Felangey - Do Agassi's results between 2003-2005 count ?

[Shakes]

I mentioned Agassi's results against guys apart from Fed between 2003-2005.

Agassi beat Hewitt, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Roddick, Moya, Berdych, Blake,
Coria etc. at various points during that timeframe.

Does that prove that Agassi had the game to beat those guys ?

I mean, do already posted results count ? They are there on the ATP
site and you can check it up.

I am only checking because you claimed that there is no proof that
Agassi can hang with these guys, inspite of the facts on the ground -
that he actually DID beat them. I just cannot believe that you would
discount already posted results. Unbelievable.

If they do count, what is your take on them ? Agassi got lucky ? Or it
was a weak era and so he could do that ? Or Agassi was actually good
enough to beat those guys ?

Thanks.

[MBDunc]

Agassi was 33-35y during 2003-2005 and was a steady condender as you
listed.

However noone thinks that mid-late 80:ies are weak era, instead many
refer it as a golden era (Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Mecir,
Leconte.....even Mac/Connors still in a mix having their gradual
decline).

Yet Connors stayed in top10 for long and notched some great scalps too
(peak Edberg at USO 89 at age of 37 being the most significant).

Some refer early open era as the best era ever....Rosewall at age of
35/36 had his best slam streak ever 1970-71 : Wimb 70 final, USO 70
win, AO 71 win....was the era weak?

Age factor is greatly overrated. Practically in every other major
sport (save gymnastics and some other borderline odditions) motivated
top champs have no problems easily to compete with 35y mileage. It is
all about motivation, off-court distractions (family) and luck with
injuries.

Even as highly regarded as simple sprinting, 100m/200m runs: (you
should lose speed first right?):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linford_Christie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlene_Ottey

Or that Carl Lewis was able to still win Olympic Gold in Long Jump at
age of 35y.
Or that Johathan Edwards at age of 34 won Olympic Gold (Sydney 2000)
in Triple Jump (and WC year later as 35y).

Dunno about you but I'd assume that sprinting/longjump/triplejump
would be among the most ruthless sports to show your body mileage and
gradual age releated speed decline? Did not stop some greats....

.mikko

[Bob Borghart]

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linford_Christiehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlene_Ottey

>
> Or that Carl Lewis was able to still win Olympic Gold in Long Jump at
> age of 35y.
> Or that Johathan Edwards at age of 34 won Olympic Gold (Sydney 2000)
> in Triple Jump (and WC year later as 35y).
>
> Dunno about you but I'd assume that sprinting/longjump/triplejump
> would be among the most ruthless sports to show your body mileage and
> gradual age releated speed decline? Did not stop some greats....
>
> .mikko

Explosiveness, technique and strength don't decline as fast as the
ability to change direction and recover from yesterday's efforts. Both
are essential in tennis today.

Guys like Agassi and Connors were not about exhausting themselves
trying to run down balls, but were successful in rushing their
opponents, which explains their late successes... It must have helped
them the courts were a good bit quicker back then as well.

[Whisper]

felangey knows he's well beaten. Too gutless to apologize methinks.

[felangey]

Do Agassi's results count? Of course. Can we hang any Pete
couldashouldawouldawishes off them? Of course not.

[TT]

27.9.2011 8:33, MBDunc kirjoitti:
> Age factor is greatly overrated.

That's because fedfans are making excuses.

[TT]

You think? Connors was very much about fighting and Agassi about tiring
his opponents.

[Joe Ramirez]

"Fedfans"? I hope you realize that the discussion about Agassi is also
the premise for Whisper's contention that Sampras and Agassi both
would kick Nadal's butt this way on that on every surface except,
possibly, clay. (Shakes himself may not hold this view, however.)

[Whisper]

On 27/09/2011 11:48 PM, felangey wrote:
> Do Agassi's results count? Of course. Can we hang any Pete
> couldashouldawouldawishes off them? Of course not.
>
>
>
>

This is your comeback? lol.

You're better off pretending not seeing any of these posts. It would be
a less lame option of the 2.

[Iceberg]

the Fedfans can't even accept that Agassi beat Fed several times inc
at the US Open!

[TT]

27.9.2011 16:55, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
> On Sep 27, 9:51 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 27.9.2011 8:33, MBDunc kirjoitti:
>>
>>> Age factor is greatly overrated.
>>
>> That's because fedfans are making excuses.
>
> "Fedfans"?

Exactly.

That's the main reason why age is overly used as an excuse...

> I hope you realize that the discussion about Agassi is also
> the premise for Whisper's contention that Sampras and Agassi both

> would kick Fed's butt

Fixed.

Well, if you argue that Fed is too old now...then you better be prepared
to play the game to the bitter end...

[felangey]

> You're better off pretending not seeing any of these posts. It would be a
> less lame option of the 2.

Sorry, did I miss where you became a proponent of couldashouldawoulda again?
I thought it still meant "fuck all" and that 7543 were the only numbers that
meant anythng in tennis analysis?

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 27, 10:21 am, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> 27.9.2011 16:55, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>
> > On Sep 27, 9:51 am, TT<as...@usenet.org>  wrote:
> >> 27.9.2011 8:33, MBDunc kirjoitti:
>
> >>> Age factor is greatly overrated.
>
> >> That's because fedfans are making excuses.
>
> > "Fedfans"?
>
> Exactly.
>
> That's the main reason why age is overly used as an excuse...
>
> > I hope you realize that the discussion about Agassi is also
> > the premise for Whisper's contention that Sampras and Agassi both
> > would kick Fed's butt
>
> Fixed.

Yes, of course they use the argument against Federer, but the point is
that they also use it against Nadal in the same way. You have the
habit of filtering out the objectionable portions (to you) of crazy
arguments and then endorsing the remainder:
-Pete/Andre coulda-woulda that trashes Fed: Great stuff!
-Pete/Andre coulda-woulda that trashes Rafa: Total BS!

[TT]

27.9.2011 18:15, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
> On Sep 27, 10:21 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 27.9.2011 16:55, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>>
>>> On Sep 27, 9:51 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>> 27.9.2011 8:33, MBDunc kirjoitti:
>>
>>>>> Age factor is greatly overrated.
>>
>>>> That's because fedfans are making excuses.
>>
>>> "Fedfans"?
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> That's the main reason why age is overly used as an excuse...
>>
>>> I hope you realize that the discussion about Agassi is also
>>> the premise for Whisper's contention that Sampras and Agassi both
>>> would kick Fed's butt
>>
>> Fixed.
>
> Yes, of course they use the argument against Federer, but the point is
> that they also use it against Nadal in the same way.

Well they can't use it the same way since Sampras never played Nadal and
Agassi never beat him...

[AliAsoag]

On Sep 27, 8:21 am, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> 27.9.2011 16:55, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>
> > On Sep 27, 9:51 am, TT<as...@usenet.org>  wrote:
> >> 27.9.2011 8:33, MBDunc kirjoitti:
>
> >>> Age factor is greatly overrated.
>
> >> That's because fedfans are making excuses.
>
> > "Fedfans"?
>
> Exactly.
>
> That's the main reason why age is overly used as an excuse...

You mean as you always used "baby Nadal" losing to Fed at Wimby
2006/2007? LOL

Age stuff as an excuse is not only "too old", but also "too young".

[Joe Ramirez]

How does that help? Sampras played Fed, and *lost*, yet we still hear
about how Pete would have mashed Fed into rice pilaf at Wimbledon and
the USO if they had played in the same era. Nadal's 0-0 record against
Sampras just means there are no limits to the fantasies about Rafa's
vaporization in the face of those nuclear forehands. And of course now
we're hearing about how the Djoker would have been crushed as well.

[TT]

:)

[AliAsoag]

Who said Fedfans "can't accept" that Agassi beat Fed several times?
They even accept Canas beat peak Fed twice in a row. So what?

[Javier González]

> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linford_Christiehttp://en.wikipedia.org/...

>
> >> Or that Carl Lewis was able to still win Olympic Gold in Long Jump at
> >> age of 35y.
> >> Or that Johathan Edwards at age of 34 won Olympic Gold (Sydney 2000)
> >> in Triple Jump (and WC year later as 35y).
>
> >> Dunno about you but I'd assume that sprinting/longjump/triplejump
> >> would be among the most ruthless sports to show your body mileage and
> >> gradual age releated speed decline? Did not stop some greats....
>
> >> .mikko
>
> > Explosiveness, technique and strength don't decline as fast as the
> > ability to change direction and recover from yesterday's efforts. Both
> > are essential in tennis today.
>
> > Guys like Agassi and Connors were not about exhausting themselves
> > trying to run down balls,
>
> You think? Connors was very much about fighting and Agassi about tiring
> his opponents.

Yes, early 2000's Agassi was noted for running down every ball.

Or was it for camping in the middle of the baseline, hitting flat-ish
balls early on the rise, taking control of the rally, and moving the
*other* guy from side to side until he was tired? Can't remember.

[bob]

then certainly fed, at just barely 30, since he has no injuries ever,
is peak, no?????

bob

[bob]

i don't think anybody is believing sampras/agassi would "trash"
federer/nadal/djok.

the concept is that sampras in particular had a game truly unseen to
fed/nadal/djok, highly suited to fast surfaces, and as such, IMO,
would give those 3 bigtime trouble on fast surfaces.

the other concept is that an old aged/ bad hipped agassi competed
extremely well VS the 03-05 crowd where fed basically won 1st 10 slams
(granted they came after 05 some, but same competition). pretty
consistent themes here mikks.

bob

[bob]

per the deluxes, fed is "past it" at 30, but agassi was "peak" at 35
dont' forget.

bob

[Sakari Lund]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:42:20 -0400, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:

>the concept is that sampras in particular had a game truly unseen to
>fed/nadal/djok, highly suited to fast surfaces, and as such, IMO,
>would give those 3 bigtime trouble on fast surfaces.

Sampras game was "truly unseen" to Fed? I think Fed got a good luck at
it on Wimbledon Center Court.

[Sakari Lund]

"good look at it" :-)

[bob]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:48:08 +0300, Sakari Lund
<sakar...@welho.com> wrote:

ffs, you counting 2001 as really sampras? were you watching then saks?

bob

[Sakari Lund]

Yes, one couldn't get any kind of idea of Sampras playing style in
2001. The guy had absolutely no motivation at all, which obviously
meant he played like Felix Mantilla those days, so no, there is
absolutely no way Fed can have any idea what Sampras game was like.

[MBDunc]

Peak enough which means he is still capable of doing some top notch
stuff on court (as evidenced by FO SF).

The difference is that it does not happen anymore at every tournament
and there are more and more dry periods with mediocre results compared
to heydays.

.mikko

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 27, 12:42 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:15:23 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>

> >Yes, of course they use the argument against Federer, but the point is
> >that they also use it against Nadal in the same way. You have the
> >habit of filtering out the objectionable portions (to you) of crazy
> >arguments and then endorsing the remainder:
> >-Pete/Andre coulda-woulda that trashes Fed: Great stuff!
> >-Pete/Andre coulda-woulda that trashes Rafa: Total BS!
>
> i don't think anybody is believing sampras/agassi would "trash"
> federer/nadal/djok.

Whisper said this TODAY:

"I have no doubt Sampras & Agassi would roll 2011 Djoker in hc slams.
Sampras would just blow him off the court with all court play, while
Agassi would be too strong dictating play from inside the baseline."

You know he's said more or less the same thing about Federer and Nadal
as well; I'm not going to waste any time looking up yet more evidence
for you to ignore. It ain't about being "competitive" for Whisper;
it's a matter of hypothetical demonstrations of god-given superiority.

[TT]

The truth is that Sampras had huge trouble against Hewitt. Even says in
his book that Hewitt was very unlucky that s/v declined.

Now of course many can return like Hewitt did, and they have much bigger
games as well...

[TT]

Yes he got lucky, winning in 5th their tie-break bore-fest.

[TT]

Sampras played still very close to his best and so did Federer at that
match. It was so close (and boring) that they should have actually
played only tie-breaks in that match.

[TT]

27.9.2011 20:53, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
> On Sep 27, 12:42 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:15:23 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>>
>>> Yes, of course they use the argument against Federer, but the point is
>>> that they also use it against Nadal in the same way. You have the
>>> habit of filtering out the objectionable portions (to you) of crazy
>>> arguments and then endorsing the remainder:
>>> -Pete/Andre coulda-woulda that trashes Fed: Great stuff!
>>> -Pete/Andre coulda-woulda that trashes Rafa: Total BS!
>>
>> i don't think anybody is believing sampras/agassi would "trash"
>> federer/nadal/djok.
>
> Whisper said this TODAY:
>

> "I have no doubt Sampras& Agassi would roll 2011 Djoker in hc slams.

> Sampras would just blow him off the court with all court play, while
> Agassi would be too strong dictating play from inside the baseline."

Load of rubbish that was. Sampy couldn't handle even Hewitt...and that
wasn't because of his age, as he clearly tells us in his book.

[TT]

Don't twist.

Agassi relied heavily on his fitness, even speeding his serve
preparations in order to tire his opponent.

[Ulysses]

Agassi made a slam final at the age of 35 and won two slams after the
age of 30. This is far more than either Federer or Nadal will achieve
when they are of similar ages. Watch the '05 USO final, where Agassi
clearly outplayed peak Fed for a set and a half.

[Whisper]

So why do you think Sampras/Agassi would struggle with anyone today who
achieved less than them?

[Rodjk #613]

Why do you suppose that Federer would struggle with anyone from the
past who achieved less than him?

Rodjk #613

[Javier González]

On Sep 27, 3:57 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:

Yes, but the tiring was in making the *other guy* play faster and run
longer. He wasn't exhahusting *himself* running down balls. I'm sure
you have memorized the Nadal-Agassi match from Montreal. You'll
remember that Agassi didn't move a lot, whipping the ball to each
corner... and Nadal ran them down and got them back... and back... and
back. It was kinda funny to see Agassi apply his usual late career yo-
yo game... only to find Rafa was better at yo-yoing that he was at
slinging that yo-yo xD

[TT]

Doesn't work like that. He has to run himself as well and big part of
his game was being fit.

You try to make it sound like he was just standing there. He wasn't.

> He wasn't exhahusting *himself* running down balls. I'm sure
> you have memorized the Nadal-Agassi match from Montreal. You'll
> remember that Agassi didn't move a lot, whipping the ball to each
> corner... and Nadal ran them down and got them back... and back... and
> back. It was kinda funny to see Agassi apply his usual late career yo-
> yo game... only to find Rafa was better at yo-yoing that he was at
> slinging that yo-yo xD

Nope, don't remember it, but I do remember their match at Wimbledon,
where Agassi did just as much running if not more than Nadal.

[Shakes]

Fed saw Sampras' game and was ready for it, true enough. But the level
at which Sampras executed in that match was as high as he could go at
*that* age - closing on 30. You could as well use Tsonga's results
against Fed at Wim this year, and claim that Tsonga has attained a
level of play higher than Fed's ever was.

[bob]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:58:56 +0300, Sakari Lund

<sakar...@welho.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:50:29 -0400, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:48:08 +0300, Sakari Lund
>><sakar...@welho.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:42:20 -0400, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>the concept is that sampras in particular had a game truly unseen to
>>>>fed/nadal/djok, highly suited to fast surfaces, and as such, IMO,
>>>>would give those 3 bigtime trouble on fast surfaces.
>>>
>>>Sampras game was "truly unseen" to Fed? I think Fed got a good luck at
>>>it on Wimbledon Center Court.
>>
>>ffs, you counting 2001 as really sampras? were you watching then saks?
>
>Yes, one couldn't get any kind of idea of Sampras playing style in
>2001. The guy had absolutely no motivation at all, which obviously
>meant he played like Felix Mantilla those days, so no, there is
>absolutely no way Fed can have any idea what Sampras game was like.

well fed sees fish so i guess that counts too, no? it's about as
relevant.

bob

[felangey]

>You could as well use Tsonga's results against Fed at Wim this year, and
>claim that Tsonga has attained a level of play higher than Fed's ever was.

Is Tsonga only a 19 year old up and comer? I thought he was 26 and playing
the best tennis of his career.

[bob]

i don't want you to get angry, but i truly agree with whisper's
analysis, here's why.

sampras VS djoker would *never* be a test if fitness or patience, and
that beyond all doubt is what put djoker over the edge this year.
that's why he beats nadal, and even though fed's played him tough, he
still beat him 4 of 5. sampras would chip/charge, s/v, drop shot,
corners, come in on EVERY shot, and MANY of them not power shots in
djoker's comfort zone like nadal feeds him all match long. djoker
never saw it, doker has some temper, how'd he handle it, not sure.

sampras would have a much tougher time IMO with federer than djoker,
because (i won't use word matchup haha) it'd be federer's excellent
all around game, incl good serve as the opponent, not robo-beast. it
would not simply be a matter of federer "out lasting" sampras - if he
won it'd be on his skills.

and agassi, we actually have data to show that way past his peak age
he was incredibly competitive with top guys, even federer at an age
where fedfans claim fed peaked.

bob

[jdeluise]

On 27-Sep-2011, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:

> i don't want you to get angry, but i truly agree with whisper's
> analysis, here's why.

Gee, it sure sounds like you're backtracking now.

bob: nobody is saying pete would scud the best of this era
Joe: Whisper just said he would.
bob: actually, i agree with whisper

[bob]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 01:03:20 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>On 27-Sep-2011, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> i don't want you to get angry, but i truly agree with whisper's
>> analysis, here's why.
>
>Gee, it sure sounds like you're backtracking now.

not backtracking in the least. my post speaks for itself and is
consistent with what has happened this yr and what i've said over the
yrs.

>bob: nobody is saying pete would scud the best of this era
>Joe: Whisper just said he would.
>bob: actually, i agree with whisper

i explained my philosophy of djoke/fed/sampras hypotheticals. why
not quote it all instead of snippingl.

bob

[John Liang]

Why couldn't Samrpas do all this against Hewitt in 2001 USO and many
of his other matches against Hewitt since 1998 ?

>
> and agassi, we actually have data to show that way past his peak age
> he was incredibly competitive with top guys, even federer at an age
> where fedfans claim fed peaked.
>

> bob- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 27, 7:09 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:53:55 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
>
>
>
>
> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 27, 12:42 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:15:23 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
> >> >Yes, of course they use the argument against Federer, but the point is
> >> >that they also use it against Nadal in the same way. You have the
> >> >habit of filtering out the objectionable portions (to you) of crazy
> >> >arguments and then endorsing the remainder:
> >> >-Pete/Andre coulda-woulda that trashes Fed: Great stuff!
> >> >-Pete/Andre coulda-woulda that trashes Rafa: Total BS!
>
> >> i don't think anybody is believing sampras/agassi would "trash"
> >> federer/nadal/djok.
>
> >Whisper said this TODAY:
>
> >"I have no doubt Sampras & Agassi would roll 2011 Djoker in hc slams.
> >Sampras would just blow him off the court with all court play, while
> >Agassi would be too strong dictating play from inside the baseline."
> >You know he's said more or less the same thing about Federer and Nadal
> >as well; I'm not going to waste any time looking up yet more evidence
> >for you to ignore. It ain't about being "competitive" for Whisper;
> >it's a matter of hypothetical demonstrations of god-given superiority.
>
> i don't want you to get angry, but i truly agree with whisper's
> analysis, here's why.  
>

LOL! Humanity can rest easy at last. An assault by some type of
reasonably robust AI might threaten us, but I think we can easily
withstand the attack of the contradictobots.

Did you know that Claude Shannon invented a primitive robot that could
solve a simple maze? After it bumped into a wall, it just went in
another direction until it hit another wall, saving the path in a
relay memory.
http://plus.maths.org/issue15/features/shannon/shannon.jpg

[Whisper]

Sarcasm is misplaced. Cowan pushed Sampras to 5 sets the day before, &
Fed lost to Tim next match.

[Whisper]

Sampras had no trouble with Hewitt in USO semis, beating him in
straights despite 10 yr age gap.

One of the saddest tennis days in my life was when Agassi beat Hewitt in
2002 USO semis : (

[Whisper]

Sampras wasn't remotely close to his best - don't know about Fed.

[Whisper]

Hewitt is a zero factor.

[Whisper]

On 28/09/2011 7:27 AM, TT wrote:
>>> preparations in order to tire his opponent.
>>
>> Yes, but the tiring was in making the *other guy* play faster and run
>> longer.
>
> Doesn't work like that. He has to run himself as well and big part of
> his game was being fit.
>
> You try to make it sound like he was just standing there. He wasn't.
>
>> He wasn't exhahusting *himself* running down balls. I'm sure
>> you have memorized the Nadal-Agassi match from Montreal. You'll
>> remember that Agassi didn't move a lot, whipping the ball to each
>> corner... and Nadal ran them down and got them back... and back... and
>> back. It was kinda funny to see Agassi apply his usual late career yo-
>> yo game... only to find Rafa was better at yo-yoing that he was at
>> slinging that yo-yo xD
>
> Nope, don't remember it, but I do remember their match at Wimbledon,
> where Agassi did just as much running if not more than Nadal.

How old were both guys at the time?

[Whisper]

Was Fed ranked 17 & losing in every tournament?

[felangey]

>> Is Tsonga only a 19 year old up and comer? I thought he was 26 and
>> playing
>> the best tennis of his career.
>>
> Was Fed ranked 17 & losing in every tournament?

Fed was ranked 15 was it? And I don't think he was winning a whole lot. Your
point?

[John Liang]

Federer is ranked higher but he was losing in every tournament. And
your point is ?

[John Liang]

He was straight setted a year later and losing 4 out of last five
matches against this guy he had no
problem with.

>
> One of the saddest tennis days in my life was when Agassi beat Hewitt in

> 2002 USO semis : (- Hide quoted text -

It could be even more sadder for you had Hewitt reache the final.

[Sakari Lund]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 00:27:09 +0300, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:

>Nope, don't remember it, but I do remember their match at Wimbledon,
>where Agassi did just as much running if not more than Nadal.

That was Agassi's almost last tournament at 36. In his book he tells
how he skipped AO and the clay season just to be able to somehow play
one last Wimbledon. His body was completely broken down.

[John Liang]

> Hewitt is a zero factor.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So Sampras let a guy with zero factor beating him 4 out of last 5
times..

[Sakari Lund]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:30:11 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

Have you watched the match already? I have seen long highlights and it
looks like a pretty high level match based on those.

[Sakari Lund]

Well I didn't claim anything like that. I was commenting on bob saying

"sampras in particular had a game truly unseen to fed/nadal/djok,
highly suited to fast surfaces, and as such, IMO, would give those 3
bigtime trouble on fast surfaces."

I was saying that Sampras game is not that unfamiliar to Fed (although
it is to Nad and Djok). And he even did pretty well against it a time
neother of them was at peak. And I could have also said that there are
no fast surfaces any more...

[Sakari Lund]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:09:52 -0400, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:

>>> i don't think anybody is believing sampras/agassi would "trash"
>>> federer/nadal/djok.
>>
>>Whisper said this TODAY:
>>
>>"I have no doubt Sampras & Agassi would roll 2011 Djoker in hc slams.
>>Sampras would just blow him off the court with all court play, while
>>Agassi would be too strong dictating play from inside the baseline."
>>You know he's said more or less the same thing about Federer and Nadal
>>as well; I'm not going to waste any time looking up yet more evidence
>>for you to ignore. It ain't about being "competitive" for Whisper;
>>it's a matter of hypothetical demonstrations of god-given superiority.
>
>i don't want you to get angry, but i truly agree with whisper's
>analysis

I know jdeluise and Joe have already said this in different words, but
WHY DO YOU THIS?????

Are you crazy or do you want to make us crazy? Read the posts above.
How can you say 100% opposite things and just go on like everyone else
is wrong and you make perfect sense all the time?????

[Sakari Lund]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:36:32 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

And why was that, since you are not much of a Sampras fan or a Hewitt
fan?

[TT]

But no problem, he just had to stand on the baseline taking the ball
early and moving his opponent around.
...Well that's if we are to believe MR. Borghart and Gonzalez.

[Sakari Lund]

But standing on the baseline was very difficult for him. Translating
back from my translated book: "Then I start feeling my back. In the
latter part of the match, when Nadal is serving, I can't stand still.
I have to move, step my foot, get the blood to circulate. The
stiffness is so severe and the pain so great that returning the serve
is the last thing on my mind. I only think of standing up."

To be honest, he is pretty happy with the way he was able to play
early in the match.

[Javier González]

Yeah, he used a folding chair too. *eyeroll*.

[TT]

Sounds like he's making excuses for losing to Nadal...

Well, he's all about excuses...one was being afraid that his wig drops
at FO...

[TT]

Damn he was good.

[Javier González]

On Sep 28, 2:41 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:

Yep. Everybody would say he's the goat if not for the disgusting nose-
blowing on court. That shit just won't do for the greatest ever.

[Sakari Lund]

He has an excuse for pretty much every loss he ever had. 2006 ones are
easiest to believe though. His body really was finished.

>Well, he's all about excuses...one was being afraid that his wig drops
>at FO...

That one is also one of the easiest to believe. Must be hard to
concentrate when you are afraid all the time that thing falls down...

[Shakes]

On 2011-09-28 07:19:20 -0700, Sakari Lund said:

> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:30:11 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 28/09/2011 2:58 AM, Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:50:29 -0400, bob<stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:48:08 +0300, Sakari Lund
>>>> <sakar...@welho.com> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:42:20 -0400, bob<stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> the concept is that sampras in particular had a game truly unseen to
>>>>>> fed/nadal/djok, highly suited to fast surfaces, and as such, IMO,
>>>>>> would give those 3 bigtime trouble on fast surfaces.
>>>>>

>>>>> Sampras game was "truly unseen" to Fed? I think Fed got a good luck at
>>>>> it on Wimbledon Center Court.
>>>>

>>>> ffs, you counting 2001 as really sampras? were you watching then saks?
>>>
>>> Yes, one couldn't get any kind of idea of Sampras playing style in
>>> 2001. The guy had absolutely no motivation at all, which obviously
>>> meant he played like Felix Mantilla those days, so no, there is
>>> absolutely no way Fed can have any idea what Sampras game was like.
>>
>>
>> Sarcasm is misplaced. Cowan pushed Sampras to 5 sets the day before, &
>> Fed lost to Tim next match.
>
> Have you watched the match already? I have seen long highlights and it
> looks like a pretty high level match based on those.

I've seen the entire match, and yes it was a good match, high quality.
And yet, Sampras was only able to play as well as his almost-30 yr old
body would allow. As great a server as he was, given the quality of
Fed's returns, Sampras was not able to close in to the net as fast as
he would've liked. He was a step slow and less explosive, if you
compare him to 1999. That makes a difference, more for a S/V'er than a
baseliner.

[Whisper]

Sampras record shows he always got revenge. 1st loss was due to
tiredness/apathy.

[Joe Ramirez]

http://a4.mzstatic.com/us/r1000/057/Purple/c7/1b/df/mzl.zpdtkuig.320x480-75.jpg

[number_six]

On Sep 28, 12:06 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011-09-28 07:19:20 -0700, Sakari Lund said:
>
>
>

> > On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:30:11 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >> On 28/09/2011 2:58 AM, Sakari Lund wrote:

> >>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:50:29 -0400, bob<stein...@comcast.net>  wrote:
>
> >>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:48:08 +0300, Sakari Lund

> >>>> <sakari.l...@welho.com>  wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:42:20 -0400, bob<stein...@comcast.net>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>> the concept is that sampras in particular had a game truly unseen to
> >>>>>> fed/nadal/djok, highly suited to fast surfaces, and as such, IMO,
> >>>>>> would give those 3 bigtime trouble on fast surfaces.
>
> >>>>> Sampras game was "truly unseen" to Fed? I think Fed got a good luck at
> >>>>> it on Wimbledon Center Court.
>
> >>>> ffs, you counting 2001 as really sampras? were you watching then saks?
>
> >>> Yes, one couldn't get any kind of idea of Sampras playing style in
> >>> 2001. The guy had absolutely no motivation at all, which obviously
> >>> meant he played like Felix Mantilla those days, so no, there is
> >>> absolutely no way Fed can have any idea what Sampras game was like.
>
> >> Sarcasm is misplaced.  Cowan pushed Sampras to 5 sets the day before, &
> >> Fed lost to Tim next match.
>
> > Have you watched the match already? I have seen long highlights and it
> > looks like a pretty high level match based on those.
>
> I've seen the entire match, and yes it was a good match, high quality.
> And yet, Sampras was only able to play as well as his almost-30 yr old
> body would allow. As great a server as he was, given the quality of
> Fed's returns, Sampras was not able to close in to the net as fast as
> he would've liked. He was a step slow and less explosive, if you
> compare him to 1999. That makes a difference, more for a S/V'er than a
> baseliner.

I have watched this match a couple of times and think that's a fair
assessment. Sampras was good, but not what he had been in the past,
and Federer -- although his extraordinary quickness, great transition
game, racket head speed and overall blazing talent were well on
display -- was still not yet what he would later become.

In some ways, perhaps tennis fans try to make too much out of this one
match, but considering the collision of worlds, of eras, that it
represented -- as we now know in retrospect -- the temptation to
overemphasize this encounter is great indeed.

[Patrick Kehoe]

Yes... Pete did often get 'tired' even in his prime... in the 1990s he
could get away with it...

P

[Patrick Kehoe]

> overemphasize this encounter is great indeed.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Pete looked surprized A LOT during the match... as if he was seeing
something he'd never seen before across the net... himself! :))

P

[John Liang]

So he even out that semi final win over 19 years old Hewitt with 4
straight losses ?

[bob]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 20:47:35 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:

>On Sep 27, 7:09 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:53:55 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:

>> >On Sep 27, 12:42 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:15:23 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>>

>> >> >Yes, of course they use the argument against Federer, but the point is
>> >> >that they also use it against Nadal in the same way. You have the
>> >> >habit of filtering out the objectionable portions (to you) of crazy
>> >> >arguments and then endorsing the remainder:
>> >> >-Pete/Andre coulda-woulda that trashes Fed: Great stuff!
>> >> >-Pete/Andre coulda-woulda that trashes Rafa: Total BS!
>>
>> >> i don't think anybody is believing sampras/agassi would "trash"
>> >> federer/nadal/djok.
>>

>> >Whisper said this TODAY:
>>
>> >"I have no doubt Sampras & Agassi would roll 2011 Djoker in hc slams.
>> >Sampras would just blow him off the court with all court play, while
>> >Agassi would be too strong dictating play from inside the baseline."
>> >You know he's said more or less the same thing about Federer and Nadal
>> >as well; I'm not going to waste any time looking up yet more evidence
>> >for you to ignore. It ain't about being "competitive" for Whisper;
>> >it's a matter of hypothetical demonstrations of god-given superiority.
>>
>> i don't want you to get angry, but i truly agree with whisper's

>> analysis, here's why.  
>>
>LOL! Humanity can rest easy at last. An assault by some type of
>reasonably robust AI might threaten us, but I think we can easily
>withstand the attack of the contradictobots.

and yet you always criticize posts w/out reasons, here i give you
reasons, but you don't like em, so just ignore em.

>Did you know that Claude Shannon invented a primitive robot that could
>solve a simple maze? After it bumped into a wall, it just went in
>another direction until it hit another wall, saving the path in a
>relay memory.
>http://plus.maths.org/issue15/features/shannon/shannon.jpg

you overstate my memory joe. :-)

bob

[bob]

whisper said sampras would whip djok, and i said that i think sampras
would match up better VS djok than federer, and i explained detailed
reasons why, and i fully believe those reasons, and they're incredibly
logical and insightful considering how these 3 guys play.

and somehow this bothers you? wtf is wrong with you sakari?

bob

[bob]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:36:32 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

>On 28/09/2011 4:48 AM, TT wrote:
>> 27.9.2011 19:42, bob kirjoitti:

>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:15:23 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez

>>> <josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 27, 10:21 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>>> 27.9.2011 16:55, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 27, 9:51 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 27.9.2011 8:33, MBDunc kirjoitti:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Age factor is greatly overrated.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's because fedfans are making excuses.
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Fedfans"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the main reason why age is overly used as an excuse...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope you realize that the discussion about Agassi is also
>>>>>> the premise for Whisper's contention that Sampras and Agassi both
>>>>>> would kick Fed's butt
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixed.
>>>>

>>>> Yes, of course they use the argument against Federer, but the point is
>>>> that they also use it against Nadal in the same way. You have the
>>>> habit of filtering out the objectionable portions (to you) of crazy
>>>> arguments and then endorsing the remainder:
>>>> -Pete/Andre coulda-woulda that trashes Fed: Great stuff!
>>>> -Pete/Andre coulda-woulda that trashes Rafa: Total BS!
>>>

>>> i don't think anybody is believing sampras/agassi would "trash"
>>> federer/nadal/djok.
>>>

>>> the concept is that sampras in particular had a game truly unseen to
>>> fed/nadal/djok, highly suited to fast surfaces, and as such, IMO,
>>> would give those 3 bigtime trouble on fast surfaces.
>>>
>>

>> The truth is that Sampras had huge trouble against Hewitt. Even says in
>> his book that Hewitt was very unlucky that s/v declined.
>>
>> Now of course many can return like Hewitt did, and they have much bigger
>> games as well...
>
>
>
>Sampras had no trouble with Hewitt in USO semis, beating him in
>straights despite 10 yr age gap.
>

>One of the saddest tennis days in my life was when Agassi beat Hewitt in
>2002 USO semis : (

wanted to witness the bloodletting did you?

bob

[bob]

joe, that looks like a version of the ole adding machine, no? :-)

bob

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 28, 7:43 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 20:47:35 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
>
>
>
>

Sigh. These discussions always follow the same sorry path. First,
someone mentions an inane, green-cheese claim of Whisper's. You feign
ignorance: "I never heard him say that." "I don't know what Whisp's
position is on that." "I don't think anyone really has argued that."
Then, when the crazy claim is basically shoved in your face via a
direct quotation, you bite the bullet and *agree* with it, at the same
time denying your own previous denial.

What do you think jdeluise, Sakari, and I are reacting to here? It's
not the angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin question about the nuances
of Sampras vs. Djokovic. You might as well ask who would win a debate
between Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill. The problem is that
first you implied a point of view was loco, and then you reversed
course and endorsed it 100 percent.

You said: "i don't think anybody is believing sampras/agassi would
'trash' federer/nadal/djok." In other words, "Hey, we're not crazy.
We're not totally biased. We don't see these admittedly hypothetical
matchups in an utterly one-sided way."

Then, when I showed that Whisper indeed had said that Sampras would
blow Djokovic off the court, you immediately abandoned your "i don't
think anybody is believing" assertion and simply agreed with a
position you had just claimed didn't even exist. What you should have
said at that point was, "Oops, I was wrong -- I guess we *are* crazy
after all."

[bob]

this whole line of thought is based on using the word "trash" VS my
phrasing that basically "sampras would be a tough matchup for djok."
(and probably peak agassi would also). it's as simple as that. the
phrasing pissed you off, no more.

can't you be big enough to just look at the content and reasoning of
whisp's post followed on by a lengthy explanation i gave of the *why*
i tend to agree that sampras would be a tough feat for djok? in fact,
IMO, sampras would be much tougher for djok than he would be for fed
and i stated my reasons.

>Then, when I showed that Whisper indeed had said that Sampras would
>blow Djokovic off the court, you immediately abandoned your "i don't
>think anybody is believing" assertion and simply agreed with a
>position you had just claimed didn't even exist. What you should have
>said at that point was, "Oops, I was wrong -- I guess we *are* crazy
>after all."

get over the phrase "blow off court" and get to the relevance joe.
would sampras be a tough load for djok or not? state your beliefs and
reasons for em. i believe he would. i see djok as another agassi for
him.

see, just as with agassi, against sampras *extreme fitness isn't the
ticket*.

bob

[Whisper]

It would have just confirmed Sampras' greatness. He enevr lost when he
really wanted to beat someone badly. That wasn't the case v Hewitt in
2001, but woulda been 2002. Even though he was past his best as far as
movement/stamina went, he served lights out & really closed in for the
kill to keep points short, & brutal. I really think Sampras woulda won
something like 60 62 62.

[Javier González]

On Sep 29, 11:36 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> On 29/09/2011 12:36 AM, Sakari Lund wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:36:32 +1000, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >> On 28/09/2011 4:48 AM, TT wrote:
> >>> 27.9.2011 19:42, bob kirjoitti:
> >>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:15:23 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez

> >>>> <josephmrami...@netzero.com>  wrote:

This Sampras guy, amazingly good tennis player, but not an ounce of
tennis legacy awareness. "Do I want to tie jimbo's record at the USO,
win my 14th slam cementing my status as GOAT, and not have my first
slamless year since 1992? After all, I just have to be arsed for one
more match... right? What's that? Nothing? Nope. Can't be arsed".

[Sakari Lund]

I am not talking at all about the points you make about Sampras or
Federer or Djokovic. I am talking about your debating technique, which
is really weird. You say something, someone replies, in the next post
you start talking about something completely different (happens often)
or you have100% opposite view than you had in your previous post
(happened here). It is just nuts.

[Whisper]

Let's see how Nadal goes at Wimbledon at age 36 v 20 yr old superstar.
That will tell us how good Rafa is in absolute terms no?

[bob]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 01:14:24 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

at this rate, i'm hoping rafa holds up ok at 26, as i like him.

closer timeframe, fed's about 5 yrs off that, 2017 Wim i'm wanting to
see if he takes a set and up a brk in finals.

bob

[Whisper]

If it were the final it would hold some merit. In reality neither guy
was good enoough to beat Henman that yr.

[bob]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:10:58 +0300, Sakari Lund

are you drunk saks? did you read this very short post frm top to
bottom where joe talks about what whisp said about sampras/djoke/fed
and i responded with an opinion on that *specific* paragraph?

listen, if my opinions on tennis bug ya, don't read em. but i have
advice: stay away from shakes, he's taking no prisoners atm.

bob

[John Liang]

I see Djoke as another Hewitt for Sampras and beat him in USO just
like
Hewitt did.

>
> see, just as with agassi,  against sampras *extreme fitness isn't the
> ticket*.

Exceptional ability to return serve and great passing shots is a very
good ticket.
>
> bob- Hide quoted text -

[Sakari Lund]

Once more, I am not talking about your opinions at all. Everyone can
see the thing I am talking about. You can change the subject as much
as you want.

>listen, if my opinions on tennis bug ya, don't read em. but i have
>advice: stay away from shakes, he's taking no prisoners atm.

Shakes is good. He has good, consistent opinions. I don't agree
completely with all he says, but that is the point of having
discussions.

[John Liang]

On Sep 30, 12:36 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> On 29/09/2011 12:36 AM, Sakari Lund wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:36:32 +1000, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >> On 28/09/2011 4:48 AM, TT wrote:
> >>> 27.9.2011 19:42, bob kirjoitti:
> >>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:15:23 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez

> >>>> <josephmrami...@netzero.com>  wrote:

So Sampras did not want to beat Edberg at USO and he obviously like to
be beaten
by journeymen at FO because he didn't want to win. And of course
Wimbledon in 96
wasn't important enough for him.

>That wasn't the case v Hewitt in
> 2001, but woulda been 2002.  Even though he was past his best as far as
> movement/stamina went, he served lights out & really closed in for the
> kill to keep points short, & brutal.  I really think Sampras woulda won

> something like 60 62 62.- Hide quoted text -

Sampras can alway serve Agassi off court but not against Hewitt.
Hewitt would beat
Sampras again if they met in the final just like the last 4 times
after 2000 USO.

[bob]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:43:58 +0300, Sakari Lund

the only one who think i change topic is scott.

>>listen, if my opinions on tennis bug ya, don't read em. but i have
>>advice: stay away from shakes, he's taking no prisoners atm.
>
>Shakes is good. He has good, consistent opinions. I don't agree
>completely with all he says, but that is the point of having
>discussions.

and i agree with much of shakes. must mean i'm onto something.

bob

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 29, 12:05 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:43:58 +0300, Sakari Lund
>
>
>
>
>

> <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:

> >On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:30:05 -0400, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:10:58 +0300, Sakari Lund

> >><sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:

>
> >>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:45:48 -0400, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:33:45 +0300, Sakari Lund

> >>>><sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:

It means you both love Sampras. No great mystery.

The difference between Shakes and you/Whisper is that while Shakes
vigorously resists the notion that current-era players would dominate
Sampras-era players, he does NOT advocate the opposite view: that
Sampras-era players would dominate current-era players. You and
Whisper obviously promote the latter idea with all your might.

[Patrick Kehoe]

> Whisper obviously promote the latter idea with all your might.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

A Technical Quibble here...

I don't believe the assertion is (ok, or should be) based around the
word 'dominate' Joe... defeat or victory can be a slender thread
either way... AND I KNOW I AM telling you something you know... if a
person believes that sport is athletic systems of adaptations as
excellence applied via technique and technical progressions, then over
time all these micro - and marco - augmentations do 'move the game'/
facilitiate the playing of the elite game at a/in a more and more
refined manner... the players of each generation say it [Jezz, hardman
Pancho Gonzales warmed to Borg and then McEnroe, as champions that
were 'taking tennis forward']... there is a common thread of admitting
that tennis gets faster and more 'physically demanding at the decades
roll by... AND YET... some players do defy time: in 1969 in at 41
years old, Pancho took out John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall, Stan Smith and
Arthur Ashe in succession winning the Howard Hughes tennis tournament
in Las Vegas, Nevada... so... :)))))))))))

Few things in life are straight and clear and without parabolics or
contradictions... eras do change but overlapping of the tectonic
plates of greatness do happen... that doesn't mean sports doesn't
develop though... it only suggests exceptionalism as sporting
greatness can defy reason, at times, if only rarely...

P

[Shakes]

What you say is correct, Patrick. BUT my contention is that if there
are no "controls" (i.e., factors which remain constant) in this
comparision, it's unfair and impossible to directly compare.

FYI, I never said Laver or Borg hit as hard as Fed, or Tilden is as big
a server as Fed etc. If you notice, I only stick to the late-80's and
early-90's. Because, the rules of the game, the racquet revolution, the
importance of fitness, was complete by then. Oversized, light-weight
racquets which came in the mid-80's found their place in the game. And
the proteges of Bollietieri, starting with Agassi, had reaped the
benefits of the racquet evolution and upped the ante. And players who
played through that era like Sampras, Becker, even Lendl for a short
while, Courier etc. adjusted and upped their games.

Now, the main reason I resist this notion of tennis having developed to
a higher level from the Sampras era is, again, my first point. There
are no "controls" or constant factors. The surfaces have changed, the
playing styles have changed, the balls have changed. So, HOW CAN ONE
make a direct comparision ? If none of these had changed and if these
guys are able to still make all these impossible gets and returns, then
I would NEVER claim the opposite. How do I know that a Nadal can run
down the volleys of a Sampras or Krajicek better than a Chang ? How do
we know Chang or Bruguera cannot play the same defense as today's guys
? Because nobody serves/volleys like Sampras or Krajicek, and neither
did Chang/Bruguera/Rios have the benefit of playing in today's uniform
game.

When people just claim these as facts, I ask them how do they KNOW ?

My opinion that the top guys from that era can hang with Fed's era
(because Fed's era has given way to Nadal's and Djok's era) carries
weight because Agassi showed that it can be done. And he did it. It's
impossible to dismiss that. Sure, he didn't beat Fed during that
timeframe. But he did beat most of the rest of players, except for
losing in 5 sets to Safin at the 2004 AO SF. But even Fed lost to Safin
a yr later, so that loss can be taken in the stride. Further, Agassi
was OLD, I mean, really OLD, in tennis terms. So, Agassi's performance
in FED's ERA carries a lot of weight. And Agassi was NOT the best
player of his era, Sampras was.

[Patrick Kehoe]

And yet it is your contention to compare... to place an assertion of
paralleling forces (Agassi, Pete) along with the best of today...
which, I don't have a huge problem with because, as I said MANY times,
there are players who can defy the processes/dynamics of develomental
sporting progress... marginally or factually, yes I agee they can...
one just doesn't know to what extent... this isn't an either/or debate
OR SHOULDN'T be... though most people can only debate these matters as
definitive contentions... generally, as a general statement of
assertion, I believe, tennis gets more refined as a system and the
elite play reflects AND responds to this refinement... you may agree
or not... Pete and Andre, to one degree or another, would likely
confound the notion of progressive elite play within generations, to
what extent we don't know... I'd say we likely both agree on that...
the Andre debate is a complex one because frankly he was a better
player in 2003 than he was 5 years earlier, in that sense he's an
outling anomaly, if you will... the break he took from tennis extended
his capasity and the Gil Reyes factor made him more physically capable
than ever... anyway... Chang/Rios/Bruguera would be small, relatively
average hitting quick players vs. big, fast hard hitting players... I
don't see them as 'time travelling well... nor Courier either... so we
get to the expected duo who would compete well today... I don't have
an issue with that for the 1,000th time... its just lunacy assertions
like Whisper saying Fed would go down 8 or 10 times at Wimbledon and
the USO to Pete or lose 6-2, 6-2, 6-1 to Pete on hc which insights the
sort of over reation that some Fed-a-manics display... personally I
think Rafa would have a hard time beating Pete though less problems
with Agassi, just my view... and yes Rafa would run down Sampras'
shots or Krajicek's shots better than Chang... though I doubt he'd
beat Pete on hc or grass...

Hope that clears some of this up???

P

[Whisper]

>> movement/stamina went, he served lights out& really closed in for the
>> kill to keep points short,& brutal. I really think Sampras woulda won

>> something like 60 62 62.
>
> This Sampras guy, amazingly good tennis player, but not an ounce of
> tennis legacy awareness. "Do I want to tie jimbo's record at the USO,
> win my 14th slam cementing my status as GOAT, and not have my first
> slamless year since 1992? After all, I just have to be arsed for one
> more match... right? What's that? Nothing? Nope. Can't be arsed".

Can't fake it though. Sampras already beat Hewitt in straights at USO
the previous year. Tough for him to get up for a big match v a guy with
zero credentials. That's why I'm pissed Hewitt lost to Agassi in 2002.

[Whisper]

On 30/09/2011 1:40 AM, John Liang wrote:
> On Sep 29, 12:04 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 18:46:58 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 28, 7:43 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 20:47:35 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>>
>>>> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 27, 7:09 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:53:55 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>>
>>>>>> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sep 27, 12:42 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:15:23 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, of course they use the argument against Federer, but the point is
>>>>>>>>> that they also use it against Nadal in the same way. You have the
>>>>>>>>> habit of filtering out the objectionable portions (to you) of crazy
>>>>>>>>> arguments and then endorsing the remainder:
>>>>>>>>> -Pete/Andre coulda-woulda that trashes Fed: Great stuff!
>>>>>>>>> -Pete/Andre coulda-woulda that trashes Rafa: Total BS!
>>
>>>>>>>> i don't think anybody is believing sampras/agassi would "trash"
>>>>>>>> federer/nadal/djok.
>>
>>>>>>> Whisper said this TODAY:
>>

>>>>>>> "I have no doubt Sampras& Agassi would roll 2011 Djoker in hc slams.

Except Hewitt did it only once & slam h2h is 1-1. Djoker has 4 wins
over Fed in slams, so def no fluke.

[Whisper]

On 30/09/2011 1:45 AM, John Liang wrote:
> On Sep 30, 12:36 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>>> Sampras had no trouble with Hewitt in USO semis, beating him in
>>>> straights despite 10 yr age gap.
>>
>>>> One of the saddest tennis days in my life was when Agassi beat Hewitt in
>>>> 2002 USO semis : (
>>
>>> And why was that, since you are not much of a Sampras fan or a Hewitt
>>> fan?
>>
>> It would have just confirmed Sampras' greatness. He enevr lost when he
>> really wanted to beat someone badly.
>
> So Sampras did not want to beat Edberg at USO

Like I said Sampras was hot fave to win that match, having waxed Edberg
in several tune-ups leading into USO with 62 63 type scores. Sampras
really got up when he was out for revenge or when people doubted him.

> and he obviously like to
> be beaten
> by journeymen at FO because he didn't want to win.

In those days you had to specialize as the surfaces were very different.
Sampras wasn't going to develop a baseline game with Wimbledon just
around the corner.

> And of course
> Wimbledon in 96
> wasn't important enough for him.

Tough to get up for every match over 8 years. That was only 1 flat day
in 8 years. He's human.

>
>> That wasn't the case v Hewitt in
>> 2001, but woulda been 2002. Even though he was past his best as far as

>> movement/stamina went, he served lights out& really closed in for the
>> kill to keep points short,& brutal. I really think Sampras woulda won

>> something like 60 62 62.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Sampras can alway serve Agassi off court but not against Hewitt.
> Hewitt would beat
> Sampras again if they met in the final just like the last 4 times
> after 2000 USO.
>>

That's as close to impossible as I can think. I really think Hewitt
gets 4 to 8 games tops.

[John Liang]

On Sep 30, 2:51 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> On 30/09/2011 1:45 AM, John Liang wrote:
>
> > On Sep 30, 12:36 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com>  wrote:
> >>>> Sampras had no trouble with Hewitt in USO semis, beating him in
> >>>> straights despite 10 yr age gap.
>
> >>>> One of the saddest tennis days in my life was when Agassi beat Hewitt in
> >>>> 2002 USO semis : (
>
> >>> And why was that, since you are not much of a Sampras fan or a Hewitt
> >>> fan?
>
> >> It would have just confirmed Sampras' greatness.  He enevr lost when he
> >> really wanted to beat someone badly.
>
> > So Sampras did not want to beat Edberg at USO
>
> Like I said Sampras was hot fave to win that match, having waxed Edberg
> in several tune-ups leading into USO with 62 63 type scores.  Sampras
> really got up when he was out for revenge or when people doubted him.

One word tune ups, Edberg didn't care about tune ups and got up and
beat Samrpas
even after playing a much longer match than Sampras in the semi. As
for Sampras
really got up when he was out for revenge Edberg beat him in the next
slam.

>
> > and he obviously like to
> > be beaten
> > by journeymen at FO because he didn't want to win.
>
> In those days you had to specialize as the surfaces were very different.
>   Sampras wasn't going to develop a baseline game with Wimbledon just
> around the corner.
>
> >  And of course
> > Wimbledon in 96
> > wasn't important enough for him.
>
> Tough to get up for every match over 8 years.  That was only 1 flat day
> in 8 years.  He's human.
>
>
>
> >> That wasn't the case v Hewitt in
> >> 2001, but woulda been 2002.  Even though he was past his best as far as
> >> movement/stamina went, he served lights out&  really closed in for the
> >> kill to keep points short,&  brutal.  I really think Sampras woulda won
> >> something like 60 62 62.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Sampras can alway serve Agassi off court but not against Hewitt.
> > Hewitt would beat
> > Sampras again if they met in the final just like the last 4 times
> > after 2000 USO.
>
> That's as close to impossible as I can think.  I really think Hewitt
> gets 4 to 8 games tops.

He got 3 sets to Samrpas 0, Yes Sampras got exactly 8 games.