Why does Pam Shriver hate Ivanovic?
- Thread starter hrstrat57
- Start date
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
It is a childish concept. No one cares about Ivanovic, other than to point out the obvious in her failed game.
Oh come on. Women always compare their looks to another women. Shriver is jealous of Ana's beauty.
SafinIsGOAT
Rookie
Some women look good with a tiny bit of pudge in the mid section. I think Azarenka does. She's very pretty.
Last edited:
"You have to be an *** about it, too?" Blake yelled after the next point. "And act like I'm at fault.''
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/06/22/bounced-james-blake-blasts-espns-pam-shriver-at-wimbledon/
Sea World or Disney World.
If Ana was just plain looking, Shriver wouldn't care and say nothing. Jealously is the only reason to bashed Ana.
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
yemenmocha
Professional
Just wanted to post that I hate Pam Shriver. That's a worthwhile post, if anything is.
Ana is hot.
Pam is not.
Not a lot of mystery here.
Ana is hot.
Pam is not.
Not a lot of mystery here.
SafinIsGOAT
Rookie
Some women look good with a tiny bit of pudge in the mid section. I think Azarenka does. She's very pretty.
I didn't say a single, solitary word about her looks, I said she should lose some weight. That pudge her mid-section isn't all that tiny, btw, it's more like a spare tire.
Last edited:
70後
Hall of Fame
Uh, Shriver would be NOTHING without playing the hanger on to the playground bully (Navratilova).
Last edited:
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
High street sw19
Rookie
It must take you a while to clean all your slam trophy's every day....muppet, get of Pam's back unless you have done better in this game you are in no position to bag her !
AngieB
Banned
Valid point. Blatantly spot-on.
Pam is to Robin what Navratilova was to Batman. Sorry, that was a weird analogy. Point being, if Pam, Navratilova and McEnroe got in' why not Fleming?
AngieB
xan
Hall of Fame
no. no she shouldn't.
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
My god. My cringing so hard reading those " she is jealous of her looks" comments
Nauseating.
Nauseating.
Bender
G.O.A.T.
I take it you don't comment on politicians or other tennis players either since you haven't done better than they have in their respective fields
ilovetennis212
Professional
Pam should read this thread..
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
I agree. I don't get that "jealousy" is the answer either. Looks are subjective and whether one is touted as beautiful by many, doesn't mean others have to believe it too.
Having said that, Pam is a bitter women and her snide comments are not directed solely to "attractive" women, but to everyone, male and female.
However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that Ana wasn't going to win that match. She lacks belief and sure enough Pam was right.
Personally, I don't know how Ana got as high as she did either. She's mentally fragile.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Absolute nonsense. That is a shallow outlook to base women on their looks, rather than their intelligence, talent, or any other attribute that they have attained. Women who go along with this biased stereotype are just as bad as the men who perpetuate this foolishness.
rossi46
Professional
Nice rack though.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
this woman
said what about this woman?
...
said what about this woman?
McLovin
Legend
Simple: Ana is not Serena.
Well, maybe the jealousy thing is a bit overdone. But Shriver of all people should not put down players like Ana Ivanovic. Whatever Ana’s shortcomings, she is a far more talented tennis player than Shriver ever was, and got where she is by her own talent and work. Shriver would be a non-entity in tennis if not for Martina Navratilova being her doubles partner. And in a normal world based on ability instead of contacts, Shriver would never be a television commentator either. She is awful.
heftylefty
Hall of Fame
It's that the 41th President of the United States?
Last edited:
Shriver was also very nasty to a 16 year old Tracy Austin who was:
A) much prettier than Shriver
and
B) a much better player.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Again, appearance is questionable....and I question the idea of Austin (yesteryear or today) being considered pretty.
Austin won in singles, but Shriver is a technically better schooled player, and certainly has superior insight about the court. I watched Austin in her heyday, and there was nothing impressive about her.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
...yes, because his game certainly is not worthy of it.
Azerenka has a normal female stomach.
Azarenka isn't pretty to most, though I can appreciate it's somewhat subjective.
Wining the US Open twice as a Teenager and taking number one away from Evert/Navratilova was very impressive.
As far as looks go that's subjective anyway so no more comment needed.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Yes, it is an immature view of the world. No connection to reality.
To play devil's advocate, how can any of you know that it isn't a factor?
FrontHeadlock
Hall of Fame
It's true that looks are subjective, but Ivanovic and Shriver are objectively far, far apart in looks.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
Anna hot and walks like a model. Pam walks like a duck. need I say more ?
Brian11785
Hall of Fame
Man, this board is full of neanderthals. Shriver is threatened by Ana because she's pretty? Jeez. I'm surprised no one in this thread has suggested it's "her time of the month" or that she "belongs in the kitchen" instead of commentating.
Just because you reduce the value of a woman to her looks doesn't mean that's true of everyone. Stop projecting your shallowness on to Shriver, people.
Just because you reduce the value of a woman to her looks doesn't mean that's true of everyone. Stop projecting your shallowness on to Shriver, people.
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
true that.
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
austin is a bit of an airhead and an idiot. the oudin of the 80's.
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
true pam has been on a bash the wta kick lately. even serena of all ppl she is talking about as well.
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
true-ana sucks.
granddog29
Banned
Actually for Navratilova to win all those doubles titles with Pam shows how great a doubles player Pam was. Think of it, if you are another team who would you attack facing the Worlds most dominant (probably ever at that point) singles and doubles players. Of course nearly every team they played hit to Pam as much as possible and yet she still came up with the goods to keep them wining and compiling the best ever doubles record. A doubles team is only as good as their teamwork and their weaker link. Not to mention Pam won major doubles events not even playing with Martina as well (a U.S Open with Zvereva, an Olympic Gold with Garrison) despite her parternship with Martina taking up her entire physical prime as a player; and that when Martina dumped her late in her career very nearly beat Martina in the doubles final at the 89 U.S Open despite playing with a then much weaker partner (a very young Mary Joe Fernandez) than Martina now had (Hana Mandilikova).
As for Austin being a better player than Shriver? Well a better singles player (although far more dull to watch) but is a 2 time slam singles winner/flash in the pan a greater player than one of the very best doubles players in history who was also top 5 for many years in singles? Not sure, I think I would side with the latter actually.
Last edited:
Brian11785
Hall of Fame
Agree with all of this. Though to call Austin a flash in the pan is a little unfair. Who knows what would have happened had she stayed healthy and a force for another decade. Would she have improved her fitness as Martina and Chrissy did? Would she have played as long as Chrissy (that'd be what '97?). Sure Pam had a more complete career, but I wouldn't dismiss Austin so easily.
granddog29
Banned
Very true. Pam was saddled with awful movement and an awful forehand which is the only reason she couldnt quite win anything big in singles, despite playing a far more interesting, intelligent, varied, and diverse game than Tracy which showed in her doubles success where movement and a big forehand didnt matter much. Tracy was just another boring baseliner, and a poor attempt of a Chris Evert clone. Her game was effective in a period with very little depth (aside from the big 2 of Martina and Chris) but was not all that impressive. The lack of depth and flexability in her actual game was proven in that once she got a bit injured and had a bit of time, and once players got used to her game, she was rendered so ineffective she had to retire from tennis altogether at only 20. Pam atleast remained a top singles player until she as almost 30, along with her continued incredible doubles career.
You could be right. I just find her incredibly boring and one dimensional. Nothing but baseline bashing with far less power than we see today. Sorry I am just not impressed. I am not one of those who never finds players of the past impressive. I actually love to watch tapes of people in the 70s play, but would rather gorge my eyes out than watch Tracy for more than 10 minutes.
I dont think it was JUST injuries that led to her decline and short career. That was part of it but read Billie Jean King's documentary on the game. She speaks about the myth that Jaeger's career was simply ended by loss of motivation and Tracy's by just injuries and details that there was alot more to it than that. Jaeger's was ended in large part by a little known shoulder injury that she played through, and Tracy began to love life off the court and lose the hunger and motivation to improve during one of her injury layoffs.
Last edited:
