-court
> > specialists. So, I stand by the point that Pete didn't face a younger
> > all-time great of Rafa's stature - not until he played Fed at 2001
> > Wimby, and that was just one match.
>
> I think you're slightly overstimating today's players in absolute
> ability. =A0I'd easily tip Sampras to beat Fed/Rafa on all non-clay
> surfaces, & probaby go with Agassi as well.-

That's a separate issue entirely. No one is disputing that Sampras/
Agassi are all-time
greats so it would take some doing for any player to beat those guys
at their peaks.

But that's an opinion and you're certainly entitled to yours. What is
a fact, however, is that there was not one Wimby/USO won by any player
from the Henman, Kafelnikov, Moya, Flipper, Rios generation. And it's
not only because of Pete and Andre. Even when those guys got older and
were less dependably great that *lost generation* still couldn't
capitalize and win the fast court majors. And they couldn't do much
against the next generation either. See Fed destroying Flipper at
Wimby final or Hewitt annihilating Kafelnikov at 01 USO, Hewitt
beating Henman at 02 Wimby, etc.


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 04:57:33
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 19, 7:37=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> drew wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 7:54 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>
> >>> I think Fed's losses to Rafa are more significant than Pete's to
> >>> Krajicek or Hewitt because of the context, especially in the minds of
> >>> those (averagejoes? ;-)) who want to look beyond the numbers to
> >>> determine goat.
>
> > The significance has less to do with comparing great players. =A0The
> > significance is more for comparing eras. =A0Very different conditions
> > for these two players. =A0Rare to find two all-time greats having a
> > rivalry that spans as many major finals as Nadal and Federer. =A0Federe=
r
> > has one great player giving him much trouble on all surfaces. =A0Sampra=
s
> > had one bad surface where he wasn't truly competitive and a number of
> > lesser players who could pop up on a given day and knock him out of a
> > draw but nobody reliable waiting for him in a fast court major. =A0Very
> > different dynamics.
> >> They are more significant as they are "headline" losses at big finals
> >> instead of early round losses against journeymen.
>
> >>> But, the real big issue here, imo, is what Joe Ramirez has pointed ou=
t
> >>> - the missing champions generation. We can't overlook the fact that
> >>> Fed is a bit past peak playing a younger all-time great at peak, whil=
e
> >>> Pete never faced such a situation in his career. He may have - as
> >>> Whisper contends - risen up and smashed any emerging Rafa type in
> >>> 1998-2000 but the fact is he never had to. Rafter maybe was the
> >>> closest thing, even though he was pretty close to Pete's age and not
> >>> of the same stature as Rafa.
>
> > A player needs a window of opportunity to rack up big numbers.
> > Federer and Sampras shared such a window at Wimbledon and the USO. =A0M=
y
> > own opinion is that Federer's competition on all surfaces has been
> > tougher than Sampras'
> > but the biggest difference is the bad matchups. =A0Federer has had this
> > horrible matchup with Nadal whereas Sampras' didn't face consistent
> > matchup problems but rather had them bookended at the beginning and
> > end of his career and that is to be expected in the rise and fall.
> > He had a long period of grace where winning the USO or Wimbledon was
> > relatively straight forward for him. =A0Unlike Federer, he could =A0get
> > whacked by guys who were relative journeymen, even in majors where he
> > was favoured to win. =A0 This just hasn't happened to Federer. =A0He ha=
s
> > had this incredible run of appearances in majors where he's no worse
> > than a semi-finalist. =A0That to me is the big difference between
> > Sampras and Federer. =A0A clear superiority over the field (except
> > Nadal).
>
> > Neither player faced the daunting task of attempting to win majors in
> > the 80s. =A0Timing is everything.
>
> > Now this may go down in history as VERY significant if Nadal continues
> > his winning ways. =A0If his knees go bad and his career stalls soon the=
n
> > the picture will look different again to the casual viewer as Nadal
> > may not be remembered for the dominant player he is. =A0This is the
> > fallacy of looking to numbers to get your answers.
>
> > Of course Federer is fortunate in as much as he had a 5 year jump on
> > Nadal. =A0Without this his numbers might look very different right now.
> > Timing in being born at the right time can make all the difference.
>
> >> That was because "surface specialization". The gap with clay/fast
> >> court was the biggest ever during 90:ies and you had totally different
> >> base player pool for fast surfaces (Sampras/Krajicek/Rafter/Ivo/etc
> >> and for clay (Muster/Kuerten/Spanish Armada/etc). Only Agassi was
> >> regular "multisurface" contender and even then very inconsistent one.
>
> > When the decision was made to slow the fast courts down, the bar was
> > lowered for the slower court players and players like Ivanisevic or
> > Krajicek wouldn't even have a sniff today. =A0Sampras would have a toug=
h
> > time competing today. =A0The game rewards a different skill set today
> > than it did 10 years ago. =A0Even these massive servers like Tsonga and
> > Roddick can't bank upon serving their opponents into submission and I
> > think that's a good thing. =A0String technology plays into this in a bi=
g
> > way also. =A0If you can get a stick on the return just whack the hell
> > out of it with as much top as possible and you'll probably have a
> > successful return.
> >> Since ranking system changed and general baseline HC game became more
> >> important (due to the mandatory events in rankings vs best-14 pre 2000
> >> and general slowing of non-clay surfaces) it has droven single surface
> >> specialists into journeyman pool. (it is very difficult to climb to
> >> top5 with only clay or with only fast court succee).
>
> > Yes, and I think it may be a less diverse game for some but for me I
> > enjoy it more because most of the top guys aren't disadvantaged by
> > surface as they were. =A0When you watch a major you have the idea that
> > all of the top players are there to really compete, not just to show
> > up. =A0Gone are the days when you'd have Becker and Sampras out early
> > rounds at Roland Garros, and all of the Spanish and South American
> > players just getting putting practice in at Wimbledon for a round.
> > Even the USO was foreign soil for a lot of the slowball players in the
> > 90s. =A0Made for weaker fields and more predictable results.
>
> Very poor post. =A0Remember Mac v Jimbo at FO?
>
> Federer said Sampras would rank in top 5 if he rejoined the tour right
> now. =A0This flies in the face of your absurd analysis above. =A0You clea=
rly
> are one of the biggest ceibs fuckers in rst.

If he was top 5 right now he wouldn't be losing exibitions to mcenroe
martin pioline haas hewitt e.t.c would he? ...... I don't think anyone
of murray, fed, djok, nadal would lose to those guys anytime soon, do
you?


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 04:47:54
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 19, 1:08=A0am, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:03=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Nadal already has his place in tennis history in my book. He's the
> > first player to have a real claim
> > to being the best on hard, grass and clay at the same time in tennis
> > history.
>
> Nadal is awesome but he has no real claim to being the best on hard
> court unless he wins USO soon. =A0His results on hard court are strong
> but not great so far.

He's the only guy ever to hold a clay, grass and hard major at the
same time I believe. That for
me constitutes a *real claim* to being the best on every surface.

> =A0If his knees are shot, the
>
> > conclusion would be he pushed himself to the limit and achieved
> > incredible things for a short period of time.
> > But in the end it's better to have the more effortless power of a
> > Sampras or Fed and not rely so much on
> > defense because it's better for longevity, which is a hallmark of
> > greatness.
>
> Sampras played till he was 31. =A0I don't consider that longevity.
> Connors and Agassi played for a long time. =A0Anybody who quits before
> age 35 hasn't proven longevity in my books. =A0That doesn't mean you
> have to be racking up majors at 34. =A0It just means that you are in the
> hunt still at that age. =A0We'll see how Federer does. =A0If he quits at
> 30 or 31 then so much for the longevity idea.

Sampras obviously quit on his own terms and would've remained
competitive for a few more years (even if he never won another Slam),
not like say Courier or Chang who kept
steadily declining and had to basically admit to themselves that the
guy had passed them by.
For me a guy like Todd Martin showed longevity. Even if he never won a
Slam, he hung around and
was very competitive with the younger players, moreso than Courier and
Chang.

> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. =A0The problem is that
> he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. =A0If he was carrying 20 pounds
> less he'd take the load off of the knees and maybe that would help his
> knees. =A0Maybe not.

The greatness of Nadal and his biggest problem are down to the same
thing, just otherworldly defensive skills.
But there's simply no precedent in my view of a player staying at/near
the top with such a reliance on defense past the age of 25 or so. I
think Rafa's going to have to transform himself into more of an Agassi
style. Taking the ball earlier, hitting a bit flatter to preserve his
body and also make up for losing a half a step as he gets older.


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 02:16:52
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
>> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem is that
>> he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was carrying 20 pounds
>> less he'd take the load off of the knees and maybe that would help his
>> knees. Maybe not.
>
> The greatness of Nadal and his biggest problem are down to the same
> thing, just otherworldly defensive skills.

A great offensive player will always get the better of a great defensive
player - proven time & again, & makes perfect sense.


   
Date: 20 Feb 2009 01:55:50
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:16:52 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
>>> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem is that
>>> he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was carrying 20 pounds
>>> less he'd take the load off of the knees and maybe that would help his
>>> knees. Maybe not.
>>
>> The greatness of Nadal and his biggest problem are down to the same
>> thing, just otherworldly defensive skills.
>
>A great offensive player will always get the better of a great defensive
>player - proven time & again, & makes perfect sense.


no so in rafa's case.


    
Date: 20 Feb 2009 21:00:12
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Superdave wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:16:52 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem is that
>>>> he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was carrying 20 pounds
>>>> less he'd take the load off of the knees and maybe that would help his
>>>> knees. Maybe not.
>>> The greatness of Nadal and his biggest problem are down to the same
>>> thing, just otherworldly defensive skills.
>> A great offensive player will always get the better of a great defensive
>> player - proven time & again, & makes perfect sense.
>
>
> no so in rafa's case.


Where are the great attacking players? We saw what a couple
Sampras-lite players did to him last 2 AO's before this one.



  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 14:05:52
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 19, 1:08 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 11:03 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Nadal already has his place in tennis history in my book. He's the
>>> first player to have a real claim
>>> to being the best on hard, grass and clay at the same time in tennis
>>> history.
>>
>> Nadal is awesome but he has no real claim to being the best on hard
>> court unless he wins USO soon. His results on hard court are strong
>> but not great so far.
>
> He's the only guy ever to hold a clay, grass and hard major at the
> same time I believe. That for
> me constitutes a *real claim* to being the best on every surface.


I don't think there will be any doubt about that. Only Wilander can claim
similar since he won multiple slams on all surfaces but Rafa has Wimbledon
and is a reigning champ on all three surfaces. Wilander never made it.

If he wins another Wim and HC slam then there is really no doubt that he's
the best multisurface player ever.


However, it should be noted that there are some factor which enabled him to
achieve that feature.
Most importantly no great s/v volley player who'd deny him HC/grass success.




> The greatness of Nadal and his biggest problem are down to the same
> thing, just otherworldly defensive skills.
> But there's simply no precedent in my view of a player staying at/near
> the top with such a reliance on defense past the age of 25 or so. I
> think Rafa's going to have to transform himself into more of an Agassi
> style. Taking the ball earlier, hitting a bit flatter to preserve his
> body and also make up for losing a half a step as he gets older.

I'd rather see him developing more into s/v.
He has fine touch, great reflexes, he's smart and very "quick".
If he loses step and can't run those balls he'd be still quick enough to
cover the net.




 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 04:37:21
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 19, 12:51=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 7:54 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
> >>> But, the real big issue here, imo, is what Joe Ramirez has pointed ou=
t
> >>> - the missing champions generation. We can't overlook the fact that
> >>> Fed is a bit past peak playing a younger all-time great at peak, whil=
e
> >>> Pete never faced such a situation in his career. He may have - as
> >>> Whisper contends - risen up and smashed any emerging Rafa type in
> >>> 1998-2000 but the fact is he never had to. Rafter maybe was the
> >>> closest thing, even though he was pretty close to Pete's age and not
> >>> of the same stature as Rafa.
> >> That was because "surface specialization". The gap with clay/fast
> >> court was the biggest ever during 90:ies and you had totally different
> >> base player pool for fast surfaces (Sampras/Krajicek/Rafter/Ivo/etc
> >> and for clay (Muster/Kuerten/Spanish Armada/etc). Only Agassi was
> >> regular "multisurface" contender and even then very inconsistent one.
>
> >> Since ranking system changed and general baseline HC game became more
> >> important (due to the mandatory events in rankings vs best-14 pre 2000
> >> and general slowing of non-clay surfaces) it has droven single surface
> >> specialists into journeyman pool. (it is very difficult to climb to
> >> top5 with only clay or with only fast court succee).
>
> >> That's the reason why now there are same names (Nadal, Fed, Djoko,
> >> Murray) as favourites in each slam event compared to 90:ies when there
> >> were Bruguera/Muster/Kafelnikov/Medvedev/Kuerten as top FO favourites
> >> and totally other players favourites at Wimb/US...and for Wimb even
> >> more extreme specialist list. The players have adapted. May be some
> >> eye-candy (S&V) has been lost in the process but baseline play in
> >> general has never been as efficient/ruthless/powerfull as it is now.
>
> >> .mikko
>
> > But even if we say the 90s was all about surface specialization, where
> > was the big-time fast court player to rise
> > up in the generation after Pete's? There obviously was no one.
>
> There hasn't been one at all since Sampras - so it's not really a gap as
> 'end of an era' of truly great players.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're in a party of one who doesn't think Fed and Rafa are truly
great players.


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 02:12:54
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 18, 6:41=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Petter Solbu wrote:
> > robin wrote:
> >> The fallacy of your reasoning, in this argument that you keep trotting
> >> out, has been pointed out to you time and time again. When analysing a
> >> situation such as this you must look at the overall patterns, not
> >> cherry picked details to suit your argument. Agassi won his first 3
> >> matches against Federer prior to Federer's peak. Peak Federer then
> >> beat Agassi 8 times in a row. Clearly, Agassi had the beating of pre-
> >> peak Federer. Clearly, peak Federer owned Agassi, but Agassi was old.
> >> What can we say, if we analyse the situation honestly, using the
> >> available data, about how peak Federer would have coped against peak
> >> Agassi? Absolutely nothing.
>
> > Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than Sampras=
?
> > He should know better than anyone in here.
>
> > PS.
>
> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. =A0If Fed is goat
> & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
> given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36
> 62 42 & game point for 5-2. =A0In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier
> than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. =A0The evidenc=
e
> suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. =A0When you look
> at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while
> Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty obvious=
.

Now your sounding like Rupdeski


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 01:24:37
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest


Whisper kirjoitti:
>
> Very poor post. Remember Mac v Jimbo at FO?

Yeah. Tier2 players who excelled at Wimb/USO but together collected
total of one FO final....even Pernfors did it...

.mikko


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 22:25:57
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest


Whisper kirjoitti:
> Incorrect again. This was not the 'same' Hewitt as it was 3 years after
> he beat old Sampras, & in fact it was more than 2 years after Hewitt won
> his last slam ie well past his peak.

If not Fed Hewitt would have been #1 2004 with atleast one slam
(USO). To boot he lost 2 other times to Fed at slams and even got his
best FO result that year (QF). Actually without Fed Hewitt's 2004
would have been his best year ever record wise (titles/general gs
succee).

Hewitt was playing great 2004 (and he was still only 23 years...) as
his record show. He even got USO final without losing a set.

When actually 23y is nothing but prime year? Doublestandards.

Also Fed's win over Safin was 4
> years after he beat old Sampras in USO final, & also 4 years after Safin
> had ranked No.1 - ie very well past his peak. This analysis is way
> beyond sloppy & is fraudulent.

Any tennis expert knows that Safin had a lot of injury problems
2001-2003 (wrist,knee,back). Whenever he got his act composed he
continued with a great play (like Autumn 2004-Winter 2005).

> You forgot to mention Sampras beat Hewitt & Safin in USO semis in 2000 &
> 2001 for some reason? - more sloppiness.

Hewitt was 19y at Sampras USO match. Quite logical to lose to reigning
Wimbledon champ who was ahead of Hewitt in rankings (and had home
venue support as well). Yet still the match was relatively close (you
often refer similar scorelines in Fed's cases as "almost lost").
Doublestandards.

(Sampras btw played great at Safin 2001 match).

> Federer is superior to Hewitt/Safin but so is every great player. It's
> very clear peak Sampras would humble Roger after we see what Rafa is
> doing to him on all 3 surfaces.

Subjective opinion and far from clear. Rafa's upper hand over Roger
does not tell anything about hypotetical Fed-Sampras clash. Every
tennis expert knows that as tennis is also matchup issue.
Doublestandards or just general lack of tennis knowledge by you.
Nothing surprising.

.mikko





 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 22:12:57
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest


Whisper kirjoitti:
> The biggest factor here is ceibs. Anytime the current top player is
> referred to as goat can be completely ignored. Remember a yr ago many
> were giving Djokovic automatic 10 slams - today it looks foolish.

But giving Roddick automatic 8-12 slams (including FO)? Foolish?

Noone serious poster suggested 10 slams for Djoko. Anyway I think
Djoko is getting undeserved bashing. After all he had great 2008 and
so far has had only one hiccup (AO 2009). Djoko continues as top4
favourite in HC slams anyway. Probably he wins some of them too.

.mikko


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 22:08:09
From: drew
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 18, 11:03=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:

> Nadal already has his place in tennis history in my book. He's the
> first player to have a real claim
> to being the best on hard, grass and clay at the same time in tennis
> history.

Nadal is awesome but he has no real claim to being the best on hard
court unless he wins USO soon. His results on hard court are strong
but not great so far.

If his knees are shot, the
> conclusion would be he pushed himself to the limit and achieved
> incredible things for a short period of time.
> But in the end it's better to have the more effortless power of a
> Sampras or Fed and not rely so much on
> defense because it's better for longevity, which is a hallmark of
> greatness.

Sampras played till he was 31. I don't consider that longevity.
Connors and Agassi played for a long time. Anybody who quits before
age 35 hasn't proven longevity in my books. That doesn't mean you
have to be racking up majors at 34. It just means that you are in the
hunt still at that age. We'll see how Federer does. If he quits at
30 or 31 then so much for the longevity idea.

There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem is that
he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was carrying 20 pounds
less he'd take the load off of the knees and maybe that would help his
knees. Maybe not.



  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 07:25:05
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
drew wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:03 am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Nadal already has his place in tennis history in my book. He's the
>> first player to have a real claim
>> to being the best on hard, grass and clay at the same time in tennis
>> history.
>
> Nadal is awesome but he has no real claim to being the best on hard
> court unless he wins USO soon. His results on hard court are strong
> but not great so far.
>
> If his knees are shot, the
>> conclusion would be he pushed himself to the limit and achieved
>> incredible things for a short period of time.
>> But in the end it's better to have the more effortless power of a
>> Sampras or Fed and not rely so much on
>> defense because it's better for longevity, which is a hallmark of
>> greatness.
>
> Sampras played till he was 31. I don't consider that longevity.
> Connors and Agassi played for a long time. Anybody who quits before
> age 35 hasn't proven longevity in my books. That doesn't mean you
> have to be racking up majors at 34. It just means that you are in the
> hunt still at that age. We'll see how Federer does. If he quits at
> 30 or 31 then so much for the longevity idea.
>
> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. The problem is that
> he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. If he was carrying 20 pounds
> less he'd take the load off of the knees and maybe that would help his
> knees. Maybe not.


Federer has the same weight/height as Nadal.
Go figure.





 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 13:12:02
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 18, 2:20=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Petter Solbu wrote:
> > Whisper wrote:
> >>> Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than
> >>> Sampras? He should know better than anyone in here.
>
> >> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. =A0If Fed is
> >> goat & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his
> >> peak given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final
> >> led 36 62 42 & game point for 5-2. =A0In reality Sampras beat Agassi f=
ar
> >> easier than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. =A0T=
he
> >> evidence suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. =A0
> >> When you look at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3
> >> surfaces, while Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court
> >> it's pretty obvious.
>
> > These discussions are pointless, but if we are to listen to anyone abou=
t
> > these kind of questions we should listen to the players that have
> > actually met both Sampras and Federer. As MBDunc pointed out in a
> > different post you could always find results to prove your case, but it
> > doesn't sound that convincing at all. So far I have only heard Agassi
> > speaking about this, and I am pretty sure he told that Federer was a
> > better and more complete player than Pete.
>
> > PS.
>
> You have to allow for ceibs - remember how many were predicting > 10
> slams for Djokovic, Rafa is goat etc? =A0I agree we should listen to what
> players say, but never while the great is still playing as that guy is
> always goat even if he has won 3 slams. =A0Let's hear what players say 5
> yrs after Fed's retirement - my guess is you'll be very sad.- Hide quoted=
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's a fair point. A lot of people get carried away easily. Johnny
Mac said before last year's Wimby that
"Djokovic is one of the most talented players I've seen in a long
while, and it's no good comparing (Murray) with a guy who could be the
No1 in the world this year."

Would anyone say that now?


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 10:53:14
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 18, 1:42=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 18, 1:28=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 11:03=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 10:41=A0am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 18, 7:54 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>
> > > > > > I think Fed's losses to Rafa are more significant than Pete's t=
o
> > > > > > Krajicek or Hewitt because of the context, especially in the mi=
nds of
> > > > > > those (averagejoes? ;-)) who want to look beyond the numbers to
> > > > > > determine goat.
>
> > > > The significance has less to do with comparing great players. =A0Th=
e
> > > > significance is more for comparing eras. =A0Very different conditio=
ns
> > > > for these two players. =A0Rare to find two all-time greats having a
> > > > rivalry that spans as many major finals as Nadal and Federer. =A0Fe=
derer
> > > > has one great player giving him much trouble on all surfaces. =A0Sa=
mpras
> > > > had one bad surface where he wasn't truly competitive and a number =
of
> > > > lesser players who could pop up on a given day and knock him out of=
a
> > > > draw but nobody reliable waiting for him in a fast court major. =A0=
Very
> > > > different dynamics.
>
> > > Sampras still had Agassi though. They met at USO 90 final, Wimby 93
> > > quarters?, 95 USO final,
> > > 95 Aussie Final and then kept meeting at USO in later years. Really
> > > not THAT different from the dynamic
> > > where Fed would often avoid Nadal until last year by Rafa being the
> > > No. 2 seed but not able to make hard court
> > > Slam finals.
>
> > > > > They are more significant as they are "headline" losses at big fi=
nals
> > > > > instead of early round losses against journeymen.
>
> > > Pete had very few early round losses against journeymen at Slams. He
> > > obviously was a bit
> > > of a fish out of water on clay, but everywhere else his record is
> > > incredibly consistent except when
> > > comparing him to Federer during peak.
>
> > > > > > But, the real big issue here, imo, is what Joe Ramirez has poin=
ted out
> > > > > > - the missing champions generation. We can't overlook the fact =
that
> > > > > > Fed is a bit past peak playing a younger all-time great at peak=
, while
> > > > > > Pete never faced such a situation in his career. He may have - =
as
> > > > > > Whisper contends - risen up and smashed any emerging Rafa type =
in
> > > > > > 1998-2000 but the fact is he never had to. Rafter maybe was the
> > > > > > closest thing, even though he was pretty close to Pete's age an=
d not
> > > > > > of the same stature as Rafa.
>
> > > > A player needs a window of opportunity to rack up big numbers.
> > > > Federer and Sampras shared such a window at Wimbledon and the USO. =
=A0My
> > > > own opinion is that Federer's competition on all surfaces has been
> > > > tougher than Sampras'
> > > > but the biggest difference is the bad matchups. =A0Federer has had =
this
> > > > horrible matchup with Nadal whereas Sampras' didn't face consistent
> > > > matchup problems but rather had them bookended at the beginning and
> > > > end of his career and that is to be expected in the rise and fall.
> > > > He had a long period of grace where winning the USO or Wimbledon wa=
s
> > > > relatively straight forward for him. =A0Unlike Federer, he could =
=A0get
> > > > whacked by guys who were relative journeymen, even in majors where =
he
> > > > was favoured to win. =A0 This just hasn't happened to Federer. =A0H=
e has
> > > > had this incredible run of appearances in majors where he's no wors=
e
> > > > than a semi-finalist. =A0That to me is the big difference between
> > > > Sampras and Federer. =A0A clear superiority over the field (except
> > > > Nadal).
>
> > > Again, there were very few of these losses. Pete won 7 out of 10 Wimb=
y/
> > > USOs at his peak. That's
> > > incredible. The two question marks in Pete's record are the big drop-
> > > off in results on clay and the lack of a emerging
> > > star in the next generation on fast courts to challenge him.
>
> > I think the biggest impact of the "lost generation(s)" following
> > Sampras/Agassi (no top champ launched between 1990 and 2003 --
> > basically *two* generations of missing champions) was on Sampras'
> > weeks and years at no. 1, not his total slam count. GOAT candidates
> > maximize their slam tallies by being the top slam slam winner in their
> > own generation and then remaining a slam contender -- though not a
> > dominant champion -- against the following generation or two. Sampras
> > did that; Federer appears to be following in his footsteps. With
> > respect to the no. 1 ranking, however, a GOAT candidate is typically
> > displaced permanently (more or less) by another long-lived no. 1 from
> > the next generation. That appears to be what has happened to Federer
> > (see also Borg-McEnroe transition). But no such dominant figure
> > emerged from either of the two generations after Sampras, meaning that
> > Pete could rack up additional weeks and years at no. 1 without
> > worrying about anything beyond a series of short-lived, transitional
> > no. 1s.
>
> > Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Fair point. Of course, Fed was more dominant than Sampras when at peak
> (perhaps benefiting from no Agassi-level great his age?) and he may
> very well win fewer post-peak Slams than Sampras did. I'd say Pete won
> 4 while Fed has now won 1. Obviously it's up for debate when we
> consider these players' respective *peaks* to have ended.

Yes. "Peak" is a problematic term that can be misleading if defined
either too narrowly or too broadly. Realistically, I'd say a player's
peak normally should be considered to be no more than 4 or 5 years.
However, many (possibly most) great champions have been capable of
reaching very close to their best form at least occasionally even
years after their peak, so defining someone's peak with absolute
precision usually isn't necessary for accurate comparative analysis.
>
> By the way, I wouldn't say there was a two generation gap because if
> generations are typically five-year periods then Pete and Andre were
> in the generation born around 1970, Kafelnikov, Rios, Henman, Guga
> were born around 1975 and Fed was born around 1980.- Hide quoted text -

True, but I measure generations (for this purpose) by the dates of
launch rather than the dates of birth. Of course, there is a
relationship between the two (see my Gasquet thread about ages), but
it's not ironclad.

Joe Ramirez



 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 10:42:58
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 18, 1:28=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:03=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 10:41=A0am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 7:54 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
> > > > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>
> > > > > I think Fed's losses to Rafa are more significant than Pete's to
> > > > > Krajicek or Hewitt because of the context, especially in the mind=
s of
> > > > > those (averagejoes? ;-)) who want to look beyond the numbers to
> > > > > determine goat.
>
> > > The significance has less to do with comparing great players. =A0The
> > > significance is more for comparing eras. =A0Very different conditions
> > > for these two players. =A0Rare to find two all-time greats having a
> > > rivalry that spans as many major finals as Nadal and Federer. =A0Fede=
rer
> > > has one great player giving him much trouble on all surfaces. =A0Samp=
ras
> > > had one bad surface where he wasn't truly competitive and a number of
> > > lesser players who could pop up on a given day and knock him out of a
> > > draw but nobody reliable waiting for him in a fast court major. =A0Ve=
ry
> > > different dynamics.
>
> > Sampras still had Agassi though. They met at USO 90 final, Wimby 93
> > quarters?, 95 USO final,
> > 95 Aussie Final and then kept meeting at USO in later years. Really
> > not THAT different from the dynamic
> > where Fed would often avoid Nadal until last year by Rafa being the
> > No. 2 seed but not able to make hard court
> > Slam finals.
>
> > > > They are more significant as they are "headline" losses at big fina=
ls
> > > > instead of early round losses against journeymen.
>
> > Pete had very few early round losses against journeymen at Slams. He
> > obviously was a bit
> > of a fish out of water on clay, but everywhere else his record is
> > incredibly consistent except when
> > comparing him to Federer during peak.
>
> > > > > But, the real big issue here, imo, is what Joe Ramirez has pointe=
d out
> > > > > - the missing champions generation. We can't overlook the fact th=
at
> > > > > Fed is a bit past peak playing a younger all-time great at peak, =
while
> > > > > Pete never faced such a situation in his career. He may have - as
> > > > > Whisper contends - risen up and smashed any emerging Rafa type in
> > > > > 1998-2000 but the fact is he never had to. Rafter maybe was the
> > > > > closest thing, even though he was pretty close to Pete's age and =
not
> > > > > of the same stature as Rafa.
>
> > > A player needs a window of opportunity to rack up big numbers.
> > > Federer and Sampras shared such a window at Wimbledon and the USO. =
=A0My
> > > own opinion is that Federer's competition on all surfaces has been
> > > tougher than Sampras'
> > > but the biggest difference is the bad matchups. =A0Federer has had th=
is
> > > horrible matchup with Nadal whereas Sampras' didn't face consistent
> > > matchup problems but rather had them bookended at the beginning and
> > > end of his career and that is to be expected in the rise and fall.
> > > He had a long period of grace where winning the USO or Wimbledon was
> > > relatively straight forward for him. =A0Unlike Federer, he could =A0g=
et
> > > whacked by guys who were relative journeymen, even in majors where he
> > > was favoured to win. =A0 This just hasn't happened to Federer. =A0He =
has
> > > had this incredible run of appearances in majors where he's no worse
> > > than a semi-finalist. =A0That to me is the big difference between
> > > Sampras and Federer. =A0A clear superiority over the field (except
> > > Nadal).
>
> > Again, there were very few of these losses. Pete won 7 out of 10 Wimby/
> > USOs at his peak. That's
> > incredible. The two question marks in Pete's record are the big drop-
> > off in results on clay and the lack of a emerging
> > star in the next generation on fast courts to challenge him.
>
> I think the biggest impact of the "lost generation(s)" following
> Sampras/Agassi (no top champ launched between 1990 and 2003 --
> basically *two* generations of missing champions) was on Sampras'
> weeks and years at no. 1, not his total slam count. GOAT candidates
> maximize their slam tallies by being the top slam slam winner in their
> own generation and then remaining a slam contender -- though not a
> dominant champion -- against the following generation or two. Sampras
> did that; Federer appears to be following in his footsteps. With
> respect to the no. 1 ranking, however, a GOAT candidate is typically
> displaced permanently (more or less) by another long-lived no. 1 from
> the next generation. That appears to be what has happened to Federer
> (see also Borg-McEnroe transition). But no such dominant figure
> emerged from either of the two generations after Sampras, meaning that
> Pete could rack up additional weeks and years at no. 1 without
> worrying about anything beyond a series of short-lived, transitional
> no. 1s.
>
> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Fair point. Of course, Fed was more dominant than Sampras when at peak
(perhaps benefiting from no Agassi-level great his age?) and he may
very well win fewer post-peak Slams than Sampras did. I'd say Pete won
4 while Fed has now won 1. Obviously it's up for debate when we
consider these players' respective *peaks* to have ended.

By the way, I wouldn't say there was a two generation gap because if
generations are typically five-year periods then Pete and Andre were
in the generation born around 1970, Kafelnikov, Rios, Henman, Guga
were born around 1975 and Fed was born around 1980.


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 10:31:23
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 18, 5:30=A0am, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 18 Feb, 06:41, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Petter Solbu wrote:
> > > robin wrote:
> > >> The fallacy of your reasoning, in this argument that you keep trotti=
ng
> > >> out, has been pointed out to you time and time again. When analysing=
a
> > >> situation such as this you must look at the overall patterns, not
> > >> cherry picked details to suit your argument. Agassi won his first 3
> > >> matches against Federer prior to Federer's peak. Peak Federer then
> > >> beat Agassi 8 times in a row. Clearly, Agassi had the beating of pre=
-
> > >> peak Federer. Clearly, peak Federer owned Agassi, but Agassi was old=
.
> > >> What can we say, if we analyse the situation honestly, using the
> > >> available data, about how peak Federer would have coped against peak
> > >> Agassi? Absolutely nothing.
>
> > > Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than Sampr=
as?
> > > He should know better than anyone in here.
>
> > > PS.
>
> > That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. =A0If Fed is go=
at
>
> If you are going to accuse a public figure of self-serving and frankly
> petty lying, you had better have some pretty strong evidence in
> support. Let us see....
>
> > & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
> > given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36
> > 62 42 & game point for 5-2. =A0In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easie=
r
>
> Oh dear. Ignoring the overall win/loss records, and instead cherry
> picking scores of individual matches taken to the resolution of
> individual points.

Yes, this idiocy has to be regarded as cherry *pit* picking: reducing
the evaluation of an entire career to a single point -- and then
viewing the point counterfactually to boot! Stunning.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 10:28:07
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 18, 11:03=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 18, 10:41=A0am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 7:54 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
> > > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>
> > > > I think Fed's losses to Rafa are more significant than Pete's to
> > > > Krajicek or Hewitt because of the context, especially in the minds =
of
> > > > those (averagejoes? ;-)) who want to look beyond the numbers to
> > > > determine goat.
>
> > The significance has less to do with comparing great players. =A0The
> > significance is more for comparing eras. =A0Very different conditions
> > for these two players. =A0Rare to find two all-time greats having a
> > rivalry that spans as many major finals as Nadal and Federer. =A0Federe=
r
> > has one great player giving him much trouble on all surfaces. =A0Sampra=
s
> > had one bad surface where he wasn't truly competitive and a number of
> > lesser players who could pop up on a given day and knock him out of a
> > draw but nobody reliable waiting for him in a fast court major. =A0Very
> > different dynamics.
>
> Sampras still had Agassi though. They met at USO 90 final, Wimby 93
> quarters?, 95 USO final,
> 95 Aussie Final and then kept meeting at USO in later years. Really
> not THAT different from the dynamic
> where Fed would often avoid Nadal until last year by Rafa being the
> No. 2 seed but not able to make hard court
> Slam finals.
>
>
>
> > > They are more significant as they are "headline" losses at big finals
> > > instead of early round losses against journeymen.
>
> Pete had very few early round losses against journeymen at Slams. He
> obviously was a bit
> of a fish out of water on clay, but everywhere else his record is
> incredibly consistent except when
> comparing him to Federer during peak.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > But, the real big issue here, imo, is what Joe Ramirez has pointed =
out
> > > > - the missing champions generation. We can't overlook the fact that
> > > > Fed is a bit past peak playing a younger all-time great at peak, wh=
ile
> > > > Pete never faced such a situation in his career. He may have - as
> > > > Whisper contends - risen up and smashed any emerging Rafa type in
> > > > 1998-2000 but the fact is he never had to. Rafter maybe was the
> > > > closest thing, even though he was pretty close to Pete's age and no=
t
> > > > of the same stature as Rafa.
>
> > A player needs a window of opportunity to rack up big numbers.
> > Federer and Sampras shared such a window at Wimbledon and the USO. =A0M=
y
> > own opinion is that Federer's competition on all surfaces has been
> > tougher than Sampras'
> > but the biggest difference is the bad matchups. =A0Federer has had this
> > horrible matchup with Nadal whereas Sampras' didn't face consistent
> > matchup problems but rather had them bookended at the beginning and
> > end of his career and that is to be expected in the rise and fall.
> > He had a long period of grace where winning the USO or Wimbledon was
> > relatively straight forward for him. =A0Unlike Federer, he could =A0get
> > whacked by guys who were relative journeymen, even in majors where he
> > was favoured to win. =A0 This just hasn't happened to Federer. =A0He ha=
s
> > had this incredible run of appearances in majors where he's no worse
> > than a semi-finalist. =A0That to me is the big difference between
> > Sampras and Federer. =A0A clear superiority over the field (except
> > Nadal).
>
> Again, there were very few of these losses. Pete won 7 out of 10 Wimby/
> USOs at his peak. That's
> incredible. The two question marks in Pete's record are the big drop-
> off in results on clay and the lack of a emerging
> star in the next generation on fast courts to challenge him.

I think the biggest impact of the "lost generation(s)" following
Sampras/Agassi (no top champ launched between 1990 and 2003 --
basically *two* generations of missing champions) was on Sampras'
weeks and years at no. 1, not his total slam count. GOAT candidates
maximize their slam tallies by being the top slam slam winner in their
own generation and then remaining a slam contender -- though not a
dominant champion -- against the following generation or two. Sampras
did that; Federer appears to be following in his footsteps. With
respect to the no. 1 ranking, however, a GOAT candidate is typically
displaced permanently (more or less) by another long-lived no. 1 from
the next generation. That appears to be what has happened to Federer
(see also Borg-McEnroe transition). But no such dominant figure
emerged from either of the two generations after Sampras, meaning that
Pete could rack up additional weeks and years at no. 1 without
worrying about anything beyond a series of short-lived, transitional
no. 1s.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 00:08:44
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> tougher than Sampras'
>>> but the biggest difference is the bad matchups. Federer has had this
>>> horrible matchup with Nadal whereas Sampras' didn't face consistent
>>> matchup problems but rather had them bookended at the beginning and
>>> end of his career and that is to be expected in the rise and fall.
>>> He had a long period of grace where winning the USO or Wimbledon was
>>> relatively straight forward for him. Unlike Federer, he could get
>>> whacked by guys who were relative journeymen, even in majors where he
>>> was favoured to win. This just hasn't happened to Federer. He has
>>> had this incredible run of appearances in majors where he's no worse
>>> than a semi-finalist. That to me is the big difference between
>>> Sampras and Federer. A clear superiority over the field (except
>>> Nadal).
>> Again, there were very few of these losses. Pete won 7 out of 10 Wimby/
>> USOs at his peak. That's
>> incredible. The two question marks in Pete's record are the big drop-
>> off in results on clay and the lack of a emerging
>> star in the next generation on fast courts to challenge him.
>
> I think the biggest impact of the "lost generation(s)" following
> Sampras/Agassi (no top champ launched between 1990 and 2003 --
> basically *two* generations of missing champions) was on Sampras'
> weeks and years at no. 1, not his total slam count. GOAT candidates
> maximize their slam tallies by being the top slam slam winner in their
> own generation and then remaining a slam contender -- though not a
> dominant champion -- against the following generation or two. Sampras
> did that; Federer appears to be following in his footsteps. With
> respect to the no. 1 ranking, however, a GOAT candidate is typically
> displaced permanently (more or less) by another long-lived no. 1 from
> the next generation. That appears to be what has happened to Federer
> (see also Borg-McEnroe transition). But no such dominant figure
> emerged from either of the two generations after Sampras, meaning that
> Pete could rack up additional weeks and years at no. 1 without
> worrying about anything beyond a series of short-lived, transitional
> no. 1s.
>
> Joe Ramirez



That kind of assessment doesn't factor in Sampras' efforts had he faced
'stiffer' opposition. It's pretty obvious Sampras always did just
enough to get the job done. You still only get 1 Wimbledon cup whether
you beat your opponent 60 60 60 or 76 64 75. Being no.1 with 5,000 pts
is equal to 10,000 pts - both get credit for only 1 yr-end No.1.







 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 08:03:18
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 18, 10:41=A0am, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Feb 18, 7:54 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
> > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>
> > > I think Fed's losses to Rafa are more significant than Pete's to
> > > Krajicek or Hewitt because of the context, especially in the minds of
> > > those (averagejoes? ;-)) who want to look beyond the numbers to
> > > determine goat.
>
> The significance has less to do with comparing great players. =A0The
> significance is more for comparing eras. =A0Very different conditions
> for these two players. =A0Rare to find two all-time greats having a
> rivalry that spans as many major finals as Nadal and Federer. =A0Federer
> has one great player giving him much trouble on all surfaces. =A0Sampras
> had one bad surface where he wasn't truly competitive and a number of
> lesser players who could pop up on a given day and knock him out of a
> draw but nobody reliable waiting for him in a fast court major. =A0Very
> different dynamics.

Sampras still had Agassi though. They met at USO 90 final, Wimby 93
quarters?, 95 USO final,
95 Aussie Final and then kept meeting at USO in later years. Really
not THAT different from the dynamic
where Fed would often avoid Nadal until last year by Rafa being the
No. 2 seed but not able to make hard court
Slam finals.

>
> > They are more significant as they are "headline" losses at big finals
> > instead of early round losses against journeymen.

Pete had very few early round losses against journeymen at Slams. He
obviously was a bit
of a fish out of water on clay, but everywhere else his record is
incredibly consistent except when
comparing him to Federer during peak.

> > > But, the real big issue here, imo, is what Joe Ramirez has pointed ou=
t
> > > - the missing champions generation. We can't overlook the fact that
> > > Fed is a bit past peak playing a younger all-time great at peak, whil=
e
> > > Pete never faced such a situation in his career. He may have - as
> > > Whisper contends - risen up and smashed any emerging Rafa type in
> > > 1998-2000 but the fact is he never had to. Rafter maybe was the
> > > closest thing, even though he was pretty close to Pete's age and not
> > > of the same stature as Rafa.
>
> A player needs a window of opportunity to rack up big numbers.
> Federer and Sampras shared such a window at Wimbledon and the USO. =A0My
> own opinion is that Federer's competition on all surfaces has been
> tougher than Sampras'
> but the biggest difference is the bad matchups. =A0Federer has had this
> horrible matchup with Nadal whereas Sampras' didn't face consistent
> matchup problems but rather had them bookended at the beginning and
> end of his career and that is to be expected in the rise and fall.
> He had a long period of grace where winning the USO or Wimbledon was
> relatively straight forward for him. =A0Unlike Federer, he could =A0get
> whacked by guys who were relative journeymen, even in majors where he
> was favoured to win. =A0 This just hasn't happened to Federer. =A0He has
> had this incredible run of appearances in majors where he's no worse
> than a semi-finalist. =A0That to me is the big difference between
> Sampras and Federer. =A0A clear superiority over the field (except
> Nadal).
>

Again, there were very few of these losses. Pete won 7 out of 10 Wimby/
USOs at his peak. That's
incredible. The two question marks in Pete's record are the big drop-
off in results on clay and the lack of a emerging
star in the next generation on fast courts to challenge him.

> Neither player faced the daunting task of attempting to win majors in
> the 80s. =A0Timing is everything.

Maybe. I think Lendl could've dominated the 80s like Fed or Pete did
the later decades. If he wins
those USO finals against Connors he has 10 Slams. If he beats Cash at
Wimby and Wilander in that 88 final
that's 12 Slams. I doubt Lendl is saying to himself "if only I
could've played in the 90s." He's thinking "why didn't I
get my shit together earlier?"

> Now this may go down in history as VERY significant if Nadal continues
> his winning ways. =A0If his knees go bad and his career stalls soon then
> the picture will look different again to the casual viewer as Nadal
> may not be remembered for the dominant player he is. =A0This is the
> fallacy of looking to numbers to get your answers.

Nadal already has his place in tennis history in my book. He's the
first player to have a real claim
to being the best on hard, grass and clay at the same time in tennis
history. If his knees are shot, the
conclusion would be he pushed himself to the limit and achieved
incredible things for a short period of time.
But in the end it's better to have the more effortless power of a
Sampras or Fed and not rely so much on
defense because it's better for longevity, which is a hallmark of
greatness.




 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 07:41:46
From: drew
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 18, 7:54 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>
> > I think Fed's losses to Rafa are more significant than Pete's to
> > Krajicek or Hewitt because of the context, especially in the minds of
> > those (averagejoes? ;-)) who want to look beyond the numbers to
> > determine goat.

The significance has less to do with comparing great players. The
significance is more for comparing eras. Very different conditions
for these two players. Rare to find two all-time greats having a
rivalry that spans as many major finals as Nadal and Federer. Federer
has one great player giving him much trouble on all surfaces. Sampras
had one bad surface where he wasn't truly competitive and a number of
lesser players who could pop up on a given day and knock him out of a
draw but nobody reliable waiting for him in a fast court major. Very
different dynamics.
>
> They are more significant as they are "headline" losses at big finals
> instead of early round losses against journeymen.
>
> > But, the real big issue here, imo, is what Joe Ramirez has pointed out
> > - the missing champions generation. We can't overlook the fact that
> > Fed is a bit past peak playing a younger all-time great at peak, while
> > Pete never faced such a situation in his career. He may have - as
> > Whisper contends - risen up and smashed any emerging Rafa type in
> > 1998-2000 but the fact is he never had to. Rafter maybe was the
> > closest thing, even though he was pretty close to Pete's age and not
> > of the same stature as Rafa.

A player needs a window of opportunity to rack up big numbers.
Federer and Sampras shared such a window at Wimbledon and the USO. My
own opinion is that Federer's competition on all surfaces has been
tougher than Sampras'
but the biggest difference is the bad matchups. Federer has had this
horrible matchup with Nadal whereas Sampras' didn't face consistent
matchup problems but rather had them bookended at the beginning and
end of his career and that is to be expected in the rise and fall.
He had a long period of grace where winning the USO or Wimbledon was
relatively straight forward for him. Unlike Federer, he could get
whacked by guys who were relative journeymen, even in majors where he
was favoured to win. This just hasn't happened to Federer. He has
had this incredible run of appearances in majors where he's no worse
than a semi-finalist. That to me is the big difference between
Sampras and Federer. A clear superiority over the field (except
Nadal).

Neither player faced the daunting task of attempting to win majors in
the 80s. Timing is everything.

Now this may go down in history as VERY significant if Nadal continues
his winning ways. If his knees go bad and his career stalls soon then
the picture will look different again to the casual viewer as Nadal
may not be remembered for the dominant player he is. This is the
fallacy of looking to numbers to get your answers.

Of course Federer is fortunate in as much as he had a 5 year jump on
Nadal. Without this his numbers might look very different right now.
Timing in being born at the right time can make all the difference.


> That was because "surface specialization". The gap with clay/fast
> court was the biggest ever during 90:ies and you had totally different
> base player pool for fast surfaces (Sampras/Krajicek/Rafter/Ivo/etc
> and for clay (Muster/Kuerten/Spanish Armada/etc). Only Agassi was
> regular "multisurface" contender and even then very inconsistent one.


When the decision was made to slow the fast courts down, the bar was
lowered for the slower court players and players like Ivanisevic or
Krajicek wouldn't even have a sniff today. Sampras would have a tough
time competing today. The game rewards a different skill set today
than it did 10 years ago. Even these massive servers like Tsonga and
Roddick can't bank upon serving their opponents into submission and I
think that's a good thing. String technology plays into this in a big
way also. If you can get a stick on the return just whack the hell
out of it with as much top as possible and you'll probably have a
successful return.
>
> Since ranking system changed and general baseline HC game became more
> important (due to the mandatory events in rankings vs best-14 pre 2000
> and general slowing of non-clay surfaces) it has droven single surface
> specialists into journeyman pool. (it is very difficult to climb to
> top5 with only clay or with only fast court succee).

Yes, and I think it may be a less diverse game for some but for me I
enjoy it more because most of the top guys aren't disadvantaged by
surface as they were. When you watch a major you have the idea that
all of the top players are there to really compete, not just to show
up. Gone are the days when you'd have Becker and Sampras out early
rounds at Roland Garros, and all of the Spanish and South American
players just getting putting practice in at Wimbledon for a round.
Even the USO was foreign soil for a lot of the slowball players in the
90s. Made for weaker fields and more predictable results.


  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 18:37:16
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
drew wrote:
> On Feb 18, 7:54 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>>
>>> I think Fed's losses to Rafa are more significant than Pete's to
>>> Krajicek or Hewitt because of the context, especially in the minds of
>>> those (averagejoes? ;-)) who want to look beyond the numbers to
>>> determine goat.
>
> The significance has less to do with comparing great players. The
> significance is more for comparing eras. Very different conditions
> for these two players. Rare to find two all-time greats having a
> rivalry that spans as many major finals as Nadal and Federer. Federer
> has one great player giving him much trouble on all surfaces. Sampras
> had one bad surface where he wasn't truly competitive and a number of
> lesser players who could pop up on a given day and knock him out of a
> draw but nobody reliable waiting for him in a fast court major. Very
> different dynamics.
>> They are more significant as they are "headline" losses at big finals
>> instead of early round losses against journeymen.
>>
>>> But, the real big issue here, imo, is what Joe Ramirez has pointed out
>>> - the missing champions generation. We can't overlook the fact that
>>> Fed is a bit past peak playing a younger all-time great at peak, while
>>> Pete never faced such a situation in his career. He may have - as
>>> Whisper contends - risen up and smashed any emerging Rafa type in
>>> 1998-2000 but the fact is he never had to. Rafter maybe was the
>>> closest thing, even though he was pretty close to Pete's age and not
>>> of the same stature as Rafa.
>
> A player needs a window of opportunity to rack up big numbers.
> Federer and Sampras shared such a window at Wimbledon and the USO. My
> own opinion is that Federer's competition on all surfaces has been
> tougher than Sampras'
> but the biggest difference is the bad matchups. Federer has had this
> horrible matchup with Nadal whereas Sampras' didn't face consistent
> matchup problems but rather had them bookended at the beginning and
> end of his career and that is to be expected in the rise and fall.
> He had a long period of grace where winning the USO or Wimbledon was
> relatively straight forward for him. Unlike Federer, he could get
> whacked by guys who were relative journeymen, even in majors where he
> was favoured to win. This just hasn't happened to Federer. He has
> had this incredible run of appearances in majors where he's no worse
> than a semi-finalist. That to me is the big difference between
> Sampras and Federer. A clear superiority over the field (except
> Nadal).
>
> Neither player faced the daunting task of attempting to win majors in
> the 80s. Timing is everything.
>
> Now this may go down in history as VERY significant if Nadal continues
> his winning ways. If his knees go bad and his career stalls soon then
> the picture will look different again to the casual viewer as Nadal
> may not be remembered for the dominant player he is. This is the
> fallacy of looking to numbers to get your answers.
>
> Of course Federer is fortunate in as much as he had a 5 year jump on
> Nadal. Without this his numbers might look very different right now.
> Timing in being born at the right time can make all the difference.
>
>
>> That was because "surface specialization". The gap with clay/fast
>> court was the biggest ever during 90:ies and you had totally different
>> base player pool for fast surfaces (Sampras/Krajicek/Rafter/Ivo/etc
>> and for clay (Muster/Kuerten/Spanish Armada/etc). Only Agassi was
>> regular "multisurface" contender and even then very inconsistent one.
>
>
> When the decision was made to slow the fast courts down, the bar was
> lowered for the slower court players and players like Ivanisevic or
> Krajicek wouldn't even have a sniff today. Sampras would have a tough
> time competing today. The game rewards a different skill set today
> than it did 10 years ago. Even these massive servers like Tsonga and
> Roddick can't bank upon serving their opponents into submission and I
> think that's a good thing. String technology plays into this in a big
> way also. If you can get a stick on the return just whack the hell
> out of it with as much top as possible and you'll probably have a
> successful return.
>> Since ranking system changed and general baseline HC game became more
>> important (due to the mandatory events in rankings vs best-14 pre 2000
>> and general slowing of non-clay surfaces) it has droven single surface
>> specialists into journeyman pool. (it is very difficult to climb to
>> top5 with only clay or with only fast court succee).
>
> Yes, and I think it may be a less diverse game for some but for me I
> enjoy it more because most of the top guys aren't disadvantaged by
> surface as they were. When you watch a major you have the idea that
> all of the top players are there to really compete, not just to show
> up. Gone are the days when you'd have Becker and Sampras out early
> rounds at Roland Garros, and all of the Spanish and South American
> players just getting putting practice in at Wimbledon for a round.
> Even the USO was foreign soil for a lot of the slowball players in the
> 90s. Made for weaker fields and more predictable results.



Very poor post. Remember Mac v Jimbo at FO?

Federer said Sampras would rank in top 5 if he rejoined the tour right
now. This flies in the face of your absurd analysis above. You clearly
are one of the biggest ceibs fuckers in rst.



 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 07:35:01
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 18, 10:11=A0am, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:499be81e$0$641$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
>
>
>
> > MBDunc wrote:
>
> >> Whisper kirjoitti:
>
> >>> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. =A0If Fed is =
goat
> >>> & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
> >>> given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led =
36
> >>> 62 42 & game point for 5-2. =A0In reality Sampras beat Agassi far eas=
ier
> >>> than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. =A0The evi=
dence
> >>> suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. =A0When you =
look
> >>> at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while
> >>> Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty
> >>> obvious.
>
> >> Every real tennis expert knows that one matchup example does not prove
> >> anything. You can as easily bring on eternal Hewitt-Sampras vs Fed-
> >> Hewitt debates...but obviously you choose not as it does not suit your
> >> biased agenda.
>
> >> Your patience with your lone (weak and biased) drawing card (Agassi
> >> matchup) is admirable. It is like counting on spears and archery when
> >> others have moved to machine guns...
>
> >> Fed won his last 8 matches against Agassi and some of them with total
> >> demolishions. Cannot ask for more.
>
> >> .mikko
>
> > For average Joes maybe, but deeper insight reveals Fed was on the chopp=
ing
> > block in 2005 USO final with Agassi leading 36 62 42 & point for 52.
>
> For average Joes maybe, but deeper insight reveal Sampras was chopped in
> straight
> sets by both Safin and Hewitt in USO finals and safin had 2:10 record
> against Federer
> and Hewitt lost the last 11 times against Federer. =A0Base on the Whispy =
logic
> that proove
> Federer is greater than Hewitt and Safin and Hewitt and Safin beat Sampra=
s
> in straight set
> in USO (Better than Agassi against Federer) thus proove Federer is better
> than Sampras.
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey that's three uses of "averagejoes" in one thread and none of them
from Mikko!


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 05:26:24
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest


*skriptis kirjoitti:
> Well said, so Sampras' failure to win FO is in fact the "smallest failure"
> compared to other greats who played in more multi-surface competitive eras
> yet never won FO.

It is relative. Bruguera was definite clay specialist from that era
and did well (2 FO titles + final + sf). Yet Nadal's clay game is
better in every gategory by a lot...+ additional superb mental edge
which Bruguera himself admitted he had problems with - just see his
Muster h2h. Same for Muster....is there anything in his game which is
even close to Nadal's level? Determination and fitness may be.
Shotwise far behind.

I have never considered Sampras' FO failure that significant. Every
great has his holes. Fed has Nadal which by all logic should be even
smaller failure as Sampras' FO campaigns (after all Fed made those FO
finals and Nadal is clay GOAT along with Borg....).

> Adapting to clay in era with such a big gap between clay/grass and for a
> player with his medical condition would be idiotic. The cost could have been
> enormous. HE might have ended with somewhat improved Agassi's blue-chip slam
> record.

Sampras' medical condition effect is vastly overrated. After all he
most often was just out of sorts straight from the start of a clay
match as suddenly his serving did not bring enough free points and his
flat fh was not suited for clay - medical condition has nothing to do
with it.

And Sampras' five set record is very good.

.mikko


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 05:08:35
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 18, 7:54=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:

> > But, the real big issue here, imo, is what Joe Ramirez has pointed out
> > - the missing champions generation. We can't overlook the fact that
> > Fed is a bit past peak playing a younger all-time great at peak, while
> > Pete never faced such a situation in his career. He may have - as
> > Whisper contends - risen up and smashed any emerging Rafa type in
> > 1998-2000 but the fact is he never had to. Rafter maybe was the
> > closest thing, even though he was pretty close to Pete's age and not
> > of the same stature as Rafa.
>
> That was because "surface specialization". The gap with clay/fast
> court was the biggest ever during 90:ies and you had totally different
> base player pool for fast surfaces (Sampras/Krajicek/Rafter/Ivo/etc
> and for clay (Muster/Kuerten/Spanish Armada/etc). Only Agassi was
> regular "multisurface" contender and even then very inconsistent one.
>
> Since ranking system changed and general baseline HC game became more
> important (due to the mandatory events in rankings vs best-14 pre 2000
> and general slowing of non-clay surfaces) it has droven single surface
> specialists into journeyman pool. (it is very difficult to climb to
> top5 with only clay or with only fast court succee).
>
> That's the reason why now there are same names (Nadal, Fed, Djoko,
> Murray) as favourites in each slam event compared to 90:ies when there
> were Bruguera/Muster/Kafelnikov/Medvedev/Kuerten as top FO favourites
> and totally other players favourites at Wimb/US...and for Wimb even
> more extreme specialist list. The players have adapted. May be some
> eye-candy (S&V) has been lost in the process but baseline play in
> general has never been as efficient/ruthless/powerfull as it is now.
>
> .mikko

But even if we say the 90s was all about surface specialization, where
was the big-time fast court player to rise
up in the generation after Pete's? There obviously was no one. I think
Guga could've been a 5-6 Slam winner if he hadn't gotten injured and
not partied so much in Brazil when he should've been preparing for AO!
But at the end of the day, I just don't think Guga - even if he were
playing today - would be as adaptable as Rafa is. I don't think his
defense was as good and so was more vulnerable to fast-court
specialists. So, I stand by the point that Pete didn't face a younger
all-time great of Rafa's stature - not until he played Fed at 2001
Wimby, and that was just one match.


  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 16:52:34
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 18, 7:54 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
>>> But, the real big issue here, imo, is what Joe Ramirez has pointed out
>>> - the missing champions generation. We can't overlook the fact that
>>> Fed is a bit past peak playing a younger all-time great at peak, while
>>> Pete never faced such a situation in his career. He may have - as
>>> Whisper contends - risen up and smashed any emerging Rafa type in
>>> 1998-2000 but the fact is he never had to. Rafter maybe was the
>>> closest thing, even though he was pretty close to Pete's age and not
>>> of the same stature as Rafa.
>> That was because "surface specialization". The gap with clay/fast
>> court was the biggest ever during 90:ies and you had totally different
>> base player pool for fast surfaces (Sampras/Krajicek/Rafter/Ivo/etc
>> and for clay (Muster/Kuerten/Spanish Armada/etc). Only Agassi was
>> regular "multisurface" contender and even then very inconsistent one.
>>
>> Since ranking system changed and general baseline HC game became more
>> important (due to the mandatory events in rankings vs best-14 pre 2000
>> and general slowing of non-clay surfaces) it has droven single surface
>> specialists into journeyman pool. (it is very difficult to climb to
>> top5 with only clay or with only fast court succee).
>>
>> That's the reason why now there are same names (Nadal, Fed, Djoko,
>> Murray) as favourites in each slam event compared to 90:ies when there
>> were Bruguera/Muster/Kafelnikov/Medvedev/Kuerten as top FO favourites
>> and totally other players favourites at Wimb/US...and for Wimb even
>> more extreme specialist list. The players have adapted. May be some
>> eye-candy (S&V) has been lost in the process but baseline play in
>> general has never been as efficient/ruthless/powerfull as it is now.
>>
>> .mikko
>
> But even if we say the 90s was all about surface specialization, where
> was the big-time fast court player to rise
> up in the generation after Pete's? There obviously was no one. I think
> Guga could've been a 5-6 Slam winner if he hadn't gotten injured and
> not partied so much in Brazil when he should've been preparing for AO!
> But at the end of the day, I just don't think Guga - even if he were
> playing today - would be as adaptable as Rafa is. I don't think his
> defense was as good and so was more vulnerable to fast-court
> specialists. So, I stand by the point that Pete didn't face a younger
> all-time great of Rafa's stature - not until he played Fed at 2001
> Wimby, and that was just one match.


I think you're slightly overstimating today's players in absolute
ability. I'd easily tip Sampras to beat Fed/Rafa on all non-clay
surfaces, & probaby go with Agassi as well.



  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 16:51:08
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 18, 7:54 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
>>> But, the real big issue here, imo, is what Joe Ramirez has pointed out
>>> - the missing champions generation. We can't overlook the fact that
>>> Fed is a bit past peak playing a younger all-time great at peak, while
>>> Pete never faced such a situation in his career. He may have - as
>>> Whisper contends - risen up and smashed any emerging Rafa type in
>>> 1998-2000 but the fact is he never had to. Rafter maybe was the
>>> closest thing, even though he was pretty close to Pete's age and not
>>> of the same stature as Rafa.
>> That was because "surface specialization". The gap with clay/fast
>> court was the biggest ever during 90:ies and you had totally different
>> base player pool for fast surfaces (Sampras/Krajicek/Rafter/Ivo/etc
>> and for clay (Muster/Kuerten/Spanish Armada/etc). Only Agassi was
>> regular "multisurface" contender and even then very inconsistent one.
>>
>> Since ranking system changed and general baseline HC game became more
>> important (due to the mandatory events in rankings vs best-14 pre 2000
>> and general slowing of non-clay surfaces) it has droven single surface
>> specialists into journeyman pool. (it is very difficult to climb to
>> top5 with only clay or with only fast court succee).
>>
>> That's the reason why now there are same names (Nadal, Fed, Djoko,
>> Murray) as favourites in each slam event compared to 90:ies when there
>> were Bruguera/Muster/Kafelnikov/Medvedev/Kuerten as top FO favourites
>> and totally other players favourites at Wimb/US...and for Wimb even
>> more extreme specialist list. The players have adapted. May be some
>> eye-candy (S&V) has been lost in the process but baseline play in
>> general has never been as efficient/ruthless/powerfull as it is now.
>>
>> .mikko
>
> But even if we say the 90s was all about surface specialization, where
> was the big-time fast court player to rise
> up in the generation after Pete's? There obviously was no one.



There hasn't been one at all since Sampras - so it's not really a gap as
'end of an era' of truly great players.


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 05:03:30
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest


jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> Other players have said Pete was better. Kuerten and Moya come to mind.

Then again Agassi/Henman/Roddick/Hewitt/a lot of others have said that
Fed is better. So it is pretty much irrelevant especially when usually
those kind of comments are anyway taken away from the context and are
usually outdated by several years (for example Safin has changed his
tone about Pete vs Fed during the years to favor Fed, same for
Ivanisevic).

For example Kuerten's related quote is several years old (2006) when
Fed's slam count was still in single digits...

.mikko



  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 16:43:13
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
MBDunc wrote:
>
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>> Other players have said Pete was better. Kuerten and Moya come to mind.
>
> Then again Agassi/Henman/Roddick/Hewitt/a lot of others have said that
> Fed is better. So it is pretty much irrelevant especially when usually
> those kind of comments are anyway taken away from the context and are
> usually outdated by several years (for example Safin has changed his
> tone about Pete vs Fed during the years to favor Fed, same for
> Ivanisevic).
>
> For example Kuerten's related quote is several years old (2006) when
> Fed's slam count was still in single digits...
>
> .mikko
>


The biggest factor here is ceibs. Anytime the current top player is
referred to as goat can be completely ignored. Remember a yr ago many
were giving Djokovic automatic 10 slams - today it looks foolish.



 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 04:54:45
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest


jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
> I think Fed's losses to Rafa are more significant than Pete's to
> Krajicek or Hewitt because of the context, especially in the minds of
> those (averagejoes? ;-)) who want to look beyond the numbers to
> determine goat.

They are more significant as they are "headline" losses at big finals
instead of early round losses against journeymen.

> But, the real big issue here, imo, is what Joe Ramirez has pointed out
> - the missing champions generation. We can't overlook the fact that
> Fed is a bit past peak playing a younger all-time great at peak, while
> Pete never faced such a situation in his career. He may have - as
> Whisper contends - risen up and smashed any emerging Rafa type in
> 1998-2000 but the fact is he never had to. Rafter maybe was the
> closest thing, even though he was pretty close to Pete's age and not
> of the same stature as Rafa.

That was because "surface specialization". The gap with clay/fast
court was the biggest ever during 90:ies and you had totally different
base player pool for fast surfaces (Sampras/Krajicek/Rafter/Ivo/etc
and for clay (Muster/Kuerten/Spanish Armada/etc). Only Agassi was
regular "multisurface" contender and even then very inconsistent one.

Since ranking system changed and general baseline HC game became more
important (due to the mandatory events in rankings vs best-14 pre 2000
and general slowing of non-clay surfaces) it has droven single surface
specialists into journeyman pool. (it is very difficult to climb to
top5 with only clay or with only fast court succee).

That's the reason why now there are same names (Nadal, Fed, Djoko,
Murray) as favourites in each slam event compared to 90:ies when there
were Bruguera/Muster/Kafelnikov/Medvedev/Kuerten as top FO favourites
and totally other players favourites at Wimb/US...and for Wimb even
more extreme specialist list. The players have adapted. May be some
eye-candy (S&V) has been lost in the process but baseline play in
general has never been as efficient/ruthless/powerfull as it is now.

.mikko







  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 14:01:17
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest

"MBDunc" <michaelb@mail.suomi.net > wrote in message
news:b3a288c4-768d-40af-92ed-5c621315dda7@v39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>> I think Fed's losses to Rafa are more significant than Pete's to
>> Krajicek or Hewitt because of the context, especially in the minds of
>> those (averagejoes? ;-)) who want to look beyond the numbers to
>> determine goat.
>
> They are more significant as they are "headline" losses at big finals
> instead of early round losses against journeymen.
>
>> But, the real big issue here, imo, is what Joe Ramirez has pointed out
>> - the missing champions generation. We can't overlook the fact that
>> Fed is a bit past peak playing a younger all-time great at peak, while
>> Pete never faced such a situation in his career. He may have - as
>> Whisper contends - risen up and smashed any emerging Rafa type in
>> 1998-2000 but the fact is he never had to. Rafter maybe was the
>> closest thing, even though he was pretty close to Pete's age and not
>> of the same stature as Rafa.
>
> That was because "surface specialization". The gap with clay/fast
> court was the biggest ever during 90:ies and you had totally different
> base player pool for fast surfaces (Sampras/Krajicek/Rafter/Ivo/etc
> and for clay (Muster/Kuerten/Spanish Armada/etc). Only Agassi was
> regular "multisurface" contender and even then very inconsistent one.
>
> Since ranking system changed and general baseline HC game became more
> important (due to the mandatory events in rankings vs best-14 pre 2000
> and general slowing of non-clay surfaces) it has droven single surface
> specialists into journeyman pool. (it is very difficult to climb to
> top5 with only clay or with only fast court succee).
>
> That's the reason why now there are same names (Nadal, Fed, Djoko,
> Murray) as favourites in each slam event compared to 90:ies when there
> were Bruguera/Muster/Kafelnikov/Medvedev/Kuerten as top FO favourites
> and totally other players favourites at Wimb/US...and for Wimb even
> more extreme specialist list. The players have adapted. May be some
> eye-candy (S&V) has been lost in the process but baseline play in
> general has never been as efficient/ruthless/powerfull as it is now.


Well said, so Sampras' failure to win FO is in fact the "smallest failure"
compared to other greats who played in more multi-surface competitive eras
yet never won FO.

Adapting to clay in era with such a big gap between clay/grass and for a
player with his medical condition would be idiotic. The cost could have been
enormous. HE might have ended with somewhat improved Agassi's blue-chip slam
record.




 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 04:54:04
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 18, 7:47=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
> >> Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than
> >> Sampras? He should know better than anyone in here.
>
> > That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. =A0If Fed is go=
at
> > & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
> > given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36
> > 62 42 & game point for 5-2. =A0In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easie=
r
> > than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. =A0The evide=
nce
> > suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. =A0When you lo=
ok
> > at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while
> > Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty obvio=
us.
>
> These discussions are pointless, but if we are to listen to anyone about
> these kind of questions we should listen to the players that have
> actually met both Sampras and Federer. As MBDunc pointed out in a
> different post you could always find results to prove your case, but it
> doesn't sound that convincing at all. So far I have only heard Agassi
> speaking about this, and I am pretty sure he told that Federer was a
> better and more complete player than Pete.
>
> PS.

Other players have said Pete was better. Kuerten and Moya come to mind.


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 04:30:17
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 18, 3:26=A0am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net > wrote:
> Whisper kirjoitti:
>
> > That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. =A0If Fed is go=
at
> > & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
> > given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36
> > 62 42 & game point for 5-2. =A0In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easie=
r
> > than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. =A0The evide=
nce
> > suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. =A0When you lo=
ok
> > at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while
> > Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty obvio=
us.
>
> Every real tennis expert knows that one matchup example does not prove
> anything. You can as easily bring on eternal Hewitt-Sampras vs Fed-
> Hewitt debates...but obviously you choose not as it does not suit your
> biased agenda.
>
> Your patience with your lone (weak and biased) drawing card (Agassi
> matchup) is admirable. It is like counting on spears and archery when
> others have moved to machine guns...
>
> Fed won his last 8 matches against Agassi and some of them with total
> demolishions. Cannot ask for more.
>
> .mikko

I think Fed's losses to Rafa are more significant than Pete's to
Krajicek or Hewitt because of the context, especially in the minds of
those (averagejoes? ;-)) who want to look beyond the numbers to
determine goat.

Pete wasn't playing Krajicek repeatedly in Slam finals and his loss to
Hewitt in that USO final came when he was several years past his real
peak and worn down from a tough tournament (stamina was never his
strong suit anyway)

But, the real big issue here, imo, is what Joe Ramirez has pointed out
- the missing champions generation. We can't overlook the fact that
Fed is a bit past peak playing a younger all-time great at peak, while
Pete never faced such a situation in his career. He may have - as
Whisper contends - risen up and smashed any emerging Rafa type in
1998-2000 but the fact is he never had to. Rafter maybe was the
closest thing, even though he was pretty close to Pete's age and not
of the same stature as Rafa.


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 02:23:15
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 20 helmi, 12:00, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Superdave wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:16:52 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> There's nothing wrong with the way Nadal plays. =A0The problem is th=
at
> >>>> he's a big guy and he's got trick knees. =A0If he was carrying 20 po=
unds
> >>>> less he'd take the load off of the knees and maybe that would help h=
is
> >>>> knees. =A0Maybe not.
> >>> The greatness of Nadal and his biggest problem are down to the same
> >>> thing, just otherworldly defensive skills.
> >> A great offensive player will always get the better of a great defensi=
ve
> >> player - proven time & again, & makes perfect sense.
>
> > no so in rafa's case.
>
> Where are the great attacking players? =A0We saw what a couple
> Sampras-lite players did to him last 2 AO's before this one.

Define Sampras-lite? Does not show enough tongue? Tanks less
opponent's service games? Not capable to sweat as much? Less hairy?

Borg-lite (Wilander owned Mac 1983 when Mac was at his peak). What
about using this example?

If they clone Sampras 2050 and with some gene adjustment mix in
Nadal's fitness/wheels, Karlovic frame, Mac's volleys...he probably
still would be Sampras-lite in your books..

.mikko


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 03:30:50
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest


Whisper kirjoitti:
> er, these weren't just any matches. We all know Fed's nuts shrivel when
> he faces a good player across the net in a big match - whether that be
> Nalbandian in YEC final or Rafa anywhere. Agassi was a great player but
> obviously very old & slow by the time he played peak Fed in those 2 USOs
> - still pretty good for the old fella having him on the ropes.

Rafa example buys it. Nalby YEC example is not good as that was a
match where Fed just run out of gas after injury recovery process.
Similarly peak Sampras did same against Yzaga at USO 94...just run out
of gas. Every great has those kind of matches...though Sampras
probably has most....

.mikko


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 11:59:56
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
"MBDunc" <michaelb@mail.suomi.net > wrote in message
news:0e96f370-eb0a-439b-95da-7d9b131d1a08@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Whisper kirjoitti:
>> er, these weren't just any matches. We all know Fed's nuts shrivel when
>> he faces a good player across the net in a big match - whether that be
>> Nalbandian in YEC final or Rafa anywhere. Agassi was a great player but
>> obviously very old & slow by the time he played peak Fed in those 2 USOs
>> - still pretty good for the old fella having him on the ropes.
>
> Rafa example buys it. Nalby YEC example is not good as that was a
> match where Fed just run out of gas after injury recovery process.
> Similarly peak Sampras did same against Yzaga at USO 94...just run out
> of gas. Every great has those kind of matches...though Sampras
> probably has most....

mono.



 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 03:27:12
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest


Whisper kirjoitti:
> MBDunc wrote:
> >
> > Whisper kirjoitti:
> >
> >> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is goat
> >> & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
> >> given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36
> >> 62 42 & game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier
> >> than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The evidence
> >> suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. When you look
> >> at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while
> >> Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty obvious.
> >
> > Every real tennis expert knows that one matchup example does not prove
> > anything. You can as easily bring on eternal Hewitt-Sampras vs Fed-
> > Hewitt debates...but obviously you choose not as it does not suit your
> > biased agenda.
> >
> > Your patience with your lone (weak and biased) drawing card (Agassi
> > matchup) is admirable. It is like counting on spears and archery when
> > others have moved to machine guns...
> >
> > Fed won his last 8 matches against Agassi and some of them with total
> > demolishions. Cannot ask for more.
> >
> > .mikko
> >
>
>
> For average Joes maybe, but deeper insight reveals Fed was on the
> chopping block in 2005 USO final with Agassi leading 36 62 42 & point
> for 52.

Fed won convincingly eventually even with your above cherrypicked
example. Props for Fed for the title. Props for Andre for putting up a
good match.

Sampras used to be also chopping block a lot. Try collecting cards
from the different suit, would make your game better and deeper.
Everyone already knows your lone three of hearts.

.mikko



 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 02:30:47
From: robin
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 18 Feb, 06:41, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Petter Solbu wrote:
> > robin wrote:
> >> The fallacy of your reasoning, in this argument that you keep trotting
> >> out, has been pointed out to you time and time again. When analysing a
> >> situation such as this you must look at the overall patterns, not
> >> cherry picked details to suit your argument. Agassi won his first 3
> >> matches against Federer prior to Federer's peak. Peak Federer then
> >> beat Agassi 8 times in a row. Clearly, Agassi had the beating of pre-
> >> peak Federer. Clearly, peak Federer owned Agassi, but Agassi was old.
> >> What can we say, if we analyse the situation honestly, using the
> >> available data, about how peak Federer would have coped against peak
> >> Agassi? Absolutely nothing.
>
> > Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than Sampras=
?
> > He should know better than anyone in here.
>
> > PS.
>
> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. =A0If Fed is goat

If you are going to accuse a public figure of self-serving and frankly
petty lying, you had better have some pretty strong evidence in
support. Let us see....

> & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
> given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36
> 62 42 & game point for 5-2. =A0In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier

Oh dear. Ignoring the overall win/loss records, and instead cherry
picking scores of individual matches taken to the resolution of
individual points. What's that old saying about leading a camel to
water?





  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 21:56:57
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
robin wrote:
> On 18 Feb, 06:41, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Petter Solbu wrote:
>>> robin wrote:
>>>> The fallacy of your reasoning, in this argument that you keep trotting
>>>> out, has been pointed out to you time and time again. When analysing a
>>>> situation such as this you must look at the overall patterns, not
>>>> cherry picked details to suit your argument. Agassi won his first 3
>>>> matches against Federer prior to Federer's peak. Peak Federer then
>>>> beat Agassi 8 times in a row. Clearly, Agassi had the beating of pre-
>>>> peak Federer. Clearly, peak Federer owned Agassi, but Agassi was old.
>>>> What can we say, if we analyse the situation honestly, using the
>>>> available data, about how peak Federer would have coped against peak
>>>> Agassi? Absolutely nothing.
>>> Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than Sampras?
>>> He should know better than anyone in here.
>>> PS.
>> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is goat
>
> If you are going to accuse a public figure of self-serving and frankly
> petty lying, you had better have some pretty strong evidence in
> support. Let us see....
>
>> & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
>> given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36
>> 62 42 & game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier
>
> Oh dear. Ignoring the overall win/loss records, and instead cherry
> picking scores of individual matches taken to the resolution of
> individual points. What's that old saying about leading a camel to
> water?
>
>
>


er, these weren't just any matches. We all know Fed's nuts shrivel when
he faces a good player across the net in a big match - whether that be
Nalbandian in YEC final or Rafa anywhere. Agassi was a great player but
obviously very old & slow by the time he played peak Fed in those 2 USOs
- still pretty good for the old fella having him on the ropes.



 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 00:26:05
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest


Whisper kirjoitti:

> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is goat
> & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
> given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36
> 62 42 & game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier
> than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The evidence
> suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. When you look
> at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while
> Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty obvious.

Every real tennis expert knows that one matchup example does not prove
anything. You can as easily bring on eternal Hewitt-Sampras vs Fed-
Hewitt debates...but obviously you choose not as it does not suit your
biased agenda.

Your patience with your lone (weak and biased) drawing card (Agassi
matchup) is admirable. It is like counting on spears and archery when
others have moved to machine guns...

Fed won his last 8 matches against Agassi and some of them with total
demolishions. Cannot ask for more.

.mikko



  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 21:51:08
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
MBDunc wrote:
>
> Whisper kirjoitti:
>
>> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is goat
>> & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
>> given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36
>> 62 42 & game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier
>> than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The evidence
>> suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. When you look
>> at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while
>> Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty obvious.
>
> Every real tennis expert knows that one matchup example does not prove
> anything. You can as easily bring on eternal Hewitt-Sampras vs Fed-
> Hewitt debates...but obviously you choose not as it does not suit your
> biased agenda.
>
> Your patience with your lone (weak and biased) drawing card (Agassi
> matchup) is admirable. It is like counting on spears and archery when
> others have moved to machine guns...
>
> Fed won his last 8 matches against Agassi and some of them with total
> demolishions. Cannot ask for more.
>
> .mikko
>


For average Joes maybe, but deeper insight reveals Fed was on the
chopping block in 2005 USO final with Agassi leading 36 62 42 & point
for 52.



   
Date: 19 Feb 2009 02:11:46
From: john
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:499be81e$0$641$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> MBDunc wrote:
>>
>> Whisper kirjoitti:
>>
>>> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is goat
>>> & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
>>> given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36
>>> 62 42 & game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier
>>> than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The evidence
>>> suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. When you look
>>> at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while
>>> Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty
>>> obvious.
>>
>> Every real tennis expert knows that one matchup example does not prove
>> anything. You can as easily bring on eternal Hewitt-Sampras vs Fed-
>> Hewitt debates...but obviously you choose not as it does not suit your
>> biased agenda.
>>
>> Your patience with your lone (weak and biased) drawing card (Agassi
>> matchup) is admirable. It is like counting on spears and archery when
>> others have moved to machine guns...
>>
>> Fed won his last 8 matches against Agassi and some of them with total
>> demolishions. Cannot ask for more.
>>
>> .mikko
>>
>
>
> For average Joes maybe, but deeper insight reveals Fed was on the chopping
> block in 2005 USO final with Agassi leading 36 62 42 & point for 52.

For average Joes maybe, but deeper insight reveal Sampras was chopped in
straight
sets by both Safin and Hewitt in USO finals and safin had 2:10 record
against Federer
and Hewitt lost the last 11 times against Federer. Base on the Whispy logic
that proove
Federer is greater than Hewitt and Safin and Hewitt and Safin beat Sampras
in straight set
in USO (Better than Agassi against Federer) thus proove Federer is better
than Sampras.
>




    
Date: 19 Feb 2009 18:27:21
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
john wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:499be81e$0$641$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> MBDunc wrote:
>>> Whisper kirjoitti:
>>>
>>>> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is goat
>>>> & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
>>>> given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36
>>>> 62 42 & game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier
>>>> than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The evidence
>>>> suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. When you look
>>>> at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while
>>>> Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty
>>>> obvious.
>>> Every real tennis expert knows that one matchup example does not prove
>>> anything. You can as easily bring on eternal Hewitt-Sampras vs Fed-
>>> Hewitt debates...but obviously you choose not as it does not suit your
>>> biased agenda.
>>>
>>> Your patience with your lone (weak and biased) drawing card (Agassi
>>> matchup) is admirable. It is like counting on spears and archery when
>>> others have moved to machine guns...
>>>
>>> Fed won his last 8 matches against Agassi and some of them with total
>>> demolishions. Cannot ask for more.
>>>
>>> .mikko
>>>
>>
>> For average Joes maybe, but deeper insight reveals Fed was on the chopping
>> block in 2005 USO final with Agassi leading 36 62 42 & point for 52.
>
> For average Joes maybe, but deeper insight reveal Sampras was chopped in
> straight
> sets by both Safin and Hewitt in USO finals and safin



Must be said he was 30 yrs old & a yr from retirement - & also must be
said he beat both Hewitt & Safin in straight set semis at 2000 & 2001
USO. Fed may not even be good enough to reach that level at 30.


     
Date: 20 Feb 2009 00:24:13
From: john
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:499d09dc$0$678$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> john wrote:
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:499be81e$0$641$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> MBDunc wrote:
>>>> Whisper kirjoitti:
>>>>
>>>>> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is
>>>>> goat
>>>>> & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
>>>>> given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led
>>>>> 36
>>>>> 62 42 & game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier
>>>>> than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The
>>>>> evidence
>>>>> suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. When you
>>>>> look
>>>>> at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while
>>>>> Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty
>>>>> obvious.
>>>> Every real tennis expert knows that one matchup example does not prove
>>>> anything. You can as easily bring on eternal Hewitt-Sampras vs Fed-
>>>> Hewitt debates...but obviously you choose not as it does not suit your
>>>> biased agenda.
>>>>
>>>> Your patience with your lone (weak and biased) drawing card (Agassi
>>>> matchup) is admirable. It is like counting on spears and archery when
>>>> others have moved to machine guns...
>>>>
>>>> Fed won his last 8 matches against Agassi and some of them with total
>>>> demolishions. Cannot ask for more.
>>>>
>>>> .mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>> For average Joes maybe, but deeper insight reveals Fed was on the
>>> chopping block in 2005 USO final with Agassi leading 36 62 42 & point
>>> for 52.
>>
>> For average Joes maybe, but deeper insight reveal Sampras was chopped in
>> straight
>> sets by both Safin and Hewitt in USO finals and safin
>
>
>
> Must be said he was 30 yrs old & a yr from retirement - & also must be
> said he beat both Hewitt & Safin in straight set semis at 2000 & 2001 USO.
> Fed may not even be good enough to reach that level at 30.

Also must be said he had more trouble with Hewitt than Agassi even when
Hewitt was an 18 years old. Fed will surpass Samrpas record when he is
30.




   
Date: 18 Feb 2009 11:58:46
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:499be81e$0$641$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> MBDunc wrote:
>>
>> Whisper kirjoitti:
>>
>>> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is goat
>>> & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
>>> given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36
>>> 62 42 & game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier
>>> than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The evidence
>>> suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. When you look
>>> at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while
>>> Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty
>>> obvious.
>>
>> Every real tennis expert knows that one matchup example does not prove
>> anything. You can as easily bring on eternal Hewitt-Sampras vs Fed-
>> Hewitt debates...but obviously you choose not as it does not suit your
>> biased agenda.
>>
>> Your patience with your lone (weak and biased) drawing card (Agassi
>> matchup) is admirable. It is like counting on spears and archery when
>> others have moved to machine guns...
>>
>> Fed won his last 8 matches against Agassi and some of them with total
>> demolishions. Cannot ask for more.
>>
>> .mikko
>>
>
>
> For average Joes maybe, but deeper insight reveals Fed was on the chopping
> block in 2005 USO final with Agassi leading 36 62 42 & point for 52.

yeah! I also reckon this was a good match, because old Andre showed that Fed
could be beaten and wasn't as wonderful as all the Fedfans and biased media
said, I often wonder if it inspired Murray to his victory against Fed in
2006.



 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 14:11:46
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 17 Feb, 15:13, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 8:41=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:30:59 -0800 (PST), Iceberg
>
> > <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >On Feb 17, 8:23 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:14:52 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> > >> >"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> >news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>
> > >> >> Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she has =
done
> > >> >> that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
> > >> >> Wilson-Sampras.
>
> > >> >> Divorce coming perhaps ?
>
> > >> >I never understood why she married him except for the money? I mean=
Pete is
> > >> >DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties that cel=
ebs are
> > >> >always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get in any=
where and
> > >> >won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on chips a=
nd go to
> > >> >bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divorce i=
s
> > >> >imminent!
>
> > >> Bridgette is not really that attractive either. Some might even say
> > >> she is unattractive.
>
> > >> Look at some of these photos.
>
> > >>http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2178914816/nm0933098
>
> > >> I'd take Mirka over her anyday !
>
> > >you must be nuts, at least Bridgette smiles.
>
> > no. she is downright UGLY really. she has Bob Hopes' nose n other
> > deformaties. Look at them for Christs sake !
>
> > You want me to send you some links to the UGLIEST ones ?
>
> > You got eyes ?
>
> > Only a fan fucker like whisper could call her beautiful.
>
> > Ok ok maybe she is not ugly but she is no beauty queen by a long shot.
>
> > Then again, Pete *is* ugly and she was the best he could get eh ?
>
> > I bet she puts a bag over his head at night.
>
> Bridgette is fit not fat like that swiss cow Mirka!

I'd like to see you stand in field all day without moo -ving


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 07:13:36
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 17, 8:41=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:30:59 -0800 (PST), Iceberg
>
>
>
>
>
> <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 17, 8:23 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:14:52 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> >> >"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>
> >> >> Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she has do=
ne
> >> >> that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
> >> >> Wilson-Sampras.
>
> >> >> Divorce coming perhaps ?
>
> >> >I never understood why she married him except for the money? I mean P=
ete is
> >> >DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties that celeb=
s are
> >> >always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get in anywh=
ere and
> >> >won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on chips and=
go to
> >> >bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divorce is
> >> >imminent!
>
> >> Bridgette is not really that attractive either. Some might even say
> >> she is unattractive.
>
> >> Look at some of these photos.
>
> >>http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2178914816/nm0933098
>
> >> I'd take Mirka over her anyday !
>
> >you must be nuts, at least Bridgette smiles.
>
> no. she is downright UGLY really. she has Bob Hopes' nose n other
> deformaties. Look at them for Christs sake !
>
> You want me to send you some links to the UGLIEST ones ?
>
> You got eyes ?
>
> Only a fan fucker like whisper could call her beautiful.
>
> Ok ok maybe she is not ugly but she is no beauty queen by a long shot.
>
> Then again, Pete *is* ugly and she was the best he could get eh ?
>
> I bet she puts a bag over his head at night.


Bridgette is fit not fat like that swiss cow Mirka!


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 00:12:58
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:13:36 -0800 (PST), Arancione@selin.com wrote:

>On Feb 17, 8:41 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:30:59 -0800 (PST), Iceberg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 17, 8:23 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:14:52 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>> >> >"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> >> Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she has done
>> >> >> that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
>> >> >> Wilson-Sampras.
>>
>> >> >> Divorce coming perhaps ?
>>
>> >> >I never understood why she married him except for the money? I mean Pete is
>> >> >DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties that celebs are
>> >> >always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get in anywhere and
>> >> >won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on chips and go to
>> >> >bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divorce is
>> >> >imminent!
>>
>> >> Bridgette is not really that attractive either. Some might even say
>> >> she is unattractive.
>>
>> >> Look at some of these photos.
>>
>> >>http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2178914816/nm0933098
>>
>> >> I'd take Mirka over her anyday !
>>
>> >you must be nuts, at least Bridgette smiles.
>>
>> no. she is downright UGLY really. she has Bob Hopes' nose n other
>> deformaties. Look at them for Christs sake !
>>
>> You want me to send you some links to the UGLIEST ones ?
>>
>> You got eyes ?
>>
>> Only a fan fucker like whisper could call her beautiful.
>>
>> Ok ok maybe she is not ugly but she is no beauty queen by a long shot.
>>
>> Then again, Pete *is* ugly and she was the best he could get eh ?
>>
>> I bet she puts a bag over his head at night.
>
>
>Bridgette is fit not fat like that swiss cow Mirka!


but she's pig ass ugly. homer is prettier than her and he is one.


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 07:12:21
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 17, 3:23=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:

>
> Bridgette is not really that attractive either. Some might even say
> she is unattractive.
>
> Look at some of these photos.
>
> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2178914816/nm0933098
>
> I'd take Mirka over her anyday !


You are blind.


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 06:38:41
From: robin
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 17 Feb, 12:04, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> ghell666 wrote:
> > =A0You can include just about the whole top ten / 20 =A0here
>
> > If Pioline / an old MacEnroe could return his serve and break him now
> > where they couldnt 10 yrs ago its says a lot about how much technology
> > has enable relatively weak returners of before to challange the
> > greater servers of yestyear .
>
> > I know Sampras is older etc but Im only basing this too on the fact he
> > says himself the serves still the same .
>
> > I dont think technology has influenced the serve that much more than
> > it did before i.e. I dont think Pete would of had any more of
> > advantage using new technology as his recent defeats show.
>
> Sampras handled peak Agassi easily in big slam matches & Andre almsot
> beat Fed in 2004/5 USOs - proves Sampras would dominate this era on
> part-time basis.

One of those matches was played in absurd condititions, Agassi and
Federer were just patting the ball over the net hoping it would land
in. Only an idiot would try to make something of the scoreline there.
The other match didn't even go to a deciding set, Agassi never had a
lead in sets, and the fourth set was pretty comfortable for Federer.
You wouldn't claim that Federer almost beat Nadal in the 2006 and 2007
FO finals, would you?

The fallacy of your reasoning, in this argument that you keep trotting
out, has been pointed out to you time and time again. When analysing a
situation such as this you must look at the overall patterns, not
cherry picked details to suit your argument. Agassi won his first 3
matches against Federer prior to Federer's peak. Peak Federer then
beat Agassi 8 times in a row. Clearly, Agassi had the beating of pre-
peak Federer. Clearly, peak Federer owned Agassi, but Agassi was old.
What can we say, if we analyse the situation honestly, using the
available data, about how peak Federer would have coped against peak
Agassi? Absolutely nothing.

By the way, even if you had presented convincing evidence, you would
not have 'proved' anything. Please stop using the term prove
incorrectly.


  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 15:56:12
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
robin wrote:
> The fallacy of your reasoning, in this argument that you keep trotting
> out, has been pointed out to you time and time again. When analysing a
> situation such as this you must look at the overall patterns, not
> cherry picked details to suit your argument. Agassi won his first 3
> matches against Federer prior to Federer's peak. Peak Federer then
> beat Agassi 8 times in a row. Clearly, Agassi had the beating of pre-
> peak Federer. Clearly, peak Federer owned Agassi, but Agassi was old.
> What can we say, if we analyse the situation honestly, using the
> available data, about how peak Federer would have coped against peak
> Agassi? Absolutely nothing.

Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than Sampras?
He should know better than anyone in here.

PS.


   
Date: 18 Feb 2009 17:41:05
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Petter Solbu wrote:
> robin wrote:
>> The fallacy of your reasoning, in this argument that you keep trotting
>> out, has been pointed out to you time and time again. When analysing a
>> situation such as this you must look at the overall patterns, not
>> cherry picked details to suit your argument. Agassi won his first 3
>> matches against Federer prior to Federer's peak. Peak Federer then
>> beat Agassi 8 times in a row. Clearly, Agassi had the beating of pre-
>> peak Federer. Clearly, peak Federer owned Agassi, but Agassi was old.
>> What can we say, if we analyse the situation honestly, using the
>> available data, about how peak Federer would have coped against peak
>> Agassi? Absolutely nothing.
>
> Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than Sampras?
> He should know better than anyone in here.
>
> PS.


That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is goat
& was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36
62 42 & game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier
than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The evidence
suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. When you look
at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while
Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty obvious.



    
Date: 18 Feb 2009 23:56:19
From: john
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:499bad83$0$641$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Petter Solbu wrote:
>> robin wrote:
>>> The fallacy of your reasoning, in this argument that you keep trotting
>>> out, has been pointed out to you time and time again. When analysing a
>>> situation such as this you must look at the overall patterns, not
>>> cherry picked details to suit your argument. Agassi won his first 3
>>> matches against Federer prior to Federer's peak. Peak Federer then
>>> beat Agassi 8 times in a row. Clearly, Agassi had the beating of pre-
>>> peak Federer. Clearly, peak Federer owned Agassi, but Agassi was old.
>>> What can we say, if we analyse the situation honestly, using the
>>> available data, about how peak Federer would have coped against peak
>>> Agassi? Absolutely nothing.
>>
>> Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than Sampras?
>> He should know better than anyone in here.
>>
>> PS.
>
>
> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is goat &
> was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak given he
> just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36 62 42 &
> game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier than both
> these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The evidence suggests
> Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. When you look at how Rafa
> has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while Sampras never had
> a great player surpass him on court it's pretty obvious.
>

When you see how Hewitt beat Sampras 6,1,1 and then Safin beat him 3,4,3 and
the
same Hewitt at 24 got absolutely thrash by Federer 0,6,0 and Safin 6,4,2 in
slam finals.
In reality Sampras lost to those two slams to these two in straight set and
while peak
Federer beat Hewitt 11 times and Safin 9 out of 11 times suggest that
Federer is superior
player.




     
Date: 19 Feb 2009 16:38:29
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
john wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is goat &
>> was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak given he
>> just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36 62 42 &
>> game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier than both
>> these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The evidence suggests
>> Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. When you look at how Rafa
>> has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while Sampras never had
>> a great player surpass him on court it's pretty obvious.
>>
>
> When you see how Hewitt beat Sampras 6,1,1 and then Safin beat him 3,4,3 and
> the



Completely incorrect. Safin won 1st & Hewitt 2nd - you have it back to
front here which is typical sloppy analysis from you.



> same Hewitt at 24 got absolutely thrash by Federer 0,6,0 and Safin 6,4,2 in
> slam finals.


Incorrect again. This was not the 'same' Hewitt as it was 3 years after
he beat old Sampras, & in fact it was more than 2 years after Hewitt won
his last slam ie well past his peak. Also Fed's win over Safin was 4
years after he beat old Sampras in USO final, & also 4 years after Safin
had ranked No.1 - ie very well past his peak. This analysis is way
beyond sloppy & is fraudulent.


> In reality Sampras lost to those two slams to these two in straight set and
> while peak


You forgot to mention Sampras beat Hewitt & Safin in USO semis in 2000 &
2001 for some reason? - more sloppiness.


> Federer beat Hewitt 11 times and Safin 9 out of 11 times suggest that
> Federer is superior
> player.


Federer is superior to Hewitt/Safin but so is every great player. It's
very clear peak Sampras would humble Roger after we see what Rafa is
doing to him on all 3 surfaces.



      
Date: 20 Feb 2009 00:40:10
From: john
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:499cf058$0$676$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> john wrote:
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is goat
>>> & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
>>> given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36
>>> 62 42 & game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier
>>> than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The evidence
>>> suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. When you look
>>> at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while
>>> Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty
>>> obvious.
>>>
>>
>> When you see how Hewitt beat Sampras 6,1,1 and then Safin beat him 3,4,3
>> and the
>
>
>
> Completely incorrect. Safin won 1st & Hewitt 2nd - you have it back to
> front here which is typical sloppy analysis from you.
>
>
>
>> same Hewitt at 24 got absolutely thrash by Federer 0,6,0 and Safin 6,4,2
>> in slam finals.
>
>
> Incorrect again. This was not the 'same' Hewitt as it was 3 years after
> he beat old Sampras, & in fact it was more than 2 years after Hewitt won
> his last slam ie well past his peak. Also Fed's win over Safin was 4
> years after he beat old Sampras in USO final, & also 4 years after Safin
> had ranked No.1 - ie very well past his peak. This analysis is way beyond
> sloppy & is fraudulent.
>
>
>> In reality Sampras lost to those two slams to these two in straight set
>> and while peak
>
>
> You forgot to mention Sampras beat Hewitt & Safin in USO semis in 2000 &
> 2001 for some reason? - more sloppiness.
>
>
>> Federer beat Hewitt 11 times and Safin 9 out of 11 times suggest that
>> Federer is superior
>> player.
>
>
> Federer is superior to Hewitt/Safin but so is every great player. It's
> very clear peak Sampras would humble Roger after we see what Rafa is doing
> to him on all 3 surfaces.

Not with the record Sampras had against these two.




      
Date: 19 Feb 2009 05:42:57
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest

>
>Federer is superior to Hewitt/Safin but so is every great player. It's
>very clear peak Sampras would humble Roger after we see what Rafa is
>doing to him on all 3 surfaces.


That's your "fantasy".

Here are the FACTS :


Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World Championships.


     
Date: 18 Feb 2009 14:03:02
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest

"john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:499c0577$0$640$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:499bad83$0$641$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Petter Solbu wrote:
>>> robin wrote:
>>>> The fallacy of your reasoning, in this argument that you keep trotting
>>>> out, has been pointed out to you time and time again. When analysing a
>>>> situation such as this you must look at the overall patterns, not
>>>> cherry picked details to suit your argument. Agassi won his first 3
>>>> matches against Federer prior to Federer's peak. Peak Federer then
>>>> beat Agassi 8 times in a row. Clearly, Agassi had the beating of pre-
>>>> peak Federer. Clearly, peak Federer owned Agassi, but Agassi was old.
>>>> What can we say, if we analyse the situation honestly, using the
>>>> available data, about how peak Federer would have coped against peak
>>>> Agassi? Absolutely nothing.
>>>
>>> Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than Sampras?
>>> He should know better than anyone in here.
>>>
>>> PS.
>>
>>
>> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is goat &
>> was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak given
>> he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36 62 42 &
>> game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier than both
>> these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The evidence suggests
>> Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. When you look at how
>> Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while Sampras
>> never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty obvious.
>>
>
> When you see how Hewitt beat Sampras 6,1,1 and then Safin beat him 3,4,3
> and the
> same Hewitt at 24 got absolutely thrash by Federer 0,6,0 and Safin 6,4,2
> in slam finals.
> In reality Sampras lost to those two slams to these two in straight set
> and while peak
> Federer beat Hewitt 11 times and Safin 9 out of 11 times suggest that
> Federer is superior
> player.

Rafa-Federer 13-6

Beat him in clay, grass and HC slam final.
Owned.




      
Date: 19 Feb 2009 01:45:11
From: john
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest

"*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote in message
news:gnh0uf$97t$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>
> "john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:499c0577$0$640$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:499bad83$0$641$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> Petter Solbu wrote:
>>>> robin wrote:
>>>>> The fallacy of your reasoning, in this argument that you keep trotting
>>>>> out, has been pointed out to you time and time again. When analysing a
>>>>> situation such as this you must look at the overall patterns, not
>>>>> cherry picked details to suit your argument. Agassi won his first 3
>>>>> matches against Federer prior to Federer's peak. Peak Federer then
>>>>> beat Agassi 8 times in a row. Clearly, Agassi had the beating of pre-
>>>>> peak Federer. Clearly, peak Federer owned Agassi, but Agassi was old.
>>>>> What can we say, if we analyse the situation honestly, using the
>>>>> available data, about how peak Federer would have coped against peak
>>>>> Agassi? Absolutely nothing.
>>>>
>>>> Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than
>>>> Sampras? He should know better than anyone in here.
>>>>
>>>> PS.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is goat
>>> & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
>>> given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36
>>> 62 42 & game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier
>>> than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The evidence
>>> suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. When you look
>>> at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while
>>> Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty
>>> obvious.
>>>
>>
>> When you see how Hewitt beat Sampras 6,1,1 and then Safin beat him 3,4,3
>> and the
>> same Hewitt at 24 got absolutely thrash by Federer 0,6,0 and Safin 6,4,2
>> in slam finals.
>> In reality Sampras lost to those two slams to these two in straight set
>> and while peak
>> Federer beat Hewitt 11 times and Safin 9 out of 11 times suggest that
>> Federer is superior
>> player.
>
> Rafa-Federer 13-6
>
> Beat him in clay, grass and HC slam final.
> Owned.

Hewitt owns Sampras 4 out of last 5 matches and peak Krajicek owned peak
Sampras 6:2 and
in Whisper's logic could have been 8:0 if he was assed about some of his
other matches. Any
more Striper...
>
>




       
Date: 19 Feb 2009 18:18:04
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
john wrote:
> "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote in message
> news:gnh0uf$97t$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>> "john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:499c0577$0$640$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:499bad83$0$641$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>> Petter Solbu wrote:
>>>>> robin wrote:
>>>>>> The fallacy of your reasoning, in this argument that you keep trotting
>>>>>> out, has been pointed out to you time and time again. When analysing a
>>>>>> situation such as this you must look at the overall patterns, not
>>>>>> cherry picked details to suit your argument. Agassi won his first 3
>>>>>> matches against Federer prior to Federer's peak. Peak Federer then
>>>>>> beat Agassi 8 times in a row. Clearly, Agassi had the beating of pre-
>>>>>> peak Federer. Clearly, peak Federer owned Agassi, but Agassi was old.
>>>>>> What can we say, if we analyse the situation honestly, using the
>>>>>> available data, about how peak Federer would have coped against peak
>>>>>> Agassi? Absolutely nothing.
>>>>> Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than
>>>>> Sampras? He should know better than anyone in here.
>>>>>
>>>>> PS.
>>>>
>>>> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is goat
>>>> & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
>>>> given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36
>>>> 62 42 & game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier
>>>> than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The evidence
>>>> suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. When you look
>>>> at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while
>>>> Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty
>>>> obvious.
>>>>
>>> When you see how Hewitt beat Sampras 6,1,1 and then Safin beat him 3,4,3
>>> and the
>>> same Hewitt at 24 got absolutely thrash by Federer 0,6,0 and Safin 6,4,2
>>> in slam finals.
>>> In reality Sampras lost to those two slams to these two in straight set
>>> and while peak
>>> Federer beat Hewitt 11 times and Safin 9 out of 11 times suggest that
>>> Federer is superior
>>> player.
>> Rafa-Federer 13-6
>>
>> Beat him in clay, grass and HC slam final.
>> Owned.
>
> Hewitt owns Sampras 4 out of last 5 matches and peak Krajicek owned peak
> Sampras 6:2 and
> in Whisper's logic could have been 8:0 if he was assed about some of his
> other matches. Any
> more Striper...
>>
>
>


That's not my logic at all. You can't compare lightweights like
Hewitt/Krajicek with the goats - not many are dumb enough to attempt it
so I doff my cap.



        
Date: 20 Feb 2009 00:37:44
From: john
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:499d07ae$0$678$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> john wrote:
>> "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote in message
>> news:gnh0uf$97t$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>>> "john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:499c0577$0$640$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:499bad83$0$641$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>> Petter Solbu wrote:
>>>>>> robin wrote:
>>>>>>> The fallacy of your reasoning, in this argument that you keep
>>>>>>> trotting
>>>>>>> out, has been pointed out to you time and time again. When analysing
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> situation such as this you must look at the overall patterns, not
>>>>>>> cherry picked details to suit your argument. Agassi won his first 3
>>>>>>> matches against Federer prior to Federer's peak. Peak Federer then
>>>>>>> beat Agassi 8 times in a row. Clearly, Agassi had the beating of
>>>>>>> pre-
>>>>>>> peak Federer. Clearly, peak Federer owned Agassi, but Agassi was
>>>>>>> old.
>>>>>>> What can we say, if we analyse the situation honestly, using the
>>>>>>> available data, about how peak Federer would have coped against peak
>>>>>>> Agassi? Absolutely nothing.
>>>>>> Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than
>>>>>> Sampras? He should know better than anyone in here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is
>>>>> goat & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his
>>>>> peak given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final
>>>>> led 36 62 42 & game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far
>>>>> easier than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The
>>>>> evidence suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer.
>>>>> When you look at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3
>>>>> surfaces, while Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court
>>>>> it's pretty obvious.
>>>>>
>>>> When you see how Hewitt beat Sampras 6,1,1 and then Safin beat him
>>>> 3,4,3 and the
>>>> same Hewitt at 24 got absolutely thrash by Federer 0,6,0 and Safin
>>>> 6,4,2 in slam finals.
>>>> In reality Sampras lost to those two slams to these two in straight set
>>>> and while peak
>>>> Federer beat Hewitt 11 times and Safin 9 out of 11 times suggest that
>>>> Federer is superior
>>>> player.
>>> Rafa-Federer 13-6
>>>
>>> Beat him in clay, grass and HC slam final.
>>> Owned.
>>
>> Hewitt owns Sampras 4 out of last 5 matches and peak Krajicek owned peak
>> Sampras 6:2 and
>> in Whisper's logic could have been 8:0 if he was assed about some of his
>> other matches. Any
>> more Striper...
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> That's not my logic at all. You can't compare lightweights like
> Hewitt/Krajicek with the goats - not many are dumb enough to attempt it so
> I doff my cap.

Sorry asshole, that is your logic, picking out one match that Agassi got
close of winning 2 sets in a final
while ignoring the fact he lost to Federer 8 times in a row. I think Mikko
pointed that well out in another
post. Not many are as dumb as you in RST and that is much certain than
7543.
>




         
Date: 19 Feb 2009 13:46:53
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:37:44 +1100, "john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>
>"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:499d07ae$0$678$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> john wrote:
>>> "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote in message
>>> news:gnh0uf$97t$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>>>> "john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:499c0577$0$640$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:499bad83$0$641$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>>>> Petter Solbu wrote:
>>>>>>> robin wrote:
>>>>>>>> The fallacy of your reasoning, in this argument that you keep
>>>>>>>> trotting
>>>>>>>> out, has been pointed out to you time and time again. When analysing
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> situation such as this you must look at the overall patterns, not
>>>>>>>> cherry picked details to suit your argument. Agassi won his first 3
>>>>>>>> matches against Federer prior to Federer's peak. Peak Federer then
>>>>>>>> beat Agassi 8 times in a row. Clearly, Agassi had the beating of
>>>>>>>> pre-
>>>>>>>> peak Federer. Clearly, peak Federer owned Agassi, but Agassi was
>>>>>>>> old.
>>>>>>>> What can we say, if we analyse the situation honestly, using the
>>>>>>>> available data, about how peak Federer would have coped against peak
>>>>>>>> Agassi? Absolutely nothing.
>>>>>>> Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than
>>>>>>> Sampras? He should know better than anyone in here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is
>>>>>> goat & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his
>>>>>> peak given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final
>>>>>> led 36 62 42 & game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far
>>>>>> easier than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The
>>>>>> evidence suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer.
>>>>>> When you look at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3
>>>>>> surfaces, while Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court
>>>>>> it's pretty obvious.
>>>>>>
>>>>> When you see how Hewitt beat Sampras 6,1,1 and then Safin beat him
>>>>> 3,4,3 and the
>>>>> same Hewitt at 24 got absolutely thrash by Federer 0,6,0 and Safin
>>>>> 6,4,2 in slam finals.
>>>>> In reality Sampras lost to those two slams to these two in straight set
>>>>> and while peak
>>>>> Federer beat Hewitt 11 times and Safin 9 out of 11 times suggest that
>>>>> Federer is superior
>>>>> player.
>>>> Rafa-Federer 13-6
>>>>
>>>> Beat him in clay, grass and HC slam final.
>>>> Owned.
>>>
>>> Hewitt owns Sampras 4 out of last 5 matches and peak Krajicek owned peak
>>> Sampras 6:2 and
>>> in Whisper's logic could have been 8:0 if he was assed about some of his
>>> other matches. Any
>>> more Striper...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's not my logic at all. You can't compare lightweights like
>> Hewitt/Krajicek with the goats - not many are dumb enough to attempt it so
>> I doff my cap.
>
>Sorry asshole, that is your logic, picking out one match that Agassi got
>close of winning 2 sets in a final
>while ignoring the fact he lost to Federer 8 times in a row. I think Mikko
>pointed that well out in another
>post. Not many are as dumb as you in RST and that is much certain than
>7543.
>>
>


whisper is schizo. he has two assholes. one called whisper and the
other called skiptis. they are mirror images of each other. kind of
like left and right hand isomers.

sometimes, they play with each other pretending the other is
Sampras.

they like it "greek" the best of course.


    
Date: 18 Feb 2009 13:47:51
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Whisper wrote:
>> Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than
>> Sampras? He should know better than anyone in here.
>
> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is goat
> & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak
> given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36
> 62 42 & game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier
> than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The evidence
> suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. When you look
> at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while
> Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty obvious.

These discussions are pointless, but if we are to listen to anyone about
these kind of questions we should listen to the players that have
actually met both Sampras and Federer. As MBDunc pointed out in a
different post you could always find results to prove your case, but it
doesn't sound that convincing at all. So far I have only heard Agassi
speaking about this, and I am pretty sure he told that Federer was a
better and more complete player than Pete.

PS.


     
Date: 19 Feb 2009 06:20:45
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Petter Solbu wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>>> Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than
>>> Sampras? He should know better than anyone in here.
>>
>> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is
>> goat & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his
>> peak given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final
>> led 36 62 42 & game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far
>> easier than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The
>> evidence suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer.
>> When you look at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3
>> surfaces, while Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court
>> it's pretty obvious.
>
> These discussions are pointless, but if we are to listen to anyone about
> these kind of questions we should listen to the players that have
> actually met both Sampras and Federer. As MBDunc pointed out in a
> different post you could always find results to prove your case, but it
> doesn't sound that convincing at all. So far I have only heard Agassi
> speaking about this, and I am pretty sure he told that Federer was a
> better and more complete player than Pete.
>
> PS.


You have to allow for ceibs - remember how many were predicting > 10
slams for Djokovic, Rafa is goat etc? I agree we should listen to what
players say, but never while the great is still playing as that guy is
always goat even if he has won 3 slams. Let's hear what players say 5
yrs after Fed's retirement - my guess is you'll be very sad.



      
Date: 21 Feb 2009 03:05:14
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 20, 9:38=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> P
> >>> Very well said, I have seen them all play one time or another. Serena
> >>> W hits the ball harder than Mac or Borg did! The game is different
> >>> totally. Like comparing science of Newton's times to modern physics,
> >>> just a bad joke?!
> >> That's because you're looking at it from the perspective of equipment
> >> they used (poor rackets & strings). =A0Connors was playing his normal =
game
> >> when he got beat by Newk in AO final, & Rosewall at age 40 went all th=
e
> >> way to Wim/USO finals v Jimbo. =A0Jimbo in turn beat the modern greats=
at
> >> advanced age so absolutely no fucking reason why Newk/Laver & co
> >> couldn't do it too.
>
> > Yes, great players can span eras and be competive at the highest level
> > even into their 30s. Nothing new about this.
>
> > The only problem is that you always ignore this constant of tennis
> > history when talking about Agassi playing Fed tight at the USO and
> > hanging with Rafa, and make it sound like it's some incredible anomaly
> > that he was able to do that and proves this era is inferior.
>
> > Why is that?
>
> My aim was to prove Sampras would still rock in this era using Agassi as
> the link.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Agassi was far more entertaining than dull Sampras.


       
Date: 21 Feb 2009 22:17:36
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 20, 9:38 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> P
>>>>> Very well said, I have seen them all play one time or another. Serena
>>>>> W hits the ball harder than Mac or Borg did! The game is different
>>>>> totally. Like comparing science of Newton's times to modern physics,
>>>>> just a bad joke?!
>>>> That's because you're looking at it from the perspective of equipment
>>>> they used (poor rackets & strings). Connors was playing his normal game
>>>> when he got beat by Newk in AO final, & Rosewall at age 40 went all the
>>>> way to Wim/USO finals v Jimbo. Jimbo in turn beat the modern greats at
>>>> advanced age so absolutely no fucking reason why Newk/Laver & co
>>>> couldn't do it too.
>>> Yes, great players can span eras and be competive at the highest level
>>> even into their 30s. Nothing new about this.
>>> The only problem is that you always ignore this constant of tennis
>>> history when talking about Agassi playing Fed tight at the USO and
>>> hanging with Rafa, and make it sound like it's some incredible anomaly
>>> that he was able to do that and proves this era is inferior.
>>> Why is that?
>> My aim was to prove Sampras would still rock in this era using Agassi as
>> the link.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Agassi was far more entertaining than dull Sampras.


Relevance?



      
Date: 21 Feb 2009 03:04:10
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 20, 3:29=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> guyana wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 1:53 am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
> >> On Feb 19, 10:44 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:34:43 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
> >>> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 20 helmi, 08:11, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>> Petter Solbu wrote:
> >>>>>> Whisper wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> No it won't. Did you just completely ignore my post where I
> >>>>>>>>> explained perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment i=
n
> >>>>>>>>> historical terms while they are still playing?
> >>>>>>>> Yes, I ignored it. I still think it is better than numbers.
> >>>>>>> Well then it has to apply to all players. Mac was declared goat i=
n
> >>>>>>> 1984 so it still stands as we don't have to allow for ceibs.
> >>>>>> I don't know. I don't care about GOAT issues, but I am sure McEnro=
e was
> >>>>>> a splendid tennis player at that time. I guess most people still w=
ill
> >>>>>> say that Borg at the same time was more dominant, but I admit I am=
no
> >>>>>> expert on this.
> >>>>> Borg was more dominant in the feeble 70's until Mac came along & st=
arted
> >>>>> beating him in big slam finals - same deal with Rafa v Fed now. Bor=
g
> >>>>> was greater than Mac, but Mac clearly was a better tennis player & =
far
> >>>>> more talented. Federer is greater than Rafa & more talented, but Ra=
fa
> >>>>> is better than him & would be expected to beat win 4/5 if both at p=
eak.
> >>>>>> To compare Federer, Nadal or Sampras to McEnroe, Borg or even Lave=
r can
> >>>>>> only be described by one word - ridiculous. It is now a completely
> >>>>>> different sport with different competitors. It is like comparing P=
ele or
> >>>>>> Maradona to Zidane, Kaka or Rolandinho. It can't be done.
> >>>>>> PS.
> >>>>> We're not comparing them with each other as that is subjective. Cle=
arly
> >>>>> Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver =
had
> >>>>> despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't =
beat
> >>>>> them. It only appears he wouldn't be able to do it when you assess
> >>>>> their individual skills base, but who knows maybe his more 1-dimens=
ional
> >>>>> game may still come through? No one can say for certain.
> >>>> Was above really Whisper's post? Actually it was one of his most
> >>>> objective posts.
> >>>> Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
> >>>> against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
> >>>> thin.
> >>>> I remember combined Mac/Borg interview where both agreed that based =
on
> >>>> their actual play at those finals their Wimb titles should have been
> >>>> reversed (Borg for 81 Wimb and Mac for 80 Wimb).
> >>>> .mikko
> >>> Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver ha=
d
> >>> despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't
> >>> beat them.
> >>> In fact he DID beat ONE of them !
> >>> Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World Championships !!!-
> >> ++ Ya... and this devotion to 60s greats is quaint and romantic but in
> >> real life terms the game of the 1960s and 1970s was in SLOW MOTION
> >> compared to today... the casual forehands, floating backhand, the
> >> standing tall gets in the corners... it just doesn't compare to tennis
> >> today and the skills at speed needed to be a slam winner today is off
> >> the charts compared to the leisured gentility that they played at back
> >> then... Feds and Rafa are playing a totally different game of all
> >> court, super speed tennis compared to what Laver and Rosewall and Borg
> >> and Connors and Mac and Lendl played... and Sampras was a big serving,
> >> running forehand tennis player with good movement and good nerves...
> >> he's not in the conversation as most talented and NO ONE who's serious
> >> puts him there... achievement ABSOLUTELY... he's the slam MAN... but
> >> Feds skill level IS HIS REPUTATION, the defining skills package of his
> >> generation... and its not over yet :))
>
> >> P
>
> > Very well said, I have seen them all play one time or another. Serena
> > W hits the ball harder than Mac or Borg did! The game is different
> > totally. Like comparing science of Newton's times to modern physics,
> > just a bad joke?!
>
> That's because you're looking at it from the perspective of equipment
> they used (poor rackets & strings). =A0Connors was playing his normal gam=
e
> when he got beat by Newk in AO final, & Rosewall at age 40 went all the
> way to Wim/USO finals v Jimbo. =A0Jimbo in turn beat the modern greats at
> advanced age so absolutely no fucking reason why Newk/Laver & co
> couldn't do it too.
>
> You give Rafa/Fed those old blocky wood rackets & shit courts & you'll
> have a great belly laugh watching them try & swat the ball around.- Hide =
quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well Rafa's game just wouldn't be possible full stop with the old
racquets, but I think Fed's game would transition quite nicely.


      
Date: 20 Feb 2009 14:23:46
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 20, 4:38=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> P
> >>> Very well said, I have seen them all play one time or another. Serena
> >>> W hits the ball harder than Mac or Borg did! The game is different
> >>> totally. Like comparing science of Newton's times to modern physics,
> >>> just a bad joke?!
> >> That's because you're looking at it from the perspective of equipment
> >> they used (poor rackets & strings). =A0Connors was playing his normal =
game
> >> when he got beat by Newk in AO final, & Rosewall at age 40 went all th=
e
> >> way to Wim/USO finals v Jimbo. =A0Jimbo in turn beat the modern greats=
at
> >> advanced age so absolutely no fucking reason why Newk/Laver & co
> >> couldn't do it too.
>
> > Yes, great players can span eras and be competive at the highest level
> > even into their 30s. Nothing new about this.
>
> > The only problem is that you always ignore this constant of tennis
> > history when talking about Agassi playing Fed tight at the USO and
> > hanging with Rafa, and make it sound like it's some incredible anomaly
> > that he was able to do that and proves this era is inferior.
>
> > Why is that?
>
> My aim was to prove Sampras would still rock in this era using Agassi as
> the link.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But you can state that Sampras is the greatest you've ever seen
without belittling the next era by cherry picking results.

Your logic is that because Agassi played Fed and Rafa close in a
couple of matches that *proves* that the 90s were better. But does the
fact that 37 y/o Connors nearly beat Agassi at 89 USO and made semis
of 91 USO *prove* that the late 70s and 80s were better than the early
90s? Or does the fact that old Newk beat Connors at 75 AO *prove* that
the late 60s were better than the late 70s? What about old Lendl
beating beating Becker at 92 USO and playing him really close at 89
USO and 91 AO? Does that *prove* that Lendl was the greater player off
of grass? Using your logic I guess you would have to reach those
conclusions as well. Is that what you believe?


      
Date: 20 Feb 2009 08:40:49
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 20, 10:29=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> guyana wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 1:53 am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
> >> On Feb 19, 10:44 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:34:43 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
> >>> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 20 helmi, 08:11, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>> Petter Solbu wrote:
> >>>>>> Whisper wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> No it won't. Did you just completely ignore my post where I
> >>>>>>>>> explained perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment i=
n
> >>>>>>>>> historical terms while they are still playing?
> >>>>>>>> Yes, I ignored it. I still think it is better than numbers.
> >>>>>>> Well then it has to apply to all players. Mac was declared goat i=
n
> >>>>>>> 1984 so it still stands as we don't have to allow for ceibs.
> >>>>>> I don't know. I don't care about GOAT issues, but I am sure McEnro=
e was
> >>>>>> a splendid tennis player at that time. I guess most people still w=
ill
> >>>>>> say that Borg at the same time was more dominant, but I admit I am=
no
> >>>>>> expert on this.
> >>>>> Borg was more dominant in the feeble 70's until Mac came along & st=
arted
> >>>>> beating him in big slam finals - same deal with Rafa v Fed now. Bor=
g
> >>>>> was greater than Mac, but Mac clearly was a better tennis player & =
far
> >>>>> more talented. Federer is greater than Rafa & more talented, but Ra=
fa
> >>>>> is better than him & would be expected to beat win 4/5 if both at p=
eak.
> >>>>>> To compare Federer, Nadal or Sampras to McEnroe, Borg or even Lave=
r can
> >>>>>> only be described by one word - ridiculous. It is now a completely
> >>>>>> different sport with different competitors. It is like comparing P=
ele or
> >>>>>> Maradona to Zidane, Kaka or Rolandinho. It can't be done.
> >>>>>> PS.
> >>>>> We're not comparing them with each other as that is subjective. Cle=
arly
> >>>>> Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver =
had
> >>>>> despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't =
beat
> >>>>> them. It only appears he wouldn't be able to do it when you assess
> >>>>> their individual skills base, but who knows maybe his more 1-dimens=
ional
> >>>>> game may still come through? No one can say for certain.
> >>>> Was above really Whisper's post? Actually it was one of his most
> >>>> objective posts.
> >>>> Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
> >>>> against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
> >>>> thin.
> >>>> I remember combined Mac/Borg interview where both agreed that based =
on
> >>>> their actual play at those finals their Wimb titles should have been
> >>>> reversed (Borg for 81 Wimb and Mac for 80 Wimb).
> >>>> .mikko
> >>> Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver ha=
d
> >>> despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't
> >>> beat them.
> >>> In fact he DID beat ONE of them !
> >>> Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World Championships !!!-
> >> ++ Ya... and this devotion to 60s greats is quaint and romantic but in
> >> real life terms the game of the 1960s and 1970s was in SLOW MOTION
> >> compared to today... the casual forehands, floating backhand, the
> >> standing tall gets in the corners... it just doesn't compare to tennis
> >> today and the skills at speed needed to be a slam winner today is off
> >> the charts compared to the leisured gentility that they played at back
> >> then... Feds and Rafa are playing a totally different game of all
> >> court, super speed tennis compared to what Laver and Rosewall and Borg
> >> and Connors and Mac and Lendl played... and Sampras was a big serving,
> >> running forehand tennis player with good movement and good nerves...
> >> he's not in the conversation as most talented and NO ONE who's serious
> >> puts him there... achievement ABSOLUTELY... he's the slam MAN... but
> >> Feds skill level IS HIS REPUTATION, the defining skills package of his
> >> generation... and its not over yet :))
>
> >> P
>
> > Very well said, I have seen them all play one time or another. Serena
> > W hits the ball harder than Mac or Borg did! The game is different
> > totally. Like comparing science of Newton's times to modern physics,
> > just a bad joke?!
>
> That's because you're looking at it from the perspective of equipment
> they used (poor rackets & strings). =A0Connors was playing his normal gam=
e
> when he got beat by Newk in AO final, & Rosewall at age 40 went all the
> way to Wim/USO finals v Jimbo. =A0Jimbo in turn beat the modern greats at
> advanced age so absolutely no fucking reason why Newk/Laver & co
> couldn't do it too.

Yes, great players can span eras and be competive at the highest level
even into their 30s. Nothing new about this.

The only problem is that you always ignore this constant of tennis
history when talking about Agassi playing Fed tight at the USO and
hanging with Rafa, and make it sound like it's some incredible anomaly
that he was able to do that and proves this era is inferior.

Why is that?


       
Date: 21 Feb 2009 08:38:17
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> P
>>> Very well said, I have seen them all play one time or another. Serena
>>> W hits the ball harder than Mac or Borg did! The game is different
>>> totally. Like comparing science of Newton's times to modern physics,
>>> just a bad joke?!
>> That's because you're looking at it from the perspective of equipment
>> they used (poor rackets & strings). Connors was playing his normal game
>> when he got beat by Newk in AO final, & Rosewall at age 40 went all the
>> way to Wim/USO finals v Jimbo. Jimbo in turn beat the modern greats at
>> advanced age so absolutely no fucking reason why Newk/Laver & co
>> couldn't do it too.
>
> Yes, great players can span eras and be competive at the highest level
> even into their 30s. Nothing new about this.
>
> The only problem is that you always ignore this constant of tennis
> history when talking about Agassi playing Fed tight at the USO and
> hanging with Rafa, and make it sound like it's some incredible anomaly
> that he was able to do that and proves this era is inferior.
>
> Why is that?


My aim was to prove Sampras would still rock in this era using Agassi as
the link.


      
Date: 20 Feb 2009 07:46:35
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 20 Feb, 15:29, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> guyana wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 1:53 am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
> >> On Feb 19, 10:44 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:34:43 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
> >>> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 20 helmi, 08:11, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>> Petter Solbu wrote:
> >>>>>> Whisper wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> No it won't. Did you just completely ignore my post where I
> >>>>>>>>> explained perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment i=
n
> >>>>>>>>> historical terms while they are still playing?
> >>>>>>>> Yes, I ignored it. I still think it is better than numbers.
> >>>>>>> Well then it has to apply to all players. Mac was declared goat i=
n
> >>>>>>> 1984 so it still stands as we don't have to allow for ceibs.
> >>>>>> I don't know. I don't care about GOAT issues, but I am sure McEnro=
e was
> >>>>>> a splendid tennis player at that time. I guess most people still w=
ill
> >>>>>> say that Borg at the same time was more dominant, but I admit I am=
no
> >>>>>> expert on this.
> >>>>> Borg was more dominant in the feeble 70's until Mac came along & st=
arted
> >>>>> beating him in big slam finals - same deal with Rafa v Fed now. Bor=
g
> >>>>> was greater than Mac, but Mac clearly was a better tennis player & =
far
> >>>>> more talented. Federer is greater than Rafa & more talented, but Ra=
fa
> >>>>> is better than him & would be expected to beat win 4/5 if both at p=
eak.
> >>>>>> To compare Federer, Nadal or Sampras to McEnroe, Borg or even Lave=
r can
> >>>>>> only be described by one word - ridiculous. It is now a completely
> >>>>>> different sport with different competitors. It is like comparing P=
ele or
> >>>>>> Maradona to Zidane, Kaka or Rolandinho. It can't be done.
> >>>>>> PS.
> >>>>> We're not comparing them with each other as that is subjective. Cle=
arly
> >>>>> Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver =
had
> >>>>> despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't =
beat
> >>>>> them. It only appears he wouldn't be able to do it when you assess
> >>>>> their individual skills base, but who knows maybe his more 1-dimens=
ional
> >>>>> game may still come through? No one can say for certain.
> >>>> Was above really Whisper's post? Actually it was one of his most
> >>>> objective posts.
> >>>> Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
> >>>> against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
> >>>> thin.
> >>>> I remember combined Mac/Borg interview where both agreed that based =
on
> >>>> their actual play at those finals their Wimb titles should have been
> >>>> reversed (Borg for 81 Wimb and Mac for 80 Wimb).
> >>>> .mikko
> >>> Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver ha=
d
> >>> despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't
> >>> beat them.
> >>> In fact he DID beat ONE of them !
> >>> Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World Championships !!!-
> >> ++ Ya... and this devotion to 60s greats is quaint and romantic but in
> >> real life terms the game of the 1960s and 1970s was in SLOW MOTION
> >> compared to today... the casual forehands, floating backhand, the
> >> standing tall gets in the corners... it just doesn't compare to tennis
> >> today and the skills at speed needed to be a slam winner today is off
> >> the charts compared to the leisured gentility that they played at back
> >> then... Feds and Rafa are playing a totally different game of all
> >> court, super speed tennis compared to what Laver and Rosewall and Borg
> >> and Connors and Mac and Lendl played... and Sampras was a big serving,
> >> running forehand tennis player with good movement and good nerves...
> >> he's not in the conversation as most talented and NO ONE who's serious
> >> puts him there... achievement ABSOLUTELY... he's the slam MAN... but
> >> Feds skill level IS HIS REPUTATION, the defining skills package of his
> >> generation... and its not over yet :))
>
> >> P
>
> > Very well said, I have seen them all play one time or another. Serena
> > W hits the ball harder than Mac or Borg did! The game is different
> > totally. Like comparing science of Newton's times to modern physics,
> > just a bad joke?!
>
> That's because you're looking at it from the perspective of equipment
> they used (poor rackets & strings). =A0Connors was playing his normal gam=
e
> when he got beat by Newk in AO final, & Rosewall at age 40 went all the
> way to Wim/USO finals v Jimbo. =A0Jimbo in turn beat the modern greats at
> advanced age so absolutely no fucking reason why Newk/Laver & co
> couldn't do it too.
>
> You give Rafa/Fed those old blocky wood rackets & shit courts & you'll
> have a great belly laugh watching them try & swat the ball around.

Certainly, Federer and Nadal couldn't play there modern games in those
conditions. Still, along the same line of reasoning, you would have to
agree that Federer would take apart Nadal pretty easily playing on an
old grass court with wooden racquets.


       
Date: 21 Feb 2009 02:56:55
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
robinson.neil@gmail.com wrote:
> On 20 Feb, 15:29, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> guyana wrote:
>>> On Feb 20, 1:53 am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 19, 10:44 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:34:43 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
>>>>> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 20 helmi, 08:11, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> Petter Solbu wrote:
>>>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> No it won't. Did you just completely ignore my post where I
>>>>>>>>>>> explained perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment in
>>>>>>>>>>> historical terms while they are still playing?
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I ignored it. I still think it is better than numbers.
>>>>>>>>> Well then it has to apply to all players. Mac was declared goat in
>>>>>>>>> 1984 so it still stands as we don't have to allow for ceibs.
>>>>>>>> I don't know. I don't care about GOAT issues, but I am sure McEnroe was
>>>>>>>> a splendid tennis player at that time. I guess most people still will
>>>>>>>> say that Borg at the same time was more dominant, but I admit I am no
>>>>>>>> expert on this.
>>>>>>> Borg was more dominant in the feeble 70's until Mac came along & started
>>>>>>> beating him in big slam finals - same deal with Rafa v Fed now. Borg
>>>>>>> was greater than Mac, but Mac clearly was a better tennis player & far
>>>>>>> more talented. Federer is greater than Rafa & more talented, but Rafa
>>>>>>> is better than him & would be expected to beat win 4/5 if both at peak.
>>>>>>>> To compare Federer, Nadal or Sampras to McEnroe, Borg or even Laver can
>>>>>>>> only be described by one word - ridiculous. It is now a completely
>>>>>>>> different sport with different competitors. It is like comparing Pele or
>>>>>>>> Maradona to Zidane, Kaka or Rolandinho. It can't be done.
>>>>>>>> PS.
>>>>>>> We're not comparing them with each other as that is subjective. Clearly
>>>>>>> Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver had
>>>>>>> despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't beat
>>>>>>> them. It only appears he wouldn't be able to do it when you assess
>>>>>>> their individual skills base, but who knows maybe his more 1-dimensional
>>>>>>> game may still come through? No one can say for certain.
>>>>>> Was above really Whisper's post? Actually it was one of his most
>>>>>> objective posts.
>>>>>> Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
>>>>>> against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
>>>>>> thin.
>>>>>> I remember combined Mac/Borg interview where both agreed that based on
>>>>>> their actual play at those finals their Wimb titles should have been
>>>>>> reversed (Borg for 81 Wimb and Mac for 80 Wimb).
>>>>>> .mikko
>>>>> Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver had
>>>>> despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't
>>>>> beat them.
>>>>> In fact he DID beat ONE of them !
>>>>> Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World Championships !!!-
>>>> ++ Ya... and this devotion to 60s greats is quaint and romantic but in
>>>> real life terms the game of the 1960s and 1970s was in SLOW MOTION
>>>> compared to today... the casual forehands, floating backhand, the
>>>> standing tall gets in the corners... it just doesn't compare to tennis
>>>> today and the skills at speed needed to be a slam winner today is off
>>>> the charts compared to the leisured gentility that they played at back
>>>> then... Feds and Rafa are playing a totally different game of all
>>>> court, super speed tennis compared to what Laver and Rosewall and Borg
>>>> and Connors and Mac and Lendl played... and Sampras was a big serving,
>>>> running forehand tennis player with good movement and good nerves...
>>>> he's not in the conversation as most talented and NO ONE who's serious
>>>> puts him there... achievement ABSOLUTELY... he's the slam MAN... but
>>>> Feds skill level IS HIS REPUTATION, the defining skills package of his
>>>> generation... and its not over yet :))
>>>> P
>>> Very well said, I have seen them all play one time or another. Serena
>>> W hits the ball harder than Mac or Borg did! The game is different
>>> totally. Like comparing science of Newton's times to modern physics,
>>> just a bad joke?!
>> That's because you're looking at it from the perspective of equipment
>> they used (poor rackets & strings). Connors was playing his normal game
>> when he got beat by Newk in AO final, & Rosewall at age 40 went all the
>> way to Wim/USO finals v Jimbo. Jimbo in turn beat the modern greats at
>> advanced age so absolutely no fucking reason why Newk/Laver & co
>> couldn't do it too.
>>
>> You give Rafa/Fed those old blocky wood rackets & shit courts & you'll
>> have a great belly laugh watching them try & swat the ball around.
>
> Certainly, Federer and Nadal couldn't play there modern games in those
> conditions. Still, along the same line of reasoning, you would have to
> agree that Federer would take apart Nadal pretty easily playing on an
> old grass court with wooden racquets.



Probably yes with his more traditional strokes, but Rafa would have
evolved differently if he played tennis under those conditions.



      
Date: 20 Feb 2009 06:34:52
From: guyana
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 20, 1:53=A0am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 10:44=A0pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:34:43 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
>
> > <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> > >On 20 helmi, 08:11, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > >> Petter Solbu wrote:
> > >> > Whisper wrote:
> > >> >>>> No it won't. Did you just completely ignore my post where I
> > >> >>>> explained perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment i=
n
> > >> >>>> historical terms while they are still playing?
>
> > >> >>> Yes, I ignored it. I still think it is better than numbers.
>
> > >> >> Well then it has to apply to all players. Mac was declared goat i=
n
> > >> >> 1984 so it still stands as we don't have to allow for ceibs.
>
> > >> > I don't know. I don't care about GOAT issues, but I am sure McEnro=
e was
> > >> > a splendid tennis player at that time. I guess most people still w=
ill
> > >> > say that Borg at the same time was more dominant, but I admit I am=
no
> > >> > expert on this.
>
> > >> Borg was more dominant in the feeble 70's until Mac came along & sta=
rted
> > >> beating him in big slam finals - same deal with Rafa v Fed now. Borg
> > >> was greater than Mac, but Mac clearly was a better tennis player & f=
ar
> > >> more talented. Federer is greater than Rafa & more talented, but Raf=
a
> > >> is better than him & would be expected to beat win 4/5 if both at pe=
ak.
>
> > >> > To compare Federer, Nadal or Sampras to McEnroe, Borg or even Lave=
r can
> > >> > only be described by one word - ridiculous. It is now a completely
> > >> > different sport with different competitors. It is like comparing P=
ele or
> > >> > Maradona to Zidane, Kaka or Rolandinho. It can't be done.
>
> > >> > PS.
>
> > >> We're not comparing them with each other as that is subjective. Clea=
rly
> > >> Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver h=
ad
> > >> despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't b=
eat
> > >> them. It only appears he wouldn't be able to do it when you assess
> > >> their individual skills base, but who knows maybe his more 1-dimensi=
onal
> > >> game may still come through? No one can say for certain.
>
> > >Was above really Whisper's post? Actually it was one of his most
> > >objective posts.
>
> > >Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
> > >against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
> > >thin.
>
> > >I remember combined Mac/Borg interview where both agreed that based on
> > >their actual play at those finals their Wimb titles should have been
> > >reversed (Borg for 81 Wimb and Mac for 80 Wimb).
>
> > >.mikko
>
> > Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver had
> > despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't
> > beat them.
>
> > In fact he DID beat ONE of them !
>
> > Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World Championships !!!-
>
> ++ Ya... and this devotion to 60s greats is quaint and romantic but in
> real life terms the game of the 1960s and 1970s was in SLOW MOTION
> compared to today... the casual forehands, floating backhand, the
> standing tall gets in the corners... it just doesn't compare to tennis
> today and the skills at speed needed to be a slam winner today is off
> the charts compared to the leisured gentility that they played at back
> then... Feds and Rafa are playing a totally different game of all
> court, super speed tennis compared to what Laver and Rosewall and Borg
> and Connors and Mac and Lendl played... and Sampras was a big serving,
> running forehand tennis player with good movement and good nerves...
> he's not in the conversation as most talented and NO ONE who's serious
> puts him there... achievement ABSOLUTELY... he's the slam MAN... but
> Feds skill level IS HIS REPUTATION, the defining skills package of his
> generation... and its not over yet :))
>
> P

Very well said, I have seen them all play one time or another. Serena
W hits the ball harder than Mac or Borg did! The game is different
totally. Like comparing science of Newton's times to modern physics,
just a bad joke?!


       
Date: 21 Feb 2009 02:29:26
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
guyana wrote:
> On Feb 20, 1:53 am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 10:44 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:34:43 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
>>> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>>> On 20 helmi, 08:11, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> Petter Solbu wrote:
>>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>>> No it won't. Did you just completely ignore my post where I
>>>>>>>>> explained perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment in
>>>>>>>>> historical terms while they are still playing?
>>>>>>>> Yes, I ignored it. I still think it is better than numbers.
>>>>>>> Well then it has to apply to all players. Mac was declared goat in
>>>>>>> 1984 so it still stands as we don't have to allow for ceibs.
>>>>>> I don't know. I don't care about GOAT issues, but I am sure McEnroe was
>>>>>> a splendid tennis player at that time. I guess most people still will
>>>>>> say that Borg at the same time was more dominant, but I admit I am no
>>>>>> expert on this.
>>>>> Borg was more dominant in the feeble 70's until Mac came along & started
>>>>> beating him in big slam finals - same deal with Rafa v Fed now. Borg
>>>>> was greater than Mac, but Mac clearly was a better tennis player & far
>>>>> more talented. Federer is greater than Rafa & more talented, but Rafa
>>>>> is better than him & would be expected to beat win 4/5 if both at peak.
>>>>>> To compare Federer, Nadal or Sampras to McEnroe, Borg or even Laver can
>>>>>> only be described by one word - ridiculous. It is now a completely
>>>>>> different sport with different competitors. It is like comparing Pele or
>>>>>> Maradona to Zidane, Kaka or Rolandinho. It can't be done.
>>>>>> PS.
>>>>> We're not comparing them with each other as that is subjective. Clearly
>>>>> Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver had
>>>>> despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't beat
>>>>> them. It only appears he wouldn't be able to do it when you assess
>>>>> their individual skills base, but who knows maybe his more 1-dimensional
>>>>> game may still come through? No one can say for certain.
>>>> Was above really Whisper's post? Actually it was one of his most
>>>> objective posts.
>>>> Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
>>>> against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
>>>> thin.
>>>> I remember combined Mac/Borg interview where both agreed that based on
>>>> their actual play at those finals their Wimb titles should have been
>>>> reversed (Borg for 81 Wimb and Mac for 80 Wimb).
>>>> .mikko
>>> Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver had
>>> despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't
>>> beat them.
>>> In fact he DID beat ONE of them !
>>> Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World Championships !!!-
>> ++ Ya... and this devotion to 60s greats is quaint and romantic but in
>> real life terms the game of the 1960s and 1970s was in SLOW MOTION
>> compared to today... the casual forehands, floating backhand, the
>> standing tall gets in the corners... it just doesn't compare to tennis
>> today and the skills at speed needed to be a slam winner today is off
>> the charts compared to the leisured gentility that they played at back
>> then... Feds and Rafa are playing a totally different game of all
>> court, super speed tennis compared to what Laver and Rosewall and Borg
>> and Connors and Mac and Lendl played... and Sampras was a big serving,
>> running forehand tennis player with good movement and good nerves...
>> he's not in the conversation as most talented and NO ONE who's serious
>> puts him there... achievement ABSOLUTELY... he's the slam MAN... but
>> Feds skill level IS HIS REPUTATION, the defining skills package of his
>> generation... and its not over yet :))
>>
>> P
>
> Very well said, I have seen them all play one time or another. Serena
> W hits the ball harder than Mac or Borg did! The game is different
> totally. Like comparing science of Newton's times to modern physics,
> just a bad joke?!


That's because you're looking at it from the perspective of equipment
they used (poor rackets & strings). Connors was playing his normal game
when he got beat by Newk in AO final, & Rosewall at age 40 went all the
way to Wim/USO finals v Jimbo. Jimbo in turn beat the modern greats at
advanced age so absolutely no fucking reason why Newk/Laver & co
couldn't do it too.

You give Rafa/Fed those old blocky wood rackets & shit courts & you'll
have a great belly laugh watching them try & swat the ball around.



      
Date: 20 Feb 2009 02:39:54
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 20 helmi, 12:21, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Remember when Newk at advanced age beat Connors in '75 AO final? =A0Jimbo
> was defending champ & playing some of the best tennis I've seen from
> him, yet Newk used his grasscourt experience to beat him despite huge
> age disparity.

Newk btw is quite underrated player and to boot he skipped Wimbledon
twice (+some other slams) at his very peak.

.mikko


      
Date: 19 Feb 2009 22:53:56
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 19, 10:44=A0pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:34:43 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
>
>
>
>
>
> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >On 20 helmi, 08:11, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Petter Solbu wrote:
> >> > Whisper wrote:
> >> >>>> No it won't. Did you just completely ignore my post where I
> >> >>>> explained perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment in
> >> >>>> historical terms while they are still playing?
>
> >> >>> Yes, I ignored it. I still think it is better than numbers.
>
> >> >> Well then it has to apply to all players. Mac was declared goat in
> >> >> 1984 so it still stands as we don't have to allow for ceibs.
>
> >> > I don't know. I don't care about GOAT issues, but I am sure McEnroe =
was
> >> > a splendid tennis player at that time. I guess most people still wil=
l
> >> > say that Borg at the same time was more dominant, but I admit I am n=
o
> >> > expert on this.
>
> >> Borg was more dominant in the feeble 70's until Mac came along & start=
ed
> >> beating him in big slam finals - same deal with Rafa v Fed now. Borg
> >> was greater than Mac, but Mac clearly was a better tennis player & far
> >> more talented. Federer is greater than Rafa & more talented, but Rafa
> >> is better than him & would be expected to beat win 4/5 if both at peak=
.
>
> >> > To compare Federer, Nadal or Sampras to McEnroe, Borg or even Laver =
can
> >> > only be described by one word - ridiculous. It is now a completely
> >> > different sport with different competitors. It is like comparing Pel=
e or
> >> > Maradona to Zidane, Kaka or Rolandinho. It can't be done.
>
> >> > PS.
>
> >> We're not comparing them with each other as that is subjective. Clearl=
y
> >> Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver had
> >> despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't bea=
t
> >> them. It only appears he wouldn't be able to do it when you assess
> >> their individual skills base, but who knows maybe his more 1-dimension=
al
> >> game may still come through? No one can say for certain.
>
> >Was above really Whisper's post? Actually it was one of his most
> >objective posts.
>
> >Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
> >against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
> >thin.
>
> >I remember combined Mac/Borg interview where both agreed that based on
> >their actual play at those finals their Wimb titles should have been
> >reversed (Borg for 81 Wimb and Mac for 80 Wimb).
>
> >.mikko
>
> Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver had
> despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't
> beat them.
>
> In fact he DID beat ONE of them !
>
> Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World Championships !!!-

++ Ya... and this devotion to 60s greats is quaint and romantic but in
real life terms the game of the 1960s and 1970s was in SLOW MOTION
compared to today... the casual forehands, floating backhand, the
standing tall gets in the corners... it just doesn't compare to tennis
today and the skills at speed needed to be a slam winner today is off
the charts compared to the leisured gentility that they played at back
then... Feds and Rafa are playing a totally different game of all
court, super speed tennis compared to what Laver and Rosewall and Borg
and Connors and Mac and Lendl played... and Sampras was a big serving,
running forehand tennis player with good movement and good nerves...
he's not in the conversation as most talented and NO ONE who's serious
puts him there... achievement ABSOLUTELY... he's the slam MAN... but
Feds skill level IS HIS REPUTATION, the defining skills package of his
generation... and its not over yet :))

P


       
Date: 20 Feb 2009 21:21:10
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Feb 19, 10:44 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:34:43 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>> On 20 helmi, 08:11, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Petter Solbu wrote:
>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>>>> No it won't. Did you just completely ignore my post where I
>>>>>>>> explained perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment in
>>>>>>>> historical terms while they are still playing?
>>>>>>> Yes, I ignored it. I still think it is better than numbers.
>>>>>> Well then it has to apply to all players. Mac was declared goat in
>>>>>> 1984 so it still stands as we don't have to allow for ceibs.
>>>>> I don't know. I don't care about GOAT issues, but I am sure McEnroe was
>>>>> a splendid tennis player at that time. I guess most people still will
>>>>> say that Borg at the same time was more dominant, but I admit I am no
>>>>> expert on this.
>>>> Borg was more dominant in the feeble 70's until Mac came along & started
>>>> beating him in big slam finals - same deal with Rafa v Fed now. Borg
>>>> was greater than Mac, but Mac clearly was a better tennis player & far
>>>> more talented. Federer is greater than Rafa & more talented, but Rafa
>>>> is better than him & would be expected to beat win 4/5 if both at peak.
>>>>> To compare Federer, Nadal or Sampras to McEnroe, Borg or even Laver can
>>>>> only be described by one word - ridiculous. It is now a completely
>>>>> different sport with different competitors. It is like comparing Pele or
>>>>> Maradona to Zidane, Kaka or Rolandinho. It can't be done.
>>>>> PS.
>>>> We're not comparing them with each other as that is subjective. Clearly
>>>> Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver had
>>>> despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't beat
>>>> them. It only appears he wouldn't be able to do it when you assess
>>>> their individual skills base, but who knows maybe his more 1-dimensional
>>>> game may still come through? No one can say for certain.
>>> Was above really Whisper's post? Actually it was one of his most
>>> objective posts.
>>> Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
>>> against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
>>> thin.
>>> I remember combined Mac/Borg interview where both agreed that based on
>>> their actual play at those finals their Wimb titles should have been
>>> reversed (Borg for 81 Wimb and Mac for 80 Wimb).
>>> .mikko
>> Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver had
>> despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't
>> beat them.
>>
>> In fact he DID beat ONE of them !
>>
>> Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World Championships !!!-
>
> ++ Ya... and this devotion to 60s greats is quaint and romantic but in
> real life terms the game of the 1960s and 1970s was in SLOW MOTION
> compared to today... the casual forehands, floating backhand, the
> standing tall gets in the corners... it just doesn't compare to tennis
> today and the skills at speed needed to be a slam winner today is off
> the charts compared to the leisured gentility that they played at back
> then...



Of course this betrays a complete lack of tennis understanding on your
part. What's critical is the hand-eye coordination, reflexes at net,
racket dexterity etc. Those guys played with very slow equipment & poor
surfaces, & of course didn't have the space-age materials & modern
strings, but you'd have to be pretty fucking dumb to think Hoad/Laver
were less talented & couldn't beat Rafa with the same playing field.

Remember when Newk at advanced age beat Connors in '75 AO final? Jimbo
was defending champ & playing some of the best tennis I've seen from
him, yet Newk used his grasscourt experience to beat him despite huge
age disparity.

Have a look at that match if you get a chance - one of the best matches
ever played. It will make you change your mind - assuming of course you
have normal functioning brain cells.






Feds and Rafa are playing a totally different game of all
> court, super speed tennis compared to what Laver and Rosewall and Borg
> and Connors and Mac and Lendl played... and Sampras was a big serving,
> running forehand tennis player with good movement and good nerves...
> he's not in the conversation as most talented and NO ONE who's serious
> puts him there... achievement ABSOLUTELY... he's the slam MAN... but
> Feds skill level IS HIS REPUTATION, the defining skills package of his
> generation... and its not over yet :))
>
> P


      
Date: 19 Feb 2009 02:31:54
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 06:20:45 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Petter Solbu wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than
>>>> Sampras? He should know better than anyone in here.
>>>
>>> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is
>>> goat & was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his
>>> peak given he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final
>>> led 36 62 42 & game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far
>>> easier than both these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The
>>> evidence suggests Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer.
>>> When you look at how Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3
>>> surfaces, while Sampras never had a great player surpass him on court
>>> it's pretty obvious.
>>
>> These discussions are pointless, but if we are to listen to anyone about
>> these kind of questions we should listen to the players that have
>> actually met both Sampras and Federer. As MBDunc pointed out in a
>> different post you could always find results to prove your case, but it
>> doesn't sound that convincing at all. So far I have only heard Agassi
>> speaking about this, and I am pretty sure he told that Federer was a
>> better and more complete player than Pete.
>>
>> PS.
>
>
>You have to allow for ceibs - remember how many were predicting > 10
>slams for Djokovic, Rafa is goat etc? I agree we should listen to what
>players say, but never while the great is still playing as that guy is
>always goat even if he has won 3 slams. Let's hear what players say 5
>yrs after Fed's retirement - my guess is you'll be very sad.


and my guess is that you will be.


      
Date: 18 Feb 2009 20:30:38
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Whisper wrote:
> You have to allow for ceibs - remember how many were predicting > 10
> slams for Djokovic, Rafa is goat etc? I agree we should listen to what
> players say, but never while the great is still playing as that guy is
> always goat even if he has won 3 slams. Let's hear what players say 5
> yrs after Fed's retirement - my guess is you'll be very sad.

Why should I be sad? I don't want to participate in these GOAT
discussions, but I think the ones who are trying to discuss it should
listen to the only guys who are able to know. It will never be accurate
as it is impossible to get an exact answer, but it will make more sense
than these idiotic discussions related to numbers, 7543 etc.

PS.


       
Date: 20 Feb 2009 00:15:43
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Petter Solbu wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> You have to allow for ceibs - remember how many were predicting > 10
>> slams for Djokovic, Rafa is goat etc? I agree we should listen to
>> what players say, but never while the great is still playing as that
>> guy is always goat even if he has won 3 slams. Let's hear what
>> players say 5 yrs after Fed's retirement - my guess is you'll be very
>> sad.
>
> Why should I be sad? I don't want to participate in these GOAT
> discussions, but I think the ones who are trying to discuss it should
> listen to the only guys who are able to know. It will never be accurate
> as it is impossible to get an exact answer, but it will make more sense
> than these idiotic discussions related to numbers, 7543 etc.
>
> PS.


No it won't. Did you just completely ignore my post where I explained
perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment in historical terms
while they are still playing?



        
Date: 21 Feb 2009 09:35:52
From:
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 21, 11:59=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:16:32 +0100, Petter Solbu
>
> <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Whisper wrote:
> >> It's pretty fucking stupid to think tennis quality improves with every
> >> generation. =A0You're the type of guy who believes house values double
> >> every 7 yrs, even though the average price would be > 10 mil if that
> >> were true. =A0The guys that ranked top 10 in this era like Blake, Berd=
ych
> >> & Ljubo are some of the most pathetic top 10 players I've ever seen in
> >> my life - complete & utter garbage & I turn the tv off when they are o=
n
> >> as it gives me heartburn watching them attempt to play tennis.
>
> >You obviously could not have seen Berdych's performance against Federer
> >at AO. He finally lost, but his performance in the first two sets was
> >stunning.
>
> >PS.
>
> Yes, it was. Then I have seen this from him before. When he is "on" he
> is terrific. Absolutely terrific. Unfortunately, like Nalbandian in
> October, it happens only now and then. He simply can't control his
> game day to day .
>
> Unlike Nadal, who grinds people down because his game is NEVER out of
> control. This is why he wins most of the time but also loses to so
> many different "so-so" players like Blake, Youzhny, Tsonga etc when
> they have have one of their "better" days including losing to Blake
> and Berdych 3x in a row.
>
> Nadal is not a better peak player than they are but he is a more
> consistent day to day player. Fed OTOH knows how to handle these
> players on their better days but has a matchup problem with Nadal.
>
> Remove Nadal and Fed is already top super goat bar none. EVERYBODY
> knows it. Yet, guys Fed beats ALL the time also beat Rafa a LOT of the
> time.
>
> Fed needs to find a solution to the matchup issue and if he can (which
> I think he will), it's lights out for Sampras because barring Rafa,
> Fed has many many more slams in him.
>
> Whisper knows this which is why he stoops so low as to fan fuck a clay
> court bum rooting monkey like Rafa. Yes, this is what he used to call
> them before Fed came within striking distance of 14 slams (in
> whisperese that is "barely half way by the way"). Now, he needs a
> "saviour" and Rafa is his ONLY hope.
>
> Some whores will fuck anybody for a smack of crack.

This was actually a reasonable post from you until you reverted back
to your Whisper obsession.

Why not just continue to post like this? Everybody knows when
Whisper's going off the deep-end and coming up
with loony stuff to defend Sampras. There's no need to play his mirror
opposite and crack on Sampras, accuse Nadal of juicing, caling him a
cockaroach etc.


        
Date: 20 Feb 2009 16:13:57
From: guyana
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 20, 4:33=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> guyana wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 10:55 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Superdave wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:19:00 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au=
>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 20, 1:34 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
> >>>>>> against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
> >>>>>> thin.
> >>>>> Mac surpassed Borg by a thin margin on fast 80s grass, fast hard
> >>>>> courts, and fast carpet. There were really no medium-speed hard cou=
rts
> >>>>> at that time, and they never played on any type of clay.
> >>>>> Given Mac's lefty serve, great volleying talent, and a game that wa=
s
> >>>>> designed for the fast courts of that era, that fact that Borg staye=
d
> >>>>> as close to him as he did on grass and hard courts is a testament t=
o
> >>>>> Borg's extraordinary athleticism and power of concentration.
> >>>>> Joe Ramirez
> >>>> Fair point. =A0Still you gotta go with Mac in a big 'winner takes al=
l' battle.
> >>> No we do not =A0because Mac was never good enough to meet him on clay
> >>> where he would have been crucified !
> >>> This is the same lame argument you use to push Sampras over Federer
> >>> when in fact Sampras was just never good enough to make an FO final
> >>> let alone win it.
> >>> Borg vs Mac was 7-7 off clay. Had they played 14 matches on clay it
> >>> would have been 21-7 in Borgs favor !
> >> Borg enjoyed playing Mac when he was peak, but then when Mac peaked he
> >> ran away. =A0Poor form.
>
> > yes, sad for tennis, Mac could read Borg's serve pretty much, did have
> > help from Kramer, Budge etc in this regard.
> > Brilliant at the net but could he stand upto Rafa's or Fed's baseline
> > assault, no way, he couldn't even handle Agassi or Haarhuis at the US
> > Open, saw that match, kind of sad to see Mac taken apart!
>
> er, that was like 10 yrs after winning his last slam.

it was in 89, 84 was mac's best!!!


        
Date: 20 Feb 2009 08:05:43
From: guyana
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 20, 10:55=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Superdave wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:19:00 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
> >>> On Feb 20, 1:34 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >>>> Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
> >>>> against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
> >>>> thin.
> >>> Mac surpassed Borg by a thin margin on fast 80s grass, fast hard
> >>> courts, and fast carpet. There were really no medium-speed hard court=
s
> >>> at that time, and they never played on any type of clay.
>
> >>> Given Mac's lefty serve, great volleying talent, and a game that was
> >>> designed for the fast courts of that era, that fact that Borg stayed
> >>> as close to him as he did on grass and hard courts is a testament to
> >>> Borg's extraordinary athleticism and power of concentration.
>
> >>> Joe Ramirez
>
> >> Fair point. =A0Still you gotta go with Mac in a big 'winner takes all'=
battle.
>
> > No we do not =A0because Mac was never good enough to meet him on clay
> > where he would have been crucified !
>
> > This is the same lame argument you use to push Sampras over Federer
> > when in fact Sampras was just never good enough to make an FO final
> > let alone win it.
>
> > Borg vs Mac was 7-7 off clay. Had they played 14 matches on clay it
> > would have been 21-7 in Borgs favor !
>
> Borg enjoyed playing Mac when he was peak, but then when Mac peaked he
> ran away. =A0Poor form.

yes, sad for tennis, Mac could read Borg's serve pretty much, did have
help from Kramer, Budge etc in this regard.
Brilliant at the net but could he stand upto Rafa's or Fed's baseline
assault, no way, he couldn't even handle Agassi or Haarhuis at the US
Open, saw that match, kind of sad to see Mac taken apart!


         
Date: 21 Feb 2009 08:33:29
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
guyana wrote:
> On Feb 20, 10:55 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Superdave wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:19:00 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>> josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 20, 1:34 am, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Though Borg also has peak Connors to compete against and did well
>>>>>> against him. Mac surpassed Borg but the margin was actually quite
>>>>>> thin.
>>>>> Mac surpassed Borg by a thin margin on fast 80s grass, fast hard
>>>>> courts, and fast carpet. There were really no medium-speed hard courts
>>>>> at that time, and they never played on any type of clay.
>>>>> Given Mac's lefty serve, great volleying talent, and a game that was
>>>>> designed for the fast courts of that era, that fact that Borg stayed
>>>>> as close to him as he did on grass and hard courts is a testament to
>>>>> Borg's extraordinary athleticism and power of concentration.
>>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>>> Fair point. Still you gotta go with Mac in a big 'winner takes all' battle.
>>> No we do not because Mac was never good enough to meet him on clay
>>> where he would have been crucified !
>>> This is the same lame argument you use to push Sampras over Federer
>>> when in fact Sampras was just never good enough to make an FO final
>>> let alone win it.
>>> Borg vs Mac was 7-7 off clay. Had they played 14 matches on clay it
>>> would have been 21-7 in Borgs favor !
>> Borg enjoyed playing Mac when he was peak, but then when Mac peaked he
>> ran away. Poor form.
>
> yes, sad for tennis, Mac could read Borg's serve pretty much, did have
> help from Kramer, Budge etc in this regard.
> Brilliant at the net but could he stand upto Rafa's or Fed's baseline
> assault, no way, he couldn't even handle Agassi or Haarhuis at the US
> Open, saw that match, kind of sad to see Mac taken apart!


er, that was like 10 yrs after winning his last slam.


        
Date: 19 Feb 2009 15:11:43
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Whisper wrote:
> No it won't. Did you just completely ignore my post where I explained
> perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment in historical terms
> while they are still playing?

Yes, I ignored it. I still think it is better than numbers.

PS.


         
Date: 20 Feb 2009 02:29:01
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Petter Solbu wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> No it won't. Did you just completely ignore my post where I explained
>> perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment in historical
>> terms while they are still playing?
>
> Yes, I ignored it. I still think it is better than numbers.
>
> PS.


Well then it has to apply to all players. Mac was declared goat in 1984
so it still stands as we don't have to allow for ceibs.



          
Date: 19 Feb 2009 17:14:52
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Whisper wrote:
>>> No it won't. Did you just completely ignore my post where I
>>> explained perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment in
>>> historical terms while they are still playing?
>>
>> Yes, I ignored it. I still think it is better than numbers.
>
> Well then it has to apply to all players. Mac was declared goat in 1984
> so it still stands as we don't have to allow for ceibs.

I don't know. I don't care about GOAT issues, but I am sure McEnroe was
a splendid tennis player at that time. I guess most people still will
say that Borg at the same time was more dominant, but I admit I am no
expert on this. I did not watch tennis in the 70's.

To compare Federer, Nadal or Sampras to McEnroe, Borg or even Laver can
only be described by one word - ridiculous. It is now a completely
different sport with different competitors. It is like comparing Pele or
Maradona to Zidane, Kaka or Rolandinho. It can't be done.

PS.


           
Date: 20 Feb 2009 17:11:59
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Petter Solbu wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>>>> No it won't. Did you just completely ignore my post where I
>>>> explained perfectly why we cannot listen to player assessment in
>>>> historical terms while they are still playing?
>>>
>>> Yes, I ignored it. I still think it is better than numbers.
>>
>> Well then it has to apply to all players. Mac was declared goat in
>> 1984 so it still stands as we don't have to allow for ceibs.
>
> I don't know. I don't care about GOAT issues, but I am sure McEnroe was
> a splendid tennis player at that time. I guess most people still will
> say that Borg at the same time was more dominant, but I admit I am no
> expert on this.


Borg was more dominant in the feeble 70's until Mac came along & started
beating him in big slam finals - same deal with Rafa v Fed now. Borg
was greater than Mac, but Mac clearly was a better tennis player & far
more talented. Federer is greater than Rafa & more talented, but Rafa
is better than him & would be expected to beat win 4/5 if both at peak.


>
> To compare Federer, Nadal or Sampras to McEnroe, Borg or even Laver can
> only be described by one word - ridiculous. It is now a completely
> different sport with different competitors. It is like comparing Pele or
> Maradona to Zidane, Kaka or Rolandinho. It can't be done.
>
> PS.



We're not comparing them with each other as that is subjective. Clearly
Federer doesn't have some of the skills Mac, Sampras, Hoad & Laver had
despite playing in modern game - but that doesn't mean he wouldn't beat
them. It only appears he wouldn't be able to do it when you assess
their individual skills base, but who knows maybe his more 1-dimensional
game may still come through? No one can say for certain.



            
Date: 20 Feb 2009 14:25:36
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Whisper wrote:
> No one can say for certain.

Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions in
here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.

PS:


             
Date: 20 Feb 2009 13:35:05
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:25:36 +0100, Petter Solbu
<pettermann1984@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Whisper wrote:
>> No one can say for certain.
>
>Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions in
>here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>
>PS:


yeah it's stupid fan fucking started by a stupid guy.


              
Date: 21 Feb 2009 01:04:58
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Superdave wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:25:36 +0100, Petter Solbu
> <pettermann1984@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> No one can say for certain.
>> Let's keep it that way and stop these ridiculous GOAT discussions in
>> here. They are destroying the whole newsgroup.
>>
>> PS:
>
>
> yeah it's stupid fan fucking started by a stupid guy.


Started by Fedfuckers is my impression.


     
Date: 18 Feb 2009 13:49:49
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest

"Petter Solbu" <pettermann1984@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:0oadnVkDBsbqngHU4p2dnAA@telenor.com...
> Whisper wrote:
>>> Hasn't Agassi said himself that Federer is a better player than Sampras?
>>> He should know better than anyone in here.
>>
>> That is self-serving & makes Agassi look like superman. If Fed is goat &
>> was at peak 2004/2005 it makes Agassi look like a god at his peak given
>> he just barely lost a 5-setter in 2004 & in 2005 USO final led 36 62 42 &
>> game point for 5-2. In reality Sampras beat Agassi far easier than both
>> these matches in all 4 of their matchups at USO. The evidence suggests
>> Sampras was a far stronger player than Federer. When you look at how
>> Rafa has beaten him in 5 slam finals on all 3 surfaces, while Sampras
>> never had a great player surpass him on court it's pretty obvious.
>
> These discussions are pointless, but if we are to listen to anyone about
> these kind of questions we should listen to the players that have actually
> met both Sampras and Federer. As MBDunc pointed out in a different post
> you could always find results to prove your case, but it doesn't sound
> that convincing at all. So far I have only heard Agassi speaking about
> this, and I am pretty sure he told that Federer was a better and more
> complete player than Pete.

But it's just not good enough to hear what he said, the sentences have to be
processed and interpreted in a right ie correct way.




 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 05:55:23
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 17 Feb, 08:18, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:i9skp41u0tc89kf60dpud3hbovs8vuhtt3@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:04:13 -0800 (PST), ghell666
> > <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On 17 Feb, 07:55, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>> "ghell666" <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:f7a8e7c2-0971-4763-8cf1-e6a3469265c7@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com.=
..
>
> >>> > You can include just about the whole top ten / 20 here
>
> >>> > If Pioline / an old MacEnroe could return his serve and break him n=
ow
> >>> > where they couldnt 10 yrs ago its says a lot about how much technol=
ogy
> >>> > has enable relatively weak returners of before to challange the
> >>> > greater servers of yestyear .
>
> >>> > I know Sampras is older etc but Im only basing this too on the fact=
he
> >>> > says himself the serves still the same .
>
> >>> > I dont think technology has influenced the serve that much more tha=
n
> >>> > it did before i.e. I dont think Pete would of had any more of
> >>> > advantage using new technology as his recent defeats show.
>
> >>> That's why this is a bad analysis.
>
> >>Blame Bridgette - I wonder what grip she uses ?
>
> >>Full western or a semi wankdown =A0?
>
> > Deep throat in the pike position?
>
> Remember during nights she has to deal with peak Sampras...not many were
> able to do it.

And hes had to use Regaine ever since ..

Too much
Too much





 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 05:50:25
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 17 Feb, 12:05, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> *skriptis wrote:
> > "ghell666" <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:f7a8e7c2-0971-4763-8cf1-e6a3469265c7@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> >> You can include just about the whole top ten / 20 =A0here
>
> >> If Pioline / an old MacEnroe could return his serve and break him now
> >> where they couldnt 10 yrs ago its says a lot about how much technology
> >> has enable relatively weak returners of before to challange the
> >> greater servers of yestyear .
>
> >> I know Sampras is older etc but Im only basing this too on the fact he
> >> says himself the serves still the same .
>
> >> I dont think technology has influenced the serve that much more than
> >> it did before i.e. I dont think Pete would of had any more of
> >> advantage using new technology as his recent defeats show.
>
> > That's why this is a bad analysis.
>
> It's clearly drug-induced.

Whats your excuse ?



 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 05:45:22
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 17 Feb, 12:04, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> ghell666 wrote:
> > =A0You can include just about the whole top ten / 20 =A0here
>
> > If Pioline / an old MacEnroe could return his serve and break him now
> > where they couldnt 10 yrs ago its says a lot about how much technology
> > has enable relatively weak returners of before to challange the
> > greater servers of yestyear .
>
> > I know Sampras is older etc but Im only basing this too on the fact he
> > says himself the serves still the same .
>
> > I dont think technology has influenced the serve that much more than
> > it did before i.e. I dont think Pete would of had any more of
> > advantage using new technology as his recent defeats show.
>
> Sampras handled peak Agassi easily in big slam matches & Andre almsot
> beat Fed in 2004/5 USOs - proves Sampras would dominate this era on
> part-time basis.

peak agassi ?

The one who got his handed to him by Nadal and Federer every time they
played ?


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 05:43:59
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 17, 7:51 am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> Peak Sampras would be lucky to be in the top 30. He'd be just another
> Kohlschrieber type.

yes, an era where an old Bjorkman and Schuettler still get to the
semis of Wimbledon and an ancient Agassi almost beat a peak Fed in the
US final, Pete would've been totally out of his depth, lol, you sure
know tennis.


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 05:31:23
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 17, 8:14 am, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> "Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she has done
> > that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
> > Wilson-Sampras.
>
> > Divorce coming perhaps ?
>
> I never understood why she married him except for the money? I mean Pete is
> DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties that celebs are
> always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get in anywhere and
> won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on chips and go to
> bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divorce is
> imminent!

you sad Fed fan gits.


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 05:30:59
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 17, 8:23 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:14:52 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> >"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>
> >> Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she has done
> >> that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
> >> Wilson-Sampras.
>
> >> Divorce coming perhaps ?
>
> >I never understood why she married him except for the money? I mean Pete is
> >DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties that celebs are
> >always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get in anywhere and
> >won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on chips and go to
> >bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divorce is
> >imminent!
>
> Bridgette is not really that attractive either. Some might even say
> she is unattractive.
>
> Look at some of these photos.
>
> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2178914816/nm0933098
>
> I'd take Mirka over her anyday !

you must be nuts, at least Bridgette smiles.


  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 13:41:42
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:30:59 -0800 (PST), Iceberg
<iceberg.rules@googlemail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 17, 8:23 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:14:52 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>> >"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she has done
>> >> that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
>> >> Wilson-Sampras.
>>
>> >> Divorce coming perhaps ?
>>
>> >I never understood why she married him except for the money? I mean Pete is
>> >DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties that celebs are
>> >always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get in anywhere and
>> >won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on chips and go to
>> >bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divorce is
>> >imminent!
>>
>> Bridgette is not really that attractive either. Some might even say
>> she is unattractive.
>>
>> Look at some of these photos.
>>
>> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2178914816/nm0933098
>>
>> I'd take Mirka over her anyday !
>
>you must be nuts, at least Bridgette smiles.


no. she is downright UGLY really. she has Bob Hopes' nose n other
deformaties. Look at them for Christs sake !

You want me to send you some links to the UGLIEST ones ?

You got eyes ?

Only a fan fucker like whisper could call her beautiful.

Ok ok maybe she is not ugly but she is no beauty queen by a long shot.

Then again, Pete *is* ugly and she was the best he could get eh ?

I bet she puts a bag over his head at night.


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 23:04:28
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
ghell666 wrote:
> You can include just about the whole top ten / 20 here
>
> If Pioline / an old MacEnroe could return his serve and break him now
> where they couldnt 10 yrs ago its says a lot about how much technology
> has enable relatively weak returners of before to challange the
> greater servers of yestyear .
>
> I know Sampras is older etc but Im only basing this too on the fact he
> says himself the serves still the same .
>
> I dont think technology has influenced the serve that much more than
> it did before i.e. I dont think Pete would of had any more of
> advantage using new technology as his recent defeats show.
>
>
>
>


Sampras handled peak Agassi easily in big slam matches & Andre almsot
beat Fed in 2004/5 USOs - proves Sampras would dominate this era on
part-time basis.



 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 00:35:05
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 17 Feb, 08:23, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:14:52 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> >"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>
> >> Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she has done
> >> that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
> >> Wilson-Sampras.
>
> >> Divorce coming perhaps ?
>
> >I never understood why she married him except for the money? I mean Pete is
> >DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties that celebs are
> >always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get in anywhere and
> >won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on chips and go to
> >bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divorce is
> >imminent!
>
> Bridgette is not really that attractive either. Some might even say
> she is unattractive.
>
> Look at some of these photos.
>
> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2178914816/nm0933098
>
> I'd take Mirka over her anyday !

Ouch

Whispas ears must be burning ..


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 00:04:13
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 17 Feb, 07:55, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "ghell666" <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f7a8e7c2-0971-4763-8cf1-e6a3469265c7@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You can include just about the whole top ten / 20 =A0here
>
> > If Pioline / an old MacEnroe could return his serve and break him now
> > where they couldnt 10 yrs ago its says a lot about how much technology
> > has enable relatively weak returners of before to challange the
> > greater servers of yestyear .
>
> > I know Sampras is older etc but Im only basing this too on the fact he
> > says himself the serves still the same .
>
> > I dont think technology has influenced the serve that much more than
> > it did before i.e. I dont think Pete would of had any more of
> > advantage using new technology as his recent defeats show.
>
> That's why this is a bad analysis.

Blame Bridgette - I wonder what grip she uses ?

Full western or a semi wankdown ?


  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 08:12:23
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:04:13 -0800 (PST), ghell666
<matt.tippen@gmail.com > wrote:

>On 17 Feb, 07:55, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> "ghell666" <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:f7a8e7c2-0971-4763-8cf1-e6a3469265c7@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > You can include just about the whole top ten / 20  here
>>
>> > If Pioline / an old MacEnroe could return his serve and break him now
>> > where they couldnt 10 yrs ago its says a lot about how much technology
>> > has enable relatively weak returners of before to challange the
>> > greater servers of yestyear .
>>
>> > I know Sampras is older etc but Im only basing this too on the fact he
>> > says himself the serves still the same .
>>
>> > I dont think technology has influenced the serve that much more than
>> > it did before i.e. I dont think Pete would of had any more of
>> > advantage using new technology as his recent defeats show.
>>
>> That's why this is a bad analysis.
>
>Blame Bridgette - I wonder what grip she uses ?
>
>Full western or a semi wankdown ?


Deep throat in the pike position?


   
Date: 17 Feb 2009 09:18:27
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest

"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kahuna@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:i9skp41u0tc89kf60dpud3hbovs8vuhtt3@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:04:13 -0800 (PST), ghell666
> <matt.tippen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 17 Feb, 07:55, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>> "ghell666" <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:f7a8e7c2-0971-4763-8cf1-e6a3469265c7@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > You can include just about the whole top ten / 20 here
>>>
>>> > If Pioline / an old MacEnroe could return his serve and break him now
>>> > where they couldnt 10 yrs ago its says a lot about how much technology
>>> > has enable relatively weak returners of before to challange the
>>> > greater servers of yestyear .
>>>
>>> > I know Sampras is older etc but Im only basing this too on the fact he
>>> > says himself the serves still the same .
>>>
>>> > I dont think technology has influenced the serve that much more than
>>> > it did before i.e. I dont think Pete would of had any more of
>>> > advantage using new technology as his recent defeats show.
>>>
>>> That's why this is a bad analysis.
>>
>>Blame Bridgette - I wonder what grip she uses ?
>>
>>Full western or a semi wankdown ?
>
>
> Deep throat in the pike position?


Remember during nights she has to deal with peak Sampras...not many were
able to do it.




 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 08:55:37
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest

"ghell666" <matt.tippen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:f7a8e7c2-0971-4763-8cf1-e6a3469265c7@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> You can include just about the whole top ten / 20 here
>
> If Pioline / an old MacEnroe could return his serve and break him now
> where they couldnt 10 yrs ago its says a lot about how much technology
> has enable relatively weak returners of before to challange the
> greater servers of yestyear .
>
> I know Sampras is older etc but Im only basing this too on the fact he
> says himself the serves still the same .
>
> I dont think technology has influenced the serve that much more than
> it did before i.e. I dont think Pete would of had any more of
> advantage using new technology as his recent defeats show.


That's why this is a bad analysis.




  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 23:05:25
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
*skriptis wrote:
> "ghell666" <matt.tippen@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f7a8e7c2-0971-4763-8cf1-e6a3469265c7@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>> You can include just about the whole top ten / 20 here
>>
>> If Pioline / an old MacEnroe could return his serve and break him now
>> where they couldnt 10 yrs ago its says a lot about how much technology
>> has enable relatively weak returners of before to challange the
>> greater servers of yestyear .
>>
>> I know Sampras is older etc but Im only basing this too on the fact he
>> says himself the serves still the same .
>>
>> I dont think technology has influenced the serve that much more than
>> it did before i.e. I dont think Pete would of had any more of
>> advantage using new technology as his recent defeats show.
>
>
> That's why this is a bad analysis.
>
>


It's clearly drug-induced.



 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 23:56:12
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 17 Feb, 07:51, "Stapler" <d...@d.com > wrote:
> Peak Sampras would be lucky to be in the top 30. He'd be just another
> Kohlschrieber type.

Pistol Pete has peak before Bridgette Wilson fucked his streak



  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 02:10:53
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 18, 11:52=A0am, "Iceberg" <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com > wrote:
> "ghell666" <matt.tip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:49e30c3a-d77d-4f24-a3fe-d66bec21cc1a@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 18 Feb, 00:12, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:13:36 -0800 (PST), Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> >> >On Feb 17, 8:41 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:30:59 -0800 (PST), Iceberg
>
> >> >> <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Feb 17, 8:23 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:14:52 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>
> >> >> >> >> Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she =
has
> >> >> >> >> done
> >> >> >> >> that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
> >> >> >> >> Wilson-Sampras.
>
> >> >> >> >> Divorce coming perhaps ?
>
> >> >> >> >I never understood why she married him except for the money? I
> >> >> >> >mean Pete is
> >> >> >> >DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties that
> >> >> >> >celebs are
> >> >> >> >always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get in
> >> >> >> >anywhere and
> >> >> >> >won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on chi=
ps
> >> >> >> >and go to
> >> >> >> >bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divor=
ce
> >> >> >> >is
> >> >> >> >imminent!
>
> >> >> >> Bridgette is not really that attractive either. Some might even =
say
> >> >> >> she is unattractive.
>
> >> >> >> Look at some of these photos.
>
> >> >> >>http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2178914816/nm0933098
>
> >> >> >> I'd take Mirka over her anyday !
>
> >> >> >you must be nuts, at least Bridgette smiles.
>
> >> >> no. she is downright UGLY really. she has Bob Hopes' nose n other
> >> >> deformaties. Look at them for Christs sake !
>
> >> >> You want me to send you some links to the UGLIEST ones ?
>
> >> >> You got eyes ?
>
> >> >> Only a fan fucker like whisper could call her beautiful.
>
> >> >> Ok ok maybe she is not ugly but she is no beauty queen by a long sh=
ot.
>
> >> >> Then again, Pete *is* ugly and she was the best he could get eh ?
>
> >> >> I bet she puts a bag over his head at night.
>
> >> >Bridgette is fit not fat like that swiss cow Mirka!
>
> >> but she's pig ass ugly. homer is prettier than her and he is one.
>
> > Mirka has class though
>
> how does she have class by sponging off Fed?
>
> > That Bridgette prob plays the whole street while pistol pete having a
> > sleep
>
> oh shutup.


Seems like the iceberg has lost its cool ..


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 00:02:04
From: ghell666
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On 18 Feb, 00:12, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:13:36 -0800 (PST), Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> >On Feb 17, 8:41=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:30:59 -0800 (PST), Iceberg
>
> >> <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 17, 8:23 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:14:52 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> >> >> >"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>
> >> >> >> Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she has=
done
> >> >> >> that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
> >> >> >> Wilson-Sampras.
>
> >> >> >> Divorce coming perhaps ?
>
> >> >> >I never understood why she married him except for the money? I mea=
n Pete is
> >> >> >DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties that ce=
lebs are
> >> >> >always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get in an=
ywhere and
> >> >> >won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on chips =
and go to
> >> >> >bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divorce =
is
> >> >> >imminent!
>
> >> >> Bridgette is not really that attractive either. Some might even say
> >> >> she is unattractive.
>
> >> >> Look at some of these photos.
>
> >> >>http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2178914816/nm0933098
>
> >> >> I'd take Mirka over her anyday !
>
> >> >you must be nuts, at least Bridgette smiles.
>
> >> no. she is downright UGLY really. she has Bob Hopes' nose n other
> >> deformaties. Look at them for Christs sake !
>
> >> You want me to send you some links to the UGLIEST ones ?
>
> >> You got eyes ?
>
> >> Only a fan fucker like whisper could call her beautiful.
>
> >> Ok ok maybe she is not ugly but she is no beauty queen by a long shot.
>
> >> Then again, Pete *is* ugly and she was the best he could get eh ?
>
> >> I bet she puts a bag over his head at night.
>
> >Bridgette is fit not fat like that swiss cow Mirka!
>
> but she's pig ass ugly. homer is prettier than her and he is one.

Mirka has class though

That Bridgette prob plays the whole street while pistol pete having a
sleep


   
Date: 18 Feb 2009 11:52:02
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
"ghell666" <matt.tippen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:49e30c3a-d77d-4f24-a3fe-d66bec21cc1a@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Feb, 00:12, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:13:36 -0800 (PST), Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>> >On Feb 17, 8:41 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:30:59 -0800 (PST), Iceberg
>>
>> >> <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 17, 8:23 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:14:52 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> >> >> Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she has
>> >> >> >> done
>> >> >> >> that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
>> >> >> >> Wilson-Sampras.
>>
>> >> >> >> Divorce coming perhaps ?
>>
>> >> >> >I never understood why she married him except for the money? I
>> >> >> >mean Pete is
>> >> >> >DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties that
>> >> >> >celebs are
>> >> >> >always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get in
>> >> >> >anywhere and
>> >> >> >won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on chips
>> >> >> >and go to
>> >> >> >bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divorce
>> >> >> >is
>> >> >> >imminent!
>>
>> >> >> Bridgette is not really that attractive either. Some might even say
>> >> >> she is unattractive.
>>
>> >> >> Look at some of these photos.
>>
>> >> >>http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2178914816/nm0933098
>>
>> >> >> I'd take Mirka over her anyday !
>>
>> >> >you must be nuts, at least Bridgette smiles.
>>
>> >> no. she is downright UGLY really. she has Bob Hopes' nose n other
>> >> deformaties. Look at them for Christs sake !
>>
>> >> You want me to send you some links to the UGLIEST ones ?
>>
>> >> You got eyes ?
>>
>> >> Only a fan fucker like whisper could call her beautiful.
>>
>> >> Ok ok maybe she is not ugly but she is no beauty queen by a long shot.
>>
>> >> Then again, Pete *is* ugly and she was the best he could get eh ?
>>
>> >> I bet she puts a bag over his head at night.
>>
>> >Bridgette is fit not fat like that swiss cow Mirka!
>>
>> but she's pig ass ugly. homer is prettier than her and he is one.
>
> Mirka has class though

how does she have class by sponging off Fed?

> That Bridgette prob plays the whole street while pistol pete having a
> sleep

oh shutup.



  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 16:43:42
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 17, 6:12=A0pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:13:36 -0800 (PST), Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> >On Feb 17, 8:41=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:30:59 -0800 (PST), Iceberg
>
> >> <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 17, 8:23 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:14:52 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> >> >> >"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>
> >> >> >> Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she has=
done
> >> >> >> that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
> >> >> >> Wilson-Sampras.
>
> >> >> >> Divorce coming perhaps ?
>
> >> >> >I never understood why she married him except for the money? I mea=
n Pete is
> >> >> >DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties that ce=
lebs are
> >> >> >always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get in an=
ywhere and
> >> >> >won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on chips =
and go to
> >> >> >bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divorce =
is
> >> >> >imminent!
>
> >> >> Bridgette is not really that attractive either. Some might even say
> >> >> she is unattractive.
>
> >> >> Look at some of these photos.
>
> >> >>http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2178914816/nm0933098
>
> >> >> I'd take Mirka over her anyday !
>
> >> >you must be nuts, at least Bridgette smiles.
>
> >> no. she is downright UGLY really. she has Bob Hopes' nose n other
> >> deformaties. Look at them for Christs sake !
>
> >> You want me to send you some links to the UGLIEST ones ?
>
> >> You got eyes ?
>
> >> Only a fan fucker like whisper could call her beautiful.
>
> >> Ok ok maybe she is not ugly but she is no beauty queen by a long shot.
>
> >> Then again, Pete *is* ugly and she was the best he could get eh ?
>
> >> I bet she puts a bag over his head at night.
>
> >Bridgette is fit not fat like that swiss cow Mirka!
>
> but she's pig ass ugly. homer is prettier than her and he is one.

Bridgette Wilson is super hot.
http://yepyep.gibbs12.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/tn2_bridgette_wilson_4=
.jpg
http://cm.iparenting.com/fc/editor_files/images/1042/Articles/Bridgette-Wil=
son-Sampras2.jpg
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4792/133699labbwilson19ihoo9.jpg

She was a beauty pageant winner. You are just being jealous here.




   
Date: 18 Feb 2009 09:07:16
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Raja <zepfloyes@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 6:12 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:13:36 -0800 (PST), Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>> >On Feb 17, 8:41 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:30:59 -0800 (PST), Iceberg
>>
>> >> <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 17, 8:23 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:14:52 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> >> >> Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she has done
>> >> >> >> that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
>> >> >> >> Wilson-Sampras.
>>
>> >> >> >> Divorce coming perhaps ?
>>
>> >> >> >I never understood why she married him except for the money? I mean Pete is
>> >> >> >DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties that celebs are
>> >> >> >always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get in anywhere and
>> >> >> >won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on chips and go to
>> >> >> >bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divorce is
>> >> >> >imminent!
>>
>> >> >> Bridgette is not really that attractive either. Some might even say
>> >> >> she is unattractive.
>>
>> >> >> Look at some of these photos.
>>
>> >> >>http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2178914816/nm0933098
>>
>> >> >> I'd take Mirka over her anyday !
>>
>> >> >you must be nuts, at least Bridgette smiles.
>>
>> >> no. she is downright UGLY really. she has Bob Hopes' nose n other
>> >> deformaties. Look at them for Christs sake !
>>
>> >> You want me to send you some links to the UGLIEST ones ?
>>
>> >> You got eyes ?
>>
>> >> Only a fan fucker like whisper could call her beautiful.
>>
>> >> Ok ok maybe she is not ugly but she is no beauty queen by a long shot.
>>
>> >> Then again, Pete *is* ugly and she was the best he could get eh ?
>>
>> >> I bet she puts a bag over his head at night.
>>
>> >Bridgette is fit not fat like that swiss cow Mirka!
>>
>> but she's pig ass ugly. homer is prettier than her and he is one.
>
> Bridgette Wilson is super hot.
> http://yepyep.gibbs12.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/tn2_bridgette_wilson_4.jpg
> http://cm.iparenting.com/fc/editor_files/images/1042/Articles/Bridgette-Wilson-Sampras2.jpg
> http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4792/133699labbwilson19ihoo9.jpg
>
> She was a beauty pageant winner. You are just being jealous here.

Actually, I saw her in a movie last week (with Steve Martin doing a serious
part, that was a pleasant surprise) and I thought she was a standard hollywood
blonde, and on the wrong side of the median.

Then again, Hollywood blondes aren't my ideal type - more into brunettes.


   
Date: 18 Feb 2009 01:46:14
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:43:42 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepfloyes@gmail.com >
wrote:

>On Feb 17, 6:12 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:13:36 -0800 (PST), Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>> >On Feb 17, 8:41 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:30:59 -0800 (PST), Iceberg
>>
>> >> <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 17, 8:23 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:14:52 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> >> >> Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she has done
>> >> >> >> that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
>> >> >> >> Wilson-Sampras.
>>
>> >> >> >> Divorce coming perhaps ?
>>
>> >> >> >I never understood why she married him except for the money? I mean Pete is
>> >> >> >DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties that celebs are
>> >> >> >always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get in anywhere and
>> >> >> >won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on chips and go to
>> >> >> >bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divorce is
>> >> >> >imminent!
>>
>> >> >> Bridgette is not really that attractive either. Some might even say
>> >> >> she is unattractive.
>>
>> >> >> Look at some of these photos.
>>
>> >> >>http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2178914816/nm0933098
>>
>> >> >> I'd take Mirka over her anyday !
>>
>> >> >you must be nuts, at least Bridgette smiles.
>>
>> >> no. she is downright UGLY really. she has Bob Hopes' nose n other
>> >> deformaties. Look at them for Christs sake !
>>
>> >> You want me to send you some links to the UGLIEST ones ?
>>
>> >> You got eyes ?
>>
>> >> Only a fan fucker like whisper could call her beautiful.
>>
>> >> Ok ok maybe she is not ugly but she is no beauty queen by a long shot.
>>
>> >> Then again, Pete *is* ugly and she was the best he could get eh ?
>>
>> >> I bet she puts a bag over his head at night.
>>
>> >Bridgette is fit not fat like that swiss cow Mirka!
>>
>> but she's pig ass ugly. homer is prettier than her and he is one.
>
>Bridgette Wilson is super hot.
>http://yepyep.gibbs12.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/tn2_bridgette_wilson_4.jpg
>http://cm.iparenting.com/fc/editor_files/images/1042/Articles/Bridgette-Wilson-Sampras2.jpg
>http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4792/133699labbwilson19ihoo9.jpg
>
>She was a beauty pageant winner. You are just being jealous here.
>


This is beautiful ?

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1978439680/nm0933098

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm506501120/nm0933098

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2474678272/nm0933098

Look at her fucking ski nose for God's sake ! And, her fucked up mouth
and teeth.

I question your taste in women. Maybe Amy was right.

As for her winning a beauty contest. So has homer - from the 4H.


    
Date: 18 Feb 2009 12:00:44
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kahuna@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:inpmp4pcu7rldl57vr2kg3jbb6ihptvogl@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:43:42 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepfloyes@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 17, 6:12 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:13:36 -0800 (PST), Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>>> >On Feb 17, 8:41 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:30:59 -0800 (PST), Iceberg
>>>
>>> >> <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >On Feb 17, 8:23 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:14:52 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >> >> >news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> >> >> >> Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she
>>> >> >> >> has done
>>> >> >> >> that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
>>> >> >> >> Wilson-Sampras.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> Divorce coming perhaps ?
>>>
>>> >> >> >I never understood why she married him except for the money? I
>>> >> >> >mean Pete is
>>> >> >> >DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties that
>>> >> >> >celebs are
>>> >> >> >always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get in
>>> >> >> >anywhere and
>>> >> >> >won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on chips
>>> >> >> >and go to
>>> >> >> >bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divorce
>>> >> >> >is
>>> >> >> >imminent!
>>>
>>> >> >> Bridgette is not really that attractive either. Some might even
>>> >> >> say
>>> >> >> she is unattractive.
>>>
>>> >> >> Look at some of these photos.
>>>
>>> >> >>http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2178914816/nm0933098
>>>
>>> >> >> I'd take Mirka over her anyday !
>>>
>>> >> >you must be nuts, at least Bridgette smiles.
>>>
>>> >> no. she is downright UGLY really. she has Bob Hopes' nose n other
>>> >> deformaties. Look at them for Christs sake !
>>>
>>> >> You want me to send you some links to the UGLIEST ones ?
>>>
>>> >> You got eyes ?
>>>
>>> >> Only a fan fucker like whisper could call her beautiful.
>>>
>>> >> Ok ok maybe she is not ugly but she is no beauty queen by a long
>>> >> shot.
>>>
>>> >> Then again, Pete *is* ugly and she was the best he could get eh ?
>>>
>>> >> I bet she puts a bag over his head at night.
>>>
>>> >Bridgette is fit not fat like that swiss cow Mirka!
>>>
>>> but she's pig ass ugly. homer is prettier than her and he is one.
>>
>>Bridgette Wilson is super hot.
>>http://yepyep.gibbs12.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/tn2_bridgette_wilson_4.jpg
>>http://cm.iparenting.com/fc/editor_files/images/1042/Articles/Bridgette-Wilson-Sampras2.jpg
>>http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4792/133699labbwilson19ihoo9.jpg
>>
>>She was a beauty pageant winner. You are just being jealous here.
>>
>
>
> This is beautiful ?
>
> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1978439680/nm0933098
>
> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm506501120/nm0933098
>
> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2474678272/nm0933098
>
> Look at her fucking ski nose for God's sake ! And, her fucked up mouth
> and teeth.
>
> I question your taste in women. Maybe Amy was right.
>
> As for her winning a beauty contest. So has homer - from the 4H.

Raja has surprisingly good taste in women.



  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 08:10:07
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:56:12 -0800 (PST), ghell666
<matt.tippen@gmail.com > wrote:

>On 17 Feb, 07:51, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>> Peak Sampras would be lucky to be in the top 30. He'd be just another
>> Kohlschrieber type.
>
>Pistol Pete has peak before Bridgette Wilson fucked his streak


Times must be tough at the Sampras residence cause Bridgette's gone
back to work in anoither B movie !

Phantom Punch

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1131747/


And, I notice she is using her maiden name !

Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she has done
that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
Wilson-Sampras.

Divorce coming perhaps ?


   
Date: 17 Feb 2009 08:14:52
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kahuna@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>
> Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she has done
> that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
> Wilson-Sampras.
>
> Divorce coming perhaps ?


I never understood why she married him except for the money? I mean Pete is
DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties that celebs are
always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get in anywhere and
won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on chips and go to
bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divorce is
imminent!



    
Date: 18 Feb 2009 05:51:45
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 18, 6:00=A0am, "Iceberg" <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com > wrote:
> "Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:inpmp4pcu7rldl57vr2kg3jbb6ihptvogl@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:43:42 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Feb 17, 6:12 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:13:36 -0800 (PST), Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> >>> >On Feb 17, 8:41 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:30:59 -0800 (PST), Iceberg
>
> >>> >> <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >On Feb 17, 8:23 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
> >>> >> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:14:52 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> >> >> >news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>
> >>> >> >> >> Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she
> >>> >> >> >> has done
> >>> >> >> >> that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
> >>> >> >> >> Wilson-Sampras.
>
> >>> >> >> >> Divorce coming perhaps ?
>
> >>> >> >> >I never understood why she married him except for the money? I
> >>> >> >> >mean Pete is
> >>> >> >> >DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties tha=
t
> >>> >> >> >celebs are
> >>> >> >> >always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get i=
n
> >>> >> >> >anywhere and
> >>> >> >> >won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on ch=
ips
> >>> >> >> >and go to
> >>> >> >> >bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divo=
rce
> >>> >> >> >is
> >>> >> >> >imminent!
>
> >>> >> >> Bridgette is not really that attractive either. Some might even
> >>> >> >> say
> >>> >> >> she is unattractive.
>
> >>> >> >> Look at some of these photos.
>
> >>> >> >>http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2178914816/nm0933098
>
> >>> >> >> I'd take Mirka over her anyday !
>
> >>> >> >you must be nuts, at least Bridgette smiles.
>
> >>> >> no. she is downright UGLY really. she has Bob Hopes' nose n other
> >>> >> deformaties. Look at them for Christs sake !
>
> >>> >> You want me to send you some links to the UGLIEST ones ?
>
> >>> >> You got eyes ?
>
> >>> >> Only a fan fucker like whisper could call her beautiful.
>
> >>> >> Ok ok maybe she is not ugly but she is no beauty queen by a long
> >>> >> shot.
>
> >>> >> Then again, Pete *is* ugly and she was the best he could get eh ?
>
> >>> >> I bet she puts a bag over his head at night.
>
> >>> >Bridgette is fit not fat like that swiss cow Mirka!
>
> >>> but she's pig ass ugly. homer is prettier than her and he is one.
>
> >>Bridgette Wilson is super hot.
> >>http://yepyep.gibbs12.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/tn2_bridgette_wi..=
.
> >>http://cm.iparenting.com/fc/editor_files/images/1042/Articles/Bridget..=
.
> >>http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4792/133699labbwilson19ihoo9.jpg
>
> >>She was a beauty pageant winner. You are just being jealous here.
>
> > This is beautiful ?
>
> >http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1978439680/nm0933098
>
> >http://www.imdb.com/media/rm506501120/nm0933098
>
> >http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2474678272/nm0933098
>
> > Look at her fucking ski nose for God's sake ! And, her fucked up mouth
> > and teeth.
>
> > I question your taste in women. Maybe Amy was right.
>
> > As for her winning a beauty contest. So has homer - from the 4H.
>
> Raja has surprisingly good taste in women.

What so suprising about it? I always go for aesthetics. Look at my
music choices, actress choices, sportswomen choices.



    
Date: 17 Feb 2009 18:25:42
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Feb 17, 7:46=A0pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:43:42 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 17, 6:12=A0pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:13:36 -0800 (PST), Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> >> >On Feb 17, 8:41=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:30:59 -0800 (PST), Iceberg
>
> >> >> <iceberg.ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Feb 17, 8:23 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:14:52 GMT, "Stapler" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>
> >> >> >> >> Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she =
has done
> >> >> >> >> that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
> >> >> >> >> Wilson-Sampras.
>
> >> >> >> >> Divorce coming perhaps ?
>
> >> >> >> >I never understood why she married him except for the money? I =
mean Pete is
> >> >> >> >DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties that=
celebs are
> >> >> >> >always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get in=
anywhere and
> >> >> >> >won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on chi=
ps and go to
> >> >> >> >bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divor=
ce is
> >> >> >> >imminent!
>
> >> >> >> Bridgette is not really that attractive either. Some might even =
say
> >> >> >> she is unattractive.
>
> >> >> >> Look at some of these photos.
>
> >> >> >>http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2178914816/nm0933098
>
> >> >> >> I'd take Mirka over her anyday !
>
> >> >> >you must be nuts, at least Bridgette smiles.
>
> >> >> no. she is downright UGLY really. she has Bob Hopes' nose n other
> >> >> deformaties. Look at them for Christs sake !
>
> >> >> You want me to send you some links to the UGLIEST ones ?
>
> >> >> You got eyes ?
>
> >> >> Only a fan fucker like whisper could call her beautiful.
>
> >> >> Ok ok maybe she is not ugly but she is no beauty queen by a long sh=
ot.
>
> >> >> Then again, Pete *is* ugly and she was the best he could get eh ?
>
> >> >> I bet she puts a bag over his head at night.
>
> >> >Bridgette is fit not fat like that swiss cow Mirka!
>
> >> but she's pig ass ugly. homer is prettier than her and he is one.
>
> >Bridgette Wilson is super hot.
> >http://yepyep.gibbs12.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/tn2_bridgette_wi...
> >http://cm.iparenting.com/fc/editor_files/images/1042/Articles/Bridget...
> >http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4792/133699labbwilson19ihoo9.jpg
>
> >She was a beauty pageant winner. You are just being jealous here.
>
> This is beautiful ?
>
> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1978439680/nm0933098
>
> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm506501120/nm0933098
>
> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2474678272/nm0933098
>
> Look at her fucking ski nose for God's sake ! And, her fucked up mouth
> and teeth.
>
> I question your taste in women. Maybe Amy was right.
>
> As for her winning a beauty contest. So has homer - from the 4H.

You picked the wrong pics. Look at theones I posted


    
Date: 17 Feb 2009 08:23:12
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:14:52 GMT, "Stapler" <d@d.com > wrote:

>"Superdave" <the.big.rst.kahuna@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:10skp4d3rfmv2fbfh4a78l2kv1h1k40tuh@4ax.com...
>>
>> Now you may read nothing into this but this is the first she has done
>> that since marry Pete at which point she went by Brigette
>> Wilson-Sampras.
>>
>> Divorce coming perhaps ?
>
>
>I never understood why she married him except for the money? I mean Pete is
>DULL! He doesn't like to go to any of those swanky parties that celebs are
>always invited to. I mean he has permanent VIP status to get in anywhere and
>won't use it! I he prefers to watch DVDs, while munching on chips and go to
>bed every night at 11:30PM. Very disappointing! I can see divorce is
>imminent!


Bridgette is not really that attractive either. Some might even say
she is unattractive.

Look at some of these photos.

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2178914816/nm0933098

I'd take Mirka over her anyday !


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 07:51:47
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: Sampras would of found this era the hardest
Peak Sampras would be lucky to be in the top 30. He'd be just another
Kohlschrieber type.