How do we measure achievements of players in the pre-open era?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by 1477aces, Jul 28, 2013.

  1. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    Strange abmk, It was YOU who did not give evidence for your strange opinions. You make me tired! It's as though you would claim that a teepot orbits around the earth and I must disprove that thesis!

    Rosewall was equaly tired after their long match because he played exactly the same time. Laver (as Rosewall) was famous for have great stamina!

    Your argument reminds me to Dan's thesis that Hoad lost to Rosewall at Wembley three times because Lew was taller and thus suffered from smoke in the air!!

    It is not disputable that Laver after almost a year was as accustomed to the pro game as Rosewall? Why???

    Yes, it's my strong opinion that Emerson, just like Cooper or Olmedo, would not have improved significantly.

    Emerson was not as talented as Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Santana.

    Please show me some articles written about the old pros.

    It's me who claims that only a genius player can improve significantly after being 26 (Emmo's theoretical turn to pros). Emerson had reached his full potential in 1961, 1962.

    If you go through McCauley's book and the years 1963 till 1965 you will not find my claim ridiculous that Buchholz was as good as Emerson.

    I want to stop now our discussion about Emerson vs. the pros. Give me a break!
     
  2. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,912
    Location:
    U.S
    I'm not saying I have conclusive evidence regarding what I said . But neither do you. I merely stated a distinct, real possibility.

    rosewall was in the pros for 5-6 years, laver for 7-8 months or roundabouts ? that doesn't make a diference ? :roll:

    and again why the hell would you bring up that emerson was not as talented as laver, gonzalez, rosewall, hoad. I know that and I've agreed on that.

    Santana ? he may have had better touch, but more talented overall ?

    again, he won 'only' 4 amateur majors to 12 for emerson. Considering your disdain for emerson, all I can say is LOL !

    again see ashe, newk, roche - who were nowhere near as good as laver, rosewall, pancho, but did pretty well in the open era.


    Alex Olmedo? He's 11th Or 12th - Kramer

    Lew And Pancho Serve Up Tennis At Its Very Best

    The Great In Tennis

    Scorecard - 1961

    Hoad tops Gonzales in 4 sets - The Montreal Gazette - 1958

    Andres Gimeno inked by Kramer for pro circuit

    Gimeno, Laver in finals - 1967

    Gimeno Beats Gonzales, 31-16; Joins 3 Aussies in Pro Net Finals

    there are plenty more. You just need to know where and how to look :)

    this is plainly wrong IMO

    djokovic isn't a genius player, but improved significantly in 2011.

    agassi wasn't a genius player either, but refocussed and had a great revival in 99.

    I really doubt that, given their records.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2013
  3. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,973
    True, Emerson had reached peak by 1961, when he beat Laver in two slam finals.
    But 1962 was an off year due to injury, a broken large toe.
    Emmo had another great year in 1964, beating Stolle in the finals of just about every important tournament in the world, including a 6-4 in the fifth set win in the Canadian final.

    What tournaments did Buchholz win in 1963-65? I recall that he choked against a lame Hoad in the Wembley semifinal in 1963, in one of the most "unbelievable" matches ever (the London Times description).

    Yes, Hoad had greater body mass than Rosewall, required more oxygen, and struggled in long matches in smoke-chambers like Wembley and Stad Coubertin, especially after 1960 when his conditioning was suspect. Again, I refer you to the London Times, whose reporters were actually there and pointed this out.

    Laver ran out of gas against Rosewall in the 1963 Coubertin final, after playing what Laver called "the greatest tennis of my career".
    Laver had to learn to pace himself, as he did the following year at Wembley, when Rosewall gassed out.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2013
  4. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,973
    The point here is that it wasn't only Hoad who suffered from the oxygen-deprivation effects of Wembley and Coubertin, but also Laver and Rosewall.
    Gonzales made his last reasonably successful visit to Wembley in 1961.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2013
  5. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,580
    In the highlighted article, it says that Rosewall was the top seed at the US Pro in 1967. That is very strange given Lavers dominance in 1967
     
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    Dan,

    Do you really believe that Emerson was handicapped for a whole year?

    Buchholz won the 1963 World Championships and finished at third place in the 1963 6 man tour, slightly behind Laver.
     
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    timnz, It's not strange. The pros changed their seedings always after a few weeks. Rosewall was better than Laver in the weeks before the US Pro winning at St. Louis and Newport Beach and being finalist at Oklahoma and Cincinnati. Muscles had a great streak of winning four events and being runner-up in three that summer (May 28 to July 9).

    It was a pity for Muscles that he could not continue that series in the most important event, the US Pro...
     
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    abmk, Here we will not agree...

    In my opinion Laver was well accustomed at the end of 1963.

    I don't have disdain for Emerson. I just try to put him in perspective to the truly great players.

    Santana was more talented than Emmo but not as powerful and fast and steady.

    Newcombe, Roche and Ashe were great in open era but would not have been as successful if Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez would have been younger. Pancho demolished Ashe in the 1969 Las Vegas final (but was not consistent anymore).

    Thanks for the articles. Yes, there were some but they mostly did not describe the pros' qualities.

    Djokovic is more of a genius player than Emerson. Old Agassi did not top his highest level.

    By the way, It's interesting that Kramer ranked best amateur, Olmedo, only at No.11 or 12 for 1959. I rank him No. 9, together with Fraser. The pros were really much stronger than the amateurs then.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2013
  9. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,649
    ^ BobbyOne, you are clearly anti-Emerson (strange, because I think you said once that he was your first tennis idol?)

    No man who wins 12 slams, even in a split field, is untalented or a second rate player. Period.
     
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    Phoenix, I never said that Emerson is untalented. I did say that he is less talented than the top pros and Santana (and Nastase, McEnroe, I could add).

    Emerson is not in a class of the best all-time players. Only tier 2 or 3. Emmo himself once said that he is not in a class with Hoad...

    There were rather many players in history better than Emerson : Wilding, Brookes, L.Doherty, R. Doherty, Cochet, Lacoste, Tilden, Vines, Perry, Nüsslein, von Cramm, Crawford, Budge, Riggs, Kovacs, Segura, Kramer, Gonzalez, Hoad, Sedgman, Rosewall, Laver,, Gimeno, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith, Nastase, Connors, Borg, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Sampras, Courier, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray...

    Yes, No.40 around is Emmo's place in history.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2013
  11. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,705
    How many of them would exchange their records for Emmo´s?

    Segura won nothing at all, Murray¡¡¡ Gimeno¡¡¡
     
  12. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,649
    More like No 20-25 (same level as Vilas and Courier).
     
  13. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,705
    Maybe Vilas and Courier are between 21 and 30 but not top 20.
     
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    kiki, Your ignorance is of world class. ;-)

    Segura won nothing??? Really??? That's new for me! Please explain it.

    Murray was No 2, Gimeno No.3. Emerson could have dreamed of that feat...
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2013
  15. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,705
    Sorry Segura won 2 USO and 1 Wimbledon
    He beat Pancho Gzes in the W final 6-2. 6-0 6-4
    One of the most one sided finals ever
     
  16. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    kiki, You blame yourself.

    Segura won three times the US Pro on three different surfaces. In the 1950 event he beat Kramer. In the 1951 one he defeated Gonzalez 6-3,6-4,6-2.

    In the 1952 event he beat Gonzalez in five sets.

    Segura reached the final four times additionally and four times the Wembley final. In 1962, at 41, he had matchpoint at Wembley against winner, Rosewall.

    He was four times No.2 in the world, in 1952 arguably even Nr. 1, 19 times in the top ten thus much better ranked that your idol, Kodes!
     
  17. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,705
    deleted post
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2013
  18. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,705
    At most he equals him.

    Segura could never be nº 1 with Kramer and Gonzales ahead of him
     
  19. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,912
    Location:
    U.S
    fine, but I'm just saying that you are not presenting any evidence for this.

    no, you undermine emerson a lot.. He won 12 amateur slams, not one or two, some of them vs laver, newk, ashe, roche ... santana in comparision won just 4.

    If you say emerson wouldn't win even a single major in a full field, that's plain undermining him. I think he'd have won a couple.

    newk and ashe atleast got more chances with laver & rosewall declining further, but roche's injuries ensured he didn't get as many. remember ashe was still having lot of trouble with older laver

    I'm sure you can find more ..

    older agassi may not have topped his highest level, but he brought his better than average level more times at an older age than he was during 96-98

    Neither of Agassi's or Djokovic's games were/are based on 'genius' .
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2013
  20. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,973
    In 1950 Segura beat Kramer on clay, not Kramer's best surface.

    Segura had some great showings in the early fifties, but only in 1951 did he win what was arguably the top event of the year.
    Even then, I would choose the Philadelphia tournament that year as the top event, with Kramer in top form.
     
  21. DaveTennis84372

    DaveTennis84372 New User

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    8
    The game has changed too much.

    It's apple and oranges.

    I'm coming from a competitive swimming background. OK?

    And things have changed a LOT over the years. For example, back in the day, butterfly stroke used a breast stroke kick. Now, it's a dolphin kick. Times decreased dramatically just because of that change in rules. MAYBE those same swimmers COULD have done just as well.

    But swimmers have become bigger and stronger. IN the top US Swimming ranks, who is shorter than 6' 2"?

    Phelps is 6' 4".

    Also, competition has gotten MUCH worse because of the money.

    These days, one can get really rich by being a great athlete. So, the weed out process has become much more stringent.

    You have every parent thinking their kid is the next Rafa, Pele, Conners, Jordan, Rodman, or whoever.

    To rise above the chafe nowadays requires obscene ability. It requires genetics and work.

    Raw talent will get you into college and so will hard work. But to get to the ATP top 100?

    All the above.
     
  22. DaveTennis84372

    DaveTennis84372 New User

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    8
    I was hoping for an 'edit' button.

    I am also saying that Tenis has changed a bit over the years too in a number of ways.

    Read "The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance"

    I can't do justice.
     
  23. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    kiki, USPLTA ranked Segura first in one or the other year...
     
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    abmk, I partly can agree: Roche's disadvantage; Laver dominating Ashe; Emerson the best amateur.

    Of course I cannot prove that Laver was equally accustomed after almost one year but it's rather probable.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2013
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    Dan, US Pro was commonly regarded as the foremost tournament.

    Segura was great not only in the early 1950s. He had a great run even in 1961 and 1962. In the latter year he almost beat Rosewall at Wembley.
     
  26. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    Since some posters tend to underrate the old pros and their superiority over the amateurs, I would like to list up those "outcast" pros who won at least one tournament in OPEN era.

    Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Gimeno, Ralston, Stolle, Buchholz, Hoad, O. Davidson, Anderson, Barthes, Segura (!), Sedgman (!), Olmedo, MacKay,

    Maybe I have forgotten a few.

    Please note that most of those players were 30 plus at the begin of open era.
    Only Ralston, Buchholz, Davidson and Barthes were younger. (Laver turned 30 in August 1968). Imagine how strong the pros have been before open era.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2013
  27. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,973
    One more indication that the true golden era of tennis was the late fifties/early sixties, roughly 1958-64, when Gonzales, Hoad, Rosewall, Sedgman, Trabert, Segura, Laver, Emerson, Santana, Pietrangeli, Fraser, and others could all be seen in their prime form.
     
  28. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,973
    U.S. Pro was not usually regarded as the foremost tournament.

    It was big in 1951 when (like 1942 and 1947 and 1948) it was held at Forest Hills, however it lost status when Kramer unaccountably dropped out, complaining of chronic back pain.
    The 1951 final was a financial disaster because the public was hoping to see a Kramer/Gonzales final.
    There were Kramer/Gonzales finals at Philadelphia in 1950 and 1951, and these were the premier events of the year, as the Wembley final was in 1952, with another Kramer/Gonzales final.

    Segura never captured the public imagination, but had some claim to top spot in 1951. He dropped big matches to Gonzales at Wembley in 1951 and 1953, and lost the Berlin final to Gonzales in 1952.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2013
  29. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,705
    Segura may have been used to fill draw spots
     
  30. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    Hallelujah, I can agree with you!
     
  31. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    Dan, Gonzalez' final's victim at Berlin was Budge.
     
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    kiki, Segura was one of the (few) top stars of the pros! He was at least as strong as Sedgman, one of your idols. Please try to avoid bias.
     
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    There was a tough discussion about Emerson in an open field from 1963 to 1967.

    I have considered a theoretical open 1964 Wimbledon.

    The top seeds might have been:

    1 Laver (or Rosewall)
    2 Rosewall (or Laver)
    3 Gonzalez
    4 Gimeno
    5 Emerson
    6 Buchholz
    7 Hoad
    8 Olmedo

    Now a possible draw from QFs onwards:

    QF Laver d Olmedo in 3 sets
    Gimeno d Buchholz in 4
    Gonzalez d Emerson in 4
    Rosewall d Hoad in 3

    SF Laver d Gimeno in 3
    Rosewall d Gonzalez in 4

    F Laver d Rosewall in 5

    Even if Emerson would beat Gonzalez (or Gimeno) I doubt that he would be able to beat both Rosewall and Laver in SF and F respectively. It's improbable that both L&R would be upset in an early round thus making the way free for Emerson (if the latter would yet beat Gonzalez or Gimeno in the QFs.

    Similary draws also for the other GS tournaments that year which was Emmo's best year.
     
  34. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,973
    You are being generous to Gimeno by matching him against Buchholz instead of against Emerson, who had a much better Wimbledon record than Gimeno.
    When Emerson played Gimeno at Wimbledon in 1959, when both players were 22 years old, Emerson whipped Gimeno in straight sets.

    You should have seeds 1 against 8, 2 against 7, 3 against 6, and 4 against 5 (Gimeno against Emerson).
    Why did you skip the seeding order?
     
  35. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,705
    How good was Gimeno at pro doubles? who was his regular partner?
     
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    That order is not always used.

    The amateur match is irrelevant for the hypothetical 1964 tournament.
     
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    kiki, Gimeno was very good. He played with Ayala, then with Barthes and sometimes with Gonzalez. With the last he won Wimbledon 1967 pro event.
     
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    Dan, if Emerson played Gimeno I still would favour Gimeno in four or five sets.
     
  39. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,973
    Sorry, the US Pro WAS regarded as the foremost tournament in the universe.... by Jack March, the promoter, who billed the Cleveland event as "The World Pro Championships" and with a smaller subtitle "includes US Pro".

    A very humble approach.
     
  40. DMP

    DMP Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2013
    Messages:
    758
    Location:
    UK
    I don't know about it being 'the' golden era, but it was certainly one of the golden eras. Tennis was a much more important sport then than it is now. There was no triathlon, X-games, women's soccer, wall-to-wall newspaper coverage of soccer and american football. No youth academies in the major sports to mop up talented young athletes. It was important enough to have dedicated tennis correspondents who followed the players round the world.

    So it was important, and there was a healthy crop of outstanding players.
     
  41. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,705
    GOLDEN ERAS

    1930´s pros when Perry,Cochet,Vines,Tilden,Budge,Riggs played

    1950´s pros with the Kramer,Trabert,Hoad,Segura,Gonzales,Rosewall and Sedgma group

    Early 70´s with Kodes,Laver,Nastase,Rosewall,Smith,Ashe and Newcombe followed up by Roche,Gimeno,Okker.Maybe the best ever top ten.few can doubt it

    Early 80´s with the famous band of Connors,Lendl;Mc Enroe and Borg followed by Vilas,Gerulatis and Tanner and also greats Clerc,Noah,Kriek,Mayer in the mix

    Early 90´s, with Sampras,Agassi,Becker,Edberg as well as Bruguera,Ivanisevics,Stich,Chang,Krajicek,Muster,Kafelnikov and Rafter as great secondary players.

    As for women, the 50´s with Marble,Osborne,Hart,Fry,Gibson and, of course, the great Mo Connolly

    the early 70´s with Court,Bueno ( if she had kept up),King and Wade with young and up and coming Chris Evert and Evonne Goolagong ( and Reid,Casals, Richey,Morozova also in the lot)

    The wonderful early 80´s group with Evert,Navy,Austin,Mandlikova leading a cast that included veterans such as wade,King and Goolagong and excellent second fiddle such as Ruzici,Hanika,Bunge,Reid,Stevens,Jausovec,Shriver,Jaeger,Jordan,Fromholtz,Turnbull,Marsikova

    and, of course, the whole 90´s, with Graff,Seles,Hingis,ASV,Martinez,Pierce,Clijsters,the young Williams sisters,Sabatini.Kourni,Pierce,Fernandez,Novotna,Sukova,Capriati and Davenport, the most competitive decade for women´s tenni in history.
     
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    kiki, As far as I know Marble did not play in the 1950s. But I agree with your lists.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2013
  43. Fantasio

    Fantasio New User

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    53
    Hi all.

    I'm new here, but some of you could have read the "Grand Slam Record Book", that I wrote together with my friend and historician Alessandro. I'm the guy who does the math. :)

    I could not agree more. With some luck Emerson could have won 3 major, but I'd bet on two. Can't say if he was same level with Courier, but chances are good. Maybe 25-30 all-time.

    By the way, why are you just discussing the matter? Some of you are very good with statistics, Krosero for example. You could easily run simulations on the open Era and discover a lot of things!
     
  44. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    Fantasio, I congratulate you for your efforts.

    But I disagree that it would be probable that Emerson would have won open majors. But at least you are not as bold as Phoenix who claimed four such titles for Emmo.

    As I tried to show in the Emerson top 4 thread, Emerson would have great difficulties to win the 1964 Wimbledon (his best year). Emerson only could have won if the giants, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad, Gimeno would all play below their level. I have brought a speculative draw but I think it's reasonable. Remember that the pros were significantly stronger than the amateurs.

    You rank Emerson at 25 to 30. I could agree (but not easily). Do you really think that he could beat peak Laver and Rosewall, both of them maybe the GOATs?

    Courier was No.1 in open era, Emerson never one of the top 4.
     
  45. Fantasio

    Fantasio New User

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    53
    I'd bet on two; three with some luck. Four is not unrealistic, although it would have required a great deal of luck.

    Certainly he could not. But nobody can stay peak level that long - 5 years, not counting 1961. In the open Era, apart from the incredible Federer's streak of 23 consecutive semifinals, the best such streak is 14 (Djokovic), and many people believe that's only possibile because of today's surfaces, much more alike than once were. On the old surfaces Connors, Borg and Lendl, who looked "peak level" always, stopped at 11, 6 and 10. Rosewall himself, before turning Pro, stopped at 8. Laver at 10. Although Emerson was much worse, himself stopping at 5, chances are that once or twice he could have been "peak", while both Laver and Rosewall not.
    And we can't forget that in the '60 players did not always participate in every major. Emerson did, but Stolle and Newcombe missed one, Santana, Okker, Pietrangeli, Ashe, Roche played half or little more. That's one of the reasons Emerson won so many times the Australian: with half his usual opponents he was almost unbeatable. Again, chances are that once or twice such a thing could have happened.

    Courier faced young Sampras/Agassi, erratic Becker/Edberg, old Lendl. I strongly doubt he could have stayed number one/two, even three, in the presence of best Laver/Rosewall, still strong Gonzales/Hoad, and many such players like Gimeno, Santana, Roche and young Newcombe.
     
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,650
    Fantasio, You have much fantasy claiming that Emerson would have two majors and L&R would both be below their peak at the SAME TIME.

    L&R did be at their peak for at least five years (1963 to 1967). In fact the combination of the two won ALL 15 pro majors in those years. It's improbable that both giants would fail at the same time (plus Gonzalez, Hoad and Gimeno would also fail). In fact they did not in that period. Laver reached all big finals with the only exception when he was a rookie pro at Wembley in 1963. That year Rosewall won all majors. When Rosewall failed, Laver won every time.

    Rosewall reached SF of majors 36 times in a row (when he participated)(1955 to 1968). As a pro in 1963 to 1967 he only lost three times: to very strong Gimeno.

    Furthermore Muscles won nine pro majors in a row where he participated (1960 to 1963). That way you can imagine how strong and consistent he was.

    In open 1960s probably all great players would participate. Thus Emerson would not have good chances to win open majors. As you rightly write Emerson was lucky to win six Australian Championships because some great amateurs where absent.
     
  47. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,973
    Emerson had a good chance to reach the semi's in hypothetical open events from about 1961 to 1965.
     
  48. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,649
    Bobby: I don't think you can extrapolate from the pro majors (which had just three rounds) and then claim that Laver and Rosewall would have won all Open Era majors. I think it's more likely they would suffered occasional defeats, and Emerson would surely have taken advantage sometimes.
     
  49. Fantasio

    Fantasio New User

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    53
    Bobby, that happens all the time. It's not my fault, not everyone's fault.
    In my database there are 333 classical majors with seeds, since Australian Open 1925 (classical = the canonic four). In 45 of them (= 13.5%) BOTH first and second seed did NOT reach the semifinals. Only in 152 of them (= 45.6%) BOTH first and second seed DID reach the semifinals.
    First OR second seed only won 204 (= 61.3%) majors. And, although it's hard to believe, First OR second OR third OR fourth seed only won 271 (= 81.4%). If you don't believe me, check yourself.

    As many users have already written, there's a big difference between 128-draws and 8-draws. Some players may look invincible with small draws, while failing often with big ones (Gimeno, for example).

    Just look at Rosewall and Laver themselves: in the open Era Rosewall failed to reach the semifinals in 4 of his first 12 majors (WIM '68 and '69, AUS '69, US '69). Even Laver, despite the Grand Slam, did not reach the semifinal in 1 Major (US '68). Rosewall did, but that did not prevent an amateur - Ashe - from winning the tournament. And other amateurs - Roche and Okker, not counting Newcombe - reached three finals in 1968 and 1969. The US '68 final was played between TWO amateurs, despite Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Gimeno, Segura, Olmedo, Ayala all playing and even having byes!

    So, no matter how many pro majors Laver and Rosewall won, consecutively or not, open tournaments and 128 draws were another matter. I can accept L&R winning 80% of could-be-open majors between 1963 and 1967, maybe even 85% (= 17 out of 20), but not more. Nobody, in tennis history, ever did better. Even Federer/Nadal stopped at 85%, between 2005 and 2009 (losing to Safin, Djokovic and Del Potro), when surfaces were much more alike.

    They did not in the '70, how could they in the '60? Rosewall missed Australian '74 and '75, Laver only played in '69 and '71. After the first two years, nor Laver neither Rosewall ever came back to Roland Garros (they were not interested in winning there many times). And I can't imagine Gonzales playing often in the majors, except for Wimbledon and of course the US.
     
  50. Fantasio

    Fantasio New User

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    53
    I wrote before that in the 333 majors with seeds, first OR second seed won 61.3%. Situation is better considering seeds 1/2/3/4: 81.4%.

    Now, we can simulate Pro majors by examining only those majors with the first four seed reaching, all together, the QF. Something like the 1965 US Pro, that some of you mentioned some time ago.

    Well, there are 103 majors with such a situation, starting with Australian 1925 (Patterson, Anderson, O'Hara Wood and Peach reaching QF) and finishing with the last US Open, with Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Ferrer reaching QF.

    In 72 cases the tournament was won by first or second seed = 69.9% (it was 61.3% before). In 98 cases the winner was one the first four seeds = 95.1% (it was 81.4% before), the 5 exceptions being US 1943 (winner was Hunt, not seeded), Wimbledon 1950 (5th seed Patty), Wimbledon 1954 (11th seed Drobny), RG 1961 (6th seed Santana) and RG 1983 (6th seed Noah).

    I think this is why Pro players looked so strong. With small draws, first four seeds (let's say Laver/Rosewall/Hoad/Gonzales) always (95.1%) win. With big draws, they win most (81.4%) of the time, but not always.

    Many other simulations can be done. It's not impossibile to measure Pro players' achievements!
     

Share This Page