At their best, who would win?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

...and history says that, while Rosewall record is overall better, both had the same number of majors in the 70´s.But I doubt Rosewall could dominate like Newcombe.

kiki, I must contradict even in your favour: Newcombe won 6 majors in the 1970s while Rosewall won only 5 majors.

But Rosewall reached more big finals (3:0).

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I must contradict even in your favour: Newcombe won 6 majors in the 1970s while Rosewall won only 5 majors.

But Rosewall reached more big finals (3:0).

Let me see.

Newcombe: 1 WCT, 2 Wimbledon, 2 AO, 1 USO = 6 majors

Rosewall: 2 WCT, 2 AO and 1 USO = 5 majors

You are right, Newcombe has one more big title.If we account the open era, Rosewall´s 1968 RG title puts them at the same figure.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Doubting Dan, You should accept tennis history.

What history are you referring to?
Roche won which majors? And what were his summit achievements?
Compared to Hoad?
I like Hoad's record over other greats because his summit moments are the best ever.
Again, "reached" doesn't do it. It falls a step short of something.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

What history are you referring to?
Roche won which majors? And what were his summit achievements?
Compared to Hoad?
I like Hoad's record over other greats because his summit moments are the best ever.
Again, "reached" doesn't do it. It falls a step short of something.

Dan, please stop your ignorance. Don't we want to discuss on a high level?

I never said that Roche is ahead of Hoad in their achievements or their playing strength.

It's doubtful if Hoad's summit moments are the best ever.

Every serious expert does consider a player's top placings apart from his wins (finals reached, SFs reached). It's a huge difference if a player loses in the first round of Wimbledon or if he reaches the tournament's final.Thus you must make great efforts yet to be ranked as a serious expert...

[pc1]

Just to make a point. Let's say a player wins Wimbledon and reaches the final of the US Open and loses. He won one of two majors played.

Let's say another player wins Wimbledon but loses in the first round of the US Open. Both won one of two majors played.

Who had the better record? Obviously the former.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

Just to make a point. Let's say a player wins Wimbledon and reaches the final of the US Open and loses. He won one of two majors played.

Let's say another player wins Wimbledon but loses in the first round of the US Open. Both won one of two majors played.

Who had the better record? Obviously the former.

pc1, I hope you will convince Dan.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Just to make a point. Let's say a player wins Wimbledon and reaches the final of the US Open and loses. He won one of two majors played.

Let's say another player wins Wimbledon but loses in the first round of the US Open. Both won one of two majors played.

Who had the better record? Obviously the former.

Unfortunately, there is only enough glory for one player in each major.
Runnerups are just that; a failure to win.
When we compile achievement records, it looks cheesy to list the runnerup totals, as if there are not enough championship achievements to fill out the list.
I understand that points are given for tournament results less than victories, and these points count for the season.
But the season total is ONE event, albeit a composite of many events.
We should list the season total as one victory, and not list the tournament standings unless there is an absolute win.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Unfortunately, there is only enough glory for one player in each major.
Runnerups are just that; a failure to win.
When we compile achievement records, it looks cheesy to list the runnerup totals, as if there are not enough championship achievements to fill out the list.
I understand that points are given for tournament results less than victories, and these points count for the season.
But the season total is ONE event, albeit a composite of many events.
We should list the season total as one victory, and not list the tournament standings unless there is an absolute win.

Mysterious Dan, Your many words cannot avert my impression that you missed the point.

I give you an example for the importance of finals reached: In 1974 Rosewall did not win any tournaments. Nevertheless he was ranked as high as No.2 in the world by a true expert (Lance Tingay). Why? Because he reached the finals in the two most important tournaments, i.e Wimbledon and US Open. If you don't consider Rosewall's finals you should not rank him at all which would be a big mistake.

In 1975 Muscles won five tournaments but he was not ranked as high as in 1974. Thus we can see that big finals can be more important than victories (of lesser tournaments).

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Mysterious Dan, Your many words cannot avert my impression that you missed the point.

I give you an example for the importance of finals reached: In 1974 Rosewall did not win any tournaments. Nevertheless he was ranked as high as No.2 in the world by a true expert (Lance Tingay). Why? Because he reached the finals in the two most important tournaments, i.e Wimbledon and US Open. If you don't consider Rosewall's finals you should not rank him at all which would be a big mistake.

In 1975 Muscles won five tournaments but he was not ranked as high as in 1974. Thus we can see that big finals can be more important than victories (of lesser tournaments).

Interesting examples.
It seems to me that Rosewall had a better year in 1975, and when you say "not ranked as high" what do you mean? By Tingay? Or by the ATP?
Most points systems would give the higher ranking to 1975.

Certainly, the slam events have a greater value than a minor, but even the minors have varied weight, depending on their tradition or if they are a national title.
The Canadian is the third oldest tennis tournament in the world, and the Italian has a long and distinguished tradition.
I would agree with a weighted points system, which is what I believe is used now.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Interesting examples.
It seems to me that Rosewall had a better year in 1975, and when you say "not ranked as high" what do you mean? By Tingay? Or by the ATP?
Most points systems would give the higher ranking to 1975.

Certainly, the slam events have a greater value than a minor, but even the minors have varied weight, depending on their tradition or if they are a national title.
The Canadian is the third oldest tennis tournament in the world, and the Italian has a long and distinguished tradition.
I would agree with a weighted points system, which is what I believe is used now.

Dan,

Rosewall in 1975 was ranked No.6 in the ATP list but not ranked in the top ten by the experts (I rank him at a Co. No.10 place).

All experts would agree that the 1974 Rosewall deserves a higher place than the 1975 Rosewall. You seem to be the only one who neglects top placings apart from tournament wins...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan,

Rosewall in 1975 was ranked No.6 in the ATP list but not ranked in the top ten by the experts (I rank him at a Co. No.10 place).

All experts would agree that the 1974 Rosewall deserves a higher place than the 1975 Rosewall. You seem to be the only one who neglects top placings apart from tournament wins...

On the ATP list? But he won only three ATP tournaments in 1975. The other two tournaments were in Asia, big ones, against Nastase and others.
We need to look at the overall year.
What did Rosewall do in 1974 apart from the two runeerups?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

On the ATP list? But he won only three ATP tournaments in 1975. The other two tournaments were in Asia, big ones, against Nastase and others.
We need to look at the overall year.
What did Rosewall do in 1974 apart from the two runeerups?

Dan, No, the other two in 1975 were minor ones, among them the Gunze tournament with a final win against Newcombe. No final win against Nastase.

In 1974 Rosewall reached four finals altogether plus two SFs.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, No, the other two in 1975 were minor ones, among them the Gunze tournament with a final win against Newcombe. No final win against Nastase.

In 1974 Rosewall reached four finals altogether plus two SFs.

So, zero wins in 1974, and five wins in 1975, including a final against Newcombe (small?).
If I have my choice, it's 1975. Not close, and not mysterious.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

So, zero wins in 1974, and five wins in 1975, including a final against Newcombe (small?).
If I have my choice, it's 1975. Not close, and not mysterious.

Dan, I admire your courage to franky publish your strange opinions....

[Day Tripper]

It amazes me how people on this forum cling to the past. Has anyone heard of evolution? There is no way any player from the 70's or 80's could foot it with the best players of today. The 90's maybe. Athletes today are stronger faster and have much greater stamina than previous genrations. The further back you go the larger this discrepancy becomes. Hoad, Laver, Tilden and Gonzales wouldn't stand a chance against Federer, Nadal or Djokovic - neither would McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg or Becker. Closer generations such as Agassi and Sampras stand a better chance.

The question of talent is a different one. it is fair enough to assert that Laver has more natural talent then Nadal. I believe he was more talented than Nadal - still I don't believe he could beats Nadal in a tennis match. Nadal would be too quick too strong and have too much stamina for him.

You can't beat evolution.

[tomwill65]

Originally Posted by pc1

But despite the excuses that some make for Hoad the man was known for great stamina. But he was also known for a chronic back injury that apparently did not allow him to fulfill his potential. Federer's stamina to me is underrated. He rarely seems tired to me and he is generally injury free. For fitness it's clearly Federer because he is almost never injured. For stamina, I'm not sure because many think Hoad's stamina was the best ever, along with Roy Emerson. It could be the hero worship of Hoad by his compatriots but maybe it is true. Even Jack Kramer thought Hoad's stamina was incredible.

I read somewhere a few years ago the two finest athletes tennis has produced was Hoad and Emerson.Cheers TomWill

[qindarka]

Originally Posted by Day Tripper

It amazes me how people on this forum cling to the past. Has anyone heard of evolution? There is no way any player from the 70's or 80's could foot it with the best players of today. The 90's maybe. Athletes today are stronger faster and have much greater stamina than previous genrations. The further back you go the larger this discrepancy becomes. Hoad, Laver, Tilden and Gonzales wouldn't stand a chance against Federer, Nadal or Djokovic - neither would McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg or Becker. Closer generations such as Agassi and Sampras stand a better chance.

The question of talent is a different one. it is fair enough to assert that Laver has more natural talent then Nadal. I believe he was more talented than Nadal - still I don't believe he could beats Nadal in a tennis match. Nadal would be too quick too strong and have too much stamina for him.

You can't beat evolution.

Well, we have to judge the greatness of players according to the standards of their own times. Otherwise, it would be unfair to older players just because they would hypothetically be beaten by modern players which better fitness regimes, training techniques, etc. Just because older players would lose to current players doesn't diminish their achievements.

[tomwill65]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Peak Federer is not a 9.5 or 10 out of 10 in all areas. His serve is about an 8.5, his backhand, volleys, and return of serve and probably no more than a 7. Someone like Hoad who at his best was overpowering and absolutely brilliant off every single shot would beat Federer in a peak on peak match.

Yes i saw Hoad play when at his peak and many other of the past great champions Conzales, Rosewall, Laver,Emerson, Segura,Sedgman.I know it is differcult to compare i guess if we put the modern racquet in the hand of the past players and see how they go remember Hoad and Conzales were hitting the ball as hard as many today.Roger Federer is a great champion he has proved that, in a dream match against Hoad well i may be a bit bais i think i would put my money on Lew his game was electrifying when at his best.TomWill

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by qindarka

Well, we have to judge the greatness of players according to the standards of their own times. Otherwise, it would be unfair to older players just because they would hypothetically be beaten by modern players which better fitness regimes, training techniques, etc. Just because older players would lose to current players doesn't diminish their achievements.

Yes, I know what you mean, I have seen Lance Armstrong and his use of modern fitness and training techniques, and he is clearly superior to all those old guys who raced bicycles in the past.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, please stop your ignorance. Don't we want to discuss on a high level?

I never said that Roche is ahead of Hoad in their achievements or their playing strength.

It's doubtful if Hoad's summit moments are the best ever.

Every serious expert does consider a player's top placings apart from his wins (finals reached, SFs reached). It's a huge difference if a player loses in the first round of Wimbledon or if he reaches the tournament's final.Thus you must make great efforts yet to be ranked as a serious expert...

Hoad's "summit" moments (best ever):

1) Davis Cup 1953 df. Seixas and Trabert at Kooyong

2) Davis Cup 1955 df. Trabert and Seixas at Forest Hills

These two Davis Cup ties literally put tennis into the forefront of sports in the fifties, the first mass television audience for the game. (10 million, first sports broadcast by NBC in color.)

3) 1956 Wimbledon df. Rosewall
Hoad became the first player since WWII to follow his first slam win by a second and third. (Only Budge did this also.)

4) 1957 Wimbledon df. Cooper
The Queen broke her longstanding antipathy to Wimbledon to witness this event.

5) 1958 world tournament championship, 5 tournaments, Hoad won on points and money, including wins against Gonzales at Kooyong, Forest Hills, and Roland Garros.
Players include Hoad, Gonzales, Rosewall, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert.

6) 1959 world tournament championship, 14 tournaments, Hoad won 6 tournaments to Gonzales' 4, top points and money, including a 6 to 2 record against Rosewall (including wins at Kooyong, Forest Hills, and Roland Garros).
Players include Hoad, Gonzales, Rosewall, Sedgman, Trabert, Anderson, Segura, Cooper, Giammalva, Hartwig, Rose, McGregor. The strongest field ever assembled.

7) 1961 Kramer Cup (pro Davis Cup) df. Trabert in decider.
Hoad's last display of top form. Trabert had beaten Rosewall.
Also, the 1962 Kramer Cup df. Olmedo in a display of hot form.

9) 1963 Hoad/Laver tour
Whitewashes Laver, including Kooyong televised match at 6-3 in fifth set.
Laver defeats Rosewall in 4 sets next day at Kooyong.

I do not see a comparable set of summit accomplishments for other players, partly because the equivalent opposition for other great players was weaker.