Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by 90's Clay, Aug 22, 2012.

  1. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Rosewall "dominated" in 1961 to 1963, but Laver only appeared in 1963. Rosewall lost his first big match against Laver in January 1963, a televised event at Kooyong. While Rosewall had a few tournament wins against Gonzales and Hoad, there was insufficient play to conclude that he was "dominant". Rosewall played just as well in the late 1950's when he was not dominant.
    Laver dominated from 1964 to 1969 when Rosewall was ageing and younger players were still developing.
    Gonzales was dominant from 1954 to 1957, but at his very peak of ability in 1958 and 1959 he was not dominant.
    Tilden dominated a field with Richards and Johnston when they were past prime, and the Musketeers were still developing.
     
  2. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Not the Tilden era was weak but you are weak with some of your claims.

    Richards and Johnston were NOT after their prime in Tilden's era. Richards was only 22 in Tilden's last great year, 1925. Johnston was 31.

    You should join kiki and learn history!


    Not Rosewall had insufficient competition but you are insufficent at times.

    Rosewall not just had a few wins against Gonzalez and Hoad but beat both of them in pro MAJORS.

    Rosewall defeated Gonzalez 3:1 in pro majors and beat Hoad in amateur and pro majors 11:3 but I concede that Muscles beat Hoad three times in a row at Wembley because Rosewall was able to not inhale the heavy smoke while Hoad was condemned to inhale all that "Wembley smoke"...

    You are ignorant in refusing to accept that Rosewall yet did improve after the 1950's.
     
  3. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Sorry, I meant Richard Williams was past prime in the 1920's, not Vinnie Richards, who was not an all-time great.
    Rosewall lost head to head tours against both Gonzales (twice against Gonzales) and Hoad in the late fifties, when Rosewall was in peak form, and also finished third to Hoad and Laver in the 1964 New Zealand tour, the only time all three competed against each other on a tour. That is your idea of dominance?
    You have tried to reduce the number of "pro majors" to help Rosewall's record.
    Rosewall lost to Gonzales in the biggest pro major, Forest Hills, in 1957 and 1958, and lost to Hoad at Forest Hills in 1959, the biggest tournament of the decade. Some dominance!
    When Gonzales and Hoad semi-retired in 1960, Rosewall was able to win some tournaments.
     
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Richards not an all-time great? Thanks for this interesting instruction!

    You rate the 1964 New Zealand tour of a few weeks as an important tour (it could be) but refuse to accept that the 1958 Perrier Cup was an important tour (it lasted from August 2nd to October 25th with a pause inside) where Hoad played so badly.

    I did not know that Hoad semi-retired in 1960. Are you sure? McCauley does not show anything about a retirement!

    You belittle Rosewall's greatest strength: his ability to win majors against top opposition. For instance his run 1960 to 1963 (winning nine pro majors in a row) which is unparalleled in tennis history. And don't blame Muscles for having weak fields therein: He defeated Gonzalez, Laver, Sedgman, Segura, Hoad, Trabert, Gimeno, Buchholz, Cooper, Olmedo and Anderson...

    The first not "full" year of Hoad was 1963.

    Rosewall did win important pro tournaments in the late 1950s including two pro majors.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2012
  5. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    The Perrier Cup was potentially interesting, but Hoad was tired from the long American tour, and Gonzales apparently skipped the event. Hoad and Gonzales picked up their game at the Roland Garros event just after the Perrier.
    Hoad officially announced semi-retirement in January, 1960 after winning the Ampol tour with the Kooyong event. He mentioned that he had won over $250,00 in winnings as well as commercial endorsements, and wanted to spend time with wife and kids. Check London Times, New York Times, which also detail Kramer's attempts to keep Hoad on the tour.
    It was not Rosewall's fault that he won against weak fields, but that has to be considered when evaluating his achievement.
    Rosewall played his best tennis before his period of dominance, probably in the late 1950's. His best wins were at Brisbane in 1959, his best wins ever.
    Hoad played only part-time in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, and retired in 1967.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2012
  6. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,620
    I would include Tilden there because there are some signs that his peak year was 1924, and he was 31 then. He was undefeated that year, I have read. And Al Laney said of Tilden's performance in the US final: "That was Tilden at his absolute peak, and I have not since seen the like of it."

    Of course Tilden didn't win the Grand Slam that year, but he didn't participate in all the Slams. What's relevant here is that he may have hit his absolute peak at 31, the same age at which Laver won the second Grand Slam.

    In our debate about the demands of the amateur game you acknowledged Tilden's longevity and pointed out that he, too, spent a lot of time in the amateur game. I'm not certain what your inference is there, but we do know that the amateur game in Tilden's time included all the world's best players. Tilden joined the pro tours later, but if we're asking why he could play possibly his best tennis at the advanced age of 31, we're talking about 1924, when all (or perhaps nearly all) of the world's best players were amateurs.

    If Tilden was dominant at a late age that would have more to do with his being a late bloomer, his time spent in military service, etc.

    Everything was different, then, in any case. Players did not cross the oceans as much as in Laver's time, and when they did they spent entire weeks on ships, without playing tennis. How does that impact longevity?

    Tilden also subsisted mostly on steak and potatoes, and smoked heavily. Very different from Laver. So what does that do to the comparison? It just complicates it more.

    If you mean that the junior game is less demanding than the "senior" game, you're absolutely correct. But I was not making any arguments about the junior game taking a physical or mental toll on an athlete. I was talking about development. Someone who trains every day as a junior and plays often in competition will develop faster, and reach his peak earlier, than someone who plays much less as a junior.

    However as Dan pointed out, in Laver's case there may not be much of a difference, when comparing his junior development to the juniors of the Open Era. Tough to say exactly.

    I disagree, I think the question of playing style has to come into this somehow. Think of Ken Rosewall. The general feeling is that his efficient classical style had everything to do with his great longevity. He was almost never injured -- and that will certainly save the body.

    You mentioned Borg, Nadal, Sampras and Federer each having an 8-year span of winning at least one major. But Rosewall started winning majors in '53 and won his last one in '72: a period of 19 years. Even cutting out his amateur majors, he's way ahead of the other champions we mentioned.

    And who would question that his playing style had something to do with that?

    Very similar things have been said about Pancho Gonzalez -- particularly with regard to his smooth court coverage. So yes, his occasional sabbaticals helped him last a long time, but his playing style certainly comes into it.

    So then we ask about Laver. Why did he win majors as late as 31? Well I don't know exactly, but in a comparison of the playing styles of champions, I think it makes more sense to group him among his peers who played a similar classic style, than it does to group him with the four champions we mentioned from the Open Era. He was no grinder like Borg and Nadal, that's for sure. But he also did less grinding than Federer, who is after all a baseliner. And Pete played an awful lot of baseline tennis, certainly not enough to call him a baseliner, but perhaps more than Laver did.

    Pete played more SV tennis as he got older, partly in the realization that the older he got the less he was going to win from the baseline. It's something you hear a lot: grinding is for the youngest legs.

    And if that's true -- that net play saves the body as it ages and can extend the prime years of a player -- then how can we ignore that in Laver's time SV was a far more common style than in the Open Era?

    In other words, if there's anything to my argument that the classical strokes that largely disappeared in the Open Era had something to do with "saving" players' bodies and allowing them to play at their prime at later ages, then Laver was one of those who benefited.

    Two basic things about SV would result in the players of Laver's era playing prime tennis at relatively late ages: 1) SV takes longer to develop; 2) net play can extend a player's prime years at the other end, by saving him from the wear and tear of grinding.

    Fair enough.

    All in all, I just disagree about the amateur game. I see too many other factors that could account for Laver being able to win the Grand Slam at the age of 31.
     
  7. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,407
    Mecir was from Czechoslovakia, but i believe from the slovak part of the country. like Karol Kucera. so i´m not sure, he would like to be called a czech player nowadays.
     
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, I hate your attitude to push your idol Hoad and to exaggerate his achievements. You should accept that Hoad, while he was maybe the strongest on his day (I believe he was), he never had a proud career as Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Borg and others had!

    In your endeavour to praise your darling you not only belittle other players, especially Rosewall who was of same age with Hoad and therefore good comparable, you also bring the strangest arguments and even very stupid ones. I hate it to insult you but I am forced to crtiticize you at several points.

    Hoad was "tired" after his big world series? The tour ended in May and the Perrier Cup began in August!!!

    Hoad announced his retirement in January, 1960. Good. But he did play already in April and later that year.

    You write about the "weak fields" when Rosewall won that array of pro majors 1960-1963. Have you read my list of 11 great players he did defeat directly in those majors? It's really ridiculous.

    I believe no expert would agree with you that Rosewall's peak was in the late 1950's. Of course I know why you say that nonsense: to show that even a top Rosewall was dominated by Hoad (and Gonzalez)...

    Hoad played rather much after his early "retirement".

    Dan, you should improve your arguments to be able to convince me (and I suppose many other posters) with good arguments. I hope you will do so!
     
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Rosewall's two wins at Brisbane were NOT his best wins. Have you- in your Hoad furor- forgotten about Ken's 23 majors and the two WCT finals???
     
  10. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    In 1958, Hoad missed substantial time on the tour against Gonzales with back trouble. After the head to head tour, which ended in June, there were tournaments in LA and Forest Hills, which were components of the Ampol championship, and Hoad and Gonzales played hard in these, as they did at Roland Garros. The Perrier was a lesser event.
    Hoad SEMI-retired in January 1960. He also RETIRED in 1966, 1967, 1968, 1970, and 1972. Looks like he just couldn't quit completely.
    Rosewall beat a past prime Gonzales and Hoad, plus a rookie Laver. Later, a young Newk and Roche.
    His best play was in the late 1950's, from 1957 to 1960. He faced stronger opposition at this time.
     
  11. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    I am looking at the quality of the opposition.
    Rosewall won several important events in the 1957-1960 period, when he was overshadowed by Gonzales and Hoad, including Slazenger, Perrier, Roland Garros, Wembley, and runner-up at Forest Hills in 1958.
    In 1959, he won two tournaments on the Ampol world championship tour in Brisbane, with great wins over Gonzales and Trabert in January, and Hoad and Gonzales in December. In addition, he made a great showing in the Forest Hills event and the final tournament at Kooyong, losing great matches to Hoad. Rosewall's best year! Certainly, the toughest opposition he ever faced.
     
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    You act like a cunning, but mean lawyer: You have a claim, f.i. Hoad was tired after the world series (by the way, why got he tired when the tour was a joke???), I give you a good contra argument and you have a new claim: Hoad had back troubles. That way it's not easy to communicate with you!!!

    Rosewall beat Gonzalez at Paris in 1961 in a year when Pancho and some experts claimed he was the world's best. He also beat prime Hoad very often.
    Rosewall also defeated PRIME Laver several times in pro majors and Roland Garros 1968, among them four times in a row at Paris. He also beat Newcombe and Roche when they were in their primes, f.i. both in the 1970 US Open. Rosewall has a positive balance against both of them, even in majors. It's just disgusting that you always belittle Rosewall's great achievements, disgusting not only for Rosewall admirers but also for any people who like to be objective.

    It could be that you are right that the end-1950s had stronger competition. But the 1960s and early 1970s were also extremely tough. Nevertheless Rosewall improved AFTER the 1950s. Ask an expert.
     
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I wonder that you don't realize that you contradict yourself reperatedly: For instance you use to write that the Perrier Trophy was a "lesser" event. Now you list it up among the "important" events. I just can't stand such a stupidity.
     
  14. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    The Perrier event, like the Grand Prix de Europe, was of some importance, but the results did not count for the Ampol World Championship in either 1958 or 1959. Thus, it was of less importance than Roland Garros, which was included in the Ampol results.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2012
  15. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    As a special favour to you and others, I am going to calculate the wins and losses for the Ampol World Championships for 1958 and 1959.
    This should provide better perspective on what we are discussing.
    Stay tuned!
     
  16. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Here are the results.

    The 1958 Ampol World Championship.
    Hoad won on points. Of the five tournaments, each top pro won once.
    Hoad posted 13 wins and 10 losses.
    Against Gonzales 3 wins 1 defeat
    Against Rosewall 1 win 3 defeats
    Against Sedgman 2 wins 1 defeat
    Against Trabert 2 wins 3 defeats

    On the 1959 American championship tour, Hoad defeated all three opponents.
    Against Gonzales 15 wins 13 defeats
    Against Anderson 9 wins 5 defeats
    Against Cooper 18 wins 2 defeats
    This was not a true round-robin, as Hoad and Gonzales played 28 times against each other and 34 times against the two rookies combined. The idea was to provide each tour stop with a Hoad/Gonzales match, and both Gonzales and Hoad regarded the tour as a head to head series.

    The 1959 Ampol World Championship results:
    Hoad won the tour with 6 tournament victories (including Forest Hills Tournament of Champions and Kooyong 1960), Gonzales with 4 (Sydney twice, L.A. Masters, Toronto. Gonzales skipped Roland Garros and Kooyong 1960), Rosewall with 2 (Brisbane twice), Sedgman with 1 (Kooyong 1959), and Trabert with 1 (Roland Garros).
    Hoad's overall won/loss was 34 wins and 13 losses.
    Against Gonzales 3 wins 5 defeats
    Against Rosewall 6 wins 2 defeats
    Against Sedgman 5 wins 2 defeats
    Against Trabert 3 wins 1 defeat

    A total of 34 wins and 13 losses in this company is exceptional.
    Thank you for encouraging me to undertake this stimulating exercise.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2012
  17. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,620
    And you simply repeat the mistake, stating, without any qualification whatsoever, that the number came from Buchholz, when in fact you don't know that, and it could have come from Bodo or one of Bodo's sources. It is NOT a fact that Buchholz gave the number; it's your assumption, or argument, or theory. Not a fact.

    The mistake is compounded by your inconsistency in applying your standards (whatever those might be). When Laver gave a number that you didn't like, just days after the end of the tour -- and was directly quoted as giving this number, unlike the case with Buchholz -- you insisted that the number must have come from the interviewer.

    Here's two actual facts: 1) Laver is quoted, days after the tour, as saying that he lost 8 matches to Hoad. 2) Buchholz is not quoted as saying that Hoad beat Laver 13 straight times, either in that tour or in '63 generally.

    Those are facts.

    Please don't reply by telling me that your arguments are plausible. That's not the issue here. I am asking you why you state your arguments as if they were known facts. Why do you ignore the basic difference between an argument and a fact?

    (I've pulled these posts here, from another thread in which they were off-topic.)
     
  18. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Laver's quote of 8 losses appears to be a RESPONSE TO THE INTERVIEWER, who probably received the information from Trabert's office of the Professional Tennis Players Association.
    But we have Laver's direct statement that it was 14 STRAIGHT MATCHES that he lost (I notice that you do not challenge this.)
    The Bodo article states 13 STRAIGHT MATCHES, and Peter Bodo is a reputable reporter. Where would he get this number? It is not on the internet, not in 2007! He was interviewing Buchholz, an eyewitness, who would have some memory.
    Are you assuming that Bodo ignored Buchholz and made up a false number?
    This is too ridiculous to accept.
    I am accepting BOTH of Laver's statements. We know that Laver and Hoad played a private tour in 1964 outside the Association. Could they have added a six-match private tour to the 1963 hth, and not shared the profits with others?
    Yes, that is a strong possibility. Is that good enough?
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2012
  19. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    It appears that Laver played 122 matches in 1969, but that Hoad in these events alone played 109 matches, plus many more in Europe. This had to be one of the most taxing and complete years ever played.
     
  20. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,620
    delete post
     
  21. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,620
    Excuse me, why would I challenge that Laver gave the number 14? You seem to have quoted him precisely, so I am treating it as a fact that Laver gave the number 14. I have been telling you for months why that number should not be preferred to the number that Laver in '63, and all other historical sources, have given. This is so basic, I hate to go through it, but I do not want you to come away with the impression that I now find the number 14 more plausible than I did before. The topic at hand is the difference between an argument and a fact. It's a fact that Laver gave the number 14. That does not make the number correct.

    And you have to get this clear: I have never stated one way or another whether Buchholz gave the number to Bodo. It's possible he did, and it's possible he didn't. What I object to is your stating as a fact, that Buchholz reported that number to Bodo.

    I also see you state, with an exclamation mark no less, that the number was not on the internet in 2007. How could you possibly know that? Laver had given his number 10 years earlier, on a DVD with presumably a wide circulation. Yet you categorically state that the number 13 could not have made its way onto the internet even 10 years later. Got it.

    What's more, you're probably wrong on this. David Hernandez's essay gave the number 13, and his essay seems to have appeared online sometime after the 2002 USO (he mentions Pete's victory as if it had just happened). It is still online today. Yet you think it was not online in 2007? Got it.

    I hate also to have to get into this, but I need to clear this up, at least to you (to most people here it is already clear): I have NOT stated either that Bodo "ignored" the man he was interviewing, or that he "made up a false number." It could well be that he simply got the number from Buchholz; or it could be that Buchholz did not remember exactly how long Hoad's winning streak over Laver lasted (ie, did not have exact recall of how many matches Laver and Hoad played in the first half of '63, before Laver ended the streak). In such a case Bodo may have gotten the number elsewhere (Laver himself, or someone connected to him, would be a possible source). None of this involves what you accuse me of saying.

    I hope you're getting this clear: stop putting words in my mouth.

    As for the '64 tour, I will only repeat what I said before: there are reports of the '64 tour. No reports have been found for these matches that you claim occurred in '63.

    Your whole idea that Hoad and Laver did in '63 what they did in '64 falls apart on that very basic difference. It's as basic as you can get: we have documentation for one tour; nothing of the kind for the other. All we have is a number, given decades later, and given as vaguely as any number can be -- which is why I called it a "mere number." Neither Laver nor Bodo nor Buchholz give any details about their numbers. They do not specify that the streak took place in the tour Down Under, or in '63 generally. Those numbers really are just numbers -- out of which you've built a story that you cannot admit is merely a guess and is nowhere near being a fact.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2012
  22. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    I have made an internet search for the 1963 tour results, and there are innumerable citations of the official 8 to 0 number, but nothing except Cas Fish quoted by someone else on 13 to 0, in an unreliable account.
    So, where did Peter Bodo get his 13 to 0 number? Why would he challenge the official count?
    If he got the number from Buchholz, that would explain it.
    Both Laver and Buchholz (assuming that it is Buchholz) emphasize that it was a STRAIGHT streak.
    Given the relationship between Hoad and Laver, and their own private tour in Feb. 1964, it is a small jump to another private tour of sic matches in 1963, roughly concurrent with the 8 to 0 tour for the PTPA and Trabert.
     
  23. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Correction. In the 1958 Ampol tour of five tournaments, the winners were Hoad, Sedgman, Segura, Gonzales, and Rosewall. Trabert did not win an Ampol tournament in 1958.
     
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    What? Rosewall defeated Hoad 3:1 in AMPOL 1958 series? Really? The weak Rosewall beats GOD Hoad? I just cannot believe it.
     
  25. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    In the 1959 Ampol world championship, Hoad defeated Rosewall, then at his absolute peak, 6 matches to 2.
    This makes a real statement.
    Hoad played a total of 109 matches in the two 1959 championship series, but he also played many more matches outside these two tours. This compares favourably with Laver's total of 122 matches played in 1969, against a weaker field.
    Yes, that's right folks, I am suggesting that Hoad enjoyed a better year in 1959 than Laver in 1969!
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2012
  26. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,403
  27. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    YOU are at your absolute peak! In your eyes Hoad's balances make only a real statement when he wins but not when he loses. 6:2 for Hoad in 1959 is exactly the same % as 3:1 for Rosewall the previous year.....

    Rosewall was even with Hoad if we take the whole year and not only your beloved Ampol "world championship".

    And stop writing that Rosewall was at his absolute peak in the late 1950s! You are the first "expert" to say such a nonsense.

    Believe me: I have read quite a bit about Rosewall, newspapers, books and here on talk tennis, and all experts and fans agree that Rosewall's peak was about 1960 to 1963 or 1964.

    I would never belittle Lew Hoad (I'm an admirer of him) as you belittle constantly Rosewall (and to a lesser extent) Laver and Tilden.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2012
  28. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Rosewall's RECORD was at its peak in 1961 to 1963, but not the quality of his play.
    First, he did not get a chance to play at Forest Hills until 1963, and at Wimbledon until 1967.
     
  29. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    ...and he crushed Laver 6-4,6-2,6-2 at the 1963 F.H. I doubt that he could have done the same if he were at his 1959 level...

    Please do me a favour: Learn history that we can have fruitful discussions in the future.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2012
  30. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    The level of play Rosewall faced in 1961 to 1963 was reduced by the semi-retirement of Gonzales and Hoad, and the rookie blues of Laver.
    Rosewall's greatest play was at Brisbane in 1959 and at Roland Garros in 1958, and at Forest Hills in 1958 and 1959. He was up against giants there.
     
  31. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Brisbane? There were many Rosewall achievements superior to Brisbane.

    Did you ever hear about Rosewall defeated peak Laver at Paris several times and in the 1965 US Pro?

    Did you ever read about the US Open 1970 or the two Dallas finals against extremely strong competition?

    You are much too stubborn. That way we can't have fruitful discussions!
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2012
  32. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,620
    As we discussed in some other thread: neither Bodo nor Laver are contradicting the official history of that tour. Neither one of them ever says that the 13 matches (or 14) all occurred on the January tour. They both just say that Hoad took his first 13/14 matches from Laver.

    Bodo wrote: "Then he had a practice hit and went out and waxed tour newbie Laver - it was the first of 13 consecutive wins for Hoad over Laver." If he had written, "it was the first of 13 consecutive wins for Hoad over Laver on that tour," then it would contradict the official 8-0 score of that tour.

    Of course you can get into what is really meant behind the text. But it's a FACT that the text of Bodo's article, as he's written it, does not contradict the 8-0 score.

    All the same is true of Laver's statement in 1997.

    Where would Bodo have gotten the number 13? As I said, he could have gotten it from Buchholz; he could have found the number on the internet, possibly in the David Hernandez article that cited Cas Fish as a source; or in The Independent's 1993 interview of Laver; he could have had the number confirmed by Laver, or by someone connected to him. We don't know.

    I do not know why you emphasize that we're talking about consecutive matches. Of course Laver and Bodo are talking about a streak -- which by definition is uninterrupted by any losses. Why do you even think this is an issue?

    I'm glad you write, "assuming it was Buchholz." That's all I'm looking for.

    I think we need to stop using the term "private tour." I know what you meant by it -- that two players decided by themselves to conduct a tour featuring only themselves. But if Hoad and Laver decided to add some dates to the tour to make extra money, they would surely have found plenty of people willing to buy tickets. Rosewall reported large crowds coming to see the tour in all the cities: a total of 50,000 showing up for 8 matches alone.

    So if Laver and Hoad really did play 6 extra matches on this tour, we're talking at least about hundreds of people, probably thousands, who witnessed these matches. That would include journalists. After all, you're basing all of this on what happened in '64, right? And those matches between Lew and Rod were reported in the press.

    There's the nub of the whole problem. Where are the reports of these extra matches that you're proposing for the '63 tour?

    I read somewhere recently that tennis, at that time, was one of the biggest sports in Australia; that the Davis Cup Challenge Round was a huge event among Aussie sports fans. Laver, Hoad and Rosewall were genuine idols, and huge draws, in that country. So here they were, in '63, getting together, with the whole tennis world anxious to find out how the best amateur would stack up against the pros.

    This tour was a huge event, in other words. It was not some obscure secondary card that has dropped off the pages of history. It was followed closely by a tennis-crazy nation and reported worldwide.

    In that context I don't think it's plausible that Hoad and Laver played 6 matches, on their own tour, and that no record of them exists today.

    And if what you have in mind is that Laver and Hoad played these matches in front of small crowds consisting of a few wealthy customers -- I think you said something like that once -- then I will say again: you can't regard such matches as seriously as the official matches.

    Think of Laver's position: he has precious little rest, because he's got to play both Ken and Lew. For some reason (you say it was the money), he agrees nevertheless to spend his few days off competing with Lew in 6 extra matches. He also knows that these are just private matches in front of a few individuals, with probably no reporters present; he knows that only the "public" matches will be reported to the press. How seriously do you think he's going to play, then, in the "private" matches?

    I mean let's be real: he knows his reputation will be staked on the "public" matches. He knows the private matches can only drain him; if he's doing them for extra cash, all he has to do is show up and put up a decent show. No way is he going to expend himself in them the way he will in the "public" matches.

    And that voids the results right there. If those matches really were small affairs that escaped the attention of the press, then they really were "just exos", in the common understanding of that term. Matches set up for money and for fun. Nothing else.

    So which would you like to propose? Some meaningless matches played in front of a few rich patrons? Or matches that were played in front of thousands -- including journalists, who always go where thousands of people attend a popular sporting event -- but that somehow left no trace when we look for reports of them. No accounts, no scores, no locations, no final tally. Nothing.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2012
  33. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Whoa! Let's not get carried away!
    Are you seriously suggesting that the field in the WCT finals in '71 and '72 was superior to the field in 1959?
    That a 37 year- old Rosewall possessed the same quickness and stamina as a 24 year-old Rosewall?
    What course of biology did you study?
    The "Paris" events Rosewall won in the mid-'60's do not compare to the 1958 Roland Garros.
    Let's get real.
     
  34. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Some good points.
    I accept the 8 to 0 score, but would suggest that this was the PTPA tour organized by Trabert. There could be an additional six-match series organized by Hoad and Laver themselves, where they would not have to split the profits with the association. These matches could have been at private tennis clubs, where a large group of members and their friends could pay for admittance. This would not necessarily be covered by the press, who would concentrate on publicly advertised events.
    There may indeed have been SOME press mention of extra matches, but living in North America, I do not have access to them.
    Andrew Tas discovered the Feb. 1964 tour through digging in local newspapers, and also the March 1964 New Zealand tour. But he lives on the spot in Australia.
    Perhaps some helpful soul in Australia can look into this, or even talk to Laver for us.
     
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Hello fruitless Dan,

    I never claimed that a 37 years old Rosewall possessed the same quickness and stamina as a 24 year-old. Thus the more astonishing that he beat Laver, Newcombe and the others.

    Okay, WCT did not have a superior field but still an excellent. You may not forget that the Dallas finals were the play-off of the best eight players after a long series of tournaments with excellent competition of 32 players.

    Roland Garros 1968? Had Laver, Gonzalez, Gimeno, Emerson.

    In the 1970 US Open Rosewall won against a field of prime Laver, prime Newcombe, prime Roche, prime Ashe...

    I'm convinced that a Rosewall of his peak years 1961 to 1963 would have won more often in the late 1950s as he really did.

    You should know that most players of that time peaked only when being 26 to 29, not only Rosewall.

    That's my conclusion after having studied ,no, not biology but tennis history for 40 years...
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2012
  36. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,620
    If that's the kind of matches that you're proposing, then we have every good reason not to take the results as seriously as we do with the known matches. There would be far less at stake in the private ones you're proposing: far fewer witnesses, little if any press. Even the money would be already guaranteed.

    Presuming these meetings even took place, there is no way Laver would expend himself in such matches to the degree he would in the known ones.
     
  37. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Neither would Hoad be as interested in expending himself.
     
  38. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,620
    A true exo, then, in every way.
     
  39. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Although, I once read the report of a woman who attended the "Laver/Emerson Summer Tennis Camp", in the late 1970's.
    One day, when the two pros were present, the two men put on an exhibition match for the campers.
    According to the woman, it was jaw-dropping shot-making the likes of which she had never seen.
    Sometimes, exhibitions can get serious.
     
  40. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    My list:

    1. Federer
    2. Laver
    3. Sampras
    4. Borg
    5. Nadal
    6. Rosewall
    7. Gonzales
    8. Budge
    9. Tilden
    10. Lendl
     
  41. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    You might also be interested to know that I went through this thread and combined the scores from everyone's lists (assuming they did a single list combining players of all eras).

    I assigned 10 points for each time someone was ranked 1st, down to 1 point each time someone was ranked 10th. If posters ranked certain players equal first, I gave both of them 10 points in that instance.

    So the following can be seen as the "consensus Tennis Warehouse GOAT list":

    1. Rod Laver (139 pts)
    2. Roger Federer (137 pts)
    3. Pete Sampras (93 pts)
    4. Bjorn Borg (88 pts)
    5. Pancho Gonzales (86 pts)
    6. Ken Rosewall (75 pts)
    7. Rafael Nadal (60 pts)
    8. Bill Tilden (51 pts)
    9. Don Budge (24 pts)
    10. Ivan Lendl (22 pts)

    Same top ten as me - albeit in a different order!

    I think this proves my point that, if enough people are asked on the GOAT question, it will inevitably be between Laver and Federer...
     
  42. rafafan20

    rafafan20 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    964
    Location:
    USA
    1. Federer
    2. Nadal
    3. Sampras
    4. Laver
    5. Borg
    6. Lendl
    7. Connors
    8. Gonzalez
    9. Agassi
    10. Mcenroe
     
  43. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    ^ After taking into account the list above, the consensus TW GOAT list becomes:

    1. Roger Federer (147 pts)
    2. Rod Laver (146 pts)
    3. Pete Sampras (101 pts)
    4. Bjorn Borg (94 pts)
    5. Pancho Gonzales (89 pts)
    6. Ken Rosewall (75 pts)
    7. Rafael Nadal (69 pts)
    8. Bill Tilden (51 pts)
    9. Ivan Lendl (27 pts)
    10. Don Budge (24 pts)
     
  44. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,371
    I think the consensus list in post Nr. 1141 is a pretty good list. I would move Tilden higher, say Nr. 2. Also i would miss Connors.
     
  45. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    This is only a "consensus" list for this particular thread.
    Consisting of individuals who never played against the members of the list.
    We need a broader base of input, including the players themselves.
     
  46. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,403
    I started a thread of players and tennis experts a few years ago. I'll see if I can find the thread again.

    Edit--Here it is.

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=353974
     
  47. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Yes, although Gonzales' choices are not listed.
    Interesting how the lists of "tennis experts" differs from the players themselves.
     
  48. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,403
    I'm not sure but Gonzalez's pick may be listed somewhere in the thread. If not just mention it yourself. I think you know who it is. :)

    I'm not sure how different it is. Many players have picked Tilden and he seemed to be the main choice of the experts up to the 1960's.
     
  49. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Shall we go through it once more?
    Here is an alternative list
    1/Who
    2/Cream
    3/Black Sabbath
    4/Rush
    5/Humble Pie
    6/Traffic
    7/CCR
    8/Queen
    9/Deep Purple
    10/YES
    That talking ' bout common mortals
    If we add inmortals the list has a small change
     
  50. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Gonzales picked Hoad, and Hoad picked Gonzales.
    Rosewall agreed with both of them in 1962, and in 2010 listed them Hoad 1, Gonzales 2.
    I think that they must be one and two.
     

Share This Page