Obsessed Winners, Are They Accepted in Tennis Culture?

[brokenshoelace]

Try not being so long winded.

If you expect the ATP to be as crass as the NBA you will be disappointed.

Looks like the game of tennis is boring to you without thugs.

Except I never said tennis players should act like NBA players. It's not about action, it's about attitude. I like Nadal's "winning at all costs" attitude, do you see him acting like a thug? No.

So once again, either stop putting words in my mouth, learn how to read, or don't derail threads with your constant meaningless posts that have nothing to do with the point at hand. I know you just embarrassed yourself by failing to read basic English but don't do what you did in the other thread and just backtrack for the sake of backtracking. It's OK, you failed to see the point. No big deal. No say something useful or stay quiet. Thanks.

Tennis as an international professional sport is enjoying a 35 year high in popularity with the current top 4, who are universally seen as bringing the game to heights never dreamed of. It is doing quite well with the need for "spice". At your next tournament try some trash talking let us know how it goes.


Over and out.:clap
Over and out.

This is my second argument with you in as many threads, and for the second time in as many threads, you make a point, I explain that you completely missed mine, yet you still rehash your same point through a different obtuse way.

Please show me where I said players should talk trash, or when I said it's about popularity. It's about an A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E.

Once again: I AM PRAISING NADAL'S ATTITUDE, as well as that of others. Do you see Nadal trash talking? So how is it that I am demanding trash talking? Jesus Christ.

But yes, please be over and out, and make way for actual insightful conversation.

Listen, stop the acrobatic act.

When you say you want players to be "less friendly and speak their minds" and not to worry about the "sportsmanship police" you ARE talking about trash talk and trashy behavior.
Stop the back tracking, the parsing and nuanced sub meanings and the little dance.

"Less friendly" = trashy behavior?

I'll give you one example to dissect this stupid point: Federer and Djokovic. They're not exactly friendly. Never have they claimed to be friends, they've taken shots at each other (verbally), and Federer even famously told Novak's parents to "be quiet."

Yet do you see any of them engaging in "trashy behavior"? No. So how the hell is less friendly = trashy behavior.

Didn't you say you were over and out? Please stay true to your word, or start making some sense.

 

[Moxie]

I agree completely, and this why I feel the OP was utterly pointless.

Moxie, in my OP, I specifically single out Nadal, Djokovic and Federer as people who ARE obsessed winners...and yet you're essentially "I disagree with you because Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are obsessed winners"? You bring up Nadal playing golf because he is competitive, when in my OP I specifically mention how competitive he is while playing video games... You're essentially rehashing the same point..

To make it worse, a poster above ironically calls the OP pointless without realizing that you just agreed with the OP, without really knowing it.

My god the irony...

Then I would say you didn't make your point as coherently as you think. And stop swooning over the "irony." (Drama Queen.) See below, and my bolded:

"I look at many top tennis players today, and I don't see this "winning is everything" attitude. There is an obvious example: Rafael Nadal. I saw videos of him playing video games, and you can see how competitive he is, even when doing something as minor. Recently, Novak has become somewhat similar, albeit more laid back. Hewitt in his day, was certainly another example. Federer is interesting, because you don't win as much as he did without having this mentality, even if he doesn't appear to be as intense as someone like Nadal or Djokovic. Ditto for Pete. And yet, ALL these players are criticized if they show signs of being sore losers, making arrogant comments, etc... I personally don't get it. The game could use a bit of spice. I want sore losers (not to be confused with excuse makers). I want players who would do anything that gives them an edge (not to be confused with downright illegal actions). I want players to be less friendly, and I want them to be able to speak up their minds without the sportsmanship police jumping on them.

I'm not saying tennis needs to turn into the 90's NBA. Different sports, different cultures, different times, etc... But I do think it's becoming a bit too idealistic, and it shows with the mentality of some of the players, and the fans too."


You may think you were making the argument that they're intense, but it was far from clear. Note my bolded. It was rather hard to find your argument in all that. Don't blame us if we missed it.

The irony part was directed at Borg (the poster, not the player). As far as you not getting my point, Murat, Darth and Kieran did, so I'm pretty sure it was clear to some extent. Since I am not providing a lecture but a mere internet post, I tend to rely on a reader's own ability to A) read B) comprehend and C) Deduce. In other words, even if A) and B) are difficult due to potential vagueness of what I wrote, then C) shouldn't be difficult. No man in his right mind would criticize Nadal for not having a "win at all costs attitude," so when I bring him up, I naturally assume that the reader would know that I am in fact PRAISING him for his attitude, because that's a no-brainer. I am even more prompted to make said assumption since I am known to be a huge Nadal fan, so it's not exactly a monumental task to know what I'm getting at. Right after the bolded part in the post above, I cited the notable exceptions, being Nadal, Djokovic and Federer, and referred to Hewitt in his prime and Sampras. The fact that this somehow was still not clear enough for you is not on me. Sorry.

Don't blame me for your over sensitivity regarding all things Nadal. I guess I should have all-capped my praise for him in order not to be misconstrued.

Kieran responded to you as a place-holder, and Murat was merely trying to keep folks from sparring. Darth only gets part of your point, so stop acting like I'm the only one that doesn't get you. I'm not denying your premise, only saying that it wasn't clear, which is why I was debating your point. You've made it clearer.

And no need to be rude about my being a fan of Nadal, which has nothing to do with this conversation. Where I was unclear was that you were making it against all of tennis and its gentilities, vs. Jordan, etc. I never took as anything against Nadal, and at the very least I understood that you were giving Nadal some red-meat chops. Sorry if I misconstrued, but as I said, your basic premise was rather less than crystalline.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I agree completely, and this why I feel the OP was utterly pointless.

Moxie, in my OP, I specifically single out Nadal, Djokovic and Federer as people who ARE obsessed winners...and yet you're essentially "I disagree with you because Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are obsessed winners"? You bring up Nadal playing golf because he is competitive, when in my OP I specifically mention how competitive he is while playing video games... You're essentially rehashing the same point..

To make it worse, a poster above ironically calls the OP pointless without realizing that you just agreed with the OP, without really knowing it.

My god the irony...

Then I would say you didn't make your point as coherently as you think. And stop swooning over the "irony." (Drama Queen.) See below, and my bolded:

"I look at many top tennis players today, and I don't see this "winning is everything" attitude. There is an obvious example: Rafael Nadal. I saw videos of him playing video games, and you can see how competitive he is, even when doing something as minor. Recently, Novak has become somewhat similar, albeit more laid back. Hewitt in his day, was certainly another example. Federer is interesting, because you don't win as much as he did without having this mentality, even if he doesn't appear to be as intense as someone like Nadal or Djokovic. Ditto for Pete. And yet, ALL these players are criticized if they show signs of being sore losers, making arrogant comments, etc... I personally don't get it. The game could use a bit of spice. I want sore losers (not to be confused with excuse makers). I want players who would do anything that gives them an edge (not to be confused with downright illegal actions). I want players to be less friendly, and I want them to be able to speak up their minds without the sportsmanship police jumping on them.

I'm not saying tennis needs to turn into the 90's NBA. Different sports, different cultures, different times, etc... But I do think it's becoming a bit too idealistic, and it shows with the mentality of some of the players, and the fans too."


You may think you were making the argument that they're intense, but it was far from clear. Note my bolded. It was rather hard to find your argument in all that. Don't blame us if we missed it.

The irony part was directed at Borg (the poster, not the player). As far as you not getting my point, Murat, Darth and Kieran did, so I'm pretty sure it was clear to some extent. Since I am not providing a lecture but a mere internet post, I tend to rely on a reader's own ability to A) read B) comprehend and C) Deduce. In other words, even if A) and B) are difficult due to potential vagueness of what I wrote, then C) shouldn't be difficult. No man in his right mind would criticize Nadal for not having a "win at all costs attitude," so when I bring him up, I naturally assume that the reader would know that I am in fact PRAISING him for his attitude, because that's a no-brainer. I am even more prompted to make said assumption since I am known to be a huge Nadal fan, so it's not exactly a monumental task to know what I'm getting at. Right after the bolded part in the post above, I cited the notable exceptions, being Nadal, Djokovic and Federer, and referred to Hewitt in his prime and Sampras. The fact that this somehow was still not clear enough for you is not on me. Sorry.

Don't blame me for your over sensitivity regarding all things Nadal. I guess I should have all-capped my praise for him in order not to be misconstrued.

Kieran responded to you as a place-holder, and Murat was merely trying to keep folks from sparring. Darth only gets part of your point, so stop acting like I'm the only one that doesn't get you.

Darth seemed to fully grasp my point. He tackled A) Jordan. B) Different cultures (which was my other big point). and C) Nadal/Serena being notable examples of my original point. I've no idea how you're speaking for Kieran and Murat, but OK.

And since you seem to amazingly know the motivation behind these guys' responses, I'm all the more puzzled by your inability to fully understand a far simpler point, and your subsequent confusing response, which seemed to endorse said post, oddly enough, or at least one of its main points.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Except I never said tennis players should act like NBA players. It's not about action, it's about attitude. I like Nadal's "winning at all costs" attitude, do you see him acting like a thug? No.

So once again, either stop putting words in my mouth, learn how to read, or don't derail threads with your constant meaningless posts that have nothing to do with the point at hand. I know you just embarrassed yourself by failing to read basic English but don't do what you did in the other thread and just backtrack for the sake of backtracking. It's OK, you failed to see the point. No big deal. No say something useful or stay quiet. Thanks.

Tennis as an international professional sport is enjoying a 35 year high in popularity with the current top 4, who are universally seen as bringing the game to heights never dreamed of. It is doing quite well with the need for "spice". At your next tournament try some trash talking let us know how it goes.


Over and out.:clap
Over and out.

This is my second argument with you in as many threads, and for the second time in as many threads, you make a point, I explain that you completely missed mine, yet you still rehash your same point through a different obtuse way.

Please show me where I said players should talk trash, or when I said it's about popularity. It's about an A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E.

Once again: I AM PRAISING NADAL'S ATTITUDE, as well as that of others. Do you see Nadal trash talking? So how is it that I am demanding trash talking? Jesus Christ.

But yes, please be over and out, and make way for actual insightful conversation.

Listen, stop the acrobatic act.

When you say you want players to be "less friendly and speak their minds" and not to worry about the "sportsmanship police" you ARE talking about trash talk and trashy behavior.
Stop the back tracking, the parsing and nuanced sub meanings and the little dance.

"Less friendly" = trashy behavior?

I'll give you one example to dissect this stupid point: Federer and Djokovic. They're not exactly friendly. Never have they claimed to be friends, they've taken shots at each other (verbally), and Federer even famously told Novak's parents to "be quiet."

Yet do you see any of them engaging in "trashy behavior"? No. So how the hell is less friendly = trashy behavior.

Didn't you say you were over and out? Please stay true to your word, or stop making some sense.

LOL.

So now you have disproved your original murky "point"..you just described a chilly relationship between Novak and Fed..so what are you belly aching about? You have far too much time on your hands.

And there was the recent Nadal smacking Novak in the choppers with the ball (that WAS good)..less friendly...to your heart's delight. It is obvious your OP was was a time waster from the get go. :lolz:

 

[brokenshoelace]

LOL

So now you have disproved your original murky "point"..you just described a chilly relationship between Novak and Fed..so what are you belly aching about? You have far too much time on your hands.

And there was the recent Nadal smacking Novak in the choppers with the ball (that WAS good)..less friendly...to your heart's delight. It is obvious your OP was was a time waster from the get go. :lolz:

For a guy who said Lleyton Hewitt was stupid for thinking faster courts suit him more, you sure manage to top your own stupidity.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

LOL

So now you have disproved your original murky "point"..you just described a chilly relationship between Novak and Fed..so what are you belly aching about? You have far too much time on your hands.

And there was the recent Nadal smacking Novak in the choppers with the ball (that WAS good)..less friendly...to your heart's delight. It is obvious your OP was was a time waster from the get go. :lolz:

For a guy who said Lleyton Hewitt was stupid for thinking faster courts suit him more, you sure manage to top your own stupidity.

Quite frankly, I find your understanding of the sport of tennis to be wholly unimpressive.

It is obvious you want ATP players to model themselves after your unpolished and rough demeanor.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Quite frankly, I find your understanding of the sport of tennis to be wholly unimpressive.

That's OK, I find solace in my reading ability.

It is obvious you want ATP players to model themselves after your unpolished and rough demeanor.

Yes, very obvious. In fact, my OP explicitly mentioned the need for players to exchange blows at the net, direct insults at each other after each point, and maybe even throw the occasional groin shots during changeovers. That's exactly what this thread is getting at.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Quite frankly, I find your understanding of the sport of tennis to be wholly unimpressive.

That's OK, I find solace in my reading ability.

It is obvious you want ATP players to model themselves after your unpolished and rough demeanor.

Yes, very obvious. In fact, my OP explicitly mentioned the need for players to exchange blows at the net, direct insults at each other after each point, and maybe even throw the occasional groin shots during changeovers. That's exactly what this thread is getting at.

I will tell you what, since you find me illiterate and stupid, and I find you utterly humorless and full of hot air, I will put you on ignore and you can follow suit. Deal?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Quite frankly, I find your understanding of the sport of tennis to be wholly unimpressive.

That's OK, I find solace in my reading ability.

It is obvious you want ATP players to model themselves after your unpolished and rough demeanor.

Yes, very obvious. In fact, my OP explicitly mentioned the need for players to exchange blows at the net, direct insults at each other after each point, and maybe even throw the occasional groin shots during changeovers. That's exactly what this thread is getting at.

I will tell you what, since you find me illiterate and stupid, and I find you utterly humorless and full of hot air, I will put you on ignore and you can follow suit. Deal?

Thank you. I wish you'd taken this course of action before derailing this thread. But hey, better late than never.

So anyway, where were we...

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, in my OP, I specifically single out Nadal, Djokovic and Federer as people who ARE obsessed winners...and yet you're essentially "I disagree with you because Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are obsessed winners"? You bring up Nadal playing golf because he is competitive, when in my OP I specifically mention how competitive he is while playing video games... You're essentially rehashing the same point..

To make it worse, a poster above ironically calls the OP pointless without realizing that you just agreed with the OP, without really knowing it.

My god the irony...

Then I would say you didn't make your point as coherently as you think. And stop swooning over the "irony." (Drama Queen.) See below, and my bolded:

"I look at many top tennis players today, and I don't see this "winning is everything" attitude. There is an obvious example: Rafael Nadal. I saw videos of him playing video games, and you can see how competitive he is, even when doing something as minor. Recently, Novak has become somewhat similar, albeit more laid back. Hewitt in his day, was certainly another example. Federer is interesting, because you don't win as much as he did without having this mentality, even if he doesn't appear to be as intense as someone like Nadal or Djokovic. Ditto for Pete. And yet, ALL these players are criticized if they show signs of being sore losers, making arrogant comments, etc... I personally don't get it. The game could use a bit of spice. I want sore losers (not to be confused with excuse makers). I want players who would do anything that gives them an edge (not to be confused with downright illegal actions). I want players to be less friendly, and I want them to be able to speak up their minds without the sportsmanship police jumping on them.

I'm not saying tennis needs to turn into the 90's NBA. Different sports, different cultures, different times, etc... But I do think it's becoming a bit too idealistic, and it shows with the mentality of some of the players, and the fans too."


You may think you were making the argument that they're intense, but it was far from clear. Note my bolded. It was rather hard to find your argument in all that. Don't blame us if we missed it.

The irony part was directed at Borg (the poster, not the player). As far as you not getting my point, Murat, Darth and Kieran did, so I'm pretty sure it was clear to some extent. Since I am not providing a lecture but a mere internet post, I tend to rely on a reader's own ability to A) read B) comprehend and C) Deduce. In other words, even if A) and B) are difficult due to potential vagueness of what I wrote, then C) shouldn't be difficult. No man in his right mind would criticize Nadal for not having a "win at all costs attitude," so when I bring him up, I naturally assume that the reader would know that I am in fact PRAISING him for his attitude, because that's a no-brainer. I am even more prompted to make said assumption since I am known to be a huge Nadal fan, so it's not exactly a monumental task to know what I'm getting at. Right after the bolded part in the post above, I cited the notable exceptions, being Nadal, Djokovic and Federer, and referred to Hewitt in his prime and Sampras. The fact that this somehow was still not clear enough for you is not on me. Sorry.

Don't blame me for your over sensitivity regarding all things Nadal. I guess I should have all-capped my praise for him in order not to be misconstrued.

Kieran responded to you as a place-holder, and Murat was merely trying to keep folks from sparring. Darth only gets part of your point, so stop acting like I'm the only one that doesn't get you.

Darth seemed to fully grasp my point. He tackled A) Jordan. B) Different cultures (which was my other big point). and C) Nadal/Serena being notable examples of my original point. I've no idea how you're speaking for Kieran and Murat, but OK.

And since you seem to amazingly know the motivation behind these guys' responses, I'm all the more puzzled by your inability to fully understand a far simpler point, and your subsequent confusing response, which seemed to endorse said post, oddly enough, or at least one of its main points.

I did miss your original point. I'm sorry, but I thought it wasn't clear. Nice of you to be so superior about it.

 

[Moxie]

OK, perhaps we can get back to your original point, which I was never clear about, and obviously we've gotten away from. Would you care to restate? I'm not sure if you're trying to say that tennis is too genteel for hard-core obsessionists, or if they're missing in tennis.

 

[calitennis127]

Soccer has always been my favorite sport. Tennis has come second. Yet, growing up, my favorite athlete was Michael Jordan, even today. If you go to Youtube and hear former teammates, opponents and various Basketball greats talk about him, especially those who knew him best, one theme constantly pops up: the will to win.

Yeah, they'll bring up his athleticism, great defense, hard work, improvement, his mid range jumper, his improved post game, his dunking, etc... but more than anything, they talk about him being an obsessed winner. That's part of the reason why he is arguably the greatest player in the clutch, in any sport, period. His obsession in winning made him the hardest working, the hungriest, the best... It allowed him to maximize his talent.

And yet, as inspiring as all of this sounds, there is a "darker" side to Jordan. Despite being one of the most popular athletes in history, Jordan's qualities (beyond Basketball) weren't the kind of qualities we discuss in tennis players (ie: humble, funny, etc...). Most were in awe of him, and everyone had huge respect for his game, but Michael "the person" is not something you hear about often. There are stories of him berating teammates when they couldn't perform, even to the point of bullying. He was at times an a$$hole to opponents, and a trash talking machine. All you have to do is listen to his 2009 hall of fame speech. It's actually a pretty telling trip down the mind of the one of the greatest sportsmen ever.

If you have time to kill, watch these two videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9ZaudNTSeQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLzBMGXfK4c

Magic Johnson talks about how during the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona, he, Jordan, Pippen and Barkley would stay up till 5 in the morning playing cards because Jordan refused to leave the table until he won. In fact, that's part of the reason Jordan wanted to play Baseball. His obsession with winning led him to continuously set new challenges for himself, and he felt, at the time (1994) that he had nothing left to prove in Basketball.

If you listen to Jordan rivals like Reggie Miller talk about him, they all talk (in admiration) of his "win at all costs" attitude. That is not to be confused with shady or dirty tactics (that's Isiah Tomas' job), but anything that gave him an edge, Jordan did it. He was accused of "conning" the likes of Barkley, Ewing and Oakley, befriending them, softening them up, and then destroying them on the Bastkeball court...

Now, this isn't a history lesson about Michael Jordan. This is about Michael Jordan's mentality, and what it represented. A mentality that can transcend into every sport. In fact, most greats share it, to varying degrees. Ali, Tiger Woods, Jose Mourinho and others always shared some of these traits.

Which led me to thinking about tennis, and especially, today's game. By comparison, tennis today is "softer" than say, the NBA in the 80's/90's, Boxing, Soccer, and even tennis itself in the 80's. Of course, there is a difference in culture between different sports and that's fine. However, it seems to me that many of the above-mentioned traits, which in many ways, are considered qualities in other sports, would be frowned up in today's game. Players should be humble, gracious, give credit to the opponent all the time, play exactly by the book, act and talk a certain way... and to this I ask, why?

Why can't they be obsessed with winning, first and foremost? Why can't they ONLY be obsessed with winning? When Jordan did some of the things that gave him an edge, or Shaq and Barkley gave small elbows in the paint to establish their presence and intimidate opponents, they were praised for it. It was part of the game.

This isn't the case in tennis. Nadal is often criticized (and perhaps rightly so) for taking too much time between points, making players wait at the net...etc. Yet, someone like Jordan would probably praise him for doing little things that give him an edge.

I look at many top tennis players today, and I don't see this "winning is everything" attitude. There is an obvious example: Rafael Nadal. I saw videos of him playing video games, and you can see how competitive he is, even when doing something as minor. Recently, Novak has become somewhat similar, albeit more laid back. Hewitt in his day, was certainly another example. Federer is interesting, because you don't win as much as he did without having this mentality, even if he doesn't appear to be as intense as someone like Nadal or Djokovic. Ditto for Pete. And yet, ALL these players are criticized if they show signs of being sore losers, making arrogant comments, etc... I personally don't get it. The game could use a bit of spice. I want sore losers (not to be confused with excuse makers). I want players who would do anything that gives them an edge (not to be confused with downright illegal actions). I want players to be less friendly, and I want them to be able to speak up their minds without the sportsmanship police jumping on them.

I'm not saying tennis needs to turn into the 90's NBA. Different sports, different cultures, different times, etc... But I do think it's becoming a bit too idealistic, and it shows with the mentality of some of the players, and the fans too.

Very good topic, Broken. I am actually delighted to see someone start a topic of this nature. However one feels about the question you raise, there is one thing that is beyond a shadow of a doubt: you have broached a race-cultural issue. The 90s/early 2000s NBA was dominated by an inner city African-American super-masculine culture. Male tennis today often looks like a sport for the most effeminate metrosexuals imaginable, who appear to be contemplating a sex change. Tomas Berdych, for instance, could change his "gender" tomorrow and fit right in on the WTA Tour. He is basically a well-mannered female in terms of how he approaches the game. I think that Princess Kate would display more testosterone-related behavior than him were she to pick up tennis and get a shot at Nadal in a Wimbledon quarterfinal. David Ferrer, on the other hand, has an unimpeachably tough masculine attitude, and that has a great deal to do with why he can overcome being so small to still be a Top 5 player.

I personally am white, and a good number of my closest friends are black. I have played basketball with them for years and many of them come from "tough areas", to use a euphemism in white society for "black neighborhoods". If any of them paid attention to tennis, they would look at how Federer has handled his Nadal series and pretty much just see him as a "chump", as well as other terms I cannot repeat on this forum, lest the homophobia police comes banging on my virtual door with a virtual citation. To allow another player whose talent is inferior to yours to not only undermine you and overtake you, but to even make you break down and cry after a loss simply makes you a chump.

But, let's be honest about some things here: when it comes to who finds certain sports appealing, we are talking about very different demographics. In the United States, tennis is generally for people who fall into at least one or two of these categories: 1) more intellectual, 2) more refined, 3) wealthier (and by "wealthier" I mean among the most elite, such as northeast bankers), 4) more aesthetic, 5) more analytical, 6) more nerdy, and 7) less athletic. Most of these categories are "good" ones, but the fact that the likes of John Isner and especially Sam Querrey are among the most notable American tennis players shows that in America tennis is mostly a game for less athletic white geeks. Sounds brutal but it's just the honest truth, especially in the case of Querrey. Of course this isn't the case 100% of the time, but most of the time it is.

Culturally, because it is a game for the more polished and wealthier higher classes, tennis quite naturally adopts some very conservative tendencies in its cultural standards, as Broken alludes to. But some of these standards are not so much the result of refinement as they are feeble-mindedness and lack of assertive drive as compared to the culture in other sports.

Ultimately, though, tennis is a beautiful and wonderful game that allows for the integration of all that is best in athletics to be expressed glamorously. On that note, Allen Iverson would have made a brilliant tennis player. Basketball and tennis are my two favorite sports, and stylistically they have a great deal of overlap.

More coming later. Much more actually as I love this topic....

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'm not sure if you're trying to say that tennis is too genteel for hard-core obsessionists, or if they're missing in tennis.

A little bit of both, in a way. They do exist, and Nadal is a prime example. To me, when it comes to actual competition, he's not necessarily a nice guy (meaning on the court). That's not to say that he's a cheat, or dirty. It's that he takes no prisoners, and does whatever it takes to win (even if it means taking too much time in between points or the occasional shady medical timeout. The latter in fairness, hasn't happened in a while). That is not a reflection on his off the court personality, because he is like-able, humble, etc (which sets him apart from Jordan who was similar both on and off the court in many ways). Nadal is only in that mode when he's competing.

Roger is obviously an obsessed winner, but he strikes me as a little cut-throat than Nadal, which is fine. You can't complain when a guy has won as much as he has.

But yes, for the most part, this mentality isn't always ingrained in tennis players. Just looking at guys like Del Potro, or even Murray for that matter, it doesn't seem to be there. No to be clear, this is not criticism. My point is not that everyone should be that way. Both are hard workers and have the desire to win. That much is obvious. Different personalities are welcomed, in fact. I actually find Murray the most interesting of the top 4, in many ways.

As far as the other point goes, yes, I do think today's tennis game makes some of the traits of an obsessed winner frowned upon. Not that I confuse Raonic with someone with a "win at all costs mentality" but think of the uproar his net chord incident caused. Tennis culture is far too idealistic at times. Likewise, think of how disliked Robin Soderling was...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Very good topic, Broken. I am actually delighted to see someone start a topic of this nature. However one feels about the question you raise, there is one thing that is beyond a shadow of a doubt: you have broached a race-cultural issue. The 90s/early 2000s NBA was dominated by an inner city African-American super-masculine culture.

I agree, and that's part of the discussion to be sure. It might not be a popular opinion, but it's a fact. That's why I brought up the word "culture" repeatedly. The discussion can lead to so many places, which is why I took particular issue with the narrow-minded replies of the poster who kept insisting that this was a "pointless" conversation. It's far from the case actually.

But, let's be honest about some things here: when it comes to who finds certain sports appealing, we are talking about very different demographics. In the United States, tennis is generally for people who fall into at least one or two of these categories: 1) more intellectual, 2) more refined, 3) wealthier (and by "wealthier" I mean among the most elite, such as northeast bankers), 4) more aesthetic, 5) more analytical, 6) more nerdy, and 7) less athletic. Most of these categories are "good" ones, but the fact that the likes of John Isner and especially Sam Querrey are among the most notable American tennis players shows that in America tennis is mostly a game for less athletic white geeks. Sounds brutal but it's just the honest truth, especially in the case of Querrey. Of course this isn't the case 100% of the time, but most of the time it is.

Agreed. If you are an extremely athletic young man in Spain, you have a good chance of playing Football (soccer) or tennis. In the US, tennis isn't even the fourth or fifth option. The best athletes are usually going to play (American) Football, Basketball, etc...

Culturally, because it is a game for the more polished and wealthier higher classes, tennis quite naturally adopts some very conservative tendencies in its cultural standards, as Broken alludes to. But some of these standards are not so much the result of refinement as they are feeble-mindedness and lack of assertive drive as compared to the culture in other sports.

Absolutely.

Ultimately, though, tennis is a beautiful and wonderful game that allows for the integration of all that is best in athletics to be expressed glamorously.

Yes.

On that note, Allen Iverson would have made a brilliant tennis player.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGDBR2L5kzI

 

[brokenshoelace]

I did miss your original point. I'm sorry, but I thought it wasn't clear. Nice of you to be so superior about it.

No need for apologies, it happens. I thought my initial reply to you was fairly harmless, but you took a comment directed at another poster as a diss against you.

 

[calitennis127]

Iverson's "Practice" monologue was an exercise in Socratic brilliance. It was utterly ingenious.

He was making a brilliantly profound argument that the procedures of institutions are largely dishonest formalities in which individual progress does not take place and is not fostered. Please name anyone who has been part of a corporation or a team and could not concede that there is at least some truth in this, even if they are among the most cluelessly optimistic buffoons you can find

 

[brokenshoelace]

Iverson's "Practice" monologue was an exercise in Socratic brilliance. It was utterly ingenious.

He was making a brilliantly profound argument that the procedures of institutions are largely dishonest formalities in which individual progress does not take place and is not fostered. Please name anyone who has been part of a corporation or a team and could not concede that there is at least some truth in this, even if they are among the most cluelessly optimistic buffoons you can find

He's not wrong in what he said. The way he went on about it was just hilarious.

 

[Kieran]

I'm not saying I want colorfulness for the sake of colorfulness, or antics for the sake of antics. Pete Sampras had neither (sorry Kieran), but you could see that he wasn't out there to make friends. Winning was the only thing that mattered.

No need to be sorry, though I just got off the phone to Pete and he's a bit miffed. He'll live!

But in tennis terms, Pete's actually the perfect example. What was he on court, except a man absorbed in the act of trying to win? He has a lot of similarities with Rafa for me, which is why I like Rafa. Both players take ownership of the court, with their demeanour and actions. The point about Rafa taking his time is a good one. He'll steal a semi-legal (or downright illegal) march on anyone if the umpire lets him. Remember those defeats to Nole, when the handsome man-hug at the net was suspended, only to return with smiles once Rafa started winning again?

But this is what it is to hate losing. What you're wondering is about something even more focussed and self-centred almost. Jordan, as you insinuate, even brought the mind games and plotting into his off-court stuff. Cali makes a great point about race, and Serena is living proof of it. A lot of people are put off by her naked determination and aggression towards her opponent. It's primitive and powerful and without restraint, shame or embarrassment. She'll threaten to shove a ball up a lineswoman's hole - and mean it. She'll do more or less anything to get an edge.

The men are more subtle than that and certainly, I don't see Roger as the kind of guy who'd slit the strings on your racket if he could get away with it. I think Roger has been way to nice in his rivalry with Rafa. There is an element in some players that they like to be liked and want to win - but not exactly at all costs, and this is certainly cultural...

 

[Front242]

Not sure if I can agree. I don't really like single-minded fanatacism and although it's pretty difficult to go without it at that level today I prefer the players that are able to reflect and relate things. Can't stand Hewitt, can't stand Federer and definitely can't stand Nadal when he makes players play on his rythm between points.

What is the difference between an excuse maker and a sore loser by the way? Don't they overlap to the point that they are similar?

Not sure if you happened to watch Pironkova v Kerber this morning but Kerber's facial expression and poor handshake at the end was the epitome of sore loser and totally ungracious. I was glad Pironkova won.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I think, at the end of the day, it all comes down to the new cultural realities of the time, which I really hate. Example: In schools today (some, I guess), they do not keep score of sporting events, so that there is no "loser". Because apparently that affects the child "negatively". In Canada, the teachers are not allowed to give 0 as a mark, even though the worth of the test or the assignment might be just that.In the past (in my school days at least), when I got a bad mark, I was responsible and faced the music. Today, when a kid gets a bad grade, the parents go to the school to blame the teacher! Boy these kids will have a rude awakening when they go in the real world, get a job...
So , taking competition and personal accountability out of our culture, it is not surprising to see athletes that do not hate losing...it was someone else's fault in the first place.