Manuel Santana vs. Dennis Ralston, W final 1966

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I agree totally. Perry is overrated.

Perry was dominant in the amateurs from 1934-1936, in an era where the amateurs and the professionals were close in terms of standard. Perry was also the first male tennis player to win all 4 of the mainstream majors during his career. However, Perry didn't play as well in the professional ranks as many expected, as he didn't topple Vines as the world's best. Vines won their big tours by 32-29 in 1937 and by 49-35 in 1938.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by pc1

Kramer said a lot of things I was surprised about with Rosewall.

It's kind of hard for Pancho Gonzalez to win Wimbledon in 1963 considering that he was retired so I agree with you that it was very odd but I think he may have been a factor in later years even if he wouldn't be the favorite.

Kramer, if memory serves gave himself about 20+ majors if he was allowed to play the majors. The number 25 comes to mind.

Kramer must have meant 1964 Wimbledon. 1964 was the only year after 1961 and before the open era, where Gonzales played a full schedule. Gonzales only played 1 match in 1963 to my knowledge, which happened after he came out of an 18 month retirement, and that was his terrible loss to Olmedo at the 1963 US Pro at Forest Hills.

Anyway, I don't see how we possibly predict the hypothetical winners of open era majors from the old days, because there are a million variables resulting from the pro-am split. For example, Gonzales' bad loss to Kramer in their world pro tour was what hardened Gonzales and change him as a person into such a profilic winner. Had the amateur majors been open to professionals back then, Gonzales would never had that lesson in the same way. And that's just 1 particular variable out of countless amounts.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Funny how Dennis Ralston and Manuel Santana have long been forgotten in this thread.

Even funnier, no one has even noticed this post.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Perry was dominant in the amateurs from 1934-1936, in an era where the amateurs and the professionals were close in terms of standard. Perry was also the first male tennis player to win all 4 of the mainstream majors during his career. However, Perry didn't play as well in the professional ranks as many expected, as he didn't topple Vines as the world's best. Vines won their big tours by 32-29 in 1937 and by 49-35 in 1938.

The weaknesses in Perry's game were exposed in the head to head's against Vines and Budge, but in the amateurs he could run around his backhand with his great speed and fitness.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Kramer must have meant 1964 Wimbledon. 1964 was the only year after 1961 and before the open era, where Gonzales played a full schedule. Gonzales only played 1 match in 1963 to my knowledge, which happened after he came out of an 18 month retirement, and that was his terrible loss to Olmedo at the 1963 US Pro at Forest Hills.

Anyway, I don't see how we possibly predict the hypothetical winners of open era majors from the old days, because there are a million variables resulting from the pro-am split. For example, Gonzales' bad loss to Kramer in their world pro tour was what hardened Gonzales and change him as a person into such a profilic winner. Had the amateur majors been open to professionals back then, Gonzales would never had that lesson in the same way. And that's just 1 particular variable out of countless amounts.

Of course. I think one of the many considerations when we discuss tennis from years ago with the incredible playing level of the Old Pro Tour in the 1950's and 1960's. It was an array of many all time greats and majors winners. Top amateur players like Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall, Trabert and Laver were beaten badly when they were introduced to the Pro Tour. It was a huge step up in level and how to adjust to different playing conditions. Nowadays a Federer may play a Djokovic in the final one week but he also may play a bunch of players that he can beat in his sleep most of the time. In the Old Pro Tour you may play a Sedgman in the first round, Hoad in the next and Gonzalez in the final. That's a pretty scary lineup and yet they would play these guys on a regular basis.

It's like in baseball if only the Major League All Stars would play each other. They would have to play at a higher level to compete even half decently. That's how it was in the Old Pro Tour. Rosewall himself said that when Open Tennis started he felt the average level of play declined somewhat.

What would happen if Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Murray play each other regularly? I think all of them would improve each other.

Mustard the chapter about the hypothetical winners in Kramer's fascinating book is interesting and I do think he had valid points. If these players like Gonzalez or Kramer did play at these levels and they could go to a parallel universe in which they could play the classic majors, I believe there is a good chance what he wrote could have happened. Hard to tell with some of Kramer's opinions however. I recall another article (and my memory could be faulty) that Kramer thought he could have won over 20 majors if he was allowed to play the majors.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Funny how Dennis Ralston and Manuel Santana have long been forgotten in this thread.

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Even funnier, no one has even noticed this post.

Now this thread is turning into as big a joke as the Margaret Court thread.