Legendary coach Nick Bollettieri passes away!

[Whisper]

https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Tennis_Stories/124359/legendary-coach-nick-bollettieri-passes-away/

[*skriptis]

Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> Wrote in message:r
> https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Tennis_Stories/124359/legendary-coach-nick-bollettieri-passes-away/



Life's tough. We all lose match eventually, and our records are surpassed and even forgotten, as if we never existed.

Who's going to remember Bolletieri in a couple of billion years?



In moments like these, you really have to control your anger at women and not overreact for what they've done in the Garden of Eden.

Just embrace Jesus and pray for serenity.

--




----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

[joh]

On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 9:57:13 AM UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
> Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> Wrote in message:r
> > https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Tennis_Stories/124359/legendary-coach-nick-bollettieri-passes-away/
>
>
>
> Life's tough. We all lose match eventually, and our records are surpassed and even forgotten, as if we never existed.
>
> Who's going to remember Bolletieri in a couple of billion years?
>
>
>
> In moments like these, you really have to control your anger at women and not overreact for what they've done in the Garden of Eden.
>
> Just embrace Jesus and pray for serenity.

still not getting any, eh?

[LedZep IgaSwanTech]

On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 3:06:19 AM UTC-6, joh wrote:
> On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 9:57:13 AM UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
> > Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> Wrote in message:r
> > > https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Tennis_Stories/124359/legendary-coach-nick-bollettieri-passes-away/
> >
> >
> >
> > Life's tough. We all lose match eventually, and our records are surpassed and even forgotten, as if we never existed.
> >
> > Who's going to remember Bolletieri in a couple of billion years?
> >
> >
> >
> > In moments like these, you really have to control your anger at women and not overreact for what they've done in the Garden of Eden.
> >
> > Just embrace Jesus and pray for serenity.
> still not getting any, eh?
> >

LOL... not even from the 80 year-old nuns he visits.

[stephenj]

On 11/21/2022 2:47 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
>
> https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Tennis_Stories/124359/legendary-coach-nick-bollettieri-passes-away/
>
>

Sad ... He had a big impact on the development of the game.

[PeteWasLucky]

stephenj <sj...@pr.net> Wrote in message:r

> On 11/21/2022 2:47 AM, Whisper wrote:> > > https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Tennis_Stories/124359/legendary-coach-nick-bollettieri-passes-away/> > Sad ... He had a big impact on the development of the game.

Yes he created tens of brainless robots.

[The Iceberg]

On Thursday, 24 November 2022 at 02:40:41 UTC, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> stephenj <sj...@pr.net> Wrote in message:r
> > On 11/21/2022 2:47 AM, Whisper wrote:> > > https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Tennis_Stories/124359/legendary-coach-nick-bollettieri-passes-away/> > Sad ... He had a big impact on the development of the game.
> Yes he created tens of brainless robots.

Often been confused why everyone reckoned he was so great, yes he had Agassi, Courier, Seles and Lindsey Davenport but considering he'd been going for 50 years, the Russian and East Europe camps seemed to have much better results overall. From Agassi's book it also looked like the kids there were there cos they were super-talented as it was. Have had friends visit for a training week or two and they said it was very intense and expensive, but there are other camps around that have heard are similar.
Think it's more that Nick Bollettieri was first person to set up a regimented tennis academy - yes he charged lots of $$$ for it, but he was the first and got some good results using this intense camp method and that is what has changed "development of the game" all good tennis kids now go to an academy + he was always very enthusiastic and loved tennis, so all credit to him. Maybe Jaros can tell us more?

[Whisper]

91 is a good innings

[Whisper]

On 24/11/2022 1:40 pm, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> stephenj <sj...@pr.net> Wrote in message:r
>> On 11/21/2022 2:47 AM, Whisper wrote:> > > https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Tennis_Stories/124359/legendary-coach-nick-bollettieri-passes-away/> > Sad ... He had a big impact on the development of the game.
>
> Yes he created tens of brainless robots.

Probably true.

[Sawfish]

No shit.

Way more than one can reasonably expect.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish: He talks the talk...but does he walk the walk?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Sawfish]

Here's a thought as to the evolution of the game. Let's limit it to the
pro game for now, but it also applies to the rec side, too.

I think that the Bollitieri approach, taking very young, talented kids
and training them in a limited--but largely successful, playing style,
resulted in the long period of extreme western grips, 2H BH used in
extended baseline rallies. We are only now coming out of this phase.

First, to what degree do you think there is validity in the idea that
the Bollitieri method greatly influence the decline of S&V and the rise
of power baseline rallies?

There are mechanical reason for why I think it evolved that way, but I
don't want to diverge too much right now.

[MBDunc]

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 8:56:21 PM UTC+2, sawfish wrote:
> First, to what degree do you think there is validity in the idea that
> the Bollitieri method greatly influence the decline of S&V and the rise
> of power baseline rallies?

Racket tech change early 80:ies was the biggest factor. It took almost two decades for most of coaches adapt to this change.

Surface slowing (since mid-nineties) came later. Then 1997 next-gen string arrived (Kuerten).

Between those milestones: Bollettieri was "right".

Impact? Yes. S&V is not declined because S&V is poor but "power baselining" is now better option in average.

.mikko

[Sawfish]

Do you note a limited, but noticeable, resurgence of S&V, at least used
selectively, and not as an ironclad personal style, as with Rafter/Edberg?

I was seeing Tsitsi use in a lot against Medvedev, and Alcaraz tends to
use it a fair amount.

I'm also thinking that with the renewed advent of slice (over a period
of 15 years or so) that the possibility of a low ball is now putting
some level of pressure for players to move away from extreme western,
dialing back toward eastern FH. Not all the way, but in that direction
from western.

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Would someone please tell me what 'diddy-wah-diddy' means?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[MBDunc]

S&V has uses as a tactic but not for a strategy.

e.g. surprise factor..

It has been analyzed that Lendl would have had better career had he just stayed back instead of faster court cases he was supposed to attack the net.

Henman later (around early-mid 2000) said that going for S&V is negative tactic. Stats kind of proof that. You win what you win with a serve and scraps are lesser with S&V...

Hewitt also stated to stay back after his Wimb loss 2001 and 2002 he won the title staying back.

.mikko

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 24.11.2022 20.56, Sawfish wrote:
> I think that the Bollitieri approach, taking very young, talented
> kids and training them in a limited--but largely successful, playing
> style, resulted in the long period of extreme western grips, 2H BH
> used in extended baseline rallies. We are only now coming out of this
> phase.
>
> First, to what degree do you think there is validity in the idea that
> the Bollitieri method greatly influence the decline of S&V and the
> rise of power baseline rallies?

I don't think bollittiri made much of a difference. There were millions
of other western, 2HBH players. S&V was on its way out by then already.

What the B proteges I know (Courier Agassi) did was to take the ball
early, with mostly flattish strokes. They weren't the future of tennis.

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

[Sawfish]

On 11/24/22 12:42 PM, MBDunc wrote:
> S&V has uses as a tactic but not for a strategy.

Yes. To clarify, when I spoke of S&V I did not mean strategic S&V like
Stan Smith, Rafter, Edberg, Henman. I meant tactical all-court S&V like
Sampras.

There was a period when very few used even tactical S&V, and in my
estimation  it is being used increasingly.

>
> e.g. surprise factor..
>
> It has been analyzed that Lendl would have had better career had he just stayed back instead of faster court cases he was supposed to attack the net.

I seldom pay much attention to analysts, preferring to observe and
analyze, myself.

>
> Henman later (around early-mid 2000) said that going for S&V is negative tactic. Stats kind of proof that. You win what you win with a serve and scraps are lesser with S&V...
>
> Hewitt also stated to stay back after his Wimb loss 2001 and 2002 he won the title staying back.
>
> .mikko

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[MBDunc]

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 10:56:15 PM UTC+2, sawfish wrote:
> On 11/24/22 12:42 PM, MBDunc wrote:
> > S&V has uses as a tactic but not for a strategy.
> Yes. To clarify, when I spoke of S&V I did not mean strategic S&V like
> Stan Smith, Rafter, Edberg, Henman. I meant tactical all-court S&V like
> Sampras.

Ar first i disliked Sampras for - just stupid reason a'la "he won too much", "I did not like his approach" ..etc

But his last USO 2002 final match was an eye-opener; this man is frigging good! That performance was phenomenally good. Against peak Agassi playing with next gen strings...(Agassi in his first tournament with next gen strings had won Rome 2002)

.mikko

[The Iceberg]

On Thursday, 24 November 2022 at 20:55:37 UTC, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 24.11.2022 20.56, Sawfish wrote:
> > I think that the Bollitieri approach, taking very young, talented
> > kids and training them in a limited--but largely successful, playing
> > style, resulted in the long period of extreme western grips, 2H BH
> > used in extended baseline rallies. We are only now coming out of this
> > phase.
> >
> > First, to what degree do you think there is validity in the idea that
> > the Bollitieri method greatly influence the decline of S&V and the
> > rise of power baseline rallies?
> I don't think bollittiri made much of a difference. There were millions
> of other western, 2HBH players. S&V was on its way out by then already.
>
> What the B proteges I know (Courier Agassi) did was to take the ball
> early, with mostly flattish strokes. They weren't the future of tennis.

Surely this is top trolling even for you! Yes got to say it always amazing reading stuff from someone who clearly got no clue about tennis since before 2005 and this time it’s Agassi wasn’t the future tennis model!
Amazing just amazing anyone would say such a thing. if there one player from 90’s who like blueprint of 90% of the baseline drones on tour since the early 2000’s would pick Agassi! If you watched most of those players at a distance (come on Denko) then watched Agassi you prob wouldn’t be able to tell the difference, am struggling to think of anyone who would be considered more the “future” than Agassi! Even his racquet & strings! Yes only Nalbandian could take it early as him but they all look roughly like him.
Fed grew up with Sampras as hero and yes ok Fed wasn’t as athletic or talented but he played a very different style to the rest of the 90% base liners out there.! It late and this nice to read at bedtime, great stuff Pelle!

[The Iceberg]

Great posting! Very good how you saw the Sampras light just in time! Peak Agassi was awesome too!

[Sawfish]

Ice, I see Lendl to Sampras to Fed as that lineage--the non-Bollitieri
branch.

How about you?

But if so (and I think it is), who influenced Lendl? I'm not sure about
that one.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.

Barbecue grills on fire behind the condominiums that line the 9th fairway.

I watched casual strollers slip on dog excrement on the boardwalk near the amusement pier.

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

Time for lunch.

--Sawfish

[PeteWasLucky]

The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
> On Thursday, 24 November 2022 at 20:55:37 UTC, Pelle Svanslös wrote:> On 24.11.2022 20.56, Sawfish wrote: > > I think that the Bollitieri approach, taking very young, talented > > kids and training them in a limited--but largely successful, playing > > style, resulted in the long period of extreme western grips, 2H BH > > used in extended baseline rallies. We are only now coming out of this > > phase. > > > > First, to what degree do you think there is validity in the idea that > > the Bollitieri method greatly influence the decline of S&V and the > > rise of power baseline rallies?> I don't think bollittiri made much of a difference. There were millions > of other western, 2HBH players. S&V was on its way out by then already. > > What the B proteges I know (Courier Agassi) did was to take the ball > early, with mostly flattish strokes. They weren't the future of tennis. Surely this is top trolling even for you! Yes got to say it always amazing reading stuff from someone who clearly got no clue about tennis since before 2005 and this time it’s Agassi wasn’t the future tennis model! Amazing just amazing anyone would say such a thing. if there one player from 90’s who like blueprint of 90% of the baseline drones on tour since the early 2000’s would pick Agassi! If you watched most of those players at a distance (come on Denko) then watched Agassi you prob wouldn’t be able to tell the difference, am struggling to think of anyone who would be considered more the “future” than Agassi! Even his racquet & strings! Yes only Nalbandian could take it early as him but they all look roughly like him.Fed grew up with Sampras as hero and yes ok Fed wasn’t as athletic or talented but he played a very different style to the rest of the 90% base liners out there.! It late and this nice to read at bedtime, great stuff Pelle!

I am not sure what future tennis means.
Are we talking about new phenomena that got established by few individuals that played very different than all other players in their time?

No academy teaches any player to play the same as Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Edberg, Graf, mcenreo, etc did.

Regarding tennis academies, I have more respect to the ones in Europe specially the way they used to run in the eighties and nineties.

Now, their culture is all about brain and talent reset and then bios upload.

It became a business, and when anything becomes business you kill the talent in the process.

[The Iceberg]

On Friday, 25 November 2022 at 00:50:00 UTC, sawfish wrote:
> On 11/24/22 4:35 PM, The Iceberg wrote:
> > On Thursday, 24 November 2022 at 20:55:37 UTC, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> >> On 24.11.2022 20.56, Sawfish wrote:
> >>> I think that the Bollitieri approach, taking very young, talented
> >>> kids and training them in a limited--but largely successful, playing
> >>> style, resulted in the long period of extreme western grips, 2H BH
> >>> used in extended baseline rallies. We are only now coming out of this
> >>> phase.
> >>>
> >>> First, to what degree do you think there is validity in the idea that
> >>> the Bollitieri method greatly influence the decline of S&V and the
> >>> rise of power baseline rallies?
> >> I don't think bollittiri made much of a difference. There were millions
> >> of other western, 2HBH players. S&V was on its way out by then already.
> >>
> >> What the B proteges I know (Courier Agassi) did was to take the ball
> >> early, with mostly flattish strokes. They weren't the future of tennis.
> > Surely this is top trolling even for you! Yes got to say it always amazing reading stuff from someone who clearly got no clue about tennis since before 2005 and this time it’s Agassi wasn’t the future tennis model!
> > Amazing just amazing anyone would say such a thing. if there one player from 90’s who like blueprint of 90% of the baseline drones on tour since the early 2000’s would pick Agassi! If you watched most of those players at a distance (come on Denko) then watched Agassi you prob wouldn’t be able to tell the difference, am struggling to think of anyone who would be considered more the “future” than Agassi! Even his racquet & strings! Yes only Nalbandian could take it early as him but they all look roughly like him.
> > Fed grew up with Sampras as hero and yes ok Fed wasn’t as athletic or talented but he played a very different style to the rest of the 90% base liners out there.! It late and this nice to read at bedtime, great stuff Pelle!
> Ice, I see Lendl to Sampras to Fed as that lineage--the non-Bollitieri
> branch.
>
> How about you?
>
> But if so (and I think it is), who influenced Lendl? I'm not sure about
> that one.

would say more like Laver to McEnroe to Sampras to Fed lineage - yes very much non-Bollitieri, but they are exceptions in the game. Almost everyone else except the Tanner->Goran->Karlo->Isners is a rip-off of Agassi/Bollitieri style, as said if you took video from a distance of half the players from 2005 onwards and showed it to people back in 2002 they'd assume they were watching Agassi. Not saying Bollitieri intentionally did this, it just Agassi's style is easier to coach/play no s/v no volleys in fact etc

[The Iceberg]

surely "future" in the context of what Jaros said and Bollitieri is the general impact on the game, exactly as you say no academy teaches how to play like Sampras etc. but "try to hit out in front like Andre Agassi" will be heard a lot!

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 25.11.2022 2.35, The Iceberg wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 November 2022 at 20:55:37 UTC, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> On 24.11.2022 20.56, Sawfish wrote:
>>> I think that the Bollitieri approach, taking very young, talented
>>> kids and training them in a limited--but largely successful, playing
>>> style, resulted in the long period of extreme western grips, 2H BH
>>> used in extended baseline rallies. We are only now coming out of this
>>> phase.
>>>
>>> First, to what degree do you think there is validity in the idea that
>>> the Bollitieri method greatly influence the decline of S&V and the
>>> rise of power baseline rallies?
>> I don't think bollittiri made much of a difference. There were millions
>> of other western, 2HBH players. S&V was on its way out by then already.
>>
>> What the B proteges I know (Courier Agassi) did was to take the ball
>> early, with mostly flattish strokes. They weren't the future of tennis.
>
> Surely this is top trolling even for you! Yes got to say it always amazing reading stuff from someone who clearly got no clue about tennis since before 2005 and this time it’s Agassi wasn’t the future tennis model!

Ha ha ha. You get all worked up only because you see it's posted from Mr
Pelle's account. Settle down!

> Amazing just amazing anyone would say such a thing. if there one player from 90’s who like blueprint of 90% of the baseline drones on tour since the early 2000’s would pick Agassi!

That's because you coach types fall for wigs! You pick one telegenic
player everybody has heard about as an example. But in the early 90s the
majority already was 2HBH baseliners. Agassi was just one of them.

Technically there was nothing in Agassi. If you hit his FH today, your
coach would put you in the penalty box. "No, no! More spin! Wipe that
windshield!"

If you watched most of those players at a distance (come on Denko) then
watched Agassi you prob wouldn’t be able to tell the difference, am
struggling to think of anyone who would be considered more the “future”
than Agassi! Even his racquet & strings!

You mean Kevlar strings? Only a few loonies played with Sampras sized
racquets even back then.

> Fed grew up with Sampras as hero and yes ok Fed wasn’t as athletic or talented

Excellent trolling!

> but he played a very different style to the rest of the 90% base liners out there.! It late and this nice to read at bedtime, great stuff Pelle!

Thanks!

[MBDunc]

On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 11:34:06 AM UTC+2, iceberg was spot on in one of the above posts and wrote:
> surely "future" in the context of what Jaros said and Bollitieri is the general impact on the game, exactly as you say no academy teaches how to play like Sampras etc. but "try to hit out in front like Andre Agassi" will be heard a lot!

There are superb coaches - for given time and conditions - and allowed / hidden substances.

Finnish example: Sweden *) invented blood doping but Finland took into another level (use your own high altitude affected blood). Finnish invention benefits : no side effects, cannot be tracked. Blood doping was officially banned 1985 around. But it took almost 2 decades more to effectively track cases where you use your own blood. (and during that time EPO use was found more efficient and that was able to keep hidden by other substances - until Cross-Country WC 2001 where Finnish big stars were busted left and right.

1st factual OG winner blood-doped 1972 Winter Olympics 15km cross-country.

Many of "blood doping" (or any doping era) era coaches are "legends" because ....

Same applies to most of coaches who have a big name. For their profession they milk every alternative. Many 70/80 sport superstars have muddled their legacy with 90/00 doping scandals as coaches.

About using other substances. Ricky Bruch (discus WR 70:ies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Bruch) was very open about his steroid use. But he was never caught. His secret was to eat lot of liquorice and drink a lot of beer before testing. This method was effective until around 2000 for most steroid uses.

.mikko

[Scall5]

Wow, I was the same way about Pete. Until his last several years of
playing I was rooting against him because he won so much. I was always
hoping Henman would get that elusive Wimbledon title.

I was at the match when Pete first hurt his back/hip. Summer of 1999 at
the RCA Championships in Indianapolis. He was playing Vince Spadea and
landed awkwardly when doing his legendary leaping overhead slam. Played
until the end of the set and then retired. I, and the crowd, gave him a
standing ovation as he left the court; we felt a bit cheated since he
had retired but also knew he had to focus on being 100% for the US Open
in a month or so. Too bad he ended up not playing that US Open, he would
have been the odds-on favorite to win it.
--
---------------
Scall5

[Sawfish]

On 11/26/22 6:50 AM, Scall5 wrote:
> On 11/24/2022 3:05 PM, MBDunc wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 10:56:15 PM UTC+2, sawfish wrote:
>>> On 11/24/22 12:42 PM, MBDunc wrote:
>>>> S&V has uses as a tactic but not for a strategy.
>>> Yes. To clarify, when I spoke of S&V I did not mean strategic S&V like
>>> Stan Smith, Rafter, Edberg, Henman. I meant tactical all-court S&V like
>>> Sampras.
>>
>> Ar first i disliked Sampras for - just stupid reason a'la "he won too
>> much", "I did not like his approach" ..etc
>>
>> But his last USO 2002 final match was an eye-opener; this man is
>> frigging good! That performance was phenomenally good. Against peak
>> Agassi playing with next gen strings...(Agassi in his first
>> tournament with next gen strings had won Rome 2002)
>>
>> .mikko
>
> Wow, I was the same way about Pete. Until his last several years of
> playing I was rooting against him because he won so much. I was always
> hoping Henman would get that elusive Wimbledon title.
>
> I was at the match when Pete first hurt his back/hip. Summer of 1999
> at the RCA Championships in Indianapolis. He was playing Vince Spadea
> and landed awkwardly when doing his legendary leaping overhead slam.

The most emphatic shot, ever, in pro tennis.

It's sheer *excess* was really, really entertaining.

Needless to say, I *really* liked it and I miss it still.

> Played until the end of the set and then retired. I, and the crowd,
> gave him a standing ovation as he left the court; we felt a bit
> cheated since he had retired but also knew he had to focus on being
> 100% for the US Open in a month or so. Too bad he ended up not playing
> that US Open, he would have been the odds-on favorite to win it.


--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola
"Which is which?" --Sawfish

[*skriptis]

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
> On 11/26/22 6:50 AM, Scall5 wrote:> On 11/24/2022 3:05 PM, MBDunc wrote:>> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 10:56:15 PM UTC+2, sawfish wrote:>>> On 11/24/22 12:42 PM, MBDunc wrote:>>>> S&V has uses as a tactic but not for a strategy.>>> Yes. To clarify, when I spoke of S&V I did not mean strategic S&V like>>> Stan Smith, Rafter, Edberg, Henman. I meant tactical all-court S&V like>>> Sampras.>>>> Ar first i disliked Sampras for - just stupid reason a'la "he won too >> much", "I did not like his approach" ..etc>>>> But his last USO 2002 final match was an eye-opener; this man is >> frigging good! That performance was phenomenally good. Against peak >> Agassi playing with next gen strings...(Agassi in his first >> tournament with next gen strings had won Rome 2002)>>>> .mikko>> Wow, I was the same way about Pete. Until his last several years of > playing I was rooting against him because he won so much. I was always > hoping Henman would get that elusive Wimbledon title.>> I was at the match when Pete first hurt his back/hip. Summer of 1999 > at the RCA Championships in Indianapolis. He was playing Vince Spadea > and landed awkwardly when doing his legendary leaping overhead slam. The most emphatic shot, ever, in pro tennis.It's sheer *excess* was really, really entertaining.Needless to say, I *really* liked it and I miss it still.


But it hurt him as you can see.

[Sawfish]

A life well-lived is not without risks.

You know how I feel abut the current western obsession with safety--or
should I say SAFETY!!!.

The current emergent generations are in many ways in an arrested stage
of development. They have certain aspects of the spoiled pre-schooler:
they want to be considered to be "good", as approved by their
care-giver; they gladly rat each other out for approval; and like all
good little kids, safety is GOOD, so everything--and I mean every
fuckin' thing, skript--MUST be safe.

When my daughter was still  little, maybe 5 or 6, and the city was in
the process of removing all older playground equipment and replacing it
with colorful plastic equipment that was certified as "safe", they took
out her favorites, one of which was a metal merry-go-round, like a big
steel wheel or disk, horizontal, about 9 inches (23 cm) off the ground
and mounted on a large and sturdy bearing.

https://blog.cheapism.com/forgotten-playground-equipment/#image=1

There were railings on this circular table that kids, who'd be standing
on the disk, could hold onto tightly as their parents, or other kids,
spun the wheel faster and faster by running around the outside of the
disk. You could get it going fast enough to literally fling the snot
from their little noses, if they wanted to go that fast, which she did.

Sometimes the little fuckers would be flung from the disk, but
hey!...that's life! In a way, it served as an object lesson.

When the city took this out and replaced it with a yellow plastic slide
about 12 feet long (3.7 meters) at about a 30 degree slope, she said:
"Soon no one will have any fun anymore."

Words of wisdom from the mouths of babes, huh?

Here in the US every public policy argument will always be viewed as
"won" when the concept of safety is raised. Hence free and open abortion
is the moral high ground because otherwise it will not be *safe* for the
potential mother. Magazine capacity of firearms, and in some cases,
firearms themselves, are limited or banned because it is thought to be
unsafe not to do so.

Free medical care as a human right, because without it, the individual
is not safe.

Free speech is dangerous...unsafe. So Musk is under constant criticism
right now because his policies are not viewed as "safe". Hence, you
cannot tell a male masquerading as a female to stop making a mockery of
both men *and* women, because it might be unsafe for their mental
health...if clumsily cross-dressing in public can be viewed as the
epitome of mental heath.

It's an unhealthy obsession--a sickness. It is being used very much like
the concept of assigned guilt (where someone or something tells *you*
what you should feel guilty about). It beats down everyone here who does
not have sufficient self-esteem and ego to resist it. Those who do are
marginalized as unrepentant sinners who are also leading the nation away
from safety. That's what the Biden speech about parts of the GOP being a
danger to democracy was all about.

This is a fact of life in the US. Is it that way where you live?

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The big print gives it to you; the small print takes it away."

Andy, from Amos 'n' Andy, on legal contracts...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[The Iceberg]

same here in the UK. There's two clear reasons for this - women in power who are always terrified about anything with a tiny risk and scumbag money-obsessed lawyers. Think the lawyers came first.
The tragic thing is all this safety just seems to result in the kids being far less happy cos as your daughter said there's no fun allowed.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Boo-hoo-hoo, whiners! At least after after years of complaining about
wimmin, POC, gays and libbians, safety standards seems to be a new
paragraph ...

... No way, Pelle! It's the same old man paragraph all over again!

Cheer up, chumps!

[Sawfish]

Now that I think about it, yes. They did this to gain potential business
and exploited the maternal instinct for their profit, the hell with
anything else.

So yet another case where a decent human trait (maternal concern) is
turned against society for the short-term benefit of the unscrupulous.

And god damn it, Ice, just to keep my head above water here in the US, I
have done some of it--with GREAT distaste--myself.

This is really disgusting.

> The tragic thing is all this safety just seems to result in the kids being far less happy cos as your daughter said there's no fun allowed.

That's right, and what's worse is all that time they used to spend
having mindless animal fun--it was pure joy, you can see it on their
faces while watching them--is now spent worrying about dangers that are
virtually non-existent.

No wonder they are neurotic wrecks unsure of their own gender identity.

[Sawfish]

Fish on, capt'n!!!

It looks like a big one!!!

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wha's yo name, fool?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[*skriptis]

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> A life well-lived is not without risks.

Agreed, but if we talk Sampras alone, I don't think his slam dunk fits into the picture.

If we talk serve, Sampras hit harder and I'd say more brutal than Federer or Djokovic, he surely used his shoulder a lot more, but it was his serve and his choice. He obviously had a better serve than Federer and Djokovic so in this case, the risk (of injury and wear and tear) has paid off.

But his slam dunk was really a show thing. He could have hit his smashes way more conservatively with literally same effect. I guess it was fun for him, to unleash the energy. And I assume he felt it was all about asserting him and showing his dominance. Or engaging the crowd.

Maybe slam dunk was part of his game, part of his mentality and so on and so you can't remove it without ruining what Sampras was all about. Maybe.

But just looking at it, it does feel the risks (of slam dunk) far outweighed the benefits.


Maybe I can compare it to another brutal shot, Djokovic sliding on HC. It's very risky, but he's good at it and he has won many many crucial points that way so I'd say it has paid off.

With slam dunk, I just don't get that feeling.


But OTOH, excellent example of Sampras' athleticism.






> You know how I feel abut the current western obsession with safety--or should I say SAFETY!!!.The current emergent generations are in many ways in an arrested stage of development. They have certain aspects of the spoiled pre-schooler: they want to be considered to be "good", as approved by their care-giver; they gladly rat each other out for approval; and like all good little kids, safety is GOOD, so everything--and I mean every fuckin' thing, skript--MUST be safe.When my daughter was still little, maybe 5 or 6, and the city was in the process of removing all older playground equipment and replacing it with colorful plastic equipment that was certified as "safe", they took out her favorites, one of which was a metal merry-go-round, like a big steel wheel or disk, horizontal, about 9 inches (23 cm) off the ground and mounted on a large and sturdy bearing.https://blog.cheapism.com/forgotten-playground-equipment/#image=1There were railings on this circular table that kids, who'd be standing on the disk, could hold onto tightly as their parents, or other kids, spun the wheel faster and faster by running around the outside of the disk. You could get it going fast enough to literally fling the snot from their little noses, if they wanted to go that fast, which she did.Sometimes the little fuckers would be flung from the disk, but hey!...that's life! In a way, it served as an object lesson.When the city took this out and replaced it with a yellow plastic slide about 12 feet long (3.7 meters) at about a 30 degree slope, she said: "Soon no one will have any fun anymore."Words of wisdom from the mouths of babes, huh?Here in the US every public policy argument will always be viewed as "won" when the concept of safety is raised. Hence free and open abortion is the moral high ground because otherwise it will not be *safe* for the potential mother. Magazine capacity of firearms, and in some cases, firearms themselves, are limited or banned because it is thought to be unsafe not to do so.Free medical care as a human right, because without it, the individual is not safe.Free speech is dangerous...unsafe. So Musk is under constant criticism right now because his policies are not viewed as "safe". Hence, you cannot tell a male masquerading as a female to stop making a mockery of both men *and* women, because it might be unsafe for their mental health...if clumsily cross-dressing in public can be viewed as the epitome of mental heath.It's an unhealthy obsession--a sickness. It is being used very much like the concept of assigned guilt (where someone or something tells *you* what you should feel guilty about). It beats down everyone here who does not have sufficient self-esteem and ego to resist it. Those who do are marginalized as unrepentant sinners who are also leading the nation away from safety. That's what the Biden speech about parts of the GOP being a danger to democracy was all about.This is a fact of life in the US. Is it that way where you live?



Something in that direction has happened here too.

For example you don't get to see this at wedding ceremonies anymore as often as you used to.


https://youtu.be/OGOV6T_z_M8

[*skriptis]

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Now that I think about it, yes. They did this to gain potential business and exploited the maternal instinct for their profit, the hell with anything else.So yet another case where a decent human trait (maternal concern) is turned against society for the short-term benefit of the unscrupulous.


is that the episode with Kramer and hot cup of coffee...

[Sawfish]

On 11/26/22 9:12 AM, *skriptis wrote:
> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> A life well-lived is not without risks.
>
> Agreed, but if we talk Sampras alone, I don't think his slam dunk fits into the picture.
>
> If we talk serve, Sampras hit harder and I'd say more brutal than Federer or Djokovic, he surely used his shoulder a lot more, but it was his serve and his choice. He obviously had a better serve than Federer and Djokovic so in this case, the risk (of injury and wear and tear) has paid off.
>
> But his slam dunk was really a show thing. He could have hit his smashes way more conservatively with literally same effect. I guess it was fun for him, to unleash the energy. And I assume he felt it was all about asserting him and showing his dominance. Or engaging the crowd.
>
> Maybe slam dunk was part of his game, part of his mentality and so on and so you can't remove it without ruining what Sampras was all about. Maybe.
>
> But just looking at it, it does feel the risks (of slam dunk) far outweighed the benefits.
>
>
> Maybe I can compare it to another brutal shot, Djokovic sliding on HC. It's very risky, but he's good at it and he has won many many crucial points that way so I'd say it has paid off.
>
> With slam dunk, I just don't get that feeling.
>
>
> But OTOH, excellent example of Sampras' athleticism.

Ditto that.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>> You know how I feel abut the current western obsession with safety--or should I say SAFETY!!!.The current emergent generations are in many ways in an arrested stage of development. They have certain aspects of the spoiled pre-schooler: they want to be considered to be "good", as approved by their care-giver; they gladly rat each other out for approval; and like all good little kids, safety is GOOD, so everything--and I mean every fuckin' thing, skript--MUST be safe.When my daughter was still little, maybe 5 or 6, and the city was in the process of removing all older playground equipment and replacing it with colorful plastic equipment that was certified as "safe", they took out her favorites, one of which was a metal merry-go-round, like a big steel wheel or disk, horizontal, about 9 inches (23 cm) off the ground and mounted on a large and sturdy bearing.https://blog.cheapism.com/forgotten-playground-equipment/#image=1There were railings on this circular table that kids, who'd be standing on the disk, could hold onto tightly as their parents, or other kids, spun the wheel faster and faster by running around the outside of the disk. You could get it going fast enough to literally fling the snot from their little noses, if they wanted to go that fast, which she did.Sometimes the little fuckers would be flung from the disk, but hey!...that's life! In a way, it served as an object lesson.When the city took this out and replaced it with a yellow plastic slide about 12 feet long (3.7 meters) at about a 30 degree slope, she said: "Soon no one will have any fun anymore."Words of wisdom from the mouths of babes, huh?Here in the US every public policy argument will always be viewed as "won" when the concept of safety is raised. Hence free and open abortion is the moral high ground because otherwise it will not be *safe* for the potential mother. Magazine capacity of firearms, and in some cases, firearms themselves, are limited or banned because it is thought to be unsafe not to do so.Free medical care as a human right, because without it, the individual is not safe.Free speech is dangerous...unsafe. So Musk is under constant criticism right now because his policies are not viewed as "safe". Hence, you cannot tell a male masquerading as a female to stop making a mockery of both men *and* women, because it might be unsafe for their mental health...if clumsily cross-dressing in public can be viewed as the epitome of mental heath.It's an unhealthy obsession--a sickness. It is being used very much like the concept of assigned guilt (where someone or something tells *you* what you should feel guilty about). It beats down everyone here who does not have sufficient self-esteem and ego to resist it. Those who do are marginalized as unrepentant sinners who are also leading the nation away from safety. That's what the Biden speech about parts of the GOP being a danger to democracy was all about.This is a fact of life in the US. Is it that way where you live?
>
>
> Something in that direction has happened here too.
>
> For example you don't get to see this at wedding ceremonies anymore as often as you used to.
>
>
> https://youtu.be/OGOV6T_z_M8

HAH!


HAH! HAH!

Before I looked at the link, skript, I didn't know it would be that, and
whatever it was, I was going to ask:

"Yes, but do you folks shoot off guns at holidays?"

Hah. They were still doing it over here when I was a kid, but I doubt
anyone does it any more.

>
>
>

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Confidence: the food of the wise man and the liquor of the fool."

--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[guypers]

wow, watch Seinfeld, the jew written by the jew larry david, knish is your fav snack!?

[Whisper]

On 27/11/2022 4:12 am, *skriptis wrote:
> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> A life well-lived is not without risks.
>
>
> Agreed, but if we talk Sampras alone, I don't think his slam dunk fits into the picture.
>
> If we talk serve, Sampras hit harder and I'd say more brutal than Federer or Djokovic, he surely used his shoulder a lot more, but it was his serve and his choice. He obviously had a better serve than Federer and Djokovic so in this case, the risk (of injury and wear and tear) has paid off.
>
> But his slam dunk was really a show thing. He could have hit his smashes way more conservatively with literally same effect. I guess it was fun for him, to unleash the energy. And I assume he felt it was all about asserting him and showing his dominance. Or engaging the crowd.
>
> Maybe slam dunk was part of his game, part of his mentality and so on and so you can't remove it without ruining what Sampras was all about. Maybe.
>
> But just looking at it, it does feel the risks (of slam dunk) far outweighed the benefits.
>
>
> Maybe I can compare it to another brutal shot, Djokovic sliding on HC. It's very risky, but he's good at it and he has won many many crucial points that way so I'd say it has paid off.
>
> With slam dunk, I just don't get that feeling.
>
>
> But OTOH, excellent example of Sampras' athleticism.
>

I think for both Sampras and Djoker these things are instinctive not a
conscious decision to take risks or showboat, just kind of an evolution.

[Pelle Svanslös]

With Sampras, you never know. I think the decision to rip his arm off
with the serve was a conscious one. Fed (Djok too) chose longevity. The
Red Shoe incident suggests he took the blandness critique to heart.
Showboating with the overhead might of been just another pair of shoes
to him.

[Pelle Svanslös]

He = Sampras.

[The Iceberg]

arrrrrrr Pelle fish capt'n!! he's a thrashin' and going real wild, spinnin' round and round in circles, as usual! arrrr LOL

[The Iceberg]

HAHAAAH someone who spent 4 years crying every single day and constantly moans about being "oppressed" or "offended" is telling us to cheer up, please shutup Karen LOL

[The Iceberg]

yes exactly, Sampras just saw it as the quickest way to win the point, would say Djoker is same. Kyrgios is a good example of a showboater.

[The Iceberg]

look we know you have amazing tennis knowledge of nothing before 2005, so will help you out here. Sampras had his serve since he was 19 and always said it was a natural thing, so no, he didn't consciously "rip his arm off". Now if we ignore your silly little Sampras-hating 2nd part, all is not lost in your "post". Why? well am Big fan of Fed's serve and he was all about perfect technique and his serve technique allowed for the longevity, so yes it possible he did consider longevity when developing that, but it's prob much more a bi-product of that. Djoker's whole strategy was always to hit a good return and win the baseline rallies, so he would've only seen the serve as starting a rally, therefore he prob didn't even think about longevity on the serve.

[Pelle Svanslös]

But I've read Sampras' autoB!

> Sampras had his serve since he was 19 and always said it was a natural thing, so no, he didn't consciously "rip his arm off".

My memory is a bit of this and that, but I could swear Sampras said
something like that in his book. That he started ripping it at around
96-97. He also had a thrower's arm at some point.

> Now if we ignore your silly little Sampras-hating 2nd part, all is not lost in your "post".

Thanks!

> Why? well am Big fan of Fed's serve

It's a great serve.

> and he was all about perfect technique and his serve technique allowed for the longevity, so yes it possible he did consider longevity when developing that, but it's prob much more a bi-product of that.

I think Fed said something like he didn't see putting 110% in the serve
worth the risk. Can't recall what it was exactly.

His fastest serve was 230kmh. If he wanted he could have ripped Sampras
serves at will. His backup game was so much better than Sampras', so he
didn't have to rely on back-breaking serving. How cool is that?

> Djoker's whole strategy was always to hit a good return and win the baseline rallies, so he would've only seen the serve as starting a rally, therefore he prob didn't even think about longevity on the serve.

Djok went on to change his serve in 2009-2010 to avoid further problems
(which he had anyway):

https://twitter.com/GrahamBensinger/status/1262157700516859906

Longevity was certainly an issue. The serve Djok had before that wasn't
a couch slouch, but it had issues. Djok's serve is a killer serve now,
except for the one or two choked seconds. If he wanted, he could
probably add 20kmh to it if he started ripping it, but why would he bother?

[The Iceberg]

hmmm you're way too emotional to have read Sampras' autoB.

> > Sampras had his serve since he was 19 and always said it was a natural thing, so no, he didn't consciously "rip his arm off".
> My memory is a bit of this and that, but I could swear Sampras said
> something like that in his book. That he started ripping it at around
> 96-97. He also had a thrower's arm at some point.

he started "ripping it" from when he was 19, he was endlessly asked about his serve and known for his serve from then onwards. In 1999 he served the best ever in history at Wimbledon, he didn't have elbow surgery like Djoker did.

> > Now if we ignore your silly little Sampras-hating 2nd part, all is not lost in your "post".
> Thanks!
> > Why? well am Big fan of Fed's serve
> It's a great serve.

yes!

> > and he was all about perfect technique and his serve technique allowed for the longevity, so yes it possible he did consider longevity when developing that, but it's prob much more a bi-product of that.
> I think Fed said something like he didn't see putting 110% in the serve
> worth the risk. Can't recall what it was exactly.
>
> His fastest serve was 230kmh. If he wanted he could have ripped Sampras
> serves at will. His backup game was so much better than Sampras', so he
> didn't have to rely on back-breaking serving. How cool is that?

bit of over-emotional coulda shoulda woulda here, Fed's serve whilst excellent just isn't the Sampras super-athletic/super-coil-power serve. As said longevity was much more a bi-product of Fed's great serve, when you hit it at 230kmph and get endless aces/games at Wimbledon "as it is" breaking your arm for 10% would be plain pointless especially when like only 1 guy beats you in 10 years and that was arguably due to luck.

> > Djoker's whole strategy was always to hit a good return and win the baseline rallies, so he would've only seen the serve as starting a rally, therefore he prob didn't even think about longevity on the serve.
> Djok went on to change his serve in 2009-2010 to avoid further problems
> (which he had anyway):
>
> https://twitter.com/GrahamBensinger/status/1262157700516859906
>
> Longevity was certainly an issue. The serve Djok had before that wasn't
> a couch slouch, but it had issues. Djok's serve is a killer serve now,
> except for the one or two choked seconds. If he wanted, he could
> probably add 20kmh to it if he started ripping it, but why would he bother?

thanks for agreeing with me, this proves Djoker didn't develop his serve with longevity in mind, this is what the talk was about. Why don't you tell us about your serve, you said was about 100mph, yes?

[guypers]

Without his serve $ Pete would be 11th on the alltime list behind Connors!

[The Iceberg]

without their serves Fed and Djoker would be around 49th way behind Murray.

[Sawfish]

This is no criticism but an observation re Fed's service delivery. Do
you see an odd little hitch or racquet/arm realignment just after the
toss? Like everything Fed does, it *looks* good, graceful, and clearly
it doesn't hurt the serve, which is exceptional without overwhelming
power--like Djoke.

I'm not the sort who automatically jumps to the conclusion that hitches
and non-standard technique are automatically bad. Just watch Mac to see
how not to set up to volley, then tell me that he was a poor volleyer!!!

There's room for idiosyncratic "genius" in tennis, and it's one of the
best things about the sport.

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Life is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[guypers]

Fed and Djoker can serve underhand and still have 20+ slams, 1$ Pete two at most!

[Scall5]

On 11/30/2022 11:52 AM, guypers wrote:

> Fed and Djoker can serve underhand and still have 20+ slams, 1$ Pete two at most!

Yeah, sure. Whatever.
--
---------------
Scall5

[Scall5]

Sampras' serve couldn't have affected his arm/shoulder too much. For
example, YEARS after Sampras had retired and then did some expos against
Federer, those matches were VERY competitive.
--
---------------
Scall5

[Dryes]

Surely, you are joking Mr Feynman?

[Pelle Svanslös]

No way!

>>> Sampras had his serve since he was 19 and always said it was a natural thing, so no, he didn't consciously "rip his arm off".
>> My memory is a bit of this and that, but I could swear Sampras said
>> something like that in his book. That he started ripping it at around
>> 96-97. He also had a thrower's arm at some point.
>
> he started "ripping it" from when he was 19,

I think he said something in his book about starting to really push it.
That was much later. Probably about the time he started SVing more.

> he was endlessly asked about his serve and known for his serve from then onwards. In 1999 he served the best ever in history at Wimbledon, he didn't have elbow surgery like Djoker did.
>
>>> Now if we ignore your silly little Sampras-hating 2nd part, all is not lost in your "post".
>> Thanks!
>>> Why? well am Big fan of Fed's serve
>> It's a great serve.
>
> yes!
>
>>> and he was all about perfect technique and his serve technique allowed for the longevity, so yes it possible he did consider longevity when developing that, but it's prob much more a bi-product of that.
>> I think Fed said something like he didn't see putting 110% in the serve
>> worth the risk. Can't recall what it was exactly.
>>
>> His fastest serve was 230kmh. If he wanted he could have ripped Sampras
>> serves at will. His backup game was so much better than Sampras', so he
>> didn't have to rely on back-breaking serving. How cool is that?
>
> bit of over-emotional coulda shoulda woulda here,

Exactly the opposite. If Fed is able to serve 230, he is able to serve
at Sampras speeds, which were less than that in matchplay.

Cold, hard logic.

> Fed's serve whilst excellent just isn't the Sampras super-athletic/super-coil-power serve. As said longevity was much more a bi-product of Fed's great serve, when you hit it at 230kmph and get endless aces/games at Wimbledon "as it is" breaking your arm for 10% would be plain pointless especially when like only 1 guy beats you in 10 years and that was arguably due to luck.
>

That's pretty much what I'm trying to say. Amping it up 10% is kinda
futile when the routine does the job and is less taxing.

>>> Djoker's whole strategy was always to hit a good return and win the baseline rallies, so he would've only seen the serve as starting a rally, therefore he prob didn't even think about longevity on the serve.
>> Djok went on to change his serve in 2009-2010 to avoid further problems
>> (which he had anyway):
>>
>> https://twitter.com/GrahamBensinger/status/1262157700516859906
>>
>> Longevity was certainly an issue. The serve Djok had before that wasn't
>> a couch slouch, but it had issues. Djok's serve is a killer serve now,
>> except for the one or two choked seconds. If he wanted, he could
>> probably add 20kmh to it if he started ripping it, but why would he bother?
>
> thanks for agreeing with me, this proves Djoker didn't develop his serve with longevity in mind,

Djok says the old serve was giving him arm/elbow/back troubles and
that's precisely why he changed it. That spells longevity for
longevity's sake.

That he later had to have surgey is just one of those things. With the
old serve after the surgery he might of quit. Despite whatever Mrs Wolf
says.

> this is what the talk was about. Why don't you tell us about your serve, you said was about 100mph, yes?

What do you want me to tell you about it?

[Whisper]

If he had a lesser serve he would have just upped his other skills. How
dumb can you possibly be?

[Whisper]

Pete could adapt his game to what's required you fuck knuckle. Remember
he's the only guy who changed his game 3 times.

[MBDunc]

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 3:15:04 AM UTC+2, Scall5 wrote:

> > I think for both Sampras and Djoker these things are instinctive not a
> > conscious decision to take risks or showboat, just kind of an evolution.
> Sampras' serve couldn't have affected his arm/shoulder too much. For
> example, YEARS after Sampras had retired and then did some expos against
> Federer, those matches were VERY competitive.

They were as competitive as Borg winning a set vs late 80'ies Becker in exo.

Showcase EXOs are mostly scripted stuff.

Wilander once complained arranged EXO with Lendl than he had had a super nightclub event before, had a slight hangover ... then Lendl
played fresh as any tournament play and crushed Wilander 62 62. (they had an arrangement that first they play 1-1 sets and the play for real)

.mikko

[The Iceberg]

oh come on, it was probably Agassi's book you read instead, much more your sort of thing/player.

> >>> Sampras had his serve since he was 19 and always said it was a natural thing, so no, he didn't consciously "rip his arm off".
> >> My memory is a bit of this and that, but I could swear Sampras said
> >> something like that in his book. That he started ripping it at around
> >> 96-97. He also had a thrower's arm at some point.
> >
> > he started "ripping it" from when he was 19,
> I think he said something in his book about starting to really push it.
> That was much later. Probably about the time he started SVing more.

oh so Sampras was mainly a baseliner when he was 19, errr ok!

> > he was endlessly asked about his serve and known for his serve from then onwards. In 1999 he served the best ever in history at Wimbledon, he didn't have elbow surgery like Djoker did.
> >
> >>> Now if we ignore your silly little Sampras-hating 2nd part, all is not lost in your "post".
> >> Thanks!
> >>> Why? well am Big fan of Fed's serve
> >> It's a great serve.
> >
> > yes!
> >
> >>> and he was all about perfect technique and his serve technique allowed for the longevity, so yes it possible he did consider longevity when developing that, but it's prob much more a bi-product of that.
> >> I think Fed said something like he didn't see putting 110% in the serve
> >> worth the risk. Can't recall what it was exactly.
> >>
> >> His fastest serve was 230kmh. If he wanted he could have ripped Sampras
> >> serves at will. His backup game was so much better than Sampras', so he
> >> didn't have to rely on back-breaking serving. How cool is that?
> >
> > bit of over-emotional coulda shoulda woulda here,
> Exactly the opposite. If Fed is able to serve 230, he is able to serve
> at Sampras speeds, which were less than that in matchplay.
>
> Cold, hard logic.

cos emotions are your main thing logic isn't so good + you really don't know much about tennis, but will just point out there was a lot more to Sampras' serve than speed.

> > Fed's serve whilst excellent just isn't the Sampras super-athletic/super-coil-power serve. As said longevity was much more a bi-product of Fed's great serve, when you hit it at 230kmph and get endless aces/games at Wimbledon "as it is" breaking your arm for 10% would be plain pointless especially when like only 1 guy beats you in 10 years and that was arguably due to luck.
> >
> That's pretty much what I'm trying to say. Amping it up 10% is kinda
> futile when the routine does the job and is less taxing.
> >>> Djoker's whole strategy was always to hit a good return and win the baseline rallies, so he would've only seen the serve as starting a rally, therefore he prob didn't even think about longevity on the serve.
> >> Djok went on to change his serve in 2009-2010 to avoid further problems
> >> (which he had anyway):
> >>
> >> https://twitter.com/GrahamBensinger/status/1262157700516859906
> >>
> >> Longevity was certainly an issue. The serve Djok had before that wasn't
> >> a couch slouch, but it had issues. Djok's serve is a killer serve now,
> >> except for the one or two choked seconds. If he wanted, he could
> >> probably add 20kmh to it if he started ripping it, but why would he bother?
> >
> > thanks for agreeing with me, this proves Djoker didn't develop his serve with longevity in mind,
> Djok says the old serve was giving him arm/elbow/back troubles and
> that's precisely why he changed it. That spells longevity for
> longevity's sake.

we were talking about developing the serve from when young, not from when he was in his late 20's. It's like saying Murray "developed" his serve for longevity(giving the impression he originally did that when growing up) cos in the last 3 or 4 years of his career he changed it slightly.

> That he later had to have surgey is just one of those things. With the
> old serve after the surgery he might of quit. Despite whatever Mrs Wolf
> says.

did I remind you that Djoker had elbow surgery per chance?

> > this is what the talk was about. Why don't you tell us about your serve, you said was about 100mph, yes?
> What do you want me to tell you about it?

who do you model it after? what style is it? have you broken your arm trying to hit it faster?

[Sawfish]

Sliding off-topic a bit, what did you do when trying to development more
velocity? I'll go first...

For the most part, 1st serve grip was almost always pure continental,
sliding to an eastern BH for 2nd serve, mostly. The amount east varied
depending if I wanted violent kick or not.

So working from the grip, which never changed much...

Toss so that I'd have to follow the ball into the court. This came
automatically when I was still S&V, which was pretty much the whole
time. But as I backed off going in reflexively, as a part of the 1st
serve, I slid toward a 2nd serve-like toss and periodically had to
correct it.

Really concentrate on making my arm at the elbow very loose and whip
like. (This didn't feel good so I didn't go down that path.)

Loosen my grip during the motion  and grab it tighter as a part of the
contact. This was essentially a waste of time.

I always have held the racquet with the butt in the lower palm of my
hand, even for ground strokes, and it allows a lot more wrist; it is a
fairly loose grip. I did not change anything there.

Long story short: the biggest improvement came from tossing forward and
following--make sure it doesn't get behind you any. I think the loose
elbow had potential, but I wasn't going there.

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The big print gives it to you; the small print takes it away."

Andy, from Amos 'n' Andy, on legal contracts...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[The Iceberg]

meant to say yes agree with this, Fed has an odd hitch as you say, must be something he just does naturally for him.
In his last doubles match at the O2 noticed his serve was significantly different than usual, mostly his leg movement, but also bit in his arm action from what can remember, clearly didn't have enough leg strength and wanted to avoid any further injury risk.

[undecided]

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 9:50:41 AM UTC-5, Scall5 wrote:
> On 11/24/2022 3:05 PM, MBDunc wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 10:56:15 PM UTC+2, sawfish wrote:
> >> On 11/24/22 12:42 PM, MBDunc wrote:
> >>> S&V has uses as a tactic but not for a strategy.
> >> Yes. To clarify, when I spoke of S&V I did not mean strategic S&V like
> >> Stan Smith, Rafter, Edberg, Henman. I meant tactical all-court S&V like
> >> Sampras.
> >
> > Ar first i disliked Sampras for - just stupid reason a'la "he won too much", "I did not like his approach" ..etc
> >
> > But his last USO 2002 final match was an eye-opener; this man is frigging good! That performance was phenomenally good. Against peak Agassi playing with next gen strings...(Agassi in his first tournament with next gen strings had won Rome 2002)
> >
> > .mikko
> Wow, I was the same way about Pete. Until his last several years of
> playing I was rooting against him because he won so much. I was always
> hoping Henman would get that elusive Wimbledon title.
>
> I was at the match when Pete first hurt his back/hip. Summer of 1999 at
> the RCA Championships in Indianapolis. He was playing Vince Spadea and

> landed awkwardly when doing his legendary leaping overhead slam. Played
> until the end of the set and then retired. I, and the crowd, gave him a
> standing ovation as he left the court; we felt a bit cheated since he
> had retired but also knew he had to focus on being 100% for the US Open
> in a month or so. Too bad he ended up not playing that US Open, he would
> have been the odds-on favorite to win it.
> --
> ---------------
> Scall5
I thought he injured his back while practicing with Kuerten at the 99 USO. Based on what you're saying, maybe he aggravated what was the injury from the RCA championships. Pete dominated summer of 99. He was the spot on favourite at that USO prior to his injury. He was never the same after that. People say he got old, burned out and what not but he was peaking in 99 and right after that injury is when he stopped winning.

[Whisper]

On 12/12/2022 10:28 am, undecided wrote:
> On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 9:50:41 AM UTC-5, Scall5 wrote:
> I thought he injured his back while practicing with Kuerten at the 99 USO. Based on what you're saying, maybe he aggravated what was the injury from the RCA championships. Pete dominated summer of 99. He was the spot on favourite at that >USO prior to his injury. He was never the same after that. People say he got old, burned out and what not but he was peaking in 99 and right after that injury is when he stopped winning.

Bit like Lew Hoad with his back injury.