Originally Posted by kiki
Plus, the deepth of field, say the top 30-50 players just puts Kodes in another league...
Kiki, the most ironic thing about your argument is that it backfires on Kodes. You're trying to lift up Kodes by arguing that his era was much deeper than the 1930s in which Vines played. But quality of the field is exactly where Kodes is weakest. The weakest thing about his 3 Slam titles is the quality of those 3 draws. If you make an argument that emphasizes quality of field, Kodes will get smashed every time the argument is brought up.
And Budge's Grand Slam of 1938 will also take a huge hit, under that kind of argument.
I think if you want to lift up Kodes -- and if you want to rate Budge highly because of his Grand Slam in 1938 -- you have to come up with an argument that does not emphasize quality of field. IMO that's the worst possible way to defend both Kodes' Slam titles and Budge's Grand Slam.
There are other great things to say about those two players. Kodes was a skilled player, with an interesting style of play (great defense), and a few notable upsets. Etc. Etc., you know more about him than I do.