This is poll is connected Former Prp Player Talk

[JAY1]

-----------------------------

[JoelDali]

Azarenka Juice is the best thread title of all time.

Gross sounding on a hot Summer day, but still a GOAT thread title for all to enjoy.

[li0scc0]

Originally Posted by JoelDali

Azarenka Juice is the best thread title of all time.

Gross sounding on a hot Summer day, but still a GOAT thread title for all to enjoy.

Agree, and it has conjured up delightful images for me.

[Mustard]

There's too many GOAT contenders not listed on the poll, like Gonzales, Rosewall, Vines, Tilden, Wilding, Cochet etc.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by JAY1

Who is your choice, maybe their not even on the list?!

I will take Rosewall's pick of the top four
1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer
and add
5) Sampras
6) Kramer
7) Budge
Vines
9) Rosewall
10) Sedgman
Beyond this, there are many big, strong players who lack speed and grace (no names are necessary).

[Limpinhitter]

Deleted for mootness!

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I will take Rosewall's pick of the top four
1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer
and add
5) Sampras
6) Kramer
7) Budge
Vines
9) Rosewall
10) Sedgman
Beyond this, there are many big, strong players who lack speed and grace (no names are necessary).

oh¡ yeah¡¡ Borg and Nastase lacked A LOT of speed and grace...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by kiki

oh¡ yeah¡¡ Borg and Nastase lacked A LOT of speed and grace...

Borg should probably be on the list somewhere.
Nastase was too inconsistent after 1972 in major tournaments, and never won at Wimbledon, the premiere event in the game.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Borg should probably be on the list somewhere.
Nastase was too inconsistent after 1972 in major tournaments, and never won at Wimbledon, the premiere event in the game.

Then , if you pick pre open era players ( although you mentioned Federer), Tilden and Perry should be there.Guys like Vines won considerably less, and Segura won nothing ( he is far overrated)

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by kiki

Then , if you pick pre open era players ( although you mentioned Federer), Tilden and Perry should be there.Guys like Vines won considerably less, and Segura won nothing ( he is far overrated)

I accept Kramer's judgment that Tilden cannot be rated because the competition was weak in the 1920's due to WWI.
Perry had an inadequate backhand, according to Kramer, which put him at a disadvantage against Vines and Budge. His great physical conditioning helped him enormously, and a great forehand.
Vines won less than he should have, turning pro very early, and passing up the chance of many more slam titles. In terms of talent, he should be on the list, as his difference in the Budge series appears to have been caused by an injury.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kiki

Then , if you pick pre open era players ( although you mentioned Federer), Tilden and Perry should be there.Guys like Vines won considerably less, and Segura won nothing ( he is far overrated)

I think Segura is very underrated because he turned pro over 20 years before the start of the open era. Segura won 3 US Pros on 3 different surfaces, and was runner-up in 8 other pro majors. Segura would have won more if Gonzales hadn't overtaken him. It's ironic that Segura would later coach Connors to win 3 US Opens on 3 different surfaces.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I think Segura is very underrated because he turned pro over 20 years before the start of the open era. Segura won 3 US Pros on 3 different surfaces, and was runner-up in 8 other pro majors. Segura would have won more if Gonzales hadn't overtaken him. It's ironic that Segura would later coach Connors to win 3 US Opens on 3 different surfaces.

Segura started very slowly, winning only one significant tournament as an amateur (the 1947 Queens Club).
After turning pro, he also failed to impress, losing a head to head professional tour to Dinny Pails, a player who never won a major.
Segura benefitted from playing Kramer in the 1950-51 tour, and he swept past a rusty Gonzales at Forest Hills in the 1951 US Pro.
He outlasted Sedgman in the 1953 Slazenger final.
He won in Melbourne against Gonzales and Sedgman in 1957, and swept the 1958 Masters in L.A. These were his two greatest victories.
The so-called US Pro in 1952 was not an official title, and was held in a minor venue.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Segura started very slowly, winning only one significant tournament as an amateur (the 1947 Queens Club).
After turning pro, he also failed to impress, losing a head to head professional tour to Dinny Pails, a player who never won a major.

Pails did win 1 major, the 1947 Australian Championships.

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The so-called US Pro in 1952 was not an official title, and was held in a minor venue.

Not this again. It is recognised as the 1952 US Pro title. Segura had a 5-set victory over Gonzales in the final, which included a fifth set bagel. It was Segura's third US Pro title in a row and all of them on different surfaces.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Pails did win 1 major, the 1947 Australian Championships.



Not this again. It is recognised as the 1952 US Pro title. Segura had a 5-set victory over Gonzales in the final, which included a fifth set bagel. It was Segura's third US Pro title in a row and all of them on different surfaces.

My apologies to Dinny Pails.
As to the US Pro, the point is precisely that it was not recognized as the US Pro by the officiating body, the USPLTA.
Further, no less a figure than Jack Kramer applied to the USPLTA to have Kramer's own Forest Hills Pro officially recognized as the US Pro, which application was approved by the approving body! Please, someone explain how such a thing could happen if there already was a recognized US Pro tournament and title? The answer is, obviously, it could not have happened.
Simple, but it is amazing how fake commercial slogans carry weight with the broader public.
This is like the Oklahoma City pro pitstop calling itself the World Professional Championships. Would anyone outside Oklahoma take this claim at face value? Would anyone outside Cleveland believe that Jack March's US Pro was really the US Pro?
This is the true spirit of American free enterprise.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Pails did win 1 major, the 1947 Australian Championships.



Not this again. It is recognised as the 1952 US Pro title. Segura had a 5-set victory over Gonzales in the final, which included a fifth set bagel. It was Segura's third US Pro title in a row and all of them on different surfaces.

Dan Lobb caught BS'ing, again! DON'T FEED THE TROLL.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Dan Lobb caught BS'ing, again! DON'T FEED THE TROLL.

Look, Limp, if everyone wants to accept the 1947 Australian as a major, that's okay with me. Pails didn't do much at the really big majors.
As far as the US Pro is concerned, the bs'ing belongs to the promoter of the Cleveland tournament. I don't have to accept a fake commercial title as the real thing.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Look, Limp, if everyone wants to accept the 1947 Australian as a major, that's okay with me. Pails didn't do much at the really big majors.
As far as the US Pro is concerned, the bs'ing belongs to the promoter of the Cleveland tournament. I don't have to accept a fake commercial title as the real thing.

The BS'ing I'm talking about is the numerous examples of your unsupported, and in some cases, inplausible, congecture in numerous threads. The fact is that WWI didn't make Tilden's era any weaker than WWII made Kramer's era. What does Jack say about that? Everyone knows that Jack Kramer thought that he was the greatest player who ever lived. Thoughtful consideration of his comments make that pretty obvious. Keep that in mind when considering the credibility of his historical recounts.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

The BS'ing I'm talking about is the numerous examples of your unsupported, and in some cases, inplausible, congecture in numerous threads. The fact is that WWI didn't make Tilden's era any weaker than WWII made Kramer's era. What does Jack say about that? Everyone knows that Jack Kramer thought that he was the greatest player who ever lived. Thoughtful consideration of his comments make that pretty obvious. Keep that in mind when considering the credibility of his historical recounts.

Kramer did indeed benefit from a field weakened by WWII, no doubt, although both he and Schroeder served bravely and under fire in that war. Joe Hunt was killed in training.
I think if you examine my posts, they include supporting evidence, including the 120 pounds of Bill Johnston (remember that one?).

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Kramer did indeed benefit from a field weakened by WWII, no doubt, although both he and Schroeder served bravely and under fire in that war. Joe Hunt was killed in training.
I think if you examine my posts, they include supporting evidence, including the 120 pounds of Bill Johnston (remember that one?).

Served? Served bravely? Served who? Served what? I think you got lost on your way to the American Legion website. That would explain your preposterous premises about Tilden and others who bravely didn't "serve."

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Served? Served bravely? Served who? Served what? I think you got lost on your way to the American Legion website. That would explain your preposterous premises about Tilden and others who bravely didn't "serve."

Guess what? There are many young men who are still "bravely serving" us today in very dangerous conditions.