Clay Court GOAT

[borg number one]

I never saw Kodes play, but I've heard about him, read about him, and seen some old video with him playing. Even with some depleted fields during the early 1970's at times, there were a lot of extremely good players in the top 20. As for Vines, he sounds like he was just a wonderful player, very gifted, and someone with an outstanding record.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by pc1

While I respect Kiki what disturbs me about the comparison is the one sidedness of the comparison. To compare Ellsworth Vines with Jan Kodes is like comparing Michael Jordan to Kiki Vandeweghe in NBA basketball. Jordan's an all time great while Kiki was a very good player.

In this way Vines is an all time great while Kodes is a better than average player. I can probably mentioned more than ten better clay court players than Kodes and probably more than thirty overall players better than Kodes.

With Vines some would argue none are ahead of him and many would argue just a few. Vines is consistently on top ten all time greats list in tennis. I have never seen Kodes on a top ten all time list in anything.

I would not be bothered with Kodes was compared to Michael Chang or JIm Courier but Vines, no way there is any sort of reasonably comparison.

chang is a reasonable comparision .... But IMO courier is by some distance better than kodes....it isn't that close at all ...

[NadalAgassi]

Courier is way better than Kodes. All his slams were fully legit with all the big names entered, and at the time of a reasonably strong field. He also had numerous other slams he was denied by Pete Sampras or Bruguera at the French Open. He was in the intimidating and feared #1 in 1992 and early 1993. If they played in their mutual primes Courier would probably hit Kodes off court from the baseline, and even outgrind and outwill him, especialy on a mutual surface like hard courts.

I would rate Kodes above Chang as he does still have 3 slams (well technically) and he did go through stellar draws to make those 2 U.S Open finals.

[NadalAgassi]

Here were some of their rankings in Tennis Channel's 100 greatest:

42. Jim Courier
64. Ellsworth Vines
83. Jan Kodes
100. Michael Chang

While I think Vines's ranking here is a bit harsh it should also dismiss any idea he is a possible GOAT. No possible GOAT would be ranked so low by a panel of experts.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Here were some of their rankings in Tennis Channel's 100 greatest:

42. Jim Courier
64. Ellsworth Vines
83. Jan Kodes
100. Michael Chang

While I think Vines's ranking here is a bit harsh it should also dismiss any idea he is a possible GOAT. No possible GOAT would be ranked so low by a panel of experts.

Why? That same list had Roy Emerson well above Pancho Gonzales. They obviously used the wrong criteria, putting a lot of weight on Emerson's 12 amateur majors while obviously ignoring the amazing achievements of Gonzales in the professional ranks. I have Ellsworth Vines as the best player of the 1930s, better than Budge, Nusslein, Perry, Cochet and Crawford. Vines won 5 professional majors, and only entered 8 of them in total (2 of those he didn't win were in 1939), and beat all his rivals on the pro tours until Budge dethroned him.

[NadalAgassi]

I did not say the ranking were perfect. They are badly flawed in some cases. I would probably rank Vines somewhere in the 30s instead (in a male only list in the top 20 probably), which is much higher than they have him. However even as flawed as they are there is no way a group of experts would ever rank a possible GOAT in the 60s all time. The fact any group of experts would rank the possible GOAT that low, period. Bud Collins also refered to Vines as a one dimensional player, something I dont think you would hear from such a famed voice on the possible GOAT.

You have Vines for the 30s but 99% of people have Budge. Your views on many issues are off the rocker a bit. You after all have stated King, Serena, Seles, Connolly, Agassi, Lendl, Perry, are various others who have not a single thing about their record which is the best ever as GOAT candidates.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I did not say the ranking were perfect. They are badly flawed in some cases. I would probably rank Vines somewhere in the 30s instead (in a male only list in the top 20 probably), which is much higher than they have him. However even as flawed as they are there is no way a group of experts would ever rank a possible GOAT in the 60s all time. The fact any group of experts would rank the possible GOAT that low, period. Bud Collins also refered to Vines as a one dimensional player, something I dont think you would hear from such a famed voice on the possible GOAT.

You have Vines for the 30s but 99% of people have Budge. Your views on many issues are off the rocker a bit. You after all have stated King, Serena, Seles, Connolly, Agassi, Lendl, Perry, are various others who have not a single thing about their record which is the best ever as GOAT candidates.

People have Budge because of the CYGS in 1938. Budge didn't start to achieve a lot until 1937. Vines was acheving world class stuff for most of the 1930s decade.

Ellsworth Vines
Amateur majors
1931 US Championships: CHAMPION (beat George Lott in the final)
1932 Wimbledon: CHAMPION (beat Bunny Austin in the final)
1932 US Championships: CHAMPION (beat Henri Cochet in the final)
1933 Australian Championships: Quarter Final Loser (lost to Vivian McGrath)
1933 Wimbledon: Runner-up (lost to Jack Crawford)
1933 US Championships: Round of 16 Loser (lost to Bryan Grant)

Professional majors
1934 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION (beat Hans Nusslein in the final)
1934 US Pro: Semi Final Loser (lost to Hans Nusslein)
1935 French Pro: CHAMPION (beat Hans Nusslein in the final)
1935 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION (beat Bill Tilden in the final)
1936 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION (beat Hans Nusslein in the final)
1939 French Pro: Runner-up (lost to Don Budge)
1939 Wembley Pro: Finished 4th (behind Don Budge, Hans Nusslein and Bill Tilden)
1939 US Pro: CHAMPION (beat Fred Perry in the final)

Some professional tours involving Vines
1934: Ellsworth Vines played over 50 matches with Bill Tilden and had 19 more victories than Tilden. Ellsworth Vines 10-0 Henri Cochet. Ellsworth Vines 8-2 Martin Plaa

1935: Ellsworth Vines 25-1 Lester Stoefen. Vines then beat Nusslein 3 quarters of the time.

1936: Ellsworth Vines 33-5 Lester Stoefen. Ellsworth Vines 8-1 Bill Tilden

1937: Ellsworth Vines 32-29 Fred Perry. Ellsworth Vines 6-3 Fred Perry

1938: Ellsworth Vines 49-35 Fred Perry

1939: Don Budge 21-18 Ellsworth Vines.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I did not say the ranking were perfect. They are badly flawed in some cases. I would probably rank Vines somewhere in the 30s instead (in a male only list in the top 20 probably), which is much higher than they have him. However even as flawed as they are there is no way a group of experts would ever rank a possible GOAT in the 60s all time. The fact any group of experts would rank the possible GOAT that low, period. Bud Collins also refered to Vines as a one dimensional player, something I dont think you would hear from such a famed voice on the possible GOAT.

It's a terribly flawed list and I don't think it shows much. But it shows one thing conclusively, that Kiki is wrong about Vines being a product of great marketing. If he was that, then he was one of the poorest products of marketing ever, if he could end up at #64 on Tennis Channel's list.

Kramer and Budge both rated Vines near the top; they both regarded him as a GOAT contender. They probably did so because level of play was a higher criteria for them, compared to where it might be for us. On this board we generally start with players' records, "placing" them according to their titles; and then we talk about their level of play, the level of play of their opponents, etc., and argue about whether they should be moved up or down on our lists. For Kramer and Budge and perhaps a lot of other people, it may have gone the other way around: they may have started first with level of play, and then considered actual titles.

That might not seem right to us, but back then they knew that a player's actual accomplishments could get upended by politics within the sport (such as the pro/am split, or even the politics within the pro tours), or by a war. In that context, looking first at level of play might seem the fairest way to level the playing field.

Bud does say that Vines was something of a one-dimensional player. That's true to some extent. If you could blunt his power, you could get him; that seems to be how Bitsy Grant beat him twice in the amateur game. But Vines matured as a player later. He never became a touch player or anything like that; but I wonder how one-dimensional he could have been if he had a winning record over every single major rival that he met in the mid-30s, until he met Budge.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Mustard

People have Budge because of the CYGS in 1938. Budge didn't start to achieve a lot until 1937. Vines was acheving world class stuff for most of the 1930s decade.

Ellsworth Vines
Amateur majors
1931 US Championships: CHAMPION (beat George Lott in the final)
1932 Wimbledon: CHAMPION (beat Bunny Austin in the final)
1932 US Championships: CHAMPION (beat Henri Cochet in the final)
1933 Australian Championships: Quarter Final Loser (lost to Vivian McGrath)
1933 Wimbledon: Runner-up (lost to Jack Crawford)
1933 US Championships: Round of 16 Loser (lost to Bryan Grant)

Professional majors
1934 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION (beat Hans Nusslein in the final)
1934 US Pro: Semi Final Loser (lost to Hans Nusslein)
1935 French Pro: CHAMPION (beat Hans Nusslein in the final)
1935 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION (beat Bill Tilden in the final)
1936 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION (beat Hans Nusslein in the final)
1939 French Pro: Runner-up (lost to Don Budge)
1939 Wembley Pro: Finished 4th (behind Don Budge, Hans Nusslein and Bill Tilden)
1939 US Pro: CHAMPION (beat Fred Perry in the final)

Some professional tours involving Vines
1934: Ellsworth Vines played over 50 matches with Bill Tilden and had 19 more victories than Tilden. Ellsworth Vines 10-0 Henri Cochet. Ellsworth Vines 8-2 Martin Plaa

1935: Ellsworth Vines 25-1 Lester Stoefen. Vines then beat Nusslein 3 quarters of the time.

1936: Ellsworth Vines 33-5 Lester Stoefen. Ellsworth Vines 8-1 Bill Tilden

1937: Ellsworth Vines 32-29 Fred Perry. Ellsworth Vines 6-3 Fred Perry

1938: Ellsworth Vines 49-35 Fred Perry

1939: Don Budge 21-18 Ellsworth Vines.

Graf didnt achieve much in the 80s until 1987 but people still rate her over Evert in the 80s, despite that Evert was a force the whole decade. Court only played 2-3 years in the 70s and some still rate her over Evert in the 70s despite that Evert was a force the whole decade, and the dominant player for over half of it. Playing the whole decade doesnt make you better than someone who didnt, especialy if they managed to achieve more in 2-3 years than you did over the whole decade combined. Budge the same number of combined amateur and pro slams ( despite that he wasnt even a mature player, or even playing yet, for alot of the decade vs Vines who was. That in addition to the Grand Slam. I already mentioned as well that Vines was usually on top either as an amateur or pro facing greats much older than him like Tilden and the French players, so he was at a major advantage, until people his own age emerged and overtook him- Crawford as an amateur, and Budge immediately once he turned pro. He did not fare as well when faced with legends his own age, as ones much older than he was.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Kodes was lucky to be a good, steady player in depleted fields. Vines was a great player no matter who he was facing.

I have Vines at world no. 1 or co-number 1 for five years between 1931-37. The highest rank Kodes achieved was world no. 4.

Which years was Vines the nº 1...there are guys called Crawford,Perry and Budge...

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Graf didnt achieve much in the 80s until 1987 but people still rate her over Evert in the 80s, despite that Evert was a force the whole decade.

Again, we have a CYGS in the way. And Graf was very dominant against all the best female players in the late 1980s.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Budge won more ( combined amateur and pro majors that decade than Vines (7) despite that he wasnt even a mature player, or even playing yet, for alot of the decade vs Vines who was.

Vines won 8 as well.

1. 1931 US Championships
2. 1932 Wimbledon
3. 1932 US Championships
4. 1934 Wembley Pro
5. 1935 French Pro
6. 1935 Wembley Pro
7. 1936 Wembley Pro
8. 1939 US Pro

And Vines had winning records against all his rivals except Budge.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

That in addition to the Grand Slam. I already mentioned as well that Vines was usually on top either as an amateur or pro facing greats much older than him like Tilden and the French players, so he was at a major advantage, until people his own age emerged and overtook him- Crawford as an amateur, and Budge immediately once he turned pro. He did not fare as well when faced with legends his own age, as ones much older than he was.

Who overtook Vines? Crawford in the amateurs in 1933, and Budge in the pros in 1939. The rest of the decade, Vines was beating all his rivals.

And if you want to talk about the level of competition, what about the level of competition in the 1938 amateur ranks when Budge won the CYGS? Crawford was within 1 set of winning the CYGS in 1933, in a field that contained Vines and Perry. Not the best route for you to go down, if you ask me.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Who overtook Vines? Crawford in the amateurs in 1933, and Budge in the pros in 1939. The rest of the decade, Vines was beating all his rivals.

Yes Crawford overtook him in 1933 and then he turned pro immediately rather than continue to face a younger and stronger opponent. Budge turned pro and overtook him immediately once he did, and Vines in turn immediately quit tennis and went to pro golf. In between he was mostly beating men a decade older than him like Tilden, Cochet, and LaCoste.

Just settle that you proved kiki was wrong and Vines > Kodes. Stop trying to inflate him into something nobody outside a few posters in this thread thinks he is.

Originally Posted by Mustard

Again, we have a CYGS in the way. And Graf was very dominant against all the best female players in the late 1980s.

Budge was dominant vs everyone he faced in the late 30s and won the CYGS, what is the difference. Budge also wasnt only facing greats a decade older than him, the way Graf and Vines both did during the heights of their dominance. It was like challenging their own Mom or Dad to play against them, and the best their own age were such giants as Nussein or Sabatini.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Here's a few top ten lists for the greatest players
Allison Danzig
1. Tilden
2. Cochet
3. Budge
4. Lacoste
5. Kramer
6. Perry
7. Johnston
8. Laver
9. Vines
10. Gonzalez
Emerson-Tie

Hopman
1. Tilden
2. Budge
3. Perry
4. Laver
5. Cochet
6. Lacoste
7. Johnston
8. H L Doherty
9. Vines
10. Gonzalez
Emerson-Tie

Don Budge

No order but he would probably pick Vines first and has said so. The players are Vines, Kramer, Gonzalez, Laver, Rosewall, Sedgman, Segura, Perry, von Cramm, Riggs and Tilden last.

Kramer picks Budge number one and Vines number two with Perry third. But Kramer also added that with Vines hurting (so Kramer says) and very interested in golf that he wasn't sure what would happen if Vines was totally into the tour when he played Don Budge.

I'll get more lists later but I have to leave now. Do all these experts think Vines was a product of marketing? These experts know.

While I respect your opinions, you are anbsolutely biassed with Vines.he is no top 10 in any modern journalist list ( neither is Kodes, anyway).

Look, let´s face the reality, not favouritism:

Majors won: 3 each
Quality players defeated at major finals: Kodes won an all time rgeat ( Nastase) and 2 good but not really champions (Franulovic and Metrevali)
Vines won an all time great (Cochet) and two good but not great players (Doeg and Austin9

Both lost 2 other major finals and very close (Vines to Crawford,Kodes to Nastase)

Vines won pro majors in a depleted field

Kodes had to face a much tougher field, which prevented him from taking the equivalents of majors ( although he won other important tour events)

One thing compensates the other

conclusion: both had almost twin careers.

Rest is pure marketing stuff.A Czech guy from a then commie country has no chance agaainst the powerful and mediatic US marketing.

[kiki]

Correction.Kodes lost to Newcombe, not Nastase ( 1973 US open)

[kiki]

Originally Posted by borg number one

I never saw Kodes play, but I've heard about him, read about him, and seen some old video with him playing. Even with some depleted fields during the early 1970's at times, there were a lot of extremely good players in the top 20. As for Vines, he sounds like he was just a wonderful player, very gifted, and someone with an outstanding record.

Great post.You know what you talk about.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

chang is a reasonable comparision .... But IMO courier is by some distance better than kodes....it isn't that close at all ...

Courier belongs in the same tier or maybe a notch above.Kodes is far far far ahead of one time slam winner Chang

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Yes Crawford overtook him in 1933 and then he turned pro immediately rather than continue to face a younger and stronger opponent.

Shame on Vines for wanting to get paid for playing tennis

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Budge turned pro and overtook him immediately once he did, and Vines in turn immediately quit tennis and went to pro golf.

Budge beat Vines by 21-18, after Vines had been the best professional player in the world for the previous 5 years. Vines quit in 1940 because he had become more interested in professional golf.

And Perry didn't overtake Vines, did he?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I did not say the ranking were perfect. They are badly flawed in some cases. I would probably rank Vines somewhere in the 30s instead (in a male only list in the top 20 probably), which is much higher than they have him. However even as flawed as they are there is no way a group of experts would ever rank a possible GOAT in the 60s all time. The fact any group of experts would rank the possible GOAT that low, period. Bud Collins also refered to Vines as a one dimensional player, something I dont think you would hear from such a famed voice on the possible GOAT.

You have Vines for the 30s but 99% of people have Budge. Your views on many issues are off the rocker a bit. You after all have stated King, Serena, Seles, Connolly, Agassi, Lendl, Perry, are various others who have not a single thing about their record which is the best ever as GOAT candidates.

Connolly was the first woman to win the Grand Slam ( and only 2 other have equalled that).She was revolutionary in the 50´s.She is top 5-6 ever.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Mustard

People have Budge because of the CYGS in 1938. Budge didn't start to achieve a lot until 1937. Vines was acheving world class stuff for most of the 1930s decade.

Ellsworth Vines


Amateur majors
1931 US Championships: CHAMPION (beat George Lott in the final)
1932 Wimbledon: CHAMPION (beat Bunny Austin in the final)
1932 US Championships: CHAMPION (beat Henri Cochet in the final)
1933 Australian Championships: Quarter Final Loser (lost to Vivian McGrath)
1933 Wimbledon: Runner-up (lost to Jack Crawford)
1933 US Championships: Round of 16 Loser (lost to Bryan Grant)

Professional majors
1934 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION (beat Hans Nusslein in the final)
1934 US Pro: Semi Final Loser (lost to Hans Nusslein)
1935 French Pro: CHAMPION (beat Hans Nusslein in the final)
1935 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION (beat Bill Tilden in the final)
1936 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION (beat Hans Nusslein in the final)
1939 French Pro: Runner-up (lost to Don Budge)
1939 Wembley Pro: Finished 4th (behind Don Budge, Hans Nusslein and Bill Tilden)
1939 US Pro: CHAMPION (beat Fred Perry in the final)

Some professional tours involving Vines
1934: Ellsworth Vines played over 50 matches with Bill Tilden and had 19 more victories than Tilden. Ellsworth Vines 10-0 Henri Cochet. Ellsworth Vines 8-2 Martin Plaa

1935: Ellsworth Vines 25-1 Lester Stoefen. Vines then beat Nusslein 3 quarters of the time.

1936: Ellsworth Vines 33-5 Lester Stoefen. Ellsworth Vines 8-1 Bill Tilden

1937: Ellsworth Vines 32-29 Fred Perry. Ellsworth Vines 6-3 Fred Perry

1938: Ellsworth Vines 49-35 Fred Perry

1939: Don Budge 21-18 Ellsworth Vines.

Tilden was very old, Nusslein,Stoefen,Plaas are nobodies...and seems that Vines lost very early at the majors from 1933 on...looks like his record, while great and very honourable, doesn´t go along those senseless praising he is getting over here.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Yes Crawford overtook him in 1933 and then he turned pro immediately rather than continue to face a younger and stronger opponent.

Not true, Crawford was 3 years older than Vines.

And Vines did not have a losing record against him. He walloped Crawford in 1932 at Wimbledon, 6-2, 6-1, 6-3. The next year they met in the final and Crawford won in five sets. Crawford could barely beat him, while Vines could easily beat Crawford.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Budge turned pro and overtook him immediately once he did, and Vines in turn immediately quit tennis and went to pro golf. In between he was mostly beating men a decade older than him like Tilden, Cochet, and LaCoste.

Again this is misleading. Two years running he took H2H tours against a peak Perry, who was only 2 years older than him.

And you list Lacoste to fatten up the list of older players who were Vines' opponents. But I don't know if Vines ever met Lacoste. Their careers barely overlapped: http://www.tennisarchives.com/coureu...coureurid=5297