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

Monday, June 19, 2017

calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 19 03:50AM -0700

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 12:44:05 PM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
> The Russians hacked the news feeds!
 
OK, Icey baby, I got it.
At first I really thought you were on the same side as the conspiracy nutters like Carey, TennisGuy, RogerWasLucky ...
 
 
Max
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 09:50PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 3:42 AM, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> That's not as funny as you think.
 
> There was an explosion in the basement of WTC1 _before the first plane
> hit the tower.
 
It's much funnier actually. I can't believe people like you actually
exist & are part of the same species.
 
I'm 99.9% certain a brain scan would show large chunks of the left side
of the brain (controls logical and rational thinking) damaged/dead.
 
The logistics involved in pulling off a conspiracy on this grand scale
are just too great to seriously entertain. You guys fascinate me. No
offense.
 
Can you just imagine the thousands of people & operations that would
have to be involved, & absolutely everything would have to go to plan
with no room for fuck ups? And then all these people would have to
carry these secrets to the grave. Yet your brain tells you this is not
only possible (billions to 1), but highly probable. I have no words.
 
: )
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 09:51PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 4:15 AM, jdeluise wrote:
 
>> There was an explosion in the basement of WTC1 _before the first plane
>> hit the tower.
 
> Why before?
 
Someone fucked up?
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 09:55PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 5:14 AM, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> Try this...
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ADjXLS0jYc
 
This guy is hilarious. You can tell he's a conman & doesn't believe
anything he's saying.
 
Well, maybe not all of us can tell.
 
: )
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 10:19PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 11:16 AM, TennisGuy wrote:
> If you are _genuinely interested in knowing the answer, Google is your
> friend.
 
> It takes a few seconds to type in the question bob.
 
Please never change. People like you amaze me.
 
: )
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 19 08:21AM -0400


> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
 
Do you think insulting other people that have different opinion is
a civilized way to communicate and interact?
 
I'd say the only thing it reflects is the limited intellectual
driving to aggression.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 10:22PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 12:01 PM, bob wrote:
> stories is no better than believing 100% everything the gov't tells
> you. use some common sense.
 
> bob
 
A good friend of mine was fond of saying 'common sense is not very common'.
 
: )
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 10:19PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 11:05 AM, Court_1 wrote:
> On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 8:56:43 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
>> was a slam count the #1 factor for borg?
 
> Yes! Borg won 11 slams and McEnroe won 7. Borg is greater than McEnroe by the measure of every proper tennis analyst. Who would put McEnroe above Borg except for stupid fanatics?
 
Does Jimmy Connors count? He played peak Borg & Mac more than anybody,
& he said he'd pick Mac if he had to pick 1 guy to play for his life.
 
Maybe he's a 'stupid fanatic' compared to rst analysts who obviously
would know more than him?
 
: )
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 09:22PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 1:37 AM, Carey wrote:
 
>> .mikko
 
> Agreed. Maybe the most resoundingly stupid on-tennis topic at RST, and that's saying someting.
 
Why is it stupid? It's been a common theme discussed by tennis & sports
fans forever.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 09:29PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 2:13 AM, MBDunc wrote:
 
> The problem is not the concept/arguing itself but totally doubtless single-minded opinions which do not accept that <another name out of their comfort zone> might also have a valid case.
 
> .mikko
 
It may come across that way, but rest assured I have given these issues
a lot of thought & come to a conclusion.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 09:33PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 2:23 AM, Carey wrote:
 
> ... which is why I came up with FOAT, favorites of all time. Little interest shown, alas. ;)
 
FOAT is essentially what we're all arguing about. Some of us blur these
lines & confuse it with goat/boat.
 
eg Ramesh Krishnan is probably in my top 5 FOATs. In pure talent/wow
factor he's not far behind McEnroe, but I never promote him as a boat type.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 19 02:45PM +0300

On 19.6.2017 14:33, Whisper wrote:
>> interest shown, alas. ;)
 
> FOAT is essentially what we're all arguing about. One of us blur these
> lines & confuse it with goat/boat.
 
Fixed.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 19 02:48PM +0300

On 19.6.2017 14:22, Whisper wrote:
>> and that's saying someting.
 
> Why is it stupid? It's been a common theme discussed by tennis & sports
> fans forever.
 
I agree. Counting cups captures only one part of reality. The BOAT
concept fill is the gaps. The two are complementary.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 10:03PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 7:10 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> short against Fed's and Djoks' best. There's another loss to Djok at WTF
> and of course the Darcis loss. That's a strict violation of
 
> BOAT Rule #1: A BOAT must not suck.
 
That's too vague. You have to define 'suck'.
 
Imo a BOAT candidate would have a positively skewed slam h2h v all his
biggest rivals. Rafa fits this bill, Fed/Djoker/Murray fail.
 
A boat candidate would either win a calendar slam, or next best thing is
to win the 3 biggest slams (Wim/USO/FO) in 1 yr on 3 surfaces, grass,
hard & clay. Rafa ticks this criteria, Fed/Djoker/Murray do not.
 
Rafa has won the same same 10 times (& counting). Fed's best is 7,
Djoker's is 6. He is way ahead.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 10:11PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 9:39 AM, John Liang wrote:
 
>> ... which is why I came up with FOAT, favorites of all time. Little interest shown, alas. ;)
 
> Nadal would not be whisperbob's FOAT, they purely invented the term BOAT against one player Federer. Deep in their mind they tried to boost up Nadal as BOAT in this era to suit their argument that Federer can't be GOAT if he is not BOAT in his era, this is what it is all about. But what draw these three player close in competition is Nadal's dominance on clay otherwise his 5 wins in 12 finals on grass/HC does not hold up well against Federer's 17 out 23 and Djoker's 11 out of 16. It is a long stretch to consider Nadal as BOAT on non clay court surface even in this era.
 
Federer has only himself to blame. If he restricted his losses to Rafa
to clay you'd have a point.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 10:15PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 10:54 AM, bob wrote:
 
> i have 4 names as possibilites for BOAT in the open era. rafa, djok,
> fed, sampras. there are flaws for all, including our 18 time champ
> super hero.
 
I'd also throw Mac in there. He really was close to a calendar slam & 5
Wimbledons in a row before flaking out at age 25.
 
For this era I see Rafa as the cleat boat candidate, Sampras for the
previous era, Mac before that.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 10:16PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 10:55 AM, bob wrote:
>> and of course the Darcis loss. That's a strict violation of
 
>> BOAT Rule #1: A BOAT must not suck.
 
> can it blow?
 
Yes, but no swallowing.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jun 19 05:18AM -0700

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 10:04:04 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> That's too vague. You have to define 'suck'.
 
> Imo a BOAT candidate would have a positively skewed slam h2h v all his
> biggest rivals. Rafa fits this bill, Fed/Djoker/Murray fail.
 
NO, Nadal does not fit the bill. He dominating one surface where he built that huge h2h lead over fed/djok but when we move to non clay court slams, he is 1 win out of 4 against Fed/Djoker, that is hardly a boat like figure. Moving to USO he is slightly better 2/3, into AO he won 1 final out of 4 finals that is less than 25%. 2/3 is not that bad for BOAT consideration. But 2 wins out of 8 finals against your major rivals in two grand slam is not a BOAT like figure.
 
 
> A boat candidate would either win a calendar slam, or next best thing is
> to win the 3 biggest slams (Wim/USO/FO) in 1 yr on 3 surfaces, grass,
> hard & clay. Rafa ticks this criteria, Fed/Djoker/Murray do not.
 
BOAT should be able to defend non clay court slam that is a failure for Nadal, in fact he could not defend a single non clay court tournament is unfitting for anyone that want to claim to be BOAT.
 
> Rafa has won the same same 10 times (& counting). Fed's best is 7,
> Djoker's is 6. He is way ahead.
 
Only in 1 slam but trail in all other 3 slams.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 10:08PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 9:26 AM, Court_1 wrote:
 
>>> Rick Ocasek? A real freak, married a famous star?
 
>> Paulina Porizkova. Another fine bitch that "compromised." ;)
 
> Yes, Porizkova was one of the most beautiful supermodels of all time.
 
 
There are a lot of athletic young women 18-22 at my local gym/pool
center that look a lot better than any of these 'super' models - imho.
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 09:17PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 12:19 AM, SliceAndDice wrote:
 
> Hope he has his game face on right from the beginning.
 
> ---
 
 
 
 
How funny would it be if Fed loses 1st rd in all grass events this yr?
 
: )
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 09:35PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 2:42 AM, Guypers wrote:
 
>>> But I'd like to see him winning it :)
 
>> No, I did not assume that. I just want him to get some match play and find his Jan-April backhand. He will need it at Wimbledon.
 
> If Fed plays like AO17, will beat Rafa in 3!
 
Hmm, I was just thinking if Rafa plays with the same intensity as he did
in this FO final he's beating Fed anywhere anytime.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 09:38PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 2:48 AM, Carey wrote:
 
> I wanna see Fed and Nadal meet up again damn soon- Wimbledon or USO.
 
> Go Fed1
 
Both would be great. Amazing if Fed/Rafa sweep all the slams in 2017,
like they did in 2006/2007.
 
If I had to pick 1 I'd like them to finally meet at USO.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 09:39PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 2:54 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>> I wanna see Fed and Nadal meet up again damn soon- Wimbledon or USO.
 
> No I don't want see this, nadal still is the worst opponent Federer hopes to meet.
 
Yes, but if Fed wins it means so much more than beating a Bagditis type no?
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 19 10:06PM +1000

On 19/06/2017 8:54 AM, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> If Fed plays like AO17, will beat Rafa in 3!
 
> That's not going to happen. If Nadal is in good enough form and somehow manages to make it to Federer(assuming Federer makes it there himself) it will surely not be Federer in straights. It would be a fierce battle to the finish line with either player taking it. Let's be realistic.
 
If we're being realistic we should all accept Fed & Rafa played very
well at AO, but Rafa significantly upped the ante at FO. The way he
played FO was better than Fed/Rafa combined at AO imo.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 19 03:48AM -0700

http://www.iol.co.za/business-report/goldman-sachs-moving-its-staff-to-frankfurt-9858441
 
Brexit at work - Germany likes it more and more!
 
 
Max
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