Tennis Great John McEnroe Claims That Andy Warhol Ruined His Sex Life

[c.d.]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/tennis/john-mcenroe-claims-andy-warhol-ruined-his-sex-life/ar-BBD7mby?li=BBnbfcL

c.d.

[Pcdunn]

Huh, strange title for a news story... Never thought much of McEnroe, myself. Always throwing his racquet after a bad game, like a kindergartener in a tantrum.
Warhol was a strange fellow, too, though, from what I've read about him. Great influence on the "pop" art movement in America, that is undeniable.

[Robert]

Warhol - tin of soup or sin of toupee?

[Steadmund Brand]

Warhol was a hack....great salesman but that's about it.. besides he kinda created this "reality show culture" that we live in now....he predicted it, and lived it....yuck,

as for McEnroe...he was a favorite of mine as a player.. yeah he was loud and brash an obnoxious but damn he could back it up on the court....and he has become one of the great tennis commentators...he is a joy to listen to...I understand why so many people disliked him (and Jimmy Connors for that matter), but that was the best time for American men's tennis, I think... yeah the Pete Sampras/ Andre Agassi years were great... but Agassi didn't take his career serious till he was older (and dominated at an age most were retired, imagine how great his prime would have been!!!) and Sampras was a great server....but his overall game was nothing special (Yes I know how many he won... but so much of that was based solely on the serve.. that's why Agassi was such a good matchup for him, he had the best return in the game)

Steadmund Brand

[Robert]

Hi Stead

A tad unfair to Sampras, I feel. Sure he didn't have McEnroe's flair, but you can't win things on serve alone because at some point in a match the serve starts to break down. And don't forget McEnroe often got 'free' points with that slice serve where you didn't know if his opponent was trying to return it or had gone for a toilet break.

In a way, the one who did best was Connors because until his later years he was incapable of serving an ace. That and his weak forehand approaches landing in the net deprived him of a few majors.

[Abby Normal]

Warhol was a hack....great salesman but that's about it.. besides he kinda created this "reality show culture" that we live in now....he predicted it, and lived it....yuck,

as for McEnroe...he was a favorite of mine as a player.. yeah he was loud and brash an obnoxious but damn he could back it up on the court....and he has become one of the great tennis commentators...he is a joy to listen to...I understand why so many people disliked him (and Jimmy Connors for that matter), but that was the best time for American men's tennis, I think... yeah the Pete Sampras/ Andre Agassi years were great... but Agassi didn't take his career serious till he was older (and dominated at an age most were retired, imagine how great his prime would have been!!!) and Sampras was a great server....but his overall game was nothing special (Yes I know how many he won... but so much of that was based solely on the serve.. that's why Agassi was such a good matchup for him, he had the best return in the game)

Steadmund Brand

Hi Stead
I play tennis and I'm amazed at how good these guys are. McEnroe was my favorite and I love the battles that he, borg and Connors had back in the day.
Never a dull moment (well except maybe when Borg plyed LOL!-dude was a machine).

[Steadmund Brand]

Hi Stead

A tad unfair to Sampras, I feel. Sure he didn't have McEnroe's flair, but you can't win things on serve alone because at some point in a match the serve starts to break down. And don't forget McEnroe often got 'free' points with that slice serve where you didn't know if his opponent was trying to return it or had gone for a toilet break.

In a way, the one who did best was Connors because until his later years he was incapable of serving an ace. That and his weak forehand approaches landing in the net deprived him of a few majors.

Oh, don't get me wrong Sampras was GREAT... and you are right you need more then a serve... but his game was solid in most areas but not exceptional, except that serve...and it would break opponents down, early in matches often, demoralize them and take them out of the game mentally (like he did over and over again with a great player like Pat Rafter)....I loved watching him....especially when he would play a great returner...then it became a chess match...and he was tough mentally, that I have to give him as well...great will to win...and he would outplay "better" all around players with that toughness.

Now a Federer, who is (was) just exceptional in EVERY area in his prime... or a McEnroe who was exceptional in most areas...they had all the tools, like Stefan Edberg, or Boris Becker or Bjorn Borg... where as Ivan Lendl and Pete Sampras were more the "power players" amazing.. and game changers to be sure, but not, to use a baseball term, 5 tool players

Connors was another who improved at an age where most would be done... that was impressive, and exciting to watch...

Robert.. does this prove we are nerds or just sports junkies hahaha

Steadmund Brand

[jason_c]

If this was a story from David Soul about Andy Warhol then it would be a touch more believable.

[Robert]

Hi Stead

I would say we are rational chaps discussing a topic of mutual interest.