Please stop equating 1960s tournaments with Open Era majors

[timnz]

I think the post about these two tournaments is apt. THere is a number of times in the 1970's I have seen the WCT finals tournament mentioned as a major. Players certainly viewed it as such at the time. This continued into the early 80's. It was a hotly contested tournament where the best of the best played. It had far fewer than 128 players (16 players). But that didn't detract at all from the achievement. Similarly the Masters - with 8 players. Players all wanted to win this. Discussions about who was number 1 for the year sometimes balanced on the outcome of this tournament.

[NLBwell]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Really? Didn't Nadal just get taken to five sets in the first round at the French? Federer taken to five sets in the first round of Wimbledon the previous year? Nadal taken to five in both the second and third rounds of the same tournament? And as the OP pointed out, Federer's five-setter in the third of the 2008 Australian Open? His five-setter in the fourth round during his 2009 French title run? Even in his peak year of 2006, getting taken to five by Haas again in the fourth round?

I said rarely a challenge, there are exceptions. (Fourth round would be round of 16 however - so wouldn't apply as an early round, even 3rd round, you would expect a player ranked 32 to 17, so the same situation as now) However, on those days when the top player was playing at a level where they were challenged by a lower ranked player, what if they were playing the 17th best player instead of someone ranked far lower? Also, expecially on faster courts there were a lot more guys like Kendrick and Isner who on a good day could beat anyone with their serve, so there would be a lot more of that type of matches that could be upsets.

Edit:
Of course one reason for not as many upsets is that the guys take it much more seriously and aren't likely to be partying hard the night before. (Yeah, Lendl took all the fun out of the game.)

[ClarkC]

I would rather play a 3-4 round Wimbledon than to run into a John Isner in the round of 32 and risk being beaten by a player who is well suited to that surface, regardless of his ranking.

I would rather play a 3-4 round French Open than to run a gauntlet of players who grew up on red clay, even if the first few of them are lower ranked, at least in part because it wears you down to play 7 such matches.

I put Laver up there with the best of all time, but counting up his pro championships and adding them to his major titles is not how I evaluate him. It is apples vs. oranges.

[egn]

Originally Posted by John123

When people want to argue for the greatness of present players like Federer or Sampras, they sometimes point to total victories of major tournaments (Wimbledon, FO, USO, AO), where Federer (16) and Sampras (14) top the list. This is an absurd argument, because those specific four tournaments didn’t always mean what they do today, for reasons that vary by era. To whatever degree that list matters, it matters only from the mid-1980s onward and can’t be used to compare recent players to those of earlier eras.

I'd agree as has been stated in the past in the 60s, 70s and early 80s a tally count of majors wasn't really ever a huge deal. As in Australia was skipped a lot, France for a while as well. Wimbledon and US were the only two that I could say for all of the the open era were steadily played with exception to Wimbledon 73. I would go as to argue in the mid 80s to late 80s players even valued winning a complete set maybe a bit more. Lendl skipped his best major and even stopped focusing on it for the later part of his career in a never ending quest to win a wimbledon. The tally wasn't as important as the prestige of having won wimbledon. Mind you back then he didn't even seem to care so much about Australia as up until probably the start of the 90s the three biggest tournaments in the world were Wimbeldon, US and French. Australia was still just starting to catch on.

Originally Posted by John123

Similarly, when people want to argue for the greatness of past players like Laver or Rosewall, they sometimes point to total victories of the top tournaments from the professional tour of the 1960s. With all due respect, I believe that this too is completely wrong. Pro majors were different from Open majors, and they should not be treated the same way.

The three big differences between pro and Open majors are these:

1. From 1963-1967, all pro majors were played on fast surfaces.

2. Pro majors had fields of anywhere from 8 to 14 players, as opposed to 128 players.

3. Amateurs, who were among the world’s best players, could not compete in pro majors.

Here is where I agree and disagree. Where I will agree with you winning a pro major is not the same as winning an open era major at the time I feel the amateur majors were much further off. Most of the amateur majors were played on pretty fast surfaces, sure Aussie grass was a bit slower than wimbledon but it still was a quick surface and with only one being played on clay that's still not a wide variety. I'm going to make my case against point 3 cause I agree with 2 in a second..

Originally Posted by John123

These things made it easier to win pro majors in bunches, which aided Laver and Rosewall in winning so many of them.

To be clear: You can only play who’s in front of you, and you can only play on the surfaces that are being used. It’s not Laver’s fault that things were like this in the mid-1960s. Also, Point #3 shouldn’t be overstated. The pro majors of the mid-1960s typically included 4 out of the 5 best players in the world, with only Roy Emerson missing. Emerson certainly wasn’t as good as Laver or Rosewall, though his absence did matter, as did the absence of other amateurs who were among the top 10 or top 15 players in the world.

My whole disagreement with this is when open era came about it was the pros who dominated until the young guys matured. The amateurs were very good players, but the cream of the crop were low top 10 at best with exceptions to Newk and Emerson, Newk was probably a top 5 at his best and Emerson as well. Though I'm shaky no Emerson as when the open era came around he vanished. The only big time amateurs who had real success in the open era was Newk and Roche to an extent. In the early years of the open era, Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno. I would say Roche and Newk had some good success but none of the amateurs ever were able to really control the tour with the exception to Ashe (who played very little amateur tennis and hit is prime in the open era) same goes Stan Smith. Soon enough younger new guys took over like Ashe, Smith, Nastase, Kodes leading into then Borg, Connors and Mac.

Originally Posted by John123

To illustrate what pro majors were like, here’s an accounting of Laver’s major wins in 1967. I've supplied rough, theoretical 2011 equivalents of the opponents if Djokovic (the current #1) were substituted for Laver:

1. US Pro (field of 14): Laver beat Olmedo, Ayala, Stolle, and Gimeno
2011 equivalent: if Djokovic beat Seppi, Chela, Monfils, and Murray

2. Wimbledon Pro (field of eight): Laver beat Stolle, Gimeno, and Rosewall
2011 equivalent: if Djokovic beat Monfils, Murray, and Nadal

3. French Pro (field of 12): Laver beat MacKay, Stolle, and Gimeno
2011 equivalent: if Djokovic beat Malisse, Monfils, and Murray

4. Wembley Pro (field of 12): Laver beat MacKay, Davidson, and Rosewall
2011 equivalent: if Djokovic beat Malisse, Almagro, and Nadal

This is where again I am sorry I have to greatly disagree and this where your logic now is confusing me. Seppi in the 1950s would stand no chance at winning any major pro or amateur, yet you rank Olmedo to his level. You would argue than in 1959 Olmedo would be in contention for the top as you said above top amateurs were top players. Seppi was a player who never even made it into the top 25 let alone top 10. Olmedo in 1967 is the equivalent to say Hewitt but not Seppi. Sure I'll be first to say amateur majors had less competition than pro majors, but anyone who won multiple of either majors in a single year was top 10 for that season and if you won two I'd make a case for you being top 5. A guy who had numerous success on the pro tour and beat a couple of the big guys. He was by no means a seppi. He was easily a top 5 player from 58-62 and then a steady top 20 guy post that. Sounds more like a Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko type than a Seppi.

Ayala is Chela, but then this just makes your argument seem even more stange. You argue that these guys are top players than make them into nothings. Ayala won 2 French Championships. Ayala is easily more of the Ferrer, Corretja, Robredo, Costa type than the Chela type.

I can agree with almost everyone else though Stole might be a bit underrated and Mackay might be a bit overrated...

Originally Posted by John123

Bottom Line

Laver’s achievement in sweeping those four tournaments in 1967 was very impressive and significant, just as it would be very impressive and significant if Djokovic were to beat the equivalent players from 2011 in four important tournaments (two on grass and two on a fast indoor surface, with fields of 8 to 14 players) in a calendar year.

But that achievement was not nearly as impressive or significant as Laver’s achievement in 1969 of winning the Grand Slam.

The pro tour of the 1960s was terrific, and its best players were as great as those of any other era. But the right way to assess those players is not to count up majors from that era as if they were the same as majors of other eras. The 1960s majors were less difficult to sweep than Open majors from the mid-1980s to the present.

Pro majors ≠ Open majors

I can agree with you there, but at the same time when equating important tournaments won pro majors should tally. Weigh them less figure out something, which is why in the earlier years I go by dominace of the tour, ranking, etc. However I would say Open majors > Pro Majors > Amateur majors. There is a reason there are tons of guy who won Amateur majors and then went pro and could never grab a pro major, it was still a level above that field at the moment. As you above compared some guys who won amateur majors to Seppi, Monfils and Chela shows that at that point in time the pro majors were truly the greater accomplishment. Yes they are not the same as the open era majors, but they were the best in their time.


Besides even when looking at open era majors a major nowdays can be looked upon as easier than won in the mid 80s to mid 90s. Just think about wimbledon before they starting seeding the top 32. Imagine a wimbledon draw this year that just went

R1: Del Potro
R2: Isner
R3: Llodra
R4: Tsonga
QF: Roddick
SF: Murray/Fed
F: Nadal/Djok

That is potentially the draw a player could have faced if they did not seed the top 32 players..and only the top 16...I feel the early rounds of majors have become a bit of a snoozish because you get all the top guys into a good rhythm before they have to play each other. However if it's your first match of the year at wimbledon and you say are ranked 8 and draw the ranked 17 guy who just missed being seeded, yea the later rounds might *lack depth* but by the QFs you'll probably still wind up with most of the top 10 and two or three upsets. However top players would be more challenged.

[John123]

Originally Posted by egn

at the time I feel the amateur majors were much further off.

Completely agreed. No doubt.

Originally Posted by egn

My whole disagreement with this is when open era came about it was the pros who dominated until the young guys matured. The amateurs were very good players, but the cream of the crop were low top 10 at best with exceptions to Newk and Emerson, Newk was probably a top 5 at his best and Emerson as well.

Once again, there is no disagreement here whatsoever. We're on the same page.

Originally Posted by egn

This is where again I am sorry I have to greatly disagree and this where your logic now is confusing me. Seppi in the 1950s would stand no chance at winning any major pro or amateur, yet you rank Olmedo to his level. You would argue than in 1959 Olmedo would be in contention for the top as you said above top amateurs were top players. Seppi was a player who never even made it into the top 25 let alone top 10. Olmedo in 1967 is the equivalent to say Hewitt but not Seppi. Sure I'll be first to say amateur majors had less competition than pro majors, but anyone who won multiple of either majors in a single year was top 10 for that season and if you won two I'd make a case for you being top 5. A guy who had numerous success on the pro tour and beat a couple of the big guys. He was by no means a seppi. He was easily a top 5 player from 58-62 and then a steady top 20 guy post that. Sounds more like a Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko type than a Seppi.

I'm very glad you brought this up. I wanted to explain it in my original post, but it was a long post already, so I waited to see if anyone would ask.

I chose analogues based solely on where I estimated each player would be in the respective world rankings of his day. Seppi is ranked #37 now, and I figured that was about right for an old Olmedo. I actually considered using Hewitt as you suggested because his career was a much better fit; but Hewitt's current ranking is #174, so I didn't think that was fair to Olmedo. Of course you're right that Olmedo was a much greater player over the course of his career than Seppi -- no comparison at all. But all I meant was to describe where Olmedo and the others ranked in 1967.

Originally Posted by egn

Ayala is Chela, but then this just makes your argument seem even more stange. You argue that these guys are top players than make them into nothings. Ayala won 2 French Championships. Ayala is easily more of the Ferrer, Corretja, Robredo, Costa type than the Chela type.

I know -- see my last comment. I'm talking about Ayala's level of play in 1967 only.

Originally Posted by egn

I can agree with almost everyone else though Stole might be a bit underrated and Mackay might be a bit overrated...

Someone else here said that I underrated MacKay, so you can never please everyone! But I think we're basically in agreement on everything. I should have explained my approach in the original post.

Originally Posted by egn

However I would say Open majors > Pro Majors > Amateur majors.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by egn

I can agree with you there, but at the same time when equating important tournaments won pro majors should tally. Weigh them less figure out something, which is why in the earlier years I go by dominace of the tour, ranking, etc.

Once again, this is precisely what I think.

Originally Posted by egn

There is a reason there are tons of guy who won Amateur majors and then went pro and could never grab a pro major, it was still a level above that field at the moment. As you above compared some guys who won amateur majors to Seppi, Monfils and Chela shows that at that point in time the pro majors were truly the greater accomplishment. Yes they are not the same as the open era majors, but they were the best in their time.

Yes.

[egn]

Originally Posted by John123

I chose analogues based solely on where I estimated each player would be in the respective world rankings of his day. Seppi is ranked #37 now, and I figured that was about right for an old Olmedo. I actually considered using Hewitt as you suggested because his career was a much better fit; but Hewitt's current ranking is #174, so I didn't think that was fair to Olmedo. Of course you're right that Olmedo was a much greater player over the course of his career than Seppi -- no comparison at all. But all I meant was to describe where Olmedo and the others ranked in 1967.


I know -- see my last comment. I'm talking about Ayala's level of play in 1967 only.

Okay I can see where you are coming from with that. However I would always feel that say a Hewitt/Nalbandian/Davydenko type older ranked 37 is better than a Seppi at 37. Sure both are 37 but the first group has shown the ability to play at the highest level and as Goran did in 2001 although a fluke but similar to Safin 08, Hewitt 09, Sampras 02, Connors and McEnroe late career US Open runs showed that they can still relive greatness. I agree though in 1967 Olmedo was a top 20 players and not a top 5.

[CyBorg]

I think I agree with the message here. We have to be careful assigning numbers too liberally.

I think that those pro majors do matter. A lot. And knowing who won and which ones is important. But counting them up and comparing those totals with those of the present eras is no doubt misleading.

However these very results, the pro majors, are still useful in order to illustrate the extent to which some players dominated their respective tours. For example, we know from looking at the results of the majors in 1967 (whatever they may be) that Rod Laver ruled tennis.

I would also like to remind that the so-called 'pro majors' were not always the same three or four events from year to year in the 1960s. Yes, typically we would look at the US Pro, Wembley and French Pro, but participation in these events did vary depending on the year. Although less so than in the 1950s.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by pc1

You may be correct but it's all debatable. Let's look at the first Open Era Open tournaments. The first Open era tournament was won by Ken Rosewall over Rod Laver. The first French Open was won by Ken Rosewall over Rod Laver. The first Wimbledon was won by Rod Laver over Tony Roche and Roche was a Pro. The first US Open was won by Arthur Ashe (technically an amateur) over Tom Okker. The first Australian Open was won by Rod Laver over Andres Gimeno, both pros. The second French Open was won by Rod Laver over Ken Rosewall, both pros. The second Wimbledon was won by Rod Laver over John Newcombe, both pros in 1968 although Newk (and Roche too) were amateurs in 1967. The second US Open was won by Laver over Tony Roche.

In 1970 Rosewall won the US Open over Tony Roche and was in the finals of Wimbledon. He also won the Australian in 1971 and 1972 over Ashe and Anderson respectively. There were also a number of boycotts in which Laver, Rosewall and company did not play the majors.

Gimeno won the French Open in 1972 in a relatively weak field. But Kodes won the French in 1970 and 1971. It's debatable whether Kodes would have won the French if Laver and Rosewall were in the tournament. Considering that Laver beat Kodes easily in the Italian Open final in 1971 I would tend to think that Laver or Rosewall would have been favored over Kodes even though Kodes was an excellent clay court player.

As you can see by the results, the pros did quite well in the majors. Actually the Pros from the 1960's dominated the early majors. They may as well been the Old Pro Majors considering the results. This happened regularly in those days.

A small field with greats I think would be preferable to a large field with weaker players. Think of it this way, the YEC has been ranked as about equivalent to majors in the past and clearly above the Australian for some years. The WCT championship was clearly considered a major although not a classic major. It only had an eight man field. Arthur Ashe was ranked number one in 1975 primarily on his Wimbledon win and his WCT win.

You have a point John123 but imagine a field in the 1950's with Hoad, Rosewall, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert and Gonzalez. All at or near their primes. Might be a small field, but it definitely is an awesome tournament.

This is a good post as well. The so called "grand slam" majors of the open era were also not always the most important tournaments. At least until the mid-1980s or so. Definitely until the standardized tours of 1990 and beyond.

[Nadal_Power]

Just read this in other big tennis forum.. can someone confirm we actually didn't have Pro Majors before 1968?

In fact, there were no Pro Slams before open tennis.
Some tournaments had more prestige and money than others, such as the Forest Hills Pro (held in 1957, 1958, 1959 only), the Melbourne Pro at Kooyong stadium (held in 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1962) and Roland Garros Pro (held in 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1968 ).
Wembley was the most important indoor tournament (billed as the World Pro Indoor Championships), but was less prestigious than Forest Hills or Kooyong, judging from the list of finalists (Anderson won in 1959). Wembley, with its densely-smoke-filled interior, no air-conditioning, was hard on the bigger players who needed lots of oxygen, and favoured smaller players such as Rosewall, Segura, Laver who dominated the finals.
The same was true for Stade Coubertin, in Paris, a smoky, dingy place, where the French Pro located in the 1960's.
The so-called US Pro was not officially recognized as a pro championship by the USPLTA between 1952 and 1962 when it was held in Cleveland, but this did not stop Jack March, the promoter from extravagent billing. It usually only attracted two or three of the top pros.
In short, there was no regularly held Pro Slam tournament in the old pro days before open tennis, and each tournament has to be evaluated independently on its own merits.
By any standard, Hoad won three major pro tournaments, the 1958 Melbourne Pro at Kooyong, the 1959 Forest Hills Pro (the unofficial world pro championship), and the 1960 Melbourne Pro at Kooyong. All of these tournaments had concurrent doubles titles, which Hoad also won with Trabert or Anderson as partners. (The so-called US Pro had, of course, no doubles event).

[Terre Battu]

Originally Posted by John123

When people want to argue for the greatness of present players like Federer or Sampras, they sometimes point to total victories of major tournaments (Wimbledon, FO, USO, AO), where Federer (16) and Sampras (14) top the list. This is an absurd argument, because those specific four tournaments didn’t always mean what they do today, for reasons that vary by era. To whatever degree that list matters, it matters only from the mid-1980s onward and can’t be used to compare recent players to those of earlier eras.

Similarly, when people want to argue for the greatness of past players like Laver or Rosewall, they sometimes point to total victories of the top tournaments from the professional tour of the 1960s. With all due respect, I believe that this too is completely wrong. Pro majors were different from Open majors, and they should not be treated the same way.

The three big differences between pro and Open majors are these:

1. From 1963-1967, all pro majors were played on fast surfaces.

2. Pro majors had fields of anywhere from 8 to 14 players, as opposed to 128 players.

3. Amateurs, who were among the world’s best players, could not compete in pro majors.

These things made it easier to win pro majors in bunches, which aided Laver and Rosewall in winning so many of them.

To be clear: You can only play who’s in front of you, and you can only play on the surfaces that are being used. It’s not Laver’s fault that things were like this in the mid-1960s. Also, Point #3 shouldn’t be overstated. The pro majors of the mid-1960s typically included 4 out of the 5 best players in the world, with only Roy Emerson missing. Emerson certainly wasn’t as good as Laver or Rosewall, though his absence did matter, as did the absence of other amateurs who were among the top 10 or top 15 players in the world.

To illustrate what pro majors were like, here’s an accounting of Laver’s major wins in 1967. I've supplied rough, theoretical 2011 equivalents of the opponents if Djokovic (the current #1) were substituted for Laver:

1. US Pro (field of 14): Laver beat Olmedo, Ayala, Stolle, and Gimeno
2011 equivalent: if Djokovic beat Seppi, Chela, Monfils, and Murray

2. Wimbledon Pro (field of eight): Laver beat Stolle, Gimeno, and Rosewall
2011 equivalent: if Djokovic beat Monfils, Murray, and Nadal

3. French Pro (field of 12): Laver beat MacKay, Stolle, and Gimeno
2011 equivalent: if Djokovic beat Malisse, Monfils, and Murray

4. Wembley Pro (field of 12): Laver beat MacKay, Davidson, and Rosewall
2011 equivalent: if Djokovic beat Malisse, Almagro, and Nadal


Bottom Line

Laver’s achievement in sweeping those four tournaments in 1967 was very impressive and significant, just as it would be very impressive and significant if Djokovic were to beat the equivalent players from 2011 in four important tournaments (two on grass and two on a fast indoor surface, with fields of 8 to 14 players) in a calendar year.

But that achievement was not nearly as impressive or significant as Laver’s achievement in 1969 of winning the Grand Slam.

The pro tour of the 1960s was terrific, and its best players were as great as those of any other era. But the right way to assess those players is not to count up majors from that era as if they were the same as majors of other eras. The 1960s majors were less difficult to sweep than Open majors from the mid-1980s to the present.

Pro majors ≠ Open majors

THANK YOU!!!

[kiki]

Originally Posted by egn

I'd agree as has been stated in the past in the 60s, 70s and early 80s a tally count of majors wasn't really ever a huge deal. As in Australia was skipped a lot, France for a while as well. Wimbledon and US were the only two that I could say for all of the the open era were steadily played with exception to Wimbledon 73. I would go as to argue in the mid 80s to late 80s players even valued winning a complete set maybe a bit more. Lendl skipped his best major and even stopped focusing on it for the later part of his career in a never ending quest to win a wimbledon. The tally wasn't as important as the prestige of having won wimbledon. Mind you back then he didn't even seem to care so much about Australia as up until probably the start of the 90s the three biggest tournaments in the world were Wimbeldon, US and French. Australia was still just starting to catch on.



Here is where I agree and disagree. Where I will agree with you winning a pro major is not the same as winning an open era major at the time I feel the amateur majors were much further off. Most of the amateur majors were played on pretty fast surfaces, sure Aussie grass was a bit slower than wimbledon but it still was a quick surface and with only one being played on clay that's still not a wide variety. I'm going to make my case against point 3 cause I agree with 2 in a second..



My whole disagreement with this is when open era came about it was the pros who dominated until the young guys matured. The amateurs were very good players, but the cream of the crop were low top 10 at best with exceptions to Newk and Emerson, Newk was probably a top 5 at his best and Emerson as well. Though I'm shaky no Emerson as when the open era came around he vanished. The only big time amateurs who had real success in the open era was Newk and Roche to an extent. In the early years of the open era, Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno. I would say Roche and Newk had some good success but none of the amateurs ever were able to really control the tour with the exception to Ashe (who played very little amateur tennis and hit is prime in the open era) same goes Stan Smith. Soon enough younger new guys took over like Ashe, Smith, Nastase, Kodes leading into then Borg, Connors and Mac.



This is where again I am sorry I have to greatly disagree and this where your logic now is confusing me. Seppi in the 1950s would stand no chance at winning any major pro or amateur, yet you rank Olmedo to his level. You would argue than in 1959 Olmedo would be in contention for the top as you said above top amateurs were top players. Seppi was a player who never even made it into the top 25 let alone top 10. Olmedo in 1967 is the equivalent to say Hewitt but not Seppi. Sure I'll be first to say amateur majors had less competition than pro majors, but anyone who won multiple of either majors in a single year was top 10 for that season and if you won two I'd make a case for you being top 5. A guy who had numerous success on the pro tour and beat a couple of the big guys. He was by no means a seppi. He was easily a top 5 player from 58-62 and then a steady top 20 guy post that. Sounds more like a Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko type than a Seppi.

Ayala is Chela, but then this just makes your argument seem even more stange. You argue that these guys are top players than make them into nothings. Ayala won 2 French Championships. Ayala is easily more of the Ferrer, Corretja, Robredo, Costa type than the Chela type.

I can agree with almost everyone else though Stole might be a bit underrated and Mackay might be a bit overrated...




I can agree with you there, but at the same time when equating important tournaments won pro majors should tally. Weigh them less figure out something, which is why in the earlier years I go by dominace of the tour, ranking, etc. However I would say Open majors > Pro Majors > Amateur majors. There is a reason there are tons of guy who won Amateur majors and then went pro and could never grab a pro major, it was still a level above that field at the moment. As you above compared some guys who won amateur majors to Seppi, Monfils and Chela shows that at that point in time the pro majors were truly the greater accomplishment. Yes they are not the same as the open era majors, but they were the best in their time.


Besides even when looking at open era majors a major nowdays can be looked upon as easier than won in the mid 80s to mid 90s. Just think about wimbledon before they starting seeding the top 32. Imagine a wimbledon draw this year that just went

R1: Del Potro
R2: Isner
R3: Llodra
R4: Tsonga
QF: Roddick
SF: Murray/Fed
F: Nadal/Djok

That is potentially the draw a player could have faced if they did not seed the top 32 players..and only the top 16...I feel the early rounds of majors have become a bit of a snoozish because you get all the top guys into a good rhythm before they have to play each other. However if it's your first match of the year at wimbledon and you say are ranked 8 and draw the ranked 17 guy who just missed being seeded, yea the later rounds might *lack depth* but by the QFs you'll probably still wind up with most of the top 10 and two or three upsets. However top players would be more challenged.

well said.Those poster knows nothing...Olmedo a Seppi? he should learn a bit before posting...Ayala a Monfils,Chela or Almagro? Knows nothing about tennis.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

well said.Those poster knows nothing...Olmedo a Seppi? he should learn a bit before posting...Ayala a Monfils,Chela or Almagro? Knows nothing about tennis.

Typical Lavertard respond, especially when this place happened to be a pro-laver forum.

It's like being in a Mercedes forum when one try to argue BMW > Mercedes. You can't win !

[NadalAgassi]

The Pro Slams from the 50s and 60s should just count instead as those are were the best fields and best players were, not the amateur slams. Of course even that is somewhat unfair to those players as there was no Australian Pro.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by egn

Where I will agree with you winning a pro major is not the same as winning an open era major at the time I feel the amateur majors were much further off.

And that brings up a difficult question: what if the pro majors were more difficult to win than the amateur majors? What if we don't even go that far, and we just say, for the sake of argument, that the pro majors and amateur majors were comparable in difficulty.

They why would we count the amateur majors among a player's "biggest" titles (for example, Laver's 1962 Australian title), and not count his pro majors?

I agree with you and John123 that a pro major, and an amateur major, are not the same as an Open Era major. But why count the amateur majors and not the pro, especially if the pro events had the best players in the world?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

Typical Lavertard respond, especially when this place happened to be a pro-laver forum.

It's like being in a Mercedes forum when one try to argue BMW > Mercedes. You can't win !

I never mentioned Laver.I just think it is pathetic to compare Ayala to somebody called Chela or Almagro, or, even worse, Olmedo to " Seppi"...Would you like to compare Federer to John Douglas or Djokovic to Herbie Fitzgibbon? Douglas and Fitzgibbon being the Seppis , Chelas or Almagros of the era.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

Typical Lavertard respond, especially when this place happened to be a pro-laver forum.

It's like being in a Mercedes forum when one try to argue BMW > Mercedes. You can't win !

BTW, all Lavertards know that Alex Olmedo was one of the only 2 players to beat Laver at a W final, that was in laver´s first ever slam final, back in 1959 (Neale Fraser beat Laver again in 1960).

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

I never mentioned Laver.I just think it is pathetic to compare Ayala to somebody called Chela or Almagro, or, even worse, Olmedo to " Seppi"...Would you like to compare Federer to John Douglas or Djokovic to Herbie Fitzgibbon? Douglas and Fitzgibbon being the Seppis , Chelas or Almagros of the era.

I didn't say you mention Laver. All I'm saying is your typical response is like a lavertard.

I don't expect John123 get much support in here. Just like a BMW fan would get much support in a Mercedes' forum. Capiche ?

[NadalAgassi]

In TMF's sad and truly pathetic World tennis did not even exist until his god Federer won his first slam. He probably jerks off to Federer photos every morning and night. His whole sad excuse of a life revolves around Federer, who does not even know he exists (and would file a restraining order against his stalker if he ever did). Truly sad.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

I didn't say you mention Laver. All I'm saying is your typical response is like a lavertard.

I don't expect John123 get much support in here. Just like a BMW fan would get much support in a Mercedes' forum. Capiche ?

You are right.Because BMW is for newcomers and Mercedes for the well stablished people ( who break off their asses laughing at the pathetic attempts of new rich proving to be in their same class)

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

In TMF's sad and truly pathetic World tennis did not even exist until his god Federer won his first slam. He probably jerks off to Federer photos every morning and night. His whole sad excuse of a life revolves around Federer, who does not even know he exists (and would file a restraining order against his stalker if he ever did). Truly sad.

So true...so cruel.Don´t be so harsh on TMF.We need him, he is not such a jerk like ABMK,Fedrulz,Aphex or Drakulie...