HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ratte@sfb256.iam.uni-bonn.de (  Cordula Reineke  )
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Perverse postings
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:45:44 GMT
Organization: Applied Math, University of Bonn, Germany

Hi, folx,

reading this longlasting discussion about the quality of postings and
finding people think about whether they are allowed to find female players
attractive or not (and posting that stuff!) and others asking themselves
if it might be a question of different habits in different countries...
I think you all sort of lost the thread of what was going on.

I'm sure it's NOT a question of in-which-country-you-live that some people
find it disgusting to call a female player a bitch. And it shouldn't be
necessary to explain the difference between "she's athletic" or discribing
what's inside her T-shirt to any reasonable poster.

So if you want to go on discussing this topic, would you mind just using
your common sense and not getting too subtile ? 
Just to shorten that a bit...

Sorry about Anne, though I'm a relatively new member,
                                                        Cordula

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cordula Reineke                                                     /\/\
Institut fuer Angew.Math.    YOU CAN'T FEEL THE BEATING !!        _/    \ 
Wegelerstr.6                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^      _/  o o  \ 
D - 5300 Bonn 1                                               _/          |
ratte@sfb256.iam.uni-bonn.de                                 o_________/  |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bose@giga.cs.umn.edu (Ashim Bose)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Racquets and Davis Cup
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:49:54 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

Hi everybody, I have a question about the useage of racquets in the Davis Cup.
The Swedish team, with the exception of Edberg seemed to be playing with
Prince racquets.  Is it possible that the team has some kinda contract with
Prince?  Edberg would be exempted because he has his own racquet contract.
The Sept. issue of tennis magazine lists Edberg's racquet as a Pro Staff Classic
though it seemed suspiciously like the Pro Staff Original that Sampras was
using (in the doubles) with the exception of the color.  If it is indeed true
that Edberg uses the Pro Staff Original disguised as a Classic, isn't that 
blatant deception to fool the innocent fans into buying the "wrong" racquet
in the sense that it is NOT REALLY Edberg's racquet?  Couldn't Edberg or
Wilson (or both) get sued for this?  I guess it is not really a life 
threatening decision  ...

Ashim
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: PH412000@brownvm.brown.edu
Subject: Re: IN DEFENSE OF STEFFI GRAF
Organization: Brown University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:34:49 GMT

>From: Joseph.J.Marcheso.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (Joseph J. Marcheso Jr.)
>Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
>Subject: IN DEFENSE OF STEFFI GRAF
>STEFFI GRAF IS, WITHOUT A DOUBT THE GREATEST FEMALE TENNIS PLAYER IN
>HISTORY. DESPITE MARTINA'S SUCCESSS AND EVERT (THE GLORIFIED PUSHER'S)
>LONGEVITY AND EVEN SELES'S RECENT DOMINATION, STEFFI GRAF HAS THE TRUE
>CLAIM TO #1 BECAUSE NONE OF THESE PLAYERS HAD THE MENTAL, AND PHYSICAL
>ATTRIBUTES TO WIN THE GRAND SLAM. MONICA IN '91 WAS STOPPED BY HER OWN

No doubt Graf is one the greatest players but definitely not the greatest
yet like you claimed.Yes, she did win the Grand Slam but is that the most
important factor for the greatest ever? If so, isn't someone other than
Graf also had won the Grand Slam before? Other than the fact Graf won
the Grand Slam, I can't think of anything else which she did better than
Martina so far. Of course, Graf still has a lot more time but what will
happen is another matter. I like Graf as much as another top three
woman players(I only follow top four woman players) and I think by
overstating the fact about Graf will have some negative effects in
your DEFENSE OF GRAF.

Quan
From: bose@pico.cs.umn.edu (Ashim Bose)
Subject: Re: Davis Cup final times and phone #'s
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:05:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct04.003000.25148@eng.umd.edu> clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin) writes:
>
>   The annoucers on ESPN expressed their regrets that the Davis Cup
>prices were too high.  Mary Carillo felt that there should be some
>lower priced tickets available, at least for children.

As a matter of fact, on the day of the semi-final, the USTA was giving
out free tickets to children and an accompanying adult, presumably because
they had lots of unsold seats remaining in the nose-bleed section.

>  They had planned
>to sell tickets to the recent Davis Cup matche between Sweden and
>the US in three day blocks, but they couldn't sell out, due to the
>high prices, and even when they sold it day by day, they couldn't
>sell out.
>
>   Personally, I think that they shouldn't overprice these tickets
>either.  It should be kept in a reasonable price range (say 15 US
>dollars on one day) for some of the seats.

The nose-bleed seats were priced at $25/one day.  No wonder they didn't sell
too many of these.

Ashim

>
>--
>Charles Lin
>clin@eng.umd.edu
From: tmarvan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Thomas Marvan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Re: Davis Cup
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:57:39 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1a1eoqINN44v@corax.udac.uu.se> chris@Minsk.DoCS.UU.SE (Christian Bartholdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.011515.16634@admin.kth.se>, ojarnef@admin.kth.se (Olle Jarnefors) writes:
>> The first match, Courier--Kulti:
>>   4-6 
>>   7-6 (7-1)  (Courier broke back at 4-5)
>>   6-3
>>   7-5  (Kulti broke Courier in the first game; once again Kulti
>>         was unable to win his service game at 4-5)
>
>And Edberg lost too.  No surprises so far.  It wasn't very nice to hear the audience cheer every time a Swede missed a serve.  But that's America for you, 
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^

I think you'll find that, paticularly in Davis Cup, *many* crowds of
other nations supporting their home team are much worse in their
conduct than American crowds....



Tom Marvan




Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: bernie@lgc.com (Bernie De La Torre)
Subject: Re: Who won between Martina vs Jimmy ??
Organization: Landmark Graphics Corporation
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:49:15 GMT

In article <16870B3FD.MTED356@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU> MTED356@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU writes:
>Hi guys,
> 
>I missed all reports on that match. Could anyone please post the results ? I
>would be grateful if you could add a few spices.
> 
>Thanks
> 
>Bordy

IMHO, it wasn't much of a match. The score was 7-5, 6-2, but this is deceptive.
It was not really an exciting match and the quality was very low (many more
unforced errors than winners). It seemed more like a staged event than a real 
match. I think Connors wanted to keep it close in the 1st set or even actually
let Martina win the 1st set. Martina just didn't play well enough to take advantage
of what Connors was giving her. Connors wasn't hitting out at all. He also hit a lot 
of service returns into the net. It seems this was his way of making sure Martina
would win the point. 

IMHO, Connors could have won love and love, if he wanted to. 

I think somebody like Seles could take more advantage of the extra room
than Martina did, but I don't think the outcome would be any different.
Men are simply better than women, and Connors can still play with the
best men (for 2 or 3 sets, anyway).

This was a scam if I ever saw one, and only served the purpose of making Jimmy
and Martina a little richer.
--
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
*    Bernie de la Torre  Landmark Graphics Corporation
*    333 Cypress Run     Houston, Texas 77094   (713)-579-4680
*    bdelatorre@lgc.com  Rm 247
From: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: ATP Men's Money Leaders: September 27
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:26:39 GMT

MEN'S TENNIS LEADING MONEY WINNERS 
   (THROUGH SEPTEMBER 27TH)
 
 1. Jim Courier       $1,550,045
 2. Stefan Edberg     $1,367,029  
 3. Pete Sampras      $1,131,372
 4. Andre Agassi      $1,000,484
 5. Petr Korda          $793,823
 6. Michael Chang       $754,597
 7. Goran Ivanisevic    $708,371
 8. Michael Stich       $628,976
 9. Emilio Sanchez      $586,668
10. Wayne Ferreira      $585,560
 
GeSS
--
Gess Shankar      |<><>|Internet: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM                |<><>|
Knowledge Exchange|<><>|{rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!knex!gess|<><>|
From: guillory@crhc.uiuc.edu (Stanford Guillory)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Re: IN DEFENSE OF STEFFI GRAF
Date: 1 Oct 1992 16:02:20 -0500
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: debussy.crhc.uiuc.edu

128a-1fx@web-2h.berkeley.edu (roger) writes:

>In article <1992Oct1.130610.21509@cs.wayne.edu> faa@athena.cs.wayne.edu (Felicitas A. Atabong) writes:

>>ask me, there seems to be a more competitive top 20 than there was a top
>>10 just a few years back. Now even players ranked in the 50's can beat
>>players ranked in the top ten.
>>
>this can also interpreted differently i.e. there's much weakness in the
>top players that even someone ranked down in the 50s can beat someone
>in the top ten 

It could be interpreted that way, but not by anyone who has actually watched
womens' tennis over the last 5-7 years. There is no doubt whatsoever that
the quality of womens' tennis has vastly improved. 

Stanford S. Guillory
guillory@crhc.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: bose@kilo.cs.umn.edu (Ashim Bose)
Subject: Re: Pros Stringing at Wimbledon
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:51:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.174504.10856@bnr.co.uk> pmv@bnr.co.uk (Paul M. Venkatesh) writes:
>I seem to remember a discussion a while ago on string tensions
>various Pros use so I thought some of you folks would be interested
>in the following. I presume the tensions are average tensions but its
>a little unclear due to the listing for Woodforde. I shall let some
>of the more knowledgable folk identify the players (since I haven't
>heard of a large number of these), racket and strings used. 
>
>The information comes from a newsletter from Bow Brand (who
>did most of the stringing at Wimbledon) so I claim no responsibility
>for any inaccuracies in it (apart from typos anyway - its been a hard
>day).
>

..stuff deleted..

Comparing these tensions to the ones for the 91 US Open listed in Tennis Mag 
(Sept.), it seems that a lot of the players lower their tensions for Wimbledon.
Must be to get more velocity on the faster grass courts (?).  

Ashim

ps: Does anybody know what racquet Agassi played with during the US Open last
month?  It sure did not appear to be the Donnay Pron One which he uses regularly
including in the just concluded Davis Cup matches.

Ashim
From: rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Richard Beckett)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:46:32 GMT
Subject: Re: sneakers for tennis
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Bristol, UK
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Reply-To: rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com


In article <1992Sep28.155921.18839@midway.uchicago.edu>,
j-nolan@uchicago.edu (John Nolan) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep28.093114.4832@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com
|> (Richard Beckett)
|> 
|> 
|> >In article <Bv6AvD.8Iz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, ac@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
|> >(ac) writes:
|> >|> Hi, folks:
|> >|> 
|> >|> I'm going to buy a pair of sneakers for playing tennis. My problem is: 
|> >|> I play on hard courts for twice a week and my shoes are worn out quite
|> >|> soon, especially at the area under the big toes. Could someone 
|> >|> recommend me a model/brand which is more durable. I prefer high-top.
|> >|> Thanks!!
|> >|> 
|> >|> Alex Chou
|> >|> EE, Purdue Univ.
|> >
|> >	Personally, I don't think that you can beat Wilson Pro-Staff tennis
|> >	shoes for performance. They're also cheaper than these flash looking
|> >	Nikes and other stuff.
|> 
|> Do they last longer?  I'm not the original author, but I have the same 
|> problem.  I wear New Balance 500's and they die every two or three months.
|> Is this planned obsolesence?
|> 
	The Guy who sold 'em to me reconned that they'd last up to 3 times
	longer than others. They have Goodyear tyre rubber soles, and are
	really grippy. I don't know of anybody who's changed from them after
	having them once.


	Cheers,


		RIK


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rik O'Chet, Bristol, England.		
Email: rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com		One's never alone with a Rubber Duck !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: PH412000@brownvm.brown.edu
Subject: News, please!
Organization: Brown University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:07:25 GMT

Since Anne left, we hardly get any daily news from the net which is the
most important reason I subscribed r.s.t. Should we start a petition drive
to get Anne back(just skip what you don't like, please) or can anyone else who
has a hand on tennis news pick up the job?

Quan"We miss you, Anne"

Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Subject: Re: Spaghetti stringing/McEnroe's racket tension
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 20:42:20 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Originator: clin@periodic.eng.umd.edu


In article <1992Sep28.193746.23768@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, vinlai@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (vincent.lai) writes:
>When I was watching a brief history of the US Open, I heard of how Stan
>Smith was upset by some unknown who strung his racket in an unusual
>way.  Subsequently, "spaghetti stringing" was banned from all
>tournaments.  
>
>I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the term.  It sounds like a stringing
>style that hovers around 10-20 lbs.  That brings me to McEnroe, who
>strings his rackets at 44 lbs. 
>
>Has anybody strung their racket that loosely?  I vaguely remember that
>Warren Bosworth contended that optimal power AND control could be
>achieved by going DOWN in tension.  Any thoughts?
>

    Concerning spaghetti stringing, the racquet was sttrung with either
very few cross strings or mains, and then, I think, it was wrapped with
additional string in some manner.   The end result was that you could
get an incredible amount of spin with the racquet, and that no one
could deal with the spin.   A similar thing happened in table tennis
when someone came out with, like a 1 inch (2-3 cm) sponge bat.  Due
to the thickness, it required to talent to get an incredible amount
of spin and essentially mess up the opponent.   The rules were changed
so that the thickness of a table tennis bat is now restricted to less
than several millimeters.  The thickness of the rubber, that is.

    Spaghetti racquets were made illegal sometime in the mid to late
seventies ('77 or so).  This was not before Ilie Nastase prevented
Vilas from continuing the longest winning streak in men's Open
tennis at fifty matches.   However, I think they only put restrictions
on the size and length of a racquet in the mid eighties.

   I have strung my tennis racquet at 54 pounds, and it feels OK.
Almost like my other racquet at 58 pounds.  It sometimes flies
a little, but I get better feel.  I plan to drop it to 50 pounds
next time I restring.

   Anyway, spaghetti stringing and low tensions aren't the same thing.

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu
From: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: WTA Women's Money Leaders: October 4
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:15:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: knex.gate.DcR7RB1w165w

WOMEN'S TENNIS LEADING MONEY WINNERS 
      (THROUGH OCTOBER 4TH)
 
 1. Monica Seles          $1,802,352
 2. Arantxa Sanchez       $1,093,155
 3. Steffi Graf           $1,068,026
 4. Gabriela Sabatini       $855,565
 5. Natalia Zvereva         $519,144
 6. Mary Joe Fernandez      $509,533
 7. Martina Navratilova     $403,233
 8. Gigi Fernandez          $401,137
 9. Jana Novotna            $374,184
10. Conchita Martinez       $349,268
 
GeSS
--
Gess Shankar      |<><>|Internet: gess@knex.Gwinnett.COM                |<><>|
Knowledge Exchange|<><>|{rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!knex!gess|<><>|
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim)
Subject: Re: Why bother to watch the World Series?
Organization: Fordham University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:57:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: mary.fordham.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct2.175240.14804@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:
>Of all the major sports in the United States, major league baseball
>has the most illogical and capricious system of determining home
>field advantage in the playoffs.  Since 1987, starting with the
>Twins, the team with both the home field advantage in the LCS and
>the World Series has won the championship.  
> 
Some previous follow-ups have pointed out, correctly, that this pattern 
didn't hold 1969-1986 (Divisional play began 1969).

Moreover, did the World Champion 1988 Dodgers really benefit from their
home field advantage?  In the World Series, they played two games at 
home and *three* games at Oakland, winning 4 games to 1.  The potential 
of playing 4 games in Dodger Stadium was never realized, and was of no 
consequence to the outcome.  A majority of games actually played were at
Oakland.  (And thank God, no WS earthquake that year.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Nissim, notorious Dodger fanatic     (nissim@mary.fordham.edu)  
Disclaimer:  "I speak only for myself."   
World Championships:  Brooklyn-----1955   
                      Los Angeles--1959  1963  1965  1981  1988
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till)
Subject: Re: Olerud
Organization: Not The Rickey Henderson Fan Club
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:33:34 GMT

Apologies if this post repeats the contents of an earlier one:  articles
expire quickly at my site, and I don't remember whether this point has
been made before.

In article <6230@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>Thus spake 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard):
>>
>>As my article states, clearly, we were discussing why
>>Olerud is being platooned with Tabler.  
>
>It certainly sounded to me like you were suggesting that Gaston had a *good*
>reason for platooning Olerud, as opposed to just a reason.

I should point out here that Olerud was never in a full, Cox-style, platoon
with Tabler.  Earlier in the year, Cito rested Olerud against tough lefties
(Randy Johnson was one that I recall), but not all lefties.  He isn't doing
that as much anymore:  Tabler has had only 17 AB in the past
4 weeks, mostly in blowouts.  (To which I say "Amen and hallelujah".  :-))

Cito has never discussed his reason for resting Olerud.  Since he never
rests anyone else, my guess would be that he did this to keep pressure
off Olerud and build his confidence.  Olerud started slowly
in both 1991 and 1992; in 1991, Marty York of the Globe (may his
tribe decrease) called for the demotion of Olerud on an almost weekly basis.
(I stopped reading the Globe, so I don't know what he said this year.)

I don't know whether Cito's decision was the right one, but you've got to
give somebody credit (Cito or Olerud himself):  Olerud is a much improved
hitter.

[Parenthetical comment, not relevant to Dave Tate's posting:  how many
Cito-bashers are bashing Cito for not playing Olerud every day *and*
bashing him for not using his bench?  Enquiring minds want
to know...]

--Dave "John Olerud for MVP in 1995" Till
e-mail path:  dave@silver.sni.ca or dave@snitor.uucp
(or try dwtill@watyew.waterloo.edu)
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Monday, 28 Sep 1992 09:10:51 PST
From: Thomas Hyer <IOR@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Better than Runs

The heresy of the subject line is purely for purposes
of sensationalism, and I humbly apologize and disclaim
responsibility if it caused any reader to have seizures.

In seriousness:

  It is considered axiomatic here that pure Runs (however
measured) are the single meaningful parameter of offensive
preformance.  I don't think this is the case.

  Bunched runs are not worth _quite_ as much as single runs,
because they _intrinsically_ tend to come in games you'll
win anyway.  This is less important in the higher-scoring
Apostatic League, but still an important effect.

  One can calculate (by Monte Carlo) the (league-dependent)
value of an n-run inning, given the distribution of runs
scored per inning in the league.  If anyone has this data,
I'll be glad to run such a Monte Carlo.  Then we can start
worrying about how to incorporate the results into evaluation
of players.

Thomas Hyer             _____________________   Sometimes you're the
                       / Half the time, even \         windshield;
-S--L----A------C-----<  _I_ don't share my / \   sometimes
                       \    opinions.      /     you're the
                        -------------------     bug.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Net Runs Created - a new idea(?) - LONG
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:35:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.221331.1324@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> marc@yogi.austin.ibm.com (Marc J. Stephenson) writes:
>
>Okay, so it does look like the grand slam was
>worth more for the same event, that the batter is benefitting from a random
>situation; however, that same batter also is subject to higher penalties if
>he doesn't come through (a triple play would cost him -2.5 net runs).  

The only problem I have with this kind of stat is that the
high-leverage situations are *not* distributed randomly among all
batters.  A good player with lots of men on base in front of him will
have more Value Added than an equally good player (who is equally
clutch) who has less in front of him in the lineup.

>Gee, I dunno.  My guess is that Carter probably failed enough in those
>higher-leveraged situations to even things out, particularly in years past.

Well, that's only because Carter was (in 1990) very close to a
league-average batter.  *GOOD* hitters add value to the situation on
the average.  The total value added is proportional to the product of
the quality of the hitter and the leverage of the situations.

Cheers,
-Valentine
-- 
Make outs, not walks!					tedward@cs.cornell.edu
Clemens four Cy Young!