Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by treblings

great list. i know Emerson is often overrated, but i still miss him, as i do McEnroe
if you ask anybody outside this forum, who was the best german player before Becker, almost everybody will name Gottfried von Cramm.
i like that you mention Nüsslein and happen to agree with that choice

I agree that McEnroe is missing in that list. I guess pc1 has just overlooked him in the speed.

If you would include Emerson who was a very fine player you should also include Andres Gimeno who arguably was the stronger player of the two. Gimeno was top three for some years while Emerson was probably No.5 at his best (in 1964).

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I agree that McEnroe is missing in that list. I guess pc1 has just overlooked him in the speed.

If you would include Emerson who was a very fine player you should also include Andres Gimeno who arguably was the stronger player of the two. Gimeno was top three for some years while Emerson was probably No.5 at his best (in 1964).

Difficult to rate Gimeno or Bucholz. Hoad beat them both at Wembley in 1963 when he was past prime.
Gimeno won some pro clay events, but not a big one. Had he remained amateur for a little longer, it would have been easier to judge his abilities against Laver and Emmo in 1961 and 1962.
Emmo had some claim to number one amateur in 1961, beating Laver at the Aussie and US finals.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by treblings

great list. i know Emerson is often overrated, but i still miss him, as i do McEnroe
if you ask anybody outside this forum, who was the best german player before Becker, almost everybody will name Gottfried von Cramm.
i like that you mention Nüsslein and happen to agree with that choice

Yes, von Cramm is much more known than Nüsslein for the same reason why Emerson is much more known than Gimeno. The amateurs were always in the limelight while the pros were outcast players with little publicity.

I rank von Cramm at his best as No. 4 in 1936 while I have Nüsslein as No.2 in 1934 (tied with Perry) and 1936 (again tied with Perry). I concede that the latter rankings are a bit bold but Nüsslein was at least No.3 in several years.

The two Germans played only one official match won by von Cramm in four sets but Nüsslein's widow told me that Hans was ill by a cold in that match.

In practice matches Nüsslein mostly won.

Bill Tilden is a good measure for the two Germans: While he clearly defeated
von Cramm in 1934 (8000 spectators in Berlin), he mostly lost to Nüsslein that year and the following years.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I'm not sure how you justify putting McEnroe, Rosewall, Lendl, Emerson or Agassi above Pancho Gonzales, or Nadal above Sampras.

I agree that Gonzalez deserves a top ten place.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Difficult to rate Gimeno or Bucholz. Hoad beat them both at Wembley in 1963 when he was past prime.
Gimeno won some pro clay events, but not a big one. Had he remained amateur for a little longer, it would have been easier to judge his abilities against Laver and Emmo in 1961 and 1962.
Emmo had some claim to number one amateur in 1961, beating Laver at the Aussie and US finals.

Hoad also beat Gimeno at Wembley in 1966, when he was way past prime.
Doesn't say much for Gimeno's game.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

Everyone has their own opinion. Why does Pancho has to make the top 10 all the time? Some people include him, some don't. And if Nadal shouldn't be ahead of Sampras, then you can say Borg should be behind him too. but again...everyone has their own top 10 list.

Pancho has to make the top ten because he IS a top ten player (in my opinion even a top five player).

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Yes, von Cramm is much more known than Nüsslein for the same reason why Emerson is much more known than Gimeno. The amateurs were always in the limelight while the pros were outcast players with little publicity.

I rank von Cramm at his best as No. 4 in 1936 while I have Nüsslein as No.2 in 1934 (tied with Perry) and 1936 (again tied with Perry). I concede that the latter rankings are a bit bold but Nüsslein was at least No.3 in several years.

The two Germans played only one official match won by von Cramm in four sets but Nüsslein's widow told me that Hans was ill by a cold in that match.

In practice matches Nüsslein mostly won.

Bill Tilden is a good measure for the two Germans: While he clearly defeated
von Cramm in 1934 (8000 spectators in Berlin), he mostly lost to Nüsslein that year and the following years.

1934? Von Cramm was an amateur, my friend. Must have been an exhibition between coach and student (Tilden coached von Cramm). You cannot read anything into this, as von Cramm was respectful to a fault.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Pancho has to make the top ten because he IS a top ten player (in my opinion even a top five player).

Again, listen to The Little Master.
1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer
5) The Little Master himself?

Rosewall saw them all, and played everyone from Budge to Armritraj (beating Armritraj at US Open in 1974).

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I agree that McEnroe is missing in that list. I guess pc1 has just overlooked him in the speed.

If you would include Emerson who was a very fine player you should also include Andres Gimeno who arguably was the stronger player of the two. Gimeno was top three for some years while Emerson was probably No.5 at his best (in 1964).

Just overlooked John McEnroe. Lots of players and I shouldn't have overlooked him. I will correct it.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

Everyone has their own opinion. Why does Pancho has to make the top 10 all the time? Some people include him, some don't. And if Nadal shouldn't be ahead of Sampras, then you can say Borg should be behind him too. but again...everyone has their own top 10 list.

If people could understand how many years Gonzalez was number one. If people realize that he won a great amount of majors, classic and pro. If people realize he won over 130 tournaments in his career. If people realize that he won head to head tours over everyone but Jack Kramer which is incredible.

I've studied the records of the greats and while many write Laver is the greatest it is quite possible that Gonzalez accomplished more that Laver and anyone that ever live. If you write it's just opinion, well perhaps but the evidence is there if people research it.

A person may argue in basketball that Michael Jordan may be the greatest ever. One may argue that it's just opinion and it is but the evidence is out there to support it. The big difference is that the evidence is not so readily available with Pancho Gonzalez. Another big difference is that he played in a time with very little publicity about his exploits. Tennis was centered on the inferior amateur game and the classic majors which in retrospect was insane.

If anyone sees the record of Pancho Gonzalez there would be insane not to think of him as a potential GOAT.

You're the Federer fan, imagine if Federer was the top player in the world for many years but couldn't play in the classic majors and had no publicity. He would still be great but he wouldn't have the Wimbledon, US Championships, Australians and French titles to show for it. Would it make him any less of a player? I would still rank if as a GOAT candidate. Well this is what happened to Gonzalez.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

If people understand how many years Gonzalez was number one. If people realize that he won a great amount of majors, classic and pro. If people realize he won over 130 tournaments in his career. If people realize that he won head to head tours over everyone but Jack Kramer which is incredible.

I've studied the records of the greats and while many write Laver is the greatest it is quite possible that Gonzalez accomplished more that Laver and anyone that ever live. If you write it's just opinion, well perhaps but the evidence is there if people research it.

A person may argue in basketball that Michael Jordan may be the greatest ever. One may argue that it's just opinion and it is but the evidence is out there to support it. The big difference is that the evidence is not so readily available with Pancho Gonzalez. Another big difference is that he played in a time with very little publicity about his exploits. Tennis was centered on the inferior amateur game and the classic majors which in retrospect was insane.

If anyone sees the record of Pancho Gonzalez there would be insane not to think of him as a potential GOAT.

You have to blame the management strategy of the pro game, and the insistence on playing behind closed doors, a very short-sighted commercial approach, for the lack of visibility of the pros in the 1950's and 1960's.
The talent was concentrated in the pros, but Kramer refused to take a long view of the pro game, and get on television.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by treblings

it´s a riveting piece of music and it touched me deeply. thank you so much for bringing it to my attention.i make sure to search for a Friedrich Gulda version.

I'm glad, treblings, that I was able to cause deep feelings of yourself through that Beethoven sonata.

I have a box with all 32 B. sonatas played by Gulda who interprets that music in a marvellous way.

Gulda was also a jazz pianist and did know what jazz is. Therefore I originally thought that he adds a bit of "jazz touch" to Beethoven's music. But years later I listened to the (Alfred) Brendel (arguably the best classic pianist) version of opus 111 and again I heard pure and clean jazz in that 3rd variation of the second movement of 111.

Even though NonP refuses to concede it's jazz, those 2 or 3 minutes ARE jazz and a rather magnificent one to boot...

I would like to propose to all posters here to have a look to the link treblings has given ( 9 minutes of that Beethoven sonata played by old Claudio Arrau) to learn how modern and speedy classic music can be. You will be impressed by the last three minutes of that clip (the first few minutes bring slow and thoughtful music)...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Difficult to rate Gimeno or Bucholz. Hoad beat them both at Wembley in 1963 when he was past prime.
Gimeno won some pro clay events, but not a big one. Had he remained amateur for a little longer, it would have been easier to judge his abilities against Laver and Emmo in 1961 and 1962.
Emmo had some claim to number one amateur in 1961, beating Laver at the Aussie and US finals.

Dan, Gimeno won nine pro tournaments where he beat both Laver and Rosewall,
and he beat Laver in pro tournaments at least 24 times and Rosewall at least 26 times.

Gimeno did win two claycourt tournaments in 1966 (not pro majors I concede) when he won Barcelona and Oklahoma with wins against L&R.
These were the two main claycourt events of the pros in 1966.

And of course he won the 1972 French Open...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Hoad also beat Gimeno at Wembley in 1966, when he was way past prime.
Doesn't say much for Gimeno's game.

You are right, it does not say much about Gimeno's game since Hoad also almost beat Rosewall in the next round. In that form of Hoad I doubt if Emerson could have won against Hoad. Emmo once said to Lew:" Mate, I'm not in your class"...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

You are right, it does not say much about Gimeno's game since Hoad also almost beat Rosewall in the next round. In that form of Hoad I doubt if Emerson could have won against Hoad. Emmo once said to Lew:" Mate, I'm not in your class"...

I agree with that. This is why lists like the Tennis Channel list make no sense at all. Hoad was clearly the superior player to Emerson but I'd bet that Emerson was higher up on that list. That list is so superficial.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

You have to blame the management strategy of the pro game, and the insistence on playing behind closed doors, a very short-sighted commercial approach, for the lack of visibility of the pros in the 1950's and 1960's.
The talent was concentrated in the pros, but Kramer refused to take a long view of the pro game, and get on television.

Totally agree with you on every point.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

1934? Von Cramm was an amateur, my friend. Must have been an exhibition between coach and student (Tilden coached von Cramm). You cannot read anything into this, as von Cramm was respectful to a fault.

My friend, believe me it was an official pro/am match sanctioned by German Tennis Federation. In that time there were some such pro/am matches.

For instance Nüsslein beat Allison, then America's No. 1 player in five sets in a 1935 pro/am match organized by Avery Brundage, the later IOC president.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Again, listen to The Little Master.
1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer
5) The Little Master himself?

Rosewall saw them all, and played everyone from Budge to Armritraj (beating Armritraj at US Open in 1974).

Rosewall referred to the playing level, not to the career achievements.

Rosewall never played Budge in a singles match.

Please write Amritraj.

Muscles played against Crawford (born 190 and John Fitzgerald (born 1960) and beat both of them. Crawford was born in 1908.

[JDMtennis]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Up to this point...

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Laver
4. Borg
5. Nadal
6. Rosewall
7. Connors
8. McEnroe
9. Djokovic
10. Edberg

1. Navratolova
2.Graf
3.Serena
4.Seles
5.King
6.Everett
7.Court
8.Venus
9.Hennin
10.Hingis

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by JDMtennis

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Laver
4. Borg
5. Nadal
6. Rosewall
7. Connors
8. McEnroe
9. Djokovic
10. Edberg

1. Navratolova
2.Graf
3.Serena
4.Seles
5.King
6.Everett
7.Court
8.Venus
9.Hennin
10.Hingis

Seles and King above Evert and Court, ROTFL!!! Did you know Court and King played in the exact same era, are virtually the same age, and Court leads King 22 slams to 12 (in singles, dwarfes her in doubles too) and the head to head 22-10.