Re: adjusting Whisper's formula yields surprising results

On Apr 14, 4:18 am, Whisper <beaver...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yury wrote:
<blanders0...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1176481439.955844.212710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 13, 11:38 am, "Yury" <ukr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<blanders0...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1176473659.234794.185100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Apr 13, 10:02 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
blanders0...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 13, 9:33 am, "Yury" <ukr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Whisper" <beaver...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:461f4480$0$13132$5a62ac22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
EFill4Zaggin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:06:10 GMT, Dave Hazelwood
<the_big_kah...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:48:49 +1000,Whisper
<beaver...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:37:08 +1000,Whisper
<beaver...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
EFill4Zaggin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:14:21 +1000,Whisper
<beaver...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
EFill4Zaggin wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:35:08 +1000,Whisper
<beaver...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Sampras/Fed have the right priorities - Wimbledon is
always
No.1,
but of course all slams are very important. FO is a
victim
of
atrocious scheduling - move it a few mnths from Wimbledon
&
guys
like Sampras, Mac, Becker etc would have prevailed at
some
point.
So what you're saying is that Sampras/Becker etc, failure
to
win
the
FO is more down to bad scheduling of the event rather than
the
fact
that their styles of play were not technically as well
suited
to
clay?
Guys like that could play on clay as the record shows (eg
Sampras
beat 7 FO champs on clay), but as it's too close to
Wimbledon
they
weren't going to *** their games by grinding from the
baseline -
separate them by 5/6 mnths & woulda been different
landscape.
Tennis obviously loses as these guys actually played a
watchable
brand of clay tennis.
So why was Fed able to make the adjustment so successfully
e.g.
reached FO final and won W in the same year, whereas Sampras
didn't
make a single FO final and only a solitary SF? How come Fed
coped
with
the timing of FO better than Sampras?
He didn't. As you can see he's impotent on clay v a very
young/maturing Rafa (god help him when he matures) - Fed is
doing
much better results-wise as he's playing in a very low talent
era.
Does the name "Borg" ring a bell ?
er, yes. Why?
because he coped well with the "atrocious" scheduling and still
managed to win 6 and 5. That is why he is goat and Sampras
isn't.
Whisperwill probably just respond with his "weak era" get out
clause.
No, I have Borg at no.3 achievement category. He was just weaker
than
Sampras in every category bar FO. Ludicrous to put him ahead of
Sampras
when he loses in every comparison bar clay.
Say, someone has such results
6USO
3AO
1FO
6YEC
7 years #1
Would be ludicrous to put Sampras ahead of such guy ? Sampras would
lose in
every comparison but grass.
--
Regards,
Yours is a nearly impossible scenario to envision, a player with
that
record and no Wimbledons. Bringing up implausible scenarios doesn't
strengthen your position.
Severe allergy to grass? Banned from Wimbledon because he mooned
royalty
and was defaulted in his first Wimbledon and only grass final?
The point is not to make it plausible but to point out the idiocy from
Whisper. As if it is unreasonable for someone to hold Borg as their
goat! That is a pretty bizarre position to hold, IMO.
I do think it is unreasonable to have Borg as GOAT and I have
explained my reasons here several times. Aside from the fact he was a
quitter, his achievements fall short and his lack of USO title shows
that he was neither the greatest s/v player (duh) or baseliner.
Borg was excellent on HC and has very good record at USO.
Sampras sucked on clay and at RG.
First, Sampras did not suck on clay. That would have precluded him
from winning many of the matches he did. You're stupid.

Sampras sucked on clay to the extent *no one* of all-time greats didn't
"achieve" at *any* slam or *any* surface.
Thet's obvious, well-known fact.

His "heroics" in DC against mighty Russians are laugable. Arnaud Boetsch
and Mikhail Youzhny became DC heros at some occasions, Nicolas Escude almost
singlehandedly beat Australia with Hewitt (!!) in Melburne.

Live with it.

To be as good & dominant as Sampras means it's impossible to suck on any
surface unless (pay attention, this is key) he *didn't want it badly
enough*. Sampras did absolutely nothing to modify his game for clay
success. He chose not to as the potential consequences weren't worth
the risk. This isn't just my view, many experts are on record saying
the same thing (I have Newk, Stolle & Trabert on video saying the same
thing).

Only a star hating *** like you would see things differently.
Apparently to you it's perfectly logical for a tennis colossus like
Sampras to suck on a surface. Sadly for you nobody buys it. There are
no experts who consider Borg > Sampras. You have no choice but to live
with it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Trabert also had this to say about Sampras:

"Someone like Sampras was basically saying: 'Why go play the European
clay court season and have to battle it out when I can go win on
grass?' I won national championships on all surfaces: indoor, grass,
clay and hard court, but it never occurred to me not to be able to
play on any surface. I equate it to a shortstop who grew up playing on
grass and then can't play on artificial turf. Well, if you can't play
on every surface that your game is played on then you're not a very
good shortstop. That's one reason why they have the Masters Series:
because the top players are supposed to play those events on the
various surfaces."

So yes, Trabert EXPLAINS Sampras's poor clay record by saying he
didn't want it badly enough - but more importantly, he doesn't EXCUSE
it. Trabert considers Sampras a significantly worse player because of
his surface deficiency.

.

Quantcast