WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

[hoodjem]

Most impressive:
http://www.bjornhellberg.se/

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

Stat-time again. Borg had like 15 winners in the USO 1976-final and he wasn't that far from winning that too.

Just a small matter: it was 20 winners plus 1 ace.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

The January 1984 Masters tourney has no bearing whatsoever who was No. 1 in 1983. It belongs to 1984, since the year was 1984.

Originally Posted by Borgforever

As for krosero's arguments for Jimbo beating Borg for 3 years, well, he almost lost USO 1976 to a mediocre Borg and he was beaten by Borg just a few months later and continued to be slaughtered by Fortress for five years straight -- only capping a fine win at YEC Masters-final played in January 1978 then blown to smithereens like 10 times in a row or something.

Here you're calling the January 1978 Masters the Year-End Championship.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

Here you're calling the January 1978 Masters the Year-End Championship.

Well I guess you can called it the end of the Tennis Year for 1977. It always struck me as weird but true that you play the end of the tennis year at the beginning of the regular year.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

Well I guess you can called it the end of the Tennis Year for 1977. It always struck me as weird but true that you play the end of the tennis year at the beginning of the regular year.

And it makes quite a difference for Connors in '77. With the Masters he's got a major in his pocket (and Borg a runner-up showing).

It's not that I think he really is in a three-way tie with Borg and Vilas. I don't. But Connors' record in '77 is stronger than I always assumed it was, just looking at the Slams.

And that's true in general of Jimmy's career. If I had to pick one sujbect on which this board has changed my mind the most, it's his career and his skill: he's stronger than I'd ever given him credit for.

[krosero]

Here is SgtJohn's list of majors per year: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...05#post3098705

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

And it makes quite a difference for Connors in '77. With the Masters he's got a major in his pocket (and Borg a runner-up showing).

It's not that I think he really is in a three-way tie with Borg and Vilas. I don't. But Connors' record in '77 is stronger than I always assumed it was, just looking at the Slams.

And that's true in general of Jimmy's career. If I had to pick one sujbect on which this board has changed my mind the most, it's his career and his skill: he's stronger than I'd ever given him credit for.

Excellent point.

Connors was an exceptional strong player. He was unlucky in that his played at the same time as a Borg who could match him easily from the baseline and had some skills Connors didn't have, like a huge serve.

Connors just hit the ball so perfectly. He used his entire body to get great pace on the ball without that much strain to his arms. I wonder if this was what led to his hip replacement.

And people forget what a great defensive player he was and who a great lob he had. He also had excellent footwork and speed.

I always enjoyed the way Connors played. He could spoil it sometimes for me with the way he acted at time but he was a beautiful groundstroker. I would have loved to see him trade groundies with Don Budge. I think from what I've read and some of the video I've seen of Budge that they were somewhat similar groundstrokers.

Some have also compared Connors to Ken Rosewall.

[Borgforever]

Okey my friends, it was not the easiest to translate to flowing English but I think I did about a... 90% correct translation, give or take a few percent.

Hope you enjoy -- here goes Björn Hellberg from his yearly tennis-book about all things tennis during the year 1976 (Hellberg wrote yearly books on tennis for many years like Barrett in a way).

BJÖRN HELLBERG, LAHOLM, SWEDEN, JANUARY 1977:

”WHO WAS THE WORLD’S BEST PLAYER IN 1976: BJÖRN BORG OR JIMMY CONNORS?

Despite a triumph at the most important tennis tournament on the planet (Wimbledon) and a second place in the second most important (Forest Hills) Björn Borg wasn't considered everywhere as the world’s best player for the year 1976. The fact that he also brought Sweden to victory at the Davis Cup (the ranking year starts and begins on October 1st – therefore the DC-final is included in the evaluation), came second at the GP Masters in Stockholm and triumphed in the sublime WCT-finals in Dallas wasn’t enough to convince some reluctant experts…

Therefore Borg has been placed after Jimmy Connors in both the greatest American publications WORLD TENNIS and TENNIS as well as by the respected English tennis-journalist Lance Tingay.

These are words that weigh heavily: They cannot just be waved away in the manner you swat away at flies – Borg hasn’t been recognized as the bona-fide No. 1 for the year in question by the above mentioned certified authorities.

- Which is a bit sad. I really would’ve appreciated to seen as the number one after a season such as this one, Borg said himself on the subject.

Lennart Bergelin’s tone was harsh:

- That Borg is considered by some to be number two is a grand scandal -- an outrage -- pure and simple. The kid has the merits, the record for the top spot. What do they really demand?

Interesting to note is that two aknowledged tennis-journalists in the Stockholm-press put forth different views in the question. Björn Gyllenberg, DAILY NEWS/DAGENS NYHETER, is adamant that Borg was No. 1 while Sune Sylvén, SWEDISH DAILY PAPER/SVENSKA DAGBLADET, regards Connors as the best player during the period in question.

It seems this question has become an issue of prestige between these two players since Connors has several times become openly furious when the subject has been brought up to him and has yelled that he, not Björn, was the world’s strongest.

In all rankings in tennis – it’s a matter of subjective opinions. I have myself ranked the world’s best tennisplayers every year since 1962 in many publications, and I must admit that I didn’t hesitate for one single second as regards to the top name when I, this last autumn, as usual hammered out the traditional yearly world ranking-list for the SWEDISH TENNIS MAGAZINE/TENNISTIDNINGEN.

Björn Borg was, as I saw it, undisputed No. 1 for the year 1976.

Any reason to revise this view-point simply doesn’t exist whatsoever – and then the Anglo-Sachsons can think whatever they want for all I care.

Borg wasn’t the most dominant tennis-emperor in the last decades – Rod Laver 1962, 1967 and 1969, Roy Emerson as an amateur 1964 and Jimmy Connors in 1974 had a better year-end records -- but Björn’s position as lone ruler is as solid as a rock according to the complete analysis to such a degree that it actually stuns me that he isn’t solidly regarded as the 1976 top dog all across the board.

People in the ”Connors-camp” base their evaluation basically on the great tournament-winning consistency of the American and on the fact that he conquered Borg in every single of their four battles during this time-period (plus one exxo making it 5-0 in H2Hs during this time).

But you just can’t go strictly by H2Hs. The list’s third man, the great Ilie Nastase, has a great plus-quota in H2Hs against Connors while he – during the same time-frame – has been utterly destroyed by Borg at both the most important battles they had: the Wimbledon-final 1976 and the 1976 Forest Hills-semifinal.

Connors is alas a great champion (probably the most consistently winning player all across this specific time-frame) but when you build a ranking-list you just have to base it on the actual record and the facts. That is what has to be evaluated: not any subjectivities in the style of ”I just have a hunch, a feeling that Jimmy was better than Borg”.

Borg won Wimbledon, the WCT-finals, runner-up at GP Masters and Forest Hills, add to that a QF in Paris and a victory at the US Professionals in Boston (where Connors went down in flames against the talented Raul Ramirez).

Against this Connors has victories, among others Forest Hills and Philadelphia (and he whipped Borg on both occasions) and a QF at Wimbledon, where he was blown off court by Tanner in straights – who in turn was blown off court by Borg in an even greater fashion than he dispatched his fellow American in the previous round.

The temperamental Yankee pulled out of GP Masters, the WCT-finals (he only sporadically played a few WCT-tourneys before he inexplicably pulled out yet again) and at the red clay world championships he was as usual a no-show.

One must recognize the vital fact that – as Borg was leading Sweden with his generalship both in singles and doubles via triumphs against Jiri Hrebec and Jan Kodes – Jimmy Connors lost the all-important deciding DC-match against the very same smooth Raul Ramirez in Mexico City.

My respect for Jimmy Connors as a tennis-player and great champion is also as solid as a rock, but I don’t consider it motivated in any way shape or form to place him above Borg for the year 1976, and this is not said in some kind of faintly flattering chauvinism.

To win Wimbledon alone isn’t enough to be automatically placed at the peak of the tennis-piedestal…

But if you back-up one of the most dominant Wimbledon-bullseyes – 21-0 in sets for 7 matches over 13 days -- such a steamrolling performance at the world’s most important championship is an extremely rare occurance in tennis-history -- with a lot of other great results and near-wins at other great tournaments – you earn the position of a worthy No. 1.

So my answer to question of who was the world’s best player in 1976 it is – without any reservation:

Björn Borg!”

Reactions?

[Borgforever]

I will add a some rare quotes about Borg's injuries in the next post...

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

Okey my friends, it was not the easiest to translate to flowing English but I think I did about a... 90% correct translation, give or take a few percent.

Hope you enjoy -- here goes Björn Hellberg from his yearly tennis-book about all things tennis during the year 1976 (Hellberg wrote yearly books on tennis for many years like Barrett in a way).

BJÖRN HELLBERG, LAHOLM, SWEDEN, JANUARY 1977:



Reactions?

My initial reaction would be to roll my eyes a little bit. The Swedes favouring Borg is not surprising.

My other reaction would be to refer to SgtJohn's point that Philadelphia was one of the better attended events that year and Connors beat Borg there. He rates it as one of the 'adjusted majors'.

I tend to agree with him. The suggestion that Connors was rated above Borg solely due to the h2h is silly.

[Spyre]

TRUE WORLD NO. 1
(BY YEAR)
1972—Smith
1973—Nastase
1974—Connors
1975—Ashe
1976—Connors/Borg
1977—Borg/Vilas
1978—Borg
1979—Borg
1980—Borg(5)
1981—McEnroe
1982—Connors(4)
1983—McEnroe/Wilander
1984—McEnroe(3)
1985—Rosz/Lendl
1986—Rosz
1987—Rosz
1988—Rosz
1989—Rosz
1990—Rosz
1991—Rosz
1992—Rosz
1993—Rosz
1994—Rosz
1995—Rosz
1996—Rosz
1997—Rosz
1998—Rosz
1999—Rosz
2000—Rosz
2001—Rosz
2002—Rosz
2003—Rosz
2004—Rosz
2005—Rosz
2006—Rosz
2007—Rosz
2008—Rosz
2009—Rosz (24)

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...=294229&page=4

[pc1]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

My initial reaction would be to roll my eyes a little bit. The Swedes favouring Borg is not surprising.

My other reaction would be to refer to SgtJohn's point that Philadelphia was one of the better attended events that year and Connors beat Borg there. He rates it as one of the 'adjusted majors'.

I tend to agree with him. The suggestion that Connors was rated above Borg solely due to the h2h is silly.

This stuff about adjusted majors can be a problem. I understand why someone does it but it's pretty dangerous becausse how do you really rank the strength and prestige of a tournament? For example Rod Laver won the 1971 Tennis Championship Classic by winning 13 matches and losing none. It was a big event and Laver defeated Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, Okker, Roche, Taylor, Emerson, Ralston and some of them several times. How do you rank a tournament like that? The field was awesome but Laver did have a lot of rest between matches but he did win it and he won more matches than any normal major. Do you rank it as double a major?

Do you rank it above the 1973 weaken Wimbledon? Wimbledon is still Wimbledon and was still more prestigious than the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic.

I think it's pretty clear the Year End Masters was basically a major but to rank the Philadelphia tournament and some other tournaments as an adjusted major to me is a (no pun intended) major problem.

I mean where does it end? Is the Federer win over Soderling not as important because he didn't beat Rafa? I think it is just as important but I'm purposely using this as an absurd example to show how far it can go.

My point is that we have to be careful when we do things like this.

I think you can take the strength and prestige of a tournament in that particular year and take it into account for the rankings and also for the player's career but a major is a major. Money aside, I think Laver would have preferred to have the weakened 1973 Wimbledon in his career resume than the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic. At least I would guess he would.

Laver's stated before that he would have loved to come back more for the glory than the money.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

Okey my friends, it was not the easiest to translate to flowing English but I think I did about a... 90% correct translation, give or take a few percent.

Hope you enjoy -- here goes Björn Hellberg from his yearly tennis-book about all things tennis during the year 1976 (Hellberg wrote yearly books on tennis for many years like Barrett in a way).

BJÖRN HELLBERG, LAHOLM, SWEDEN, JANUARY 1977:



Reactions?

Thanks for translating that, in my English-centeredness I'd assumed that the article must exist in English somewhere.

Okay, the first thing that jumps out in Hellberg's article is that he defines the tennis season as beginning October 1. Now I haven't spent a lot of time researching such things, but where does this come from? I have no idea. Anyone know?

It's strange because it means that Hellberg is not including events that took place in the last three months of 1976 as belonging to 1976. Presumably they belong to 1977 in his definition. And the last three months of 1975 go to the 1976 season.

So this shows that the whole question of how the season relates to the calendar year is even more complex.

And if Hellberg is defining his year from October to October, I might agree with him that Borg is #1. I don't know -- the whole race for #1 has to be literally re-calculated. Offhand I don't know all the small tournaments that have to be shifted. We do know to include Borg's Davis Cup wins and his Masters runner-up showing, so like I said, that might push him over the top. I'd still be reluctant to do it based on his H2H with Connors -- but I respect Hellberg's opinion that H2H should not be such an important criteria. It is for me, and for many others (including experts).

Finally there's Hellberg's point about Borg doing better against Nastase and Tanner than Connors did. That's fine, but when he gets into this, he's essentially getting into H2H's, so there's only so much emphasis that can go to Borg's victories over other men before you have to return to Borg's H2H against Connors.

I see where he's coming from, I just think it's a limited argument -- and it runs from October to October so it's not really what Hoodjem is talking about.

So now I wonder, Borgforever, do you know how Hellberg defines the 1983 season? That Masters tournament in January 1984 is crucial, and if Hellberg is not including it then McEnroe has a weaker argument.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by pc1

This stuff about adjusted majors can be a problem. I understand why someone does it but it's pretty dangerous becausse how do you really rank the strength and prestige of a tournament? For example Rod Laver won the 1971 Tennis Championship Classic by winning 13 matches and losing none. It was a big event and Laver defeated Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, Okker, Roche, Taylor, Emerson, Ralston and some of them several times. How do you rank a tournament like that? The field was awesome but Laver did have a lot of rest between matches but he did win it and he won more matches than any normal major. Do you rank it as double a major?

Do you rank it above the 1973 weaken Wimbledon? Wimbledon is still Wimbledon and was still more prestigious than the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic.

I think it's pretty clear the Year End Masters was basically a major but to rank the Philadelphia tournament and some other tournaments as an adjusted major to me is a (no pun intended) major problem.

I mean where does it end? Is the Federer win over Soderling not as important because he didn't beat Rafa? I think it is just as important but I'm purposely using this as an absurd example to show how far it can go.

My point is that we have to be careful when we do things like this.

I think you can take the strength and prestige of a tournament in that particular year and take it into account for the rankings and also for the player's career but a major is a major. Money aside, I think Laver would have preferred to have the weakened 1973 Wimbledon in his career resume than the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic. At least I would guess he would.

Laver's stated before that he would have loved to come back more for the glory than the money.

Forget the term 'adjusted major' - I only brought it up to point to the fact that Philadelphia was an important, well-attended event. Both Connors and Borg played there and Connors won.

Borg did win Dallas, but Jimmy wasn't there and he wasn't obligated to be there.

As for Wimbledon 1973, I would definitely rate it behind events like Dallas and Masters of the same year. But it's important to explain why - SgtJohn is not looking to determine which events were more prestigious. Rather he is looking at the results most demonstrative of who the best, most successful players were.

Ultimately that is all that matters.

[Borgforever]

I have little time now so I wish I could translate more -- Hellberg's ranking argument for other years for instance.

Short personal reaction. Hellberg is a very level-headed man. One of the calmest and sound persons one could ever come across. Brilliant. Like Borg on red clay.

I will answer the October-question tomorrow krosero...

CyB -- don't reduce this to a flawed, knee-jerk interpretation like "Swedes are behind Swedes". Hellberg clearly states that a Swede, Sylvén, supports Connors-case in this issue and Swedes rarely believe they are better than anyone until it's proven beyond reasonable doubt. Hellberg has Alexander Karelin as the GOAT of all athletes in recorded 2000-year-history, since the Greeks.

Hellberg has Laver above Borg -- and he saw both at their blinding best. A Swede backing a Swede? Thanks man. I thought better of you.

The clincher for me is Borg's victory at Boston when Björn blasted everybody and Jimbo sunk against Ramirez, which he also did when Borg won the DC-final practically single-handed -- but the the strongest argument for me is the Wimby-confrontations:

First. Borg lost serve five times in 21 sets -- twice in the final. He wasn't even on the betting board before the tourney. Tanner gave 7-1 as a winner. People laughed at Borg. Until his started to scorch the sun-baked grass with thunder serve and his most fierce killer instinct.

Now the main point. Jimbo, in the world championships, couldn't handle Tanner nuclear serve and splendid overall form in combo. The greatest returner in the game didn't manage to hold serve enough or even touch Roscoe's missiles and went out in humiliating fashion by a player on fire.

Tanner was favorite and he had the game-style that gave Borg most trouble. Mac had studied Tanner's style against Borg and realized that Björn hated quick, explosive points with lots of waiting in between. The trickster style.

Anyhoo -- Tanner comes out like against Connors. The temp is around 40 degrees celsius, around, i don't know 90s-100s F, or something and the grass fits Roscoe's game like a silk glove.

But Borg is a virtual armor-piercing Fortress moving like lightning. And bombing his serve with almost as much power but more consistently than even an on fire Tanner does.

If Tanner could crush Jimbo -- then on paper Borg would be even more so.

When they reach 4-all in two of the sets Borg murders his game at love like he just did all through the match to 5-4 and then pretty much screams four deadly returns bullseye in the corners past a stunned Tanner.

Just when he needed it. At the biggest stage in the world. The Championships. It was his trademark.

He dealed with Tanner with better play than Jimbo did. He returned Roscoe better. Remember in the 1979-final that went to five sets -- well, Tanner broke Borg ONLY ONCE in five sets, and his returns while not brilliant was darn good that year -- and Borg managed to break Roscoe a whopping four times. And who was supposed to possess the serve as the greatest weapon in tennis?

Tanner, while being on fire, having the momentum, the court advantage, the confidence of his supreme triumph against a peak Jimbo under his belt, was humiliated without even breaking Borg once and not getting even a set.

Then of course comes the amazing Nastase blowout-final in the sauna...

Borg did what Connors couldn't -- handle Tanner and Nastase -- which Jimbo couldn't -- even at the world championships at tennis...

Then Borg's recovery and brave, close final against Jimbo at USO was just the icing on the cake.

As well as the WCT-finals at Dallas -- which -- according to Hellberg better run than any tourney, save Wimby. Absolutely magnificent arena, crowd, smooth, great tennis, incredible atmosphere, all players loved it, big money -- WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS it was called and it fought for major-status.

The crazy thing was that Borg would continue to be invincible on grass and clay for four years straight basically.

And the nuttiest thing is that this Ice Cold Ghost Killah was only 20 when he raised the golden Wimby-trophy for the first time in his life...

[krosero]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

I tend to agree with him. The suggestion that Connors was rated above Borg solely due to the h2h is silly.

Yes, and for all my emphasis on H2H, I tend to use it when there's a close race or there are some important questions about who really was dominant. The bread-and-butter of yearly rankings is still, how many titles did you win and how well-attended were they?

With Borg and Connors in '76, I'm still having trouble seeing even a tie. Yes, Borg has Wimbledon and the Dallas WCT. But Connors with the USO and Philadelphia stacks up against that. Meanwhile in tournament totals, Connors leads Borg by 12 to 6 (a considerably larger margin than Wilander has over McEnroe in 1983).

How does such a record as Connors had in '76 come to be seen as #2 caliber? And #2 to a man with 6 titles -- who was defeated every time the two men met?

Borg has a strong record that year, but Connors' record is very tough to match, much less overcome.

What I've been trying to get at with H2H is some underlying issues of skill and confidence. I have always understood that Borg and Wilander had their decisive breakthroughs, defeating their main rivals, in 1977 and 1988. It's new to me to hear that they actually reached the top earlier, and I have trouble giving it to them merely on stats in bulk. IMO both men still had some way to go before -- some important issues to resolve -- before they reached a place unquestionably at the top of the sport.

I don't insist, incidentally, that to be #1 you always must meet and defeat your main rival. He might be injured or on sabbatical, semi-retired, or just having a poor year, losing early before even meeting you in imporant finals. A lot of things can happen, and then you can step in and legitimately be #1. Nothing here is a rigid rule. But when your rival is there and you meet him, the H2H says a lot about whether you're physically and mentally ready to be #1.

[Borgforever]

The H2H doesn't matter much in this particular case for these reasons:

* Borg won the biggest. Connors was in the field and sunk. And Borg's triumph-style and stats are still unsurpassed. A more glorious triumph at the established biggest stage in the world. Connors lost to the man Borg crushed.

* Jimbo never met the finest form Borg and after Wimby they were very close while Borg's form was down -- thereafter Borg dominated their H2H in a unique manner.

* Federer's H2H against Rafa during some of his peak years look like Borg Connors in 1976 but there's no disputing that Roger was No. 1 and won the biggest tourneys and beat the other guys that took out Rafa. There's a lot of nuance...

[Borgforever]

The ATP Players voted Borg as No. 1 for 1976 besides TENNIS DE FRANCE, I guess, plus several other authorities -- not to mention the world's accumulated all-sports-covering respected journalists...

In hindsight -- the Jimbo for No. 1 in 1976 seems to be the minority view in this case, all things considered when it comes to opinions expressed in this case...

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

CyB -- don't reduce this to a flawed, knee-jerk interpretation like "Swedes are behind Swedes". Hellberg clearly states that a Swede, Sylvén, supports Connors-case in this issue and Swedes rarely believe they are better than anyone until it's proven beyond reasonable doubt. Hellberg has Alexander Karelin as the GOAT of all athletes in recorded 2000-year-history, since the Greeks.

Hellberg has Laver above Borg -- and he saw both at their blinding best. A Swede backing a Swede? Thanks man. I thought better of you.

My remarks were about my reaction to what I'd read, which is what you asked for. I was simply being honest. I am a big Borg fan, so I tend to have some biases about him. Knowing that, I tend to react with skepticism when a Borg fan or a Swede rates Borg ahead of another player.

This does not mean that I dismiss the point of view and thus not even consider it in depth. Rather, the skepticism immediately arises and is difficult to shake off. This is my reaction. It is not necessarily a fair one, but it does not necessarily mean that it will dominate my ultimate review of the points raised. I will still calmly and carefully analyze the statement and attempt to not let my skepticism interfere too much.

I find the comments posted to be somewhat thin and reductive of the pro-Connors position (that it all comes down to h2h, which is not the only point to be made for Connors). This paragraph: "People in the ”Connors-camp” base their evaluation basically on the great tournament-winning consistency of the American and on the fact that he conquered Borg in every single of their four battles during this time-period (plus one exxo making it 5-0 in H2Hs during this time)."

It is not very well thought-out and creates a false dichotomy that the debate is solely between two sides (suggesting that the truth lies in one of the two camps). The comment confirms that my initial reaction of skepticism was not completely foolish, as a clear sign of bias is to create a false dichotomy, but that points to the writer of that piece specifically (rather than a population, so don't get me wrong there).

I also did not ignore that there are Swedes who favoured Connors. I am aware of this and I never said that Swedes are all biased for Borg. That being said, Swedes are more likely to be biased for Borg, and that heightens my skepticism but does not cement or finalize my point of view about the opinion raised.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

The ATP Players voted Borg as No. 1 for 1976 besides TENNIS DE FRANCE, I guess, plus several other authorities -- not to mention the world's accumulated all-sports-covering respected journalists...

In hindsight -- the Jimbo for No. 1 in 1976 seems to be the minority view in this case, all things considered when it comes to opinions expressed in this case...

The fact that players voted for Borg does not qualify as an argument for Borg, in my opinion. Any attempt to present that fact as an argument would be an appeal to authority. Players are not necessarily making logical arguments for one player over another, nor are they obligated to be impartial.

I would imagine that Jimmy was not terribly well-liked at the time by most players.

That being said, having read your arguments for Borg as the #1 in 1976 I have begun to feel that he was closer to Connors than I'd initially assumed. So I think that your argumentation has been very sound and always is. However I'm not a big fan of the piece you've posted. I tend to be very critical of journalistic pieces in general and tend to shoot down any appeals to opinion pieces. I do not believe that opinion pieces, in themselves, do much to strengthen points of view. Only facts can.