So what? What is it you begrudge? The millions? He didn't rob banks. He played tennis. And was good at it. He had charisma. He used it. He learned - in your opinion - to cultivate an image. So what? Don't we all try to cultivate an image for ourselves, every day? Do you want people you work with to think you're a jerk? Of course not. You cultivate a favourable image for yourself. Why is it ok for you and not ok for him? As long as he didn't steal money from you, why do you care? And how do you think people EARN money for their charities? They go out and get it however they can. And he is very good at earning money for his charity Why should this bother YOU? He's not asking you for money. If Longines - or any other company - wants to be associated with him, for the good of his charity, and he accepts their offer, I fail to see what is so wrong with that.
Agassi book readers? I need to share my dissapointment with somebody!!
- Thread starter Oldracquet27
- Start date
So what? What is it you begrudge? The millions? He didn't rob banks. He played tennis. And was good at it. He had charisma. He used it. He learned - in your opinion - to cultivate an image. So what? Don't we all try to cultivate an image for ourselves, every day? Do you want people you work with to think you're a jerk? Of course not. You cultivate a favourable image for yourself. Why is it ok for you and not ok for him? As long as he didn't steal money from you, why do you care? And how do you think people EARN money for their charities? They go out and get it however they can. And he is very good at earning money for his charity Why should this bother YOU? He's not asking you for money. If Longines - or any other company - wants to be associated with him, for the good of his charity, and he accepts their offer, I fail to see what is so wrong with that.
The OP needs to learn something about human beings. Agassi has had intense ambivalence about tennis owing to his having been forced to do it as a kid, not finding it emotionally satisfying, and not reallly valuing it as his own. The vast majority of people I know are very ambivalent about what they do for a living and could fully understand how Agassi feels. Perhaps it's difficult for recreational players to relate to the pain, monotony and loneliness that comes with being a tour player. I found his honesty refreshing and his analysis of his own feelings very insightful. How one can see such expressions disrespectful of anyone or anything is amazing to me.
Oldracquet27
Rookie
I agree with that one too. I think he portrayed that story about Steffi, to make her feel good or something. But think about this, the guy separated from Brooke today and tomorrow he was sending flowers to Steffi when everybody was still thinking that they were married. Can you wait a little for God Sake? He is very lucky to ende up with Steffi at the end, who looks to me like a down to earth woman.
I agree that Agassi is fake it always gave me that impression before the book.
Oldracquet27
Rookie
Yes, i think truly philant. people don't like or pursue: (publicity). Agassi wants everybody to know how good he is cause he gives this and that....NOt a good sign and we know it.
Last edited:
Oldracquet27
Rookie
Yes, that is why i said he is contradictory, when he was playing with Graff, it was even raining! and Agassi wanted to keep playing even though Graff needed to go to pick up the kids. Wow, how much he hates to hit that little yellow ball.!!!!
Datacipher
Banned
I have no earthly idea. If Pat did anything to deserve the childish insults, or the outright statements that he was incompetent, then it wasn't in the book; AND if you're going to do that, and have a good reason, you'd put it in the book!
What I do know is that during a lot of 89, and early 90, Agassi bragged over and over about his new training, his new strength, his new fitness, his hard-work and his trainer. (it's a bit odd because Andre claims in the book he worked with Gil through fall 89, but at the time, he specifically mentioned that he worked hard with Etcheberry through the winter break (December), he does say he approached Reyes formally in Jan 1990). Even at the 1990 FO, when he claimed to be so strong, (GIl had now just appeared on TV during the early 1990 season), was it all the short time with GIl? Or did all his work with Pat the previous year help? Hmmm....
He then makes it sound like he was doing everything all wrong in the gym with Pat, that Gil said even his arm curls were going to cause career disaster...that everyone was staring at his terrible form....O....K....I find that hard to believe. Really? Pat can't do benchpress? Pat can't do arm curls? I have video footage of them working out in a gym, and it looks decent to me (I was a trainer for a LONG time). This isn't rocket science, and while Gil' manner, and "breakdown" of long words and "theory" may seem good to Andre, I'm not sure Gil has magic secrets either. He certainly doesn't not have say...a masters in exercise science, kinetics, physiology, or anything else..though I am not saying that is necessary. I happen to think my best knowledge as a trainer came from experience NOT from any course, or book. Still, let's not pretentiously assume that Gil is a PHD in mechanics. Nor should we ignore that Andre was PLENTY UNFIT many times in his career. Now, I don't blame Gil...he can't MAKE Andre work, but again, there was no special magic here. (possibly chemistry supplementation aside)
He also makes it sound as if Pat only had him do long distance running, and that Gil had the stunning insight (didn't he say something like it was the smartest thing about training he EVER heard) that tennis was about stopping and starting? O...K....well, tennis magazine did a spread about cross-training in early 1990 that featured YOU and PAT, doing plyometrics, running drills, acceleration drills, footwork driils....Gil told you...hey, you better get good at taking a few steps and changing direction not long distance running? Funny, I saw a pic of you doing a drill where you watch pat, as he randomly signals run/move left, run/move right, and switch...simulating points.....hmmm....are you sure you never heard of this stuff before??
Ok, so Pat was no good....so let's write over and over how he spit. Gee, I wonder if you'd be mad if Pat wrote an article about you, where everytime he recounts you saying something he mentions your dead-rat breath?? Andre the toxic breath Iranian?? Hope Perry doesn't write a memoir featuring Agassi the chronic nose-picker. Well...maybe they won't be quite that childish eh?
Like I said, there are a LOT of little things like that in the book....again, Boris "socrates" stood out to me....yeah...I found Boris "sometimes I don't care about tennis, it's not that important, being a good person, and trying to understand life is important" a bit annoying, but IF ANYONE should understand that it should be...um...let me see......and like it or not, Boris never tanked anywhere the number of matches you did, or faded away as badly as you did, wasting months/years....no, Boris is probably no paper-publishing philosopher...but um...you ain't either Andre.
Even Jimbo like I mentioned. Now long-term fans...we've all seen Connors do plenty of jerky things on the court. He is, by all accounts, basically an unapologetically selfish guy. Still, he is one of the most intense players who ever lived, you know that, you know he's not super nice in the locker room, the other players told you that...do you think MAYBE he's not going to be too talkative right before you PLAY AGAINST HIM?? (which is his right...)
Do you think that maybe even though you remember it well, hitting a few balls with a four year old kid wasn't a lifetime memory for him? Do you think maybe, just maybe, the kid who delivered his racquets while he was hanging out with his buddies in Vegas, is not something he's gonna remember 10 years later? Yes I know you're the new flavor on the tour, but maybe, just maybe, another hotshot 18 yr old doesn't mean much to Connors, who seen dozens come and go. MAYBE Connors, who is in the QF of a slam, knowing full well, that his days of even being a very outside contender are numbering very few, doesn't feel like yakkity yak before his match??
Maybe his doing that doesn't justify your indignant anger at not being acknowledged? Maybe you shouldn't have made that prediction...which you swore after was not a prediction.....but now admit WAS a prediction, you made out of anger. (you were STILL repeating that lie a year later, afraid of backlash from the fans when you played him again in 89.....even though by then, he one-upped you by not outright accepting your excuse/apology (he KNEW you meant it) and saying "I really don't pay attention to anything he says to be honest!")..
Maybe, just maybe, you should think: gee, I guess it's no surprise that Jimmy Connors doesn't want to yak before the match. The guy is intense. I certainly wouldn't expect a guy who's been a legend, and traveling the world for the last 20+ years to remember me as little kid! Well, still, it's a nice memory, he didn't HAVE to hit with me, and do you think when he would tussle your hair and say something "sarcastic" about you, that maybe, in your little child mind, or in your retrospective bitterness, you may be mistinterpreting that? Do you remember anything he actually said? You dont' tell us.....do you think that maybe when you stormed off court when hitting with Nastase, that he wasn't really trying to ridicule you? That he was bored (which you admit), because he didnt' want to hit with you at all, but your psycho dad harrassed him relentlessly (which you admit). That maybe he was just trying to be light-hearted and joke around with the crowd of 200? So he called you "snoopy".....oh yikes...harsh for NASTY NASTASE.....he kept asking you if Wendi was your gf? Gee....annoying sure, but sounds like typical adult/child teasing to me.
Anyways, could go on and on but
basically, as I said many times before, i think Andre is basically a decent person. He CERTAINLY has spent his whole life cultivating his image, and continues to do so now. In fact, I suspect his image means more to him than EVER before. Again...a very hypocritical thing. I think he needs to think about things (PEOPLE) a bit more before he lashes out. And certainly, people need to realize that the book, while quite candid on some things, and certainly I believe quite truthful, is the MOST contrived, prepared, and measured communication POSSIBLE. There are lies in the book...exactly how many, we'll never know. Surely there are some, possibly many, that I do not know about. Andre got very good at saying the right things in his late career interviews...a book...well....you can't get a better press release than that. And with the good writing...it's easy to drag the feeble-minded, or the less knowledgeable fans right in over the course of hundreds of one-sided pages.
One phrase from Connors rings true...when Agassi made was trying to retract his prediction a year later..saying it wasn't a prediction, Connors said "it's fine. He's young...still learning. He's in the process of figuring out what goes over well and what doesn't." TRUE.
Oldracquet27
Rookie
You are as small minded as Agasii, look at you , making this a competition of who made the witter or smarter comment???? Oh god!!! You are new user, who are you, Agassi's assistant?
Datacipher
Banned
nope. I'll call your bs whenever I like. Another winning post. Gee, wonder who has content and who just has rhetoric?? Wonder who actually knows tennis....WONDER???
Gotta love anyone who will ask you to have the COURTESY TO IGNORE THEIR BS (LOL!) and then 3 lines later declare they could chew you up and spit you out if...if only....they wanted to....
IDIOT.
Datacipher
Banned
LOL. DP...you don't post enough these days from what I've seen. I think AA is just a minor BS artist, with a selective memory. I think in general he's trying to be pretty earnest...it's just that, he BS's some things, and doesn't even recognize his own hypocrisy and childishness in others.....which is ironic, since it's the very thing he tries so hard not to portray....
No disrespect but you miss the point and by the way I liked Agassi until reading his book and the fiasco at the Hit for Haiti. (lets not go there that has been discussed in other threads ad nauseum) The point is that in his book Andre tried to spin around the "image is everything", the pirate look with Nike , etc. and stated that the images created were not what he wanted and hated them. However, he did nothing about them and even used them to his advantage to earn the second most lucrative endorsement deal in all of sports. He stated he hated the image is everything stuff from Canon. Then, why didn't he put a stop to it after the first commercial ran? Instead, he continued to endorse Cannon for many years after that, throughout most if not all of his career?
Addendum: Regarding his philanthropic efforts, thats great. However, other famous people-athletes, entertainers, billionaires, etc. do not tirelessly promote themselves as givers, they just give with no campaign to create an image as a giver.
Last edited:
Well, the truth is he has a HUGE Crush on me - really - it's getting embarrassing. Just think if he used his time for good instead of frantically leafing through threads to find my words - he knows them all practically by heart; why he could have raised hundreds for charity - say - The Agassi Foundation for Education.
Datacipher
Banned
Ugh..not only that, but Sampras comment appeared to be a subtle jab as the ideologies of the liberal Obama. A bit of a socialism poke. Actually, far more sophisticated than the childish jibes of Agassi.
Datacipher
Banned
ROFL. Yes, the ignoring thing went well eh? Your mental discipline is as strong as your logic, and the depth of your tennis knowledge. It is interesting...the level on which you and your ilk operate....very revealing.
davey25
Banned
I liked some aspects of the book, didnt like many others. That would sum up my thoughts. I found some of the excessive resentment towards Sampras and many other players dissapointing. I dont mind frank honesty but he came across as excessively bitter at times.
The part that bothered me most of all though was this:
I call f-ing BS on this. There was no mention of even a slight injury at the time. There was absolutely nothing in his play that indicated he was in pain or even slightly injured, let alone torn rib cartilage. I have no doubt at all this was all made up to try and make it look as if he only lost that match because of a phantom injury. The whole thing is completely fabricated.
I understand that was a very painful loss for him, I felt horribly for him at the time too as I always felt this was a pivotal match of his career. Still to invent some phantom injury that never existed, not just a small one but some huge one, is very low class on his part.
The part that bothered me most of all though was this:
I call f-ing BS on this. There was no mention of even a slight injury at the time. There was absolutely nothing in his play that indicated he was in pain or even slightly injured, let alone torn rib cartilage. I have no doubt at all this was all made up to try and make it look as if he only lost that match because of a phantom injury. The whole thing is completely fabricated.
I understand that was a very painful loss for him, I felt horribly for him at the time too as I always felt this was a pivotal match of his career. Still to invent some phantom injury that never existed, not just a small one but some huge one, is very low class on his part.
davey25
Banned
The other thing I really didnt like was the total direspect for certain players. Michael Chang was one of those he completely disrespected at every turn. Saying how embarassing it was that Michael freaking Chang won a slam before him, as if Chang was some chump. I understand saying he was surprised and felt he should have won a slam before Chang, that would have been totally fine. Of course feeling he is a greater talent than Chang is the truth anyway. However he dissed Chang as if it was some hack beating him to it. Then saying Chang only beat him in two slam semis in 96 since he tanked, and gave Chang the matches. That Chang had no part in earning those victories.
I think you're being a little naive. You, me or the next person probably have NO idea what goes on in the life of a super-athlete. Like so many things in life it's so EASY to say - "well, this is what he should have done". Unfortunately, life is never that easy - and I can't imagine what it must be like to be a 16 year old kid - who was never able to develop any social skills - hit with this sort of whirlwind. I'm sure he did enjoy a lot of it - wouldn't you? I would. If you read the book you know he came from a family that didn't have a lot of money; that he didn't have nice things or nice clothes. So when he gets a taste of money and fame, he goes a little nuts. Is that so "bad"? I'm honest enough to admit I'd probably like a taste of fame and money. And once you have money - why wouldn't you want to keep making more? I know I'd sure want to.
He didn't "steal" anything from anyone. He worked - and darn hard. And his "deception" didn't hurt anyone either. In fact, his "deception" made a lot of people a lot of money; why don't you ask Canon how much it made for them? And his "image" brought a lot of people a lot of enjoyment. Remember all those screaming little girls? Brought some fun into their lives at the time. How did this "hurt" anyone?
He could have played along with his perceived "image" until the day he died. He preferred to admit the truth. Personally, I think that takes guts. Have you ever had to admit to someone you were wrong? You lied? You cheated? If you have you know it's not an easy thing to admit to ONE person, let alone millions. I can't imagine what it must be like to be as "perfect" as so many of the posters here seem to think they are. So many of you are "flawless" - have ALL the answers. I wish I did. The only thing I know for sure is the older I get the less I really know at all.
What mystifies me the most is why people would criticize him for raising money for his charity. It's not a secret - it's right out there in the open and he's been extremely forthcoming in admitting he'd "go anywhere and do anything" for the charity. And yet that's perceived as a fault? What do you want him to do? Tell Genworth and Longines, etc. to get lost - he'll have bake sales at the Mall instead?
Dislike him all you want - but good grief - at least be fair.
RyanRF
Professional
This is correct.
Agassi did not write this book to justify the mistakes he made in his life. He simply wanted to give an unfiltered account of things from his own perspective.
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Here are my thoughts on Andre's book: http://millennialtennis.blogspot.com/2010/01/andre-agassi-open-review.html
I can't even know where to begin with all of your comments. I just find it interesting how posters opinions show on these forums and can not be swayed with logic.
I was far from being naive in exposing a contradiction in his book regarding "woe is me" comment regarding his images created by the media and his sponsors. He claims that he did not want the images created but he did nothing to stop them and took all the endorsement money thrown at him. He portrayed himself as a victim. However, if it was something that really bothered him, he could have asked that his sponsors to change the tone of their campaigns. I will not reiterate any further the comments made in my earlier post.
He didn't hurt anyone....his charity work has helped others. Of course the campaign benefitted Canon and Longiness, that has nothing to do with my comments.
However, did you see the Longiness commercial?
And by the way, there is nothing wrong with bake sales and grass-roots charities like Rotary International which is made up of local clubs around the world. Rotary has almost eradicated polio around the world in a project that has lasted more than 20 years (PolioPlus) culminating with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation two challenge grants totaling $355 million in the last two years. If Rotary can raise an additional $200 million in contributions by 6/30/12, more than $555 million will have been raised in the last few years to wipe out polio wporldwide. Did you know that? Probably not because Microsoft and Bill Gates does not take space on tv advertising Microsoft products with a tie in to the Gates Foundation.
http://www.rotary.org/en/ServiceAnd...s/Pages/10jan29_annc_polio_contributions.aspx
http://www.rotary.org/en/Pages/ridefault.aspx
Last edited:
I'm sure Pete expressed some BS in his book, but he was always more about business (on the court) than Andre. I never saw Pete mocking players on the court (see Agassi v Kucera) or making personal attacks on players in press conferences (see Agassi v Chang/Courier/Sampras). Even when showing his insecurity by stating the difference between he and Pat Rafter was, "10 slams", it came across as competitive, although clearly a cheap shot. It was all about tennis with Sampras. You can insult his heritage (like Agassi did), call him cheap (like Agassi did) or point out his thinning hair (like Agassi did), but do not insult his tennis game (see Rusedski). Even Connors, who never had many positive things to say about that generation, gave Pete credit for going out and getting the job done day after day. Sampras was selling nothing but his life story and his amateur/junior/professional tennis history with his biography. As far as Agassi is concerned, The Longines ad is bulls*it. I do not care how much money he secured for his school. That commercial is misleading and unclear. Does Agassi now think that he is as suave as Federer? It makes sense that Federer represents Rolex, because just like a Rolex is in a different class than a Longines, Federer is in a different class than Agassi. I honestly do not know what Agassi is selling but I am not buying it anymore.
Last edited:
johnathan smith
Rookie
I bought the Sampras book and quit reading about half way through....
It was horribly boring. (and I'm a Sampras fan).
The Agassi book was AWESOME.
Could not put it down and plan to read it again.
It was horribly boring. (and I'm a Sampras fan).
The Agassi book was AWESOME.
Could not put it down and plan to read it again.
I can't even begin to know where to start with all of your comments. Nor can I even begin to understand your "logic". It is mind-boggling to say the least. "What is wrong with bake sales?" Nothing, if you're trying raise money for a field trip.
Of course I have seen the Longines commercial. What in god's name is your point? There is absolutely NOTHING offensive in that commercial.
And as I have dedicated 20 years of my life to working for one of the best-known charities in the world - yes I do know a thing or two. But I'm not even going to try.
Last edited:
I commend you for dedicating your time to charity. Thats what is important. I do not have time to waste my energy on the other stuff. Cheers.
Datacipher
Banned
The 10 slams comment...ugh..it's become an urban legend around here...
Overblown by Sampras bashers (this is not directed at your post pjonsey)....to the point where people dont even know the context anymore. Yes, it added a bit of fuel to the Sampras/Rafter bad blood, but I"m sure it was presented to Rafter the same way "guess what Pete said..."
For the record, Sampras did show a bit of his pride their when he was likely a bit tired of being asked about, and compared to, a one-slam champion! However, it was a JOKE. CLEARLY. And actually, I thought it was pretty funny.
What gets missed is that Pete HIMSELF SAID, in that same interview, voluntarily, that he was wasn't being serious just a "smartass". He then said that Rafter's game was a lot like his. If people knew all of this, they would realize how silly it is. I had an exchange with a TW troll (drwood or something) about this a while back. He kept trying to bash Sampras, even though he clearly did not even know what Sampras had actually said beyond reading that isolated quote...probably from wikipedia or something! LOL!
Sampras was tired, (which he acknowledged later), having just come from a long match, in which he admitted to being angrier than he'd ever been (he got a very bad line call) and he made a snippy joke....it hardly compares to the things Agassi has said.
Datacipher
Banned
There is little point in trying Eknee. Llama in my experience is completely irrational, and quite incapable of following a coherent discussion. He will simply rant vaguely about various tangential issues, while defending Agassi at all costs, sometimes contradicting his own, directly preceding post!
The best you can do is expose the illogic and ignorance for what it is. Lllama is incapable of understanding or acknowledging it, no matter how fully, and comprehensively you debunk it, but others will see.
Datacipher
Banned
Yes, that plus the constant "let's take cheap non sequitur shots at Chang's religious beliefs....of course cheap shots at Christianity plays well in secular culture now....wonder how Andre's hollywood buddies would like it were he taking mocking shots at say...buddhism....
All this despite the fact that Agassi played up his Christianity big-time when he first came on tour....people noticed how that faded pretty quickly, when the "sweet, happy-to-play, teen idol" image started wearing off....and a lot more four letter word started being emitted by Andre on court.
Agree or disagree with the beliefs, I have never, in all these years, heard anyone question whether Chang is, at the least, sincere about his religion.
Note as well, as I mentioned in several other threads about the book, it's interesting that Agassi and Gilbert mocked Chang in another interview in the 90's, and among other disasteful jibes (at Chang's girlfriend, speculating on their sex life, Chang's game, Chang's height etc) Andre accused Chang of being........CHEAP. He then called Chang "he of short arms and deep pockets".
This seems to be a fallback insult for Andre.
I understand the situation, and that really was my point. Sampras rarely said things like that and when he did, it was blown out of proportion or misrepresented by the press. However, regardless of the context, I see it as a cheap shot (smartass or snippy is the same thing to me). Sampras never needed to make comments like that because his tennis did all the talking. But, its nice to occasionally see our tennis stars behave out of character and prove that they can be vulnerable humans just like the rest of us. I agree that it was pretty funny. Agassi was certainly not above taking cheap shots, making smartass comments or minimizing others accomplishments. Its par for the course for Agassi and out of character for Sampras.
Last edited:
I also never understood what Agassi stood to gain by piling on Chang. From what I understand, Marcelo Rios was a complete a-hole, treated everybody like they were beneath him and tanked matches when the wind blew. Also, Rios was 5' 8"! Why did he get a pass? Chang may have his faults and may possess an entitled attitude, but he certainly could not be as big of a villain as Rios. Maybe it is a case of nice guys finishing last.
Oldracquet27
Rookie
Well that is true, putting the dissapointment with Mr. Agassi aside, yesss, the book was very very enticing. I do not have too much time through out the day and i read it very quickly too.
Last edited:
Datacipher
Banned
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=296710&highlight=chang+agassi+real+reason&page=2
In this thread on the first couple pages I mentioned SOME of Agassi's comments about Chang, and by post 39, ended up typing out some of the article by the journalist who followed Agassi closely, and actually became part of the entourage. (he eventually let Andre shave his head at Brooke Shields place) Including his theory on the real reason Agassi hated Chang. I don't know that it's the only real reason, but I am sure it's a big part of it.
Note also, I think it again hypocritical that Agassi PUBLICLY was ripping on Chang's davis cup commitment, when Agassi behind the scenes(who by superficial appearance was a DC stalwart) was far from the ideal, dedicated player himself (according to Feinstein in Hard Courts). And did some really bad antics while playing DC: like defaulting a match with a fake injury. (the press and the other team called him on that one afterward!)
What was very interesting to me regarding Agassi's book and seems to somehow gotten lost is that supposedly Agassi and Chang were at one point in a Christian bible study group. This was discussed in Feinstein's Hard Courts.
Feinstein also discussed in his book that Agassi was pissed about Chang thanking g-d for being on his side particularly when playing Agassi. Agassi made a quick reference in his book to Feinstein's discussion that Agassi did not understand how g-d would take sides in his matches against Chang.
In addition, the only reference in Agassi's book (at least for the 3/4 that I have read) to being born-again or participating in Christianity at any level was his friendship with "J.P.", a preacher who became a part of his inner circle but eventually completely shunned his role as a preacher and became a songwriter, etc.
Regarding any comments Agassi may have made about Chang being cheap, etc that is disgusting and hypocritical in that Chang throughout his career and afterward has always given back-he has been very active in Asian/ Chinese charities, especially in China.
Why do people insist that anything in the book is there "to sell more books"? If anyone doesn't need the money, it's Agassi. It's that plain fact that causes me to actually take what he says about his motivations for writing the book at face value. Agassi states that he chose to write the book as a kind of therapy, or chest-clearing. Looked at that way, even the unpopular or questionable stuff in the book is there solely in the interests of him being completely honest with the reader. The knocks on other players are there because that's how he feels about them. He writes that he hates the game because -- surprise -- that's how he actually feels about the game. All of these views are take it or leave it -- he's not asking to be liked for expressing them. I found the book to be a fun, engrossing read, without getting mired down in whether or not he, for instance, should have taken that shot at Sampras or not.
"If anyone doesn't need the money, it's Agassi. It's that plain fact that causes me to actually take what he says about his motivations for writing the book at face value."
I never underestimate the desire of humanity to seek more money or more self-value using the most superficial standard imaginable, including in this case having fans, lots of fans buy his book. He's not lying, but motivation for starting the book and finishing it are not the same even if the author fully understands the former. Like most motivations, those governing the writing of an autobiography are hard to truly isolate.
I never underestimate the desire of humanity to seek more money or more self-value using the most superficial standard imaginable, including in this case having fans, lots of fans buy his book. He's not lying, but motivation for starting the book and finishing it are not the same even if the author fully understands the former. Like most motivations, those governing the writing of an autobiography are hard to truly isolate.
Datacipher
Banned
I mentioned Feinstein in the other thread, and their bible studies. Another embarrasing moment which Feinstein reported, and Agassi doesn't mention was when he yelled at Nick to "fire Fritz" (who had been the tour minster at one point) while storming off court after a loss.
David Wheaton was another who had been involved in those early bible studies (Wheaton now is a Christian speaker). I haven't heard Agassi talk about him lately, but one thing I'll never forget is that when Agassi was struggling with poor play and bad behavior in 1989, and had just been beaten by Wheaton, Wheaton was very charitable towards Andre when interviewed and asked about Agassi's "problems" after. He tried to paint it positively while repeatedly saying he couldn't speak for Andre.
On the other hand, I recall that in 1995 when Nike did a documentary on the Sampras/Agassi rivalry and got them together to talk to each other, they talked about what their reactions had been to reaching #1. Sampras began to talk about how he had had just beaten David Wheaton when he became #1, to which Agassi glibly interrupted "oh, THAT's worthy!" Sampras kind of uncomfortably chuckled and said with a smile "well, I'll him you said that." I always wondered about that public cheap shot knowing that Agassi and Wheaton were supposed to be friends early on and that Wheaton had really struggled career-wise, and with injuries since then.
Anyways, Agassi made no secret of Christianity early-on.. Even other players reported him quoting bible verses to them! Which only made people suspect him as being contrived when he'd demonstrate some rather non-christian behavior.
I think Agassi was probably sincere about it....but wasn't very commited long-term....once the early shine wore off, he probably just lost interest. Plus Parenti offered a "spirituality" without the same moral duties/responsibilities.....much more appealing/easier!
Last edited:
Datacipher
Banned
Yes, indeed they are. It's probably a number of reasons, including conscience clearing, but frankly, I suspect the primary factor might be: attention.
I also do wonder if he wanted to clear a few skeleton's to open the possibility of one day running for office. (another poster suggested this originally...credit to him...but I forget who it was)
I also think, that clearing his conscience certainly does not involve any necessity to take cheap shots (no conscience there...); and it would also help if actually made some ammends. For example: I'm taking all the prize money I made for three years after my meth cover-up and giving it back to the tour, and asking the ATP to rescind all titles I won during that period. I personally apologize to the players I beat and the prize money and spots I took during that period. I personally apologize the ATP officials I lied to during that period. I mislead them, and put them in an awkard position; they were wrong to give me the benefit of the doubt. If anyone could afford to do that, it's Agassi.
Texastennis
Rookie
The primary thing we have learned from these endless threads about the Agassi book - dominated by contentious remarks from datacipher - is that datacipher is obsessed with Agassi's book. What a hoot.
Datacipher
Banned
Of the three threads Texastennis has started, 2 were about Agassi's book.
Of 71 posts she has made, 49 have been about Agassi.
She has defended Agassi vociferously, along with Llama, but, has shown surprising ignorance about Agassi for any knowledge outside the book, and thus has grown very resentful of me.
Most of the info I have added to this thread was NOT in Agassi's book.
LOL So typical of TW: recently, I have been accused of "hating" Agassi by these fanboys, and during the same period, accused of "loving" Agassi by other fanboys. ;-)
In any case, it wont' work in Former Pro player, Texastennis. Agree or disagree with my views, love or hate me, the more knowledgeable posters here are well aware of who knows tennis and who doesn't. Unwarranted accusations aren't going to sway anyone. Those posters also know, that I will explain my reasoning on any view I present, with those who wish to discuss it THOUGHTFULLY.
I am very very happy to illicit hatred from people like you, Llama, Chopin, TMF etc. I could not dream of a better endorsement.
Data, I don't hate you. In fact, I've grown rather fond of your posts. Yes, even your use of capital letters can sometimes be ever so slightly charming.
I sense that you and I would probably enjoy hitting a few tennis balls in the real world, under a sunny sky, with birds flying over head, a slight summer breeze whispering secrets of tennis greatness. We'd have a laugh or two about the boards and the antics that go on there, hit some more, and then part ways: two TT warriors riding off into the sunset, into the undiscovered country.
Best,
Chopin
Wow. No matter how directed a forum is, it will ALWAYS turn into forum posters dogging on each other. Sheesh.
All I would say is that Agassi's book was a fun read and I enjoyed it. My wife got it for me for christmas and I had it done in 2 days. Agree with what he's done in his life or not, we can probably all agree that it's been an interesting life, and that's good enough for me. I'll leave the arguing about the merits of his character to smarter people than I, because it's tough to understand where someone is coming from without living their life. If I had a ton of money and any girl I wanted at 16, I'd probably be a raging ******... Think of the star qb at your highschool, or whatever, then multiply that by a billion. So, I'm just glad that he can string some sentences together and be a good rep for the sport without going all Lawrence Taylor on us. At least he's not THAT damaged.
Good times!
All I would say is that Agassi's book was a fun read and I enjoyed it. My wife got it for me for christmas and I had it done in 2 days. Agree with what he's done in his life or not, we can probably all agree that it's been an interesting life, and that's good enough for me. I'll leave the arguing about the merits of his character to smarter people than I, because it's tough to understand where someone is coming from without living their life. If I had a ton of money and any girl I wanted at 16, I'd probably be a raging ******... Think of the star qb at your highschool, or whatever, then multiply that by a billion. So, I'm just glad that he can string some sentences together and be a good rep for the sport without going all Lawrence Taylor on us. At least he's not THAT damaged.
Good times!
Well said. The ultimate question in all of this is was it fun to read / well-written, and AA's book was certainly that. It's a professional book, not at all slapdash. I compare that to the slog of getting through Becker's autobio, which just wasn't that interesting or tough to put down. Andre's book is breezy and well-detailed. It covers the stuff you'd want to read about. His personal motivations come in a distant second place for me.
Good stuff in this post. Yes, I remember reading Wheaton, Chang and Agassi were in a bible study group together early on.
I do not find this particular post to be biased. Regarding the other posts in this thread, You and Ilama and all the others are entitled to your opinions and you may disagree in the various threads. I do not understand why everyone gets personal. For example, Lama's responses to my posts were on the verge of personal and I am not involved in anything that is on this board and I am not going to let myself get sucked in. I have always liked Agassi and Sampras but may have cheered for one over the other. Its not like these players are family or anything. This is not the future of the world hanging in the balance.
I have always respected Agassi and was very happy to see him turn things around at the end of his career professionally and personally but was trying to look at this book objectively and in the context not just of what he wrote in his book but other accounts, some which were objective and some not, e.g. Feinstein the writer of "Season on the Brink") in Hard Courts, Bolleteri, My Aces, My Faults. The fact that Pat E. helped many professional tennis players thru three decades, etc.
Agassi's book is fun to read and great in the sense that everyone has an opinion on it and perhaps that was part of Agassi's intent but it should be taken with a grain of salt. Sampras' book was also interesting, for someone who followed the game since the late 1960s, and his dedication to being #1. The contrasts in the styles of the books can be attributed to the differences in their personalities.
I am about to read "The Education of The Tennis Player" by Rod Laver and I would imagine that in some sense, the tone of the Sampras book is more similar to Laver's (although Sampras does not offer any tips on tennis for the readers). However, no one would dare call Laver boring. Its just that these books had different purpose(s) than Agassi's.
robow7
Professional
EK, if you enjoyed Sampras' book, I think you will like Laver's book. Pretty straight forward read with little controversy. I read it probably 25 years ago (and should probably re-read it) but I found it to be very informative and in the end, thought more of Laver and not less, unlike Agassi. Laver came off as a very humble man but a very confident player.
...yes, and it has been updated. I am looking forward to it. There is a reason that he is the idol of Sampras and Fed among countless others.
hahahhahaha, yes I am sure he is definetly not going to go back and rescind his money and titles. Only theresa if she was a tennis champion would do that.
But that is defintetly not something he should do. If you read McEnroe's book a lot more tennis players on the tour did coke, speed, and uppers to get an edge on a match. I think it happens more frequently than we care to admit and most people overlook because of tennis's clean cut image. I don't think Agassi should give one title back when most tour players have done or use some kind of drugs to get an edge.
Thanks for setting my mind at rest. You can get some interesting alterations. Once I was trying to describe the book "A Terrible Splendor" and mentioned the very conservative political movement taking over Germany in the 1930s by name and that got "redacted." More recently mentioned a type of common cactus, hyphenated name last word "pear", and the first word got starred out. I hope other readers aren't always assuming there's some horrible obscenity being corrected.
But, hey, I think the moderators do a great job and this just ads to the fun.
Datacipher
Banned
That is undoubtedly true. However, that is hardly moral justification in my mind. Many people commit various crimes...that doesn't make them "right". Plus, it would be small comfort to Hingis, or others who have paid a price for drug use.
However, it does not surprise me that Agassi didn't do this, as I tried to imply, it would be an extraordinary way to make amends. On the other hand, I don't know if you can say: hey, he admitted it, so now there can be no complaint...in fact, he deserves praise for admitting it. This is basically cheating on a test, lying about it, getting away with it....then years later saying "hey...I cheated and lied!", and getting PRAISE from others about it. Let's not go that far!
