A hard post to word.

BTURNER · May 27, 2017

Those who know me well will appreciate how difficult this post is to choke out.

After over a decade on this forum, fellow posters Gizo and Dolgopolov85 have done the near impossible. They have made a compelling case, that it is possible that matter in our universe, could have been concentrated into a lifeform that might have the capability to perform specific functions in a measurable and quantifiable way that we identify with the sport of tennis, and that this lifeform may have performed those specific functions on a surface of crushed shale, stone or brick repeatedly over the course of a decade or more, and that there could exist documented evidence that the performance of those specific functions accomplished specific goals in a way that we could well collectively label as 'superior' to the behavior of another lifeform. It is also within the realm of possibility that the former lifeform may have DNA structured to appear to the naked eye like this

and that and that the latter lifeform may have DNA structured to appear to the naked eye like this

And now I going to wrap black crepe over my front entrance and eat worms.

Dolgopolov85 · May 27, 2017

Very well worded post.

It's a tribute to Nadal's achievements on clay that we are prepared to call him the greatest before he is eligible for membership of this section of the forum.

BTURNER · May 27, 2017

Dolgopolov85 said:
Very well worded post. It's a tribute to Nadal's achievements on clay that we are prepared to call him the greatest before he is eligible for membership of this section of the forum.

Just don't ask me to ever say this could possibly be true, twice.

Dolgopolov85 · May 27, 2017

I won't!

Dan Lobb · May 28, 2017

BTURNER said:
Those who know me well will appreciate how difficult this post is to choke out.

After over a decade on this forum, fellow posters Gizo and Dolgopolov85 have done the near impossible. They have made a compelling case, that it is possible that matter in our universe, could have been concentrated into a lifeform that might have the capability to perform specific functions in a measurable and quantifiable way that we identify with the sport of tennis, and that this lifeform may have performed those specific functions on a surface of crushed shale, stone or brick repeatedly over the course of a decade or more, and that there could exist documented evidence that the performance of those specific functions accomplished specific goals in a way that we could well collectively label as 'superior' to the behavior of another lifeform. It is also within the realm of possibility that the former lifeform may have DNA structured to appear to the naked eye like this

and that and that the latter lifeform may have DNA structured to appear to the naked eye like this

And now I going to wrap black crepe over my front entrance and eat worms.

I think that we must inhabit alternative universes, and observe different planets.

I would choose Hoad for men, Court for women.

NatF · May 28, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
I think that we must inhabit alternative universes, and observe different planets.

I would choose Hoad for men, Court for women.

We've known for a long time that you're not from this universe Dan

treblings · May 28, 2017

portrait-of-swedish-tennis-great-bjorn-borg-and-american-tennis-great-picture-id635973557

treblings · May 28, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
I think that we must inhabit alternative universes, and observe different planets.

I would choose Hoad for men, Court for women.

on clay? because i believe that is what the OP is talking about.

Dan Lobb · May 28, 2017

NatF said:
We've known for a long time that you're not from this universe Dan

I take that as a compliment...I have never striven to be an "agreeable" fair-weather "yes man".

Dan Lobb · May 29, 2017

treblings said:
on clay? because i believe that is what the OP is talking about.

Exhibit A

http://www.ina.fr/video/I05278576

Dan Lobb · May 29, 2017

treblings said:
on clay? because i believe that is what the OP is talking about.

Exhibit B

Dan Lobb · May 29, 2017

'Nuff said.

BTURNER · May 29, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
'Nuff said.

Now really? Your sample size is ridiculously small for what you are asserting. Does a single match ever prove anything more broadly than how well those two players played that one match? I can't recall myself ever asserting much based on one specific match, even if one is all we have on point, which it isn't here.

PDJ · May 29, 2017

treblings said:

Ah, Number Ones that won.....
I'm guessing this isn't Murray and Kerber

PDJ · May 29, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
Exhibit B

By this logic, Evert was better on grass than Court given she followed this loss with beating the Pastor a short time after at Wimbledon.

treblings · May 29, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
'Nuff said.

more than enough

i actually think i understand you. it´s a matter of personal preference, isn´t it? not results or logic

´Nuff said

Dan Lobb · May 29, 2017

BTURNER said:
Now really? Your sample size is ridiculously small for what you are asserting. Does a single match ever prove anything more broadly than how well those two players played that one match? I can't recall myself ever asserting much based on one specific match, even if one is all we have on point, which it isn't here.

We have the two best women clay players at their respective best against each other at Roland Garros...can't get better evidence than that.

Dan Lobb · May 29, 2017

PDJ said:
By this logic, Evert was better on grass than Court given she followed this loss with beating the Pastor a short time after at Wimbledon.

I thought that we were looking at clay, right?

Dan Lobb · May 29, 2017

treblings said:
more than enough
i actually think i understand you. it´s a matter of personal preference, isn´t it? not results or logic

´Nuff said

I look at peak results...'nuff said.

PDJ · May 29, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
I thought that we were looking at clay, right?

Yes, I thought so. But given your answers, I thought not.

PDJ · May 29, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
We have the two best women clay players at their respective best against each other at Roland Garros...can't get better evidence than that.

Evert was her best on clay in 1973? Silly.

BTURNER · May 29, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
We have the two best women clay players at their respective best against each other at Roland Garros...can't get better evidence than that.

well two matches, or a head to head, or three matches

By the way, how much do you know about Chris Evert, her career, her peak years the tour at the time etc? I am really curious why you are going here? This is not your normal playpen.

PDJ · May 29, 2017

BTURNER said:
well two matches, or a head to head, or three matches

By the way, how much do you know about Chris Evert, her career, her peak years the tour at the time etc? I am really curious why you are going here? This is not your normal playpen.

I would have thought the answer is obvious.
Transparently obvious.

Dan Lobb · May 30, 2017

PDJ said:
Yes, I thought so. But given your answers, I thought not.

Strange, I used examples from Roland Garros, last time I looked that was a clay surface.

Dan Lobb · May 30, 2017

PDJ said:
Evert was her best on clay in 1973? Silly.

Court was past prime in 1973. What we have in this match is a player somewhat past prme against a player almost in prime..on the specific surface we wish to evaluate performance on...both playing close to their best.

Dan Lobb · May 30, 2017

BTURNER said:
well two matches, or a head to head, or three matches

By the way, how much do you know about Chris Evert, her career, her peak years the tour at the time etc? I am really curious why you are going here? This is not your normal playpen.

I thought that we were looking at clay, this is the best test of these two hth on clay that we have available.

PDJ · May 30, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
Court was past prime in 1973. What we have in this match is a player somewhat past prme against a player almost in prime..on the specific surface we wish to evaluate performance on...both playing close to their best.

Ok, I must admit I don't really understand your point. Are you saying:
1. Court categorically was a better clay court player than Evert?
2. Court had a better career on clay than Evert?
3. Court was better on just that one specific day in Paris 1973?

Dan Lobb · May 30, 2017

PDJ said:
Ok, I must admit I don't really understand your point. Are you saying:
1. Court categorically was a better clay court player than Evert?
2. Court had a better career on clay than Evert?
3. Court was better on just that one specific day in Paris 1973?

I look at peak performance.

PDJ · May 30, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
I look at peak performance.

And, you're saying Court's peak performance was better than Evert's? If so, why?

Dan Lobb · May 30, 2017

PDJ said:
And, you're saying Court's peak performance was better than Evert's? If so, why?

The best measure we have is this particular match.

PDJ · May 30, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
The best measure we have is this particular match.

So basically you rate Court better on clay for RG 73. And therefore, you rate Evert better on grass for Wimbledon 73. Fair enough.

Dan Lobb · May 30, 2017

PDJ said:
So basically you rate Court better on clay for RG 73. And therefore, you rate Evert better on grass for Wimbledon 73. Fair enough.

I do not believe that I rated anyone on grass.
I rated Court above Evert on clay based on this match.

BobbyOne · May 30, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
I do not believe that I rated anyone on grass.
I rated Court above Evert on clay based on this match.

But you should rate them also on grass to be fair toward both players. In fact Evert was greater on clay and Court was greater on grass. Where is the problem?

BTURNER · May 30, 2017

Evert had literally never played a single tournament on slow European clay before the 1973 French Open. Evert had never played a tournament in Europe before this tournament. Evert had never played in a major final before this tournament. In fact the next week when she played her second red clay tournament in Rome ( this was the last year that the Italian was played after the French) and lost in that final to Goolagong in straight sets. Evert was already lethal on the faster rubico clay, but she was too 'green' on the crushed red brick to expect much from her that season.

Dan Lobb · May 30, 2017

BTURNER said:
Evert had literally never played a single tournament on slow European clay before the 1973 French Open. Evert had never played a tournament in Europe before this tournament. Evert had never played in a major final before this tournament. In fact the next week when she played her second red clay tournament in Rome ( this was the last year that the Italian was played after the French) and lost in that final to Goolagong in straight sets. Evert was already lethal on the faster rubico clay, but she was too 'green' on the crushed red brick to expect much from her that season.

Evert knew how to play on clay...heh heh....

PDJ · May 30, 2017

@Dan Lobb I can only assume you're trying to either be amusing, baiting or you truly believe ONE match decides who is better on clay.
Very hard to take you seriously going forward. I, personally, will view all your subsequent posts - on any subject - flawed and narrow.

Dan Lobb · May 30, 2017

PDJ said:
@Dan Lobb I can only assume you're trying to either be amusing, baiting or you truly believe ONE match decides who is better on clay.
Very hard to take you seriously going forward. I, personally, will view all your subsequent posts - on any subject - flawed and narrow.

I am interested in tennis....got it?

PDJ · May 30, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
I am interested in tennis....got it?

I'm interested in petanque... Doesn't necessarily mean I know much about it.

Dan Lobb · May 30, 2017

PDJ said:
I'm interested in petanque... Doesn't necessarily mean I know much about it.

Whatever.....

Dan Lobb · May 31, 2017

PDJ said:
@Dan Lobb I can only assume you're trying to either be amusing, baiting or you truly believe ONE match decides who is better on clay.
Very hard to take you seriously going forward. I, personally, will view all your subsequent posts - on any subject - flawed and narrow.

Congrats.....you have joined that august list of distinguished posters whose work no longer appears in my vision.
Feel free to pursue self enlightenment at my thread "Tennis in the Second Golden Age of Sports"...I am currently looking at the Beat and Flower people, and their sporting connections.

PDJ · May 31, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
Congrats.....you have joined that august list of distinguished posters whose work no longer appears in my vision.
Feel free to pursue self enlightenment at my thread "Tennis in the Second Golden Age of Sports"...I am currently looking at the Beat and Flower people, and their sporting connections.

And yet you feel the need to tell me.
I'm always amused by posters who believe themselves to be right all the time and become petulant when challenged.
Interesting. Not so much....

abmk · May 31, 2017

Dan Lobb with his non-sense as usual

Dan Lobb · Jun 2, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
Court was past prime in 1973. What we have in this match is a player somewhat past prme against a player almost in prime..on the specific surface we wish to evaluate performance on...both playing close to their best.

Court and Evert played three major matches against each other in 1973, Court winning at Roland Garros, Evert at Wimbledon, Court winning at Forest Hills.
A slight margin of greatness to Court.
Both players were about the same distance from their respective peaks.
Similar to the Federer/Sampras matchup at Wimbledon in 2001.

jaggy · Jun 2, 2017

Classic backhand from Court (as much as I now despise her)

BTURNER · Jun 2, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
Court and Evert played three major matches against each other in 1973, Court winning at Roland Garros, Evert at Wimbledon, Court winning at Forest Hills.
A slight margin of greatness to Court.
Both players were about the same distance from their respective peaks.
Similar to the Federer/Sampras matchup at Wimbledon in 2001.

You are comparing a woman who won three of the four majors that very year and who was ranked number one in the world at that very moment and would retain that ranking until she left the tour after the Open , with a woman who had yet to win a single major, had never reached the number one position for so much as a minute, and would not officially reach that ranking for two more years. they were not 'about the same distance from their respective peaks.

Dan Lobb · Jun 2, 2017

BTURNER said:
You are comparing a woman who won three of the four majors that very year and who was ranked number one in the world at that very moment and would retain that ranking until she left the tour after the Open , with a woman who had yet to win a single major, had never reached the number one position for so much as a minute, and would not officially reach that ranking for two more years. they were not 'about the same distance from their respective peaks.

Evert was very close to mature peak...she won both Wimbledon and Roland Garros the following year.
Court was coming off a long layoff for childbirth, was nearly at the end of her career.
It was very similar to the 2001 matchup of Federer and Sampras.
I would say that they were both about thee same distance from peak.

BTURNER · Jun 2, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
Evert was very close to mature peak...she won both Wimbledon and Roland Garros the following year.
Court was coming off a long layoff for childbirth, was nearly at the end of her career.
It was very similar to the 2001 matchup of Federer and Sampras.
I would say that they were both about thee same distance from peak.

you completely avoided every single fact in my posts, as though world ranking meant nothing and current performance level reflected in 1973, as opposed to 1972 or 1974, meant nothing and experience level meant nothing. Now Dan, you have a reputation here in some quarters, of being, shall we say... obstinate in the face of facts, so I am wary here of wasting my time. I won't do it. If you are not interested in learning about a topic with which you are probably less familiar than other topics, I won't let it bother me. You are not going to be able todo any harm here on this topic, so I will just move along and disengage.

Dan Lobb · Jun 2, 2017

BTURNER said:
you completely avoided every single fact in my posts, as though world ranking meant nothing and current performance level reflected in 1973, as opposed to 1972 or 1974, meant nothing and experience level meant nothing. Now Dan, you have a reputation here in some quarters, of being, shall we say... obstinate in the face of facts, so I am wary here of wasting my time. I won't do it. If you are not interested in learning about a topic with which you are probably less familiar than other topics, I won't let it bother me. You are not going to be able todo any harm here on this topic, so I will just move along and disengage.

No need to get uptight over a minor issue in tennis history, my friend. Life is too short.
The question of evaluating these two great players is complex, and those three matches in 1973 give us a rare opportunity to compare the games of players from two different generations, much like the 2001 Wimbledon match between Fed and Sampras.

Someone has to win, and someone has to lose....you can always reach for excuses, and frankly, I don't buy the excuses you provide above.
You ignore some of the points I raised above, Court's long layoff, Court giving birth to a child shortly before this year...what happened?

BTURNER · Jun 2, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
No need to get uptight over a minor issue in tennis history, my friend. Life is too short.
The question of evaluating these two great players is complex, and those three matches in 1973 give us a rare opportunity to compare the games of players from two different generations, much like the 2001 Wimbledon match between Fed and Sampras.

Someone has to win, and someone has to lose....you can always reach for excuses, and frankly, I don't buy the excuses you provide above.
You ignore some of the points I raised above, Court's long layoff, Court giving birth to a child shortly before this year...what happened?

Nope, disengaging. I won't make myself pissed here.

Dan Lobb · Jun 2, 2017

BTURNER said:
Nope, disengaging. I won't make myself pissed here.

Better not to get too worked up...life is short.

A hard post to word.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads