Bill Tilden career accomplishments-a comparison with Federer

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by pc1, Jun 2, 2012.

  1. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Bill Tilden career accomplishments and tennis game-a comparison with Federer

    There has been a thread in which Jimmy Connors' career is being compared to Roger Federer's. All fine and dandy. Many assumed Federer wins by a Slam Dunk and with all the acclaim Federer gets today I can understand why. And frankly Federer does have the accomplishments to be compared with anyone in tennis history. But still I would prefer cold facts then people writing Federer is superior to player A on hard courts, clay courts, blue clay, grass courts and indoor courts. I've seen comments in the other thread stating Federer was superior to Connors on most surfaces and yet by some incredible magic Mr. Connors has a slightly higher winning percentage for his career. So to me the comments don't work.

    Federer may very well be superior to Connors but Connors' career accomplishments are fantastic and if you look carefully it doesn't seem to me at least that it's all that clear.

    Here's a question I'll ask--Whose career is more impressive, Bill Tilden's or Roger Federer? The reason I'm mentioning this is to point out that we can state opinions that one or another is the de facto GOAT but we also have to examine the information before we accept the judgment. I used to think Don Budge was by everything I've read, virtually unbeatable. I was surprised when he wasn't close to virtually unbeatable. He was excellent but I realized many of the so called information I read on Budge was just plain wrong. So I reevaluated my opinion on Budge due to the information. So in comparing Federer and Tilden I want everyone to examine and give information on both players. Opinion of course is welcome but hopefully it can be backed with logic. I don't need stuff like Federer's backhand always hit winners and is much better than Djokovic's. None of this about the competition because that can't be controlled. Some may say Tilden's competition was bad and some may say Federer's was bad. We'll assume it's equal. So on accomplishments and just objectively evaluating the career, which career is better. No nonsense about the physical nature being tougher today because any era that complains about blue clay isn't that tough.

    I also don't want to hear that the game is different today because I think Tilden at 6'2" tall and around 160 to 170 lbs would have adapted and learned. It can be reversed also to see if Federer can adapt to the conditions of the 1920's. Just leave this out. No one can logically prove anything here. It will go on and on forever and it'll be very annoying to read.

    Some stats of Tilden versus Federer. Some of this is estimates I've gotten from some tennis experts who have much of the information.

    Total tournaments won
    Tilden-161-est.
    Federer-77

    Total majors won (including Pro Majors)
    Tilden-14. Tilden won 15 majors if you include the World Hard Court that Tilden won that was really the major clay court championship. The French was not open to foreigners like Tilden.
    Federer-17
    We have to take into account that airplane travel was not available during Tilden's time so Big Bill did not go overseas that often. It would take many weeks to travel to England, France or Australian. In his prime Tilden may have won several Grand Slams considering how unbeatable he was.

    Percentage of majors won
    Tilden-14/42=.333
    Federer-17/58=.293

    Lifetime winning percentage
    Tilden-.660-est
    Federer-.813
    Note-Tilden, according to Bud Collins' book won from 1912 to 1930 in his amateur career (which essentially was the top level because he faced all the top competition) won 138 of 192 tournaments, lost 28 finals with a 907-62 match record. The winning percentage was .936! Tilden turn pro in the early 1930's and kept playing. The losses he had as an older player lowed his career winning percentage. He lost a good percentage on one night stands to players like Don Budge, Fred Perry, Ellsworth Vines. For example he lost to Budge with a probable score of 7-46-1. He lost to Vines by 27-46. He played both of these tours in his early to late forties. He lost regularly to Fred Perry (at least according to Perry) and he even played long enough to lose to Pancho Gonzalez!

    Grand Slams won
    Tilden-0
    Federer-0

    Percentage of tournaments won
    Tilden-.520-est.
    Federer-.278

    Winning percentage in best five years
    Tilden-.980-est.
    Federer-.907

    Look at the information and discuss.

    Federer is acclaimed by many to be the GOAT today. Tilden was named in a poll in the late 1960's to be the GOAT at that point.

    One thing I can say that is a fact. Roger Federer is currently the greatest blue clay player of all time. There can be no argument there, he just is and to argue against that would be wrong. And Serena Willilams is also currently the greatest female blue clay player of all time. They have proven themselves unbeatable on blue clay. :)

    To say that it was a long time ago is not an excuse to diminish Bill Tilden. Tilden's statistics and record is incredible. He played for decades at a great level.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2013
    #1
  2. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Tilden and Federer had huge talent, both played very weak fields ( until Tilden joined the pros, but he was very old by then) and had just two major rivals each (Lacoste and Cochet / Nadal and Djoker).

    Tilden, however, was able to play his substantial best tennis as old as 36 or 37 and it remains to be seen whether Federer will also be capable of.

    Oh¡ and their major strokes were the FH, both having 2 of the best ever FH ( and possibly, the best )
     
    #2
  3. darrinbaker00

    darrinbaker00 Professional

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,013
    Location:
    Berkeley, CA
    As far as I'm concerned, what Bill Tilden did to teenage boys negated everything he ever accomplished on the tennis court.
     
    #3
  4. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    That's awful of course but let's just discuss the tennis.
     
    #4
  5. Fearsome Forehand

    Fearsome Forehand Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,186
    Location:
    USA
    Tilden dominated his era. He would have won many more majors if he had actually played the tournaments instead of sitting them out (because it was simply understood that he was the best player in the world and would win.) And once one turned pro, one could no longer play the majors. When still an amateur Tilden was suspended for about a year because he accepted payment for articles he has written. He also lost about a third of the forefinger on his playing hand from an infection in the days before anti-biotics.

    Some other factors to consider; players has to travel by ship not planes. (It took Budge 3 weeks to get to Australia the year he won the Slam. And there was a 2 week delay to play his US Open Final due to a hurricane.) I think it took about a week to get to England by ship from NY. Plus almost all tournaments were on grass. A completely different world then. Hard for us to imagine.

    Tilden was quite the character. He played pro tennis until his 50's when he dropped dead of a heart attack while preparing to go to yet another tournament (in Cleveland?). He died completely broke, spent some time in jail, dabbled in theater and was sexually creepy/strange (homosexual/pedophile).

    If you ever watch film of Tilden, you probably would not be impressed by his game. The modern game is so much different than it was in the 1920's.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2012
    #5
  6. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Debatable whether they both played weak fields. Tilden had a lot of top rivals as did Federer at his best.

    You're right, Tilden is also recognized as having one of the greatest forehands of all time. Tilden has that in common with Federer.
     
    #6
  7. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Excellent post. I've seen many videos of Tilden and yes I'm not as impressed in looking at his strokes as I would be compared to a Don Budge or a Bobby Riggs yet old Bill Tilden, age 48 did win seven matches (losing 46 or 51 depending on what you read) against Budge. That's not bad for an old man. I've also seen unimpressive videos of Laver and also impressive videos of Laver. Sometimes it's hard to tell on these old videos.

    My gut feeling on Tilden, assuming the same general personality on tennis is that he would have adapted his strokes easily to fit today's style of play. Yes it's different from hitting with a small wooden racquet but let's be real. It's easier to learn to hit with today's racquets which do some much work for you than the other way around. Years ago I had a buddy who had an old wood racquet he hit with. I lent him my modern (at the time) racquet and his strokes just had more punch and spin immediately. He asked me if he could keep the racquet so I gave it to him.

    To use an analogy, let's consider the sport of baseball. In High School and many college leagues they allow aluminum baseball bats. They are lighter and more powerful and these players can hit the ball harder. The major leagues use wooden bats and some of the great hitters in HS and College can't hit with wood bats. The major league scouts have to judge if the prospects who used alumininum bats can hit with wood before they consider drafting them.

    The ones who use wood can easily adapt to alumininum.

    http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/bats/alumwood.html
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdx41UQM-8c
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2012
    #7
  8. Fearsome Forehand

    Fearsome Forehand Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,186
    Location:
    USA
    I think that there are some players who, for unknown reasons, are simply geniuses at winning tennis matches. There are lots of guys with big strokes, big serves, nice volleys, great athleticism, all the tools to win and they level off at 200 in the world and never advance beyond that. Some players are just blessed with the ability to win matches. It is an intangible ability. Tilden apparently had that sort of genius given how he dominated his era. How he would do today is hard to say. I assume he could adapt but the talent pool is much bigger now than it was in 1920.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2012
    #8
  9. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    It was a hundred years ago, who knows? I mean really, this thread is simply pointless. Maybe he was actually a terrible player or maybe he was amazing.

    1)It was after World War 1 so there was a massively diluted talent pool.

    2)The ONLY people who could play tennis were rich members of country clubs.

    3) He was tall in an age where people were very short.

    4)He was playing against people who mostly played for fun on the weekends.

    There's pretty much no film of him, if he was actually as good as his numbers suggest I would be absolutely amazed. It's possible though.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2012
    #9
  10. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    really? I don´t think Cochet,Borotra,Lacoste,Johnston or Patterson were mere country club players...
     
    #10
  11. billnepill

    billnepill Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,079
    Location:
    UK
    Not the best thread
     
    #11
  12. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Perhaps but I thought for once we would discuss accomplishments and Bill Tilden was a great figure in tennis history.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2012
    #12
  13. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Another reason I decided on Tilden is that despite his problems he was a gigantic figure in the game's history, essentially equivalent to Babe Ruth in baseball, Wilt Chamberlain in basketball etc. Tilden also played great players (who incidentally were at least 6 feet tall or over 6 feet tall) like Gonzalez, Vines, Budge, Perry. He played some of these greats hundreds of times.

    Perhaps it's a boring subject to many but taking out his "problem" he still was an interesting character and fascinating in his approach to tennis.

    There was a story Fred Perry related in his autobiography about Bill Tilden. Perry wrote that Tilden wanted to hit with him on a hot day in Independence, Kansas. Apparently when they got to the court he told Perry to hit a few to his forehand, short and wide. Perry did this and Tilden returned the balls using a perfect continental just like Fred Perry himself would. Tilden said that after watching Perry play so many times and studying his style he realized the continental grip and not his own Eastern grip was the best one for that sort of shot and Tilden felt he wouldn't be a complete player unless he had mastered it. Perry wrote that when Tilden perfected the continental grip he was 53 years old. That's very impressive to me. It just shows what a perfectionist Tilden was and how he was always trying to improve in tennis.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2012
    #13
  14. roundiesee

    roundiesee Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,864
    What would we give to have Big Bill come back from time to play against Federer? :) I think Tilden was probably one of the best players who ever lived, but because he played so long ago, many have forgotten how good he was. I also suspect that he was ever the showman, and some of his so-called videos were not an accurate representation of his actual skills during competition.
     
    #14
  15. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,376
    Tilden, the Oscar Wilde of Tennis, is in many ways the greatest personality the game has known. Highly ambivalent yes, but no one had this kind of impact - playing, teaching, writing. His record speaks for itself, considering the circumstances, that he played constantly only one major - the US champs - in his prime. One aspect, Frank Deford mentioned, was, that the fundamental style of the game wasn't streamlined in those days. There was no standardisation of grips, strokes, body position, footwork, and so on. Tilden had to set the common standards all by himself, and he did.
     
    #15
  16. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    How true. Roger Federer may not be playing the way he plays now without the teachings of Bill Tilden.
     
    #16
  17. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    #17
  18. JorgeLobo

    JorgeLobo New User

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    19
    Think Tilden was more comparable to Michael Jackson than Oscar Wilde. If "ambivalent" means child molester - that he was that indeed.
     
    #18
  19. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,544
    Location:
    Weak era
    #19
  20. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    #20
  21. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,544
    Location:
    Weak era
    Hehe, tricked you :).

    Thanks for posting those clips, it's always nice to see some footage of past tennis greats.
     
    #21
  22. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    #22
  23. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    I respectfully disagree. Comparing accomplishments from the 20s to today is not fair. If numbers is the be-all-and end-all, then Bill Tilden should be ranked higher than #16 from the tennis channel, rather he's behind some of the great like Mac and Agassi. So no, his accomplishments is behind Fed(despite better at some stats).

    How is tennis or any sports that is completive at the highest level when players are wearing pant and sweater on court?
    [​IMG]

    It took another decade for a player name Bunny Austin who was the first player to wear short.

    According to Collins, from 1912–1930 he won 138 titles but played less than a 1,000 matches. For today's standard, to win 138 titles you must play at least 2,000 matches, not to mention includes some of the losses, which could reach nearly 3,000 matches.

    Number of titles can be deceiving.
     
    #23
  24. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Two thousand divided by 138 equals 14.49. I'm not aware of any top tennis tournament that you have to win 14 matches although Laver won the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic by winning 13 matches without a loss.

    Tilden played 969 matches in that period in 192 tournaments. That's 5.05 matches per tournament.
    Federer in his career has played 1032 matches in 256 tournaments. That 4.03 matches per tournament. Tilden's actually played more matches per tournament than Federer.

    Please be more careful with your division and no more arguments about the time period. We are discussing achievements.

    I won't even bother with discussing the time period because it'll be endless and no one can discuss this logically.

    And incidentally I do think Tilden should be a lot higher than the number 16 on the Tennis Channel. Didn't the Tennis Channel also have Roy Emerson higher than Pancho Gonzalez? The Tennis Channel List is an opinion list, not a fact list. Federer should be ranked very high but being ranked number one by the Tennis Channel does not confirm him as the number one player ever anymore than it confirms Rod Laver as the number two player.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2012
    #24
  25. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Tilden also invented the cannon ball as he was possibly the first ever big server in tennis history.
     
    #25
  26. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Respectfully I disagree. Tilden may have been the first really well known player for his big serve but others previously had big serves.

    I suppose you may be correct in that he may have popularized the big serve.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2012
    #26
  27. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    In some ways the playing strengths of Tilden and Federer are similar. Federer has arguably the best forehand of all time while Tilden arguably had the best forehand of his time. I would tend to think that Federer may very well have had the superior forehand. Both are superb movers.

    Federer has won three majors in a year several times and in that way is superior to anything Tilden has done. I would think Tilden at his best would have done that but would have is not the same as doing it and Federer did succeed.

    The best years Tilden had for majors was winning Wimbledon and the US Nationals (now the US Open) in 1920 and 1921. Tilden didn't enter the Australian and the French was only open to the French players in those years.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2012
    #27
  28. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    When he was old, those were exhibitions where they carried him so to fill seats.
     
    #28
  29. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    #29
  30. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Actually, Gerald Patterson had a huge serve before Tilden. I don't know if it was as big as Tilden's, but, it was big and was Patterson's best weapon.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QL1sglyouU

    Before that, Maurice Mclaughlin probably invented the cannon ball serve in the early 1910's. Before 1900, it was considered impolite to try to win a point on serve.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_E._McLoughlin

    Here's a pic of Mclaughlin serving: http://www.google.com/imgres?q=maur...17&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:0,i:105&biw=1008&bih=577

    Here's another: http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/3576199494/

    Here's Mclaughlin hitting a pretty modern looking WW finish on a short forehand: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=7236526&PIpi=24157862

    Here's another good pic of Mclaughlin's forehand: http://www.google.com/imgres?q=maur...22&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:17,i:116&biw=1008&bih=577
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2012
    #30
  31. cristiano

    cristiano New User

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    84
    I like the thread because I have always seen similarities between the two players.

    They (and almost only they) have been considered by most the best ever, they have won and dominated in a similar way. They have similarities in their game, with a big forehand, a great serve, a great body and footwork, a good but nit great backhand, a good but not great volley, a complete game but mostly playing with ground strokes. Federer has not Tilden's ' aura' , but still is seen by many as the main character on the court even when he loses, like Tilden. They both lost the number one to players that were even more consistent from the back of the court, retrieving everything, clever players, and they did not succeed in change their strategies becoming more aggressive net players, because of them.

    I prefer, by an inch :), Tilden, but I think they are on the same level.

    I usually hate the youcannotcomparedifferenteras argument. But I have to say that before Tilden, and maybe even in the twenties, at least the first half, it's an argument that makes sense. I remember what, if my memory is not wrong, Lott told his wife, one day, not to be upset for Tilden's behaviour, because ' we all just like to play, but for him, tennis is his life'. And, if it' s true that Tennis was really Tilden's life more than anybody else's life in the future , it' s true that in those years the competition was a bit different not only form today, but even from the very next decades. It's not fair to mention the musketeers, budge, vines, and perry. Tilden had his best years before they arrived. Ok, he's been great even afterwards, but definitely not a possible goat. Tilden helped creating tennis, so I prefer to compare all the players after Tilden.
     
    #31
  32. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Cristiano, that's a wonderful post.

    I have little doubt that if Tilden played in this era he would adapted fairly easily to the game today and would have been as good as anyone who played. Perhaps he would have a two hander if he felt it worked better. Perhaps he would have figured out some new ideas no one thought of before. The guy was a tennis genius, alway striving to improve himself.
     
    #32
  33. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Great links. Thanks.
     
    #33
  34. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,544
    Location:
    Weak era
    Yeah, Federer fail category :)
     
    #34
  35. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,376
    Yes, going by numbers, Tilden is in a different category.
     
    #35
  36. Xavier G

    Xavier G Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    516
    Bill Tilden is a legendary figure in tennis history. How you compare tennis in the 20's to the present day is a valid point though. I prefer to say Tilden was great in his day and Federer is obviously a great player today. If I give an edge, it will generally be to players of the last twenty or thirty years though over players from the 1920's and 30's because of deeper competition and fields, advancements in training and diets, and added media pressure, expectation, a more physical game overall etc.
    Tilden may have been a great player in any era, it's possible.
     
    #36
  37. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    That's is a great prank you pulled on me. Very hilarious. :)

    Anyway as we all know, Federer has a fine backhand. Even when he whiffs he looks better than some who hits a solid shot.

    Wonder if Bill Tilden whiffed? Never saw Jimmy Connors whiff. Maybe we should bump the greatest backhands thread. lol.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
    #37
  38. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    That was Tilden's best period when he played in those 192 events. You use Fed's entire career to compare to Tilden's best years. We all know Fed lost in the early round plenty of time when he was a kid. You should have use Fed's best years(2004-07) and compare to Tilden's best years.

    Anyway, Fed and Bill are 80 years apart and comparing their stats is pointless to proved who's better. If you go back 20 years from now there's hardly any player that won at least 10 titles per year. Winning is not like a walk in the park 80 years ago. Anyone who suggest that Tilden won 160+ titles 80 years ago is equivalent to today's winning the same amount is not being honest.
     
    #38
  39. Swissv2

    Swissv2 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,491
    Location:
    Tennis Courts!
    Whoohoo, we can probably say Tilden played in a weak era :D :D
     
    #39
  40. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    If you look carefully at my first post in this thread that gave the statistics, the information about Tilden was given in a note in the lifetime winning percentage category. The information covered the first 19 years of Bill Tilden's career from 1912 to 1930. As we all know, the first year Federer played on the tour was in 1998 and his first full year was 1999 so Federer's been on the tour for about 15 years so I do think it's good comparison even from that standpoint.

    However if you read the statistics I gave more carefully I did have Tilden's lifetime statistics included. And Tilden lost a lot when he was younger also. In fact he really didn't become "Tilden" until 1920 at the ripe old age of 27.

    And if you look more carefully I did include Federer's best years and compared them to Tilden's best years.

    Incidentally didn't the 1927 Yankees win the World Series? Doesn't that World Series count as much as the one the Cardinals won last year? It's certainly in the record books as that. I know the New York Yankees count it as one World Series victory and don't consider it diluted by time to .25 World Series victory. So along the same lines I know Wimbledon counts Bill Tilden's victory in the 1920 Wimbledon as one Wimbledon championship, not a .25 Wimbledon championship. That championship in 1920 counts as much as Federer's championship in 2007. No more stuff about time period. It won't be responded to and is a total waste of time. It destroys threads.

    Winning percentages in tennis have one big thing in common. The average at any time is 50%. So if Tilden or Federer dominate, they dominate a field including themselves that wins half the time.

    As some as commented in other posts, in tennis Bill Tilden and Roger Federer have a lot in common by style and by celebrity. They are close in height, with Tilden an inch taller, about the same weight, they are both super movers, have great forehands with Federer's a bit better in my opinion, excellent backhands, good volleys, excellent serves and top stamina. Both are by far the most popular and most famous tennis players of their time.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2012
    #40
  41. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    20,014
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    This is an excellent thread, and it's good that we can talk about players from all eras here and compare them as such. Certainly these are two premier legends of the game and should appear near the top of any list of tennis legends.
     
    #41
  42. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Thanks Nathaniel. I also wanted to point out to people the interesting player that Tilden was. Everyone today knows every little detail it seems about Federer. Heck he has a thread on his kids on this website.

    Both fascinating players.
     
    #42
  43. Loose Cannon

    Loose Cannon Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    384
    Sorry....but the oldies would get get wiped off the court by any current player. They hit like wussies for the most part back then....not all. What this has to do with the thread....not sure....just my 2 cents
     
    #43
  44. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Read the first post my friend. That may be true or may not be true but the problem is that the thread degenerate into arguments about past versus present and that's waste of time and seems to happen in many threads. Let's avoid this.
     
    #44
  45. Loose Cannon

    Loose Cannon Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    384
    I did!

    I admitted I was rolling off the tracks and fired up an out of bounds remark....


    Atleast I warned all!
     
    #45
  46. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    20,014
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Tilden had an amazing ability to adapt and change his game to improve, given what I have heard before about the man. He was willing to make huge overhauls to his game to stay ahead of the competition. I don't like to think about if players today would wipe the floor with the players of yesteryear because it's totally irrelevant. Players today have advances and history and thus immediately have a head start over players of the past. For example, shot mechanics have moved on a long way and that is not just to do with the evolution of rackets. I prefer to look at how players have done in their eras, and to imagine given their relative skillset and personal characteristics, how that talent may have thrived if it were born into another era.

    Tennis is a global sport and in every era there has been a very large talent pool. In short, it makes sense to suggest that a top player from any era would at least have fair chances of becoming a top player in another era, as just like other top players they would have proved themselves to be of the elite talent group among a player base numbering in the MILLIONS.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
    #46
  47. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Fair enough but DON'T YOU DARE DO IT AGAIN! lol. :)

    Seriously I just want decent discussion in this thread. I don't want pointless arguing about past versus present. I'm not writing you would do that but many tend to argue for the past or present in these threads and it's just is a retread of many threads here.

    Remember one thing Tilden was one of the people who invented or at worst popularized many of the modern techniques in tennis that we still use today. Federer may not be Federer if he wasn't preceded by Bill Tilden. Tilden today would have been analyzing the game and probably devising his own ideas on modern tennis and perhaps the game would be even better.

    So the oldies may be "wussies" but they were wussies who advanced the game.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
    #47
  48. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    20,014
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Seriously, there were so many things hideously wrong about that whole list. It was still very enjoyable; who doesn't want features on 100 great tennis players! I was very happy to see the mini profiles and some were particularly inspiring and/or informative. But, the actual placements of some players were beyond suspect.
     
    #48
  49. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    I feel the same way. But yes the profiles are always nice to see and hear. I would love to see more interviews with the older players.
     
    #49
  50. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,544
    Location:
    Weak era
    It's all in good spirits :)

    Besides trying to prank you, I was also making a sort of a point about youtube highlights being used in an argument so often (whether it's Fed's BH or Pete's running FH highlights or something else).

    I mean I could for example take Roddick's matches and make a video of his BH winners and use it as a proof his BH is a great shot even though it's a wide known fact that it isn't (for pro standards obviously) or I could take some of worst Fed's matches and make a highlight reel of his FH misses and present it as a proof that his FH is a weak shot even though in reality it's one of the best ever.

    Fed even whiffs with grace LOL.

    But yeah Fed's BH is a good shot, I personally feel like his BH is more of a good complement to the rest of his game rather than being a great standalone shot, a tool more so than a weapon.

    Sure, I love those best shot threads, especially when the debate about Fed's place in the list heats up :)
     
    #50

Share This Page