Doubles GOAT ?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Really everyone, relax. It is pretty obvious that when the media talks about these records they are referring to open era records. Surely everyone knows that by know and has come to accept that it is difficult to compare records set before and after the onset of the open era.

The more I read through these topics with TMF, the more I realize that this might be one clever guy. He makes a few posts and half the members are fuming mad and calling on the mods to delete their own threads!

Well if you're referring to me I wasn't mad but I really wanted to make that a good thread. When I saw it wasn't happening I figured it wasn't worth fyi.

I don't mind what TMF writes as long as there is a good give and take. Sometimes it's just a rehash of past posts. But if you want I will ignore his rehashes of certain things.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by pc1

Well if you're referring to me I wasn't mad but I really wanted to make that a good thread. When I saw it wasn't happening I figured it wasn't worth fyi.

I don't mind what TMF writes as long as there is a good give and take. Sometimes it's just a rehash of past posts. But if you want I will ignore his rehashes of certain things.

I'm just messing around, pc1. I do have my suspicions about TMF though.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by slowfox

I say Mac/Fleming. Mac maintained a high level in doubles and singles simultaneously. As far as I know the BBros just play dubs.

To me the biggest mark against Mac/Fleming is that when Mac was at his absolute peak they nearly got beaten by two players who were both long retired and both in their 40's - Newcombe/Stolle. That to me says huge amounts that they probably wouldn't be able to handle the likes of peak Newcombe/Roche.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

NadalDramaQueen,

Truth is much easier. You overrate TMF who underrates tennis history. He is just on the level of Tennis Channel. That's all.

Bobby, even if we disagree often I must take my hat off for this post
TMF problem is just that he belongs to a generation that is completely lost

[kiki]

Originally Posted by timnz

To me the biggest mark against Mac/Fleming is that when Mac was at his absolute peak they nearly got beaten by two players who were both long retired and both in their 40's - Newcombe/Stolle. That to me says huge amounts that they probably wouldn't be able to handle the likes of peak Newcombe/Roche.

Not in my book
The aussies have by far dominated doubs since 1940's or so and Newk and Stolly are two of rhe best ever, both could be top 5 and are at least top 10
In doubs you just cover half court so age is no factor
Newk and Fred had prepared the event months before and witj their doubles experience mo surprise they reach finals and beat such a team like Lutz and Smith in the semis
Hewitt and Mc Millan were almost 40 both when trashed young Mc and Fleming in the 78 Wimbledon final
Age means nothing and it is definutely a plus in a game so much based on instinct, strategy and court sense and positioning

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

I'm just messing around, pc1. I do have my suspicions about TMF though.

It's possible. Maybe it's one of those conspiracy theories that turns out to be true.

Here's a novel idea, maybe he's what he seems to be.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by timnz

To me the biggest mark against Mac/Fleming is that when Mac was at his absolute peak they nearly got beaten by two players who were both long retired and both in their 40's - Newcombe/Stolle. That to me says huge amounts that they probably wouldn't be able to handle the likes of peak Newcombe/Roche.

timnz, I agree. Newcombe and Stolle had not played together before of that tournament.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Bobby, even if we disagree often I must take my hat off for this post
TMF problem is just that he belongs to a generation that is completely lost

Thanks my old friend.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by pc1

It's possible. Maybe it's one of those conspiracy theories that turns out to be true.

Here's a novel idea, maybe he's what he seems to be.

Perhaps everything is as it appears, but the effect is still the same.

Originally Posted by kiki

Bobby, even if we disagree often I must take my hat off for this post
TMF problem is just that he belongs to a generation that is completely lost

I agree kiki. I find that the best way to deal with the know nothing generations is to sit out on my porch and mutter to myself as they pass by. Life is too long not to be bitter.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

NadalDramaQueen,

Truth is much easier. You overrate TMF who underrates tennis history. He is just on the level of Tennis Channel. That's all.

I said nothing about TMF's knowledge of tennis history. There are members who underrate the past, and then there are members who overrate the past. Neither group is correct. This particular forum needs TMF to balance the scales.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Perhaps everything is as it appears, but the effect is still the same.



I agree kiki. I find that the best way to deal with the know nothing generations is to sit out on my porch and mutter to myself as they pass by. Life is too long not to be bitter.



I said nothing about TMF's knowledge of tennis history. There are members who underrate the past, and then there are members who overrate the past. Neither group is correct. This particular forum needs TMF to balance the scales.

To be honest I think TMF knocks the past because it makes Federer look better. Federer is a part of the present.

It's funny, you make it almost sound like a Zen type of thing. TMF is there to balance the universe. lol.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Well look when the media says it like this why do you have to go after TMF?
http://espn.go.com/tennis/aus13/stor...-doubles-title

What do you mean?
The article you quoted says "Grand Slam history", which goes back to...1968?
Is that when the Grand Slam was invented?
No, 1933, when Vines went to Australia, but failed at the Australian, giving Crawford a chance at the first Grand Slam.
And the article compares the Bryans to Newcombe/Roche, who started their record in the amateur circuit before 1968. About five or six of their Grand Slam titles were BEFORE 1968.
They are not just looking at the Open era.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

Did you ever consider the remotest possibility that since players in the past were regular doubles players that there is a chance they could be better than the doubles specialists of today?

Frankly I like the Bryan Brothers but I'm truly curious why you're battling so hard for the present day player again in this case.

What do you think of John McEnroe as a doubles player?

The best single players can compete in doubles but you can't assumed that they would also dominate the doubles specialists. Bobby insinuating the Bryans isn't that great because there were no top single players play double. Do you think Nadal or Nole chose to play double they would be better than the Bryans thus winning more than 13 slams??? The Bryans played together since they were a child. For all those years they perfected their game. They had perfect feel/sense for one another on court. If you replace one of them with one of the top single player, the rhythm breaks, the chemistry is gone, and of course the bond is gone. In case you didn't know, not all players can be a good double partner. Double players have to search/replace the player which they believe it will work out. They just don't blindly pick random player from the pro tour. The Bryans are unique.

Also, not all top single players were great in double when Mac was playing, so you(and bobby) can't assumed anything in this era.

In regard my post to Dan, I was correcting him that the Bryans set a record for winning 13 grand slam double titles. He refuses to accept the fact.


I'm probably wasting my time with this post because I can understand you supports Bobby, kiki, Dan because you are from the same fanbase.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Really everyone, relax. It is pretty obvious that when the media talks about these records they are referring to open era records. Surely everyone knows that by know and has come to accept that it is difficult to compare records set before and after the onset of the open era.

The more I read through these topics with TMF, the more I realize that this might be one clever guy. He makes a few posts and half the members are fuming mad and calling on the mods to delete their own threads!

Again, the record here is NOT a post-Open record, but includes results BEFORE Open tennis.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Yes, "they" would, because "their" record book includes the old amateur majors, but not the pro majors.
That is, Laver supposedly won only four, not five, Wimbledons, although the field he beat in 1967 was superior to the 1961-62 fields.
Hoad was used in ads in the late fifties with a description of his winning the Forest Hills Pro event, not his Wimbledon accomplishments. There was no doubt in his mind that this was more significant than winning the amateur Wimbledon.
Sometimes realities transcend the official world.

modern slams > pro majors > amateur slams

Thy B Brothers holds the slam record, only posters from planet TT believe otherwise.

There's nothing more to argue.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TMF, Where is the logic left? You can't cut off the whole history.

Did I said I ignore the whole history?

I just told Dan that the Bryans set a record for winning the most grand slam double titles(13).

Please read....

Bryans win record 13th Slam title

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Again, the record here is NOT a post-Open record, but includes results BEFORE Open tennis.

I am currently writing up a strongly worded email to ESPN. They will rue the day!

Originally Posted by pc1

To be honest I think TMF knocks the past because it makes Federer look better. Federer is a part of the present.

It's funny, you make it almost sound like a Zen type of thing. TMF is there to balance the universe. lol.

Perhaps, but in the same sense many posters knock Federer because it makes the past look better.

I don't know about Zen, but there is always someone available to fulfill a necessary role. You create your own monsters.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Well look when the media says it like this why do you have to go after TMF?
http://espn.go.com/tennis/aus13/stor...-doubles-title

It's amazing. The minute I turned my back there's a pack of wolves attacking me.

I feel like Randy Moss getting hounded by the media for saying that he's "the greatest NFL receiver of all time".

[TMF]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Really everyone, relax. It is pretty obvious that when the media talks about these records they are referring to open era records. Surely everyone knows that by know and has come to accept that it is difficult to compare records set before and after the onset of the open era.

The more I read through these topics with TMF, the more I realize that this might be one clever guy. He makes a few posts and half the members are fuming mad and calling on the mods to delete their own threads!

I think this thread is safe from deletion because it belongs to robow7, who i don't believe is fumed.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by TMF

The best single players can compete in doubles but you can't assumed that they would also dominate the doubles specialists. Bobby insinuating the Bryans isn't that great because there were no top single players play double. Do you think Nadal or Nole chose to play double they would be better than the Bryans thus winning more than 13 slams??? The Bryans played together since they were a child. For all those years they perfected their game. They had perfect feel/sense for one another on court. If you replace one of them with one of the top single player, the rhythm breaks, the chemistry is gone, and of course the bond is gone. In case you didn't know, not all players can be a good double partner. Double players have to search/replace the player which they believe it will work out. They just don't blindly pick random player from the pro tour. The Bryans are unique.

Also, not all top single players were great in double when Mac was playing, so you(and bobby) can't assumed anything in this era.

In regard my post to Dan, I was correcting him that the Bryans set a record for winning 13 grand slam double titles. He refuses to accept the fact.


I'm probably wasting my time with this post because I can understand you supports Bobby, kiki, Dan because you are from the same fanbase.

Perhaps we should make a distinction between GRAND SLAM doubles titles and MAJOR doubles titles.
By majors, we should include the important professional championships in the era before 1968.
The only problem with this is that in many years the composition of the major pro tournaments changed, even after 1945. There were gaps when Wembley or the French Pro, for example, were not held, or when the US Pro was not accredited and had minor fields (1952-62). We get the illusion that pro tennis was an indoor sport.
In some years, major pro events were created outside the three indoor events referred to as the "pro slam", and overshadowed them, for example the Forest Hills events in the late 1950's.
For the sake of reality, it might be a good idea to restructure the "pro slam" on a year-by-year basis and select the three or four most important pro events.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by TMF

modern slams > pro majors > amateur slams

Thy B Brothers holds the slam record, only posters from planet TT believe otherwise.

There's nothing more to argue.

No, the Bryan brothers hold the modern slam/amateur slam record.