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

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 14 07:33AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 10:36:16 PM UTC-7, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> Nalbandian
> Soderling
> Safin
 
 
Yeah, the way Mecir would hold the ball and either give it more lift to buy, or flatten it out at the last second to attack, was just a joy to see.
 
I miss Safin too. He liked shagging more than tennis, and given his probable offers in that area,
don't blame him a bit.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 14 07:35AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 4:33:31 AM UTC-7, Federer Fanatic wrote:
 
> Early Fed versus Rios: https://youtu.be/aObTLmd8Y0E
 
> FF
 
 
Good find, FF. Tx
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jun 14 07:25AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 8:24:54 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> No man has ever won more Wimbledons than Sampras, & he was unbeatable in
> Wimbledon finals.
 
7 wins and 3 finals is better performance than 7 wins and 1 semi. And Sampras never made an 8th, 9th or 10th final.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 14 07:46AM -0500

On 6/14/2017 7:41 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
>> isn't in an insane asylum has Lendl tied with Nadal and ahead of Borg
>> and Sampras.
 
> If you come up with formula with rankings already set in mind, your formula is not just fake but also pointless.
 
There's truth in that, a decisive dose when we are considering things
that are factual, like natural phenomena, but concerning subjective
issues, if a formula produces a result that is so contrary to perceived
reality, there's a great chance it's a bad formula. Your fails the
giggle test, a fatal flaw.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 14 05:56AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:46:32 AM UTC-5, StephenJ wrote:
> that are factual, like natural phenomena, but concerning subjective
> issues, if a formula produces a result that is so contrary to perceived
> reality, there's a great chance it's a bad formula.
 
All rankings and lists whether it comes to sports, movies or music are subjective
 
> Your fails the
> giggle test, a fatal flaw.
 
They all fail unless you happen to agree with them. Better to have a list which is more thought provoking than the one which is pandering to the masses. We already have Rolling Stone, VH1, E-Weekly, Tennis Magazine etc making lists pandering to the masses
 
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 14 02:34PM +0200

> Nadal, McEnroe and Lendl - 15
> Borg and Sampras - 14
> Connors - 11
 
Sampras won two ITF YEC titles so he's at 16.
 
If you, alongside ATP YEC, include WCT YEC there's no sense not to
include far more prestigious ITF YEC.
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 14 02:36PM +0200


> Sampras won two ITF YEC titles so he's at 16.
 
> If you, alongside ATP YEC, include WCT YEC there's no sense not to
> include far more prestigious ITF YEC.
 
 
 
That is 21.
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 14 02:45PM +0200

>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
> If you come up with formula with rankings already set in mind, your formula is not just fake but also pointless.
 
> I have the best formula - pick 7 years with the best win-loss% for all the players. Include only 5 slam winners in the list. It is the fairest formula of them all
 
It's stipid formula. Why 7.
You can't explain that.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 14 06:04AM -0700

Why not 7. It's an awesome number. You develop the 7 year itch after the 7 year. Besides Borg, MCenore and Wilander flaked out before the 8th full year on tour.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 14 08:19AM -0500

On 6/14/2017 7:56 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
>> issues, if a formula produces a result that is so contrary to perceived
>> reality, there's a great chance it's a bad formula.
 
> All rankings and lists whether it comes to sports, movies or music are subjective
 
No shit Sherlock.
 
>> Your fails the
>> giggle test, a fatal flaw.
 
> They all fail unless you happen to agree with them.
 
Even though these lists are subjective, there's an inter-subjective
reality that exists that goes beyond our personal opinion. E.g., while
it's factually the case that if I claim that Jack Sock has been a
greater player than Nadal, nobody can prove me wrong, it is also true
that the vast consensus in the tennis community thinks that is a stupid
idea, and me continuing to point out that nobody can prove me wrong and
that it's "all just opinion" won't change any minds either and I will
get laughed at and everyone else will go on thinking Nadal greater
anyway. IOW's, I will be in an echo chamber of one.
 
Your formula isn't quite that bad but it is similar, as nobody does nor
will regard Lendl as equal to Nadal and greater than Borg and Sampras.
It fails the giggle test.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 14 06:20AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 8:01:02 AM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
 
> > If you, alongside ATP YEC, include WCT YEC there's no sense not to
> > include far more prestigious ITF YEC.
 
> That is 21.
 
What the hell is ITF YEC? Do you mean Grand Slam Cup - a tournament which lasted only 9 years?
 
"The Cup was not recognized by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) for the course of its run, and participants did not receive points in the ATP computer rankings nor have it credited as an official career title. "
 
No one considered it official. ATP and WCT YEC were considered official year-ending championships.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jun 14 06:22AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 9:05:42 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> realistic comparison between past greats & today's stars I post the
> below list (still not perfect as today's top guys have it easier with
> uniformity of surface speeds etc, but it's helpful);
 
If we go by Whisper's early claim that USO and Wimbledon are the bluest of blue chip grand slams then here is a a list.
 
Federer 12
Sampras 12
Mac 7
Connors 7
Djoker 5
Borg 5
Edberg 4
Becker 4
Nadal 4
Lendl 3
Murray 3
Wilander 1
 
 
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 14 06:25AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 8:19:41 AM UTC-5, StephenJ wrote:
> reality that exists that goes beyond our personal opinion. E.g., while
> it's factually the case that if I claim that Jack Sock has been a
> greater player than Nadal,
 
There are no greatest lists with Jack Sock in it... so you can relax.
 
> that it's "all just opinion" won't change any minds either and I will
> get laughed at and everyone else will go on thinking Nadal greater
> anyway. IOW's, I will be in an echo chamber of one.
 
Galileo was laughed at as well... and executed as well.
 
 
> Your formula isn't quite that bad but it is similar
Similar to what? I have yet to see a list in which win-loss from 7 best years are considered.
 
>, as nobody does nor
> will regard Lendl as equal to Nadal and greater than Borg and Sampras.
 
Oh you are talking about adding YEC and slams... no I am not serious about that. I am just saying it is far better than discounting AO.
 
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 14 03:29PM +0200


> What the hell is ITF YEC? Do you mean Grand Slam Cup - a tournament which lasted only 9 years?
 
> "The Cup was not recognized by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) for the course of its run, and participants did not receive points in the ATP computer rankings nor have it credited as an official career title. "
 
> No one considered it official. ATP and WCT YEC were considered official year-ending championships.
 
 
How many points ATP YEC gave in the 80s?
 
And you're suggesting that some yec where you qualify by
accumulating points won in e.g. Houston is more prestigious than
YEC where you qualify by winning pts in grand slam
events?
 
lol
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 14 06:39AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 8:30:02 AM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
> YEC where you qualify by winning pts in grand slam
> events?
 
> lol
 
WCT and ATP YEC had ranking points. and were considered far more prestigious than say AO in the early 80s. You qualify for Wimbly also by winning small tournaments.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 14 06:47AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 8:22:56 AM UTC-5, John Liang wrote:
> Lendl 3
> Murray 3
> Wilander 1
 
So basically he is saying Federer is thrice better than Nadal ;-)
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 14 04:56PM +0300

Whisper kirjoitti 14.6.2017 klo 14:05:
> Federer 13
> Sampras 12
> Borg 11
 
Well it's bullshit but got the order right.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 14 05:04PM +0300

soccerfan777 kirjoitti 14.6.2017 klo 15:04:
> Only a class a douchebag will consider removing Australian Open from any stats.
 
It actually makes sense... why should hard court have two slams when
clay and grass have only one.
 
Thinking about it, this is the only simple and fair way to count slams.
Well done Whisper.
 
Other, even better option, would be to sum USO+AO and divide by two.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 14 05:07PM +0300

TT kirjoitti 14.6.2017 klo 16:56:
>> Sampras 12
>> Borg 11
 
> Well it's bullshit but got the order right.
 
So maybe it's not bs after all...
 
Why are there two HC slams anyway. No glory playing on parking lot.
 
Like grass and clay - just count one!
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jun 14 07:15AM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 12:07:30 AM UTC+10, TT wrote:
 
> So maybe it's not bs after all...
 
> Why are there two HC slams anyway. No glory playing on parking lot.
 
> Like grass and clay - just count one!
 
Maybe they should have an indoor grand slam on carpet. That would not be very good for Nadal, he won about 25% of his match on carpet
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 14 05:25PM +0300

John Liang kirjoitti 14.6.2017 klo 17:15:
 
>> Why are there two HC slams anyway. No glory playing on parking lot.
 
>> Like grass and clay - just count one!
 
> Maybe they should have an indoor grand slam on carpet. That would not be very good for Nadal, he won about 25% of his match on carpet
 
Rafa was 5.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 14 07:21AM -0700

A reminder: Federer is *Thirty-Five*.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 14 07:51AM -0500

Mildly recommended. No, it's not as good as the 1952 semi-classic, and
it has its flaws, but nevertheless it has its attractive qualities.
Namely, Rachel Weisz who is always fetchingly attractive, and gives a
subtle, engaging performance to boot. The flaws are that the boy who
plays opposite is no match for her in any way, he sucks the life out of
the film, hard to watch if one recalls Richard Burton's far better
performance. Still, the story itself moves along nicely and the film is
beautiful to watch, and at 1:30 minutes its over before you can tire of it.
 
B
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 14 04:24PM +0300

stephenJ kirjoitti 14.6.2017 klo 15:51:
> Mildly recommended. No, it's not as good as the 1952 semi-classic
 
The original is a real classic...
 
Obviously de Havilland and Burton are almost impossible to match - not
to mention the magnificent moody b/w cinematography. Completely needless
remake.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 14 06:01AM -0700

I have also liked players with power, precision and grace - Graf being a prime example. Mecir, Rios, Ramesh Krishnan, Kaarsten Braasch etc fail the power test. Too many feathery poofters out there who don't win squat. You can feel amused by them, but can't really look up to them. If you want fairy tennis go back to the 1880s
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