1920 to 1973 "Open" Winners (part two)

AO; Fr.O.; Wimby; US O.

1950: Kramer, Segura, Kramer,Kramer
1951: Kramer, Segura, Kramer, Kramer
1952: Sedgman, Segura, Kramer, Gonzalez
1953: Gonzalez, Segura, Sedgman, Kramer
1954: Sedgman, Segura, Gonzalez, Gonzalez
1955: Gonzalez, Gonzalez, Gonzalez, Gonzalez G.S.
1956: Gonzalez, Trabert, Gonzalez, Gonzalez
1957: Segura, Gonzalez, Hoad, Gonzalez
1958: Sedgman, Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzalez
1959: Hoad, Trabert, Gonzalez, Hoad
1960: Gonzalez, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Rosewall
1961: Gonzalez, Rosewall, Rosewall, Gonzalez
1962: Rosewall, Rosewall, Rosewall, Gonzalez
1963: Rosewall, Laver, Rosewall, Rosewall
1964: Laver, Rosewall, Rosewall, Laver
1965: Laver, Rosewall, Laver, Rosewall
1966: Rosewall, Gimeno, Laver, Laver
1967: Laver, Laver, Laver, Laver G.S.

1968: Laver, Rosewall, Laver, Ashe
1969: Laver, Laver, Laver, Laver G.S.
1970: Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Rosewall
1971: Rosewall, Laver, Newcombe, Laver
1972: Rosewall, Rosewall, Smith, Nastase
1973: Newcombe, Nastase, Smith, Newcombe

I considered the early actual open era years because two of the very greatest players (Laver and Rosewall) would have dominated also that era.

As a short resume I count the players with most "open" GS tournaments as follows:

1) Tilden 27
2) Budge 22
2) Rosewall 22
4) Gonzalez 20
4) Laver 20
6) Kramer 17

I'm surprised myself that Pancho G. has "only" 20 GS titles.

Rosewall is the only of these top 6 without a Grand Slam.

BobbyOne said:

AO; Fr.O.; Wimby; US O.

1950: Kramer, Segura, Kramer,Kramer
1951: Kramer, Segura, Kramer, Kramer
1952: Sedgman, Segura, Kramer, Gonzalez
1953: Gonzalez, Segura, Sedgman, Kramer
1954: Sedgman, Segura, Gonzalez, Gonzalez
1955: Gonzalez, Gonzalez, Gonzalez, Gonzalez G.S.
1956: Gonzalez, Trabert, Gonzalez, Gonzalez
1957: Segura, Gonzalez, Hoad, Gonzalez
1958: Sedgman, Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzalez
1959: Hoad, Trabert, Gonzalez, Hoad
1960: Gonzalez, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Rosewall
1961: Gonzalez, Rosewall, Rosewall, Gonzalez
1962: Rosewall, Rosewall, Rosewall, Gonzalez
1963: Rosewall, Laver, Rosewall, Rosewall
1964: Laver, Rosewall, Rosewall, Laver
1965: Laver, Rosewall, Laver, Rosewall
1966: Rosewall, Gimeno, Laver, Laver
1967: Laver, Laver, Laver, Laver G.S.

1968: Laver, Rosewall, Laver, Ashe
1969: Laver, Laver, Laver, Laver G.S.
1970: Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Rosewall
1971: Rosewall, Laver, Newcombe, Laver
1972: Rosewall, Rosewall, Smith, Nastase
1973: Newcombe, Nastase, Smith, Newcombe

I considered the early actual open era years because two of the very greatest players (Laver and Rosewall) would have dominated also that era.

As a short resume I count the players with most "open" GS tournaments as follows:

1) Tilden 27
2) Budge 22
2) Rosewall 22
4) Gonzalez 20
4) Laver 20
6) Kramer 18

I'm surprised myself that Pancho G. has "only" 20 GS titles.

Rosewall is the only of these top 6 without a Grand Slam.

Click to expand...

Bobby, as I expected, you have given very few of these "open" titles to the amateurs....remember, "open" means that the amateurs would have time to acclimatize themselves to professional playing levels.

Segura gets 5 French in a row? I think that Patty, Drobny, Rosewall, Trabert , the actual winners in those years, would get in about the same level as Segura.

But you get the picture of what I am suggesting, the amateurs of the fifties and sixties would get into the swing faster than they actually did.

I think Rosewall has too many majors here and Gonzalez and Laver has too few. It's truly silly that Rosewall has more majors than Gonzalez or Laver in a totally Open field. And yes Segura doesn't get five French Opens in a row. From what I've seen Gonzalez was super dominant in the early 1950s, even more so than later.

You have to realize with Open Tennis players do get to play top competition earlier and as Dan wrote above would get better faster.

Do you take into account injuries? Is so does Budge win so many majors? Does Kramer get food poisoning and blisters?

Budge aged early, I doubt if he would have kept it up. Riggs in 1948 would not have split majors with Kramer.

Dan Lobb said:

Bobby, as I expected, you have given very few of these "open" titles to the amateurs....remember, "open" means that the amateurs would have time to acclimatize themselves to professional playing levels.

Segura gets 5 French in a row? I think that Patty, Drobny, Rosewall, Trabert , the actual winners in those years, would get in about the same level as Segura.

But you get the picture of what I am suggesting, the amateurs of the fifties and sixties would get into the swing faster than they actually did.

Click to expand...

Dan, Yes I see that I only have two amateur winners from 1948 onwards, i.e. Sedgman in 1952 (which is doubtful though) and Hoad in 1957 (also a bit doubtful).

Some experts would agree that the amateurs were just too weak to beat the best pros. Some amateurs ( who in reality always stayed amateurs) would never reach the very top, like Patty, and Drobny. The other ones could have improved earlier when turning pro, as you rightly say, but, as krosero recently wrote, the top players like Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver would all simply begin earlier with their prime and peak and the general result would be similary. Patty and Drobny were never on Segura's clay level. Pancho was the best claycourter of the 1950's and still a threat in 1962 winning several claycourt tournaments.

BobbyOne said:

Dan, Yes I see that I only have two amateur winners from 1948 onwards, i.e. Sedgman in 1952 (which is doubtful though) and Hoad in 1957 (also a bit doubtful).

Some experts would agree that the amateurs were just too weak to beat the best pros. Some amateurs ( who in reality always stayed amateurs) would never reach the very top, like Patty, and Drobny. The other ones could have improved earlier when turning pro, as you rightly say, but, as krosero recently wrote, the top players like Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver would all simply begin earlier with their prime and peak and the general result would be similary. Patty and Drobny were never on Segura's clay level. Pancho was the best claycourter of the 1950's and still a threat in 1962 winning several claycourt tournaments.

Click to expand...

I do not follow your logic...remember, in this hypothetical "open" world, everyone is a pro tennis player, so now you have to consider the best that young players such as Hoad, Trabert, Rosewall and others would have done in the early to mid fifties.
Segura won at Roland Garros? Never heard that.

BobbyOne said:

The other ones could have improved earlier when turning pro, as you rightly say, but, as krosero recently wrote, the top players like Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver would all simply begin earlier with their prime and peak and the general result would be similary.

Click to expand...

Exactly, yes. One thing you could do in a list like this is shift all the events a couple of years earlier, presuming that everyone peaks earlier. But that would make it more difficult to check against the historical record. The way you're doing it now makes it easiest to follow against the historical record. For example you've got Laver and Rosewall splitting majors in the mid 60s, which tracks well with the actual record: they split pro majors in those years; and they had a very even H2H balance in best of five matches in those years, Laver with a 12-10 edge in the 1963-67 period. In an open field perhaps all the events in their rivalry occur earlier, but shifting them back earlier would make it impractical to check against the historical results.

krosero said:

Exactly, yes. One thing you could do in a list like this is shift all the events a couple of years earlier, presuming that everyone peaks earlier. But that would make it more difficult to check against the historical record. The way you're doing it now makes it easiest to follow against the historical record. For example you've got Laver and Rosewall splitting majors in the mid 60s, which tracks well with the actual record: they split pro majors in those years; and they had a very even H2H balance in best of five matches in those years, Laver with a 12-10 edge in the 1963-67 period. In an open field perhaps all the events in their rivalry occur earlier, but shifting them back earlier would make it impractical to check against the historical results.

Click to expand...

That would not necessarily follow, Krosero, if a player such as Laver reaches maturity at, say, 1961, and then maintains his level of play until 1971...where is your point? He loses at least three years of peak play by not giving him wins in the 1961-63 period.

BobbyOne said:

Dan, Yes I see that I only have two amateur winners from 1948 onwards, i.e. Sedgman in 1952 (which is doubtful though) and Hoad in 1957 (also a bit doubtful).

Some experts would agree that the amateurs were just too weak to beat the best pros. Some amateurs ( who in reality always stayed amateurs) would never reach the very top, like Patty, and Drobny. The other ones could have improved earlier when turning pro, as you rightly say, but, as krosero recently wrote, the top players like Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver would all simply begin earlier with their prime and peak and the general result would be similary. Patty and Drobny were never on Segura's clay level. Pancho was the best claycourter of the 1950's and still a threat in 1962 winning several claycourt tournaments.

Click to expand...

Bobby, Segura always played his worst tennis at Roland Garros, some players have venues where they seem to have difficulty, and RG was a bad place for Segura, he never won a significant match there. It is a real stretch to have him win five straight RG titles in a field crowded with clay court giants.

Similarly, Gonzales always played poorly in his seven appearances at Wimbledon, a place where he was obviously uncomfortable. In general Gonzales played poorly in Europe after 1956, so it is a stretch to have him favoured to win Wimbledon in 1959 and 1960.

Having said that, I would rate Gonzales the favourite to win Wimbledon in 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955....BEFORE the maturity of Hoad.

I believe that Forest Hills was a bigger event in Gonzales' mind than Wimbledon, and conversely, Hoad made Wimbledon the number one goal in his annual priorities.

Actually the best clay court player of the late 1940s and early 1950s was Jack Kramer who defeated Segura and Gonzalez regularly.

I find this thread an exercise in futility. A lot of it doesn't make sense.

Here's some logic here. the starter of the thread has Rosewall winning six majors in 1962 and 1963 but that makes no sense since Laver would be a mature veteran and Gonzalez may have still be very good in 1962 since he probably wouldn't have retired.

I could see Laver winning an Open Grand Slam around the time he won the amateur Grand Slam in reality in 1962 in this scenario. Laver would be 23 and at his physical peak except now he would have great experience in top flight competition. After that I could see Laver as dominant in tennis. Gonzalez would be trouble for Laver but he may be getting too old to win regularly in the majors.

In an Open Era from the beginning Laver would have been playing the same competition as Rosewall and Gonzalez and raised his game to their level much faster. Rosewall would not be dominant in 1962 or 1963 over Laver because Laver probably would have played them numerous times already. So all of a suddenly Bobby has Rosewall dominating in 1962 and 1963 like the Pro/Amateur divide?? Laver took a little more than a year to become number one in the Old Pro Tour. So with many years of playing the highest competition he clearly would be at worst one of the top players if not the top. And on grass his game was superior to Rosewall.

Kramer in 1950 and 1951 was beating Segura (and everyone else) a high percentage of the time on clay so he should be the huge favorite to win the French so why is Segura named the winner of the French? Why is Rosewall named the winner of the French in 1970 when Laver won the Italian that year which was the second biggest clay title?

It's hard to imagine Budge winning a major in 1946 when Riggs was absolutely dominant on the Pro Tour that year. In fact if anyone else should win a majors on the Old Pro Tour it might be Kovacs. Riggs won 14 tournaments that year, Kovacs 7 and Budge with 3. I believe at that point Riggs could beat Budge a high percentage of the time if he wanted to. Kramer may still be the big favorite to win the grass majors.

And Rosewall again winning the French in 1972 at age 37!! Highly unlikely considering the stamina required to win the tournament. Best bet is probably Nastase, followed by Laver and maybe Orantes who won the Italian that year. Kodes would be there also.

Interesting how Gonzalez, one of the all time greats with the ideal game for grass which the majors were three-fourth grass and one red clay how he ends up behind Rosewall for amount of majors won!! And he played about as long as Rosewall too except he was FAR MORE DOMINANT.

Emerson probably would have won a few majors considering that he would have faced the best competition early.

Also interesting how Laver, also with the perfect game for grass and clay ends up behind Rosewall for majors when he won far more tournaments than Rosewall, won more big tournaments than Rosewall and is ahead in every percentage in majors and in regular tournaments.
Methinks l'écrivain aime Rosewall.
Beaucoup.

I can see Tilden winning the most majors. That makes sense.

Dan Lobb said:

That would not necessarily follow, Krosero, if a player such as Laver reaches maturity at, say, 1961, and then maintains his level of play until 1971...where is your point? He loses at least three years of peak play by not giving him wins in the 1961-63 period.

Click to expand...

Dan, if we presume that a player’s peak, under this hypothetical Open scenario, will begin earlier, I’m not sure that it won’t end earlier. I think this a great unknown here. In the first decades of Open tennis, players’ peaks started to skew very young; now players are lasting into their 30s again; and these swings in longevity have taken place for reasons that are not entirely clear. Is it due to technical advances (biology, fitness, nutrition, etc.)? Is it because players today don’t burn themselves out chasing out the big-money exos that were predominant in the 70s and 80s? Or perhaps another factor is involved?

Whatever the reasons, I think there’s a lot about longevity that we still don’t understand. For me it is not a given that Laver, for example, if he starts at an earlier age playing full seasons against top competition rather than against the weaker amateurs that he faced through ’62, will last just as long as he did historically, winning majors right through ’71.

I have the same doubts about Rosewall: if there was something about the Open environment that contributed to shortening players’ lifespans as top players, then Rosewall’s longevity would likewise be cut shorter.

krosero said:

Dan, if we presume that a player’s peak, under this hypothetical Open scenario, will begin earlier, I’m not sure that it won’t end earlier. I think this a great unknown here. In the first decades of Open tennis, players’ peaks started to skew very young; now players are lasting into their 30s again; and these swings in longevity have taken place for reasons that are not entirely clear. Is it due to technical advances (biology, fitness, nutrition, etc.)? Is it because players today don’t burn themselves out chasing out the big-money exos that were predominant in the 70s and 80s? Or perhaps another factor is involved?

Whatever the reasons, I think there’s a lot about longevity that we still don’t understand. For me it is not a given that Laver, for example, if he starts at an earlier age playing full seasons against top competition rather than against the weaker amateurs that he faced through ’62, will last just as long as he did historically, winning majors right through ’71.

I have the same doubts about Rosewall: if there was something about the Open environment that contributed to shortening players’ lifespans as top players, then Rosewall’s longevity would likewise be cut shorter.

Click to expand...

Do not suggest to Bobby that Rosewall's career would be shortened by an open tennis world....Bobby has no reduction in Rosewall's later productivity. In fact, he gives Rosewall some extra majors with the fields even tougher than they were in reality....go figure.

krosero said:

Dan, if we presume that a player’s peak, under this hypothetical Open scenario, will begin earlier, I’m not sure that it won’t end earlier. I think this a great unknown here. In the first decades of Open tennis, players’ peaks started to skew very young; now players are lasting into their 30s again; and these swings in longevity have taken place for reasons that are not entirely clear. Is it due to technical advances (biology, fitness, nutrition, etc.)? Is it because players today don’t burn themselves out chasing out the big-money exos that were predominant in the 70s and 80s? Or perhaps another factor is involved?

Whatever the reasons, I think there’s a lot about longevity that we still don’t understand. For me it is not a given that Laver, for example, if he starts at an earlier age playing full seasons against top competition rather than against the weaker amateurs that he faced through ’62, will last just as long as he did historically, winning majors right through ’71.

I have the same doubts about Rosewall: if there was something about the Open environment that contributed to shortening players’ lifespans as top players, then Rosewall’s longevity would likewise be cut shorter.

Click to expand...

It's possible but at the same time the players like Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver wouldn't not be abused as badly with so many matches in one year saving wear and tear on the body. Gonzalez used to play so many matches in a short period of time and then drive often on his own to the next town to play.

Dan Lobb said:

Do not suggest to Bobby that Rosewall's career would be shortened by an open tennis world....Bobby has no reduction in Rosewall's later productivity. In fact, he gives Rosewall some extra majors with the fields even tougher than they were in reality....go figure.

Click to expand...

The numbers for Rosewall don't make sense. We have to be reasonable here. Rosewall, including the easier amateur and Pro Majors won 23 of 69 so called majors entered. That's one third. In a tough Open Era with seven rounds per major with Laver, Gonzalez, Kramer, Segura, Hoad always around and later Newcombe, Emerson, Nastase, Ashe around I think it highly unlikely. I have seen some even higher numbers from Bobby.

Laver and Gonzalez have much superior percentage numbers in majors. So imagine if Gonzalez did play all those World Championship Tours and prepared himself for majors of which 75% were grass, do you think he might do well with his super serve and volley game?

What if the Rocket played Open Tennis earlier? He was clearly a quick learner and adapter in having turned pro in 1963, losing to Rosewall but as he wrote in his book, he took over as number one late in 1964 so that's less than two years! The growth would have been accelerated in an Open Environment. I think he would be fantastic.

pc1 said:

It's possible but at the same time the players like Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver wouldn't not be abused as badly with so many matches in one year saving wear and tear on the body. Gonzalez used to play so many matches in a short period of time and then drive often on his own to the next town to play.

Click to expand...

But on the old pro tour Gonzalez took off time that saved him physically and mentally. Sometimes he took sabbaticals, by his own choice. In the early 50s he was locked out of the top competition and the main H2H tour; I'm not sure exactly how much time off he had in those years but it's possible that those years were easier on his body than later ones.

Under Open tennis I presume he'd been playing like everybody else, mostly year-round.

pc1 said:

It's hard to imagine Budge winning a major in 1946 when Riggs was absolutely dominant on the Pro Tour that year. In fact if anyone else should win a majors on the Old Pro Tour it might be Kovacs. Riggs won 14 tournaments that year, Kovacs 7 and Budge with 3. I believe at that point Riggs could beat Budge a high percentage of the time if he wanted to. Kramer may still be the big favorite to win the grass majors.

Click to expand...

Budge finished ahead of Kovacs in the points standings for the 17 tournaments from June through November: Riggs 278, Budge 164, Kovacs 149. Earlier in the year, Kovacs had won 4 titles, while Budge was occupied with the H2H tour against Riggs, which accounts for the gap in the total titles between Kovacs (7) and Budge (3).

Riggs was undoubtedly the top player of the year and I’d be skeptical of Budge winning a major at that point, especially with his shoulder injury. But Bobby’s scenario does not have a war, and Budge got this particular injury in wartime service, so it throws a bit of uncertainty into the normal picture.

Even with Budge's shoulder injured, Riggs defeated him on the H2H tour by the scant margin of 24-22. They met in 8 tournament finals as well, this year, and Riggs' edge was only 5-3. Budge got two of those wins in a fifth set, not bad for a 31-year-old. By that time of the year he had worked himself back into shape (which he lost during the war years), and when in shape he was still obviously quite dangerous even to Riggs.

Dan Lobb said:

I do not follow your logic...remember, in this hypothetical "open" world, everyone is a pro tennis player, so now you have to consider the best that young players such as Hoad, Trabert, Rosewall and others would have done in the early to mid fifties.
Segura won at Roland Garros? Never heard that.

Click to expand...

Dan, Where did you read that Segura won at Roland Garros? Where?

krosero said:

Budge finished ahead of Kovacs in the points standings for the 17 tournaments from June through November: Riggs 278, Budge 164, Kovacs 149. Earlier in the year, Kovacs had won 4 titles, while Budge was occupied with the H2H tour against Riggs, which accounts for the gap in the total titles between Kovacs (7) and Budge (3).

Riggs was undoubtedly the top player of the year and I’d be skeptical of Budge winning a major at that point, especially with his shoulder injury. But Bobby’s scenario does not have a war, and Budge got this particular injury in wartime service, so it throws a bit of uncertainty into the normal picture.

Even with Budge's shoulder injured, Riggs defeated him on the H2H tour by the scant margin of 24-22. They met in 8 tournament finals as well, this year, and Riggs' edge was only 5-3. Budge got two of those wins in a fifth set, not bad for a 31-year-old. By that time of the year he had worked himself back into shape (which he lost during the war years), and when in shape he was still obviously quite dangerous even to Riggs.

Click to expand...

Good points. Although as you and I have discussed, I am skeptical of the "close" tour margin for Riggs and have a hunch Riggs could have really turned it on full throttle if he wanted to win in a major.

In a non-war scenario I think Budge and Riggs could have battled for number one. I'd probably favor Riggs.

krosero said:

Exactly, yes. One thing you could do in a list like this is shift all the events a couple of years earlier, presuming that everyone peaks earlier. But that would make it more difficult to check against the historical record. The way you're doing it now makes it easiest to follow against the historical record. For example you've got Laver and Rosewall splitting majors in the mid 60s, which tracks well with the actual record: they split pro majors in those years; and they had a very even H2H balance in best of five matches in those years, Laver with a 12-10 edge in the 1963-67 period. In an open field perhaps all the events in their rivalry occur earlier, but shifting them back earlier would make it impractical to check against the historical results.

Click to expand...

krosero, Yes, My list was made in order to show which players would probably have won in open GS tournaments. I used the most actual pro majors as reasonable basis to speculate about what could have been. My goal was to put away the official list of GS tournament winners before open era that paints a totally distorted picture of tennis history. Jack Kramer wrote in his book, "it would have been very different"...

Dan Lobb said:

That would not necessarily follow, Krosero, if a player such as Laver reaches maturity at, say, 1961, and then maintains his level of play until 1971...where is your point? He loses at least three years of peak play by not giving him wins in the 1961-63 period.

Click to expand...

Dan, If Laver would have started earlier, also Rosewall and other predecessors would have started earlier. So your Laver argument is not convincing.

We also should consider that Rosewall was an early bloomer (won two GS tournaments at 18) while Laver was a late bloomer (won his first GS tournament at 21).

EDIT: I doubt that Laver would have matured very early if his pro career had come earlier.

krosero said:

But on the old pro tour Gonzalez took off time that saved him physically and mentally. Sometimes he took sabbaticals, by his own choice. In the early 50s he was locked out of the top competition and the main H2H tour; I'm not sure exactly how much time off he had in those years but it's possible that those years were easier on his body than later ones.

Under Open tennis I presume he'd been playing like everybody else, mostly year-round.

Click to expand...

True enough but the tours were still more matches than most players would play in a year. He played 123 matches against Kramer, probably over 120 against Sedgman, Segura and Budge on another tour, 101 against Trabert, 76 against Rosewall, 87 against Hoad, 62 against Hoad, Cooper and Anderson and in 1960 he played 75 matches on the World Championship tour. You combine that with the tournaments he played, the one night stands and that's a lot of matches played.

pc1 said:

The numbers for Rosewall don't make sense. We have to be reasonable here. Rosewall, including the easier amateur and Pro Majors won 23 of 69 so called majors entered. That's one third. In a tough Open Era with seven rounds per major with Laver, Gonzalez, Kramer, Segura, Hoad always around and later Newcombe, Emerson, Nastase, Ashe around I think it highly unlikely. I have seen some even higher numbers from Bobby.

Laver and Gonzalez have much superior percentage numbers in majors. So imagine if Gonzalez did play all those World Championship Tours and prepared himself for majors of which 75% were grass, do you think he might do well with his super serve and volley game?

Click to expand...

Yes Rosewall won 23 of 69 majors, which is 33%. Gonzalez won 17 of 48, or 35%. Laver won 19 of 55, or 35%. That's barely any difference among them -- and I think using career totals is problematic to say the least, when they're not broken down.

In a past thread you posted these numbers, for career:

Big Tournaments Won
Rosewall-23
Laver-20

Percentage of Big Tournaments won-career
Laver-.357
Rosewall-.333


And you posted these for peak five-year periods:

Big Tournament won-Best five years
Laver-11
Rosewall-10

Percentage of Big Tournaments Won over Best Five Years
Rosewall-.833
Laver-.688

And you wrote:


There is no reason to think that Rosewall would be out-classed in chasing GS titles; and in fact that is where he was strongest, in the big titles, per your own numbers.

krosero said:

Yes Rosewall won 23 of 69 majors, which is 33%. Gonzalez won 17 of 48, or 35%. Laver won 19 of 55, or 35%. That's barely any difference among them -- and I think using career totals is problematic to say the least, when they're not broken down.

In a past thread you posted these numbers, for career:

Big Tournaments Won
Rosewall-23
Laver-20

Percentage of Big Tournaments won-career
Laver-.357
Rosewall-.333


And you posted these for peak five-year periods:

Big Tournament won-Best five years
Laver-11
Rosewall-10

Percentage of Big Tournaments Won over Best Five Years
Rosewall-.833
Laver-.688

And you wrote:

What is interesting is that Rosewall's .333 winning percentage in majors is higher than his normal .253 winning percentage [in all career tournaments] while Laver's .357 winning percentage in majors is lower than his .376 winning percentage in normal tournaments. This could mean Rosewall raised his game in majors better than Laver.​

There is no reason to think that Rosewall would be out-classed in chasing GS titles; and in fact that is where he was strongest, in the big titles, per your own numbers.

Click to expand...

No doubt. Even with that Laver's percentages were better. However it's all a matter of how many chances the players have and the quality of the tournaments won. Would Rosewall have won the majors at the rate he did in the 1960s in an Open Tennis environment? I do wonder if Rosewall raised his game that much in the early 1960s or was it because he didn't have great competition.

For the record many do believe Rosewall raised the level of his game in big matches. I believe during the commentary of the 1972 WCT final with the late great Bud Collins and Jim Simpson that it was mentioned how Rosewall raised his concentration to a point in which he seemed to hypnotize himself. I have no proof of that but I do think he did. There are some players like that. I think examples would be Gonzalez who had the reputation of raising his game in big matches.

I do wonder what is the equivalent of Pro Majors nowadays. When Laver wins the 1971 Tennis Championship Classic, the 1970 Dunlop, 1971 Italian, the South African Open, some of the Master Tournaments in the Old Pro Tour among many others is that equivalent or superior to Pro Majors? I think perhaps we should count them as big tournaments.

Dan Lobb said:

Bobby, Segura always played his worst tennis at Roland Garros, some players have venues where they seem to have difficulty, and RG was a bad place for Segura, he never won a significant match there. It is a real stretch to have him win five straight RG titles in a field crowded with clay court giants.

Similarly, Gonzales always played poorly in his seven appearances at Wimbledon, a place where he was obviously uncomfortable. In general Gonzales played poorly in Europe after 1956, so it is a stretch to have him favoured to win Wimbledon in 1959 and 1960.

Having said that, I would rate Gonzales the favourite to win Wimbledon in 1950, 1952, 1954, 1955....BEFORE the maturity of Hoad.

I believe that Forest Hills was a bigger event in Gonzales' mind than Wimbledon, and conversely, Hoad made Wimbledon the number one goal in his annual priorities.

Click to expand...

Dan, Segura played only one amateur Roland Garros, in 1946, probably his worst year (his prime and peak only began in 1950). From 1958 to 1962 he entered French Pro and lost early against Sedgman, Hoad, Rosewall and Anderson, i. e. strong opponents. In that period he was already 37 to 41 which means after his prime! In 1961 (at 40) he did beat Luis Ayala in four sets at Roland Garros, one of the very best amateur claycourters of that year.

BobbyOne said:

Dan, Segura played only one amateur Roland Garros, in 1946, probably his worst year (his prime and peak only began in 1950). From 1958 to 1962 he entered French Pro and lost early against Sedgman, Hoad, Rosewall and Anderson, i. e. strong opponents. In that period he was already 37 to 41 which means after his prime! In 1961 (at 40) he did beat Luis Ayala in four sets at Roland Garros, one of the very best amateur claycourters of that year.

Click to expand...

I would tend to agree that Segura would do well at the French.

krosero said:

Yes Rosewall won 23 of 69 majors, which is 33%. Gonzalez won 17 of 48, or 35%. Laver won 19 of 55, or 35%. That's barely any difference among them -- and I think using career totals is problematic to say the least, when they're not broken down.

In a past thread you posted these numbers, for career:

Big Tournaments Won
Rosewall-23
Laver-20

Percentage of Big Tournaments won-career
Laver-.357
Rosewall-.333


And you posted these for peak five-year periods:

Big Tournament won-Best five years
Laver-11
Rosewall-10

Percentage of Big Tournaments Won over Best Five Years
Rosewall-.833
Laver-.688

And you wrote:

What is interesting is that Rosewall's .333 winning percentage in majors is higher than his normal .253 winning percentage [in all career tournaments] while Laver's .357 winning percentage in majors is lower than his .376 winning percentage in normal tournaments. This could mean Rosewall raised his game in majors better than Laver.​

There is no reason to think that Rosewall would be out-classed in chasing GS titles; and in fact that is where he was strongest, in the big titles, per your own numbers.

Click to expand...

pc1 said:

I do wonder what is the equivalent of Pro Majors nowadays. When Laver wins the 1971 Tennis Championship Classic, the 1970 Dunlop, 1971 Italian, the South African Open, some of the Master Tournaments in the Old Pro Tour among many others is that equivalent or superior to Pro Majors? I think perhaps we should count them as big tournaments.

Click to expand...

Perhaps we emphasize the majors or big tournaments TOO MUCH. I think we tend to ignore the overall year. If a major is worth 2000 pts and a player wins 9 Masters 1000 tournaments in a way that's actually bigger than a Grand Slam as far as points are concerned anyway.

The structure of ATP tournament tennis is stable nowadays but it was not that way in past years. How do you rank the 1971 Tennis Championship Classic and other tournaments of that type? How do you rank some of the big money tournaments of the late 1960s and early 1970s?

Perhaps players like Ivan Lendl or Jimmy Connors would be higher up in the hierarchy in we took into account the whole of their tournament career instead of just the majors. Connors for example did not play the Australian and the French for a good portion of his career. Maybe if we just add up the accumulated point totals Lendl may be higher than many greats.

For example Sampras won 14 majors to Lendl's 8. But Lendl was in 19 finals to Sampras' 18. Both won 5 year end tournaments. Lendl won 2 WCT championships. Lendl won 22 Masters Level 1000 tournaments to Sampras' 11.

In general the image is that Sampras was a far superior player in his career to Lendl mainly due to the difference in majors won but if you look at the whole of the career you could make an argument for Lendl.

BobbyOne said:

Dan, Segura played only one amateur Roland Garros, in 1946, probably his worst year (his prime and peak only began in 1950). From 1958 to 1962 he entered French Pro and lost early against Sedgman, Hoad, Rosewall and Anderson, i. e. strong opponents. In that period he was already 37 to 41 which means after his prime! In 1961 (at 40) he did beat Luis Ayala in four sets at Roland Garros, one of the very best amateur claycourters of that year.

Click to expand...

Ayala was a good clay courter, but no better than Davidson or Rose, both of whom won Roland Garros titles.

No, Segura was still a tough clay court player as late as 1964, but he played his worst tennis at Roland Garros...you think that Sedgman and Anderson were great on clay?

Segura's best results in the fifties were on grass, the 1951 US Pro at Forest Hills, the 1953 Scarborough over Sedgman, the 1957 White City Tournament of Champions over Gonzales and Sedgman.

krosero said:

Dan, if we presume that a player’s peak, under this hypothetical Open scenario, will begin earlier, I’m not sure that it won’t end earlier. I think this a great unknown here. In the first decades of Open tennis, players’ peaks started to skew very young; now players are lasting into their 30s again; and these swings in longevity have taken place for reasons that are not entirely clear. Is it due to technical advances (biology, fitness, nutrition, etc.)? Is it because players today don’t burn themselves out chasing out the big-money exos that were predominant in the 70s and 80s? Or perhaps another factor is involved?

Whatever the reasons, I think there’s a lot about longevity that we still don’t understand. For me it is not a given that Laver, for example, if he starts at an earlier age playing full seasons against top competition rather than against the weaker amateurs that he faced through ’62, will last just as long as he did historically, winning majors right through ’71.

I have the same doubts about Rosewall: if there was something about the Open environment that contributed to shortening players’ lifespans as top players, then Rosewall’s longevity would likewise be cut shorter.

Click to expand...

krosero, I guess that Rosewall would have his extraordinarily extended career at majors in any circumstances. He was an exception.

BobbyOne said:

Dan, If Laver would have started earlier, also Rosewall and other predecessors would have started earlier. So your Laver argument is not convincing.

We also should consider that Rosewall was an early bloomer (won two GS tournaments at 18) while Laver was a late bloomer (won his first GS tournament at 21).

Click to expand...

No, you fail to consider the strength of the field.
If open tennis had arrived in, say, 1946, Rosewall would have had great difficulty winning majors at 18 or even 20 or 24, such was the strength of the field.
Laver at age 23 or 24 would have, I think, won several majors in 1961 or 1962, when his only opposition would have been Rosewall, Emerson, and Santana.

Dan Lobb said:

Do not suggest to Bobby that Rosewall's career would be shortened by an open tennis world....Bobby has no reduction in Rosewall's later productivity. In fact, he gives Rosewall some extra majors with the fields even tougher than they were in reality....go figure.

Click to expand...

Dan, As usually (and as pc1 and others do) you critisize me in almost every post for being biased to Rosewall. But if you study my lists in a fair way, you will see that I give Laver three GS tournaments after his great 1969 season even though some posters wrote that Laver then went for the money tournaments.

krosero said:

Budge finished ahead of Kovacs in the points standings for the 17 tournaments from June through November: Riggs 278, Budge 164, Kovacs 149. Earlier in the year, Kovacs had won 4 titles, while Budge was occupied with the H2H tour against Riggs, which accounts for the gap in the total titles between Kovacs (7) and Budge (3).

Riggs was undoubtedly the top player of the year and I’d be skeptical of Budge winning a major at that point, especially with his shoulder injury. But Bobby’s scenario does not have a war, and Budge got this particular injury in wartime service, so it throws a bit of uncertainty into the normal picture.

Even with Budge's shoulder injured, Riggs defeated him on the H2H tour by the scant margin of 24-22. They met in 8 tournament finals as well, this year, and Riggs' edge was only 5-3. Budge got two of those wins in a fifth set, not bad for a 31-year-old. By that time of the year he had worked himself back into shape (which he lost during the war years), and when in shape he was still obviously quite dangerous even to Riggs.

Click to expand...

krosero, Budge was officially ranked ahead of Kovacs from 1946 to 1948 or 1949. At the 1948 US Pro he did better than Riggs against Kramer.

krosero said:

Yes Rosewall won 23 of 69 majors, which is 33%. Gonzalez won 17 of 48, or 35%. Laver won 19 of 55, or 35%. That's barely any difference among them -- and I think using career totals is problematic to say the least, when they're not broken down.

In a past thread you posted these numbers, for career:

Big Tournaments Won
Rosewall-23
Laver-20

Percentage of Big Tournaments won-career
Laver-.357
Rosewall-.333


And you posted these for peak five-year periods:

Big Tournament won-Best five years
Laver-11
Rosewall-10

Percentage of Big Tournaments Won over Best Five Years
Rosewall-.833
Laver-.688

And you wrote:

What is interesting is that Rosewall's .333 winning percentage in majors is higher than his normal .253 winning percentage [in all career tournaments] while Laver's .357 winning percentage in majors is lower than his .376 winning percentage in normal tournaments. This could mean Rosewall raised his game in majors better than Laver.​

There is no reason to think that Rosewall would be out-classed in chasing GS titles; and in fact that is where he was strongest, in the big titles, per your own numbers.

Click to expand...

krosero, We should not forget to consider that Rosewall had a longer career at majors then Laver did (Rosewall 1951 to 1978, the latter virtually the 1979 AO; Laver 1956 to 1977). That difference might have influenced the percentages.

Dan Lobb said:

Ayala was a good clay courter, but no better than Davidson or Rose, both of whom won Roland Garros titles.

No, Segura was still a tough clay court player as late as 1964, but he played his worst tennis at Roland Garros...you think that Sedgman and Anderson were great on clay?

Segura's best results in the fifties were on grass, the 1951 US Pro at Forest Hills, the 1953 Scarborough over Sedgman, the 1957 White City Tournament of Champions over Gonzales and Sedgman.

Click to expand...

Dan, I did not claim that Ayala way as good as S. Davidson or Rose. He "only" was 2 times runner-up at Roland Garros and the No.4 or 5 claycourter in 1961 at the amateurs. Segura even won a set by 6-0 against Luis at 40 at Roland Garros.

Segura was not a tough claycourter in 1964 as he semi-retired at end-1962.

At least Sedgman was damned good on clay. He reached the final at Roland Garros as an amateur only to lose to amateur king, Drobny, and he beat Gimeno and a certain Hoad at the French Pro losing to Rosewall twice in 4 and to Trabert once, the two peak claycourters of that time (1958 to 1960).

Anderson had bad luck to meet Rosewall twice, Gonzalez and Gimeno at Roland Garros. He was strong on any surface.

It's beyond my mind to understand that you mention Scarborough as big title and conceal Pancho's triumph at the 1950 US Pro on clay where he beat Kramer and Kovacs.

Segura was acknowledged as the top claycourter in the early 1950. I just read that Kramer defeated Segura on clay regularly but I strongly doubt pc1's claim.

Dan Lobb said:

No, you fail to consider the strength of the field.
If open tennis had arrived in, say, 1946, Rosewall would have had great difficulty winning majors at 18 or even 20 or 24, such was the strength of the field.
Laver at age 23 or 24 would have, I think, won several majors in 1961 or 1962, when his only opposition would have been Rosewall, Emerson, and Santana.

Click to expand...

Dan, It's clear that Rosewall would not have won majors at 18 or even 20. You send owls to Athens! Between 18 (or 20) and 24 is a big difference! I wonder you don't know tennis history and mathematics....

Rosewall was actually very strong at 23/ 24 when he arguably was No.2 together with Hoad and Sedgman. In 1958 he won the French Pro and almost won Forest Hills. In always open tennis he would have matured even more till 23/24, using your and pc1's logic (which is not wrong, by the way).

You forgot very strong players in 1961 and 1962 like Gonzalez (sic!), Hoad (sic!), Sedgman, Trabert, Segura, Ayala, Krishnan, Lundquist, Fraser 1 and 2, Mulligan, McKinley, Buchholz, Olmedo, Anderson, Cooper, Gimeno (sic!)...

pc1, I have read your newest posts but cannot reply for the moment (computer problems, sometimes you are "ignored member" and sometimes not). It's fine that you contradict this point and that point or even many points as probably many readers would do. But I find it rather nasty to call my whole work (result of 45 years of researching and considering) as "an exercise in futility. A lot of it does not make sense".

I can tell you (and Dan): I'm a bit proud of my compilation. I never saw a more realistic approach to that issue. It's a shame that only very few have tried such a speculation (Kramer partly, Meles). Why don't you present a better list of open GS winners instead of putting down, as usual, BobbyOne and the Little Master?

By the way, Laver did not win the 1970 Italian Open.

BobbyOne said:

Dan, As usually (and as pc1 and others do) you critisize me in almost every post for being biased to Rosewall. But if you study my lists in a fair way, you will see that I give Laver three GS tournaments after his great 1969 season even though some posters wrote that Laver then went for the money tournaments.

Click to expand...

That is very interesting. Bobby, but is not relevant to our discussion on open tennis regarding the effects on younger players.

BobbyOne said:

Dan, It's clear that Rosewall would not have won majors at 18 or even 20. You send owls to Athens! Between 18 (or 20) and 24 is a big difference! I wonder you don't know tennis history and mathematics....

Rosewall was actually very strong at 23/ 24 when he arguably was No.2 together with Hoad and Sedgman. In 1958 he won the French Pro and almost won Forest Hills. In always open tennis he would have matured even more till 23/24, using your and pc1's logic (which is not wrong, by the way).

You forgot very strong players in 1961 and 1962 like Gonzalez (sic!), Hoad (sic!), Sedgman, Trabert, Segura, Ayala, Krishnan, Lundquist, Fraser 1 and 2, Mulligan, McKinley, Buchholz, Olmedo, Anderson, Cooper, Gimeno (sic!)...

pc1, I have read your newest posts but cannot reply for the moment (computer problems, sometimes you are "ignored member" and sometimes not). It's fine that you contradict this point and that point or even many points as probably many readers would do. But I find it rather nasty to call my whole work (result of 45 years of researching and considering) as "an exercise in futility. A lot of it does not make sense".

I can tell you (and Dan): I'm a bit proud of my compilation. I never saw a more realistic approach to that issue. It's a shame that only very few have tried such a speculation (Kramer partly, Meles). Why don't you present a better list of open GS winners instead of putting down, as usual, BobbyOne and the Little Master?

By the way, Laver did not win the 1970 Italian Open.

Click to expand...

Rosewall was fully mature by 1957 at the latest. And at 23 and 24 he was not successful against Gonzales in the major tournaments, and when Rosewall was 24 he failed badly against Hoad...so, Laver at 23 and 24 with a weaker field of opponents would surely have won several majors, unlike Rosewall.

The two players' career impacts regarding open tennis are not comparable due to the stronger field in the late fifties compared to the early sixties. No, Gonzales and Hoad were not at their peaks in the early sixties, and I believe that both would be "upset" by a young Laver at Wimbledon or Forest Hills. Trabert past prime also, likewise Segura, Gimeno no threat on grass....etc.

In conclusion, an open tennis world would have hurt Rosewall's record, and helped Laver's.

BobbyOne said:

Dan, I did not claim that Ayala way as good as S. Davidson or Rose. He "only" was 2 times runner-up at Roland Garros and the No.4 or 5 claycourter in 1961 at the amateurs. Segura even won a set by 6-0 against Luis at 40 at Roland Garros.

Segura was not a tough claycourter in 1964 as he semi-retired at end-1962.

At least Sedgman was damned good on clay. He reached the final at Roland Garros as an amateur only to lose to amateur king, Drobny, and he beat Gimeno and a certain Hoad at the French Pro losing to Rosewall twice in 4 and to Trabert once, the two peak claycourters of that time (1958 to 1960).

Anderson had bad luck to meet Rosewall twice, Gonzalez and Gimeno at Roland Garros. He was strong on any surface.

It's beyond my mind to understand that you mention Scarborough as big title and conceal Pancho's triumph at the 1950 US Pro on clay where he beat Kramer and Kovacs.

Segura was acknowledged as the top claycourter in the early 1950. I just read that Kramer defeated Segura on clay regularly but I strongly doubt pc1's claim.

Click to expand...

The 1950 US Pro was a good win for Segura on clay, but, as the saying goes, Cleveland ain't exactly Paris. The atmosphere is very different.

Dan Lobb said:

Rosewall was fully mature by 1957 at the latest. And at 23 and 24 he was not successful against Gonzales in the major tournaments, and when Rosewall was 24 he failed badly against Hoad...so, Laver at 23 and 24 with a weaker field of opponents would surely have won several majors, unlike Rosewall.

The two players' career impacts regarding open tennis are not comparable due to the stronger field in the late fifties compared to the early sixties. No, Gonzales and Hoad were not at their peaks in the early sixties, and I believe that both would be "upset" by a young Laver at Wimbledon or Forest Hills. Trabert past prime also, likewise Segura, Gimeno no threat on grass....etc.

In conclusion, an open tennis world would have hurt Rosewall's record, and helped Laver's.

Click to expand...

Does this hypothetical situation also presume the notion that the monetary rewards at the slams would have increased also to make them the richest tournaments on the tour?

hoodjem said:

Does this hypothetical situation also presume the notion that the monetary rewards at the slams would have increased also to make them the richest tournaments on the tour?

Click to expand...

You would assume the monetary rewards would be higher especially if you assume there will be much increased media and television coverage.

BobbyOne said:

Dan, It's clear that Rosewall would not have won majors at 18 or even 20. You send owls to Athens! Between 18 (or 20) and 24 is a big difference! I wonder you don't know tennis history and mathematics....

Rosewall was actually very strong at 23/ 24 when he arguably was No.2 together with Hoad and Sedgman. In 1958 he won the French Pro and almost won Forest Hills. In always open tennis he would have matured even more till 23/24, using your and pc1's logic (which is not wrong, by the way).

You forgot very strong players in 1961 and 1962 like Gonzalez (sic!), Hoad (sic!), Sedgman, Trabert, Segura, Ayala, Krishnan, Lundquist, Fraser 1 and 2, Mulligan, McKinley, Buchholz, Olmedo, Anderson, Cooper, Gimeno (sic!)...

pc1, I have read your newest posts but cannot reply for the moment (computer problems, sometimes you are "ignored member" and sometimes not). It's fine that you contradict this point and that point or even many points as probably many readers would do. But I find it rather nasty to call my whole work (result of 45 years of researching and considering) as "an exercise in futility. A lot of it does not make sense".

I can tell you (and Dan): I'm a bit proud of my compilation. I never saw a more realistic approach to that issue. It's a shame that only very few have tried such a speculation (Kramer partly, Meles). Why don't you present a better list of open GS winners instead of putting down, as usual, BobbyOne and the Little Master?

By the way, Laver did not win the 1970 Italian Open.

Click to expand...

Bobby,

When I write an exercise in futility I meant the whole concept of doing this for ANYONE, not just you. It's impossible to have a really consensus list. My list would differ greatly from yours and yours may differ greatly from Hoodjem's or Krosero's. And these forums are to discuss disagreements so I want to point out what I believe is some things that I feel are illogical. If it was just a forum for you to give your views and not have anyone discuss and disagree then it wouldn't be much of a forum, wouldn't it??

I appreciate the work you put into the list but I do disagree with it. Rosewall would have gotten his share of majors probably but I believe in a totally Open environment that Gonzalez and Laver would have won more majors. Laver would have reaped the benefits of playing the cream of the crop competition and imo gotten better much more rapidly. In a totally Open environment Rosewall may not have won his majors at a young age with Gonzalez, Kramer, Sedgman and Segura around. It would also be extremely tough to win majors on grass and clay with Gonzalez, Hoad, Trabert, Sedgman around, especially Gonzalez on grass. In the early 1960s Laver would be a very strong player as well as Emerson. They would be tough on grass and clay.

But who knows?

I know you are extremely knowledgeable factually about tennis and not just about Rosewall. I would enjoy it if you display that knowledge on information aside from Rosewall more.

I don't have strong opinions about this list. The conditions with 3/4 majors being grass would probably allow Gonzalez to rack up an impressive number of majors and I believe Tilden (travel permitting) would be absolutely rampant and have the highest slam count of them all. However I also believe that there would be more upsets than the above tally gives credit to.

NatF said:

I don't have strong opinions about this list. The conditions with 3/4 majors being grass would probably allow Gonzalez to rack up an impressive number of majors and I believe Tilden (travel permitting) would be absolutely rampant and have the highest slam count of them all. However I also believe that there would be more upsets than the above tally gives credit to.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. To win a major with seven rounds is exhausting. Grass in those days was very unpredictable with the bad bounces and clay obviously is very tiring with the long rallies. Emerson would probably win a few and in a totally Open environment maybe more than a few. Let's say Arthur Ashe didn't have as many off the court things to deal with, would he win a lot more majors because of his immense talent? Newcombe would mature earlier and he may pick off a few Wimbledons in the 1960s. The gifted Nastase may upset some players in the late 1960s.

For comparison here is Kramer's hypothetical list of Wimbledon and USO winners if tennis had always been open (the list is from his memoir, published in '78).

Year/Wimb/USO

1931 Tilden Vines
1932 Vines Vines
1933 Crawford Perry
1934 Vines Vines
1935 Vines Vines
1936 Perry Vines
1937 Vines Budge
1938 Budge Vines
1939 Vines Budge
1940 NH Budge
1941 NH Budge
1942 NH Budge
1943 NH Budge
1944 NH Budge
1945 NH Riggs
1946 Budge Riggs
1947 Riggs Kramer
1948 Kramer Kramer
1949 Kramer Kramer
1950 Kramer Kramer
1951 Kramer Gonzalez
1952 Gonzalez Kramer
1953 Kramer Gonzalez
1954 Sedgman Gonzalez
1955 Sedgman Gonzalez
1956 Gonzalez Sedgman
1957 Hoad Gonzalez
1958 Gonzalez Hoad
1959 Gonzalez Gonzalez
1960 Rosewall Gonzalez
1961 Gonzalez Rosewall
1962 Rosewall Gonzalez
1963 Gonzalez Laver
1964 Laver Rosewall
1965 Rosewall Laver
1966 Rosewall Laver
1967 Laver Rosewall

Kramer writes:

Bobby, I don't know if you intended for your total titles for each player to end up close to Kramer's totals, but that's how it ended up. Your totals are very similar to Kramer's.

You and Kramer both gave Rosewall 7 of these Wimb/USO titles, pre-OE. You both gave Laver 5 such titles (you also gave Laver the '68 AO, which Kramer did not cover). Kramer gave himself 10 such titles, you gave him 11. He gave Gonzalez 14; you've got 13.

You and Kramer both gave Budge 9 of these titles, if we don't include Wimbledon during the war years; you gave Budge some of those Wimbledons while Kramer kept Wimbledon as not held in those years.

krosero said:

Bobby, I don't know if you intended for your total titles for each player to end up close to Kramer's totals, but that's how it ended up. Your totals are very similar to Kramer's.

You and Kramer both gave Rosewall 7 of these Wimb/USO titles, pre-OE. You both gave Laver 5 such titles (you also gave Laver the '68 AO, which Kramer did not cover). Kramer gave himself 10 such titles, you gave him 11. He gave Gonzalez 14; you've got 13.

You and Kramer both gave Budge 9 of these titles, if we don't include Wimbledon during the war years; you gave Budge some of those Wimbledons while Kramer kept Wimbledon as not held in those years.

Click to expand...

One thing I forgot about these lists is that Bobby and Kramer mentioned the probable winners so in that way I can see the lack of upsets.

hoodjem said:

Does this hypothetical situation also presume the notion that the monetary rewards at the slams would have increased also to make them the richest tournaments on the tour?

Click to expand...

Good question, because players like Hoad and Gonzales usually gave a major effort for monetary rewards. We have not assumed anything with respect to the shape of the pro tours in this hypothetical open tennis world.

Dan Lobb said:

That is very interesting. Bobby, but is not relevant to our discussion on open tennis regarding the effects on younger players.

Click to expand...

Dan, I simply cannot discuss with you because you use to change the subject instead of referring to my statements. I wrote about Laver's GS wins after 1969 as sign that I tried to be objective in my lists and not preferring Rosewall. How do you answer? "That is very interesting but it's not relevant..."

Regarding the effects on younger players krosero and I have already written before.

krosero said:

For comparison here is Kramer's hypothetical list of Wimbledon and USO winners if tennis had always been open (the list is from his memoir, published in '78).

Year/Wimb/USO

1931 Tilden Vines
1932 Vines Vines
1933 Crawford Perry
1934 Vines Vines
1935 Vines Vines
1936 Perry Vines
1937 Vines Budge
1938 Budge Vines
1939 Vines Budge
1940 NH Budge
1941 NH Budge
1942 NH Budge
1943 NH Budge
1944 NH Budge
1945 NH Riggs
1946 Budge Riggs
1947 Riggs Kramer
1948 Kramer Kramer
1949 Kramer Kramer
1950 Kramer Kramer
1951 Kramer Gonzalez
1952 Gonzalez Kramer
1953 Kramer Gonzalez
1954 Sedgman Gonzalez
1955 Sedgman Gonzalez
1956 Gonzalez Sedgman
1957 Hoad Gonzalez
1958 Gonzalez Hoad
1959 Gonzalez Gonzalez
1960 Rosewall Gonzalez
1961 Gonzalez Rosewall
1962 Rosewall Gonzalez
1963 Gonzalez Laver
1964 Laver Rosewall
1965 Rosewall Laver
1966 Rosewall Laver
1967 Laver Rosewall

Kramer writes:

Basically what I’ve done here is list the probable winners of Wimbledon and Forest Hills if they’d been open to pros and amateurs... When I’ve felt that a player was absolutely dominant—as I was, say, in 1949—then I’ve given that player both titles. If there was some question as to who was the best, I’ve given one title to one player and the second to the other (arbitrarily assigning Wimbledon to one, Forest Hills to the other—they could be reversed).​

Click to expand...

Some of Kramer's choices are quixotic....just to point out a few, Kramer himself gets more than his share of Big Two titles, compared to what he actually achieved in tournament play in those years...Kramer is assuming that success on the marathon tour would translate into Wimbledon success.
In 1959, Gonzales got pummeled in the biggest tournament at Forest Hills, yet he gets both big titles from Kramer...even in 1963 Gonzales wins Wimbledon...fanciful, as Gonzales was snake-bit at Wimbledon.

BobbyOne said:

Dan, I simply cannot discuss with you because you use to change the subject instead of referring to my statements. I wrote about Laver's GS wins after 1969 as sign that I tried to be objective in my lists and not preferring Rosewall. How do you answer? "That is very interesting but it's not relevant..."

Regarding the effects on younger players krosero and I have already written before.

Click to expand...

Bobby, the main issue is that Laver in an open world would probably win several majors in 1961/62/63, whereas Rosewall in the late fifties would have trouble with a very powerful field of players....thus, open tennis helps Laver's record and hurts Rosewall's record.

Dan Lobb said:

Some of Kramer's choices are quixotic....just to point out a few, Kramer himself gets more than his share of Big Two titles, compared to what he actually achieved in tournament play in those years...Kramer is assuming that success on the marathon tour would translate into Wimbledon success.
In 1959, Gonzales got pummeled in the biggest tournament at Forest Hills, yet he gets both big titles from Kramer...even in 1963 Gonzales wins Wimbledon...fanciful, as Gonzales was snake-bit at Wimbledon.

Click to expand...

Dan,

Gonzalez wasn't at nearly his prime when he first played Wimbledon and he was a few years past his prime at the 1967 Wimbledon Pro. In the Open Era I do think he should have gone further in 1968 when he lost to Metreveli but in 1969 he lost to the 5th seed Arthur Ashe while was expected. I think Gonzalez would have been competitive at Wimbledon up to around 1966. That year he beat Laver in a tournament at Wembley (no it was not THE Wembley tournament) and beat Laver in a clay court tournament final. After that he would have problems as most would when they reach 39 to over 40.

I'm fairly certain in this hypotheticals that Gonzalez would have done quite well at Wimbledon in his prime.