Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Former Pro Player Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Pre-open era was a immature stage of tennis history (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=445343)

NGM 11-10-2012 04:36 AM

Pre-open era was a immature stage of tennis history
 
First, I am sorry for my bad English.

I read too many threads and too many posts here about how great Pre-open era and players of that period were. It is becoming ridiculous for many reasons. I will tell you why.

1) Everthing in pre-open era is like a myth. Nothing real about it. For example: Pancho Gonzales and Laver are called "co-number 1" with other players for many years. It is REALLY ridiculous and can only happen in an immature stage of tennis history. This year Murray and Federer and Djokovic are very close in term of winning big titles, but in the end Novak Djokovic is THE world number 1. If this scenario happened in the past, they would be treated like co-number 1.

2) Pre-open era can not be compared with open era, especially with the era from 90's to now. Why? Because pre-open era' standard was too low.
Tennis was not a global sport back then. We have a small pool of tennis players whom played against other regularly. And some of them won more than others. It was meaningless, or at least not meaning much. How many of tournament they won have only 8 men, 10 men, 14 men? Or even less? And we are counting those tournaments as the same with tournaments today? Grand Slam in the past as the same with grand slam today? No way in h e l l.

3) There are too much changes in tennis from 19th century to today. In a better way, I must say. From the beginning to 1968, it was like a childish-period. There were too many errors in the system and it made player look greater than they actually were. From 1968 to the end of 80's tennis world was organized better but there were still many holes in that system. 90's till now is good. Of course the system is not flawless. But we have no myth anymore.

I dont say players in the past were not great. Of course they were great. But like TMF points out, in the forum like this players like Hoad, Gonzales, Laver are in the fix position compared to Federer. Federer can win 5 more slams and they are still in the fix position. The biggest weapon old timer use to defend Gonzales or Laver is "IF bla bla...". If = myth = meaningless. Pre-open era is immature stage of tennis history. And anything achieved in that stage can not be treated as the same with today's achievement. Period.

BobbyOne 11-10-2012 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM (Post 7005719)
First, I am sorry for my bad English.

I read too many threads and too many posts here about how great Pre-open era and players of that period were. It is becoming ridiculous for many reasons. I will tell you why.

1) Everthing in pre-open era is like a myth. Nothing real about it. For example: Pancho Gonzales and Laver are called "co-number 1" with other players for many years. It is REALLY ridiculous and can only happen in an immature stage of tennis history. This year Murray and Federer and Djokovic are very close in term of winning big titles, but in the end Novak Djokovic is THE world number 1. If this scenario happened in the past, they would be treated like co-number 1.

2) Pre-open era can not be compared with open era, especially with the era from 90's to now. Why? Because pre-open era' standard was too low.
Tennis was not a global sport back then. We have a small pool of tennis players whom played against other regularly. And some of them won more than others. It was meaningless, or at least not meaning much. How many of tournament they won have only 8 men, 10 men, 14 men? Or even less? And we are counting those tournaments as the same with tournaments today? Grand Slam in the past as the same with grand slam today? No way in h e l l.

3) There are too much changes in tennis from 19th century to today. In a better way, I must say. From the beginning to 1968, it was like a childish-period. There were too many errors in the system and it made player look greater than they actually were. From 1968 to the end of 80's tennis world was organized better but there were still many holes in that system. 90's till now is good. Of course the system is not flawless. But we have no myth anymore.

I dont say players in the past were not great. Of course they were great. But like TMF points out, in the forum like this players like Hoad, Gonzales, Laver are in the fix position compared to Federer. Federer can win 5 more slams and they are still in the fix position. The biggest weapon old timer use to defend Gonzales or Laver is "IF bla bla...". If = myth = meaningless. Pre-open era is immature stage of tennis history. And anything achieved in that stage can not be treated as the same with today's achievement. Period.

NGM, You have not learnt history enough. Please do learn!

NadalDramaQueen 11-10-2012 06:02 AM

NGM, such talk is blasphemy and you will surely be cast into the lake of fire. May the church of the pre-open era have mercy on your soul.

Mustard 11-10-2012 07:28 AM

When has Federer been the best player in the world for 8 years like Gonzales?

Oh, and I can pick who I believe to be the best players of each year without co-ranking players. See below:

Best amateur players per year in the pre-open era
1877: Spencer Gore
1878: Frank Hadow
1879: John Hartley
1880: John Hartley
1881: William Renshaw
1882: William Renshaw
1883: William Renshaw
1884: William Renshaw
1885: William Renshaw
1886: William Renshaw
1887: Herbert Lawford
1888: Ernest Renshaw
1889: William Renshaw
1890: Willoughby Hamilton
1891: Wilfred Baddeley
1892: Wilfred Baddeley
1893: Joshua Pim
1894: Joshua Pim
1895: Joshua Pim
1896: Wilfred Baddeley
1897: Reggie Doherty
1898: Reggie Doherty
1899: Reggie Doherty
1900: Reggie Doherty
1901: Arthur Gore
1902: Laurie Doherty
1903: Laurie Doherty
1904: Laurie Doherty
1905: Laurie Doherty
1906: Laurie Doherty
1907: Norman Brookes
1908: William Larned
1909: William Larned
1910: Tony Wilding
1911: Tony Wilding
1912: Tony Wilding
1913: Tony Wilding
1914: Tony Wilding
1915: Bill Johnston
1916: Richard Norris Williams
1917: Lindley Murray
1918: Lindley Murray
1919: Bill Johnston
1920: Bill Tilden
1921: Bill Tilden
1922: Bill Tilden
1923: Bill Tilden
1924: Bill Tilden
1925: Bill Tilden
1926: Rene Lacoste
1927: Rene Lacoste
1928: Henri Cochet
1929: Henri Cochet
1930: Henri Cochet
1931: Ellsworth Vines
1932: Ellsworth Vines
1933: Jack Crawford
1934: Fred Perry
1935: Fred Perry
1936: Fred Perry
1937: Don Budge
1938: Don Budge
1939: Bobby Riggs
1940: Don McNeill
1941: Bobby Riggs
1942: Ted Schroeder
1943: Joseph Hunt
1944: Frank Parker
1945: Frank Parker
1946: Jack Kramer
1947: Jack Kramer
1948: John Bromwich
1949: Pancho Gonzales
1950: Budge Patty
1951: Frank Sedgman
1952: Frank Sedgman
1953: Tony Trabert
1954: Jaroslav Drobny
1955: Tony Trabert
1956: Lew Hoad
1957: Lew Hoad
1958: Ashley Cooper
1959: Alex Olmedo
1960: Neale Fraser
1961: Roy Emerson
1962: Rod Laver
1963: Roy Emerson
1964: Roy Emerson
1965: Roy Emerson
1966: Fred Stolle
1967: John Newcombe

Best professional players per year in the pre-open era
1927: Vinny Richards
1928: Vinny Richards
1929: Karel Kozeluh
1930: Karel Kozeluh
1931: Bill Tilden
1932: Bill Tilden
1933: Bill Tilden
1934: Ellsworth Vines
1935: Ellsworth Vines
1936: Ellsworth Vines
1937: Ellsworth Vines
1938: Ellsworth Vines
1939: Don Budge
1940: Don Budge
1941: Fred Perry
1942: Don Budge
1943: ???
1944: Bobby Riggs
1945: Bobby Riggs
1946: Bobby Riggs
1947: Bobby Riggs
1948: Jack Kramer
1949: Jack Kramer
1950: Jack Kramer
1951: Jack Kramer
1952: Pancho Segura
1953: Jack Kramer
1954: Pancho Gonzales
1955: Pancho Gonzales
1956: Pancho Gonzales
1957: Pancho Gonzales
1958: Pancho Gonzales
1959: Pancho Gonzales
1960: Pancho Gonzales
1961: Pancho Gonzales
1962: Ken Rosewall
1963: Ken Rosewall
1964: Rod Laver
1965: Rod Laver
1966: Rod Laver
1967: Rod Laver

Best players per year in the open era
1968: Rod Laver
1969: Rod Laver
1970: Rod Laver
1971: John Newcombe
1972: Stan Smith
1973: Ilie Nastase
1974: Jimmy Connors
1975: Arthur Ashe
1976: Jimmy Connors
1977: Guillermo Vilas
1978: Bjorn Borg
1979: Bjorn Borg
1980: Bjorn Borg
1981: John McEnroe
1982: Jimmy Connors
1983: John McEnroe
1984: John McEnroe
1985: Ivan Lendl
1986: Ivan Lendl
1987: Ivan Lendl
1988: Mats Wilander
1989: Boris Becker
1990: Stefan Edberg
1991: Stefan Edberg
1992: Jim Courier
1993: Pete Sampras
1994: Pete Sampras
1995: Pete Sampras
1996: Pete Sampras
1997: Pete Sampras
1998: Pete Sampras
1999: Andre Agassi
2000: Gustavo Kuerten
2001: Lleyton Hewitt
2002: Lleyton Hewitt
2003: Andy Roddick
2004: Roger Federer
2005: Roger Federer
2006: Roger Federer
2007: Roger Federer
2008: Rafael Nadal
2009: Roger Federer
2010: Rafael Nadal
2011: Novak Djokovic
2012: Novak Djokovic

NGM 11-10-2012 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyOne (Post 7005806)
NGM, You have not learnt history enough. Please do learn!

So be a teacher and teach me about tennis history, if you are good enough.

ollinger 11-10-2012 07:46 AM

Another history lesson from a 19 year old here? Yes, there were too many changes before the open era, when we went from wood racquets in the nineteenth century to wood racquets in pre-open 1967. In the open era we've gone from wood to metal to fiberglass laminate to ceramic to boron-reinforced graphite to graphite-fiberglass to graphite-kevlar to....what's next? Pre-open wasn't international? Huh? Roster of players from the 50s and 60s includes prominent players from every continent except Antarctica, including notable players from India, South Africa, South America, Eastern Europe, and of course Europe, Austalia and the U.S.

kalyan4fedever 11-10-2012 07:51 AM

Agree pre-open era = immature players.

NGM 11-10-2012 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard (Post 7005971)
When has Federer been the best player in the world for 8 years like Gonzales?

1) Gonzales played in an era of amateurs. And very few people played tennis back then compared to today. It is not something can be proud of.
2) Like I said above, he was undisputed world number one in a few years, and co-number 1 in the others. Co-number 1 is a ridiculous word. It can only happen in an immature stage of tennis history. Too many thing about Gonzales are myths, like his serve's speed. We do not know for sure.

So, because too many things about Gonzales are myth, he lives in a cloud that protects him from other modern greats. That also happens with every pre-open players. They are living in the cloud. Wow, they won too many tournaments (Laver won 199, I guess) while Federer can not pass 90 mark. Wow, they won too many majors (Laver 19, Rosewall 23, I guess). For the God's sake, how many of them are mickey mouse with very few participant? Should we count 1 pro slam in 1967 equal a today's slam? I guess NOT.

NGM 11-10-2012 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ollinger (Post 7006003)
Another history lesson from a 19 year old here? Yes, there were too many changes before the open era, when we went from wood racquets in the nineteenth century to wood racquets in pre-open 1967. In the open era we've gone from wood to metal to fiberglass laminate to ceramic to boron-reinforced graphite to graphite-fiberglass to graphite-kevlar to....what's next? Pre-open wasn't international? Huh? Roster of players from the 50s and 60s includes prominent players from every continent except Antarctica, including notable players from India, South Africa, South America, Eastern Europe, and of course Europe, Austalia and the U.S.

I do not talk about technologies of racket. I am talking about changes of tennis system which make everything clear in the sun. Pre-open era had too many myths which can not be considered as valuable source while comparing tennis players' greatness. But because they are myths, so you guys use them every time to make players in the past looking better then they actually were.

TMF 11-10-2012 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM (Post 7005719)
First, I am sorry for my bad English.

I read too many threads and too many posts here about how great Pre-open era and players of that period were. It is becoming ridiculous for many reasons. I will tell you why.

1) Everthing in pre-open era is like a myth. Nothing real about it. For example: Pancho Gonzales and Laver are called "co-number 1" with other players for many years. It is REALLY ridiculous and can only happen in an immature stage of tennis history. This year Murray and Federer and Djokovic are very close in term of winning big titles, but in the end Novak Djokovic is THE world number 1. If this scenario happened in the past, they would be treated like co-number 1.

2) Pre-open era can not be compared with open era, especially with the era from 90's to now. Why? Because pre-open era' standard was too low.
Tennis was not a global sport back then. We have a small pool of tennis players whom played against other regularly. And some of them won more than others. It was meaningless, or at least not meaning much. How many of tournament they won have only 8 men, 10 men, 14 men? Or even less? And we are counting those tournaments as the same with tournaments today? Grand Slam in the past as the same with grand slam today? No way in h e l l.

3) There are too much changes in tennis from 19th century to today. In a better way, I must say. From the beginning to 1968, it was like a childish-period. There were too many errors in the system and it made player look greater than they actually were. From 1968 to the end of 80's tennis world was organized better but there were still many holes in that system. 90's till now is good. Of course the system is not flawless. But we have no myth anymore.

I dont say players in the past were not great. Of course they were great. But like TMF points out, in the forum like this players like Hoad, Gonzales, Laver are in the fix position compared to Federer. Federer can win 5 more slams and they are still in the fix position. The biggest weapon old timer use to defend Gonzales or Laver is "IF bla bla...". If = myth = meaningless. Pre-open era is immature stage of tennis history. And anything achieved in that stage can not be treated as the same with today's achievement. Period.

Thanks NGM.

It's true that Roger's continue to add more to his legacy, some people bump up players in the pre-open(i.e. Laver) era so they can stay "fix" with Roger, but players in the open-era has to stay further behind. It makes no sense at all. Player's resume can't be change unless you're an active player like Roger. No past retired player can't get any worse(or better) just because Roger breaks/set tennis records. People should leave out Federer when they want to compare players in the open era to players in the pre-open era.

urban 11-10-2012 08:28 AM

As immature as the Greek Culture pre Christ, the Renaissance, or the era of Enlightment.

NGM 11-10-2012 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard (Post 7005971)
When has Federer been the best player in the world for 8 years like Gonzales?

Oh, and I can pick who I believe to be the best players of each year without co-ranking players. See below:

Best amateur players per year in the pre-open era
1877: Spencer Gore
1878: Frank Hadow
1879: John Hartley
1880: John Hartley
1881: William Renshaw
1882: William Renshaw
1883: William Renshaw
1884: William Renshaw
1885: William Renshaw
1886: William Renshaw
1887: Herbert Lawford
1888: Ernest Renshaw
1889: William Renshaw
1890: Willoughby Hamilton
1891: Wilfred Baddeley
1892: Wilfred Baddeley
1893: Joshua Pim
1894: Joshua Pim
1895: Joshua Pim
1896: Wilfred Baddeley
1897: Reggie Doherty
1898: Reggie Doherty
1899: Reggie Doherty
1900: Reggie Doherty
1901: Arthur Gore
1902: Laurie Doherty
1903: Laurie Doherty
1904: Laurie Doherty
1905: Laurie Doherty
1906: Laurie Doherty
1907: Norman Brookes
1908: William Larned
1909: William Larned
1910: Tony Wilding
1911: Tony Wilding
1912: Tony Wilding
1913: Tony Wilding
1914: Tony Wilding
1915: Bill Johnston
1916: Richard Norris Williams
1917: Lindley Murray
1918: Lindley Murray
1919: Bill Johnston
1920: Bill Tilden
1921: Bill Tilden
1922: Bill Tilden
1923: Bill Tilden
1924: Bill Tilden
1925: Bill Tilden
1926: Rene Lacoste
1927: Rene Lacoste
1928: Henri Cochet
1929: Henri Cochet
1930: Henri Cochet
1931: Ellsworth Vines
1932: Ellsworth Vines
1933: Jack Crawford
1934: Fred Perry
1935: Fred Perry
1936: Fred Perry
1937: Don Budge
1938: Don Budge
1939: Bobby Riggs
1940: Don McNeill
1941: Bobby Riggs
1942: Ted Schroeder
1943: Joseph Hunt
1944: Frank Parker
1945: Frank Parker
1946: Jack Kramer
1947: Jack Kramer
1948: John Bromwich
1949: Pancho Gonzales
1950: Budge Patty
1951: Frank Sedgman
1952: Frank Sedgman
1953: Tony Trabert
1954: Jaroslav Drobny
1955: Tony Trabert
1956: Lew Hoad
1957: Lew Hoad
1958: Ashley Cooper
1959: Alex Olmedo
1960: Neale Fraser
1961: Roy Emerson
1962: Rod Laver
1963: Roy Emerson
1964: Roy Emerson
1965: Roy Emerson
1966: Fred Stolle
1967: John Newcombe

Best professional players per year in the pre-open era
1927: Vinny Richards
1928: Vinny Richards
1929: Karel Kozeluh
1930: Karel Kozeluh
1931: Bill Tilden
1932: Bill Tilden
1933: Bill Tilden
1934: Ellsworth Vines
1935: Ellsworth Vines
1936: Ellsworth Vines
1937: Ellsworth Vines
1938: Ellsworth Vines
1939: Don Budge
1940: Don Budge
1941: Fred Perry
1942: Don Budge
1943: ???
1944: Bobby Riggs
1945: Bobby Riggs
1946: Bobby Riggs
1947: Bobby Riggs
1948: Jack Kramer
1949: Jack Kramer
1950: Jack Kramer
1951: Jack Kramer
1952: Pancho Segura
1953: Jack Kramer
1954: Pancho Gonzales
1955: Pancho Gonzales
1956: Pancho Gonzales
1957: Pancho Gonzales
1958: Pancho Gonzales
1959: Pancho Gonzales
1960: Pancho Gonzales
1961: Pancho Gonzales
1962: Ken Rosewall
1963: Ken Rosewall
1964: Rod Laver
1965: Rod Laver
1966: Rod Laver
1967: Rod Laver

Best players per year in the open era
1968: Rod Laver
1969: Rod Laver
1970: Rod Laver
1971: John Newcombe
1972: Stan Smith
1973: Ilie Nastase
1974: Jimmy Connors
1975: Arthur Ashe
1976: Jimmy Connors
1977: Guillermo Vilas
1978: Bjorn Borg
1979: Bjorn Borg
1980: Bjorn Borg
1981: John McEnroe
1982: Jimmy Connors
1983: John McEnroe
1984: John McEnroe
1985: Ivan Lendl
1986: Ivan Lendl
1987: Ivan Lendl
1988: Mats Wilander
1989: Boris Becker
1990: Stefan Edberg
1991: Stefan Edberg
1992: Jim Courier
1993: Pete Sampras
1994: Pete Sampras
1995: Pete Sampras
1996: Pete Sampras
1997: Pete Sampras
1998: Pete Sampras
1999: Andre Agassi
2000: Gustavo Kuerten
2001: Lleyton Hewitt
2002: Lleyton Hewitt
2003: Andy Roddick
2004: Roger Federer
2005: Roger Federer
2006: Roger Federer
2007: Roger Federer
2008: Rafael Nadal
2009: Roger Federer
2010: Rafael Nadal
2011: Novak Djokovic
2012: Novak Djokovic

It is funny. If my memory sever well, there are many threads here discussing who was the best player of X year, like this or this. And now you try to persuade me that you do not have any disputes. I dont think it will work.

You guys always say that Federer is the best player of the open era but not tennis history as a whole, because there were too many greats like Gonzales, Laver in the pre-open era. And now I tell you pre-open era was immature period that can not compared with open era. Stop using myths to argue with facts.

sonicare 11-10-2012 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard (Post 7005971)
When has Federer been the best player in the world for 8 years like Gonzales?

Oh, and I can pick who I believe to be the best players of each year without co-ranking players. See below:

.....................[/size]

More nostalgic nonsense. No one cares how you rank them. We need to know how they were ranked by the official bodies. I expect you to avoid this question because it will expose your nonsensical argument..

The idea that a 5 foot 10 Laver could compete with today's players even if he was born in this era is ridiculous. His career would be slightly better than Ferrer's because he has the advantage of being a lefty. Would not win a slam GAURANTEED

TMF 11-10-2012 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard (Post 7005971)
When has Federer been the best player in the world for 8 years like Gonzales?

Oh, and I can pick who I believe to be the best players of each year without co-ranking players. See below:

Your list is flaw because there are two tours competing at that time. Had both tours combined which the field would be stronger, it makes a world of difference.

You also double counting with 2 players/per year earning the best player. Had the open-era had two tours and 2 players gets to be number one in the world, Fed/Nadal would earn more year at #1. Nadal would have 6 years end #1(with would include 2005, 06, 07, 09, 11) had Fed and Nole was playing in a separate tour.

You see how much of a factor when there's a two separate field competing?

And please don't try to hide negative facts. It's not going go work.

sonicare 11-10-2012 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMF (Post 7006079)
Your list is flaw because there are two tours competing at that time. Had both tours combined which the field would be stronger, it makes a world of difference.

You also double counting with 2 players/per year earning the best player. Had the open-era had two tours and 2 players gets to be number one in the world, Fed/Nadal would earn more year at #1. Nadal would have 6 years end #1(with would include 2005, 06, 07, 09, 11) had Fed and Nole was playing in a separate tour.

You see how much of a factor when there's a two separate field competing?

And please don't try to hide negative facts. It's not going go work.

Agreed. I asked Mustard about this in another thread but he completely ignored me.

I will ask again

If you are comfortable with having 2 tours and not conceding that it makes it easier to compete in 2 tours, then please do tell how many 3.5 tournaments can one win today to equal to a grandslam on the ATP tour?

I gaurantee Mustard willnot answer this question because he is a hypocrite on this issue. he is a GOD when it comes to stats and I respect him but on this issue, he is FOS.

NGM 11-10-2012 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban (Post 7006059)
As immature as the Greek Culture pre Christ, the Renaissance, or the era of Enlightment.

I am not professor about the age of enlightenment but I can tell you that we have many valuable sources like books, documents, memories, to know exactly what is the age of enlightenment and how did it affect to the world history. But we do not have sources good enough to tell our grandson that Mr Gonzales and Mr Laver were the undisputed world best player for 8 long years and Mr Bill Tiden one time served 163 mph with a wood racket. We do not know where to put Laver 1962's grand slam in tennis history because while it looks great, Laver won it as an amateur. It was great, or it really was? Where should we put it in? Should we count it? I guess not. But why so many people here say every day that Laver won 2 grand slam, something Federer can not do? Why 2? Why 1962 count? I dont get it. Should Federer count his Wimbledon in 1998? I know and you know too, he was a junior back then, but if Laver can count his 1992 as an amateur, why Federer can not count his 1998 as a junior? There is no difference between two situations, no?

NGM 11-10-2012 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMF (Post 7006050)
Thanks NGM.

It's true that Roger's continue to add more to his legacy, some people bump up players in the pre-open(i.e. Laver) era so they can stay "fix" with Roger, but players in the open-era has to stay further behind. It makes no sense at all. Player's resume can't be change unless you're an active player like Roger. No past retired player can't get any worse(or better) just because Roger breaks/set tennis records. People should leave out Federer when they want to compare players in the open era to players in the pre-open era.

You phrase better than I can do, thank you.

THUNDERVOLLEY 11-10-2012 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard (Post 7005971)
When has Federer been the best player in the world for 8 years like Gonzales?

Oh, and I can pick who I believe to be the best players of each year without co-ranking players. See below:

Best amateur players per year in the pre-open era
1877: Spencer Gore
1878: Frank Hadow
1879: John Hartley
1880: John Hartley
1881: William Renshaw
1882: William Renshaw
1883: William Renshaw
1884: William Renshaw
1885: William Renshaw
1886: William Renshaw
1887: Herbert Lawford
1888: Ernest Renshaw
1889: William Renshaw
1890: Willoughby Hamilton
1891: Wilfred Baddeley
1892: Wilfred Baddeley
1893: Joshua Pim
1894: Joshua Pim
1895: Joshua Pim
1896: Wilfred Baddeley
1897: Reggie Doherty
1898: Reggie Doherty
1899: Reggie Doherty
1900: Reggie Doherty
1901: Arthur Gore
1902: Laurie Doherty
1903: Laurie Doherty
1904: Laurie Doherty
1905: Laurie Doherty
1906: Laurie Doherty
1907: Norman Brookes
1908: William Larned
1909: William Larned
1910: Tony Wilding
1911: Tony Wilding
1912: Tony Wilding
1913: Tony Wilding
1914: Tony Wilding
1915: Bill Johnston
1916: Richard Norris Williams
1917: Lindley Murray
1918: Lindley Murray
1919: Bill Johnston
1920: Bill Tilden
1921: Bill Tilden
1922: Bill Tilden
1923: Bill Tilden
1924: Bill Tilden
1925: Bill Tilden
1926: Rene Lacoste
1927: Rene Lacoste
1928: Henri Cochet
1929: Henri Cochet
1930: Henri Cochet
1931: Ellsworth Vines
1932: Ellsworth Vines
1933: Jack Crawford
1934: Fred Perry
1935: Fred Perry
1936: Fred Perry
1937: Don Budge
1938: Don Budge
1939: Bobby Riggs
1940: Don McNeill
1941: Bobby Riggs
1942: Ted Schroeder
1943: Joseph Hunt
1944: Frank Parker
1945: Frank Parker
1946: Jack Kramer
1947: Jack Kramer
1948: John Bromwich
1949: Pancho Gonzales
1950: Budge Patty
1951: Frank Sedgman
1952: Frank Sedgman
1953: Tony Trabert
1954: Jaroslav Drobny
1955: Tony Trabert
1956: Lew Hoad
1957: Lew Hoad
1958: Ashley Cooper
1959: Alex Olmedo
1960: Neale Fraser
1961: Roy Emerson
1962: Rod Laver
1963: Roy Emerson
1964: Roy Emerson
1965: Roy Emerson
1966: Fred Stolle
1967: John Newcombe

Best professional players per year in the pre-open era
1927: Vinny Richards
1928: Vinny Richards
1929: Karel Kozeluh
1930: Karel Kozeluh
1931: Bill Tilden
1932: Bill Tilden
1933: Bill Tilden
1934: Ellsworth Vines
1935: Ellsworth Vines
1936: Ellsworth Vines
1937: Ellsworth Vines
1938: Ellsworth Vines
1939: Don Budge
1940: Don Budge
1941: Fred Perry
1942: Don Budge
1943: ???
1944: Bobby Riggs
1945: Bobby Riggs
1946: Bobby Riggs
1947: Bobby Riggs
1948: Jack Kramer
1949: Jack Kramer
1950: Jack Kramer
1951: Jack Kramer
1952: Pancho Segura
1953: Jack Kramer
1954: Pancho Gonzales
1955: Pancho Gonzales
1956: Pancho Gonzales
1957: Pancho Gonzales
1958: Pancho Gonzales
1959: Pancho Gonzales
1960: Pancho Gonzales
1961: Pancho Gonzales
1962: Ken Rosewall
1963: Ken Rosewall
1964: Rod Laver
1965: Rod Laver
1966: Rod Laver
1967: Rod Laver

Best players per year in the open era
1968: Rod Laver
1969: Rod Laver
1970: Rod Laver
1971: John Newcombe
1972: Stan Smith
1973: Ilie Nastase
1974: Jimmy Connors
1975: Arthur Ashe
1976: Jimmy Connors
1977: Guillermo Vilas
1978: Bjorn Borg
1979: Bjorn Borg
1980: Bjorn Borg
1981: John McEnroe
1982: Jimmy Connors
1983: John McEnroe
1984: John McEnroe
1985: Ivan Lendl
1986: Ivan Lendl
1987: Ivan Lendl
1988: Mats Wilander
1989: Boris Becker
1990: Stefan Edberg
1991: Stefan Edberg
1992: Jim Courier
1993: Pete Sampras
1994: Pete Sampras
1995: Pete Sampras
1996: Pete Sampras
1997: Pete Sampras
1998: Pete Sampras
1999: Andre Agassi
2000: Gustavo Kuerten
2001: Lleyton Hewitt
2002: Lleyton Hewitt
2003: Andy Roddick
2004: Roger Federer
2005: Roger Federer
2006: Roger Federer
2007: Roger Federer
2008: Rafael Nadal
2009: Roger Federer
2010: Rafael Nadal
2011: Novak Djokovic
2012: Novak Djokovic

Timely list, Mustard, but i'm fairly certain the OP is likely another alternate account of a TW regular who needs to make yet another argument leading to Federer being crowned some sort of "GOAT," when he never earned that distinction, and never will (his lack of ability to win the Grand Slam at the top of it all).

If some were so sure of Federer's alleged status, there would no need to launch threads like this over and over and over again.

Prisoner of Birth 11-10-2012 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGM (Post 7005719)
First, I am sorry for my bad English.

I read too many threads and too many posts here about how great Pre-open era and players of that period were. It is becoming ridiculous for many reasons. I will tell you why.

1) Everthing in pre-open era is like a myth. Nothing real about it. For example: Pancho Gonzales and Laver are called "co-number 1" with other players for many years. It is REALLY ridiculous and can only happen in an immature stage of tennis history. This year Murray and Federer and Djokovic are very close in term of winning big titles, but in the end Novak Djokovic is THE world number 1. If this scenario happened in the past, they would be treated like co-number 1.

2) Pre-open era can not be compared with open era, especially with the era from 90's to now. Why? Because pre-open era' standard was too low.
Tennis was not a global sport back then. We have a small pool of tennis players whom played against other regularly. And some of them won more than others. It was meaningless, or at least not meaning much. How many of tournament they won have only 8 men, 10 men, 14 men? Or even less? And we are counting those tournaments as the same with tournaments today? Grand Slam in the past as the same with grand slam today? No way in h e l l.

3) There are too much changes in tennis from 19th century to today. In a better way, I must say. From the beginning to 1968, it was like a childish-period. There were too many errors in the system and it made player look greater than they actually were. From 1968 to the end of 80's tennis world was organized better but there were still many holes in that system. 90's till now is good. Of course the system is not flawless. But we have no myth anymore.

I dont say players in the past were not great. Of course they were great. But like TMF points out, in the forum like this players like Hoad, Gonzales, Laver are in the fix position compared to Federer. Federer can win 5 more slams and they are still in the fix position. The biggest weapon old timer use to defend Gonzales or Laver is "IF bla bla...". If = myth = meaningless. Pre-open era is immature stage of tennis history. And anything achieved in that stage can not be treated as the same with today's achievement. Period.

Quoted for truth. Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, they've done a lot for Tennis as a sport but they're not even in GOAT discussions. Mod note: Quit with the personal comments, they're against the rules.

kiki 11-10-2012 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen (Post 7005808)
NGM, such talk is blasphemy and you will surely be cast into the lake of fire. May the church of the pre-open era have mercy on your soul.

If federer even imagined a late 50s pro field with 6 of the best ever players day in day out, I think hed have constant nightmares...


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse