Does Kramer have a viable case as a GOAT contender?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I meant top ten overall.

Dan, Then I perhaps can agree.

[JoelDali]

Kramer in 5.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by JoelDali

Kramer in 5.

JoelDali, Do you really believe that Kramer is better than three out of my top 7: Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer. But which three players would you omit?

[JoelDali]

Kramer's pure GOAT juice blend eclipses the Rosewall 140 slice backhand.

Kramer in straight sets.

Laver's only last 2 months if you're a toe draggah. Go with the CB 2.3.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

And don't forget that in 1977 he won 13 tournaments including Wimbledon but couldn't play the French because he played World Team Tennis. I think the odds are that he would have won the French had he been able to play. How he beat Gerulaitis (an great match) and Connors in five sets at Wimbledon in 1977 in consecutive rounds boggles the mind!

I don´t think 1977 was such a great year for Borg, even with that memorable Centennary Wimbledon win, which any fan should still remember.It was such a fantastic event from the first to the last day...

But he was beaten by Connors at the Masters final and ahd a poor showing at Forest Hills.Not on line with 1978,1979 and 1980.Not even with 1981, when he won the FO and lost the Wimbly and Flushing finals.

[kiki]

Laver would have kept on beating Kramer on clay, so would Hoad.

But we know Gonzales is so biassed when talking about Laver...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Laver would have kept on beating Kramer on clay, so would Hoad.

But we know Gonzales is so biassed when talking about Laver...

I think Laver was a better clay court player than Kramer but I would guess that in the pros that Kramer would regularly beat Hoad, even though Hoad did win the French when he was an amateur. Kramer mentioned that on tour he beat Sedgman something like 17 out of 20 on clay. That's pretty good.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think Laver was a better clay court player than Kramer but I would guess that in the pros that Kramer would regularly beat Hoad, even though Hoad did win the French when he was an amateur. Kramer mentioned that on tour he beat Sedgman something like 17 out of 20 on clay. That's pretty good.

Hoad was a far better cc player than Sedgman.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Hoad was a far better cc player than Sedgman.

Perhaps but Sedgman was in the finals of the French and also in the finals of the French Pro. He was a very good clay player and to beat him 17 of 20 is very good.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think Laver was a better clay court player than Kramer but I would guess that in the pros that Kramer would regularly beat Hoad, even though Hoad did win the French when he was an amateur. Kramer mentioned that on tour he beat Sedgman something like 17 out of 20 on clay. That's pretty good.

Kramer DID regularly beat Hoad on the 1957 tour, but Kramer believed that Hoad was not giving his best against the older players.
Actually, would you want to beat up on your own boss, the guy who signs the cheques and offers the contracts? Not good business.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think Laver was a better clay court player than Kramer but I would guess that in the pros that Kramer would regularly beat Hoad, even though Hoad did win the French when he was an amateur. Kramer mentioned that on tour he beat Sedgman something like 17 out of 20 on clay. That's pretty good.

Which tour was that, in what year? I thought that clay was rare on the 1953 tour. Did Kramer play in Europe that year?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Which tour was that, in what year? I thought that clay was rare on the 1953 tour. Did Kramer play in Europe that year?

Kramer wrote that he and Sedgman played some matches down south on clay (in the United States) and Kramer won 17 of the next 19. And Kramer split with Sedgman from that point to win the tour. He also added Sedgman had a sore shoulder and the flu at that point. So I was slightly wrong. Kramer won 17 of 19 instead of 17 of 20. Not 100% certain all 19 matches were on clay but I thought he indicated they were. And yes it was on the long tour they played I believe in 1953.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Kramer DID regularly beat Hoad on the 1957 tour, but Kramer believed that Hoad was not giving his best against the older players.
Actually, would you want to beat up on your own boss, the guy who signs the cheques and offers the contracts? Not good business.

Well I don't think Hoad would lose to Kramer because Kramer was his boss but I do believe that Hoad didn't give his best against Kramer. Rosewall beat Kramer pretty badly on that tour. I don't think either Hoad or Rosewall worried about being paid or not if they beat Kramer. I do think Kramer was beyond that sort of stuff.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Kramer wrote that he and Sedgman played some matches down south on clay (in the United States) and Kramer won 17 of the next 19. And Kramer split with Sedgman from that point to win the tour. He also added Sedgman had a sore shoulder and the flu at that point. So I was slightly wrong. Kramer won 17 of 19 instead of 17 of 20. Not 100% certain all 19 matches were on clay but I thought he indicated they were. And yes it was on the long tour they played I believe in 1953.

I read somewhere that Sedgman won 12 of the 18 matches which opened the tour in Australia, and then pulled a shoulder muscle in his serving arm which caused the seious decline you noted above. This was enough to give Kramer the overall edge on the tour. Kramer claimed that he was "injured" too, although this was just his ongoing arthritis problem, similar to Laver's.

I don't think that this tells us much about their relative merits on clay.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

Well I don't think Hoad would lose to Kramer because Kramer was his boss but I do believe that Hoad didn't give his best against Kramer. Rosewall beat Kramer pretty badly on that tour. I don't think either Hoad or Rosewall worried about being paid or not if they beat Kramer. I do think Kramer was beyond that sort of stuff.

pc1, You are surely right that Hoad has not lost rather often to old Kramer because the latter was Lew's boss. That's just Dan's invention.

Sedgman was also strong on clay when he defeated Hoad in four sets (the last by 6-0) at Toronto in 1959.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Well I don't think Hoad would lose to Kramer because Kramer was his boss but I do believe that Hoad didn't give his best against Kramer. Rosewall beat Kramer pretty badly on that tour. I don't think either Hoad or Rosewall worried about being paid or not if they beat Kramer. I do think Kramer was beyond that sort of stuff.

I agree, but a young 22-year-old player might want to be cautious until he knew Kramer's personality well.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I read somewhere that Sedgman won 12 of the 18 matches which opened the tour in Australia, and then pulled a shoulder muscle in his serving arm which caused the seious decline you noted above. This was enough to give Kramer the overall edge on the tour. Kramer claimed that he was "injured" too, although this was just his ongoing arthritis problem, similar to Laver's.

I don't think that this tells us much about their relative merits on clay.

Perhaps but I think he was good on clay.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, You are surely right that Hoad has not lost rather often to old Kramer because the latter was Lew's boss. That's just Dan's invention.

Sedgman was also strong on clay when he defeated Hoad in four sets (the last by 6-0) at Toronto in 1959.

He also beat Hoad in the semi-final at Roland Garros that same year. Sedgman, like Gonzales, was good on clay, and was runnerup to Drobny at Roland Garros in 1952.
As I say above, I don't think that you can read too much into the 1953 series because it coincided with Sedgman's shoulder injury.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

He also beat Hoad in the semi-final at Roland Garros that same year. Sedgman, like Gonzales, was good on clay, and was runnerup to Drobny at Roland Garros in 1952.
As I say above, I don't think that you can read too much into the 1953 series because it coincided with Sedgman's shoulder injury.

Possibly but we also can take into account that Sedgman was playing an older Kramer. I don't know for sure but my best guess would be that Kramer in his prime was superior to Sedgman in his prime on clay.

Actually since we're discussing the old pros, one player who we don't discuss too much who was super on clay was Segura. He had a great game for clay.

[urban]

I find it especially sad for the clay surface, that open tennis arrived so late. I would have loved to see those pro mandarins like Kramer, Segura, Gonzalez and the others battle against the top clay amateurs of the day like Drobny, Asboth, Bergelin, Gardini, Patty, Merlo, later Pietrangeli, Santana, Lundquist, Darmon or Mulligan. Trabert and Rosewall did well on amateur and pro Frenchs, but what fine matches with a classic brand of tennis we did miss between Rosewall and Pietrangeli for instance.