PDA

View Full Version : Marti fans, were you offended when...


Cam'ron Giles
Apr 15th, 2003, 01:35 AM
during the FCC (Justine and Ashley's semi) Mary Joe was talking about the age rule and how Ashley has been restricted to playing a few tourney and that many young players benefits from playing earlier and "look at Martina Hingis, she won majors at 16"...

And Pam said, "yeah, look at her now"... :eek:

WHAT A BITCH... :mad:

Ryan
Apr 15th, 2003, 01:40 AM
Pff, I never heard that. I honestly don't see the Age rules making these people's careers SO much better, I'd much rather burn-out at 22 with 5 majors and a legacy then be a nobody forever, like 90% of the tour.:)

Havok
Apr 15th, 2003, 01:40 AM
yeah coz i'm sure it really stopped Harkleroad from winning a GrandSlam :rolleyes: the only person that was hindered by this rule in recent years had to be Jelena Dokic.

BK4ever
Apr 15th, 2003, 01:43 AM
I don't think Pam meant it in a bitchy way (:eek: at me defending Pam)

I think she was trying to point out that Hingis could be considered a perfect example of why the rule is in place...

ToeTag
Apr 15th, 2003, 01:46 AM
Why do you think Shriver is bitch for saying that? In my opinion, she is absolutely correct. Complaining about not being able to play full time until they're 18 is ridiculous, it's not going to kill these players to wait until they're 18.There are plenty of examples of burn out and short careers because of too much play at a young age.

Julian
Apr 15th, 2003, 01:48 AM
I thought you were going to say something else- i know there was something i wanted to posts about their Commentating during that match...what i found offensive was she was talking about dominant players and she siad Martina N,. Graf, Seles and now Serena- where was Hingis in that sentence :eek: How quickly Hingis is being forgotten in the tennis history- the girl was dominant for quite a while... or am i missing something?

Well, IMO her only dominance was in 1997...well speaking in grand slams :D 1998-2001 she was one hell of a consistent player!

Julian
Apr 15th, 2003, 01:48 AM
I don't think Pam meant it in a bitchy way (:eek: at me defending Pam)

I think she was trying to point out that Hingis could be considered a perfect example of why the rule is in place...

ITA. I mean what if the age rule was in effect then? Would Martina still be healthy and could quite possibly be winning more slams when she got older? Austin and Hingis are good examples..of course they were already Grand slam winners but maybe they could have had more

Cam'ron Giles
Apr 15th, 2003, 02:12 AM
Well, maybe she wasn't really being a bitch but I just hate her so much and always wanted to say that... :o

LeonHart
Apr 15th, 2003, 02:13 AM
Pam said "every player develops at a different pace" ok?! :fiery:

Consistency
Apr 15th, 2003, 02:15 AM
Making bitchy one liners about MH comes naturally to Shriver. It's like breathing for her. :rolleyes:

I'm not necessarily against age restrictions, but I feel that the current WTA rules are holding back some of the young players. Wasn't Graf 13 years old when she started playing the Senior tour?

In the long run, it's better to protect these kids from premature injuries and burnout, but I think the days of future teenage grandslam winners are over.

Robbie.
Apr 15th, 2003, 02:15 AM
Well, IMO her only dominance was in 1997...well speaking in grand slams :D 1998-2001 she was one hell of a consistent player!

Well serena's dominance has only been one year too. People are acting like Serena has been winning all the slams for five years. This time last year she hadn't won a GS since 1999.

tennischick
Apr 15th, 2003, 02:24 AM
i thought that Pam was making a valid point but she did come across as rather bitchy in the delivery. her query "and where is she now?" made me cringe to be honest.

faboozadoo15
Apr 15th, 2003, 02:25 AM
i see the validity in what pam says, but also think that every player is different cpmpletely, and they should be able to chose whether or not they risk burnout. the first years on the tour are probably so emtionally draining and more competitive than they have seen, therefore i don't think they would play a ton of events anyway.

King Lindsay
Apr 15th, 2003, 02:30 AM
You know, Topshotta, if you hate pam for things like that, maybe you need to rethink your opinion of her. What a joke. pam meant what she said exactly how bk4ever explained. It seems you're just a little too thick to see that.

Cam'ron Giles
Apr 15th, 2003, 02:33 AM
You know, Topshotta, if you hate pam for things like that, maybe you need to rethink your opinion of her. What a joke. pam meant what she said exactly how bk4ever explained. It seems you're just a little too thick to see that.

Who the hell are you...I dont remember every reading any of your post untill maybe two weeks ago and I only noticed you because you have been stalking me...What the hell is your deal??????

King Lindsay
Apr 15th, 2003, 03:05 AM
I wasn't aware that I was stalking you. Please keep your ego in check. Were I to stalk somebody, I would most certainly choose a much more deserving target than yourself.

I've posting here for months. Not sure why you wouldn't have noticed that, maybe because i mostly post about tennis, and that's really not your strong suit.

Cam'ron Giles
Apr 15th, 2003, 03:43 AM
I wasn't aware that I was stalking you. Please keep your ego in check. Were I to stalk somebody, I would most certainly choose a much more deserving target than yourself.

I've posting here for months. Not sure why you wouldn't have noticed that, maybe because i mostly post about tennis, and that's really not your strong suit.


Glad you came back to read my reply... :rolleyes:

Give yourself a pat on the back and have a nice night King Lindsay... :wavey:

Jakeev
Apr 15th, 2003, 03:52 AM
I wasn't aware that I was stalking you. Please keep your ego in check. Were I to stalk somebody, I would most certainly choose a much more deserving target than yourself.

I've posting here for months. Not sure why you wouldn't have noticed that, maybe because i mostly post about tennis, and that's really not your strong suit.

If one more friggen poster makes me spit out my very expensive vintage wine I swear I am gonna.......uh...........I WILL GO POSTAL!!!!!!!

:kiss:

Nan Cu
Apr 15th, 2003, 03:59 AM
Who the hell are you...I dont remember every reading any of your post untill maybe two weeks ago and I only noticed you because you have been stalking me...What the hell is your deal??????

I wasn't aware that I was stalking you.

ROTFLMAO!!!

disposablehero
Apr 15th, 2003, 04:04 AM
yeah coz i'm sure it really stopped Harkleroad from winning a GrandSlam :rolleyes: the only person that was hindered by this rule in recent years had to be Jelena Dokic.

Dokic is the prototype of the player the AER needs to protect. The rules do need some tweaking though. I see no point in limiting a player who leaves juniors entirely to the same number of events as the player who is still playing 20 junior events a year.

Sam L
Apr 15th, 2003, 05:13 AM
Catty remarks are what Pam's famous for :cool:

irinska
Apr 15th, 2003, 01:49 PM
I'm very fortunate that I don't need to lesten to Pam . I have Eurosport and they never will say such thing . Pam can't bear Martina's fame, money and great personality . Hingis can talk with the most important people - the boss of IOC, Sepp Blater - FIFA, prince Albert and Pam needs to work as a simple commentator . Do you see the difference ? :wavey:

Volcana
Apr 15th, 2003, 02:01 PM
Pam was right.

Martina Hingis is the perfect example of the advantages AND the disadvantages of players playing so much so young. She won five GS titles, and was out of the game at 22.

By comparison, Serena is younger than Martina, has just as many GS singles titles, and is on top of her game.

Circumstances may differ, but if you're going to wind up with the same level of accomplishment at 21, damaging yourself physically is a poor choice.

TonyP
Apr 15th, 2003, 03:00 PM
I don't really think Martina damaged herself physically. She was damaged by bad shoes and by a lot of play.

While the age rule has its benefits, in many ways, it is sort of irrelevant. The fact that young women can, in their mid-teens, compete with women in their twenties means they will probably find a way to get on the tour.

I don't think the age rule played much part in the Hingis story. Had she not turned pro until she was 16, she might have retired at 24, had all of the same things happened to her.

And saying Serena is only one year younger and still on top is kind of irrelevant, because Serena has not suffered the same injuries that Martina has.

Nor is Serena the same person.

Everyone seems to assume that Martina would have hung around forever.

I predicted in 1997 that Hingis would be out of tennis by the age of 25, and of course, I could not know back then about the injury problems, because they hadn't happened yet.

I think the fact that Martina was out of tennis and so quickly into other things, studying English, and working on her show jumping skills, was proof of what I predicted. She had too many other interests to spend her entire life hitting a fuzzy little yellow ball back and forth across a net. In many ways, I think Martina felt she had made her mark in tennis already and simply saw no reason to go on in the sport once she found she would have to play in pain her doctors could not make go away. I think the separation proved difficult and she knew she was ending the most important chapter of her life so far, but the fact that she could almost immediately plunge into other pursuits means she will do just fine without tennis.

Many players have much longer careers than Hingis had, because they don't find anything else they love as much as tennis. That is probably not going to be the case with Martina and I suspect, some other players too.

Unless Martina's foot injuries are the result of turning pro too early, then the age rule is not really relevant in her case and we don't have any evidence that there is a connection.

Gandalf
Apr 15th, 2003, 06:52 PM
I think the AER has nothing to do with Hingis burnout. After all, she had only two serious injuries in her career: in the fall of 2001 and in spring 2002 (and when she fell of the horse in 1997, but this has nothing to do with tennis). Her burnout has more to do with winning too much too soon, and not being used to work hard in order to be at the top, and I don't see how the AER would have prevented that.

Cybelle Darkholme
Apr 15th, 2003, 07:01 PM
sorry but I dont buy that "martina has other interests so she stopped" because thats just bull! EVERYONE HAS STUFF THEY DO OUTSIDE OF THEIR SPORT. Do you think atheletes just wake up and go straight to play their sport? They have family they have friends they have lives outside of their sport their is nothing unique about that. The only thing the williams sister did was to be vocal about it, they made sure people knew their sport was never would never be CENTRAL to their lives and its true for them.

How many other world number twos ran their own company while on tour at 22? Not many if any at all.

I think her problem is psychological 80% and 20% injury related. She can rehabiliate her injury it takes time, its painful, but I have seen people who could not walk walk again after over a year of hard work. So it can be done.

BK4ever
Apr 15th, 2003, 07:20 PM
TonyP..who were you talking about in your last post...because it sure wasnt the real martina

Tennis was everything to her, she couldnt live with not being the best so she quit...look at how many matches she played when healthy (or so we thought)...

You are a lil mixup..but either way Marti has the right do what she feels is best for her...

But I totally agree that the AER might have affected her, then again it might not...who knows...no point arguing about it now...

disposablehero
Apr 16th, 2003, 03:45 AM
The question is, did Martina's results begin to slide because she played too much too young, or because Lindsay and later the Williams got better and better. Maybe if she had been limited more when she was 15-17, she'd still be playing now with 2 Slam titles and little likelihood of another. Or maybe she'd have 2 Slams and still be injured/retired. To a certain extent, you have to let the girls strike while the iron is hot, just don't let Dokic them play 30 events when they are still kids.

TonyP
Apr 16th, 2003, 03:04 PM
I don't think I'm mixed up at all about Martina.

Do you know what she did with the first money she ever earned playing tennis? She purchased her first horse. She didn't build a tennis court. She bought a horse.

I am not dissing Martina, I loved the girl and one reason was, she was never a little tennis robot.

I'm just saying it was obvious as far back as '97 that while she loved tennis, it was NOT her whole life and never would be.

In fact, I am not completely convinced it was even her first love. I am not sure that, if she'd had a real choice, she would not have concentrated on equestrian sports, rather than tennis.

How many people pick their career at the age of 4? Not many of them. Her career path was picked for her.

Martina certainly loves tennis some, but I don't think today she loves it enough to play through the pain and I am not dissing her over that. I think that was her decision to make. I think Martina felt she had pretty much accomplished her goals in tennis, except winning the French. Remember, she is one of the only women in tennis history who has won every other major singles and doubles title on the WTA tour. Graf, Seles, etc., never came close to doing that. Navratilova is probably the only other player with such a record.

I think Martina has other interests, as most people do. But Martina seriously wants to pursue those interests and I think she will. My point is, that while the injuries sidelined her earlier than she had planned, she was not going to play tennis until she was 30 no matter what. Probably not until she was 28 or even maybe not beyond 25. As has been written by some reporters, by 1998 Martina already felt she had "been there, done that" as far as tennis goes. I don't think hanging around to try to pile up slam title after slam title was ever in Martina's mind to begin with.

You could always see it in her eyes a little, especially in matches where she won very easily. Martina got a little bored playing tennis.

And for all the talk of how Martina loves the spotlight, notice where and how she lives. She has not retired to South Beach or London or Paris or New York. She likes her corner of the Swiss mountains and the chance to ride her horse across the meadows, even just as recreation. She goes for walks in the woods with her dog. Martina Hingis is a very complex girl. The sport was very lucky to have her for the amount of time it had her.

NaF
Apr 16th, 2003, 05:43 PM
Remember, she is one of the only women in tennis history who has won every other major singles and doubles title on the WTA tour. Graf, Seles, etc., never came close to doing that. Navratilova is probably the only other player with such a record.
.

I already know the fact that she's won every Tier I singles title after she won Zurich in 2000.
But as for the double, she came very close in winning all... she was the runner-up for Berlin's double in 1996 with Gigi Fernandez. That's all she's missed....

CMIIW...

Doris Loeffel
Apr 16th, 2003, 05:58 PM
hmmm TonyP you're not by any chance TonPro??

Well I think it's hard to tell if Martina Hingis still would be around when starting later. One thing is for sure, she never had to really work hard for her early wins. It was more like a game for her, not really work. As she was almost born with a raquet in her hands she learnt pretty early how to use it properly how to play it. But it's no secret that she hated to "work" means training hard. She new every single shot by a young age just by playing the game. And all of a sudden there comes power into the game - killing her couse that meant she now had to really "work" hard to be able to cope with the power. So I believe it's really in her head that she quit and going for other fun things. Like Tony said she had almost everything at a young age. Sure the shoe storie may have helped and the injuries gave her the rest. But it's really the mental thing I believe otherwise she would have gone for that missing FO title - couse I think that's really bothering her well that's my opinion.

barmaid
Apr 16th, 2003, 06:15 PM
[QUOTE='Consistency']Making bitchy one liners about MH comes naturally to Shriver. It's like breathing for her. :rolleyes:





I agree, Pam has made a career of "dissing" Martina....she made another very unkind remark lately when she and Mary Joe were talking about Hingis and Pam said "If she had of won one those four points, she'd still be playing"! :eek: The fact that Martina had to undergo a second surgery in May of course does verify that she indeed had to halt her career...but Pam thinks she'd still be playing....very unfair and bias statement!! :sad:


barmaid :wavey:

griffin
Apr 16th, 2003, 06:20 PM
Then what do you make of your fellow Hingis FANS who think the same thing - that her retirement had far more to do with her mental state/motivation than her injury?

Whatever. Pam can indeed be harsh or "bitchy" if you prefer. I don't think Hingis or her fans are in much of a position to complain.

eshell
Apr 16th, 2003, 08:48 PM
Thanks, Griffin, for pointing out our foibles on this board. Many of us have short memories. (LOL)

I have no problems with Pam's commentary. She gets paid to observe the tennis and voice her opinions. Let's remember one thing: she's voicing opinions often.

We all have the right to disagree but please don't attack her personally. In fact, many commentators share their opinions: Carillo, Navratilova, McEnroe, Shriver, Evert, et. al.

AND many of these commentators have had obvious biases against certain players. How could a former WTA player not become a media person without their biases intact from days on the tour? These people have played and have definite ideas about how the game should be played and marketed.

Anyway, Eshell steps off of his stream of consciousness soapbox.

:wavey:

Dawn Marie
Apr 16th, 2003, 08:56 PM
Martina can come back and play, it's mental.

Look she came back so fast because she couldn't wait to play and continue on with her ranking. Now that she saw she was slower and losing matches she decided to quit. I don't buy it for one minute that she quit due to injury. If she would have won a title on her comeback or even won OZ she would be playing right now.

At first I think she had a lil injury, and she still does but it is not stopping her from playing. She'll be back when she starts to care more about playing the game of tennis then losing matches.

She is BURNED OUT and right now is using her injury as an excuse for her maybe potentially quitting tennis.

TonyP
Apr 16th, 2003, 09:40 PM
I think the idea that Martina didn't work hard is really a myth. Compare her to others. Serena's big year, 2002, her record was 56-5. In Martina's big year, 1997, her record was 75-5. And that was just singles. Hingis,throughout most of her career, played doubles in most of the tournament in which she competed. She admittedly preferred playing doubles to practicing and one can question the wisdom of that, but she actually did an aweful lot of hard work. In 2000, she compiled a singles record of 77 and 10. She won 20 more singles matches than any other player on the tour that year. In 20 tournaments that year, she lost only twice before the semi-finals.

moon
Apr 16th, 2003, 09:50 PM
Pam was 100% right.
Look at Tony's example above. did she really need to play that much? NO
oh well, she's paying for it now.

griffin
Apr 16th, 2003, 09:56 PM
I think people understand she played a lot of tennis - the statement is specific to her willingness to put in time on the practice court and the training room. That seems not to have been an effort she was willing to make.

Certainly, match play is very important, but so is taking the time to work (hard) on one's game and fitness. We don't need to debate the wisdom of playing doubles rather than practicing (why this would be seen as either/or I donít know, since a number of players manage both), we just need to look at what happened - or didn't happen - to Hingis' game when the "big babes" worked out their kinks and started staying healthy enough to be more consistent.

Volcana
Apr 16th, 2003, 09:59 PM
Remember, she is one of the only women in tennis history who has won every other major singles and doubles title on the WTA tour. Graf, Seles, etc., never came close to doing that. Navratilova is probably the only other player with such a record.

Court and King come to mind.

And of course, our current #1 has won EVERY singles and doubles GS title.

Consistency
Apr 17th, 2003, 12:30 AM
Then what do you make of your fellow Hingis FANS who think the same thing - that her retirement had far more to do with her mental state/motivation than her injury?

Actually, I think her "retirement" is a complex combination of both. Emphasis on think since obviously I can't read Martina's mind. I also think she wants to move on, marry, and have a couple of kids like her past mentor Evert.

What irks me about Pamela? She expresses these opinions as if they were based on facts, when in reality she's only speculating just like all of us on this message board. One large difference besides her past tennis pro experience, is that she's getting paid for it, and I expect some objectivity while she calls a match.

eshell
Apr 17th, 2003, 04:53 PM
I understand the concept, Consistency, but humans will always have some subjectivity. It comes with the "human condition", so to speak.

If Pam bothers you so much, mute the sound.

I find her entertaining and interesting even if she's not complimenting one of my faves.

TonyP
Apr 17th, 2003, 06:39 PM
Martina suffers from a medical problem called plantar fascia. It basically concerns chronic swelling or infamation of the tendons on the bottom of her feet. Needless to say, this problem is not helped by the constant scuffing of the feet as a tennis player runs around a court and does that for countless hours during any single week.

Martina made the problem known in the summer of 2001 when she pulled out of the Canadian Open that year, even though she was the defending champion. She has been fighting the problem ever since.

By mid-2002 Martina was taking pain killers almost daily to continue to compete. As you all know, she decided in October to take the rest of the year off, but when by December, the problem had apparently not gotten much better, she decided to retire, at least for now.

It's alright for Pam Shriver or anyone else to voice their opinions, but it seems kind of presumptuous to me for them to declare Martina should just play despite the pain. How anyone knows how much or how little pain Martina experiences is hard for me to understand.

I personally think Martina decided she no longer wanted to play in pain and since she had accomplished most of what she wanted to accomplish in tennis, she decided to move on with her life and explore other fields.

Luckily for Martina, she had accomplished far more in tennis than many of her critics, so she is financially secure enough not to have to hang around the sport any longer just to eek out a living.

One final note. I don't remember tons of articles about her when Pam left tennis. I don't remember TV crews racing to her door to get interviews. I remember a woman in her 30s who by then was slamming balls out of stadiums in fits of anger sort of slipping away from tennis, and then resurfacing as a commentator. I'm happy for Pam. At least she's found work and is not living on the dole.

griffin
Apr 17th, 2003, 07:00 PM
Tony, from where I sit, you are bitching at Pam for basically AGREEING with you:

In the quote that inspired this thread, she's clearly acknwoledging that injuries took their toll on Hings - although unlike you she seems to believe that's at least partly due to her playing so much at such an early age.

We also see her quoted as saying that had Hingis won a certain pivotal match, she'd still be playing. Translation, she lost her motivation - not that far off from what you say finally pushed her over the edge into retirement.

Biggest difference, imo? You think Hingis walks on water - an opinion you're entitled to - Pam doesn't.

And you're right: Pam is known to say harsh things, and sometimes behaved badly on court, no doubt about it. Hmm, where have we seen that before?

TonyP
Apr 17th, 2003, 07:32 PM
Griffin:

I strongly disagree with Pam in her contention that losing the AO in 2002 had anything to do with the Martina's decision to retire. I think that's not only pure conjecture, but clearly bunk. If she had won that match, she might have been prompted to hang up her racket right there and then rather than go on playing in pain. Losing that match would seem to inspire you to keep going to try to achieve goals, despite the pain, not make you want to quit.

As to where we have seen the behavior before, I note Pam engaged that behavior at a much older age, so it has always been rather hypocritical of her to talk about Hingis or anyone else.

And do I think Martina walks on water? Nope, she's made some mistakes, as have all players, including Mauresmo and the Willies. None of them are perfect. But I think Martina's faults have often been blown out of proportion by a media that is more interesting in promoting cat fights than actually covering tennis.

I also think Hingis was such a unique personality that the sport is going to be hard pressed to replace her. She was a true star in a sport that sadly produces a lot of cookie cutter players with very little personality.

She made a hell of a lot bigger spash than Shriver ever did, and that may be one of the reasons for her antagonism.

Martina had great success, good looks and a big personality. Pam had none of those attributes. Unfortunately, some things in women's tennis come down to good, old fashioned meo meo stuff.