Just wanted to say Steffi Graf is in no way the best ever!

[egn]

Then Capriati should have been fined.
Because at age 15 she had the body of a grown-up woman.

No comparison with 15-year-old Navratilova, Graf or Henin.

So Capriati reaching #6 in the rankings at that age was no surprise. She had some talent, no question. But her winning 3 slams in the early 00s shows what a weak era that was between Graf's retirement and Henin's rise.

Didn't Seles make a French Open semi at 15 and what about Evert's success at 15. Capriati's family pushed the poor girl way too much when she was young. Taking cheap shots at her is unnecessary.

I'm pretty sure she was not in as weak of an era as people think I mean sure Serena wasn't at her peak yet but Venus/Davenport/Hingis are still quite great players.

 

[Joe Pike]

Or maybe it shows Capriati was actually a really good player. Imagine that.

Capriati beat Martina Hingis in the finals of 2 of her slam wins and the semis of the other. Are you going to say Hingis sucks too. Capriati also beat Clijsters twice, Davenport, Seles, Mauresmo, and Serena as well in the quarters, semis, or finals of her 3 slam wins.

Are you saying Capriati in her mid 20s once she got herself back on track wasnt a better player than at 15.

She was a good player. Mary Jo Fernandez and Helena Sukova also were good players. Capriati won slams in her mid-20s because it was a weak era then.

 

[davey25]

The late 90s, early 2000s, and mid 2000s had:

-Serena as a huge threat from 1999 onwards. Even the 99-2001 Serena who won only 1 slam was a great player and extremely scary for any women on tour. She won quite a few tier 1 and tier 2 titles during those years too I believe, and was always a threat to win any slam she entered outside maybe the French.

-Venus as a huge threat from 1998 onwards.

-Hingis as a huge threat from 1997-2002 Australia Open (she was injured most of the rest of that year then retired after a slow comeback)

-Davenport as a huge threat from 1997 or 1998 onwards

-Capriati as a huge threat from 2001 to 2004

-Sharapova emerging as a threat in 2004

-Clijsters and Henin as threats from 2001 onwards, entering their primes in 2003

-Mauresmo as a threat from 1999 onwards

-Pierce as a real contender

-Seles still a contender except her her final year in 2003

-Kuznetsova and Dementieva arguably at their peaks in the mid 2000s and major threats, even more than they are in recent years

I would say this was easily the deepest womens field ever

 

[davey25]

She was a good player. Mary Jo Fernandez and Helena Sukova also were good players. Capriati won slams in her mid-20s because it was a weak era then.

Capriati only played Fernandez once. And she killed her in that match at only 14. Sukova was an excellent player, maybe the best to never win a slam. Still you cant seriously tell me Capriati isnt a much better player than Fernandez or Sukova.

 

[Joe Pike]

The late 90s, early 2000s, and mid 2000s had:

-Serena as a huge threat from 1999 onwards. Even the 99-2001 Serena who won only 1 slam was a great player and extremely scary for any women on tour. She won quite a few tier 1 and tier 2 titles during those years too I believe, and was always a threat to win any slam she entered outside maybe the French.

-Venus as a huge threat from 1998 onwards.

-Hingis as a huge threat from 1997-2002 Australia Open (she was injured most of the rest of that year then retired after a slow comeback)

-Davenport as a huge threat from 1997 or 1998 onwards

-Capriati as a huge threat from 2001 to 2004

-Sharapova emerging as a threat in 2004

-Clijsters and Henin as threats from 2001 onwards, entering their primes in 2003

-Mauresmo as a threat from 1999 onwards

-Pierce as a real contender

-Seles still a contender except her her final year in 2003

-Kuznetsova and Dementieva arguably at their peaks in the mid 2000s and major threats, even more than they are in recent years

I would say this was easily the deepest womens field ever

Without Navratilova and Evert about 20 women would have been a huge threat in 1983-86. So we had the deepest women's field ever PLUS Martina and Chris back then.

 

[Joe Pike]

Capriati only played Fernandez once. And she killed her in that match at only 14. Sukova was an excellent player, maybe the best to never win a slam. Still you cant seriously tell me Capriati isnt a much better player than Fernandez or Sukova.

Capriati would not have won 3 slams in the open era from 1968 to 1999.
Only with no real great player around in the early 00s she was able to win them.

 

[davey25]

Without Navratilova and Evert about 20 women would have been a huge threat in 1983-86. So we had the deepest women's field ever PLUS Martina and Chris back then.

No without Martina and Chris you would have had Hana and Pam (and brief 1 or 2 year periods Jaeger, an almost 40 year old King and 14, 15 and 16 year old Graf and Sabatini) win all the slams from 82-86. And if Hana and Martina werent around either then a 40 year old King, 30 something Turnbull, and Andrea Jeager would have played the slam finals until Graf and Sabatini began playing in them regularly at age 15; with now the clown brigade of the 80s top 10 such as Bettina Bunge, Claudia Kohde Kilsch, and Sylvia Hanika maybe being in the finals or winning the odd one. There was no depth in womens tennis then.

 

[davey25]

Capriati would not have won 3 slams in the open era from 1968 to 1999.
Only with no real great player around in the early 00s she was able to win them.

Yeah the Williams sisters, Henin, Hingis, Davenport, Clijsters, and Mauresmo are all ungreat.

 

[davey25]

I would say comparing the decades as far as depth one way is the list the number of what I call legit threats who lasted more than just a year or two as a genuine threat.

60s legit threats- Court, King, Wade, Bueno, Turnbull, Richey, Jones, Hard. EIGHT

70s legit threats- Court, King, Evert, Navratilova, Wade, Goolagong, Austin. SEVEN.

80s legit threats- Navratilova, Evert, Graf, Mandlikova, Sabatini. FIVE

90s legit threats- Graf, Seles, Sabatini, Novotna, Pierce, Hingis, Davenport, Martinez, Navratilova, Sanchez Vicario. TEN

2000s legit threats- Serena, Venus, Davenport, Capriati, Clijsters,
Mauresmo, Henin, Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Dementieva. TEN

I counted Austin in the 70s as I think she was making her greatest impact in 1979 and 1980, before the injuries all hit. In 1981 she was a threat on an erratic basis, missing much of the year injured. In 82 and 83 she was already injured and completely washed up, just delaying the inevitable need to retire due to a battered body.

The 80s were the most shallow period for womens tennis ever IMO. The 2000s I still say overall is the deepest even with the fade at the end of the decade.

 

[1970CRBase]

90s legit threats- Graf, Seles, Sabatini, Novotna, Pierce, Hingis, Davenport, Martinez, Navratilova. NINE

^^^ Why have you left out Sanchez in the 90's? She is at least 4th best in that period.

If Navratilova was a contender even in 90's then Ivanovic wasn't a legit contender in the 2000s? I guess poor Safina can't be considered.

 

[davey25]

^^^ Why have you left out Sanchez in the 90's? Ivanovic wasn't a legit contender in the 2000s?

Sorry I missed Sanchez Vicario by accident. No I would not include Ivanovic as she was only a threat for a year and half.

 

[1970CRBase]

Insofar as depth of competition by decade goes, I can understand leaving out ppl like Ivanovic, Myskina, Jankovic, poor Safina in the 2000s. But in relative comparison to those players in their decade, Sabatini surely had far less impact on competition in the 80s (Jan 1st 1980 - Dec 31st 1989). No Navratilova, no Evert from 1985 onwards, how many Slams could conceivably have gone Sabatini's way?? In fact, where would those Slams Evert/Nav won have ended up?

Sabatini as a contender in the 80s is very borderline. You have the Three, and sort of a fourth.

 

[davey25]

Insofar as depth of competition by decade goes, I can understand leaving out ppl like Ivanovic, Myskina, Jankovic, poor Safina in the 2000s. But in relative comparison to those players in their decade, Sabatini surely had far less impact on competition in the 80s (Jan 1st 1980 - Dec 31st 1989). No Navratilova, no Evert from 1985 onwards, how many Slams could conceivably have gone Sabatini's way?? In fact, where would those Slams Evert/Nav won have ended up?

Sabatini as a contender in the 80s is very borderline. You have the Three, and sort of a fourth.

Actually I think removing Evert and Navratilova would just show how shallow the 80s were. If forced to go through each this is where I think each would have ended up possibly

1980 French Open- Mandlikova
1980 Wimbledon- Goolagong (as was)
1980 U.S Open- Austin (or Mandlikova)
1980 Australian Open- Mandlikova (as was)
1981 French Open- Mandlikova (as was)
1981 Wimbledon- Mandlikova
1981 U.S Open- Austin (as was)
1981 Australian Open- Mandlikova (or Shriver or Turnbull)
1982 French Open- Jaeger
1982 Wimbledon- Billie Jean King (38 years old)
1982 U.S Open- Mandlikova
1983 French Open- Mandlikova
1983 Wimbledon- Jaeger
1983 U.S Open- Shriver
1983 Australian Open- Jo Durie (or Shriver)
1984 French Open- Mandlikova
1984 Wimbledon- Mandlikova (or Jordan)
1984 U.S Open- Turnbull (or Basset)
1985 French Open- 14 year old Sabatini, 15 year old Graf, or Kohde Kilsch (I am going to guess Graf)
1985 Wimbledon- Garrison
1985 U.S Open- Mandlikova (as was)
1985 Australian Open- Mandlikova
1986 French Open- Graf (or Mandlikova or 15 year old Sabatini)
1986 Wimbledon- Mandlikova (or Sukova)
1986 U.S Open- Graf
1987 Australian Open- Mandlikova (as was)
1987 French Open- Graf (as was)
1987 Wimbledon- Graf
1987 U.S Open- Graf
1988 Australian Open- Graf (as was)
1988 French Open- Graf (as was)
1988 Wimbledon- Graf (as was)
1988 U.S Open- Graf (as was)
1989 Australian Open- Graf (as was)
1989 French Open- Sanchez Vicario (as was)
1989 Wimbledon- Graf (as was)
1989 U.S Open- Graf (as well)

So by my estimation that is about 13 slams for Mandlikova who was very talented but a huge mental flake who often lost to nobodies in the early rounds of slams. A 15 year old probably would have won a slam at some point, be that Graf or Sabatini. Overall it is just a really weak group of players as a whole after Navratilova and Evert. Austin was finished at the top after 1981, playing out the final couple years of her career as a complete shadow of her old self. Sabatini and Graf did not really begin to emerge until later in the decade. Shriver, Sukova, Turnbull, Jaeger, Garisson, Maleeva, were all not especialy impressive, and Jaeger didnt last very long either. The rest like Hanika, Bunge, Kilsch, Potter, Jordan, Durie, Basset, Rinaldi, were very feeble excuses of even top 10 players.

I dont think Sabatini would have been helped much though. Graf had her number from Day 1 when they first started playing with the except of that stretch in and around 1991. She may have snuck out an additional slam but probably not because of Graf.

I did list Sabatini as a contender of the 80s though since she was the only person to beat Graf 3 times in 1988 and 1989. She did reach some big finals in semis. She was really the 3rd best player in the World behind Graf and Navratilova from 87-89 (arguably 2nd best in 1988 ).

I think if you removed Graf and Seles from the 90s or removed Serena and Venus or Henin (depending who you consider the 2nd best of the 2000s) from the 2000s the list of winners would still far eclipse what would have been seen in the early to mid 80s without Martina and Chris.

 

[Joe Pike]

I would say comparing the decades as far as depth one way is the list the number of what I call legit threats who lasted more than just a year or two as a genuine threat.

60s legit threats- Court, King, Wade, Bueno, Turnbull, Richey, Jones, Hard. EIGHT

70s legit threats- Court, King, Evert, Navratilova, Wade, Goolagong, Austin. SEVEN.

80s legit threats- Navratilova, Evert, Graf, Mandlikova, Sabatini. FIVE

90s legit threats- Graf, Seles, Sabatini, Novotna, Pierce, Hingis, Davenport, Martinez, Navratilova, Sanchez Vicario. TEN

2000s legit threats- Serena, Venus, Davenport, Capriati, Clijsters,
Mauresmo, Henin, Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Dementieva. TEN

...

You don't get it ...

Evert, Navratilova and Graf were so good that Kuznetsova, Mauresmo, Capriati types were not "threat" to them.
S. Williams is not as good. So those types are a threat.
Got it now?

And in what way is Demented a "threat" ... ?

 

[TMF]

Davey25 got banned. I was wondering where he is b/c he's been quiet for awhile.

 

[LDVTennis]

Davey25 got banned. I was wondering where he is b/c he's been quiet for awhile.

What finally did it?

 

[dmt]

why was davey banned?

 

[pmerk34]

Davey25 got banned. I was wondering where he is b/c he's been quiet for awhile.

why do people get banned?

 

[TMF]

^
These are all good questions and I really don't know. I've read some posts from banned posters and still trying to figure out what "trigger" the banning process.

 

[Datacipher]

^
These are all good questions and I really don't know. I've read some posts from banned posters and still trying to figure out what "trigger" the banning process.

Given Davey25's long history of legitimate posts here, it's hard for me to believe he would have done something so egregious in any single post that it would warrant banning! A warning about something...OK...but....banning? Definitely seems troubling...

If a person has had THAT many posts without a problem, no matte what rule he may have broken, it should be taken as a one-time offense unless done repeatedly...

 

[abmk]

^
These are all good questions and I really don't know. I've read some posts from banned posters and still trying to figure out what "trigger" the banning process.

one of them is creating multiple IDs ....

 

[mandy01]

Is it a permanent ban?
:shock:
That would be surprising because as far as I know they do have temporary banning .But I guess they know best.

 

[1970CRBase]

Is it a permanent ban?
:shock:
That would be surprising because as far as I know they do have temporary banning .But I guess they know best.

Seems like if an account is removed from the member list, it's permanent.

I don't think it's because of anything he wrote. He made many good posts and it's a pity because it's always a great benefit to read another well reasoned point of view, whether or not you agree with him.

You can also look at this thread and note which accounts got permanently struck off and form your own conclusion as to why.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=333345

None of my business though.

 

[hoodjem]

For me, it's either Graf or Navratilova (and maybe Court sneaking in there).

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

I often wonder if in a generation or two, will we see a player so incredible, that she will make every previous slam winner (the usual suspects of the top 10 GOAT lists) seem...average?

With each generation comes advances in technology, training, and general human evolution...if someone had some uncanny talent, would it be possible for some new force to simply re-write every most valued record with ease?

 

[Datacipher]

I often wonder if in a generation or two, will we see a player so incredible, that she will make every previous slam winner (the usual suspects of the top 10 GOAT lists) seem...average?

With each generation comes advances in technology, training, and general human evolution...if someone had some uncanny talent, would it be possible for some new force to simply re-write every most valued record with ease?

God, I hope this is a joke.

Having said that, for the first time in human history, we do stand on the possible brink. Steroids and doping has changed all professional sports including tennis, new advances, genetic engineering (which many think is the future of athletics) possibly using even animal genes may make this possible.

As of now, no, humans are humans, and the best athletes have been about the same.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

God, I hope this is a joke.

Having said that, for the first time in human history, we do stand on the possible brink. Steroids and doping has changed all professional sports including tennis, new advances, genetic engineering (which many think is the future of athletics) possibly using even animal genes may make this possible.

As of now, no, humans are humans, and the best athletes have been about the same.

Humans evolve; its not just a matter of better training or PEDs, as Olympians prove over the generations, which is why people often think the players of today (removing the talent factor) are simply better athletes than those of just one generation before. One has to wonder if the feats of Court--or for this thread's purposes, Graf--will be just another record rendered not so amazing in the years ahead.

 

[thalivest]

Humans evolve; its not just a matter of better training or PEDs, as Olympians prove over the generations, which is why people often think the players of today (removing the talent factor) are simply better athletes than those of just one generation before. One has to wonder if the feats of Court--or for this thread's purposes, Graf--will be just another record rendered not so amazing in the years ahead.

That is a good point. Even if track stars and swimmers didnt have the fancy swimsuits and advanced coaching they would still be going so much faster than the people of 40 years ago. One funny thing though is in womens track almost all the World records are still from the 80s, but that is mostly since the 80s (and 70s) were the height of the womens doping craze with various culprits from East Germany, Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and even the U.S. With Germany and Soviet Union splitting and unifying it is not nearly as bad now, though doping still exists no doubt.

 

[Datacipher]

Humans evolve; its not just a matter of better training or PEDs, as Olympians prove

ROFL! OK...this is a joke. If you actually believe this, then there is nothing for us to discuss.
1.The olympics have been completely doped for over 40 years now (tennis has had doping for nearly the same length of time, since there were at least some doping cases in the early 70's)
2.humans haven't "evolved". Evolution of that nature doesn't even occur over that kind of generational time span in humans.

 

[MurrayisBEAST]

I would say she was like the 10th best lady of all time.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

2.humans haven't "evolved". Evolution of that nature doesn't even occur over that kind of generational time span in humans.

If you actually believe this, then you also think the average human being of 2010 has the same physical structure, general strength, height and other factors of one living in 1910...and there's no evidence that such a belief would be true.

 

[MotherMarjorie]

Humans evolve; its not just a matter of better training or PEDs, as Olympians prove over the generations, which is why people often think the players of today (removing the talent factor) are simply better athletes than those of just one generation before. One has to wonder if the feats of Court--or for this thread's purposes, Graf--will be just another record rendered not so amazing in the years ahead.

I think that with all sports having been tainted with doping for decades, we all pretty much can understand why some "evolutions" have occured and its not been "natural." Using Olympic sports as an example of improving athlete's throughout generations is a very poor example considering the repeated doping abuses. No one truly knows how many of these generational Olympic records were steroid-aided. Its a situation similar to Bonds-McGuire in major league baseball.

In reference to Graf/Court's all-time records, they will continue to stand until someone surpasses them and revered as historic. Helen Wills Moody hasn't been forgotten the past eighty years because of her Grand Slam excellence. Only on-court performance can change tennis history. The bar Court/Graf have set will always be a measure of greatness historically. Nothing will change that.



Mother Marjorie

 

[Datacipher]

If you actually believe this, then you also think the average human being of 2010 has the same physical structure, general strength, height and other factors of one living in 1910...and there's no evidence that such a belief would be true.

HOLY.....

Just when you think you've read it all. You're either a little kid....or a nutbar!

WOW.

Humans DO have the same physical structure, WE DO HAVE ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE of this. WOW. What in the heck...LOL! This guy thinks we're changing like viruses....

Height has increased on average in industrial countries, NOT by evolution...good lord....

 

[Datacipher]

I think that with all sports having been tainted with doping for decades, we all pretty much can understand why some "evolutions" have occured and its not been "natural." Using Olympic sports as an example of improving athlete's throughout generations is a very poor example considering the repeated doping abuses. No one truly knows how many of these generational Olympic records were steroid-aided. Its a situation similar to Bonds-McGuire in major league baseball.

In reference to Graf/Court's all-time records, they will continue to stand until someone surpasses them and revered as historic. Helen Wills Moody hasn't been forgotten the past eighty years because of her Grand Slam excellence. Only on-court performance can change tennis history. The bar Court/Graf have set will always be a measure of greatness historically. Nothing will change that.



Mother Marjorie

However, Marjorie, even a Graf must be questioned. She would have been a prime candidate for doping, AND, doping does not affect everyone equally...not by any means. Even if every one of her opponents had exactly the same doping usage, the performance increases would not be equal. As a result, to be frank, every single Olympic and pro record today, is...invalid. Some people who do realize how widespread doping is will still argue that if they are all using, the "best" person will still win. This simply isn't so....and that's sad. The real best will never be known, due to doping.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

HOLY.....

Just when you think you've read it all. You're either a little kid....or a nutbar!

WOW.

Humans DO have the same physical structure, WE DO HAVE ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE of this. WOW. What in the heck...LOL! This guy thinks we're changing like viruses....

Height has increased on average in industrial countries, NOT by evolution...good lord....

You need a few classes in....everything, since you believe human beings are the same today (sans training/doping, etc.) as a century ago. To even hint of such a thing is not only inaccurate in the extreme, but is not supported by a majority of research.

Oh, well, some kids will believe just about anything.

 

[thalivest]

Well for starters the increase in population over the last century makes finding superior quality best athletes more likely. After all the more people there are, the more likely the best ones are more talented. It is just like in countries were more play a sport, those countries are more likely to find top talents, though there are rare exceptions.

I remember browing one time and the guy that won the Olympics in swimming in 1896 won with a time I could have even done at that distance no problems even in a cold lake (I used to be a swimmer though not an amazing one by any means). So while that is an extreme example obviously people do evolve over time even with all the other factors that develop all the time and the probably rampant steroid use of many elites today.

 

[LDVTennis]

However, Marjorie, even a Graf must be questioned. She would have been a prime candidate for doping, AND, doping does not affect everyone equally...not by any means.

Graf, a prime candidate for doping? And, you know this for a fact or are you simply speculating?

To quote you (I think), "[y]ou're either a little kid....or a nutbar!"

 

[thalivest]

Steffi Graf grew up as an athletic prodigy in the 80s as a West German at the time before the Berlin Wall came down. To me that makes it especialy unlikely she was doping. The West prided themselves on being seperated from the Eastern influence in that sort of thing, which was one of the reasons they produced far less successful athletes than the East as well.

 

[dannythomas]

However, Marjorie, even a Graf must be questioned. She would have been a prime candidate for doping, AND, doping does not affect everyone equally...not by any means. Even if every one of her opponents had exactly the same doping usage, the performance increases would not be equal. As a result, to be frank, every single Olympic and pro record today, is...invalid. Some people who do realize how widespread doping is will still argue that if they are all using, the "best" person will still win. This simply isn't so....and that's sad. The real best will never be known, due to doping.

It's amazing how some people want to do anything they can to discredit Steffi.
She is one of the greatest players of all time . Whether she is the best ever is just a question of opinion.
This thread has become totally pointless.

 

[thalivest]

It's amazing how some people want to do anything they can to discredit Steffi.
She is one of the greatest players of all time . Whether she is the best ever is just a question of opinion.
This thread has become totally pointless.

It was always going to be a pointless thread at this point. A certain troll chose to bring up a 6 year old thread for no apparent reason.

 

[Datacipher]

It's amazing how some people want to do anything they can to discredit Steffi.
She is one of the greatest players of all time . Whether she is the best ever is just a question of opinion.
This thread has become totally pointless.

THE DIMBULBS Have spoken!!! Even though I made my views on doping (which are EXTREMELY informed, both in theory, media, and personal experience) CLEAR. And ignoring the fact, that as a poster for YEARS, I've made it VERY clear I don't give a ____ about the "greatness" of Graf, or ANY OTHER woman's player.

HERE. LET ME SPELL IT OUT....SELES, MARTINA (both), HENIN, PIERCE, MJ FERNANDEZ, SABATINI, ALL THE women out there now...most of who's names I don't even know. THEY ARE ALL PRIME CANDIDATES for DOPING. EVERY PROFESSIONAL athlete has a better chance of being doped than not. LET ME REPEAT, MOST pro sports are NEAR 100 percent DOPED now, and tennis, if not 100% has WIDESPREAD doping, which began, at the latest, in the 60's, as mentioned by none other than Billy Jean King.

Goodbye now, women's dimbulbs. LOL!

PS. Why in the heck would I care about women's tennis???! Go back to your whatever current feud you're having now...Graf vs ______.

 

[Tina]

^^^^^
Interesting reasoning, Uncle Data!!!

 

[LDVTennis]

THE DIMBULBS Have spoken!!! Even though I made my views on doping (which are EXTREMELY informed, both in theory, media, and personal experience) CLEAR. And ignoring the fact, that as a poster for YEARS, I've made it VERY clear I don't give a ____ about the "greatness" of Graf, or ANY OTHER woman's player.

HERE. LET ME SPELL IT OUT....SELES, MARTINA (both), HENIN, PIERCE, MJ FERNANDEZ, SABATINI, ALL THE women out there now...most of who's names I don't even know. THEY ARE ALL PRIME CANDIDATES for DOPING. EVERY PROFESSIONAL athlete has a better chance of being doped than not. LET ME REPEAT, MOST pro sports are NEAR 100 percent DOPED now, and tennis, if not 100% has WIDESPREAD doping, which began, at the latest, in the 60's, as mentioned by none other than Billy Jean King.

Goodbye now, women's dimbulbs. LOL!

PS. Why in the heck would I care about women's tennis???! Go back to your whatever current feud you're having now...Graf vs ______.

Yeah, we are the "dimbulbs" for questioning your theory that every female tennis player since the 60's has most likely been doping.

Got any evidence for your theory other than the fact that steroids existed since the 60's?

You know what. Cake has been around much longer than steroids. Do you also have a theory about every female tennis player eating cake?

You're the dimbulb. You're just too dim to recognize it. LOL.

 

[thalivest]

You know what. Cake has been around much longer than steroids. Do you also have a theory about every female tennis player eating cake?

Someone whose favorite 2 players are Serena Williams and Monica Seles could easily be fooled to believe this. :twisted:

 

[TMF]

LOL, first it all started with hating Seles, now it is Graf's turn. I wonder who will be next.

 

[Joe Pike]

THE DIMBULBS Have spoken!!! Even though I made my views on doping (which are EXTREMELY informed, both in theory, media, and personal experience) CLEAR. And ignoring the fact, that as a poster for YEARS, I've made it VERY clear I don't give a ____ about the "greatness" of Graf, or ANY OTHER woman's player.

HERE. LET ME SPELL IT OUT....SELES, MARTINA (both), HENIN, PIERCE, MJ FERNANDEZ, SABATINI, ALL THE women out there now...most of who's names I don't even know. THEY ARE ALL PRIME CANDIDATES for DOPING. EVERY PROFESSIONAL athlete has a better chance of being doped than not. LET ME REPEAT, MOST pro sports are NEAR 100 percent DOPED now, ...

It is always the same - when you think you have seen it all in the internet some nutter comes up and tries to be even nuttier ...

 

[rolandg]

THE DIMBULBS Have spoken!!! Even though I made my views on doping (which are EXTREMELY informed, both in theory, media, and personal experience) CLEAR. And ignoring the fact, that as a poster for YEARS, I've made it VERY clear I don't give a ____ about the "greatness" of Graf, or ANY OTHER woman's player.

HERE. LET ME SPELL IT OUT....SELES, MARTINA (both), HENIN, PIERCE, MJ FERNANDEZ, SABATINI, ALL THE women out there now...most of who's names I don't even know. THEY ARE ALL PRIME CANDIDATES for DOPING. EVERY PROFESSIONAL athlete has a better chance of being doped than not. LET ME REPEAT, MOST pro sports are NEAR 100 percent DOPED now, and tennis, if not 100% has WIDESPREAD doping, which began, at the latest, in the 60's, as mentioned by none other than Billy Jean King.

Goodbye now, women's dimbulbs. LOL!

PS. Why in the heck would I care about women's tennis???! Go back to your whatever current feud you're having now...Graf vs ______.

Completely agree. Doping is so deeply entrenched in every professional sport, I don't believe any professional athlete is clean, especially in tennis, which has some of the highest prize money and endorsement possibilities.

 

[LDVTennis]

Completely agree. Doping is so deeply entrenched in every professional sport, I don't believe any professional athlete is clean, especially in tennis, which has some of the highest prize money and endorsement possibilities.

Here is an interesting ideal for a poll.

Who is crazier the person who first opined that every female tennis player since the 60's was doping or the person who agrees with that insane theory?

Cast your votes.

 

[TMF]

^
You can make a poll by asking each members in here whether they would use drug if they were a pro tennis player. That will give what the % of all the players on the tour using drug.
Don’t use anonymous poll.

 

[Datacipher]

Completely agree. Doping is so deeply entrenched in every professional sport, I don't believe any professional athlete is clean, especially in tennis, which has some of the highest prize money and endorsement possibilities.

Well of course. You'd have to be completely ignorant not to realize this. With over 37 cases of Nandrolone alone in one year on the ATP tour, and with entire teams being disqualified out the tour de france, baseballs biggest stars having to reveal they doped, track and field olympic athletes and coaches now confessing that they all doped....seriously, as I've written before many times, it's understandable. What are you going to do? Give up your dream of ever being a pro cyclist, or just do what every other competitor is doing? Inside the sport, it doesn't even seem wrong....and besides, the general public AND the administration of the sport don't REALLY want to know the truth.

As to tennis...sure...it was ONLY Korda, Coria, Rusedksi, Mcenroe, etc etc etc......lol.