Does Kramer have a viable case as a GOAT contender?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

More so than Borg that's for sure.

How is that?

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by kiki;7040170[B

]What has age to do with % of wins?[/b]

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.

Once out of prime and older, you start losing more often

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by Mustard

How is that?

more complete resume for starters, spend more time at the #1 position, won lots of year end titles as well

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

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.

Borg was still very young (25) when he stopped playing so it's probably his lifetime winning percentage would have gone up for a number of years. Probably would have started declining after his early thirties. We also have to take into account he started very young and lost a lot more than he should have (considering his talent) in the beginning. So I think his lifetime winning percentage probably would have ended up to around what it is now, which is perhaps the highest in tennis history. It's actually higher than what the ATP has officially because they didn't count many tournaments like some WCT tournaments and others.

Incidentally Borg in my opinion is clearly superior to Sampras. He was just a far more dominant player. It is just not close if you look at all the numbers objectively. All Sampras has going for him over Borg is the number 14 and that's in 52 tries. Borg has the number 11 but that was in 27 tries. Borg won 106 tournaments by age 25. Sampras won 64. Borg averaged over a 90% winning percentage for five years. Sampras NEVER did that in one single year.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by pc1

Borg was still very young (25) when he stopped playing so it's probably his lifetime winning percentage would have gone up for a number of years. Probably would have started declining after his early thirties. We also have to take into account he started very young and lost a lot more than he should have (considering his talent) in the beginning. So I think his lifetime winning percentage probably would have ended up to around what it is now, which is perhaps the highest in tennis history. It's actually higher than what the ATP has officially because they didn't count many tournaments like some WCT tournaments and others.

Incidentally Borg in my opinion is clearly superior to Sampras. He was just a far more dominant player. It is just not close if you look at all the numbers objectively. All Sampras has going for him over Borg is the number 14 and that's in 52 tries. Borg has the number 11 but that was in 27 tries. Borg won 106 tournaments by age 25. Sampras won 64. Borg averaged over a 90% winning percentage for five years. Sampras NEVER did that in one single year.

wtf 106 tourneys? wtf? Did he play every 2nd day of the week?
I was familiar of the 64 number of titles though that's still crazy good.

Why only 2 year ending titles though?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

more complete resume for starters, spend more time at the #1 position, won lots of year end titles as well

If we take Sampras' years as world number 1 from 1993-1998, are they really better than Borg from, say, 1976-1981? The ATP computer was extremely unreliable until at least 1984, so I wouldn't pay much attention to that.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by Mustard

If we take Sampras' years as world number 1 from 1993-1998, are they really better than Borg from, say, 1976-1981? The ATP computer was extremely unreliable until at least 1984, so I wouldn't pay much attention to that.

ok what about year end titles?

have to give Borg>Sampras on title count though

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

wtf 106 tourneys? wtf? Did he play every 2nd day of the week?
I was familiar of the 64 number of titles though that's still crazy good.

Why only 2 year ending titles though?

1974: Round Robin exit (lost to Newcombe and Vilas)
1975: Runner-up (lost the final to Nastase)
1976: DID NOT PLAY
January 1978: Runner-up (lost the final to Connors)
January 1979: DID NOT PLAY
January 1980: CHAMPION
January 1981: CHAMPION

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

No just the second serve but his first serve was also considered to be superb, perhaps slightly below the level of Gonzalez. His second serve was considered to be the best of all time by many. His volley was strong and penetrating and was considered only slightly below that of Frank Sedgman, who is arguably the best volleyer of all time.

Just to show how great he was, Kramer still holds the record for fewest games lost at Wimbledon.

Here's the game scores
1. 6-0 6-1 6-0
2. 6-2 6-2 6-2
3. 6-0 6-2 6-0
4. 7-5 6-2 6-3
5. 6-0 6-1 6-3
6. 6-1 3-6 6-1 6-0
7. 6-1 6-3 6-2

That's pretty awesome on fast uneven bounce grass.



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.

I think Kramer's record looks better than it is.
This is where simply listing wins and losses needs to be expanded to include looking at the quality of opposition.
For example, I notice that you somehow chose to OMIT the names of the players Kramer beat at Wimbledon. Was this because it was an unimpressive list? His major opponents were Tom Brown (yes, the one and only Tom Brown), and Frankie Parker late in his career.
Also, what was Kramer's record at Roland Garros? How did he manage NOT to play there? That was strange. Even as a pro, he avoided the place in 1957.
His tour wins against Gonzales and Sedgman were puffed by injuries suffered by his younger opponents, and while he claimed that he was injured too, his "injury" was just arthritis. Why did he skip so many major tournaments?
The long road tours were played in high school gyms on a cruddy portable carpet, and the best-of-three sets format favoured the veteran player.
He did not beat PRIME Budge, Gonzales, a healthy Sedgman, but instead Bobby Riggs and Segura, players not in his class at the time.
As Gonzales said, "Kramer was not a natural athlete. He wasn't too fast or too quick, but he had the knack of winning". Part of that knack was knowing when to fight and when to make a strategic withdrawal.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I think Kramer's record looks better than it is.
This is where simply listing wins and losses needs to be expanded to include looking at the quality of opposition.
For example, I notice that you somehow chose to OMIT the names of the players Kramer beat at Wimbledon. Was this because it was an unimpressive list? His major opponents were Tom Brown (yes, the one and only Tom Brown), and Frankie Parker late in his career.
Also, what was Kramer's record at Roland Garros? How did he manage NOT to play there? That was strange. Even as a pro, he avoided the place in 1957.
His tour wins against Gonzales and Sedgman were puffed by injuries suffered by his younger opponents, and while he claimed that he was injured too, his "injury" was just arthritis. Why did he skip so many major tournaments?
The long road tours were played in high school gyms on a cruddy portable carpet, and the best-of-three sets format favoured the veteran player.
He did not beat PRIME Budge, Gonzales, a healthy Sedgman, but instead Bobby Riggs and Segura, players not in his class at the time.
As Gonzales said, "Kramer was not a natural athlete. He wasn't too fast or too quick, but he had the knack of winning". Part of that knack was knowing when to fight and when to make a strategic withdrawal.

Dan, why do you belittle Kramer as you use to belittle Rosewall?

Kramer was a fine claycourter as you can see in his five set loss to Segura in the 1950 US Pro. Losing a tough match on clay against a peak Segura is not too bad, I think.

Kramer did enter the 1958 French Pro where he beat Worthington and won 11 games from Rosewall who won the tournament. Your darling Hoad won 12 games from Rosewall...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, why do you belittle Kramer as you use to belittle Rosewall?

Kramer was a fine claycourter as you can see in his five set loss to Segura in the 1950 US Pro. Losing a tough match on clay against a peak Segura is not too bad, I think.

Kramer did enter the 1958 French Pro where he beat Worthington and won 11 games from Rosewall who won the tournament. Your darling Hoad won 12 games from Rosewall...

Okay, that's one RG appearance in how many years? Not much.
How many clay majors? Zero.
Not enough to qualify for top five all-time. Maybe top ten.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

wtf 106 tourneys? wtf? Did he play every 2nd day of the week?
I was familiar of the 64 number of titles though that's still crazy good.

Why only 2 year ending titles though?

a WCT Final win over Vilas in 176 and 2 Masters wins.

In 79 he defeated, one day after the other, world´s nº 5 (Roscoe Tanner), nº 3 (Jimmy Connors) in the rr then nº 2 (John Mc Enroe) in the semis and, in the final, overwhelmed world´s nº 4 (Gerulaitis)

In 1980, he defeated world´s n5 (Clerc) and nº 2 (Mc Enroe) in two cosnecutive days in the rr portion,In the semid he beat Jimmy Connors, world´s nº 3 and, in the final, a straight set win over world´s nº 4 (Lendl).

I doubt ay other player in history has been able to do that, two years in a row.It is almost as rgeat as his three channel slams, when old clay and old grass with only 2 week s of adjustment.He did it three years in a row.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

wtf 106 tourneys? wtf? Did he play every 2nd day of the week?
I was familiar of the 64 number of titles though that's still crazy good.

Why only 2 year ending titles though?

The number the ATP has is wrong. I have a list of all his matches. He was astounding. Like I wrote, they didn't list so many of the old WCT tournament and other tournaments besides that. The ATP records only go back to 1973 I believe, perhaps 1968 in some cases. They only list Pancho Gonzalez with 3 tournaments won in his career. You can't go by the ATP records. They try their best but it's often inaccurate.

Remember he started playing at a young age. His 1979 year was a year for the ages. He won the French, Wimbledon, the Canadian Open (beating McEnroe in straight sets on hard court), the Year End Masters and a total of 21 tournaments. I have always thought that on this year alone Borg deserved to get into the Hall of Fame. Compare it to Rafter's career in which he won 11 tournaments and 2 US Opens. Borg in 1979 did far more than Rafter did in his entire career and Rafter's in the Hall of Fame. Borg didn't just beat people that year he destroyed them. Borg destroyed players for a number of years. For example he won the 1978 French and only lost 32 games for the whole tournament without losing a set. I believe he holds the record for most love sets in a career as far as we know. Maybe Tilden could have surpassed that but records were not kept.

So understand that Borg won 106 tournaments by age 25. That is stunning. He was that great.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, why do you belittle Kramer as you use to belittle Rosewall?

Kramer was a fine claycourter as you can see in his five set loss to Segura in the 1950 US Pro. Losing a tough match on clay against a peak Segura is not too bad, I think.

Kramer did enter the 1958 French Pro where he beat Worthington and won 11 games from Rosewall who won the tournament. Your darling Hoad won 12 games from Rosewall...

I wass merely pointing out that his opponents at Wimbledon were not top class, certainly weaker than in most years.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Okay, that's one RG appearance in how many years? Not much.
How many clay majors? Zero.
Not enough to qualify for top five all-time. Maybe top ten.

Dan, I never claimed for Kramer a top five or top ten place on clay. But he still was very strong on clay.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

The number the ATP has is wrong. I have a list of all his matches. He was astounding. Like I wrote, they didn't list so many of the old WCT tournament and other tournaments besides that. The ATP records only go back to 1973 I believe, perhaps 1968 in some cases. They only list Pancho Gonzalez with 3 tournaments won in his career. You can't go by the ATP records. They try their best but it's often inaccurate.

Remember he started playing at a young age. His 1979 year was a year for the ages. He won the French, Wimbledon, the Canadian Open (beating McEnroe in straight sets on hard court), the Year End Masters and a total of 21 tournaments. I have always thought that on this year alone Borg deserved to get into the Hall of Fame. Compare it to Rafter's career in which he won 11 tournaments and 2 US Opens. Borg in 1979 did far more than Rafter did in his entire career and Rafter's in the Hall of Fame. Borg didn't just beat people that year he destroyed them. Borg destroyed players for a number of years. For example he won the 1978 French and only lost 32 games for the whole tournament without losing a set. I believe he holds the record for most love sets in a career as far as we know. Maybe Tilden could have surpassed that but records were not kept.

So understand that Borg won 106 tournaments by age 25. That is stunning. He was that great.

Which would bring us to which is Bjorn´s greatest year?

In 78, 79 and 80 made the double FO/W.In 78 he also added the IO and in 1979 and 1980 the Masters.In 1979 he lost the WCT final while in 1978 and 1980 he lost the USO final.

Considering he " should" have won that USO final against Mc Enroe, I guess I´d pick 1980 as his most complete year.

John did a great job in beating Borg at Flushing that year, and proved he was made of the real stuff, avenging his 5 sets Wimbledon lose in the most cruel way for Borg.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Which would bring us to which is Bjorn´s greatest year?

In 78, 79 and 80 made the double FO/W.In 78 he also added the IO and in 1979 and 1980 the Masters.In 1979 he lost the WCT final while in 1978 and 1980 he lost the USO final.

Considering he " should" have won that USO final against Mc Enroe, I guess I´d pick 1980 as his most complete year.

John did a great job in beating Borg at Flushing that year, and proved he was made of the real stuff, avenging his 5 sets Wimbledon lose in the most cruel way for Borg.

And don't forget that in 1977 he won 13 tournaments including Wimbledon but couldn't play the French because he played World Team Tennis. I think the odds are that he would have won the French had he been able to play. How he beat Gerulaitis (an great match) and Connors in five sets at Wimbledon in 1977 in consecutive rounds boggles the mind!

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I never claimed for Kramer a top five or top ten place on clay. But he still was very strong on clay.

Kramer became a pretty good clay court player after he turned pro. He always had solid groundies and I believe Pancho Gonzalez ranked him among the best baseliners he faced. That's impressive for a guy known as a serve and volleyer. Gonzalez ranked the three best baseliners as Kramer, Rosewall and Segura.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I never claimed for Kramer a top five or top ten place on clay. But he still was very strong on clay.

I meant top ten overall.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Kramer became a pretty good clay court player after he turned pro. He always had solid groundies and I believe Pancho Gonzalez ranked him among the best baseliners he faced. That's impressive for a guy known as a serve and volleyer. Gonzalez ranked the three best baseliners as Kramer, Rosewall and Segura.

Kramer should have shown his clay ability by playing some big clay tournaments. That's how you do it.