Jim Courier = mini legend [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Jim Courier = mini legend

FedFan_2007
09-11-2007, 10:57 PM
From 1991 FO - 1993 Wimby, he made 7/10 slam finals winning 4. Even Sampras in his best stretch only made 7/10 slam finals from 1993-1995. :worship: :worship: :worship:

General Suburbia
09-11-2007, 11:11 PM
Definitely one of my faves. All hard work, no talent; he may not have been the prettiest player to watch, but his determination was admirable, to say the least.

Henry Chinaski
09-11-2007, 11:11 PM
clown era

Allure
09-11-2007, 11:45 PM
Definitely one of my faves. All hard work, no talent; he may not have been the prettiest player to watch, but his determination was admirable, to say the least.

It seems you like players with no/little talent.

star
09-11-2007, 11:50 PM
Oh, how could you not like Jim Courier when he was playing? He had witty reparte with the crowd and even read a book on change overs. Also he learned to speak French! One of the few Americans who ever bothered to learn to speak a second language. Also one of the few Americans to win Roland Garros. There are lots of things to like about Jim.

Granted he is a little arrogant when he commentates, but stil...

General Suburbia
09-11-2007, 11:52 PM
It seems you like players with no/little talent.
I tend to root for players who have to work harder just to keep up with guys with talent and only have to work half as hard.

Allure
09-11-2007, 11:55 PM
I tend to root for players who have to work harder just to keep up with guys with talent and only have to work half as hard.

Let me guess. Are your favorite players Roddick, Nadal, Courier, and Hewitt? :p

General Suburbia
09-12-2007, 12:02 AM
Let me guess. Are your favorite players Roddick, Nadal, Courier, and Hewitt? :p
Pretty much. Nadal and Hewitt have more talent than others, but their determination makes me hot for them either way.

Allure
09-12-2007, 12:05 AM
Pretty much. Nadal and Hewitt have more talent than others, but their determination makes me hot for them either way.

But how do you know they work hard? Because they're not as naturally talented as Federer so it must mean they work hard? :scratch:

caleb_123
09-12-2007, 07:37 AM
courier was awesome winning 4 slams is nothing to sneeze out, he's more of a legend then let say rafter who won only two and 16 tournaments, a late bloomer but not a all time great in my book but if they gave out who had the best sportmanship on court hands down rafter would be the man.
Courier wasn't pretty to watch but damn he was funny he could really get the crowd going but since he's been a court interview he just ain't funny anymore what happen man lol....

Doggy
09-12-2007, 07:58 AM
I'd do him

jcempire
09-12-2007, 08:11 AM
Pretty much. Nadal and Hewitt have more talent than others, but their determination makes me hot for them either way.

Maybe. May not/

Hewitt was great before 2003. Nadal yes, Right now he is

alansk
09-12-2007, 08:23 AM
Takes me back. Halcyon days...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYraZh-WrCY

Action Jackson
09-12-2007, 08:26 AM
Total prick, but made the most out of his talent. He stepped up the intensity levels and had a great work ethic, but after RG 93 he hit the wall and wasn't the same after that and was passed by better and fitter players.

binkygirl
09-12-2007, 08:52 PM
I did not like him when he was playing. His attitude towards fans was bad; he and Sampras both made it clear they could do without any fans around and that they just wanted to play tennis.

Adler
09-12-2007, 09:01 PM
Should've won 2 or 3 more slams, that would get him on my all-time greats list (requirements: at least 6 GS wins)

stebs
09-12-2007, 10:07 PM
He was consistent, hard-working etc... but really a pretty average player when compared with anyone else with similar acheivements.

Raquel
09-13-2007, 12:39 AM
Takes me back. Halcyon days...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYraZh-WrCY
This RG 1991 win was a very sweet for Jim. Both Jim and Andre were both from the Nick Bollittieri Academy and I think when it came to the final Nick Bollitieri chose to sit in Agassi's entourage during the final rather than be neutral? Good revenge for Jim :devil:

Tennistunes
09-13-2007, 11:42 AM
Courier is one of 14 players in the history of tennis to play in all four Grand Slam finals...
He is now running the Outback Champions Series www.ChampionsSeriesTennis.com

Burrow
09-13-2007, 03:53 PM
Courier's forehand was a sledge hammer back then, one of the first players to use the inside out consistently and to great effect.

Courier was great.

Adler
09-13-2007, 03:56 PM
RG 1991
Ah, memories... i was 6 yr back then :) and it was my second match I've seen whole

LeChuck
09-13-2007, 04:33 PM
I agree that Courier's forehand, particularly inside out, was awesome. His serve was pretty good as well. Winning the Australian and French Opens back to back, and reaching the final at the other 2 grand slams was outstanding.

Forehander
09-13-2007, 04:48 PM
his inside out was one of the first to be seen.

thrust
09-13-2007, 05:00 PM
Courier is somewhat underrated by the so called tennis experts, but winning 4 Slamm with less than outstanding natural talent is highly admirable. He is definitely worthy of the HOF, much more so than the one or two Slam winners who are in the Hall.

LeChuck
09-13-2007, 05:01 PM
He was definately the best player in the world in 1992.

Apemant
09-13-2007, 06:29 PM
Jim Courier and his legendary grin that never seemed to leave his face :devil:

the answer
09-13-2007, 06:32 PM
Courier was the Roddick of the 90's but with a better clay game and weaker serve.

trixtah
09-13-2007, 06:37 PM
But how do you know they work hard? Because they're not as naturally talented as Federer so it must mean they work hard? :scratch:

What the fuck are you smoking? Pass that shit!

Oh, how could you not like Jim Courier when he was playing? He had witty reparte with the crowd and even read a book on change overs. Also he learned to speak French! One of the few Americans who ever bothered to learn to speak a second language. Also one of the few Americans to win Roland Garros. There are lots of things to like about Jim.

Granted he is a little arrogant when he commentates, but stil...

Lol are there any pictures of this book reading that you allude to :D

fabolous
09-13-2007, 06:51 PM
i can remember in 1992 after he won the australian and the french open, people were seriously talking about him winning the calendar slam. this shows how dominant he was then, but somehow he wasn't the same after 1993.

i personally i didn't like neither his game, nor his personality.

...and even read a book on change overs.
yes, that was jim :lol:

Action Jackson
09-13-2007, 06:56 PM
i can remember in 1992 after he won the australian and the french open, people were seriously talking about him winning the calendar slam. this shows how dominant he was then, but somehow he wasn't the same after 1993.

i personally i didn't like neither his game, nor his personality.


yes, that was jim :lol:

He worked so hard, that he hit the wall and it was Rosset in 92 who exposed Courier's limitations. Cause Jimbo loved the inside out forehand and pace, he'd slice the ball to the forehand corner and make him run and get him out of position.

The RG final against Bruguera was where he got outlasted and he was the huge fave to win and then from there he declined.

DrJules
09-13-2007, 08:29 PM
Total prick, but made the most out of his talent. He stepped up the intensity levels and had a great work ethic, but after RG 93 he hit the wall and wasn't the same after that and was passed by better and fitter players.

He did reach his first and only Wimbledon final in 93 after RG 93.:shrug:

Action Jackson
09-13-2007, 08:31 PM
He did reach his first and only Wimbledon final in 93 after RG 93.:shrug:

The courts were so bouncy that year, the decline had a few signs in 92, but in 93 was where he started losing the edge. All that was one last big performance at a Slam.

World Beater
09-13-2007, 09:29 PM
The courts were so bouncy that year, the decline had a few signs in 92, but in 93 was where he started losing the edge. All that was one last big performance at a Slam.

oh come on george...give him some credit. :lol:

that sounds almost as bad as people saying anything nadal wins on is blue or green clay.

Action Jackson
09-14-2007, 07:30 AM
oh come on george...give him some credit. :lol:

that sounds almost as bad as people saying anything nadal wins on is blue or green clay.

You can do better than that. It was very warm that year and the courts were harder, therefore the ball was bouncing higher than usual which went into Courier's strike zone and it plays to his strengths. This does not take way what he achieved.

NicolasKiefer44
09-14-2007, 09:51 PM
1992 World Champion. Lay off him.
And a smile that is still in my mind.

FedFan_2007
09-14-2007, 10:02 PM
Courier one of only a handful of men to make all 4 slam finals at least once in their careers.

TennisGrandSlam
09-15-2007, 01:31 AM
Courier was the Australian Open and Roland Garros B2B winner in 1992, but why he still lost to Rosset in both Olympic Games and Davis Cup (Both on clay)?

He can only played well in the first half year. And he dropped his fitness in the second half year. (Even though he was Wimbledon 1993 and US Open 1991 runner-up)

FedFan_2007
09-15-2007, 02:29 AM
Tennis --> More like Sampras emerged in 1993 Wimby then Courier's level fell off. Courier became a non contender after 1995.

CmonAussie
09-15-2007, 02:30 AM
The courts were so bouncy that year, the decline had a few signs in 92, but in 93 was where he started losing the edge. All that was one last big performance at a Slam.


1992 was Jimbo`s best year~~ winning 2-Slams.
1993 should have been better~~ AO champ, FO finalist [lost epic 5-setter], Wimbledon finalist:cool:


Do you consider that Wilander showed signs of a decline in 1988 [his best year with 3-Slams]:confused:
Of course in hindsight we may say that, because Wilander never again hit those hights after 88:sad:


Your comments remind me of MTF posters who say~~ "expected winner" after the fact, oh yes that`s very insightful:rolleyes:

Action Jackson
09-15-2007, 08:20 AM
1992 was Jimbo`s best year~~ winning 2-Slams.
1993 should have been better~~ AO champ, FO finalist [lost epic 5-setter], Wimbledon finalist:cool:


Do you consider that Wilander showed signs of a decline in 1988 [his best year with 3-Slams]:confused:
Of course in hindsight we may say that, because Wilander never again hit those hights after 88:sad:


Your comments remind me of MTF posters who say~~ "expected winner" after the fact, oh yes that`s very insightful:rolleyes:

You seem to fail to grasp certain concepts, so here goes.

92 I explained the match where Courier who was clearly the dominant player on clay. He then lost 6-4 6-2 6-1 to Rosset on clay in Barcelona Olympics. This was not cause Courier didn't care, he loved playing for the USA.

The match and the tactics that Rosset used exposed Courier's weaknesses, cause his forehand was so strong, they tried to get to his backhand, but couldn't as he ran around it and loved the inside out forehand, so while rallying after serving well, then Rosset went to Courier's forehand with low shots and made him hit then on the run and then he opened his backhand up.

He struggled in the 2nd part of 1992. 1993 started strongly and after having a break, then the RG final losing to Bruguera of 93 when he was so clearly the favourite and when the match got longer, he was supposed to be the toughest man on tour at th time, but the tough guy lost to someone in their first RG final in 5 sets, then the aura started to go. Once the aura started to go, then while still a very good player, he was more beatable and that was clearly shown.

Wilander declined at the end of 1988, huge loss in the DC final at home on clay against Steeb, then poor Aus Open performance next year on the end of that. It's all out there and started from that.

Hope you comprehended that?

Adler
09-15-2007, 08:30 AM
Yeah, those Swiss guys are always vicious. Like this Federer guy who practiced hours against hard servers before his Wimbledon 03 matches against Roddick and Philipoussis

FedFan_2007
09-15-2007, 08:39 AM
Marc Rosset was the real Swiss legend. Federer is just a rank amateur by comparison.