Doubles GOAT ?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

All zagor is getting at is that you often overlook some of the things you find fault with depending on if they are a "historian" (someone who calls themselves an expert) or not. Don't get me wrong, you are a great poster, especially when you consider many others, but that is why it is such a letdown when you don't say anything or even (the worst thing) act as an enabler, giving encouraging words to a poster who is consistently using poor reasoning. No one should be rude, but there is no need to coddle everyone.



Perhaps the competition was tougher in doubles, but there is no way to prove it to the extent that someone isn't allowed to have a different opinion. The only embarrassing thing is to think you know something for sure that can't be shown to be true. Take note that you also removed a small portion of your post, which made it sound much more self-righteous.

Also, it is funny that you are going to use Hoad's achievements in order to claim he is the best doubles player, yet you ignore such achievements when we are talking about singles.

Not really because I have disagree with many people no matter who they are. Obviously some people I tend to disagree more than other. I disagree with you on occasional but I don't write anything either. It's perception I believe.

I disagree strongly with Kiki about the strength of Kodes but I have to admit that some of his lines about Kodes is very funny and he intends it to be I think.

As far as the doubles are concerned, who really knows? I've seen some great doubles teams that combined incredibly well despite a lesser amount of singles talent. Hewitt and McMillan are a great example of this. Both had decent singles records especially Hewitt but in doubles they were great. Hewitt was very very very slow but with great strokes and Mcmillan was somewhat limited in reach. But in doubles, covering half the court they were awesome. Some like Newcombe and Roche were way way ahead in singles talent but in doubles they were close to Hewitt and McMillan.

It's all so subjective and I don't have all the information on doubles that I do in singles. Perhaps BobbyOne or Andrew Tas may be able to inform us of some of the stats of Rosewall/Hoad, Newcombe/Roche, Sedgman/McGregor, the Bryan Brothers, McEnroe/Fleming, Richard Norris Williams/Vinnie Richards.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by pc1

Not really because I have disagree with many people no matter who they are. Obviously some people I tend to disagree more than other. I disagree with you on occasional but I don't write anything either. It's perception I believe.

I disagree strongly with Kiki about the strength of Kodes but I have to admit that some of his lines about Kodes is very funny and he intends it to be I think.

As far as the doubles are concerned, who really knows? I've seen some great doubles teams that combined incredibly well despite a lesser amount of singles talent. Hewitt and McMillan are a great example of this. Both had decent singles records especially Hewitt but in doubles they were great. Hewitt was very very very slow but with great strokes and Mcmillan was somewhat limited in reach. But in doubles, covering half the court they were awesome. Some singles talent Newcombe and Roche were way way ahead but in doubles they were close.

It's all so subjective and I don't have all the information on doubles that I do in singles. Perhaps BobbyOne or Andrew Tas may be able to inform us of some of the stats of Rosewall/Hoad, Newcombe/Roche, Sedgman/McGregor, the Bryan Brothers, McEnroe/Fleming, Richard Norris Williams/Vinnie Richards.

I'm sorry, pc1, but mixed doubles must be banished from league play. I'll take that fight to my grave.

I agree that it is perception, and everybody tends to be less motivated to contradict those posters who have views that align more closely with their own. I know that there have been specific incidents where you have let me down, and I'm sure you have felt the same about me, especially with your deleted thread. In my defense, the thread seemed to be inseparable from the height discussion, and I was kidding for the majority of the post.

To be clear, I don't think the doubles today is as good as it was in the past, but I am not confident enough about it to act like a jerk. That is really my only dog in this fight, that people don't realize how easy it is for their perceptions to be completely wrong.

I just want to add that the best part about this thread is that Dan and Bobby can finally hold hands and skip happily off into the sunset. Hoad and Rosewall can be tops together.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, Very well explained. I do hope that even younger persons will realize it.

I hope so too.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

That's your opinion. I don't believ none of them would have won 13 slams in today's era.

I don´t either.They would have won 30.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

Well you better get use to it, because many people believe the B. Brothers are the best double player.



From **********.net, here's the list of the top 10 all time best doubles duos:

1. Martina Navratilova and Pam Shriver: 21 Grand Slams, winning every major at least four times and a calendar slam in 1984, achieved during a 109-match winning streak.

2. Bob Bryan and Mike Bryan: The American twins are well on their way to becoming the greatest team ever with a record 73 titles to their name, including 11 Grand Slams.

3. Todd Woodbridge and Mark Woodforde: The Aussie duo set the bar for the Bryan brothers during the 1990s. Their record of six Wimbledon wins looks safe for now.

4. John McEnroe and Peter Fleming: McEnroe was the doubles world No.1 for a record 270 weeks, winning 57 of his 71 titles with fellow American Pete ‘Flembo’ Fleming.

5. Venus Williams and Serena Williams: As dominant in doubles as they have proven to be in singles. They have won all twelve Grand Slam finals they have reached.

6. Martina Hingis and Jana Novotna: In 1998 Hingis claimed all four doubles Grand Slams, capturing Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open alongside the Czech.

7. John Newcombe and Tony Roche: The Aussies ruled the roost in the 60s and 70s, capturing an amazing 12 Grand Slam victories, including five Wimbledons.

8. Mahesh Bhupathi and Leander Paes: The ‘Indian Express’ landed three Grand Slams before their professional relationship broke down. They have since reunited.

9. Gigi Fernandez and Natasha Zvereva: The American-Belarussian team were one of the most entertaining – and eye-catching – pairs around. They won 14 majors.

10. Luke Jensen and Murphy Jensen: Not the most prolific in history (just one Slam – the 1993 French Open), but ambidextrous Luke and Murphy were great value

http://www.**********.net/news/on-to...y-doubles-duos

what is this very prestigious source?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by robow7

One other major reason why so many pre-Open and early Open era singles players were very good at dubs was the fact that the games were more similar then, most players served and vollyed in singles and of course that was and is the staple of doubles. Contrast that with today when none of the top singles players serve and volley much and you can understand why they would not excel at dubs, though there are exceptions.

and there is also the financial issue.Now, a regular journeyman can make a living without doubs.In past, even the stars needed to play it since there was little money in the game.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

I'm sorry, pc1, but mixed doubles must be banished from league play. I'll take that fight to my grave.

I agree that it is perception, and everybody tends to be less motivated to contradict those posters who have views that align more closely with their own. I know that there have been specific incidents where you have let me down, and I'm sure you have felt the same about me, especially with your deleted thread. In my defense, the thread seemed to be inseparable from the height discussion, and I was kidding for the majority of the post.

To be clear, I don't think the doubles today is as good as it was in the past, but I am not confident enough about it to act like a jerk. That is really my only dog in this fight, that people don't realize how easy it is for their perceptions to be completely wrong.

I just want to add that the best part about this thread is that Dan and Bobby can finally hold hands and skip happily off into the sunset. Hoad and Rosewall can be tops together.

I was thinking that I was in the Twilight Zone when Dan and BobbyOne were agreeing so readily also. But let's face it, while we may disagree or agree with either of them, they generally know their stuff.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

True enough. But the trend started for doubles specialists I guess around the mid 1970's or so for the top singles players not to play doubles to rest for the singles. I think that hurt the quality of talent playing double. I would tend to think that everything being equal the top singles players, assuming they have more talent should also do better than in doubles than doubles specialists. Of course it's not necessarily true because it depends on the chemistry of the team. A Newcombe and Roche, with great chemistry and a perfect doubles style may do better than doubles specialists because they have greater weapons and talent. Hard to match the excellent serves of both combined with their super volleying.

I have no doubt if the top players today played more doubles the volleying standard today would go way up. John McEnroe used the doubles as an alternative to practice.

Your point proves mine.Since big money entered the game, that happening from 1970 on, less need to spend time playing doubles to make the needed additional income.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Of course. What amazes me is how someone can love a player so much? Well to each his or her own.

if he was a smart guy, he´d be fed´s best marketing agent.maybe even better than Vines agent

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Strange list.
Where is Hewitt/McMillan, who dismantled McEnroe/Fleming when they were practically seniors.
Sedgman/McGregor, the Grand Slammers?
Hoad/Rosewall, who won 15 major titles (MORE than the Bryans) against TOUGHER competition than the Bryans have faced.

Glad to know somebody aknowledges the SA duo.Yes, they trashed the Mac/Flemnig duo at a Wimbledon final.That was the last prove of their greatness.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Not really because I have disagree with many people no matter who they are. Obviously some people I tend to disagree more than other. I disagree with you on occasional but I don't write anything either. It's perception I believe.

I disagree strongly with Kiki about the strength of Kodes but I have to admit that some of his lines about Kodes is very funny and he intends it to be I think.

As far as the doubles are concerned, who really knows? I've seen some great doubles teams that combined incredibly well despite a lesser amount of singles talent. Hewitt and McMillan are a great example of this. Both had decent singles records especially Hewitt but in doubles they were great. Hewitt was very very very slow but with great strokes and Mcmillan was somewhat limited in reach. But in doubles, covering half the court they were awesome. Some like Newcombe and Roche were way way ahead in singles talent but in doubles they were close to Hewitt and McMillan.

It's all so subjective and I don't have all the information on doubles that I do in singles. Perhaps BobbyOne or Andrew Tas may be able to inform us of some of the stats of Rosewall/Hoad, Newcombe/Roche, Sedgman/McGregor, the Bryan Brothers, McEnroe/Fleming, Richard Norris Williams/Vinnie Richards.

So.. you don´t include Vines as a major doubs player?

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by pc1

First of all Zagor, I can't always comment on everything. I frankly don't know what you're writing about. I was expressing an opinion of someone admiring a player so much and how I don't understand it. I also wrote to each his own. How is that being a hypocrite?

And as I've written here numerous times, I'm not a historian nor do I claim to be but the connotations of that here are obviously very negative. I don't know why because we are discussing past players here and by definition we all and that includes you are discussing history.

I am one who has negatively called some of these guys here "historian," but used that term not in a sarcastic way. I stand by that. Check it out. Kiki basically admitted today the following:

Originally Posted by kiki

The only comment TMF is right is my lack of interest in currenr game, which me follows very aporadically

All that crap he talks about today's game, and how magical the past was, and he barely even follows the tour. Can you say biased here? History's even going after all. Bobby admittedly also has said he ain't following the current tour as much, yet they come out with some quite opinionated, controversial, and supposedly "knowledgeable" statements. All I hear out of kiki's mouth in regards to contemporary tennis: is weak era, Fed's h2h with Nadal, not as good as the old days, f***** Kodes, etc. Not much sage talk there.

[robow7]

Originally Posted by kiki

and there is also the financial issue.Now, a regular journeyman can make a living without doubs.In past, even the stars needed to play it since there was little money in the game.

Funny thing, must be an echo in here.

Yesterday, 09:06 PM #105
robow7
Semi-Pro

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 641

Yea, the older era of players were forced to play both singles and doubles because the money wasn't so big back then and they needed the income. Once the money got so big, many said "screw the dubs" as they do today.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

I am one who has negatively called some of these guys here "historian," but used that term not in a sarcastic way. I stand by that. Check it out. Kiki basically admitted today the following:




All that crap he talks about today's game, and how magical the past was, and he barely even follows the tour. Can you say biased here? History's even going after all. Bobby admittedly also has said he ain't following the current tour as much, yet they come out with some quite opinionated, controversial, and supposedly "knowledgeable" statements. All I hear out of kiki's mouth in regards to contemporary tennis: is weak era, Fed's h2h with Nadal, not as good as the old days, f***** Kodes, etc. Not much sage talk there.

Will you someday have an opinion by yourself and leave TMf´s shadow?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by robow7

Funny thing, must be an echo in here.

Yesterday, 09:06 PM #105
robow7
Semi-Pro

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 641

Yea, the older era of players were forced to play both singles and doubles because the money wasn't so big back then and they needed the income. Once the money got so big, many said "screw the dubs" as they do today.

...and the forrest will echo its laughter...

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by kiki

Will you someday have an opinion by yourself and leave TMf´s shadow?

absolutely nothing to do with my comment at all. I just don't like hypocrisy.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

absolutely nothing to do with my comment at all. I just don't like hypocrisy.

Anyone want some pie?

[zagor]

Originally Posted by pc1

First of all Zagor, I can't always comment on everything.

Actually you did comment in that specific thread, you were preaching about certain posters' right to have their opinion, how we shouldn't disrespect their opinion etc.

Originally Posted by pc1

I frankly don't know what you're writing about. I was expressing an opinion of someone admiring a player so much and how I don't understand it. I also wrote to each his own. How is that being a hypocrite?

BobbyOne and Urban posting stuff that is at the very least comparable (if not outright worse) to what TMF is posting on this topic, your response - Let's give peace a chance, they're merely sharing their opinion with us, we shouldn't disrespect their right to have an opinion, it's interesting to see things from a different perspective, we learn so much when he read an opinion that is in such stark contrast to our own bla bla bla.

TMF posts similar stuff, your response - What a love stricken fanboy, I'm shocked and amazed.

Please.

Originally Posted by pc1

And as I've written here numerous times, I'm not a historian nor do I claim to be but the connotations of that here are obviously very negative. I don't know why because we are discussing past players here and by definition we all and that includes you are discussing history.

Meh, historians is just faster to type than former pro regulars, though there are other reasons for using that specific term of course and is about on par to how Kiki and Limpin refer to posters who don't share their infatuation with pre open era tennis.

[robow7]

Originally Posted by pc1

Anyone want some pie?

I like pie. Pie is good.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by zagor

Actually you did comment in that specific thread, you were preaching about certain posters' right to have their opinion, how we shouldn't disrespect their opinion etc.



BobbyOne and Urban posting stuff that is at the very least comparable (if not outright worse) to what TMF is posting on this topic, your response - Let's give peace a chance, they're merely sharing their opinion with us, we shouldn't disrespect their right to have an opinion, it's interesting to see things from a different perspective, we learn so much when he read an opinion that is in such stark contrast to our own bla bla bla.

TMF posts similar stuff, your response - What a love stricken fanboy, I'm shocked and amazed.

Please.



Meh, historians is just faster to type than former pro regulars, though there are other reasons for using that specific term of course and is about on par to how Kiki and Limpin refer to posters who don't share their infatuation with pre open era tennis.

when are we having Limpin aboard again?

Feel too much burden carri´n the old good tennis on my shoulders