GOAT Discussions

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Oct 28, 2012.

  1. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Yes indeed, but Nadal has already matched it and obviously has a good chance to surpass it, and Nadal never won any of his majors when they were basically cheese majors with depleted fields like the 74 and to an extent the 75 French Opens were. Would Borg have ever won the 74 French had Connors been allowed to play? I know Connors is not some GOAT on red clay, but Borg was his b*tch of slaves at that point.
     
  2. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,689
    Well Connors lost in the 1st round at RG in 1973 so it's difficult imagine him improving so drastically on his worst surface in one year. Plus he only ever beat Borg once in an official match in Europe/outside the US. Their European h2h played out a lot differently to their American h2h, and Borg had already beaten him before in 1973. Borg never had the same fear playing Connors in Europe as he did playing him in the US during the mid 70s.

    Manuel Orantes and Vilas who Borg beat in the 1974 and 1975 finals were far better players on red clay than Connors was.

    Similarly we could debate what Nadal's grand slam title count would be if the grand slams awarded terrible prize money and there were many non-slam events and exhos around that were offering a lot more $$$. Maybe Nadal, Federer would skip some slams if no-one was counting how many they won, they had no crystal ball to predict that people would actually care about that 30 years later, and could make a lot more money elsewhere. Really it's small wonder that Borg took events like the Pepsi Grand Slam so seriously.

    Really the only easy cross-era comparisons are between players from the 90s and later.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2012
  3. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,689
    Nadal has been the best player in the world twice, in 2008 and 2010, so never in back to back years. Borg was the clear best player in the world 3 years in a row from 1978-1980 so Borg was more dominant.

    Plus Nadal was a lot weaker indoors than Borg was on any surface, despite benefiting from indoor courts between slowed down considerably. In fact I'm not sure if Nadal has been any better indoors than Sampras was on clay. . Borg was outstanding on clay, grass and carpet and still very good on hard courts. Nadal has been outstanding on clay, grass and hard but has just 1 title win indoors so far. So Borg was more versatile across all surfaces (and he played in more polarised surface conditions as well) than Nadal.

    And Borg didn't quit right after the 1981 US Open. That's one of the biggest tennis myths that has developed over the years. He played a lot of exhos and invitations in 1982, but the regulatory bodies wanted him to play more official tournaments and eventually said he had to qualify for Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Unsurprisingly Borg pretty much told them to shove it.

    Considering the governing bodies covered up Agassi's failed drugs tests in 1997, it's safe to say that they learnt from the whole Borg saga and realised that in a niche sport like tennis, they desperately needed to protect the few stars that they had (not that I'm saying that's right or anything).
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2012
  4. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    In your first paragraph you refuse to judge the current era by the standards of Borg's era. But then you go on to judge Borg by the standards of the current era. Olympic gold by Nadal? Tennis wasn't even an Olympic sport in Borg's time. And Borg not playing 4 Slams a year, you put down merely as his fault. You well know that virtually nobody played the Australian, and the fault lies with the tournament organizers who scheduled it during the holidays and couldn't offer the same prize money as the other Slams were offering. That was part of the tour structure at the time -- a weak AO -- and you don't take that into consideration, simply putting it down to the fault of the players.

    I mean, if you're going to criticize the players for choosing not to play the AO, then why don't we criticize them today for their choices. Nadal has bad knees. Well, why not say it's his own fault, for playing so much on hard courts? Couldn't he choose to play on clay courts and skip more hard court tournaments?

    Of course, Nadal shouldn't be faulted for that, because the hardcourt tournaments are well-attended, and important, and well-paying. He's just going where the money and the players are going: same thing that Borg did. They do exactly the same thing, but Nadal gets credit while Borg gets faulted.

    You've been saying that Borg should get no credit for speculatory AO wins (which is correct, I agree with that), and when you do speculate you say he might not have won any. But you speculate about how Nadal would have fared if he had gotten to play the USO on clay, strengthening his case by speculating that he'd have three extra USOs. Why one speculation and not the other?

    Obviously you're speculating about Nadal winning green-clay USO's as a way to show his superiority over Borg. But then why not allow that Borg could have won a few AO's on grass, given how many Wimbledons he won? Seems to me both speculations are reasonable, if you're going to speculate.

    Nadal and Borg each have 11 Slams, each winning those 11 in an 8-year period. In that span, Borg played only 4 hardcourt majors, making 3 finals. In the same eight-year timespan, Nadal has won 2 hardcourt majors in 14 attempts: he has the hardcourt win that Borg doesn't have but his overall record in hardcourt majors is filled with early-round losses before '09 and is relatively weak.

    And you said nothing about the year-end championships, where Borg has a clear edge.
     
  5. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,808
    Borg basically hasn't won the US Open, which was at the time the 2nd most prestigious tournament in the world, which means he must have wanted it pretty badly. But he didn't win it. Nadal did. The number of attempts doesn't matter. Nadal could've played the US Open a 100 times for all I care, he still won it. Not having played is not better than making even the 2nd Round. If Borg didn't give himself enough chances to win the US Open, he only has himself to blame. No point in handing him phantom trophies. And it's not like he didn't have his shots and chances. 4 finals is a lot. And he quit at 26. Doesn't matter why, he quit. No phantom trophies after that, either. Nadal, right now, is equal to Borg, I'm not saying he's higher. But given time, it seems inevitable that he will top him since Nadal, unlike Borg, doesn't seem to be a quitter. I guess time will tell.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  6. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    If Borg couldnt even win the U.S Open from 75-77 on clay it is clear he wouldnt have ever won it those same years had it been played on hard courts instead. I laugh outloud at anyone who would even try and argue otherwise. The same goes for when he played it on grass in 73-74. The only reason he isnt 0 for 9 in winning hard court majors as opposed to 0 for 4 is the event was on other surfaces which actually greatly HELPED his chances to win the U.S Open, and he still failed.
     
  7. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,000
    I think you're harsh on Nadal, because Australian Open is a tough place to win, and when he won 2009 AO took a lot out of him physically. You're equating a small Rotterdam to the AO in terms of meaningful event, but that doesn't take away how hard it is to win. AO arguably the hardest of all the 4 slam, it's taxing on the body, and dealing with the heat wave. Basically, Nadal did something special that he doesn't deserve, because Borg didn't play back then. Could Borg have won the AO had he played? Maybe he could, but still the AO is no where near as competitive as today(as you stated that it wasn't meaningful). Nadal face all adversity in 2009, I'm not sure if Borg could've done given a same exact situation.

    With that being said, if Nadal's AO win isn't the standard hold against Borg, some people shouldn't take Laver's 69 GS and hold against Federer and modern players, because it isn't applicable to today either. But somehow Federer always get slighted because he can't win the GS. It's a double standard.
     
  8. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,689
    No I'm not equating Rotterdam to the Australian Open in Nadal's time. I'm equating Rotterdam now to the Australian Open in Borg's time. There's a big difference there.

    Imagine now if there was a slam that offered considerably less ranking points and prize money than the other 3 majors (and many non-slam tournaments for that matter), had absolutely terrible facilities, and was held at such an inconvenient time (so close to Christmas and for several years so soon before the more important Masters event). There would be withdrawals left, right and centre. That was the situation with the Aussie Open in Borg's time. Player's ranked outside the top 200 were getting direct entries into the Aussie Open during the mid to late 70s (despite the fact that it had a significantly smaller draw size to the other majors).

    So using the Australian Open as some sort of yardstick when discussing Borg's career is stupid, as that ignores the context of his era. And yes many historians make an equally big mistake and judge Federer based on 60s and 70s standards (comparing Laver's overall title count to Federer's for instance is a utterly stupid).

    Borg's career needs to be judged on the context of his era, i.e. when non-slam and invitational events were very lucrative and hence very important, when absolutely nobody cared about the grand slam title count including the players themselves, when there were only 3 proper majors a year, when the Masters and WCT Finals were hugely important tournaments etc.

    Federer and Nadal's careers needs to be judged on the context of their eras, i.e. when grand slam counting is very important, when there are 4 equally important majors a year, when the non-slam events don't mean so much any more etc.

    The players from the 70s and 80s like Borg and Connors probably get the worst deal. Some older historians judge them based on the context of the 60s Laver/Rosewall era and even previous eras, while some younger tennis fans judge them based on the context of the Sampras/Federer 90s and 00s era. i.e. looking at slams and nothing else. They are pretty much stuck in the middle.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    However Borg stands in comparison with Nadal, I rank him among the five best players regarding peak level, the others being Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzalez (no order). Hoad was less consistent than the other ones but maybe the strongest for one match or a short series of matches....
     
  10. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,047
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    In regard to the Australian Open in those days (1970, 1972-1982), I say this, Borg shouldn't be blamed for not playing, but those players who played and won the titles in that period deserve the full credit for doing so.
     
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Hello Guys and Girls,

    I now make the attempt to speculate about possible winners of open majors since 1950, also considering those open era majors where there was a depleted field in reality.

    Of course nobody knows who really would have won, but my speculation should give a view about the probable instead of the non-probable.

    Naturally there could have been some surprises, but generally the favoutites would win.

    Austr. Open French O. Wimbledon US Open

    1950 Kramer Segura Kramer Kramer
    1951 Kramer Kramer Kramer Kramer G.S.
    1952 Gonzalez Segura Kramer Kramer
    1953 Sedgman Segura Gonzalez Kramer
    1954 Gonzalez Gonzalez Gonzalez Gonzalez G.S.
    1955 Gonzalez Gonzalez Gonzalez Gonzalez G.S.
    1956 Gonzalez Trabert Gonzalez Sedgman
    1957 Segura Segura Hoad Gonzalez
    1958 Sedgman Rosewall Hoad Gonzalez
    1959 Hoad Trabert Gonzalez Hoad
    1960 Rosewall Rosewall Gonzalez Gonzalez
    1961 Gonzalez Rosewall Rosewall Gonzalez
    1962 Rosewall Rosewall Rosewall Rosewall G.S.
    1963 Rosewall Laver Rosewall Rosewall
    1964 Laver Rosewall Laver Rosewall
    1965 Rosewall Rosewall Laver Laver
    1966 Laver Gimeno Laver Laver
    1967 Laver Laver Laver Laver G.S.

    1968 Laver Rosewall Laver Ashe
    1969 Laver Laver Laver Laver G.S.
    1970 Laver Rosewall Newcombe Rosewall
    1971 Rosewall Rosewall Newcombe Laver
    1972 Laver Laver Rosewall Nastase

    Laver 22 open majors
    Rosewall 22 open majors
    Gonzalez 19 open majors

    As Jack Kramer once wrote: It would have been very different (in comparison to the real history...).

    I hope for useful discussions.

    I'm sorry for the not beautiful sight of thtis compilation.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  12. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    First of all, Kramer's back gave out in June, 1951, so there is no G.S. for him that year, not even a Wimbledon or U.S. title.
    Kramer winning Roland Garros in 1951? Again, the back trouble that year.
    I don't think that Kramer played much at R.G., and would have had trouble that year against Segura, Patty, Drobny, and other clay experts.
    Gonzales winning the French in 1954 and 1955? You must be desperate to award Gonzales two G.S., especially since Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad were all superior to him on clay.
    Frankly, I do not see Gonzales winning at Roland Garros. Sorry, no G.S.
    On grass, I think that Hoad and Sedgman demonstrated that they could match Gonzales' level of play, so I would not automatically award a bunch of grass majors to Gonzales (you have given him 5 Australian, 6 Wimbledon, 6 Forest Hills).
    I do not see how we could be so specific without actually playing the tournaments.
    This reminds me of Eugene Scott's Dream Tournament, where, miraculously, his favourite players somehow managed to win the dream matches in dramatic fashion.
     
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, my goal was to show which players would have been the favourites for "open" majors. For instance I wanted to show that the famous amateurs like Emerson would not have won a single major...

    I did not know that Kramer was injured in 1951.

    I gave Hoad and Sedgman some credit. Over the long run , Pancho was simply stronger than both.

    You underrate Gonzalez on clay. Don't forget that he reached SFs at Roland Garros at 21 and at 40 and that he won several clay tournaments.

    Dan, It's not that Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez are shown that good because I admire them. It's just the reverse: because they are so great, I admire them and must give them their due places in history.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  14. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Nope, no speculation about how Borg would have done at the USO after '81. I just emphasized his record as it stands: 3 finals in 4 attempts in pretty good.

    Sure, anyone who tried to argue that Borg would have won the USO on hard courts before '78 would have a weak case. That was not my argument at all. I was just bringing up Borg's hardcourt major record to show that it was pretty decent: 3 finals in 4 attempts. I don't have a problem with Nadal getting placed above Borg on hardcourts, because after all he's got two titles on hard; but he also has plenty of early-round losses before '09, on hard. His overall record in hardcourt majors may be superior to Borg's due to his trophies, but his early losses before '09 close some of the distance between the two men.

    Now, if you want to respond that Borg would have had early losses too, in the period before '78, and would have gone 0-9 overall in hardcourt majors if the USO had been on hardcourt then, that is speculation. It may be a good argument, but regardless, it's speculation. And that makes it perfectly legitimate to open up speculation about Borg at the AO.

    That's my point here. I think it's fine, when comparing Borg and Nadal, to ask questions like how Rafa would have done at a Har-Tru USO. But introducing speculation makes it legitimate to ask how Borg would have done on grass at the AO.

    Or, we could do no speculation at all, and just go with the record as it stands. And Borg's hardcourt major record, as it stands, is 3 finals in 4 attempts (with great wins at Flushing over all the best players of his time except McEnroe).

    Yes, you can respond that Borg's record would be 0 for 9, not nearly as good, if the USO had been on hard. But that opens up speculation .... you get the point.
     
  15. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Great points, Gizo.

    Right now we're in the tennis off-season, and we've heard a lot about how the season was shortened this year to give the players more time to rest. They've got 6 weeks now.

    But anyone who played the AO back then, in December, would have been cutting into their off-season, leaving themselves with virtually no rest at all. They played right through November, and then the AO was held in December. They started up again in early January. How much rest does that leave? About 2 or 3 weeks.

    And some of those free weeks might have gone into intense preparation for the AO.

    Borg, Connors and McEnroe skipped the AO but they were doing exactly what the players today are doing: going where the money is, where the other players are, trying to get rest in the off-season, etc. Vilas attended the AO, but he was going above and beyond what anyone today is doing; he was giving up a large part of time that he would have had to rest. That's what I don't understand: why should Borg, Connors and McEnroe be held to that standard? Why should they be expected to go above and beyond what the players today are doing?
     
  16. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    McCauley notes Kramer withdrew from the US Pro (and contemporary newspapers like the N.Y. Times report that he withdrew from the US Pro in 1951 because of back trouble).
    Gonzales might have won an RG, but with the three greatest clay court players of all time (Rosewall, Trabert, Hoad) in the field, his chances were slight.
    Frankly, we do not know how great Gonzales and Rosewall really were because their principal challengers were amateur for some time.
    Gonzales and Hoad played many grass events in 1958 and 1959, and I think that Hoad held the edge. That doesn't argue well for your case.
    Sedgman won on grass against Gonzales in Australia, especially at Kooyong and White City, while losing at Forest Hills. Wimbledon would have been a toss-up. Sedgman held a two-to-one edge on Gonzales at Wembley.
    I do not think that you can assume a complete dominance for Rosewall over Laver in 1961-1963, if Laver had time to adjust to Rosewall in 1959-1960.
    And Laver could not assume mastery over Emerson or Santana (the latter on clay) in the mid-1960's. Both of these players had shown the ability to beat him in majors.
    I think that Emmo should appear somewhere, especially at the Australian, and Santana should appear ahead of Gimeno at RG, where he won twice.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, I'm disappointed that you only criticize my list, sometimes with Dan Lobb arguments.

    Very strange that you rank Rosewall, Traber and Hoad as the all-time best claycourt players. Have you already heard of Borg and Nadal??

    Very strange that you write that the principal contenders of Gonzalez and Rosewall were amateurs. Both had a short amateur career!

    Had Hoad the edge over Gonzalez on grass or do you only "think" he has?

    Sedgman had a 2:1 edge over Gonzalez at Wembley because Gonzalez was out of shape in 1953 after a long pause.

    I gave Laver a French Open win for 1963. I just cannot do more for the Rocket for 1961 to 1963. Most experts agree that Rosewall's prime was in those years and that he would dominated Laver then.

    Strange: When have Emerson and Santana shown the ability to beat Laver in majors? Your rating of the 1960s amateurs seems totally irreal.

    Strange that you rank Santana on clay higher than Gimeno who often beat Laver and Rosewall especially on clay....
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  18. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,332
    Gimeno was for many years in the 1960's perhaps the third best player in the world. Laver implied that in his book.
     
  19. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,332
    Since we are talking about Wimbledon 1951, Kramer in his own book thought he would have won the 1951 Wimbledon. He did give the theoretical 1951 US Open to Gonzalez.

    I do think it's an excellent list and very reasonable considering the records of the players. It's also excellent that you believe Segura would have won several majors. I think he would have also.
     
  20. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    Santana beat both Laver and Emmo to win at RG in 1961, Emmo won over Laver at AO and US finals in 1961.
    Gimeno won RG in 1972 when his toughest match was against Metreveli. (Nastase lost in the first round.)
    Yes, I think that Rosewall, Trabert, and Hoad all had the equipment to beat Borg and Nadal on clay. Hoad claimed that Trabert's backhand was better than Rosewall's.
    True, Gonzales was rusty in the 1953 Wembley final, but Sedgman was rusty at the 1956 Wembley, and the 1957 Forest Hills Pro. Sedgman won on grass at Sydney in 1958, and in the Kooyong final in 1959, 6-4, 9-7, 6-4.
    Hoad/Gonzales on grass? Again, we do not know all the surfaces, but we have
    1957 Forest Hills--Gonzales wins over a raw rookie Hoad 9-7, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3
    1958 Australia--Hoad wins Australian five-set portion of pro tour 8 matches to 5 (the key match of the series at Kooyong 4-6, 9-7, 11-9, 18-16)
    1958 Kooyong--Hoad wins decider 7-5, 5-7, 6-4
    1958 Forest Hills--Hoad wins 13-15, 6-3, 6-4
    1959 Kooyong--Gonzales wins semi-final 8-6, 6-2, 6-3
    1959 Brisbane--Gonzales wins 3rd place--unknown
    1959 Sydney--Gonzales wins semi-final--15-13, 6-4, 6-4
    1959 Forest Hills--Hoad wins final--6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 6-1
    1959 Perth--Hoad wins decider--7-9, 6-4, 12-10
    1959 Adelaide--Hoad wins--6-4, 6-0
    1959 Sydney--Gonzales win final--11-9, 6-1, 6-1
    1967 Wimbledon--Hoad wins quarter-final--4-6, 11-9, 8-6

    Add them up--14 to 10 for Hoad.
    More importantly, 2 to 1 at Forest Hills, 1 to 0 at Wimbledon.
    No, I do not assume that Gonzales is favoured on grass.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  21. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    He was the third best pro, but probably fifth or lower in the world.
     
  22. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    Kramer's memory betrayed him. He was injured.
     
  23. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, maybe I have underrated Hoad on grass but at least I have given him three majors for those years even though Hoad never won a pro major besides of Forest Hills. Kooyong was never a major.

    Many experts including myself think that Rosewall's backhand was greater than Trabert's. Muscles leads Tony 50:26 matches despite of Tony's better service.

    Hoad seems to be a better player than a tennis analyst, just as many players are not experts in tennis.

    Dan, I just wonder that you rank Rosewall at No.4 (if I remember well) when you often belittle him (Trabert's backhand better, Laver "injured" in the 1972 Dallas final, Rosewall only a short period excellent, Hoad better on clay and so on). maybe it's better you would rank him No.17 or so...
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Whom do you rank higher?.

    Did you know that Gimeno was 6.1 against Emerson when the first met in 1968?
     
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, you again have forgotten something:The Laver of 1961 was not the Laver of 1962 and later. You are the only one who says that Laver's peak began in 1961.
     
  26. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    Very generous to give Hoad three majors, considering his terrible record on grass against Gonzales. I mean, 14 wins and 10 losses against Gonzales. What a terrible record. We should take steps to ignore that. Very inconvenient.
    You should remember that THREE of the four majors in our imaginery open tennis were on grass, not wood.
    Kooyong was more significant than the phony US Pro in Cleveland Arena, by any normal standard.
    Did you play against Rosewall's and Trabert's backhand a few hundred times, as Hoad did? I did not, but trust Hoad's experience.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  27. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    I would rank, Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Santana higher in 1961 to 1966.
     
  28. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    We are proposing that Laver was experiencing Rosewall's game in 1959 and 1960, and learning how to play him.
    I am suggesting that Laver matures earlier than 1964 in an open game.
     
  29. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,332
    I would rank of those four only Laver and Rosewall higher. Kramer himself thought Gimeno was probably the third best player in the world for much of the 1960's. You could make an easy argument that old Pancho Gonzalez was up there also.
     
  30. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    You are not exact: You had written that Laver's peak began in 1961 not about an earlier improved Laver in open majors.
     
  31. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    Of course, Laver and Kramer had a vested interest in boosting the pro game, so I do not consider their opinion to be objective.
    Santana and Emerson showed much better results in majors. Don't forget that Gimeno turned pro at 23, old enough to have made a decent show at RG or Wimbledon. It didn't happen for him.
     
  32. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    No, I suggested that in an open game, Laver learns earlier how to play the top pros.
    This also applies to Hoad and Gonzales, who struggled in early going as pros.
     
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    You blame Eugene Scott for favouring his darlings. But what do you do? The same. To favour your GOD you always beittle the US Pro where Gonzalez dominated Hoad and all others and push the Kooyong event.

    I did not play against Trabert and Rosewall but most experts have also not played and yet prefer Rosewall's backhand. Several opponents of Trabert and Rosewall have said that Rosewall's backhand was superior to all other players' with the possible exception of Budge's. I trust the majority of players and experts.
     
  34. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    Unlike Eugene Scott, I do not construct IMAGINARY tournaments where my favourites stage dramatic comebacks to win. (Surprise!)
    It is very easy to belittle the phony US Pro in Cleveland Arena. I did not include it in the list because we were discussing GRASS records, which would have been the surface of THREE out of four of our open majors. VERY RELEVANT. Kooyong was ON GRASS, and was the number one venue in Australia.
    Trabert showed better on clay, where his relative lesser mobility (he played against rabbits like Gonzales, Hoad, Rosewall, Sedgman) was less important, and his great groundstrokes took over. He beat Rosewall at RG in 1959, but lost to Hoad at RG in 1958 and 1960.
     
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    pc1, You are right that Gonzalez was awesome in the 1960s. He even was ranked at No.6 in 1969 (Bud Collins) at 41.

    I rank Pancho No.3 for 1964, 1965 and No.4 for 1966 (behind Gimeno) and No.5 for 1967 thus meaning (IMO, NadalDramaQueen) that he was ahead of Emerson and Santana in the mid-1960s.

    Dan often produces a rabbit out of the hat to "disprove" solid arguments and to "prove" his odd arguments. It's ridiculous to say that Kramer and Laver wanted to push the pro game in the mid-1960s even though Kramer was no longer the pros' promotor.

    It was significant that Wimbledon seeded Gimeno third for the 1968 event (even though Gimeno lost to Ray Moore because of nervousness as the pros had to defend their high prestige).

    Even though Andres was at his decline in 1968 he reached SFs of Bournemouth, French Open and Wembley, losing each time to Rosewall.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  36. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    He lost because of "nervousness"?
    But surely, every pro, and every favourite would have this feeling. I should think that he would have extra confidence, and the amateur would feel "nervous".
    By this time in his career, he should have learned how to handle nerves.
     
  37. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    What did Gimeno do at Italian Open, RG, Barcelona (where Santana won in 1970, against a field including Gimeno)?
    And what happened in his early 20's at these places?
     
  38. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,332
    Actually I do believe Laver to be very fair and objective. And it's from his book with Bud Collins. Open Tennis was already around and there was no reason for him to write that unless he truly believed it.

    With Jack Kramer I also believe him although he did want to promote the Pro Game the book was written in 1978 when there was no reason for him to write that. Gimeno wasn't exactly a big draw in 1978.
     
  39. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,332
    Excellent choices however if you value average level of play over a number of years I may put Bill Tilden in that group.
     
  40. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    Laver and Rosewall suffered greatly from failing to sign Emmo and Santana in the mid-sixties. So, of course, the mantra was that the pros were really much better, so come and see us, folks!
    In reality, Laver had trouble on clay with Santana, and Hoad was amazed at Santana's grasscourt game in 1965.
     
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, I count 7:5 not 14:10, following your list.
     
  42. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    Did you include the series of best-of-five set matches in Australia in 1958, which was 8 to 5 for Hoad?
     
  43. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, It's a fact that the pros at the dawn of open tennis were commonly regarded higher than the amateurs (of course not at ignorants) which they proved in winning nine out of the first eleven open majors where they participated. And it was common sense that the pros were in a more difficult mental situation than the amateurs in having to defend their high prestige. You should not ignore that. Even the great Rosewall had some difficulties to cope with the top amateurs before he overtook them.

    You write that the pros were the favourites. Thanks. Quod erat demonstrandum...
     
  44. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Only an ignorant considers Gimeno's failures as an amateur when ranking him in his prime. True experts (yes, NDQ) do know that Gimeno improved immensely after 1960.
     
  45. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    ...and maybe Budge who was Tilden's choice for 365 days playing.
     
  46. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    Gimeno's problems at majors continued AFTER he turned pro, and AFTER open tennis arrived.
     
  47. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    It's still not 14:10 if we are exact.
     
  48. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    I do not follow your math. It is exactly 14 to 10.
    The grasscourt matches in Australia were not a separate event, but were individual matches.
    The question was, what was the hth record ON GRASS.
    I think that you understand the importance and significance of establishing the hth on grass, the surface of three of four slam events.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  49. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    The only one which continues is your nasty ignorance, Dan.

    Gimeno had never problems in pro and open majors. Are you dreaming?

    Gimeno beat Rosewall three times in pro majors and once in open majors.

    He reached final of the AO, SF of Wimbledon, won French Open (only Laver and Rosewall absent) and lost to Smith in the 1972 US Open in five sets. That even as an old man. Santana did nothing in the open era at majors!
     
  50. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Following your own remarks I come to 15:10 not 14:10.
     

Share This Page