Sampras GOATBOAT thread....
felangey
help Whisper achieve some clarity of direction.
Who here believes they could *ever* be convinced from this point forward
that Pete could be conisdered GOAT or BOAT....GOATBOAT....GOAT in a BOAT?
Anyone?
Carey
Good read...
The incessant Whisperbub spamming makes that less likely with each
post.
Sampras was a very fine if limited player, and it's unfortunate that
he's attracted
such clueless hangers-on.
uly...@mscomm.com
With 14 slams? With the greatest serve in history and probably the
greatest running FH as well? If you were a pro tennis player, you
wouldn't consider yourself spectacularly blessed if you could have had
Sampras' game and career??
steve jaros
every champ has their clueless fanatics.
****************************
goodbye pooch ... 8/9/95 - 6/10/11
Carey
Actually I was touting Sampras when he was his early teens. Tremendous
talent, great career. Couldn't win a French or come close to it..
one Semi there in an otherwise stellar career? A significant
limitation.
Whisper
Carey probably confused Sampras with Fed, who appears 'limited' in the
net skills dept?
Whisper
Is losing 6 slam finals on all 3 surfaces to your nearest rival a
'limitation' Carey?
You don't have to answer.
uly...@mscomm.com
especially lethal either. But who would call Mac limited? So what if
Pete never won the FO, he's one of the greatest players who ever
lived. I still think he could get to the 4th round or QF's of
Wimbledon right now, even though he's almost 40.
A limited player is someone like Dr. Ivo, who has a huge serve and
little else.
Superdave
sure I would but i would also realize in no way did i have the all around game,
repetoir of shots and all surface ability that a Federer has.
Pete had a great but narrow and specialized game. Roger has a broad and
open game.
Perhaps it's best said this way:
Pete could only win ONE way on certain surfaces.
Roger can wins MANY ways on ALL surfaces.
In "that" sense, Pete was limited.
John Liang
That limitation did not stop him winning more slam than Sampras.
Gracchus
> That limitation did not stop him winning more slam than Sampras.
Sacrilege.
Have you not been reading the Gospel of RST Hyenas?
During Pete's career, the game was teeming with first-rate rivals, so
he had to fight tooth-and-nail for every slam. But by the time Roger's
run began, only weak competition remained. Therefore, most of his
slams were gifted to him before a young Spanish wunderkind rescued
tennis from the Swiss pretender and bestowed an era of glorious
topspin upon us.
Recent addendum: Besides, some of Roger's slams weren't really slams
anyway.
Whisper
Carey is a semi troll & not very good at tennis analysis.
Whisper
Still doesn't make sense why Rafa beat him on all 3 surfaces if that's
true. Seems Fed has no problem beating lower level players, but his
best isn't good enough to get the upper hand v great players.
Whisper
Agreed. Well said.
Gracchus
> Still doesn't make sense why Rafa beat him on all 3 surfaces if that's
> true. Seems Fed has no problem beating lower level players, but his
> best isn't good enough to get the upper hand v great players.
Are you suggesting that Djokovic is a great player? Probably not.
Federer has lost to him in a few slams (one really...two losses
weren't "blue chip"), but done pretty well otherwise. Are you talking
about Sampras? Couldn't be, since Federer beat him in their lone slam
encounter. Do you mean del Potro? No, probably not.
If "great players" here means the Monkey King, why didn't you just say
so? Because you really can't make a performance vs. "great players"
conclusion based on results against a player he obviously matches up
badly against. I'm sure it's more fun to say it your way, but hardly
fair.
Whisper
Rafa is the only other great player in this era that Fed has played in
slam finals. Pity he couldn't master him.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pity he still win more slams than him and winning more slam against
the same pools of
competitors indicates who is the superior player.
felangey
> goodbye pooch ... 8/9/95 - 6/10/11<
Your doggie died? :(
MBDunc
> On 11/06/2011 3:19 PM, Superdave wrote:
>
>
>
> > <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>
> >> Pete was a "limited" player?
>
> >> With 14 slams? With the greatest serve in history and probably the
> >> greatest running FH as well? If you were a pro tennis player, you
> >> wouldn't consider yourself spectacularly blessed if you could have had
> >> Sampras' game and career??
>
> > sure I would but i would also realize in no way did i have the all around game,
> > repetoir of shots and all surface ability that a Federer has.
>
> > Pete had a great but narrow and specialized game. Roger has a broad and
> > open game.
>
> > Perhaps it's best said this way:
>
> > Pete could only win ONE way on certain surfaces.
>
> > Roger can wins MANY ways on ALL surfaces.
>
> > In "that" sense, Pete was limited.
>
> Still doesn't make sense why Rafa beat him on all 3 surfaces if that's
> true. Seems Fed has no problem beating lower level players, but his
> best isn't good enough to get the upper hand v great players.
Funny thing is that you actually predicted that Nadal will do big
things (even at Wimbledon)....and when he actually has fullfilled his
prospects....you use the outcome only for against Fed...not pro Nadal
you should do?
Perhaps Fed has the toughest rival any other GOAT condender has ever
faced? (and vice verca for Nadal if he gets near to Fed' digits).
.mikko
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
If Nadal has more or same number of grand slam as Sampras, watch
Whisper going
on about his superior grand slam mix arguments.
Whisper
Indicates nothing of the sort, given Rafa already has 10 slams & has
many years to catch & pass Fed, while Fed is finished.
Rafa beat Fed the 1st time they played 63 63, & that was on hc not clay.
He was better than Fed from day 1 & is yet again better after last
week's slam final. There hasn't been 1 solid argument against this in
rst, except sour grapes & 'but but Fed won a few more slams beating
Bagditis types, surely that proves who's better?'
Whisper
Perhaps.
Or perhaps this is a clown era, so we get results like this - 2 guys
winning career slam, 5 wins at US, 6 at Wimbledon & 6 at FO, may even
finish top 2 slam winners all time etc
Gracchus
> Indicates nothing of the sort, given Rafa already has 10 slams & has
> many years to catch & pass Fed, while Fed is finished.
"Many years"?
It is amazing that his body has held up this long considering his
style of play, but I doubt that even he or his family expect many
years from him.
Whisper
> On Jun 11, 7:54 pm, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Indicates nothing of the sort, given Rafa already has 10 slams& has
>
> "Many years"?
>
> It is amazing that his body has held up this long considering his
> style of play, but I doubt that even he or his family expect many
> years from him.
>
People said that 4 years ago, yet he won the big 3 slams last yr & now
6th FO.
Gracchus
> > It is amazing that his body has held up this long considering his
> > style of play, but I doubt that even he or his family expect many
> > years from him.
>
> People said that 4 years ago, yet he won the big 3 slams last yr & now
> 6th FO.
Yes they did, and yes he has. One not-so-small difference, though. He
was then 21 and now he is 25. Maybe he really is resilient enough to
continue this way, but I certainly wouldn't assume it.
Superdave
I am really glad you mentioned that !
Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the Wimbledon World Championships.
I gather from that he had no problem as you suggested.
Joe Ramirez
slams. With the CGS in hand, he will be a formidable rival to Sampras
for the No. 2 spot in the view of most of the tennis world. The
response here will be aggressive neo-7543ism. However, a major self-
imposed problem for Pete's brigade will be the tremendous overemphasis
on head-to-head results that they have spent years advocating. What
will be Sampras' answer to the fact that Nadal's great record against
a guy with 16 (or more?) slams is supposedly *the* mark of excellence?
The fact that Sampras had a winning record against a sometimes-here,
sometimes-not player with a measly eight slams? I don't think that's
going to cut it.
MBDunc
You think so when there is someone like Djoko in the mix?
Which is more probable? "they are actually that great" or "all tour
players have consensus to make this era look good"
.mikko
Rodjk #613
> felangey wrote:
> > Before the inevitable 'pump and dump' of Nadal stock, I think this would
> > help Whisper achieve some clarity of direction.
>
> > Who here believes they could *ever* be convinced from this point forward
> > that Pete could be conisdered GOAT or BOAT....GOATBOAT....GOAT in a BOAT?
> > Anyone?
>
> Good read...
> The incessant Whisperbub spamming makes that less likely with each
> post.
> Sampras was a very fine if limited player, and it's unfortunate that
> he's attracted
> such clueless hangers-on.
Please don't confuse the whisperbob troll with real Sampras fans...
Rodjk #613
Rodjk #613
Please don't confuse the whispabob troll with real Pete fans...
:)
Rodjk #613
Whisper
>>> Funny thing is that you actually predicted that Nadal will do big
>>> things (even at Wimbledon)....and when he actually has fullfilled his
>>> prospects....you use the outcome only for against Fed...not pro Nadal
>>> you should do?
>>
>>> Perhaps Fed has the toughest rival any other GOAT condender has ever
>>> faced? (and vice verca for Nadal if he gets near to Fed' digits).
>>
>>> .mikko
>>
>> Perhaps.
>>
>> Or perhaps this is a clown era, so we get results like this - 2 guys
>> finish top 2 slam winners all time etc
>
> You think so when there is someone like Djoko in the mix?
>
> Which is more probable? "they are actually that great" or "all tour
> players have consensus to make this era look good"
>
> .mikko
What I know is 1 guy who is 2 or 3% better than another guy can cash in
19 out of 20 wins just on that small difference. From outside observer
it looks like players are simiar on court.
Fed is probably 10% better than everyone except Rafa. That means he
only loses when he wants to, or has a really bad day. It means this era
lacks players at the top. Plenty of middling guys around.
undecided
> Before the inevitable 'pump and dump' of Nadal stock, I think this would
> help Whisper achieve some clarity of direction.
>
> Who here believes they could *ever* be convinced from this point forward
> that Pete could be conisdered GOAT or BOAT....GOATBOAT....GOAT in a BOAT?
> Anyone?
I don't see the point. Fed has the most slams. Period. Sampras is #2
in that regard. Now, on to Nadal. If Nadal surpasses Sampras he will
be considered greater. Period. In absolute BOAT terms, it's hard to
say and anyone who does is absolutely blowing hot air. So far, it
seems Sampras is GOAT on grass, Fed Goat on HC and Rafa GOAT on clay.
All around , these are all amazing players and we should be happy they
came around during our lifetimes.
GOYLE
Yes but Federer is the overall GOAT and until Nadal equals or passes
Federers' slam count it will stay Federer. I hope Nadal passes
Federer. :)
Iceberg
you've been saying this since he was 17.
Iceberg
> Before the inevitable 'pump and dump' of Nadal stock, I think this would
> help Whisper achieve some clarity of direction.
>
> Who here believes they could *ever* be convinced from this point forward
> that Pete could be conisdered GOAT or BOAT....GOATBOAT....GOAT in a BOAT?
> Anyone?
peak Sampras against anybody who's ever played.
Gracchus
Links? :)
I've only been posting on RST since he was 20.
If he can sustain this to age 30, it will be something to marvel at.
We'll see.
only human
That he couldn't win any AO or FO titles.
he cheated a lot to win big matches with ball calls and intimidation. im
glad he never won a AO or a FO. he only complained about ball calls when
he was losing matches. never when he was ahead. so he was a cheater
without a doubt. and this guy acts like he was born in the US. someone
should remind him that he wasn't.
Superdave
whisper is the sort of fan who goes for cheaters. i bet he cheats too.
Whisper
I have cheated a couple times in the past. Felt terrible about it & am
now the other way - ie concede all questionable calls.
bob
wrote:
i cheated quite a few times in high school matches - always against
myself. my coach was watching one time, and after match told me if i
ever played that many 'out' balls again i'd be off the team.
bob
bob
wrote:
>Before the inevitable 'pump and dump' of Nadal stock, I think this would
>help Whisper achieve some clarity of direction.
>
> Who here believes they could *ever* be convinced from this point forward
>that Pete could be conisdered GOAT or BOAT....GOATBOAT....GOAT in a BOAT?
>Anyone?
to date:
-Grass: sampras is the GOAT, BOAT and BOOE.
-Fast HC: sampras is tied GOAT, probably BOAT and definitely BOOE.
-Slow HC: sampras is neither GOAT, BOAT, possibly BOOE.
-Clay: sampras is neither GOAT, BOAT, not BOOE.
bob
bob
<the.big.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:39:13 -0700 (PDT), "uly...@msomm.com"
><uly...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>
>>Pete was a "limited" player?
>>
>>With 14 slams? With the greatest serve in history and probably the
>>greatest running FH as well? If you were a pro tennis player, you
>>wouldn't consider yourself spectacularly blessed if you could have had
>>Sampras' game and career??
>
>
>sure I would but i would also realize in no way did i have the all around game,
>repetoir of shots and all surface ability that a Federer has.
>
>Pete had a great but narrow and specialized game. Roger has a broad and
>open game.
>
>Perhaps it's best said this way:
>
>Pete could only win ONE way on certain surfaces.
>
>Roger can wins MANY ways on ALL surfaces.
no: roger wins ONE way, but on many surfaces (because of the
competition styles and court changes, he can do this).
thanks dave, you cleared up a lot in this post.
bob
bob
mikko- a breakthrough. now just repeat after me: fed won 10 slams
before nadal came near his peak.
bob
bob
this post has more meat than your normal, what gives?
bob
Superdave
Perhaps you can undestand it if I couched it in baseball terms bob.
Imagine if they were pitchers....
Sampras was a pitcher with a GREAT fastball and nothing more but
he could follow that up with GREAT fielding.
Roger on the other hand had All of the following in his arsenal including a ...
fastball
slider
curveball
knuckleball
change up
Nadal is a bit like Sampras without a fastball as he has only two pitches. A ...
spitball and a
screwball
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob - repeat after me : Nadal was near or cloese to his peak since
2005.
Whisper
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:43:08 +1000, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/06/2011 5:28 PM, Superdave wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 01:22:16 -0400, surf...@webtv.net (only human) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That he couldn't win any AO or FO titles.
>>>> he cheated a lot to win big matches with ball calls and intimidation. im
>>>> glad he never won a AO or a FO. he only complained about ball calls when
>>>> he was losing matches. never when he was ahead. so he was a cheater
>>>> without a doubt. and this guy acts like he was born in the US. someone
>>>> should remind him that he wasn't.
>>>
>>>
>>> whisper is the sort of fan who goes for cheaters. i bet he cheats too.
>>
>>
>> now the other way - ie concede all questionable calls.
>
> i cheated quite a few times in high school matches - always against
> myself. my coach was watching one time, and after match told me if i
> ever played that many 'out' balls again i'd be off the team.
>
> bob
Yeah, I've come to learn it's better to lose then know you cheated on a
point. Now I get compliments all the time about my sportsmanship.
Of course I'm not playing for Wimbledon so stakes aren't high : )
Whisper
Very poor analogy. Rafa clearly owns peak Fed in slams, according to
the actual evidence.
Whisper
Idiotic nonsense. Rafa was peak in 2010.
2005 he was a junior.
MBDunc
Bolt 2008 & 2009 (all big titles and huge world records) vs Bolt 2010
(still top 200m runner and #2 100m but with a lot worse actual records
9.82/19.56 are still great runs which still made Bolt man to beat).
If it had not been measurable sport you could have claimed that Bolt's
dominance and gap to others 2008/2009 was all about middling
competion.
.mikko
MBDunc
What happened to "if you are winning slams and in top3 then you are at
your peak"? (Nadal was #2 2005 with slam win and ten other titles).
Hewitt 2000 was as junior (even less actually as Rafa was already
winning slams compared to Hewitt same age) as Rafa 2005 yet you have
milked all the juices from Sampras win over Hewitt (USO 2000). There
must be 1000+ posts where your final evidence of Sampras' superioity
over Hewitt is that one single match (fresh Wimb champ against 19y
Hewitt)....
.mikko
Whisper
> On 13 kesä, 12:11, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 13/06/2011 12:31 PM, John Liang wrote:
>>
>>> Bob - repeat after me : Nadal was near or cloese to his peak since
>>> 2005.
>>
>> Idiotic nonsense. Rafa was peak in 2010.
>>
>> 2005 he was a junior.-
>
> What happened to "if you are winning slams and in top3 then you are at
> your peak"? (Nadal was #2 2005 with slam win and ten other titles).
In clown era it may not apply, for obvious reasons.
Superdave
all your evidence is disqualified for excessive Sampras fan fucking and
stupidity.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
He won FO in 2005. When you play in the pro tour they treat you like
a grown up not
a junior.
bob
use whatever cliche you wish, rafa was not peak off clay until 2008.
he climbed steadily from 05-08. in fact, even on clay, he improved,
just not as rapidly.
bob
bob
<the.big.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
no dave, i was being serious.
bob
Patrick Kehoe
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 02:59:55 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 13 kes , 12:11, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> >> On 13/06/2011 12:31 PM, John Liang wrote:
>
> >> > On Jun 13, 9:17 am, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 03:35:35 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>
> >> >> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
Seriously, bob, what the hell is that supposed to mean? The guy was a
major champion... and you are one of the guys around here pounding on
the idea of "there's no real surface difference any longer" so square
that one???
Silly...
Feds h2h with Rafa is a mess... Rafa dominates him... and, Fed is the
King of Majors... which do you think is more important?
Get real...
P
felangey
On clay...
>Rafa dominates him... <
On clay...
Do we need to do all this stuff week in, week out. Nadal is now, imo, in the
clear as the clay GOAT....imo, he would clean the clock of any other clay
great save possibly Borg. That is a surface domination....that is not a
mess. For sure Nadal has been a tough matchup for Fed, no denying
that....but anyone can see that the main problem is the disproportionate
amount of games played on clay....heck even Nadal cites that.
Even if Nadal had dominated him across the surfaces...where is the problem.
The guy is 5 years younger and a surface GOAT and one of the greats of the
game. This stuff is all so very tiresome....the same people...the same old
crap....for ever.
bob
the same *style* of play is winning on all surfaces for about 10 yrs
now, that's my claim.
that doesn't mean by any stretch that a 19yr old kid winning on the
surface he grew up on isn't capable of improving at a much faster rate
on surfaces where he is not nearly so familiar - yet. which is EXACTLY
what i posted and believe.
>Feds h2h with Rafa is a mess... Rafa dominates him... and, Fed is the
>King of Majors... which do you think is more important?
they're both important. let's watch it play out.
bob
bob
Superdave
so was i.
steve jaros
> Before the inevitable 'pump and dump' of Nadal stock, I think this would
> help Whisper achieve some clarity of direction.
>
> Who here believes they could *ever* be convinced from this point forward
> that Pete could be conisdered GOAT or BOAT....GOATBOAT....GOAT in a
> BOAT? Anyone?
pete lost his battle with history. he was considered co-goat with laver
for about 7 years, then fed surpassed him.
unless it is found that fed failed some drug tests and 3 or so of his
slam trophies are taken away, pete is permanently out of all goat/boat
discussions.
--
the Roosevelt administration .. has used the war to justify
restrictions of Congressional power, and the assumption of
dictatorial procedures on the part of the President and his
appointees.
- Charles A. Lindbergh, 9/11/41
steve jaros
>> ****************************
>> goodbye pooch ... 8/9/95 - 6/10/11<
>
> Your doggie died? :(
kitty.
--
"The partisan differences that emerged in 1972 were not caused by any
sudden
increase in the religious and cultural traditionalism of the
Republican activists but instead by the pervasive secularism and
cultural liberalism of the Democratic supporters of George McGovern."
- Georffrey Layman
Patrick Kehoe
Do I need to point out to you the contradictions here, honestly?
Varience for the purposes of adaptability either have to be foster or
they don't have to be and that could only be answered YES, IFFFFFFFF
the surfaces required varience as adaptability because THEY DO PLAY
DIFFERENTLY... you and W have gone on and on about the surfaces being
equalized for years around here... so Rafa, off clay early on,
shouldn't have been ordinary at majors should he? He should have been
in USO finals and finals at the Australian Open... as he was already
winning major level finals... I know you don't enjoy that fact, but
there it is...
>
> >Feds h2h with Rafa is a mess... Rafa dominates him... and, Fed is the
> >King of Majors... which do you think is more important?
>
> they're both important. let's watch it play out.
Indeed. Can Feds keep chipping away at the big block of reality tennis
that is Rafa? :))
Chip, chip, chip...
> bob
:)
P