Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 12 topics

Thursday, May 18, 2017

bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 05:52PM -0400

On Thu, 18 May 2017 10:07:33 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>> Trump — calling him "nothing but a bulls—ter," People magazine reported
>> Wednesday.
 
>I saw the topic and expected this post was another one about Whisper.
 
who woulda thought it was about obama? :-)
 
bob
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: May 18 02:39PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:12:58 AM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
> Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 00:55:59 UTC+2 schreef Shakes:
 
> > Good points overall but why the insistence on the "darkness of the night" in all the Wim posts ? The conditions were the same for both players.
 
> Yes, but less than ideal playing conditions generally favour the more defensive player. Fed's early shotmaking/returning suffers more in bad light than Rafa's retrieving, don't you think?
 
I look at it this way. Everything starts off with the serve. I believe it's more difficult to return Fed's serve than Nadal's serve because of the obvious reason that Fed has quite a bigger serve than Nadal. The difficulty is compounded when you are receiving in the dark. So I would think Nadal was at more of a disadvantage in the dark, relatively speaking.
 
Further, if playing further from behind the baseline is an advantage in the dark wouldn't Fed have done the same ?
 
> In fading light it becomes more of a toss up, while Fed was slowly becoming the better player in that match. Say, what if the 2000 Wimbledon final was played an hour later and Sampras lost to Rafter in the dark. You might think there was an asterisk next to the win then?
 
No, I wouldn't have put any asterisk if Rafter had won the 2000 Wim F in the dark.
 
Look, my point is the conditions were the same for both the players. So I don't see why any asterisk has to be assigned to Nadal's gutsy win.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 18 02:52PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:39:02 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
 
> Look, my point is the conditions were the same for both the players. So I don't see why any asterisk has to be assigned to Nadal's gutsy win.
 
Shakes, it doesn't matter whether conditions are the same for both if one player has the physical disadvantage of poor night vision. Quite different than McEnroe just being a crappy wind player for example. There's a good reason that matches that extend to dusk are suspended due to darkness. But at that match, officials probably just didn't want the logistical hassles of splitting a final over two days, so they made a shady call (so to speak). End result might have been the same or different, but we'll never know. Such a shame to taint a classic.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 05:42PM -0400


>> We have 4 in a 17 year stretch. As Mikko pointed out, Edberg was 'close' as well.
 
>You can't lump Agassi in with F/N/D ... that's "stretching" things way
>past the breaking point. Andre stands alone, he's on island by himself.
 
of course it is, but people stretch things to no end in RST.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 05:43PM -0400

On Mon, 15 May 2017 16:22:30 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
 
>> Laver CYGS in 1969, Agassi CGS in 1999, Fed in 2009, Nadal in 2010, Djok in 2016.
 
>> Personally, I would say it's clear that winning the CGS has gotten easier relatively, but if you think you need to see Murray or Wawrinka also complete it before you are convinced, sure.
 
>Yes, I would like to revisit the topic if and when Murray and Stan complete it.
 
we don't need stand to complete it, but that would just make it gawdy.
as of now, it's clear.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 05:44PM -0400

On Mon, 15 May 2017 16:32:26 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
 
>> > Yes, I would like to revisit the topic if and when Murray and Stan complete it.
 
>> And the reason why you are not convinced ? :)
 
>No disrespect meant to Agassi, but what Agassi could do well, I think Federer and Nadal could equally. Perhaps Djok as well.
 
agassi won 1 FO and 1 Wim. but IMO put nadal VS agassi anywhere but
clay and he'd very possibly be in for trouble - agassi taking it off
the short hop.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 05:46PM -0400

>about the 'decline' of tennis, if you are a top player, you quickly,
>very early in your career, get very rich, so then the money doesn't
>matter as much.
 
tomic, a guy who's won nothing, said so few yrs ago.
 
bob
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: May 18 12:49PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 3:20:54 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
 
> TT is overstating it, but I think we all agree Rafa is the standout
> goat/boat on a surface no? Who has ever dominated a surface to the
> extent Rafa has on clay?
 
Usually when people do it you call it a soft era...
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 18 01:43PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 10:19:12 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:

> I wasn't responding to you. You're one the few quality analysts in rst
> I find hard to argue with.
 
What's your angle here? *suspicious* ;)
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 18 01:45PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:43:47 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> Translation: "Here are my testes. I'll put them in your care if you promise not to squeeze."
 
A situation you are quite accustomed to no doubt! ;)
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 18 02:24PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 1:45:54 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:43:47 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > Translation: "Here are my testes. I'll put them in your care if you promise not to squeeze."
 
> A situation you are quite accustomed to no doubt! ;)
 
If she's really pretty, I don't even mind the squeeze.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: May 18 02:43PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:24:58 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > > Translation: "Here are my testes. I'll put them in your care if you promise not to squeeze."
 
> > A situation you are quite accustomed to no doubt! ;)
 
> If she's really pretty, I don't even mind the squeeze.
 
LOL !! Good comeback ! :)
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 05:41PM -0400

On Mon, 15 May 2017 16:26:40 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.com>
wrote:
 
 
>> absolutely not. you can't compare raw dollars as time goes by. why not
>> compare raw defense budget $$ to WWII era? it's irrelevant.
 
>NIH/GDP is not the same as NIH/(the value of dollar).
 
compared to the GDP or value of a dollar, you certainly can.
 
> You should have
>come up with the latter in the first place, if that's what you want to
>argue with.
 
um, my VERY FIRST post on this topic said relative to GDP. you started
the long argument after.
 
>Obama's budget in 2016 is discounted into 2009 dollar value then you use
>the same measure in 5-8 years time to measure Trump's progress: discount
>the 2022 numbers to 2016 value and compare.
 
? i'm not saying trump didn't want to cut it more than obama, i said
why single out ONLY TRUMP in terms of cutting NIH funding when in real
$$ terms, obama did the same over 8 long yrs?
 
it's reeks of bias and favoritism, don't you see that??
 
 
>> because the media is a biased joke intent on discrediting 1 person
>> while letting another slide for the same offense.
 
>The "offenses" aren't the same.
 
they're both "offenses" though. yet you only mention 1, and you do it
in the context of your own sick millionaire baby whom it didn't affect
in any way.
 
if i were in the audience they would've had to throw me out, i tell
you.
 
>somebody at some point usually does a correction move.
>Polar Bears, intentional slashing of budgets, yes, they will be pinned
>on Mr Trump.
 
polar bears? you jest. humans decided polar bears didn't matter over
past 20 years, to which i say shame on humans.
 
>=> not much room to play with.
 
>2) Trump wanted to SLASH the budget. When there is no reason, apart from
>sheer "ideological" cynicism.
 
he wants to slash the overall gov't budget in general, something he
believes philosophically and promised his voters.
 
personally, i'm all for it, but i'd prefer he starts with defense.
which disappointingly, he didn't and i'm not in favor of his stance
there at all.
 
>will likely pan out worse for Trump than they did for Obama. Luckily, in
>five years, the goalposts will have been shifted, this will be
>forgotten, and another "metric" put in place.
 
quit defending a bullshit stance from kimmel. just criticize trump
fairly and move on.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 05:31PM -0400

On Mon, 15 May 2017 20:23:33 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>
wrote:
 
 
>> Perhaps we have different interpretations. A 'one-off' according to me is just that -- a single win on which conclusions should not be definitively drawn. Like Federer's FO title is a one-off and that a second title would clear any lingering doubts about his clay prowess. The same reasoning is why a second CGS is important.
 
>There are no lingering doubts. He's made 5 FO finals.
 
the debate in this thread is over, as federer skipped the FO ending
all doubt as to what's in his head. raspingdrive will probably still
argue it though.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 05:34PM -0400

>> career, by a long way.
 
>> When did he look worse than 2001?
 
>Never, but he still looked better than Fed, and the rankings confirm that.
 
then you're insinuating fed beating him was a lucky fluke or huge
upset. i don't believe it was, at that pt in time.
 
IMO if they played like i said al 7 rounds fed would win 4 or 5 of
them that year probably. sampras stunk IMO. plus, i'll repeat that
you're talking about a motivated kid playing an idol.
 
ranking really is meaningless in this context, so i'd recommend
another approach if you still really believe it.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 05:16PM -0400

On Sun, 14 May 2017 22:21:54 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
>> fascist rally in munich this summer.
 
>> bob
 
>Didn't you and Amy used to argue/debate a lot back then ? Or was that someone else ?
 
amy and i got along very well til the day i pointed out a few of
graf's flaws, in response to her picking at some of sampras' flaws.
 
she blew a gasket and never head from her since!
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 05:23PM -0400

On Tue, 16 May 2017 21:50:52 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>
wrote:
 
 
>> If he uses it here, then he uses it in his "real life" too.
 
>Can't recall ever using it in real life? Next time I have a meeting
>I'll throw it in & see if anyone bites.
 
lol
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 05:26PM -0400

On Mon, 15 May 2017 16:08:27 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>> is needed. When wisp said 'cowered' everyone knew what he meant so no
>> point mentioning it other than waste RST time/space.
 
>No disrespect to you. The finality with which you dismiss things that appear incorrect/inappropriate to you is disturbing. There are several others who may not share your view. Let them be.
 
you mean like how you dismissed me when i told you a week ago that fed
cared more for an 8th wimbledon than 2nd FO?
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 05:30PM -0400

On Tue, 16 May 2017 06:21:46 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>> will end, nothing wrong with cutting it off & moving on with something
>> more interesting.
 
>Nothing wrong if you move on saying you disagree. StephenJ's strategy is different, well explained by Gracchus. Not that I need to explain this to you, since I am sure you have read that post of Gracchus ('Another prime example' post). Your willful ignorance of SJ's seemingly willful obduracy in wanting to end arguments on his own terms is amusing.
 
stephenj is an excellent debater, however his viewpiont may be on the
opposite political spectrum from yours and many others in RST. can't
just dismiss a man's point of view cause it disagrees with yours w/out
giving any thought to the logic. you do that often.
 
bob
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: May 18 05:22PM -0400

https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-denie
s-telling-comey-back-off-bashes-fbi/story%3Fid%3D47486633
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
grif <griffin_230@hotmail.com>: May 18 10:02PM +0100

On 18/05/2017 18:02, Gracchus wrote:
 
>>> It's intentional neo-noir for sure. Kasdan understood the genre well enough to make it work. Some directors try it just thinking a voiceover or fedora will do the job.
 
>> Yeah, I think it was influenced by "Double Indemnity". Speaking of which, I understood that having Stanwyck wear a false wig was a deliberate decision, but it was too distracting and thought it diminished her allure. Really good film, otherwise.
 
> The background of its writing is interesting too. Billy Wilder and Raymond Chandler collaborated on adapting the screenplay from James Cain's story.
 
Yeah, the production notes for "Double Indemnity", from the writing to even the music, makes an engaging read.
 
You know, as an aside, when you disappeared from this ng, it occurred to me that you might have navigated your own "maze", that you managed to break free from the rst loop.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 18 02:18PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:02:05 PM UTC-7, grif wrote:
 
> > The background of its writing is interesting too. Billy Wilder and Raymond Chandler collaborated on adapting the screenplay from James Cain's story.
 
> Yeah, the production notes for "Double Indemnity", from the writing to even the music, makes an engaging read.
 
> You know, as an aside, when you disappeared from this ng, it occurred to me that you might have navigated your own "maze", that you managed to break free from the rst loop.
 
I came very close to it, but remembering all of you stuck in this torturous realm compelled my return. A final pep talk from the good doctor or one of his simulacra should do the trick with finality next time.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 05:14PM -0400

On Mon, 15 May 2017 05:59:39 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
 
>> > Highly unlikely Djoker stops both Fed and Nadal at this point. If he does he will immediately overtake Rafa and Sampras to #2 open era.
 
>> LOL
 
>First to complete the Double CGS. Would be very very impressive, showing he is a complete master on all surfaces.
 
seems that 8th Wimbledon far outweighs a 2nd FO in fed's mind. just
like he told us in january, just like i told you last week.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 05:11PM -0400

On Mon, 15 May 2017 05:29:13 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
 
>> i thought it a month ago...
 
>> bob
 
>I knew it after FO 2016, the CGS producing slam.
 
what were you telling me about fed's motivation to win FO this year?
 
i accept your apology in advance. like i said, quit being contrary
just cause it's me.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 05:08PM -0400

On Mon, 15 May 2017 21:07:01 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>
wrote:
 
 
>> ****
 
>> Which match is most important for Fed's legacy?
 
>7th Wimbledon obviously.
 
i think i'd have to agree with that one. huge for federer himself, and
his legacy.
 
bob
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