« Guns As Lazy Drama | Main | What Are the Vocal Ranges? (Music Notes) »

Sunday, 16 July 2023

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

>>I happen to know that he watched Get Smart and The Man from U.N.C.L.E. when we were kids, though.

As all the kids our age did. And Lost in Space.

Everything is available on the internet. And you obviously have an internet connection. Just do a search.

I have nothing but a Samsung Galaxy S21 plus 5G phone and have no problem watching whatever I want. This ain’t rocket science.

You can download the ESPN+ app on your phone right now, and watch the finals “live”. Then cancel your subscription before 30 days. Small price to pay for what obviously is a passion of yours. BTW, I was an avid tennis player in my youth. Got to play with both Rod Laver and Roy Emerson at the Greenwich Field Club. It was the only club near Forest Hills which had grass courts, so they’d spend the week before practicing at our club. Our tennis pro would always pair them up with the best young players at the club. It was a blast for me being a 15-16 year old aspiring tennis player.

I'm about your age and for the life of me, I couldn't give up television. I'm not a couch potato and I don't "veg" out in my La-z-boy in front of my T.V., but I think about the world events breaking in real time that I watched live, 9/11, Jan 6th, etc, and I wouldn't be able to not hit my remote and see these events. I guess for those that care, major sports events would fall into this same category.

I know I'm in the minority against younger people. I'm forever seeing articles online like, "How to watch 'Better Call Saul'. I don't get it, just go to AMC... it's not complicated.

In the immortal words of that great philosopher, Homer Simpson: "Television, it gives so much and asks so little."

If you want to watch something, stream it on your computer.

You do in fact have a television: you used it to type this article. Perhaps final is not streamed live in US? Just checked and certainly is in UK.

In 2000, during a major move, I decided to part ways with my TV. However, when I planned a trip to Iceland for a few weeks, I entrusted my son with the responsibility of caring for my house and pets, including five dogs and one cat. Since he lived in a college dorm, he agreed to do it on the condition that I purchase a TV for him. With that in mind, we headed to Best Buy, where he selected a TV that he then mounted above the fireplace.

Fast forward to today, and the TV still holds its place on the wall after more than two decades. Over time, I have discovered various ways to utilize it, listed in order of popularity: #1, a fish aquarium screensaver for when I'm reading in its dimly lit room; #2, for watching baseball; and #3, for accessing YouTube.

Given the amount of time I spend on work-related tasks on my computer, I find it more comfortable to relax in my recliner and enjoy YouTube videos from the wall, not the computer screen.

As far as tennis goes, I do not believe we had that at my high school, and forget about sports lessons when I was growing up--would not happen. I played softball well but was more into the arts.

Sorry. I am reading your emphasis on the "real" Grand Slam as some sort of statement about the greatness of past athletes compared to today.

So I must argue against this assertion.

I cannot find it but...
There was an article that pointed out that speed records for various running distances (100m, 400m, etc.) have been getting faster not because of improved training or better nutrition but simply because of the increase in the number of people getting the opportunity to compete in running.

The essential point is that the athletes of the past were not the best EVER simply because it is highly unlikely, given equal opportunity, that they were even the best in the world during their own time period.

How many Serbians and Spaniards (don't forget players from China and the East Block) got meaningful opportunities to compete in tennis during the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s?

The essence of this is that basic statistics point to the fact that is is unbelievably improbable that the top 100 players from 1938 were as good as the top 100 players from today. If Budge didn't have to go through the same quality competition in EVERY match, how could he legitimately be compared favorably to the best of today.

["I am reading your emphasis on the "real" Grand Slam as some sort of statement about the greatness of past athletes compared to today. So I must argue against this assertion."

Your comment is a nice illustration of "The Straw Man Argument," in which you set someone up in order to knock them down. I could write on your topic, but I didn't in this post. --Mike]

For all those who take great satisfaction in not having a TV and seemed to feel superior to those who do have one, sorry, but there are things to watch that are worth one's time. And, no, streaming it on your computer, iPad or phone is a dull replica of a large screen with decent sound. Tonight I had the chance to watch the documentary on Little Richard. I always knew what a great he was, but never realized the tortured life he endured as a black gay man who really was the original RnR megastar. I read often, but there are certainly worthy movies and events on TV not limited to great sporting events.

[You're imputing motives to me that aren't there. I quit watching TV mainly because I really dislike commercials and just got sick and tired of having them inflicted on me all the time. If you want to accuse me of feeling tortured by endless commercials, then guilty as charged. --Mike]

Couple of corrections:
1. It is spelt "Rafael" Nadal.
2. Roger Federer has won the French Open only once.
Cheers!

[Thanks! Fixed now. --Mike]

Federer has only 2 French titles [actually one, as several readers corrected me —MJ] because he was the exact contemporary of the best clay court player ever. He has 4 second place finishes to Nadal. Some players had a surface they couldn't play on, like Sampras couldn't do anything on clay. Federer was good on them all, just not quite as good on clay as an all timer.

I also wanted to watch the final and I do have a tv, but for some reason it was relegated to ESPN instead of network tv.

For the sake of correctness, Federer has only won the French once, in 2009.

[Thanks! Fixed now. --Mike]

Speed, power and youth are difficult to overcome even for the great Djokovic. He still does it most often but this Alcaraz kid has the talent at the highest level to go along with the aforementioned attributes. When you give up nearly 16.5 years, savvy can only go so far. Of course, the game has changed dramatically over the last 20+ years. Champions of the past were often produced via the surface played. There were many great grand slam winners that never sniffed a Wimbledon because they did not have the serve and volley game needed to win. All you have to do is look at the grass courts and the wear pattern. There is virtually no wear at the net and has not been for quite a long time. Probably since the "big three" Federer, Nadal and Djokovic ruled the tennis world. In the past, there was hardly any wear at the baseline. I am not sure these three guys could have dominated as they have in past eras. All the professionals play essentially the same game today regardless of surface. Those three just happened to be better than everyone else. Nadal's game is made for clay and his French Open titles speak to that. He also has a couple of Wimbledon titles but that would have never happened in prior generations. He does not have a grass court game. Only Borg navigated the difficult task of red clay to grass with multiple consecutive years of winning both tournaments. Not likely to ever happen again.

"the problem with TV is that you buy one so you can watch the Super Bowl, but then three weeks later you find yourself watching a rerun of 'Bewitched' at two o'clock in the morning."

Fair enough, Mike, but surely the problem of endless distraction is far worse on the internet, which has so many more distractions, available at the click of a mouse?

Wouldn't it be safe to assume that whatever meager capacity we have built up, by now, to resist being distracted while online is more than sufficient for us to resist the temptations of TV sitcom reruns, late at night, should we choose to return to watching TV?

Your second footnote (about your cousin, Lou) reminded me of the tenacity of this student athlete at Gustavus Adophus College in St. Peter, MN.

https://homepages.gac.edu/~kranking/DigitalHistory/Biographies/Gibbs_Hall.html

https://www.tablotv.com/

The most amazing statistic from this match? Alcaraz's grandfather is younger than me.....

I'm with you on TV, it's such a passive thing. I watched a fair bit of it when growing up, though less than many of my friends, but when I moved out I never bought one. I prefer the radio for company and I detest adverts. My wife was very sick in early pregnancy, incredibly bored and desperate so I caved in and bought the smallest portable TV I could find (14"). It was also handy when the kids were small but viewing time was limited.

Nowadays the other 3 spend far too many hours on their smartphones. I refuse to have one of those too, I call them 'toy computers'. Our 19" TV hasn't been used for 2 or 3 years or more so I put it away and cancelled the direct debit for the TV licence (£159 p.a.).

Whenever I check the listings I struggle to find anything of interest as so much of it is repeats, ghastly reality TV, old ideas rehashed or cliche-ridden 'comedy'. There are some fine nature documentaries but I try to experience my semi-rural version of the natural world first hand instead.

Nope, there's no image or sound quality advantage to watching directly on the TV (not inherently). One can stream from one's computer or phone to the big TV screen (or you might have a bigger monitor on your computer than you have a TV screen for that matter), and the image and sound will be the same in that case to originating it at the TV (the sound goes in digital from over the HDMI cable to the TV and then is handled however the TV sound is handled).

I hope you saw the post match interview:

https://youtu.be/JpE_mAuzU1c

The retirement of Federer has been somewhat depressing for me, but this kid Alcaraz is special.

Speaking of "brash up-and-comer," I'll never forget the 1990 U.S. Open, when 19-year old Pete Sampras stunned everyone (including himself) by taking the title in what looked like a relaxed, acrobatic sleepwalk, beating in a row Thomas Muster, perennial finalist Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and in the final 20-year-old Andre Agassi (who'd taken out Boris Becker). That was the first Agassi-Sampras match in a major, near the beginning of a terrific rivalry that would end 12 years later at the same tournament (which Sampras won for his last title, at his last tour event--a heck of a curtain call).

For the record, Federer won the French and Wimbledon back-to-back in 2009, while Nadal pulled it off twice (2008, 2010), and Djokovic once, in 2021. Borg of course did it three years in a row in his brief career. As you say, he really was a phenom! (By the way, his son Leo just won his first ATP match the other day in Bastad.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Portals




Stats


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007