View Single Post
Old 11-10-2012, 11:30 AM   #22
Mustard
Talk Tennis Guru
 
Mustard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Cwmbran, Wales
Posts: 23,341
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
1) Gonzales played in an era of amateurs. And very few people played tennis back then compared to today. It is not something can be proud of.
Gonzales turned professional in late 1949. He was an amateur from 1947-1949. It was the professional game that Gonzales dominated for so long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
2) Like I said above, he was undisputed world number one in a few years, and co-number 1 in the others.
Gonzales was never toppled as world number 1, so if you have to choose a single world number 1 from 1954-1961, it is Gonzales, IMO, despite strong challenges from players like Segura, Sedgman, Rosewall and Hoad, not to mention other good players like McGregor, Trabert, Anderson, Cooper, Olmedo, MacKay, Gimeno etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
Co-number 1 is a ridiculous word. It can only happen in an immature stage of tennis history. Too many thing about Gonzales are myths, like his serve's speed. We do not know for sure.
I have the Gonzales vs. Pasarell match from 1969 Wimbledon on DVD, and even at 41 years of age, his serve is quite brilliant. It would have been a lot better during his prime when he was the dominant player in the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
So, because too many things about Gonzales are myth, he lives in a cloud that protects him from other modern greats.
How is it a myth? He was the best player for 8 years on the pro tour, and beat all the newly turned professionals, who had been top amateurs, players like Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Anderson, Cooper, Olmedo. Trabert and Cooper, for example, won 3 out of 4 majors in their last year as an amateur, and then got annihilated by Gonzales on the world pro tour, where Gonzales won 74-27 against Trabert in 1956, and a combined 34-0 against Cooper and Anderson in 1959.

Gonzales was in another league to the top amateurs, and only Hoad was a serious challenger straight away. It even took Rosewall until the early 1960s, by which time Gonzales was in his early 30s and had dominated the pro game for years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
That also happens with every pre-open players. They are living in the cloud. Wow, they won too many tournaments (Laver won 199, I guess) while Federer can not pass 90 mark. Wow, they won too many majors (Laver 19, Rosewall 23, I guess). For the God's sake, how many of them are mickey mouse with very few participant? Should we count 1 pro slam in 1967 equal a today's slam? I guess NOT.
Laver won 200 tournaments. The only big tournament he never won was the WCT Dallas tournament, finishing runner-up to Rosewall in both 1971 and 1972. And the reason Federer cannot match Laver for number of tournaments won is mostly because of the number of hardcourt tournaments in modern tennis, which shorten careers. In Laver's time, grass, clay, carpet and wood predominated by some margin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
It is funny. If my memory sever well, there are many threads here discussing who was the best player of X year, like this or this. And now you try to persuade me that you do not have any disputes. I dont think it will work.
My list is my list of who I think are the best players per year. I don't say it's absolute truth, just my opinion. Even in the open era, there are disputes. Do you agree with the ATP computer that Connors was number 1 in 1975, 1977 and 1978, that McEnroe was number 1 in 1982, and that Lendl was number 1 in 1989? Because I sure don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonicare View Post
More nostalgic nonsense. No one cares how you rank them. We need to know how they were ranked by the official bodies. I expect you to avoid this question because it will expose your nonsensical argument..
So do you agree with the ATP computer regarding the best players of 1975, 1977, 1978, 1982 and 1989?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonicare View Post
The idea that a 5 foot 10 Laver could compete with today's players even if he was born in this era is ridiculous. His career would be slightly better than Ferrer's because he has the advantage of being a lefty. Would not win a slam GAURANTEED
That is all speculation. You could just as easily say that Federer doesn't stand a chance in the era of wooden racquets, no tiebreaks and no sitdowns at the change of ends against Laver. No modern player could just play the game that they do today with 1960s equipment, because wooden racquets didn't have the power to dictate from the baseline with the authority and depth of today's game. You had to go into the net a lot back then.

You say Laver couldn't cope in today's game, but you don't seem to ask about Federer in Laver's day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMF View Post
Your list is flaw because there are two tours competing at that time. Had both tours combined which the field would be stronger, it makes a world of difference.
And? That doesn't mean that the players were worse. In Gonzales' time, the best players were the professionals, and he was playing against these top players all the time. Imagine Federer always playing against 15 of the top 20 players, instead of often playing against players way below that ranking. Playing against players of such high calibre on a very regular basis, like the old pros did, will make you a better player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMF View Post
You also double counting with 2 players/per year earning the best player. Had the open-era had two tours and 2 players gets to be number one in the world, Fed/Nadal would earn more year at #1. Nadal would have 6 years end #1(with would include 2005, 06, 07, 09, 11) had Fed and Nole was playing in a separate tour.
I am not. Gonzales was the best player in the world when he was the best professional. In 1949, when Gonzales was the best amateur player, the best player in the world was Jack Kramer.

I personally believe the best professional player was always better than the best amateur player in the years I've listed, apart from 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1932 and 1933, when the best amateur player was the best player in the world. In the 1930s, the gap between the top professionals and the top amateurs was very close, but after the late 1940s, the top professionals had a clear lead over the top amateurs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonicare View Post
Agreed. I asked Mustard about this in another thread but he completely ignored me.

I will ask again

If you are comfortable with having 2 tours and not conceding that it makes it easier to compete in 2 tours, then please do tell how many 3.5 tournaments can one win today to equal to a grandslam on the ATP tour?
What is 3.5 tournaments?

Quote:
Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY View Post
Timely list, Mustard, but i'm fairly certain the OP is likely another alternate account of a TW regular who needs to make yet another argument leading to Federer being crowned some sort of "GOAT," when he never earned that distinction, and never will (his lack of ability to win the Grand Slam at the top of it all).

If some were so sure of Federer's alleged status, there would no need to launch threads like this over and over and over again.
Yeah, it's annoying. Unless one says that Federer is the undisputed GOAT, one gets criticised. Unfortunately for them, tennis history is far too complicated for that, and there are stats where Federer is behind. Federer is not the only GOAT candidate, but one of many.

Last edited by Mustard : 11-10-2012 at 11:33 AM.
Mustard is offline   Reply With Quote