Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[treblings]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Rosewall referred to the playing level, not to the career achievements.

Rosewall never played Budge in a singles match.

Please write Amritraj.

Muscles played against Crawford (born 190 and John Fitzgerald (born 1960) and beat both of them. Crawford was born in 1908.

do you remember where and when he played against Crawford and Fitzgerald?

[NonP]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

The African elements you refer to were in the blues and rag time, both the creations of slaves and post-slavery African Americans.

And in jazz. Again the African influence is simply undeniable in all of these musics.

Rock & Roll is an amalgam of several different styles of American music including jazz, blues, folk and country music.

That's why it's really the one genre that can be said to have originated in America. The US weren't the only country in the New World that received and benefited from the trade of African slaves, not to mention the Old World. Is it really so hard to imagine jazz taking shape in any other country that had similar influences?

Of course the stock response is that no art form is created in a vacuum, but rock & roll is different in that it arose from a mixture of not only African-American traditions but also country, gospel and folk--all with unmistakable American roots. Jazz doesn't have quite the same "American" pedigree.

BTW when you've got time check these out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVUXyaccyak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LzRIuK7qfg

Just a reminder of how music can be shaped by outside influences, and a fine one at that.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Strawinsky DID SAY the passage is like a boogie-woogie. I have read it in wikipedia about the 111 sonata.

Yes, like boogie-woogie. He never said anything about Beethoven "inventing" "pure jazz." And in case you still haven't noticed boogie-woogie is hardly "pure jazz" but rather a style of playing the blues. Do you even know the difference between the two?

Strawinsky did know much about jazz. F. i. he has composed a ragtime and the Ebony Concerto for Woody Herman...

Many jazz musicians have tackled classical music, and vice versa since they're world-class musicians who try to learn and absorb as much as they can, but that doesn't mean they're experts outside their area. Stravinsky wouldn't have lasted a single session with Armstrong, Miles or Coltrane, yes even on paper, while the jazz giants would've been hard-pressed to come up with their own Rite of Spring or Firebird.

If you have heard the sonata very often and yet don't realize there is a jazz passage therein, you must be hard of hearing or an ignorant.

Yeah, I'm so "ignorant" of the sonata I used to play the entire thing from memory. I'm sure you know it inside out.

I'm sure that every poster here (apart from yourself) who would listen to 111, second movement, third variation, a few times, would agree with me.

Again, you're confusing jazz with jazziness. Having a few bars that sound jazzy doesn't mean it's jazz. Heck, even that opus111 writer closes the blog post with the qualifier that Beethoven's Op. 111 "is by no means a work of jazz," and yet you're still trying to defend your baseless assertion.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

You can hear those jazz notes best when you listen to Gulda's or Brendel's interpretation...

But I just listened to the music that you gave in the link and I got a goose-flesh at my back even in the intrepretation of that old man, Claudio Arrau. Yes, it's jazz...

Unlike the best interpreters Gulda doesn't fully bring out the rhythm of the boogie-woogie variation and instead tends to rush through it. But yes, Brendel and Arrau are good choices; I believe that very clip of the Chilean was picked for the Art of Piano documentary from years ago.

Still Schnabel remains the best interpreter of Beethoven's 32 on the 88. And one shouldn't ignore Pollini's justly celebrated recordings of the late sonatas.

A giant genius like Beethoven (or Shakespeare or da Vinci) is sometimes capable of having a presentiment of future decades or even centuries.

A relative midget like Gesualdo or his even more obscure contemporary Marenzio created music that seemed to leap centuries, and Leonardo's futuristic visions were mostly confined to his journals and notebook rather than canvas. The point is that one can find hints of the future in any good artistic work, but that doesn't necessarily mean the creator was a true seer or innovator who was actively trying to invent a new form or style. "Art," however beautiful it may be, is nothing without a particular function or purpose.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by treblings

do you remember where and when he played against Crawford and Fitzgerald?

Rosewall defeated Crawford in 1950 at the Sydney Metropolitan Hardcourt in three sets 7-5 2-6 7-5 and he defeated Fitzgerald in Brisbane in 1980 1-6 7-5 6-3.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by pc1

Rosewall defeated Crawford in 1950 at the Sydney Metropolitan Hardcourt in three sets 7-5 2-6 7-5 and he defeated Fitzgerald in Brisbane in 1980 1-6 7-5 6-3.

thanks, i knew he had a very long career, but i didn´t know it was quite that long. i would love to see video footage particularly from that match against Crawford

[BobbyOne]

NonP,

Thanks that you argue against my arguments instead of insulting me.

In that link I read that Stravinsky heard "the emergence of boogie-woogie". That's enough for me.

Stravinsky probably did not say "it's a boogie-woogie" because that term was not known at all in Beethoven's time.

I'm not a jazz expert but have heard pretty much of jazz in my 63 years that I can judge a bit about jazz.

A friend of mine is a jazz expert and he spontaneously said:"This is the begin of jazz".

I hear in that passage all what is typically for jazz: jazz melody, jazz harmony, jazz rhythm...

I stay at this: A genius can leap the centuries (you partly agree).

Beethoven said about his famous "Hammerklaviersonate" opus 106: "They will appreciate it in fifty years".

Arnold Schönberg once said: "If you listen to Beethoven's Grosse Fuge opus 133 and a work of mine, people will believe that Beethoven's work is written by myself"

German painter, Albrecht Dürer, painted an abstract picture around 1500...

I believe you that you can play Beethoven sonatas (I never could do so) but the most important thing in music is to OPEN YOUR SOUL as treblings has done.

There are great differences in (classic) music between music with soul (mostly Schubert who brings the listener to tears (also according to T.W.Adorno), Beethoven, partly Bach and Mozart on one side and music without soul as we can find often in Haydn's music which is rather "cold".

I rate Haydn as the Roy Emerson of music: both are very famous but vastly overrated...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by treblings

thanks, i knew he had a very long career, but i didn´t know it was quite that long. i would love to see video footage particularly from that match against Crawford

Good that pc1 has given you information you wanted.

Maybe there is in Australia footage of the Fitzgerald match.

Rosewall's career is actually extremely long and impressive. It spans the time from 1949 to 1982!

In his first year as a "senior" Rosewall reached two SFs in Australian tournaments at 14/15 and in his last year he reached the final of the NSW Hardcourt (clay) Championships as 47 years old!

[kiki]

Originally Posted by JDMtennis

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

1. Navratolova
2.Graf
3.Serena
4.Seles
5.King
6.Everett
7.Court
8.Venus
9.Hennin
10.Hingis

Everett, Chad or Ruppert?

[treblings]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Good that pc1 has given you information you wanted.

Maybe there is in Australia footage of the Fitzgerald match.

Rosewall's career is actually extremely long and impressive. It spans the time from 1949 to 1982!

In his first year as a "senior" Rosewall reached two SFs in Australian tournaments at 14/15 and in his last year he reached the final of the NSW Hardcourt (clay) Championships as 47 years old!

yes, it was good of pc1 to answer. i had always known that Rosewall had an exceptionally long career, but i didn´t know that it was quite that long.
in a way it´s also remarkable of Crawford to have still played at 42

[kiki]

Originally Posted by treblings

yes, it was good of pc1 to answer. i had always known that Rosewall had an exceptionally long career, but i didn´t know that it was quite that long.
in a way it´s also remarkable of Crawford to have still played at 42

For example,Rosewall played the 1954 Wimbledon final...and did play again the final, twenty years later, in 1974.That is real longevity.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by treblings

yes, it was good of pc1 to answer. i had always known that Rosewall had an exceptionally long career, but i didn´t know that it was quite that long.
in a way it´s also remarkable of Crawford to have still played at 42

There have been some players with remarkably long careers of high quality. Rosewall, Tilden, Gonzalez are among them. Tilden played from the 1910's to the 1950's, Rosewall, as BobbyOne wrote from 1949 to 1982, Gonzalez from the late 1940's to the early 1970's.

These players were dominant players in their primes and they played at the super high level for a long time. Even past their primes they won many tournaments and could beat anyone. That is why I can NEVER understand how after just a few years or so, the media often proclaims a new GOAT. No one can match these greats in just a few years. It's doubtful whether anyone can match them after many many many years. That's why I tend to wait before I proclaim anyone a GOAT in any sport.

For example Bill Tilden, according to the Collins Encyclopedia won 138 of 192 from 1912 to 1930, lost 28 finals and had a 907-62 match record for 93.6 percent. And he was considered an underachiever up to 1920 so you know he stepped up his game! Can anyone really match that in just a few years? Yet we had people proclaim players like Nadal the best ever after 2008, just a few years into his career. I love the play of Nadal but I like to wait a while before we write such great things about him.

Rosewall's and Gonzalez's careers are just as remarkable but in different ways.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by treblings

yes, it was good of pc1 to answer. i had always known that Rosewall had an exceptionally long career, but i didn´t know that it was quite that long.
in a way it´s also remarkable of Crawford to have still played at 42

Crawford and the other Aussies also played during WW2. There were even Australian Championships under the title "Patriotic Tournament". 1941 Bromwich defeated Quist in the final in straight sets. 1942 Crawford d Bromwich in the final in four sets.

Similary to Rosewall as a master of longevity are Gonzalez, Tilden, Borotra and Cochet.

Gonzalez won his last tournament at 44 (Rosewall at 43).

Borotra won his last tournament at 51, Cochet at 48.

Tilden almost won a match against world champion, Riggs, at 53!

[treblings]

Originally Posted by kiki

For example,Rosewall played the 1954 Wimbledon final...and did play again the final, twenty years later, in 1974.That is real longevity.

yes, i knew that. he also reached the final in 56 and 70
winning against Crawford in 50 and Fitzgerald in 80 emphasizes his longevity as a player for me. these two players are from totally different generations. it is like someone playing both against Vines and Kodes
in the duration of his career

[treblings]

Originally Posted by pc1

There have been some players with remarkably long careers of high quality. Rosewall, Tilden, Gonzalez are among them. Tilden played from the 1910's to the 1950's, Rosewall, as BobbyOne wrote from 1949 to 1982, Gonzalez from the late 1940's to the early 1970's.

These players were dominant players in their primes and they played at the super high level for a long time. Even past their primes they won many tournaments and could beat anyone. That is why I can NEVER understand how after just a few years or so, the media often proclaims a new GOAT. No one can match these greats in just a few years. It's doubtful whether anyone can match them after many many many years. That's why I tend to wait before I proclaim anyone a GOAT in any sport.

For example Bill Tilden, according to the Collins Encyclopedia won 138 of 192 from 1912 to 1930, lost 28 finals and had a 907-62 match record for 93.6 percent. And he was considered an underachiever up to 1920 so you know he stepped up his game! Can anyone really match that in just a few years? Yet we had people proclaim players like Nadal the best ever after 2008, just a few years into his career. I love the play of Nadal but I like to wait a while before we write such great things about him.

Rosewall's and Gonzalez's careers are just as remarkable but in different ways.

i felt about the same when Tiger Woods appeared and started to win everything. many people immediately called him the best of all time. i found that remarkably respectless against former players like Palmer or Nicklaus,....,

[treblings]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Crawford and the other Aussies also played during WW2. There were even Australian Championships under the title "Patriotic Tournament". 1941 Bromwich defeated Quist in the final in straight sets. 1942 Crawford d Bromwich in the final in four sets.

Similary to Rosewall as a master of longevity are Gonzalez, Tilden, Borotra and Cochet.

Gonzalez won his last tournament at 44 (Rosewall at 43).

Borotra won his last tournament at 51, Cochet at 48.

Tilden almost won a match against world champion, Riggs, at 53!

wouldn´t that make an interesting book, to tell the story of how former champions played on in their forties and beyond.
Borotra i think played doubles in wimbledon even later in life.
Gardnar Mulloy comes to mind and would it be fair to mention Gottfried von Cramm in this company?
If i remember correctly he helped German Tennis after the war well past his prime

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by treblings

wouldn´t that make an interesting book, to tell the story of how former champions played on in their forties and beyond.
Borotra i think played doubles in wimbledon even later in life.
Gardnar Mulloy comes to mind and would it be fair to mention Gottfried von Cramm in this company?
If i remember correctly he helped German Tennis after the war well past his prime

Yes, you are right regarding Borotra, Mulloy and von Cramm.

Borotra played his last Wimbledon in doubles in 1964 (at 66), if I recall rightly.

He even played his last GS doubles in the first open French in 1968.

Mulloy was also great regarding longevity, especially in doubles competition but I think he is a bit overrated.

Jaroslav Drobny won his last tournament at 44 in 1965.

Von Cramm was great after WW2 winning two German Championships in 1948/49 and beating the best European claycourters in Davis Cup at 42...

Nüsslein was best European pro as late as 1954 and lost to Gonzalez only 4-6,4-6 in the 1953 Wembley tournament at 43.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by treblings

i felt about the same when Tiger Woods appeared and started to win everything. many people immediately called him the best of all time. i found that remarkably respectless against former players like Palmer or Nicklaus,....,

That's absolutely right. Now Woods, who seemed like a shoo in to break Nicklaus' majors record by a big margin doesn't seem like such a sure thing anymore. Golf however did not banned the pros from majors like tennis still so you can have better historical comparison.

Tom Watson, who almost won the British Open a few years ago at the age of 59 is a perfect example that greatness is greatness. If we had the Tom Watson of the 1970's playing today he may very well be the dominant golfer in the world.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Was Tiger really a shoo in to break Nicklaus' majors record? I just don't recall that being the case. I just remember hearing he has chances to break it by the time his career is up.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

Was Tiger really a shoo in to break Nicklaus' majors record? I just don't recall that being the case. I just remember hearing he has chances to break it by the time his career is up.

I actually didn't think he was but so many people thought so.

To get back to tennis that is why I think the current "official" majors record is extremely vulnerable at a mere 17. The reason is I believe if players played all the majors like they do now throughout history and if the Professionals weren't banned from the classic majors the record would at least be around the mid twenties. Remember Federer won his 17 majors in 54 attempts. I think it's quite possible for a player in the future to win at least 18 in 54 attempts. It's not exactly an awe inspiring percentage of majors won to majors entered. That's why I point out that the women, who didn't have the bans that the men had have the current majors record of Margart Court at 24 with Graf at 22 and Evert and Navratilova at 18. This is all higher than Federer's seventeen. Of course Federer can improve on that but I believe he has to push it to the twenties to have it safe for a few years. Look at the Sampras' former record of 14. Everyone was in awe of the record which I thought was laughable and easily broken. Sure enough it was broken just a few years later.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

I actually didn't think he was but so many people thought so.

To get back to tennis that is why I think the current "official" majors record is extremely vulnerable at a mere 17. The reason is I believe if players played all the majors like they do now throughout history and if the Professionals weren't banned from the classic majors the record would at least be around the mid twenties. Remember Federer won his 17 majors in 54 attempts. I think it's quite possible for a player in the future to win at least 18 in 54 attempts. It's not exactly an awe inspiring percentage of majors won to majors entered. That's why I point out that the women, who didn't have the bans that the men had have the current majors record of Margart Court at 24 with Graf at 22 and Evert and Navratilova at 18. This is all higher than Federer's seventeen. Of course Federer can improve on that but I believe he has to push it to the twenties to have it safe for a few years. Look at the Sampras' former record of 14. Everyone was in awe of the record which I thought was laughable and easily broken. Sure enough it was broken just a few years later.

Does winning 14 majors rather than 17 majors tell us anything about the greatness of a player? I think not.
What we need is to look at the absolute level of play against other great players. What happens when great players meet when both are at peak levels?
This tells you who is the greatest.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Does winning 14 majors rather than 17 majors tell us anything about the greatness of a player? I think not.
What we need is to look at the absolute level of play against other great players. What happens when great players meet when both are at peak levels?
This tells you who is the greatest.

That's is true in my opinion. That's why I believe that simply counting the number of majors to decide how great a player is makes no sense. The amount of majors won is simply a part of the equation in understanding how great a player is. Players like Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Tilden, Kramer did not play many majors and could not amass the amount of majors that some lesser players like Roy Emerson won.

However I was stating under current conditions the current official majors record of 17 is quite vulnerable.