Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I understand.

Of course, PC1 is right, I wish Nadal the best on his return.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

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.

I certainly do.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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...

Really? You must have heard some bad Haydn performances.
Try Toscanini, Furtwangler, Bernstein, Davis (Concertgebouw) for the symphonies.
For the Creation, Karajan with Wunderlich (live and studio).
For the piano sonatas, Glenn Gould (I lived and worked a few blocks from him for some years, but never met him).
Consult a book written by my former teacher and friend, Philip Downs, "Classical Music" published by Norton.

Emerson made a good run at Forest Hills in 1969 and Wimbledon in 1970.
Gimeno did what at Wimbledon?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Really? You must have heard some bad Haydn performances.
Try Toscanini, Furtwangler, Bernstein, Davis (Concertgebouw) for the symphonies.
For the Creation, Karajan with Wunderlich (live and studio).
For the piano sonatas, Glenn Gould (I lived and worked a few blocks from him for some years, but never met him).
Consult a book written by my former teacher and friend, Philip Downs, "Classical Music" published by Norton.

Emerson made a good run at Forest Hills in 1969 and Wimbledon in 1970.
Gimeno did what at Wimbledon?

Emerson and Gimeno met at Wimbledon in 1959. No contest.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Really? You must have heard some bad Haydn performances.
Try Toscanini, Furtwangler, Bernstein, Davis (Concertgebouw) for the symphonies.
For the Creation, Karajan with Wunderlich (live and studio).
For the piano sonatas, Glenn Gould (I lived and worked a few blocks from him for some years, but never met him).
Consult a book written by my former teacher and friend, Philip Downs, "Classical Music" published by Norton.

Emerson made a good run at Forest Hills in 1969 and Wimbledon in 1970.
Gimeno did what at Wimbledon?

Andres reached the semis.But peak Newcombe just crushed him.Newcombe is heavily underrated by some of those that worship Rosewall and Gimeno.and maybe those that have in such high esteem minor players such as Nusslein and Segura...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, I think that Becker was stronger than Trabert.

You may be right but I'm trying to find a relative match to Trabert in recent times. Both good serve and volley who had good groundies. I think Trabert was superior on clay. Becker had the bigger serve but Trabert's serve was pretty strong.

For Sedgman I would think the relative match would be Edberg. Both are considered by some to be the best volleyer ever. Both had very good but not great serve and both exceptional movers. Sedgman had a superior forehand to his backhand while Edberg's backhand was superior to his forehand. In this case I could see Sedgman as the superior player.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by kiki

Andres reached the semis.But peak Newcombe just crushed him.Newcombe is heavily underrated by some of those that worship Rosewall and Gimeno.and maybe those that have in such high esteem minor players such as Nusslein and Segura...

In 1970, Newcombe crushed Gimeno, but just barely beat Emerson at 11-9 in the fifth in the previous round.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Really? You must have heard some bad Haydn performances.
Try Toscanini, Furtwangler, Bernstein, Davis (Concertgebouw) for the symphonies.
For the Creation, Karajan with Wunderlich (live and studio).
For the piano sonatas, Glenn Gould (I lived and worked a few blocks from him for some years, but never met him).
Consult a book written by my former teacher and friend, Philip Downs, "Classical Music" published by Norton.

Emerson made a good run at Forest Hills in 1969 and Wimbledon in 1970.
Gimeno did what at Wimbledon?

Dan, Haydn has "cold" music without feelings, without highlights...

Gimeno reached SF at Wimbledon in 1970!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Andres reached the semis.But peak Newcombe just crushed him.Newcombe is heavily underrated by some of those that worship Rosewall and Gimeno.and maybe those that have in such high esteem minor players such as Nusslein and Segura...

Nüsslein and Segura minor players? Only a minor expert can say that.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Haydn has "cold" music without feelings, without highlights...

Gimeno reached SF at Wimbledon in 1970!

You must have heard some cold performances. Listen to Bernstein, Karajon, Gould and hear the feelings.

Gimeno made a poor showing that year against Newcombe, Emmo almost won against Newk.
In 1959, Emmo clobbered Gimeno at Wimbledon.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Nüsslein and Segura minor players? Only a minor expert can say that.

Correction.Not minor players but slamless ones.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

In 1970, Newcombe crushed Gimeno, but just barely beat Emerson at 11-9 in the fifth in the previous round.

I know, still the semis are better than the quarters.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

You must have heard some cold performances. Listen to Bernstein, Karajon, Gould and hear the feelings.

Gimeno made a poor showing that year against Newcombe, Emmo almost won against Newk.
In 1959, Emmo clobbered Gimeno at Wimbledon.

Dan, I just wonder how many posts about Emerson and Gimeno I and other posters are forced to write before you and others accept that Gimeno was stronger than Emerson...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Correction.Not minor players but slamless ones.

kiki, This sounds better but you might know that Nüsslein and Segura won some pro majors.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

I know, still the semis are better than the quarters.

kiki, Yes, and we should consider that Gimeno fared much better generally in open GS tournaments than Emerson: Gimeno reached four SFs while Emerson did not reach any.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

You must have heard some cold performances. Listen to Bernstein, Karajon, Gould and hear the feelings.

Gimeno made a poor showing that year against Newcombe, Emmo almost won against Newk.
In 1959, Emmo clobbered Gimeno at Wimbledon.

Dan, I only have heard "cold performances". And I have heard the best musicians. I can give you the difference between f.i. Schubert (or Beethoven) and Haydn: Schubert's music brings me to tears, Haydn's music brings me to yawn... Robert Schumann once said that Haydn is dull.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I just wonder how many posts about Emerson and Gimeno I and other posters are forced to write before you and others accept that Gimeno was stronger than Emerson...

No amount of posts would make me rank Gimeno ahead of Emerson. The very thought is just absurd to me. Basically in your view a guy could dominate the amateurs as much as he wanted but he would still not be greater than a guy who never won an amateur or pro major. This is all part of your agenda to make Rosewall's competition look incredibly tough and thus raise his status.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

No amount of posts would make me rank Gimeno ahead of Emerson. The very thought is just absurd to me. Basically in your view a guy could dominate the amateurs as much as he wanted but he would still not be greater than a guy who never won an amateur or pro major. This is all part of your agenda to make Rosewall's competition look incredibly tough and thus raise his status.

Why would it be absurd when people like Jack Kramer and the Wimbledon seeding committee thought Gimeno was the superior player when Open Tennis started, at least on grass? Gimeno was seeded third at the first Open Wimbledon and Emerson fifth. Kramer thought for much of the 1960's that Gimeno was the third best player in the world behind Laver and Rosewall.

The point is that you may be correct (and you may be incorrect) but the notion that BobbyOne puts forth is not ridiculous. Facts are that Gimeno had a better head to head against Emerson and fact is the during the Open Era Gimeno won a major and Emerson did not.

Emerson was an excellent player but we all know (and I use the word know not believe) that there is no way Emerson would have won 12 majors during a truly Open Era in the 1960's. Gimeno often defeated Laver and Rosewall during the same tournament to win a tournament. You could not have much tougher than that for competition.

Many may say Emerson was the superior player but the notion was that Gimeno was a better player than Roy Emerson is not a notion that only BobbyOne had but many knowledgeable experts in the game. I pointed out just a few earlier in the post.

Here's the seedings for the 1968 Wimbledon below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Wi...en%27s_Singles

At the 1968 US Open Gimeno was dropped to tenth seed but Emerson was dropped to fourteenth seed.

Either way the people at the time who did the seedings thought Gimeno was at least for grass superior to Emerson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_US...en%27s_Singles

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by pc1

Why would it be absurd when people like Jack Kramer and the Wimbledon seeding committee thought Gimeno was the superior player when Open Tennis started, at least on grass? Gimeno was seeded third at the first Open Wimbledon and Emerson fifth. Kramer thought for much of the 1960's that Gimeno was the third best player in the world behind Laver and Rosewall.

3rd best player in the world in a particular decade could not win a single major tournament - I'm including pro majors - in that decade? Doesn't that strike you as a bit of an odd thought? No matter how strong the top two, the 3rd best should have been able to win majors (I refer you to the case of Djokovic in comparison to Federer/Nadal).

I can only assume the seeding system at that time was not as scientific as it is today. In fact Wimbledon, even until relatively recently, picked and chose their seeding and did not base it on official rankings. Kramer obviously had a vested interest in seeing pros seeded highly.

Originally Posted by pc1

The point is that you may be correct (and you may be incorrect) but the notion that BobbyOne puts forth is not ridiculous. Facts are that Gimeno had a better head to head against Emerson and fact is the during the Open Era Gimeno won a major and Emerson did not.

h2h doesn't mean much when ranking greats IMHO - could have been a match-up issue. I give credit to Gimeno for his FO in 1972 but fact is that's the only major title he ever won, amateur, pro or Open.

Originally Posted by pc1

Emerson was an excellent player but we all know (and I use the word know not believe) that there is no way Emerson would have won 12 majors during a truly Open Era in the 1960's. Gimeno often defeated Laver and Rosewall during the same tournament to win a tournament. You could not have much tougher than that for competition.

Never in a pro major though.

Originally Posted by pc1

Many may say Emerson was the superior player but the notion was that Gimeno was a better player than Roy Emerson is not a notion that only BobbyOne had but many knowledgeable experts in the game. I pointed out just a few earlier in the post.

Yes, and I can (sort of) understand why they thought that - but IMHO they were giving way too much credit to the 'lesser' professionals ahead of the leading amateurs. Laver and Rosewall were the only pros who went on to dominate the early years of the Open Era (Gonzales of course put in tremendous performances for his age).

I guess all I'm saying is that, although we should rank the pros well above the amateurs, there has to be some kind of cut-off point, so we can't rank a guy who won 1 Open Era slam above a guy who won 12 amateur slams.

Originally Posted by pc1

Here's the seedings for the 1968 Wimbledon below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Wi...en%27s_Singles

[urban]

The amateur-pro ranking pre 1968 is one of the biggest problems for proper evaluation. I prefer two separate rankings for each year. Before the internet age and some new books like that one of McCauley, amateur tennis often was regarded as the lone worldwide circuit, while the pros were seen as outlaws, who played only exhibitions at secondary venues. So historically, and we see this still in public polls, pro tennis has been underrated. The level of pro tennis was generally higher than that of the amateurs, all new pros confirmed this. On the other hand, really great amateurs adapted well to the new format and the difficult circumstances and reached the top of the pro game, after dealing with a rough bapstism for a half year or so.
Nevertheless i am not dogmatic in this question and would regard different time periods. In the late 50s for instance, when all top players had turned pro, there was no contest between pros and amateurs. In the early 50s however, the pro circuit was quite a mess (no valid circuit, Kramer often absent, Pancho in and out, few leading tournaments and players), and in some years like 1952, players like Sedgman could be ranked among or on top of the best pros. For the 60s, i think amateurs like Emerson or Santana had real class and would have done well at the pros. If they were better than Gimeno is a tricky question, i would put them technically quite on the same level. I have seen all three quite often on tv, Gimeno and Emmo live. I even saw a Spoga Cup final 1969 at Cologne between these two, with Gimeno winning in two long close sets. The last match i saw from Gimeno was a fine Hilversum final against Okker over 5 sets. My take is, that Gimeno technically and tactically was the most sound and consistent player of these three, but that Santana was more unpredictable and on occasion, when getting hot, more dangerous (like Nastase). Emmo was the most athletic and fit and mentally the strongest. In a big final or Davis Cup tie i would have feared him the most.