Clay Court GOAT

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by timnz, May 18, 2009.

  1. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Again, we have a CYGS in the way. And Graf was very dominant against all the best female players in the late 1980s.

    Vines won 8 as well.

    1. 1931 US Championships
    2. 1932 Wimbledon
    3. 1932 US Championships
    4. 1934 Wembley Pro
    5. 1935 French Pro
    6. 1935 Wembley Pro
    7. 1936 Wembley Pro
    8. 1939 US Pro

    And Vines had winning records against all his rivals except Budge.

    Who overtook Vines? Crawford in the amateurs in 1933, and Budge in the pros in 1939. The rest of the decade, Vines was beating all his rivals.

    And if you want to talk about the level of competition, what about the level of competition in the 1938 amateur ranks when Budge won the CYGS? Crawford was within 1 set of winning the CYGS in 1933, in a field that contained Vines and Perry. Not the best route for you to go down, if you ask me.
     
  2. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Yes Crawford overtook him in 1933 and then he turned pro immediately rather than continue to face a younger and stronger opponent. Budge turned pro and overtook him immediately once he did, and Vines in turn immediately quit tennis and went to pro golf. In between he was mostly beating men a decade older than him like Tilden, Cochet, and LaCoste.

    Just settle that you proved kiki was wrong and Vines > Kodes. Stop trying to inflate him into something nobody outside a few posters in this thread thinks he is.


    Budge was dominant vs everyone he faced in the late 30s and won the CYGS, what is the difference. Budge also wasnt only facing greats a decade older than him, the way Graf and Vines both did during the heights of their dominance. It was like challenging their own Mom or Dad to play against them, and the best their own age were such giants as Nussein or Sabatini.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 12, 2012
  3. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    While I respect your opinions, you are anbsolutely biassed with Vines.he is no top 10 in any modern journalist list ( neither is Kodes, anyway).

    Look, let´s face the reality, not favouritism:

    Majors won: 3 each
    Quality players defeated at major finals: Kodes won an all time rgeat ( Nastase) and 2 good but not really champions (Franulovic and Metrevali)
    Vines won an all time great (Cochet) and two good but not great players (Doeg and Austin9

    Both lost 2 other major finals and very close (Vines to Crawford,Kodes to Nastase)

    Vines won pro majors in a depleted field

    Kodes had to face a much tougher field, which prevented him from taking the equivalents of majors ( although he won other important tour events)

    One thing compensates the other

    conclusion: both had almost twin careers.

    Rest is pure marketing stuff.A Czech guy from a then commie country has no chance agaainst the powerful and mediatic US marketing.
     
  4. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Correction.Kodes lost to Newcombe, not Nastase ( 1973 US open)
     
  5. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Great post.You know what you talk about.
     
  6. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Courier belongs in the same tier or maybe a notch above.Kodes is far far far ahead of one time slam winner Chang
     
  7. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Shame on Vines for wanting to get paid for playing tennis :?

    Budge beat Vines by 21-18, after Vines had been the best professional player in the world for the previous 5 years. Vines quit in 1940 because he had become more interested in professional golf.

    And Perry didn't overtake Vines, did he? ;)
     
  8. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Connolly was the first woman to win the Grand Slam ( and only 2 other have equalled that).She was revolutionary in the 50´s.She is top 5-6 ever.
     
  9. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Tilden was very old, Nusslein,Stoefen,Plaas are nobodies...and seems that Vines lost very early at the majors from 1933 on...looks like his record, while great and very honourable, doesn´t go along those senseless praising he is getting over here.
     
  10. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    Not true, Crawford was 3 years older than Vines.

    And Vines did not have a losing record against him. He walloped Crawford in 1932 at Wimbledon, 6-2, 6-1, 6-3. The next year they met in the final and Crawford won in five sets. Crawford could barely beat him, while Vines could easily beat Crawford.

    Again this is misleading. Two years running he took H2H tours against a peak Perry, who was only 2 years older than him.

    And you list Lacoste to fatten up the list of older players who were Vines' opponents. But I don't know if Vines ever met Lacoste. Their careers barely overlapped: http://www.tennisarchives.com/coureurfiche.php?coureurid=5297
     
  11. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    Pancho Gonzalez vs. Marat Safin
    2 majors each
     
  12. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Didn´t prove anything at all.If Kodes had faced Nusslein or Stoeffen in majors, he would have 2.3 more majors by now.

    Vines, while he may be more talented than Kodes, just dominated one -two years, then, as you posted avoided Crawford and turned pro and beat either old guys like tilden and Cochet or mere journeymen like Nusslein or Stoefen.Then, Budge and Perry beat him and he takes golf.it doesn´t seem to me a truly dominant player 8 except for a couple of years, with a much weaker opposition Kodes ever had)
     
  13. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    Truly ignorant to call Nusslein a nobody.

    And you're not even following the debate now. You think Perry beat Vines? When?
     
  14. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Tilden was the best professional player in the world from 1931-1933. Vines dethroned Tilden, and then defended his crown against challengers such as Nusslein, Stoefen, Cochet, Plaa and Perry. Nobody succeeded until Budge did in 1939.

    And as for Budge, he was dethroned by Riggs as the best professional before the end of the war. Using NadalAgassi's logic, that makes Budge overrated.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2012
  15. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    How many majors did Nusslein have? whom did he beat to achieve´em?
     
  16. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    Before the end of the war?
     
  17. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I have Vines as the world's best amateur in 1931 and 1932, and the world's best professional in 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938. My subjective opinion is that Vines was the best player in the world in 1932, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938.
     
  18. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Wrong.Not posible to compare.Gonzales played just 2 years as an amateur and 20 as a pro.I am comparing Vines from 1930-33 and Kodes 70-73.Same slot of time, I guess.
     
  19. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Isn't Riggs considered the best player of 1943-1947? Kramer was right on Riggs' back in 1947 for the world's best player while Kramer was still an amateur. Kramer turned pro in late 1947 and overtook Riggs in 1948. Kramer was the last newly turned professional to dethrone the reigning professional champion in a world pro tour. Kramer beat Riggs, Gonzales, Segura and Sedgman in world pro tours. Gonzales beat Segura, Sedgman, Budge, McGregor, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Anderson, Olmedo, MacKay, Buchholz and Gimeno in world pro tours, before retiring in 1961, until June 1963.

    Oh, and Perry was the best in 1941, winning all 5 pro tournaments that he played in that year, including the US Pro. Budge lost all 3 tournaments he played in 1941. Budge was the best player in 1939, 1940 and 1942, in my opinion.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2012
  20. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Nusslein has 5 professsional majors:

    1. 1934 US Pro (beat Jennings, Pare, Vines and Kozeluh)
    2. 1937 French Pro (beat Ramillon, Tilden and Cochet)
    3. 1937 Wembley Pro (beat Plaa, Stoefen and Tilden)
    4. 1938 French Pro (beat Pettit, Plaa and Tilden)
    5. 1938 Wembley Pro (beat Tilden)
     
  21. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Thanks.Tilden,Cochet and Hozeluh were reaching their 40´s when Nusslein beta them.Seems like he had old Big Bill´s number, tough.
     
  22. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    so Vines of 34-40 doesn't count ??? LOL !!!! Just because your beloved Kodes didn't do much outside of 70-73 ( 4 year time-frame ) we should only consider a 4 year time-frame for Vines ?

    LOL !!!!!!!!
     
  23. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Even if we only talk of Vines' amateur career, who was a better player than Vines in 1932?

    When was Kodes the best player in the world?
     
  24. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Kodes was never nº 1, even if he did beat nº 1 players like GOAT Laver, almost Goat´s Rosewall and also Newcombe, big champs like Nasty,Ashe,Smith.He also beat a young Bjorn Borg, and also a great of the 70´s called Orantes.I never claimed him to be nº1.

    Vines had a more dominant year, true, in 1932.He may have been more talented, as well.But career wise I still think they are very close, of course, if we leave the marketing issues aside...

    (Vines may have won the then called Pro majors but Kodes faced like 3 times the level of competition Vines faced so that counterbalances the former)
     
  25. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    I don't know why you keep insisting Vines only won three majors when I and some others pointed out he won eight majors if you include Pro Majors.

    There are NO marketing issues here. Kodes failed when facing top level competition. I showed his awful won-lost against the likes of Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Vilas, Connors, Nastase, Smith, Newcombe, Okker and many others.

    Vines had many more dominant years. He was the top pro and mostly likely the world's best years from 1934 to 1938. Vines faced the top level and succeeded brilliantly beating everyone (with minor exceptions) but Don Budge.

    There is no doubt Vines was not just more talented than Budge but far more talented.



    I do agree with Krosero that some may rank Vines on level of play as one of the top but his record does stand out.
     
  26. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    This just demonstrates that Pancho was greater than Vines, which I agree with. But you think it's not possible to compare? Pancho had arguably 8 years as the world's top player, all in the pros. Vines had arguably 6 years altogether as the world's top player -- two years in the amateur game (1931-32) and four more years in the pro game (1934-37) (I can't agree with 1938 ). Pancho has the lead over Vines, but please, they can most definitely be compared. The ironic thing is that they're even closer in your system than in mine, because Vines has arguably two years as #1 in the amateur game, while all of Pancho's years as #1 are in the pro game. And the amateur game is the only one in which you count majors. So Vines, according to you, is greater than Pancho: 3 majors vs. 2.

    Yes, I know, Pancho's pro career was greater than Vines'. But hey, if you're going to bring in the pro game, then why do stop Vines' career at 1933? Seriously, I have never seen anything like this on this board. You've stopped a man's career at a point where he still has four years remaining as world #1.

    Transparent nonsense.
     
  27. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    he didn't .....and the actual majors that Kodes won, he faced poor competition. If he actually faced the full fields , he may have ended up with ZERO , yes , ZERO majors ....

    for example, he lost to laver in rome 71 ...hence lucky he didn't face him or rosewall in 70 FO or 71 FO .....

    smith/newcombe were definitely better than him on grass and one or the other would have beaten him in 73 wimbledon....

    oh and get this Kodes was owned by almost every great player you mention - laver, rosewall ( both past their best ) , connors, borg, newcombe, nastase .... only one he has a respectable H2H is smith ....

    how is a career of 3 amateur majors + 5 pro majors with being top player for several years (Vines ) anywhere close to a career of 3 weakened majors and even close to top player for a single year ( Kodes ) ?
     
  28. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Ok, which are the pro players, other than old ( really old) Tilden and Cochet Vines faced before Budge and Fred Perry turned pro? that will give the measure of competitiveness.

    Kodes faced great players in a larger scale.You´ll agree with me on that.Not even the hint of a comparative.It makes no sense to bring the names of Nusslein,Plaas or Stoefen that would be triple baggeled by any of the top 30-40 players of jan Kodes era.I agree with Tilden and Cochet, but they were very past their peak in the late 30´s.it leaves Vines with a little margin if we talk about the pros.
     
  29. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Yes, Smith proved being better on grass than Kodes in 73...specially, when they met at the Forest Hills semifinals...
     
  30. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    This is more nonsense, but the really interesting point is how this argument collapses on itself. If Kodes faced "like 3 times the level of competition Vines faced," simply because he played in the 1970s, then Kodes also faced at least 3 times the competition that Don Budge did.

    And as I said to you days ago, if you place quality of competition so high as a criteria, then that completely devalues Budge's Grand Slam, because Budge's competition in 1938 was, in fact, poorer than what Vines faced. In other words, according to you Kodes is on the level of Budge, because Kodes won 3 majors, while Budge won 6, but Kodes' competition was "3 times" greater than what Budge faced. At least 3 times, maybe more.

    I mean, isn't that how you've been arguing? Don't you just drop great names from the 70s (even if Kodes never beat them), and throw them into the pot as Kodes' competition. Okay, so let's do that with Budge. Kodes, according to you, played in the great era of Laver, Rosewall, Smith, Nastase, Newcombe, Connors, Borg.

    Which of Budge's opponents in 1938 would you like to stack against that list?

    I'm sorry, but you've called Budge a GOAT candidate, yet according to your arguments Kodes comes out at least as great as Budge, maybe even greater.

    This is so bizarre.
     
  31. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I think those analysts on the tennis channel did the same thing in stopping at the end of Vines' amateur career. The same for Gonzales, as if Gonzales took an 18 and a half year sabbatical from the sport until the open era started.
     
  32. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    You never wrote that previously that I remember. But Kodes played many years after 1973 and never came close to the levels Vines reached. In my opinion Kodes wasn't going to ever regularly beat guys like Borg, Connors, Vilas and many of the top players even at his best.

    If Kodes was so brilliant he would have done better than that afterwards. Kodes was fast, good volley, decent serve, great return but he didn't have that much power. Guys like Vilas could destroy him. In 1975 Vilas crushed him at the US Open on har tru with the loss of only two games in three sets. Kodes wasn't even thirty at that time.

    Vines record in the pros was superb, his record in the amateurs was excellent. He won every tour he played except for the ones against Budge. Vines defeated everyone including all time greats in Perry, Tilden, Cochet. You write that Cochet was older but he did defeat Cochet in the finals of the 1932 US Championships in straight sets. Cochet was still excellent since he reached the finals. It's just that he couldn't handle the power of Vines. Vines explained that Cochet like to stand in no man's land to half volley. It didn't work when Vines was driving his groundies well off both sides.

    I totally agree on every point.
     
  33. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    I agree there but my point was that it's not as ridiculous a comparison as Vines versus Kodes.
     
  34. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,981
    Location:
    U.S
    oh and jeez laver proved to better on grass than drysdale , specially when they met in R16 in USO 1968 , oh wait , that hurts poor Kiki ..... :)

    of course we should all forget smith beat kodes at wimbledon in 72, forest hills in 71 , right ? that he won two majors on grass against full fields , compared to Kodes who won one against a totally depleted field ......
     
  35. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    Kiki every time you talk about Vines' competition you leave out Perry, which borders on dishonesty. (The one time you brought him in, ironically, was when you claimed Perry beat him!) Why would you ask me to name the great players that Vines' faced before Perry turned pro? They are there, of course: Vines dominated Cochet both in the amateur game and in the pros; he beat Nusslein; he beat a still-excellent Tilden (a player with longevity second to none); all of this before Perry turned pro. And yet why would anyone want to stop at that point? Beating Perry in pro tours two years in a row is arguably Vines' greatest accomplishment.

    You've got it totally backwards, when you consider Vines' amateur accomplishments (great as they were) to be greater than his pro accomplishments.

    And no, I do NOT agree that Kodes faced great players "in a larger scale" -- not in the sense in which you mean. Kodes faced great players, and mostly lost to them, either by small margins, or sometimes by large ones (failing to beat Connors at any time; beating only a 16-year-old Borg; etc)
     
  36. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Kodes also beat Newcombe, the best grass court of the 1970´s at the US Open, back in 71...now, is the US Open a major for you or it is not?
     
  37. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Smith's majors didn't have full fields. The 1971 US Open was at the time when the dispute between the ILTF and WCT was reaching its height and many WCT contracted players stayed away, although Newcombe played and lost to Kodes in the first round. The WCT contracted players were banned from all Grand Prix events from January to July in 1972, which included the French Open and Wimbledon.
     
  38. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    As you well know the Tennis Channel list is way off and really shouldn't be used for anyone. Any list that has Pancho Gonzalez below Roy Emerson is laughable. So many problems with that list.

    I really don't think Vines is a GOAT but as Krosero wrote earlier it is all about level of play with him. You have to have an incredible level of play to defeat the almost invincible Fred Perry on tour easily. You have to be amazing to barely lose a tour to Don Budge at his best.

    The video Kings of the Court also ranks Vines as one of the greatest of all time.

    Vines like Laver, Gonzalez and Rosewall were penalized for not being able to enter the old classic majors during their prime years. Undoubtedly Vines would have won numerous majors if he played those years against a top field. Kodes, playing against a top field may very well have not won even a single majors.

    Still Kodes did win those majors and we have to give him great credit for that.

    But you gave Laver credit for all the Pro Majors he won I believe but yet at the same time you refuse to give Vines credit for all the Pro Majors he won.

    Here's Bobby Riggs' top ten list which was written I believe in 1978. I write that because he did see Kodes play.
    1. Kramer
    2. Budge
    3. Vines
    4. Tilden
    5. Gonzalez
    6. Perry
    7. Laver
    8. Segura
    9. Sedgman
    10. Rosewall

    And Riggs is pretty objective on this list. He actually ranks himself at ten above Rosewall but below the others.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2012
  39. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I don´t think you can compare a pro field with Hoad,Gonzales,Rosewall,Olmedo and Gimeno vs a pro field with Perry,Nuslein,Stoeffen,Hozeluh,Plaas...at least, in my humble opinion.
     
  40. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    A great field but Perry, Nusslein and the others aren't chopped liver either and Vines beat them.

    George Lott's top five in no order.
    Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Laver and Vines.

    If we define everyone by the field then Laver and other greats may be lowered also since the field in the 1950's was unbelievable in the Pro Ranks.

    Gene Mako's top eight. No order
    Tilden,Vines, Perry, Budge, Kramer, Hoad, Borg, McEnroe.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2012
  41. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    This list is a joke.it is obvious that gambler Riggs wants to enhance his playing years and, to just justify it as honest, picks up Laver ( at 7¡¡¡) and Rosewall ( at 10¡¡¡).
     
  42. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    I've seen that too, but I'm not sure why. This page has Riggs not playing any matches in 1943: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings

    In 1944 and '45 Riggs did play some matches, but they were so few, and under such unusual circumstances (games arranged with the armed forces, depending on where players were stationed). It's true that in this time Riggs and Budge met in a few exos and Riggs started beating Budge. But there was no pro game, as such, by this time, which is why I think it's misleading to say that Riggs surpassed Budge in the pro game before the end of the war. When the pro game resumed he definitely surpassed him.

    I think the 21-18 figure comes from McCauley, but the Associated Press and the New York Times tracked the progress of the tour and ended up with 22-17. If Vines took one more match, making it 21-18, I'm not aware of which one it was; and none of the newspapers were aware of it either.

    I don't have every match documented but I've got most of them.

    McCauley also has Budge beating Perry by the margin of 18-11, but that is definitely wrong. The newspapers put him ahead 28-8 by the end. I've individually documented 20 of his victories, and all 8 of his losses.

    Bud Collins now has 28-8 for that tour; and he has 22-17 for Budge-Vines.

    Do you know if the 21-18 figure originated with McCauley or someone else?
     
  43. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    It's not that bad. I disagree with the order but all the players above Laver were superstars. Kramer is clearly one of the top players ever and Budge is a legend. You have Tilden, Gonzalez, Perry and of course Vines.

    Honestly Kodes probably deserves to be in a top one hundred list but I could never see Kodes as a pick in an all time top ten list. Vines is regularly picked for top ten all time as you can see.

    If someone did the comparison of Tilden and Laver and picked Tilden it wouldn't disturb me as much as Kodes and Vines. In fact although I think Laver has a better record it's so close considering how dominant Tilden was that it wouldn't bother me at all.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2012
  44. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I'd agree that there was very little play in those late WW2 years, and it's judged a lot on those exos and in the armed forces. When the professional tour got going properly again in 1946, Riggs confirmed he was the best player in the world.

    I'm not sure where it originated. I spotted 21-18 on another thread in here from 2008. Was it 22-17 then?
     
  45. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    Vines' book has 22-17 but sometimes even the player may have it wrong so who knows?
     
  46. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    21-18 or 22-17, Budge was more consistent from day-to-day, week-to-week, and got the better of Vines based on that.
     
  47. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    It's close enough either way to show that Vines was able to play Budge almost even. Who else could do that?
     
  48. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Vines majors were all grass court events while Kodes mixed up grass and clay.He also lost 2 very hard fought finals on grass.

    of course, it is not Vines fault that both Wimbleodn and Forest Hills were played both on grass
     
  49. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,474
    That's wrong. As I wrote before the French Pro was on clay. Wembley was indoors. The US Pro he won was on hard court. So Vines won majors on grass, clay, indoors and hard court. That's is very diversified.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2012
  50. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    I know the thread you mean; I don't recall if McCauley was given as the source; but he may have been the source since 21-18 is what he has in his book.

    The difference is minor, but since I've been documenting the tour in detail, I'm wondering how the various sources arrived at their numbers (and who the sources were).

    For one tour he could. Not for two in a row. At least, not by 1939.

    And it's not Vines' fault that he did win majors on other surfaces but you've refused to count them.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2012

Share This Page