PDJ
G.O.A.T.
And yet you make it feel like life is very very VERY long........ Tiresome.
Although I admire the fact you don't let actual facts get in the way of making your point... Ridiculous as it is....
I'm minded of
Last edited:
A hard post to word.
- Thread starter BTURNER
- Start date
Although I admire the fact you don't let actual facts get in the way of making your point... Ridiculous as it is....
I'm minded of
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Isn't the fallen away Pastor always avenging........
NonP
Legend
When everyone tells you (however politely) you're full of shi-ite chances are they're right.
And no need to belabor your point once you've declared victory in your own mind. It makes you look desperate.
I will say, politely, of course, that both of these players look to be inspired and near the peak of their athletic ability.
Like Federer/Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001.
I am sure that "everyone" feels good about that.
Last edited:
NonP
Legend
First off, you're still full of shi-ite.
Second, even if you were right about Court's and Evert's respective form it's fallacious not to mention asinine to judge two players' potential by a single match between them.
And third, it's really OK to say you made a mistake. I know you and your fellow geezers have an awfully hard time admitting that but when you try so hard to deny the obvious all you're doing is proving Wilde's quip ("With age comes wisdom, but sometimes age comes alone”).
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
I like you!
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Job done
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I blew right by wise a few years ago and have already moved right into "just old".
"Full of shi-ite"...brilliant argument, for some people.
Welcome to the new McCarthyism and blacklisting....forget about open debate and logical points.
The best way to judge relative merit of two players is from an actual match.
In this matchup, three matches.
Last edited:
Once upon a time I created a thread comparing the clay court records of chris Evert and Raphael Nadal, in which I very grudgingly admitted that the disparity of depth in the women's clay field in the 1970's and the depth in men's claycourt field in the 2000's was large enough to overcome the statistical advantage Evert enjoyed through her two great streaks on clay.
What happened to that thread?
What happened to that thread?
NonP
Legend
I blew right by wise a few years ago and have already moved right into "just old".
Apparently some of your fellow fogeys don't even realize there's that optional 2nd step.
It wasn't an "argument," but rather a dismissal of your crackpot claim that the rest of us rightly tore apart.
Ah yes, the good old "McCarthyism" tactic. Too bad you don't even know what that term actually entails.
Nobody said actual matches don't count, that's just another one of your usual red herrings.
Three matches don't come remotely close to a representative sample in this case.
Probably deleted due to the political rants. It was inevitable.
Besides you were wasting your time. They were even puling the asinine Court/I/X-has-gay-friends card now. The geezers feel so threatened by the "gay agenda" they've chosen to learn nothing all these years. It's the classic kindergarten ploy of covering your years and shouting "Na na na...", except that it's now the grandpas that are doing it.
I know I'm running the risk of patronizing all grandpas but this is very much an age thing. Pretty much all the anti-gay youngsters I've met (either in person or online) tend to say they oppose homosexuality because their religion forbids it, but they also tend to leave it at that as it's more of an abstract thing to them. It wouldn't occur to them to boycott an airline or whatever for its defense of gay marriage or other grievous sins the infidels continue to visit upon this sinful world, because they just don't give that big a hoot. It's not an identity issue to them, and chances are they're malleable to association and ultimate persuasion.
The old fogeys are different. They feel genuinely emasculated by all the multicultural turns the world has taken of late, this new world that feels increasingly removed from their old ways of life. It's not even a religious issue for most of them (see the supposedly secular Europeans' contempt for Islam and its believers vs. their more familiar Judeo-Christian counterparts). Rather it's a (self-imposed) crisis of identity, this fear that the world as they know it is slipping away from them. Hence their rabid opposition to "political correctness" (never mind that they'd reaped the benefits of a PC world order most of their life), their support for Brexit/Trump/Le Pen/other anti-"elite" measures, and so on. And no matter how much they deny it race is another big scare factor for them, too, as they pine for the days when their society was whiter and thus more familiar. They just don't realize or pretend to ignore that one can remain on good terms with gay/black/Hispanic/other minority individuals while decrying the "illegals," locking the door of your car whenever one of "them" passes by, claiming to "hate the sin but not the sinner," etc.
I get that this fear on their part is not entirely irrational and one should try to understand them better, but after Trump's election and given most of his base's complete insusceptibility to basic facts I'm feeling much less charitable these days. They're the ones who need to pick up the slack, not us, and if they can't even make the effort to join the 21st century they don't deserve our sympathies and should be displaced as the fading but still disproportionately destructive forces they are.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
@Moose Malloy , I was being facetious with the last sentence. I wrote the OP for this thread after having read and participated in the discussion in that thread and having been persuaded. Now re-read my OP in that context and it will make more sense. Post # 64 was an effort to remind everyone that the original intent was about Evert and Nadal, not Evert and Court.
Thank you for your hilarious rant....if you want to see a multicultural society in action, visit our church some day, I could introduce you to some of our gay members, you might even learn something about life beyond this planet.
I notice that some important facts which are inconvenient to your rather circumscribed "weltanschauung" are not touched upon..am I surprised? No.
Last edited:
Three matches give us a good representation of how these two giants played in 1973, the only year for which we have both of them near peak form.
Dreaming about unplayed matches is worth nothing.
Lenglen/Wills 1926 and Sampras /Federer 2001 also give us the best measure of those matchups...better than a dream match.
NonP
Legend
That "rant" was not meant for you, cuz I knew you would never get it. Thanks for the confirmation.
In other words, you're still delusional or, more likely, just can bring yourself to admit you were dead wrong. No worries, the rest of us knew better.
You and your fellow Grumpy Old Men (an affectionate term held in reserve for your gang by another poster in a PM, FYI) really should learn to quit while you're behind. Just about everybody had let go of this dead horse until you brought it back to life in your desperate attempt to be right. Like you said life is short.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
It is rather tragic for him to bang on when it's such a silly argument he's trying to make.
However, his agenda is not lost on me....
It's actually about Pastor Margaret "where possible" Court and Evert is rather incidental - you could substitute her name with any other.
As he's posted earlier, I'm on his ignore list..... I feel rather privileged, as I imagine I'm in good company.
You'll get there
Not sure what you are referring to here, but if it is about tennis, most serious tennis writers take the 1926 Lenglen/Wills match and the 2001 Sampras/Federer match seriously as indicators of relative abilities, and subconsciously, if not overtly, they enter into the evaluation of GOAT candidacy.
Thanks, old boy.
If you would like to see genuine multicultural humanity in successful fellowship, visit a church sometime.
In evaluating players, it is better to consider matches where both players were "on fire" simultaneously in a close contest.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
That was young Chris on fire??????????????????
She looks brilliant here.
If you ever want to see what Evert looks like when she is playing at her best. I might be a better person to recommend the clip. This Chris is rather heavy footed at this stage, a pretty mediocre server, and her volley is really inconsistent. Her forehand will dramatically improve in the next decade as well. You can see the early draft of that brilliant backhand and some beautiful touch shots though.
They said the same things about her in 1974, when she won two majors...this is early peak play.
delete
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Flogging..... A....... Dead...... Horse
Have to admire (albeit irrational) his doggedness
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
I would add that Evert's drop shot is close to the near perfection it would become. I also think you can see Evert's anticipation here, but agree her movement, at times, is less than smooth in her early years. This improved tremendously.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I was a huge Evert fan. This early version of Evert is ridiculously below her peak play, which happened later.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Not even close in 1973. Chris got bageled by BJK at Wimbledon that year. She learned to move much better later, improved her serve, and so on.
Last edited:
Great picture!
I recall clearly the same things were said about her form in 1974 when she won two majors, including Wimbledon.
Here she nearly wins RG in 1973, and looks great on red clay.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
They don't allow it now but notice how Evert tosses the second ball away after she serves.
Amazing how good Court was on smashes. Seems better than modern male players.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Court was an amazing player. A gifted athlete. Her record is unparalleled.
Agreed. It does definitely hint at the frightening consistency and mental tenacity that drove most players crazy on clay. She wasn't giving much away and she was already lethal vs the 'average' approach shot. Margaret had learned in two other straight set losses on clay, that she had to be very careful in that regard. She said as much.
I really think that for Margaret, the biggest problem playing Chrissie before 1973, was learning to read those passing shots or find any patterns in the Evert game. The disguise on Evert's strokes/lob meant she had to make the approaches especially deep and still avoid errors. Everything had to be near perfect to afford an approach on clay.
Last edited:
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Unlike (perhaps) other people I am not in any way attempting to belittle the greatness of MC as a player. I'm simply saying that 1973 was before Evert's prime. In fairness, it is very likely MC in 1973 was past hers. So this match is a little bit like the famous Sampras/Federer match except that in that case it went the other way. But that was past Sampras's prime and before Fed's.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
I'm not sure any one is belittling Court the player? Court, the person, does a far greater job belittling herself than any one of us ever could
treblings
Hall of Fame
Is the book worth reading?
Last edited:
Is the book worth reading?
It depends on what are you expecting from it. I read many books about tennis when began play regularly in the 80's - about Court, Laver, Althea Gibson, etc. In general these books are quite simply, but for me any information about tennis was worth of it.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
I've read reviews that both the Shriver and Mandlikova books are very honest and also, funny. I've never been able to get copies.
Rivals is a good read - about Evert and Navratilova.
I understand and agree with all that. I am also trying to unravel the peculiarity of Court losing the first 6 consecutive sets she played against a 15-17 year old Chrissie in three matches, before she began to make this a rivalry at all. Court literally did not win a set for the first 3 matches. Matter of fact, this match represents the only occasion where Court took a set against Evert on a clay court. Court was doing something better when she played Evert in 1973, before she retired at its end to give birth. We know that Court never regained her dominance after 1973. I am indirectly comparing this to Evert just beginning to close the gap between her and Graf in 1988/ early1989 before age finally made that impossible. The difference was that actually Court got some victories, and Evert was just making things a little more interesting rather than routs.
suwanee4712
Professional
Copies of both books come up from time to time on both **** and Amazon for reasonable prices. There used to be a British bookseller that I bought hard to find books and magazines from, and that is where I found my copy of "Hana." Hana's book was never released in America. I really think she wrote her book to get her say on some things that she felt particularly the American media distorted or flat out fabricated about her to fit their pro wrestling style heel vs face, Communist vs. Capitalist storylines. In the end, I think her management company told her not to bother releasing it in the states and to sell it where she made most of her off court money - UK, Europe, Australia, and Japan. I don't think she's particularly honest about her personal life as guarded as she was. She skips over the real reason for her sudden drop out of Wimbledon in 1987. It's understandable to an extent. But those that want to protect certain parts of their private life probably shouldn't write books about themselves. Still, fans of 80's tennis will find stories they will enjoy. It will reinforce some beliefs that many have about her, but might make a difference in some other areas.
Pam's book is about as honest as it gets. The good, the bad, the ugly. Hers is a diary recounting the 1985 year on tour. It's the closest thing that I've ever seen a pro write about daily life on tour. It's also very valuable because it isn't a book by Martina, Chris, or BJK. It's about a very successful player with a decent amount of fame and celebrity and the highs that occasionally sometimes come with that, but also the frustration at constantly chasing possibly the two greatest players that ever lived. For about 15 years I read it every spring. That's how much it meant to me personally. Love her or hate her, it's the most honest tennis biography I've ever read.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Thank you so much for this. Very informative. And clearly I MUST get a copy of the Shriver book.
Once again, thank you. Most appreciated.
