Originally Posted by BobbyOne
I have said you good bye but I cannot stand your impertinent youngest post without disproving.
As the "Authoritative Austrian" (Bud Collins) I'm proud enough to refuse your arrogant advise: I do know that Laver has won at least 200 tournaments. I will not explain why Rosewall was handicapped to win only at least 137 tournaments. You would not follow me and my explanation. I never doubted these numbers. In contrary: I was one of those (McCauley, Sutter, Andrew Tas) who claimed that Laver has won many, many tournaments (I once counted 183 when the official number was 145)
I seldom have read a post with so many mistakes.
Why do you teach me?. I never belittled Laver as you belittle Rosewall. I just contradicted you that Laver is leading in most categories against Rosewall. I brought you examples but you stubbornly ignored them
Why do you think I rank Laver first together with Rosewall: Because I do know about his three GSs, his at least 200 tournament wins and so on. But it's a fact of history that, as I have explained you earlier, Rosewall leads in several other categories!
krosero has already corected you: Rosewall did the Pro GS. It's typically for you to "forget" this.
When Laver had a winning hth against Rosewall, Rosewall was NOT at his peak. He was at his peak (when they played each other) in 1963 and 1964 when these two years together Rosewall had the edge.
I have explained you that hth against one player is not the only measure for a player's domination. There is a reason why experts did not rank Laver No. 1 for several years when you rank him first. In fact they ranked Laver No.3 and 4 for 1970, No.3 for 1971, No.4 for 1972 and No. 7 and 8 for 1973...
Laver was not 7 years No.1 when Rosewall was in his prime and even peak: 1965 -1970 Rosewall was not in his peak.
You have written that Laver was best player through 1973. It's about the same as though you write he was ranked No.1. It's a case of hair-splitting.That latter statement shows me that you know nothing or very little about tennis history. In 1973 Laver was ranked No. 7 and No.8 for some reason.
I hate your kind of "discussing".
First of all, you take yourself too seriously, and, you have an opinion that is not supported by the weight of all of the evidence. That is a recipe for frustration that you have imposed upon yourself.
Second, I think it's a fallacy to consider Rosewall's peak to be only 62' and 63' when he was winning pro majors from 57' to 67'. It is further a fallacy to say that Rosewall was not still in his prime until at least 1972 when he was still winning open majors, or even 1974 when he reached the finals of 2 open majors. During the time of Rosewall's peak and prime, Laver was the #1 player in the world for 7 straight years. The reason that Rosewall wasn't the best player in the world before 62' is because Gonzales was better than he was before Gonzales game began to decline. And the reason he wasn't #1 after 63' is because Laver was better than he was when Laver's game fully developed. It is not because Rosewall's game suddenly improved in 62', and 2 years later suddenly declined. Absent injury or some other objective basis, that is not a reasonable argument. Gonzales and Laver were just both better than Rosewall.
Third, I don't know why you rate Laver and Rosewall equally. They are objectively unequal. Laver's record is superior, his H2H is superior, and most importantly, his level of play was superior for an extended period of time. I never said that Laver's record was superior in every statistical catagory. That isn't necessary to have a superior record on the whole.
Fourth, I have never belittled Rosewall. To the contrary, as I have explained to you several times, I have defended Rosewall against numerous posters on numerous occasions before you joined the discussion. You are so obsessed with Rosewall that, in your mind, ranking him in the top 15 of all time rather than top 10, amounts to an insult. Sorry, that's not reasonable. Laver himself ranks Rosewall #6 in the pre-open era, and doesn't include himself. That means if there are 4 better players in the open era, then Rosewall is not in the top 10. I can easily think of 4: Laver, Federer, Sampras and Borg. There are also Connors, Lendl and McEnroe. Arguably, there are more. Looked at that way, I think that there are many, if not most, who would rank Rosewall out of the top 10 of all time.
Finally, my "kind of discussing" is the kind that is based on evidence, reason and rationality. If you hate that, then you are not thinking clearly. In any event, you are free to ignore my kind of thinking if it distresses you so much.
PS: Both Krosero and I corrected you about Rosewall's record in open majors.