Connors keeps saying US open hardest slam to win

Connors keeps saying US open hardest slam to win

Post by only hum » Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:48:41


What? Connors won the US open 5 times.
how can he make this claim when he never won the FO even when the US
open was on a clay court surface like the FO in his day? this makes no
sense. obviously the FO has always been the hardest to win.

 
 
 

Connors keeps saying US open hardest slam to win

Post by Jason Catli » Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:58:07


Quote:
> What? Connors won the US open 5 times.
> how can he make this claim when he never won the FO even when the US
> open was on a clay court surface like the FO in his day? this makes no
> sense. obviously the FO has always been the hardest to win.

It all depends on the player. For Rafa, the FO is the easiest to win
and USO is the most difficult. For Gaudio, FO was the only Slam he
could win realistically. All the others were impossible. For
Ivanisevic, the FO was impossible and Wimby was the one he had the
best chance at.

 
 
 

Connors keeps saying US open hardest slam to win

Post by only hum » Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:01:11

Jason Connor's was saying for him it was the hardest slam to win. and no
surprise none of the commentators with him said oh yeah then why didn't
you win the FO. oh i wish some of these guy's would grow some balls. and
stop acting like their fellow commentators is a brotherhood or
something.

 
 
 

Connors keeps saying US open hardest slam to win

Post by Edward McArd » Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:03:39


Quote:

>What? Connors won the US open 5 times.
>how can he make this claim when he never won the FO even when the US
>open was on a clay court surface like the FO in his day? this makes no
>sense. obviously the FO has always been the hardest to win.

Each one has 128 entrants, and one will win, so the difficulty is exactly
the same overall. *For a particular player* one might be harder or easier
than others.

--
Edward McArdle

 
 
 

Connors keeps saying US open hardest slam to win

Post by Pedro Dia » Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:03:30


Quote:


> >What? Connors won the US open 5 times.
> >how can he make this claim when he never won the FO even when the US
> >open was on a clay court surface like the FO in his day? this makes no
> >sense. obviously the FO has always been the hardest to win.

> Each one has 128 entrants, and one will win, so the difficulty is exactly
> the same overall. *For a particular player* one might be harder or easier
> than others.

That... that doesn't necessarily follow: one can clearly be
intrinsically more difficult to win: say they have poor support
facilities, or unpleasant conditions of some sort which would affect
all players, like poorly maintained courts. The *relative* difficulty
remains the same, but the tournament is "harder" in that the
subjective experience is more arduous.
 
 
 

Connors keeps saying US open hardest slam to win

Post by Jason Catli » Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:18:31


Quote:



> > >What? Connors won the US open 5 times.
> > >how can he make this claim when he never won the FO even when the US
> > >open was on a clay court surface like the FO in his day? this makes no
> > >sense. obviously the FO has always been the hardest to win.

> > Each one has 128 entrants, and one will win, so the difficulty is exactly
> > the same overall. *For a particular player* one might be harder or easier
> > than others.

> That... that doesn't necessarily follow: one can clearly be
> intrinsically more difficult to win: say they have poor support
> facilities, or unpleasant conditions of some sort which would affect
> all players, like poorly maintained courts. The *relative* difficulty
> remains the same, but the tournament is "harder" in that the
> subjective experience is more arduous.

But the conditions you're describing would make it harder for the top
player but easier for the lower guys.

If all conditions are perfect, on hard court for example, Fed probably
has an 80% chance of winning the tournament, but if you've got strange
conditions, like the court faster on one side of the court than the
other, that would throw everybody off and thus help some journeyman
who would have no chance otherwise.

 
 
 

Connors keeps saying US open hardest slam to win

Post by p.. » Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:53:55

Quote:

> What?

Product placement.
 
 
 

Connors keeps saying US open hardest slam to win

Post by Pedro Dia » Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:56:55


Quote:




> > > >What? Connors won the US open 5 times.
> > > >how can he make this claim when he never won the FO even when the US
> > > >open was on a clay court surface like the FO in his day? this makes no
> > > >sense. obviously the FO has always been the hardest to win.

> > > Each one has 128 entrants, and one will win, so the difficulty is exactly
> > > the same overall. *For a particular player* one might be harder or easier
> > > than others.

> > That... that doesn't necessarily follow: one can clearly be
> > intrinsically more difficult to win: say they have poor support
> > facilities, or unpleasant conditions of some sort which would affect
> > all players, like poorly maintained courts. The *relative* difficulty
> > remains the same, but the tournament is "harder" in that the
> > subjective experience is more arduous.

> But the conditions you're describing would make it harder for the top
> player but easier for the lower guys.

> If all conditions are perfect, on hard court for example, Fed probably
> has an 80% chance of winning the tournament, but if you've got strange
> conditions, like the court faster on one side of the court than the
> other, that would throw everybody off and thus help some journeyman
> who would have no chance otherwise.

Fair enough, but we aren't talking about odds of winning (which are
only one definition of "difficulty"), we are talking about perceived
hardship. Reductio ad absurdum, think of playing on courts paved with
razor blades, or getting beaten up before every match. Presumably,
skill would still show, but the matches would be much "harder", in the
sense in which I think Connors is using the word.
 
 
 

Connors keeps saying US open hardest slam to win

Post by Jason Catli » Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:24:41


Quote:





> > > > >What? Connors won the US open 5 times.
> > > > >how can he make this claim when he never won the FO even when the US
> > > > >open was on a clay court surface like the FO in his day? this makes no
> > > > >sense. obviously the FO has always been the hardest to win.

> > > > Each one has 128 entrants, and one will win, so the difficulty is exactly
> > > > the same overall. *For a particular player* one might be harder or easier
> > > > than others.

> > > That... that doesn't necessarily follow: one can clearly be
> > > intrinsically more difficult to win: say they have poor support
> > > facilities, or unpleasant conditions of some sort which would affect
> > > all players, like poorly maintained courts. The *relative* difficulty
> > > remains the same, but the tournament is "harder" in that the
> > > subjective experience is more arduous.

> > But the conditions you're describing would make it harder for the top
> > player but easier for the lower guys.

> > If all conditions are perfect, on hard court for example, Fed probably
> > has an 80% chance of winning the tournament, but if you've got strange
> > conditions, like the court faster on one side of the court than the
> > other, that would throw everybody off and thus help some journeyman
> > who would have no chance otherwise.

> Fair enough, but we aren't talking about odds of winning (which are
> only one definition of "difficulty"), we are talking about perceived
> hardship. Reductio ad absurdum, think of playing on courts paved with
> razor blades, or getting beaten up before every match.

Maybe a good way of bringing in the X-Games crowd?
 
 
 

Connors keeps saying US open hardest slam to win

Post by Silence, Fedfucker » Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:54:23


Quote:
> Jason Connor's was saying for him it was the hardest slam to win. and no
> surprise none of the commentators with him said oh yeah then why didn't
> you win the FO. oh i wish some of these guy's would grow some balls. and
> stop acting like their fellow commentators is a brotherhood or
> something.

obviously Connors is saying it's the hardest to win to make him look
good. If it's the hardest to win and yet he won it 5 times, surely he
must be a GOAT contender right?

Doesn't take too much nous to work this out.

 
 
 

Connors keeps saying US open hardest slam to win

Post by Jason Catli » Sun, 13 Sep 2009 00:12:06

On Sep 11, 9:54?am, "Silence, Fed***er!"

Quote:


> > Jason Connor's was saying for him it was the hardest slam to win. and no
> > surprise none of the commentators with him said oh yeah then why didn't
> > you win the FO. oh i wish some of these guy's would grow some balls. and
> > stop acting like their fellow commentators is a brotherhood or
> > something.

> obviously Connors is saying it's the hardest to win to make him look
> good. If it's the hardest to win and yet he won it 5 times, surely he
> must be a GOAT contender right?

> Doesn't take too much nous to work this out.

You could be right, but I think he means *hardest* in the sense of the
tournament with the least fluky winners of
all, at least since it moved to hard court. This is the fairest test
of tennis and that makes it so you have to be practically an all-time
great to have any chance of winning.
 
 
 

Connors keeps saying US open hardest slam to win

Post by Pedro Dia » Sun, 13 Sep 2009 00:48:13


Quote:
> On Sep 11, 9:54?am, "Silence, Fed***er!"



> > > Jason Connor's was saying for him it was the hardest slam to win. and no
> > > surprise none of the commentators with him said oh yeah then why didn't
> > > you win the FO. oh i wish some of these guy's would grow some balls. and
> > > stop acting like their fellow commentators is a brotherhood or
> > > something.

> > obviously Connors is saying it's the hardest to win to make him look
> > good. If it's the hardest to win and yet he won it 5 times, surely he
> > must be a GOAT contender right?

> > Doesn't take too much nous to work this out.

> You could be right, but I think he means *hardest* in the sense of the
> tournament with the least fluky winners of
> all, at least since it moved to hard court. This is the fairest test
> of tennis and that makes it so you have to be practically an all-time
> great to have any chance of winning.

I think that was true for a while: the US Open had the surface that
mirrored the Tour best. I think the Australian is probably that, now.
 
 
 

Connors keeps saying US open hardest slam to win

Post by Jason Catli » Sun, 13 Sep 2009 00:54:18


Quote:

> > On Sep 11, 9:54?am, "Silence, Fed***er!"



> > > > Jason Connor's was saying for him it was the hardest slam to win. and no
> > > > surprise none of the commentators with him said oh yeah then why didn't
> > > > you win the FO. oh i wish some of these guy's would grow some balls. and
> > > > stop acting like their fellow commentators is a brotherhood or
> > > > something.

> > > obviously Connors is saying it's the hardest to win to make him look
> > > good. If it's the hardest to win and yet he won it 5 times, surely he
> > > must be a GOAT contender right?

> > > Doesn't take too much nous to work this out.

> > You could be right, but I think he means *hardest* in the sense of the
> > tournament with the least fluky winners of
> > all, at least since it moved to hard court. This is the fairest test
> > of tennis and that makes it so you have to be practically an all-time
> > great to have any chance of winning.

> I think that was true for a while: the US Open had the surface that
> mirrored the Tour best. I think the Australian is probably that, now.-

Maybe. I still prefer the USO because of the time of year. The AO's
too early in the season for me.

Interestingly though, the AO has the best balance of all the Slams in
the Open Era in terms of 1h-backhand winners and 2-h b/h winners, fwiw.

 
 
 

Connors keeps saying US open hardest slam to win

Post by Patrick Keho » Sun, 13 Sep 2009 00:55:09


Quote:





> > > > >What? Connors won the US open 5 times.
> > > > >how can he make this claim when he never won the FO even when the US
> > > > >open was on a clay court surface like the FO in his day? this makes no
> > > > >sense. obviously the FO has always been the hardest to win.

> > > > Each one has 128 entrants, and one will win, so the difficulty is exactly
> > > > the same overall. *For a particular player* one might be harder or easier
> > > > than others.

> > > That... that doesn't necessarily follow: one can clearly be
> > > intrinsically more difficult to win: say they have poor support
> > > facilities, or unpleasant conditions of some sort which would affect
> > > all players, like poorly maintained courts. The *relative* difficulty
> > > remains the same, but the tournament is "harder" in that the
> > > subjective experience is more arduous.

> > But the conditions you're describing would make it harder for the top
> > player but easier for the lower guys.

> > If all conditions are perfect, on hard court for example, Fed probably
> > has an 80% chance of winning the tournament, but if you've got strange
> > conditions, like the court faster on one side of the court than the
> > other, that would throw everybody off and thus help some journeyman
> > who would have no chance otherwise.

> Fair enough, but we aren't talking about odds of winning (which are
> only one definition of "difficulty"), we are talking about perceived
> hardship. Reductio ad absurdum, think of playing on courts paved with
> razor blades, or getting beaten up before every match. Presumably,
> skill would still show, but the matches would be much "harder", in the
> sense in which I think Connors is using the word.- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

++ Connors is indulging in the same mythologizing as the Wimbledon
folks do - just fitted to the American scene... hardcourts, New York
rancour of the BIG city, endurance needed to complete the semi&finals
back to back, pressure of American media spotlight, American
boosterism of their cultural singularity (if you can make it here you
can make it anywhere), normally hot-humid fall in the big apple,
celebrity studded night matches for the top players, etc...

P

 
 
 

Connors keeps saying US open hardest slam to win

Post by Jason Catli » Sun, 13 Sep 2009 00:56:37


Quote:






> > > > > >What? Connors won the US open 5 times.
> > > > > >how can he make this claim when he never won the FO even when the US
> > > > > >open was on a clay court surface like the FO in his day? this makes no
> > > > > >sense. obviously the FO has always been the hardest to win.

> > > > > Each one has 128 entrants, and one will win, so the difficulty is exactly
> > > > > the same overall. *For a particular player* one might be harder or easier
> > > > > than others.

> > > > That... that doesn't necessarily follow: one can clearly be
> > > > intrinsically more difficult to win: say they have poor support
> > > > facilities, or unpleasant conditions of some sort which would affect
> > > > all players, like poorly maintained courts. The *relative* difficulty
> > > > remains the same, but the tournament is "harder" in that the
> > > > subjective experience is more arduous.

> > > But the conditions you're describing would make it harder for the top
> > > player but easier for the lower guys.

> > > If all conditions are perfect, on hard court for example, Fed probably
> > > has an 80% chance of winning the tournament, but if you've got strange
> > > conditions, like the court faster on one side of the court than the
> > > other, that would throw everybody off and thus help some journeyman
> > > who would have no chance otherwise.

> > Fair enough, but we aren't talking about odds of winning (which are
> > only one definition of "difficulty"), we are talking about perceived
> > hardship. Reductio ad absurdum, think of playing on courts paved with
> > razor blades, or getting beaten up before every match. Presumably,
> > skill would still show, but the matches would be much "harder", in the
> > sense in which I think Connors is using the word.- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> ++ Connors is indulging in the same mythologizing as the Wimbledon
> folks do - just fitted to the American scene... hardcourts, New York
> rancour of the BIG city, endurance needed to complete the semi&finals
> back to back, pressure of American media spotlight, American
> boosterism of their cultural singularity (if you can make it here you
> can make it anywhere), normally hot-humid fall in the big apple,
> celebrity studded night matches for the top players, etc...

> P- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

It's hard to argue with its champagne-caliber list of winners since
1978.