define "toughest to win"
bob
>> define toughest. just like you did choke. :-)) lmao.
>Ali:
>Most difficult to win. Takes most effort etc.
let's elaborate on this with hopes of putting it to bed. define what
you mean by 'toughest to win' and please more specific than 'takes
most effort.'
what does most effort mean? most training time? most concentration?
most calories spent/tournament? most pain endured through tournament?
hottest weather? most dehydrations?
how most skill required, there's a concept for you to chew on.
bob
Manco
Raja, The Great
Toughest one is which requires the most stamina. FO is like a marathon
and easily the toughest of the three. Wimbledon is a joke ever since
the 90s. Anyone who has a big serve can win it. The last deserving
Wimbledon champion was Stefan Edberg. He is the last one who won
Wimbledon against good competition and with a good game.
Ali Asoag
Oh, oh bobbish. When are you going to grow up?
Shortly explained: "Most difficult" means everything but "most
prestige". That simply means everything you need to win 7 matches (Bo5)
in a row to win the trophy:
- talent
- health, stamina
- draw
- concentration
- luck
- mental strength
- choking opponents ;-)
- ...
So in this sense all slams are equally difficult to win. There is no
"toughest to win" slam like you and your master claim Wimby would be.
Iceberg
yes, that's why the Mahut Isner game is the longest match ever in
history. Those guys were both fresh as a daisy after that cos it was
just big serving and bit of volleying compared to repeated
groundstrokes at the FO that pretty much resemble a regular practice
session.
kaennorsing
That's all nonsense. What's tough for one, may be easy for another.
It's pretty simple; For Rafa the FO is hardly tough at all. For Fed
otoh it's clearly the toughest. For the average player the toughest is
probably Wimbledon, as it has fewer different champions than other
slams.
So in order to define the 'toughest' you first have to determine *who*
you're measuring. Then you can define toughness; determine why it is
tough, what makes it tough.
reilloc
> how most skill required, there's a concept for you to chew on.
>
> bob
Too many things can trump skill and concluding that, by definition, the
most skilled person won on a particular day makes the definition of
"skill" a tautology. So long as you're defining "toughest to win" by the
individual who won it and saying that he was the most skilled, you're
avoiding looking at the specific event and its conditions and not
addressing what you believe makes the event tough.
Ask Laver which was toughest. Which was toughest in '62? Which was
toughest in '69? His answer will be better than all our guesses put
together.
LNC
ocean
FO is the toughest. That's why old players who are 30 or older rarely
win it....
bob
in that case, Miami and i'm sure AO are far harder than FO. far less
stamina required to play in 70deg than 90deg. perhaps FO requires more
patience.
bob
bob
agassi
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 2/10/2011 7:47 PM, bob wrote:
>>>> bob
>>>> define toughest. just like you did choke. :-)) lmao.
>>
>>> Ali:
>>> Most difficult to win. Takes most effort etc.
>>
>> let's elaborate on this with hopes of putting it to bed. define what
>> you mean by 'toughest to win' and please more specific than 'takes
>> most effort.'
>>
>> what does most effort mean? most training time? most concentration?
>> most calories spent/tournament? most pain endured through tournament?
>> hottest weather? most dehydrations?
>>
>> how most skill required, there's a concept for you to chew on.
>
>Oh, oh bobbish. When are you going to grow up?
>
>Shortly explained: "Most difficult" means everything but "most
>prestige".
so you're saying 'least prestigious' is 'most difficult'? please
explain? lol.
>That simply means everything you need to win 7 matches (Bo5)
>in a row to win the trophy:
>
>- talent
>- health, stamina
>- draw
>- concentration
>- luck
>- mental strength
>- choking opponents ;-)
all equally weighted?
bob
AliAsoag
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:12:09 -0700, Ali Asoag <Ali.Aso...@arcor.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 2/10/2011 7:47 PM, bob wrote:
> >>>> bob
> >>>> define toughest. just like you did choke. :-)) lmao.
>
> >>> Ali:
> >>> Most difficult to win. Takes most effort etc.
>
> >> let's elaborate on this with hopes of putting it to bed. define what
> >> you mean by 'toughest to win' and please more specific than 'takes
> >> most effort.'
>
> >> what does most effort mean? most training time? most concentration?
> >> most calories spent/tournament? most pain endured through tournament?
> >> hottest weather? most dehydrations?
>
> >> how most skill required, there's a concept for you to chew on.
>
> >Oh, oh bobbish. When are you going to grow up?
>
> >Shortly explained: "Most difficult" means everything but "most
> >prestige".
>
> so you're saying 'least prestigious' is 'most difficult'? please
> explain? lol.
That's your word again, dumbo. Readd my post again and you will see
that I said nothing other than "most difficult is not necessarily most
prestigious". Prestige of a tournament has very little to do with how
tough it is to win it.
> >That simply means everything you need to win 7 matches (Bo5)
> >in a row to win the trophy:
>
> >- talent
> >- health, stamina
> >- draw
> >- concentration
> >- luck
> >- mental strength
> >- choking opponents ;-)
>
> all equally weighted?
Doesn't fucking matter! Again: Prestige is what you think a tournament
is worth. "tough to win" is what it takes you to win the tournament.
But I sense you don't seem to understand this so it's waste time to
keep explaining ...
MBDunc
Open era 30y+ FO winners:
Gimeno 72 (34y)
Rosewall 68 (34y)
Laver 69 (30y)
Gomez 90 (30y)
...
Agassi was 29y when he won 1999.
.mikko
bob
but 'toughest to win' has to be defined. tough how? you list 7 items,
and a tournament can most definitely be toughest in 1 aspect and least
tough in another of those. (of course you agree). so perhaps you can
define which of those is most important.
for ex, you list 'luck' - wouldn't it be quite silly if the 'toughest
tournament to win' was always the one with the 'luckiest winner?' see
how lame?
i don't want to keep arguing the 'toughest to win concept', i fully
understand your point - but if you can sort those items in order maybe
we can discuss.
bob
Manco
our thinking?
Ali Asoag
Here you go. You are almost there ...
So you see there can't be a tournament (of the 4) that can be determined
as the toughest to win because each can be "tough" in terms of one or
some aspects that may not apply to the other 3. That's what I have been
saying all the time: All slams are equally tough to win!
> i don't want to keep arguing the 'toughest to win concept', i fully
> understand your point
Now hopefully finally.
bob
wrote:
>On 2/11/2011 6:04 PM, bob wrote:
um, no, they can all be 'tough' to win, but in no sense are the
'equally tough'. like i said if you can rank which of those aspects
has priorit over the other, then we can move forward. for example,
would you say that the tournament that requires the most 'mental
strength' would be = in 'toughness' to the one requiring the most
'luck'? of course not.
>
>> i don't want to keep arguing the 'toughest to win concept', i fully
>> understand your point
>
>Now hopefully finally.
always did. still disagree with it. they are not 'equally tough'. you
defined some criteria, now rank them (not that i'll agree with your
ranking, but try anyway).
bob
ocean
> Open era 30y+ FO winners:
>
> Gimeno 72 (34y)
> Rosewall 68 (34y)
> Laver 69 (30y)
Almost 40 years ago or more...
> Gomez 90 (30y)
> ...
Circumstancial win due to Agassi being scared and petrified of losing
his wig!!!!! Imagine the scandal and all the disappointed teenage
girls! Image was everything for young Agassi back then.
MBDunc
> On 11 feb, 22:17, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
> > Open era 30y+ FO winners:
>
> > Gimeno 72 (34y)
> > Rosewall 68 (34y)
> > Laver 69 (30y)
>
> Almost 40 years ago or more...
So "clown era" back then?
>
> > Gomez 90 (30y)
> > ...
>
> Circumstancial win due to Agassi being scared and petrified of losing
> his wig!!!!! Imagine the scandal and all the disappointed teenage
> girls! Image was everything for young Agassi back then.
...and we are talking about Sampras' greatest rival here. Tells smt.
right if wig and image is more important that actual succee?
.mikko
ocean
> > > Gimeno 72 (34y)
> > > Rosewall 68 (34y)
> > > Laver 69 (30y)
>
> > Almost 40 years ago or more...
>
> So "clown era" back then?
>
It was too long ago. Tennis is different now.
"It’s just gotten so much more physical", said Federer.
“It’s very difficult to play at the highest levels and sustain it
these days,” said Paul Annacone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/sports/tennis/30iht-TEEN.html
Ali Asoag
I must laugh now. Because now I am the one asking you: Which is the slam
most tough to win? And most tough regarding what? Mentality? Running?
Opponents? ...
> like i said if you can rank which of those aspects
> has priorit over the other,
This depends on the players you consider. One player could say it's
mentally tough because it's the last one he couldn't win so far. Another
player might say it's physically tough because of temperatures and
humidity etc. etc. So bottom line, you can't say which slam is the
*toughest* to win. Each has its "tough" aspects. And some of the aspects
I mentioned are common for all 4 slams though.
> then we can move forward. for example,
> would you say that the tournament that requires the most 'mental
> strength' would be = in 'toughness' to the one requiring the most
> 'luck'? of course not.
This is too philosophical. Read statements above again and try to
understand ...
>>> i don't want to keep arguing the 'toughest to win concept', i fully
>>> understand your point
>>
>> Now hopefully finally.
>
> always did.
I don't think so.
> still disagree with it. they are not 'equally tough'. you
> defined some criteria, now rank them (not that i'll agree with your
> ranking, but try anyway).
You can understand someone else's point and might not agree with him.
But the way you argue now shows me that you haven't understood my point.
Manco
bob
wrote:
but we're talking about your list, no? you mae it! lol.
>> like i said if you can rank which of those aspects
>> has priorit over the other,
>
>This depends on the players you consider. One player could say it's
>mentally tough because it's the last one he couldn't win so far. Another
>player might say it's physically tough because of temperatures and
>humidity etc. etc. So bottom line, you can't say which slam is the
>*toughest* to win. Each has its "tough" aspects. And some of the aspects
>I mentioned are common for all 4 slams though.
you are correct that certain surfaces are tougher to win for certain
players and their styles, sure, nobody disputes that. however you are
incorrect in assuming that it's all 'random' and they're each 'special
in their own way.' wimbledon is the most sought after, this is true
for whatever reason you want to use, and as such, every player goes
after it with their absolute best effort - better effort than other
slams and other tournaments. and as such, the best players in the
world nearly always win it or make final. this is no coincidence.
>> then we can move forward. for example,
>> would you say that the tournament that requires the most 'mental
>> strength' would be = in 'toughness' to the one requiring the most
>> 'luck'? of course not.
>
>This is too philosophical. Read statements above again and try to
>understand ...
>
>>>> i don't want to keep arguing the 'toughest to win concept', i fully
>>>> understand your point
>>>
>>> Now hopefully finally.
>>
>> always did.
>
>I don't think so.
>
>> still disagree with it. they are not 'equally tough'. you
>> defined some criteria, now rank them (not that i'll agree with your
>> ranking, but try anyway).
>
>You can understand someone else's point and might not agree with him.
>But the way you argue now shows me that you haven't understood my point.
your point is that each slam can be toughest for a particular player
cause of his style, or his fitnes, his personality, or whatever
reason. but the fact remains that what makes wimbledon toughest is
that it is most sought after and the top guys, frannkly, *want it
more* than others and hence give just that little bit more effort
there. that's why for 35yrs i watch, nearly every yr the best in the
world wins it. not so at other slams.
bob
Ali Asoag
You are amazing in inventing things and putting the in other's mouth.
Where did I say "it's all random"?
> and they're each 'special
> in their own way.' wimbledon is the most sought after, this is true
> for whatever reason you want to use, and as such, every player goes
> after it with their absolute best effort - better effort than other
> slams and other tournaments
Or they can also become especially anxious or nervous. You can see it
either way.
>. and as such, the best players in the
> world nearly always win it or make final. this is no coincidence.
Where (at which slam) is it not the case? The best player on that
respective surface in those 2 weeks wins. Always.
>> [...]
>> You can understand someone else's point and might not agree with him.
>> But the way you argue now shows me that you haven't understood my point.
>
> your point is that each slam can be toughest for a particular player
> cause of his style, or his fitnes, his personality, or whatever
> reason. but the fact remains that what makes wimbledon toughest is
> that it is most sought after and the top guys, frannkly, *want it
> more* than others and hence give just that little bit more effort
> there.
... or choke more often or whatever. You can see it either way ...
> that's why for 35yrs i watch, nearly every yr the best in the
> world wins it. not so at other slams.
It's nearly always the case at *every* slam, not only at Wimbledon.
bob
wrote:
you don't use the word random, however that's exactly what you
describe in your previous paragraph.
>> and they're each 'special
>> in their own way.' wimbledon is the most sought after, this is true
>> for whatever reason you want to use, and as such, every player goes
>> after it with their absolute best effort - better effort than other
>> slams and other tournaments
>
>Or they can also become especially anxious or nervous. You can see it
>either way.
they do become especially nervous - because that's the most sought
after of course. and isn't it funny how nearly every year the
wimbledon winner is either best or top 2 in world? 'luck' eh? lol.
>>. and as such, the best players in the
>> world nearly always win it or make final. this is no coincidence.
>
>Where (at which slam) is it not the case? The best player on that
>respective surface in those 2 weeks wins. Always.
aha - but i'm not talking about who was best 'in those 2 wks' or 'on
that day' - i'm talking about the best player in the world for that
year. (and frequently many yrs). how many korda/kafelnikov/johannson's
win wimbledon in past 15 yrs or costa/gaudio's?