Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

I don't underrate Ramillon or Plaa, they were good players, but surely not big ones, they never won anything big (Frenc Pro 1931-32 were weak titles, we don't even know if they really happened ). Plaa won in Berlin 1932, which was a pretty good tournament but not a Major in my opinion (Tilden was past his prime, Nusslein was not in his prime yet, and obviously a lot of strong amateurs were missing).
Talking about Nusslein, the 1933 World Pro can't be considered a Major in my opinion: another pretty good tournament, but Kozeluh and Tilden were 38 and 40 at the time (and Kozeluh was not a big champion in my opinion).
In 1934 he had an amazing victory at US Pro against Vines, but we know that Vines was not unbeatable on clay.
On other Pro Slams he won, he faced mainly old players, while Perry and Vines were on tours (moreover, in my opinion Cochet never shined as a Pro: he had some good moments, but surely nobody will remember him for his Pro career).


From my point of view, Nusslein won only a proper Major, Southport 1939, but I can accept who says he won two Majors, for his 1934 win over Vines, which was surely a big achievement. That said, I really can't credit him more than two Majors.
So if someone asks me about Nusslein, I will introduce him like this: "an underrated Pro player from the 30s, particularly strong on clay. He won several tournaments in his circuit, even if many of them had depleted fields (because at the time amateurs had another circuit, and the strongest Pros preferred touring). Anyway, with his not-so-rare victories over Tilden and Vines, he can clame a place between the most distinctive players of the 30s. His biggest victory was Southport 1939, an English tournament on clay, which was surely a Major in that season."

I can say he was a sort of Muster of the 30s: enormously strong on clay, but only one Major ;D

Federic, I must correct you: The 1931 and 1932 French pro were surely held. I keep the French papers of that time. I concede: Only French players participating. Ramillon was a world pro champ of the 1920s (depleted field).

Kozeluh was a seven times world champion.

Tilden was awesome in 1932 and about as strong as the best amateurs. For 1931 some posters here (not me) rank Big Bill even No.1.

Nüsslein was very strong indoors, see his great match against Budge at WEmbley.

Nüsslein's win over Vines in 1934 was not amazing (but still great) because he usually beat him on clay...

Cochet was very strong in 1936. he never won a set against Nüsslein in all of their ten matches. Cochet won several amateur tournaments after WW2!

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federic, I must correct you: The 1931 and 1932 French pro were surely held. I keep the French papers of that time. I concede: Only French players participating.

So we really can't count them as Majors.

Kozeluh was a seven times world champion.

Just four Pro Slam, all with depleted fields except US Pro 1932 (which was still not a Major in my opinion).

Tilden was awesome in 1932 and about as strong as the best amateurs. For 1931 some posters here (not me) rank Big Bill even No.1.

He was surely strong, no doubts about it.

Nüsslein was very strong indoors, see his great match against Budge at WEmbley.

Never said he was bad on indoor courts, I simply stated that he was one of the very best of the time on clay.

Nüsslein's win over Vines in 1934 was not amazing (but still great) because he usually beat him on clay...

Can't understand why it was not amazing...
so, Nadal victories over Federer on clay are not amazing because he usually beat him there?

Cochet was very strong in 1936. he never won a set against Nüsslein in all of their ten matches. Cochet won several amateur tournaments after WW2!

Little amateur tournaments with depleted fields, I can't count them in any manner. His only important victory has a Pro was the 1936 French tournament, which missed Nusslein, Tilden and Vines. In my opinion is clear that he was not so strong during his Pro years.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

So we really can't count them as Majors.

Just four Pro Slam, all with depleted fields except US Pro 1932 (which was still not a Major in my opinion).


He was surely strong, no doubts about it.


Never said he was bad on indoor courts, I simply stated that he was one of the very best of the time on clay.


Can't understand why it was not amazing...
so, Nadal victories over Federer on clay are not amazing because he usually beat him there?


Little amateur tournaments with depleted fields, I can't count them in any manner. His only important victory has a Pro was the 1936 French tournament, which missed Nusslein, Tilden and Vines. In my opinion is clear that he was not so strong during his Pro years.

Roma locuta, causa finita. Or not?

Why only four majors for Kozeluh? He also was seven times world champion in the 1920s (Deauville and Beaulieu).

I agree that Cochet was weaker as a pro as an amateur till 1933. But he was still rather strong in the 1930s and even after the war (when he won tournaments against strong players).

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Why only four majors for Kozeluh? He also was seven times world champion in the 1920s (Deauville and beaulieu).

How can you count his Bristol Cups as Majors? They had very weak fields...

I agree that Cochet was weaker as a pro as an ametur till 1933. But he was still rather strong in the 1930s and even after the war (when he won tournaments against strong players).

I disagree, my impression is that after he turned Pro he was strong just on occasion. He was 32 when he turned Pro and he had not Tilden's longevity.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

How can you count his Bristol Cups as Majors? They had very weak fields...


I disagree, my impression is that after he turned Pro he was strong just on occasion. He was 32 when he turned Pro and he had not Tilden's longevity.

Federic, don't you value the 1972 and 1973 Wimbledon as majors because many pros were absent?

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federic, don't you value the 1972 and 1973 Wimbledon as majors because many pros were absent?

The 1972 edition was surely a Major: many absent, but also many strong players. On the contrary, I don't count the 1973 edition as a Major: only one of the top-10 players, it was the weakest Slam of the Open Era (except some A.O. editions).

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

The 1972 edition was surely a Major: many absent, but also many strong players. On the contrary, I don't count the 1973 edition as a Major: only one of the top-10 players, it was the weakest Slam of the Open Era (except some A.O. editions).

Federic, We are dancing on dangerous ice if we begin to divide majors in true majors and non-majors depending on how many top players participate.

Wimbledon 1972 yes (with only 3 or 4 top players participating) and W.1973 no (with two top players participating)? That's too accidental.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

The 1972 edition was surely a Major: many absent, but also many strong players. On the contrary, I don't count the 1973 edition as a Major: only one of the top-10 players, it was the weakest Slam of the Open Era (except some A.O. editions).

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federic, We are dancing on dangerous ice if we begin to divide majors in true majors and non-majors depending on how many top players participated.

Wimbledon 1972 yes (with only 3 or 4 top players participating) and W.1973 no (with two top players participating)? That's too accidental.

It is ridiculously dangerous to just rank not on the field. We have discussed this in the past. Do we then decide on how strong the individual players are at this point? Of course not. Is the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic a double major because Laver won it by defeating Rosewall, Roche, Newcombe, Emerson, Okker, Ashe (a few times), Okker (a few times), Ralston and Roger Taylor? Laver did win 13 consecutive best of five matches without a loss against possibly the strongest field of all time. It was a prestigious event.

Incidentally the 1973 Wimbledon had Ilie Nastase, Jan Kodes and Jimmy Connors, Metrevili, Roger Taylor and a young Borg. Nastase, Kodes and Taylor were originally seeded before the boycott. Connors would not have been but in retrospect he was probably deserving of one of the top few seeds, imo probably top five considering his record and strength.

Admittedly majors at times can lose prestige like the Australian Open for a number of years. Clearly the Year End Masters and the WCT Championship was de facto majors at that time.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federic, We are dancing on dangerous ice if we begin to divide majors in true majors and non-majors depending on how many top players participate.

Wimbledon 1972 yes (with only 3 or 4 top players participating) and W.1973 no (with two top players participating)? That's too accidental.

Only Nastase was in the top-10 at the time of W '73. Kodes was under the top-10 (#15 on the original tournament seeding).
On the contrary, at W '72 we had Smith and Nastase (two best players that season), Kodes (seeded #8 at the US Open, so he was a top-10 at Wimbledon also), and Orantes (#10 at the US Open, he may have not been at Wimbledon, but was surely near).

W' 72
Smith #1 at the time of the tournament
Nastase #4 at the time of the tournament, but #1 or 2 that season
Kodes around #8 at the time of the tournament
Orantes probably a top-10 at the time of the tournament (not sure, anyway)

W' 73
Nastase #1 at the time of the tournament
Kodes #15 at the time of the tournament (#9 in the year-end chart)

Moreover, W' 73 missed 80-85 of the top-100 players, while W '72 missed only WCT Players.
It is not the same thing in my opinion.
W 1972 was obviously depleted, but four top-10 and many top-100 is way better than just one top-10 and a few top-100.

[FedericRoma83]

I mean, with today's rankings, W '72 would look like this:
#1 seed Djokovic
#2 seed Federer
#3 seed Tsonga
#4 seed Gasquet

...and W '73 like this:
#1 seed Djokovic
#2 seed Raonic

Which one is better?

[forzamilan90]

http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/6007

Thought this was an interesting read, the list is by a man born in 1912 and seen it all up to the Federer and Nadal era. Scroll down to see his list.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Nope, two against one. The 1962 Grand Slam doesn't count, it was against amateur players: 1967 and 1969 are the real ones, against Rosewall's 1963.

Then I guess Budge's GS does not count either.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Then I guess Budge's GS does not count either.

In the 30s amateur fields were a lot stronger than in the 60s.
After his 1938 Grand Slam Budge went to dominate the Pro circuit.
After his 1962 Grand Slam Laver was destroyed by both Rosewall (12-33) and Hoad (0-8 ).

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

In the 30s amateur fields were a lot stronger than in the 60s.
After his 1938 Grand Slam Budge went to dominate the Pro circuit.
After his 1962 Grand Slam Laver was destroyed by both Rosewall (12-33) and Hoad (0-8 ).

We can also say that in 1938, Budge won the Grand Slam without having to worry about Vines, Perry, Nusslein and Tilden (professional players), as well as von Cramm (his biggest amateur rival, who was jailed by the Nazis).

The official majors, as designated by the ITF since 1924-1925, are the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. Strength of the draw doesn't change the fact that they have officially been majors since then. The players who showed up and won the tournaments deserve full credit for doing so. Also, those who missed certain majors because of political disputes/bans/strikes etc. shouldn't have it held against them when we look at their career records. For example, Vilas deserves full credit for winning the 1977 French Open, but it shouldn't be held against Borg as a player that he played WTT and made himself ineligible for the 1977 French Open. But Borg's decision still needs to be recognised as his personal decision, a choice that he made. For that reason, Vilas gets full credit for winning the French Open while Borg doesn't lose any credibility as a player for choosing WTT.

Multi-dimensional, dialectical thinking is required on issues like this. It isn't black and white.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by Mustard

We can also say that in 1938, Budge won the Grand Slam without having to worry about Vines, Perry, Nusslein and Tilden (professional players), as well as von Cramm (his biggest amateur rival, who was jailed by the Nazis).

Surely, but he demonstrated that he was superior to them all in 1939. What I admit is that if he had to face all them, he probably wouldn't have won four Majors in 1938.
On the other hand, the Pro circuit was soooo badly organized until 1938. That year Vines was on tour and he didn't enter a tournament, the same for Perry (he entered just a weak US Pro were he was the only strong player). Tilden and Nusslein played tournaments where they were the only two top-tier players, never facing Vines or Perry.
Considering that, I think that the four classic Slam tournaments (all won by Donald Budge) were still the best ones (even if they were missing a lot of names).
Things changed radically in 1939: since that year, the Pro circuit started to be well organized, and top players started to enter tournaments with regularity. Moreover, for the first time in tennis history, the top-4 players were all Pro (Budge, Perry, Vines, Nusslein). I think that if there's a year were Pro tennis definitely surpassed amateur tennis, it was 1939 (obviously it didn't happen all of sudden, but it was the culmination of a gradual process).

The official majors, as designated by the ITF since 1924-1925, are the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. Strength of the draw doesn't change the fact that they have officially been majors since then. The players who showed up and won the tournaments deserve full credit for doing so. Also, those who missed certain majors because of political disputes/bans/strikes etc. shouldn't have it held against them when we look at their career records. For example, Vilas deserves full credit for winning the 1977 French Open, but it shouldn't be held against Borg as a player that he played WTT and made himself ineligible for the 1977 French Open. But Borg's decision still needs to be recognised as his personal decision, a choice that he made. For that reason, Vilas gets full credit for winning the French Open while Borg doesn't lose any credibility as a player for choosing WTT.

You're mixing Open Era and pre-Open Era, it doesn't make much sense to me.
I agree with you on RG 1977, but it wasn't always so easy. We aren't talking only about Borg (it was a personal choice). At Wimbledon 1973 80-85 players over 100 boycotted the event (only one top-10 played): if we have to enstablish who was stronger in 1973 we really can't consider Wimbledon.
It was still a Major, but only nominally, it doesn't help us to understand who was stronger, because strong players weren't there (except Nastase and Kodes, and Kodes wasn't a top-10 in that moment anyway).
If we go back to the Pro Era things are even more difficult to understand because there weren't exact parameters. A tournament had a strong field in the year X, but then it disappeared, or changed surface and location the next year. Moreover, some Pro players used to tour.
To understand who were the strongers from the WWII to 1967 our only possibility is to find the best Pro tournaments year after year and analize them. Not necessarily a Pro Slam was a good tournament (in 1960-61-62 US Pro was just insignificant), on the contrary some tournaments were not Pro Slam but they were Majors "de facto" (i.e. World's Hard Court Pro in Los Angeles, 1945, not a Pro Slam but the only real Major that year).

Multi-dimensional, dialectical thinking is required on issues like this. It isn't black and white.

We agree. But even if we need a multi-dimensional thinking, there is an indisputable fact: a tournament with only a top-10 player in its field doesn't help us to understand who were the strongest players in that moment, even if nominally it's still a Major.
We had the same identical discussion about a year ago, Mustard. I guess some things never change, ahahah

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Only Nastase was in the top-10 at the time of W '73. Kodes was under the top-10 (#15 on the original tournament seeding).
On the contrary, at W '72 we had Smith and Nastase (two best players that season), Kodes (seeded #8 at the US Open, so he was a top-10 at Wimbledon also), and Orantes (#10 at the US Open, he may have not been at Wimbledon, but was surely near).

W' 72
Smith #1 at the time of the tournament
Nastase #4 at the time of the tournament, but #1 or 2 that season
Kodes around #8 at the time of the tournament
Orantes probably a top-10 at the time of the tournament (not sure, anyway)

W' 73
Nastase #1 at the time of the tournament
Kodes #15 at the time of the tournament (#9 in the year-end chart)

Moreover, W' 73 missed 80-85 of the top-100 players, while W '72 missed only WCT Players.
It is not the same thing in my opinion.
W 1972 was obviously depleted, but four top-10 and many top-100 is way better than just one top-10 and a few top-100.

Federico di Roma, I agree. Nevertheless I plead to rank Wimbledon 1973 as a major.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federico di Roma, I agree. Nevertheless I plead to rank Wimbledon 1973 as a major.

here are some ideas on why it was nowhere *NEAR* a true major :

13 out of 16 top players not present
81 players boycotted it in total

by far worst Wimbledon in the open era.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/6007

Thought this was an interesting read, the list is by a man born in 1912 and seen it all up to the Federer and Nadal era. Scroll down to see his list.

Forza, Wood's list is the proof that even a first class player is not inevitably an expert. Omitting Rosewall off the first fifteen but including Emerson shows: This man has not realized too much about tennis.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Mustard

We can also say that in 1938, Budge won the Grand Slam without having to worry about Vines, Perry, Nusslein and Tilden (professional players), as well as von Cramm (his biggest amateur rival, who was jailed by the Nazis).

The official majors, as designated by the ITF since 1924-1925, are the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. Strength of the draw doesn't change the fact that they have officially been majors since then. The players who showed up and won the tournaments deserve full credit for doing so. Also, those who missed certain majors because of political disputes/bans/strikes etc. shouldn't have it held against them when we look at their career records. For example, Vilas deserves full credit for winning the 1977 French Open, but it shouldn't be held against Borg as a player that he played WTT and made himself ineligible for the 1977 French Open. But Borg's decision still needs to be recognised as his personal decision, a choice that he made. For that reason, Vilas gets full credit for winning the French Open while Borg doesn't lose any credibility as a player for choosing WTT.

Multi-dimensional, dialectical thinking is required on issues like this. It isn't black and white.

Mustard, I fully agree.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Forza, Wood's list is the proof that even a first class player is not inevitably an expert. Omitting Rosewall off the first fifteen but including Emerson shows: This man has not realized too much about tennis.

agree .... that list is weird ... I don't agree with many of the choices ..