This is so absurdly, horribly, terribly, laughably wrong I don’t even know where to start.
Come on. Surfaces have since 2000 (about the end of Sampras career) changed dramatically, most of them slowing down considerably. Cite. The surfaces are now a lot more similar. During Sampras’s era it was almost a different sport. As evidenced by the battalion of Spanish and South Amercians you would see at the French and the Clay Court season and no where else. Nadal is a great player, but he would never have been a 5 time Wimbledon finalist playing on the old grass surface.
Frankly Courier and Edbergs career of reaching all GS Finals in that era is far more impressive than Murrey also-ran career.
Becker reached three Semi Finals, you are going to argue he is better?
Not really. Federer was always seen as something special. Even back when he first became no 1 in 2004 people were saying he was greater than Sampras, including errr Sampras.
Federer passed Sampras as winningest GS player after he won Wimbledon 2009. At that time Nadal had 6 titles and Djoker 1.
Since then Federer has been to 10 finals and won 5. A hall of fame career* after* he peaked.
The number of different GS winners that Sampras played against is an indication that the field was more open at that time, not necessarily that it stronger.
No one else has had a look in since the cupboard is that bare.
Sampras won broke the Slam record in 2000 Wimbledon. He retired 2.5 years later. Federer is still around 9 years later.
Well if that really is the case then any comparisons are pointless. Personally I don’t buy it. The best players will adapt their game accordingly and if the big 4 were brought up in an era of serve-volley then they would cope admirably, certainly considering that all 4 of them are about as good at returning serve as the game has seen and their incredible dynamic athleticism lends itself to pretty much any style you choose to name.
Well Murray has reached all four finals as well as 11 finals in total, winning three and only ever losing in the others to either Djokovic or Federer. He is an “also-ran” only in the context of playing in an era of three all-time greats.
better than Sampras on clay? absolutely, that’s not even a debate. I’m not saying Sampras wasn’t great, just that he is a more limited player.
I don’t agree. If we have had a 15 year period when three players are the all time greats then I would expect those names to dominate.
well no one is arguing that Federer isn’t very special indeed (and I confess he is my favourite sporting icon ever, I’m not sure there has ever been a greater sporting sight than Federer in full flow)
While I don’t agree with your conclusions, AK84, I do appreciate you reminding me of the toughness of Sampras’s competition, and I think you are right about that - thanks.
I’m assuming you are saying limited in regard to surfaces? Combining this idea with that mentioned by AK84, “During Sampras’s era it was almost a different sport”, brings me to my biggest pet peeve of the game to day: it’s boring as hell. I can’t watch a whole men’s tennis match anymore. If I have to see another 15 minute baseline to baseline rally ending in a weak flip into the net, I’ll kill myself. If it were up to me, all tournaments would return to grass and only wood racquets would be allowed, ok maybe the Wilson T-2000 (think Jimmy Connors, for all you youngsters out there, assuming you even know who Jimmy is). Give me the days of Smith and McEnroe and Laver, (and yes, the only baseliner of any note from that day, Bjorg) when tennis had grace and beauty instead of all this brute force and grunting! 
:dubious:
On faster surfaces, against Becker or Sampras serves? Nah.
Regarding the Mark Knight cartoon, I don’t think there was any racist intent at all. First, to dispense with the notion that Osaka was depicted, as many have said, as a “small, white woman.” Small? She’s relatively the same size as the umpire. White? Her skin tone is quite similar to Serena’s in the cartoon. And if you look at any US Open finals picture from a distance, the only hair you can see is her blond ponytail sticking out from under her visor. The umpire, inexplicably, is depicted as a white man with his pink cheeks.
Now to Serena. Remember this is a caricature. Her features are exaggerated, surely, but not beyond the bounds of typical caricature, she engaged in more than one open mouthed rant against the umpire, and in attempt to combine, as it were, her breaking of her racquet with her other petulant behavior, she is shown jumping on her racquet, which of course didn’t happen but in one image encompasses her anger that day. Look at pictures you can easily find online. I am loathe to use the term “politically correct”, because most uses of it I see these days is really someone just using it as an excuse to be able to insult anyone for any reason they please with no consequences, but in this case I think it applies. People are so attuned to legitimate racist incidents in the news for the past few years, I’d say, that some maybe reacted a bit too quickly. Am I wrong?
Absolutely. Without a shadow of a doubt. However good their service was the best returners of their day were not as good as the best returners now. Their service advantage would be nullified to some degree and with the ball in play more I think Becker/Sampras et al end up losing more matches against a group of players who build their game on speed across the court and the ability to chase down pretty much anything and everything.
For one example I give you Murray v Raonicin the Wimbledon final. Raonic fires down bombsand Murray gets them back into play time and time again and works the point from there. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic would employ similar tactics with similar results.
Yes.
Why?
Because it’s a transparent, obvious example of a racist caricature of a black person. Like if you were making a dictionary and needed an example, that would be a good one.
But that’s not an answer to what I said. What is wrong with my reasoning? But you know what? I wish I hadn’t started this. I just needed to blow off some steam, I guess. I stand by it, but if you don’t mind we can drop it.
By some people’s standards it would be impossible to caricaturize Serena Williams without it being called racist.
Sure.
Agreed.
Your position is encapsulated perfectly by the author of this editorial:
Australia is the nicest racist country you will ever see
Emphasis mine. Seems like Australia’s not the only place where that applies.
No it isn’t, because he thinks the image harkens back to Jim Crow, and I do not. I really don’t want to link to actual racist images from the Jim Crow days to make my point, as they are ugly beyond belief and others can easily find them if they wish. If you disagree with me, why not respond to my specific characterization of the cartoon?
For centuries, people of African descent have been mocked in caricature exactly the way that the cartoon did, while simultaneously casting them as a lower class of human or even subhuman. To make an image of that kind is at best idiotically tone-deaf. And that’s only if you’re giving the cartoonist a lot of credit.
It’s no better than being a “black guy” for Halloween and going around in black face wearing baggy clothes. Again, considering that was how people were being dehumanized for many years in minstrel shows and the like, it’s either extremely ignorant or just racist.
And I am a person who thinks too many people go out of their way to be offended, for the same reason people latch onto conspiracy theories or “woo”; because their lives are boring and they crave drama. But even I can’t handwave something as blatant as this. Unless you’ve lived in a sheltered compound your whole life, you know damn well how bad this is.
It is caricature of a black person. It is meant to be. It references a particular person and a particular event.
If it had been say about blacks being sore losers, then yes it would have been racist.
And if you chose to do so, mhendo also please tell me, is it possible to draw a caricature of a woman with Serena’s features that isn’t racist? If so, how?