Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

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

  1. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395

    Actually I have acknowledged numerous times that Federer could be the GOAT and for the record I'll acknowledge it again.
    The guy asked why Connors didn't win so many majors and I tried to give an explanation. So just take care. Your logic is fine except for your reasoning with me. All I'm trying to do is give some stats.

    Incidentally my posting history points out the information and I try to be reasonable. I'm sure you don't think I'm successful in this but you know what, I do try. I often used Federer as a comparison because simply he has clearly been the best player of the last quarter century at least so he's good point of comparison for modern day tennis. I think that Federer is a GOAT candidate but I also think others are GOAT candidates. Federer is a fabulous player and in his best years he was very dominant. But tennis has been around for a long time and I honestly don't think he's a slam dunk to be the best ever. I also knock down Roy Emerson a lot because I don't think he's in the same class of players like Gonzalez and Federer because he won only amateur majors against much weaker fields. I've also knock Jimmy Connors many times but people don't notice that because his fan base is less than the present players.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2012
  2. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Gonzales, Rosewall, and Laver did not restrict their rankings to peak performance, and if you look at the details of their comparisons you will see this. You are assuming that in their evaluations they looked at everyone else on an overall basis, and only rated Hoad at peak. There is nothing to substantiate this, it is merely your own view.
    However, I will agree that in these evaluations, these great pros lay LESS stress on NUMBER OF TITLES won, which is something that appeals to the armchair analysts, and more stress on the quality of tennis produced, not just on a "hot" day, but in general.
    "Achievements" in the narrow sense of titles won, is a measure which depends on such conditions as the strength of a field, health, the banning of pros from major tournaments, etc. In some years, there were NO major events for the pros to participate in, and the armchair specialists have to pretend that some of the minor pro events are really majors.
    When evaluating a player, I tend to agree with Gonzales, Laver, and Rosewall that the key factor is the LEVEL of play a player achieved. Simply looking at numbers of titles is a crude measure which avoids the central issue.
     
  3. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    But you keep selling him short. You don't say it directly, but in a sneaky, biased way. You say I keep harping on Roger's 17 slams, but you, Muster and a few others keep harping on Rosewall 23 majors, or Laver's 200 titles. When I bring up Roger's 17 slams, you guys go through great length to minimize his achievements, and it isn't apple to apple comparison to previous era. However, you guys just list Rosewall 23 majors, or Laver's 200 titles as it's gold standard to the today's players. You don't bother to accept these titles/achievements have much less weight than today's titles/achievements. If you believe Rosewall's 23 majors is equal to today's 23 modern slams, how come no experts don't have Rosewall as #1, and many don't even have him in the top 10? But most have Roger at #1.

    My harping on Roger's 17 carry more weight than you harping on Rosewall's majors and Laver's 200 titles, because most people takes Roger's 17 slams more seriously, that's include experts, ex-players.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2012
  4. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Sampras, Borg, McEnroe did not see Hoad or Gonzales at their prime, and Laver was speaking "off the cuff" on a TV show here. A few months earlier he gave a more formal analysis in the Sydney Herald, from which I quoted.
    The quotes I gave you are exact.
     
  5. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    PC1, Rosewall won the Australian and French titles when he was only 18, but he was 21 years old when he won the Forest Hills title in 1956.
    I rate Rosewall's peak years as 1957 to 1965, so he was near peak when he played the Wimbledon finals in 1956 and 1967.
    Unfortunately, he was opposed in those two finals by two of the three greatest players of all time in peak form. Bad luck!
     
  6. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Why are you so caught up with numbers of titles? This is NOT how the great pros themselves rate the tennis greats. They look at the LEVEL OF PLAY a player was able to achieve, and how well they fared against other great players.
    Simply looking at titles is an armchair sport, and a copout to actually looking at the strengths and weaknesses of a player's game.
     
  7. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    LOL, so if a 100 years old man said none of these experts are correct because they never saw Tilden play. So if he said Tilden is the goat and all the experts who only saw tennis after Tilden's era must agree. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. These experts like Steve Flink have learned/studied and know enough to rank these player.

    Whether you quoted Laver was true or not, all he said is the match between Hoad/Federer would be the greatest match of all time. He never stated Hoad is the greatest of all time, you're trying to twist his words, lol. However, Laver stated Roger is the best.
     
  8. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    because, the # titles is the most objective measure, weighted by another quasi-objective measure, the importance of each title. the rest of purely subjective.

    Even if you go by level of play or achievements or faring against other great players, few can parallel Federer. YET, you'll find some "historians" rank Federer outside the top 5. sorry, it reeks of bias, and it has to be called out.
     
  9. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    Highest level of play is subjective. And if someone can answer that question(which is impossible), peak level of player isn't as important as consistency. The only objective in evaluating greatness is numbers. Facts like records/streaks, level of domination are the criteria. This is how it's judge, and goat players like Jerry Rice or Gretzky is widely considered a goat to their respective sports because of their ridicuous stats, and hold many records.
     
  10. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    I do not follow your logic.
    I am not suggesting that we restrict our ratings to the views of Allison Danzig, who could be very subjective in his admiration of Tilden, but rather listen to what the players themselves say about their experiences playing against each other.
    Laver rated Hoad number one of the pre-open players, as I stated earlier, and stated that a Hoad/Fed match would be the greatest ever. Simple.
     
  11. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Number of titles is the LEAST objective measure, because there is no consideration of availability of events or the level of competition.
     
  12. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    But why did you stated Mac, Borg and Sampras never saw Hoad or Gonzales? You're implying their opinion don't count, but only yours count.

    Laver only said Hoad is the greatest in pre-open era(your quote). However, he said Roger is the greatest. Period !
     
  13. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    how can level of competition be objective? For instance (and just for illustration, so that no one gets their undies in a twist), Laver could be a 5.5 who played alongside a bunch of 5.0s, while Federer could be a 8.0 who played alongside 7.0s.... how do you measure competition now? heck, the mere rating of level of play is as subjective as it gets.

    If # slams available is not an objective measure, then Laver's CYGS should not be celebrated as the pinnacle of tennis achievements!
     
  14. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    Yes it is....stats are the only objective metrics. Opinion is subjective, and lead to bias left and right.





    It's best that you and all the old-timers avoid bringing up about strong/weak competition. Because tennis and other sports further raises the level/bar higher. Only posters in this "Laver Forum" would argue that sports get worsen overtime.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2012
  15. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, I'm sorry, you are again wrong in two points.

    Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez did not only rank Hoad regarding his peak. Actually they ranked all mentioned players along their peaks. It's just a coincidence that Gonzalez, Laver and maybe Federer are tops also regarding achievements. Don't confuse this with peak level! As the ranking players are no idiots they surely are aware that Hoad does not deserve the No.1 place regarding achievements and that Lew does not deserve even a place among the top ten with regard of achievements!!!

    Achievements don't mean only number of tournaments won. They include majors won, major finals reached, years in top ten, years as No.1 and so on.
     
  16. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, For you every poster is biased who does not call Federer the undisputed GOAT...
     
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, I agree that stats are the objective measure. But how can you claim then that Laver's and Rosewall's numbers are less worth than Federer's?
     
  18. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    Here's the funny thing, I'm a Federer fan but I also acknowledge others have achievements worthy of being the greatest. I'm not a Rosewall fan but I do like his style. I'm not a Connors fan either. Heck perhaps my favorite and my wife's was Henri Leconte and Federer would beat him the huge majority of the time.

    My favorites of today are Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Ferrer. I like Nalbanian a lot too but he's not near what he used to be. Loved Nalbanian's backhand.

    I'm not a Babe Ruth fan either but I acknowledge him as perhaps the greatest baseball player of all time.

    The thing is that I've been watching tennis since I was a kid and I would like to think I have some perspective. So I generally like to wait a while until the player's career is over to fully evaluate his career. Incidentally I used to root against Laver for your information.

    You're clearly very partial and that is fine but don't get paranoid because I try to put things in perspective. People in the past used to say while McEnroe was playing that he was the clear GOAT but I thought he still had a few years to go before you could consider him to be. Does anyone now consider McEnroe the GOAT? Very few. Many thought Sampras was the clear GOAT because of his record 14 majors. I thought that he wasn't that dominant and that another player may overshadow him. Guess who broke the Sampras majors record a short time later? Federer of course.

    Tennis has a very odd history to say the least so we have to try to put the records in perspective. Did you notice that I wrote that Federer's majors record was clearly superior to Sampras today in another post? People often write that Sampras is 14-4 in finals but I wrote that is misleading and clearly Federer's record in majors was better. Did you notice that? I'm written that Federer could have the best forehand and overall movement in history. Do you remember that? I've also written that Federer's style is extremely smooth and he avoids injuries because of that.

    I just try to put the Pro and Amateur divide in the past in perspective. If you don't then tennis history would be super confusing.

    Put it this way I acknowledge Federer's 17 classic majors as a great achievement. Is it also bad that I acknowledge Laver's 200 tournament win as a great achievement? Or Rosewall's 23 pro and amateur majors. Or Steffi Graf's Grand Slam? Or Nadal's many French Open? What about Laver's Open Grand Slam? I think Gonzalez's many head to head tour victories were a fantastic feat.

    Federer's has achieve a lot and he is an all time great. But is it wrong for me to acknowledge greats like Jack Kramer with whom I don't think is the GOAT but I do think he accomplished enough to have some perhaps minor consideration for it?

    I think Pedro Martinez is the greatest starting pitcher I've ever seen at his peak. But I also acknowledge that Tom Seaver was a great pitcher and if someone said Seaver was superior. I could understand that.

    To me Federer has so much in his favor but so do many other greats. Dan Lobb thinks Hoad is the greatest of all time. I disagree. But you know what, a lot of people think Hoad was the greatest ever.

    So please, don't accuse me of bias. We all have some bias, that's just human nature but I'm not the one who thinks Federer should be in another tier. He is great but I don't think he's that great.
     
  19. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    Djokovic = or > Hoad's level right now as far as I am concerned. You keep bringing up this dude's name time and time again in various convos for best ever, or best peak ever, but that list is incredibly short, and none of Hoad's feats are worthy of this incredible hype.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2012
  20. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    In the Sydney article, he hedged on that, and said that Hoad and Fed would have to play off against each other to determine the greatest.

    Mac, Borg, and Sampras count when they discuss something that they saw or experienced.
     
  21. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Right, I do not celebrate them as THE pinnacle. Whom did Laver beat?
    A Rosewall past his prime, Newcombe in the Wimbledon final (who complained of back trouble from sleeping on the floor that week), Roche just barely, Emerson at Forest Hills just barely, ...lots of VERY GOOD players, but not a top ten all-time at his peak, not a Gonzales or Hoad at their peak. That would have been something to celebrate.
    Gonzales gave an interview that same year with Anderson and the NY Times to emphasize the point. "Laver intimidates players by flicking the ball [with his wrist action] but Hoad would have flicked it back."
    Gonzales knew what he was talking about.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2012
  22. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    You have to consider whether or not a player was ELIGIBLE to play, and you have to consider the STRENGTH of the field.
    This is just common sense, and only an ARMCHAIR commentator would look at only a list of titles.
     
  23. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Longevity is not the only measure of level of play. Actually, many athletes reach the highest level for only a few years, but are rated at the top because they demonstrated a brilliance beyond any other player.
    Which is greater? To win a Wimbledon title where the field boasts Fraser, Cooper, Anderson, Olmedo (as it did in 1958)), or to win at Forest Hills against Hoad, Gonzales, Rosewall, Trabert, Sedgman, Cooper, Anderson, Segura, Rose, Giammalva. Which victory is more significant?

    I am curious that you consider Hoad to be deficient in achievement. That is strange.
    He had great achievements between 1952 and 1964, which is a time-frame comparable to Sampras or Borg.
    I don't see it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2012
  24. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    "This dude" is rated at number one all-time by some other dudes; Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Sedgman, Krishnan, Anderson, Emerson, Roche (Federer's coach, remember him?), Buchholz (who hung out with the greatest players).

    I hate to say this, but the REAL experts are the dudes who swing the raquets and measure themselves against the best.
     
  25. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    This is precisely my point - I am giving Rosewall credit for winning those amateur slams from 1953-1956, along with the Davis Cup during that period. This proves to me that he was a great player already and hardly, if at all, removed from his 'prime'.

    You guys seem to want it both ways;

    1). Give credit to Rosewall for winning titles in early/mid 1950s, and in early 1970s
    2). Not give him demerits fgor compiling a 0-4 record in W finals in those periods

    The guy, during those periods, won 8 majors (4 AO, 2 US, 2 FO), the Davis Cup, 2 WCT finals. He was obviously a top, top player. And yet he lost 4 out of 4 Wimbledon finals. I cannot excuse this blemish given that he was winning everywhere else. He clearly had a psychological issue at this tournament and his failure to win it, despite reaching so many finals, means he cannot be GOAT.






    Incorrect analogy. Federer in 2001 was a young guy reaching his first slam QFs (at the FO and W) and was not ranked in the top ten.

    Rosewall won FOUR majors in the period 1953-56 plus the Davis Cup, he was not "too young and inexperienced" to win Wimbledon. He simply could not do it psychologically.


    Gonzales is a different case as I have mentioned previously.

    And for the last time, yes I can penalize a guy who reached FIVE (if we include Wimbledon pro) finals and did not win a single one!
     
  26. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    and notable greats (borg, sampras, laver) have singled out Fed in that GOAT deparment (see TMF's quotes, and yes they are legit quotes). Thing is Fed has the stats to back those acclaims. Hoad doesn't (and frankly I think nostalgia is major factor of their praise for him). See below:

    I stand by my Djoko-Hoad statement.

    Djokovic.
    5 majors for Djoko, 2 times year end number 1, 2 year end titles, 34 titles. several other slam finals. 1 incredible year with 3 slams and 1 semi, including a crazy streak of consecutive wins and dominance. Based on that you can say he's a great all time player, but no GOAT material clearly. Very high level of play, but pales in comparison to Laver (grand slams) or Fed (what Djoko did in 2011, Federer had several similarly incredible seasons, and with stronger finishing touch towards the end topping them off with a year ending title). Still playing, so legacy will only continue to improve further. Uber level rivals: Fed, Nadal. Having said that, not quite in their league (though he may get closer to their level or even surpass one of them, but it's a long shot).

    Hoad
    4 majors for Hoad. Let's give him that TOC, so 5. He's got quite a few pro finals, but only won 1 of them, I see quite few losses by Rosewall there, and Gonzales (yet they praise him so much huh?)...quite a few of them (hardly worthy of uber level of play hype Hoad is known for). I'm going by wikipedia, with 27 career titles (if you are willing to add some exhibitions here throw them my way :oops:). He had that one incredible season where he came close to winning all 4 majors, but couldn't pull it off (he's got company in this department, many have tried, but only Budge and Laver pulled this off). Uber level rivals: Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver. Not as good as them. Also I don't see top ranking, only a bunch of runner up rankings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_1_male_tennis_player_rankings

    Quite similar, not GOAT material. Not greatest peak (also not long lasting peak as well).

    Most overrated player in the entire forum (considering the high placement he gets).
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2012
  27. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I don't deny Federer is better than Sampras, but you care far too much about percentages, and I think you underrate Sampras due to your obsession with them.

    Personally I have more admiration for a guy like Sampras who played on into his early 30s when in severe decline, and ended up with a 'relatively low' winning percentage of slams entered, but won more in total (14) than a guy like Borg who quit while near peak due to issues with the tennis authorities and thus remained stuck on 11 but with a much higher winning percentage.
     
  28. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
     
  29. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    Actually I wasn't trying to disagree with you. I was just pointing out some flaws I saw in some people's reasoning aka some tennis writers. I like Sampras myself. Thought he could be boring at times but there are many memorable matches.

    I use the percentages to try to look at things objectively. If you call it obsession well I call it examining all the factors.
     
  30. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    Whatever. 11 char.
     
  31. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Sio I hope for next year's inspiration of D. L.

    Now you expand Hoad's feats even to 1952!?!
     
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, You are curious? It's strange? Well, I'm in a convenient position when considering Lew Hoad: Most or all true experts agree that Hoad's achievements don't qualify him for the top ten, not to talk about No.1.

    But I concede that Lew has achieved more than a Cooper, Anderson, Fraser and Olmedo...
     
  33. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Regarding Hoad I can respect that many of his peers who are amongst the best ever, some who people think are the best ever, say his peak playing level was the highest ever. It might well have been. However for me that is not enough to elevate his career into even top 10 given his results, which while the context is so different to today, for instance his not being named even the consensus #1 of any given year, just the possible co-#1 of 1 or maybe 2 years according to some.

    That said I do respect people like Dan Lobb who value peak level play, quality of competition, and the varying factors of luck play into a persons results (and in that sense injury marred Hoad was probably one of the unluckiest ever) and his choice to rank Hoad at or near #1 all time. That just wouldnt be me. I would still rank him top 15 or top 20 based on his playing level though, even though his results argaubly arent even that high.
     
  34. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix1983,

    Yes, I give Rosewall credit for his superb achievements when young and old but not in his prime. And yes I don't give him dismerits for not winning Wimbledon. That's why I and others are ranking him very high and a GOAT candidate. Greatness is if you can achieve great feats even though you are NOT in your prime. But highest level you can reach only in your prime!

    If you would understand how sports work you would know that a prime player is better than a not prime player, I repeat myself, I repeat myself...

    You still cannot explain your doubled standard of Rosewall and Gonzalez as far as their feats or not feats as a young players are concerned. It's a shame.

    Yes Rosewall was unexperienced when being young. Several experts have written that Muscles learned to volley rightly only after meeting the pros. In the 1954 final he was ill-adviced by his coach, Hopman, to stay at the baseline. Rosewall would probably have played better if he went more to the net even though , as told, he was not in his peak regarding the art of volleying.

    I rank Rosewall's volley in his prime as of the class of Laver, Newcombe, Roche, McEnroe and Edberg...

    If Rosewall would have had psychological problems at W. he would not have reached five finals against strong opposition...
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2012
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NadalAgassi, I nevertheless cannot understand Dan's stubborness of claiming that Hoad is No.1 all-time also regarding achievements and that Laver, Gonzalez and others have ranked him No.1 that way.

    I would rank Lew at No.15 regarding achievements but I concede that he possibly was the very best when being "on".
     
  36. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Yes I cant see by any objective measure whatsoever how Hoad is anywhere near #1 all time in achievements either. Laver, Gonzales, and Rosewall all achieved so much, there is no comparision in that category.
     
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NadalAgassi, Tomorrow is end of the world.... Let's hope that Dan will have good views in a "second world"....
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2012
  38. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Alex Corretja never won a major. He was runner-up at the 1998 and 2001 French Opens. He did win the 1998 World Championships in Hanover (now the World Tour Finals).
     
  39. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    No I don't believe he's the undisputed goat, but his placement/consideration is above everyone else.


    Because every tournament has different value. You think this year Cilic winning Queen is equal to Roger Wimbledon? They both are have 1 title on grass, so they have accomplished equally on grass, according to you, right?

    I don't rate the pro majors and especially the amateur slams in the same league as the modern slams. Sorry if I hurt your feeling.
     
  40. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    Thanks forzamilan90.

    I've also reviewed Hoad's career achievements and I see both Nole and Hoad are on equal terms.
     
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, There is a tiny difference between Cilic at Queen's Club and Laver/Rosewall at their winning tournaments: The latter had stronger competition.

    When Laver and Rosewall won their majors, they did have at least as strong competition as Federer and Nadal have.
     
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix1983, Rosewall in 1953 to 1956 was far away from his prime. For instance he lost at Wimbledon twice to Nielsen, in Davis Cup once to Seixas. Do you really believe that a 1962 Rosewall would lose to Seixas and Nielsen of the 1950s?

    Only an ignorant can deny that Rosewall, as every player, had a prime in which he was stronger than before and past prime.
     
  43. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    Just trying to put some things into perspective. Among the things which I find ludicrous on this forum the Hoad GOAT hype is one of the most ridiculous objectively speaking
     
  44. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    My bad. I wanted an exemple of a two slam winner with nearly nothing else. Maybe Bruguera. What I mean is that titles is not everything in tennis.
     
  45. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    It's really one person writing that.
     
  46. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    I would agree with you. Peak level is not just one match but at least one year or a number of years. Hoad had too many losses whether it was due to injury or just not caring to qualify.
     
  47. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    I know, same with kiki's Kodes rave. I mean come on now. Still though, it's emphatic and repetitive and considering the small population of this sub-forum it stands out as a highlight
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2012
  48. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    Yes but the person does believe that. But I will write that a number of people do believe Hoad is the GOAT. I usually go by record and I just don't see it.

    Hoad apparently was about as impressive as a player could be when you watch him.

    I often prefer the subtle aspects of the game. I often prefer economical players when very smooth silky movement with elegant strokes. Actually I like that in any sport or activity.

    That is why I love the game of Ken "Muscles" Rosewall, the other Magic Twin of Lew Hoad. His footwork was very smooth. He never seemed rushed yet he covered a tremendous amount of ground. Because of that Rosewall was able to make shots without being rushed that others would have to run for. He had the ability to anticipate where the shot was going to be returned so he could often volley shots that others would have to let bounce and hit as a groundstroke. His shots were hit with surprising pace even if he wasn't known for power. And of course he rarely made errors. In some ways I compare him to the legendary chessplayer Jose Capablanca aka the Chess Machine who wasn't flashy but yet with his lack of flash in his game he was spectacular. To Capa the game wasn't a battle but he was like an artist and the game was his brushstrokes. Rosewall in that way was similar. It's hard to explain Rosewall with mere video clips but you have to watch him over a series of matches.
     
  49. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    It's tough to find footage of these guys. Rosewall I get and believe the hype.
     
  50. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Perspective? I don't see any in this remark.
     

Share This Page