let all the arguments.......
bob
steven, yury, et. al -- let nobody ever again debate who the greatest male
tennis player in history is..there is NO debate left..the man has shocked
even his greatest fans..
congrats to whisper, he predicted pete could do it when nobody else thought
so..
and hat's off to andre, one of the finest runnerups in history (not this yr
only, but all through his career)..
bob
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Steve Jaros
"bob" <st...@castlegate.net> wrote in message
news:3d7be...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> cease as of now.....
>
> steven, yury, et. al -- let nobody ever again debate who the greatest male
> tennis player in history is..there is NO debate left..the man has shocked
> even his greatest fans..
Pete is undoubtedely the greatest player not to win all 4 slam events. :)
> congrats to whisper, he predicted pete could do it when nobody else
thought
> so..
Actually, i gave Pete as much a chance as Whisper did. Heck i picked him
against Roddick while Whisper didn't.
bob
news:6SRe9.58404$Or1.3...@news2.east.cox.net...
> "bob" <st...@castlegate.net> wrote in message
> news:3d7be...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > cease as of now.....
> >
> > steven, yury, et. al -- let nobody ever again debate who the greatest
male
> > tennis player in history is..there is NO debate left..the man has
shocked
> > even his greatest fans..
>
> Pete is undoubtedely the greatest player not to win all 4 slam events. :)
steven you know better than that..winnig another non grass slam -- against
andre of all people -- well, the debate is over..don't fret though, andre is
one helluva player, i put him top 7 of all time, if he could win another W
or FO i'd put him top 4..if not for pete, andre would've had 10-12 GS's
IMO..
> > congrats to whisper, he predicted pete could do it when nobody else
> thought so..
> Actually, i gave Pete as much a chance as Whisper did. Heck i picked him
> against Roddick while Whisper didn't.
yes, but you weren't sincere steven and we all know it :-)
dwjones
book. i think rod laver is the best ever. after all he won the grand slam
not once but twice and if they had allowed pros in earlier i believe that
laver would have been capable of winning up to 20 slams. u must also
remember that borg had won 11 slams by the time he was 25. if he had not
retired there is no telling how many he would have won by the time he
reached pete's age. plus what makes borg's 11 slams more impressive is that
he won his on the clay in paris and the grass at wimbledon.
Georgiana Gates
Borg never won *either* the Australian Open or the US Open.
There is a very strong case for Laver; I certainly understand someone
choosing him. But you cannot say "Sampras isn't the best because he
didn't win the French" and then turn around and say that Borg is the
best.
Wayne
record shows how limited he is. Fully HALF of his slams are at Wimbledon,
while there are NONE at the French. It demonstrates how one-dimensional his
game is. It's no concidence that his second highest title total comes at the
second fastest tournament, the U.S., with him only being able to squeak out a
few at the Australian. I would just prefer someone who has a more well-rounded
game and doesn't rely on the serve to avoid actually playing points and working
to win a match. Pete is the the greatest server ever, I'll give him that much.
bartleby
bob wrote:
>
> cease as of now.....
>
> steven, yury, et. al -- let nobody ever again debate who the greatest male
> tennis player in history is..there is NO debate left..the man has shocked
> even his greatest fans..
Yes, he was amazing.
And amazingly BORING to watch. 33 aces. Snore..................That
serve won him the match and little else. Agassi helped when he blew an
easy return to go up a break in the 4th.
But hats off to Pete. A truly great, truly soporific champion.
Trellek
Smapdi
wasn't until the mid-80s that the Australian Open went from grass to hard
court. Using your logic, Rod Laver was limited also, as were all the great
players prior to the prevalence of hard court tournaments.
"Wayne" <usam...@aol.comnot> wrote in message
news:20020908221713...@mb-fe.aol.com...
Steve Jaros
"bob" <st...@castlegate.net> wrote in message
news:3d7be...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> "Steve Jaros" <sja...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:6SRe9.58404$Or1.3...@news2.east.cox.net...
>
> > "bob" <st...@castlegate.net> wrote in message
> > news:3d7be...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > > cease as of now.....
> > >
> > > steven, yury, et. al -- let nobody ever again debate who the greatest
> male
> > > tennis player in history is..there is NO debate left..the man has
> shocked
> > > even his greatest fans..
> >
> > Pete is undoubtedely the greatest player not to win all 4 slam events.
:)
>
> steven you know better than that..winnig another non grass slam -- against
> andre of all people -- well, the debate is over.
? Sampras's win today didn't alter the terms of the debate. Only a French
Open win can do that.
Hey - i'm an Agassi fan but i call it like i see it (i.e., the way it is,
IMO :)): before Andre won the '99 FO title, i consistently argued that Pete
was greatest since Rod Laver, because it was obvious to me. But until Pete
wins the FO i have to put him behind guys who have won them all. Pete could
retire with 20 GS titles and it wouldn't change my mind about that, if one
of those wasn't the FO.
> > Actually, i gave Pete as much a chance as Whisper did. Heck i picked him
> > against Roddick while Whisper didn't.
>
> yes, but you weren't sincere steven and we all know it :-)
We? pshaw. :)
Steve Jaros
"Georgiana Gates" <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:3D7BF6...@hal-pc.org...
Agreed. Borg's failure to win the Aussie doesn't mean much because everyone
ignored the Aussie back then. But his failure to win the USO is equivalent
to Sampras not winning the FO.
dwjones
vastly different surfaces by the time he was 25 to be a more impressive feat
than sampras winning 14 by the time he is 31
Hops
> > There is a very strong case for Laver; I certainly understand someone
> > choosing him. But you cannot say "Sampras isn't the best because he
> > didn't win the French" and then turn around and say that Borg is the
> > best.
>
> Agreed. Borg's failure to win the Aussie doesn't mean much because
everyone
> ignored the Aussie back then. But his failure to win the USO is equivalent
> to Sampras not winning the FO.
>
Borg made 4 US Finals; Pete has zero RG Finals. That's not equivalent.
--
A screaming comes across the sky
Frank Fontaine
Just because Pete beat that runner-up wonder, Andre, doesn't make him
the best. Andre is not that great...
Pete is one of the best players in history - bar none. The greatest,
not a chance without the French Open title. Pete's lack of a French
title shows his weakneses. No big server will ever win the French
without a great baseline game.
12 of Petes 14 slams have been on fast courts - where his big serve
and one-two punch game stands out. Without a doubt he is the best
player to have played on a fast surface. But he would never be able
to win the French Open with his game.
In light of that...
Congrats Pete.
Frank Fontaine
14 Grand Slam titles = best player in the last decade.
On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 02:32:59 GMT, "Smapdi" <cymb...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Frank Fontaine
times. Pete made the French Open finals ????
On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 02:37:49 GMT, "Steve Jaros" <sja...@cox.net>
wrote:
Steve Jaros
--
*****************
Was the Order to Slay given because of the Sign of the Goat found on the
ancient Roman crypt beneath the cathedral, or because the Dark Man of
the Haute Vienne Coven spoke the Three Words?
"Hops" <kev812...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:teUe9.527458$2p2.21...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
abrahammy
I am one who generally gave the edge to Laver because he won two Grand
Slams, and Sampras has never been to a French Open final. Now I'm beginning
to wonder if Sampras/Laver is oranges and apples. The game Laver played is
very different than the game Pete plays now.
(This business of ranking Andre ahead of Pete is just foolish, and I will
say that as a firm Agassi fan.)
>
Jack
>
> Just because Pete beat that runner-up wonder, Andre, doesn't make him
> the best. Andre is not that great...
Umm... OK, if you say so. Tell me, was there any man playing in the US Open
singles draw this year that is "that great"?
Smapdi
"rh310" <rh...@dont.worry.about.the.rest> wrote in message
news:MPG.17e5f00d3...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> kev812...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > Borg made 4 US Finals; Pete has zero RG Finals. That's not equivalent.
>
> You're right. On paper, at least, it's not. Weren't those four Borg USO
> finals on har tru in those days? I don't recall...
>
> --
> n e t DOT e a r t h l i n k AT r h 3 1 0
>
Hops
"Smapdi" <cymb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aJVe9.16491$LI2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> 2 were on clay, 2 were on hard.
Just one on clay:
1976 Connors (clay)
1978 Connors (HC)
1980 McEnroe (HC)
1981 McEnroe (HC)
Smapdi
once!
"Hops" <kev812...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8OVe9.405937$Aw4.17...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Hops
> My bad. Funny how he never did better there.
Well, maybe Connors and McEnroe had something to do with it ; )
And he played the AO only
> once!
AO during Borg's career was a slam nonentity. On average only one top ten
player each year would show up.
Smapdi
"Hops" <kev812...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zQWe9.408293$Aw4.17...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Whisper
>
> steven, yury, et. al -- let nobody ever again debate who the greatest male
> tennis player in history is..there is NO debate left..the man has shocked
> even his greatest fans..
>
> congrats to whisper, he predicted pete could do it when nobody else
thought
> so..
>
> and hat's off to andre, one of the finest runnerups in history (not this
yr
> only, but all through his career)..
>
> bob
>
Yes. Andre is very humble & sporting, in the same vein as the old Aussies.
If Sampras wasn't around I'm sure he would have 6 US opens & 3 Wimbledons.
Perhaps he deserves some 'bonus points' for playing in Sampras era.....
Whisper
Yes, Bob said he shocked even his fans.. ; ). Didn't exactly 'shock' me,
but surprised he beat Roddick. I couldn't split the final, only because I
wasn't confident he could play the way he did 3, 4 yrs ago....
Feel a little sorry for Andre - Pete's accounted for 6 of his losses at
Wim/US (4 finals).....
Whisper
> > Pete is undoubtedely the greatest player not to win all 4 slam events.
:)
>
> steven you know better than that..winnig another non grass slam -- against
> andre of all people -- well, the debate is over..don't fret though, andre
is
> one helluva player, i put him top 7 of all time, if he could win another W
> or FO i'd put him top 4..if not for pete, andre would've had 10-12 GS's
> IMO..
He could have the slam record if not for Pete. I believe he fell off the
rankings after that '95 US loss because he realized he couldn't beat him
when it really mattered.
Andre is great, Pete is 'super great'.... ; )
Whisper
"dwjones" <dwjo...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:u8Se9.249666$aA.43219@sccrnsc02...
> i will not say that sampras is the greatest ever. he is in the top 5 in my
> book. i think rod laver is the best ever. after all he won the grand slam
> not once but twice
Amateur slams don't count for too much. eg if all the pros (ie best players
in the world) were 'allowed' to play slams in '62, Laver probably wouldn't
have won a single slam tournament, let alone the grand slam.
and if they had allowed pros in earlier i believe that
> laver would have been capable of winning up to 20 slams.
3 of the 4 slams were held on grass back then. How would Pete go today (7
time Wimbledon champ) if it were the same?
u must also
> remember that borg had won 11 slams by the time he was 25. if he had not
> retired there is no telling how many he would have won by the time he
> reached pete's age.
Wilander won 7 by 23, & no more. There's no guarantee Borg would have fared
much better....
plus what makes borg's 11 slams more impressive is that
> he won his on the clay in paris and the grass at wimbledon.
...but *none* on hardcourts, at the 2nd biggest slam.... ; )
>
>
Whisper
"Georgiana Gates" <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:3D7BF6...@hal-pc.org...
> dwjones wrote:
> >
> There is a very strong case for Laver; I certainly understand someone
> choosing him. But you cannot say "Sampras isn't the best because he
> didn't win the French" and then turn around and say that Borg is the
> best.
Sampras is the best, not because I like him, but because the only negative
you can point to is his lack of a French title. That's just *one* negative.
Name me any other player & I *guarantee* more than one... ; )
I'll start the ball rolling with Laver;
- No slam wins on hardcourts
- 'only' 5 pro slam wins
Ok, over to you guys....... ; )
Whisper
"Wayne" <usam...@aol.comnot> wrote in message
news:20020908221713...@mb-fe.aol.com...
Please tell me who you would place above him?
MB
Smapdi wrote:
> Prior to the mid-70s, three of the four slams were played on grass, and it
> wasn't until the mid-80s that the Australian Open went from grass to hard
> court. Using your logic, Rod Laver was limited also, as were all the great
> players prior to the prevalence of hard court tournaments.
Apropo of nothing:
There should be an Indoor Slam event....... and besides grass, hardcourt (in
its various forms), and clay (in its various incarnations), how many alternative
surfaces are there?
Whisper
> Prior to the mid-70s, three of the four slams were played on grass, and it
> wasn't until the mid-80s that the Australian Open went from grass to hard
> court. Using your logic, Rod Laver was limited also, as were all the
great
> players prior to the prevalence of hard court tournaments.
>
Well said. The true measure of greatness is slam wins. If the serve was
that important, why are there no others with more than 1 slam?
Too hard?
Whisper
> ? Sampras's win today didn't alter the terms of the debate. Only a French
> Open win can do that.
He may not be the most perfect player of all time, but he has the best
record & is the best in absolute terms. If not, I'm waiting for your
submission?
>
> Hey - i'm an Agassi fan but i call it like i see it (i.e., the way it is,
> IMO :)): before Andre won the '99 FO title, i consistently argued that
Pete
> was greatest since Rod Laver, because it was obvious to me. But until Pete
> wins the FO i have to put him behind guys who have won them all. Pete
could
> retire with 20 GS titles and it wouldn't change my mind about that, if one
> of those wasn't the FO.
We know. But you don't realize you're probably the only one (or at least in
a 1% minority). I've never read an article anywhere in the world where
Andre was considered best ever..... Pete's all over the place.....
Whisper
In your opinion... ; )
Some are more impressed with Agassi.......
Whisper
"Frank Fontaine" <qu...@dogmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d7c122d.1080153@nntp...
> Oh my.
>
> Just because Pete beat that runner-up wonder, Andre, doesn't make him
> the best. Andre is not that great...
Yes he is. If not for Pete he would have 13 slams himself.....
>
> Pete is one of the best players in history - bar none. The greatest,
> not a chance without the French Open title.
When you say 'not a chance', you mean there are players in history who would
beat him on grass, hardcourt & Indoor? Please say yes dickhead.....
Pete's lack of a French
> title shows his weakneses. No big server will ever win the French
> without a great baseline game.
Pete had a great baseline game - so you're wrong straight off the bat....
>
> 12 of Petes 14 slams have been on fast courts - where his big serve
> and one-two punch game stands out.
That's called 'talent', pea brain.... : )
Without a doubt he is the best
> player to have played on a fast surface.
You're confused. You say he's 'not a chance' to be best ever, but 'without
a doubt' best fast surface player (ie Wimbledon, US Open, Aussie, Indoor)?
You probably don't realize how retarded you sound... : ). I'm guessing you
never went to college?
Whisper
> No French = Not the greatest ever.
>
> 14 Grand Slam titles = best player in the last decade.
>
Frank Fontaine = half sucked cock
Whisper
> I do not agree with that logic Steve. Borg made the USOpen final 4
> times. Pete made the French Open finals ????
>
I'll type slowly;
Pete has won more;
- slams
- more Wimbledons
- more US Opens
- more Aussie Opens
- 6 yrs No.1 v 2 yrs
I suggest you lurk until you learn something.......
Tennis Needs Reform
wrote:
>
>"Smapdi" <cymb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:02We9.16505$LI2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> My bad. Funny how he never did better there.
>
>Well, maybe Connors and McEnroe had something to do with it ; )
Actually he had string of bad lucks at US Open, such as injuries and
playing big server Roscoe Tanner at night. ;) Except for the last
final, when he lost to McEnroe who had just started his reign of
domination, he quit for good. That's the best I could remember. ;)
dwjones
reaching the finals of the french
Frank Fontaine
Sometimes you show so much class it's unbelievable.
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 19:40:24 +1000, "Whisper" <beav...@tpg.com.au>
wrote:
Trellek
> borg did make it to the finals of the us open. sampras never came close to
> reaching the finals of the french
>
>
Nice to see you taking Whispers "negative challenge".
Steve Jaros
But here's one measure of the extent to which i am right about the FO issue:
A *lot* of people think Laver is the best ever, not Sampras, and the only
possible basis for ranking Laver ahead of Sampras is that Laver won all 4
slams and Sampras has not.
--
*****************
Was the Order to Slay given because of the Sign of the Goat found on the
ancient Roman crypt beneath the cathedral, or because the Dark Man of
the Haute Vienne Coven spoke the Three Words?
"Whisper" <beav...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3d7c...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
ConnMoore
>From: "Steve Jaros" sja...@cox.net
>Date: 9/9/2002 6:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
>But here's one measure of the extent to which i am right about the FO issue:
>A *lot* of people think Laver is the best ever, not Sampras, and the only
>possible basis for ranking Laver ahead of Sampras is that Laver won all 4
>slams and Sampras has not.
I am a big Laver booster, and you are wrong as to why I rank him so high.
It is NOT that he just won all four events, its that he won all four events IN
THE SAME YEAR, and he did it twice. That, coupled with the loss of his best
Slam winning years due to the lack of professionals on tour, means you have a
player that would have at least 15 slams, and probably 20. . It has nothing
to do with the fact he won the French and Wimby and the US Open and Australia,
its how he did it and the feeling of unrealized potential.
Agassi does not have any of the things Laver had, except he won all four slams.
He did not do it in the same way, and he was seldom if ever a dominating
player while he did it.
The simple basic fact that Sampras has proven time and again to be the better
player than Agassi, at every stage of their respective careers, has to mean
something as well. You dont HAVE to speculate who was better between the two
as you do with Borg, Laver, etc and Sampras. Sampras has proven he is the
better player than Agassi. Why is this even being argued?
Whisper
> I know i'm in the disctinct minority on this issue, but so what?
>
> But here's one measure of the extent to which i am right about the FO
issue:
> A *lot* of people think Laver is the best ever, not Sampras, and the only
> possible basis for ranking Laver ahead of Sampras is that Laver won all 4
> slams and Sampras has not.
>
>
...most of those 'clued-in' posters also count his amateur slams, & think he
'woulda' won x slams between '63-'67... ; )
Iceberg
>
>
> "Georgiana Gates" <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
> news:3D7BF6...@hal-pc.org...
> > dwjones wrote:
> > >
> my
> > > book. i think rod laver is the best ever. after all he won the grand
> slam
> that
> > > laver would have been capable of winning up to 20 slams. u must also
> > > remember that borg had won 11 slams by the time he was 25. if he had not
> > > retired there is no telling how many he would have won by the time he
> that
> > > he won his on the clay in paris and the grass at wimbledon.
> > Borg never won *either* the Australian Open or the US Open.
> >
> > There is a very strong case for Laver; I certainly understand someone
> > choosing him. But you cannot say "Sampras isn't the best because he
> > didn't win the French" and then turn around and say that Borg is the
> > best.
>
> ignored the Aussie back then. But his failure to win the USO is equivalent
> to Sampras not winning the FO.
For a while I've had Borg lingering around as a possible number #1 above
Sampras, then yesterday happened.
Wayne
>wasn't until the mid-80s that the Australian Open went from grass to hard
>court. Using your logic, Rod Laver was limited also, as were all the great
>players prior to the prevalence of hard court tournaments.
>
French Open = slow clay surface
Rod Laver = French Open Champion
Pete Sampras = not even a French Open finalist
Pete Sampras = limited
Rod Laver = well-rounded player
Steve Jaros
> >Subject: Re: let all the arguments.......
> >From: "Steve Jaros" sja...@cox.net
> >Date: 9/9/2002 6:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id:
>
> >But here's one measure of the extent to which i am right about the FO issue:
> >A *lot* of people think Laver is the best ever, not Sampras, and the only
> >possible basis for ranking Laver ahead of Sampras is that Laver won all 4
> >slams and Sampras has not.
>
>
>
> I am a big Laver booster, and you are wrong as to why I rank him so high.
I didn't claim to know why *you* rate him so high...
> It is NOT that he just won all four events, its that he won all four events IN
> THE SAME YEAR, and he did it twice.
Winning the GS is awesome, but it is a one-year accomplishment. As to
his 1962 GS, that was amateur so not really meaningful.
> The simple basic fact that Sampras has proven time and again to be the better
> player than Agassi, at every stage of their respective careers, has to mean
> something as well. You dont HAVE to speculate who was better between the two
> as you do with Borg, Laver, etc and Sampras. Sampras has proven he is the
> better player than Agassi. Why is this even being argued?
Agassi won all 4 slams, Sampras has won 3 out of 4. IMO, that means
Agassi has had the better career accomplishment. That's all i argue,
not who was better head to head...
Whisper
"Iceberg" <big_bad...@tenretnitb.moc> wrote in message
news:MC8f9.7073$yd3.52...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Yeah, Pete's clearly No.1. I struggle between Borg & Laver for
No.2.........
ConnMoore
>Date: 9/9/2002 3:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
>>
>> I am a big Laver booster, and you are wrong as to why I rank him so high.
>
>I didn't claim to know why *you* rate him so high...
>
Yet your very post is trying to indicate why people rank him so high. You
obviously DONT know why people think so highly of Laver, and trying to use
peoples respect of Rocket Rod to bolster your weak arguments about Agassi
somehow being on par with Sampras in the all time scheme of things is
misleading.
>Winning the GS is awesome, but it is a one-year accomplishment. As to
>his 1962 GS, that was amateur so not really meaningful.
Nice that you have to resort to Whisper arguments about the Amatuer slam to
bolster your crumbilng hatred of Sampras. Look at the basic fact that only one
other male player was able to do what Laver did in the 50 years of tennis
BEFORE he accomplished his 62 slam and you will see how amazing a feat it was.
The fact he came back, as a pro and did it again, is the greatest feat in
tennis history. All the contemporarys of Laver concede he was the best there
was. In the same way that all of the contemporarys of Sampras conceded he is
the best there is now.
>
>Agassi won all 4 slams, Sampras has won 3 out of 4. IMO, that means
>Agassi has had the better career accomplishment. That's all i argue,
>not who was better head to head...
yeah why go to something as simple as "Who was the better player of 14 year
careers head to head, on every surface through a variety of conditions" when
people so desperate to have their favorite elevated to a higher level than he
actually should be can point to one two week tournament as the entire judge of
a players standing in a career.
MB
dwjones wrote:
> borg did make it to the finals of the us open. sampras never came close to
> reaching the finals of the french
What is "close to reaching the finals", if reaching the semi-finals isn't?
Michael Scarpitti
Some people are idiots, I guess.
Whisper
"Wayne" <usam...@aol.comnot> wrote in message
Rod Laver = 5 pro slams
Pete Sampras = 14 pro slams
Rod Laver = 2 pro Wimbledons
Pete Sampras = 7 pro Wimbledons
Rod Laver = 3 of 4 slams were on grass
Pete Sampras = > 14 slams if 3 of 4 were on grass today
: )
Steve Jaros
"ConnMoore" <conn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020909202110...@mb-dd.aol.com...
> >Agassi won all 4 slams, Sampras has won 3 out of 4. IMO, that means
> >Agassi has had the better career accomplishment. That's all i argue,
> >not who was better head to head...
>
> yeah why go to something as simple as "Who was the better player of 14
year
> careers head to head, on every surface through a variety of conditions"
when
> people so desperate to have their favorite elevated to a higher level than
he
> actually should be can point to one two week tournament as the entire
judge of
> a players standing in a career.
You must not know that while Agassi has been my favorite player since Becker
retired, i never claimed Agassi was > Sampras until he won the FO. And if
Sampras were to win the FO i'd immediately rate him > Agassi.
My all-time favorite player is JS Connors, but i've never argued that he was
> Sampras.
bob
> I know i'm in the disctinct minority on this issue, but so what?
>
> But here's one measure of the extent to which i am right about the FO
issue:
> A *lot* of people think Laver is the best ever, not Sampras, and the only
> possible basis for ranking Laver ahead of Sampras is that Laver won all 4
> slams and Sampras has not.
no--it was that he won em twice..and could you imagine if they played that
many GS's on grass as they used to? wow, pete's #'s would be unbelievable..
bob
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
bob
> I'm sorry, but I just can't consider him the greatest player. His grand
slam
> record shows how limited he is. Fully HALF of his slams are at Wimbledon,
> while there are NONE at the French
so? fully 6/11of borg's are at the french while NONE at USO and NONE at
AO?..and laver played in a time of very little competition (not that it was
his fault, but we MUST consider it)
bob
"Frank Fontaine" <qu...@dogmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d7c138c.1430717@nntp...
> No French = Not the greatest ever.
amateur slams = no slams at all.
bob
yes, that laver guy wasn't bad for an amateur..listen, i'm not knocking
laver, but tennis simply isn't the same sport pre 68 to post 68..
bob
"Hops" <kev812...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:teUe9.527458$2p2.21...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...> news:1QTe9.58922$Or1.3...@news2.east.cox.net...
>
> > > There is a very strong case for Laver; I certainly understand someone
> > > choosing him. But you cannot say "Sampras isn't the best because he
> > > didn't win the French" and then turn around and say that Borg is the
> > > best.
> >
> > Agreed. Borg's failure to win the Aussie doesn't mean much because
> everyone
> > ignored the Aussie back then. But his failure to win the USO is
equivalent
> > to Sampras not winning the FO.
> >
>
pete won 2 AO's..borg won 0, and not competing is his own fault whether it
was hip to skip the aussie back then or not..
bob
EXACTLY! .. i personally put borg #2 because tennis post 68 changed so
much..but i'd round out connors/lendl/mcenroe/lendl/agassi in next 5...
bob
>
> "Georgiana Gates" <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
> news:3D7BF6...@hal-pc.org...
> > dwjones wrote:
> > >
>
> > There is a very strong case for Laver; I certainly understand someone
> > choosing him. But you cannot say "Sampras isn't the best because he
> > didn't win the French" and then turn around and say that Borg is the
> > best.
>
>
> you can point to is his lack of a French title. That's just *one*
negative.
> Name me any other player & I *guarantee* more than one... ; )
>
> I'll start the ball rolling with Laver;
>
>
> - No slam wins on hardcourts
> - 'only' 5 pro slam wins
borg-
no HC slams: no AO, no USO
next?
ConnMoore
>Date: 9/9/2002 8:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
>
>yes, that laver guy wasn't bad for an amateur..listen, i'm not knocking
>laver, but tennis simply isn't the same sport pre 68 to post 68..
>
>
>bob
This is such a narrow minded view. You have to compare how each player did
versus his contemporarys. Laver and Sampras are in a region where few other
players can even comprehend being. I would consider putting Borg in the mix,
as well, but Im afraid I am biased about Bjorn, since he is my all time
favorite player.
bob
> Oh my.
>
> Just because Pete beat that runner-up wonder, Andre, doesn't make him
> the best. Andre is not that great...
BS..andre is one of top 7-8 of alltime..
> Pete is one of the best players in history - bar none. The greatest,
> not a chance without the French Open title. Pete's lack of a French
> title shows his weakneses. No big server will ever win the French
> without a great baseline game.
pete has a very good baseline game..
> 12 of Petes 14 slams have been on fast courts - where his big serve
> and one-two punch game stands out. Without a doubt he is the best
> player to have played on a fast surface. But he would never be able
> to win the French Open with his game.
no, 7 of 14 on fast surfaces..7 of 14 on medium speed surfaces..
Whisper
The fact you'd *seriously* rate Hewitt > Sampras if he only won 2 more slams
(Aus & French) explains why no one takes you too seriously?
: )
Whisper
"bob" <st...@castlegate.net> wrote in message
news:3d7d5...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> "Steve Jaros" <sja...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:j01f9.110269$082.4...@news1.east.cox.net...
> > I know i'm in the disctinct minority on this issue, but so what?
> >
> > But here's one measure of the extent to which i am right about the FO
> issue:
> > A *lot* of people think Laver is the best ever, not Sampras, and the
only
> > possible basis for ranking Laver ahead of Sampras is that Laver won all
4
> > slams and Sampras has not.
>
> no--it was that he won em twice..and could you imagine if they played that
> many GS's on grass as they used to? wow, pete's #'s would be
unbelievable..
>
> bob
>
>
easily 20........
Whisper
> news:20020908221713...@mb-fe.aol.com...
> > I'm sorry, but I just can't consider him the greatest player. His grand
> slam
> > record shows how limited he is. Fully HALF of his slams are at
Wimbledon,
> > while there are NONE at the French
>
> so? fully 6/11of borg's are at the french while NONE at USO and NONE at
> AO?..and laver played in a time of very little competition (not that it
was
> his fault, but we MUST consider it)
>
> bob
>
>
When Laver won his amateur slam in '62 he beat Emerson in 3 of the 4 finals.
Nobody else could play tennis in the amateurs at that time. Emmo won 12
amateur slams in the absence of Laver, beating nobodys (6 Aussies - even
bigger nobodys). He won zippo in pro ranks, & retired in '83!
I really think we should strip all the amateur titles from the all time
lists........... it gives the false impression Emmo was far greater than
Agassi, for eg.......
Whisper
>
> "Frank Fontaine" <qu...@dogmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3d7c138c.1430717@nntp...
> > No French = Not the greatest ever.
>
> amateur slams = no slams at all.
>
> bob
>
>
Have to agree. It's time we split the history books into pro & amateur.
Here's the real list (top 11);
1 Sampras 14
2 Borg 11
3 Connors 8
3 Lendl 8
5 Agassi 7
5 McEnroe 7
5 Wilander 7
8 Becker 6
8 Edberg 6
10 Laver 5
10 Newcombe 5
Missed anyone?
Whisper
Mac's mine, & even though I think he was better in absolute terms than Borg,
he just didn't have the longevity & therefore must rank < Borg.........
Same with sistas v Graf/MN.... ; )
Whisper
Yeah, but maybe it's not a stretch to say Laver would beat Borg at Wimbledon
everytime? Aggressive serve/volleyer v baseliner, Laver being a lefty,
winning Wimbledon 2 yrs before going pro, & promptly 1st 2 yrs in pro ranks.
9 of his 11 slams were on grass, Borg's lack of serve/volley competition
pre-Mac....
Close, so maybe fitting they both have 11 slams overall - we'll call it
even... ; )
Whisper
> news:3d7c...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> >
> > "Georgiana Gates" <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
> > news:3D7BF6...@hal-pc.org...
> > > dwjones wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > > There is a very strong case for Laver; I certainly understand someone
> > > choosing him. But you cannot say "Sampras isn't the best because he
> > > didn't win the French" and then turn around and say that Borg is the
> > > best.
> >
> >
> > Sampras is the best, not because I like him, but because the only
negative
> > you can point to is his lack of a French title. That's just *one*
> negative.
> > Name me any other player & I *guarantee* more than one... ; )
> >
> > I'll start the ball rolling with Laver;
> >
> >
> > - No slam wins on hardcourts
> > - 'only' 5 pro slam wins
>
> borg-
> no HC slams: no AO, no USO
... & only 2 yrs No.1 v 6.. 5 Masters v 2... ; )
Hops
>
> borg-
> no HC slams: no AO, no USO
>
Borg, HC slams: 0 for 4, 3 Finals
Sampras, Clay slams: 0 for 13, 1 SF
--
A screaming comes across the sky
Steve Jaros
"Whisper" <beav...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3d7d...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
You obviously do - otherwise you wouldn't continually discuss it with me. :)
As of now, Andre leads Pete 4 slams to 3. If Pete ties him at 4 by winning
the FO, then his multiple wins at the slams he's already won would vault him
past Andre. Until then?
Steve Jaros
"Whisper" <beav...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3d7d...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "ConnMoore" <conn...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020909231213...@mb-df.aol.com...
> Mac's mine, & even though I think he was better in absolute terms than
Borg,
> he just didn't have the longevity & therefore must rank < Borg.........
>
> Same with sistas v Graf/MN.... ; )
I *knew* you know that the sistas are better in absolute terms than Graf or
MN.
Well, that's one controversy settled...
bob
righteous post!..i don't want to diss laver, playing in amateur era wasn't
his fault..if anybody i could put in top 3 out of amateur era it's laver....
but people take this laver>pete thing too far..pete did it against the
greatest competition in history (so far)......
bob
i don't need to post anymore, you're reading my mind!!! i really hate doing
that to laver, a great guy, a tennis lover for a lifetime, a great player...
but tennis simply is not the same sport post 68 vs pre 68 and it's time we
acknowledged it!!
bob
news:3d7d...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Yeah, but maybe it's not a stretch to say Laver would beat Borg at
Wimbledon
> everytime? Aggressive serve/volleyer v baseliner, Laver being a lefty,
> winning Wimbledon 2 yrs before going pro, & promptly 1st 2 yrs in pro
ranks.
> 9 of his 11 slams were on grass, Borg's lack of serve/volley competition
> pre-Mac....
>
> Close, so maybe fitting they both have 11 slams overall - we'll call it
> even... ; )
ok, i could go for that...but absolutely NO other amateur's in top 7!!!
bob
>
> "bob" <st...@castlegate.net> wrote in message
> news:3d7d5...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> >
>
> >
> > borg-
> > no HC slams: no AO, no USO
> >
>
> Borg, HC slams: 0 for 4, 3 Finals
> Sampras, Clay slams: 0 for 13, 1 SF
sampras: won USO after everyone thought he was done
borg: quit as soon as he thought he couldn't beat mcenroe.
ConnMoore
>Message-id:
>but people take this laver>pete thing too far..pete did it against the
>greatest competition in history (so far)......
>
>bob
>
I would disagree there....the number of "great" players now is less than it was
15 years ago or so. Of course you can use the idea that Sampras prevented other
great players from showing their stuff. I would disagree in that there really
was not a clear cut number 2 or 3 except for Agassi, when Sampras was on top.
ConnMoore
>Message-id: <3d7e450c_1@c
>i don't need to post anymore, you're reading my mind!!! i really hate doing
>that to laver, a great guy, a tennis lover for a lifetime, a great player...
>
>
>but tennis simply is not the same sport post 68 vs pre 68 and it's time we
>acknowledged it!!
>
>bob
It doesnt MATTER if its the same sport. There is the very basic fact that
Laver was able to do something that other players of his day could not do. Now
you could put him in the Don Budge catagory if that was all he did, but then he
turned pro and did it again. That is why Laver is considered a God. You can
discount it all you want, but people that know tennis history dont discount the
acheivements of the great players of the past, because they are fixated on the
present.
To continue to preach that Sampras did it when the best players were playing is
also pretty short sighted. As I have said before, the TOUGHEST time to be a
great player was 1977 to 1988 or so. So many great players, when compared to
today. Look at the vacuum that was created when Sampras lost his edge. Look
at the mediocre players that become number one when Sampras is down. Rios,
Hewitt, etc. None of these guys can compare to Wilander, Becker,Edberg, Lendl
and McEnroe.
Whisper
>
> >
> > The fact you'd *seriously* rate Hewitt > Sampras if he only won 2 more
> slams
> > (Aus & French) explains why no one takes you too seriously?
>
> You obviously do - otherwise you wouldn't continually discuss it with me.
:)
I'm flabbergasted that an otherwise intelligent poster can hold such anal
views..... ; ). It's like pausing at a car crash.... ; )
>
> As of now, Andre leads Pete 4 slams to 3. If Pete ties him at 4 by winning
> the FO, then his multiple wins at the slams he's already won would vault
him
> past Andre. Until then?
>
That's fine, but you're in a miniscule minority. I'm sure there are others
who consider 1 French > 3 Wimbledons - it's not the norm.... ; )
Whisper
Had a feeling you'd take the bait. I'll allow the 'possibility' Serena at
her best would be interesting with Graf (not Venus) - but it's all
*opinions* - & it's just a possibilty... ; )
> Well, that's one controversy settled...
>
>
Not yet.....
Steve Jaros
(1940s?) before there was a pro barnstorming tour, such that *all* the top
players were amateurs. But even in that case, so much time has passed and
the game has changed so much that there's no point in bringing those champs
into the discussion.
That's why no-one ever compares Agassi to, say, Bill Tilden ...
--
*****************
Was the Order to Slay given because of the Sign of the Goat found on the
ancient Roman crypt beneath the cathedral, or because the Dark Man of
the Haute Vienne Coven spoke the Three Words?
"bob" <st...@castlegate.net> wrote in message
news:3d7e4...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Dom
wrote:
>Obviously, pre-1968 slam wins mean very little, unless we go so far back
>(1940s?) before there was a pro barnstorming tour, such that *all* the top
>players were amateurs. But even in that case, so much time has passed and
>the game has changed so much that there's no point in bringing those champs
>into the discussion.
>
>That's why no-one ever compares Agassi to, say, Bill Tilden ...
Exactly what I've been trying to say, you just said it better.
Speculating whether Sampras would beat Laver is foolish, as foolish as
my example of comparing the 2002 Super Bowl Champs to the 1932
National Champions. I've seen film of guys like Laver and Tilden
playing, they were hitting the ball softer than most juniors playing
today. There is just no comparison. I would be in favor of rating
players as "the best ever" by generation or years. Pete Sampras is
probably the best ever of the last 20 years. Comparing him to someone
prior to that would be silly. Although sure as hell some silly little
wank is going to claim that someone like Krickstein or Andres Gomez is
the best player of the last 20 years. ;-)
Hops
>
> "Hops" <kev812...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:n7ff9.538444$m91.21...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> >
> > "bob" <st...@castlegate.net> wrote in message
> > news:3d7d5...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > borg-
> > > no HC slams: no AO, no USO
> > >
> >
> > Borg, HC slams: 0 for 4, 3 Finals
> > Sampras, Clay slams: 0 for 13, 1 SF
>
> sampras: won USO after everyone thought he was done
> borg: quit as soon as he thought he couldn't beat mcenroe.
>
Point taken. One of the strikes against Borg is his shortened career.
Whisper
Borg was a great champion, but do we want deify someone who quit?
JH
>
> Borg was a great champion, but do we want deify someone who quit?
Bullshit Whisper, with your high IQ you should know better.
Borg had his right to quit when *he* wanted.
And nooone since Borg has won FO and Wimbledon
in the same year. It's remarkable to be able to win on
so different surfaces. Sampras has only won on pretty fast surfaces.
He has played 4-5 years longer than Borg and is only 3 slams ahead.
JH
Whisper
"JH" <nosp...@eurosport.com> wrote in message
news:3d7f0dee$0$87272$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
Sure, but it seems he quit because he thought Mac was too good. Compare
that to Pete's attitude where he always sees himself as the favourite &
never the under dog........
Sure Pete may be 'only' 3 ahead, but US is > French in prestige. By my
reckoning it's 80 pts v 59 - makes Pete about 33.3% better? - about
right....... ; )
Steve Jaros
> >
> > > > There is a very strong case for Laver; I certainly understand
someone
> > > > choosing him. But you cannot say "Sampras isn't the best because he
> > > > didn't win the French" and then turn around and say that Borg is the
> > > > best.
> > >
> > everyone
> > > ignored the Aussie back then. But his failure to win the USO is
> equivalent
> > > to Sampras not winning the FO.
> > >
> >
>
> pete won 2 AO's..borg won 0, and not competing is his own fault whether it
> was hip to skip the aussie back then or not..
c'mon bob - no one, now or then, holds Borg (or Mac's) failure to win an AO
against them. The AO simply wasn't considered worth the plane flight back
then - it's prestige had fallen off significantly.
Had Borg played the AO he almost certainly would have won enough to have as
many overall slams as Pete, and by age 25 to boot. After all, he did show an
aptitude for winning on grass....
bob
> >Subject: Re: let all the arguments.......
> >From: "bob" st...@castlegate.net
> >Date: 9/10/2002 12:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <3d7e450c_1@c
>
> >i don't need to post anymore, you're reading my mind!!! i really hate
doing
> >that to laver, a great guy, a tennis lover for a lifetime, a great
player...
> >
> >
> >but tennis simply is not the same sport post 68 vs pre 68 and it's time
we
> >acknowledged it!!
> >
> >bob
> It doesnt MATTER if its the same sport. There is the very basic fact that
> Laver was able to do something that other players of his day could not do.
true..but exactly HOW MANY of those players were there? few and far
between....
> Now
> you could put him in the Don Budge catagory if that was all he did, but
then he
> turned pro and did it again. That is why Laver is considered a God. You
can
> discount it all you want, but people that know tennis history dont
discount the
> acheivements of the great players of the past, because they are fixated on
the
> present.
i don't discount laver..because of what he did i consider him top 3 against
my better judgment..
> As I have said before, the TOUGHEST time to be a
> great player was 1977 to 1988 or so. So many great players, when compared
to
> today.
mcenroe/connors/lendl/borg for the large part peaked at different times..
> Look at the vacuum that was created when Sampras lost his edge. Look
> at the mediocre players that become number one when Sampras is down.
Rios,
> Hewitt, etc. None of these guys can compare to Wilander, Becker,Edberg,
Lendl
> and McEnroe.
geez, you're picking a 20 yr span for chrissakes! wilander becker edberg
lendl mac all peaked at FAR different times! and what makes you think
wilander could carry andre's jock?
bob
> Obviously, pre-1968 slam wins mean very little, unless we go so far back
> (1940s?) before there was a pro barnstorming tour, such that *all* the top
> players were amateurs. But even in that case, so much time has passed and
> the game has changed so much that there's no point in bringing those
champs
> into the discussion.
>
> That's why no-one ever compares Agassi to, say, Bill Tilden ...
no, SOME people actually do compare them! that's the funny part!
bob
i don't disagree..but then on the other hand his only competition was
connors, who we all know had a game tailor made for borg's..so much for the
"competition" logic!!!
bob
> >
> > Borg was a great champion, but do we want deify someone who quit?
>
> Bullshit Whisper, with your high IQ you should know better.
> Borg had his right to quit when *he* wanted.
true..and we have the right to rank him 2nd best also...
Steve Jaros
"bob" <st...@castlegate.net> wrote in message
news:3d7e4...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
> but people take this laver>pete thing too far..pete did it against the
> greatest competition in history (so far)......
In the middle of the US Open last week, Patrick Maxcenroe said he'd rate
Laver > Sampras, and cited Pete's failure to win the FO as the difference.
Think Pete adding another *US* title would change that opinion?
Steve Jaros
"bob" <st...@castlegate.net> wrote in message
news:3d7f8...@corp.newsgroups.com...
When have i used the 'competition' logic? IMO, players are better now than
ever before. But Sampras fans who crow about that must also remember that
they will be better 10 years from now than they are today, etc. That's the
natural progression of sports...
Whisper
>
> > That's why no-one ever compares Agassi to, say, Bill Tilden ...
>
> no, SOME people actually do compare them! that's the funny part!
>
> bob
>
>
Didn't someone here compare Connolly to the sistas? .......... ; )
ConnMoore
>Message-id:
>geez, you're picking a 20 yr span for chrissakes! wilander becker edberg
>lendl mac all peaked at FAR different times! and what makes you think
>wilander could carry andre's jock?
Wilander, Becker, Edberg McEnroe and Lendl all peaked within 8 years of each
other. Mcenroe's best year was 1984...Wilanders was 1988, Lendl, you could pick
any of the years between '85 and 89, Becker and Edberg were having their best
years in the late 80's and first couple years of the 90's. Your idiotic
statement about Wilander kind of indicates you have no idea about tennis that
occured before last Wednesday. Look up 1988...You find me a year that Agassi
had that even APPROACHED Wilander that year.
You really should do some reading on this time in tennis history.....the years
between 1980 and 1990 were the deepest, best competed time in mens tennis ever.
Far deeper and tougher to win in than the last ten years.
Whisper
> When have i used the 'competition' logic? IMO, players are better now than
> ever before. But Sampras fans who crow about that must also remember that
> they will be better 10 years from now than they are today, etc. That's the
> natural progression of sports...
>
>
So winning 14 slams in this 'best ever' field ranks where?
bob
that's patrick's opinion..how the heck can patrick even judge laver, he
wasn't born when laver was winning (amateur) gs's...
bob
> >Subject: Re: let all the arguments.......
> >From: "bob" st...@castlegate.net
> >Date: 9/11/2002 11:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id:
>
> >geez, you're picking a 20 yr span for chrissakes! wilander becker edberg
> >lendl mac all peaked at FAR different times! and what makes you think
> >wilander could carry andre's jock?
> Wilander, Becker, Edberg McEnroe and Lendl all peaked within 8 years of
each
> other. Mcenroe's best year was 1984
mcenroe "retired" 1 yr later..and they all "peaked" at different yrs..none
of them had held a "peak" for a decade like sampras -- wilander was good for
a couple yrs, becker for a few, edberg for about the same -- only lendl was
very good for a long period..sampras has done it for 12 YRS!
>...Wilanders was 1988, Lendl, you could pick
> any of the years between '85 and 89, Becker and Edberg were having their
best
> years in the late 80's and first couple years of the 90's. Your idiotic
> statement about Wilander kind of indicates you have no idea about tennis
that
> occured before last Wednesday.
it's not idiotic -- i watched wilander play 1/2 dozen times in person and
many many times on tv..he was a very good player -- an excellent player..but
i think andre would whip him.
> Look up 1988...You find me a year that Agassi
> had that even APPROACHED Wilander that year.
how old was andre in 88?..wilander was in his PRIME.
> You really should do some reading on this time in tennis history.....the
years
> between 1980 and 1990 were the deepest, best competed time in mens tennis
ever.
> Far deeper and tougher to win in than the last ten years.
i've watched tennis constantly since 1976, i don't need to "read" about it,
i've lived it through tv (live) and in person (live also)
bob
yes! that's the thing, how on earth?????
bob
i'm not using the "absolute" logic, because all a guy can do is dominate the
time in which he lives..
the problem i have with laver/hoad/emerson in tennis (vs, say, boxing or
track/field or baseball) is the NUMBER of people playing competitive tennis
in laver's day vs now..in some other sport, there were a lot of people
playing competitively in the 1920s, 1950s, 1970s -- but not tennis, tennis
grew an unbelievable amount (more than many other sports as a % basis) in
the past 30 yrs -- THAT's why i discount pre 68 tennis so much...not cause
of the training methods, etc..that make for a better "absolute" player
today..if i dominate a sport and there are only 10 people in the whole world
playing it, but in 50 yrs 5 billion people play it, well, my win doesn't
mean much even if i "dominated my day" vs 50yrs from now, get it??
suck on that logic for a while, it's the basis of EVERYTHING i say about
laver and the pre 68 crowd..