Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Chopin, Mar 23, 2012.
Kiki's posts are much more entertaining when left unfixed.
Kodes wouldn't even make the pro tour in a modern era.
Could you stop worshipping Kodes because you're looking more ridiculous by the hour. Just stop...quit while you're behind !
According to you, neither would Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzales, Borg or Connors. Which is more ridiculous?
Never said that you liar.
The one thing I said was Laver and Rosewall would be a more formidable players had they were taller or at an optimum size. Capiche ??
Another strawman for TMF to argue against. I didn't say you said it. But, you've certainly implied it. Anyone who has read just a few of your posts could reasonably infer that you think it. To say that Kodes, a multi major champion wouldn't make the tour today implies it.
STOP LYING !
Kodes cannot even compare to Laver or Rosewall's pinky !
Unless ignorant kiki have convinced you that Kodes is some type of a greek god.
I don't lie, you do! What have I said that is false? And, your opinion about Kodes is about as ridiculous as your opinions about Laver and Rosewall.
Yes you do lie !
Accuse of me saying Laver/Rosewall wouldn't make the pro tour today. I'm waiting for you to quote me. Oh wait..there isn't any.
Again, Kodes can't compare to Laver/Rosewall's pinky(unless your friend kiki convinced you otherwise).
Listen, I don't care if you apologize to me or not, but stop talking nonsense.
Jajaja.Do they have a diferent style other than baseline bashing like 99% of today´s players ( except federer every 6 or 7 weeks he gest bored and tries ssomething different) ?
I know that is the style that better suits your Dream Factory and if they didn´t play like that, wouldn´t be your favourite characters anymore.
Geez¡¡¡ now ABMK is REAL mad..:twisted:take it easy...it´s just Sunday
yes, the era of Bagdhatis,Davidoff,near corpse Agassi,Murray,Tsonga,Monfils and Fish¡¡¡ an era that could lead to nothing else than the worst recession in 80 years...what a great era¡¡¡
oh jeez, so finally after so many posts, your brain managed to finally click for once ??
If tomic/dolgo didn't have a different style, I wouldn't have mentioned them , get it ?
Like I said, go and watch some tennis ....... removing those nostalgia tinted glasses .... Then maybe you'll realise there's more in today's tennis than nadal-djoker style of tennis .....
I've said it to you before, but as you are thick and clueless, I'll repeat it : I'd rather watch the likes of edberg, mac, sampras over nadal,ferrer, murray etc any day ......
but I am not dumb/hypocrite like you to say borg-vilas was entertaining and nadal-djoker boring
I was surprised not having Fed´s first Aposthol in this discussion...
Saying you are clueless doesn't mean I'm mad ...... It just means you are clueless, nothing more, nothing less , get it ?
jajaja.If Kodes wouldn´t make the tour, it would be at maximum 3 players on tour: Nadal,Djokovic and Federer, the others are not at Kodes shoe level...oh¡ and of course, precorpse Agassi and pensionist Sampras.
TMF is the man of the sizes.I see a very brilliant future for you as a taylor, I am sure you man even reach GOATdom status in that field...
monfils, fish aren't top players at all .....I can name 30 players on top of my head that are better than them in this era .......
near corpse agassi ?????? ha ha ha, he was playing some of his best tennis in his later years .....but seeing as you don't watch any tennis, its expected ....
yet for you ,37+ years old Pancho Gonzales is great competition for crush Laver , right ? LMAO .....
and of course hewitt, safin, nadal, djoker etc are not part of this era, right ? Hypocrisy and clueless, thy name is Kiki !
the worst era of course is the Laver era with Gonzales getting old, Hoad getting injured and then going down rapidly ( he was beating Laver handily before that ) ; Rosewall was ok, but he was also getting old ; then of course the depth was so pathetic that they had to get recreational players from parks to fill the draws :lol:
Dig a hole, dig a hole. Dig yourself a deeper hole by the hour.
oh come on, be serious here. Kodes was a decent player , he'd probably be in the top 20 today ...... Just because Kiki is madly in love with him and his crush Laver's era, doesn't mean you should under-rate him that much
Hey¡¡ it is Sunday, just relax...I never mean to put Kodes at GOAT´s level.He is just a proven champion, with flaws, yes, but a guy that can show some nice trophys that many worshipped players here ( no matter era) would just love to have.In a way, he is like Hewitt, a guy that was able to overcome his flwas and fight hard enough.
Now, don´t start comparing both please, it is an example.I just talked about Kodes in other threads because he is the leastt alked modern champion over here and he beat the players of the toughest era enough times to prove he was a real stuff...
It seems everybody got out of control.I don´t worship him, I am just fair to him and I have given richness to TT by doing that.That is like that, either you like him or not.
Now, since it seems that every young poster gets out of control, I am making fun at their cluelessness and I am defending Kodes more often than I never thought I ever would.But that is up to you if you keep dismissing past greats feats and have threads about mere journeyman like Ferrer or Tomic or many others that would kill their parents - it is a say, of course- to just have 25% of what Jan achieved.
And lets keep up with Sunday´s madness
And you have NOTHING to dispute my claimed except getting all upset. Looking back 20 years and there's no undersize player dominated the tour, or even a top tier player. So quit while you(and Limpin) have NO answer !
By dismissing Jan, who was not ( never said so) the best but certainly among them, the young teens that the best educational system ever has brought try to dismiss Laver,Rosewall,Newcombe and the other great players of that time.
Since they cannot offer serious arguing, they are just fixed upon him.
no, you don't. You are madly in love with him or just totally clueless ...
You even compared him with Ellesworth Vines and put him in the same league :lol:..... Just accept your dumbness and move on or face more and more laughter and humiliation as you persist with such dumb comparisons ...
Yeah I know. It's just kiki is the reason that I had to respond to this fashion. Had it were other fair/reasonable old timers, that's a different story.
Like I said, I don't like, you do. Show me a quote where I wrote that you expressly stated that Laver and Rosewall couldn't play on the tour today.
I think you own me, and the forum an apology.
Quit digging yourself in a deeper hole. You are not getting out of this one.
According to who ??
Show me the quote. If not, then stay silence !!
We all know that English is not your first language. But, that doesn't excuse your fundimental dishonesty and decietfulness. Repeating the same lie over and over does not magically convert it into the truth. If you don't understand all of the words in someone's post, then either look them up or ask for clarification.
This is what I said. If you understand it, then you are lying. If you don't, then don't pretend that you do.
Taylor, take sizes for Fed´s new " vetement" at Wimbledon.
Agassi,Chang and Rios got to number 1 and they were no giants...what about Hewitt?
Chang just failed to get to number 1. He would have got there had he won the 1996 US Open final against Sampras, but he lost.
Humilliation from whom? from you?
From a guy that needs stain remover to keep Fed´s poster clean and white?
BTW, Kodes and Vines ended with 3 GS titles each.Go to wiki and come up with a copy&paste solution, please
I realize that my efforts have not been totaly useless....ABMK praising mac and Edberg as funnier to watch than Nadal and Djokovic¡¡¡ finally, there is hope on earth, now if the clueless TMF would just open his eyes...
Kodes has won more slams titles than the whole ATP Tour from nº 3 to nº 15.000....jajajajajaja
so now since Pancho Gonzales and Safin ended up with 2 GS titles, each ,they are equivalent ????? what sheer dumbness ...
in case you are too thick to realise, you totally ignored Vines pro career ......
Vines >>>>>>>>>>> Kodes ....
You can´t compare, even start to compare the depth Kodes faced vs Vines, who just had 5-6 decent players to go at.Perry,Riggs,Budge,Crawford,Von Cramm and oldies Tilden and Cochet.Nusslein and Kovacs would be like Kodes era´s Lutz or Pilic, to just put an example.Very good players but that is it.
Kodes faced near peak Laver,Rosewall,peak Newcombe ( 7 GS + 1 WCT), peak Nastase ( 6 majors ), peak Ashe ( 3 GS + 1 WCT), peak Smith ( 2 majors , 1 masters, 1 WCT), peak Borg and peak Connors ( needless to say), peak Vilas, peak Orantes, peak Okker, peak Roche, peak Panatta.It simply doesn´t stand up, simply doesn´t.
maybe Vines was a better player but not certainly because 4 or 5 drunk journalists going after new night meat said so...
oh¡ I forgot peak Gimeno, still tough 12 slams winner Roy Emerson, peaking Tanner and Gerulaitis....do you need anymore?
here dumb clueless kiki, these are some of the threads I started ( many before you even joined this forum) :and many of my posts when responding to sane people .....
Courier Bruguera French Open 1993 finals match stats
Sampras Stich 1992 Wimbledon QF stats
3 very good/great matches in a row in a GS
I can think of edberg's run to the 92 USO final as another example : 5 setters vs krajicek, lendl and chang .
Does Federer have the smoothest tennis game of all time?
View Single Post
I'd put edberg up there at the top if it weren't for his UGLY FH ....
Most Entertaining Match you have ever watched?!
From post 63
Let me throw in a few entertaining matches that have not yet been mentioned so far:
When someone dumb suggested nadal-djoker miami 2011 was even close to the best match in history:
LOL, comparing Nusslein and Kovacs to Lutz and Pilic ??????? LMAO !!!! you are clueless ....... Nusslein and Kovacs were FAR FAR better than Lutz and Pilic ....The gulf is too vast to even begin comparing !!!! Read up more on Nusslein and Kovacs ......
nastase won 6 majors, really ????? in what la la land ? he won 2 majors ( +4 masters )
Kodes didn't face a near peak Laver/Rosewall in any of the majors
he got lucky in all the 3 GS events he won as I have shown so many times. When he did face full strength fields, he failed to win any GS events .......
in Kodes peak period from 70-73, Laver/Rosewall were missing from the major events that he won .....
Only Newcombe, Smith, Nastase were at their peaks in that period.
All 3 had a leading H2H vs him ., Newk and Nastase convincingly so ......
Connors hit his peak in 74 ..... after 73, Kodes did not make a single major semi final ... So he doesn't come into the picture that much. Neither does Borg obviously .....neither do Panatta, Orantes, who hit their peaks after 74 or so ...
Roche was affected quite a bit by injuries and declined rapidly , focused more on doubles ........
Fact is Kodes was a decent player, but underdog to most of the others - Newk, Smith, Nastase etc , never close to the top of the game....., Vines was THE top player for quite some time , its hilarious to even start comparing the 2 achievements wise ....
Vines was in a total different class to Kodes ...... Period .... He achieved far far more and was simply a far better player ...not because of what journalists said, but because of what he achieved ....
It must be pointed out that Laver, Rosewall and Newcombe didn't play in the 1970 and 1971 French Opens that Kodes won, nor in the ATP boycotted Wimbledon of 1973, although Ashe was in those French Open tournaments. Kodes deserves full credit for taking part and winning those French Opens, but we know how much politics dominated tennis until near the end of the 1970s. The situation is summed up by how Laver and Rosewall competed in the first two French Open finals (1968 and 1969) yet neither competed in the tournament again after 1969.
Kodes was a good player, capable of beating the best on his day as his win over number 1 seed, Newcombe, in the first round of the 1971 US Open showed, but Kodes is not on the level of Vines. Vines is a GOAT candidate. Kodes is not near that level.
another flashback to the olden times , edberg, connors, mac, borg, sampras, becker, lendl ....... , btw it was in your reply to your majesty , Mr.Clueless himself .....
In the very same thread, you show yet again that you are totally clueless about modern day tennis :
you had no clue that nalbandian beat federer in YEC 2005 in an exciting match ....
geez¡¡¡ what a lot of hard work¡¡¡ but that is BS, you know very little of past greats other than wiki or you tube.
And we clearly know that you do lie.
I understand you quite clearly. That's why I've asked you(for the 3rd time) to quote me where I said the players above wouldn't make the pro tour today. Obviously you'll continue to avoid the question because you don't have any evidence !!
Continue digging yourself in a deeper hole. Eventually you'll finally reach China.
LOL...so much failure in just one sentence.
Chang never reached #1. His highest was #2 and still wasn't good enough to win a slam. Agassi is listed at 5'11", not 5'7". However despite being bigger than Laver, Agassi wasn't the best player when Courier was playing his best tennis. Sampras dominated him, and then Federer came along. All of these player are taller than Agassi. Rios got to #1 and was consider one of the worst #1 in history. Hewitt great player but still fall short in the elite group of player, let alone being part of all time great.
Anyway you fail because those players you mentioned aren't part of the all time great in the past 20 years.
If you have nothing better to say, then stay silence. I suggest you comeback with constructive argument rather than regurgitate nonsense.
That's worse than raising the white flag !
Chang won the French Open in 1989 at age 17. He also won some Master Level tournaments. He won over 30 tournaments in his career was one of the top players in the world for years.
I know, but his best year certainly wasn't in 1989. It was during 1996-97 when he played his best tennis. I'm not saying Chang is chopped liver, but he's not in the same class as the tier 1 group. And being undersize DOES limited his ability. Losing to Sampras and Agassi because he was being overpowered.
Rosewall did very well on a head to head basis in his championship tour against Laver in 1963.
You always seem to dwell on height instead of accomplishments and overall talent. In this case I think you are correct that Chang was often overpowered by Sampras and Agassi, even though he could defeat both at times. However Laver was a different case. Rod had a very powerful serve, unlike Chang. Also unlike Chang his game was based on power, great volleying, spins, angles and touch. You keep dwelling on height but forget Laver's serve was very powerful and made him hard to break. And his superb reflexes and powerful wrists would allow him to handle powerful serves and drive them back, even on the backhand side. He could flick the ball back like ping pong. Laver also had a great return. What would you expect from a man who accomplished what Laver did? Did you expect him to be a one dimensional player who just used junk? Laver was a million classes above Chang. There was probably nothing Chang could do that Laver couldn't do better. Laver was able to overpower greats like Newcombe, Ashe, Smith, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Roche, Hoad etc. These players were taller than him except for Rosewall but with the possible exception of Lew Hoad, no one was stronger than him. He had a left arm that was as big as the World Heavyweight Champion. That is only a partial source of his great talent. He was exceptionally fast with great reflexes and yes he wasn't as tall as some. Big deal. If he was 6' tall with no loss in any other area his record would have be more ridiculous than it is now and it is ridiculously good now.
You are always so rigid with the height argument but failed to admit that talent can overcome the height differences. I've already written that in many other sports like baseball great players are often smaller. Pedro Martinez, listed as a taller man was probably around 5'9" but was perhaps the best starting pitcher of his time. He could throw the ball around 98 miles per hour with great control and a great variety of pitches. He was better in my opinion (and in a lot of people's opinions) than Randy Johnson who was about a foot taller at 6'10" tall.
Ivan Rodriquez at 5'9" tall was perhaps the best catcher of his time. His throwing arm was perhaps unparalleled in baseball history.
You are so rigid with the height argument but don't admit that talent overcomes all. Laver was gifted. Pancho Gonzalez was gifted. Gonzalez was about 6'3" to 6'4" tall. Laver was shorter but what they both had in common was great talent in tennis.
Gonzalez was super fluid with arguably the best serve in history. He had extremely long arms that probably allowed him to serve like a man several inches taller. Gonzalez was taller by several inches than Federer and with his long arms played like a man even taller than that. Yet would you say Gonzalez is AUTOMATICALLY better than Federer simply because Gonzalez was taller? I would not just on height alone but it is quite possible that Gonzalez was superior to Federer. It is also possible the other way around.
Yes height limited Laver's ability to a mere 200 tournament wins and several Calendar Year Grand Slams and one Pro Slam in 1967. Maybe if he was taller he would have won 250 tournaments plus a few other Calendar Year Grand Slams. Heck if there was Open Tennis for his whole career he may have won a few more Calendar Year Grand Slams. Instead poor Rod has to settle for 200 tournament victories and just a few Grand Slams. Poor guy was hampered by his height.
I know, Rosewall beat Laver 33 out of 45 times in 1963. That was Laver's first year as a professional and the year that Rosewall won the professional Grand Slam. After 1963, Laver accepted the challenge with the right attitude, understanding that although he had dominated the amateurs in 1962, the professional game was very different and he'd have to improve.
Quoted for truth, PC1.
Separate names with a comma.