Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[kiki]

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.

Agreed, no need of belitteling

[kiki]

[quote=BobbyOne;7153932]

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.[/QUOTE.

Phoenix, Nobody tries to diminish Emerson's career achievements to zero. We just want to put his feats into a real perspective. 12 amateur majors are good or even very good but it's the question if Emmo would have won a single major in an open field.

Yes, I'm convinced that Gimeno as an amateur would have equalled Emmo's number or even passed it. Remember that Emerson was dominant only for two years but yet achieved 12 majors because the competition was rather weak.

Santana,Stolle and up and coming Newk,Ashe,Roche looks weak to you?
Really?
I know pros played at a higher level ( not all of them but the best 5) but amaters were not that weak!!!

[Flash O'Groove]

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.

Just think what? You throw some name and claim that they were the most elite tennis player ever, all in a decade. And what is your argument to explain it: a godly blessing?

[zagor]

Originally Posted by kiki

And Nastase

Of course, add Vilas and Roche too, Fed's peak level of play is just not that impressive (to me atleast).

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by pc1

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.

I really can't agree with that.

Back in the day, you had an amateur tour on which people competed. I think we can safely assume that an amateur tour in those years wasn't very deep, because few people could dedicate themselves to tennis, as it didn't bring incomes to them. It is thus very likely that there was a big gap and the few players who were either/both more dedicated or had more talent and the others. Those players would dominate the amateur tour. Then, a business man like Kramer would offer them a contract to become a pro player, and the guy would then become one of the very few pro players. In order to become a pro, he only had to dominate on the amateur tour, a tour where the average level of play might have been very low. He would then be considered as a top players, as there would be a lot of advertising on each match, and the fact that they always play each over in small venue increase their hypeness.

Some of them would dominate, but, as nobody can always play at his best level, event the better player would sometimes lose, allowing the lesser players to win titles and grow their name. The lesser player place in the draw was nearly granted, as very few amateur player where pushing to enter the pro tour.

Today, only the cream of the crop turn pro, because the selection process is much more hard, and much more progressive. A player has to win future, then challenger before being able to enter the top 100. There is no big gap of level of play between the different kind of tournaments: There is a continuum between the top players and the lesser one, which is very regular, and which make it harder to make a name to yourself. Beside, I really believe that the level of dedication today of the player is nowhere the level it was in the 50's on the amateur tour, for the obvious reasons I mentioned before.

Now imagine that today, we had a huge gap between the pro tour and the amateur tour. You would have Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Roddick, Davydenko, Gonzales, Nalbandian, Tsonga, Blake, playing very often some WTF venue against each over. They would never play against the so called journeyman that are so disrespected in this forum, and thus, Blake, Nalbandian and Gonzales would never show their vulnerability against lesser player. How hype would be the tour in such a situation? How godly would their name sound? Federer and Nadal would dominate. Then Djokovic and Murray. Then nobody in the third tier would dominate, giving the impression that they are all awesome players. And of course, time to time, a tier 3 players would win it all.

If your place at the top is not threatened, then the level of competition might be weak.

[jimbo333]

Right then here we go, in my opinion the best players of all-time are:-

1. Rod Laver
2. Roger Federer
3. Jimmy Connors
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Pete Sampras
6. John McEnroe
7. Rafa Nadal
8. Ken Rosewall
9. Ivan Lendl
10. Andre Agassi

And Federer will be number 1 if he wins 20 Grand Slam titles in my, and I think his, opinion as well, from what I've read!

[Nadal_Power]

Originally Posted by jimbo333

Right then here we go, in my opinion the best players of all-time are:-

1. Rod Laver
2. Roger Federer
3. Jimmy Connors
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Pete Sampras
6. John McEnroe
7. Rafa Nadal
8. Ken Rosewall
9. Ivan Lendl
10. Andre Agassi

And Federer will be number 1 if he wins 20 Grand Slam titles in my, and I think his, opinion as well, from what I've read!

How on Earth Connors can be so far ahead of Lendl?

[jimbo333]

Originally Posted by Nadal_Power

How on Earth Connors can be so far ahead of Lendl?

Tennis career.

Apart from the top 2, who are some way ahead, I think the next 8 are all quite close, and it comes down to opinion and which criteria you use after that!

And I'm a huge Connors fan

[Feather]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

I really can't agree with that.

Back in the day, you had an amateur tour on which people competed. I think we can safely assume that an amateur tour in those years wasn't very deep, because few people could dedicate themselves to tennis, as it didn't bring incomes to them. It is thus very likely that there was a big gap and the few players who were either/both more dedicated or had more talent and the others. Those players would dominate the amateur tour. Then, a business man like Kramer would offer them a contract to become a pro player, and the guy would then become one of the very few pro players. In order to become a pro, he only had to dominate on the amateur tour, a tour where the average level of play might have been very low. He would then be considered as a top players, as there would be a lot of advertising on each match, and the fact that they always play each over in small venue increase their hypeness.

Some of them would dominate, but, as nobody can always play at his best level, event the better player would sometimes lose, allowing the lesser players to win titles and grow their name. The lesser player place in the draw was nearly granted, as very few amateur player where pushing to enter the pro tour.

Today, only the cream of the crop turn pro, because the selection process is much more hard, and much more progressive. A player has to win future, then challenger before being able to enter the top 100. There is no big gap of level of play between the different kind of tournaments: There is a continuum between the top players and the lesser one, which is very regular, and which make it harder to make a name to yourself. Beside, I really believe that the level of dedication today of the player is nowhere the level it was in the 50's on the amateur tour, for the obvious reasons I mentioned before.

Now imagine that today, we had a huge gap between the pro tour and the amateur tour. You would have Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Roddick, Davydenko, Gonzales, Nalbandian, Tsonga, Blake, playing very often some WTF venue against each over. They would never play against the so called journeyman that are so disrespected in this forum, and thus, Blake, Nalbandian and Gonzales would never show their vulnerability against lesser player. How hype would be the tour in such a situation? How godly would their name sound? Federer and Nadal would dominate. Then Djokovic and Murray. Then nobody in the third tier would dominate, giving the impression that they are all awesome players. And of course, time to time, a tier 3 players would win it all.

If your place at the top is not threatened, then the level of competition might be weak.

Awesome post. Liked it a lot

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

I really can't agree with that.

Back in the day, you had an amateur tour on which people competed. I think we can safely assume that an amateur tour in those years wasn't very deep, because few people could dedicate themselves to tennis, as it didn't bring incomes to them. It is thus very likely that there was a big gap and the few players who were either/both more dedicated or had more talent and the others. Those players would dominate the amateur tour. Then, a business man like Kramer would offer them a contract to become a pro player, and the guy would then become one of the very few pro players. In order to become a pro, he only had to dominate on the amateur tour, a tour where the average level of play might have been very low. He would then be considered as a top players, as there would be a lot of advertising on each match, and the fact that they always play each over in small venue increase their hypeness.

Some of them would dominate, but, as nobody can always play at his best level, event the better player would sometimes lose, allowing the lesser players to win titles and grow their name. The lesser player place in the draw was nearly granted, as very few amateur player where pushing to enter the pro tour.

Today, only the cream of the crop turn pro, because the selection process is much more hard, and much more progressive. A player has to win future, then challenger before being able to enter the top 100. There is no big gap of level of play between the different kind of tournaments: There is a continuum between the top players and the lesser one, which is very regular, and which make it harder to make a name to yourself. Beside, I really believe that the level of dedication today of the player is nowhere the level it was in the 50's on the amateur tour, for the obvious reasons I mentioned before.

Now imagine that today, we had a huge gap between the pro tour and the amateur tour. You would have Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Roddick, Davydenko, Gonzales, Nalbandian, Tsonga, Blake, playing very often some WTF venue against each over. They would never play against the so called journeyman that are so disrespected in this forum, and thus, Blake, Nalbandian and Gonzales would never show their vulnerability against lesser player. How hype would be the tour in such a situation? How godly would their name sound? Federer and Nadal would dominate. Then Djokovic and Murray. Then nobody in the third tier would dominate, giving the impression that they are all awesome players. And of course, time to time, a tier 3 players would win it all.

If your place at the top is not threatened, then the level of competition might be weak.

Whether you agree or disagree, do you understand the theory behind this? And in theory this should be correct if all the numbers were correct, ie the relative strength of the players. This was Rosewall's opinion. Remember that Rosewall and Laver were pretty powerful in the early Open Era and they were probably a decent amount better just a few years before.

This doesn't have anything to do with today's tour or depth of field.

Actually the amateurs were essentially pros but paid under the table. Guys like Emerson or Santana probably made more money by staying amateurs than turning pro. Laver and a few others like Hoad and Rosewall had the best of both worlds. They made money and they played against the best.

[Feather]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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

I know it's of no use telling this to you. Did you see your stronger boy taken to 10-12 in his best slam in AO 2013 in 4th Round? You were the one who said Djokovic is stronger than Federer. I was watching the match and I thought about you! Djokovic is at his absolute peak and this is happening. Imagine what would happen to him when is post prime

Imagine him at Federer's age? Number two and winning major

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by pc1

Whether you agree or disagree, do you understand the theory behind this? And in theory this should be correct if all the numbers were correct, ie the relative strength of the players. This was Rosewall's opinion. Remember that Rosewall and Laver were pretty powerful in the early Open Era and they were probably a decent amount better just a few years before.

This doesn't have anything to do with today's tour or depth of field.

Actually the amateurs were essentially pros but paid under the table. Guys like Emerson or Santana probably made more money by staying amateurs than turning pro. Laver and a few others like Hoad and Rosewall had the best of both worlds. They made money and they played against the best.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure that I have understood your first paragraph. Are you speaking of the average level of play? If yes, I can imagine that the average level of play was effectively higher in average. But it could be wrong. My point is that the place of the lesser pro player was not threatened. We don't know how good they really were, and we can't only assume that they were all time great just because they lot a bunch of tournament against proven all-time great. Look, Davydenko is a great player. He is clearly inferior to Federer and Nadal, even in somehow he find a way to dominate him on hard court. If, like I proposed before, these players played only in WTF tournament, his fame would be better and is name would be more recognized, but that wouldn't mean that he is that a great player.

I know it's not your case, but Dann Lobb claims that all this past pro would be dominant players today. We know that it is true for Rosewall and Laver because they proved it in the open field. But we really don't know how the other would fare in different era. Just the same for Davydenko or even Murray. They are great contemporaries players, but they are clearly inferior to Nadal and Federer. As much respect they deserve, I don't think that we can assume that they would have a lot of success against the over all-time great. There is really a big gap between the all-time great and the over merely great players.

Finally regarding Emerson, I can imagine that he won some money. Endorsement are not born with the last rain, and he was famous. But what about the first round guys? How good were they? And finally, how well would have Emerson fared against the pro, had he become one of them?

Finally you should note that I really don't disrespect these old timer. I genuinely rank Rosewall and Laver respectively at the second and third place on my all time ranking. What I disagree again is the idea that they played in toughest era ever, against all time great such as Gimeno who would trounce Fedal. I don't believe in magic nor in hazard. For an era to be significantly tougher or weaker than an other, there must be some explanation. I provided a socio-economical analysis to argue my case, and I would need socio-economical argument to believe that this era was tougher. The opinion of Rosewall is only marginally heavier than Murray's or Djokovic's.

Thanks for reading my long post (and I guess this one is not well constructed) to you and Feather (I'm always very interested by the post of both of you by the way).

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

I'm sorry, I'm not sure that I have understood your first paragraph. Are you speaking of the average level of play? If yes, I can imagine that the average level of play was effectively higher in average. But it could be wrong. My point is that the place of the lesser pro player was not threatened. We don't know how good they really were, and we can't only assume that they were all time great just because they lot a bunch of tournament against proven all-time great. Look, Davydenko is a great player. He is clearly inferior to Federer and Nadal, even in somehow he find a way to dominate him on hard court. If, like I proposed before, these players played only in WTF tournament, his fame would be better and is name would be more recognized, but that wouldn't mean that he is that a great player.

I know it's not your case, but Dann Lobb claims that all this past pro would be dominant players today. We know that it is true for Rosewall and Laver because they proved it in the open field. But we really don't know how the other would fare in different era. Just the same for Davydenko or even Murray. They are great contemporaries players, but they are clearly inferior to Nadal and Federer. As much respect they deserve, I don't think that we can assume that they would have a lot of success against the over all-time great. There is really a big gap between the all-time great and the over merely great players.

Finally regarding Emerson, I can imagine that he won some money. Endorsement are not born with the last rain, and he was famous. But what about the first round guys? How good were they? And finally, how well would have Emerson fared against the pro, had he become one of them?

Finally you should note that I really don't disrespect these old timer. I genuinely rank Rosewall and Laver respectively at the second and third place on my all time ranking. What I disagree again is the idea that they played in toughest era ever, against all time great such as Gimeno who would trounce Fedal. I don't believe in magic nor in hazard. For an era to be significantly tougher or weaker than an other, there must be some explanation. I provided a socio-economical analysis to argue my case, and I would need socio-economical argument to believe that this era was tougher. The opinion of Rosewall is only marginally heavier than Murray's or Djokovic's.

Thanks for reading my long post (and I guess this one is not well constructed) to you and Feather (I'm always very interested by the post of both of you by the way).

Flash,

Your post was very well written. However I want to clarify that I wasn't comparing eras, just the level of play between the pros and the amateurs before the Open Era. I believe you understand that but I want to reiterate that for others reading this post.

But yes I was writing of average level of play. The normal assumption is that over the course of a year (just to use today's players as an example) that Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Federer would have a higher AVERAGE level of play than the player like Rossol. Now Rosol as someone pointed out very clearly is of course able to have those "in the zone" days where he may defeat a Nadal but in general his level of play will not be at that high a level. Now let's say Murray, Federer, Djokovic and Nadal form a tour with a few others like Ferrer, Tsonga and del Potro. In this tour, the higher levels, Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray will regularly play each other along with the other top players. They won't be able to get away with as much as against lesser players so they will probably have to maintain a higher average level of play than in the past also. Now would we really have any doubt that any player from this superb group would defeat Rosol on a regular basis? We couldn't prove it because they are not playing but there is very little doubt.

Now in the past generally the cream of the crop like Gonzalez, Rosewall, Sedgman, Trabert, Hoad, Laver would turn pro. These players have already beaten virtually all the top amateurs. We do have clear evidence that the pros were clearly superior to the amateurs because all these legendary players were beaten and sometimes beaten badly in their introduction to the Pro Tour. Gonzalez who won the US Nationals got crushed by Jack Kramer on tour by 96 to 27 and he had to improve just to get to that awful final match score. Gonzalez actually lost 22 of the first 26 matches and I believe 42 of the first 50! Trabert was dominant in the amateurs in 1955 winning the last three majors and 15 tournaments in a row I believe. Trabert was beaten by Gonzalez 74 to 27. Laver won the Amateur Grand Slam in 1962 winning 22 tournaments. He was destroyed by Hoad and Rosewall losing at least 11 of his first 13 matches. It probably was worst than that. Rosewall was a great amateur but he lost to Gonzalez 50 to 26 on tour. Hoad was fantastic as an amateur but he lost much more than he won in his early days as a pro. Kramer, Segura and I believe Rosewall had to prepare him for his upcoming tour with Gonzalez. Hoad did jump out to a big early lead but Gonzalez eventually won that first tour by a match score of 51 to 36. I can give numerous other examples of this but that would take too long.

It's pretty clear to me that the pros were much superior to the amateurs. Even when Open Tennis started Joe McCauley kept track of the old pros and amateurs and the old pros won a very high percentage of the matches. Rosewall won the first Open Tournament with Laver in the final. Rosewall won the first Open Major and Laver won the first Wimbledon. Ashe won the first US Open in a mild surprise but Laver won the Grand Slam the next year in 1969.

By the way I never thought you that you didn't respect the past.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by pc1

Flash,

Your post was very well written. However I want to clarify that I wasn't comparing eras, just the level of play between the pros and the amateurs before the Open Era. I believe you understand that but I want to reiterate that for others reading this post.

But yes I was writing of average level of play. The normal assumption is that over the course of a year (just to use today's players as an example) that Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Federer would have a higher AVERAGE level of play than the player like Rossol. Now Rosol as someone pointed out very clearly is of course able to have those "in the zone" days where he may defeat a Nadal but in general his level of play will not be at that high a level. Now let's say Murray, Federer, Djokovic and Nadal form a tour with a few others like Ferrer, Tsonga and del Potro. In this tour, the higher levels, Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray will regularly play each other along with the other top players. They won't be able to get away with as much as against lesser players so they will probably have to maintain a higher average level of play than in the past also.

Now in the past generally the cream of the crop like Gonzalez, Rosewall, Sedgman, Trabert, Hoad, Laver would turn pro. We do have clear evidence that the pros were clearly superior to the amateurs because all these legendary players were beaten and sometimes beaten badly in their introduction to the Pro Tour. Gonzalez who won the US Nationals got crushed by Jack Kramer on tour by 96 to 27 and he had to improve just to get to that awful final match score. Gonzalez actually lost 22 of the first 26 matches and I believe 42 of the first 50! Trabert was dominant in the amateurs in 1955 winning the last three majors and 15 tournaments in a row I believe. He was beaten by Gonzalez 74 to 27. Laver won the Amateur Grand Slam in 1962 winning 22 tournaments. He was destroyed by Hoad and Rosewall losing at least 11 of his first 13 matches. It probably was worst than that. Rosewall was a great amateur but he lost to Gonzalez 50 to 26 on tour. Hoad was fantastic as an amateur but he lost much more than he won in his early days as a pro. Kramer, Segura and I believe Rosewall had to prepare him for his upcoming tour with Gonzalez. Hoad did jump out to a big early lead but Gonzalez eventually won that first tour by a match score of 51 to 36.

It's pretty clear to me that the pros were much superior to the amateurs. Even when Open Tennis started Joe McCauley kept track of the old pros and amateurs and the old pros won a very high percentage of the matches. Rosewall won the first Open Tournament with Laver in the final. Rosewall won the first Open Major and Laver won the first Wimbledon. Ashe won the first US Open in a mild surprise but Laver won the Grand Slam the next year in 1969.

By the way I never thought you that you didn't respect the past.

Yes, I agree that the average level was higher. It doesn't make it harder to win though. The current players have a lot of really easy warm-up matches in the early round, but some of them are pretty though, and upset happen (or used to happen). They play the top guy anyway in the later round (except in case of upset: lot of "upsetter" lose in the next round).

I also agree that the gap was huge between the pro and the amateur, and I think that this is a con to the pro tour. It means that, in order to become a pro, you only had to dominate a rather weak field. It is not a surprise that the top pro of the pro tour won the first open era tournament as they played against a field of former rival on the pro tour or against former players of the amateur tour. The fact that Rosewall could stay highely competitive far inside the open era shows that he was really an amazing player though, and the fact that he was an amazing players shows that his greates rivals were amazing too. But it is a reach to claim that his lesser rivals were too (I come back to my exemple with Davydenko).

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Feather

I know it's of no use telling this to you. Did you see your stronger boy taken to 10-12 in his best slam in AO 2013 in 4th Round? You were the one who said Djokovic is stronger than Federer. I was watching the match and I thought about you! Djokovic is at his absolute peak and this is happening. Imagine what would happen to him when is post prime

Imagine him at Federer's age? Number two and winning major

Feather,

That's really not fair. Stan Wawrinka played a great match and everyone, even Federer at his peak had tough matches at times. Tilden did, Laver did, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Sampras etc.

Anyway he was just asking Dan where he ranked Djokovic and Nadal. Notice that Federer was on Dan's list among the top few and BobbyOne thought the list was fine.

Speaking of matches and Federer. Really looking forward to the Federer/Murray match tonight. Unfortunately it'll be on in the early morning hours in New York.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by pc1

Feather,

That's really not fair. Stan Wawrinka played a great match and everyone, even Federer at his peak had tough matches at times. Tilden did, Laver did, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Sampras etc.

Anyway he was just asking Dan where he ranked Djokovic and Nadal. Notice that Federer was on Dan's list among the top few and BobbyOne thought the list was fine.

Speaking of matches and Federer. Really looking forward to the Federer/Murray match tonight. Unfortunately it'll be on in the early morning hours in New York.

Fortunately it will be at my office hours in the morning. The cool thing is that I am more focused on my work when I listen a tennis match.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Yes, I agree that the average level was higher. It doesn't make it harder to win though. The current players have a lot of really easy warm-up matches in the early round, but some of them are pretty though, and upset happen (or used to happen). They play the top guy anyway in the later round (except in case of upset: lot of "upsetter" lose in the next round).

I also agree that the gap was huge between the pro and the amateur, and I think that this is a con to the pro tour. It means that, in order to become a pro, you only had to dominate a rather weak field. It is not a surprise that the top pro of the pro tour won the first open era tournament as they played against a field of former rival on the pro tour or against former players of the amateur tour. The fact that Rosewall could stay highely competitive far inside the open era shows that he was really an amazing player though, and the fact that he was an amazing players shows that his greates rivals were amazing too. But it is a reach to claim that his lesser rivals were too (I come back to my exemple with Davydenko).

Possibly but Gimeno did win a lot of tournaments in the Pros and he did defeat Laver and Rosewall in the same tournament a number of times. That's pretty awesome to me.

Anyway it not just me, guys like Kramer and the seeding committee at Wimbledon believe Gimeno was superior to Emerson also. Push comes to shove and if someone asked me who would win the majority of matches between Emerson and Gimeno in 1965, I would pick Gimeno. Of course we assume they play on every surface. But we will never know. One fact is that Gimeno did win the French in the Open Era and Emerson never won a major in the Open Era.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Fortunately it will be at my office hours in the morning. The cool thing is that I am more focused on my work when I listen a tennis match.

Pretty nice to have top tennis in the background while you're working.

[Phoenix1983]

I guess the reasons I would give for the Open Era being tougher than the pro tour are:

a). To win an Open slam, you usually have to beat some lesser players to begin with, followed by the top opponents in the QF/SF/F - whereas in the pro ranks, you only had to do the latter. Yes, the average level per match would be higher in the pros. However the number of obstacles each player had to face would be lower - because they would 'only' be facing their fellow greats, not the 'lesser' players beforehand who, on any given day, could cause an upset (i.e. Rosol over Nadal).

b). Sort of related to the above is the issue of the head-to-head pro tours. It's often stated that Federer is greater than Nadal, despite his losing h2h, because of his greater accomplishments. Yet when posters talk about the old pro tour, the h2h's between the top players become of the utmost importance. The fallacy behind this can be shown because, if there had been a pro tour over the past 10 years, Nadal would have come out with the best h2h's against all his rivals. Yet we know, when playing the wider field, that Federer is greater.
Hence the h2h pro tours are not as meaningful as some make them out to be.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by pc1

Possibly but Gimeno did win a lot of tournaments in the Pros and he did defeat Laver and Rosewall in the same tournament a number of times. That's pretty awesome to me.

Anyway it not just me, guys like Kramer and the seeding committee at Wimbledon believe Gimeno was superior to Emerson also. Push comes to shove and if someone asked me who would win the majority of matches between Emerson and Gimeno in 1965, I would pick Gimeno. Of course we assume they play on every surface. But we will never know. One fact is that Gimeno did win the French in the Open Era and Emerson never won a major in the Open Era.

I have no problem considering Gimeno as a superior player than Emerson, but I can't accept that he is an all time great just because he is said to have played in the so-called tougher era ever.

Davydenko won a lot of titles and did defeat Federer and Nadal a few times, which is awesome. He was considered a threat at many several major and failed three time in SF against peak Federer. Davydenko is really a great player. He is one of my favourite, and I genuinely would have loved if he could win a major, even against Fed. But you can't rank a player like him in the all time greats, it's simply silly.