Originally Posted by kiki
The problem when comparing Kodes and Vines is that of eras.Kodes faced a lot more of great players than Vines, because in the 1930īs, there was a big slot between top 5-6 players and the rest.While in Janīs era, a top 25-30 player could handle a top guy and do it several times.
Both seem twins in term of results, with a comparable number of slams won and finals lost.
The problem is the majors Kodes won he did not face those great players who existed then since they were depleted slams (which there were many of back then with the various money making exhibitions, political issues, etc..in the game). It is like evaluating Court's Australian Opens, the womens field back then was great, but the Australian was a joke event which was missing almost every top player every year. She has 11 of them, and nobody gives them full credit, which is why almost nobody rates her as GOAT despite having even more majors than knife aided Graf, and many more than Navratilova and Evert. In Kodes's case, he never even proved himself by winning a major against a full field, so his are even more in question, unlike Court who did many many times.
Also when Vines was winning his amateur majors the Four Musketeers were all still playing, how is that easy competition. There was also Perry, Crawford, an old Tilden. Heck even had a full field attended it was tougher competition than Kode, considering the early 70s is widely regarded as a transition period with old Laver, really old Rosewall, ancient (or retired) Gonzales, mostly slumping Ashe, Connors and Borg not emerged yet, good for a couple years but oft injured Smith, Newcombe and erratic Nastase were basically the top players that period.