Tweet
Originally posted by JeffMac
View Post
-
+1
-
"Possessive its never splits" is a banner statement with no period at the end that appears on the red paper cover of a popular grammar book for children. Therefore, and since you occasionally do make that grammatical mistake I thought that advice would be psychologically appropriate for you as well as a way to bring you back into the community/bosom of mild humankind.Originally posted by JeffMac View PostbudgeIn 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.
Skol.
I mean both: race as in the current political contests and race as in "Caucasian," "Indian" or "human."
One thing about your writing though. You do succeed in being provocative. Yes to survival value. No to an outweighing of negatives. And the institutions already collapsed. Give me "fugue-like confusion" or Miles Davis over a race characterized by its bigotry any day.
I mean two different kinds of race: as in the current political contest and as in Caucasian, Indian or human.Last edited by bottle; 02-07-2016, 11:35 AM.Comment
-
John McEnroe and Hunter S. Thompson…Pathological Losers
Originally posted by JeffMac View PostOriginally posted by don_budge View Post
John McEnroe…no different than a felon who damages society by refusing to obey its laws? Tennis activist? Weepy, whiney sentimentalist? Luddite?Originally posted by JeffMac View PostComment
-
My Wilson Jack Kramer, my club, and Wembley 1977
On all playing levels, graphite rackets with increased head sizes opened the door to players who might not have succeeded so well without them them.
Let me tell you a racket transition story:
My last wooden racket was a Wilson Jack Kramer. I really liked that racket and used it for around a couple of years.
I was a natural volleyer with a good overhead when I was young. At my club there were a few natural volleyers (always held in high esteem, even envied) and there were less natural volleyers who "made do". These type of players occupied our first team. I played in the first team for thirteen straight years. I might have played longer but by this time I had gotten married, had two children, and had to forego playing matches to earn money.
Then there was the second team. None of the second team players volleyed all that well, and their overall game was a little weaker than those in the team above. A handful of second team players were vying for a place in the first team but the gap was too wide and they rarely got the chance to play up.
Then the Prince Graphite 110 came along. Soon after, some of those borderline players vying for first team places found they could volley...and smash much better. They gained confidence. The next thing you know they were getting the odd win over first team players....something previously unthinkable. That Prince 110 gave credibility to players who previously had none.
The general club player also benefitted no end. He suddenly found the game more accessible than when he had played with a teeny wooden racket.
Pro tennis was also being directly affected. In 1977 I went to the Benson and Hedges tournament at Wembley, a major Grand Prix event in the 70's. Borg won it that year beating Britain's John Lloyd in the final. That year a number of players had shot up through the ranks out of the blue and made it into the main draw, all the "out of the blue" players were using the Prince Graphite. They had been getting results against the big boys here and there because, as always, the big boys were sticking with what they have always won with and weren't about to change.
I remember 1977 well. It was the game had started to change on all levels and I witnessed it full on. Both at my own club...and well beyond.StottyComment
-
The inch that changed tennis forever...
Rod cross wrote:
He goes on to say that it is not the material, it is the extra inch in width, which makes the difference...The modern game of tennis is played at a furious pace compared with the old days when everyone used wood racquets. Just watch old film from the 1950s and you will see that the game is vastly different. Ken Rosewall and Lew Hoad barely broke into a sweat. Today’s game has players grunting and screaming on every shot, calling for the towel every third shot, and launching themselves off the court with the ferocity of their strokes. The difference is obviously due to the change from wood to graphite racquets, which happened during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Everyone concluded that graphite racquets were much stronger, lighter, and more powerful, while the players themselves somehow became taller, stronger, and fitter. How else could the game have changed so drastically?
The real reason for the change is more subtle. It’s because racquets got wider.
http://www.tennisindustrymag.com/art..._tennis_f.htmlComment
-
And for another opinion:
Andre Agassi vividly detailed his 2002 embrace of polyester string towards the end of his career in Open, his must-read memoir:
It's luxillon strings!People talk about the game changing, about players growing more powerful, and rackets getting bigger, but the most dramatic change in recent years is the strings. The advent of a new elastic polyester string, which creates vicious topspin, has turned average players into greats, and greats into legends. [Coach Darren Cahill] puts the string on one of my rackets... In a practice session I don't miss a ball for two hours. Then I don't miss a ball for the rest of the tournament. I've never won the Italian Open before, but I win it now, because of Darren and his miracle string.
Comment
-
Oxymoronic Musings
Hey bottle a.k.a. Cub Reporter--Making a couple of grammatical mistakes hasn't prevented me from becoming a successful, world renowned tennis writer. I would appreciate it if you would proofread my classic book, Two-Handed Tennis--How to Play a Winners Game and then let me know what you think of the grammar therein. Amazon carries it. It might even be for sale down in Guatamala where you are rumored to reside with that other devotee of crypticity--that shadowy Zen Bhuddist--the Watcher.
"Mild humankind," is an oxymoron, my young acolyte. How do I know this to be true? I researched human nature by turning on CNN. I see non-stop slaughter and various and sundry other manifestations of cruelty and mayhem. It's (sic--lol) a funny thing that DNA, isn't it? My dear, dead friend Hunter Thompson thinks that its actually all greatly entertaining. He calls it "reality TV at its finest." And, its anything but "gentle."
By the way, did you know that Johnny Depp shot Hunters ashes out of a cannon in Colorado? I'm serious. I just found this out from my new literary agent. So don't say, "You can't be serious!"
The destination--that "bosom"--to which you refer is unfortunately non-existent. The milk of human kindness is spilled milk. And we know that we must not cry over it. So buck up, young man! Join the Army with me and budge and the Watcher, and we'll head off to give ISIS its just desserts with President Donald Trump at the head of our vast phalanx of international justice.
The truth is we need a few hundred more generations to reach Valhalla. I threw that in there for the benefit of your Swedish satrap budge--he of the multiple personality disorder, and the bizarre man crush on the evil tennis felon from Douglastown, Long Island. That spoiled, whiny, entitled cry baby, and second tier tennis announcer. His name escapes me. Oh yeah, it's Beezelbub!
You're right about one thing, however. Its interesting that the word "race"" has this dual meaning. In both races there are, of course, those winning and those lagging behind. The "standings" are there for all to see. I intuit that you are probably all in for the universal underdog--including
Bernie Sanders. By the way, I'm his former tennis coach. He plays two-handed on both sides, but stands too far to the left in singles. And, of course, in doubles always plays the ad court.
I'm right aren't I? You're "feeling the Bern?"
At any rate.it's been nice visiting with you!
Originally posted by bottle View PostComment
-
Luddites Like budge and McEnroe...
are sentimentalists who become extinct, and are lost and forgotten in the infinite pages of time. This is called the Dinosaur Syndrome by professor Oversized Graphite over at the Scottsdale Community College. And in the case of this particular dinosaur--Tyranus Felonious Crybabyus--extinction could not have come too soon. But, the tennis felon is still sort of hanging around somehow. I would like to see cry baby sent to the penalty box for a permanent time out, and replaced as a lead announcer by the great Brad Gilbert. Mr, Winning Uglys tennis I.Q. puts Whiney Boys to shame. Boo Hoo
Originally posted by don_budge View PostComment
-
Love Brad's commentary. Darren Cahill not so much. Chris and Martina--they can only talk about themselves over the long run.Comment
-
Labeling Theory…Here's How it Works
I give you two quotes attributed to John McEnroe about the equipment in the game and this is how you answer. Obviously the man had his concerns. Stotty as well gives another view as to how the equipment was changing the landscape at the time. I can imagine that the tier 1 players were not pleased that the tier 2 players were encroaching on their territory.Originally posted by JeffMac View Postare sentimentalists who become extinct, and are lost and forgotten in the infinite pages of time. This is called the Dinosaur Syndrome by professor Oversized Graphite over at the Scottsdale Community College. And in the case of this particular dinosaur--Tyranus Felonious Crybabyus--extinction could not have come too soon. But, the tennis felon is still sort of hanging around somehow. I would like to see cry baby sent to the penalty box for a permanent time out, and replaced as a lead announcer by the great Brad Gilbert. Mr, Winning Uglys tennis I.Q. puts Whiney Boys to shame. Boo Hoo
Because of your personal feelings or bias you do not accept evidence that Mr. McEnroe's behavior could plausibly be explained in some other alternative rational terms than the accepted "label" you perpetuate the label.
In the summer of 1976 I traveled to New York City for the first time. When the New York skyline came into view I repeated a line from Stevie Wonders "Inner Visions"…"New York, just like I pictured it. Skyscrapers and everything". My friend and I were going on an adventure.
We were staying with this Jewish fellow named Jeff Wolfman in Queens. Jeff was a character…he was an aspiring comedian among other things. We went to "Catch a Rising Star" one night and he stepped out of the audience to perform…after a guy dressed up like the pope was doing pro-Hitler jokes. He was excitedly telling my friend and I about this kid from Queens who was going to be the "next Nastase, the next greatest tennis player in the world". He was talking about John McEnroe.
The next day after we arrived we went out to some club in the suburbs that was holding qualifying rounds for the U. S. Open. Seventeen year old McEnroe had somehow qualified and in the final round of qualifying he was to play Zan Guerry…a fine tennis player from Lookout Mountain, Tennessee. That year was the year that the Open was played on Har-Tru. Not McEnroe's best surface at that point but he was definitely no slouch on it either.
McEnroe and Guerry played a wonderful three set clay court match right down to the end of the match. The outcome was always in question as neither player was able to get control of it. My recollection was that the match was decided in a 9-point sudden death tie-breaker. In the third set in the deciding tie-breaker at 4-all McEnroe won the deciding point on a whisker placed passing shot. But Guerry somehow got an overrule on the ball and the point was replayed. This time Guerry won and he won the match.
During the entire three and a half hour match, the match was contested fairly and squarely without any trouble whatsoever. But with this extremely controversial ending McEnroe took his anger into the parking lot where we were sitting near our car. He was sort of kicking gravel and scowling…you can imagine his disappointment. He may have been crying…he was at least close to tears. I suppose that makes him a crybaby in your book. The book of tennis dysfunction. Instead of qualifying for the tournament of his dreams he was tossed out and was only a "pathological loser" for his efforts.
He looked at us and I said to him…"you got robbed, man". Maybe those words gave him just a tad of hope back in such a dark moment. I hope that they did. We certainly felt for him…my buddies and me.
In 1981 I retold this story to Patrick McEnroe who was 17 or 18 at the time in Louisville where I was traveling with young Aaron Krickstein at the 18 and under Clay Court nationals. Patrick smiled at my recollection and told me that his brother has spoken of that match. He smiled when I told him what I said to John afterwards.
John McEnroe had it in his noggin that one day he was going to be the greatest tennis player in the world someday. To climb a mountain so high in an individual sport there are going to be some issues…this is the "virtue" of being selfish. He took it upon himself to make that climb and when he got to the top he realized that the rules had suddenly been changed with regard to the equipment. He had to look at this as something a million times worse than that loss in 1977 at the U. S. Open qualifying. Suddenly the "authorities" were giving every Tom, Dick and Harry the benefit of equipment that could replace the 10,000 hours of toil he had done to get where he was for 229 dollars.
The great John McEnroe stood on top of the tennis world in 1984 when he decimated Ivan Lendl in the finals of the U. S. Open. I was there too. He was standing alone at the precipice where the classic game that he was brought up to play was being sold down the river by the "authorities" and he was expected to go along with it. I can easily empathize with him…I was with him every step of the way…it must have been an extremely difficult pill to swallow.
John's behavior up to this point had been a bit on the edge and he went over the edge eventually. I would dearly love to conduct an interview with him to get his feelings on these equipment issues. John McEnroe also was cutting edge in his cultural tastes with a definite rebellious edge. The times were not quickly in the rearview and even now hopefully there would be those that remember those days. Afterall…if you don't know your history you are doomed to repeat it…or something to that effect. Just look where we are today. Know what I mean?
So JeffMac…you have had a jolly time ridiculing me and what I have written. I hope that makes you feel "right" somehow. I have never used the words "right" or "wrong" in our discussion. I am somehow certain that you thought it was all fun and games but you are really not all that provocative…you are downright offensive. I thought that in your first article when you supposedly stalking Rod Laver on some late night flight way up in the sky and wouldn't let him be when it touched down.
This latest article is titled "Pathological Losers". It's an interesting title. You have spent a lot of words detailing and insinuating…drawing false conclusion right and left about me as well as John McEnroe. You must expect to be challenged if you put your writing out there in public. There is what you call credibility. Of course I'm a loser…anybody can see that. I've been married twice and divorced 14 or 15 times. I can't remember. I don't hide it. I put it out there for anybody to criticize. I don't even use the words "agree" or "disagree". I never say that I am "right" and you are "wrong". We both know that you are there and I am here so one of us must be in the wrong spot.
But I don't have a single self-help book in my library. I even checked. Unless you can somehow count the Carlos Castanedas series self help. No…recently I reread "The Razor's Edge" and "Of Human Bondage" by Somerset Maughm. Two beautiful reads that really gave me some insight into the human condition. They touch on how pathetic we are by nature while leaving some hope that somehow we can evolve. Now I am reading "The Adolescent" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky…an appropriate title since we are talking about an adolescent who quite possibly never grew up…and why would I or anyone else hold it against him? John McEnroe may be a sort of Dostoyevsky-esque character. He is that large in the scheme of tennis at least. Why the ridiculing attitude?Comment
-
-
Some of it is fun (note the grammatical split, lobndropshot-- I took your suggestion this time), but most too self-indulgent and carbonated. Of course I am not speaking of the Dalai Lama.Comment
-
The combination of modern strings and rackets have changed the game into one far more powerful than in years gone by. But why the attraction to power?Originally posted by gzhpcu View Post
I guess it boils down to who you would rather watch - Borg v McEnroe or Murray v Djokovic or Raonic v Kyrgios? I know who i would rather watch. Eras could well be irrelevant actually...probably are. I've watched McEnroe and Federer up close and personal at their best, each in their respective eras, and I can tell you one is as good as the other. I would rather watch McEnroe at his best than most players playing today. I would rather watch Federer than many of the players playing back then. So it works both ways. It's about the individual player as much as anything. I personally think their were more "individual" players back then who had their own distinctive style. You have to admit a lot of players blur into one these days.
The further back you go, the more watchable and interesting tennis gets in some ways. By this I mean because more players were self-taught, they were by default always going to be more unique. Watching players like Segura with his one great shot and brilliant footwork covering up for the rest of his game is quite fascinating. Watching players from the 1950s volleying is also fascinating. I've come to the conclusion the "volleying zenith" was certainly the 1950s. The 1950s crowd were collectively the best volleyers of any era. They could ALL volley well and with great skill. I was watching Budge Patty a while back. He had a really sweet forehand volley...exceptional.
Once you've watched a few hours of the old tennis films you soon get used to the slower pace and start appreciating the other aspects of the game. Power play is a bit drug-like....the spectator wants more and more...in reality he gets diminished returns.
The top three have made today's game viable. They are thoroughly watchable and each in their own way quite brilliant. But one is no good without the other, and when they disappear, we'll be left with little to satisfy us.Last edited by stotty; 02-08-2016, 12:19 PM.StottyComment
-
Sorry budge, For I Am "Offensive!"
Many moons ago when I was less than 67.5 years old, instead of on the hard side of that same number, I wrote a long treatise to you explaining the essence of "gonzo" journalism. I said something to the effect that it's my form of mental masturbation. I get off on it.
Health conditions have actually changed my personality in such a way that this material naturally pours forth, when once it did not. I don't even enjoy conventional prose anymore. To wit, I have written a 1200 page book that is mostly gonzified. And no matter how much you beg me to sell you a copy, I must, for the sake of your welfare decline to meet your requests--regardless of how furtive they may become. For I have come to understand that you are very sensitive. I fear driving you any further into the shadows of perpetual despair.
Therefore, in the future, I am going to refrain from saying anything even remotely critical of you. Even when you say things which are clearly fallacious--as was recently the case with McEnroe. I want to say one last thing about what future generations of tennisplayer.net participants will refer to as the great McEnroe debate of 2016. Long after we have returned to dust, younger subscribers such as the Guatamalans--the Watcher and the beer bottle--will sing our praises and speak of these Halcyon days in which McEnroe's controversial legacy was considered.
I enjoyed reading that quote you posted from his biography--which I have not read, but would certainly enjoy doing so. Seriously. He is the most fascinating character to ever walk across the international tennis stage.
However, just because he may have feared the effect that the onslaught of technology might have on his future, this does not confer a causal link. (By the way, he said he didn't like it; he didn't say it was causing him to become incensed). I firmly believe that this had nothing to do with his objectionable behavior. As far as I'm concerned he is just characterologically impaired--as we all are. However, his condition is clearly beyond the pale. When I said that I felt sorry for him, I meant it.
That said, I truly understand how much you admire him for his genius. And the fact that you got to meet him is probably also significant. I believe that when we interact with certain historically important people we tend to feel connected to them.
Anyway, I know that this is certainly true for me. I played tennis several times with Robert Redford at Newcombe's Tennis Resort in 1972. Since that time I have been fascinated by him.
These attachments are harmless fetishes. But they can affect our objectivity. I forgive you for your inability to look at your hero in a more realistic light. Whereas, most of the world sees aberrence, you see only the gifted savant. Fine.
And that's the last thing I'm going to say about McEnroe.
Originally posted by don_budge View PostComment
-
The Change in Equipment…Pathological Loser Syndrom
I believe that John McEnroe is not the only one to have a meltdown because of the equipment change back in the mid-seventies. In fact I know for a fact than he wasn't the only one. I had the equipment induced meltdown as well. It wasn't pretty. Facing opponents with their shiny graphite racquets had the effect on me that is not polite conversation for you civilized people on the forum here.Originally posted by JeffMac View Post
But besides me there is one interview that I am determined to have before I leave Scandinavia. I want to interview Björn Borg as to why he retired when he did and why he attempted a comeback using his beloved Donnay wooden frames in an era that had already moved on to the oversized graphite. If that wasn't a form of insanity then it had to be the form of making a statement. John McEnroe, Björn Borg and Vitas Gerulaitis were apparently great friends…and you can always tell what a man is like from the company he keeps. These guys were having a party.
Of course I am running in the outside lane with regards to my take on John McEnroe. But perhaps you haven't read a book by Tim Adams called "Being John McEnroe". Its an excellent book that has some of the lowdown on who this apparently crazy character was and how he got to be who who he is.
Its interesting…but I didn't actually meet John McEnroe in the parking lot that day. I only said to him…"you got robbed…man". He looked at me through the haze of his anger and perhaps he nodded in appreciation that somebody was there to see the personal travesty he had suffered. Don't forget this is the world of a 17 year old adolescent on a big stage. In 1984 I was in another vantage point to get a close up look at John after his night match with Jimmy Connors in the semifinals. I had seen Connors in the locker room prior to the match and he was asking the big black guy who was his body guard…"where's Patty?" After the match…which was some twelve and a half hours after I had entered the grounds at Flushing Meadow…I was once more in the locker room or I was rather in the hallway leading to the locker room this time and it was John McEnroe passing right in front of me lit up like a Christmas tree. He was beaming after a five set victory over Jimmy Connors. I watch the entire match from the same seat that I had occupied for over twelve hours that day…it was beautiful. Two of the toughest competitors the game has ever known battling it out at the Twilight of the classic era. The era was over and this match ushered it out once and for all. McEnroe's dusting off of Ivan Lendl the next day was only the frosting on the cake.
I feel connected with John McEnroe because of an era. Several eras as it turns out but most specifically the fact that he was the icon that straddled the classic and modern era from the very top. It must have been an awesome feeling. He had to have been terribly proud and we know what strange effects pride can have on the human psyche…not to mention riches beyond a King's ransom and perhaps some recreational drugs as well.
In some ways John McEnroe is a Pathological Loser as we all are in the end. He shot his reputation with his antics and displays of anger and emotion. Some of it was genuine and some of it may just have belaboured his point. Björn gave up his throne without a fight…he may have some regrets about his exit as well. I just barely missed a chance to have a chance to talk to him last week. He was in the next town watching his son play in a tournament. Some of our kids were there and he was kind enough to sign some autographs on their racquet bags and hats and such.
You will always find yourself having the numbers advantage when it comes to how people view John McEnroe. I also believe that once the media got on the bandwagon and were labelling him "Super Brat" or whatever it was they were mocking him with he just upped the ante and the middle finger would just shoot up automatically. He shot a big "FUCK YOU" to whoever it was that he perceived to be the villain of the day but perhaps that becomes an instinctive reaction when people start to assume and label you as if they know you and have intimate and proxy knowledge about what makes you tick and what buttons they can push for the desired outcome.
Richard Gonzalez also knew how that felt…as I did too.Comment
Comment