Where do you put Agassi on your GOAT list (if you have one)?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Luck of boycott?

Lucky that 3 of the all time greats could not reach the finals that year, while Kodes did.That is quite lucky.

Borg was lucky to win the 79 FO, since he did not play Vilas ( beaten in the quarters), Connors ( beaten in the semis), Tanner and Mc Enroe ( who were injuried).Instead he got Gildemeister, Gerulaitis and Pecci.He never lost to Gildemeister and Gerulaitis in his whole career.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by kiki

Lucky that 3 of the all time greats could not reach the finals that year, while Kodes did.That is quite lucky.

Borg was lucky to win the 79 FO, since he did not play Vilas ( beaten in the quarters), Connors ( beaten in the semis), Tanner and Mc Enroe ( who were injuried).Instead he got Gildemeister, Gerulaitis and Pecci.He never lost to Gildemeister and Gerulaitis in his whole career.

Kodes was a great opportunist, and no one can fault him for that. But, you can't convince me that he was as great as Roche, Nastase, Ashe or Emerson. Nor were Tanner, Gildemeister, Gerulaitis or Pecci.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Kodes was a great opportunist, and no one can fault him for that. But, you can't convince me that he was as great as Roche, Nastase, Ashe or Emerson. Nor were Tanner, Gildemeister, Gerulaitis or Pecci.

Talent wise, he is as good if not better than Ememrson ( this guy was the GOAT opportunistic since he decided to remain amateur9 but I don´t think Kodes was more talented than Ashe,Roche and , of course, Nastase.He was less talented, without any doubt.

If we go to records, Kodes won as many GS titles as Ashe ( but Ashe won WCT finals so his record is a bit better than Kodes) and more than Nastase and Roche, although one can make a case for Nastase´s 4 Masters titles, which Kodes never won, so it is about tied.

Roche is far behind them, he was a great talent, with a solid ground game and a terrific volley but quite of a loser if we consider how many opportunities did he have and how many finals he lost.In doubles, however, ranks among the best ever.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by kiki

Talent wise, he is as good if not better than Ememrson ( this guy was the GOAT opportunistic since he decided to remain amateur9 but I don´t think Kodes was more talented than Ashe,Roche and , of course, Nastase.He was less talented, without any doubt.

If we go to records, Kodes won as many GS titles as Ashe ( but Ashe won WCT finals so his record is a bit better than Kodes) and more than Nastase and Roche, although one can make a case for Nastase´s 4 Masters titles, which Kodes never won, so it is about tied.

Roche is far behind them, he was a great talent, with a solid ground game and a terrific volley but quite of a loser if we consider how many opportunities did he have and how many finals he lost.In doubles, however, ranks among the best ever.

Sorry, not a chance. Emerson was one of the greatest all around athletes in tennis history. He had a first tier 1hb, a first tier net game and was among the fastest players who ever played. Kodes was a tireless, fearless competitor, but, not an exceptionally talented athlete like Emerson.

Tony Roche was as much an underachiever as Kodes was an overachiever. Injuries was partly responsible for that. Roche could also get angry and down on himself in tough matches. Roche also had the misfortune of coming up with Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, Smith, Nastase and others with championship level competitiveness.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

I wonder what single thing did Kodes do well to have a much better record than Roche at majors, a better one than Nastase and equal than Ashe.

he was the luckiest person at those slams - winning 3 of the weakest majors ever ........... he won nothing when the fields were full ...

[NadalAgassi]

While kiki obviously overrates Kodes to ridiculous margins, when it comes to Nastase, Kodes did beat Nastase in the final to win 1 of his 2 French Opens, and won the Wimbledon Nastase was supposed to win in his sleep but lost early at. Nastase having less majors than Kodes is largely since he couldnt even win those 2 weak majors which Kodes won instead. Obviously Nastase is more talented, but talent only means so much, the guy might have been more talented than Borg or Connors even, but that doesnt make him greater, he was a nutcase. Kodes 2 U.S Open final runs which included some huge wins, and lost very competitive finals were also tremendous, especialy for someone who was mainly a clay courter.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

he was the luckiest person at those slams - winning 3 of the weakest majors ever ........... he won nothing when the fields were full ...

Not so much lucky to play int he weakest era ever as Federer has been godblessed with.While Kodes,he played in the most competitive era of all time.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

While kiki obviously overrates Kodes to ridiculous margins, when it comes to Nastase, Kodes did beat Nastase in the final to win 1 of his 2 French Opens, and won the Wimbledon Nastase was supposed to win in his sleep but lost early at. Nastase having less majors than Kodes is largely since he couldnt even win those 2 weak majors which Kodes won instead. Obviously Nastase is more talented, but talent only means so much, the guy might have been more talented than Borg or Connors even, but that doesnt make him greater, he was a nutcase. Kodes 2 U.S Open final runs which included some huge wins, and lost very competitive finals were also tremendous, especialy for someone who was mainly a clay courter.

He also reached several semis at majors, which include the Masters,Wimbledon,Forest Hills,Dallas and lost to Swede in Sweden the DC finals, which he won as a non playing captain the year of his retirement (1980)

Kodes and Led Zeppelin retired the same year.Not a casual coincidence¡¡¡

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Better health than Roche, a player boycott, and he was really one of the first clay court specialists. Bottom line is that he won a total of 8 singles titles in his career, 2 of which were FO's and one W in a boycott year.

I agree this time

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Talent wise, he is as good if not better than Ememrson ( this guy was the GOAT opportunistic since he decided to remain amateur9 but I don´t think Kodes was more talented than Ashe,Roche and , of course, Nastase.He was less talented, without any doubt.

If we go to records, Kodes won as many GS titles as Ashe ( but Ashe won WCT finals so his record is a bit better than Kodes) and more than Nastase and Roche, although one can make a case for Nastase´s 4 Masters titles, which Kodes never won, so it is about tied.

Roche is far behind them, he was a great talent, with a solid ground game and a terrific volley but quite of a loser if we consider how many opportunities did he have and how many finals he lost.In doubles, however, ranks among the best ever.

kiki, It's not a shame to lose in majors to Laver and Rosewall.

Kodes was 1:4 against old Rosewall to put Roche's defeats by Muscles into perspective.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Sorry, not a chance. Emerson was one of the greatest all around athletes in tennis history. He had a first tier 1hb, a first tier net game and was among the fastest players who ever played. Kodes was a tireless, fearless competitor, but, not an exceptionally talented athlete like Emerson.

Tony Roche was as much an underachiever as Kodes was an overachiever. Injuries was partly responsible for that. Roche could also get angry and down on himself in tough matches. Roche also had the misfortune of coming up with Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, Smith, Nastase and others with championship level competitiveness.

I think Roche´s real problems were in his head, and it was a great way to overcome them to be able to take Lendl were he took him.
The guys you mention as tough opposition for Roche, were exactly the same guys Kodes had to play during his prime, while Borg,Connors,Vilas came a bit after his prime.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

I think Roche´s real problems were in his head, and it was a great way to overcome them to be able to take Lendl were he took him.
The guys you mention as tough opposition for Roche, were exactly the same guys Kodes had to play during his prime, while Borg,Connors,Vilas came a bit after his prime.

Yes, I meant that both Roche and Kodes lost to Laver and Rosewall and that this is no blame on the formers' careers

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Not so much lucky to play int he weakest era ever as Federer has been godblessed with.While Kodes,he played in the most competitive era of all time.

here's a fact : the only worthy opponent he beat in 3, yes, 3 majors was nastase in 71 RG ....

that's how weak the 3 majors he won was .....

federer has played in one of the most competitive eras of all time :
nadal, djokovic, agassi, safin, hewitt, kuerten, roddick, murray, del potro etc etc .....

and he's beaten almost every one of note in the majors he's won ....

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

I think Roche´s real problems were in his head, and it was a great way to overcome them to be able to take Lendl were he took him.
The guys you mention as tough opposition for Roche, were exactly the same guys Kodes had to play during his prime, while Borg,Connors,Vilas came a bit after his prime.

except Kodes didn't win against Laver/Rosewall in any of the major events ...

He had a major losing H2H vs newk and had a losing H2H vs smith as well ...

Kodes had a total of 8 titles ....just goes to show he wasn't that good at all .... just that he got lucky, extremely lucky in those majors that he won ... Hes at par with a one-slam winner and history ranks him correctly that way ......

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

here's a fact : the only worthy opponent he beat in 3, yes, 3 majors was nastase in 71 RG ....

that's how weak the 3 majors he won was .....

federer has played in one of the most competitive eras of all time :
nadal, djokovic, agassi, safin, hewitt, kuerten, roddick, murray, del potro etc etc .....

and he's beaten almost every one of note in the majors he's won ....

So Newcombe ,Stan Smith,Ashe are not worthy opponents at majors?

*******s agree that peak Federer was 2006 and the level of opposition was pathetic

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

So Newcombe ,Stan Smith,Ashe are not worthy opponents at majors?

did he beat them in the majors that he won ? NO ..

he might have beat one or two, but lost to the other ......

like I said , full field = no majors for Kodes ...

Originally Posted by kiki

*******s agree that peak Federer was 2006 and the level of opposition was pathetic

his peak was 2004-2007 ... while level of opposition was relatively weaker in 2006 compared to the other 3 years, it was still pretty good .......

every major in 2006, he faced wayyyyyy more competition than Kodes did in RG 70 ( franulovic ) and wim 73 (taylor) .....

AO 2006 - davydenko/haas/baghdatis
FO 2006 - nalbandian/nadal
wim 2006 - nadal/ancic
USO 2006 - roddick/davydenko/blake

all wayyyyy better than the joke fields of RG 70 and wim 73 ...

[NadalAgassi]

Kodes is on par with a 1 slam winner and Vines is on par with a 7 or 8 slam winner.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

did he beat them in the majors that he won ? NO ..

he might have beat one or two, but lost to the other ......

like I said , full field = no majors for Kodes ...



his peak was 2004-2007 ... while level of opposition was relatively weaker in 2006 compared to the other 3 years, it was still pretty good .......

every major in 2006, he faced wayyyyyy more competition than Kodes did in RG 70 ( franulovic ) and wim 73 (taylor) .....

AO 2006 - davydenko/haas/baghdatis
FO 2006 - nalbandian/nadal
wim 2006 - nadal/ancic
USO 2006 - roddick/davydenko/blake

all wayyyyy better than the joke fields of RG 70 and wim 73 ...

Sure, Kodes would shiver with panic if he heard the names of Blake,Davidoff,Roddick (on cc), Bagdhatis,Haas and ¡ Ancic¡.I think he would have nightmares for the rest of his live.

Funniest post in weeks, ABMK

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Kodes is on par with a 1 slam winner and Vines is on par with a 7 or 8 slam winner.

And Plaa is next on the list for GOAT, right.... or was it Bunny Austin?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Sure, Kodes would shiver with panic if he heard the names of Blake,Davidoff,Roddick (on cc), Bagdhatis,Haas and ¡ Ancic¡.I think he would have nightmares for the rest of his live.

Funniest post in weeks, ABMK

yes, he would have major troubles with all the players ..... and dumbo, I never mentioned roddick on CC ... I mentioned him at the USO, which is on HC ..

roddick/davydenko in particular at their best would blow him off court on HC .he'd have major problems with baghdatis/haas/peak blake on HC and vs peak ancic on grass as well ....