Hawkeye illustrates how McEnroe is even a bigger jerk

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by NoBadMojo, Apr 1, 2006.

  1. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    Ok so of the Hawkeye challenges so far only about 1 in 4 challenges have resulted in reversing the call which shows the linespeople are doing a really good job and that Jmac is even a bigger jerk (if that is possible) for all his berating of linesmen and insisting they not wear sunglasses and crap like that over the years. Plus back when he played the balls werent flying as fast and likely the linespeople made even fewer bad calls

    On a sidenote, I dont understand why the chair ump should help a player to decide if they want to challange a call or not..that happens a lot. If a player wishes to challenge a call, they should be on their own I feel, and also their coaches shouldnt be able to signal them either
     
    #1
  2. Simon Cowell

    Simon Cowell Rookie

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Messages:
    354
    It illustrates nothing, JMac was usually right, he demanded these slouches do their job correctly. Sometimes people need a little discipline.
     
    #2
  3. BattleAxe

    BattleAxe Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Messages:
    116
    Actually, it's more like 1 in 3 calls being overturned.

    I totally agree with you on this! What is up with players asking the ump if they should challenge?
     
    #3
  4. gokou703

    gokou703 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    200
    imo doesnt matter if its 1/10 calls over turned. one call can change the outcome of a match. the technology makes the matches as fair as possible. it also keeps typical line call controversies at a minimum
     
    #4
  5. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
     
    #5
  6. Max G.

    Max G. Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,356
    On the contrary, I think that the umpire should be the only one deciding whether a call should be challenged, and it's the players that should have no input into this decision...

    The umpires advise players on whether to challenge or not because, believe it or not, they want to get the maximum number of CORRECT CALLS.
     
    #6
  7. skip1969

    skip1969 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    6,447
    Location:
    Pleasantville
    i nominate max g. to be emperor/tsar of the atp. cos unbelievably, everyone over there has forgotten what is the role of the player, and the role of the linesman/umpire.
     
    #7
  8. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,026
    JMac did not challenge calls just because he thought they were wrong - his strategy was to disrupt the opponent's rhythm, get the crowd behind him, and strike fear in the minds of the umpire and linespeople. I just could not admire him because of that. He often came across as someone who spoke his mind. But he was no Arthur Ashe or Martina Navratilova. His disagreements were with the USTA and others - he was no social revolutionary. He also humiliated others in the locker room - numerous stories about that.
     
    #8
  9. TENNIS_99

    TENNIS_99 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    440
     
    #9
  10. superman1

    superman1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,243
    McEnroe would have had a pretty good challenge record, I think. His eyes are insane. When he's commentating, he's always 100% right about calls before Shotspot even comes up. That can change when you're out there on the court, but in a way it's even easier because you can sort of feel if the ball you just hit was good.
     
    #10
  11. VAmazona

    VAmazona Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    257
    For a good portion of JMac's era, alot of the linesfolk were volunteers, not the trained officials they employ today.
     
    #11
  12. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    People seem to forget judges and lines people during Mac's playing days were not professionals. They were not like NBA, NFL and MLB refs. He was usually right. The man has great eyes. He was a perfectionist and demanded the same of others. Too bad they were not up to the task.

    Did he also blow up to psych out his opponent and entertain the crowd....maybe. Remember, he was as competitive as anyone who has walked this earth. That's what made him great.
     
    #12
  13. nocab

    nocab Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Messages:
    114
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    it was around 50 overturned to 150 challenged(not exactly but close to). so 1:3, yet the announcers keep saying that all this is showing is how good the linespeople are. to me, 1 out of 3 wrong shows me that the linespeople are doing a horrible job. getting that many wrong could mean the difference in a match, costing someone a title and a few hundred thousand bucks.
     
    #13
  14. hoosierbr

    hoosierbr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,837
    I'm still kind of on the fence on this challenge system. If you balance everything out I suppose it's a good thing as it doesn't take very long to review calls. Although the system went down more than once this week. Also, the fact that it's only available on the show courts doesn't seem fair but I understand that financially it's the only feasible option at most tournaments right now.

    I think the linespeople at the Nasdaq have been a little sharper and on their toes knowing the system was in place for the first time and everyone was watching them this week. At Indian Wells there were still some horrible calls that couldn't be questioned b/c the system wasn't in place yet. Rainer Schuettler got screwed on several calls against Hewitt.

    This week every time I watched one of her matches Sharapova kept looking over to her box before she decided to challenge. The only good that came out of that was Yuri coming off as an even bigger jerk than he already does.

    In the long run I think it's good to have so we can prevent bad calls at the Grand Slams as much as possible. But I think there will come a time when a player runs out of challenges and then gets a bad call on a big point and will be powerless. It'll be interesting to see what happens in that situation.
     
    #14
  15. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,026
    If linespeople were volunteers during JMac's time, that is all the more reason to treat them with dignity.

    I heard that he used the f word against a lineswoman is San Jose this year.
     
    #15
  16. BattleAxe

    BattleAxe Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Messages:
    116

    The players would see to it that this concept would never work.

    All a player would have to do would be to start complaining about the call. Is the ump going to deny a challenge? What if he did deny the replay, but the replay proved the player was right? Fans would be outraged!

    That sounds good in theory, but it would never work.
     
    #16
  17. TENNIS_99

    TENNIS_99 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    440
    Yeh, now the players have life lines from their friends in the box.
     
    #17
  18. Steve Huff

    Steve Huff Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,266
    NBMJ--I agree, Mac was a jerk on the court. I've seen him argue calls that when the replay was shown, Mac never even looked back to see where the ball actually landed. He "felt" the ball was long. The worst I ever saw him was at the TransAmerica final against Kevin Curran. He argued for nearly 1/2 hr. When the chair penalized him, he argued about that. Curran even said "take the dam_ game. Let's just play". Mac kept arguing anyway until the tournament director came out. Curran basically laid down after that. About the only way I'd ever respect him again is if he had a nationally televised "apology hour" show, where they'd replay his tantrums and he'd apologize for when he crossed the line ethically.
     
    #18
  19. knasty131

    knasty131 Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,059
    Location:
    Killeen, Tx
    i was sold on the thought of him being a jerk when i saw him play a friendly exhibition match against jim courier...jim was laughing and joking around (they were mic'd) and jmac was same as usual...didnt question lines as much but his mannerisms were just horrible...he got so frustrated at himself...at a charity exhibition...he would scream and just pump his fist at jim...i found it disgusting
     
    #19
  20. ta11geese3

    ta11geese3 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    487
    I like that one commentator's (carillo?) idea... the chair ump uses hawkeye for ALL close calls, not making players having to strategize about when to use their precious challenges.

    And 1/3 is pretty bad, considering how important every point is in tennis.

    I hope that this style is just an experimental one and not one that will stay just because it was first.
     
    #20
  21. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,438
    McEnroe would have been right about most of the bad calls. When I used to go to the US Open during the McEnroe-era, I couldn't believe how bad the line calling was. It was as if most the linespeople were asleep or daydreaming or something. They would make blatantly bad calls that anyone within the first 30 rows would know was clearly wrong. I mean, shots out by more than 6 inches were called in. It was ridiculous. After seeing this live, I gained a much better appreciation of when the players complained about line calls on TV.

    BTW, the line calling at the Nasdaq-100 has been exceptionally and unusally good. It might be because all the linespeople and umpires know that their calls could be checked by Shot Spot at any time so they better be as accurate as possible so that they don't look foolish in front of the huge crowds and TV audiences. It's like the difference between taking a test that's not going to be checked nor graded versus taking one that will be. Thus, I think the linespeople worked even harder to stay awake and focused on the lines so that they don't look like idiots on national TV. Contrast that with the terrible line calling last week at the Pacific Life Open where Shot Spot was not used by the umpires. So many times Shot Spot showed the TV audience that the line calls were wrong, and so many times the ESPN commentators said that "this call would have been challenged and overturned next week in Miami." Cliffy must have said that 100 times last week at Indian Wells.
     
    #21
  22. Max G.

    Max G. Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,356
    I have two counterpoints to that argument:

    1) Claycourts. On clay, the umpire can come down and check a mark. This is in place at all claycourt tournaments. It's not abused, as far as I can tell. Shotspot would work the same way, only being invoked on calls that are actually close.

    2) The Hopman Cup exhibition, at the beginning of this year, set up Shotspot and gave players unlimited challenges. There, it wasn't abused - and there was certainly money on the line, as well as national pride, though not ranking points.

    And of course, if blatant abuses occur, there's always the chair umpire - if he feels that the player is trying to abuse shotspot to affect the tempo, he would simply have the right to deny the player a challenge, just like he has the right to not get out of his chair to check a mark if he feels the challenge is frivolous.

    Those concerns are, in my mind, strong enough evidence to allow giving ShotSpot a chance. If it turns out that it is abused, then it could be removed for the next tournament - but I think that making conclusions such as yours is premature.
     
    #22
  23. 35ft6

    35ft6 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,557
    Right or wrong, imagine that there's somebody at your job who decides if you get 100,000 dollars or 200,000 dollars depending on what they "see." To me, it's amazing that players don't get MORE upset about line-calls. Most people will admit that our eyes are fallible, and most people will get upset about disagreements at the workplace when there's NO money at stake. The way people act like one bad line call doesn't make a difference when 100's of 1000's of dollars at stake, maybe even history, is ridiculous. Anything to make calls more fair is cool with me. If human eyes are 85% accurate and Hawkeye is 95% accurate, that's still an improvement as far as I'm concerned.
     
    #23
  24. pound cat

    pound cat G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    13,741
    The players look to the umpire for call confirmation out of habit, and also because they don't have confidence in their own judgment. Umps, and coaches are likely as wrong as players with line calls, and I think gradually the challenges will become less frequent. Who wants to bet on odds that are 3 to one the player will look like an idiot and be wrong.
     
    #24
  25. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,029
    I got a 67% on a test once. Once.
    No curve.
    The professor was not impressed.

    NoBadMoJo,
    Longtime listener, first time caller here.
    I know you're a big Volkl supporter. Me too. I wonder if you would have the same venom for Mac if he had stayed w/ Volkl.
    What went down? Did he just get a better offer from Dunlop?
    Thanks in advance. I'll take my answer off the air.
    --slice.
     
    #25
  26. Christopher

    Christopher New User

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    Hawkeyes better than 95% accurate.

    I like it, adds a completely new element to the game and tactic. And stops the bull*******s.
     
    #26
  27. Amone

    Amone Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,864
    Location:
    Detroit Area, MI
    Actually, that's because the assumption is that you should excel at your work in school. I asked about that, because a 67% is considered just slightly below average, even though that role should actually be given to 45%. So school's a terrible example.
     
    #27
  28. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    of course not...what does any of this have to do with what racquet he uses? i have no idea what happened or if volkl got rid of mac or mac got rid of volkl or even when it happened. a jerk is a jerk and the fact that the linespeople are right more than the players are is an indicator that macc is even a bigger jerk than originally thought.
    to say the linespeople are concentrating better now because of hawkeye is not a reasonable comment. i've helped with some lineman training for the usta and even the trainees rarey miss a call..they just dont have the protocols perfect yet....
     
    #28
  29. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,029
    I think that is because they are sitting down and the players are on the move.
     
    #29
  30. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,029
    Sorry.
    What do you mean by protocols. I did not catch that.
    Who?
    The linesmen or Hawkeye?

    Out of curiosity, what did you help the USTA with? What is some of the advice you gave them?
     
    #30
  31. msn

    msn New User

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Messages:
    44
    I like it because:

    1. The players don't argue much anymore.

    2. The players don't sulk much anymore.

    3. Bad calls _are_ being corrected.

    I didn't agree with making the players decide originally, but now I understand how it helps the match along. If the ump decided, there would still be arguing about which calls to review...

    1:3 doesn't mean much as some players (like Maria S.) have lost _every_ challenge. They should release per-player stats...(for fun).
     
    #31
  32. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    you know.protocols like to never speak to a player, how to signal unsighted, reporting abusive behaviour, how to interract w. the chair ump, and stuff like that.
    i didnt advise the USTA...a partner and i played situational tennis points, games, matches, tiebreakers, and the linespeople practiced calling lines as part of their training.
     
    #32
  33. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,438
    Why or why not? Could you please explain?

    I think most people would do their jobs better, whatever it is, if their boss was looking over their shoulder or if they were being monitored by cameras or a computer.
     
    #33
  34. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    sureshs noted that Mac should have shown some "dignity" considering the linespeople were volunteers. Are you kidding me??

    The man was playing for money, fame, history, love etc., and players should just show some dignity because the blind guy in the corner can't see that the "chalk flew up"? Keep dreaming. If you consider all the other sports, in terms of officiating, Tennis is the most difficult. You are not judging human error, but the tiny ball going 100 mph or more. Why do you think people beieve the line judges this week were "awesome", "incredible", etc. They missed 1/4 to 1/3 of the calls!!! That number, in terms quality is not good. Officiating needs to be in that 90-95%, not 60-75%. They still have a difficult time calling the lines. To be honest, they should completely replace the line judges with computers/sensors if they want it done right. If not, then stop w/all this nonsense. Line calling has been and for-ever will be bad as long as a HUMAN is involved.
     
    #34
  35. big r

    big r Guest

    1 out of 3 ain't that bad...

    Guys,

    All this 1/3 and 2/3 and 66% stuff is WAY off mark....

    You're saying the linesperson misses 1 in 3 calls....NO WAY!!

    You're not giving the linesperson the benefit of the doubt on calls that aren't challenged. On un-challenged calls, it is reasonable to think that they have a much higher percentage of correct calls.

    You guys are kidding yourselves if you think you could call lines at a professional match any better than the USTA paid pros.
     
    #35
  36. Mr.Federer

    Mr.Federer Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    Messages:
    1,528
    Linespeople are still volunteers these days...except now I believe they practice a couple of weeks before.
     
    #36
  37. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,029
    Actually, even the ones who do junior tournaments and college matches get paid. Part-time, seasonal/occasional gigs for the most part. Labor of love.
    They have to take courses and everything. There are levels of certification within the national federations Like the USTA, LTA, DTB, FFT, FMT, Tennis Austrailia, Tennis Canada, etc. The really good ones call lines at ATP stops, the Slams and Davis Cup ties.
    The elite ones get hired to chair by the ATP or the WTA. They get paid well from what I hear.
     
    #37
  38. legolas

    legolas Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,525
    the challenging system is great, but the rules of it sux
     
    #38
  39. Rob_C

    Rob_C Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,681
    The commentators mentioned the challenges, and how the players were wrong most of the the time, but when they broke it down between the WTA and the ATP, the women were the ones who were challenging correct calls alot more than the men. The men's reversal % was about 1/2, I believe, and the women's was about 1/4, or something to that effect.

    I just read on USTA.com that the final tally was 32/84 for men, 21/77 for women, so its 38% men, 27% women.
     
    #39
  40. araghava

    araghava Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    390
    I think you'll also find that when players challenged early in the set they would be correct. i.e. the linespersons call would be wrong. However late in the set, assuming the player had both challenges left, they simply use the challenge expecting to be wrong but maybe get lucky once in a while.

    Anyhow being wrong 1 out of 3 challenges is actually pretty bad. I can't understand how this means the linespersons are doing a good job.
     
    #40
  41. mj01

    mj01 New User

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    87
    Thank you. Someone had to say that. These people talking about linesmen missing 1/3rd of the calls are completely nuts. We're talking about how many matches? 50 missed calls amounts to an incredibly low percentage of close calls that were wrong.
     
    #41
  42. skip1969

    skip1969 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    6,447
    Location:
    Pleasantville
    exactly. of course, in a perfect world we would like NO missed calls. but if you actually counted all the balls that hit near the lines (much less all the balls that actually hit the court) during the course of an entire tournament . . . well, that's a lot of balls!

    then, you factor in the fact that shot spot is only on one or two courts. and the fact that there aren't unlimited challenges. and even (as some posters argue) that shot spot isn't 100% accurate . . . well, you get my drift.

    even if shot spot were flawless, it would only impact a minor percentages of the balls in play to begin with. now, how revolutionary is that, i ask you?
     
    #42
  43. Django

    Django Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2004
    Messages:
    363
    Location:
    Laguna Beach
    I wouldn't get too excited about the pros' challenges being right "only" 1 out of 3 times. You get 2 challenges per set and an extra one for a tiebreak. The way it's set up now, wouldn't you be a bit foolish to not use them all? If there's even a slight chance of overturning a call against you, there's every incentive in the world to use 'em up.

    I think Sharapova's 0-for-whatever is just fine; she's using the system.

    Give the players a point penalty for being wrong and you'll see the use of the challenges go way down -- and the percentage of overturns go way up! (I'm not suggesting a change, just trying to make a point.)
     
    #43
  44. Django

    Django Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2004
    Messages:
    363
    Location:
    Laguna Beach
    On another note, am I the only one who thinks that allowing an out-ball to be called good is not NEARLY as bad as having a ball that clips the line to be called out?
     
    #44

Share This Page