Who was number 1 for 1970?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by timnz, Apr 17, 2009.

  1. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    This is where this came from. Tsonga and Ferrer wouldn't be top 30. I wasted my time talking to you. I'm just dying in laughter.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW0iKmRkgbA

    Watch that, and then just stop posting ridiculous statements. Tsonga is arguably one of the most talented players out there, with great shotmaking abilities. You want me to believe Amritraj is better...Tsonga has made three major semifinals and has beaten Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in majors. You can't say that Tsonga would not be top 30 in the 70s because he would struggle against Amritrag, Dibbs and Gildemeister! Are you serious Gildemeister!?!?! If it's not clay I don't see Gildemeister even coming close..
     
  2. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Now, I confirm you have no idea of tennis...you put the vidoe of Tsonga as an examples of great volleys? because I will tell ya 50 better volleyers off my hat.Tsonga, in today´s no volley game is the only one daring to but...compare to Amritraj¡¡¡ Holly Cow¡¡¡

    Idf he reached major semis, well, it depends on the field isn´t it?
     
  3. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    No, he beat Lendl again on fast indoors.I didn´t say Ferrer was a bad player, he is one of the best right know.Only that his talent would be average in the golden era.
     
  4. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    LOL, LMAO ...... clueless kiki strikes again. egn has already pwned you with some of the facts .... Let me complete it !
     
  5. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Yes¡¡¡ come up with your facts, newtard
     
  6. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    well, clueless, that video was just to show tsonga's talent, not just his volleying skills ..... No doubt, Vijay was by some distance the better volleyer , but Tsonga is by some distance the better player ....

    well, clueless, it depends on the field, but seeing as you don't have any idea of modern tennis , let me enlighten you :

    he beat murray, gasquet, youzhny and nadal to reach the finals of the AO in 2008

    he beat djokovic to get to the semis of the AO in 2010

    he beat federer to get to the semis of wimbledon in 2011 .....
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  7. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    Didn't egn already pwn you regarding dibbs and him not reaching close to #5 ? Hell, you don't even know much about tennis in the past, forget about present day tennis ....
     
  8. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    who are Youznhy and Gasquet? where did they come from?
     
  9. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Dibbs was around 8 to 10.Ferrer is nº 5 so, make your acounts and see the difference.Even a clueless newtard like you can still see it¡¡
     
  10. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
  11. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    the are tennis players and good ones at that , but again, like I said ......

    but seeing as you don't have any idea of modern tennis .....

    Tsonga was ranked in the 30s at that time and had an absolutely brilliant run in that tourney beating almost everyone in his path convincingly .....

    now are you gonna argue Vijay was a better player than Tsonga, Ferrer etc ? really ? LOL !!!!
     
  12. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Talent wise, Amritraj was head and shoulders over the spanish midget and above Tsonga ( but IMO Tsonga is far better than Ferrer)...but, you know the difference? a player like Amritraj idn´t get any better than nº 20 or so, while a Tsonga or a Ferrer are eprmanent top 5 or top 6 memebers.

    Can you now, finally, definitely understand why Amritraj played in the GOLDEN ERA and Ferrer and Tsonga play in one of the weakest ever eras?

    My applause¡¡¡ you finally GOT IT
     
  13. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Ever seen peak Hans?
     
  14. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    Ah, you are unbelievably dense , kiki, even more than I had originally thought ...

    Vijay was a talented player, but very streaky , which is why he didn't get to more than #16 in the world ..... not because of the era strength .........

    VJ - win loss record of 393-303, win loss % = 56.4% , with best of 2 QFs ( USO, wim )
    Tsonga- 200-89, win loss % = 69.2% ( AO final & SF, wim SF )
    Ferrer - win loss record of 425-232, win loss % = 64.7% ( AO and USO SF , YEC final)

    Ferrer and Tsonga are by some distance better . There is no comparison really, performance wise...
     
  15. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Any of this forum has ever seen live tennis of the GOLDEN ERA? It would enhance the quality of the posts if anybody did and share experiences...
     
  16. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    And which % do you think Ferrer would have had in the golden era? and Tsonga? and ...¡¡¡ Bagdhatis ???
     
  17. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    I don't think that was the golden era at all . "Golden" era is more like 1985-90 IMO .....

    I think the winning % for ferrer, tsonga or others would have been more or less the same , don't see that much of a difference in the strength of the eras ......
     
  18. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Wrong.Golden era is the 70´s and 80´s, with late 70´s and early 80´s as its peak.

    How many slams won by others not called Nadal,Federer and now Djokovic?
     
  19. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    Lulz, early 80s had a burnout borg, a choker Lendl, a Mac who lost quite a bit of interest once borg went out ..... Only "consolation" was a resurgent connors ( once borg left )

    85 to 90 had Lendl, Becker, Wilander, Edberg at the top, with Mac, Curren, Mecir, Cash,young Agassi,Connors,Leconte, Gomez,young Chang, young Sampras etc still in the mix

    What is the point of your second question ? If you are saying its because the other players are not strong, I'd say that's not correct, its because these 3 are just that dominant
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  20. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    The Golden Era of tennis is whatever you decide it to be. Personally I always hope it's in the present because I can watch it now.
     
  21. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    When did you first watched live tennis? it is not interesting to talk when the other poster has not had the same experience of you.

    Why is today a weak era? simply, because nobody has deplaced Murray from his nº 4 position, and Murray has no champions stature, as we all know.
     
  22. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    I watched live tennis since the 90s, but have watched many matches of the 80s ad before ....Its 'interesting" talking to you because frankly you had very little factual knowledge of tennis of any era ( holds even more true for the modern era ), yet keep on talking , making one delusional statement after the other !! Gotta admire that "courage" or whatever you want to call it ......

    Lulz, and Lendl had a champion's stature before 84 FO final ????? Remember he was #2 at that point ..... If anything Lendl's situation was worse !
     
  23. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=M038&oId=L018

    -__- where is that second win.

    You still expect me to believe that Gene Mayer, Eddie Dibbs and Teltscher (not Teacher) would be able to make top 10 and top 5 but Ferrer would not be able to. Even though Ferrer follows a similar format to 70s-90s claycourters with that grind and never die attitude, excellent fitness and a quick compact service motion that can pack a punch for his small size.
     
  24. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Lendl has won much more than Murray.How old Murray is now?

    Sorry you have seen so liitle tennis¡¡ you don´t even know what the Golden Era is¡¡¡¡ LOOOOLL
     
  25. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    So when Lendl reached no.1 without reaching a major what does that mean?
     
  26. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    it means it was a weak era, doh !
     
  27. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    Lendl won his first major at 24...Murray is 24....hmmm
     
  28. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    Lulz, and you claim to have seen so much tennis, don't know much about it at all .....

    Yes, Lendl has won far more than Murray, but that was mainly from 85 onwards, the period which I referred to ..... bah !
     
  29. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Teacher would certainly not.Ferrer would rwach eventually the top 10.I think he could win as much as Solomon,Higueras or Dibbs.or Corrado Barazutti, for that mather
     
  30. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    Hey, don't let the facts hurt poor old "I-have-seen-tennis-for-so-many-years-yet-know-nothing-about-it" Kiki ......:twisted:
     
  31. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    With each passing post, your cluelessness surprises me more and more.Lendl had won the Masters 2 or 3 times, plus WCT Finals before he won, at 24 his first slam.I don´t know how old is Murray, but I hope he is no older than 23...

    You have proved that, at most, you saw tennis from 1990´s on.

    I never saw Budge,Tilden or Gonzales but I have some respect for them and try to know about them before giving my opinion.You are a tennis netard, definitley
     
  32. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    Only Hans match I watched in full was the 78 QF against Vilas. He played a great match and lost in 5 sets against a player who was really good but had a bloated slam count due to the depleted field of the Australian Open because two grass majors for Vilas I think we can all agree is absurd. I'd say that was the best match Hans ever played. However it still wasn't enough. Besides maybe I'm against him also cause he had that awkward two handed forehand at moments and I was never a fan of double handed on both wings.
     
  33. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    But Teacher and Teltscher both did -__- and I will live with that. Thats all I was really getting at. I think it's ridiculous to say Ferrer would not be a capable top 10 pushing top 5 player in any era. He's a very talented player.
     
  34. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    He played his best tennis in 1979 and early 80.But, yes, his first big match was probably that 5 setter against one of the all time great clay courters...
     
  35. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Talent is not the word to describe Ferrer.But he makes up his lack of talent with a great fighting spirit ( although,as Dibbs or Solomon, that is never enough to upset the big boys when it matters)
     
  36. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    Jeez , clueless kiki, learn to read ....

    Lendl was winning titles left-right in 81-84 ( even going 7-0 vs Mac at one point ), but he was a bigger "choker" than Murray at that point because of that precisely , he couldn't do it at the majors... That's what I meant ......

    He won the major ones from 85 onwards mainly .....

    forget about Budge, Tilden, Gonzales whom you never saw ...... You don't even know much about those you supposedly saw ......

    You don't know how old Murray ??? Jeez, that's surprising !!!!!!! LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  37. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    But I know what the Golden Era was¡¡¡ and if I don´t know Murray´s age is becasue I couldn´t be less interested in him, which, of course, is not the case of you high school boys that keep staining Federer´s and Djokovich´s posters before falling asleep.LOL
     
  38. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    But of course, you probably only watched tennis for those 3-4 years, declared it as the golden era, then didn't/don't watch tennis at all for the rest of the years , yet dismiss the possibility that another era was better ....

    The lesser said about your cluelessness of the modern era, the better ....Oh wait, that's not true. Its nice to have fun at your expense !!!! :)
     
  39. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    Yes this is true Hans did reach his highest ranking in the 80s but that was still his best performance by far
     
  40. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    You fail ......This is you ......

    [​IMG]
     
  41. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I hope they won´t make an IT test in TT...I´d miss you so much for the great laughters as I miss Joe Pike for the same.

    Which posters are you staining tonight, Fed´s or Novac´s?
     
  42. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Injuries tore him down.I think his two handed game brought him down.

    BTW, he defeated Vilas in straight sets at the 1979 Davis Cup.Vilas didn´t have a good 1979, which means he ended up the year ranked nº 6 and won only a big title (AO) and vey few secondary titles (Washington)
     
  43. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    Oh, yes ...... Of course, you are confident you are going to fail that IT test, right ? :lol:

    Go ahead, Kiki, you are just making a mockery of yourself time and again. About time you actually watched some tennis !
     
  44. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I can forget more tennis than you´ll ever be able to sink in, my boy.

    But keep on posting, your pathetic ignorance and *******ism are unmatched on TT...and there are so many pathetic and ignorant posters over here¡¡¡
     
  45. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    This is a kind of "creative" interpretation of historical events that can be applied with a brilliant flourish of incompetence in respect to any era.

    It's applied so broadly and sloppily that by its logic no era is any good. You simply have to dig hard enough to find perceived problems and then blow them out of proportion.

    Most of the perceived problems here are folklore stemming from some really bad history. That Borg burned out (but when?), that Lendl was a choker (was he?), that Mac lost interest (as early as 1980?).
     
  46. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    The "Mac losing interest" story is particularly dumb. I know where it came from. In an interview, Mac once said that Borg's retirement caused him to play worse and results faltered.

    But Mac is a notoriously unreliable narrator. First of all, he's a dunce. Second of all, he makes excuses all the time. Consider this:

    Borg didn't retire officially until the spring of 1983. Shouldn't Mac have struggled after this occurred? No. Mac had a great year in 1983 and a super one in 1984. Mac played badly in 1982, when Borg was working on coming back to play.

    So can we please just stop repeating this piece of historical nonsense? Mac is just making an excuse for his struggles.
     
  47. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    you haven't seen enough tennis to forget about it ! Yes, I agree, there are many pathetic and ignorant posters around here and you are right at the top of that list with your "nostalgiatardness" and zero respect for any of the champions of modern tennis ....
     
  48. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,668
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Excellent post Doug_Hartley_2012. The year 1970 seems to have been a real toss up. I suppose it depends on how you weigh the different tournaments, the majors and then all the rest. Your point about applying modern criterion to 1970 results, when there was no computer, or any other well defined ranking system, is very sound. Yet Laver did win a good number of tournaments. Your post is a good argument for either Rosewall or Newcombe, if one does prioritize the major tournaments.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SklUQD02Bs8&feature=related (Newcombe d. Rosewall, 1970 Wimbledon Final)
     
  49. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714

    Agreed.He said that because he wa sbeating Borg, and kept losing ( till 1983) to Lendl and, in the majors, to Connors.
     
  50. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,648
    Would this thread exist if Laver had won both the Australian Open and the French Open

    The fact is that he certainly won the number 3 and number 4 events of the year.

    Two of the following 5 (all of which Laver won that year) could certainly be considered the number 3 and 4 events of the year:

    Wembley
    US Pro
    LA Hardcourts
    Philadelphia
    Sydney Dunlop


    So again, if he had won the Australian Open and the French open - and didn't win the top 2 of the 5 tournaments listed above - would he be unquestionably the number 1 for 1970?

    (The argument here is that the top 2 of those 5 tournaments I have listed were a bigger achievement than winning the Australian Open and the French Open that year).
     

Share This Page