info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
CONGRATS TO SERENA WILLIAMS FOR HER 7TH WIMBLY TITLE!!!
415 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul
Jul 9, 2016, 10:08:18 AM7/9/16
to
FUCK YEAH! BLACK POWER!
THIS ALSO WILL MAKE IT AN ASTOUNDING 17 YEARS BETWEEN
THIS AND HER FIRST SLAM TITLE!!!
WOW!!!
GOD IS GREAT, THANKS BE TO ALLAH!!!
:)
Guypers
Jul 9, 2016, 10:12:25 AM7/9/16
to
TT
Jul 9, 2016, 10:40:40 AM7/9/16
to
9.7.2016, 17:08, Paul kirjoitti:
> THIS ALSO WILL MAKE IT AN ASTOUNDING 17 YEARS BETWEEN
> THIS AND HER FIRST SLAM TITLE!!!
Serena > Graf
> THIS ALSO WILL MAKE IT AN ASTOUNDING 17 YEARS BETWEEN
> THIS AND HER FIRST SLAM TITLE!!!
Fact!
Paul
Jul 9, 2016, 10:43:01 AM7/9/16
to
YOU HAVE YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!
HAHA! :)
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 9, 2016, 11:05:22 AM7/9/16
to
Max
Whisper
Jul 9, 2016, 11:06:38 AM7/9/16
to
stephenJ
Jul 9, 2016, 11:32:01 AM7/9/16
to
> By what measure? She hasn't won more slams & doesn't have calendar slam.
Serena is clearly ahead of Graf. Much greater longevity, more W + USO
titles, and no 4 or 5 bonus slams thanks to a top rival getting stabbed
by a fan of hers tired of her being #2.
Add in Olympics results and doubles and it really is a rout.
If you want to argue about someone else as GOAT, you need to talk about
Court.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Whisper
Jul 9, 2016, 11:43:26 AM7/9/16
to
On 10/07/2016 1:32 AM, stephenJ wrote:
>> By what measure? She hasn't won more slams & doesn't have calendar slam.
>
> Serena is clearly ahead of Graf. Much greater longevity, more W + USO
> titles, and no 4 or 5 bonus slams thanks to a top rival getting stabbed
> by a fan of hers tired of her being #2.
>
> Add in Olympics results and doubles and it really is a rout.
>
> If you want to argue about someone else as GOAT, you need to talk about
> Court.
>
>
>
Not the way I see it. Typing words into a keyboard doesn't count as
>> By what measure? She hasn't won more slams & doesn't have calendar slam.
>
> Serena is clearly ahead of Graf. Much greater longevity, more W + USO
> titles, and no 4 or 5 bonus slams thanks to a top rival getting stabbed
> by a fan of hers tired of her being #2.
>
> Add in Olympics results and doubles and it really is a rout.
>
> If you want to argue about someone else as GOAT, you need to talk about
> Court.
>
>
>
evidence.
stephenJ
Jul 9, 2016, 12:26:04 PM7/9/16
to
Guypers
Jul 9, 2016, 12:29:25 PM7/9/16
to
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 9, 2016, 12:32:42 PM7/9/16
to
Afro-American?
Max
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 9, 2016, 12:34:13 PM7/9/16
to
On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 5:32:01 PM UTC+2, StephenJ wrote:
> > By what measure? She hasn't won more slams & doesn't have calendar slam.
>
> Serena is clearly ahead of Graf. Much greater longevity, more W + USO
> titles, and no 4 or 5 bonus slams thanks to a top rival getting stabbed
> by a fan of hers tired of her being #2.
>
Seles would have peaked at age 28-34 without the stabbing, denying Serena her 8 slams of 1999-2007.
> > By what measure? She hasn't won more slams & doesn't have calendar slam.
>
> Serena is clearly ahead of Graf. Much greater longevity, more W + USO
> titles, and no 4 or 5 bonus slams thanks to a top rival getting stabbed
> by a fan of hers tired of her being #2.
>
Max
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 9, 2016, 12:34:59 PM7/9/16
to
Max
*skriptis
Jul 9, 2016, 1:01:03 PM7/9/16
to
stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> Wrote in message:
Navratilova is imo still most legit contender.
Then Graf, Court, Serena, Evert, King, Seles.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Then Graf, Court, Serena, Evert, King, Seles.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
stephenJ
Jul 9, 2016, 1:16:38 PM7/9/16
to
stephenJ
Jul 9, 2016, 1:17:32 PM7/9/16
to
> Navratilova is imo still most legit contender.
MN was an amazing player, and my all time favorite, so hard to argue
against her, but I would bet she would tip it to Serena now.
bob
Jul 9, 2016, 2:41:10 PM7/9/16
to
bob
bob
Jul 9, 2016, 2:45:03 PM7/9/16
to
On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 10:32:00 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:
>> By what measure? She hasn't won more slams & doesn't have calendar slam.
>
>Serena is clearly ahead of Graf. Much greater longevity, more W + USO
>titles, and no 4 or 5 bonus slams thanks to a top rival getting stabbed
>by a fan of hers tired of her being #2.
>Add in Olympics results and doubles and it really is a rout.
>If you want to argue about someone else as GOAT, you need to talk about
>Court.
when i said sampras having longevity was a bonus, you didn't like it.
>> By what measure? She hasn't won more slams & doesn't have calendar slam.
>
>Serena is clearly ahead of Graf. Much greater longevity, more W + USO
>titles, and no 4 or 5 bonus slams thanks to a top rival getting stabbed
>by a fan of hers tired of her being #2.
>Add in Olympics results and doubles and it really is a rout.
>If you want to argue about someone else as GOAT, you need to talk about
>Court.
but i've always considered 10-12 yrs dominance as a good timeframe, <
5 too short, winning moderately > 12 yrs a bit too long. but hey,
serena is a marvel.
bob
bob
Jul 9, 2016, 2:47:04 PM7/9/16
to
<25.
bob
stephenJ
Jul 9, 2016, 3:02:29 PM7/9/16
to
slams spread out over many years without ever dominating a year or two,
and you may have just found holes when other top players were out or
lost in fluke fashion. Win a bunch of slams in a short period and you
may have capitalized on a window of lousy competition.
Serena - who won two "serena slams" a full 13 years apart, and has more
multi-slam years than anyone, is the epitome of having both.
Graf has superb short-run results but is light on long run, especially
since her 12-year span is really an outlier, her last slam is separated
by 3 years from all her others. She really won just about all of them in
a 9 year period.
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 9, 2016, 3:17:33 PM7/9/16
to
Had she decided to play until the mid-30 like the US top players (Evert, Navratilova, Williamses) her span would have been 15 or 18 years, too.
Max
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 9, 2016, 3:25:53 PM7/9/16
to
Max
heyg...@gmail.com
Jul 9, 2016, 3:27:16 PM7/9/16
to
Graf only won about 50% of her matches against the new generation in 99 (Venus, Serena, Davenport, Hingis). The rate wasn't going to get better, and neither was her injury rate. She got out at just the right time...
bob
Jul 9, 2016, 3:33:33 PM7/9/16
to
levels of dominance.
i can't fault serena's record in any way, cause there were a few other
outside factors (injuries, sister murder) that affected a bit.
bob
stephenJ
Jul 9, 2016, 3:45:29 PM7/9/16
to
She was finished, getting swept by Davenport in W final proved to her
that the FO win over mentally-certifiable Hingis was a one-off.
She had zero slams left in her, which is why she quit.
stephenJ
Jul 9, 2016, 3:48:18 PM7/9/16
to
She clearly has always liked the celebrity life. She let years go by
when she was kind of hopping off the couch.
Other top champs basically lived/breathed tennis until they day they
retired.
bob
Jul 9, 2016, 3:52:26 PM7/9/16
to
of bases coverd no doubt.
bob
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 9, 2016, 3:59:07 PM7/9/16
to
Swept?
With Davenport winning 70 pts. against ill Steffi's 67?
Had Steffi decided to go for Court's 24 slam record (Steffi was never obsessed with records like the US top players) she might have struggled against the Williams sisters at Wimbledon and maybe the USO. But beating Pierce, Capriati at AO 2000-02? Capriati, Myshkina at FO 20002/04?
Had Steffi carried on until age 34 like Serena it is reasonable even for a certified Graf hater to admit that she would have had a total of at least 25 slams. But as I said - Steffi never was in it for the records. Obviously you can't understand that. Could be a cultural thing ...
Max
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 9, 2016, 4:02:44 PM7/9/16
to
How can Serena be GOAT when she wasn't even the best right in the middle of her career?
Max
stephenJ
Jul 9, 2016, 4:06:36 PM7/9/16
to
victory, LOL. :)
stephenJ
Jul 9, 2016, 4:09:28 PM7/9/16
to
years than anyone ever?
You really must be smarting from the Germany loss to France, as your
Graf nonsense is even more nonsensical than usual.
BTW, Graf was the epitome of the mind consumed by tennis. Good for her,
allowed her to squeeze every possible win out of her body and capitalize
in 88 and 93 when top champs better than her declined or left, but she
was a Pure Tennis Being from 1982 to 1989.
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 9, 2016, 4:21:02 PM7/9/16
to
But hey, I'm a Grafan. We have higher standards.
> You really must be smarting from the Germany loss to France, as your
> Graf nonsense is even more nonsensical than usual.
I don't support sportspersons or teams for "patriotic" reasons like you do.
> BTW, Graf was the epitome of the mind consumed by tennis. Good for her,
> allowed her to squeeze every possible win out of her body and capitalize
> in 88 and 93 when top champs better than her declined or left, but she
> was a Pure Tennis Being from 1982 to 1989.
>
She visited museums, was friends with artists, bought art items, was always well-read, loved sight-seeing. Didn't hang out with Kim Kardashian, though. Which seems to be 'living the life" for people like you.
Max
stephenJ
Jul 9, 2016, 6:15:21 PM7/9/16
to
Serena has always been far more well-rounded, in addition to being the
more accomplished tennis player.
bob
Jul 9, 2016, 9:59:32 PM7/9/16
to
bob
bob
Jul 9, 2016, 10:03:51 PM7/9/16
to
>> BTW, Graf was the epitome of the mind consumed by tennis. Good for her,
>> allowed her to squeeze every possible win out of her body and capitalize
>> in 88 and 93 when top champs better than her declined or left, but she
>> was a Pure Tennis Being from 1982 to 1989.
>>
>
>But not in the 90s.
>She visited museums, was friends with artists, bought art items, was always well-read, loved sight-seeing. Didn't hang out with Kim Kardashian, though. Which seems to be 'living the life" for people like you.
>
>Max
*skriptis
Jul 9, 2016, 10:30:02 PM7/9/16
to
bob <b...@nospam.net> Wrote in message:
Yes. He speaks such nonsense.
I agree with him Graf gave up but only because she felt Court's
record was a bogus one and she wanted family.
Same with Sampras and Renshaw. I don't think Sampras compared
himself to a 19th century bloke. They've proven doubters wrong
with those FO and USO titles and that was enough.
To say records were not important for those two that's not very true.
But, we don't know what was in their minds.
I agree with him Graf gave up but only because she felt Court's
record was a bogus one and she wanted family.
Same with Sampras and Renshaw. I don't think Sampras compared
himself to a 19th century bloke. They've proven doubters wrong
with those FO and USO titles and that was enough.
To say records were not important for those two that's not very true.
But, we don't know what was in their minds.
stephenJ
Jul 10, 2016, 4:55:16 AM7/10/16
to
homer and obviously was gutted by the loss to France.
Whisper
Jul 10, 2016, 6:13:48 AM7/10/16
to
On 10/07/2016 5:27 AM, heyg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Graf only won about 50% of her matches against the new generation in 99 (Venus, Serena, Davenport, Hingis). The rate wasn't going to get better, and neither was her injury rate. She got out at just the right time...
>
Opinion noted.
> Graf only won about 50% of her matches against the new generation in 99 (Venus, Serena, Davenport, Hingis). The rate wasn't going to get better, and neither was her injury rate. She got out at just the right time...
>
Whisper
Jul 10, 2016, 6:39:03 AM7/10/16
to
woulda been a big chance.
Whisper
Jul 10, 2016, 6:42:56 AM7/10/16
to
very much within reach as I feel USO is 90% in the bag - pressure valves
have been decreased big time with this win.
wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Jul 10, 2016, 11:27:25 AM7/10/16
to
In article <5e565657-e276-414f...@googlegroups.com>,
the latter had very durable physiques, and neither had to miss significant
time due to injury (Navratilova had arthroscopic surgery on one knee, that
I remember, and Evert never had anything major, though I think at one
point she took a few months off because she needed a break). Whereas Graf
had foot and back injuries that cost her quite a bit of time her last few
years - 1997, 1998 especially. So I think she saw her opportunity to go
out on a high note and took it.
Navratilova's longevity was amazing, because besides winning just as much
as (or slightly more than) Evert in singles, she simultaneously had an
equally awesom doubles career - and came back in her 40s to add to it. Her
final careers numbers are just astonishing - 167 singles titles, 174
doubles titles, more than 1500 wins in both...
wg
calim...@gmx.de () wrote:
> Yet she was only 29 years old when she won her last slam, retiring
> 10 weeks later.
> Had she decided to play until the mid-30 like the US top players
> (Evert, Navratilova, Williamses) her span would have been 15 or 18
> years, too.
Graf had far more injuries than Navratilova and Evert did, though - both
> Yet she was only 29 years old when she won her last slam, retiring
> 10 weeks later.
> Had she decided to play until the mid-30 like the US top players
> (Evert, Navratilova, Williamses) her span would have been 15 or 18
> years, too.
the latter had very durable physiques, and neither had to miss significant
time due to injury (Navratilova had arthroscopic surgery on one knee, that
I remember, and Evert never had anything major, though I think at one
point she took a few months off because she needed a break). Whereas Graf
had foot and back injuries that cost her quite a bit of time her last few
years - 1997, 1998 especially. So I think she saw her opportunity to go
out on a high note and took it.
Navratilova's longevity was amazing, because besides winning just as much
as (or slightly more than) Evert in singles, she simultaneously had an
equally awesom doubles career - and came back in her 40s to add to it. Her
final careers numbers are just astonishing - 167 singles titles, 174
doubles titles, more than 1500 wins in both...
wg
stephenJ
Jul 10, 2016, 12:39:52 PM7/10/16
to
> Navratilova's longevity was amazing, because besides winning just as much
> as (or slightly more than) Evert in singles, she simultaneously had an
> equally awesom doubles career - and came back in her 40s to add to it. Her
> final careers numbers are just astonishing - 167 singles titles, 174
> doubles titles, more than 1500 wins in both...
Yes, MN was even better in doubles than in singles. She won 31 GS
> as (or slightly more than) Evert in singles, she simultaneously had an
> equally awesom doubles career - and came back in her 40s to add to it. Her
> final careers numbers are just astonishing - 167 singles titles, 174
> doubles titles, more than 1500 wins in both...
doubles titles and 10 GS mixed doubles titles. That's off the charts.
But we also can't forget Court. IIRC, Court has 19 GS doubles titles and
21 GS mixed doubles titles. That's pretty amazing as well.
And Serena is now 14-0 in GS doubles finals, with wins 17 years apart,
and is 17-0 in major doubles finals if we toss in the Olympics.
If we regard MN, Court, Serena, and Graf as the four GOAT candidates,
the one who really stands in this regard is Graf, she has no doubles
credentials worth mentioning.
stephenJ
Jul 10, 2016, 12:45:43 PM7/10/16
to
zoned in on tennis from their teens into well into their 30s so maybe not.
We'll just never know.
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 10, 2016, 2:07:37 PM7/10/16
to
On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 6:39:52 PM UTC+2, StephenJ wrote:
> > Navratilova's longevity was amazing, because besides winning just as much
> > as (or slightly more than) Evert in singles, she simultaneously had an
> > equally awesom doubles career - and came back in her 40s to add to it. Her
> > final careers numbers are just astonishing - 167 singles titles, 174
> > doubles titles, more than 1500 wins in both...
>
> Yes, MN was even better in doubles than in singles. She won 31 GS
> doubles titles and 10 GS mixed doubles titles. That's off the charts.
>
> But we also can't forget Court. IIRC, Court has 19 GS doubles titles and
> 21 GS mixed doubles titles. That's pretty amazing as well.
>
> And Serena is now 14-0 in GS doubles finals, with wins 17 years apart,
> and is 17-0 in major doubles finals if we toss in the Olympics.
>
> If we regard MN, Court, Serena, and Graf as the four GOAT candidates,
> the one who really stands in this regard is Graf, she has no doubles
> credentials worth mentioning.
But Steffi is better in table tennis.
> > Navratilova's longevity was amazing, because besides winning just as much
> > as (or slightly more than) Evert in singles, she simultaneously had an
> > equally awesom doubles career - and came back in her 40s to add to it. Her
> > final careers numbers are just astonishing - 167 singles titles, 174
> > doubles titles, more than 1500 wins in both...
>
> Yes, MN was even better in doubles than in singles. She won 31 GS
> doubles titles and 10 GS mixed doubles titles. That's off the charts.
>
> But we also can't forget Court. IIRC, Court has 19 GS doubles titles and
> 21 GS mixed doubles titles. That's pretty amazing as well.
>
> And Serena is now 14-0 in GS doubles finals, with wins 17 years apart,
> and is 17-0 in major doubles finals if we toss in the Olympics.
>
> If we regard MN, Court, Serena, and Graf as the four GOAT candidates,
> the one who really stands in this regard is Graf, she has no doubles
> credentials worth mentioning.
Which has the same relevance to the tennis GOAT discussion as competitions where a 36-year-old Hingis is the #1 by far.
Max
bob
Jul 10, 2016, 3:20:21 PM7/10/16
to
seem to go to those players who really loved the game. say connors,
federer, martina nav.
others who may love it just a bit, or only like it a bit, or see it as
a $$ maker, seem to play 10-12 yrs and bow out. not the 15+.
bob
bob
Jul 10, 2016, 3:22:05 PM7/10/16
to
On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 20:42:52 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
pressure wayyy off, but not off enough to make he not focus IMO. i see
very good chance at USO - she'll be going to break the graf record at
home without CYGS pressure.
bob
wrote:
very good chance at USO - she'll be going to break the graf record at
home without CYGS pressure.
bob
stephenJ
Jul 11, 2016, 9:33:19 AM7/11/16
to
have big doubles accomplishments and it's only graf who doesn't?
Sure, doubles doesn't count nearly as much as singles, but you have to
factor it in, and it's just another area where graf has about a 4-incher.
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 11, 2016, 2:19:32 PM7/11/16
to
Serena plays doubles because of her sister.
Question answered?
OK, then a question from me:
How many doubles slams equal one Golden Grand Slam (in singles) in your opinion?
70? 100?
Max
stephenJ
Jul 14, 2016, 2:58:01 PM7/14/16
to
they weren't getting paid) as afterwards. And doubles money has always
been chump change, it was for MN.
All tennis players play for money, that was settled in 1968.
> OK, then a question from me:
> How many doubles slams equal one Golden Grand Slam (in singles)
prestige when Graf won in 1988. Nowadays it is a big deal, but in 1988
it was nothing.
Court_1
Jul 14, 2016, 4:20:21 PM7/14/16
to
On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 3:22:05 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> i see
> very good chance at USO
More of this "I see" crap? Just like you "saw" Federer winning Wimbledon with Djokovic out early? *rolls eyes* Every time you say "you see" something, it never happens.
> i see
> very good chance at USO
bob
Jul 14, 2016, 8:19:38 PM7/14/16
to
him.
bob
bob
Jul 14, 2016, 8:20:43 PM7/14/16
to
a longshot he was per the books before the tournament.
bob
Whisper
Jul 15, 2016, 3:09:51 AM7/15/16
to
achieved, is considered a joke when Graf did it & hugely important when
Serena won.
How old are you again - 16?
; )
stephenJ
Jul 15, 2016, 4:15:52 PM7/15/16
to
around 1989.
Believe me, I wish Agassi winning 1996 gold medal counted as a slam or
otherwise big legacy value for him, but it didn't and doesn't. Was kind
of a novelty when he did it and still feels that way.
Now, it's obviously different. Not sure exactly how much Olympics means,
but it does mean something important these days.
stephenJ
Jul 15, 2016, 4:19:13 PM7/15/16
to
medal - Mark Rosset? Seriously?
Tennis community was highly skeptical of olympics and its value to
tennis through 1996. That's just the way it was. Wasn't considered a big
deal then.
As I've said, wish Agassi's 1996 gold counted for a lot ...
Whisper
Jul 16, 2016, 6:34:45 AM7/16/16
to
Whisper
Jul 16, 2016, 6:36:15 AM7/16/16
to
free. Where it counts in a tennis sense is up for debate, but imo it's
a big deal to win gold.
stephenJ
Jul 16, 2016, 10:27:34 AM7/16/16
to
the 2000 Olympics. Then its prestige rose in value, and clearly it has
been a big deal for the last few Olympics. But in 1988? Or 1996? Nope.
stephenJ
Jul 16, 2016, 10:33:18 AM7/16/16
to
> On 7/16/2016 5:36 AM, Whisper wrote:
> Imo it counts as an Olympic gold medal. They don't give them out for
> free. Where it counts in a tennis sense is up for debate, but imo it's
> a big deal to win gold.
No question, from the point of view of the general athletics fan,
> Imo it counts as an Olympic gold medal. They don't give them out for
> free. Where it counts in a tennis sense is up for debate, but imo it's
> a big deal to win gold.
Olympic Gold is the culmination of a life-long dream. It's a peak
achievement, regardless of what you win it in. In all of sports, there
really isn't anything quite like stepping up to the top of the podium,
getting the bouquet of flowers, having the Gold draped around your neck,
and then watch your flag rise as your anthem is played.
So, e.g., Serena has 4 gold medals. That's a lot of Gold hardware to be
able to wear around your neck. Plus she's gotten them in three different
Olympics, which is even better.
Would love to see her collection. :)
Whisper
Jul 16, 2016, 11:16:30 AM7/16/16
to
then - exactly the same.
Whisper
Jul 16, 2016, 11:23:06 AM7/16/16
to
On 17/07/2016 12:33 AM, stephenJ wrote:
>> On 7/16/2016 5:36 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
>> Imo it counts as an Olympic gold medal. They don't give them out for
>> free. Where it counts in a tennis sense is up for debate, but imo it's
>> a big deal to win gold.
>
> No question, from the point of view of the general athletics fan,
> Olympic Gold is the culmination of a life-long dream. It's a peak
> achievement, regardless of what you win it in. In all of sports, there
> really isn't anything quite like stepping up to the top of the podium,
> getting the bouquet of flowers, having the Gold draped around your neck,
> and then watch your flag rise as your anthem is played.
>
> So, e.g., Serena has 4 gold medals. That's a lot of Gold hardware to be
> able to wear around your neck. Plus she's gotten them in three different
> Olympics, which is even better.
>
> Would love to see her collection. :)
>
>
She can open a museum when she retires.
>> On 7/16/2016 5:36 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
>> Imo it counts as an Olympic gold medal. They don't give them out for
>> free. Where it counts in a tennis sense is up for debate, but imo it's
>> a big deal to win gold.
>
> No question, from the point of view of the general athletics fan,
> Olympic Gold is the culmination of a life-long dream. It's a peak
> achievement, regardless of what you win it in. In all of sports, there
> really isn't anything quite like stepping up to the top of the podium,
> getting the bouquet of flowers, having the Gold draped around your neck,
> and then watch your flag rise as your anthem is played.
>
> So, e.g., Serena has 4 gold medals. That's a lot of Gold hardware to be
> able to wear around your neck. Plus she's gotten them in three different
> Olympics, which is even better.
>
> Would love to see her collection. :)
>
>
I wonder where Navratilova stores all her trophies? She has like 330
titles in singles/doubles, & then you get mementos for r/up etc so a
frightening collection.
Maybe like Jimbo they just keep the slam trophies & bin the rest?
: )
stephenJ
Jul 16, 2016, 11:33:08 AM7/16/16
to
trophies, or else just bin everything but the slams. No sense in MN
keeping a 1984 Western Hartford Open trophy around for any other reason,
LOL.
bob
Jul 16, 2016, 1:33:04 PM7/16/16
to
>Then its prestige rose in value, and clearly it has
>been a big deal for the last few Olympics. But in 1988? Or 1996? Nope.
that's why so hard to compare cross eras.
bob
bob
Jul 16, 2016, 1:43:21 PM7/16/16
to
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 01:23:02 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
i've always wondered when we debate 7543, etc how we weigh the
players' opinions VS the overall "tennis communities" feelings about
importance.
for ex, i'm fairly certain that early 80s USO was coveted by most top
players higher than FO. and by the tennis community in general.
however in 2000s, maybe that's changed.
same for olympics. i'm dead certain in 90s nobody cared if they
played, or won, olympics tennis and fans didn't either. it was almost
an exhibition sport - AT THAT TIME. they had the pride of bringing a
gold for country, but it wasn't high on any players imortance list, in
fact bringing home DC seemed better.
i'll cite a present day relevant example: nearly all of the top NBA
players (best players in world) are skipping the olympics so they can
rest up for the next NBA season. they' haven't even sugar coated
reasons, just said "nah, let someone else do it, i need to rest for
NBA."
does that mean the thrill of an olympic basketball gold (which the USA
will likely win) isn't important? is basketball not an important
olympic sport? it is.
which bring me to the main point: how much do we let the PLAYERS
decide "what's important" VS the overall community?
as far as tennis, raonic is skipping rio, but going back to 90s, no
players considered it important THEN. the overall community certainly
didn't consider it important THEN.
today - times changed for both players and community. so can we hold
that against those players pre 2004 for ex?
bob
wrote:
players' opinions VS the overall "tennis communities" feelings about
importance.
for ex, i'm fairly certain that early 80s USO was coveted by most top
players higher than FO. and by the tennis community in general.
however in 2000s, maybe that's changed.
same for olympics. i'm dead certain in 90s nobody cared if they
played, or won, olympics tennis and fans didn't either. it was almost
an exhibition sport - AT THAT TIME. they had the pride of bringing a
gold for country, but it wasn't high on any players imortance list, in
fact bringing home DC seemed better.
i'll cite a present day relevant example: nearly all of the top NBA
players (best players in world) are skipping the olympics so they can
rest up for the next NBA season. they' haven't even sugar coated
reasons, just said "nah, let someone else do it, i need to rest for
NBA."
does that mean the thrill of an olympic basketball gold (which the USA
will likely win) isn't important? is basketball not an important
olympic sport? it is.
which bring me to the main point: how much do we let the PLAYERS
decide "what's important" VS the overall community?
as far as tennis, raonic is skipping rio, but going back to 90s, no
players considered it important THEN. the overall community certainly
didn't consider it important THEN.
today - times changed for both players and community. so can we hold
that against those players pre 2004 for ex?
bob
StephenJ
Jul 16, 2016, 4:33:22 PM7/16/16
to
within a smidge of making the final.
Had he made the final, the match woulda been a lot closer than
Murray-Raonic was, probably five sets too. Fed did come pretty close to
winning this.
Thomas R. Kettler
Jul 16, 2016, 11:50:09 PM7/16/16
to
In article <00skob9fof9oiv31s...@4ax.com>,
people demurring the Olympics.
Rory McElroy, Jason Day, Dustin Johnson and Jordan Spieth aren't going
either in golf which hasn't been an Olympic event for ages. McElroy even
decried it.
Also, many have spoken out against the location for the sailing events
since even after upgrading their sewer facilities, Rio still empties
half of its sewage untreated into that location.
Furthermore, the Summer Olympics, while a boon to the IOC crooks that
get millions in jobs since they couldn't get one with FIFA as well as
NBC who will still try to claim that outside sports with the sun
overhead are being played in evening prime time, is actually a financial
wasteland for the host cities.
Rio is spending between $10-$15 billion US dollars for the Summer
Olympics. How many of these arenas will exist with actual events in 2020?
Look at the remnants from Athens which had the Olympics in 2004:
<http://tinyurl.com/Athens-Olympic-ghosttown>
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
bob <b...@nospam.net> wrote:
> same for olympics. i'm dead certain in 90s nobody cared if they
> played, or won, olympics tennis and fans didn't either. it was almost
> an exhibition sport - AT THAT TIME. they had the pride of bringing a
> gold for country, but it wasn't high on any players imortance list, in
> fact bringing home DC seemed better.
>
> i'll cite a present day relevant example: nearly all of the top NBA
> players (best players in world) are skipping the olympics so they can
> rest up for the next NBA season. they' haven't even sugar coated
> reasons, just said "nah, let someone else do it, i need to rest for
> NBA."
>
> does that mean the thrill of an olympic basketball gold (which the USA
> will likely win) isn't important? is basketball not an important
> olympic sport? it is.
This year is a peculYAIR case. The Zika virus has resulted in many
> same for olympics. i'm dead certain in 90s nobody cared if they
> played, or won, olympics tennis and fans didn't either. it was almost
> an exhibition sport - AT THAT TIME. they had the pride of bringing a
> gold for country, but it wasn't high on any players imortance list, in
> fact bringing home DC seemed better.
>
> i'll cite a present day relevant example: nearly all of the top NBA
> players (best players in world) are skipping the olympics so they can
> rest up for the next NBA season. they' haven't even sugar coated
> reasons, just said "nah, let someone else do it, i need to rest for
> NBA."
>
> does that mean the thrill of an olympic basketball gold (which the USA
> will likely win) isn't important? is basketball not an important
> olympic sport? it is.
people demurring the Olympics.
Rory McElroy, Jason Day, Dustin Johnson and Jordan Spieth aren't going
either in golf which hasn't been an Olympic event for ages. McElroy even
decried it.
Also, many have spoken out against the location for the sailing events
since even after upgrading their sewer facilities, Rio still empties
half of its sewage untreated into that location.
Furthermore, the Summer Olympics, while a boon to the IOC crooks that
get millions in jobs since they couldn't get one with FIFA as well as
NBC who will still try to claim that outside sports with the sun
overhead are being played in evening prime time, is actually a financial
wasteland for the host cities.
Rio is spending between $10-$15 billion US dollars for the Summer
Olympics. How many of these arenas will exist with actual events in 2020?
Look at the remnants from Athens which had the Olympics in 2004:
<http://tinyurl.com/Athens-Olympic-ghosttown>
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
Whisper
Jul 17, 2016, 1:35:53 AM7/17/16
to
after a period was he always seems to lose these matches & not hold up
the trophy. Surely he'd win a few based on probability? I've come to
expect it's part of his psychological make-up - he's not the type who
can seize the moment when it presents itself, rather always seems to
find a way to lose & leave everyone thinking 'he was close'.
bob
Jul 17, 2016, 8:52:16 AM7/17/16
to
financially afterwards.
i was just commenting on the "relevance" of olympic tennis as it
evolved from 1990s to present. in my mind, the stark point it became
relevant was when #1 federer made a huge deal of it in 2004. then
everyone said, wow, if it's important to federer it must be important.
before that, nobody seemed to care.
i agree about the immense pride a player must feel holding the gold
medal, but it wasn't high on the tennis calendar priority list back
then.
bob
stephenJ
Jul 18, 2016, 10:18:40 PM7/18/16
to
> today - times changed for both players and community. so can we hold
> that against those players pre 2004 for ex?
Not sure it's a question of "holding it against" anyone. It's just a
> that against those players pre 2004 for ex?
case of credit. E.g., winning the gold in 2012 is surely a big feather
in Murray's cap, whereas Rosset winning gold in 1992 has far less
meaning, just because the event had far less meaning back then.
I understand that does reflect a double standard. E.g., Borg is given
full retrospective credit for his 6 FO titles, even though back when he
won them, the FO was clearly less important than it is now - many top
players routinely skipped it.
But for the olympics, that seems like the fair way to do it: It's a
"plus" if you won since the early 2000s, but if you won in the 1990s or
before, no.
Whisper
Jul 19, 2016, 6:27:03 AM7/19/16
to
On 19/07/2016 12:18 PM, stephenJ wrote:
>> today - times changed for both players and community. so can we hold
>> that against those players pre 2004 for ex?
>
> Not sure it's a question of "holding it against" anyone. It's just a
> case of credit. E.g., winning the gold in 2012 is surely a big feather
> in Murray's cap, whereas Rosset winning gold in 1992 has far less
> meaning, just because the event had far less meaning back then.
>
> I understand that does reflect a double standard. E.g., Borg is given
> full retrospective credit for his 6 FO titles, even though back when he
> won them, the FO was clearly less important than it is now - many top
> players routinely skipped it.
>
> But for the olympics, that seems like the fair way to do it: It's a
> "plus" if you won since the early 2000s, but if you won in the 1990s or
> before, no.
>
>
lol
>> today - times changed for both players and community. so can we hold
>> that against those players pre 2004 for ex?
>
> Not sure it's a question of "holding it against" anyone. It's just a
> case of credit. E.g., winning the gold in 2012 is surely a big feather
> in Murray's cap, whereas Rosset winning gold in 1992 has far less
> meaning, just because the event had far less meaning back then.
>
> I understand that does reflect a double standard. E.g., Borg is given
> full retrospective credit for his 6 FO titles, even though back when he
> won them, the FO was clearly less important than it is now - many top
> players routinely skipped it.
>
> But for the olympics, that seems like the fair way to do it: It's a
> "plus" if you won since the early 2000s, but if you won in the 1990s or
> before, no.
>
>
soccerfan777
Jul 19, 2016, 10:23:22 AM7/19/16
to
On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 9:40:40 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:
> 9.7.2016, 17:08, Paul kirjoitti:
> > THIS ALSO WILL MAKE IT AN ASTOUNDING 17 YEARS BETWEEN
> > THIS AND HER FIRST SLAM TITLE!!!
>
> Serena > Graf
>
> Fact!
How is GOATness a fact? It is entirely subjective. Graf 22 slams at age 29, Serena 22 slams at age 34. That pretty much destroys your argument. But anyway Serena will never be GOAT in my book.
> 9.7.2016, 17:08, Paul kirjoitti:
> > THIS ALSO WILL MAKE IT AN ASTOUNDING 17 YEARS BETWEEN
> > THIS AND HER FIRST SLAM TITLE!!!
>
> Serena > Graf
>
> Fact!
How is GOATness a fact? It is entirely subjective. Graf 22 slams at age 29, Serena 22 slams at age 34. That pretty much destroys your argument. But anyway Serena will never be GOAT in my book.
stephenJ
Jul 19, 2016, 10:54:00 AM7/19/16
to
On 7/19/2016 9:23 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 9:40:40 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:
>> 9.7.2016, 17:08, Paul kirjoitti:
>>> THIS ALSO WILL MAKE IT AN ASTOUNDING 17 YEARS BETWEEN
>>> THIS AND HER FIRST SLAM TITLE!!!
>>
>> Serena > Graf
>>
>> Fact!
>
> How is GOATness a fact? It is entirely subjective. Graf 22 slams at age 29, Serena 22 slams at age 34. That pretty much destroys your argument.
Actually, it's powerful pro-Serena evidence. Evidence that Serena has
> On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 9:40:40 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:
>> 9.7.2016, 17:08, Paul kirjoitti:
>>> THIS ALSO WILL MAKE IT AN ASTOUNDING 17 YEARS BETWEEN
>>> THIS AND HER FIRST SLAM TITLE!!!
>>
>> Serena > Graf
>>
>> Fact!
>
> How is GOATness a fact? It is entirely subjective. Graf 22 slams at age 29, Serena 22 slams at age 34. That pretty much destroys your argument.
been able to dominate over a far longer period than Graf, who basically
cashed in over a 9-year period against extremely weak competition.
Only RahahahRocker would think it a bad thing to win slams over a longer
period of time.
stephenJ
Jul 19, 2016, 10:56:07 AM7/19/16
to
kinds of trophies more times than anyone in history.
It's kind of like chiding Nicklaus for finishing runner-up in golf
majors an astounding 19 times (next closest guy did it 11 times), while
ignoring his 18 wins.
bob
Jul 19, 2016, 11:49:48 AM7/19/16
to
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:53:50 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:
>On 7/19/2016 9:23 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 9:40:40 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:
>>> 9.7.2016, 17:08, Paul kirjoitti:
>>>> THIS ALSO WILL MAKE IT AN ASTOUNDING 17 YEARS BETWEEN
>>>> THIS AND HER FIRST SLAM TITLE!!!
>>>
>>> Serena > Graf
>>>
>>> Fact!
>>
>> How is GOATness a fact? It is entirely subjective. Graf 22 slams at age 29, Serena 22 slams at age 34. That pretty much destroys your argument.
>
>Actually, it's powerful pro-Serena evidence. Evidence that Serena has
>been able to dominate over a far longer period than Graf, who basically
>cashed in over a 9-year period against extremely weak competition.
>
>Only RahahahRocker would think it a bad thing to win slams over a longer
>period of time.
i believe we all agreed last year that 12 yrs was the sweet spot.:-)
>On 7/19/2016 9:23 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 9:40:40 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:
>>> 9.7.2016, 17:08, Paul kirjoitti:
>>>> THIS ALSO WILL MAKE IT AN ASTOUNDING 17 YEARS BETWEEN
>>>> THIS AND HER FIRST SLAM TITLE!!!
>>>
>>> Serena > Graf
>>>
>>> Fact!
>>
>> How is GOATness a fact? It is entirely subjective. Graf 22 slams at age 29, Serena 22 slams at age 34. That pretty much destroys your argument.
>
>Actually, it's powerful pro-Serena evidence. Evidence that Serena has
>been able to dominate over a far longer period than Graf, who basically
>cashed in over a 9-year period against extremely weak competition.
>
>Only RahahahRocker would think it a bad thing to win slams over a longer
>period of time.
bob
bob
Jul 19, 2016, 11:51:58 AM7/19/16
to
dominant champ he must've been.
bob
soccerfan777
Jul 19, 2016, 12:19:00 PM7/19/16
to
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 9:54:00 AM UTC-5, StephenJ wrote:
> On 7/19/2016 9:23 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 9:40:40 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:
> >> 9.7.2016, 17:08, Paul kirjoitti:
> >>> THIS ALSO WILL MAKE IT AN ASTOUNDING 17 YEARS BETWEEN
> >>> THIS AND HER FIRST SLAM TITLE!!!
> >>
> >> Serena > Graf
> >>
> >> Fact!
> >
> > How is GOATness a fact? It is entirely subjective. Graf 22 slams at age 29, Serena 22 slams at age 34. That pretty much destroys your argument.
>
> Actually, it's powerful pro-Serena evidence. Evidence that Serena has
> been able to dominate over a far longer period than Graf, who basically
> cashed in over a 9-year period against extremely weak competition.
LOL She retired after that 9 year dominant period. She retired early. Serena cashed in by not retiring and dominating weak competition.
> On 7/19/2016 9:23 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 9:40:40 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:
> >> 9.7.2016, 17:08, Paul kirjoitti:
> >>> THIS ALSO WILL MAKE IT AN ASTOUNDING 17 YEARS BETWEEN
> >>> THIS AND HER FIRST SLAM TITLE!!!
> >>
> >> Serena > Graf
> >>
> >> Fact!
> >
> > How is GOATness a fact? It is entirely subjective. Graf 22 slams at age 29, Serena 22 slams at age 34. That pretty much destroys your argument.
>
> Actually, it's powerful pro-Serena evidence. Evidence that Serena has
> been able to dominate over a far longer period than Graf, who basically
> cashed in over a 9-year period against extremely weak competition.
soccerfan777
Jul 19, 2016, 12:20:13 PM7/19/16
to
bob
Jul 19, 2016, 12:26:28 PM7/19/16
to
say, but we do know she won 22 eventually.
i don't think graf's era overall was weak at all, i do think she won
an awful lot right after the stabbing.
bob
stephenJ
Jul 19, 2016, 1:07:41 PM7/19/16
to
On 7/19/2016 11:18 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 9:54:00 AM UTC-5, StephenJ wrote:
>> On 7/19/2016 9:23 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 9:40:40 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:
>>>> 9.7.2016, 17:08, Paul kirjoitti:
>>>>> THIS ALSO WILL MAKE IT AN ASTOUNDING 17 YEARS BETWEEN
>>>>> THIS AND HER FIRST SLAM TITLE!!!
>>>>
>>>> Serena > Graf
>>>>
>>>> Fact!
>>>
>>> How is GOATness a fact? It is entirely subjective. Graf 22 slams at age 29, Serena 22 slams at age 34. That pretty much destroys your argument.
>>
>> Actually, it's powerful pro-Serena evidence. Evidence that Serena has
>> been able to dominate over a far longer period than Graf, who basically
>> cashed in over a 9-year period against extremely weak competition.
>
> LOL She retired after that 9 year dominant period. She retired early.
ROFL! Steffi had won a single slam the previous 3 years, so she knew
> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 9:54:00 AM UTC-5, StephenJ wrote:
>> On 7/19/2016 9:23 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 9:40:40 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:
>>>> 9.7.2016, 17:08, Paul kirjoitti:
>>>>> THIS ALSO WILL MAKE IT AN ASTOUNDING 17 YEARS BETWEEN
>>>>> THIS AND HER FIRST SLAM TITLE!!!
>>>>
>>>> Serena > Graf
>>>>
>>>> Fact!
>>>
>>> How is GOATness a fact? It is entirely subjective. Graf 22 slams at age 29, Serena 22 slams at age 34. That pretty much destroys your argument.
>>
>> Actually, it's powerful pro-Serena evidence. Evidence that Serena has
>> been able to dominate over a far longer period than Graf, who basically
>> cashed in over a 9-year period against extremely weak competition.
>
> LOL She retired after that 9 year dominant period. She retired early.
better than anyone that her last GS title was a fluke and she had no
more left in her.
You must not have been around in 1999. Maybe in the cradle?
stephenJ
Jul 19, 2016, 1:14:06 PM7/19/16
to
> wow, i never knew he was 19 time runnerup. 37 times in top 2? what a
> dominant champ he must've been.
famous results were losses, like the "duel in the sun" loss to Watson at
the 77 British Open, and then the epic loss to Watson at the US Open 5
years later.
And those seconds were evenly spread out. In the 1960s, he won 7 majors
and finished second 8 times as well. In the 1970s, he won 8 majors and
finished second 8 times as well. In the 1980s, at the tail end of his
title-winning form, he won 3 majors and finished second 3 times. It
wasn't like he racked up a bunch of seconds in the 1980s after he
stopped winning.
stephenJ
Jul 19, 2016, 1:16:07 PM7/19/16
to
to this year. :)
stephenJ
Jul 19, 2016, 1:21:24 PM7/19/16
to
> On 7/19/2016 11:26 AM, bob wrote:
> .... i do think she won
AOs, or USOs in at least 40 months. Fully 3 years and 4 months since she
had won *any* of them. She hadn't won the FO in 5 years, since 1988!
And then all of a sudden, as soon as the girl who was the 2-time,
3-time, and 3-time defending champ at ALL of them was stabbed, Graf
immediately won all three.
You either think that's a coincidence or you don't. I don't see how any
fair-minded person can think it was a coincidence. Just beggars belief.
> .... i do think she won
> an awful lot right after the stabbing.
To me, that's the kicker: As of the stabbing, Graf hadn't won any FOs,
AOs, or USOs in at least 40 months. Fully 3 years and 4 months since she
had won *any* of them. She hadn't won the FO in 5 years, since 1988!
And then all of a sudden, as soon as the girl who was the 2-time,
3-time, and 3-time defending champ at ALL of them was stabbed, Graf
immediately won all three.
You either think that's a coincidence or you don't. I don't see how any
fair-minded person can think it was a coincidence. Just beggars belief.
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 19, 2016, 1:47:21 PM7/19/16
to
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 7:21:24 PM UTC+2, StephenJ wrote:
> > On 7/19/2016 11:26 AM, bob wrote:
>
> > .... i do think she won
> > an awful lot right after the stabbing.
>
>
> To me, that's the kicker: As of the stabbing, Graf hadn't won any FOs,
> AOs, or USOs in at least 40 months. Fully 3 years and 4 months since she
> had won *any* of them. She hadn't won the FO in 5 years, since 1988!
In 4 years.
> > On 7/19/2016 11:26 AM, bob wrote:
>
> > .... i do think she won
> > an awful lot right after the stabbing.
>
>
> To me, that's the kicker: As of the stabbing, Graf hadn't won any FOs,
> AOs, or USOs in at least 40 months. Fully 3 years and 4 months since she
> had won *any* of them. She hadn't won the FO in 5 years, since 1988!
But lost to Seles only twice, both extremely close matches that could have gone either way.
> And then all of a sudden, as soon as the girl who was the 2-time,
> 3-time, and 3-time defending champ at ALL of them was stabbed, Graf
> immediately won all three.
At the AO 93 Steffi had lost a three-setter to Seles. Right after a close two-set win over ASV. And right before a loss to Navi in Tokyo.
At the AO Steffi destroyed ASV in the final and one week later Navi in Tokyo. Even for a victim of the US educational system it certainly is no rocket science to conclude that Seles would have suffered a Wim92-like fate at the hands of Steffi if she hadn't been too afraid to compete.
> You either think that's a coincidence or you don't. I don't see how any
> fair-minded person can think it was a coincidence. Just beggars belief.
>
Max
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 19, 2016, 1:51:13 PM7/19/16
to
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 7:07:41 PM UTC+2, StephenJ wrote:
> On 7/19/2016 11:18 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 9:54:00 AM UTC-5, StephenJ wrote:
> >> On 7/19/2016 9:23 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 9:40:40 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:
> >>>> 9.7.2016, 17:08, Paul kirjoitti:
> >>>>> THIS ALSO WILL MAKE IT AN ASTOUNDING 17 YEARS BETWEEN
> >>>>> THIS AND HER FIRST SLAM TITLE!!!
> >>>>
> >>>> Serena > Graf
> >>>>
> >>>> Fact!
> >>>
> >>> How is GOATness a fact? It is entirely subjective. Graf 22 slams at age 29, Serena 22 slams at age 34. That pretty much destroys your argument.
> >>
> >> Actually, it's powerful pro-Serena evidence. Evidence that Serena has
> >> been able to dominate over a far longer period than Graf, who basically
> >> cashed in over a 9-year period against extremely weak competition.
> >
> > LOL She retired after that 9 year dominant period. She retired early.
>
> ROFL! Steffi had won a single slam the previous 3 years, so she knew
> better than anyone that her last GS title was a fluke and she had no
> more left in her.
>
Steffi hadn't won the previous 9 slams, being sidelined in 4 due to injury.
> On 7/19/2016 11:18 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 9:54:00 AM UTC-5, StephenJ wrote:
> >> On 7/19/2016 9:23 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 9:40:40 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:
> >>>> 9.7.2016, 17:08, Paul kirjoitti:
> >>>>> THIS ALSO WILL MAKE IT AN ASTOUNDING 17 YEARS BETWEEN
> >>>>> THIS AND HER FIRST SLAM TITLE!!!
> >>>>
> >>>> Serena > Graf
> >>>>
> >>>> Fact!
> >>>
> >>> How is GOATness a fact? It is entirely subjective. Graf 22 slams at age 29, Serena 22 slams at age 34. That pretty much destroys your argument.
> >>
> >> Actually, it's powerful pro-Serena evidence. Evidence that Serena has
> >> been able to dominate over a far longer period than Graf, who basically
> >> cashed in over a 9-year period against extremely weak competition.
> >
> > LOL She retired after that 9 year dominant period. She retired early.
>
> ROFL! Steffi had won a single slam the previous 3 years, so she knew
> better than anyone that her last GS title was a fluke and she had no
> more left in her.
>
When Serena won Wim 12 (aged 30) she hadn't won the previous 7 slams, being sidelined in 3 due to injury. She, too, knew better than anything that this slam title was a fluke and she had no more left in her, right?
Max
bob
Jul 19, 2016, 4:24:15 PM7/19/16
to
bob
soccerfan777
Jul 19, 2016, 4:45:55 PM7/19/16
to
soccerfan777
Jul 19, 2016, 4:47:09 PM7/19/16
to
soccerfan777
Jul 19, 2016, 4:47:58 PM7/19/16
to
heyg...@gmail.com
Jul 19, 2016, 5:04:33 PM7/19/16
to
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 19, 2016, 5:20:11 PM7/19/16
to
Max
heyg...@gmail.com
Jul 19, 2016, 5:20:19 PM7/19/16
to
Look at the average strength of competition line on that graphic. Now look at the years Graf won most of her slams, and the years she won the fewest. What do you see? When the field was weaker, she won a bunch of slams. When the field was stronger, she won fewer slams. It's not rocket science.
Now there's no doubt the field is weak right now, but when Serena won her 4 in a row in 02/03 it was stronger than any of Graf's 3-4 slam years.
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 19, 2016, 5:20:26 PM7/19/16
to
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 19, 2016, 5:38:23 PM7/19/16
to
Max
calim...@gmx.de
Jul 19, 2016, 5:45:09 PM7/19/16
to
A US website gives Steffi a better ELO in 1987, 1988, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 than Serena in best year ever!
Max
Whisper
Jul 20, 2016, 3:38:02 AM7/20/16
to
losing pretty much all the time. I examined the period he was winning v
losing, & the biggest factor was not age (that is a factor, just not
very big), but the quality of opponents he was facing.
Peak Rafa/Djoker were absent when Fed was winning all his slams, & it's
clear if they were never around he'd have kept on winning slams & be up
to 30 by now easy.
Whisper
Jul 20, 2016, 3:47:07 AM7/20/16
to
On 20/07/2016 3:21 AM, stephenJ wrote:
>> On 7/19/2016 11:26 AM, bob wrote:
>
>> .... i do think she won
>> an awful lot right after the stabbing.
>
>
> To me, that's the kicker: As of the stabbing, Graf hadn't won any FOs,
> AOs, or USOs in at least 40 months. Fully 3 years and 4 months since she
> had won *any* of them. She hadn't won the FO in 5 years, since 1988!
>
> And then all of a sudden, as soon as the girl who was the 2-time,
> 3-time, and 3-time defending champ at ALL of them was stabbed, Graf
> immediately won all three.
>
> You either think that's a coincidence or you don't. I don't see how any
> fair-minded person can think it was a coincidence. Just beggars belief.
>
>
Seles was incapable of beating Graf at Wimbledon or USO, so can we argue
>> On 7/19/2016 11:26 AM, bob wrote:
>
>> .... i do think she won
>> an awful lot right after the stabbing.
>
>
> To me, that's the kicker: As of the stabbing, Graf hadn't won any FOs,
> AOs, or USOs in at least 40 months. Fully 3 years and 4 months since she
> had won *any* of them. She hadn't won the FO in 5 years, since 1988!
>
> And then all of a sudden, as soon as the girl who was the 2-time,
> 3-time, and 3-time defending champ at ALL of them was stabbed, Graf
> immediately won all three.
>
> You either think that's a coincidence or you don't. I don't see how any
> fair-minded person can think it was a coincidence. Just beggars belief.
>
>
Seles was lucky to avoid playing Graf in her 2 USO wins? At FO they
were about equal so a toss up who wins there, & '92 FO final couldn't
have been closer (10-8 in 3rd - if you listen to Jaros you'd think Seles
won 61 62 : ). AO is the only slam I'd give Seles the edge, but even
there a win is not guaranteed.
The simple truth is we can never know what woulda happened. Keep in
mind Seles often saved match point in her slam wins, so no certainty.
My intuition tells me Graf would have ended up with 23 slams if Seles
was never stabbed, & Seles about 12 or 13?
The Iceberg
Jul 20, 2016, 8:46:40 AM7/20/16
to
soccerfan777
Jul 20, 2016, 10:28:28 AM7/20/16
to
The simple fact is Graf won 22 slams at age 29 and then retired, whereas Serena took way longer to get to 22 and played a lot more slams to get to that count.
soccerfan777
Jul 20, 2016, 10:28:52 AM7/20/16
to
bob
Jul 20, 2016, 4:39:13 PM7/20/16
to
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:47:03 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
it's true. that's why i never come across strongly defending graf or
seles. it could've gone either way, IMO.
bob
wrote:
seles. it could've gone either way, IMO.
bob
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages