GOAT Discussions

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

  1. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Gimeno won the French Open while Santana did not. You cannot consider only one tournament. Gimeno was a top ten player in a few open era years, Santana not.
     
  2. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, kiki learnt history much better than you have.

    Ralston was No. 4 among the pros thus probably meaning No. 4 in the world. He had several wins against Laver in 1967.

    Buchholz (not Bucholz) was the No.5 amateur when turning pro after he almost had beaten Laver and Fraser in GS competition.

    I never said that Gimeno was equal with Laver and Rosewall but he was near to them while the amateurs were not near to them.

    In 1966 Gimeno was the world's best claycourter!

    Gimeno defeated Rosewall several times in pro majors and defeated Laver and Rosewall quite often. You cannot reverse tennis history!
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2012
  3. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,744
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Just like Fed. Fed is great on clay, but clay is Fed's weakest surface.

    No wonder they admire each other so much.
     
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Stolle beat Laver several times in 1967 and Newcombe in 1969 in the Queensclub.
     
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Good joke.

    I rank Laver No.4 on clay behind the trio Rosewall, Borg and Nadal (cannot yet decide their exact places). Thus he was stronger than Lendl, Wilander, Federer, Vilas and Co. He won the best claycourt tournament in 1967 (Oklahoma) and 1969 (French Open) among other feats on clay.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2012
  6. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    It's (1)Nadal, (2)Borg, and the rest are behind them. After those two players, ranking other players gets murky.

    There's experts who ranked Fed ahead of Laver on clay, but you can't decide Nadal is ahead of Laver?:confused: Ridiculous.
     
  7. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    To sum up your post:

    You rank Laver ahead of Federer and others on clay, therefore he is stronger on clay than they are.

    Can you spot the fallacy?

    Ah, but were those experts branded as "true" by BobbyOne? Please let them know to send their credentials and opinions to BobbyOne for approval.
     
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    To make it clear-even for you: I wrote that I cannot yet decide between the three greats on clay. Nadal as one of the three greatest is surely ahead of Laver on clay!
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2012
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NDQ, Your senseless hate against me is really huge and beyond any reason.

    There is no fallacy at all. Your logic is really great!

    Every poster, every man and woman, can give his or her opinion, can make rankings, so I too. What is your problem, you ignorant?????????????

    And as the Authoritative Austrian (Bud Collins) my right to make rankings is thus the more evident.

    Why do you not blame hoodjem for making his (by the way reasonable) rankings? I can tell you the answer: because you hate me since my first post.

    I only can feel sorry for you and your strange soul....
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2012
  10. Gonzo_style

    Gonzo_style Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages:
    3,897
    Deleted post
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2012
  11. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Sorry, but Santana won twice RG ( as an amateur).Pietrangeli was a far better player than Proisy.

    I think Gimeno would have also won a slam title if he had been allowed to compete, or if open tennis had come along 1963 or 1964.
     
  12. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    While Lobb is too radical in his affirmatives, I remember that 1970 event at Barcelona and it was probbaly Santana´s last big show.Gimeno was a more complete player, Santana had the touch of a genious and was a really champion.
     
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    You are right, for instance an open era 1966 French Open.
     
  14. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Gimeno would have had a better chance of winning a French Pro had it continued on Roland Garros clay after 1962 instead of moving to indoor wood at the Stade Coubertin. The move was due to finances being more difficult, of course, problems which began in 1960 with Hoad's absence from the world pro tour.
     
  15. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Rosewall was long time doubles partner with the tall and lanky Stolle.Great team, the best of the late 60´s apart from Newcombe/Roche and Hewitt/Mc Millan.

    Stolle is becoming another Kodes. a true champion that posters here love to underrate...maybe cause they have few knowledge, maybe because they feel better that way...
     
  16. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Yes, Stolle was fortunate towin against Newk and Rochey just as Kodes was fortunate to win 3 majors out of 8 titles - incredible efficiency, nobody remarked it- and Hingsi was fortunate that the Serena lass was young and Davenport was not at her very peak and and and and

    I am amazed at the levels of unknowledgement and cluelesness that the self defined historians who read 100 tennis books a year have...JAJAJAJAJAJAJA

    it´s better laughing than crying as many say...

    -And I still think Hoad is the peakest of the peaks, BTW-
     
  17. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Best post in ages.Thanks for being a reasonable poster this time...
     
  18. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    Everyone has a right to their opinion. An opinion doesn't make something an indisputable fact, however. You can't use your opinion about Rosewall or Laver being the best to prove that they are the best. I don't understand how you don't see this.

    Why would I "blame" hoodjem for making rankings? I generally enjoy his posts and any rankings that he may give. I'm not sure about you, BobbyOne, but I gladly add any new knowledge I come across to my own. I only dislike people who don't accept reason.
     
  19. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    When did I ever claim that my rankings are the truth???? They are my opinion and I think they are quite reasonable. Why do you accept rankings from other posters or other experts but criticize my ones? Why do you always, ALWAYS, try to treat me as a baby or an idiot?????????????

    You never called me a Günter Parche (as your friend Limpinhitter did), but in a certain sense your attacs against me (and only against me even there are several posters with sometimes strange opinions) are more obnoxious than Limpinhitter's!!

    To be exact: My opinions about Rosewall and Laver are NOT NOT NOT the prove that Rosewall and Laver are the best (plus Tilden and Gonzalez). It's totally irreal that you can insinuate I would rate them as the prove my opinions are the truth! But I concede that I claim to have good arguments that they are GOAT candidates. I can give many facts in this sense.

    I think you are pretty intelligent but your brain seems to make holidays when you read and answer my posts.Caution: Hate can reduce the intelligence! I am very disappointed about your behaviour, NadalDramaQueen!!

    I hope for a change...
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2012
  20. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    I only said that in your previous post you seemed to use your rankings to somehow make the point that Laver was stronger than some other players. Please read that post. Perhaps you didn't mean the post the way it came out, or I misinterpreted it.

    Again, I have no issue with anyone giving rankings, not even you. I disagree with many of the rankings (especially on this forum) but it doesn't bother me unless the poster seems to be generally unreasonable. Even then, I am not really bothered, only motivated enough to post here.

    BobbyOne, I don't think you are an idiot. I only try to be extra clear with you because I realize there is a potential language barrier. There is nothing idiotic about being more fluent in another language. Of course there are times when I poke fun of your eagerness to proclaim your expertise, but that is another matter.

    To quote you:

    You take it as an insult (or attack) when I contradict your opinion, no matter what way I do it. I have tried many approaches and you always respond in the same manner. I am also no friend of limpinhitter, so I'm not sure why you would think that.

    You are disappointed with my behavior, yet you are the one who has been insulting in the last few posts. Just as you try to open everyone's eyes about old professionals other than Laver, I only want you to accept the limitations of judging greatness in tennis.
     
  21. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NDQ, Thanks fgor your more friendly tone in the recent post.

    I read my older post: I only wrote that I rank Laver No.4 on clay. Only you and TMF have misinterpreted that.

    EVERY person believes that his or her opinions are right.Otherwise they would not tell them to others.For instance you believe that Rosewall is not the GOAT. You think that's correct. And it is your right. Also my right to think that my opinions are right. But I never say they are the truth!

    I'm proud of my knowledge but I only write about it when and if a person belittles me!

    You CAN contradict but please without any insinuation and treatuing me like a baby.

    I see that you always have the same nasty approach towards me. Your Fall of Man was in your first post on the other htread where you seemed to be angry that I rank Laver and Rosewall ahaed of Federer and you said: GO TO THE OTHER THREAD. It was rather nasty. Please stop to hate me and to belittle me.

    I wrote "your friend Limpinhitter" because you supported him when he was obnoxious towards me.

    Hope we can discuss more seriously one day.

    BobbyOne
     
  22. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    I usually let it go at this point, but I guess not this time.

    In your older post, you said that you rank Laver no. 4 on clay, thus he is stronger than Federer, Lendl, and others.

    There is a difference between having an opinion and believing that you are infallible. Only when we realize that we are just like everyone else can we begin to correct our errors.

    I disagree that I am treating you like a baby and I prefer to not have such odd discussions anyway. I am only contradicting your posts, please don't be overly dramatic about the process.

    It wasn't nasty when I said that you should stop spamming the thread when people were trying to have a discussion. Many posters agreed with me. I'm very sorry that you tried to derail a thread when you first joined and no one thought your posts were worthwhile. That is your issue. I know it is hard to believe, but in some parts of the forum the discussion will actually stay on topic.

    You were both obnoxious and you finally pushed him over the edge.

    That possibility isn't looking good, unfortunately. A start would be to simply reply to my posts without accusing me of any hatred when I disagree with you.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2012
  23. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Caution;: Hate reduces intelligence: I still believe that you are intelligent but with your hate you "see" something what never happened: I always am aware that my theses are just opinions with the exception when I give numbers of a player's career and other facts (and even then I can err).

    From the first post onwards you hated me ("Go to the other thread (or blog)!") only because I said that Laver, Rosewall and others were stronger than Federer (In my opinion of course) and you often accuse me to write "always the same". This shows you have not read my many posts or you drive out logic.

    To say it once more: When I give rankings and even write that "thus he was stronger than Lendl and others" I of course mean that this is my OPINION. Maybe I should- specially for you- always add "In my opinion" but I thought it's clear for the readers that I only give my opinion! Most posters write that player X is better than player Y but you never blamed them for this. Only me...

    You meant Limpinhitter without giving his name: Now I'm guilty that he was banned! That's curious... Limpinhitter often distorted my statements and arguments and therefore I formulated a bit sharper than usually but only he used nasty words! Supporting distorting is a bad sign for you.

    When I give any rankings I'm of course ready to accept any contradiction and to discuss the matter. I don't know why you insinuate the contrary! I'm not infallible and have changed already sometimes my opinions after I have gotten reasonable contras. You never gave me contra arguments...

    You again insult me in writing that I brought spam when other posters wanted a discussion and that my posts are bad and that many posters agree with you.

    I can assure you: I do know that also many other posters find my posts (or at least most of them) quite reasonable....

    "No one thought your posts are worthwile". Thanks. Thanks! It's really great!!

    At the end I give you an example for your non objectivity towards me: When TMF blamed me for Laver possibly ranking over Nadal on clay ("ridiculous"), you did not realize that this accusation was wrong (because I of course rank Nadal ahead of Laver on clay and it was clear for the readers) and supported TMF...

    Alas, you do me wrong.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2012
  24. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    I have read through that thread, BobbyOne. No one hated you, only disagreed with your posts. Please note that I was referring to that thread when I was talking about your posts.

    Do you want a pat on the back each time you're somewhat objective?

    All I ask is that you respond to my posts without bringing up any perceived "relationship issues" that you think we have. I do not want to continually have this conversation with you. Respond to the post at hand, nothing more, please.

    For instance, if you would have just said at the start that my summation of your post was incorrect and that you weren't making a circular argument, this discussion would have been unnecessary. :) Instead, you bring up so many unrelated things.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2012
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I think it's better to stop now our quarrel and discussion. All is said.

    Just one last point: You are wrong that you only criticized my post in this thread. I do remember that you ALWAYS criticize me and my posts from the beginning onwards. I will never understand this.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2012
  26. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,982
    Sorry, number 4 and number 5 dosesn't cut it for a top pro. The players who draw crowds win the big amateur tournaments, which Ralston and Buchholz and Gimeno did not.
    Oklahoma City was a major?
    It was a major only in Oklahoma.
    The point is, Emerson and Santana (both of whom beat Laver in majors) were the big name draws, who turned down big pro offers, to make MORE money as amateurs.
     
  27. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,982
    Stolle won precious little as a pro. How many tournaments? One or maybe two?
    Stolle and others could upset Laver in minor events, but not in the biggies.
    Newk was nursing a sore back at the 1969 post-French period. He had hurt himself at the French, in a marathon win over Kodes.

    There is NO COMPETITION for the late 50's pro field as against the mid-60's pro field.
    I think that Cooper, Anderson, Rose, McGregor, Hartwig were on a par with Gimeno, Stolle, Buchholz, Ralston, and had better records as amateurs.
    Which leaves us comparing Laver and Rosewall to Gonzales, Hoad, Rosewall(younger and better), Sedgman, Trabert, Segura.
    A much stronger field in the late 50's, and explains why the pros could rent out Forest Hills, Roland Garros, Kooyong etc.
    The decline in the pro game is clear.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2012
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, I never wrote that Oklahoma was a major. Gimeno was the best claycourter in 1966 because he won the two biggest claycourt tournaments that year, Oklahoma and Barcelona, in both beating Laver and Rosewall. I strongly doubt that a Santana or another amateur would have been able to do that.
     
  29. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,982
    Santana did something similar at Roland Garros in 1961, beating Laver, Emerson, and Pietrangeli in successive, close, five-set matches.
    All three of these guys were two-time Roland Garros champions (three for Laver counting the 1968 RG Pro).
    Overall, Santana had more success than Gimeno on grass, winning the two biggies, Wimbledon and Forest Hills, and beating Emmo in the 1965 Davis Cup in Australia.
     
  30. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, I counted four tournaments won by Stolle in 1967. He also won the South African tour against Laver, Rosewall and other strong players.

    I doubt that Rose, McGregor and Hartwig were on par with Gimeno, Stolle, Buchholz and Ralston. See their ranking in the pro ranks.

    Rosewall was not weaker in the mid 1960s than in the end 1950s (In my opinion, to do a favour to NDQ).
     
  31. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, you "forget" that Santana was not forced to play against peak Laver and Rosewall as Gimeno was...
     
  32. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,982
    You mean, four MINOR tournaments for Stolle, and a South African tour, which was kind of like the end of season break for the pros. Anything for Stolle after 1967?

    You mean Cooper, Anderson, Rose, McGregor, Hartwig were not on a par with Gimeno, Stolle, Buchholz, and Ralston? Look at the records in majors. The first group is much better.
    I count two majors for the 60's group (Gimeno in a depleted 1972 French, Stolle at Forest Hills when Newk sprained his ankle. Not much to cheer about.
    Cooper (four majors, including Wimbledon and Forest Hills), Anderson (Forest Hills), Rose (French and Australian), McGregor (Australian, runnerup at Wimbledon, same as Ralston), Hartwig (runnerup at Forest Hills, where his opponent did not sprain his ankle in the final, beat Hoad twice on the 1959 Ampol Championship tour).
    As I say, no contest.
     
  33. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,982
    Gimeno CHOSE to turn pro in 1961, before he won any significant event in the amateurs.
    Laver and Emerson were already at a peak in 1961, the top two guys on the amateur tour.
    Turning pro did not add much to a top amateur's game, other than reduction of errors, and adjusting to playing tough matches every day.
     
  34. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, are you the new Limpinhitter? You distort my arguments!

    The South African tour was not at the end of the 1967 season. Stolle won also the 1965 French Championships.

    Stolle has also won four open era tournaments.

    I did not write that Cooper and Anderson were not on par with Gimeno and Co. I referred to Rose, Hartwig and McGregor. But I do know (even if NDQ will again blame me) that Gimeno was stronger than Anderson and Cooper. Read to pro ranks!

    It's not fair to mention McGregor's amateur achievements as he did not play much in the pro ranks at the end 1950s and when, rather weakly...
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2012
  35. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    I feel sorry for Sampras because he takes the biggest hit of all the goat candidates after Federer have surpassed him. Sampras doesn't have a leg to stand on when compare to Roger because Roger is ahead of him in almost every categories. And since their era is only 10 years apart, there's not much excuse to say the game/condition was difference. Besides Sampras, Nadal and Agassi take a big hit too because they are playing in modern time. Unlike Laver/Rosewall, their fans always have reasons to say you can't compare to the 60s because tennis was so much different than today. So no matter how much Roger accomplished, they will never conceded him as a goat. Every year since 2009, Roger continue to win and they move the goalposts which is ridiculous. Roger can win 20 slams in the future and he's still doesn't move further ahead of Laver. Don't you find that absurd ?

    The funny thing is it's accepted that Roger continue to distant himself from the past great players except a few like Laver, Pancho, Rosewall.

    Basically, Sampras was neck in neck with Laver as a goat BEFORE the arrival of Federer. However, things changed because Roger's succcess removed Sampras, and Laver is still in the discussion. It makes no sense at all. Either all the past great players continue to fall below Federer(since he's still active), or none of them at all. You can't pick and choose certain players(ie Laver) have no effect while certain players(ie Sampras) is falling further away. The truth is....ALL OF THEM ARE CONSTANTLY FALLING FURTHER AWAY FROM ROGER.
     
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, your endeavour to belittle the 1960s pros is really astonishing.

    Laver was NOT at his peak in 1961! Dominating the amateur field is not a prove for being at the peak. Almost all great players improved after turning pros. Laver's peak began only in 1964.
     
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, I don't understand why one cannot say that Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez can rank ahead of Federer but not other players of older decades.

    I believe that Laver was greater than Federer but that Anderson, Stolle, Emerson, Dibbs, Mayotte were not greater because they did not achieve what Federer achieved. You could accept that the Laver, Gonzalez and Rosewall troika was far ahead of most or all of their contemporaries.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2012
  38. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    You didn't get my point. The past great players resume are fixed, set in stone. However, Roger continue to add more to his legacy but yet old-timers like you don't see any changes in their position. I mean Roger can win 30 slams and you will never conceded him above Laver. I call that biased, unreasonable. Fed in 2009 was considered the greatest, and if not, no one can place ahead of him. But Fed continue to win, logic say he moves further ahead, simple as that.
     
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, You can be sure: If Federer actually wins 20 or 30 additional GS tournaments in the future, I glady will rank him above Laver and Rosewall...

    For the moment he does not have achieved enough to rank him first (NDQ: In my humble opinion of course).
     
  40. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,982
    The point is, Laver and Emmo reached maturity as players in 1961, as evidenced by their dominance, together with Santana.
    It only took a few weeks to get up to speed on the pro tours, as evidenced by Rosewall, Hoad, Laver, etc.
     
  41. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,982
    Cooper and Anderson had much better records than Gimeno, amateur or pro.
    They both won major titles as amateurs (Gimeno failed here, and jumped prematurely to the pro ranks), and titles at least as significant as Gimeno's as pros. Gimeno flunked on grass, where Santana was clearly superior to Gimeno, and goofed his chances indoor at Wembley (by the way, how did he manage to lose to a crippled old part-timer Hoad at Wembley in 1963 and 1966?)
    Hoad played against Santana in 1965 in practice matches in Australia prior to the Davis Cup final, and was stunned by Santana's ability.
     
  42. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Gimeno turned professional in 1960, so early on in his career before he had won a major, whereas Cooper and Anderson had won majors as amateurs (especially Cooper being the dominant amateur player of 1958, in winning 3 majors that year).

    But how do you come to the conclusion that Cooper or Anderson did better in the pros than Gimeno, when this clearly isn't the case? Gimeno was a top 3-4 professional player from 1962-1967, behind 2-3 of Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzales. Anderson had an amazing tournament win at the Wembley Pro in 1959 and managed to stay around on the pro tour until the open era arrived, even reaching the 1972 Australian Open final, but Anderson wasn't as high ranked as Gimeno was in the pro ranks for 6 straight years.

    As for Cooper, of all the great amateur players from the 1940s to 1960s, Cooper probably suffered the most of all as a professional, as his professional results were largely a disappointment. He had burned out within a few years and was off the pro tour after 1962, after 4 years on the pro tour.

    Nonsense. Gimeno became a much better player by playing in the professional ranks. Are you also of the opinion that Gonzales "jumped prematurely to the pro ranks" in late 1949? One can only make that conclusion if they just value the mainstream majors won on a balance sheet.

    Santana was the first tennis player to coin the phrase "grass is for cows". He hated the surface. I know Santana eventually won Wimbledon in 1966, but Gimeno was banned from playing at the tournament due to his professional status.

    Hoad in 1963 was still very good, just look at how he beat a recently turned pro in Laver. Even after 1965, he was still occasionally very dangerous, despite the reduced mobility. Look at how he beat Gonzales at the Wimbledon Pro tournament in 1967, by 3-6, 11-9, 8-6.

    Okay, but what does this prove? Cliff Drysdale thinks that Santana was by far the toughest opponent he ever had in his career. Drysdale thinks that Laver was a lot easier to play against than Santana, but nobody would say that Santana was a better player than Laver.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2012
  43. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    Hello BobbyOne,

    What I got from TMF's post was that before Federer came along Sampras was ranked up there with Laver and the rest of the best. I would say that some even ranked him as the best. Do you agree with this or was Sampras generally never put up on the GOAT pedestal?

    The issue is that Federer has now overtaken his records and they are comparable (not spread out in time enough to be considered an apples to oranges comparison), so he is generally placed above Sampras. In response to this, it seems like Sampras has been demoted to account for the relative difference between Fed and Sampras so that Fed didn't shoot up too high above that group at the top. What TMF suggested (from what I read) is that it seems like the position of Sampras is variable while the past greats remain fixed, as their records are different enough to bypass any direct comparison. Do you agree with any of this?

    I hope my rambling makes sense, I am a bit busy.

    I actually think that acknowledging what is and what isn't an opinion is a good exercise for you. :cool: I hope my tone is more friendly in this post.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2012
  44. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    It's true that Sampras' all-time standing has taken a hit, because there's very little that Sampras has now done that Federer hasn't equalled or surpassed. Only 6 calendar years as world number 1 is left, I think.

    However, Sampras made it known that for him, it was "all about the slams", especially Wimbledon, and that was his attitude. I think it's obvious that he never expected anyone to get to 13-14 majors for a long time, given the way the tennis landscape looked from 1998-2003.
     
  45. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, You again "forget" something: The fact (NDQ: yes, the fact) that most amateurs after turning pro had difficulties to cope with the seasoned pros.
     
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, Gimeno flunked on grass?? He beat Rosewall in the 1967 US Pro and reached final of the 1969 AO losing to a peak Laver both times plus he reached SF of the 1970 Wimbledon.

    Hoad was very strong both in 1963 and 1966. In the latter year he almost beat Rosewall at Wembley.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2012
  47. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Mustard, Thanks a lot for contradicting the very strange (to say the least) statements of Dan.
     
  48. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    OK, about Gimeno and Santana.

    Gimeno looked like more adaptable to different surfaces but, even in the relatively depleted am fields of the middle 60´s, Santana did extremely well on grass, and he beat at home, both nº 1 aussies in Emerson and Newcombe in the 2 finals of the DC event that Spain lost, both times in Australia.

    I have seen them play each other and it was really hard tot ell who´d emerge the eventual winner; that was much more an issue of rivalry and political pressure on them than anything else - both were relatively on good terms, anyway.

    Much is talked today about Spain´s great team, but even if that is true, thing is the rest of the teams are not so mighty as it was the case with the Australian and US teams of the 60´s and 70´s.Still, a Gimeno,Santana,orantes and Gisbert ( a top class doubles player who also reached an AO final in singles) that could have been gathered, around 1969 to 1971, would be the best ever for Spain and, on clay, almost unbeatable.
     
  49. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NDQ, I firstly enjoyed your new friendly tone. But secondly I found the old NDQ again: Why do you ask ME about Sampras's status years ago? What does your question insinuate?

    Yes, I agree of course that Sampras was widely ranked No.1 all-time (But surely not by all experts!) So it's not a wonder that now Federer is hailed by many as the all-time champion as he has broken most records of Sampras. Did you hope I would disagree here that you can again blame me??

    By the way, I again considered my rankings and I stress that the word "I rank" is clearly not the truth but one's opinion. Why did you have difficulty to understand this? I wrote "I RANK Laver" not "Laver is" at the BEGIN of my old post.

    But a big insult is again your statement that "acknowledging what is and what isn't an opinion is a good exercise for you"! I don't need exercises to post here and at least from you. I'm not an under-age child. I glady refuse your arrogant manner.

    Please don't address me once more! Thanks.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2012
  50. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    Hello BobbyOne,

    I was only asking for your opinion on the subject about Sampras and whether or not you agree that the following scenario has happened. The scenario being that instead of Federer bumping Sampras down one spot, his emergence has seemingly knocked him down a few places so that he ends up being below players he was once ranked above. I want to stress that I am deliberately trying to not include the rankings from anyone so as to not start any controversy, as this isn't a discussion about who is the goat, only a discussion about goat discussions.

    The reason I ask you is because you were the one who responded to TMF's suggestion. I have no ulterior motive.

    I didn't say anything about your rankings specifically in my post, and I was only responding to your including of me in your posts in a lighthearted manner. No offense intended.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2012

Share This Page