Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by JAY1, Apr 8, 2012.
Azarenka Juice is the best thread title of all time.
Gross sounding on a hot Summer day, but still a GOAT thread title for all to enjoy.
Agree, and it has conjured up delightful images for me.
There's too many GOAT contenders not listed on the poll, like Gonzales, Rosewall, Vines, Tilden, Wilding, Cochet etc.
I will take Rosewall's pick of the top four
Beyond this, there are many big, strong players who lack speed and grace (no names are necessary).
Deleted for mootness!
oh¡ yeah¡¡ Borg and Nastase lacked A LOT of speed and grace...
Borg should probably be on the list somewhere.
Nastase was too inconsistent after 1972 in major tournaments, and never won at Wimbledon, the premiere event in the game.
Then , if you pick pre open era players ( although you mentioned Federer), Tilden and Perry should be there.Guys like Vines won considerably less, and Segura won nothing ( he is far overrated)
I accept Kramer's judgment that Tilden cannot be rated because the competition was weak in the 1920's due to WWI.
Perry had an inadequate backhand, according to Kramer, which put him at a disadvantage against Vines and Budge. His great physical conditioning helped him enormously, and a great forehand.
Vines won less than he should have, turning pro very early, and passing up the chance of many more slam titles. In terms of talent, he should be on the list, as his difference in the Budge series appears to have been caused by an injury.
I think Segura is very underrated because he turned pro over 20 years before the start of the open era. Segura won 3 US Pros on 3 different surfaces, and was runner-up in 8 other pro majors. Segura would have won more if Gonzales hadn't overtaken him. It's ironic that Segura would later coach Connors to win 3 US Opens on 3 different surfaces.
Segura started very slowly, winning only one significant tournament as an amateur (the 1947 Queens Club).
After turning pro, he also failed to impress, losing a head to head professional tour to Dinny Pails, a player who never won a major.
Segura benefitted from playing Kramer in the 1950-51 tour, and he swept past a rusty Gonzales at Forest Hills in the 1951 US Pro.
He outlasted Sedgman in the 1953 Slazenger final.
He won in Melbourne against Gonzales and Sedgman in 1957, and swept the 1958 Masters in L.A. These were his two greatest victories.
The so-called US Pro in 1952 was not an official title, and was held in a minor venue.
Pails did win 1 major, the 1947 Australian Championships.
Not this again. It is recognised as the 1952 US Pro title. Segura had a 5-set victory over Gonzales in the final, which included a fifth set bagel. It was Segura's third US Pro title in a row and all of them on different surfaces.
My apologies to Dinny Pails.
As to the US Pro, the point is precisely that it was not recognized as the US Pro by the officiating body, the USPLTA.
Further, no less a figure than Jack Kramer applied to the USPLTA to have Kramer's own Forest Hills Pro officially recognized as the US Pro, which application was approved by the approving body! Please, someone explain how such a thing could happen if there already was a recognized US Pro tournament and title? The answer is, obviously, it could not have happened.
Simple, but it is amazing how fake commercial slogans carry weight with the broader public.
This is like the Oklahoma City pro pitstop calling itself the World Professional Championships. Would anyone outside Oklahoma take this claim at face value? Would anyone outside Cleveland believe that Jack March's US Pro was really the US Pro?
This is the true spirit of American free enterprise.
Dan Lobb caught BS'ing, again! DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
Look, Limp, if everyone wants to accept the 1947 Australian as a major, that's okay with me. Pails didn't do much at the really big majors.
As far as the US Pro is concerned, the bs'ing belongs to the promoter of the Cleveland tournament. I don't have to accept a fake commercial title as the real thing.
The BS'ing I'm talking about is the numerous examples of your unsupported, and in some cases, inplausible, congecture in numerous threads. The fact is that WWI didn't make Tilden's era any weaker than WWII made Kramer's era. What does Jack say about that? Everyone knows that Jack Kramer thought that he was the greatest player who ever lived. Thoughtful consideration of his comments make that pretty obvious. Keep that in mind when considering the credibility of his historical recounts.
Kramer did indeed benefit from a field weakened by WWII, no doubt, although both he and Schroeder served bravely and under fire in that war. Joe Hunt was killed in training.
I think if you examine my posts, they include supporting evidence, including the 120 pounds of Bill Johnston (remember that one?).
Served? Served bravely? Served who? Served what? I think you got lost on your way to the American Legion website. That would explain your preposterous premises about Tilden and others who bravely didn't "serve."
Guess what? There are many young men who are still "bravely serving" us today in very dangerous conditions.
Perhaps there should be a top twelve instead of a top ten.
Again, accepting Rosewall's 2010 assessment of the top four as
5) Sampras (Gonzales' pick for #2 behind Hoad)
10) Sedgman (Seixas' pick for #1)
12) McEnroe (Hoad's pick for #3 behind Gonzales and Laver)
Hoad was interviewed at the 1977 US Open and was asked by Sports Illustrated how he would have done against Borg, Connors, and Vilas, and he answered simply, "I would have handled them." He might have said, "I would have manhandled them" and been more accurate.
A factual mistake does not a troll make.
I do believe that when Hoad was focused, healthy, and at the peak of his power game, he could compete with (and maybe even crush) anyone.
No other player could have crushed no other player like Lewis Hoad.
He is the mightiest single force in tennis history.legend also has it that he lasted so shortly.The NOVAS die very soon, but their bright is unbearable.
I really think that the greatest achievements in the history of tennis are the blitzkriegs that Hoad put on Gonzales in the 1959 championship series, 15 to 2, which Gonzales regarded as the best tennis ever produced, and against Laver in early 1963, 13 to 0, and early 1964, 3 to 1.
Gonzales and Laver are probably as good or better than any other players before or since. (Allison Danzig stated in 1971 that on a good day, Tilden might have had a chance against Laver.)
Ellsworth Vines and Lew Hoad seem to be the two players who's peak games are described as "unbeatable". Even Pancho Gonzales said his peak game wasn't good enough to beat Lew Hoad's peak game, which is extraordinary. Hoad's 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 6-1 win over Gonzales in the 1959 Tournament of Champions final at Forest Hills looks like one of Hoad's finest wins. However, Gonzales still won the world pro tour in 1959 and he won the US Pro for the 7th year in a row in Cleveland with a 6-4, 6-2, 6-4 final win over Hoad.
The 1959 Forest Hills result may have represented Hoad's best performance ever. Danzig reported in the New York Times that Hoad's return of Gonzales' best first serves in the first set was the peak of achievement.
Gonzales himself regarded the 1959 championship tour as a win for Hoad, due to the final result of 15 to 13 for Hoad, and that series was over early, at 15 to 3, after which Hoad coasted to rest his back.
The 1959 "US Pro" was not even included in the top 14 pro tournaments that year to determine bonus pool money.
Kramer selected the top 14 tournaments on a point system to determine the top player overall on the pro circuit for the 1959-1960 tour. (Hoad finished first on this basis.)
The 1959 World Pro Tour standings were:
1. Pancho Gonzales 47-15
2. Lew Hoad 42-20
3. Ashley Cooper 21-40
4. Mal Anderson 13-48
The 1959 tour had more than just 2 players involved so Gonzales was again the winner (even though Hoad beat Gonzales more than vice versa), unlike Gonzales and Hoad's 1958 world pro tour, won 51-36 by Gonzales after he had trailed 7-18.
Laver, Hoad, Vines, Tilden, Gonzales.
Power, finesse, speed, will, shot-making: they will beat your five.
Laver,Hoad,Gonzales,Budge,Sampras on medium to fast court
Borg,Rosewall,Nadal,Lendl,Laver on slow turf
Which is the only player in both fields?
And who has an amateur Grand Slam, a Pro Slam, and an Open Grand Slam?
is he ugly? is he red headed? is he....a queenslander?
The final call goes to the champ himself, who claimed that the head to head of 15 to 13 determined for him the number one.
Actually, Hoad claimed that he led 21 to 10 in 1958, before his back froze up. Perhaps he was including tournament play.
In 1959, Hoad also appears to have been looking at the overall match score beginning in 1958. He claimed that when he led Gonzales 15 to 3 in their head to head that year, he was still thinking that the score was 56 to 54, and that he had just about caught up with Gonzales.
However, the record shows that when he hit 15 to 3, he was guaranteed a head to head win, and he coasted then to rest his back, which started to bother him when the score was 11 to 2. He had visions of being crippled in a chair, with his wife becoming a nurse to look after him. This never happened, and his back problem, two herniated discs, was corrected by a spinal fusion operation in 1983, some years after he had stopped playing the tour.
Separate names with a comma.