Bill Tilden career accomplishments-a comparison with Federer

pc1 · 06-02-2012, 07:44 AM

There has been a thread in which Jimmy Connors' career is being compared to Roger Federer's. All fine and dandy. Many assumed Federer wins by a Slam Dunk and with all the acclaim Federer gets today I can understand why. And frankly Federer does have the accomplishments to be compared with anyone in tennis history. But still I would prefer cold facts then people writing Federer is superior to player A on hard courts, clay courts, blue clay, grass courts and indoor courts. I've seen comments in the other thread stating Federer was superior to Connors on most surfaces and yet by some incredible magic Mr. Connors has a slightly higher winning percentage for his career. So to me the comments don't work.

Federer may very well be superior to Connors but Connors' career accomplishments are fantastic and if you look carefully it doesn't seem to me at least that it's all that clear.

Here's a question I'll ask--Whose career is more impressive, Bill Tilden's or Roger Federer? The reason I'm mentioning this is to point out that we can state opinions that one or another is the de facto GOAT but we also have to examine the information before we accept the judgment. I used to think Don Budge was by everything I've read, virtually unbeatable. I was surprised when he wasn't close to virtually unbeatable. He was excellent but I realized many of the so called information I read on Budge was just plain wrong. So I reevaluated my opinion on Budge due to the information. So in comparing Federer and Tilden I want everyone to examine and give information on both players. Opinion of course is welcome but hopefully it can be backed with logic. I don't need stuff like Federer's backhand always hit winners and is much better than Djokovic's. None of this about the competition because that can't be controlled. Some may say Tilden's competition was bad and some may say Federer's was bad. We'll assume it's equal. So on accomplishments and just objectively evaluating the career, which career is better. No nonsense about the physical nature being tougher today because any era that complains about blue clay isn't that tough.

I also don't want to hear that the game is different today because I think Tilden at 6'2" tall and around 160 to 170 lbs would have adapted and learned. It can be reversed also to see if Federer can adapt to the conditions of the 1920's. Just leave this out. No one can logically prove anything here. It will go on and on forever and it'll be very annoying to read.

Some stats of Tilden versus Federer. Some of this is estimates I've gotten from some tennis experts who have much of the information.

Total tournaments won
Tilden-161-est.
Federer-76

Total majors won (including Pro Majors)
Tilden-14. Tilden won 15 majors if you include the World Hard Court that Tilden won that was really the major clay court championship. The French was not open to foreigners like Tilden.
Federer-17
We have to take into account that airplane travel was not available during Tilden's time so Big Bill did not go overseas that often. It would take many weeks to travel to England, France or Australian. In his prime Tilden may have won several Grand Slams considering how unbeatable he was.

Percentage of majors won
Tilden-14/42=.333
Federer-17/54=.315

Lifetime winning percentage
Tilden-.660-est
Federer-.817
Note-Tilden, according to Bud Collins' book won from 1912 to 1930 in his amateur career (which essentially was the top level because he faced all the top competition) won 138 of 192 tournaments, lost 28 finals with a 907-62 match record. The winning percentage was .936! Tilden turn pro in the early 1930's and kept playing. The losses he had as an older player lowed his career winning percentage. He lost a good percentage on one night stands to players like Don Budge, Fred Perry, Ellsworth Vines. For example he lost to Budge with a probable score of 7-46-1. He lost to Vines by 27-46. He played both of these tours in his early to late forties. He lost regularly to Fred Perry (at least according to Perry) and he even played long enough to lose to Pancho Gonzalez!

Grand Slams won
Tilden-0
Federer-0

Percentage of tournaments won
Tilden-.520-est.
Federer-.291

Winning percentage in best five years
Tilden-.980-est.
Federer-.907

Look at the information and discuss.

Federer is acclaimed by many to be the GOAT today. Tilden was named in a poll in the late 1960's to be the GOAT at that point.

One thing I can say that is a fact. Roger Federer is currently the greatest blue clay player of all time. There can be no argument there, he just is and to argue against that would be wrong. And Serena Willilams is also currently the greatest female blue clay player of all time. They have proven themselves unbeatable on blue clay.

kiki · 06-02-2012, 07:53 AM

Tilden and Federer had huge talent, both played very weak fields ( until Tilden joined the pros, but he was very old by then) and had just two major rivals each (Lacoste and Cochet / Nadal and Djoker).

Tilden, however, was able to play his substantial best tennis as old as 36 or 37 and it remains to be seen whether Federer will also be capable of.

Oh¡ and their major strokes were the FH, both having 2 of the best ever FH ( and possibly, the best )

darrinbaker00 · 06-02-2012, 07:54 AM

As far as I'm concerned, what Bill Tilden did to teenage boys negated everything he ever accomplished on the tennis court.

pc1 · 06-02-2012, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darrinbaker00

As far as I'm concerned, what Bill Tilden did to teenage boys negated everything he ever accomplished on the tennis court.

That's awful of course but let's just discuss the tennis.

Fearsome Forehand · 06-02-2012, 08:05 AM

Tilden dominated his era. He would have won many more majors if he had actually played the tournaments instead of sitting them out (because it was simply understood that he was the best player in the world and would win.) And once one turned pro, one could no longer play the majors. When still an amateur Tilden was suspended for about a year because he accepted payment for articles he has written. He also lost about a third of the forefinger on his playing hand from an infection in the days before anti-biotics.

Some other factors to consider; players has to travel by ship not planes. (It took Budge 3 weeks to get to Australia the year he won the Slam. And there was a 2 week delay to play his US Open Final due to a hurricane.) I think it took about a week to get to England by ship from NY. Plus almost all tournaments were on grass. A completely different world then. Hard for us to imagine.

Tilden was quite the character. He played pro tennis until his 50's when he dropped dead of a heart attack while preparing to go to yet another tournament (in Cleveland?). He died completely broke, spent some time in jail, dabbled in theater and was sexually creepy/strange (homosexual/pedophile).

If you ever watch film of Tilden, you probably would not be impressed by his game. The modern game is so much different than it was in the 1920's.

pc1 · 06-02-2012, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiki

Tilden and Federer had huge talent, both played very weak fields ( until Tilden joined the pros, but he was very old by then) and had just two major rivals each (Lacoste and Cochet / Nadal and Djoker).

Tilden, however, was able to play his substantial best tennis as old as 36 or 37 and it remains to be seen whether Federer will also be capable of.

Oh¡ and their major strokes were the FH, both having 2 of the best ever FH ( and possibly, the best )

Debatable whether they both played weak fields. Tilden had a lot of top rivals as did Federer at his best.

You're right, Tilden is also recognized as having one of the greatest forehands of all time. Tilden has that in common with Federer.

pc1 · 06-02-2012, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fearsome Forehand

Tilden dominated his era. He would have won many more majors if he had actually played the tournaments instead of sitting them out (because it was simply understood that he was the best player in the world and would win.) And once one turned pro, one could no longer play the majors. When still an amateur Tilden was suspended for about a year because he accepted payment for articles he has written. He also lost about a third of the forefinger on his playing hand from an infection in the days before anti-biotics.

Some other factors to consider; players has to travel by ship not planes. (It took Budge 3 weeks to get to Australia the year he won the Slam. And there was a 2 week delay to play his US Open Final due to a hurricane.) I think it took about a week to get to England by ship from NY. Plus almost all tournaments were on grass. A completely different world then. Hard for us to imagine.

Tilden was quite the character. He played pro tennis until his 50's when he dropped dead of a heart attack while preparing to go to yet another tournament (in Cleveland?). He died completely broke, spent some time in jail, dabbled in theater and was sexually creepy/strange (homosexual/pedophile).

If you ever watch film of Tilden, you probably would not be impressed by his game. The modern game is so much different than it was in the 1920's.

Excellent post. I've seen many videos of Tilden and yes I'm not as impressed in looking at his strokes as I would be compared to a Don Budge or a Bobby Riggs yet old Bill Tilden, age 48 did win seven matches (losing 46 or 51 depending on what you read) against Budge. That's not bad for an old man. I've also seen unimpressive videos of Laver and also impressive videos of Laver. Sometimes it's hard to tell on these old videos.

My gut feeling on Tilden, assuming the same general personality on tennis is that he would have adapted his strokes easily to fit today's style of play. Yes it's different from hitting with a small wooden racquet but let's be real. It's easier to learn to hit with today's racquets which do some much work for you than the other way around. Years ago I had a buddy who had an old wood racquet he hit with. I lent him my modern (at the time) racquet and his strokes just had more punch and spin immediately. He asked me if he could keep the racquet so I gave it to him.

To use an analogy, let's consider the sport of baseball. In High School and many college leagues they allow aluminum baseball bats. They are lighter and more powerful and these players can hit the ball harder. The major leagues use wooden bats and some of the great hitters in HS and College can't hit with wood bats. The major league scouts have to judge if the prospects who used alumininum bats can hit with wood before they consider drafting them.

The ones who use wood can easily adapt to alumininum.

http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/bats/alumwood.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdx41UQM-8c

Fearsome Forehand · 06-02-2012, 10:54 AM

I think that there are some players who, for unknown reasons, are simply geniuses at winning tennis matches. There are lots of guys with big strokes, big serves, nice volleys, great athleticism, all the tools to win and they level off at 200 in the world and never advance beyond that. Some players are just blessed with the ability to win matches. It is an intangible ability. Tilden apparently had that sort of genius given how he dominated his era. How he would do today is hard to say. I assume he could adapt but the talent pool is much bigger now than it was in 1920.

BeHappy · 06-02-2012, 12:40 PM

It was a hundred years ago, who knows? I mean really, this thread is simply pointless. Maybe he was actually a terrible player or maybe he was amazing.

1)It was after World War 1 so there was a massively diluted talent pool.

2)The ONLY people who could play tennis were rich members of country clubs.

3) He was tall in an age where people were very short.

4)He was playing against people who mostly played for fun on the weekends.

There's pretty much no film of him, if he was actually as good as his numbers suggest I would be absolutely amazed. It's possible though.

kiki · 06-02-2012, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeHappy

It was a hundred years ago, who knows? I mean really, this thread is simply pointless. Maybe he was actually a terrible player or maybe he was amazing.

1)It was after World War 1 so there was a massively diluted talent pool.

2)The ONLY people who could play tennis were rich members of country clubs.

3) He was tall in an age where people were very short.

4)He was playing against people who mostly played for fun on the weekends.

There's pretty much no film of him, if he was actually as good as his numbers suggest I would be absolutely amazed. It's possible though.

really? I don´t think Cochet,Borotra,Lacoste,Johnston or Patterson were mere country club players...

billnepill · 06-02-2012, 01:13 PM

Not the best thread

pc1 · 06-02-2012, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billnepill

Not the best thread

Perhaps but I thought for once we would discuss accomplishments and Bill Tilden was a great figure in tennis history.

pc1 · 06-02-2012, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeHappy

It was a hundred years ago, who knows? I mean really, this thread is simply pointless. Maybe he was actually a terrible player or maybe he was amazing.

1)It was after World War 1 so there was a massively diluted talent pool.

2)The ONLY people who could play tennis were rich members of country clubs.

3) He was tall in an age where people were very short.

4)He was playing against people who mostly played for fun on the weekends.

There's pretty much no film of him, if he was actually as good as his numbers suggest I would be absolutely amazed. It's possible though.

Another reason I decided on Tilden is that despite his problems he was a gigantic figure in the game's history, essentially equivalent to Babe Ruth in baseball, Wilt Chamberlain in basketball etc. Tilden also played great players (who incidentally were at least 6 feet tall or over 6 feet tall) like Gonzalez, Vines, Budge, Perry. He played some of these greats hundreds of times.

Perhaps it's a boring subject to many but taking out his "problem" he still was an interesting character and fascinating in his approach to tennis.

There was a story Fred Perry related in his autobiography about Bill Tilden. Perry wrote that Tilden wanted to hit with him on a hot day in Independence, Kansas. Apparently when they got to the court he told Perry to hit a few to his forehand, short and wide. Perry did this and Tilden returned the balls using a perfect continental just like Fred Perry himself would. Tilden said that after watching Perry play so many times and studying his style he realized the continental grip and not his own Eastern grip was the best one for that sort of shot and Tilden felt he wouldn't be a complete player unless he had mastered it. Perry wrote that when Tilden perfected the continental grip he was 53 years old. That's very impressive to me. It just shows what a perfectionist Tilden was and how he was always trying to improve in tennis.

roundiesee · 06-02-2012, 05:02 PM

What would we give to have Big Bill come back from time to play against Federer?

I think Tilden was probably one of the best players who ever lived, but because he played so long ago, many have forgotten how good he was. I also suspect that he was ever the showman, and some of his so-called videos were not an accurate representation of his actual skills during competition.

urban · 06-02-2012, 10:16 PM

Tilden, the Oscar Wilde of Tennis, is in many ways the greatest personality the game has known. Highly ambivalent yes, but no one had this kind of impact - playing, teaching, writing. His record speaks for itself, considering the circumstances, that he played constantly only one major - the US champs - in his prime. One aspect, Frank Deford mentioned, was, that the fundamental style of the game wasn't streamlined in those days. There was no standardisation of grips, strokes, body position, footwork, and so on. Tilden had to set the common standards all by himself, and he did.

pc1 · 06-03-2012, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban

Tilden, the Oscar Wilde of Tennis, is in many ways the greatest personality the game has known. Highly ambivalent yes, but no one had this kind of impact - playing, teaching, writing. His record speaks for itself, considering the circumstances, that he played constantly only one major - the US champs - in his prime. One aspect, Frank Deford mentioned, was, that the fundamental style of the game wasn't streamlined in those days. There was no standardisation of grips, strokes, body position, footwork, and so on. Tilden had to set the common standards all by himself, and he did.

How true. Roger Federer may not be playing the way he plays now without the teachings of Bill Tilden.

pc1 · 06-03-2012, 03:18 AM

A few videos of Bill Tilden
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/big-bill-tilden
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/ba...f-tennis-stars

JorgeLobo · 06-03-2012, 04:10 AM

Think Tilden was more comparable to Michael Jackson than Oscar Wilde. If "ambivalent" means child molester - that he was that indeed.

zagor · 06-03-2012, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pc1

A few videos of Bill Tilden
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/big-bill-tilden
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/ba...f-tennis-stars

Here's a couple of Fed ones for comparison:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JJjOn9_jHU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eUlMv4NowM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNnb1UQRYIk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZZ6QK52aic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJsMyGumukI

pc1 · 06-03-2012, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zagor

Here's a couple of Fed ones for comparison:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JJjOn9_jHU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eUlMv4NowM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNnb1UQRYIk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZZ6QK52aic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJsMyGumukI

I don't have to look. Federer's great. Just thought I'd put the videos in so people can see.

06-02-2012, 07:44 AM	#1
pc1 Legend Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 7,145	Bill Tilden career accomplishments and tennis game-a comparison with Federer There has been a thread in which Jimmy Connors' career is being compared to Roger Federer's. All fine and dandy. Many assumed Federer wins by a Slam Dunk and with all the acclaim Federer gets today I can understand why. And frankly Federer does have the accomplishments to be compared with anyone in tennis history. But still I would prefer cold facts then people writing Federer is superior to player A on hard courts, clay courts, blue clay, grass courts and indoor courts. I've seen comments in the other thread stating Federer was superior to Connors on most surfaces and yet by some incredible magic Mr. Connors has a slightly higher winning percentage for his career. So to me the comments don't work. Federer may very well be superior to Connors but Connors' career accomplishments are fantastic and if you look carefully it doesn't seem to me at least that it's all that clear. Here's a question I'll ask--Whose career is more impressive, Bill Tilden's or Roger Federer? The reason I'm mentioning this is to point out that we can state opinions that one or another is the de facto GOAT but we also have to examine the information before we accept the judgment. I used to think Don Budge was by everything I've read, virtually unbeatable. I was surprised when he wasn't close to virtually unbeatable. He was excellent but I realized many of the so called information I read on Budge was just plain wrong. So I reevaluated my opinion on Budge due to the information. So in comparing Federer and Tilden I want everyone to examine and give information on both players. Opinion of course is welcome but hopefully it can be backed with logic. I don't need stuff like Federer's backhand always hit winners and is much better than Djokovic's. None of this about the competition because that can't be controlled. Some may say Tilden's competition was bad and some may say Federer's was bad. We'll assume it's equal. So on accomplishments and just objectively evaluating the career, which career is better. No nonsense about the physical nature being tougher today because any era that complains about blue clay isn't that tough. I also don't want to hear that the game is different today because I think Tilden at 6'2" tall and around 160 to 170 lbs would have adapted and learned. It can be reversed also to see if Federer can adapt to the conditions of the 1920's. Just leave this out. No one can logically prove anything here. It will go on and on forever and it'll be very annoying to read. Some stats of Tilden versus Federer. Some of this is estimates I've gotten from some tennis experts who have much of the information. Total tournaments won Tilden-161-est. Federer-76 Total majors won (including Pro Majors) Tilden-14. Tilden won 15 majors if you include the World Hard Court that Tilden won that was really the major clay court championship. The French was not open to foreigners like Tilden. Federer-17 We have to take into account that airplane travel was not available during Tilden's time so Big Bill did not go overseas that often. It would take many weeks to travel to England, France or Australian. In his prime Tilden may have won several Grand Slams considering how unbeatable he was. Percentage of majors won Tilden-14/42=.333 Federer-17/54=.315 Lifetime winning percentage Tilden-.660-est Federer-.817 Note-Tilden, according to Bud Collins' book won from 1912 to 1930 in his amateur career (which essentially was the top level because he faced all the top competition) won 138 of 192 tournaments, lost 28 finals with a 907-62 match record. The winning percentage was .936! Tilden turn pro in the early 1930's and kept playing. The losses he had as an older player lowed his career winning percentage. He lost a good percentage on one night stands to players like Don Budge, Fred Perry, Ellsworth Vines. For example he lost to Budge with a probable score of 7-46-1. He lost to Vines by 27-46. He played both of these tours in his early to late forties. He lost regularly to Fred Perry (at least according to Perry) and he even played long enough to lose to Pancho Gonzalez! Grand Slams won Tilden-0 Federer-0 Percentage of tournaments won Tilden-.520-est. Federer-.291 Winning percentage in best five years Tilden-.980-est. Federer-.907 Look at the information and discuss. Federer is acclaimed by many to be the GOAT today. Tilden was named in a poll in the late 1960's to be the GOAT at that point. One thing I can say that is a fact. Roger Federer is currently the greatest blue clay player of all time. There can be no argument there, he just is and to argue against that would be wrong. And Serena Willilams is also currently the greatest female blue clay player of all time. They have proven themselves unbeatable on blue clay. Last edited by pc1 : 08-29-2012 at 03:27 PM. Reason: Updated as of 8/29/2012

06-02-2012, 07:53 AM	#2
kiki G.O.A.T. Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 10,482	Tilden and Federer had huge talent, both played very weak fields ( until Tilden joined the pros, but he was very old by then) and had just two major rivals each (Lacoste and Cochet / Nadal and Djoker). Tilden, however, was able to play his substantial best tennis as old as 36 or 37 and it remains to be seen whether Federer will also be capable of. Oh¡ and their major strokes were the FH, both having 2 of the best ever FH ( and possibly, the best ) __________________ " I have watched plenty of matches of the 70´s and 80´s" ABMK, the historian

06-02-2012, 08:05 AM	#5
Fearsome Forehand Professional Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,018	Tilden dominated his era. He would have won many more majors if he had actually played the tournaments instead of sitting them out (because it was simply understood that he was the best player in the world and would win.) And once one turned pro, one could no longer play the majors. When still an amateur Tilden was suspended for about a year because he accepted payment for articles he has written. He also lost about a third of the forefinger on his playing hand from an infection in the days before anti-biotics. Some other factors to consider; players has to travel by ship not planes. (It took Budge 3 weeks to get to Australia the year he won the Slam. And there was a 2 week delay to play his US Open Final due to a hurricane.) I think it took about a week to get to England by ship from NY. Plus almost all tournaments were on grass. A completely different world then. Hard for us to imagine. Tilden was quite the character. He played pro tennis until his 50's when he dropped dead of a heart attack while preparing to go to yet another tournament (in Cleveland?). He died completely broke, spent some time in jail, dabbled in theater and was sexually creepy/strange (homosexual/pedophile). If you ever watch film of Tilden, you probably would not be impressed by his game. The modern game is so much different than it was in the 1920's. Last edited by Fearsome Forehand : 06-02-2012 at 08:08 AM.

06-02-2012, 10:54 AM	#8
Fearsome Forehand Professional Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,018	I think that there are some players who, for unknown reasons, are simply geniuses at winning tennis matches. There are lots of guys with big strokes, big serves, nice volleys, great athleticism, all the tools to win and they level off at 200 in the world and never advance beyond that. Some players are just blessed with the ability to win matches. It is an intangible ability. Tilden apparently had that sort of genius given how he dominated his era. How he would do today is hard to say. I assume he could adapt but the talent pool is much bigger now than it was in 1920. Last edited by Fearsome Forehand : 06-02-2012 at 10:57 AM.

06-02-2012, 12:40 PM	#9
BeHappy Hall Of Fame Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	It was a hundred years ago, who knows? I mean really, this thread is simply pointless. Maybe he was actually a terrible player or maybe he was amazing. 1)It was after World War 1 so there was a massively diluted talent pool. 2)The ONLY people who could play tennis were rich members of country clubs. 3) He was tall in an age where people were very short. 4)He was playing against people who mostly played for fun on the weekends. There's pretty much no film of him, if he was actually as good as his numbers suggest I would be absolutely amazed. It's possible though. __________________ shazaam!!! Last edited by BeHappy : 06-02-2012 at 12:43 PM.