Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

so if I was to trust him....and his ranking of the best past players...Rosewall is only 6th with Perry, Budge, Kramer and even Hoad ahead of him?

It's interesting because in early 1963, a few months into Laver's professional career, he said something along the lines of "I thought Hoad was very good, but Rosewall is even better. I'm going to have to learn how to play tennis all over again if I'm going to match these guys."

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I'm not diminishing their importance. You can argue Rosewall as a co-number 1 for 1961, certainly, but if we're only going to name one player, then we have to say that Gonzales wasn't toppled, as he won yet another world pro tour and an 8th US Pro title.

I agree that Gonzalez was n't toppled and you could agree that also Rosewall was n't toppled. That would be fair.

At least facts are telling so...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

So hard to pick ten. I guess it would look something like this:

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Gonzales
5. Borg
6. Rosewall
7. Tilden
8. Nadal
9. Connors
10. Agassi

Interesting list: Your top seven are identic with mine but we differ totally in the order.

I will never realize that Federer could be ahead of Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez and Tilden. He mostly played in a weak era.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Bill Tilden was playing as an amateur as early as the first world war, and as a professional as late as 1952. He even played against Gonzales in one match. That's nearly 40 years of tennis activity. I think it's pretty unprecedented.

I agree. His highlights might be his wins against Budge as a grandpa and his almost beating Riggs in 1946 as a great-grandpa...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

so if I was to trust him....and his ranking of the best past players...Rosewall is only 6th with Perry, Budge, Kramer and even Hoad ahead of him?

I concede that Laver was wrong when ranking Rosewall only sixth (even though in his book he wrote that Muscles was his toughest opponent) but as told both Rosewall and Laver seem to refer to Hoad's absolute peak which probably was the all-time greatest.

[forzamilan90]

Bobby why do you rank Borg ahead of Federer and Sampras?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I agree that Gonzalez was n't toppled and you could agree that also Rosewall was n't toppled. That would be fair..

But Gonzales had been the top dog since 1954. He was way out in the lead as the best from 1954-1957 (1956 being his best year ever), despite strong challenges from Segura and Sedgman. In 1958, Sedgman did very well on the tournament scene (winning the Wembley Pro and also the Kooyong tournament), and Hoad gave Gonzales a big scare on the world pro tour, but Gonzales came back to win the world pro tour against Hoad and also won the US Pro and the Tournament of Champions.

In 1959, Hoad was right on Gonzales' back, winning more matches than he lost against Gonzales on the 1959 world pro tour, but it was a 4-man tour, and Gonzales was unbeaten against Cooper and Anderson, while Hoad lost some matches to them. Gonzales won the US Pro by thrashing Hoad in straight sets, but Hoad paid Gonzales back in the Tournament of Champions. However, Gonzales had not been toppled.

In 1960, Gonzales didn't play tournaments due to disputes with Kramer following the end of that 7 year contract that Kramer had gotten Gonzales to sign back in 1953, but Gonzales dominated the 4-man world pro tour, which included Rosewall.

And 1961 we've already mentioned. Gonzales then went into retirement for 18 months, came back for the 1963 US Pro at Forest Hills after negotiating a $5,000 fee for his participation. Gonzales lost his first match back to Alex Olmedo, in a terrible performance where Gonzales won just 1 game in the last 2 sets. The tournament was a financial disaster and none of the other players got paid a penny piece because the promotor couldn't meet the costs. Since Gonzales' initial retirement at the end of 1961, Rosewall had taken over as the world's best player, while Gonzales was 35 years old by the time of his 1963 return.

I believe that was the only match Gonzales played in 1963, before he returned for a full year's schedule in 1964. Gonzales was still a very good player, but his consistency had dropped off and some other players (Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno) had overtaken him.

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Interesting list: Your top seven are identic with mine but we differ totally in the order.

I will never realize that Federer could be ahead of Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez and Tilden. He mostly played in a weak era.

That's your opinion.

And who, exactly, were the titans of the game that Tilden vanquished? Bill Johnston? At some point, you just have to marvel at numbers of dominance and longevity. If Tilden had lost more often to Johnston, the latter would be a bigger name at the expense of Tilden's dominance.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Bobby why do you rank Borg ahead of Federer and Sampras?

Good question. I'm aware that it's bold to rank Borg ahead of Sampras and Federer and it's a tough case.

Borg had a rather short career but during it he achieved very much and played on a very high level. His percentages of played and won were awesome. His doubles FO and Wimbledon were great.

Thanks that you don't question my top four. I think they are in a class of their own.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Good question. I'm aware that it's bold to rank Borg ahead of Sampras and Federer and it's a tough case.

Borg had a rather short career but during it he achieved very much and played on a very high level. His percentages of played and won were awesome. His doubles FO and Wimbledon were great.

Thanks that you don't question my top four. I think they are in a class of own.

My top 10 are a bit different

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Mustard

But Gonzales had been the top dog since 1954. He was way out in the lead as the best from 1954-1957 (1956 being his best year ever), despite strong challenges from Segura and Sedgman. In 1958, Sedgman did very well on the tournament scene (winning the Wembley Pro and also the Kooyong tournament), and Hoad gave Gonzales a big scare on the world pro tour, but Gonzales came back to win the world pro tour against Hoad and also won the US Pro and the Tournament of Champions.

In 1959, Hoad was right on Gonzales' back, winning more matches than he lost against Gonzales on the 1959 world pro tour, but it was a 4-man tour, and Gonzales was unbeaten against Cooper and Anderson, while Hoad lost some matches to them. Gonzales won the US Pro by thrashing Hoad in straight sets, but Hoad paid Gonzales back in the Tournament of Champions. However, Gonzales had not been toppled.

In 1960, Gonzales didn't play tournaments due to disputes with Kramer following the end of that 7 year contract that Kramer had gotten Gonzales to sign back in 1953, but Gonzales dominated the 4-man world pro tour, which included Rosewall.

And 1961 we've already mentioned. Gonzales then went into retirement for 18 months, came back for the 1963 US Pro at Forest Hills after negotiating a $5,000 fee for his participation. Gonzales lost his first match back to Alex Olmedo, in a terrible performance where Gonzales won just 1 game in the last 2 sets. The tournament was a financial disaster and none of the other players got paid a penny piece because the promotor couldn't meet the costs. Since Gonzales' initial retirement at the end of 1961, Rosewall had taken over as the world's best player, while Gonzales was 35 years old by the time of his 1963 return.

I believe that was the only match Gonzales played in 1963, before he returned for a full year's schedule in 1964. Gonzales was still a very good player, but his consistency had dropped off and some other players (Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno) had overtaken him.

I agree with all you wrote. I just would say that Gonzalez was not overtaken by Gimeno in 1964 and 1965 (and I guess you know that I'm a great Gimeno admirer!).

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

so all that peak level of play and he is 4–2 in GS finals, and 1–7 in Pro finals..just cannot see what the fuss is about.

Dude, what is this all about?
http://capybarasthatlooklikerafaelnadal.tumblr.com/

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Dude, what is this all about?
http://capybarasthatlooklikerafaelnadal.tumblr.com/

haha a while back someone posted that, chose it as a sig

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I concede that Laver was wrong when ranking Rosewall only sixth (even though in his book he wrote that Muscles was his toughest opponent) but as told both Rosewall and Laver seem to refer to Hoad's absolute peak which probably was the all-time greatest.

Just because Laver found Rosewall to be his toughest opponent doesn't make Rosewall better than some of Laver's other opponents, or better than other greats of different times. It just means that Rosewall was a tough matchup for Laver. Even so, Laver had a wide H2H advantage over Rosewall.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

That's your opinion.

And who, exactly, were the titans of the game that Tilden vanquished? Bill Johnston? At some point, you just have to marvel at numbers of dominance and longevity. If Tilden had lost more often to Johnston, the latter would be a bigger name at the expense of Tilden's dominance.

You are right that Tilden did not have as strong competition as Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez had. But still he met Johnston (very strong) and Richards and Williams and Borotra (almost always a victim of Tilden) and Lacoste whom he beat at the beginning of their rivalry.

"GOAT" Federer had Hewitt, Philippoussis and Roddick who hardly can be called all-time greats, until Nadal arrived in his prime and defeated Federer quite often.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Even so, Laver had a wide H2H advantage over Rosewall.

I believe they met 143 times, with Laver winning 80 and Rosewall winning 63. At the end of 1963, Rosewall was leading the head-to-head 33-12.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

My top 10 are a bit different

But at least you seem to find my rankings of L,R,G,T is not a shame....

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

But at least you seem to find my rankings of L,R,G,T is not a shame....

Those are upper echelon legends no doubt, and I think Laver is the best of those 4 and has the best case for GOAT out of those four. Everybody sees things differently though, and for me when it comes to the top 10 rankings I think Federer is my choice for the number 1 spot. That opinion doesn't seem to be shared by some on this section of the forum but to each their own.

[tudwell]

1. Rod Laver
2. Bill Tilden
3. Roger Federer
4. Don Budge
5. Pancho Gonzales
6. H.L. Doherty
7. Pete Sampras
8. Ken Rosewall
9. Bjorn Borg
10. Jack Kramer

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I believe they met 143 times, with Laver winning 80 and Rosewall winning 63. At the end of 1963, Rosewall was leading the head-to-head 33-12.

.

You are right that Laver's hth was not as overwhelming as one could think. Old Man once wrote that the balance is 99:83. It's a pity that he did not give details and sources but I believe he is right.

It's true that Laver dominated Rosewall in most years but we should consider that Laver had the advantage of age: They mostly played each other when Rosewall was a senior (from 1965 onwards). Age difference is almost four years.

And especially we can argue that Rosewall has a positive balance in those events which mattered most: GS, Pro GS, Masters and WCT finals. Muscles leads 10:7 against the Rocket. I mention this pretty often because it is not reported elsewhere....