Boris "Omerta" Becker

First topic message reminder :

Someone should tell Boris what he said about Thomas Muster's miracle comeback in '96. He too is then 'totally out of order' right?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-3544745/Boris-Becker-slams-totally-order-Andy-Murray-British-No-1-admits-doping-suspicions.html

Except you don't read what people write.

I haven't said any of those things. But you just keep ranting - you're good at that.

Like I said you guys make it about fitness, but in actuality the reason Murray loses to the players above him in slam totals is because of his second serve. Any 9 year old who understands tennis and has watched the two play and doesn't have some axe to grind can figure it out.


Murray's comments are pretty silly. Like if players don't get as tired as him and are fitter than they must be doping. What do the players that he beats physically and wears down think? Are they entitled with no facts or evidence to feel the same way about him? So everyone fitter than me is doping is basically what he is saying and that is a comment that should be defended? Its kind of like my dad and driving. Everyone who drove 2 miles or up faster than him was crazy and anyone who drove 2 miles an hour slower than him was an idiot.

No one's denying that he has weaknesses in his game and I agree that Djokovic is a better player.

The point of discussion was around his statement regarding endurance and the implication (by him) that some of his competitors are doping.

My point was that in my opinion it's probably more than just a handful that are doping. Murray's statement seems to support that. As to the exact individuals - who knows? No one's above suspicion. However, Andy's statement makes it pretty clear who he thinks may be doping - without evidence it was a faux pas for him to be so obvious, but in any case, it's out there now.

emancipator wrote:No one's denying that he has weaknesses in his game and I agree that Djokovic is a better player.

The point of discussion was around his statement regarding endurance and the implication (by him) that some of his competitors are doping.

My point was that in my opinion it's probably more than just a handful that are doping. Murray's statement seems to support that. As to the exact individuals - who knows? No one's above suspicion. However, Andy's statement makes it pretty clear who he thinks may be doping - without evidence it was a faux pas for him to be so obvious, but in any case, it's out there now.

Ok that is a good post and I can't dispute it. I actually think there is doping and after the Sharapova incident I think probably most of the tour is doing some form of legal cocktail style doping. I actuality don't deny that this is probably the case. My position has always been and is that if you want to name names or make innuendos than you need to have a dirty test. I hold that position for Mr. 299 in the world, for Nadal, for Murray, for Djokovic, or for Nadal. In fact, up until 2011 it was mostly Nadal that I would come to defend when people would make these types of accusations. I am not naïve the stakes are too big to assume that some people aren't doing it.

But like I said I find this idea that Novak beats people through fitness and grinding to be simplistic and not actually what happens in the vast majority of his matches.

Novak is simply a better tennis player than nearly everyone on tour - that's why he wins. But that doesn't mean that fitness isn't important in his success. Part of the reason why he is so good is because he knows he can keep his level up for as long as it takes - and most importantly, longer than anyone else. That gives him huge confidence.

It was the same for Rafa in his pomp, and to only a slightly less degree, Federer in his pomp (until Rafa came along and took the physical bar up a notch).

The players are always talking about getting fitter. At the very top those small differences in fitness are huge. A classic example was the Monte Carlo final. Monfils was neck and neck with Rafa but faded badly in the last set. Rafa didn't outplay him, he outlasted him, and we've seen all of the top four do that against lots of opponents.

In that context, it's not difficult to understand why someone would resort to doping to gain that extra few percent.

Yeah fitness is part of his success but again, if I was ranking factors for his success fitness would not be 1 or 2 probably not even top 3. This is my beef here with the logical fallacies inherent in analyzing Djokovic and Nadal. It just in the vast majority of even their five set matches doesn't play a role. And I don't buy this whole idea that the fear of getting tired causes other world class players to press too much or this stuff. Most guys lose to Nadal and Djokovic, even guys of the quality of Murray because they are lacking in game or athletically and fitness is a much smaller part of the equation than everyone makes it. Yes it helps your confidence, yes it helps you win an odd big slam match; no it isn't the most important or really even among the top reasons these guys win.

My hierarchy of why Novak wins:
1. Speed
2. return
3. Serve
4. change of direction/aggressive court position
5. fitness

Everyone else seems to reverse the list, but it simply isn't accurate. Wasn't accurate with Nadal either.

It's surprising they bother being such incredible physical specimens if it matters so little.
It also flies in the face of experience in a great many major matches, where a player has lost by becoming physically incapable of competing. There are numerous examples, but US Open 2013 stood out as Nadal basically ground to a halt.

bogbrush wrote:It's surprising they bother being such incredible physical specimens if it matters so little.
It also flies in the face of experience in a great many major matches, where a player has lost by becoming physically incapable of competing. There are numerous examples, but US Open 2013 stood out as Nadal basically ground to a halt.

No one says it doesn't matter it just won't change the result in the number of matches you and the Tenez camp claim where every square peg is slammed into the fitness round hole. I didn't say it wasn't a factor and in fact in majors it becomes more important, but still not outcome determinative in a majority or even a significant plurality. And your post also ignores the other reason to be really fit, it helps to extend your career and prevent injuries. If Novak's flexibility saves him from one injury in his career, (which I am sure it has saved him many more than that) then it is worth millions to him. Same analogy applies to fitness. They need it to do their job and while it is necessary it is far from sufficient and outcome determining in a large number of matches. But in injury prevention and extending your career it is hugely important. Another factor why you might want to be an incredible specimen on today's tour.

It's a nice line, but when I think back to the seemingly endless succession of Slam endurance exhibitions in recent years I'm not so sure. I have a long memory for tennis matches and the events of the last few years are quite without precedent.

kingraf wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Becker isn't all that clever and he's reacted. The question is why.

Dim people like him walk head-first into things like this.

List of players who've done "If it’s
purely physical and you’re watching someone
playing six-hour matches over and over and
showing no signs of being tired, you’d look at
that.”

reads Djokovic. And Well Djokovic

No one has done it "over and over" though (not even Novak), so in fact it seems he was just giving an extreme example of something which would look suspicious?

Yeah - you have to be incredibly fit, just for those matches where it is the deciding factor. Mostly it isn't.

Before England won the rugby World Cup, I read Clive Woodward had them exercising their eye muscles using some sort of video game. Just in case it helped.

And thus gave birth to Call of Duty...

bogbrush wrote:It's a nice line, but when I think back to the seemingly endless succession of Slam endurance exhibitions in recent years I'm not so sure. I have a long memory for tennis matches and the events of the last few years are quite without precedent.

How many of those slam finals have been endurance exhibitions. I mean there are only 4 slams and you have such great memory tell us in the last oh 5 years how many of the 20 or so matches have been endurance exhibitions and which ones?

1981 French Open Final two of the fittest men in world's tennis, 24 year old Bjorn Borg  versus 21 year old Ivan Lendl.

Go to 1 hr and 20 minutes of this clip to have a look at the energy and power they exhibit in the fifth set:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBdQB2MkSiA

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It's a nice line, but when I think back to the seemingly endless succession of Slam endurance exhibitions in recent years I'm not so sure. I have a long memory for tennis matches and the events of the last few years are quite without precedent.

How many of those slam finals have been endurance exhibitions. I mean there are only 4 slams and you have such great memory tell us in the last oh 5 years how many of the 20 or so matches have been endurance exhibitions and which ones?

Loads of Australian Opens, USO 2013, plus some semi finals.

Do you really need these listing? Seriously?

When Djokovic is 2 match points down and wins, that is mental, proven by repeating it again the next year at the US Open. He also I think beat Tsonga at the French Open despite 4 match points. It's not a coincidence and your fitness doesn't suddenly improve on a match point. It's not like Federer is running out of steam and losing the final set 6-1 against Djoko. When they've gone the distance in BO5 it's been 6-4 or 7-5.

USO2013? No, its USO2011 where Nadal ran out of steam in the fourth set.

Henman Bill wrote:When Djokovic is 2 match points down and wins, that is mental, proven by repeating it again the next year at the US Open. He also I think beat Tsonga at the French Open despite 4 match points. It's not a coincidence and your fitness doesn't suddenly improve on a match point. It's not like Federer is running out of steam and losing the final set 6-1 against Djoko. When they've gone the distance in BO5 it's been 6-4 or 7-5.

Yep 7-5 in the fifth is Federer losing because of exhaustion, even though anyone who saw that match could see Federer moving unhampered and well actually late into the match, so well that he was able to get up matchpoints at the end of the fifth set. I doubt you will be anymore successful than I am on this front, there are some who as I said are intent on banging the square peg of fitness into that round hole no matter what. When I see a player breaking down physically in a match it usually isn't a subtle thing and that player cramps, vomits, his movement is hampered, he is panting there are physicalogical indicators of this breakdown. None of which you could see in those 5 sets matches at the USO with Djokovic. But since he lost a five set match to Djokovic it must of been because he got tired what else could it be in their world?

Even if one takes PEDs one still gets tired.

Listened to an late 2015 interview from Lendl and his view is that sports in his day compared to today is just not comparable: sports science, better training, better understanding of diet and nutrition, better monitoring of the body, knowing when to rest and when to train, better technology, bigger, fitter sportspeople, better recuperation programmes ... He seems to have a vast respect for todays golfers and tennis players, saying in general they take personal responsibility and in general show great sportsmanship and fairness.

socal1976 wrote:after the Sharapova incident I think probably most of the tour is doing some form of legal cocktail style doping.

Why only after the incident?  Did you find it surprising?  Before the incident you thought most of the players were clean, and you changed your mind now?

No, I always thought there was doping, but before I always had you know people using EPO, or steroids, or HGH this was a first. A substance you generally don't think is banned and wasn't banned but was being used for that purpose. That was what made Sharapova case intriguing was that she used it legally for years. I think there is a lot more of this legal designer doping than anything else. Where as before it was these known obviously illegal PEDs, but a legal one being changed to illegal leads us to understand that there are so many other substances used now that are PEDs that simply are not banned. That was the unique aspect that made me realize all the illegal stuff that was banned was the tip of the iceberg to this stuff that is legal.

Henman Bill wrote:When Djokovic is 2 match points down and wins, that is mental, proven by repeating it again the next year at the US Open. He also I think beat Tsonga at the French Open despite 4 match points. It's not a coincidence and your fitness doesn't suddenly improve on a match point. It's not like Federer is running out of steam and losing the final set 6-1 against Djoko. When they've gone the distance in BO5 it's been 6-4 or 7-5.

This post will probably be the third or fourth to directly address this strawman argument.

Nobody is saying that every victory for Djokovic is based on fitness. He's an exceptional player.

I'd have thought by now that people would be sufficiently wised up to the strawman approach for its use to be dying off, but it looks to be alive and well - socal basically resorts to it every time anything like this comes up. However, it's weakness is that once pointed out it becomes very easy for others to spot.

So, just for clarity, Djokovic wins many matches because he's just extremely good. OK?

I think fitness often gets misinterpreted when it comes to Novak.

Firstly, I do agree with Socal's ranking above. The most important tools in Novak's game are definitely movement, return and serve (especially 2nd serve). His game is built on these things.

But fitness is a huge part of the reason why he has eleven slams rather than about six.

The difference between 'good' and 'great' is tiny in percentage terms. Winning 1% more points can transform a season.

Novak knows that, if needs to, he can play a big point by simply staying in the rally. If the rally goes long, he's confident his opponent will break down before he does.

Equally importantly, the opponent knows this too, which means they are forced to attempt a shot more difficult or higher risk than they would like. These points might be short points but they can still be considered as being won by Novak's fitness, albeit by the threat of it rather than the actual demonstration of it.

If his unmatched fitness wins him an extra 1% points, then it's a small part of his game but a big part of why he's an all-time great rather than a contemporary great.

Oh dear Murdock, you've just said exactly what I said at the top of the page (3rd or fourth post on this page), just in different words.

You must be a hater, or live in some bizarre alternate reality. I know your game - what you really mean is that Djokovic is rubbish, he only wins because of attrition and fitness, my granny has a better BH. He should stick to impersonations of Screech.

emancipator wrote:Oh dear Murdock, you've just said exactly what I said at the top of the page (3rd or fourth post on this page), just in different words.

You must be a hater, or live in some bizarre alternate reality. I know your game - what you really mean is that Djokovic is rubbish, he only wins because of attrition and fitness, my granny has a better BH. He should stick to impersonations of Screech.

Hilarious, I said you guys over over blow fitness as part of his game and you claim that I said any of these things. Hilrious, that you claim I create strawmen. If you had made comments like Murdoch that actually address the totality of circumstances and a fair analysis I would have agreed with you, like I did when you commented on PEDs.

Please I have had all the lecturing from Emancipator and BB about creating strawmen's that I can take. My hypocrisy and BS meter has been broken.

I love how BB agrees with Murdock for saying exactly what I am saying and for agreeing with my position on Djokovic's weapons, and then in the same breath accuses me of creating a strawman that he and others have been saying that Djokovic primarily wins on fitness. Yeah we missed your 10 year history of sucking up to Tenez and agreeing him with things like Nadal is a moonballer, Djokovic a mono-induced one slam wonder with an uninspiring game. You guys have been beating this fitness is everything in modern tennis, and both of you frankly do it on this thread.

Really, I will go back to ignoring you two. Because you just make stuff up, and actually the things you accuse others of (ie creating strawmen) is what you do. And you both have a record for years and on this thread claiming that Novak grinds his opponents down. You don't claim reasonably that it is a small percentage of Novak's game, so lets not pretend like you can change your posts on this thread and for 10 years going back to old 606. Not everyone has the attention span and memory of ant, which seems to be what you are relying on.

HM Murdock wrote:I think fitness often gets misinterpreted when it comes to Novak.

Firstly, I do agree with Socal's ranking above. The most important tools in Novak's game are definitely movement, return and serve (especially 2nd serve). His game is built on these things.

But fitness is a huge part of the reason why he has eleven slams rather than about six.

The difference between 'good' and 'great' is tiny in percentage terms. Winning 1% more points can transform a season.

Novak knows that, if needs to, he can play a big point by simply staying in the rally. If the rally goes long, he's confident his opponent will break down before he does.

Equally importantly, the opponent knows this too, which means they are forced to attempt a shot more difficult or higher risk than they would like. These points might be short points but they can still be considered as being won by Novak's fitness, albeit by the threat of it rather than the actual demonstration of it.

If his unmatched fitness wins him an extra 1% points, then it's a small part of his game but a big part of why he's an all-time great rather than a contemporary great.

Good post, funny how two certain posters agree with this post which basically says what I am saying for the most part, but when I make similar arguments Heckel and his good friend Jeckel claim I am the one creating strawmen. Funny, Murdock agrees with me and then Emanci and BB agree with him agreeing with me, and somehow in the equation I am the one creating strawmen and being irrational and unfair. Thanks for agreeing with me Murdock and validating what is apparent for all to see that these two hot air balloons make stuff up and just run with it hoping that their famous charm and sarcasm will cover up for their fact free drivel.

You went screeching on about how legendkiller wasn't breathless enough in his admiration of Djokovic...... over on the Murray thread. Bottom line, you're like Becker - protesting far too much.

Unlike you, Murdick recognises quite well how important superior fitness is to Djokovic. That kind of balance gets listened to.

I never forget how you used to write in defence of PED use in sport.

bogbrush wrote:You went screeching on about how legendkiller wasn't breathless enough in his admiration of Djokovic...... over on the Murray thread. Bottom line, you're like Becker - protesting far too much.

Unlike you, Murdick recognises quite well how important superior fitness is to Djokovic. That kind of balance gets listened to.

I never forget how you used to write in defence of PED use in sport.

Don't worry BB, I don't write to gain your approval. Yeah and I remember how you claimed that Djokovic was nothing special and how you goaded Tenez on for years by agreeing with his crap of slamming every square peg into the round hole of fitness. I am happy about record for 10 years. You on the other hand have been proven wrong over and over again, but thankfully part of your charm is that you never let facts get in the way of your beliefs and biases. In many ways you share this similarity with a certain poster named after a famous literary hero and Mash character.

And by the way, wait in 20 or 30 years my disclosure method of PEDs may actual gain some traction. I am used to being a visionary, you on the other hand are used to parrot mimicking of the world's most reknown fitness conspiracy theorist.

bogbrush wrote:
This post will probably be the third or fourth to directly address this strawman argument.

Nobody is saying that every victory for Djokovic is based on fitness. He's an exceptional player.

I'd have thought by now that people would be sufficiently wised up to the strawman approach for its use to be dying off, but it looks to be alive and well - socal basically resorts to it every time anything like this comes up. However, it's weakness is that once pointed out it becomes very easy for others to spot.

So, just for clarity, Djokovic wins many matches because he's just extremely good. OK?

hilarious, the strawman master at work, this is the greatest false flag attack since the German Polish border in 1939, you know when according to German media the polish army was about to invade Germany.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:You went screeching on about how legendkiller wasn't breathless enough in his admiration of Djokovic...... over on the Murray thread. Bottom line, you're like Becker - protesting far too much.

Unlike you, Murdick recognises quite well how important superior fitness is to Djokovic. That kind of balance gets listened to.

I never forget how you used to write in defence of PED use in sport.

Don't worry BB, I don't write to gain your approval. Yeah and I remember how you claimed that Djokovic was nothing special and how you goaded Tenez on for years by agreeing with his crap of slamming every square peg into the round hole of fitness. I am happy about record for 10 years. You on the other hand have been proven wrong over and over again, but thankfully part of your charm is that you never let facts get in the way of your beliefs and biases. In many ways you share this similarity with a certain poster named after a famous literary hero and Mash character.

And by the way, wait in 20 or 30 years my disclosure method of PEDs may actual gain some traction. I am used to being a visionary, you on the other hand are used to parrot mimicking of the world's most reknown fitness conspiracy theorist.

ُErr no.. you just have an inflated opinion of yourself and to be quite frank you just like to shout people down. Your wild strawmen and exaggerations are tiresome.

Yeah, like I said emanci, anyone is free to read my fact based analysis on this thread. You and BB are famous for false claims and misrepresenting my positions. Funny, HB, Murdoch, Julius, and a number of others could see my point. You instead chose to taunt and misrepresent. If anyone created a strawman its you and the master of it, the absolute Mozart of strawmen arguments, your buddy Jekel.

Not to mention famous for producing zero facts and stats in favor of your positions and ignoring all those produced by others that don't favor your position.

ok

socal1976 wrote:Don't worry BB, I don't write to gain your approval...

For a guy who says he doesn't crave my approval you certainly seem to take it very seriously!

No, what I take seriously is someone misrepresenting my positions and you know I won't let you do it.

LOL, pot..kettle - all of your posts are wild misrepresentations. But that's ok. I, as the emancipator, guardian of the outer reaches, forgive your trespasses.

Thanks for the permission, but I didn't need it and the record is here on the thread for anyone to see. I made a very balanced post on how fitness was a part of his game, but not the most important part. You guys are infamous for overblowing fitness and making it the biggest part of his game. Not everyone has the memory of an ant, thankfully.

Indeed.. but of course.. I have the longest memory of all.



emancipator

Except your 'balanced' post only came after you derided my perfectly balanced and logical posts - seeing things that were not there in your haste to impose your world view - a depressingly familiar pattern.

But you are yet young - you have time to grow and learn.

emancipator wrote:..... Of course there is a large skill component but let's not kid ourselves; Djokovic doesn't beat Federer over five sets because he is more skilled. He is physically more durable, can extend the rallies and knows that the longer the rallies are the better his chances of winning. He is currently the most physical player in the world - the best endurance in any individual point and the best endurance for the  duration of a match.



....The fact that he's said as much as he has this time, makes it certain in my mind that he believes some of the players he is losing slams to are doping. That must be a hugely bitter pill to swallow and I feel for him.



emancipator

No you didn't make a balanced post at all. That isn't fair, you felt for Murray for making an unsubstantiated blanket PED accusation of his competition. And which many posters and others took to mean a reference to Novak. I took issue rightly and said if Murray had anything to feel sorry about was his poor second serve and how Novak treats it like a bunny. Like I said it is all there.

ps it seems like you are saying right there that MAIN REASON Djokovic wins is his endurance. Now don't you feel a little badly for saying I created a strawman? Considering that I just used Habeus Corpus to actually produce the body itself in the form of your quote where you are making fitness the biggest issue and main reason for Djokovic's success.

With regards to Federer.. yes the main reason is because he is younger and fitter. WRT most of the rest of the tour..he wins because he's simply a better tennis player - I believe I said that too.

Overall, fitness is an important part of his success - which bit of all this is controversial?

Why don't you re-read what I said: 'The fact that he's said as much as he has this time, makes it certain in my mind that he believes some of the players he is losing slams to are doping. That must be a hugely bitter pill to swallow and I feel for him.'

I'm interpreting Murray's words. If HE BELIEVES that others are beating him through an unfair advantage, then that must be a bitter pill to swallow and I feel for him (ie it must be agonising to believe that someone is beating you through unfair means but you can't do anything about it. You can't even voice those suspicions out loud.)

Like I've already said, I don't know who is doping - I suspect the proportion is higher than the pundits and players would like us to believe.

Oh dear. So after all that. What exactly is the problem here?

In all honesty temp I don't know.

Well, thank you for the clarification on the Federer vs. rest of the tour part of your analysis. But I didn't build a strawman of your position, I pulled my criticism that you guys are overblowing fitness from comments like this on thread.

And secondly, I don't think it is fair for Murray to feel angry about it if he is clean. If he really believes he is losing slam finals to Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer even partly because of doping and his own poorer fh and second serve than he is a wildly delusional and bitter individual. So why would you feel for him, unless you also feel he may be right and is lose out to slams to Djokovic for doping?

Again, I had reasonable basis for my criticisms I didn't make any strawmen.

What the problem temp is accusations of dishonest strawman creation and who is the straw man maker in chief, I posit that BB and emancipator create the biggest strawmen east of Burning Man. For a moderator you must do a better job of following the controversy.

Tbh this hsppens so often I completely glaze over. What's the actual straw man here. What fake argument are they propping up to avoid the point

Friends, Romans, strawmen, lend me your ears;
At the end of the day, it is time to say goodnight,
And bury the hatchet, not in the craniums of our opponents
but in the restless minds of our differences of opinion
And the morrow will bring good fortune to new debate

It reminds me of...

https://youtu.be/KAWoP1kncRE

Back to the crux of the matter...

Boris is a goon.