Who is the most important male player ever.

[urban]

I read that Kramer was 50-7 against Gonzalez after the first portion of their hth tour. When i read Your posts, i come to the thought, that maybe those top pros of the 50s were all weaklings, with obviously all mano a mano series decided by injuries.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by urban

I read that Kramer was 50-7 against Gonzalez after the first portion of their hth tour. When i read Your posts, i come to the thought, that maybe those top pros of the 50s were all weaklings, with obviously all mano a mano series decided by injuries.

I recall for sure that Gonzales was 8 matches to 4 on the California portion of the tour (reported in Time magazine), and that the lop-sided score was attributable to Gonzales' knee injury which eroded the strength of his ground strokes. (Gonzales mentioned this many times, and that Kramer refused to allow him time off to heal.)
Again, when Sedgman pulled his shoulder muscle in his serving arm, Kramer refused to allow him time off to heal.
Hoad was different. He suffered from two herniated discs in his back caused by doing pushups with fifty-pound weights on his back, and when he broke down in the 1958 tour, Kramer had no choice but to substitute Rosewall and Trabert for a portion of the tour while Hoad regained his ability to play.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I recall for sure that Gonzales was 8 matches to 4 on the California portion of the tour (reported in Time magazine), and that the lop-sided score was attributable to Gonzales' knee injury which eroded the strength of his ground strokes. (Gonzales mentioned this many times, and that Kramer refused to allow him time off to heal.)
Again, when Sedgman pulled his shoulder muscle in his serving arm, Kramer refused to allow him time off to heal.
Hoad was different. He suffered from two herniated discs in his back caused by doing pushups with fifty-pound weights on his back, and when he broke down in the 1958 tour, Kramer had no choice but to substitute Rosewall and Trabert for a portion of the tour while Hoad regained his ability to play.

Well, I think all of this just goes to prove that Kramer was "the most important male player ever" because he could order greats like Gonzales or Rosewall or Sedgman or Trabert to play while excusing other greats like Hoad from playing.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Well, I think all of this just goes to prove that Kramer was "the most important male player ever" because he could order greats like Gonzales or Rosewall or Sedgman or Trabert to play while excusing other greats like Hoad from playing.

Kramer was "the boss", but he was short-sighted about the potential role of television in popularizing the pro tennis tour.
Kramer retired as pro tour manager and director in 1961, and the following year his successor, Tony Trabert, allowed television cameras to come in.

[NonP]

I'm surprised that so many names are being bandied about when there should be only a small handful of legit candidates. IMO the answer is Jack Kramer, for good and for ill (BJK's beef with him for arguably impeding the growth of women's tennis is well known and will not be regurgitated here).

Now time for the truth serum.

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

You avoided my answer. There were no developed junior tennis circuits before WWI, so how could Gerald Patteson or anyone else become a name?
Answer please! Or admit defeat.

Since you're not a very bright boy and krosero is too civil to make his sentiment explicit I'll do the dirty work for your education.

The main point he was trying to make, and which obviously went over your head, is that you have no way of knowing what or, for that matter, whether big names were lost in the trenches of WWI. And if we're to accept your sophomoric characterization of Tilden's era for argument's sake, then it's highly unlikely that any potentially big names were lost at all, as there would've been a much smaller pool of talent than is the case today, and from a privileged background to boot.

You never gave any "answer." You simply responded that you didn't have a clue (which should be obvious to everyone by now), but added enough spin to make it look like you gave an answer and now had the upper hand. It doesn't.

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Kramer's point was that Tilden could not be ranked, because the field was weak.

This isn't even good spin. Actually, Kramer still ranked Tilden among the six best of all time, and while he did feel unable to rank Bill's French rivals he also said that they were among the very best. Have you even read Kramer's book all the way through?

But a nice job glossing over krosero's point about Tilden's longevity. At least you have some idea where to keep silent.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Kramer was "the boss", but he was short-sighted about the potential role of television in popularizing the pro tennis tour.
Kramer retired as pro tour manager and director in 1961, and the following year his successor, Tony Trabert, allowed television cameras to come in.

This, of course, has very little to do with the topic at hand. The question is about the most important player or figure in men's tennis, not the most beneficial, benign, helpful, etc.

As for this guy's point about mass media and TV, well, by that logic we might as well say that Hoad is some geriatric chump compared to Borg or Federer. And he just admitted that Trabert was the one who allowed the cameras in!!!

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

You avoided my answer. There were no developed junior tennis circuits before WWI, so how could Gerald Patteson or anyone else become a name?
Answer please! Or admit defeat.

A list of championship level tennis prospects whose careers were hampered by WWI, or admit defeat.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Limp, you are one valiant soldier who has already bitten the dust.

Another Non sequitur. You still haven't answered my question. Name any championship level tennis prospects whose careers were interrupted or hampered in any way as a result of WWI.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by NonP

I'm surprised that so many names are being bandied about when there should be only a small handful of legit candidates. IMO the answer is Jack Kramer, for good and for ill (BJK's beef with him for arguably impeding the growth of women's tennis is well known and will not be regurgitated here).

Now time for the truth serum.



Since you're not a very bright boy and krosero is too civil to make his sentiment explicit I'll do the dirty work for your education.

The main point he was trying to make, and which obviously went over your head, is that you have no way of knowing what or, for that matter, whether big names were lost in the trenches of WWI. And if we're to accept your sophomoric characterization of Tilden's era for argument's sake, then it's highly unlikely that any potentially big names were lost at all, as there would've been a much smaller pool of talent than is the case today, and from a privileged background to boot.

You never gave any "answer." You simply responded that you didn't have a clue (which should be obvious to everyone by now), but added enough spin to make it look like you gave an answer and now had the upper hand. It doesn't.



This isn't even good spin. Actually, Kramer still ranked Tilden among the six best of all time, and while he did feel unable to rank Bill's French rivals he also said that they were among the very best. Have you even read Kramer's book all the way through?

But a nice job glossing over krosero's point about Tilden's longevity. At least you have some idea where to keep silent.

For ill to whom? Not this board. There are very few posters here who support the WTA.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by pmerk34

For ill to whom? Not this board. There are very few posters here who support the WTA.

So this board is representative of the world now?

I do find the current WTA underwhelming, but that wasn't always the case.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by NonP

So this board is representative of the world now?

I do find the current WTA underwhelming, but that wasn't always the case.

Are people who supported Billi Jean Kings tour idea in 1973 representative of the world either?

[NonP]

Originally Posted by pmerk34

Are people who supported Billi Jean Kings tour idea in 1973 representative of the world either?

Uh, 1973 wasn't exactly a paradise year for the whole "world."

Anyway we digress. The question is not who did the most good for the men or women. We're talking about who left the most indelible mark on men's game in terms of influence.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by NonP

Uh, 1973 wasn't exactly a paradise year for the whole "world."

Anyway we digress. The question is not who did the most good for the men or women. We're talking about who left the most indelible mark on men's game in terms of influence.

The question is who is the most important male player. Important, and important to what, aren't defined. But, I think it's safe to presume that the OP meant important to tennis as a whole. I don't think any male player had as much impact on women's tennis as he has had on men's tennis, so, the women's tour probably should not be part of the argument. There's no doubt that BJK had the biggest impact on women's tennis, but, the OP specified "male" player.

PS: Yes, 1973 was the year of the first Arab oil embargo. I remember having to drive to rest stops on the turnpike to find gas.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

The question is who is the most important male player. Important, and important to what, aren't defined. But, I think it's safe to presume that the OP meant important to tennis as a whole. I don't think any male player had as much impact on women's tennis as he has had on men's tennis, so, the women's tour probably should not be part of the argument. There's no doubt that BJK had the biggest impact on women's tennis, but, the OP specified "male" player.

That's what I gathered, and Kramer is a (very) male player.

PS: Yes, 1973 was the year of the first Arab oil embargo. I remember having to drive to rest stops on the turnpike to find gas.

But you didn't have to pay $4 per gallon!!!!!!

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by NonP

That's what I gathered, and Kramer is a (very) male player.

But you didn't have to pay $4 per gallon!!!!!!

I think the price of gasoline jumped from about .35 cents to about .60 cents per gallon. Adjusted for inflation, that may be more than $4 per gallon.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I think the price of gasoline jumped from about .35 cents to about .60 cents per gallon. Adjusted for inflation, that may be more than $4 per gallon.

Just did a quick Google search and found out that the (adjusted) price was about $3 per gallon in '73.

At any rate we Yanks are a pretty pampered bunch compared to the Europeans, at least when it comes to gas.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by NonP

I'm surprised that so many names are being bandied about when there should be only a small handful of legit candidates. IMO the answer is Jack Kramer, for good and for ill (BJK's beef with him for arguably impeding the growth of women's tennis is well known and will not be regurgitated here).

Now time for the truth serum.



Since you're not a very bright boy and krosero is too civil to make his sentiment explicit I'll do the dirty work for your education.

The main point he was trying to make, and which obviously went over your head, is that you have no way of knowing what or, for that matter, whether big names were lost in the trenches of WWI. And if we're to accept your sophomoric characterization of Tilden's era for argument's sake, then it's highly unlikely that any potentially big names were lost at all, as there would've been a much smaller pool of talent than is the case today, and from a privileged background to boot.

You never gave any "answer." You simply responded that you didn't have a clue (which should be obvious to everyone by now), but added enough spin to make it look like you gave an answer and now had the upper hand. It doesn't.



This isn't even good spin. Actually, Kramer still ranked Tilden among the six best of all time, and while he did feel unable to rank Bill's French rivals he also said that they were among the very best. Have you even read Kramer's book all the way through?

But a nice job glossing over krosero's point about Tilden's longevity. At least you have some idea where to keep silent.

Apparently, you misunderstood Krosero's question. He asked me to identify young players who were on the edge of establishing big names for themselves just before WWI broke out.
The point I made, and which he chose not to respond to, is that you cannot identify them, as you could today, because at that time there was no junior circuit to develop players. The system of player development was vastly different then.
Therefore, Krosero was asking a non-question, such as "How many nuclear physicists were aborted before they were born?" or "How many bubbles are in a bar of soap?"
In case this still escapes you, a non-question is merely a waste of everyone's time!

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by NonP

This, of course, has very little to do with the topic at hand. The question is about the most important player or figure in men's tennis, not the most beneficial, benign, helpful, etc.

As for this guy's point about mass media and TV, well, by that logic we might as well say that Hoad is some geriatric chump compared to Borg or Federer. And he just admitted that Trabert was the one who allowed the cameras in!!!

The point is, without a big draw, the cameras don't want to come in, and you would not get a mass rating.
The first mass television viewing of an important match was the 1955 Hoad-Trabert Davis Cup match, which NBC chose to televise in color, and which drew over ten million homes!
This point is not difficult to understand.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Another Non sequitur. You still haven't answered my question. Name any championship level tennis prospects whose careers were interrupted or hampered in any way as a result of WWI.

Again, the point has escaped you.
The point is the names did not emerge as we would expect after WWI, with the exception of one lonely player, Gerald Patterson.
You usually get more than one player emerging.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Again, the point has escaped you.
The point is the names did not emerge as we would expect after WWI, with the exception of one lonely player, Gerald Patterson.
You usually get more than one player emerging.

The point hasn't escaped me. Rather, you are trying to escape from the corner you've painted yourself into. You have expressly asserted that Bill Tilden's era, the 20's, was a "weak era" because his putative competition was killed, or somehow adversely affected as a result of fighting in the "trenches" and being "gassed" during WWI. That is your premise which you repeated several times.

I have asked you on 3 (now 4), occasions, to identify anyone who was a championship level tennis prospect who was somehow adversely affected as a result of "bravely fighting" during WWI.

If you can't, then just admit defeat.