info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
An era of geniuses
6 views
Skip to first unread message
grif
Nov 22, 2011, 12:27:24 PM11/22/11
to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/nov/22/djokovic-berdych-atp-world-tour-finals
Swiss Genius, Topspin Genius, Junkball Genius, Elastic Genius. What an era,
spoilt for choice.
Swiss Genius, Topspin Genius, Junkball Genius, Elastic Genius. What an era,
spoilt for choice.
Whisper
Nov 22, 2011, 9:37:03 PM11/22/11
to
to be the best of what's around at the time.
Ulysses
Nov 22, 2011, 10:23:30 PM11/22/11
to
What bullshit.
Though I will admit Federer is not quite the genius Mac was, his
results blow away anything Mac could do on a tennis court. And Federer
was smart enough not to throw away his career after 25 by marrying a
bipolar heroin addict and by partying/drug taking 24/7. Mac is a
genius solely because of his incredible volleying. Roger has every
other shot and hits all of them except the volley better than McEnroe.
Though I will admit Federer is not quite the genius Mac was, his
results blow away anything Mac could do on a tennis court. And Federer
was smart enough not to throw away his career after 25 by marrying a
bipolar heroin addict and by partying/drug taking 24/7. Mac is a
genius solely because of his incredible volleying. Roger has every
other shot and hits all of them except the volley better than McEnroe.
SliceAndDice
Nov 22, 2011, 10:28:16 PM11/22/11
to
On Nov 23, 8:23 am, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
> What bullshit.
>
> Though I will admit Federer is not quite the genius Mac was,
I respectfully disagree.
> What bullshit.
>
> Though I will admit Federer is not quite the genius Mac was,
felangey
Nov 22, 2011, 10:33:12 PM11/22/11
to
>I respectfully disagree.
I disrespect the respect in your disagreement. ;)
I disrespect the respect in your disagreement. ;)
Ulysses
Nov 22, 2011, 10:33:58 PM11/22/11
to
I just think Mac had the one shot, the volley, which was so sublime
and so much greater than anyone elses. He wielded his racket like no
one else, not even God Fed. But they're close!
and so much greater than anyone elses. He wielded his racket like no
one else, not even God Fed. But they're close!
Ulysses
Nov 22, 2011, 10:35:40 PM11/22/11
to
And also remember Mac was much more mentally strong than Fed. Did he
choke matches at W. when up 2 sets to nobody's like Jo-Willie? Did he
choke matches up match points?
No.
choke matches at W. when up 2 sets to nobody's like Jo-Willie? Did he
choke matches up match points?
No.
SliceAndDice
Nov 22, 2011, 11:02:24 PM11/22/11
to
SliceAndDice
Nov 22, 2011, 11:02:46 PM11/22/11
to
Ali Asoag
Nov 22, 2011, 11:17:26 PM11/22/11
to
On 11/22/2011 8:23 PM, Ulysses wrote:
> What bullshit.
>
> Though I will admit Federer is not quite the genius Mac was,
Yet Mac himself said he wished he would have some of FEd's shots ...
> What bullshit.
>
> Though I will admit Federer is not quite the genius Mac was,
Court_1
Nov 22, 2011, 11:21:31 PM11/22/11
to
Federer is more so. However, keep in mind that I am a HUGE Borg lover
and I never liked McEnroe and his behavior on court so I am admittedly
biased.
SliceAndDice
Nov 22, 2011, 11:27:44 PM11/22/11
to
the most talented player I have ever seen.
Joe Ramirez
Nov 22, 2011, 11:35:47 PM11/22/11
to
On Nov 22, 10:35 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
> And also remember Mac was much more mentally strong than Fed.
Federer has a better winning percentage in slam finals than McEnroe
> And also remember Mac was much more mentally strong than Fed.
(16-7 vs. 7-4). There is no more meaningful indicator of mental
strength in tennis. E.g., Lendl was cast as a sorry choker or a poor
big-match player at various times in his career, despite his overall
dominance, precisely because his record in slam finals was poor. Fed
trails Sampras and Nadal in winning percentage but is ahead of Borg
(who also leads McEnroe).
Court_1
Nov 22, 2011, 11:38:50 PM11/22/11
to
Superdave
Nov 23, 2011, 1:25:05 AM11/23/11
to
Superdave
Nov 23, 2011, 1:27:41 AM11/23/11
to
But, Borg was a FAR better tennis player overall, as is Roger as Uly
elaborated..
Superdave
Nov 23, 2011, 1:28:06 AM11/23/11
to
felangey
Nov 23, 2011, 11:45:09 AM11/23/11
to
>Federer has a better winning percentage in slam finals than McEnroe
(16-7 vs. 7-4). There is no more meaningful indicator of mental
strength in tennis.
Is it meaningful though? You can't play your best final every time....and I
(16-7 vs. 7-4). There is no more meaningful indicator of mental
strength in tennis.
wouldn't say it was always mental.
Joe Ramirez
Nov 23, 2011, 11:55:24 AM11/23/11
to
physical condition and talent, no matter what metric is used. In other
words, nothing in tennis is solely mental (except perhaps a short
stretch of extreme choking, such as multiple double faults in a match
game). No test really enables us to isolate mental strength. However,
if you can't focus in slam finals and produce close to your best
tennis most of the time, then you have no genuine claim to mental
strength. Conversely, if you *do* play top-level tennis most of the
time in slam finals, then it's silly to be diagnosed as lacking mental
strength, since the point of the mental game is to empower the
physical game in the biggest matches.
Ulysses
Nov 23, 2011, 12:15:05 PM11/23/11
to
The people dissing Mac in this thread probably weren't even born when
he was playing tennis in his prime.
It's amusing that throughout this entire year, tennis pundits have
been asking whether Djoker's 2011 is superior to Mac's 1984 year.
Sure, Nole's stats are better because he bagged three slams. No one
alive (or dead, for that matter), could possibly argue that Nole is
the "better player" than McEnroe was in 1984. McEnroe's tennis genius
in 1984 was mind boggling.
Fed is the only other tennis genius of the open era, IMO. No one else
is even in the discussion. Pete's record is awesome, but he was not a
tennis genius, as even he would admit.
Citing that Fed's career resume is stronger than McEnroe doesn't thus
"prove" he's a greater tennis genius than Mac. The whole concept is
empheral and nebulous. But you know a genius when you see him.
McEnroe's sublime volleying is arguably greater and more beautiful (if
that's possible), than anything Roger does on court. The rest of his
game doesn't remotely hold up.
But Mac also doesn't have the holes in his game that Roger has, didn't
have brain cramps in matches, didn't choke or wilt. he self destructed
because of his flagrantly wanton lifestyle, drug taking and marrying a
neurotic, bipolar, drug-addicted wastrel. Thank God Rog married a
steady, reliable, mature woman in Mirka. No drama!
he was playing tennis in his prime.
It's amusing that throughout this entire year, tennis pundits have
been asking whether Djoker's 2011 is superior to Mac's 1984 year.
Sure, Nole's stats are better because he bagged three slams. No one
alive (or dead, for that matter), could possibly argue that Nole is
the "better player" than McEnroe was in 1984. McEnroe's tennis genius
in 1984 was mind boggling.
Fed is the only other tennis genius of the open era, IMO. No one else
is even in the discussion. Pete's record is awesome, but he was not a
tennis genius, as even he would admit.
Citing that Fed's career resume is stronger than McEnroe doesn't thus
"prove" he's a greater tennis genius than Mac. The whole concept is
empheral and nebulous. But you know a genius when you see him.
McEnroe's sublime volleying is arguably greater and more beautiful (if
that's possible), than anything Roger does on court. The rest of his
game doesn't remotely hold up.
But Mac also doesn't have the holes in his game that Roger has, didn't
have brain cramps in matches, didn't choke or wilt. he self destructed
because of his flagrantly wanton lifestyle, drug taking and marrying a
neurotic, bipolar, drug-addicted wastrel. Thank God Rog married a
steady, reliable, mature woman in Mirka. No drama!
felangey
Nov 23, 2011, 12:20:38 PM11/23/11
to
> Is it meaningful though? You can't play your best final every time....and
> I
> wouldn't say it was always mental.
>It's impossible to disaggregate mental strength from factors such as
physical condition and talent, no matter what metric is used. In other
words, nothing in tennis is solely mental (except perhaps a short
stretch of extreme choking, such as multiple double faults in a match
game). No test really enables us to isolate mental strength. However,
if you can't focus in slam finals and produce close to your best
tennis most of the time, then you have no genuine claim to mental
strength. Conversely, if you *do* play top-level tennis most of the
time in slam finals, then it's silly to be diagnosed as lacking mental
strength, since the point of the mental game is to empower the
physical game in the biggest matches.
I just think it is a pretty futile exercise across the board. Look at Murray
> I
> wouldn't say it was always mental.
>It's impossible to disaggregate mental strength from factors such as
physical condition and talent, no matter what metric is used. In other
words, nothing in tennis is solely mental (except perhaps a short
stretch of extreme choking, such as multiple double faults in a match
game). No test really enables us to isolate mental strength. However,
if you can't focus in slam finals and produce close to your best
tennis most of the time, then you have no genuine claim to mental
strength. Conversely, if you *do* play top-level tennis most of the
time in slam finals, then it's silly to be diagnosed as lacking mental
strength, since the point of the mental game is to empower the
physical game in the biggest matches.
for example. He gets bad crit for having powder puff mental strength on the
big occasions...and yet on all 3 occassions in gs finals he has met what I
would classify as "simply a better player". Someone, like you say, peaking
both physically and mentally in their own superior game. Is he a mental
weakling? The concensus of opinion seems to be in the affirmative.....and
yet I have begun to think that Murray is by-and-large the
constant....without another gear. He probably did the best he could against
the player he faced in those finals.
It's a muddy puddle at best....but I would agree that we can say people like
Fed, Nadal and now Djoke do have the characteristics of good mental
strength....bringing their best tennis to the big occassions. Like you
mention, there is more to it than that - talent, preperation and scheduling
etc - so it's always going to be a stab in the dark as to how much of a role
mental strength plays.
Joe Ramirez
Nov 23, 2011, 12:27:16 PM11/23/11
to
On Nov 23, 12:15 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>
> Citing that Fed's career resume is stronger than McEnroe doesn't thus
> "prove" he's a greater tennis genius than Mac. The whole concept is
> empheral and nebulous. But you know a genius when you see him.
> McEnroe's sublime volleying is arguably greater and more beautiful (if
> that's possible), than anything Roger does on court. The rest of his
> game doesn't remotely hold up.
>
> But Mac also doesn't have the holes in his game that Roger has,
Bizarre claim, and also inconsistent with the preceding paragraph (the
>
> Citing that Fed's career resume is stronger than McEnroe doesn't thus
> "prove" he's a greater tennis genius than Mac. The whole concept is
> empheral and nebulous. But you know a genius when you see him.
> McEnroe's sublime volleying is arguably greater and more beautiful (if
> that's possible), than anything Roger does on court. The rest of his
> game doesn't remotely hold up.
>
> But Mac also doesn't have the holes in his game that Roger has,
nonvolleying parts of Mac's game don't "remotely hold up" to Fed's,
yet Federer has "holes" in his game that Mac doesn't?).
TT
Nov 23, 2011, 12:32:24 PM11/23/11
to
23.11.2011 19:15, Ulysses kirjoitti:
> But Mac also doesn't have the holes in his game that Roger has, didn't
> have brain cramps in matches,
Lol, you can fit planets through his bh. Fed's bh is better than Mac's.
> But Mac also doesn't have the holes in his game that Roger has, didn't
> have brain cramps in matches,
TT
Nov 23, 2011, 12:33:46 PM11/23/11
to
Pelle Svanslös
Nov 23, 2011, 12:46:34 PM11/23/11
to
On 23.11.2011 18:15, Ulysses wrote:
> McEnroe's sublime volleying is arguably greater and more beautiful (if
> that's possible),
Volleys are the easiest shots in tennis. Just hold the racquet still and
> McEnroe's sublime volleying is arguably greater and more beautiful (if
> that's possible),
let the ball hit it. Duh.
Not much talent involved in those.
--
http://memedepot.com/uploads/2000/2098_steamboat.gif
reilloc
Nov 23, 2011, 1:05:15 PM11/23/11
to
On 11/23/2011 11:46 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 23.11.2011 18:15, Ulysses wrote:
>> McEnroe's sublime volleying is arguably greater and more beautiful (if
>> that's possible),
>
> Volleys are the easiest shots in tennis. Just hold the racquet still and
> let the ball hit it. Duh.
>
> Not much talent involved in those.
>
Nobody's complimented you on your insight. Do you wonder why?
> On 23.11.2011 18:15, Ulysses wrote:
>> McEnroe's sublime volleying is arguably greater and more beautiful (if
>> that's possible),
>
> Volleys are the easiest shots in tennis. Just hold the racquet still and
> let the ball hit it. Duh.
>
> Not much talent involved in those.
>
LNC
Pelle Svanslös
Nov 23, 2011, 1:15:19 PM11/23/11
to
jdeluise
Nov 23, 2011, 1:18:03 PM11/23/11
to
On 23-Nov-2011, lost <pe...@svans.los> wrote:
> Volleys are the easiest shots in tennis. Just hold the racquet still and
> let the ball hit it. Duh.
>
> Not much talent involved in those.
Pelle Svanslös
Nov 23, 2011, 1:31:19 PM11/23/11
to
--
http://memedepot.com/uploads/2000/2098_steamboat.gif
arnab.z@gmail
Nov 23, 2011, 1:27:24 PM11/23/11
to
followed this "technique".
Superdave
Nov 23, 2011, 7:41:00 PM11/23/11
to
Mac being a win at any and all cost KILLER was in fact better prepared to do so
than Roger who has been knows to wilt and go on walkabouts in a big match which
is something Mac would never do.
undecided
Nov 24, 2011, 12:02:25 PM11/24/11
to
Obviously you don't play otherwise you would not be making those silly statements. Volleying is much harder because you have 1/2 the time to react. If it was the easiest shot everyone would be doing it all the time. The other component of volleying you're missing is that if you don't hit a volley well you will most likely lose the point. If you don't hit a ground stroke well, you can still retrieve and stay in the point.
Pelle Svanslös
Nov 24, 2011, 1:22:00 PM11/24/11
to
On 24.11.2011 18:02, undecided wrote:
> Obviously you don't play otherwise you would not be making those silly statements.
> Volleying is much harder because you have 1/2 the time to react.
Duh. You compensate for that by "just holding the racquet still and
> Obviously you don't play otherwise you would not be making those silly statements.
> Volleying is much harder because you have 1/2 the time to react.
letting the ball hit it". That's why there's NO backswing in a good volley.
Otherwise, the argument goes both ways! How elementary can this be!
> If it was the easiest
> shot everyone would be doing it all the time.
> The other component of volleying you're missing
> is that if you don't hit a volley well you will most likely lose the point.
--
http://memedepot.com/uploads/2000/2098_steamboat.gif
0 new messages