Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[BobbyOne]

abmk, As you attack me in almost all your posts and as you use to belittle Rosewall's strength, I would like to tell you two of Muscles' super feats.

pc1 has mentioned Rosewall's great run 1960 to 1962 at Paris and London where he won both French Pro and Wembley (clay and wood) within of 7 or 8 days against strong competition, a run never realized by Laver, Federer and other players you rank ahead of Muscles. Even Borg's channel slam was not as impressive because Borg had two week to adapt his game while Rosewall had only one or two days...

Rosewall is the only player who has a positive balance against his strongest opponents at big events (I omit Connors because Rosewall was already 39 plus when they played each other). Laver and Gonzalez did have such a balance.

I hope I could give you some stuff for a change of your opinion...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by urban

Tell that Ashe, Newcombe or Roche, when they had to face old Emmo. I think, he leads all of them in hth.

urban, Emmo leads them only because they were too young when they played each other. Emerson never reached such heights as the three reached.

[urban]

Bobby, i rate Emerson the 3rd or 4th player of the 60s, clearly behind Laver and Rosewall, but behind none other. I know, all this is speculative, because Emmos faced the pros only since 1968. Maybe Gonzalez did sporadically better, maybe Gimeno on ability was on equal terms. But i think, that Emmo in the 60s was more consistent than Gonzalez, who had long spells of inactivity, and did better in big matches than Gimeno.
Rex Bellamy wrote that Emerson is both overrated and underrated, and he is imo right. Yes, he wouldn't never have won 12 majors with all the pros competing, yes, his high ranking by some experts like Hopman and by most polls isn't correct (in behalf of Rosewall or Gonzalez).
But this is certainly not Emmo's fault, who was and is one of the niecest and warmest people in the whole tennis world. He certainly was no bum, but one of the most athletic and mental solid players ever, who had sound allround game for all surfaces, a great backhand, a great serve and volley game, and excelled in the fith set. Newcombe made an all time list of Australian players and ranked Emmo third, behind Laver and Rosewall but ahead of Sedgman and Hoad. Of course, this is debatable. But Emmos record in Davis Cup, in majors, in singles and doubles and in hth really stands out. His major wins include wins over Laver, Newcombe, Stolle, Roche and Ashe, his 1964 season was one of the best amateur seasons of all time. He has a big lead in hth over Newcombe, who could barely beat him in the 1970 Wim quarter, when he came through Stan Smith and gave Newk his toughest fight there. He still beat Ashe in 1974 in the Aetna World Cup, when he was 36. Much is made of his 5 set defeat by Gonzalez at RG 1968, i even had to deal with some, who stated, that he lost all pro matches to the older Gonzalez. But he did hammer Rosewall on clay early in spring in Florida 1968, had a string of pro wins over Nr. 1 Laver in 68, and in 1970 stopped Gonzalez in the Classic Series in their most lucrative match, and was still Nr. 6 or 7 on the Money winner list.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by urban

Bobby, i rate Emerson the 3rd or 4th player of the 60s, clearly behind Laver and Rosewall, but behind none other. I know, all this is speculative, because Emmos faced the pros only since 1968. Maybe Gonzalez did sporadically better, maybe Gimeno on ability was on equal terms. But i think, that Emmo in the 60s was more consistent than Gonzalez, who had long spells of inactivity, and did better in big matches than Gimeno.
Rex Bellamy wrote that Emerson is both overrated and underrated, and he is imo right. Yes, he wouldn't never have won 12 majors with all the pros competing, yes, his high ranking by some experts like Hopman and by most polls isn't correct (in behalf of Rosewall or Gonzalez).
But this is certainly not Emmo's fault, who was and is one of the niecest and warmest people in the whole tennis world. He certainly was no bum, but one of the most athletic and mental solid players ever, who had sound allround game for all surfaces, a great backhand, a great serve and volley game, and excelled in the fith set. Newcombe made an all time list of Australian players and ranked Emmo third, behind Laver and Rosewall but ahead of Sedgman and Hoad. Of course, this is debatable. But Emmos record in Davis Cup, in majors, in singles and doubles and in hth really stands out. His major wins include wins over Laver, Newcombe, Stolle, Roche and Ashe, his 1964 season was one of the best amateur seasons of all time. He has a big lead in hth over Newcombe, who could barely beat him in the 1970 Wim quarter, when he came through Stan Smith and gave Newk his toughest fight there. He still beat Ashe in 1974 in the Aetna World Cup, when he was 36. Much is made of his 5 set defeat by Gonzalez at RG 1968, i even had to deal with some, who stated, that he lost all pro matches to the older Gonzalez. But he did hammer Rosewall on clay early in spring in Florida 1968, had a string of pro wins over Nr. 1 Laver in 68, and in 1970 stopped Gonzalez in the Classic Series in their most lucrative match, and was still Nr. 6 or 7 on the Money winner list.

urban, I cannot agree at all. You seem to overrate Emerson as many do.

Gonzalez and Gimeno were surely stronger than Emmo. Gonzalez had his spells of inactivity but that did not reduce his strength. After his two years pause Pancho almost equalled Rosewall and Laver in 1964- at 36!. In 1965 he beat Rosewall several times. I strongly doubt that Emerson could have done it the same way.

You cannot take Gimeno's not winning majors in the 1960s as a fault. He had Laver and Rosewall as chief opponents. Gimeno thrice beat Rosewall in majors before open era plus beat Muscles in the 1969 AO.

I don't take Newcombe's list seriously. He also ranked his doubles partner, Roche, behind Stolle!! Such a shame!!

Emerson's balance in the 1960s years without Laver (10 majors won) is rather meagre. He was clearly the No.1 amateur only in 1964 and 1965.

The 1968 Emerson win against Rosewall on clay does not tell too much. It was their very first meeting as pros.

Emerson failed terribly in open majors. Only his 1970 Wimbledon QF match against Newcombe is a plus in his career.

Gimeno was 6:1 in 1968 against Emerson. Altogether Gimeno won nine tournaments where he beat both Laver and Rosewall and numerous tournaments where he defeated one of the two giants (arguably the two all-time greatest). Could have Emerson done the same??

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

An european clay tour without any source on the whole internet, while a player was an amateur and the other a professional...


They were two of the biggest tournaments, that's a fact. And Hoad wasn't able to win them, nor he was able to win Forest Hills, Australian Pro in Sydney or Roland Garros. He lost the main Tour too. No way I can consider him the world no. 1 in 1958.
Anyway, I've just found an old discussion on Hoad where you argued with the whole forum, trying to twist every statistic, sometimes giving the impression to invent them, and so on. That's why I will not answer you anymore on Hoad.


It's not obvious, since their rivalry was affected by a little detail: Rosewall was in his twenties only two years, Laver was in his twenties six years. And still, he has a negative head-to-head in big matches.



Laver has more mythology, and mythology amplify real contents as we know (just think that someone rates Newk no. 1 in 1970 only for his Wimbledon victory, while he was clearly a no. 3 in that season).
I look at facts, undisputable facts: big matches 9-7 in Rosewall advantage, overall head-to-head in Laver advantage but very well balanced considering that Rosewall was four years older (and that he was 28 when he face Laver for the first time), they both were able to win all the important tournaments on one season (Laver did it twice, but his record of consecutive Major matches won is 29, while Rosewall's is 34. Let me guess, it doesn't count because he fronted weak fields, am I right?)


Since you can't demonstrate that McEnroe '84 would beat Rosewall '63, this is just science fiction.

Without a source? Bobby and I reconstructed the scores for the 1957 tour. Hoad won the European head to head against Rosewall 6 to 3, and won the South African tour. Look at McCauley for a start.

US Pro was NOT a major, not even an accreditied tournament title, And THAT'S a fact, documented on the USPTA website. Sorry.

The three genuine biggies in 1958 were Kooyong, Forest Hills, and Roland Garros, and Hoad beat Gonzales in all three tournaments.
There was a points system which counted all matches towards a bonus money pool. Hoad won in both 1958 and 1959.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

And still, he was able to crush Laver 8-0 and to reach several Major finals.
From my point of view, if you play, you play. We can't build an alternative tennis history. Rios and Cash without injuries would have been two of the greatest players ever, but since they had a lot of injuries, they were not. Hoad was always injured, except in 1959 he had trouble pratically in every other professional season: that can't be an argument to disregard Gonzales, Sedgman or Rosewall, let's be honest please...


Just your opinion, can't see any "fact".


Emerson was simply not strong enough to win in front of a professional field competition.


Newcome and Ashe were superior to Emerson, no doubt about it.


As I've learned from you, to beat an injured opponent is no big deal.



If you're using the head-to-head with Gonzales to demonstrate anything against Rosewall, we can also use it against Laver. He had an excellent head-to-head against Laver, who was 10 years older. So maybe Laver was not so dominant...


And when they were, he was not able to win them.


Just look at who he has beaten during his 34 Pro Majors matches winning streak.


Science fiction again. Do you prefer Ballard, Dick or Gibson?


I didn't say that they are silly choices, I just said that a peak Rosewall would be up there too. Your first post was a little disrespectful to Kenny, just go back and read it...

Hoad was clearly out of shape in the period 1960 to 1963, just read Peter Rowley's description.
In October 1962, negotiations concluded for Laver to turn pro, and Hoad was excited to meet him on court. Hoad spent eight weeks training and preparing for five-set matches.
This was an exception for Hoad's post-1959 career.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Hoad was clearly out of shape in the period 1960 to 1963, just read Peter Rowley's description.
In October 1962, negotiations concluded for Laver to turn pro, and Hoad was excited to meet him on court. Hoad spent eight weeks training and preparing for five-set matches.
This was an exception for Hoad's post-1959 career.

Hoad played full years in the early 1960s.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Without a source? Bobby and I reconstructed the scores for the 1957 tour. Hoad won the European head to head against Rosewall 6 to 3, and won the South African tour. Look at McCauley for a start.

US Pro was NOT a major, not even an accreditied tournament title, And THAT'S a fact, documented on the USPTA website. Sorry.

The three genuine biggies in 1958 were Kooyong, Forest Hills, and Roland Garros, and Hoad beat Gonzales in all three tournaments.
There was a points system which counted all matches towards a bonus money pool. Hoad won in both 1958 and 1959.

You forget that Hoad lost the Forest Hills and Roland Garros tournaments...

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Without a source? Bobby and I reconstructed the scores for the 1957 tour. Hoad won the European head to head against Rosewall 6 to 3, and won the South African tour. Look at McCauley for a start.

I've also seen you contesting a lot of McCauley and Bowers statistics in the past, without providing any source, and now you say "Look at McCauley", it sounds funny.

US Pro was NOT a major, not even an accreditied tournament title, And THAT'S a fact, documented on the USPTA website. Sorry.

Couldn't care less about the USPTA. Even the Australian Open was nominally a Major in 1976 but nobody considered it a big one. In the 50s the US Pro was called World Pro and it often had really strong fields, that's enough.

The three genuine biggies in 1958 were Kooyong, Forest Hills, and Roland Garros, and Hoad beat Gonzales in all three tournaments.
There was a points system which counted all matches towards a bonus money pool. Hoad won in both 1958 and 1959.

The only Major Hoad won was ToC 1959, deal with it.

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Hoad was clearly out of shape in the period 1960 to 1963, just read Peter Rowley's description.
In October 1962, negotiations concluded for Laver to turn pro, and Hoad was excited to meet him on court. Hoad spent eight weeks training and preparing for five-set matches.
This was an exception for Hoad's post-1959 career.

Hoad was always out of shape, in 1958 he had big troubles too. His only season with a relatively good health was 1959. I don't see how this can affect the consideration of Ken Rosewall or Pancho Gonzales or whoever...

[FedericRoma83]

About Roy Emerson, I'm with BobbyOne, he's definitely overrated. Gimeno at his peak in 1965-66 would have crushed him.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

About Roy Emerson, I'm with BobbyOne, he's definitely overrated. Gimeno at his peak in 1965-66 would have crushed him.

Thanks, Federic. I believe Gimeno's best year was 1967 when he twice beat Rosewall in pro majors.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

About Roy Emerson, I'm with BobbyOne, he's definitely overrated. Gimeno at his peak in 1965-66 would have crushed him.

Thanks, Federic. I believe Gimeno's best year was 1967 when he twice beat Rosewall in pro majors.

SORRY for this double.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Thanks, Federic. I believe Gimeno's best year was 1967 when he twice beat Rosewall in pro majors.

I've said 1965-66 because he won some nice clay tournaments in those years, such as Milano and Noordwijk, but 1967 was also a strong season, no doubt about it.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

I've said 1965-66 because he won some nice clay tournaments in those years, such as Milano and Noordwijk, but 1967 was also a strong season, no doubt about it.

Federic, I correct myself: Gimeno's best years were 1966 (when he won two big claycourt tournaments: Barcelona and Oklahoma) and 1967. For both years I rank Andres at No.3, ahead of Gonzalez.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federic, I correct myself: Gimeno's best years were 1966 (when he won two big claycourt tournaments: Barcelona and Oklahoma) and 1967. For both years I rank Andres at No.3, ahead of Gonzalez.

I have to correct myself too, he won Milano in 1965, but Noordwijk was in 1964, not 1966. Anyway, he was probably the strongest on clay from 1964 to 1967, it was a shame that the Pro circuit didn't have a clay Major in those years, he would have been much more considered now.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

I have to correct myself too, he won Milano in 1965, but Noordwijk was in 1964, not 1966. Anyway, he was probably the strongest on clay from 1964 to 1967, it was a shame that the Pro circuit didn't have a clay Major in those years, he would have been much more considered now.

Federic, Here I disagree: I think that Gimeno was best claycourter only in 1966. For 1964 I would still have Laver or Rosewall (or yet Gimeno?) as best on clay, 1965 Rosewall (Reston won) and 1967 Laver (Oklahoma). Rosewall beat Gimeno in the Bournemouth and Roland Garros tournaments in 1968.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federic, Here I disagree: I think that Gimeno was best claycourter only in 1966. For 1964 I would still have Laver or Rosewall (or yet Gimeno?) as best on clay, 1965 Rosewall (Reston won) and 1967 Laver (Oklahoma). Rosewall beat Gimeno in the Bournemouth and Roland Garros tournaments in 1968.

The fact is that Rosewall and Laver had only sporadic victories in 1964-67 on clay, while Gimeno won clay titles with constance from 1964 to 1966 (I can't remember if in 1967 too). In the Open Era he clearly declined, except for the RG title.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

The fact is that Rosewall and Laver had only sporadic victories in 1964-67 on clay, while Gimeno won clay titles with constance from 1964 to 1966 (I can't remember if in 1967 too). In the Open Era he clearly declined, except for the RG title.

Federico di Roma, I agree that Gimeno declined after 1967 but it might be interesting that he still was sometimes awesome: He reached the final of the AO in 1969, after a win against Rosewall, he won FO in 1972, he reached SFs there in 1968 and only lost in five sets to Rosewall, reached QFs there against Laver, reached SFs at Wimbledon 1970, lost a five setter to Smith at the US Open in 1972 and beat Smith in Davis Cup the same year. Imagine how strong Gimeno was in his prime...

[FedericRoma83]

no doubt about it, great player for sure.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Hoad played full years in the early 1960s.

Not even close.
Hoad played over 120 matches in 1958, over 150 in 1959.
Only 36 in 1960 and similar numbers in the sixties.