Does Kramer have a viable case as a GOAT contender?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, I rank Kramer in a group with McEnroe, Vines, Lendl and Hoad regarding achievements, just behind first tier (Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, and Laver) and behind Borg, Sampras and Federer.

Reasonable and some of those players have been argued to be GOAT by some.

I do think many rank Kramer subjectively on average level of play as the highest ever. Subjective opinions are tough because someone can rate David Nalbanian as the best ever when healthy and frankly while he's pretty tough when he "on" his game he can't come close to the best on average level of play.

However there are also results indicating the incredibly high level of play in Kramer's often lopsided victories on tour over Riggs by 69 to 20 and Pancho Segura also by a huge score which some write as 64 to 28. Gonzalez was dismissed by 96 to 27 and Sedgman came close at 54 to 41. However Kramer was suffering from a bad case of arthritis when he played Sedgman and was already over the hill. To defeat a super player like Frank Sedgman when you are suffering from arthritis at age 32 is a great result. He was perhaps the first athlete to receive cortisone injections. These are very impressive victories over some of the greatest of all time. I believe that these tours are perhaps more important than majors at that time. In some ways tennis operated like Professional Boxing in that the World Champion had to be beaten in a series of matches. The winner is World Champion.

Let's put it this way, if you had a young Jack Kramer in 1950 with a wood racquet playing anyone in history on grass or hard court, Kramer would have an excellent chance to win. If you had anyone in history playing Kramer on an indoor court at Kramer's peak, Kramer may be favored over anyone. And yes Kramer was a pretty good clay court player.


So here's the problem with Kramer. We currently rank players by amount of majors. You cannot just rank by majors won. That's a bit too simplistic and superficial. Kramer did not win a huge amount of majors but he was dominant in tours at his best and he did win some majors, classic and pro. He retired early because of arthritis. So do we rank on achievements only or top average level of player? Kramer would do extremely well with the former considering he was number one for years. Some argue he was the best from 1946 to 1954. I disagree there on the years but he was clearly number one for a while. On average level of play he has an excellent argument when looking at the players he defeated and from the many opinions of people who played with.

Do I think he's the GOAT? No. Do I think he has valid arguments to be at least be argued as the GOAT? Yes. I would not say that about many players like Djokovic, Nadal or Agassi just to name a few. Although I can see the former two in the mix if they continue their superb play for a few years.

Opinions?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

Reasonable and some of those players have been argued to be GOAT by some.

I do think many rank Kramer subjectively on average level of play as the highest ever. Subjective opinions are tough because someone can rate David Nalbanian as the best ever when healthy and frankly while he's pretty tough when he "on" his game he can't come close to the best on average level of play.

However there are also results indicating the incredibly high level of play in Kramer's often lopsided victories on tour over Riggs by 69 to 20 and Pancho Segura also by a huge score which some write as 64 to 28. Gonzalez was dismissed by 96 to 27 and Sedgman came close at 54 to 41. However Kramer was suffering from a bad case of arthritis when he played Sedgman and was already over the hill. To defeat a super player like Frank Sedgman when you are suffering from arthritis at age 32 is a great result. He was perhaps the first athlete to receive cortisone injections. These are very impressive victories over some of the greatest of all time. I believe that these tours are perhaps more important than majors at that time. In some ways tennis operated like Professional Boxing in that the World Champion had to be beaten in a series of matches. The winner is World Champion.

Let's put it this way, if you had a young Jack Kramer in 1950 with a wood racquet playing anyone in history on grass or hard court, Kramer would have an excellent chance to win. If you had anyone in history playing Kramer on an indoor court at Kramer's peak, Kramer may be favored over anyone. And yes Kramer was a pretty good clay court player.


So here's the problem with Kramer. We currently rank players by amount of majors. You cannot just rank by majors won. That's a bit too simplistic and superficial. Kramer did not win a huge amount of majors but he was dominant in tours at his best and he did win some majors, classic and pro. He retired early because of arthritis. So do we rank on achievements only or top average level of player? Kramer would do extremely well with the former considering he was number one for years. Some argue he was the best from 1946 to 1954. I disagree there on the years but he was clearly number one for a while. On average level of play he has an excellent argument when looking at the players he defeated and from the many opinions of people who played with.

Do I think he's the GOAT? No. Do I think he has valid arguments to be at least be argued as the GOAT? Yes. I would not say that about many players like Djokovic, Nadal or Agassi just to name a few. Although I can see the former two in the mix if they continue their superb play for a few years.

Opinions?

pc1, Even though I think that Gonzalez was a bit stronger than Kramer, the latter was yet very strong and still competitive as late as 1957 when he beat Hoad at Wembley in straight sets and Gonzalez also at Wembley (when Pancho was a bit out of shape). Kramer also finished the European 4 man tour ahead of Segura!

[forzamilan90]

What are credentials? The guy had the credentials to be the best in the world for years and arguably at his best he was the best ever. He beat Segura, Riggs, Sedgman and a young Pancho Gonzalez (who still was a superb player but not quite THE Gonzalez) on tour and beat them easily. And he won a number of Pro Majors. He won three classic majors and that was with an interruption due to World War II. Now to be fair I don't think he was the GOAT but I think he does have a case for it. I think Kramer is superior to players like Roy Emerson, Agassi, Ashe, Nastase, Smith, Vilas, Roche and he has a case over any player including Laver, Federer, Connors, Tilden Gonzalez etc. He is one of the few you can argue to be the GOAT without it being a stupid argument.

For me credentials for the GOAT really have to be eye popping, spectacular achievementsthat go above and beyond, that really show man this dude is on a different level, incredible (stats, records, longevity, strength of play against the field). It's no secret that I think Fed is the best ever (The GOAT) but I think guys like Laver, Sampras, Gonzales, Tilden (though I'm just being respectful here, deep down inside in my heart I can never call a 1920s player GOAT) are in GOAT convo. Guys like Hoad and Kramer I respect what they did but cannot seriously consider them in that category at all. With guys like that, I haven't seen them play, got no highlight reels,have lesser achievements (right I know I can't just go by the fact they have less majors but a lot of other factors and hypotheticals go in place here for pre open era legends that make things complicated). There's also a lot of lore and mythology that surrounds guys like Hoad or Kramer (peak level of play and all that which can be said about anyone who has ever been tough at his peak).

As far I am concerned, these guys are at best on the level of McEnroe or Djokovic. Far away from from the first tier. And I like to keep that first tier (the GOAT contenders) really strict and exclusive to get into. So lots of respect, but no GOAT material imo.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, I rank Kramer in a group with McEnroe, Vines, Lendl and Hoad regarding achievements, just behind first tier (Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, and Laver) and behind Borg, Sampras and Federer.

Interesting, you dont even rank Federer 1st tier? You also didnt even mention Nadal, where do you have him.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

For me credentials for the GOAT really have to be eye popping, spectacular achievementsthat go above and beyond, that really show man this dude is on a different level, incredible (stats, records, longevity, strength of play against the field). It's no secret that I think Fed is the best ever (The GOAT) but I think guys like Laver, Sampras, Gonzales, Tilden (though I'm just being respectful here, deep down inside in my heart I can never call a 1920s player GOAT) are in GOAT convo. Guys like Hoad and Kramer I respect what they did but cannot seriously consider them in that category at all. With guys like that, I haven't seen them play, got no highlight reels,have lesser achievements (right I know I can't just go by the fact they have less majors but a lot of other factors and hypotheticals go in place here for pre open era legends that make things complicated). There's also a lot of lore and mythology that surrounds guys like Hoad or Kramer (peak level of play and all that which can be said about anyone who has ever been tough at his peak).

As far I am concerned, these guys are at best on the level of McEnroe or Djokovic. Far away from from the first tier. And I like to keep that first tier (the GOAT contenders) really strict and exclusive to get into. So lots of respect, but no GOAT material imo.

Here's the thing. There are different variables here. You discuss Federer as the clear GOAT, but is it so clear? You realize that the old time pros couldn't enter the majors and thereby add to their totals. You realize that players like Bill Tilden had trouble going overseas by boat for many weeks to enter majors like Wimbledon (which he won several times) and the French. You realize that Gonzalez was the foremost player in the world for many years and a major title contender for way over a decade, close to two decades.

Would Kramer have won a lot of majors if he had the chance? Yes I think so. He didn't have the chance. You write about mythology but it's not a myth that Tilden won ten classic majors and a total of 14 majors. It's not a myth that Tilden won over 160 tournaments. It's not a myth that Tilden was about 6'3" or 6'2" tall and was physically gifted. Do you penalize Tilden for playing in the 1920 to the 1950's? The man was a tennis genius and it's pretty clear to me that if he had the same mindset that he would have done extremely well in today's game.

Here's a number for you. Federer won 17 majors. That's a fact. It's very impressive. Did you know he won that in 54 tries at major? That's about 31.5%. Not quite as dominant when you see the percentages. Others have had higher percentages for winning majors. So my point is that the older pros didn't have the chances to play the majors and therefore had no chance to win 17 majors. I think Tilden would have won many majors as would have Gonzalez and Rosewall. There was no opportunity. If Federer was in that situation also, he wouldn't have won many majors because they would let him play the majors.

So this is what you have to take into account when you look at Jack Kramer's career and if you examine the different variables it's very impressive.

[forzamilan90]

^^^i get that it's impressive but like I said I see things differently. To me pre open era player cannot be goat, end of story. Too far back, too different from contemporary game, too many variables. Do i know for a fact that Tilden would dominatw today? Hell no it's completely speculative no way of knowing. But its other things that put these guys out of contention for me (i.e. Tilden seemingly wears long pants and from footage I've seen is more of a casual tennis than full blown tennis epics and atheticism). That's just not relatable to modern tennis to me (didn't they also have to serve differently with one foot at the ground at all times?). Sorry if Grammatical errors typing from phone

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by kiki

In switzerland men serve in the army till 45 or 50 for some weeks per year
Is Federer doing that?

Oooops! Fed got a tennis-deferment.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

^^^i get that it's impressive but like I said I see things differently. To me pre open era player cannot be goat, end of story. Too far back, too different from contemporary game, too many variables. Do i know for a fact that Tilden would dominatw today? Hell no it's completely speculative no way of knowing. But its other things that put these guys out of contention for me (i.e. Tilden seemingly wears long pants and from footage I've seen is more of a casual tennis than full blown tennis epics and atheticism). That's just not relatable to modern tennis to me (didn't they also have to serve differently with one foot at the ground at all times?). Sorry if Grammatical errors typing from phone

Point is that you are being close minded about this. You decided that this must be correct and you proceed from there. I've used this example before and I'll use it again. Nolan Ryan, the all time strikeout leader in baseball played in 1965, which is by definition before 1968 which is the Pre Open Era in tennis. Yes I know it's a different sport but hey it's is a while ago. Ryan in his heyday threw the ball clearly over 100 mph. His last pitch in the 1990's at I believe age 46 was timed at 98 mph. By your definition he wouldn't do well today. I disagree.

The great Pancho Gonzalez played in the 1940's and he played until the 1970's. He defeated everyone from Tilden to Connors. He was 6'31/2" and a super athlete. By your definition this gifted player couldn't play today.

Check this video out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0gJzm_EQY

Here's a reverse question that's often asked. Could Federer, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic play in the pre open era?
http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/177649.html

[forzamilan90]

Yeah I've seen that vid before. I said not dominate, not not be able to play. Tennis has just stepped up a notch and imagining Tilden playing against today's players I have to use a lot of imagination and give benefit of the doubt. Can't do that

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by pc1

Point is that you are being close minded about this. You decided that this must be correct and you proceed from there. I've used this example before and I'll use it again. Nolan Ryan, the all time strikeout leader in baseball played in 1965, which is by definition before 1968 which is the Pre Open Era in tennis. Yes I know it's a different sport but hey it's is a while ago. Ryan in his heyday threw the ball clearly over 100 mph. His last pitch in the 1990's at I believe age 46 was timed at 98 mph. By your definition he wouldn't do well today. I disagree.

The great Pancho Gonzalez played in the 1940's and he played until the 1970's. He defeated everyone from Tilden to Connors. He was 6'31/2" and a super athlete. By your definition this gifted player couldn't play today.

Check this video out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0gJzm_EQY

Here's a reverse question that's often asked. Could Federer, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic play in the pre open era?
http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/177649.html

I agree with forzamilan90 to the extent that it is nearly impossible to compare players from the distant past to the modern players (in tennis). Some sports have had similar enough structure and technology to make a direct comparison, but I don't believe that tennis is one of them.

That is not to say that past players are better or worse, only that this list of "goat candidates" is getting so large as to be meaningless. There should at least be a dividing line between the open and pre-open eras for goat lists (pre-open era best, open era best). It is unfortunate for the players who played in the pre-open era, but it is just rampant speculation otherwise.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

I agree with forzamilan90 to the extent that it is nearly impossible to compare players from the distant past to the modern players (in tennis). Some sports have had similar enough structure and technology to make a direct comparison, but I don't believe that tennis is one of them.

That is not to say that past players are better or worse, only that this list of "goat candidates" is getting so large as to be meaningless. There should at least be a dividing line between the open and pre-open eras for goat lists (pre-open era best, open era best). It is unfortunate for the players who played in the pre-open era, but it is just rampant speculation otherwise.

I agree that some of the people being mentioned to be the best ever is frankly ridiculous. Some players are called GOAT after only a few years into their careers. However the list of actual players who can be ARGUED to be the best is very low. Among them are Tilden, Laver, Borg, Rosewall, Gonzalez, and your choice Federer. Kramer was acknowledged as one of the best ever while he was playing and for many decades. He is only forgotten now because the standards are different and he didn't win a lot of majors to fit these requirements. It makes no sense because he didn't have the opportunities to win a lot of majors because in the prime of his career he was a pro and unable to play the majors. He was just beating up on the best playing in the world.

Kramer was no ordinary player. He was a super player.

[forzamilan90]

Pc1 why no Sampras mentioned among the GOATs?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Here's the thing. There are different variables here. You discuss Federer as the clear GOAT, but is it so clear? You realize that the old time pros couldn't enter the majors and thereby add to their totals. You realize that players like Bill Tilden had trouble going overseas by boat for many weeks to enter majors like Wimbledon (which he won several times) and the French. You realize that Gonzalez was the foremost player in the world for many years and a major title contender for way over a decade, close to two decades.

Would Kramer have won a lot of majors if he had the chance? Yes I think so. He didn't have the chance. You write about mythology but it's not a myth that Tilden won ten classic majors and a total of 14 majors. It's not a myth that Tilden won over 160 tournaments. It's not a myth that Tilden was about 6'3" or 6'2" tall and was physically gifted. Do you penalize Tilden for playing in the 1920 to the 1950's? The man was a tennis genius and it's pretty clear to me that if he had the same mindset that he would have done extremely well in today's game.

Here's a number for you. Federer won 17 majors. That's a fact. It's very impressive. Did you know he won that in 54 tries at major? That's about 31.5%. Not quite as dominant when you see the percentages. Others have had higher percentages for winning majors. So my point is that the older pros didn't have the chances to play the majors and therefore had no chance to win 17 majors. I think Tilden would have won many majors as would have Gonzalez and Rosewall. There was no opportunity. If Federer was in that situation also, he wouldn't have won many majors because they would let him play the majors.

So this is what you have to take into account when you look at Jack Kramer's career and if you examine the different variables it's very impressive.

Well said pc1

[pc1]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Pc1 why no Sampras mentioned among the GOATs?

I wrote among others. I was in my car writing this on the side of the road. Wanted to write the post quickly and get on my way and didn't have time to mention all the perspective candidates. It would take too long to write everyone. I will say this, while I respect Sampras, if you check his percentage stats, while he is a player that can be discussed for GOAThood, his percentages are not too impressive. A 77.4% lifetime winning percentage isn't that great for a player who is supposed to be a GOAT candidate. His best year for won-lost is 77-10 and that's not great for a best year. He won 14 majors but out of 52 attempts and that's just okay but not great either. In other words others have done better and in some cases, much better. Even in his peak years he did NOT have a streak where he won the majority of majors over a period of years. For example did you know Laver had a streak in which he won 10 of 13 majors (including pro majors) entered. When the Open Era started Laver was to turn 30 and he still won five of the first seven majors he entered plus a Grand Slam. Don Budge won six consecutive majors including a Grand Slam in 1938. Federer won 11 of 16 majors at one point and 12 of 20 during his best five years. Sampras did very well and came close but he won 9 of 20 majors during his PEAK YEARS of 1993 to 1997. His winning percentages during his best five years is around 83% which is about Rafael Nadal's lifetime winning percentage.

His Wimbledon titles and other majors are impressive as is his general ability. I think subjectively Sampras is more gifted than most of the all time greats.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Well said pc1

Thanks Kiki. I appreciate that.

[forzamilan90]

I think Fed aside, Sampras is the best of the Open Era with great credentials. More so than Borg that's for sure.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Thanks Kiki. I appreciate that.

When you argue like that, I am prompt to accept that Vines was, maybe, superior to Kodes

[kiki]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

I think Fed aside, Sampras is the best of the Open Era with great credentials. More so than Borg that's for sure.

Sampras is a contender.Borg is another, as well.He did the RG-W double three times in a row when grass was grass and clay was clay, which is a feat that will probably never be matched.He won 6 RG titles, which means he has the credentials of being , at least, the 4 th best ever on grass ( 3 rd on fast grass) and second on clay.Plus, Borg won three indoor majors, two of them beating day in day out the next four best players in the world in the most competitive era, which is a feat that won´t be easily duplicated.Finally, I admit he lost three USO finals on hard.

His record is better than that of Sampras, in my opinion.But I respect Sampras a lot, too.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by kiki

Sampras is a contender.Borg is another, as well.He did the RG-W double three times in a row when grass was grass and clay was clay, which is a feat that will probably never be matched.He won 6 RG titles, which means he has the credentials of being , at least, the 4 th best ever on grass ( 3 rd on fast grass) and second on clay.Plus, Borg won three indoor majors, two of them beating day in day out the next four best players in the world in the most competitive era, which is a feat that won´t be easily duplicated.Finally, I admit he lost three USO finals on hard.

His record is better than that of Sampras, in my opinion.But I respect Sampras a lot, too.

well retiring early does help that wouldn't you agree? Considering he was an early bloomer that inflates his win %, kind of like Nadal.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

well retiring early does help that wouldn't you agree? Considering he was an early bloomer that inflates his win %, kind of like Nadal.

What has age to do with % of wins?

We´ll never know what would have happened if Borg had decided to retire later, but we know what Borg achieved while playing and that´s all about to it.