Djokovic will not win Calendar Slam. So what?
Some people regard Calendar Slam as almost
something holy. Laver did it, twice. So what?
What does it show or prove about a tennis
player?
It only shows that you were in a top form
during one calender year. Djoker has already
been the holder of all four Grand Slams at
the same time - they just weren't during
one calender year.
This craziness about Calendar Slam seems pretty
much like numerology or other kind of madness.
It is an obsession for some that one has to win
all four slams, say, during 2024.
The only difference that it makes to me is
that you could more easily reach year end #1
ranking by winning all four Slams. Also, you
could earn the biggest ATP points count at
the end of the year more easily as a Calendar
Slam winner.
So winning Calendar Slam would make *some
difference*, but it is not really a big deal.
Djokovic will not win Calendar Slam. So what?
Some people regard Calendar Slam as almost
something holy. Laver did it, twice. So what?
What does it show or prove about a tennis
player?
It only shows that you were in a top form
during one calender year. Djoker has already
been the holder of all four Grand Slams at
the same time - they just weren't during
one calender year.
This craziness about Calendar Slam seems pretty
much like numerology or other kind of madness.
It is an obsession for some that one has to win
all four slams, say, during 2024.
The only difference that it makes to me is
that you could more easily reach year end #1
ranking by winning all four Slams. Also, you
could earn the biggest ATP points count at
the end of the year more easily as a Calendar
Slam winner.
So winning Calendar Slam would make *some
difference*, but it is not really a big deal.
On 9/13/2023 12:10 AM, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Djokovic will not win Calendar Slam. So what?
Some people regard Calendar Slam as almost
something holy. Laver did it, twice. So what?
What does it show or prove about a tennis
player?
It only shows that you were in a top form
during one calender year. Djoker has already
been the holder of all four Grand Slams at
the same time - they just weren't during
one calender year.
This craziness about Calendar Slam seems pretty
much like numerology or other kind of madness.
It is an obsession for some that one has to win
all four slams, say, during 2024.
The only difference that it makes to me is
that you could more easily reach year end #1
ranking by winning all four Slams. Also, you
could earn the biggest ATP points count at
the end of the year more easily as a Calendar
Slam winner.
So winning Calendar Slam would make *some
difference*, but it is not really a big deal.
yup...it doesn't even matter who the goat is...as long as you are in 20s group of grand slams, you are legitimate candidate :D
On 13/09/2023 7:03 pm, RzR wrote:
On 9/13/2023 12:10 AM, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Djokovic will not win Calendar Slam. So what?
Some people regard Calendar Slam as almost
something holy. Laver did it, twice. So what?
What does it show or prove about a tennis
player?
It only shows that you were in a top form
during one calender year. Djoker has already
been the holder of all four Grand Slams at
the same time - they just weren't during
one calender year.
This craziness about Calendar Slam seems pretty
much like numerology or other kind of madness.
It is an obsession for some that one has to win
all four slams, say, during 2024.
The only difference that it makes to me is
that you could more easily reach year end #1
ranking by winning all four Slams. Also, you
could earn the biggest ATP points count at
the end of the year more easily as a Calendar
Slam winner.
So winning Calendar Slam would make *some
difference*, but it is not really a big deal.
yup...it doesn't even matter who the goat is...as long as you are in
20s group of grand slams, you are legitimate candidate :D
Let's make it more than 20.
On 9/13/2023 12:44 PM, Whisper wrote:
On 13/09/2023 7:03 pm, RzR wrote:
On 9/13/2023 12:10 AM, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Djokovic will not win Calendar Slam. So what?
Some people regard Calendar Slam as almost
something holy. Laver did it, twice. So what?
What does it show or prove about a tennis
player?
It only shows that you were in a top form
during one calender year. Djoker has already
been the holder of all four Grand Slams at
the same time - they just weren't during
one calender year.
This craziness about Calendar Slam seems pretty
much like numerology or other kind of madness.
It is an obsession for some that one has to win
all four slams, say, during 2024.
The only difference that it makes to me is
that you could more easily reach year end #1
ranking by winning all four Slams. Also, you
could earn the biggest ATP points count at
the end of the year more easily as a Calendar
Slam winner.
So winning Calendar Slam would make *some
difference*, but it is not really a big deal.
yup...it doesn't even matter who the goat is...as long as you are in
20s group of grand slams, you are legitimate candidate :D
Let's make it more than 20.ok, whoever gets to 25 is a goat...the rest is 20s
Djokovic will not win Calendar Slam. So what?
Some people regard Calendar Slam as almost
something holy. Laver did it, twice. So what?
What does it show or prove about a tennis
player?
It only shows that you were in a top form
during one calender year. Djoker has already
been the holder of all four Grand Slams at
the same time - they just weren't during
one calender year.
This craziness about Calendar Slam seems pretty
much like numerology or other kind of madness.
It is an obsession for some that one has to win
all four slams, say, during 2024.
The only difference that it makes to me is
that you could more easily reach year end #1
ranking by winning all four Slams. Also, you
could earn the biggest ATP points count at
the end of the year more easily as a Calendar
Slam winner.
So winning Calendar Slam would make *some
difference*, but it is not really a big deal.
br,
KK
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:10:42 PM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:> Djokovic will not win Calendar Slam. So what? > > Some people regard Calendar Slam as almost > something holy. Laver did it, twice. So what? > > What does it show or proveabout a tennis > player? > > It only shows that you were in a top form > during one calender year. Djoker has already > been the holder of all four Grand Slams at > the same time - they just weren't during > one calender year. > > This craziness about
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:10:42 PM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:This is like bitcoin, then.
Djokovic will not win Calendar Slam. So what?The fundamental point you don’t seem to understand is that the only value tennis achievements have anyway is that which the tennis community attributes them.
Some people regard Calendar Slam as almost
something holy. Laver did it, twice. So what?
What does it show or prove about a tennis
player?
It only shows that you were in a top form
during one calender year. Djoker has already
been the holder of all four Grand Slams at
the same time - they just weren't during
one calender year.
This craziness about Calendar Slam seems pretty
much like numerology or other kind of madness.
It is an obsession for some that one has to win
all four slams, say, during 2024.
The only difference that it makes to me is
that you could more easily reach year end #1
ranking by winning all four Slams. Also, you
could earn the biggest ATP points count at
the end of the year more easily as a Calendar
Slam winner.
So winning Calendar Slam would make *some
difference*, but it is not really a big deal.
br,
KK
You could talk about points awarded, but these are ultimately decided by a committee of people, and even then don’t matter *that* much in greatness stakes. Djokovic got no points for his 2022 Wimbledon - does that really devalue it? Not really, aWimbledon title is valuable because it is valued by the tennis community so highly. The CYGS is so valuable also because it is valued so highly. It is ultimately as simple as that.
It is not just about the difficulty of the achievement. Winning a 250 tournament playing with a badminton racquet would clearly more difficult than even all of Djokovics 24 slams, but no one would value it higher if you somehow managed it.
Djokovic has clearly surpassed Federer and now Nadal. Be happy about that. He can’t put Laver out of discussion without a CYGS.
me <nei...@googlemail.com> Wrote in message:rprove about a tennis > player? > > It only shows that you were in a top form > during one calender year. Djoker has already > been the holder of all four Grand Slams at > the same time - they just weren't during > one calender year. > > This craziness
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:10:42 PM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:> Djokovic will not win Calendar Slam. So what? > > Some people regard Calendar Slam as almost > something holy. Laver did it, twice. So what? > > What does it show or
committee of people, and even then don’t matter *that* much in greatness stakes. Djokovic got no points for his 2022 Wimbledon - does that really devalue it? Not really, a Wimbledon title is valuable because it is valued by the tennis community sobr, > KKThe fundamental point you don’t seem to understand is that the only value tennis achievements have anyway is that which the tennis community attributes them. You could talk about points awarded, but these are ultimately decided by a
Basically he have several lists to determine goat. Topping the huge categories.
1) ITF official championships - Djokovic (24)
2) Grand Slam - Laver (2)
3) career grand slam - Djokovic (3)
4) Wimbledon - Federer (8)
5) #1 all-time - Gonzalez (Djokovic modern)
6) Olympian - Murray (2)
7) most titles - Laver (198)
8) most matches - Rosewall (1811)
9) most Davis Cup - Emerson (8)
10) 7543 - Djokovic
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Nadals FO record is bigger than anything except 1 and 2 on the list, IMO.
The fundamental point you don’t seem to understand is that the only value tennis achievements have anyway is that which the tennis community attributes them. You could talk about points awarded, but these are ultimately decided by a committee ofpeople, and even then don’t matter *that* much in greatness stakes. Djokovic got no points for his 2022 Wimbledon - does that really devalue it? Not really, a Wimbledon title is valuable because it is valued by the tennis community so highly. The CYGS
So it is a circular argument: Calendar Slam isvaluable, because it is valued. But I don't seeany particular value in it, and I *am* a part ofthe tennis community - whatever that means.Laver won two Calendar Slams. So what? It iseight Grand Slams andnothing more than that.The fact that that four of them happened duringone calendar year makes no difference at all.
What's more valuable.
7 match wins at one slam in one year, or 4 in one year, and 3 next year?
Well, if Djokovic managed to win the CYGS in 2021, it would have put the GOAT debate on snooze indefinitely. Having Djokovic's superior statistics PLUS the CYGS would be mindboggling. Thank goodness the guy screwed up! :)Laver's feat.
The CYGS is monumental. Nothing compares to it and that's why no male player has been able to replicate it since Laver and Laver wasn't playing on all the surfaces players are today. If Djokovic managed it, it would have been more impressive than
Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:Laver's feat.
Well, if Djokovic managed to win the CYGS in 2021, it would have put the GOAT debate on snooze indefinitely. Having Djokovic's superior statistics PLUS the CYGS would be mindboggling. Thank goodness the guy screwed up! :)
The CYGS is monumental. Nothing compares to it and that's why no male player has been able to replicate it since Laver and Laver wasn't playing on all the surfaces players are today. If Djokovic managed it, it would have been more impressive than
Monumental? No way. It is just 4 Slams woni think almost everyone would be the grand slam, It's so much more rare,,,your name would be in the record books. 5 slams is no where near as rare.
during one calendar year.
By the way, Laver is a small man. If I remember
right, he is only 173cm tall. If he were a player
in today's ATP/ITF Circuit, he would have a hard
time to win even one Grand Slam tournament.
Think about this: Would you rather win a
Calendar Slam (i.e. 4 wins) or 5 Grand Slam
wins across different years? If I were a pro
player, I would choose the 5 Grand Slam wins
in a heartbeat.
br,
KK
Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:Laver's feat.
Well, if Djokovic managed to win the CYGS in 2021, it would have put the GOAT debate on snooze indefinitely. Having Djokovic's superior statistics PLUS the CYGS would be mindboggling. Thank goodness the guy screwed up! :)
The CYGS is monumental. Nothing compares to it and that's why no male player has been able to replicate it since Laver and Laver wasn't playing on all the surfaces players are today. If Djokovic managed it, it would have been more impressive than
Monumental? No way. It is just 4 Slams won
during one calendar year.
By the way, Laver is a small man. If I remember
right, he is only 173cm tall. If he were a player
in today's ATP/ITF Circuit, he would have a hard
time to win even one Grand Slam tournament.
Think about this: Would you rather win a
Calendar Slam (i.e. 4 wins) or 5 Grand Slam
wins across different years? If I were a pro
player, I would choose the 5 Grand Slam wins
in a heartbeat.
Court wrote:Laver's feat.
Well, if Djokovic managed to win the CYGS in 2021, it would have put the GOAT debate on snooze indefinitely. Having Djokovic's superior statistics PLUS the CYGS would be mindboggling. Thank goodness the guy screwed up! :)
The CYGS is monumental. Nothing compares to it and that's why no male player has been able to replicate it since Laver and Laver wasn't playing on all the surfaces players are today. If Djokovic managed it, it would have been more impressive than
Monumental? No way. It is just 4 Slams won
during one calendar year.
By the way, Laver is a small man. If I remember
right, he is only 173cm tall. If he were a player
in today's ATP/ITF Circuit, he would have a hard
time to win even one Grand Slam tournament.
Think about this: Would you rather win a
Calendar Slam (i.e. 4 wins) or 5 Grand Slam
wins across different years? If I were a pro
player, I would choose the 5 Grand Slam wins
in a heartbeat.
br,
KK
i think almost everyone would be the grand slam,
It's so much more rare,,,your name would be in
the record books. 5 slams is no where near as rare.
undecided <costasz@gmail.com> wrote:> i think almost everyone would be the grand slam, > It's so much more rare,,,your name would be in > the record books. 5 slams is no where near as rare.Yes, it is rare. But it's worth seems likesuperstition ornumerology. Djoker was alreadythe champion in four consecutive Grand Slams,they just did not happen to be during thesame calendar year. Again, so what???What is so great about winning many GrandSlams in a row? It proves you were in topform during one
Oh, definitely a CYGS. I get what you're
saying, but for the history books, CYGS is huge.
The GOAT debate will go on 😄
Yes, that's what most people say. It is supposedto be "huge" perhaps because it is rare.But *why*? What is the rationale behind it?
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:34:25 AM UTC-7, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:Laver's feat.
Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, if Djokovic managed to win the CYGS in 2021, it would have put the GOAT debate on snooze indefinitely. Having Djokovic's superior statistics PLUS the CYGS would be mindboggling. Thank goodness the guy screwed up! :)
The CYGS is monumental. Nothing compares to it and that's why no male player has been able to replicate it since Laver and Laver wasn't playing on all the surfaces players are today. If Djokovic managed it, it would have been more impressive than
It is written that absence of the GOAT debate heralds The End of Days...Monumental? No way. It is just 4 Slams wonIt says something about a player's strength and dominance at the time. Still, Djoker is looking quite amazing.
during one calendar year.
The GOAT debate will go on :-)
By the way, Laver is a small man. If I rememberOh, definitely a CYGS. I get what you're saying, but for the history books, CYGS is huge.
right, he is only 173cm tall. If he were a player
in today's ATP/ITF Circuit, he would have a hard
time to win even one Grand Slam tournament.
Think about this: Would you rather win a
Calendar Slam (i.e. 4 wins) or 5 Grand Slam
wins across different years? If I were a pro
player, I would choose the 5 Grand Slam wins
in a heartbeat.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:34:25 PM UTC+3, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:Laver's feat.
Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, if Djokovic managed to win the CYGS in 2021, it would have put the GOAT debate on snooze indefinitely. Having Djokovic's superior statistics PLUS the CYGS would be mindboggling. Thank goodness the guy screwed up! :)
The CYGS is monumental. Nothing compares to it and that's why no male player has been able to replicate it since Laver and Laver wasn't playing on all the surfaces players are today. If Djokovic managed it, it would have been more impressive than
Monumental? No way. It is just 4 Slams woni think almost everyone would be the grand slam, It's so much more rare,,,your name would be in the record books. 5 slams is no where near as rare.
during one calendar year.
By the way, Laver is a small man. If I remember
right, he is only 173cm tall. If he were a player
in today's ATP/ITF Circuit, he would have a hard
time to win even one Grand Slam tournament.
Think about this: Would you rather win a
Calendar Slam (i.e. 4 wins) or 5 Grand Slam
wins across different years? If I were a pro
player, I would choose the 5 Grand Slam wins
in a heartbeat.
br,
KK
[-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: UTF-8, 24 lines --]
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:
Yes, that's what most people say. It is supposedto be "huge" perhaps because it is rare.But *why*? What is the rationale behind it?
It's enshrined in ITF constitution.
https://www.itftennis.com/media/2431/the-constitution-of-the-itf-2023-web.pdf
Tennis has 4 official championships and logically, if you've won them all, you've dominated year strongly.
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
Oh, definitely a CYGS. I get what you'reYes, that's what most people say. It is supposed
saying, but for the history books, CYGS is huge.
to be "huge" perhaps because it is rare.
But *why*? What is the rationale behind it?
br,
KK
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 8:12:45 PM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
Oh, definitely a CYGS. I get what you'reYes, that's what most people say. It is supposed
saying, but for the history books, CYGS is huge.
to be "huge" perhaps because it is rare.
But *why*? What is the rationale behind it?
br,
KK
Do you consider Djokovics 2022 Wimbledon valuable?
If so, what is your rationale for that?
He didn’t get any points for it, so a 250 tournament win
would have been worth more by your line of reasoning…
*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
[-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: UTF-8, 24 lines --]
kal...@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:
Yes, that's what most people say. It is supposedto be "huge" perhaps because it is rare.But *why*? What is the rationale behind it?
It's enshrined in ITF constitution.
https://www.itftennis.com/media/2431/the-constitution-of-the-itf-2023-web.pdf
Tennis has 4 official championships and logically, if you've won them all, you've dominated year strongly.Well, what is so great about "dominating year strongly"?
Djoker "dominated year strongly" by being the champion
in all four GS tournaments. It just didn't happen during
the same calendar year. Djoker's achievement is at least
as great as Laver's.
br,
KK
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com> wrote:>> Think about this: Would you rather win a >> Calendar Slam (i.e. 4 wins) or 5 Grand Slam >> wins across different years? If I were a pro >> player, I would choose the 5 Grand Slam wins >> in a heartbeat. >> >> br,
CYGS. No question.Why is everybody so obsessed aboyt CYGS?br,KK
me <nei...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 8:12:45 PM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
Oh, definitely a CYGS. I get what you'reYes, that's what most people say. It is supposed
saying, but for the history books, CYGS is huge.
to be "huge" perhaps because it is rare.
But *why*? What is the rationale behind it?
br,
KK
Do you consider Djokovics 2022 Wimbledon valuable?Of course. Winning a Grand Slam is the ultimate
tennis achievement in my book.
If so, what is your rationale for that?It is the only goal of a tennis player to win
matches and tournaments. The bigger, the better.
You gain nothing by hitting beautiful shots, it
is all about winning to me.
Wimbledon, FO, UO, AO - they are the biggest
tournaments and the ones everyone wants to win.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 4:49:51 PM UTC-4, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
[-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: UTF-8, 24 lines --]Well, what is so great about "dominating year strongly"?
kal...@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:
Yes, that's what most people say. It is supposedto be "huge" perhaps because it is rare.But *why*? What is the rationale behind it?
It's enshrined in ITF constitution.
https://www.itftennis.com/media/2431/the-constitution-of-the-itf-2023-web.pdf
Tennis has 4 official championships and logically, if you've won them all, you've dominated year strongly.
Djoker "dominated year strongly" by being the champion
in all four GS tournaments. It just didn't happen during
the same calendar year. Djoker's achievement is at least
as great as Laver's.
br,
KK
Do you know who Laver beat in the first GS 62? Mulligan? And Emmo his footrug? Cant compare to the big three?
kal...@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:r
Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:>> Think about this: Would you rather win a >> Calendar Slam (i.e. 4 wins) or 5 Grand Slam >> wins across different years? If I were a pro >> player, I would choose the 5 Grand Slam wins >> in a heartbeat. >> >> br,
CYGS. No question.Why is everybody so obsessed aboyt CYGS?br,KK
CYGS is a demeaning term.
It's called the Grand Slam.
CYGS (Calendar year Grand Slam) is like saying "my female wife".
It's absurd.
It's:
Grand Slam
non-calendar Grand Slam
career Grand Slam
"Grand Slam" title (Official ITF championships)
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:54:37 PM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
me <nei...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 8:12:45 PM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:Of course. Winning a Grand Slam is the ultimate
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
Oh, definitely a CYGS. I get what you'reYes, that's what most people say. It is supposed
saying, but for the history books, CYGS is huge.
to be "huge" perhaps because it is rare.
But *why*? What is the rationale behind it?
br,
KK
Do you consider Djokovics 2022 Wimbledon valuable?
tennis achievement in my book.
If so, what is your rationale for that?It is the only goal of a tennis player to win
matches and tournaments. The bigger, the better.
You gain nothing by hitting beautiful shots, it
is all about winning to me.
Wimbledon, FO, UO, AO - they are the biggest
tournaments and the ones everyone wants to win.
What makes those the biggest tournaments? The masters have often
had as just as strong fields. Why value the slams higher?
Think about this: Would you rather win a
Calendar Slam (i.e. 4 wins) or 5 Grand Slam
wins across different years? If I were a pro
player, I would choose the 5 Grand Slam wins
in a heartbeat.
br,
KK
CYGS. No question.
It is such an easy question to answer:
1) Biggest prize money
2) Biggest draws
3) Biggest ATP points
I guess that is pretty much it. You could also
argue that because their history is so long,
they are the most established and prestigious
tournaments.
me <nei...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:54:37 PM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
me <nei...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 8:12:45 PM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:Of course. Winning a Grand Slam is the ultimate
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
Oh, definitely a CYGS. I get what you'reYes, that's what most people say. It is supposed
saying, but for the history books, CYGS is huge.
to be "huge" perhaps because it is rare.
But *why*? What is the rationale behind it?
br,
KK
Do you consider Djokovics 2022 Wimbledon valuable?
tennis achievement in my book.
If so, what is your rationale for that?It is the only goal of a tennis player to win
matches and tournaments. The bigger, the better.
You gain nothing by hitting beautiful shots, it
is all about winning to me.
Wimbledon, FO, UO, AO - they are the biggest
tournaments and the ones everyone wants to win.
What makes those the biggest tournaments? The masters have oftenIt is such an easy question to answer:
had as just as strong fields. Why value the slams higher?
1) Biggest prize money
2) Biggest draws
3) Biggest ATP points
I guess that is pretty much it. You could also
argue that because their history is so long,
they are the most established and prestigious
tournaments.
br,
KK
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:10:42 PM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:people, and even then don’t matter *that* much in greatness stakes. Djokovic got no points for his 2022 Wimbledon - does that really devalue it? Not really, a Wimbledon title is valuable because it is valued by the tennis community so highly. The CYGS
Djokovic will not win Calendar Slam. So what?
Some people regard Calendar Slam as almost
something holy. Laver did it, twice. So what?
What does it show or prove about a tennis
player?
It only shows that you were in a top form
during one calender year. Djoker has already
been the holder of all four Grand Slams at
the same time - they just weren't during
one calender year.
This craziness about Calendar Slam seems pretty
much like numerology or other kind of madness.
It is an obsession for some that one has to win
all four slams, say, during 2024.
The only difference that it makes to me is
that you could more easily reach year end #1
ranking by winning all four Slams. Also, you
could earn the biggest ATP points count at
the end of the year more easily as a Calendar
Slam winner.
So winning Calendar Slam would make *some
difference*, but it is not really a big deal.
br,
KK
The fundamental point you don’t seem to understand is that the only value tennis achievements have anyway is that which the tennis community attributes them. You could talk about points awarded, but these are ultimately decided by a committee of
It is not just about the difficulty of the achievement. Winning a 250 tournament playing with a badminton racquet would clearly more difficult than even all of Djokovics 24 slams, but no one would value it higher if you somehow managed it.
Djokovic has clearly surpassed Federer and now Nadal. Be happy about that. He can’t put Laver out of discussion without a CYGS.
Well, if Djokovic managed to win the CYGS in 2021, it would have put the GOAT debate on snooze indefinitely. Having Djokovic's superior statistics PLUS the CYGS would be mindboggling. Thank goodness the guy screwed up! :)Laver's feat.
The CYGS is monumental. Nothing compares to it and that's why no male player has been able to replicate it since Laver and Laver wasn't playing on all the surfaces players are today. If Djokovic managed it, it would have been more impressive than
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:54:37 PM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
me <nei...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 8:12:45 PM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:Of course. Winning a Grand Slam is the ultimate
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
Oh, definitely a CYGS. I get what you'reYes, that's what most people say. It is supposed
saying, but for the history books, CYGS is huge.
to be "huge" perhaps because it is rare.
But *why*? What is the rationale behind it?
br,
KK
Do you consider Djokovics 2022 Wimbledon valuable?
tennis achievement in my book.
If so, what is your rationale for that?It is the only goal of a tennis player to win
matches and tournaments. The bigger, the better.
You gain nothing by hitting beautiful shots, it
is all about winning to me.
Wimbledon, FO, UO, AO - they are the biggest
tournaments and the ones everyone wants to win.
What makes those the biggest tournaments? The masters have often had as just as strong fields. Why value the slams higher?
me <neilr76@googlemail.com> wrote:people, and even then don’t matter *that* much in greatness stakes. Djokovic got no points for his 2022 Wimbledon - does that really devalue it? Not really, a Wimbledon title is valuable because it is valued by the tennis community so highly. The CYGS
The fundamental point you don’t seem to understand is that the only value tennis achievements have anyway is that which the tennis community attributes them. You could talk about points awarded, but these are ultimately decided by a committee of
So it is a circular argument: Calendar Slam is
valuable, because it is valued. But I don't see
any particular value in it, and I *am* a part of
the tennis community - whatever that means.
Laver won two Calendar Slams. So what? It is
eight Grand Slams and nothing more than that.
The fact that that four of them happened during
one calendar year makes no difference at all.
br,
KK
me <neilr76@googlemail.com> Wrote in message:
Nadals FO record is bigger than anything except 1 and 2 on the list, IMO.
My opinion is this. 14 is enormous whatever slam we discuss, an absolute record accros all slams. Impressive.
But FO is not the ultimate category. All other categories I listed above are ultimate or absolute categories in a sense.
Owning one of those I listed correlates to owning tennis. Whether it's most ITF championships, most overall titles, most matches, most years at #1, most team world championships (Davis Cup) and so.
In comparison, owning FO doesn't correlate to owning tennis. Ditto for AO or USO. You just own those three.
I agree the record is impressive and will forever keep Nadal in tier 1.
But it's not a goat ticket, it's tier 1 ticket.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
What's more valuable.
7 match wins at one slam in one year, or 4 in one year, and 3 next year?
It makes no difference to me except for the fact
that if you win 4 in one year, you are pretty
sure to finish at #1 in ATP ranking at the end
of the year.
I just don't care whether your Grand Slam wins
are consecutive or not.
br,
KK
On 14/09/2023 3:21 am, *skriptis wrote:> me <neilr76@googlemail.com> Wrote in message:>> Nadals FO record is bigger than anything except 1 and 2 on the list, IMO.> > > My opinion is this. 14 is enormous whatever slam we discuss, an absolute recordaccros all slams. Impressive.> > But FO is not the ultimate category. All other categories I listed above are ultimate or absolute categories in a sense.> > Owning one of those I listed correlates to owning tennis. Whether it's most ITF championships,
Well, if Djokovic managed to win the CYGS in 2021, it would have put the GOAT debate on snooze indefinitely. Having Djokovic's superior statistics PLUS the CYGS would be mindboggling. Thank goodness the guy screwed up! :)Laver's feat.
The CYGS is monumental. Nothing compares to it and that's why no male player has been able to replicate it since Laver and Laver wasn't playing on all the surfaces players are today. If Djokovic >managed it, it would have been more impressive than
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com> wrote:Laver's feat.
Well, if Djokovic managed to win the CYGS in 2021, it would have put the GOAT debate on snooze indefinitely. Having Djokovic's superior statistics PLUS the CYGS would be mindboggling. Thank goodness the guy screwed up! :)
The CYGS is monumental. Nothing compares to it and that's why no male player has been able to replicate it since Laver and Laver wasn't playing on all the surfaces players are today. If Djokovic managed it, it would have been more impressive than
Monumental? No way. It is just 4 Slams won
during one calendar year.
undecided <costasz@gmail.com> wrote:
i think almost everyone would be the grand slam,
It's so much more rare,,,your name would be in
the record books. 5 slams is no where near as rare.
Yes, it is rare. But it's worth seems like
superstition or numerology. Djoker was already
the champion in four consecutive Grand Slams,
they just did not happen to be during the
same calendar year. Again, so what???
What is so great about winning many Grand
Slams in a row? It proves you were in top
form during one contiguous moment in time,
nothing more.
Given the choice between winning:
1) Calendar Slam in 2024
2) AO in 2024, FO in 2025, Wimbledon in 2026
and UO in 2027.
I would choose the Calendar Slam, because
I would value the likely #1 ATP Ranking that
I could have.
But if you added AO in 2028 to the second
choice, making it 5 Grand Slam victories
across different years, I would then prefer
those five wins over Calendar Slam.
I don't care about Laver's Calendar Slams.
br,
KK
gap...@gmail.com <gapp111@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you know who Laver beat in the first GS 62? Mulligan? And Emmo his footrug? Cant compare to the big three?
I have absolutely no idea who Laver played against.
But I do know that during Djoker's time all four
Grand Slam tournaments were played on different surfaces.
I suppose during Laver's time, AO and UO were played
on grass. Djoker's achievement shows he is versatile
and can win on any surface.
br,
KK
Is winning every match in the year a big deal?
Would you rather win 101 matches out of 110 played, or 100/100?
You'd prob take the 101 because it's more than 100 right?
What makes those the biggest tournaments? The masters have often
had as just as strong fields. Why value the slams higher?
It is such an easy question to answer:
1) Biggest prize money
2) Biggest draws
3) Biggest ATP points
I guess that is pretty much it. You could also
argue that because their history is so long,
they are the most established and prestigious
tournaments.
br,
KK
Everyone else does though lol.
Are you on drugs
or just very young?
Kalevi Kolttonen <kalevi@kolttonen.fi> wrote:
It is such an easy question to answer:
1) Biggest prize money
2) Biggest draws
3) Biggest ATP points
I guess that is pretty much it. You could also
argue that because their history is so long,
they are the most established and prestigious
tournaments.
I forgot to mention the best-of-five-sets
format for men. It is harder to win three
sets than two, so GS tournaments are also
the most demanding in that respect.
It takes serious effort to win seven
best-of-five matches.
br,
KK
bmoore <bmoore@nyx.net> wrote:
Oh, definitely a CYGS. I get what you're
saying, but for the history books, CYGS is huge.
Yes, that's what most people say. It is supposed
to be "huge" perhaps because it is rare.
But *why*? What is the rationale behind it?
br,
KK
Why the fuck are you posting on a tennis
forum if you can't even grasp
the basics? You're off your rocker lol
On 9/13/2023 9:46 AM, me wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 10:10:42 PM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen
wrote:
The fundamental point you don’t seem to understand is that the only
value tennis achievements have anyway is that which the tennis
community attributes them. You could talk about points awarded, but
these are ultimately decided by a committee of people, and even then
don’t matter *that* much in greatness stakes. Djokovic got no points
for his 2022 Wimbledon - does that really devalue it? Not really, a
Wimbledon title is valuable because it is valued by the tennis
community so highly. The CYGS is so valuable also because it is valued
so highly. It is ultimately as simple as that.
It is not just about the difficulty of the achievement. Winning a 250
tournament playing with a badminton racquet would clearly more
difficult than even all of Djokovics 24 slams, but no one would value
it higher if you somehow managed it.
Djokovic has clearly surpassed Federer and now Nadal. Be happy about
that. He can’t put Laver out of discussion without a CYGS.
Agreed 100%.
Today tennis players are much more fit, physical and play with modern racquet technology. With Laver's 173cm body,he would have a hard time winning evenone GS tournament nowadays.
On 14/09/2023 7:14 am, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:>>>> What makes those the biggest tournaments? The masters have often>> had as just as strong fields. Why value the slams higher?> > It is such an easy question to answer:> > 1) Biggest prize money> 2)Biggest draws> 3) Biggest ATP points> > I guess that is pretty much it. You could also> argue that because their history is so long,> they are the most established and prestigious> tournaments.> > br,> KK> The 'grand slam cup' (no longer exists) paid $2
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Is winning every match in the year a big deal?
Would you rather win 101 matches out of 110 played, or 100/100?
You'd prob take the 101 because it's more than 100 right?
That is *mostly correct*, but not quite: In order
to answer that, you would have to take into account
what matches you lost. For example, if you lost
all Grand Slam finals, then 101 would be worse
if 100/100 included GS titles. So all in all, your
question is impossible to answer because it omits
too much information.
However, when discussing #1 ATP ranking, I do
not care who has the longest consecutive streak
as number one. I only care about the total weeks
spent as #1.
br,
KK
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Everyone else does though lol.
Why should I care about Laver's wins?
They were ages ago when the level of
tennis was much worse than today.
People
even played with awful wooden racquets.
The game was slow and good players were
rare to find. AO and UO were played on
grass.
Today tennis players are much more fit,
physical and play with modern racquet
technology. With Laver's 173cm body,
he would have a hard time winning even
one GS tournament nowadays. Laver would
be like Michael Chang.
Djoker is the GOAT and Laver does not
have a chance.
Are you on drugs
Yes, I am occasionally on drugs. I use
weed regularly on weekends and sometimes
I eat psychedelic mushrooms.
or just very young?
Almost 50 now.
On 15/09/2023 12:04 am, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:> Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:>> Is winning every match in the year a big deal?>>>> Would you rather win 101 matches out of 110 played, or 100/100?>>>> You'd prob take the 101 because it's morethan 100 right?> > That is *mostly correct*, but not quite: In order> to answer that, you would have to take into account> what matches you lost. For example, if you lost> all Grand Slam finals, then 101 would be worse> if 100/100 included GS titles. So
KKYou need to forget what you personally care about as it's not relevant.
[-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: UTF-8, 13 lines --]
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:
Today tennis players are much more fit, physical and play with modern racquet technology. With Laver's 173cm body,he would have a hard time winning evenone GS tournament nowadays.
Laver would have been a lot taller had he
been born in 1988 as opposed 1938 and endured
childhood during world war 2.
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
You need to forget what you personally care
about as it's not relevant.
All discussions about tennis greatness are
only matters of opinion, but sane people try
to back up their opinions with supporting facts.
br,
KK
Yes, any goat conversation has to start with Novak & Laver 1st and
foremost. Wouldn't make sense to start with anyone else.
You need to forget what you personally care
about as it's not relevant.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
[-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: UTF-8, 13 lines --]
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:
Today tennis players are much more fit, physical and play with modern racquet technology. With Laver's 173cm body,he would have a hard time winning evenone GS tournament nowadays.
Laver would have been a lot taller had he
been born in 1988 as opposed 1938 and endured
childhood during world war 2.
That's pure speculation. His genes are what they
are and came from his parents.
br,
KK
On 15/09/2023 12:10 am, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Everyone else does though lol.
Why should I care about Laver's wins?
Real tennis fans care about tennis history. Novak is a big tennis
historian himself.
They were ages ago when the level of
tennis was much worse than today.
You must be joking? In those days players hated losing. Today most of
them don't care much, take the money and move on, party time.
People
even played with awful wooden racquets.
That means you had to generate the shots, couldn't let the
racket/strings help you much.
The game was slow and good players were
rare to find. AO and UO were played on
grass.
You really should read more, embarrassing.
Today tennis players are much more fit,
physical and play with modern racquet
technology. With Laver's 173cm body,
he would have a hard time winning even
one GS tournament nowadays. Laver would
be like Michael Chang.
Laver's shots would be even more potent with today's juiced rackets and strings. He produced amazing stuff with shit equipment.
Djoker is the GOAT and Laver does not
have a chance.
Let's see Novak dominate an era of grasscourt specialists with a tiny
wood racket, and win 200 tournaments.
Are you on drugs
Yes, I am occasionally on drugs. I use
weed regularly on weekends and sometimes
I eat psychedelic mushrooms.
Not surprised in the slightest.
or just very young?
Almost 50 now.
You really should study a bit of tennis history - it really is
interesting stuff. Today's players will be history soon.
Everyone was a grasscourt specialist in Laver era yet he still won 200 tournaments.
When we talk about goat we have to start with
Djokovic and Laver, everyone else comes in later.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:34:25 PM UTC+3, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:Laver's feat.
Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, if Djokovic managed to win the CYGS in 2021, it would have put the GOAT debate on snooze indefinitely. Having Djokovic's superior statistics PLUS the CYGS would be mindboggling. Thank goodness the guy screwed up! :)
The CYGS is monumental. Nothing compares to it and that's why no male player has been able to replicate it since Laver and Laver wasn't playing on all the surfaces players are today. If Djokovic managed it, it would have been more impressive than
Monumental? No way. It is just 4 Slams won
during one calendar year.
By the way, Laver is a small man. If I remember
right, he is only 173cm tall. If he were a player
in today's ATP/ITF Circuit, he would have a hard
time to win even one Grand Slam tournament.
Think about this: Would you rather win a
Calendar Slam (i.e. 4 wins) or 5 Grand Slam
wins across different years? If I were a pro
player, I would choose the 5 Grand Slam wins
in a heartbeat.
br,i think almost everyone would be the grand slam, It's so much more rare,,,your name would be in the record books. 5 slams is no where near as rare.
KK
It's easier to win in best of 5 as there is less chance of the better
players losing in longer matches. Winning 3 sets against Novak is a lot harder than winning 2. All the best players would choose bo5 over bo3
as their chances of losing goes down.
On 14/09/2023 7:14 am, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
What makes those the biggest tournaments? The masters have often
had as just as strong fields. Why value the slams higher?
It is such an easy question to answer:
1) Biggest prize money
2) Biggest draws
3) Biggest ATP points
I guess that is pretty much it. You could also
argue that because their history is so long,
they are the most established and prestigious
tournaments.
br,
KK
The 'grand slam cup' (no longer exists) paid $2 million to the champion
more than 30 years ago, prob worth $5 mil in today's dollars. That
means it was the greatest tournament ever right?
Do you consider Djokovics 2022 Wimbledon valuable? If so, what is your rationale for that? He didn’t get any points for it, so a 250 tournament win would have been worth more by your line of reasoning…
Everyone was a grasscourt specialist in Laver era yet he still won 200 tournaments. When we talk about goat we have to start with Djokovic and Laver, everyone else comes in later.
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:> Everyone was a grasscourt specialist in Laver era yet he still won 200 > tournaments. The general level of players was horrible so200 tournament wins was possible even for asmall man.> When we talk about goatwe have to start with > Djokovic and Laver, everyone else comes in later.Hahahah! There are so many players better than Laver.Those wooden racquet days were absolutely awful.Some players better than Laver: Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
On 14/09/2023 7:14 am, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
What makes those the biggest tournaments? The masters have often
had as just as strong fields. Why value the slams higher?
It is such an easy question to answer:
1) Biggest prize money
2) Biggest draws
3) Biggest ATP points
I guess that is pretty much it. You could also
argue that because their history is so long,
they are the most established and prestigious
tournaments.
br,
KK
Could Laver beat de Minotaur? Not likely!The 'grand slam cup' (no longer exists) paid $2 million to the champion more than 30 years ago, prob worth $5 mil in today's dollars. ThatI watched those tournaments. They were great events.
means it was the greatest tournament ever right?
But as you can see, the biggest prize money was only
one factor determining the greatness of a tournament.
Let's suppose that All England Lawn Tennis Club would
revise Wimbledon to become an ATP250 events. Small
prize money pool, best of three sets, small draw,
small amount of ATP points. It is clear that Wimbledon
would not be the same anymore. There is nothing magical
about Grand Slam tournaments. It is certain features
that make them great and if you remove them, they
become just regular events.
br,
KK
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:17:21 PM UTC+3, me wrote:> Do you consider Djokovics 2022 Wimbledon valuable? If so, what is your rationale for that? He didn’t get any points for it, so a 250 tournament win would have been worth more by yourline of reasoning…Teasing further : only time Olympics have given points was 2012 (750 for Murray's title etc)Does this make other official Olympic tennis events lesser? (note: there is an oddition: Edberg won '84 Olympics Tennis but it was trial
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 5:04:27 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:> Everyone was a grasscourt specialist in Laver era yet he still won 200 > tournaments. When we talk about goat we have to start with Djokovic and > Laver, everyone else comes inlater.Laver had a longer career most recognize.And most of Laver's titles where 8/16 draws and had an exhibition nature. You cannot compare pre-80 tournament structures at all (alone 1977 there were double the tournaments compared to today -> allowed
So if in 20 years all the tennis players are 7ft tall we'll dismiss
Novak and the big 3 as jokes and their records don't count?
Sane people don't walk into tennis groups and question what the big deal
is with eg calendar slams. Usually it's trolling but in your case it's
the mushrooms.
MBDunc <michaelb@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:r> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:17:21 PM UTC+3, me wrote:> Do you consider Djokovics 2022 Wimbledon valuable? If so, what is your rationale for that? He didn’t get any points for it, so a250 tournament win would have been worth more by your line of reasoning…Teasing further : only time Olympics have given points was 2012 (750 for Murray's title etc)Does this make other official Olympic tennis events lesser? (note: there is an oddition:
Could Laver beat de Minotaur? Not likely!
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:> Sane people don't walk into tennis groups and question what the big deal > is with eg calendar slams. Usually it's trolling but in your case it's > the mushrooms.Fuck you, sir. Calendar Slam is mostlyjustnumerogical superstition. All it proves thatyou had a good winning streak during onecalendar year, but is not anything magicalor absolutely awesome, contrary to manypeople seem to think.As I said, if you care about winning fourconsecutive GS
MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:rlater.Laver had a longer career most recognize.And most of Laver's titles where 8/16 draws and had an exhibition nature. You cannot compare pre-80 tournament structures at all (alone 1977 there were double the tournaments compared to today -> allowed
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 5:04:27 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:> Everyone was a grasscourt specialist in Laver era yet he still won 200 > tournaments. When we talk about goat we have to start with Djokovic and > Laver, everyone else comes in
Credit where credit is due.
We should honour all all-time records.
Of course Laver played in an era in which he could have (more easily) ammased cca 200 titles. So you think it's somehow inflated compared to present days?
But his era also prevented him from amassing 20 or 30 slams. So his slam record is surely deflated.
So let's just recognise all all-time records.
Give credit Laver for cca 200 titles, give credit Djokovic and so on.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:17:21 PM UTC+3, me wrote:
Do you consider Djokovics 2022 Wimbledon valuable? If so, what is your rationale for that? He didn’t get any points for it, so a 250 tournament win would have been worth more by your line of reasoning…
Teasing further : only time Olympics have given points was 2012 (750 for Murray's title etc)
Does this make other official Olympic tennis events lesser? (note: there is an oddition: Edberg won '84 Olympics Tennis but it was trial exhibition rather than listed Olympic event).
MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:ryour line of reasoning…Teasing further : only time Olympics have given points was 2012 (750 for Murray's title etc)Does this make other official Olympic tennis events lesser? (note: there is an oddition: Edberg won '84 Olympics Tennis but it was trial
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:17:21 PM UTC+3, me wrote:> Do you consider Djokovics 2022 Wimbledon valuable? If so, what is your rationale for that? He didn’t get any points for it, so a 250 tournament win would have been worth more by
I don't think it's true, from my memory before they were giving 750 pts Olympics were giving 800 pts.
750 came probably after 2009 rebranding (250s, 500s, 1000s and 2000s).
So I'm 99% certain that in Beijing 2008 they were giving 800 pts. Perhaps in Athens too.
kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:rjustnumerogical superstition. All it proves thatyou had a good winning streak during onecalendar year, but is not anything magicalor absolutely awesome, contrary to manypeople seem to think.As I said, if you care about winning fourconsecutive GS
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:> Sane people don't walk into tennis groups and question what the big deal > is with eg calendar slams. Usually it's trolling but in your case it's > the mushrooms.Fuck you, sir. Calendar Slam is mostly
You don't think calendar is important?
What if your girl told you she was free and horny this afternoon between 17:00 and 18:00 and you come 4 hours later?
It doesn't matter since you came, it's the same?
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 6:46:20 PM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:> MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:r > > On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 5:04:27 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:> Everyone was a grasscourt specialist in Laver erayet he still won 200 > tournaments. When we talk about goat we have to start with Djokovic and > Laver, everyone else comes in later.Laver had a longer career most recognize.And most of Laver's titles where 8/16 draws and had an exhibition nature. You
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Yes, any goat conversation has to start with Novak & Laver 1st and
foremost. Wouldn't make sense to start with anyone else.
Laver? Hahhah! If he played in today's tennis
circuit, he would not have a chance. At best he
would be like Michael Chang.
br,
KK
yes any tennis player in history would take the
CYGS, your name would often be mentioned in GOAT debates!
You don't think calendar is important?
What if your girl told you she was free and horny
this afternoon between 17:00 and 18:00 and you come 4 hours later?
It doesn't matter since you came, it's the same?
MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:r
But what I oppose is precisely what you said, saying 198 titles won is "trivia".
The guy was prevented from chasing majors day in day out, like modern players do, but his era was marked by huge number of tournaments per year, and he played in that era won most of them, a lot, setting incredible record.
For me that's a tier 1 stat, one of the ultimate records.
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Sane people don't walk into tennis groups and question what the big deal is with eg calendar slams. Usually it's trolling but in your case it'sFuck you, sir. Calendar Slam is mostly just
the mushrooms.
numerogical superstition. All it proves that
you had a good winning streak during one
calendar year, but is not anything magical
or absolutely awesome, contrary to many
people seem to think.
As I said, if you care about winning four
consecutive GS tournaments, that's what
Djoker did. It is no less prestigious than
if it had happened during the same calender
year. There is absolutely no difference
between Djoker's winning streak and Laver's.
br,
KK
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 11:52:16 AM UTC-4, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Sane people don't walk into tennis groups and question what the big deal >> > is with eg calendar slams. Usually it's trolling but in your case it'sFuck you, sir. Calendar Slam is mostly just
the mushrooms.
numerogical superstition. All it proves that
you had a good winning streak during one
calendar year, but is not anything magical
or absolutely awesome, contrary to many
people seem to think.
As I said, if you care about winning four
consecutive GS tournaments, that's what
Djoker did. It is no less prestigious than
if it had happened during the same calender
year. There is absolutely no difference
between Djoker's winning streak and Laver's.
br,
KK
Djoker won against quality players not y uncles!
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Yes, any goat conversation has to start with Novak & Laver 1st and
foremost. Wouldn't make sense to start with anyone else.
Laver? Hahhah! If he played in today's tennis
circuit, he would not have a chance. At best he
would be like Michael Chang.
br,
KK
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
So if in 20 years all the tennis players are 7ft tall we'll dismiss
Novak and the big 3 as jokes and their records don't count?
There is an upper limit to what's the optimal
tallness in tennis. John Isner was simply too tall,
but Djoker's height seems to be optimal.
br,
KK
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
But as you can see, the biggest prize money was only
one factor determining the greatness of a tournament.
Let's suppose that All England Lawn Tennis Club would
revise Wimbledon to become an ATP250 events. Small
prize money pool, best of three sets, small draw,
small amount of ATP points. It is clear that Wimbledon
would not be the same anymore. There is nothing magical
about Grand Slam tournaments. It is certain features
that make them great and if you remove them, they
become just regular events.
br,
KK
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 6:46:20 PM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:later.Laver had a longer career most recognize.And most of Laver's titles where 8/16 draws and had an exhibition nature. You cannot compare pre-80 tournament structures at all (alone 1977 there were double the tournaments compared to today -> allowed
MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:r
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 5:04:27 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:> Everyone was a grasscourt specialist in Laver era yet he still won 200 > tournaments. When we talk about goat we have to start with Djokovic and > Laver, everyone else comes in
Credit where credit is due.
We should honour all all-time records.
Of course Laver played in an era in which he could have (more easily) ammased cca 200 titles. So you think it's somehow inflated compared to present days?
But his era also prevented him from amassing 20 or 30 slams. So his slam record is surely deflated.
So let's just recognise all all-time records.
Give credit Laver for cca 200 titles, give credit Djokovic and so on.
Laver's 200 titles are nice stat. A very good stat, but 2nd tier.
Laver's two peak GS runs are golden.
Problem with giving Laver "20 slams" is that:
during amateur/Pro circuit era 1946-1967 there were practically 7 majors a year (most old times lovers happen to forget this)
1) Laver would have not gotten 1962 full GS with all pros in the field.
2) Gonzo/Rosewall were players who got most shafted anyway?
3) ....But Laver's two peak GS runs are still golden. Too bad he did not do anything in slams (not even SF) after 1969 -> even with #3 ranking around 1974.....
mikko
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Everyone else does though lol.Why should I care about Laver's wins?
They were ages ago when the level of
tennis was much worse than today. People
even played with awful wooden racquets.
The game was slow and good players were
rare to find. AO and UO were played on
grass.
Today tennis players are much more fit,
physical and play with modern racquet
technology. With Laver's 173cm body,
he would have a hard time winning even
one GS tournament nowadays. Laver would
be like Michael Chang.
Djoker is the GOAT and Laver does not
have a chance.
Are you on drugs
Yes, I am occasionally on drugs. I use
weed regularly on weekends and sometimes
I eat psychedelic mushrooms.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 7:12:02 PM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:
MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:r
But what I oppose is precisely what you said, saying 198 titles won is "trivia".
The guy was prevented from chasing majors day in day out, like modern players do, but his era was marked by huge number of tournaments per year, and he played in that era won most of them, a lot, setting incredible record.
For me that's a tier 1 stat, one of the ultimate records.
I say tier1 niche stat or tier2 top stat.
It is in a same category as "Djoker has won all master series events" or "Connors has 109 open era titles" or "Nadal has x,y,z clay records" or any winning streak record, or Fed has 4xWimb+USO in-a-row....
Probably never will be equaled, not tier1 but a great stat still.
.mikko
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:14:22 PM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:players, care a lot about history, if you ever hear them talking about it.
me <nei...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:54:37 PM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
me <nei...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 8:12:45 PM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:Of course. Winning a Grand Slam is the ultimate
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
Oh, definitely a CYGS. I get what you'reYes, that's what most people say. It is supposed
saying, but for the history books, CYGS is huge.
to be "huge" perhaps because it is rare.
But *why*? What is the rationale behind it?
br,
KK
Do you consider Djokovics 2022 Wimbledon valuable?
tennis achievement in my book.
If so, what is your rationale for that?It is the only goal of a tennis player to win
matches and tournaments. The bigger, the better.
You gain nothing by hitting beautiful shots, it
is all about winning to me.
Wimbledon, FO, UO, AO - they are the biggest
tournaments and the ones everyone wants to win.
What makes those the biggest tournaments? The masters have oftenIt is such an easy question to answer:
had as just as strong fields. Why value the slams higher?
1) Biggest prize money
2) Biggest draws
3) Biggest ATP points
I guess that is pretty much it. You could also
argue that because their history is so long,
they are the most established and prestigious
tournaments.
br,You act as if the history bit is a minor point. I don’t know if you genuinely believe this, but I am confident Djokovic would still give his all to win Wimbledon if it had no points or prize money next year. The players, especially the very top
KK
Are you on drugs
Yes, I am occasionally on drugs. I use
weed regularly on weekends and sometimes
I eat psychedelic mushrooms.
imagine my surprise, do you know Pelle?
kal...@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) Wrote in message:rwe have to start with > Djokovic and Laver, everyone else comes in later.Hahahah! There are so many players better than Laver.Those wooden racquet days were absolutely awful.Some players better than Laver: Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:> Everyone was a grasscourt specialist in Laver era yet he still won 200 > tournaments. The general level of players was horrible so200 tournament wins was possible even for asmall man.> When we talk about goat
Check this, he's 6 years past his last slam in this 8 minute video.
Cca 37-year old Laver playing against a cca 24-year old Connors.
The agility, volleying, serve. Amazing. Only flat and kinda rolled forehand is not superior to present days everything else is technically just as good or better.
You can watch the whole video but my favourite point is this, the way ball "pops off of his racquet" after a forehand volley is amazing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM&t=06m11s
YouTube comments bellow are also telling.
"First time seeing Laver play. I understand now why he's considered the greatest tennis player of all time. An absolute pleasure to watch."
You see, stats don't always tell the full story or provide full picture, but they say a lot.
And when someone plays in three different eras and wins a Grand Slam (or its equivalent) in each of the three eras, he had to be good. Just as Djokovic's 24 can't be denied.
There's no margin for error or confusion with huge numbers.
So I'll trust big numbers even if I never see it with my own eyes.
But I'm glad I could see at least this from Laver.
On 15/09/2023 1:24 am, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
But as you can see, the biggest prize money was only
one factor determining the greatness of a tournament.
Let's suppose that All England Lawn Tennis Club would
revise Wimbledon to become an ATP250 events. Small
prize money pool, best of three sets, small draw,
small amount of ATP points. It is clear that Wimbledon
would not be the same anymore. There is nothing magical
about Grand Slam tournaments. It is certain features
that make them great and if you remove them, they
become just regular events.
br,
KK
So you're saying when Federer and Novak dreamt of winning Wimbledon as
kids they were actually drooling over the points and cash?
Where do you get your mushrooms?
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
On 15/09/2023 1:24 am, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
But as you can see, the biggest prize money was only
one factor determining the greatness of a tournament.
Let's suppose that All England Lawn Tennis Club would
revise Wimbledon to become an ATP250 events. Small
prize money pool, best of three sets, small draw,
small amount of ATP points. It is clear that Wimbledon
would not be the same anymore. There is nothing magical
about Grand Slam tournaments. It is certain features
that make them great and if you remove them, they
become just regular events.
br,
KK
So you're saying when Federer and Novak dreamt of winning Wimbledon as kids they were actually drooling over the points and cash?
I am not saying that, but it is clear that if Wimbledon
became an ATP250 event, it would soon lose its
respected status and would become like any other small
tournament. It is the same with all Slams.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
On 15/09/2023 1:24 am, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
But as you can see, the biggest prize money was only
one factor determining the greatness of a tournament.
Let's suppose that All England Lawn Tennis Club would
revise Wimbledon to become an ATP250 events. Small
prize money pool, best of three sets, small draw,
small amount of ATP points. It is clear that Wimbledon
would not be the same anymore. There is nothing magical
about Grand Slam tournaments. It is certain features
that make them great and if you remove them, they
become just regular events.
br,
KK
So you're saying when Federer and Novak dreamt of winning Wimbledon as
kids they were actually drooling over the points and cash?
I am not saying that, but it is clear that if Wimbledon
became an ATP250 event, it would soon lose its
respected status and would become like any other small
tournament. It is the same with all Slams.
For sure Wimbledon would lose some status if it became a 250 event, but the idea it would “become like any other small tournament” is insane. History matters to most people - including players like Djokovic.
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
So you're saying when Federer and Novak dreamt of winning Wimbledon as
kids they were actually drooling over the points and cash?
I am not saying that, but it is clear that if Wimbledon
became an ATP250 event, it would soon lose its
respected status and would become like any other small
tournament. It is the same with all Slams.
Where do you get your mushrooms?
I order them from the Netherlands as they are
legal there.
I have never tried, but I have been told
that it is also pretty easy to grow them on
your own. You can find good instructions online.
Good luck, bro!
br,
KK
If Wimbledon really became an ATP250 event, some playerswould still play in it. But very soon ITF and ATP wouldco-operate to create a new big replacement tournamentthat would become a Grand Slam tournament.Being ATP250, Wimbledon would no longerqualify as a Grand Slam tournament at all.
On 15/09/2023 7:59 pm, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
So you're saying when Federer and Novak dreamt of winning Wimbledon as
kids they were actually drooling over the points and cash?
I am not saying that, but it is clear that if Wimbledon
became an ATP250 event, it would soon lose its
respected status and would become like any other small
tournament. It is the same with all Slams.
Where do you get your mushrooms?
I order them from the Netherlands as they are
legal there.
I have never tried, but I have been told
that it is also pretty easy to grow them on
your own. You can find good instructions online.
Good luck, bro!
br,
KK
I've gone off mushrooms;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mushroom-poisoning-australia-beef-wellington-b2395929.html
MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:17:21 PM UTC+3, me wrote:
Do you consider Djokovics 2022 Wimbledon valuable? If so, what is your rationale for that? He didn’t get any points for it, so a 250 tournament win would have been worth more by your line of reasoning…
Teasing further : only time Olympics have given points was 2012 (750 for Murray's title etc)
Does this make other official Olympic tennis events lesser? (note: there is an oddition: Edberg won '84 Olympics Tennis but it was trial exhibition rather than listed Olympic event).I do not give a shit about Olympic tennis. There
are already way too many events in Olympic Games.
The four classic Grand Slam tournaments are the
greatest events in tennis and the Olympic tennis
should be totally discontinued.
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you on drugs
Yes, I am occasionally on drugs. I use
weed regularly on weekends and sometimes
I eat psychedelic mushrooms.
imagine my surprise, do you know Pelle?No, I do not.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 6:46:20 PM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:later.Laver had a longer career most recognize.And most of Laver's titles where 8/16 draws and had an exhibition nature. You cannot compare pre-80 tournament structures at all (alone 1977 there were double the tournaments compared to today -> allowed
MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:r
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 5:04:27 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:> Everyone was a grasscourt specialist in Laver era yet he still won 200 > tournaments. When we talk about goat we have to start with Djokovic and > Laver, everyone else comes in
Credit where credit is due.
We should honour all all-time records.
Of course Laver played in an era in which he could have (more easily) ammased cca 200 titles. So you think it's somehow inflated compared to present days?
But his era also prevented him from amassing 20 or 30 slams. So his slam record is surely deflated.
So let's just recognise all all-time records.Laver's 200 titles are nice stat. A very good stat, but 2nd tier.
Give credit Laver for cca 200 titles, give credit Djokovic and so on.
Laver's two peak GS runs are golden.
Problem with giving Laver "20 slams" is that:
during amateur/Pro circuit era 1946-1967 there were practically 7 majors a year (most old times lovers happen to forget this)
1) Laver would have not gotten 1962 full GS with all pros in the field.
2) Gonzo/Rosewall were players who got most shafted anyway?
3) ....But Laver's two peak GS runs are still golden. Too bad he did not do anything in slams (not even SF) after 1969 -> even with #3 ranking around 1974.....
gap...@gmail.com <gap...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 11:52:16 AM UTC-4, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Sane people don't walk into tennis groups and question what the big dealFuck you, sir. Calendar Slam is mostly just
is with eg calendar slams. Usually it's trolling but in your case it's >> > the mushrooms.
numerogical superstition. All it proves that
you had a good winning streak during one
calendar year, but is not anything magical
or absolutely awesome, contrary to many
people seem to think.
As I said, if you care about winning four
consecutive GS tournaments, that's what
Djoker did. It is no less prestigious than
if it had happened during the same calender
year. There is absolutely no difference
between Djoker's winning streak and Laver's.
br,
KK
Djoker won against quality players not y uncles!Quite true.
me <nei...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
On 15/09/2023 1:24 am, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
But as you can see, the biggest prize money was only
one factor determining the greatness of a tournament.
Let's suppose that All England Lawn Tennis Club would
revise Wimbledon to become an ATP250 events. Small
prize money pool, best of three sets, small draw,
small amount of ATP points. It is clear that Wimbledon
would not be the same anymore. There is nothing magical
about Grand Slam tournaments. It is certain features
that make them great and if you remove them, they
become just regular events.
br,
KK
So you're saying when Federer and Novak dreamt of winning Wimbledon as >> > kids they were actually drooling over the points and cash?
I am not saying that, but it is clear that if Wimbledon
became an ATP250 event, it would soon lose its
respected status and would become like any other small
tournament. It is the same with all Slams.
For sure Wimbledon would lose some status if it became a 250 event, but the idea it would “become like any other small tournament” is insane. History matters to most people - including players like Djokovic.If Wimbledon really became an ATP250 event, some players
would still play in it. But very soon ITF and ATP would
co-operate to create a new big replacement tournament
that would become a Grand Slam tournament.
Being ATP250, Wimbledon would no longer qualify as a
Grand Slam tournament at all.
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 10:54:36 UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you on drugs
Yes, I am occasionally on drugs. I use
weed regularly on weekends and sometimes
I eat psychedelic mushrooms.
imagine my surprise, do you know Pelle?
No, I do not.
so "occasionally" = regularly on weekends and when posting to RST LOL
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:33:54 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 10:54:36 UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote: > > The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > Are you on drugs > > >> > > >> Yes, I am occasionallyon drugs. I use > > >> weed regularly on weekends and sometimes > > >> I eat psychedelic mushrooms. > > > > > > imagine my surprise, do you know Pelle? > > No, I do not.> so "occasionally" = regularly on weekends and when posting to RST LOLThis is
On 15/09/2023 2:21 am, MBDunc wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 7:12:02 PM UTC+3, *skriptis wrote:
MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> Wrote in message:r
But what I oppose is precisely what you said, saying 198 titles won
is "trivia".
The guy was prevented from chasing majors day in day out, like
modern players do, but his era was marked by huge number of
tournaments per year, and he played in that era won most of them, a
lot, setting incredible record.
For me that's a tier 1 stat, one of the ultimate records.
I say tier1 niche stat or tier2 top stat.
It is in a same category as "Djoker has won all master series events"
or "Connors has 109 open era titles" or "Nadal has x,y,z clay
records" or any winning streak record, or Fed has 4xWimb+USO
in-a-row....
Probably never will be equaled, not tier1 but a great stat still.
.mikko
The thing is it doesn't matter at all what random individuals think of
these achievements, they are in the record books and they happened. I marvel at the idea someone can win 200 tournaments. Laver was a
winning machine and excelled in every era. He won the calendar slam
in 1969 and a total of 17 singles titles that year, but he also won 17 doubles titles too. He had a winning h2h over everybody.
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
On 15/09/2023 1:24 am, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:I am not saying that, but it is clear that if Wimbledon
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
But as you can see, the biggest prize money was only
one factor determining the greatness of a tournament.
Let's suppose that All England Lawn Tennis Club would
revise Wimbledon to become an ATP250 events. Small
prize money pool, best of three sets, small draw,
small amount of ATP points. It is clear that Wimbledon
would not be the same anymore. There is nothing magical
about Grand Slam tournaments. It is certain features
that make them great and if you remove them, they
become just regular events.
br,
KK
So you're saying when Federer and Novak dreamt of winning Wimbledon as
kids they were actually drooling over the points and cash?
became an ATP250 event, it would soon lose its
respected status and would become like any other small
tournament. It is the same with all Slams.
Where do you get your mushrooms?I order them from the Netherlands as they are
legal there.
I have never tried, but I have been told
that it is also pretty easy to grow them on
your own. You can find good instructions online.
Good luck, bro!
br,
KK
On 9/15/23 2:59 AM, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
I have never tried, but I have been told
that it is also pretty easy to grow them on
your own. You can find good instructions online.
Good luck, bro!
You can now get them in a limited, ambiguous way here in Oregon, as of
this year.
[-- text/plain, encoding quoted-printable, charset: UTF-8, 27 lines --]occasionally on drugs. I use > > >> weed regularly on weekends and sometimes > > >> I eat psychedelic mushrooms. > > > > > > imagine my surprise, do you know Pelle? > > No, I do not.> so "occasionally" = regularly on weekends and when posting to RST
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:33:54 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 10:54:36 UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote: > > The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > Are you on drugs > > >> > > >> Yes, I am
First one is social, so it's fun.
Second is some idiot thinking he's clever or exploring whatever.
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 11:37:43 UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:all the players would ditch the "new big replacement" for this amazing ATP250.
me <nei...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:59:59 AM UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:If Wimbledon really became an ATP250 event, some players
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
On 15/09/2023 1:24 am, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
But as you can see, the biggest prize money was only
one factor determining the greatness of a tournament.
Let's suppose that All England Lawn Tennis Club would
revise Wimbledon to become an ATP250 events. Small
prize money pool, best of three sets, small draw,
small amount of ATP points. It is clear that Wimbledon
would not be the same anymore. There is nothing magical
about Grand Slam tournaments. It is certain features
that make them great and if you remove them, they
become just regular events.
br,
KK
So you're saying when Federer and Novak dreamt of winning Wimbledon as >> >> > kids they were actually drooling over the points and cash?
I am not saying that, but it is clear that if Wimbledon
became an ATP250 event, it would soon lose its
respected status and would become like any other small
tournament. It is the same with all Slams.
For sure Wimbledon would lose some status if it became a 250 event, but the idea it would “become like any other small tournament” is insane. History matters to most people - including players like Djokovic.
would still play in it. But very soon ITF and ATP would
co-operate to create a new big replacement tournament
that would become a Grand Slam tournament.
Being ATP250, Wimbledon would no longer qualify as a
Grand Slam tournament at all.
HAHAAHAA Wimbledon would be the grandest ATP250 ever, did you see what happened when they moved the ATP finals from Madison Sq Gardens to China or then from the O2 in London and to Turin? think that but on a much bigger scale, would be very funny as
On 9/15/23 2:59 AM, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
On 15/09/2023 1:24 am, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:I am not saying that, but it is clear that if Wimbledon
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
But as you can see, the biggest prize money was only
one factor determining the greatness of a tournament.
Let's suppose that All England Lawn Tennis Club would
revise Wimbledon to become an ATP250 events. Small
prize money pool, best of three sets, small draw,
small amount of ATP points. It is clear that Wimbledon
would not be the same anymore. There is nothing magical
about Grand Slam tournaments. It is certain features
that make them great and if you remove them, they
become just regular events.
br,
KK
So you're saying when Federer and Novak dreamt of winning Wimbledon as
kids they were actually drooling over the points and cash?
became an ATP250 event, it would soon lose its
respected status and would become like any other small
tournament. It is the same with all Slams.
Where do you get your mushrooms?I order them from the Netherlands as they are
legal there.
I have never tried, but I have been told
that it is also pretty easy to grow them on
your own. You can find good instructions online.
Good luck, bro!
br,
KK
You can now get them in a limited, ambiguous way here in Oregon, as of
this year.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 7:49:50 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/15/23 2:59 AM, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:This is how lawmakers lift an antiquated prohibition while retaining some degree of plausible deniability.
Whisper <whi...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:You can now get them in a limited, ambiguous way here in Oregon, as of
I have never tried, but I have been told
that it is also pretty easy to grow them on
your own. You can find good instructions online.
Good luck, bro!
this year.
On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 16:59:33 UTC+1, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:Wimbledon final, O2 exo finals, #1 finals and the Olmypics, won 2 x GOLD MEDALS at the Olympics? yes sir, yes would say you are!
MBDunc <mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:17:21 PM UTC+3, me wrote:I do not give a shit about Olympic tennis. There
Do you consider Djokovics 2022 Wimbledon valuable? If so, what is your rationale for that? He didn’t get any points for it, so a 250 tournament win would have been worth more by your line of reasoning…
Teasing further : only time Olympics have given points was 2012 (750 for Murray's title etc)
Does this make other official Olympic tennis events lesser? (note: there is an oddition: Edberg won '84 Olympics Tennis but it was trial exhibition rather than listed Olympic event).
are already way too many events in Olympic Games.
The four classic Grand Slam tournaments are the
greatest events in tennis and the Olympic tennis
should be totally discontinued.
you must really hate Olympic tennis most of all cos you can only win that once every 4 years, are you trying to distract that Djoker hasn't even won a medal there? that Andy Murray, who beat Djoker in everything that matters from US Open final,
Djokovic will not win Calendar Slam. So what?
Some people regard Calendar Slam as almost
something holy. Laver did it, twice. So what?
What does it show or prove about a tennis
player?
It only shows that you were in a top form
during one calender year. Djoker has already
been the holder of all four Grand Slams at
the same time - they just weren't during
one calender year.
This craziness about Calendar Slam seems pretty
much like numerology or other kind of madness.
It is an obsession for some that one has to win
all four slams, say, during 2024.
The only difference that it makes to me is
that you could more easily reach year end #1
ranking by winning all four Slams. Also, you
could earn the biggest ATP points count at
the end of the year more easily as a Calendar
Slam winner.
So winning Calendar Slam would make *some
difference*, but it is not really a big deal.
br,
KK
Laver hardly played slams after he won calendar slam in 1969 - eg never entered FO again, only played AO once, skipped Wimbledon 1972, 1973,
1974, 1975, 1976 etc
Professor David Nutt told us the truth years ago:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11660210
Alcohol is among the so-called hard drugs and
extremely harmful. Strong addiction develops pretty
quickly. In Finland, 80% of violent crimes are linked
to alcohol usage, so it is highly dangerous. Booze
makes you do stupid things that you would not otherwise
do.
On the other hand, weed and mushrooms are quite harmless
and one might even say that they are holy substances. I
would recommend quitting alcohol totally like I have done.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
Laver hardly played slams after he won calendar slam in 1969 - eg never
entered FO again, only played AO once, skipped Wimbledon 1972, 1973,
1974, 1975, 1976 etc
Laver's actions post 1969 (also Rosewall had similar selected schedule) prove that slams back had no value some now think they had.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 9:29:47 AM UTC-7, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:> Professor David Nutt told us the truth years ago: > > https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11660210 > > Alcohol is among the so-called hard drugs and > extremely harmful. Strongaddiction develops pretty > quickly. In Finland, 80% of violent crimes are linked > to alcohol usage, so it is highly dangerous. Booze > makes you do stupid things that you would not otherwise > do. > > On the other hand, weed and mushrooms are quite
I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)
On 16.9.2023 17.16, MBDunc wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
Laver hardly played slams after he won calendar slam in 1969 - eg never >> entered FO again, only played AO once, skipped Wimbledon 1972, 1973,
1974, 1975, 1976 etc
Laver's actions post 1969 (also Rosewall had similar selected schedule) prove that slams back had no value some now think they had.
Intewesting.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)So can you introduce us to him?
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:57:41 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
Of course!I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)So can you introduce us to him?
Rod, are you out there? Gracchus says hello :-)
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:13:55 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:57:41 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
Of course!I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)So can you introduce us to him?
Rod, are you out there? Gracchus says hello :-)He autographed his book with Bud Collins at a STORE CALLED Caldors for me, nice guy!
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:21:58 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:13:55 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:57:41 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
Of course!I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)So can you introduce us to him?
I remember Caldors, that's great. Lots of sports stuff and more. We had them back in day on the east coast. I saw Rod at Herman's, or was it Mooney's? :-)Rod, are you out there? Gracchus says hello :-)He autographed his book with Bud Collins at a STORE CALLED Caldors for me, nice guy!
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:13:55 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:> On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:57:41 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote: > > On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: > > > > > I got to meet Laver when Iwas a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-) > > So can you introduce us to him?> Of course! > > Rod, are you out there? Gracchus says hello :-)He autographed his book with Bud Collins at a STORE CALLED Caldors
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:57:41 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)
So can you introduce us to him?
Of course!
Rod, are you out there? Gracchus says hello :-)
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:21:58 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:13:55 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:57:41 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
Of course!I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)So can you introduce us to him?
I remember Caldors, that's great. Lots of sports stuff and more. We had them back in day on the east coast. I saw Rod at Herman's, or was it Mooney's? :-)Rod, are you out there? Gracchus says hello :-)He autographed his book with Bud Collins at a STORE CALLED Caldors for me, nice guy!
Remember Bradlees, Korvettes, Wanamakers, rackets strung at Herman’s in NHaven near Yale! Old farts here!
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:31:36 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:21:58 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:13:55 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:57:41 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
Of course!I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)So can you introduce us to him?
Remember Bradlees, Korvettes, Wanamakers, rackets strung at Herman’s in NHaven near Yale! Old farts here!I remember Caldors, that's great. Lots of sports stuff and more. We had them back in day on the east coast. I saw Rod at Herman's, or was it Mooney's? :-)Rod, are you out there? Gracchus says hello :-)He autographed his book with Bud Collins at a STORE CALLED Caldors for me, nice guy!
Bradlees, of course. EJ Korvettes. Do you remember what it stood for? Hint: don't tell Skrip.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:54:17 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:31:36 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:21:58 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:13:55 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:57:41 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
Of course!I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)So can you introduce us to him?
Bradlees, of course. EJ Korvettes. Do you remember what it stood for? Hint: don't tell Skrip.Remember Bradlees, Korvettes, Wanamakers, rackets strung at Herman’s in NHaven near Yale! Old farts here!I remember Caldors, that's great. Lots of sports stuff and more. We had them back in day on the east coast. I saw Rod at Herman's, or was it Mooney's? :-)Rod, are you out there? Gracchus says hello :-)He autographed his book with Bud Collins at a STORE CALLED Caldors for me, nice guy!
Herman's at Trumbull Shopping Center, awesome.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:11:18 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
Bradlees, of course. EJ Korvettes. Do you remember what it stood for? Hint: don't tell Skrip.If you're thinking "Korean Veterans," that's an urban legend of unknown origin. If you know the true answer, I'm curious to hear it too.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 3:11:18 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:54:17 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:31:36 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:21:58 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:13:55 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:57:41 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
Of course!I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)So can you introduce us to him?
Bradlees, of course. EJ Korvettes. Do you remember what it stood for? Hint: don't tell Skrip.Remember Bradlees, Korvettes, Wanamakers, rackets strung at Herman’s in NHaven near Yale! Old farts here!I remember Caldors, that's great. Lots of sports stuff and more. We had them back in day on the east coast. I saw Rod at Herman's, or was it Mooney's? :-)Rod, are you out there? Gracchus says hello :-)He autographed his book with Bud Collins at a STORE CALLED Caldors for me, nice guy!
Herman's at Trumbull Shopping Center, awesome.Wow, Trumbull, houses were expensive south of Bridgeport, bought one near New Haven, great tennis courts, saw Mac practice with Vitas there, saw Vijay A beat Malavai W?
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:15:25 PM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 3:11:18 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:54:17 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:31:36 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:21:58 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:13:55 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:57:41 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
Of course!I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)So can you introduce us to him?
Bradlees, of course. EJ Korvettes. Do you remember what it stood for? Hint: don't tell Skrip.Remember Bradlees, Korvettes, Wanamakers, rackets strung at Herman’s in NHaven near Yale! Old farts here!I remember Caldors, that's great. Lots of sports stuff and more. We had them back in day on the east coast. I saw Rod at Herman's, or was it Mooney's? :-)Rod, are you out there? Gracchus says hello :-)He autographed his book with Bud Collins at a STORE CALLED Caldors for me, nice guy!
My folks got a 4 bedroom 2 story for $40K in 1968. But if you saw Mac that was a bit later.Herman's at Trumbull Shopping Center, awesome.Wow, Trumbull, houses were expensive south of Bridgeport, bought one near New Haven, great tennis courts, saw Mac practice with Vitas there, saw Vijay A beat Malavai W?
They built a sports complex nearby, that's where I played tennis, primarily.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 3:23:43 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:15:25 PM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 3:11:18 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:54:17 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:31:36 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:21:58 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:13:55 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:57:41 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
Of course!I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)So can you introduce us to him?
Bradlees, of course. EJ Korvettes. Do you remember what it stood for? Hint: don't tell Skrip.Remember Bradlees, Korvettes, Wanamakers, rackets strung at Herman’s in NHaven near Yale! Old farts here!I remember Caldors, that's great. Lots of sports stuff and more. We had them back in day on the east coast. I saw Rod at Herman's, or was it Mooney's? :-)Rod, are you out there? Gracchus says hello :-)He autographed his book with Bud Collins at a STORE CALLED Caldors for me, nice guy!
My folks got a 4 bedroom 2 story for $40K in 1968. But if you saw Mac that was a bit later.Herman's at Trumbull Shopping Center, awesome.Wow, Trumbull, houses were expensive south of Bridgeport, bought one near New Haven, great tennis courts, saw Mac practice with Vitas there, saw Vijay A beat Malavai W?
They built a sports complex nearby, that's where I played tennis, primarily.Yes in 1988, Vijay played well, great volleyer, talked with his bro Anand at US open nice guy
"gap...@gmail.com" <gap...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rI was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-) > > So can you introduce us to him?> Of course! > > Rod, are you out there? Gracchus says hello :-)He autographed his book with Bud Collins at a STORE CALLED
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:13:55 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:> On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:57:41 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote: > > On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: > > > > > I got to meet Laver when
Screenshot or it didn't happen.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 9:27:42 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 16.9.2023 17.16, MBDunc wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:Intewesting.
Laver hardly played slams after he won calendar slam in 1969 - eg never >>>> entered FO again, only played AO once, skipped Wimbledon 1972, 1973,
1974, 1975, 1976 etc
Laver's actions post 1969 (also Rosewall had similar selected schedule) prove that slams back had no value some now think they had.
For sure. So I guess the obsession with slams and GOAT is a newer thing, maybe starting with Borg and Connors?
I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:57:41 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)So can you introduce us to him?
Of course!
Rod, are you out there? Gracchus says hello :-)
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:54:12 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-) > > So can you introduce us to him?> Of course! > > Rod, are you out there? Gracchus says hello :-)He autographed his book with Bud Collins at a STORE CALLED
"gap...@gmail.com" <gap...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:13:55 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:> On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:57:41 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote: > > On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: > > > > > I got to meet Laver when
Screenshot or it didn't happen.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Don't know how to insert a pic!
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 9:29:47 AM UTC-7, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:outlawed. Now the government profits from its legal sale, as it does with tobacco. Both substances have been proven harmful and often lethal.
Professor David Nutt told us the truth years ago:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11660210
Alcohol is among the so-called hard drugs and
extremely harmful. Strong addiction develops pretty
quickly. In Finland, 80% of violent crimes are linked
to alcohol usage, so it is highly dangerous. Booze
makes you do stupid things that you would not otherwise
do.
On the other hand, weed and mushrooms are quite harmless
and one might even say that they are holy substances. I
would recommend quitting alcohol totally like I have done.
A lot of people believe the propaganda they were taught growing up because thinking for themselves is too much trouble. They can't reconcile the logical inconsistencies when faced with them. Here in the U.S., alcohol was once labeled an evil and
Cannabis is habit-forming but not addictive. And unlike alcohol, people aren't inclined toward violent or high-risk behavior when smoking or ingesting cannabis. They are far more likely to peacefully enjoy music or a movie with some tasty food. Somepeople (including on RST) make unfounded assertions like, "weed fries your brain" even there is zero evidence to support this. If there were, you can be sure anti-cannabis forces would roll it out during debate over legalization, and this never happens.
Organic psychedelics like mushrooms are not addictive either. Obviously they should be used responsibly and approached with respect. But you don't see people going wild in the streets or jumping off roofs willy-nilly as shown in old propaganda films.The U.S. government (and others) shut down research on psychedelics for many years, lumping them in the same category as crack cocaine or meth. Now that things are loosening up, research is showing the positive value of psychedelics in treating addiction
I assume you know this stuff already. It's just unfortunate so many others don't bother to learn more about a subject before making fools of themselves by regurgitating knee-jerk foolishness programmed into them.
On 17/09/2023 4:13 am, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:57:41 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs atSo can you introduce us to him?
a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)
Of course!
Rod, are you out there? Gracchus says hello :-)
Rod Laver : "Gracchus from rst?'
On 17/09/2023 3:16 am, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 9:27:42 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 16.9.2023 17.16, MBDunc wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:Intewesting.
Laver hardly played slams after he won calendar slam in 1969 - eg never >>>> entered FO again, only played AO once, skipped Wimbledon 1972, 1973, >>>> 1974, 1975, 1976 etc
Laver's actions post 1969 (also Rosewall had similar selected schedule) prove that slams back had no value some now think they had.
For sure. So I guess the obsession with slams and GOAT is a newer thing, maybe starting with Borg and Connors?
I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)Well done. I met Newk, Roche and Rosewall - got photos with them and autographs : )
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 3:10:56 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
On 17/09/2023 3:16 am, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 9:27:42 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 16.9.2023 17.16, MBDunc wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote: >>>Intewesting.
Laver hardly played slams after he won calendar slam in 1969 - eg never
entered FO again, only played AO once, skipped Wimbledon 1972, 1973, >>>> 1974, 1975, 1976 etc
Laver's actions post 1969 (also Rosewall had similar selected schedule) prove that slams back had no value some now think they had.
For sure. So I guess the obsession with slams and GOAT is a newer thing, maybe starting with Borg and Connors?
Cool. Can you post? I just got Rod to sign an autograph. Herman's was handing out these little tennis guidebooks and that's what he was mostly signing.I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)Well done. I met Newk, Roche and Rosewall - got photos with them and autographs : )
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 3:10:56 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
On 17/09/2023 3:16 am, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 9:27:42 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 16.9.2023 17.16, MBDunc wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote: >>>Intewesting.
Laver hardly played slams after he won calendar slam in 1969 - eg never
entered FO again, only played AO once, skipped Wimbledon 1972, 1973, >>>> 1974, 1975, 1976 etc
Laver's actions post 1969 (also Rosewall had similar selected schedule) prove that slams back had no value some now think they had.
For sure. So I guess the obsession with slams and GOAT is a newer thing, maybe starting with Borg and Connors?
Cool. Can you post? I just got Rod to sign an autograph. Herman's was handing out these little tennis guidebooks and that's what he was mostly signing.I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)Well done. I met Newk, Roche and Rosewall - got photos with them and autographs : )
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:54:37 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 1:21:22 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 3:10:56 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
On 17/09/2023 3:16 am, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 9:27:42 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 16.9.2023 17.16, MBDunc wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:Intewesting.
Laver hardly played slams after he won calendar slam in 1969 - eg never
entered FO again, only played AO once, skipped Wimbledon 1972, 1973,
1974, 1975, 1976 etc
Laver's actions post 1969 (also Rosewall had similar selected schedule) prove that slams back had no value some now think they had.
For sure. So I guess the obsession with slams and GOAT is a newer thing, maybe starting with Borg and Connors?
I don't think you can post anything but text on Usenet. Whisper posted how to create a link, if I am understanding.He signed his book, no pic, don't know how to post a pic, not paying for it, whisper know how!Cool. Can you post? I just got Rod to sign an autograph. Herman's was handing out these little tennis guidebooks and that's what he was mostly signing.I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)Well done. I met Newk, Roche and Rosewall - got photos with them and autographs : )
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 1:21:22 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 3:10:56 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
On 17/09/2023 3:16 am, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 9:27:42 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 16.9.2023 17.16, MBDunc wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote: >>>Intewesting.
Laver hardly played slams after he won calendar slam in 1969 - eg never
entered FO again, only played AO once, skipped Wimbledon 1972, 1973,
1974, 1975, 1976 etc
Laver's actions post 1969 (also Rosewall had similar selected schedule) prove that slams back had no value some now think they had.
For sure. So I guess the obsession with slams and GOAT is a newer thing, maybe starting with Borg and Connors?
He signed his book, no pic, don't know how to post a pic, not paying for it, whisper know how!Cool. Can you post? I just got Rod to sign an autograph. Herman's was handing out these little tennis guidebooks and that's what he was mostly signing.I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)Well done. I met Newk, Roche and Rosewall - got photos with them and autographs : )
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:07:24 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:54:37 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 1:21:22 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 3:10:56 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
On 17/09/2023 3:16 am, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 9:27:42 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 16.9.2023 17.16, MBDunc wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:Intewesting.
Laver hardly played slams after he won calendar slam in 1969 - eg never
entered FO again, only played AO once, skipped Wimbledon 1972, 1973,
1974, 1975, 1976 etc
Laver's actions post 1969 (also Rosewall had similar selected schedule) prove that slams back had no value some now think they had.
For sure. So I guess the obsession with slams and GOAT is a newer thing, maybe starting with Borg and Connors?
Who cares about Laver etc?I don't think you can post anything but text on Usenet. Whisper posted how to create a link, if I am understanding.He signed his book, no pic, don't know how to post a pic, not paying for it, whisper know how!Cool. Can you post? I just got Rod to sign an autograph. Herman's was handing out these little tennis guidebooks and that's what he was mostly signing.I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)Well done. I met Newk, Roche and Rosewall - got photos with them and autographs : )
I got many signatures from Novak, these will be worth a lot in 20-30 years, the real tennis goat.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:09:16 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:07:24 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:54:37 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 1:21:22 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 3:10:56 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
On 17/09/2023 3:16 am, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 9:27:42 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 16.9.2023 17.16, MBDunc wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:Intewesting.
Laver hardly played slams after he won calendar slam in 1969 - eg never
entered FO again, only played AO once, skipped Wimbledon 1972, 1973,
1974, 1975, 1976 etc
Laver's actions post 1969 (also Rosewall had similar selected schedule) prove that slams back had no value some now think they had.
For sure. So I guess the obsession with slams and GOAT is a newer thing, maybe starting with Borg and Connors?
Boy, who won two grand slams, counts even in bungle dish?Who cares about Laver etc?I don't think you can post anything but text on Usenet. Whisper posted how to create a link, if I am understanding.He signed his book, no pic, don't know how to post a pic, not paying for it, whisper know how!Cool. Can you post? I just got Rod to sign an autograph. Herman's was handing out these little tennis guidebooks and that's what he was mostly signing.I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)Well done. I met Newk, Roche and Rosewall - got photos with them and
autographs : )
I got many signatures from Novak, these will be worth a lot in 20-30 years, the real tennis goat.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:07:24 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:54:37 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 1:21:22 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 3:10:56 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
On 17/09/2023 3:16 am, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 9:27:42 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 16.9.2023 17.16, MBDunc wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:Intewesting.
Laver hardly played slams after he won calendar slam in 1969 - eg never
entered FO again, only played AO once, skipped Wimbledon 1972, 1973,
1974, 1975, 1976 etc
Laver's actions post 1969 (also Rosewall had similar selected schedule) prove that slams back had no value some now think they had.
For sure. So I guess the obsession with slams and GOAT is a newer thing, maybe starting with Borg and Connors?
Who cares about Laver etc?I don't think you can post anything but text on Usenet. Whisper posted how to create a link, if I am understanding.He signed his book, no pic, don't know how to post a pic, not paying for it, whisper know how!Cool. Can you post? I just got Rod to sign an autograph. Herman's was handing out these little tennis guidebooks and that's what he was mostly signing.I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)Well done. I met Newk, Roche and Rosewall - got photos with them and autographs : )
I got many signatures from Novak, these will be worth a lot in 20-30 years, the real tennis goat.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:29:23 PM UTC-4, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:09:16 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:07:24 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:54:37 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 1:21:22 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 3:10:56 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
On 17/09/2023 3:16 am, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 9:27:42 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 16.9.2023 17.16, MBDunc wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:Intewesting.
Laver hardly played slams after he won calendar slam in 1969 - eg never
entered FO again, only played AO once, skipped Wimbledon 1972, 1973,
1974, 1975, 1976 etc
Laver's actions post 1969 (also Rosewall had similar selected schedule) prove that slams back had no value some now think they had.
For sure. So I guess the obsession with slams and GOAT is a newer thing, maybe starting with Borg and Connors?
Sure, as long as it gets you hard :)Boy, who won two grand slams, counts even in bungle dish?Who cares about Laver etc?I don't think you can post anything but text on Usenet. Whisper posted how to create a link, if I am understanding.He signed his book, no pic, don't know how to post a pic, not paying for it, whisper know how!Cool. Can you post? I just got Rod to sign an autograph. Herman's was handing out these little tennis guidebooks and that's what he was mostly signing.I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)Well done. I met Newk, Roche and Rosewall - got photos with them and
autographs : )
I got many signatures from Novak, these will be worth a lot in 20-30 years, the real tennis goat.
No, really I loved his game, he was entertaining to watch.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:37:04 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:29:23 PM UTC-4, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:09:16 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:07:24 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:54:37 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 1:21:22 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 3:10:56 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
On 17/09/2023 3:16 am, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 9:27:42 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 16.9.2023 17.16, MBDunc wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:Intewesting.
Laver hardly played slams after he won calendar slam in 1969 - eg never
entered FO again, only played AO once, skipped Wimbledon 1972, 1973,
1974, 1975, 1976 etc
Laver's actions post 1969 (also Rosewall had similar selected schedule) prove that slams back had no value some now think they had.
For sure. So I guess the obsession with slams and GOAT is a newer thing, maybe starting with Borg and Connors?
Sure, as long as it gets you hard :)Boy, who won two grand slams, counts even in bungle dish?Who cares about Laver etc?I don't think you can post anything but text on Usenet. Whisper posted how to create a link, if I am understanding.He signed his book, no pic, don't know how to post a pic, not paying for it, whisper know how!Cool. Can you post? I just got Rod to sign an autograph. Herman's was handing out these little tennis guidebooks and that's what he was mostly signing.I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)Well done. I met Newk, Roche and Rosewall - got photos with them and
autographs : )
I got many signatures from Novak, these will be worth a lot in 20-30 years, the real tennis goat.
No, really I loved his game, he was entertaining to watch.I agree Novak could easily beat him, with the old 85 sqin wood rackets!?!
On 9/17/23 3:21 AM, Whisper wrote:
On 17/09/2023 4:13 am, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:57:41 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>
I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at >>>> a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)
So can you introduce us to him?
Of course!
Rod, are you out there? Gracchus says hello :-)
Rod Laver : "Gracchus from rst?'
I heard that Laver posts here under guypers' handle.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 7:59:55 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/17/23 3:21 AM, Whisper wrote:
On 17/09/2023 4:13 am, bmoore wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:57:41 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote: >>>
I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at >>>> a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)
So can you introduce us to him?
Of course!
Rod, are you out there? Gracchus says hello :-)
Rod Laver : "Gracchus from rst?'
I heard that Laver posts here under guypers' handle.Only since his stroke.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:09:16 AM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:07:24 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:Wow, this is supposedly a friendly chat group, not an autograph tournament.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:54:37 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:Who cares about Laver etc?
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 1:21:22 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:I don't think you can post anything but text on Usenet. Whisper posted how to create a link, if I am understanding.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 3:10:56 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote: >>>>>> On 17/09/2023 3:16 am, bmoore wrote:He signed his book, no pic, don't know how to post a pic, not paying for it, whisper know how!
Cool. Can you post? I just got Rod to sign an autograph. Herman's was handing out these little tennis guidebooks and that's what he was mostly signing.On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 9:27:42 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:Well done. I met Newk, Roche and Rosewall - got photos with them and >>>>>> autographs : )
On 16.9.2023 17.16, MBDunc wrote:For sure. So I guess the obsession with slams and GOAT is a newer thing, maybe starting with Borg and Connors?
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote: >>>>>>>>>Intewesting.
Laver hardly played slams after he won calendar slam in 1969 - eg neverLaver's actions post 1969 (also Rosewall had similar selected schedule) prove that slams back had no value some now think they had.
entered FO again, only played AO once, skipped Wimbledon 1972, 1973, >>>>>>>>>> 1974, 1975, 1976 etc
I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)
I got many signatures from Novak, these will be worth a lot in 20-30 years, the real tennis goat.
On 9/17/23 11:39 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:09:16 AM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote: >>> On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:07:24 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:"Friendly chat group"...?
Wow, this is supposedly a friendly chat group, not an autographOn Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:54:37 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com >>>> wrote:Who cares about Laver etc?
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 1:21:22 PM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:I don't think you can post anything but text on Usenet. Whisper
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 3:10:56 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote: >>>>>>> On 17/09/2023 3:16 am, bmoore wrote:He signed his book, no pic, don't know how to post a pic, not
Cool. Can you post? I just got Rod to sign an autograph. Herman'sOn Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 9:27:42 AM UTC-7, PelleWell done. I met Newk, Roche and Rosewall - got photos with them and >>>>>>> autographs : )
Svanslös wrote:
On 16.9.2023 17.16, MBDunc wrote:For sure. So I guess the obsession with slams and GOAT is a
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+3, Whisper >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Intewesting.
Laver hardly played slams after he won calendar slam in 1969 >>>>>>>>>>> - eg neverLaver's actions post 1969 (also Rosewall had similar selected >>>>>>>>>> schedule) prove that slams back had no value some now think >>>>>>>>>> they had.
entered FO again, only played AO once, skipped Wimbledon >>>>>>>>>>> 1972, 1973,
1974, 1975, 1976 etc
newer thing, maybe starting with Borg and Connors?
I got to meet Laver when I was a kid - he was signing autographs >>>>>>>> at a local sporting goods store. Quite awesome :-)
was handing out these little tennis guidebooks and that's what he
was mostly signing.
paying for it, whisper know how!
posted how to create a link, if I am understanding.
I got many signatures from Novak, these will be worth a lot in 20-30
years, the real tennis goat.
tournament.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 112:01:53 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,336,029 |