From: guillory@crhc.uiuc.edu (Stanford Guillory)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Re: US Open - General Observations
Date: 13 Sep 1992 00:46:48 -0500
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: bach.crhc.uiuc.edu

clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.212924.12977@news2.cis.umn.edu> Anne Bilek <anne@boombox.micro.umn.edu> writes:
>>
>>Your suspicions betray you.  I found your first posting objectionable
>>because you seemed to want to hierarchize tennis fans, placing yourself
>>in the top hierarchy, of course.  Here you are saying that there are
>>"hard core" fans (read: the superior fan), the "occasional" fan, and the
>>lumpish proletariat.

>Not at all. In fact, I stated specifically that I don't "look down" on
>the nonplaying, infrequent viewers any more than I would expect to be
>looked down upon by those who are hard core fans of baseball or some
>other sport. I said that not everyone can be a hard core fan of every

And just how much is that?

>nontrivial facts --- they don't take up much time.  Doubles coverage is
>another story. I speculated that the nonplaying viewers would not be
>interested, and gave them partial blame, along with the TV people. I also
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^******

Blame?!?! You don't look down on these people, but you blame
them for your not receiving doubles coverage? 

>gave such viewers partial blame for the Monica/Madonna fluff pieces.

Excuse me, but what right do you have to doubles coverage if you
resent the "fluff" that so many others want?

Let me tell you something. I am an avid fan of baseball, basketball,
football, and tennis. However, I know MUCH more about my favorite
TENNIS player (due to "fluff" pieces) than I know about my favorite
player in the other sports. I DON'T  EVEN have a favorite player
in the other sports, due to lack of fluff pieces.

Tennis coverage is not going to resolve to your image.
It is not going to resolve to my image. 
Thank God for that.

>I think it is a fair assessment that such pieces are run because of the
>judgment of their audience by the TV programmers.  It is also possible

Given that this is a general criticism of the entire Television
industry, how could you possibly think that a low revenue area
such as tennis could present a relevant criticism?

>disdain gossip about whether Monica was pregnant last year, etc., and
>am not likely to apologize for that disdain.

Sorry to be picky, but this particular rumour was due to the
tabloid British press, and NOT the broadcast tennis "establishment".

>The idea that my hard core fans category is "better" than my weekend
>players who aren't trivia nuts category is entirely a figment of your
>imagination, however. I did not place any value judgments on those two
>levels of the hierarchy, nor did I say that the second level was somehow
>to blame for what I don't like in the telecasts. Just the opposite. I
    ^^^^^

I will assume, based on your earlier use of the word "blame", that
this disclaimer is just a mistake and not a lie.

>some of the most educated and cultured members of their country (the
>Jews) and got their support from the Germanic peons who were resentful

Are you just assuming they were the most educated and cultured members
of the country because they were Jews? They also attacked Gypsys?!?

** Oh, I'm sorry, this is r.s.t.

>Believe me, these are not high brow people in general.  Even if they

Gee, I think that is a direct quote of Hitler. Do you
get it?

>|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)

Stan
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis