Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[forzamilan90]

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Gonzalez
5. Rosewall
6. Nadal
7. Borg
8. Lendl
9. Connors
10. McEnroe

the pants wearing fellows (Tilden, Doherty, Renshaw....I ain't ranking them, too way back in the way)

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

A champion should also prove his dominance in big tournaments which Gonzalez did not in 1960 and 1961. The US Open 1961 was not a big tournament (weak participation).

The 1961 US Pro had Gonzales, Sedgman, Gimeno and MacKay.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Rosewall's nuts then. Hoad is the single most overrated great on this forum.

Hoad is ranked by his peak level of play rather than vast achievements.

Ranking by peak level play only makes sense when the achievments are close. If peak level of play is all that mattered one could say Safin and Maureen Connolly were the two best ever, yet obviously such a claim is laughable, especialy regarding Safin. Hoad does not have the achievments to be especialy high on any list. Relatively low (all time speaking) number of amateur slams and there isnt even one year he was ranked as the top pro, there was one year he was outplaying Gonzales until his back problems began to take hold.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Hoad is ranked by his peak level of play rather than vast achievements.

so all that peak level of play and he is 4–2 in GS finals, and 1–7 in Pro finals..just cannot see what the fuss is about.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Ranking by peak level play only makes sense when the achievments are close. If peak level of play is all that mattered one could say Safin and Maureen Connolly were the two best ever, yet obviously such a claim is laughable, especialy regarding Safin. Hoad does not have the achievments to be especialy high on any list. Relatively low (all time speaking) number of amateur slams and there isnt even one year he was ranked as the top pro, there was one year he was outplaying Gonzales until his back problems began to take hold.

I agree with you...if peak level is all that matters, then McEnroe should be damn near the top of any list...1984 season was nuts!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Rosewall's nuts then. Hoad is the single most overrated great on this forum.

Rosewall is not nuts. He and Rod Laver have Hoad on the top of their lists because of Hoad's extremely high playing level. I'm sure they did not mean the quality of Hoad's career.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by urban

I agree with Bobby One, that in sensible calculation Tilden would have won the most majors of all. Between 1920 and 1925, he was close to unbeatable, and the players who won Wimbledon, World Hard Court (RG wasn't open to foreigners) or Australia, which also had no foreign entries, like Patterson, Johnston or Borotra were not in his class. The musceteers Cochet and Lacoste began to challenge and overtake Tilden since 1926, but given 4 available majors per year, Tilden still would have sneaked in several titles, as he did in reality at Wim and Forest Hills.
Gonzalez would have much deeper competition in open tennis in the 50s: Kramer in the first years, who dominated him at first, Sedgman, who could do harm to Gorgo on grass in Australia and GB, Hoad, who excelled at Wim and grass courts, Trabert and Rosewall, who were clearly better clay court players, Segura, who was always a dangerous opponent. Given this sharp opposition, I don't see Gonzalez winning the same amount of majors and overall titles as Tilden. Rosewall had the longest career at the top, and was always very good at big events (he won Wembley as early as 1957) and especially at French venues. Laver had a shorter career, but was imo so technical sound, versatile and powerful, that he could sweep all available titles in some of his best years.

Perhaps you are right that I overrated Gonzalez a bit and that Rosewall would yet have won more open majors than Pancho, but remember that Gonzalez was clearly better than Kramer AFTER their long series and that Gonzalez was extremely strong till 1965 and very strong till 1970.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

so all that peak level of play and he is 4–2 in GS finals, and 1–7 in Pro finals..just cannot see what the fuss is about.

Gonzales said that Hoad was the only player who was capable of playing a level of tennis that was even out of reach for him (Gonzales).

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Mustard

The 1961 US Pro had Gonzales, Sedgman, Gimeno and MacKay.

...which was a field much worse than the two events where Gonzalez failed: French Pro and Wembley.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Gonzales said that Hoad was the only player who was capable of playing a level of tennis that was even out of reach for him (Gonzales).

no I've read the stuff that y'all post over here bout him, just it doesn't make sense to me this with Hoad. Hell, Pancho's 2-1 in Pro slam finals, yet he'd say a quote like that.
And all the hyped up playing level and he's 1-7 in pro finals how is that possible?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

...which was a field much worse than the two events where Gonzalez failed: French Pro and Wembley.

Gonzales was not toppled as the world's best, though. He won the 1961 US Pro and the 1961 World Pro Tour.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

no I've read the stuff that y'all post over here bout him, just it doesn't make sense to me this with Hoad. Hell, Pancho's 2-1 in Pro slam finals, yet he'd say a quote like that.
And all the hyped up playing level and he's 1-7 in pro finals how is that possible?

Hoad had all sorts of back and foot injuries from 1960 onwards. He even had a big toe amputated in 1965.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Hoad had all sorts of back and foot injuries from 1960 onwards. He even had a big toe amputated in 1965.

that's unfortunate

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

no I've read the stuff that y'all post over here bout him, just it doesn't make sense to me this with Hoad. Hell, Pancho's 2-1 in Pro slam finals, yet he'd say a quote like that.
And all the hyped up playing level and he's 1-7 in pro finals how is that possible?

Hoad reached rather seldom his peak but when he did he was awesome. You just should trust Pancho Gonzalez, Ken Rosewall and Rod Laver...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Gonzales was not toppled as the world's best, though. He won the 1961 US Pro and the 1961 World Pro Tour.

Most experts agree that Rosewall was at least as successful as Gonzalez in 1961.

You can't diminish the importance of French Pro and Wembley.

US Pro was virtually a 4 man tournament while Roland Garros and Wembley were 16 man events.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Most experts agree that Rosewall was at least as successful as Gonzalez in 1961.

You can't diminish the importance of French Pro and Wembley.

I'm not diminishing their importance. You can argue Rosewall as a co-number 1 for 1961, certainly, but if we're only going to name one player, then we have to say that Gonzales wasn't toppled, as he won yet another world pro tour and an 8th US Pro title.

[Carsomyr]

So hard to pick ten. I guess it would look something like this:

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Gonzales
5. Borg
6. Rosewall
7. Tilden
8. Nadal
9. Connors
10. Agassi

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I just dont see how Rosewall could be one of those borderline for the bottom of the top 10. The guys longevity is unparalleled in the history of the game even today

Bill Tilden was playing as an amateur as early as the first world war, and as a professional as late as 1952. He even played against Gonzales in one match. That's nearly 40 years of tennis activity. I think it's pretty unprecedented.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Hoad reached rather seldom his peak but when he did he was awesome. You just should trust Pancho Gonzalez, Ken Rosewall and Rod Laver...

so if I was to trust him....and his ranking of the best past players...Rosewall is only 6th with Perry, Budge, Kramer and even Hoad ahead of him?