View Single Post
Old 07-14-2011, 11:16 AM   #25
John123
Rookie
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by egn View Post
at the time I feel the amateur majors were much further off.
Completely agreed. No doubt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by egn View Post
My whole disagreement with this is when open era came about it was the pros who dominated until the young guys matured. The amateurs were very good players, but the cream of the crop were low top 10 at best with exceptions to Newk and Emerson, Newk was probably a top 5 at his best and Emerson as well.
Once again, there is no disagreement here whatsoever. We're on the same page.


Quote:
Originally Posted by egn View Post
This is where again I am sorry I have to greatly disagree and this where your logic now is confusing me. Seppi in the 1950s would stand no chance at winning any major pro or amateur, yet you rank Olmedo to his level. You would argue than in 1959 Olmedo would be in contention for the top as you said above top amateurs were top players. Seppi was a player who never even made it into the top 25 let alone top 10. Olmedo in 1967 is the equivalent to say Hewitt but not Seppi. Sure I'll be first to say amateur majors had less competition than pro majors, but anyone who won multiple of either majors in a single year was top 10 for that season and if you won two I'd make a case for you being top 5. A guy who had numerous success on the pro tour and beat a couple of the big guys. He was by no means a seppi. He was easily a top 5 player from 58-62 and then a steady top 20 guy post that. Sounds more like a Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko type than a Seppi.
I'm very glad you brought this up. I wanted to explain it in my original post, but it was a long post already, so I waited to see if anyone would ask.

I chose analogues based solely on where I estimated each player would be in the respective world rankings of his day. Seppi is ranked #37 now, and I figured that was about right for an old Olmedo. I actually considered using Hewitt as you suggested because his career was a much better fit; but Hewitt's current ranking is #174, so I didn't think that was fair to Olmedo. Of course you're right that Olmedo was a much greater player over the course of his career than Seppi -- no comparison at all. But all I meant was to describe where Olmedo and the others ranked in 1967.


Quote:
Originally Posted by egn View Post
Ayala is Chela, but then this just makes your argument seem even more stange. You argue that these guys are top players than make them into nothings. Ayala won 2 French Championships. Ayala is easily more of the Ferrer, Corretja, Robredo, Costa type than the Chela type.
I know -- see my last comment. I'm talking about Ayala's level of play in 1967 only.


Quote:
Originally Posted by egn View Post
I can agree with almost everyone else though Stole might be a bit underrated and Mackay might be a bit overrated...
Someone else here said that I underrated MacKay, so you can never please everyone! But I think we're basically in agreement on everything. I should have explained my approach in the original post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by egn View Post
However I would say Open majors > Pro Majors > Amateur majors.
Exactly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by egn View Post
I can agree with you there, but at the same time when equating important tournaments won pro majors should tally. Weigh them less figure out something, which is why in the earlier years I go by dominace of the tour, ranking, etc.
Once again, this is precisely what I think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by egn View Post
There is a reason there are tons of guy who won Amateur majors and then went pro and could never grab a pro major, it was still a level above that field at the moment. As you above compared some guys who won amateur majors to Seppi, Monfils and Chela shows that at that point in time the pro majors were truly the greater accomplishment. Yes they are not the same as the open era majors, but they were the best in their time.
Yes.
John123 is offline   Reply With Quote