Andy Murray - The Modern Day Asterisk

by _homogenised_ Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:24 pm

First topic message reminder :

So far, the 3 bigger tournaments that Murray has won have come with a huge asterisk. The US Open was played in extreme winds (you can argue he is a greater wind player than Djokovic, but that doesn't change anything), which crippled Djokovic's attacking game, and allowed Murray's more defensive pusher/counter attack style to win over. Despite this, Djokovic still got into the match.

The Olympic final defeating an ageing Federer. Luck of the draw caused Federer to have the much more difficult opponent in Del Potro, who took Federer to the longest 3 sets in history(?) by games (and was it by time too?). Federer was in absolutely no shape to put up any real fight in the final.

And then Wimbledon 2013. The hype wagon was rolling along as usual, and the only circumstance I could see that would allow for a Murray victory was a supremely easy draw. He got it. Even with the easiest draw at a slam that I can remember, he still nearly blew it against Verdasco. The final would have been one way traffic had Del Potro not intervened once again, this time tiring out Djokovic. Djokovic played a great 3 sets in the final considering how worn out he was. Murray played his A game. Had Murray met Del Potro in the semi final, it's pretty obvious he would have been getting beat. And even if he made it through, he would have been in no shape to play Djokovic.

The truth is, Murray has been extraordinarily lucky in all 3 of the tournaments above, especially Wimbledon 2013. Now there is talk of him winning 6 slams. The hype wagon just keeps on rolling. Much has been said of Lendl's input.. well, sorry, but I can't see anything has changed all that much in Murray's game. He still blows big chances, he still whines, snarls and screams when he is behind. He still has really weak temperament.

What has changed is that Federer and Nadal are no longer competing at the top level on most surfaces. And most of us know this is the reason Murray won that slam.

by kingraf Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:36 pm

Just a bit off...

It was a stunning match, with a bit of controversy, lost some money on it though... Looking forward to the next one on Thursday!

by kingraf Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:41 pm

LF - to be frank that Andy11 is no different to the guys who refuse to believe that this is a Golden Era just because the media says so. I remember posting a link with about a dozen former players saying agreeing with the idea... the reply was just, in the main "because they are saying that doesnt mean they believe it, they are just saying it because they work for ESPN, Tennis channel, BBC, or Andy Murray"

by **laverfan** Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:51 pm

@KR... it is the media's job to make the current offerings on view as the Golden Era.

Even Berlocq's title win bolsters such claims. Wink

All the media folks refuse to see it as a progression, like technology. Think of a POTS with operators switching cables by hand v an iDevice or Android. It is the Golden era of technology.

by Guest Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:54 pm

Wow the payoff you must ahve got if the last pair got home... anyway back on to tennis the media hypes it up, of course they do its all about the g's to them

by kingraf Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:57 pm

Maybe... but Sampras has no such responzibilities, neither does Agassi, or Roddick, and they all backed the claim. I dont want to get into an era discussion,

Im just drawing parallels with regard to what Andy is saying. Edberg also does some media work, if Im not mistaken, and he too may just be doing his job, bigging Murray up. Not saying he is, in fact I doubt it, but I just think this place can be very picky about when the media is lying (i.e when they say something they dont agree with, its a hypejob, when the inverted is true, its the Gospel)

by kingraf Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:00 am

Falzy I was willing them on, mate I already made £125 yesterday, and I was hoping for a golden weekend. Luckily betfair had an issue accepting my bet, so I didnt lose any money on Verdasco or Kohli.

by **laverfan** Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:24 am

kingraf wrote:Maybe... but Sampras has no such responzibilities, neither does Agassi, or Roddick, and they all backed the claim.

Let me give you an example and see if it makes more sense. Steve Jobs sold me (not personally though) a 1.25Ghz PPC/2GB at USD 2799. Today Tim Cook sells me a 2.6Ghz quad-core i7/8GB at 2799. It was a Golden era then, it is one now. Tennis is exactly like that. It was a Golden era with Laver winning GS, as it is was in 1996 with Agassi winning the Golden Slam, or Graf in 1988.

kingraf wrote:I dont want to get into an era discussion

Neither do I. I personally dislike the idea of a group of players being better than others, and then we start the GOAT and transplanting players from one set of years to another and start comparing.

BTW, Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell failed drug tests. Wink

kingraf wrote: Im just drawing parallels with regard to what Andy is saying. Edberg also does some media work, if Im not mistaken, and he too may just be doing his job, bigging Murray up. Not saying he is, in fact I doubt it, but I just think this place can be very picky about when the media is lying (i.e when they say something they dont agree with, its a hypejob, when the inverted is true, its the Gospel)

To me as long as Tennis continues (or I die - whichever comes first), it is the Golden era (and will continue to be), partly because I enjoy the sport. Wink

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:38 am

The difference with Andy is that he implies that Edberg really thinks the exact opposite if what he (Edberg) is saying, whereas no-one is suggesting that of those ex-players who use the term 'Golden era'.

by CaledonianCraig Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:11 am

Out of interest? What did Andy11 expect Edberg to say? I mean if Andy11 is claiming that is not what Edberg really thinks then sorry but it is a pretty desperate claim. Look at the facts:- In the last eleven months Andy Murray has won two slams and an Olympic Gold medal beating the world no.1 on all occasions to get those achievements - impressive. Impressive enough to turn tennis pros heads past and present and surpassed even what he (Edberg achieved) in an 11 month spell so I'd say Edberg will have been suitably impressed. When impressed it is usual to have lofty impressions/thoughts on what somebody can achieve and that is no different here. I'd say the same applies to John McEnroe who has predicted a similar amount of success for Murray at future slams. As for Jimmy Connors his Twitter Account is hardly pandering to Britain in any way. His account plainly said he watched Andy play some wonderful tennis (words to that effect) to win Wimbledon.

by kingraf Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:28 am

I had heard about Tyson Gay, but not Powell. Both seem to be claiming they know exactly what happened... Maybe a new super supplement came out...they're getting old (for the sport)... Leads to stupid desperate decisions.

Sports dont win with doping. If no one gets caught, the measures arent stringent enough, if two or three get caught, everyone is doping.

by _homogenised_ Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:33 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's right carrie - first sentence was "So far, the 3 bigger tournaments that Murray has won have come with a huge asterisk." - that's just WUM talk. Everyone spotted it a mile off and it got the answers it deserved.

It wasn't a WUM comment. It was my own personal opinion. There's a difference. It was not intended to torment people, and certainly the rest of the post makes my position clear. That's the problem around here, the moderation decide what opinions are and are not allowed. Thought control. This thread is done now anyway. No one changed their position, and few accepted the fact that his draw was one of the easiest. If people had a bit more humility and common sense in their posts, I wouldn't have felt the need to post anything.

"Well done to Andy, he played a great match. The draw really opened up for him, and Djokovic was at a disadvantage, but you can only play what is in front of you."

etc. Instead, try to ram it down my throat that Murray is now somehow a 100x better player than last year, that lendl is a genius trainer, and that conditions made no difference at all. It's that kind of crap I don't like, and that I responded to. Balance.

by **laverfan** Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:50 am

_homogenised_ wrote: That's the problem around here, the moderation decide what opinions are and are not allowed. Thought control. This thread is done now anyway.

Moderation does not, the community does, and the reaction was obvious. Moderators do not write articles of such tone, do they?

_homogenised_ wrote: Instead, try to ram it down my throat that Murray is now somehow a 100x better player than last year, that lendl is a genius trainer, and that conditions made no difference at all. It's that kind of crap I don't like, and that I responded to. Balance.

Balance - perhaps some introspection would help. Wink

There are many who dislike Murray on these boards, and repeating such dislike, every time he wins, is rather puerile.

Let us see when you can write a good Federer article.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:55 am

Yeah - everyone tried to ram down your throat lots of stuff that no-one actually wrote and you've made up in your head - that's the kind of crap I don't like and that's what makes you a WUM.
Perhaps if you had more humility and common sense in your posts you wouldn't get seen by the majority of reasonable posters as aggressive WUM.
When you say you're not WUM - are you trying to control people's thoughts?
I don't moderate opinions - I moderate how opinions are expressed and didn't moderate the OP at all. If you didn't like the responses then perhaps I should try to control other posters thoughts for your benefit?
The forum is not here to cater for your 'needs'.

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:56 am

It's that kind of crap I don't like, and that I responded to

I felt exactly like that when reading this latest article.

by CaledonianCraig Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:03 am

homo the big problem comes when you start twisting facts to suit your agenda.

First up your asterisk to winning the US Open was that it was windy. So? It is an outdoor tournament and so any conditions can be expected. Whoever deals with the conditions best of all deserves the win. Simple. Now if you were a tennis expert you would know that Djokovic and Murray had mighty close matches prior to that - some won by Djoko and some won by Murray all of which were played in perfectly still conditions. By that I mean the conditions mattered not one iota going on previous meetings between the pair. If the wind had meant Murray notched up his first ever win over Djokovic I would concede you would have a point to argue but that is just not the case. As for the lucky draw jibe he still faced three seeded players on the way to the final (two more than Federer faced in a French Open in 2008 or 09 can't remember which and an Australian Open of his in 2006). Again the tiring out excuse just won't work especially when we all realise the massive recuperative powers of Djokovic (Australian Open 2012).

Asterisk two - the Olympics. Err how was Del Potro the tougher draw? Djokovic was about to be world No.1 and won Wimbledon in 2011 whereas Del Potro was ranked nine in the world and not long back from a wrist injury (who won between this pair at Wimbledon by the way?). Surely, Roger the GOAT of grass should have been more ruthless in the kill. Since he wasn't he only has himself to blame. Conversely, Murray dealt with the tougher draw of Djokovic ruthlessly and won in straight sets. Even if Federer was jaded that does not explain the demolition we saw - perhaps the heaviest defeat ever dished out to Roger on grass? Some achievement that.

Asterisk three - Wimbledon. First up no he never got a supremely easy draw unless you call Tsonga in the quarters, Federer or Nadal in the semis and Djokovic in the finals easy. That was the draw he had but all of those (barring Djkovic) weren't good enough to earn the right to play Murray in those matches. Not his fault is it? Also the tiring out card won't work as Djokovic has recovered from lengthier semis in past slams and recovered to play even lengthier slam finals and won. As for the silly comment that Del Potro would have beaten Murray I suggest you check out their head-to-heads (Murray leads 5-2) so to make out Del Potro would have won is kind of wishful thinking is it not?

And no he has not been extraordinarily lucky. He has played SEVEN slam final now and all have been against a player in the top three. Hardly lucky and the fact he has made SEVEN slam finals re-iterates winning slams is not luck but talent. If you cannot realise that when Edberg, McEnroe, Connors, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Lendl can then I worry for you.

by kingraf Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:11 am

One of our old posters, a Serbian guy (his name escapes me), once said something to me during a debate... The fool is not the one who knows two and two is five, but it is the one who tries to convince him otherwise.

Hopeless debate

by _homogenised_ Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:14 am

Oh yeah, and I don't like Murray (I can't think why...). That also has something to do with it. So sue me. I want you to know that I really tried to like Murray at first, but a few things stopped me, the main one being his personality (or lack thereof).

1. The media hype that surrounds him, and extends to his fans. The Wimbledon lot were disgraceful again this year, doing everything in their power to make opponents feel uncomfortable. I can't enjoy supporting someone who has bullies for fans, and worse even waves his arms around to rouse them up like some sort of conductor. Clapping double faults and mistakes by opponent and shouting out all the time during points.

2. His boring personality. He is so dour and uninteresting. Never smiles. He is like cardboard.

3. His conduct on court is atrocious. He whines, shouts, screams. Shouts out things even on opponents double faults. He has no class whatsoever. The minute he is a set behind against a player like Djokovic, it's usually lights out.

4. His style of play is typical baseliner. Pusher and counter puncher. I really wish this was old conditions to sort this kind of style out. It's frustrating when I play tennis and my opponent does this same crap against me. No imagination or skill, but get away with it.

There's not one thing I can say about him that is good. As for Craig's assertion that it was a "unique" rise to the top. Not really. He was another silver spoon product from the middle and upper classes. Sent to Spain to train and given opportunities in life that 99.9% of people can only dream of. Get some perspective.

by CaledonianCraig Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:20 am

You can like or dislike who you want but it is when it clouds your judgement it becomes a problem ansd that clearly seems the case with you. You have been offered a chance to write about your favourite player (Federer) but you have not yet taken up the challenge? Why? Go ahead - if it is level-headed enough I am sure people here will receive it well.

by CaledonianCraig Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:22 am

Also why do you gloss over facts like those I pointed out in response to your OP at 11.03am. Counter them if you can and I am all ears.

by _homogenised_ Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:24 am

You aren't all ears, that's why I don't bother. I've seen enough from you to know that no matter what negative things are said about Murray, however true, you will not accept. So why bother?

by bogbrush Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:54 am

kingraf wrote:LF - to be frank that Andy11 is no different to the guys who refuse to believe that this is a Golden Era just because the media says so. I remember posting a link with about a dozen former players saying agreeing with the idea... the reply was just, in the main "because they are saying that doesnt mean they believe it, they are just saying it because they work for ESPN, Tennis channel, BBC, or Andy Murray"

So you think you can call anyone with a legitimate opinion a wum? Don't think you can do so and retain any expectation of having respect.

Some of us know more about the history of this sport than you ever will, and have a sense of proportion because of it. You'd be better off listening and learning.

by HM Murdock Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:00 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:And no he has not been extraordinarily lucky. He has played SEVEN slam final now and all have been against a player in the top three.

In fact, three of those have been against the number 1, one was against a guy who officially became number 1 the next day and one was against a guy embarking on 43 match winning streak!

His "easiest" final was against the world #2!

Even at the Olympics, he had to go through the world #1 and #2!

Of course, he's had some luck on the way too. But he's certainly not a lucky player.

And no, I'm not a particular fan of Murray but I do admire the guy's resilience, determination and willingness to work hard.

by kingraf Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:10 pm

I didnt call anyone a WUM... You seem like one of those people who seem to be on the lookout for anything remotely offensive. No one called anyone a WUM. Get over yourself. Its seriously getting old...

What I wrote was a response to LF, who responded in kind... you will note LF didnt feel the need to go on a holier-than-thou, me-smart-you-stupid moan. Its actually pathetic.

Just do yourself a favor and learn to read.

by kingraf Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:12 pm

Alternatively, you could just make me a "foe" I do the same, and we never have to cross paths again. Your history with SoCal indicates that you cant live up to verbal agreements, so lets just Block each other and be done.

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:16 pm

Can we close this thread?

by Jeremy_Kyle Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:19 pm

So you think one should always take at face value what peolple say to the media? How naive!

by kingraf Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:23 pm

So thats what got from that? Pete Sampras isnt in the media, neither is Agassi or Roddick, or Navartilova. That of course isnt even my argument.

My argument was that I dont understand why I now have to take Edberg and Connors at face value, when you wouldnt take
Sampras
Navratilova
Lendl
Becker
Agassi
Gilbert
and a few others...

Thats naive

by kingraf Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:26 pm

Thats a game of "The media is a liar, unless they agree with me"... No time for that. If you think those guys were lying, fair enough, but dont expect everyone to agree when you bring up other comments from the media. Simple as that.

by Jeremy_Kyle Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:27 pm

kingraf wrote:So thats what got from that? Pete Sampras isnt in the media, neither is Agassi or Roddick, or Navartilova. That of course isnt even my argument.

My argument was that I dont understand why I now have to take Edberg and Connors at face value

Thats naive

My suggestion to you would be to not take anyone at face value.

Least of all Socal.............. Very Happy

by kingraf Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:39 pm

laverfan wrote:
Andy11 wrote:Worked hard to play the most debased form of tennis imaginable. I wonder what Stefan Edberg, a man who used skill and guile to win his titles, really thought watching that match.

"I believe Murray can still win a lot more Slams. He's good enough and young enough," Edberg told BBC Radio 5 live. "He's got a few really good years ahead of him." Murray's 6-4 7-5 6-4 victory at the All England Club gave him his second Grand Slam title following his win in the US Open final, also against current world number one Djokovic, in September 2012.

"He's proved he can play well on grass and there is no question why he can't do it again," added Edberg.

"It could be in his mind to be the number one player in the world. It's going to be tough to get that but that's probably something that can be achieved.
"He needs to produce the results for 12 months, but this could be a great start of it."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/23236512

So what do you think about Edberg's opinions?

Andy11 wrote:I think this is the bigger asterisk on Murray's slams. With regards to Murray and Dunblane, perhaps I was viewing (incorrectly) his remark in the light of what I had already observed about him so I apologise to him (if he reads this)

Very brave, Andy11.

This is what I responded to. If majority of the tennis fraternity are in on the Golden era myth, why should I believe what Edberg says?

This isnt an ers discussion, but a media one, a fact BogBrush, in his haste to feel offended skimmed past.

by **laverfan** Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:45 pm

kingraf wrote:What I wrote was a response to LF, who responded in kind... you will note LF didnt feel the need to go on a holier-than-thou, me-smart-you-stupid moan. Its actually pathetic.

Not sure what you meant here, KR. Was my response to you pathetic? Was this meant for BB?

I am still working on my first cup of tea, so bear with me while the cobwebs of a sleepless night resolve/dissolve with the Tea elixir.

by **laverfan** Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:49 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:Can we close this thread?

Let me ask JHM. JHM, should we?

by kingraf Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:51 pm

Not you LF, my apologies. Its directed at BB, and its not his response thats pathetic as much as it is the fact that he continually looks for something to offend him.

PS - Did you see my response re: Gay and Powell? I think they both tested for the same thing

by kingraf Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:54 pm

What I was saying is that you (LF) responded to that post in the spirit of the discussion, rather than go off about how much more you know about tennis and that its better I keep quiet and listen. Sorry I wasnt clear, but I was a little annoyed typing that.

by **laverfan** Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:56 pm

@KR... thanks. rose

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:58 pm

laverfan wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Can we close this thread?

Let me ask JHM. JHM, should we?

We should. Nothing but back biting going on and even I took a bite!

Nothing new has really been added. Smile

by **laverfan** Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:02 pm

kingraf wrote:PS - Did you see my response re: Gay and Powell? I think they both tested for the same thing

Powell tested positive for a banned stimulant while competing in June's Jamaican championships.
Fellow Jamaican athlete Sherone Simpson also failed a drug test at the event.
The sprinter, a 4x100m relay silver medallist at last year's London Olympics, tested positive for oxilofrine - the same stimulant Powell tested positive for.
Powell and Simpson's doping positives come a month after Jamaican Olympic champion Veronica Campbell-Brown tested positive for a banned diuretic.

Even though it is a different sport, it is tragic. There have been similar discussions in the past on v2. Perhaps we should consider a separate thread and leave the current thread alone.

by bogbrush Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:06 pm

kingraf wrote:I didnt call anyone a WUM... You seem like one of those people who seem to be on the lookout for anything remotely offensive. No one called anyone a WUM. Get over yourself. Its seriously getting old...

What I wrote was a response to LF, who responded in kind... you will note LF didnt feel the need to go on a holier-than-thou, me-smart-you-stupid moan. Its actually pathetic.

Just do yourself a favor and learn to read.

Tell you what, if you write that anyone who says this isn't a Golden Era is the same as one one you're painting as a wum, I think that's pretty clear.

Sure, you've made a fool of yourself and now you want to look good but it won't wash.

by kingraf Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:08 pm

True... really sad. Their times havent improved at all vs other non-Olympic years... Pity the athletic forum has been removed..

But as you say probably best to start a thread discussing this

by kingraf Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:09 pm

Clear to you alone... Like I said go find a new toy to go chew.

by **laverfan** Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:09 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:
laverfan wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Can we close this thread?

Let me ask JHM. JHM, should we?

We should. Nothing but back biting going on and even I took a bite!

Nothing new has really been added.

This is the second stage of trench warfare. The grenades have already been lobbed and done with and casualties are now being wheeled back to the infirmary. Now, it is defending why I was not the first to light the incendiaries stage?

Such a cyclical and repeatable cycle. BTW, I just watched Murray beat Nadal and Federer back-to-back in Toronto...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tIUYysLDeg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6prwZYh9RQ

by kingraf Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:10 pm

You painted Andy11 as a WUM, I never discussed anything, except the merit of a comment he made. Live by the sword...

by bogbrush Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:10 pm

kingraf wrote:Clear to you alone... Like I said go find a new toy to go chew.

Please do explain the alternative meaning. Be creative.

by kingraf Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:13 pm

Sadly, I cant paint it for you in pictures... LF quite clearly understood what I said, and since I was speaking to her, and not you, I think thats good enough for me.

by bogbrush Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:16 pm

kingraf wrote:Sadly, I cant paint it for you in pictures... LF quite clearly understood what I said, and since I was speaking to her, and not you, I think thats good enough for me.

Speaking to her about others who think the Golden Era garbage is just that. That includes me, meaning you lump me in with another person who's catching some criticism.

'Pictures'. So funny.

by kingraf Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:21 pm

Look, you're only offended because you called Andy11 a WUM, that's not my problem

by kingraf Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:24 pm

kingraf wrote:
laverfan wrote:
Andy11 wrote:Worked hard to play the most debased form of tennis imaginable. I wonder what Stefan Edberg, a man who used skill and guile to win his titles, really thought watching that match.

"I believe Murray can still win a lot more Slams. He's good enough and young enough," Edberg told BBC Radio 5 live. "He's got a few really good years ahead of him." Murray's 6-4 7-5 6-4 victory at the All England Club gave him his second Grand Slam title following his win in the US Open final, also against current world number one Djokovic, in September 2012.

"He's proved he can play well on grass and there is no question why he can't do it again," added Edberg.

"It could be in his mind to be the number one player in the world. It's going to be tough to get that but that's probably something that can be achieved.
"He needs to produce the results for 12 months, but this could be a great start of it."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/23236512

So what do you think about Edberg's opinions?

Andy11 wrote:I think this is the bigger asterisk on Murray's slams. With regards to Murray and Dunblane, perhaps I was viewing (incorrectly) his remark in the light of what I had already observed about him so I apologise to him (if he reads this)

Very brave, Andy11.

This is what I responded to. If majority of the tennis fraternity are in on the Golden era myth, why should I believe what Edberg says?

This isnt an ers discussion, but a media one, a fact BogBrush, in his haste to feel offended skimmed past.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:30 pm

What is Edberg or Connors who said "That Marx guy on 606v2 - he's one of the best mods of the current era"
Just goes to show that these media types are total WUMs.

Sampras said "Marx couldn't moderate his drinking, let alone a forum"
These ex-pros certainly know their stuff, we should listen to them more often.

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:33 pm

Ok I second the idea of closing this thread, its not just homo whose trying to wind someone up now, its becoming extremely destructive. The best solution is if the op writes a new article expressing their point a little differently soo we can restart the topic

by kingraf Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:38 pm

haha Marx you pretty much nailed my POV. As an aside, is Marx a homage to Karl Marx?

by Sponsored content