IWS #84 Results

[Solecismic]

In retrospect, I didn't do a great job of choosing questions. A lot of high scores, and no unique winner. But we did have 54 participants, which means more people felt comfortable answering the questions than usual. When I look at an IWS, I choose participation on whether I have to google more than one answer.

So, all in all, not a bad competition. I just needed to pick a better football question.

The questions:

1. Name the current American League pitcher to whom you'd give the start if you had one game you absolutely had to win tomorrow.

Pedro Martinez 36
Curt Schilling 10
Mark Mulder 5
Johan Santana 2
Barry Zito 1

Pedro, 14-5, 3.69, 188 K in 180.2 innings this season, Santana 15-6, 3.06, 213 K in 188 innings. Schilling 17-6, 3.39, Mulder 17-4, 3.79, Zito, well, let's just say he's doing okay.

Of course, Pedro is coming on strong right now, and there's no clear-cut first choice. So people went more to the reputations. I wasn't surprised with the results here, just glad to see Red Sox pitchers with 46 out of 54 votes.

2. Name the greatest female tennis player of all time.

Martina Navratilova 41
Steffi Graf 7
Billie Jean King 2
Chris Evert 1
Martina Hingis 1
Serena Williams 1
Venus Williams 1

This was a bit of a surprise. Not Martina beating Steffi like a wet dishrag, but the fact that currently active players garnered just two votes. Every other question was specificially about 2004. I expected more people to think of Serena Williams, who dominated tennis last year, and is looking strong again coming back from injury.

I guess it's all about the legends when you were growing up. That and the fact that Martina just won't go away. When I was a kid, you'd have your Martina/Chris arguments. They had a great rivalry, very even in many ways. Longevity means a lot.

3. Name a "blue" state, other than Massachusetts.

California 23
New York 20
New Hampshire 2
Connecticut 1
District of Columbia 1
Florida 1
Hawaii 1
Illinois 1
Kentucky 1
Minnesota 1
Missouri 1
Vermont 1

Most of you knew what a "blue" state is. It refers to the map of electoral votes for the U.S. elections, Republican states colored red and Democratic states colored blue. Massachusetts is the ultimate "blue" state, in that John Kerry doesn't stand any chance of losing it in November. So I took it off the board, hoping it would keep people thinking about the northeast and avoiding a California landslide.

There were times when it looked like New York would win, swinging the final result here. But California made a surge on Monday, and New York's late run fell short.

4. Name the 2004-05 Heisman Trophy winner.

Matt Leinert 34
Jason White 12
Darren Sproles 2
Cedric Benson 1
David Greene 1
Larry Fitzgerald 1
Maurice Clarett 1
Mike Williams 1
Reggie Bush 1

As people get more IWS experience, they get better with questions like this. The object isn't to tout your favorite Heisman dark horse, it's to be with stupid. And in this case, that means picking the guy the experts are picking. Leinert is the early favorite, and of course White won last year, making him an obvious choice.

Not everyone follows college football, of course, explaining why Fitzgerald, Clarett and Williams got votes even though they aren't playing college ball this season.

5. Name the best current American novelist, defining current as having published a new novel in the last ten years.

Stephen King 21
Tom Clancy 11
John Grisham 8
Dan Brown 4
Toni Morrison 2
Dean Koontz 1
John Irving 1
John Updike 1
Jonathan Franzen 1
Michael Crichton 1
Nick Hornby 1
Thomas McGuane 1
Tom Wolfe 1

I couldn't resist this, being a literary snob. And yes, I'm as disappointed as some of the rest of you are. I didn't want to turn people off the contest by saying "best from a literary perspective" and force people to google the Booker Awards or the Nobel prizes.

I expected Grisham to fare better. But after a slow start, King lapped the field easily. Thanks, those of you who still sent in names like Irving (my own favorite), Franzen and Updike, probably knowing it would result in a loss. Your integrity is intact, at least, even if your scores were eaten alive by a rabid dog with carburetor issues.

6. Name the current NFC quarterback to whom you'd give the start if you had one game you absolutely had to win tomorrow.

Brett Favre 48
Daunte Culpepper 3
Donovan McNabb 3

Better tell the pundits, Brett Favre is not dead after all. I guess his 30-plus touchdowns last year kept his name at the top of the list, while the younger guns had some memorable losses. Personally, I think we're going to see a different McNabb this year, now that Terrell Owens is around to show him what a real receiver looks like. But IWS doesn't reward ifs and buts, and Favre was the safe, overwhelming choice here.

On to the scores...


Coffee Warlord 36 1 1 1 8 48 13,824 0.00
Token Asian Guy 36 2 2 1 4 48 27,648 0.00
Masked 36 2 1 34 1 48 117,504 0.01
Alf 5 7 20 12 11 3 277,200 0.02
ntndeacon 36 41 1 34 2 3 301,104 0.03
pennywiseb 5 7 23 34 11 3 903,210 0.08
cartman 1 41 23 1 21 48 950,544 0.08
stevew 2 41 23 12 1 48 1,086,336 0.09
MIJB#19 36 41 1 1 21 48 1,487,808 0.13
Shorty3281 36 1 23 2 21 48 1,669,248 0.14
Leonidas 36 41 20 2 1 48 2,833,920 0.24
Noop 36 1 20 12 11 48 4,561,920 0.39
Buddy Grant 10 41 23 1 11 48 4,979,040 0.43
finkenst 10 41 1 34 8 48 5,352,960 0.46
timmynausea 36 7 23 1 21 48 5,842,368 0.50
Archer219 5 41 20 34 1 48 6,691,200 0.58
Ramzavail 10 41 1 34 11 48 7,360,320 0.63
Desnudo 10 41 1 34 11 48 7,360,320 0.63
Pyser 36 7 20 34 1 48 8,225,280 0.71
gstelmack 36 41 23 12 11 3 13,443,408 1.16
JeeberD 10 41 20 34 21 3 17,564,400 1.51
kingfc22 36 41 1 34 8 48 19,270,656 1.66
Aylmar 36 41 1 34 8 48 19,270,656 1.66
bhlloy 36 41 2 34 4 48 19,270,656 1.66
msf518 36 7 20 12 8 48 23,224,320 2.00
wade moore 36 1 20 34 21 48 24,675,840 2.12
path12 36 41 20 34 11 3 33,121,440 2.85
Raiders Army 10 7 20 34 21 48 47,980,800 4.12
dacman 36 41 20 34 1 48 48,176,640 4.14
QuikSand 36 41 20 34 1 48 48,176,640 4.14
EaglesFan27 36 41 20 34 1 48 48,176,640 4.14
mckerney 2 41 20 34 21 48 56,206,080 4.83
SnowMan 5 41 23 12 21 48 57,032,640 4.90
Johnny93g 36 7 20 12 21 48 60,963,840 5.24
k0ruptr 36 41 23 12 4 48 78,216,192 6.72
Subby 10 41 20 12 21 48 99,187,200 8.53
albionmoonlight 36 41 23 34 2 48 110,806,272 9.52
Jesse_Ewiak 5 41 20 34 21 48 140,515,200 12.08
ahbrady 36 41 23 12 8 48 156,432,384 13.45
wheels 36 41 20 34 4 48 192,706,560 16.56
sooner333 36 41 23 12 11 48 215,094,528 18.49
TRO 10 41 20 34 21 48 281,030,400 24.15
Raven Hawk 10 41 23 34 21 48 323,184,960 27.78
Franklinnobole 10 41 23 34 21 48 323,184,960 27.78
Swaggs 36 41 23 12 21 48 410,635,008 35.29
Z2+ 36 41 23 34 8 48 443,225,088 38.10
General Mike 36 41 23 34 8 48 443,225,088 38.10
Radii 36 41 23 34 11 48 609,434,496 52.38
PineTar 36 41 23 34 11 48 609,434,496 52.38
kcchief19 36 41 20 34 21 48 1,011,709,440 86.96
Maple Leafs 36 41 23 34 21 48 1,163,465,856 100.00
George W Bush 36 41 23 34 21 48 1,163,465,856 100.00
TredWel 36 41 23 34 21 48 1,163,465,856 100.00
panerd 36 41 23 34 21 48 1,163,465,856 100.00


Congratulations to panerd (as he promised), TredWel, George W Bush and Maple Leafs for their perfect scores and four-way tie for the honors in IWS #84. Panerd's entry was first among these, for tie-breaking purposes, though you guys obviously can work this out among yourselves.

[mckerney]

1. Name the current American League pitcher to whom you'd give the start if you had one game you absolutely had to win tomorrow.

Pedro Martinez 36
Curt Schilling 10
Mark Mulder 5
Johan Santana 2
Barry Zito 1

Pedro, 14-5, 3.69, 188 K in 180.2 innings this season, Santana 15-6, 3.06, 213 K in 188 innings. Schilling 17-6, 3.39, Mulder 17-4, 3.79, Zito, well, let's just say he's doing okay.

Of course, Pedro is coming on strong right now, and there's no clear-cut first choice. So people went more to the reputations. I wasn't surprised with the results here, just glad to see Red Sox pitchers with 46 out of 54 votes.

Did you people realize it said right now, not a few years ago? Did no one bother to pay attention to what Santana has done over the past several months?

Damn. :(

[korme]

I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO PICKED SERENA WILLIAMS.

She has been dominant for 2 years now. People talk like she will be the greatest.

How the fuck did no one else pick her?

[Maple Leafs]

It's like throwing a perfect game, then going home to turn on Sportscenter and finding out three other guys pitched one too.

[korme]

mckerney, those types of questions are based on history. Pedro was dominant, the best for so long that he isn't easily forgotten though he's not a clear cut #1 anymore. Just like taking Favre over McNabb, Culpepper, or dare I say Vick.

[Joe]

whooo my second IWS victory in 6 attempts. I really am with stupid.

[Maple Leafs]

mckerney, those types of questions are based on history. Pedro was dominant, the best for so long that he isn't easily forgotten though he's not a clear cut #1 anymore. Just like taking Favre over McNabb, Culpepper, or dare I say Vick.
I picked what I thought would be the most popular answer, but if I really did have one game I needed to win I would have about a half dozen guys I'd rather start over some kid who is having his first really good year.

[TRO]

Schilling certainly cost me, my gut said Pedro too, oh well. I would have lost the toss up with New York and California anyway.

[mckerney]

mckerney, those types of questions are based on history. Pedro was dominant, the best for so long that he isn't easily forgotten though he's not a clear cut #1 anymore. Just like taking Favre over McNabb, Culpepper, or dare I say Vick.

But that's not what the question said. :(

[Vince]

Man...I would have been perfect until the QB question (would have thrown in Culpepper). Should have known -- then again, I didn't even enter, so I guess it doesn't matter.

[cartman]

I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO PICKED SERENA WILLIAMS.

She has been dominant for 2 years now. People talk like she will be the greatest.

How the fuck did no one else pick her?


Probably because everyone else who answered is older than you... :p

[Samdari]

whooo my second IWS victory in 6 attempts. I really am with stupid.

No, you ARE stupid. Everyone else is trying to be with you.

[JeeberD]

I'm on such a bad streak right now...

[MIJB#19]

Sucked in nowheresville, despite 4 #1 answers.

Maurice Clarett, I'm gonna sue you!
And the whole state of District of Columbia...

For the record, I got right on with the baseball question, I am very proud of myself. :cool:

[Noop]

I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO PICKED SERENA WILLIAMS.

She has been dominant for 2 years now. People talk like she will be the greatest.

How the fuck did no one else pick her?
You know I messed up I meant to put her instead of Venus....

[Raven Hawk]

I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO PICKED SERENA WILLIAMS.

She has been dominant for 2 years now. People talk like she will be the greatest.

How the fuck did no one else pick her?
I thought about picking Serena, but I figured that the Williams vote would be split. Besides, when betting on women's tennis, always put your money on the lesbian. You should know that!

I was 1 Schilling short of a perfect score. Damn you Pedro!

[panerd]

Cullpepper? Didn't they just have to beat the Cardinals to make the playoffs last year and three people want him with everything on the line? Strange answer to say the least.

I did guarentee a top 5. The only other time I felt like I was going to win was way back on IWS #3. I wouldn't mind running or at least submitting some questions. Let me know prez, Mapleleafs, and tredwel.

[Desnudo]

Did you people realize it said right now, not a few years ago? Did no one bother to pay attention to what Santana has done over the past several months?

Damn. :(

I read too much into the question which is why I said Schilling. I assumed we were talking life and death, game 7 clutch stuff. Pedro is not a clutch, big game starter, Schilling is.

[Franklinnoble]

I picked them all right except the first one, and yet, somehow, I'm nowhere near the top of the list.

Oddly enough, I did think of making Pedro my selection, but then decided against it... oh, well, I wouldn't have made the first correct perfect score, anyhow.

This is discouraging.

[Eaglesfan27]

Why didn't I pick Stephen King.. so close yet so far.

[Glengoyne]

But that's not what the question said. :(
Have you never done this before? You try to give the answer you think the unwashed and unknowing masses would give.

Get with stupid. It's the only way.

[kcchief19]

It's like throwing a perfect game, then going home to turn on Sportscenter and finding out three other guys pitched one too.Of course, missing out on tying for the win because you hit four of five and missed the fifth by a nose (picked New York instead of California) is like hitting a game-winning homer only to be called out for missing third base.

Still, that was my best performance in an IWS after a long hiatus. Can't complain.

[wheels]

I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO PICKED SERENA WILLIAMS.

She has been dominant for 2 years now. People talk like she will be the greatest.

How the fuck did no one else pick her?
longevity, my friend. of all time.

[Chief Rum]

Man, I got all of those answers right.

Too bad I didn't enter. :)

CR

[stevew]

Did you people realize it said right now, not a few years ago? Did no one bother to pay attention to what Santana has done over the past several months?

Damn. :(

You and I are the only smart people here. And its really sad that I didnt even think about Pedro at all.

[pennywisesb]

Nothing like guessing the second most popular answer for every question! I heart whoever said Zito for the first question :D

[mckerney]

Have you never done this before? You try to give the answer you think the unwashed and unknowing masses would give.

Get with stupid. It's the only way.

Stupid is the reason I said Favre, but I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough not to put Santana. I was wrong. :(

[MIJB#19]

Not to change the subject, but Serena Williams has been far from dominant the past 2 years. Yes, she might have won most tournaments she entered, but how many big tournaments did she play? Not so many afterall due to injuries and stuff.
Dominant was at least 1 1/2 years ago, at least. Not claiming she isn't the best now, because she is and by far, but she's not been dominant at all.

[Alf]

I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO PICKED SERENA WILLIAMS.

She has been dominant for 2 years now. People talk like she will be the greatest.

How the fuck did no one else pick her?Justine Henin has won more Grand Slam tournament than Serena the last two years.... Also note, Justine has also won the olympics.

[albionmoonlight]

I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO PICKED SERENA WILLIAMS.

She has been dominant for 2 years now. People talk like she will be the greatest.

How the fuck did no one else pick her?
Looking at their rank on the "all time" ladder--Martina is several orders of magnitude greater than Serena right now. Maybe in 20 years it will be a debate.

To put it in terms of what has occured during your lifetime: Lebron James had a good rookie year. Would you put him if you were asked to name the greatest NBA player of all time?

[albionmoonlight]

I got killed on the novel question, as I knew I would. I just couldn't think of the IWS answer--though once I saw it, I felt like an idiot for not thinking of it.

In situations like that, I always answer the question honestly. It never gains many points, but it's all I can think to do.

[gstelmack]

Did you people realize it said right now, not a few years ago? Did no one bother to pay attention to what Santana has done over the past several months?
Who? See, I don't follow baseball all that closely, at the most checking scores to see if my once-beloved Red Sox are finally going to win a World Series. The last strike just killed off most interest I have in the sport.

So if there is some one-year wonder making the rounds right now, I'm not likely to know about him. And as long as Grady Little isn't managing, I'm still going to send Pedro (with Schilling a close second) to the mound when I'm desperate for a win. I'd want someone who's been hot for a while, not just on a hot streak in the middle of the current season. So get back to me when "what he's done" has been going on for "the past several months".

Of course, I also still have no clue who "John Irving" is either.

And on the tennis front, again, the William's sisters have not come close to matching the longevity of a Martina Navratilova. How can you be the "greatest of all time" when you're in your mid-20s or so?

[QuikSand]

I got killed on the novel question, as I knew I would. I just couldn't think of the IWS answer--though once I saw it, I felt like an idiot for not thinking of it.

In situations like that, I always answer the question honestly. It never gains many points, but its all I can think to do.

I did even worse. At a certain level, I *knew* what the "stupid" answer was, and even confessed to that when submitting my answer -- but for some odd reason, I was hypnotized by the presence of the word "best" in the question, and fell under the delusion that "well, nobody is actually going to say that Stephen King is the best at anything..." -- and so I answered honestly, as well. Getting one point, of course.

Idiot.

(At least it didn't cost me a first place - I missed with New York also)

[korme]

Looking at their rank on the "all time" ladder--Martina is several orders of magnitude greater than Serena right now. Maybe in 20 years it will be a debate.

To put it in terms of what has occured during your lifetime: Lebron James had a good rookie year. Would you put him if you were asked to name the greatest NBA player of all time?
No, because I actually follow and have a knowledge of the history of the NBA. http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[korme]

Just curious but who did you put as the best, Quik?

[Solecismic]

One could always make the argument that the current tennis players are better today than the champions of old were at their peak. And Serena's moving up the charts. But it's a difficult argument to make right now that she's the best.

Here are women's records in Grand Slam finals since Graf's reign ended in 1997, including only those who have won more than one Slam:

Serena Williams: 6-2
Martina Hingis: 5-7
Venus Williams: 4-6
Jennifer Capriati: 3-0
Justine Henin-Hardenne: 3-1
Lindsay Davenport: 3-2

Seven others have won one during that period, including the two Russian kids this year.

Now Steffi Graf won 22 Slams in 13 years, Martina Navratilova 18 in 13 years, Chris Evert 18 in 13 years, Margaret Court 24 in 14 years, Billie Jean King 12 in 10 years.

Serena is seven years into her peak, and should be expected to be among the top competitors for maybe six more years according to this chart.

So, why then, did Navratilova get 41 votes, Graf 7 and Evert only 1? Especially when King, who played earlier than Evert, scored 2?

I think it was two factors: 1) Navratilova keeps playing, even though she really can't compete at a top level any more. Most elite players retire when they're no longer in the top ten consistently. So her name is out there.

And 2) the Navratilova/Evert rivarly. Both players were among the best ever, and their peaks overlapped considerably. Navratilova was 9-4 against Evert in Grand Slam finals, including three in a row during the 1984 season, which is considered by many to be the best season any women's tennis player has ever had. So Navratilova is considered to have "won" that rivalry even though she really didn't.

Because of random luck, I don't think any rivalry exists today that comes all that close to Navratilova/Evert. Serena is 5-1 against Venus in Grand Slam finals, but that's tainted from their shenanigans early in their career (their father at first wouldn't let them play each other, and then later, even when they did, they looked awful in those matches). And all three of Henin's wins have come against Kim Clijsters, who has yet to win a Slam.

I can't explain the two votes for Billie Jean King. She was very good, but not at the level of the others. I would vote for Navratilova, followed by Evert and Graf. Serena has a long way to go to earn mention with those three, and I'm not at all convinced Henin will continue to win.

[Pyser]

i felt dumb answering john irving, but at least its gotten some recognition. king never even crossed my mind. i SUCK at this game (though still had my best showing ever, by far).

[QuikSand]

Just curious but who did you put as the best, Quik?

Tom Wolfe. Bonfire of the Vanities might be the best novel I have ever read, and there was a chapter in A Man in Full that moved me beyond words. Wolfe is an unbelievably talented writer -- and I can't wait for his new book, even though the subject matter nominally doesn't really interest me much.

[Solecismic]

I did even worse. At a certain level, I *knew* what the "stupid" answer was, and even confessed to that when submitting my answer -- but for some odd reason, I was hypnotized by the presence of the word "best" in the question, and fell under the delusion that "well, nobody is actually going to say that Stephen King is the best at anything..." -- and so I answered honestly, as well. Getting one point, of course.

Idiot.

(At least it didn't cost me a first place - I missed with New York also)

Of course, someone answered Nick Hornby, who not only writes pop stuff, but is English, not American.

Quik wasn't the only one to comment that he knew he wasn't answering that question in the IWS vein.

[Franklinnoble]

Tom Wolfe. Bonfire of the Vanities might be the best novel I have ever read, and there was a chapter in A Man in Full that moved me beyond words. Wolfe is an unbelievably talented writer -- and I can't wait for his new book, even though the subject matter nominally doesn't really interest me much.
I may have to get a copy of Bonfire of the Vanities. I read A Man In Full a while back, and generally thought it was "OK." Wolfe is a sound writer, but the story didn't really appeal to me in its entirety, and I found the ending to be a bit unrealistic. Maybe I just missed the point.

[Desnudo]

One could always make the argument that the current tennis players are better today than the champions of old were at their peak. And Serena's moving up the charts. But it's a difficult argument to make right now that she's the best.

Here are women's records in Grand Slam finals since Graf's reign ended in 1997, including only those who have won more than one Slam:

Serena Williams: 6-2
Martina Hingis: 5-7
Venus Williams: 4-6
Jennifer Capriati: 3-0
Justine Henin-Hardenne: 3-1
Lindsay Davenport: 3-2

Seven others have won one during that period, including the two Russian kids this year.

Now Steffi Graf won 22 Slams in 13 years, Martina Navratilova 18 in 13 years, Chris Evert 18 in 13 years, Margaret Court 24 in 14 years, Billie Jean King 12 in 10 years.

Serena is seven years into her peak, and should be expected to be among the top competitors for maybe six more years according to this chart.

So, why then, did Navratilova get 41 votes, Graf 7 and Evert only 1? Especially when King, who played earlier than Evert, scored 2?

I think it was two factors: 1) Navratilova keeps playing, even though she really can't compete at a top level any more. Most elite players retire when they're no longer in the top ten consistently. So her name is out there.

And 2) the Navratilova/Evert rivarly. Both players were among the best ever, and their peaks overlapped considerably. Navratilova was 9-4 against Evert in Grand Slam finals, including three in a row during the 1984 season, which is considered by many to be the best season any women's tennis player has ever had. So Navratilova is considered to have "won" that rivalry even though she really didn't.

Because of random luck, I don't think any rivalry exists today that comes all that close to Navratilova/Evert. Serena is 5-1 against Venus in Grand Slam finals, but that's tainted from their shenanigans early in their career (their father at first wouldn't let them play each other, and then later, even when they did, they looked awful in those matches). And all three of Henin's wins have come against Kim Clijsters, who has yet to win a Slam.

I can't explain the two votes for Billie Jean King. She was very good, but not at the level of the others. I would vote for Navratilova, followed by Evert and Graf. Serena has a long way to go to earn mention with those three, and I'm not at all convinced Henin will continue to win.

Martina is actually still winning Grand Slam doubles titles if I remember correctly. So she can still compete at the top level. As for author, I can't believe Stupid didn't take all the high budget movies made from Tom Clancy's novels into account. Or maybe I didn't take this board's inherent geekiness into account. :p

[MIJB#19]

Front Office Women's Tennis?

[Solecismic]

Martina is actually still winning Grand Slam doubles titles if I remember correctly. So she can still compete at the top level.

Her last women's doubles Slam title was in 1990. She has won four mixed doubles titles since, including two in 2003.

No, I don't think she's competing close to the highest level any more. She's amazing for her age, but it's been a long time since she could give a top player a good match.

Anna Kournikova, for what it's worth, has two women's doubles Slam titles in the last few years. I don't see anyone making a case for her as an elite player right now. Though she was a good player.

[Leonidas]

5. Name the best current American novelist, defining current as having published a new novel in the last ten years.

Stephen King 21
Tom Clancy 11
John Grisham 8
Dan Brown 4
Toni Morrison 2
Dean Koontz 1
John Irving 1
John Updike 1
Jonathan Franzen 1
Michael Crichton 1
Nick Hornby 1
Thomas McGuane 1
Tom Wolfe 1

I couldn't resist this, being a literary snob. And yes, I'm as disappointed as some of the rest of you are. I didn't want to turn people off the contest by saying "best from a literary perspective" and force people to google the Booker Awards or the Nobel prizes.

I expected Grisham to fare better. But after a slow start, King lapped the field easily. Thanks, those of you who still sent in names like Irving (my own favorite), Franzen and Updike, probably knowing it would result in a loss. Your integrity is intact, at least, even if your scores were eaten alive by a rabid dog with carburetor issues.



It's questions like this that keep me from ever doing well. Still, I like to see my lone, one point answers of quality sitting within a popular sea of mediocrity. McGuane's The Cadence of Grass is the best book written in the US in the last 5 years (or at least the best one I've read).

[Desnudo]

Her last women's doubles Slam title was in 1990. She has won four mixed doubles titles since, including two in 2003.

No, I don't think she's competing close to the highest level any more. She's amazing for her age, but it's been a long time since she could give a top player a good match.

Anna Kournikova, for what it's worth, has two women's doubles Slam titles in the last few years. I don't see anyone making a case for her as an elite player right now. Though she was a good player.

She's also a lesbian which tends to make people remember her more.

[ahbrady]

I put Martina for my answer. My only doubt on putting her as an answer was whether or not enough people would consider her a female.

[Joe]

she's all woman, just ask Mary Cheney

[MIJB#19]

So, who's gonna host the next IWS?

[QuikSand]

I may have to get a copy of Bonfire of the Vanities. I read A Man In Full a while back, and generally thought it was "OK." Wolfe is a sound writer, but the story didn't really appeal to me in its entirety, and I found the ending to be a bit unrealistic. Maybe I just missed the point.

I hated the ending to A Man in Full. Hated it.

But I do feel that Wolfe tells just about the most compelling story I've ever read. I felt AMIF really dropped me into the "new South" and gave me a lot of layers to the racial, cultural, and class issues as the backdrop for the book.

The chapter I mentioned above was when Conrad went to town for his job interview. Wolfe wanted to paint a picture of enough frustration that when Conrad actually committed a fairly serious crime, we (the readers) would still feel completely sympathetic toward him and his principles ... I felt that not only did he accomplish this (pretty tough to do anyway) but indeed I felt myself become even more sympathetic to Conrad after that chapter. I think it's one of the best segments of writing I have ever read -- it really, really moved me.

[Franklinnoble]

I hated the ending to A Man in Full. Hated it.

But I do feel that Wolfe tells just about the most compelling story I've ever read. I felt AMIF really dropped me into the "new South" and gave me a lot of layers to the racial, cultural, and class issues as the backdrop for the book.

The chapter I mentioned above was when Conrad went to town for his job interview. Wolfe wanted to paint a picture of enough frustration that when Conrad actually committed a fairly serious crime, we (the readers) would still feel completely sympathetic toward him and his principles ... I felt that not only did he accomplish this (pretty tough to do anyway) but indeed I felt myself become even more sympathetic to Conrad after that chapter. I think it's one of the best segments of writing I have ever read -- it really, really moved me.
Excellent points...

[Joe]

So, who's gonna host the next IWS?

Next one will be up as soon as I get the questions from Panerd and Maple Leafs