Pathological Losers: My Vic Braden Interview

[JeffMac]

The Frankenroe Monster

Finally a voice of sanity! Yes, it makes sense that McEnroe probably modeled on Nastase. But who is really to blame for the creation of the Frankenroe Monster?

There's plenty of blame to go around. First there's Frankenroe himself. Then there are the aiding and abetting, blood thirsty fans. Guys like Stotty, who I would not have expected to be so injudicious. But, I think the main culprits are the various governing bodies of tennis. If they would have come down on this guy when he was twenty with severe fines, punishments and suspensions we wouldn't still be having this discussion about his comportment thirty-five years later.

This proves, once again, for the 100th Trillion time that money will cause the disavowal of morality faster than anything else. That said, the unwillingness of the tour to sanction Frankenroe represents perhaps the greatest moral failure in the history of professional tennis.

I agree with the spirit of the post above and most of the details. Having been a fan both before and after the Rude Era, I can only look back in wonder at the horrible behavior that was countenanced by the tennis establishment purely for the sake of filthy lucre.

I would not, however, lay the blame straight on McEnroe. Instead I would introduce the Rude Era with its pied piper, Illie Nastase. He, it seems to me, was the first to make shouting, clowning, and mimicry of his opponent standard fare. McEnroe's time really came as Illie's was ending. The money was growing at a tremendous rate. This incentivized big ego attention grabbing on the player's part and tolerance on the tournament director's. IMHO.

[stotty]

Watching Theim play Nadal in Argentina Open, I think he could be a future French Open winner in his career.

Thiem played well and deserved his win. He really thumps the ball at times and is a great shot maker.

Nadal is still shadow of his former self. He seems to have lost his nerve.

[stroke]

Watching Theim play Nadal in Argentina Open, I think he could be a future French Open winner in his career.

[klacr]

I think that's probably right.

Now: Martin Klizan seems as much of a jackass as John McEnroe or Donald Trump-- if in fact McEnroe and Trump are jackasses.

In his most recent match with Nicholas Mahut, Klizan succeeded in creating a distraction by performing a weird somersault along the baseline when the match got extremely tight. This led to his immediate saving of two match points. The contest went to a third set.

I put on my dark robe, convinced that I had just witnessed poor sportsmanship. I turned off the TV and don't even know who won but hope it was Mahut.

In addition Klizan was extremely theatrical and kept drawing the wrong kind of attention to himself.

And he is a grunter/screamer. Could not his coach tell him he can get the same muscle loosening from prolonged exhalation by pursing his mouth like Donald Trump? He then wouldn't have to yell.

I thought the big pooh-bahs were going to grandfather Azarenka and Sharapova and phase such shrieking out. Or was that only in the W.T.A. ?

Lastly, Klizan is left-handed.

Klizan won. Sorry.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[bottle]

Klizan and Trump

No idea what you are talking about...

I think that's probably right.

Now: Martin Klizan seems as much of a jackass as John McEnroe or Donald Trump-- if in fact McEnroe and Trump are jackasses.

In his most recent match with Nicholas Mahut, Klizan succeeded in creating a distraction by performing a weird somersault along the baseline when the match got extremely tight. This led to his immediate saving of two match points. The contest went to a third set.

I put on my dark robe, convinced that I had just witnessed poor sportsmanship. I turned off the TV and don't even know who won but hope it was Mahut.

In addition Klizan was extremely theatrical and kept drawing the wrong kind of attention to himself.

And he is a grunter/screamer. Could not his coach tell him he can get the same muscle loosening from prolonged exhalation by pursing his mouth like Donald Trump? He then wouldn't have to yell.

I thought the big pooh-bahs were going to grandfather Azarenka and Sharapova and phase such shrieking out. Or was that only in the W.T.A. ?

Lastly, Klizan is left-handed.

[gzhpcu]

What gives you the arrogance to assume that John McEnroe is my hero? It is the parts of his game that I can (and have!) utilized in my own game that interest me. Miguel de Cervantes and Michel de Montaigne are my heroes. Besides, I don't think most of the people in this thread are really discussing McEnroe but rather Donald Trump. And furthermore, angry etiquette speeches whether from Donald Trump or anyone else suck worse than John McEnroe's worst behavior while in his youth out on the court (and on the Plowshares tour, too). You guys should get long poles with feathers on them and go to church in Salem and tickle anyone who is falling asleep. And then use the feathers to irritate everyone else. But don't forget to wear black hats and long black robes. Say hello to Donald for me.

No idea what you are talking about...

[stroke]

It never ceases to amaze me how genius often bestows itself on the most unlikely people. McEnroe was unlikely. He was a punk in many peoples' eyes and, therefore, undeserving of his genius in many peoples eyes. And, yes, he did epitomise how Americans were seen back then and, indeed, as they are often seen now (your action movies haven't helped you here). He was also very plain looking and had the face of a petulant, spoiled child. He was highly strung and edgy. He had nothing whatsoever to endear himself to the camera, media, women....or anything or anyone.

But he had character, strong character. Don't forget, when you are blessed with genius you then have to carry it. You cannot be a shrinking violet. Just imagine how many people have had genius of some kind and wilted...couldn't carry it. As a result the world never saw it....because the character of that person was not strong enough.

It wasn't easy being McEnroe, being so unpopular, even hated. and being pitted against your opposite...the handsome, nice, well-mannered, popular Bjorn Borg.

McEnroe was just being McEnroe in the way a cigar is just a cigar. He was clearly being himself, unlike Kyrgios who is just acting; a half-wit, who doesn't know who he is. McEnroe was edgy and highly strung and found himself pitted against the establishment. At least Nastase had charm and a sense of humour to alleviate things and endear himself. My mother loved Nastase.

McEnroe was never exerting his will against anyone in my view. He was just trying to win against all the odds...and by odds I mean by how he was seen by most of the world. It's not easy being downright unpopular.

Overall, McEnroe carried his genius well. He did a great job. I don't think it's his behaviour he will be remembered for years down the line, it will be his genius. I am certain of that....oh, and his theatre...he was compelling to watch, both for his tennis and 'on the brink of madness' personality.

It's strange because I love tennis but it can be insufferably boring to watch many of the matches on TV...past and present. Personally, I need people like McEnroe to add another dimension...liven things up.

Completely agree about Krygios. He is a half wit/poser at its finest. McEnroe truly is a gifted genius of a tennis player. Even now, watching him play Courier, Sampras, Agassi, or Blake on the legends matches, his genius as a player is even more evident. Wilander said one time after losing to him in one of these legends matches said McEnroe had a way of making you feel real stupid out there. His economical continental grip game is just the blueprint for playing the game for life. And at his worst behavior to me, Connors was more unacceptable than McEnroe.

[bottle]

OK, but skip the hero worship please.

What gives you the arrogance to assume that John McEnroe is my hero? It is the parts of his game that I can (and have!) utilized in my own game that interest me. Miguel de Cervantes and Michel de Montaigne are my heroes. Besides, I don't think most of the people in this thread are really discussing McEnroe but rather Donald Trump. And furthermore, angry etiquette speeches whether from Donald Trump or anyone else suck worse than John McEnroe's worst behavior while in his youth out on the court (and on the Plowshares tour, too). You guys should get long poles with feathers on them and go to church in Salem and tickle anyone who is falling asleep. And then use the feathers to irritate everyone else. But don't forget to wear black hats and long black robes. Say hello to Donald for me.

[don_budge]

The other Scapegoat…Ilie Nastase

I agree with the spirit of the post above and most of the details. Having been a fan both before and after the Rude Era, I can only look back in wonder at the horrible behavior that was countenanced by the tennis establishment purely for the sake of filthy lucre.

I would not, however, lay the blame straight on McEnroe. Instead I would introduce the Rude Era with its pied piper, Illie Nastase. He, it seems to me, was the first to make shouting, clowning, and mimicry of his opponent standard fare. McEnroe's time really came as Illie's was ending. The money was growing at a tremendous rate. This incentivized big ego attention grabbing on the player's part and tolerance on the tournament director's. IMHO.

This thread is about the Ilie Nastase versus Arthur Ashe final in the 1972 U. S. Open. Even though Nastase wins it is Ashe hogging the awards ceremony and subtly chastizing Nastase for his "behavior". If you watch the entire match you might ask yourself what the hell was Arthur referring to or was he only contributing to the "labelling" process. It's a great match…and a great thread.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?t=2722

[curiosity]

I agree with the spirit of the post above and most of the details. Having been a fan both before and after the Rude Era, I can only look back in wonder at the horrible behavior that was countenanced by the tennis establishment purely for the sake of filthy lucre.

I would not, however, lay the blame straight on McEnroe. Instead I would introduce the Rude Era with its pied piper, Illie Nastase. He, it seems to me, was the first to make shouting, clowning, and mimicry of his opponent standard fare. McEnroe's time really came as Illie's was ending. The money was growing at a tremendous rate. This incentivized big ego attention grabbing on the player's part and tolerance on the tournament director's. IMHO.

[don_budge]

Please...

It's astonishing to have you say that "McEnroe carried his genius well." That opinion is such an outlier that I bet you couldn't get even 10% of eligible voters to agree with you. I'd say that McEnroe disgraced his genius. Just because one's a genius does not give one the right to egregiously violate the rights of others.

In this whole McEnroe debate several other people, as well as yourself, have cited the entertainment value of his spectacles. Yes, when we watched him many of us not so secretly waited with baited breath, hoping that he would blow up. But at what price to himself, the game writ large, and innocent bystanders?

Ask yourself this question: What if even 25% of all aggrieved players behaved this way? And why shouldn't they when someone else constantly flipped out and got away with it? If one guy has the right to do it then everyone should have that right. That's how most societies are normally structured.

Clearly, if everyone had the right to behave like this it would be chaotic and anarchic. Societies like these don't persevere. Fortunately, self-policing contained within the impulse for survival normally mitigates against such societal de-evolution.

Extrapolated to sport, there might not even be a professional tennis circuit without norms, rules and conventions--which must be enforced for the maintenance and welfare of this sub-society. This behavior in a word is "wrong." Athletes who transgress are the sporting versions of criminals. And if its wrong for one guy, it should be wrong for everyone.

But, it was basically O.K. for one guy to do it back in the 80's. Because he was a "genius" and a cash cow. How utterly fatuous, irrational and unfair!

"You Cant Be Serious!!" McEnroe cultists and apologists flirt with deviance and absurdity. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that they also support Charles Manson, or anyone else whose amorality was spectacular and "entertaining," on a visceral level.

…hold that thought.

[JeffMac]

Disgraced His Genius!

It's astonishing to have you say that "McEnroe carried his genius well." That opinion is such an outlier that I bet you couldn't get even 10% of eligible voters to agree with you. I'd say that McEnroe disgraced his genius. Just because one's a genius does not give one the right to egregiously violate the rights of others.

In this whole McEnroe debate several other people, as well as yourself, have cited the entertainment value of his spectacles. Yes, when we watched him many of us not so secretly waited with baited breath, hoping that he would blow up. But at what price to himself, the game writ large, and innocent bystanders?

Ask yourself this question: What if even 25% of all aggrieved players behaved this way? And why shouldn't they when someone else constantly flipped out and got away with it? If one guy has the right to do it then everyone should have that right. That's how most societies are normally structured.

Clearly, if everyone had the right to behave like this it would be chaotic and anarchic. Societies like these don't persevere. Fortunately, self-policing contained within the impulse for survival normally mitigates against such societal de-evolution.

Extrapolated to sport, there might not even be a professional tennis circuit without norms, rules and conventions--which must be enforced for the maintenance and welfare of this sub-society. This behavior in a word is "wrong." Athletes who transgress are the sporting versions of criminals. And if its wrong for one guy, it should be wrong for everyone.

But, it was basically O.K. for one guy to do it back in the 80's. Because he was a "genius" and a cash cow. How utterly fatuous, irrational and unfair!

"You Cant Be Serious!!" McEnroe cultists and apologists flirt with deviance and absurdity. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that they also support Charles Manson, or anyone else whose amorality was spectacular and "entertaining," on a visceral level.

It never ceases to amaze me how genius often bestows itself on the most unlikely people. McEnroe was unlikely. He was a punk in many peoples' eyes and, therefore, undeserving of his genius in many peoples eyes. And, yes, he did epitomise how Americans were seen back then and, indeed, as they are often seen now (your action movies haven't helped you here). He was also very plain looking and had the face of a petulant, spoiled child. He was highly strung and edgy. He had nothing whatsoever to endear himself to the camera, media, women....or anything or anyone.

But he had character, strong character. Don't forget, when you are blessed with genius you then have to carry it. You cannot be a shrinking violet. Just imagine how many people have had genius of some kind and wilted...couldn't carry it. As a result the world never saw it....because the character of that person was not strong enough.

It wasn't easy being McEnroe, being so unpopular, even hated. and being pitted against your opposite...the handsome, nice, well-mannered, popular Bjorn Borg.

McEnroe was just being McEnroe in the way a cigar is just a cigar. He was clearly being himself, unlike Kyrgios who is just acting; a half-wit, who doesn't know who he is. McEnroe was edgy and highly strung and found himself pitted against the establishment. At least Nastase had charm and a sense of humour to alleviate things and endear himself. My mother loved Nastase.

McEnroe was never exerting his will against anyone in my view. He was just trying to win against all the odds...and by odds I mean by how he was seen by most of the world. It's not easy being downright unpopular.

Overall, McEnroe carried his genius well. He did a great job. I don't think it's his behaviour he will be remembered for years down the line, it will be his genius. I am certain of that....oh, and his theatre...he was compelling to watch, both for his tennis and 'on the brink of madness' personality.

It's strange because I love tennis but it can be insufferably boring to watch many of the matches on TV...past and present. Personally, I need people like McEnroe to add another dimension...liven things up.

[gzhpcu]

I am over and out on this one. I am beginning to wish I had kept my big mouth shut.

..

You are not the only one....

[stotty]

Over and out...

As I said, I never loved nor hated him. Just disliked his tantrums immensely. Sure I watched his matches. Tennis is one thing, atrocious behavior is something else. He played some great matches against Borg, Connors, Lendl, etc.

He just should have kept his foul mouth shut. Never enjoyed watching his tantrums, just his tennis.

So, I ask the McEnroe fans: did you enjoy his cursing the weak (linesmen, ballboys, etc) on the tennis courts?

I have never once defended his behaviour either. People like drama and I believe you well know this. As much as anything, it gives them something to talk about. It's not difficult to understand.

But, of course, you're right. The bottom line was he was a bloody good player and great to watch. Jeff Tarango was not a bloody good player so no one was interested in him when he threw his toys out of the pram.

Bottom line....the tennis must come first.

I am over and out on this one. I am beginning to wish I had kept my big mouth shut.

Adios....

[gzhpcu]

No I didn't like it. But I find the subject old, stale and boring. There are much more interesting subjects to discuss when it comes to John McEnroe.

OK, but skip the hero worship please.