This is the real GOAT

[Cesc Fabregas]

Originally Posted by TMF

If you don't like the tennis channel top 100 list, then just disagee but don't insult them. These are experts/journalists/ex-players that supported the list, not from some unknown fans from the internet. Your own top 100 list would get scrutinize by the experts and they can criticize you too.

Also, the tennis channel is not the only source that don't have Court as the greatest female player, so don't act like this is the first time you ever heard.

Rolling Stone magazine said Pet Sounds is the greatest album ever therefore it must be.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Still as the Aussies use to say if you played you're not hurt, if you're hurt don't play. The result was still there and Perry won. That's all you can go by.

Nadal's been a great player over the years but he's often hurt and Federer is rarely hurt. That helps Federer in his performances over the years because of Nadal's decline in level of play because of injuries.

It is a good question about injuries.
If they affect the outcome of a match, they should be noted.
For example, Laver lost to Emerson in the 1961 Australian final in four sets, but afterwards Laver complained that he was suffering from a sore wrist which probably caused the loss. This is worth noting.
In the 1961 US final at Forest Hills, Laver again was beaten by Emerson, but this time he offered no excuses, other than that he was less prepared than Emerson, who had survived a tough semifinal against Osuna, the eventual 1963 champion. This challenge caused Emerson to lift the level of his game.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Perry was never the top pro. In 1941, he was lucky to win at Forest Hills over an injured Budge, recovering from a broken nose, and unable to take risks by diving around the court.
A cheesy win.

Perry was clearly the top pro in 1941, albeit with a limited number of matches.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Perry was clearly the top pro in 1941, albeit with a limited number of matches.

He beat Dick Skeen! Again and again! Wow!
Budge lost in the two big tournaments from a broken nose.
A weak champion, Mr. Perry, only on top through an injury to his only real opponent.
Perry himself lost through injury. In 1935 at Forest Hills he fell and ruptured his spleen, requiring surgery. This cost him the tournament win.
In 1942 he broke his arm and had a bad year.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

He beat Dick Skeen! Again and again! Wow!
Budge lost in the two big tournaments from a broken nose.
A weak champion, Mr. Perry, only on top through an injury to his only real opponent.
Perry himself lost through injury. In 1935 at Forest Hills he fell and ruptured his spleen, requiring surgery. This cost him the tournament win.
In 1942 he broke his arm and had a bad year.

Perry won tournaments in 1941. Budge was losing them. There you go.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Perry won tournaments in 1941. Budge was losing them. There you go.

The point is, you have to evaluate the quality of opposition when drawing conclusions about someone's success.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The point is, you have to evaluate the quality of opposition when drawing conclusions about someone's success.

I think Mustard is pointing out that everyone, including Budge played and Perry won. You can only play and win. If Budge loses before he met Perry, well that's Budge's tough luck. Injuries are a part of the game. No person is going to give Budge a replay because he was hurt.

A healthy and in shape Budge may very well have been better than Perry. I would tend to think so but he didn't prove it on the court that year in a limited schedule.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think Mustard is pointing out that everyone, including Budge played and Perry won. You can only play and win. If Budge loses before he met Perry, well that's Budge's tough luck. Injuries are a part of the game. No person is going to give Budge a replay because he was hurt.

A healthy and in shape Budge may very well have been better than Perry. I would tend to think so but he didn't prove it on the court that year in a limited schedule.

So, do we ignore Laver's wrist injury in the 1961 Aussie final, and say that Emerson was the number one guy for 1961?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

So, do we ignore Laver's wrist injury in the 1961 Aussie final, and say that Emerson was the number one guy for 1961?

Laver was hurt and he lost. We may know that Laver was hurt but Emmo won. People are not giving the Australian to Laver because of that. The results are in for Emerson. Yes we ignore it. Laver played and lost and I'm sure he would tell you the same thing.

Djokovic was hurting in the fifth set the other night against Murray. Do we give it to Novak?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Laver was hurt and he lost. We may know that Laver was hurt but Emmo won. People are not giving the Australian to Laver because of that. The results are in for Emerson. Yes we ignore it. Laver played and lost and I'm sure he would tell you the same thing.

Djokovic was hurting in the fifth set the other night against Murray. Do we give it to Novak?

No, but we take into account the injury, and if the results for the rest of the year when the players are both healthy point in the other direction, we DOWNPLAY the results when a player is injured.
You dodged my question. Does Emmo get the number one for 1961? Do we ignore the injury?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

So, do we ignore Laver's wrist injury in the 1961 Aussie final, and say that Emerson was the number one guy for 1961?

Emerson was the best amateur player in 1961 on my list, although not by much. We can say that Laver was injured in their Australian Championships final in Melbourne, but this doesn't change the fact that Laver lost the match and Emerson won the match.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

No, but we take into account the injury, and if the results for the rest of the year when the players are both healthy point in the other direction, we DOWNPLAY the results when a player is injured.
You dodged my question. Does Emmo get the number one for 1961? Do we ignore the injury?

Uh no, we don't downplay the results. Results are results.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Uh no, we don't downplay the results. Results are results.

The players themselves downplay the results from injuries.
For example, Gonzales claimed that the only player to beat him in a head to head tour was Hoad in 1959.
Did he forget about Kramer in 1949-50? No, but Gonzales won eight of the twelve matches he and Kramer played in California, and Gonzales' knee injury caused the lopsided final score on that tour. Gonzales had an edge on Kramer in tournament play, so he DOWNGRADED the 1949-50 tour.
I think most people write off Nadal's poor play when he is clearly injured.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The players themselves downplay the results from injuries.
For example, Gonzales claimed that the only player to beat him in a head to head tour was Hoad in 1959.
Did he forget about Kramer in 1949-50? No, but Gonzales won eight of the twelve matches he and Kramer played in California, and Gonzales' knee injury caused the lopsided final score on that tour. Gonzales had an edge on Kramer in tournament play, so he DOWNGRADED the 1949-50 tour.
I think most people write off Nadal's poor play when he is clearly injured.

To we have to go over this again? Gonzales was talking about when he the best player in the world, and he wasn't that at the time of his 1950 tour against Kramer, as Kramer was the best player in the world at that time. Also, that 1959 tour wasn't just with Gonzales and Hoad, but was a 4-man tour consisting of Gonzales, Hoad, Cooper and Anderson, and Gonzales won the tour.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

To we have to go over this again? Gonzales was talking about when he the best player in the world, and he wasn't that at the time of his 1950 tour against Kramer, as Kramer was the best player in the world at that time. Also, that 1959 tour wasn't just with Gonzales and Hoad, but was a 4-man tour consisting of Gonzales, Hoad, Cooper and Anderson, and Gonzales won the tour.

Gonzales and Hoad regarded it as a hth tour. So did Time magazine.
Gonzales made no qualifications, such as "during my reign as world champion", or anything like that.
He also said in the same interview, "Kramer wasn't too fast or too quick, but he had the knack of winning", not mentioning the 1949-50 tour.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

He beat Dick Skeen! Again and again! Wow!
Budge lost in the two big tournaments from a broken nose.
A weak champion, Mr. Perry, only on top through an injury to his only real opponent.
Perry himself lost through injury. In 1935 at Forest Hills he fell and ruptured his spleen, requiring surgery. This cost him the tournament win.
In 1942 he broke his arm and had a bad year.

It's very interesting: Budge needed his nose to win...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

No, but we take into account the injury, and if the results for the rest of the year when the players are both healthy point in the other direction, we DOWNPLAY the results when a player is injured.
You dodged my question. Does Emmo get the number one for 1961? Do we ignore the injury?

We ignore the injury in counting the result. The result is the thing. I wrote it in the other post. You just didn't see it. Check it out. You even quoted the post.

If a player is injury prone do we just count the results when he or she is healthy? Of course not.

In NFL football teams have injuries all the time. If the New England Patriots lose their all time great Quarterback Tom Brady to an injury and they lose because of it, the NFL counts it as a loss in the standings and that same philosophy should be taken in pro tennis.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

We ignore the injury in counting the result. The result is the thing. I wrote it in the other post. You just didn't see it. Check it out. You even quoted the post.

If a player is injury prone do we just count the results when he or she is healthy? Of course not.

In NFL football teams have injuries all the time. If the New England Patriots lose their all time great Quarterback Tom Brady to an injury and they lose because of it, the NFL counts it as a loss in the standings and that same philosophy should be taken in pro tennis.

The question I asked was, do we ignore the injury to LAVER and give EMERSON the number one rating for 1961? Because this is the implication of what you are saying, just as you would give Perry number one for 1941.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The question I asked was, do we ignore the injury to LAVER and give EMERSON the number one rating for 1961? Because this is the implication of what you are saying, just as you would give Perry number one for 1941.

I'm going to be as clear as I possibly can be. Emerson won the Australian over Laver in 1961. If Rod was injured well tough luck Emerson won it fair and square. You don't give Laver brownie points if he was hurt. So for the rankings Emerson's win over Laver at the Australian in 1961 should be taken into account. You don't count a possible Laver's injury as a factor for Emerson winning. You don't downgrade Emerson's win. Emerson's win in the Australian should be in Emerson's favor when the final rankings are considered.

As far as the final rankings are concerned well that's up to the people deciding at the time but the Aussie should be in favor of Emerson.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

So, do we ignore Laver's wrist injury in the 1961 Aussie final, and say that Emerson was the number one guy for 1961?

I think Emmo beat Laver in the U.S. Nationals that year too.