tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 07 Jan 2009 22:04:36
From: Whisper
Subject: Santoro can make a real name for himself if he plays 1 or 2 more


He will then have played pro tennis in 4 different decades (turned pro
1989) - surely no player has done better than that in the history of tennis?

Wouldn't have been possible if this wasn't such a softcock era, but
history doesn't care about that.




 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 14:57:14
From:
Subject: Re: Santoro can make a real name for himself if he plays 1 or 2 more
In article <49648c46$0$28496$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au >,
beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:

>
> He will then have played pro tennis in 4 different decades (turned
> pro 1989) - surely no player has done better than that in the
> history of tennis?

Navratilova won titles in each of four decades. BJK also. On the men's
side, Connors only missed by a couple of years.

It helps to have some luck about turning pro at the end of a decade to
manage it.

wg


  
Date: 09 Jan 2009 14:50:03
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Santoro can make a real name for himself if he plays 1 or 2 more
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <49648c46$0$28496$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>
>> He will then have played pro tennis in 4 different decades (turned
>> pro 1989) - surely no player has done better than that in the
>> history of tennis?
>
> Navratilova won titles in each of four decades. BJK also. On the men's
> side, Connors only missed by a couple of years.
>
> It helps to have some luck about turning pro at the end of a decade to
> manage it.
>
> wg



Of course. I still think it's worth mentioning.



 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 05:01:17
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Santoro can make a real name for himself if he plays 1 or 2 more
On 7 tammi, 14:31, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > On 7 tammi, 13:04, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> He will then have played pro tennis in 4 different decades (turned pro
> >> 1989) - surely no player has done better than that in the history of t=
ennis?
>
> >> Wouldn't have been possible if this wasn't such a softcock era, but
> >> history doesn't care about that.
>
> > You just do not know tennis history enough nor math. You should take
> > directly playing years: ie currently Santoro 89-09 =3D 21 seasons.
>
> > Gonzales played 40:ies (then pro circuit era 50:ies, 60:ies) and then
> > was still in top10 early 70:ies...playing years (and on top to boot)
> > about 25. Same for Rosewall - a lot of years and on the top also.
>
> > Connors played way over 20 years obviously. Even Agassi played for 21
> > seasons as a pro (86-06).
>
> I'm not talking years rather decades - stop wasting b/w unles you have
> something credible to say.

I always have. I do not provide useless shaff.

> > You should not let yourself confused with statistical odditions if
> > someone manages to start his career 19x9 and end it 20y0 exploiting
> > the timeframe.
>
> No confusion - fact.

Irrelevant fact. You accuse posters here to post irrelevant stats and
you provide one of the most irrelevant yourself.

> > Paradoxally you have constantly said that hypotetical softcock/clown
> > era applies directly to top players/top10 play (your point of view)
> > and you have admitted that the general field is deeper/harder though
> > (multiple references by you available via google groups). How that
> > applies to Santoro survival campaign? It is not the top players he
> > faces regurarly but the field in general?
>
> You really think Santoro is the only guy from 80's/90's who could
> compete today? =A0I'd say if he can do it 99% of them could too.

The key is the motivation. Practically if a pro (even a journeyman)
has motivation to keep himself in a shape why he should suddenly lose
his skills?

> > Naturally it was funnier to see your beauty queens win the big sport
> events rather than doped and ruthless DDR women a'la athletics/
> swimming in 70/80:ies. It is question about efficiency and results
> over eye-candy factor.

> No, it's about genius ability - that is not current era in any way

The most genius weightlifters are vastly surpassed by with
weightlifters with more power.
The most genius sprinters run slower than faster ones.
The most genius tennis player might as well be some 250lbs club player
who never got rid of his spare type to compete well enough.

.mikko


 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 23:52:53
From: john
Subject: Re: Santoro can make a real name for himself if he plays 1 or 2 more years

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:49648c46$0$28496$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
> He will then have played pro tennis in 4 different decades (turned pro
> 1989) - surely no player has done better than that in the history of
> tennis?
>
> Wouldn't have been possible if this wasn't such a softcock era, but
> history doesn't care about that.


Stupid comments but no surprise from Tier 1 anal-yst.




 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 04:01:47
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Santoro can make a real name for himself if he plays 1 or 2 more
On 7 tammi, 13:31, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 7, 11:04=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > He will then have played pro tennis in 4 different decades (turned pro
> > 1989) - surely no player has done better than that in the history of te=
nnis?
>
> > Wouldn't have been possible if this wasn't such a softcock era, but
> > history doesn't care about that.
>
> Please have a look at Santoro's ranking history:
>
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/rankhistory.a...
>
> He was in the top 20 briefly in 2001 and hasn't been near it in the
> last *seven* years.
>
> He has won 6 minor titles in his whole career.
>
> He has never been past the QF of a slam in this or any other era.
>
> I know you are still smarting from him thrashing Sampras 6-1 6-1 that
> time but don't let it cloud your judgement ...

Averagejoes tend to be fooled by age factor as they have not resisted
aging well enough.

In any professional sport there have always been athletes way past 35
who are still respected. Not necessarily the top dogs but easily in
top20/top50 in their events. Why tennis should be an exception as
tennis is wonderful example that even 35y old can still compete if
there is enough skill and motivation left.

There has always been top athletes over 35y in Soccer/Boxing/Athletics/
in any other major professional sport. The key has always been "if you
get your living and enjoy doing it...why quit if you have motivation
for training". You may lost a half step eventually but you also gain
back with experience and wiser approach.

Someone like Linford Christie won 100m Olympic Gold at age 32y (1992
Barcelona), World Championships title at age of 33y. and continued as
a top sprinter several years after (indoor 200m world record 1995).
Age did not seem to affect him. And 100m dash is a competition where
there is also a clock to run against and is definitely the event where
the age factor should be seen.

Another "aged sprinter" examples are 200m Olympic Gold metalists Don
Quarrey, Pietro Mennea and also 100m Gold Medalists Allan Welsh
("quote: Wells's later career was punctuated by injury, but by
competing into his mid-30s he helped to set the trend for sprinters to
have longer careers".). who still was among the European top sprinters
at age of 34 (practically around top20 in the world).

Tennis is just one sport event. There is no hidden prime year boost in
expense of motivated late career years.

.mikko



 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 03:38:57
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Santoro can make a real name for himself if he plays 1 or 2 more
On 7 tammi, 13:04, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> He will then have played pro tennis in 4 different decades (turned pro
> 1989) - surely no player has done better than that in the history of tennis?
>
> Wouldn't have been possible if this wasn't such a softcock era, but
> history doesn't care about that.

You just do not know tennis history enough nor math. You should take
directly playing years: ie currently Santoro 89-09 = 21 seasons.

Gonzales played 40:ies (then pro circuit era 50:ies, 60:ies) and then
was still in top10 early 70:ies...playing years (and on top to boot)
about 25. Same for Rosewall - a lot of years and on the top also.

Connors played way over 20 years obviously. Even Agassi played for 21
seasons as a pro (86-06).

You should not let yourself confused with statistical odditions if
someone manages to start his career 19x9 and end it 20y0 exploiting
the timeframe.

Paradoxally you have constantly said that hypotetical softcock/clown
era applies directly to top players/top10 play (your point of view)
and you have admitted that the general field is deeper/harder though
(multiple references by you available via google groups). How that
applies to Santoro survival campaign? It is not the top players he
faces regurarly but the field in general?

Or have you broadened your hypotecial clown era taq to apply the whole
field instead of top players only (which is direct contradict to your
whole campaign here since 00- >).

Of course all of us are impressed by slam count and huge succee
Santoro has achieved by his elder age (or in his prime) and of course
whole clown era stuff has always been laughable and just have no basis
except eye-candy factor and personal doublestandards/biases.

Naturally it was funnier to see your beauty queens win the big sport
events rather than doped and ruthless DDR women a'la athletics/
swimming in 70/80:ies. It is question about efficiency and results
over eye-candy factor.

.mikko






  
Date: 07 Jan 2009 23:31:15
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Santoro can make a real name for himself if he plays 1 or 2 more
MBDunc wrote:
> On 7 tammi, 13:04, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> He will then have played pro tennis in 4 different decades (turned pro
>> 1989) - surely no player has done better than that in the history of tennis?
>>
>> Wouldn't have been possible if this wasn't such a softcock era, but
>> history doesn't care about that.
>
> You just do not know tennis history enough nor math. You should take
> directly playing years: ie currently Santoro 89-09 = 21 seasons.
>
> Gonzales played 40:ies (then pro circuit era 50:ies, 60:ies) and then
> was still in top10 early 70:ies...playing years (and on top to boot)
> about 25. Same for Rosewall - a lot of years and on the top also.
>
> Connors played way over 20 years obviously. Even Agassi played for 21
> seasons as a pro (86-06).



I'm not talking years rather decades - stop wasting b/w unles you have
something credible to say.



>
> You should not let yourself confused with statistical odditions if
> someone manages to start his career 19x9 and end it 20y0 exploiting
> the timeframe.



No confusion - fact.


>
> Paradoxally you have constantly said that hypotetical softcock/clown
> era applies directly to top players/top10 play (your point of view)
> and you have admitted that the general field is deeper/harder though
> (multiple references by you available via google groups). How that
> applies to Santoro survival campaign? It is not the top players he
> faces regurarly but the field in general?




You really think Santoro is the only guy from 80's/90's who could
compete today? I'd say if he can do it 99% of them could too.



>
> Or have you broadened your hypotecial clown era taq to apply the whole
> field instead of top players only (which is direct contradict to your
> whole campaign here since 00->).
>
> Of course all of us are impressed by slam count and huge succee
> Santoro has achieved by his elder age (or in his prime) and of course
> whole clown era stuff has always been laughable and just have no basis
> except eye-candy factor and personal doublestandards/biases.
>
> Naturally it was funnier to see your beauty queens win the big sport
> events rather than doped and ruthless DDR women a'la athletics/
> swimming in 70/80:ies. It is question about efficiency and results
> over eye-candy factor.
>
> .mikko
>


No, it's about genius ability - that is not current era in any way.


 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 03:31:37
From:
Subject: Re: Santoro can make a real name for himself if he plays 1 or 2 more
On Jan 7, 11:04=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> He will then have played pro tennis in 4 different decades (turned pro
> 1989) - surely no player has done better than that in the history of tenn=
is?
>
> Wouldn't have been possible if this wasn't such a softcock era, but
> history doesn't care about that.

Please have a look at Santoro's ranking history:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/rankhistory.asp?pla=
yernumber=3DS424&selyear=3D0

He was in the top 20 briefly in 2001 and hasn't been near it in the
last *seven* years.

He has won 6 minor titles in his whole career.

He has never been past the QF of a slam in this or any other era.

I know you are still smarting from him thrashing Sampras 6-1 6-1 that
time but don't let it cloud your judgement ...