Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Segura is the second best player of the 1950s behind Gonzales, in my opinion, as Kramer retired too early in the decade. Sedgman is neck and neck with Segura as Gonzales' main rival for the 1950s.

I agree. To be honest I think Segura would easily defeat Kodes. Segura at his peak was able to defeat Gonzalez in his prime at Pro Majors!

[NonP]

Originally Posted by Iron Man

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

Sampras has played a few exos against today's players, most notably Federer. Agassi was still going relatively strong right up to his retirement. Edberg recently played with Tsonga (if not with the brilliance he showed a year or two before). And even Mac managed not to embarrass himself against Roddick in WTT a few years ago.

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

I don't think so, at least not after his junior days. And surely you have seen posts here and elsewhere questioning Edberg's or other old-timers' potential 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 .

This is stating the obvious, but OK.

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 theare better .

Ditto.

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 ?

This topic has been beaten to death. My own view is that there is indeed more depth today, but the quality of competition at the top has changed very little.

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 geat player is great whether he plays with a racquet or with a pan

Good to know. I wasn't talking about you in particular but making a general comment.

[Vcore89]

1. Steffi Graf
2. Margaret Court
3. Chris Evert
4. Martina Navralitova
5. Monica Seles
6. Justine Henin
7. Suzanne Lenglen
8. Helen Wills Moody
9. Maureen Connolly
10. Billie Jean King

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Thanks, kiki: You brought me to laugh again: Your reduction of Nüsslein's status is really a funny joke. Even Charlie Chaplin (whom I admire) could not have make such a good joke!

And now you even begin to belittle the very underrated Pancho Segura. A journeyman could not have won three majors and could not have got a matchpoint against champion Rosewall at Wembley when being 41.

And believe me, Rosewall was really strong in 1962!

Did you enjoy the popular joke about Pockets?? I did not invented it, pros did...Edmondson beat Rosewall quite roundly IN A MAJOR....is he a better player than your beloved Segura?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Did you enjoy the popular joke about Pockets?? I did not invented it, pros did...Edmondson beat Rosewall quite roundly IN A MAJOR....is he a better player than your beloved Segura?

Rosewall was pretty old, I think over forty. BobbyOne's point was Segura was an extremely strong player into his forties.

You're the one who constantly mentions that the Old Pro Tour in the 1950's had the strongest possible competition in history and Segura was probably one of the top two or three players over that decade with three majors won. He won a lof of tournaments in the 1950's. You're contradicting yourself by downgrading Segura.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

You could have added the great Segura.

Originally Posted by kiki

he is overrated, a kind of more modern Nusslein.Talented, yes, but not in hte big men leagues.But lets not start again with that...

I adressed a repply to PC1, when I intended to adress myself to you...is about the popular joke of Pockets Rosewall, that was so hot on the old pro tour...

Kiki here are some tournaments that Pancho Segura won and some tours he won.

1. Segura defeated Kramer in the Paris Pro Indoors final in 1950 6-3 6-2 to win the tournament.
2. Segura defeated Kramer in the semi and Frank Kovacs in the final to win the US Pro Champs in 1950.
3. Segura went unbeaten in a round robin defeating Bobby Riggs, Frankie Parker, Van Horn and Pancho Gonzalez to win the 1951 US Pro Grasscourt Champs
4. Segura won the German International Round Robin by defeating Pancho Gonzalez, Earn, Riggs in 1951
5. Segura won the US Pro Claycourts by defeating Riggs in straight sets.
6. Segura won the US Pro Champs by defeating Pancho Gonzalez in five sets.
7. Segura won the Venezuelz Pro Round Robin by defeating McGregor, Frank Sedgman, and Jack Kramer going unbeaten.
8. Segura won the Slazenger Pro Champs by defeating Frank Sedgman in the final in five sets.
9. Segura won the Riccione Pro Champs by defeating Frank Sedgman
10. Segura won the Rimini Pro Champs by defeating Frank Sedgman
11. Segura won the Pacific Pro Champs by defeating Pancho Gonzalez in 1954
12. Segura won the Australian Pro Champs by defeating Gonzalez in the semi and Sedgman in the final.
13. Segura won the Alaska Indoor Champs by defeating Budge in the semi and Trabert in the final.
14 Segura won the San Remo Pro Champs by defeating Buchholz, Lew Hoad and Gimeno in 1961.
15 Segura won the Dutch Pro Champs by defeat Gimeno in 1961
16 Segura won the Scheveningen Pro Champs by defeating Olmedo, Hoad and Ayala.
17. Segura won the Cannes Pro Champs by defeating Ayala, Olmedo and Hoad in the final.

Segura also won a number of tours over Parker, McGregor and in 1961 over Olmedo, Cooper and Buchholz who were in their primes. In a tour which Gonzalez won with Segura and the great Frank Sedgman participating, according to McCauley Segura defeated Sedgman in their individual matchup by a fraction, winning one more match 23 to 22. Considering how great Sedgman was that is the mark of a great player. Very few in the history of tennis could have done that. Sedgman was at his peak.

Look at the names Segura defeated. If you really think he's journeyman then the names he defeating were average to below average.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Did you enjoy the popular joke about Pockets?? I did not invented it, pros did...Edmondson beat Rosewall quite roundly IN A MAJOR....is he a better player than your beloved Segura?

The more I'm reflecting about yourself the more I come to the conclusion that you are a Legend Troll.

I never read any hint about Pockets. I only read about Muscles. I'm reading about Rosewall since 40 years.

Rosewall was 41 when losing to Edmondson who was a tough grasscourt player. Edmondson also beat Newcombe in that AO.

[pc1]

Kiki,

Do you realize that Rod Laver called Segura's forehand the best he ever faced? Laver probably first faced Segura in 1963 when Segura was in his forties. Imagine how strong Segura's forehand was when he was younger! And of course Laver faced players with great forehands like Hoad, Newcombe, Okker, Gimeno, Nastase, Buchholz, Drobny among others.

Segura's forehand has been called by many the greatest forehand in the history of tennis, among them Jack Kramer and Ellsworth Vines. Actually to be more accurate Kramer and Vines called Segura's forehand to be the greatest single shot in the history of tennis. Pancho Gonzalez said that as great as Budge's backhand was, Segura's forehand was even stronger. That's a lot to start with but he had more than just an awesome forehand.

Segura actually has a lot in common with Roger Federer. Both have awesome forehands and are very mobile and nimble enough to hit their forehands a high percentage of the time. Segura had a fantastic volley, along the level of Ken Rosewall and Rod Laver. He had a better volley than Federer but not as good a serve. Segura had excellent touch, could lob extremly well. He was a terrific player.

The links to the video below is I believe from the Slazenger Pro Champs in England in 1949. Segura defeated Dan Maskell and lost to Jack Kramer in four sets in the semi. Kramer won the tournament in four sets over Don Budge. Perry lost to Danny Pails in the first round so I don't get why they had the headline in the first video that Perry's shines at Pro Wimbledon.

Anyway it shows a few seconds of the famous Segura forehand.

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/pe...nals-wimbledon

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/pr...t/query/segura

[pc1]

Originally Posted by 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.

Modern equipment allows the players to hit their strokes better. The racquets are bigger therefore the hitting areas are bigger so there are fewer mishits, the strings are better, the racquets are lighter so you can get better racquet speed. The players themselves train to get themselves into better shape. The equipment doesn't force them to get into better shape any more than a modern car forces you to be a better driver than cars of the 1960's.

Actually playing with a wood racquet forces you to learn different techniques instead of relying on groundstroke power to win all the rallies. You learn to volley better, lob, drop shot, change pace etc in order to win the point. It's hard to overpower people from the baseline with a tiny wooden racquet. It's heavier and more strain on the arm. You couldn't just flick your wrist and hit the ball back powerfully when you're in trouble like you can now unless you were Laver or Hoad.

Switching from a wood racquet to a modern racquet is easier than the other way around in my opinion. It's usually easier to switch from lesser equipment to better equipment to state the obvious.

Come on now, do you think they didn't have big serves in the 1960's and 1970's? John Newcombe, Arthur Ashe, Pancho Gonzalez, Barry MacKay, Stan Smith, Borg, McEnroe, Tanner, Dibley, Stolle, Fraser. Alexander, Hoad are just a few names. Laver was an excellent server and yes he was smaller than the average player but more powerful than the average touring player.

[pc1]

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.

Originally Posted by krosero

cool story, bro

Yes it is.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by pc1

Do you realize that Rod Laver called Segura's forehand the best he ever faced! Laver probably first faced Segura in 1963 when Segura was in his forties. Imagine how strong Segura's forehand was when he was younger

Just to confirm, Segura turned professional at the same time as Kramer and Pails, i.e. late 1947, so Segura definitely wouldn't have met Laver in a match until Laver had turned professional.

Whenever Jimmy Connors is asked about great players from the past, he talks about his old coach, Segura, and Gonzales.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

I am sorry, I meant BobbyOne, not you.I just had a lapsus, maybe your request about where I rank Kodes absorbed so much menthal energy....in any case, sorry again.

No problem Kiki. That happens.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Rosewall was pretty old, I think over forty. BobbyOne's point was Segura was an extremely strong player into his forties.

You're the one who constantly mentions that the Old Pro Tour in the 1950's had the strongest possible competition in history and Segura was probably one of the top two or three players over that decade with three majors won. He won a lof of tournaments in the 1950's. You're contradicting yourself by downgrading Segura.

The top 6 of the 50´s, which is, I stated it before, one of the toughest eras ever if not the toughest at the top are Kramer,Sedgman,Gonzales,Hoad,Rosewall and Trabert.Those guys won majors, and Cooper and Anderson won majors, too, as amateurs.Plus they continued to dominate as pros.Segura´s problem ( just as Nusslein) is that his record is poor and can´t compare to the others.However, I heard a bit about him being a very talented player.Nusslein,Segura,Mecir,Rios,Murray,Okker,Lut z,Pecci and Ramirez/ Gottfried and Franulovic/Pilic may have been the most talented guys to never win a major.But this fact just does not allow them to be in the big boys leagues,IMO.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

The more I'm reflecting about yourself the more I come to the conclusion that you are a Legend Troll.

I never read any hint about Pockets. I only read about Muscles. I'm reading about Rosewall since 40 years.

Rosewall was 41 when losing to Edmondson who was a tough grasscourt player. Edmondson also beat Newcombe in that AO.

Then you are a bad Rosewall supporter.Pockets was the common way to descirbe him in the elite group while Muscless was more of a journalists topic.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Then you are a bad Rosewall supporter.Pockets was the common way to descirbe him in the elite group while Muscless was more of a journalists topic.

Come on guys, you both are pretty good in discussions. Take it easy.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

The top 6 of the 50´s, which is, I stated it before, one of the toughest eras ever if not the toughest at the top are Kramer,Sedgman,Gonzales,Hoad,Rosewall and Trabert.Those guys won majors, and Cooper and Anderson won majors, too, as amateurs.Plus they continued to dominate as pros.Segura´s problem ( just as Nusslein) is that his record is poor and can´t compare to the others.However, I heard a bit about him being a very talented player.Nusslein,Segura,Mecir,Rios,Murray,Okker,Lut z,Pecci and Ramirez/ Gottfried and Franulovic/Pilic may have been the most talented guys to never win a major.But this fact just does not allow them to be in the big boys leagues,IMO.

How is Segura's record poor? Did you see my list of some of his tournament victories and the Pro Majors in post 186 here? He defeated Frank Sedgman head to head! It's a fantastic record.

Segura would have destroyed Cooper and Anderson in my opinion. You can't put players like Segura and Nusslein with guys like Bob Lutz.

[Mustard]

Really Kiki? First you have a go at Vines, then Nusslein and now Segura? All 3 of them are all-time greats of tennis.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

How is Segura's record poor? Did you see my list of some of his tournament victories and the Pro Majors in post 186 here? He defeated Frank Sedgman head to head! It's a fantastic record.

Segura would have destroyed Cooper and Anderson in my opinion. You can't put players like Segura and Nusslein with guys like Bob Lutz.

While I don´t want to underrate him, I wonder how many majors did he win at RG,Wimbleodn,US Championships (later US Open) and the Australian Championships ( later AO).Same for Nusslein.

And I know pros were banned...but Pancho Gonzales won Forest Hills twice in a row and also the DC if memory serves.

Another great champion who was IMO, the 7 th best player of the great 1950´s troop was Alex Olmedo, a Wimbledon and US Opne winner and the man that singlehandedly restored the DC to the US... he even dared beating laver in a slam title¡¡¡

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by pc1

Segura would have destroyed Cooper and Anderson in my opinion. You can't put players like Segura and Nusslein with guys like Bob Lutz.

On the 1960 world pro tour, Segura beat Olmedo more times than vice versa. This means that even a 38 year old Segura was too strong for the best amateur player of 1959.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Really Kiki? First you have a go at Vines, then Nusslein and now Segura? All 3 of them are all-time greats of tennis.

Its all a long line of delusions , all in kiki la la land :

kodes being on the same level as vines
kodes being on the same level as djoker
kodes being better than nusslein
federer is in the 3rd tier of all time greats .....

and it goes on and on ....