Budge vs. Riggs 1942 U.S. Pro Nationals

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by pc1

Can you imagine some of the players today trying to play with a racquet like that? Obviously it was a small wood racquet but super heavy. I think Budge had the heaviest or at least one of the heaviest racquets in tennis but it was perfect for him. A pity what happened to him with the shoulder injury.

As I recall from Budge's explanation, his racquet was a standard sized, middle range, men's racquet in the 30's. If you do some digging and look for Suzanne Lenglen's racquet, you'll see it looks very much the same. It may be lighter, I don't know, but, probably heavier than any stock frame available today.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by pc1

Great information Krosero.

I have the Kings of the Court video and perhaps aside from Laver, I was so impressed by Bobby Riggs' strokes. He hit the ball so smoothly. I think they said he was a natural. Now to be fair they really didn't show the strokes of a younger Budge in his prime but an older Budge. I've also seen videos of a younger Budge and he looks great also.

The question that always arises in my mind is how good was Bobby Riggs in actuality? Yes we know he lost badly to Jack Kramer on tour 69 to 20 but Kramer himself admitted that after he (Kramer) got a lead on tour Riggs tanked. The reason according to Kramer that Riggs tanked was to set Kramer up and beat Kramer in the US Pro in 1948. The scenario was that if Riggs beat Kramer he (Riggs) could claim he was still the real champion. It didn't work because Kramer defeated Riggs in the final in four sets.

Still the tour was mainly indoors and the players perhaps were closer in actual ability than the final tour won-lost record would indicate. He also defeated a slightly over the hill Budge on tour several times. He dominated the Pro ranks winning far more tournaments (when Riggs was in his prime and Budge wasn't) than Budge, Kovacs and the others. I can also see from the videos that he seemed to have every shot plus an effective serve.

Many think of Riggs as just the hustler who lost to Billie Jean King in 1973 but the man did have a fabulous record.

I think Riggs was a great player. But, I also think he benefited from Budge's shoulder injury which, from what I've read, permanently diminished Budge's game and prevented him from returning to his prior form. There's no doubt in my mind that peak Budge was the better player. Whereas Kramer could only beat Riggs on a regular basis from the net, Budge could overpower Riggs regularly from the baseline. And, I think Riggs acknowledges that in terms of their early 40's losses, although he seems to disregard Budge's injury when talking about his late 40's victories.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I think Riggs was a great player. But, I also think he benefited from Budge's shoulder injury which, from what I've read, permanently diminished Budge's game and prevented him from returning to his prior form. There's no doubt in my mind that peak Budge was the better player. Whereas Kramer could only beat Riggs on a regular basis from the net, Budge could overpower Riggs regularly from the baseline. And, I think Riggs acknowledges that in terms of their early 40's losses, although he seems to disregard Budge's injury when talking about his late 40's victories.

I've seen some interviews with Riggs in which he does take into account the injury plus he also felt Budge gained weight which in his opinion also hurt Budge's game.

Most people would agree with you that Budge was clearly the superior player over Riggs when both were at their peaks. Vines ranks Budge at his peak ahead of Riggs and Kramer also ranks Budge ahead of Riggs. In fact I can't think of anyone who ranks Riggs ahead of Budge.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by pc1

I've seen some interviews with Riggs in which he does take into account the injury plus he also felt Budge gained weight which in his opinion also hurt Budge's game.

Most people would agree with you that Budge was clearly the superior player over Riggs when both were at their peaks. Vines ranks Budge at his peak ahead of Riggs and Kramer also ranks Budge ahead of Riggs. In fact I can't think of anyone who ranks Riggs ahead of Budge.

Based on your posts, it seemed that you were arguing that Riggs was better than Budge. IMO, peak Budge played the highest level of tennis ever until Laver, possibly Gonzales.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Based on your posts, it seemed that you were arguing that Riggs was better than Budge. IMO, peak Budge played the highest level of tennis ever until Laver, possibly Gonzales.

Jack Kramer, who said that he thought Don Budge was the best of all time, felt that a peak Ellsworth Vines was a better player.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Based on your posts, it seemed that you were arguing that Riggs was better than Budge. IMO, peak Budge played the highest level of tennis ever until Laver, possibly Gonzales.

Limpinhitter check the post that I posted earlier. It's quoted below.

Originally Posted by pc1

I've seen some interviews with Riggs in which he does take into account the injury plus he also felt Budge gained weight which in his opinion also hurt Budge's game.

Most people would agree with you that Budge was clearly the superior player over Riggs when both were at their peaks. Vines ranks Budge at his peak ahead of Riggs and Kramer also ranks Budge ahead of Riggs. In fact I can't think of anyone who ranks Riggs ahead of Budge.

I will state for the record I think peak Budge was probably superior to peak Riggs but I do think peak Riggs was very underrated. Remember peak Budge only beat Riggs before he reached his peak on an earlier tour by only a score of 15 to 10 that also included Kovacs, Perry among others. Budge had great power, an excellent serve, top volley (heard he could NOT serve and volley regularly because his strokes were too long but he didn't need to). Riggs was much faster, some ( and this is debatable)believe he may have had a better serve, had better touch and better stamina. Riggs also had the perfect strokes to handle the great power of Budge from the baseline.

I don't think peak Budge would crush peak Riggs but I do think he was probably better.

To be fair on that earlier tour Budge was supposed to be out of shape and he pulled ahead after he got back into shape.

I do think that peak Pancho Gonzalez was clearly superior to peak Don Budge. Many also thought Jack Kramer was also superior to Budge. Riggs and many others thought so. Vines thought Budge was superior.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I think Riggs was a great player. But, I also think he benefited from Budge's shoulder injury which, from what I've read, permanently diminished Budge's game and prevented him from returning to his prior form. There's no doubt in my mind that peak Budge was the better player. Whereas Kramer could only beat Riggs on a regular basis from the net, Budge could overpower Riggs regularly from the baseline. And, I think Riggs acknowledges that in terms of their early 40's losses, although he seems to disregard Budge's injury when talking about his late 40's victories.

Riggs did mention at least once that Budge was a different player after the war. It was in his book, Court Hustler (1973):

Budge had turned thirty and had lost something of the greatness he had possessed before the war. I think he was less daring. He got smarter as he got older. He was more cautious and quit taking chances. When he was younger, he was reckless. He took chances -- but made them all. He had great shots. But after the war he took something off the ball and played his shots safer. I could play against that kind of game.

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

IMO, peak Budge played the highest level of tennis ever until Laver, possibly Gonzales.

I think there's some evidence for that. As you saw, Danzig was amazed at the number of winners that Budge made in that match against Riggs. I have winner counts for over 90 matches before the Open Era, and Budge's rate of winners is the highest: he made winners, not including aces, on 26.6% of all the points in the match.

In fact I don't know of any winner rate higher than that before 1988.

Budge made only 1 ace against Riggs (who out-aced him even in this blowout!), and if you include aces then Budge's rate of winners drops to #3 on my list of pre-Open Era matches: just slightly behind Budge's own performance against Bunny Austin in the 1938 Wimbledon final and Trabert's performance against Vic Seixas in the 1953 US Nationals.

R.N. Williams is another name high on the list, and he was known for being the best "on his day."

I have winner counts for Vines' two US finals, but his rates are not at the very top -- though they're very high. It's tough with Vines because it seems he improved after he turned pro, but stats for pro matches are harder to come by.

Anyway, there's no doubt that Budge could be a steamroller "on his day."

And Riggs in '42 was a quality opponent, so the winner count there is more impressive than Budge's count against Bunny Austin.

It's particularly impressive that Budge got so many winners past a defender of Riggs' quality.

Trabert got just about as many winners past Seixas, and Danzig said that "on this day [Trabert] measured up to a Donald Budge, a Jack Kramer in the fearful toll taken by his forehand and backhand, particularly the latter."

But Seixas was an attacker rather than a great defender. He came into net relentlessly against Trabert and was usually passed, so a great number of Tony's winners were passing shots.

What Budge did against Riggs was possibly more impressive because I get the sense that there were more baseline rallies in that match, going by what Danzig reports (by the way, I've expanded my excerpt from that article above - post 14).

[krosero]

Given in the article by Danzig:

Budge had 11 nets, 17 outs, 42 placements, 1 ace and no double-faults.
Riggs had 29 nets, 19 outs, 33 placements, 4 aces and 2 double-faults.


Budge had a lot of winners (42) from groundstrokes and volleys, but Riggs had a large number himself.

I guess no one would think of this match as a great quality play from both sides, since it was such a blowout. But just a hairline over 50% of the points in this match ended with a winner or ace. That's the highest % in the entire database that Moose and I have compiled, from 1902 to the present day.

A lot of matches these days have high winner rates because of huge numbers of aces; Isner-Mahut is close to Budge-Riggs in winners, but mostly because of the aces.

If you don't count aces, Budge and Riggs ended 47% of the points in their match with winners -- still at the top of our database. The next match behind it is Navratilova-Evert at the 1987 Wimbledon, which is often called the highest quality match in that rivalry.

Navratilova-Evert featured a very enjoyable kind of grasscourt tennis, not dominated by aces, and filled with winners from groundies and volleys. Budge-Riggs must have been very similar.

[kiki]

What big pro games did Kramer and Budge play againdt each othet?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

What big pro games did Kramer and Budge play againdt each othet?

The most famous was I believe the 1948 US Pro semifinal. Kramer was the Pro Champion and if Budge beat Kramer (and Riggs in the final) he could possibly be in line to tour against Kramer for number one. Budge played fabalously the first three sets and led two sets to one. Budge actually broke Kramer's great serve twice in the third but lost the set. The fifth set was a rout. Kramer won 6-0 and Budge won one point the entire set.

I've done some research on Kramer/Budge matches after Kramer became Pro Champion and I can't find one win for Budge. Budge did beat Kramer previously. Of course Budge was older than Kramer by several years.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

The most famous was I believe the 1948 US Pro semifinal. Kramer was the Pro Champion and if Budge beat Kramer (and Riggs in the final) he could possibly be in line to tour against Kramer for number one. Budge played fabalously the first three sets and led two sets to one. Budge actually broke Kramer's great serve twice in the third but lost the set. The fifth set was a rout. Kramer won 6-0 and Budge won one point the entire set.

I've done some research on Kramer/Budge matches after Kramer became Pro Champion and I can't find one win for Budge. Budge did beat Kramer previously. Of course Budge was older than Kramer by several years.

Budge, in his book, states that his conditioning was poor in that famous 1948 match, that he would have won otherwise, and that at 32 years old, he should have been in better shape.
Kramer mentions that Budge battled the bottle after the war, which hurt his conditioning. Did he not also have marriage problems at about this time?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Budge, in his book, states that his conditioning was poor in that famous 1948 match, that he would have won otherwise, and that at 32 years old, he should have been in better shape.
Kramer mentions that Budge battled the bottle after the war, which hurt his conditioning. Did he not also have marriage problems at about this time?

Everyone has problems of some sort.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Budge, in his book, states that his conditioning was poor in that famous 1948 match, that he would have won otherwise, and that at 32 years old, he should have been in better shape.
Kramer mentions that Budge battled the bottle after the war, which hurt his conditioning. Did he not also have marriage problems at about this time?

Originally Posted by Mustard

Everyone has problems of some sort.

Dan,

It's possible that Budge may have won if he was in shape but I don't see him writing that in his book. Not sure about his personal situation but at that point in time he never seemed to beat Kramer anyway. I could see him winning this match but at that stage I would tend to think Kramer would win the great majority of matches.

Budge in his book wrote that he had cramps and perhaps that explains the total collapse in the fifth set.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Dan,

It's possible that Budge may have won if he was in shape but I don't see him writing that in his book. Not sure about his personal situation but at that point in time he never seemed to beat Kramer anyway. I could see him winning this match but at that stage I would tend to think Kramer would win the great majority of matches.

Budge in his book wrote that he had cramps and perhaps that explains the total collapse in the fifth set.

Cramps, as Ashley Cooper wrote in his book, are the result of poor conditioning. Cooper gave exercises to avoid them, as did the other Hopman grads.

[kiki]

The top tier of pre open era of US players is reserved to Gonzales,Tilden,Budge and Kramer while second tier,IMO shall include Vines,Trabert,Parker,Riggs,Johnston or Richards and Seixas or Patty

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Cramps, as Ashley Cooper wrote in his book, are the result of poor conditioning. Cooper gave exercises to avoid them, as did the other Hopman grads.

Never wrote that cramps weren't perhaps the result of poor conditioning or at least poor training. I would tend to agree with you.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Cramps, as Ashley Cooper wrote in his book, are the result of poor conditioning. Cooper gave exercises to avoid them, as did the other Hopman grads.

I'm afraid Ashley Cooper is wrong about that. I don't know when he said that, but, cramps are caused by dehydration from electrolyte imbalance. It can happen to anyone no matter what kind of shape they are in. And in 1948, what did they know about all of the electrolyte minerals needed to keep them in balance when losing a lot of water during an athletic event? They may have known about salt. That's about it.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by krosero

Given in the article by Danzig:

Budge had 11 nets, 17 outs, 42 placements, 1 ace and no double-faults.
Riggs had 29 nets, 19 outs, 33 placements, 4 aces and 2 double-faults.


Budge had a lot of winners (42) from groundstrokes and volleys, but Riggs had a large number himself.

I guess no one would think of this match as a great quality play from both sides, since it was such a blowout. But just a hairline over 50% of the points in this match ended with a winner or ace. That's the highest % in the entire database that Moose and I have compiled, from 1902 to the present day.

A lot of matches these days have high winner rates because of huge numbers of aces; Isner-Mahut is close to Budge-Riggs in winners, but mostly because of the aces.

If you don't count aces, Budge and Riggs ended 47% of the points in their match with winners -- still at the top of our database. The next match behind it is Navratilova-Evert at the 1987 Wimbledon, which is often called the highest quality match in that rivalry.

Navratilova-Evert featured a very enjoyable kind of grasscourt tennis, not dominated by aces, and filled with winners from groundies and volleys. Budge-Riggs must have been very similar.

Kros, Just want to say thanks for all of your contributions to this thread. Much appreciated.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I'm afraid Ashley Cooper is wrong about that. I don't know when he said that, but, cramps are caused by dehydration from electrolyte imbalance. It can happen to anyone no matter what kind of shape they are in. And in 1948, what did they know about all of the electrolyte minerals needed to keep them in balance when losing a lot of water during an athletic event? They may have known about salt. That's about it.

I know Laver and Roche were popping salt tablets at 69AO.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Kros, Just want to say thanks for all of your contributions to this thread. Much appreciated.

By the way. It's a really nice thread Limpin. Good discussion.