Clay Court GOAT

[krosero]

Originally Posted by kiki

Majors won: 3 each

Pancho Gonzalez vs. Marat Safin
2 majors each

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Yes Crawford overtook him in 1933 and then he turned pro immediately rather than continue to face a younger and stronger opponent. Budge turned pro and overtook him immediately once he did, and Vines in turn immediately quit tennis and went to pro golf. In between he was mostly beating men a decade older than him like Tilden, Cochet, and LaCoste.

Just settle that you proved kiki was wrong and Vines > Kodes. Stop trying to inflate him into something nobody outside a few posters in this thread thinks he is.




Budge was dominant vs everyone he faced in the late 30s and won the CYGS, what is the difference. Budge also wasnt only facing greats a decade older than him, the way Graf and Vines both did during the heights of their dominance. It was like challenging their own Mom or Dad to play against them, and the best their own age were such giants as Nussein or Sabatini.

Didn´t prove anything at all.If Kodes had faced Nusslein or Stoeffen in majors, he would have 2.3 more majors by now.

Vines, while he may be more talented than Kodes, just dominated one -two years, then, as you posted avoided Crawford and turned pro and beat either old guys like tilden and Cochet or mere journeymen like Nusslein or Stoefen.Then, Budge and Perry beat him and he takes golf.it doesn´t seem to me a truly dominant player 8 except for a couple of years, with a much weaker opposition Kodes ever had)

[krosero]

Originally Posted by kiki

Tilden was very old, Nusslein,Stoefen,Plaas are nobodies...and seems that Vines lost very early at the majors from 1933 on...looks like his record, while great and very honourable, doesn´t go along those senseless praising he is getting over here.

Originally Posted by kiki

Didn´t prove anything at all.If Kodes had faced Nusslein or Stoeffen in majors, he would have 2.3 more majors by now.

Vines, while he may be more talented than Kodes, just dominated one -two years, then, as you posted avoided Crawford and turned pro and beat either old guys like tilden and Cochet or mere journeymen like Nusslein or Stoefen.Then, Budge and Perry beat him and he takes golf.it doesn´t seem to me a truly dominant player 8 except for a couple of years, with a much weaker opposition Kodes ever had)

Truly ignorant to call Nusslein a nobody.

And you're not even following the debate now. You think Perry beat Vines? When?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kiki

Tilden was very old, Nusslein,Stoefen,Plaas are nobodies...and seems that Vines lost very early at the majors from 1933 on...looks like his record, while great and very honourable, doesn´t go along those senseless praising he is getting over here.

Tilden was the best professional player in the world from 1931-1933. Vines dethroned Tilden, and then defended his crown against challengers such as Nusslein, Stoefen, Cochet, Plaa and Perry. Nobody succeeded until Budge did in 1939.

And as for Budge, he was dethroned by Riggs as the best professional before the end of the war. Using NadalAgassi's logic, that makes Budge overrated.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by krosero

Truly ignorant to call Nusslein a nobody.

And you're not even following the debate now. You think Perry beat Vines? When?

How many majors did Nusslein have? whom did he beat to achieve´em?

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Mustard

And as for Budge, he was dethroned by Riggs as the best professional before the end of the war.

Before the end of the war?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kiki

Which years was Vines the nº 1...there are guys called Crawford,Perry and Budge...

I have Vines as the world's best amateur in 1931 and 1932, and the world's best professional in 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938. My subjective opinion is that Vines was the best player in the world in 1932, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by krosero

Pancho Gonzalez vs. Marat Safin
2 majors each

Wrong.Not posible to compare.Gonzales played just 2 years as an amateur and 20 as a pro.I am comparing Vines from 1930-33 and Kodes 70-73.Same slot of time, I guess.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by krosero

Before the end of the war?

Isn't Riggs considered the best player of 1943-1947? Kramer was right on Riggs' back in 1947 for the world's best player while Kramer was still an amateur. Kramer turned pro in late 1947 and overtook Riggs in 1948. Kramer was the last newly turned professional to dethrone the reigning professional champion in a world pro tour. Kramer beat Riggs, Gonzales, Segura and Sedgman in world pro tours. Gonzales beat Segura, Sedgman, Budge, McGregor, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Anderson, Olmedo, MacKay, Buchholz and Gimeno in world pro tours, before retiring in 1961, until June 1963.

Oh, and Perry was the best in 1941, winning all 5 pro tournaments that he played in that year, including the US Pro. Budge lost all 3 tournaments he played in 1941. Budge was the best player in 1939, 1940 and 1942, in my opinion.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kiki

How many majors did Nusslein have? whom did he beat to achieve´em?

Nusslein has 5 professsional majors:

1. 1934 US Pro (beat Jennings, Pare, Vines and Kozeluh)
2. 1937 French Pro (beat Ramillon, Tilden and Cochet)
3. 1937 Wembley Pro (beat Plaa, Stoefen and Tilden)
4. 1938 French Pro (beat Pettit, Plaa and Tilden)
5. 1938 Wembley Pro (beat Tilden)

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Nusslein has 5 professsional majors:

1. 1934 US Pro (beat Jennings, Pare, Vines and Kozeluh)
2. 1937 French Pro (beat Ramillon, Tilden and Cochet)
3. 1937 Wembley Pro (beat Plaa, Stoefen and Tilden)
4. 1938 French Pro (beat Pettit, Plaa and Tilden)
5. 1938 Wembley Pro (beat Tilden)

Thanks.Tilden,Cochet and Hozeluh were reaching their 40´s when Nusslein beta them.Seems like he had old Big Bill´s number, tough.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Wrong.Not posible to compare.Gonzales played just 2 years as an amateur and 20 as a pro.I am comparing Vines from 1930-33 and Kodes 70-73.Same slot of time, I guess.

so Vines of 34-40 doesn't count ??? LOL !!!! Just because your beloved Kodes didn't do much outside of 70-73 ( 4 year time-frame ) we should only consider a 4 year time-frame for Vines ?

LOL !!!!!!!!

[Mustard]

Even if we only talk of Vines' amateur career, who was a better player than Vines in 1932?

When was Kodes the best player in the world?

[kiki]

Kodes was never nº 1, even if he did beat nº 1 players like GOAT Laver, almost Goat´s Rosewall and also Newcombe, big champs like Nasty,Ashe,Smith.He also beat a young Bjorn Borg, and also a great of the 70´s called Orantes.I never claimed him to be nº1.

Vines had a more dominant year, true, in 1932.He may have been more talented, as well.But career wise I still think they are very close, of course, if we leave the marketing issues aside...

(Vines may have won the then called Pro majors but Kodes faced like 3 times the level of competition Vines faced so that counterbalances the former)

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Kodes was never nº 1, even if he did beat nº 1 players like GOAT Laver, almost Goat´s Rosewall and also Newcombe, big champs like Nasty,Ashe,Smith.He also beat a young Bjorn Borg, and also a great of the 70´s called Orantes.I never claimed him to be nº1.

Vines had a more dominant year, true, in 1932.He may have been more talented, as well.But career wise I still think they are very close, of course, if we leave the marketing issues aside...

(Vines may have won the then called Pro majors but Kodes faced like 3 times the level of competition Vines faced so that counterbalances the former)

I don't know why you keep insisting Vines only won three majors when I and some others pointed out he won eight majors if you include Pro Majors.

There are NO marketing issues here. Kodes failed when facing top level competition. I showed his awful won-lost against the likes of Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Vilas, Connors, Nastase, Smith, Newcombe, Okker and many others.

Vines had many more dominant years. He was the top pro and mostly likely the world's best years from 1934 to 1938. Vines faced the top level and succeeded brilliantly beating everyone (with minor exceptions) but Don Budge.

There is no doubt Vines was not just more talented than Budge but far more talented.



I do agree with Krosero that some may rank Vines on level of play as one of the top but his record does stand out.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by kiki

Wrong.Not posible to compare.Gonzales played just 2 years as an amateur and 20 as a pro.I am comparing Vines from 1930-33 and Kodes 70-73.Same slot of time, I guess.

This just demonstrates that Pancho was greater than Vines, which I agree with. But you think it's not possible to compare? Pancho had arguably 8 years as the world's top player, all in the pros. Vines had arguably 6 years altogether as the world's top player -- two years in the amateur game (1931-32) and four more years in the pro game (1934-37) (I can't agree with 1938 ). Pancho has the lead over Vines, but please, they can most definitely be compared. The ironic thing is that they're even closer in your system than in mine, because Vines has arguably two years as #1 in the amateur game, while all of Pancho's years as #1 are in the pro game. And the amateur game is the only one in which you count majors. So Vines, according to you, is greater than Pancho: 3 majors vs. 2.

Yes, I know, Pancho's pro career was greater than Vines'. But hey, if you're going to bring in the pro game, then why do stop Vines' career at 1933? Seriously, I have never seen anything like this on this board. You've stopped a man's career at a point where he still has four years remaining as world #1.

Transparent nonsense.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Kodes was never nº 1, even if he did beat nº 1 players like GOAT Laver, almost Goat´s Rosewall and also Newcombe, big champs like Nasty,Ashe,Smith.He also beat a young Bjorn Borg, and also a great of the 70´s called Orantes.I never claimed him to be nº1.

Vines had a more dominant year, true, in 1932.He may have been more talented, as well.But career wise I still think they are very close, of course, if we leave the marketing issues aside...

(Vines may have won the then called Pro majors but Kodes faced like 3 times the level of competition Vines faced so that counterbalances the former)

he didn't .....and the actual majors that Kodes won, he faced poor competition. If he actually faced the full fields , he may have ended up with ZERO , yes , ZERO majors ....

for example, he lost to laver in rome 71 ...hence lucky he didn't face him or rosewall in 70 FO or 71 FO .....

smith/newcombe were definitely better than him on grass and one or the other would have beaten him in 73 wimbledon....

oh and get this Kodes was owned by almost every great player you mention - laver, rosewall ( both past their best ) , connors, borg, newcombe, nastase .... only one he has a respectable H2H is smith ....

how is a career of 3 amateur majors + 5 pro majors with being top player for several years (Vines ) anywhere close to a career of 3 weakened majors and even close to top player for a single year ( Kodes ) ?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by krosero

This just demonstrates that Pancho was greater than Vines, which I agree with. But you think it's not possible to compare? Pancho had arguably 8 years as the world's top player, all in the pros. Vines had arguably 6 years altogether as the world's top player -- two years in the amateur game (1931-32) and four more years in the pro game (1934-37) (I can't agree with 1938 ). Pancho has the lead over Vines, but please, they can most definitely be compared. The ironic thing is that they're even closer in your system than in mine, because Vines has arguably two years as #1 in the amateur game, while all of Pancho's years as #1 are in the pro game. And the amateur game is the only one in which you count majors. So Vines, according to you, is greater than Pancho: 3 majors vs. 2.

Yes, I know, Pancho's pro career was greater than Vines'. But hey, if you're going to bring in the pro game, then why do stop Vines' career at 1933? Seriously, I have never seen anything like this on this board. You've stopped a man's career at a point where he still has four years remaining as world #1.

Transparent nonsense.

Ok, which are the pro players, other than old ( really old) Tilden and Cochet Vines faced before Budge and Fred Perry turned pro? that will give the measure of competitiveness.

Kodes faced great players in a larger scale.You´ll agree with me on that.Not even the hint of a comparative.It makes no sense to bring the names of Nusslein,Plaas or Stoefen that would be triple baggeled by any of the top 30-40 players of jan Kodes era.I agree with Tilden and Cochet, but they were very past their peak in the late 30´s.it leaves Vines with a little margin if we talk about the pros.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

he didn't .....and the actual majors that Kodes won, he faced poor competition. If he actually faced the full fields , he may have ended up with ZERO , yes , ZERO majors ....

for example, he lost to laver in rome 71 ...hence lucky he didn't face him or rosewall in 70 FO or 71 FO .....

smith/newcombe were definitely better than him on grass and one or the other would have beaten him in 73 wimbledon....

oh and get this Kodes was owned by almost every great player you mention - laver, rosewall ( both past their best ) , connors, borg, newcombe, nastase .... only one he has a respectable H2H is smith ....

how is a career of 3 amateur majors + 5 pro majors with being top player for several years (Vines ) anywhere close to a career of 3 weakened majors and even close to top player for a single year ( Kodes ) ?

Yes, Smith proved being better on grass than Kodes in 73...specially, when they met at the Forest Hills semifinals...

[krosero]

Originally Posted by kiki

(Vines may have won the then called Pro majors but Kodes faced like 3 times the level of competition Vines faced so that counterbalances the former)

This is more nonsense, but the really interesting point is how this argument collapses on itself. If Kodes faced "like 3 times the level of competition Vines faced," simply because he played in the 1970s, then Kodes also faced at least 3 times the competition that Don Budge did.

And as I said to you days ago, if you place quality of competition so high as a criteria, then that completely devalues Budge's Grand Slam, because Budge's competition in 1938 was, in fact, poorer than what Vines faced. In other words, according to you Kodes is on the level of Budge, because Kodes won 3 majors, while Budge won 6, but Kodes' competition was "3 times" greater than what Budge faced. At least 3 times, maybe more.

I mean, isn't that how you've been arguing? Don't you just drop great names from the 70s (even if Kodes never beat them), and throw them into the pot as Kodes' competition. Okay, so let's do that with Budge. Kodes, according to you, played in the great era of Laver, Rosewall, Smith, Nastase, Newcombe, Connors, Borg.

Which of Budge's opponents in 1938 would you like to stack against that list?

I'm sorry, but you've called Budge a GOAT candidate, yet according to your arguments Kodes comes out at least as great as Budge, maybe even greater.

This is so bizarre.