RST Mass Resignation
Superdave
Please think twice.
FO/W is only a couple months away.
Whisper
>
> Please think twice.
>
>
> FO/W is only a couple months away.
90% of posters here are completely useless & should have left years ago.
As far as I can tell there are only 5 or 6 who offer anything of
substance at all. I'd find rst refreshing if there were a handful of
tennis-smart posters - rest is just moronic white noise.
TT
It's horrible that one of the most knowledgeable posters here has
decided to leave. You wouldn't notice he went away if he didn't tell us.
Iceberg
I'm just glad you came back after that absence of a few weeks the
other month.
drew
>
> 90% of posters here are completely useless & should have left years ago.
Your posts are exceptional in as much as they are all worse than
useless.
That you haven't left years ago is proof of the emptiness of your sad
existence.
Manco
Manco
Yeah it's quite hilarious Whimpy talking about who is useful in here.
TT
Ouch and thanks.
TT
Not a very nice thing to say. What has Whisper done to you to earn such
hatred?
drew
> drew wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 6:18 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> 90% of posters here are completely useless & should have left years ago.
>
> > Your posts are exceptional in as much as they are all worse than
> > useless.
> > That you haven't left years ago is proof of the emptiness of your sad
> > existence.
>
> Not a very nice thing to say.
No, but unfortunately it is true.
What has Whisper done to you to earn such
> hatred?
For starters Whisper is a liar, a braggart and an abusive shithead.
Add to this his arrogance and ignorance and complete lack of respect
for almost everybody and you have the most dispicable piece of
dogshit ever to post in rst.
Does that answer your question?
arnab.z@gmail
lol
Gracchus
> 90% of posters here are completely useless & should have left years ago.
> As far as I can tell there are only 5 or 6 who offer anything of
> substance at all. I'd find rst refreshing if there were a handful of
> tennis-smart posters - rest is just moronic white noise.
Doesn't it make sense for you to leave here then and start your own
newsgroup, tailored to suit you and like-minded rst posters?
It would be just you, bob, and....well--you and bob.
If you stick it out long enough there, maybe some of those tennis-wise
"crusty old guys" you've long been awaiting will show up. In here,
meanwhile, it would become slightly less polluted.
Superdave
worst of all he knows nothing about tennis. i don't think he actually plays at
all. those photos must have been fake.
TT
>
> What has Whisper done to you to earn such
>> hatred?
>
> For starters Whisper is a liar, a braggart and an abusive shithead.
> Add to this his arrogance and ignorance and complete lack of respect
> for almost everybody and you have the most dispicable piece of
> dogshit ever to post in rst.
>
> Does that answer your question?
>
Not really.
drew
You want to know what Whisper has done to me to earn such hatred.
He hasn't singled me out for particular abuse if that's what you
mean. He has all of the character traits that I find repulsive and he
has done his damndest to be a negative presence in rst. He has
actually driven some decent people away. For this he has earned my
contempt.
drew
>
> worst of all he knows nothing about tennis. i don't think he actually plays at
I hope for his sake that they are fake.
Raja, The Great
What do you like about Whisper? He is a lying twat. He will keep
contradicting himself at every opportunity. He talks about aesthetics,
yet hates Federer and loves Roddick FFS! He is always degrading every
other champion who is not Sampras. He keeps giving bad advices to
people. He demeans women, yet finds Henin attractive. He keeps
changing his tune. No talk of 7543 these days. What is there to like
about him?
Pelle Svanslös
Settle down, Beavis.
drew
OK....Butthead.
Whisper
> On Mar 3, 6:30 am, TT <n...@email.org> wrote:
>> drew wrote:
>>
>>> What has Whisper done to you to earn such
>>>> hatred?
>>> For starters Whisper is a liar, a braggart and an abusive shithead.
>>> Add to this his arrogance and ignorance and complete lack of respect
>>> for almost everybody and you have the most dispicable piece of
>>> dogshit ever to post in rst.
>>> Does that answer your question?
>> Not really.
>
> What do you like about Whisper? He is a lying twat. He will keep
> contradicting himself at every opportunity.
No, it's your lack of comprehension skills that cause turmoil.
> He talks about aesthetics,
> yet hates Federer and loves Roddick FFS!
I never liked Roddick's game, just predicted he'd dominate v clowns.
Note I never said he was remotely in Sampras' league ('on steroids' was
reference to his frenetic manner). I like Fed's game, but he's really
ordinary at the net - ie Rafa is more natural at net. He's also not the
best player I've seen.
> He is always degrading every
> other champion who is not Sampras. He keeps giving bad advices to
> people.
>He demeans women, yet finds Henin attractive.
Only in jest. I have many female friends.
>He keeps
> changing his tune. No talk of 7543 these days. What is there to like
> about him?
Idiotas.
CloudsRest
> Raja, The Great wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 6:30 am, TT <n...@email.org> wrote:
> >> drew wrote:
>
> >>> What has Whisper done to you to earn such
> >>>> hatred?
> >>> For starters Whisper is a liar, a braggart and an abusive shithead.
> >>> Add to this his arrogance and ignorance and complete lack of respect
> >>> for almost everybody and you have the most dispicable piece of
> >>> dogshit ever to post in rst.
> >>> Does that answer your question?
> >> Not really.
>
> > What do you like about Whisper? He is a lying twat. He will keep
> > contradicting himself at every opportunity.
>
> No, it's your lack of comprehension skills that cause turmoil.
>
> > He talks about aesthetics,
> > yet hates Federer and loves Roddick FFS!
>
> I never liked Roddick's game, just predicted he'd dominate v clowns.
I bet we can find evidence that proves otherwise. Your prediction
went south, thus the clown label for the field. This is much more
likely.
Sakari Lund
<the.big.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>worst of all he knows nothing about tennis. i don't think he actually plays at
>all. those photos must have been fake.
Those photos actually strongly support the theory he doesn't play
tennis at all.
Superdave
wrote:
his always lubed arse ?
Superdave
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Superior Logic (a csman production)
>
> >He demeans women, yet finds Henin attractive.
>
> Only in jest. I have many female friends.
To what pressure do you inflate them?
Whisper
That statement says more about your lack of tennis insight. I've seen
many pics of top pros eg Rafa who look like they just picked up a racket
for the 1st time. I've been around the tennis circuit a long time, & in
the past made naive mistakes like you - eg a short fat kid who looks
like an easy beat smacks the bejeesus out of the ball & beats the club
pro in straights. These days I give everyone benefit of the doubt - wait
to see what they can do on the court 1st. I've got some 100 or so
tennis trophies in the shed - won 4 comps last yr (2 singles, 2
doubles), & am in a singles final this weekend. Not bad I'm beating up
on kids in their late teens/early 20's - I'm still winning 48, 49
matches out of 50 & the competition here is some of the fiercest in the
state.
I'd love to play some of you rst guys in a real match. Last guy who
mocked me (club pro from Croatia visiting) went down 61 60 61 60. He
acknowledged I could play after that : ). And if some here can actually
play at a high level I'd enjoy losing too - but you're going to have to
earn it - I don't give freebies : )
Whisper
It's easy to pick up chicks. Any guy who struggles either doesn't want
to (gay, asexual), or has major personality defects.
Gracchus
> It's easy to pick up chicks. Any guy who struggles either doesn't want
> to (gay, asexual), or has major personality defects.
You've proven that it's not a case of either/or.
Superdave
wrote:
the only chicks whisper picks up have feathers on them.
Whisper
At least they don't have dicks.
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:17:14 +0800, Superdave
>> <the.big.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> worst of all he knows nothing about tennis. i don't think he actually plays at
>>> all. those photos must have been fake.
>>
>> Those photos actually strongly support the theory he doesn't play
>> tennis at all.
>
>
>That statement says more about your lack of tennis insight. I've seen
>many pics of top pros eg Rafa who look like they just picked up a racket
>for the 1st time.
The difference being that Rafa didn't especially send the pics to rst
as a proof of his tennis abilities...
> I've been around the tennis circuit a long time, & in
>the past made naive mistakes like you - eg a short fat kid who looks
>like an easy beat smacks the bejeesus out of the ball & beats the club
>pro in straights. These days I give everyone benefit of the doubt - wait
>to see what they can do on the court 1st. I've got some 100 or so
>tennis trophies in the shed - won 4 comps last yr (2 singles, 2
>doubles), & am in a singles final this weekend. Not bad I'm beating up
>on kids in their late teens/early 20's - I'm still winning 48, 49
>matches out of 50 & the competition here is some of the fiercest in the
>state.
>
>I'd love to play some of you rst guys in a real match. Last guy who
>mocked me (club pro from Croatia visiting) went down 61 60 61 60. He
>acknowledged I could play after that : ). And if some here can actually
>play at a high level I'd enjoy losing too - but you're going to have to
>earn it - I don't give freebies : )
Well, even if you are only half as good as you say, you would beat me
easily. I don't play that often these days, and never was in a high
level.
greg...@hotmail.com
> I'd love to play some of you rst guys in a real match. Last guy who
> mocked me (club pro from Croatia visiting) went down 61 60 61 60. He
> acknowledged I could play after that : ). And if some here can actually
> play at a high level I'd enjoy losing too - but you're going to have to
> earn it - I don't give freebies : )
If you are thrashing club pros at your age (not sure how old you are
but presume over 40) then surely you would have been touring pro
standard in your twenties. How come you never made it as a pro player?
Superdave
isn't it obvious ?
he couldn't be "arsed" of course.
TT
>
> If you are thrashing club pros at your age (not sure how old you are
> but presume over 40) then surely you would have been touring pro
> standard in your twenties. How come you never made it as a pro player?
>
It's not that easy decision to become a pro. You need time and money.
Perhaps in tennis it's more easy than on the sport I'm thinking
about...since in tennis the prizes are ridiculous...even on shit level
one can make a living.
Sakari Lund
>It's not that easy decision to become a pro. You need time and money.
>Perhaps in tennis it's more easy than on the sport I'm thinking
>about...since in tennis the prizes are ridiculous...even on shit level
>one can make a living.
No, you can't. The prize money drops dramatically when you go to
satellite level. You have to be top 200 at the very least for men,
higher for women so you can say you make a living. Lower than that, it
is a struggle to survive. And the level of play can be very high.
TT
At 200 the level is shit.
Sakari Lund
You have players like Kontinen, who is now #295. He was lower than
that when you saw him beating Jarkko, and beat other top 100 players
that week. There are lot of players ranked 200-500, who can beat top
100 players. The differences in level are very small. When given a
chance to play top 100 players, they might lose 7-6,6-7,6-7, and the
difference is mostly in the head. Go watch more tournaments and you
notice that.
TT
Kontinen is an improving player and his ranking does not correctly
reflect his skills.
The level is amateurish in these kind of tournaments, they don't stand a
chance against best players in the world. There's a large gap.
The level at IPP Open was amateurish at best and yet the price money was
125k.
Sakari Lund
>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:06:54 +0200, TT <n...@email.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:46:52 +0200, TT <n...@email.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's not that easy decision to become a pro. You need time and money.
>>>>> Perhaps in tennis it's more easy than on the sport I'm thinking
>>>>> about...since in tennis the prizes are ridiculous...even on shit level
>>>>> one can make a living.
>>>> No, you can't. The prize money drops dramatically when you go to
>>>> satellite level. You have to be top 200 at the very least for men,
>>>> higher for women so you can say you make a living. Lower than that, it
>>>> is a struggle to survive. And the level of play can be very high.
>>> At 200 the level is shit.
>>
>> You have players like Kontinen, who is now #295. He was lower than
>> that when you saw him beating Jarkko, and beat other top 100 players
>> that week. There are lot of players ranked 200-500, who can beat top
>> 100 players. The differences in level are very small. When given a
>> chance to play top 100 players, they might lose 7-6,6-7,6-7, and the
>> difference is mostly in the head. Go watch more tournaments and you
>> notice that.
>
>Kontinen is an improving player and his ranking does not correctly
>reflect his skills.
We'll see. The signs this year are not promising at all, when he has
tried in bigger events.
>The level is amateurish in these kind of tournaments, they don't stand a
>chance against best players in the world. There's a large gap.
>
>The level at IPP Open was amateurish at best and yet the price money was
>125k.
This is maybe the best proof ever that you don't have a clue about
tennis. "Amateurish at best"... They were actually for a large part
same guys that play on ATP Tour. That was a week when tour season was
over, so lot of the guys who wanted to play came here. Michael Berrer
lost in the 1st round at IPP Open. Since then he has made final in
Zagreb, losing to Cilic in a close match, QF in Chennai and Dubai...
Also, do you know how much prize money does a 1st round loser get in a
125K event? And half of the players in the draw are 1st round losers.
Even the winner doesn't get much.
TT
You just have different opinion because you look those players from
grass root level, idolizing amateurish players because they're better
than you but still far from the top.
125k is a huge money for the level of play and lack of consistency
displayed on those events. That's my opinion and it has nothing to do
with my level of understanding of the game, I just happen to disagree
with you.
Sakari Lund
In other words you didn't read a word from my post.
TT
I guess that childish comeback makes you happy then. Is it impossible to
acknowledge that I understand perfectly what you write, or the game, but
still disagree with you?
Sakari Lund
Your post didn't address any of the several points I made, but
continued directly from your previous post. Certainly looked like you
didn't read my post at all. That gets pretty frustrating.
TT
My post addressed the first sentence in your post: "This is maybe the
best proof ever that you don't have a clue about tennis"
...Now I don't feel like addressing your points after that sort of
introduction to your post.
I did read it and it didn't change my opinion at all. Whether or not
Berrer succeeded or not is irrelevant imo, it was only one match. And
what they pay in 1st round is irrelevant, the total prize is still a
large sum of money considering how they played there. Imo they should
pay nothing for losing in 1st round but that's something for another
discussion.
And winner doesn't get much...ffs...I guess that's relative but imo he
gets multiple times the money compared to the level of skill displayed
in the tournament. There's a lot of money involved in tennis compared to
most other sports and thus one can do rather well financially even while
being relatively far from the top.
Unless your argument is that they deserve it because you think #200 is
skillwise very close to top which I think is not the case. Nieminen said
after getting an absilute trashing in the hands of Nadal that the result
probably was very much reflective of their skill difference.
Sakari Lund
Yes. I should have said you read the first sentence, but nothing
beyond that.
Maybe that is not the best way to start the post. But if you use
phrases like "amateurish at best" it is hard to start any other way.
You are talking about the same players who often play ATP Tour. Berrer
is just one example, but he lost in the 1st round of IPP Open. Couple
of months later he made Zagreb final, and lost a close match to Cilic,
who had just made AO SF. This wasn't the best year of IPP Open, but
there were also Nieminen, Beck, Koubek, Haase, Navarro etc. And none
of those even made the final. The winner the previous year was
Tursunov. This is "amateurish at best"?
>I did read it and it didn't change my opinion at all. Whether or not
>Berrer succeeded or not is irrelevant imo, it was only one match. And
>what they pay in 1st round is irrelevant, the total prize is still a
>large sum of money considering how they played there. Imo they should
>pay nothing for losing in 1st round but that's something for another
>discussion.
>And winner doesn't get much...ffs...I guess that's relative but imo he
>gets multiple times the money compared to the level of skill displayed
>in the tournament. There's a lot of money involved in tennis compared to
>most other sports and thus one can do rather well financially even while
>being relatively far from the top.
You keep saying 125K, which makes the impression that someone gets
that kind of money. Actually the total prize money was �106 500. That
means the winner got �15 300. First round losers got �1110, 2nd round
losers �1830. That is not big money.
>Unless your argument is that they deserve it because you think #200 is
>skillwise very close to top which I think is not the case. Nieminen said
>after getting an absilute trashing in the hands of Nadal that the result
>probably was very much reflective of their skill difference.
I tried to keep Jarkko's comments out of this, but if you insist. The
one thing he has said over and over again is that general audience
looks the rankings way too much. There are no easy matches. One
example he has used was when he played Hewitt many years ago, when
Hewitt was top 10 or 15. He had just played a guy who was ranked 250
or 300 and he said that guy played much, much better then Hewitt. He
says many people just look at the ranking "oh, he is #200, he is bad",
and that is a huge mistake. This is exactly what you are doing.
TT
It does?
> Actually the total prize money was �106 500. That
> means the winner got �15 300. First round losers got �1110, 2nd round
> losers �1830. That is not big money.
>
In that case they are spreading the money too low, does first round
loser really deserve anything... What stands is that looking at the
level of play there and comparing to best players in the world the level
was low while there was lots of money involved. Add sponsors there too.
Are you arguing that in tennis there actually is not much money compared
to other sports?
>> Unless your argument is that they deserve it because you think #200 is
>> skillwise very close to top which I think is not the case. Nieminen said
>> after getting an absilute trashing in the hands of Nadal that the result
>> probably was very much reflective of their skill difference.
>
> I tried to keep Jarkko's comments out of this, but if you insist. The
> one thing he has said over and over again is that general audience
> looks the rankings way too much. There are no easy matches. One
> example he has used was when he played Hewitt many years ago, when
> Hewitt was top 10 or 15. He had just played a guy who was ranked 250
> or 300 and he said that guy played much, much better then Hewitt.
lol. Clearly this tells us that someone ranked 250 is the same level as
a top tenner.
You're again using a one match example there...not to mention that
Jarkko was probably speaking nonsense too.
Can't you use your own eyes to see the level of the player. These guys
would be good club players making absolutely no money at all if they had
chosen a less profitable sport.
Sakari Lund
>> I tried to keep Jarkko's comments out of this, but if you insist. The
>> one thing he has said over and over again is that general audience
>> looks the rankings way too much. There are no easy matches. One
>> example he has used was when he played Hewitt many years ago, when
>> Hewitt was top 10 or 15. He had just played a guy who was ranked 250
>> or 300 and he said that guy played much, much better then Hewitt.
>lol. Clearly this tells us that someone ranked 250 is the same level as
>a top tenner.
He is not the same level, but on a given day for both players, he can
play much better. That's how small the differences are. You can see
results that prove it every week.
>You're again using a one match example there...not to mention that
>Jarkko was probably speaking nonsense too.
As you again failed to read what I posted, this has been the most
consistent theme in his interviews during the last 10 years, along
with "I played well in practice but couldn't keep the same level in
the match". This is not a "one match example". He has said it
literally dozens of times that people following his matches look way
too much on rankings and don't understand how well #200 can play.
>Can't you use your own eyes to see the level of the player. These guys
>would be good club players making absolutely no money at all if they had
>chosen a less profitable sport.
That doesn't make much sense. If Henri Kontinen would have chosen
javelin throwing, probably he wouldn't make much money. Maybe he took
up tennis, because he had talent for tennis...
And of course there is lot of money in tennis. It is one of the big
sports in the world. But it has been discussed a lot that the money
concentrates to the top, and players below the top are struggling. I
originally commented on your claim that "even on shit level one can
make a living." The difference here is that your definition of "shit
level" is very different from mine.
TT
>
> That doesn't make much sense. If Henri Kontinen would have chosen
> javelin throwing, probably he wouldn't make much money.
There you go. This was exactly my point...it's easier for a tennis
player to make money and become professional than for a similarly
talented javelin thrower.
> Maybe he took
> up tennis, because he had talent for tennis...
>
Uh...Oh my.
Of course the comparison is between two athletes who have similarly much
talent compared to best in their own field of expertise.
> The difference here is that your definition of "shit
> level" is very different from mine.
That's what I've been trying to tell you all along, this should have
been clear from the first post. Was there really a need for remarks that
I "have no clue about tennis"?
TT
I have an idea....why not just ignore this instead of apologizing...
Lamer.
Sakari Lund
Geez, didn't this finish already. I made seven posts, you talked past
me every single time. You had seven opportunities to admit you were
wrong, or exaggerating or at least something. Now your contribution
was that players ranked around 200 are shit, and the players at IPP
Open were amateurish at best, while in the other weeks those same guys
are top professionals in ATP Tour. I wanted to end it by making it
look as good as possible for you, but you apparently want to keep
going. I am done with this thread.
TT
The way I see it you came trolling to this thread saying that I "have no
clue about tennis" while cementing your trollish behaviour with comments
such that #250 is as good as a top tenner...not to mention completely
failing in logic with hilarious remarks such as "Kontinen wouldn't make
as much money in javelin throw because he's not as good in javelin throw
as in tennis" etc.
Of course it's too much to expect an apology from a troll. My bad for
asking.