The evolution of women's tennis over 30 years...
topspin
1994 HC (AO) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRXIqmTKemc
2011 HC (AO) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0jKkGsdeYM
Sakari Lund
Thanks, watched these all. The evolution is clearer in women's game. I
just can't compare the Navratilova - Evert tennis to modern tennis at
all. It is like a different sport. It seems like you couldn't hit that
slow with modern rackets even if you tried. That's like two elderly
ladies having a nice hit. There is variety, yeah, they hit nice angles
and drop shots, but I just can't compare it to the modern tennis.
Graf - ASV is much closer to today's tennis, but really, it is easy to
see the game has moved on in 17 years.. Kim - Li was actually even
better match than it seemed first time, if you can make such a long
higlights with good rallies. And the whole atmosphere in Graf - ASV,
it was like a first round match in a small tournament... And it wasn't
nice from Steffi to hit straight at Arantxa at the net.
Raja, The Great
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 09:43:22 -0800 (PST), topspin
>
> >1979 Grass (Eastbourne)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfkm6dk1AMQ
>
> >1994 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRXIqmTKemc
>
> >2011 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0jKkGsdeYM
>
> Thanks, watched these all. The evolution is clearer in women's game. I
> just can't compare the Navratilova - Evert tennis to modern tennis at
> all. It is like a different sport. It seems like you couldn't hit that
> slow with modern rackets even if you tried.
The real question is how fast can you hit with rackets Navratilova and
Evert are holding. Are you suggesting both were weaklings who cannot
hit as hard as the modern players? Navratilova is much more muscular
than say Sharapova and I bet she could hit at least 75% as hard with
modern rackets.
Sakari Lund
<zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 5, 12:29 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 09:43:22 -0800 (PST), topspin
>>
>> <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >1979 Grass (Eastbourne)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfkm6dk1AMQ
>>
>> >1994 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRXIqmTKemc
>>
>> >2011 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0jKkGsdeYM
>>
>> Thanks, watched these all. The evolution is clearer in women's game. I
>> just can't compare the Navratilova - Evert tennis to modern tennis at
>> all. It is like a different sport. It seems like you couldn't hit that
>> slow with modern rackets even if you tried.
>
>The real question is how fast can you hit with rackets Navratilova and
>Evert are holding. Are you suggesting both were weaklings who cannot
>hit as hard as the modern players? Navratilova is much more muscular
>than say Sharapova and I bet she could hit at least 75% as hard with
>modern rackets.
No, I guess the rackets make most of the difference, but I am just
saying that the game they play looks almost like a difference sport.
There has been an evolution in the game as a whole, that includes
rackets.
Joe Ramirez
> On Feb 5, 12:29 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 09:43:22 -0800 (PST), topspin
>
> > <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >1979 Grass (Eastbourne)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfkm6dk1AMQ
>
> > >1994 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRXIqmTKemc
>
> > >2011 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0jKkGsdeYM
>
> > Thanks, watched these all. The evolution is clearer in women's game. I
> > just can't compare the Navratilova - Evert tennis to modern tennis at
> > all. It is like a different sport. It seems like you couldn't hit that
> > slow with modern rackets even if you tried.
>
> The real question is how fast can you hit with rackets Navratilova and
> Evert are holding. Are you suggesting both were weaklings who cannot
> hit as hard as the modern players?
It's not just the rackets -- it's the racket head speed. How hard they
*could* hit doesn't matter; what counts is how hard they *did* hit.
That's what determines the nature of the game. Male players of that
era hit the ball much harder using the same primitive rackets, because
they generally swung a lot faster. I would bet that two things are
true:
1. The ratio of female average flat groundstroke speed to male average
flat groundstroke speed is significantly higher now than in 1979. In
other words, today's women are swinging harder, more like men, than
they used to.
2. The ratio of 1979 to 2011 male average flat groundstroke speeds is
significantly higher than the ratio of 1979 to 2011 female average
flat groundstroke speeds. In other words, the gap between today's men
and the men of the past is not as big as the gap between today's women
and the women of the past. Women's tennis in 1979 was more patty-
cakish, relatively speaking. It wasn't just the rackets.
Calimero
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 09:43:22 -0800 (PST), topspin
>
> >1979 Grass (Eastbourne)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfkm6dk1AMQ
>
> >1994 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRXIqmTKemc
>
>
> Thanks, watched these all. The evolution is clearer in women's game. I
> just can't compare the Navratilova - Evert tennis to modern tennis at
> all. It is like a different sport. It seems like you couldn't hit that
> slow with modern rackets even if you tried. That's like two elderly
> ladies having a nice hit. There is variety, yeah, they hit nice angles
> and drop shots, but I just can't compare it to the modern tennis.
>
> Graf - ASV is much closer to today's tennis, but really, it is easy to
> see the game has moved on in 17 years.. Kim - Li was actually even
> better match than it seemed first time, if you can make such a long
> higlights with good rallies. And the whole atmosphere in Graf - ASV,
> it was like a first round match in a small tournament... And it wasn't
> nice from Steffi to hit straight at Arantxa at the net.
For those who forgot what a 39-year-old Graf, 10 years after her
retirement, did with a certain Kim Clijsters, 26 years old, in
Wimbledon 2009:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itHpQDw7CCs&feature=related
This Clijsters is currently the best (!) women's player, she won the
last 3 major women's tournaments.
That is all we have to know about the state of women's tennis today.
Dear Sakari, there would have been no slam wins for Kim, had she been
born 10 years earlier.
Not even one. Not even with all luck imaginable.
Max
Calimero
> On Feb 5, 12:29 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 09:43:22 -0800 (PST), topspin
>
> > <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >1979 Grass (Eastbourne)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfkm6dk1AMQ
>
> > >1994 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRXIqmTKemc
>
> > >2011 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0jKkGsdeYM
>
> > Thanks, watched these all. The evolution is clearer in women's game. I
> > just can't compare the Navratilova - Evert tennis to modern tennis at
> > all. It is like a different sport. It seems like you couldn't hit that
> > slow with modern rackets even if you tried.
>
> The real question is how fast can you hit with rackets Navratilova and
> Evert are holding. Are you suggesting both were weaklings who cannot
> hit as hard as the modern players? Navratilova is much more muscular
> than say Sharapova and I bet she could hit at least 75% as hard with
> modern rackets.
>
Sakari also thinks that Kimi Raikönen is a better formula one driver
than Ayrton Senna ever was ...
Max
Pelle Svanslös
> On Feb 5, 12:29 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 09:43:22 -0800 (PST), topspin
>>
>> <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> 1979 Grass (Eastbourne)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfkm6dk1AMQ
>>> 1994 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRXIqmTKemc
>>> 2011 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0jKkGsdeYM
>> Thanks, watched these all. The evolution is clearer in women's game. I
>> just can't compare the Navratilova - Evert tennis to modern tennis at
>> all. It is like a different sport. It seems like you couldn't hit that
>> slow with modern rackets even if you tried.
>
> The real question is how fast can you hit with rackets Navratilova and
> Evert are holding.
Evert and Sampras played with the same racquet the Pro Staff 6.0. Now
compare the serves of both and ask yourself what role the racquet plays.
Sheesh.
--
"Listen first! Hiss later!"
Rodjk #613
Does the word 'exhibition' mean anything to you?
In an exhibition, McEnroe beat Roddick. Do you really think he could
beat Roddick for real?
Rodjk #613
topspin
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 09:43:22 -0800 (PST), topspin
>
> >1979 Grass (Eastbourne)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfkm6dk1AMQ
>
> >1994 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRXIqmTKemc
>
>
> Thanks, watched these all. The evolution is clearer in women's game.
That is what I think also. There is a bigger difference in the women's
game than in the men's. That is interesting because you might expect
Navratilova to look more 'modern', yet she looks just as 'girly' as
Evert. There is another clip of Evert just before she retired
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyW6RwLk2bA
You would think it was a different player. Yet she was ten years older
than against Navratilova, and about to retire.
I think it is the most powerful argument for the ifnluence of the
technology on the game.
Manuel aka Xax
> On Feb 5, 2:16 pm, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 12:29 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 09:43:22 -0800 (PST), topspin
>
> > > <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >1979 Grass (Eastbourne)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfkm6dk1AMQ
>
> > > >1994 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRXIqmTKemc
>
> > > >2011 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0jKkGsdeYM
>
> > > Thanks, watched these all. The evolution is clearer in women's game. I
> > > just can't compare the Navratilova - Evert tennis to modern tennis at
> > > all. It is like a different sport. It seems like you couldn't hit that
> > > slow with modern rackets even if you tried.
>
> > The real question is how fast can you hit with rackets Navratilova and
> > Evert are holding. Are you suggesting both were weaklings who cannot
> > hit as hard as the modern players?
>
> It's not just the rackets -- it's the racket head speed. How hard they
> *could* hit doesn't matter; what counts is how hard they *did* hit.
> That's what determines the nature of the game. Male players of that
> era hit the ball much harder using the same primitive rackets, because
> they generally swung a lot faster. I would bet that two things are
> true:
era's racket.
Actual techno seem to have shorten a bit that gap: on serve the best
women are near even with let's say top100 to top75 men, speed wise.
Manco
Calimero
McEnroe and this Roddick(?) are Americans, buddy ...
Simply watch the Graf-Clijsters match.
Have a look at who of those has an athletic body and who is a little
bit chubby.
And who took that match easy and who had a reindeer-in-the-headlights
look ...
:-)
Max
Calimero
> Clijsters has won the last 2, not 3.
She didn't win the YEC in your fantasy world?
Who did it?
Serena ... ?
Max
Joe Ramirez
It wasn't a match -- it was a one-set exhibition between two retired
players. And Clijsters won the set, for whatever's that's worth. This
is one of the most misguided cases of fanboy cherry-picking that I've
ever seen. At least try to stick to meaningless encounters in which
your gal came out on top.
Calimero
Yes, and Kimiko Date beating several top-15 players at age 40 - just
coincidence.
Brenda Schultz-McCarthy hitting the fastest serve ever (130 mph) in
2006 at age 35 - another coincidence.
But I forgot - for you the peak of evolution in women's tennis was in
2002/03, wasn't it ... ?
Max
Joe Ramirez
> On 6 Feb., 00:23, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 5, 6:11 pm, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > > Simply watch the Graf-Clijsters match.
>
> > It wasn't a match -- it was a one-set exhibition between two retired
> > players. And Clijsters won the set, for whatever's that's worth. This
> > is one of the most misguided cases of fanboy cherry-picking that I've
> > ever seen. At least try to stick to meaningless encounters in which
> > your gal came out on top.
>
> Yes, and Kimiko Date beating several top-15 players at age 40 - just
> coincidence.
Non sequitur -- has nothing at all to do with your misuse of the
Clijsters-Graf exhibition set.
> Brenda Schultz-McCarthy hitting the fastest serve ever (130 mph) in
> 2006 at age 35 - another coincidence.
Non sequitur -- has nothing at all to do with your misuse of the
Clijsters-Graf exhibition set.
Don't you know how to construct an argument? Step one is to stick to
the subject, which in this case is your misuse of the Clijsters-Graf
exhibition set.
> But I forgot - for you the peak of evolution in women's tennis was in
> 2002/03, wasn't it ... ?
You didn't forget -- you are simply deluded, since I've never
expressed any such opinion. I don't even care enough about women's
tennis to attempt to trace its evolution with such pseudo-precision.
Calimero
> On Feb 5, 6:32 pm, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > On 6 Feb., 00:23, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 6:11 pm, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > > > Simply watch the Graf-Clijsters match.
>
> > > It wasn't a match -- it was a one-set exhibition between two retired
> > > players. And Clijsters won the set, for whatever's that's worth. This
> > > is one of the most misguided cases of fanboy cherry-picking that I've
> > > ever seen. At least try to stick to meaningless encounters in which
> > > your gal came out on top.
>
> > Yes, and Kimiko Date beating several top-15 players at age 40 - just
> > coincidence.
>
> Non sequitur -- has nothing at all to do with your misuse of the
> Clijsters-Graf exhibition set.
>
> > Brenda Schultz-McCarthy hitting the fastest serve ever (130 mph) in
> > 2006 at age 35 - another coincidence.
>
> Non sequitur -- has nothing at all to do with your misuse of the
> Clijsters-Graf exhibition set.
Date, Schultz-McCarthy, Graf - all oldtimers who taught some
youngsters a lesson or two.
But are all separate of course.
Have "nothing at all to do" with each other. As I said - just
coincidence ...
LOL
Max
Manco
Calimero
> Since when is YEC a major title?
LOL, you think the YEC is not a major tournament?????
OK, this is RST ...
Max
Rodjk #613
What does that have to do with anything?
> Simply watch the Graf-Clijsters match.
I did.
> Have a look at who of those has an athletic body and who is a little
> bit chubby.
That 'chubby' girl has won 3 slams since then.
> And who took that match easy and who had a reindeer-in-the-headlights
> look ...
Kim took it easy...and she won it too.
Rodjk #613
> :-)
>
> Max
Rodjk #613
Date has won a few matches...that's it. So S-M hit a bit serve...what
has she won?
Graf lost that match, if you remember.
None of that takes away from the fact that Graf is GOAT to me, but it
does continue to show that you are not seeing things clearly.
> But are all separate of course.
> Have "nothing at all to do" with each other. As I said - just
> coincidence ...
Right...nothing shows nothing.
Rodjk #613
>
> LOL
>
> Max
TT
Backwards evolution. Flat and hard hitting does not equal more skill
involved.
Calimero
> On Feb 5, 5:57 pm, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6 Feb., 00:51, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 6:32 pm, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > > > On 6 Feb., 00:23, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 5, 6:11 pm, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Simply watch the Graf-Clijsters match.
>
> > > > > It wasn't a match -- it was a one-set exhibition between two retired
> > > > > players. And Clijsters won the set, for whatever's that's worth. This
> > > > > is one of the most misguided cases of fanboy cherry-picking that I've
> > > > > ever seen. At least try to stick to meaningless encounters in which
> > > > > your gal came out on top.
>
> > > > Yes, and Kimiko Date beating several top-15 players at age 40 - just
> > > > coincidence.
>
> > > Non sequitur -- has nothing at all to do with your misuse of the
> > > Clijsters-Graf exhibition set.
>
> > > > Brenda Schultz-McCarthy hitting the fastest serve ever (130 mph) in
> > > > 2006 at age 35 - another coincidence.
>
> > > Non sequitur -- has nothing at all to do with your misuse of the
> > > Clijsters-Graf exhibition set.
>
> > Date, Schultz-McCarthy, Graf - all oldtimers who taught some
> > youngsters a lesson or two.
>
> Date has won a few matches...that's it.
A 40-year-old player who was top 5 only for a few months 15 years ago
beats 5 top-15 players?
That doesn't make your brain cells work?
Do you think that a player who was top-5 in 1980 for a few months
would have been able to beat 5 top-15 players in 1995? That this would
have been remotely possible??
> So S-M hit a bit serve...what
> has she won?
It shows the evolution of racquet technology, genius ...
Schultz hit 15 mph faster in 2006 (aged 35) than in 1993 at her peak.
Hmmm ... ?
> Graf lost that match, if you remember.
Yes, Kim won 44-41 on points playing. With a stern face against a
smiling Steffi.
Do you really lack the imagination what a fit, young Graf would have
done with a Clijsters?
Do you really think someone like Clijsters would have had ANY chance
to win a slam in the 90s??
Max
Calimero
And that's the point, son ...
>
> > And who took that match easy and who had a reindeer-in-the-headlights
> > look ...
>
> Kim took it easy...and she won it too.
It is clearly visible who took it easy and who not.
Max
Pelle Svanslös
Oops. They're playing with woodies there. Should have clicked the link.
But by accident, the point still stands. They could, instead of tapping
the ball, actually swing at it and get a lot more even out of a woodie.
bob
very unfair post Sakari and you know it. with kim's success, you've
become quite cocky in here, no? btw, good win over oudin, glad to see
it.
bob
bob
maybe. :-)
bob
bob
american attorney VS german attorney.
bob
Sakari Lund
wrote:
Of course you take it personally. Just watch the clips, and there is a
big difference in intensity and the consistent hard-hitting. If you
like it better, the evolution is that now there are more than one
player who hit consistently hard.
Also there is an even bigger difference in atmosphere strangely.
Really looked like a practice session, instead of a player winning her
fourth straight slam. Maybe it just looks that way in the clip. This
is 94, Eurosport started showing AO in 95, I don't remember it feeling
like that.
Sakari Lund
Yes, this is weird. "How about the hit and giggle exo that Steffi
lost. Huh?"
Time and time again. I have said a hundred times it was having fun,
made to look close as exos are, and Kim won anyway. He keeps coming
back with it as some kind of argument.
Sakari Lund
True. She does look like a different player. She hits that forehand
harder than Graf.
:-)
Sakari Lund
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>1. The ratio of female average flat groundstroke speed to male average
>flat groundstroke speed is significantly higher now than in 1979. In
>other words, today's women are swinging harder, more like men, than
>they used to.
Yes.
>
>2. The ratio of 1979 to 2011 male average flat groundstroke speeds is
>significantly higher than the ratio of 1979 to 2011 female average
>flat groundstroke speeds. In other words, the gap between today's men
>and the men of the past is not as big as the gap between today's women
>and the women of the past. Women's tennis in 1979 was more patty-
>cakish, relatively speaking. It wasn't just the rackets.
Yes, I believe it is not just the rackets. I believe the girls in the
70's or so didn't think that hitting really hard was the way to play
tennis.
Sakari Lund
Yeah, didn't even think about it :-)
Geez, Max would be a great lawyer if you could get him in your side...
Sakari Lund
Good win over Oudin... :-) But today could have been interesting
against Mattek-Sands. When they played last year, it was one of the
matches of the year for me. When Mattek-Sands is on, she is really
good. And again she had won the first set, but when I started watching
it end of the 2nd, it was pretty one-sided.
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>Sakari also thinks that Kimi Raikönen is a better formula one driver
>than Ayrton Senna ever was ...
Most certainly don't think so. Have you noticed it is you who has the
nationalistic problem here? I am supporting a foreign player.
Calimero
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 12:46:03 -0800 (PST), Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de>
A 25-year-old Graf with today's equipment would hit considerably
harder than Kim.
> Also there is an even bigger difference in atmosphere strangely.
> Really looked like a practice session,
Maybe because there is no grunting?
> instead of a player winning her
> fourth straight slam. Maybe it just looks that way in the clip. This
> is 94, Eurosport started showing AO in 95, I don't remember it feeling
> like that.
I do know that you didn't watch tennis in the late 80s or early 90s.
It shows in your posts. :-)
Max
Calimero
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 20:29:30 +0200, Sakari Lund
>
>
>
>
>
> <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 09:43:22 -0800 (PST), topspin
>
> >>1979 Grass (Eastbourne)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfkm6dk1AMQ
>
> >>1994 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRXIqmTKemc
>
>
> >Thanks, watched these all. The evolution is clearer in women's game. I
> >just can't compare the Navratilova - Evert tennis to modern tennis at
> >all. It is like a different sport. It seems like you couldn't hit that
> >slow with modern rackets even if you tried. That's like two elderly
> >ladies having a nice hit. There is variety, yeah, they hit nice angles
> >and drop shots, but I just can't compare it to the modern tennis.
>
> >Graf - ASV is much closer to today's tennis, but really, it is easy to
> >see the game has moved on in 17 years.. Kim - Li was actually even
> >better match than it seemed first time, if you can make such a long
> >higlights with good rallies. And the whole atmosphere in Graf - ASV,
> >it was like a first round match in a small tournament... And it wasn't
> >nice from Steffi to hit straight at Arantxa at the net.
>
> very unfair post Sakari and you know it. with kim's success, you've
Yes, indeed.
It's time for Serena to come back ...
Max
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>On 6 Feb., 16:07, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
Especially from the backhand side.
>I do know that you didn't watch tennis in the late 80s or early 90s.
>It shows in your posts. :-)
Not as much as later no. I guess it is very likely you still watch
more Steffi matches in a week than I have ever seen.
I hope I never get the attitude that Sampras and Graf fans have. That
during the years Sampras and Graf played, every player was great.
Before that there were good old times, the players were not as good as
Sampras and Graf, but damn, they were better than the current players,
just that the rackets were worse. And since the day Sampras and Graf
retired, everyone has sucked completely.
Raja, The Great
And miss the shit (and hit it to the stadiums or the net). Do you
think older players were retarded to not use power?
Calimero
They didn't have coaches like Pelle!
He would have told them.
Max
Calimero
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 08:16:02 -0800 (PST), Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de>
No one would say this about the men's game.
They have Federer and Nadal as Sampras's heirs.
Different with the women.
They have Clijsters and Wozniacki as Graf's heiresses ...
Max
curly
Borg wasn't retarded. But that's unfair, I admit. Women's tennis lags
men's by 10-15 years. Excepting maybe 5 players, I'm not sure they still
hit topspin.
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>On 6 Feb., 17:49, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
Have you ever read rst on other topics than Graf?
They do say just that, they sound just like you.
topspin
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 12:42:43 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
>
It was 'because' of the rackets they did not hit really hard. Margaret
Court was as good a female tennis athlete as there has ever been, and
was considered to hit the ball really hard by the standards of the
time, but to anyone looking back it seems really soft. The rackets
simply would not generate pace, and the uncertainty of the bounces
meant it was too risky to launch your whole body at the ball.
The newer large head rackets, with a bigger sweet spot meant that
there was a big advantage to a woman who could generate power.
Navratilova lead the way to the gym, the others followed, and the rest
is history. As the differences in Evert's game show, it wasn't about
the players per se (except in changing their fitness regimes to take
advantage of the new technology) it was the technology and court
surface changes that has driven the game to where it is now.
Calimero
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 09:34:40 -0800 (PST), Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de>
Of course.
I have read something about Enna a few weeks ago.
And one thread about Nadal/Federer. In 2009, I think.
>
> They do say just that, they sound just like you.
But that women's tennis is in an absolute clown era in the last years
- who doesn't agree with that???
Max
bob
he never quits, that's for sure. to max's defense, clijsters really
shouldn't be spoken about in the same breath as graf or other greats -
yet.
bob
bob
you're mistaken - i don't believe the 90s wasthe best lot of men's
tennis overall, and probably not the best of women's tennis overall.
graf/sampras were certain standouts of the 90s. but 75-85 we had
borg/connors/mac/lendl + MN and evert.
bob
Sakari Lund
You guys are personifying this too much. I am talking about three
video clips that to me showed a clear evolution in women's tennis,
including racket technology and everything.
bob
wrote:
>On 6 Feb., 17:49, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
to be more accurate, since graf last was in a slam final and ending
with 22/31 finals, SW won 13/16, venus 7/14, henin 7/12, but clijsters
just 4/8. SW, VW and henin were the more appropriate heiresses i'd
reckon. and none of them anywhere close to graf or MN.
bob
bob
<sakar...@welho.com> wrote:
mattek isn't much of a player, but i'll watch the stockings and boobs
for the other reasons...
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 6 Feb., 15:23, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
before 09, sakari was very humble- and now we see the reality - a
cocky sonovagun just waiting on his chance for revenge.
still, 4/8 in slams doesn't warrant cockiness yet.
bob
Calimero
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 08:17:00 -0800 (PST), Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de>
Whom did Kim beat in her slam finals?
Right - over-the-hill Pierce, Wozniacki, Zvonareva and Li.
Max
--
For Sakari: http://homepage.mac.com/rosangel/Roof_Wimbledon/large-138.html
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>On 6 Feb., 20:56, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
Why do you have to act like that? No chance for a serious discussion?
Watch the clips and say what you think. Two players in the last clip,
and Li certainly does her part of the impressive play. You think
tennis in the 94 clip is better? Just because Graf is Graf and that's
the end of discussion?
>>
>> still, 4/8 in slams doesn't warrant cockiness yet.
>
>
>Whom did Kim beat in her slam finals?
>Right - over-the-hill Pierce, Wozniacki, Zvonareva and Li.
Because she always beat Serena, Venus, Sharapova etc. before the
finals.
Rodjk #613
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 08:16:02 -0800 (PST), Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de>
See the mistake you are making, Sakari?
You are lumping "Sampras and Graf fans" in with Whisper/Max types.
I have spoken often about this...Graf was my favorite WTA player ever
and Sampras is one of my favorite on the men's side. Fans should not
be lumped in with obsessed, unreasonable people like Whipser/Max. It
isn't fair to us and it surely is not fair to the reputations of Graf
and Pete.
>That during the years Sampras and Graf played, every player was great.
> Before that there were good old times, the players were not as good as
> Sampras and Graf, but damn, they were better than the current players,
> just that the rackets were worse. And since the day Sampras and Graf
> retired, everyone has sucked completely.
See, you are confusing the nuts with the real fans.
Borg is one of my favorites, and I think he was great. But Borg, at
his best, placed in a time machine and brought to today would have a
hard time qualifying at the FO. I have even told TT that I think Nadal
ranks ahead of Borg on clay because his game is better and Nadal faces
more competition.
Real fans can do that...we can understand how the game changes along
with the surface and the equipment. We can continue to have our old
favorites while recognizing the evolution of the game.
You are allowing the nuts to influence your thinking, and it isn't
fair.
Rodjk #613
Sakari Lund
Yes, I should have been more specific. I mean "crazy Sampras and Graf
fans in rst". But I just think most people know I mean them even if I
don't say it every time.
Rodjk #613
You are probably right, and I am probably overly sensitive...
But the most outspoken Graf fan on RST is Max and for Pete we have the
Whisper/Bob.
You can understand why I get annoyed?
Rodjk #613
DavidW
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 15:23:14 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
> <josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 5, 6:11 pm, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Simply watch the Graf-Clijsters match.
>>
>> It wasn't a match -- it was a one-set exhibition between two retired
>> players. And Clijsters won the set, for whatever's that's worth. This
>> is one of the most misguided cases of fanboy cherry-picking that I've
>> ever seen. At least try to stick to meaningless encounters in which
>> your gal came out on top.
>
> lost. Huh?"
Didn't Kim spend months getting fit for that because she was making a comeback?
Graf didn't. Graf was better early and then lost fitness, and of course there's
the age difference. The evidence suggests a straightforward Graf win under equal
circimstances.
Calimero
Of course.
Even Kim knows that.
But try to tell it to those rabid Clijsters nutters ...
Max
DavidW
Yes, Sakari is clouded by excessive Kim fandom...
Hannes Worst
What about coaching? Here's a history about USTA coaching in the 70s:
Graf, btw, beat a very young Clijsters in a regular match.
DavidW
I don't know how this relates to the GRAF/kim discussion, but speaking of
coaching Wally Masur said during yesterday's Aus/Ita Federation Cup commentary
that when he started hardly any player had a personal coach. Borg had one, but
nearly all players were on their own.
Pelle Svanslös
>
> What about coaching? Here's a history about USTA coaching in the 70s:
>
> http://mtmca.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46%3Areal-history-of-tennis-instruction-part-1&catid=25%3Atennis-history&Itemid=52&limitstart=3
>
I'll juct pick up the stuff about Tom Okker's FH:
"John Alexander was a top pro chosen by Tennis Magazine to represent the
players' viewpoint on forehands. In "The Best Forehands in the Pro Game"
Alexander notes in this 1975 edition his belief the three best forehands
in tennis at the time (and he played against all three) are Newcombe's,
Gimeno's, and Tom Okker's while noting that a young Bjorn Borg and
Guillermo Vilas have severe topspin forehands also, Borg hitting like
Okker does with a more western grip. Alexander writes: "Okker has one of
the most unorthodox forehands in tennis, but certainly one of the most
effective.....it's a very difficult shot to deal with, because even if
the ball lands short, it will kick up very high and long, making a
return approach shot very difficult to produce." Below is a frame by
frame analysis Jack Kramer uses to comment on what he sees as the best
forehand in 35 years. Notice how Okker�s "unorthodox" forehand looks
exactly like almost any top windshield wiper forehand in the year 2009.
This is the exact forehand style Oscar taught in Spain at the same time
this article first appeared in 1973. The National Tennis School of Spain
would adopt this forehand method as their model and the spread of
�modern tennis� begins until every pro player is using a windshield
wiper thirty years later."
This proves that the shift to heavy topspin was already there even with
no equipment changes. Borg and Vilas weren't alone. In due time, the
one-piece stabbing shots (Connors) would have been gone no matter what
and replaced by more spin frindly shots.
--
"Listen first! Hiss later!"
topspin
> Hannes Worst wrote:
>
> > What about coaching? Here's a history about USTA coaching in the 70s:
>
>
> I'll juct pick up the stuff about Tom Okker's FH:
>
> "John Alexander was a top pro chosen by Tennis Magazine to represent the
> players' viewpoint on forehands. In "The Best Forehands in the Pro Game"
> Alexander notes in this 1975 edition his belief the three best forehands
> in tennis at the time (and he played against all three) are Newcombe's,
> Gimeno's, and Tom Okker's while noting that a young Bjorn Borg and
> Guillermo Vilas have severe topspin forehands also, Borg hitting like
> Okker does with a more western grip. Alexander writes: "Okker has one of
> the most unorthodox forehands in tennis, but certainly one of the most
> effective.....it's a very difficult shot to deal with, because even if
> the ball lands short, it will kick up very high and long, making a
> return approach shot very difficult to produce." Below is a frame by
> frame analysis Jack Kramer uses to comment on what he sees as the best
> exactly like almost any top windshield wiper forehand in the year 2009.
> This is the exact forehand style Oscar taught in Spain at the same time
> this article first appeared in 1973. The National Tennis School of Spain
> would adopt this forehand method as their model and the spread of
> wiper thirty years later."
>
> This proves that the shift to heavy topspin was already there even with
> no equipment changes. Borg and Vilas weren't alone. In due time, the
> one-piece stabbing shots (Connors) would have been gone no matter what
> and replaced by more spin frindly shots.
>
> --
> "Listen first! Hiss later!"
Now there is a player whose footspeed would match anyone playing
today!! :-)
bob
what's more serious that that? :-) i'm simply pointing out a very
distinct change in your tone in the past year since kim has
established her self as best girl on tour. i don't mind because i
prefer kim to serena. don't your family and friends notice a jump a
'change' in you? haha
>Watch the clips and say what you think. Two players in the last clip,
>and Li certainly does her part of the impressive play. You think
>tennis in the 94 clip is better? Just because Graf is Graf and that's
>the end of discussion?
graf was greatest player ever followed fairly closely by MN. i think
anything after that is quite a long way down the list in achievement.
and in terms of level (not achievement), i think graf even though she
peaked 20 yrs ago could do well in today's game.
>>> still, 4/8 in slams doesn't warrant cockiness yet.
>>
>>
>>Whom did Kim beat in her slam finals?
>>Right - over-the-hill Pierce, Wozniacki, Zvonareva and Li.
>
>Because she always beat Serena, Venus, Sharapova etc. before the
>finals.
IMO, serena and henin were by far the best 2 players of 2000-2010.
henin had the talent, serena had the power. both have lopsided H2H VS
kim i believe. but kim has fallen into a niche of both of those being
injured frequently and she's taken good advantage of it. which i don't
mind, she's become kind of pleasant. and no doubt she's #1 since
Wimbledon.
bob
Sakari Lund
>both have lopsided H2H VS kim i believe.
You are not listening to me much if you still believe that. I have
posted Kim - Justine H2H many times. Currently it is 13-10 to Kim (and
will stay that way). If you look at theWTA site, they include two ITF
events when Kim was 15, but even with those it is 13-12 to Kim. On
Tour level 13-10 to Kim. Try to remember that finally.
Henin won the slam finals and some clay matches, and Kim won pretty
much everything else, especially almost every match on HC. Most people
remember the slam finals, where Kim choked and played way, way below
her level. Henin gets deservedly the credit for playing better in the
most important occasions. But it tells about the mental strength, not
the actual level of play. Kim has learned to play better in big
matches later.
Serena leads Kim 7-2. But interestingly, they have played only once
since Miami 2003! And that was the USO SF 09, and we all remember what
happened in that. The other Kim win is from YEC 2002. Then there are
couple of slam matches where Kim was up a break in the 3rd, but lost.
And as mentioned almost all the matches are from relatively early in
Kim' career.
MBDunc
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 23:12:08 +0200, Sakari Lund
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:14:39 -0800 (PST), Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de>
2000-2010 there were a lot of great female players in the mix
(Williamses, Mauresmo, Henin, Sharapova, Cljisters....even Hingis,
Capriati, Davenport, Kuzzy, Ivanovic, Pierce, Dementjeva....). Easily
the best overall bunch ever in women's tennis. too bad they were
rarely a) healthy and/or b) motivated at the same time (off-court
distractions).
Maybe today's off court distractions and constant media spotlight is
just too much to bear for long without singleminded focus (as media
really requires quite cruel set of "unwritten regs" for high profile
female athletes).
.mikko
Calimero
The 90s were better.
Graf, Navratilova, Seles, Sanchez, Sabatini, Hingis. Even Novotna,
Pierce, Davenport, Martinez, Fernandez, Capriati.
Why do you think people call the 90s the "Golden Era" of women's
tennis?
Max
Raja, The Great
Raja, The Great
Dementieva/Sharapova/Ivanovic had so many serving problems that they
can hardly be considered among the best ever. What kind of best
players makes 20 double faults in one match. Clijsters/Davenport are
mental midgets when they have to face Henin/Williamses. Hingis is
pretty much done by 2000. Pierce too. 2000 had more variety but was
hardly the best. 1990s were much better and 1980s were probably the
best.
>
> Maybe today's off court distractions and constant media spotlight is
> just too much to bear for long without singleminded focus (as media
> really requires quite cruel set of "unwritten regs" for high profile
> female athletes).
>
> .mikko- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Calimero
1982-86 were weak.
Austin gone, Steffi not yet there.
Evertilova, Mandlikova, Shriver, Turnbull, Hanika - wow ...
Max
Raja, The Great
Wrong... the two weak years were 1983 and 1984 when Evert was playing
below par and Navratilova had no competition. 1982 had Evert/
Navratilova completely dominating the game. 1985 was the comeback year
for Evert and was pretty good year for both Navratilova/Evert. 1986
was a good year for Graf though she did not win a slam - but she could
have easily won 1986 USO and made finals of YEC as well winning 8
titles at 91% and finishing #3 in the world. In fact 1986 might be the
only year - when Evert/Navratilova/Graf all three were playing pretty
high level.
1990s weren't the best. 1991 and 1992 were Steffi slump years with
Seles hardly having any competition (except at FO and Wimbledon where
Graf played well). 1994 was quite lame as well as Graf was injured.
There was no competition in 1997 for Hingis. 1998 and 1999 were pretty
lame with no one playing their best.
Calimero
1988, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996 were great years though.
Most probably the best ever in women's tennis.
Max
DavidW
> 1986
> was a good year for Graf though she did not win a slam - but she could
> have easily won 1986 USO
I'll thank you not to mention that one that got away. That SF was the hardest
loss of her whole career.
Raja, The Great
She had plenty of competition for the first two years definitely.
Raja, The Great
Yes quite unlucky. Imagine Graf winning 1986 USO at age 17! WOW!
bob
<sakar...@welho.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:19:33 -0500, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>both have lopsided H2H VS kim i believe.
>
>You are not listening to me much if you still believe that. I have
>posted Kim - Justine H2H many times. Currently it is 13-10 to Kim (and
>will stay that way).
ok, i was gone 3 months. SW has like 6-2 H2H though, no? and what is
the slam H2H of both of those?
> If you look at theWTA site, they include two ITF
>events when Kim was 15, but even with those it is 13-12 to Kim. On
>Tour level 13-10 to Kim. Try to remember that finally.
ok, but what is H2H in slams? 4-3 henin i believe. i'll call this one
a tossup.
>Henin won the slam finals and some clay matches, and Kim won pretty
>much everything else, especially almost every match on HC. Most people
>remember the slam finals, where Kim choked and played way, way below
>her level. Henin gets deservedly the credit for playing better in the
>most important occasions. But it tells about the mental strength, not
>the actual level of play. Kim has learned to play better in big
>matches later.
>Serena leads Kim 7-2. But interestingly, they have played only once
>since Miami 2003! And that was the USO SF 09, and we all remember what
>happened in that. The other Kim win is from YEC 2002. Then there are
>couple of slam matches where Kim was up a break in the 3rd, but lost.
>And as mentioned almost all the matches are from relatively early in
>Kim' career.
kim has shown well past 2 yrs, no doubt. she's #1 presently, no doubt.
but SW and henin, IMO are 2 best players of 2000-2010, the "heiresses"
to graf if we can call them that. but kim might bag another 3-4 slams,
seriously.
bob
bob
wrote:
>On 8 Feb., 12:52, MBDunc <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
have to agree that 90s women's tennis was far more interesting,
entertaining and taken for the time differences, better tennis. maybe
just as good or better even if not taking time into acct.
bob
Raja, The Great
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:30:54 +0200, Sakari Lund
>
Actually H2H wise Kim was never bad against Henin or Sistahs, but she
eeked in one slam and 2 YEC during their best years. That is always
going to be a negative against her.
Raja, The Great
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 12:19:01 -0800 (PST), Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de>
>
> - Show quoted text -
80>90s>00s in my opinion for women
for men 80s>00s>90s
bob
80s = 90s (maybe) > 00s
>for men 80s>00s>90s
80s > 90s > 00s
bob
StephenJ
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 09:43:22 -0800 (PST), topspin
>
> <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >1979 Grass (Eastbourne)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfkm6dk1AMQ
>
> >1994 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRXIqmTKemc
>
> >2011 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0jKkGsdeYM
>
> Thanks, watched these all. The evolution is clearer in women's game. I
> just can't compare the Navratilova - Evert tennis to modern tennis at
> all. It is like a different sport. It seems like you couldn't hit that
> slow with modern rackets even if you tried. That's like two elderly
> ladies having a nice hit. There is variety, yeah, they hit nice angles
> and drop shots, but I just can't compare it to the modern tennis.
>
> Graf - ASV is much closer to today's tennis, but really, it is easy to
> see the game has moved on in 17 years..
Not really. I'd say Graf-ASV is maybe 55% beyond Evert-MN and towards
today's game.
StephenJ
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 09:34:40 -0800 (PST), Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 6 Feb., 17:49, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 08:16:02 -0800 (PST), Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On 6 Feb., 16:07, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 12:46:03 -0800 (PST), Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On 5 Feb., 19:29, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 09:43:22 -0800 (PST), topspin
>
> >> >> >> <goolagong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >1979 Grass (Eastbourne)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfkm6dk1AMQ
>
> >> >> >> >1994 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRXIqmTKemc
>
> >> >> >> >2011 HC (AO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0jKkGsdeYM
>
> >> >> >> Thanks, watched these all. The evolution is clearer in women's game. I
> >> >> >> just can't compare the Navratilova - Evert tennis to modern tennis at
> >> >> >> all. It is like a different sport. It seems like you couldn't hit that
> >> >> >> slow with modern rackets even if you tried. That's like two elderly
> >> >> >> ladies having a nice hit. There is variety, yeah, they hit nice angles
> >> >> >> and drop shots, but I just can't compare it to the modern tennis.
>
> >> >> >> Graf - ASV is much closer to today's tennis, but really, it is easy to
> >> >> >> better match than it seemed first time, if you can make such a long
> >> >> >> higlights with good rallies. And the whole atmosphere in Graf - ASV,
> >> >> >> it was like a first round match in a small tournament... And it wasn't
> >> >> >> nice from Steffi to hit straight at Arantxa at the net.
>
> >> >> >retirement, did with a certain Kim Clijsters, 26 years old, in
> >> >> >Wimbledon 2009:
>
> >> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itHpQDw7CCs&feature=related
>
> >> >> >This Clijsters is currently the best (!) women's player, she won the
> >> >> >last 3 major women's tournaments.
> >> >> >That is all we have to know about the state of women's tennis today.
>
> >> >> >Dear Sakari, there would have been no slam wins for Kim, had she been
> >> >> >born 10 years earlier.
> >> >> >Not even one. Not even with all luck imaginable.
>
> >> >> Of course you take it personally. Just watch the clips, and there is a
> >> >> big difference in intensity and the consistent hard-hitting. If you
> >> >> like it better, the evolution is that now there are more than one
> >> >> player who hit consistently hard.
>
> >> >A 25-year-old Graf with today's equipment would hit considerably
> >> >harder than Kim.
>
> >> Especially from the backhand side.
>
> >> >I do know that you didn't watch tennis in the late 80s or early 90s.
> >> >It shows in your posts. :-)
>
> >> Not as much as later no. I guess it is very likely you still watch
> >> more Steffi matches in a week than I have ever seen.
>
> >> I hope I never get the attitude that Sampras and Graf fans have. That
> >> during the years Sampras and Graf played, every player was great.
> >> Before that there were good old times, the players were not as good as
> >> Sampras and Graf, but damn, they were better than the current players,
> >> just that the rackets were worse. And since the day Sampras and Graf
> >> retired, everyone has sucked completely.
>
> >No one would say this about the men's game.
> >They have Federer and Nadal as Sampras's heirs.
>
> >Different with the women.
> >They have Clijsters and Wozniacki as Graf's heiresses ...
>
> to be more accurate, since graf last was in a slam final and ending
> with 22/31 finals, SW won 13/16, venus 7/14, henin 7/12, but clijsters
> just 4/8. SW, VW and henin were the more appropriate heiresses i'd
> reckon. and none of them anywhere close to graf or MN.
But all of them would have killed Graf or MN.
Vari L. Cinicke
You have a 3.2% chance of having a rational thought about Graf or anyone
named Williams.
--
Cheers,
vc
bob
wrote:
i think SW and henin would be competitive with them, venus - not a
chance.
bob
Calimero
And where is 40-year-old Date?
I mean that grandma who was 5-5 against "today's game's" top-15 last
year?
Max
MBDunc
...you left the vital early part off: 20s > 30s > 40s > 50s > 60s >
70s > ...
All sport evolves but tennis just must be an exception to a rule
.mikko
Raja, The Great
Evolving has nothing to do with quality of players... If I were to
rate decades.. it would be...
Men (from best to worst)
50s
80s
20s
30s
60s
70s
10s (due to WW1)
40s (due to WW2)
90s
Women (from best to worst)
20s
80s
70s
90s
30s
60s
50s
40s (due to WW2)
10s (due to WW1)
Joe Ramirez
nonsense. You read some stats and stories in Wikipedia, and based on
that alone conclude that the tennis (or the tennis players -- not
clear exactly what you are talking about) of the 1930s was "better"
than the tennis (or the tennis players) of the 1970s? Completely
absurd. Don't let your list-tic wag your brain.
MBDunc
Whisper's rock bottom absurd turd pile is platinum stuff compared to
above Raja' s decade list.
It is like comparing emperors quality/fairness/wisdom and the only
rank criteria is how many IMDB entries an emperor has.
.mikko
Raja, The Great
Tennis is good when the top players play the highest quality of
versatile tennis. The 30s had a lot to offer in the form of Ellsworth
Vines, Don Budge, Fred Perry and the pro tour which took off. I think
it is one of the best decades.
Raja, The Great
LOL, how do you know what criteria I used for that list?
Calimero
Your list is quite good.
Although I would put the 90s on top.
And the 80s second (due to a strong finish).
Max
Raja, The Great
Evert/Navratilova/Graf > Graf/Seles/Hingis
Don't forget Evert was more or less equal to Navratilova from 1980-82.
Many say Evert was the better player in 1980 and 1981.
bob
you used when lendl won slams of course raj.
bob
DavidW
Your baiting of Graf fans is easy to see through. You don't really believe
they'd have beaten her.
Ted S.
>> But all of them would have killed Graf or MN.
>
> Your baiting of Graf fans is easy to see through. You don't really
> believe they'd have beaten her.
I think he was baiting Navratilova fans.
--
Ted Schuerzinger
tedstennis at myrealbox dot com
If you're afraid of the ball, don't sit in the front row. --Anastasia
Rodionova
DavidW
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:19:37 +1100, DavidW wrote:
>
>>> But all of them would have killed Graf or MN.
>>
>> Your baiting of Graf fans is easy to see through. You don't really
>> believe they'd have beaten her.
>
> I think he was baiting Navratilova fans.
Are there any?