Connors and Collins in 1978

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by CyBorg, Oct 15, 2009.

  1. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    I'm curious if anyone has any theories on what happened post-match at the 1978 Wimbledon tournament.

    Connors had just lost the match and the players walked towards Bud Connors to be interviewed. Connors was to be interviewed first and as he came up to Connors Bud asked "Jimmy, can I have a few words?". As he said that, Collins put his hand on Jimmy's shoulder.

    Jimmy gave Bud a cold look and slowly removed Collins's hand from his shoulder with a gesture that seemed to say "what the heck are you doing?" I couldn't believe it.

    Jimbo was visibly unhappy with the loss (a bad one), but this was quite odd. It's also interesting that this involved Bud who also had a strange incident with Federer in... 2008, was it?

    Probably just Jimmy being Jimmy, but thought I'd mention it anyway.
     
    #1
  2. BTURNER

    BTURNER Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,512
    Location:
    OREGON
    cyborg, what are you getting at? are you implying Bud was making a pass?
     
    #2
  3. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    No, Bud was just being nice. Not getting at anything - it was just really awkward and somewhat amusing. I wasn't sure whether it was Jimmy being dryly humorous or if he just didn't like Bud.
     
    #3
  4. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Jimmy gave the impression of liking very few people in the tennis world:(
     
    #4
  5. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,672
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Connors could be rude and a bit of a jerk fairly often, or a word that rhymes with stick. What did they often call him: "brash."

    I think as a kid he was kinda thin and not all that tall and was teased for playing that "girly" sport of tennis, instead of football.

    So he often compensated by acting the tough guy.
     
    #5
  6. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,672
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Straight-set loss to Borg.

    Of course in comparison to angelic, teen-idol Borg, Jimmy just had to play the "bad cop" role.
     
    #6
  7. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,622
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Connors could definitely play the "tough guy" role on and off the tennis court. He really couldn't care less if he rubbed the crowd/officials, or his opponent the wrong way at times. He was truly a "fighter" on the tennis court. He absolutely hated to lose and would just about do anything or say anything in an effort to "psych out" his opponents at times. Against guys like Borg, it didn't work very well, especially after about 1976.

    I remember being a ball boy at a WCT tournament in Birmingham, Alabama and being with a junior tennis player friend and his father courtside. Well, my friend idolized Connors at the time (we were both about 10-11) and his father was asking for "an autograph for his son" and we were by ourselves near the court as he walked off the court after a match. Well, Connors just kept walking after looking up at us, and never even acknowledged our presence. He was "old school tough", not just on the surface for show either. He was definitely a different person when he was on the Court at a tennis tournament. Having said that, he did so much for the Game just by playing his heart out each and every time he competed. You had to give it EVERYTHING you had all the time to win a match against him. He was actually very funny at times as well as shocking.

    Examples:

    -He once "mooned the crowd" at the US Open if I'm not mistaken (I don't think it was Nastase (??))
    -He ran over to the other side of the court at the US Open during a match on rublico (green clay) once and used his foot to erase a mark on the court while Corrado Barrazuti was arguing a call and the mark.
    -At times I thought he and McEnroe were going to get in a fist fight, with Jimmy always playing the "bully" and acting like John McEnroe was his "spoiled kid" or something as opposed to another great player. It was funny, because Connors had been pulling that kind of stuff for years before McEnroe, thought he "exploded" less frequently probably and his "tantrums" lasted a shorter amount a time and were more like "stare downs" instead of "shouting episodes".

    Here's a nice little clip of him playing:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myg66OWBuNI

    The funny, but tough side of Connors:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V32aAOnVKs (Wimbledon SF vs. Lendl)

    Here's the angry side:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYYUtb4GUHE&NR=1
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2009
    #7
  8. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,197
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    I think the Federer incident was the 2007 FO. Collins has a knack for asking a host of uncomfortable questions, perhaps even before he became a senile fool. For instance, just after Federer (presumably politely) refused a post-match interview for the match in question, Bud opened with this gem with Rafa: "Roger refused the interview for the first time ever, that just goes to show how bad he felt. You made him feel very bad, congratulations, Rafa!"

    Ever since then, Collins has continued to take potshots at Federer, saying at the Australian Open that Roger wouldn't win a major this year, and after Fed either tied or surpassed Sampras, he said he still felt Sampras was superior.
     
    #8
  9. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,197
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    Oh, not to mention he also predicted Fed to lose at the 2007 Wimbledon and US Open.
     
    #9
  10. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Collins has always been known for asking difficult questions and giving candid opinions. There was a time, when Agassi hated his guts. This beats the celebrity soft-ball style interviews done by everyone else by a quantum leap. Long live people like Collins and Larry Merchant. Sorry if he may tread on the toes of your hero occasionally.

    PS. Collins knows more about pro tennis than probably any man ever has. He also played 100x better tennis than you. You really don't make yourself look good when you mouth off like this.
     
    #10
  11. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,672
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    #11
  12. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,197
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    I'm well aware of how prolific a figure Bud Collins is in tennis; thank you. But just after a difficult defeat is not the time for difficult (read: uncomfortable) questions. If big name players such as Connors, Agassi, Federer, and even Nadal have been made to feel uncomfortable by his presence, maybe he should have altered his approach. And does predicting a guy who was in a Slam semi and three Slam finals, winning one, the previous year to not win ANY the following year seem candid to you? No, it sounds exactly the opposite of candid; he was just bitter about Roger snubbing him at the French two years ago. It wasn't Federer's best moment to avoid facing the consequences of the loss, but Collins should have gotten over it by now. He was a good analyst at one point in time, but if he hates the top player for personal or xenophobic reasons, think maybe it's time for him to call it quits?

    And :lol:, I'm not exactly sure what my playing ability compared to Collins' has to do with anything, but on that train of logic, I guess Connors', Agassi's, and Federer's opinions trump Collins' since they vastly outrank him in terms of playing ability.
     
    #12
  13. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,545
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    The deal in 1978 was that Connors just didn't want to be touched after the final. I remember Collins, as he did every year, interviewed the loser first. He put a hand on Connors' shoulder and Connors pulled away and said "don't touch me". Collins responed with "I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions" to which Connors responded "you can ask, just keep your hands off me". It was a pretty tense interview and Connors was visibly agitated; it didn't last too long. I do remember that Connors was bitterly disappointed over losing that match and I think that was the year he said he'd "follow Borg to the ends of the earth".

    The previous year, Connors lost in 5 sets and when asked about the match he said "we were at each others nuts for 5 sets". This was about the time Connors was being written off as not being able to beat Borg. He did beat Borg at the US Open in '78 and this pretty much put him back on the map until he was written off again in '79. :)
     
    #13
  14. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,672
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Not to mention that Connors hated to lose.

    So a straight loss to Borg (his rival at the time) would 've put him in a really bad mood, to say the least.
     
    #14
  15. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,672
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    "xenophobic"? Bud Collins?

    xenophobia: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

    Bud Collins (an American) hates and fears all non-Americans? Really?
     
    #15
  16. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,197
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    Oh, is THAT what xenophobia means?

    Unless it's by virtue of his personal animosity toward Federer because of the snub, I don't see why else he refuses to credit him over Sampras (an American). Racist comments aren't always made by racist people. Likewise, because Collins is xenophobic in one particular aspect (i.e. refusing to acknowledge some Swiss guy being a greater champion than a homegrown hero) does not make him an all-encompassing xenophobic person.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2009
    #16
  17. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,545
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    Maybe because he thinks Sampras is better and competed in a time when there was more competition? Not saying I agree, but that is a valid view IMO.

    Certainly you're not implying that Collins is racist toward the Swiss?

    I think the very notion is laughable. There was no greater admirer of the Australians or Bjorn Borg or Boris Becker, or Stephan Edberg than Bud Collins.

    Plus, Collins ALWAYS made a point of saying something to the winner in their native tongue as a nod toward the global nature of the sport.
     
    #17
  18. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,197
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    That is obviously what he believes, although most major analysts at the time of Federer's 2009 Wimbledon victory had either said Federer was the outright GOAT, or at least in the discussion with Laver, Borg, etc. Collins made a point to say he isn't even better than Sampras, who I personally feel doesn't belong in the discussion with Laver, Borg, Rosewall, and now Federer.

    Of course not. I'm just saying perhaps he feels threatened by Federer's smashing of an American's records. This is only a suggestion. I'm not subscribing to the belief that Collins dislikes Federer because he's better than one of his favorite Americans, just throwing it out there as a possibility. He hates him for some reason.

    Sure, he's an admirer of them, but, beyond Borg and Laver, no foreigner really belonged in the discussion of the top tier in his book. Three of his five greatest all-time players were Americans.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2009
    #18
  19. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,545
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    Sorry, but this isn't accurate. Here is an excerpt from an interview conducted by Tennis magazine in January of 2009 with Bud Collins:

    Here, Collins explicitly indicates that "I think Roger is one of the greatest". He goes on to say that Federer is one of the players he really enjoys watching and doesn't do the bang-bang tennis. On the cover of Collins' latest book, The History of Tennis, is none other than Roger Federer. And, his website is devoted to the international coverage of tennis from what I could see.

    and this recently from Bud Collins' website

    Here, he clearly says what I think everyone should and will agree with. You can be the greatest of your era, but the sport has changed too much to compare eras.
     
    #19
  20. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,197
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    And here's a more recent opinion submitted to ESPN after Federer won his fifteenth Slam, and thus moved Roger ahead of Sampras:

    :confused:

    What does that prove? Since Federer is the most popular modern player, it would prove pretty foolish to not have him in some way, shape, or form on the cover if he wanted to sell copies.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2009
    #20
  21. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    WOW. Unreal. Yep, give em a lollipop. Right after a difficult defeat IS THE time to ask the hard questions. Not only does it reveal the true nature of competition and the soul, (what many real fans are actually interested in), but it gives us a candid window in the real player. If they are going to ask canned questions, why interview at all...yes, just you can see your favorite player give trite answers....
     
    #21
  22. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Gotta love how this kid cannot POSSIBLY see a reason anybody might view things differently...the hero-worship is kind of sweet. Much uglier is his ASSUMPTION that since Collins is American then THAT must be his reason. THAT'S UGLY RACISM. How ironic.
     
    #22
  23. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,672
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Those doggone Swiss with their fine watches and numbered bank accounts and mountain chalets, I hate them!!
     
    #23
  24. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,197
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    This is getting into a deeper discussion of what sporting actually is about: the fans or the players? Obviously the fans have the more appealing case, as they provide the revenue and most of the motivation for the players to play. However, since players dedicate their lives to sport, not to mention the whole Studs Terkel 'Meaning of Work' argument, the players are important, too. Does Bud have a right to ask those questions? Sure. Does Federer have to provide them? No. However, should Bud still be pissed off since Federer didn't answer his questions? I guess, according to you, Bud "Can-do-no-wrong" Collins is correct.

    Do you have trisomy 21? Do you possess the ability to read? Gotta love the ad hominems from people who don't even read your posts.

    I already politely explained to the other poster that this is a another reason why Bud might view things differently, and that I don't see Bud Collins as a racist. Personally, I think he's just bitter about the 2007 FO snub. And CONSIDERING I am AN AMERICAN, that IS not UGLY RACISM, just a CRITICISM OF my OWN SOcIETY.

    I don't hero-worship Federer; I already said he probably should have went ahead with the interview, but was well within his rights to turn it down. Once you stop cherry-picking from my posts, go back and read the exchange Rabbit and I had; how do you explain that, in January of 2009, at 13 Slams, after a "bad" year and not getting any younger, Bud gives a more gracious appraisal of Federer than in July, when Federer has added two more Slams to his resume?
     
    #24
  25. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Amazing how someone with a presumably functional brain can jam-pack a single paragraph with so much irrational nonsense. Great stuff.
     
    #25
  26. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,197
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    Amazing how someone who assumes they are witty can jam-pack a one-liner with, well, absolutely nothing that is discussing/refuting anything I said and is instead just a personal attack under the pretense of trying to appear superior. Great stuff.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2009
    #26
  27. li0scc0

    li0scc0 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,173
    Collins - white
    Federer - white
    Sampras - white

    Racism is the wrong word.
     
    #27
  28. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    So you apparently do know the difference between a personal attack and an ad hominem. Props to ya. That doesn't make your above post any less irrational.
     
    #28
  29. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,197
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    I wasn't saying anyone was racist. I was just using racism as an example as in, say for example, a white person might have a social gaffe and say something that can be construed as a racist, but he isn't necessarily racist himself. Same with Collins and xenophobia; he for sure is not a xenophobic person, but may hold a grudge against Federer simply because he's broken possibly America's greatest champion's records. (I don't necessarily hold this to be true, just as possibility).

    I am NOT claiming anyone is racist.
     
    #29
  30. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,197
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    How is it irrational, champ? For one, it's an opinion. Apparently a controversial one as everyone has made a point of mocking my apparent cognitive disabilities in various ways. Two, you've yet to make any sort of commentary on the subject other than to stick a couple of potshot in there. At least Rabbit and, less intelligently, Datacipher, have mixed in their insults with REBUTTALS. Do so or don't post.
     
    #30
  31. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    For one, you're the one who took the first "potshot" by calling Bud Collins a "senile fool," so you might want to stop this self-pity party. Two, whether your diatribe above is an opinion or not is irrelevant to this "commentary." Three, you need a thicker skin if you really think Rabbit insulted you in any way. Four, the only explanation you have offered as to why Collins ain't kissing your boy Federer's *** is that Bud "hates him for some reason," when there are other and more rational explanations, which you're obviously unable to see. And last but not least, this is a public forum where being told by a pesky poster to shut up will be given all the seriousness it deserves.
     
    #31
  32. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,197
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    1. Is Bud Collins a member of this forum? No? Then your point fails. It's one thing to insult or call out a person who is far richer and more successful than you (i.e., a celebrity) and will never read this, and quite another to take stabs at a fellow poster. It's not my fault you and the other posters are getting butthurt because I insulted Bud Collins, and it's no reason to get angry or upset about it.

    2. It being an opinion seems relevant to point out because you seem to think I shouldn't have any opinions because I disagree with you.

    :confused:

    3. You're right, Rabbit didn't really insult me and I apologize; you and Datacipher are the culprits of the ******baggery.

    4. Are you blind?

    I have given not one, but two possible explanations as to why Bud hates Federer; one, for his 2007 FO snub, and two, him being disgruntled at Federer breaking Sampras's records...

    AND YOU HAVE YET TO REFUTE EITHER ONE.

    So I reiterate: Do so or don't post.
     
    #32
  33. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    You might want to stop "getting butthurt" yourself just 'cause a "celebrity" doesn't bow down to your precious boy. Also you didn't "butthurt" anyone here, but feel free to think so highly of yourself.

    I never said or implied this.

    Thanks.

    Actually these are the two reasons you gave as to why Bud hates your boy. Your "explanation" remains one and the same. Nice equivocation there.

    There's no need. Either one is simply irrational speculation on your part, and Rabbit has already explained how the latter may have nothing to do with xenophobic disgruntlement, which you're still unable to see. And BTW, Collins never said "he still felt Sampras was superior." At least get your facts straight.

    See the last point of my previous post. Or maybe you did, in which case you didn't see what I was getting at. I'll spell it out for ya: This is a public forum, and anyone can and will say whatever he/she damn pleases as long as it's within the rules. Unless you happen to be one of the moderators, you don't get to tell me or anyone else what to say or not.
     
    #33
  34. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,197
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    The first part of your post was mostly senseless saber-rattling and argument over trivial matters, so I'll move on:

    Yes he did, and I refuted it. And if you're definition of "explanation" is "rationale," then I said Bud dislikes Fed due to his breaking of Sampras's record BECAUSE in January, when he obviously felt Fed was no longer a danger to win majors (which he stated at the Australian Open) and thus not a threat to Sampras, he made the statement of a him being a "great champion." In July, after Federer won his 15th, and after reiterating the "great champion" line, the FIRST THING HE SAID was how Sampras played in a tougher era. Why does his praise of Federer go DOWN with two additional major victories?

    As for the rationale of the other issue, if Collins is just sore from the snub, how do you attain evidence for this? Steal his diary? I can not say what is and was going through Collins' mind at certain intervals of time, but there are small glimpses and one can take from them what he or she wants: Following Federer's PR faux pas at the 2007 FO, Collins predicted Federer to lose at Wimbledon (as a four-time defending champ) and the USO (where he was a three-time defending champ).

    Explicitly, no. Learn to read between the lines. If Sampras played in a tougher era, his championships are worth more and that makes him a greater champion, correct?

    See the last point of my previous post. Or maybe you did, in which case you didn't see what I was getting at. I'll spell it out for ya: This is a public forum, and anyone can and will say whatever he/she damn pleases as long as it's within the rules. Unless you happen to be one of the moderators, you don't get to tell me or anyone else what to say or not.

    I have no power over you, but if you're going to waste time by insulting me and without really adding anything to the discussion, you're technically trolling. Point is, add something if you're going to post.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2009
    #34
  35. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Yeah, I like how you glossed over your equivocation. Moving on.

    Uh... no.

    Too much baseless speculation here. Bud was simply responding to the question whether he expected Fed to win a major this year, and he said no. That’s a far cry from “obviously” feeling “Fed was no longer a danger to win majors.” And the Sampras connection is even more tenuous. All you have on this score is your own speculation, and biased speculation at that.

    First of all, you have no evidence that this was indeed the first thing Bud said. That particular comment in the article you linked to is simply a quote. We don’t know what conversation was taking place before Bud made the comment. Second, your point about Bud’s estimation of Fed going down doesn’t hold water. See below.

    Maybe Collins made the Wimbledon prediction because he saw Fed was losing his aura of invincibility and Nadal was improving quickly and had also unexpectedly made the final the previous year. And maybe Bud made the USO prediction because Djokovic had dimmed Fed’s aura further by beating him recently in Montreal. And of course Bud wrote complimentary articles on Fed after each of his triumphs. But no, you can’t help but conclude that Bud was still sore from the snub at the French or hated Roger for some other reason.

    Reading between the lines isn't the same thing as baseless speculation. This distinction apparently escapes you.

    That’s only one possible conclusion. Maybe Bud felt Sampras’ championships are worth more but Federer’s domination in a less competitive era is impressive in its own right. Or maybe he felt Fed’s FO and additional major titles make up for the relative lack of competition. And so on. You’re simply putting words in Bud’s mouth.

    Actually, a troll is someone who posts controversial or off-topic comments on an online forum "without really adding anything to the discussion," in your own words. And since you’re the one who first disrupted the on-topic discussion to grouse about Bud Collins without bothering to explain how the snub at the French relates to the Connors-Collins incident, I’d say you were “technically trolling” yourself. I think I’ll keep “trolling” until you clean up your own act.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2009
    #35
  36. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Wow, quite the exchange. Well said nonp. Rest assured the fanboy/troll has made himself look increasingly ignorant, illogical and childish with each post. He is undoubtedly embarrassed and regretful that he made such unwarranted and juevenile clams in his OP....just not man enough to admit it. At least he's backpeddled almost entirely.

    One can only reel at the teenage brain, which takes an incredibly stretched interpreted snubs (wow, if you ever predict against him, you're "racist"! Let the media beware!!) of Federer, a question at an interview, and weaves it into Bud Collins being prejudiced and holding grudges against Federer! Then to translate that into a little rant about Collins, dimissing him and his unparalleled career....Bud was one of the KEY players in bringing tennis as far as it's come. The little troll can't appreciate that I'm sure, but fortunately, he's made the value of his opinion quite apparent.

    PS. On a trivial note, Collins on one particular occasion WAS jingoistic on a Davis cup broadcast...a fact openly acknowledged by....Collins!
     
    #36
  37. David_86

    David_86 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    216
    Your not going to get a great insight into the real Nadal if you ask him a question in English and expect a response in English.

    By the way, this is not an attack on Nadal's language skills. It seems the slighest thing can provoke some people.
     
    #37
  38. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,545
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    You know, I hate to throw the obvious out there, but could it be that Federer and Collins just plain don't get along? Nationalities aside, I don't know of anything the Swiss have done do the U.S. in the last 250 years or so. I mean they make great chocolate and watches, were neutral in WW II, and have great banks, but other than that I think the U.S. as a whole (including Mr. Collins) are ambivalent about the country.

    If we look at his record, Collins has always been gracious to those of other nationalities, as I mentioned before, he makes it a point to say something in their native tongue. Collins has certainly been around the game for longer than certainly anyone on these board. I know personally, the first matches I watched were the PBS broadcasts of tennis with Collins making the calls. Some of his favorite people then were the Armitraj brothers, any Australian (he appreciated their sense of sportsmanship and fair play), Bjorn Borg, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, and numerous others.

    I can also say that while he appreciated their play, Collins has come out and criticized American players like John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors for their behavior. He was one of the proponents behind the code of conduct.

    Collins did appreciate Sampras' game. But, I really think it's more Collins' old school approach to the game. He views, as he says on his website, today's tennis as ping pong. He appreciates Federer's all court play BUT...when compared to Sampras, Federer is more of a baseline bashing type guy. Sampras is probably the last predominant S/V player. Therein may lie Collins' attraction to Sampras and his achievements.

    Along with that, I don't think too much of an argument can be made about the competition Sampras faced versus what Federer faces. The most dominant grass court player of his era, Boris Becker, retired and told Sampras at net that he had run him out of the game (paraphrasing). Sampras, despite a lull in his career (everyone has them), is still the premier grasscourt player of Open tennis. Add to that the fact that they've changed the grass to more of a slow/true bounce, and I can see where Collins, again a traditionalist, might favor Sampras and his records.

    I know personally that I rooted against anyone breaking any of Borg's records. It wasn't anything against Nadal or Federer, but I just thought Borg had a rougher time when he achieved them, that he worked harder. Valid or not, that is my thought process.

    In summary, I have never seen Collins be jingoistic or favor American players over those of other countries and I've been watching tennis since Moses was a kid. It could be simply that Federer thinks Collins is an old fart and Collins thinks Federer has had a hall pass....
     
    #38
  39. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,197
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    :confused:

    How did I equivocate? Are you even sure you know what that means? There was confusion over what was meant by "explanation" and "rationale." When I figured out you were trying to say "rationale," I reiterated and cleared up some points I made in posts #8, #9, and #12.


    Uh...yes. He posted evidence in favor of his opinion, and I posted some that contradicted it. You don't have to agree with my interpretation, but it was an evidence-based argument, nevertheless.


    Baseless speculation? No. Is it maybe a bit of a stretch? I don't know - there's really no empirical evidence you can use here. I gave an opinion based on observations of his comments, and I arrived at the conclusion that Bud felt Federer was done. How is it a far cry? Federer isn't getting any younger; if he went Slamless in 2009, do you think Bud would suddenly alter his opinion for 2010?


    So what are you saying? That Bud was likely gushing praises for Federer before and after the quoted material? It's entirely possible that there is no other material to take quotes from.


    Yeah, because straight-setting his way to an Australian Open title and feeding Rafa a bagel on his way to securing Hamburg exudes a weakening "aura of invincibility." Sure, he had blips in Miami, IW, and Rome, but at that time he had proven beyond a doubt that he shows up big time at majors for the past three years. Wimbledon was perhaps plausible to see him lose (despite being the four-time defending champ), as it's true he suffered yet another defeat at the hands of Rafa at the French, but...the U.S. Open, despite winning at Wimbledon and Cinci, and coming really close to beating Djokovic in Montreal, too? Leading the way in the U.S. Open Series? That's pretty absurd if you ask me.


    Yeah, those are the connotations I felt when I read: "Fifteen majors is great, but...

    :roll:


    I think I made my point pretty clear. While everyone was busy chiding Connors for his typically boorish behavior, I pointed out that other players had problems with Collins, too. I simply took the discussion into a different direction than the other posters did. Do I have to agree with everyone in this forum all the time?

    I'm sorry, but at 3:00 in the morning, I have better things to do (i.e. sleep) than to argue with half-witted narcissists such as yourself; if you had your head stuck any farther up your ass, you'd be coughing up your eyebrows.

    READING COMPREHENSION FAIL. I HAVE GONE OVER THIS FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, YET YOU STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND. LET'S EXAMINE MY POST IN CAPSLOCK, NOT BECAUSE IT'S CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL, BUT PERHAPS IT WILL CAPTURE YOUR LIMITED ATTENTION SPAN.

    NOTE THE ADDED EMPHASIS ------> LIKEWISE IN THIS CASE MEANS "SIMILARLY." THE 'RACIST/RACISM' PORTION WAS AN EXAMPLE. I THEN WENT OUT TO COMPARE THE EXAMPLE WITH THE PORTION ABOUT COLLINS. I WAS NOT, I REPEAT, WAS NOT IMPLYING BUD COLLINS WAS IN ANY WAY RACIST TOWARD ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE. Thank you.

    :lol:

    And I'm the hero-worshipper? Have you got a pair of his pants signed at your place of residence?

    I respect everything Bud has contributed to the sport, but I don't like his personality, his commentary, or his interviews. Friends of mine have met Michael Jordan, and said he was a d*ck. Does this mean they can't also enjoy his career as a player?

    I'm sorry about the confusion - I did not mean to imply that Collins has anything against the Swiss people. My alternate point of view had nothing to do with Federer being Swiss - he just was not American.

    This is entirely plausible as well. However, I just find it strange how fellow all-time great players like Connors and Agassi had issue with him as well. Granted, Connors and Agassi (and I presume he was younger when the issue came about) had more volatile egos than Federer, but still, Roger is the odd-man-out.
     
    #39
  40. !Tym

    !Tym Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,697
    Bud is a guy who can rub certain type the wrong way or make them uncomfortable, because a lot of people find zany looking eccentrics who go out of their way to SHOW the world that they are that eccentric...annoying as heck (the pants bud, the pants!...Bud's the kind of guy who if he showed up to a wedding with panties on over his pants to inverview the bride no one would blink an eye). The other thing is that well yeah, he does speak his mind and if you can't handle it tough...the Datacipher and Phil mindset.

    To me, what would be interesting is if Bud ever got interview Vinny Spadea on court. Knowing Vinny Not Afraida Ya, he's still probably holding out hoep for one last run for just that opportunity. Are we sure Bud isn't Vince's long lost uncle or something?

    I have no problem with Bud voicing his opinions, but I think where he crosses over the line sometimes in that he DOES let I won't say personal bias (he's generally pretty astute about the technical, tactical, and pyschological aspects of a match and able to objectively analyze what's going on), but rather GRUDGES enter his voice.

    Meaning, it's usually pretty clear when Bud has a grudge against someone or a player, because he can't help himself from sneaking in a witty cheapshot or outright blurt-out in.

    With Bruguera he did this. He had to wait a YEAR to do it, but lol, he waited alright. He was STILL angry and offended that Bruguera snubbed him for an on-court inerview following his 93 victory. Get this though, obviously since he won, he must have been ecstatic...and yet, when he retired Bruguera apologized to the media for how uncommunicative he was with them much of the time. He said though that it was because he was never comfortable with the attention.

    In other words, I'm thinking probably at that time, Bruguera wasn't comfortable enough to give that interview especially in English rather than any Connors' like don't touch me/stare of death vibe following a loss.

    And yet, it was almost like he had timed and planned the moment when he would get his chance to air how dissatisfied he was Bruguera about that still during that 94 finals telecast. I remember his last retort was, yeah, but still, it's VERY unprofessional (haughtily...you know how he do, that tone he uses when he's annoyed).

    Rest assured if you ever snub Bud for an interview, he's like a cat that counts the days to ambush you. He knows he's just a "color" interviewer, and he will never have higher status, be on higher pecking order than the players, but still that won't stop a cat whose had a fight with his owner, from still plotting for that one moment to get ONE clean swipe in...then he's done, and back to "normal."

    Lol, still I miss Bud. I LIKE kooky eccentrics, the only thing I don't like, however, is when eccentrics become immature and can't let TRIVIAL matters go (because, really, they ARE trivial...the on court interview? Come on, now if a player refused to play the match now THAT would be a big deal, but really, players are human and imperfect, what can you do? Sometimes they wanna talk, others they don't. They should, of course, but it's still no reason to hold grudges over nothing that important. To me, that indicates that Bud thinks of HIMSELF as being very important, or at least, more than he feels he's given credit for. This said, historians ARE important, but they are not in the end the ones MAKING the history. This is where I think Bud sometimes loses sight. He's FANATICAL about the sport, which is fine, but somehow he wants to be a star himself. He's the one who would give a left nut to be in that squared circle, that octagon, that bull ring, those hallowed grounds, that tennis court, etc., etc....you get the idea.
     
    #40
  41. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,197
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    Good post!

    I certainly agree Bud is entitled to give the commentary and interviews in any way he sees fit, but they aren't personally my cup of tea. And certainly they aren't a particularly appealing brew in the case of Federer, Connors, and all the other names mentioned. Should they give the interviews? Probably, but, like you said, the matches are what is important, not the interview. Bud shouldn't take this personally (unless, of course, Federer and the others just doesn't like him, then he's entitled to :p).

    I'm not sure if Bud is self-aggrandizing, but it seems to me that certain tennis historians are inflating his importance a bit i.e. "he can tread on whoever he wants because he's more important to the history of the game than them" Really? Bud Collins is more important to the sport of tennis than Jimmy Connors, Andre Agassi, and Roger Federer? Okay then. It's like saying a critical writing on literature is more important than the literature itself.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2009
    #41
  42. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    I thought we had moved on, but since you asked I guess I’ll take a step back. I said you had only one explanation for Collins’ hostility towards Fed. You then challenged me claiming that you offered two explanations, so I responded that they’re actually two rationales for your one explanation, that Collins "hates [Federer] for some reason.” Sounds like equivocation to me, intentional or not.

    If that was your definition of refutation, you might as well have simply said you denied it. Refutation means little in this sense. And no, your evidence didn’t contradict Rabbit’s. I already explained that Collins’ estimation of Fed didn’t go down after Wimbledon, and the only other “evidence” you posted was Bud’s all-time rankings, which you interpreted as American-centric. That is your speculation, not “argument,” and yes, I disagree with it.

    Bud simply said he didn’t expect Fed to win more majors in ’09. That’s indeed a far cry from “obviously” feeling “Fed was no longer a danger to win majors” (my italic). Maybe he thought Fed would reach a few more finals and semifinals but come up just a little short, who knows.

    That “if” renders this question moot. Bud’s not the only one who wouldn’t peg Fed as the favorite one year if he went Slamless the previous year.

    Oh, I don’t know, maybe Chris Fowler or someone else at ESPN was asking him to compare Sampras and Fed now that the Swiss had surpassed the Slam record? And again Bud didn’t downgrade his estimation of Fed after Wimbledon.

    You either forgot or conveniently failed to mention that Fed had lost to journeymen Canas in IW and Miami and Volandri in Rome. Compare his results in ’07 to those in ’05 or ’06, and see if you can tell me he looked just as invincible going into Wimbledon. And Djokovic was a rising star who had not only defeated Fed in Montreal but also won Miami and reached SFs at the two previous Slams. Picking him as the new USO champion at the time, when he was able to reach the final and had a fair share of chances against Fed, doesn’t sound awfully absurd if you ask me.

    So it looks like you just disagree with him, then. In any case Bud’s praise of Fed did not go down after Wimbledon, contrary to your claim.

    No. And yes, you made your “point” quite clear. You were clearly more eager to grouse about Collins’ alleged potshots at your favorite player than to take the discussion in a different direction. All you said before launching into your diatribe was that Bud “has a knack for asking a host of uncomfortable questions,” and the rest of your post (and the one below) was a litany of Bud’s numerous digs at Fed.

    Of course you’re free to do this, but it’s not exactly something you should be practicing when you preach against “trolling.”
     
    #42
  43. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,545
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    It's not so strange really, I think the players tolerate Collins more than admire him. Press conferences are often more banter than Q&A. I remember Agassi once saying, when asked about his blooming relationship, that they had invited the top 100 journalists to the wedding...did you get one?

    Reading what you posted here though, it runs counter to your argument. If Collins was so pro-American as you say, he shouldn't have had issue with players like an American Connors or American Agassi.

    Again, I really think Collins is more an eccentric absolute tennis fan whose admiration is rooted in the Kramer-style of tennis. He gives more credence to players who play like he thinks the game should be played, using slices and angles rather than brute force. Collins has long been on a crusade to reform the equipment and take the game back to its wood roots.

    Yep, I agree. Predictions are like drop shots, if you make them you're a genius, if you don't, you look stupid. Statistically speaking, Colllins had the averages going with his prediction. No one in the history of Open tennis has been as consistent as Federer in majors. But, at some point, Father Time or other interests (twins) has to catch up with Federer. IMO, Collins just missed the year, but it's bound to happen sooner or later.

    Collins is paid to be somewhat controversial, that's what draws folks to the game. Some of the stuff he's written is off the wall and I think it's simply because he had a bad day at the office, but by and large, he's an institution in the game.

    I agree here as well. Again, IMO, Collins has been viewing Federer with perspective. I've posted here, and still have the opinion, let's not judge Federer until he's done. I think all Collins is doing is reserving his final place for Federer until he's done. While the other pundits jump on the Federer bandwagon and claim him GOAT, Collins is just more reserved in his praise. I don't see any evidence that Collins has denigrated any of Federer's achievements though.

    Look at John McEnore, he will one day say Rod Laver is GOAT, another say Pete Sampras, and then when Federer is playing say he's GOAT. Collins is more consistent IMO.


    I have to say this. I would much rather watch a Collins interview than the interview McEnroe conducted with Federer after he lost Wimbledon to Nadal. You talk about painful and awkward, that was the worst interview I have ever seen and I felt terrible for Federer. Collins has never flubbed any interview I've seen that bad.
     
    #43
  44. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Some of Collins' mutterings are indeed off the wall, but I think that has a lot to do with the medium, given that his writings are almost always more measured. Agreed on the rest.

    Right, and he's issued one mea culpa after another for his not-so-successful predictions.

    The GOAT debate is a fun but ultimately futile exercise anyway. But it sure is amusing to see how far some fanatics will go to defend their hero. We're talking religion here, just higher on entertainment factor.

    I actually didn't think that McEnroe-Federer interview was so bad. What did you find so egregious about it? Fed was inconsolable, and Mac did take note of that--but not to his face, I don't think.

    You really wanna see a flubbed Q&A? Here's what a tacky Chinese reporter asked Davydenko recently in Shanghai:

    WTF. Talk about a tactless question. Kolya handled it well, though, with self-deprecating humor.
     
    #44
  45. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,545
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    I just thought the whole "give me a hug" thing was totally out of place. McEnroe didn't help one iota with the situation. A professional journalist, like Collins, would have diffused the situation with a question that was bland...I mean after a loss, both parties should basically be going through the motions. I just thought it was a crappy situation. If the roles had been reversed, and they have, McEnroe wouldn't have even done an interview; i.e. French 1984 final.

    Well, you're going to have a new experience on the boards here I think. You got me. I can't believe someone would actually be that stupid. Davydenko's $'s can overcome a whole lot of ugly.....that has to be the stupidest question I think I've ever read.
     
    #45
  46. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,672
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Gotta agree to this. I still squirm when I remember Mac pushing that mike at the obviously emotional Fed. (If I had been in Fed's shoes--ha, ha--I would've grabbed it from Mac and hit him over the head with it.)
     
    #46
  47. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    I agree. Mac is one first class analyst but as interviewer.....wow, he can be great or absolutely abysmal. The hug was ridiculous and must have been one of THE most awkward moments in TV history. Federer, as we know, is prone to tears anyways, he needed a good "man up" moment, not a hug!

    It certainly reminded me of why Mcenroe's talk show flopped!
     
    #47
  48. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Here we disagree. I don't see anything "out of place" with the gesture. Fed himself took it in stride, IIRC. If anything I remember Mac gushing more about how it was the greatest match ever played nonstop.

    Interestingly the ESPN article that referred to the incident also had this to say:

    This took me by surprise. I've visited the Far East and lived there for some time (though not in China, I admit), and while the people aren't as conservative as the stereotypes would have you believe, they're very conscious of manners and they rarely if ever asked me a blunt question like that. Maybe the media follow a different set of rules?
     
    #48
  49. Chopin

    Chopin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,103
    Location:
    St. John, USVI
    Great post. Collins knows a lot about the history of tennis certainly, but given the amount of drivel that comes out of his mouth, he's certainly no authority on the modern game.

    And contrary to what one poster has said, Collins was NOT a great tennis player by any means. Yes, he made it to the finals of the French Seniors, but he did so playing with a former #1 Jack Crawford.
     
    #49
  50. Chopin

    Chopin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,103
    Location:
    St. John, USVI
    Here's a completely baffling piece by Bud Collins:

    http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/20664496/

    I don't care that he picked Djokovic, but I don't understand how you can use the meat of you article explaining why Federer is better and then end it with, "Oh, but Djokovic will win anyways."

    I'll repeat for those of you who might not understand: It's not that he was wrong, it's that he seemed to know that he was wrong and still picked Djokovic.

    In short, Bud Collins likes to draw attention to himself. Thank goodness NBC fired the guy. Now, if only they'd lose Johnny "I never stop talking during the points" Mac and Mary "I'm a comedian" Carillo, and hire some truly professional commentators like the British guys on the TTC.

    Mac=Knowledgeable, but highly obnoxious commentator.

    The only time I enjoy listening to him is when Agassi comes on as a guest because Mac is completely outclassed (both in terms of being well-spoken and in terms of analyzing the game).
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2009
    #50

Share This Page