Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by forzamilan90, Jan 9, 2013.
Three, on three different surfaces.
Four if we include Australian Pro 1957 (and I do).
Good to know.Thanks.
We are talking 1962.
Actually, Segura put up a great fight against Rosewall at Wembley that year.
But he was past peak by this time.
Bobby, I thought that you respected Peter Rowley's judgment.
It was Rowley who claimed that Hoad was carrying extra poundage and moving slowly in 1960.
Of course, given Hoad's long layoff, propensity for the brew, and lack of serious training, what would you expect?
Dan, Segura deserves a fourth place for 1962 even if you don't believe it.
Remember Kiki that Segura was a pro and Laver wasn't nearly the player he would be in 1962. Segura is one of the finest players ever lived. He had a two handed quite similar looking to Jimmy Connors' backhand but those who have seen both consider Segura's forehand clearly better, some think by a wide margin. Many have called it the best single stroke in tennis history. Laver called it the finest forehand he ever faced. This is something to imagine since Laver only faced the Segura forehand when Segura was in his forties and Laver faced many awesome forehands.
As you have written yourself, the 1950's, in the pros was arguably the highest level of tennis play ever and Segura won most of his tournaments in that era, defeating players like Gonzalez in the US Pro final for example. Segura was a super mover with a fantastic volley, especially the forehand volley. He had a very solid backhand with great control. He was so quick he could run around his backhand to hit his super forehand an excellent percentage of the time.
So with Segura you had a guy with a good serve, super volley, very very mobility with perhaps the greatest forehand of all time. That's a lot going for you. If you asked me if Segura at his best was better than Emerson, I would say yes.
pc1, Segura by far stronger than Emerson.
I would say WAY better, without any kind of doubt. Emerson never faced peak-Kramer, peak-Sedgman, peak-Gonzales, peak-Rosewall, and peak-Hoad, while Segura did, and he caught 3-4 Majors title despite this enormous competition.
Which titles? Were they really majors?
In 1951 at Forest Hills, Kramer dropped out with back ache, Gonzales was rusty from lack of play.
Segura had good wins at Slazenger 1953 against Sedgman, and 1957 at Melbourne against Gonzales and Sedgman, LA Masters in 1958 against the field.
At Wembley he was a perennial bridesmaid.
Dan, They were really majors. Your own counting does not mean too much...
I agree. Dan Lobb is funny, he seems to live in another world, with another tennis history, which he totally invented.
I try not to buy into commercial hackery. Not every world championship was really a world title.
I have taken the trouble to do some research.
Yes, I know. The facts are disturbing to the established view.
I do not see Segura at 4 for 1962.
He was whipped in straight sets by Bucholz in the Cleveland final.
6) Cooper (who won a tournament that year)
7) Trabert (who won a tournament that year)
As I say, Segura looked good at Wembley.
Inventing Dan, Your list is a joke. Emerson No.4? I can't believe it.
Segura won several claycourt tournaments and had in SFs match point against Rosewall at Wembley. That's more than "looked good".
There is a lot of doubles standarts.Segura, while an excellent player, never belonged to the class of the kramers,Hoads,Gonzales and Traberts.
OTOH, Emerson won a lot of titles and matches against all time greats.He deserves respect.I am sure Gimeno´d change gladly his tennis record for Roy´s.
kiki, you are right that Segura never belonged to the class of Trabert. He just was a class higher! Segoo reached No.2 in several years while Trabert only jumped to the No.4 spot...
Emerson might have won more titles than Gimeno but Gimeno was just the better player as he reached the No.3 position, a place never realized by Emmo.
Don't trust Dan Lobb!
I have to agree with BobbyOne here. Segura was a superior player to Trabert but below Kramer and Gonzalez. Remember he did battle Gonzalez on tour and only lost by 20 matches to 30. Trabert lost to Gonzalez by 27 matches to 74. And Segura beat Gonzalez in several US Pro finals.
Never seen Segura ( never seen Trabert but he is such a likeable guy, you know)...in any case, I have seen live both Emerson and Gimeno.I think it is definitely even.Emerson was steadier, much fitter and had a true champion spirit which Gimeno, while a very accomplished player, never really had.OTOH, Gimeno´s Fh was better than any of Emerson´s shots ( although Emmo had a solid BH, Gimeno´s BH is, IMO, underrated when compared to his big and long FH).I think it is very close and both could win.Gimeno, on the other hand, was very smart, but lacked Roy´s competitive heart.
I agree partly.
Can we really say that Gimeno did not have a competitive heart because he did not win a pro major? (I think you insinuate this). He lost to Laver and Rosewall (but beat Rosewall at four majors), while Emerson beat hackers like Stolle and Drysdale...
Stolle a hacker??
Gimeno´s only major came against a mediocre player named Proisy.I like Gimeno but you overrated him a lot ( as you do with no major winner segura)...just as much as you belittle Newcombe and Stolle.We certainly do not share the same concepts.
Segoo was second in weak years, my friend.
Trabert beat Segoo in a head to head tour, proving who was the better.
Trabert: 4 Roland Garoos titles Segoo: 0 Roland Garros titles.
You can trust me on this, don't worry about that.
Emerson vs. Gimeno?
No comparison. Close doesn't do it in tennis, only in horseshoes.
Runnerups? Give me a break.
He lost to more than Laver and Rosewall.
Where was Gimeno at Roland Garros or Wimbledon before he turned pro AT AGE 23?
kiki, Stolle called himself "The Old Hacker".
Yes, we don't have the same concept. I just wonder what your concept is.
I don't overrate Gimeno.
I don't overrate Segura.
I don't belittle Newcombe.
I don't belittle Stolle.
You underrate and belittle Rosewall :"10 big titles" even though you exactly know that Rosewall is by far the most successful with 25 big titles against 2 of Stolle,f.i.,
against 19 of your first darling, against 8 of your second darling etc...
You belittle Vines and Nüsslein!
You call Muscles mean. That's mean!
Your "expertise" is a shame!
Gimeno won how many majors? Less than one? Oh, the victory over Proissy.
Segura at least had good years in the early fifties, but in the tough years of the late fifties, he ranked about 6 or 7.
Newcombe won the biggest titles in the 1970 to 1975 era, based on competition.
He beat Connors in two majors (Rosewall also played Connors in two majors!), Smith in three (including the Davis Cup, certainly a major event), Kodes in one major final, Rosewall in three majors (1970 Wimbledon, 1971 Wimbledon (the worst shellacking of Rosewall's career), 1973 Forest Hills), Emerson (1970 Wimbledon marathon, 11-9 in the fifth).
When Newk was on his game, the best player of the early seventies.
Dan, you are as great as kiki! You will forgive me that I don't answer to all your nonsense statements...
There is no need to answer. Not necessary.
I agree, Stolle was not that great, he never faced the Pros until 1968. His two amateur Slam victories are not such a feat.
On the contrary Gimeno was able to constantly beat Laver and Rosewall on clay in the mid 60s: this is something to take in great consideration. He has also beaten Rosewall indoor at some Pro Majors.
The 1972 FO was a good title: the field was partially depleted, but still with strong players. He has beaten Stan Smith in the quarterfinals.
How about Gimeno's amateur slam victories, when he was 23 years old?
Oh, excuse me. Wrong question.
Gimeno could win minor tournaments in the pros, but so could Stolle.
Why did Gimeno go down at Wembley in 1963 and 1966 to an over-the-hill, injured old man, Hoad? No excuse.
In 1972, the only tough match Gimeno got was from Metreveli, a decent but not great player.
I think that Gimeno could have accomplished more.
Old man? He was 3 years older than Gimeno, not 8.
I agree, Gimeno was not great between the amateurs, but he became great as a Pro - on the contrary some great amateurs were just weak when they turned Pro. So, the fact that he didn't win anything as an amateur, doesn't prove anything.
Ahahah, ha was 34 and he has beaten Smith, one of the top-2 players of 1972, please stop trolling around.
Thanks, Federic, for agreement. A little correction: Stolle turned pro in early 1967 and did not really well in his first pro year.
I'm impressed by the Rosewall/Stolle balance: 23 : 2 matches! (a few pro matches of 1967 could be missing).
Dan, it's good that you realized you asked a wrong question.
Yes, I didn't want to embarrass the supporters of Gimeno any further.
When he came on the pro tour in 1961, Gimeno was touted as "the next Gonzales, he even looks like him".
Didn't quite work out that way.
Dan, Gimeno turned pro in 1960.
Not many players can cope with Gonzalez, even not your favourite player.
That says a lot about Stolle and his real level.
...and a lot about Rosewall who has a positive balance against most good players, f.i. a similary hth against MacKay (25:1), Ayala (30:4) and Olmedo (33:7).
I was disappointed that Newcombe once ranked Stolle among the top ten Aussie players but not Roche who was stronger than Stolle.
Now I am sure Bobbyone and myself have not seen the same tennis, the same players.
I just laugh at the idea that you ever met Rosewall...you are the only one that does not know that EVERYBODY called him pockets, those who know him ( and I am sure you just don´t).
I have different darlings, yes, but Laver is my first darling and the others are more spendable...
I never belittled Vines, I just don´t buy some stuff.
I have seen Gimeno like 12 or 15 times LIVE...How many have you?
How many times have you seen Laver? Roche? Newcombe? Nastase? Kodes? Hoad? Gimeno? Santana? Emerson? Stolle?...Rosewall?? be honest with yourself.I don´t care if you are with me Mr " expert"
Bobbyone has certainly read a lot about tennis of the 60´s and 70´s.I doubt he has really seen one single match of that era.
Botht eammates.Rosewall had the right game to counter Stolle.
BTW, Have you ever seen Stolle and Rosewall live? or you just read about them in a Marvel comic?
kiki, You might have seen more old players than I have but thus the more your verdicts are very strange.
It's a severy insult that you write I don't know Muscles. You seem to be a second Limpinhitter...
kiki, My first tennis match was the 1970 Wimbledon final between Newcombe and Rosewall. Then my favourite player was still Emerson because I did not know too much about the banned pros.
Because I´ve seen them live, I can judge.You shouldn´t judge on textbook, but on watching players.
Rosewall, and this is the last time I´ll writte it, because I think you haven´t noticed, is one of the most impressive players that I have seen over the last 40 years.That says a lot considering how many great players I have seen.He was a true master and his positional game was jsut as ridiculous good, looked like your countryman Von Karajan.he could play with a stick instead of a racket.
and take no offense at Rosewall being Pockets.Nobody is perfect, not even your darling.Albeit he was technichaly close to perfection.happy?
kiki, Of course it's better to watch the players. But a 23:2 balance speaks for itself to allow an objective judgment...
Rosewall´s perfect BH ROS was a nightmare for the big serve and volleyer, but just too tall and not flexible Stolle.Fred had to volley below knee level and that left him frustrated.
however, both players made up for a great combo and were one of the best doubles team of the decade.Stolle was very succesful with a lot of different guys, from Hewitt and Emerson to Rosewall and Newcombe.That says a lot about his doubles credentials.
Stolle posessed a big Serve, a solid volley and a truly magnificient BH ROS.But he was tall and not fast or flexible.he was similar, IMO, to Stan Smith ( but Smith was a bit quicker )
BobbyOne does know a lot about tennis. One does not have to have seen Bill Tilden in person to know a lot of information on him. Of course it helps but in analyzing his results against top competition it is not as important as knowing the information. If I saw Henri Leconte on one of his "on" days I would think this guy was astounding. But in checking his results I would realize that he wasn't quite that good. Actually I still think Leconte was an astounding talent and one of the most gifted I've seen come to think of it.
It's quite easy to be in awe of Laver. Sometimes I would watch Laver and see the announcers yell "On the line" for another one of Laver's shots when he was on one of his hot streaks and I would think to myself that it can't be that easy for him to hit the line. Laver was a great shotmaker.
But I admire Rosewall too. He's spectacular in his own way. After watching Rosewall for a while you realize what a genius this guy was. He did things in a quietly brilliant way. By that I mean that he never seemed rushed but always seemed in the right place to hit the right shot. Arthur Ashe once wrote that Rosewall and him had as their best shots the backhand. Ashe commented that he had a wide variety of backhand and Rosewall had one backhand...perfect.
Separate names with a comma.