Pre-open era was a immature stage of tennis history

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Yes, but suppose Hoad had turned pro in 1953 (and Kramer made him a hot offer), at the age of 19. (Alternatively, that tennis is opened in 1954).
What happens next? I think that Hoad matures by 1955, and is a serious challenge to Gonzales in every tournament.
Likewise, if Trabert and Rosewall turn pro in 1954, you also have two more contenders in majors, especially at Roland Garros (you cannot assume that Gonzales, who was tough on clay, would beat these three guys at Roland Garros, because all three were even better on clay than Gonzales).
Sedgman is also more of a contender, because on grass his game is tougher than on wood.
How do you see Gonzales winning twenty majors? Sorry, I don't.
The field in the late fifties (from 1956 to 1960) is just too strong for one player to "dominate" the way Federer has at times.

You make some very salient points, but there are a lot what-ifs there. I think if that would have happened, Gonzales would have been even more driven. Remember that Gorgo himself had his share of dry spells, like in '60, where he competed in few tournaments.

Also, even at the age of 26 after several years on the pro circuit, Rosewall was edged by Gonzo 16-5 in the h2h in 1960. From '57-'60, the head-to-head was 90-42 Gorgo, a very decisive edge.

I don't think Trabert would take many majors away from Gonzales. Gonzales was far better on fast surfaces (none of his 17 were won on clay).

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

You make some very salient points, but there are a lot what-ifs there. I think if that would have happened, Gonzales would have been even more driven. Remember that Gorgo himself had his share of dry spells, like in '60, where he competed in few tournaments.

Also, even at the age of 26 after several years on the pro circuit, Rosewall was edged by Gonzo 16-5 in the h2h in 1960. From '57-'60, the head-to-head was 90-42 Gorgo, a very decisive edge.

I don't think Trabert would take many majors away from Gonzales. Gonzales was far better on fast surfaces (none of his 17 were won on clay).

Like Sampras? Gonzales had the ability to win on clay, but there was fierce competition there, Rosewall, Trabert, Hoad maybe the three greatest ever on clay. No way Gonzales can dominate.
On grass Hoad, Sedgman could match him.
The toughest field ever.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Like Sampras? Gonzales had the ability to win on clay, but there was fierce competition there, Rosewall, Trabert, Hoad maaybe the three greatest ever on clay. No way Gonzales can dominate.
On grass Hoad, Sedgman could match him.
The toughest field ever.

I agree Gonzales wouldn't dominate on clay, but my point is that the stronger clay field wouldn't necessarily hinder his major count because he never won a major on clay anyway.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

I agree Gonzales wouldn't dominate on clay, but my point is that the stronger clay field wouldn't necessarily hinder his major count because he never won a major on clay anyway.

Gonzalez did win a number of clay court tournaments including I believe the US Clay courts in 1949 so you never know. He was an excellent clay court player.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

I agree Gonzales wouldn't dominate on clay, but my point is that the stronger clay field wouldn't necessarily hinder his major count because he never won a major on clay anyway.

There is the problem. The pros only played Roland Garros in 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1968.
I was assuming that open tennis arrived in 1954, and Gonzales had a shot at Roland Garros every year.
Gonzales won on clay at Toronto in 1959, and other clay events. He was better than Sampras on clay.
But even on grass (no major is played indoor on wood), Gonzales would not have reached 20.
I believe that Hoad and Sedgman could have stopped him on grass.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Best professional players per year in the pre-open era
1950: Jack Kramer
1951: Jack Kramer
1952: Pancho Segura
1953: Jack Kramer
1954: Pancho Gonzales
1955: Pancho Gonzales
1956: Pancho Gonzales
1957: Pancho Gonzales
1958: Pancho Gonzales
1959: Pancho Gonzales
1960: Pancho Gonzales
1961: Pancho Gonzales
1962: Ken Rosewall
1963: Ken Rosewall
1964: Rod Laver
1965: Rod Laver
1966: Rod Laver
1967: Rod Laver

Best players per year in the open era
1968: Rod Laver
1969: Rod Laver
1970: Rod Laver

1950—Kramer/Segura
1951—Kramer
1952—Gonzales/Sedgman
1953—Kramer(6)/Segura(2)
1954—Gonzales
1955—Gonzales
1956—Gonzales
1957—Gonzales
1958—Gonzales(6)/Sedgman(2)
1959—Hoad
1960—Rosewall
1961—Rosewall
1962—Rosewall
1963—Rosewall(4)
1964—Laver
1965—Laver
1966—Laver
1967—Laver
1968—Laver
1969—Laver
1970—Laver(7)

Interesting comparison.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

There is the problem. The pros only played Roland Garros in 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1968.
I was assuming that open tennis arrived in 1954, and Gonzales had a shot at Roland Garros every year.
Gonzales won on clay at Toronto in 1959, and other clay events. He was better than Sampras on clay.
But even on grass (no major is played indoor on wood), Gonzales would not have reached 20.
I believe that Hoad and Sedgman could have stopped him on grass.

Dan, Gonzalez is more likely to win 20 or 25 open majors than Rosewall and Laver.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Huge impact? Does it really? The big 4 have won EVERY single grand slam title since the 2005 Australian Open, with Del Potro being the lone exception. That's 31 out of 32. You really think it would make a huge impact, when the top 4 have won pretty much every major for almost the last decade?


Again, the field wasn't really "split". Virtually all the legendary players were the pros.

Safin in 05 AO, Del Potro in 2009 USO, Nalbandian in 2005 Shanghai Master Cup, Davydenko/Del Potro were winner/finalist in 2009 WTF. THese are HUGE events that would be owned by Federer had these guys were playing in another field. Fed would have a SUPER year in 2005(better than his best 2006) had there wasn't for Safin/Nalbandian, because he would have won 3 slams/year and beat Mac 1984 win/loss record(82-3).

As dominant as FEderer was, he still had some upsets, so no question Laver and Rosewall would get plenty of upsets in a big stage had there wasn't a split fields. 1962 Laver won 4 slams as an amateur and many have said he wasn't even the best player in the world, lol. His 6 overall amateur slams could have been reduce had the pro was competing too. The 3 pro majors had only 8-14 players. Had the amateur were in the mix and have 128 draws, who knows how many times Laver/Rosewall get upset.

No matter how much to want to defend the pre-open era, players have better success with having a 2 fields .

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Gonzalez is more likely to win 20 or 25 open majors than Rosewall and Laver.

Gonzales faced a much tougher field than either Laver or Rosewall, whose only serious competition came from each other.
As it was, how many majors, closed and open, did Laver win?
I make it 21, including the 1968 pro majors (US Pro, Roland Garros).
Gonzales gets 16 (including 8 bogus US Pro events, and 2 Forest Hills Tournament of Champions).
This was caused by the higher level of competition at the professional level.
If tennis had been open from 1950, how would things have changed?
I think that Laver's totals would have been the same, or greater, as there were only 3 majors for the pros, and four majors in open tennis. Laver was a mature player by 1961, and I would give him the edge at Wimbledon and Forest Hills beginning that year. Only Rosewall from the players of the fifties was still a force in his prime, until about 1964.
Gonzales, on the other hand, would have faced major competition from the developing players, (Segura and Sedgman already denied him majors in the early fifties, then also Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad would have joined the list). Gonzales faced too much competition, and I think his totals would have declined if tennis had been open.
Still, I accept Rosewall's overall rating; 1) Hoad 2) Gonzales 3) Laver 4) Federer.
You have to take the level of competition into account when rating players.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Gonzales faced a much tougher field than either Laver or Rosewall, whose only serious competition came from each other.
As it was, how many majors, closed and open, did Laver win?
I make it 21, including the 1968 pro majors (US Pro, Roland Garros).
Gonzales gets 16 (including 8 bogus US Pro events, and 2 Forest Hills Tournament of Champions).
This was caused by the higher level of competition at the professional level.
If tennis had been open from 1950, how would things have changed?
I think that Laver's totals would have been the same, or greater, as there were only 3 majors for the pros, and four majors in open tennis. Laver was a mature player by 1961, and I would give him the edge at Wimbledon and Forest Hills beginning that year. Only Rosewall from the players of the fifties was still a force in his prime, until about 1964.
Gonzales, on the other hand, would have faced major competition from the developing players, (Segura and Sedgman already denied him majors in the early fifties, then also Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad would have joined the list). Gonzales faced too much competition, and I think his totals would have declined if tennis had been open.
Still, I accept Rosewall's overall rating; 1) Hoad 2) Gonzales 3) Laver 4) Federer.
You have to take the level of competition into account when rating players.

Dan, your strange opinions don't become better when you repeat them again and again.

First, Gonzalez had a much longer career on or near the top than Laver had.

Rosewall's rating is NOT an overall rating regarding achievements. It just points to the playing strength in ONE match or a few top matches, as I suppose.

Laver having the edge since Wimbledon and US Open 1961 is curious. I refuse to tell you my real opinion about your statement...

Rosewall and Laver would have stolen many majors from each other. And it's not true that only these two were serious competition in the 1960s. You ""forget"" Hoad, Gonzalez, Gimeno and others.

How strong Gonzalez was as an old man you might see at his SF in the 1968 French Open and the QF in the US Open when he beat Tony Roche clearly...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, your strange opinions don't become better when you repeat them again and again.

First, Gonzalez had a much longer career on or near the top than Laver had.

Rosewall's rating id NOT an overall rating regarding achievements. It just points to the playing strength in ONE match or a few top matches, as I suppose.

Laver having the edge since Wimbledon and US Open 1961 is curious.

Rosewall and Laver would have stolen many majors from each other. And it's not true that only these two were the only serious competition in the 1960s. You ""forget"" Hoad, Gonzalez, Gimeno and others.

How strong Gonzalez was as an old man you might see at his SF in the 1968 French Open and the QF in the US Open when he beat Tony Roche clearly...

Hoad and Gonzales won their majors in the fifties, not sixties. Gimeno never won a major until the depleted 1972 French.
After 1963, Laver won the vast majority of the major pro events.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Hoad and Gonzales won their majors in the fifties, not sixties. Gimeno never won a major until the depleted 1972 French.
After 1963, Laver won the vast majority of the major pro events.

Dan, It's not easy to win a major if you face peak Laver and peak Rosewall in every major. That's why Gimeno did not win a pro major. It would have been also difficult for a Borg or a Connors...

Laver won so much after 1963 as you rightly say but not from 1961 onwards as you earlier wrote.

[DolgoSantoro]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, It's not easy to win a major if you face peak Laver and peak Rosewall in every major. That's why Gimeno did not win a pro major. It would have been also difficult for a Borg or a Connors...

Laver won so much after 1963 as you rightly say but not from 1961 onwards as you earlier wrote.

So Gimeno was a really good player, it's just that a few really strong players monopolized the majors and so we should regard him as quality competition?

This sounds eerily familiar to someone else's arguments, but I can't place it now. I'll come back when I think of whose.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, It's not easy to win a major if you face peak Laver and peak Rosewall in every major. That's why Gimeno did not win a pro major. It would have been also difficult for a Borg or a Connors...

Laver won so much after 1963 as you rightly say but not from 1961 onwards as you earlier wrote.

I am assuming open tennis from 1950.
Therefore, Laver gets quality competition against the best BEFORE 1961, when he matures as a player.
Likewise, Hoad gets top play BEFORE he matures in 1956.
So these guys are ready to go when they mature.

[SoBad]

Frank Hadow, I remember, had a heck of a forehand - much better than Federer, but not as many RPMs as Nadal.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by TMF

Splitting the field does make a huge impact, regardless if you one field had most of the best player like Fed/Nole/Nadal playing in the same field. There wouldn't be a Rosol upsetting Nadal at Wimbledon, no Safin beating Fed in 05 AO, no Nalbandian beating Fed at the Master Cup, no Del Potro beating Fed at 09 USO, no young Fed beat Sampras in 01 Wimbledon, or no Krajicek beating Sampras in 96 Wimbledon. The list goes on endlessly.
And with Roddick in another field who don't have to face these guys especially Federer, he would have a legendary career.

As TheFifthSet pointed out, the big Four have won 31 of the last 32 majors. That's an extreme case but it shows just how much a small group of players can lock up the majors, even when facing full fields.

Your list of upsets is relevant but there is no way to know whether the upset players would have won those majors, if they had won those matches. If Sampras had not faced Krajicek, I think he probably would have won the event. Nadal if he had not faced Rosol, I'm not sure.

Federer, if he had not faced Del Potro in the USO final, would have faced Nadal whom Delpo beat in the semis; and at that time I think Federer would have beaten Nadal; but the principle there is still true, he could have lost.

It's complicated because, yeah, in an open field, Laver might get upset in an early round. But then again one of his big rivals who's been beating him might be the one to get upset (like Nadal was eliminated by Soderling), clearing his way to the title.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think that if you imagine open fields for Laver, his major haul might be lower, or the same, or even higher than it actually is. I'm sure you're wondering how it might be higher, but the reason is that in an open field Laver would have 4 chances every year to win majors. In reality he won a lot of his majors with only 3 chances per year (from 1963-67).

[TheFifthSet]

Safin in 05 AO, Del Potro in 2009 USO, Nalbandian in 2005 Shanghai Master Cup, Davydenko/Del Potro were winner/finalist in 2009 WTF. THese are HUGE events that would be owned by Federer had these guys were playing in another field. Fed would have a SUPER year in 2005(better than his best 2006) had there wasn't for Safin/Nalbandian, because he would have won 3 slams/year and beat Mac 1984 win/loss record(82-3).

Yeah, like I said there'd be the occasional upset win. But you're using wins that are years apart. The big picture would still be the same: 31/32. Remember that number.

As dominant as FEderer was, he still had some upsets, so no question Laver and Rosewall would get plenty of upsets in a big stage had there wasn't a split fields. 1962 Laver won 4 slams as an amateur and many have said he wasn't even the best player in the world, lol. His 6 overall amateur slams could have been reduce had the pro was competing too. The 3 pro majors had only 8-14 players. Had the amateur were in the mix and have 128 draws, who knows how many times Laver/Rosewall get upset.

No matter how much to want to defend the pre-open era, players have better success with having a 2 fields

Of course they would, but the difference would still be fairly negligible in my opinion.


Edit: Krosero explains it far more eloquently

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

As TheFifthSet pointed out, the big Four have won 31 of the last 32 majors. That's an extreme case but it shows just how much a small group of players can lock up the majors, even when facing full fields.

Your list of upsets is relevant but there is no way to know whether the upset players would have won those majors, if they had won those matches. If Sampras had not faced Krajicek, I think he probably would have won the event. Nadal if he had not faced Rosol, I'm not sure.

Federer, if he had not faced Del Potro in the USO final, would have faced Nadal whom Delpo beat in the semis; and at that time I think Federer would have beaten Nadal; but the principle there is still true, he could have lost.

It's complicated because, yeah, in an open field, Laver might get upset in an early round. But then again one of his big rivals who's been beating him might be the one to get upset (like Nadal was eliminated by Soderling), clearing his way to the title.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think that if you imagine open fields for Laver, his major haul might be lower, or the same, or even higher than it actually is. I'm sure you're wondering how it might be higher, but the reason is that in an open field Laver would have 4 chances every year to win majors. In reality he won a lot of his majors with only 3 chances per year (from 1963-67).

Totally logical post.

Another thing I would like to point out is that it's basically mandatory for the players to play all four majors nowadays. It was not mandatory years ago so just about every top player skipped the Australian Open in the late 1970's to part of the 1980's. There were boycotts and often some majors would banned some players (like those who played World Team Tennis) from playing in their tournament. Laver's group couldn't play the Australian and French in 1970 for some reason, I think it may have been price money. Bottom line is that if you have more opportunities to play the majors you have a greater chance to win more majors, especially if you're a top player like Laver, Rosewall or John Newcombe. I think Newcombe had a great chance to win Wimbledon in several years but he couldn't play the tournament.

Also you must consider that the old pros couldn't play the majors for decades because pros were not allowed to play the majors. Greats like Tilden, Budge, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Kramer and Laver were hurt by this. I believe Tilden who was virtually unbeatable in the 1920's would have won several calendar year Grand Slams and his majors total easily would have been in the mid to high twenties area in my opinion. Tilden was hampered by the travel conditions of his day which only boat travel was available easily and it would have taken many weeks to travel to Wimbledon for example. He would be exhausted and out of shape. Despite that he still won several Wimbledons.

Gonzalez played at a high level for over twenty years. He was still winning tournaments into his forties. How many majors would he have won? This is the same with Ken Rosewall.

Right now Roger Federer has won 17 majors. That's an excellent number but we have to take it into context when we point out he won those majors in 54 attempts. Sampras, who used to hold the record won his 14 majors in 52 attempts. Considering the times I would tend to think that Federer must win a number of majors more in order for his record to be safe for a while. I think at 17 it is very vulnerable to being broken sometime in the near future. I can't see it lasting as long as the Joe DiMaggio consecutive game hitting streak for example which is over 70 years old. To put it in perspective, the Women have always been allowed to play all the majors and despite some boycotts and bans many women like Court, Graf, Evert and Navratilova have won over 17 majors. So I would tend to think Federer has to put the total into the twenties to keep it safe for a little while.

Remember the fixed number of majors is important but perhaps even more important is the amount of majors played and the winning percentage of majors win to majors entered.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

Gonzalez played at a high level for over twenty years. He was still winning tournaments into his forties. How many majors would he have won? This is the same with Ken Rosewall.

Right now Roger Federer has won 17 majors. That's an excellent number but we have to take it into context when we point out he won those majors in 54 attempts. Sampras, who used to hold the record won his 14 majors in 52 attempts. Considering the times I would tend to think that Federer must win a number of majors more in order for his record to be safe for a while. I think at 17 it is very vulnerable to being broken sometime in the near future. I can't see it lasting as long as the Joe DiMaggio consecutive game hitting streak for example which is over 70 years old. To put it in perspective, the Women have always been allowed to play all the majors and despite some boycotts and bans many women like Court, Graf, Evert and Navratilova have won over 17 majors. So I would tend to think Federer has to put the total into the twenties to keep it safe for a little while.

Remember the fixed number of majors is important but perhaps even more important is the amount of majors played and the winning percentage of majors win to majors entered.

No player can play high level in their late 30s, much less in the 40s today. AS evidence there isn't any because the depth/strength of the field doesn't allow that to happen.

Federer 17 slams is tough to match/break than you really believe. Because to reach that numbers, first you have to be incredibly talented, which Mac said Federer is like one in billion out there. You have to be almost injured free, always fit to play at a high level to give you a chance. You can't skip any slam, and limited to fewest upsets as possible. And you have to start winning slam at the early age, which isn't that possible like during the early days, again, all because the depth/strength of the field. Not to mention by the time you reach 30, the window of oppotunity has closed considerabliy. AS talented as Nole is, he start out winning late in his career, and at 25 it's impossible to catch Roger. If you've been watching Davis Cup, they said tennis today is the 2nd most global sport in the world behind soccer. That speaks volume.

Sure, records are made to be broken. Just because Sampras's 14 slam record couldn't last for a decade doesn't necessary mean Roger's slam record is going to be broken anytime soon. It took almost 40 years for Mark Mcgwire to break Roger Maris home run record. Yet, it took only a few years for Barry Bond to break Mcgwire's record. So far, no player is remotely close to Bond's 73 home runs per season.

Women's tennis is not like the men's tennis. you can't equate they are equal, slam to slam, or title to title. Because if you compare all tennis records, women always has the higher numbers in every categories. I would say Fed's 17 is a lot tougher than Graf's 22, certainly much tougher than Court 24.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

No player can play high level in their late 30s, much less in the 40s today. AS evidence there isn't any because the depth/strength of the field doesn't allow that to happen.

It has nothing to do with the depth of the field, but to do with the number of hardcourts on tour today, and also the more power elements in the modern game.