Us open 2018

[calamity]

I look at that as a different argument altogether, and wouldn't necessarily disagree with it. The problem is when people say "Greatest Tennis Player" which is an objectively false statement as there are hundreds of men that would dominate her on the tennis court.

Yea, but with that argument a lightweight boxer could be 100-0, with 99 knockouts, but not be considered the greatest fighter ever since a heavyweight would eat his lunch. You've actually limited the number of eligible people worthy of the "greatest" title by what you did.

 

[Nap]

Yea, but with that argument a lightweight boxer could be 100-0, with 99 knockouts, but not be considered the greatest fighter ever since a heavyweight would eat his lunch. You've actually limited the number of eligible people worthy of the "greatest" title by what you did.

That is the whole idea behind "pound for pound", we qualify lightweights by saying p4p because if they could compete at the heavier weight class they would.

 

[Jack Hays]

I saw it, and their statement does nothing to address my point. :shrug:

It erases your point.

 

[JasperL]

It erases your point.

LOL. I hope you don't think that's actually an argument outside an elementary school playground. :roll:

NO IT DOESN'T!! I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG!

 

[Nap]

Yea, but with that argument a lightweight boxer could be 100-0, with 99 knockouts, but not be considered the greatest fighter ever since a heavyweight would eat his lunch. You've actually limited the number of eligible people worthy of the "greatest" title by what you did.

Just to be clear, I'm not taking anything away from her. The level of dominance she has displayed and what she has done for Women's tennis and by extension the sport in general is remarkable. She is one of the premier athletes of our day. I just also have to point out that there is a higher level of tennis that she likely wouldn't be able to compete at and to say she is the greatest tennis player without qualifying the statement as greatest female tennis player is misleading. Do you believe she could play with Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic?

 

[Bucky]

Just to be clear, I'm not taking anything away from her. The level of dominance she has displayed and what she has done for Women's tennis and by extension the sport in general is remarkable. She is one of the premier athletes of our day. I just also have to point out that there is a higher level of tennis that she likely wouldn't be able to compete at and to say she is the greatest tennis player without qualifying the statement as greatest female tennis player is misleading. Do you believe she could play with Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic?

Of course not. Serena would not have 1 title if she had to compete against men.

Thats like asking could the best womens softball pitcher could win. Cy young in mlb.

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL. I hope you don't think that's actually an argument outside an elementary school playground. :roll:

NO IT DOESN'T!! I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG!

This should end the discussion.

The ITF has released the following statement relating to umpiring decisions during the 2018 US Open Women’s final:

“Carlos Ramos is one of the most experienced and respected umpires in tennis. Mr. Ramos’ decisions were in accordance with the relevant rules and were re-affirmed by the US Open’s decision to fine Serena Williams for the three offences.”
“It is understandable that this high profile and regrettable incident should provoke debate. At the same time, it is important to remember that Mr. Ramos undertook his duties as an official according to the relevant rule book and acted at all times with professionalism and integrity.”


Read more at https://www.itftennis.com/news/291172.aspx?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral#OYfqdLQCr3DRx6jD.99

 

[JasperL]

This should end the discussion.

The ITF has released the following statement relating to umpiring decisions during the 2018 US Open Women’s final:

“Carlos Ramos is one of the most experienced and respected umpires in tennis. Mr. Ramos’ decisions were in accordance with the relevant rules and were re-affirmed by the US Open’s decision to fine Serena Williams for the three offences.”
“It is understandable that this high profile and regrettable incident should provoke debate. At the same time, it is important to remember that Mr. Ramos undertook his duties as an official according to the relevant rule book and acted at all times with professionalism and integrity.”


Read more at https://www.itftennis.com/news/291172.aspx?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral#OYfqdLQCr3DRx6jD.99

If my argument was that the infractions levied by Ramos didn't exist, or that he acted outside his AUTHORITY in enforcing those rules, your link would be a legitimate counter argument, but that has not been my argument. It's clear what I'm actually arguing, so I don't know why you're deliberately missing the point and moving the goal posts here.

My actual argument is the rule, especially against coaching, is arbitrarily and randomly enforced, not that the rule does not exist or that Ramos doesn't have the authority to levy penalties when he arbitrarily decides to do so, but ignore coaching the other 99% of the time.

So I don't know why you think your link responds to any argument I'm actually making. It doesn't. If you don't agree with me, that's fine, but at least have the courtesy to respond to what I'm actually arguing.

 

[Jack Hays]

If my argument was that the infractions levied by Ramos didn't exist, or that he acted outside his AUTHORITY in enforcing those rules, your link would be a legitimate counter argument, but that has not been my argument. It's clear what I'm actually arguing, so I don't know why you're deliberately missing the point and moving the goal posts here.

My actual argument is the rule, especially against coaching, is arbitrarily and randomly enforced, not that the rule does not exist or that Ramos doesn't have the authority to levy penalties when he arbitrarily decides to do so, but ignore coaching the other 99% of the time.

So I don't know why you think your link responds to any argument I'm actually making. It doesn't. If you don't agree with me, that's fine, but at least have the courtesy to respond to what I'm actually arguing.

There is no frame of reference except this single match. In this match Ramos called the coaching infraction 100% of the time. I'm neither missing the point nor moving the goal posts. There is no other point.

 

[justabubba]

If my argument was that the infractions levied by Ramos didn't exist, or that he acted outside his AUTHORITY in enforcing those rules, your link would be a legitimate counter argument, but that has not been my argument. It's clear what I'm actually arguing, so I don't know why you're deliberately missing the point and moving the goal posts here.

My actual argument is the rule, especially against coaching, is arbitrarily and randomly enforced, not that the rule does not exist or that Ramos doesn't have the authority to levy penalties when he arbitrarily decides to do so, but ignore coaching the other 99% of the time.

So I don't know why you think your link responds to any argument I'm actually making. It doesn't. If you don't agree with me, that's fine, but at least have the courtesy to respond to what I'm actually arguing.

my reply is to the portion of your post i hi-lited above

we both stipulate that there is a no-coaching rule

we both stipulate that ramos held the authority to enforce that rule

my understanding of your position - correct me if i am wrong - is that ramos' enforcement action was arbitrary because such coaching is widespread and seldom enforced

in contrast, my view is that the official was performing his assigned task, to enforce the rules, and he did enforce a blatant violation

while such enforcement may be infrequent, it was with legitimate basis. we know this because Mouratoglou has publicly acknowledged he coached serena

here is a video of his coaching:

ramos could have ignored the violation. my take is that you and others believe that ignoring of the violation should have been his course of action

however, that was not the position serena established when confronting the game official. her take was that she was not involved in cheating. that was a bogus position for her to stake her reputation upon. the coach acknowledged the coaching was committed ... in stark contrast to serena's position

while having taken that invalid position, serena next publicly berated the official. she publicly questioned his integrity. she insisted he issue her a public apology - which he could not as the assessed violation was a legitimate one. she threatened his career. serena told him not to speak to her while she continued to verbally scold him

in my subjective opinion, ramos did nothing wrong. that cannot be said about serena

 

[JasperL]

There is no frame of reference except this single match. In this match Ramos called the coaching infraction 100% of the time. I'm neither missing the point nor moving the goal posts. There is no other point.

That's nonsense. You're ignoring or dismissing the argument me and others are making and substituting your own. That's the very definition of moving the goal post.

To make the argument that the rules are arbitrarily and seemingly randomly enforced is by definition to reference previous matches, previous chair umpires, previous players. If you don't care that a rule is randomly and arbitrarily enforced from match to match, player to player, umpire to umpire, or don't agree that it's even happening, that's fine, make the argument. But you don't get to ignore the actual arguments others are making, their ACTUAL objections, and substitute your own which is, in effect, that it cannot matter if the rule on coaching is arbitrarily and randomly enforced from match to match, etc. It's dishonest, intellectual hackery.

 

[Jack Hays]

That's nonsense. You're ignoring or dismissing the argument me and others are making and substituting your own. That's the very definition of moving the goal post.

To make the argument that the rules are arbitrarily and seemingly randomly enforced is by definition to reference previous matches, previous chair umpires, previous players. If you don't care that a rule is randomly and arbitrarily enforced from match to match, player to player, umpire to umpire, or don't agree that it's even happening, that's fine, make the argument. But you don't get to ignore the actual arguments others are making, their ACTUAL objections, and substitute your own which is, in effect, that it cannot matter if the rule on coaching is arbitrarily and randomly enforced from match to match, etc. It's dishonest, intellectual hackery.

No match is relevant but the one that was played, during which the rule was properly enforced. No other match matters.

 

[calamity]

No match is relevant but the one that was played, during which the rule was properly enforced. No other match matters.

That is a ridiculous argument. Perhaps if you had said "this tournament" you might have had argument.

 

[Jack Hays]

That is a ridiculous argument. Perhaps if you had said "this tournament" you might have had argument.

No. The umpire is only responsible for the match in front of him. His performance was excellent.


The ITF has released the following statement relating to umpiring decisions during the 2018 US Open Women’s final:

“Carlos Ramos is one of the most experienced and respected umpires in tennis. Mr. Ramos’ decisions were in accordance with the relevant rules and were re-affirmed by the US Open’s decision to fine Serena Williams for the three offences.”
“It is understandable that this high profile and regrettable incident should provoke debate. At the same time, it is important to remember that Mr. Ramos undertook his duties as an official according to the relevant rule book and acted at all times with professionalism and integrity.”


Read more at https://www.itftennis.com/news/29117...LQCr3DRx6jD.99

 

[JasperL]

my reply is to the portion of your post i hi-lited above

we both stipulate that there is a no-coaching rule

we both stipulate that ramos held the authority to enforce that rule

my understanding of your position - correct me if i am wrong - is that ramos' enforcement action was arbitrary because such coaching is widespread and seldom enforced

That's essentially correct. Similarly, the rule against umpire abuse is also subjective and unevenly enforced.

in contrast, my view is that the official was performing his assigned task, to enforce the rules, and he did enforce a blatant violation

while such enforcement may be infrequent, it was with legitimate basis. we know this because Mouratoglou has publicly acknowledged he coached serena

I've not argued the call was "illegitimate" or the equivalent. My problem and that of a lot of people is Ramos is given a great deal of discretion, to enforce two obviously subjective rules, one of them routinely ignored and according to those who know, ignored in nearly every single match involving nearly every coach. And he picked the final of a grand slam to use his subjective discretion in both cases and by doing so made himself the focus of the match, which is IMO an obvious failure. What is lost if he doesn't call a coaching penalty that's routinely ignored? Nothing. What's lost if he doesn't penalize Serena a GAME for mouthing off to him in the second set, Serena down a break? Nothing. We've all seen and heard FAR worse. The integrity of the match and the game of tennis in general isn't threatened by using his discretion in either case by....doing nothing.

ramos could have ignored the violation. my take is that you and others believe that ignoring of the violation should have been his course of action

however, that was not the position serena established when confronting the game official. her take was that she was not involved in cheating. that was a bogus position for her to stake her reputation upon. the coach acknowledged the coaching was committed ... in stark contrast to serena's position

What we don't know is if Serena even saw or acknowledged the coaching. She says she and her coaches don't set up signals, which if true indicates that she doesn't want or expect to be coached in-match, unlike the many coaches who obviously use various signals with their players. If you've watched any tennis, you've seen them do it. So I don't know what she saw or if she saw it if she cared or wanted to see it.

while having taken that invalid position, serena next publicly berated the official. she publicly questioned his integrity. she insisted he issue her a public apology - which he could not as the assessed violation was a legitimate one. she threatened his career. serena told him not to speak to her while she continued to verbally scold him

in my subjective opinion, ramos did nothing wrong. that cannot be said about serena

I've acknowledged in other posts Serena lost her composure and set herself up for the opportunity to lose a game, and she's a professional who's been at it a LONG time and should know better. That's all on her.

And I just don't agree about Ramos. See above. I understand your argument and it's defensible, I just don't agree with it. eace

 

[JasperL]

No match is relevant but the one that was played, during which the rule was properly enforced. No other match matters.

You seem to think you can set the terms of the debate and insist everyone only care about what you care about, while ignoring the arguments others are making using different priorities. You're wrong.

Other matches matter if others believe they matter. If you don't care about any other match, that's your prerogative, but you don't get to insist others adopt your frame of reference. THEY DO NOT.

In fact, I'd love to have the information to know for sure, but I'd place a large bet for real money that the USTA and other tennis governing bodies are either ALREADY or will soon be addressing these issues at the highest levels. If they don't know already that this will be a hot topic at the next tournament and through next year, they're morons. All it will take is one of the McEnroe brothers or the women commentators and some camera people highlighting OBVIOUS coaching being ignored match after match after match to give the sport a black eye. And if some male player cusses the ref and gets no penalty, it will be headlines again, and again maligning the sport. If there aren't meetings of the next group of chair umpires at the next tournament, discussing exactly what will and won't be allowed in these cases, they're also morons.

But they're not that dumb - they are not going to argue that consistency in enforcing the rules from match to match, player to player, and tournament to tournament isn't important, which is your really indefensible argument.

 

[Jack Hays]

You seem to think you can set the terms of the debate and insist everyone only care about what you care about, while ignoring the arguments others are making using different priorities. You're wrong.

Other matches matter if others believe they matter. If you don't care about any other match, that's your prerogative, but you don't get to insist others adopt your frame of reference. THEY DO NOT.

In fact, I'd love to have the information to know for sure, but I'd place a large bet for real money that the USTA and other tennis governing bodies are either ALREADY or will soon be addressing these issues at the highest levels. If they don't know already that this will be a hot topic at the next tournament and through next year, they're morons. All it will take is one of the McEnroe brothers or the women commentators and some camera people highlighting OBVIOUS coaching being ignored match after match after match to give the sport a black eye. And if some male player cusses the ref and gets no penalty, it will be headlines again, and again maligning the sport. If there aren't meetings of the next group of chair umpires at the next tournament, discussing exactly what will and won't be allowed in these cases, they're also morons.

But they're not that dumb - they are not going to argue that consistency in enforcing the rules from match to match, player to player, and tournament to tournament isn't important, which is your really indefensible argument.

I'm not trying to set the terms of the debate because I don't care what frame of reference others adopt. I have said what I think and why. I don't care what you think or why. I do care that what I think is arrant nonsense should not stand unchallenged.

I think tennis governing bodies will make no changes because no change is called for.

 

[X Factor]

my reply is to the portion of your post i hi-lited above

we both stipulate that there is a no-coaching rule

we both stipulate that ramos held the authority to enforce that rule

my understanding of your position - correct me if i am wrong - is that ramos' enforcement action was arbitrary because such coaching is widespread and seldom enforced

in contrast, my view is that the official was performing his assigned task, to enforce the rules, and he did enforce a blatant violation

while such enforcement may be infrequent, it was with legitimate basis. we know this because Mouratoglou has publicly acknowledged he coached serena

here is a video of his coaching:

ramos could have ignored the violation. my take is that you and others believe that ignoring of the violation should have been his course of action

however, that was not the position serena established when confronting the game official. her take was that she was not involved in cheating. that was a bogus position for her to stake her reputation upon. the coach acknowledged the coaching was committed ... in stark contrast to serena's position

while having taken that invalid position, serena next publicly berated the official. she publicly questioned his integrity. she insisted he issue her a public apology - which he could not as the assessed violation was a legitimate one. she threatened his career. serena told him not to speak to her while she continued to verbally scold him

in my subjective opinion, ramos did nothing wrong. that cannot be said about serena

Game, set and match.

 

[Jack Hays]

• Lack of support for Serena ump irks officials

 

[JasperL]

I'm not trying to set the terms of the debate because I don't care what frame of reference others adopt. I have said what I think and why. I don't care what you think or why. I do care that what I think is arrant nonsense should not stand unchallenged.

I think tennis governing bodies will make no changes because no change is called for.

I agree, which is why I challenged your arrant nonsense that the only match that matter is a given match, that consistency between matches and umpires and tournaments is unimportant, and I'm sure the governing bodies all vehemently disagree with you that an acceptable standard is one that changes depending on the whims of who sits in the umpire chair who might call umpire abuse and coaching one way on Tuesday and another on Wednesday.

 

[JasperL]

• Lack of support for Serena ump irks officials

Contra to your point that consistency is unimportant:

[USTA spokesman] Widmaier said the feeling at USTA is that there needs to be a push to ensure consistency in the application of the rules, including coaching violations and shirt changes by women players. But, he said, "We recognize that the officials we use from around the world are very good at what they do."

That was only predictable to....everyone but you. :roll:

 

[Jack Hays]

I agree, which is why I challenged your arrant nonsense that the only match that matter is a given match, that consistency between matches and umpires and tournaments is unimportant, and I'm sure the governing bodies all vehemently disagree with you that an acceptable standard is one that changes depending on the whims of who sits in the umpire chair who might call umpire abuse and coaching one way on Tuesday and another on Wednesday.

Sorry, but you've imported a straw man. No one would argue that match-to-match consistency is unimportant. But this discussion concerns only one match, in which no one disputes that the rule was properly enforced.

 

[Jack Hays]

Contra to your point that consistency is unimportant:



That was only predictable to....everyone but you. :roll:

And again, you're only debating against your own straw man. Consistency is of course an admirable goal. But this specific discussion is about this specific match, in which no one disputes the fact that the rules were enforced properly.

 

[JasperL]

Sorry, but you've imported a straw man. No one would argue that match-to-match consistency is unimportant. But this discussion concerns only one match, in which no one disputes that the rule was properly enforced.

You're hilariously intellectually dishonest. No, the discussion in the broader public and the argument I and others made were EXPLICITLY and OBVIOUSLY about "match to match consistency" and the lack thereof......:roll:

That's why your bogus attempt to move the goal posts was so funny.

 

[Jack Hays]

You're hilariously intellectually dishonest. No, the discussion in the broader public and the argument I and others made were EXPLICITLY and OBVIOUSLY about "match to match consistency" and the lack thereof......:roll:

Yes, that was your argument. I found it irrelevant.