The Lendl Quote
CloudsRest
accidentally came upon the Lendl quote:
He would trade any *one* of his titles for one Wimbledon, not "all" of
his titles.
CloudsRest
Borg was injured for early 1981. Yes, he was in "top form".
CloudsRest
CloudsRest
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nEYiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pKwFAAAAIBAJ&p...
>
> Sampras' career quest.
"He knows all to well that a French Open victory would give him a
career Grand Slam, and elevate him beyond dispute above all players in
history...History is all that's left for Sampras, and he began the
year saying the one thing he wants more than anything else is a
triumph at the French Open. Not a sixth Wimbledon. Not a fifth US
Open. Not a seventh #1 ranking..."
CloudsRest
"Agassi's Victory will motivate Sampras, elevate entire sport"
"Agassi...is suddenly is such an *elite group* that even Sampras is on
the outside looking in."
CloudsRest
Whisper
Nope. I have it in a tennis mag & VHS tape - definitely all 8 slams for
1 Wimbledon.
kaennorsing
> On 7/02/2011 7:45 PM, CloudsRest wrote:
>
> > Searching for articles related to the passing of all courses, I
> > accidentally came upon the Lendl quote:
>
>
> > He would trade any *one* of his titles for one Wimbledon, not "all" of
> > his titles.
>
> Nope. I have it in a tennis mag & VHS tape - definitely all 8 slams for
> 1 Wimbledon.
So he'd trade his own illustrious career for that of... Krajicek? A
bit hard to believe imo.
Whisper
> On 7 feb, 12:26, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/02/2011 7:45 PM, CloudsRest wrote:
>>
>>> Searching for articles related to the passing of all courses, I
>>> accidentally came upon the Lendl quote:
>>
>>> http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=s5JcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6VcNAAAAIBAJ&p...
>>
>>> He would trade any *one* of his titles for one Wimbledon, not "all" of
>>> his titles.
>>
>> 1 Wimbledon.
>
> So he'd trade his own illustrious career for that of... Krajicek? A
> bit hard to believe imo.
There is a limit to how 'illustrious' a career can be without Wimbledon
wins.
Iceberg
you've got to admire CloudsRest for spending so many hours digging up
quotes from a journalist, rather than an actual player himself.
Raja, The Great
> On 7/02/2011 7:45 PM, CloudsRest wrote:
>
> > Searching for articles related to the passing of all courses, I
> > accidentally came upon the Lendl quote:
>
>
> > He would trade any *one* of his titles for one Wimbledon, not "all" of
> > his titles.
>
> Nope. I have it in a tennis mag & VHS tape - definitely all 8 slams for
> 1 Wimbledon.
Links?
Superdave
There is a limit to how 'illustrious' a career can be without reaching a single FO final
and losing 8X in R1/R2 as well.
Ali Asoag
Wonder what Whisper will say here ...
CloudsRest
> On 2/7/2011 3:39 AM, CloudsRest wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 2:29 am, CloudsRest<spartan-warrio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nEYiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pKwFAAAAIBAJ&p...
>
> >> Sampras' career quest.
>
>
> > "He knows all to well that a French Open victory would give him a
> > career Grand Slam, and elevate him beyond dispute above all players in
> > history...History is all that's left for Sampras, and he began the
> > year saying the one thing he wants more than anything else is a
> > triumph at the French Open. Not a sixth Wimbledon. Not a fifth US
> > Open. Not a seventh #1 ranking..."
>
> Wonder what Whisper will say here ...
He'll go through his imaginary collection and find something.
CloudsRest
> On 7/02/2011 7:45 PM, CloudsRest wrote:
>
> > Searching for articles related to the passing of all courses, I
> > accidentally came upon the Lendl quote:
>
>
> > He would trade any *one* of his titles for one Wimbledon, not "all" of
> > his titles.
>
> Nope. I have it in a tennis mag & VHS tape - definitely all 8 slams for
> 1 Wimbledon.
Can't really take the word of a chronic liar. If you actually have
this proof, don't be shy. In the meantime, I have real links and
articles from 1987:
"Lendl has won both the U.S. and French Open titles for the past two
years. But it is Wimbledon he needs to satisfy his own desire to be
known as one of the all-time, all-round great tennis players.
'I want to win Wimbledon and to do that I would gladly forfeit my
French title and throw in last year's as well,' Lendl said recently.'
"
From same article:
"Helen Wills Moody's name is on that plate eight times. I want the
record nine," Navratilova said. "I know it's greedy, but if anyone can
do it, I can."
Iceberg
> On Feb 7, 3:26 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 7/02/2011 7:45 PM, CloudsRest wrote:
>
> > > Searching for articles related to the passing of all courses, I
> > > accidentally came upon the Lendl quote:
>
> > >http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=s5JcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6VcNAAAAIBAJ&p...
>
> > > He would trade any *one* of his titles for one Wimbledon, not "all" of
> > > his titles.
>
> > Nope. I have it in a tennis mag & VHS tape - definitely all 8 slams for
> > 1 Wimbledon.
>
> Can't really take the word of a chronic liar. If you actually have
> this proof, don't be shy. In the meantime, I have real links and
> articles from 1987:
>
> "Lendl has won both the U.S. and French Open titles for the past two
> years. But it is Wimbledon he needs to satisfy his own desire to be
> known as one of the all-time, all-round great tennis players.
>
> 'I want to win Wimbledon and to do that I would gladly forfeit my
> French title and throw in last year's as well,' Lendl said recently."
so it's already changing from ONE title to TWO now. great reporting of
journalistic opinion and spin.
Raja, The Great
Its no secret that Lendl was deeply dejected by loss to Cash and told
such things in a rage of emotion. In reality when he would time to
reflect back, I don't think he would like to trade 2 French Open
titles for one Wimbledon. May be one FO for one Wimbledon. But that
would be the case for anyone. Sampras would readily trade in his
Wimbledon for a FO title. And Federer might get rid of one of his
Wimbledon for another FO. At least people wouldnt accuse him of
fluking out when Nadal lost earlier.
CloudsRest
throughout those two weeks. It wasn't from a single press conference.
"It has been a surprise to hear Lendl admit how desperate he is to win
Wimbledon this year, saying at one point he would gladly lose every
other match during the year to win here, and that he would trade one
of his two US Open victories for a Wimbledon singles championship.
'If I win this tournament, it would mean so much to me that I wouldn't
even try to explain it,' said Lendl, scheduled to meet Pat Cash in the
final. 'This means a lot to me because it's so much hard for me to
play well here, and it would be much more of an achievement in terms
of tennis.' "
It's about passing all courses and actual tennis. Not prestige. The
author of same article opines:
"(Lendl) has been perhaps the least respected of recent champions,
considered the interim #1 until the next natural comes along to
capture the public's fancy."
CloudsRest
"My aim is to win all four major titles, and I would give up last
Sunday's win in France - with last year's thrown in - to win
Wimbledon"
He would give up 2 of his 3 French trophies to have one Wimbledon.
It's about having one of each. That's the context of this trading
business.
Raja, The Great
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=meJNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YIsDAAAAIBAJ&p...
>
> "My aim is to win all four major titles, and I would give up last
> Sunday's win in France - with last year's thrown in - to win
> Wimbledon"
>
> He would give up 2 of his 3 French trophies to have one Wimbledon.
> It's about having one of each. That's the context of this trading
> business.
So his main aim was winning all 4 (not really about the overhyped
Wimbledon event specifically). I heard he was hellbent in proving that
he was the best in all surfaces. If it were clay where did not have a
major title, he would said the same about FO.
Raja, The Great
> Another from 1987. I think Lendl was providing similar sound bytes
> throughout those two weeks. It wasn't from a single press conference.
>
> "It has been a surprise to hear Lendl admit how desperate he is to win
> Wimbledon this year, saying at one point he would gladly lose every
> other match during the year to win here, and that he would trade one
> of his two US Open victories for a Wimbledon singles championship.
>
> 'If I win this tournament, it would mean so much to me that I wouldn't
> even try to explain it,' said Lendl, scheduled to meet Pat Cash in the
> final. 'This means a lot to me because it's so much hard for me to
> play well here, and it would be much more of an achievement in terms
> of tennis.' "
I think he put too much pressure on himself before the final. If he
had thought of it as another final, he might have won it. Anyway I
think he was a better grass court player in 1988-90. Too bad he ran
into Becker and Edberg, two of the finest grass courters ever!
>
> It's about passing all courses and actual tennis. Not prestige. The
> author of same article opines:
>
> "(Lendl) has been perhaps the least respected of recent champions,
> considered the interim #1 until the next natural comes along to
> capture the public's fancy."
He was given a raw deal by the press.
CloudsRest
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=meJNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YIsDAAAAIBAJ&p...
>
> Sunday's win in France - with last year's thrown in - to win
> Wimbledon"
>
> He would give up 2 of his 3 French trophies to have one Wimbledon.
> It's about having one of each. That's the context of this trading
> business.
Original link too long and cutoff. So:
http://tinyurl.com/4whmmx7
CloudsRest
All of those copied/pasted links don't work due to length. Now they
will:
http://tinyurl.com/4h6knr7
http://tinyurl.com/4j5v8zj
new link:
http://tinyurl.com/4c7t9hq
I might have to redo the links on Borg US Open and Sampras French Open
from a year ago. So much evidence on passing of all courses.
CloudsRest
Yes, that's why he would trade only 1 of his 2 US Opens, trade 2 of
his 3 Frenchs. All the greats wanted to be known as well-rounded, for
conquering all challenges. But this suggests Lendl might be open to
trading "all but one" at each event. So if he had 7 US, he would
trade six for one Wimbledon. He takes the career slam achievement to
insane levels. It also means if he had five Wimbledon, he would trade
four of them for a missing US or French trophy. However, I'm not sure
how he'd feel about trading for a missing Oz.
Raja, The Great
I am sure he was too psyched for the final and not thinking clearly.
He might have exaggerated his own thoughts a bit. In a clear state of
mind, I think he would have traded one FO for one Wimbledon or one USO
for one Wimbledon. Sometime players get emotional and say things which
they later regret or laugh at. Whenever he has been asked recently he
says he is not losing sleep over not winning Wimbledon.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
One wimbledon does not make it more illustrious career over 8 grand
slam wins without Wimbledon. There is no way Lendl would swap his 8
grand slam title for Cash's single Wimbledon.
Fan
these events. The best tennis match for me was the Cash-Lendl
Wimbledon final. Lendl was the favorite but Cash outplayed him,
mostly at the net. It was tennis at the highest level.
Iceberg
it was a classic match, think you can even buy it on DVD at the
Wimbledon shop.
Raja, The Great
I fail to see it as a classic. Lendl did not serve well. A classic
match is when both opponents are playing their best. I think the three
Lendl-Becker YEC finals were better. Even the 1986 Wimbledon final was
better.
Raja, The Great
Some sanity finally. Waits for Whisper to hurl abuses at this poor new
guy.
Ali Asoag
We see, that he has nothing to say anymore ...
Ali Asoag
Only an insane Sampras fan say bullshit like that because they know
Wimbledon is the only straw remaining.
Fan
Abolish Wimbledon and make the fourth slam Beijing slam on clay.
CloudsRest
"I can go on with the rest of my career in peace knowing I don't have
to worry about never winning Roland Garros"
CloudsRest
"So, Federer has indeed caught Sampras and has *earned the tiebreaker*
by winning the French, which Sampras never did."
CloudsRest
"As long as I still have goals, and can give all I can into tennis,
winning the US Open will be my biggest goal."
translation: it's a must to pass all courses
CloudsRest
>
> There is a limit to how 'illustrious' a career can be without Wimbledon
> wins.
There's some truth to that. But there's no question how illustrious
it is to have passed all courses.
http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/rafael-nadal-joins-tennis-royalty-with-us-open-win-091310
"Just 14 months after his great rival Roger Federer joined one of
sport's most exclusive clubs, Nadal's name can now go alongside the
Englishman Fred Perry; Don Budge, the pre-World War II American
champion; two Australians, Rod Laver and Roy Emerson; Andre Agassi and
Federer to make it a magnificent seven who now stand alone at the
*pinnacle* of the tennis record books."
Whisper
So you're saying Agassi is at the 'pinnacle' of tennis, while Borg,
Sampras are not...?
A guy wins 1 Wimbledon, 1 FO & 2 USOs in a 20 yr tennis career & that's
pinnacle stuff.....?
You're acting very bizarrely lately.
CloudsRest
> On 9/02/2011 7:54 PM, CloudsRest wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 3:58 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> There is a limit to how 'illustrious' a career can be without Wimbledon
> >> wins.
>
> > There's some truth to that. But there's no question how illustrious
> > it is to have passed all courses.
>
>
> > "Just 14 months after his great rival Roger Federer joined one of
> > sport's most exclusive clubs, Nadal's name can now go alongside the
> > Englishman Fred Perry; Don Budge, the pre-World War II American
> > champion; two Australians, Rod Laver and Roy Emerson; Andre Agassi and
> > Federer to make it a magnificent seven who now stand alone at the
> > *pinnacle* of the tennis record books."
>
> So you're saying Agassi is at the 'pinnacle' of tennis, while Borg,
> Sampras are not...?
>
> A guy wins 1 Wimbledon, 1 FO & 2 USOs in a 20 yr tennis career & that's
> pinnacle stuff.....?
>
> You're acting very bizarrely lately.
Look, I'm not actually the one saying it. I'm just the messenger.
Toni Nadal thinks the pinnacle is owned by Federer, Borg, Laver.
Everyone has their opinions. There's just no denying what people think
about passing all courses.
Fan
> On 9/02/2011 7:54 PM, CloudsRest wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 3:58 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> There is a limit to how 'illustrious' a career can be without Wimbledon
> >> wins.
>
> > There's some truth to that. But there's no question how illustrious
> > it is to have passed all courses.
>
>
> > "Just 14 months after his great rival Roger Federer joined one of
> > sport's most exclusive clubs, Nadal's name can now go alongside the
> > Englishman Fred Perry; Don Budge, the pre-World War II American
> > champion; two Australians, Rod Laver and Roy Emerson; Andre Agassi and
> > Federer to make it a magnificent seven who now stand alone at the
> > *pinnacle* of the tennis record books."
>
> So you're saying Agassi is at the 'pinnacle' of tennis, while Borg,
> Sampras are not...?
>
> A guy wins 1 Wimbledon, 1 FO & 2 USOs in a 20 yr tennis career & that's
> pinnacle stuff.....?
>
One could look at it as an entrance exam to college or as minimum
requirements for a position. After you have met the minimum
requirements, you can evaluate the applicants.
Those who have won all slams belong to a special set and you do not
gain admission unless you have the minimum requirements.
Unfortunately, for Sampras, he does not posses the minimum
requirements while Agassi does. It is anyone’s guess why Sampras seem
to be sore at Agassi while Agassi is just funning with him. Could it
be why Sampras is sore at Agassi?
Iceberg
1) so why on earth is Borg there then?
2) as you say it's Agassi still mad at Sampras, it's clearly NOT the
other way round. I was there, live at Indian Wells last year, there is
sadly no denying this, I rate Agassi way above Fed, but it was awful
having read his book and heard his criticisms of Pete and then for him
to bring it to the court, like he couldn't help himself. Steffi
must've told him off like crazy when he got home.
Whisper
> On Feb 9, 10:01 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/02/2011 7:54 PM, CloudsRest wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 3:58 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> There is a limit to how 'illustrious' a career can be without Wimbledon
>>>> wins.
>>
>>> There's some truth to that. But there's no question how illustrious
>>> it is to have passed all courses.
>>
>>> http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/rafael-nadal-joins-tennis-royal...
>>
>>> "Just 14 months after his great rival Roger Federer joined one of
>>> sport's most exclusive clubs, Nadal's name can now go alongside the
>>> Englishman Fred Perry; Don Budge, the pre-World War II American
>>> champion; two Australians, Rod Laver and Roy Emerson; Andre Agassi and
>>> Federer to make it a magnificent seven who now stand alone at the
>>> *pinnacle* of the tennis record books."
>>
>> So you're saying Agassi is at the 'pinnacle' of tennis, while Borg,
>> Sampras are not...?
>>
>> pinnacle stuff.....?
>>
>> You're acting very bizarrely lately.-
>
> One could look at it as an entrance exam to college or as minimum
> requirements for a position. After you have met the minimum
> requirements, you can evaluate the applicants.
> Those who have won all slams belong to a special set and you do not
> gain admission unless you have the minimum requirements.
> Unfortunately, for Sampras, he does not posses the minimum
> requirements while Agassi does. It is anyone’s guess why Sampras seem
> to be sore at Agassi while Agassi is just funning with him. Could it
> be why Sampras is sore at Agassi?
So you're actually saying Agassi has greater claims to goat than Sampras
& Borg?
That's pretty fucking stupid even for rst.
CloudsRest
Sampras failed physics, Borg failed chemistry & economics, Lendl
failed biology. Those at the pinnacle passed them all.
Whisper
>>> to be sore at Agassi while Agassi is just funning with him. Could it
>>> be why Sampras is sore at Agassi?
>>
>> So you're actually saying Agassi has greater claims to goat than Sampras
>> & Borg?
>>
>> That's pretty fucking stupid even for rst.
>
> failed biology. Those at the pinnacle passed them all.
No, winning once is not passing.
eg the record for Wimbledon wins is 7 so that's 100%. Agassi won 1/7 = 14%.
Fan
I do not subscribe to the "goat" or "7543" garbage. Those who have won
all four slams belong to a very select and special group. Laver,
Agassi, Federer, Nadal are in. Sampras, Borg and everyone else are
not.
This is a fact that no amount of dancing around can change.
It does not mean that you cannot go on about your usual mantra and
even if some of the things you claim may be true, they belong to
another argument.
It is like Timmy chiming in about the number of beans he stuck up his
nose while the teacher praising Joey for writing a nice composition.
>
> That's pretty fucking stupid even for rst.-
Whisper
Well duh - Sampras belongs in his own group as the only guy to win 12
Wim/USO titles. That's more exclusive than career slam.
Raja, The Great
He also belongs to his own exclusive group as being the only champion
who looked like a fuck face.
Fan
It does not bother me if it makes you happy to brag about Sampras
because there is plenty to brag about Sampras. My problem is that you
always try to play off one accomplishment against another as if one
would diminish the other. It does not work that way.
Look at it this way, if they sent out invitations to all the player
who won all the slams, Sampras would not be on the list, Agassi would.
You could bring up different scenarios where Sampras would be at the
head of the table and Agassi would be serving the drinks.
One rule does not apply to all situations.
Ali Asoag
>>>>> to be sore at Agassi while Agassi is just funning with him. Could it
>>>>> be why Sampras is sore at Agassi?
>>
>>>> So you're actually saying Agassi has greater claims to goat than Sampras
>>>> & Borg?
>>
>>> I do not subscribe to the "goat" or "7543" garbage. Those who have won
>>> all four slams belong to a very select and special group. Laver,
>>> Agassi, Federer, Nadal are in. Sampras, Borg and everyone else are
>>> not.
>>> This is a fact that no amount of dancing around can change.
>>> It does not mean that you cannot go on about your usual mantra and
>>> even if some of the things you claim may be true, they belong to
>>> another argument.
>>
>> Well duh - Sampras belongs in his own group as the only guy to win 12
>> Wim/USO titles. That's more exclusive than career slam.-
>
> It does not bother me if it makes you happy to brag about Sampras
> because there is plenty to brag about Sampras. My problem is that you
> always try to play off one accomplishment against another as if one
> would diminish the other. It does not work that way.
> Look at it this way, if they sent out invitations to all the player
> who won all the slams, Sampras would not be on the list, Agassi would.
> You could bring up different scenarios where Sampras would be at the
> head of the table and Agassi would be serving the drinks.
> One rule does not apply to all situations.
For the first time I have seen a good post of Fan.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, I really like Pete during his career, much more than Agassi...
but I have to agree with you here... winning all 4 majors during ones
career is certainly an attainment of true excellence especially during
the years when grass/clay/hardcourt had to be negotiated to win the 4
majors... that's a tremendous accomplishment... a truly signficant
historical marker for the few that have managed to win the career slam
post the grass court AO/USO time...
P
CloudsRest
Medvedev played the most inspiring tennis in his life, dispatching #2
Sampras along the way, but ultimately gave way to a powerful force
beyond his control.
"I'm human," Medvedev said. "I left my heart and soul, played at
110%. But you must remember on the other side was Andre
Agassi...During the 3rd set, he was not yet the greatest player of our
decade. Now he has an argument, he made history. He has the right to
say he's a greater player, than say, Pete, by winning all four grand
slams."
CloudsRest
"As proof of his versatility, Agassi is the first to win all four
majors on three different surfaces."
"To be assigned to a place with some of the greatest players ever is
an honor I'll have for the rest of my life," said Agassi. I can't
believe I can join such elite company."
Whisper
The fact a player like Agassi can win CS proves it's not the greatest of
achievements. Think about it for a minute - here's a guy who played for
21 years yet only won 4 big slams in that time - 1 Wimbledon, 1 FO & 2 USOs.
That proves a player like him can win the career slam, thus it isn't a
prerequisite for greatness.
More evidence of this is he was only ranked yr-end no.1 once in 21 yrs,
& largely due to Sampras not contesting 1999 USO due to back injury.
Further evidence is his name is never mentioned when the goats are
discussed - it's always Tilden, Laver, Borg, Sampras & Federer. Agassi
is never mentioned.
Whisper
>>> I do not subscribe to the "goat" or "7543" garbage. Those who have won
>>> all four slams belong to a very select and special group. Laver,
>>> Agassi, Federer, Nadal are in. Sampras, Borg and everyone else are
>>> not.
>>> This is a fact that no amount of dancing around can change.
>>> It does not mean that you cannot go on about your usual mantra and
>>> even if some of the things you claim may be true, they belong to
>>> another argument.
>>
>> Well duh - Sampras belongs in his own group as the only guy to win 12
>> Wim/USO titles. That's more exclusive than career slam.-
>
> It does not bother me if it makes you happy to brag about Sampras
> because there is plenty to brag about Sampras. My problem is that you
> always try to play off one accomplishment against another as if one
> would diminish the other. It does not work that way.
> Look at it this way, if they sent out invitations to all the player
> who won all the slams, Sampras would not be on the list, Agassi would.
> You could bring up different scenarios where Sampras would be at the
> head of the table and Agassi would be serving the drinks.
> One rule does not apply to all situations.
Who would want Agassi's career over Sampras'?
Raja, The Great
number 1
Iceberg
hang on you Fedfans keep harking on that Fed is the GOAT cos he has
the most majors, there's never anything about him having all 4 slams.
Iceberg
like Lendl!
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't believe in GOAT... so... you have to take this complaint to
another desk... :)
P
Patrick Kehoe
Winning all the majors certainly remains a significant historical
marker... but it's not THE ONLY classic/historical demarcation for
greatness... Agassi didn't win enough majors to be listed with Laver
and Borg and Sampras and Federer... which you well know...
P
Vari L. Cinicke
> On Feb 10, 3:30 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/02/2011 9:03 PM, CloudsRest wrote:
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/4qv9lgt
>>
>>> "As proof of his versatility, Agassi is the first to win all four
>>> majors on three different surfaces."
>>
>>> "To be assigned to a place with some of the greatest players ever is
>>> an honor I'll have for the rest of my life," said Agassi. I can't
>>> believe I can join such elite company."
>>
>> The fact a player like Agassi can win CS proves it's not the greatest of
>> achievements. Think about it for a minute - here's a guy who played for
>>
>> That proves a player like him can win the career slam, thus it isn't a
>> prerequisite for greatness.
>>
>> More evidence of this is he was only ranked yr-end no.1 once in 21 yrs,
>> & largely due to Sampras not contesting 1999 USO due to back injury.
>>
>> Further evidence is his name is never mentioned when the goats are
>> is never mentioned.
>
> Winning all the majors certainly remains a significant historical
> marker... but it's not THE ONLY classic/historical demarcation for
> greatness... Agassi didn't win enough majors to be listed with Laver
> and Borg and Sampras and Federer... which you well know...
>
> P
Agassi is listed as the first man to win all 4 slams on the 3 modern
surfaces. He will continue owning that accomplishment forever.
Sampras will continue being the man who set a high standard on fast
surfaces who was surpassed by a master talent who was able to win all 4
slams as well to remove all doubt. That his achievement was eclipsed so
quickly is a historical accident that ought not to take away from what
he did.
--
Cheers,
vc
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
If I had to guess... and clearly I am guessing here :)... I would say
Agassi will be remembered for being a real personality/defining
character of his period, as much as for anything he did specifically
on court... his biography is thematically a signpost leading us toward
such a consideration/adjudication in that sense as well... where as
others stress their accomplishments as players he wrote from the
standpoint of messaging/pop philosophising and not implied record
keeping (see what I won/how I was able to win) as most ex-tennis
players thematically point to in their books... he's articulating the
person as thinker/conscious being instead of player/performer/maker of
athletic exceptionalism... at least that was his intent...
P
jdeluise
On 10-Feb-2011, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
> If I had to guess... and clearly I am guessing here :)... I would say
> Agassi will be remembered for being a real personality/defining
> character of his period, as much as for anything he did specifically
> on court... his biography is thematically a signpost leading us toward
> such a consideration/adjudication in that sense as well... where as
> others stress their accomplishments as players he wrote from the
> standpoint of messaging/pop philosophising and not implied record
> keeping (see what I won/how I was able to win) as most ex-tennis
> players thematically point to in their books... he's articulating the
> person as thinker/conscious being instead of player/performer/maker of
> athletic exceptionalism... at least that was his intent...
Sort of a side topic, but do you believe he hates tennis as much as he
claims? I just can't buy that personally, it's too much of who he is (or
who he *seems* to be, he's definitely a showman first and foremost).
Joe Ramirez
I believe him, but I also agree with you that tennis is tightly
integrated with Agassi's very being. I don't see an inconsistency.
Many people loathe themselves, or aspects of themselves, or hate their
parents but love them at the same time, or despise their jobs but
would feel empty without them, etc.
jdeluise
On 10-Feb-2011, Joe Ramirez <josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
> I believe him, but I also agree with you that tennis is tightly
> integrated with Agassi's very being. I don't see an inconsistency.
> Many people loathe themselves, or aspects of themselves, or hate their
> parents but love them at the same time, or despise their jobs but
> would feel empty without them, etc.
Thanks, those are very good points.
Ali Asoag
Who would want Sampras' career over Federer's?
Fan
You continue to play off one player against another not only to make
your chosen player appear super but to run down his main rival. It
seems to escape you that if Agassi is a no good pigeon toed loser, the
guy he beat 14 times cannot be as good as you claim.
When you run down Agassi, you also run down Sampras. You cannot have
your cake and eat it.
Agassi’s status before Federer and Nadal won all four slams on three
different surfaces was even more special than some realize because he
was the first one to accomplish it. If we add the Olympic Gold, we
have Agassi and Nadal in their very exclusive club.
That it does not take anything away from Sampras or Federer. They have
their 14 and 16 slams and that is an awesome accomplishment on its
own. Unless one is a never done any good nerd, one realizes that
Federer’s 16 slams do not diminish Sampras’ 14 slams. Federer and
Sampras are also members of a very special and select group. These
select groups do not compete with ach other and it is not up to us or
anyone else to decide which one is more select.
I do not know how I could better explain it to you but I hope that
this will do.
Iceberg
6 consecutive years.
Whisper
Well Sampras is Wimbledon king so I magine many would.
Whisper
I'm not running Agassi down in absolute terms. I have always compared
him favourably to talent in current era. I just can't accept a guy who
only won 4 big slams (not counting AO) can rank in any goat/great
discussions. Sure he coulda won maybe 14 slams if Sampras wasn't
around, but we have to measure players by what they won.
> Agassi’s status before Federer and Nadal won all four slams on three
> different surfaces was even more special than some realize because he
> was the first one to accomplish it. If we add the Olympic Gold, we
> have Agassi and Nadal in their very exclusive club.
> That it does not take anything away from Sampras or Federer. They have
> their 14 and 16 slams and that is an awesome accomplishment on its
> own. Unless one is a never done any good nerd, one realizes that
> Federer’s 16 slams do not diminish Sampras’ 14 slams. Federer and
> Sampras are also members of a very special and select group. These
> select groups do not compete with ach other and it is not up to us or
> anyone else to decide which one is more select.
> I do not know how I could better explain it to you but I hope that
> this will do.
Still comes down to what Agassi managed to achieve in 20 yrs. It's not
goat stuff, but coulda been without the hairy Greek guy around. I fully
understand why Agassi hates him so much.
Whisper
7 Wimbledons is the big one.
AliAsoag
who deeply sank in the dirt of Paris?
CloudsRest
"Sampras knows all to well that a French Open victory would give him a
career Grand Slam, and elevate him beyond dispute above all players in
history...History is all that's left for Sampras, and he began the
year saying the one thing he wants more than anything else is a
triumph at the French Open. Not a sixth Wimbledon. Not a fifth US
Open. Not a seventh #1 ranking..."
No amount of Wimbledon titles can fill that empty hole in his heart.
Fan
The Olympic Gold also eluded Sampras but it may hurt him less now that
Federer and Nadal have joined Agassi in winning all four slams on
three different surfaces.
It must have bugged Sampras almost as much as Whisper before Federer
and Nadal; especially Nadal with his Olympic Gold matched Agassi’s
accomplishment. He must be feeling much better now…
Whisper
Ultimately Wimbledon is all that really matters.
If Sampras won 1 FO I wouldn't look at his career any differently. He
needed to win at leat twice for it to register on any level.
Ali Asoag
> accomplishment. He must be feeling much better now�
For the tennis legacy, Olympic Gold is almost nothing.
Ali Asoag
So you are saying Nadal only won the FO and Wimbledon and never won AO
and USO?
Ali Asoag
Crap. Just because Agassi beat your boy there, AO counts nothing? LOL.
> can rank in any goat/great
> discussions.
Many might not accept a guy who was not able to win the FO in 14
attempts can be GOAT.
> but we have to measure players by what they won.
Finally you speak it out: Fed is the best because 16 is the biggest
number of slams a player ever won.
>> Agassi�s status before Federer and Nadal won all four slams on three
>> different surfaces was even more special than some realize because he
>> was the first one to accomplish it. If we add the Olympic Gold, we
>> have Agassi and Nadal in their very exclusive club.
>> That it does not take anything away from Sampras or Federer. They have
>> their 14 and 16 slams and that is an awesome accomplishment on its
>> own. Unless one is a never done any good nerd, one realizes that
>> Federer�s 16 slams do not diminish Sampras� 14 slams. Federer and
>> Sampras are also members of a very special and select group. These
>> select groups do not compete with ach other and it is not up to us or
>> anyone else to decide which one is more select.
>> I do not know how I could better explain it to you but I hope that
>> this will do.
>
>
> Still comes down to what Agassi managed to achieve in 20 yrs. It's not
> goat stuff, but coulda been without the hairy Greek guy around. I fully
> understand why Agassi hates him so much.
Just like why you hate Fed so much for having passed your hero?