Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Former Pro Player Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Chopin's New Poll: Venus Williams v.s. Laver (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=282767)

Chopin 08-21-2009 08:53 PM

Chopin's New Poll: Venus Williams v.s. Laver
 
Now before you jump all over this one, let's clarify a few things. Venus Williams is being given a significant handicap in this match. She's allowed to use a graphite racquet and any modern strings, while Laver is forced to use wood. In addition, she's able to use the doubles alleys, while Laver is not. Also, she is given a 15-0 advantage in every service game, and a 30-0 advantage in every return game. The surface is hard courts.

Who wins?

nfor304 08-21-2009 09:23 PM

What is the point of this poll?

Chopin 08-21-2009 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nfor304 (Post 3836349)
What is the point of this poll?

It's an experiment I'm conducting.

I personally think that the advantages are enough for Venus to probably get by even if it would still be quite close (I mean, graphite is an advantage and means that Venus would definitely serve harder, the scoring is a significant advantage, and the doubles alleys is a significant advantage,).

It's nothing against Laver, but the odds would be stacked against him based on the scoring, court and equipment handicaps.

I'm seeing how logical the TW Historians truly are. If they go off on some tangent about how Laver would destroy Venus even with a huge handicap, I know for sure that they've gone off the deep end.

Hey, you're a good poster to ask why. Most of my threads have a very specific purpose and many times, the Historians just get too upset to understand the deep meaning of my threads.

vive le beau jeu ! 08-22-2009 03:07 AM

depends... is laver allowed to use wet cabbage ?

lawrence 08-22-2009 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chopin (Post 3836475)
It's an experiment I'm conducting.

I personally think that the advantages are enough for Venus to probably get by even if it would still be quite close (I mean, graphite is an advantage and means that Venus would definitely serve harder, the scoring is a significant advantage, and the doubles alleys is a significant advantage,).

It's nothing against Laver, but the odds would be stacked against him based on the scoring, court and equipment handicaps.

I'm seeing how logical the TW Historians truly are. If they go off on some tangent about how Laver would destroy Venus even with a huge handicap, I know for sure that they've gone off the deep end.


Hey, you're a good poster to ask why. Most of my threads have a very specific purpose and many times, the Historians just get too upset to understand the deep meaning of my threads.

So basically you're admitting this is a spite thread that was made to bait "TW Historians"?

Chopin 08-22-2009 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawrence (Post 3836908)
So basically you're admitting this is a spite thread that was made to bait "TW Historians"?

It's an experiment. As Dr. Peter Venkman once said: Back off, man. I'm a scientist.

lawrence 08-23-2009 04:50 AM

fair enough then. i wont have a go at you because i liked to bait gj myself
good fun

joe sch 08-23-2009 05:12 AM

Most of best players today have not played against great serve volley players. Even when Federer played Sampras after years of retirement for Pete, they had very close matches, just like when they played in Rogers early days on the tour. Venus, Serena, Steffi, and Monica all had trouble playing against Martina Navratilova and this was when she was post 40. These are all reasons that show this kind of disrespect targeted to the GOAT Laver and the game that the GOAT contenders played in bygones past, is ridiculous. My point is the Laver would dominate. This is not speculation but theory based on transitive competition properties. Seems like the supporters of Federer being the GOAT and the modern game being the GOAT of tennis skills all just use speculation to attack old school playing styles and the GOATs for those eras. I agree that modern equipment is the best for blasting baseline winners and service returns but for serves, vollies, half volleys, the bigger heads, lighter rackets, and stiff strings and frames do not offer such a big advantage. What I would like to see is a matchup of John McEnroe playing wood against Venus and Serena playing thier favorities. This would offer a good idea for the outcome of this post.

grafselesfan 08-23-2009 12:00 PM

This is such a dumb thread.

Cesc Fabregas 08-23-2009 12:01 PM

Chopin whats your problem with Laver?

Mick 08-23-2009 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chopin (Post 3836284)
Now before you jump all over this one, let's clarify a few things. Venus Williams is being given a significant handicap in this match. She's allowed to use a graphite racquet and any modern strings, while Laver is forced to use wood. In addition, she's able to use the doubles alleys, while Laver is not. Also, she is given a 15-0 advantage in every service game, and a 30-0 advantage in every return game. The surface is hard courts.

Who wins?

laver is 71
venus is 29

match will be over in 20 minutes, if laver could last that long :shock:

Topspinslice 08-23-2009 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas (Post 3843480)
Chopin whats your problem with Laver?

It's not Laver. This know it all want to insult and tweak all the posters but especially the historians of this site. These are people who have forgotten more about tennis than he will ever know.

r2473 08-23-2009 12:24 PM

As is true with all of Chopin's posts:

TENNIS WINS

Chopin 08-23-2009 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r2473 (Post 3843534)
As is true with all of Chopin's posts:

TENNIS WINS

Thank you! You flatter me. As I've said before, I'm starting a movement that the Historians know will be their undoing.

I was watching a movie on pianist Glenn Gould the other night and they interviewed violinist Bruno Monsaingeon about why Gould received such poor critical receptions when he was very, very popular. And one thing he said was that Gould was a threat to the musical establishment.

It's similar with me, I'm a threat to the establishment in the Former Pro Player discussion sections, so rather than confront my ideas, they mock me.

It's OK, things are motion which they can't stop.

CyBorg 08-23-2009 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chopin (Post 3843775)
It's similar with me, I'm a threat to the establishment in the Former Pro Player discussion sections, so rather than confront my ideas, they mock me.

I was under the impression that you represented the establishment. But it's kind of cute how you can be the underdog and claim to have the popular opinion behind you.

I also like the imaginary dichotomy. Not because it is a new or effective tactic, but because it becomes more pathetic the more it gets absurd.

My only conclusion here is that either you are a complete dolt or you are trying to undermine your own cause. Either one satisfies.

krosero 08-23-2009 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyBorg (Post 3843853)
I was under the impression that you represented the establishment.

He certainly does. You're the last person I need to tell, but fans and media alike think that today's game is the best there ever was.

Most, not all. I've had the pleasure on this board of meeting thoughtful fans (and I'm not just talking about the "TW Historians").

ubermeyer 08-23-2009 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe sch (Post 3841768)
Most of best players today have not played against great serve volley players. Even when Federer played Sampras after years of retirement for Pete, they had very close matches, just like when they played in Rogers early days on the tour. Venus, Serena, Steffi, and Monica all had trouble playing against Martina Navratilova and this was when she was post 40. These are all reasons that show this kind of disrespect targeted to the GOAT Laver and the game that the GOAT contenders played in bygones past, is ridiculous. My point is the Laver would dominate. This is not speculation but theory based on transitive competition properties. Seems like the supporters of Federer being the GOAT and the modern game being the GOAT of tennis skills all just use speculation to attack old school playing styles and the GOATs for those eras. I agree that modern equipment is the best for blasting baseline winners and service returns but for serves, vollies, half volleys, the bigger heads, lighter rackets, and stiff strings and frames do not offer such a big advantage. What I would like to see is a matchup of John McEnroe playing wood against Venus and Serena playing thier favorities. This would offer a good idea for the outcome of this post.

Don't you understand that the courts are slower so it makes no sense to serve and volley anymore? Even if Ivo Karlovic had the second serve of Isner and the volleys of McEnroe, Sampras, Rafter, take your pick, he still would not be able to beat somebody like Federer on a regular basis

joe sch 08-23-2009 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubermeyer (Post 3843921)
Don't you understand that the courts are slower so it makes no sense to serve and volley anymore? Even if Ivo Karlovic had the second serve of Isner and the volleys of McEnroe, Sampras, Rafter, take your pick, he still would not be able to beat somebody like Federer on a regular basis

Ok, so why is it that during all the Sampras vs Federer matches and exhibitions, Pete played his same game and Roger was forced to play a similar style or face a more likely defeat ? The answer is not that its staged. Its not the courts or the equipment, its the players do not have the confidence to play that game. They are all masters of baseline blasting. Its fine that the players are all great players from the baseline now but dont think that this awesome display of power tennis means that they could destroy the GOATs from earlier era's. Its even more disrespectful to think that todays ladies or college players would beat these GOATs from the earlier eras. The point Im trying to make is that Venus or Serena would not have defeated Laver at his prime, not even if they had modern equipment and he was playing wood.

ubermeyer 08-23-2009 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe sch (Post 3844036)
he point Im trying to make is that Venus or Serena would not have defeated Laver at his prime, not even if they had modern equipment and he was playing wood.

but I thought Laver was not going to be in his prime, he was going to be 71, like he really is. at least the question seemed like that

Chopin 08-23-2009 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyBorg (Post 3843853)
I was under the impression that you represented the establishment. But it's kind of cute how you can be the underdog and claim to have the popular opinion behind you.

I also like the imaginary dichotomy. Not because it is a new or effective tactic, but because it becomes more pathetic the more it gets absurd.

My only conclusion here is that either you are a complete dolt or you are trying to undermine your own cause. Either one satisfies.

CyBorg, the more you mock me, the more you hurl petty insults at me, the more you insult the very spirit of tennis, the greater my cause becomes. You can't beat me. I'm like the maestro of the boards, conducting a great symphony orchestra that will speak to the tennis world.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse