Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by 90's Clay, Aug 22, 2012.
joe sch, I would agree. I just would omit the "h" from Novak's name ;-)
Absolutely. If anything, it should be a "ć".
But what about Borg 8?
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
The problems with conflating pre-open majors and non-traditional majors with traditional open majors are two fold: (1) pre-open amateur and pro majors are not the equivalent of open majors and, in my view, disrespects, discounts and diminishes the value of winning an open major, and (2) if you are going to do it for Rosewall, then you have to do it for everyone. On that basis, by my estimation, Laver has 36 major titles.
If we're including amateur and pro majors in this I think the YEC should be included - Borg also has 11 classic majors not 8.
Then shouldn't the TCC and ALL of the "pro majors," pre-open and open era, be included? What about the 1970 Dunlop International? Wasn't it the defacto AO that year?
And then Emerson makes the list of leaders.
Erm no? I've already said that I don't think we should lump all these different types of tournaments together as one. My point was that if the standards for major status are so varried and low then the YEC should be included. I don't want to have to explain this again...
Dunlop should be considered a major though due to the absence of a suitable AO IMO.
Well I wouldn't include amateur majors at all personally.
Then you have to deduct those amateur majors from Laver and Rosewall....you cannot have two standards.
Have you seen me list major counts for any players recently?
I have repeated this several times:
"The problems with conflating pre-open majors [amateur and pro] and non-traditional majors with traditional open majors are two fold: (1) pre-open amateur and pro majors are not the equivalent of open majors and, in my view, disrespects, discounts and diminishes the value of winning an open major, and (2) if you are going to do it for Rosewall, then you have to do it for everyone. On that basis, by my estimation, Laver has 36 major titles."
I don't want to have to explain this again, either!
So, you have said that they YEC and the Dunlop should be included in the major count. What about the TCC? Wasn't that bigger, more prestigious than any traditional major? It was higher paying than all of the traditional majors combined.
Your first point implies that you don't think counting majors in this way is correct, your second point makes it clear you're doing this primarily as device against Rosewall.
Seems like I was spot on.
Answer this instead of copying me...Ignoring what anyone might say of Rosewall's major count, how many majors do you think Laver won? If you say 36 then you are perpetuating the standard as opposed to just applying it.
Nope. I have said the Dunlop should be in the major count and the YEC in some years is absolutely a major because of the diminished status of the AO. I have only said that every YEC should be in the major count if we're including amateur and pro majors on a one to one basis (with Open Era majors). I believe the YEC is at least equal with the Pro Majors in terms of prestige and value.
The TCC in 1971 (IIRC) was a huge tournament, I consider that a major as well. I prefer to look at each of these non-traditional tournaments on an individual basis - I don't necessarily include the 1970 TCC as a major. The YEC in some years is absolutely a major because of the diminished status of the AO.
Reading comprehension deficit, indeed. In any event, if you are counting the YEC and the Dunlop, then it logically follows that any event that was determined to be more prestigious than the YEC or Dunlop (if such a thing can be objectively determined), should be included in the total list of majors.
I guess you didn't want to answer my question. Carry on being disingenuous, your stock is falling. At this point I'm not sure if you're dense or just a tool.
I guess you have no interest in having a reasonable debate. I have no interest in your sarcasm.
I've been trying to discuss things reasonably. You refuse to offer anything resembling a debate. I asked your honest opinion on how many majors Laver has - ignoring what anyone might claim about Rosewall - but you didn't answer. You've ignored the holes in your points and have been repeating my quips back at me. Offer something reasonable and logically consistent before trying to take the high road with me.
IMHO makes no sense to talk about the majors .
Even in 2015 the 4 slam not have equal importance . Wimbledon > US > RG >> Aus .
In 70 years the real majors were maybe 2 !
Before, they were 3 or 5 or 7 . Boh .
It makes no sense , I repeat , try 4 majors before 1990 .
In some years, the Dunlop > slam , to start 70 Dallas > RG , in some years the US Pro Indoor was a major, the master GP 77 >> RG .
Any WCT 1971 tournament , or Los Angeles South Pacific beginning 70 or Seiko Super 80 years ..... or US Pro to Boston or Washington Star >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a slam amateur
Limpin, Same standard for Rosewall and Laver: Rosewall 25; Laver 19. You can add Wimbledon '67, Dunlop '70 and TCC '71 for Laver and you get: Rosewall 25 and Laver 22.
Thought you will learn from your many disproved errors in your Laver list of 36 but you won't...
Limpinhitter; You were not able f.i. to read exactly the Australian Pro titles for Laver and Rosewall (There even were no Australian Pro titles at all in the 1960's; Wikipedia is wrong and you ignored my hint to that!). It's a shame!
The 1970 TCC was not a big event. The 1971 TCC was a big event but still way under Wimbledon, AO and US Open (and maybe French Open).
NatF, Reasonable post. As mentioned Limpinhitter made several severe mistakes in his Laver 36 majors list such as counting some "Australian Pro" titles for Laver but no "Australian Pro" title for Rosewall even though the numbers he found were on the same Wikipedia page and on the same championship roll!!! krosero and I have already hinted to that error but Limpinhitter still refuses to correct it. Apart from that there was no Australian Pro in the 1960's at all as Rosewall once assured me. Wikipedia has some wrong data.There were some more errors in his list of 36 majors.
It's bad to be pro-Rosewall biased but it's at least as bad to be anti-Rosewall biased!
For sure and also give Bjorn his 11 big wins !
Sure, for someone who is 'pleading' for consistent standards for all he's made a really half assed attempt of it. Like I said if he really thinks Laver won 36 majors that is something we can debate, however his agenda with this is all to clear and his posts lack sincerity.
@NatF @Limpinhitter @BobbyOne : Appreciate your debates and reasoning on slam equivalent counts for GOATs. One suggestion, it would nice to see your rankings and totals. This would really help the casual browsers get a better feel for what the actual counts are for the greats that we know have totals that surpass today open GOATS.
I'm not sure what you mean by rankings and totals. I would merely say that, in my view, it isn't fair or productive (to anyone) to compare major totals between players who played there entire careers in the open era with those who didn't. KG convincingly argues that it isn't productive to count the traditional majors as equals before 1990. Further, if you are going to include events that are not traditional majors, then there is very little limit to what can be argued should be considered a major, year to year. For example, if the 1970 Dunlop International was the true Australian major for the year because the AO had such a weak field, then you have to add one major to Laver's total and subtract one from Rosewall's total. Further, if a "pro major," should be included in the totals, then why shouldn't a pro major, with an equivalently tough draw in 1968, 1969, 1970, etc., not be just as much a major as it was in 1967?
The bottom line is that, to put Rosewall at the top of the list with 25 majors and pretend that those titles are somehow of equal status as Federer's 17 open, traditional majors, or Sampras' and Nadal's 14 open, traditional majors is, to put it diplomatically, ridiculous. For the sake of honest comparison, the correct number for Rosewall is 4 and for Laver 5, unless the Dunlop and not the AO was the genuine Aussie major for 1970, in which case the correct numbers would be 3 for Rosewall and 6 for Laver. It is regrettable that they and other greats were deprived of the opportunity to play traditional open majors for all or most of their careers, but, it is what it is. And, that does not justify a dishonest comparison which diminishes and disrespects the value and status of winning an open, traditional major.
Limpin, You will never learn. Your bias is without any borders.
What do you want to subtract from Rosewall's total? Your hate against Rosewall is so great that you believe Rosewall was the winner of the 1970 AO. I can assure you: he wasn't!
I have explained the reason why it's absurd to value old pro majors as majors in open era (the GS tournaments were mostly the big events).
Your mathematics is breath-taking!
Djokovic2011, Your top eight are also mine but in different order. An example: I value Rosewall's achievements much higher than Nadal's. 25 majors vs. 14 majors.
What would your order be Bobby?
Nadal has won 14 traditional open majors. Rosewall won 4.
Separate names with a comma.