Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

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

  1. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    hoodjem, by the way I rank Mozart 3 or 4 (rather four, just behind Bach) and Haydn not among the top ten. I rank at least Händel, Wagner, Mahler, Brahms, Bruckner and Saint-Saens ahead of Haydn.

    I wish you impressive listening of Mozart's best works including Don Giovanni, Die Zauberflöte, KV 516, 543, 550, 551, 421...
     
  2. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, The point is that I claim that Haydn only reached a certain level after having learnt from Mozart.
     
  3. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,006
    Incidentally, Newcombe was not the only player to beat both Emerson and Gimeno at Wimbledon.
    There were at least two others who did the same.
    One was Laver, the other was Ramanathan Krishnan (in 1960 over Gimeno and 1961 over Emerson).
    This puts Bedard's achievement into perspective (he beat Krishnan, Emerson, and Osuna in important matches.)
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2013
  4. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Krishnan,Osuna,Pietrangeli and Santana
    Who said ams game was boring?
     
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, Boring was only the boom-boom tennis of Emerson and Stolle...
     
  6. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I understand you may not like the classic serve and volley game, but even Ken Rosewall came in on most of his first serves on a fast surface.

    There are different ways to enjoy tennis.Now, Rosewall I always enjoyed many aspects of his game, which somewhat can be called as unique.But that does not mean I can appreciate some patterns from Stolle or from Emerson.
     
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, I blame Emerson and Stolle for their rather one-sided game. You are right that Rosewall sometimes played serve and volley but he was more versatile than his two compatriots. Laver and Rosewall were in their own league.
     
  8. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Of course both are in a class apart
    But Murray and Djoker are one sided too
    Most current pros are
     
  9. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,466
    Kiki,

    I beg to differ with Andy Murray. I think he's perhaps the most versatile player in tennis today. He has a huge first serve if he want to go for it. He's improved his second serve. He has a nice variety of spin and angles. He can drop shot very well. Brad Gilbert believes Murray may be the fastest man in tennis although Nadal and Djokovic may sustain it better over five sets. I think his volley is very good and he has good hands at the net. Of course he has one of the best returns in tennis with solid strokes on both sides.

    Of course Murray often doesn't use all his skills but at least he has them.

    I like Djokovic but it seems to me that he is not as versatile as Murray.

    Hey Kiki,

    Did you ever think of starting a John Newcombe thre
    ad?
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2013
  10. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Wether he can do all that or not doesn't matter because he doens't do it.
     
  11. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,466
    Flash,

    You've seen him drop shot very effectively. You've seen the guy overpower top players in the past year when he often didn't do it in the past. You've seen the guy play super defensive tennis if need be. He does do it but sometimes he get carried away with one way. For example he has used the drop shot too much in the past and it has sometimes burnt him. All I'm saying is that he has all the shots imo unlike others who only have one game plan. Murray at least has the ability like Laver or many greats to change his game and win.

    I couldn't say that about Agassi for example, great as he was. If Agassi was losing the only option he had was to play his own game better.
     
  12. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Keep on boards within 2 hrs and your command will be my order
    You will have a Newcombe thread and granted your permission I may happen to mix up some Kodes in between and I probably wont be able to some mentions on a great marketing agent:)agent
    Now I am getting home and my kid will be my owner for a while
    You are right on Murray
    The only comment TMF is right is my lack of interest in currenr game, which me follows very aporadically
    If you want to open the Newk one, I will be a loyal poster:-o
     
  13. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I saw Don Giovannni in Prague last summer. An unusual but interesting production (with a young boy dressed all in white as Giovanni's soul leading him to hell at the end).

    The others perhaps yes, but as much as I love Bruckner, I would not rank him above "the father of the symphony and the string quartet." Saint-Saens is okay.
     
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    hoodjem, Thanks for your post. I think you are an intelligent man who offered great lists about tennis. So I only would be glad if you would be impressed by my four favourite composers, Schubert, Beethoven, Bach and Mozart.

    Don Giovanni is one of only five or six operas which I am able to listen to. Most operas are too long for me and too superficial. The others are Fidelio, Die Zauberflöte, Carmen and Samson and Delilah.

    I like that you accept Saint-Saens who is often blamed for eclecticism In fact S.-S. has proved that it's possible to write beautiful music also in 20th century (as also the Beatles have proved by the way).
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2013
  15. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,466
    Let's hope your Newk thread will spark some nice posts. Newcombe was certainly a great player and interesting to say the least.
     
  16. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    he's not , federer is still playing ...

    yeah, problem is murray doesn't use/display his versatility enough ... he rarely plays aggressively. I thought maybe he was going to turn over a new leaf after the semi vs federer @ the AO, but he went back to playing pusher tennis vs novak in the final ....

    while he has better hands than novak @ the net, he comes in quite a bit lesser than him ....
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2013
  17. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,654
    Location:
    Weak era
    Fed's variety consists in winning through sheer luck, weak era, his opponents' being tired/unmotivated/not mature enough etc.
     
  18. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Federer has a more complete game than Murray.But that does not mean he is a complete player.He ain´t any Laver, for instance.
     
  19. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Many people think Newcombe was a one dimensional player.He was not.he had a sensational attacking FH, one of the best I´ve ever seen and could keep it up with an effective although not offensive BH ( he could chip and come in very well, tough).see the way he dismantled mighty Connors in the 75 AO.

    He is very underrated at lobbing, but he could hit this shot with the best.He was clever and could switch tactics from day to day, because he was very strong menthally.

    But of course, he had one of the best ever serves and a very good volley to back it up.
     
  20. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Surprisingly, we seem to share many of the same tastes. I would rank my composers:
    1. Beethoven
    2. Bach
    3. Schubert
    4. Des Prez
    5. Machaut

    I am a big fan of Sibelius, Bruckner, and Vaughan Williams also. I do appreciate some Mozart, but mostly only the late stuff--from K. 475 on. The earlier music seems immaculately composed but not very deep to me. Die Zauberflöte and Fidelio, and maybe Othello are about the only operas I can stand. Unfortunately, almost every time I go somewhere I can get tickets to a quality opera production, it is of La Boheme. So I have seen that maybe 20 times--unfortunately.

    This summer I shall see Rossini's The Barber of Seville in Vienna. We shall see . . .
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2013
  21. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    As for living composers, I am fond of Arvo Pärt.

    Haydn is a recent infatuation of mine. I almost like it that everyone under-rates him. I can thus discover many hidden, overlooked treasures in the symphonies, piano sonatas, string quartets, and piano trios. His work is rather subtle--no wild swings of emotional range (therefore little popularity).
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2013
  22. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Schubert can fit in as number 4.Bach,Beethoven and Mozart are the top three.for nº 4, there are others: List,Chopin,Mahler,Mendhelson,Ratchmaninoff and, of course, Tchaikovsky.
     
  23. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I would say that Mozart is the Borg of composers (both famous for achieving vast success and adulation at a young age), except that Mozart is renowned as being the most naturally talented/ingenious of composers, whereas Borg is renowned more for consistency not genius.
     
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

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

    I cannot say something about Des Prez and Machaut. Too long away...

    I love Beethoven because of his positive attitude, his ability to give pure joy. And his versatility. He masters so many styles. He can compose like Bach, like Schubert, like Mozart. He has written more great works than any other composer.

    Schubert has written so many first-class songs plus several perfect symphonies, sonatas, quartetts.

    I love Vaughan Williams's Fantasy on Greensleeves. That song is possibly the most melancholic song at all and maybe the best melody ever written...

    I like Bruckner's 4th and 7th symphony.

    Sibelius is great: Karelia Suite, Violin Concerto, Symphonies...

    I especially love the fourth movement of his second symphony: great and deeply felt music!

    I accept Mozart mostly only from KV 300 onwards with a few exceptions: 136, 250,183...
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2013
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    hoodjem, "not wild swings of emotional range": That's excatly why I cannot like Haydn. Music is at his best when giving deepest felt emotions...
     
  26. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, You are right: In classical music there are many first-class composers, apart of those you have invented like Mendhelson, Ratchmaninoff...

    In rock music there is much trash, alas.
     
  27. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix, In my opinion Mozart is a bit overrated in comparison to Schubert, f.i.
     
  28. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,006
    You might enjoy lesser known operas more.
    When my wife and I went to Paris, we enjoyed the production of Le Roi Malgre Lui by Chabrier, at the Opera Comique, with the Orchestre de Paris in the pit, much more than the big budget production at the Bastille.
    And at the Met in New York we enjoyed Nabucco more than Trovatore.
    Expect the unexpected.
    But in the end, Bach and Beethoven are the tops.
     
  29. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, Your music ranking seems more reasonable than your tennis ranking...
     
  30. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,006
    You mean that Hoad and Gonzales are not the Bach and Beethoven of tennis?
     
  31. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I mean that Rosewall is the Schubert of tennis (both tops and underrated), Laver the Beethoven, Gonzalez the Bach and Tilden the Mozart. Just four giants in both fields.

    Hoad could rank as Brahms or Mahler, still on a very high place....
     
  32. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,006
    Let's try this;

    Tennis Music

    1) Hoad Bach
    2) Gonzales Beethoven
    3) Laver Mozart
    4) Federer Wagner
    5) Rosewall Handel
    6) Budge Brahms
    7) Vines Verdi
    8) Kramer Debussy
    9) Sampras Mahler
    10) Borg Bartok
    11) McEnroe Berlioz
    12) Sedgman Stravinsky

    There is no point-by-point similarity here, other than relative stature.
    The music list is top-weighted with Germans and Austrians, the tennis list with Australians and Americans.
    The composers belong to an older era.
     
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, Interesting double list.

    There are two big missing men in your lists: Tilden and Schubert!

    I confess that I don't like Debussy.

    Yes, it's a phenomenon that the top classic composers were from Austria and Germany. Stravinsky is the only classic composer of your list who lived long enough to reach the great Australians in tennis. He died in 1971.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2013
  34. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,006
    Yes, many (including Philip Downs, author of Classical Music, who rates Wagner below Schubert) would put Schubert high.
    I like his last four piano sonatas, the E flat Mass, and the String Quintet, but much of his music I find brooding and sad. Not my taste.
    Debussy and Stravinsky were dominating influences, although I prefer Bartok, whose music has proven to have more staying power.

    Tilden was brilliant, but I doubt that he was superior to Williams of 1914-16, and Allison Danzig claimed that Tilden played his absolute greatest match in the 1927 Forest Hills final against Lacoste, which he lost in straight sets.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2013
  35. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    there is much trash in any human activity, including all types of music.

    Fortunately, I also enjoyed, not just the Golden Era of Tennis, but also the Golden Era of Music¡¡¡
     
  36. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    There is 5 gmusical genious in the whole mankind history, that rank alone in the Olimpus:

    Bach,Beethoven,Mozart,Miles Davis and Jimmy Page

    Leonardo,Van Gogh,Picasso,Rembrandt and Buonarroti for painting...
     
  37. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,553
    is that an opinion or fact?
     
  38. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    of course, an opinion...based on facts and the level of artristry than one perceives.

    What´s yours'
     
  39. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,553
    oh when it comes to artistry it's all so subjective. There's no right answer there.
     
  40. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    One thing is artristry ( there haave been many extraordinary) and the other is genious: the ability to take things and leave them in another level before you took them.I talked about genious.
     
  41. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,553
    ok some of the people I consider geniuses in that field of creativity:
    composers (Beethoven, Mozart, etc.)
    musicians (Led zep, george michael, pink floyd, jean michele jarre, tiesto, tupac, marvin gaye, a bunch of bulgarian musicians that you wouldn't know, etc. this is where i can go on and list a 100, i see geniuses in all types of music)
     
  42. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I talk about what I know, not about what i don´t.

    Probably there have been also genious-like musicians in Africa we never heard of.

    To me, the difference of a genious and an artrist is the fact that the genious sets new standarts.
     
  43. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    This is for popular (rock era) musicians only;

    1. Roger Federer = John Lennon
    2. Rod Laver = Paul McCartney
    3. Pete Sampras = Bob Dylan
    4. Bjorn Borg = Jimmy Page
    5. Rafael Nadal = Jimi Hendrix
    6. Ken Rosewall = Bob Marley
    7. Pancho Gonzales = Elvis Presley
    8. Don Budge = Jim Morrison
    9. Bill Tilden = Michael Jackson
    10. Ivan Lendl = Pink Floyd (as a whole)
     
  44. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,553
    hahahahahahaha raise your hand if anybody else understood the connotation!
     
  45. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Ahh, yes. Jimmy Page--a great composer.:-?

    Many wonderful symphonies.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2013
  46. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Pop has nothing to do with rock.
     
  47. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Much better than journeyman Bartok or journeyman Strauss...
     
  48. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    ?

    I said "popular (rock era) musicians" - didn't say all of them performed rock music, but they are all famous from the mid-1950s onwards, considered the 'rock era' of popular music history.
     
  49. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    it´s OK.

    Golden Era started in the late 50´s and kept till late 80´s or very early 90´s

    I´d say mid 70´s would be the peak.Of course, led Zeppelin were the peak of the peak...
     
  50. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,553

Share This Page