Most Improbable Slam Championships

[tennisville]

no one mentioned Kuerton in Roland Garros in 1997. I think that was a surprise

 

[Moxie]

Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

Murat said nothing about a "fluke." You brought the word in, so you must really stop putting it in his mouth. He's only made the case for Chang's win as "improbable." There's no reason for you to try to chase him down and shoot him over it. Chang turned pro in 1988 and won the French in 1989…you don't find that surprising, and perhaps, unprecedented? Make your case for Chang, but there's no need to insult Murat for making the point.

this is what he said

ricardo Wrote:
(Yesterday 09:21 AM)1972Murat Wrote:
Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

Oh he totally did...how many "red stuff" tournaments did he win again, besides the one RG? A couple of "gray" stuff wins in Atlanta or wherever. He made one more final 6 years later after his improbable win. Whoppie doo....only proves the point. He does not have even a semi besides those years. Nothing on Monte Carlo, one semi in Rome, nothing in Hamburg...

Listen I am not saying he did not deserve to win RG. Anybody who wins 7 matches in a slam is a deserved champion in my book. But Chang, at that age, with no clay resume to speak of, before AND after, was for me the most improbable slam champion.


NOW YOU HAPPY? when i said Chang didn't FLUKE it out of nowhere, he SAID he TOTALLY DID. I don't put word in anyone's mouth, like what you just accused me of.

Note also he said NO clay resume to speak of before AND AFTER?

I am sorry, but you guys need to stay with the facts - obviously you never could do that right Moxie? just your forte.... and i know why.

"Fluke" was still your word. Murat never used it. I don't think his responding to you is a "gotcha."

Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

Oh he totally did...how many "red stuff" tournaments did he win again, besides the one RG? A couple of "gray" stuff wins in Atlanta or wherever. He made one more final 6 years later after his improbable win. Whoppie doo....only proves the point. He does not have even a semi besides those years. Nothing on Monte Carlo, one semi in Rome, nothing in Hamburg...

Listen I am not saying he did not deserve to win RG. Anybody who wins 7 matches in a slam is a deserved champion in my book. But Chang, at that age, with no clay resume to speak of, before AND after, was for me the most improbable slam champion.

now just show everyone, Chang totally did WHAT?

fluked it? thanks for shutting up Moxie and Kieran.

I simply disagreed that he 'fluked' a slam and had "no clay resume before and AFTER", its nothing against you. Just didn't expect the usual tennis illiterate suspects would want to make an argument out of it :lolz:

You're arguing the argument. You still don't make a case for Chang as a clay champion, and not an improbable winner, despite what others have laid out. You keep debating words with Murat, though not intentions, which is contentious and unnecessary. Why don't you try just backing up your position? And don't tell other people to "shut up" because they find fault with your reasoning. I think a simple and reasoned debate point would suffice. You have yet to offer why we should consider Chang a great enough clay-courter to not have been a surprise win at RG in his second year on tour.

 

[Moxie]

Delpo in 2009 .. a teenager .. a rising star yes .. but a grand slam winner .. I didnt think so

That was a painful one for sure, but he did have a bit of a build up coming to US Open, no? I mean he defended the Washington title beating Roddick in the final, and than he made the Montreal final beating Roddick and Nadal on the way. Lost to Murray in the final.

So he was headed in the right direction but yeah, it was an unexpected win in the finals. Especially winning the two TBs against Roger.

Perhaps an unexpected outcome for that match, but who would say that Del Potro was a surprise Slam winner? At that point in his career, I don't think he was. He won young, but the best ones do. (Ask El Dude.) Djokovic won in AO at 20, and didn't win again for 3 years. That didn't mean he didn't have the chops to win young, and Del Potro, likewise.

 

[Ricardo]

Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

Murat said nothing about a "fluke." You brought the word in, so you must really stop putting it in his mouth. He's only made the case for Chang's win as "improbable." There's no reason for you to try to chase him down and shoot him over it. Chang turned pro in 1988 and won the French in 1989…you don't find that surprising, and perhaps, unprecedented? Make your case for Chang, but there's no need to insult Murat for making the point.

this is what he said

ricardo Wrote:
(Yesterday 09:21 AM)1972Murat Wrote:
Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

Oh he totally did...how many "red stuff" tournaments did he win again, besides the one RG? A couple of "gray" stuff wins in Atlanta or wherever. He made one more final 6 years later after his improbable win. Whoppie doo....only proves the point. He does not have even a semi besides those years. Nothing on Monte Carlo, one semi in Rome, nothing in Hamburg...

Listen I am not saying he did not deserve to win RG. Anybody who wins 7 matches in a slam is a deserved champion in my book. But Chang, at that age, with no clay resume to speak of, before AND after, was for me the most improbable slam champion.


NOW YOU HAPPY? when i said Chang didn't FLUKE it out of nowhere, he SAID he TOTALLY DID. I don't put word in anyone's mouth, like what you just accused me of.

Note also he said NO clay resume to speak of before AND AFTER?

I am sorry, but you guys need to stay with the facts - obviously you never could do that right Moxie? just your forte.... and i know why.

"Fluke" was still your word. Murat never used it. I don't think his responding to you is a "gotcha."

Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

Oh he totally did...how many "red stuff" tournaments did he win again, besides the one RG? A couple of "gray" stuff wins in Atlanta or wherever. He made one more final 6 years later after his improbable win. Whoppie doo....only proves the point. He does not have even a semi besides those years. Nothing on Monte Carlo, one semi in Rome, nothing in Hamburg...

Listen I am not saying he did not deserve to win RG. Anybody who wins 7 matches in a slam is a deserved champion in my book. But Chang, at that age, with no clay resume to speak of, before AND after, was for me the most improbable slam champion.

now just show everyone, Chang totally did WHAT?

fluked it? thanks for shutting up Moxie and Kieran.

I simply disagreed that he 'fluked' a slam and had "no clay resume before and AFTER", its nothing against you. Just didn't expect the usual tennis illiterate suspects would want to make an argument out of it :lolz:

You're arguing the argument. You still don't make a case for Chang as a clay champion, and not an improbable winner, despite what others have laid out. You keep debating words with Murat, though not intentions, which is contentious and unnecessary. Why don't you try just backing up your position? And don't tell other people to "shut up" because they find fault with your reasoning. I think a simple and reasoned debate point would suffice. You have yet to offer why we should consider Chang a great clay-courter.

make a case for Chang as a clay champion? wow you are just clueless as usual, i have only and always disagreed the claim that he didn't have clay resume. whats your education level Moxie? you have always failed to understand the very basics of many things, as shown again here.

Is Ferrer a clay champ? no, but surely he has resume...... so what? this had nothing to do with i am discussing. stay out of the conversation if you don't know what you are talking about.

Now who is arguing who used the word 'fluke'? the disagreement i have is when he claimed that Chang totally fluked it, oh but Moxie is gonna get on with word games......

here it is,
I said: Chang didn't fluke the RG win
Murat said: he totally did

Moxie argues that I used the word, and makes it the point of discussion

typical Moxie, couldn't be dumber than that..... honestly. (add to that she thinks she found 'fault' with my reasoning, good for her!!)

 

[Moxie]

no one mentioned Kuerton in Roland Garros in 1997. I think that was a surprise

Wikipedia says he was the lowest-ranked Grand Slam Champion (#66.) Does that still hold? At least he backed it up with 2 more wins in RG. But he's a good call for that year, tennisville.

 

[Moxie]

You're arguing the argument. You still don't make a case for Chang as a clay champion, and not an improbable winner, despite what others have laid out. You keep debating words with Murat, though not intentions, which is contentious and unnecessary. Why don't you try just backing up your position? And don't tell other people to "shut up" because they find fault with your reasoning. I think a simple and reasoned debate point would suffice. You have yet to offer why we should consider Chang a great clay-courter.

make a case for Chang as a clay champion? wow you are just clueless as usual, i have only and always disagreed the claim that he didn't have clay resume. whats your education level Moxie? you have always failed to understand the very basics of many things, as shown again here.

Is Ferrer a clay champ? no, but surely he has resume...... so what? this had nothing to do with i am discussing. stay out of the conversation if you don't know what you are talking about.

Of course Chang is a clay champion, as he's won RG. Slip of the finger…I meant only to argue his clay resume, overall, as Murat has done. Still, despite all prodding, you fail to make a case for Chang on clay, over his career. No one is asking for any more of you. You're great with the insults, but slim on the information.

 

[tennisville]

no one mentioned Kuerton in Roland Garros in 1997. I think that was a surprise

Wikipedia says he was the lowest-ranked Grand Slam Champion (#66.) Does that still hold? At least he backed it up with 2 more wins in RG. But he's a good call for that year, tennisville.

Only Mark Edmonson ranked 212 when he won the Australian Open in 1977 and Goran who was 125th when he won wimbledon are the 2 who were lower ranked than him and won a slam.

He definately backed it up later but no one expected him to win in 1997

 

[Moxie]

no one mentioned Kuerton in Roland Garros in 1997. I think that was a surprise

Wikipedia says he was the lowest-ranked Grand Slam Champion (#66.) Does that still hold? At least he backed it up with 2 more wins in RG. But he's a good call for that year, tennisville.

Only Mark Edmonson ranked 212 when he won the Australian Open in 1977 and Goran who was 125th when he won wimbledon are the 2 who were lower ranked than him and won a slam.

He definately backed it up later but no one expected him to win in 1997

Great facts, tennisville! OK, so Kuertan was maybe (?) the lowest ranked player to win RG. I wonder who was the lowest ranked player to win the USO, then?

 

[Ricardo]

You're arguing the argument. You still don't make a case for Chang as a clay champion, and not an improbable winner, despite what others have laid out. You keep debating words with Murat, though not intentions, which is contentious and unnecessary. Why don't you try just backing up your position? And don't tell other people to "shut up" because they find fault with your reasoning. I think a simple and reasoned debate point would suffice. You have yet to offer why we should consider Chang a great clay-courter.

make a case for Chang as a clay champion? wow you are just clueless as usual, i have only and always disagreed the claim that he didn't have clay resume. whats your education level Moxie? you have always failed to understand the very basics of many things, as shown again here.

Is Ferrer a clay champ? no, but surely he has resume...... so what? this had nothing to do with i am discussing. stay out of the conversation if you don't know what you are talking about.

Of course Chang is a clay champion, as he's won RG. Slip of the finger…I meant only to argue his clay resume, overall, as Murat has done. Still, despite all prodding, you fail to make a case for Chang on clay, over his career. No one is asking for any more of you. You're great with the insults, but slim on the information.

actually i only argued his incorrect 'facts', not insult. As for you, you are the most under-informed around (you had little idea about masters final, and Kuerten was the lowest ranked player to win a major etc.... remember?). If you read, you'd notice that i informed him that Chang made another RG final as his resume.

There was nothing to argue about his resume, it is what it is. His win at RG was highly unlikely, nobody disputed it.... but first, he didn't fluke it and second, he did have something more than that. So what do you disagree about?

 

[Ricardo]

no one mentioned Kuerton in Roland Garros in 1997. I think that was a surprise

Wikipedia says he was the lowest-ranked Grand Slam Champion (#66.) Does that still hold? At least he backed it up with 2 more wins in RG. But he's a good call for that year, tennisville.

Only Mark Edmonson ranked 212 when he won the Australian Open in 1977 and Goran who was 125th when he won wimbledon are the 2 who were lower ranked than him and won a slam.

He definately backed it up later but no one expected him to win in 1997

Great facts, tennisville! OK, so Kuertan was maybe (?) the lowest ranked player to win RG. I wonder who was the lowest ranked player to win the USO, then?

You should've also read where i showed how bad Goran was playing coming into Wimbledon (4 consecutive 1st round losses), and all of a sudden he beat 6 good players in a row to win the trophy. It was highly unlikely as well, more than others really, and you should learn to appreciate how reasonable a post with such info is.

 

[Moxie]

His win at RG was highly unlikely, nobody disputed it.... but first, he didn't fluke it and second, he did have something more than that. So what do you disagree about?

Jeepers, that was all that Murat ever said. And you did dispute it, for a couple of pages. And "fluke," I must say again, is your word. Stop repeating it as if anyone said it but you. You're arguing a point that you invented. And even you are now disagreeing with your own point. As to records, and likelihood of a Major, Chang ended his career with a total for 4 titles on clay to 21 on hards.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ch/M/Michael-Chang.aspx?t=mr

And his sole Major was on clay. Let's go back to "improbable."

 

[Ricardo]

His win at RG was highly unlikely, nobody disputed it.... but first, he didn't fluke it and second, he did have something more than that. So what do you disagree about?

Jeepers, that was all that Murat ever said. And you did dispute it, for a couple of pages. And "fluke," I must say again, is your word. Stop repeating it as if anyone said it but you. You're arguing a point that you invented. And even you are now disagreeing with your own point. As to records, and likelihood of a Major, Chang ended his career with a total for 4 titles on clay to 21 on hards.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ch/M/Michael-Chang.aspx?t=mr

And his sole Major was on clay. Let's go back to "improbable."

get your head checked out, I already stated many time it was improbable. Murat claimed Chang totally fluked it, already showed it in concrete evidence..... what are you moaning about woman? :laydownlaughing

4 titles on clay with 2 finals at RG (won one) is a resume. It's not on par with clay greats but nobody would be qualified to say he didn't have 'something' in the clay season (which he claimed).

AGAIN, this was my conversation with him

I said: Chang didn't fluke it
Murrat said: he totally did.

Moxie said: Murat never said that Chang fluked it

Its good to show everyone how Moxie makes her argument, TBH it's mentally disturbing :s

 

[Kieran]

ricardo, you were trolling on Murat. You knew what he meant and you knew he was right.

You have many troll tools you employ, but you don't need to troll when you actually agree with somebody...

 

[Ricardo]

ricardo, you were trolling on Murat. You knew what he meant and you knew he was right.

You have many troll tools you employ, but you don't need to troll when you actually agree with somebody...

shut up and read, he claimed that Chang totally fluked it and had no resume before/after - so i am supposed to 'know' what he meant and not go by what he actually wrote? sure he later corrected himself so i have no more issues.

Moxie and you are just tennis illiterate fans who actually think they have a 'point'..... how about you stop trolling on me as a start? I've shown concrete evidence and you two have shown balloon...

 

[Kieran]

ricardo, you were trolling on Murat. You knew what he meant and you knew he was right.

You have many troll tools you employ, but you don't need to troll when you actually agree with somebody...

shut up and read, he claimed that Chang totally fluked it and had no resume before/after - so i am supposed to 'know' what he meant and not go by what he actually wrote? sure he later corrected himself so i have no more issues.

Moxie and you are just tennis illiterate fans who actually think they have a 'point'..... how about you stop trolling on me as a start? I've shown concrete evidence and you two have shown balloon...

Look ricardo, by definition, you can't troll on trolls. The best you can do is keep them company, which I'd be reluctant to do in your case.

You're a proven liar. You make things up. So shut up about Murat, who's a decent bloke, and who you actually agreed with. Try to post in a friendly fashion, and you won't make such a fool of yourself. This is friendly advice, freely given...

 

[Moxie]

@ricardo: you've admitted you were wrong, except you can't accept it gracefully. And now you're just cringing in the corner with your teeth bared. Move on. It's not even that important.

 

[Ricardo]

@ricardo: you've admitted you were wrong, except you can't accept it gracefully. And now you're just cringing in the corner with your teeth bared. Move on. It's not even that important.

OK LIARS - YES POINTING TO YOU AND KIERAN, HERE IS THE CONVERSATION AGAIN

ricardo Wrote:
(21-May-2014 09:21 AM)1972Murat Wrote:
Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

Oh he totally did...how many "red stuff" tournaments did he win again, besides the one RG? A couple of "gray" stuff wins in Atlanta or wherever. He made one more final 6 years later after his improbable win. Whoppie doo....only proves the point. He does not have even a semi besides those years. Nothing on Monte Carlo, one semi in Rome, nothing in Hamburg...

IT IS TIME FOR YOU TWO LIARS TO FACE THE REALITY....... EVIDENCE JUST PRESENTED. WHERE IS YOURS? JUST BEING THICK SKINNED WON'T CUT IT.

 

[Kieran]

@ricardo: you've admitted you were wrong, except you can't accept it gracefully. And now you're just cringing in the corner with your teeth bared. Move on. It's not even that important.

OK LIARS - YES POINTING TO YOU AND KIERAN, HERE IS THE CONVERSATION AGAIN

ricardo Wrote:
(21-May-2014 09:21 AM)1972Murat Wrote:
Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

Oh he totally did...how many "red stuff" tournaments did he win again, besides the one RG? A couple of "gray" stuff wins in Atlanta or wherever. He made one more final 6 years later after his improbable win. Whoppie doo....only proves the point. He does not have even a semi besides those years. Nothing on Monte Carlo, one semi in Rome, nothing in Hamburg...

IT IS TIME FOR YOU TWO LIARS TO FACE THE REALITY....... EVIDENCE JUST PRESENTED. WHERE IS YOURS? JUST BEING THICK SKINNED WON'T CUT IT.

See, this is where I think English isn't your first language. I'm being generous here. It's either that, or the rumours are true, and you're an idiot.

Where did we "lie"? We never denied what Murat posted, we just said that you're a troll about it. And you are. You agree with Murat, but you still have to be a poisonous dull little tool... :nono

 

[Ricardo]

@ricardo: you've admitted you were wrong, except you can't accept it gracefully. And now you're just cringing in the corner with your teeth bared. Move on. It's not even that important.

OK LIARS - YES POINTING TO YOU AND KIERAN, HERE IS THE CONVERSATION AGAIN

ricardo Wrote:
(21-May-2014 09:21 AM)1972Murat Wrote:
Chang. Who wins RG without virtually doing no damage ever during the European clay court season? The only clay success he ever had in his career was in Atlanta or something.
He beat Pete 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 that year. No matter how Pete was on clay, that is improbable. 4th round win against Lendl, form two sets down. Improbable. Beating Edberg in the finals...maybe not improbable, but still painful for me.

really? he made the RG finals against Muster after beating Bruguera in the semi's, the guy could play on the red stuff. He didn't just fluke it out of nowhere.

Oh he totally did...how many "red stuff" tournaments did he win again, besides the one RG? A couple of "gray" stuff wins in Atlanta or wherever. He made one more final 6 years later after his improbable win. Whoppie doo....only proves the point. He does not have even a semi besides those years. Nothing on Monte Carlo, one semi in Rome, nothing in Hamburg...

IT IS TIME FOR YOU TWO LIARS TO FACE THE REALITY....... EVIDENCE JUST PRESENTED. WHERE IS YOURS? JUST BEING THICK SKINNED WON'T CUT IT.

See, this is where I think English isn't your first language. I'm being generous here. It's either that, or the rumours are true, and you're an idiot.

Where did we "lie"? We never denied what Murat posted, we just said that you're a troll about it. And you are. You agree with Murat, but you still have to be a poisonous dull little tool... :nono

you never denied? Murat never claimed Chang fluked it? and has no resume on clay before and after?
my english is fine, you have no way out of this and yes, i'd love to see you bring on more insult.

Because i'd love to beat you down to pulps, yet again.

 

[Kieran]

you never denied? Murat never claimed Chang fluked it? and has no resume on clay before and after?
my english is fine, you have no way out of this and yes, i'd love to see you bring on more insult.

Because i'd love to beat you down to pulps, yet again.

I never denied Murat claimed Chang fluked it, because I understood what he meant. You decided that - since you didn't even have to lie - you'd jump all over it.

Tell me this: why don't you try be pleasant? I'm sure that even you have something worthy to contribute here - Cali thinks so, though he's possibly alone in defending you - so why don't you try get your stuff across in a peaceful way, instead of all this angry teenager stuff, bungling your lies and attacking people. It just makes you look like a social misfit...