tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 17 Jan 2009 14:47:41
From: Raja
Subject: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
For people like Pancho Gonzales we can count on the Pro slams.

But this means Lew Hoad wont make it.





 
Date: 19 Jan 2009 12:31:24
From:
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
> (I am puzzled why you even compare Connors' attitude with Blake...i.e
> top dog vs cannon fodder a'la Gerulaitis...).
>
> Nadal, Djoko and Murray clearly a right attitude and they have been
> real challengers instead of blake/gerulaitis/kafelnikov which every
> era also have. The difference is of course that during other eras
> those puppies also managed to squeak even slam titles when top dogs
> were absence (gerulaitis AO, Kafelnikov AO, Kriek 2xAO with totally
> miserable record against other big names).
>

Hey, don't forget YK also won the FO, beating Sampras on the way ...


  
Date: 19 Jan 2009 17:37:01
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>> (I am puzzled why you even compare Connors' attitude with Blake...i.e
>> top dog vs cannon fodder a'la Gerulaitis...).
>>
>> Nadal, Djoko and Murray clearly a right attitude and they have been
>> real challengers instead of blake/gerulaitis/kafelnikov which every
>> era also have. The difference is of course that during other eras
>> those puppies also managed to squeak even slam titles when top dogs
>> were absence (gerulaitis AO, Kafelnikov AO, Kriek 2xAO with totally
>> miserable record against other big names).
>>
>
> Hey, don't forget YK also won the FO, beating Sampras on the way ...

Yes, but it was pizza-less sampras.


   
Date: 19 Jan 2009 20:58:04
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> (I am puzzled why you even compare Connors' attitude with Blake...i.e
>>> top dog vs cannon fodder a'la Gerulaitis...).
>>>
>>> Nadal, Djoko and Murray clearly a right attitude and they have been
>>> real challengers instead of blake/gerulaitis/kafelnikov which every
>>> era also have. The difference is of course that during other eras
>>> those puppies also managed to squeak even slam titles when top dogs
>>> were absence (gerulaitis AO, Kafelnikov AO, Kriek 2xAO with totally
>>> miserable record against other big names).
>>>
>> Hey, don't forget YK also won the FO, beating Sampras on the way ...
>
> Yes, but it was pizza-less sampras.

He did eat something round and whole, didn't he?

--
Cheers,

vc


    
Date: 19 Jan 2009 20:11:15
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
Vari L. Cinicke <cinicke@netscape.net > wrote:
> Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> (I am puzzled why you even compare Connors' attitude with Blake...i.e
>>>> top dog vs cannon fodder a'la Gerulaitis...).
>>>>
>>>> Nadal, Djoko and Murray clearly a right attitude and they have been
>>>> real challengers instead of blake/gerulaitis/kafelnikov which every
>>>> era also have. The difference is of course that during other eras
>>>> those puppies also managed to squeak even slam titles when top dogs
>>>> were absence (gerulaitis AO, Kafelnikov AO, Kriek 2xAO with totally
>>>> miserable record against other big names).
>>>>
>>> Hey, don't forget YK also won the FO, beating Sampras on the way ...
>>
>> Yes, but it was pizza-less sampras.
>
> He did eat something round and whole, didn't he?
>

Yeah, but it had cream cheese, it was supposed to be mozzarella.


 
Date: 19 Jan 2009 01:38:15
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
On 19 tammi, 11:23, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > On 19 tammi, 10:03, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> MBDunc wrote:
> >>> On 19 tammi, 08:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> chrome wrote:
> >>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote...
> >>>>>> It's 100% accurate - shouldn't be any debate as it's objective.
> >>>>> So it's true for McEnroe too, that he was not close to winning the =
Grand
> >>>>> Slam in 1984?
> >>>> Of course.
> >>>> Had Mac won FO his chances of winning GS woulda been pretty good, bu=
t we
> >>>> can never know how he would perform under that kind of pressure. =A0=
Plus
> >>>> opponents would have extra motivation to stop a guy winning GS.
> >>>> In modern era Jim Courier\Mats Wilander got the closest to winning a
> >>>> calendar slam - nobody else got half way.
> >>> Well may be Borg-era is not "modern era" but Borg had two legs of
> >>> calendar slam thrice (78-80) as AO was then played December...1980 wa=
s
> >>> the closest as he lost 5-setter to Mac at USO final.
> >>> .mikko
> >> Of course - good point.
>
> >> And I recall Mac saying he woulda played 1980 AO had Borg won USO to
> >> stop his GS.-
>
> > Connors said same 78/79 ("I would follow him to the the edge of the
> > world to stop him getting GS"
>
> > .mikko
>
> Exactly. =A0Today we get Blake saying he's honoured to lose to Roger with
> tears streaming down his face.

Well it would have sounded funny if Gerulaitis had said above with his
0-16 record against Borg...

(I am puzzled why you even compare Connors' attitude with Blake...i.e
top dog vs cannon fodder a'la Gerulaitis...).

Nadal, Djoko and Murray clearly a right attitude and they have been
real challengers instead of blake/gerulaitis/kafelnikov which every
era also have. The difference is of course that during other eras
those puppies also managed to squeak even slam titles when top dogs
were absence (gerulaitis AO, Kafelnikov AO, Kriek 2xAO with totally
miserable record against other big names).

.mikko


 
Date: 19 Jan 2009 01:07:13
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
On 19 tammi, 10:03, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> MBDunc wrote:
> > On 19 tammi, 08:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> chrome wrote:
> >>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote...
> >>>> It's 100% accurate - shouldn't be any debate as it's objective.
> >>> So it's true for McEnroe too, that he was not close to winning the Gr=
and
> >>> Slam in 1984?
> >> Of course.
>
> >> Had Mac won FO his chances of winning GS woulda been pretty good, but =
we
> >> can never know how he would perform under that kind of pressure. =A0Pl=
us
> >> opponents would have extra motivation to stop a guy winning GS.
>
> >> In modern era Jim Courier\Mats Wilander got the closest to winning a
> >> calendar slam - nobody else got half way.
>
> > Well may be Borg-era is not "modern era" but Borg had two legs of
> > calendar slam thrice (78-80) as AO was then played December...1980 was
> > the closest as he lost 5-setter to Mac at USO final.
>
> > .mikko
>
> Of course - good point.
>
> And I recall Mac saying he woulda played 1980 AO had Borg won USO to
> stop his GS.-

Connors said same 78/79 ("I would follow him to the the edge of the
world to stop him getting GS"

.mikko


  
Date: 19 Jan 2009 09:33:02
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:07:13 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
<michaelb@mail.suomi.net > wrote:

>On 19 tammi, 10:03, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> MBDunc wrote:
>> > On 19 tammi, 08:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >> chrome wrote:
>> >>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote...
>> >>>> It's 100% accurate - shouldn't be any debate as it's objective.
>> >>> So it's true for McEnroe too, that he was not close to winning the Grand
>> >>> Slam in 1984?
>> >> Of course.
>>
>> >> Had Mac won FO his chances of winning GS woulda been pretty good, but we
>> >> can never know how he would perform under that kind of pressure.  Plus
>> >> opponents would have extra motivation to stop a guy winning GS.
>>
>> >> In modern era Jim Courier\Mats Wilander got the closest to winning a
>> >> calendar slam - nobody else got half way.
>>
>> > Well may be Borg-era is not "modern era" but Borg had two legs of
>> > calendar slam thrice (78-80) as AO was then played December...1980 was
>> > the closest as he lost 5-setter to Mac at USO final.
>>
>> > .mikko
>>
>> Of course - good point.
>>
>> And I recall Mac saying he woulda played 1980 AO had Borg won USO to
>> stop his GS.-
>
>Connors said same 78/79 ("I would follow him to the the edge of the
>world to stop him getting GS"
>
>.mikko


and that was all sour grapes as they knew the "iceman" was king.


  
Date: 19 Jan 2009 20:23:38
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
MBDunc wrote:
> On 19 tammi, 10:03, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> MBDunc wrote:
>>> On 19 tammi, 08:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> chrome wrote:
>>>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote...
>>>>>> It's 100% accurate - shouldn't be any debate as it's objective.
>>>>> So it's true for McEnroe too, that he was not close to winning the Grand
>>>>> Slam in 1984?
>>>> Of course.
>>>> Had Mac won FO his chances of winning GS woulda been pretty good, but we
>>>> can never know how he would perform under that kind of pressure. Plus
>>>> opponents would have extra motivation to stop a guy winning GS.
>>>> In modern era Jim Courier\Mats Wilander got the closest to winning a
>>>> calendar slam - nobody else got half way.
>>> Well may be Borg-era is not "modern era" but Borg had two legs of
>>> calendar slam thrice (78-80) as AO was then played December...1980 was
>>> the closest as he lost 5-setter to Mac at USO final.
>>> .mikko
>> Of course - good point.
>>
>> And I recall Mac saying he woulda played 1980 AO had Borg won USO to
>> stop his GS.-
>
> Connors said same 78/79 ("I would follow him to the the edge of the
> world to stop him getting GS"
>
> .mikko


Exactly. Today we get Blake saying he's honoured to lose to Roger with
tears streaming down his face.


 
Date: 18 Jan 2009 23:38:44
From: MBDunc
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
On 19 tammi, 08:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> chrome wrote:
> > "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote...
> >> It's 100% accurate - shouldn't be any debate as it's objective.
>
> > So it's true for McEnroe too, that he was not close to winning the Gran=
d
> > Slam in 1984?
>
> Of course.
>
> Had Mac won FO his chances of winning GS woulda been pretty good, but we
> can never know how he would perform under that kind of pressure. =A0Plus
> opponents would have extra motivation to stop a guy winning GS.
>
> In modern era Jim Courier\Mats Wilander got the closest to winning a
> calendar slam - nobody else got half way.

Well may be Borg-era is not "modern era" but Borg had two legs of
calendar slam thrice (78-80) as AO was then played December...1980 was
the closest as he lost 5-setter to Mac at USO final.

.mikko


  
Date: 19 Jan 2009 19:03:17
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
MBDunc wrote:
> On 19 tammi, 08:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> chrome wrote:
>>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote...
>>>> It's 100% accurate - shouldn't be any debate as it's objective.
>>> So it's true for McEnroe too, that he was not close to winning the Grand
>>> Slam in 1984?
>> Of course.
>>
>> Had Mac won FO his chances of winning GS woulda been pretty good, but we
>> can never know how he would perform under that kind of pressure. Plus
>> opponents would have extra motivation to stop a guy winning GS.
>>
>> In modern era Jim Courier\Mats Wilander got the closest to winning a
>> calendar slam - nobody else got half way.
>
> Well may be Borg-era is not "modern era" but Borg had two legs of
> calendar slam thrice (78-80) as AO was then played December...1980 was
> the closest as he lost 5-setter to Mac at USO final.
>
> .mikko


Of course - good point.

And I recall Mac saying he woulda played 1980 AO had Borg won USO to
stop his GS.



 
Date: 18 Jan 2009 16:55:14
From:
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
>
> Forgotten and meaningless only to those who don't care about the history of
> their sport. And those who can't / don't read.
>
> Except that there was no tour from which to break away. The various pro tennis
> tours of the time were the primary indicators of tennis supremacy from roughly
> 1930 until 1968.
>

Yes, obviously the best players were in the pro ranks. How do we know
that?

1. Kramer ran the pro tour and he only took the best players from the
amateur ranks
2. Amateurs who just turned pro usually got their asses handed to them
by the established pros initially until they got their games up to
that level (e.g. Laver).

Unfortunately amateur slams during that period have to have a big
question mark against them. Replacing them with pro "majors" won is a
questionable way of coming up with a total of majors won by those who
played in both codes e.g Hoad, Roswall, Gonzalez etc. Counting both
amateur slams and pro majors surely doesn't make much sense. Hence the
danger of trying to decide who the "best" player of all time is simply
by counting majors of some sort.



 
Date: 18 Jan 2009 09:13:47
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
On Jan 18, 12:45=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Raja wrote:
> > For people like Pancho Gonzales we can count on the Pro slams.
>
> > But this means Lew Hoad wont make it.
>
> Hoad won 4 slams dimbo (back to back Wimbledons included), & he was 1
> match away from calendar slam.

None of those amateur slams count. He won 0 pro slams.


 
Date: 18 Jan 2009 04:39:00
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
On Jan 18, 7:27=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Stapler wrote:
> > "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:4972cff4$0$9507$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >> Raja wrote:
> >>> For people like Pancho Gonzales we can count on the Pro slams.
>
> >>> But this means Lew Hoad wont make it.
>
> >> Hoad won 4 slams dimbo (back to back Wimbledons included), & he was 1
> >> match away from calendar slam.
>
> > Oops you just fucked up Whisper. Fed was 2 times 1 match away from
> > CYGS(2006, 2007). Yet you trash him utterly because he couldn't beat th=
e
> > clay GOAT.
>
> Federer never even got half way to calendar slam, always falling after
> the 1st hurdle. =A0The closest he got to winning CYGS was 15 matches
> short, not 1. =A0Hoad was actually 2 sets from winning CYGS.
>
> Jim Courier & Rod Laver are the only 2 players in open era to get half
> way to CYGS.
>

+ Wilander in 88.



 
Date: 18 Jan 2009 19:52:08
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
Raja wrote:
> For people like Pancho Gonzales we can count on the Pro slams.

Or not. Pro tennis was a breakaway tour. It counted for little more than
exhibitions. Think World Series Cricket; great to watch, but now forgotten and
its results totally meaningless.





  
Date: 18 Jan 2009 10:54:53
From: pltrgyst
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:52:08 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided > wrote:

>> For people like Pancho Gonzales we can count on the Pro slams.
>
>Or not. Pro tennis was a breakaway tour. It counted for little more than
>exhibitions. Think World Series Cricket; great to watch, but now forgotten and
>its results totally meaningless.

Forgotten and meaningless only to those who don't care about the history of
their sport. And those who can't / don't read.

Except that there was no tour from which to break away. The various pro tennis
tours of the time were the primary indicators of tennis supremacy from roughly
1930 until 1968.

-- Larry


   
Date: 18 Jan 2009 22:29:07
From: chrome
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
"pltrgyst" <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org > wrote...
> Forgotten and meaningless only to those who don't care about the history
> of
> their sport. And those who can't / don't read.
>
> Except that there was no tour from which to break away. The various pro
> tennis
> tours of the time were the primary indicators of tennis supremacy from
> roughly
> 1930 until 1968.
>

I'd say you're right. Tennis "became professional" in 1968, and before that
the results were not comparable to after, and you *HAVE TO* look at both
tours to understand the achievements of that era.



 
Date: 18 Jan 2009 17:45:03
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
Raja wrote:
> For people like Pancho Gonzales we can count on the Pro slams.
>
> But this means Lew Hoad wont make it.
>


Hoad won 4 slams dimbo (back to back Wimbledons included), & he was 1
match away from calendar slam.



  
Date: 18 Jan 2009 12:45:31
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:45:03 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Raja wrote:
>> For people like Pancho Gonzales we can count on the Pro slams.
>>
>> But this means Lew Hoad wont make it.
>>
>
>
>Hoad won 4 slams dimbo (back to back Wimbledons included), & he was 1
>match away from calendar slam.


Federer won 13 (so far) 5 back to back Wimbledons 5 back to back USO's
and was 1 match away from a calendar slam twice !!!



   
Date: 18 Jan 2009 23:50:32
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:45:03 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Raja wrote:
>>> For people like Pancho Gonzales we can count on the Pro slams.
>>>
>>> But this means Lew Hoad wont make it.
>>>
>>
>> Hoad won 4 slams dimbo (back to back Wimbledons included), & he was 1
>> match away from calendar slam.
>
>
> Federer won 13 (so far) 5 back to back Wimbledons 5 back to back USO's
> and was 1 match away from a calendar slam twice !!!
>


Fail to see what this has to do with anything? Reasd the subject.



    
Date: 18 Jan 2009 13:03:12
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:50:32 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:45:03 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Raja wrote:
>>>> For people like Pancho Gonzales we can count on the Pro slams.
>>>>
>>>> But this means Lew Hoad wont make it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hoad won 4 slams dimbo (back to back Wimbledons included), & he was 1
>>> match away from calendar slam.
>>
>>
>> Federer won 13 (so far) 5 back to back Wimbledons 5 back to back USO's
>> and was 1 match away from a calendar slam twice !!!
>>
>
>
>Fail to see what this has to do with anything? Reasd the subject.


Compared to Federer, Hoad was a zero that's what.


  
Date: 18 Jan 2009 07:07:01
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:4972cff4$0$9507$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Raja wrote:
>> For people like Pancho Gonzales we can count on the Pro slams.
>>
>> But this means Lew Hoad wont make it.
>>
>
>
> Hoad won 4 slams dimbo (back to back Wimbledons included), & he was 1
> match away from calendar slam.
>


Oops you just fucked up Whisper. Fed was 2 times 1 match away from
CYGS(2006, 2007). Yet you trash him utterly because he couldn't beat the
clay GOAT.



   
Date: 18 Jan 2009 18:27:53
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
Stapler wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4972cff4$0$9507$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Raja wrote:
>>> For people like Pancho Gonzales we can count on the Pro slams.
>>>
>>> But this means Lew Hoad wont make it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hoad won 4 slams dimbo (back to back Wimbledons included), & he was 1
>> match away from calendar slam.
>>
>
>
> Oops you just fucked up Whisper. Fed was 2 times 1 match away from
> CYGS(2006, 2007). Yet you trash him utterly because he couldn't beat the
> clay GOAT.


Federer never even got half way to calendar slam, always falling after
the 1st hurdle. The closest he got to winning CYGS was 15 matches
short, not 1. Hoad was actually 2 sets from winning CYGS.

Jim Courier & Rod Laver are the only 2 players in open era to get half
way to CYGS.

Federer never went past the 1st hurdle.





    
Date: 18 Jan 2009 07:39:17
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:4972d9fe$0$9526$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> Federer never went past the 1st hurdle.
>


Fuck off Whisper, nobody cares about your semantics.



     
Date: 18 Jan 2009 18:47:49
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
Stapler wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4972d9fe$0$9526$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> Federer never went past the 1st hurdle.
>>
>
>
> Fuck off Whisper, nobody cares about your semantics.


Not semantics clown. Obviously the pressures would be far greater on a
player if they won the 1st 2 legs of calendar slam. As Fed always
failed at 2nd hurdle he never had the extra pressure of winning calendar
slam.

Only the truly dim or Fedfuckers think he was 1 match from doing it.



      
Date: 19 Jan 2009 05:35:14
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
On Jan 19, 9:33 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:07:13 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
>
>
>
> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >On 19 tammi, 10:03, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> MBDunc wrote:
> >> > On 19 tammi, 08:37, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> >> chrome wrote:
> >> >>> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote...
> >> >>>> It's 100% accurate - shouldn't be any debate as it's objective.
> >> >>> So it's true for McEnroe too, that he was not close to winning the Grand
> >> >>> Slam in 1984?
> >> >> Of course.
>
> >> >> Had Mac won FO his chances of winning GS woulda been pretty good, but we
> >> >> can never know how he would perform under that kind of pressure. Plus
> >> >> opponents would have extra motivation to stop a guy winning GS.
>
> >> >> In modern era Jim Courier\Mats Wilander got the closest to winning a
> >> >> calendar slam - nobody else got half way.
>
> >> > Well may be Borg-era is not "modern era" but Borg had two legs of
> >> > calendar slam thrice (78-80) as AO was then played December...1980 was
> >> > the closest as he lost 5-setter to Mac at USO final.
>
> >> > .mikko
>
> >> Of course - good point.
>
> >> And I recall Mac saying he woulda played 1980 AO had Borg won USO to
> >> stop his GS.-
>
> >Connors said same 78/79 ("I would follow him to the the edge of the
> >world to stop him getting GS"
>
> >.mikko
>
> and that was all sour grapes as they knew the "iceman" was king.

not at USO he wasn't.


      
Date: 18 Jan 2009 16:04:06
From: chrome
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote...
> Not semantics clown. Obviously the pressures would be far greater on a
> player if they won the 1st 2 legs of calendar slam. As Fed always failed
> at 2nd hurdle he never had the extra pressure of winning calendar slam.
>
> Only the truly dim or Fedfuckers think he was 1 match from doing it.

This is your latest anti-Federerism, obviously inaccurate. Fed was total
favorite at 3/4 tournaments and the French was always going to be the
stickler, no matter the order.

And if you make this argument, you'd have to make it for McEnroe too in
1984, saying Mac "never cleared the first hurdle" so was never close. In
fact he was very close in 1984, winning US and Wimbledon and also being up 2
sets in French final (and would have won Australian which was the last
tournament that year and he didn't play it). You'd have to say Mac never
cleared the first hurdle, so was never close. And that's nonsense.
Calendar year is preferred but consecutive four would be also a great
achievement, unprecedented since Laver as well in Open era (pretty sure on
that).



       
Date: 19 Jan 2009 14:40:34
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
chrome wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote...
>> Not semantics clown. Obviously the pressures would be far greater on
>> a player if they won the 1st 2 legs of calendar slam. As Fed always
>> failed at 2nd hurdle he never had the extra pressure of winning
>> calendar slam.
>>
>> Only the truly dim or Fedfuckers think he was 1 match from doing it.
>
> This is your latest anti-Federerism, obviously inaccurate.


It's 100% accurate - shouldn't be any debate as it's objective.


        
Date: 19 Jan 2009 04:15:24
From: chrome
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote...
> It's 100% accurate - shouldn't be any debate as it's objective.

So it's true for McEnroe too, that he was not close to winning the Grand
Slam in 1984?



         
Date: 19 Jan 2009 17:37:14
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
chrome wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote...
>> It's 100% accurate - shouldn't be any debate as it's objective.
>
> So it's true for McEnroe too, that he was not close to winning the Grand
> Slam in 1984?


Of course.

Had Mac won FO his chances of winning GS woulda been pretty good, but we
can never know how he would perform under that kind of pressure. Plus
opponents would have extra motivation to stop a guy winning GS.

In modern era Jim Courier\Mats Wilander got the closest to winning a
calendar slam - nobody else got half way.







          
Date: 19 Jan 2009 19:48:32
From: chrome
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote...
> chrome wrote:
>> So it's true for McEnroe too, that he was not close to winning the Grand
>> Slam in 1984?
>
> Of course.
>

Mac won almost every single match he played in 1984! Was up two sets to
love at the French final! I believe the winningest record ever in the
modern era up to Federer, but you don't think he was close to a Grand Slam
that year. OK.

You're consistent. Technically, one has to admit you're correct, but this
is pretty misleading.

You have to consider the timing of the Australian changing from end of year
(in 1984) to start of year now (and in Courier's day).

Today everyone plays all 4 slams and the "Grand Slam"-order achievements
include non-calendar-year but consecutive 4 slams Grand Slam, aka Serena
slam, but I'd call it the consecutive 4 Grand Slam (C4GS). That's the
second best today, with Agassi's "non-calendar" over like 10 years or
something being much further down in achievement, call that lifetime Grand
Slam (LTGS).

In both 2007 and 2006 this "non-calendar but consecutive" version was on the
line for Federer in Paris. So even if you claim he was never close to
winning "The Grand Slam" he was very close to winning the consecutive 4
version, which is also an unprecedented achievement since Laver.

So you're still wrong or misleading on Federer in terms of saying "never
close to winning" the Grand Slam when there is a very similar achievement he
was right on the cusp of **TWO TIMES** that is also unprecedented since
Laver.

So rather than "never getting out of the gate" as you claim, Fed was "right
at the doorstep" of this very similar achievement. This is one way of
explaining how you distort here.

If one talks about "Grand Slam" type achievements, McEnroe by your standard
was never anywhere close to getting it, while Federer was in the
championship match for this very similar achievement TWO TIMES.

Hence looking at "Grand-Slam order" achievements, McEnroe is WAY DOWN by
your standard and Federer much higher, unless you claim that an
unprecedented since Laver non-calendar but consecutive 4 "Grand Slam" is
pretty meaningless.

Now if you ask me, your standard is blind.

The truth is, McEnroe was much closer to winning "The Grand Slam" or a
Grand-Slam order achievement in 1984 than Federer has ever been.

And Federer TWO TIMES in both 2007 and 2006 was potentially on the cusp of
the C4GS.

> Had Mac won FO his chances of winning GS woulda been pretty good, but we
> can never know how he would perform under that kind of pressure. Plus
> opponents would have extra motivation to stop a guy winning GS.
>

True we can't know.

> In modern era Jim Courier\Mats Wilander got the closest to winning a
> calendar slam - nobody else got half way.
>

This is a poor standard b/c of the different chronology of the tournaments
now versus say in 1984, when Mac and Connors didn't play the Australian
normally (*unless* a Grand Slam was on the line). Obviously the poorness of
it is why you've settled on two such guys as being the guys who came
closest. You have to consider the timing change from end of year to start
of year. By your own other standard, the Aussie and the French are the two
least important tournaments, hence the least on the line according to your
own standard, yet by this standard you claim Wilander and Courier closest to
winning the Grand Slam in modern era. Very misleading.



           
Date: 20 Jan 2009 09:37:59
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
chrome wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote...
>> chrome wrote:
>>> So it's true for McEnroe too, that he was not close to winning the
>>> Grand Slam in 1984?
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>
> Mac won almost every single match he played in 1984! Was up two sets to
> love at the French final! I believe the winningest record ever in the
> modern era up to Federer, but you don't think he was close to a Grand
> Slam that year. OK.
>
> You're consistent. Technically, one has to admit you're correct, but
> this is pretty misleading.
>
> You have to consider the timing of the Australian changing from end of
> year (in 1984) to start of year now (and in Courier's day).
>
> Today everyone plays all 4 slams and the "Grand Slam"-order achievements
> include non-calendar-year but consecutive 4 slams Grand Slam, aka Serena
> slam, but I'd call it the consecutive 4 Grand Slam (C4GS). That's the
> second best today, with Agassi's "non-calendar" over like 10 years or
> something being much further down in achievement, call that lifetime
> Grand Slam (LTGS).
>
> In both 2007 and 2006 this "non-calendar but consecutive" version was on
> the line for Federer in Paris. So even if you claim he was never close
> to winning "The Grand Slam" he was very close to winning the consecutive
> 4 version, which is also an unprecedented achievement since Laver.
>
> So you're still wrong or misleading on Federer in terms of saying "never
> close to winning" the Grand Slam when there is a very similar
> achievement he was right on the cusp of **TWO TIMES** that is also
> unprecedented since Laver.
>
> So rather than "never getting out of the gate" as you claim, Fed was
> "right at the doorstep" of this very similar achievement. This is one
> way of explaining how you distort here.
>
> If one talks about "Grand Slam" type achievements, McEnroe by your
> standard was never anywhere close to getting it, while Federer was in
> the championship match for this very similar achievement TWO TIMES.
>
> Hence looking at "Grand-Slam order" achievements, McEnroe is WAY DOWN by
> your standard and Federer much higher, unless you claim that an
> unprecedented since Laver non-calendar but consecutive 4 "Grand Slam" is
> pretty meaningless.
>
> Now if you ask me, your standard is blind.
>
> The truth is, McEnroe was much closer to winning "The Grand Slam" or a
> Grand-Slam order achievement in 1984 than Federer has ever been.
>
> And Federer TWO TIMES in both 2007 and 2006 was potentially on the cusp
> of the C4GS.
>
>> Had Mac won FO his chances of winning GS woulda been pretty good, but
>> we can never know how he would perform under that kind of pressure.
>> Plus opponents would have extra motivation to stop a guy winning GS.
>>
>
> True we can't know.
>
>> In modern era Jim Courier\Mats Wilander got the closest to winning a
>> calendar slam - nobody else got half way.
>>
>
> This is a poor standard b/c of the different chronology of the
> tournaments now versus say in 1984, when Mac and Connors didn't play the
> Australian normally (*unless* a Grand Slam was on the line). Obviously
> the poorness of it is why you've settled on two such guys as being the
> guys who came closest. You have to consider the timing change from end
> of year to start of year. By your own other standard, the Aussie and
> the French are the two least important tournaments, hence the least on
> the line according to your own standard, yet by this standard you claim
> Wilander and Courier closest to winning the Grand Slam in modern era.
> Very misleading.




Not really. Getting 'halfway' to a GS is meaningless anyway - you won't
get any bonus legacy points for it.

The calendar slam is a mythological tennis pursuit - let's not pretend
the guy is close to winning it in a yr when he hasn't won the 1st 2 slams.


        
Date: 19 Jan 2009 04:46:19
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:4973f637$0$9510$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> chrome wrote:
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote...
>>> Not semantics clown. Obviously the pressures would be far greater on a
>>> player if they won the 1st 2 legs of calendar slam. As Fed always
>>> failed at 2nd hurdle he never had the extra pressure of winning calendar
>>> slam.
>>>
>>> Only the truly dim or Fedfuckers think he was 1 match from doing it.
>>
>> This is your latest anti-Federerism, obviously inaccurate.
>
>
> It's 100% accurate - shouldn't be any debate as it's objective.


I thought dumb debates like this were reserved for off-season only?





 
Date: 18 Jan 2009 01:26:12
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: Should 4 slams be enough for HOF?
"Raja" <zepfloyes@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:c3821205-012b-481a-8d01-c9137e03c3c1@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> For people like Pancho Gonzales we can count on the Pro slams.
>
> But this means Lew Hoad wont make it.
>


Maybe you can make another top 10 list~~