Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Iron Man

present players are not much superior to old players but don't portray ( past players) them as superhumans that if given modern racquets the'll do miracles .

the match between Roddick an Mcenroe was an exo for God's sake ; it's not taken seriously so we can't use it as a reference ..

and it's not that we didn't watch matches in the past eras to have illusion , I said that there are other factors apart from racquets that make the difference ..

( I have to go to bed now , it's too late )

good night pc1 , Bobby and everybody

I never claimed that Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Newcombe, Ashe &Co. were superhumans. I just contradicted that they played as though they were practicing. The older tours had all you need: blood, sweat and tears...

Have a good night too.

[TMF]

The modern equipment force the players to be more athletic, faster because the increase of the pace. Top players all have great movements, great court coverage, great defense. A player with average movement would suffer, but in the wooden era he should be less effected because the pace was slower, less pressure.

The Big SERVE too. It's a major weapon today, and a player must have one to be great. Huge groundstrokes, if you don't have one, your game suffer too. New equipment doesn't help the players to play the game, but it force them to be a better player. And players who are undersize are at a disadvantage.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Noone then saw any sign of injury or illness of Hoad. I tend to believe that on that day the strength of Rosewall and the windy conditions told the story.
At least Muscles referred to the blowing wind at Forest Hills and that he reacted better than Lew to the wind.

Rosewall was extremely strong in the second half of 1956 and clearly the best amateur.

I used to believe that story, too, but the information in this new biography is more convincing and well sourced by someone who knew the truth.
Rosewall was clearly the bestter player when Hoad was injured and couldn't bend his back.

[Aeropax]

1. Federer
2. Everyone else

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Aeropax

1. Federer
2. Everyone else

Ken Rosewall rates Federer at #4, behind #1 Hoad, #2 Gonzales #3 Laver. Fourth place is pretty good behind these giants, no reason to complain.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by pc1

I am trying to point out to you that the equipment often make you think the present players were FAR superior to the players of the past when it, imo isn't true. It's an illusion caused by the superior equipment. That's why I pointed out how McEnroe, over age 50 almost beat Andy Roddick two years ago in World Team Tennis in another post. John McEnroe in his prime lost to Tony Roche, past his prime. Not saying Roche was better than McEnroe but he would have been competitive if both were in their primes. It would be tough for both.

That's why I also point out how the women today can belt the ball like heck and look FAR better than the male players of the 1960's and 1970'a when you know the men would destroy them if they used the same equipment.

Yes, it is indeed an illusion. You only need watch the old-timers' recent exos between themselves and against today's players to see how much more pace they're generating on average than they ever did even at their absolute peaks.

The problem with these youngsters or relative neophytes is that most of them have a superficial or limited understanding of the game, so they simply can't see how its slower version or its practitioners from times past can compare with the superior pace and athleticism on display today, or how the stats alone don't tell us anything about the systematic changes that the sport has undergone over its long history. I mean, just earlier this year some people were seriously arguing that McEnroe (current version or not) wouldn't have it so easy against a modern 5.0 player. Given such a level of ignorance it's no wonder why they're so confident that even players from just 10 years ago would struggle against the superheroes of today, despite all the evidence and common sense to the contrary.

And speaking of which, it really shouldn't take a genius to realize just how silly all these "discussions" are, because even if what the youngsters say is true it doesn't mean the former players were clearly inferior.

The following comment from this YouTube page is typical:

is it just me or is Stefans forehand a lot better these days?!

And his serve is much faster too. Is this because of the new racket?

Now it's highly implausible that geriatric Edberg (or any other player, for that matter) is hitting his FH much better than he ever did in his salad days, but let's assume this is true for the sake of argument. But then it raises the question: if Edberg can somehow improve his FH so much in his 40s, what makes you think he wouldn't have done it had his prime coincided with today? And if today's training, equipment, nutrition or whatnot is so much better, as the familiar argument goes, what makes you think Edberg wouldn't have taken full advantage of it?

Again this is just common sense, not rocket science. But no matter how much you point out the absurdity of the typical era comparisons it usually falls on deaf ears, either because the youngsters aren't very open to any opposing opinions and frankly because some of them are plain dimwits. Either way unless you have time to waste it's best to see if they show any willingness to engage in a serious discussion. That also goes for the more knowledgeable posters, who can be even worse since they tend to be more clever and slyly disingenuous.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

I don't know why it's taken me months to realize it, but none of your sources indicate that the 13 straight matches all took place on that first tour. None of them contradict the official 8-0 score of that tour. Laver doesn't, in that '97 interview. Nor does Bodo: he writes that Laver lost his first 13 matches against Hoad, but he doesn't specify that these matches all took place on the tour.

And The Independent's interview with Laver in '93 actually refers to a time period after the tour:

'It was a shock to see their game unfold in front of me,' Laver remembers. 'I was playing Hoad and Rosewall on alternate nights, and I didn't really know much about their game. I'd played them as a kid, before they turned pro in '57. Hoad was probably the person I most looked up to and tried hardest to emulate. It seemed to me that they never missed a ball, they hit it a little harder, and they were more accurate. So you had to play your best tennis all the time.'

To start with, he didn't win much. It took him two or three months and more than a dozen matches to beat the glamorous Hoad, who had turned pro after beating Rosewall in the 1956 Wimbledon final. 'When he was in shape, Hoad was the most difficult. By the time I turned pro, he'd lost the desire to be a day-in, day-out competitor. He'd had a lot of injuries. But he said to himself that I'd won the grand slam, whereas in 1956 he'd won three grand slam tournaments - he'd lost the final of the fourth to Rosewall. To an extent, he was representing the pros. It wasn't exactly a vendetta, but it was a very concentrated effort on his part. And on Rosewall's, too.'

This means a few things.

- Bodo was not "bucking the official number" when he reported 13 straight.

- Laver, when he said that he lost 14 straight to Hoad after he turned pro, was not contradicting his book, which only mentions the January tour.

- You have not produced a source stating that Hoad beat Laver in 13 matches on that tour. One of your sources, The Independent, even implies that the streak took place over two or three months, which would obviously extend well beyond the tour.

However there's a problem with extending the streak beyond the tour. Laver beat Hoad on June 15 in Los Angeles. Hoad was reported to be returning at that time from four months with a shoulder injury. If he was out for four months, it means he got injured very shortly after the tour with Laver, which ended February 3. Laver, we know, went directly to the American tour, which fully occupied him well into April. So there's no opportunity for them to have met before Los Angeles, where Laver broke the streak.

Indeed AndrewTas has no record of a Laver/Hoad meeting between the January tour and the Los Angeles tournament.

I know of one source that claims a streak of 13 matches all taking place in the January tour. That was Cas Fish, writing in Tennis Today. I don't recall you presenting him as one of your sources (did you?), and no wonder, given how much in his article is wrong. He wrote that all the matches were best-of-five, and that Hoad won them all in straights.

Fish was David Hernandez's source:

Cas Fish describes the debacle in Tennis Today: "Contracted to play Hoad 13 best-of-five set matches, Laver won the first set of the first match, but was unable to win another. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to work out that this meant that Hoad won 39 con-secutive sets from Laver. . . . Hoad at that time had virtually retired from the game, was suffering with a chronically bad back, and had had only three weeks to practice before the match. . . . It rather makes nonsense of Laver's first grand slam."

Question for you, Dan. When did Fish write his article?

Cas Fish appears to be unreliable. However, he may have picked up the 13 number from someone who had a better knowledge, (possibly Buchholz?), and exaggerated the actual results. Buchholz came out with the 13 number in 2007, after Hoad's death. It appears that Hoad did not want the information put out, perhaps because the six extra matches were part of a private commercial deal between Laver and himself.
I have seen the Fish article only in the quote you give here.
As I suggest above, Hoad and Laver, close friends, may have made their own arrangements for a supplementary tour of six matches, almost concurrent with the PTPA tour, while the official tour organized by Trabert and the PTPA would have been 8 matches. It appears that Hoad and Laver made their own private deal for the February 1964 hth tour of Laver's home state, which Laver won 7 to 1.
Laver often pointed out that Gonzales had approached him in 1962 about joining him in a private tour of just the two of them. Laver preferred to deal with his close friends Hoad and Rosewall, and Trabert, also close to Hoad and Rosewall. Hoad was best man at Laver's wedding, and they had been close friends since 1956.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I agree but Rosewall did not meet Emerson at Wimbledon 1970. He did play Roche and Taylor in tough four set matches though.

Yes, I see that it was Newk who squeaked out a five-set (11-9 in the fifth) win against Emmo. I think that Rosewall squeaked out a five-setter against Emmo in the TCC shortly before Wimbledon in 1970.

[Talker]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Ken Rosewall rates Federer at #4, behind #1 Hoad, #2 Gonzales #3 Laver. Fourth place is pretty good behind these giants, no reason to complain.

When was this? The year will be good enough.

[Talker]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

A huge amount of tennis experts and fans have witnessed Rosewall's precision and can easily compare it to Federer's.

Many experts have said directly that Fed has the best game ever played also.

Do you agree with the experts?

Don't forget Laver himself said this ERA is much more difficult than when he played.

There are so many others saying the same thing about the present ERA.
If you accept what experts say then you have to agree.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Talker

When was this? The year will be good enough.

Rosewall was interviewed in 2010 by an Italian publication, and the website dropped off the internet a few months ago, unfortunately. I saved the reference in my computer, but it was cleared out when my wife and I moved to our new house.
It required translation from Italian, and gave the statement, "and the greatest player of all was my fellow [sic] Lew Hoad", which was presumably a mistranslation for "my friend Lew Hoad".

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I guess you meant Toto Brugnon, not Tito who was a Yugoslavian dictator...

Yes, indeed.

[Iron Man]

[quote=NonP;6853139]

Yes, it is indeed an illusion. You only need watch the old-timers' recent exos between themselves and against today's players to see how much more pace they're generating on average than they ever did even at their absolute peaks.

which old-timers played with today's players ? Who ? When ? Where?

Now it's highly implausible that geriatric Edberg (or any other player, for that matter) is hitting his FH much better than he ever did in his salad days, but let's assume this is true for the sake of argument. But then it raises the question: if Edberg can somehow improve his FH so much in his 40s, what makes you think he wouldn't have done it had his prime coincided with today? And if today's training, equipment, nutrition or whatnot is so much better, as the familiar argument goes, what makes you think Edberg wouldn't have taken full advantage of it?

Did Edberg use to play with a wood racquet ? and who said that he wouldn't be good player in this era ?

Playing with modern equipment improve your quality of play but it doesn't guarantee you can compete and win titles . How many players won majors in the last decade ? Only few ones and those few belong to the elite because even though all players have access to technology which make their strokes big they couldn't cope with them because simply they are better .

now we suppose that players in the past all play with modern equipments , and under the same conditions as today , who will be the best ? only a few people , the ones who are more talented and more athletic . and this is what is happening now , Federer and Nadal win many majors not because they are favoured and advantaged ( with the equipment ) but because they are better .
aren't players like Laver and Gonzalez favoured because of the lack of competition and the fact that Tennis back then was not a popular sport , how do we explain the huge number of American and Australian champions who won majors comparing to the present ?

As far as I am concerned I've never put down or belittled any past great player , in my GOAT list there are many old - timers in my top ten because I Know that a great player is great whether he plays with a racquet or with a pan

[Iron Man]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Rosewall was interviewed in 2010 by an Italian publication, and the website dropped off the internet a few months ago, unfortunately. I saved the reference in my computer, but it was cleared out when my wife and I moved to our new house.
It required translation from Italian, and gave the statement, "and the greatest player of all was my fellow [sic] Lew Hoad", which was presumably a mistranslation for "my friend Lew Hoad".

I looked for the interview and never found it ( even a hint about it )

the internet dropped off and website cleared out without any trace , a cool story indeed

IF you find it post it even in Italian because I understand it .

by the way , didn't Laver rank Rosewall at number 6 in his GOAT list What do u think of that ?

[Talker]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Rosewall was interviewed in 2010 by an Italian publication, and the website dropped off the internet a few months ago, unfortunately. I saved the reference in my computer, but it was cleared out when my wife and I moved to our new house.
It required translation from Italian, and gave the statement, "and the greatest player of all was my fellow [sic] Lew Hoad", which was presumably a mistranslation for "my friend Lew Hoad".

That was recent.

Some have posted players comments from pretty far back which wouldn't have much validity as Federer's career is still ongoing.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Talker

Many experts have said directly that Fed has the best game ever played also.

Do you agree with the experts?

Don't forget Laver himself said this ERA is much more difficult than when he played.

There are so many others saying the same thing about the present ERA.
If you accept what experts say then you have to agree.

Even if you are right that Federer is the GOAT (I rank him No. 6 or 7) it's common sense that Rosewall's precision was unparalleled.

[BobbyOne]

[quote=Iron Man;6853572]

Originally Posted by NonP

which old-timers played with today's players ? Who ? When ? Where?



Did Edberg use to play with a wood racquet ? and who said that he wouldn't be good player in this era ?

Playing with modern equipment improve your quality of play but it doesn't guarantee you can compete and win titles . How many players won majors in the last decade ? Only few ones and those few belong to the elite because even though all players have access to technology which make their strokes big they couldn't cope with them because simply they are better .

now we suppose that players in the past all play with modern equipments , and under the same conditions as today , who will be the best ? only a few people , the ones who are more talented and more athletic . and this is what is happening now , Federer and Nadal win many majors not because they are favoured and advantaged ( with the equipment ) but because they are better .
aren't players like Laver and Gonzalez favoured because of the lack of competition and the fact that Tennis back then was not a popular sport , how do we explain the huge number of American and Australian champions who won majors comparing to the present ?

As far as I am concerned I've never put down or belittled any past great player , in my GOAT list there are many old - timers in my top ten because I Know that a great player is great whether he plays with a racquet or with a pan

Iron Man, Laver and Gonzalez did not have the lack of competition. Even if I concede that there are now more good players around, I still claim that the top did not increase towards now. Gonzalez and Laver had many alltime greats as opponents, many more than the current players have. Other posters and I have listed them several times already so I don't bother to give such long lists again.

And as for your strange claim that the older players played as though they would training, I give you an example: The 1971 Wimbledon QF match Rosewall/Richey, by the way one of the best matches ever played at Wimbledon, was a spellbound thrilling match of five sets and 64 games. 36 years old Rosewall had lost the first two sets before he won three tough sets. After the match Cliff Richey said to Muscles:" Well done, IRON MAN!"...

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Talker

Many experts have said directly that Fed has the best game ever played also.

Do you agree with the experts?

Don't forget Laver himself said this ERA is much more difficult than when he played.

There are so many others saying the same thing about the present ERA.
If you accept what experts say then you have to agree.

There's no doubt in my mind that Federer is in a different tier of greatness than Rosewall, primarily for his forehand and serve. Having said that, Rosewall had a beautiful game and was definitely one of the top 3 all time cleanest ball strikers, and maybe THE most precision shot maker, in tennis history.

As for tennis experts, in my experience, their opinions are only slightly more defensible than the typical GPPF ****.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Cas Fish appears to be unreliable. However, he may have picked up the 13 number from someone who had a better knowledge, (possibly Buchholz?), and exaggerated the actual results. Buchholz came out with the 13 number in 2007, after Hoad's death. It appears that Hoad did not want the information put out, perhaps because the six extra matches were part of a private commercial deal between Laver and himself.
I have seen the Fish article only in the quote you give here.
As I suggest above, Hoad and Laver, close friends, may have made their own arrangements for a supplementary tour of six matches, almost concurrent with the PTPA tour, while the official tour organized by Trabert and the PTPA would have been 8 matches. It appears that Hoad and Laver made their own private deal for the February 1964 hth tour of Laver's home state, which Laver won 7 to 1.
Laver often pointed out that Gonzales had approached him in 1962 about joining him in a private tour of just the two of them. Laver preferred to deal with his close friends Hoad and Rosewall, and Trabert, also close to Hoad and Rosewall. Hoad was best man at Laver's wedding, and they had been close friends since 1956.

cool story, bro

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Plaa played in the roaring twenties and roaring thirties and Stoefen played only in the roaring thirties...

Plaa was world's pro champion in 1932 when he beat Tilden in the deciding match.

Where were Plaa and Stoefen from? Just curious.