How many times?

What does the Netiquette imply?

Hello Guest

• Login
• Register…
• Start blog

• Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels

• Polls
• Avatars
• Interests

• Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search

• Search
• Games
• Tests
• GYXU

• Сообщества
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online

GYXU > Basketball > How many times? 7 August 2006 15:40:55

Recent blog posts:

pipiska!!!upja4ka!!!pshli…
pipiska!!!upja4ka!!!pshli nax!!!

UPJA4KA!!!
TUTSJAPI6!!PI6!ZEPJ EBRILO!!!!!ZAZA!!!TELOIDI, DA! MY – EBANULISJ!!!PI6! PI6! PI6! OJAEBU!!I…

Hi!
Hi! I am Kate from Ukraine! I don't now, everything about this website. Also I dodn't know english very…

...
http://gyxu.com/p/login.cgi?r=http://www.winxclub.com/

ONOTOLE NEGODUE
Blin, nu zaipali trabli s ssilkami.Zaxozu kuda to - BAZ! i ja snova gostj.Vxozu i vse norma,no…

4to za xerj ?
Menja 4asto vikidivaet !!!X-(

Sri Lanka Vs West Indies
Sri Lanka won the first match by more than 100 runs…this is first in West Indies. .unfortunately after…

...
gfgdgd

Fs:,Iphone 8Gb,Nokia…
BUY 2 GET 1 FREE We Are Importer And Exporter Of All Kinds Of Mobile Phones Games,And All…

Blog Feed
http://feeds.feedburner.com/TumbleweedRealtyMaui

Forums:

topic feeds

• GYXU all topics, blogs and comments

• General

• F1, Indy, Nascar, Rally

• Baseball

• Basketball

• Boxing

• Football

• Soccer

• Hockey

• Rugby

• Tennis

• Pro Wrestling

• Billiard

• Cycling

• Boats

• Kites, widsurfing, waterski

• Diving

• Skiing

• Cricket

• Golf

• Skating

• Buy / Sell

• Anonymous

Discuss:

Save on basketball…
Hello basketball fans, NothingButMagazines.com offers 3 top basketball titles at the lowest…

Recent forum topics:

Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
Does any of our Scandinavian friends know about Christian Hoffman being recently banned from racing for…

Steel bolts and nuts for Ultima…
The now discontinued Jackson Ultima Matrix mounts (for removable figure skating blade runners) held the…

Stockholm-Falun scoring system…
Kowalczyk overcame Majdic to win the overall WC title because she got the 200 bonus points for the…

Worn Rotefella Boots
Dear All, just back from an excellent trip to Norway. One problem, in heavy snow, very difficult to…

Recent forum comments:

RE: BIC longboards
Sorry I should also say that we normally have 4-11 knot winds in our area with the emphasis around 6-8…

RE: Macho macho man Dave Strang of…
ROTFL He was actually hide the REAL reason why he got mad . It is because Virginia Sung twiddled her…

RE: Re: Day 8 Results
On Mar 22, 11:50pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote: See his post for day 6. In…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
On Mar 23, 3:11pm, Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> wrote: Thanks Terje…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
ADK Skier wrote: The real problem wasn't a high hemo value, but the wrong ratio between what I…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
I'll stay out of that one. Some February lab test results - in the midst of races - showed my…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:49:37 -0700 (PDT), ADK Skier <lgsumr@yahoo.com> wrote: Kikkan Randall…

RE: Stockholm-Falun scoring system…
"Professional" sports mean money. People or more liekly, organizations, are paying and…

RE: Worn Rotefella Boots
Thanks for the suggestion. Looking at the boot tip in the cold light of day, the rubber is worn and the…

RE: sintered bases, radioactive wax…
On Mar 17, 8:58am, lo....@free.fr wrote: Is there a cheap equivalent substitute metal scraper? Cabinet…

Модератор:


How many times?
Dgs 19 March 2005 14:12:00
	How many times are we gonna have to watch players throughout the tournament lift their shirts to show their team name to the crowd? I mean...it may have been cool the first 2000 times I saw it this year but c'mon. These guys all act like they invented this or something. Enough already...
		Add comment


Mimus 20 March 2005 09:45:51 [ permanent link ]
	On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:12:00 GMT, "DGS" <lkasjdf@lskjdf.net> wrote: How many times are we gonna have to watch players throughout the tournament >lift their shirts to show their team name to the crowd? I mean...it may >have been cool the first 2000 times I saw it this year but c'mon. These >guys all act like they invented this or something. Enough already... Aw, c'mon, how often has someone flashed "Vermont" or "Bucknell" on The Big Screen? Not to mention "West Virginia"? -- The Usenet voice of the Kentucky Wildcats! (Please ignore.)
		Add comment


Victoria Barrett 13 April 2005 23:49:13 [ permanent link ]
	Will we get to see that "Ehhhh ehhhh ehhhhh!" jumping orange ball Mastercard advert on ESPN2 during the CL. Argh.
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 7 February 2006 11:56:11 [ permanent link ]
	How many times ..... Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ? 14 times !!!!!!! Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ? Once. (R2 to boot) We all know who is the REAL goat !
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 7 February 2006 12:30:36 [ permanent link ]
	On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote: Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> How many times .....>> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>> 14 times !!!!!!!>> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>> Once. (R2 to boot)>> We all know who is the REAL goat !> Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.> And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>Weird concept ....> Max erm not really. Sampras has 23 losses r1/2/3/4 Borg had 6.
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 7 February 2006 12:33:22 [ permanent link ]
	On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote: Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> How many times .....>> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>> 14 times !!!!!!!>> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>> Once. (R2 to boot)>> We all know who is the REAL goat !> Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.> And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>Weird concept ....> Max Sampras had 15 QF/SF/F losses. Borg had 10 QF/SF/F losses You can see Sampras was a real loser.
		Add comment


Whisper 7 February 2006 12:36:19 [ permanent link ]
	Dave Hazelwood wrote:> How many times .....> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?> 14 times !!!!!!!> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?> Once. (R2 to boot)> We all know who is the REAL goat ! Whoever has most slam wins, while allowing for 7543.
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 7 February 2006 12:36:28 [ permanent link ]
	On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote: Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> How many times .....>> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>> 14 times !!!!!!!>> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>> Once. (R2 to boot)>> We all know who is the REAL goat !> Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.> And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>Weird concept ....> Max Just pointing out Borg was a real WINNER and Sampras was a real LOSER. Sampras lost way more and way more badly than Borg ever did. Sampras had to lose and lose and keep playing years and years just to eek out 3 more slams than borg. To me that is not a goat. sorry.
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 7 February 2006 12:39:24 [ permanent link ]
	On 7 Feb 2006 01:36:17 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote: Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> >> How many times .....>> >> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>> >> 14 times !!!!!!!>> >> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>> >> Once. (R2 to boot)>> >> We all know who is the REAL goat !>> > Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>> >higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.>> > And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>> >Weird concept ....>> > Sampras had 15 QF/SF/F losses.>> Borg had 10 QF/SF/F losses> Meaning that Borg played only 27 slams?> What a loser ....> Max Wrong. Sampras holds the records over Borg for slam losses both in number and in badness by a margin way greater than his meager 3 more wins which he had to play years extra for and lose again and again just to squeak past Borg who hardly ever lost. A goat to me should be a winner like Borg and not a loser like Sampras.
		Add comment


Whisper 7 February 2006 12:45:02 [ permanent link ]
	Dave Hazelwood wrote:> On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> How many times .....>>> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>> 14 times !!!!!!!>>> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>> Once. (R2 to boot)>>> We all know who is the REAL goat !>> Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>>higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.>> And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>>Weird concept ....>> erm not really.> Sampras has 23 losses r1/2/3/4> Borg had 6. mid-late 70's were a particularly soft era - the great Aussies got old & Mac hadn't come on yet. Basically there was only Jimbo around. Not disparaging Borg, but for a baseliner to have that kind of success on grass has to tell you something - imagine if he had Becker/Edberg/Goran to contend with? Pretty weak later rds of slams, so imagine the bunnies in early rds...
		Add comment


Whisper 7 February 2006 12:45:57 [ permanent link ]
	Dave Hazelwood wrote:> On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> How many times .....>>> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>> 14 times !!!!!!!>>> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>> Once. (R2 to boot)>>> We all know who is the REAL goat !>> Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>>higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.>> And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>>Weird concept ....>> Sampras had 15 QF/SF/F losses.> Borg had 10 QF/SF/F losses> You can see Sampras was a real loser. Borg played a lot of journeymen in those later slam rds - Edmondson, Armitrage, Tanner etc....
		Add comment


Whisper 7 February 2006 12:47:21 [ permanent link ]
	Dave Hazelwood wrote:> On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> How many times .....>>> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>> 14 times !!!!!!!>>> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>> Once. (R2 to boot)>>> We all know who is the REAL goat !>> Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>>higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.>> And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>>Weird concept ....>> Just pointing out Borg was a real WINNER and Sampras was a real LOSER.> Sampras lost way more and way more badly than Borg ever did.> Sampras had to lose and lose and keep playing years and years just to eek> out 3 more slams than borg. To me that is not a goat. sorry. 14 slams & 6 yrs No.1 is a loser - gotcha.
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 7 February 2006 13:04:38 [ permanent link ]
	On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:47:21 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote: Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>>> How many times .....>>>> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>> 14 times !!!!!!!>>>> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>> Once. (R2 to boot)>>>> We all know who is the REAL goat !>>> Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>>>higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.>>> And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>>>Weird concept ....>>> Just pointing out Borg was a real WINNER and Sampras was a real LOSER.>> Sampras lost way more and way more badly than Borg ever did.>> Sampras had to lose and lose and keep playing years and years just to eek>> out 3 more slams than borg. To me that is not a goat. sorry.> 14 slams & 6 yrs No.1 is a loser - gotcha. Sampras played 15 years to win 14 slams Borg played 9 years to win 11 slams BUT Borg only lost 16 slams Sampras lost 38 slams !!!!!!
		Add comment


Whisper 7 February 2006 13:05:34 [ permanent link ]
	Mikko Г„mmГ¤lГ¤ wrote: Borg played a lot of journeymen in those later slam rds - Edmondson, >> Armitrage, Tanner etc....> Tanner won a slam + had Wimbledon final + some semis at USO. He was > hardly a hack.> Above list is no better than Volkov, Voltskov, Woodbrigde (who met > Sampras at SF rounds at slams) and co...> Difference is that Sampras sometimes even managed to lost those > journeymen..(Schaller, Yzaga, Delgato and co)> .mikko None of Sampras' opponents sported a healthy beer gut.
		Add comment


Mikko Г„mmГ¤lГ¤ 7 February 2006 13:11:46 [ permanent link ]
	Whisper wrote:> Dave Hazelwood wrote:> On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>>> How many times .....>>>> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>> 14 times !!!!!!!>>>> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>> Once. (R2 to boot)>>>> We all know who is the REAL goat !>>> Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>>> higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.>>> And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>>> Weird concept ....>>> Sampras had 15 QF/SF/F losses.>> Borg had 10 QF/SF/F losses>> You can see Sampras was a real loser.> Borg played a lot of journeymen in those later slam rds - Edmondson, > Armitrage, Tanner etc.... Tanner won a slam + had Wimbledon final + some semis at USO. He was hardly a hack. Above list is no better than Volkov, Voltskov, Woodbrigde (who met Sampras at SF rounds at slams) and co... Difference is that Sampras sometimes even managed to lost those journeymen..(Schaller, Yzaga, Delgato and co) .mikko
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 7 February 2006 13:12:32 [ permanent link ]
	On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:05:34 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote: Mikko Г„mmГ¤lГ¤ wrote:> Borg played a lot of journeymen in those later slam rds - Edmondson, >>> Armitrage, Tanner etc....>> Tanner won a slam + had Wimbledon final + some semis at USO. He was >> hardly a hack.>> Above list is no better than Volkov, Voltskov, Woodbrigde (who met >> Sampras at SF rounds at slams) and co...>> Difference is that Sampras sometimes even managed to lost those >> journeymen..(Schaller, Yzaga, Delgato and co)>> .mikko> None of Sampras' opponents sported a healthy beer gut. what was all that slobbering all about ? did that help sampras cool down on court or what ?
		Add comment


Whisper 7 February 2006 13:15:54 [ permanent link ]
	Mikko Г„mmГ¤lГ¤ wrote:> Whisper wrote:> None of Sampras' opponents sported a healthy beer gut.> Karsten Braach did (Sampras met this fine odd stranger at Wimbledon > mid-rounds mid-90:ies)> .mikko> ...but he didn't lead Sampras 2 sets to love & reeling on the ropes.
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 7 February 2006 13:19:24 [ permanent link ]
	On 7 Feb 2006 01:42:05 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote: Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> On 7 Feb 2006 01:36:17 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> >> On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:>> >> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> >> >> How many times .....>> >> >> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>> >> >> 14 times !!!!!!!>> >> >> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>> >> >> Once. (R2 to boot)>> >> >> We all know who is the REAL goat !>> >> > Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>> >> >higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.>> >> > And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>> >> >Weird concept ....>> >> > Sampras had 15 QF/SF/F losses.>> >> Borg had 10 QF/SF/F losses>> > Meaning that Borg played only 27 slams?>> > What a loser ....>> > Wrong. Sampras holds the records over Borg for slam losses both>> in number and in badness by a margin way greater than his meager>> 3 more wins which he had to play years extra for and lose again and>> again just to squeak past Borg who hardly ever lost.>> A goat to me should be a winner like Borg and not a loser like Sampras.> OK, convinced.>We should have more Borg-Federer-who-is-GOAT? discussions here. Why>alway throwing this Sampras guy into the mix?> Max Yeah ! Now you got it !
		Add comment


Mikko Г„mmГ¤lГ¤ 7 February 2006 13:20:54 [ permanent link ]
	Whisper wrote:> Mikko Г„mmГ¤lГ¤ wrote:> Borg played a lot of journeymen in those later slam rds - Edmondson, >>> Armitrage, Tanner etc....>> Tanner won a slam + had Wimbledon final + some semis at USO. He was >> hardly a hack.>> Above list is no better than Volkov, Voltskov, Woodbrigde (who met >> Sampras at SF rounds at slams) and co...>> Difference is that Sampras sometimes even managed to lost those >> journeymen..(Schaller, Yzaga, Delgato and co)>> .mikko> None of Sampras' opponents sported a healthy beer gut. Karsten Braach did (Sampras met this fine odd stranger at Wimbledon mid-rounds mid-90:ies) .mikko
		Add comment


Mikko Г„mmГ¤lГ¤ 7 February 2006 13:31:38 [ permanent link ]
	Whisper wrote:> Mikko Г„mmГ¤lГ¤ wrote:> Whisper wrote:>> None of Sampras' opponents sported a healthy beer gut.>> Karsten Braach did (Sampras met this fine odd stranger at Wimbledon >> mid-rounds mid-90:ies)>> .mikko>> ...but he didn't lead Sampras 2 sets to love & reeling on the ropes. He took a set off though... .mikko
		Add comment


Bob 7 February 2006 16:31:11 [ permanent link ]
	"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:m0qgu1dfbkodmmic9hmjvop2n4p78jjgqj@4ax.com...> On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>>> How many times .....>>> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>> 14 times !!!!!!!>>> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>> Once. (R2 to boot)>>> We all know who is the REAL goat !>> Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>>higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.>> And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>>Weird concept ....>> erm not really.> Sampras has 23 losses r1/2/3/4> Borg had 6. had borg not quit, his winning %s would've gone way down..mcenroe, even lendl, would've done serious damage..then when boris types came along, wow.... very easy to play for a short time, then quit when you start to slip and have dumbos say "what iffff".... bob
		Add comment


Bob 7 February 2006 16:34:07 [ permanent link ]
	"Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote in message news:1139304977.114457.209670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> >> How many times .....>> >> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>> >> 14 times !!!!!!!>> >> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>> >> Once. (R2 to boot)>> >> We all know who is the REAL goat !>> > Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>> >higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.>> > And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>> >Weird concept ....>> > Sampras had 15 QF/SF/F losses.>> Borg had 10 QF/SF/F losses> Meaning that Borg played only 27 slams?> What a loser .... QUITTER is better word, no? bob
		Add comment


Bob 7 February 2006 16:37:06 [ permanent link ]
	"Mikko Дmmдlд" <michaelb@mail.suomi.net> wrote in message news:43e8707e$0$17612$9b536df3@news.fv.fi...> Whisper wrote:>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>>>> How many times .....>>>>> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>>> 14 times !!!!!!!>>>>> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>>> Once. (R2 to boot)>>>>> We all know who is the REAL goat !>>>> Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>>>> higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.>>>> And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>>>> Weird concept ....>>>> Sampras had 15 QF/SF/F losses.>>> Borg had 10 QF/SF/F losses>>> You can see Sampras was a real loser.>> Borg played a lot of journeymen in those later slam rds - Edmondson, >> Armitrage, Tanner etc....> Tanner won a slam + had Wimbledon final + some semis at USO. He was hardly > a hack. he was a hack minus 1 stroke. Above list is no better than Volkov, Voltskov, Woodbrigde (who met Sampras > at SF rounds at slams) and co...> Difference is that Sampras sometimes even managed to lost those > journeymen..(Schaller, Yzaga, Delgato and co) when you play more, you eventually lose more..if borg had quit in 80 before the 3 straight slam losses, everyone would say "borg could win indefinitely"..instead, he quit right at the moment he knew himself he wouldn't win much more, if at all..smart guy..keeps people saying "what if", wrongly though.. bob
		Add comment


Bob 7 February 2006 16:37:47 [ permanent link ]
	"Mikko Дmmдlд" <michaelb@mail.suomi.net> wrote in message news:43e872a2$0$17612$9b536df3@news.fv.fi...> Whisper wrote:>> Mikko Дmmдlд wrote:>> Borg played a lot of journeymen in those later slam rds - Edmondson, >>>> Armitrage, Tanner etc....>>> Tanner won a slam + had Wimbledon final + some semis at USO. He was >>> hardly a hack.>>> Above list is no better than Volkov, Voltskov, Woodbrigde (who met >>> Sampras at SF rounds at slams) and co...>>> Difference is that Sampras sometimes even managed to lost those >>> journeymen..(Schaller, Yzaga, Delgato and co)>>> .mikko>> None of Sampras' opponents sported a healthy beer gut.> Karsten Braach did (Sampras met this fine odd stranger at Wimbledon > mid-rounds mid-90:ies) smoker, not fat---and braach didn't make Finals like eddo. bob
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 7 February 2006 17:03:41 [ permanent link ]
	On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:31:11 GMT, "bob" <rstein6@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com> wrote: "Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message >news:m0qgu1dfbkodmmic9hmjvop2n4p78jjgqj@4ax.com...>> On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>>>> How many times .....>>>> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>> 14 times !!!!!!!>>>> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>> Once. (R2 to boot)>>>> We all know who is the REAL goat !>>> Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>>>higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.>>> And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>>>Weird concept ....>>> erm not really.>> Sampras has 23 losses r1/2/3/4>> Borg had 6.> had borg not quit, his winning %s would've gone way down..mcenroe, even >lendl, would've done serious damage..then when boris types came along, >wow....> very easy to play for a short time, then quit when you start to slip and >have dumbos say "what iffff"....> bob > very easy to play long .... another 15, 20, 25 slams just to win 3 more so you can have the most. but does that mean you are the best ? No way.
		Add comment


Whisper 7 February 2006 23:55:47 [ permanent link ]
	bob wrote:> "Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message > news:m0qgu1dfbkodmmic9hmjvop2n4p78jjgqj@4ax.com...> On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>>> How many times .....>>>> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>> 14 times !!!!!!!>>>> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>> Once. (R2 to boot)>>>> We all know who is the REAL goat !>>> Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>>>higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.>>> And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>>>Weird concept ....>>> erm not really.>> Sampras has 23 losses r1/2/3/4>> Borg had 6.> had borg not quit, his winning %s would've gone way down..mcenroe, even > lendl, would've done serious damage..then when boris types came along, > wow....> very easy to play for a short time, then quit when you start to slip and > have dumbos say "what iffff"....> bob > Wilander shoulda quit after USO '88 - he'd be tier 1 in hazel's book....
		Add comment


Whisper 7 February 2006 23:59:21 [ permanent link ]
	bob wrote: None of Sampras' opponents sported a healthy beer gut.>> Karsten Braach did (Sampras met this fine odd stranger at Wimbledon >>mid-rounds mid-90:ies)> smoker, not fat---and braach didn't make Finals like eddo.> bob > Eddo was slam champ in that era, & led Borg 2 sets to love at Wimbledon. A couple months before he won AO he was a janitor who never played pro tennis. Could happen today I suppose...?
		Add comment


Bob 8 February 2006 03:07:12 [ permanent link ]
	"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:43e9094e$0$30450$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...> bob wrote:>> "Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message >> news:m0qgu1dfbkodmmic9hmjvop2n4p78jjgqj@4ax.com...>> On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>>>> How many times .....>>>>> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>>> 14 times !!!!!!!>>>>> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>>> Once. (R2 to boot)>>>>> We all know who is the REAL goat !>>>> Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>>>>higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.>>>> And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>>>>Weird concept ....>>>> erm not really.>>> Sampras has 23 losses r1/2/3/4>>> Borg had 6.>> had borg not quit, his winning %s would've gone way down..mcenroe, even >> lendl, would've done serious damage..then when boris types came along, >> wow....>> very easy to play for a short time, then quit when you start to slip and >> have dumbos say "what iffff"....>> Wilander shoulda quit after USO '88 - he'd be tier 1 in hazel's book... yep--that's why they need to finish the career off fully before getting credit for "coulda" bob
		Add comment


Bob 8 February 2006 03:07:30 [ permanent link ]
	"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:r3ahu15f9qq4mn4rirl245daq1inb8qd7b@4ax.com...> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:31:11 GMT, "bob" <rstein6@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com> wrote:> "Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message>>news:m0qgu1dfbkodmmic9hmjvop2n4p78jjgqj@4ax.com...>>> On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>>>>> How many times .....>>>>> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>>> 14 times !!!!!!!>>>>> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>>> Once. (R2 to boot)>>>>> We all know who is the REAL goat !>>>> Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>>>>higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.>>>> And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>>>>Weird concept ....>>>> erm not really.>>> Sampras has 23 losses r1/2/3/4>>> Borg had 6.>> had borg not quit, his winning %s would've gone way down..mcenroe, even>>lendl, would've done serious damage..then when boris types came along,>>wow....>> very easy to play for a short time, then quit when you start to slip and>>have dumbos say "what iffff"....>> very easy to play long .. nah, much easier to quit. bob
		Add comment


Bob 8 February 2006 03:11:29 [ permanent link ]
	"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:43e90a23$0$30450$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...> bob wrote:> None of Sampras' opponents sported a healthy beer gut.>>> Karsten Braach did (Sampras met this fine odd stranger at Wimbledon >>>mid-rounds mid-90:ies)>> smoker, not fat---and braach didn't make Finals like eddo.>> Eddo was slam champ in that era, & led Borg 2 sets to love at Wimbledon. A > couple months before he won AO he was a janitor who never played pro > tennis.> Could happen today I suppose...? lol..priceless..i didn't know he was a janitor, but i recall his gut, reminiscent of a 40 something couch potato.. bob
		Add comment


Whisper 8 February 2006 04:39:21 [ permanent link ]
	bob wrote:>>> smoker, not fat---and braach didn't make Finals like eddo.>>> Eddo was slam champ in that era, & led Borg 2 sets to love at Wimbledon. A >>couple months before he won AO he was a janitor who never played pro >>tennis.>> Could happen today I suppose...?> lol..priceless..i didn't know he was a janitor, but i recall his gut, > reminiscent of a 40 something couch potato..> bob > Yes, I only found out recenty he was cleaning toilets just before AO - John Alexander said it at AO. That tells you tennis wasn't quite the pro sport it is today.
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 8 February 2006 05:48:39 [ permanent link ]
	On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:55:47 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote: bob wrote:>> "Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message >> news:m0qgu1dfbkodmmic9hmjvop2n4p78jjgqj@4ax.com...>> On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>>>> How many times .....>>>>> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>>> 14 times !!!!!!!>>>>> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>>> Once. (R2 to boot)>>>>> We all know who is the REAL goat !>>>> Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>>>>higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.>>>> And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>>>>Weird concept ....>>>> erm not really.>>> Sampras has 23 losses r1/2/3/4>>> Borg had 6.>> had borg not quit, his winning %s would've gone way down..mcenroe, even >> lendl, would've done serious damage..then when boris types came along, >> wow....>> very easy to play for a short time, then quit when you start to slip and >> have dumbos say "what iffff"....>> bob >> Wilander shoulda quit after USO '88 - he'd be tier 1 in hazel's book.... Crapola. Wilander never won 5 W's in a row and set the record. He never won 3 FO/W back to back which is the most difficult thing to do in the entire sport. You're stinking up this place with your Wilander absurdities.
		Add comment


Whisper 8 February 2006 12:41:24 [ permanent link ]
	Mikko Г„mmГ¤lГ¤ wrote:>> if you think borg would beat peak mac/becker/edberg/sampras on grass, >> i think you're way off..he beat a weak grass competition, his game >> wasn't perfect for grass, those guys were all perfectly suited to grass.>> bob > Borg would not beat peak Becker/Sampras on grass and apparently not Mac. > Against Edberg he would have had chance.> .mikko> Peak Edberg would probably beat Borg, but he rarely played his peak compared to the other guys - notable eg '91 USO final v Courier, & also famously smashed Wilander 6-1 6-1 6-2 in AO semis 1 yr.... that form would beat Borg, but it's rare.
		Add comment


Whisper 8 February 2006 15:06:00 [ permanent link ]
	Calimero wrote:>> None of these guys would have beat peak Borg. Ever. On grass nor clay.>>We are talking about the greatest FO champ of all time here who also has>>3 FO/W back to back and 5 consecutive W's.>> We are in fact talking about the G.O.A.T. Bjorn Borg.> We should stop this Borg/Federer-who-is-GOAT? discussions.> They are both great players and we should treat them as those.> Yes, both tier 1 champs - Hazel sees Sampras as a loser though.....
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 8 February 2006 15:23:13 [ permanent link ]
	On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 23:06:00 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote: Calimero wrote:>>> None of these guys would have beat peak Borg. Ever. On grass nor clay.>>>We are talking about the greatest FO champ of all time here who also has>>>3 FO/W back to back and 5 consecutive W's.>>> We are in fact talking about the G.O.A.T. Bjorn Borg.>> We should stop this Borg/Federer-who-is-GOAT? discussions.>> They are both great players and we should treat them as those.>> Yes, both tier 1 champs - Hazel sees Sampras as a loser though..... Loser compared to Borg. Played 25 more slams to win just 3 more.
		Add comment


Bob 9 February 2006 03:39:45 [ permanent link ]
	"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:43e94bc3$0$3646$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...> bob wrote:>>>> smoker, not fat---and braach didn't make Finals like eddo.>>>> Eddo was slam champ in that era, & led Borg 2 sets to love at Wimbledon. >>>A couple months before he won AO he was a janitor who never played pro >>>tennis.>>> Could happen today I suppose...?>> lol..priceless..i didn't know he was a janitor, but i recall his gut, >> reminiscent of a 40 something couch potato..>> Yes, I only found out recenty he was cleaning toilets just before AO - > John Alexander said it at AO. That tells you tennis wasn't quite the pro > sport it is today. i hate to admit it because i enjoyed late 70s tennis immensely..but it was a different game.. IMO, mac's unbelievable natural talent made 6'2" lendl train like he did, led others to follow suit, which paved way for even bigger guys and bigger hitters (becker) and then then a big hitter WITH immense skill (sampras) to evolve...... bob
		Add comment


Bob 9 February 2006 03:40:36 [ permanent link ]
	"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:9smiu1hi2j20sdj0fuqppq368ihh1hmpqe@4ax.com...> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:55:47 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> > wrote:> bob wrote:>>> "Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message>>> news:m0qgu1dfbkodmmic9hmjvop2n4p78jjgqj@4ax.com...>>> On 7 Feb 2006 01:21:51 -0800, "Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>>>>> How many times .....>>>>>> Did Sampras lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>>>> 14 times !!!!!!!>>>>>> Did Borg lose in R1/R2 of a grand slam ?>>>>>> Once. (R2 to boot)>>>>>> We all know who is the REAL goat !>>>>> Bt as Sampras has 14 slams and Borg only 11 Borg obviously must have a>>>>>higher percentage of R3, R4, QF, SF, F losses than Sampras.>>>>> And you think this higher percentage clinches the GOAT title for Borg?>>>>>Weird concept ....>>>>> erm not really.>>>> Sampras has 23 losses r1/2/3/4>>>> Borg had 6.>>> had borg not quit, his winning %s would've gone way down..mcenroe, even>>> lendl, would've done serious damage..then when boris types came along,>>> wow....>>> very easy to play for a short time, then quit when you start to slip and>>> have dumbos say "what iffff"....>>> Wilander shoulda quit after USO '88 - he'd be tier 1 in hazel's book....> Crapola. Wilander never won 5 W's in a row and set the record. He> never won 3 FO/W back to back which is the most difficult thing to> do in the entire sport. borg never won 3 of the slams in a CAREER, let alone a single yr. bob
		Add comment


Stephenj 9 February 2006 03:53:49 [ permanent link ]
	bob wrote:> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message > news:43e94bc3$0$3646$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...> bob wrote:>> smoker, not fat---and braach didn't make Finals like eddo.>>>>> Eddo was slam champ in that era, & led Borg 2 sets to love at Wimbledon. >>>>A couple months before he won AO he was a janitor who never played pro >>>>tennis.>>>> Could happen today I suppose...?>>> lol..priceless..i didn't know he was a janitor, but i recall his gut, >>>reminiscent of a 40 something couch potato..>>> Yes, I only found out recenty he was cleaning toilets just before AO - >>John Alexander said it at AO. That tells you tennis wasn't quite the pro >>sport it is today.> i hate to admit it because i enjoyed late 70s tennis immensely..but it was a > different game.. we all enjoyed it immensely, it was the best time. but of course it was different. far less athletic, primitive by comparison. the women were even further behind. IMO, mac's unbelievable natural talent made 6'2" lendl train like he did, > led others to follow suit, which paved way for even bigger guys and bigger > hitters (becker) plausible. but we'd have to credit borg first. remember, he had the 'unbeatable' aura that made everyone work harder, including mac. -- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the markets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared." - Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
		Add comment


Stephenj 9 February 2006 03:55:09 [ permanent link ]
	bob wrote: i'd be happy to praise federer should he surpass sampras, and he might..borg > didn't though.. borg couldn't, because he played before sampras did. perhaps if he'd known everyone would make such a big deal about emmerson's 12-slam record and give sampras such gushing credit for winning 14 he would have played some of those AO's he skipped for no good reason ... ? -- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the markets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared." - Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
		Add comment


Whisper 9 February 2006 10:47:19 [ permanent link ]
	bob wrote:>> Yes, I only found out recenty he was cleaning toilets just before AO - >>John Alexander said it at AO. That tells you tennis wasn't quite the pro >>sport it is today.> i hate to admit it because i enjoyed late 70s tennis immensely..but it was a > different game..> IMO, mac's unbelievable natural talent made 6'2" lendl train like he did, > led others to follow suit, which paved way for even bigger guys and bigger > hitters (becker) and then then a big hitter WITH immense skill (sampras) to > evolve......> bob > I remember thinking at the time Mac was clearly the goat in absolute terms, & thinking how could he be beat? - I formed an image of a player exactly like Sampras - awesome serve, brilliant put away volleys, big winners fromthe baseline, aggressive net rusher, tough as nails mentally etc - the tennis terminator. Sure enough he pops up in '90.... Now I'm thinking how can Fed be beat - again same answer.
		Add comment


Whisper 9 February 2006 10:49:13 [ permanent link ]
	bob wrote:> "Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message Crapola. Wilander never won 5 W's in a row and set the record. He>>never won 3 FO/W back to back which is the most difficult thing to>>do in the entire sport.> borg never won 3 of the slams in a CAREER, let alone a single yr. > bob > I think you're missing the point - Hazel says Borg woulda won AO if he won it. Can't really argue.
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 9 February 2006 10:52:27 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:49:13 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote: bob wrote:>> "Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message > Crapola. Wilander never won 5 W's in a row and set the record. He>>>never won 3 FO/W back to back which is the most difficult thing to>>>do in the entire sport.>> borg never won 3 of the slams in a CAREER, let alone a single yr. >> bob >> I think you're missing the point - Hazel says Borg woulda won AO if he >won it. Can't really argue. AO was warmup back then. No big deal. Borg didn't even bother to play. Had he played though he would have probably won it 6x for 17 slams lifetime at age 25.
		Add comment


Whisper 9 February 2006 10:52:48 [ permanent link ]
	stephenj wrote:> we all enjoyed it immensely, it was the best time. but of course it was > different. far less athletic, primitive by comparison. the women were > even further behind.> IMO, mac's unbelievable natural talent made 6'2" lendl train like he >> did, led others to follow suit, which paved way for even bigger guys >> and bigger hitters (becker) > plausible. but we'd have to credit borg first. remember, he had the > 'unbeatable' aura that made everyone work harder, including mac.> Often looked beatable - but amazingly won in the end.... opposite to Sampras. You watch him play a couple games on grass & it's game over....
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 9 February 2006 11:00:51 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:52:48 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote: stephenj wrote:>> we all enjoyed it immensely, it was the best time. but of course it was >> different. far less athletic, primitive by comparison. the women were >> even further behind.>> IMO, mac's unbelievable natural talent made 6'2" lendl train like he >>> did, led others to follow suit, which paved way for even bigger guys >>> and bigger hitters (becker) >> plausible. but we'd have to credit borg first. remember, he had the >> 'unbeatable' aura that made everyone work harder, including mac.>> Often looked beatable - but amazingly won in the end.... opposite to >Sampras. You watch him play a couple games on grass & it's game over.... Borg had better winning percentage and dominated at Wimbledon more than Sampras. Borg 93% win Sampras 90% win Borg never lost in R1/R2. Pete lost 4x in R1/R2 !!!! Borg won without dropping a set ! Borg hold record for most consecutive match wins at 41 ! Sampras also lost to a lot of anonymous nobodies all the time. Want me to post the list ? <wink>
		Add comment


Whisper 9 February 2006 12:16:30 [ permanent link ]
	Dave Hazelwood wrote: Often looked beatable - but amazingly won in the end.... opposite to >>Sampras. You watch him play a couple games on grass & it's game over....> Borg had better winning percentage and dominated at Wimbledon> more than Sampras.> Borg 93% win> Sampras 90% win Sampras won 56 of 57 matches at Wimbledon = 98.25% If we go back to '92 he won 61 of 63 - the 2 guys he lost to were Wimbledon champs (Goran & Krajicek) - the next match he lost was to Federer. That's the most dominant stretch in Wimbledon history. Borg was great, but he's the prince of Wimbledon - only 1 king.
		Add comment


Whisper 9 February 2006 12:19:35 [ permanent link ]
	Dave Hazelwood wrote: I think you're missing the point - Hazel says Borg woulda won AO if he >>won it. Can't really argue.> AO was warmup back then. No big deal. Borg didn't even bother to> play. Had he played though he would have probably won it 6x for 17> slams lifetime at age 25. Borg said if he played AO he woulda been mentally fucked & wouldn't have won all those tight 5-setters at Wimbledon. He needed plenty of mental rest from his mind-numbing style. Borg proves you clueless yet again.
		Add comment


Whisper 9 February 2006 12:21:07 [ permanent link ]
	Dave Hazelwood wrote:> Mac was better than Sampras. Borg is goat. Mac was a better player than Borg. Borg is greater cause he achieved more.
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 9 February 2006 12:26:43 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:16:30 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote: Dave Hazelwood wrote:> Often looked beatable - but amazingly won in the end.... opposite to >>>Sampras. You watch him play a couple games on grass & it's game over....>> Borg had better winning percentage and dominated at Wimbledon>> more than Sampras.>> Borg 93% win>> Sampras 90% win> Sampras won 56 of 57 matches at Wimbledon = 98.25%> If we go back to '92 he won 61 of 63 - the 2 guys he lost to were >Wimbledon champs (Goran & Krajicek) - the next match he lost was to Federer.> That's the most dominant stretch in Wimbledon history.> Borg was great, but he's the prince of Wimbledon - only 1 king.> You must be really dumb. Sampras lost 7 times at Wimbledon !
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 9 February 2006 12:36:56 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:16:30 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote: Dave Hazelwood wrote:> Often looked beatable - but amazingly won in the end.... opposite to >>>Sampras. You watch him play a couple games on grass & it's game over....>> Borg had better winning percentage and dominated at Wimbledon>> more than Sampras.>> Borg 93% win>> Sampras 90% win> Sampras won 56 of 57 matches at Wimbledon = 98.25%> If we go back to '92 he won 61 of 63 - the 2 guys he lost to were >Wimbledon champs (Goran & Krajicek) - the next match he lost was to Federer.> That's the most dominant stretch in Wimbledon history.> Borg was great, but he's the prince of Wimbledon - only 1 king.> Sampras 1988-2002 at Wimbledon Wimbledon - 1r 1r 2r SF W W W QF W W W W 4r 2r Lost 4x in R1/R2 Lost 7x 63-7 lifetime 90% - inferior to Borg at 51-4 lifetime 93% Borg also holds many more W records. Never lost in R1/R2.
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 9 February 2006 12:46:58 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:16:30 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote: Dave Hazelwood wrote:> Often looked beatable - but amazingly won in the end.... opposite to >>>Sampras. You watch him play a couple games on grass & it's game over....>> Borg had better winning percentage and dominated at Wimbledon>> more than Sampras.>> Borg 93% win>> Sampras 90% win> Sampras won 56 of 57 matches at Wimbledon = 98.25%> If we go back to '92 he won 61 of 63 - the 2 guys he lost to were >Wimbledon champs (Goran & Krajicek) - the next match he lost was to Federer.> That's the most dominant stretch in Wimbledon history.> Borg was great, but he's the prince of Wimbledon - only 1 king.> Dominance ? In an astonishing sequence Borg demolished seven opponents, culminating with Ilie Nastase, without dropping a set. It was only the fourth time a man had done that at Wimbledon, and it has not been accomplished since. -5 titles in a row, -41 matches in a row, -Played in 6 consecutive Wimbledon finals, still a record -Played in 4 consecutive French finals, an Open-Era record -Played in 16 Grand Slam finals, a record for the Open Era -In Grand Slam tournaments, his match record is 141В–16, giving him an 89.8% winning percentage, better than any male player ever. -Won his 11th Grand Slam in 1981 at age 25, the youngest to that number of titles. By comparison, Sampras won his 11th at almost 27, Emerson at 30, Laver at 31 -Compiled 576-124 singles record, winning more than 82% of the matches he played. By comparison, Sampras had a 77% winning percentage at retirement. -In career five-set matches he is 24-4, his winning percentage of .857 unrivalled in the Open Era - Won 19 consecutive points on serve in the fifth set -- a feat perhaps unequalled at any time -- on two occasions -On the list of Open Era winning streaks, Borg is both first (49 tour matches won in 1978) and fifth (40 in 1979В–80). -Holds the record for most consecutive wins on grass, with 41 victories (all at Wimbledon) -Holds the Davis Cup record singles winning streak at 33 consecutive victories -- a streak broken only by retirement -Holds second place for most consecutive wins on clay, with 44 victories in 1977-79. Only Vilas holds more with 57. -Was inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in 1987 at only 30 years of age. BjГ¶rn Rune Borg (helpВ·info) (June 6, 1956, Stockholm, Sweden) is a former World No. 1 tennis player. During his relatively brief eight-year career, he won 11 Grand Slam singles titles В– five at Wimbledon and a record six at the French Open В– leading some to consider him the greatest male tennis player of all time. That means goat.
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 9 February 2006 13:08:56 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:16:30 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote: Dave Hazelwood wrote:> Often looked beatable - but amazingly won in the end.... opposite to >>>Sampras. You watch him play a couple games on grass & it's game over....>> Borg had better winning percentage and dominated at Wimbledon>> more than Sampras.>> Borg 93% win>> Sampras 90% win> Sampras won 56 of 57 matches at Wimbledon = 98.25%> If we go back to '92 he won 61 of 63 - the 2 guys he lost to were >Wimbledon champs (Goran & Krajicek) - the next match he lost was to Federer.> That's the most dominant stretch in Wimbledon history.> Borg was great, but he's the prince of Wimbledon - only 1 king.> Wimbledon Performance: Borg QF 3rd QF W W W W W F Sampras 1st 1st 2nd SF W W W QF W W W W 4th 2nd Sampras won 2 more and lost 3 more and his losses were BAD losses 4x in R1/R2. Thats NOT dominance. Thats garbage ! There is no doubt whatsoever that Bord was more dominant at Wimbledon. None. Dominance ? In an astonishing sequence Borg demolished seven opponents, culminating with Ilie Nastase, without dropping a set. It was only the fourth time a man had done that at Wimbledon, and it has not been accomplished since. -5 titles in a row, -41 matches in a row, -Played in 6 consecutive Wimbledon finals, still a record -Played in 4 consecutive French finals, an Open-Era record -Played in 16 Grand Slam finals, a record for the Open Era -In Grand Slam tournaments, his match record is 141В–16, giving him an 89.8% winning percentage, better than any male player ever. -Won his 11th Grand Slam in 1981 at age 25, the youngest to that number of titles. By comparison, Sampras won his 11th at almost 27, Emerson at 30, Laver at 31 -Compiled 576-124 singles record, winning more than 82% of the matches he played. By comparison, Sampras had a 77% winning percentage at retirement. -In career five-set matches he is 24-4, his winning percentage of .857 unrivalled in the Open Era - Won 19 consecutive points on serve in the fifth set -- a feat perhaps unequalled at any time -- on two occasions -On the list of Open Era winning streaks, Borg is both first (49 tour matches won in 1978) and fifth (40 in 1979В–80). -Holds the record for most consecutive wins on grass, with 41 victories (all at Wimbledon) -Holds the Davis Cup record singles winning streak at 33 consecutive victories -- a streak broken only by retirement -Holds second place for most consecutive wins on clay, with 44 victories in 1977-79. Only Vilas holds more with 57. -Was inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in 1987 at only 30 years of age. BjГ¶rn Rune Borg (helpВ·info) (June 6, 1956, Stockholm, Sweden) is a former World No. 1 tennis player. During his relatively brief eight-year career, he won 11 Grand Slam singles titles В– five at Wimbledon and a record six at the French Open В– leading some to consider him the greatest male tennis player of all time. That means goat.
		Add comment


Whisper 9 February 2006 14:22:10 [ permanent link ]
	Dave Hazelwood wrote:> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:16:30 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> Often looked beatable - but amazingly won in the end.... opposite to >>>>Sampras. You watch him play a couple games on grass & it's game over....>>> Borg had better winning percentage and dominated at Wimbledon>>>more than Sampras.>>> Borg 93% win>>>Sampras 90% win>> Sampras won 56 of 57 matches at Wimbledon = 98.25%>> If we go back to '92 he won 61 of 63 - the 2 guys he lost to were >>Wimbledon champs (Goran & Krajicek) - the next match he lost was to Federer.>> That's the most dominant stretch in Wimbledon history.>> Borg was great, but he's the prince of Wimbledon - only 1 king.>> Dominance ?> In an astonishing sequence Borg demolished seven opponents, > culminating with Ilie Nastase, without dropping a set. It was only > the fourth time a man had done that at Wimbledon, and it has not> been accomplished since. That was his 1 convincing Wimbledon title. -5 titles in a row, Yes, marvelous effort. Sampras' 7/8 trumps it though.... -41 matches in a row, I'd take 56/57 given the choice. -Played in 6 consecutive Wimbledon finals, still a record Played in less finals than Becker & Sampras. -Played in 16 Grand Slam finals, a record for the Open Era Sampras 18, Lendl 19 -In Grand Slam tournaments, his match record is 141вЂ“16, giving him an 89.8% winning percentage, better than any male player ever. Ran away when he started losing - unprecedented cowardice.
		Add comment


Bob 10 February 2006 04:12:18 [ permanent link ]
	"stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message news:IowGf.24632$Dh.22095@dukeread04...> bob wrote:>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message >> news:43e94bc3$0$3646$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...>> bob wrote:>>> smoker, not fat---and braach didn't make Finals like eddo.>>>>>> Eddo was slam champ in that era, & led Borg 2 sets to love at >>>>>Wimbledon. A couple months before he won AO he was a janitor who never >>>>>played pro tennis.>>>>> Could happen today I suppose...?>>>> lol..priceless..i didn't know he was a janitor, but i recall his gut, >>>>reminiscent of a 40 something couch potato..>>>> Yes, I only found out recenty he was cleaning toilets just before AO - >>>John Alexander said it at AO. That tells you tennis wasn't quite the pro >>>sport it is today.>> i hate to admit it because i enjoyed late 70s tennis immensely..but it >> was a different game..> we all enjoyed it immensely, it was the best time. but of course it was > different. far less athletic, primitive by comparison. the women were even > further behind.> IMO, mac's unbelievable natural talent made 6'2" lendl train like he did, >> led others to follow suit, which paved way for even bigger guys and >> bigger hitters (becker)> plausible. but we'd have to credit borg first. remember, he had the > 'unbeatable' aura that made everyone work harder, including mac. flaw with that reasoning: mac didn't truly work harder though, he just matured and his peak game topped borg's on all but clay. bob
		Add comment


Bob 10 February 2006 04:17:31 [ permanent link ]
	"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:43eb091f$0$3664$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...> Dave Hazelwood wrote:> I think you're missing the point - Hazel says Borg woulda won AO if he >>>won it. Can't really argue.>> AO was warmup back then. No big deal. Borg didn't even bother to>> play. Had he played though he would have probably won it 6x for 17>> slams lifetime at age 25.> Borg said if he played AO he woulda been mentally fucked & wouldn't have > won all those tight 5-setters at Wimbledon. He needed plenty of mental > rest from his mind-numbing style. Borg proves you clueless yet again. that's why we can't just give couldas..people say "but AO was 6 months before W, he had time to rest"..to which i reply, if he was that burnt out, and played AO, maybe he retires at 24 instead of 26..no way for us to know the repercussions. bob
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 10 February 2006 04:50:58 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:12:18 GMT, "bob" <rstein6@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com> wrote: "stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message >news:IowGf.24632$Dh.22095@dukeread04...>> bob wrote:>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:43e94bc3$0$3646$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...>>> bob wrote:>>>> smoker, not fat---and braach didn't make Finals like eddo.>>>>>>> Eddo was slam champ in that era, & led Borg 2 sets to love at >>>>>>Wimbledon. A couple months before he won AO he was a janitor who never >>>>>>played pro tennis.>>>>>> Could happen today I suppose...?>>>>> lol..priceless..i didn't know he was a janitor, but i recall his gut, >>>>>reminiscent of a 40 something couch potato..>>>>> Yes, I only found out recenty he was cleaning toilets just before AO - >>>>John Alexander said it at AO. That tells you tennis wasn't quite the pro >>>>sport it is today.>>> i hate to admit it because i enjoyed late 70s tennis immensely..but it >>> was a different game..>> we all enjoyed it immensely, it was the best time. but of course it was >> different. far less athletic, primitive by comparison. the women were even >> further behind.>> IMO, mac's unbelievable natural talent made 6'2" lendl train like he did, >>> led others to follow suit, which paved way for even bigger guys and >>> bigger hitters (becker)>> plausible. but we'd have to credit borg first. remember, he had the >> 'unbeatable' aura that made everyone work harder, including mac.> flaw with that reasoning: mac didn't truly work harder though, he just >matured and his peak game topped borg's on all but clay.> bob > Whisper insists Sampras is goat but Borg was and remains GOD.
		Add comment


Stephenj 11 February 2006 00:51:57 [ permanent link ]
	bob wrote:> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message > news:43eb091f$0$3664$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> I think you're missing the point - Hazel says Borg woulda won AO if he >>>>won it. Can't really argue.>>> AO was warmup back then. No big deal. Borg didn't even bother to>>>play. Had he played though he would have probably won it 6x for 17>>>slams lifetime at age 25.>> Borg said if he played AO he woulda been mentally fucked & wouldn't have >>won all those tight 5-setters at Wimbledon. He needed plenty of mental >>rest from his mind-numbing style. Borg proves you clueless yet again.> that's why we can't just give couldas..people say "but AO was 6 months > before W, he had time to rest"..to which i reply, if he was that burnt out, > and played AO, maybe he retires at 24 instead of 26..no way for us to know > the repercussions. rst bot response: the record shows that borg didn't spend his non-AO time resting, he spent it playing ... other tennis tournaments! therefore, it's absurd to say that playing AO would have burnt him out, even if that's the face-saving answer he gave. -- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the markets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared." - Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
		Add comment


Stephenj 11 February 2006 00:54:19 [ permanent link ]
	bob wrote:> "stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message > news:IowGf.24632$Dh.22095@dukeread04...> bob wrote:>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message >>>news:43e94bc3$0$3646$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...>>> bob wrote:>>>> smoker, not fat---and braach didn't make Finals like eddo.>>>>>>> Eddo was slam champ in that era, & led Borg 2 sets to love at >>>>>>Wimbledon. A couple months before he won AO he was a janitor who never >>>>>>played pro tennis.>>>>>> Could happen today I suppose...?>>>>> lol..priceless..i didn't know he was a janitor, but i recall his gut, >>>>>reminiscent of a 40 something couch potato..>>>>> Yes, I only found out recenty he was cleaning toilets just before AO - >>>>John Alexander said it at AO. That tells you tennis wasn't quite the pro >>>>sport it is today.>>> i hate to admit it because i enjoyed late 70s tennis immensely..but it >>>was a different game..>> we all enjoyed it immensely, it was the best time. but of course it was >>different. far less athletic, primitive by comparison. the women were even >>further behind.>> IMO, mac's unbelievable natural talent made 6'2" lendl train like he did, >>>led others to follow suit, which paved way for even bigger guys and >>>bigger hitters (becker)>> plausible. but we'd have to credit borg first. remember, he had the >>'unbeatable' aura that made everyone work harder, including mac.> flaw with that reasoning: mac didn't truly work harder though, he sure did. after W 1980 he wondered whether he could improve enough to ever beat borg. matured and his peak game topped borg's on all but clay. remember, borg lost to other guys at USO so that's not at issue, and of course borg was obviously superior at the FO. so the key issue is W and the only time mac ever beat borg at W was in 81 and that match swung on just a couple points. no wonder mac doesn't claim any mastery over borg. -- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the markets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared." - Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
		Add comment


Bob 11 February 2006 02:49:29 [ permanent link ]
	"stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message news:cW7Hf.25418$Dh.23576@dukeread04...> bob wrote:>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message >> news:43eb091f$0$3664$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>>> I think you're missing the point - Hazel says Borg woulda won AO if he >>>>>won it. Can't really argue.>>>> AO was warmup back then. No big deal. Borg didn't even bother to>>>>play. Had he played though he would have probably won it 6x for 17>>>>slams lifetime at age 25.>>> Borg said if he played AO he woulda been mentally fucked & wouldn't have >>>won all those tight 5-setters at Wimbledon. He needed plenty of mental >>>rest from his mind-numbing style. Borg proves you clueless yet again.>> that's why we can't just give couldas..people say "but AO was 6 months >> before W, he had time to rest"..to which i reply, if he was that burnt >> out, and played AO, maybe he retires at 24 instead of 26..no way for us >> to know the repercussions.> rst bot response: the record shows that borg didn't spend his non-AO time > resting, he spent it playing ... other tennis tournaments! therefore, it's > absurd to say that playing AO would have burnt him out, even if that's the > face-saving answer he gave. playing a slam in australia might take more out of him whatever else he played. bob
		Add comment


Bob 11 February 2006 02:50:58 [ permanent link ]
	"stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message news:sY7Hf.25419$Dh.22590@dukeread04...> bob wrote:>> "stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message >> news:IowGf.24632$Dh.22095@dukeread04...>> bob wrote:>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message >>>>news:43e94bc3$0$3646$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...>>>> bob wrote:>>>>> smoker, not fat---and braach didn't make Finals like eddo.>>>>>>>> Eddo was slam champ in that era, & led Borg 2 sets to love at >>>>>>>Wimbledon. A couple months before he won AO he was a janitor who >>>>>>>never played pro tennis.>>>>>>> Could happen today I suppose...?>>>>>> lol..priceless..i didn't know he was a janitor, but i recall his gut, >>>>>>reminiscent of a 40 something couch potato..>>>>>> Yes, I only found out recenty he was cleaning toilets just before AO - >>>>>John Alexander said it at AO. That tells you tennis wasn't quite the >>>>>pro sport it is today.>>>> i hate to admit it because i enjoyed late 70s tennis immensely..but it >>>>was a different game..>>> we all enjoyed it immensely, it was the best time. but of course it was >>>different. far less athletic, primitive by comparison. the women were >>>even further behind.>>> IMO, mac's unbelievable natural talent made 6'2" lendl train like he >>>>did, led others to follow suit, which paved way for even bigger guys and >>>>bigger hitters (becker)>>> plausible. but we'd have to credit borg first. remember, he had the >>>'unbeatable' aura that made everyone work harder, including mac.>> flaw with that reasoning: mac didn't truly work harder though,> he sure did. after W 1980 he wondered whether he could improve enough to > ever beat borg.> matured and his peak game topped borg's on all but clay.> remember, borg lost to other guys at USO so that's not at issue, and of > course borg was obviously superior at the FO. so the key issue is W and > the only time mac ever beat borg at W was in 81 and that match swung on > just a couple points. sheesh, he was younger and getting better. don't forget, mac beat him last 3 slams, and very nearly won 80 Wimbledon also---- all signs pt to mac being on verge of beating bjorn at will. no wonder mac doesn't claim any mastery over borg. no, had borg stayed around WE wouuld all be saying it. bob
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 11 February 2006 03:42:52 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:51:57 -0600, stephenj <sjek@cox.net> wrote: bob wrote:>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message >> news:43eb091f$0$3664$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>>> I think you're missing the point - Hazel says Borg woulda won AO if he >>>>>won it. Can't really argue.>>>> AO was warmup back then. No big deal. Borg didn't even bother to>>>>play. Had he played though he would have probably won it 6x for 17>>>>slams lifetime at age 25.>>> Borg said if he played AO he woulda been mentally fucked & wouldn't have >>>won all those tight 5-setters at Wimbledon. He needed plenty of mental >>>rest from his mind-numbing style. Borg proves you clueless yet again.>> that's why we can't just give couldas..people say "but AO was 6 months >> before W, he had time to rest"..to which i reply, if he was that burnt out, >> and played AO, maybe he retires at 24 instead of 26..no way for us to know >> the repercussions.> rst bot response: the record shows that borg didn't spend his non-AO >time resting, he spent it playing ... other tennis tournaments! >therefore, it's absurd to say that playing AO would have burnt him out, >even if that's the face-saving answer he gave. It was the travel i think. In those days it was a looong hard flight to Australia. Probably took 3 days with a few stopovers coming and going on top of everything else. I seem to recall at the time it was the travel that put him off. He didn't even like traveling to the USO and that was a cakewalk compared to going to Australia.
		Add comment


Stephenj 11 February 2006 04:58:22 [ permanent link ]
	Dave Hazelwood wrote:> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:51:57 -0600, stephenj <sjek@cox.net> wrote:> bob wrote:>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message >>>news:43eb091f$0$3664$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>>>> I think you're missing the point - Hazel says Borg woulda won AO if he >>>>>>won it. Can't really argue.>>>>> AO was warmup back then. No big deal. Borg didn't even bother to>>>>>play. Had he played though he would have probably won it 6x for 17>>>>>slams lifetime at age 25.>>>> Borg said if he played AO he woulda been mentally fucked & wouldn't have >>>>won all those tight 5-setters at Wimbledon. He needed plenty of mental >>>>rest from his mind-numbing style. Borg proves you clueless yet again.>>> that's why we can't just give couldas..people say "but AO was 6 months >>>before W, he had time to rest"..to which i reply, if he was that burnt out, >>>and played AO, maybe he retires at 24 instead of 26..no way for us to know >>>the repercussions.>> rst bot response: the record shows that borg didn't spend his non-AO >>time resting, he spent it playing ... other tennis tournaments! >>therefore, it's absurd to say that playing AO would have burnt him out, >>even if that's the face-saving answer he gave.> It was the travel i think. In those days it was a looong hard flight to> Australia. Probably took 3 days with a few stopovers coming and> going on top of everything else. they had 747s in the 70s. borg was rich and could fly nonstop/first class. -- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the markets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared." - Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
		Add comment


Stephenj 11 February 2006 05:02:17 [ permanent link ]
	bob wrote:> "stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message > news:cW7Hf.25418$Dh.23576@dukeread04...> bob wrote:>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message >>>news:43eb091f$0$3664$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>>>> I think you're missing the point - Hazel says Borg woulda won AO if he >>>>>>won it. Can't really argue.>>>>> AO was warmup back then. No big deal. Borg didn't even bother to>>>>>play. Had he played though he would have probably won it 6x for 17>>>>>slams lifetime at age 25.>>>> Borg said if he played AO he woulda been mentally fucked & wouldn't have >>>>won all those tight 5-setters at Wimbledon. He needed plenty of mental >>>>rest from his mind-numbing style. Borg proves you clueless yet again.>>> that's why we can't just give couldas..people say "but AO was 6 months >>>before W, he had time to rest"..to which i reply, if he was that burnt >>>out, and played AO, maybe he retires at 24 instead of 26..no way for us >>>to know the repercussions.>> rst bot response: the record shows that borg didn't spend his non-AO time >>resting, he spent it playing ... other tennis tournaments! therefore, it's >>absurd to say that playing AO would have burnt him out, even if that's the >>face-saving answer he gave.> playing a slam in australia might take more out of him whatever else he > played. sure..... enough to make him burnt out for FO/W. lol. -- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the markets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared." - Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 11 February 2006 05:21:18 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:58:22 -0600, stephenj <sjek@cox.net> wrote: Dave Hazelwood wrote:>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:51:57 -0600, stephenj <sjek@cox.net> wrote:>> bob wrote:>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message >>>>news:43eb091f$0$3664$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...>>>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:>>>>> I think you're missing the point - Hazel says Borg woulda won AO if he >>>>>>>won it. Can't really argue.>>>>>> AO was warmup back then. No big deal. Borg didn't even bother to>>>>>>play. Had he played though he would have probably won it 6x for 17>>>>>>slams lifetime at age 25.>>>>> Borg said if he played AO he woulda been mentally fucked & wouldn't have >>>>>won all those tight 5-setters at Wimbledon. He needed plenty of mental >>>>>rest from his mind-numbing style. Borg proves you clueless yet again.>>>> that's why we can't just give couldas..people say "but AO was 6 months >>>>before W, he had time to rest"..to which i reply, if he was that burnt out, >>>>and played AO, maybe he retires at 24 instead of 26..no way for us to know >>>>the repercussions.>>> rst bot response: the record shows that borg didn't spend his non-AO >>>time resting, he spent it playing ... other tennis tournaments! >>>therefore, it's absurd to say that playing AO would have burnt him out, >>>even if that's the face-saving answer he gave.>> It was the travel i think. In those days it was a looong hard flight to>> Australia. Probably took 3 days with a few stopovers coming and>> going on top of everything else. > they had 747s in the 70s. borg was rich and could fly nonstop/first class. 747's sure but not so many flights and could not fly non-stop London to Sydney. I flew a lot between US and Asia in the mid 80's and it was a nasty experience most of the time. Do you know it is only within the past 5 years you could fly London to Singapore non stop ? Or even Singpore to USA. Even now it is a 30 hour trip for me door to door from USA to Hong Kong and Australia is another 12 hours beyond ! Now roll back time 30 years and I tell you back then it was HORRIBLE journey. In the 70's there were also FAR FAR fewer flights to Australia and you would have had to stopover here and stopover there and I imagine the trip could take 60+ to 70+ hours easily.
		Add comment


Whisper 12 February 2006 02:35:45 [ permanent link ]
	stephenj wrote:>> those that knew how to play on grass late 70s were either (a) way past >> their peak or (b) never top flight players..of the late 70s top flight >> players, none of them would claim grass as their best surface, IMO..go >> ahead, maybe list them from 75-79, top 5 overall players...> it was second nature for all guys to have s/v and c/c skills at that > time. you just couldn't make it without them. connors, vitas, vilas, > borg, mac, baseliners and servers alike - they all had it.> Is that because modern rackets now allow bumrooters to hit winners from baseline, wheras before you couldn't do it so had to come into net to finish the point...? I thought you said bumrooters benefitted the least from technology...? Start spinning.... ; )
		Add comment


Bob 12 February 2006 15:39:28 [ permanent link ]
	"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:43ee74c3$0$31284$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...> stephenj wrote:>>> those that knew how to play on grass late 70s were either (a) way past >>> their peak or (b) never top flight players..of the late 70s top flight >>> players, none of them would claim grass as their best surface, IMO..go >>> ahead, maybe list them from 75-79, top 5 overall players...>> it was second nature for all guys to have s/v and c/c skills at that >> time. you just couldn't make it without them. connors, vitas, vilas, >> borg, mac, baseliners and servers alike - they all had it.>> Is that because modern rackets now allow bumrooters to hit winners from > baseline, wheras before you couldn't do it so had to come into net to > finish the point...?> I thought you said bumrooters benefitted the least from technology...?> Start spinning.... ; ) correct, the new rackets had a far greater effect on teh bumrooters, the amounts of topspin and power from baseline that you get had far greater effect than minor serve speed improvement. bob
		Add comment


Stephenj 12 February 2006 19:08:06 [ permanent link ]
	Whisper wrote:> stephenj wrote:> those that knew how to play on grass late 70s were either (a) way >>> past their peak or (b) never top flight players..of the late 70s top >>> flight players, none of them would claim grass as their best surface, >>> IMO..go ahead, maybe list them from 75-79, top 5 overall players...>> it was second nature for all guys to have s/v and c/c skills at that >> time. you just couldn't make it without them. connors, vitas, vilas, >> borg, mac, baseliners and servers alike - they all had it.>> Is that because modern rackets now allow bumrooters to hit winners from > baseline, wheras before you couldn't do it so had to come into net to > finish the point...? partly, and partly because grass was the dominant slam (and tour) surface when they were coming up. I thought you said bumrooters benefitted the least from technology...? modern rackets boosted baseline shots and serves, but not volleys. -- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the markets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared." - Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
		Add comment


Stephenj 12 February 2006 19:08:41 [ permanent link ]
	bob wrote:> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message > news:43ee74c3$0$31284$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...> stephenj wrote:>> those that knew how to play on grass late 70s were either (a) way past >>>>their peak or (b) never top flight players..of the late 70s top flight >>>>players, none of them would claim grass as their best surface, IMO..go >>>>ahead, maybe list them from 75-79, top 5 overall players...>>> it was second nature for all guys to have s/v and c/c skills at that >>>time. you just couldn't make it without them. connors, vitas, vilas, >>>borg, mac, baseliners and servers alike - they all had it.>>> Is that because modern rackets now allow bumrooters to hit winners from >>baseline, wheras before you couldn't do it so had to come into net to >>finish the point...?>> I thought you said bumrooters benefitted the least from technology...?>> Start spinning.... ; )> correct, the new rackets had a far greater effect on teh bumrooters, the > amounts of topspin and power from baseline that you get had far greater > effect than minor serve speed improvement. no, i explained how the biggest impact was on first-serving and the emergence of the serve-sweep game. -- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the markets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared." - Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
		Add comment


Stephenj 12 February 2006 19:09:17 [ permanent link ]
	bob wrote:> "stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message not if the later guys had to use 65" wood rackets like he did.> not the problem, tanner/edmondson did and nearly beat borg on grass. tanner/edmondson had better grass skills than 99% of the 90s guys did. -- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the markets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared." - Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
		Add comment


Bob 13 February 2006 03:08:15 [ permanent link ]
	"stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message news:Y4JHf.29685$Dh.16506@dukeread04...> bob wrote:>> "stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message> not if the later guys had to use 65" wood rackets like he did.>> not the problem, tanner/edmondson did and nearly beat borg on grass.> tanner/edmondson had better grass skills than 99% of the 90s guys did. but we have a problem: decent grass skill comparatively speaking, but overall very low level. bob
		Add comment


Dave Hazelwood 13 February 2006 05:58:54 [ permanent link ]
	On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 00:08:15 GMT, "bob" <rstein6@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com> wrote: "stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message >news:Y4JHf.29685$Dh.16506@dukeread04...>> bob wrote:>>> "stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message>> not if the later guys had to use 65" wood rackets like he did.>>> not the problem, tanner/edmondson did and nearly beat borg on grass.>> tanner/edmondson had better grass skills than 99% of the 90s guys did.> but we have a problem: decent grass skill comparatively speaking, but >overall very low level.> bob > like sampras ?
		Add comment


Stephenj 13 February 2006 07:49:19 [ permanent link ]
	bob wrote:> "stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message > news:Y4JHf.29685$Dh.16506@dukeread04...> bob wrote:>> "stephenj" <sjek@cox.net> wrote in message>> not if the later guys had to use 65" wood rackets like he did.>>> not the problem, tanner/edmondson did and nearly beat borg on grass.>> tanner/edmondson had better grass skills than 99% of the 90s guys did.> but we have a problem: decent grass skill comparatively speaking, but > overall very low level. can't say 'overall' because we'd be comparing wood with modern rackets - not comparable. for the modern racket game, sampras faced almost no one with grass skills. -- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the markets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared." - Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
		Add comment


Noyb 4 August 2006 00:54:53 [ permanent link ]
	<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote in message news:9io4d2tpfjadjg7d7foam4b5apcm5rbl88@4ax.com...> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:40:50 -0400, " JimH"> <jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom> wrote:> .......have you taken your boat out this year?> Almost every day since new years At least twice, but usually three times, every single weekend. I average about 350 hours on my boats each year.
		Add comment


Bryan 4 August 2006 01:27:05 [ permanent link ]
	" JimH" <jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom> wrote in message news:QZ-dnXPP6dDYzE_ZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com...> .......have you taken your boat out this year?> Ours went in the water on May 20th and since then we have been out on it > 15 times (13 day and 2 late evening) over those 11 weeks. Considering the > fact that high waves kept us off the water while on Put-In-Bay for the > week and the amount of rain and heavy storms we have had this summer I am > surprised the number is that high.> We still have quite a bit of boating to do this year. I am looking > forward to some good perch fishing later this month. > So how has your usage been this year?> About 9 or 10 times and 3 days were boat camping. Going out again tomorrow.
		Add comment


Bryan 4 August 2006 01:29:49 [ permanent link ]
	"NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message news:xotAg.2797$xp2.17@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...> <gfretwell@aol.com> wrote in message > news:9io4d2tpfjadjg7d7foam4b5apcm5rbl88@4ax.com...>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:40:50 -0400, " JimH">> <jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom> wrote:>> .......have you taken your boat out this year?>> Almost every day since new years> At least twice, but usually three times, every single weekend.> I average about 350 hours on my boats each year.> That's a good point, the hours. I've had my ski boat for 1 year and I have almost 80 hours on the engine. I hope to get out several more times with the kids including a labor day campout and then once every one or two weeks when the lake turns over for some trout fishing.
		Add comment


Lost In Space/Woodchuck 4 August 2006 02:00:24 [ permanent link ]
	about 60gal of gas times out! It hasn't been good here in western PA for boating this year. It rains, the rivers go up and by the time the water comes down, it storms again. " JimH" <jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom> wrote in message news:QZ-dnXPP6dDYzE_ZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com...> .......have you taken your boat out this year?> Ours went in the water on May 20th and since then we have been out on it > 15 times (13 day and 2 late evening) over those 11 weeks. Considering the > fact that high waves kept us off the water while on Put-In-Bay for the > week and the amount of rain and heavy storms we have had this summer I am > surprised the number is that high.> We still have quite a bit of boating to do this year. I am looking > forward to some good perch fishing later this month. > So how has your usage been this year?>
		Add comment


Bryan 4 August 2006 04:32:00 [ permanent link ]
	<tschnautz@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1154645661.641774.259050@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> If it wasn't so blasted hot, I'd have it out a lot more often. I've> had it out about 5 times since memorial day. boohoo.> Unbearably hot is our number 1 motivation for going to the lake!
		Add comment


Mgg 4 August 2006 08:03:56 [ permanent link ]
	We try to go out at least one day every weekend. Lately it's been every other weekend though. We did go camping for three days down at Lake San Antonio (CA) last month...that was a blast. Sometimes I'll sneak out to the lake with a sack lunch and my fishing pole during the week. I'm guessing I'll probably put 80-90 hours on the boat this year. --Mike " JimH" <jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom> wrote in message news:QZ-dnXPP6dDYzE_ZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com...> .......have you taken your boat out this year?> Ours went in the water on May 20th and since then we have been out on it > 15 times (13 day and 2 late evening) over those 11 weeks. Considering the > fact that high waves kept us off the water while on Put-In-Bay for the > week and the amount of rain and heavy storms we have had this summer I am > surprised the number is that high.> We still have quite a bit of boating to do this year. I am looking > forward to some good perch fishing later this month. > So how has your usage been this year?>
		Add comment


Guest 4 August 2006 10:24:32 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:40:50 -0400, " JimH" wrote: .......have you taken your boat out this year? Somewhere between 50 and 60 days out. -rick-
		Add comment


Harry Krause 4 August 2006 15:27:20 [ permanent link ]
	basskisser wrote:> JimH wrote:>> .......have you taken your boat out this year?>> Ours went in the water on May 20th and since then we have been out on it 15>> times (13 day and 2 late evening) over those 11 weeks. Considering the fact>> that high waves kept us off the water while on Put-In-Bay for the week and>> the amount of rain and heavy storms we have had this summer I am surprised>> the number is that high.> We know, we've heard every single bit of it, right down to every minute> bit. On and on.> Give it a rest, eh?
		Add comment


Harry Krause 4 August 2006 16:18:42 [ permanent link ]
	basskisser wrote:> Harry Krause wrote:>> basskisser wrote:>>> JimH wrote:>>>> .......have you taken your boat out this year?>>>> Ours went in the water on May 20th and since then we have been out on it 15>>>> times (13 day and 2 late evening) over those 11 weeks. Considering the fact>>>> that high waves kept us off the water while on Put-In-Bay for the week and>>>> the amount of rain and heavy storms we have had this summer I am surprised>>>> the number is that high.>>> We know, we've heard every single bit of it, right down to every minute>>> bit. On and on.>>> Give it a rest, eh?> I find it odd that after JimH pissed everyone (and I mean everyone) off> here with his constant barrages, he then comes back and makes those> gullible enough to believe it, that he's changed for the better. Except> for the fact that he still calls people childish names, and uses petty> insults on those he doesn't like. It seems that I'm the only one who> remembers just how bad he got.> Maybe you're the only one who cares enough to keep bringing it up. Why not give it a rest and be a little less argumentative?
		Add comment


JohnH 4 August 2006 16:38:33 [ permanent link ]
	On 4 Aug 2006 05:05:54 -0700, "basskisser" <atl_man2@yahoo.com> wrote: Snipped It seems that I'm the only one who>remembers just how bad he got. Wrong. But your posts aren't going to change anything. I agree with Harry on this one. -- **************************************** * Have a Spectacular Day! * **************************************** John
		Add comment


JimH 4 August 2006 17:10:17 [ permanent link ]
	Thanks all. Maybe your comments will make him stop it already. <tschnautz@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1154696379.708978.72080@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> Agreeing with Harry, JohnH and Eisboch...> Eisboch wrote:>> "basskisser" <atl_man2@yahoo.com> wrote in message>> news:1154693154.917137.14360@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...>> > I find it odd that after JimH pissed everyone (and I mean everyone) off>> > here with his constant barrages, he then comes back and makes those>> > gullible enough to believe it, that he's changed for the better. Except>> > for the fact that he still calls people childish names, and uses petty>> > insults on those he doesn't like. It seems that I'm the only one who>> > remembers just how bad he got.>> > Sometimes it is best for the benefit of everyone to let bygones be >> bygones>> and move on.>> The NG as a whole benefits and is much more enjoyable.>> Eisboch>
		Add comment


Harry Krause 4 August 2006 19:31:48 [ permanent link ]
	Tim wrote:> Harry Krause wrote:>> Move on, dammit!> Isn't it "moveon.org"?>> Even my political posts are more fun than this crap.> Agreed. I'm about as far away from Harry on the political spectrum ad> one can get.> But I know , or at least feel we could sit down at a dinner and have a> great discussion about "stuff" in general.> Soemtime, if we meet up, Harry, could we take the YoHo out for a spin? Sure. I'm right on Chesapeake Bay. Between Annapolis and Solomons Island.
		Add comment


JohnH 5 August 2006 00:35:57 [ permanent link ]
	On 4 Aug 2006 07:57:17 -0700, "basskisser" <atl_man2@yahoo.com> wrote: JimH wrote:>> Thanks all. Maybe your comments will make him stop it already.> Jim, do you not remember how shitty your treated EVERYBODY here for>weeks on end?>Honest question, and it deserves an honest answer.>By the way, if you don't remember, I suggest you seek professional help. bk, what part of 'stop' is hard to understand? Come on now! -- **************************************** * Have a Spectacular Day! * **************************************** John
		Add comment


JohnH 5 August 2006 05:31:01 [ permanent link ]
	On 4 Aug 2006 17:25:13 -0700, tschnautz@gmail.com wrote: Where's the sport in that?> how 'bout M-1's at 300 meters????> I'd go M-14's. Don't know much about an M-1. I sure like the M-14 though. -- **************************************** * Have a Spectacular Day! * **************************************** John
		Add comment


Harry Krause 5 August 2006 06:00:00 [ permanent link ]
	tschnautz@gmail.com wrote:> you'd get used to it really easy, John> JohnH wrote:>> On 4 Aug 2006 17:25:13 -0700, tschnautz@gmail.com wrote:>> Where's the sport in that?>>> how 'bout M-1's at 300 meters????>>> I'd go M-14's. Don't know much about an M-1. I sure like the M-14 though.>> -->> ****************************************>> * Have a Spectacular Day! *>> ****************************************>> John> If you want accuracy at distance, you want a good, heavy, bolt action rifle. Didn't the military recently switch back to bolt-action rifles for its snipers?
		Add comment


P. Fritz 5 August 2006 18:20:33 [ permanent link ]
	"Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message news:BLadnaXRTJ4ZA0nZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...> basskisser wrote:>> JimH wrote:>>> Tim wrote:>>>> Harry Krause wrote:>>>>> Move on, dammit!>>>> Isn't it "moveon.org"?>>>>> Even my political posts are more fun than this crap.>>>> Agreed. I'm about as far away from Harry on the political spectrum ad>>>> one can get.>>>> But I know , or at least feel we could sit down at a dinner and have a>>>> great discussion about "stuff" in general.>>>> Soemtime, if we meet up, Harry, could we take the YoHo out for a spin?>>>> JimH and JohnH>>>> I like you gents, and hold you both in a higher regard.>>>> I'm hoping not to be out of line, but don't you think you might settle>>>> your differences?>>>> life is too short (at least it is for me) to see your continuing>>>> battles. At different times, you both have seemed to have offered each>>>> other a hand of fellowship. But the "he started it!" attitudes seem>>>> to continue.>>>> C'mon guys.>>>> I agree. I tried and asked that this thing between us stop. He>>> rejected the offer.>>> Oh well.>> How did you try? By calling me Kevin, when you know I'm not him?>> (if you think I am, you should take the challenge!)>> By petty insults?>> By childish name calling?>> We don't know that you are not Kevin. We know that you respond to > questions directed to Kevin so we conclude that you are Kevin. What do you expect from someone who believes schnapps is "whiskey"? And, no I don't want to take your silly $5000 challenge.>
		Add comment


JimH 5 August 2006 18:52:58 [ permanent link ]
	<tschnautz@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1154789397.648030.168820@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> Please guys, like harry encouraged. can't y'all give it a rest?> This is getting old.> JimH wrote:>> "P. Fritz" <paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet> wrote in message>> news:12d9a9irl78nqc9@corp.supernews.com...>> > "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message>> > news:BLadnaXRTJ4ZA0nZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...>> >> basskisser wrote:>> >>> JimH wrote:>> >>>> Tim wrote:>> JimH and JohnH>> >>>>> I like you gents, and hold you both in a higher regard.>> >>>>> I'm hoping not to be out of line, but don't you think you might >> >>>>> settle>> >>>>> your differences?>> >>>>> life is too short (at least it is for me) to see your continuing>> >>>>> battles. At different times, you both have seemed to have offered >> >>>>> each>> >>>>> other a hand of fellowship. But the "he started it!" attitudes >> >>>>> seem>> >>>>> to continue.>> >>>>> C'mon guys.>> >>>>> I agree. I tried and asked that this thing between us stop. He>> >>>> rejected the offer.>> >>>> Oh well.>> How did you try? By calling me Kevin, when you know I'm not him?>> You used the email of Kevin Noble, you live in the area Kevin Noble lives>> in, you posted as Kevin Noble.....etc, etc, etc....>> If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and quacks like a>> duck............>> Why are you so ashamed of being called your real name? How is that>> insulting or name calling?>> BTW: My response was not about you anyway, but JohnH.> The last you will hear from me on this. Dang it, east winds with a capping Lake. Oh well, looks like no boating today.
		Add comment


Harry Krause 5 August 2006 20:31:47 [ permanent link ]
	JimH wrote:> "Harry Krause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:aN-dnZ1PT9UVI0nZnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@comcast.com...>> JimH wrote:>> Dang it, east winds with a capping Lake. Oh well, looks like no boating >>> today. >> My wife was on a plane flying over your city today, maybe even over your >> house, on her way to Chicago. Did anyone wave? :>}> I saw her.....and waved. > You better not be lying, because I'm going to ask her!
		Add comment


JimH 5 August 2006 20:44:44 [ permanent link ]
	"Harry Krause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message news:eNmdnWIzgvtsWknZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com...> JimH wrote:>> "Harry Krause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:aN-dnZ1PT9UVI0nZnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@comcast.com...>>> JimH wrote:>>> Dang it, east winds with a capping Lake. Oh well, looks like no >>>> boating today. >>> My wife was on a plane flying over your city today, maybe even over your >>> house, on her way to Chicago. Did anyone wave? :>}>> I saw her.....and waved. > You better not be lying, because I'm going to ask her!> If she was that nice looking lady sitting next to a young handsome man, kissing and sharing a glass of wine with him........then I saw her.
		Add comment


Harry Krause 5 August 2006 20:53:54 [ permanent link ]
	JimH wrote:> "Harry Krause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:eNmdnWIzgvtsWknZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com...>> JimH wrote:>>> "Harry Krause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:aN-dnZ1PT9UVI0nZnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@comcast.com...>>>> JimH wrote:>>>> Dang it, east winds with a capping Lake. Oh well, looks like no >>>>> boating today. >>>> My wife was on a plane flying over your city today, maybe even over your >>>> house, on her way to Chicago. Did anyone wave? :>}>>> I saw her.....and waved. >> You better not be lying, because I'm going to ask her!>> If she was that nice looking lady sitting next to a young handsome man, > kissing and sharing a glass of wine with him........then I saw her. > Well, Uma Thurman is stopping by here later...
		Add comment


Wayne . B 5 August 2006 22:02:00 [ permanent link ]
	On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 12:04:44 -0400, Harry Krause <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote: You can call me Al. OK Al. If you would stop reposting and replying, the rest of us would not even know these KF'd idjits even existed, and that would be a good thing.
		Add comment


Maynard G . Krebbs 6 August 2006 06:10:20 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 22:00:00 -0400, Harry Krause <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote: If you want accuracy at distance, you want a good, heavy, bolt action >rifle. Didn't the military recently switch back to bolt-action rifles >for its snipers? That's true for blow-back autos but gas-operated semi/autos (M1/M14) bolts lock untill the round is out of the barrel so they work well as sniper weapons. The quality of the individual weapon is really the determining factor as long as the bolt stays locked until the round is gone. Mark E. Williams
		Add comment


Wayne . B 6 August 2006 07:02:17 [ permanent link ]
	On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:10:20 -0500, Maynard G. Krebbs <eatsalot@thegalley.sink> wrote: That's true for blow-back autos but gas-operated semi/autos (M1/M14)>bolts lock untill the round is out of the barrel so they work well as>sniper weapons. We used M14s when I was in basic training back in the 60s. They were deadly accurate at 300+ yards using the standard iron sights.
		Add comment


JohnH 6 August 2006 15:57:44 [ permanent link ]
	On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:02:17 -0400, Wayne.B <waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com> wrote: On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:10:20 -0500, Maynard G. Krebbs><eatsalot@thegalley.sink> wrote:> That's true for blow-back autos but gas-operated semi/autos (M1/M14)>>bolts lock untill the round is out of the barrel so they work well as>>sniper weapons.> We used M14s when I was in basic training back in the 60s. They were>deadly accurate at 300+ yards using the standard iron sights. Amen! And somewhere around here I've got my Expert Marksmanship Badge to prove it. -- **************************************** * Have a Spectacular Day! * **************************************** John
		Add comment


Reginal P. Smithers III 6 August 2006 16:58:13 [ permanent link ]
	basskisser wrote:> JimH wrote:>> "Wayne.B" <waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com> wrote in message>> news:85n9d2p0kuij5doucj3hoieb95621fdsqe@4ax.com...>>> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 12:04:44 -0400, Harry Krause>>> <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote:>>> You can call me Al.>>> OK Al.>>> If you would stop reposting and replying, the rest of us would not>>> even know these KF'd idjits even existed, and that would be a good>>> thing.>>> Just as you sir are about to go into my dumpster. See 'ya!> Hehee.....Jim is Harry's little brother now. who'd have thought!> Bassy, Egging Jim into a silly NG fight gets old don't you think?
		Add comment


Harry Krause 7 August 2006 04:13:10 [ permanent link ]
	tschnautz@gmail.com wrote:> Well, I really haven't been pleased with what I see. I'd like to find> an OE which is next to impossible. But otherwise it seems like the> bimini's all look like an old buggy top.> style is one thing ,protection is another.> And next year I may have a different boat. one WITH a top. My Parker has a nice bimini.
		Add comment


Calif Bill 7 August 2006 08:29:29 [ permanent link ]
	"FWB" <fwb2355@aim.com> wrote in message news:op.tdvg0vmtd0keil@localhost...> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:40:50 -0400, JimH > <jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom> wrote:> .......have you taken your boat out this year?> Twice, once in the Delaware and once in the Chesapeake. All the rain we > had late spring and early summer kind of cut into my weekends.> -- > Blogging from Pine View Farm--http://frankwbell.no-ip.info/weblog> Updates daily. Worthwhile updates occasionally.> fwb2355 is a spam trap. Email frankwbell at comcast.net> Slackware (http://www.slackware.com) and Opera (http://www.opera.com): > the ultimate internet experience. A few times, but with a 7 week driving trip to Alaska and now getting the house cleaned up for Daughters wedding in a couple of weeks, not much time. Figuring Wed's, taking the boat for a test run, so when the friends are here, we can do a boating day.
		Add comment

GYXU > Basketball > How many times? 7 August 2006 15:40:55

	see also: Is Annika finished? ROWE IS FULL OF IT Re: Theory behind the "Inside…		pass tests:		see also: :-) ... Sri Lanka Vs West Indies

Copyright © 2001—2009 GYXU
Idea: Miсhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.gyxu.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.gyxu.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.gyxu.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:

If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .