Originally Posted by kiki
you know, it is a marketing thing.If your tour has such greats like Kramer,Sedgman and Gonzales ( till Hoad and Rosewall joint) but nothing else, you want to sell it and not get people bored of seeing the same names all over...it just minors the tour, thus, the income players get.It is so clean and logical...same for Nusslein in the midst of a Tilden, a Cochet or a Perry.It lowers down public and media attention because of too much seen, so sell other heros...that was the role that excellent players ( I never questioned that) like the Equatorian Pancho and the German Nusslein brought in...it made them earn real money and boosted a bit the tour.
This marketing argument is really a pathetic angle to take, because we're talking about players who have been regarded as greats long after the tours were ended.
Obviously to evaluate a player you have to consider how everyone regarded him, from his time all the way to the present .... you can't just quote his fellow pros on the tour and say, "Oh that was just marketing. That's why these posters here on Talk Tennis regard Nusslein so highly ... because Tilden and Budge spoke so highly of him."
You simply have no idea how these players have been regarded by experts. What was Vines' "marketing" consideration when he ranked Segura #5 among all greats from the 1930s to the 60s?
Vines was not even Segura's fellow touring pro, so no chance he did it out of camaraderie.
Why is Nusslein regarded as possibly the best claycourter of the 30s, possibly even better than von Cramm? Why?
You badly need to start studying these eras yourself. All you do is argue from the list of titlists and runners-up, throwing in a few other names here and there. No sign that you've yet studied the 30s or 50s in any substantial way.
You can start by finding out what experts have said about Nusslein and Segura. We've given you some idea but this is work you really need to do on your own.