Pre-open era was a immature stage of tennis history

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Why do you say it is tougher today? Today's top professional players have financial security, can sit down at the change of ends, don't have to play injured, travel around in thunderbirds and stay in gyms and cheap motels.

What's clearly harder today is the media coverage, and the need for constant pressers with the players. The pros of the pre-open era just wanted more media coverage.

I think he means greater depth.

Bottom line, those who say one player from one era is greater than another is not fair to either player. We all know that, given the matchup, Federer would probably trounce prime Laver pretty easily. He's just got more firepower, greater fitness... but that all came as a result of the sport's evolution. Laver didn't have that chance.

Who knows if Fed would've been able to do this well if placed in Laver's era, without all the knowledge we have today about fitness, technique etc.

Point being, GOAT is nonexistent.. but Federer is definitely among the best ever, period. That's indisputable, as is Laver's place, as is Gonzalez's.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

If Gonzales wasn't the best player every year from 1954-1961, who was? In which one of those years was he not the best, and who was better?

There's no way you can dispute it from 1954-1957:

1958: Sedgman wins the Wembley Pro and the big pro tournament in Australia, beating Gonzales in both tournaments. Gonzales wins the world pro tour against Hoad, and wins the US Pro and Tournament of Champions.

1959: Hoad wins 15 out of 28 matches on the 4-man world pro tour against Gonzales (although Gonzales won the 4-man tour against Hoad, Cooper and Anderson). Hoad also wins the Tournament of Champions by beating Gonzales in the final, but had previously lost to Gonzales in the US Pro final.

1960: Rosewall dominates the tournament scene, as Gonzales barely played any tournaments in 1960 after the ending of his 7-year contract with Kramer, but did dominate Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo on the 4-man world pro tour.

1961: Rosewall wins the French Pro and Wembley Pro tournaments. Gonzales wins the US Pro, and wins the multi-round robin world pro tour, but no Rosewall on that tour this year.

The way I see it, Gonzales was never toppled, despite the serious challenges from players like Segura, Sedgman, Hoad and Rosewall.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

I think he means greater depth.

Bottom line, those who say one player from one era is greater than another is not fair to either player. We all know that, given the matchup, Federer would probably trounce prime Laver pretty easily. He's just got more firepower, greater fitness... but that all came as a result of the sport's evolution. Laver didn't have that chance.

Who knows if Fed would've been able to do this well if placed in Laver's era, without all the knowledge we have today about fitness, technique etc.

Point being, GOAT is nonexistent.. but Federer is definitely among the best ever, period. That's indisputable, as is Laver's place, as is Gonzalez's.

I can agree, for the most part. The game itself has improved, in terms of technological evolution, fitness etc., but that doesn't necessarily mean that the players of the past are better or worse than today's players.

[NGM]

Originally Posted by Mustard

1960: Gonzales is finally free of his pro contract with Kramer, which had lasted for 7 years, and hardly plays any tournaments this year. However, Gonzales dominates the 4-man world pro tour against Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo.

1961: Gonzales wins the US Pro title for the eighth time, and wins the world pro tour against Gimeno, Hoad, MacKay, Olmedo, Buchholz and Sedgman. Rosewall was clearly doing increasingly well on the tournament scene, however. Gonzales retires from tennis at the end of 1961, and doesn't return until 18 months later, for a terrible loss at the 1963 US Pro against Olmedo. Gonzales then returned to the pro tour for a full-time schedule in 1964.

I give the "world best player" title to Gonzales in 1956, 1957, 1958. But 1960 and 1961? No way! In 1960 Rosewall won Wembley Pro and French Pro which were 2 important events, while Gonzales retired in May and came back in December. In 1961 once again Rosewall won the same 2 events while Gonzales won only Us Pro. Yes Gonzales had a good 4 man pro-tour head-to-head, but that was pro-tour. Nadal beat Federer more than vice versa, but it does not mean much in a large picture.

I have Gonzales as the best player in 8 calendar years.

I have 6, sorry, my bad. So his resume is not better than a guy named Sampras.

The world pro tours were even bigger than the pro majors back then, and Gonzales only lost the 1950 version against Kramer.

You said something interesting and I want to dig deeper on this topic. Maybe you are right, pro tour was bigger than pro slam back then. BUT, why that happened and what does it mean? It means that there were so few players made livings by playing tennis, so 4 certain guys played against each other to death. It was so pathetic and funny at the same time. Imagine you are forced to see Federer and Nadal matches everyday in a long 365 days of a year, and the circle starts again in the next year and so on. My God I would find a gun and kill them both.

The problem is, tennis was not big that age. It was a small sport with a few guys participated day in day out. What is the big deal if some guy won all the titles? Like I said before, it does not mean much.

Imagine if Federer played Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Tsonga all year, and never a player outside of the current top 15-20. Would that make him a weak player? In the 1950s, the best amateur players turned professional and would be pitted against the ultimate competition. You had to improve considerably to survive on the pro tour. Laver said in early 1963, "I thought Hoad was good, but Rosewall is even better. I am going to have to learn how to play tennis all over again if I am going to compete with them". And this came from the man who had won the Grand Slam in the amateurs in 1962.

First: you just said Laver' 1962 was meaningless. So Laver won only ONE Grand Slam, nothing more.
Second: Like I said before, it is great to see Federer and Nadal match one in a while, but it will be disaster to see 100 matches of them day in day out. When you played against one or two players all the time, you do not have enough encouragement to up your game or your skill. You stand in one place or even worse, you downgrade to a lesser player. Today players need to train hard 3-4 hours per day everyday in a year and every year in 10-15 long years, if they have any desire to win titles and go to top 10. I remember reading an article claim that Gonzales was a playboy at that time, much like Safin today. He was going around, coming to bars, chasing women and still be undisputed world number 1 for 8, i am sorry, 6 years. How could it be possible? Or because he and his buddies were not as great as you want me to believe?

[sonicare]

For those of you not willing to read the absolute wall of BS posted by Mustard, here are some cliff notes

- blah blah blah laver
- blah blah blah gonzales
- blah blah blah goat
- blah blah blah kramer
- blah blah blah 10000 tournaments
- blah blah blah field of 4 players
- blah blah blah 60s
- blah blah blah amatuers

LMFAO this guy is a complete ****ing joke

[NGM]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Laver won all sorts of tournaments, from small ones to the biggest ones. He played relentlessly, year after year after year. Like I said in my previous post, Federer can't hope to match this activity due to the number of hardcourt tournaments he's played over the years. Hardcourts shorten careers. That is the single biggest reason as to why players can't play on the tour into their 40s, anymore. Heck, some struggle to even make it into their 30s.

And now Mr Laver. You ignore my claim that Laver won so many tournament because so many of them are small tournaments. It is the only reasonable way to describe why he won so many titles. Yes he won big tournaments, but how many of them? ATP claim that Laver had won only 42 titles, maybe they have reason to do it?
Players in the past can play to 40s for many reason, including things you said. But one important reason is the pressure back to that day was not that big compared to today. You win or you lose nobody care, except die hard fan and sport jounalists. Today you win a slam and you are in news headlines around the world. Pressure much bigger. You need to word harder and be challenged much more.

Gonzales was the best player in the world for 8 years
Laver did win 200 tournaments
Rosewall did win 23 majors (4 amateur, 15 professional, 4 open)

I realise that these facts are inconvenient to those with a "Federer is GOAT" agenda, but facts are facts.

No, they are not myths, but the facts, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Try researching tennis history, sometime, and get rid of the clear pro-Federer biases. And LOL at the suggestion that Laver won 200 small tournaments. Laver was the best player in the world for 7 years, by the way. Are you going to call this a "myth" too?

I will come back to Rod Laver be the best player in 7 years later. But Gonzales' thing is a myth which can not be proved in a clear way, just by your opinion. For example, your statement is opposite with tennis experts, it show how objective your claim is and also how objective THEIR claim are. Laver won 200 tournament, many of them were mickey mouse are true fact. Rosewall, well, I dont care.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NGM

I give the "world best player" title to Gonzales in 1956, 1957, 1958. But 1960 and 1961? No way! In 1960 Rosewall won Wembley Pro and French Pro which were 2 important events, while Gonzales retired in May and came back in December.

It was semi retirement. But Gonzales dominated the 1960 world pro tour before that sabbatical:

1. Pancho Gonzales 49-8
2. Ken Rosewall 32-25
3. Pancho Segura 22-28
4. Alex Olmedo 11-44

Using today's ranking criteria for the old pro tour of 1960 is an incorrect method. The big world pro tour was even bigger than the big pro tournaments.

Originally Posted by NGM

In 1961 once again Rosewall won the same 2 events while Gonzales won only Us Pro. Yes Gonzales had a good 4 man pro-tour head-to-head, but that was pro-tour.

In 1961, it was a multiple round robin tour, with a final 4-man round robin at the end.

Originally Posted by NGM

Nadal beat Federer more than vice versa, but it does not mean much in a large picture.

Comparing it to today's era is silly and obviously the wrong thing to do. The criteria today is very different, because the big major tournaments are all important today, not head-to-head big pro tours.

Originally Posted by NGM

I have 6, sorry, my bad. So his resume is not better than a guy named Sampras.

Sampras is a different era altogether. But Gonzales was the best player in the world for a longer period of time than Sampras.

Originally Posted by NGM

You said something interesting and I want to dig deeper on this topic. Maybe you are right, pro tour was bigger than pro slam back then. BUT, why that happened and what does it mean?

That's where the biggest money was in professional tennis back then. Tony Trabert, for example, got a guaranteed $80,000 to turn professional in late 1955 and have a big pro tour against the best professional player in Pancho Gonzales. Gonzales, despite being the best player in the world, was guaranteed far less, something around $15,000. This really angered Gonzales.

Gonzales' biggest achievement in 1956 was this thrashing of Trabert on the world pro tour. Gonzales dominated the big tournaments as well, winning the Wembley Pro, US Pro and Tournament of Champions, even though Trabert got some revenge by beating Gonzales in 5 sets in the 1956 French Pro final. But the biggest Gonzales achievement was the world pro tour win.

Originally Posted by NGM

It means that there were so few players made livings by playing tennis, so 4 certain guys played against each other to death. It was so pathetic and funny at the same time. Imagine you are forced to see Federer and Nadal matches everyday in a long 365 days of a year, and the circle starts again in the next year and so on. My God I would find a gun and kill them both.

There were more than 4. Come on, stop exaggerating. And then the best amateurs would turn professional and make it more interesting. Trabert in late 1955, Rosewall in late 1956, Hoad in July 1957, Cooper and Anderson in late 1958, Olmedo in late 1959, Gimeno and MacKay in 1960, Laver in late 1962, Stolle and Ralston in late 1966 etc.

Originally Posted by NGM

First: you just said Laver' 1962 was meaningless. So Laver won only ONE Grand Slam, nothing more.

You said I said it was "meaningless", not me. Laver was the dominant amateur player of 1962, but struggled a lot against Hoad and Rosewall when he first turned professional, to the point where Laver would have to learn how to play tennis all over again. This shows how far ahead the top professionals were by 1963, where even the dominant amateur champion gets battered at the start of his professional career by the top professional players.

Originally Posted by NGM

Second: Like I said before, it is great to see Federer and Nadal match one in a while, but it will be disaster to see 100 matches of them day in day out. When you played against one or two players all the time, you do not have enough encouragement to up your game or your skill.

Oh, you did then, because your livelihoods depended on it. If you lost enough, the money started evaporating. Gonzales, Segura and Sedgman weren't multi-millionaires like today's top players. The professional game before the open era was a dog-eat-dog survival of the fittest. When Gonzales was the best player in the world, he needed to find a way to stay there, while all the other top pros desperately tried to topple Gonzales and take his place. Ashley Cooper didn't do too well as a professional, and he was off the pro tour by the end of 1962. Cooper had been the dominant amateur player of 1958, so it shows you how tough it was.

When Gonzales turned professional in late 1949 to challenge the best professional player, Jack Kramer, he got destroyed 96-27 by Kramer on their world pro tour. Bobby Riggs, the promoter, told Gonzales that he was now "dead meat" as a pro tennis attraction, and was off future tours. Gonzales got bitter as hell after this, having previously been a happy-go-lucky character, and he was determined never to fail again once he got another chance to hit the big time.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NGM

And now Mr Laver. You ignore my claim that Laver won so many tournament because so many of them are small tournaments. It is the only reasonable way to describe why he won so many titles. Yes he won big tournaments, but how many of them? ATP claim that Laver had won only 42 titles, maybe they have reason to do it?

How have I ignored it? As I've said, Laver won tournaments of all sizes, from small tournaments to the biggest tournaments, and 200 in all. Laver's 42 titles you mention, are ATP titles. Like how the ATP says that Connors won 109 titles, when it's really 149 once you include non-ATP titles. The ATP was formed in September 1972, by the way.

Originally Posted by NGM

Players in the past can play to 40s for many reason, including things you said. But one important reason is the pressure back to that day was not that big compared to today. You win or you lose nobody care, except die hard fan and sport jounalists. Today you win a slam and you are in news headlines around the world. Pressure much bigger. You need to word harder and be challenged much more.

The pressure was in keeping your pay packets and your livelihoods, having to play injured if there was a match, driving around yourselves and staying in gyms and cheap motels. I'd like to see how today's multi-millionaire players would cope with this pressure. Oh, and then there's the no sitting down at the change of ends. Sitting down at the change of ends didn't happen until 1973-1974.

And I've already said that today's players have it harder with media pressure. The old pros of the past wanted more media attention than what they were getting, because it would mean more money in the pro game and help the sport as a whole.

Originally Posted by NGM

I will come back to Rod Laver be the best player in 7 years later. But Gonzales' thing is a myth which can not be proved in a clear way, just by your opinion. For example, your statement is opposite with tennis experts, it show how objective your claim is and also how objective THEIR claim are. Laver won 200 tournament, many of them were mickey mouse are true fact. Rosewall, well, I dont care.

It is not a myth at all. Look at the world pro tours that Gonzales won, as well as the big pro tournaments that he won. Even Kramer, who wasn't exactly the best friend of Gonzales, always rooting for Gonzales' opponents, said that Gonzales was the best player who walked on the court from 1954 to 1961. Some people even make a case for Gonzales being the best player of 1952, although I give that year narrowly to Segura.

[NGM]

We are talking about something irrelevant to the main topic. What i want to say, in short, are:

1) Pre-open era is an immature stage of tennis history.

2) Tennis world was not well organized till late of 80s. Tennis evolved gradually decade by decade.

3) You can not mention the dominant players in the pre-open era in the same breath with modern greats.

I think in the next 20 years, modern tennis which started from 1968 will be considered mainstream of tennis history, and everything happened before that mark will be treated as a myth.

Originally Posted by Mustard

It is not a myth at all. Look at the world pro tours that Gonzales won, as well as the big pro tournaments that he won. Even Kramer, who wasn't exactly the best friend of Gonzales, always rooting for Gonzales' opponents, said that Gonzales was the best player who walked on the court from 1954 to 1961. Some people even make a case for Gonzales being the best player of 1952, although I give that year narrowly to Segura.

Once again, it is not a fact but an opinion. Kramer has his opinion, Hoodjem has his opinion (he give 1960 and 1961 to Rosewall, by the way), you has your opinion, and so are the others (L'Équipe give 1961 to Rosewall). That disagreement just show how difficult to know exactly what happened at that time, we do not have any way to know for sure, and because of that it is a myth. I will stop argue with you about Gonzales.

How have I ignored it? As I've said, Laver won tournaments of all sizes, from small tournaments to the biggest tournaments, and 200 in all. Laver's 42 titles you mention, are ATP titles. Like how the ATP says that Connors won 109 titles, when it's really 149 once you include non-ATP titles.

the discussion about "200" is more than enough. I made my point clear. Dozen of Laver title are small tournament which had only 4-8 participants. You can not cite it to argue against Federer. His 200 is not meaning much. So are his 19 "majors".

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NGM

And now Mr Laver. You ignore my claim that Laver won so many tournament because so many of them are small tournaments. It is the only reasonable way to describe why he won so many titles. Yes he won big tournaments, but how many of them? ATP claim that Laver had won only 42 titles, maybe they have reason to do it?
Players in the past can play to 40s for many reason, including things you said. But one important reason is the pressure back to that day was not that big compared to today. You win or you lose nobody care, except die hard fan and sport jounalists. Today you win a slam and you are in news headlines around the world. Pressure much bigger. You need to word harder and be challenged much more.



I will come back to Rod Laver be the best player in 7 years later. But Gonzales' thing is a myth which can not be proved in a clear way, just by your opinion. For example, your statement is opposite with tennis experts, it show how objective your claim is and also how objective THEIR claim are. Laver won 200 tournament, many of them were mickey mouse are true fact. Rosewall, well, I dont care.

You should care about tennis history.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

And? That doesn't mean that the players were worse. In Gonzales' time, the best players were the professionals, and he was playing against these top players all the time. Imagine Federer always playing against 15 of the top 20 players, instead of often playing against players way below that ranking. Playing against players of such high calibre on a very regular basis, like the old pros did, will make you a better player.

So if the ATP today were to split the tour into two field and that wouldn't have any effect on the strength/depth of the competition. Got it. :roll eyes:

And imagine if Fed had a smaller pool and again, split fields, the chances of him having quality players as he's currently having to deal with today are slim.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I am not. Gonzales was the best player in the world when he was the best professional. In 1949, when Gonzales was the best amateur player, the best player in the world was Jack Kramer.

I personally believe the best professional player was always better than the best amateur player in the years I've listed, apart from 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1932 and 1933, when the best amateur player was the best player in the world. In the 1930s, the gap between the top professionals and the top amateurs was very close, but after the late 1940s, the top professionals had a clear lead over the top amateurs.

This is your listed(although another poster said Gonzales only had 6 years).

1954: Pancho Gonzales
1955: Pancho Gonzales
1956: Pancho Gonzales
1957: Pancho Gonzales
1958: Pancho Gonzales
1959: Pancho Gonzales
1960: Pancho Gonzales
1961: Pancho Gonzales

1954: Jaroslav Drobny
1955: Tony Trabert
1956: Lew Hoad
1957: Lew Hoad
1958: Ashley Cooper
1959: Alex Olmedo
1960: Neale Fraser
1961: Roy Emerson

You had 2 players per year. So who's the number 1 players during those years? You can't have both players.

Like I said...having a split field Nadal would have 6 years ending #1 instead of 2.

Or let say we count 2 best players per year without having a spit fields, Nadal still gets 6 years #1. Federer gets 7 years(including 2012).

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

That is all speculation. You could just as easily say that Federer doesn't stand a chance in the era of wooden racquets, no tiebreaks and no sitdowns at the change of ends against Laver. No modern player could just play the game that they do today with 1960s equipment, because wooden racquets didn't have the power to dictate from the baseline with the authority and depth of today's game. You had to go into the net a lot back then.

You say Laver couldn't cope in today's game, but you don't seem to ask about Federer in Laver's day.

sonicare is generous to say Laver is 5'10" who's really 5'8". And while he maybe exaggerating, his post is closer to reality than yours.

There are players from 5'6" to 6'5" who have dominate/number #1 in the wooden era. If all the greatest players in the wooden era hovering around 5'8", you got a strong argument. Unfortunately, you don't. There's no facts to even worth speculating Roger at 6'1" wouldn't have dominated the field, especially when tennis wasn't a global sport as today and only have to deal with 1 of the 2 fields.

In this era, how many players at 5'8" dominated the sport during Sampras and Federer's generations? None. Over 20+ years it was all about players hovering around 6' to 6'3". Go check out all the slam winners and year end #1. numbers don't lie!

This is not to say Laver wouldn't be able to compete in the atp tour. Of course he can, but he wouldn't be one of the elite group. Tennis today demands a lot more than just talent alone to be at the top. Optimal height is one of the major attribute.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by NGM

Yes he won big tournaments, but how many of them? ATP claim that Laver had won only 42 titles, maybe they have reason to do it?

You sound like TMF here, who has been told many times why the ATP lists 42 titles for Laver but ignores the reason. You seriously don't know why 42 titles are listed for Laver at the ATP?

Any modern fan should know how the ATP operates. If anything, you'd expect a modern fan to know that better than an older fan would. But apparently not, judging by your post here.

It's ironic because isn't it your argument that tennis is mature now because it's organized better than ever? Well okay, so you should know inside-out how tennis is organized today and basic things like how the organized bodies count titles.

Originally Posted by NGM

First, I am sorry for my bad English.

I read too many threads and too many posts here about how great Pre-open era and players of that period were. It is becoming ridiculous for many reasons. I will tell you why.

1) Everthing in pre-open era is like a myth. Nothing real about it. For example: Pancho Gonzales and Laver are called "co-number 1" with other players for many years. It is REALLY ridiculous and can only happen in an immature stage of tennis history. This year Murray and Federer and Djokovic are very close in term of winning big titles, but in the end Novak Djokovic is THE world number 1. If this scenario happened in the past, they would be treated like co-number 1.

Maybe this has to do with your English, but you are not using the term 'myth' correctly. The term has more than one meaning, but if you're using it to mean "nothing real about it," because tennis experts could disagree about the #1 for a year or even co-rank #1 (due to the fact that there were no computer rankings, so opinions were the only thing available), then you do not know what the term means. Opinion is not myth.

Originally Posted by NGM

But like TMF points out, in the forum like this players like Hoad, Gonzales, Laver are in the fix position compared to Federer. Federer can win 5 more slams and they are still in the fix position. The biggest weapon old timer use to defend Gonzales or Laver is "IF bla bla...". If = myth = meaningless. Pre-open era is immature stage of tennis history. And anything achieved in that stage can not be treated as the same with today's achievement. Period.

And now you use "myth" another way, to mean "if". By that, I think you mean speculation about non-events. So which is it? Do you think "myth" means differing opinions? Or do you think "myth" means speculation about events that have never happened?

BTW, TMF's argument, if you can call it that, about "fix position" is based on a false premise.

Originally Posted by TMF

Thanks NGM.

It's true that Roger's continue to add more to his legacy, some people bump up players in the pre-open(i.e. Laver) era so they can stay "fix" with Roger, but players in the open-era has to stay further behind. It makes no sense at all. Player's resume can't be change unless you're an active player like Roger. No past retired player can't get any worse(or better) just because Roger breaks/set tennis records. People should leave out Federer when they want to compare players in the open era to players in the pre-open era.

You once assumed that we -- or other people -- once had Sampras and Laver on the same level, but that once Federer passed Sampras, we bumped Laver up to Federer's level while letting Sampras fall back.

I told you that you had no basis on which to assume that we once judged Sampras and Laver to be on the same level. Of course you just seem to have ignored that.

I'll speak for myself here, as on older fan. I never regarded Sampras and Laver as being on the same level. I thought of Sampras as below Laver's level. When Federer passed Sampras, I thought that the new conversation would be, or should be, about Federer vs Laver. In other words, I felt Federer approached Laver's level only when he passed Sampras -- and in particular when he got his French Open.

So what's the problem here? You see me bumping Laver up from Sampras' level? You see anyone else here doing that?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

So if the ATP today were to split the tour into two field and that wouldn't have any effect on the strength/depth of the competition. Got it. :roll eyes:

Imagine 16 of the current 20 top players, including all the top 4, in the professional game, while the rest of the field play in the amateurs. The top 4 are the best players in the world, but players like Ferrer, Wawrinka, Querrey and Verdasco would win the mainstream majors. Ferrer could even be an Emerson and win 12 majors, while Federer, having turned professional early, has only won 2 mainstream majors, whilst dominating the professional tour for years.

Originally Posted by TMF

And imagine if Fed had a smaller pool and again, split fields, the chances of him having quality players as he's currently having to deal with today are slim.

Federer would be facing the very best players, all the time, with his pay packets depending on success. He would also have to travel around himself, without being a multi-millionaire.

Originally Posted by TMF

This is your listed(although another poster said Gonzales only had 6 years).

1954: Pancho Gonzales
1955: Pancho Gonzales
1956: Pancho Gonzales
1957: Pancho Gonzales
1958: Pancho Gonzales
1959: Pancho Gonzales
1960: Pancho Gonzales
1961: Pancho Gonzales

1954: Jaroslav Drobny
1955: Tony Trabert
1956: Lew Hoad
1957: Lew Hoad
1958: Ashley Cooper
1959: Alex Olmedo
1960: Neale Fraser
1961: Roy Emerson

You had 2 players per year. So who's the number 1 players during those years? You can't have both players.

Like I said...having a split field Nadal would have 6 years ending #1 instead of 2.

Or let say we count 2 best players per year without having a spit fields, Nadal still gets 6 years #1. Federer gets 7 years(including 2012).

I've explained this already. The gap between the top professional players and top amateur players was close in the 1930s, but after the late 1940s, the best professional players pulled some way ahead of the best amateur players. Jack Kramer in 1948 was the last newly turned professional player to topple the best professional player in the world (i.e. Bobby Riggs).

So, that means that Pancho Gonzales (the best professional player) was the best player in the world from 1954-1961, while the other list shows the best amateur players of those years.

Originally Posted by TMF

Like I said...having a split field Nadal would have 6 years ending #1 instead of 2.

Or let say we count 2 best players per year without having a spit fields, Nadal still gets 6 years #1. Federer gets 7 years(including 2012).

LOL. Completely wrong. I've mentioned in a previous post that in all the years I've listed, I believe that the best professional player was better than the best amateur player apart from 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1932 and 1933. So, if you want my best players in each year list, you know what to do.

Originally Posted by TMF

sonicare is generous to say Laver is 5'10" who's really 5'8". And while he maybe exaggerating, his post is closer to reality than yours.

And what if Federer was put in the 1960s right now, with 1960s equipment? This is a fair question if you insist on transporting a 1960s version of Laver to the present day to play against Federer.

Originally Posted by TMF

There are players from 5'6" to 6'5" who have dominate/number #1 in the wooden era. If all the greatest players in the wooden era hovering around 5'8", you got a strong argument. Unfortunately, you don't. There's no facts to even worth speculating Roger at 6'1" wouldn't have dominated the field, especially when tennis wasn't a global sport as today and only have to deal with 1 of the 2 fields.

Gonzales was 6ft 3ins, by the way. And what's all this "tennis wasn't global" nonsense. We had players from all over the world even then, it's just that the Australians were dominant for years with unprecedented success. Like Spain today multiplied 20 times over.

Originally Posted by TMF

In this era, how many players at 5'8" dominated the sport during Sampras and Federer's generations? None. Over 20+ years it was all about players hovering around 6' to 6'3". Go check out all the slam winners and year end #1. numbers don't lie!

You're obsessed with heights.

Originally Posted by TMF

This is not to say Laver wouldn't be able to compete in the atp tour. Of course he can, but he wouldn't be one of the elite group. Tennis today demands a lot more than just talent alone to be at the top. Optimal height is one of the major attribute.

That is all speculation.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by krosero

I told you that you had no basis on which to assume that we once judged Sampras and Laver to be on the same level. Of course you just seem to have ignored that.

I'll speak for myself here, as on older fan. I never regarded Sampras and Laver as being on the same level. I thought of Sampras as below Laver's level. When Federer passed Sampras, I thought that the new conversation would be, or should be, about Federer vs Laver. In other words, I felt Federer approached Laver's level only when he passed Sampras -- and in particular when he got his French Open.

So what's the problem here? You see me bumping Laver up from Sampras' level? You see anyone else here doing that?

I said "some people", and never mentioned your name so I don't know why you're getting mad at me. I've been on this forum since 2009 and have read debate after debate about who's the greatest, and many members stacked Sampras = Laver, some have either one above another. And obviously Sampras fans and Laver fans argue for their idol. 2009 was when we had many goat threads, mainly because (1)Roger won the career slam, (2)Roger broke Sampras 14 slam records. People in here use Sampras as a measuring stick, and Fed is chasing him, and to be the greatest he must match/surpass Sampras. That justify many members in here believe Sampras is the man or at least in the same league as Laver before Roger surpass Sampras.

Please don't misrepresented me because I'm not generalizing here.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Mustard

That is all speculation. You could just as easily say that Federer doesn't stand a chance in the era of wooden racquets, no tiebreaks and no sitdowns at the change of ends against Laver. No modern player could just play the game that they do today with 1960s equipment, because wooden racquets didn't have the power to dictate from the baseline with the authority and depth of today's game. You had to go into the net a lot back then.

Originally Posted by TMF

There's no facts to even worth speculating Roger at 6'1" wouldn't have dominated the field,

Mustard, this is absolutely true, and one of the key statements made by anyone in this thread. You did have to go to the net a lot back then, especially on Wimbledon's old grass, and even more so on the grass at the USO where the ball bounced even lower -- and more erratically -- than it did on Wimbledon's old grass.

You also had to get into net a lot on the super-fast wooden boards that many older tournaments were played on. Wood surfaces were not friendly at all to defense.

In fact you could probably say that the taller you were, the more important it was to get into net, in order to avoid low/erratic bounces.

Modern fans of Federer who picture him playing in those times are probably just imagining him hitting groundstroke winners. But nobody won the grass majors back then if they didn't come into the net a lot. Borg stayed back more than most champions and yet he attacked the net far more, at Wimbledon, than anyone today. Agassi finally won Wimbledon by staying back all the time, the way players do today -- but he did it with a modern racquet. If you tried to stay back in the wood era, with those tiny racquets, on low-bouncing grass, against volleyers like the great Aussie champions, you had no chance.

So Federer vs. Laver in 1965, for example, would either be a SV battle, or it would be Federer, with a wood racquet, trying to hold off Laver at the net, on surfaces inherently advantageous to net-rushers.

And yet the argument is that Federer would wipe the floor with Laver and with the other Aussie champions, who perfected volleys the way no one had done before, and no one has done since (with some exceptions like McEnroe and Edberg).

Seriously, even the most rabid Federer fans don't call him the greatest volleyer of all time. His reasonable fans even accept that the older champions were better volleyers than today's players. I've heard many modern fans say that volleying is not a good strategy today; but I don't hear anyone saying that Federer is a better volleyer than Laver, Roche, Sedgman, Hoad, etc.

Still less do you hear that Federer is two to three times better at net than the great net-rushers of the past; yet that is what Federer would have to be, if he's going to dominate them at major after major.

I think Federer, if he had grown up in those times, would do just fine. But no way would he be wiping the floor with any great netrusher on those fast grass and wooden surfaces.

[Mustard]

People try to demote Borg and Connors these days as well, as well as Vilas, McEnroe and Lendl.

Some people apparently don't think that Borg is a GOAT candidate. LOL. This is a man who was winning Rome and the French Open in 1974, continued clay success in 1975, became a great player in 1976 alongside Connors, had an amazing 1977 despite not matching Vilas' sheer winning activity in the second half of the year, dominating in 1978 despite a strong challenge from Connors, even more dominant in 1979 and 1980 despite challenges from McEnroe, and to a lesser extent, Connors. Even in 1981, before McEnroe overtook him, he won the January 1981 Masters and the French Open.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NGM

We are talking about something irrelevant to the main topic. What i want to say, in short, are:

1) Pre-open era is an immature stage of tennis history.

2) Tennis world was not well organized till late of 80s. Tennis evolved gradually decade by decade.

3) You can not mention the dominant players in the pre-open era in the same breath with modern greats.

I think in the next 20 years, modern tennis which started from 1968 will be considered mainstream of tennis history, and everything happened before that mark will be treated as a myth.






Once again, it is not a fact but an opinion. Kramer has his opinion, Hoodjem has his opinion (he give 1960 and 1961 to Rosewall, by the way), you has your opinion, and so are the others (L'Équipe give 1961 to Rosewall). That disagreement just show how difficult to know exactly what happened at that time, we do not have any way to know for sure, and because of that it is a myth. I will stop argue with you about Gonzales.



the discussion about "200" is more than enough. I made my point clear. Dozen of Laver title are small tournament which had only 4-8 participants. You can not cite it to argue against Federer. His 200 is not meaning much. So are his 19 "majors".

A player who wins 8 man tournaments against the best players in the world is most likely also able to win tournamenst with 32 to 128 players where he faces lesser players in the rounds before QFs. Laver and Rosewall have often proved that they were able to win big tournaments with many participants.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by TMF

This is your listed(although another poster said Gonzales only had 6 years).

1954: Pancho Gonzales
1955: Pancho Gonzales
1956: Pancho Gonzales
1957: Pancho Gonzales
1958: Pancho Gonzales
1959: Pancho Gonzales
1960: Pancho Gonzales
1961: Pancho Gonzales

1954: Jaroslav Drobny
1955: Tony Trabert
1956: Lew Hoad
1957: Lew Hoad
1958: Ashley Cooper
1959: Alex Olmedo
1960: Neale Fraser
1961: Roy Emerson

You had 2 players per year. So who's the number 1 players during those years? You can't have both players.

Like I said...having a split field Nadal would have 6 years ending #1 instead of 2.

Or let say we count 2 best players per year without having a spit fields, Nadal still gets 6 years #1. Federer gets 7 years(including 2012).

In 1958 and 1959, Hoad was the leading money-winner in the pro game. That means something. Today, we would call that #1.