Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[BobbyOne]

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.

pc1, Thanks for your support. Federer had his big problems with Tsonga as well.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, Thanks for your support. Federer had his big problems with Tsonga as well.

Did you see how well Tsonga was serving and how hard he was hitting the ball? No shame in being played hard for 4 sets by Tsonga, Federer pulled away in the fifth. Nadal was given a right thumping by Tsonga at the AO 2008...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

I'm sorry but this is taking it too far.

Obviously Emerson's 12 slams look far more impressive than they actually are and guys like Gonzales, Rosewall, probably even Hoad should be ahead of him.

But Gimeno? A guy who didn't win a single amateur era slam (or even make a final), or a pro major? No way would Gimeno have won more than 12 amateur slams if he had stayed in those ranks. We can't rank him ahead of Emerson by any means.

I think we have to be careful not to go too far and underrate Emerson i.e. assume he would have won no slams. He's probably worthy of a Courier/Vilas type level IMHO.

Phoenix,

Gimeno would have been the favourite in the amateurs to win at Roland Garros for 1963 to 1967 and maybe also for 1961 and 1962.

And don't underrate Gimeno on grass: He reached final of the first Australian Open after a win against Rosewall, he reached, as an old man, Wimbledon SF, he lost at 35 to Smith in five sets in the US Open, he finished ahead of Rosewall in the 1967 Newport tournament, he beat Rosewall in the 1967 US Pro in straight sets and lost to Laver (in Rod's best year) in four...In his peak he was awesome on any surface! Thus he could have won more than 12 amateur majors.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Phoenix,

Gimeno would have been the favourite in the amateurs to win at Roland Garros for 1963 to 1967 and maybe also for 1961 and 1962.

And don't underrate Gimeno on grass: He reached final of the first Australian Open after a win against Rosewall, he reached, as an old man, Wimbledon SF, he lost at 35 to Smith in five sets in the US Open, he finished ahead of Rosewall in the 1967 Newport tournament, he beat Rosewall in the 1967 US Pro in straight sets and lost to Laver (in Rod's best year) in four...In his peak he was awesome on any surface! Thus he could have won more than 12 amateur majors.

Sorry I don't agree with you. A guy doesn't go from winning absolutely nothing in the pro ranks to winning 12+ amateur slams. This is just your attempt to boost the pro champions of the time.....Laver and guess who, Rosewall!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

You could add Bach, Handel, and Haydn and say that within a century all the greatest composers were active.

Dan, Bach in my opinion is one of the top four, Händel one of the top eight but Haydn (the Emerson of music) is not in my top ten: no deep feeling, no moving music, 100 times the same symphony composed...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I am still waiting for the final tallies for them.
Djokovic doesn't have it yet, Nadal looks done.

Dan, I understand.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Sorry I don't agree with you. A guy doesn't go from winning absolutely nothing in the pro ranks to winning 12+ amateur slams. This is just your attempt to boost the pro champions of the time.....Laver and guess who, Rosewall!

Phoenix, I don't have an pro scene agenda. I go with facts only.

Gimeno winning absolutely nothing in the pro ranks? He won nine tournaments where he beat both Laver and Rosewall and about 30 more where he beat at least one of them. In 1966 he won both big claycourt tournaments thus being No.1 claycourter of the words. He thrice beat my "darling", Rosewall in pro majors. In the first open year he beat "amateur king" Emerson 6:1 matches...

By the way, Laver and Rosewall won 8 out of the first ten open era majors where they participated even though they were seniors...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I am still waiting for the final tallies for them.
Djokovic doesn't have it yet, Nadal looks done.

I would agree with you with Djokovic. He hasn't accomplished enough yet. Hopefully you're wrong about Nadal and I sure you want to be wrong about him.

[Dan Lobb]

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).

Look, Rosewall was well past prime when open tennis arrived, and he won more than his share of Open majors against Newcombe, Roche, Ashe and other younger players.
Rosewall probably peaked in 1958-59, when he ranked third behind Gonzales and Hoad.
Think about it.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Dan,

That's a very interesting comment you made about Kramer. I agree that is a possibility we cannot rule out. Kramer to me was a fantastic player with many weapons and a total service game that can be argued to be as great as anyone's in history. I am not quite sure what you mean by the hot end of his game.

A head to head series on many surfaces often indicates the true strength of a player and that to me is very important. To me it indicates the peak strength and consistency of a player. There are so many experts who rank Kramer as the best ever. Vic Braden, Don Budge (although Budge probably ranked Budge as number one), Sedgman and many others. Gonzalez named Kramer number one before he played Hoad so I assume Gonzalez ranked Kramer second.

Sedgman picked Kramer number one, but on consistency, Gonzales second, but in 1964 he stated that when Hoad was playing well he was "unbeatable".
That is what I mean by "peak", a great player on a hot day.
Sedgman himself had some great days where he could overwhelm Gonzales and Kramer (in Cleveland, for example, the reporter stated that Sedgman played at a much higher level than Kramer that day.)
I don't think Kramer had "hot" days, where he played "above himself", just an incredible consistency.
Riggs stated that he could beat Kramer for a few matches, but that Kramer wore him down in a long series.
Gonzales suggested the same, and seemed to have more respect for Budge.

[Feather]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, Thanks for your support. Federer had his big problems with Tsonga as well.

The first time Roger lost to Tsonga in a major was in Wimbledon 2011, a five setter and then Roger was just one month away from his 30th birthday. He was past his prime.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Look, Rosewall was well past prime when open tennis arrived, and he won more than his share of Open majors against Newcombe, Roche, Ashe and other younger players.
Rosewall probably peaked in 1958-59, when he ranked third behind Gonzales and Hoad.
Think about it.

Yes I know. I have a lot of respect for the old pro because Rosewall proved how strong he was, not only in the early days of the open era, but until the end of the 70's! It is not to please Bobby that I have him in the second place of my list. But to there is a long way between acknowledging the greatness of Ken, Rod and Gorgo, and claiming the greatness of some Trabert, like Bobby does, because he defeated the top guy in a few tournaments. Davydenko won a lot of tournament too (considering the norm of the current era), including some important one, and he defeated the top guys in the process: Nadal several time, Federer, Del Potro, etc.

I can't see Davydenko as an all time great, and it seems to me that Trabert was a kind of Davydenko.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Yes I know. I have a lot of respect for the old pro because Rosewall proved how strong he was, not only in the early days of the open era, but until the end of the 70's! It is not to please Bobby that I have him in the second place of my list. But to there is a long way between acknowledging the greatness of Ken, Rod and Gorgo, and claiming the greatness of some Trabert, like Bobby does, because he defeated the top guy in a few tournaments. Davydenko won a lot of tournament too (considering the norm of the current era), including some important one, and he defeated the top guys in the process: Nadal several time, Federer, Del Potro, etc.

I can't see Davydenko as an all time great, and it seems to me that Trabert was a kind of Davydenko.

I believe you are wrong there by a mile. Trabert was a tremendous player with a big serve, huge groundies (especially the backhand) and a top volley. He wasn't the quickest player in the world but he had every shot. He was overshadowed by guys like Gonzalez, Rosewall, Sedgman and Hoad although he could defeat them even on some big occasions.

The man won five classic majors and two pro majors over Gonzalez and Sedgman. He was a terrific player on all surfaces.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by pc1

I believe you are wrong there by a mile. Trabert was a tremendous player with a big serve, huge groundies (especially the backhand) and a top volley. He wasn't the quickest player in the world but he had every shot. He was overshadowed by guys like Gonzalez, Rosewall, Sedgman and Hoad although he could defeat them even on some big occasions.

The man won five classic majors and two pro majors over Gonzalez and Sedgman. He was a terrific player on all surfaces.

I'm just comforted in what I think. Davydenko is just an example, but I'm speaking about dozen of players who are really good, who have strong weapons, who were overshadowed by top players, even if they did beat them from time to time. The field of the 1956 french pro is not that impressive by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_...hip_Draws#1959

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

I'm just comforted in what I think. Davydenko is just an example, but I'm speaking about dozen of players who are really good, who have strong weapons, who were overshadowed by top players, even if they did beat them from time to time. The field of the 1956 french pro is not that impressive by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_...hip_Draws#1959

I was trying to think of a player of recent times that comes closest to Trabert. It's tough because players have two handers now instead of one handers. The closest I could think of as a match for Trabert may be Agassi. Trabert like Agassi had a great forceful return. They were strong on backhand and forehand and they weren't the quickest on the court. Trabert was a superior volleyer and had a better serve but Agassi was probably quicker. I do think Agassi's groundies were somewhat stronger.

May not be the best comparison but for now that's the best I could think of.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by pc1

I was trying to think of a player of recent times that comes closest to Trabert. It's tough because players have two handers now instead of one handers. The closest I could think of as a match for Trabert may be Agassi. Trabert like Agassi had a great forceful return. They were strong on backhand and forehand and they weren't the quickest on the court. Trabert was a superior volleyer and had a better serve but Agassi was probably quicker. I do think Agassi's groundies were somewhat stronger.

May not be the best comparison but for now that's the best I could think of.

I didn't mean playing style but playing level. A lot of players deserve full recognition, but a top-10 list have to be a little bit selective, otherwise we can simply list the numerous players who impressed us, played good to great on some occasion, and so on.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

I didn't mean playing style but playing level. A lot of players deserve full recognition, but a top-10 list have to be a little bit selective, otherwise we can simply list the numerous players who impressed us, played good to great on some occasion, and so on.

I also meant playing level. Trabert didn't have as long a career as Agassi but he was superb. I would say Agassi was perhaps better but at that high level it's debatable.

Maybe Boris Becker would be a better match as far as level and style of play for recent players.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Yes I know. I have a lot of respect for the old pro because Rosewall proved how strong he was, not only in the early days of the open era, but until the end of the 70's! It is not to please Bobby that I have him in the second place of my list. But to there is a long way between acknowledging the greatness of Ken, Rod and Gorgo, and claiming the greatness of some Trabert, like Bobby does, because he defeated the top guy in a few tournaments. Davydenko won a lot of tournament too (considering the norm of the current era), including some important one, and he defeated the top guys in the process: Nadal several time, Federer, Del Potro, etc.

I can't see Davydenko as an all time great, and it seems to me that Trabert was a kind of Davydenko.

Flash, I can't remember that I was claiming the greatness of Trabert, But in fact he was a great player, as Sedgman, Hoad and Segura also were.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

I also meant playing level. Trabert didn't have as long a career as Agassi but he was superb. I would say Agassi was perhaps better but at that high level it's debatable.

Maybe Boris Becker would be a better match as far as level and style of play for recent players.

pc1, I think that Becker was stronger than Trabert.

[BobbyOne]

urban and Mustard, I miss your contributions since a while. Hope you are well.

By the way, I'm well now after my long cold.