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

Sunday, June 18, 2017

bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 18 08:56PM -0400

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 16:31:21 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
 
>On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 10:13:32 AM UTC-4, John Liang wrote:
 
>> I have read you post, I can see the your theory of BOAT is absolute crap and you think you get a gibberish response that is because your definition of BOAT is gibberish. Your BOAT theory is like Titanic it sinks more than 100 years ago.
 
>+1. The whole BOAT theory is pure nonsense. Who cares. All that matters is which players are the greatest overall based on the accomplishments the tennis world deems as most important, i.e. slams, #1 stats. That's it. It's simple.
 
was a slam count the #1 factor for borg? connors?
 
if you really want to go down that road, we should address everything
and everyone. not just since 2003.
 
bob
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 06:05PM -0700

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?
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 05:41PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 8:30:51 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> > Speaking of atmospheric movies, I watched another Mario Bava film--"Kill, Baby Kill (1966.)
 
> > I liked it a lot. It's like entering the stylized world of Mario Bava with spectacular use of lush color, shadows, atmospheric shots of spiral staircases in a decaying old villa and shots of a ghostly child appearing and disappearing. This is how a Gothic horror is done well with a slow burn ghost story.
 
> Well at least the name sounds quite promising...
 
The name is tacky and it doesn't fit in with the story at all. It's a Gothic supernatural horror with beautiful vivid color and excellent cinematography. It's a beautiful atmospheric film. You can feel the eeriness/dread with every frame.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 19 03:42AM +0300

Gracchus kirjoitti 19.6.2017 klo 2:30:
 
>>> Yes, probably both of those factors at work. Lots of icky rural mountain folk, none of them beautiful, "nothing happens."
 
>> Nothing does happen! That's the problem.
 
> :))
 
Touche
 
I thought there happened a plenty...
 
Now if Courtsie wants to see a film which REALLY feels like nothing
happens and the film never ends, try a film I just finished watching...
 
SILENCE (2016)
...Very well made and visually wonderful film by Scorsese but the story
of questioning one's faith and the running time of 141 minutes really
does make it feel like a film which will never end. I give it 6/10 for
great effort.
 
 
> I said he was destroying his career legacy, not his career. And I
> absolutely think doing a long string of crap films does lasting damage to > one's rep.
Seconded... Niro has been making way too many Analyze This, Meet the
Fockers and Silver Linings Playbook -type roles. No doubt those films
and his characters are somewhat amusing but far from stuff which builds
an actor's legacy.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 05:44PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 8:41:07 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > I liked it a lot. It's like entering the stylized world of Mario Bava with spectacular use of lush color, shadows, atmospheric shots of spiral staircases in a decaying old villa and shots of a ghostly child appearing and disappearing. This is how a Gothic horror is done well with a slow burn ghost story.
 
> > Well at least the name sounds quite promising...
 
> The name is tacky and it doesn't fit in with the story at all. It's a Gothic supernatural horror with beautiful vivid color and excellent cinematography. It's a beautiful atmospheric film. You can feel the eeriness/dread with every frame.
 
Also, it's not a typical Bava Giallo film. It's more Gothic horror/slow burn ghost story.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 19 03:46AM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 19.6.2017 klo 1:34:
> I thought it was a cute and humorous in parts movie.
 
I think so too about Silver Linings. But the hype was huge and it got
way too good a shake from critics for the harmless little romcom it is,
imo. Weird.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 18 05:54PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 5:42:42 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> Fockers and Silver Linings Playbook -type roles. No doubt those films
> and his characters are somewhat amusing but far from stuff which builds
> an actor's legacy.
 
Thanks. I didn't think I was crazy for feeling that way. As I see it, the early good performances will always be valued (just as Brando's are for "Streetcar," "On the Waterfront," etc.). But the more weak movies/roles he does, the overall legacy is diluted. I used to see his name on the marquee and look forward to seeing what he'd do with the role. Now I see his name and think, "Oh, not him again."
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 05:54PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 8:42:42 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
 
> > :))
 
> Touche
 
> I thought there happened a plenty...
 
Absolutely nothing happened. It was a struggle to get through it and there was little to no payoff.
 

> of questioning one's faith and the running time of 141 minutes really
> does make it feel like a film which will never end. I give it 6/10 for
> great effort.
 
I want to see "Silence." I have to be in the mood to watch that topic though.

> No doubt those films
> and his characters are somewhat amusing but far from stuff which builds
> an actor's legacy.
 
But they do little to nothing to diminish his legacy at this stage either. He's one of those untouchable actors/directors who has done enough to solidify his legacy regardless of the dreck he involves himself in from here on out.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 19 03:56AM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 19.6.2017 klo 3:35:
>> Winter's Bone on credibility...I'm going to give it a 9/10. ;-P
 
>> I think it was simply quite exceptional on bleak atmosphere.
 
> What good is exceptional bleak atmosphere without good direction or an engaging script? Honestly, I couldn't watch that drab movie again for all the tea in China.
 
What can I say but that for some reason it didn't work for you... I
thought the mystery about the father and how Law's character tried to
find the truth was really engaging. I found the 'drabness' fascinating,
you don't often see films about people like this and the tension between
the characters felt both absurd and real at the same time, there was a
real sense of danger perhaps accentuated by the naturalistic acting by
Lawrence & rest of the cast.
 
The cinematography was really grim looking which added to the atmosphere
only.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 19 03:58AM +0300

TT kirjoitti 19.6.2017 klo 3:42:
> of questioning one's faith and the running time of 141 minutes really
> does make it feel like a film which will never end. I give it 6/10 for
> great effort.
 
Correction: 161 minutes
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 18 05:58PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 5:54:21 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> > and his characters are somewhat amusing but far from stuff which builds
> > an actor's legacy.
 
> But they do little to nothing to diminish his legacy at this stage either. He's one of those untouchable actors/directors who has done enough to solidify his legacy regardless of the dreck he involves himself in from here on out.
 
Being in "The Untouchables" doesn't make him untouchable. :) It's just one of those things we'll have to disagree on. Not provable either way until maybe after De Niro dies.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 18 08:59PM -0400

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 07:54:21 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>> where Robert De Niro plays the father...
>> My rating is 5... 6 at best.
 
>This one I didn't like at all. I absolutely hated DeNiro's performance, the psychiatrist character, and all the crap involving football, particularly since I hate the sport. Hard to believe that David O. Russell made this, same guy that did the magnificent "American Hustle." ;)
 
i saw an interview with deniro and he said he made a lot of crappy
movies to make money to support his film festival. not sure this was 1
of them, but if the man admits it well...
 
he also said he'd like to punch trump in the face. those actors are
such tough guys, i'm sure he could give sugar ray robinson a good
fight too like in the movies.
 
bob
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 06:00PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 8:54:17 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > and his characters are somewhat amusing but far from stuff which builds
> > an actor's legacy.
 
> Thanks. I didn't think I was crazy for feeling that way. As I see it, the early good performances will always be valued (just as Brando's are for "Streetcar," "On the Waterfront," etc.). But the more weak movies/roles he does, the overall legacy is diluted. I used to see his name on the marquee and look forward to seeing what he'd do with the role. Now I see his name and think, "Oh, not him again."
 
I understand that he has done a lot of crap movies for years but at the same time, I think he's one of those untouchable actors where his legacy is safe and he still involves himself in some good movies from time to time and can perform well in some of them. I just don't think his type of legacy is easily tarnished.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 19 04:02AM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 19.6.2017 klo 3:44:
 
>>> Well at least the name sounds quite promising...
 
>> The name is tacky and it doesn't fit in with the story at all. It's a Gothic supernatural horror with beautiful vivid color and excellent cinematography. It's a beautiful atmospheric film. You can feel the eeriness/dread with every frame.
 
> Also, it's not a typical Bava Giallo film. It's more Gothic horror/slow burn ghost story.
 
Looks sort of like a mix of Japanese ghost films and Argento...
 
Bava seems to have always lush colours.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 18 08:48PM -0400

>> statistics never varied from 2003-2010.
 
>> bob
 
>Your analysis is likely skewed by bo3 vs bo5. Fed's level could have slightly declined, making him more vulerable in bo3. But since bo5 favors the better player a slight decline wouldn't show up as soon. That's pretty much what we've seen with Fed. A dip in bo3 results followed by a dip in bo5 a few years later.
 
try looking at fed's non-nadal slam results, and set counts, etc from
2003-2010.
 
the 2/3 is fine, but anyone who thinks fed was as motivated to win
cincy in 2010 as he was in 2004 isn't being realistic. that said, fed
was certainly more consistent and motivated than anyone else i recall
seeing, but he knew what was most important as time went on.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 18 08:53PM -0400

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:32:40 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
> The only people who seemed to accept this idea of Nadal been BOAT in RST seemed to be coming from whisperbob combo and Strip.
 
>> > bob
 
>This ever-going boat issue is r.s.t version of "my dad would beat your dad" - it is just impossible to measure objectively.
 
maybe. shall we just count slams and say fed is the best player ever?
the greatest player ever? how bout the best on any surface too while
we're at it?
 
clay is one of the 3 major surfaces, but since fed is BOAT/GOAT ( i
mean he's an "18" so no use discussing anything related to tennis)
he's probably greatest there too? as well as HC? as well as grass? as
well as YEC?
 
i mean, if you love fed just count to 18 and say it's over and go to
bed. if you want to think about other issues that affect all the #s,
then discuss.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 18 08:54PM -0400

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 09:13:09 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
 
>> > .mikko
 
>> Agreed. Maybe the most resoundingly stupid on-tennis topic at RST, and that's saying someting.
 
>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.
 
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.
 
but until you agree what BOAT means, why bother discussing it?
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 18 08:55PM -0400

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 00:10:25 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.com>
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.
 
can it blow?
 
bob
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 18 10:49PM +0200


> Melting steel? Who ever on this planet suggested that the WTC collapsed due to MOLTEN steel???
 
> TennisGuy, Iceberg, Shitpiss, Carey always came across as very simple minds here. Now we have proof. It is incredible. This intellectual lazyness is just stunning. More - it is frightening.
 
> BTW, Shitpiss is a Russian troll. So maybe he is not one of the dumb ones. But of course his agenda is to destroy any confidence in democratic institutions in western countries.
 
 
Yeah, I posted here about tennis for a decade just to infiltrate,
gain respect and then unleash vicious Russian propaganda.

 
Imbecile.
 
But I guess that, however dumb is, it's still more credible than
suggestion that Yankee and Dixie duo, Trump and Sessions are my
colleagues as Kremlin agents.
 
So, sadly or luckily, since max has already reached intellectual
and moral low, he can't go lower. I guess he'll try more. I am
sure he will.
 
 
It is interesting on another note. It shows the tyrannical and
exclusive mind of a person whose forefathers were Nazis.

 
He's either very evil and hates Russia, wants it destroyed just as
his ancestors so he's nervous when someone points to certain
facts in general discussions around here that touched those
subjects.
 
Or he's simply to ignorant and arrogant to believe that normal
people can have non-russophobic views, without being Russian
agents, or not even Russians.
 
Lesson for you Max, you don't have to be Russian yourself or paid
by Russians, in order not to hate Russia.
 
 
Trump has been saying during his campaign, wouldn't be better if
we get along?
 
Is that pro Russian in any way?
The reactions from the neocons were as if he promised entire west
coast to Putin.
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 18 08:45PM -0400

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:42:33 -0400, TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>
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.
 
said who?
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 18 08:41PM -0400

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 12:44:36 -0700 (PDT), kaennorsing
>> arguments woul begin.
 
>> bob
 
>One slam less than Federer + 4 fewer Wimbledons makes him GOAT over Federer? Not to mention the huge gap in YEC's and #1 stats?
 
there is a multitude of reasons i could see a 17 slam nadal with 3
wimbledons as GOAT.
1. H2H is severely lopsided VS fed.
2. he's 4 yrs younger than fed, and fed won a ton of slams before rafa
peaked. rafa, conversely would've had to go through fed for all/most
of them.
3. OG.
4. complete clay dominance, historical levels actually.
5. 3 wimbledons is a fairly good count, not 7 of course, but not 1-2
either.
 
all those would make up for having 3 VS 7 wimbledons IMO. many people
however would give the nod to rafa with 13 FO and 18 slams. i don't
think i would.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 18 08:36PM -0400

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 10:06:13 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 
 
>I'm trying to minimize gear, but have quite a few DVDs. I do have a USB DVD drive, but want all-in-one.
>No ChromeOs because of Goog's eternal survellance (AFAIK). Sounds like it will be a Linux variant, but
>I'm no computer guy.
 
IMO you're down to chrome or linux. and plug in an external dvd
player, just very hard to find a small notebook with dvd nowadays.
 
bob
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 04:26PM -0700

On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 9:00:31 PM UTC-4, Gracchus 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. She's still beautiful. It's like Beauty and the Beast but they've somehow managed to make it last which is surprising in itself in that nutty entertainment world.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 03:54PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 12:42:54 PM UTC-4, Guypers 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.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 04:21PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 10:19:30 AM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
> Lu-Mischa Zverev-Pouille (Stuttgart winner)-Nishikori/Karlovic
 
> Hope he has his game face on right from the beginning.
 
Not to mention Alexander Zverev who is in the bottom half of the draw and who beat Federer in Halle last year!
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