Originally Posted by John123
Completely agreed. No doubt.
Once again, there is no disagreement here whatsoever. We're on the same page.
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.
I know -- see my last comment. I'm talking about Ayala's level of play in 1967 only.
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.
Once again, this is precisely what I think.
I think you better think twice to make those absurd comparatives.Olmedo vs Seppi is the same as comparing Safin vs John Douglas ( a 1960īs journeyman)
"Esther,Evonne,Hana,Martina: was it a fairy stick or a tennis racket?"