GOAT Discussions

[borg number one]

http://www.crunchsports.com/category...-201211040015/

See Becker's take on some of the modern players versus players from past eras.

"You have to say he is the most successful player we have seen, but how can you decide for sure that he is the best ever? Comparing generations is tough, especially in tennis, even though Roger ticks many boxes as the greatest ever.

"Federer has 17 grand slams, the most ever. He has the most weeks at world No.1, which is an impressive record and clearly he has been an incredible player for many, many years. His level of consistency is maybe his most impressive quality.

"However, would he have beaten McEnroe when he was at his very best in the 1984 Wimbledon final using a very different type of racket to the one he has now? I doubt it.

"Would he have beaten Bjorn Borg at his very best when he was dominating at the French Open or Wimbledon? Again, I doubt it, but that is not to belittle Federer's achievements for one moment.

"The big difference is the racket technology these days. I started with a wooden racket and you simply could not do some of the things guys like Federer and Nadal have done in recent years using that type of equipment. It would not have been possible. So they would have had to adapt their styles.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Of course, if there had been open fields, then we don't know how the amateur players would have responded to playing in the same field as the professionals. They might have been inspired, and that would have changed things.

What we've done above is take the years as they actually happened, i.e. when the top professional players were better, and predict the winners as it stood.

Mustard, you have ignored the actual results for the major venues, where Hoad led Gonzales 6 to 3.
Further, the "amateurs" would not have existed, and would have matured sooner, so I think that Gonzales would have faced a mature Hoad from 1956. But don't let me spoil your fun.
Dream on!

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

The key word is arguably. I don't necessarily believe it but some have argued it in the past if I recall correctly. But 1952 is an arguable year. He won the US Pro Claycourt Champs, the Canadian Pro Champs, the US Pro over Gonzalez.

My point to Kiki was that Segura was not a journeyman as Kiki has written in the past. I don't necessarily believe Segura was the best in either year. The statement was to make a point.

Segura was tough on clay in the early fifties, another reason why it is doubtful that either Kramer or Gonzales could have won a calendar grand slam. Add to the great clay players of the era Drobny, Patty, and this makes it all the more difficult.
Of course in the late fifties, you get Trabert (from 1953, when he matured), Rosewall (1953 champion at RG), Hoad, Davidson, Pietrangeli, and others.
Sorry, I don't see Kramer or Gonzales winning the GS.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

No, not at all.
As we saw earlier, Hoad had 13 to 9 edge ON GRASS against Gonzales in 1958 and 1959, peak years for both, and three of the four majors in a hypothetical open tennis would have been on grass, the other on clay, where Hoad had a much better record than Gonzales. So I do not agree that Gonzales would be favoured.
Consider this. At the grand slam venues, Wimbledon, Roland Garros, Forest Hills, and Kooyong, Hoad's record against Gonzales all-time is 6 wins and 3 losses. So I think that Hoad has to ranked ahead in the majors.
Most of Gonzales "major" wins were indoors. Minor majors.

Hello Dreamer, You come to a 6:3 edge of Hoad against Gonzalez at majors. Why? Because you rate Forest Hills (doubtful) and even Kooyong(!) as pro majors and because you consider their 1967 Wimbledon match which was played when both players were over the hill. The latter is totally irrelevant for their 1950s strength.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Segura was tough on clay in the early fifties, another reason why it is doubtful that either Kramer or Gonzales could have won a calendar grand slam. Add to the great clay players of the era Drobny, Patty, and this makes it all the more difficult.
Of course in the late fifties, you get Trabert (from 1953, when he matured), Rosewall (1953 champion at RG), Hoad, Davidson, Pietrangeli, and others.
Sorry, I don't see Kramer or Gonzales winning the GS.

Dan, Davidson and Pietrangeli are irrevant for the early 1950s when Kramer and Gonzalez could have made the GS.

Gonzalez was a great claycourter. He proved it with his 1959 Toronto win and with wins over Laver.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Hello Dreamer, You come to a 6:3 edge of Hoad against Gonzalez at majors. Why? Because you rate Forest Hills (doubtful) and even Kooyong(!) as pro majors and because you consider their 1967 Wimbledon match which was played when both players were over the hill. The latter is not reasonable for their 1950s strength.

No, because Forest Hills, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and Kooyong is where OPEN MAJORS would be played in the fifties.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Davidson and Pietrangeli are irrevant for the early 1950s when Kramer and Gonzalez could have made the GS.

Gonzalez was a great claycourter. He proved it with his 1959 Toronto win and with wins over Laver.

Yes, he was good on clay. But the fields in the fifties were too tough on clay for him and Kramer to win the big one at RG.
Just think. Drobny, Patty, Segura, Trabert (from 1953), Rosewall (from 1953), Hoad (from 1953, when he beat Rosewall and Bromwich at the Australian Hardcourt), Pietrangeli, all winning at RG, except Segura, who beat Gonzales on clay in the 1952 Cleveland final in five sets.
Gonzales and Kramer did not play enough on clay to compete. Gonzales lost a hth series on clay in South America against Trabert in 1956.
These are the cold, hard realities.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

No, because Forest Hills, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and Kooyong is where OPEN MAJORS would be played in the fifties.

Dan, You can't transfer venues of pro tournaments 1:1 to GS tournaments.

Kooyong pro was never a pro major. Wimbledon 1967 result does not count for our 1950s discussion. That's as clear as water from high mountains...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Yes, he was good on clay. But the fields in the fifties were too tough on clay for him and Kramer to win the big one at RG.
Just think. Drobny, Patty, Segura, Trabert (from 1953), Rosewall (from 1953), Hoad (from 1953, when he beat Rosewall and Bromwich at the Australian Hardcourt), Pietrangeli, all winning at RG, except Segura, who beat Gonzales on clay in the 1952 Cleveland final in five sets.
Gonzales and Kramer did not play enough on clay to compete. Gonzales lost a hth series on clay in South America against Trabert in 1956.
These are the cold, hard realities.

Dan, your arguments are too cold and too hard for me.

I never heard that the 1952 Cleveland final was played on clay.

It is reported that Gonzalez won a claycourt tour over Segura.

You mix oranges with cold herrings. Pietrangeli was great at the end of the 1950s, not at the begin.

After all the lessons you have got in this forum, you should finally accept that the pros were stronger than the amateurs, even on clay! Look at Ayala in 1961. He was one of the strongest amateurs that year but lost to 40 years old Segura at his pro debut.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, You can't transfer venues of pro tournaments 1:1 to GS tournaments.

Kooyong pro was never a pro major. Wimbledon 1967 result does not count for our 1950s discussion. That's as clear as water from high mountains...

No, but the best measure we have of possible GS results in an open game is hth at the GS venues, which we do have; 6 to 3 for Hoad over Gonzales.
If you want peak years only, 1958-59, the score is 5 to 2 for Hoad (2 to 2 at Kooyong, 2 to 0 at Forest Hills, 1 to 0 at Roland Garros).

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, your arguments are too cold and too hard for me.

I never heard that the 1952 Cleveland final was played on clay.

It is reported that Gonzalez won a claycourt tour over Segura.

You mix oranges with cold herrings. Pietrangeli was great at the end of the 1950s, not at the begin.

After all the lessons you have got in this forum, you should finally accept that the pros were stronger than the amateurs, even on clay! Look at Ayala in 1961. He was one of the strongest amateurs that year but lost to 40 years old Segura at his pro debut.

I read in several places that the 1952 Cleveland final was on clay (NY Times, for one).
Yes, Pietrangeli was great about 1956 to 1964 at RG, but we are looking at Gonzales getting a possible GS during that period as well.
Of course the pros were stronger in the fifties, but we are considering the possible results in an open game from about 1946 on, when even Drobny and Patty are pros.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Only you went through this. We need the overall balance on clay including the years when Rosewall dominated Hoad clearly (1958 on clay, 1961 to 1966 generally).

Unfortunately, we do not know the surface of many of the small European events of the 1960's. I had to remove some Rosewall wins from 1963 and 1964 because at Cannes it appears the surface was not clay, but indoor. Likewise, the Swiss tournaments. Perhaps the Italian.

Here is what we know for sure were important clay matches;

1) 1952 Australian Hardcourt final: Hoad def. Rosewall 2-6, 6-1, 1-6, 6-2, 11-9

2) 1953 Australian Hardcourt semi-final: Hoad def. Rosewall 6-1, 2-6, 6-1, 6-8, 7-5 (Hoad def. Bromwich in final 7-5, 6-3, 2-6, 9-7)

3) 1955 New South Wales Hardcourt final: Hoad def. Rosewall 6-3, 6-3

4) 1957 The Hague final (outdoor red shale): Hoad def. Rosewall, five-set marathon (this event currently an ATP Challenger Tournament)

5) 1957 Cairo final: Hoad def. Rosewall, five-set marathon

6) 1958 Roland Garros final: Rosewall def. Hoad 3-6, 6-2, 6-4, 6-0 (Hoad injured during match)

7) 1959 Roland Garros 3rd place: Hoad def. Rosewall 6-3, 4-6, 6-2

1960 Roland Garros final: Rosewall def. Hoad 6-2, 2-6, 6-2, 6-1

9) 1960 Tokyo Pro final (first ever pro championship in Japan): Hoad def. Rosewall 6-2, 0-6, 3-6, 6-1, 13-11

The totals are , let's see...... what?
I make it Hoad over Rosewall, 7 wins against 2 losses.
Not even close.

Earlier, we saw that Hoad held a lifetime edge over Gonzales on grass, 14 to 10. (In peak years, 1958-59, 13 to 9.)
What conclusions should we draw from these two facts?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

No, but the best measure we have of possible GS results in an open game is hth at the GS venues, which we do have; 6 to 3 for Hoad over Gonzales.
If you want peak years only, 1958-59, the score is 5 to 2 for Hoad (2 to 2 at Kooyong, 2 to 0 at Forest Hills, 1 to 0 at Roland Garros).

Dan, I must correct you: Kooyong was NOT always the venue of Australian Championships. Till 1971 the venues changed every year (Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide).

And, as always, you omit the US Pro in Cleveland because Hoad lost twice to Gonzalez there. That's biased account of history!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I read in several places that the 1952 Cleveland final was on clay (NY Times, for one).
Yes, Pietrangeli was great about 1956 to 1964 at RG, but we are looking at Gonzales getting a possible GS during that period as well.
Of course the pros were stronger in the fifties, but we are considering the possible results in an open game from about 1946 on, when even Drobny and Patty are pros.

Pietrangeli was only a real force from 1959 onwards.

Patty and Drobny never could have matched the best pros on clay.

I gave Gonzalez a GS in 1954 and 1955, not later.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Unfortunately, we do not know the surface of many of the small European events of the 1960's. I had to remove some Rosewall wins from 1963 and 1964 because at Cannes it appears the surface was not clay, but indoor. Likewise, the Swiss tournaments. Perhaps the Italian.

Here is what we know for sure were important clay matches;

1) 1952 Australian Hardcourt final: Hoad def. Rosewall 2-6, 6-1, 1-6, 6-2, 11-9

2) 1953 Australian Hardcourt semi-final: Hoad def. Rosewall 6-1, 2-6, 6-1, 6-8, 7-5 (Hoad def. Bromwich in final 7-5, 6-3, 2-6, 9-7)

3) 1955 New South Wales Hardcourt final: Hoad def. Rosewall 6-3, 6-3

4) 1957 The Hague final (outdoor red shale): Hoad def. Rosewall, five-set marathon (this event currently an ATP Challenger Tournament)

5) 1957 Cairo final: Hoad def. Rosewall, five-set marathon

6) 1958 Roland Garros final: Rosewall def. Hoad 3-6, 6-2, 6-4, 6-0 (Hoad injured during match)

7) 1959 Roland Garros 3rd place: Hoad def. Rosewall 6-3, 4-6, 6-2

1960 Roland Garros final: Rosewall def. Hoad 6-2, 2-6, 6-2, 6-1

9) 1960 Tokyo Pro final (first ever pro championship in Japan): Hoad def. Rosewall 6-2, 0-6, 3-6, 6-1, 13-11

The totals are , let's see...... what?
I make it Hoad over Rosewall, 7 wins against 2 losses.
Not even close.

Earlier, we saw that Hoad held a lifetime edge over Gonzales on grass, 14 to 10. (In peak years, 1958-59, 13 to 9.)
What conclusions should we draw from these two facts?

That Hoad was a God and never lost...

The Swiss tournaments were most probably on clay, the Italian ones mostly too!

As usually, you "forgot" a tiny fact: That Rosewall and Hoad played many matches in 1961 and 1962 when Rosewall dominated...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by borg number one

http://www.crunchsports.com/category...-201211040015/

See Becker's take on some of the modern players versus players from past eras.

Nice link Borg number one.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

No, but the best measure we have of possible GS results in an open game is hth at the GS venues, which we do have; 6 to 3 for Hoad over Gonzales.
If you want peak years only, 1958-59, the score is 5 to 2 for Hoad (2 to 2 at Kooyong, 2 to 0 at Forest Hills, 1 to 0 at Roland Garros).

Dan, you have 5:2 for Hoad, I have 2:1 for Gonzalez (2:0 at US Pro, 0:1 French Pro)...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I must correct you: Kooyong was NOT always the venue of Australian Championships. Till 1971 the venues changed every year (Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide).

And, as always, you omit the US Pro in Cleveland because Hoad lost twice to Gonzalez there. That's biased account of history!

Kooyong is acknowledged as the pre-eminent Australian venue for tennis.
No, the US Pro is not minor because of that. Because it was a minor event, not a major in any way.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Pietrangeli was only a real force from 1959 onwards.

Patty and Drobny never could have matched the best pros on clay.

I gave Gonzalez a GS in 1954 and 1955, not later.

Not realistic in 1954 or 1955. By that time, Trabert and Rosewall and Hoad were hot on clay, hotter than Gonzales would ever be on clay. Gonzales would have to be ranked about fifth on clay that year.
When you rate someone for a slam, you shouldn't claim that they are favoured when they have only an outside chance to win the RG.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

That Hoad was a God and never lost...

The Swiss tournaments were most probably on clay, the Italian ones mostly too!

As usually, you "forgot" a tiny fact: That Rosewall and Hoad played many matches in 1961 and 1962 when Rosewall dominated...

As usual, you have sidestepped the real issue, THE RECORD ON CLAY.
We need some EVIDENCE of a clay surface. As of now, the score is 7 to 2 for Hoad.