Pathological Losers: My Vic Braden Interview

[stroke]

I agree, McEnroe, a genius as a player and probably the best player ever in his mid 50's, should have been sanctioned as a player long before it happened. Connors got by with way too much also. I actually like McEnroe as an announcer, but Gimelstob is better to me also. Also Darren Cahill. Who I really dislike as an announcer is Mary Carrillo. Those guys on the Tennis Channel are really good to me.

[stotty]

Name one other player from this region that misbehaved.

You can't. Case closed.

You are right in general. However, there is one other, and the would be Ion Tiriac.

Tiriac taught Nastase just about everything he knew about being a bad boy. Tiriac was a cheat and scoundrel like no other. Apparently he is now an incredibly wealthy businessman reputed to be worth around a billion pounds. You wouldn't want to do business with Tiriac...you would end up losing everything and your shirt.

[bottle]

From JeffMac

What a screed! And a yelp! And a rant!

Oh, sorry for leaving out squawk.

Provocative, counter-intuitive-- that is what real writing and not torrents of psychobabble is all about. Also, possessive its never splits.

[lobndropshot]

Why not just write it is and its and just ignor "'"?

[bottle]

Too easy.

[lobndropshot]

Totally.

[don_budge]

Sympathy, Empathy…Understanding your fellow man as well as your opponents

I don't know…I'm not one for condemning any of these guys on the tennis court. Sometimes shit happens and sometimes it happens to certain guys more often than others. They seem to be magnets…it may only be their karma.

John McEnroe was a youngster growing up in post Vietnam era America. There were a lot of forces seemingly bucking the system. At the same time he knew the fix was in as he straddled the classic era and the modern engineered era. I sympathize with all of his anger and angst. They were messing with HIS game. He was like Don Quixote fighting the huge looming windmill of the shadow government of the ITF with his tiny Dunlop Maxply Fort. Joke 'em if they can't take a fuck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OcMwfuTuzw

Ilie Nastase is even more easily forgiven in my book. He coming from a communist dictatorship and who knows what else. Anybody here familiar with living conditions in Romania in the sixties? Underachiever? Hardly. I would hazard a guess it wasn't so great in Romania. So the world is suddenly your playground and you are unleashed on society. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

Richard Gonzalez…he with Aztec eyes. Unleashed upon the system with a raw talent and a primal passion the equivalent of a jaguar in the jungle. He fought with the spirit that any Apache would have been proud of. I know how he felt. Fuck 'em all.

These were riveting characters to watch. Personally I don't think there was anything wrong with any of them. People are jealous. These men provoked feeling beyond the norm. They were provocateurs. They enabled others to point their fucking fingers and say…look, there's the bad guy.

The real bad guys were hiding behind the scenes. Starting wars. Assassinating Presidents and the like. These guys were comic relief in comparison…except for Gonzalez. He was the real thing.

budge--Usually when I read your posts I say to myself, Well that's pretty perceptive. However, after reading this one about McEnroe, Nastase and Gonzalez I'm thinking that you are just completely full of shit. Or else you suffer from the same syndrome as the Watcher. You both say foolish, preposterous things just to get noticed, or simply because you both enjoy being provocative.

Let's say, for purposes of discussion, that you were aspiring to become a professional tennis writer--which we can all hope that you are not. And that you submitted this piece for publication. It would be summarily rejected and shit-canned because there is so much counter-intuitive blarney in there that no creditable organization would ever dare to print it.

Indeed, there is so much specious reasoning in this blurb that it's jaw dropping. What are you smoking up there in Sweden? You must be studying the collected works of Hillary Clinton for inspiration. It is hard to even know where to begin to start debunking this post. But, for the sake of reason, rationality and logic, I feel the need to take a stab at it...

Your overall premise seems to be that bad behavior is justified "because shit happens." Yes, "shit happens" to everyone, but we don't all react to it by behaving as if we were possessed by demons. If we did the world would a billion times more chaotic and violent than it is now.

To hypothesize that the post Viet Nam socio-political dynamics of America had any direct or indirect affect on McEnroe is the biggest polemical stretch I've ever encountered. I intentionally said "polemical" because you're bound to get push back when you make such outrageous assertions.

When he was that frizzle-headed, red headed, red head-banded ignoramus punk from a well-to-do New York suburban family attending Stanford on a full scholkarship, any awareness of the after effects of Viet Nam in his brain were totally non-existent. He was nothing more than an immature narcissist whose antics were tolerated because he had the kind of rare genius that the powers that be in the media, and within the ranks of the various and sundry tennis organizations, could turn into dollars and cents.

You seem to want to discover some arcane etiology for his deviance when its really nothing more than the confluence of two personality disorders, Narcissism and the Anti-Social which along with the counterproductive enabling he received every step along the way, that are clearly to blame.

I have always detested this guy for two reasons. Number one, he put himself above the game, and thereby damaged the integrity of the game. He is then, in this respect, no different than a felon who damages society by refusing to obey it's laws. They go to jail, and McEnroe should have been sanctioned longer before he finally was booted out of the Australian Open.

And secondly, I was charged with coaching an army of little pricks like McEnroe who modeled on his behavior because they weren't properly guided by their authority figures. So, it fell on me to do it. Now that was really fun!

Actually, I thought of a third reason not to like him. He is overrated as a tennis announcer, and doesn't deserve it. His brother, Brad Gilbert and Justin Gimelstob are all better.

There are now former tennis "powers that be" that admit that he should have been punished long before he actually was. And, by the way, they are not contending that the Viet Nam War had anything to do with his grossly inappropriate and injurious behavior. ("You can't be serious.") But after all, they are reality based. They do not love to engage in wild, provocative speculation just to try to get a rise out of people.

And moreover, to say that he was mentally compromised by the looming technological changes is probably also mere speculation. It is perhaps a projection of your own with respect to the deleterious effects of change in racket technology. You are known on these pages to be a weepy, whiny sentimentalist and Luddite when it comes to the modern game. That, in itself, is not the problem per se. I and many others are in accord with you there. The problem arises when you infer causation that is not there.

Then there is Nastase, who according to you, is "even more easily forgiven" because he grew up behind the iron curtain. No he is not! Apparently you did not notice that none of the other players who grew up under Communism behaved this way. If they had their politburo bosses would have been too embarressed to let them leave the country. In fact, I would say that on the whole they were better behaved than ugly Americans such as McEnroe and Gonzalez. Think of Fibak, Lendl and Navratilova, for example. They were model citizens. Name one other player from this region that misbehaved.

You can't. Case closed.

I believe that you are probably asserting that Gonzalez played mad and crossed the line more than once because he was discriminated against by the white country club establishment. Now that is highly likely. It makes sense unlike the rest of these theories.

You sum things up by saying that the problem was that other people were "jealous" of these malefactors. Again, not the case! In behaving the way they did they brought scorn down upon themselves--and rightly so. I would contend--as most people do--that these guys were assholes who also just happened to be very good tennis players.

Your whole post smacks of naive romanticism and unorthodoxy. I think that you can do better than this, don't you?

"Before art, psychoanalysis should lay down its arms."-- Sigmund Freud. I'm also influenced by a good friend who knew something first hand about John McEnroe's off-court presence. And as you yourself have said, don_budge, the court is a stage.

I think that as an announcer, besides being perceptive JM is well-behaved. That might give an inkling of what he is really like. And apparently if you show that you care about tennis he will talk to you and be civil and not a brat at all.

Provocative, counter-intuitive-- that is what real writing and not torrents of psychobabble is all about. Also, possessive its never splits.

PATHOLOGICAL LOSERS…my experiences in life and love. "Under everything just another human being. I don't want to hurt…there is so much in this world that makes me bleed."-Eddie Vedder (Pearl Jam)

Psycho babble from the psychotherapist. Is that what that was? I wouldn't think a therapist would be so judgemental. I would anticipate a more clinical approach. My post was poetic in nature and I don't think I could do any better than that…it was perfect. It said exactly what I wanted to say.

Of course I realize that being able to appreciate and admire characters such as John McEnroe, Ilie Nastase and Richard Gonzalez puts me on a short list. Trust me I know in which pasture the herd is grazing. At the same time I certainly appreciate the characters of Don Budge, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg and Roger Federer. Let's just say it is the contrast in life that makes it interesting and worthwhile. It's the ironic nature of the thing. Remember the two masks of drama…one smiling, one crying. What is one without the other?

If one cannot appreciate how the times shape men and their characters you certainly will have a difficult time coping with my posts. If one cannot appreciate the wide range of human behavior under a wide range of circumstances is one qualified to be anything than…well whatever it is that one claims to be? My post smacks of naive romanticism and unorthodoxy? Then I am a success. I must be innocent in some sense of the word. Unspoiled. A realist.

Take some deep breathes…just breath. It's going to be ok…even if it isn't. Know what I mean? No? That's ok with me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHRuS6X3JpU

The court is a stage. The world is a stage. In each of our souls we only play a starring role.

Would one say that is pretty perceptive or that I am full of shit?

[don_budge]

Labeling Theory...

Labeling theory is based on the idea that behaviors are deviant only when society labels them as deviant. As such, conforming members of society, who interpret certain behaviors as deviant and then attach this label to individuals, determine the distinction between deviance and non-deviance. Labeling theory questions who applies what label to whom, why they do this, and what happens as a result of this labeling.

Powerful individuals within society (politicians, judges, police officers, therapists, Hunter Thompson wannabe's etc.) typically impose the most significant labels. Labeled persons may include drug addicts, alcoholics, criminals, delinquents, prostitutes, sex offenders, and psychiatric patients, miss-behaving tennis players, to mention a few. The consequences of being labeled as deviant can be far-reaching. Social research indicates that those who have negative labels usually have lower self-images, are more likely to reject themselves, and may even act more deviantly as a result of the label. Unfortunately, people who accept the labeling of others—be it correct or incorrect—have a difficult time changing their opinions of the labeled person, even in light of evidence to the contrary.

[don_budge]

Ion Tiriac…Count Dracula

You are right in general. However, there is one other, and the would be Ion Tiriac.

Tiriac taught Nastase just about everything he knew about being a bad boy. Tiriac was a cheat and scoundrel like no other. Apparently he is now an incredibly wealthy businessman reputed to be worth around a billion pounds. You wouldn't want to do business with Tiriac...you would end up losing everything and your shirt.

In 1972…when I was just 18 years old and spending the summer in Maryland at the Don Budge Tennis Camp we took a field trip to what was known then as the Washington Star Tennis Tournament. Ion Tiriac was there and he had the reputation that made Count Dracula, also of Romania, look like a boy scout. He actually could eat an ashtray…no trivial feat.

Somehow I found myself face to face with this hulking "maniac" bad guy. I approached him and began to talk to him. He was an imposing guy but somehow it seemed possible to approach him…if one knew how to do it. I didn't ask him for an autograph or anything like that. He was as civil to me as the next guy…I will never forget that. Don Budge himself was quite impressed when I told him about my meeting. But he knew I was no shrinking violet either and he didn't hold it against me.

[stotty]

Tiriac...

In 1972…when I was just 18 years old and spending the summer in Maryland at the Don Budge Tennis Camp we took a field trip to what was known then as the Washington Star Tennis Tournament. Ion Tiriac was there and he had the reputation that made Count Dracula, also of Romania, look like a boy scout. He actually could eat an ashtray…no trivial feat.

Somehow I found myself face to face with this hulking "maniac" bad guy. I approached him and began to talk to him. He was an imposing guy but somehow it seemed possible to approach him…if one knew how to do it. I didn't ask him for an autograph or anything like that. He was as civil to me as the next guy…I will never forget that. Don Budge himself was quite impressed when I told him about my meeting. But he knew I was no shrinking violet either and he didn't hold it against me.

Actually, I would love to meet Tiriac. He is dark and imposing...mafia-like come to think of it. But he comes across highly intelligent. I like intelligent people. I find them more challenging and stimulating than people who are just average and nice. Not that the intelligent aren't nice....but...well...you what I mean. I like to have something to unravel in a person.

But getting back to Tiriac, yes, I would like to meet him. I am intrigued who he went from zero to a billionaire. I would like to speak to him about how he did that. I liked his idea of having blue clay courts. It's a shame Nadal put the mockers on that...maybe when Nadal retires Tiriac may have another go with the blue court idea.

Tiriac retired as a tennis player many years ago yet he's never left the game. He's always been around...watching the slams...coaching...promoting tournaments. He's always been involved in tennis in some way or another.

BTW I am now a Pearl Jam fan...

[JeffMac]

Your Own Private Idaho

budge--Sorry, I don't see you as a "realist." Au contraire. You seem to enjoy being contrary, and swimming against the tide much, if not most of the time. That's your prerogative. It makes you very interesting, I must admit, but simultaneously unorthodox, often overly simplistic, and sometimes just mistaken.

A case in point is "labeling." Labeling probably creates problems in some cases. However, it also has important utilitarian value for society. In a world without denomination, we would founder about in fugue-like states of confusion. Institutions would collapse and we would devolve into anarchy. If labeling didn't have survival value we wouldn't label virtually everything. It's benefits far out weigh it's negatives.

I applaud your statement saying that your opinion of Mc, Nastase and Gonzalez represents a minority opinion. Despite the fact that you are often discursive and contradictory, I believe you also have moments of clarity, and are able to overcome your proclivity for oppositional behavior--for it's own sake.

Of course, societal, cultural, and political events shape peoples lives all the time. No one lives in a vacuum. In the case of McEnroe, however, I think his particular environment, and his age, and naivete mitigated against experiencing any of the residual effects of the events that were quickly moving into our national rear view mirror.

Sometimes things are just as simple as they would seem to be. For instance, McEnroe was an asshole because he was simply prone to be so, and his objectionable behavior escalated because no one was able to stand up to him--until he had lost some power because his ranking had started to fall. I know you want it to be more complex, but it is not.

The same goes for Nastase. He was an atypical jerk who grew up behind the iron curtain. He didn't have Commie syndrome.

Looking for deeper, hidden meanings has great appeal to you. It engages your mind in a way that you find enjoyable. But in so doing, I think you often make things more complicated than they really are, which can lead to obfuscation.

Are you a Freudian?

I also believe that you are prone to projection. I have no doubt that the 70's had a powerful effect on you--and perhaps still does. But that doesn't mean that it made a well to do, immature, and self-centered nineteen year old kid from suburbia go berserk. This is another case of making things much more complicated than they really are. Sometimes "there is no there, there." I know that tends to make the world less interesting to you, but it is what it is.

Do you like conspiracy theories too? C'mon, tell the truth.

You seem to revel in your angst, and project that out onto the environment.
Your prose style is compelling because it reflects this discomfiture and turmoil and thus makes for fascinating reading. However, as I read along I tend to keep thinking that much of what you say falls into the category of a "Stretch."

It's hard to tell how much of what you say you truly believe, and how much your saying things for effect. "Only your hair dresser knows for sure."

I take back what I said about your potential to get something published. I think that you could become an essayist. Have you ever written anything longer than a post? You have an interesting style that, by the way, has at least a trace of gonzification. I'll assume that I am having this artistic effect on you. Oh I forgot. You don't believe gonzo is a style.

I'm right aren't I? You secretly love it when I channel Hunter, don't you?

Skol.

Labeling theory is based on the idea that behaviors are deviant only when society labels them as deviant. As such, conforming members of society, who interpret certain behaviors as deviant and then attach this label to individuals, determine the distinction between deviance and non-deviance. Labeling theory questions who applies what label to whom, why they do this, and what happens as a result of this labeling.

Powerful individuals within society (politicians, judges, police officers, therapists, Hunter Thompson wannabe's etc.) typically impose the most significant labels. Labeled persons may include drug addicts, alcoholics, criminals, delinquents, prostitutes, sex offenders, and psychiatric patients, miss-behaving tennis players, to mention a few. The consequences of being labeled as deviant can be far-reaching. Social research indicates that those who have negative labels usually have lower self-images, are more likely to reject themselves, and may even act more deviantly as a result of the label. Unfortunately, people who accept the labeling of others—be it correct or incorrect—have a difficult time changing their opinions of the labeled person, even in light of evidence to the contrary.

[JeffMac]

Say What? I'm Curious

Please help me. What does, "Also, possessive its never splits," mean? Is this a typo, or are you a sophomore in need of grammatical remediation? I'm curious.

What a screed! And a yelp! And a rant!

Oh, sorry for leaving out squawk.

Provocative, counter-intuitive-- that is what real writing and not torrents of psychobabble is all about. Also, possessive its never splits.

[JeffMac]

The Taskmaster and the Great Guillermo Vilas

Without Tiriac, I doubt if Vilas would have ever become the number one player in the world. As a coach, the Rumanian was one of the toughest task masters in the history of the game. He "made" Vilas.

Actually, I would love to meet Tiriac. He is dark and imposing...mafia-like come to think of it. But he comes across highly intelligent. I like intelligent people. I find them more challenging and stimulating than people who are just average and nice. Not that the intelligent aren't nice....but...well...you what I mean. I like to have something to unravel in a person.

But getting back to Tiriac, yes, I would like to meet him. I am intrigued who he went from zero to a billionaire. I would like to speak to him about how he did that. I liked his idea of having blue clay courts. It's a shame Nadal put the mockers on that...maybe when Nadal retires Tiriac may have another go with the blue court idea.

Tiriac retired as a tennis player many years ago yet he's never left the game. He's always been around...watching the slams...coaching...promoting tournaments. He's always been involved in tennis in some way or another.

BTW I am now a Pearl Jam fan...

[johnyandell]

Tiriac would be polite to anyone--coldly sizing you up for an angle to exploit. Mook, kid with Rich daddy, access point...intrinsically and immovably loyal--to himself. But I never met him.

[don_budge]

To JeffMac…Pathological Loser

Concerns are growing here and there about Roger's knee surgery and that his absence could easily extend to two or three months. The concern is mostly box office rather than Roger's health. Roger is apparently worth a fortune to any event he enters.

Viewers switch on in far fewer numbers for players outside the big three. The TV audience for the Cilic v Nishikori US Open final was weeny compared to the 2015 final featuring Djokovic and Federer. With the top three having dominated for over the last ten years, it's left all the other players with little to no stock value. Murray alone is also considered low stock but bankable when he plays one of the top three.

Worrying, isn't it? I have being saying there could be trouble ahead for a long time. It's healthy that top players are usurped while they are still great so the game maintains ongoing credibility. At this rate the top three will exit on their own terms, undeposed. Tennis fans will be left lamenting...

The game could be in for an almighty slump a few years down the line. Am I being too pessimistic or does anyone else have my concerns?

Would you switch on for a Kyrgios v Raonic Wimbledon final?

The don_budge teaching paradigm for teaching tennis…

The book is Bill Tilden. The model is Richard Gonzalez with the Don Budge backhand. Harry Hopman is the coach. Roger Federer is the living proof.


To truly understand the paradigm you must be a student of the game…as well as being the teacher. You must know and understand your tennis history. You must know the signs and understand their meanings. You must discern. You must connect the dots…those glorious three little dots that Ferdinand Celine made immortal.

You notice there is nothing but a blank page after Roger Federer…the living proof. We are in that zone now…we go forwards. Or not. Once Roger goes we are in uncharted territory…uncharted waters. As it stands it doesn't look all that good.

Whole facets of the original game have been engineered out of the equation. The game is now a boring malaise that has become an endless duel from the baseline. The truth of the matter is the modern game has always been a BORE. After 1984 when the first semifinal in a major was contested with oversized racquets the game became way too fast and it had to be slowed down…before it derailed itself. A runaway train.

It was at some point on or around 2001 that the game gradually became more and more baseline oriented due to insidious engineering. This is what the game has "evolved" to. Where can it go from here? It could go backwards if they speed up the courts to the immediate post classic era and then once more we will be faced with the same problem that we had before. We will have the likes of a Kyrgios vs. Raonic matches which will be just as or more boring than the present baseline format.

Realistically…it is the end. The end of all that was good and virtuous. The end of romance, of God and child-like dreams. Perhaps the illusion of these things will persist for some years…but it's only a matter of time. Can you envision 2034 when a child born in 2016 will turn 18 years old? I'm scared.

1984 is the title of a book that a man by the name of George Orwell wrote. It doesn't have a happy ending. Even Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam says that he isn't very good at happy endings. That is because Eddie is a realist…even though his cup remains a combination of being either full or empty…he understands the nature of the beast. It's the same for the rich and successful as it is for pathological losers (which we all are). Just ask John McEnroe. He puts his shorts on one leg at a time too.

In 1984 at the U. S. Open men's semifinals all of the four men used over or mid-sized racquets. For years Bud Collins called it "the greatest day of tennis ever". I was there from start to finish…in the morning it was Stan Smith versus John Newcombe in the veteran's singles. Next up was Ivan Lendl versus Pat Cash followed by Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. The night cap was the great John McEnroe versus Jimmy Connors. Every match that day went the distance. The tennis was spell binding that's for sure. But it was the day the music died. Like Buddy Holly…tennis went down in flames for all times.

Bud Collins, while calling it the greatest day in tennis ever, never did footnote that all of the players were using oversized racquets. He either overlooked that important fact or he did it for some other reason. He is a respected tennis historian and he needs to be questioned on this. As I said the tennis was absolutely scintillating and breathtaking. I watched every single point that day and in the back of my mind I knew what I knew this very day. Tennis was finished as the game that I knew and loved growing up.

Those days are gone and better left alone. But here we are once again. It's the twilight zone. Betwixt and between. It is no longer day and it isn't night yet. Well it is…truth is it has been over for a long time. Federer in his own way has been an illusion…a man of his times. It's the racquet stupid. His superiority a product of not only his skills and equipment but that of the illusions of the past. The truth is the modern field has been weakened by atrophy and it hasn't evolved into anything as most think. It is only engineering. By making the equipment more intrinsic the species actually was in decline.

So what will the brain trust of the ITF pull out of the hat next? What dirty tricks do they have up there sleeves? You can be certain that all due respect will be paid to the moneychangers…the man behind the curtain. It's no longer a conspiracy…it's an accepted fact of life. Everyone has bought into it. It is the end. When nobody understands just how it is that we got to where we are at and have ceased to ask the important questions. We are there. Trust me.

"A return to wooden rackets would be a huge improvement for professional tennis. The biggest change in the game in the last twenty-five years, the replacement of wood by graphite, has been a bad one. I happen to think that wooden rackets are beautiful aesthetically and purer for the game. Look at baseball. Kids start with aluminium bats in Little League, then move on to graphite or kevlar or whatever in college…and then and only then …if they make it to the majors do they get to use those beautiful wooden bats that require greater expertise for success. Why not do the same thing in tennis? I think it looks great to have a little wand in your hand, instead of some ultra-thick club big enough to kill somebody with! Wood to me has glamor. You need strategy and technique. Tennis these days is sadly lacking in all these things. It's all as David Bowie said…wham, bam, thank you, ma'am."-the great John McEnroe in his autobiography "Serious".

Coming from John McEnroe this is quite a mouthful. Its white light. It's a beautiful statement that speaks of his child-like personality and his "idea" as an adolescent. It speaks of his absolute love and RESPECT for the game…his innocence. He has a "Peter Pan" complex if anything. Plus he's a perfectionist. He never wanted to "grow up". Who can blame him? I love John McEnroe like a brother. He rebelled against the system and he took them on. They were fucking with his game. He was outnumbered and there wasn't much he could do…except go down in flames. He could have quit like Bjorn Borg…except he was just getting started. But "they" managed to derail him…there is no telling what the final tape would have looked like if the game had remained "all wooden" for the duration of his career. We will never know and that is the shame of it…the horror.

I got it wrong the first time…for John it was "fuck 'em if they can't take a joke". Nasty should have been…"joke 'em if they can't take a fuck". I was right about Gonzalez…he said "fuck 'em all". He was right…so right. Look where we are.

If you know what I mean...

The above is a "post" that I wrote in another thread. More don_budge dysfunction? Or? Just for you reading pleasure or your personal disdain…whichever prevails.