Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Yes. As ridiculous it can be to call every new successful player a goat candidate (Djokovic I'm looking at you), it is just as ridiculous to have half of the top-10 players (and the upper half with that) coming from the same fiftiest era.

And the competition ***** is really the *****tiest argument ever.

Happy to answer your question.

Yes, some eras are blessed by an unusual amount of tennis talent, and for tennis the peak was the 1950's, a decade which just got stronger by the year.
Just think
Kramer, Gonzales, Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, all of them giants who would crowd out the current top four at the top if they were playing today.
Best ever.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Which comedian made this remark?
I guess he was trying to get a laugh.

It was the general consensus among the commentators and the experts they had access to.

To top it off, they offered a poll to the TV viewers related to Hoad and Rosewall. Apparently, while viewers agreed that an aged Rosewall would be too much for a 5.0 recreational player to handle, the same was not true for a peak Hoad.

Some of those 5.0's have insane racquet head speed though, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by NatF

Reeks of bias from so called objective posters. Perhaps the very best of that era should be in the discussion; I seriously doubt however that the overall field 50 years ago was so much better than it is today. Especially to the point where the man who has dominated the modern game like no other isn't even top 10 for peak play and and is in the bottom half of the top 10 for acheivements. It's down right laughable!

Peak play? We can find a spot for Fed.
How's this?

1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer
5) Rosewall
6) Budge
7) Vines
Sedgman
9) Sampras
10) Borg
11) McEnroe
12) Tilden

Players from 10 different decades. Spread the wealth around.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

This is an excellent point. My personal GOAT list contains greats from all eras. However many of the older posters here insist on putting Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Hoad, Kramer etc. all right near the very top, as if magically all the greatest players of all time emerged in the period 1948-1960. And then try to claim that minor greats like Segura qualify for a top ten spot all-time because they faced such overwhelming competition, and that Gimeno was far greater than Emerson and Santana because he played in the super-competitive pro tour.

It's obvious they are fanboys of a certain era and not at all objective.

You have a good point about Segura and Gimeno.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Peak play? We can find a spot for Fed.
How's this?

1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer
5) Rosewall
6) Budge
7) Vines
Sedgman
9) Sampras
10) Borg
11) McEnroe
12) Tilden

Players from 10 different decades. Spread the wealth around.

If Fed's #4 based on peak play, I think have to put Santana in top 3.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Do you really think Gimeno would have won 12 slams, including at least 2 at all 4 venues, if he had stayed amateur? He was hardly a champion in the pros - lost five finals against Laver and Rosewall. At least Emerson had already won an AO with Laver in the field ('61).

I know Emerson was an amateur but I dislike some posters' attempts to basically diminish his career achievements to zero.

Also, Emmo whipped Laver in the 1961 Forest Hills final.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

The 1962 Grand Slam was a fine achievement but only an fool would called that the same as the 1969 Open Grand Slam if they understood the history of the game. Amateur achievements are fine but I'm trying to be realistic. It's like having the College Basketball Champion play the NBA Champions. The NCAA Basketball College Champion is a fine achievement but it's not as fine as the NBA.

Any realistic person would realize it. No one is downgrading Emerson or Laver or Hoad or Rosewall. The amateur majors aren't as big. That's a simple truth.

I've always figured that if Laver or Rosewall played Open Tennis from the beginning they would have won their shares of majors. They would have adapted to the Open competition very quickly because of their great talent.

Now on the other end I truly believe the average level of competition in the old pro tour was probably superior by a decent amount to Open Tennis. My reasoning is that only the cream of the crop turned pro. Guys like Pancho Gonzalez, Lew Hoad, Ken Rosewall, Jack Kramer, Pancho Segura, Frank Sedgman, Rod Laver, Tony Trabert, Ashley Cooper, Andres Gimeno would turn pro. These were players of immense talent and skills. The level of play is naturally going to be higher and in order to compete, the pros would have to raise their levels from the already extremely high levels they were competing at. Rosewall himself make a statement to that effect that Open Tennis was a lower level.

Laver in 1962 although younger and perhaps more physically gifted than the 31 year old Laver in 1969 were not as good a player than he was in 1969. The 31 year old Laver battled Rosewall, Gonzalez, Gimeno, Sedgman, Hoad, Trabert in the pros. He was slaughtered initially but learned to raise the level of his game and very soon become the second best in the world. Eventually he would become number one in the world.

I don't call it downgrading anyone. I just call it a statement of probable truth. Frankly I think it's a fact that Laver's 1962 Grand Slam is not as highly regarded.

At the same time the over thirty Laver won about 76 tournaments in the Open Era alone. He was about 30 when Open Tennis started. Who is to say if Open Tennis wasn't around that he wouldn't have won 200 tournaments? He did win about 71 in the pros from 1963 to 1967. That's already 147. There are a number of tournaments we probably haven't accounted for yet. To my mind Laver probably would have been around 200 tournament victories in his career if there was always Open Tennis.

The same could have been true for Emerson. However it was not for Emerson or Laver. There did play inferior competition in the amateur tour. You cannot ignore that and not state it simply because it seems that someone is being downgraded. I'm sure Roy Emerson would admit that he didn't play the level of competition that Laver played in the pro.

Gonzalez played Ashley Cooper and Mal Anderson on a tour (Hoad participated too but I'll leave him out for the purposes of this example) and they both won zero matches and lost 34! Yet Cooper held three of the four amateur majors. Anderson won the US nationals in the amateurs. You could make the argument that one win over Pancho Gonzalez was tougher for Anderson than winning three majors in the amateurs. There was a big difference between the pros and the amateurs.

Incidentally remember this post when some complain that no one dares speak negatively of Laver in this forum.

True, but here you are talking about the late fifties and sixties.
I would suggest that before 1956, there was a strong group of amateur players which made the major events important.
For example, Tilden, Vines, Budge and Kramer were able to move into the pro ranks with very little need to upgrade their skills.
Gonzales was winning big matches from Kramer in his rookie year.
Trabert won a clay tour against Gonzales in 1956.
Rosewall won at Wembley in 1957, in a field containing Gonzales.and Segura.
Hoad took about a month to adjust, and looked good early.
Laver won his first big match against Rosewall at Kooyong in 1963.
Emerson won his early matches against the top pros, and delayed his pro career because he made more money than Laver or Rosewall in the amateur circuit.
We shouldn't exaggerate the difference between pro and amateur, although this was a useful marketting ploy by the promoters.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

It was the general consensus among the commentators and the experts they had access to.

To top it off, they offered a poll to the TV viewers related to Hoad and Rosewall. Apparently, while viewers agreed that an aged Rosewall would be too much for a 5.0 recreational player to handle, the same was not true for a peak Hoad.

Some of those 5.0's have insane racquet head speed though, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

I doubt that many of the audience have never heard of Hoad.
Today's glory boys are the flavour of the month.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Happy to answer your question.

Yes, some eras are blessed by an unusual amount of tennis talent, and for tennis the peak was the 1950's, a decade which just got stronger by the year.
Just think
Kramer, Gonzales, Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, all of them giants who would crowd out the current top four at the top if they were playing today.
Best ever.

I'm not really addressing this to you as I know you won't change your opinion but for the more reasonable posters: Is it really possible that in a sport with a 130-year competitive history, most of the greatest players of all time played in a single decade? How statistically unlikely is that...?

Anyone who puts so many players from one era near the top of a GOAT list is a fanboy of that era. Period.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I doubt that many of the audience have never heard of Hoad.
Today's glory boys are the flavour of the month.

I have no words, Dan.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Peak play? We can find a spot for Fed.
How's this?

1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer
5) Rosewall
6) Budge
7) Vines
Sedgman
9) Sampras
10) Borg
11) McEnroe
12) Tilden

Players from 10 different decades. Spread the wealth around.

I'm just happy Federer, Sampras and McEnroe made the cut. Much better than BobbyOne's list...lol. Having only a top 10 is pretty difficult with so many great players.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

True, but here you are talking about the late fifties and sixties.
I would suggest that before 1956, there was a strong group of amateur players which made the major events important.
For example, Tilden, Vines, Budge and Kramer were able to move into the pro ranks with very little need to upgrade their skills.
Gonzales was winning big matches from Kramer in his rookie year.
Trabert won a clay tour against Gonzales in 1956.
Rosewall won at Wembley in 1957, in a field containing Gonzales.and Segura.
Hoad took about a month to adjust, and looked good early.
Laver won his first big match against Rosewall at Kooyong in 1963.
Emerson won his early matches against the top pros, and delayed his pro career because he made more money than Laver or Rosewall in the amateur circuit.
We shouldn't exaggerate the difference between pro and amateur, although this was a useful marketting ploy by the promoters.

Some excellent valid points Dan.

Remember also that while Gonzalez won big matches from Kramer he also lost the tour by a resounding score of 26 to 97 on their head to head tour. Trabert while a fantastic player lost his tour to Gonzalez by 27 to 74 and Trabert was virtually unbeatable in his last year as an amateur. I think (this is from memory so don't hold me to this) that Trabert won the last 15 tournaments he played in and the last three majors of the year in his last year as an amateur.

Frank Sedgman was a dominant amateur but he still lost on tour to Kramer by 41 to 54. Sedgman may have lost by a slightly larger margin to Gonzalez at that point. Still a great showing by Sedgman considering everything.

The amateurs like Kramer, Gonzalez, Hoad (of course), Rosewall and Laver were extremely gifted players yet even they had to have so adjustment and improvement in their game. Kramer himself stated that Riggs improved his game. Now that may be to be nice to his friend Riggs but I got the impression from reading Kramer's book that he meant it.

Anyway the bottom line I was trying to convey was that there clearly was a difference in level of play between the pros and the amateurs.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

I'm not really addressing this to you as I know you won't change your opinion but for the more reasonable posters: Is it really possible that in a sport with a 130-year competitive history, most of the greatest players of all time played in a single decade? How statistically unlikely is that...?

Anyone who puts so many players from one era near the top of a GOAT list is a fanboy of that era. Period.

Statistically unlikely but it is possible. Hey Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux and Mark Messier and played for Team Canada at the same time in the 1980's. These are three of the best ever.

The NBA at one point had Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Karl Malone, John Stockton all playing at the same time.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Happy to answer your question.

Yes, some eras are blessed by an unusual amount of tennis talent, and for tennis the peak was the 1950's, a decade which just got stronger by the year.
Just think
Kramer, Gonzales, Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, all of them giants who would crowd out the current top four at the top if they were playing today.
Best ever.

Dan, I agree. If we have a look to classical music we see to our astonishment that three out of the four all-time greatest composers lived in the short span of about thirty years and all in the same city: Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert who lived in Vienna. No such a giant in the centuries afterwards. We still wait-in Vienna or elsewhere- for a new Mozart...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Peak play? We can find a spot for Fed.
How's this?

1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer
5) Rosewall
6) Budge
7) Vines
Sedgman
9) Sampras
10) Borg
11) McEnroe
12) Tilden

Players from 10 different decades. Spread the wealth around.

Dan, not the worst list, but where are Djokovic and Nadal?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Peak play? We can find a spot for Fed.
How's this?

1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer
5) Rosewall
6) Budge
7) Vines
Sedgman
9) Sampras
10) Borg
11) McEnroe
12) Tilden

Players from 10 different decades. Spread the wealth around.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, not the worst list, but where are Djokovic and Nadal?

I'm actually curious about that myself.

Dan,

A reasonable list. I like that you including Sedgman there who is a very underrated and forgotten player. What about Connors, Kramer and Lendl? This list is fine.

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by pc1

You have to remember I was talking about average level of play in matches. I believe Rosewall was talking about that too. Rosewall or Laver did not have journeyman to face in which they could destroy them while reading a book.

Of course winning 200 tournaments is doable in modern times. It's just that it doesn't have to be done anymore because players can have a schedule that they don't exhaust themselves. It's a superhuman task and seems like a mountain to climb but I can see someone doing it in the future.

I've seem so many records in sports that seemed unbreakable but eventually were broken. Lou Gehrig's streak of consecutive games in Major League Baseball was broken by Cal Ripken. Gordie Howe's lifetime points record was not only broken but destroyed by Wayne Gretzky. Gretzky's record looks invulnerable now but who knows.

Lendl won 146 tournaments starting in the late 1970's to early 1990's. Connors won 149 tournaments also until the early 1990. Graf for example won 107 tournaments just recently and she could have played a few more years at a lesser level but probably still able to win tournaments at times. Evert won over 150 and Navratilova won over 160. Court won around 200.

Court used to have years in which she won 21 of 27 tournaments. Laver in 1962 won 22 tournaments out of 37 played. Borg won 21 tournaments in 1979. It's possible but wearing on the body.

Look at Barry Bonds also in MLB, he did break the invulnerable record of Hank Aaron. However as many believe, there were reasons why he broke Aaron's record and some still consider Aaron record to be the true Home Run record.

You mean journeymen like Rosol, who whipped the floor with Nadal or Wawrinka pushing Nole to the extreme just a few days ago??? Do you remember Yzaga?? Fed himself lost against Horna at RG 2 week before winning his first major and he was ranked 5 at the time iirc. Sorry but it is a flawed logic to asume that it is harder to win in the context of the 60`s than nowadays. IMO it is quite the opposite. Again, in this era at least you are almost bound to face 2 or 3 top 10 players to win a slam or a Masters 1000. So the average level required to win a tournament is at the very least the same as in the pro tour, with the addition that you have to beat 2 or 3 of this so called "journeymen". So the task is a lot harder. Just to be clear i think the most amazing achievement in tennis history is Laver`s Grand Slam in the Open era but a close, and i mean really close second would be Fed making 18 out of 19 majors finals (it could be the 23 consecutive semifinals but i prefer the former). That is why i think this 2 are above the rest, because they proved themselves against the toughest competition (open era) and achieved feats hard to imagine.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by ARFED

You mean journeymen like Rosol, who whipped the floor with Nadal or Wawrinka pushing Nole to the extreme just a few days ago??? Do you remember Yzaga?? Fed himself lost against Horna at RG 2 week before winning his first major and he was ranked 5 at the time iirc. Sorry but it is a flawed logic to asume that it is harder to win in the context of the 60`s than nowadays. IMO it is quite the opposite. Again, in this era at least you are almost bound to face 2 or 3 top 10 players to win a slam or a Masters 1000. So the average level required to win a tournament is at the very least the same as in the pro tour, with the addition that you have to beat 2 or 3 of this so called "journeymen". So the task is a lot harder. Just to be clear i think the most amazing achievement in tennis history is Laver`s Grand Slam in the Open era but a close, and i mean really close second would be Fed making 18 out of 19 majors finals (it could be the 23 consecutive semifinals but i prefer the former). That is why i think this 2 are above the rest, because they proved themselves against the toughest competition (open era) and achieved feats hard to imagine.

What I am trying to write is this, on average as you know well a Rosol is going to not play at a high level. A tour of just the top players like a Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga and Ferrer will have a better average level of play than if you mix in Rosol, Llodra or Fognini in the mix. Yes Rosol may serve and play out of his mind on occasion but that's not happening that often. Rosol on a good day may play better than Ferrer but for average level Ferrer is going to play at a higher level. You're getting way off what I was trying to write.

Yes Wawrinka may play well on occasion but if you just use math as an example, Wawrinka may average 5 for average level while the others may average 9. Yes on occasion Stan may throw in a 9 level match but he'll come back to the mean in the long run. Federer may average 9. He may toss in a 7 level but he'll probably make it up with a few 10s. So if you toss in a player who averages a 5 level of tennis to a group of top tennis who average 9 level tennis, the average level of play goes down. That's what I believe Rosewall meant when he said the average level was down in Open Tennis from the Pros. Rosewall played Laver, Gonzalez, Gimeno, Sedgman, Hoad. In the late 1950's he regularly played Gonzalez, Trabert, Segura, Sedgman, Hoad, Olmedo etc. In Open Tennis he would get guys like Tom Gorman or Bob Lutz who were good players but not generally of the level on the old Pro Tour.

By the way I wasn't writing about majors, I was just writing about tournaments in general. So when Open Tennis first started guys like Laver and Rosewall may not be playing the same tournament like they often did on the old Pro Tour and that influences the level of play in the tournament.

Remember I'm talking about average level, not the match where some players can play out of their mind. That's tennis and that of course happens at times. Henri Leconte was known to run hot and cold. He could defeat Lendl or Sampras and lose to a nobody. But on average he was not nearly at the level of Lendl or Sampras.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by zagor

If Fed's #4 based on peak play, I think have to put Santana in top 3.

And Nastase

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I agree. If we have a look to classical music we see to our astonishment that three out of the four all-time greatest composers lived in the short span of about thirty years and all in the same city: Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert who lived in Vienna. No such a giant in the centuries afterwards. We still wait-in Vienna or elsewhere- for a new Mozart...

I fully agree with your concept
It never ceased to amaze me how Plant,Page,Bonham and Baldwin could live in
the same era