HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Subject: Re: US Open -- Monday results (spoilers)
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:41:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.155643.12323@src.umd.edu> clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles C. Lin) writes:
>Becker and Lendl.  Despite being a Lendl fan, I think I favor Becker.
>He looks more solid, and Lendl has had his troubles.  Lendl
>will need to play at a high level to beat Becker -- unless
>he can lull Becker into making errors.

You had good predictions on all men's matches except this one. We
Die-Hard Lendl fans don't lose faith so easily. Shame on you, infidel.
Do penance for 48 hours, or absolve yourself by predicting Lendl upsets
Edberg.  :-)

I have been dying to ask the Beckerheads: Why do they always blame his
losses to Agassi on staying at the baseline too much? Then, they
post claiming the "Best Shots" are : Forehand: Becker; Backhand: Becker;
Serve: Becker; etc. etc. ad nauseam.  If Becker has the best forehand
and backhand, then he should be able to beat Agassi consistently from
the baseline. So, what's the big deal? Are you implying that Becker is
not as strong on his groundstrokes as Agassi, Courier, Lendl, etc. ---
that he must not stay on the baseline against them? Seems to be a bit
of a contradiction in your postings.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)
From: shun@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (shun.cheung)
Subject: Washington-Leconte match suspended (Re: Men's Draw Updated)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 12:38:12 GMT

In article <lamhkkINN43o@news.bbn.com> adolce@bbn.com (Anne Dolce) writes:
>The Washington/Leconte match was suspended last night because
>of rain at about 11:00 PM.  Washington won the first set 6-4,
>Leconte was leading in the 2nd set 6-6(4-2).  Don't know if
>they finished.

Washington was up two sets to one: 6-4, 6-7 (2-7), 6-4, 4-3.

-- 
-- Shun Cheung,    electronic: shun.cheung@att.com    voice: (908) 615-5135
     HR 1A-304, AT&T Bell Labs, 480 Red Hill Road, Middletown, NJ, 07748 USA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: dlee@iti.gov.sg (Dennis Lee)
Subject: US Open SPOILERS: Men's 4R, Women's QF
Organization: Information Technology Institute, National Computer Board, Singapore.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:50:37 GMT

For the sake of non-Americans, here are the latest I've found out so far.


Men's 4R:
---------
Edberg(2) bt Krajicek(15) 6-4,6-7,6-3,3-6,6-4  *whew!*
Ferreira(10) bt Sanchez 3-1 (he dropped the second set, i forget the
score)

Women's QF:
-----------
MJ Fernandez(7) bt Sabatini(4) 6-2, 1-6, 6-4 (I think Gaby rested too long)
Seles(1) bt Hy 6-1,6-2 			     (end of big-killing Hy)

I still haven't heard the result of the much-anticipated Becker-Lendl

4th round clash.  From the results, I think we can take it that Edberg is

clearly *not* at his best, having to struggle through a 5-setter.  I
still pick Becker to get past Lendl, and if he does, Edberg has another 

acid test before reaching the semis, where he should get an easier
opponent, *if* he makes it.

Fernandez has never posed much of a threat to Seles, and Seles should

be able to make the final handily.  Finally, things are beginning to be 

slightly more predictable in the women's section, although there is probably

going to be a closely contested Graf-Sanchez matchup coming up,
before the final.


>Dennis.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Subject: Re: US Open - early Sunday results (spoilers)
Reply-To: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles C. Lin)
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:14:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.170901.24371@news.acns.nwu.edu>, fish@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Eric West) writes:
> 
> 	Don't forget MailVai Washington, who played for the University of
> Michigan and was ranked #1 in the NCAA before he turned pro in either 1989
> or 1990.  Seeded #14, he is definitely the most successful US college
> player in recent years.
> 

    Yes, next to Pernfors, who has pretty much gone downhill.
I just found out about Washington's career via Barry MacKay
of USA network who also attended U. of Michigan, though
many years ago.  Sorry about this omission.

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu
From: robrod@csa.bu.edu (Roberto Rodriguez)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Re: US Open Prize Money
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:38:30 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Sep14.173115.18911@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> stan@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Stanley Kim) writes:
>The US Open may be the richest tounament, but the ATP championships give
>the most prize money to the winner right?  Anyone know the actual amount?
>1 mil? 2 mil?

Didn't the Masters Tournament give something like 2 million to the
winner?  I recall Pete Sampras won it after the US Open back in '90.  At
that time he seemed undefeatable.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: shun@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (shun.cheung)
Subject: US OPEN Women's Singles Draw, round of 16
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 14:14:26 GMT

         1992 US Open Women's Singles Draw, round of 16

               Seles (1) --------+
                                 |--------+
            G. Fernandez --------+        |
                                          |--------+
             Sukova (13) --------+        |        |
                                 |--------+        |
                      Hy --------+                 |
                                                   |--------+
            Sabatini (4) --------+                 |        |
                                 |--------+        |        |
               Appelmans --------+        |        |        |
                                          |--------+        |
             Pierce (16) --------+        |                 |
                                 |--------+                 |
      M.J. Fernandez (7) --------+                          |
                                                            +--------> Champion
              Cunningham --------+                          |
                                 |--------+                 |
   Maleeva-Fragniere (9) --------+        |                 |
                                          |--------+        |
                   Rubin --------+        |        |        |
                                 |--------+        |        |
       Magdalena Maleeva --------+                 |        |
                                                   |--------+
     Sanchez-Vicario (5) --------+                 |
                                 |--------+        |
           Garrison (14) --------+        |        |
                                          |--------+
                   Labat --------+        |
                                 |--------+
                Graf (2) --------+


Only 9 out of the 16 seeds are left at this stage. That is quite
unusual for the more "predictable" women's tennis. However, recall
that only 8 seeds were left in the round of 16 at Wimbledon this year.
-- 
-- Shun Cheung,    electronic: shun.cheung@att.com    voice: (908) 615-5135
     HR 1A-304, AT&T Bell Labs, 480 Red Hill Road, Middletown, NJ, 07748 USA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: donna@bae.bellcore.com (Donna Feliciano)
Subject: Women's Tennis
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 18:16:40 GMT


I think people are right that Jennifer Capriati and Mary
Pierce need to learn more strategy.  But I disagree to
put Monica Seles in the same category.  She not only
hits the ball harder, but she plays a lot smarter than
the other two.  Sure, she doesn't go to the net, but she
has an idea of how to manipulate the other player around
the court.  And of course, she has the concentration and
the will to win like no other.

Mary Pierce is an interesting case.  She obviously hits 
with a lot of power.  But to me it seems like she feels
almost lost on the court - kind of the meek daughter
of an overbearing father.  I was at the Open last week
and I watched a full match of hers, and there is just
something missing.  I hope she finds it, because I do
like her overall as a player.

I'm hoping for a Steffi-Monica final.  I'd love to
see a third time in a grand slam final this summer.


Donna

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donna V. Feliciano                 email: donna@bae.bellcore.com
Bellcore                           Phone: (908) 699-2161
444 Hoes Lane Room RRC 4A741       FAX:   (908) 336-2828
Piscataway, NJ 08854
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: donna@attic.bae.bellcore.com (Donna Feliciano)
Subject: Re: US Open Questions
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 20:56:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.173106.27250@netnews.whoi.edu>, lhamre@mbl.edu writes:
|> I have two questions concerning this years US Open. 
|> 
|> First,  Does anyone know the meaning behind the yellow ribbons all the
|> players and announcers wore? 
|> 
|> Second,  what's the scoop with Andre Agassi and Barbara Streisand?  I seemed
|> to miss all the gossip.  I guess Iwas too busy enjoying all the great tennis 
|> to keep up on the other stuff.

This was a concoction of the media.  Agassi saw Prince of Tides and
liked it, so he called Barbra Streisand.  They became friends, so
he invited her to the open.  Andre has a girlfriend, who was 
prominently on display during the Courier match, the day after
all the Streisand gossip.

|> 
|> Thanks for the info.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donna V. Feliciano                 email: donna@bae.bellcore.com
Bellcore                           Phone: (908) 699-2161
444 Hoes Lane Room RRC 4A741       FAX:   (908) 336-2828
Piscataway, NJ 08854
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rodger_Madison@rand.ORG (Rodger Madison)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Re: Today's Matchups
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:35:12 GMT
Organization: The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California

In article <1992Sep9.142836.27096@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:

> Becker's serve 6 times versus only 2 breaks for Becker. The usual win for
> Lendl over Becker in a grand slam event.  :-)
> 

Is that an ironic smiley?  If not, you should check your history.  I think
this is the first time that Lendl has defeated Becker in a grand slam
event.

     Rodger
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: sgs@ucs.usl.edu (Sudhindranath SG)
Subject: Re: Lendl vs. Edberg ( final result )
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:33:25 GMT

In article <7d7y80=@rpi.edu> govindar@cs.rpi.edu (Ramakrishna Govindaraju) writes:
>
>Edberg beat Lendl. Final score:
>
>    6-3, 6-3, 3-6, 5-7, 7-6
                         ^^^

Can someone give the tie-breaker score ? 

Thanks in advance.

>
>-Rama.
>

Regards,

--Sudhi.

>-- 
>Rama Govindaraju			govindar@cs.rpi.edu 
>

-- 
*********************************************************************
Sira Gopinath Sudhindranath. 
email : sudhi@usl.edu, sgs@ucs.usl.edu
*********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Subject: RE: McEnroe doubles arguement ?
Reply-To: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles C. Lin)
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:20:02 GMT

   Mac had a dispute with Scott Davis.   It turns out that there
is bad blood between the two from prior meetings.   In the book,
Hard Courts, Davis played a prank on Vitas(?) by dropping a
water balloon near his vicinity.  Davis thought this was
amusing while Mac, who was nearby, did not, and proceeded
to start yelling at Davis.  The time of this may be about two
years ago.

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: faa@athena.cs.wayne.edu (Felicitas A. Atabong)
Subject: Re: Give A. Sanchez credit
Organization: Wayne State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:36:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.143333.27851@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> ede978e@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Robert D. Nicholson) writes:
>faa@athena.cs.wayne.edu (Felicitas A. Atabong) writes:
>
>for a very boring final since Seles will defeat who ever she plays now.  The
>only person who had a chance of defeating her was Graf. Unfortunately Steffi
>just had a bad day yesterday.  Just wait till Seles wins in straight sets
>in the final.  Its happened before 91 it will happen again.
>

And what if Steffi had a "bad" day on the day of the final and Seles
beat her in straight sets? Anybody in my opinion, deserves to win,
whether it be because their opponent was making errors or they were
making winners. They could have been making the errors themselves.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: huseby@mars.nr.no (Ragnar Bang Huseby)
Subject: Re: US Open SPOILERS: Men's 4R, Women's QF
Organization: /nr/pluto/u3/huseby/.organization
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 06:56:38 GMT

Lendl d. Becker 6-7 6-3 6-7 6-3 6-4
Chang d. Washington in 5v sets
From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Re: US Open Prize Money
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:02:04 GMT
Reply-To: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles C. Lin)
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park

In article <1992Sep15.142547.5052@walter.bellcore.com>, donna@bae.bellcore.com (Donna Feliciano) writes:
> In article <1992Sep15.021858.19076@src.umd.edu>, clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin) writes:
> |>    I'm not sure why there's so much money in tennis (compared
> |> to golf, for example), though the money is quite top-heavy.
> 
> You obviously have not looked at the prize money for golf!!!
> At the end of the year, at least 100 players are making MAJOR
> BUCKS!!!!!  I take golf over tennis for prize money anyday
> (especially if doubles isn't included).
> 

    Well, the last time I read about this (which was long ago),
the top ten players in tennis make more than the top ten in
golf.   However, those ranked in the 90's or 100's in golf
fared better than tennis.  It could also be much better since
I think one can stay pretty much in the US and still play lots
of tournaments, and hence cut down on expenses flying to other
countries.   It may be that golf has put more money in recent years
so that the top players are making over a million dollars, but
in the early eighties I recall reading that maybe one golfer was
above asy 500,000 dollars, and at the same time, five or six
tennis players made this much money.

   I could be wrong!

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu
From: rbhatnag@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Rajat Bhatnagar)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Re: What happened to Agassi/Courier Match?
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:50:07 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <20282@plains.NoDak.edu> sivaram@plains.NoDak.edu (Sivaram Hariharan ) writes:
>The title says it all
>
>S.H
>

 Courier bt Agassi in four sets.
-- 
********************************************************************************               ALL THAT IS NOT GIVEN IS LOST 
                                             - HASARI PAL
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles C. Lin)
Subject: US Open -- Monday results (spoilers)
Reply-To: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles C. Lin)
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:56:43 GMT

   Let's see.  The match between Sampras and Forget was split 6-3, 1-6
to Sampras, I believe.   Well, when they went off the air, they
may have missed a "dandy" (Tim Ryan's word -- Ryan is the lead
non-tennis player, announcer for CBS) match.  Forget took the third
set 6-1, before Sampras woke up, played solid tennis and won it
in 5.  I think the last two sets were 6-4, 6-3 with Sampras
breaking Forget to win the last set.  Sampras has a pretty good
record in five set matches where he has been down two sets to one.
I think he has only lost one out of 6, (twice in this year's US Open).
I would guess that Volkov will be an easy win.  Sampras supposedly
has a good record against him.

   The night match featured Agassi vs. Costa.  This was supposed to
be something of a test for Agassi, though Agassi was probably highly
favored as Costa's successes have been mainly on clay.  Still,
Costa had had easy early rounds.  Well, Agassi had another easy
match, winning 6-4, 6-3, 6-2, and seemed to overpower Costa,
who strangely enough had more winners than Agassi, though
a lot of errors to match.  He seemed to have difficulties with
his backhand.  I didn't pay so much attention to this match though.

   I think I misspelled(sp?) Carrie Cunningham's name as Kerry.
Ooops.

   Let's try my hand at predictions.  Agassi v. Courier.  Umm, this
is rather tough.  Courier is starting to play better, but Agassi
has also looked quite strong.  I think I would give it to Agassi
who has had pretty strong early rounds.  He is certainly in a 
better situation than when he met Courier at the French.  A
tough call.  Sampras v. Volkov.  Despite tough matches, Sampras
appears to be getting mentally tough to win these matches.  While
he may be tired, I think Sampras ought to win.

   Sanchez v. Ferreira.  I am impressed with Ferreira's groundies
though Sanchez can be a hard player to defeat.  I'll go with
Ferreira though.   Washington v. Chang.  I think this is the
hardest one to call.  They play a similar game, and Washington
has had pretty decent results lately.   I suppose I should go
with the higher seed, but I expect this to be close.  Becker
and Lendl.  Despite being a Lendl fan, I think I favor Becker.
He looks more solid, and Lendl has had his troubles.  Lendl
will need to play at a high level to beat Becker -- unless
he can lull Becker into making errors.

   Krajicek v. Edberg.  I would say Edberg since I've never really
seen Krajicek, but a good server can cause lots of problems,
as Ivanisevic has shown, and Krajicek serves one of the hardest
ones in tennis.

   We'll see how it goes.

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu


Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: bonacci@ecf.toronto.edu (BONACCI John)
Subject: Re: US Open - General Observations
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:28:35 GMT

Sigh.  I worry that I am an incorrect tennis fan.

In article <1992Sep10.151021.1328@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
>Amen. The people who aren't really tennis fans can probably turn off their
>TV sets and the rest of us can enjoy it.
>A general comment about TV sports.  The audience for big events tends to be
>composed largely of very casual fans who outnumber the serious, knowledgeable
>fans. 
[...subliminal backdooring deleted...]
>Similarly, when I watch Wimbledon or the U.S. Open, I am made painfully aware
>that I am badly outnumbered by people who only watch tennis twice a year.
>The ignorant masses of casual American fans are not watching, so we can talk
>about tennis between points.
>I have been meaning to post about the incredibly bad job done
>by the announcers.
[...somewhat highbrow opinion of tennis physics and other such deleted...]
>Classic behavior from an 8 year old boy, and unfortunately also from our
>little boy wonder tennis stars who never grew up. 
[...more stuff deleted...]
>So, now Agassi is a childish, sore loser. No surprise. His Wimbledon
>success will not likely be repeated.
[...more...]
>How is Marc Rosset enjoying the telecast, I wonder?

Whew.  I almost had to take a shower after this!  I sure hope I do not
have to subscribe to these almost-facist ideals in order to be granted
the privilege of subscribing to r.s.t or watching the remainder of the
Open.  Are there "universally correct" tennis players, or may I be allowed
to pull for Agassi without public disgrace?  If Edberg wins, because he
is pure, may I please be allowed to think that Sampras or Agassi might
again some day?  If I have liked Connors (for whatever reason) since he
popped on the scene, should I continue to do so only in private?

And I might also offer the humble suggestion that you derive amusement
rather than earth-shattering personal insult from the TV commentator's
occasional gaffes of varied significance (or turn the volume down and
do your own commentary).  Are they poor 95% of the time they speak?
80% ?  50 even?

We all probably have our opinions.  Obviously, I might have a few myself.
But I found the nazi undertone of you post a bit unsettling.

Have a beer man.  :-)

--
JB
"M or W?"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Subject: Re: The Future of Women's Tennis (Re: Chris Evert's picks)
Reply-To: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles C. Lin)
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:06:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.162457.18445@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, shun@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (shun.cheung) writes:
> 
> Yes or no, Graf beat Seles very easily at the Wimbledon final.
> While Seles was clearly off that day contributing to the one-sided
> result, there is no doubt in my mind that Graf is superior on grass.
> On the other hand, Seles had three very close matches at the
> French Open; she was down in the third sets again Kijimuta, Sabatina
> and Graf. Not that she didn't severve to win, but Seles had such an easy
> time at the US Open minaly because of all the upsets happening around her.
> I guess the bottom line is that it is very hard to win the Grand Slam.

   Definitely, though it seems you need a Graf or a Capriati on
a good day to beat Seles.   Nevertheless, even if Seles had to
come back from one set down and 5-0, and ten match points down
in every match she played, but won all four Grand Slam events,
it wouldn't matter how she won it, she would have still
accomplished the feat.  I think she was as close as Martina
trying to win a Grand Slam (who also won three Grand Slam
events in two consecutive years).

   Despite the proliferation of power, both Fernandez and Sanchez-
Vicario don't have the same kind of power game that Seles does.
Seles still hits harder and more consistently hard than
either player.  Fernandez and Sanchez-Vicario both used power,
but also had to mix things up because Seles is still much better
at it than they are, and I thought, despite the lopsided scores,
the matches were entertaining.  I think some power will always
have to be in the game, but thinking does help.  You may have
all the variety in the world, but power can blunt that and
can blunt strategy, or more precisely, the execution of the
strategy.   It's sad, but it seems to be true.

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu

Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
From: ede978e@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Robert D. Nicholson)
Subject: Re: US Open - Men's finals (spoilers)
Organization: Monash University, Caulfield Campus
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 01:30:05 GMT

Did anybody think that the cock-up with the microphone soured
the victory a bit.  (The crowed couldn't here a word they said)
From: adolce@bbn.com (Anne Dolce)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Doubles Update
Date: 9 Sep 1992 13:11:24 GMT
Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: spcsun24.bbn.com

Men's Quarter-Finals
--------------------
  Jones/Leach(4) d. Evernden/Layendecker
  Woodbridge/Woodforde(1) d. Eltingh/Haarhuis


Women's 3rd Round
-----------------
  Sanchez-Vicario/Sukova(2) d. Fairbank-Nideffer/Magers
  Fendick/Strnadova(8) d. Meskhi/Reinach
  Novotna/Savchencho-Neiland(1) d. Paz/Martinez


Anne
----
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis