Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[hoodjem]

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...

That's too bad.

Haydn is vastly under-rated. I'll take Haydn over Mozart in almost any genre.

Haydn is earthier and wittier, and rhythmically more interesting. Mozart is too elegant, too Rococo, too suave, too superficial, too saccharine. (Torture--thy name is Eine Kleine Nachtmusik.) Try Haydn's Symphony No. 92 or No. 88 or No. 45. Try Adam Fischer's performances. Try Haydn's Piano Sonata No. 32 or 42 or 59, or the Piano Trio No. 38. Wonderful stuff!

It's a very good thing that Haydn was Beethoven's teacher and not Mozart.

[bluegrasser]

My latest - ' King Fed/Laver/Sampras/Nadal/Borg/Agassi/Connors/Emerson/Lendl/McEnroe/.

[BobbyOne]

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.

Phoenix1983, Your hate against me makes me tired. You don't have any serious arguments and neglect all arguments I and others have given you.

You are very nasty that you claim I have a Rosewall agenda in praising Gimeno.

Why do I praise also Nüsslein, Segura and Kovacs f.i., all of them certainly underrated? To push Rosewall too???

Emerson did NOT dominate the amateurs as much as he wanted. In fact he only dominated two years and generally lost many majors he should have won.

Gimeno won an open GS tournament while Emerson failed totally in open era.

Gimeno reached four open era major's SFs, Emerson none.

In your ignorance you not only try to blame Rosewall for not winning Wimbledon (even though you are disproved already) but also cannot imagine what was the reason why Gimeno did not win a pro major. Guess what!!!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

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.



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.



Never in a pro major though.



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.

Phoenix, Gimeno did beat Rosewall in four majors.

Gimeno, Gonzalez, Anderson, Buchholz and Ralston showed in open era how strong they still were.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

That's too bad.

Haydn is vastly under-rated. I'll take Haydn over Mozart in almost any genre.

Haydn is earthier and wittier, and rhythmically more interesting. Mozart is too elegant, too Rococo, too suave, too superficial, too saccharine. (Torture--thy name is Eine Kleine Nachtmusik.) Try Haydn's Symphony No. 92 or No. 88 or No. 45. Try Adam Fischer's performances. Try Haydn's Piano Sonata No. 32 or 42 or 59, or the Piano Trio No. 38. Wonderful stuff!

It's a very good thing that Haydn was Beethoven's teacher and not Mozart.

hoodjem,

Haydn ahead of Mozart? I mean to dream a nightmare. ALL composers after them claimed that Mozart was greater. Beethoven admired only Mozart, not Haydn.

Haydn does not have any feelings in his music. He lacks any increasing of emotions and highlights. In fact he does not have any emotions apart from wit.

Eine kleine Nachtmusik is a great work but not one of Mozart's best. Did you ever hear the Requiem or the 40th symphony or the Piano concertos 466 and 491?. They have all what great music needs.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by bluegrasser

My latest - ' King Fed/Laver/Sampras/Nadal/Borg/Agassi/Connors/Emerson/Lendl/McEnroe/.

bluegrasser, Emerson ahead of Rosewall????????????

That alone makes your list very doubtful.

[kiki]

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...

Don´t overrate his FO title.depleted fields and a journeyman in the finals, Patrick Proiysy.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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

They were second fidder although they must have been very good players.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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.

Gimeno fared worse, in my view.
Emmo and Gimeno both lost to Laver and Newcombe at some of those events, but Emmo gave Laver and Newk their toughest matches of the tournament, while Gimeno lost in straight sets.
Gimeno had relatively easy pathways to those standings.
No, Emmo looks better.
Their only meeting was at Wimbledon in 1959, and Emmo crushed Gimeno.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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.

Schumann must have heard bad performances.
Again, listen to Karajan with Wunderlich in the Creation, both studio and live, and then tell me that you hear no emotion. Wunderlich was the Haydn singer of them all.
Or Gould in the sonatas.
Furtwangler in symphony 88 (Furtwangler was never dull), or Bernstein in the symphonies (always had passion and a range of emotions).
As an Austrian, you must appreciate these performers.
And get a hold of Philip Downs' book "Classical Music" for an understanding of Haydn's life and compositional approach.

[Dan Lobb]

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.

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

Kramer was the guy who "discovered" Gimeno, when the other top players refused to sign with Kramer. Biased.
Emmo had better results than Gimeno at the 1969 US Open and the 1970 Wimbledon, plus Emmo won over Gimeno decisively in their Wimbledon meeting in 1959.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by 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.

Superbly stated.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

That's too bad.

Haydn is vastly under-rated. I'll take Haydn over Mozart in almost any genre.

Haydn is earthier and wittier, and rhythmically more interesting. Mozart is too elegant, too Rococo, too suave, too superficial, too saccharine. (Torture--thy name is Eine Kleine Nachtmusik.) Try Haydn's Symphony No. 92 or No. 88 or No. 45. Try Adam Fischer's performances. Try Haydn's Piano Sonata No. 32 or 42 or 59, or the Piano Trio No. 38. Wonderful stuff!

It's a very good thing that Haydn was Beethoven's teacher and not Mozart.

Some good observations, although Mozart himself learned a lot from Haydn and this was a positive influence, put some more muscle into Mozart (like the Prague and Jupiter symphonies).

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Phoenix1983, Your hate against me makes me tired. You don't have any serious arguments and neglect all arguments I and others have given you.

You are very nasty that you claim I have a Rosewall agenda in praising Gimeno.

Why do I praise also Nüsslein, Segura and Kovacs f.i., all of them certainly underrated? To push Rosewall too???

Emerson did NOT dominate the amateurs as much as he wanted. In fact he only dominated two years and generally lost many majors he should have won.

Gimeno won an open GS tournament while Emerson failed totally in open era.

Gimeno reached four open era major's SFs, Emerson none.

In your ignorance you not only try to blame Rosewall for not winning Wimbledon (even though you are disproved already) but also cannot imagine what was the reason why Gimeno did not win a pro major. Guess what!!!

Gimeno's French win in 1972 was relatively weak, an easy path, only Smith and Metreveli giving any challenge. Smith lost in straight sets, clay not being his best surface. Metreveli was a good but not great player.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Phoenix1983, Your hate against me makes me tired. You don't have any serious arguments and neglect all arguments I and others have given you.

I don't hate you, this is an internet forum and I disagree with your opinion, especially on Rosewall. That is all.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

You are very nasty that you claim I have a Rosewall agenda in praising Gimeno.

Why do I praise also Nüsslein, Segura and Kovacs f.i., all of them certainly underrated? To push Rosewall too???

Emerson did NOT dominate the amateurs as much as he wanted. In fact he only dominated two years and generally lost many majors he should have won.

And yet he won 12 amateur majors, including at least 2 at every venue. Very impressive, albeit that competition may not have been strong.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Gimeno won an open GS tournament while Emerson failed totally in open era.

Gimeno reached four open era major's SFs, Emerson none.

I already said I give Gimeno credit for that one major victory but it's not enough to overcome Emerson's 12 amateur slams.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

In your ignorance you not only try to blame Rosewall for not winning Wimbledon (even though you are disproved already)

Who disproved me? I've still not seen a valid reason for putting a man with a 0-5 Wimbledon finals record ahead of the likes of Federer and Laver. Frankly it's an insult to tennis that such a man could be ranked as GOAT. In the real world of course no-one thinks Rosewall is GOAT so at least people generally hold sensible opinions.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

but also cannot imagine what was the reason why Gimeno did not win a pro major. Guess what!!!

It doesn't matter how good Laver and Rosewall were, if Gimeno was truly a great like you claim, he would have won at least a few pro slams. In reality he was just a nearly man.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Kramer was the guy who "discovered" Gimeno, when the other top players refused to sign with Kramer. Biased.
Emmo had better results than Gimeno at the 1969 US Open and the 1970 Wimbledon, plus Emmo won over Gimeno decisively in their Wimbledon meeting in 1959.

Dan, Wimbledon 1970 is doubtful. A QF higher than a SF?. Emerson never reached a SF at an open major, Gimeno reached four of them.

Gimeno was 6:1 in the first full year they met. Gimeno beat Emerson in straight sets in the 1960 Queen's Club tournament.

Gimeno reached No.3, Emerson reached No.5...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Some good observations, although Mozart himself learned a lot from Haydn and this was a positive influence, put some more muscle into Mozart (like the Prague and Jupiter symphonies).

Haydn once wrote to Mozart's father: "Your son is the greatest composer".

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

hoodjem,

Haydn ahead of Mozart? I mean to dream a nightmare. ALL composers after them claimed that Mozart was greater. Beethoven admired only Mozart, not Haydn.

Haydn does not have any feelings in his music. He lacks any increasing of emotions and highlights. In fact he does not have any emotions apart from wit.

Eine kleine Nachtmusik is a great work but not one of Mozart's best. Did you ever hear the Requiem or the 40th symphony or the Piano concertos 466 and 491?. They have all what great music needs.

If you do not believe that Haydn has any emotions or feeling in his music, then you are not listening deeply.

Requiem or the 40th symphony or the Piano concertos 466 and 491--I have multiple recordings of all of these by Bohm, von Karajan, Geza Anda, Colin Davis, Marriner, etcetera. (I choose not to listen to them, unless I want to go into diabetic shock.)

The best recordings of Mozart's symphonies are by Peter Maag. He manages to give Mozart some rhythmic drive, tension, and gravitas--not just more glossy schlagobers.

P.S. You are wrong about Beethoven. (He admired Handel most of all.)

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

I don't hate you, this is an internet forum and I disagree with your opinion, especially on Rosewall. That is all.



And yet he won 12 amateur majors, including at least 2 at every venue. Very impressive, albeit that competition may not have been strong.



I already said I give Gimeno credit for that one major victory but it's not enough to overcome Emerson's 12 amateur slams.



Who disproved me? I've still not seen a valid reason for putting a man with a 0-5 Wimbledon finals record ahead of the likes of Federer and Laver. Frankly it's an insult to tennis that such a man could be ranked as GOAT. In the real world of course no-one thinks Rosewall is GOAT so at least people generally hold sensible opinions.



It doesn't matter how good Laver and Rosewall were, if Gimeno was truly a great like you claim, he would have won at least a few pro slams. In reality he was just a nearly man.

Phoenix, Gimeno's French Open win does of course not overcome Emerson's 12 amateur titles but you should consider it as a hint that Gimeno was generally stronger than Emerson, as also the 6:1 hth of 1968 indicate.

It does not matter how good Laver and Rosewall were???? A very stupid and illogic statement. Of course it's deciding HOW good L and R were. If they were practically "out of the world" they are virually not beatable even by very strong players. Remember that also Gonzalez and Hoad did not win against the two Aussies.

Insulting are only you. I'm not sure that in the "real world" no-one is ranking Rosewall the GOAT. Is this forum not a part of the real world? At least here I'm not the only person who considers it that way.

The real world, f. i. Tennis Channel ranks Emerson ahead of Rosewall and Gonzalez only at 22nd place. Is it that what you want???

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

If you do not believe that Haydn has any emotions or feeling in his music, then you are not listening deeply.

Requiem or the 40th symphony or the Piano concertos 466 and 491--I have multiple recordings of all of these by Bohm, von Karajan, Geza Anda, Colin Davis, Marriner, etcetera. (I choose not to listen to them, unless I want to go into diabetic shock.)

The best recordings of Mozart's symphonies are by Peter Maag. He manages to give Mozart some rhythmic drive, tension, and gravitas--not just more glossy schlagobers.

P.S. You are wrong about Beethoven. (He admired Handel most of all.)

hoddjem, Yes I meant that Beethoven admired only Mozart out of the two.

If you diminish the best Mozart works as too sweet or so it shows me you never heard them. They are composed in Minor and don't have any sweet or Rokoko touch. Please listen to them seriously. If you do so you will have tears in your eyes, at least in the Requiem, probably Mozart's greatest work.