Navratilova-Evert same slam #, h2h is 43> 37
Wile E. Coyote
winning their head to head meetings 43> 37.
Each won 18 grand slams, But few would rank Evert equal to or above
Navratilova.
This sorta of resembles Nadal/Federer situation, except their head to
head meetings 17> 8 so far, and by the looks of upcoming tournaments
they will be meeting more often :)
Correct me if I am wrong, I have not heard or read one commentator or
others say Evert is better or greater than Navratilova even though
their slam count is the same.
The head to head meetings is what counts with the Navratilova/Evert
and determination of who is greatest/best.
Nadal > Federer in their head to head meetings 17> 8 or if the count
is slam meetings it is Nadal > Federer 7> 2.
bob
excellent post. everybody considers MN > evert, and those many H2H
victories, once MN came into her own, ring on and on and on in the
memory of everyone who watched. evert had an incredible career going
- til MN came peak.
kind of ironic - MN being part of the puzzle to sink jaros argument
about H2H meaning nothing? :-)
bob
SliceAndDice
Hey bob, you seem to have forgotten all about 7543?
Patrick Kehoe
P
bob
not at all - measures achievement in a mathematical way. best
mathematical formula we have so far. still, something i said all along
was not truly a mathematical phenomenon.
we're in new territory, need to think outside the box.
bob
SliceAndDice
Hmm.. Nadal has won only 10 slams so far. Bit premature to compare
them to Evertilova? Also, Navratilova's Wimbledon dominance is the
main reason she is considered greater than Evert, IMO.
bob
yes, she's the wimbledon queen to sampras' wimbledon king. but MN nor
graf won any of their titles in clown era, they had to earn em the old
fashioned way.
bob
bob
<vish...@gmail.com> wrote:
looks like MN is 10-3 in slam finals over chris, those matches we all
tend to recall when determining who bested who.
bob
SliceAndDice
Not really. You, for example, did not seem to know that until now.
felangey
Just as it was beginning to sell (some people will buy anything, right?),
there was found to be a factory flaw in it's stated purpose of use.
WhisperBob had to recall it, and under some trickery in subsection ii of the
disclaimer (product must be deemed and remain viable for long-con employment
according to manufacturer specification), was able to switch it out for a
replacement labelled "H2H".
SliceAndDice
huh? We are talking about Evert and Navratilova here. According to you
and your lord Whisper (you guys have been quoting it ad infinitum),
greatness is measured by 7543. So, if we apply it to Evert and
Navratilova, MN wins. Therefore, she is greater. Why do we need to
think outside the box, pray?
SliceAndDice
Oh? And Federer won his titles in some special way? Please enlighten
us.
bob
oh, i knew it was way skewed - the exact # i had to look up.
i recall watching them, and the usual routine: "oh well, MN spanked
chris again". and at the time, i was always rooting for chris, never
disliked her til late 80s.
bob
bob
um, well, um, roddick, roddick, hewitt -- didn't you see myh post
listing em all yesterday? lol
bob
bob
are we talking a mathematical count of who won most slams or who is a
better tennis player? think we know the answer to both, as it applies
to both evert/MN and fed/nadal.
bob
DavidW
Yes. As Navratilova said: "Wimbledon, and winning Wimbledon, is everything, and
I mean everything, in tennis."
bob
how does a fedfan sleep at night knowing that?
speaking of that, goodnight!
bob
SliceAndDice
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 19:50:46 -0700 (PDT), SliceAndDice
>
>
>
Hewitt - 2 slam winner, former world number 1, Sampras conqueror.
Court_1
WRONG. In the case of Evert vs. Navratilova the slam count was equal
so it then only makes sense to consider the h2h to see who has the
edge. In the Nadal/Federer case the slam count is NOT equal. Fed has
16 and Nadal has 10 and Fed completely rules Nadal on other surfaces
because Fed has 6 grass slams to Nadal's 2 and 9 HC slams to Nadal's
2. The only place Nadal rules Fed is with his 6 clay FO's to Fed's 1
FO. No tennis analyst on the planet would EVER say Nadal is greater
than Federer currently with the slam count so heavily in Fed's favor
especially on non-clay surfaces. Stop trying to look for answers with
that stupid h2h. If the Nad/Fed slam count were equal then it would
make sense to use the h2h to see who had the edge. But Federer's
overall records surpass Nadal's. There are tons of them--i.e. weeks at
number one, slam finals reaches, etc. etc. Give it up. You are not
going to win. No tennis analyst would ever agree with you and use h2h
as the sole factor to measure greatness. It is sheer stupidity. Why do
you spend every waking hour trying to prove Nadal is greater than Fed
with a 17>8 h2h. It is like you are desperate to prove something you
know deep down is not true.
steve jaros
are you kidding? parche gifted graf at least 5 slams, and steffi mopped
up 8 between 88 and 90 when there was absolutely no competition out
there at ALL.
--
"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act?
He will conclude that he can do more to build an
arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday,
some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
- President Bill Clinton, explaining why
Hussein must be forced to admit
UN weapons inspectors, 1998
steve jaros
Actually, MN > Evert because she has 9 Wimbledons to 3 for Chris. That's
the difference, a better slam mix.
--
there is no doubt that the black-white
power struggle in south africa is but a
microcosm of the global confrontation
between the third world and the rich white
nations of the world.
- Steve Biko
Wile E. Coyote
> On Jul 4, 10:35 pm, "Wile E. Coyote" <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Navratilova-Evert rivalry was one of the greatest with Navratilova
> > winning their head to head meetings 43> 37.
>
> > Each won 18 grand slams, But few would rank Evert equal to or above
> > Navratilova.
>
> > This sorta of resembles Nadal/Federer situation, except their head to
> > head meetings 17> 8 so far, and by the looks of upcoming tournaments
> > they will be meeting more often :)
>
> > Correct me if I am wrong, I have not heard or read one commentator or
> > others say Evert is better or greater than Navratilova even though
> > their slam count is the same.
>
> > The head to head meetings is what counts with the Navratilova/Evert
> > and determination of who is greatest/best.
>
> > Nadal > Federer in their head to head meetings 17> 8 or if the count
> > is slam meetings it is Nadal > Federer 7> 2.
>
> WRONG. In the case of Evert vs. Navratilova the slam count was equal
> so it then only makes sense to consider the h2h to see who has the
> edge.
Evert is not even considered Navratilova's equal, much less better or
greatest.
It has to do with the head to head meetings and not the usual slam
count as in other eras when it may have been cut and dry, i.e. one
person winning and beating everyone.
> In the Nadal/Federer case the slam count is NOT equal. Fed has
> 16 and Nadal has 10 and Fed
and Federer is owned and paid for by Nadal,
the dominance Nadal-Federer is upwards of Nav/Evert
It is a total domination and that is why Federer is not considered
"greatest", when he can't even manage his own era.
> completely rules Nadal on other surfaces
> because Fed has 6 grass slams to Nadal's 2 and 9 HC slams to Nadal's
> 2. The only place Nadal rules Fed is with his 6 clay FO's to Fed's 1
> FO. No tennis analyst on the planet would EVER say Nadal is greater
> than Federer currently with the slam count so heavily in Fed's favor
> especially on non-clay surfaces. Stop trying to look for answers with
> that stupid h2h. If the Nad/Fed slam count were equal then it would
> make sense to use the h2h to see who had the edge. But Federer's
> overall records surpass Nadal's. There are tons of them--i.e. weeks at
> number one, slam finals reaches, etc. etc. Give it up. You are not
> going to win. No tennis analyst would ever agree with you and use h2h
> as the sole factor to measure greatness. It is sheer stupidity. Why do
> you spend every waking hour trying to prove Nadal is greater than Fed
> with a 17>8 h2h. It is like you are desperate to prove something you
> know deep down is not true.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
DavidW
> On 7/4/2011 9:48 PM, bob wrote:
>>
>> yes, she's the wimbledon queen to sampras' wimbledon king. but MN nor
>> graf won any of their titles in clown era
>
> are you kidding? parche gifted graf at least 5 slams, and steffi
> mopped up 8 between 88 and 90 when there was absolutely no
> competition out there at ALL.
You've been moderately sensible at times lately. Don't ruin it.
steve jaros
you're kidding right?
first, *i* cited MN/Evert as *supporting* my argument weeks ago! I noted
that MN > Evert because of much better slam mix (9 Wimbledons to 3).
I also noted that H2H can, at MOST, be a tie-breaker when slams are
even. That totally contradicts nadal-tards around here who think Nadal
is in same goat ballpark as fed because of H2H, even though he's 6 slams
behind.
If Nadal ties Fed at 16 slams, then h2h might, if his mix is also as
good, give him the GOAT nod. But it's worth NOTHING except as a
tiebreaker when slam totals/mix are equal, as MN/Evert demonstrates.
--
I wanted to see the powerful, mystical Elvis
that had crash-landed from a burning star onto
American soil .. that's the Elvis that inspired us
to all the possibilities of life. But that Elvis
had left the building.
- Bob Dylan
DavidW
No, it's the Wimbledons, as a number of people have already pointed out.
steve jaros
> On Jul 4, 10:35 pm, "Wile E. Coyote"<jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The Navratilova-Evert rivalry was one of the greatest with Navratilova
>> winning their head to head meetings 43> 37.
>>
>> Each won 18 grand slams, But few would rank Evert equal to or above
>> Navratilova.
>>
>> This sorta of resembles Nadal/Federer situation, except their head to
>> head meetings 17> 8 so far, and by the looks of upcoming tournaments
>> they will be meeting more often :)
>>
>> Correct me if I am wrong, I have not heard or read one commentator or
>> others say Evert is better or greater than Navratilova even though
>> their slam count is the same.
>>
>> The head to head meetings is what counts with the Navratilova/Evert
>> and determination of who is greatest/best.
>>
>> Nadal> Federer in their head to head meetings 17> 8 or if the count
>> is slam meetings it is Nadal> Federer 7> 2.
>
> WRONG. In the case of Evert vs. Navratilova the slam count was equal
> so it then only makes sense to consider the h2h to see who has the
> edge. In the Nadal/Federer case the slam count is NOT equal.
Yes, at most, H2H is a tie-breaker when slam total/mix is equal, and
even in MN/Evert case we can't say h2h gives it to MN, since MN has a
better mix with far more Wimbledon titles.
bob is loony if he thinks Mn/Evert does anything but smash his argument.
As if it wasn't smashed already, lol.
--
"Afghanistan has become 'our Vietnam'. We
are bogged down in a war we cannot win and
cannot abandon".
- Soviet Army General, 1982
SliceAndDice
player of all time inspite of her H2H against MN. Ah, RST and its
contradictions. :)
steve jaros
the MN/Evert gap is actually much smaller than it was when she and MN
retired, and that's because as time goes by stuff like H2H gets
forgotten and the trophy case is what matters.
and while MN merits a higher ranking than Evert because of her huge
Wimbledon edge, Evert is the open-era best at two of the GS events - USO
and FO. That's a mighty fine legacy achievement to hang your hat on.
And i say all this as a total MN fan, who rooted for MN > Evert every
time the played from 78 onwards.
--
Happiness is the poetry of womanhood, as clothes are its disguise.
- H. de Balzac
SliceAndDice
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fed is considered the greatest because he defeated everybody else in
the field. Rafa is just a bad matchup for Fed just as Djokovic seems
to be a bad match up for Nada now. If Djokovic ends up with a better
h2h over Nadal but Nadal's slam count is greater and Nadal has many
other records that are greater than Djokovic's who in their right mind
would say Djokovic is greater? You are going to see exactly what I
mean because it appears that unless Nadal finds strategic solutions to
beat Djokovic now, the h2h will move in favor of Djokovic. What will
you say then?
You are missing my point, Navratilova and Evert had equal slam counts
so due to this factor you then can go to the h2h to see that
Navratilova has the edge. With Fed/Nadal you can't do that to
determine the greatest player because Fed surpasses Nadal in so many
important records including the slam count. For the 50th time, the h2h
only proves Nadal is better than Fed on clay. On all other surfaces
Federer is superior.
You go ahead and think that the h2h alone shows Fed is the superior
player. Nobody and I mean nobody in history will think the same based
on Fed's dominance over the field, weeks at number one, slam count and
a million other records. Nadal NEEDS to win more slams with the
majority of them being on non-clay as a start for him to eclipse Fed.
Now stop with the nonsense. Repeating to yourself and others over and
over that Nadal is greater because of the 17>8 h2h in favor of Nadal
is making you sound desperate.
Superdave
desperate indeed is what it is.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL. Desperate or insane? Both? ;)
StephenJ
i've been the Voice of Reason on graf for over a decade now. anyone
who doesn't think parche gifted her 5-6 slams and that 88-90 was pure
clown era is a fool.
DavidW
Sorry to say, but you've undone all your good work.
bob
wrote:
the hell it does! you almost can't even *say* the words "martina
navratilova" without the words "chris evert" following!!
ikaboom!!!! :-)
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 7/4/2011 9:41 PM, bob wrote:
yes, and you're partially right.
>I also noted that H2H can, at MOST, be a tie-breaker when slams are
>even. That totally contradicts nadal-tards around here who think Nadal
>is in same goat ballpark as fed because of H2H, even though he's 6 slams
>behind.
H2H does not *make* a GOAT. but it can do a lot to *disqualify* or
*hinder* one. that is my position all along. this is where you're
going astray...
>If Nadal ties Fed at 16 slams, then h2h might, if his mix is also as
>good, give him the GOAT nod. But it's worth NOTHING except as a
>tiebreaker when slam totals/mix are equal, as MN/Evert demonstrates.
nadal's not GOAT. not nearly. not yet. this is about fed. MN, sad as
it must be, supports my argument.
bob
steve jaros
the rivalries are remembered, but who dominated them dimishes. e.g.,
mac/borg and evert/MN ...
--
Conservatives are the niggers of the Nixon administration.
- Pat Buchanan
Wile E. Coyote
Nadal earned his 10 slams by beating 1st tier Federer, and Federer's
main rival was 2nd or 3rd Tier Roddick.
(Will include tier 2-3 to for Roddick, I like Roddick the player,
however he is not tier 1 for sure then or ever.)
Chris Evert earned her slam finals by beating; Virginia Wade, Evonee
Goolagong Cawley, Virginia Ruzici, Sue Barker, Betty Stove, Rosemary
Cosales, H. Stove, Hana Mandlikova, Wendy Tumbuill.
Has any one heard of any of the above Evert went through to win her
slams; are any a tier 1 or 2 player?
MN rival was 1st tier Evert, this is the similar as Nadal/Federer.
Nadal's "lopsided rival" was 1st tier Federer, and Federer's rival was
tierr 2 or 3 Roddick.
I have never heard of Evert in the same breath as MN, only to say that
MN dominated Evert, and this is even with Evert's slam count.
Maybe it's also because Evert only faced tier 2-3 players when she was
the dominant one, until MN came along.
This situation is much like Nadal/Federer.
>
> bob- Hide quoted text -
Whisper
> On Jul 4, 10:35 pm, "Wile E. Coyote"<jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The Navratilova-Evert rivalry was one of the greatest with Navratilova
>> winning their head to head meetings 43> 37.
>>
>> Each won 18 grand slams, But few would rank Evert equal to or above
>> Navratilova.
>>
>> This sorta of resembles Nadal/Federer situation, except their head to
>> head meetings 17> 8 so far, and by the looks of upcoming tournaments
>> they will be meeting more often :)
>>
>> Correct me if I am wrong, I have not heard or read one commentator or
>> others say Evert is better or greater than Navratilova even though
>> their slam count is the same.
>>
>> The head to head meetings is what counts with the Navratilova/Evert
>> and determination of who is greatest/best.
>>
>> Nadal> Federer in their head to head meetings 17> 8 or if the count
>> is slam meetings it is Nadal> Federer 7> 2.
>
> Hmm.. Nadal has won only 10 slams so far. Bit premature to compare
> them to Evertilova? Also, Navratilova's Wimbledon dominance is the
> main reason she is considered greater than Evert, IMO.
Evert lost 7 Wimbledon finals - ouch.
bob
wrote:
>On 7/4/2011 9:50 PM, bob wrote:
i agree that's a lot of it - but beating her repeatdly is a big part.
it sticks with us even today. you know that steve.
bob
Whisper
MN beat Evert too many times in slam finals for them to be considered equal;
5 Wimbledon finals
2 USO finals
1 FO final
2 AO finals
Evert beat MN in;
3 FO finals
1 AO final
10 wins (in all 4 slams), 4 losses (only 2 slams).
The astonishing thing is in the 4 losses to Evert in slam finals, all 4
went the maximum 3 sets distance. MN crushed Evert in several slam
finals, including 63 61 in FO final, while Evert *never* had a
convincing slam final win v MN.
It really wasn't much of a rivalry in slams. Like Federer, Evert won
most of her slams v Wendy Turnbull types before MN peaked.
bob
wrote:
>On 5/07/2011 1:37 PM, steve jaros wrote:
>> On 7/4/2011 10:33 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>> The funny thing here is, TT considers Evert the greatest women's
>>> player of all time inspite of her H2H against MN. Ah, RST and its
>>> contradictions. :)
>>
>> the MN/Evert gap is actually much smaller than it was when she and MN
>> retired, and that's because as time goes by stuff like H2H gets
>> forgotten and the trophy case is what matters.
>
>
>On the contrary I think MN's stature has grown while Evert has regressed
>quite a lot.
my god, absolutely. this is fact.
>>
>> and while MN merits a higher ranking than Evert because of her huge
>> Wimbledon edge, Evert is the open-era best at two of the GS events - USO
>> and FO. That's a mighty fine legacy achievement to hang your hat on.
>
>
>You would think so, but it's funny how no one really registers that
>fact? You never see anyone making a big deal she won most FO & USOs -
>it's almost like nobody knows? Everyone knows MN is the Wimbledon king.
>>
>> And i say all this as a total MN fan, who rooted for MN > Evert every
>> time the played from 78 onwards.
>>
>I don't think it matters what the odd fan here or there thinks. MN is
>clearly seen as the far greater champ, & Evert has the aura of somebody
>who won about 9 or 10 slams.
when it comes to MN/evert, 2 things people always remember and stick
out there in plain daylight, and always talk about even today. (1)
martina's wimbledons (2) mn/evert against each other go together in
many many (all really) conversations - MN as the conqueror, evert as
the pet poodle.
this is much fact as 1+1=2. don't need joe's adding machine for this
one.
bob
pltr...@xhost.org
>Actually, MN > Evert because she has 9 Wimbledons to 3 for Chris. That's
>the difference, a better slam mix.
That is the critical point.
It doesn't sit well with those of us who favor clay and the FO, but it's fact.
-- Larry
bob
wrote:
>On 7/5/2011 8:21 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 5/07/2011 11:10 PM, steve jaros wrote:
>>> On 7/5/2011 6:10 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>>> People remember MN beating Evert in 10 slam finals on 3 surfaces, just
>>>> as they'll remember Rafa beating Fed in 6 slam finals on all 3 surfaces.
>>>> Those things stick in the mind.
>>>
>>> Yes, we remember them, but, as Mac/Borg proves, we don't allow them to
>>> influence legacy standings. They are considered a nice triviality, but
>>> in the end, only slam total/mix counts.
>
>> For greatness yes, but not boat.
>
>'boat' is an Australian concept the rest of the world doesn't care
>about, has never heard of.
BOOE is the related american concept. ask carillo/mcenroe. :-) they
bring it up frequently...
bob
Whisper
>> The funny thing here is, TT considers Evert the greatest women's
>> player of all time inspite of her H2H against MN. Ah, RST and its
>> contradictions. :)
>
> the MN/Evert gap is actually much smaller than it was when she and MN
> retired, and that's because as time goes by stuff like H2H gets
> forgotten and the trophy case is what matters.
On the contrary I think MN's stature has grown while Evert has regressed
quite a lot.
>
> and while MN merits a higher ranking than Evert because of her huge
> Wimbledon edge, Evert is the open-era best at two of the GS events - USO
> and FO. That's a mighty fine legacy achievement to hang your hat on.
You would think so, but it's funny how no one really registers that
fact? You never see anyone making a big deal she won most FO & USOs -
it's almost like nobody knows? Everyone knows MN is the Wimbledon king.
>
> And i say all this as a total MN fan, who rooted for MN > Evert every
> time the played from 78 onwards.
>
Whisper
> On Jul 4, 11:28 pm, "Wile E. Coyote"<jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Fed is considered the greatest because he defeated everybody else in
> the field. Rafa is just a bad matchup for Fed just as Djokovic seems
> to be a bad match up for Nada now. If Djokovic ends up with a better
> h2h over Nadal but Nadal's slam count is greater and Nadal has many
> other records that are greater than Djokovic's who in their right mind
> would say Djokovic is greater? You are going to see exactly what I
> mean because it appears that unless Nadal finds strategic solutions to
> beat Djokovic now, the h2h will move in favor of Djokovic. What will
> you say then?
If Djoker ends up with 4-1 or greater slam final h2h v Rafa I will say
Djoker is better, but Rafa greater. Just the same as I do with Fed v
Rafa situation. At the moment Rafa & Djoker are 1-1 in slam finals.
bob
<vish...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 4, 10:59�pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 19:50:46 -0700 (PDT), SliceAndDice
>>
>>
>>
>> <visha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 4, 10:48�pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 19:40:51 -0700 (PDT), SliceAndDice
>>
>> >> <visha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Jul 4, 10:35�pm, "Wile E. Coyote" <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> The Navratilova-Evert rivalry was one of the greatest with Navratilova
>> >> >> winning their head to head meetings 43> 37.
>>
>> >> >> Each won 18 grand slams, But few would rank Evert equal to or above
>> >> >> Navratilova.
>>
>> >> >> This sorta of resembles Nadal/Federer situation, except their head to
>> >> >> head meetings �17> 8 so far, and by the looks of upcoming tournaments
>> >> >> they will be meeting more often :)
>>
>> >> >> Correct me if I am wrong, I have not heard or read one commentator or
>> >> >> others say Evert is better or greater than Navratilova even though
>> >> >> their slam count is the same.
>>
>> >> >> The head to head meetings is what counts with the Navratilova/Evert
>> >> >> and determination of who is greatest/best.
>>
>> >> >> Nadal > Federer in their head to head meetings 17> 8 or if the count
>> >> >> is slam meetings it is Nadal > Federer 7> 2.
>>
>> >> >Hmm.. Nadal has won only 10 slams so far. Bit premature to compare
>> >> >them to Evertilova? Also, Navratilova's Wimbledon dominance is the
>> >> >main reason she is considered greater than Evert, IMO.
>>
>> >> yes, she's the wimbledon queen to sampras' wimbledon king. but MN nor
>> >> graf won any of their titles in clown era, they had to earn em the old
>> >> fashioned way.
>>
>> >> bob
>>
>> >Oh? And Federer won his titles in some special way? Please enlighten
>> >us.
>>
>> um, well, um, roddick, roddick, hewitt -- didn't you see myh post
>> listing em all yesterday? lol
>>
>> bob
>Roddick - Sampras on steroids
>Hewitt - 2 slam winner, former world number 1, Sampras conqueror.
ahh - defending roddick/hewitt as "good competition" now. sure you
want to go down that road?
bob
bob
wrote:
we may have to revisit graf later when i have time. :-)
bob
Whisper
> On 7/4/2011 9:50 PM, bob wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 19:40:51 -0700 (PDT), SliceAndDice
>> <vish...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 4, 10:35 pm, "Wile E. Coyote"<jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> The Navratilova-Evert rivalry was one of the greatest with Navratilova
>>>> winning their head to head meetings 43> 37.
>>>>
>>>> Each won 18 grand slams, But few would rank Evert equal to or above
>>>> Navratilova.
>>>>
>>>> This sorta of resembles Nadal/Federer situation, except their head to
>>>> head meetings 17> 8 so far, and by the looks of upcoming tournaments
>>>> they will be meeting more often :)
>>>>
>>>> Correct me if I am wrong, I have not heard or read one commentator or
>>>> others say Evert is better or greater than Navratilova even though
>>>> their slam count is the same.
>>>>
>>>> The head to head meetings is what counts with the Navratilova/Evert
>>>> and determination of who is greatest/best.
>>>>
>>>> Nadal> Federer in their head to head meetings 17> 8 or if the count
>>>> is slam meetings it is Nadal> Federer 7> 2.
>>>
>>> Hmm.. Nadal has won only 10 slams so far. Bit premature to compare
>>> them to Evertilova? Also, Navratilova's Wimbledon dominance is the
>>> main reason she is considered greater than Evert, IMO.
>>
>> tend to recall when determining who bested who.
>
> the difference, a better slam mix.
>
>
Also beating Evert *10* fucking times in slam finals, in all 4 slams,
tells us which player was better.
bob
<jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 4, 8:18�pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 10:35�pm, "Wile E. Coyote" <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > The Navratilova-Evert rivalry was one of the greatest with Navratilova
>> > winning their head to head meetings 43> 37.
>>
>> > Each won 18 grand slams, But few would rank Evert equal to or above
>> > Navratilova.
>>
>> > This sorta of resembles Nadal/Federer situation, except their head to
>> > head meetings �17> 8 so far, and by the looks of upcoming tournaments
>> > they will be meeting more often :)
>>
>> > Correct me if I am wrong, I have not heard or read one commentator or
>> > others say Evert is better or greater than Navratilova even though
>> > their slam count is the same.
>>
>> > The head to head meetings is what counts with the Navratilova/Evert
>> > and determination of who is greatest/best.
>>
>> > Nadal > Federer in their head to head meetings 17> 8 or if the count
>> > is slam meetings it is Nadal > Federer 7> 2.
>>
>> WRONG. In the case of Evert vs. Navratilova the slam count was equal
>> so it then only makes sense to consider the h2h to see who has the
>> edge.
>
looks like this coyote's turned the tables on you roadrunners.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 7/4/2011 10:18 PM, Court_1 wrote:
i know i have you in big trouble when you result to insults!!
bob
Whisper
bob
wrote:
>It's the Wumbledon gap that is decisive. H2H has relatively little to do
>with it. 9 Ws to 3 is enormous.
it's both. seriously.
bob
John
"bob" <stei...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1fv417dl69e5bbbo8...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 19:50:46 -0700 (PDT), SliceAndDice
>
>>On Jul 4, 10:48 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 19:40:51 -0700 (PDT), SliceAndDice
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Jul 4, 10:35 pm, "Wile E. Coyote" <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >> The Navratilova-Evert rivalry was one of the greatest with
>>> >> Navratilova
>>> >> winning their head to head meetings 43> 37.
>>>
>>> >> Each won 18 grand slams, But few would rank Evert equal to or above
>>> >> Navratilova.
>>>
>>> >> This sorta of resembles Nadal/Federer situation, except their head to
>>> >> head meetings 17> 8 so far, and by the looks of upcoming tournaments
>>> >> they will be meeting more often :)
>>>
>>> >> Correct me if I am wrong, I have not heard or read one commentator or
>>> >> others say Evert is better or greater than Navratilova even though
>>> >> their slam count is the same.
>>>
>>> >> The head to head meetings is what counts with the Navratilova/Evert
>>> >> and determination of who is greatest/best.
>>>
>>> >> Nadal > Federer in their head to head meetings 17> 8 or if the count
>>> >> is slam meetings it is Nadal > Federer 7> 2.
>>>
>>> >them to Evertilova? Also, Navratilova's Wimbledon dominance is the
>>> >main reason she is considered greater than Evert, IMO.
>>>
>>> fashioned way.
>>>
>>> bob
>>
>>Oh? And Federer won his titles in some special way? Please enlighten
>>us.
>
> um, well, um, roddick, roddick, hewitt -- didn't you see myh post
> listing em all yesterday? lol
Pioline, Courier, Pioline were obviously more difficult. Having toughest
No.1 like Kaf and Muster on
grass and HC certainly help. Remind us how many HC and GC finals those two
No.1 reached in their
career ? I have never seen a softer era than Sampras' when true jokers like
Kaf and Muster were ranked
No.1. As weak as Hewitt was he smashed peak Kaf with loss of 4 games in
USO.
>
> bob
John
His positon is much clearer than yours and has not alter one bit. He
believes grand
slam wins is the single most important measurement of players' greatness.
While
yours is more tailor to suits your own opinion and of course your master
Whisper's.
When it comes to Federer his h2h against Nadal become more important than
his
grand slam record. According to your idiotic logic Federer would be a much
better
player if he lost to Galo Blanco type in first two round of FO like Samrpas
rather than
losing FO finals to Nadal. What is your opinion of player losing 8 times to
absolute
clowns in the sports and is that a negative for someone to be considered
GOAT ?
>
>
>>If Nadal ties Fed at 16 slams, then h2h might, if his mix is also as
>>good, give him the GOAT nod. But it's worth NOTHING except as a
>>tiebreaker when slam totals/mix are equal, as MN/Evert demonstrates.
>
> nadal's not GOAT. not nearly. not yet. this is about fed. MN, sad as
> it must be, supports my argument.
Your argument does not hold up very well bob.
>
> bob
John
"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote in message
news:NoadnaKve8Kmd4_T...@westnet.com.au...
So Hewitt is indeed better than Sampras.
SliceAndDice
If Evert had 9 W instead of MN, all this would not have mattered.
steve jaros
yes, we remember it ... and it's a tie-breaker factor in MN's favor.
--
As a tourist, you become economically significant but
existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing.
- D. Foster Wallace
steve jaros
It's the Wumbledon gap that is decisive. H2H has relatively little to do
with it. 9 Ws to 3 is enormous.
> It really wasn't much of a rivalry in slams. Like Federer, Evert won
> most of her slams v Wendy Turnbull types before MN peaked.
Fed fans are still probably waiting for him to get W/USO finals vs
Pioline. It will be a long wait, LOL.
--
The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from
enacting stupid laws.
- Thurgood Marshall
steve jaros
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:34:53 +1000, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/07/2011 1:37 PM, steve jaros wrote:
>>> On 7/4/2011 10:33 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>>> The funny thing here is, TT considers Evert the greatest women's
>>>> player of all time inspite of her H2H against MN. Ah, RST and its
>>>> contradictions. :)
>>>
>>> the MN/Evert gap is actually much smaller than it was when she and MN
>>> retired, and that's because as time goes by stuff like H2H gets
>>> forgotten and the trophy case is what matters.
>>
>>
>> On the contrary I think MN's stature has grown while Evert has regressed
>> quite a lot.
>
> my god, absolute
No, e.g., watch the recent ESPN 30/30 on them, they are treated as
essentially equals, MN getting the nod though.
--
In South Africa there is such an ill
distribution of wealth that any form of
political freedom that doesn't touch on the
proper distribution of wealth will be meaningless.
- Steve Biko
steve jaros
LOL ... sorry about the alleged insult. i was actually insulting your
argument, which is warped by an incredibly desperate
sampras-fan/fed-hater agenda.
--
If you want to be loved, never leave your mistress
without making her cry a little ..
- Balzac
Whisper
Potro better than Federer?
Too small a sample. Prob need to play at least 5 slam finals to judge.
steve jaros
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 22:28:58 -0500, steve jaros<sja...@chill.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/4/2011 9:41 PM, bob wrote:
>>> <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Navratilova-Evert rivalry was one of the greatest with Navratilova
>>>> winning their head to head meetings 43> 37.
>>>> Each won 18 grand slams, But few would rank Evert equal to or above
>>>> Navratilova.
>>>> This sorta of resembles Nadal/Federer situation, except their head to
>>>> head meetings 17> 8 so far, and by the looks of upcoming tournaments
>>>> they will be meeting more often :)
>>>> Correct me if I am wrong, I have not heard or read one commentator or
>>>> others say Evert is better or greater than Navratilova even though
>>>> their slam count is the same.
>>>> The head to head meetings is what counts with the Navratilova/Evert
>>>> and determination of who is greatest/best.
>>>> Nadal> Federer in their head to head meetings 17> 8 or if the count
>>>> is slam meetings it is Nadal> Federer 7> 2.
>>>
>>> victories, once MN came into her own, ring on and on and on in the
>>> memory of everyone who watched. evert had an incredible career going
>>> - til MN came peak.
>>>
>>> kind of ironic - MN being part of the puzzle to sink jaros argument
>>> about H2H meaning nothing? :-)
>>
>> you're kidding right?
>>
>> first, *i* cited MN/Evert as *supporting* my argument weeks ago! I noted
>> that MN> Evert because of much better slam mix (9 Wimbledons to 3).
>
>> I also noted that H2H can, at MOST, be a tie-breaker when slams are
>> even. That totally contradicts nadal-tards around here who think Nadal
>> is in same goat ballpark as fed because of H2H, even though he's 6 slams
>> behind.
>
> H2H does not *make* a GOAT. but it can do a lot to *disqualify* or
> *hinder* one.
bob, if H2H can barely act as a tie-breaker between the 2 people
actually involved in the rivalry, like MN and Evert, when they have
equal slams, how on earth can it bring a player involved (like fed) down
to the level of someone he has MORE and BETTER slam mix than (like
Sampras), when Sampras wasn't even the guy who beat fed out H2H?
Beggars belief, which is why it hasn't happened.
> that is my position all along. this is where you're
> going astray...
not going astray. i understand fully how desperate sampras fans eager to
reinsert sampras into the goat discussion have tried to cite fed's H2h
vs nadal as somehow canceling out fed's slam advantage and bringing him
back down to pete's level.
but, there's no evidence that this has or ever will happened. Not a
smidgen. Pete left the GOAT race 2 years ago and will never be revived.
Sorry about that ...
> nadal's not GOAT. not nearly. not yet. this is about fed.
how can MN/Evert say anything about fed when the conditions are
obviously not the same - MN/Evert have equal slam wins, and Evert, the
player dominated H2H, has far FEWER Wimbledon than MN?
the only relevant analogy is borg/mac. that fits because like fed, borg
has more slam wins and more wimbledons than the guy who 'mastered' him
H2H. And what borg/mac tells us is that H2H fades out completely as a
legacy factor.
yes, it remains in our memories of great matches/rivalries, but as a
legacy factor that actually impacts rankings, it's meaningless. Borg is
clearly ahead of Mac in all legacy standings, and Borg's stature vs
other all-time greats like nadal/fed/laver/sampras is EXACTLY the same
as if he'd lost those W/USO finals to players other than Mac.
You've NEVER been able to show a SINGLE player whose legacy standing is
anything but where his SLAM RECORD says it would be.
--
I am opposed to war in every sense of the word.
Soldiers should have the word 'murderer' embroidered
on their uniforms.
- Henry Ford
steve jaros
Yes, we remember them, but, as Mac/Borg proves, we don't allow them to
influence legacy standings. They are considered a nice triviality, but
in the end, only slam total/mix counts.
--
like every crusader, she exulted in the opportunity
to be vicious in the name of virue.
- SL, Babbitt
Whisper
> On 7/5/2011 6:12 AM, bob wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:34:53 +1000, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/07/2011 1:37 PM, steve jaros wrote:
>>>> On 7/4/2011 10:33 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>>>> The funny thing here is, TT considers Evert the greatest women's
>>>>> player of all time inspite of her H2H against MN. Ah, RST and its
>>>>> contradictions. :)
>>>>
>>>> the MN/Evert gap is actually much smaller than it was when she and MN
>>>> retired, and that's because as time goes by stuff like H2H gets
>>>> forgotten and the trophy case is what matters.
>>>
>>>
>>> On the contrary I think MN's stature has grown while Evert has regressed
>>> quite a lot.
>>
>> my god, absolute
>
> No, e.g., watch the recent ESPN 30/30 on them, they are treated as
> essentially equals, MN getting the nod though.
>
>
>
What American tv thinks has no bearing on rest of the world. eg Sports
Illustrated means nothing outside US, Agassi is a non-entity etc
Whisper
For greatness yes, but not boat.
You can't lose 10 & 6 slam finals respectively to your rival & expect
everyone to think you are the best of 'all time'.
steve jaros
'boat' is an Australian concept the rest of the world doesn't care
about, has never heard of. GOAT is all that matters and as mac/borg
shows, H2H is at best a tie-breaker when guys have the same slams/mix,
but nothing beyond that.
--
There is a vain woman of the worst kind in every poet.
- Balzac
steve jaros
> On Jul 4, 8:08 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 13:05:42 +1000, "DavidW"<n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>> SliceAndDice wrote:
>>>> On Jul 4, 10:35 pm, "Wile E. Coyote"<jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> The Navratilova-Evert rivalry was one of the greatest with
>>>>> Navratilova winning their head to head meetings 43> 37.
>>
>>>>> Each won 18 grand slams, But few would rank Evert equal to or above
>>>>> Navratilova.
>>
>>>>> This sorta of resembles Nadal/Federer situation, except their head to
>>>>> head meetings 17> 8 so far, and by the looks of upcoming tournaments
>>>>> they will be meeting more often :)
>>
>>>>> Correct me if I am wrong, I have not heard or read one commentator or
>>>>> others say Evert is better or greater than Navratilova even though
>>>>> their slam count is the same.
>>
>>>>> The head to head meetings is what counts with the Navratilova/Evert
>>>>> and determination of who is greatest/best.
>>
>>>>> Nadal> Federer in their head to head meetings 17> 8 or if the count
>>>>> is slam meetings it is Nadal> Federer 7> 2.
>>
>>>> them to Evertilova? Also, Navratilova's Wimbledon dominance is the
>>>> main reason she is considered greater than Evert, IMO.
>>
>>> I mean everything, in tennis."
>>
>> how does a fedfan sleep at night knowing that?
>> speaking of that, goodnight!
>
>
> Nadal earned his 10 slams by beating 1st tier Federer, and Federer's
> main rival was 2nd or 3rd Tier Roddick.
> (Will include tier 2-3 to for Roddick, I like Roddick the player,
> however he is not tier 1 for sure then or ever.)
>
> Chris Evert earned her slam finals by beating; Virginia Wade, Evonee
> Goolagong Cawley, Virginia Ruzici, Sue Barker, Betty Stove, Rosemary
> Cosales, H. Stove, Hana Mandlikova, Wendy Tumbuill.
> Has any one heard of any of the above Evert went through to win her
> slams; are any a tier 1 or 2 player?
>
> MN rival was 1st tier Evert, this is the similar as Nadal/Federer.
> Nadal's "lopsided rival" was 1st tier Federer, and Federer's rival was
> tierr 2 or 3 Roddick.
>
> I have never heard of Evert in the same breath as MN, only to say that
> MN dominated Evert, and this is even with Evert's slam count.
> Maybe it's also because Evert only faced tier 2-3 players when she was
> the dominant one, until MN came along.
>
> This situation is much like Nadal/Federer.
even for you, this is really stupid.
bob
wrote:
his position is clear and it's 1/2 right. maybe 2/3 right. but he's
leaving a big chunk of it off. the adding machine is "missing a key."
bob
bob
wrote:
no barely about it, MN dominating chris in slam finals is a big
hindrance to chris legacy.
> when they have
>equal slams, how on earth can it bring a player involved (like fed) down
>to the level of someone he has MORE and BETTER slam mix than (like
>Sampras), when Sampras wasn't even the guy who beat fed out H2H?
who's talking about sampras?
>Beggars belief, which is why it hasn't happened.
>
>> that is my position all along. this is where you're
>> going astray...
>
>not going astray. i understand fully how desperate sampras fans eager to
>reinsert sampras into the goat discussion have tried to cite fed's H2h
>vs nadal as somehow canceling out fed's slam advantage and bringing him
>back down to pete's level.
forget pete's level, federer's level is the concern.
>but, there's no evidence that this has or ever will happened. Not a
>smidgen. Pete left the GOAT race 2 years ago and will never be revived.
>Sorry about that ...
say sorry to pete, not to me.
>> nadal's not GOAT. not nearly. not yet. this is about fed.
>
>how can MN/Evert say anything about fed when the conditions are
>obviously not the same - MN/Evert have equal slam wins, and Evert, the
>player dominated H2H, has far FEWER Wimbledon than MN?
the conditions are neer identical. but the MN/evert slam finals sticks
with us. people cannot even say MN w/out mentioning CE, and it's
always a 1-way street kind of discussion.
>the only relevant analogy is borg/mac. that fits because like fed, borg
>has more slam wins and more wimbledons than the guy who 'mastered' him
>H2H. And what borg/mac tells us is that H2H fades out completely as a
>legacy factor.
borg/mac would fit better if they played one heckuva lot more. 7-2 is
a lot closer to 10-4 in the memory bank than 3-1. and even then,
people just hated mac's guts and wouldnt' acknowledge it. kind of like
asking geovanna her opinion of nadal.
>yes, it remains in our memories of great matches/rivalries, but as a
>legacy factor that actually impacts rankings, it's meaningless. Borg is
>clearly ahead of Mac in all legacy standings, and Borg's stature vs
>other all-time greats like nadal/fed/laver/sampras is EXACTLY the same
>as if he'd lost those W/USO finals to players other than Mac.
>You've NEVER been able to show a SINGLE player whose legacy standing is
>anything but where his SLAM RECORD says it would be.
lendl.
bob
bob
wrote:
don't know about potro but rafter certainly > fed. lol
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 5/07/2011 10:53 PM, steve jaros wrote:
>> On 7/5/2011 6:12 AM, bob wrote:
>>> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:34:53 +1000, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/07/2011 1:37 PM, steve jaros wrote:
>>>>> On 7/4/2011 10:33 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>>>>> The funny thing here is, TT considers Evert the greatest women's
>>>>>> player of all time inspite of her H2H against MN. Ah, RST and its
>>>>>> contradictions. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> the MN/Evert gap is actually much smaller than it was when she and MN
>>>>> retired, and that's because as time goes by stuff like H2H gets
>>>>> forgotten and the trophy case is what matters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On the contrary I think MN's stature has grown while Evert has regressed
>>>> quite a lot.
>>>
>>> my god, absolute
>>
>> No, e.g., watch the recent ESPN 30/30 on them, they are treated as
>> essentially equals, MN getting the nod though.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>What American tv thinks has no bearing on rest of the world. eg Sports
>Illustrated means nothing outside US, Agassi is a non-entity etc
no american, no matter how pro evert, considers evert anything but
MN's poodle. a tv show, however, may try to twist it for viewership
purposes. all nonsense.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 7/5/2011 6:09 AM, bob wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 22:37:07 -0500, steve jaros<sja...@chill.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/4/2011 10:33 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>>> On Jul 4, 11:30 pm, steve jaros<sjar...@chill.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/4/2011 10:18 PM, Court_1 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 4, 10:35 pm, "Wile E. Coyote"<jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> The Navratilova-Evert rivalry was one of the greatest with Navratilova
>>>>>>> winning their head to head meetings 43> 37.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Each won 18 grand slams, But few would rank Evert equal to or above
>>>>>>> Navratilova.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> This sorta of resembles Nadal/Federer situation, except their head to
>>>>>>> head meetings 17> 8 so far, and by the looks of upcoming tournaments
>>>>>>> they will be meeting more often :)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct me if I am wrong, I have not heard or read one commentator or
>>>>>>> others say Evert is better or greater than Navratilova even though
>>>>>>> their slam count is the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The head to head meetings is what counts with the Navratilova/Evert
>>>>>>> and determination of who is greatest/best.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nadal> Federer in their head to head meetings 17> 8 or if the count
>>>>>>> is slam meetings it is Nadal> Federer 7> 2.
>>>>>
>>>>>> WRONG. In the case of Evert vs. Navratilova the slam count was equal
>>>>>> so it then only makes sense to consider the h2h to see who has the
>>>>>> edge. In the Nadal/Federer case the slam count is NOT equal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, at most, H2H is a tie-breaker when slam total/mix is equal, and
>>>>> even in MN/Evert case we can't say h2h gives it to MN, since MN has a
>>>>> better mix with far more Wimbledon titles.
>>>>>
>>>>> bob is loony if he thinks Mn/Evert does anything but smash his argument.
>>>>> As if it wasn't smashed already, lol.
>>>>>
>>>> The funny thing here is, TT considers Evert the greatest women's
>>>> player of all time inspite of her H2H against MN. Ah, RST and its
>>>> contradictions. :)
>>>
>>> the MN/Evert gap is actually much smaller than it was when she and MN
>>> retired, and that's because as time goes by stuff like H2H gets
>>> forgotten
>>
>> the hell it does! you almost can't even *say* the words "martina
>> navratilova" without the words "chris evert" following!!
>
>the rivalries are remembered, but who dominated them dimishes. e.g.,
>mac/borg and evert/MN ...
steve, is it possible 2 people can exist on this planet and be exactly
- i mean exactly - 180deg off? :-)
bob
Court_1
> On 5/07/2011 10:53 PM, steve jaros wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/5/2011 6:12 AM, bob wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 5/07/2011 1:37 PM, steve jaros wrote:
> >>>> On 7/4/2011 10:33 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
> >>>>> The funny thing here is, TT considers Evert the greatest women's
> >>>>> player of all time inspite of her H2H against MN. Ah, RST and its
> >>>>> contradictions. :)
>
> >>>> the MN/Evert gap is actually much smaller than it was when she and MN
> >>>> retired, and that's because as time goes by stuff like H2H gets
> >>>> forgotten and the trophy case is what matters.
>
> >>> On the contrary I think MN's stature has grown while Evert has regressed
> >>> quite a lot.
>
> >> my god, absolute
>
> > No, e.g., watch the recent ESPN 30/30 on them, they are treated as
> > essentially equals, MN getting the nod though.
>
> What American tv thinks has no bearing on rest of the world. eg Sports
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL at Agassi is a non-entity. In what world would that be true in?
Who does not know about Agassi in any tennis world? He is far from a
non-entity. I mean he is not in the same league as Sampras in terms of
tennis results but he is still up there in the top 10-20 on all lists
that I have ever seen.
bob
<jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 4, 8:08�pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 13:05:42 +1000, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> >SliceAndDice wrote:
>> >> On Jul 4, 10:35 pm, "Wile E. Coyote" <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> The Navratilova-Evert rivalry was one of the greatest with
>> >>> Navratilova winning their head to head meetings 43> 37.
>>
>> >>> Each won 18 grand slams, But few would rank Evert equal to or above
>> >>> Navratilova.
>>
>> >>> This sorta of resembles Nadal/Federer situation, except their head to
>> >>> head meetings 17> 8 so far, and by the looks of upcoming tournaments
>> >>> they will be meeting more often :)
>>
>> >>> Correct me if I am wrong, I have not heard or read one commentator or
>> >>> others say Evert is better or greater than Navratilova even though
>> >>> their slam count is the same.
>>
>> >>> The head to head meetings is what counts with the Navratilova/Evert
>> >>> and determination of who is greatest/best.
>>
>> >>> Nadal > Federer in their head to head meetings 17> 8 or if the count
>> >>> is slam meetings it is Nadal > Federer 7> 2.
>>
>> >> Hmm.. Nadal has won only 10 slams so far. Bit premature to compare
>> >> them to Evertilova? Also, Navratilova's Wimbledon dominance is the
>> >> main reason she is considered greater than Evert, IMO.
>>
>> >Yes. As Navratilova said: "Wimbledon, and winning Wimbledon, is everything, and
>> >I mean everything, in tennis."
>>
>> how does a fedfan sleep at night knowing that?
>> speaking of that, goodnight!
>
>
>Nadal earned his 10 slams by beating 1st tier Federer, and Federer's
>main rival was 2nd or 3rd Tier Roddick.
actually 4th or 5th tier roddick.
>(Will include tier 2-3 to for Roddick, I like Roddick the player,
>however he is not tier 1 for sure then or ever.)
>Chris Evert earned her slam finals by beating; Virginia Wade, Evonee
>Goolagong Cawley, Virginia Ruzici, Sue Barker, Betty Stove, Rosemary
>Cosales, H. Stove, Hana Mandlikova, Wendy Tumbuill.
>Has any one heard of any of the above Evert went through to win her
>slams; are any a tier 1 or 2 player?
>MN rival was 1st tier Evert, this is the similar as Nadal/Federer.
>Nadal's "lopsided rival" was 1st tier Federer, and Federer's rival was
>tierr 2 or 3 Roddick.
>I have never heard of Evert in the same breath as MN, only to say that
>MN dominated Evert, and this is even with Evert's slam count.
>Maybe it's also because Evert only faced tier 2-3 players when she was
>the dominant one, until MN came along.
>This situation is much like Nadal/Federer.
there are analogies, for sure. you frequently hear MN and evert talked
about together only in the sense of how MN got the best of it. there
is never a debate, it always a 1 way street.
bob
Wile E. Coyote
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 22:25:30 -0500, steve jaros <sjar...@chill.com> wrote:
> >Actually, MN > Evert because she has 9 Wimbledons to 3 for Chris. That's
> >the difference, a better slam mix.
>
>
> It doesn't sit well with those of us
> who favor clay and the FO, but it's fact.
That's your opinion and is not "fact".
>
> -- Larry
RaspingDrive
> H2H does not *make* a GOAT. but it can do a lot to *disqualify* or
> *hinder* one. that is my position all along. this is where you're
> going astray...
That sounds like a good argument to me.
> nadal's not GOAT. not nearly. not yet. this is about fed. MN, sad as
> it must be, supports my argument.
There's no GOAT yet!
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
The concept of BOAT is the biggest pile of horseshit I have ever heard
about. No tennis historian thinks that way. The only thing that is
talked about is GOAT which is stupid as well imo. The only thing I
know about a BOAT is that it is a vessel that moves through the
water. BOAT in tennis? Not a factor at all.
Court_1
> "Afghanistan has become 'our Vietnam'. We
> are bogged down in a war we cannot win and
> cannot abandon".
>
> - Soviet Army General, 1982- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL. There are a lot of nutty opinions on here. It is like a different
time dimension or something. I keep thinking maybe I am imagining what
I am actually reading. :)
Joe Ramirez
> Chris Evert earned her slam finals by beating; Virginia Wade, Evonee
> Goolagong Cawley, Virginia Ruzici, Sue Barker, Betty Stove, Rosemary
> Cosales, H. Stove, Hana Mandlikova, Wendy Tumbuill.
> Has any one heard of any of the above Evert went through to win her
> slams; are any a tier 1 or 2 player?
I'm afraid no one has ever heard of any of those people. (I say
"people" advisedly; what the heck is a "goolagong"? Doesn't it have
something to do with "Waltzing Matilda"?) The fact that Evert had to
dispose of the deservedly obscure Stove Twins, B. and H., makes me
cringe in embarrassment even today. And are you sure some of those
opponents aren't fictional? "Cosales" and "Tumbuill" sound like
characters from a James Ellroy novel. This is just a tennis forum,
after all -- no point in exploring trivia like this.
Despite my lack of information regarding your primary inquiry, I'm
confident that I can help with your follow-up questions about our
beloved sport:
2. Spherical. Cubical balls are against the rules.
3. I don't believe spaghetti strings were intended to be eaten, but
who's to say?
4. No, the "racket face" has no connection to the nose or forehead,
unless one is Mikhail Youzhny.
5. There's nothing named after Ronald Garros, as far as I know.
You're welcome.
steve jaros
Exactly.
SliceAndDice
LMAO
steve jaros
Yes, but it's "both" in the sense of it being 90% Wimbledon gap, 10% H2H.
And remember, that 10% is only important when comparing players with the
SAME slam count.
Also, to the extent H2H matters, it only benefits the player who
actually beat the other player H2H, in this case MN. Evert's legacy
standing vs Graf, Serena, BJK, etc. is not affected at all by her H2H
failures vs MN. It only hurts her vs MN, which of course is as it should
be, since just because MN dominated Evert H2H doesn't mean we can assume
BJK, Serena, or anyone else would have.
That's yet another reason why Nadal's H2H over Fed can never help
Sampras: Sampras isn't the guy who beat Fed H2H, Nadal is.
steve jaros
bob, we've already established the key comparison, which is mac/borg,
and that tells us definitively that H2H counts for nothing in the long run.
this is a situation where there are no equally valid points of view.
there's the correct POV and all the wrong ones.
felangey
3. I don't believe spaghetti strings were intended to be eaten, but
who's to say?
4. No, the "racket face" has no connection to the nose or forehead,
unless one is Mikhail Youzhny.
5. There's nothing named after Ronald Garros, as far as I know.
You're welcome<
<G>
W/b.
steve jaros
It's no hindrance at all. Proof? Evert's legacy is exactly where it
would be relative to MN (i.e., behind her) had she and MN had the same
H2H record at slams but also the exact same 18 slam wins (meaning that
Evert lost most of those 10 slam finals she lost to MN to other players).
MN's huge Wimbledon advantage is, by itself, sufficient to explain MN's
legacy advantage over Evert.
>> when they have
>> equal slams, how on earth can it bring a player involved (like fed) down
>> to the level of someone he has MORE and BETTER slam mix than (like
>> Sampras), when Sampras wasn't even the guy who beat fed out H2H?
>
> who's talking about sampras?
you, of course. that's your whole agenda. You want to tear down fed so
as to equalize him with Sampras. to throw open the goat discussion and
sneak pete back into it.
>> Beggars belief, which is why it hasn't happened.
>>
>>> that is my position all along. this is where you're
>>> going astray...
>>
>> not going astray. i understand fully how desperate sampras fans eager to
>> reinsert sampras into the goat discussion have tried to cite fed's H2h
>> vs nadal as somehow canceling out fed's slam advantage and bringing him
>> back down to pete's level.
>
> forget pete's level, federer's level is the concern.
can't forget pete's level, because that's the agenda here. If you can
convince others that Fed's H2H vs Nadal is somehow equivalent to
subtracting a couple slams from Fed's legacy, well then voila, he and
Sampras are equal and Sampras is back in goat discussion.
it's absurd, but that's the agenda.
>> but, there's no evidence that this has or ever will happened. Not a
>> smidgen. Pete left the GOAT race 2 years ago and will never be revived.
>> Sorry about that ...
>
> say sorry to pete, not to me.
no, just you. if i ever met pete again (ran into him once in Tampa right
after his first W win in 1993) i'd do again what i did that one time -
congratulate him, but this time on his awe-inspiring career not just the
W win.
>>> nadal's not GOAT. not nearly. not yet. this is about fed.
>>
>> how can MN/Evert say anything about fed when the conditions are
>> obviously not the same - MN/Evert have equal slam wins, and Evert, the
>> player dominated H2H, has far FEWER Wimbledon than MN?
>
> the conditions are neer identical. but the MN/evert slam finals sticks
> with us. people cannot even say MN w/out mentioning CE, and it's
> always a 1-way street kind of discussion.
bob, they are CLEARLY nowhere near identical. Fed has far more slams
than Nadal, and Fed has far more Wimbledons than Nadal. In contrast,
Evert and MN have the same slam total, and the partner dominated H2H,
Evert, has far FEWER wimbledon wins.
Mac and Borg is the obvious comparison point.
>> the only relevant analogy is borg/mac. that fits because like fed, borg
>> has more slam wins and more wimbledons than the guy who 'mastered' him
>> H2H. And what borg/mac tells us is that H2H fades out completely as a
>> legacy factor.
>
> borg/mac would fit better if they played one heckuva lot more. 7-2 is
> a lot closer to 10-4 in the memory bank than 3-1. and even then,
> people just hated mac's guts and wouldnt' acknowledge it. kind of like
> asking geovanna her opinion of nadal.
silly. even though nadal and fed played much more, it's still only the
#2 H2H rivalry in men's tennis history. on the men's side, in the mind
of the tennis community, Mac/Borg is THE rivalry, and everyone knows Mac
mastered Borg and made him quit.
And yet .... Borg > Mac in all legacy standings. It's crystal clear:
mac/borg is nearly completely analogous, and yet it shows that H2H has
no lasting impact.
And, if it has no lasting impact *for the guy who actually won the H2H
battle*, like mac, how on earth can it possibly help a 3rd party, like
Sampras? LMAO.
>> yes, it remains in our memories of great matches/rivalries, but as a
>> legacy factor that actually impacts rankings, it's meaningless. Borg is
>> clearly ahead of Mac in all legacy standings, and Borg's stature vs
>> other all-time greats like nadal/fed/laver/sampras is EXACTLY the same
>> as if he'd lost those W/USO finals to players other than Mac.
>> You've NEVER been able to show a SINGLE player whose legacy standing is
>> anything but where his SLAM RECORD says it would be.
>
> lendl.
what about lendl? Lendl had H2H over some guys at slams (like Mac), but
was beaten H2H by others (Becker, Connors) and yet others he more or
less split with (Edberg).
Now, had Lendl won some of those H2H battles, like against Connors and
Becker, sure, his legacy would be much greater. BUT, only because it
would mean he'd have 3-4 more slam wins. At least 2 more USOs and a
Wimbledon. That's a lot of legacy value there.
--
.. unless her great neighbors are prosperous
and orderly, Poland is an economic impossibility
with no industry but Jew-baiting.
- JM Keynes
steve jaros
> bring it up frequently...
i think you mentioned in an earlier post today something about a "TV
show hyping Mn/Evert as equal" to boost ratings/interest? Fits the
blather of commentators to a T.
btw, were mac and carillo blathering about nadal being BOOE or whatever
after his loss to joker the other day?
that shows you how long-lasting that kind of blather is.
heyguys
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:18:18 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 5/07/2011 10:53 PM, steve jaros wrote:
> >> On 7/5/2011 6:12 AM, bob wrote:
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 5/07/2011 1:37 PM, steve jaros wrote:
> >>>>> On 7/4/2011 10:33 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
> >>>>>> The funny thing here is, TT considers Evert the greatest women's
> >>>>>> player of all time inspite of her H2H against MN. Ah, RST and its
> >>>>>> contradictions. :)
>
> >>>>> the MN/Evert gap is actually much smaller than it was when she and MN
> >>>>> retired, and that's because as time goes by stuff like H2H gets
> >>>>> forgotten and the trophy case is what matters.
>
> >>>> On the contrary I think MN's stature has grown while Evert has regressed
> >>>> quite a lot.
>
> >>> my god, absolute
>
> >> No, e.g., watch the recent ESPN 30/30 on them, they are treated as
> >> essentially equals, MN getting the nod though.
>
> >What American tv thinks has no bearing on rest of the world. eg Sports
> >Illustrated means nothing outside US, Agassi is a non-entity etc
>
> no american, no matter how pro evert, considers evert anything but
> MN's poodle. a tv show, however, may try to twist it for viewership
> purposes. all nonsense.
>
> bob
Playing devil's advocate, if MN was a *significantly* better player
than Evert, how come it doesn't show in career stats?
They played during the same eras. Evert has the higher match winning
percentage. Equal number of slams. MN has slightly more singles
titles. H2H MN won 53% of matches, while skipping surfaces later in
her career in which she had a losing record against Evert. Slam
finals are the big problem for Evert, but a disproportionate number
were played on MN's best surface and Evert's worst. Yes, MN was out
of shape when she was younger, but Evert skipped her best slam during
her peak (both their own faults), often only playing two slams a
year.
steve jaros
both MN and Evert probably win 25 slams if they'd played all of them
back in the day. FO and AO just weren't a big deal back then.
pltr...@xhost.org
wrote:
>> >Actually, MN > Evert because she has 9 Wimbledons to 3 for Chris. That's
>> >the difference, a better slam mix.
>>
>> That is the critical point.
>>
>> It doesn't sit well with those of us
>> who favor clay and the FO, but it's fact.
>
>That's your opinion and is not "fact".
That nine is greater than three is indeed a fact.
That most of the tennis world considers W > USO > FO wins is another fact.
That most of the tennis world considers Martina's slam mix more of an
achievement than Chris's slam mix is yet another fact.
You can go ahead and put those facts together any way your tiny little mind will
permit.
-- Larry
bob
wrote:
and yet recently we agreed ( or at least i think we did ) that this is
a multi variable system to be solved simultaneously, not pairs. you're
getting back to the pairs, although i think you agreed and believe
this is a multi variable problem.
comparing MN to CE doesn't eliminate CE; it's comparing EVERYBODY at
once ELIMINATES CE.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 7/5/2011 1:57 PM, heyguys wrote:
why not just say 23 and make your pt? :-)
bob
SliceAndDice
> On Jul 4, 8:08 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 13:05:42 +1000, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> > >> On Jul 4, 10:35 pm, "Wile E. Coyote" <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>> The Navratilova-Evert rivalry was one of the greatest with
> > >>> Navratilova winning their head to head meetings 43> 37.
>
> > >>> Each won 18 grand slams, But few would rank Evert equal to or above
> > >>> Navratilova.
>
> > >>> This sorta of resembles Nadal/Federer situation, except their head to
> > >>> head meetings 17> 8 so far, and by the looks of upcoming tournaments
> > >>> they will be meeting more often :)
>
> > >>> Correct me if I am wrong, I have not heard or read one commentator or
> > >>> others say Evert is better or greater than Navratilova even though
> > >>> their slam count is the same.
>
> > >>> The head to head meetings is what counts with the Navratilova/Evert
> > >>> and determination of who is greatest/best.
>
> > >>> Nadal > Federer in their head to head meetings 17> 8 or if the count
> > >>> is slam meetings it is Nadal > Federer 7> 2.
>
> > >> them to Evertilova? Also, Navratilova's Wimbledon dominance is the
> > >> main reason she is considered greater than Evert, IMO.
>
> > >Yes. As Navratilova said: "Wimbledon, and winning Wimbledon, is everything, and
> > >I mean everything, in tennis."
>
> > how does a fedfan sleep at night knowing that?
> > speaking of that, goodnight!
>
> Nadal earned his 10 slams by beating 1st tier Federer, and Federer's
> main rival was 2nd or 3rd Tier Roddick.
> however he is not tier 1 for sure then or ever.)
>
> Goolagong Cawley, Virginia Ruzici, Sue Barker, Betty Stove, Rosemary
> Cosales, H. Stove, Hana Mandlikova, Wendy Tumbuill.
> Has any one heard of any of the above Evert went through to win her
> slams; are any a tier 1 or 2 player?
>
> Nadal's "lopsided rival" was 1st tier Federer, and Federer's rival was
> tierr 2 or 3 Roddick.
>
> I have never heard of Evert in the same breath as MN, only to say that
> MN dominated Evert, and this is even with Evert's slam count.
> Maybe it's also because Evert only faced tier 2-3 players when she was
> the dominant one, until MN came along.
>
> This situation is much like Nadal/Federer.
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
Umm..Nadal won 6 of his slams on clay, where Federer is a tier 2 or 3
player at best. 1 of his Wimbledons is against Berdych, who is
what..tier 10? So his only 2 GOAT level slams are Wimbledon 2008 and
AO 2009. Case dismissed.
heyguys
MN has the edge for sure, but it's only a slight one. She was lucky
to get a cake walk draw at 1990 W, otherwise she would have been stuck
at 17.
bob
wrote:
if everything were reversed, but chris had beaten MN 10-4 in slam
finals the MN/chris discussions would be a 1 way street - in the other
direction. people would always be saying, "yes, MN won a lot, luckily
she avoided chris."
>MN's huge Wimbledon advantage is, by itself, sufficient to explain MN's
>legacy advantage over Evert.
>
>>> when they have
>>> equal slams, how on earth can it bring a player involved (like fed) down
>>> to the level of someone he has MORE and BETTER slam mix than (like
>>> Sampras), when Sampras wasn't even the guy who beat fed out H2H?
>>
>> who's talking about sampras?
>
>you, of course. that's your whole agenda. You want to tear down fed so
>as to equalize him with Sampras. to throw open the goat discussion and
>sneak pete back into it.
wimbledon king, YE #1 king and 2 slams behind leader keeps you in the
disucssion, if not in the majority. should fed win an 2nd FO or a 7th
Wimbledon going thru rafa, sampras IMO would be totally out of
discussion.
>>> Beggars belief, which is why it hasn't happened.
>>>
>>>> that is my position all along. this is where you're
>>>> going astray...
>>>
>>> not going astray. i understand fully how desperate sampras fans eager to
>>> reinsert sampras into the goat discussion have tried to cite fed's H2h
>>> vs nadal as somehow canceling out fed's slam advantage and bringing him
>>> back down to pete's level.
>>
>> forget pete's level, federer's level is the concern.
>
>can't forget pete's level, because that's the agenda here.
i'm beginning to think denigrating sampras is more important to your
agenda than what you perceive is my agenda to prop him up. i'm talking
all about fed here, you bring up pete.
> If you can
>convince others that Fed's H2H vs Nadal is somehow equivalent to
>subtracting a couple slams from Fed's legacy, well then voila, he and
>Sampras are equal and Sampras is back in goat discussion.
>it's absurd, but that's the agenda.
>
>>> but, there's no evidence that this has or ever will happened. Not a
>>> smidgen. Pete left the GOAT race 2 years ago and will never be revived.
>>> Sorry about that ...
>>
>> say sorry to pete, not to me.
>
>no, just you. if i ever met pete again (ran into him once in Tampa right
>after his first W win in 1993) i'd do again what i did that one time -
>congratulate him, but this time on his awe-inspiring career not just the
>W win.
would you also tell him you always preached agassi had a better career
than him, until fed took over that burden? :-)
>>>> nadal's not GOAT. not nearly. not yet. this is about fed.
>>>
>>> how can MN/Evert say anything about fed when the conditions are
>>> obviously not the same - MN/Evert have equal slam wins, and Evert, the
>>> player dominated H2H, has far FEWER Wimbledon than MN?
>>
>> the conditions are neer identical. but the MN/evert slam finals sticks
>> with us. people cannot even say MN w/out mentioning CE, and it's
>> always a 1-way street kind of discussion.
>
>bob, they are CLEARLY nowhere near identical. Fed has far more slams
>than Nadal, and Fed has far more Wimbledons than Nadal. In contrast,
>Evert and MN have the same slam total, and the partner dominated H2H,
>Evert, has far FEWER wimbledon wins.
>Mac and Borg is the obvious comparison point.
>
>>> the only relevant analogy is borg/mac. that fits because like fed, borg
>>> has more slam wins and more wimbledons than the guy who 'mastered' him
>>> H2H. And what borg/mac tells us is that H2H fades out completely as a
>>> legacy factor.
>>
>> borg/mac would fit better if they played one heckuva lot more. 7-2 is
>> a lot closer to 10-4 in the memory bank than 3-1. and even then,
>> people just hated mac's guts and wouldnt' acknowledge it. kind of like
>> asking geovanna her opinion of nadal.
>
>silly. even though nadal and fed played much more, it's still only the
>#2 H2H rivalry in men's tennis history. on the men's side, in the mind
>of the tennis community, Mac/Borg is THE rivalry, and everyone knows Mac
>mastered Borg and made him quit.
mac borg played 4 slam finals, not that many. of course mac was
gaining steam when borg left. the reason it's #1 is because of the
UNBELIEVABLE entertainment value it provided, tennis height of
popularity, height of tennis personalities, etc...
>And yet .... Borg > Mac in all legacy standings. It's crystal clear:
>mac/borg is nearly completely analogous, and yet it shows that H2H has
>no lasting impact.
>And, if it has no lasting impact *for the guy who actually won the H2H
>battle*, like mac, how on earth can it possibly help a 3rd party, like
>Sampras? LMAO.
it clearly hurt borg (that is, those people not in love with borg who
were willing to be impartial), which helps any 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 100th
party.
>>> yes, it remains in our memories of great matches/rivalries, but as a
>>> legacy factor that actually impacts rankings, it's meaningless. Borg is
>>> clearly ahead of Mac in all legacy standings, and Borg's stature vs
>>> other all-time greats like nadal/fed/laver/sampras is EXACTLY the same
>>> as if he'd lost those W/USO finals to players other than Mac.
>>> You've NEVER been able to show a SINGLE player whose legacy standing is
>>> anything but where his SLAM RECORD says it would be.
>>
>> lendl.
>
>what about lendl? Lendl had H2H over some guys at slams (like Mac), but
>was beaten H2H by others (Becker, Connors) and yet others he more or
>less split with (Edberg).
>Now, had Lendl won some of those H2H battles, like against Connors and
>Becker, sure, his legacy would be much greater. BUT, only because it
>would mean he'd have 3-4 more slam wins. At least 2 more USOs and a
>Wimbledon. That's a lot of legacy value there.
bob
bob
kind of what i've been saying. definitely no "clear cut" GOAT really.
i said 3 yrs ago, if nadal keeps beating fed in slams (which he did),
GOAT in tennis would be as relevant as a ham sandwich scuba diving.
bob
bob
wrote:
because evert won an unbelieveale amount of matches before MN came
near her peak.
>They played during the same eras. Evert has the higher match winning
>percentage. Equal number of slams. MN has slightly more singles
>titles. H2H MN won 53% of matches, while skipping surfaces later in
>her career in which she had a losing record against Evert. Slam
>finals are the big problem for Evert, but a disproportionate number
>were played on MN's best surface and Evert's worst. Yes, MN was out
>of shape when she was younger, but Evert skipped her best slam during
>her peak (both their own faults), often only playing two slams a
>year.
CE was an earlier bloomer than MN, frequently the case with baseliners
VS s/v players. CE was 2 yrs older. CE won 12 slams before MN won her
3rd - but after that 3rd, she steamrolled her. MN got very fit/strong
and it was a punishment after that.
yet chris was IMO fitter and better than ever....just my opinion. i
watched it quite a lot.
bob
bob
wrote:
you are seeing it black/white, i'm seeing plenty of shades of gray.
this is a multi variable equation to me, not groups of pairs.
bob
bob
wrote:
i was responding to someone else's post about MN/chris tv show, i
didnt' see the show, didn't know or hear of it, just responding why
one might exist.
>btw, were mac and carillo blathering about nadal being BOOE or whatever
>after his loss to joker the other day? tat shows you how long-lasting that kind of blather is.
yet with < fed's slams, if nadal beats fed/djok another time or two,
they'll talk about it again. i didn't hear them talking about fed
after Wim either.
bob
DavidW
> On Jul 5, 4:49 pm, pltrg...@xhost.org wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 08:31:54 -0700 (PDT), "Wile E. Coyote"
>> <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Actually, MN > Evert because she has 9 Wimbledons to 3 for Chris.
>>>>> That's the difference, a better slam mix.
>>
>>>> That is the critical point.
>>
>>>> It doesn't sit well with those of us
>>>> who favor clay and the FO, but it's fact.
>>
>>> That's your opinion and is not "fact".
>>
>> That nine is greater than three is indeed a fact.
>>
>> That most of the tennis world considers W > USO > FO wins is another
>> fact.
>>
>> That most of the tennis world considers Martina's slam mix more of an
>> achievement than Chris's slam mix is yet another fact.
>>
>> You can go ahead and put those facts together any way your tiny
>> little mind will permit.
>>
>
> to get a cake walk draw at 1990 W, otherwise she would have been stuck
> at 17.
And, more important, stuck on 8.