Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 8 topics

Sunday, June 11, 2017

bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 11:34AM -0400

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:18:56 -0700 (PDT), PeteWasLucky
 
>He never thought he will be even in the second place.
 
perhaps. but as long as nobody surpasses 7 wimbledons i think he's
pretty happy with it.
 
bob
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 11 08:35AM -0700

On Sunday, 11 June 2017 16:32:56 UTC+1, John Liang wrote:
 
> > > I'm thinking Fed will be in second place within 3 yrs?
 
> > Fed is happy in 8th place in my system.
 
> And Sampras is top in your system if you count from the bottom.
 
let me guess, Fed is 1st 2nd and 3rd in your system.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jun 11 08:40AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 1:35:21 AM UTC+10, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> > > Fed is happy in 8th place in my system.
 
> > And Sampras is top in your system if you count from the bottom.
 
> let me guess, Fed is 1st 2nd and 3rd in your system.
 
I know he does not need a pizza or burger to get there ...
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 12 01:51AM +1000

On 12/06/2017 1:31 AM, John Liang wrote:
 
>> ... and within 5 years, maybe 3rd
 
> So you think Djoker will be able to win 7 more slams in the next few years. Let's say Djoker is able to get back some sort of form in the next year. He won 11 slams in 6 years during his peak years, that is just below 2 slam per year, how likely that he is going to win 2 slam from 2018 when he is close to 31 and for the next 3 years ?
 
Very unlikely. Let's see if he can get himself together & win 1 more
slam 1st.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 11 11:52AM -0400

On 6/11/2017 11:34 AM, bob wrote:
 
>> He never thought he will be even in the second place.
 
> perhaps. but as long as nobody surpasses 7 wimbledons i think he's
> pretty happy with it.
 
Nah, as valuable as W was to Sampras, his ultimate goal was GOAT, and
that's been gone for a while now. This just rubs more salt in.
Garvin Yee <drsmith004@gmail.com>: Jun 11 08:45AM -0700

On 6/11/2017 3:46 AM, DavidW wrote:
> led Fred Stolle at this FO to claim that the umpire had got it wrong a
> couple of times, _after_ inspecting the actual marks, because Hawkeye
> disagreed.
 
It's been an awesome influence.
 
It has a supposedly less than 4mm uncertainty, but that's still
a hell of a lot better than relying on the slow human eye!
 
It's needed at the French, because umpires and players routinely
pick the wrong smear mark that the ball supposedly made.
 
It has greatly reduced arguments during games, because although
not perfect, it's the best system humans have at the moment, and it's
unbiased.
 
 
>> it now!
 
> No, he doesn't. The computer cheated.
> http://www.smh.com.au/world/chess-master-garry-kasparov-still-a-sore-loser-two-decades-after-deep-blue-20170601-gwipie.html
 
Bullshit. Even Garry admits he is a sore loser! He was beaten
fair and square....he just couldn't admit it at the time. Just think
about it: What human could have advised Deep Blue on a better move,
playing the current world champion? No one, and an average desktop
computer of today could beat Magnus Carlsen.
 
 
 
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/34735015@N03/sets/72157623566520134/
 
http://fineartamerica.com/art/all/garvin+yee/all
 
https://www.facebook.com/garvin.yee.37
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 11 03:47PM

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:45:44 -0700, Garvin Yee wrote:
 
> It's needed at the French, because umpires and players routinely
> pick the wrong smear mark that the ball supposedly made.
 
But you don't know if they did or not... you're only surmising that
because the machine that may not have seen where the ball landed
"surmised" it based on lab conditions.
Garvin Yee <drsmith004@gmail.com>: Jun 11 08:51AM -0700

On 6/11/2017 4:56 AM, bob wrote:
 
> disagree. joe ramirez said it best, after a discussion about the
> physics and potential pitfalls of hawkeye: whether hawkeye is right or
> wrong, it's right enough to eliminate the arguments. +1 for hawkeye.
 
Agreed.
 
Hawkeye's decision is only debatable if the ball just clips the
line by less than 4mm or so. But it's clear the umpires and linesmen
can miss even when the ball very clearly lands directly on the line,
or misses the line by an inch or more.
 
 
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/34735015@N03/sets/72157623566520134/
 
http://fineartamerica.com/art/all/garvin+yee/all
 
https://www.facebook.com/garvin.yee.37
Bharath Purohit <acebharath@gmail.com>: Jun 11 08:34AM -0700

Come to india lets dance !!
 
 
VAMOOOSSSSS !!!
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 11:45AM -0400

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:34:11 -0700 (PDT), Bharath Purohit
 
>Come to india lets dance !!
>VAMOOOSSSSS !!!
 
TT's still wiping the tear drops give him a few mins.
 
bob
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 11 08:50AM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 8:45:15 AM UTC-7, bob wrote:
 
> >Come to india lets dance !!
> >VAMOOOSSSSS !!!
 
> TT's still wiping the tear drops give him a few mins.
 
Let's hope it's only teardrops.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 11 03:51PM

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:50:41 -0700, Gracchus wrote:
 
> Let's hope it's only teardrops.
 
heh heh heh :)
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 11 08:50AM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 5:43:57 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Turns out she needs a wild card for US open. Let's see whether USTA follows the FF lead. I highly doubt it
 
She will be at the USO.
 
P
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 11 08:48AM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 7:47:02 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> career.
 
> Can Stan make history?
 
> I'll be generous & give him 3% chance.
 
:))))))))
 
P
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 11 08:50AM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 10:47:02 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
 
Congrats to Nadal. Too good. Staggering accomplishment.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 12 01:47AM +1000

Federer 93
Sampras 80
Nadal 67
Borg 59
Tilden 56
Laver 55
Djokovic 53
Emerson 50
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 12 01:49AM +1000

On 12/06/2017 1:47 AM, Whisper wrote:
 
Fed is 7 short of the magical 100 - must be his destiny to win Wimbledon
& close out his career with a bang? Outright all time Wimbledon king &
1st centenarian in 7543 club.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Bharath Purohit <acebharath@gmail.com>: Jun 11 08:36AM -0700

START THAT SHIT NOW !!!
 
VAMOOSSSSSSS !!!
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 11 08:38AM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 8:36:15 AM UTC-7, Bharath Purohit wrote:
> START THAT SHIT NOW !!!
 
> VAMOOSSSSSSS !!!
 
You sure you want to bring the illusion crashing down already? Dustin Brown awaits.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 08:47AM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 8:38:46 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
> > START THAT SHIT NOW !!!
 
> > VAMOOSSSSSSS !!!
 
> You sure you want to bring the illusion crashing down already? Dustin Brown awaits.
 
 
 
Rosol for the two-fer!
Bharath Purohit <acebharath@gmail.com>: Jun 11 08:48AM -0700

FUCK OFF RETARDS !!!
 
VAMOSSSSS RAFAAAAAAA !!!
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jun 11 08:00AM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 10:58:01 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> They certainly were the best of their generation at peak.
> Unfortunately for Roger he looked 2nd fiddle to his main rival, & not
> just on clay. I agree if we ignore Rafa then Fed would be a good candidate.
 
If Nadal was your first fiddle then why he wasn't able to defend a single slam off clay, let's put it this way not even a single non clay court titles in his whole career. Federer as a second fiddle player defended Wimbledon 4 times and USO also 4 times. If Nadal was winning at will in non clay court slams then their difference at two of the bluest blue ribbon slam should not be more than 8.
 
 
> I kinda have McEnroe & Hoad in a special bubble. While they may be
> behind in sheer numbers, the quality of their peaks is considered by
> many (peers & experts) to be best ever stuff.
 
Mac had one year fluke in 1984 and wasn't able to repeat it. Hoad lost what 27 out of 36 and he is certainly not in the running in any GOAT or BOAT debate.
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 11 08:06AM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 6:28:01 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
 
You'd have to understand the concept of dynamical progression to understand why generations (governed and competitive within a set of principles and 'functions') manifest qualities of differentiation and nuance which allow for incremental movement against given norms. Applied to sports it means that to exact or manifest success (to win) each competitor re-adjusts and redesigns (according to their own ability horizons) competences and variation over time. Given that sports (especially pro sports) also manifests as a (conditional)hierarchy, the elites are constantly 'rivalled' and (to simplify things here) eventually overcome within the game structure (bounds of givenness of technique, strategy, application of elements (equipment) AND personal entropy as well as many other factors. Generations also overlap and create randomizing factors... and etc.
 
NOTE: Seldom are there clean breakages AND some generations are more resistant to on coming encroachments BECAUSE they themselves are so highly adaptable even over inordinant time periods (in fact that helps define them as beyond exceptional (champions); they are singularities (iconic greatness manifest) a AND BECAUSE they can recreate structures/factors for maintaining 'singularity' (another concept too complex to explain in full).
 
P
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 11 03:36PM

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:06:51 -0700, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
 
> technique, strategy, application of elements (equipment) AND personal
> entropy as well as many other factors. Generations also overlap and
> create randomizing factors... and etc.
 
Ah yes, the typical Kehoe gibberish employeed to mask the fact you seem
to lack even the most basic understanding of grammar, spelling or
sentence construction. My god, your editor must be a saint.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 11 03:40PM

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:36:43 +0000, jdeluise wrote:
 
 
> Ah yes, the typical Kehoe gibberish employeed to mask the fact you seem
> to lack even the most basic understanding of grammar, spelling or
> sentence construction. My god, your editor must be a saint.
 
Although it would have been more effective had I not misspelled
"employed" :)
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