Thread: Clay Court GOAT
View Single Post
Old 05-12-2012, 01:18 PM   #878
kiki
G.O.A.T.
 
kiki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 17,204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krosero View Post
This just demonstrates that Pancho was greater than Vines, which I agree with. But you think it's not possible to compare? Pancho had arguably 8 years as the world's top player, all in the pros. Vines had arguably 6 years altogether as the world's top player -- two years in the amateur game (1931-32) and four more years in the pro game (1934-37) (I can't agree with 1938 ). Pancho has the lead over Vines, but please, they can most definitely be compared. The ironic thing is that they're even closer in your system than in mine, because Vines has arguably two years as #1 in the amateur game, while all of Pancho's years as #1 are in the pro game. And the amateur game is the only one in which you count majors. So Vines, according to you, is greater than Pancho: 3 majors vs. 2.

Yes, I know, Pancho's pro career was greater than Vines'. But hey, if you're going to bring in the pro game, then why do stop Vines' career at 1933? Seriously, I have never seen anything like this on this board. You've stopped a man's career at a point where he still has four years remaining as world #1.

Transparent nonsense.
Ok, which are the pro players, other than old ( really old) Tilden and Cochet Vines faced before Budge and Fred Perry turned pro? that will give the measure of competitiveness.

Kodes faced great players in a larger scale.YouŽll agree with me on that.Not even the hint of a comparative.It makes no sense to bring the names of Nusslein,Plaas or Stoefen that would be triple baggeled by any of the top 30-40 players of jan Kodes era.I agree with Tilden and Cochet, but they were very past their peak in the late 30Žs.it leaves Vines with a little margin if we talk about the pros.
__________________
Whenever I walk in a London street, I am always so careful where I put my feet
kiki is offline   Reply With Quote