Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I would not call them VERY strong. Perhaps a little long in the tooth.
Rosewall certainly did well in 1963 Stade Coubertin against Laver, who, in his own words, played the greatest tennis of his life in that match.

Dan, Most of Rosewall's opponents were actually very strong: Laver, Gonzalez, Sedgman, Hoad etc. I concede that players like MacKay and Ayala were not quite as strong but still strong. Even Mike Davies and Robert Haillet were fine players.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

Kodes was an excellent player and frankly he was the perfect example of how it's tough to judge the strength of a player by early round matches in those days. The seeding committee could be very off in their judgements sometimes.

Next year Kodes were one of the top seeds.

When you judge great players we have to judge them on how great they were on all surfaces, not this recent nonsense that a great HAS to have won all the majors. That's recent stuff to promote players like Agassi for example who was a great player but I believe they wanted to push him more. Sure to win all the majors is good but it's not the end all.

Rosewall not winning Wimbledon doesn't not eliminate him from greatness. It's the circumstances of the times. It's not hypothetical but fact that Rosewall wasn't allowed to play all the majors for many years. These were years in which he probably would have won many classic majors.

Borg also was great on all surfaces.

Some players can't win on some surfaces like grass or red clay. It shows that they couldn't adapt and perhaps, just perhaps there was a flaw in their style of play or perhaps physically. I don't think that was a problem with Borg and Rosewall.

pc1, I agree. Rosewall lost 13 years at Wimbledon including his best years. Imagine Samras and Federer would have lost 13 years at Wimbledon and the other Grand Slam tournaments. Their balance would be almost a disaster.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, I agree. Rosewall lost 13 years at Wimbledon including his best years. Imagine Samras and Federer would have lost 13 years at Wimbledon and the other Grand Slam tournaments. Their balance would be almost a desaster.

I've seen posters complain about hypothetical situations but unfortunately the situation in the past is different from today and it affects the tournament records of past players. So often in discussing the difference situations you have write about it when you have to answer certain questions.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, I agree. Rosewall lost 13 years at Wimbledon including his best years. Imagine Samras and Federer would have lost 13 years at Wimbledon and the other Grand Slam tournaments. Their balance would be almost a disaster.

There you go: Fed banned from Wimbledon 2001-2014.

I wonder what his record would be then?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

There you go: Fed banned from Wimbledon 2001-2014.

I wonder what his record would be then?

But you know they only count majors for greatness. That wouldn't be fair, wouldn't it? Oops, sorry I'm talking hypotheticals again.

Pancho Gonzalez was banned from 1949 to 1968. That's a little bit of time in his career also.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by pc1

Pancho Gonzalez was banned from 1949 to 1968. That's a little bit of time in his career also.

But tennis was so much easier back then--it was only fat, old men playing betwen beers on Sundays.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

There you go: Fed banned from Wimbledon 2001-2014.

I wonder what his record would be then?

hoodjem, To be honest I must say that your 2001-2014 are 14 off-years. And Rosewall did enter Wimbledon after a 11 years gap for four years before he again missed two years because of WCT politics and boycott.

But yes, Federer and many other greats would not have any significant career.

The same disadvantage as for Rosewall was given also for Pancho Gonzalez.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Most of Rosewall's opponents were actually very strong: Laver, Gonzalez, Sedgman, Hoad etc. I concede that players like MacKay and Ayala were not quite as strong but still strong. Even Mike Davies and Robert Haillet were fine players.

Davies and Haillet in the early sixties could be compared to perhaps Giammalva and McGregor in the late fifties. I think that Hartwig and Rose were playing above this level.

Gonzales, Sedgman, and Hoad were already past peak by 1961, and Segura, who provided Rosewall's toughest opposition at Wembley, was 40 years old by this time.

Kramer could not put a tour together for 1962, as Laver had refused to sign after Wimbledon, and there was literally no one left to play.
If Laver had not turned pro, the pro tennis circuit would have ceased to exist.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

But tennis was so much easier back then--it was only fat, old men playing betwen beers on Sundays.

hoodjem, I would say that athletes like Sedgman , Hoad, Laver and Emerson were as tough as the best now are. Even Rosewall had a rather voluminous playing arm...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

But tennis was so much easier back then--it was only fat, old men playing betwen beers on Sundays.

Not completely a joke. Look at the field for 1967 Wimbledon Pro. Budge and Riggs played on into the sixties.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Not completely a joke. Look at the field for 1967 Wimbledon Pro. Budge and Riggs played on into the sixties.

...but without any success.

Wimbledon Pro 1967 had a eight strong players including your darling. Participating were, according to my 1967 rankings, world's No.s 1 to 5 plus No.s 7 and 8 Missing from the top ten only the amateurs Newcombe, Emerson and Roche...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

But tennis was so much easier back then--it was only fat, old men playing betwen beers on Sundays.

Guys like Pancho Gonzalez wouldn't hold a candle to great athletes today like Nalbanian and Isner.

[qwertre]

I know we've been off the musical relations for a while, but would Leander Paes be equivalent to Stravinski?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

...but without any success.

Wimbledon Pro 1967 had a eight strong players including your darling. Participating were, according to my 1967 rankings, world's No.s 1 to 5 plus No.s 7 and 8 Missing from the top ten only the amateurs Newcombe, Emerson and Roche...

Hoad came out of reitrement for this one event, and played only a few weeks more.
Really, just a two-man tournament.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Hoad came out of reitrement for this one event, and played only a few weeks more.
Really, just a two-man tournament.

Stubborn Dan, You have not read or understood my post where I gave the world ranking numbers of the 7 other players. Only Hoad was a rather weak player then and even he beat Gonzalez... All others were top ten players including the top five of the world...

Your philosophy: If Hoad is weak the whole tournament is weak!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by qwertre

I know we've been off the musical relations for a while, but would Leander Paes be equivalent to Stravinski?

qwertre, Strawinsky is about comparable with Emerson: both around place 20...

[Feather]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

There you go: Fed banned from Wimbledon 2001-2014.

I wonder what his record would be then?

Since you are talking about Wimbledon, the grass was much faster then than today. Roger would have loved to play in the fast grass. On a fast Cincinnati, Roger bageled the current number one, who is in his peak and prime. Even at this age, put him on fast old Wimbledon and you would see what he can do.

I don't think Roger would still go without winning Wimbledon if the grass was as fast and he was banned for 14 years

This is a grinders era, unfortunately

[Feather]

Originally Posted by kiki

Thanks for mentioning what a great champ Kodes was
Coming back to Borg, it is false he wasn' t great on hard just because of his unluckiness at Flushing Meadows
The next two best HC events of that time were Las Vegas and Toronto
In 79 Borg demolished Lendl & Mac in the semis and final of CO
That same year he demolished Connors to win Vegas and in 1980 he outgunned Vitas for another Vegas title
He completely destroyed the 4 best hardcourters of his time in two consecutive yrs

Arguments are all 90% subjective, kiki. If your fave player fail to win a particular tournament, he is lucky. If a player who you don't like fail to win, he was not good enough to win.

Disclaimer : I am no way referring to Borg's hard court proficiency.

[kiki]

He

Originally Posted by Feather

Arguments are all 90% subjective, kiki. If your fave player fail to win a particular tournament, he is lucky. If a player who you don't like fail to win, he was not good enough to win.

Disclaimer : I am no way referring to Borg's hard court proficiency.

Borg is not my fave
But facts I put on table speak volume

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think you're right in the example you use Dan. However with Sampras and Connors the opponents were pretty strong. Connors had Borg, Ashe, Orantes, Tanner, Lendl, Edberg, Newcombe, Rosewall, Okker, Kodes, Vilas, Ramirez, Panatta, Stockton, Vijay Amritraj, Smith, McEnroe, Gerulaitis among others as the players Connors faced in majors. There were other greats like Nastase and Laver who Connors didn't face in majors.

Sampras faced Agassi, Goran, Edberg, Becker, Courier, Chang, Martin, Henman, Krajicek, Philippoussis, Pioline, Korda, Rafter, Kucera, Bjorkman, McEnroe, Lendl among others in majors.

I'm sure there were a number of other top players Sampras didn't face in majors.

It's subjective so the people can look and decide if either one had tougher competition.

Obviously level of play in the Open Era cannot remain the same. Some eras just have to be better than others but there is no way of measuring it.

Gladyou mentioned Ramirez.Great player, all round game, very quick but not too strong