Most Improbable Slam Championships

[Ricardo]

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...

you never denied? oh sure, even your friend Moxie denied it too....... of course i wasn't pleasant, not as far as you are concerned... considering how often i exposed the crap in your posts.

Social misfit? from the evidence i showed about your posts, speak for yourself.

 

[britbox]

There is no wrong or right answer here... just opinion and much depends on the context on how you're looking at it.

For me...

Chang 89... In hindsight, it's probably not that improbable given the career he went on to have, but at the time he did seem to come out of nowhere. As an Edberg fan, it was one that got away. But it wasn't just about the final... Chang's win over Lendl was almost even more improbable. He basically threw the kitchen sink at Lendl when it comes to unorthodox play... moonballing, standing at the service box to receive, underarm serves... and cramping up to boot. In fairness, the guy wasn't on anybody's radar and took out the best.

Goran... this is a bit of wash, because everyone had foresight on what Goran was capable of on grass. Even unseeded, you thought the guy was a dangerous floater... but it was still an amazing story. I never expected him to beat Rafter... or Henman to be honest.

Gaudio... I wasn't that shocked to see Gaudio to do well at Roland garros, but I was shocked at how the match unravelled... or how Coria unravelled to be more concise. This was one of the most amazing finals because of how it unfolded.

So different reasons depending on how you judge. A lot of lesser players have won majors, but the circumstances of HOW the above three ended up with a title gives them a bit more meaning.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Ricardo, one thing you should pay attention to, I think, is people are only responsible for the things they write, not for how you might interpret them. I cannot worry about that. I told you a million times about the improbability of Chang's win, never disrespected him, in fact, praised him. Even in the "he totally did" comment, the word "fluke" is never in my mind. My train of thought is all on improbability. Because if it was not , I would never have written the next paragraph, which says :


"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."

Why would I think he is a deserved champion when I think he "fluked" it?

Go back a million posts , go back to the old forums and find one instance when I said a slam win was a fluke by any player....ever. You will not.

As far as clay resume issue, you decided not to defend your position despite me asking a bunch of times, so that is that.

You seem to like to argue about semantics a lot, but not the substance.

 

[Ricardo]

Ricardo, one thing you should pay attention to, I think, is people are only responsible for the things they write, not for how you might interpret them. I cannot worry about that. I told you a million times about the improbability of Chang's win, never disrespected him, in fact, praised him. Even in the "he totally did" comment, the word "fluke" is never in my mind. My train of thought is all on improbability. Because if it was not , I would never have written the next paragraph, which says :


"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."

Why would I think he is a deserved champion when I think he "fluked" it?

Go back a million posts , go back to the old forums and find one instance when I said a slam win was a fluke by any player....ever. You will not.

As far as clay resume issue, you decided not to defend your position despite me asking a bunch of times, so that is that.

You seem to like to argue about semantics a lot, but not the substance.

So you tell me, in the context of our discussion when i said 'Chang didn't fluke it' and you replied it with 'he totally did'...... he totally did WHAT?

what else could possibly be? if you please enlighten me.

You'd notice after you made the correction, i never went on arguing with you. Some tennis illiterates took over, and i moved on accordingly.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Ricardo, one thing you should pay attention to, I think, is people are only responsible for the things they write, not for how you might interpret them. I cannot worry about that. I told you a million times about the improbability of Chang's win, never disrespected him, in fact, praised him. Even in the "he totally did" comment, the word "fluke" is never in my mind. My train of thought is all on improbability. Because if it was not , I would never have written the next paragraph, which says :


"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."

Why would I think he is a deserved champion when I think he "fluked" it?

Go back a million posts , go back to the old forums and find one instance when I said a slam win was a fluke by any player....ever. You will not.

As far as clay resume issue, you decided not to defend your position despite me asking a bunch of times, so that is that.

You seem to like to argue about semantics a lot, but not the substance.

So you tell me, in the context of our discussion when i said 'Chang didn't fluke it' and you replied it with 'he totally did'...... he totally did WHAT?

what else could possibly be? if you please enlighten me.

You'd notice after you made the correction, i never went on arguing with you. Some tennis illiterates took over, and i moved on accordingly.

"He totally did...the improbable!" That was the word in my mind the whole time! Because THAT is the context of this thread, the improbability. Never did the word "fluke" enter my mind, not even for a sec! And I showed you why, with ALL of my other posts, in this forum, and others too, regarding ANY slam winner.

Agree with the "moving on"

 

[Ricardo]

Ricardo, one thing you should pay attention to, I think, is people are only responsible for the things they write, not for how you might interpret them. I cannot worry about that. I told you a million times about the improbability of Chang's win, never disrespected him, in fact, praised him. Even in the "he totally did" comment, the word "fluke" is never in my mind. My train of thought is all on improbability. Because if it was not , I would never have written the next paragraph, which says :


"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."

Why would I think he is a deserved champion when I think he "fluked" it?

Go back a million posts , go back to the old forums and find one instance when I said a slam win was a fluke by any player....ever. You will not.

As far as clay resume issue, you decided not to defend your position despite me asking a bunch of times, so that is that.

You seem to like to argue about semantics a lot, but not the substance.

So you tell me, in the context of our discussion when i said 'Chang didn't fluke it' and you replied it with 'he totally did'...... he totally did WHAT?

what else could possibly be? if you please enlighten me.

You'd notice after you made the correction, i never went on arguing with you. Some tennis illiterates took over, and i moved on accordingly.

"He totally did...the improbable!" That was the word in my mind the whole time! Because THAT is the context of this thread, the improbability. Never did the word "fluke" enter my mind, not even for a sec! And I showed you why, with ALL of my other posts, in this forum, and others too, regarding ANY slam winner.

Agree with the "moving on"

nice try, but let's look at the context: i said he didn't fluke it, we all know 'it' refers to his RG win and when you respond directly to 'it', that 'it' cannot be something else. to logically comply, your response goes "he totally ______ the RG win" and you fill out the blanks.

Again, i think it's a nice try but i am a little more 'witty' than that.

But sure, i am ready to move on. Just didn't want to see any 'confusion'.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

^No confusions on my part what so ever brother. Like I said, I am only responsible for what I say, not how you hear it.

 

[Ricardo]

^No confusions on my part what so ever brother. Like I said, I am only responsible for what I say, not how you hear it.

you know i am crystal clear on the context and logic of 'it'. now i will have more fun with Kieran.

 

[DarthFed]

I think Stan is the biggest shock since I started watching. If you told me before the tournament he'd win the AO and beat Nole and Rafa in the process I'd have laughed myself to death.

After that it'd probably be Goran 2001 and DP 2009. By USO 09 we all knew DP was going to be a threat in the near future but nobody would've predicted he'd be a threat to win it all and go through Federer who had been invincible there.

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, that's right darth. It's one thing getting to the final but then winning it is a stellar leap. DP was a hugely improbable win, as was Stan.

Gomez, in 1990. Aided and abetted by a weak Agassi, Andres Gomez winning that slam was as improbable as Johannson winning Oz in 2002 (aided and abetted by a weak Safin)...

 

[Ricardo]

I think Stan is the biggest shock since I started watching. If you told me before the tournament he'd win the AO and beat Nole and Rafa in the process I'd have laughed myself to death.

After that it'd probably be Goran 2001 and DP 2009. By USO 09 we all knew DP was going to be a threat in the near future but nobody would've predicted he'd be a threat to win it all and go through Federer who had been invincible there.

Federer was well on top of the match and should have never lost. However Delpo won many hard court tournaments coming into it, so he was on top of his game (and was a fav to win most of his matches, only really big underdog to Federer).

Meanwhile Goran was finding his form at bottom of a garbage bin, he was an underdog in every match from round 2 on.

 

[DarthFed]

^ True enough yet Goran was naturally always going to be a threat on grass. With DP he still seemed far away though he was quickly making progress. He won some tournaments but not the big warm up events (he has yet to win an MS event). Then throw in the fact there was a world of difference playing Roger at USO compared to Rafter at Wimbledon...