From: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Subject: Re: US Open - General Observations
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:35:07 GMT

In article <BuDnFn.9rL@ecf.toronto.edu> bonacci@ecf.toronto.edu (BONACCI John) writes:
>Sigh.  I worry that I am an incorrect tennis fan.

No, actually you seem worried that I am an incorrect tennis fan, and thus you
feel the need to overreact to my criticisms and try to silence them with
various bizarre political accusations --- "nazi", "facist" (your misspelling,
not mine), etc.

>
>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 typical comment from my post. I was referring to the fact that there are
large numbers of teenybopper fans of Andre Agassi who don't really care
about tennis, and will now ignore the rest of the tournament. I think this
is an accurate observation.  Many of the interviews I saw with his female
teenage fans a few years ago indicated that they knew nothing of tennis and
would really rather have Andre be a rock musician.  This does not preclude
the possibility that there are many Agassi fans who do not fall into this
category, and I would hope they are even the vast majority. Yet my comment
that we will likely be left with tennis fans (as opposed to teenybopper
idol worshippers) is still accurate, in my opinion.

To conclude that "Now that Andre is out, a lot of people who aren't really
tennis fans will turn off their TVs" means that all Agassi fans are not
really tennis fans is just your own bad logic. Don't project your bad logic
onto my words. Similarly, to observe that Connors has become a non-tennis
phenomenon to a large extent  --- that there are many people who are more
interested in the angle about him being 40 years old and still playing ---
does not imply that all fans of Connors fall into that category.  There are
obviously many fans of Connors who were fans of his many years ago, and
their interest in him has little or nothing to do with his age.  I never
said otherwise.

>>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.

Do you dispute my characterization of Agassi's remarks as being those of
a sore loser?  I think others commented quite often about Connors and
Chuck Adams in the same respect.  My standards of sportsmanship say that
it is poor sportsmanship to try to minimize your opponent's accomplishment
in beating you by saying, "Well, I think he is going to get killed in the
next round" or "He isn't as good as he used to be" or similar remarks. Do
you claim this is good sportsmanship? If you agree that it isn't, what's
your problem with my statement?

>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? 

Please explain this paranoid conclusion.  I criticize a segment of Agassi's
fans as not being tennis fans, but just teenybopper star gazers, and then
criticize him for being a sore loser because of his remarks after the
Courier match.  You then conclude that you are not "allowed" to pull for
Agassi?  I believe other Agassi fans also were disappointed at his remarks,
as well as his on-court behavior.  Criticism of his behavior --- and of the
obviously different composition of his fandom --- is what seems
to not be allowed --- by you.

> If Edberg wins, because he
>is pure, may I please be allowed to think that Sampras or Agassi might
>again some day? 

I made a prediction that Agassi will not repeat his success at Wimbledon.
How does this constitute you not being allowed to think that he will in fact
win 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?

If I wish to point out that Connors is a sore loser, and that many of his
fans today are only interested in him as a 40 year old curiosity, am I
"allowed to do so" in public? Of course. And you and others are allowed
to disagree.

In the political newsgroups, you often see this kind of hypersensitive
paranoia.  Someone posts, someone else disagrees strongly, then the first
poster claims that they are being censored and not allowed to think such
and such, etc.  Very immature.

>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.

The use of words like "nazi" to discuss opinions about tennis matches and
TV audiences is quite a bit more unsettling than the opinions themselves.

Obviously, you should have taken that shower rather than posting your ill
logic, psychobabble and politically charged drivel.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis