Question for Whisper
Ali Asoag
7543 isn't beenworking for a while now ...
And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO, *tenniswise*!
Many might consider Wimby has more prestige (for whatsoever reason),
fine! But tenniswise, does it take more talent/performance to be won?
Patrick Kehoe
SERIOUSLY... who gives a SHIT what he think?
Grow up!
P
Ali Asoag
Why are you reading RST? Most of the postings is just shit. Why do you
(probably) watch comedy shows? Isn't it nonsense what they say?
I like the humor Whisper has.
> Grow up!
You too.
Javier González
Manco
Patrick Kehoe
Humour? He's a cyborg lost in 1993... :))
P
Raja, The Great
Don't feed a troll like Whisper. One thing Whisper doesnt realize
after Fed is gone, someone else is going to come and break all Sampras
records. No formula of is ever going to guarantee that Sampras stays
as GOAT forever.
Ali Asoag
Yes, humor. Get it? ;-)
Superdave
>Nah anyone who defends Whisper has mental issues to say the least.
i hear that after seeing whisper his shrink had to see a shrink!
Ali Asoag
Whisper, coward?
Whisper
Just finished watching American Idol.
'Tenniswise' has fuck all to do with prestige. eg it's far harder to
win Milan 60 60 every match than any slam, funnily enough this still
gives it no prestige.
Thus 'difficulty', 'Tenniswise' or strength of field are completely
irrelevent factors. This can be easily proven when we look at the
records of past greats - eg Bill Tilden. We know he won 10 blue-chip
slams, but none of us care what the difficulty or field quality was
like. It's very arrogant to think future generations will care about
current players in a different way.
You may ask why do I go on about 'clown era' in that case? That's a
factor in 'best ever' measure, not goat.
arnab.z@gmail
GOAT = BOAT. Nobody makes a distinction between the two. What you win
is what you are.
Superdave
er...did somebody say something?
DavidW
> And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO, *tenniswise*!
What does tennis have to do with it?
Whisper
Exactly. It's the title that's prestigious, & the best players have an
advantage 'tenniswise' to win it. The best players want to win the most
prestigious titles for obvious reasons - ie they become more
'prestigious' themselves the more they win.
The best, most talented players don't win all the slams, but they have a
deserved advantage because of their skills. Still have to go out & get
it done.
Superdave
Nothing if you are whisper and care fuck all about tennis but only fan fucking a guy named Pete.
bob
wrote:
>Don't you want to invent a new formula to lift Sampras over Federer?
>7543 isn't beenworking for a while now ...
>
>And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO, *tenniswise*!
maybe AO is worth more, grocery wise? better food? as long as we're
not talking "tenniswise" AO may be best slam, not sure.
>Many might consider Wimby has more prestige (for whatsoever reason),
>fine! But tenniswise, does it take more talent/performance to be won?
it takes the most talent to win that which is most coveted. and
Wimbledon is most coveted. period.
bob
bob
no - people are already asking the questions about fed/nadal even
though nadal is many slams behind.
bob
felangey
That's some flawed logic.
>and Wimbledon is most coveted. period.<
Links or it's not true! :)
felangey
> though nadal is many slams behind.<
Which is funny, because Nadal only recently said that the only reason he is
ahead in the h2h with Fed is the amount of matches they have played on his
favourite surface, clay....and that he would kill for Fed's slam record.
Who to believe? A player directly involved....or a couple of whiney American
commentators and Sampy fan-bois? :)
Whisper
No need to listen to the players - after all Fed can say Roddick is
better than him but we just have to look at the record.
Rafa has beaten Fed on all 3 surfaces in different slam finals, while
Fed only beat him at Wimbledon when Rafa was young.
Nothing anyone says can change facts.
CloudsRest
So the youth excuse works for him when Nadal loses matches, but at the
same time you have no problems conveniently using Nadal's (& Sampras')
youth to show how he's better because "he won majors at an earlier
age." Sampras was better because he won at 19, but when he loses at
20 it's because he wasn't ready yet. Can't have it both ways. Just
use whatever suits you if it means knocking Federer off his pedestal.
CloudsRest
and similar people are already saying stuff like djokovic might be
better than both. And the cycle goes on and on and on.
Superdave
As long as assholes like you abound they will keep trying to make
9 appear to be > 16.
CloudsRest
>
> >> no - people are already asking the questions about fed/nadal even
> >> though nadal is many slams behind.<
>
> > Which is funny, because Nadal only recently said that the only reason he
> > is ahead in the h2h with Fed is the amount of matches they have played
> > on his favourite surface, clay....and that he would kill for Fed's slam
> > record.
>
> > Who to believe? A player directly involved....or a couple of whiney
> > American commentators and Sampy fan-bois? :)
>
> No need to listen to the players - after all Fed can say Roddick is
> better than him but we just have to look at the record.
>
By the way, it's not the h2h results that make Federer better than
Roddick. That just means Roddick is a very good matchup for Federer.
It's Federer's overall results, against the entire field, that makes
him the better player. The better player is more unbeatable overall.
You can flip the h2h results the other way, and my assessment wouldn't
change.
bob
wrote:
certainly i don't believe a very modest player who has very logical
reasons not to get fed extra pumped up, beign that's his main
competitor for previous 5 yrs.
bob
bob
i never heard anybody say that. healthy nadal just demolished djok on
nadal's worst surface at USO.
bob
bob
wrote:
>> it takes the most talent to win that which is most coveted.
>
>That's some flawed logic.
not at all. what is harder to win: that in which every top player
tries his absolute best to peak or that in which top players either
skip, use as a tuneup, or just don't care as much?
>>and Wimbledon is most coveted. period.<
>
>Links or it's not true! :)
if you need a link to know that i suggest you focus on another sport.
bob
Superdave
More recently Fed demolished a healthy Nadal and a healthy Djock at the YEC.
Fed beat them all the long the short and the tall. Even the CHEATERS!
felangey
"bob" <stei...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:q0epk65dk2ntbbpn4...@4ax.com...
Cool. A couple of whiney American commentators and Sampy fan-bois it is.
Figures.
felangey
>
> not at all. what is harder to win: that in which every top player
> tries his absolute best to peak or that in which top players either
> skip, use as a tuneup, or just don't care as much?
Who skipped AO or used it as a tuneup? Everyone turns up and fights as hard
as any other tournament. I would wager they are able to compete harder as
all are fresh after the off season.
> if you need a link to know that i suggest you focus on another sport.
....but you do have the links, right? Post away.
Ali Asoag
> On 4/02/2011 7:53 PM, DavidW wrote:
>> Ali Asoag wrote:
>>> And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO, *tenniswise*!
>>
>> What does tennis have to do with it?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Exactly. It's the title that's prestigious, & the best players have an
> advantage 'tenniswise' to win it. The best players want to win the most
> prestigious titles for obvious reasons - ie they become more
> 'prestigious' themselves the more they win.
This alone shows that your judgement doesn't base on facts. I mean it's
fine to say winning Wimby is more prestigious than winning e.g. AO. But
to win Wimby takes as much effort as to win AO, face it. You have to win
7 straight matches within 2 weeks against the same field in every slam.
> The best, most talented players don't win all the slams, but they have a
> deserved advantage because of their skills. Still have to go out & get
> it done.
Somehow I have the impression that you are thinking of Sampras in your
mind but actually talking about Federer.
Ali Asoag
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 11:57:48 -0700, Ali Asoag<Ali.A...@arcor.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Don't you want to invent a new formula to lift Sampras over Federer?
>> 7543 isn't beenworking for a while now ...
>>
>> And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO, *tenniswise*!
>
> maybe AO is worth more, grocery wise? better food? as long as we're
> not talking "tenniswise" AO may be best slam, not sure.
You are really Whisper's sock. Talking the same which reveals your
unknowledge about tennis.
>> Many might consider Wimby has more prestige (for whatsoever reason),
>> fine! But tenniswise, does it take more talent/performance to be won?
>
> it takes the most talent to win that which is most coveted. and
> Wimbledon is most coveted. period.
Why does it take more talent to win the most coveted one, dumbo? Why
does it take more talent to win a tennis tournament that is just more
prestigious? Do you need to win 8 matches in a row instead of 7? Do you
have to play with your left hand while being a right-hander? Ridiculous.
Ali Asoag
> On 4/02/2011 4:03 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>> On 2/3/2011 11:57 AM, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>> Don't you want to invent a new formula to lift Sampras over Federer?
>>> 7543 isn't beenworking for a while now ...
>>>
>>> And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO, *tenniswise*!
>>> Many might consider Wimby has more prestige (for whatsoever reason),
>>> fine! But tenniswise, does it take more talent/performance to be won?
>>
>> Whisper, coward?
>
>
> Just finished watching American Idol.
No wonder you know so little about tennis.
> 'Tenniswise' has fuck all to do with prestige. eg it's far harder to win
> Milan 60 60 every match than any slam, funnily enough this still gives
> it no prestige.
>
> Thus 'difficulty', 'Tenniswise' or strength of field are completely
> irrelevent factors.
Says someone who is lamenting about clown eras for Fed and making up
tough era for Samras ... LOL. You just contradict yourself, Whisper.
> This can be easily proven when we look at the
> records of past greats - eg Bill Tilden. We know he won 10 blue-chip
> slams, but none of us care what the difficulty or field quality was
> like. It's very arrogant to think future generations will care about
> current players in a different way.
>
> You may ask why do I go on about 'clown era' in that case? That's a
> factor in 'best ever' measure, not goat.
REad your statement above again "strength of field ... irrelevant
factors". LOL
Lendle may say it's tough to win Wimby, but what would Sampras say? It's
super easy to win FO? LOL
Whisper
Yeah, any newbie who doesn't get it after a year of watching all the
slams should just pack it in. Felgeny has apparently followed the sport
for decades - or so he says.
Whisper
>>> and similar people are already saying stuff like djokovic might be
>>> better than both. And the cycle goes on and on and on.
>>
>> i never heard anybody say that. healthy nadal just demolished djok on
>> nadal's worst surface at USO.
>>
>> bob
>
>
> More recently Fed demolished a healthy Nadal and a healthy Djock at the YEC.
>
> Fed beat them all the long the short and the tall. Even the CHEATERS!
What's YEC worth on 7543 scale?
Whisper
Look at the names that have dominated Wimbledon;
Sampras, Federer, Borg, Laver
Do those names have anything in common?
All 4 are tier 1 goats.
Does that alone support the idea the best, most talented players win the
biggest slam?
Whisper
One again I draw your attention to the elephant in the lounge room :
Sampras, Federer, Borg, Laver - what do they have in common?
Superdave
10
Iceberg
yes, but the surface was made to his specifications, I think he even
chose the colour.
bob
wrote:
you made the right choice.
bob
bob
wrote:
>>>That's some flawed logic.
>>
>> not at all. what is harder to win: that in which every top player
>> tries his absolute best to peak or that in which top players either
>> skip, use as a tuneup, or just don't care as much?
>
>Who skipped AO or used it as a tuneup?
yrs past, many. today's game, no way you can ever convince me that AO
is as important to the field as Wimbledon.
> Everyone turns up and fights as hard
>as any other tournament.
they fight hard. but how much prep do they give being that it's in
January? how much focus do they have for previous 3 months? how much
do they *really* care? they care about as much as the 4th most
important tournament warrants, no more, no less.
> I would wager they are able to compete harder as
>all are fresh after the off season.
>
>> if you need a link to know that i suggest you focus on another sport.
>
>....but you do have the links, right? Post away.
you're looking for the missing like are you? lol.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 2/4/2011 4:52 PM, bob wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 11:57:48 -0700, Ali Asoag<Ali.A...@arcor.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't you want to invent a new formula to lift Sampras over Federer?
>>> 7543 isn't beenworking for a while now ...
>>>
>>> And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO, *tenniswise*!
>>
>> maybe AO is worth more, grocery wise? better food? as long as we're
>> not talking "tenniswise" AO may be best slam, not sure.
>
>You are really Whisper's sock. Talking the same which reveals your
>unknowledge about tennis.
hell, whisper just says the same stuff i've been telling others or
thinking for 25 yrs.
>>> Many might consider Wimby has more prestige (for whatsoever reason),
>>> fine! But tenniswise, does it take more talent/performance to be won?
>>
>> it takes the most talent to win that which is most coveted. and
>> Wimbledon is most coveted. period.
>
>Why does it take more talent to win the most coveted one, dumbo?
because you are beating the absolute best who are trying their
absolute hardest. how many "fluke" wimbledon champs you seen past 35
yrs? i can think of maybe 1 or 2? or not even.
> Why
>does it take more talent to win a tennis tournament that is just more
>prestigious? Do you need to win 8 matches in a row instead of 7? Do you
>have to play with your left hand while being a right-hander? Ridiculous.
because you have to beat the guys who are prepping, focusing and
trying their absolute hardest. not beat guys who are 1/2 arsed. simple
as that. once in a while, you may get a lucky draw and an upset or two
and it falls a little easier, but the best of the best are still going
all out at Wimbledon, every yr.
bob
felangey
Nice segway. Not really.
Ali Asoag
Not much except they all have more than 10 Slams. But other than that:
- Sampras never won the French which the others all won.
- Fed has 16 Slams which the others don't.
- Borg never won AO or USO which the others all did
- Laver won twice the CYGS which all the others did not.
To me, Sampras and Borg have big stains in their career ...
Ali Asoag
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 04:30:43 -0000, "felangey"<o...@cloudnine.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> That's some flawed logic.
>>>
>>> not at all. what is harder to win: that in which every top player
>>> tries his absolute best to peak or that in which top players either
>>> skip, use as a tuneup, or just don't care as much?
>>
>> Who skipped AO or used it as a tuneup?
>
> yrs past, many. today's game, no way you can ever convince me that AO
> is as important to the field as Wimbledon.
>
>> Everyone turns up and fights as hard
>> as any other tournament.
>
> they fight hard. but how much prep do they give being that it's in
> January? how much focus do they have for previous 3 months? how much
> do they *really* care? they care about as much as the 4th most
> important tournament warrants, no more, no less.
Haha, the best of the best (Roger) has only one tournament before
Wimbledon, that's Halle. I believe Nadal only plays Queen's. Not as much
as what they do before AO.
Ali Asoag
Another try to make Sampras up? ;-)
TT would say: What do Borg, Nadal, Lendl have in common? They all wonn
the French at least 3 times, most talented players win the biggest the
slam? LOL
Your whole "arguments" are just based on your own perception, never on
facts!
Ali Asoag
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 22:38:20 -0700, Ali Asoag<Ali.A...@arcor.de>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/4/2011 4:52 PM, bob wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 11:57:48 -0700, Ali Asoag<Ali.A...@arcor.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't you want to invent a new formula to lift Sampras over Federer?
>>>> 7543 isn't beenworking for a while now ...
>>>>
>>>> And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO, *tenniswise*!
>>>
>>> maybe AO is worth more, grocery wise? better food? as long as we're
>>> not talking "tenniswise" AO may be best slam, not sure.
>>
>> You are really Whisper's sock. Talking the same which reveals your
>> unknowledge about tennis.
>
> hell, whisper just says the same stuff i've been telling others or
> thinking for 25 yrs.
So you are saying Whisper is your sock?
>>>> Many might consider Wimby has more prestige (for whatsoever reason),
>>>> fine! But tenniswise, does it take more talent/performance to be won?
>>>
>>> it takes the most talent to win that which is most coveted. and
>>> Wimbledon is most coveted. period.
>>
>> Why does it take more talent to win the most coveted one, dumbo?
>
> because you are beating the absolute best who are trying their
> absolute hardest. how many "fluke" wimbledon champs you seen past 35
> yrs? i can think of maybe 1 or 2? or not even.
2. Nadal 2008 and 2010. ;-)
>> Why
>> does it take more talent to win a tennis tournament that is just more
>> prestigious? Do you need to win 8 matches in a row instead of 7? Do you
>> have to play with your left hand while being a right-hander? Ridiculous.
>
> because you have to beat the guys who are prepping, focusing and
> trying their absolute hardest. not beat guys who are 1/2 arsed. simple
> as that. once in a while, you may get a lucky draw and an upset or two
> and it falls a little easier, but the best of the best are still going
> all out at Wimbledon, every yr.
Then tell me why Fed only has 1 tournament as preparation for Wimby? At
the same time, he play at least 3 clay tournaments before the French.
Doesn't it mean the FO is the biggest for Fed? LOL.
bob
wrote:
>On 2/5/2011 12:36 AM, Whisper wrote:
sampras was never dominated by his main foe; borg and fed were.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 2/5/2011 7:07 AM, bob wrote:
?? by the time they play wimbledon they've been hard at it for 6
months with little break. what r u talking about.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 2/5/2011 7:12 AM, bob wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 22:38:20 -0700, Ali Asoag<Ali.A...@arcor.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/4/2011 4:52 PM, bob wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 11:57:48 -0700, Ali Asoag<Ali.A...@arcor.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don't you want to invent a new formula to lift Sampras over Federer?
>>>>> 7543 isn't beenworking for a while now ...
>>>>>
>>>>> And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO, *tenniswise*!
>>>>
>>>> maybe AO is worth more, grocery wise? better food? as long as we're
>>>> not talking "tenniswise" AO may be best slam, not sure.
>>>
>>> You are really Whisper's sock. Talking the same which reveals your
>>> unknowledge about tennis.
>>
>> hell, whisper just says the same stuff i've been telling others or
>> thinking for 25 yrs.
>
>So you are saying Whisper is your sock?
your definitin of "sock" is similar to that of "choke".
>>>>> Many might consider Wimby has more prestige (for whatsoever reason),
>>>>> fine! But tenniswise, does it take more talent/performance to be won?
>>>>
>>>> it takes the most talent to win that which is most coveted. and
>>>> Wimbledon is most coveted. period.
>>>
>>> Why does it take more talent to win the most coveted one, dumbo?
>>
>> because you are beating the absolute best who are trying their
>> absolute hardest. how many "fluke" wimbledon champs you seen past 35
>> yrs? i can think of maybe 1 or 2? or not even.
>
>2. Nadal 2008 and 2010. ;-)
maybe cash. and even then i'd say no.
>> Why
>>> does it take more talent to win a tennis tournament that is just more
>>> prestigious? Do you need to win 8 matches in a row instead of 7? Do you
>>> have to play with your left hand while being a right-hander? Ridiculous.
>>
>> because you have to beat the guys who are prepping, focusing and
>> trying their absolute hardest. not beat guys who are 1/2 arsed. simple
>> as that. once in a while, you may get a lucky draw and an upset or two
>> and it falls a little easier, but the best of the best are still going
>> all out at Wimbledon, every yr.
>
>Then tell me why Fed only has 1 tournament as preparation for Wimby? At
>the same time, he play at least 3 clay tournaments before the French.
>Doesn't it mean the FO is the biggest for Fed? LOL.
there's only 1 grass warmup available; however federer plays nearly
nonstop from january through Wimbledon. that's all a sort of prep for
him.
bob
Ali Asoag
You are a stupid little boy. Talking about grass is something special
and then citing 6 months of HC and clay as preparation for Wimby. You
can't get more stupid.
Ali Asoag
That would means USO is the most prestigious slam because all players
prepare for it from Jan to Sept. Oh, oh, oh, bobbish, go to Kindergarden
again!
Ali Asoag
But by everyone. Like Nadal on HC until 2009. Even worse!
CloudsRest
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 16:31:15 -0700, Ali Asoag <Ali.Aso...@arcor.de>
But Sampras never had a consistently good main foe, nor did he ever
play one outside his comfort zone(s). If he were good enough to reach
French finals in this era, it's very likely he'd get dominated by
Nadal.
Similar situation for McEnroe. How would the h2h look if he played
Borg at the French, but never got to play Borg at US Open?
Superdave
Borg was NOT dominated by Mac. That is yet another whisper LIE.
Ali Asoag
On clay he was dominated by everyone. He got kicked out in early rounds
plus nobody dominated clay like Nadal in this era, so he couldn't face
someone consistently to have an H2H like 0-13 at FO. LOL.
And Whisper is proud of this. LMAO
DavidW
> On 2/4/2011 2:39 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 4/02/2011 7:53 PM, DavidW wrote:
>>> Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>> And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO,
>>>> *tenniswise*!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly. It's the title that's prestigious, & the best players have
>> an advantage 'tenniswise' to win it. The best players want to win
>> the most prestigious titles for obvious reasons - ie they become more
>> 'prestigious' themselves the more they win.
>
> This alone shows that your judgement doesn't base on facts. I mean
> it's fine to say winning Wimby is more prestigious than winning e.g.
> AO. But to win Wimby takes as much effort as to win AO, face it. You
> have to win 7 straight matches within 2 weeks against the same field
> in every slam.
Why do people keep saying this? No one is denying this, but it's irrelevant.
The fact is that Wimbleon counts for more in people's minds. It's more
_important_, and that's why it's worth more points. EOS.
arahim
> On 4/02/2011 7:53 PM, DavidW wrote:
>
> > Ali Asoag wrote:
> >> And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO, *tenniswise*!
>
> > What does tennis have to do with it?
>
> Exactly. It's the title that's prestigious, & the best players have an
> advantage 'tenniswise' to win it. The best players want to win the most
> prestigious titles for obvious reasons - ie they become more
> 'prestigious' themselves the more they win.
>
Wasn't that long ago that some top clay specialists used to give
Wimbledon a pass.
> The best, most talented players don't win all the slams, but they have a
> deserved advantage because of their skills. Still have to go out & get
> it done.
bob
if you want to consider Wimbledon, USO and AO comfort zones, what can
i tell you?
>Similar situation for McEnroe. How would the h2h look if he played
>Borg at the French, but never got to play Borg at US Open?
mcenroe was far younger than borg. and peak mcenroe nearly and should
have beaten a lendl at FO who was playing borg type level IMO.
bob
bob
most importantly, it counts as most in the PLAYERS minds. that is the
highest point of relevancy - they try hardest to play their best
there.
bob
bob
wrote:
you can't tuneup more than 2 wks for Wimbledon, there are only 2 wks
of prep tournaments - but the entire season from AO - July is nonstop.
AO comes 5 months after USO, in which time there is 1 relevant
tournament, YEC. you're nuts.
bob
bob
wrote:
you dumbo - i'm not saying Wimbledon is most important because it
comes in july, i'm refuting your claim about AO being equally
important.
bob
Ali Asoag
> On Feb 4, 1:39 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/02/2011 7:53 PM, DavidW wrote:
>>
>>> Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>> And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO, *tenniswise*!
>>
>>> What does tennis have to do with it?
>>
>> advantage 'tenniswise' to win it. The best players want to win the most
>> prestigious titles for obvious reasons - ie they become more
>> 'prestigious' themselves the more they win.
>>
>
> Wasn't that long ago that some top clay specialists used to give
> Wimbledon a pass.
Kuerten e.g. would rather wear colorful clothes than playing in
Wimbledon in white. :-)
Ali Asoag
Not convincing argument at all. Raise your level.
Ali Asoag
You said Wimby is most important because most players prepare the most
for it. I refuted this saying e.g. Roger and also Rafa have only 1
tournament between FO and Wimby thus can't be much preparation there.
Once again for you to understand what I think: Wimby can be most
important, AO can, FO can, USO can as well. It depends on whom you ask.
Yes, probable most people consider Wimby most important. That's fine. I
also belong to those. But that's just the perception how you see things,
prestige or whatsoever makes he people think Wimby is most worthy. But
that has nothing to do with how tough it is to win. Lendl would say
Wimby is the Slam toughest to win, but Sampras or Becker would say the
FO is although they probably don't want to exchange their Wimby trophies
for some FO ones. Understood, little bobboy?
felangey
Actually, it is worth 2000 for the win....same as Wimbledon. EOS.
bob
wrote:
they focus hardest for it, try hardest for it, and their preparation
for it is such that they peak and play their best tennis during it -
at least that's their hope and wish.
> I refuted this saying e.g. Roger and also Rafa have only 1
>tournament between FO and Wimby thus can't be much preparation there.
huh? they're playing in tournaments for previsous 6 months.
>Once again for you to understand what I think: Wimby can be most
>important, AO can, FO can, USO can as well. It depends on whom you ask.
>Yes, probable most people consider Wimby most important. That's fine. I
>also belong to those. But that's just the perception how you see things,
>prestige or whatsoever makes he people think Wimby is most worthy. But
>that has nothing to do with how tough it is to win. Lendl would say
>Wimby is the Slam toughest to win, but Sampras or Becker would say the
>FO is although they probably don't want to exchange their Wimby trophies
>for some FO ones. Understood, little bobboy?
what is toughest to win for a particular player, based on his style,
may vary quite obviously, but by winning wimbledon you are beating the
best of the best, and the guys who have given every ounce of their
tennis year to ATTEMPT to play their best during that fortnight. if
you have a player who is untouchable on, for ex, clay, and nobody on
earth can beat him there, obviously winning a FO will be less chance
than winning a Wimbledon, if that player is avg on grass. but that's
not the pt.
it is fact that every or nearly every player would prefer to win
wimbledon more than any other event and the intent of top players is
to play their best tennis there. sometimes you are injured or sick or
whatnot and it doesn't happen on a given week, that's tough luck. this
is all consistent with the original post.
bob
DavidW
>> and that's why it's worth more points. EOS<
>
> Actually, it is worth 2000 for the win....same as Wimbledon. EOS.
Those are PC points. I was talking about real points.
DavidW
> On Feb 4, 1:39 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/02/2011 7:53 PM, DavidW wrote:
>>
>>> Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>> And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO,
>>>> *tenniswise*!
>>
>>> What does tennis have to do with it?
>>
>> Exactly. It's the title that's prestigious, & the best players have
>> an advantage 'tenniswise' to win it. The best players want to win
>> the most prestigious titles for obvious reasons - ie they become more
>> 'prestigious' themselves the more they win.
>>
>
> Wasn't that long ago that some top clay specialists used to give
> Wimbledon a pass.
Because they knew they couldn't win it. They decided not to waste their time.
felangey
Nope....those are the real points alright.
Iceberg
you can quote Mahut Isner, Borg Mac finals, Nadal Fed finals etc or
whatever to these stupid Fedfans, but they still have difficult
accepting/understanding this.
Iceberg
also the 2 greatest clay court players in history have the opposite
view.
Iceberg
> On 2/5/2011 12:35 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 5/02/2011 4:38 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
> >> On 2/4/2011 4:52 PM, bob wrote:
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Don't you want to invent a new formula to lift Sampras over Federer?
> >>>> 7543 isn't beenworking for a while now ...
>
>
> >>> not talking "tenniswise" AO may be best slam, not sure.
>
> >> You are really Whisper's sock. Talking the same which reveals your
> >> unknowledge about tennis.
>
> >>>> fine! But tenniswise, does it take more talent/performance to be won?
>
> >>> it takes the most talent to win that which is most coveted. and
> >>> Wimbledon is most coveted. period.
>
> >> does it take more talent to win a tennis tournament that is just more
> >> prestigious? Do you need to win 8 matches in a row instead of 7? Do you
> >> have to play with your left hand while being a right-hander? Ridiculous.
>
>
> > Sampras, Federer, Borg, Laver
>
> > Do those names have anything in common?
>
> > All 4 are tier 1 goats.
>
> > Does that alone support the idea the best, most talented players win the
> > biggest slam?
>
> Another try to make Sampras up? ;-)
>
> TT would say: What do Borg, Nadal, Lendl have in common? They all wonn
> the French at least 3 times, most talented players win the biggest the
> slam? LOL
>
> Your whole "arguments" are just based on your own perception, never on
> facts!
TT would rate Lendl as 'most talented'???
Ali Asoag
> On Feb 6, 1:37 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 17:54:11 +1100, "DavidW"<n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>> Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/2011 2:39 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>>>> On 4/02/2011 7:53 PM, DavidW wrote:
>>>>>> Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>>>>> And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO,
>>>>>>> *tenniswise*!
>>
>>>>>> What does tennis have to do with it?
>>
>>>>> an advantage 'tenniswise' to win it. The best players want to win
>>>>> the most prestigious titles for obvious reasons - ie they become more
>>>>> 'prestigious' themselves the more they win.
>>
>>>> This alone shows that your judgement doesn't base on facts. I mean
>>>> it's fine to say winning Wimby is more prestigious than winning e.g.
>>>> AO. But to win Wimby takes as much effort as to win AO, face it. You
>>>> have to win 7 straight matches within 2 weeks against the same field
>>>> in every slam.
>>
>>> Why do people keep saying this? No one is denying this, but it's irrelevant.
>>> The fact is that Wimbleon counts for more in people's minds. It's more
>>> _important_, and that's why it's worth more points. EOS.
>>
>> most importantly, it counts as most in the PLAYERS minds. that is the
>> highest point of relevancy - they try hardest to play their best
>> there.
>
> you can quote Mahut Isner, Borg Mac finals, Nadal Fed finals etc or
> whatever to these stupid Fedfans, but they still have difficult
> accepting/understanding this.
I know, maybe Fed didn't win the USO 2009 because it was not Wimby so he
didn't try his best. Nadal didn't win the AO and USO mostly because it
was not Wimby. LOL. As if the players never try their best outside of Wimby.
Ali Asoag
>> and that's why it's worth more points. EOS<
>
> Actually, it is worth 2000 for the win....same as Wimbledon. EOS.
Whisper and Co feel 2000 at Wimby more than at AO. That's why they say 9
= 16. ;-)
Ali Asoag
> arahim wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 1:39 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/02/2011 7:53 PM, DavidW wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>>> And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO,
>>>>> *tenniswise*!
>>>
>>>> What does tennis have to do with it?
>>>
>>> an advantage 'tenniswise' to win it. The best players want to win
>>> the most prestigious titles for obvious reasons - ie they become more
>>> 'prestigious' themselves the more they win.
>>>
>>
>> Wasn't that long ago that some top clay specialists used to give
>> Wimbledon a pass.
>
> Because they knew they couldn't win it. They decided not to waste their time.
LOL. On one side: "every player wants to win Wimby and tries hardest".
On the other side: "They didn't attend because they know they couldn't
win it". Pathetic, just pathetic.
Ali Asoag
Maybe.
CloudsRest
I guess that's how happened to Sampras. He knew he couldn't win it,
thus didn't waste much time and energy most years.
DavidW
Those were written by different people. You are making too much of the loosely
used word "everyone".
Ali Asoag
> best of the best,
Isn't it not the same field? LOL
> and the guys who have given every ounce of their
> tennis year to ATTEMPT to play their best during that fortnight.
Don't the players try their best at every Slam? LOL
That's just a ridiculous way to cover up Sampras's weakness on clay
"because he didn't try his best their". LOL
> it is fact that every or nearly every player would prefer to win
> wimbledon more than any other event
Did I ever refute this?
But what does this have to do with "tough to win"? How dumb are you to
not understand that most of the players would win Wimby because it's
considered most prestigious, not because it't the toughest to win. Man,
man, man.
> and the intent of top players is
> to play their best tennis there.
At every slam, not only Wimby.
Ali Asoag
> On Feb 6, 1:13 pm, "DavidW"<n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> arahim wrote:
>>> On Feb 4, 1:39 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/02/2011 7:53 PM, DavidW wrote:
>>
>>>>> Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>>>> And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO,
>>>>>> *tenniswise*!
>>
>>>>> What does tennis have to do with it?
>>
>>>> an advantage 'tenniswise' to win it. The best players want to win
>>>> the most prestigious titles for obvious reasons - ie they become more
>>>> 'prestigious' themselves the more they win.
>>
>>> Wasn't that long ago that some top clay specialists used to give
>>> Wimbledon a pass.
>>
>> Because they knew they couldn't win it. They decided not to waste their time.
>
> I guess that's how happened to Sampras. He knew he couldn't win it,
> thus didn't waste much time and energy most years.
That's why he didn't (want to) have that pizza? ;-)
DavidW
> On 2/6/2011 12:06 PM, felangey wrote:
>>> and that's why it's worth more points. EOS<
>>
>> Actually, it is worth 2000 for the win....same as Wimbledon. EOS.
>
> Whisper and Co feel 2000 at Wimby more than at AO.
The ATP can't give different slams different points. It would be politically
impossible. That should be obvious.
arahim
>
128 players show up for a grand slam. A top clay specialist would
still have a better shot than many of those. The vast majority of the
field "knows" they can't win it. The grass is for the cows was a
familiar refrain of the clay specialist. Perhaps a matter of sour
grapes. But these were top players who were not even willing to give
it a try. We are talking about the prestige factor and the "best"
players "wanting" to win it. The field was no doubt weaker at
Wimbledon due to this trend though you can say that they had little
chance. One of the reasons for their non-attendance was the seeding as
well. If top grass courters were given a low (or no) seeding and their
chances made even worse at RG perhaps some more of them would have
stayed away from it some more of the time:)
> - Show quoted text -
DavidW
> On Feb 6, 1:13 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> arahim wrote:
>>> On Feb 4, 1:39 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/02/2011 7:53 PM, DavidW wrote:
>>
>>>>> Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>>>> And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO,
>>>>>> *tenniswise*!
>>
>>>>> What does tennis have to do with it?
>>
>>>> Exactly. It's the title that's prestigious, & the best players have
>>>> an advantage 'tenniswise' to win it. The best players want to win
>>>> the most prestigious titles for obvious reasons - ie they become
>>>> more 'prestigious' themselves the more they win.
>>
>>> Wasn't that long ago that some top clay specialists used to give
>>> Wimbledon a pass.
>>
>> Because they knew they couldn't win it. They decided not to waste
>> their time.
>>
>
> still have a better shot than many of those. The vast majority of the
> field "knows" they can't win it. The grass is for the cows was a
> familiar refrain of the clay specialist. Perhaps a matter of sour
> grapes. But these were top players who were not even willing to give
> it a try.
They couldn't beat the specialist grass-courters in those days. Zero chance.
Might as well save time and skip it. Losing to a no-name S/Ver in 1R might not
have helped their ranking either, depending on how the system worked then.
arahim
I don't think efforts at the FO ever hurt sampras ranking:) Again the
context is prestige and most players' dream. There were many who from
the very beginning played on clay and aspired on clay.
- Hide quoted text -
CloudsRest
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 20:05:04 -0800 (PST), CloudsRest
>
>
>
> <spartan-warrio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 5, 4:40 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 16:31:15 -0700, Ali Asoag <Ali.Aso...@arcor.de>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On 2/5/2011 12:36 AM, Whisper wrote:
> >> >> On 5/02/2011 4:43 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
> >> >>> On 2/4/2011 12:33 AM, Whisper wrote:
> >> >>>> On 4/02/2011 4:03 PM, Ali Asoag wrote:
> >> >>>>> On 2/3/2011 11:57 AM, Ali Asoag wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Don't you want to invent a new formula to lift Sampras over Federer?
> >> >>>>>> 7543 isn't beenworking for a while now ...
>
> >> >>>>>> fine! But tenniswise, does it take more talent/performance to be won?
>
>
> >> >>>> Just finished watching American Idol.
>
> >> >>> No wonder you know so little about tennis.
>
> >> >>>> 'Tenniswise' has fuck all to do with prestige. eg it's far harder to win
> >> >>>> Milan 60 60 every match than any slam, funnily enough this still gives
> >> >>>> it no prestige.
>
> >> >>>> Thus 'difficulty', 'Tenniswise' or strength of field are completely
> >> >>>> irrelevent factors.
>
> >> >>> Says someone who is lamenting about clown eras for Fed and making up
> >> >>> tough era for Samras ... LOL. You just contradict yourself, Whisper.
>
> >> >>>> This can be easily proven when we look at the
> >> >>>> records of past greats - eg Bill Tilden. We know he won 10 blue-chip
> >> >>>> slams, but none of us care what the difficulty or field quality was
> >> >>>> like. It's very arrogant to think future generations will care about
> >> >>>> current players in a different way.
>
> >> >>>> You may ask why do I go on about 'clown era' in that case? That's a
> >> >>>> factor in 'best ever' measure, not goat.
>
> >> >>> REad your statement above again "strength of field ... irrelevant
> >> >>> factors". LOL
>
> >> >>> Lendle may say it's tough to win Wimby, but what would Sampras say? It's
> >> >>> super easy to win FO? LOL
>
> >> >> One again I draw your attention to the elephant in the lounge room :
> >> >> Sampras, Federer, Borg, Laver - what do they have in common?
>
> >> >Not much except they all have more than 10 Slams. But other than that:
>
> >> >- Sampras never won the French which the others all won.
> >> >- Fed has 16 Slams which the others don't.
> >> >- Borg never won AO or USO which the others all did
> >> >- Laver won twice the CYGS which all the others did not.
>
> >> >To me, Sampras and Borg have big stains in their career ...
>
> >> sampras was never dominated by his main foe; borg and fed were.
>
> >> bob
>
> >But Sampras never had a consistently good main foe, nor did he ever
> >play one outside his comfort zone(s). If he were good enough to reach
> >French finals in this era, it's very likely he'd get dominated by
> >Nadal.
>
> if you want to consider Wimbledon, USO and AO comfort zones, what can
> i tell you?
>
Sampras comfort zones were US and Wimbledon, where he played his main
foe most of the time (5x or 6x?). At Oz, he lost to his main foe
(2x). At the French, he played his main foe once and lost.
> >Similar situation for McEnroe. How would the h2h look if he played
> >Borg at the French, but never got to play Borg at US Open?
>
> mcenroe was far younger than borg. and peak mcenroe nearly and should
> have beaten a lendl at FO who was playing borg type level IMO.
>
> bob
McEnroe was quite vulnerable in matches that reached a fifth set.
Even if I grant you one McEnroe win over Borg at the French, the h2h
would still be in Borg's favor. No US finals for Borg means fewer
losses taken to McEnroe. Based on McEnroe's own comments on TV, he
has no belief in his chances vs. Borg on clay.
Pelle Svanslös
What you're saying is that there isn't a constituency for 7543. The
final nail in the 7543 coffin.
--
"Listen first! Hiss later!"
Superdave
7543 is just a figment of the imagination of one sick Sampras fan fucker.
No more. No less.
Whisper
> On 2/5/2011 12:36 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>
>>
>> One again I draw your attention to the elephant in the lounge room :
>> Sampras, Federer, Borg, Laver - what do they have in common?
>
> Not much except they all have more than 10 Slams. But other than that:
>
> - Sampras never won the French which the others all won.
> - Fed has 16 Slams which the others don't.
> - Borg never won AO or USO which the others all did
> - Laver won twice the CYGS which all the others did not.
>
> To me, Sampras and Borg have big stains in their career ...
Lendl doesn't agree, given he'd swap all 8 of his slams for 1 Wimbledon.
That's right, Lendl would prefer to be a 1-slam wonder if it meant being
a Wimbledon champion.
The Wimbledon kings;
Sampras 7
Federer 6
Borg 5
Laver 4
All the other slams they won pale to a kind of 2nd tier competition.
The main game - indeed the world cup of tennis - is Wimbledon.
You can't change this perception so go with the flow. You look like a
fucking idiot arguing it.
Whisper
>>>>>
>>>>> One again I draw your attention to the elephant in the lounge room :
>>>>> Sampras, Federer, Borg, Laver - what do they have in common?
>>>>
>>>> Not much except they all have more than 10 Slams. But other than that:
>>>>
>>>> - Sampras never won the French which the others all won.
>>>> - Fed has 16 Slams which the others don't.
>>>> - Borg never won AO or USO which the others all did
>>>> - Laver won twice the CYGS which all the others did not.
>>>>
>>>> To me, Sampras and Borg have big stains in their career ...
>>>
>>
>
>
> Borg was NOT dominated by Mac. That is yet another whisper LIE.
Last 3 slam finals they played Mac won them all, each win getting easier
for Mac while Borg was only 25 & still no.1, & beating everyone else.
It's clear Borg & Fed are the only tier 1 greats to be toppled at their
peak by their big rival. This is not conjecture it's on the record.
Whisper
>>>> Not much except they all have more than 10 Slams. But other than that:
>>>
>>>> - Sampras never won the French which the others all won.
>>>> - Fed has 16 Slams which the others don't.
>>>> - Borg never won AO or USO which the others all did
>>>> - Laver won twice the CYGS which all the others did not.
>>>
>>>> To me, Sampras and Borg have big stains in their career ...
>>>
>>> sampras was never dominated by his main foe; borg and fed were.
>>>
>>
>> But Sampras never had a consistently good main foe,
>
> plus nobody dominated clay like Nadal in this era, so he couldn't face
> someone consistently to have an H2H like 0-13 at FO. LOL.
>
> And Whisper is proud of this. LMAO
>
What you'll find in historical tennis texts is Sampras was never
bettered by a rival. It simply doesn't exist.
Borg & Fed were clearly overthrown by their rivals while they were
ranked No.1.
Whisper
>>
>>> Ali Asoag wrote:
>>
>>
>> advantage 'tenniswise' to win it. The best players want to win the most
>> prestigious titles for obvious reasons - ie they become more
>> 'prestigious' themselves the more they win.
>>
>
> Wasn't that long ago that some top clay specialists used to give
> Wimbledon a pass.
>
Strict claycourt specialists had little or no cred in tennis circles.
Whisper
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 20:05:04 -0800 (PST), CloudsRest
> <spartan-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> But Sampras never had a consistently good main foe, nor did he ever
>> play one outside his comfort zone(s). If he were good enough to reach
>> French finals in this era, it's very likely he'd get dominated by
>> Nadal.
>
> if you want to consider Wimbledon, USO and AO comfort zones, what can
> i tell you?
>
>> Borg at the French, but never got to play Borg at US Open?
>
> mcenroe was far younger than borg. and peak mcenroe nearly and should
> have beaten a lendl at FO who was playing borg type level IMO.
>
Yes, it was Mac's dream to beat Borg in FO final. He was gearing for
it, Borg saw what was coming & ran for the hills.
Whisper
>
> You said Wimby is most important because most players prepare the most
> tournament between FO and Wimby thus can't be much preparation there.
>
> important, AO can, FO can, USO can as well. It depends on whom you ask.
> Yes, probable most people consider Wimby most important. That's fine. I
> also belong to those. But that's just the perception how you see things,
> prestige or whatsoever makes he people think Wimby is most worthy. But
> that has nothing to do with how tough it is to win. Lendl would say
> Wimby is the Slam toughest to win, but Sampras or Becker would say the
> FO is although they probably don't want to exchange their Wimby trophies
> for some FO ones. Understood, little bobboy?
We already know what the players say about Wimbledon & don't need your
colored interpretation.
Federer says he'd rather win 11th Wimbledon than 1st FO - ie he'd be
happier to be known as 11 time Wimbledon champ over 10 Wim & 1 FO.
You seem to ignore what the players actually say, & just make up things
that you think in your head..? Very odd behaviour.
Whisper
> But what does this have to do with "tough to win"? How dumb are you to
> not understand that most of the players would win Wimby because it's
> considered most prestigious, not because it't the toughest to win. Man,
> man, man.
>
>> and the intent of top players is
>> to play their best tennis there.
>
> At every slam, not only Wimby.
>
Yes, but the emotions at Wimbledon are greater than AO because a win or
loss means so much more to your legacy & how history regards you.
Does anyone revere an AO champ? Is a loss at AO a crushing career setback?
Whisper
>>
>>> Wasn't that long ago that some top clay specialists used to give
>>> Wimbledon a pass.
>>
>> Because they knew they couldn't win it. They decided not to waste their time.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> 128 players show up for a grand slam. A top clay specialist would
> still have a better shot than many of those. The vast majority of the
> field "knows" they can't win it. The grass is for the cows was a
> familiar refrain of the clay specialist. Perhaps a matter of sour
> grapes. But these were top players who were not even willing to give
> it a try. We are talking about the prestige factor and the "best"
> players "wanting" to win it. The field was no doubt weaker at
> Wimbledon due to this trend though you can say that they had little
> chance. One of the reasons for their non-attendance was the seeding as
> well. If top grass courters were given a low (or no) seeding and their
> chances made even worse at RG perhaps some more of them would have
> stayed away from it some more of the time:)
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
You're overstating it. Kuerten did play Wimbledon & even made q/f
losing to Agassi.
Muster played & lost 1st rd a couple times when he ranked highly & spat
the dummy. He couldn't work out why baseline bumrooting wasn't cutting
it on slick grass lol.
Whisper
> arahim wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 1:13 pm, "DavidW"<n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>> arahim wrote:
>>>> On Feb 4, 1:39 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/02/2011 7:53 PM, DavidW wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Ali Asoag wrote:
>>>>>>> And tell me honestly, why Wimby is more worth than AO,
>>>>>>> *tenniswise*!
>>>
>>>>>> What does tennis have to do with it?
>>>
>>>>> an advantage 'tenniswise' to win it. The best players want to win
>>>>> the most prestigious titles for obvious reasons - ie they become
>>>>> more 'prestigious' themselves the more they win.
>>>
>>>> Wasn't that long ago that some top clay specialists used to give
>>>> Wimbledon a pass.
>>>
>>> Because they knew they couldn't win it. They decided not to waste
>>> their time.
>>>
>>
>> 128 players show up for a grand slam. A top clay specialist would
>> still have a better shot than many of those. The vast majority of the
>> field "knows" they can't win it. The grass is for the cows was a
>> familiar refrain of the clay specialist. Perhaps a matter of sour
>> grapes. But these were top players who were not even willing to give
>> it a try.
>
> They couldn't beat the specialist grass-courters in those days. Zero chance.
> Might as well save time and skip it. Losing to a no-name S/Ver in 1R might not
> have helped their ranking either, depending on how the system worked then.
>
>
Indeed they tried but kept losing 1st rd.
Iceberg
doesn't strike you as odd that such historic memorable and
staggeringly good matches get played there though.
Superdave
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
yeah and it was galo blancos dream to beat Sampras in the FO final as well
but he had to settle for beating him in R1/R2 instead.