Laver #2

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Chopin, Mar 23, 2012.

  1. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    Frankly I haven't thought about it as far as top ten is concerned but I would easily agree with you that Borg and Connors are one and two for the decade.
     
  2. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Prague is a lovely older city, but unfortunately it is now crowded and overrun with tourists (and those that seek and follow tourists).
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    After a week off my laptop (and without any smoking!) I'm back to explain my daring theory about Rosewall's (and Pancho's) many theoretical amateur majors.

    There are two kinds of speculations about the amount of majors a great player could have amassed.

    First we consider tennis history if open era would have come much earlier, f.i. in 1920 and assumed all players participating in all four GS tournaments every year of their career. That way we can come to the conclusion that four players would have won 20 plus open majors: Tilden and maybe Gonzalez with 25 plus winning majors, Rosewall with about 25 and Laver with about 20.

    Thus we get the huge amounts of the four greatest players in history.

    Secondly we also can speculate what may have happened if a given player would have stayed amateur while the other stars would have turned pro as they actually did. For example Rosewall had stayed amateur also from 1957 to 1967 while Hoad and Laver had turned pro as they in reality did. That way we come to even more winning majors of Rosewall (and Gonzalez and Laver in the other case that only one of them would stay amateur).

    In Rosewall's case I try to speculate in three ways: pessimistic, realistic and optimistic for him.

    Pessimistically I see that Muscles would have won about 34 majors 1953 to 1967; realistically he would have won 37 to 40 majors and optimistically he won 41 to 48 majors as an amateur.

    If anyone disagree he or she should tell me which amateurs should have been an obstacle to deny Rosewall these many titles. Cooper?, Anderson? Olmedo? Fraser? Emerson?, Stolle? (Rosewall in fact leads 23:2 matches against him), Santana? I only see Laver as a tough opponent in 1962 but also no real obstacle for Rosewall.

    I concede that Muscles would probably improve a bit later than he did in reality but as late as 1962 he should have got his prime.

    I speculate about 10 French titles and 7 Wimbledons for the Little Master and about 8 major wins in Australia and 8 in USA.

    Speculating about an always amateur Gonzalez I see 40 to 50 major wins, for Laver about 25.

    These theories show clearly the big difference between a player like Emerson with his meagre 12 titles and a giant of tennis...
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2012
  4. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Those cities are bound to suffer from that.I always thought that, even in the darkest communist days, Prague was a really magical city.
     
  5. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    That's not realistic. I believe that Rosewall played his first major in 1952. During the 5 years from 1952 through 1956 Rosewall won 4 major amateur titles. That's less than one title per year. Assuming, arguendo, that he could have averaged 2 titles per year, every year, from 1957 through 1967 (which is still fairly unrealistic), that would be 22 titles plus his 4 previous titles for a total of 26.
     
  6. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,232
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2012
  7. heftylefty

    heftylefty Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,426
    Location:
    Long Beach, CA
  8. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
  9. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I would agree here.I´d say, the total amount of majors, including pro majors, puts both Rosewall and Laver in the same echelon ( very high) and is a proof of their greatness.fact is, I dón´t see Rosewall winning a GS in the way Laver did.Rosewall was a bit more consistent but, also, lacked the firepower of the red headed guy.

    There is apirce that belongs to both and will share with nobody else: both gave tennis a definite boost after their 1972 WCT final.it is a milestone in the hosistory of this sport, as great if not more than the 1980 Wimbledon final between Mac and Borg and the 2008 Wimbledon final between Nadal and Federer.
     
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    What about Rosewall's 1963 pro Grand Slam when Laver participated?. In fact Muscles won nine pro GS tournaments in a row 1960 to 1963, a feat that even Laver did not achieve...
     
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    As a G.O.A.T. you should be able to differ between true experts and so-called experts. Every person who takes the Tennis Channel list as the truth cannot be healthy in his brain.

    Yes, Rosewall is No.13, Gonzalez is No.22 and the earth is a disc....
     
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I had hoped you would agree at least partly.

    YOU are unrealistic. Please consider that Rosewall actually has won 23 majors even though there was no Australian Pro and he did not play in several events: French Champ. 1955 and 1956, French Pro 1957 (not held), US Pro 1958 to 1962, 1968 AO, 1970 to 1972 French Open where he would have been Co.-favourite with Laver, Wimbledon 1972/1973...

    I think you confused my theory 1 with theory 2. 26 majors would be realistic if OPEN ERA came earlier.

    Most of all you must consider that in my speculation 2 (Rosewall as an amateur) the LIttle Master would not have as tough competition as he actually had and also would have in an always open field.

    You have not told me who should have been able to beat an amateur Rosewall. Olmedo, who lost at Wembley 0-6,0-6,3-6 and has a balance of 7:33 against Rosewall? Fraser who stands 2:11 against Muscles?

    You actually are very unfair to mention Rosewall's period of 1952 to 1956. Are n't you aware that Rosewall was 17 to 21 in that amateur time which is hardly an age to reach the prime?

    Are you aware that Rosewall was clearly best amateur in the second half of 1956 when he was only 21/22 and turned pro?

    Don't you imagine that an amateur Rosewall would crash his amateur colleagues in his prime and even a bit before and after the prime?

    It's not a bold speculation to assume that Rosewall would have been seeded No.1 in most amateur Grand Slam tournaments from 1957 to 1967. In fact he would have been the favourite in about 40 of the 44 GS tournaments 1957 to 1967. I only see Hoad as favourite for the 1957 Wimbledon and one or the other (Laver in 1962 ?) in those cases when Rosewall would have a short laps in his top playing.

    Rosewall was tops both on grass and clay, and he was mostly on top especially at the big events as his 52 top places at the majors testify.

    So my prognosis of about 35 to 40 GS wins of Rosewall should not be too bold and unrealistic.

    I hope that you and other readers have realized that I give Pancho Gonzalez even more theoretic GS titles...
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2012
  13. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I would have loved to have visited Praha in 1990.
     
  14. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    To have Rosewall at number 13 and Gonzalez as number 22 is more of an injustice than believing the Earth is flat.

    Yes TMF, these are really brilliant experts:confused: . I can tell you this, I know a few of the real experts who voted (who really know tennis in my opinion) and they think the Tennis Channel List is a joke.

    So if there was a poll stating that the Earth is flat, would that make it a fact? Dewey defeating Truman in the 1948 US Presidential Elections, at least according to the polls. However there was one problem, Truman actually won the election.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-chicagodays-deweydefeats-story,0,6484067.story
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2012
  15. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I feel obligated to state that a list that places Gonzales at no. 22 may not be "clueless," but is surely based on some narrow or erroneous factors.

    Perhaps it is based solely on majors won--a very shallow, simplistic, and misguided methodology.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2012
  16. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    Of course. People have to examine the circumstances of the era the player played in.
     
  17. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I reckon those who placed Gonzales so low on the list only took into account Gonzales' 2 US Championships, winning some tours, and beating Pasarell at 1969 Wimbledon at age 41. With Emerson, they would have thought "12 majors, the record before Sampras."

    It's simplistic in the extreme. Nobody in the 1960s or 1970s would have ranked Emerson above Gonzales as an all-time player, except the most biased anti-professional people.
     
  18. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    Harry Hopman. And Allison Danzig. Rated both on 10th place i think.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2012
  19. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    Absolutely true. Incidentally just to point out a simple fact, it's impossible to win a major if you are not allowed to play majors. Pancho Gonzalez was clearly the greatest players of the 1950's and I believe would have been a huge factor to win any major from 1950 to around the mid 1960's. How many majors should he have won? If an Emerson at his peak played Pancho Gonzalez at his peak on a tour I don't think he would have won many matches.

    So when I read stuff citing majors by Sampras and Federer as definitive proof that they are the greatest ever I think to myself that it's a factor but not really an overwhelming factor considering the history of tennis.

    When Sampras won his 14th major many seemed in awe of that number. I think it was a ridiculously low number. Federer has now 17 majors, an excellent number but I believe unless he adds a decent amount more (not impossible) that the number 17 is very low and vulnerable to being broken.
     
  20. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Laver also won a pro slam.
     
  21. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,232
    Have you even bother reading before posting ??

    Rosewall fanatic say he would win 34 to 48 majors as if he was that good. That's a joke. Even Nadal fanatics in the general player forum wouldn't go that far.
     
  22. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    This shows that even great men can have stupid opinions.

    Harry Hopman always tended to underrate the pros in comparison to the amateurs. How great must have been his astonishment when Hoad and Rosewall crushed the overwhelming amateur champion, Laver in early 1963....
     
  23. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    The same experts who think Emerson is greater than Gonzales. Probably includes "experts" like Justin Gimelstob, the Jensen brothers, and guys who overdosed on pot and heroine since retirement like Mats Wilander.
     
  24. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,232
    Collins, Flink, John Barrett, Richard Evans, Scott Price, Jon Wertheim, Chris Clarey, Neil Harman, Pete Bodo, Steve Tignor, Bill Macatee, Ted Robinson and dozens of legendary players. They are more qualified than anonymous posters on TT who self-proclaimed they are experts/historians. LOL
     
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    What do you want to tell us? I'm sure most people here do know about Laver's pro Slam.

    It was YOU who claimed that Rosewall could not win a Grand Slam like Laver did.

    Once more , especially for you: Rosewall has won 9 (NINE) consecutive pro majors as only man in history. For 1962 and 1963 he would be favoured to achieve the Grand Slam.
     
  26. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I LOLed hard at those names. No wonder the list ended up so bad. The others were probably Peter Bodo, Justin Gimelstob, Luke Jensen, Mary Joe Fernandez, Mary Carillo, Karsten Braasch, Robin Roberts, Oracene Price, and Richard Williams.
     
  27. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,232
    Of course anyone can come up with a top 100 and can never satisfy every fans. I don't fully agree 100% with the list either, but who can come up with a perfect list than can satisfy everyone? None!

    Just because you see Gonzales ranking is off doesn't mean the entire list is flaw. I mean you can try your own 100 list, I'm sure anyone point out your flawed ranking.
     
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I can explain you the matter: There is a huge difference to play in an era when all players were participating and to play as an amateur when the other top players as pros were absent. In the second case Roy Emerson could amasse 12 majors even though he would probably not having won a single one if he played against the pros. And only in that case (one super player stays amateur while his great opponents turn pros) I would dare to prognose 30 and more majors for Rosewall or Gonzalez! It's evident that the current stars cannot win as much titles because the competition is tougher now than in amateur scene.
     
  29. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    What H2H Kodes and Rosewall had?
     
  30. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I do know that Bud Collins does not agree with that stupid Tennis Channel list.
     
  31. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Rosewall leads 4:1 against Kodes even though Muscles was an old man when they first met (I believe about 1970/1971).
     
  32. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Collins,Barret and Evans I respect´em but they are not Bellamy,Danzig,Tingay.

    I really wouldn´t believe such BULLSUIT from such a guy that loves past greats as Collins.

    Bodo is just a good magazine editor, not a true tennis expert.rest, not known.
     
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    As far as I know Collins ranks Gonzalez among his best 5.
     
  34. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    The same said about him in 1974, before reaching 2 slam finals.
     
  35. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,232
    The problem is you guys diss them for not having the same point of view as yours. I don't agree with Venus being above Henin but I wouldn't disparage these experts/historians knowledge of the sport.
     
  36. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Well, the title of the thread is Laver nº2.well, unlike Borg and Federer and much alike sampras, Laver never let his nº2 own him or, at least, match him.Even if he lost his last two big finals to Rosewall, he still ahs a better H2H.Sampras defeated normally Becker,Agassi,Rafter or Ivanisevic.
     
  37. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    Probably but at the same time I wouldn't put Emerson over Gonzalez and Rosewall.
     
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    At big events: Rosewall :Laver 10:7.
     
  39. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    #13 is pretty damn good. I think there's an argument for top 10, top 8. But, #13 of all time? Good grief, I don't understand the mindset of thinking that that's something to be ashamed of.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2012
  40. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,232
    I don't, but to say he would win 34 to 48 majors as if he's god. Bobby really likes Rosewall, but please...enough with the fantasy.
     
  41. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Rosewall did win the Professional Grand Slam in 1963.
     
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I'm waiting for your reaction to post 1162 where I brought reasonable new arguments.

    Read 1162, 1175 and 1188 and you will understand why No.13 for Rosewall is pure stupidity...
     
  43. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    There is only one God: Roger Federer.

    The difference between us is that you admire Federer without giving good arguments while I admire Rosewall and give many reasonable arguments for my admiration!

    I always try to be objective. For instance I was maybe the first who gave Laver a tied No.1 place for 1970. That was around 30 years ago...

    You have overlooked that I give Gonzalez more theoretical majors than Rosewall! You will never concede that Federer is weaker than Nadal or Laver or Rosewall in any field....
     
  44. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    No, but it does mean that the criteria for ranking are flawed, in order to come up with such a skewed result.

    If the results produced by your equation are flawed, then what does that say about the equation?
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2012
  45. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Off of the top of my head, Laver, Sampras, Federer, Borg, Gonzales, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Agassi, Nadal, Kramer, Budge and Tilden were/are all, arguably, greater tennis players than Rosewall. There's nothing stupid about that.
     
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I would have thought that my arguments would convince you that Rosewall as an amateur would have won 30 and more majors and that Muscles deserves a place among the top five but your silly reaction shows that you are not a tennis expert or a true fan at all.

    It's significant that you don't discuss ANY of my reasonable arguments and don't agree at least partly or disprove any of my opinions BY FACTS!. Instead you give us a list of great players without any dates and numbers for their greatness.

    You have forgotten players like Spadea, Scanlon and Fromberg in your list.

    Especially ridiculous is ranking Kramer above Rosewall. Kramer, conceded a great player, has won five majors and Rosewall has won 23 majors. Taste the difference!
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2012
  47. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    You have really recharged your trolling batteries during your vacation! Once again, anyone who disagrees with you isn't a "true" fan, expert or anything.

    You accuse Limpinhitter of ignoring your "reasonable" arguments when you have yet to make one in any of your posts that I have read. I believe I have read enough of your posts to say with some confidence that your other posts didn't include anything reasonable as well.

    All you do is read off numbers that support what you say and then claim that other numbers don't count for whatever reason (the real reason being they prove that you are incorrect). In addition, you completely make up numbers for some players and try to pass them off as facts.

    I don't really understand what your agenda is, but I am starting to think that maybe you are Rosewall and you feel like everybody on this forum is dissing you.
     
  48. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Being the expert you are, I suppose it should come as no surprise that your basis for measuring the greatness of a tennis player is no more thoughtful than counting major titles. Perhaps I gave you too much credit.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2012
  49. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Jack Kramer is a GOAT contender, just like Ken Rosewall. What Kramer did from 1946-1953 was sensational. He dominated the amateur game in 1946 and 1947, turned professional in late 1947, and after losing most of his early matches against Bobby Riggs (then the best player in the world), Kramer simply dominated Riggs on their 1948 world pro tour, winning 69-20 and took over as the best player in the world. Kramer also won world pro tours in 1950 against Pancho Gonzales (96-27), in 1951 against Pancho Segura (64-28 ), and in 1953 against Frank Sedgman (54-41).

    On top of this, in tournament play, Kramer won 3 majors as an amateur, having never played at the Australian or French Championships. As a professional, he won the 1948 US Pro at Forest Hills and the 1949 Wembley Pro, both with excellent wins over Riggs in the final.
     
  50. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Thanks for your comments. Certainly Ken Rosewall was among the all time greats. But, Rosewall himself is far to humble and gracious to even suggest that he could have won 34 major titles as an amature, or that he was the greatest player of all time. He won 4 majors in 6 years of major amature play. Had he not turned pro, he probably would never have become as great a player as he was. To suggest that he would have won another 30 major titles in the next 11 years of amature play is just not reasonably supportable.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2012

Share This Page