Clay Court GOAT

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Why do you put Kodes in the same league as Vines? Vines won 3 amateur majors (1931 US Championships, 1932 Wimbledon and 1932 US Championships) and he also won 5 professional majors (1934 Wembley Pro, 1935 French Pro, 1935 Wembley Pro, 1936 Wembley Pro and 1939 US Pro). Vines was clearly the world's best player from 1934-1938, with Hans Nusslein and Bill Tilden as his greatest challengers, before Budge overtook Vines in 1939 due to greater consistency. Even then, Vines' peak game was still considered superior to Budge's.

The only negative on Vines was his drop in form in his last year as an amateur in 1933, losing one of the greatest Wimbledon finals of all time against Jack Crawford, and having a shocking Round of 16 loss at the 1933 US Championships against Bryan Grant. Vines turned professional in January 1934 before his stock suffered any further, and his motivation clearly increased a lot in the pros.

Vines retired from professional tennis in May 1940 in order to become a professional golfer, winning 2 pro golf tournaments, and he even managed to finish third in the US PGA major in 1951.

I agree with you. Kodes is not even close to Vines. You don't have to have seen Babe Ruth to know he's better than Nick Johnson.

Vines is one of the legendary figures in the history of tennis and while I respect Kodes I've seen many players superior to him. Vines has been called by many top tennis experts as potentially the GOAT. Kramer for example has called Budge the GOAT but he hedges that perhaps it could be Vines. Either way he has Vines no worst than second in his book.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

Of course , the fact that Vines also won many pro majors just doesn't sink in, does it ?

but then why let facts bother kiki ....

No posible comparative at the number of great players and their level.Old Tilden,Old Cochet...I accept Crawford,Perry,Budge,Riggs are all time greats, but so were Newcombe,Connors,Borg,Rosewall,Laver,Nastase,Ashe, Smith...

Plus, the deepth of field, say the top 30-50 players just puts Kodes in another league...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Why do you put Kodes in the same league as Vines? Vines won 3 amateur majors (1931 US Championships, 1932 Wimbledon and 1932 US Championships) and he also won 5 professional majors (1934 Wembley Pro, 1935 French Pro, 1935 Wembley Pro, 1936 Wembley Pro and 1939 US Pro). Vines was clearly the world's best player from 1934-1938, with Hans Nusslein and Bill Tilden as his greatest challengers, before Budge overtook Vines in 1939 due to greater consistency. Even then, Vines' peak game was still considered superior to Budge's.

The only negative on Vines was his drop in form in his last year as an amateur in 1933, losing one of the greatest Wimbledon finals of all time against Jack Crawford, and having a shocking Round of 16 loss at the 1933 US Championships against Bryan Grant. Vines turned professional in January 1934 before his stock suffered any further, and his motivation clearly increased a lot in the pros.

Vines retired from professional tennis in May 1940 in order to become a professional golfer, winning 2 pro golf tournaments, and he even managed to finish third in the US PGA major in 1951.

Are we talking about Golf or Tennis?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kiki

Are we talking about Golf or Tennis?

Tennis.......

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Why do you put Kodes in the same league as Vines? Vines won 3 amateur majors (1931 US Championships, 1932 Wimbledon and 1932 US Championships) and he also won 5 professional majors (1934 Wembley Pro, 1935 French Pro, 1935 Wembley Pro, 1936 Wembley Pro and 1939 US Pro). Vines was clearly the world's best player from 1934-1938, with Hans Nusslein and Bill Tilden as his greatest challengers, before Budge overtook Vines in 1939 due to greater consistency. Even then, Vines' peak game was still considered superior to Budge's.

The only negative on Vines was his drop in form in his last year as an amateur in 1933, losing one of the greatest Wimbledon finals of all time against Jack Crawford, and having a shocking Round of 16 loss at the 1933 US Championships against Bryan Grant. Vines turned professional in January 1934 before his stock suffered any further, and his motivation clearly increased a lot in the pros.

Vines retired from professional tennis in May 1940 in order to become a professional golfer, winning 2 pro golf tournaments, and he even managed to finish third in the US PGA major in 1951.

True. Vines is definitely no GOAT contender as you stated he was but he is light years beyond Kodes.

[kiki]

The problem when comparing Kodes and Vines is that of eras.Kodes faced a lot more of great players than Vines, because in the 1930´s, there was a big slot between top 5-6 players and the rest.While in Jan´s era, a top 25-30 player could handle a top guy and do it several times.

Both seem twins in term of results, with a comparable number of slams won and finals lost.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by kiki

The problem when comparing Kodes and Vines is that of eras.Kodes faced a lot more of great players than Vines, because in the 1930´s, there was a big slot between top 5-6 players and the rest.While in Jan´s era, a top 25-30 player could handle a top guy and do it several times.

Both seem twins in term of results, with a comparable number of slams won and finals lost.

The problem is the majors Kodes won he did not face those great players who existed then since they were depleted slams (which there were many of back then with the various money making exhibitions, political issues, etc..in the game). It is like evaluating Court's Australian Opens, the womens field back then was great, but the Australian was a joke event which was missing almost every top player every year. She has 11 of them, and nobody gives them full credit, which is why almost nobody rates her as GOAT despite having even more majors than knife aided Graf, and many more than Navratilova and Evert. In Kodes's case, he never even proved himself by winning a major against a full field, so his are even more in question, unlike Court who did many many times.

Also when Vines was winning his amateur majors the Four Musketeers were all still playing, how is that easy competition. There was also Perry, Crawford, an old Tilden. Heck even had a full field attended it was tougher competition than Kode, considering the early 70s is widely regarded as a transition period with old Laver, really old Rosewall, ancient (or retired) Gonzales, mostly slumping Ashe, Connors and Borg not emerged yet, good for a couple years but oft injured Smith, Newcombe and erratic Nastase were basically the top players that period.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

The problem is the majors Kodes won he did not face those great players who existed then since they were depleted slams (which there were many of back then with the various money making exhibitions, political issues, etc..in the game). It is like evaluating Court's Australian Opens, the womens field back then was great, but the Australian was a joke event which was missing almost every top player every year. She has 11 of them, and nobody gives them full credit, which is why almost nobody rates her as GOAT despite having even more majors than knife aided Graf, and many more than Navratilova and Evert. In Kodes's case, he never even proved himself by winning a major against a full field, so his are even more in question, unlike Court who did many many times.

Also when Vines was winning his amateur majors the Four Musketeers were all still playing, how is that easy competition. There was also Perry, Crawford, an old Tilden. Heck even had a full field attended it was tougher competition than Kode, considering the early 70s is widely regarded as a transition period with old Laver, really old Rosewall, ancient (or retired) Gonzales, mostly slumping Ashe, Connors and Borg not emerged yet, good for a couple years but oft injured Smith, Newcombe and erratic Nastase were basically the top players that period.

I am not going backwards and forwards with this relentless debate about who was better or who played a tougher competition.I´ll say that Kodes had to face, like 50 very good or good players while Vines ( and the other greats of the 30´s) had, at most - and I maybe exagerating- just 12-15 good or very good players.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Mustard

The only negative on Vines was his drop in form in his last year as an amateur in 1933, losing one of the greatest Wimbledon finals of all time against Jack Crawford, and having a shocking Round of 16 loss at the 1933 US Championships against Bryan Grant.

He was also the favorite at the Australian Championships, and lost in the quarters to Vivian McGrath. In Davis Cup against England, he lost to Bunny Austin 6-1, 6-1, 6-4 (arguably his biggest loss of the year, though no longer his best remembered).

He played poorly throughout 1933. I think Kramer said that Vines played well only in one match in 1933, the Wimbledon final.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by kiki

I am not going backwards and forwards with this relentless debate about who was better or who played a tougher competition.I´ll say that Kodes had to face, like 50 very good or good players while Vines ( and the other greats of the 30´s) had, at most - and I maybe exagerating- just 12-15 good or very good players.

But you realize this applies also to Perry and Budge? If they faced nothing but a weak field, then Budge is worth even less than the 6 Grand Slam events he won. Can't possibly call him a GOAT contender, as you have. The Grand Slam in '38 by itself can't make him a GOAT contender -- not for someone like you who is emphasizing strength of the field. That's because Budge's weakest competition happened to be in 1938. For various reasons, in that year there was no one around who could genuinely challenge him.

So if you're making a very big deal about how the 30s were weaker than the 70s, then Budge must fall; and he falls even further because his competition in '38 was weak even by the standards of the time.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

True. Vines is definitely no GOAT contender as you stated he was but he is light years beyond Kodes.

I think Vines is a definite GOAT contender. How could he not be with that record?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

No posible comparative at the number of great players and their level.Old Tilden,Old Cochet...I accept Crawford,Perry,Budge,Riggs are all time greats, but so were Newcombe,Connors,Borg,Rosewall,Laver,Nastase,Ashe, Smith...

Plus, the deepth of field, say the top 30-50 players just puts Kodes in another league...

umm, no , nastase, ashe, smith are not all time greats ....... just excellent players ....

plus you miss the most important fact : kodes didn't even much success vs any of them , he trailed all of them by a significant margin .....

again, like I've proved many times before, all 3 majors that Kodes won were lucky/depleted fields/main players missing

70/71 FO - no rosewall/laver ( laver defeated him in rome 71 final )
73 wimbledon - worst wimbledon of the open era by far. No comparison whatsoever ..

He was never ever the top player, Vines was for several years ...

If there were full fields, there is a real real possibility that Kodes would've ended up with ZERO, yes, ZERO majors .......He's in my eyes more like a one time major winner , nothing more than that ....

comparing Kodes and Vines is more like comparing chang and becker ...

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Both seem twins in term of results, with a comparable number of slams won and finals lost.

just like how pancho gonzales and safin are "twins" because they have two majors each ?

its amazing how much more stupidly stubborn you are proving yourself to be ...

what about Vines' pro majors ????

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I think Vines is a definite GOAT contender. How could he not be with that record?

You qualification for a goat contender is too easy. You need to set the bar higher.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by kiki

Plus, the deepth of field, say the top 30-50 players just puts Kodes in another league...

Kiki, the most ironic thing about your argument is that it backfires on Kodes. You're trying to lift up Kodes by arguing that his era was much deeper than the 1930s in which Vines played. But quality of the field is exactly where Kodes is weakest. The weakest thing about his 3 Slam titles is the quality of those 3 draws. If you make an argument that emphasizes quality of field, Kodes will get smashed every time the argument is brought up.

And Budge's Grand Slam of 1938 will also take a huge hit, under that kind of argument.

I think if you want to lift up Kodes -- and if you want to rate Budge highly because of his Grand Slam in 1938 -- you have to come up with an argument that does not emphasize quality of field. IMO that's the worst possible way to defend both Kodes' Slam titles and Budge's Grand Slam.

There are other great things to say about those two players. Kodes was a skilled player, with an interesting style of play (great defense), and a few notable upsets. Etc. Etc., you know more about him than I do.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I think Vines is a definite GOAT contender. How could he not be with that record?

Your list of GOAT candidates was WAY too long. You included 16 men and 10 women which was ridiculous and you included a huge number of players who are never brought up in greatest ever debates- King, Seles, Serena, Agassi, Vines, Perry, a whole host of men especialy in fact. If there is no area you can be argued as superior to everyone else you have no GOAT claim. These people have GOAT arguments because:

Court- Most Grand Slams in singles and doubles.

Graf- By far most dominant singles slam record across all surfaces ever. She and Court (and Connolly) are the only ones to manage the Grand Slam, and also the only two women to win atleast 3 slams in 5 different years.

Navratilova- Most Wimbledons in singles and singles/doubles combined (along with King in the latter), most WTA Championships, most dominant single season records since the pre historic days in 1983 and 1984.

Evert- Unmatched records for consistency and longevity, most French Open singles titles ever, most U.S Opens in Open era.

People like Seles, King, Serena Williams and Connolly have nothing, other than unmatched precociousness in Maureen's case, and vague "peak level of play" arguments in Serena's, yet you included them as possible GOATs which was silly. Being one of the greatest of all time, and being all time great, does not mean you have any claims as THE GOAT neccessarily.


Then among men:

Sampras- his Wimbledon and 6 straight year end #1 records.

Federer- his most slams record.

Laver- his 2 Calendar Slams.

Rosewall- his unmatched longevity at the top of the game, 20 years worth.

Gonzales- being the dominant player almost an entire decade, and like Rosewall excelling into his 40s.

Borg- his unmatched parallel dominance of grass and clay.


Other than maybe a few of the early century greats like Lenglen, Wills, Tilden, there is really nobody else other than those. Can you even give a single statistic that would give people like Vines, Lendl (Federer has even clipped his slam finals record btw), Agassi,
Seles, Connolly, Serena, or King any GOAT argument at all. Other than Serena (only due to being current, it would never happen otherwise) none of those people are even debated as the possible GOAT by ANYONE today.

[Mustard]

Jack Kramer had Vines' peak game as the best ever. Other people have said the same about Hoad.

[NadalAgassi]

So subjective arguments about best peak game with no records (by records I mean something better than everyone else, not just excellent numbers at something still bettered by others) to back it up are enough to be a GOAT candidate. I guess some could argue Mary Pierce or Marat Safin as a GOAT candidates by such vague critiera, LOL!

Anyway back on topic, Vines >>>>>>>>>>>> Kodes. We all seem to atleast agree on that anyway. abmk is right that Vines was the best in the World for awhile, Kodes was never even close to the best in the World.

[Mustard]

I've already listed Vines record. 3 amateur majors, 5 professional majors, best player in the world as a pro from 1934-1938, and his best game was still seen as unbeatable even after Budge overtook him in 1939. Vines then retired in 1940 to become a professional golfer.

He's clearly in the GOAT discussion.

Kodes was a solid player, capable of beating top players and he has a good record, but he's nowhere near Vines. Kodes' best match victories at a major were his 1970 French Open win over Franulovic, 1971 French Open wins over Franulovic and Nastase, 1971 US Open wins over Newcombe and Ashe, and his 1973 US Open win over Smith. It's unfortunate for Kodes that he never won the US Open because he had some good runs there, and it's ironic that he's beaten both Newcombe and Smith at the tournament yet lost to them in his two finals there. A bit like Soderling at the French Open, in that he's beaten Nadal and Federer yet lost to both in his two finals.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I've already listed Vines record. 3 amateur majors, 5 professional majors, best player in the world as a pro from 1934-1938, and his best game was still seen as unbeatable even after Budge overtook him in 1939. Vines then retired in 1940 to become a professional golfer.

He's clearly in the GOAT discussion.

Kodes was a solid player, capable of beating top players and he has a good record, but he's nowhere near Vines. Kodes' best match victories at a major were his 1970 French Open win over Franulovic, 1971 French Open wins over Franulovic and Nastase, 1971 US Open wins over Newcombe and Ashe, and his 1973 US Open win over Smith. It's unfortunate for Kodes that he never won the US Open because he had some good runs there, and it's ironic that he's beaten both Newcombe and Smith at the tournament yet lost to them in his two finals there. A bit like Soderling at the French Open, in that he's beaten Nadal and Federer yet lost to both in his two finals.

Not only that but from opinions from players like Budge and Kramer ranked Vines' serve as the best ever and his forehand was up there with anyone's. Many believe Vines at his best was unbeatable. Budge ranks Vines and Kramer as the two best I believe.

Kodes was never ever considered the top player in the world.