GOAT Discussions

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

I would rank of those four only Laver and Rosewall higher. Kramer himself thought Gimeno was probably the third best player in the world for much of the 1960's. You could make an easy argument that old Pancho Gonzalez was up there also.

Of course, Laver and Kramer had a vested interest in boosting the pro game, so I do not consider their opinion to be objective.
Santana and Emerson showed much better results in majors. Don't forget that Gimeno turned pro at 23, old enough to have made a decent show at RG or Wimbledon. It didn't happen for him.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

You are not exact: You had written that Laver's peak began in 1961 not about an earlier improved Laver in open majors.

No, I suggested that in an open game, Laver learns earlier how to play the top pros.
This also applies to Hoad and Gonzales, who struggled in early going as pros.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Very generous to give Hoad three majors, considering his terrible record on grass against Gonzales. I mean, 14 wins and 10 losses against Gonzales. What a terrible record. We should take steps to ignore that. Very inconvenient.
You should remember that THREE of the four majors in our imaginery open tennis were on grass, not wood.
Kooyong was more significant than the phony US Pro in Cleveland Arena, by any normal standard.
Did you play against Rosewall's and Trabert's backhand a few hundred times, as Hoad did? I did not, but trust Hoad's experience.

You blame Eugene Scott for favouring his darlings. But what do you do? The same. To favour your GOD you always beittle the US Pro where Gonzalez dominated Hoad and all others and push the Kooyong event.

I did not play against Trabert and Rosewall but most experts have also not played and yet prefer Rosewall's backhand. Several opponents of Trabert and Rosewall have said that Rosewall's backhand was superior to all other players' with the possible exception of Budge's. I trust the majority of players and experts.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

You blame Eugene Scott for favouring his darlings. But what do you do? The same. To favour your GOD you always beittle the US Pro where Gonzalez dominated Hoad and all others and push the Kooyong event.

I did not play against Trabert and Rosewall but most experts have also not played and yet prefer Rosewall's backhand. Several opponents of Trabert and Rosewall have said that Rosewall's backhand was superior to all other players' with the possible exception of Budge's. I trust the majority of players and experts.

Unlike Eugene Scott, I do not construct IMAGINARY tournaments where my favourites stage dramatic comebacks to win. (Surprise!)
It is very easy to belittle the phony US Pro in Cleveland Arena. I did not include it in the list because we were discussing GRASS records, which would have been the surface of THREE out of four of our open majors. VERY RELEVANT. Kooyong was ON GRASS, and was the number one venue in Australia.
Trabert showed better on clay, where his relative lesser mobility (he played against rabbits like Gonzales, Hoad, Rosewall, Sedgman) was less important, and his great groundstrokes took over. He beat Rosewall at RG in 1959, but lost to Hoad at RG in 1958 and 1960.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

I would rank of those four only Laver and Rosewall higher. Kramer himself thought Gimeno was probably the third best player in the world for much of the 1960's. You could make an easy argument that old Pancho Gonzalez was up there also.

pc1, You are right that Gonzalez was awesome in the 1960s. He even was ranked at No.6 in 1969 (Bud Collins) at 41.

I rank Pancho No.3 for 1964, 1965 and No.4 for 1966 (behind Gimeno) and No.5 for 1967 thus meaning (IMO, NadalDramaQueen) that he was ahead of Emerson and Santana in the mid-1960s.

Dan often produces a rabbit out of the hat to "disprove" solid arguments and to "prove" his odd arguments. It's ridiculous to say that Kramer and Laver wanted to push the pro game in the mid-1960s even though Kramer was no longer the pros' promotor.

It was significant that Wimbledon seeded Gimeno third for the 1968 event (even though Gimeno lost to Ray Moore because of nervousness as the pros had to defend their high prestige).

Even though Andres was at his decline in 1968 he reached SFs of Bournemouth, French Open and Wembley, losing each time to Rosewall.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, You are right that Gonzalez was awesome in the 1960s. He even was ranked at No.6 in 1969 (Bud Collins) at 41.

I rank Pancho No.3 for 1964, 1965 and No.4 for 1966 (behind Gimeno) and No.5 for 1967 thus meaning (IMO, NadalDramaQueen) that he was ahead of Emerson and Santana in the mid-1960s.

Dan often produces a rabbit out of the hat to "disprove" solid arguments and to "prove" his odd arguments. It's ridiculous to say that Kramer and Laver wanted to push the pro game in the mid-1960s even though Kramer was not longer the pros' promotor.

It was significant that Wimbledon seeded Gimeno third for the 1968 event (even though Gimeno lost to Ray Moore because of nervousness as the pros had to defend their high prestige).

Even though Andres was at his decline in 1968 he reached SFs of Bournemouth, French Open and Wembley, losing each time to Rosewall.

He lost because of "nervousness"?
But surely, every pro, and every favourite would have this feeling. I should think that he would have extra confidence, and the amateur would feel "nervous".
By this time in his career, he should have learned how to handle nerves.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, You are right that Gonzalez was awesome in the 1960s. He even was ranked at No.6 in 1969 (Bud Collins) at 41.

I rank Pancho No.3 for 1964, 1965 and No.4 for 1966 (behind Gimeno) and No.5 for 1967 thus meaning (IMO, NadalDramaQueen) that he was ahead of Emerson and Santana in the mid-1960s.

Dan often produces a rabbit out of the hat to "disprove" solid arguments and to "prove" his odd arguments. It's ridiculous to say that Kramer and Laver wanted to push the pro game in the mid-1960s even though Kramer was no longer the pros' promotor.

It was significant that Wimbledon seeded Gimeno third for the 1968 event (even though Gimeno lost to Ray Moore because of nervousness as the pros had to defend their high prestige).

Even though Andres was at his decline in 1968 he reached SFs of Bournemouth, French Open and Wembley, losing each time to Rosewall.

What did Gimeno do at Italian Open, RG, Barcelona (where Santana won in 1970, against a field including Gimeno)?
And what happened in his early 20's at these places?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Of course, Laver and Kramer had a vested interest in boosting the pro game, so I do not consider their opinion to be objective.
Santana and Emerson showed much better results in majors. Don't forget that Gimeno turned pro at 23, old enough to have made a decent show at RG or Wimbledon. It didn't happen for him.

Actually I do believe Laver to be very fair and objective. And it's from his book with Bud Collins. Open Tennis was already around and there was no reason for him to write that unless he truly believed it.

With Jack Kramer I also believe him although he did want to promote the Pro Game the book was written in 1978 when there was no reason for him to write that. Gimeno wasn't exactly a big draw in 1978.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

However Borg stands in comparison with Nadal, I rank him among the five best players regarding peak level, the others being Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzalez (no order). Hoad was less consistent than the other ones but maybe the strongest for one match or a short series of matches....

Excellent choices however if you value average level of play over a number of years I may put Bill Tilden in that group.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Actually I do believe Laver to be very fair and objective. And it's from his book with Bud Collins. Open Tennis was already around and there was no reason for him to write that unless he truly believed it.

With Jack Kramer I also believe him although he did want to promote the Pro Game the book was written in 1978 when there was no reason for him to write that. Gimeno wasn't exactly a big draw in 1978.

Laver and Rosewall suffered greatly from failing to sign Emmo and Santana in the mid-sixties. So, of course, the mantra was that the pros were really much better, so come and see us, folks!
In reality, Laver had trouble on clay with Santana, and Hoad was amazed at Santana's grasscourt game in 1965.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Santana beat both Laver and Emmo to win at RG in 1961, Emmo won over Laver at AO and US finals in 1961.
Gimeno won RG in 1972 when his toughest match was against Metreveli. (Nastase lost in the first round.)
Yes, I think that Rosewall, Trabert, and Hoad all had the equipment to beat Borg and Nadal on clay. Hoad claimed that Trabert's backhand was better than Rosewall's.
True, Gonzales was rusty in the 1953 Wembley final, but Sedgman was rusty at the 1956 Wembley, and the 1957 Forest Hills Pro. Sedgman won on grass at Sydney in 1958, and in the Kooyong final in 1959, 6-4, 9-7, 6-4.
Hoad/Gonzales on grass? Again, we do not know all the surfaces, but we have
1957 Forest Hills--Gonzales wins over a raw rookie Hoad 9-7, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3
1958 Australia--Hoad wins Australian five-set tour 8 to 5 (key match at Kooyong 4-6, 9-7, 11-9, 18-16)
1958 Kooyong--Hoad wins decider 7-5, 5-7, 6-4
1958 Forest Hills--Hoad wins 13-15, 6-3, 6-4
1959 Kooyong--Gonzales wins semi-final 8-6, 6-2, 6-3
1959 Brisbane--Gonzales wins 3rd place--unknown
1959 Sydney--Gonzales wins semi-final--15-13, 6-4, 6-4
1959 Forest Hills--Hoad wins final--6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 6-1
1959 Perth--Hoad wins decider--7-9, 6-4, 12-10
1959 Adelaide--Hoad wins--6-4, 6-0
1959 Sydney--Gonzales win final--11-9, 6-1, 6-1
1967 Wimbledon--Hoad wins quarter-final--4-6, 11-9, 8-6

Add them up--14 to 10 for Hoad.
More importantly, 2 to 1 at Forest Hills, 1 to 0 at Wimbledon.
No, I do not assume that Gonzales is favoured on grass.

Dan, I count 7:5 not 14:10, following your list.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I count 7:5 not 14:10, following your list.

Did you include the series of best-of-five set matches in Australia in 1958, which was 8 to 5 for Hoad?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

He lost because of "nervousness"?
But surely, every pro, and every favourite would have this feeling. I should think that he would have extra confidence, and the amateur would feel "nervous".
By this time in his career, he should have learned how to handle nerves.

Dan, It's a fact that the pros at the dawn of open tennis were commonly regarded higher than the amateurs (of course not at ignorants) which they proved in winning nine out of the first eleven open majors where they participated. And it was common sense that the pros were in a more difficult mental situation than the amateurs in having to defend their high prestige. You should not ignore that. Even the great Rosewall had some difficulties to cope with the top amateurs before he overtook them.

You write that the pros were the favourites. Thanks. Quod erat demonstrandum...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

What did Gimeno do at Italian Open, RG, Barcelona (where Santana won in 1970, against a field including Gimeno)?
And what happened in his early 20's at these places?

Only an ignorant considers Gimeno's failures as an amateur when ranking him in his prime. True experts (yes, NDQ) do know that Gimeno improved immensely after 1960.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

Excellent choices however if you value average level of play over a number of years I may put Bill Tilden in that group.

...and maybe Budge who was Tilden's choice for 365 days playing.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Only an ignorant considers Gimeno's failures as an amateur when ranking him in his prime. True experts (yes, NDQ) do know that Gimeno improved immensely after 1960.

Gimeno's problems at majors continued AFTER he turned pro, and AFTER open tennis arrived.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Did you include the series of best-of-five set matches in Australia in 1958, which was 8 to 5 for Hoad?

It's still not 14:10 if we are exact.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

It's still not 14:10 if we are exact.

I do not follow your math. It is exactly 14 to 10.
The grasscourt matches in Australia were not a separate event, but were individual matches.
The question was, what was the hth record ON GRASS.
I think that you understand the importance and significance of establishing the hth on grass, the surface of three of four slam events.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Gimeno's problems at majors continued AFTER he turned pro, and AFTER open tennis arrived.

The only one which continues is your nasty ignorance, Dan.

Gimeno had never problems in pro and open majors. Are you dreaming?

Gimeno beat Rosewall three times in pro majors and once in open majors.

He reached final of the AO, SF of Wimbledon, won French Open (only Laver and Rosewall absent) and lost to Smith in the 1972 US Open in five sets. That even as an old man. Santana did nothing in the open era at majors!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I do not follow your math. It is exactly 14 to 10.
The grasscourt matches in Australia were not a separate event, but were individual matches.
The question was, what was the hth record ON GRASS.
I think that you understand the importance and significance of establishing the hth on grass, the surface of three of four slam events.

Following your own remarks I come to 15:10 not 14:10.