Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Because obviously amateaur players had their own level and if you was an amateur it was not easy feat to achieve.
But that doesn't change a fact: Pros were on an much higher level, so to achieve an amateur Grand Slam doesn't show any kind of domination.

In fact, he lost 41 matches over 53 he played against Rosewall and Hoad in 1963. You keep ignoring this fact, but numbers speak clearly: 12-33 against Rosewall, 0-8 against Hoad. Is that a dominance?
What a strange concept of dominance you have...

Federic, I have the impression you seek problems that are not existent. I never denied that a pro Grand Slam has (much) more weight than an amateur one. But still the latter has some significance.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by pc1

It's a four major margin

Five on my personal count, but I can accept if for you it's a four Majors margin. Anyway, it's still a huge gap.

and you also have to consider the Grand Slams and the differences in total tournaments won. You have to consider Rosewall entered 14 more majors than Laver in their respective career.

I consider the 1967 and 1969 Grand Slams, but Rosewall also had one (1963), so he also showed a great dominance, just slightly below Laver.
The fact that he entered 14 more Majors is a credit in my opinion: he was able to play 14 more Majors, while Laver wasn't.
The percentage game is a risky thing, would you say that Connors was inferior to McEnroe? Because the percentage says that...

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federic, I have the impression you seek problems that are not existent. I never denied that a pro Grand Slam has (much) more weight than an amateur one. But still the latter has some significance.

Not in my tennis history (and not on as many tennis histories as possible, I hope). In your, it has significance.
There are a lot of tennis histories, Laver doesn't need mine (anyway, I consider him a top-5 and you're acting like if I'm saying he was a loser, that's why I thought you was a fanatic ).

[urban]

Now, in all tennis histories i know, by Tingay, Collins, Clerici, Parsons, Barrett, and others which i must look up in my library (its in my souterrain) the 1962 Grand Slam is given high significance (not in the way of the open Grand Slam of course). All pro champs were very proud on their amateur achievements at the majors or at Davis Cup, it would be a great error, not to reckon Rosewall's great year in 1953, when he won the first two classic majors, and got to the semis at Wim against Kurt Nielsen, when his run was halted, his heroic Davis Cup performances together with Hoad in 1953 or 1955 in front of over 20000 people or his triple crown at Forest Hills in 1956.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by urban

Now, in all tennis histories i know, by Tingay, Collins, Clerici, Parsons, Barrett, and others which i must look up in my library (its in my souterrain) the 1962 Grand Slam is given high significance (not in the way of the open Grand Slam of course). All pro champs were very proud on their amateur achievements at the majors or at Davis Cup, it would be a great error, not to reckon Rosewall's great year in 1953, when he won the first two classic majors, and got to the semis at Wim against Kurt Nielsen, when his run was halted, his heroic Davis Cup performances together with Hoad in 1953 or 1955 in front of over 20000 people or his triple crown at Forest Hills in 1956.

They were nominally prestigious titles, I'm glad they achieved them too.
But please answer me: who will rate Laver higher than the top Pros in 1962?
Who will rate Rosewall higher than the top Pros in 1953?
Every serious historician consider the Pro tournaments more important in that era.

On his book "500 years of tennis", Gianni Clerici said:
"I successi di Emmo sono invece la denunzia della mediocrità degli anni Sessanta, e della sciocca politica di dirigenti che si accanirono nel non riconoscere che il vero tennis era ormai giocato dai veri professionisti"

I translate this: "Emerson's victories are the evidence of the mediocrity of amateur tennis of the 60s. The Federation was stupid: they can not accept that the game at his highest level was played by Pros at the time".

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Five on my personal count, but I can accept if for you it's a four Majors margin. Anyway, it's still a huge gap.


I consider the 1967 and 1969 Grand Slams, but Rosewall also had one (1963), so he also showed a great dominance, just slightly below Laver.
The fact that he entered 14 more Majors is a credit in my opinion: he was able to play 14 more Majors, while Laver wasn't.
The percentage game is a risky thing, would you say that Connors was inferior to McEnroe? Because the percentage says that...

A Grand Slam includes both Wimbledon and Roland Garros.
Laver in 1967 and Rosewall in 1963 won neither of these, so there is no grand slam.
No one at the time suggested that this was a grand slam.
"Professional grand slam"?
Hardly worth suggesting, because the "major" pro events were not major tournaments.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

The more I talk to you, Bobby, the more you seem to me a Laver's fanatic. Sorry if I'm too rude, just my personal impression.

How can Rosewall's 19-20 Majors be "exaggerated" in any kind of way? Come on...

What is your idea of a "major"?

[BobbyOne]

[quote=urban;7107673]Now, in all tennis histories i know, by Tingay, Collins, Clerici, Parsons, Barrett, and others which i must look up in my library (its in my souterrain) the 1962 Grand Slam is given high significance (not in the way of the open Grand Slam of course). All pro champs were very proud on their amateur achievements at the majors or at Davis Cup, it would be a great error, not to reckon Rosewall's great year in 1953, when he won the first two classic majors, and got to the semis at Wim against Kurt Nielsen, when his run was halted, his heroic Davis Cup performances together with Hoad in 1953 or 1955 in front of over 20000 people or his triple crown at Forest Hills in 1956.[/QUOTE

urban, Thanks for your support.

A little correction: Rosewall reached the QFs at Wimbeldon where he lost to Nielsen. He reached SFs at the US Championships. Nielsen again beat Muscles in the SFs of the 1955 Wimbledon.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

A Grand Slam includes both Wimbledon and Roland Garros.
Laver in 1967 and Rosewall in 1963 won neither of these, so there is no grand slam.
No one at the time suggested that this was a grand slam.
"Professional grand slam"?
Hardly worth suggesting, because the "major" pro events were not major tournaments.

Dan, the pros themselves considered Wembley and so on as pro majors (the most important events on their calendar).

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, the pros themselves considered Wembley and so on as pro majors (the most important events on their calendar).

But no one mentioned anything about a "grand slam".
This concept had no meaning for the pros.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Five on my personal count, but I can accept if for you it's a four Majors margin. Anyway, it's still a huge gap.


I consider the 1967 and 1969 Grand Slams, but Rosewall also had one (1963), so he also showed a great dominance, just slightly below Laver.
The fact that he entered 14 more Majors is a credit in my opinion: he was able to play 14 more Majors, while Laver wasn't.
The percentage game is a risky thing, would you say that Connors was inferior to McEnroe? Because the percentage says that...

Actually Jimmy Connors' lifetime winning percentage is higher than John McEnroe's despite playing many more matches.

I also take into account the peak years of the players and in their five best years Connors won a higher percentage of majors but McEnroe won one extra major. Connors won far more overall tournaments than McEnroe.

The percentages much be taken into account to understand the entire story. We look at Sampras' 14 majors and some look at it with awe. It's not quite so awesome when we see he won 14 majors out of 52 attempts. Majors are far easier to win if you are allowed to enter more of them. So do we penalize Gonzalez for not entering the classic majors?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

But no one mentioned anything about a "grand slam".
This concept had no meaning for the pros.

Dan, It was a de facto Grand Slam, not de jure.

[ultradr]

Originally Posted by Talker

50's Gonzales
60's Laver
70's Borg
80's Lendl
90's Sampras
2000's Federer

Pick the order you want.

1. Gonzales
2. Rosewall
3. Laver
4. Sampras
5. Federer*
6. Nadal *
7. Borg

* - still going up...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by ultradr

1. Gonzales
2. Rosewall
3. Laver
4. Sampras
5. Federer
6. Borg
7. Lendl

ultradr, Interesting list. I only miss Tilden.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, It was a de facto Grand Slam, not de jure.

Exactly. If we want to understand who were the greatest, we have to watch "facts". If there are two quality tournaments, then the prestige will separate the normal and and the big one.
In simple words: a quality Roland Garros is way more important than a quality Italian Open.
But if there isn't quality, the prestige doesn't help us in our analysis, because we are not here to decide which tournaments are nominal Majors (we already know them).
In simple words: a quality WCT Final should be more important for us than a weak Wimbledon, if we want to understand who was stronger in 1973.
I'm not saying that Wimbledon was not prestigious in 1973, it was, but it lacked quality players, so it couldn't help us if we want to build a ranking. By winning it, Kodes didn't prove anything. He proved a lot more in reaching the final round at the US Open that year.
I like Kodes anyway, it's a shame that there are only a few public videos with him playin'...

[FedericRoma83]

my list at the moment would be
1. Rosewall,
2. Tilden,
3. Federer,
4. Laver,
5. Gonzales,
6. Lendl, then the others...
anyway, it's a debatable list, like every list...

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by ultradr

1. Gonzales
2. Rosewall
3. Laver
4. Sampras
5. Federer*
6. Nadal *
7. Borg

* - still going up...

LOL @ Sampras being ahead of Federer.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by ultradr

1. Gonzales
2. Rosewall
3. Laver
4. Sampras
5. Federer*
6. Nadal *
7. Borg

* - still going up...

Disagree

1. Federer*

2a. Sampras
2b. Laver

3a. Nadal*
3b. Borg

4. Pancho

5. Agassi

6. Tilden

7. Lendl

8. McEnroe


* - still going up...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

Disagree

1. Federer*

2a. Sampras
2b. Laver

3a. Nadal*
3b. Borg

4. Pancho

5. Agassi

6. Tilden

7. Lendl

8. McEnroe


* - still going up...

Gee, I'm surprised at your first pick. Never would have guessed. Any logical reason you have Agassi over Tilden? Is there any area Agassi ranks over Tilden except that he played more recently?

[qindarka]

Originally Posted by TMF

Disagree

1. Federer*

2a. Sampras
2b. Laver

3a. Nadal*
3b. Borg

4. Pancho

5. Agassi

6. Tilden

7. Lendl

8. McEnroe


* - still going up...

What about Rosewall. Seems a rather glaring omission when you included old players like Gonzalez and Tilden.