Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by timnz, Aug 3, 2014.
Was a joke. He married Angela Merkel, no Angelika Pfannenberg.
She can see herself fortunate,Newk charisma,blues eyes and moustache made him a woman dream in his heydays.
As for DC teams, the best Open era final we never saw was Spain vs Australia 1970
Laver&Rosewall vs Santana&Gimeno
Newk/Roche vs Gisbert/Orantes.
Medium paced hard or har tru
Yes that would have been interesting to see that Davis Cup battle.
The Bobby thing was a mild misunderstanding to be honest. I won't get into it. It's really gotten out of control.
Urban brought up a great point earlier in this thread, if Newk somehow got pass Rosewall in the US Open semi in 1974 and faced Connors, a player he always beat at that point and won. Who would be number one for 1974? Newk would have WCT and the US Open. Connors would have the Australian and Wimbledon. WCT in those days was bigger than the Australian and Connors often played on a weaker circuits. All ifs and buts of course but it is an interesting question. Seems to me Newcombe would have some claim to number one.
Newcombe would clearly be number one.
Dan, I forgot nothing!
Dan, Petra was a nothing in 1948!!!
Those Newcombe wins on clay are pretty great aren´t they?
The only important tourney Laver didn´t win in 69 was the Rome tournament...which felt to Newcombe.Newk had also won the prestigious Hamburg title.
How, then, failed so miserably at the French Open, where he did not play a semifinal? I think he was better than Stan Smith on clay, but his record at Paris look a repplica.
The 1970 Newcombe/Rosewall matches were quite loopsided, maybe excepting the ones at 1970 and 1974 Wimbledon.
Newcombe destroyed Rosewall at Wimbledon 1971 but Rosewall had played a very tiring QF against the doggy Cliff Richey.
In the 1974 US Open, Rosewall won very neatly, but in the last eight Newcombe had beaten Ashe in a very close match.
There can´t be any discussion about the 1971 Dallas match and the 1973 US Open match.
Very interesting rivalry
hoodjem, Excellent description of narrow-minded persons! You only forgot to say if you described yourself or pc1. Please specify!
Dan, Why howl with the wolves? I did not forget anything. I just have not listed up all Newcombe/Rosewall matches. I also have not mentioned Rosewall's great win against peak Newcombe in the 1970 Champions Classic series where Muscles won the last two sets by 6-1, 6-2...
Why do you make nasty insinuations as pc1, hoodjem and others do?
Dan, If I'm biased, then what are you with your idiotic Hoad worshipping and your about 100 wrong claims about Lew???
When did I ever make a wrong claim about Nüsslein or Rosewall or Gimeno or Roche, you funny and curious person??
pc1: You are an innocent child. Okay, then please tell me what your sentence has meant: "I believe Rosewall leads the series by a little although it would show here"???
By the way, I have posted the 14:10 hth several times in this forum.
I tend to agree. Stats aside, if they both had big tourneys, but Newk actually had beaten Connors at the Open in a title fight, he'd have had a great claim for the year.
As it stood however, Newk just couldn't make it to play Connors at any of the majors that year - he lost in the QF at the AO and Wimbledon, and the semis at the Open.
Would've loved to've seen Newk make the 1974 Australian Open final against Connors - bet it would've been a great match.
pc1, Thanks for that list. I actually have forgotten the 1972 Charlotte match. So it's 15:10, not bad for old Rosewall against such a strong player.
Your source has omitted the 1970 Atlanta match for third place: Newcombe won 7-5 (one set match).
pc1, Enough is enough! I'm used to read wrong claims from yours but this time (Edit: pc1's newest post which he deleted only minutes ago) you surpass even yourself! And you wonder why I call you my enemy...
So many wrong statements and even lies in ONE post. Astonishing....
It's NOT right that I ever asked you to help me! I'm not a child. I did not e-mail to you for help. I did know even without you that Newcombe has a much better record than Roche. You did not offer to give me stats.
Right is: There was a short discussion between kiki and me: kiki said that Newcombe is better because he won much more. I meant that Roche had the higher level of play as he showed in 1968 and 1969 before he got handicapped by his elbow injury during 1970.
You read this discussion and commented it without deciding who is right. Then I wrote to you: "I say Roche's peak level was higher, kiki says Newk's. You say?". I did not want any results or stats from you (and you know it), just your frank opinion about Newcombe and Roche (and if BobbyOne or kiki is right).
It's not right that you agreed with me that Roche's best was superior to Newcombe's. For weeks you plead for Newk even though you assured me in every e-mail that you would support me against kiki's Newcombe's preference...
Only at the end of our friendship, in your very last e-mail, you suddenly stated that Roche was better....
The true reason why you ended our good friendship was that you got angry that I dared to contradict you and to disprove you and to blame your bad behaviour (not answering most of my serious arguments, as you still do...).
Our quarrel was NOT of minor significance. Fortunately I have kept all your and my e-mails...
I wish you all the best for your future and that you may be able to recognize yourself including your strange behaviour, according to the Oracle of Delphi: "Gnothi sauton!" (Recognize yourself!)
It's not really important if Newcombe or Roche were better. But it's very important how human beings make discussions and if we are honest or untruthful...
Edit: Why do you delete your post? Hope you have realized that your report was totally wrong.
There were no lies Bobby and I couldn't delete the posts. You just did not understand. The mods deleted these posts because the posts were not appropriate and I agree. Your past posts were deleted because the mods thought they should be and they deleted the last two posts here from you and myself. The post they deleted had you complaining about me and the next post was me giving my story of the dispute. It was should and clearly should be deleted.
No Bobby I am not to blame for everything.
You realize that in debates you have to look at all the facts and when the facts are negative, discuss them and how to go about getting around that problem. That was what I was attempting to do which you didn't understand because you got angry. Yes I do think Roche's best is better than Newcombe's but I cannot prove it by statistics. You realize that Kiki had access to the same stats so you have to decide how Roche can be superior if the stats are in Newcombe's favor. That's how you deal with debates. So I suggested looking at head to head records if you recall. When doing this I was trying to work out a plan for you but you got angry before any of this happened.
What's that old saying, don't kill the messenger.
How ridiculous to write I would delete my own posts? I didn't write anything in the past when you made these absurd accusations.
Why don't you relax and realize that this is all not worth it. I disagree with you on a tennis forum for goodness sake. This is not a matter of earth shaking importance.
Frankly I can easily see these posts deleted.
pc1, It's really better for you and me and the readers to stop our discussion now. You will never understand. I hoped you would and would even reconcile...
I'm astonished that you did not delete your last recent post. Why should the administrator delete it? You did not write any insulting or teasing words! You just wrote several untrue words....
I don't know that the admin. has deleted any of my recent posts. I was very glad he did not!
For the last time (hopefully ) in my life: If you thought the stats say Newk is better then why did you always write you give them to me in order to SUPPORT me against kiki?????? It's just crazy!
I did not get angry before you were trying to work out a plan for me. Which plan???
The 1969 achievements show clearly that Roche was better than Newcombe in that year which was the last before his injuries.
Edit: You have often deleted your posts and written "delete post". It's not a crime but strange.
Alas, We did not have only harmless discussions about tennis matters. We actually had quarrels about your wrong claims and about right behaviour in public discussions. You never were ready to place yourself for honest and frank discussion (answering serious arguments of the partner, recognizing yourself and your mistakes and so on). When being attacked and blamed unjustified, I try to defend myself...
Good bye, pc1. I'm at the end of my wisdom. I truly wish you all the best. I will try to end these quarrel discussions.
Statistic you realize cannot be made up. One and one will always equal two. So I was looking at the information for both Newcombe and Roche for the Open Era to get a better idea of how to help you debate Kiki, What I realized was that Newcombe had several years superior to Roche's best year in 1969 in which he won seven tournaments, the most important being the US Pro. Newcombe for example in perhaps his best overall year won ten tournaments plus the more important WCT Championship. Newcombe won two majors in 1973. He won Wimbledon in 1970 and 1971. A few of those years can be argued to be superior to Roche's best year in the Open Era. In order to conduct a proper debate you have to totally analyze the facts. Yes I am sure you knew Newcombe had the better stats but I found out he had the superior stats for one year, five years and for the whole Open Era. You have to know the facts clearly to be on the other side of the debate.
If you truly believe we had a good friendship as you call it why do you call me an enemy so quickly? I find that strange and very sad for you. Tennis is not true war.
Big deal if I think Laver, Gonzalez and Tilden are superior to Rosewall. I say that and I'm your enemy. Strange considering that I think I've spoken to you far more than Rosewall has. I couldn't be that much of a friend.
Roche was considered the heir to Laver in 1969 but even in that year Newcombe was battling him. I believe the high level of Roche was higher than Newcombe. But Newcombe had maybe the best serve in tennis, first and second. One of the great forehands and volleys. He was extremely gifted so Roche wasn't imo that much more talented than Newcombe. If you had let me I would have suggested you simply look at 1969 and his record. And also to look at the head to heads at that time. Problem is that I cannot prove that much like I cannot prove Hoad's best is greater than anyone's. It may be true but cannot be proven.
Alas you got mad.
Bobby, I know this is a personnal quarrel, and I don´t mean to interfere.I hope not to have added more fire with my slight prefereance for Newcombe¡¡.You should let it go, it is getting nowhere and you both are good connaiseurs.
Look, I think peak vs peak they are very close.Roche had a better BH and Newcombe a better Fh.Both great servers, Roche´s BH volley is probably even better than Mac´s,Laver´s and Edberg´s, which is saying a lot.Newcombe´s FH volley is better than those of Panatta,Sampras and Becker.
When both were on, there was no more exciting late 60´s match to watch than Newcombe vs Roche.Look at their terrific W and USO SF in 1969 or their AO sf in 1975, when Roche was fully recovered of his injuries and came back strong ( he lost a very close sf to Ashe at Wimbly as well).
I just enjoyed so much that kind of rivalry, specially on grass, it was really what you would call a die hard match for both.Maybe their mutual knowledge and friendship had a lot to do with it.Just a bit like Borg vs Gerulaitis classics, to name an analogue case.
But it was even better when both were in the same side of the court.Pretty unplayable; it was like a 1-2 punch from Foreman or Frazier.
pc1, Thank you that you revealed which players you rank above Rosewall. No.4 all-time is not really bad...
I have not called you an enemy "so quickly" though.
My friendship with Ken Rosewall has nothing to do with our former very good friendship and with the fact that we split our friendship. Edit: It also has nothing to do with the fact that I trust my own research and valuation of Ken's greatness more than your recent valuation (since February).
pc1, As told in an e-mail, I'm very grateful for your long friendship and your help and encouragement and support on TT. I'm very sad that you have disowned me. Don't be surprised that I did not always react in a friendly manner.
Once again all the best,
Your mad BobbyOne
It's a petty matter but he won't let it go. So minor and stupid.
Anyway for what it's worth I like Newcombe as a player better than Roche. He had a great presence on the court.
kiki, Yes, I think pc1 and me will end that quarrel now. All has been said from both sides.
I don't mind you that you were the cause of the whole dispute...;-)
Don't even joke about that. Kiki was not the cause. Don't blame others even as a joke.
Oh¡ thanks but, you know, I have been used to Mr Bobbyone´s special humour sense.
I can understand that Roche/Newk rivalry, one of those rivalries that made great the so called dawn of the Golden Era.Unfortunately, we will never know what would have Roche turned into had he not been hampened with injuries.
I don´t think it is fair to other great champions who were a case of injuries to get overlooked because Hoad,Roche,Bueno ( even if being one of my all time faves),Seles were so unlucky.
Remember Gene Mayer? and worse, remember Manuel Orantes? I was some day talking with him and asked him how many times did he really have gone through surgery.He said 7 times, and I think 5 were from different injuries.Still made it in time to win some big tournaments.
pc1, YOU blame me for being mad.... YOU blame me for not letting it go...
I just finished very friendly and you again attack me....
Of course kiki was the cause. It's not a joke. I don't blame him. My discussion with him was the start of the whole problem. But you are right: He was not the reason why we became bad enemies: It was your decision to end our friendship without reason and it was your inability to recognize and correct your mistakes.
Let's keep the discussion to tennis topics and cut out the personal arguments. It's tiring to read these same types of posts in every thread. They don't belong and such posts should and will be deleted in the future I'm sure. Stick to the tennis, not personal attacks BobbyOne. We as posters should not have to read about this when we're trying to discuss Newcombe and company. Thanks in advance.
borg #1, i also grew up in houston playing at memorial park---i know its off topic but did you ever play there?
kiki, At least I'm glad you dont react as unfriendly as pc1 did.
To clarify: Of course I don't blame you for the pc1/BobbyOne quarrels! But I'm not a flatterer (unlike to other posters)...
If I have to decide to whom should go my sympathy between the acknowledged champion and the underdog, I by instinct plead for the latter: Rosewall vs. Laver (the former under-rated); Roche vs. Newcombe (the former under-rated); Nadal vs. Federer (the former under-rated). There is so much hype about Laver, Federer and partly Newcombe that they don't need any support...
Absolutely. I hit there about two months ago. I went to college in Austin and it's great there by the way. Both Houston and Austin are great cities.
borg number one, You blame me (alone) after having read all those attacking posts from your close friend??? I just wonder...
PC1 responding "you are wrong" and "don't attack the messenger" while you post about enemies in post after post about your "former friendship" is not equivalent in any way. You consider him to be a former friend now, ok we get it. We don't need to hear about it and don't want to hear about it in every thread. If it continues, the posts will be deleted and posters will get banned as warranted. Move on from this topic and stick to the tennis discussions, with facts and opinions presented and the understanding that if you ask 20 great tennis experts about great players, you'll get 20 different opinions about relative strengths. We all make subjective assertions as to great players. It just comes with the territory. Many differences about the nebulous term "greatness" arise due to the distinctions between peak play versus totality of accomplishments.
Bobby...after all those blattant proofs I have kept on bringing in, I hope you are by now totally convinced of Fraser´s superior greatness towards Roche.I´d dare to say, even Olmedo´s
did you play in high school, if so what school? what level player are you now? i go the the river oaks clay tournament every year, im a 4.5 level. maybe we could hit sometime.
I do not make any claims about Hoad, just quote experts.
You are disagreeing with the experts, not me.
At Wimbledon, Newcombe was well above Roche in 1969.
Fact is Newk belonged to the truly greats like Laver,Rosewall,Emerson even if he was the little brother
Roche is a tie below being Fraser and Cooper little bro,on par with Anderson and Stolle
I have cancelled my post because it referred in general terms to some deleted posts. Think of "Captain, my Captain" and be peaceful.
Hey Austin, yes I played a lot of USTA and high school tennis too (Katy Taylor) in juniors and I've kept playing through the years. I'm planning to enter some adult national tourneys in the near future. Send me an email if you would. River Oaks is great to watch. Thanks.
urban, What is "Captain, my Captain"? I guess it's a movie but I'm not so firm with modern movies.
Kiki, your opinion of Newcombe's level when he was playing his best? My own opinion is John Newcombe at his best was capable of beating many of the all-time greats in tennis history, especially on grass. Perhaps his open era achievements were not as great as they should've been but I think many people have noticed how he seemed to stand out in big matches like the first match in the 1973 Davis Cup final against Stan Smith.
I never really cared about DC
Newk was clearly the best five sets specialist which speaks volume about consistency at both, menthal and physichal level.
His serve is top 5 ever and his FH volley is most likely also
Best offensive FH of the 70´s, a bit better on the offense than Borg or Nastase´s, yet not nearly as good on deffense.
Decent lob and decent sliced BH
great character, amusing and charismatic
Yes but Davis Cup was a big deal and the match against Smith was huge. It was dramatic but Newcombe pulled it out against Smith.
Kiki you would have loved watching the Laver/Newcombe team against Smith and van dillen. It was so awesome to see these these two Aussie playing at their best. Laver was incredible, even for him.
While looking for the Sports Illustrated article on the 1973 Davis Cup I found this article that may interest you.
kiki, Sorry, I must contradict you several times.
Emerson is not in the same league with Newcombe, and Newk is not in the same league with Laver and Rosewall.
Roche is not a tier below Fraser and Cooper. In fact he is a tier above them and surely ahead of Stolle.
open era, he certainly is
I can´t see what Roche got to be above Fraser
Neale Frasers ground strokes could only be described as poor.
His serve was beautiful but that was all there was to his game - and everyone knew it.
Tony Roach on the other hand had an all round balanced game without any weakness - until that is he became injured. Without the injury Roach most likely would have been up there with Laver and Rosewall.
lol@ Tony Roach
Tony Roche was also very good.
kiki, Okay, only open era:then you must omit Fraser, Cooper and Emerson totally. Fraser and Cooper did nothing, Emerson rather little. Emmo had only one great match in open era, his five set loss to Newcombe in 1970 Wimbledon. Just too little to be a great open era player.
As told repeatedly: Roche was No.2, just behind peak Laver whereas Fraser was (at the most) No. 7 or 8 in one or two years.
Edit: If I remember well French magazine L'Equipe made a ranking list for 1959 and did not include Fraser in the Top Ten.
Separate names with a comma.