https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/
--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/17/23 7:47 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

This is Ily speaking, you understand.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sawfish: He talks the talk...but does he walk the walk? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:22:16 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

Novak will be forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; )

More or less. Not as bad as that probably.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 11:40:34 AM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:

On 6/17/23 7:47 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

This is Ily speaking, you understand.

-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sawfish: He talks the talk...but does he walk the walk? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ilie Nastase who beat Ashe at US open was a very talented player, beat Laver easily!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

Novak will be forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; )

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/17/23 8:47 AM, gap...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 11:40:34 AM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:

On 6/17/23 7:47 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

This is Ily speaking, you understand.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Sawfish: He talks the talk...but does he walk the walk?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ilie Nastase who beat Ashe at US open was a very talented player, beat Laver easily!

Yes. Saw him twice, live.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"To the average American or Englishman the very name of anarchy causes a shudder, because it invariably conjures up a picture of a land terrorized by low-browed assassins with matted beards, carrying bombs in one hand and mugs of beer in the other. But
as a matter of fact, there is no reason whatever to believe that, if all laws were abolished tomorrow, such swine would survive the day."

--H. L. Mencken ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

Lol these articles and analysis that demean Djokovic are actually more fun than the one praising him.

Not only he won't be forgotten, but if he wins 25, his name will become synonymous with tennis. He will be the most famous tennis player.

Frankly I disagree with that, but I can't ignore prevailing feminism in today's world and stupid lists that combine men's and women's record together that were achieved playing separately. It's dumb beyond belief but it sells.

I hear people who are causal observers of tennis, not even fans, who ask "does he have most "titles" man or woman". They don't even know the name of the titles.

For them, it seems 25 would represent something and that would be it.


As for Nastase, surely he wasn't serious with "forgotten"? I guess lots of it is lost in translation, and I don't know the language of the originalal interview, he's not a native English speaker, I'm not sure what does he mean by "forgotten", but I feel
he meant to say "missed".

That Djokovic won't be missed, as opposed to Federer who is missed?

That's what I assume he meant.


Otherwise makes little sense. You can't forget such player, even if you totally dislike him, he played over 100 matches with Federer, Nadal, Murray so you're bound to remember him every time you remember those other players.




But this is totally stupid of Nastase? He says Nadal is not jelaous of Djokovic's 23 because Nadal could have done it too, but Djokovic should be jealous of Nadal's 14 because he couldn't do it?


"It could have been the other way around, it could have been Nadal with 23. The two are there, stuck together.” Speaking about the number of Grand Slams he said, “Djokovic cares, but I don’t think Nadal is jealous of that. Someone else should be
jealous of him, who won Roland Garros 14 times. Those 14 are tougher than Djokovic’s 23. For him to win on clay 14 times at Roland Garros? I don’t think there’s another player who can do this job.”"



Ok, how dumb.

Maybe someone should tell him that 45 Barcelona titles are more difficult to achieve than 14 FO titles.

It doesn't make them prestigious.

He doesn't seem to realize FO is not one of the ultimate records in tennis?



The ultimate records are:

1. Most matches (Rosewall)
2. Most titles (Laver)
3. Most Wimbledon (Federer)
4. Most GS titles (Djokovic)
5. Most Grand Slam (Laver)
6. Best CGS (Djokovic)
7. Most Year-End #1 (Gonzales)



If you own one of these ultimate categories, you can claim you're goat.

Rosewall: "I won most matches"
Laver: "I won most titles"
Federer: "I won most titles at most prestigious event"

And so on...



OTOH if you own e.g. AO record, you can't really claim you're the goat based on that. Why would you be?

AO, FO, USO records are subcategories. They deserve a mention but are not categories of their own. Same as doing Grand Slam, or YEC record, Olympics etc.

There's one thing though. Greatest Olympian (Murray) should be the ultimate category too, since Olympics define sports and so on, but it feels weird to have it as the ultimate category considering the 1924-1988 gap without Olympics.
--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 2:47:55 PM UTC-7, grif wrote:

On 17/06/2023 15:47, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

As long as people remember Fed's Wimbledon 2019, they'll remember Novak.

Possibly longer than Nasty will be remembered.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:47:55 PM UTC-4, grif wrote:

On 17/06/2023 15:47, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

As long as people remember Fed's Wimbledon 2019, they'll remember Novak.

Of course they will! I remember Borg beating Laver at US Open in straight sets, saw Newc beating Ken at W in London TV!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17/06/2023 15:47, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

As long as people remember Fed's Wimbledon 2019, they'll remember Novak.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:47:55 PM UTC-4, grif wrote:

On 17/06/2023 15:47, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

As long as people remember Fed's Wimbledon 2019, they'll remember Novak.

Yikes, that's a low blow! 😂

My thoughts on the subject are:

1) Nastase is nauseating. I could never stand him for many reasons.

2) To a certain degree, he's correct. First of all, the Big Three will be remembered together especially if one was alive and watching tennis during their tenure. It's hard to speak about one without speaking about the other two.

Then, it's true that when Djokovic retires and as time moves forward, people will forget. His records will be there for eternity but as Djokovic and his fans get older and younger people start to watch tennis, they won't care about Djokovic. They will be
enthralled with the next big thing in tennis. Also, despite Djokovic's pedigree, he isn't beloved the way other great players are or were(Federer, Nadal, Borg, etc.) It is what it is. He could win 50 slams and it wouldn't change. I'm still not a fan of
his even though I respect what he's achieved.

3) Since Federer retired, I haven't watched much tennis at all. I just don't have the same interest level currently. The thing that was keeping me in there was the GOAT race. It looks like that is a done deal unless Nadal can come back and win another FO.
The younger players don't interest me much(pizza face Alcaraz and that sickening kid, Rune.) I'm curious to see if Djokovic can win another Wimbledon. He'll probably win a couple more.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/17/23 5:20 PM, Court_1 wrote:

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:47:55 PM UTC-4, grif wrote:

On 17/06/2023 15:47, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

As long as people remember Fed's Wimbledon 2019, they'll remember Novak.

Yikes, that's a low blow! 😂

My thoughts on the subject are:

1) Nastase is nauseating. I could never stand him for many reasons.

Here's what was funny about him...

I mentioned to gypes that I saw him twice, live. Once was as the captain
of a WTT  team in a team match in SF in the 70s.

The second time was different. We were in LA watching an exhibition
match between Sabatini and someone else. This was in the 80s. and
Nastase no longer played. Between the 1st and second set he came into
the arena to take a seat and watch. When he was recognized and
announced, people treated him like Mick Jagger; many simply wanted to
*touch* him.

He seemed bemused...not amused, but bemused. He was happy, but really
had no idea how to handle it.

When he was in his prime as a player, he was on an interview show, like Cavette. He was a real pussy cat; Cavette could not provoke *anything*
out of him.. Afterward I found that this was common: he was fairly quiet
except on court. It was as if once he got onto a court with a racquet in
his hand he basically was like an alcoholic taking his first big drink.

2) To a certain degree, he's correct. First of all, the Big Three will be remembered together especially if one was alive and watching tennis during their tenure. It's hard to speak about one without speaking about the other two.

Then, it's true that when Djokovic retires and as time moves forward, people will forget. His records will be there for eternity but as Djokovic and his fans get older and younger people start to watch tennis, they won't care about Djokovic. They will

be enthralled with the next big thing in tennis. Also, despite Djokovic's pedigree, he isn't beloved the way other great players are or were(Federer, Nadal, Borg, etc.) It is what it is. He could win 50 slams and it wouldn't change. I'm still not a fan
of his even though I respect what he's achieved.

3) Since Federer retired, I haven't watched much tennis at all. I just don't have the same interest level currently. The thing that was keeping me in there was the GOAT race. It looks like that is a done deal unless Nadal can come back and win another

FO. The younger players don't interest me much(pizza face Alcaraz and that sickening kid, Rune.) I'm curious to see if Djokovic can win another Wimbledon. He'll probably win a couple more.


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The food at the new restaurant was awful--but at least the portions
were large!" --Sawfish

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 18/06/2023 1:52 am, joh wrote:

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:22:16 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

Novak will be forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; )

More or less. Not as bad as that probably.

I'm being sarcastic. History views Court as the greatest of the great.
She won everything there is to win multiple times (all singles, doubles
and mixed slams, calendar slam in singles, 2 calendar slams in mixed
doubles, best winning match % in open era at most slams and overall etc.
Teenage tennis fans have no concept of history, but they will when
they mature : )

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:16:47 AM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 1:52 am, joh wrote:

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:22:16 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

Novak will be forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; )

More or less. Not as bad as that probably.

I'm being sarcastic. History views Court as the greatest of the great.
She won everything there is to win multiple times (all singles, doubles
and mixed slams, calendar slam in singles, 2 calendar slams in mixed doubles, best winning match % in open era at most slams and overall etc. Teenage tennis fans have no concept of history, but they will when
they mature : )

Don't kid yourself. Few under 50 have heard of Court, and this won't improve with time.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

joh <joshorst@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Don't kid yourself. Few under 50 have heard of Court, and this won't improve with time.

But in 20 years time, same will apply to Serena.

Guess whose name will come up first?


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 18/06/2023 8:05 pm, joh wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:16:47 AM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 1:52 am, joh wrote:

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:22:16 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

Novak will be forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; )

More or less. Not as bad as that probably.

I'm being sarcastic. History views Court as the greatest of the great.
She won everything there is to win multiple times (all singles, doubles
and mixed slams, calendar slam in singles, 2 calendar slams in mixed
doubles, best winning match % in open era at most slams and overall etc.
Teenage tennis fans have no concept of history, but they will when
they mature : )

Don't kid yourself. Few under 50 have heard of Court, and this won't improve with time.

The ones who don't know Court don't count right? Who wants to have fans
who have no idea about tennis history and where their hero stands?

In 50 yrs teens won't know who the big 3 were, does that mean they
aren't goat level?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:05:06 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 8:05 pm, joh wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:16:47 AM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 1:52 am, joh wrote:

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:22:16 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

Novak will be forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; )

More or less. Not as bad as that probably.

I'm being sarcastic. History views Court as the greatest of the great.
She won everything there is to win multiple times (all singles, doubles >> and mixed slams, calendar slam in singles, 2 calendar slams in mixed
doubles, best winning match % in open era at most slams and overall etc. >> Teenage tennis fans have no concept of history, but they will when
they mature : )

Don't kid yourself. Few under 50 have heard of Court, and this won't improve with time.

The ones who don't know Court don't count right? Who wants to have fans
who have no idea about tennis history and where their hero stands?

How would you rate 60's AO titles in the 7532 scheme of things?

In 50 yrs teens won't know who the big 3 were, does that mean they
aren't goat level?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 9:20:35 AM UTC-4, joh wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:05:06 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 8:05 pm, joh wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:16:47 AM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 1:52 am, joh wrote:

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:22:16 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

Novak will be forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; )

More or less. Not as bad as that probably.

I'm being sarcastic. History views Court as the greatest of the great. >> She won everything there is to win multiple times (all singles, doubles >> and mixed slams, calendar slam in singles, 2 calendar slams in mixed
doubles, best winning match % in open era at most slams and overall etc.
Teenage tennis fans have no concept of history, but they will when
they mature : )

Don't kid yourself. Few under 50 have heard of Court, and this won't improve with time.

The ones who don't know Court don't count right? Who wants to have fans who have no idea about tennis history and where their hero stands?

How would you rate 60's AO titles in the 7532 scheme of things?

In 50 yrs teens won't know who the big 3 were, does that mean they
aren't goat level?

0.75!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

joh <joshorst@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:05:06 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:> On 18/06/2023 8:05 pm, joh wrote: > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:16:47 AM UTC+2, Whisper wrote: > >> On 18/06/2023 1:52 am, joh wrote: > >>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:22:16 

PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote: > >>>> On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote: > >>>>> https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Novak will be
forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; ) > >>> > >>> More or less. Not as bad as that probably. > >> I'm being sarcastic. History views Court as the greatest of the great. > >> She won everything there is to win multiple times (all singles, doubles

and mixed slams, calendar slam in singles, 2 calendar slams in mixed > >> doubles, best winning match % in open era at most slams and overall etc. > >> Teenage tennis fans have no concept of history, but they will when > >> they mature : ) > > > >

Don't kid yourself. Few under 50 have heard of Court, and this won't improve with time.> The ones who don't know Court don't count right? Who wants to have fans > who have no idea about tennis history and where their hero stands? How would you rate 60's
AO titles in the 7532 scheme of things?> > In 50 yrs teens won't know who the big 3 were, does that mean they > aren't goat level?



You're clueless joh, 60s AO (btw no such thing, only 1969 edition was AO, but I assume you mean Australian Championship) is actually non-asterisked in the 60s, it was at the late stage of amateur era and during Aussie domination (Laver, Rosewall, Emerson,
Court etc) so while it was part of lesser amateur tour (for men) it actually didn't suffer relatively to other slams as compared to 70s and 80s or pre 1990 in general.

So I would be comfortable with even 7555 for amateurs in the 60s. Why not?

And of course, 7543 is probably most suitable for the 1980s.

Nowadays I'd do 7555 again, why not.

But 7543 is kinda approximation and best historical version because Aus and French had lesser periods more often than Wimbledon and US did.





--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r

joh <joshorst@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:05:06 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:> On 18/06/2023 8:05 pm, joh wrote: > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:16:47 AM UTC+2, Whisper wrote: > >> On 18/06/2023 1:52 am, joh wrote: > >

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:22:16 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote: > >>>> On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote: > >>>>> https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-

djokovic/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Novak will be forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; ) > >>> > >>> More or less. Not as bad as that probably. > >> I'm being sarcastic. History views Court as the greatest of the great. > >> She won everything there
is to win multiple times (all singles, doubles > >> and mixed slams, calendar slam in singles, 2 calendar slams in mixed > >> doubles, best winning match % in open era at most slams and overall etc. > >> Teenage tennis fans have no concept of history,
but they will when > >> they mature : ) > > > > Don't kid yourself. Few under 50 have heard of Court, and this won't improve with time.> The ones who don't know Court don't count right? Who wants to have fans > who have no idea about tennis history and
where their hero stands? How would you rate 60's AO titles in the 7532 scheme of things?> > In 50 yrs teens won't know who the big 3 were, does that mean they > aren't goat level?You're clueless joh, 60s AO (btw no such thing, only 1969 edition was AO,
but I assume you mean Australian Championship) is actually non-asterisked in the 60s, it was at the late stage of amateur era and during Aussie domination (Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Court etc) so while it was part of lesser amateur tour (for men) it
actually didn't suffer relatively to other slams as compared to 70s and 80s or pre 1990 in general.So I would be comfortable with even 7555 for amateurs in the 60s. Why not?And of course, 7543 is probably most suitable for the 1980s.Nowadays I'd do 7555
again, why not.But 7543 is kinda approximation and best historical version because Aus and French had lesser periods more often than Wimbledon and US did.-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html


Btw 7555 for amateurs in the 60s doesn't mean it's equal to true open era 7543 for the 1980s or (my view) present day 7555.

There were two tours in the 60s so you'd probably have to split it in two, and in the late 1960s, amateurs could even be worth 1/3 of overall value and pros would be 2/3.

So I guess it's between 3111 or 4222 or something like that for slams in the 1960s.

The rest of the full 7543 value would be in pro tour.


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r

*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r> joh <joshorst@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:05:06 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:> On 18/06/2023 8:05 pm, joh wrote: > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:16:47 AM UTC+2,

Whisper wrote: > >> On 18/06/2023 1:52 am, joh wrote: > >>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:22:16 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote: > >>>> On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote: > >>>>> https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-
player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Novak will be forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; ) > >>> > >>> More or less. Not as bad as that probably. > >> I'm being sarcastic. History views Court as
the greatest of the great. > >> She won everything there is to win multiple times (all singles, doubles > >> and mixed slams, calendar slam in singles, 2 calendar slams in mixed > >> doubles, best winning match % in open era at most slams and overall etc.

Teenage tennis fans have no concept of history, but they will when > >> they mature : ) > > > > Don't kid yourself. Few under 50 have heard of Court, and this won't improve with time.> The ones who don't know Court don't count right? Who wants to

have fans > who have no idea about tennis history and where their hero stands? How would you rate 60's AO titles in the 7532 scheme of things?> > In 50 yrs teens won't know who the big 3 were, does that mean they > aren't goat level?You're clueless joh,
60s AO (btw no such thing, only 1969 edition was AO, but I assume you mean Australian Championship) is actually non-asterisked in the 60s, it was at the late stage of amateur era and during Aussie domination (Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Court etc) so while
it was part of lesser amateur tour (for men) it actually didn't suffer relatively to other slams as compared to 70s and 80s or pre 1990 in general.So I would be comfortable with even 7555 for amateurs in the 60s. Why not?And of course, 7543 is probably
most suitable for the 1980s.Nowadays I'd do 7555 again, why not.But 7543 is kinda approximation and best historical version because Aus and French had lesser periods more often than Wimbledon and US did.-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.
s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.htmlBtw 7555 for amateurs in the 60s doesn't mean it's equal to true open era 7543 for the 1980s or (my view) present day 7555.There were two tours in the 60s so you'd probably have to split it in two, and in the
late 1960s, amateurs could even be worth 1/3 of overall value and pros would be 2/3.So I guess it's between 3111 or 4222 or something like that for slams in the 1960s.The rest of the full 7543 value would be in pro tour.-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html


Another correction, it's *7444*, not 7555.

The total sum of 19 needs to stay the same.
7543 and 7444 fit into that.


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

joh <joshorst@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

From 1960 till 1964 there were never more than 3 non-Australians in the draw.I'd call that an asterisk.

But Australians were top players back then.


In those 5 years (1960-1964) they won 2 French, 4 Wimbledon, 4 US titles.

So they've won 10 our of 15 titles at other slams. Alongside 5 out of 5 in Australia.

15 out of 20 slams in those 5 years.

Coming to Australia and trying to win title there vs them was (supposed to be) the ultimate challenge in those years.


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:51:01 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:

joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:05:06 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:> On 18/06/2023 8:05 pm, joh wrote: > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:16:47 AM UTC+2, Whisper wrote: > >> On 18/06/2023 1:52 am, joh wrote: > >>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:22:16 

PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote: > >>>> On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote: > >>>>> https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Novak will be
forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; ) > >>> > >>> More or less. Not as bad as that probably. > >> I'm being sarcastic. History views Court as the greatest of the great. > >> She won everything there is to win multiple times (all singles, doubles

and mixed slams, calendar slam in singles, 2 calendar slams in mixed > >> doubles, best winning match % in open era at most slams and overall etc. > >> Teenage tennis fans have no concept of history, but they will when > >> they mature : ) > > > >

Don't kid yourself. Few under 50 have heard of Court, and this won't improve with time.> The ones who don't know Court don't count right? Who wants to have fans > who have no idea about tennis history and where their hero stands? How would you rate 60's
AO titles in the 7532 scheme of things?> > In 50 yrs teens won't know who the big 3 were, does that mean they > aren't goat level?

You're clueless joh, 60s AO (btw no such thing, only 1969 edition was AO, but I assume you mean Australian Championship) is actually non-asterisked in the 60s,

From 1960 till 1964 there were never more than 3 non-Australians in the draw. I'd call that an asterisk.


it was at the late stage of amateur era and during Aussie domination (Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Court etc) so while it was part of lesser amateur tour (for men) it actually didn't suffer relatively to other slams as compared to 70s and 80s or pre 1990 in
general.

So I would be comfortable with even 7555 for amateurs in the 60s. Why not?

And of course, 7543 is probably most suitable for the 1980s.

Nowadays I'd do 7555 again, why not.

But 7543 is kinda approximation and best historical version because Aus and French had lesser periods more often than Wimbledon and US did.
--

----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:37:59 AM UTC-4, joh wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:51:01 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:

joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:05:06 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:> On 18/06/2023 8:05 pm, joh wrote: > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:16:47 AM UTC+2, Whisper wrote: > >> On 18/06/2023 1:52 am, joh wrote: > >>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:22:16�

��PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote: > >>>> On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote: > >>>>> https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Novak will
be forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; ) > >>> > >>> More or less. Not as bad as that probably. > >> I'm being sarcastic. History views Court as the greatest of the great. > >> She won everything there is to win multiple times (all singles,
doubles > >> and mixed slams, calendar slam in singles, 2 calendar slams in mixed > >> doubles, best winning match % in open era at most slams and overall etc. > >> Teenage tennis fans have no concept of history, but they will when > >> they mature : ) >

Don't kid yourself. Few under 50 have heard of Court, and this won't improve with time.> The ones who don't know Court don't count right? Who wants to have fans > who have no idea about tennis history and where their hero stands? How would you rate

60's AO titles in the 7532 scheme of things?> > In 50 yrs teens won't know who the big 3 were, does that mean they > aren't goat level?

You're clueless joh, 60s AO (btw no such thing, only 1969 edition was AO, but I assume you mean Australian Championship) is actually non-asterisked in the 60s,

From 1960 till 1964 there were never more than 3 non-Australians in the draw.
I'd call that an asterisk.
it was at the late stage of amateur era and during Aussie domination (Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Court etc) so while it was part of lesser amateur tour (for men) it actually didn't suffer relatively to other slams as compared to 70s and 80s or pre 1990

in general.

So I would be comfortable with even 7555 for amateurs in the 60s. Why not?

And of course, 7543 is probably most suitable for the 1980s.

Nowadays I'd do 7555 again, why not.

But 7543 is kinda approximation and best historical version because Aus and French had lesser periods more often than Wimbledon and US did.
--

----Android NewsGroup Reader----

https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

Good one, Laver thought so highly of the AO, that he did not play there for 8 yrs, did not even visit Oz for 8 yrs!!
Was unbeaten at W in the 60s, great player, belongs with the big three, Pete, Borg, top 5 of all time!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:46:54 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:

joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

But no-one cared about the title.

Their loss.

Everyone knows, dating to 1923, which are the four official ITF championships.

Yes. And they didn't care.
That's my point.

It was a known fact for more than 40 years in those times.

...and only three bothered to show up for that.

Federer skipped couple of FOs in his later years, shall we count that against FO?

He is one of the greatest ever, no?

--
----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:05:50 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:

joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

From 1960 till 1964 there were never more than 3 non-Australians in the draw.I'd call that an asterisk.

But Australians were top players back then.

But no-one cared about the title.

In those 5 years (1960-1964) they won 2 French, 4 Wimbledon, 4 US titles.

So they've won 10 our of 15 titles at other slams. Alongside 5 out of 5 in Australia.

15 out of 20 slams in those 5 years.

Coming to Australia and trying to win title there vs them was (supposed to be) the ultimate challenge in those years.
--

...and only three bothered to show up for that.

----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

joh <joshorst@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

But no-one cared about the title.

Their loss.

Everyone knows, dating to 1923, which are the four official ITF championships.

It was a known fact for more than 40 years in those times.

...and only three bothered to show up for that.

Federer skipped couple of FOs in his later years, shall we count that against FO?

He is one of the greatest ever, no?


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

joh <joshorst@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:46:54 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:> joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> > But no-one cared about the title.> Their loss. > > Everyone knows, dating to 1923, which are the four official ITF championships. Yes. And

they didn't care.That's my point.


More like they felt hopeless and quit and didn't even try.


Australians won 30 out of 40 last slams in open era.

9 Australian out of 10
6 French out of 10.
7 Wimbledon out of 10.
8 US out of then.


Surely it's obvious that winning in Australia vs them was kinda like trying to win FO in the age of Nadal so most quit.

The best players were Australians and they were in Australia.



--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r

joh <joshorst@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:46:54 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:> joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> > But no-one cared about the title.> Their loss. > > Everyone knows, dating to 1923, which are the

four official ITF championships. Yes. And they didn't care.That's my point.More like they felt hopeless and quit and didn't even try.Australians won 30 out of 40 last slams in open era. 9 Australian out of 10 6 French out of 10.7 Wimbledon out of 10.8 US
out of then.Surely it's obvious that winning in Australia vs them was kinda like trying to win FO in the age of Nadal so most quit.The best players were Australians and they were in Australia.-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-
2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html



30 out of 40 last slams in amateur era.

--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/18/23 9:08 AM, *skriptis wrote:

joh <joshorst@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:46:54 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:> joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> > But no-one cared about the title.> Their loss. > > Everyone knows, dating to 1923, which are the four official ITF championships. Yes. And

they didn't care.That's my point.

More like they felt hopeless and quit and didn't even try.

If I'm understanding this correctly, there is a parallel in the US horse
racing series called the Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Horse Racing.

There are three major races each spring: The Kentucky Derby, the
Preakness Stakes, and the Belmont Stakes. They are run in that order and
are about two weeks apart.

The first race has many, many entries, sometimes around 20. The second
race less so, and the third even less. One of the reasons the field
narrows is that by then the demonstrably dominant horses are
established, and by the third race, many owners don't race their horse
because there is travel expense involved, and by then they see that for
sure, they have little chance of winning.

So by the third race there may be only 6 or 7 horses entered.

Maybe the same considerations were in play at the Australian Open during
the era in which the Australian players dominated the sport.

Australians won 30 out of 40 last slams in open era.

9 Australian out of 10
6 French out of 10.
7 Wimbledon out of 10.
8 US out of then.

Surely it's obvious that winning in Australia vs them was kinda like trying to win FO in the age of Nadal so most quit.

The best players were Australians and they were in Australia.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sawfish: A totally unreconstructed elasmobranch. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r

Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> On 6/18/23 9:08 AM, *skriptis wrote:> joh <joshorst@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:46:54 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:> joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> > But no-

one cared about the title.> Their loss. > > Everyone knows, dating to 1923, which are the four official ITF championships. Yes. And they didn't care.That's my point.>> More like they felt hopeless and quit and didn't even try.If I'm understanding this
correctly, there is a parallel in the US horse racing series called the Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Horse Racing.There are three major races each spring: The Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes, and the Belmont Stakes. They are run in that order and
are about two weeks apart.The first race has many, many entries, sometimes around 20. The second race less so, and the third even less. One of the reasons the field narrows is that by then the demonstrably dominant horses are established, and by the
third race, many owners don't race their horse because there is travel expense involved, and by then they see that for sure, they have little chance of winning.So by the third race there may be only 6 or 7 horses entered.Maybe the same considerations
were in play at the Australian Open during the era in which the Australian players dominated the sport.>>> Australians won 30 out of 40 last slams in open era.>> 9 Australian out of 10> 6 French out of 10.> 7 Wimbledon out of 10.> 8 US out of then.>>>
Surely it's obvious that winning in Australia vs them was kinda like trying to win FO in the age of Nadal so most quit.>> The best players were Australians and they were in Australia.Yeah, it could be like that.Obviously it was a amateur era, and money
was also factor. The shamateur era and so on, players were paid under the table, but I guess you could still earn more money by playing more elsewhere and avoiding lengthy and costly travel there. But is it different nowadays? It's still the farthest
slam. ;)The fact that you had *least chance* of winning there vs powerful Australians certainly could have had an additional impact on the rest of the field and their decision to skip it.The truth is, I'm definitely not an expert on this period, I haven'
t lived or studied it, but I've read some news archives back in the days when I was compiling all sorts of lists for my personal stats. I know bits.Did you know first Australian trophy was a Wimbledon trophy replica, I think silver?And that there was
Wilding medal awarded to winner, post ww1, I kinda forgot what was that all about, but it was awarded separately from the trophy, similar to double trophy presentation in early 2000s for newly established ATP masters series?One was the "original" trophy
and they got another one "masters series" trophy, no?Anyway what bothered me with joh is that he has it all backwards.If anything is absolute, it's the slam tournaments as per ITF constitution dating to 1923 (starting in 1924).That can't be questioned.
The only thing that could question this is some huge change, like 1973 Wimbledon boycott, all the best players skipping it (like AO during late 70s and early 80s) or best players in the world being banned. So if the tournament itself isn't the benchmark,
and if something else is, it can only be the best players, because in truth, weaker fields kinda diminish the prestige of the event.But joh doesn't seem to understand that Australian status in the 1960s wasn't questioned, it was a known slam since 1924
like all others, and that the *best players* played the event.He's kinda focusing on French or American journeymen skipping the event as if they're the benchmark, as if they're more important than the ITF constitution or world's best players of that era (
Australians).That's bizarre.1958 French through 1968 Australian, last 40 slams of amateur era.30 slams for Australia4 for Spain3 for USA2 for Italy1 for MexicoAll the great players were Australians and somehow Australian had weak fields because European
or American journeymen didn't bother travelling?Makes no sense for me.-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html



Australians also continued their domination into open era, winning 11 out of first 16 open era slams.

If you add up last 30 majors of pro era, Australians won 25 out of 30 there.

So in those 14 years, they've won 66 out 86 amateur, pro and open era slams.

And who knows how many DC titles, I won't look at that.


Point being, they were the best, they set the standards and they played in Australian championships so the tournament had best players which is what counts.


The 1970s demise of AO is due to disappearance of Australian greats, not because foreigners skipped it.

Sure it may have attracted few foreigners from the beginning as joh said, but the tournament doesn't need foreigners, be it "Europeans" or "Americans", it needs fine players.

It had them until mid 1970s.


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On 6/18/23 9:08 AM, *skriptis wrote:> joh <joshorst@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:46:54 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:> joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> > But no-one cared about the title.> Their loss. > >

Everyone knows, dating to 1923, which are the four official ITF championships. Yes. And they didn't care.That's my point.>> More like they felt hopeless and quit and didn't even try.If I'm understanding this correctly, there is a parallel in the US horse
racing series called the Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Horse Racing.There are three major races each spring: The Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes, and the Belmont Stakes. They are run in that order and are about two weeks apart.The first race has many,
many entries, sometimes around 20. The second race less so, and the third even less. One of the reasons the field narrows is that by then the demonstrably dominant horses are established, and by the third race, many owners don't race their horse because
there is travel expense involved, and by then they see that for sure, they have little chance of winning.So by the third race there may be only 6 or 7 horses entered.Maybe the same considerations were in play at the Australian Open during the era in
which the Australian players dominated the sport.>>> Australians won 30 out of 40 last slams in open era.>> 9 Australian out of 10> 6 French out of 10.> 7 Wimbledon out of 10.> 8 US out of then.>>> Surely it's obvious that winning in Australia vs them
was kinda like trying to win FO in the age of Nadal so most quit.>> The best players were Australians and they were in Australia.



Yeah, it could be like that.

Obviously it was a amateur era, and money was also factor. The shamateur era and so on, players were paid under the table, but I guess you could still earn more money by playing more elsewhere and avoiding lengthy and costly travel there. But is it
different nowadays? It's still the farthest slam. ;)


The fact that you had *least chance* of winning there vs powerful Australians certainly could have had an additional impact on the rest of the field and their decision to skip it.


The truth is, I'm definitely not an expert on this period, I haven't lived or studied it, but I've read some news archives back in the days when I was compiling all sorts of lists for my personal stats. I know bits.

Did you know first Australian trophy was a Wimbledon trophy replica, I think silver?

And that there was Wilding medal awarded to winner, post ww1, I kinda forgot what was that all about, but it was awarded separately from the trophy, similar to double trophy presentation in early 2000s for newly established ATP masters series?

One was the "original" trophy and they got another one "masters series" trophy, no?






Anyway what bothered me with joh is that he has it all backwards.


If anything is absolute, it's the slam tournaments as per ITF constitution dating to 1923 (starting in 1924).

That can't be questioned.

The only thing that could question this is some huge change, like 1973 Wimbledon boycott, all the best players skipping it (like AO during late 70s and early 80s) or best players in the world being banned.

So if the tournament itself isn't the benchmark, and if something else is, it can only be the best players, because in truth, weaker fields kinda diminish the prestige of the event.

But joh doesn't seem to understand that Australian status in the 1960s wasn't questioned, it was a known slam since 1924 like all others, and that the *best players* played the event.


He's kinda focusing on French or American journeymen skipping the event as if they're the benchmark, as if they're more important than the ITF constitution or world's best players of that era (Australians).

That's bizarre.



1958 French through 1968 Australian, last 40 slams of amateur era.

30 slams for Australia
4 for Spain
3 for USA
2 for Italy
1 for Mexico


All the great players were Australians and somehow Australian had weak fields because European or American journeymen didn't bother travelling?

Makes no sense for me.



--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 2:45:21 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:

On 6/18/23 11:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:

*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> On 6/18/23 9:08 AM, *skriptis wrote:> joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:46:54 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:> joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> > But no-

one cared about the title.> Their loss. > > Everyone knows, dating to 1923, which are the four official ITF championships. Yes. And they didn't care.That's my point.>> More like they felt hopeless and quit and didn't even try.If I'm understanding this
correctly, there is a parallel in the US horse racing series called the Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Horse Racing.There are three major races each spring: The Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes, and the Belmont Stakes. They are run in that order and
are about two weeks apart.The first race has many, many entries, sometimes around 20. The second race less so, and the third even less. One of the reasons the field narrows is that by then the demonstrably dominant horses are established, and by the
third race, many owners don't race their horse because there is travel expense involved, and by then they see that for sure, they have little chance of winning.So by the third race there may be only 6 or 7 horses entered.Maybe the same considerations
were in play at the Australian Open during the era in which the Australian players dominated the sport.>>> Australians won 30 out of 40 last slams in open era.>> 9 Australian out of 10> 6 French out of 10.> 7 Wimbledon out of 10.> 8 US out of then.>>>
Surely it's obvious that winning in Australia vs them was kinda like trying to win FO in the age of Nadal so most quit.>> The best players were Australians and they were in Australia.Yeah, it could be like that.Obviously it was a amateur era, and money
was also factor. The shamateur era and so on, players were paid under the table, but I guess you could still earn more money by playing more elsewhere and avoiding lengthy and costly travel there. But is it different nowadays? It's still the farthest
slam. ;)The fact that you had *least chance* of winning there vs powerful Australians certainly could have had an additional impact on the rest of the field and their decision to skip it.The truth is, I'm definitely not an expert on this period, I haven'
t lived or studied it, but I've read some news archives back in the days when I was compiling all sorts of lists for my personal stats. I know bits.Did you know first Australian trophy was a Wimbledon trophy replica, I think silver?And that there was
Wilding medal awarded to winner, post ww1, I kinda forgot what was that all about, but it was awarded separately from the trophy, similar to double trophy presentation in early 2000s for newly established ATP masters series?One was the "original" trophy
and they got another one "masters series" trophy, no?Anyway what bothered me with joh is that he has it all backwards.If anything is absolute, it's the slam tournaments as per ITF constitution dating to 1923 (starting in 1924).That can't be questioned.
The only thing that could question this is some huge change, like 1973 Wimbledon boycott, all the best players skipping it (like AO during late 70s and early 80s) or best players in the world being banned. So if the tournament itself isn't the benchmark,
and if something else is, it can only be the best players, because in truth, weaker fields kinda diminish the prestige of the event.But joh doesn't seem to understand that Australian status in the 1960s wasn't questioned, it was a known slam since 1924
like all others, and that the *best players* played the event.He's kinda focusing on French or American journeymen skipping the event as if they're the benchmark, as if they're more important than the ITF constitution or world's best players of that era (
Australians).That's bizarre.1958 French through 1968 Australian, last 40 slams of amateur era.30 slams for Australia4 for Spain3 for USA2 for Italy1 for MexicoAll the great players were Australians and somehow Australian had weak fields because European
or American journeymen didn't bother travelling?Makes no sense for me.-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

Australians also continued their domination into open era, winning 11 out of first 16 open era slams.

If you add up last 30 majors of pro era, Australians won 25 out of 30 there.

So in those 14 years, they've won 66 out 86 amateur, pro and open era slams.

And who knows how many DC titles, I won't look at that.

Point being, they were the best, they set the standards and they played in Australian championships so the tournament had best players which is what counts.

The 1970s demise of AO is due to disappearance of Australian greats, not because foreigners skipped it.

Sure it may have attracted few foreigners from the beginning as joh said, but the tournament doesn't need foreigners, be it "Europeans" or "Americans", it needs fine players.

It had them until mid 1970s.

This was all great historical background, skript. Reading it brings to
mind a speculative observation.

First, I'll agree that with the period you mentioned of Australian
dominance of tennis--all tennis--and then a demise, I wonder if the
demise was a result not so much as decrease of talent, or a concomitant increase world-wide, but the game evolving away from the style that the Australian players favored. I can barely recall Laver, have some
memories of Rosewall during the rise of Connors, remember Newcombe well,
and later John Alexander. Basically all were fairly flat shots, tending toward S&V. Newcombe was agile and fast and could baseline well. I can recall Rosewall as baselining a bit, and I can't recall Laver well
enough, but he appeared physically to be a guy who could baseline.
Alexander seems S&V.

So what you really had as a style was relatively flat hitting--some even with a continental grip, I'll bet, and probably zero western grips. They were either all-court (Rosewall, etc.) or tending toward S&V, (Newcombe).

Later you had Rafter and Cash and they were sorta throwbacks to this
style, although Cash was more all-court.

What do you think of this hypothesis: decline of Australian tennis was largely due to evolution of the game toward 2H BH and more and more TS?

-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If we use Occam's Razor, whose razor will *he* use?" --Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well said, tennis passed them by, when Europeans, SAmericans discovered money, in tennis! Nadal got $10mil playing the SAmerican circuit!
Think Vilas, Guga, Drobney, Swedes!!, and the three greatest not to mention Stan, Andy!!
No more KenR, Hoad, Laver, Emmo, Newk, Roche left, better than Italy, no, not even!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gNi8xOC8yMyAxMTowNSBBTSwgKnNrcmlwdGlzIHdyb3RlOg0KPiAqc2tyaXB0aXMgPHNr cmlwdGlzQHBvc3QudC1jb20uaHI+IFdyb3RlIGluIG1lc3NhZ2U6cg0KPj4gU2F3ZmlzaCA8 c2F3ZmlzaDY2NkBnbWFpbC5jb20+IFdyb3RlIGluIG1lc3NhZ2U6cj4gT24gNi8xOC8yMyA5 OjA4IEFNLCAqc2tyaXB0aXMgd3JvdGU6PiBqb2ggPGpvc2hvcnN0QGdtYWlsLmNvbT4gV3Jv dGUgaW4gbWVzc2FnZTpyPj4gT24gU3VuZGF5LCBKdW5lIDE4LCAyMDIzIGF0IDU6NDY6NTTi gK9QTSBVVEMrMiwgKnNrcmlwdGlzIHdyb3RlOj4gam9oIDxqb3NoLi4uQGdtYWlsLmNvbT4g V3JvdGUgaW4gbWVzc2FnZTo+ID4gQnV0IG5vLW9uZSBjYXJlZCBhYm91dCB0aGUgdGl0bGUu PiBUaGVpciBsb3NzLiA+ID4gRXZlcnlvbmUga25vd3MsIGRhdGluZyB0byAxOTIzLCB3aGlj aCBhcmUgdGhlIGZvdXIgb2ZmaWNpYWwgSVRGIGNoYW1waW9uc2hpcHMuIFllcy4gQW5kIHRo ZXkgZGlkbid0IGNhcmUuVGhhdCdzIG15IHBvaW50Lj4+IE1vcmUgbGlrZSB0aGV5IGZlbHQg aG9wZWxlc3MgYW5kIHF1aXQgYW5kIGRpZG4ndCBldmVuIHRyeS5JZiBJJ20gdW5kZXJzdGFu ZGluZyB0aGlzIGNvcnJlY3RseSwgdGhlcmUgaXMgYSBwYXJhbGxlbCBpbiB0aGUgVVMgaG9y c2UgcmFjaW5nIHNlcmllcyBjYWxsZWQgdGhlIFRyaXBsZSBDcm93biBvZiBUaG9yb3VnaGJy ZWQgSG9yc2UgUmFjaW5nLlRoZXJlIGFyZSB0aHJlZSBtYWpvciByYWNlcyBlYWNoIHNwcmlu ZzogVGhlIEtlbnR1Y2t5IERlcmJ5LCB0aGUgUHJlYWtuZXNzIFN0YWtlcywgYW5kIHRoZSBC ZWxtb250IFN0YWtlcy4gVGhleSBhcmUgcnVuIGluIHRoYXQgb3JkZXIgYW5kIGFyZSBhYm91 dCB0d28gd2Vla3MgYXBhcnQuVGhlIGZpcnN0IHJhY2UgaGFzIG1hbnksIG1hbnkgZW50cmll cywgc29tZXRpbWVzIGFyb3VuZCAyMC4gVGhlIHNlY29uZCByYWNlIGxlc3Mgc28sIGFuZCB0 aGUgdGhpcmQgZXZlbiBsZXNzLiBPbmUgb2YgdGhlIHJlYXNvbnMgdGhlIGZpZWxkIG5hcnJv d3MgaXMgdGhhdCBieSB0aGVuIHRoZSBkZW1vbnN0cmFibHkgZG9taW5hbnQgaG9yc2VzIGFy ZSBlc3RhYmxpc2hlZCwgYW5kIGJ5IHRoZSB0aGlyZCByYWNlLCBtYW55IG93bmVycyBkb24n dCByYWNlIHRoZWlyIGhvcnNlIGJlY2F1c2UgdGhlcmUgaXMgdHJhdmVsIGV4cGVuc2UgaW52 b2x2ZWQsIGFuZCBieSB0aGVuIHRoZXkgc2VlIHRoYXQgZm9yIHN1cmUsIHRoZXkgaGF2ZSBs aXR0bGUgY2hhbmNlIG9mIHdpbm5pbmcuU28gYnkgdGhlIHRoaXJkIHJhY2UgdGhlcmUgbWF5 IGJlIG9ubHkgNiBvciA3IGhvcnNlcyBlbnRlcmVkLk1heWJlIHRoZSBzYW1lIGNvbnNpZGVy YXRpb25zIHdlcmUgaW4gcGxheSBhdCB0aGUgQXVzdHJhbGlhbiBPcGVuIGR1cmluZyB0aGUg ZXJhIGluIHdoaWNoIHRoZSBBdXN0cmFsaWFuIHBsYXllcnMgZG9taW5hdGVkIHRoZSBzcG9y dC4+Pj4gQXVzdHJhbGlhbnMgd29uIDMwIG91dCBvZiA0MCBsYXN0IHNsYW1zIGluIG9wZW4g ZXJhLj4+IDkgQXVzdHJhbGlhbiBvdXQgb2YgMTA+IDYgRnJlbmNoIG91dCBvZiAxMC4+IDcg V2ltYmxlZG9uIG91dCBvZiAxMC4+IDggVVMgb3V0IG9mIHRoZW4uPj4+IFN1cmVseSBpdCdz IG9idmlvdXMgdGhhdCB3aW5uaW5nIGluIEF1c3RyYWxpYSB2cyB0aGVtIHdhcyBraW5kYSBs aWtlIHRyeWluZyB0byB3aW4gRk8gaW4gdGhlIGFnZSBvZiBOYWRhbCBzbyBtb3N0IHF1aXQu Pj4gVGhlIGJlc3QgcGxheWVycyB3ZXJlIEF1c3RyYWxpYW5zIGFuZCB0aGV5IHdlcmUgaW4g QXVzdHJhbGlhLlllYWgsIGl0IGNvdWxkIGJlIGxpa2UgdGhhdC5PYnZpb3VzbHkgaXQgd2Fz IGEgYW1hdGV1ciBlcmEsIGFuZCBtb25leSB3YXMgYWxzbyBmYWN0b3IuIFRoZSBzaGFtYXRl dXIgZXJhIGFuZCBzbyBvbiwgcGxheWVycyB3ZXJlIHBhaWQgdW5kZXIgdGhlIHRhYmxlLCBi dXQgSSBndWVzcyB5b3UgY291bGQgc3RpbGwgZWFybiBtb3JlIG1vbmV5IGJ5IHBsYXlpbmcg bW9yZSBlbHNld2hlcmUgYW5kIGF2b2lkaW5nIGxlbmd0aHkgYW5kIGNvc3RseSB0cmF2ZWwg dGhlcmUuIEJ1dCBpcyBpdCBkaWZmZXJlbnQgbm93YWRheXM/IEl0J3Mgc3RpbGwgdGhlIGZh cnRoZXN0IHNsYW0uIDspVGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCB5b3UgaGFkICpsZWFzdCBjaGFuY2UqIG9m IHdpbm5pbmcgdGhlcmUgdnMgcG93ZXJmdWwgQXVzdHJhbGlhbnMgY2VydGFpbmx5IGNvdWxk IGhhdmUgaGFkIGFuIGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgaW1wYWN0IG9uIHRoZSByZXN0IG9mIHRoZSBmaWVs ZCBhbmQgdGhlaXIgZGVjaXNpb24gdG8gc2tpcCBpdC5UaGUgdHJ1dGggaXMsIEknbSBkZWZp bml0ZWx5IG5vdCBhbiBleHBlcnQgb24gdGhpcyBwZXJpb2QsIEkgaGF2ZW4ndCBsaXZlZCBv ciBzdHVkaWVkIGl0LCBidXQgSSd2ZSByZWFkIHNvbWUgbmV3cyBhcmNoaXZlcyBiYWNrIGlu IHRoZSBkYXlzIHdoZW4gSSB3YXMgY29tcGlsaW5nIGFsbCBzb3J0cyBvZiBsaXN0cyBmb3Ig bXkgcGVyc29uYWwgc3RhdHMuIEkga25vdyBiaXRzLkRpZCB5b3Uga25vdyBmaXJzdCBBdXN0 cmFsaWFuIHRyb3BoeSB3YXMgYSBXaW1ibGVkb24gdHJvcGh5IHJlcGxpY2EsIEkgdGhpbmsg c2lsdmVyP0FuZCB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIHdhcyBXaWxkaW5nIG1lZGFsIGF3YXJkZWQgdG8gd2lu bmVyLCBwb3N0IHd3MSwgSSBraW5kYSBmb3Jnb3Qgd2hhdCB3YXMgdGhhdCBhbGwgYWJvdXQs IGJ1dCBpdCB3YXMgYXdhcmRlZCBzZXBhcmF0ZWx5IGZyb20gdGhlIHRyb3BoeSwgc2ltaWxh ciB0byBkb3VibGUgdHJvcGh5IHByZXNlbnRhdGlvbiBpbiBlYXJseSAyMDAwcyBmb3IgbmV3 bHkgZXN0YWJsaXNoZWQgQVRQIG1hc3RlcnMgc2VyaWVzP09uZSB3YXMgdGhlICJvcmlnaW5h bCIgdHJvcGh5IGFuZCB0aGV5IGdvdCBhbm90aGVyIG9uZSAibWFzdGVycyBzZXJpZXMiIHRy b3BoeSwgbm8/QW55d2F5IHdoYXQgYm90aGVyZWQgbWUgd2l0aCBqb2ggaXMgdGhhdCBoZSBo YXMgaXQgYWxsIGJhY2t3YXJkcy5JZiBhbnl0aGluZyBpcyBhYnNvbHV0ZSwgaXQncyB0aGUg c2xhbSB0b3VybmFtZW50cyBhcyBwZXIgSVRGIGNvbnN0aXR1dGlvbiBkYXRpbmcgdG8gMTky MyAoc3RhcnRpbmcgaW4gMTkyNCkuVGhhdCBjYW4ndCBiZSBxdWVzdGlvbmVkLiBUaGUgb25s eSB0aGluZyB0aGF0IGNvdWxkIHF1ZXN0aW9uIHRoaXMgaXMgc29tZSBodWdlIGNoYW5nZSwg bGlrZSAxOTczIFdpbWJsZWRvbiBib3ljb3R0LCBhbGwgdGhlIGJlc3QgcGxheWVycyBza2lw cGluZyBpdCAobGlrZSBBTyBkdXJpbmcgbGF0ZSA3MHMgYW5kIGVhcmx5IDgwcykgb3IgYmVz dCBwbGF5ZXJzIGluIHRoZSB3b3JsZCBiZWluZyBiYW5uZWQuIFNvIGlmIHRoZSB0b3VybmFt ZW50IGl0c2VsZiBpc24ndCB0aGUgYmVuY2htYXJrLCBhbmQgaWYgc29tZXRoaW5nIGVsc2Ug aXMsIGl0IGNhbiBvbmx5IGJlIHRoZSBiZXN0IHBsYXllcnMsIGJlY2F1c2UgaW4gdHJ1dGgs IHdlYWtlciBmaWVsZHMga2luZGEgZGltaW5pc2ggdGhlIHByZXN0aWdlIG9mIHRoZSBldmVu dC5CdXQgam9oIGRvZXNuJ3Qgc2VlbSB0byB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHRoYXQgQXVzdHJhbGlhbiBz dGF0dXMgaW4gdGhlIDE5NjBzIHdhc24ndCBxdWVzdGlvbmVkLCBpdCB3YXMgYSBrbm93biBz bGFtIHNpbmNlIDE5MjQgbGlrZSBhbGwgb3RoZXJzLCBhbmQgdGhhdCB0aGUgKmJlc3QgcGxh eWVycyogcGxheWVkIHRoZSBldmVudC5IZSdzIGtpbmRhIGZvY3VzaW5nIG9uIEZyZW5jaCBv ciBBbWVyaWNhbiBqb3VybmV5bWVuIHNraXBwaW5nIHRoZSBldmVudCBhcyBpZiB0aGV5J3Jl IHRoZSBiZW5jaG1hcmssIGFzIGlmIHRoZXkncmUgbW9yZSBpbXBvcnRhbnQgdGhhbiB0aGUg SVRGIGNvbnN0aXR1dGlvbiBvciB3b3JsZCdzIGJlc3QgcGxheWVycyBvZiB0aGF0IGVyYSAo QXVzdHJhbGlhbnMpLlRoYXQncyBiaXphcnJlLjE5NTggRnJlbmNoIHRocm91Z2ggMTk2OCBB dXN0cmFsaWFuLCBsYXN0IDQwIHNsYW1zIG9mIGFtYXRldXIgZXJhLjMwIHNsYW1zIGZvciBB dXN0cmFsaWE0IGZvciBTcGFpbjMgZm9yIFVTQTIgZm9yIEl0YWx5MSBmb3IgTWV4aWNvQWxs IHRoZSBncmVhdCBwbGF5ZXJzIHdlcmUgQXVzdHJhbGlhbnMgYW5kIHNvbWVob3cgQXVzdHJh bGlhbiBoYWQgd2VhayBmaWVsZHMgYmVjYXVzZSBFdXJvcGVhbiBvciBBbWVyaWNhbiBqb3Vy bmV5bWVuIGRpZG4ndCBib3RoZXIgdHJhdmVsbGluZz9NYWtlcyBubyBzZW5zZSBmb3IgbWUu LS0gLS0tLUFuZHJvaWQgTmV3c0dyb3VwIFJlYWRlci0tLS1odHRwczovL3BpYW9ob25nLnMz LXVzLXdlc3QtMi5hbWF6b25hd3MuY29tL3VzZW5ldC9pbmRleC5odG1sDQo+DQo+DQo+IEF1 c3RyYWxpYW5zIGFsc28gY29udGludWVkIHRoZWlyIGRvbWluYXRpb24gaW50byBvcGVuIGVy YSwgIHdpbm5pbmcgMTEgb3V0IG9mIGZpcnN0IDE2IG9wZW4gZXJhIHNsYW1zLg0KPg0KPiBJ ZiB5b3UgYWRkIHVwIGxhc3QgMzAgbWFqb3JzIG9mIHBybyBlcmEsIEF1c3RyYWxpYW5zIHdv biAyNSBvdXQgb2YgMzAgdGhlcmUuDQo+DQo+IFNvIGluIHRob3NlIDE0IHllYXJzLCB0aGV5 J3ZlIHdvbiA2NiBvdXQgODYgYW1hdGV1ciwgcHJvIGFuZCBvcGVuIGVyYSBzbGFtcy4NCj4N Cj4gQW5kIHdobyBrbm93cyBob3cgbWFueSBEQyB0aXRsZXMsIEkgd29uJ3QgbG9vayBhdCB0 aGF0Lg0KPg0KPg0KPiBQb2ludCBiZWluZywgdGhleSB3ZXJlIHRoZSBiZXN0LCB0aGV5IHNl dCB0aGUgc3RhbmRhcmRzIGFuZCB0aGV5IHBsYXllZCBpbiBBdXN0cmFsaWFuIGNoYW1waW9u c2hpcHMgc28gdGhlIHRvdXJuYW1lbnQgaGFkIGJlc3QgcGxheWVycyB3aGljaCBpcyB3aGF0 IGNvdW50cy4NCj4NCj4NCj4gVGhlIDE5NzBzIGRlbWlzZSBvZiBBTyBpcyBkdWUgdG8gZGlz YXBwZWFyYW5jZSBvZiBBdXN0cmFsaWFuIGdyZWF0cywgbm90IGJlY2F1c2UgZm9yZWlnbmVy cyBza2lwcGVkIGl0Lg0KPg0KPiBTdXJlIGl0IG1heSBoYXZlIGF0dHJhY3RlZCBmZXcgZm9y ZWlnbmVycyBmcm9tIHRoZSBiZWdpbm5pbmcgYXMgam9oIHNhaWQsIGJ1dCB0aGUgdG91cm5h bWVudCBkb2Vzbid0IG5lZWQgZm9yZWlnbmVycywgYmUgaXQgIkV1cm9wZWFucyIgb3IgIkFt ZXJpY2FucyIsIGl0IG5lZWRzIGZpbmUgcGxheWVycy4NCj4NCj4gSXQgaGFkIHRoZW0gdW50 aWwgbWlkIDE5NzBzLg0KPg0KPg0KVGhpcyB3YXMgYWxsIGdyZWF0IGhpc3RvcmljYWwgYmFj a2dyb3VuZCwgc2tyaXB0LiBSZWFkaW5nIGl0IGJyaW5ncyB0byANCm1pbmQgYSBzcGVjdWxh dGl2ZSBvYnNlcnZhdGlvbi4NCg0KRmlyc3QsIEknbGwgYWdyZWUgdGhhdCB3aXRoIHRoZSBw ZXJpb2QgeW91IG1lbnRpb25lZCBvZiBBdXN0cmFsaWFuIA0KZG9taW5hbmNlIG9mIHRlbm5p cy0tYWxsIHRlbm5pcy0tYW5kIHRoZW4gYSBkZW1pc2UsIEkgd29uZGVyIGlmIHRoZSANCmRl bWlzZSB3YXMgYSByZXN1bHQgbm90IHNvIG11Y2ggYXMgZGVjcmVhc2Ugb2YgdGFsZW50LCBv ciBhIGNvbmNvbWl0YW50IA0KaW5jcmVhc2Ugd29ybGQtd2lkZSwgYnV0IHRoZSBnYW1lIGV2 b2x2aW5nIGF3YXkgZnJvbSB0aGUgc3R5bGUgdGhhdCB0aGUgDQpBdXN0cmFsaWFuIHBsYXll cnMgZmF2b3JlZC4gSSBjYW4gYmFyZWx5IHJlY2FsbCBMYXZlciwgaGF2ZSBzb21lIA0KbWVt b3JpZXMgb2YgUm9zZXdhbGwgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSByaXNlIG9mIENvbm5vcnMsIHJlbWVtYmVy IE5ld2NvbWJlIHdlbGwsIA0KYW5kIGxhdGVyIEpvaG4gQWxleGFuZGVyLiBCYXNpY2FsbHkg YWxsIHdlcmUgZmFpcmx5IGZsYXQgc2hvdHMsIHRlbmRpbmcgDQp0b3dhcmQgUyZWLiBOZXdj b21iZSB3YXMgYWdpbGUgYW5kIGZhc3QgYW5kIGNvdWxkIGJhc2VsaW5lIHdlbGwuIEkgY2Fu IA0KcmVjYWxsIFJvc2V3YWxsIGFzIGJhc2VsaW5pbmcgYSBiaXQsIGFuZCBJIGNhbid0IHJl Y2FsbCBMYXZlciB3ZWxsIA0KZW5vdWdoLCBidXQgaGUgYXBwZWFyZWQgcGh5c2ljYWxseSB0 byBiZSBhIGd1eSB3aG8gY291bGQgYmFzZWxpbmUuIA0KQWxleGFuZGVyIHNlZW1zIFMmVi4N Cg0KU28gd2hhdCB5b3UgcmVhbGx5IGhhZCBhcyBhIHN0eWxlIHdhcyByZWxhdGl2ZWx5IGZs YXQgaGl0dGluZy0tc29tZSBldmVuIA0Kd2l0aCBhIGNvbnRpbmVudGFsIGdyaXAsIEknbGwg YmV0LCBhbmQgcHJvYmFibHkgemVybyB3ZXN0ZXJuIGdyaXBzLiBUaGV5IA0Kd2VyZSBlaXRo ZXIgYWxsLWNvdXJ0IChSb3Nld2FsbCwgZXRjLikgb3IgdGVuZGluZyB0b3dhcmQgUyZWLCAo TmV3Y29tYmUpLg0KDQpMYXRlciB5b3UgaGFkIFJhZnRlciBhbmQgQ2FzaCBhbmQgdGhleSB3 ZXJlIHNvcnRhIHRocm93YmFja3MgdG8gdGhpcyANCnN0eWxlLCBhbHRob3VnaCBDYXNoIHdh cyBtb3JlIGFsbC1jb3VydC4NCg0KV2hhdCBkbyB5b3UgdGhpbmsgb2YgdGhpcyBoeXBvdGhl c2lzOiBkZWNsaW5lIG9mIEF1c3RyYWxpYW4gdGVubmlzIHdhcyANCmxhcmdlbHkgZHVlIHRv IGV2b2x1dGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZ2FtZSB0b3dhcmQgMkggQkggYW5kIG1vcmUgYW5kIG1vcmUg VFM/DQoNCi0tIA0Kfn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+ fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+DQoiSWYgd2UgdXNlIE9jY2FtJ3Mg UmF6b3IsIHdob3NlIHJhem9yIHdpbGwgKmhlKiB1c2U/IiAgLS1TYXdmaXNoDQp+fn5+fn5+ fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+ fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn4NCg0K

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 18/06/2023 01:20, Court_1 wrote:

3) Since Federer retired, I haven't watched much tennis at all. I just don't have the same interest level currently. The thing that was keeping me in there was the GOAT race. It looks like that is a done deal unless Nadal can come back and win another

FO. The younger players don't interest me much(pizza face Alcaraz and that sickening kid, Rune.) I'm curious to see if Djokovic can win another Wimbledon. He'll probably win a couple more.

The teenager, Arthur Fils, looks like another promising prospect to join the likes of Alcaraz, Rune and Sinner. I watched a bit of Fils at Montpellier. Although he eventually lost to Sinner in the semis after a tough 1st set where had chances to take it,
he demonstrated a smooth, dynamic, all-court game during that tourney. Some of the forehands he hit were nooclear.

Let's see if he can make it competitive against the mythical Alcaraz (who probably has to lock his room every night against hordes of horny groupies).

Oh yeah, there's a new BBC tennis documentary in three parts, "Gods of Tennis", for those interested.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0fd5qk1/episodes/guide

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:11:02 PM UTC-4, grif wrote:

On 18/06/2023 01:20, Court_1 wrote:

3) Since Federer retired, I haven't watched much tennis at all. I just don't have the same interest level currently. The thing that was keeping me in there was the GOAT race. It looks like that is a done deal unless Nadal can come back and win

another FO. The younger players don't interest me much(pizza face Alcaraz and that sickening kid, Rune.) I'm curious to see if Djokovic can win another Wimbledon. He'll probably win a couple more.

The teenager, Arthur Fils, looks like another promising prospect to join the likes of Alcaraz, Rune and Sinner. I watched a bit of Fils at Montpellier. Although he eventually lost to Sinner in the semis after a tough 1st set where had chances to take

it, he demonstrated a smooth, dynamic, all-court game during that tourney. Some of the forehands he hit were nooclear.

Interesting. I don't know anything about him.

Let's see if he can make it competitive against the mythical Alcaraz (who probably has to lock his room every night against hordes of horny groupies).

*Yuck* What an image. Horny groupies for that pizza face?

Actually, I saw a video of Alcaraz recently that seemed a bit suspect, I'll post it if I can find it. It looks like he may swing the other way? 😮

Oh yeah, there's a new BBC tennis documentary in three parts, "Gods of Tennis", for those interested.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0fd5qk1/episodes/guide

Thanks. I'll check it out.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 7:51:15 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On 6/18/23 9:08 AM, *skriptis wrote:> joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:46:54 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:> joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> > But no-one cared about the title.> Their loss. > >

Everyone knows, dating to 1923, which are the four official ITF championships. Yes. And they didn't care.That's my point.>> More like they felt hopeless and quit and didn't even try.If I'm understanding this correctly, there is a parallel in the US horse
racing series called the Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Horse Racing.There are three major races each spring: The Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes, and the Belmont Stakes. They are run in that order and are about two weeks apart.The first race has many,
many entries, sometimes around 20. The second race less so, and the third even less. One of the reasons the field narrows is that by then the demonstrably dominant horses are established, and by the third race, many owners don't race their horse because
there is travel expense involved, and by then they see that for sure, they have little chance of winning.So by the third race there may be only 6 or 7 horses entered.Maybe the same considerations were in play at the Australian Open during the era in
which the Australian players dominated the sport.>>> Australians won 30 out of 40 last slams in open era.>> 9 Australian out of 10> 6 French out of 10.> 7 Wimbledon out of 10.> 8 US out of then.>>> Surely it's obvious that winning in Australia vs them
was kinda like trying to win FO in the age of Nadal so most quit.>> The best players were Australians and they were in Australia.

Yeah, it could be like that.

Obviously it was a amateur era, and money was also factor. The shamateur era and so on, players were paid under the table, but I guess you could still earn more money by playing more elsewhere and avoiding lengthy and costly travel there. But is it

different nowadays? It's still the farthest slam. ;)

The fact that you had *least chance* of winning there vs powerful Australians certainly could have had an additional impact on the rest of the field and their decision to skip it.

The truth is, I'm definitely not an expert on this period, I haven't lived or studied it, but I've read some news archives back in the days when I was compiling all sorts of lists for my personal stats. I know bits.

Did you know first Australian trophy was a Wimbledon trophy replica, I think silver?

And that there was Wilding medal awarded to winner, post ww1, I kinda forgot what was that all about, but it was awarded separately from the trophy, similar to double trophy presentation in early 2000s for newly established ATP masters series?

One was the "original" trophy and they got another one "masters series" trophy, no?

Anyway what bothered me with joh is that he has it all backwards.

If anything is absolute, it's the slam tournaments as per ITF constitution dating to 1923 (starting in 1924).

That can't be questioned.

The only thing that could question this is some huge change, like 1973 Wimbledon boycott, all the best players skipping it (like AO during late 70s and early 80s) or best players in the world being banned.

So if the tournament itself isn't the benchmark, and if something else is, it can only be the best players, because in truth, weaker fields kinda diminish the prestige of the event.

My point exactly.

But joh doesn't seem to understand that Australian status in the 1960s wasn't questioned, it was a known slam since 1924 like all others, and that the *best players* played the event.

Nonsense. Court was a good player, but most times she'd be the only Australian who made is as far as the QF at Wimbledon
and US. Australian women being unbeatable is a lie. People didn't play in Australia because they were not interested enough to do so.

He's kinda focusing on French or American journeymen skipping the event as if they're the benchmark, as if they're more important than the ITF constitution or world's best players of that era (Australians).

That's bizarre.

1958 French through 1968 Australian, last 40 slams of amateur era.

30 slams for Australia
4 for Spain
3 for USA
2 for Italy
1 for Mexico

Any reason why you come up with the numbers on the men's side?
We're discussing women's tennis here.

All the great players were Australians

nonsense

and somehow Australian had weak fields because European or American journeymen didn't bother travelling?

Makes no sense for me.
--

----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/i

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

joh <joshorst@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 7:51:15 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:

So if the tournament itself isn't the benchmark, and if something else is, it can only be the best players, because in truth, weaker fields kinda diminish the prestige of the event.

My point exactly.

But joh, Australian had all the best players of the era. Rosewall, Laver, Emerson, Stolle, Fraser, Newcombe etc guys who won 24 out of 30 slams at F/W/U in the last decade of amateur era. And 9 out of 10 at Australian.


GS tournament with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is strong, the absence of Ymer, Dimitrov and Johnson is forgettable.

Maybe Dimitrov is indeed better than Santoro and the absence of Dimitrov would change the overall field strength, but in the end it's splitting hairs, the important thing is that the top players are there and those were Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and
Rosewall, Laver, Emerson, Newcombe etc.

Any reason why you come up with the numbers on the men's side? We're discussing women's tennis here.

Women?

"Novak will be forgotten", Former World number 1 Tennis player sparks controversy with a heated remark on Novak Djokovic - Bethive.net


I thought we discuss men and that you asked about Aus value during 1960s?


But whatever, let's discuss women, Court was one of the the most prolific winners of the 1960s and 1970s anyway.

Forget about GS count record and "inflated Australian championships".

Who won more or better in her era?

She won Grand Slam.

Did BJK do that?

Court won 13 slams if you remove Australian. BJK won 12 in total.

Court did triple CGS, same as Serena.

She has an absurd doubles career as well, so she's an all time great even without Australian championships.


What's to discuss there?

I concede that Australians weren't as dominant in women's game as they were in men's, but they still had best player out there, Court.

If Federer shows up in Basel, it's considered a strong and successful ATP 500, trust me, same applies to Court and Australian championships grand slam tournament.


AO was in decline during late 1970s and early 1980s, but why on earth do you want to suggest it was "weak" in the period of greatest domination of Australian tennis?


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 18/06/2023 11:20 pm, joh wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:05:06 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 8:05 pm, joh wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:16:47 AM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 1:52 am, joh wrote:

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:22:16 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

Novak will be forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; )

More or less. Not as bad as that probably.

I'm being sarcastic. History views Court as the greatest of the great. >>>> She won everything there is to win multiple times (all singles, doubles >>>> and mixed slams, calendar slam in singles, 2 calendar slams in mixed
doubles, best winning match % in open era at most slams and overall etc. >>>> Teenage tennis fans have no concept of history, but they will when
they mature : )

Don't kid yourself. Few under 50 have heard of Court, and this won't improve with time.

The ones who don't know Court don't count right? Who wants to have fans
who have no idea about tennis history and where their hero stands?

How would you rate 60's AO titles in the 7532 scheme of things?

I count them the same - AO is a grand slam tournament.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

What do you think of this hypothesis: decline of Australian tennis was largely due to evolution of the game toward 2H BH and more and more TS?

For sure, and the game evolved in that direction because grass was being largely abandoned. Australians grew up and played on grass, dominated as well..

Once the world moved away from grass, introduced hardcourts and bigger racquets that also made clay tennis even more different from the grass one, Australians probably lost the edge. And I guess 1960s great generation was partially an exception, you can'
t expect to have that always. The standard was pretty high.

Therefore 1988 switch to hardcourts


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/06/2023 1:46 am, *skriptis wrote:

joh <joshorst@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

But no-one cared about the title.

Their loss.

Everyone knows, dating to 1923, which are the four official ITF championships.

It was a known fact for more than 40 years in those times.

...and only three bothered to show up for that.

Federer skipped couple of FOs in his later years, shall we count that against FO?

He is one of the greatest ever, no?

Exactly. Big players skipping slams costs them far more than it does
the tournament. Borg skipping AO cost him huge potential legacy, maybe
wins 5 AOs. Novak is smart he plays every AO and is a 10 time champ.
The guys who don't are coulda/woulda. That doesn't mean much in the
fullness of time.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/06/2023 1:20 am, joh wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:05:50 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:

joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

From 1960 till 1964 there were never more than 3 non-Australians in the draw.I'd call that an asterisk.

But Australians were top players back then.

But no-one cared about the title.

You need to read a bit more lol. Everyone cared but most couldn't afford
it. Some players didn't play AO because there was no prize money and it
was expensive to travel. Maureen Connolly made the effort in the 50's
because she knew she could be the 1st woman to win a calendar slam. She
has an eternal goat level legacy because of that decision. When she died
she was still the only woman to win a calendar slam. Most players
weren't going to win AO so many didn't travel due to cost, but the title
is still huge.

In those 5 years (1960-1964) they won 2 French, 4 Wimbledon, 4 US titles.

So they've won 10 our of 15 titles at other slams. Alongside 5 out of 5 in Australia.

15 out of 20 slams in those 5 years.

Coming to Australia and trying to win title there vs them was (supposed to be) the ultimate challenge in those years.
--

...and only three bothered to show up for that.

If the top 100 suddenly decided they couldn't be bothered playing
Wimbledon it just means a golden opportunity for the best player in the
field to win. History will record the winner as a Wimbledon champ. How
you feel about it doesn't matter at all.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gMTkvMDYvMjAyMyAxMjozNyBhbSwgam9oIHdyb3RlOg0KPiBPbiBTdW5kYXksIEp1bmUg MTgsIDIwMjMgYXQgMzo1MTowMeKAr1BNIFVUQysyLCAqc2tyaXB0aXMgd3JvdGU6DQo+PiBq b2ggPGpvc2guLi5AZ21haWwuY29tPiBXcm90ZSBpbiBtZXNzYWdlOnINCj4+PiBPbiBTdW5k YXksIEp1bmUgMTgsIDIwMjMgYXQgMzowNTowNuKAr1BNIFVUQysyLCBXaGlzcGVyIHdyb3Rl Oj4gT24gMTgvMDYvMjAyMyA4OjA1IHBtLCBqb2ggd3JvdGU6ID4gPiBPbiBTdW5kYXksIEp1 bmUgMTgsIDIwMjMgYXQgMTA6MTY6NDfigK9BTSBVVEMrMiwgV2hpc3BlciB3cm90ZTogPiA+ PiBPbiAxOC8wNi8yMDIzIDE6NTIgYW0sIGpvaCB3cm90ZTogPiA+Pj4gT24gU2F0dXJkYXks IEp1bmUgMTcsIDIwMjMgYXQgNToyMjoxNuKAr1BNIFVUQysyLCBXaGlzcGVyIHdyb3RlOiA+ ID4+Pj4gT24gMTgvMDYvMjAyMyAxMjo0NyBhbSwgUGV0ZVdhc0x1Y2t5IHdyb3RlOiA+ID4+ Pj4+IGh0dHBzOi8vYmV0aGl2ZS5uZXQvaGUtd2lsbC1iZS1mb3Jnb3R0ZW4tZm9ybWVyLXdv cmxkLW51bWJlci0xLXRlbm5pcy1wbGF5ZXItc3BhcmtzLWNvbnRyb3ZlcnN5LXdpdGgtYS1o ZWF0ZWQtcmVtYXJrLW9uLW5vdmFrLWRqb2tvdmljLyA+ID4+Pj4gPiA+Pj4+ID4gPj4+PiBO b3ZhayB3aWxsIGJlIGZvcmdvdHRlbiBsaWtlIE1hcmdhcmV0IENvdXJ0IGlzIGZvcmdvdHRl biA7ICkgPiA+Pj4gPiA+Pj4gTW9yZSBvciBsZXNzLiBOb3QgYXMgYmFkIGFzIHRoYXQgcHJv YmFibHkuID4gPj4gSSdtIGJlaW5nIHNhcmNhc3RpYy4gSGlzdG9yeSB2aWV3cyBDb3VydCBh cyB0aGUgZ3JlYXRlc3Qgb2YgdGhlIGdyZWF0LiA+ID4+IFNoZSB3b24gZXZlcnl0aGluZyB0 aGVyZSBpcyB0byB3aW4gbXVsdGlwbGUgdGltZXMgKGFsbCBzaW5nbGVzLCBkb3VibGVzID4g Pj4gYW5kIG1peGVkIHNsYW1zLCBjYWxlbmRhciBzbGFtIGluIHNpbmdsZXMsIDIgY2FsZW5k YXIgc2xhbXMgaW4gbWl4ZWQgPiA+PiBkb3VibGVzLCBiZXN0IHdpbm5pbmcgbWF0Y2ggJSBp biBvcGVuIGVyYSBhdCBtb3N0IHNsYW1zIGFuZCBvdmVyYWxsIGV0Yy4gPiA+PiBUZWVuYWdl IHRlbm5pcyBmYW5zIGhhdmUgbm8gY29uY2VwdCBvZiBoaXN0b3J5LCBidXQgdGhleSB3aWxs IHdoZW4gPiA+PiB0aGV5IG1hdHVyZSA6ICkgPiA+ID4gPiBEb24ndCBraWQgeW91cnNlbGYu IEZldyB1bmRlciA1MCBoYXZlIGhlYXJkIG9mIENvdXJ0LCBhbmQgdGhpcyB3b24ndCBpbXBy b3ZlIHdpdGggdGltZS4+IFRoZSBvbmVzIHdobyBkb24ndCBrbm93IENvdXJ0IGRvbid0IGNv dW50IHJpZ2h0PyBXaG8gd2FudHMgdG8gaGF2ZSBmYW5zID4gd2hvIGhhdmUgbm8gaWRlYSBh Ym91dCB0ZW5uaXMgaGlzdG9yeSBhbmQgd2hlcmUgdGhlaXIgaGVybyBzdGFuZHM/IEhvdyB3 b3VsZCB5b3UgcmF0ZSA2MCdzIEFPIHRpdGxlcyBpbiB0aGUgNzUzMiBzY2hlbWUgb2YgdGhp bmdzPz4gPiBJbiA1MCB5cnMgdGVlbnMgd29uJ3Qga25vdyB3aG8gdGhlIGJpZyAzIHdlcmUs IGRvZXMgdGhhdCBtZWFuIHRoZXkgPiBhcmVuJ3QgZ29hdCBsZXZlbD8NCj4+IFlvdSdyZSBj bHVlbGVzcyBqb2gsIDYwcyBBTyAoYnR3IG5vIHN1Y2ggdGhpbmcsIG9ubHkgMTk2OSBlZGl0 aW9uIHdhcyBBTywgYnV0IEkgYXNzdW1lIHlvdSBtZWFuIEF1c3RyYWxpYW4gQ2hhbXBpb25z aGlwKSBpcyBhY3R1YWxseSBub24tYXN0ZXJpc2tlZCBpbiB0aGUgNjBzLA0KPiANCj4gIEZy b20gMTk2MCB0aWxsIDE5NjQgdGhlcmUgd2VyZSBuZXZlciBtb3JlIHRoYW4gMyBub24tQXVz dHJhbGlhbnMgaW4gdGhlIGRyYXcuDQo+IEknZCBjYWxsIHRoYXQgYW4gYXN0ZXJpc2suDQo+ IA0KPiANCj4gaXQgd2FzIGF0IHRoZSBsYXRlIHN0YWdlIG9mIGFtYXRldXIgZXJhIGFuZCBk dXJpbmcgQXVzc2llIGRvbWluYXRpb24gKExhdmVyLCBSb3Nld2FsbCwgRW1lcnNvbiwgQ291 cnQgZXRjKSBzbyB3aGlsZSBpdCB3YXMgcGFydCBvZiBsZXNzZXIgYW1hdGV1ciB0b3VyIChm b3IgbWVuKSBpdCBhY3R1YWxseSBkaWRuJ3Qgc3VmZmVyIHJlbGF0aXZlbHkgdG8gb3RoZXIg c2xhbXMgYXMgY29tcGFyZWQgdG8gNzBzIGFuZCA+ODBzIG9yIHByZSAxOTkwIGluIGdlbmVy YWwuDQo+Pg0KDQoNCg0KTGF2ZXIgc2FpZCBoZSB0aG91Z2h0IGhpcyAxOTYyIGNhbGVuZGFy IHNsYW0gd2FzIHByb2JhYmx5IGhhcmRlciB0aGFuIA0KdGhlIDE5NjkgdmVyc2lvbi4gIElu ZGVlZCBoZSBiZWF0IFJveSBFbWVyc29uIGluIDMgb2YgdGhlIDQgc2xhbSBmaW5hbHMgDQpp biAxOTYyLCBhbmQgUm95IHdhcyB0aGUgc2xhbSBraW5nIHVudGlsIFNhbXByYXMuDQoNCllv dSBqdXN0IGhhdmUgdG8gYWNjZXB0IGhpc3RvcnkgZG9lc24ndCBwdXQgKiBvbiBzbGFtcywg dGhleSBhbGwgY291bnQuIA0KTWFueSBtb2Rlcm4gYW5hbHlzdHMgZXZlbiB3YW50IHRvICog Tm92YWsncyBzbGFtcyBmb3IgdmFyaW91cyByZWFzb25zLCANCnBlcmNlaXZlZCBsb3dlciBx dWFsaXR5IGZpZWxkcyBldGMuICBJdCdzIHJldGFyZGVkLiAgSXQncyBqdXN0IHdhbmtpbmcg DQpieSB0ZW5uaXMgZmFuYm95cywgb2Ygbm8gY29uc2VxdWVuY2UuICBObyBPbHltcGljIGdv bGQgbWVkYWxzIGFyZSANCmFzdGVyaXNrZWQsIGdvbGYgbWFqb3JzIGV0Yy4gSWYgeW91J3Jl IGx1Y2t5IGVub3VnaCB0byBmYWNlIGEgc29mdCBmaWVsZCANCmluIHlvdXIgc2xhbSBydW5z IG1vcmUgcG93ZXIgdG8geW91LiAgWW91IGNhbiBvbmx5IHBsYXkgd2hvIHR1cm5zIHVwIGF0 IA0KdGhlIHRpbWUuDQoNCg0KDQoNCg==

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gMTkvMDYvMjAyMyAxOjAxIGFtLCBnYXAuLi5AZ21haWwuY29tIHdyb3RlOg0KPiBPbiBT dW5kYXksIEp1bmUgMTgsIDIwMjMgYXQgMTA6Mzc6NTnigK9BTSBVVEMtNCwgam9oIHdyb3Rl Og0KPj4gT24gU3VuZGF5LCBKdW5lIDE4LCAyMDIzIGF0IDM6NTE6MDHigK9QTSBVVEMrMiwg KnNrcmlwdGlzIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4+IGpvaCA8am9zaC4uLkBnbWFpbC5jb20+IFdyb3RlIGlu IG1lc3NhZ2U6cg0KPj4+PiBPbiBTdW5kYXksIEp1bmUgMTgsIDIwMjMgYXQgMzowNTowNuKA r1BNIFVUQysyLCBXaGlzcGVyIHdyb3RlOj4gT24gMTgvMDYvMjAyMyA4OjA1IHBtLCBqb2gg d3JvdGU6ID4gPiBPbiBTdW5kYXksIEp1bmUgMTgsIDIwMjMgYXQgMTA6MTY6NDfigK9BTSBV VEMrMiwgV2hpc3BlciB3cm90ZTogPiA+PiBPbiAxOC8wNi8yMDIzIDE6NTIgYW0sIGpvaCB3 cm90ZTogPiA+Pj4gT24gU2F0dXJkYXksIEp1bmUgMTcsIDIwMjMgYXQgNToyMjoxNuKAr1BN IFVUQysyLCBXaGlzcGVyIHdyb3RlOiA+ID4+Pj4gT24gMTgvMDYvMjAyMyAxMjo0NyBhbSwg UGV0ZVdhc0x1Y2t5IHdyb3RlOiA+ID4+Pj4+IGh0dHBzOi8vYmV0aGl2ZS5uZXQvaGUtd2ls bC1iZS1mb3Jnb3R0ZW4tZm9ybWVyLXdvcmxkLW51bWJlci0xLXRlbm5pcy1wbGF5ZXItc3Bh cmtzLWNvbnRyb3ZlcnN5LXdpdGgtYS1oZWF0ZWQtcmVtYXJrLW9uLW5vdmFrLWRqb2tvdmlj LyA+ID4+Pj4gPiA+Pj4+ID4gPj4+PiBOb3ZhayB3aWxsIGJlIGZvcmdvdHRlbiBsaWtlIE1h cmdhcmV0IENvdXJ0IGlzIGZvcmdvdHRlbiA7ICkgPiA+Pj4gPiA+Pj4gTW9yZSBvciBsZXNz LiBOb3QgYXMgYmFkIGFzIHRoYXQgcHJvYmFibHkuID4gPj4gSSdtIGJlaW5nIHNhcmNhc3Rp Yy4gSGlzdG9yeSB2aWV3cyBDb3VydCBhcyB0aGUgZ3JlYXRlc3Qgb2YgdGhlIGdyZWF0LiA+ ID4+IFNoZSB3b24gZXZlcnl0aGluZyB0aGVyZSBpcyB0byB3aW4gbXVsdGlwbGUgdGltZXMg KGFsbCBzaW5nbGVzLCBkb3VibGVzID4gPj4gYW5kIG1peGVkIHNsYW1zLCBjYWxlbmRhciBz bGFtIGluIHNpbmdsZXMsIDIgY2FsZW5kYXIgc2xhbXMgaW4gbWl4ZWQgPiA+PiBkb3VibGVz LCBiZXN0IHdpbm5pbmcgbWF0Y2ggJSBpbiBvcGVuIGVyYSBhdCBtb3N0IHNsYW1zIGFuZCBv dmVyYWxsIGV0Yy4gPiA+PiBUZWVuYWdlIHRlbm5pcyBmYW5zIGhhdmUgbm8gY29uY2VwdCBv ZiBoaXN0b3J5LCBidXQgdGhleSB3aWxsIHdoZW4gPiA+PiB0aGV5IG1hdHVyZSA6ICkgPiA+ ID4gPiBEb24ndCBraWQgeW91cnNlbGYuIEZldyB1bmRlciA1MCBoYXZlIGhlYXJkIG9mIENv dXJ0LCBhbmQgdGhpcyB3b24ndCBpbXByb3ZlIHdpdGggdGltZS4+IFRoZSBvbmVzIHdobyBk b24ndCBrbm93IENvdXJ0IGRvbid0IGNvdW50IHJpZ2h0PyBXaG8gd2FudHMgdG8gaGF2ZSBm YW5zID4gd2hvIGhhdmUgbm8gaWRlYSBhYm91dCB0ZW5uaXMgaGlzdG9yeSBhbmQgd2hlcmUg dGhlaXIgaGVybyBzdGFuZHM/IEhvdyB3b3VsZCB5b3UgcmF0ZSA2MCdzIEFPIHRpdGxlcyBp biB0aGUgNzUzMiBzY2hlbWUgb2YgdGhpbmdzPz4gPiBJbiA1MCB5cnMgdGVlbnMgd29uJ3Qg a25vdyB3aG8gdGhlIGJpZyAzIHdlcmUsIGRvZXMgdGhhdCBtZWFuIHRoZXkgPiBhcmVuJ3Qg Z29hdCBsZXZlbD8NCj4+PiBZb3UncmUgY2x1ZWxlc3Mgam9oLCA2MHMgQU8gKGJ0dyBubyBz dWNoIHRoaW5nLCBvbmx5IDE5NjkgZWRpdGlvbiB3YXMgQU8sIGJ1dCBJIGFzc3VtZSB5b3Ug bWVhbiBBdXN0cmFsaWFuIENoYW1waW9uc2hpcCkgaXMgYWN0dWFsbHkgbm9uLWFzdGVyaXNr ZWQgaW4gdGhlIDYwcywNCj4+ICBGcm9tIDE5NjAgdGlsbCAxOTY0IHRoZXJlIHdlcmUgbmV2 ZXIgbW9yZSB0aGFuIDMgbm9uLUF1c3RyYWxpYW5zIGluIHRoZSBkcmF3Lg0KPj4gSSdkIGNh bGwgdGhhdCBhbiBhc3Rlcmlzay4NCj4+IGl0IHdhcyBhdCB0aGUgbGF0ZSBzdGFnZSBvZiBh bWF0ZXVyIGVyYSBhbmQgZHVyaW5nIEF1c3NpZSBkb21pbmF0aW9uIChMYXZlciwgUm9zZXdh bGwsIEVtZXJzb24sIENvdXJ0IGV0Yykgc28gd2hpbGUgaXQgd2FzIHBhcnQgb2YgbGVzc2Vy IGFtYXRldXIgdG91ciAoZm9yIG1lbikgaXQgYWN0dWFsbHkgZGlkbid0IHN1ZmZlciByZWxh dGl2ZWx5IHRvIG90aGVyIHNsYW1zIGFzIGNvbXBhcmVkIHRvIDcwcyBhbmQgODBzIG9yIHBy ZSAxOTkwIGluIGdlbmVyYWwuDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBTbyBJIHdvdWxkIGJlIGNvbWZvcnRhYmxl IHdpdGggZXZlbiA3NTU1IGZvciBhbWF0ZXVycyBpbiB0aGUgNjBzLiBXaHkgbm90Pw0KPj4+ DQo+Pj4gQW5kIG9mIGNvdXJzZSwgNzU0MyBpcyBwcm9iYWJseSBtb3N0IHN1aXRhYmxlIGZv ciB0aGUgMTk4MHMuDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBOb3dhZGF5cyBJJ2QgZG8gNzU1NSBhZ2Fpbiwgd2h5 IG5vdC4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+IEJ1dCA3NTQzIGlzIGtpbmRhIGFwcHJveGltYXRpb24gYW5kIGJl c3QgaGlzdG9yaWNhbCB2ZXJzaW9uIGJlY2F1c2UgQXVzIGFuZCBGcmVuY2ggaGFkIGxlc3Nl ciBwZXJpb2RzIG1vcmUgb2Z0ZW4gdGhhbiBXaW1ibGVkb24gYW5kIFVTIGRpZC4NCg0KPiAN Cj4gDQo+Pj4gaHR0cHM6Ly9waWFvaG9uZy5zMy11cy13ZXN0LTIuYW1hem9uYXdzLmNvbS91 c2VuZXQvaW5kZXguaHRtbA0KPiANCj4gR29vZCBvbmUsIExhdmVyIHRob3VnaHQgc28gaGln aGx5IG9mIHRoZSBBTywgdGhhdCBoZSBkaWQgbm90IHBsYXkgdGhlcmUgZm9yIDggeXJzLCBk aWQgbm90IGV2ZW4gdmlzaXQgT3ogZm9yIDggeXJzISENCj4gV2FzIHVuYmVhdGVuIGF0IFcg aW4gdGhlIDYwcywgZ3JlYXQgcGxheWVyLCBiZWxvbmdzIHdpdGggdGhlIGJpZyB0aHJlZSwg UGV0ZSwgQm9yZywgdG9wIDUgb2YgYWxsIHRpbWUhDQoNCg0KQWdhc3NpIGRpZG4ndCBwbGF5 IEFPIHRpbCBoYWxmIHdheSB0aHJvdWdoIGhpcyBjYXJlZXIuICBIaXMgbG9zcy4gIFRoZSAN CnBsYXllcnMgd2hvIGRvIHR1cm4gdXAgYW5kIHdpbiBhcmUgdGhlIGNoYW1wcyBhdCB0aGUg dGltZSwgdGhlIHJlc3QgaXMgDQp3aGluaW5nIGNvdWxkYS93b3VsZGEgYW5kIG1lYW5zIG5v dGhpbmcuICBIaXN0b3J5IGJvb2tzIHdpbGwgYWx3YXlzIGxpc3QgDQp0aGUgY2hhbXBzLiAg SG93IHBlb3BsZSBmZWVsIGFib3V0IHRob3NlIHNsYW1zIGlzIG9mIG5vIGNvbnNlcXVlbmNl
Lg0K

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/06/2023 2:02 am, joh wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:46:54 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:

joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

But no-one cared about the title.

Their loss.

Everyone knows, dating to 1923, which are the four official ITF championships.

Yes. And they didn't care.
That's my point.

That's not a point. What it means is they missed opportunities to win
slams. You don't get credit for things you never attempted. The champs
who cared and played are the champs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/06/2023 4:43 am, Sawfish wrote:

On 6/18/23 11:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:

*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r

Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> On 6/18/23 9:08
AM, *skriptis wrote:> joh <joshorst@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>>
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:46:54 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:> joh
<josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> > But no-one cared about the
title.> Their loss. > > Everyone knows, dating to 1923, which are the
four official ITF championships. Yes. And they didn't care.That's my
point.>> More like they felt hopeless and quit and didn't even try.If
I'm understanding this correctly, there is a parallel in the US horse
racing series called the Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Horse
Racing.There are three major races each spring: The Kentucky Derby,
the Preakness Stakes, and the Belmont Stakes. They are run in that
order and are about two weeks apart.The first race has many, many
entries, sometimes around 20. The second race less so, and the third
even less. One of the reasons the field narrows is that by then the
demonstrably dominant horses are established, and by the third race,
many owners don't race their horse because there is travel expense
involved, and by then they see that for sure, they have little chance
of winning.So by the third race there may be only 6 or 7 horses
entered.Maybe the same considerations were in play at the Australian
Open during the era in which the Australian players dominated the
sport.>>> Australians won 30 out of 40 last slams in open era.>> 9
Australian out of 10> 6 French out of 10.> 7 Wimbledon out of 10.> 8
US out of then.>>> Surely it's obvious that winning in Australia vs
them was kinda like trying to win FO in the age of Nadal so most
quit.>> The best players were Australians and they were in
Australia.Yeah, it could be like that.Obviously it was a amateur era,
and money was also factor. The shamateur era and so on, players were
paid under the table, but I guess you could still earn more money by
playing more elsewhere and avoiding lengthy and costly travel there.
But is it different nowadays? It's still the farthest slam. ;)The
fact that you had *least chance* of winning there vs powerful
Australians certainly could have had an additional impact on the rest
of the field and their decision to skip it.The truth is, I'm
definitely not an expert on this period, I haven't lived or studied
it, but I've read some news archives back in the days when I was
compiling all sorts of lists for my personal stats. I know bits.Did
you know first Australian trophy was a Wimbledon trophy replica, I
think silver?And that there was Wilding medal awarded to winner, post
ww1, I kinda forgot what was that all about, but it was awarded
separately from the trophy, similar to double trophy presentation in
early 2000s for newly established ATP masters series?One was the
"original" trophy and they got another one "masters series" trophy,
no?Anyway what bothered me with joh is that he has it all
backwards.If anything is absolute, it's the slam tournaments as per
ITF constitution dating to 1923 (starting in 1924).That can't be
questioned. The only thing that could question this is some huge
change, like 1973 Wimbledon boycott, all the best players skipping it
(like AO during late 70s and early 80s) or best players in the world
being banned. So if the tournament itself isn't the benchmark, and if
something else is, it can only be the best players, because in truth,
weaker fields kinda diminish the prestige of the event.But joh
doesn't seem to understand that Australian status in the 1960s wasn't
questioned, it was a known slam since 1924 like all others, and that
the *best players* played the event.He's kinda focusing on French or
American journeymen skipping the event as if they're the benchmark,
as if they're more important than the ITF constitution or world's
best players of that era (Australians).That's bizarre.1958 French
through 1968 Australian, last 40 slams of amateur era.30 slams for
Australia4 for Spain3 for USA2 for Italy1 for MexicoAll the great
players were Australians and somehow Australian had weak fields
because European or American journeymen didn't bother
travelling?Makes no sense for me.-- ----Android NewsGroup
Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

Australians also continued their domination into open era,  winning 11
out of first 16 open era slams.

If you add up last 30 majors of pro era, Australians won 25 out of 30
there.

So in those 14 years, they've won 66 out 86 amateur, pro and open era
slams.

And who knows how many DC titles, I won't look at that.


Point being, they were the best, they set the standards and they
played in Australian championships so the tournament had best players
which is what counts.


The 1970s demise of AO is due to disappearance of Australian greats,
not because foreigners skipped it.

Sure it may have attracted few foreigners from the beginning as joh
said, but the tournament doesn't need foreigners, be it "Europeans" or
"Americans", it needs fine players.

It had them until mid 1970s.

This was all great historical background, skript. Reading it brings to
mind a speculative observation.

First, I'll agree that with the period you mentioned of Australian
dominance of tennis--all tennis--and then a demise, I wonder if the
demise was a result not so much as decrease of talent, or a concomitant increase world-wide, but the game evolving away from the style that the Australian players favored. I can barely recall Laver, have some
memories of Rosewall during the rise of Connors, remember Newcombe well,
and later John Alexander. Basically all were fairly flat shots, tending toward S&V. Newcombe was agile and fast and could baseline well. I can
recall Rosewall as baselining a bit, and I can't recall Laver well
enough, but he appeared physically to be a guy who could baseline.
Alexander seems S&V.

So what you really had as a style was relatively flat hitting--some even
with a continental grip, I'll bet, and probably zero western grips. They
were either all-court (Rosewall, etc.) or tending toward S&V, (Newcombe).

Later you had Rafter and Cash and they were sorta throwbacks to this
style, although Cash was more all-court.

What do you think of this hypothesis: decline of Australian tennis was largely due to evolution of the game toward 2H BH and more and more TS?

I don't think evolution of the game was a factor, it's more the tennis
machine that happened to produce so many great Aussie players for many
decades was no longer running. The level many Aussies reached was truly astonishing, just perfect grasscourt tennis. Anything above the net was
killed by skillful net play, so lots of deft slices were in play so as
not to give a high ball that any competent volleyer devoured. These
guys worked so hard in practice, played bo5 with no tie-breaks, doubles
and even mixed. The idea they couldn't evolve their style with modern equipment doesn't make sense.

The mind boggles at all the great Aussie champs;

Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Newk, Sedgman, Emerson, Crawford, Roche, Fraser, Brookes, Cooper, Quist. Laver the most famous of course, but Hoad and
Crawford were both 1 match short of calendar slams like Djokovic. Per
capita Australia is the greatest tennis nation by far. 28 Davis Cup wins
says it all. The 1973 team that beat USA in final 5-0 was so strong Ken Rosewall was on the bench and didn't get to play.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gMTkuNi4yMDIzIDEyLjMyLCBXaGlzcGVyIHdyb3RlOg0KPiBPbiAxOS8wNi8yMDIzIDE6 MDEgYW0sIGdhcC4uLkBnbWFpbC5jb20gd3JvdGU6DQo+PiBPbiBTdW5kYXksIEp1bmUgMTgs IDIwMjMgYXQgMTA6Mzc6NTnigK9BTSBVVEMtNCwgam9oIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4+IE9uIFN1bmRh eSwgSnVuZSAxOCwgMjAyMyBhdCAzOjUxOjAx4oCvUE0gVVRDKzIsICpza3JpcHRpcyB3cm90 ZToNCj4+Pj4gam9oIDxqb3NoLi4uQGdtYWlsLmNvbT4gV3JvdGUgaW4gbWVzc2FnZTpyDQo+ Pj4+PiBPbiBTdW5kYXksIEp1bmUgMTgsIDIwMjMgYXQgMzowNTowNuKAr1BNIFVUQysyLCBX aGlzcGVyIHdyb3RlOj4gT24gDQo+Pj4+PiAxOC8wNi8yMDIzIDg6MDUgcG0sIGpvaCB3cm90 ZTogPiA+IE9uIFN1bmRheSwgSnVuZSAxOCwgMjAyMyBhdCANCj4+Pj4+IDEwOjE2OjQ34oCv QU0gVVRDKzIsIFdoaXNwZXIgd3JvdGU6ID4gPj4gT24gMTgvMDYvMjAyMyAxOjUyIGFtLCBq b2ggDQo+Pj4+PiB3cm90ZTogPiA+Pj4gT24gU2F0dXJkYXksIEp1bmUgMTcsIDIwMjMgYXQg NToyMjoxNuKAr1BNIFVUQysyLCANCj4+Pj4+IFdoaXNwZXIgd3JvdGU6ID4gPj4+PiBPbiAx OC8wNi8yMDIzIDEyOjQ3IGFtLCBQZXRlV2FzTHVja3kgd3JvdGU6ID4gDQo+Pj4+PiA+Pj4+ PiANCj4+Pj4+IGh0dHBzOi8vYmV0aGl2ZS5uZXQvaGUtd2lsbC1iZS1mb3Jnb3R0ZW4tZm9y bWVyLXdvcmxkLW51bWJlci0xLXRlbm5pcy1wbGF5ZXItc3BhcmtzLWNvbnRyb3ZlcnN5LXdp dGgtYS1oZWF0ZWQtcmVtYXJrLW9uLW5vdmFrLWRqb2tvdmljLyA+ID4+Pj4gPiA+Pj4+ID4g Pj4+PiBOb3ZhayB3aWxsIGJlIGZvcmdvdHRlbiBsaWtlIE1hcmdhcmV0IENvdXJ0IGlzIGZv cmdvdHRlbiA7ICkgPiA+Pj4gPiA+Pj4gTW9yZSBvciBsZXNzLiBOb3QgYXMgYmFkIGFzIHRo YXQgcHJvYmFibHkuID4gPj4gSSdtIGJlaW5nIHNhcmNhc3RpYy4gSGlzdG9yeSB2aWV3cyBD b3VydCBhcyB0aGUgZ3JlYXRlc3Qgb2YgdGhlIGdyZWF0LiA+ID4+IFNoZSB3b24gZXZlcnl0 aGluZyB0aGVyZSBpcyB0byB3aW4gbXVsdGlwbGUgdGltZXMgKGFsbCBzaW5nbGVzLCBkb3Vi bGVzID4gPj4gYW5kIG1peGVkIHNsYW1zLCBjYWxlbmRhciBzbGFtIGluIHNpbmdsZXMsIDIg Y2FsZW5kYXIgc2xhbXMgaW4gbWl4ZWQgPiA+PiBkb3VibGVzLCBiZXN0IHdpbm5pbmcgbWF0 Y2ggJSBpbiBvcGVuIGVyYSBhdCBtb3N0IHNsYW1zIGFuZCBvdmVyYWxsIGV0Yy4gPiA+PiBU ZWVuYWdlIHRlbm5pcyBmYW5zIGhhdmUgbm8gY29uY2VwdCBvZiBoaXN0b3J5LCBidXQgdGhl eSB3aWxsIHdoZW4gPiA+PiB0aGV5IG1hdHVyZSA6ICkgPiA+ID4gPiBEb24ndCBraWQgeW91 cnNlbGYuIEZldyB1bmRlciA1MCBoYXZlIGhlYXJkIG9mIENvdXJ0LCBhbmQgdGhpcyB3b24n dCBpbXByb3ZlIHdpdGggdGltZS4+IFRoZSBvbmVzIHdobyBkb24ndCBrbm93IENvdXJ0IGRv bid0IGNvdW50IHJpZ2h0PyBXaG8gd2FudHMgdG8gaGF2ZSBmYW5zID4gd2hvIGhhdmUgbm8g aWRlYSBhYm91dCB0ZW5uaXMgaGlzdG9yeSBhbmQgd2hlcmUgdGhlaXIgaGVybyBzdGFuZHM/ IEhvdyB3b3VsZCB5b3UgcmF0ZSA2MCdzIEFPIHRpdGxlcyBpbiB0aGUgNzUzMiBzY2hlbWUg b2YgdGhpbmdzPz4gPiBJbiA1MCB5cnMgdGVlbnMgd29uJ3Qga25vdyB3aG8gdGhlIGJpZyAz IHdlcmUsIGRvZXMgdGhhdCBtZWFuIHRoZXkgPiBhcmVuJ3QgZ29hdCBsZXZlbD8NCj4+Pj4g WW91J3JlIGNsdWVsZXNzIGpvaCwgNjBzIEFPIChidHcgbm8gc3VjaCB0aGluZywgb25seSAx OTY5IGVkaXRpb24gDQo+Pj4+IHdhcyBBTywgYnV0IEkgYXNzdW1lIHlvdSBtZWFuIEF1c3Ry YWxpYW4gQ2hhbXBpb25zaGlwKSBpcyBhY3R1YWxseSANCj4+Pj4gbm9uLWFzdGVyaXNrZWQg aW4gdGhlIDYwcywNCj4+PiDCoEZyb20gMTk2MCB0aWxsIDE5NjQgdGhlcmUgd2VyZSBuZXZl ciBtb3JlIHRoYW4gMyBub24tQXVzdHJhbGlhbnMgaW4gDQo+Pj4gdGhlIGRyYXcuDQo+Pj4g SSdkIGNhbGwgdGhhdCBhbiBhc3Rlcmlzay4NCj4+PiBpdCB3YXMgYXQgdGhlIGxhdGUgc3Rh Z2Ugb2YgYW1hdGV1ciBlcmEgYW5kIGR1cmluZyBBdXNzaWUgZG9taW5hdGlvbiANCj4+PiAo TGF2ZXIsIFJvc2V3YWxsLCBFbWVyc29uLCBDb3VydCBldGMpIHNvIHdoaWxlIGl0IHdhcyBw YXJ0IG9mIGxlc3NlciANCj4+PiBhbWF0ZXVyIHRvdXIgKGZvciBtZW4pIGl0IGFjdHVhbGx5 IGRpZG4ndCBzdWZmZXIgcmVsYXRpdmVseSB0byBvdGhlciANCj4+PiBzbGFtcyBhcyBjb21w YXJlZCB0byA3MHMgYW5kIDgwcyBvciBwcmUgMTk5MCBpbiBnZW5lcmFsLg0KPj4+Pg0KPj4+ PiBTbyBJIHdvdWxkIGJlIGNvbWZvcnRhYmxlIHdpdGggZXZlbiA3NTU1IGZvciBhbWF0ZXVy cyBpbiB0aGUgNjBzLiANCj4+Pj4gV2h5IG5vdD8NCj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj4gQW5kIG9mIGNvdXJz ZSwgNzU0MyBpcyBwcm9iYWJseSBtb3N0IHN1aXRhYmxlIGZvciB0aGUgMTk4MHMuDQo+Pj4+ DQo+Pj4+IE5vd2FkYXlzIEknZCBkbyA3NTU1IGFnYWluLCB3aHkgbm90Lg0KPj4+Pg0KPj4+ PiBCdXQgNzU0MyBpcyBraW5kYSBhcHByb3hpbWF0aW9uIGFuZCBiZXN0IGhpc3RvcmljYWwg dmVyc2lvbiBiZWNhdXNlIA0KPj4+PiBBdXMgYW5kIEZyZW5jaCBoYWQgbGVzc2VyIHBlcmlv ZHMgbW9yZSBvZnRlbiB0aGFuIFdpbWJsZWRvbiBhbmQgVVMgZGlkLg0KPiANCj4+DQo+Pg0K Pj4+PiBodHRwczovL3BpYW9ob25nLnMzLXVzLXdlc3QtMi5hbWF6b25hd3MuY29tL3VzZW5l dC9pbmRleC5odG1sDQo+Pg0KPj4gR29vZCBvbmUsIExhdmVyIHRob3VnaHQgc28gaGlnaGx5 IG9mIHRoZSBBTywgdGhhdCBoZSBkaWQgbm90IHBsYXkgDQo+PiB0aGVyZSBmb3IgOCB5cnMs IGRpZCBub3QgZXZlbiB2aXNpdCBPeiBmb3IgOCB5cnMhIQ0KPj4gV2FzIHVuYmVhdGVuIGF0 IFcgaW4gdGhlIDYwcywgZ3JlYXQgcGxheWVyLCBiZWxvbmdzIHdpdGggdGhlIGJpZyANCj4+ IHRocmVlLCBQZXRlLCBCb3JnLCB0b3AgNSBvZiBhbGwgdGltZSENCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBBZ2Fz c2kgZGlkbid0IHBsYXkgQU8gdGlsIGhhbGYgd2F5IHRocm91Z2ggaGlzIGNhcmVlci7CoCBI aXMgbG9zcy7CoCBUaGUgDQo+IHBsYXllcnMgd2hvIGRvIHR1cm4gdXAgYW5kIHdpbiBhcmUg dGhlIGNoYW1wcyBhdCB0aGUgdGltZSwgdGhlIHJlc3QgaXMgDQo+IHdoaW5pbmcgY291bGRh L3dvdWxkYSBhbmQgbWVhbnMgbm90aGluZy7CoCBIaXN0b3J5IGJvb2tzIHdpbGwgYWx3YXlz IGxpc3QgDQo+IHRoZSBjaGFtcHMuwqAgSG93IHBlb3BsZSBmZWVsIGFib3V0IHRob3NlIHNs YW1zIGlzIG9mIG5vIGNvbnNlcXVlbmNlLg0KDQpIb3cgZG8geW91IHNwZWxsICI3NTQzIj8N Cg0KLS0gDQoiQW5kIG9mZiB0aGV5IHdlbnQsIGZyb20gaGVyZSB0byB0aGVyZSwNClRoZSBi ZWFyLCB0aGUgYmVhciwgYW5kIHRoZSBtYWlkZW4gZmFpciINCi0tIFRyYWRpdGlvbmFsDQoN
Cg==

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 18 June 2023 at 14:05:06 UTC+1, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 8:05 pm, joh wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:16:47 AM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 1:52 am, joh wrote:

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:22:16 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

Novak will be forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; )

More or less. Not as bad as that probably.

I'm being sarcastic. History views Court as the greatest of the great.
She won everything there is to win multiple times (all singles, doubles >> and mixed slams, calendar slam in singles, 2 calendar slams in mixed
doubles, best winning match % in open era at most slams and overall etc. >> Teenage tennis fans have no concept of history, but they will when
they mature : )

Don't kid yourself. Few under 50 have heard of Court, and this won't improve with time.

The ones who don't know Court don't count right? Who wants to have fans
who have no idea about tennis history and where their hero stands?

In 50 yrs teens won't know who the big 3 were, does that mean they
aren't goat level?

joh desperately follows whatever CNN and PC types tell him, he prob the most unquestioning RST poster, at least his hero Raja questions stuff.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 18 June 2023 at 11:05:45 UTC+1, joh wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:16:47 AM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 1:52 am, joh wrote:

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:22:16 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

Novak will be forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; )

More or less. Not as bad as that probably.

I'm being sarcastic. History views Court as the greatest of the great.
She won everything there is to win multiple times (all singles, doubles and mixed slams, calendar slam in singles, 2 calendar slams in mixed doubles, best winning match % in open era at most slams and overall etc. Teenage tennis fans have no concept of history, but they will when
they mature : )

Don't kid yourself. Few under 50 have heard of Court, and this won't improve with time.

only in your dumb woke dreamworld, almost every tennis fan knows Court owns 24 slams which is the record, that's WAY above Serena, no matter how much you try to be and PC promote that fake news.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 18 June 2023 at 01:20:23 UTC+1, Court_1 wrote:

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:47:55 PM UTC-4, grif wrote:

On 17/06/2023 15:47, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

As long as people remember Fed's Wimbledon 2019, they'll remember Novak.

Yikes, that's a low blow! 😂

My thoughts on the subject are:

1) Nastase is nauseating. I could never stand him for many reasons.

2) To a certain degree, he's correct. First of all, the Big Three will be remembered together especially if one was alive and watching tennis during their tenure. It's hard to speak about one without speaking about the other two.

Then, it's true that when Djokovic retires and as time moves forward, people will forget. His records will be there for eternity but as Djokovic and his fans get older and younger people start to watch tennis, they won't care about Djokovic. They will

be enthralled with the next big thing in tennis. Also, despite Djokovic's pedigree, he isn't beloved the way other great players are or were(Federer, Nadal, Borg, etc.) It is what it is. He could win 50 slams and it wouldn't change. I'm still not a fan
of his even though I respect what he's achieved.

3) Since Federer retired, I haven't watched much tennis at all. I just don't have the same interest level currently. The thing that was keeping me in there was the GOAT race. It looks like that is a done deal unless Nadal can come back and win another

FO. The younger players don't interest me much(pizza face Alcaraz and that sickening kid, Rune.) I'm curious to see if Djokovic can win another Wimbledon. He'll probably win a couple more.

aren't you always posting on nolefans?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 18 June 2023 at 17:03:01 UTC+1, joh wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:46:54 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:

joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

But no-one cared about the title.

Their loss.

Everyone knows, dating to 1923, which are the four official ITF championships.

Yes. And they didn't care.
That's my point.

did you miss Emmerson winning it?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 18 June 2023 at 20:04:28 UTC+1, gap...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 2:45:21 PM UTC-4, Sawfish wrote:

On 6/18/23 11:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:

*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> On 6/18/23 9:08 AM, *skriptis wrote:> joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:46:54 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:> joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> > But

no-one cared about the title.> Their loss. > > Everyone knows, dating to 1923, which are the four official ITF championships. Yes. And they didn't care.That's my point.>> More like they felt hopeless and quit and didn't even try.If I'm understanding this
correctly, there is a parallel in the US horse racing series called the Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Horse Racing.There are three major races each spring: The Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes, and the Belmont Stakes. They are run in that order and
are about two weeks apart.The first race has many, many entries, sometimes around 20. The second race less so, and the third even less. One of the reasons the field narrows is that by then the demonstrably dominant horses are established, and by the
third race, many owners don't race their horse because there is travel expense involved, and by then they see that for sure, they have little chance of winning.So by the third race there may be only 6 or 7 horses entered.Maybe the same considerations
were in play at the Australian Open during the era in which the Australian players dominated the sport.>>> Australians won 30 out of 40 last slams in open era.>> 9 Australian out of 10> 6 French out of 10.> 7 Wimbledon out of 10.> 8 US out of then.>>>
Surely it's obvious that winning in Australia vs them was kinda like trying to win FO in the age of Nadal so most quit.>> The best players were Australians and they were in Australia.Yeah, it could be like that.Obviously it was a amateur era, and money
was also factor. The shamateur era and so on, players were paid under the table, but I guess you could still earn more money by playing more elsewhere and avoiding lengthy and costly travel there. But is it different nowadays? It's still the farthest
slam. ;)The fact that you had *least chance* of winning there vs powerful Australians certainly could have had an additional impact on the rest of the field and their decision to skip it.The truth is, I'm definitely not an expert on this period, I haven'
t lived or studied it, but I've read some news archives back in the days when I was compiling all sorts of lists for my personal stats. I know bits.Did you know first Australian trophy was a Wimbledon trophy replica, I think silver?And that there was
Wilding medal awarded to winner, post ww1, I kinda forgot what was that all about, but it was awarded separately from the trophy, similar to double trophy presentation in early 2000s for newly established ATP masters series?One was the "original" trophy
and they got another one "masters series" trophy, no?Anyway what bothered me with joh is that he has it all backwards.If anything is absolute, it's the slam tournaments as per ITF constitution dating to 1923 (starting in 1924).That can't be questioned.
The only thing that could question this is some huge change, like 1973 Wimbledon boycott, all the best players skipping it (like AO during late 70s and early 80s) or best players in the world being banned. So if the tournament itself isn't the benchmark,
and if something else is, it can only be the best players, because in truth, weaker fields kinda diminish the prestige of the event.But joh doesn't seem to understand that Australian status in the 1960s wasn't questioned, it was a known slam since 1924
like all others, and that the *best players* played the event.He's kinda focusing on French or American journeymen skipping the event as if they're the benchmark, as if they're more important than the ITF constitution or world's best players of that era (
Australians).That's bizarre.1958 French through 1968 Australian, last 40 slams of amateur era.30 slams for Australia4 for Spain3 for USA2 for Italy1 for MexicoAll the great players were Australians and somehow Australian had weak fields because European
or American journeymen didn't bother travelling?Makes no sense for me.-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

Australians also continued their domination into open era, winning 11 out of first 16 open era slams.

If you add up last 30 majors of pro era, Australians won 25 out of 30 there.

So in those 14 years, they've won 66 out 86 amateur, pro and open era slams.

And who knows how many DC titles, I won't look at that.

Point being, they were the best, they set the standards and they played in Australian championships so the tournament had best players which is what counts.

The 1970s demise of AO is due to disappearance of Australian greats, not because foreigners skipped it.

Sure it may have attracted few foreigners from the beginning as joh said, but the tournament doesn't need foreigners, be it "Europeans" or "Americans", it needs fine players.

It had them until mid 1970s.

This was all great historical background, skript. Reading it brings to mind a speculative observation.

First, I'll agree that with the period you mentioned of Australian dominance of tennis--all tennis--and then a demise, I wonder if the
demise was a result not so much as decrease of talent, or a concomitant increase world-wide, but the game evolving away from the style that the Australian players favored. I can barely recall Laver, have some
memories of Rosewall during the rise of Connors, remember Newcombe well, and later John Alexander. Basically all were fairly flat shots, tending toward S&V. Newcombe was agile and fast and could baseline well. I can recall Rosewall as baselining a bit, and I can't recall Laver well
enough, but he appeared physically to be a guy who could baseline. Alexander seems S&V.

So what you really had as a style was relatively flat hitting--some even with a continental grip, I'll bet, and probably zero western grips. They were either all-court (Rosewall, etc.) or tending toward S&V, (Newcombe).

Later you had Rafter and Cash and they were sorta throwbacks to this style, although Cash was more all-court.

What do you think of this hypothesis: decline of Australian tennis was largely due to evolution of the game toward 2H BH and more and more TS?

-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we use Occam's Razor, whose razor will *he* use?" --Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well said, tennis passed them by, when Europeans, SAmericans discovered money, in tennis! Nadal got $10mil playing the SAmerican circuit!
Think Vilas, Guga, Drobney, Swedes!!, and the three greatest not to mention Stan, Andy!!
No more KenR, Hoad, Laver, Emmo, Newk, Roche left, better than Italy, no, not even!

Hewitt could always beat Fed on grass.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, 19 June 2023 at 09:16:12 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

What do you think of this hypothesis: decline of Australian tennis was largely due to evolution of the game toward 2H BH and more and more TS?

For sure, and the game evolved in that direction because grass was being largely abandoned. Australians grew up and played on grass, dominated as well..

Once the world moved away from grass, introduced hardcourts and bigger racquets that also made clay tennis even more different from the grass one, Australians probably lost the edge. And I guess 1960s great generation was partially an exception, you

can't expect to have that always. The standard was pretty high.

Therefore 1988 switch to hardcourts

it's not really that cos Australia(like Florida) has a very good climate for mass participation of tennis(unlike England) and it could be on hard or grass. Yes they did/do love grass, but no reason not to do well on hard.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 18 June 2023 at 19:45:21 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:

On 6/18/23 11:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:

*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:r

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r> On 6/18/23 9:08 AM, *skriptis wrote:> joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:46:54 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:> joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> > But no-

one cared about the title.> Their loss. > > Everyone knows, dating to 1923, which are the four official ITF championships. Yes. And they didn't care.That's my point.>> More like they felt hopeless and quit and didn't even try.If I'm understanding this
correctly, there is a parallel in the US horse racing series called the Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Horse Racing.There are three major races each spring: The Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes, and the Belmont Stakes. They are run in that order and
are about two weeks apart.The first race has many, many entries, sometimes around 20. The second race less so, and the third even less. One of the reasons the field narrows is that by then the demonstrably dominant horses are established, and by the
third race, many owners don't race their horse because there is travel expense involved, and by then they see that for sure, they have little chance of winning.So by the third race there may be only 6 or 7 horses entered.Maybe the same considerations
were in play at the Australian Open during the era in which the Australian players dominated the sport.>>> Australians won 30 out of 40 last slams in open era.>> 9 Australian out of 10> 6 French out of 10.> 7 Wimbledon out of 10.> 8 US out of then.>>>
Surely it's obvious that winning in Australia vs them was kinda like trying to win FO in the age of Nadal so most quit.>> The best players were Australians and they were in Australia.Yeah, it could be like that.Obviously it was a amateur era, and money
was also factor. The shamateur era and so on, players were paid under the table, but I guess you could still earn more money by playing more elsewhere and avoiding lengthy and costly travel there. But is it different nowadays? It's still the farthest
slam. ;)The fact that you had *least chance* of winning there vs powerful Australians certainly could have had an additional impact on the rest of the field and their decision to skip it.The truth is, I'm definitely not an expert on this period, I haven'
t lived or studied it, but I've read some news archives back in the days when I was compiling all sorts of lists for my personal stats. I know bits.Did you know first Australian trophy was a Wimbledon trophy replica, I think silver?And that there was
Wilding medal awarded to winner, post ww1, I kinda forgot what was that all about, but it was awarded separately from the trophy, similar to double trophy presentation in early 2000s for newly established ATP masters series?One was the "original" trophy
and they got another one "masters series" trophy, no?Anyway what bothered me with joh is that he has it all backwards.If anything is absolute, it's the slam tournaments as per ITF constitution dating to 1923 (starting in 1924).That can't be questioned.
The only thing that could question this is some huge change, like 1973 Wimbledon boycott, all the best players skipping it (like AO during late 70s and early 80s) or best players in the world being banned. So if the tournament itself isn't the benchmark,
and if something else is, it can only be the best players, because in truth, weaker fields kinda diminish the prestige of the event.But joh doesn't seem to understand that Australian status in the 1960s wasn't questioned, it was a known slam since 1924
like all others, and that the *best players* played the event.He's kinda focusing on French or American journeymen skipping the event as if they're the benchmark, as if they're more important than the ITF constitution or world's best players of that era (
Australians).That's bizarre.1958 French through 1968 Australian, last 40 slams of amateur era.30 slams for Australia4 for Spain3 for USA2 for Italy1 for MexicoAll the great players were Australians and somehow Australian had weak fields because European
or American journeymen didn't bother travelling?Makes no sense for me.-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

Australians also continued their domination into open era, winning 11 out of first 16 open era slams.

If you add up last 30 majors of pro era, Australians won 25 out of 30 there.

So in those 14 years, they've won 66 out 86 amateur, pro and open era slams.

And who knows how many DC titles, I won't look at that.

Point being, they were the best, they set the standards and they played in Australian championships so the tournament had best players which is what counts.

The 1970s demise of AO is due to disappearance of Australian greats, not because foreigners skipped it.

Sure it may have attracted few foreigners from the beginning as joh said, but the tournament doesn't need foreigners, be it "Europeans" or "Americans", it needs fine players.

It had them until mid 1970s.

This was all great historical background, skript. Reading it brings to
mind a speculative observation.

First, I'll agree that with the period you mentioned of Australian
dominance of tennis--all tennis--and then a demise, I wonder if the
demise was a result not so much as decrease of talent, or a concomitant increase world-wide, but the game evolving away from the style that the Australian players favored. I can barely recall Laver, have some
memories of Rosewall during the rise of Connors, remember Newcombe well,
and later John Alexander. Basically all were fairly flat shots, tending toward S&V. Newcombe was agile and fast and could baseline well. I can recall Rosewall as baselining a bit, and I can't recall Laver well
enough, but he appeared physically to be a guy who could baseline.
Alexander seems S&V.

So what you really had as a style was relatively flat hitting--some even with a continental grip, I'll bet, and probably zero western grips. They were either all-court (Rosewall, etc.) or tending toward S&V, (Newcombe).

Later you had Rafter and Cash and they were sorta throwbacks to this
style, although Cash was more all-court.

What do you think of this hypothesis: decline of Australian tennis was largely due to evolution of the game toward 2H BH and more and more TS?

no don't agree, it was that they had two supercoaches Charlie Hollis and Harry Hopman who played them all off one another, they rigourously trained them and also disciplined them military-style as well which really match-toughened them. Roddick's Dad was
apparently similar, which is prob why he's the best young USA player this century.
The demise came with the money(think Hopman's bosses disagreed with it) and the end of that coaching system.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Monday, 19 June 2023 at 09:16:12 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> > What do you think of this hypothesis: decline of Australian tennis was largely due to evolution of the game toward 2H BH and more and more TS?
For sure, and the game evolved in that direction because grass was being largely abandoned. Australians grew up and played on grass, dominated as well.. > > Once the world moved away from grass, introduced hardcourts and bigger racquets that also made

clay tennis even more different from the grass one, Australians probably lost the edge. And I guess 1960s great generation was partially an exception, you can't expect to have that always. The standard was pretty high. > > Therefore 1988 switch to
hardcourtsit's not really that cos Australia(like Florida) has a very good climate for mass participation of tennis(unlike England) and it could be on hard or grass. Yes they did/do love grass, but no reason not to do well on hard.


But they didn't do well once the world of tennis moved away from grass?

A decade or so later, they followed as well.

I'm not saying it's the reason for their demise, but it certainly made it even tougher for them post Laver/Rosewall era.

No great talents, no great coaching system, nobody plays on grass anymore and it's open era, money is mostly in USA?




--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, 19 June 2023 at 09:00:41 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:

joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 7:51:15 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:

So if the tournament itself isn't the benchmark, and if something else is, it can only be the best players, because in truth, weaker fields kinda diminish the prestige of the event.

My point exactly.

But joh, Australian had all the best players of the era. Rosewall, Laver, Emerson, Stolle, Fraser, Newcombe etc guys who won 24 out of 30 slams at F/W/U in the last decade of amateur era. And 9 out of 10 at Australian.

GS tournament with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is strong, the absence of Ymer, Dimitrov and Johnson is forgettable.

Maybe Dimitrov is indeed better than Santoro and the absence of Dimitrov would change the overall field strength, but in the end it's splitting hairs, the important thing is that the top players are there and those were Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and

Rosewall, Laver, Emerson, Newcombe etc.

Any reason why you come up with the numbers on the men's side? We're discussing women's tennis here.

Women?

"Novak will be forgotten", Former World number 1 Tennis player sparks controversy with a heated remark on Novak Djokovic - Bethive.net

I thought we discuss men and that you asked about Aus value during 1960s?

But whatever, let's discuss women, Court was one of the the most prolific winners of the 1960s and 1970s anyway.

Forget about GS count record and "inflated Australian championships".

Who won more or better in her era?

She won Grand Slam.

Did BJK do that?

Court won 13 slams if you remove Australian. BJK won 12 in total.

Court did triple CGS, same as Serena.

She has an absurd doubles career as well, so she's an all time great even without Australian championships.

What's to discuss there?

I concede that Australians weren't as dominant in women's game as they were in men's, but they still had best player out there, Court.

If Federer shows up in Basel, it's considered a strong and successful ATP 500, trust me, same applies to Court and Australian championships grand slam tournament.

AO was in decline during late 1970s and early 1980s, but why on earth do you want to suggest it was "weak" in the period of greatest domination of Australian tennis?

little joh EXPOSED AGAIN! hey joh quit CNN telling you to ignore Court and go look up some of her staggering records, she was an AMAZING player!! oh oh no you refuse to do that LOL

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, 19 June 2023 at 17:15:54 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 18.6.2023 13.05, joh wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:16:47 AM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 1:52 am, joh wrote:

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:22:16 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

Novak will be forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; )

More or less. Not as bad as that probably.

I'm being sarcastic. History views Court as the greatest of the great.
She won everything there is to win multiple times (all singles, doubles >> and mixed slams, calendar slam in singles, 2 calendar slams in mixed
doubles, best winning match % in open era at most slams and overall etc. >> Teenage tennis fans have no concept of history, but they will when
they mature : )

Don't kid yourself. Few under 50 have heard of Court, and this won't improve with time.

I had never heard of Emmo when Smapras invented the chase.

imagine our surprise at hearing this! LOL

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 12:20:02 PM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:

On Monday, 19 June 2023 at 17:15:54 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 18.6.2023 13.05, joh wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:16:47 AM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 1:52 am, joh wrote:

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:22:16 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

Novak will be forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; )

More or less. Not as bad as that probably.

I'm being sarcastic. History views Court as the greatest of the great. >> She won everything there is to win multiple times (all singles, doubles >> and mixed slams, calendar slam in singles, 2 calendar slams in mixed
doubles, best winning match % in open era at most slams and overall etc.
Teenage tennis fans have no concept of history, but they will when
they mature : )

Don't kid yourself. Few under 50 have heard of Court, and this won't improve with time.

I had never heard of Emmo when Smapras invented the chase.

imagine our surprise at hearing this! LOL

Lol indeed! Emmo had a great bh!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 18.6.2023 13.05, joh wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 10:16:47 AM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 1:52 am, joh wrote:

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:22:16 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:

On 18/06/2023 12:47 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:

https://bethive.net/he-will-be-forgotten-former-world-number-1-tennis-player-sparks-controversy-with-a-heated-remark-on-novak-djokovic/

Novak will be forgotten like Margaret Court is forgotten ; )

More or less. Not as bad as that probably.

I'm being sarcastic. History views Court as the greatest of the great.
She won everything there is to win multiple times (all singles, doubles
and mixed slams, calendar slam in singles, 2 calendar slams in mixed
doubles, best winning match % in open era at most slams and overall etc.
Teenage tennis fans have no concept of history, but they will when
they mature : )

Don't kid yourself. Few under 50 have heard of Court, and this won't improve with time.

I had never heard of Emmo when Smapras invented the chase. Nobody ever
talked about Emmo, how great he was etc. Everybody always talked about Rosewall, Laver, and ... Hoad. Emmo was just this guy who won stuff
while the rest were storming barns. When Sampras became GOAT, it was a
bit of a surprise to learn that Emmo had been GOAT during all those
years nobody knew who he was.

Had Sampras not broken the record, it's possible nobody would care about counting slams at all. Federer might of thought "I'll win a couple and
then concentrate on having a real good time". ANd we might never have
had a big three in the sense we do.

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gNi8xOS8yMyA4OjU4IEFNLCBUaGUgSWNlYmVyZyB3cm90ZToNCj4gT24gU3VuZGF5LCAx OCBKdW5lIDIwMjMgYXQgMTk6NDU6MjEgVVRDKzEsIFNhd2Zpc2ggd3JvdGU6DQo+PiBPbiA2 LzE4LzIzIDExOjA1IEFNLCAqc2tyaXB0aXMgd3JvdGU6DQo+Pj4gKnNrcmlwdGlzIDxza3Jp Li4uQHBvc3QudC1jb20uaHI+IFdyb3RlIGluIG1lc3NhZ2U6cg0KPj4+PiBTYXdmaXNoIDxz YXdmaS4uLkBnbWFpbC5jb20+IFdyb3RlIGluIG1lc3NhZ2U6cj4gT24gNi8xOC8yMyA5OjA4 IEFNLCAqc2tyaXB0aXMgd3JvdGU6PiBqb2ggPGpvc2guLi5AZ21haWwuY29tPiBXcm90ZSBp biBtZXNzYWdlOnI+PiBPbiBTdW5kYXksIEp1bmUgMTgsIDIwMjMgYXQgNTo0Njo1NOKAr1BN IFVUQysyLCAqc2tyaXB0aXMgd3JvdGU6PiBqb2ggPGpvc2guLi5AZ21haWwuY29tPiBXcm90 ZSBpbiBtZXNzYWdlOj4gPiBCdXQgbm8tb25lIGNhcmVkIGFib3V0IHRoZSB0aXRsZS4+IFRo ZWlyIGxvc3MuID4gPiBFdmVyeW9uZSBrbm93cywgZGF0aW5nIHRvIDE5MjMsIHdoaWNoIGFy ZSB0aGUgZm91ciBvZmZpY2lhbCBJVEYgY2hhbXBpb25zaGlwcy4gWWVzLiBBbmQgdGhleSBk aWRuJ3QgY2FyZS5UaGF0J3MgbXkgcG9pbnQuPj4gTW9yZSBsaWtlIHRoZXkgZmVsdCBob3Bl bGVzcyBhbmQgcXVpdCBhbmQgZGlkbid0IGV2ZW4gdHJ5LklmIEknbSB1bmRlcnN0YW5kaW5n IHRoaXMgY29ycmVjdGx5LCB0aGVyZSBpcyBhIHBhcmFsbGVsIGluIHRoZSBVUyBob3JzZSBy YWNpbmcgc2VyaWVzIGNhbGxlZCB0aGUgVHJpcGxlIENyb3duIG9mIFRob3JvdWdoYnJlZCBI b3JzZSBSYWNpbmcuVGhlcmUgYXJlIHRocmVlIG1ham9yIHJhY2VzIGVhY2ggc3ByaW5nOiBU aGUgS2VudHVja3kgRGVyYnksIHRoZSBQcmVha25lc3MgU3Rha2VzLCBhbmQgdGhlIEJlbG1v bnQgU3Rha2VzLiBUaGV5IGFyZSBydW4gaW4gdGhhdCBvcmRlciBhbmQgYXJlIGFib3V0IHR3 byB3ZWVrcyBhcGFydC5UaGUgZmlyc3QgcmFjZSBoYXMgbWFueSwgbWFueSBlbnRyaWVzLCBz b21ldGltZXMgYXJvdW5kIDIwLiBUaGUgc2Vjb25kIHJhY2UgbGVzcyBzbywgYW5kIHRoZSB0 aGlyZCBldmVuIGxlc3MuIE9uZSBvZiB0aGUgcmVhc29ucyB0aGUgZmllbGQgbmFycm93cyBp cyB0aGF0IGJ5IHRoZW4gdGhlIGRlbW9uc3RyYWJseSBkb21pbmFudCBob3JzZXMgYXJlIGVz dGFibGlzaGVkLCBhbmQgYnkgdGhlIHRoaXJkIHJhY2UsIG1hbnkgb3duZXJzIGRvbid0IHJh Y2UgdGhlaXIgaG9yc2UgYmVjYXVzZSB0aGVyZSBpcyB0cmF2ZWwgZXhwZW5zZSBpbnZvbHZl ZCwgYW5kIGJ5IHRoZW4gdGhleSBzZWUgdGhhdCBmb3Igc3VyZSwgdGhleSBoYXZlIGxpdHRs ZSBjaGFuY2Ugb2Ygd2lubmluZy5TbyBieSB0aGUgdGhpcmQgcmFjZSB0aGVyZSBtYXkgYmUg b25seSA2IG9yIDcgaG9yc2VzIGVudGVyZWQuTWF5YmUgdGhlIHNhbWUgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlv bnMgd2VyZSBpbiBwbGF5IGF0IHRoZSBBdXN0cmFsaWFuIE9wZW4gZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBlcmEg aW4gd2hpY2ggdGhlIEF1c3RyYWxpYW4gcGxheWVycyBkb21pbmF0ZWQgdGhlIHNwb3J0Lj4+ PiBBdXN0cmFsaWFucyB3b24gMzAgb3V0IG9mIDQwIGxhc3Qgc2xhbXMgaW4gb3BlbiBlcmEu Pj4gOSBBdXN0cmFsaWFuIG91dCBvZiAxMD4gNiBGcmVuY2ggb3V0IG9mIDEwLj4gNyBXaW1i bGVkb24gb3V0IG9mIDEwLj4gOCBVUyBvdXQgb2YgdGhlbi4+Pj4gU3VyZWx5IGl0J3Mgb2J2 aW91cyB0aGF0IHdpbm5pbmcgaW4gQXVzdHJhbGlhIHZzIHRoZW0gd2FzIGtpbmRhIGxpa2Ug dHJ5aW5nIHRvIHdpbiBGTyBpbiB0aGUgYWdlIG9mIE5hZGFsIHNvIG1vc3QgcXVpdC4+PiBU aGUgYmVzdCBwbGF5ZXJzIHdlcmUgQXVzdHJhbGlhbnMgYW5kIHRoZXkgd2VyZSBpbiBBdXN0 cmFsaWEuWWVhaCwgaXQgY291bGQgYmUgbGlrZSB0aGF0Lk9idmlvdXNseSBpdCB3YXMgYSBh bWF0ZXVyIGVyYSwgYW5kIG1vbmV5IHdhcyBhbHNvIGZhY3Rvci4gVGhlIHNoYW1hdGV1ciBl cmEgYW5kIHNvIG9uLCBwbGF5ZXJzIHdlcmUgcGFpZCB1bmRlciB0aGUgdGFibGUsIGJ1dCBJ IGd1ZXNzIHlvdSBjb3VsZCBzdGlsbCBlYXJuIG1vcmUgbW9uZXkgYnkgcGxheWluZyBtb3Jl IGVsc2V3aGVyZSBhbmQgYXZvaWRpbmcgbGVuZ3RoeSBhbmQgY29zdGx5IHRyYXZlbCB0aGVy ZS4gQnV0IGlzIGl0IGRpZmZlcmVudCBub3dhZGF5cz8gSXQncyBzdGlsbCB0aGUgZmFydGhl c3Qgc2xhbS4gOylUaGUgZmFjdCB0aGF0IHlvdSBoYWQgKmxlYXN0IGNoYW5jZSogb2Ygd2lu bmluZyB0aGVyZSB2cyBwb3dlcmZ1bCBBdXN0cmFsaWFucyBjZXJ0YWlubHkgY291bGQgaGF2 ZSBoYWQgYW4gYWRkaXRpb25hbCBpbXBhY3Qgb24gdGhlIHJlc3Qgb2YgdGhlIGZpZWxkIGFu ZCB0aGVpciBkZWNpc2lvbiB0byBza2lwIGl0LlRoZSB0cnV0aCBpcywgSSdtIGRlZmluaXRl bHkgbm90IGFuIGV4cGVydCBvbiB0aGlzIHBlcmlvZCwgSSBoYXZlbid0IGxpdmVkIG9yIHN0 dWRpZWQgaXQsIGJ1dCBJJ3ZlIHJlYWQgc29tZSBuZXdzIGFyY2hpdmVzIGJhY2sgaW4gdGhl IGRheXMgd2hlbiBJIHdhcyBjb21waWxpbmcgYWxsIHNvcnRzIG9mIGxpc3RzIGZvciBteSBw ZXJzb25hbCBzdGF0cy4gSSBrbm93IGJpdHMuRGlkIHlvdSBrbm93IGZpcnN0IEF1c3RyYWxp YW4gdHJvcGh5IHdhcyBhIFdpbWJsZWRvbiB0cm9waHkgcmVwbGljYSwgSSB0aGluayBzaWx2 ZXI/QW5kIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgd2FzIFdpbGRpbmcgbWVkYWwgYXdhcmRlZCB0byB3aW5uZXIs IHBvc3Qgd3cxLCBJIGtpbmRhIGZvcmdvdCB3aGF0IHdhcyB0aGF0IGFsbCBhYm91dCwgYnV0 IGl0IHdhcyBhd2FyZGVkIHNlcGFyYXRlbHkgZnJvbSB0aGUgdHJvcGh5LCBzaW1pbGFyIHRv IGRvdWJsZSB0cm9waHkgcHJlc2VudGF0aW9uIGluIGVhcmx5IDIwMDBzIGZvciBuZXdseSBl c3RhYmxpc2hlZCBBVFAgbWFzdGVycyBzZXJpZXM/T25lIHdhcyB0aGUgIm9yaWdpbmFsIiB0 cm9waHkgYW5kIHRoZXkgZ290IGFub3RoZXIgb25lICJtYXN0ZXJzIHNlcmllcyIgdHJvcGh5 LCBubz9Bbnl3YXkgd2hhdCBib3RoZXJlZCBtZSB3aXRoIGpvaCBpcyB0aGF0IGhlIGhhcyBp dCBhbGwgYmFja3dhcmRzLklmIGFueXRoaW5nIGlzIGFic29sdXRlLCBpdCdzIHRoZSBzbGFt IHRvdXJuYW1lbnRzIGFzIHBlciBJVEYgY29uc3RpdHV0aW9uIGRhdGluZyB0byAxOTIzIChz dGFydGluZyBpbiAxOTI0KS5UaGF0IGNhbid0IGJlIHF1ZXN0aW9uZWQuIFRoZSBvbmx5IHRo aW5nIHRoYXQgY291bGQgcXVlc3Rpb24gdGhpcyBpcyBzb21lIGh1Z2UgY2hhbmdlLCBsaWtl IDE5NzMgV2ltYmxlZG9uIGJveWNvdHQsIGFsbCB0aGUgYmVzdCBwbGF5ZXJzIHNraXBwaW5n IGl0IChsaWtlIEFPIGR1cmluZyBsYXRlIDcwcyBhbmQgZWFybHkgODBzKSBvciBiZXN0IHBs YXllcnMgaW4gdGhlIHdvcmxkIGJlaW5nIGJhbm5lZC4gU28gaWYgdGhlIHRvdXJuYW1lbnQg aXRzZWxmIGlzbid0IHRoZSBiZW5jaG1hcmssIGFuZCBpZiBzb21ldGhpbmcgZWxzZSBpcywg aXQgY2FuIG9ubHkgYmUgdGhlIGJlc3QgcGxheWVycywgYmVjYXVzZSBpbiB0cnV0aCwgd2Vh a2VyIGZpZWxkcyBraW5kYSBkaW1pbmlzaCB0aGUgcHJlc3RpZ2Ugb2YgdGhlIGV2ZW50LkJ1 dCBqb2ggZG9lc24ndCBzZWVtIHRvIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhhdCBBdXN0cmFsaWFuIHN0YXR1 cyBpbiB0aGUgMTk2MHMgd2Fzbid0IHF1ZXN0aW9uZWQsIGl0IHdhcyBhIGtub3duIHNsYW0g c2luY2UgMTkyNCBsaWtlIGFsbCBvdGhlcnMsIGFuZCB0aGF0IHRoZSAqYmVzdCBwbGF5ZXJz KiBwbGF5ZWQgdGhlIGV2ZW50LkhlJ3Mga2luZGEgZm9jdXNpbmcgb24gRnJlbmNoIG9yIEFt ZXJpY2FuIGpvdXJuZXltZW4gc2tpcHBpbmcgdGhlIGV2ZW50IGFzIGlmIHRoZXkncmUgdGhl IGJlbmNobWFyaywgYXMgaWYgdGhleSdyZSBtb3JlIGltcG9ydGFudCB0aGFuIHRoZSBJVEYg Y29uc3RpdHV0aW9uIG9yIHdvcmxkJ3MgYmVzdCBwbGF5ZXJzIG9mIHRoYXQgZXJhIChBdXN0 cmFsaWFucykuVGhhdCdzIGJpemFycmUuMTk1OCBGcmVuY2ggdGhyb3VnaCAxOTY4IEF1c3Ry YWxpYW4sIGxhc3QgNDAgc2xhbXMgb2YgYW1hdGV1ciBlcmEuMzAgc2xhbXMgZm9yIEF1c3Ry YWxpYTQgZm9yIFNwYWluMyBmb3IgVVNBMiBmb3IgSXRhbHkxIGZvciBNZXhpY29BbGwgdGhl IGdyZWF0IHBsYXllcnMgd2VyZSBBdXN0cmFsaWFucyBhbmQgc29tZWhvdyBBdXN0cmFsaWFu IGhhZCB3ZWFrIGZpZWxkcyBiZWNhdXNlIEV1cm9wZWFuIG9yIEFtZXJpY2FuIGpvdXJuZXlt ZW4gZGlkbid0IGJvdGhlciB0cmF2ZWxsaW5nP01ha2VzIG5vIHNlbnNlIGZvciBtZS4tLSAt LS0tQW5kcm9pZCBOZXdzR3JvdXAgUmVhZGVyLS0tLWh0dHBzOi8vcGlhb2hvbmcuczMtdXMt d2VzdC0yLmFtYXpvbmF3cy5jb20vdXNlbmV0L2luZGV4Lmh0bWwNCj4+Pg0KPj4+IEF1c3Ry YWxpYW5zIGFsc28gY29udGludWVkIHRoZWlyIGRvbWluYXRpb24gaW50byBvcGVuIGVyYSwg d2lubmluZyAxMSBvdXQgb2YgZmlyc3QgMTYgb3BlbiBlcmEgc2xhbXMuDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBJ ZiB5b3UgYWRkIHVwIGxhc3QgMzAgbWFqb3JzIG9mIHBybyBlcmEsIEF1c3RyYWxpYW5zIHdv biAyNSBvdXQgb2YgMzAgdGhlcmUuDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBTbyBpbiB0aG9zZSAxNCB5ZWFycywg dGhleSd2ZSB3b24gNjYgb3V0IDg2IGFtYXRldXIsIHBybyBhbmQgb3BlbiBlcmEgc2xhbXMu DQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBBbmQgd2hvIGtub3dzIGhvdyBtYW55IERDIHRpdGxlcywgSSB3b24ndCBs b29rIGF0IHRoYXQuDQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+IFBvaW50IGJlaW5nLCB0aGV5IHdlcmUgdGhl IGJlc3QsIHRoZXkgc2V0IHRoZSBzdGFuZGFyZHMgYW5kIHRoZXkgcGxheWVkIGluIEF1c3Ry YWxpYW4gY2hhbXBpb25zaGlwcyBzbyB0aGUgdG91cm5hbWVudCBoYWQgYmVzdCBwbGF5ZXJz IHdoaWNoIGlzIHdoYXQgY291bnRzLg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBUaGUgMTk3MHMgZGVtaXNl IG9mIEFPIGlzIGR1ZSB0byBkaXNhcHBlYXJhbmNlIG9mIEF1c3RyYWxpYW4gZ3JlYXRzLCBu b3QgYmVjYXVzZSBmb3JlaWduZXJzIHNraXBwZWQgaXQuDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBTdXJlIGl0IG1h eSBoYXZlIGF0dHJhY3RlZCBmZXcgZm9yZWlnbmVycyBmcm9tIHRoZSBiZWdpbm5pbmcgYXMg am9oIHNhaWQsIGJ1dCB0aGUgdG91cm5hbWVudCBkb2Vzbid0IG5lZWQgZm9yZWlnbmVycywg YmUgaXQgIkV1cm9wZWFucyIgb3IgIkFtZXJpY2FucyIsIGl0IG5lZWRzIGZpbmUgcGxheWVy cy4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+IEl0IGhhZCB0aGVtIHVudGlsIG1pZCAxOTcwcy4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+DQo+ PiBUaGlzIHdhcyBhbGwgZ3JlYXQgaGlzdG9yaWNhbCBiYWNrZ3JvdW5kLCBza3JpcHQuIFJl YWRpbmcgaXQgYnJpbmdzIHRvDQo+PiBtaW5kIGEgc3BlY3VsYXRpdmUgb2JzZXJ2YXRpb24u DQo+Pg0KPj4gRmlyc3QsIEknbGwgYWdyZWUgdGhhdCB3aXRoIHRoZSBwZXJpb2QgeW91IG1l bnRpb25lZCBvZiBBdXN0cmFsaWFuDQo+PiBkb21pbmFuY2Ugb2YgdGVubmlzLS1hbGwgdGVu bmlzLS1hbmQgdGhlbiBhIGRlbWlzZSwgSSB3b25kZXIgaWYgdGhlDQo+PiBkZW1pc2Ugd2Fz IGEgcmVzdWx0IG5vdCBzbyBtdWNoIGFzIGRlY3JlYXNlIG9mIHRhbGVudCwgb3IgYSBjb25j b21pdGFudA0KPj4gaW5jcmVhc2Ugd29ybGQtd2lkZSwgYnV0IHRoZSBnYW1lIGV2b2x2aW5n IGF3YXkgZnJvbSB0aGUgc3R5bGUgdGhhdCB0aGUNCj4+IEF1c3RyYWxpYW4gcGxheWVycyBm YXZvcmVkLiBJIGNhbiBiYXJlbHkgcmVjYWxsIExhdmVyLCBoYXZlIHNvbWUNCj4+IG1lbW9y aWVzIG9mIFJvc2V3YWxsIGR1cmluZyB0aGUgcmlzZSBvZiBDb25ub3JzLCByZW1lbWJlciBO ZXdjb21iZSB3ZWxsLA0KPj4gYW5kIGxhdGVyIEpvaG4gQWxleGFuZGVyLiBCYXNpY2FsbHkg YWxsIHdlcmUgZmFpcmx5IGZsYXQgc2hvdHMsIHRlbmRpbmcNCj4+IHRvd2FyZCBTJlYuIE5l d2NvbWJlIHdhcyBhZ2lsZSBhbmQgZmFzdCBhbmQgY291bGQgYmFzZWxpbmUgd2VsbC4gSSBj YW4NCj4+IHJlY2FsbCBSb3Nld2FsbCBhcyBiYXNlbGluaW5nIGEgYml0LCBhbmQgSSBjYW4n dCByZWNhbGwgTGF2ZXIgd2VsbA0KPj4gZW5vdWdoLCBidXQgaGUgYXBwZWFyZWQgcGh5c2lj YWxseSB0byBiZSBhIGd1eSB3aG8gY291bGQgYmFzZWxpbmUuDQo+PiBBbGV4YW5kZXIgc2Vl bXMgUyZWLg0KPj4NCj4+IFNvIHdoYXQgeW91IHJlYWxseSBoYWQgYXMgYSBzdHlsZSB3YXMg cmVsYXRpdmVseSBmbGF0IGhpdHRpbmctLXNvbWUgZXZlbg0KPj4gd2l0aCBhIGNvbnRpbmVu dGFsIGdyaXAsIEknbGwgYmV0LCBhbmQgcHJvYmFibHkgemVybyB3ZXN0ZXJuIGdyaXBzLiBU aGV5DQo+PiB3ZXJlIGVpdGhlciBhbGwtY291cnQgKFJvc2V3YWxsLCBldGMuKSBvciB0ZW5k aW5nIHRvd2FyZCBTJlYsIChOZXdjb21iZSkuDQo+Pg0KPj4gTGF0ZXIgeW91IGhhZCBSYWZ0 ZXIgYW5kIENhc2ggYW5kIHRoZXkgd2VyZSBzb3J0YSB0aHJvd2JhY2tzIHRvIHRoaXMNCj4+ IHN0eWxlLCBhbHRob3VnaCBDYXNoIHdhcyBtb3JlIGFsbC1jb3VydC4NCj4+DQo+PiBXaGF0 IGRvIHlvdSB0aGluayBvZiB0aGlzIGh5cG90aGVzaXM6IGRlY2xpbmUgb2YgQXVzdHJhbGlh biB0ZW5uaXMgd2FzDQo+PiBsYXJnZWx5IGR1ZSB0byBldm9sdXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIGdhbWUg dG93YXJkIDJIIEJIIGFuZCBtb3JlIGFuZCBtb3JlIFRTPw0KPiBubyBkb24ndCBhZ3JlZSwg aXQgd2FzIHRoYXQgdGhleSBoYWQgdHdvIHN1cGVyY29hY2hlcyBDaGFybGllIEhvbGxpcyBh bmQgSGFycnkgSG9wbWFuIHdobyBwbGF5ZWQgdGhlbSBhbGwgb2ZmIG9uZSBhbm90aGVyLCB0 aGV5IHJpZ291cm91c2x5IHRyYWluZWQgdGhlbSBhbmQgYWxzbyBkaXNjaXBsaW5lZCB0aGVt IG1pbGl0YXJ5LXN0eWxlIGFzIHdlbGwgd2hpY2ggcmVhbGx5IG1hdGNoLXRvdWdoZW5lZCB0 aGVtLiBSb2RkaWNrJ3MgRGFkIHdhcyBhcHBhcmVudGx5IHNpbWlsYXIsIHdoaWNoIGlzIHBy b2Igd2h5IGhlJ3MgdGhlIGJlc3QgeW91bmcgVVNBIHBsYXllciB0aGlzIGNlbnR1cnkuDQo+ IFRoZSBkZW1pc2UgY2FtZSB3aXRoIHRoZSBtb25leSh0aGluayBIb3BtYW4ncyBib3NzZXMg ZGlzYWdyZWVkIHdpdGggaXQpIGFuZCB0aGUgZW5kIG9mIHRoYXQgY29hY2hpbmcgc3lzdGVt Lg0KDQpHb29kIGluZm8uDQoNCi0tIA0Kfn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+ fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+DQpGYXZvcml0 ZSB0YXR0b286DQoNCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAkJQk9STiBUT1VMT1VTRQ0KDQoNCn5+fn5+ fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+ fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fg0KDQo=

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

grif <griffin_230@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On 18/06/2023 01:20, Court_1 wrote:> 3) Since Federer retired, I haven't watched much tennis at all. I just don't have the same interest level currently. The thing that was keeping me in there was the GOAT race. It looks like that is a done deal unless

Nadal can come back and win another FO. The younger players don't interest me much(pizza face Alcaraz and that sickening kid, Rune.) I'm curious to see if Djokovic can win another Wimbledon. He'll probably win a couple more.The teenager, Arthur Fils,
looks like another promising prospect to join the likes of Alcaraz, Rune and Sinner. I watched a bit of Fils at Montpellier. Although he eventually lost to Sinner in the semis after a tough 1st set where had chances to take it, he demonstrated a smooth,
dynamic, all-court game during that tourney. Some of the forehands he hit were nooclear.Let's see if he can make it competitive against the mythical Alcaraz (who probably has to lock his room every night against hordes of horny groupies).Oh yeah, there's
a new BBC tennis documentary in three parts, "Gods of Tennis", for those interested.https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0fd5qk1/episodes/guide

Alcaraz that cramps after two sets, Rune that celebrates when he is able to complete three sets matches, Sinner the brainless guy that smashes the hell out of every ball?

Honestly something is fundamentally wrong in all these younger generations.

As Federer said about Djokovic, he managed to win the FO playing the youngsters game even he isn't going.


--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/06/2023 06:22, Court_1 wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:11:02 PM UTC-4, grif wrote:

On 18/06/2023 01:20, Court_1 wrote:

3) Since Federer retired, I haven't watched much tennis at all. I just don't have the same interest level currently. The thing that was keeping me in there was the GOAT race. It looks like that is a done deal unless Nadal can come back and win

another FO. The younger players don't interest me much(pizza face Alcaraz and that sickening kid, Rune.) I'm curious to see if Djokovic can win another Wimbledon. He'll probably win a couple more.

The teenager, Arthur Fils, looks like another promising prospect to join the likes of Alcaraz, Rune and Sinner. I watched a bit of Fils at Montpellier. Although he eventually lost to Sinner in the semis after a tough 1st set where had chances to take

it, he demonstrated a smooth, dynamic, all-court game during that tourney. Some of the forehands he hit were nooclear.

Interesting. I don't know anything about him.

Let's see if he can make it competitive against the mythical Alcaraz (who probably has to lock his room every night against hordes of horny groupies).

*Yuck* What an image. Horny groupies for that pizza face?

Actually, I saw a video of Alcaraz recently that seemed a bit suspect, I'll post it if I can find it. It looks like he may swing the other way? 😮

"They let her through because they were aware of the fanaticism of some mothers, who sent their daughters to the bedrooms of the most famous warriors, according to what they said, to improve the breed."
-- One Hundred Years of Solitude

But now you're casting doubts 🤔

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

grif <griffin_230@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:r> On 18/06/2023 01:20, Court_1 wrote:> 3) Since Federer retired, I haven't watched much tennis at all. I just don't have the same interest level currently. The thing that was keeping me in there was the

GOAT race. It looks like that is a done deal unless Nadal can come back and win another FO. The younger players don't interest me much(pizza face Alcaraz and that sickening kid, Rune.) I'm curious to see if Djokovic can win another Wimbledon. He'll
probably win a couple more.The teenager, Arthur Fils, looks like another promising prospect to join the likes of Alcaraz, Rune and Sinner. I watched a bit of Fils at Montpellier. Although he eventually lost to Sinner in the semis after a tough 1st set
where had chances to take it, he demonstrated a smooth, dynamic, all-court game during that tourney. Some of the forehands he hit were nooclear.Let's see if he can make it competitive against the mythical Alcaraz (who probably has to lock his room every
night against hordes of horny groupies).Oh yeah, there's a new BBC tennis documentary in three parts, "Gods of Tennis", for those interested.https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0fd5qk1/episodes/guideAlcaraz that cramps after two sets, Rune that celebrates
when he is able to complete three sets matches, Sinner the brainless guy that smashes the hell out of every ball?Honestly something is fundamentally wrong in all these younger generations.As Federer said about Djokovic, he managed to win the FO playing
the youngsters game even he isn't going.-- ----Android NewsGroup Reader----https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

Correction: Federer said Djokovic won the FO playing the young way even he isn't young and it's not easy as it seems.

--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, 19 June 2023 at 18:19:50 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:

grif <griff...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On 18/06/2023 01:20, Court_1 wrote:> 3) Since Federer retired, I haven't watched much tennis at all. I just don't have the same interest level currently. The thing that was keeping me in there was the GOAT race. It looks like that is a done deal

unless Nadal can come back and win another FO. The younger players don't interest me much(pizza face Alcaraz and that sickening kid, Rune.) I'm curious to see if Djokovic can win another Wimbledon. He'll probably win a couple more.The teenager, Arthur
Fils, looks like another promising prospect to join the likes of Alcaraz, Rune and Sinner. I watched a bit of Fils at Montpellier. Although he eventually lost to Sinner in the semis after a tough 1st set where had chances to take it, he demonstrated a
smooth, dynamic, all-court game during that tourney. Some of the forehands he hit were nooclear.Let's see if he can make it competitive against the mythical Alcaraz (who probably has to lock his room every night against hordes of horny groupies).Oh yeah,
there's a new BBC tennis documentary in three parts, "Gods of Tennis", for those interested.https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0fd5qk1/episodes/guide

Alcaraz that cramps after two sets, Rune that celebrates when he is able to complete three sets matches, Sinner the brainless guy that smashes the hell out of every ball?

Honestly something is fundamentally wrong in all these younger generations.

As Federer said about Djokovic, he managed to win the FO playing the youngsters game even he isn't going.

yes, they all seem to be brought up as snowflakes who cannot take being disagreed with, challenged or not given an award every 10 seconds for doing nothing, just look at how they now got the "Next-Gen Finals" thing, really imagine telling Borg, Chang or
Wilander that rather than compete against the older guys(who are in their 20's) you should try to play that instead! :D

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 11:39:22 AM UTC+3, The Iceberg wrote:

yes, they all seem to be brought up as snowflakes who cannot take being disagreed with, challenged or not given an award every 10 seconds for doing nothing, just look at how they now got the "Next-Gen Finals" thing, really imagine telling Borg, Chang

or Wilander that rather than compete against the older guys(who are in their 20's) you should try to play that instead! :D

Too bad I did not find the picture I saw yesterday. Three-strip pic which had portraits of players....

Previous gen: Djoker, Nadal, Fed, Murray.
Current gen: Djoker, Zverev, Meds, Tsitsi
New gen: Djoker, Alcaraz, Rune, Ruud?

Sorry about exact details and especially Ruud? part remains as a question mark as I am not sure if the pic had him....

.mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)