Fed's Decline or Competition's Rise?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Jul 5, 2013.

  1. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,804
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I don't think longevity is enough to make someone the GOAT without dominance and peak level, personally. Why do Ken's victories at Dallas count more than their slam meetings or pro major encounters? I certainly wouldn't place Dallas x 2 over the Grand Slam and the Pro Slam + the Wimbledon Pro.
     
  2. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix83, You are not only ignorant (of course longevity is an important measure for greatness) but also a Rosewall hater, to be exact: the greatest Rosewall hater on Talk Tennis. Your idee fixe with Rosewall's failure at Wimbledon is pure ugliness. Shame on you!
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Ask Bud! Of course longevity is not enough to make someone the GOAT. Rosewall had also his peak level and leads in hth at majors against Laver.

    The players themselves valued Dallas higher than the pro majors, by the way.

    You "forget" also that Rosewall has won more majors than Laver (23:19 or even 25:19)...
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2013
  4. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    How can I be a Rosewall hater if I rank him at 5th on the GOAT list? :?
     
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix83, Yes YOU can...
     
  6. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Duh.:roll:

    Dominance should not be a reason for someone being considered GOAT.
    Winning should not be a reason for someone being considered GOAT.

    Fifth on a GOAT list is really darn good.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2013
  7. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,410
    Location:
    USA
    I would think Fed's ability to stay 10 consecutive years in the top 3 should get GOAT points.
     
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Yes, a great achievement. Rosewall topped it by being in the top three for 12 consecutive years, 16 years altogether.
     
  9. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    top 3 in 58 - gonzales, sedgeman, hoad

    so where did these 12 consecutive years come from ?

    59 to 68 - makes it 10 consecutive years ...
     
  10. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I don't follow...?
     
  11. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,222
    Was that an official or unofficial ranking?
    :lol:
     
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, It was semi-official. The old pros had their own rankings.
     
  13. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    "Their own rankings"?
    There were some official rankings in the old days, for example in 1959/60 and 1963, 1964.
    There was no official ranking system between those two dates.
     
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, Ken Rosewall made a top ten pro list in end of 1962, for instance.
     
  15. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,222
    Either it's official or non-official. There's no such thing as semi-official. LOL

    I don't take non-official seriously because it's open to interpretation. An established ranking system has no grey area.
     
  16. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,804
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Rosewall should be ashamed that Federer got so close to his record.

    Edit: Just seen McCauley rates the top 5 of 1968 as...

    1. Laver
    2. Ashe
    3. Okker
    4. Rosewall
    5. Newcombe

    And Jack March in 1958;

    1. Gonzales
    2. Hoad
    3. Segura
    4. Trabert
    5. Rosewall

    So that's actually just 9 years finishing in the top 3, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967. So I guess Federer wins.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2013
  17. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    This could not have been an official list based upon winnings or results, because there was no pro tour in 1962.

    You must be referring to a private ranking, not an official one.

    The only official rankings were for 1959/60, 1963, 1964.
     
  18. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, You should be ashamed. I guess you are ignorant: You pick only those lists which belittle Rosewall. Most experts ranked Rosewall No.3 for 1968.

    March's rankings are very strange. If I remember well he ranked Hoad only 5th for 1959! In 1958 Rosewall was ahead of Segura and Trabert.

    You totally omit 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1974.

    You reach the heights of Phoenix' Rosewall hate. Bravo,expert!
     
  19. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    You forget 1958 (Kramer's list).
     
  20. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,804
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I trust McCauley's published opinion, that makes me ignorant? Name me these experts.

    You said consecutive years, so I'm not omitting anything. You're trying to change the question. I don't hate Rosewall, pretty sad that you resort to that. If that counts as hate to you then your must wish terrible things against Federer.
     
  21. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, You are ignorant because you use to belittle Rosewall. Only a Rosewall hater would try to search for Rosewall flaws as you have done in taking only those few experts who ranked him lower than No.3.

    I did not know that you refer to consecutive years. Rosewall keeps both records.

    As told March is rather irrelevant. He used to rank along the results of his Cleveland tournament.

    I name you two experts who ranked Rosewall No.3 for 1968 (properly it's your task to search for more than only one expert for a given year): a certain Bud Collins and a certain Lance Tingay. I don't know if you know that Tingay was called the Tennis Pope.

    Furthermore, if you go through the 1968 results (McCauley and other sources) you would be aware that Rosewall was better than Okker in 1968.

    I don't hate Federer but you hate Rosewall because Muscles has the better record than Roger.
     
  22. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Kramer's lists for 1958 and 1959 are not official lists, just personal lists by Kramer, a very subjective evaluator.
     
  23. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,804
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I read a book and post the rankings I find in there and now I hate Rosewall? Grow up please, if it's not too late for you.

    If you stat something as a fact, it's your job to back it up with the sources. Not mine to search out whether your are right. I have since read that Collins ranks Rosewall 3rd for 1968. I have no access to Lance Tingay, where did you read his rankings? Truth be told I did find it odd that Okker was ahead of Rosewall, considering that Okker didn't win a major. But there you go...

    As for Jack March, I don't see he'd be irrelevent. Either way it's not 12 consecutive years, it would be 11 consecutive.

    As for Rosewall having a better record, that's debatable. Hard to compare achievements from era's so different. Obviously you'll never accept that as a Federer hater ;)
     
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, It was significant that you read only lists that are diminishing Rosewall. It was not a coincidence. It was your endeavour to make Rosewall looking small.

    I concede that you are not a Rosewall hater per se. But you attack all those posters who are bold enough to say that Federer is not GOAT.

    It's not too late for you to become serious. At least I hope so.

    I read Tingay's list in the 1969 (for 1968) BP Yearbook of World Tennis (later World of Tennis).

    It's still 12 years because Rosewall was No.2 in 1957 as Muscles told me once.

    March's list is curious. Segura ahead of Rosewall is absurd. See McCauley's book.

    It was nasty of Phoenix to belittle Rosewall regarding Wimbledon. But now you even doubt Ken's assets like his acknowledged longevity records....
     
  25. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    When 58 is mentioned, its usually gonzales, hoad and sedgeman who are mentioned as the top players. So how is rosewall no 3 ?
     
  26. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,222
    Bobby, just because one is objective and doesn't worships Rosewall is not a hater.
     
  27. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Bobby thinks everyone who doesn't rank Rosewall as the GOAT is a hater. I rank him at No 5 and he still calls me a hater, just because I point out about his Wimbledon record! :shock:
     
  28. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,222
    Having Rosewall at #5 is reasonable and one can argue that's being generous since many don't have him in the top 5. I see experts have Roger, Laver, Sampras, Borg, Pancho, Tilden commands respect for top 5.
     
  29. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    The only official lists:

    1959/60

    1) Hoad 2) Gonzales 3) Rosewall 4) Sedgman 5) Trabert 6) Anderson 7) Segura 8) Cooper

    1964

    1) Rosewall 2) Laver 3) Gonzales
     
  30. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    When Rosewall's obituary is written, it will not say he was the GOAT, that is for sure.
     
  31. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Mighty F., Just because one is objective and does not worship Federer is not a hater.
     
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix, Wrong. I know several posters who don't rank Rosewall as the GOAT who I don't call a hater. Haters are only those who attack Rosewall (or Laver) with nasty "arguments". Your idee fixe with Wimbledon and with the obituary is just obnoxious.
     
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, this 1959 list is only the list for the 14 tournament tour, not for the overall season!
     
  34. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    And when your obituary is written, it will not say you were an expert. ;-)
     
  35. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    There were actually two "seasons" in 1959/60, the four-man tour of U.S.A., and the world tournament series.

    Anderson stated that the purpose of the tournament series was to establish a world ranking for the top pros.

    The same principle applied in 1964, with the rankings determined by a world tournament series.
     
  36. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    History shall be kind to me, for I intend to write it! ;-)
     
  37. 1477aces

    1477aces Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,597
    Do you really want to compare rosewall to federer? rosewall well may have been the goat of the era from the end of world war II to the start of the open era, but in the modern game, he'd have no chance. He's 5'7" 140 pounds. He was nicknamed muscles for a reason. He'd get blown off the court by roger because he is much smaller and weaker. The game was no where near as physical back then; 43 year old Pancho Gonzalez was beating the best players in the world inlcuding world no 1 Laver. That would be absolutely impossible in today's game, a 43 year old would be unable to beat any top 100 player. Rosewall could not have won a slam in the modern game, he just lacks the size and physique. You could so definitely state that federer would be unsuccessful in the pre-open era. That is why I believe you can't compare these two eras of tennis, because in the pre-open era the lack of physicality allowed players to play long past their primes and rack up more accomplishments.
     
  38. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    1) The size of Rosewall and the adequacy to today game's requirement is completely irrelevant to a cross-era comparison. Your reasoning equate to saying that the Roman Empire is inferior to the Italian colony because the roman legion wouldn't be able to face the weapons that the Italians were able to field when they invaded Libya or Ethiopia.

    2) Rosewall is an exception. His contemporaries were not able to play as long as he did, despiste the lack of physicality that you affirm existed back then. For example, Newcombe, Stan Smith and Rod Laver were irrelevant in majors after their early 30's.
     
  39. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Yes, Rosewall was small by "today"'s standards.
    But he was also small by 1950's standards.
    Rosewall sometimes had trouble with bigger players, Nielsen, Trabert, Hoad, Gonzales.
    Rosewall outlasted them all, and when Hoad and Gonzales declined in the early 60's, Rosewall maintained his level and dominated the game.
    But Laver was also small, and he and Rosewall routinely beat bigger players.

    I do not understand your point here.

    Bigger is better?

    Fitness and physicality?
    The fitness level of Gonzales, Sedgman,, Hoad, Trabert, Cooper, Laver, compares well with today's standards, and I doubt that the "performance cocktails" of modern "pharmaceutical training" is of any real benefit.
     
  40. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,222
    Bobby, we're not asking you to worship Roger, but we are asking you to be reasonable.
     
  41. 1477aces

    1477aces Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,597
    Rosewall was small by the standard's then, but he is extremely small by the standards now. If fitness standards were so high, then how did the world no 1 lose to a 43 year old? Because the game was more about finesse than about power and strength then. Federer may fare well in a finesse and skill as one could argue he has plenty of both, but he (obviously) also had the power to compete in today's game. Rosewall would not.
     
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    1477aces, The discussion was about achievements. Here Rosewall edges out Federer.

    Small Rosewall used to beat the big and strong ones.

    It's not Rosewall's and Gonzalez' fault that Federer at 40 will not beat anyone. The former won because they were giants , not because the competition was weak.

    Tommy Haas proves that even an old player can succeed.

    Gonzalez beat Laver at 42.
     
  43. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Flash, Thanks for explaining the matter.
     
  44. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, well said. Rosewall was 6:3 against tall Stan Smith, f. i.
     
  45. 1477aces

    1477aces Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,597
    So Gonzalez was infinitely better than say Pete Sampras? I doubt Sampras would get a set off a top 100 player. Muster (at the age of 45) attempted a comeback and won like only one match in some future or challenger event. The level of competition may not have been weaker, but physical strength and endurance mattered for little, so players could last far longer. Rosewall's height would be a major drawback. Just see David Ferrer, he has all the tools that novak djokovic or murray and incredible fitness, but because of his short stature (still 2 inches taller than laver), he will likely never win a slam.
     
  46. 1477aces

    1477aces Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,597
    Tommy Haas is 35, not 42. And he has relatively low mileage due to the injuries that derailed his career.
     
  47. 1477aces

    1477aces Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,597
    Rosewall's achievements are inflated, as are other players from that era. Therefore, they should not be compared to open era players. In the open era, Federer is the GOAT. Between the end of World War II and the start of the open era, Rosewall or Gonzales is the GOAT of that era. I am truly clueless about the pre-open era. Also, as a question, on the pro-tour, were most of the matches best of 5 sets or best of 3 sets?
     
  48. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,222
    Most of Rosewall achievement were during the pre-open era. No way a split fields can be compare to modern tennis.
     
  49. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    You make a case on the physicality of the Tennis based on two case, Gonzales and Rosewall, and you conveniently ignore the fact that the other top players of the early days of the open era like Laver, Roche, Newcombe, Smith, Ash, were irrelevant in the majors after their early 30's.

    In recent times, Connors have been a factor in majors until 1991 when he was forty years old. Agassi until 2005 when he was 35 years old. Now, Haas who is too a 35 years old.

    I believe, 1991 was not a lot less physical than 2002, the last year of Sampras careers. Nor was 2005 very different than today's game.

    You used the exceptions of Gonzales and Rosewall to discard a whole era. Bobbyone use the exception of Agassi and Haas to discard the current era and especially Federer. It's exactly the same argument but used it opposite direction. It's an extremely weak and twisted argument. Rosewall, Gonzales, Connors, Agassi, Haas, they are all exceptions, the fact that they are exceptions tell us that tennis is difficult to play past 30 years old at a high level now and in the 60's or 70's.

    The player who for some reasons can last longer, because their body is special, their style is forgiving, because they can maintain the will to work hard for longer than the other, these players deserve full credit.
     
  50. 1477aces

    1477aces Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,597
    Yes but into their 40's? Come on.
     

Share This Page