Boris (Boom Boom) Becker is sent to the hole

[Softball Bat]

30 month sentence, of which 15 is mandatory.

Yikes!

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61276378







Former #1 player in the world
Youngest Wimbledon champion ever (17, 1985)
6 grand slam titles (won all of them except the French)

Boris has had many troubles, particularly money related, since retiring from the sport.
Was nearly sent to the hole before, but was rescued.

But not this time.



He also once infamously impregnated a waitress in a broom closet after having just met her 5 minutes earlier.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/ ... ooks.sport

Boom Boom Becker :)




Hopefully you'll come out a better man, Boris.

I know you read this board.

[L45B]

This was as close to a sweep as Boris was going to get, as he couldn’t get it done against Edberg at Wimbledon in the 80s :P

Did his illegitimate daughter grow up to be Sasha Zverev?

[Softball Bat]

haha!

[Screw_Michigan]

Boris is a tool who is getting exactly what he deserves. Douchebag has faced few to zero consequences his entire charmed life. The dude is a tax cheat and almost broke, but yet women half his age still spread their legs for him after five minutes chatting. Hope he enjoys his time in the hole and I hope his current piece of ass keeps herself moist waiting for him to be released.

Fuck Boris Becker

[Softball Bat]

Steffi Graf's father also spent time in the German hole for financial crimes.

[Carson]

Even Greece knows to pay back a German loan.

https://www.euronews.com/2022/04/05/gre ... e-minister

[L45B]

Broom Broom Haiku:

Dude could serve it up.

He has trouble returning.

Just can’t get a break.

[Softball Bat]

NoVax is heartbroken over his former coach being sent to -----> the hole!









SM, on the other hand, is...










Stay well, Boom Boom.

I'm here for you!

[LTS TRN 2]

Free the original Boomer. Fuck the German puritanical hit squad of mechanistic morality, the bureaucratic minutiae made into an art form. They should be dedicating public squares to him, not gnawing him for taxes--and slamming him like common car-jacker who'd get the same sentence.

What a great champ--and really in the discussion for top ten all-time (or rather, so far). And that list includes necessarily Rod Laver, and too includes the great trio of Connors, Borg, and McEnroe. And of course the current triumvirate, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Sampras is in by virtue of his gaudy Grand Slam haul. And that leaves two. So...Agassi, Lendl, Becker, and Wilander..and (Dick) Enberg? Well among those four contenders for the final two slots it's clearly Agassi and Lendl, but Boris had so much and brought such glory to Germany that you'd think they'd have some gratitude. But no, the perverse and pernicious Woke mob is insatiable in its hunting hatred of straight white men. They also jailed Steffi Graff's dad for the same bullshit. They hate themselves--the entire Left is a grotesque mental disorder manifesting itself everywhere it can, like virus--a real one. :wink:

[Softball Bat]

I posted this list at Stucknut about 5 years ago...


Top 10 male tennis champions of the last 50 years, imo

10. Mats Wilander - 7 slam titles, B. Becker and S. Edberg were considered for this spot
9. A. Agassi - Sampras' top rival, 8 slam wins, career slam
8. J. Connors - the Pete Rose of tennis, electric
7. I. Lendl - 8 straight U.S. Open finals
6. J. McEnroe - gifted, high-strung artist, greatest doubles player ever
5. N. Djokovic - racked up 12 grand slam titles, career slam
4. B. Borg - 5 straight Wimbledon wins, 6 French titles
3. R. Nadal - leads Federer head-to-head, 10 French titles, career slam
2. P. Sampras - dominant, 7 Wimbledon and 5 U.S. Open titles - zero French finals
1. R. Federer - most slams, career slam, best all-around player, imo

Becker and Edberg might be 11 and 12.


If I *updated* this, Djokovic would move -----> UP.
Nadal might move ahead of Sampras (maybe), but I would still rate Federer #1.
I think his best was better than anyone else on the list, except he would have had a helluva time beating Pete at Wimbledon when Sampras was in his prime. That serve was as tough as tough can be.
Federer had the greatest forehand I have ever seen, and there have been a lot of great forehands in tennis history.


Of course there are many players from the "pre-modern era" who would be considered strongly for a top 10 all-time list.

R. Laver, B. Tilden, D. Budge, J. Kramer, P. Gonzales, and others.

[LTS TRN 2]

I posted this list at Stucknut about 5 years ago...


Top 10 male tennis champions of the last 50 years, imo

10. Mats Wilander - 7 slam titles, B. Becker and S. Edberg were considered for this spot
9. A. Agassi - Sampras' top rival, 8 slam wins, career slam
8. J. Connors - the Pete Rose of tennis, electric
7. I. Lendl - 8 straight U.S. Open finals
6. J. McEnroe - gifted, high-strung artist, greatest doubles player ever
5. N. Djokovic - racked up 12 grand slam titles, career slam
4. B. Borg - 5 straight Wimbledon wins, 6 French titles
3. R. Nadal - leads Federer head-to-head, 10 French titles, career slam
2. P. Sampras - dominant, 7 Wimbledon and 5 U.S. Open titles - zero French finals
1. R. Federer - most slams, career slam, best all-around player, imo

Becker and Edberg might be 11 and 12.


If I *updated* this, Djokovic would move -----> UP.
Nadal might move ahead of Sampras (maybe), but I would still rate Federer #1.
I think his best was better than anyone else on the list, except he would have had a helluva time beating Pete at Wimbledon when Sampras was in his prime. That serve was as tough as tough can be.
Federer had the greatest forehand I have ever seen, and there have been a lot of great forehands in tennis history.


Of course there are many players from the "pre-modern era" who would be considered strongly for a top 10 all-time list.

R. Laver, B. Tilden, D. Budge, J. Kramer, P. Gonzales, and others.

Laver is in regardless, but Wilander over Becker for the final slot? No, because Becker beat Wilander seven out of ten head to head matches.

As for your ranking of the top ten, this is your typical idiocy. Merely tallying the top ten is all that's asked. Boris is top ten.

[Softball Bat]

I don't put up a big protest if Becker is #10 instead of Wilander.
Boris is one of the all-time greats.

I would note, however, that 6 of Boris' wins over Wilander were indoor.
And 5 of those 6 were on carpet (fast surface).
Pretty big surface advantage to Becker right there.

Outdoor, Wilander won 3 of 4 vs. Boom Boom, and Boris never won a set off Mats on clay.

[Screw_Michigan]

Every single tennis court I saw in Buenos Aires was clay. Doesn't really apply to your thread, just throwing it out there.

[LTS TRN 2]

I don't put up a big protest if Becker is #10 instead of Wilander.
Boris is one of the all-time greats.

I would note, however, that 6 of Boris' wins over Wilander were indoor.
And 5 of those 6 were on carpet (fast surface).
Pretty big surface advantage to Becker right there.

Outdoor, Wilander won 3 of 4 vs. Boom Boom, and Boris never won a set off Mats on clay.

But greatness isn't just about tallying majors, but bringing something great to the game. And while Wilander was a model of robotic consistency, his game was perhaps the most boring and methodical in history, while Becker's was brilliant and exciting on any surface. By this metric I'd put Edberg ahead of Wilander as well.

[Softball Bat]

Becker - Edberg, WIlander


Tough call.

You can make a case for any of the three.

[Softball Bat]

Every single tennis court I saw in Buenos Aires was clay. Doesn't really apply to your thread, just throwing it out there.

Same here in Korea. Very few hard courts.
Clay is THE surface in much of the world.

[Screw_Michigan]

Same here in Korea. Very few hard courts.
Clay is THE surface in much of the world.

Why do you think that is? Easier on the legs and knees? Cheaper surface? Seems like it would cost more to maintain, hence why so many hard courts in cheap ass America.

[Left Seater]

Same here in Korea. Very few hard courts.
Clay is THE surface in much of the world.

Why do you think that is? Easier on the legs and knees? Cheaper surface? Seems like it would cost more to maintain, hence why so many hard courts in cheap ass America.

Cheaper surface for sure. It is similar to why soccer is played the world over. No infrastructure needed.

[LTS TRN 2]

First distinguish between red clay and the green Har-Tru clay, which plays faster and is much more common. I imagine in Argentina it's mostly red clay. And yes it's much more expensive and labor intensive for maintenance.

[Softball Bat]

Same here in Korea. Very few hard courts.
Clay is THE surface in much of the world.

Why do you think that is? Easier on the legs and knees? Cheaper surface? Seems like it would cost more to maintain, hence why so many hard courts in cheap ass America.

Cheaper surface for sure. It is similar to why soccer is played the world over. No infrastructure needed.

Yes.
Hard courts are more expensive to construct.

Clay is cheaper to construct, but most often these clay courts all over the place are not in good condition.

To be truly playable, a clay court needs to be put down right -- and they require steady maintenance after that.
Otherwise you get too many bad/uneven bounces, or the court is too dry and slippery.

[LTS TRN 2]

Why do you think that is? Easier on the legs and knees? Cheaper surface? Seems like it would cost more to maintain, hence why so many hard courts in cheap ass America.

Cheaper surface for sure. It is similar to why soccer is played the world over. No infrastructure needed.

Yes.
Hard courts are more expensive to construct.

Clay is cheaper to construct, but most often these clay courts all over the place are not in good condition.

To be truly playable, a clay court needs to be put down right -- and they require steady maintenance after that.
Otherwise you get too many bad/uneven bounces, or the court is too dry and slippery.

You disgusting faggot, shut the fuck up. You've never played tennis, baseball, or even lawn darts--aiming subconsciously at your fucked up mother...

Stop pretending to know about sports or anything. Of all the idiots tapping in to this palsied forum, the Christer of course is the most robustly and rompingly obtuse.

[Softball Bat]

Triggered much?


I played serious competitive tennis from age 11 to age 40.
I worked as a teaching pro for almost 20 years.

And I met many "Abraham's" along the way. :)


I do know about tennis, 'tard.

[Left Seater]

Yes.
Hard courts are more expensive to construct.

Clay is cheaper to construct, but most often these clay courts all over the place are not in good condition.

To be truly playable, a clay court needs to be put down right -- and they require steady maintenance after that.
Otherwise you get too many bad/uneven bounces, or the court is too dry and slippery.

Sure. Assuming they are being maintained at all. But most people aren't that tuned into an uneven bounce.

[LTS TRN 2]

Triggered much?


I played serious competitive tennis from age 11 to age 40.
I worked as a teaching pro for almost 20 years.

And I met many "Abraham's" along the way. :)


I do know about tennis, 'tard.

I seriously doubt that. And why do you have a possessive apostrophe for "Abraham"? Something about your chirpy nonsense sets off a bullshit detector.

[Softball Bat]

I seriously doubt that. And why do you have a possessive apostrophe for "Abraham"?

Yeah, I butchered that one.
Should have consulted with Dinsdale.


Thank you, Roach!

[Softball Bat]

Sasha Zverev

Is IN to the Madrid finals.

He will square off against 18 year old C. Alcaraz, who has just beaten Nadal and Djokovic back-to-back.

Hopefully the youngster won't wear himself out before the French Open, because he's got a realistic shot at claiming his first (he'll win numerous) major there.

[Go Coogs']

In your opinion, Poptart, are the big 3’s GS wins inflated? I think Nadal and Djoc both are sitting on 21 and Federer at 19?

Are they the 3 greatest tennis players of all-time? Or if Borg didn’t get burned out and stuck with it well into his mid 30s, would he be the best ever? Or is he the best ever regardless?

I think Nadal is the best of the big 3 because of his dominance on clay versus other greats. He was seen as a specialist and eventually evolved into a great player on all surfaces.

Djoc is goi g to pass him up and own the GS title count for a very long time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Softball Bat]

Good questions, Rumps.

Nadal has the most slams now, 21.
Federer and Djokovic each have 20.

A case for Nadal being the greatest ever can surely be made.
Nadal leads Federer 24-16 head-to head, and Djokovic leads Nadal head-to-head 30-28.


How did only these three guys win nearly every major title for like, 15 years?
Were they all that great, or was the rest of the field just lacking in comparison to past eras?

This can be debated.


An emphasis on winning the majors was not really a huge thing until the mid-80's, when more players began to go to the Aussie Open.
Prior to that, despite it being a major, many players did not make the trip there.
Too inconvenient, and winning majors was not such a huge thing.

Some players were also not going to the French Open prior to around the mid-80's.


So consider, Roy Emerson held the most majors (12) up until the year 2000, when Sampras passed him.
Pete got up to 14, and pretty much nobody could have imagined that in the very next era we would have three guys absolutely shatter that mark.
Each of them (Roger, Rafa, Djoker) with 20 slams.


Borg won 5 straight Wimbledons and 6 French Opens, which was incredible for that time.
He is the 2nd best clay court player ever, behind Nadal.

On my list in this thread, I have Borg as #4 or 5 in the modern era.
He would have won more slams if he had not burned out.
But... he was toast, and that's that.

I think Borg turned pro at 15, so he actually played on the tour for 11 years.
And prior to that he was traveling the world playing major junior events.
And in his era, guys were not winning majors after age 30. It was rare that it happened.
I think he also saw the writing on the wall -- that McEnroe was younger and was passing him by, and that was unpleasant for Bjorn.
So he retired early, but not that early, if you consider other factors.

These days that players are SO fit, and they have managed to still be playing very high level over age 35.
So the "big three" of this era have a very inflated number of major titles compared to previous eras.

[L45B]

Technology has unfortunately made the modern men’s game pretty one-dimensional and in my opinion one of the reasons for a less challenging field of players going up against the current Big 3.

The serve-and-volley / chip’n charge mentality has virtually vanished. When I was a kid, every pro was teaching to finish the point at the net (even on fucking clay), that is nowhere near to be seen on the ATP tour now.

It would be interesting to hand each of the Big 3 a Wilson Pro Staff 85 and put them up against a Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Rafter in their primes. On grass. Even on a hard court. I think the competition would be more balanced.

[Softball Bat]

Great post.
I couldn't agree more.

I know it sounds like I am old, yell at the clouds guy, but the game was much better when wood racquets were being used.
Much more variety of play and contrast of various styles.

Now, pretty much everyone plays the same basic game.
Monster serve and relentlessly beat the shit out of the forehand.

Strength and conditioning is valued much more now than guile and skill.
Not to say guile and skill is completely absent, but it has greatly diminished.

[Go Coogs']

Eh…I think Nadal looks brilliant on clay in any era, but I agree with you the strategy is not there like it was. Especially with US men.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[L45B]

Yes Nadal on clay in any era, of course. His game is timeless for Roland Garros. Though certainly fun to think about how he would have matched up against Borg, Lendl, Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Guga in their primes on the red dirt.

But sorry, no way a guy like Nadal is supposed to win multiple Wimbledons from the baseline against the best net players of the last 30-40 years.

But Bat said it perfectly. The guys of today are super beast athletes whereas I consider the best of the 70s/80/90s eras to be more craftsman like. I think Federer is the closest to that age of the modern best. Still, Jimmy Connors making a major semifinals at 39 was considered miraculous at the time, it is not the same today.

[LTS TRN 2]

While ranking the top ten all-time is far too subjective, as well as relying on hypotheticals such as if they had the same gear or were all in their prime, it can be safely posited that the current big three are the top three, regardless of the ranking between them. The case can be made for each to be the GOAT.

[Softball Bat]

it can be safely posited that the current big three are the top three, regardless of the ranking between them.

I am not 100% sure of this.


Laver won the grand slam twice, and none of the three big dogs of this era has won it even once.

Sampras and Borg would give the current trio major fits, especially depending on the surface.

For example, Pete would get the nod over Nadal on both grass and on indoor carpet, right?
That's 2 of the four surfaces (clay, grass, outdoor hard, indoor carpet).

Let's consider McEnroe for a moment.
Won 52 doubles titles. How many have the big 3 won?
Mac won 9 majors in doubles. How many have the big 3 won?

McEnroe led the U.S. to 5 Davis Cup wins? What about the big 3?
He holds U.S. records for most singles wins (41) and total wins, singles and doubles (59).
The big 3?
Not diiddly poo.


Th current guys have great longevity and have racked up many majors.
But it is a different world now than in the past.

They are all great, don't get me wrong, and you might actually be right -- they could be the 3 greatest ever.
But there are things to consider.

[Softball Bat]

I'd say he and Djoker are co-favorites to win at Roland-Garros this year.

Nadal is a little dinged up -- and age might have finally caught up with him.

[L45B]

I'd say he and Djoker are co-favorites to win at Roland-Garros this year.

Nadal is a little dinged up -- and age might have finally caught up with him.

Bingo. Nadal may very well never get back to his near invincible form at RG. I feel like these last few injuries have really taken its toll.

Djoker just won Rome, dispatching Tsitsipas in straights. He’s now the favorite in Paris by far. Too bad Thiem has taken such a step backwards, I felt like he was the next guy up on the clay a few years back but hasn’t gotten his game back to even top 100 form.

Alcaraz could definitely pull it off. He has the game and the confidence and the recent wins / titles to make it happen at any major. But the red dirt always suits the Spaniards well.

A few others to watch out for who have been peaking lately: Rublev, Davidovich-Fokina, Baez. I don’t think an American will see the second week but hope I’m wrong. :?

[LTS TRN 2]

Medvedev is the most serious threat for the big three as well as all the other 6'6" guys who are now the norm. His game is sick--a term I don't toss around lightly. Any surface, it's like a hurricane overwhelming everything in its path. And he's possessed of an iron will, nerves of steel, and balls of brass.

[Softball Bat]

I agree, Medvedev is also a threat at Roland-Garros.
He could beat anyone.
But I don't think clay is his best surface.

[L45B]

Better worded, I would say clay is his worst surface. He’s talented enough to win at RG, no doubt, but I think he would need a good draw and a way to avoid Spanish and Argentinian dudes early on.

He needs a Robin Soderling type of guy to clear the way for him. :wink:

[LTS TRN 2]

I think he loves clay, much in the manner of Jim Courier in bringing a straight up power game to the slow redness of it all. He's perfectly comfortable staying back all day, but he can also swoop in behind one of those pile driver backhands anytime he wants.