Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
So Bobby Riggs is possibly top 10 all time, while Nadal and Agassi are not. Total crock list, sorry. Comparing Riggs or Segura (and yes I know he was a top pro player in the early 50s when the mens pro game was briefly thin anyway) to Nadal or even Agassi is equivalent to the certain someone who kept trying to compare Kodes to Vines. The massive gap Nadal and Agassi have over such players is as large or bigger than that.
Originally Posted by forzamilan90
This is the one time I agree with you
Riggs was world number one, won Wimbledon, two US Championship and over 100 tournaments. He also won three US Pros for a total of six majors. He defeated Don Budge in two major tours. That was for the World Championship, essentially bigger than a major.
He was ranked number one for a number of years consecutively. He is also ranked by many in the top tier of all timers. I didn't say Nadal wasn't in the top ten by the way. I wrote I prefer to err on the side of caution
so I wouldn't rank him, as of now. So in this post and the post following I will rank Nadal.
Here's the thing, I don't think Riggs is top ten material but he in my opinion has a reasonable enough resume to be in the running for top ten. In Riggs' era perhaps only Budge, Perry and Kramer can be called superior to him. It's debatable with Budge since Riggs' beat him in two tours. And it's debatable with Perry because Riggs was number one in the pros while Perry was playing. Admittedly perhaps Perry was pass his best. So if you look at 100 plus tournament wins, six majors, two big World Championship tours won and a number of years at number one, can you really say that Riggs is not top ten material? That's a BIG RESUME.
The problem with Riggs is that we dismiss him as the clown who lost to Billie Jean King. That clearly hurt the Riggs' legacy.
Segura was possibly the second best player of the 1950's. He won three straight US Pros over greats like Pancho Gonzalez and many other tournaments. He was arguably number one in at least one year. He played in a era on a tour with all time greats like Gonzalez, Sedgman, Hoad, Trabert and Rosewall. Subjectively some who saw the Segura forehand and the Connors' backhand believe Segura's shot was the clearly superior shot and arguably the greatest single shot in tennis history. Laver himself considers the Segura forehand to be the best forehand he faced and Laver faced Newcombe, Okker, Gimeno, Hoad, Gonzalez, Sedgman with their great forehands. So Segura just with the forehand alone he had a lot going for him. By all accounts he was a terrific mover, with an excellent volley and a solid but not great backhand. He defeated Hoad regularly, Sedgman apparently most of the time. He defeated Sedgman on a tour by I believe 23 to 22. Just barely but to defeat peak Sedgman on tour is incredible. He lost to Gonzalez on that tour by 20 to 30. Considering Gonzalez was at perhaps his peak, winning 40% against Gonzalez is tremendous. So yes I don't think it's bad to rank Segura as a possibility to be top ten material. And no I don't think he is top ten material. Incidentally he defeated Gonzalez in several of his US Pro wins in the final.