Originally Posted by krosero
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.
Believe me, they are selling you all they want to sell to you.That is called marketing.now and in the 30īs...
"Esther,Evonne,Hana,Martina: was it a fairy stick or a tennis racket?"