Broken_Shoelace said:
You know nothing of France, obviously.
LOL....and you have demonstrated that you know about some French soccer players and that you know Marseille is a tough area.
Wonderful. Thank you for demonstrating your erudition.
Broken_Shoelace said:
And by the way, you seem to be completely oblivious to the LARGE portion of population of Arabian and African decent, who have little to do with your silly stereotypical view of French culture. Just Google "Marseille" and see how much it fits your "wussy, feminine, romantic culture" stereotype.
Oh, you have to love this. "Cali, Paris does not define all of France. But Marseilles proves that French culture is downright ghetto and bad-ass and tough, because of its unassimilated first and second-generation immigrant population."
Thanks, Broken. I'll mark that one down and keep that in mind. Lesson learned.:lolz:
As a matter of fact, I have read about the conditions of Marseilles and I was well aware of the 2005 riots at the time they occurred. I followed them in the news.
But guess what? I don't think the likes of Gasquet, Simon, and Llodra were born and raised in violent French ghettos. Nor were Tsonga or Monfils, to my knowledge. I don't think any of these guys would have gotten too much into tennis if they were.
Just a hunch.
Broken_Shoelace said:
You know nothing of French culture other than "French people are quitters and we saved them in WW II"
As a matter of fact, I have a very skeptical view of U.S. participation in World War II and I see FDR as one of the great fools/scoundrels in American history, thank you very much. I have gotten into many arguments with people challenging the notion of the "Good War". But thanks for telling me what I think about World War II. I appreciate being told what I think about it. It helps me to better understand myself, even if it doesn't match up with what I thought I knew.
Broken_Shoelace said:
You just chose a few tennis players today and came up with some odd narrative about them being wussies
An "odd narrative"? What is "odd" about my "narrative" of the modern French tennis players? That I accurately described them?
Oh, I apologize.
Broken_Shoelace said:
Oh, by the way, I found this particularly hilarious: "Gasquet - beautiful one-handed backhand, great technique all-around, but someone without the fortitude and resolve of the truly elite."
Hmmm....does that description remind anyone of a certain player? I'll give you guys a hint, replace "one-handed" with "two-handed." Another hint, he's Cali's favorite player and rhymes with Calbandian. I guess South Americans are not wussies too. Yup, makes perfect sense.
This shows just how annoyingly petty you can so often be with your arguments. Do you think I characterized everything about Gasquet's psychology with one pithy description? Really?
And there is no way (at least I thought) that you could be either so constricted in your thinking or so disingenuous that you would actually draw this comparison.
So where do I start?
First of all, my description of Gasquet was tempered and brief. I could have been a bit more harsh and just said that his game seriously lacks physicality and on so many occasions there has been a total lack of emphatic/powerful assertiveness to it, physically and psychologically. Part of this deficiency is due to his lack of physical strength compared to some of the top players, and some of it is due to a comparatively mild mindset (competitively speaking).
We have all seen Gasquet being physically overwhelmed in rallies by Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, etc. It wasn't merely that they had an upper hand, but that they were hitting bigger and just authoritatively seizing control of points time after time because Gasquet was basically asking for it with many timid shots. To compare this to Nalbandian is preposterous.
Nalbandian's problems were of a completely different sort. When it came to Nadal, for example, his biggest problem was finishing out matches after dictating proceedings with aggressive shotmaking (much more powerful velocity-wise and much more emphatic in terms of attitude than Gasquet's). But he controlled large portions of their matches with truly dominant play from the back of the court, where he hit the ball at least as hard as Nadal and he made shots with the utmost confidence, emphatic assertiveness, and flare.
And have I even mentioned Nalbandian's numerous matches with Federer? Time after time, Nalbandian would emphatically control the rallies and go for powerful, aggressive, dynamic shots that were downright potent and made a strong impression on Federer, causing him to feel very threatened. How in any way does that compare to Gasquet's occasional one-hander up the line for the winner when Federer was up 5-2, 30-0 trying to close out a set? Not even comparable. And you know this - when you're not in your ultra-literal, ultra-petty mode.
Now, as for Nalbandian and how he reflects the culture of Argentina - I do think very much that his personality fits that of his country, and both he and Del Potro share some very similar qualities. They both have a penchant for hitting awe-inspiring shots and creating the most dramatic rallies, points, and matches. They are also quite temperamental/moody and up-and-down with their emotional state (Delpo has proven to be more stable for the most part, but in the big matches when he is tested, these tumultuous qualities tend to come out quite clearly - such as the Wimbledon semifinal against Djokovic, among many other examples).
Both Nalbandian and Delpo have demonstrated IMMENSE emotional instability throughout their careers, and come to think of it, both Coria and Gaudio were like that as well. I have spoken to a few people who have been to Argentina (I have not), and while they all say that it is a wonderful and civilized place, they have also commented on its wildness and exuberance.
This isn't reflected at all though in their tennis players, right? Oh, that would be just so "ignorant" to suggest, wouldn't it?
I'm sorry for thinking rational thoughts.
Last, I will say as an American that I know for sure that the American tennis players on both the men's and women's side reflect very significant aspects to American culture. I know this for certain, as an American.
For instance, Roddick often demonstrated a classic American weight-room musclehead mentality. His brand of tennis was often lunkheaded and stylistically vacuous. Remember the moniker "Robo-Rod"? This all ties in to his "urrrr, I am going to bash the ball as hard as I can, dude" weight-room Under Armour mentality (an American phenomenon), combined with his pure pragmatism (another very distinctive American quality). The way he would intentionally spike overheads into the 8th row to prove how strong he was was cheesy, ill-timed, and inappropriate - and reflected a common defect in American culture, just as the mildness of Gasquet and Monfils reflects a certain deficiency in French culture (one which can also be viewed as a strength in non-athletic contexts, just as Roddick's mentality has a good side to it in terms of being assertive and tough).
Now there is a strong current in American athletic/male culture that thinks like Roddick, for better and for worse. Not everyone who thinks like that in America is purely musclehead/lunkhead/meathead, but what cannot be doubted for a second is that this mentality is distinctively American.
I would also add as a couple other examples Isner and Serena and Venus. Isner thrives with the weight-room aspect of the game (bashing first serves at 135-145), but when it comes to the more aesthetic and dynamic aspects of tennis from the baseline, he is very deficient. Some of this has to do with his height, but some of it undoubtedly connects with his American upbringing of pragmatism and (in many circles) de-valuing of aesthetic/fundamental concerns. As an American, I know this.
And how about Serena and Venus?
Without question, they have brought their Compton-style attitude to the tennis court, and it has ruffled plenty of cultural feathers over the years, while also contributing greatly to their success. But what I know for certain is that they have clearly been demonstrating an AMERICAN cultural background in acting as they have over the years. It is undoubtedly and indisputably urban American. I know this as an American. It is undeniable.
What's funny too is that ESPN ran a special on the Williams sisters this summer in which Venus was very open about how the ATP culture did not take to many of her many mannerisms in her early years. They viewed her as an outsider and as somewhat boorish (the special referred to a match with Davenport as well as one other player I cannot recall, when Venus's opponents and the umpires got annoyed with her). But the point is that Venus's attitude was clearly urban American. It was vintage urban American.
Funny how these American players reflect aspects of the cultures they grew up in, for better and for worse. Shocking, isn't it? I can't believe that I would suggest such a thing about French players as well. How "ignorant" of me!
See, I am willing to be self-critical as an American. I see pluses and minuses everywhere. I don't just bash foreign nations. All of you should know me well enough by now to know that at least. At least I thought. Remember my arguments with Kieran about the ineptitude of American foreign policy?
Guess not.
Broken_Shoelace said:
It's embarrassing really.
Yeah, it's embarrassing that there are a number of people who think that 2% of a group of people being different than the other 98% is a reality that makes it impossible or "ignorant" to draw any general conclusions about the group as a whole. That is embarrassing. You are right about that.
Broken_Shoelace said:
But it's OK, you're an American, so obviously you're historically and geographically challenged and know nothing about other cultures (see how easy it is to come up with ignorant stereotypes?).
That is not an ignorant stereotype at all. That stereotype is overwhelmingly true, with few exceptions. Education in America is awful and virtually everyone, regardless of what school they attended, is ignorant in the manner that you suggest. Just look at the current and previous presidents. Both are total ignoramuses, and they graduated from the Ivy League.
Your stereotype is not "ignorant" at all, but accurate far more than it is wrong.
Broken_Shoelace said:
PS: For everyone else, I wasn't serious with my last comment.
BUMMER!!!! I agreed with the stereotype. I thought we were on the same page on that!
Guess not. Oh well.
