Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Where have you been?

3. Mozart
. . .
9. Haydn

hoodjem, by the way I rank Mozart 3 or 4 (rather four, just behind Bach) and Haydn not among the top ten. I rank at least Händel, Wagner, Mahler, Brahms, Bruckner and Saint-Saens ahead of Haydn.

I wish you impressive listening of Mozart's best works including Don Giovanni, Die Zauberflöte, KV 516, 543, 550, 551, 421...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Most great composers influence each other, just as great tennis players learn from each other.
Mozart certainly learned much from Haydn, just as Hoad learned much from Kramer.
Mozart was profoundly influenced by Bach beginning in 1781 or thereabout, as evidenced by his own compositions, and borrowed a theme from Handel's Messiah (which Mozart orchestrated) for his Requiem.
Nothing wrong with this.

Dan, The point is that I claim that Haydn only reached a certain level after having learnt from Mozart.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by kiki

Who´d be the modern Frank Sedgman? maybe John Newcombe? both had tremendous FH volleys and great net coverage.

Incidentally, Newcombe was not the only player to beat both Emerson and Gimeno at Wimbledon.
There were at least two others who did the same.
One was Laver, the other was Ramanathan Krishnan (in 1960 over Gimeno and 1961 over Emerson).
This puts Bedard's achievement into perspective (he beat Krishnan, Emerson, and Osuna in important matches.)

[kiki]

Krishnan,Osuna,Pietrangeli and Santana
Who said ams game was boring?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Krishnan,Osuna,Pietrangeli and Santana
Who said ams game was boring?

kiki, Boring was only the boom-boom tennis of Emerson and Stolle...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, Boring was only the boom-boom tennis of Emerson and Stolle...

I understand you may not like the classic serve and volley game, but even Ken Rosewall came in on most of his first serves on a fast surface.

There are different ways to enjoy tennis.Now, Rosewall I always enjoyed many aspects of his game, which somewhat can be called as unique.But that does not mean I can appreciate some patterns from Stolle or from Emerson.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

I understand you may not like the classic serve and volley game, but even Ken Rosewall came in on most of his first serves on a fast surface.

There are different ways to enjoy tennis.Now, Rosewall I always enjoyed many aspects of his game, which somewhat can be called as unique.But that does not mean I can appreciate some patterns from Stolle or from Emerson.

kiki, I blame Emerson and Stolle for their rather one-sided game. You are right that Rosewall sometimes played serve and volley but he was more versatile than his two compatriots. Laver and Rosewall were in their own league.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I blame Emerson and Stolle for their rather one-sided game. You are right that Rosewall sometimes played serve and volley but he was more versatile than his two compatriots. Laver and Rosewall were in their own league.

Of course both are in a class apart
But Murray and Djoker are one sided too
Most current pros are

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Of course both are in a class apart
But Murray and Djoker are one sided too
Most current pros are

Kiki,

I beg to differ with Andy Murray. I think he's perhaps the most versatile player in tennis today. He has a huge first serve if he want to go for it. He's improved his second serve. He has a nice variety of spin and angles. He can drop shot very well. Brad Gilbert believes Murray may be the fastest man in tennis although Nadal and Djokovic may sustain it better over five sets. I think his volley is very good and he has good hands at the net. Of course he has one of the best returns in tennis with solid strokes on both sides.

Of course Murray often doesn't use all his skills but at least he has them.

I like Djokovic but it seems to me that he is not as versatile as Murray.

Hey Kiki,

Did you ever think of starting a John Newcombe thread?

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by pc1

Kiki,

I beg to differ with Andy Murray. I think he's perhaps the most versatile player in tennis today. He has a huge first serve if he want to go for it. He's improved his second serve. He has a nice variety of spin and angles. He can drop shot very well. Brad Gilbert believes Murray may be the fastest man in tennis although Nadal and Djokovic may sustain it better over five sets. I think his volley is very good and he has good hands at the net. Of course he has one of the best returns in tennis with solid strokes on both sides.

Of course Murray often doesn't use all his skills but at least he has them.

I like Djokovic but it seems to me that he is not as versatile as Murray.

Wether he can do all that or not doesn't matter because he doens't do it.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Wether he can do all that or not doesn't matter because he doens't do it.

Flash,

You've seen him drop shot very effectively. You've seen the guy overpower top players in the past year when he often didn't do it in the past. You've seen the guy play super defensive tennis if need be. He does do it but sometimes he get carried away with one way. For example he has used the drop shot too much in the past and it has sometimes burnt him. All I'm saying is that he has all the shots imo unlike others who only have one game plan. Murray at least has the ability like Laver or many greats to change his game and win.

I couldn't say that about Agassi for example, great as he was. If Agassi was losing the only option he had was to play his own game better.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Kiki,

I beg to differ with Andy Murray. I think he's perhaps the most versatile player in tennis today. He has a huge first serve if he want to go for it. He's improved his second serve. He has a nice variety of spin and angles. He can drop shot very well. Brad Gilbert believes Murray may be the fastest man in tennis although Nadal and Djokovic may sustain it better over five sets. I think his volley is very good and he has good hands at the net. Of course he has one of the best returns in tennis with solid strokes on both sides.

Of course Murray often doesn't use all his skills but at least he has them.

I like Djokovic but it seems to me that he is not as versatile as Murray.

Hey Kiki,

Did you ever think of starting a John Newcombe thread?

Keep on boards within 2 hrs and your command will be my order
You will have a Newcombe thread and granted your permission I may happen to mix up some Kodes in between and I probably wont be able to some mentions on a great marketing agentagent
Now I am getting home and my kid will be my owner for a while
You are right on Murray
The only comment TMF is right is my lack of interest in currenr game, which me follows very aporadically
If you want to open the Newk one, I will be a loyal poster

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

hoodjem, by the way I rank Mozart 3 or 4 (rather four, just behind Bach) and Haydn not among the top ten. I rank at least Händel, Wagner, Mahler, Brahms, Bruckner and Saint-Saens ahead of Haydn.

I wish you impressive listening of Mozart's best works including Don Giovanni, Die Zauberflöte, KV 516, 543, 550, 551, 421...

I saw Don Giovannni in Prague last summer. An unusual but interesting production (with a young boy dressed all in white as Giovanni's soul leading him to hell at the end).

The others perhaps yes, but as much as I love Bruckner, I would not rank him above "the father of the symphony and the string quartet." Saint-Saens is okay.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I saw Don Giovannni in Prague last summer. An unusual but interesting production (with a young boy dressed all in white as Giovanni's soul leading him to hell at the end).

The others perhaps yes, but as much as I love Bruckner, I would not rank him above "the father of the symphony and the string quartet." Saint-Saens is okay.

hoodjem, Thanks for your post. I think you are an intelligent man who offered great lists about tennis. So I only would be glad if you would be impressed by my four favourite composers, Schubert, Beethoven, Bach and Mozart.

Don Giovanni is one of only five or six operas which I am able to listen to. Most operas are too long for me and too superficial. The others are Fidelio, Die Zauberflöte, Carmen and Samson and Delilah.

I like that you accept Saint-Saens who is often blamed for eclecticism In fact S.-S. has proved that it's possible to write beautiful music also in 20th century (as also the Beatles have proved by the way).

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Keep on boards within 2 hrs and your command will be my order
You will have a Newcombe thread and granted your permission I may happen to mix up some Kodes in between and I probably wont be able to some mentions on a great marketing agentagent
Now I am getting home and my kid will be my owner for a while
You are right on Murray
The only comment TMF is right is my lack of interest in currenr game, which me follows very aporadically
If you want to open the Newk one, I will be a loyal poster

Let's hope your Newk thread will spark some nice posts. Newcombe was certainly a great player and interesting to say the least.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by pc1

Kiki,

I beg to differ with Andy Murray. I think he's perhaps the most versatile player in tennis today.

he's not , federer is still playing ...

Originally Posted by pc1

He has a huge first serve if he want to go for it. He's improved his second serve. He has a nice variety of spin and angles. He can drop shot very well. Brad Gilbert believes Murray may be the fastest man in tennis although Nadal and Djokovic may sustain it better over five sets. I think his volley is very good and he has good hands at the net. Of course he has one of the best returns in tennis with solid strokes on both sides.

Of course Murray often doesn't use all his skills but at least he has them.

I like Djokovic but it seems to me that he is not as versatile as Murray.

yeah, problem is murray doesn't use/display his versatility enough ... he rarely plays aggressively. I thought maybe he was going to turn over a new leaf after the semi vs federer @ the AO, but he went back to playing pusher tennis vs novak in the final ....

while he has better hands than novak @ the net, he comes in quite a bit lesser than him ....

[zagor]

Originally Posted by abmk

he's not , federer is still playing ...

Fed's variety consists in winning through sheer luck, weak era, his opponents' being tired/unmotivated/not mature enough etc.

[kiki]

Federer has a more complete game than Murray.But that does not mean he is a complete player.He ain´t any Laver, for instance.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Let's hope your Newk thread will spark some nice posts. Newcombe was certainly a great player and interesting to say the least.

Many people think Newcombe was a one dimensional player.He was not.he had a sensational attacking FH, one of the best I´ve ever seen and could keep it up with an effective although not offensive BH ( he could chip and come in very well, tough).see the way he dismantled mighty Connors in the 75 AO.

He is very underrated at lobbing, but he could hit this shot with the best.He was clever and could switch tactics from day to day, because he was very strong menthally.

But of course, he had one of the best ever serves and a very good volley to back it up.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

hoodjem, Thanks for your post. I think you are an intelligent man who offered great lists about tennis. So I only would be glad if you would be impressed by my four favourite composers, Schubert, Beethoven, Bach and Mozart.

Don Giovanni is one of only five or six operas which I am able to listen to. Most operas are too long for me and too superficial. The others are Fidelio, Die Zauberflöte, Carmen and Samson and Delilah.

I like that you accept Saint-Saens who is often blamed for eclecticism In fact S.-S. has proved that it's possible to write beautiful music also in 20th century (as also the Beatles have proved by the way).

Surprisingly, we seem to share many of the same tastes. I would rank my composers:
1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Schubert
4. Des Prez
5. Machaut

I am a big fan of Sibelius, Bruckner, and Vaughan Williams also. I do appreciate some Mozart, but mostly only the late stuff--from K. 475 on. The earlier music seems immaculately composed but not very deep to me. Die Zauberflöte and Fidelio, and maybe Othello are about the only operas I can stand. Unfortunately, almost every time I go somewhere I can get tickets to a quality opera production, it is of La Boheme. So I have seen that maybe 20 times--unfortunately.

This summer I shall see Rossini's The Barber of Seville in Vienna. We shall see . . .