Pre-open era was a immature stage of tennis history

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by NGM, Nov 10, 2012.

  1. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,999
    So if the ATP today were to split the tour into two field and that wouldn't have any effect on the strength/depth of the competition. Got it. :roll eyes:

    And imagine if Fed had a smaller pool and again, split fields, the chances of him having quality players as he's currently having to deal with today are slim.
     
    #51
  2. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,999
    This is your listed(although another poster said Gonzales only had 6 years).

    1954: Pancho Gonzales
    1955: Pancho Gonzales
    1956: Pancho Gonzales
    1957: Pancho Gonzales
    1958: Pancho Gonzales
    1959: Pancho Gonzales
    1960: Pancho Gonzales
    1961: Pancho Gonzales

    1954: Jaroslav Drobny
    1955: Tony Trabert
    1956: Lew Hoad
    1957: Lew Hoad
    1958: Ashley Cooper
    1959: Alex Olmedo
    1960: Neale Fraser
    1961: Roy Emerson


    You had 2 players per year. So who's the number 1 players during those years? You can't have both players.

    Like I said...having a split field Nadal would have 6 years ending #1 instead of 2.

    Or let say we count 2 best players per year without having a spit fields, Nadal still gets 6 years #1. Federer gets 7 years(including 2012).
     
    #52
  3. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,999
    sonicare is generous to say Laver is 5'10" who's really 5'8". And while he maybe exaggerating, his post is closer to reality than yours.

    There are players from 5'6" to 6'5" who have dominate/number #1 in the wooden era. If all the greatest players in the wooden era hovering around 5'8", you got a strong argument. Unfortunately, you don't. There's no facts to even worth speculating Roger at 6'1" wouldn't have dominated the field, especially when tennis wasn't a global sport as today and only have to deal with 1 of the 2 fields.

    In this era, how many players at 5'8" dominated the sport during Sampras and Federer's generations? None. Over 20+ years it was all about players hovering around 6' to 6'3". Go check out all the slam winners and year end #1. numbers don't lie!

    This is not to say Laver wouldn't be able to compete in the atp tour. Of course he can, but he wouldn't be one of the elite group. Tennis today demands a lot more than just talent alone to be at the top. Optimal height is one of the major attribute.
     
    #53
  4. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    You sound like TMF here, who has been told many times why the ATP lists 42 titles for Laver but ignores the reason. You seriously don't know why 42 titles are listed for Laver at the ATP?

    Any modern fan should know how the ATP operates. If anything, you'd expect a modern fan to know that better than an older fan would. But apparently not, judging by your post here.

    It's ironic because isn't it your argument that tennis is mature now because it's organized better than ever? Well okay, so you should know inside-out how tennis is organized today and basic things like how the organized bodies count titles.

    Maybe this has to do with your English, but you are not using the term 'myth' correctly. The term has more than one meaning, but if you're using it to mean "nothing real about it," because tennis experts could disagree about the #1 for a year or even co-rank #1 (due to the fact that there were no computer rankings, so opinions were the only thing available), then you do not know what the term means. Opinion is not myth.

    And now you use "myth" another way, to mean "if". By that, I think you mean speculation about non-events. So which is it? Do you think "myth" means differing opinions? Or do you think "myth" means speculation about events that have never happened?

    BTW, TMF's argument, if you can call it that, about "fix position" is based on a false premise.

    You once assumed that we -- or other people -- once had Sampras and Laver on the same level, but that once Federer passed Sampras, we bumped Laver up to Federer's level while letting Sampras fall back.

    I told you that you had no basis on which to assume that we once judged Sampras and Laver to be on the same level. Of course you just seem to have ignored that.

    I'll speak for myself here, as on older fan. I never regarded Sampras and Laver as being on the same level. I thought of Sampras as below Laver's level. When Federer passed Sampras, I thought that the new conversation would be, or should be, about Federer vs Laver. In other words, I felt Federer approached Laver's level only when he passed Sampras -- and in particular when he got his French Open.

    So what's the problem here? You see me bumping Laver up from Sampras' level? You see anyone else here doing that?
     
    #54
  5. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,047
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Imagine 16 of the current 20 top players, including all the top 4, in the professional game, while the rest of the field play in the amateurs. The top 4 are the best players in the world, but players like Ferrer, Wawrinka, Querrey and Verdasco would win the mainstream majors. Ferrer could even be an Emerson and win 12 majors, while Federer, having turned professional early, has only won 2 mainstream majors, whilst dominating the professional tour for years.

    Federer would be facing the very best players, all the time, with his pay packets depending on success. He would also have to travel around himself, without being a multi-millionaire.

    I've explained this already. The gap between the top professional players and top amateur players was close in the 1930s, but after the late 1940s, the best professional players pulled some way ahead of the best amateur players. Jack Kramer in 1948 was the last newly turned professional player to topple the best professional player in the world (i.e. Bobby Riggs).

    So, that means that Pancho Gonzales (the best professional player) was the best player in the world from 1954-1961, while the other list shows the best amateur players of those years.

    LOL. Completely wrong. I've mentioned in a previous post that in all the years I've listed, I believe that the best professional player was better than the best amateur player apart from 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1932 and 1933. So, if you want my best players in each year list, you know what to do.

    And what if Federer was put in the 1960s right now, with 1960s equipment? This is a fair question if you insist on transporting a 1960s version of Laver to the present day to play against Federer.

    Gonzales was 6ft 3ins, by the way. And what's all this "tennis wasn't global" nonsense. We had players from all over the world even then, it's just that the Australians were dominant for years with unprecedented success. Like Spain today multiplied 20 times over.

    You're obsessed with heights.

    That is all speculation.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2012
    #55
  6. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,999
    I said "some people", and never mentioned your name so I don't know why you're getting mad at me. I've been on this forum since 2009 and have read debate after debate about who's the greatest, and many members stacked Sampras = Laver, some have either one above another. And obviously Sampras fans and Laver fans argue for their idol. 2009 was when we had many goat threads, mainly because (1)Roger won the career slam, (2)Roger broke Sampras 14 slam records. People in here use Sampras as a measuring stick, and Fed is chasing him, and to be the greatest he must match/surpass Sampras. That justify many members in here believe Sampras is the man or at least in the same league as Laver before Roger surpass Sampras.

    Please don't misrepresented me because I'm not generalizing here.
     
    #56
  7. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Mustard, this is absolutely true, and one of the key statements made by anyone in this thread. You did have to go to the net a lot back then, especially on Wimbledon's old grass, and even more so on the grass at the USO where the ball bounced even lower -- and more erratically -- than it did on Wimbledon's old grass.

    You also had to get into net a lot on the super-fast wooden boards that many older tournaments were played on. Wood surfaces were not friendly at all to defense.

    In fact you could probably say that the taller you were, the more important it was to get into net, in order to avoid low/erratic bounces.

    Modern fans of Federer who picture him playing in those times are probably just imagining him hitting groundstroke winners. But nobody won the grass majors back then if they didn't come into the net a lot. Borg stayed back more than most champions and yet he attacked the net far more, at Wimbledon, than anyone today. Agassi finally won Wimbledon by staying back all the time, the way players do today -- but he did it with a modern racquet. If you tried to stay back in the wood era, with those tiny racquets, on low-bouncing grass, against volleyers like the great Aussie champions, you had no chance.

    So Federer vs. Laver in 1965, for example, would either be a SV battle, or it would be Federer, with a wood racquet, trying to hold off Laver at the net, on surfaces inherently advantageous to net-rushers.

    And yet the argument is that Federer would wipe the floor with Laver and with the other Aussie champions, who perfected volleys the way no one had done before, and no one has done since (with some exceptions like McEnroe and Edberg).

    Seriously, even the most rabid Federer fans don't call him the greatest volleyer of all time. His reasonable fans even accept that the older champions were better volleyers than today's players. I've heard many modern fans say that volleying is not a good strategy today; but I don't hear anyone saying that Federer is a better volleyer than Laver, Roche, Sedgman, Hoad, etc.

    Still less do you hear that Federer is two to three times better at net than the great net-rushers of the past; yet that is what Federer would have to be, if he's going to dominate them at major after major.

    I think Federer, if he had grown up in those times, would do just fine. But no way would he be wiping the floor with any great netrusher on those fast grass and wooden surfaces.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2012
    #57
  8. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,047
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    People try to demote Borg and Connors these days as well, as well as Vilas, McEnroe and Lendl.

    Some people apparently don't think that Borg is a GOAT candidate. LOL. This is a man who was winning Rome and the French Open in 1974, continued clay success in 1975, became a great player in 1976 alongside Connors, had an amazing 1977 despite not matching Vilas' sheer winning activity in the second half of the year, dominating in 1978 despite a strong challenge from Connors, even more dominant in 1979 and 1980 despite challenges from McEnroe, and to a lesser extent, Connors. Even in 1981, before McEnroe overtook him, he won the January 1981 Masters and the French Open.
     
    #58
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    A player who wins 8 man tournaments against the best players in the world is most likely also able to win tournamenst with 32 to 128 players where he faces lesser players in the rounds before QFs. Laver and Rosewall have often proved that they were able to win big tournaments with many participants.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2012
    #59
  10. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    In 1958 and 1959, Hoad was the leading money-winner in the pro game. That means something. Today, we would call that #1.
     
    #60
  11. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,047
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    How long into the 1970s was Laver the leading prize money winner? Hoad would have gotten loads of money (for the pro game at the time) for his 1958 world pro tour against Gonzales. His serious threat of Gonzales on that tour would have kept his drawing level up for 1959, and for the 1960 tour that he refused to play on.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2012
    #61
  12. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    TMF, if other people once had Sampras and Laver on the same level, and are now committing this "fix position" error, then that is not our problem. We can't do anything about what other people think. I'm sure many people thought of Sampras as being on Laver's level, back when he was finishing his career around 2002. I am not aware of anyone here, on this board, who you are addressing, who was doing that.

    You can only address our actual views, because if you talk generally about how "people" dropped Sampras back while bumping Laver up, or anything like that, and you address us when you're doing it, the obvious implication is that you think we're the ones doing this "fix position" thing.

    If you think we're the ones doing that, then quote our actual posts. We cannot do anything about the people that you did observe in your many GOAT debates.

    Just please address, and quote, our actual positions (if you know them), that's all.
     
    #62
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, Prize money seems to be your "idee fixe"...
     
    #63
  14. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    As they say, "follow the money.."
    I have a degree in economics.
     
    #64
  15. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,970
    It's good to see people are seeing the records and play in the pre open ERA is so poorly documented that the validity is being questioned.

    If someone had ten years at #1 it wouldn't matter, just look at a few clips of the game back then and make your own opinion.
     
    #65
  16. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,047
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    They aren't myths like dragons, unicorns, Weng-Chiang and the Loch Ness monster, you know. It's simple enough, the biggest events were the big head-to-head pro tours, and then the big pro tournaments. Gonzales was dominant on the tours in the years when he was the best player in the world, and they were his biggest achievements. He also won a load of the biggest pro tournaments during this time, although he barely played tournaments in 1960 after the end of his 7 year contract with Kramer.

    That they had wooden racquets? Federer would be the same with the same equipment. Any player would. Do you seriously expect any player to play like a 2012 player with wooden racquets and pure gut strings?
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2012
    #66
  17. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,970
    I've seen many of the clips, IMO any top player today could master that kind of game. I rate the difficulty as moderate.

    Todays game is much more complex, more planning is needed off the court like scheduling, workout regimen, nutritional support regimen and building a team that can maximize performance goals.

    The court is different, you can get the ball to do more things for you and have to guard against a wider array of responses on the court.

    I don't rate past players very high because of these things, my way of looking at it is all.
    I have Laver as the best back then, from opinions mostly. I have watched many of his clips and don't know what is the big deal with his play.
    I guess I would have to be raised and played back then to appreciate it.

    Nothing bad to say about those who like yesterdays game and think it has a lot of merit.
     
    #67
  18. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    But money is hardly the main measure to rank players. Often there is a great difference between the top money prize earner and the top player!
     
    #68
  19. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    You can't put away an important part of tennis history. Tennis had a much longer history before 1968 than since.

    Look Laver/Roche 1969 AO. A very fast game.
     
    #69
  20. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    If there is a difference, it is in the major events, and here Hoad had the best record in both 1958 and 1959.
    Either way, the same result.
     
    #70
  21. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,047
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    In 1958, Hoad isn't even second best, as the top 2 were Gonzales and Sedgman. Gonzales beat Hoad 51-36 on their world pro tour, won an epic US Pro final against Hoad (3-6, 4-6, 14-12, 6-1, 6-4), and won the Tournament of Champions. Sedgman won the Wembley Pro and the big tournament in Australia, and beat Gonzales in both tournaments.

    It's very close in 1959 between Gonzales and Hoad. Gonzales won the 4-man tour against Hoad, Cooper and Anderson, as even though Hoad won 15 out of 28 matches against Gonzales, Gonzales went 34-0 against Cooper and Anderson, while Hoad lost some matches to them. Gonzales beat Hoad in the US Pro final (3 straight sets), but Hoad avenged this in the Tournament of Champions final (4 sets, which was Hoad's finest hour).
     
    #71
  22. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    You are forgetting a few items.
    In both years, Hoad won the Ampol world championship of designated tournaments and the bonus money pool. (Yes, MONEY is important.) On the head to head in 1958 with Gonzales, Hoad won more money, as his contract paid him more for each win.
     
    #72
  23. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,047
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    As we know, a great amateur player who turned professional would get the biggest contract to take on the best professional player. Hoad in 1958 was high in demand for a big tour against Gonzales. And as he came the closest to toppling Gonzales on the tour, his monetary appeal remained high. Gonzales got crushed by Kramer on the 1950 world pro tour, so his monetary appeal went down for some time. Even when Gonzales established himself as the dominant player in the world, Kramer insisted on a policy where the challenger got the biggest slice of the money.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2012
    #73
  24. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    Yes, and Gonzales sued Kramer unsuccessfully. In 1959, it was all pay-for-play, everyone paid the same, but Hoad still came out on top of the money list.
     
    #74
  25. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    No difference, I see.

    Okay, Laver turned pro in '63 and was out-classed in his first month, but by August he had managed to beat Rosewall, the world's best player, twice in three straight sets. In '64 he beat Rosewall in 15 of their 19 meetings. In '65 he went 13-5 against Rosewall and was undisputed #1 in the world.

    Compare that to what Federer was doing in '99, '00 and '01. Federer was much farther off from the top, when he turned pro in '98, than Laver was in '62.

    Good of you to tell us there was no difference, however, between the two situations.
     
    #75
  26. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,999
    Fact will always remain is when a pool gets split into two tour the field lacks depth/strength, there's no denying that. Your imagination doesn't hold any water since players benefit from playing in an era with 2 different field. This is something that's not worth arguing.

    And being a multi-millionaire doesn't help him to be success on the court. In fact, you can argue that Federer would push himself even further if money is important to him, or if he needed money like the players in the 60s..
     
    #76
  27. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,999
    It's a fair question but atleast have something to back up. There are players at Roger's height/size, shorter and taller during those day, who had no problem with the equipment, and can dominate the game. But transport 5'8" Laver in this era he would struggled due to his limitation. These are the facts when you go back in the past 20+ years when players are at least 6' dominated the game.
     
    #77
  28. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,999
    There were players from other countries but most are coming from Australia and USA. That's why you see most of the players in the draw are from these countries. Even in women's tennis when Margaret Court had very little competition due to lacks of players from other countries involved. This holds true for other sports(eg NBA, MLB). Please stop it.
     
    #78
  29. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,999
    But my speculation I provided supportive facts, but you don't gave me any supported facts to back up your speculation.
     
    #79
  30. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,999
    I believed players in the open-era gets demoted, unlike players in the pre-open era. And Sampras takes the hardest hit, mainly because of Federer.

    Some people don't inlcude Borg in a goat candidate, but they also don't inlcude Nadal either, who is on even term with Borg. Either both or none of them are in goat discussion. Since Federer > Nadal, if Nadal is in goat discussion with Laver, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales, etc, then what does that say about Federer? He should be at the top and the rest can debate as to who's the 2nd greatest. Capiche?

    Connors is not in a goat candidate. He's a tier 2 great.
     
    #80
  31. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,999
    That's the problem with having two different circuits. People like yourself can argue for Hoad and others can argue for Gonzales. You can't have 2 players being the best in the world. Because if you do, Nadal should credit for having 6 years #1 instead of 2.
     
    #81
  32. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,351
    Maybe correct, that Nadal would be 6 years Nr. 1 on the old pro circuit of the 50s, when head to head matches mattered most. In a 100 match series, would would bet on Federer against Nadal.
     
    #82
  33. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,047
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I don't know what you are talking about. I've already told you who I think the best players in the world are per year. The best professional was the best player in all years I mentioned on my list except 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1932 and 1933. By the time Gonzales was the best professional player, the top professionals were far ahead of the top amateurs.

    Gonzales and Hoad were both professionals after Hoad turned pro in July 1957 after winning Wimbledon for the second year in a row, i.e. both on the same circuit from this point onwards. Laver was the leading prize money winner on tour well into the 1970s, even though he won no majors in that decade and his last year as number 1 IMO was 1970. Even in the 1990s, we had the Grand Slam Cup winner getting $2,000,000 or not much less, which was well ahead of other tournaments (including the 4 majors) by a huge margin.

    Gonzales won all those world pro tours and won a load of the biggest professional tournaments, and was never toppled before his initial retirement at the end of 1961.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2012
    #83
  34. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,047
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Sorry, but the opposite is true in terms of strength. Playing against the best players in the world all the time, especially when the money is a lot more scarce, will only make you a much better player. When Kramer was the dominant player in the world as a professional in the late 1940s and early 1950s, he drove the standard up to huge levels, and players like Riggs, Budge, Gonzales, Segura and Sedgman, were forced to try and match that. The best amateurs were nowhere near this level.

    Now, in the 1930s, it was different. Back then, the gap between the top professionals and the top amateurs was very close. Some people think that Fred Perry, the dominant amateur player of the mid-1930s, was the best player in the world at that time, while others think Ellsworth Vines, the dominant professional player from 1934-1938, was the best player in the world at the time. I think the 1937 and 1938 world pro tours between Vines and Perry showed that Vines was better than Perry, although not by too much.

    In the late 1920s, when Vinny Richards and Karel Kozeluh were the top professional players, the top amateur players (Rene Lacoste, Henri Cochet, Jean Borotra, Bill Tilden) were the best players, because the professional game was only just starting to have players who weren't teachers at that time. Bill Tilden was the first really big name to turn professional, in late 1930.

    If you've got millions, you don't have to drive around in thunderbirds and stay in gyms and cheap motels, and you wouldn't have to play injured. If you've got millions, you just stay in 5 star hotels and get aeroplanes. The whole culture of the old pro tour was very different.

    And most of the best players these days are from Europe. I don't see your point. Even in the 1930s, we had a Japanese player named Jiro Sato, who reached the semi finals of the Australian, Wimbledon and US Championships. He's probably the best Japanese player in history, better than Shuzo Matsuoka and Kei Nishikori.

    I've given plenty of facts, but you don't seem to take them on board.

    They are all GOAT candidates.

    As for Nadal or Borg. With Nadal, you can point to winning the US Open and the career Grand Slam, but with Borg, you can point to 5 Wimbledons in a row, 2 Masters and a WCT Dallas title.

    Connors is a definite GOAT candidate. His career is extraordinary. He won 98 matches at the US Open, for example.
     
    #84
  35. NGM

    NGM Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Messages:
    456
    We cant do anything about what people think? How funny it is.

    Before Roger Federer broke Sampras' record, people argued that Sampras was greater than Laver, or they were in the same level. There were 3 men competed for GOAT title, whom are Laver, Sampras, Bjorn Borg. Three greatest men tennis world have ever had. When Federer finally won 2009 FO and W after disappointing 2008, the consensus was he is clearly better than Sampras and Borg. So only Laver stays in the debate. And now he has won 1 more AO and one more W, to some people here Laver still stands up like nothing ever happened. And somehow, while their record did not change one bit, to some people, Laver now is in another league compared to Sampras and Borg. They do not state it clearly because even they know how dumb it is, but they left both great guys in modern time out of debate and promote Laver as GOAT. It is the evident. In that thread you guys devalue Sampras to nothing. What the h e l l is that? Laver is not much greater than Sampras and so is Borg for the God's sake. They are in the same level. 3 years ago they were in the same level, so they must stay where they were because they did not do anything from that day till now. How hard for you to understand that simple thing? Laver, Sampras, Borg are in the same league, if you confirm Federer greater than Sampras and Borg, he must be greater than Laver too.

    BUT it is not the funniest thing. The more hilarious thing is, to dismiss Federer, people digs deep into the land and find a guy named Gonzales and make him a surprised competitor to Federer. How hilarious is it! 3 years ago this playboy from era of s... was forgotten and now suddenly he emerges to GOAT competitor. What? How funny it is, I must say.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2012
    #85
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NGM, The fact that Gonzalez was forgotten at many fans and even some "experts" does not outclass him as the potential GOAT. Funny is only your ignorance. True experrts have always been aware that Pancho is one of the five greatest players. Only guys like you are surprised about Pancho's status as a GOAT candidate and competitor of Federer...
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2012
    #86
  37. NGM

    NGM Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Messages:
    456
    Gonzales is never in any true debate in the outside world, only in this forum he somehow considered the greatest by some statistics lovers. Gonzales played in an era of ... (you fill a word started by "s" into the dotted line). He won so much in a stage very few people played tennis for the livings, an era of no true competition or challenge and because of that everything he won mean nothing or not much at least.

    Ok you can put Gonzales into top 5, or top 10, or top 1000 I dont care. I just care one thing, that he must not be mentioned in GOAT debate, or I will remind you time to time how ... the era of him was.
     
    #87
  38. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,047
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    You're in denial, NGM. You can judge the credibility of any all-time list by where Pancho Gonzales is placed. If he's ranked too low, then we know they've only looked at him as 2-time US Championships winner, achieved during his days as an amateur in the late 1940s.

    How they rank Roy Emerson in comparison is also a good indicator.
     
    #88
  39. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,298
    Here's the thing, though (as I see it). In terms of great players, the field really didn't get split in two. It really didn't. To say it got split in two is to imply that the quality of the circuits were equal. When they weren't. The vast majority of the great players were the professionals. And the only legendary players were the professionals, too.

    Imagine if you remove, say, Tsonga, Ferrer, Berdych, Tipsarevic and a few other quality players from the ATP and have them play in their own tour, but you keep the main greats like Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and the like. Will the field of the greats be weaker than it was before? Sure, but it won't be "split." The difference will be discernible, but not massive, because the truly great players will have their way with the rest of the top 10-20 the vast majority of the time. None of the players playing in that hypothetical "new" tour will be in contention for player of the year. It's a similar situation (although Emerson is definitely much, much greater than Tsonga, Ferrer etc, and so are a couple of other amateur players. but you get my point, right?)

    The field wasn't depleted because the professionals would have dominated regardless, same with the current top 4 and their dominance of the rest of the field.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2012
    #89
  40. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,298
    Gonzales and Hoad were on the same circuit, so this doesn't apply one bit. During Gonzales' reign, there wasn't anybody in the amateur game who could hold a candle to him, therefore it's correct to anoint him as the worlds greatest player in those years.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2012
    #90
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TheFifthSet, Fine analysis of the matter.
     
    #91
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    You err: Gonzalez was and is in any well-thought GOAT discussion. Those who appreciate the feats of the greats of older decades are not just statistic lovers. They prove that they have learnt history more than those who only consider the current and recent players.

    Gonzalez did not play in an era of crap (as you insinuate). It was a thrilling tennis scene at the pros and, ask Dan Lobb, it probably was the strongest competition of all time!

    Gonzalez "must not be mentioned in the GOAT debate"? Are you a dictator??

    Bud Collins, one of the greatest tennis experts ranks Pancho among the five best at all. I'm sure he and other experts don't care if you rank Gonzalez in the top 1000 or not.
     
    #92
  43. gavna

    gavna Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,661
    What????? Do you have any idea who Harry Hopman was and what he did 60+ yrs ago?

    Yeah no one had to use tactics back then........you do realize that in terms of equipment until the mid 70s pretty much everyone used the same stick (pick up a Haillet, Maxply, Salenger 1, Kramer Auto.......not much difference in play between any of them).

    How is the "court different" if anything all the freaking courts today are all homogenous today. Back before 1995 with all the indoor carpet, many more grass events (well pre 1976 for the turf) where no 2 grass courts play the same and tons of clay events where the clay can play different day to day.
     
    #93
  44. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    OK, so this is basically what you're doing. You paint with a broad stroke, hoping it sticks to us. You go on about how "people argue" this or that about Sampras and Laver, and then you claim that we, on this board, hold those same views, only we "do not state it clearly".

    What a dishonest way to argue. You want to stick certain views on the people you're talking to, but since you can't find us saying that we once held Sampras and Laver to be equal, you just claim that we really did hold them to be equal but we're being silent about it.

    I'll give you this piece of advice: respond to what we actually say. DON'T tell us what we think, and then claim that we're being silent about it.

    I told you already that I never held Sampras and Laver to be on the same level. In that thread you linked to, on the very first page there is another poster who states clearly that he never regarded Sampras to be as great as Laver. I would be surprised if many older fans, who know a lot about Laver's career, ever regarded Sampras to be equal to Laver. I'm not saying no older fan ever held that view: but if so, find that person and talk to HIM, rather than telling anyone here what we think.

    And your idea that we devalued Sampras to nothing in that thread is completely mistaken. We all noted that Sampras had been devalued by fans and experts in general due to the emphasis on Slam count, and we all QUESTIONED whether that was fair to Sampras, given that he had more impressive things in his resume than his Slam count. In other words, we did not devalue Sampras to nothing; if anything we were saying that he deserves more respect than he's getting.

    You're really not bothering to deal with what we actually say. I don't know if you noticed, but this is a talk forum, where people come to talk about their actual views. You should try it sometime.

    Start by correcting this mistake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    And now this is a first. Now here you are to tell us that Pancho Gonzalez's career has been dug up as an attempt to dismiss Federer.

    It's not so much the level of ignorance in your statement that's astounding. It's how you think that everything must revolve around Federer. If an old champion's career is researched and his titles documented and so forth, you think it has something to do with an attempt to knock down Federer.

    Keep ascribing everything to an anti-Federer bias, if you want to appear to be obsessed with him.
     
    #94
  45. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,999
    So what? Roger is not the only rich guy, and they all have access to luxuries. Each era face the same situation so no player has any advantage.


    Europe still has the most talented soccer players. The American are still the best basketball player in the world. No one in their right mind would say the sport stay constant in the last 90 years. Same goes with tennis. They all improved, it's just certain countries improve at a faster rate than others.

    I gave you fact that in the past 20+ years there's no dominant player at 5'8". You didn't give me any good reason why Federer(6'1") would suffer playing in the 60s.


    Well that's your opinion. No way Connors is equal to Sampras or Borg, much less Federer. Or Nadal = Federer. :confused:

    It's clear that you don't like Federer
     
    #95
  46. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,970
    Who said there were no tactics??

    I never heard of Harry? Was he the best or something like that? LOL
     
    #96
  47. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,999
    Splitting the field does make a huge impact, regardless if you one field had most of the best player like Fed/Nole/Nadal playing in the same field. There wouldn't be a Rosol upsetting Nadal at Wimbledon, no Safin beating Fed in 05 AO, no Nalbandian beating Fed at the Master Cup, no Del Potro beating Fed at 09 USO, no young Fed beat Sampras in 01 Wimbledon, or no Krajicek beating Sampras in 96 Wimbledon. The list goes on endlessly.
    And with Roddick in another field who don't have to face these guys especially Federer, he would have a legendary career.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2012
    #97
  48. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,999
    This is Muster's list...
    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=445343


    Best amateur players per year in the pre-open era:
    1954: Jaroslav Drobny
    1955: Tony Trabert
    1956: Lew Hoad
    1957: Lew Hoad
    1958: Ashley Cooper
    1959: Alex Olmedo
    1960: Neale Fraser
    1961: Roy Emerson

    Best professional players per year in the pre-open era:
    1954: Pancho Gonzales
    1955: Pancho Gonzales
    1956: Pancho Gonzales
    1957: Pancho Gonzales
    1958: Pancho Gonzales
    1959: Pancho Gonzales
    1960: Pancho Gonzales
    1961: Pancho Gonzales

    If you and Muster believe Pancho was the best, fine, but other people may differ(eg Dan Lobb). I'm not saying that your opinion is wrong.
     
    #98
  49. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,970
    Splitting the field, I agree, changes much. Another reason not to take the pre open ERA seriously.

    That is why those records aren't used today, the tennis minds has determined those records are tainted.
     
    #99
  50. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    That's exactly what happened with Roy Emerson. In casual lists that basically only count Slams and do not get into analysis, Emerson is rated very highly because he has 12 Slams. Slams that he won without having to face a number of players who were better than him. Like Roddick if he didn't have to face Federer.

    What you say about Roddick and Federer is true, and good logic. I just hope you use the same logic when looking at the names on the Tennis Channel list.
     

Share This Page