Originally Posted by Phoenix1983
3rd best player in the world in a particular decade could not win a single major tournament - I'm including pro majors - in that decade? Doesn't that strike you as a bit of an odd thought? No matter how strong the top two, the 3rd best should have been able to win majors (I refer you to the case of Djokovic in comparison to Federer/Nadal).
I can only assume the seeding system at that time was not as scientific as it is today. In fact Wimbledon, even until relatively recently, picked and chose their seeding and did not base it on official rankings. Kramer obviously had a vested interest in seeing pros seeded highly.
h2h doesn't mean much when ranking greats IMHO - could have been a match-up issue. I give credit to Gimeno for his FO in 1972 but fact is that's the only major title he ever won, amateur, pro or Open.
Never in a pro major though.
Yes, and I can (sort of) understand why they thought that - but IMHO they were giving way too much credit to the 'lesser' professionals ahead of the leading amateurs. Laver and Rosewall were the only pros who went on to dominate the early years of the Open Era (Gonzales of course put in tremendous performances for his age).
I guess all I'm saying is that, although we should rank the pros well above the amateurs, there has to be some kind of cut-off point, so we can't rank a guy who won 1 Open Era slam above a guy who won 12 amateur slams.
Phoenix, Gimeno did beat Rosewall in four majors.
Gimeno, Gonzalez, Anderson, Buchholz and Ralston showed in open era how strong they still were.