Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 7 topics

Sunday, June 11, 2017

John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jun 11 03:01PM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 5:01:04 AM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
 
> > But according to *skriptis' new system, Pete has a fat 0...
 
> It's a surface versatility meter.
> --
 
So Sampras was as versatile as say Kafelnikov.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 11 03:09PM -0700

No, know you are still learning about tennis, but as usual, you've got it a bit wrong. Sampras was so Great he INVENTED the slam chase race, before him, Emmerson had the most slams and nobody called him the GOAT. Sampras could've got way more than 14, but retired after breaking the record and didn't even know he was playing for 2 years. Most importantly he got the 6 consecutive years record.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 11 03:09PM -0700

Surface king is another bullshit bogus stat invented by Whisper. Nadal has always been the better and greater player than Sampras.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jun 11 02:57PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 5:08:04 AM UTC-7, bob wrote:
 
> ok, that's fair enough.
 
> but since it's my yardstick, i get to judge. :-)
 
> bob
 
I vaguely recall your saying a few yrs ago that you don't mind a gracious winner and sore loser, or an arrogant winner and a gracious loser, but not an arrogant winner and a sore loser. :)
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 11 01:28PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:56:44 PM UTC+2, jdeluise wrote:
> > entire year or more. i liked him, but he wasn't cut out for the job.
 
> Sure... you liked him when he was vocally investigating Hillary, not so
> much when he was investigating your associates of your hero. Typical.
 
Comey let Hilary skate. For this alone he deserved to be fired.
Incredible that she isn't in prison. Could join a cell with the orange clown. Despicable persons both.
 
 
Max
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 04:44PM -0400

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:53:02 -0500, Federer Fanatic
>|
>| bob
 
>Exactly! Bunch of cowards ;-)
 
of the highest order.
 
>FF
 
>ps. Any truly great congressman/woman?
 
 
well there are 535 of them incl senate.
great? i'd have to think. i like bernie, maybe few more.
pathetic? many. warren, pelosi, schumer come to mind immediately.
 
bob\
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: Jun 11 04:05PM -0500

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 16:44:26 -0400, bob <bob@nospam.net> wrote:
| On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:53:02 -0500, Federer Fanatic
|<TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid> wrote:
|
|>On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:47:13 -0400, bob <bob@nospam.net> wrote:
|>| On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:01:14 -0700 (PDT), calimero377@gmx.de wrote:
|>|
|>|>On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 8:54:37 PM UTC+2, bob wrote:
|>|>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:56:46 GMT, jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote:
|>|>>
|>|>> >On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 11:09:24 -0400, StephenJ wrote:
|>|>> >
|>|>> >> That said, it obviously is a wrong situation when someone being
|>|>> >> investigated can order the investigator not to investigate them, or to
|>|>> >> stop investigating someone else because they fear the trail may lead
|>|>> >> back to them. Maybe we need Congress to set up a truly 'independent'
|>|>> >> agency to do this, but I'm not sure how that would work. Police
|>|>> >> departments have independent internal affairs sections to investigate
|>|>> >> police. But even special prosecutors can be indirectly fired by the
|>|>> >> President, as he can order his AG to fire them, like Nixon did in 1973.
|>|>> >
|>|>> >How about immediately beginning impeachment proceedings should a
|>|>> >president partake in such activities?
|>|>>
|>|>> how about immediately beginning impeachment proceedings should a
|>|>> president partake in eating ketchup on his steak, so long as we
|>|>> dislike this particular president?
|>|>>
|>|>
|>|>
|>|>No, better wait a little bit longer. At some point the orange clown will make an impeachable mistake.
|>|
|>| very possible. that's why i say, why all the BS about meaningless
|>| things that don't even exist, let alone can be proven?
|>|
|>|> When his favorability rates are around 30 percent Ryan should pull the trigger. Because then Trump's base is leaving him.
|>|
|>| he has no base in gov't. his base is his voters. and lots of his
|>| voters also vote for/against congress. they're worried for their own
|>| skin.
|>|
|>| bob
|>
|>
|>Exactly! Bunch of cowards ;-)
|
| of the highest order.
|
|>FF
|>
|>ps. Any truly great congressman/woman?
|
|
| well there are 535 of them incl senate.
| great? i'd have to think. i like bernie, maybe few more.
| pathetic? many. warren, pelosi, schumer come to mind immediately.
|
| bob\
 
Yes. Bernie is very honest. But his policies strike me as untenable in the short term unless US
pulls out of large military spending internationally? Seems like a really bad idea.
 
FF
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: Jun 11 04:06PM -0500

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 13:28:38 -0700 (PDT), calimero377@gmx.de <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:
| On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:56:44 PM UTC+2, jdeluise wrote:
|> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:48:28 -0400, bob wrote:
|>
|> > no, it's not. comey was slipping into the abyss over the course of an
|> > entire year or more. i liked him, but he wasn't cut out for the job.
|>
|> Sure... you liked him when he was vocally investigating Hillary, not so
|> much when he was investigating your associates of your hero. Typical.
|
| Comey let Hilary skate. For this alone he deserved to be fired.
| Incredible that she isn't in prison. Could join a cell with the orange clown. Despicable persons both.
|
|
| Max
 
 
Do you like Merkel? I.E., as a leader of modern Germany? She seems to enjoy her position of power.
 
FF
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 11 02:41PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 11:06:26 PM UTC+2, Federer Fanatic wrote:
> |
> | Max
 
> Do you like Merkel? I.E., as a leader of modern Germany? She seems to enjoy her position of power.
 
 
Yes, I like her. The best German (even european?) politician in a generation. Always voted for her (or for the Free Democrats if they were willing to form a coalition with her CDU party).
And no, she doesn't seem to enjoy her position. Typical Protestant.
 
Max
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 11 05:45PM -0400

On 6/11/2017 11:56 AM, jdeluise wrote:
>> President, as he can order his AG to fire them, like Nixon did in 1973.
 
> How about immediately beginning impeachment proceedings should a
> president partake in such activities?
 
The problem with that is impeachment is for a president who has
committed a crime, and as of now, it's not a crime.
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 11 05:49PM -0400

On 6/11/2017 1:05 PM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
 
>> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alan-dershowitz-history-precedent-and-james-comeys-opening-statement-show-that-trump-did-not-obstruct-justice/article/2625318
 
> Surely in order to pardon someone that person needs to have committed a
> crime or an act against the United States.
 
No, the President can pardon someone for crimes they may have committed,
even if they haven't yet been have been convicted or even charged.
DavidW <no@email.provided>: Jun 12 07:24AM +1000

On 12-Jun-17 6:00 AM, bob wrote:
>> tournament, but not Ostapenko and now she's gone straight to a slam for
>> her first one.
 
> got a bit of mcenroe in her.
 
Yeah, I like that one.
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 11 02:47PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 11:22:01 PM UTC+2, DavidW wrote:
> >> her first one.
 
> > got a bit of mcenroe in her.
 
> Yeah, I like that one.
 
 
I don't like people like that.
I prefer Steffi types. Cool on court, warm-hearted off court.
 
Max
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 02:10PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:03:24 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
 
> > No doubt that it will not be just the three guys you mentioned in the running of Wimbledon, Federer and Murray will also be in the running. For FO there is about two or three players that had genuine chance of winning but at Wimbledon there are more players capable of spoiling the day for higher ranked players.
 
> I think Kyrgios will make a move this yr.
 
> ---
 
Need less flash. More substance and consistency. Prove he can stay focused for a tournament and win it. But the money seems pretty good if he maintains status quo. Hopefully he has netted at least $250K out of his total earnings this year.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 01:02PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:30:02 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
> behind Federer.
 
> If you're 1111 slammer you have to accept that even 18 would put
> him ahead, due to better mix, not even mentioning h2h.
 
I would say Nadal would have a stronger case if his record ends up 2-10-3-3 vs. 1-13-2-2. But feel free to disagree. If Djokovic reaches 6-1-5-3, I think that's a stronger overall record than Nadal's 15.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 11 11:07PM +0300

bob kirjoitti 11.6.2017 klo 21:50:
 
> should rafa win a 3rd wimbledon, get to 17-18 count, plus with his OG
> and H2H, i could give a nod for GOAT. but that's not happening.
 
> bob
 
Silly GOAT talk...
 
Look, there are players who will be remembered from different things in
their careers...
 
Who anyone thinks 'GOAT' is, is irrelevant and changes every decade.
Nadal's record of 10 RG titles will be remembered forever.
 
As for Federer, I'm pretty sure his 7 Wimbledon titles record will hold
longer than slam record, which may not even hold to end of his career.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 01:09PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:58:17 PM UTC-7, Federer Fanatic wrote:
 
> A small one as the greatest clay courter stopped him. He'd have six FOs without Rafa.
> And Rafa has called Federer 2nd greatest clay courter.
 
> FF
 
But in a world w/o Nadal, there might be a player that slows him down elsewhere. Things might balance out that way.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 11 11:21PM +0300

bob kirjoitti 11.6.2017 klo 22:43:
> see him win another wimbledon, it would be huge toward legacy if
> he's chasing GOAT one day.
 
> bob
 
Even if Rafa wins a total of 20 slams there is absolutely zero chance
that the record will stay for very long. My point is: If a player who
was injured a lot can win 20 then surely someone else can win 25.
 
Or for Federer: If a player who was beaten by his main rival can win 20
then surely someone else can win 25...
 
Hence neither breaking the record will make them 'GOAT' in the long run.
Just in eyes of fanboys.
 
But what Rafa did today was historic. And the goddamn way he did it!
Incredibly strong performance.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 11 11:25PM +0300

jdeluise kirjoitti 11.6.2017 klo 22:47:
>> of diminishing returns if he only wins more on clay
 
> I remember Whisper saying each time Pete won another Wimbledon it counted
> infinitely more for his legacy.... no talk of diminishing returns...?
 
Well he was right, wasn't he?
 
What is Sampras remembered for now? Certainly he wouldn't be better
remembered or as legendary if he'd won a couple more AOs and couple less
Wimbledons...
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 01:27PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 1:21:24 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> Just in eyes of fanboys.
 
> But what Rafa did today was historic. And the goddamn way he did it!
> Incredibly strong performance.
 
God has constructed the perfect clay court player. There seem to be no areas for opponents to attack. If there were an exact clone, physically and mentally, would the matches between them ever end?
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 11 10:02PM +0200


> I remember Whisper saying each time Pete won another Wimbledon it counted
> infinitely more for his legacy.... no talk of diminishing returns...?
> Maybe you guys need to get on the same page?
 
Are you thick?
 
In terms or silverware it counts infinitely more. 7543 for you.
 
 
But in surface terms, winning your second FO gives you much more
than your 10th.
 
It's 100% increase vs 10%
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 11 10:05PM +0200


>> If you're 1111 slammer you have to accept that even 18 would put
>> him ahead, due to better mix, not even mentioning h2h.
 
> I would say Nadal would have a stronger case if his record ends up 2-10-3-3 vs. 1-13-2-2. But feel free to disagree. If Djokovic reaches 6-1-5-3, I think that's a stronger overall record than Nadal's 15.
 
Why would I disagree?
2-10-3-3 would give him 150 versatility pts.
1-13-2-2 he'd have 52 pts.
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 04:39PM -0400

>> of diminishing returns if he only wins more on clay
 
>I remember Whisper saying each time Pete won another Wimbledon it counted
>infinitely more for his legacy.... no talk of diminishing returns...?
 
there are never diminishing returns for wimbledon. everything else,
could be.
 
>Maybe you guys need to get on the same page?
 
i've been saying nobody ever trades a wimbleon for anything, going on
20 yrs in rst now.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 04:42PM -0400

>> and H2H, i could give a nod for GOAT. but that's not happening.
 
>> bob
 
>Silly GOAT talk...
 
yeah, probably.
 
>their careers...
>Who anyone thinks 'GOAT' is, is irrelevant and changes every decade.
>Nadal's record of 10 RG titles will be remembered forever.
 
i agree, he's the clay and RG king. for life.
 
>As for Federer, I'm pretty sure his 7 Wimbledon titles record will hold
>longer than slam record, which may not even hold to end of his career.
 
you're a lot more convinced that his 18 slams will be broken easily.
not me, i think it's here for many many yrs (if rafa doesn't catch
it).
 
bob
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: Jun 11 03:57PM -0500

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 13:09:00 -0700 (PDT), Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com> wrote:
| On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:58:17 PM UTC-7, Federer Fanatic wrote:
|> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 21:09:37 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
|> | Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
|> |> On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 10:30:03 AM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
|> |>> Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
|> |>> > On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:35:37 AM UTC-7, John Liang wrote:
|> |>> >> On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 2:30:03 AM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
|> |>> >> > Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
|> |>> >> > > On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:04:12 AM UTC-7, Bharath Purohit wrote:
|> |>> >> > >
|> |>> >> > >> Without any doubt.
|> |>> >> > >
|> |>> >> > >> 15 slams and a olympic gold in singles !!
|> |>> >> > >
|> |>> >> > > GOAT at French Open you mean. But each FO he wins underscores further how clay-heavy his resume is. This makes a full TWO-THIRDS of his slams on clay--the grinder's surface.
|> |>> >
|> |>> >> > Two thirds? Peanuts.
|> |>> >> > Federer's won 94% on non clay surfaces.
|> |>> >
|> |>> >> That is two surfaces and three different slams.
|> |>> >
|> |>> > Yes, and three slams that all count more than the FO. But skriptis already knew that. He was just being his usual arachnid self.
|> |>>
|> |>>
|> |>> Is 66% titles on one surface really worse than 94% of titles on
|> |>> two surfaces?
|> |>>
|> |>> If you want to talk about balance, honestly, Nadal is second best
|> |>> ever.
|> |>>
|> |>> So I don't get this "clay heavy resume".
|> |>>
|> |>>
|> |>> Federer has won
|> |>> 10 HC × 7 grass × 1 clay
|> |>> = 70 pts
|> |>>
|> |>> Nadal has won
|> |>> 10 clay × 3 HC × 2 grass
|> |>> = 60pts
|> |>>
|> |>> Another FO would push him to 66, while another Wimbledon would
|> |>> push him to 90, surpassing Federer.
|> |>>
|> |>> This is best way to compare versatility without penalizing players
|> |>> for success on certain surface.
|> |>>
|> |>> 70 Federer
|> |>> 60 Nadal
|> |>> 24 Djokovic
|> |>> 12 Connors, Wilander
|> |>> 6 Agassi
|> |>>
|> |>
|> |> Federer's best slam tournament is Wimbledon. He's got eleven wins away from it. Djokovic has six away from Australia. Nadal five away from Paris. Sampras seven away from Wimbledon.
|> |>
|> |> Never heard of anyone penalizing for success. For lack of success somewhere, that's just how it goes. Nadal is super dominant in Paris, but must be considered relatively weak elsewhere. He doesn't really have a second slam on which he can be called an all-time great. No amount of French Opens can change that. Only wins on those other surfaces can.
|> |>
|> |> You don't have to agree with this. But I think a minimum of three trophies is needed to get in the door of conversation for all-time great at a particular slam. Five is when someone has achieved dominance. The ideal "goats" win twenty and as close to 5 each as possible. Probably too tough a standard for the men's game, but let's hope for someone in the future to get 7-7-3-3. Or 8-6-3-3. 10-5-3-2: ok let's put that out there for Nadal. Running out of time, though.
|> |>
|> |
|> |
|> |
|> | I have no trouble admitting Federer's record is most versatile but
|> | even he has a hole. Just one FO out of 18 slams.
|> |
|> |
|>
|> A small one as the greatest clay courter stopped him. He'd have six FOs without Rafa.
|> And Rafa has called Federer 2nd greatest clay courter.
|>
|> FF
|
| But in a world w/o Nadal, there might be a player that slows him down elsewhere. Things might balance out that way.
 
Perhaps but let's stick to something that is provable in reality that has occurred.
 
Ff
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