"Official" Wimbledon Thread

If he wins the U.S. Open, can SI please, finally, give Federer the Sportsman of the Year Award?

 

Was it just me, or did Bjorn Borg look like a stiff at yesterday's final?

He didn't do the wave and he seemed to give the aura that he wasn't happy or he was disinterested?
Maybe it is his normal reaction to everything. (Did he understand what Federer was saying to him?)

As for the men's match, I honestly thought Nadal would win yesterday. Federer was down 15-40 and I am so amazed at how he roared back and won the title. Next year, I think Nadal will win. The fact that he made the final is amazing in itself, because of the previous early exits at the tourney. Maybe it was Federer's experience and his powerful service that won the title. Nadal now has the experience to win next year.

 

I wouldn't call making the final last year "easy exits" from Wimbledon for Nadal. While he may have surprised many by getting there last year, I don't think you'd have found anyone who would have bet against him this year.

But you know that Federer knows the young'un is catching up quick.


Borg is a Swede. 'Nuff said on the stiffness. He looked just like that facing match point in a major, too.
But doesn't he look like a million bucks? I think McEnroe wanted to kiss him.

 

EEEWWW!!! McEnroe really needs better taste than that. I forgot that Nadal made the final last year. Thanks ballscribe for pointing that out.

 

More fodder for the you-can't-compare-golf-and-tennis crowd:

Golf, because of the nature of the game, simply has a larger pool of people who can win majors. The math is indisputable:

Dating to the 1983 Masters, 59 golfers have a total of 98 majors (with the British and PGA having not yet been played this year). In the same 25-year snapshot, 32 men's tennis players have won an equivalent number of Grand Slam tournaments (no Aussie in '86, and no U.S. Open yet this year). In tennis, the occasional Richard Krajicek -- nice career, one major moment -- breaks through. In golf, it happens all the time (Ben Curtis, anyone?).

That is a significant statistical difference that isn't dealt with in this little dance below ...

It ain't enough to run a calculator, RokSki. You need to know something about the context of the numbers you're punching in.

(This, by the way, doesn't diminish Federer's accomplishments at all. The guy is incredible. But his sport, historically, allows many fewer players to actually have a shot at winning a major title, thus increasing his percentage of cashed-in "chances" as compared with Tiger.)

 

Well, it's a little more than just "occasional".

Petr Korda
Thomas Johansson
Andres Gomez
Goran Ivanisevic
Sergei Bruguera
Thomas Muster
Michael Stich
Michael Chang
Gaston Gaudio
Richard Krajicek
Albert Costa

All Grand Slam tennis champions.

But sure, it's a little harder to beat Federer if you actually have to, you know, beat Federer.

You can "beat" Tiger and win a golf Grand Slam event without ever seeing him.

 

Most of those one-time winners were at the French during a time where there wasn't a dominant clay-court player unless you count Gustavo Kuerten.

And Ivanisevic at least made the Wimbledon finals four times so he had some consistency.

 

Bruguera doesn't fit my point. He didn't win just once. Plus, you missed a few.

Korda
Noah
Moya
Ferrera
And, so far, Roddick

So, 14 one-time major winners in 97 chances (I'm removing Connors' '83 U.S. Open victory because, although it's the only Slam he won in that 25-year span, he is a multiple Slam winner). I'd say "occasional" still works.

As for golf, I'd respond thusly:

Larry Mize
Ian Woosnam
Fred Couples
Mike Weir
Zach Johnson
Scott Simpson
Tom Kite
Corey Pavin
Steve Jones
Jim Furyk
Michael Campbell
Geoff Ogilvy
Angel Cabrera
Mark Calcavecchia
Ian Baker-Finch
Tom Lehman
Justin Leonard
Paul Lawrie
David Duval
Ben Curtis
Todd Hamilton
Hal Sutton
Bob Tway
Jeff Sluman
Wayne Grady
Paul Azinger
Steve Elkington
Mark Brooks
Davis Love III
David Toms
Rich Beem
Shaun Micheel

*That's* a little more than occasional.

 

But weren't golfers like Couples and Duval ranked at the top (or No. 2) during their heyday?

Even though they aren't multiple winners, I don't think a golfer of that caliber qualifies as "coming from nowhere."

I wasn't necessarily pointing out "one-time" winners in tennis. I was just pointing out winners who came from obscurity to win and did little to build on that win. I didn't include Moya because he was a top 1-2 player and not obscure at all when he won.

 

"Coming from nowhere" is your phrase, not mine.

I said "nice career -- one major moment." I think I might have given the wrong impression by using Ben Curtis as my example. I could just as easily used, say, David Duval. All of my posts on this topic have been predicated on actually winning golf majors or Grand Slam events in tennis, not on relative obscurity or world rankings.

Nonetheless, we obviously agree on my main point, which is that winning a Grand Slam event in tennis and winning a major in golf require negotiating entirely different sets of variables. And so, now that I have amended this post a Rokski-like two times, I shall move on from this topic lest I feel compelled to make a YouTube video.

 

You could argue that what you just cited makes it less significant to win a major in golf. Is there really a larger pool of players who can win majors? Or is winning majors in golf more a product of luck, etc.?

Todd Hamilton, Ben Curtis, Shaun Micheel, Paul Lawrie, Rich Beem, Angel Cabrera and Michael Campbell all have majors just from the past few years. None of them are truly world-class golfers.

The thing about winning majors in tennis is that you have to be on your game for seven straight matches. What if you're just not feeling good that day? You're probably gonna lose. To think that Roger has gotten to nine straight Slam finals is astounding and to me just as impressive as Tiger winning four straight majors.

 

- - -

You made a nice attempt, Bump. You worked hard and did your homework. And that is laudable. That being the case, it almost - almost - pains me to have to do this:

BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!

There are, at minimum, two different purely numerical/mathematical approaches I could take to rebuke your well-researched attempt to refute my facts and my presentation of those facts. Of course, being that they are facts and thus not needing any elaboration, I don't really have any compunction to do so: the numbers I used speak for themselves; they are. But I can, and I will, as time permits and my motivation to do so raises to a level which places doing so above, say, scratching the side of my cheek with my index finger. Mondays are always a bit busy for me, and my downtime is accordingly valuable.

Now, notwithstanding the two+ numerical flaws in your "little dance" of an argument, there is, additionally, a simple logical fallacy in your presentation. As you might say, that "ain't" going to get the job done, no matter how much you have worked you own calculator. If I have to point out the fallacy, I shall. Apparently this thread has become partly about demonstrating to its readers various forms of argumentative technique and then the critique of said technique. I'm ok with that.

You have a good young mind, Bump. If that's what you want me to call you today. The more you engage in these mental gymnastics, the more your mind will expand. That's one of the reasons why Whitlock came here, to engage in and see the merits and flaws of different arguments and points of view. Hell, that's one reason why we all come here. That's what Boom was trying to tell some people a little while back when he killed a thread: when you have a good resource (Whitlock), use it. That's something similar to what I've said about JDV here any number of times, or creamora. Similar to what 21 has said about creamora. People can act childishly and waste everyone's time or they can tap into what's right in front of them. That being said, people do learn differently, so who's to say that one form of learning that seems 'childish' to me is any worse than my own method.

So we can do some "Socratic Method" dancing, at least for a awhile. I know you're always chomping at the bit and work hard to 'get' me. That's cool. I just always reserve the right to move on when I need to, because I have my own things to learn and that interest me. That's why I don't always respond to every single feint and jab that comes my way; it's not diffidence in my arguments or an inability to admit I'm wrong, it's just a time-constraints issue.

One more thing: Wanting something to be right/true/correct doesn't make it so. Let me give you two examples. During the French Open, there was a blogger over at the AOL Fanhouse (I think that's what it's called) who was rooting like crazy for Serena, and particularly for Serena to defeat Henin. He had already set it all up that Serena would poetically 'pay back' Henin for Henin's poor sportsmanship in the 2003 French Open (I think that's the year). Unfortunately for him, Henin won. Instead of writing the story as it was, he wrote an embarrassing piece (which I linked to on SJ, not sure the thread name, probably something like 'French Open thread,' and I think Nafselon started the thread) about how the crowd let Serena down this year, etc. Seriously, it was pathetic. That is someone who is trying to fit the story to their specifications, akin to 'fixing the intelligence' around a decision that's already been made. You can't do that; nobody can. It won't hold up.

Example #2 - Rush Limbaugh and McNabb. Politically, I hate Limbaugh. I'm a Democrat. But as a talk-show host and as a thinker (particularly a quick-thinker, thinks well on his feet), I have HUGE respect for him. Now, what he said about McNabb, the whole political overtone of it, was wrong. As were some of the facts. McNabb is a heck of a QB, as we all know. But, IMO, for anyone (particularly ESPN) to try and pretend that McNabb didn't get extra build-up and 'love' in the sports media because of his ethnicity is intellectually disingenuous and/or ignorant. Tom Jackson crying, Boomer acting shocked, all that crap -- that was a farce. As was how they "Imus'd" Limbaugh. Everyone on SJ knows I'm no racist or bigot, I call it as straight as I can, which is why I wrote recently here that the Bonds and Vick situations were really beginning to sicken me, the overtones they often seem to take. But you have to be fair in ALL those situations, not just the ones which favor "your team," whoever (democrat/conservative, white/black/Latino/...) your "team" is for that discussion. McNabb has anxiety issues and does get a little more 'love' (well, actually he used to, pre-T.O meltdown in Philly, which afterwards resulted in many (e.g., Whitlock) jumping off the bandwagon) by many of the press, same as how some parts of the press give Larry Bird a little more 'love' than others. And I don't mean that, particularly in McNabb's case, as only restricted to racial lines. Which is part of what Limbaugh was trying to say. That this 'fondness' exists for certain athletes/stories doesn't bother me, it's just human nature. I can be the same way with particular Latin boxers. But to pretend it doesn't exist and then dump it all on Limbaugh's lap for 'daring' to mention it was BS.

Anyway, why do I mention this here? Because of The Love of All Things Tiger. As I've said, I like Tiger. A lot. I can't wait for him to break Jack's record. Much of the fondness for him is not about his racial identity. A lot of it seems to come from monied people, corporate types and aging sports media figures, many of whom can 'relate' to Tiger and the 'greatness' of golf because - as I pointed out in earlier posts - they can (and most do) still compete in golf, and at a high level if they are so skilled and talented. There was a guy I was listening to on Fox Sports Radio last night who didn't even want to mention Federer's win because he knew that it 'took away,' from Tiger's "singular" greatness. He basically said that several weeks earlier when giddily talking about the last golf major which Tiger lost by one stroke. His 'topic' was "No one is as dominant as Tiger, no team, ..." Several callers mentioned Federer, and he just would not hear it, attempting to dismiss it with absurd, specious 'arguments.' And let me say, this host is white. This isn't a race thing for him, or for me. It's about hiding things we don't want to see highlighted for one reason or another, because of our agenda. That's what ticks me off with the "Tigerphiles," same as with the "Kobephiles." Hold them up, prop them up, fine. But put out ALL the facts, not the ones Cadillac and Nike want you to put out. That's my angle.

Federer's numbers vis-a-vis Tiger's are indisputable. People can attempt to qualify and mitigate those numbers as they will. Match play is different than open play, no doubt. But to pretend that two sports which are both individual sports and which both have four majors a year are incomparable is laughable. Tiger and Roger have had the opportunities (minus the omissions Bump researched) which I mentioned earlier, and have converted at the corresponding rates. Again, I don't have to qualify those. They are; they exist. The are public record.

That these numbers make Tigerphiles unhappy is not my problem, and not my doing. I'm just the messenger, the aggregator, the compiler. I would say the same thing to those who are unhappy that there are 4 Eastern-European born heavyweight champions at the moment. I didn't will it that way, and it's not necessarily my obligation to to track down the veracity of many Americans' claims that this is the case because "All the US guys play football and hoops now." Maybe they do. But as the burden of proof in a legal case rests on the prosecution, the burden of someone attempting to refute/explain fait accomplis is on them, not on the fact-bearer, the 'defendant,' if you will.

Peace.

Ok, more later. I gotta go now. My boss is going to wring my neck.