Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 23 updates in 8 topics

Thursday, May 4, 2017

calimero377@gmx.de: May 04 12:02PM -0700

> > your posts reveal.
 
> I could say plenty of positive *and* negative things about Bush, Obama and H. Clinton, but I cannot find much positive to say about Trump. (OK, I like the stock market right now :-)
 
> We have to give him credit for
- preventing Hillary, Pelosi, Schumer, Warren, Sanders, Waters, Perez types having a say in modern America
- fighting climate cultists
- confronting Kim Jong Un
- ditching Putin
- repealing Obamacare
- boosting the stock market (yes!!!!)
- abolishing stupid banking regulations
- lowering taxes
- showing leftist media (NYT, WoPo, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, ESPN) their place.
 
Proves that even fascists can do good here and there.
 
 
Max
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: May 04 08:28AM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:23:01 AM UTC-7, John Liang wrote:
> > matches. The 2 losses were fluky eg '84 FO final from 36 26 down. Don't
> > listen to trolls/fake news in rst.
 
> So he dominated Lendl for just 1 year, other than that streak he was completely dominated by Lendl 19:5.
 
Anyone who saw this decade of tennis knows that, career wise, Lendl just out lasted him; his physicality wore him down... He was next gen fitness level and began to dominate JM mentally... he started to bully him around the court which is part of the emotional resentment that McEnroe felt for decades afterwards...
 
P
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 04 08:40AM -0700

I am just wondering if there is any possibility that someone likes both Lendl and McEnroe. I might be the only one it seems.
 
Lendl had McEnroe's number in 1981 and 1982. The reversal happened in 1983 and 1984. And then Lendl came back in 1985. McEnroe was no longer the same once he made the fatal mistake of semi-retitrment in 1986. He was a top player from 1979 to 1985 though. He was excellent in 1982 and 1985 even though he did not win slams.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 05 03:07AM +1000

On 5/05/2017 1:28 AM, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
 
>> So he dominated Lendl for just 1 year, other than that streak he was completely dominated by Lendl 19:5.
 
> Anyone who saw this decade of tennis knows that, career wise, Lendl just out lasted him; his physicality wore him down... He was next gen fitness level and began to dominate JM mentally... he started to bully him around the court which is part of the emotional resentment that McEnroe felt for decades afterwards...
 
> P
 
Every tennis analyst I've read has McEnroe well above Lendl. Even Lendl
himself admitted he was way behind Mac, Borg & Connors.
 
Rst is a sheltered workshop.
 
 
 
--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 05 03:08AM +1000

On 5/05/2017 1:40 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> I am just wondering if there is any possibility that someone likes both Lendl and McEnroe. I might be the only one it seems.
 
> Lendl had McEnroe's number in 1981 and 1982. The reversal happened in 1983 and 1984. And then Lendl came back in 1985. McEnroe was no longer the same once he made the fatal mistake of semi-retitrment in 1986. He was a top player from 1979 to 1985 though. He was excellent in 1982 and 1985 even though he did not win slams.
 
McEnroe is my all time fave & the reason I got into tennis. I also like
Lendl, but he's well down the list.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 04 10:11AM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 12:08:46 PM UTC-5, Whisper wrote:
 
> > Lendl had McEnroe's number in 1981 and 1982. The reversal happened in 1983 and 1984. And then Lendl came back in 1985. McEnroe was no longer the same once he made the fatal mistake of semi-retitrment in 1986. He was a top player from 1979 to 1985 though. He was excellent in 1982 and 1985 even though he did not win slams.
 
> McEnroe is my all time fave & the reason I got into tennis. I also like
> Lendl,
No you dont.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 04 10:14AM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 12:07:31 PM UTC-5, Whisper wrote:
 
> > Anyone who saw this decade of tennis knows that, career wise, Lendl just out lasted him; his physicality wore him down... He was next gen fitness level and began to dominate JM mentally... he started to bully him around the court which is part of the emotional resentment that McEnroe felt for decades afterwards...
 
> > P
 
> Every tennis analyst I've read has McEnroe well above Lendl.
Links?
 
> Even Lendl
> himself admitted he was way behind Mac, Borg & Connors.
 
> Rst is a sheltered workshop.
 
I have found one list where Lendl is higher.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/tennis/10-best-men-s-tennis-players-of-all-time-1.10786667
 
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 04 10:20AM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 12:07:31 PM UTC-5, Whisper wrote:
 
> > Anyone who saw this decade of tennis knows that, career wise, Lendl just out lasted him; his physicality wore him down... He was next gen fitness level and began to dominate JM mentally... he started to bully him around the court which is part of the emotional resentment that McEnroe felt for decades afterwards...
 
> > P
 
> Every tennis analyst I've read has McEnroe well above Lendl.
 
Another one.
http://www.amiannoying.com/(S(vmb1wlme3zaolzzjx42yc0nf))/collection.aspx?collection=6276
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: May 04 11:56AM -0700

John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl head to head, according to the ATP:
 
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/ivan-lendl-vs-john-mcenroe/L018/M047
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 04 05:33AM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 9:54:22 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> It's not that important if it's a common achievement. Wawrinka only
> needs to win 1 more slam to join Fed/Rafa/Djoker in career slam club.
> Murray is a chance to do it too.
 
Sure, didn't you also told us a few years ago that Laver would not be GOAT because he only won 5 slams in open era even with CYGS? That was of course when Sampras was the slam record holder. With Federer now as the record holder the goal post have been shifted.
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: May 04 08:49AM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 2:38:07 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
> You honestly reckon Sampras was going all out during those 2 years when he didn't win a single tournament, you really reckon he had the same intensity as Fed does against the clowns in every single match?! Oh please, know you're a big Fedfan and so don't like Sampras by default, but you're just talking plain silly or didn't actually watch many Sampras matches.
 
Sampras had a massive sense of pride and competitive fire on a tennis court (as befitting his greatness)... he could also be sly but mainly asserted his power tennis behind his offensive tennis weaponry, the big serve, penetrating second offering and vaporizing forehand, especially on the run which he love to hit cross court BUT could deliver down the line to mess with players like Chang or Courier or Agassi who tired to 'sit on that shot'... he could play situational tennis when he had and had a very keen tactical awareness... in a way he was a lot like Federer, Sampras could miss a sitter of a volley but taking one off his shoe strings or almost cutting the ball in half to place an outrageous angled shot he seemed always capable of pulling off... his 'push volleys' deep to the corners were a signature and clearly better then Federer's (in terms of consistency)... once he had set a course at net (whatever pattern of net play he chose against an opponent - and he did have different schemes at net) he just would not be dissuaded... That was a key component of his mid-late career championship tennis... with Annacone (refining with rote sessions) bringing that to a fine knife edge... On serve he could be moody, intense and focused as he typically was, it was the dedication to his wide out second mixed in what some OUTRAGEOUS down the T-semi bullets that proved his championship metal and absolutely CONFOUNDED his opponents... because he could (stuck to it) at some of the most critical moments in a match, the surprise element often working in his favour as much as the technical excellent of the shot itself... When he was feeling tired, as he tended so often in his career, he played percentage tennis when receiving, which to the uncritical eye looked 'lazy' but that was where he was 'sly' as a competitive player... he was a master of energy calculation... he knew when to play all out and commit to defensive schemes and it could be at 'counter intuitive' times, which made 'reading' his game even more problematic... but there was a keen method to what seemed random and behind the master of that service motion, he build intricate patterns of what I once wrote about him as "give and take webbing of power and precision"... When Pete Sampras stepped on a tennis court he was there to win... he had a champion's heart and a legends mind for constructing the best tennis he was capable of on the day... and from that anchoring was born a overwhelming game of breathtaking variety WHICH HE DIDN'T always exhibit, but had at his command when necessary (puncturing back court power, avalanche serving omnipotence and slice and dice net game); he could beat the best with power, composure, internal drive and variety when necessary... a true titan of the game...
 
P
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 04 08:52AM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 7:33:02 AM UTC-5, John Liang wrote:
> > needs to win 1 more slam to join Fed/Rafa/Djoker in career slam club.
> > Murray is a chance to do it too.
 
> Sure, didn't you also told us a few years ago that Laver would not be GOAT because he only won 5 slams in open era even with CYGS? That was of course when Sampras was the slam record holder. With Federer now as the record holder the goal post have been shifted.
 
Yes Laver is just thrown in if you can't accept the currently touted GOAT as GOAT. If Laver is considered why not Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Gonzales and Rosewall?
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 04 06:17PM +0200

>> You honestly reckon Sampras was going all out during those 2 years when he didn't win a single tournament, you really reckon he had the same intensity as Fed does against the clowns in every single match?! Oh please, know you're a big Fedfan and so don't like Sampras by default, but you're just talking plain silly or didn't actually watch many Sampras matches.
 
> Sampras had a massive sense of pride and competitive fire on a tennis court (as befitting his greatness)... he could also be sly but mainly asserted his power tennis behind his offensive tennis weaponry, the big serve, penetrating second offering and vaporizing forehand, especially on the run which he love to hit cross court BUT could deliver down the line to mess with players like Chang or Courier or Agassi who tired to 'sit on that shot'... he could play situational tennis when he had and had a very keen tactical awareness... in a way he was a lot like Federer, Sampras could miss a sitter of a volley but taking one off his shoe strings or almost cutting the ball in half to place an outrageous angled shot he seemed always capable of pulling off... his 'push volleys' deep to the corners were a signature and clearly better then Federer's (in terms of consistency)... once he had set a course at net (whatever pattern of net play he chose against an opponent - and he did have different schemes at net) he just would not be dissuaded... That was a key component of his mid-late career championship tennis... with Annacone (refining with rote sessions) bringing that to a fine knife edge... On serve he could be moody, intense and focused as he typically was, it was the dedication to his wide out second mixed in what some OUTRAGEOUS down the T-semi bullets that proved his championship metal and absolutely CONFOUNDED his opponents... because he could (stuck to it) at some of the most critical moments in a match, the surprise element often working in his favour as much as the technical excellent of the shot itself... When he was feeling tired, as he tended so often in his career, he played percentage tennis when receiving, which to the uncritical eye looked 'lazy' but that was where he was 'sly' as a competitive player... he was a master of energy calculation... he knew when to play all out and commit to defensive schemes and it could be at 'counter intuitive' times, which made 'reading' his game even more problematic... but there was a keen method to what seemed random and behind the master of that service motion, he build intricate patterns of what I once wrote about him as "give and take webbing of power and precision"... When Pete Sampras stepped on a tennis court he was there to win... he had a champion's heart and a legends mind for constructing the best tennis he was capable of on the day... and from that anchoring was born a overwhelming game of breathtaking variety WHICH HE DIDN'T always exhibit, but had at his command when necessary (puncturing back court power, avalanche serving omnipotence and slice and dice net game); he could beat the best with power, composure, internal drive and variety when necessary... a true titan of the game...
 
> P
 
Great post.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 05 03:05AM +1000

On 4/05/2017 10:28 PM, John Liang wrote:
 
>> Sampras or McEnroe, at peak.
 
> McEnroe at peak, it only lasted for about a year. But he was dominated by Lendl in rest of his career, 7:3 in the slams. Sampras at peak was owned by everybody on clay, I don't think Laver was owned by anyone even on clay.
 
Laver, McEnroe & Sampras.
 
The 3 players in open era who qualify as 'best at best'.
 
Just about every serious tennis analyst agrees with this.
 
--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 04 10:20AM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 12:05:15 PM UTC-5, Whisper wrote:
 
> Laver, McEnroe & Sampras.
 
> The 3 players in open era who qualify as 'best at best'.
 
> Just about every serious tennis analyst agrees with this.
 
Links.
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: May 04 10:49AM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 1:05:15 PM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> Just about every serious tennis analyst agrees with this.
 
> --
> "A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"
 
Lose to Nishi 6-1,6-2,6-0!!!!!!!!
Lol
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: May 04 05:30AM -0700

Op woensdag 3 mei 2017 23:08:04 UTC+2 schreef Shakes:
 
> > It is understandable to lose some motivation after securing a record, which winning the 7th Wimbledon surely is. However he only had a six (or 7 at that time?) slam winner in Agassi, his bunny, to contend with so even with some loss of motivation, and injuries, could have won a few more.
 
> Why, oh, why did you re-start this thread ? Anyways ...
 
> By 2000, Sampras also had Hewitt and Safin to contend with on HC. They weren't too shabby opponents either.
 
True, but they are also generally overlooked as true rivals for Federer. Even though they were his true contemporaries. If not for Federer their careers would have been (far) more impressive; Fed stopped Hewitt from winning a few of majors, at least.
 
 
> > The situation is similar to Federer's case in 2012, when he won the seventh Wimbledon and experienced a subsequent 'let-down' of sorts but then continued gamely until he won his 18th slam some four years later. He had to contend with two 10 plus slam winners, one of whom was piling up slam wins just at that time. Federer is great, right ;)
 
> Yes, Fed is great; greater than Sampras. Fed's love for the game is unbelievable. His approach to the game (and also all that a professional tennis career entails) is not ridiculously intense or exhausting, and that helped him relax more through his career. The fact that he is so much popular and appreciated worldwide also goes a long way in helping him in his approach.
 
Good post. I do think Sampras' mindset and character go hand in hand. He was a single-minded guy, that didn't really enjoy the press. Fed otoh feels less of the burden of dealing with the press, but because of that he has taken a far bigger burden of that press on his shoulders over the years, compared to Sampras and (pretty much) everyone else for that matter. Maybe a bit too much, giving himself to little time to wind down/rest over the years.
 
I always felt Fed did a little too much non-tennis activities in his career, but definitely around 2007. Look at the exos with Sampras at the end of the super busy year, instead of the short vacation/down time before the next season. All this may have been responsible for his mono/illness, early 2008. Sampras otoh never exhausted himself to that degree, which would have hurt him if he did imo. He just focused on tennis and very little else.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: May 04 10:03AM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:30:53 AM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
> Op woensdag 3 mei 2017 23:08:04 UTC+2 schreef Shakes:
 
> > By 2000, Sampras also had Hewitt and Safin to contend with on HC. They weren't too shabby opponents either.
 
> True, but they are also generally overlooked as true rivals for Federer. Even though they were his true contemporaries. If not for Federer their careers would have been (far) more impressive; Fed stopped Hewitt from winning a few of majors, at least.
 
Well, I agree about Hewitt. Fed did instill some killing blows to Hewitt. Their rivalry was a lot like the Sampras-Chang rivalry, IMO. Safin was too much off and on kind of guy. IMO, late-2004 to 2005 was probably the only time he engaged Fed seriously. By 2007, he was finished for the most part. Surprisingly, he was nearly as much a slam-contemporary to Sampras (2000 USO F, 2001 USO SF, 2002 AO 4th rd) as he was to Fed (2004 AO, 2005 AO F, 2007 Wim, 2008 Wim).
 
> > Mentally speaking, Sampras had had enough by then (2000). He no longer enjoyed the tour grind that went into staying at #1. He definitely didn't like playing second fiddle to Agassi (Agassi took over the YE #1 in 1999), and yet didn't want to continue to work and stay at #1. His 1998 effort to stay #1 took a lot out of him in that respect. Sampras also always appeared to carry the feeling that he wasn't appreciated and liked/popular, and so that created a sort of mental approach where he was always burning to prove a point to everyone. I think that intensity/anger kind of burnt him out a little faster.
 
> > Yes, Fed is great; greater than Sampras. Fed's love for the game is unbelievable. His approach to the game (and also all that a professional tennis career entails) is not ridiculously intense or exhausting, and that helped him relax more through his career. The fact that he is so much popular and appreciated worldwide also goes a long way in helping him in his approach.
 
> Good post. I do think Sampras' mindset and character go hand in hand. He was a single-minded guy, that didn't really enjoy the press. Fed otoh feels less of the burden of dealing with the press, but because of that he has taken a far bigger burden of that press on his shoulders over the years, compared to Sampras and (pretty much) everyone else for that matter.
 
 
Actually I would put it differently. :) Fed enjoys being in the limelight while Sampras doesn't. So I don't believe Fed looks upon it as any kind of burden at all. He seems to enjoy it (both doing the off-court charity and the popularity that comes with it).
 
> Maybe a bit too much, giving himself to little time to wind down/rest over the years.
 
I think Fed did fine overall. He used to give himself two breaks during the year - post-season and one mid-year.
 
 
> I always felt Fed did a little too much non-tennis activities in his career, but definitely around 2007. Look at the exos with Sampras at the end of the super busy year, instead of the short vacation/down time before the next season. All this may have been responsible for his mono/illness, early 2008. Sampras otoh never exhausted himself to that degree, which would have hurt him if he did imo. He just focused on tennis and very little else.
 
Partly true, but then Sampras suffered a bit higher number of injuries through his career than Fed did. The 1999 back injury was definitely career changing.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 04 06:00AM -0700

I guessing with your technique and timing and this racquet you have serious serious bad tennis elbow! :O
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: May 04 08:14AM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 6:00:55 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
> I guessing with your technique and timing and this racquet you have serious serious bad tennis elbow! :O
 
With wood racquets (I grew up playing Wilson/Dunlop)the elbow had to be 'higher' at the point of contact when playing at the net (playing 'up' as we used to say)... because if the elbow was either extended or the inside of the elbow was too often facing skyward, you would absolutely 'f' up your elbow in no time... so there were much more 'push volleys' back then, directed into the corners or angled away because also of the weight of the racquets...
 
P
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 04 08:19AM -0500

> On 5/4/2017 6:59 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
> What happened when he lost to George Bastl?
 
Sampras's ranking fell from 13 to 16.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 03 06:25PM -0500

On 5/3/2017 11:06 AM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
 
> "I don't think you could have avoided the connections," Norris told the
> BBC.
 
> "In a play about totalitarianism you have to nod in that direction."
 
This Norris guy sounds like a self-important clown.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
acoustic@panix.com (lo yeeOn): May 03 09:26PM

Hillary's Lament
 
Even as her supporters around these newsgroups have already vocally
admitted that Trump won the presidency - which may or may not be a
good thing and which is all up to him to get his hands soaked in
innocent blood - Hillary continues to brood:
 
It's the men, it's the misogynists. Russian men ... bad!
 
Xi is a phony... (though not necessarily in so many words).
 
And for me to break the glass ceiling, there are bound to be
misogynists running amok and are bent on ruining my chance.
 
And afterall, "I had to defend the president's policies and expand
on them!"
 
It's all good for the ears of Christiane Amanpour except that she
still doesn't have the hindsight to see that may be she lost because
many *did* vote for a woman in 2016, just not with the name of Hillary
Clinton!
 
How could any progressive-minded person not vote for a woman who would
denounce violence? Except Hillary is one of those who sowed violence
and felt no remorse about it. Would a rational person vote for a
certain person simply because it is a she and she would be the first
of a kind? Apparently not, which has become an emperical fact in the
annals of American history.
 
lo yeeOn
 
Hillary Clinton joins the 'Trump resistance'
Anthony Zurcher
 
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39788317
 
The election may be over, with Donald Trump's presidency more than 100
days old, but Hillary Clinton isn't ready to let go.
 
In a brief but frank interview with foreign affairs reporter
Christiane Amanpour at the Women for Women International event in New
York City on Tuesday, Mrs Clinton said that she has conducted an
"excruciating analysis" of her failed presidential campaign as part of
a book she is writing.
 
What has she learned? While admitting that she made mistakes and that
her campaign had "challenges", "problems" and "shortfalls", she
pointed the finger at two men - FBI Director James Comey and Russian
President Vladimir Putin - as the proximate cause of her defeat.
 
"I was on the way to winning until the combination of Jim Comey's
letter on October 28 and Russian Wikileaks raised doubts in the minds
of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off," she
said. "The evidence for that intervening event is, I think,
compelling."
 
Mrs Clinton also noted that as the first woman to run for president as
a major party candidate, misogyny may have also been a factor in her
loss.
 
"It is real," Mrs Clinton said of discrimination against women. "It is
very much a part of the landscape politically, socially and
economically."
 
She said her election would have been "a really big deal" for women's
rights, sending a message around the world.
 
At one point, Amanpour joked that the president would likely take to
social media to respond to the former candidate's remarks .
 
"If he wants to tweet about me then I am happy to be the diversion
because we have lot of things to worry about," Mrs Clinton said.
 
By that evening, Mr Trump indeed offered his Twitter response, again
saying the Russia allegations were a Democratic attempt to avoid blame
for their defeat.
 
Other opponents of the former secretary of state will be quick to
point out that explaining away her campaign missteps as mere
challenges, problems and shortfalls gives short shrift to strategic
lapses that left her vulnerable to Mr Trump's economic populism,
allowing him to prevail in the decisive Rust Belt states of
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.
 
Mrs Clinton's apparent response, however, is that she had to defend Mr
Obama's presidential accomplishments and sell her pragmatic approach
as the way to improve American lives.
 
"That was not as exciting as saying throw it all out and start over
again, but it's how you make change in America - and lasting change
that would improve people's lives," she said.
 
When it came to foreign policy, Mrs Clinton shared some thoughts on
the "wicked problems" currently confronting Mr Trump.
 
She said the effort to end North Korea's nuclear weapons and ballistic
missile programmes requires a regional effort, with US positions
presented in critical negotiations and "not just thrown off in a tweet
some morning".
 
She also said she supported the recent US missile strike to punish the
Syrian government for its use of chemical weapons, although she says
she is not convinced it has made much of a difference.
 
"If all it was was a one-off effort," she said, "it's not going to
have much of a lasting effect."
 
Instead, Mrs Clinton is left trying to find her footing as an
ex-candidate with no electoral prizes on the horizon for the first
time since she emerged from her husband's political shadow. As her
numerous swipes at the current president reveal, however, she may find
an identity in opposition.
 
"I'm now back to being an activist citizen and part of the
resistance," she said toward the end of her interview, referencing the
label many of Mr Trump's liberal opponents have adopted.
 
Playing backseat driver to the Trump presidency isn't where Mrs
Clinton wanted to be, of course. It's not where, 10 days before last
November's election, she thought she'd be. And dealing with it, she
said, has been a "painful process".
 
If Mrs Clinton's psychological wounds never truly heal, she will
hardly be the first to endure such lasting damage, as an anecdote
recounted by political reporter Roger Simon reveals.
 
Shortly after his presidential defeat in 1984, Democratic nominee
Walter Mondale called George McGovern, who was beaten by Republican
Richard Nixon in 1972.
 
When does the pain stop, he asked. When did you wake up in the morning
and not feel like throwing up?
 
"I'll tell you when I get there," McGovern replied.
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