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.
Okay, Limpin, Then your darling Laver is much worse than Nadal as he won only poor 5.
Djokovic should be above Nadal IMO. Borg over Tilden (and Rosewall) as well - but that's just my preference
I do agree that pre and post open players really should not be compared. The transitional players playing both periods do help with understanding the GOATness when looking at respective wins and percentages, amateur vs pro. Since you dont want to provide a combined list with your title counts, why not provide a pre-open and open lists with your rankings ? Ranking criteria would also help justify your numbers. I know it will lead to more debates but atleast another listing will be provided for faster reviews.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that you can't compare major title totals between players from different eras who did not have the same opportunity to win the same major titles during their careers. Since there is no consensus on what should qualify as a major title, I don't see the point of making such a list.
In another thread, I listed my personal opinion of the GOAT candidates based primarily on my opinion of their sustained peak levels of play: Federer, Laver, Sampras, Borg, Gonzalez and, perhaps Djokovic. But, at this point, I don't have a basis to arrange them in any particular order with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Djokovic2011, I realize that you have the same Ten players as I have.
Here my all-time Top Ten:
Then Budge, Vines, Kramer, Hoad, McEnroe, Lendl, Cochet, Perry, Sedgman, Agassi...
EDIT: I think that Djokovic will surpass yet Nadal, Sampras and Borg.
After reading Bobby's list I am curious what others think regarding:
Cochet v Lacoste
Sedgman v Segura
I've always ranked the latter two higher.
I rank Lacoste higher than Cochet also. Seems to me that Lacoste was more dominant at his peak than Cochet although Cochet was called a genius by many. A few years ago I was reading a scouting report in a baseball website about two different baseball pitchers. One pitcher threw harder by a decent amount but he was erratic and unable to always control his pitches. The other pitcher threw very hard but not quite as hard but he was consistent in his mechanics and had excellent control. The baseball scouts tended to favor the latter pitcher because of his ability to repeat his delivery regularly and be consistent.
After reading this the thought occurred to me that perhaps erratic brilliant play by a tennis player is not necessarily genius (although it can be) but it is a result of perhaps the inability to repeat strokes whether it would be mechanical or mental. The ability to repeat strokes and be consistent in tennis is not considered genius but perhaps it should be. I think a perfect excellent of this is the current number one player in the world Novak Djokovic. Yes Djokovic is brilliant but I don't think he is usually as brilliant as some can be when it comes to hitting what we define as great shots. A lot of Djokovic's brilliance to me is his ability to hit the ball solidly and remain on balance in the course of the rally. He isn't always defensive on shots he should be because of his consistent stroking ability. You can argue Andy Murray is very close to Djokovic overall in stroking ability but as we all know Murray is very emotional and has some mental lapses which imo causes him to lose games which he shouldn't lose.
Another more blatant example is Ivan Lendl and Henri Leconte. I thought Lendl was brilliant but so many called him dull and machine like. It was in this machine like strokes that I personally found brilliant. Leconte was capable of hitting ridiculous shots both great and awful. Unfortunately it was more the latter than one would like.
Lacoste was that type of player. He was called machine like in the way he returned the ball. He was a baseline machine they said. It may not seen brilliant but this type of player was brilliant when you think of it.
As far as Sedgman versus Segura is concerned. That's very hard to say. Segura apparently barely beat Sedgman on a short World Championship Tour head to head (Gonzalez won the World Championship Tour) by a slim margin of 23 to 22 I believe. Vines ranks Segura number five for players who played after WW II with Sedgman number 9 if I recall. Gonzalez in his book ranks Sedgman ahead of Segura. Segura seems to be better than Sedgman on clay judging by some results and Sedgman may have been better on grass. I don't want to cop out by not picking some player so push comes to shove I'll go with Segura. It's very close however as is the choice between Lacoste and Cochet.
Interesting list Bobby. But I'm just wondering, why do you have Federer as low as 5?
Can you ask Bobby to elaborate why he ranks Rosewall above Gonzalez? He cannot see my posts. I'm curious.
Do you really want to know the answer, PC1? Frankly, I am not interested.
I have asked Bobby in the past about my reservations about Rosewall being ranked in his mind over Gonzalez but frankly I was confused by the answer or sometimes lack of one. You know that I don't feel Rosewall is on the same level as Gonzalez but I'm curious about Bobby's explanation even though I know in his mind Rosewall has to be first. I don't intend to rebut his answer if someone asks my question.
You're probably right. It's not worth finding out.
I agree. I have long thought of Nadal as some type of genius. Not quite the same as Djokovic but still far removed from the usual player tagged a genius.
Nadal is a unique player. It's not hyperbole to call him a genius I think. His racquet head speed on his forehand is extraordinary which gives him so much margin for error and the ability to hit such sharp angles.
I always thought the McEnroe versus Borg comparison with hindsight is weird. McEnroe was called a genius because of his serve and volleying, quick hands and touch. Yes McEnroe was unique but Borg was every bit as unique and a genius in different ways. He had a totally different way of hitting the ball from the old classical style that the old timers did NOT understand. He was able to hit with great power and yet have great margin for safety like Nadal. He had brilliant power, angles and unique spin. Borg turned the tennis world upside down which McEnroe, as great as he was did not so. And Borg was able to do this with a small heavy wooden racquet.
70sHollywood, I agree that Lacoste is great and also Segura. It's not easy to state if Cochet or Lacoste are better, if Sedgman or Segura.
EDIT: Lacoste was No.1 for two years, Cochet for four years (officially; I have him for three years).
Interesting that you don't contradict to my top ten, especially Rosewall's high place... ;-)
Djoker, Because I think that my "Fabulous Four" achieved more and Federer profited from not too strong opposition at his peak (Nadal and Djokovic still young). It's also a minus in Federer's career that he won only relatively few GS tournaments as an oldie compared to Laver's second Grand Slam, Rosewall's many winning majors after 30, Pancho's and Tilden's great achievements as very old players.
I liked a deleted post?
It was a good post but I deleted it because while I was diplomatic I felt an overly sensitive person could get wind of it and get upset. Maybe I'll post it again.
It's very hard to compare the pre-open era and the open era because the standards for being number one is so different. Even within the open era the standards are different. In recent years all the players are almost required to play the big tournaments while in the 1970s and 1980s they were not.
Standards for greatness vary from era to era, often from year to year. A few years ago a knowledgeable poster here tried to convince me of the greatness of his favorite player. I examined the info and it did seem convincing. After a while however I had major reservations about that player never being number one while the other all time great was playing before he retired the first time. I conveyed my reservations about this to the other poster. I didn't understand his explanation and I also was concerned about the fact the favorite player lost convincingly to the all time great in their last World Championship Tour while the favorite was at his peak imo. Now I actually wanted the favorite to be up there because he was one of my favorites also but the simple answer was staring at me in the face, it was simply because the all time great was a superior player and imo by a decent margin. My mistake in analysis between the two was that I failed to take into account the great value of the World Championship Head to Head Tours that the all time great won. Let's face it the great prize for this was being number one and the World Champion and that's super important! It's clearly far more important than any pro major or imo a classic major. You don't play World Championship Tours for at times over or close to 100 matches unless it's of utmost importance. I confirmed this with the family of the all time great. The major priority of the all time great every year was to win the World Championship Tour and to keep his status as the number one player in tennis. It's insane to waste time on a tour of near 100 matches unless it is viewed as super important and clear a World Championship Tour for the reward of being the Champion is big.
I viewed things from a 2000s perspective instead of from the 1950s perspective I should have had. I also failed to take into account that the many hundreds of matches the all time great played on World Championship Tour prevented him from winning tournaments. After taking all of that into account it's clear the all time great was superior to the other favorite (who also is an all time great but not imo as great as the other) by a pretty decent margin.
It also is consistent with all the general opinions of the opponents of these players. I can only think of one player that views the favorite as better than the all time great although there could be others. Everyone else favors the all time great by an easy margin over the favorite of the poster.
We are used to the tournaments they have today that we often if not always forget that tournaments aren't always the end all throughout tennis history. The head to head world championship tours are equivalent to chess match play between two opponents or world championship boxing matches. It was a different system in those days.
Fair enough Bobby. I tend to just go by a player's numbers when it comes to GOAT debates as I think bringing competition into the equation is quite subjective but you're certainly entitled to your opinion and the four guys you have above Fed were undoubtedly incredible players.
Djoker, Thanks. Yes, valuing competition might be subjective. Nevertheless: It's maybe significant that my top three , i.e. Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver, played in a very tough era, namely in the era of exactly these three players...
I'm f.i. convinced that Laver and Rosewall would have achieved even more (than they actually did) if they would not were forced to play so often against each other. The Rocket and Muscles met in 15 majors (14 finals) and "stole" some victories from each other...
Separate names with a comma.