Sampras
Whisper
Is he the only player in history to win a slam final in his very last match?
Wow. I think that stat will continue to grow in significance.
Raja, The Great
> Is he the only player in history to win a slam final in his very last match?
>
> Wow. I think that stat will continue to grow in significance.
Didnt Mo Connolly do the same? Also I think Suzanne Lenglen. I think
this is a silly insignificant stat. If Nadal gets hit by a truck and
has to retire, he would also join this list.
MBDunc
> Is he the only player in history to win a slam final in his very last match?
>
> Wow. I think that stat will continue to grow in significance
That stat is totally meaningless. Any slam winner may choose to quit
immediately if they want to challenge that stat. Also totally
unintended scenario can make that stat if a fresh slam champion
suffers career ending injury (car crash etc). It is statistical
anomaly rather than significant stat by any means. Nice of course to
put a kind of an explanation mark to your career but offer no further
value.
Some player sduring amateur era did that too (as they moved to pro
circuit as fresh champions).
You really are the master of narrow Sampras related stats.... ;)
.mikko
Iceberg
> Is he the only player in history to win a slam final in his very last match?
>
> Wow. I think that stat will continue to grow in significance.
wow that is quite an amazing thing to do! talk about career ending on
a high.
wkhedr
> Is he the only player in history to win a slam final in his very last match?
>
> Wow. I think that stat will continue to grow in significance.
What is this supposed to mean?!
So true, a Samprasfucker.
Manuel aka Xax
> Is he the only player in history to win a slam final in his very last match?
>
> Wow. I think that stat will continue to grow in significance.
That alone is merely a stat.
Even the possibly worst of any "one slam wonder", Chang might have
challenged & leveled that one, had he retired after FO89.
What was glorious is that is was by that time both new GS record &
last ever tour match.
Had Sampras to do the same earlier, and badaboum!, he would not have
sounded that great.
If Federer or Nadal were to do the same that would be just a bit less
impressive, even this year for Nadal...
And, of course, it would be even more astonishing for Federer.
No matter for either on what slam they might choose (be forced to, if
shit was to happen) to retire.
Whisper
Only after he just won a slam.
Connolly had no choice but to retire.
Obviously if a guy retires winning the USO he was a shot at a few more
slams. It says a lot to walk away from that.
Whisper
You didn't grasp my point. Sampras was not injured & did not have to
retire - he 'chose' to.
You say any guy can do that, but I disagree. How many players have the
balls to quit just after winning a slam?
Whisper
It means he chose to walk away at a point most players would consider a
career highlight. Also means he had plenty more in the tank.
Unprecedented - & doubt we'll see it again.
wkhedr
Sorry means nothing, your hormones level is a little high today.
Whisper
> On 14 jan, 09:47, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> Is he the only player in history to win a slam final in his very last match?
>>
>> Wow. I think that stat will continue to grow in significance.
>
> That alone is merely a stat.
> Even the possibly worst of any "one slam wonder", Chang might have
That's my point. Absolutely nobody has the balls to walk away at that
point - except Sampras.
I'm not talking coulda/woulda - hypothetically every slam winner can
quit at that point. I'm talking reality - only Sampras actually did it.
>
> What was glorious is that is was by that time both new GS record&
> last ever tour match.
> Had Sampras to do the same earlier, and badaboum!, he would not have
> sounded that great.
>
> If Federer or Nadal were to do the same that would be just a bit less
> impressive, even this year for Nadal...
> And, of course, it would be even more astonishing for Federer.
> No matter for either on what slam they might choose (be forced to, if
> shit was to happen) to retire.
Most players squeeze every last drop out of their career. Sampras still
left plenty of juice in the orange.
Superdave
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
i wish we would never doubt seeing you again.
RzR
how many guys have the balls to dump their long time girlfriend, for
some gold-digging, whore, wannabee actress?
sampras is an asshole...cheap one too :)
Whisper
She was way too old for him. Opportunistic cougar.
Superdave
He's a piece of work I'll say that and she is having the last laugh.
Javier González
Get ready guys, this is a preview of what's to come from Whisper in
the next years.
Manuel aka Xax
> On 14/01/2011 10:25 PM, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
>
> > On 14 jan, 09:47, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> >> Is he the only player in history to win a slam final in his very last match?
>
> >> Wow. I think that stat will continue to grow in significance.
>
> > That alone is merely a stat.
> > Even the possibly worst of any "one slam wonder", Chang might have
> > challenged& leveled that one, had he retired after FO89.
>
> That's my point. Absolutely nobody has the balls to walk away at that
> point - except Sampras.
You failed to get mine, on purpose?
> I'm not talking coulda/woulda - hypothetically every slam winner can
> quit at that point. I'm talking reality - only Sampras actually did it.
Sorry?
Sampras choosed to quit, okay.
Are you saying that if Nadal/Federer was forced to quit after winning
his next slam it would be less impressive?
Must be joking, and even more if that was to happen to Fed, since he
would hold both GS record & retiring after last Slam title...
> > What was glorious is that is was by that time both new GS record&
> > last ever tour match.
> > Had Sampras to do the same earlier, and badaboum!, he would not have
> > sounded that great.
>
> > If Federer or Nadal were to do the same that would be just a bit less
> > impressive, even this year for Nadal...
> > And, of course, it would be even more astonishing for Federer.
> > No matter for either on what slam they might choose (be forced to, if
> > shit was to happen) to retire.
>
> Most players squeeze every last drop out of their career. Sampras still
> left plenty of juice in the orange.
And you just claimed not going for coudda/woudda... So biased.
Manuel aka Xax
> On 14/01/2011 7:58 PM, Raja, The Great wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 1:47 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> >> Is he the only player in history to win a slam final in his very last match?
>
> >> Wow. I think that stat will continue to grow in significance.
>
> > Didnt Mo Connolly do the same? Also I think Suzanne Lenglen. I think
> > this is a silly insignificant stat. If Nadal gets hit by a truck and
> > has to retire, he would also join this list.
>
> Only after he just won a slam.
> Connolly had no choice but to retire.
Has Sampras any better moment to retire?
Clearly: NO.
> Obviously if a guy retires winning the USO he was a shot at a few more
> slams. It says a lot to walk away from that.
And you claimed you don't go for coudda/woudda...
chrisf
Totally agree. It also makes Federer's defeat of Sampras the year before
that much more impressive. Fed, several years from being at his peak,
beat Sampras who still had "plenty more in the tank".
Manuel aka Xax
Not sure, since we can (and mostly, allready have!) kill that "topic"
while it's still in the egg.
:-)
felangey
> that much more impressive. Fed, several years from being at his peak, beat
> Sampras who still had "plenty more in the tank".<
Absolutely. Beating up on a 'King of Grass' with plenty more in the
tank....in own back yard....pre-peak. The signs that Fed was really a lot
better were there from the start.
MBDunc
Dozens of not hundreds of olympic gold medalists from all kind of
events have quitted straight after they have gotten the gold.
Howerer this have not added to their legacies anything.
Smt. I do not understand: When Borg lost to Mac 81 USO you have
referred this as "running away" but in Sampras' case it is evidence of
his heroic deeds (granted Sampras actually won the title but the
reasons for their retirements were same: Lack of motivation and
burnout). At least Borg 81 was closer to his absolute peak compared to
Sampras 02.
.mikko
Joe Ramirez
> On 14 tammi, 13:56, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14/01/2011 8:11 PM, MBDunc wrote:
>
> > > On 14 tammi, 10:47, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> > >> Is he the only player in history to win a slam final in his very last match?
>
> > >> Wow. I think that stat will continue to grow in significance
>
> > > That stat is totally meaningless. Any slam winner may choose to quit
> > > immediately if they want to challenge that stat. Also totally
> > > unintended scenario can make that stat if a fresh slam champion
> > > suffers career ending injury (car crash etc). It is statistical
> > > anomaly rather than significant stat by any means. Nice of course to
> > > put a kind of an explanation mark to your career but offer no further
> > > value.
>
> > > Some player sduring amateur era did that too (as they moved to pro
> > > circuit as fresh champions).
>
> > > You really are the master of narrow Sampras related stats.... ;)
>
> > > .mikko
>
> > You didn't grasp my point. Sampras was not injured & did not have to
> > retire - he 'chose' to.
>
> > You say any guy can do that, but I disagree. How many players have the
> > balls to quit just after winning a slam?
>
> Dozens of not hundreds of olympic gold medalists from all kind of
> events have quitted straight after they have gotten the gold.
This is true of plenty of horses as well, especially in recent years.
Win a big race, then retire to the stud farm. Don't take a chance on
further racing and risk injury/death, not with stud values so high.
So, I guess Sampras heard the stud farm calling him.
Whisper
>
> Smt. I do not understand: When Borg lost to Mac 81 USO you have
> referred this as "running away" but in Sampras' case it is evidence of
> his heroic deeds (granted Sampras actually won the title but the
> reasons for their retirements were same: Lack of motivation and
> burnout). At least Borg 81 was closer to his absolute peak compared to
> Sampras 02.
>
> .mikko
Borg was on a downer. He lost his 4th USO final, coming on the heels of
losing his 1st Wimbledon final after winning 5 in a row. Sampras was on
a high.
Big difference.
drew
> On 14/01/2011 10:25 PM, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
>
> > On 14 jan, 09:47, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> >> Is he the only player in history to win a slam final in his very last match?
>
> >> Wow. I think that stat will continue to grow in significance.
That's not a stat. It's just something that he did. Anybody can quit
anytime. He'd had
enough so he quit.
>
> > That alone is merely a stat.
> > Even the possibly worst of any "one slam wonder", Chang might have
> > challenged& leveled that one, had he retired after FO89.
>
> That's my point. Absolutely nobody has the balls to walk away at that
> point - except Sampras.
>
It takes balls to keep playing. Quitting is just quitting, justified
or otherwise.
> I'm not talking coulda/woulda - hypothetically every slam winner can
> quit at that point. I'm talking reality - only Sampras actually did it.
So what? He didn't look very good leading up to that final so having
won it I imagine
he figured that's probably as good a time as any to quit.
>
> Most players squeeze every last drop out of their career.
And to me that takes guts. Quitting because you know you probably
won't
win any more and you've got a record that you mistakenly think will
stand the test
of time......that's just being a glory hound.
Sampras still
> left plenty of juice in the orange.
He had nothing left. People who say he could have won more majors are
dreaming. He was damned
fortunate to get Agassi in the final. Had he faced Hewitt he would
have been left gasping, puking and
sucking air and he probably would have gone down in straights and he
knew it so he ducked another losing
year after an unexpected win at the USO. Good for him but it didn't
take balls. Balls would have been if
he'd gathered his mental strength and tried to bring his game back to
where it once was. He didn't do that.
This is just another Whisperology fantasy. Borg quits in his prime
and he's a quitter. Sampras quits to avoid
future humiliation and to preserve the myth of Sampras and some how
this takes balls. Unfortunately for Sampras the myth lasted less than
10 years.
drew
>
> sampras is an asshole...cheap one too :)-
He is. Agassi was a bigger asshole when he humiliated Sampras
in the exo.
Most people know Sampras is a cheapskate. Agassi didn't have to
humiliate Pete in public. Not like he's going to become a great
philanthropist out of guilt.
reilloc
>
>
> Is he the only player in history to win a slam final in his very last
> match?
>
> Wow. I think that stat will continue to grow in significance.
You really said, "wow." This is "wow" like it's "wow" to have won the
U.S. Open and then retired or won in New York and then retired or won in
2002 and then retired or won at night in 2002 in New York at the U.S.
Open and then retired.
Come to think of it, he *does* hold all those "wow" records, doesn't he?
Wow.
I'll bet, now that I've drawn your focus to just how many really unique
things there are about that day, you could make a really long list of
similarly "wow" stuff and call them "stats."
You're one "wow" of a guy.
LNC
Iceberg
very true. Agassi then won the AO, so the possibilities were there.
Iceberg
I was THERE at that expo, Sampras came across as a nice/sensible/quiet
guy, he also said he tips generously afterwards.
Iceberg
no he isn't.
Iceberg
this has been covered many times.
Iceberg
Henman thrashing Fed in next round, Sampras having reached record etc
etc etc
Patrick Kehoe
Classic response post - A+
P
Iceberg
> On 14 jan, 13:09, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:> On 14/01/2011 10:25 PM, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
>
> > > On 14 jan, 09:47, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> > >> Is he the only player in history to win a slam final in his very last match?
>
> > >> Wow. I think that stat will continue to grow in significance.
>
> > > That alone is merely a stat.
> > > Even the possibly worst of any "one slam wonder", Chang might have
> > > challenged& leveled that one, had he retired after FO89.
>
> > That's my point. Absolutely nobody has the balls to walk away at that
> > point - except Sampras.
>
> ?
> You failed to get mine, on purpose?
>
> > I'm not talking coulda/woulda - hypothetically every slam winner can
> > quit at that point. I'm talking reality - only Sampras actually did it.
>
> Sorry?
> Sampras choosed to quit, okay.
> Are you saying that if Nadal/Federer was forced to quit after winning
> his next slam it would be less impressive?
> Must be joking, and even more if that was to happen to Fed, since he
> would hold both GS record & retiring after last Slam title...
no because Fed didn't win the last slam, he lost to Djoker in the
semis. It may have been a similar equivalent if Fed had retired after
AO, but he didn't.
Patrick Kehoe
It has indeed been said many times... Pete was roasted and toasted and
retired on a high, mentally and emotionally spent, zapped, FIRED...
just like he says in his book and dozens of times in interviews over
the years and during the phoners for the exo with Fed a couple of
years ago...
P
Iceberg
what are you talking about? Agassi went on and stormed the AO in
style, winning it decisively, he whooped pretty much the entire field
and then caned poor Schuttler's in his finest hour. If you Fedfans
knew anything, you'd agree that Sampras would've at least got to the
final there at least, though Agassi was truly on-fire in this event
and would've been very tough to beat. Sampras said he quit because he
didn't have anything more to prove in the sport, it wasn't because he
couldn't have won more slams.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
He repeatedly said he was MENTALLY and EMOTIONALLY SPENT...
jezzzzzzzz...
:))))))
???
P
Iceberg
no he didn't, in his book he says it because he didn't have anything
more to prove.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
He said he was bored of the travel and the tour was taking it out of
him more and more and he's said it MANY times in interviews here in
North America... like last year during a celebrity Golf tournament...
ANY Sampras fan/tennis fan knows this...
P
drew
> no he didn't, in his book he says it because he didn't have anything
> more to prove
It matters not if you are a Sampras fan or not. The USO victory was
the only significant
win that Sampras had after a LONG and humiliating stretch of losses.
He did manage to reach the final
of the USO in the previous two years but was beaten in straight sets
in both
of those finals, once to Marat Safin and once to Lleyton Hewitt.
Myths die hard. True believers in the Sampras myth actually believed
that he would come back at age 36
and be a force at Wimbledon.
That should be no surprise. Some still claim that Elvis didn't die
while sitting on the toilet but rather flushed himself
away into seclusion where he is working on some new recordings.
Others believed that the Beatles would re-unite.
Sampras picked a good time to quit. But quit on a high and you'll
never really know exactly how much you could have done
in the future. To the outsider it looked like he was well and truly
finished.
That's why it is best to quit with four flat tires and a blown
engine. No questions remain at all. That's when
you can walk away and feel good about playing Texas hold 'em.
drew
They know it but they WANT to believe otherwise. The problem with
tennis is that
you have to retire so young if you want to go out near the top of your
game.
I think most of these guys actually still love the game but the losing
part....sliding down
in the rankings...is something most egos have a difficult time with.
TennisGuy
> > Dozens of not hundreds of olympic gold medalists from all kind of
> > events have quitted straight after they have gotten the gold.
>
> This is true of plenty of horses as well, especially in recent years.
> Win a big race, then retire to the stud farm. Don't take a chance on
> further racing and risk injury/death, not with stud values so high.
> So, I guess Sampras heard the stud farm calling him.
Let's not forget a huge factor in his retirement decision.
He thought his slam count was untouchable looking at current players
of the day.
At the time I thought he made the right decision too.
I thought he was rather fortunate to have snatched that last slam and
he probably thought so too.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Exactly... Sampras was all done mentally by the fall of 2002 and he
rightly left the game at that time... and that's EXACTLY why he did
leave... he was a fruit all right, one that had been ground to a pulp
by his driving ambition and drive... it will be fascinating to see how
Federer deals with his decline and, in fact, how it happens/unfolds...
in a sense it's happening now, as he's not the Fed of 2006 or 2007 any
longer, though capable of great performance drives...
I suspect that the glue holding him together is his love for the game
+ having Rafa racking up the slams behind him + that Wimbledon mark of
7 wins + the looming Olympics in London... combine all of that and
that's pretty much his 'reason to keep going' add to that list his
contractual obligations to a dozen major sponsers... I really wonder,
even if he's fit and still capable of playing at the top level, if in
the 2013 he'll have anything much left... it may come down to a
Wimbledon win here or another shot at 6 USO's there... what else is
there for him to do individually?
P
uly...@mscomm.com
manner of exiting the game was one of his greatest high points. It's
like Elway leaving football after winning the Super Bowl. And to
Sampras' credit, he never tainted his legacy by coming out of
retirement (like Borg did disastrously).
He walked away after winning a slam. That's far greater than Andre
limping off the court at the USO after losing to Becker in the second
round. And it pains me to say it, because I truly hate Sampras.
Manco
marks, he redefines GOAT-hood once again! Priceless, whimpy, priceless.
Manco
GOAT-hood. The rest of the world has moved on to Federer & Nadal at
the 2 best players ever.
Iceberg
coblers, why else is Sampras the ONLY one to have done it?
Iceberg
don't see what it's got to do with being a fan, when in his book, he
states that he retired because he had nothing left to prove in the
game. It's not rocket science or random misquotes, it's written there
in hard copy, only thickos can't grasp it.
jdeluise
On 14-Jan-2011, Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> only thickos can't grasp it.
No that I think you're right on this one, but "dumbos" would be the proper
rst terminology:)
drew
> I was THERE at that expo, Sampras came across as a nice/sensible/quiet
> guy, he also said he tips generously afterwards.
Do your research. This is a guy who was given a free dinner in a
Florida restaurant
that came to about $200. Tipped the waiter $20. Thanx Pete.
drew
That's a matter of opinion and I suspect yours is the majority
opinion. For me
a sportsman who tries to leave as a winner rather than one who plays
out his days naturally,
declining until he can no longer compete at a reasonable level, this
is a glory hound,
an athlete who is more in love with the image of victory than with the
game itself, more in love
with himself than with competition and with sport. There is no way to
avoid physical decline. Leaving the game
on a high note is an attempt to create an art form from a career in
sports. Unfortunately
it doesn't last. Sampras illustrated this perfectly. Now that his
achievements have
been eclipsed by Federer, some will say he should have kept
going....he could have
put his slam record truly out of reach.
Of course this is nonsense. Sampras was finished when he retired and
t he fact
that he couldn't be the legendary Sampras for very long spoiled the
canvas that he
attempted to create but there was nothing that could be done from
Sampras'
perspective to avoid this.
Suffice to say that these guys should leave the game without too much
ego...without
attempting to leave anything more than memories. The records are
always erased over
time and the most ballsy approach is to leave it all on the court and
when it is truly over,
when you can no longer compete (not win majors but compete for them at
a high level)
that is the time to leave.
For all of his faults, Connors had it right. So did Vilas and so did
Agassi. It's not about
winning your last match. That's like saying that death is a choice.
drew
Done what? Retired after winning a big one? That's a choice
than many can make in sports. He chose his moment and he has
to live with this choice. I suspect he knew that he was very
fortunate
to win the USO but with the great ones sometimes they have to have
their
heads blown off before they truly believe that the game is up.
Joe Ramirez
> Leaving the game on a high note is an attempt to create
> an art form from a career in sports.
>
> It's not about winning your last match. That's like
> saying that death is a choice.
A couple of fine observations in this post.
drew
>
> don't see what it's got to do with being a fan, when in his book, he
> states that he retired because he had nothing left to prove in the
> game. It's not rocket science or random misquotes, it's written there
> in hard copy, only thickos can't grasp it.
I wonder if he believes this himself.
felangey
>choice.<
Very nicely put.
SliceAndDice
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
So he's been lying up until Bodo wrote his book for him and since it's
publication then???
:)
P
'
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes... indeed... well said Drew!
P
chrisf
You either have a terrible memory or didn't read the book you pretend to
quote. Sampras used the exact phrase, when trying to practice for
Wimbledon 2003, that he couldn't do it because he "had no fuel left in
the tank".
Whisper
> On 1/14/2011 2:47 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is he the only player in history to win a slam final in his very last
>> match?
>>
>> Wow. I think that stat will continue to grow in significance.
>
> U.S. Open and then retired or won in New York and then retired or won in
> 2002 and then retired or won at night in 2002 in New York at the U.S.
> Open and then retired.
>
> Come to think of it, he *does* hold all those "wow" records, doesn't he?
>
> Wow.
>
> I'll bet, now that I've drawn your focus to just how many really unique
> things there are about that day, you could make a really long list of
> similarly "wow" stuff and call them "stats."
>
> You're one "wow" of a guy.
>
> LNC
>
Don't drink & post.
Whisper
> On Jan 14, 12:22 pm, RzR<2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14.1.2011. 12:56, Whisper wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 14/01/2011 8:11 PM, MBDunc wrote:
>>>> On 14 tammi, 10:47, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Is he the only player in history to win a slam final in his very last
>>>>> match?
>>
>>>>> Wow. I think that stat will continue to grow in significance
>>
>>>> immediately if they want to challenge that stat. Also totally
>>>> unintended scenario can make that stat if a fresh slam champion
>>>> suffers career ending injury (car crash etc). It is statistical
>>>> anomaly rather than significant stat by any means. Nice of course to
>>>> put a kind of an explanation mark to your career but offer no further
>>>> value.
>>
>>>> Some player sduring amateur era did that too (as they moved to pro
>>>> circuit as fresh champions).
>>
>>>> You really are the master of narrow Sampras related stats.... ;)
>>
>>>> .mikko
>>
>>> You didn't grasp my point. Sampras was not injured& did not have to
>>> retire - he 'chose' to.
>>
>>> You say any guy can do that, but I disagree. How many players have the
>>> balls to quit just after winning a slam?
>>
>> how many guys have the balls to dump their long time girlfriend, for
>> some gold-digging, whore, wannabee actress?
>>
>> sampras is an asshole...cheap one too :)
>
> no he isn't.
Correct. Sampras never spat at the umpire like Agassi did at USO.
Whisper
But he wouldn't have 'burnt out' if he was 1 or 2 shy of the slam record.
He felt he had nothing to prove.
Whisper
On paper Fed still has a chance to win 8 Wimbledons. That would be huge
for several reasons - one he'd be Wimbledon king, which in most people's
minds = 'tennis king, & 2 he'd be the only guy to ever win a slam 8
times. 2 slams doesn't sound like much, but they will exponentially
double his legacy imo.
In a way it's a pity he lost '08 final to Rafa, as he coulda had 7
Wimbledons in a row. Then again Sampras coulda had 8 in a row if not
for 1 flat match v Krajicek.
Whisper
> The saddest part is only Whimpy is keeping the flame alive for Sampy
> the 2 best players ever.
er no. 2 best players this era yes.
Iceberg
how much do you want him to tip the waiter? $20000?? $20 = 10%, I know
we don't have the same tipping culture as in yankland, but that sounds
reasonable to me.
Whisper
>
> Of course this is nonsense. Sampras was finished when he retired and
A guy just won one of the biggest slams in the game, playing champagne
tennis v the great Agassi, & you say he had nothing left to give &
inconceivable he could win more slams? You have the hide to accuse
others of nonsense?
Have a good look in the mirror & wake up to yourself.
Whisper
er, it was his 3rd successive USO final. Where is the evidence he
couldn't cut it?
You typing words into a keyboard <> evidence.
Iceberg
what a load of cack, Sampras retired cos he had achieved everything he
wanted to(and more probably) and had nothing left to prove. The bar
was set at 12, he hit 14. If it had been higher he would've continued,
I can't see the problem. You Fedfans are just scared that Fed will
play his last match losing 60 to Koellerer or something like that.
Iceberg
no in your previous post you said that most guys don't like the
inevitable losing/decline, if that was the case many would've retired
before reaching that point, yet Sampras is the only one.
Iceberg
you mean like the 'subconscious racism' one isn't it where some
British council once found somebody guilty, because although there was
no evidence of racism in the case, they may have been 'subconsciously
racist'.
Iceberg
heheh
drew
Not when you've been comped a free meal.
drew
Is this a question or an assertion?
drew
> > > don't see what it's got to do with being a fan, when in his book, he
> > > states that he retired because he had nothing left to prove in the
> > > game. It's not rocket science or random misquotes, it's written there
> > > in hard copy, only thickos can't grasp it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > So he's been lying up until Bodo wrote his book for him and since it's
> > publication then???
Printing it an putting a cover around it doesn't make it it the
truth.
Rodjk #613
No, Sampras said he had nothing left.
Rodjk #613
drew
You are the one who constantly refers to Sampras winning nothing for
two years before he won the USO. I refer you to the evidence that
you
have presented.
You use your evidence to take both sides of an an argument. That
suggests
that you are either confused or suffering from some form of
dementia.
drew
> no in your previous post you said that most guys don't like the
> inevitable losing/decline, if that was the case many would've retired
> before reaching that point, yet Sampras is the only one.
Some retire because the decline is difficult for the ego. Others
soldier on.
drew
> On 15/01/2011 12:14 PM, drew wrote:
>
>
>
> > Of course this is nonsense. Sampras was finished when he retired and
>
> A guy just won one of the biggest slams in the game, playing champagne
> tennis v the great Agassi, & you say he had nothing left to give &
> inconceivable he could win more slams? You have the hide to accuse
> others of nonsense?
The great Agassi was Sampras' poodle.
John Liang
If he could cut it why couldn't he won Wimbledon in 2001 and 2002 on
the courts
he once dominated. If Sampras game was as good in 2002 as it was in
mid 90s what
are the chances of Hewitt or Safin schoolled him in his home grand
slam or someone
like George Bastl beat him in 5 sets at Wimbledon ? Sampras was lucky
he got Agassi
in his last match if he was playing Hewitt in the final he would lost
again.
kaennorsing
ways; first you ask: "Is he (Sampras) the only player in history to
win a slam final in his very last match?". Then later suggest:
"Obviously if a guy retires winning the USO he was a shot at a few
more slams."
Er... if nobody ever won a slam final in his final match, how the hell
does that indicate that if someone finally does he actually would have
had chances to win more? It rather suggests he stopped at a high that
he was unlikely to regain and would have trended downwards from there.
The reality of course, is that he didn't have any shot at any slams
any more - because he actually retired.
Hint: Stop this fanfucking please... It's getting embarrassing.
felangey
> we don't have the same tipping culture as in yankland, but that sounds
> reasonable to me.
>Not when you've been comped a free meal.<
Have to say, I don't see the problem either. Again, I am not from the
'mandatory tipping' culture. Either the meal is a free gift or not.....if
someone gifted me a meal, I wouldn't feel the need to 'pay' for it with
increased gratuity. More likely here that it would cause bad feeling to give
more than a token in such a scenario.
I am happy to play the tipping game when in the states....but I'll never
understand why it is in place. Surely far better to have waiting staff paid
a decent minimum wage....and have "gratuitys" given out of kindness for
service that goes the extra mile, rather than practically demanded for any
old tosh service! :)
arahim
> On 14/01/2011 7:58 PM, Raja, The Great wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 1:47 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> >> Is he the only player in history to win a slam final in his very last match?
>
> >> Wow. I think that stat will continue to grow in significance.
>
> > this is a silly insignificant stat. If Nadal gets hit by a truck and
> > has to retire, he would also join this list.
>
> Only after he just won a slam.
>
> Connolly had no choice but to retire.
>
> Obviously if a guy retires winning the USO he was a shot at a few more
That could also be true if the last match was not won. After all
people lose tournaments and go on to win others.
On the other hand people have won a tournament (their last) and then
never won again so winning one does not mean you are bound to win
another.
Whisper
> On Jan 15, 9:39 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 15/01/2011 12:18 PM, drew wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 14, 7:27 pm, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> coblers, why else is Sampras the ONLY one to have done it?
>>
>>> Done what? Retired after winning a big one? That's a choice
>>> than many can make in sports. He chose his moment and he has
>>> to live with this choice. I suspect he knew that he was very
>>> fortunate
>>> to win the USO
>>
>> er, it was his 3rd successive USO final. Where is the evidence he
>> couldn't cut it?
>>
>> You typing words into a keyboard<> evidence.
>
> If he could cut it why couldn't he won Wimbledon in 2001 and 2002 on
> the courts
> he once dominated.
Because he achieved the slam record & felt very satisfied & jaded at the
same time. If the slam record were higher he most probably would have
won 10 Wimbledons.
> If Sampras game was as good in 2002 as it was in
> mid 90s what
> are the chances of Hewitt or Safin schoolled him in his home grand
> slam or someone
The same odds that he'd school Safin & Hewitt in 2000 & 2001 USO's in
straight sets, which the record shows he did.
> like George Bastl beat him in 5 sets at Wimbledon ?
See above. Only a jackass would think Bastl game had evolved to be
suprior to Sampras.
> Sampras was lucky
> he got Agassi
> in his last match if he was playing Hewitt in the final he would lost
> again.
I remember being angry when Hewitt failed to make 2002 USO final.
Sampras always got revenge, & if you saw Sampras' form in 2002 USO final
you'd realize Hewitt woulda got creamed 62 63 61. Sampras had to
struggle to get motivated to beat Agassi yet again. At the time he had
little to prove. Everyone already knew his A-game beats everyone in
straights, including Hewitt, Safin & Agassi.
Whisper
> On Jan 14, 3:54 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> Obviously if a guy retires winning the USO he was a shot at a few more
>> slams. It says a lot to walk away from that.
>
> That could also be true if the last match was not won. After all
Koensing thinks it's a stretch to think a guy who wins USO can possibly
win more slams.
> people lose tournaments and go on to win others.
> On the other hand people have won a tournament (their last) and then
> never won again so winning one does not mean you are bound to win
> another.
But this is USO we're talking about, not any tournament. USO is always
won by guys who ranked No.1 at some point, so only the elite win it.
Seems ludicrous to think a guy who played like Sampras did in the final
was a shot duck & simply incapable of winning more slams. This is the
kind of idiocy Fedfuckers expect us to swallow.
Joe Ramirez
> > how much do you want him to tip the waiter? $20000?? $20 = 10%, I know
> > we don't have the same tipping culture as in yankland, but that sounds
> > reasonable to me.
> >Not when you've been comped a free meal.<
>
> Have to say, I don't see the problem either. Again, I am not from the
> 'mandatory tipping' culture.
The standard restaurant tip here is 20%. Giving more is not uncommon,
by people who either are generous or wish to appear generous. 15% is
yesterday's standard. 10% is stingy by any standard.
> Either the meal is a free gift or not.....if
> someone gifted me a meal, I wouldn't feel the need to 'pay' for it with
> increased gratuity. More likely here that it would cause bad feeling to give
> more than a token in such a scenario.
I don't think so. It's not as though Pete's family took him out for
his birthday: "Hey, Pete, it's on us." A comped meal from a restaurant
is more like a celebrity discount from the owner. "Hey, you're a big
wheel, so don't worry about the bill." But the wait staff still has to
work as hard as ever -- perhaps harder, to impress the celeb and make
the owner look good. I don't think a waiter ever experiences a "bad
feeling" from being tipped! (Note that the normal discount programs
available to noncelebrities, such as coupons, etc., usually explicitly
direct the guest to tip on the full amount of the prediscount total
bill.)
Joe Ramirez
LOL -- How many times have you trotted out the "old & past it"
copyrighted excuse for Sampras' failures in 2001 & 2002? According to
you, Pete was wearing a Fed-like smoking jacket with "Old & Past It"
stenciled across the back. This has been your mantra for years. True
idiocy would be swallowing your ridiculous reversals.
Superdave
>On Jan 15, 10:57 am, "felangey" <o...@cloudnine.com> wrote:
>> > how much do you want him to tip the waiter? $20000?? $20 = 10%, I know
>> > we don't have the same tipping culture as in yankland, but that sounds
>> > reasonable to me.
>> >Not when you've been comped a free meal.<
>>
>> Have to say, I don't see the problem either.
>
>The standard tip these days is 20% of the pretax bill. Giving more
>than that is not unheard of if people are generous, or want to appear
>generous. 15%
>
>> Again, I am not from the
>> 'mandatory tipping' culture. Either the meal is a free gift or not.....if
>> someone gifted me a meal, I wouldn't feel the need to 'pay' for it with
>> increased gratuity. More likely here that it would cause bad feeling to give
>> more than a token in such a scenario.
>>
>> I am happy to play the tipping game when in the states....but I'll never
>> understand why it is in place. Surely far better to have waiting staff paid
>> a decent minimum wage....and have "gratuitys" given out of kindness for
>> service that goes the extra mile, rather than practically demanded for any
>> old tosh service! :)
20% of $200 is $40.
How many tables does a waiter wait in a shift? 30? 40? 50?
Hey at $40 x 50 tables / an 8hr shift is $250 an hour !
That is 10K a month or $120K a year. Most of it tax free I might add !
And you feel bad for the waiter?
What do they do for it ?
Take your order?
Carry plates 50 feet from the kitchen to your table?
Bring you water?
That is more than a great teacher makes teaching our children.
Tipping is a BAD habit. It should ONLY be done for EXCEPTIONAL service and
not as a practice for ANY service (including BAD service).
I always pay between $100 and $400 USD for dinners in Paris and I NEVER tip
except for REMARKABLE service. Of course in Europe they include a gratuity in
price of the meal BUT still don't look at me for any more unless you EARN it.
Of course credit is due for exceptionally attractive waitresses who flatter
and flirt and who sometimes give more under the table and deserve extra.
Rodjk #613
More importantly, Sampras himself has said that he was done.
Why Whisper seems to disregard Pete himself, I don't know...
Rodjk #613
John Liang
> On 15/01/2011 11:54 PM, John Liang wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 9:39 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> >> On 15/01/2011 12:18 PM, drew wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 14, 7:27 pm, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> coblers, why else is Sampras the ONLY one to have done it?
>
> >>> Done what? Retired after winning a big one? That's a choice
> >>> than many can make in sports. He chose his moment and he has
> >>> to live with this choice. I suspect he knew that he was very
> >>> fortunate
> >>> to win the USO
>
> >> er, it was his 3rd successive USO final. Where is the evidence he
> >> couldn't cut it?
>
> >> You typing words into a keyboard<> evidence.
>
> > If he could cut it why couldn't he won Wimbledon in 2001 and 2002 on
> > the courts
> > he once dominated.
>
> Because he achieved the slam record & felt very satisfied & jaded at the
> same time. If the slam record were higher he most probably would have
> won 10 Wimbledons.
He wasn't good enough and if and probably are not good excuses.
>
> > If Sampras game was as good in 2002 as it was in
> > mid 90s what
> > are the chances of Hewitt or Safin schoolled him in his home grand
> > slam or someone
>
> The same odds that he'd school Safin & Hewitt in 2000 & 2001 USO's in
> straight sets, which the record shows he did.
>
> > like George Bastl beat him in 5 sets at Wimbledon ?
>
> See above. Only a jackass would think Bastl game had evolved to be
suprior to Sampras.
Only jackass like you would think Sampras would won more slam if he
stayed on.
In my opinion the guy left the game at exactly the right time. He
would be continued to
be humiliated by guys like Hewitt or later on Nalbandians who were
taking to the return
game to another level higher than what was previously achived by
Agassi. Georg Bastl
was never a good player but when you saw someone like that beating
Sampras that really
told a story about where Sampras game really was and how fortunately
he was in winning his
last slam at USO. He could meet a Georg Bastl in any tournament and
lost to them.
>
> > Sampras was lucky
> > he got Agassi
> > in his last match if he was playing Hewitt in the final he would lost
> > again.
>
> I remember being angry when Hewitt failed to make 2002 USO final.
> Sampras always got revenge, & if you saw Sampras' form in 2002 USO final
> you'd realize Hewitt woulda got creamed 62 63 61. Sampras had to
> struggle to get motivated to beat Agassi yet again. At the time he had
> little to prove. Everyone already knew his A-game beats everyone in
> straights, including Hewitt, Safin & Agassi.- Hide quoted text -
John Liang
Honestly how many slam did you think Mac would have won base on his 84
USO performance against Lendl ? And how many slam did Mac won after
84. A big fat 0.
TT
Do they advertise the price without vat and tips in USA...that's bullshit.
Here you pay as advertised, leave some coins for the waiter
possibly...they have a salary.
felangey
by people who either are generous or wish to appear generous. 15% is
yesterday's standard. 10% is stingy by any standard.<
Well, on some US forums I am part of this is hotly debated....and some of
your non-big city dwelling residents maintain they would never dream of
paying the now normal 20% of the big smoke...sticking instead with 10% for
normal service through to 15% for exceptional service.
I pay 20% in NYC, as that is the culture. It is counter intuitive, however,
and I do have problems with it. Well, I don't if the service is fine to
good! :)
I understand that wait staff are paid a token wage of a buck or two, and
then make up their wages on tips. I believe I am correct in saying that they
are actually taxed on their covers at an expected tipping rate....so that
'stiffing' them on the tip actually costs them money? It just seems such a
crazy way of doing things. Would you not prefer your waitstaff to be paid a
living wage, reflected in the price of the meal you buy? A diner is expected
to pay this regardless, so it's a bit of a charade to call it a 'gratuity'
or 'tip'. I say include everything in the bill, much like they do at Per Se
in the Time Warner, and then let the guest tip above that if they have been
impressed.
Also, it would be great if you could explain to me how barstaff - who are I
believe properly waged unlike the waitstaff (?) - expect a buck tip for
popping the top off a bottle of beer. :)
>I don't think so. It's not as though Pete's family took him out for
his birthday: "Hey, Pete, it's on us." A comped meal from a restaurant
is more like a celebrity discount from the owner. "Hey, you're a big
wheel, so don't worry about the bill." But the wait staff still has to
work as hard as ever -- perhaps harder, to impress the celeb and make
the owner look good. I don't think a waiter ever experiences a "bad
feeling" from being tipped! (Note that the normal discount programs
available to noncelebrities, such as coupons, etc., usually explicitly
direct the guest to tip on the full amount of the prediscount total
bill.)<
It's just this getting my head around the bill for the meal and the bill for
the service being separate. Only the bill for the service isn't a bill, its
a gratuity. Which is discretionary. But expected. Certainly if you were
given a comped meal in Europe under the above scenario, you would not be
expected to pay anything at all....and in doing so in some countries you may
offend the restaurant owners hospitality. I can see that you guys thought
what Pete did was cheap....and perhaps he should have known better.
Joe Ramirez
>
> Do they advertise the price without vat and tips in USA...that's bullshit.
There is no VAT in the strict sense in the United States. Some states
(and occasionally, counties) have sales taxes; some do not. The
percentages vary. People who live there know what they are. The menu
prices may state that tax is not included.
Everyone knows that tipping is expected, so there's no deception in
not including it in the menu price. And technically, it is not
mandatory, so if you wanted to be a cheap bastard, you could walk out
without paying anything extra. A common exception, however, is for
large parties in more upscale restaurants (definition varies: might be
six or more, might be eight or more). In those cases, the menu often
will state that a gratuity will be automatically added to the bill. I
guess they don't want to take on chance on having the waiter stiffed
on what could be a huge proportion of the evening's work. If you spend
two to three hours catering mostly to one big group, and then get
nothing for it, or a pittance, that hurts.
Joe Ramirez
> >The standard restaurant tip here is 20%. Giving more is not uncommon,
>
> by people who either are generous or wish to appear generous. 15% is
> yesterday's standard. 10% is stingy by any standard.<
>
> Well, on some US forums I am part of this is hotly debated....and some of
> your non-big city dwelling residents maintain they would never dream of
> paying the now normal 20% of the big smoke...sticking instead with 10% for
> normal service through to 15% for exceptional service.
Those people are generally cheapskates. Some of them also may be
politically motivated. Making a point of announcing in a public forum
that you won't tip the going rate indicates that you are some sort of
anti-tipping zealot, and also possibly a reactionary who believes that
working-class people should never make more money than they were
making 30 years ago. You'd be surprised at how common the latter
sentiment is (observe Hazelwood's tipping tripe in this thread, for
example).
felangey
politically motivated.<
While I would never not tip knowing I was gipping someone out of what is
effectively their wages, there is no impetus for political reform. I have
both feet in the working wage for workers camp.
>Making a point of announcing in a public forum
that you won't tip the going rate<
I think this is where I have heard differing things. People, even locals
offering advice on say the trip advisor forums, advise that the going rate
in their town/state whatever is generally accepted to be less than 20%. But
this is another inherent problem with this system. Who sets the rate? Who
decides when it is raised? Surely it *should* be higher in the city, where
the cost of living is greater. Certainly it is the case here that wages are
weighted towards the city.
>indicates that you are some sort of anti-tipping zealot, and also possibly
>a reactionary who believes that
working-class people should never make more money than they were
making 30 years ago.<
They should be and are obviously entitled to a working wage, I will just
never be convinced that they should depend on the whims of customers
patronising the establishment of their "employers", based on an unwritten
and illogical code of conduct.
The problem in the UK right now is that the US tipping culture is for some
reason taking root, in London at least. The difference here of course is
that service staff are paid at least the national minimum living wage, many
receiving a good wage or salary in more upmarket places. So when you go out
to eat in London, you now pay the food bill inclusive of 20% VAT. From this
the service staff will be paid at at least national minimum wage. Then many
places ask for a service charge of 12% on top. And now, social trends are
dictating that this be given at 20% as in NY. And all this when eating out
is more expensive over here to begin with....it's an expensive business! :)
Whisper
> On Jan 16, 6:43 am, Joe Ramirez<josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 4:48 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 16/01/2011 3:21 AM, arahim wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jan 14, 3:54 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Obviously if a guy retires winning the USO he was a shot at a few more
>>>>> slams. It says a lot to walk away from that.
>>
>>>> That could also be true if the last match was not won. After all
>>
>>> Koensing thinks it's a stretch to think a guy who wins USO can possibly
>>> win more slams.
>>
>>>> people lose tournaments and go on to win others.
>>>> On the other hand people have won a tournament (their last) and then
>>>> never won again so winning one does not mean you are bound to win
>>>> another.
>>
>>> But this is USO we're talking about, not any tournament. USO is always
>>> won by guys who ranked No.1 at some point, so only the elite win it.
>>
>>> Seems ludicrous to think a guy who played like Sampras did in the final
>>> kind of idiocy Fedfuckers expect us to swallow.
>>
>> copyrighted excuse for Sampras' failures in 2001& 2002? According to
>> you, Pete was wearing a Fed-like smoking jacket with "Old& Past It"
>> stenciled across the back. This has been your mantra for years. True
>> idiocy would be swallowing your ridiculous reversals.
>
> More importantly, Sampras himself has said that he was done.
> Why Whisper seems to disregard Pete himself, I don't know...
>
> Rodjk #613
Mentally yes, as he had no goals left. If the slam record were higher
he would have plenty of motivation, & his comprehensive USO win proved
he had game if he had motivation.
It's not rocket science.
ed scheuert
Yeah, standard tipping 20 years ago was 15% and since then it's edged
to 20+%. My experience as a pizza delivery boy during college many
years ago was that, when I was late and the pizza was free (yeah, it
was many years ago), my tip would be 2 to 4 times the norm as the free
meal elicited a joyous, philanthropic reaction from the customer. The
difference in tipping cultures across nations is what it is; those not
paid a decent wage rely on tips and those who are don't. For
tourists, it's part of the culture shock but really only something
that need be considered in advance of partaking of a meal out.
Iceberg
Yes, exactly, I think he said he decided to try to win one more for
his wife or something, but that was nothing like when he was shooting
for Emmerson's record. If that had been higher, I'd say he'd have
steamrolled Fed in 3 sets. I guess the Fedfans reckon Bastl is up
there too.
Joe Ramirez
"Sampras was old & past it when he lost to Safin & Hewitt."
-- Whisper, Dec. 15, 2010