Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 6 topics

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 25 10:52PM +1000

On 25/05/2017 1:15 AM, Gracchus wrote:
 
>> Federer beating Sampras is similar to Doohan beating Becker at Wimbledon
>> - a colossal fluke, 1 in a million etc.
 
> Except that Doohan didn't go on to win 18 slams afterward or even 1. A troublesome little detail that easily debunks "fluke" theory.
 
Not really. Federer in 2001 was getting hammered by Henman & Agassi in
slams. Fed needed to do at 19 what Sampras did at 19, so absolutely
nobody can suggest it was 1-off/fluke/shocker from Sampras etc.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 25 07:13AM -0700

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:52:57 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
 
> Not really. Federer in 2001 was getting hammered by Henman & Agassi in
> slams. Fed needed to do at 19 what Sampras did at 19, so absolutely
> nobody can suggest it was 1-off/fluke/shocker from Sampras etc.
 
Feeble rebuttal that doesn't hold water. Nobody would "suggest" that it was a fluke from Federer either except you. Suppose Sampras won the USO at age 19 and then never won another slam in his career. That same USO title would then be seen as a fluke. Only his subsequent slams put the win in context and make us see the event as the first big achievement in the career of a great championship. Well the same with Federer. Unlike Doohan, he didn't beat a great champion at Wimbledon and never do anything else. His subsequent 18 slams put the win over Sampras in context as a harbinger of great things to come. So your comparison really is absurd, as you probably already know. Sorry, but you can't just invent these arbitrary little "Rules of Whisper" (real champs win their first slams as teenagers, etc.) and expect anyone to take them seriously. Everyone here knows that they're lame attempts to diminish Federer. Hasn't worked before and it never will. The Great Man is just too great. You'll never be able to change that, so just deal with it.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 25 07:16AM -0700

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 7:13:12 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
 
> in the career of a great championship.
 
"champion" that is.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 24 05:24PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 2:05:43 PM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> > Ok, but as I said above I would describe myself as cute to maintain some modesty. If I said I was pretty how > would that go over? I'd sound like Whisper.
 
> It would go over fine, if you posted a pic to prove it. Otherwise, it's
> not to be taken seriously.
 
Only after you post your pic first. I am not going to post a picture of myself on an anonymous tennis ng. Bring your wife to the city I live in and I'll meet you for a coffee and you can decide for yourself.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 24 05:44PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 5:24:46 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > It would go over fine, if you posted a pic to prove it. Otherwise, it's
> > not to be taken seriously.

> Only after you post your pic first. I am not going to post a picture of myself on an anonymous tennis ng.
 
Careful, he may just do it.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 24 05:50PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 8:44:23 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > > not to be taken seriously.
 
> > Only after you post your pic first. I am not going to post a picture of myself on an anonymous tennis ng.
 
> Careful, he may just do it.
 
 
It's fine with me. Didn't he post that he was some fatso?
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: May 25 01:22AM

On Wed, 24 May 2017 17:50:40 -0700, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> > of myself on an anonymous tennis ng.
 
>> Careful, he may just do it.
 
> It's fine with me. Didn't he post that he was some fatso?
 
Apparently he's good at fixing refrigerators and other small appliances
because he's got small hands.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 24 10:59PM -0500

On 5/24/2017 7:24 PM, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> It would go over fine, if you posted a pic to prove it. Otherwise, it's
>> not to be taken seriously.
 
> Only after you post your pic first. I am not going to post a picture of myself on an anonymous tennis ng. > >Bring your wife to the city I live in and I'll meet you for a coffee and you can decide for yourself.
 
I've never made any claims about my looks so not sure why I'd have to
post? FWIW, I'm an old man and know I've seen better days, LOL. As for
coffee, it wouldn't be fair to you for me to bring my wife because you'd
want to be the star of the room, and that's very hard to pull off when
she's around. But no need to meet up, as my Facebook profile pic is
public at the link below. How about yours?
 
https://www.facebook.com/steve.jaros
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 25 12:12PM +0200

> she's around. But no need to meet up, as my Facebook profile pic is
> public at the link below. How about yours?
 
> https://www.facebook.com/steve.jaros
 
You wife seems happy and content.
 
--
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: May 25 06:50AM -0500

On Thu, 25 May 2017 12:12:53 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
| stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net> Wrote in message:
|> On 5/24/2017 7:24 PM, Court_1 wrote:
|>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 2:05:43 PM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
|>>> On 5/23/2017 7:32 PM, Court_1 wrote:
|>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 7:48:24 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
|>>>>
|>>>>
|>>>>> I wouldn't invent it. See thread "Steffi 2014."
|>>>>>
|>>>>> "bob: > LOL. you're just mean. you some sorta beauty queen to be always
|>>>>> picking on stef like that?"
|>>>>>
|>>>>> "Court 1: First of all: a)men can talk about how unattractive they think women or men are all of the time but I don't hear a peep from you about THEIR appearance when THEY do that, b) I really don't think Graf is attractive at all, in fact I find her quite unattractive in the face, always have and I am not alone on that one, and, c)yes, I am cute. :)"
|>>>>
|>>>> Ok, but as I said above I would describe myself as cute to maintain some modesty. If I said I was pretty how > would that go over? I'd sound like Whisper.
|>>>
|>>> It would go over fine, if you posted a pic to prove it. Otherwise, it's
|>>> not to be taken seriously.
|>>
|>> Only after you post your pic first. I am not going to post a picture of myself on an anonymous tennis ng. > >Bring your wife to the city I live in and I'll meet you for a coffee and you can decide for yourself.
|>
|> I've never made any claims about my looks so not sure why I'd have to
|> post? FWIW, I'm an old man and know I've seen better days, LOL. As for
|> coffee, it wouldn't be fair to you for me to bring my wife because you'd
|> want to be the star of the room, and that's very hard to pull off when
|> she's around. But no need to meet up, as my Facebook profile pic is
|> public at the link below. How about yours?
|>
|> https://www.facebook.com/steve.jaros
|
| You wife seems happy and content.
|
 
And presumably obedient?
 
Oh Steve....ohhhh you've got great hair....
... oops Honey...he meant nothing. He said his name was Whisper?
 
FF
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 25 06:19AM -0500

>On 5/22/2017 7:10 AM, bob wrote:
 
> personally, i don't peg
> agassi for the coaching type but i could be wrong.
 
I don't either, but then again I felt the same about Becker and he was
an A+ hire.
 
It's important, because for some reason, Joker depends more on having a
team around him moreso than any other top male champ i can think of,
past or preset.
 
He's almost the male Navratilova in that regard.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 24 05:11PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 7:22:12 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> Side-note: vintage Michelle Phillips is supreme eye-candy for those who think physical beauty counts for anything. ;)
 
Careful now! ;)
 
 
We know it obviously doesn't count for much in your book! *rolls eyes*
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 25 02:33AM +0300

Gracchus kirjoitti 25.5.2017 klo 2:22:
>> songs included.
 
> I'll have to have another look at that part. I have mixed feelings about Baez as well. It seems she's either very annoying or very good.
 
> Have you seen "Monterey Pop"? D.A. Pennebaker did this (same guy who did the iconic Dylan film "Don't Look Back"). Just as important a film/historical document as "Woodstock" IMO. It includes the only live non-lip-synching performance by the Mamas & Papas that I can find, and they were great.
 
Yes I think I have seen it. I think it is the very documentary I saw as
a youngster and which made me aware of Monterey/Woodstock phenomenon and
made everlasting impression. In fact this documentary is the reason why
I gave 'Woostock' only an 8... I don't know, maybe the time has made it
more golden than it is. Probably also seen plenty of clips later on.
 
But thanks for mentioning it, I didn't remember the name. I think I'll
slap it an 8 for good measure.
 
> Side-note: vintage Michelle Phillips is supreme eye-candy for those who think physical beauty counts for anything. ;)
 
And Mama Cass isn't? :)
 
>> ...The pace is rather slow and the film is very understated. Hopkins
>> does a masterclass of over-underacting...
 
> Thanks for the warning. Now I know the treacherous waters that lie ahead.
 
Hahaha
 
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 24 05:41PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 5:07:16 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> > > without the art-part. Very mature film. 9/10
 
> > I still haven't seen this. I should watch now that I know how good Hopkins can be in something he takes seriously.
 
> Hopkins is very good in The Remains of the Day and Howard's End (and obviously his signature role, The Silence of the Lambs.) Just don't watch Hopkins in Legends of the Fall! But I think we discussed that already and agreed that his performance in that was a head-scratcher. Legends of the Fall was a very good film with his performance being the exception. He's done a lot of bad stuff for a quick buck but when he's good and it's a quality production, he's really good.
 
I believe we've discussed "Legends of the Fall" before. That's one we disagree on in a big way. I really hate it--a lot!
 
And I doubt if Hopkins thought much of the film either, because otherwise he wouldn't have given such a comically bad performance. What he did in "Westworld" last year was on the opposite end of the spectrum.

> > but ball-cutting feminism permeates the film thanks to Jane Campion.
 
> How so? I don't recall feminism permeating that film.
 
I may have retroactively edited that film in my mind after seeing Campion's "Holy Smoke." As I said, I haven't seen "The Piano" since its release.
 
> > And while I usually like Harvey Keitel, his attempted Scottish accent is worse than James Doohan's.
 
> I'm not a Harvey Keitel fan either. His acting is pretty bad actually.
 
I think he's fine doing gangsters and NYC characters. But playing a Scotsman was out of his range. Can't imagine what they were thinking in casting him.
 
> I'm also not a Holly Hunter fan. I dislike how she talks and pronounces certain words. My dad does the best impression of how Hunter speaks with her "sh" lisp. She's a plain Jane too for an actress
 
Well that depends on the role, doesn't it?
 
> IMO but she's a competent enough actress.
 
Her natural accent is hard for me to listen to. I don't mind her when she neutralizes it. Similar to Amy Madigan.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 24 06:09PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 8:41:20 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> I believe we've discussed "Legends of the Fall" before. That's one we disagree on in a big way. I really hate it--a lot!
 
Oh, you hated the entire film? I thought you only hated Hopkins' performance? Yeah, if you hated the whole film, we disagree because I liked that film a lot with the exception of the absurd and over the top performance by Hopkins. It didn't fit in with the whole flavor of the film at all. I thought it was a beautiful film. The cinematography in particular was beautiful.

> And I doubt if Hopkins thought much of the film either, because otherwise he wouldn't have given such a comically bad performance. What he did in "Westworld" last year was on the opposite end of the spectrum.
 
The film was well regarded unlike that horrible Meet Joe Black that he appeared in with Brad Pitt.
 

> > > but ball-cutting feminism permeates the film thanks to Jane Campion.
 
> > How so? I don't recall feminism permeating that film.
 
> I may have retroactively edited that film in my mind after seeing Campion's "Holy Smoke." As I said, I haven't seen "The Piano" since its release.
 
I haven't seen Holy Smoke. Other Campion films I've seen were The Portrait of a Lady (good), Bright Star(average) and In the Cut (bad.)

 
> > I'm not a Harvey Keitel fan either. His acting is pretty bad actually.
 
> I think he's fine doing gangsters and NYC characters. But playing a Scotsman was out of his range. Can't imagine what they were thinking in casting him.
 
Yes, it was strange casting of Keitel in The Piano. He must have been connected to somebody important involved in that film.
 

> > I'm also not a Holly Hunter fan. I dislike how she talks and pronounces certain words. My dad does the best impression of how Hunter speaks with her "sh" lisp. She's a plain Jane too for an actress
 
> Well that depends on the role, doesn't it?
 
What depends on the role? She's plain looking all around imo and her "sh" she adds on the end of words drives me crazy.
 

> > IMO but she's a competent enough actress.
 
> Her natural accent is hard for me to listen to. I don't mind her when she neutralizes it. Similar to Amy Madigan.
 
Hunter's accent is annoying and add in that "sh" lisp and it's unbearable. She was popular in the 90's and early 2000's and then she disappeared into thin air for a long time. It seems she's doing a few more things here and there these days.
 
Another actress I'm not a fan of--Amy Madigan.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: May 25 01:23AM

On Wed, 24 May 2017 17:41:17 -0700, Gracchus wrote:
 
> I believe we've discussed "Legends of the Fall" before. That's one we
> disagree on in a big way. I really hate it--a lot!
 
You and me both.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 24 06:36PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 6:09:42 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 8:41:20 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > I believe we've discussed "Legends of the Fall" before. That's one we disagree on in a big way. I really hate it--a lot!
 
> Oh, you hated the entire film? I thought you only hated Hopkins' performance? Yeah, if you hated the whole film, we disagree because I liked that film a lot with the exception of the absurd and over the top performance by Hopkins. It didn't fit in with the whole flavor of the film at all. I thought it was a beautiful film. The cinematography in particular was beautiful.
 
The cinematography was beautiful, yes. But I hated nearly everything else. Pitt's and Ormand's characters, Henry Thomas's acting, the story, pandering to modern sensibilities in a period piece, etc. From what I recall of our discussion, you thought all those things same things were great, so there's not much left to say.
 
 
> > > I'm also not a Holly Hunter fan. I dislike how she talks and pronounces certain words. My dad does the best impression of how Hunter speaks with her "sh" lisp. She's a plain Jane too for an actress
 
> > Well that depends on the role, doesn't it?
 
> What depends on the role? She's plain looking all around imo and her "sh" she adds on the end of words drives me crazy.
 
Well if the character is "plain-looking," then she'd be well-cast, right? That's one thing the Brits do so well--casting across the full spectrum. It feels a lot more authentic than glamming up or down.

> > > IMO but she's a competent enough actress.
 
> > Her natural accent is hard for me to listen to. I don't mind her when she neutralizes it. Similar to Amy Madigan.
 
> Hunter's accent is annoying and add in that "sh" lisp and it's unbearable. She was popular in the 90's and early 2000's and then she disappeared into thin air for a long time. It seems she's doing a few more things here and there these days.
 
I haven't noticed the lisp...though now that you've pointed it out, I'll probably hear nothing else when she speaks. I don't know where she disappeared to for those years, but I didn't miss her either.
 
> Another actress I'm not a fan of--Amy Madigan.
 
No, me neither.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 24 06:39PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 6:23:48 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
 
> > I believe we've discussed "Legends of the Fall" before. That's one we
> > disagree on in a big way. I really hate it--a lot!
 
> You and me both.
 
Watching it in the theater back then was like eating broken glass. Horrible. When Henry Thomas got caught in that concertina, I was cheering on the German gunners.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 24 07:39PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> I haven't noticed the lisp...though now that you've pointed it out, I'll probably hear nothing else when she speaks.
 
Listen to her here:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E2g0LBoPs0
 
"When I was six'sh' years old, I 'sh'tarted..
 
"I need to thank my fir'sh't piano teacher and I need to thank my parent'sh'"
 
"Jane Campion, I love you, thank you 'sh'o much."
 
She puts that "sh" on every 's.' Ugh.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: May 25 03:21AM

On Wed, 24 May 2017 18:39:25 -0700, Gracchus wrote:
 
> Watching it in the theater back then was like eating broken glass.
> Horrible. When Henry Thomas got caught in that concertina, I was
> cheering on the German gunners.
 
Oops, I think I was remembering "A River Runs Through It", and I didn't
like that one either.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 24 09:15PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 8:21:11 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
> > cheering on the German gunners.
 
> Oops, I think I was remembering "A River Runs Through It", and I didn't
> like that one either.
 
I never saw that. Even though I like some other films Redford directed ("Ordinary People," "The Milagro Beanfield War"), previews for "A River Runs Through It" didn't appeal to me so I didn't bother. Anyway, I seriously doubt if you'd like "Legends of the Fall."
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 25 05:55AM -0500

>> include any footage from CCR. Film (and Woodstock) ending with legendary
>> performance by Hendrix. 8/10
 
> CCR was great. They should have had them in the film and removed Janis Joplin's caterwauling instead.
 
IIRC, John Fogerty wouldn't sign the releases when the original film was
made.
 
If you want to see CCR's performance, get the 40th Anniversay bluray,
they are on it.
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 24 05:17PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 3:30:40 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> Not really. Rafa needed a loss, he got it. Djok played great in two
> matches on a Saturday from Hell, was knackered in the final.
 
Pipe Cleaner, one of the fittest players on tour, was knackered in the final after taking ONE game off of Thiem in straights and thrashing Del Potro 6-1,6-4. That sure must have been physically taxing for Djokovic! *rolls eyes*
 
Maybe you haven't noticed, but your hero Djokovic has been playing like crap for a year? That Rome final vs Zverev was more of the same for Djokovic.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 24 11:53PM -0700

On Monday, 15 May 2017 17:30:23 UTC+1, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
 
> Kyrgios will have an all around game, for the most part... he's a shot maker behind that big serving game... clay will be a challenge because he's not looking like a guy who will be too interested in mega-physical matches during the bulk of his career... and fair enough... his game has other virtues (which are obvious)... but, here and there he'll make some noise on the clay, when the spirit moves him :))
 
> Zverev will be thee all court player of this young generation... he's got the complete game... Thiem will have to use his physicality against him to gain small margins as they battle over the coming decade... and will his lean frame become injury prone? Clay tennis doesn't help with longevity, for the most part... so, Zverev will have his share of clay titles, over the next 7 or 8 seasons... contesting some FO Finals one would think... and certainly will be a key guy at the other majors...
 
> Goffin is a clay courter+... he's not gifted with any MASSIVE component like the other guys, who can generate various elements of power tennis... Goffin has to be super fit, consistent, focus and play tactically water-tight tennis to get past the guys with complete games and have power facets within their tennis... so, he's going to have the more difficult and exacting time of it to make his game and what he does well solve the issues the other guys will be offering at the Masters level and the Majors...
 
why are you obsessed that Thiem will be a clay court great? one match vs a knackered Nadal and then 60 61 to Djoker doesn't really indicate that. Also as I've repeatedly said, he puts so much into everything, he gets tired at the end. Goffin is like a much lower version of Denko. Zverev, fair enough, he just won Rome as the youngest player since Nadal!
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 24 07:48PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 12:32:11 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> As for "A Fish Called Wanda," I counted to 10 and decided not to categorize it.
 
Ha ha! As soon as I saw TT mention A Fish Called Wanda, I figured you would be cringing.
 

That's another film we disagree about BIG TIME!
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.tennis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment