Do you think Guillermo Vilas will win in the trial and be recognized as number one?
- Thread starter Vegito
- Start date
jean pierre
Professional
No news. Is there really a trial ?
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Seems his appeal to the ATP was rejected last year:
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2015/05/vilas-will-not-receive-retroactive-no-1-ranking/55034/
jean pierre
Professional
It's the end of the great investigative battle of argentine journalist Eduardo Puppo and Romanian mathematician Marian Ciulpan?
Vilas has surrendered?
Have you the address of Vilas & Puppo, an email ? A site where you can write?
The question is absurd.
It is one thing if the ATP ranking (as in 1977) does not provide Vilas number one.
Another thing is if the ranking expected Guillermo number one for a period and the "system" for laziness and lack of will does not attribute the number one!
Laziness. Or badness?
Last edited:
Vegito
Hall of Fame
No, KG1965. Vilas has no surrendered. I read in a very recent article that Vilas was not going to Croatia to see the Davis Cup final; and apart from that they just mention something like Vilas is waiting the recognizement from the ATP as number one, so the journalist must have some information. I had read before that he started a trial and a great french lawyer is helping him. So I guess the trial it´s still in process. I didn´t see Puppo or Ciulpan writing about it recently. I guess they don´t want to talk too much about it; I read other recognized journalist in Twitter saying something "Vilas was number one, but by mistake of the ATP he is not officially ... for now" Maybe he has some information. He is guillecapora in Twitter. A time ago I wrote to Puppo but he didn´t answer. Maybe I will try again. And I guess maybe Guillermo Caporaletti will answer me.
jean pierre
Professional
I just know one thing : ATP is ridiculous. Refusing to recognize a fact is ridiculous.
Vegito
Hall of Fame
@KG1965 , @jean pierre ; the journalist Guillermo Caporaletti answered me in Twitter "The subject still continues. There may be news before the end of the year."
You know, who is he?
In which newspapers work?
jean pierre
Professional
Slasher1985
New User
We know the legal battle is long and hard, but in the end I'm sure ATP will concede. Don't lose hope, the numbers provided in our study have already been checked by numerous other publications, the error is evident, but legal always works slower.
jean pierre
Professional
2017 will it be finally the "Vilas year" ... ?
It would be nice to have two number one in 2017:
Vilas and another current champion.
Vegito
Hall of Fame
What a great message. Did you hear something in particular that make you believe ATP will concede?
jean pierre
Professional
No news about that ? Will it happen one day ?
There is NEVER going to be a trial. There is no need for a 'trial.' Be real, no crime was committed folks!
Why won't this be addressed by the ATP? First, to dispel the comparisons, it is true that a few years ago the WTA belatedly recognized that Evonne Goolagong should have been credited with reaching #1 on the WTA computer rankings in spring of 1976. This was due to the fact that 1) the WTA was lazy and careless with their historical record keeping, and 2) their rankings came out monthly sometimes, bi weekly other times. They calculated that for one short period of time, Goolagong was #1 on the computer rankings. (Even if anyone with an abacus could have figured out it was pretty much mathematically impossible for that to happen, unless they gave more points for winning 1976 Slims events - like double Wimbledon or US Open - since Goolagong was so far behind Evert at the start of 1976, and Chris actually improved in 1976 vs 1975. But I digress.) Evonne was a nice lady and never complained, so her belated #1 crowning was akin to an honorary Oscar, IMHO.
So shouldn't the ATP do the same? Well, NO! The ATP ranking system was bad, not as nonsensical and secretive as the WTA's, in 1977. Vilas played and won more than anyone did in 1977. But they went by an average system back then. And the fact they don't (sadly) go by an average system now means the ATP will never address - or what Vilas' fans want - correct the year end 1977 rankings. Why? To acknowledge an average ranking system is to acknowledge that the current ranking system, which uses total points earned (along with mulligans, i.e., bad results that get tossed out and don't count) to determine ranking placement exposes the WEAKNESS in the ranking system. The ATP won't ever admit that.
Why won't this be addressed by the ATP? First, to dispel the comparisons, it is true that a few years ago the WTA belatedly recognized that Evonne Goolagong should have been credited with reaching #1 on the WTA computer rankings in spring of 1976. This was due to the fact that 1) the WTA was lazy and careless with their historical record keeping, and 2) their rankings came out monthly sometimes, bi weekly other times. They calculated that for one short period of time, Goolagong was #1 on the computer rankings. (Even if anyone with an abacus could have figured out it was pretty much mathematically impossible for that to happen, unless they gave more points for winning 1976 Slims events - like double Wimbledon or US Open - since Goolagong was so far behind Evert at the start of 1976, and Chris actually improved in 1976 vs 1975. But I digress.) Evonne was a nice lady and never complained, so her belated #1 crowning was akin to an honorary Oscar, IMHO.
So shouldn't the ATP do the same? Well, NO! The ATP ranking system was bad, not as nonsensical and secretive as the WTA's, in 1977. Vilas played and won more than anyone did in 1977. But they went by an average system back then. And the fact they don't (sadly) go by an average system now means the ATP will never address - or what Vilas' fans want - correct the year end 1977 rankings. Why? To acknowledge an average ranking system is to acknowledge that the current ranking system, which uses total points earned (along with mulligans, i.e., bad results that get tossed out and don't count) to determine ranking placement exposes the WEAKNESS in the ranking system. The ATP won't ever admit that.
jean pierre
Professional
I think there is a sort of trial. But the problem is not about 1977, it's about a few weeks in 1975 and 1976.
jaystarhair
New User
It is a shame Vilas was robbed numerous times. Robbed of any recognition, either by the computer or by the POY commitees as best player of 1977. Connors spent every week at #1, while Borg was awarded most of the POY honors, despite that it was Vilas who had the best year. And also robbed of official time ranked at #1, albeit brief, by the actual computer system for a bit o 75 or 76. Such a classy man, keeps a positive attitude inspite of it all. Amazing human being, amazing man.
Slasher1985
New User
Patience everyone. The battle is still on. Results will soon be known. I wish I could tell you more, that I could chronicle this Final, just like a Roland Garros final, but, alas, I cannot.
We have patience and hope to be good news and that number one be attributed to the one who has rightly been the number one.Patience everyone. The battle is still on. Results will soon be known. I wish I could tell you more, that I could chronicle this Final, just like a Roland Garros final, but, alas, I cannot.
Can you anticipate timing? Autumn ?
It would be an incredible year, two numbers cone.
Presumably Nadal (or Federer) and Vilas retroded.
mtincoronel76
Rookie
"the process is alive and about to give birth"
Eduardo Puppo, september 2017 (in Spanish)
Eduardo Puppo, september 2017 (in Spanish)
TheAverageFedererFan
Professional
Not fair for Guillermo Vilas. How was fri*king Marcelo Rios #1 though?
Drob
Hall of Fame
KG1965:
La fecha clave es el 15 de diciembre de 1975 - el fin de la temporada.
Diciembre 15, 1975 (ERRORES CORREGIDOS):
Jimmy Connors – 771 – 18 – 42,8332
Guillermo Vilas – 897 – 21 – 42,714
Pero cual es la medida relevante?: el 897 o el 42,714? Y que miden? Que significan? Connors esta arriba de Vilas con 42,833, pero abajo de el con 771.
Y solo tratando ser claro: El reclamo de Vilas es para ser declarado como el numero uno (segun la clasificacion ATP) para el fin de la temporado -- year-end No. 1, correcto? Esto de ciertas semanas perdidas no tiene ninguna importancia - el chiste es quien termino la temporada en primer lugar segun el sistema ATP. Por ende, no entiendo el problema. Si la primera medida es determinante, entonces Vilas termino en primer lugar con 897. Si sea la segunda, pues, Connors apenas "gano" con mas puntos. En que me equivoco? Gracias.
mtincoronel76
Rookie
1- Se mide el porcentaje. Connors tiene menos puntos que Vilas pero mas porcentaje. Si fuera por puntos, el N°1 de 1975 es Arthur Ashe (907), que quedo N°4 en el porcentaje, y Vilas N°2. De la misma manera Vilas hubiera sido N°1 en 1977 (1610 puntos), Gottfried N°2 (1215), Borg N°3 (906) y Connors N°4 (897). Cosas inentendibles de ese ranking, creo que la ATP utilizaba el porcentaje para que jugadores como Laver o Rosewall, que no jugaban tantos torneos, continuasen en el top ten, algo que servía al negocio del tenis. Creo ...
2- el reclamo es por las semanas no publicadas en las que Vilas debió ser N°1, que eran 7 sin todos los errores corregidos. Pero con las últimas correcciones pasan a ser 18. Reclamo valedero porque si ATP les cuenta las semanas como N°1 a cada jugador, es ilógico sumar todas las semanas de un bimestre o trimestre en el cual no se publico el ranking, al que esté en el tope en la semana que se publica.
Según el estudio paralelo de Puppo/Culpian, con todos los errores de la ATP corregidos Vilas perdía 64 puntos obtenidos la temporada pasada y Connors 90 en la semana del 24-11-1975, con lo que el argentino pasa al primer lugar. Esa fue la última semana puntable para la ATP, por lo que se debió llegar a la última semana del año con Vilas N°1 de la siguiente manera:
Diciembre 29, 1975 (ERRORES CORREGIDOS):
Guillermo Vilas - 895 - 21 - 42,619
Jimmy Connors - 736 - 18 - 40,889
De todas maneras tengo entendido que la ATP no acepta el estudio con todos los errores corregidos por lo tanto lo que se dicutiría ahora serían las 7 semanas no publicadas de Vilas como N°1, las cuales le corresponden con o sin errores.
Last edited:
Drob
Hall of Fame
Gracias. Entonces lo que el ATP no acepta es el estudio sobre correciones de supuestos errores. No obstante, cual fue el fundado del rechazo? O fue porque el ATP dice que el estudio no es acertada, o si acepta las pruebas y conclusiones de Puppo/Culpian, mas de todos modos niegan cambiar el record oficial?
Entonces si hubieran utilizado un sistema como lo actual, el Numero Uno segun la clasificacion ATP seria Arthur Ashe?
Interestingly, so with this updated situation Vilas would be the number one in 1975?
Well, for me it's a news. I hope it is official one day.
mtincoronel76
Rookie
Men, seems like you are very poorly informed:
1- Here there is not "Vilas' fans" wanted anything to 1977, cause this is not about 77. It's about 75 and 76. Between 1975 and 1976 Vilas HAD the average to be N°1 at least for 7 weeks and was not published by ATP at the time. That's the matter in question.
2- After ATP reject the study, effectively, there was a lawsuit, and right now are new negociations in a conciliacion mode. Not necessarily there must be a crime for taking any matter to court.
Last edited:
Drob
Hall of Fame
Aún no ha respondido a mis preguntas. En vez de tener la cortesia de contestarme, usted escribio un mensaje reganando a todos por ser mensos. Es obvio que mis preguntas tienen que ver con 1975. Si usted no tuviera el conocimiento para poder contestar, por lo menos podría avisar así.
La grabación de la entrevista con Puppo señala que los funcionarios del ATP cuestionaron a su metodologia, indicando que el ATP no acepta que sean acertados sus datos y conclusiones. Además, si ahora Vilas no está luchando para ser declarado #1 para el año 1975, sino se queja sobre algunas pocas semanas, pues, esta es nada mås que vanidad y correr tras el viento.
Drob
Hall of Fame
For the non-Spanish speakers, I am reminding the gentleman that he has not answered my questions, which indubitably appertained to 1975. Instead he wrote back that we are all a bunch of dummies. I think everybody gets that it is 1975.
But easy to be initially confused, because how could it even occur to anybody that Vilas should be world No. 1 for 1975? Now it appears that he is reduced to arguing about a few weeks during 1975, but not about the 1975 year-end ranking, notwithstanding that the numbers provided to us indicate that Vilas has an argument for year-end No. 1 according to the system used at the time.
If Vilas and his helpers are no longer trying to change the year-end rankings, the whole thing is ridiculous now IMO. But not surprising, coming from one of the most vainglorious of athletic stars - which is quite a feat considering the general nature of athletic stars. Like his stupid sandbox feud with Jose Luis Clerc, which cost Argentina the Davis Cup, and the museum to himself that he had "supporters" build, this fuss over a few weeks with the top ranking shows that this otherwise okay guy cannot keep his pride in check IMHO.
But easy to be initially confused, because how could it even occur to anybody that Vilas should be world No. 1 for 1975? Now it appears that he is reduced to arguing about a few weeks during 1975, but not about the 1975 year-end ranking, notwithstanding that the numbers provided to us indicate that Vilas has an argument for year-end No. 1 according to the system used at the time.
If Vilas and his helpers are no longer trying to change the year-end rankings, the whole thing is ridiculous now IMO. But not surprising, coming from one of the most vainglorious of athletic stars - which is quite a feat considering the general nature of athletic stars. Like his stupid sandbox feud with Jose Luis Clerc, which cost Argentina the Davis Cup, and the museum to himself that he had "supporters" build, this fuss over a few weeks with the top ranking shows that this otherwise okay guy cannot keep his pride in check IMHO.
Vilas can't be the year end number one.
He and Ciulpan tried to mix up the rankings, but they failed.
They tried to give to Bahamas tournament a lower class.
With those points Connors would have lost the first position at the end of the year (also with some modification to the points awarded in Buenos Aires and Johannesburg).
But, even with many errors in the rankings, those ones were good, ATP was right.
Anyway, Vilas deserves those 7 weeks
If you wanna know what happened, let me know
I have all the rankings of 1975, all the points awarded to the tournaments and all the errors Ciulpan tried to change
Well. 7 weeks are still a lot in life. 7 weeks the number one on the planet ....
I thought for a while that your name was Ciulpan!
If for you is not a problem it makes me happy.If you wanna know what happened, let me know
I have all the rankings of 1975, all the points awarded to the tournaments and all the errors Ciulpan tried to change
Here we go!
1975 ATP points system
CAT A : Triple Crown (RG, W, US)
CAT B : $125,000 - Over
CAT C : $100,000 - $124,999
CAT D : $75,000 - $99,999
CAT E : $50,000 - $74,999
CAT F : $25,000 - $49,999
There is only one exception : the Australian Open.
Prize money for the Australian Open was $50,000, so it would have been a CAT E, but because of its Slam status, it was awarded to a step up, so CAT D.
This happened also in 1973, 1974 and 1976.
From 1977 it started to be pointed as a regular Slam.
There were only another two exception in those years : Wim73 and Queens73.
Wim73 didn't award any ATP points because of the boycott, Queens73 was awarded to a step up to give the players the possibility to make the points they were going to lose in Wim.
Connors points breakdown (18 tournaments)
Australian Open 45
Birmingham 20
Bahamas 40
Little Rock 3
Salisbury 40
Boca Raton 20
Hampton 20
New York 15
Denver 40
Nottingham 20
Wimbledon 90
North Conway 80
South Orange 10
US Open 90
Bermuda 40
Maui 40
Stockholm 60
London 45
Total points 718
In 1975 there were awarded also bonus points depending on the opponents you faced.
Total bonus point by Connors : 52 (if you need the breakdown also of the bonus points let me know).
So total for Connors is 770 (ATP official number is 769, they were not so good in math in those days)
Point ave : 770/18 = 42.7778 (versus 42.7143 of Vilas).
Where is the problem for Ciulpan?
He probably didn't know about the Australian Open rule (or maybe he knows....) and he probably didn't know about the prize money of $50,000 in Bahamas (or maybe he knows...).
Downgrading those two tournaments, Jimbo would have 35 points less, so 735, so 40.83333.
In this case Vilas would have been year end number one.
But ATP is right
1975 ATP points system
CAT A : Triple Crown (RG, W, US)
CAT B : $125,000 - Over
CAT C : $100,000 - $124,999
CAT D : $75,000 - $99,999
CAT E : $50,000 - $74,999
CAT F : $25,000 - $49,999
There is only one exception : the Australian Open.
Prize money for the Australian Open was $50,000, so it would have been a CAT E, but because of its Slam status, it was awarded to a step up, so CAT D.
This happened also in 1973, 1974 and 1976.
From 1977 it started to be pointed as a regular Slam.
There were only another two exception in those years : Wim73 and Queens73.
Wim73 didn't award any ATP points because of the boycott, Queens73 was awarded to a step up to give the players the possibility to make the points they were going to lose in Wim.
Connors points breakdown (18 tournaments)
Australian Open 45
Birmingham 20
Bahamas 40
Little Rock 3
Salisbury 40
Boca Raton 20
Hampton 20
New York 15
Denver 40
Nottingham 20
Wimbledon 90
North Conway 80
South Orange 10
US Open 90
Bermuda 40
Maui 40
Stockholm 60
London 45
Total points 718
In 1975 there were awarded also bonus points depending on the opponents you faced.
Total bonus point by Connors : 52 (if you need the breakdown also of the bonus points let me know).
So total for Connors is 770 (ATP official number is 769, they were not so good in math in those days
)Point ave : 770/18 = 42.7778 (versus 42.7143 of Vilas).
Where is the problem for Ciulpan?
He probably didn't know about the Australian Open rule (or maybe he knows....) and he probably didn't know about the prize money of $50,000 in Bahamas (or maybe he knows...).
Downgrading those two tournaments, Jimbo would have 35 points less, so 735, so 40.83333.
In this case Vilas would have been year end number one.
But ATP is right
Last edited:
Apart Salisbury (US National indoor) which was of the highest category some Riordan scored has highest double, so? Bahamas & Bermuda >> Hampton, etc.
That makes a difference.
In essence ATP value Bahamas & Bermuda like WCT tournaments (Denver .... here Ashe loses its number one)
North Conway is rated high (Cat. C?)
The finals lost by Connors give him so many points and with those comes first to the photofinish. Even though he did not deserve it.
Poor Ciulpan, poor Guillermo, ... the 7-week request remains alive.
Yes and I think they will get them.
Also beacuse it's true that Connors loses 7 weeks to Vilas (and 1 to Borg....) but he takes 2 to Newcombe!
So he loses only 6
Borg number one one week in 1975. Great news.Yes and I think they will get them.
Also beacuse it's true that Connors loses 7 weeks to Vilas (and 1 to Borg....) but he takes 2 to Newcombe!
So he loses only 6
No No!
In August 1977.
Instead of 1 week, it was a 2 weeks period (but that week was not published).
Connors takes 2 weeks from Newcombe in 1974: he truly became number one after Wimbledon, but ATP published the list only two weeks later...
Ok.
mtincoronel76
Rookie
1- perdon, que pregunta tendría que contestarte? Solo te aclaré que si hubo demanda judicial, y que el año en cuestión es 1975. En su post (el cual esta añadido a mi comentario) usted no pregunta nada, y menciona el año 1977. Esta claro. Por eso repito, esta pobremente informado. Este tema del informe de Puppo viene desde hace años. ATP rechazó el primer pedido formal en 2014, aunque no desmintió la investigación, al contrario, utilizó los resultados de la misma para sanear su base de datos (!) y si ahora hay nuevas negociaciones, es justamente porque se inició una demanda legal. Estoy informandolo, no tratandolo de nada. Si tiene alguna pregunta será bienvenida. Solo dígala.
Last edited:
Vilas no tiene ningun derecho por el 1977.
El estaba pidiendo el numero uno de fin de ano 1975 y ATP rechazo' el informe de Cuilpan y Puppo.
Siguen pero pidiendo las siete semanas que Vilas de verdad era numero uno en 1975 y 1976 y que no fueron publicadas.
mtincoronel76
Rookie
exacto. Es lo que quería decir. Solo me equivoque en poner "el año en cuestion es 1977" (ya esta corregido), es 1975. El usuario Drob mencionó 1977 en un post. Textual de Drob, traducido al español:
"...Entonces, ¿no debería el ATP hacer lo mismo? ¡Bueno no! El sistema de clasificación de ATP era malo, no como absurdo y secreto como el WTA, en 1977. Vilas jugó y ganó más que cualquier persona hizo en 1977. Pero era por un sistema de porcentaje entonces. Y el hecho de que no (por desgracia) pasan por un sistema de porcentaje ahora significa que la ATP nunca se dirigirá - o lo que quieren los fans de Vilas - a corregir las clasificaciones de fin de año de 1977. ¿Por qué? Reconocer un sistema de clasificación promedio es reconocer que el sistema de clasificación actual, que utiliza el total de puntos obtenidos (junto con mulligans, es decir, malos resultados que se descartan y no cuentan) para determinar la colocación de ranking, expone la debilidad en el sistema de clasificación . ATP nunca lo admitirá."
Vilas tiene 7 semanas no publicadas como N°1 del ranking ATP (5 en 1975 y las 2 primeras de 1976, aunque igualmente Connors termina como N°1 de 1975). El nuevo reclamo paso primero a vía legal y actualmente esta renegociación.
Yes, exactly.
In my previous post there is all Connors points breakdown of 1975.
ATP points are correct (well, they are wrong by 1, but the average doesn't change)
Vilas es numero numero de Septiembre 22, 1975 hasta Octubre 26, 1975 y de Enero 5, 1976 hasta Enero 18, 1976.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Lo que citaste no es nada que yo escribi. Nunca. Estoy seguro que usted simplemente hizo un error y que no fue intencional. Sin embargo, necesito corregir para que no haya malentendidos. En seguida, los cuatro posts que he escrito con respecto a este tema:
1.
KG1965:
La fecha clave es el 15 de diciembre de 1975 - el fin de la temporada.
Diciembre 15, 1975 (ERRORES CORREGIDOS):
Jimmy Connors – 771 – 18 – 42,8332
Guillermo Vilas – 897 – 21 – 42,714
Pero cual es la medida relevante?: el 897 o el 42,714? Y que miden? Que significan? Connors esta arriba de Vilas con 42,833, pero abajo de el con 771.
Y solo tratando ser claro: El reclamo de Vilas es para ser declarado como el numero uno (segun la clasificacion ATP) para el fin de la temporado -- year-end No. 1, correcto? Esto de ciertas semanas perdidas no tiene ninguna importancia - el chiste es quien termino la temporada en primer lugar segun el sistema ATP. Por ende, no entiendo el problema. Si la primera medida es determinante, entonces Vilas termino en primer lugar con 897. Si sea la segunda, pues, Connors apenas "gano" con mas puntos. En que me equivoco? Gracias.
Como se puede ver, no mencioné el 1977.
Usted respondio, aclarando en parte mis dudas. Por mi parte, le contesté asi:
2.
Gracias. Entonces lo que el ATP no acepta es el estudio sobre correciones de supuestos errores. No obstante, cual fue el fundado del rechazo? O fue porque el ATP dice que el estudio no es acertada, o si acepta las pruebas y conclusiones de Puppo/Culpian, mas de todos modos niegan cambiar el record oficial?
Entonces si hubieran utilizado un sistema como lo actual, el Numero Uno segun la clasificacion ATP seria Arthur Ashe?
Como uno puede ver, no mencione al 1977, y si hay dos preguntas, ambos con un signo de interogación
Cuando usted no respondió, fije el siguiente:
3.
Aún no ha respondido a mis preguntas. En vez de tener la cortesia de contestarme, usted escribio un mensaje reganando a todos por ser mensos. Es obvio que mis preguntas tienen que ver con 1975. Si usted no tuviera el conocimiento para poder contestar, por lo menos podría avisar así.
La grabación de la entrevista con Puppo señala que los funcionarios del ATP cuestionaron a su metodologia, indicando que el ATP no acepta que sean acertados sus datos y conclusiones. Además, si ahora Vilas no está luchando para ser declarado #1 para el año 1975, sino se queja sobre algunas pocas semanas, pues, esta es nada mås que vanidad y correr tras el viento.
Otra vez, no contiene ninguna referencia sobre el 1977.
Finalmente, escribí un post en inglés, dando breve explicacion a todos que no hablan el castellano:
4.
For the non-Spanish speakers, I am reminding the gentleman that he has not answered my questions, which indubitably appertained to 1975. Instead he wrote back that we are all a bunch of dummies. I think everybody gets that it is 1975.
But easy to be initially confused, because how could it even occur to anybody that Vilas should be world No. 1 for 1975? Now it appears that he is reduced to arguing about a few weeks during 1975, but not about the 1975 year-end ranking, notwithstanding that the numbers provided to us indicate that Vilas has an argument for year-end No. 1 according to the system used at the time.
If Vilas and his helpers are no longer trying to change the year-end rankings, the whole thing is ridiculous now IMO. But not surprising, coming from one of the most vainglorious of athletic stars - which is quite a feat considering the general nature of athletic stars. Like his stupid sandbox feud with Jose Luis Clerc, which cost Argentina the Davis Cup, and the museum to himself that he had "supporters" build, this fuss over a few weeks with the top ranking shows that this otherwise okay guy cannot keep his pride in check IMHO.
En suma, si bien no tengo el menor duda sobre su buena fe, le suplico tener más cuidado en adelante. Gracias.
Similar threads
