Whisper believes that Pete Sampras dominated his opponents to a degree that Ivan Lendl never did.
To test this, I examined their entire careers for instances of beating up on the hoi polloi* of the tennis-world. (Important pedantic note: my mother, who has a degree in Attic Greek, is adamant that saying THE hoi polloi is a redundancy because "hoi" already means "the". My rejoinder is that once a foreign phrase enters the language its native grammatical form is superceded by the new language).
Anyway, my criterion of "beating up on" is three or less games conceded in a best-of-three setter and five or less in a best of five setter.
Whisper believes that Pete Sampras dominated his opponents to a degree
that> Ivan Lendl never did.
Pretty obvious, given that Sampras won 12 slams in 8 years whereas Lendl won 8 slams in 7 years.
So what's your point?
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
Whisper believes that Pete Sampras dominated his opponents to a degree that> Ivan Lendl never did.>
To test this, I examined their entire careers for instances of beating up on> the hoi polloi* of the tennis-world. (Important pedantic note: my mother,> who has a degree in Attic Greek, is adamant that saying THE hoi polloi is a> redundancy because "hoi" already means "the". My rejoinder is that once a> foreign phrase enters the language its native grammatical form is superceded> by the new language).>
Anyway, my criterion of "beating up on" is three or less games conceded in a> best-of-three setter and five or less in a best of five setter.>
Oh god, this is getting too long and it's still only 1980! I'll just count> 'em and give you the final tally.>
Lendl: 164> Sampras: 45 (no, not a typo!)>
I report........YOU decide.....>
(BTW did you that Lendl would swap his stats for Pete's in a trice for just> one Wimbledon title? ........Just saving you the trouble, Whisp..........)>
Lloyd... I'm speechless.
Is it possible to be well educated & really stupid simultaneously?
He barely played it. He lost 2 finals, one was 9-11 in 5th set, & he was old.
And he lost out to the> three musketeers (Lacoste, Cochet and Borotra) who were much better> than the Bill Johnston's and Brian Norton's he defeated. Also don't> forget he could not win a Wimbledon from 1927-29
He didn't enter Wimbledon those yrs. My understanding is he won at 1st attempt, retained it following yr & then skipped it until winning again many yrs later. Had he played them all he'd easily have 20 blue-chip slams... until about 1960 he was universally considered the best ever. He's tier 1 in my book...
and French> Championships from 1925-30.>
When he was No.1 he did not have Lacoste, Cochet or Borotra to> challenge him. As soon as they came on the scene he disappeared.>
He was very old at the time. Why was he considered best ever & not the French guys....?
You really should do that for Kim and the rest of the top players. I am pretty sure she beats people by scores like that more than anyone else. Although I am not sure what exactly that tells us...
You really should do that for Kim and the rest of the top players. I> am pretty sure she beats people by scores like that more than anyone> else. Although I am not sure what exactly that tells us...
Yes, all the slam underachievers should have a crack at this category. Like you say I don't know what he hopes to achieve....
You really should do that for Kim and the rest of the top players. I> am pretty sure she beats people by scores like that more than anyone> else. Although I am not sure what exactly that tells us...
That the gap between her and lesser players is large but that she's solidly stuck behind 3-4 others...?
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> kirjoitti viestissä news:exO6e.213$5X3.4289@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> Raja wrote:> >
Another negative for Tilden is he never won FO.>
He barely played it. He lost 2 finals, one was 9-11 in 5th set, & he> was old.
FO was open from 1925. Tillden could not have played it before (he played it 3 times, 2F, 1SF)
He didn't enter Wimbledon those yrs. My understanding is he won at 1st> attempt, retained it following yr & then skipped it until winning again> many yrs later.
Tillden played Wimbledon 6 times. 3 titles, 3 SF (he skipped it 1922-26)
He was very old at the time. Why was he considered best ever & not the> French guys....?
I though you are one of the biggest supporters of Cochet and Lacoste here?
Probably because Lacoste quitted early and switched to French DC captainity (at age of 26, 1930) and Cochet never shined on pro circuit compared to Tillden, Vines, Perry or Budge).
Minor trivia. Rene Lacoste developed 1967 Wilson T-2000....Connors' racket...
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message news:1113279147.765892.50480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> Lloyd wrote:>> Whisper believes that Pete Sampras dominated his opponents to a> degree that>> Ivan Lendl never did.>
The three main criteria for greatness are> 1) Aura (i.e being unbeatable at peak)> 2) Versatility (ability to beat the best on clay, grass, carpet and> hard)> 3) Domination (counts more if stronger opponents)
but you can't define any of those..those are all subjective..
And here is my TENTATIVE list of greatest men of all time.>
1. Pancho Gonzales, Rod Laver (tie) // Pancho dominated 10 years, Laver> was the most versatile> 3. Bill Tilden // dominated atleast 6 years... thouugh competition was> just okay.> 4. Don Budge // dominated 5 years and could have dominated longer> 5. Bjorn Borg, Ivan Lendl (tie) // Borg for great FO-Wim combo, Lendl> for FO-USO combo, Both very versatile> 7. Jack Kramer // The only guy who beat the crap out of Gonzales,> supposedly dominated around5 years> 8. Pete Sampras // dominated 5 years but missed out on clay> 9. Ken Rosewall // dominated transition era between Gonzales and Laver> 10. John Mcenroe // Dominated 3 years amongst great compeitition> 11. Fred Perry //dominated 3 years among moderate competition> 12. Jimmy Connors //dominated pre-Borg, Mcenroe period. Best> "bridesmaid" ever.>
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:y%L6e.181$5X3.2617@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> Lloyd wrote:>
Whisper believes that Pete Sampras dominated his opponents to a degree >> that>> Ivan Lendl never did.>>
To test this, I examined their entire careers for instances of beating up >> on>> the hoi polloi* of the tennis-world. (Important pedantic note: my mother,>> who has a degree in Attic Greek, is adamant that saying THE hoi polloi is >> a>> redundancy because "hoi" already means "the". My rejoinder is that once a>> foreign phrase enters the language its native grammatical form is >> superceded>> by the new language).>>
Anyway, my criterion of "beating up on" is three or less games conceded >> in a>> best-of-three setter and five or less in a best of five setter.>>
Oh god, this is getting too long and it's still only 1980! I'll just >> count>> 'em and give you the final tally.>>
Lendl: 164>> Sampras: 45 (no, not a typo!)>>
I report........YOU decide.....>>
(BTW did you that Lendl would swap his stats for Pete's in a trice for >> just>> one Wimbledon title? ........Just saving you the trouble, >> Whisp..........)>>
Lloyd... I'm speechless.>
Is it possible to be well educated & really stupid simultaneously?
lloyd still has a vendetta against me since i posted the handy latin phrase book in a thread.
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in message news:d3fgp5$hp0$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...> Whisper believes that Pete Sampras dominated his opponents to a degree > that> Ivan Lendl never did.>
To test this, I examined their entire careers for instances of beating up > on> the hoi polloi* of the tennis-world. (Important pedantic note: my mother,> who has a degree in Attic Greek, is adamant that saying THE hoi polloi is > a> redundancy because "hoi" already means "the". My rejoinder is that once a> foreign phrase enters the language its native grammatical form is > superceded> by the new language).>
Anyway, my criterion of "beating up on" is three or less games conceded in > a> best-of-three setter and five or less in a best of five setter.>
Oh god, this is getting too long and it's still only 1980! I'll just count> 'em and give you the final tally.>
Lendl: 164> Sampras: 45 (no, not a typo!)>
I report........YOU decide.....>
(BTW did you that Lendl would swap his stats for Pete's in a trice for > just> one Wimbledon title? ........Just saving you the trouble, Whisp..........)>
not sure if any school offers a degree in it, but 'attic greek' does exist. in the USA it's usually called "classical greek", you know, the language of plato, socrates, etc.
*** "I think it's a detriment to the game to see the big huge serves...with only a few André's around to return the serve. So much of the time it's the ball kicking way up high...someone like Chang and Lleyton they have to be ready on a ladder to bloody return the serve. In my mind the racket has had an adverse effect to the quality of the spectators"
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:17:06 -0500, "StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote:
You really should do that for Kim and the rest of the top players. I>> am pretty sure she beats people by scores like that more than anyone>> else. Although I am not sure what exactly that tells us...>
That the gap between her and lesser players is large but that she's solidly>stuck behind 3-4 others...?
She doesn't seem to be stuck behind anyone at the moment...
But if what I suspect is true, and it seems to me that she often wins early round matches 6-1,6-0 type scores, while other top players have a lot closer scores, the question is why? I don't know the answer. I would think everyone wants to save the energy as much as possible
That the gap between her and lesser players is large but that she's
solidly> >stuck behind 3-4 others...?>
She doesn't seem to be stuck behind anyone at the moment...
I'm not sure wins at Lipton and/or IW help us know much about FO/W...
But if what I suspect is true, and it seems to me that she often wins> early round matches 6-1,6-0 type scores, while other top players have> a lot closer scores, the question is why? I don't know the answer. I> would think everyone wants to save the energy as much as possible
Could be that her confidence swings more widely than other top players (super-confident vs. lessers, but gets fearful and chokes up playing other top players at slams).
*** I think it's a detriment to the game to see the big huge serves...with only a few André's around to return the serve. So much of the time it's the ball kicking way up high...someone like Chang and Lleyton they have to be ready on a ladder to bloody return the serve. In my mind the racket has had an adverse effect to the quality of the spectators.
"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message news:3gdn51h7p5glefdlalcfsaua2us3ejp5d3@4ax.com...
You really should do that for Kim and the rest of the top players. I> am pretty sure she beats people by scores like that more than anyone> else. Although I am not sure what exactly that tells us...
It tells us how dominant they are against (mostly) lesser players. Against people who can find out and expose their weaknesses it has less to tell..........
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:LMW6e.39914$Pc.25841@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...> no such degree as "attic greek"..doesn't exist.
Actually , it's a degree in Classics majoring in "Attic Greek".
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:y%L6e.181$5X3.2617@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> Lloyd... I'm speechless.>
Is it possible to be well educated & really stupid simultaneously?
Regular readers of rst may note that Whisper makes absolutely no response to the substantive points I raised. It - in other words - is the classical and time-honoured AD HOMINEN attack..........
You really should do that for Kim and the rest of the top players. I>>am pretty sure she beats people by scores like that more than anyone>>else. Although I am not sure what exactly that tells us...>
That the gap between her and lesser players is large but that she's solidly> stuck behind 3-4 others...?>
not sure if any school offers a degree in it, but 'attic greek' does> exist. in the USA it's usually called "classical greek", you know, the> language of plato, socrates, etc.>
"bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in message> news:LMW6e.39914$Pc.25841@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>> no such degree as "attic greek"..doesn't exist.>
Actually , it's a degree in Classics majoring in "Attic Greek".
IIRC the term "attic greek" is applied to the language used in Athens ca in the period of the downfall of Athenian democracy (i.e. by Plato, Socrates, as well as Demosthenes, Aeschines etc.), although, it does not apply to the language of the great classical greek literature (i.e. of Homer, Sappho, not even the Athenian playwrights). It is a very viable subject to major in, however.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:17:06 -0500, "StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com>> wrote:>
You really should do that for Kim and the rest of the top players. I>>>am pretty sure she beats people by scores like that more than anyone>>>else. Although I am not sure what exactly that tells us...>>
That the gap between her and lesser players is large but that she's solidly>>stuck behind 3-4 others...?>
She doesn't seem to be stuck behind anyone at the moment...>
But if what I suspect is true, and it seems to me that she often wins> early round matches 6-1,6-0 type scores, while other top players have> a lot closer scores, the question is why? I don't know the answer. I> would think everyone wants to save the energy as much as possible>
.
Kim needs to find another gear to win slams v the best players. Atm Henin/Serena can reach that gear, & Kim can't compete at that level (who can?).
Of course if Myskina/Kuz can win slams, then so can Kim. But the point is Henin/Serena at peak form would beat Kim easily....
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message>>news:1113279147.765892.50480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>>
Lloyd wrote:>>>
Whisper believes that Pete Sampras dominated his opponents to a>>>
degree that>>>
Ivan Lendl never did.>>>
The three main criteria for greatness are>>>1) Aura (i.e being unbeatable at peak)>>>2) Versatility (ability to beat the best on clay, grass, carpet and>>>hard)>>>3) Domination (counts more if stronger opponents)>>
but you can't define any of those..those are all subjective..>
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message news:1113370679.613137.262940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...> bob wrote:>> "Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message>> news:1113279147.765892.50480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>> > Lloyd wrote:>> >> Whisper believes that Pete Sampras dominated his opponents to a>> > degree that>> >> Ivan Lendl never did.>> >
The three main criteria for greatness are>> > 1) Aura (i.e being unbeatable at peak)>> > 2) Versatility (ability to beat the best on clay, grass, carpet and>> > hard)>> > 3) Domination (counts more if stronger opponents)>>
but you can't define any of those..those are all subjective..>
Subjective for you.... Objective for me!
yes, i can see how domination, versatility and especially aura are objective..wow!
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> kirjoitti viestissä newsmM7e.248$oa7.3693@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> > Wilander was great. I never dismiss him. I think Mecir was a good> > player too.> >
Because Lendl played them in slam finals LMFAO.. : )
If Lendl had lost all his Wilander encounters at slam, Wilander suddenly would have jumped one level up....(Then we would have argues, whether Wilander was a great champ as he beat choker Lendl + Curren + Cash + Leconte + Vilas in his slam finals)
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message news:1113542250.301560.245260@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> Lloyd wrote:>> "Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message>> news:1113458543.156513.303180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...>>
I agree Tilden was great and dominant. But give me one evidence> that>> > his competition was great between 1920-25.>>
If I give you names you'll just say they weren't any good in the same> way as>> people now dismiss Wilander and Mecir.......>
Wilander was great. I never dismiss him. I think Mecir was a good> player too.
