Originally Posted by BobbyOne
kiki, I'm disappointed by your post. Your answers seem rather ignorant. I had thought you are a serious expert as I have written several times in defending you against true ignorants...
You cannot take ONE match as a proof that Santana was that strong. He was great as an amateur but experts knew then that Gimeno was at least as good. They seeded him third at the first open Wimbledon.
Gimeno did beat both Laver and Rosewall twice in the two 1967 big claycourt events. Are you convinced that Santana could have had those four awesome wins against prime Laver and Rosewall?
Gimeno has beaten both Laver and Rosewall at least nine times in the SAME tournaments and one of them (or the other) about 30 times!
Your question regarding Nüsslein is a kind aof demagogy. You do know that Nüsslein was banned from regulary competition at 17 because he got a few D-Marks at 15 when he trained an adult.
You underrate Plaa. This guy was able to beat Tilden in the 1932 World Pro Championships. He won that event.
Nüsslein defeated in clay majors Tilden, Cochet, Vines and indirectly Budge (the latter in 1939).
He was arguably No.1 on clay in 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939!!!
Please have some consideration about my arguments.
I do respect your post but I think Nysslein, like Vines are a bit overhyped, like those big hollywood stars who are not that great actors but somehow are very charismatic (Bogart, Dean,Cooper,Gable)
There was a big big rivalry in the 60 between pro Gimeno journalists and pro Santana ones
The real stuff is Santana played mainly for the glory and Gimeno for the money
As I posted Gimeno had a more all round game while Santana was more inspired and gutsy
In spite of presss pressure they respected each other and had they teamed up in Davis Cup Spain would have been the only real challenge to Aussie total domination in the 60
Along Laver and Newk both had the best FH of the game