Will Whisperboobs ever recover?

[soccerfan777]

Nadal is better and greater than Sampras now

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:23:13 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777
<zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Nadal is better and greater than Sampras now

nothing to recover from. i hope nadal keeps on going. sampras
accomplished what he wanted to and broke a many decades old slam race,
and century old wimbledon race.

bob

[jdeluise]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:39:12 -0400, bob wrote:

> nothing to recover from. i hope nadal keeps on going. sampras
> accomplished what he wanted to and broke a many decades old slam race,
> and century old wimbledon race.

But according to *skriptis' new system, Pete has a fat 0...

[bob]

pete has 14 slams, 7 wimbledons. earned during a day when slams were
scarce. nothing to worry about.

bob

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

It's a surface versatility meter.
--

[John Liang]

So Sampras was as versatile as say Kafelnikov.

[The Iceberg]

No, know you are still learning about tennis, but as usual, you've got it a bit wrong. Sampras was so Great he INVENTED the slam chase race, before him, Emmerson had the most slams and nobody called him the GOAT. Sampras could've got way more than 14, but retired after breaking the record and didn't even know he was playing for 2 years. Most importantly he got the 6 consecutive years record.

[John Liang]

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 8:09:48 AM UTC+10, The Iceberg wrote:
> No, know you are still learning about tennis, but as usual, you've got it a bit wrong. Sampras was so Great he INVENTED the slam chase race, before him, Emmerson had the most slams and nobody called him the GOAT. Sampras could've got way more than 14, but retired after breaking the record and didn't even know he was playing for 2 years. Most importantly he got the 6 consecutive years record.

Sampras never invent anything just like you didn't invent Burger King burgers. Sampras could have .... Could have means nothing.

[soccerfan777]

Who gives a shit whether he invented any race. He is behind it now and been surpassed by two of them.

And Whisper thy master says nothing is important except slams. So no one cares about ye#1 record.

[*skriptis]

John Liang <jlia...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Kafelnikov
is 0,2.

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[*skriptis]

soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Who gives a shit whether he invented any race. He is behind it now and been surpassed by two of them.
>
> And Whisper thy master says nothing is important except slams. So no one cares about ye#1 record.
>

Loser

[soccerfan777]

Faggot!

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:32:04 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777
<zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Faggot!

there's something wrong with you.

bob

[*skriptis]

bob <b...@nospam.net> Wrote in message:

These "faggot" insults are especially hilarious coming from
someone who posts "It's nothing wrong with it".

Similar to that deranged feminist here saying "Halep had no balls".

These freaks are joke.

[soccerfan777]

I know it is a sad day for you. You can live in denial for sometime but you will have to eventually accept it. Sampras is no longer relevant. The only record he had of any significance was 14 slams and now even that is surpassed by not one but two champions!

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 17:55:24 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777

<zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 6:19:26 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:32:04 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777
>> <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Faggot!
>>
>> there's something wrong with you.
>>
>> bob
>
>I know it is a sad day for you. You can live in denial for sometime but you will have to eventually accept it. Sampras is no longer relevant. The only record he had of any significance was 14 slams and now even that is surpassed by not one but two champions!

you're an idiot, i like nadal and he's my favorite player of the past
decade easily. in fact, probably like him better than sampras. this
isn't a sad day by any stretch and i hope he continues to win.

sampras was once the slam champ, and is still the wimbledon king for
now. lendl? cried never winning a wimbledon. like you.

bob

[soccerfan777]

No baaaaab, you don't care about Nadal. You just luuuuv Sampras, MCenroe and Whisper

[SliceAndDice]

Slams were scarce? Where were they hiding?

[*skriptis]

soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Sampras no longer relevant?

Guy is number 1 in combined Wimbledon, US Open and year end number
1 stat open era.

Some irrelevance. LOL

[John Liang]

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 12:30:03 AM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
> soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 6:19:26 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:32:04 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777
> >> <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Faggot!
> >>
> >> there's something wrong with you.
> >>
> >> bob
> >
> > I know it is a sad day for you. You can live in denial for sometime but you will have to eventually accept it. Sampras is no longer relevant. The only record he had of any significance was 14 slams and now even that is surpassed by not one but two champions!
>
>
> Sampras no longer relevant?

According to your versatility score he get a zero, is that score relevant ？

>
> Guy is number 1 in combined Wimbledon, US Open and year end number
> 1 stat open era.

Well, his record at Wimbledon is behind Federer right now, he is marginally ahead of Federer at USO, he still has YE No.1 record but is behind Federer in term of weeks at NO.1. Combine them all he is behind Federer.

[Guypers]

N



18 >>15>14!!!!!!!!!
LOL

[Carey]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 3:27:34 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> No baaaaab, you don't care about Nadal. You just luuuuv Sampras, MCenroe and Whisper

it's always and only LimpyLuv for bnb

[stephenJ]

Maybe not for you, since none of those 14 slams were yours, LOL. But
Pete's ultimate goal was to beat history, and become GOAT. In his time,
he just about achieved that. I'd bet that circa 2004, Sampras would have
gotten more GOAT votes than anyone, with Laver picking up the balance.

But, Pete didn't just want to beat history, he wanted to then reign as
GOAT for as long as possible. I bet he probably expected to die a very
old man and still have the slam record, and thus GOAT status.

To lose both within a decade of retirement must have been a very bitter
pill, and Nadal pushing him into 3rd on the Open Era GOAT list adds salt
to the wound.

In the end, for all he accomplished, Pete failed. He wanted to be, right
now, in 2017, regarded as the greatest tennis player ever, and he isn't,
and never will be again.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Guypers]

Probabably hearing Novak's footsteps, Doppler effect?

[Patrick Kehoe]

Hardly. Pete Sampras was a great champion and a legend of tennis. Nothing about him has changed in that sense. It's quite disingenuous or foolish to imply Sampras isn't still considered a legend, one of the all time greats in tennis.

P

[*skriptis]

stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> Wrote in message:

That's too harsh.

I see two problems with Sampras. He didn't understand history.

It's obvious he was complacent after winning 7th Wimbledon, but he
shouldn't have been as he didn't own record. He shared it with
Renshaw. Now both of them share it with Federer.



Second, 14 slams is big, but it's unrealistic to think it was a
strong record. If he felt it, he was again, ignorant.


You just needed to take a look at former greats, their careers and
many slams they've missed during their careers. From Tilden,
Laver, Borg, you name it.


But his Wimbledon, US Open, number 1 record is still the strongest
one. At worst he shares top spot.

[stephenJ]

I think he did, but let's see ...

> It's obvious he was complacent after winning 7th Wimbledon, but he
> shouldn't have been as he didn't own record. He shared it with
> Renshaw. Now both of them share it with Federer.

Serena is kind of a victim of something, racism maybe? Or maybe just the
belief that she can do it? But whatever, Margaret Court's record of 24
slams was basically NEVER mentioned during the 20 years when Graf had
22. Graf was always talked about as the slam record holder, stuff that
happened before the Open era just wasn't considered valid, even though
IMO it should have been. Now that Serena has passed Graf, Court for some
mysterious reason has gotten mentioned for her 24 a lot more than she
used to. It's almost as if for some, the goalposts have suddenly moved.
And this has come at a time when Court's reputation is at a low ebb
because of her strident anti-gay rhetoric in recent years. Go figure?

Point is: Pete had every reason to ignore Renshaw, because everyone else
did too. Nobody regarded Ws won in the 1880s as valid to compare with
open era achievements. And nobody does now, either. Sampras is regarded
as sharing the record with Fed, not Renshaw.

> Second, 14 slams is big, but it's unrealistic to think it was a
> strong record. If he felt it, he was again, ignorant.

I don't blame Pete for stopping at 14. First, in 2002, 14 was an immense
number. Nobody else had won more than 11, and that had happened 21 years
earlier. After that, nobody had topped 8. To win 14 slams wasn't just
barely creeping past, it was lapping the field.

Second, IMO, he won all the slams he could, so if there's any basis for
not being bitter, it's just that - he won all he could. From 2000-2002,
when he wasn't winning anything, Pete had a very consistent answer for
why he kept playing. It was always that he felt he had "one slam left in
me". Not two or three or four, one. And he did.

It just turned out not to be good enough. He should have stuck around
longer, focused more on winning more.

> But his Wimbledon, US Open, number 1 record is still the strongest
> one. At worst he shares top spot.

But sadly, W and USO and #1 doesn't add up to GOAT.

[Whisper]

On 14/06/2017 12:59 AM, John Liang wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 12:30:03 AM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
>> soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>> On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 6:19:26 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:32:04 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777
>>>> <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Faggot!
>>>>
>>>> there's something wrong with you.
>>>>
>>>> bob
>>>
>>> I know it is a sad day for you. You can live in denial for sometime but you will have to eventually accept it. Sampras is no longer relevant. The only record he had of any significance was 14 slams and now even that is surpassed by not one but two champions!
>>
>>
>> Sampras no longer relevant?
>
> According to your versatility score he get a zero, is that score relevant ？
>
>
>>
>> Guy is number 1 in combined Wimbledon, US Open and year end number
>> 1 stat open era.
>
> Well, his record at Wimbledon is behind Federer right now, he is marginally ahead of Federer at USO,

No man has ever won more Wimbledons than Sampras, & he was unbeatable in
Wimbledon finals.

No other guy can make these claims.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[John Liang]

7 wins and 3 finals is better performance than 7 wins and 1 semi. And Sampras never made an 8th, 9th or 10th final.

[*skriptis]

John Liang <jlia...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 8:24:54 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
>> On 14/06/2017 12:59 AM, John Liang wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 12:30:03 AM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
>> >> soccerfan777 <zepf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> >>> On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 6:19:26 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:
>> >>>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:32:04 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777
>> >>>> <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Faggot!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> there's something wrong with you.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> bob
>> >>>
>> >>> I know it is a sad day for you. You can live in denial for sometime but you will have to eventually accept it. Sampras is no longer relevant. The only record he had of any significance was 14 slams and now even that is surpassed by not one but two champions!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sampras no longer relevant?
>> >

>> > According to your versatility score he get a zero, is that score relevant ?

>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Guy is number 1 in combined Wimbledon, US Open and year end number
>> >> 1 stat open era.
>> >
>> > Well, his record at Wimbledon is behind Federer right now, he is marginally ahead of Federer at USO,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No man has ever won more Wimbledons than Sampras, & he was unbeatable in
>> Wimbledon finals.
>
> 7 wins and 3 finals is better performance than 7 wins and 1 semi. And Sampras never made an 8th, 9th or 10th final.

Yes. But the thing is Sampras didn't play as much as Federer.

[The Iceberg]

Wish I had invented Burger King burgers!

[*skriptis]

The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Wish I had invented Burger King burgers!
>

Hahaha

[bob]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 12:22:06 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 6/11/2017 1:57 PM, bob wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 18:43:56 GMT, jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:39:12 -0400, bob wrote:
>>>
>>>> nothing to recover from. i hope nadal keeps on going. sampras
>>>> accomplished what he wanted to and broke a many decades old slam race,
>>>> and century old wimbledon race.
>>>
>>> But according to *skriptis' new system, Pete has a fat 0...
>>
>> pete has 14 slams, 7 wimbledons. earned during a day when slams were
>> scarce. nothing to worry about.
>
>Maybe not for you, since none of those 14 slams were yours, LOL. But
>Pete's ultimate goal was to beat history, and become GOAT.

that might've been his goal by 1998, but not in the beginning. and
yet, he achieved it.

> In his time,
>he just about achieved that. I'd bet that circa 2004, Sampras would have
>gotten more GOAT votes than anyone, with Laver picking up the balance.
>But, Pete didn't just want to beat history, he wanted to then reign as
>GOAT for as long as possible. I bet he probably expected to die a very
>old man and still have the slam record, and thus GOAT status.

his record was broken, but he held it for a few yrs. he did achieve
it.

>To lose both within a decade of retirement must have been a very bitter
>pill, and Nadal pushing him into 3rd on the Open Era GOAT list adds salt
>to the wound.
>In the end, for all he accomplished, Pete failed. He wanted to be, right
>now, in 2017, regarded as the greatest tennis player ever, and he isn't,
>and never will be again.

14 slammer, broke a many decades old slam record, and modern day
wimbledon record holder "failed?" when his main goal was to win
wimbledons?

haha. no way.

bob

[bob]

i've noticed the same. not glaringly, but it's there.

>Point is: Pete had every reason to ignore Renshaw, because everyone else
>did too. Nobody regarded Ws won in the 1880s as valid to compare with
>open era achievements. And nobody does now, either. Sampras is regarded
>as sharing the record with Fed, not Renshaw.
>
>> Second, 14 slams is big, but it's unrealistic to think it was a
>> strong record. If he felt it, he was again, ignorant.
>
>I don't blame Pete for stopping at 14. First, in 2002, 14 was an immense
>number. Nobody else had won more than 11, and that had happened 21 years
>earlier. After that, nobody had topped 8. To win 14 slams wasn't just
>barely creeping past, it was lapping the field.
>
>Second, IMO, he won all the slams he could, so if there's any basis for
>not being bitter, it's just that - he won all he could. From 2000-2002,
>when he wasn't winning anything, Pete had a very consistent answer for
>why he kept playing. It was always that he felt he had "one slam left in
>me". Not two or three or four, one. And he did.
>
>It just turned out not to be good enough. He should have stuck around
>longer, focused more on winning more.
>
>> But his Wimbledon, US Open, number 1 record is still the strongest
>> one. At worst he shares top spot.
>
>But sadly, W and USO and #1 doesn't add up to GOAT.

no, but they did at 1 day.

bob

[*skriptis]

Nobody talks about Laver's 200 singles titles. The number is just
so out of touch with this era.

Some instead of portraying Serena as the victim, it's more likely
Court was partially victim of ceibs. Nobody broke her record and
Graf has won so much with better Wimbledon mix so they kinda
"dismissed" Court.

Once Serena came closer, naturally Court's record grew in
significance.



--

[stephenJ]

I put it too harshly. E.g., maybe Bill Gates had the goal of being the
richest man in human history, and the economists say he's actually
topped out at #3 on the list. So in that sense he "failed", though of
course 99.99999999% of the world's population would love to have his
wealth level that failed to make him #1, LOL.

I do disagree with your 'main goal' concept. I think Sampras's main goal
was to be regarded as the greatest player ever. Sure, that really
doesn't conflict with winning W, because winning W and being GOAT tend
to go hand in hand. But ..... If he had 6 W and was regarded as GOAT,
he'd have taken that over 7 W and not being regarded as GOAT.

E.g., from 2000-2002, I think Pete realized that as long as he didn't
have an FO title, there would always be a significant, non-trivial
number of tennis fans/analysts/players who would never regard him as
GOAT. So during that time, I think he'd have rather won an FO than an
8th Wimbledon.

[Whisper]

On 17/06/2017 10:08 PM, stephenJ wrote:
> I put it too harshly. E.g., maybe Bill Gates had the goal of being the
> richest man in human history, and the economists say he's actually
> topped out at #3 on the list. So in that sense he "failed", though of
> course 99.99999999% of the world's population would love to have his
> wealth level that failed to make him #1, LOL.
>
> I do disagree with your 'main goal' concept. I think Sampras's main goal
> was to be regarded as the greatest player ever. Sure, that really
> doesn't conflict with winning W, because winning W and being GOAT tend
> to go hand in hand. But ..... If he had 6 W and was regarded as GOAT,
> he'd have taken that over 7 W and not being regarded as GOAT.
>
> E.g., from 2000-2002, I think Pete realized that as long as he didn't
> have an FO title, there would always be a significant, non-trivial
> number of tennis fans/analysts/players who would never regard him as
> GOAT. So during that time, I think he'd have rather won an FO than an
> 8th Wimbledon.
>
>

Maybe, but imo you never swap Wimbledon for any slam, unless it's a
trade for the grandest prize of all - calendar slam.

There are many who *only* count Wimbledon, & everything else is gravy.
If we did that we'd have an interesting open era goat list;


Sampras 7
Federer 7

Borg 5

McEnroe 3
Becker 3
Djokovic 3

Nadal 2
Edberg 2
Murray 2
Connors 2
Laver 2
Newcombe 2

These are the only guys to win Wimbledon more than once in open era, &
all have been no.1. The only greats who suffer here are Lendl &
Wilander - probably the 2 most boring no.1's in open era.






















---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[stephenJ]

On 6/17/2017 7:36 AM, Whisper wrote:
> On 17/06/2017 10:08 PM, stephenJ wrote:
>> I put it too harshly. E.g., maybe Bill Gates had the goal of being the
>> richest man in human history, and the economists say he's actually
>> topped out at #3 on the list. So in that sense he "failed", though of
>> course 99.99999999% of the world's population would love to have his
>> wealth level that failed to make him #1, LOL.
>>
>> I do disagree with your 'main goal' concept. I think Sampras's main
>> goal was to be regarded as the greatest player ever. Sure, that really
>> doesn't conflict with winning W, because winning W and being GOAT tend
>> to go hand in hand. But ..... If he had 6 W and was regarded as GOAT,
>> he'd have taken that over 7 W and not being regarded as GOAT.
>>
>> E.g., from 2000-2002, I think Pete realized that as long as he didn't
>> have an FO title, there would always be a significant, non-trivial
>> number of tennis fans/analysts/players who would never regard him as
>> GOAT. So during that time, I think he'd have rather won an FO than an
>> 8th Wimbledon.

> Maybe, but imo you never swap Wimbledon for any slam, unless it's a
> trade for the grandest prize of all - calendar slam.
>
> There are many who *only* count Wimbledon, & everything else is gravy.
> If we did that we'd have an interesting open era goat list;

If there are many who only count W, I haven't met one, not in the past
20+ years at least.

If that were the case, there'd be a significant number of analysts who
regard Sampras as Open Era GOAT or co-GOAT, and these days there
basically are zero who do so.





---

[bob]

none of us is sampras so nobody knows what he thought and when he
thought it, but i really believe he never thought about being called
the "GOAT" nor breaking any slam records until he had >10 slams.
that's way into his career.

bob

[bob]

even with 1 FO now he'd not be GOAT as fed has 18 overall plus a FO.
but IMO nobody would beat a peak sampras on normal wimbledon grass
consistently. and nobody would beat nadal on clay consistently. HC is
quite a bit more up for grabs. fed has some good claim there.

bob

[John Liang]

But we do know his decline started not in 2000 but in 1998 when he was no longer capable of winning two slam a year. His slam winning record since 1998 was 1,1,1,0,1. He would be like Federer in the last few years but certainly even less consistent than Fed, he would be hoping to catch that last slam. Think about it after 2002 he would have more challengers on the fast surface like Fed, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick not Agassi or Rafter or Pioline he was facing to win his last two Wimbledons and USO when he was well passed 31.

[Guypers]

Rno, baby Fed toyed with stimpy peak at Wimbledom, would probably beat him like a drum as he matured a la Lendl Vs Mac! Bruguera would beat stimpy on clay 1,2,2 at FO!!

[bob]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 16:20:05 -0700 (PDT), Guypers <gap...@gmail.com>
wrote:

you mean like lendl toyed with mac at wimbledon? lol. you're one wacky
guy(pers).

bob

[John Liang]

He means Lendl beating Mac 7 out of their 10 slam matches.

[undecided]

His real decline was after the back injury that caused him to pull out of USO. He was never the same after that. He was top dog up until that moment.

[Shakes]

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 8:38:59 AM UTC-7, undecided wrote:

> > But we do know his decline started not in 2000 but in 1998 when he was no longer capable of winning two slam a year. His slam winning record since 1998 was 1,1,1,0,1. He would be like Federer in the last few years but certainly even less consistent than Fed, he would be hoping to catch that last slam. Think about it after 2002 he would have more challengers on the fast surface like Fed, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick not Agassi or Rafter or Pioline he was facing to win his last two Wimbledons and USO when he was well passed 31.
>
> His real decline was after the back injury that caused him to pull out of USO. He was never the same after that. He was top dog up until that moment.

I agree. Mainly, his movement was affected. He put on weight and wasn't as quick anymore, or as explosive.

[arahim]

On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 5:36:28 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> On 17/06/2017 10:08 PM, stephenJ wrote:
> > I put it too harshly. E.g., maybe Bill Gates had the goal of being the
> > richest man in human history, and the economists say he's actually
> > topped out at #3 on the list. So in that sense he "failed", though of
> > course 99.99999999% of the world's population would love to have his
> > wealth level that failed to make him #1, LOL.
> >
> > I do disagree with your 'main goal' concept. I think Sampras's main goal
> > was to be regarded as the greatest player ever. Sure, that really
> > doesn't conflict with winning W, because winning W and being GOAT tend
> > to go hand in hand. But ..... If he had 6 W and was regarded as GOAT,
> > he'd have taken that over 7 W and not being regarded as GOAT.
> >
> > E.g., from 2000-2002, I think Pete realized that as long as he didn't
> > have an FO title, there would always be a significant, non-trivial
> > number of tennis fans/analysts/players who would never regard him as
> > GOAT. So during that time, I think he'd have rather won an FO than an
> > 8th Wimbledon.
> >
> >
>
> Maybe, but imo you never swap Wimbledon for any slam, unless it's a
> trade for the grandest prize of all - calendar slam.
>
> There are many who *only* count Wimbledon, & everything else is gravy.
> If we did that we'd have an interesting open era goat list;
>
>
> Sampras 7
> Federer 7
>

If you only count Wimbledon while both have 7 wins, Federer has an additional three finals.

Yes but who has more gravy?

> Borg 5
>
> McEnroe 3
> Becker 3
> Djokovic 3
>
> Nadal 2
> Edberg 2
> Murray 2
> Connors 2
> Laver 2
> Newcombe 2
>
> These are the only guys to win Wimbledon more than once in open era, &
> all have been no.1. The only greats who suffer here are Lendl &
> Wilander - probably the 2 most boring no.1's in open era.
>

Agassi?