Originally Posted by Limpinhitter
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.
Your arrogance is really remarkable. You not only belittle Rosewall like the posters of General Players Discussion, you also belittle my knowledge about Rosewall even though I'm an expert on Muscles as several other experts have confirmed.
You err: Most posters here do include Rosewall in the top ten.
I'm not too much impressed by Laver's lists. You should know that often a great player does not value his fellow greats reasonably.
Laver himself wrote that Rosewall was his toughest opponent.
You also belittle Rosewall's best years. Are you aware that Rosewall keeps the record for majors won in a row (9 from 1960 to 1963)? Laver and others have not made that achievement.
You repeat wrong statements often and hope they convince the readers.
It's really senseless to discuss with a man who cannot discuss seriously.
Dan Lobb and TMF might be stubborn but they are not as mean as you are!
P.S.: You have not corrected me. Only krosero has and that was good.
P.P.S.: Since I'm not reasonable I will ask Bud to revoke his titles for me (Authoritative Austrian; Vienna Visionary). I will ask him to call you "The greatest expert on Laver and Rosewall"