Are Whisper's boasts true?
Scott
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/tree/browse_frm/thread/65d88d739d0671d6/a78414ed2916bf1e?rnum=11&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.sport.tennis%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F65d88d739d0671d6%2F0ba51aa69f65f1e8%3F#doc_b5e50e0b90d7b0fd
"...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. (Whisper)."
if Whisper is to be believed, he's really good at tennis. however,
how come he never mentions playing in college?
most of the club champs at the three clubs i have played at have
played in college. A club champ is usually between 4.2 and 4.5 NTRP.
these people have played for decades. (They take lessons from
coaching instructors who are 5.0s, who made even more of a dent in
college than the club champs.)
however, while Whisper often says he dominates the "fiercest
[competition] in the state", he never talks about having played in
college.
Why?
Superdave
because he is still in high school ! he's 35 but still in the 10th grade.
stephenJ
> from:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/tree/browse_frm/thread/65d88d739d0671d6/a78414ed2916bf1e?rnum=11&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.sport.tennis%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F65d88d739d0671d6%2F0ba51aa69f65f1e8%3F#doc_b5e50e0b90d7b0fd
>
> "...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. (Whisper)."
>
> if Whisper is to be believed, he's really good at tennis. however,
> how come he never mentions playing in college?
whisper posted pics of himself on the tennis court a while back. i know
it's not definitive, but he didn't look like much of an athlete, not
even in a tennis sense. if he's winning 24/25 matches, he's probably
facing a bunch of USTA 2.5 type players.
--
It is easier to win over people to pacifism than socialism.
We should work first for pacifism, and only later for socialism.
- Albert Einstein
Superdave
>Scott wrote:
>> from:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/tree/browse_frm/thread/65d88d739d0671d6/a78414ed2916bf1e?rnum=11&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.sport.tennis%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F65d88d739d0671d6%2F0ba51aa69f65f1e8%3F#doc_b5e50e0b90d7b0fd
>>
>> "...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. (Whisper)."
>>
>> if Whisper is to be believed, he's really good at tennis. however,
>> how come he never mentions playing in college?
>
>whisper posted pics of himself on the tennis court a while back. i know
>it's not definitive, but he didn't look like much of an athlete, not
>even in a tennis sense. if he's winning 24/25 matches, he's probably
>facing a bunch of USTA 2.5 type players.
or they are the women he "picks up" and "plays" with. he meant tennis.
Whisper
er, maybe because I'm in Oz dumbarse?
I don't see why my amateur exploits are of such great interest? I mean
even if we had former top 500 level pros posting here who would really
give a fuck after about 5 minutes? I don't think I 'boast', but now &
again mention things that seem relevant to the discussion. Yes I've had
a lot of success & can beat most club pros - just don't think it's that
interesting.
If it makes you feel better I'm playing a guy who was top 10 in the
state as a junior, & I'm 0-2 - playing him again in a couple weeks.
Went down 1-6 2-6 1st time & 3-6 4-6 last time - but he is 12 yrs
younger & I think I'm in with a shot on a good day. He just doesn't
miss much (which is also my strength), & has a great bh he can send
anywhere with ease - that's the killer.
I'm fitter/quicker than him, but hard to keep him out there long enough
for fitness to be a big factor. He kills everyone else losing 0-3 games.
Manco
judgment on Federer?
Whisper
> Even assuming that's all true - what makes you qualified to render
> judgment on Federer?
I'm entitled to my opinion. We all make judgments based on what we know
about the game, & there'll always be those who agree/disagree.
If I had to bet my life on Fed v Sampras in a 'best at peak'
Wimbledon/USO final I'd always go with Sampras. I'd also tip Fed to
have more consistent results/achieve more over the longer term.
My position now (March 2010) is Fed can be goat, but Sampras would win
the big stakes match - ie Fed = goat, Sampras = boat.
What's better, goat or boat?
Clearly goat as that's a tangible, objective measure. 'boat' is
eternally subjective.
Manco
GOAT as being Sampras. Ignoring all evidence from 04AO-07 AO.
Raja, The Great
> Manco wrote:
> > Even assuming that's all true - what makes you qualified to render
> > judgment on Federer?
>
> I'm entitled to my opinion. We all make judgments based on what we know
> about the game, & there'll always be those who agree/disagree.
>
> If I had to bet my life on Fed v Sampras in a 'best at peak'
> Wimbledon/USO final I'd always go with Sampras. I'd also tip Fed to
> have more consistent results/achieve more over the longer term.
>
> My position now (March 2010) is Fed can be goat, but Sampras would win
> the big stakes match - ie Fed = goat, Sampras = boat.
I say Michael Stich is boat. At his best no one could touch him. He
destroyed Boris Becker in a Wimbledon final FFS! And Becker had just
won the AO.
Manco
like Stich. But Federer hit a peak that lasted for 4 years which is
consistency + huge talent. Winning 11/16 grand slams is the most
impressive feat in tennis history. Probably more then Borg's 3
straight Channel Slams.
Pedro Dias
And all you've got left.
I remember quite clearly when I first made that distinction - '05,
'06? - and how you dismissed the notion of "best", as opposed to
"greatest". I wish I could say I'm glad to have you on my side, but
frankly I could do without the stench.
Superdave
er....no it's not ...
Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World Championships is a resounding statement to the
contrary in spite of any and all excuses you try to make.
Scott
> > Even assuming that's all true - what makes you qualified to render
> > judgment on Federer?
>
> I'm entitled to my opinion. We all make judgments based on what we know
> about the game, & there'll always be those who agree/disagree.
>
> If I had to bet my life on Fed v Sampras in a 'best at peak'
> Wimbledon/USO final I'd always go with Sampras. I'd also tip Fed to
> have more consistent results/achieve more over the longer term.
>
> My position now (March 2010) is Fed can be goat, but Sampras would win
> the big stakes match - ie Fed = goat, Sampras = boat.
>
to back it up. This opinion is supposed to be credible?
Superdave
er....no it's not ...
Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World Championships is a resounding statement to the
contrary in spite of any and all excuses whisper tries to make.
Whisper
> Ah so you're already conceding the GOAT, holding out on the talent-
> GOAT as being Sampras. Ignoring all evidence from 04AO-07 AO.
Talent goat is clearly McEnroe. Fed is too weak at the net to be in the
overall 'talent goat' conversation. Yes I know the net game is
difficult & requires great skill, but duh that's where talent is required.
He's far more talented than Lendl/Agassi types, but he's no talent goat.
Whisper
Stich needed to do it 3 times to take your claim seriously. A guy can
do it once if he's new & the top players underestimate him etc. Sample
size is way too small (1 slam wonder).
Whisper
Problem for Fed is Rafa. It's ok to lose to him at FO, but Wim & AO
finals too, right at his peak? Mono excuse is not going to wash given
he was still beating everyone else & winning v non-Rafa players.
At any rate achievements are the most important thing, but there will be
many denying his boat status thanks to Rafa.
Whisper
I don't remember that, but at any rate you'll recall I always had Hoad
in the conversation despite only winning 4 slams.
Whisper
My logic is Sampras had the advantage in power - better serving, net
game & also pull off big winners from the back court. Mentally he was
an animal on the big points. You'll recall Sampras was largely bored
during his career as he realised he could win by just focussing on
holding serve & going for 1 break per set. When he was in full flight
really trying to win every point, he was a different animal. Federer
playing his era may have brought out this Sampras more often as he
couldn't afford to cruise. I think Sampras had enough
weapons/attributes to nullify a lot of Fed's artsy shot-making.
That's my opinion based on what I've seen.
Superdave
So far we only know of one. You.
Superdave
When was the last time you could read the big "E" ?
Whisper
Perfect eyesight - 20/20.
stephenJ
becker had a badly strained thigh at that wimbledon.
--
The Achilles heel of Socialism was the inability to link the socialist goal
with the provision of incentives for efficient labor and the encouragement
of effort on the part of individuals.
- Mikhail Gorbachev
stephenJ
> Manco wrote:
>> Bullshit, many players hit a peak of performance for one grand slam
>> like Stich. But Federer hit a peak that lasted for 4 years which is
>> consistency + huge talent. Winning 11/16 grand slams is the most
>> impressive feat in tennis history. Probably more then Borg's 3
>> straight Channel Slams.
>
>
>
> Problem for Fed is Rafa. It's ok to lose to him at FO, but Wim & AO
> finals too, right at his peak? Mono excuse is not going to wash given
> he was still beating everyone else & winning v non-Rafa players.
rafa isn't relevant until he starts making slam finals again. as of now,
most barely remember that fed lost some slam finals to him and only
about 20% of those even care.
--
10 years from now we'll still be on top.
- p. diddy, 1997
stephenJ
plus let's face it -becker was hurt for the final and stich was lucky to
eek past edberg in the semis. never broke him but won 3 TBs.
--
Not to believe in the Devil is a French idea, a frivolous idea.
- F. Dostoyevsky
stephenJ
> Manco wrote:
>> Even assuming that's all true - what makes you qualified to render
>> judgment on Federer?
>
>
> I'm entitled to my opinion. We all make judgments based on what we know
> about the game, & there'll always be those who agree/disagree.
>
> If I had to bet my life on Fed v Sampras in a 'best at peak'
> Wimbledon/USO final I'd always go with Sampras. I'd also tip Fed to
> have more consistent results/achieve more over the longer term.
>
> My position now (March 2010) is Fed can be goat, but Sampras would win
> the big stakes match - ie Fed = goat, Sampras = boat.
that's hard to reconcile the fact that fed beat sampras at wimbledon
when pete was closer to his peak than fed was to his.
05 fed probably wins 2/3 matches against 95 sampras at W, 3/4 at USO.
Calimero
> from:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/tree/browse_frm/threa...
>
> "...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. (Whisper)."
>
> if Whisper is to be believed, he's really good at tennis. however,
> how come he never mentions playing in college?
>
> most of the club champs at the three clubs i have played at have
> played in college. A club champ is usually between 4.2 and 4.5 NTRP.
> these people have played for decades. (They take lessons from
> coaching instructors who are 5.0s, who made even more of a dent in
> college than the club champs.)
>
> however, while Whisper often says he dominates the "fiercest
> [competition] in the state", he never talks about having played in
> college.
>
> Why?
Well, Becker, Haas, Graf and Huber didn't play in college either.
Max
stephenJ
remember, fed has routinely munched guys with bigger power than he. He's
dominated the serve-sweepers throughout his career.
The only guy who has given him lots of trouble has been nadal, and
nadal's skills profile is about the exact opposite of sampras's.
--
"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
Superdave
>Whisper wrote:
>> Manco wrote:
>>> Even assuming that's all true - what makes you qualified to render
>>> judgment on Federer?
>>
>>
>> I'm entitled to my opinion. We all make judgments based on what we know
>> about the game, & there'll always be those who agree/disagree.
>>
>> If I had to bet my life on Fed v Sampras in a 'best at peak'
>> Wimbledon/USO final I'd always go with Sampras. I'd also tip Fed to
>> have more consistent results/achieve more over the longer term.
>>
>> My position now (March 2010) is Fed can be goat, but Sampras would win
>> the big stakes match - ie Fed = goat, Sampras = boat.
>
>that's hard to reconcile the fact that fed beat sampras at wimbledon
>when pete was closer to his peak than fed was to his.
>
>05 fed probably wins 2/3 matches against 95 sampras at W, 3/4 at USO.
i'd say that's about right + 10/10 at the FO ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Fed ranges from a little bit better than Sampras on grass to quite a bit better
on hc's to infinitely better on clay. No boat about it either.
Superdave
whisper is the proverbial "blowhard".
Whisper
Yes, & sampras bears no resemblance to serve/sweep types you describe.
Evidence = combined they may have won 1 slam between them, & never
reached No.1. This is light years from Sampras' achievements. They never
factored in slam presentation ceremonies, thus Fed beating them is not
significant.
Whisper
This is why achievements are all that matter. You can say Fed would
beat Sampras 10/0 & I can say Sampras 10/0. Neither of these statements
carry any weight as they are subjective.
Whisper
No, but your wife is.
ahonkan
OK. So Fed is weaker than Mac (and Edberg and maybe many
others) at the net. But since when did that attribute alone decide
'talent goat'? Mac would get passed routinely today and he wasn't
anywhere as good from the backcourt either. So although you may
argue that Fed may not have any single 'best of all time' shot or
attribute, it's tough to find a more complete, all-rounded player.
So I would call Fed the 'talent goat'.
DavidW
>
> if Whisper is to be believed, he's really good at tennis. however,
> how come he never mentions playing in college?
>
> most of the club champs at the three clubs i have played at have
> played in college.
Amazing. Because college is the springboard for tennis players in the U.S., it
must be the same in every other country in the world too?
Pelle Svanslös
> Whisper wrote:
>> Manco wrote:
>>> Even assuming that's all true - what makes you qualified to render
>>> judgment on Federer?
>>
>>
>> I'm entitled to my opinion. We all make judgments based on what we
>> know about the game, & there'll always be those who agree/disagree.
>>
>> If I had to bet my life on Fed v Sampras in a 'best at peak'
>> Wimbledon/USO final I'd always go with Sampras. I'd also tip Fed to
>> have more consistent results/achieve more over the longer term.
>>
>> My position now (March 2010) is Fed can be goat, but Sampras would win
>> the big stakes match - ie Fed = goat, Sampras = boat.
>
> that's hard to reconcile the fact that fed beat sampras at wimbledon
> when pete was closer to his peak than fed was to his.
>
It was the 05 Fed in that match alright. It was the match of his career
until then.
The 01 Fed showed up in the next match against Henman.
Administrator
> from:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/tree/browse_frm/thread/65d88d739d0671d6/a78414ed2916bf1e?rnum=11&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.sport.tennis%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F65d88d739d0671d6%2F0ba51aa69f65f1e8%3F#doc_b5e50e0b90d7b0fd
>
> "...I've got some 100 or so tennis trophies in the shed - won 4 comps
> Not bad I'm beating up on kids in their late teens/early 20's - I'm
> still winning 48, 49
> the
> state. (Whisper)."
>
> if Whisper is to be believed, he's really good at tennis. however,
> how come he never mentions playing in college?
>
> most of the club champs at the three clubs i have played at have
> these people have played for decades. (They take lessons from
> coaching instructors who are 5.0s, who made even more of a dent in
> college than the club champs.)
>
> however, while Whisper often says he dominates the "fiercest
> [competition] in the state", he never talks about having played in
> college.
>
> Why?
Self-taught. No college would have him.
Superdave
exactly. all surface all form all talent goat. take a dozen aspects of
tennis and Fed will best Mac, Sampras or anybody else in a majority of them.
Take ONE aspect and someone will alway be better than Fed. Samorass at serve,
Mac at volley, Agassi at returning, etc etc BUT the more aspects you add the
more by which Fed's overall talent leads the pack.
whisper, is a fucktard.
Superdave
what do you expect after whooping the shit out of the going on 5x Wimbledon
Champ and at the time goat at wimbledon ? do you honestly think he gave two
shits about the henman match ?
Superdave
of course. when america does it, it has to be the best and only way. you should
know that ? you are an australian poodle right ? i have worked with the
australian military. they think the sun shines out of americas arse.
Superdave
wrote:
he picks his arse, slobbers on court and eats other peoples weiners ?
Scott
Whisper is free to explain why there's no mention of college when he
discusses his tennis exploits. how come he hasn't?
felangey
You think? He's the movement and forehand goat in my book. Ther former is
his best weapon, the latter a close second.
Sakari Lund
<pedr...@snip.net> wrote:
>I remember quite clearly when I first made that distinction - '05,
>'06?
Long before Dave anyway
:-)
Rodjk #613
20/20 is normal vision...not 'perfect' or even very good. It is
normal.
20/10 is the ability to see at twice 'normal'.
Rodjk #613
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>from:
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/tree/browse_frm/thread/65d88d739d0671d6/a78414ed2916bf1e?rnum=11&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.sport.tennis%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F65d88d739d0671d6%2F0ba51aa69f65f1e8%3F#doc_b5e50e0b90d7b0fd
>
>"...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. (Whisper)."
>
>if Whisper is to be believed, he's really good at tennis. however,
>how come he never mentions playing in college?
>
>most of the club champs at the three clubs i have played at have
>played in college. A club champ is usually between 4.2 and 4.5 NTRP.
>these people have played for decades. (They take lessons from
>coaching instructors who are 5.0s, who made even more of a dent in
>college than the club champs.)
>
>however, while Whisper often says he dominates the "fiercest
>[competition] in the state", he never talks about having played in
>college.
>
>Why?
This is the new world record in US-centrisism. Newsflash: in the rest
of the world people go to college to study.
felangey
> Sampras 10/0 & I can say Sampras 10/0. Neither of these statements carry
> any weight as they are subjective.
Which is why you keep saying them, no?
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>This is why achievements are all that matter. You can say Fed would
>beat Sampras 10/0 & I can say Sampras 10/0. Neither of these statements
>carry any weight as they are subjective.
And then you ask in a straight face which is more important, the
achievements (goat), or your subjective opinion (boat).
Scott
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 16:23:55 -0800 (PST), Scott <scott...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >from:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/tree/browse_frm/threa...
>
> >"...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. (Whisper)."
>
> >if Whisper is to be believed, he's really good at tennis. however,
> >how come he never mentions playing in college?
>
> >most of the club champs at the three clubs i have played at have
> >played in college. A club champ is usually between 4.2 and 4.5 NTRP.
> >these people have played for decades. (They take lessons from
> >coaching instructors who are 5.0s, who made even more of a dent in
> >college than the club champs.)
>
> >however, while Whisper often says he dominates the "fiercest
> >[competition] in the state", he never talks about having played in
> >college.
>
> >Why?
>
> This is the new world record in US-centrisism. Newsflash: in the rest
if true in Oz, how come it took *you* to think of this?
Superdave
Yeah I agree.
While Fed does not top all particular aspects, I think he does top a few.
In other words, he not the best at everything, but he is the best at
everything, everything considered.
TT
IQ is 160.
stephenJ
ok, but you said the difference would be pete's power, and that doesn't
jibe with observed reality. If pete has other skills that would
supersede fed, well let's hear about them.
--
What is liberalism, generally speaking, but an attack
on the existing order of things?
- F. Dostoyevsky
stephenJ
Agreed, though we can push the point too far (e.g., i believe Sampras
would squash tom gullikson like a bug 10/10 times, but that's
'subjective' too).
Certain things, even though subjective, are also obvious (not saying
Sampras/Fed on grass or HC is, btw).
--
Not to believe in the Devil is a French idea, a frivolous idea.
- F. Dostoyevsky
stephenJ
LMAO. :)
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>On Mar 7, 8:22�am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
What??
TT
You're right there. Titles don't mean shit, it's the h2h that's
important. For what good would it do to win a tournament facing
S�derling in the final?
TT
Maybe because in Australia they don't go to college to play tennis?
Pedro Dias
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 19:08:01 -0800 (PST), Pedro Dias
>
> >I remember quite clearly when I first made that distinction - '05,
> >'06?
>
> Long before Dave anyway
>
> :-)
I'll need to check Drew's history before I claim anything.
Whisper
I've always said achievements trump everything.
Whisper
'if' true....?
US system is not a template for the rest of the world.
Whisper
Quite funny. I was hoping this would run a bit longer but you guys are
spoiling it.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> >> Whisper wrote:
> >>> Manco wrote:
> >>>> Even assuming that's all true - what makes you qualified to render
> >>>> judgment on Federer?
>
> >>> I'm entitled to my opinion. We all make judgments based on what we know
> >>> about the game, & there'll always be those who agree/disagree.
>
> >>> If I had to bet my life on Fed v Sampras in a 'best at peak'
> >>> Wimbledon/USO final I'd always go with Sampras. I'd also tip Fed to
> >>> have more consistent results/achieve more over the longer term.
>
> >>> My position now (March 2010) is Fed can be goat, but Sampras would win
> >>> the big stakes match - ie Fed = goat, Sampras = boat.
> >> that's hard to reconcile the fact that fed beat sampras at wimbledon
> >> when pete was closer to his peak than fed was to his.
>
>
> > i'd say that's about right + 10/10 at the FO ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
>
> > Fed ranges from a little bit better than Sampras on grass to quite a bit better
> > on hc's to infinitely better on clay. No boat about it either.
>
> beat Sampras 10/0 & I can say Sampras 10/0. Neither of these statements
>
> - Show quoted text -
++ Correct. AND they DID actually PLAY once, at Wimbledon, on center
court no less, Pete's BACKYARD... and, at 19, Fed won... fact. :))
P
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
++ The one thing, THE ONE THING, talking heads throughout the tennis
world UNIVERSALLY agree on is that Fed is thee most talented player
ever... jezz, even the guys who don't like him like Pat Cash, and
those that resent him ala Wilander and Gilbert and Connors, ALL say
Federer is the most complete and talented player ever... AND HAVE BEEN
SAYING IT for 6 years now... they have been saying it over and over
and over!
Only trolls on RST deny that, try to deny that... making up
embarrassing statements and ludicrous rationalizations, AS IF THEY ARE
or COULD deny it... they are just making themselves look like fools,
in so doing...
P
TT
> ++ The one thing, THE ONE THING, talking heads throughout the tennis
> world UNIVERSALLY agree on is that Fed is thee most talented player
> ever... jezz, even the guys who don't like him like Pat Cash, and
> those that resent him ala Wilander and Gilbert and Connors, ALL say
> Federer is the most complete and talented player ever... AND HAVE BEEN
> SAYING IT for 6 years now... they have been saying it over and over
> and over!
>
> Only trolls on RST deny that, try to deny that... making up
> embarrassing statements and ludicrous rationalizations, AS IF THEY ARE
> or COULD deny it... they are just making themselves look like fools,
> in so doing...
>
> P
Q. What was the problem with your backhand, Roger, the shanks?
ROGER FEDERER: You've seen me so many times. It happens all the time.
Something I've been trying to get rid of for ten years. Still not today.
DavidW
Am I talking to a brick wall? Why do you think "college" tennis has any
importance in Australia in developing tennis players?
bob
<the.big.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 20:20:05 +1100, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>>
>>> if Whisper is to be believed, he's really good at tennis. however,
>>> how come he never mentions playing in college?
>>>
>>> most of the club champs at the three clubs i have played at have
>>> played in college.
>>
>>Amazing. Because college is the springboard for tennis players in the U.S., it
>>must be the same in every other country in the world too?
>
>
>of course. when america does it, it has to be the best and only way. you should
>know that ? you are an australian poodle right ? i have worked with the
>australian military. they think the sun shines out of americas arse.
what's your nationality dave.
bob
Superdave
american of course
Whisper
Yes, at a time when Sampras was losing everywhere for 2 yrs. He
couldn't win a title of any description for 2 yrs, so why the surprise
he pushed Fed to 7-5 in 5th set at that stage....?
You Fedfuckers are a sad bunch.
Whisper
er, no one has said it.
Superdave
losing everywhere for 2 years ? wasn't he the defending champ at Wimbledon and
going for 5 in a row ?
duh ?
fucktard glorified R U.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
++ On center court, as defending champion, against a teenager... must
have ripped the guts out of Pete... kinda like Fed at the AO 2009...
P
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
++ Helps to read on tennis a bit here and there :)))))))
P
TT
Imo Fed played at his very best level...and still it was a crap shoot
who wins.
Whisper
lol. Only Fedfuckers think this, & even you can't be that dumb. A
journeyman almost knocked Sampras out in 5 sets the round before.
Fedfuckers like to think Sampras was in his prime when Fed won that 4th
rounder, even though he was losing everywhere for 2 yrs & Fed himself
got smacked by Tim Henman next rd. This is nothing like Rafa's
domination of Fed in grass, HC & clay slam finals when Fed was right in
middle of his peak. Facts are facts. You can pretend all you like, but
historians know the score.
Whisper
Just about every respected tennis expert has said Fed can' t be the best
ever because he wasn't even better than Rafa at his peak.
drew
> lol. Only Fedfuckers think this, & even you can't be that dumb. A
> journeyman almost knocked Sampras out in 5 sets the round before.
Whisper should retire. He's down two sets and 2-0 in the third.
Journeyman analyst.
drew
>
> Just about every respected tennis expert has said Fed can' t be the best
99% of respected tennis experts have declared Whisper legally blind
and an
unreliable witness.
Pedro Dias
They have, actually. Are you familiar with this newfangled "Google"
thingamajig?
Pedro Dias
He was the holder at Wimbledon. That's held every year, unless I
missed a World War somewhere...
Sakari Lund
Whisper reads a lot, but nobody in the Aussie tennis magazines from
the 80's says so...
Pedro Dias
> >> > world UNIVERSALLY agree on is that Fed is thee most talented player
> >> > ever... jezz, even the guys who don't like him like Pat Cash, and
> >> > those that resent him ala Wilander and Gilbert and Connors, ALL say
> >> > Federer is the most complete and talented player ever... AND HAVE BEEN
> >> > SAYING IT for 6 years now... they have been saying it over and over
> >> > and over!
>
> >> er, no one has said it.
>
>
> Whisper reads a lot, but nobody in the Aussie tennis magazines from
> the 80's says so...
Watch your step, Lund: he's got "articles"!
Sakari Lund
wrote:
Your facts are not facts at all. "Right in the middle of his peak" is
not a fact, in fact it is not even an opinion, it is a blatant lie,
whereas "on center court, as defending champion, against a teenager"
is a fact.
Superdave
liar liar pants on fire especially your crotch.
Superdave
you are just plain fucking dumb.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
++ It's OK; we all understand his pain...
P
bob
lol. sampras wasn't motivated for tennis for a good 1.5yrs, and this
was right in the middle of it. no less he was playing a kid who was
nobody, who won nothing yet.
it'd be like if fed played donald young 2yrs from now, then young went
on to win 15 slams.
bob
bob
federer was playing at a level closer to his peak than sampras was,
although neither were close to peak. who do you think was more
motivated for the match? a burned out sampras playing a "nobody" or a
kid playing the Wimbledon King?
don't be such a biased sob sakari.
bob
bob
<the.big.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:59:24 -0500, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:12:05 +0800, Superdave
>><the.big.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 20:20:05 +1100, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Scott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> if Whisper is to be believed, he's really good at tennis. however,
>>>>> how come he never mentions playing in college?
>>>>>
>>>>> most of the club champs at the three clubs i have played at have
>>>>> played in college.
>>>>
>>>>Amazing. Because college is the springboard for tennis players in the U.S., it
>>>>must be the same in every other country in the world too?
>>>
>>>
>>>of course. when america does it, it has to be the best and only way. you should
>>>know that ? you are an australian poodle right ? i have worked with the
>>>australian military. they think the sun shines out of americas arse.
>>
>>what's your nationality dave.
>>
>>bob
>
>
>american of course
nah, don't believe you.
bob
bob
this is true. obviously took a rafa injury for fed to win a FO and get
that confidence and jump in step onward to AO last month and Wim last
yr too. sad roddick had him beat too. then fed pulls the "cocky"
bullshit again. god he's lame.
bob
DavidW
Not motivated trying to match Borg's five straight Wimbledons and eighth in
total?
> no less he was playing a kid who was nobody, who won nothing yet.
It's an excuse for him that he was playing a nobody?
Superdave
weird huh. i think so too.
Superdave
well i am. a yankee fan too.
bob
>bob wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:06:05 -0800 (PST), Patrick Kehoe
>> <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> ++ On center court, as defending champion, against a teenager... must
>>> have ripped the guts out of Pete... kinda like Fed at the AO 2009...
>>
>> lol. sampras wasn't motivated for tennis for a good 1.5yrs, and this
>> was right in the middle of it.
>
>Not motivated trying to match Borg's five straight Wimbledons and eighth in
>total?
he was burned out after Wim 2000. this is common knowledge.
>> no less he was playing a kid who was nobody, who won nothing yet.
>
>It's an excuse for him that he was playing a nobody?
of course. who gets up for a nobody?
bob
bob
<the.big.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
that's as unamerican as it can get. :-)
bob
DavidW
So a top player is more likely to lose to a nobody than another top player. That
will come as a revelation to many here at RST and will bolster your position as
a tier 1 analyst.
Superdave
>On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:37:36 +1100, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>>bob wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:06:05 -0800 (PST), Patrick Kehoe
>>> <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ++ On center court, as defending champion, against a teenager... must
>>>> have ripped the guts out of Pete... kinda like Fed at the AO 2009...
>>>
>>> lol. sampras wasn't motivated for tennis for a good 1.5yrs, and this
>>> was right in the middle of it.
>>
>>Not motivated trying to match Borg's five straight Wimbledons and eighth in
>>total?
>
>he was burned out after Wim 2000. this is common knowledge.
no but using that as an excuse is common knowledge.
how about if i said Fed was burned out at the start of 2008 for a year and a
half ? i bet you would object ad nauseum. ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
but, it's true and that was common knowledge and is the only reason he does
not have 7W's right now and 18 slams.
>
>>> no less he was playing a kid who was nobody, who won nothing yet.
>>
>>It's an excuse for him that he was playing a nobody?
>
>of course. who gets up for a nobody?
sampras. he did in most of his slam wins didn't he?
>
>bob
Superdave
i love those guys from ruth to mantle to ford to jeter and especially yogi.
talk about sports dynasty. nothing else even comes close.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
++ He was defending Wimbledon champion who had the heart ripped out of
him by a talented no-body... and he admitted after the match it hurt,
was a shocker for him... in retrospect, not a shock though...
P
Superdave
correct. some even today, like the whisperboobs, remain in denial.
Vrai Cinico
3 complete facts, in fact!
--
Cheers,
vc