PDA

View Full Version : Jon Wertheim to receive record amount of hate mail this week


Asmus
Apr 18th, 2005, 10:01 PM
Why would you put Serena Williams before Monica Seles? Please explain why/how Serena makes your top five.
-- Carlo, Quezon City, Philippines

Yeah, maybe you're right. Here's my defense: Seles' career is -- of course, through no fault of her own -- a great asterisk. She may well have gone down as the best female player the sport has known. Fate dealt her a crappy hand, but you have to assess her career based essentially on what she did achieve, not what she might have achieved. She won (if that's the right tense) eight Majors which, of course, is one more than Serena. But Serena a) won all four Slams; and b) did so against a much deeper field; and c) won a few doubles titles. Plus -- and here is why I favor Pete Sampras over Rod Laver --I can't help but think Serena at the height of her powers beats Seles at the height of hers.

The argument for Seles? She won (has won?) twice as many titles as Williams, won more than twice as many matches, and showed considerably more mettle playing through injuries and sticking to her commitments. Again, this is good bar stool stuff. I could argue either side.

veryborednow
Apr 18th, 2005, 10:04 PM
Jon Wertheim to receive record amount of hate mail this week
Aw, makes me wish I'd sent him a letter bomb.

GoDominique
Apr 18th, 2005, 10:05 PM
Ack.

Asmus
Apr 18th, 2005, 10:08 PM
Hey, I can't find the link to send him a question or comment! Anyone have it?

mishar
Apr 18th, 2005, 10:12 PM
who really cares whether you're #4 or #5 on a list. Do you get to Heaven faster?

Weirder still is skipping bjk and court.

SelesFan70
Apr 18th, 2005, 10:13 PM
OMG! :o For those that don't know...Monica has 9 Majors. :bowdown:

4 Australian Opens

3 French Opens

2 US Opens

ys
Apr 18th, 2005, 10:35 PM
I agree with JW on this. Serena > Seles.

Joana
Apr 18th, 2005, 10:40 PM
You really think he actually means what he said. Next week he'll probably put Seles over Serena if someone asks a similar question. It's not like it hasn't happened before.

LeRoy.
Apr 18th, 2005, 10:47 PM
He put's Steffi over Martina even though Martina has far more tournament wins than Graf but then puts Monica below Serena when she has lesser # of GS's and tournament wins ? :confused:

:tape:@ him not knowing that Monica was "allowed" to win 9 and not 8 slams.

deja_entendu
Apr 18th, 2005, 11:14 PM
Werthless is a Graf fanatic, he has long despised Seles. No surprise here, nothing to see, moving on...

Stamp Paid
Apr 19th, 2005, 01:34 AM
Werthless is a Graf fanatic, he has long despised Seles. No surprise here, nothing to see, moving on...

lol..you sounbd like a williams fan...anyone that says anything you disagree with is a hater...rotf....

:rolleyes:

JustineTime
Apr 19th, 2005, 01:39 AM
"Graf fanatics" are the only people whose opinion matters. :p

As long as he puts no one above Steffi, no prob! :shrug:

:D

vogus
Apr 19th, 2005, 02:15 AM
imagine the deluge of hate mail Jon would get if he said, "Take your pick, I think they both suck."

cartmancop
Apr 19th, 2005, 02:15 AM
It's pretty bad that this 'expert' had no clue how many majors Seles had won. You would think if someone wasn't 100% sure about facts, he would research, especially if he is making a comparison that tons of ppl will see. My dislike for him grows every time I read his column.... it's a nasty habit & I'll have to stop reading his work:)

mboyle
Apr 19th, 2005, 02:20 AM
there really is no argument for placing Serena above Monica just for beating one person four times in a row in slam finals.

Odd
Apr 19th, 2005, 03:05 AM
Why would you put Serena Williams before Monica Seles? Please explain why/how Serena makes your top five.
-- Carlo, Quezon City, Philippines

Yeah, maybe you're right. Here's my defense: Seles' career is -- of course, through no fault of her own -- a great asterisk. She may well have gone down as the best female player the sport has known. Fate dealt her a crappy hand, but you have to assess her career based essentially on what she did achieve, not what she might have achieved. She won (if that's the right tense) eight Majors which, of course, is one more than Serena. But Serena a) won all four Slams; and b) did so against a much deeper field; and c) won a few doubles titles. Plus -- and here is why I favor Pete Sampras over Rod Laver --I can't help but think Serena at the height of her powers beats Seles at the height of hers.

The argument for Seles? She won (has won?) twice as many titles as Williams, won more than twice as many matches, and showed considerably more mettle playing through injuries and sticking to her commitments. Again, this is good bar stool stuff. I could argue either side.



I dont think there is anything too outrageous here. In the end, it is only his opinion, and he said himself that it could go either way, and he wouldnt be too upset if monica is in front of serena in the tennis magazines top 40.

Its a lose lose situation for him IMO, cos if he put seles in front of serena, there would be heaps of disgruntled williams sisters fans at arms, just like seles fans are probly bitter now.

The fact that both women make his top 5 shows that he still values both players highly.

kiwifan
Apr 19th, 2005, 03:15 AM
Some people think winning Wimbledon is a big deal. :)

I love Monica, but that's the big "?" on her resume.

I'm sure she would have won it; if she hadn't tried to play without grunting one year; mysteriously disappeared another year; and of course if that psycho Steffi supporter hadn't achieved his goals of keeping Steffi on top.

Still, no Wimbledon title is a significant factor (Ivan Lendl never seems to get any play in greatest of all time debates :shrug: )

People can agree to disagree, but its a fair evaluation. I think they are currently "even" but Serena with one more French (or 2 more other slams) is the better player on the all time great list. ;)

tenn_ace
Apr 19th, 2005, 03:19 AM
he should find who cares about his opinion... a day when he made fun of a male player look (ok, I do agree that that player is not the most handsome guy in the world), Werwhateveritis lost all my respect.

putting S.Williams higher based on some hypothetical match (the best vs. the best) is just idiotic.

TonyP
Apr 19th, 2005, 03:22 AM
Wertheim's unforced error is the kind of mistake that would earn him a failing grade on a story in journalism class. It, of course, also seems to completely invalidate his reasoning.

He owes his reads an apology.

Albireo
Apr 19th, 2005, 05:03 AM
Werthless is a Graf fanatic, he has long despised Seles. No surprise here, nothing to see, moving on...

You obviously haven't read Venus Envy.

faboozadoo15
Apr 19th, 2005, 05:22 AM
well it's a bit laughable that

he doesn't know monica has 9 slams

he would place serena higher because of doubles (and 2 fewer slams, only half the titles monica won, over 100 weeks less at #1)

he would put steffi ahead of martina when clearly martina's doubles and mixed doubles accomplishments dwarf what any woman who has ever played the game has accomplished there

he thinks Serena at the height of her powers beats Seles at the height of hers when in reality monica defeated serena as late as the summer of 2001 when serena was playing some of her best tennis and monica was clearly well past her prime. other than that match, many of their matches have been extremely competitive while serena has been at the top of the game and monica playing as a veteran who had not been #1 in 4 years.

Martian KC
Apr 19th, 2005, 05:23 AM
Same bullshit by werthless. Nothing different. Very biased.

venus_rulez
Apr 19th, 2005, 06:06 AM
OH you people will find any little thing to complain about. Just because one person says Seles is lower than Serena doesn't mean she is. And you people are so ready to attack you don't even realize he gave a solid argument. Whether you agree with it or not is mute, but he gave a solid justification for his reasoning, Serena has won all 4 something monica hasn't done, and she did so in a non calendar grand slam fashion, against an arguably tougher field. Again it's ok to disagree, but how about instead of attacking someone backing up your thoughts with some reasoning behind it, cause too many of you don't.

venus_rulez
Apr 19th, 2005, 06:19 AM
You clearly missed the point... Werthless is being attacked mainly because he doesn't even know how many Slams Seles won.

Seriously... Maybe I'm biased because I know a lot about Seles, but anyone who is slightly interested about the greatest ever debate know exactly how many Slams each of the top contenders won.



You clearly missed my point as people are using that mistake, to discount his argument. They don't like Wertheim so any little thing he does wrong all these people jump on and they miss the whole point of what he said and how he had a valuable argument.

R&J
Apr 19th, 2005, 06:22 AM
well it's a bit laughable that

he doesn't know monica has 9 slams

he would place serena higher because of doubles (and 2 fewer slams, only half the titles monica won, over 100 weeks less at #1)

he would put steffi ahead of martina when clearly martina's doubles and mixed doubles accomplishments dwarf what any woman who has ever played the game has accomplished there

he thinks Serena at the height of her powers beats Seles at the height of hers when in reality monica defeated serena as late as the summer of 2001 when serena was playing some of her best tennis and monica was clearly well past her prime. other than that match, many of their matches have been extremely competitive while serena has been at the top of the game and monica playing as a veteran who had not been #1 in 4 years.

:yeah: Very nice point.

LUIS9
Apr 19th, 2005, 06:34 AM
OMG! :o For those that don't know...Monica has 9 Majors. :bowdown:

4 Australian Opens

3 French Opens

2 US Opens

Yup quite ridiculous these so called tennis analysts make these kind of mistakes, they do it all the time, they cant spell aneres, always aneras? Now I thought her name was Serena not Sarena gosh!:rolleyes: I guess arithmetic was taken lightly, well I mean ever since the advent of texas instruments, oh well.

hablo
Apr 19th, 2005, 09:02 AM
OMG! :o For those that don't know...Monica has 9 Majors. :bowdown:

4 Australian Opens

3 French Opens

2 US Opens

That"s what I thought too!!! :confused: So he doesn't even knoow his facts! :rolleyes: :o :eek:

ginger_fish668
Apr 19th, 2005, 10:20 AM
What's the big deal about whether JW put Serena above Monica? It's his bloody opinion, he doesn't have to justify it or explain to anyone.

Monica....Serena...they're both spectacular tennis players! Legends!

Why stress over the opinions of a tennis writer who can't even get the facts right.

Lady
Apr 19th, 2005, 10:23 AM
OMG at 8 slams :o

stenen
Apr 19th, 2005, 10:42 AM
What's the big deal about whether JW put Serena above Monica? It's his bloody opinion, he doesn't have to justify it or explain to anyone.

Monica....Serena...they're both spectacular tennis players! Legends!

Why stress over the opinions of a tennis writer who can't even get the facts right.

Exactly. That is his subjective perception of things. But he should at least bother to check the facts. :o

tennislover
Apr 19th, 2005, 11:06 AM
that's simply nothing compared to having put Graf before my dear Martina! :sobbing: :sobbing: :sobbing:

he should be banned......from the Internet!

moby
Apr 19th, 2005, 11:22 AM
When someone says Laver is not the greatest, whatever else he says is no longer worth listening to.

I mean that guy has TWO calendar slams. Sampras has never won at Roland Garros. Go figure.

bandabou
Apr 19th, 2005, 12:10 PM
well it's a bit laughable that

he doesn't know monica has 9 slams

he would place serena higher because of doubles (and 2 fewer slams, only half the titles monica won, over 100 weeks less at #1)

he would put steffi ahead of martina when clearly martina's doubles and mixed doubles accomplishments dwarf what any woman who has ever played the game has accomplished there

he thinks Serena at the height of her powers beats Seles at the height of hers when in reality monica defeated serena as late as the summer of 2001 when serena was playing some of her best tennis and monica was clearly well past her prime. other than that match, many of their matches have been extremely competitive while serena has been at the top of the game and monica playing as a veteran who had not been #1 in 4 years.

Just an aside.....you don't happen to think that ' 01 was Serena's peak, do you?

rjd1111
Apr 19th, 2005, 01:54 PM
there really is no argument for placing Serena above Monica just for beating one person four times in a row in slam finals.



Head to Head

Serena 4

Seles 1

SJW
Apr 19th, 2005, 02:06 PM
:yawn:

people need to stop getting their panties in a twist over Wertheim. since when do people care what he says? :confused:

vutt
Apr 19th, 2005, 02:42 PM
I ageree with his last statement. Serena's tennis is indeed superior over Monica's.

Knizzle
Apr 19th, 2005, 02:43 PM
Wow he got Monica's # of majors wrong, I guess if she had one less major there would be more of an argument of putting Serena ahead.

azmad_88
Apr 19th, 2005, 03:44 PM
serena got all the 4 slams i think
mybe she got alot of doubles slams too

rjd1111
Apr 19th, 2005, 04:47 PM
putting S.Williams higher based on some hypothetical match (the best vs. the best) is just idiotic.[/QUOTE]


The Same as putting Seles ahead because she won more matches.
The big hoopla because he made a mistake and that she is 2 GS ahead of Serena. Well, Serena Ain't done Yet.

SelesFan70
Apr 19th, 2005, 05:57 PM
putting S.Williams higher based on some hypothetical match (the best vs. the best) is just idiotic.


The Same as putting Seles ahead because she won more matches.
The big hoopla because he made a mistake and that she is 2 GS ahead of Serena. Well, Serena Ain't done Yet.[/QUOTE]


Nor, officially, is Monica... :wavey:

fammmmedspin
Apr 19th, 2005, 06:41 PM
Logic isn't his strong point.

He tells us

1. Graf is best. (OK i can go with that if you mean singles player)

2. Seles had less competition than Serena.

The second proposition is very dubious particularly given his first point.

Graf's competition was her competition plus Seles. Seles's competition was Graf's plus Graf. Seles competed with his number 1.

Serena's competition was Graf's competition plus her sister, an injured Hingis much of the time and a few new players including two young Belgians. The main competition was her sister who Graf could still beat in the last GS before she retired in 1999. The rest of the competition were the people Graf beat up in the nineties - up to and including Martina 2 at FO99 - and the young players who didn't peak until after Serena won most of her GS.

Brooks.
Apr 19th, 2005, 06:49 PM
Logic isn't his strong point.

He tells us

1. Graf is best. (OK i can go with that if you mean singles player)

2. Seles had less competition than Serena.

The second proposition is very dubious particularly given his first point.

Graf's competition was her competition plus Seles. Seles's competition was Graf's plus Graf. Seles competed with his number 1.

Serena's competition was Graf's competition plus her sister, an injured Hingis much of the time and a few new players including two young Belgians. The main competition was her sister who Graf could still beat in the last GS before she retired in 1999. The rest of the competition were the people Graf beat up in the nineties - up to and including Martina 2 at FO99 - and the young players who didn't peak until after Serena won most of her GS.

an injured hingis much of the time :rolleyes: .....hingis seemed fine to me when in 97-2001 she was number 1 all that time...sure in 02' she was plagued with injuries but by that point she wasn't really a factor anyways...serena had justine,kim,mauresmo,venus,graf,hingis,seles,daven port, and pierce all former number 1's and grand slams champs...the competition was equal if not greater for serena

SJW
Apr 19th, 2005, 06:50 PM
please dont discredit another to big up one...anyone who cant accept either player is absolutely awesome isnt worth listening to IMO :)

gmak
Apr 19th, 2005, 06:59 PM
:lol: Wertheim seems to have forgotten Monica won the 1996 Aussie Open after her comeback :o :rolleyes:

faboozadoo15
Apr 19th, 2005, 09:29 PM
Just an aside.....you don't happen to think that ' 01 was Serena's peak, do you?
not quite. but she played amazing tennis in the summer of 2001 and dominated 2002, missing the australian open which she probably would have won. her 2001 summer is obviously what got her to that level. she was much more solid then than she had been since us open 1999.

do you really think the summer of 2001 was monica's peak? :tape:

jacobruiz
Apr 19th, 2005, 10:24 PM
:yawn:

people need to stop getting their panties in a twist over Wertheim. since when do people care what he says? :confused:


The problem is that Wertheim is one of the most important tennis writers in the U.S. When he shows his total lack of knowledge in in such an extreme case he really should be called on it.

faboozadoo15
Apr 19th, 2005, 10:57 PM
The problem is that Wertheim is one of the most important tennis writers in the U.S. When he shows his total lack of knowledge in in such an extreme case he really should be called on it.
this is what i am thinking too. it's not so much that he has serena over monica for bad reasons, it's that he doesn't have his EASY figures right. i'd bet almost anyone on this board knows that monica has 9 slams.

there's really no sense in arguing a hypothetical (best vs best) with someone anyway, but it's bothersome that his facts aren't right and that he used doubles to put serena ahead of monica yet martina's massive collection of doubles slams doesn't close the gap in their greatness argument versus steffi.

so really for me it's not so much monica v serena here at all-- they're both incredible and would both say that about each other if given the opportunity.

bandabou
Apr 20th, 2005, 12:56 AM
not quite. but she played amazing tennis in the summer of 2001 and dominated 2002, missing the australian open which she probably would have won. her 2001 summer is obviously what got her to that level. she was much more solid then than she had been since us open 1999.

do you really think the summer of 2001 was monica's peak? :tape:

No...but neither was it for Serena.....as long as we are clear on that one..

Plus.....Serena played so amazing during the summer you say.....well, she still only won Canada. She did reach her first major final since u.s. open' 99 at the ' 01 u.s.open, but that wasn't really a memorable perfomance, was it?

fammmmedspin
Apr 20th, 2005, 03:23 AM
an injured hingis much of the time :rolleyes: .....hingis seemed fine to me when in 97-2001 she was number 1 all that time...sure in 02' she was plagued with injuries but by that point she wasn't really a factor anyways...serena had justine,kim,mauresmo,venus,graf,hingis,seles,daven port, and pierce all former number 1's and grand slams champs...the competition was equal if not greater for serena

Don't know how the law (shoe) case is going but Hingis's injury dates well before 2002. She certainly was in decline and Serena won most of her slams after Hingis's fall, after Monica's second wind and actually after Venus's decline from her 2000 level. If you argue some of Seles's opposition was on its way out , so was some of Serena's

Serena had a young Kim and Justine plus a few other new top players like Dementieva. The rest in your list were the players who played Graf. Momo I agree was around too but Graf and Seles had Novotna who filled that position even more successfully. They also got through everyone else from Evert and Navratilova through Sukova to ASV, Sabatini, Martinez and MJF through to Pierce, Huber, Davenport and Rubin when most of those players (excluding Davenport) were nearer their peaks than they were when Serena played them - if she did.

You might point out that Graf's opposition was less successful but you might read this as a sign that Graf and Seles were actually more dominant.