Why are Laver's 2 GrandSlams held with sugh high regard?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Yes, Ralston just played a few joint tournaments against NTL players.
That means that Buchholz and Ralston chose (or had to choose) the weaker WCT league to the more elite NTL. Hmmm........
And how did Buchholz fail to beat a one-legged Hoad at Wembley in 1963? The London Times reporter was flabbergasted.

Dan, your logic is really top.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Do you think Butcholz was as good as Gimeno?

kiki, I don't believe that Buchholz was as good as Gimeno.

Andres had more skills and I rank him No.3 for several years, Buchholz "only" No.4 once and No.5 in some other years.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I don't believe that Buchholz was as good as Gimeno.

Andres had more skills and I rank him No.3 for several years, Buchholz "only" No.4 once and No.5 in some other years.

Butcholz was the Solomon or Ferrer or Arias of the 60´s.But I think he was even worse.A middle class journeyman with no chance to gain upper middle class status

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, your logic is really top.

Thank you.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I don't believe that Buchholz was as good as Gimeno.

Andres had more skills and I rank him No.3 for several years, Buchholz "only" No.4 once and No.5 in some other years.

Many, including Kramer considered Gimeno the third best player in the world for many years in the 1960's. Evidence of this was at the 1968 Wimbledon, the first Open Wimbledon and Gimeno was seeded third, behind Laver and Rosewall.

[kiki]

Is it a happy coincidence that peak Zep and peak Kodes came along?

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by pc1

Many, including Kramer considered Gimeno the third best player in the world for many years in the 1960's. Evidence of this was at the 1968 Wimbledon, the first Open Wimbledon and Gimeno was seeded third, behind Laver and Rosewall.

This is a good point.

I notice that Emerson was seeded fifth. Was he still an amateur by the time of Wimbledon 1968?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Butcholz was the Solomon or Ferrer or Arias of the 60´s.But I think he was even worse.A middle class journeyman with no chance to gain upper middle class status

kiki, I had thought you have learnt history?!?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

This is a good point.

I notice that Emerson was seeded fifth. Was he still an amateur by the time of Wimbledon 1968?

hoodjem, Emerson had turned pro rather shortly before Wimbledon.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

hoodjem, Emerson had turned pro rather shortly before Wimbledon.

Okay. Thanks for the info.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Butcholz was the Solomon or Ferrer or Arias of the 60´s.But I think he was even worse.A middle class journeyman with no chance to gain upper middle class status

Then, why can Butch be ranked among thre top five players in the mid-1960s?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Okay. Thanks for the info.

hoodjem Emerson turned pro in April.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

hoodjem Emerson turned pro in April.

Interesting timing. Thanks again.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I had thought you have learnt history?!?

Not your biassed view of it, though.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Then, why can Butch be ranked among thre top five players in the mid-1960s?

Solomon was once ranked that high...in an open field, BTW.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Not your biassed view of it, though.

kiki, I could imagine that I'm a bit biased regarding Rosewall. But why should I be biased regarding Buchholz?? I'm not a Buchholz admirer. I just respect his high level in several years.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

Not your biassed view of it, though.

Both of you are very biased.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

Both of you are very biased.

And I suppose you're not.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

And I suppose you're not.

In what way? I believe sports and tennis gets better over time, and most people would agree with me.

[TMF]

There are a number of ways to be bias:


*Double standard. The most common method that's use, and gets exposed often.

*Exaggeration. Making mountain out of a molehill when certain facts suit their agenda, but vice-versa when it works against them.

*Double-edged sword. I.e. If a player is too dominant, the field is weak. If a player isn't that dominant, it's because the supreme strength/depth of the field.

*Hide negative facts. Only employ by the old-timers. They know the younger fans doesn't know about history of classic tennis, so they take the advantage.