Connors and Collins in 1978

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by !Tym

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.

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.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Federer isn't getting any younger; if he went Slamless in 2009, do you think Bud would suddenly alter his opinion for 2010?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.”

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

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.

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.

Originally Posted by NonP

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.

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.

Originally Posted by NonP

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.

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.

Originally Posted by NonP

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.

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.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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:

Because you're not so good-looking [away] from the court, [does that] make you put more focus on your tennis? And given the chance, would you like to be more good-looking or keep your life going like this?

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

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by NonP

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.

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.

Originally Posted by NonP

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.

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.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

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.

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.)

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

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.)

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!

[NonP]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

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.

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.

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.

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

The Chinese media tend to be extremely direct -- there are no questions that are out of bounds, not even those that might be considered rude or would hurt someone's feelings.

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?

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

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.

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.

[Chopin]

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).

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by Datacipher

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....

A CONTRIVED question asked on TV after a tennis match gives real insight into a person's SOUL? Right.

True insight is based on introspection and thoughtful analysis--not the knee-jerk reactions of a person after having lost a tennis match. Also, your logic is predicated on the player actually answering the "hard question" in an honest and meaningful way (which rarely happens). Very poor post. Keep up the CAPITALIZING though!

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by Chopin

A CONTRIVED question asked on TV after a tennis match gives real insight into a person's SOUL? Right.

True insight is based on introspection and thoughtful analysis--not the knee-jerk reactions of a person after having lost a tennis match. Also, your logic is predicated on the player actually answering the "hard question" in an honest and meaningful way (which rarely happens). Very poor post. Keep up the CAPITALIZING though!

The "contrived" question is the soft-ball that is does not even provide opportunity for meaningful answer.

Actually whether introspection gives you insight into your soul is a completely unfounded idea. Futhermore, the only way to be privy to a person's introspection is by asking him good/deep questions. You can't have "thoughtful analysis" of a person's soul without them. Actually, I think most people will agree that "knee-jerk" reactions are actually often more revealing of both the character and human-nature of the person far more than prepared statements given long after the fact. Such statements are far more prone to presentation bias.

But then, you're not really interested, you simply hope that by providing illogical jibes at my post, while simultaneously questioning my logic (poorly....goodness...you need to at least have some meat to your bait), that you'll lure me into replying. Nice one troll boy!

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by Chopin

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.

"He also played 100x better tennis than you. You really don't make yourself look good when you mouth off like this"

Above: the reason why Chopin doesn't directly quote. Makes for a much better troll to misrepresent others words.

PS. The reason why these people are ignorant as to Collins very real tennis skills is that he constantly refers to HIMSELF as a hacker/weekend player/club player. A far cry from these blowhards.

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by Datacipher

The "contrived" question is the soft-ball that is does not even provide opportunity for meaningful answer.

Actually whether introspection gives you insight into your soul is a completely unfounded idea. Futhermore, the only way to be privy to a person's introspection is by asking him good/deep questions. You can't have "thoughtful analysis" of a person's soul without them. Actually, I think most people will agree that "knee-jerk" reactions are actually often more revealing of both the character and human-nature of the person far more than prepared statements given long after the fact. Such statements are far more prone to presentation bias.

But then, you're not really interested, you simply hope that by providing illogical jibes at my post, while simultaneously questioning my logic (poorly....goodness...you need to at least have some meat to your bait), that you'll lure me into replying. Nice one troll boy!

First of all, I'd like to congratulate you for writing a full post without resorting to capitalizing for emphasize like a teenager on AOL Instant Messenger or Kayne West. Well done.

Now, as to your reply to my post, if I may be frank, it's quite unsatisfactory. I've rarely heard a "good/deep" question asked of a player right after a tennis match. Furthermore, it's even rarer that I've heard a player give a "good/deep" response. In fact, tennis ceremonies and on-court interviews are all pretty similar in that the winner expresses sympathy for the loser and acts overly modest while the loser congratulates the winner and vows to compete harder next contest. There is something very contrived and preordained about them.

Personally, if I'm to form some type of opinion on a person's character, I learn more from hearing a player talk about his or her career in retrospect (such as in a book, years later, when they don't have to maintain a competitive edge) and then to weigh his or her comments with my own impressions of the player from his or her “glory days.”

In any event, insight into someone's "soul" through a 30 second television interview is pretty hard to acquire, no?

Besides, you're missing the main point, which is that Collins frequently comes off as a buffoon and is very self-centered in his interviews with players. There’s a fine line between asking a “tough” question and asking an inappropriate question. Look at when Federer declined an interview with him at Wimbledon and Collins proceeded to foam at the mouth to 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!” Did you see Nadal’s reaction? It It was decidedly ungraceful by Collins and about his own ego more than anything else. It was poor journalism.

Another example is Johnny Mac trying to get Sampras and Borg to admit that Federer is the GOAT at Wimbledon while Laver was standing right next to the group. It simply wasn’t classy.

One final note: it's very amusing that you call me a troll and babble on about how I need to provide more "meat" for you to respond, when you are in the very act of responding to two of my posts! Also, I've read your other exchanges with TT posters and quite frankly, you're not particularly pleasant.

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by Datacipher

"He also played 100x better tennis than you. You really don't make yourself look good when you mouth off like this"

Above: the reason why Chopin doesn't directly quote. Makes for a much better troll to misrepresent others words.

PS. The reason why these people are ignorant as to Collins very real tennis skills is that he constantly refers to HIMSELF as a hacker/weekend player/club player. A far cry from these blowhards.

Well, I've certainly heard you bloviate about your own tennis skills on the boards quite a bit, but OK--what rating was Collins? 6.5?