GOAT Discussions

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, In the late 1959 the depth was also better in amateur tennis even though the pros were clerarly the best (but just a small group). But you use to say that the pros then were extremely strong which is the thruth. So, why do you belittle the 1960's pros? They had Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad, Gimeno, Buchholz, Anderson, Olmedo, Stolle, Ralston...

Yes, I think that the amateur ranks were severely depleted in the late 1950's, with the top 8 players all pro, plus other good players such as Rose, Hartwig, McGregor, Giammalva, these 4 also major winners (Hartwig a runnerup at Forest Hills in singles). The amateurs only had Olmedo (who signed to the pros in 1959), Fraser, and Pietrangeli in mature form. There was more height and depth at the pro level.
Not so in the mid-1960's. In addition to Emerson and Santana, who apparently made more money than the top pros, there was McKinley, Stolle (until 1967), Osuna, Ralston (until 1967), Newcombe, Roche, Ashe (a star from 1965 on), Fletcher, Krishnan, Bungert, etc., while the pros could only boast, in addition to Laver and Rosewall, players who had never won a major, (Bucholz, Gimeno) plus ageing Hoad, Gonzales (after 1964), and a disappointing Olmedo. More depth in the amateurs.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

Of course there was more depth in the Amateur field, there were more players. But the very best were still playing the pro tour. Unless you consider guys like Laver lesser players than Emerson, my point remains: that the guys most likely to beat Emerson in majors were not able to play.

If we translated it to today's game, and take out 7 or 8 of the top 10 players, but leave the remainder on tour, there'd still be significant depth due to the sheer number of good players outside the top 10, but the major slam contenders would no longer be around.

Which is my entire point.. Emerson didn't face the very best for a significant number of his major wins.

The reverse point could be made; that Laver didn't have to face Emerson, Santana, Stolle, McKinley, Osuna, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, etc for many of his pro major wins. I think that Emmo and Santana demonstrated in 1961 that they could challenge Laver in major events.

[Mustard]

Yet amateur tennis suffered a fall in popularity in the mid-1960s, and it made the British tennis authorities anxious about Wimbledon's reputation without the top professional players competing. A growing number of people within the LTA started supporting the concept of open tennis, and it was eventually voted for in late 1967. The other national associations all followed suit within months.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The reverse point could be made; that Laver didn't have to face Emerson, Santana, Stolle, McKinley, Osuna, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, etc for many of his pro major wins. I think that Emmo and Santana demonstrated in 1961 that they could challenge Laver in major events.

The amateur Laver was nowhere near as good as the professional Laver. Come on.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

If Federer played in the amateur tour (I'm talking about the pro-tour of the 60s. The Amateur tour of the 60s would be like schoolboys for Federer) of the 60s and 70s, he'd have 30 Grand Slams. And I'm being conservative.

Hmm, you know that 3 of the 4 Slams were played on grass back then. And back then nobody won on grass if they stayed back all the time. The Aussie champions back then were the greatest volleyers of all time (including today's players), so you're picturing Federer winning 30 Slams against those champions, on Wimbledon's old grass, and on the grass at the USO which bounced lower, and far more erratically, than Wimbledon's?

Your post is unclear, though. Amateur tour of the 60s and 70s? What do you mean by that? There was no amateur tour in the 70s.

But you say in parentheses that you're talking about the pros of the 60s. Yet you're talking about Federer winning 30 Slams. The pros of the 60s did not play in the Slams.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Yet amateur tennis suffered a fall in popularity in the mid-1960s, and it made the British tennis authorities anxious about Wimbledon's reputation without the top professional players competing. A growing number of people within the LTA started supporting the concept of open tennis, and it was eventually voted for in late 1967. The other national associations all followed suit within months.

The popularity of amateur tennis from 1961 to 1967 EXCEEDED the popularity of pro tennis, and it was only open tennis that rescued Laver and Rosewall from obscurity.
Furthermore, it was Laver's signing in 1962 that rescued pro tennis from total oblivion and collapse.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Hey BobbyOne,

Please go and watch some matches of Federer versus players who would come in to the net often. The Sampras match, matches with Henman along with many others. Federer often made them look like fools at the net with just his backhand pass.

The variety was incredible. Everything from flick backhand passes to inside out drives. The commentators would often just laugh because the net player had no shot whatsoever.

Fed controls the tempo of the rallies with his backhand and even now he is capable of going backhand to backhand against the very best. There is no doubt that he has trouble going backhand to forehand with Nadal, especially on clay, but almost any one hander is going to have issues with that.

His incredible backhand and shotmaking in general was the reason why I loved to watch him play before he started winning everything. His forehand has always been better, but there was nothing like watching a great approach shot to his backhand get flicked back for a winner. Beautiful stuff.

As an aside, I'll never understand how anyone can't appreciate Fed's game. I enjoyed watching Sampras and he was obviously great, but I never got that same feeling with him that I did with Federer. Fed was the guy who broke all the rules. He hit all the shots that your coach says are too risky, and he made it happen match after match. I don't think Federer is as much like that anymore, which is a shame, but you have to do what you have to do.

NadalDramaQueen, Thanks for your description of Federer's game. It seems very reasonable. On the other hand, Roger never faced one of the great Aussie volleyers who would have given him more trouble than Henman did.

It must have a reason why Federer has difficulties against Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and del Potro. I guess his defensive backhand has to do with it.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

The amateur Laver was nowhere near as good as the professional Laver. Come on.

The difference between pro and amateur tennis were OVERSTATED for obvious commercial reasons. It took only a short time for the top amateurs to adjust to the pro game.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

The players have much bigger game today. Rosewall never face a player with massive groundstroke(i.e. Del Potro). His back hand never got tested unlike Federer who played in an era that suits for a 2 handed backhand. Volleying in the 60s is fine but to try it today like they did against today's players, it's suicidal. Please watch some tennis!

Rosewall faced Jimmy Connors who had massive groundstrokes. I concede that Connors overwhelmed Rosewall mostly but Muscles beat him in 1972 and fared well in a 1974 WTT match and in the 1977 Sydney tournament.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

Hi PC1. Hope you sort out everything as soon as possible. You have a lot of reading to catch up when you get back.




Ok. I know you believe Laver, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales, etc are in the same top tier. However, Sampras < Federer, there's no more debate because Fed owns Sampras in almost every categories. It doesn't make sense to say Federer = Sampras = Laver = Borg = Gonzales etc. And while you included Borg in the top tier with the rest, you should include Nadal too because both players are virtually dead even. But this doesn't make sense either because Federer > Nadal. See my point?

Funny how old-timers criticize The Tennis Channel for their top 100 ranking list, but the way people rank players on this forum is way out of whack.

TMF, Not only old-timers criticize the Tennis Channel list but also every non-moronic person does. And even the worst poster here does rank the players better than Tennis Channel has done!!!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Then Kodes is second tier since he won the same number of majors as Vines...but IN TWO DIFFERENT SURFACES¡¡¡¡

kiki, old jester...

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The popularity of amateur tennis from 1961 to 1967 EXCEEDED the popularity of pro tennis, and it was only open tennis that rescued Laver and Rosewall from obscurity.
Furthermore, it was Laver's signing in 1962 that rescued pro tennis from total oblivion and collapse.

LOL. You love to exaggerate to a huge extent. Public interest in tennis had been a long sustained low by the mid-1960s, to the point where Bryan Cowgill (the BBC's tennis executive) went to Jack Kramer (then a BBC commentator alongside Dan Maskell), and talked with Kramer about Wimbledon hosting a tournament for professional tennis players for the first time ever. This tournament was eventually held in August 1967, won by Laver, and it was a big success. The LTA were getting very anxious about Wimbledon's reputation without players like Laver, Rosewall and Gimeno in their tournament, and the anxiousness just increased when Stolle and Ralston went to the pros in late 1966, followed by Newcombe and Roche turning pro in late 1967. There were rumours that Emerson was finally going to turn pro as well, which he did in early 1968. All this, combined with the LTA voting to allow professional players into LTA tournaments held in Britain (including Wimbledon), basically forced the hand of other national associations if they didn't want to be left behind. Then, we had the open era, starting in April 1968.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Yes, I think that the amateur ranks were severely depleted in the late 1950's, with the top 8 players all pro, plus other good players such as Rose, Hartwig, McGregor, Giammalva, these 4 also major winners (Hartwig a runnerup at Forest Hills in singles). The amateurs only had Olmedo (who signed to the pros in 1959), Fraser, and Pietrangeli in mature form. There was more height and depth at the pro level.
Not so in the mid-1960's. In addition to Emerson and Santana, who apparently made more money than the top pros, there was McKinley, Stolle (until 1967), Osuna, Ralston (until 1967), Newcombe, Roche, Ashe (a star from 1965 on), Fletcher, Krishnan, Bungert, etc., while the pros could only boast, in addition to Laver and Rosewall, players who had never won a major, (Bucholz, Gimeno) plus ageing Hoad, Gonzales (after 1964), and a disappointing Olmedo. More depth in the amateurs.

Dan, for the end-1950s you forgot amateurs like Davidson, Patty, Drobny, Ayala and others.

Ashe in 1965 was not really a star.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The reverse point could be made; that Laver didn't have to face Emerson, Santana, Stolle, McKinley, Osuna, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, etc for many of his pro major wins. I think that Emmo and Santana demonstrated in 1961 that they could challenge Laver in major events.

That was before Laver got in top gear.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The difference between pro and amateur tennis were OVERSTATED for obvious commercial reasons. It took only a short time for the top amateurs to adjust to the pro game.

Nonsense. Laver was the dominant amateur player of 1962, winning the Grand Slam. In early 1963 in the professional game, Laver was getting battered against Hoad and Rosewall, to the point where even Laver admitted that he would have to learn how to play tennis all over again if he was to compete with them. It was a big step up in playing level.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The difference between pro and amateur tennis were OVERSTATED for obvious commercial reasons. It took only a short time for the top amateurs to adjust to the pro game.

Dan, Why do you stay at some strange arguments even though several posters have disproved them?

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

NadalDramaQueen, Thanks for your description of Federer's game. It seems very reasonable. On the other hand, Roger never faced one of the great Aussie volleyers who would have given him more trouble than Henman did.

It must have a reason why Federer has difficulties against Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and del Potro. I guess his defensive backhand has to do with it.

Thanks, BobbyOne.

I don't think there is too much speculation involved when the people who have troubled you the most are five to six years younger than you. Obviously Nadal is possibly the best clay courter ever and has always troubled Fed.

All I wanted to say with my post is that it is more than just the records. Commentators, fans, and former players were impressed with Federer's play. He was pretty good.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Why do you stay at some strange arguments even though several posters have disproved them?

The old propaganda method:

Never tell a small lie. Tell a big lie, and keep repeating it, and people eventually come to believe that it's the truth.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The reverse point could be made; that Laver didn't have to face Emerson, Santana, Stolle, McKinley, Osuna, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, etc for many of his pro major wins. I think that Emmo and Santana demonstrated in 1961 that they could challenge Laver in major events.

Cmon now, before Laver won the first CYGS? That's like saying Hewitt showed that he was able to hang with Federer in 2002/2003... But we all know what happened after that.

Laver in 61 was not even close to the level he would reach even by the next year, and while there's no objective way to PROVE he got significantly better on the pro tour, he did initially start off the pro tour losing many matches to the other pros before sharpening and improving his game in order to begin winning on that level. By the time the Open era began, Laver was a significantly stronger player in every aspect.

Not to mention that Emerson is the older of the two, and had thus more time to refine his game. BUt yet, Laver won the CYGS in 62.. somewhat disproving your belief that Emerson and the others could hang with him, since they obviously DIDN'T in 62.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Rosewall faced Jimmy Connors who had massive groundstrokes. I concede that Connors overwhelmed Rosewall mostly but Muscles beat him in 1972 and fared well in a 1974 WTT match and in the 1973 Sydney tournament.

I think he also defeated another big hitter guy called Bjorn Borg ( not sure though)

Hoad,Gonzales,Newcombe,Ralston,Ashe,Smith were also exceptional athletes Rosewall had to beat...