View Single Post
Old 09-14-2008, 11:40 AM   #81
krosero
Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,002
Default

I'm sure you know this, Ben-Hur, but that argument you quoted from Fabrice Leroy was withdrawn by Fabrice himself two years ago:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtJohn View Post
PS: Fabrice, I like your " Mac should have won this and that" theory...The Borg should have win at least 3 US Open and 3 australian if he had played them and would have 17 slams...
Plus, "if" some things were fair, for example, Mac would never have his celebrated 4-years-in-a-row-as-number-1, because in 82 he won nothing, though Connors made the Wimbledon-US double, and Lendl won 12 tournaments and was US runner-up...Mac should be No3 in 82!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabrice Leroy View Post
Yes, I know my argument is flawed. In truth, I still haven't gotten over Mac's loss at the 84 French Open. I still cringe when I think about it. But we all play tennis and we all know that a loss is a loss. I still think that Mac would have won a few AO titles had he made the trip down there in his prime (apart from 83). Regarding the other post by Colpo about Mac being the best, I would agree, although I am aware here again that this is not an objective assessment. No-one has enthralled me as a spectator more than Mac during his best years. I saw him anihilate Lendl at the 84 Brussels indoor (I had front-row seats) and was amazed at the imagination, the skill, the genius of Mac's game at the time. But I was 18, and I realize that, at that age, you perceive things with more intensity and you are more passionate about everything.
I mean, I would feel at least self-conscious about arguing with someone who 1) withdrew his argument and 2) may not even be listening. I would think it would look like grandstanding.

Sure, people still make Fabrice's argument. But I would quote them, in their current threads, for a real argument. Or start a new thread with your observations about the 84F final. The problem is not with your arguments, it's just that this whole business about being able to resurrect threads long after they're dead strikes me as problematic. But I've already said why above. It just strikes me as strange when people get all up in arms against others who are not even there.

I think other boards have rules about not responding to threads after 60 days.
krosero is offline   Reply With Quote