GOAT Discussions

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

  1. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    In fact, surfaces and schedules are so much different today than in Borg´s time that the only common thing both have is their terrific top spin and having the two best ever records at the French Open.While I think both are the two greatest clay courters ever, for the rest of the surfaces it is quite different.

    In Borg´s time, grass was extremely fast, making it amazing how he could switch in15 days from the ultraslow RG clay to the Wimbledon turf...and winning three times in a row while doing soNadal´s only won Wimbleodn twice, and the grass court is now like clay, just a bit faster.It is no possible to compare but, of course, while Borg is one of the 4 best ever on grass ( Laver,Sampras,Federer and maybe Tilden would join him), Nadal is like Connors or Edberg: he only won 2 titles, not a big deal.Not even fifth or sixth tier on grass ( even his clay court rgass)

    In Borg´s time fast indoor carpet was as important as hard court is today.In reverseal, hard court was a secondary surface in Borg´s era and carpet has become the same in Nadal´s era...Nadal won 2 majors ( 3 if we add OG 2008) on hard and none on carpet, Borg took three indoor majors and no major title on hard ( in spite of reaching 3 finals at the USO)

    So, it looks pretty even here.

    As a conclusion, Borg fared much much above Nadal on fast courts, and Nadal has a better record on slow courts.But Borg , retiring at 25, has a total of 14 majors and Nadal, AT 26, has a total of 12.

    That´s the figures, rest is subjective
     
  2. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    In 72 Germany won the Euro Cup...and Rosewall, the best ever WCT final.Just to find more similarities.

    In 1970, Germany lost to Italy one of the best ever WC matches and Rosewall lost to Newcombe in a gruelling 5 sets final at London.
     
  3. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    You are right.

    In fact, one of the amazing things looking backwards is that John Mc Enroe did not have too many bad loses when he was peaking, provided his risky serve and volley style and inspirational touch.If we look back from 1979 to 1985, just a few remarkable ones (by that I mean losing to a guy out of the top 30).If I can recall well, I think of Teltscher in Palm Springs, ( when Teltscher was not a top guy yet)Mc Namee at Rg, Francisco Gonzalez at the 1980 Cincinnati event, ...of course, he seldom visited the cc events...
     
  4. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    This is completely truth.Most posters here have not lives through the golden, yet struggling years of tennis, in the 70´s and 80´s and don´t know the inmense difference of title´s value compared to today.

    WCT/Masters were much, but really much above an AO, who still deserved respect because of tradition ( and some true champs winning it).It did not change till AO recovered its prestige around the middle to end 80´s and WCT dissapeared due to financial trouble and Hunt´s lack of interest in the game he helped to bright in the early 70´s.

    The importance of Borg, the first pop tennis star is even bigger outside the court than in the court.Nadal has not even 10% of Borg´s charisma and , as good as he is playing the game, his figure is just that of a midget comparing to Borg.

    George W Bush also won 2 elections...can he be compared to Reagan who also won 2?
     
  5. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    If anybody, only Hoad could have won a GS in the 50´s ( and he was the guy closer to).He was by far more complete than Gonzales on slow courts and much more powerful than Rosewall on clay.Hoad just one title? don´t make me laugh.
     
  6. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Top tier:Laver and Rosewall, head and shoulders above in terms of achievements

    Second Tier: Gonzales and Emerson

    Third Tier: Santana,Gimeno,Stolle and the half injuried Hoad

    Fourth tier: Ayala,Olmedo,Osuna,Mc Kinley,Graebner,Butcholtz and the rest

    Only Newcombe,Ashe and Roche were able to jump into second or third tier but they are from another generation and I don´t mixém up with the players born in the 30´s.
     
  7. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Santana retired in 1970, aged 32.

    His last match was an awsome cc exhibition against Rod Laver.Laver had just won the GS a year before.

    I know what I am talking.I actually watched the match.
     
  8. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    It's amazes me the gizo says Sampras was better than Borg on three of four surfaces when Borg crushes Sampras in lifetime winning percentage by 84% to 77%. The 84% is from his actual lifetime record. Seven percentage points is huge and Borg won 106 tournaments to Sampras' 64 in a much shorter career.
     
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, What about Rosewall on grass? That guy won eight grasscourt majors and reached 27 SFs in grass majors. He was able to beat Laver twice in big grasscourt finals. Maybe a better record than Tilden.
     
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, As you can see in my list, I gave Hoad three major wins. It could be that I underrated him a bit. I could give Hoad five majors but not more. Don't forget that Lew was rather inconsistent over a full year. I can't imagine that Hoad would win an open Grand Slam rather than Gonzalez.

    Hoad cannot compete with Rosewall on clay or at the most only for a short period. Power does not mean too much on clay.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, Gonzales was clearly stronger than Emerson, and Gimeno was stronger than Santana (IMO).
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Santana played six open era majors and never reached the QFs.
     
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I think that kiki meant Gonzalez and Emerson in the 1960s but even then he is wrong.
     
  14. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Agreed. They arent in the same league whatsoever.
     
  15. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,699
    Well which surfaces out of grass, indoors/carpet and hard courts would you consider Borg superior to Sampras on.

    On grass Sampras did win the superbowl of tennis, Wimbledon, 2 more times than Borg which is a significant margin. I would argue that Borg did beat better players to win his Wimbledon titles than Sampras did, in Borg's case McEnroe, Connors, Nastase, Tanner, Gerulaitis etc, in Sampras's case, Agassi, a post-peak but still strong on grass Becker, Ivanisevic, Rafter etc. Still 2 extra Wimbledon titles cannot be underestimated, and having watched both players a lot I would take a peak Sampras on grass over a peak Borg.

    Indoors, Borg played in an era where there were two huge indoor tournaments that were almost on a par with the majors, the WCT Finals and Masters. Sampras didn't have that same luxury (the Grand Slam Cup which he won twice anyway really didn't compare to the prestigious Dallas event). Still he won 5 Masters titles in 9 years, while Borg won a combined total of 3 Masters/WCT Finals titles during his career. Borg did beat Connors, Tanner, McEnroe and Gerulaiti to win his 1979 Masters title, and McEnroe, Connors and Lendl to win his 1980 title, so again incredibly strong competition. Still he lost 3 out of his 4 finals in Dallas. Sampras did hold the joint record for most masters/yec titles with Lendl before Federer came along, which has to carry some weight. There was a greater percentage of indoor tournaments on the tour in Borg's era than Sampras's (when outdoor hard court events had now become much more common). Overall I would also rate a peak Sampras over a peak Borg indoors (on carpet) as well.

    Obviously Borg hardly ever played on hard courts that much during his career. Sampras played much more on clay than Borg did on hard courts, and still didn't achieve anywhere near as much on his weakest surface. He had some very good quality tournament wins on hard such as the 1979 Canadian Open which he won without dropping a set, drubbing McEnroe in the final, and the big money 1979 and 1980 Las Vegas titles at Caesar's Palace (destroying Connors in the 1979 final). Still he couldn't quite pull it off at the US Open. Yes he got unlucky there on a few occasions but close doesn't get you the cigar.

    I do agree with abmk that Borg was unlucky that there were no big slow hard court events on the tour during his career, and that he would have been well suited to that surface, probably more than Sampras. Sill Sampras won over 80% of his career matches on hard courts during his career (fast or slow). He won 3 US Open titles during his prime, one before his prime and one after it when everyone was writing him off. On a fast hard court I would also take a peak Sampras over a peak Borg. We never saw Borg on a slow hard court of course so no comparison can be made there. In a way that's a good thing as the rapid increase in slow hard court events (the most damaging surface on the body) over the years has been one of the worst things to happen to tennis, in my opinion.

    Obviously the gulf between Borg and Sampras on clay was as wide as an ocean, and far greater than the gap between them on any other surface. And overall Borg was far stronger on his weakest surface than Sampras. I do also think that Borg had tougher competition during his prime than Sampras did as well. However I don't think it is unreasonable to rank Sampras ahead of him on all fast surfaces, as facing superior competition cannot fully compensate for less big titles on a particular surface.

    As I said before overall I still give the edge to Borg anyway because I considered his domination and versatility to have been more impressive than Sampras's.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  16. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    You can be the greatest of your era, but to be the greatest of all time? You need a time machine to do that, and we unfortunately don't have one. :(

    Honestly, the technology and playing conditions are far too different to realistically compare players between eras. It's like comparing who's greater, Ali or Jordan. :confused:
     
  17. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    fast grass suited the quick, smooth and technically perfect game of Rosewall.His slice off the Bh was a great weapon to come to the net with and he was a superb volleyer - and a great overhead for his size- as well.
     
  18. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,367
    I can understand you're confused because you are equating tennis to Ali/Jordan when boxing is totally different from a team sport(basketball). Technology has changed, but the objective of the game still remains the same....you still have to hit ball over the net, serve, hit a fh, bh, scoring system is the same....

    Basketball has changed a lot and fans have no problem having Jordan as the greatest. Throughout history, they added 3 second violation, added 3 point range, increase the size of the paint(because Wilt was overwhelming his peers), and rules on defense vary from generation to generation.
     
  19. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Gimeno had a more complete game but santana had genious inside and a much more match winner mentality.

    Gonzales was a better player but in the mid 60´s, he was past prime while Emerson was the undisputed nº 1 in the am ranks and was peaking.results wise, they both share tier ( and I don´t doubt 1950´s Pancho was a far better player)
     
  20. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Santana won 4 amateur majors, the three greatest events in the world at least once.He beat the best am aussies at the 1965 and 1967 DC finals which took part on aussie grass.He developed tennis in Spain.
     
  21. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,005
    Hoad has the lifetime edge on clay against Rosewall. We went through this.
     
  22. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,005
    It is possible that if tennis were open in the 1950's, Rosewall (or Trabert) could have won one or more majors on grass. The field in the late fifties contained at least five all-time greats in peak form, and it is difficult seeing anyone getting a grand slam in a calendar year. Much easier in the sixties.
     
  23. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    We concurr that the late 50´s field, with Gonzales,Trabert,Hoad,Rosewall and Sedgman was one of the toughest ever.Imagine Kramer was 5 years younger and Laver 5 years older, and you get a dream field with 7 of the toughest players going against each other.
     
  24. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    Speaking of basketball I was checking out http://www.basketball-reference.com/ and the leader in all time win shares in Kareem Abdul Jabbar followed by Chamberlain. Jordan is fourth. However Jordan didn't play as long as Jabbar. It's interesting info and it also has the statistically best seasons ever.

    Here's the link for the all time leaders.
    http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_career.html
     
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, Only you went through this. We need the overall balance on clay including the years when Rosewall dominated Hoad clearly (1958 on clay, 1961 to 1966 generally).
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  26. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    That would be amazing.
     
  27. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, You forgot strong Segura.
     
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I have changed my "Open Era " majors and given Hoad just another place (AO 1959) instead of Gonzalez. It's so difficult to give Hoad more than four majors because Gonzalez was still at his peak then and Rosewall, Sedgman and Trabert also very strong. I fear that Dan Lobb still will not be satisfied....
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  29. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I'll try that, purely hypothetical of course:

    1948
    Australian Open: Bobby Riggs
    French Open: Don Budge
    Wimbledon: Jack Kramer
    US Open: Jack Kramer

    1949
    Australian Open: Jack Kramer
    French Open: Jack Kramer
    Wimbledon: Jack Kramer
    US Open: Jack Kramer


    1950
    Australian Open: Jack Kramer
    French Open: Pancho Segura
    Wimbledon: Jack Kramer
    US Open: Jack Kramer

    1951
    Australian Open: Jack Kramer
    French Open: Pancho Segura
    Wimbledon: Jack Kramer
    US Open: Jack Kramer

    1952
    Australian Open: Pancho Segura
    French Open: Pancho Segura
    Wimbledon: Pancho Gonzales
    US Open: Jack Kramer

    1953
    Australian Open: Frank Sedgman
    French Open: Pancho Segura
    Wimbledon: Frank Sedgman
    US Open: Jack Kramer

    1954
    Australian Open: Frank Sedgman
    French Open: Pancho Gonzales
    Wimbledon: Pancho Gonzales
    US Open: Pancho Gonzales

    1955
    Australian Open: Pancho Gonzales
    French Open: Pancho Gonzales
    Wimbledon: Pancho Gonzales
    US Open: Pancho Gonzales


    1956
    Australian Open: Pancho Gonzales
    French Open: Tony Trabert
    Wimbledon: Pancho Gonzales
    US Open: Pancho Gonzales

    1957
    Australian Open: Pancho Gonzales
    French Open: Pancho Segura
    Wimbledon: Ken Rosewall
    US Open: Pancho Gonzales

    1958
    Australian Open: Frank Sedgman
    French Open: Ken Rosewall
    Wimbledon: Pancho Gonzales
    US Open: Pancho Gonzales

    1959
    Australian Open: Pancho Gonzales
    French Open: Tony Trabert
    Wimbledon: Mal Anderson
    US Open: Lew Hoad

    1960
    Australian Open: Pancho Gonzales
    French Open: Ken Rosewall
    Wimbledon: Pancho Gonzales
    US Open: Pancho Gonzales

    1961
    Australian Open: Ken Rosewall
    French Open: Ken Rosewall
    Wimbledon: Pancho Gonzales
    US Open: Pancho Gonzales

    1962
    Australian Open: Lew Hoad
    French Open: Ken Rosewall
    Wimbledon: Ken Rosewall
    US Open: Ken Rosewall

    1963
    Australian Open: Ken Rosewall
    French Open: Ken Rosewall
    Wimbledon: Ken Rosewall
    US Open: Ken Rosewall


    1964
    Australian Open: Rod Laver
    French Open: Ken Rosewall
    Wimbledon: Rod Laver
    US Open: Rod Laver

    1965
    Australian Open: Rod Laver
    French Open: Ken Rosewall
    Wimbledon: Rod Laver
    US Open: Ken Rosewall

    1966
    Australian Open: Rod Laver
    French Open: Andres Gimeno
    Wimbledon: Rod Laver
    US Open: Rod Laver

    1967
    Australian Open: Rod Laver
    French Open: Rod Laver
    Wimbledon: Rod Laver
    US Open: Rod Laver


    This would give:

    Jack Kramer: 14 majors (including the 1949 Grand Slam)
    Pancho Segura: 6 majors
    Frank Sedgman: 4 majors
    Pancho Gonzales: 21 majors (including the 1955 Grand Slam)
    Ken Rosewall: 15 majors (including the 1963 Grand Slam)
    Lew Hoad: 2 majors
    Rod Laver: 17 majors (including the 1967 and 1969 Grand Slams)
     
  30. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Thanks, Mustard, for your interesting list. That's the kind of discussion I wanted to start. I'm glad that it concurs for large parts with my speculation.

    If we add the doubtful years 1968 to 1972 where Laver and Rosewall would probably amass more majors (or have already won several of them) we come to the conclusion that Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver would emerge the most prolific winners just followed by Kramer.

    Poor Hoad with only two majors. Don't tell this to Dan!
     
  31. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Of course, if there had been open fields, then we don't know how the amateur players would have responded to playing in the same field as the professionals. They might have been inspired, and that would have changed things.

    What we've done above is take the years as they actually happened, i.e. when the top professional players were better, and predict the winners as it stood.
     
  32. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    He was a great second stringer, that´s right.
     
  33. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    Segura was arguably number one in some years.
     
  34. boredone3456

    boredone3456 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,104
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I could see arguing him as #1 in 1951 possibly but what year other than that? Maybe 1952 if you went out on a bit of a limb?
     
  35. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I have Segura as number 1 for 1952, narrowly over Gonzales. I have Kramer as number 1 in 1951, with Segura second.
     
  36. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    The key word is arguably. I don't necessarily believe it but some have argued it in the past if I recall correctly. But 1952 is an arguable year. He won the US Pro Claycourt Champs, the Canadian Pro Champs, the US Pro over Gonzalez.

    My point to Kiki was that Segura was not a journeyman as Kiki has written in the past. I don't necessarily believe Segura was the best in either year. The statement was to make a point.
     
  37. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Segura was a top 6 player in the pro ranks, with Hoad,Gonzales,Rosewall,Sedgman and Kramer being superior to him and Trabert a bit better.with such enormous competition, being ranked nº 6 is really high and that proves that Segura belonged to the elite.But was not in the same echelon as the true champions.
     
  38. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Segura was the second or third best player of the 1950s overall. Gonzales was way out on his own as the best of the decade, and second best of the decade was either Segura or Sedgman. I'm not really counting Kramer as he retired in early 1954, and only made brief returns thereafter.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
  39. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,770
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    1950—Kramer/Segura
    1951—Kramer
    1952—Gonzales/Sedgman
    1953—Kramer(6)/Segura(2)
    1954—Gonzales
    1955—Gonzales
    1956—Gonzales
    1957—Gonzales
    1958—Gonzales(6)/Sedgman(2)
    1959—Hoad
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
  40. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Mine is:

    1950: Jack Kramer
    1951: Jack Kramer
    1952: Pancho Segura
    1953: Jack Kramer
    1954: Pancho Gonzales
    1955: Pancho Gonzales
    1956: Pancho Gonzales
    1957: Pancho Gonzales
    1958: Pancho Gonzales
    1959: Pancho Gonzales


    Top 2:

    1950: Jack Kramer, Pancho Segura
    1951: Jack Kramer, Pancho Segura
    1952: Pancho Segura, Pancho Gonzales
    1953: Jack Kramer, Frank Sedgman
    1954: Pancho Gonzales, Frank Sedgman
    1955: Pancho Gonzales, Pancho Segura
    1956: Pancho Gonzales, Frank Sedgman
    1957: Pancho Gonzales, Pancho Segura
    1958: Pancho Gonzales, Frank Sedgman
    1959: Pancho Gonzales, Lew Hoad
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
  41. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,770
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Yep. I'm starting to re-think my own list (as posted over three years ago).

    I've learned much over that time.
     
  42. boredone3456

    boredone3456 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,104
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I would probably agree with this. He was a consistent presence the entire decade pretty much, even if he was never the outright best for more than a year during it. Peak Kramer was better but he was hardly ever around the majority of the decade. Now if you compare him to Gonzales well he comes off looking poor by comparison, but that does not make him a second tier player. Thats like smashing Arantxa Sanchez Vicario down in the 90's because Steffi was in her own class, or Mandlikova because of Navratilova. He derserves more than that.
     
  43. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I agree with that.
     
  44. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,377
    I think, Trabert is a bit underrated here. His 1955 was one of the best amateur seasons ever, and he had to deal with both Hoad and Rosewall. Did the RG-Wim double and won Wim without losing a set. He probably was the best clay courter of the 50s, winning RG amateur and pro each twice. He lost quite heavily on his first pro tour with Gonzalez, but had to play indoors all the time, and seldom had a chance to get to hard courts and clay, which favored his game better. His strength was indeed his backhand, and a strong allcourt game, he was more a hard worker than a genius. I rank him behind Gonzalez, Sedgman in the mid 50s, but ahead of Segura and until 1955 ahead of Hoad and Rosewall.
     
  45. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    How is Trabert ahead of Segura? Gonzales stopped Segura being a 6-time US Pro champion and a Wembley Pro champion, and Segura didn't have the chance to play a French Pro at Roland Garros until 1958. Segura also had his big improvements towards his peak form after his early pro years, unlike Trabert who had an awesome amateur year in 1955 (with all the prestigious majors to show for it) and then turned pro. I think Trabert's best victory was his 5-set win over Gonzales in the 1956 French Pro final. I also agree that Trabert was ahead of Hoad and Rosewall when they were amateurs.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
  46. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,377
    I think, you have to rate champions both in their amateur and pro careers. Trabert had the way better amateur career, he was called the second coming of Kramer for a while, and had a respectable pro career, with fine wins at RG, the second a blitz on Rosewall, who was no slouch on clay. Seguras best pro results were in a time frame, the early 50s, when the pro game was in disarray, Kramer playing seldom, and Gonzalez in and out.
     
  47. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I agree that Trabert had a far superior amateur career to Segura, but that's because Trabert peaked earlier and became the best amateur player in the world before he turned professional. In contrast, Segura turned professional at the same time as Kramer. Segura was brilliant from 1950-1957 in the pros, though. It's a shame that there was no French Pro in nearly all those years and he was injured for the 1956 tournament.
     
  48. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Mustard, I agree. I rank Segura ahead of Trabert till 1956, both equal in 1957 and 1959. Interesting: for 1962 Segura was ahead of Trabert again, at 41.
     
  49. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,005
    No, not at all.
    As we saw earlier, Hoad had 13 to 9 edge ON GRASS against Gonzales in 1958 and 1959, peak years for both, and three of the four majors in a hypothetical open tennis would have been on grass, the other on clay, where Hoad had a much better record than Gonzales. So I do not agree that Gonzales would be favoured.
    Consider this. At the grand slam venues, Wimbledon, Roland Garros, Forest Hills, and Kooyong, Hoad's record against Gonzales all-time is 6 wins and 3 losses. So I think that Hoad has to ranked ahead in the majors.
    Most of Gonzales "major" wins were indoors. Minor majors.
     
  50. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,005
    I have already responded to this.
    This reminds me of Eugene Scott'S Dream Tournament, where his all-time favouite players staged dramatic come-from-behind wins in a fantasy championship. Not much of a surprise, but, like the imaginary lists you and Mustard have suggested, it ignores the cold, hard reality of actual results.
    As I said, Gonzales had no hope of a French Open win, yet you and Mustard give him several. Also, Gonzales had a losing record against Hoad on grass, a reality which you have chosen to ignore.
    Dream on!
     

Share This Page