Monday, January 24, 2011
Those texts will haunt you
A thought from the Australian Open tennis tournament, do not put anything in a text message that you would not say to a person's face. Kim Clijsters reminded former Australian tennis star turned sideline reporter, Todd Woodbridge, of that axiom very publicly. The story goes like this. Woodbridge had sent a text to thirty-nine year old Australian doubles player Rennae Stubbs. Stubbs, a female, apparently felt some solidarity with Clijsters, the first mom to win a Grand Slam tournament since Evonne Goolagong Cawley at Wimbledon in 1980, so she showed her the message. Woodbridge had sent a text saying Clijsters looked "especially busty" and "grumpy" suggesting perhaps she was "pregnant" again. Clijsters called him out with grace and humor, courtside and on tv, after her next match. Watch below.
Labels: television, tennis
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Sampras robbed
Poor Pete Sampras has had his trophy collection stolen according to reports in the LA Times. They said that thieves made off with most of his trophies from his sixty-four tour wins, his two Davis Cups, his Olympic ring and six trophies from his world number one rankings from 1993 to 1998. Ouch.
Luckily, Sampras does not keep all of his hardware in one place. The lost trophies were robbed from a Los Angeles warehouse. The most valuable trophies to him, he had on the mantle at home. He still has thirteen of his fourteen Grand Slam trophies.
Look for this stuff to surface on the blackmarket in the years to come. Here is hoping the thieves get busted.
Labels: Ethically questionable, tennis
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Revolutionary Ladies
The past month saw two notable and under-publicized achievements in women's tennis. In a scene that produced some delightfully joyous photos, Kim Clisters became the first mother to win a Grand Slam tournament in 27 years (since Evonne Goolagong Cawley won Wimbledon in 1980). Clisters accepted post match hugs from her eighteen month old daughter Jada after winning the U.S. Open last month. Score one for motherhood!
Evonne Goolagong Cawley.......................Billie Jean King
Yesterday Japan's Kimiko Date Krumm became the oldest winner of a WTA Tour tournament since Billie Jean King in 1983. Date Krum, nearly thirty-nine, won the Korean Open, beating top-seeded Daniela Hantuchova along the way. King was thirty-nine and seven months. It was Date Krum's eighth career title. For perspective, the last one was thirteen years ago over Arantxa Sanchez Vicario. Congratulations.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Dubai
Dubai risked international uproar this week by banning Israeli tennis player Shahar Peer from entering the country to play in the Women's Tennis Association(WTA) event being held there. The WTA was none too pleased. It's president threatened to pull the event from Dubai next year.
The Clarion Content feels Dubai was playing the Islamist card or playing to the "Arab Street." Dubai is an island of wealth and exclusion unparalleled in the Middle East. It has to reaffirm its credentials, whose side it is on, more frequently because of it. There are certainly no women's tennis tournaments being held in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Iran.
CNN reported that this event is not without precedent in Dubai, last year an Israeli men's doubles team was denied entry to the country/emirate. Dubai dubiously claimed that security precautions were behind Peer's ban. Citing a demonstration held in New Zealand during the last WTA tournament. CNN said, "In January, a small group of about 20 protesters waved placards and shouted anti-Israel slogans outside the main entrance to the ASB Classic tournament in Auckland." Please.
The players came out strongly behind Peer. CNN quoted Venus Williams in the New York Times, "All the players support Shahar. We are all athletes..."
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Serena Williams is a BAD ASS tennis player
It is easy to forget in this era when tennis has slipped so far down the ladder of sports' hierarchy. Serena Williams is a bad ass tennis player. She is tougher, stronger and simply better than almost all comers. Tennis has fallen from the point where Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe were global icons to slightly more relevant than lacrosse and American soccer. However, this dimming of the sport's glow has not diminished Williams' accomplishments or presence. Serena Williams has won more money at her sport than any other woman ever.
Last night in the Land Down Under, she won her 10th Grand Slam title. She did so in the dominating fashion that is the hallmark of all of the Grand Slam Finals she plays, save for those against her sister. Williams easily dismissed the Russian, Dinara Safina, who would have been number one in the world if she could have beaten Williams. Instead Serena crushed her 6-0 and 6-3, winning the first set in a mere twenty-two minutes and seized the number one ranking for herself. This followed the pattern Williams has laid down, she has won the Australian Open every other year since 2003. Two years she crushed another talented Russian, Maria Sharapova, 6-1, 6-2.
Read more here.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Enough already!
Can we finally dispense with all this ridiculousness about Roger Federer being the greatest tennis player of all-time? Surely, this year has debunked that ludicrousness. It is only the hype-filled era that we live in that ever elevated Federer to that spot on the pantheon. It is the same media outlets who wanted to tell us that Marion Jones was the greatest female sprinter ever and that Michelle Wie was on her way to golf superstardom. The same self-promoting, fiscally incentivized folks who say things like, 'Roy Jones Jr. is greatest pound for pound fighter of all-time.' Pshaw! Don't believe the hype.
Roger Federer is the Ivan Lendl of his era, surely amongst the all-time greats, but with a fatal flaw. He was never able to win on clay because his game, though more than one dimensional, was built primarily around his huge serves. Federer has played in era which was a modern nadir for tennis. It has never been less popular or less highly regarded by youths entering sport. In the 1960's or 1980's Federer would have been a top five player who won a couple grand slam tournaments.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
The Greatest Tennis Player of all-time?
Who is the greatest tennis player of all-time?
The Clarion has an answer.
Duh!
Steffi Graf.
And don't you dare say that was a trick question.
As for the men, the Clarion has grown quite sick of the modern hype machine. Every new athlete has to be the best, the greatest ever.
This mindset was spawned in the hyper-competitive thinking that says that, "Second place is first loser." The Clarion firmly disagrees.
In our view, during the Reagan era there was a societal backlash in America against the touchy-feely, everyone who participates is a winner mentality of the late 1970's. By the end of the millennium the pendulum had swung so far back the other way, that before she won a tournament, ESPN made Anna Kournikova, the subject of an hour long, athletes of the Sports Century show.
It is also this mindset, that success is only achieved if you are the best, that is behind performance enhancing drugs. At some point there is going to be a limit to the human body's feats. The records for the 100 meters, the long jump, and the mile are not going to continue to be lowered endlessly. There will be no day of the 5 second 100 meter dash, or the 60 foot long jump, or the two minute mile. Not as our species is currently conceptualized, genetics or drugs may change things, but...we digress.
Suffice it to say we at the Clarion think, Tiger Woods aside, there has been massive over-hyping of recent athletes as the best ever or greatest ever at their particular sport.
Having said that, can you differentiate the Grand Slam records of the four male tennis greats above into a clear cut best ever? Could you even identify whose Grand Slam record is whose? (In no particular order...)
Player A had 12 Grand Slam titles and 3 runner's up finishes when this article was written.
Player B had 11 Grand Slam titles and 6 runner's up finishes when this article was written.
Player C had 8 Grand Slam titles and 11 runner's up finishes when this article was written.
Player D had 14 Grand Slam titles and 4 runner's up finishes when this article was written.
Who is the clear cut best ever? Maybe they were all terrific, all-time greats?
(Note: This is all tied up in a demand for resolution that the uncertainty of the universe belies.)
Further hints...
Player A had won 3 Australian Opens, 5 Wimbledons and 4 U.S. Opens when this article was written.
Player B had won 3 Australian Opens, 2 French Opens, 4 Wimbledons and 2 U.S. Opens when this article was written.
Player C had won 2 Australian Opens, 3 French Opens, and 3 U.S. Opens when this article was written.
Player D had won 2 Australian Opens, 7 Wimbledons, and 3 U.S. Opens when this article was written.
Got it?
And...
Does one of them have to be the best?
Player A---Roger Federer
Player B---Rod Laver
Player C---Ivan Lendl
Player D---Pete Sampras
The Clarion has an answer.
Duh!
Steffi Graf.
And don't you dare say that was a trick question.
As for the men, the Clarion has grown quite sick of the modern hype machine. Every new athlete has to be the best, the greatest ever.
This mindset was spawned in the hyper-competitive thinking that says that, "Second place is first loser." The Clarion firmly disagrees.
In our view, during the Reagan era there was a societal backlash in America against the touchy-feely, everyone who participates is a winner mentality of the late 1970's. By the end of the millennium the pendulum had swung so far back the other way, that before she won a tournament, ESPN made Anna Kournikova, the subject of an hour long, athletes of the Sports Century show.
It is also this mindset, that success is only achieved if you are the best, that is behind performance enhancing drugs. At some point there is going to be a limit to the human body's feats. The records for the 100 meters, the long jump, and the mile are not going to continue to be lowered endlessly. There will be no day of the 5 second 100 meter dash, or the 60 foot long jump, or the two minute mile. Not as our species is currently conceptualized, genetics or drugs may change things, but...we digress.
Suffice it to say we at the Clarion think, Tiger Woods aside, there has been massive over-hyping of recent athletes as the best ever or greatest ever at their particular sport.
Having said that, can you differentiate the Grand Slam records of the four male tennis greats above into a clear cut best ever? Could you even identify whose Grand Slam record is whose? (In no particular order...)
Player A had 12 Grand Slam titles and 3 runner's up finishes when this article was written.
Player B had 11 Grand Slam titles and 6 runner's up finishes when this article was written.
Player C had 8 Grand Slam titles and 11 runner's up finishes when this article was written.
Player D had 14 Grand Slam titles and 4 runner's up finishes when this article was written.
Who is the clear cut best ever? Maybe they were all terrific, all-time greats?
(Note: This is all tied up in a demand for resolution that the uncertainty of the universe belies.)
Further hints...
Player A had won 3 Australian Opens, 5 Wimbledons and 4 U.S. Opens when this article was written.
Player B had won 3 Australian Opens, 2 French Opens, 4 Wimbledons and 2 U.S. Opens when this article was written.
Player C had won 2 Australian Opens, 3 French Opens, and 3 U.S. Opens when this article was written.
Player D had won 2 Australian Opens, 7 Wimbledons, and 3 U.S. Opens when this article was written.
Got it?
And...
Does one of them have to be the best?
Player A---Roger Federer
Player B---Rod Laver
Player C---Ivan Lendl
Player D---Pete Sampras
Sunday, June 15, 2008
The Greatest Tennis Player of all-time?
Who is the greatest tennis player of all-time?
The Clarion has an answer.
Duh!
Steffi Graf.
And don't you dare say that was a trick question.
As for the men, the Clarion has grown quite sick of the modern hype machine. Every new athlete has to be the best, the greatest ever.
This mindset was spawned in the hyper-competitive thinking that says that, "Second place is first loser." The Clarion firmly disagrees.
In our view, during the Reagan era there was a societal backlash in America against the touchy-feely, everyone who participates is a winner mentality of the late 1970's. By the end of the millennium the pendulum had swung so far back the other way, that before she won a tournament, ESPN made Anna Kournikova, the subject of an hour long, athletes of the Sports Century show.
It is also this mindset, that success is only achieved if you are the best, that is behind performance enhancing drugs. At some point there is going to be a limit to the human body's feats. The records for the 100 meters, the long jump, and the mile are not going to continue to be lowered endlessly. There will be no day of the 5 second 100 meter dash, or the 60 foot long jump, or the two minute mile. Not as our species is currently conceptualized, genetics or drugs may change things, but...we digress.
Suffice it to say we at the Clarion think, Tiger Woods aside, there has been massive over-hyping of recent athletes as the best ever or greatest ever at their particular sport.
Having said that, can you differentiate the Grand Slam records of the four male tennis greats above into a clear cut best ever? Could you even identify whose Grand Slam record is whose? (In no particular order...)
Player A had 12 Grand Slam titles and 3 runner's up finishes when this article was written.
Player B had 11 Grand Slam titles and 6 runner's up finishes when this article was written.
Player C had 8 Grand Slam titles and 11 runner's up finishes when this article was written.
Player D had 14 Grand Slam titles and 4 runner's up finishes when this article was written.
Who is the clear cut best ever? Maybe they were all terrific, all-time greats?
(Note: This is all tied up in a demand for resolution that the uncertainty of the universe belies.)
Further hints...
Player A had won 3 Australian Opens, 5 Wimbledons and 4 U.S. Opens when this article was written.
Player B had won 3 Australian Opens, 2 French Opens, 4 Wimbledons and 2 U.S. Opens when this article was written.
Player C had won 2 Australian Opens, 3 French Opens, and 3 U.S. Opens when this article was written.
Player D had won 2 Australian Opens, 7 Wimbledons, and 3 U.S. Opens when this article was written.
Got it?
And...
Does one of them have to be the best?
Player A---Roger Federer
Player B---Rod Laver
Player C---Ivan Lendl
Player D---Pete Sampras
The Clarion has an answer.
Duh!
Steffi Graf.
And don't you dare say that was a trick question.
As for the men, the Clarion has grown quite sick of the modern hype machine. Every new athlete has to be the best, the greatest ever.
This mindset was spawned in the hyper-competitive thinking that says that, "Second place is first loser." The Clarion firmly disagrees.
In our view, during the Reagan era there was a societal backlash in America against the touchy-feely, everyone who participates is a winner mentality of the late 1970's. By the end of the millennium the pendulum had swung so far back the other way, that before she won a tournament, ESPN made Anna Kournikova, the subject of an hour long, athletes of the Sports Century show.
It is also this mindset, that success is only achieved if you are the best, that is behind performance enhancing drugs. At some point there is going to be a limit to the human body's feats. The records for the 100 meters, the long jump, and the mile are not going to continue to be lowered endlessly. There will be no day of the 5 second 100 meter dash, or the 60 foot long jump, or the two minute mile. Not as our species is currently conceptualized, genetics or drugs may change things, but...we digress.
Suffice it to say we at the Clarion think, Tiger Woods aside, there has been massive over-hyping of recent athletes as the best ever or greatest ever at their particular sport.
Having said that, can you differentiate the Grand Slam records of the four male tennis greats above into a clear cut best ever? Could you even identify whose Grand Slam record is whose? (In no particular order...)
Player A had 12 Grand Slam titles and 3 runner's up finishes when this article was written.
Player B had 11 Grand Slam titles and 6 runner's up finishes when this article was written.
Player C had 8 Grand Slam titles and 11 runner's up finishes when this article was written.
Player D had 14 Grand Slam titles and 4 runner's up finishes when this article was written.
Who is the clear cut best ever? Maybe they were all terrific, all-time greats?
(Note: This is all tied up in a demand for resolution that the uncertainty of the universe belies.)
Further hints...
Player A had won 3 Australian Opens, 5 Wimbledons and 4 U.S. Opens when this article was written.
Player B had won 3 Australian Opens, 2 French Opens, 4 Wimbledons and 2 U.S. Opens when this article was written.
Player C had won 2 Australian Opens, 3 French Opens, and 3 U.S. Opens when this article was written.
Player D had won 2 Australian Opens, 7 Wimbledons, and 3 U.S. Opens when this article was written.
Got it?
And...
Does one of them have to be the best?
Player A---Roger Federer
Player B---Rod Laver
Player C---Ivan Lendl
Player D---Pete Sampras
Labels: sports, tennis, thought
Friday, January 26, 2007
Tennis and Golf: Federer and Tiger
How much more compelling is the Australian Open’s women’s final with two larger than life personalities, Serena Williams versus Maria Sharapova, than the men’s final with Roger Federer and insert name of anonymous victim here?
There was half a breath where it seemed like Rafael Nadal might emerge to give Federer are rival, but it hasn’t happened. Federer isn’t quite overrated in the Clarion’s lexicon, but he’s no Tiger Woods. Federer has yet to complete his sport’s career Grand Slam. Something the recently retired Andre Agassi
was on the other hand able to accomplish. And of course, something Tiger has been able to accomplish in his sport.
Though golf and tennis have both been significantly changed by technological enhancement of the equipment, the Clarion's instinct is to believe that it would be more dificult for Federer to compete in other eras than Tiger. Of course, this game is always speculative. The older our editorial staff gets, the more we suspect that it is all but impossible to compare different eras in any sports. It is inarguable, however, that in men tennis during the last thirty years there has been a significant drop in the number of shots per point one. Serves are ever more dominant and rallies ever shorter. This is such a substantial difference in the nature of the game. Could Federer have won with a wood racquet? Would have been able to play any kind of finesse game?
Golf has an inherent advantage insofar as the course is not standardized in size the way a tennis court is. Tiger and this generation can bomb these drivers 350 yards, well golf courses have a response that is unavailble in tennis. They can lengthen the course. Tennis courts, while surfaces change, can’t be lengthened. The fact that Federer can’t win the French Open, the tournament with the greatest difference in surface, where in today’s game, finesse and touch are most important, calls into question his greatness. Not that he isn’t great, but he is not the greatest tennis player ever, not this side of Rod Laver for us. He's not quite even in the debatable conversation yet. Whereas Tiger Woods, who has a lot more career left than Federer, gets a little closer to Jack for greatest golfer ever, every year. Tiger has won in all kinds of conditions, and every kind of track in his sport, from the gorse of the British Isles to the linoleum tabletop greens of the best American courses.
The Clarion wonders how many folks are going to tune in to watch Federer at the Australian Open this weekend.
Though we won’t watch TV coverage, the Clarion has an ear out for the Buick Invitational where hot off the Nationwide tour Brandt Snedeker has a three stroke lead on the field and seven stroke lead on Tiger Woods,who is in a tie for twelth. Recall Tiger has won his last six PGA Tour starts seeking to make a run at the immortal Byron Nelson’s DiMaggio quality streak of 11 wins in 12 starts.
A little bit about Brandt Snedeker
There was half a breath where it seemed like Rafael Nadal might emerge to give Federer are rival, but it hasn’t happened. Federer isn’t quite overrated in the Clarion’s lexicon, but he’s no Tiger Woods. Federer has yet to complete his sport’s career Grand Slam. Something the recently retired Andre Agassi
was on the other hand able to accomplish. And of course, something Tiger has been able to accomplish in his sport.
Though golf and tennis have both been significantly changed by technological enhancement of the equipment, the Clarion's instinct is to believe that it would be more dificult for Federer to compete in other eras than Tiger. Of course, this game is always speculative. The older our editorial staff gets, the more we suspect that it is all but impossible to compare different eras in any sports. It is inarguable, however, that in men tennis during the last thirty years there has been a significant drop in the number of shots per point one. Serves are ever more dominant and rallies ever shorter. This is such a substantial difference in the nature of the game. Could Federer have won with a wood racquet? Would have been able to play any kind of finesse game?
Golf has an inherent advantage insofar as the course is not standardized in size the way a tennis court is. Tiger and this generation can bomb these drivers 350 yards, well golf courses have a response that is unavailble in tennis. They can lengthen the course. Tennis courts, while surfaces change, can’t be lengthened. The fact that Federer can’t win the French Open, the tournament with the greatest difference in surface, where in today’s game, finesse and touch are most important, calls into question his greatness. Not that he isn’t great, but he is not the greatest tennis player ever, not this side of Rod Laver for us. He's not quite even in the debatable conversation yet. Whereas Tiger Woods, who has a lot more career left than Federer, gets a little closer to Jack for greatest golfer ever, every year. Tiger has won in all kinds of conditions, and every kind of track in his sport, from the gorse of the British Isles to the linoleum tabletop greens of the best American courses.
The Clarion wonders how many folks are going to tune in to watch Federer at the Australian Open this weekend.
Though we won’t watch TV coverage, the Clarion has an ear out for the Buick Invitational where hot off the Nationwide tour Brandt Snedeker has a three stroke lead on the field and seven stroke lead on Tiger Woods,who is in a tie for twelth. Recall Tiger has won his last six PGA Tour starts seeking to make a run at the immortal Byron Nelson’s DiMaggio quality streak of 11 wins in 12 starts.
A little bit about Brandt Snedeker
