Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 24 updates in 10 topics

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 13 08:42AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 10:59:04 AM UTC-4, John Liang wrote:
 
> > --
 
> > ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> > http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
N
 
 
 
18 >>15>14!!!!!!!!!
LOL
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 13 09:16AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 3:27:34 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> No baaaaab, you don't care about Nadal. You just luuuuv Sampras, MCenroe and Whisper
 
 
it's always and only LimpyLuv for bnb
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 13 12:22PM -0500

On 6/11/2017 1:57 PM, bob wrote:
 
>> But according to *skriptis' new system, Pete has a fat 0...
 
> pete has 14 slams, 7 wimbledons. earned during a day when slams were
> scarce. nothing to worry about.
 
Maybe not for you, since none of those 14 slams were yours, LOL. But
Pete's ultimate goal was to beat history, and become GOAT. In his time,
he just about achieved that. I'd bet that circa 2004, Sampras would have
gotten more GOAT votes than anyone, with Laver picking up the balance.
 
But, Pete didn't just want to beat history, he wanted to then reign as
GOAT for as long as possible. I bet he probably expected to die a very
old man and still have the slam record, and thus GOAT status.
 
To lose both within a decade of retirement must have been a very bitter
pill, and Nadal pushing him into 3rd on the Open Era GOAT list adds salt
to the wound.
 
In the end, for all he accomplished, Pete failed. He wanted to be, right
now, in 2017, regarded as the greatest tennis player ever, and he isn't,
and never will be again.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 13 10:58AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 1:22:08 PM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
Probabably hearing Novak's footsteps, Doppler effect?
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 13 11:27AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 7:59:04 AM UTC-7, John Liang wrote:
> > 1 stat open era.
 
> Well, his record at Wimbledon is behind Federer right now, he is marginally ahead of Federer at USO, he still has YE No.1 record but is behind Federer in term of weeks at NO.1. Combine them all he is behind Federer.
 
> > Some irrelevance. LOL
 
Hardly. Pete Sampras was a great champion and a legend of tennis. Nothing about him has changed in that sense. It's quite disingenuous or foolish to imply Sampras isn't still considered a legend, one of the all time greats in tennis.
 
P
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 13 08:07PM +0200


> In the end, for all he accomplished, Pete failed. He wanted to be, right
> now, in 2017, regarded as the greatest tennis player ever, and he isn't,
> and never will be again.
 
 
That's too harsh.
 
I see two problems with Sampras. He didn't understand history.
 
It's obvious he was complacent after winning 7th Wimbledon, but he
shouldn't have been as he didn't own record. He shared it with
Renshaw. Now both of them share it with Federer.

 
 
Second, 14 slams is big, but it's unrealistic to think it was a
strong record. If he felt it, he was again, ignorant.

 
You just needed to take a look at former greats, their careers and
many slams they've missed during their careers. From Tilden,
Laver, Borg, you name it.
 
 
But his Wimbledon, US Open, number 1 record is still the strongest
one. At worst he shares top spot.
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 13 02:06PM -0500

On 6/13/2017 1:07 PM, *skriptis wrote:
>> and never will be again.
 
> That's too harsh.
 
> I see two problems with Sampras. He didn't understand history.
 
I think he did, but let's see ...
 
> It's obvious he was complacent after winning 7th Wimbledon, but he
> shouldn't have been as he didn't own record. He shared it with
> Renshaw. Now both of them share it with Federer.
 
Serena is kind of a victim of something, racism maybe? Or maybe just the
belief that she can do it? But whatever, Margaret Court's record of 24
slams was basically NEVER mentioned during the 20 years when Graf had
22. Graf was always talked about as the slam record holder, stuff that
happened before the Open era just wasn't considered valid, even though
IMO it should have been. Now that Serena has passed Graf, Court for some
mysterious reason has gotten mentioned for her 24 a lot more than she
used to. It's almost as if for some, the goalposts have suddenly moved.
And this has come at a time when Court's reputation is at a low ebb
because of her strident anti-gay rhetoric in recent years. Go figure?
 
Point is: Pete had every reason to ignore Renshaw, because everyone else
did too. Nobody regarded Ws won in the 1880s as valid to compare with
open era achievements. And nobody does now, either. Sampras is regarded
as sharing the record with Fed, not Renshaw.
 
> Second, 14 slams is big, but it's unrealistic to think it was a
> strong record. If he felt it, he was again, ignorant.
 
I don't blame Pete for stopping at 14. First, in 2002, 14 was an immense
number. Nobody else had won more than 11, and that had happened 21 years
earlier. After that, nobody had topped 8. To win 14 slams wasn't just
barely creeping past, it was lapping the field.
 
Second, IMO, he won all the slams he could, so if there's any basis for
not being bitter, it's just that - he won all he could. From 2000-2002,
when he wasn't winning anything, Pete had a very consistent answer for
why he kept playing. It was always that he felt he had "one slam left in
me". Not two or three or four, one. And he did.
 
It just turned out not to be good enough. He should have stuck around
longer, focused more on winning more.
 
> But his Wimbledon, US Open, number 1 record is still the strongest
> one. At worst he shares top spot.
 
But sadly, W and USO and #1 doesn't add up to GOAT.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 13 07:12PM +0200

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/golden-state-warr
iors-decline-white-house-visit-donald-trump-nba-champions-a7787706.html
 
 
The 2017 NBA Champions Golden State Warriors unanimously decided
as a team not to meet Donald Trump in the White House, as is
custom for winning teams.
 
The Warriors beat the Cleveland Cavaliers 129-120 to seal the
hard-fought series 4-1.
 
It is the second championship for the California team in three
years, and the third consecutive NBA finals series between the
two teams.
 
The Warriors attended the White House ceremony in their honour
when they won the championship in 2015 while former President
Barack Obama was in office. The Cavaliers did the same last
year.
 
 
 
Surprised that a bunch of blacks (as all basketball teams are) go
to suck black president's dick but refuse to meet president
Trump?
 
Make no mistake, bottom line, that's what's all about here.
 
 
Surely you don't think overpaid athletes who order prostitutes
every weekend care about "treating women" or global warming
issues, stuff that Trump was controversial about?
 
 
It's a division, like bob noticed.
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 13 10:55AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
 
> --
 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
 
 
Jays us, wtf are you on about?
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 13 11:29AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 10:30:03 AM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
> every weekend care about "treating women" or global warming
> issues, stuff that Trump was controversial about?
 
> It's a division, like bob noticed.
 
Perhaps just collective 'disgust' with the President of the United States.
 
:)
 
P
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 13 11:53AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 11:29:56 AM UTC-7, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
 
 
> Perhaps just collective 'disgust' with the President of the United States.
 
> :)
 
> P
 
 
I guess some, many, most even, like their Grifters smooth, like the Obama/ Clanton Krewe.
 
For me, at this late time, President Trump is *just perfect*.
 
 
 
Bernie Sanders/Nina Turner 2020
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 13 11:58AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
 
> --
 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
I'm not sure it's racist to not want to meet with a racist.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 13 08:33PM +0200


>> It's a division, like bob noticed.
 
> Perhaps just collective 'disgust' with the President of the United States.
 
> :)
 
 
Normal people have more disgust with bunch of illiterate athletes
stirring division in a society.
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 13 11:29AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 11:14:57 AM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> reliance on a spurious notion of the "popular will" has left Britain
> with no clear notion of who "the people" are and what they really want.
 
> http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/06/10/britain-the-end-of-a-fantasy/
 
The Conservatives received 42.4 % of the vote.
Last time they were better was in 1979.
 
Same media who still whine about Hillary winning the popular vote don't mention that fact.
What might be the reason?
 
 
Max
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 13 11:26AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 4:56:42 AM UTC+2, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> http://changingminds.org/explanations/personality/disorders/narcis
> sistic_personality.htm
 
Obama?
Or the orange clown?
 
 
Max
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 13 11:23AM -0700

Should be a good first round. Go Fed!
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 13 09:27AM -0700

I mainly know their late 60s-early 70s stuff, which I've had on old LPs, and just got a remaster CD of
Let it Bleed. Forgot how great there guys were/are! I'm deciding whether to get Sticky Fingers or Beggar's
Banquet next, and leaning toward the latter, though I wanna hear that opening riff from 'Hear Me Knockin'
soon. :)
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 13 11:22AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 9:27:52 AM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
> Let it Bleed. Forgot how great there guys were/are! I'm deciding whether to get Sticky Fingers or Beggar's
> Banquet next, and leaning toward the latter, though I wanna hear that opening riff from 'Hear Me Knockin'
> soon. :)
 
I saw them in 1980 and I remember thinking they were 'old' then... :)
 
P
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 12 09:09PM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 9:05:32 PM UTC-7, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> >> Cool. Hope it helps Stan. Love to see him win W.
 
> > No, Fed will beat him in the fifth 13-11 for his eigth! In the dark?!
 
> Yes in the dark with sunglasses! :)
 
Federer should start eating lots of carrots now just in case.
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jun 13 12:37PM -0400

On 6/11/2017 11:15 PM, Gracchus wrote:
>>> I think I would have a better chance of being the next Pope ...
 
>> That would be great ! :)
 
> There's already been a Polish pope.
 
Wearing a bra? :)
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 13 09:01AM -0700

Nice documentation here- thanks Ms. Johnstone:
 
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-big-fat-compendium-of-russiagate-debunkery-4278a753a3af
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 13 09:03AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 9:01:17 AM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
> Nice documentation here- thanks Ms. Johnstone:
 
> https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-big-fat-compendium-of-russiagate-debunkery-4278a753a3af
 
 
Again forgot to mark this 'OT'. My mistake.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 13 08:45AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 7:52:20 AM UTC-7, John Liang wrote:
> On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 10:16:43 PM UTC+10, The Iceberg wrote:
> > Yes it quite funny/wrong how Fed is there, but Whisper has long said unfortunately it wasn't designed to take into account the clown era or Fed taking advantage when the better players weren't around.
 
> Did 7543 take into account of Piolines, Martins and Washingtons during Sampras era ? If the 'better' players could not make the final then they were not exactly 'better' player for that tournament and in that particular year.
 
 
When looking at some stuff on Marcelo Rios (fantastic!) I came across an interesting result: Agassi beating multi-Major finalist Pioline 6-0, 6-0 in a Super 9.
 
Very tough era, that.
 
;)
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 13 09:38PM +1000

On 13/06/2017 3:11 AM, TT wrote:
> better than his 2008 RG at 60,7%.
 
> This RG was Rafa's second most dominating clay event ever; below 2010 MC
> where he won a whopping 63,7% of all points.
 
Much more impressive to do it in a slam.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
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