Yeah, I like how you glossed over your equivocation. Moving on.
How did I equivocate? Are you even sure you know what that means? There was confusion over what was meant by "explanation" and "rationale." When I figured out you were trying to say "rationale," I reiterated and cleared up some points I made in posts #8, #9, and #12.
Uh...yes. He posted evidence in favor of his opinion, and I posted some that contradicted it. You don't have to agree with my interpretation, but it was an evidence-based argument, nevertheless.
Too much baseless speculation here. Bud was simply responding to the question whether he expected Fed to win a major this year, and he said no. That’s a far cry from “obviously” feeling “Fed was no longer a danger to win majors.” And the Sampras connection is even more tenuous. All you have on this score is your own speculation, and biased speculation at that.
Baseless speculation? No. Is it maybe a bit of a stretch? I don't know - there's really no empirical evidence you can use here. I gave an opinion based on observations of his comments, and I arrived at the conclusion that Bud felt Federer was done. How is it a far cry? Federer isn't getting any younger; if he went Slamless in 2009, do you think Bud would suddenly alter his opinion for 2010?
First of all, you have no evidence that this was indeed the first thing Bud said. That particular comment in the article you linked to is simply a quote. We don’t know what conversation was taking place before Bud made the comment. Second, your point about Bud’s estimation of Fed going down doesn’t hold water. See below.
So what are you saying? That Bud was likely gushing praises for Federer before and after the quoted material? It's entirely possible that there is no other material to take quotes from.
Maybe Collins made the Wimbledon prediction because he saw Fed was losing his aura of invincibility and Nadal was improving quickly and had also unexpectedly made the final the previous year. And maybe Bud made the USO prediction because Djokovic had dimmed Fed’s aura further by beating him recently in Montreal. And of course Bud wrote complimentary articles on Fed after each of his triumphs. But no, you can’t help but conclude that Bud was still sore from the snub at the French or hated Roger for some other reason.
Yeah, because straight-setting his way to an Australian Open title and feeding Rafa a bagel on his way to securing Hamburg
exudes a weakening "aura of invincibility." Sure, he had blips in Miami, IW, and Rome, but at that time he had proven beyond a doubt that he shows up big time at majors for the past three years. Wimbledon was perhaps plausible to see him lose (despite being the four-time defending champ), as it's true he suffered yet another defeat at the hands of Rafa at the French, but...the U.S. Open, despite winning at Wimbledon and Cinci, and coming really close to beating Djokovic in Montreal, too? Leading the way in the U.S. Open Series? That's pretty absurd if you ask me.
That’s only one possible conclusion. Maybe Bud felt Sampras’ championships are worth more but Federer’s domination in a less competitive era is impressive in its own right. Or maybe he felt Fed’s FO and additional major titles make up for the relative lack of competition. And so on. You’re simply putting words in Bud’s mouth.
Yeah, those are the connotations
I felt when I read: "Fifteen majors is great,
but...
:roll:
Actually, a troll is someone who posts controversial or off-topic comments on an online forum "without really adding anything to the discussion," in your own words. And since you’re the one who first disrupted the on-topic discussion to grouse about Bud Collins without bothering to explain how the snub at the French relates to the Connors-Collins incident, I’d say you were “technically trolling” yourself. I think I’ll keep “trolling” until you clean up your own act.
I think I made my point pretty clear. While everyone was busy chiding Connors for his typically boorish behavior, I pointed out that other players had problems with Collins, too. I simply took the discussion into a different direction than the other posters did. Do I have to agree with everyone in this forum all the time?
Wow, quite the exchange. Well said nonp. Rest assured the fanboy/troll has made himself look increasingly ignorant, illogical and childish with each post. He is undoubtedly embarrassed and regretful that he made such unwarranted and juevenile clams in his OP....just not man enough to admit it. At least he's backpeddled almost entirely.
I'm sorry, but at 3:00 in the morning, I have better things to do (i.e. sleep) than to argue with half-witted narcissists such as yourself; if you had your head stuck any farther up your ass, you'd be coughing up your eyebrows.
One can only reel at the teenage brain, which takes an incredibly stretched interpreted snubs (wow, if you ever predict against him, you're "racist"! Let the media beware!!) of Federer, a question at an interview, and weaves it into Bud Collins being prejudiced and holding grudges against Federer!
READING COMPREHENSION FAIL. I HAVE GONE OVER THIS FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, YET YOU STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND. LET'S EXAMINE MY POST IN CAPSLOCK, NOT BECAUSE IT'S CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL, BUT PERHAPS IT WILL CAPTURE YOUR LIMITED ATTENTION SPAN.
Oh, is THAT what xenophobia means?
Unless it's by virtue of his personal animosity toward Federer because of the snub, I don't see why else he refuses to credit him over Sampras (an American). Racist comments aren't always made by racist people. *******Likewise,******* because Collins is xenophobic in one particular aspect (i.e. refusing to acknowledge some Swiss guy being a greater champion than a homegrown hero) does not make him an all-encompassing xenophobic person.
NOTE THE ADDED EMPHASIS ------> LIKEWISE IN THIS CASE MEANS "SIMILARLY." THE 'RACIST/RACISM' PORTION WAS AN EXAMPLE. I THEN WENT OUT TO COMPARE THE EXAMPLE WITH THE PORTION ABOUT COLLINS.
I WAS NOT, I REPEAT, WAS NOT IMPLYING BUD COLLINS WAS IN ANY WAY RACIST TOWARD ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE. Thank you.
Then to translate that into a little rant about Collins, dimissing him and his unparalleled career....Bud was one of the KEY players in bringing tennis as far as it's come. The little troll can't appreciate that I'm sure, but fortunately, he's made the value of his opinion quite apparent.
:lol:
And I'm the hero-worshipper? Have you got a pair of his pants signed at your place of residence?
I respect everything Bud has contributed to the sport, but I don't like his personality, his commentary, or his interviews. Friends of mine have met Michael Jordan, and said he was a d*ck. Does this mean they can't also enjoy his career as a player?
You know, I hate to throw the obvious out there, but could it be that Federer and Collins just plain don't get along? Nationalities aside, I don't know of anything the Swiss have done do the U.S. in the last 250 years or so. I mean they make great chocolate and watches, were neutral in WW II, and have great banks, but other than that I think the U.S. as a whole (including Mr. Collins) are ambivalent about the country.
I'm sorry about the confusion - I did not mean to imply that Collins has anything against the Swiss people. My alternate point of view had nothing to do with Federer being Swiss - he just was not American.
In summary, I have never seen Collins be jingoistic or favor American players over those of other countries and I've been watching tennis since Moses was a kid. It could be simply that Federer thinks Collins is an old fart and Collins thinks Federer has had a hall pass....
This is entirely plausible as well. However, I just find it strange how fellow all-time great players like Connors and Agassi had issue with him as well. Granted, Connors and Agassi (and I presume he was younger when the issue came about) had more volatile egos than Federer, but still, Roger is the odd-man-out.
