| |
Main
Date: 28 Oct 2006 18:41:10
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Surprise - Federer is top seed over Laver and Sampras!
|
http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/Greatest%20Copy.jpg
http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=16097&bannerregion=
Who is the greatest male tennis player of all-time? Rod Laver? Roger
Federer? Pete Sampras? Bill Tilden? Tennis Week will answer that
question in its November issue when it stages "The All-Time" men's
singles tournament. Subscribers of the magazine, and visitors to Tennis
Week.com, will have the opportunity to pick their top player as part of
the tournament.
...
A panel of seven former players and journalists, including such great
players as Fred Stolle, Pancho Segura and Gardnar Mulloy, were asked to
select their top 32 male players. Votes were totaled, and those 32
players with the highest point totals qualified for the 32-player
singles event. The top eight point-getters were accorded seeded slots in
the draw, with the remaining players drawn for their positions at an
official draw ceremony conducted at Tennis Week's offices in Rye, N.Y.
under the supervision of Brian Earley, tournament referee of the U.S. Open.
...
:-D
--
Cheers,
vc
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 18:21:43
From: Sasidharp
Subject: Re: Surprise - Federer is top seed over Laver and Sampras!
|
David W wrote:
> "Sasidharp" <sasidharpv@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Federer being the greatest is premature -- very premature. I can
> > understand them rating Federer as being the "best" player ever, but
> > greatest?? He is right now a lesser Sampras in terms of slams.
> >
> > It seems as though they rated the players in order of their ability --
> > only that explains Mac being seeded so high.
>
> It makes sense to seed them according to ability. A mock tournament is
> appropriate for judging who would beat whom if the best players in history
> could play each other at their best, but not for choosing the GOAT. They
> can't be saying that Fed is the GOAT, so they must be saying that current
> Fed > peak Laver > peak Sampras.
>
> David
Yes.. I was thinking along those lines as well. Anyway, it seems that
that's the only line of thinking that actually makes sense judging by
the seedings.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 04:41:25
From: RuPEDski
Subject: Re: Surprise - Federer is top seed over Laver and Sampras!
|
"Sasidharp" <sasidharpv@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1162084903.584480.55460@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> David W wrote:
>> "Sasidharp" <sasidharpv@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Federer being the greatest is premature -- very premature. I can
>> > understand them rating Federer as being the "best" player ever, but
>> > greatest?? He is right now a lesser Sampras in terms of slams.
>> >
>> > It seems as though they rated the players in order of their ability --
>> > only that explains Mac being seeded so high.
>>
>> It makes sense to seed them according to ability. A mock tournament is
>> appropriate for judging who would beat whom if the best players in
>> history
>> could play each other at their best, but not for choosing the GOAT. They
>> can't be saying that Fed is the GOAT, so they must be saying that current
>> Fed > peak Laver > peak Sampras.
>>
>> David
>
> Yes.. I was thinking along those lines as well. Anyway, it seems that
> that's the only line of thinking that actually makes sense judging by
> the seedings.
If that is the basis of the seedings, then I would say that Hoad should
probably be seeded and Gonzales (as noted by some posters above). Not to
mention Vines! Having said that, this "best' player notion is made even
more nonsensical by the evolution of tennis. You can quite easily go back 1,
2 or even 3 generations and find the past players competitive with the
current greats. But going beyond starts to become an increasingly ludicrous
stretch. Bill Tilden couldn't beat Agassi without extreme
adjustment/training.
I noticed this tournament last week and while it might be fun to debate,
it's already got some questionable decisions and of course is essentially
meaningless.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 18:09:19
From: David W
Subject: Re: Surprise - Federer is top seed over Laver and Sampras!
|
"RuPEDski" <datacipher@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:VhW0h.208711$1T2.32915@pd7urf2no...
>
> If that is the basis of the seedings, then I would say that Hoad should
> probably be seeded and Gonzales (as noted by some posters above). Not to
> mention Vines! Having said that, this "best' player notion is made even
> more nonsensical by the evolution of tennis. You can quite easily go back
1,
> 2 or even 3 generations and find the past players competitive with the
> current greats. But going beyond starts to become an increasingly
ludicrous
> stretch. Bill Tilden couldn't beat Agassi without extreme
> adjustment/training.
They'd have to adjust for that by, say, imagining peak Tilden having the
benefit of modern training and equipment, and speculate how he'd go.
David
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 16:09:16
From: Stevo
Subject: Re: Surprise - Federer is top seed over Laver and Sampras!
|
...and yet there's still that big orange clay hole in his armor...
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 12:38:00
From: Sasidharp
Subject: Re: Surprise - Federer is top seed over Laver and Sampras!
|
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/Greatest%20Copy.jpg
>
> http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=16097&bannerregion=
>
> Who is the greatest male tennis player of all-time? Rod Laver? Roger
> Federer? Pete Sampras? Bill Tilden? Tennis Week will answer that
> question in its November issue when it stages "The All-Time" men's
> singles tournament. Subscribers of the magazine, and visitors to Tennis
> Week.com, will have the opportunity to pick their top player as part of
> the tournament.
>
> ...
>
> A panel of seven former players and journalists, including such great
> players as Fred Stolle, Pancho Segura and Gardnar Mulloy, were asked to
> select their top 32 male players. Votes were totaled, and those 32
> players with the highest point totals qualified for the 32-player
> singles event. The top eight point-getters were accorded seeded slots in
> the draw, with the remaining players drawn for their positions at an
> official draw ceremony conducted at Tennis Week's offices in Rye, N.Y.
> under the supervision of Brian Earley, tournament referee of the U.S. Open.
>
> ...
>
> :-D
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> vc
Federer being the greatest is premature -- very premature. I can
understand them rating Federer as being the "best" player ever, but
greatest?? He is right now a lesser Sampras in terms of slams.
It seems as though they rated the players in order of their ability --
only that explains Mac being seeded so high. But, the absence of
Gonzales is noteworthy -- professional jealousy?
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 14:26:26
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Surprise - Federer is top seed over Laver and Sampras!
|
Sasidharp wrote:
>
> Federer being the greatest is premature -- very premature. I can
> understand them rating Federer as being the "best" player ever, but
> greatest?? He is right now a lesser Sampras in terms of slams.
>
> It seems as though they rated the players in order of their ability --
> only that explains Mac being seeded so high. But, the absence of
> Gonzales is noteworthy -- professional jealousy?
>
The 'greatest' is objective (7543), 'best' subjective.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 10:12:31
From: David W
Subject: Re: Surprise - Federer is top seed over Laver and Sampras!
|
"Sasidharp" <sasidharpv@gmail.com > wrote in message
>
> Federer being the greatest is premature -- very premature. I can
> understand them rating Federer as being the "best" player ever, but
> greatest?? He is right now a lesser Sampras in terms of slams.
>
> It seems as though they rated the players in order of their ability --
> only that explains Mac being seeded so high.
It makes sense to seed them according to ability. A mock tournament is
appropriate for judging who would beat whom if the best players in history
could play each other at their best, but not for choosing the GOAT. They
can't be saying that Fed is the GOAT, so they must be saying that current
Fed > peak Laver > peak Sampras.
David
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 21:04:37
From: Dr. GroundAxe
Subject: Re: Surprise - Federer is top seed over Laver and Sampras!
|
Sasidharp wrote:
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>> http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/Greatest%20Copy.jpg
>>
>> http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=16097&bannerregion=
>>
>> Who is the greatest male tennis player of all-time? Rod Laver? Roger
>> Federer? Pete Sampras? Bill Tilden? Tennis Week will answer that
>> question in its November issue when it stages "The All-Time" men's
>> singles tournament. Subscribers of the magazine, and visitors to Tennis
>> Week.com, will have the opportunity to pick their top player as part of
>> the tournament.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> A panel of seven former players and journalists, including such great
>> players as Fred Stolle, Pancho Segura and Gardnar Mulloy, were asked to
>> select their top 32 male players. Votes were totaled, and those 32
>> players with the highest point totals qualified for the 32-player
>> singles event. The top eight point-getters were accorded seeded slots in
>> the draw, with the remaining players drawn for their positions at an
>> official draw ceremony conducted at Tennis Week's offices in Rye, N.Y.
>> under the supervision of Brian Earley, tournament referee of the U.S. Open.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> :-D
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> vc
>
> Federer being the greatest is premature -- very premature. I can
> understand them rating Federer as being the "best" player ever, but
> greatest?? He is right now a lesser Sampras in terms of slams.
>
> It seems as though they rated the players in order of their ability --
> only that explains Mac being seeded so high. But, the absence of
> Gonzales is noteworthy -- professional jealousy?
>
They have no credability. Putting Laver and Federer above Sampras is stupid.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 23:06:35
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Surprise - Federer is top seed over Laver and Sampras!
|
On Sat, 28 2006 21:04:37 GMT, "Dr. GroundAxe"
<groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
>Sasidharp wrote:
>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>> http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/Greatest%20Copy.jpg
>>>
>>> http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=16097&bannerregion=
>>>
>>> Who is the greatest male tennis player of all-time? Rod Laver? Roger
>>> Federer? Pete Sampras? Bill Tilden? Tennis Week will answer that
>>> question in its November issue when it stages "The All-Time" men's
>>> singles tournament. Subscribers of the magazine, and visitors to Tennis
>>> Week.com, will have the opportunity to pick their top player as part of
>>> the tournament.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> A panel of seven former players and journalists, including such great
>>> players as Fred Stolle, Pancho Segura and Gardnar Mulloy, were asked to
>>> select their top 32 male players. Votes were totaled, and those 32
>>> players with the highest point totals qualified for the 32-player
>>> singles event. The top eight point-getters were accorded seeded slots in
>>> the draw, with the remaining players drawn for their positions at an
>>> official draw ceremony conducted at Tennis Week's offices in Rye, N.Y.
>>> under the supervision of Brian Earley, tournament referee of the U.S. Open.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> :-D
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> vc
>>
>> Federer being the greatest is premature -- very premature. I can
>> understand them rating Federer as being the "best" player ever, but
>> greatest?? He is right now a lesser Sampras in terms of slams.
>>
>> It seems as though they rated the players in order of their ability --
>> only that explains Mac being seeded so high. But, the absence of
>> Gonzales is noteworthy -- professional jealousy?
>>
>
>
>They have no credability. Putting Laver and Federer above Sampras is stupid.
No, it's absolutely objective.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 06:11:00
From: John Doe
Subject: Re: Surprise - Federer is top seed over Laver and Sampras!
|
"Sasidharp" <sasidharpv@gmail.com > wrote:
> only that explains Mac being seeded so high.
John McEnroe was the greatest pain in the rear. The current day
annoyance is all the little grunters, like they are wanna-be
McEnroes.
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 11:54:40
From: Hops
Subject: Re: Surprise - Federer is top seed over Laver and Sampras!
|
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/Greatest%20Copy.jpg
>
> http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=16097&bannerregion=
>
> Who is the greatest male tennis player of all-time? Rod Laver? Roger
> Federer? Pete Sampras? Bill Tilden? Tennis Week will answer that
> question in its November issue when it stages "The All-Time" men's
> singles tournament. Subscribers of the magazine, and visitors to Tennis
> Week.com, will have the opportunity to pick their top player as part of
> the tournament.
>
> ...
>
> A panel of seven former players and journalists, including such great
> players as Fred Stolle, Pancho Segura and Gardnar Mulloy, were asked to
> select their top 32 male players. Votes were totaled, and those 32
> players with the highest point totals qualified for the 32-player
> singles event. The top eight point-getters were accorded seeded slots in
> the draw, with the remaining players drawn for their positions at an
> official draw ceremony conducted at Tennis Week's offices in Rye, N.Y.
> under the supervision of Brian Earley, tournament referee of the U.S. Open.
>
Gonzalez not seeded? heresy
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 17:10:17
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Credit to Srichapan
|
Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
> Braindead. A player could be far superior to Federer in real terms, but
> have far fewer points in his era because of very high standard of
> competition. Like if McEnroe was at his peak in this era he'd be
> drowning in titles.
Please. If McEnroe would be drowning in anything in this era, it would
be crystal meth.
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 05:04:09
From: Sasidharp
Subject: Re: Surprise - Federer is top seed over Laver and Sampras!
|
Whisper wrote:
> Sasidharp wrote:
> >
> > Federer being the greatest is premature -- very premature. I can
> > understand them rating Federer as being the "best" player ever, but
> > greatest?? He is right now a lesser Sampras in terms of slams.
> >
> > It seems as though they rated the players in order of their ability --
> > only that explains Mac being seeded so high. But, the absence of
> > Gonzales is noteworthy -- professional jealousy?
> >
>
>
>
> The 'greatest' is objective (7543), 'best' subjective.
You probably won't find a single person who says that the 7543 system
is objective -- it is just as subjective as picking the 'best' player.
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 01:22:00
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Surprise - Federer is top seed over Laver and Sampras!
|
Whisper wrote:
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> > yustabe wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 28 2006 20:22:55 -0400, yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, 28 2006 11:54:40 -0700, Hops wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Gonzalez not seeded? heresy
> >>>>
> >>> which of the eight would you replace with Fed?
> >>>
> >> umm, Pancho <g>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > It is a cabal of seven people who came up with the seeding.
> >
> > We ought not to take it too seriously.
> >
> > We all know that Federer would be ranked ahead of almost anybody with
> > his performance. We know too that Sampras even managed to reach #1 with
> > less than 4000 points.
> >
> > Federer has 8045 points now.
> >
> > Enough said! ;-)
> >
>
>
> Yes, but he wouldn't beat peak Sampras.
>
> I agree Fed's dominance is possibly most complete we've seen, & probably
> only Sampras would be clear fave to beat him.
Links???
|
|
