Running Aussie Open Thread...

I don't agree with that at all.

The racket Pete used (Wilson Pro Staff 85) came out in 1984, just a couple of years after Borg hung it up. It was only 85 square inches and had a sweet spot the size of a BB. Sampras also strung it ridiculously tight (75 lbs.), which further reduced its power. Then he loaded up on lead tape and made the stick close to 14 ounces.

If a recreational player --- the kind that love 9-ounce rackets with 110+ square inch heads --- tried to play with Pete's racket, they wouldn't be able to hit anything.

 

Just remember this when talking about the greatest of all-time:

Rod Laver won the Grand Slam as an amateur in 1962 (as well as 17 other tournaments), then turned pro. Won 5 Pro Circuit titles in 6 years before the Open era began ('68), won a second Slam in 1969.
Give him those pro years back and he's probably got 16 or 17 Grand Slam tourney titles.

Right now:
1. Laver
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. Federer (and climbing very fast)

I think this is the year Federer wins the French and the Grand Slam ... which would then make him No. 2 all-time in my book.

 

I defer to your knowledge, BTE. My bad assupmtion.

 

That's pretty much the racket Federer had been playing for years, sort of a custom-made job that had a lot of that Pro Staff in it, disguised by a paint job as the latest Wilson.

He's pushing a new stick now, the K-Factor. And the one he played with in Australia actually had a slightly different shape than his old standby (a little more oval). So perhaps he's finally made the change.

Matters not. He could probably win with Connors's old T2000

 

Just wondering aloud if Federer's dominance is good for the sport. When Sampras was going well and Agassi was in the doldrums, there were a ton of people that criticized the sport and called it boring.

With Federer dominating in a similar manner, is tennis headed in the same direction. Sampras was often blasted for being reserved. Federer is Euro Cool, but not Mr Primal Scream himself. It would be nice if somebody can challenge Federer at a venue besides Paris.

 

I hate this "is dominance good for the sport" debate. It makes no sense.

If you get easily bored by someone winning, then sports isn't for you. News flash: Somebody wins every fucking time! ... Every once in a while, it's the same somebody all the time. Pretty soon, somebody else will come along.

Tennis isn't going away. The sport is not in "danger".

And it's certainly not "boring" when Federer's playing at a level only Borg and Laver and maybe Sampras have ever played at before. That's historic.

 

I think what makes it boring is that you know who's going to win every time Federer plays. I love tennis, but I think it's pretty boring at the moment on the men's side.

 

Dunno. Even last night -- although I knew who was going to win -- Gonzo absolutely had a shot at him in every set. He got broken once in the second and broken once in the third, and that was that. But his fight was fun to watch.

It's not like Roger's winning EVERY match love-and-love. The Roddick beatdown was an aberration.

Maybe I'm one of the few who actually *enjoys* dominance. I think it's one of the most fascinating feats in sports, when everybody is giving you their best shot and you're still winning. Doesn't mean I like those guys to win all the time, but it's fascinating to watch them take everybody's best effort and still come away on top.

 

I'm not a big fan of one person/team being as dominate as Federer is right now. Everybody should be challenged, otherwise why would anybody watch?

 

Time takes care of that problem, sportschick. Only time could beat Joe Louis, only time will beat T. Woods, and time will get Federer, too.
Obviously, this makes the French Open the biggest deal in the sport this year, as it's what kept Federer from the Slam last year, and losing to Nadal again there is pretty obviously the only thing that could stop him this year.
Attention America's sports editors! I am available to string that event for you!!

 

But he is being challenged, that's the thing. He's the only one with the bull's-eye on his back. They've got nothing to lose -- he's "unbeatable", right?

The Roddicks and Nadals of the world have to figure out something to step up to his level. So far, they haven't done that. But dominance forces you to raise the level of your own game -- and that's never a bad thing for the sport.

 

Who's challenging him right now? Nadal and then only on clay, so no I don't think he's being challenged. And I think one person/team being this dominate is bad for the sport, because it causes the casual fan to lose interest.