Clay Court GOAT

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Nusslein, Tilden, Stoefen, Plaa, Cochet and Perry were Vines' rivals in the pros. And, of course, Budge eventually dethroned him.

A little piece in the Baltimore Sun, during the first Budge-Vines tour:

"[Vines] is four years older than Budge and has campaigned around the indoor paid circuit every year since he defeated Bill Tilden in their first venture. Hans Nusslein, Lester Stoefen, Henri Cochet, Martin Plaa, Robert Ramillon, Fred Perry, Bruce Barnes, Vincent Richards and Berkeley Bell all fell victim to him by varying margins. His grand total is 240 victories against 108 defeats prior to the current jaunt."

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by krosero

A little piece in the Baltimore Sun, during the first Budge-Vines tour:

"[Vines] is four years older than Budge and has campaigned around the indoor paid circuit every year since he defeated Bill Tilden in their first venture. Hans Nusslein, Lester Stoefen, Henri Cochet, Martin Plaa, Robert Hamilton, Fred Perry, Bruce Barnes, Vincent Richards and Berkeley Bell all fell victim to him by varying margins. His grand total is 240 victories against 108 defeats prior to the current jaunt."

Thanks, krosero

[krosero]

It seems like Vines had a winning record over practically everyone he met. The one big exception is Budge. And Vines might be 0-2 against Bitsy Grant: http://www.tennisarchives.com/coureu...coureurid=5297

Anyone know more about this?

Grant also was 4-4 against Budge: http://www.tennisarchives.com/coureu...?coureurid=540

[kiki]

Kodes is not far from there...unless somebody comes up and tells me that Vines was ALSO BETTER than him on clay...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Kodes is not far from there...unless somebody comes up and tells me that Vines was ALSO BETTER than him on clay...

Vines very well could be better than Kodes on clay. He won the US Clay Courts and won the French Pro on clay. Both top tournaments.

I really don't understand why you continue to compare Vines and Kodes. Vines is arguably first tier all time great, to some the GOAT, to some others possible GOAT. There are very few in the history of tennis who can compare to Vines.

I've seen Kodes in his prime numerous times and while he was a very good player it never struck me at the time that he was an awesome player.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

Kodes is not far from there...unless somebody comes up and tells me that Vines was ALSO BETTER than him on clay...

You should have register this TT board as KODES for your username since you seem to like this guy so much.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Kodes is not far from there...unless somebody comes up and tells me that Vines was ALSO BETTER than him on clay...

Kodes is million light years away from being anywhere close to clay court GOAT ...

In the open era, nadal, borg, rosewall, lendl, kuerten,wilander, federer, bruguera, courier,muster, ferrero,laver,vilas,nastase,panatta are by some distance better than him on clay ...and that's just on top of my head ....

[abmk]

Originally Posted by pc1

I really don't understand why you continue to compare Vines and Kodes.

maybe he's a masochist who enjoys being ridiculed time and again for his foolish statements ?

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by pc1

I've seen Kodes in his prime numerous times and while he was a very good player it never struck me at the time that he was an awesome player.

He was an overachiever and that is meant as a compliment. He had far more heart and determination than talent. It is amazing he ended up with more slams than Nastase, and Nastase also benefited from chances in depleted slam fields during the strikes and various other nonense of the earlier 70s so cant even say it is due to that.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

You should have register this TT board as KODES for your username since you seem to like this guy so much.

Well...needless to say under which other name you should register...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Vines very well could be better than Kodes on clay. He won the US Clay Courts and won the French Pro on clay. Both top tournaments.

I really don't understand why you continue to compare Vines and Kodes. Vines is arguably first tier all time great, to some the GOAT, to some others possible GOAT. There are very few in the history of tennis who can compare to Vines.

I've seen Kodes in his prime numerous times and while he was a very good player it never struck me at the time that he was an awesome player.

I can´t understand having a guy with just 3 majors ( and a very weak opposition in 2 out of 3 finals) to be considered GOAT.Vines is a marketing product while Kodes was a real thing...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

Kodes is million light years away from being anywhere close to clay court GOAT ...

In the open era, nadal, borg, rosewall, lendl, kuerten,wilander, federer, bruguera, courier,muster, ferrero,laver,vilas,nastase,panatta are by some distance better than him on clay ...and that's just on top of my head ....

Federer?? only won 1 RG to Kodes 2...same for Ferrero.Panatta,Vilas,Nastase also won 2 but at least they won the 2 nd best event (Rome) and dominated on clay so, yes, they were all on Kodes level ( if we talk about clay court, of course)

I never said Kodes could claim being cc goat, never.Lendl,Borg,Rosewall,Kuerten,Wilander,Nadal were well above him.If we mix, however, clay and other surfaces....things change and he advances some of your list...hey¡¡ Kodes won as many majors as your beloved Ellsworth

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

maybe he's a masochist who enjoys being ridiculed time and again for his foolish statements ?

Actually, my friend, the epythome of masochism is being a Fed fan and seeing him play Nadal in a major final ( or semifinal, for that mather)

You must love the beating...

We, Laver supporters never had this problem, you know? ( 3 career Gran Chelems)

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

I can´t understand having a guy with just 3 majors ( and a very weak opposition in 2 out of 3 finals) to be considered GOAT.Vines is a marketing product while Kodes was a real thing...

clueless kiki once again doesn't get into his thick head that Vines also won many pro majors and was the top player for years whereas Kodes was well well below the top players of his time and was owned by almost every one of them - laver,rosewall, borg, connors, newk, nastase etc etc .....

oh and Kodes is the one of the luckiest slam winner in history - worst wimbledon in open era in 73, no Laver/Rosewall in either of his FO wins ( the 70 FO draw was real real weak ... ) ...and you are dumb enough to mention competition and Kodes in one sentence ?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Actually, my friend, the epythome of masochism is being a Fed fan and seeing him play Nadal in a major final ( or semifinal, for that mather)

You must love the beating...

hey, he beat him in two wimbledon finals .......and your crush laver's main opponent was someone who won ZERO, yes, ZERO wimbledons , LOL ....

Originally Posted by kiki

We, Laver supporters never had this problem, you know? ( 3 career Gran Chelems)

one real grand slam and his competition was weak, weak, weak .....

and yes, of course laver fans had to face the ignominy of him going to drysdale in 4R in 68, not even getting past QF of a major after 69 .......

and of course they know he was very very lucky that :

he faced gonzales wayyy past his best
his main competition was a declining/aging Rosewall
Hoad was affected so much by injuries ...

in short a transitional champion b/w gonzales/rosewall era and the borg/connors era ....

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Federer?? only won 1 RG to Kodes 2...same for Ferrero.Panatta,Vilas,Nastase also won 2 but at least they won the 2 nd best event (Rome) and dominated on clay so, yes, they were all on Kodes level ( if we talk about clay court, of course)

I never said Kodes could claim being cc goat, never.Lendl,Borg,Rosewall,Kuerten,Wilander,Nadal were well above him.If we mix, however, clay and other surfaces....things change and he advances some of your list...hey¡¡ Kodes won as many majors as your beloved Ellsworth

both the RGs he won were weakened fields ....

give federer the same field and he cleans up the field on clay from 70-73 ( winning 3, possibly 4 RGs, only main threat being nastase in 73 )

federer has won 5 CC masters , been in so many finals at RG ( 5 )

vilas/panatta had to face borg, federer had to face nadal, ferrero had to face kuerten ..... whom did kodes have to face ? franulovic, still to peak nastase ? LOL !!!

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

I can´t understand having a guy with just 3 majors ( and a very weak opposition in 2 out of 3 finals) to be considered GOAT.Vines is a marketing product while Kodes was a real thing...

He had eight majors including the pro majors, not three. won a lot of amateur and pro tournaments, won a number of tours over great players like Perry, Tilden. Had plus records over just about everyone (and perhaps some I'm not familiar with) but Budge and he played Budge close in the first tour. He never lost to Cochet in the pros or amateurs.

Kodes won two weak French Opens much the way Vilas won the Australian and he won a weak Wimbledon. Did anyone ever consider Vilas the best grass player in the world? I don't believe people in general thought Kodes was the best clay player in the world or the best grass player.

Vines was the best player in the world, not just the best grass or clay player. He was the best player in the world for years.

Vines wasn't a product of marketing. How much marketing could he have in the 1930's?

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by kiki

Vines is a marketing product while Kodes was a real thing...

Kodes was lucky to be a good, steady player in depleted fields. Vines was a great player no matter who he was facing.

I have Vines at world no. 1 or co-number 1 for five years between 1931-37. The highest rank Kodes achieved was world no. 4.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Kodes was lucky to be a good, steady player in depleted fields. Vines was a great player no matter who he was facing.

I have Vines at world no. 1 or co-number 1 for five years between 1931-37. The highest rank Kodes achieved was world no. 4.

While I respect Kiki what disturbs me about the comparison is the one sidedness of the comparison. To compare Ellsworth Vines with Jan Kodes is like comparing Michael Jordan to Kiki Vandeweghe in NBA basketball. Jordan's an all time great while Kiki was a very good player.

In this way Vines is an all time great while Kodes is a better than average player. I can probably mentioned more than ten better clay court players than Kodes and probably more than thirty overall players better than Kodes.

With Vines some would argue none are ahead of him and many would argue just a few. Vines is consistently on top ten all time greats list in tennis. I have never seen Kodes on a top ten all time list in anything.

I would not be bothered with Kodes was compared to Michael Chang or JIm Courier but Vines, no way there is any sort of reasonably comparison.

[pc1]

Here's a few top ten lists for the greatest players
Allison Danzig
1. Tilden
2. Cochet
3. Budge
4. Lacoste
5. Kramer
6. Perry
7. Johnston
8. Laver
9. Vines
10. Gonzalez
Emerson-Tie

Hopman
1. Tilden
2. Budge
3. Perry
4. Laver
5. Cochet
6. Lacoste
7. Johnston
8. H L Doherty
9. Vines
10. Gonzalez
Emerson-Tie

Don Budge

No order but he would probably pick Vines first and has said so. The players are Vines, Kramer, Gonzalez, Laver, Rosewall, Sedgman, Segura, Perry, von Cramm, Riggs and Tilden last.

Kramer picks Budge number one and Vines number two with Perry third. But Kramer also added that with Vines hurting (so Kramer says) and very interested in golf that he wasn't sure what would happen if Vines was totally into the tour when he played Don Budge.

I'll get more lists later but I have to leave now. Do all these experts think Vines was a product of marketing? These experts know.