why is brog mcenroe 1980 final still considered a classic
m
considered a classic? is it becuase of 20-18 tie break in 4th set.
will 2007 federer nadal final also be considered a classic or not?
Whisper
> why, after all these years, is brog mcenroe 1980 final still
> considered a classic? is it becuase of 20-18 tie break in 4th set.
That wasn't the score.
>
> will 2007 federer nadal final also be considered a classic or not?
No. It will be no more classical than Sampras' 5 set win over Goran in '98.
drew
I don't know how any match that doesn't go the distance can be
considered a true classic even when the quality of the match is
excellent.
For my money a classic has to have 3 main elements. One, the level of
tennis has to be very high. Two, it has to go close to the wire in
the 5th set. Three, it has to be the final of a major.
There aren't too many matches that fit the bill.
That's why I laugh when I hear about that quarter between Agassi and
Sampras that went 4 sets being a classic. You might as well say that
Tipsarevic vs. Federer at the AO was a classic even though neither guy
won the event.
There are great matches and then there are classics. If the result
doesn't really mean shit, how can it be a classic?
arnab.z@gmail
Good definitions.
arnab.z@gmail
Gee, someone mentions a recent 2007 match and Whimpy pulls out a
Sampras reference from 1998. How predictable!
Mad Max
> why, after all these years, is brog mcenroe 1980 final still
> considered a classic? is it becuase of 20-18 tie break in 4th set.
>
> will 2007 federer nadal final also be considered a classic or not?
>
Ivanisevic-Rafter is a classic, everything was special, the different
crowd, Monday, five nerve wrecking sets, even the winner.
Nadal-Federer probably a classis because of the rivalry and the fact
that they don't play 5 sets often in the finals.
Dave Hazelwood
>why, after all these years, is brog mcenroe 1980 final still
>considered a classic? is it becuase of 20-18 tie break in 4th set.
No. It was because Borg was the King of Kings of all times in tennis
and McEnroe was American who had a real shot at beating him and
becomming King of the Hill.
That, coupled with that GREAT match itself sealed its greatness
forever.
Scott
well in the 1980 final. Mac was a volleyer who hung with Borg from
the baseline.
quality of play: the shots they were producing in the 4th and 5th sets
were wonderful.
temperament: although Mac kept his emotions in check, everyone knew
that he could explode at any moment, while Borg was the ultimate ice
man.
On Feb 9, 3:22 am, m <makha...@gmail.com> wrote:
GM
I'll add one more definition: a "classic" should stand the test of
time as well. Which matches are still remembered years from now, which
would seem to favor slam finals because of the much larger stakes.
Borg/Macenroe passes that test, but I think that the Rafter/Ivanisevic
final that someone mentioned deserves classic status too, although it
may not get it. Too early to tell on last year's Fed/Nadal Wimbledon
final, but there's no question it was a great match.
uly...@mscomm.com
high quality of play from both players and the drama of seeing two
champions fight it out late in their career.
Borg-Mac at Wimbledon is still the ultimate match. It blows away Fed-
Nadal from '07, there's no comparison. The fourth set of the 2007 W.
final was marred by Fed's poor play, the injury time-out and poor
quality tennis. No such lull occured in the Mac-Borg match.
fearsomeforehand
OTOH, the Safin-Fed semi AO'05 *was* a classic. Probably the highest
sustained quality match I have ever seen. The only match that came
close (among the ones I have seen) is the Sampras-Becker ATP Champ
1996 final.
Sao Paulo Swallow
wrote:
> On Feb 9, 11:29 am, ulys...@mscomm.com wrote:
>
> > I think the Agassi-Sampras USO match *was* a classic because of the
> > high quality of play from both players and the drama of seeing two
> > champions fight it out late in their career.
>
> > Borg-Mac at Wimbledon is still the ultimate match. It blows away Fed-
> > Nadal from '07, there's no comparison. The fourth set of the 2007 W.
> > final was marred by Fed's poor play, the injury time-out and poor
> > quality tennis. No such lull occured in the Mac-Borg match.
>
> OTOH, the Safin-Fed semi AO'05 *was* a classic. Probably the highest
> sustained quality match I have ever seen.
Absolutely.
Bink B
That wasn't the score of the tiebreak but maybe you had to be there or
in front of a tv to really appreciate it. Two such different styles in
tennis and manners, they were bigger than life back then just as movie
stars were in the 40-60s. You still bowed to the royal box back then.
And the tennis quality was so high with those crappy wooden rackets.
Overtime in the 5th, Borg serving out of his head...It was an amazing
match in real-time.
B
Whisper
It was - literally the 1st match I saw on tv & the excitement was
amazing - none of us kids went to bed until it finished in the early hrs.
If not for that match I probably never woulda got into tennis - more
correctly if not for McEnroe.
arnab.z@gmail
That explains it.
topspin
wrote:
My two-pennyworth....
Borg/Mc 1980 is seen as a classic because it encapsulated tennis in
the cockpit of a single match, or even the cockpit of a single set
within a match (the tie-break set). And what is tennis about? It is
about
The players:
- rivalry
- personality clashes
- potential achievement
The competition/context:
- competition significance
- mental and physical testing
The audience:
- audience anticipation and reaction
One big reason the 1980 final is a classic is that it had all those
elements, and above all because in 1980 tennis mattered in a way it
doesn't now. It was a much more important sport. And so many more
people remember where they were and how they reacted to watching it.
Funnily enough I don't think going the distance is as important as the
intensity of the moments in the match. So I would say classic matches
are:
Court-King W 1970 (only two sets, but unbelievably dramatic)
Graf-Novotna 1993 (utterly compelling meltdown by Novotna. Her victory
5 years later isn't a classic, but her defeat is).
Ashe-Connors (4 sets, but intense as hell because of the contrast
between the young bull and the old pro)
Gonzales-Pasarell (now that did go the distance, but again it was more
about the clash between an old warrior fighting against the twilight
of their career and a young pretender)
I personally might have put Sampras -Corretja, Roddick-El Aynaoui as
classics, but they don't seem to have lodged in public consciousness.
Older classics like Rosewall-Laver WCT finals and Drobny-Rosewall at
Wimbledon don't seem to be remembered much at all.
If I had to guess, in fifty years Borg-McEnroe will still be the most
remembered, with Ashe-Connors also hanging in there. The others, I'm
not sure which memories will last.
So maybe, to be really classic over a long period, a match has to be
from an era where the sport really matters to the public.
Scott
the first set. 6-1, Mac. The match just kept building and building
with interest. eventually i was watching that incredible fourth set
and it was really exciting. i couldn't believe how exciting it was.
the fifth set was also played at an incredible level.
i think i was warned by my parents a couple of times for yelling at
the TV set too loudly.
i was rooting for Borg because i had never seen Mac before. besides,
Borg looked like a movie star and it was very easy to identify with
him the most.
it was definitely one of the greatest sporting events i've ever seen
on TV.
pltrgyst
wrote:
>Older classics like Rosewall-Laver WCT finals and Drobny-Rosewall at
>Wimbledon don't seem to be remembered much at all.
I have to disagree on the first -- among long-time tennis fans of my age (early
sixties), the two consecutive Rosewall-Laver WCT finals are generally held to be
among the top half-dozen matches of our lifetimes.
-- Larry
uly...@mscomm.com
Absolutely, an incredible match. But it doesn't seem to have much buzz
about it and few would ever put it in the "classic" status. That match
seems reduced to just talking about the Fed shot-between-hit-legs play
on match point. There was so much more to it than that.
Safin was playing as well as he did against Pete in the USO final.
It's sad he can only summon up great play like this every 3 years.
Whisper
It was a good quality match for it's time, but historically it wasn't
that interesting & frankly the quality is well overstated in rst - no
surprise with all the ceibs fucking that goes on lol.... : )
zepf...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
What do you think about Mac-Lendl 84 final? You seem to ignore the FO
classics. I would say Becker-Lendl 89 semis and Becker-Lendl 88 ATP
Masters were also classics. And what about those Connors-McEnroe
classics in the USO and Wimbledon?
topspin
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:20:34 -0800 (PST), topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Older classics like Rosewall-Laver WCT finals and Drobny-Rosewall at
> >Wimbledon don't seem to be remembered much at all.
>
> I have to disagree on the first -- among long-time tennis fans of my age (early
> sixties), the two consecutive Rosewall-Laver WCT finals are generally held to be
> among the top half-dozen matches of our lifetimes.
>
> -- Larry
I completely agree about long-time tennis fans remembering, but among
rank and file fans they have been largely forgotten. It is the
inevitable passage of time. The Borg-McEnroe match is nearly 30 years
old, and still has resonance, whereas the Rosewall-Laver matches did
not in 1998, the same period having elapsed.
One other contributor to the Borg-McEnroe longevity is the fact that
McEnroe is still in the public eye, and the fact that it was
televised, so a more convenient visual record exists.
TJT
It's all about television.
zepf...@yahoo.com
Also it is also a Wimbledon final. And Wimbledon is the most hyped up
major tournament, courtesy the British.
topspin
I think you have to be careful to distinguish 'classic' and 'great'. I
see 'classic' as being a subset of 'great', and having an very special
characteristic which exemplifies a universal truth about tennis. Too
many 'classics' and you devalue the word. So the matches you describe
are all 'great', but not necessarily 'classic' IMO.
Borg -McEnroe is a classic of
- opposing tennis philosophies
- opposing personalities
- players being tested under the highest pressure (all the swinging
set/match points in the tie-break) in a match where it really, really
mattered, and (really importantly) - everyone knew it mattered at the
time, and cared.
A lot of 'great' matches just happen, 'classic' matches seem to me
also include the element of everyone knowing it was important and
caring. Hence
Court-King , Rosewall-Laver- huge rivalries and (Court/King) huge
temperament differences
Drobny-Rosewall, Ashe-Connors - the last chance for the old guy
against the young gun
Novotna-Graf - the frail temperament, could she just hang on
Borg-McEnroe - the classic Champ and Pretender, of totally opposite
philosophies and personalities
pltrgyst
wrote:
>One other contributor to the Borg-McEnroe longevity is the fact that
>McEnroe is still in the public eye, and the fact that it was
>televised, so a more convenient visual record exists.
Very good point.
-- Larry